The 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries and caucuses were a series of electoral
contests taking place within all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia and five U.S.
territories, occurring between February 1 and June 14, 2016. Sanctioned by the Democratic Party,
these elections were designed to select the 4,051 delegates to send to the Democratic National
Convention, which will select the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States
in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. An extra 718 unpledged delegates (714 votes), or "superdelegates",
are appointed by the party independently of the primaries' electoral process. The convention will
also approve the party's platform and vice-presidential nominee. The Democratic nominee will
challenge other presidential candidates in national elections to succeed President Barack Obama
at noon on January 20, 2017, following his two terms in office.
A total of six major candidates entered the race starting April 12, 2015, when former Secretary
of State and New York Senator Hillary Clinton formally announced her second bid for the
presidency. She was followed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, former Governor of Maryland
Martin O'Malley, former Governor of Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb
and Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig. There was some speculation that incumbent Vice
President Joe Biden would also enter the race, but he chose not to run. A draft movement was
started to encourage Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to seek the presidency, but Warren
declined to run. Prior to the Iowa caucuses on February 1, 2016, Webb and Chafee both withdrew
after consistently polling below 2%.[2] Lessig withdrew after the rules of a debate were changed
such that he would no longer qualify to participate.[3]
During 2016 election campaign: "On foreign policy Hillary is trigger happy" says Trump and he is right 100%... And he continued Hillary
policies.
And the he behaves as 100% pure militarist.
Notable quotes:
"... I've always thought that Hillary's support for the broader mission in Libya put the president on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach ..."
"... Had the secretaries of state and defense both opposed the war, he and others said, the president's decision might have been politically impossible. ..."
"... Except for that last minute of Trump_vs_deep_states, I almost thought that was a Bernie speech. An interesting general election plan is to take Bernie's ideas with a healthy dash of Trump spice in an attempt to coalesce the angry populist vote. ..."
"... Sanders is the last hope to avoid total disaster. Maybe he can help mitigate HRC's hawk stance in the ME. I think Israel is a lost cause though as the problem child with nukes. ..."
"... A political strategy based on xenophobia and divisiveness supports those who benefit from xenophobia and divisiveness – those who exploit labor (including Trump who outsources jobs, hires H2-B workers, and exploits workers domestically and overseas), and those who benefit from the military-industrial-security-serveillance complex; and harms the rest of us. ..."
"... Obama and the Democrats did everything they could to undermine and stamp out progressive organization. ..."
"... Except it's recent US actions which have undermined the Middle East in general. From Saddam to Libya to ISIS etc etc. ..."
"... if you pay them enough. ..."
"... "We have been killing, maiming and displacing millions of Muslims and destroying their countries for the last 15 years with less outcry than transgender bathrooms have generated." ..."
"... Good point. I keep wondering why Hillary the Hawk's actual illegal war and murdering of Muslims is worse than Trump's ban. ..."
"... Imagine Trump running to the left of Hillary on defense / interventionism, trade, and universal healthcare. That would sure make things interesting. He could win. ..."
"... James Carville, astute handicapper that he is, has already sniffed out that Hillary now needs Bernie more than Bernie needs Hillary. ..."
"... even in comparison with Hillary Clinton ..."
"... "core voters come from communities where a lot of people have fought in the post-9/11 Middle Eastern conflicts. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Trump has strong support among veterans and active duty soldiers" ..."
"... "As a small business owner, not only are you trying to provide benefits to your employees, you're trying to provide benefits to yourself. I have seen our health insurance for my own family, go up $500 dollars a month in the last two years. We went from four hundred something, to nine hundred something. We're just fighting to keep benefits for ourselves. The thought of being able to provide benefits to your employees is almost secondary, yet to keep your employees happy, that's a question that comes across my desk all the time. I have to keep my employees as independent contractors for the most part really to avoid that situation, and so I have turnover" ..."
"... "We do not qualify for a subsidy on the current health insurance plan. My question to you is not only are you looking out for people that can't afford healthcare, but I'm someone that can afford it, but it's taking a big chunk of the money I bring home." ..."
"... "What you're saying is one of the real worries that we're facing with the cost of health insurance because the costs are going up in a lot of markets, not all, but many markets and what you're describing is one of the real challenges." ..."
"... "There's a lot of things I'm looking at to try to figure out how to deal with exactly the problem you're talking about. There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to the real world test, will this really help a small business owner or a family be able to afford it. What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that's what I don't understand." ..."
"... You echo my feelings. My loathing of Clinton knows no bounds, and I cannot vote for her, no matter what. But I simply don't trust Trump. He's a gold-digger extrodinaire, and quite the accomplished showman. He knows how to play to the crowd, and he's clearly quite quick to shape shift. The wrecked tatters of what's called the USA "media" gives Trump a YOOOGE pass on simply everything and anything the man says or does. ..."
"... if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored, get nothing done ..."
"... Trump doesn't need to see the Zapruder film. He was alive then and knows the story, just like everyone else of a certain age. Nay, verily, he just means to cash in on it. ..."
"... Being Left of Hillary is a really really really low bar. He probably is, but thats probably because Hillary is right wing. You know, like almost all American politicians from both parties. Trumps not left of Bernie (at least not yet or not right now: I expect hes going to swing left in the general to scoop up Bernie voters), and Bernies just an Eisenhower Republican, which is admittedly to the left of basically all the other politicians today. ..."
There are good reasons to harbor serious reservations about The Donald, given that he changes
his position as frequently as most people change their clothes. But so far, he has been consistent
in making an argument that is sorely underrepresented in the media and in policy circles: that our
war-making in the Middle East has been a costly disaster with no upside to the US. Trump even cites,
without naming him, Joe Stiglitz's estimate that
our wars have cost at least $4 trillion.
As Lambert put it, "I hate it when Trump is right."
If you think Trump is overstating his case on Hillary's trigger-happiness, read this New York
Times story,
How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk .
Mrs. Clinton's account of a unified European-Arab front powerfully influenced Mr. Obama. "Because
the president would never have done this thing on our own," said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy
national security adviser.
Mr. Gates, among others, thought Mrs. Clinton's backing decisive. Mr. Obama later told him
privately in the Oval Office, he said, that the Libya decision was "51-49."
"I've always thought that Hillary's support for the broader mission in Libya put the president
on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach," Mr. Gates said. Had the secretaries
of state and defense both opposed the war, he and others said, the president's decision might
have been politically impossible.
Best assessment yet. This is a great speech bite from Donald but I have no idea if he means it.
(Though I don't agree with it just look at his Muslim Ban stance) Half the time he makes coherent
reasonable arguments, the other half the time I think he definitely is a Clinton Mole. I don't know
which Trump I'm getting hour to hour much less day to day.
Except for that last minute of Trump_vs_deep_states, I almost thought that was a Bernie speech. An interesting
general election plan is to take Bernie's ideas with a healthy dash of Trump spice in an attempt to
coalesce the angry populist vote. It'll be interesting to watch Hillary circle the wagons of the content,
elite center in an attempt to hold off the marginalized hordes of angry "savage plebs", especially if
the convention seems stolen. Still hoping for some miracle to pull Sanders through.
Miracle indeed, Sanders is the last hope to avoid total disaster. Maybe he can help mitigate HRC's
hawk stance in the ME. I think Israel is a lost cause though as the problem child with nukes.
In all seriousness, why is his Muslim ban idea bad? Or for that matter why would it, in principle,
be a bad idea to ban nearly all foreigners from entering the US? After all, it's not as if the US has
some actual need for foreigners to enter considering the large and growing desperately poor domestic
population. Especially considering that heretofore (let's be real here) both legal and illegal immigration
has been mainly exploited to destroy domestic labor conditions in the US.
This is a fact a lot of ostensibly good-hearted progressive and wealthy liberals conveniently ignore
(they'd probably cry themselves to sleep if they could no longer help to improve the lot of that below
minimum wage illegal immigrant maid they hired). Well, the working poor aren't ignoring it, and the
lid is going to blow soon if this keeps up. Donald Trump and the popularity of his Muslim ban is only
an early sign of the brewing discontent.
He didn't propose banning Muslims as a way to address our jobs and economic problems (which it isn't),
he proposed it as a way to address domestic terror (which it isn't). It's a political tactic to stir
up and implicitly sanction hate, prejudice, divisiveness, and violence.
Not arguing your point, however how are Trump supporters reading this? These people are already against
any immigrant coming into the US for economic reasons, and in all honesty they are looking for any excuse
whatsoever to view immigrants in a bad light.
Just to add to that a bit, it's also why immigrant crime is always being hyped up and exaggerated
by Trump supporters. The real issue deep down is that immigrants are threatening them economically,
and they'll use any justification whatsoever to get rid of them.
Is it right? I don't really know how to objectively answer that. But for the people doing it, this
could work out in economic terms for them. So at least from their perspective it's a good idea.
I think people are just so angry with how the squillionaries use "politically correct" proper thinking
about immigration to hide their illegal suppression of wages that even outrageous and outlandish statements
by The Donald will not dissuade his supporters – – after all, the supporters could ask why is this issue
of wage suppression, "by any means necessary", that affects FAR, FAR more people who ARE US citizens
so scrupulously IGNORED by the media (media owned by rich??? – of course). As disturbing as what The
Donald says, what is NOT SAID by the ENTIRE (except Sanders) US political establishment, is far more
disturbing, as I think it shows an utterly captured political caste. As well as the rank hypocrisy that
if any of these immigrants don't have health care after they arrive, the squillionaires couldn't care
less if they died in the streets – no matter how rich they are, they want to make more people poorer.
They are such an evil enemy that people will put up with The Donald.
It is a fact that these tech billionaires engaged in an illegal activity. It is a fact the US government
simply ignored enforcing laws and refuses to punish them.
Trump in my view will not be able to do even a quarter of some of this crap like banning Muslims
– laws do have to be passed. But the fact remains that Trump will probably be the only presidential
nominee (not presidential candidate, i.e., Sanders), and the last one in 40 years, to even merely talk
about these issues.
The fact that Trump succeeds just shows how famished people are to some challenge to the war mongering,
coddling of the rich that is passed off as something that the majority supports.
A political strategy based on xenophobia and divisiveness supports those who benefit from xenophobia
and divisiveness – those who exploit labor (including Trump who outsources jobs, hires H2-B workers,
and exploits workers domestically and overseas), and those who benefit from the military-industrial-security-serveillance
complex; and harms the rest of us.
It seems no more likely that Trump as president will actually promote policies that will "work out
in economic terms" for ordinary people as it was to think Obama would put on this "comfortable shoes"
and join a picket line (though I bought that one at the time).
Hillary basically won relatively well to do minorities who voted for her in 2008 just in smaller
numbers. Poorer minorities stayed home in Southern states where Internet access is less available and
progressive organizations are just churches. On the surface, Sanders sounds very much like the media
perception of President Hope and Change who isn't as popular as much as no one wants to admit the first
non white President was terrible or they actively applauded terrible policy.
Free college probably didn't appeal to people with junk degrees from for profit diploma mills. The
damage is done. People need jobs not school at this point or incomes. A green jobs guarantee act would
have been a better push front and center, but again, this is with hindsight. Many minority voters simply
didn't vote, and Hillary pushed that "you don't know Bernie" line to scare voters that Sanders was another
Obama.
Obama and the Democrats did everything they could to undermine and stamp out progressive organization.
Agree that jobs should be the focus (or income and meeting basic needs). Education as the focus appeals
to the under 25 years old college bound crowd, but not so much to anyone older having to survive out
there in the work world everyday.
I am a Trump supporter and I am not against immigrants or immigration. I am opposed to doing nothing
in the face of a broken immigration system. I do not think it is wise for any country to have millions
and millions of undocumented workers in its midst. I believe we should legalize those that are here.
Those that have committed crimes not related to immigrating or over staying visas should absolutely
be deported and lose the privilege of living in the US. I live in Spain, but am an American. If I broke
minor laws, such as drunk driving, assault or drug possession I would be deported too, seems fair to
me. I believe we have to revamp border security, though I don´t think a wall spanning the entire border
would be wise or effective I personally think Trump is speaking hyperbolically and symbolically about
the wall. Nonetheless, our elites sure do love living behind big walls and gated communities, with armed
security, maybe we should ask them why, walls are just racist anyways, no?
Immigrant crime is not some myth, its real and sometimes it is a very tragic consequence of a broken
immigration system. The fact that the cartels also exploit our broken border and immigration system
is not a myth either, it is reality.
And as for a temporary ban on Muslims coming from Syria, Libya and other locations that have been
devastated by the covert and overt wars of the US I support it totally, for no other reason than public
safety, which is the first reason we institute government. Remember this happened just after Paris,
public safety is a very legitimate concern. Also, why are Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia or
the Gulf States taking in a single refugee? The Saudis have the money and the capacity to to do this.
They have tents used only during the hajj that house thousands upon thousands. Where is that wonderful,
charitable side of Islam?
I wish the world were different. I don´t harbor prejudice against anyone. Those that want to come
and live, grow and contribute to American civilization, Come, please!! But our world is very dangerous,
and we have created enemies that seek to do harm to our society and civilization in anyway that they
can. We have to protect ourselves and our nation. I wish beyond wishing, that it was someone besides
the Donald saying these things, but, it is what it is. I am not gonna shoot the messanger cuase I dont
like his personality, or because I would not be friends with someone like him.
Illegal immigration could likely be enforced in some industries (on the lower paid scale in garment
making sweatshops and so on). And this could probably best be done by prosecuting the employers doing
the hiring. But I'm not at all convinced the country could run without immigrants entirely. Who would
pick the crops? Ok maybe lots of people at a $15 an hour minimum wage. But at current compensation?
Though I don't know if this really needs to be done via illegal immigration, it could be done by much
more formalized guest worker programs I suppose.
Or, we could just let the market work. You WILL get American workers to perform just about any job
if you pay them enough. Obviously, the reasonable price point for labor is currently well below
what a US citizen will accept. But if I offered a million dollars to get my lawn mowed, I would have
a line out the door of American workers begging to have the job.
Guest workers are just another way to depress US citizens' wages. And immigration reform is best
tackled at the employer level, like you said - anybody who doesn't make this part of his or her "reform"
plan is not to be taken seriously. (I regularly mention this to conservatives, and they always look
for a way to justify going after the powerless immigrants anyway.)
High wages can encourage more automation or substitution of crops that require less manual labor
or even cause people to exit farming as uneconomic.. But the number of workers employed in farming is relatively small.
The World Bank has the USA workforce at 161 million in 2014 and if about 2% of this workforce is
employed in farming, this is about 3.2 million people throughout the USA. And the 3.2 million count is probably not all illegal immigrant workers. This report suggests government price supports have encouraged more people to work in agriculture,
implying that the government is indirectly creating low wage jobs by price supports.
From the above pdf. "For example, the institutionalization of what began as emergency income support
in the 1930s has likely slowed the movement of labor out of the farm sector."
I am of the opinion that the law of one price will apply if there is relatively free movement of
workers, legally or illegally, across borders.
Note, Trump never suggests e-verify and employer enforcement, which would be a low cost way of enforcing
citizen employment and would avoid a costly "great wall".
Trump and HRC's investments are probably more profitable due to a lower labor cost influenced by
low wage workers.
And people don't OPPOSE his restrictions on Muslim immigration because they feel so charitable towards
and accepting of Muslims.
We have been killing, maiming and displacing millions of Muslims and destroying their countries for
the last 15 years with less outcry than transgender bathrooms have generated. And we've allowed our
own civil liberties to be radically infringed. All because " THEY hate us for our 'freedoms.'
" Who the hell do you think THEY are?
But it's Trump who is hateful, prejudiced, divisive and bigoted? As if "welcoming" some immigrants
from countries that we callously destroyed perfectly absolves those who were busy waiting in line for
the newest i-gadget and couldn't be bothered to demand an end to the slaughter.
Get a clue. Trump's not talking about murdering anybody. And no amount of puffed up "outrage" and
name-calling is going to get the stain out. Not to mention it's the most sane and humane way to protect
the "homeland" from the "terrorism" that we, ourselves, created.
"We have been killing, maiming and displacing millions of Muslims and destroying their countries
for the last 15 years with less outcry than transgender bathrooms have generated."
Good point. I keep wondering why Hillary the Hawk's actual illegal war and murdering of Muslims is
worse than Trump's ban.
"I'm against all immigration, as it's merely a lever to lower wages." "I'm against the immigration
of muslims, because they're bad terrorists." There is a difference in these two statements.
You are correct that there is too much immigration to the U.S., and it causes economic and environmental
problems. However, Trump's Muslim ban would cover more than immigration. He would also ban temporary
visits by Muslims (except for the mayor of London, I suppose).
I object very strongly to Muslim extremism, and a lot of Muslims have extremist views. But not all
of them do. And many Christians, Hindus, and whatever also have extremist views which should be opposed.
Trump's not proposing a bad on travel by extremist Christians; he's singling out Muslims because they
scare millions of Americans. It's demagoguery.
You are not quite right there. Trump supporters do indeed want to ban Christian immigrants as well
(the vast, overwhelming majority of immigrants from Mexico, central, and South America are Christians
of some sort) although in the case of Christians the excuse is "violent crime" since obviously Trump
supporters can not disparage Christians specifically for their Christianity. Seriously, watch any Trump
speech and you'll see that he spends more time talking about why all American (Christian) immigrants
need to be banned (crime) than why Muslim immigrants need to be banned (terror). Economic insecurity
is at the root of all of it.
Has Trump demanded that Christians from Europe or Canada be prevented from entering the U.S.? I'm
pretty sure he hasn't. If he's really motivated by economic reasons, there's no need to specify a particular
religion, such as Islam, or a particular nationality, such as Mexicans.
People from Europe and Canada already have high salaries. Or they are perceived to have high salaries
in their home countries. IE they are not percieved as an economic threat. I guarantee you, show me a
poor, third world country that is sending a lot of people to US right now and and I'll show you an ethnic
groups that faces some prejudice. Come on, it's not well paid people with stable jobs and incomes who
are going around being prejudiced against immigrants. It's the poor and the desperate who are doing
it.
There is a reason for that. Ignoring that reason and pretending that it's some bizarre and unfathomable
psychological illness just coincidentally affecting people who are also offing themselves from despair
left and right isn't going to make it go away. Rather, you are inviting something terrible to happen.
The Germans didn't decide to follow Hitler because times were good, and a friendly PR campaign encouraging
openness and acceptance among the poor misguided racists and immigrant haters out there will do exactly
nothing to help matters.
I don't think anyone (most anyone anyway) would disagree that there are plenty of Muslims who are
not extremists. The problem for us is, how do you tell the difference? The San Bernadino shooter was
a health inspector, had a wife, kids, a middle class job, ties to the community and still decided to
shoot up his co-workers with his wife in tow. Plenty of the European ISIS recruits come from middle
class families that are seemingly well-adjusted. If these people (keep in mind Farook was a US citizen)
can become terrorists, how can we possibly screen new entrants with any sort of efficacy?
I'd say it's probably worth the miniscule risk of possible immigrants turning out to be terrorists
if there was some other benefit to having them come in, but if we agree there's too much immigration
to the US already and it is hurting actual US citizens, what exactly is the upside to keep allowing
Muslims in?
By the way, I've been lurking on this site for a few weeks now, first time commenter. It's nice to
find some quality discussion on the internet. Nice to meet everyone.
Where are these "extremist Christians" burning and burying people alive, beheading hostages, blasting
away at crowds in night clubs? "Christian extremism" is a figment of your imagination. The attempt to
equate Moslem violence with conservative Christians is utterly absurd. Do you seriously believe that
soime Amish dude is going to run amuck in a New York night club and slaughter hundreds of people?
Obama does not get is morning SITREP delivered with biblical headers
"The religious theme for briefings prepared for the president and his war cabinet was the brainchild
of Major General Glen Shaffer, a committed Christian and director for intelligence serving Mr Rumsfeld
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In the days before the six-week invasion, Major General Shaffer's staff had created humorous covers
for the briefings to alleviate the stress of preparing for battle.
But as the body count rose, he decided to introduce biblical quotes.
However, many of his Pentagon colleagues were reportedly opposed to the idea, with at least one Muslim
analyst said to be greatly offended.
A defence official warned that if the briefing covers were leaked, the damage to America's standing
in the Arab world 'would be as bad as Abu Ghraib' – the Baghdad prison where U.S. troops abused Iraqis.
But Major General Shaffer, 61, who retired in August 2003, six months after the invasion, claimed
he had the backing of the president and defence secretary. When officials complained, he told them the
practice would continue because it was 'appreciated by my seniors' – Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Bush.
The briefing covers were revealed for the first time by GQ after they were leaked to the U.S. magazine
by a source at the Pentagon."
Disheveled Marsupial . whilst I understand the acts committed transcend time and political party's .
never the less in – The Name Of – can not be white washed away
Did you manage to miss Trump's point in the video that the US has killed millions in the Middle East,
and that if US presidents had gone to the beach for the last 15 years. everyone would have been better
off? And that we murder people by drone in addition to all our undeclared wars? You are seriously pretending
Christians not only have blood on their hands, but started these wars and have killed people in vastly
bigger numbers than we have? I'm not defending terrorists, but your position is a remarkable airbrushing.
The worst domestic terrorist the U.S. ever produced, Timothy McVeigh, wasn't Amish, yet neither was
he Muslim. Denying people the opportunity to immigrate here– based solely on religion– contradicts the
principles of tolerance on which this country was founded.
Yah, this is a Great Country, isn't it, where everyone has the right to own assault weapons, and
the opportunity to assemble and detonate giant bombs hidden in rental trucks, and you can do pretty
much whatever you can get away with, depending on one's degree of immunity and impunity and invisibility
Eric Rudolph and Robert Lewis Dear, Jr., are more examples of Christian terrorists. Outside the country,
there's Anders Breivik (well, he's only partially Christian, but he's definitely not Muslim).
I get your point from a labor standpoint but who gets to decide to shut the door and say 'no more
room at the inn'? Unless it's First Peoples I think it would be pretty hypocritical coming from the
descendants of all the other immigrants who crossed over themselves at some point.
PS: I haven't heard this talked about much but does anyone really believe Trump is serious with all
this immigrant-bashing rhetoric? If he is anywhere near as rich as he claims to be, he got there at
least in part, and likely in large part by exploiting cheap labor. While I've never stayed in a Trump
property to see for myself I'm guessing that all the hotel employees aren't direct descendants of the
Daughters of the American Revolution.
Unless it's First Peoples I think it would be pretty hypocritical coming from the descendants
of all the other immigrants who crossed over themselves at some point.
Everybody outside of Africa, including "First Peoples" (if I understand that phrase correctly), is
a descendant of immigrants. The ancestors of the Amer-Indians (probably) came from Siberia over the
Bering land bridge during the late ice age.
It might be hypocritical for an actual immigrant to advocate restrictions on immigration, but that's
not the case for descendants of immigrants. But if there are restrictions, they shouldn't be based on
religion or race.
I don't really think shutting down immigration is the answer. It's not practical and isn't likely
to solve the problems blamed on immigration even if you could keep people out.
People don't leave their countries en masse unless there's some kind of disaster. A little less imperialism
turning nations to rubble would be a much better solution.
So you believe that no people, anywhere, ever, have a right to determine who can join their community,
contribute to their community, or undercut their community's wages and values. Except if some "First
Peoples" show up and endorse the idea? Do they have divine right of kings or something? What if we got
one Indian to agree? A plurality of them?
If it was right for the natives to resist the destruction of their way of life in 1492-1900, and
it was, it is right for the natives to resist of the destruction of their way of life now. Even if those
natives' skin now comes in multiple colors.
Well, I have trouble believing that Trump is serious about his TPP-bashing and Iraq-war-bashing,
I have trouble believing Trump's words are credible on just about any issue.
It's going to be a rough four years, whether Trump wins or loses.
Well, Sanders still has a chance, although he's a long shot. Democratic voters in Kentucky, Oregon,
the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota,
and the District of Columbia have a chance to save the nomination for him.
In Puerto Rico, Montana, and North Dakota, the election events are open, so anyone who's registered
can vote for Sanders. In California, registered independents can also vote for Sanders.
If its hypocritical, perhaps we should live with that if it is also reality-based and pragmatic.
As in " we've got a good thing going here and we don't need nobody else muscling in on our sweet racket".
Separately, many advocates of ILLEGAL immigration carefully pull a sleight-of-mouth bait-and-switch
between ILLEGAL immigration and legal immigration. Accepters of carefully controlled legal immigration
can still reject ILLEGAL immigration for pragmatic social-survival reasons.
Quite simply, the idea of banning Muslims entry to the U.S. is an affront to the very nature of the
American experiment, of plurality, equality, and religious freedom. However, recent events in Europe,
specifically the sexual assaults in Cologne and elsewhere show that some young Muslim men are a problem.
So are some young American men. An issue we need to wrestle with is how to reduce this problem. Such
problems are not about religion, they are cultural, they are about interpersonal respect and behavior.
But, the West, broadly speaking, has shown horrendous disrespect to Moslems. The U.S. has attacked wedding
parties and funerals, destroyed cities and countries, behaving like Crusaders. Perhaps were the West
to display less barbarism toward Moslems, they would express more respect toward us. Seems worth a try.
He doesn't have to mean anything. Trump needs to drive potential Democratic turnout down. On one
hand, reminding people how awful Hillary is effectively destroys volunteer efforts which is how voters
get registered and identified for gotv. The other side is what is the perception of the average Democratic
voter of Hillary's record. Hillary supporters have pushed the "tested," "likely to win, " and "inevitable"
arguments for a long time now. How many people in the potential electorate understood Hillary was a
hawk when they voted or didn't bother to show up? Bernie used words such as "poor judgement" for fear
of being labeled sexist. Trump won't hold back.
Perhaps, Trump was a mole, but what can Bill offer that the GOP can't? Air Force One might not be
the most luxurious plane, but its the Air Force plane wherever the President is. Thats respect no one
can buy. Reagan was carted through the White House, so why not Trump?
Imagine Trump running to the left of Hillary on defense / interventionism, trade, and universal healthcare.
That would sure make things interesting. He could win.
It ain't over. She's got one countermove left which is to somehow get Bernie on the ticket and grab
the enthusiastic and politically correct (if not fully-informed) millenial vote. Otherwise the dilution
of the blue vote in the swing states will loom large. James Carville, astute handicapper that he is,
has already sniffed out that Hillary now needs Bernie more than Bernie needs Hillary.
Sanders on the ticket would only undermine Sanders. This Is about the DLC or the status quo. The
length of Sanders career has made him credible, but Hillary has already lost this same race to an empty
suit. The Democrats have bled support since Obama went full Reagan, but in many ways, this is a conflict
between Democratic elites and their loyalist followers and everyone else. Accepting assimilation will
only hurt Sanders. Forcing a Vice President onto Hillary such as Gabbard would be a far better aim.
Sanders supporters aren't interested in a status quo candidate, supported by the usual list of villains.
Hillary can get a begrudging vote, but she will never endive enthusiasm. Bernie and Hillary uniting
will only annoy people.
Yes, and then, as his long history with customers, contractors, vendors and creditors has shown,
he'll fuck us.
Please don't take this as advocacy for the Other One, but Donnie's entire career is based on screwing
people over; this is just another, albeit far bigger, hustle.
Don't think for a second that you could rely on him to follow through honestly about anything; it's
always and forever about Donnie.
Hey, there's at least a 1% chance that Trump won't go out if his way to screw the American people
considering the blackbox nature of his candidacy, whereas there is at least a 100% chance that HRC will
screw the American people hard. And add in the fact that she is a known psychopath with an itchy trigger
finger who will have the Red Button on her desk if she gets into the oval office Yeah. Trump isn't
looking too bad now, is he?
I gotta admit that Trump has always been a wild card for me, and while he is likely to screw us,
Hillary definitely will. Still the only candidate worth supporting in any conceivable sense is Bernie.
Given his gleeful endorsement of torture, advocacy for war crimes, nods to totalitarianism and fascism,
his own clear psychopathy, along with his racism, xenophobia, and apparent ignorance on everything from
medicine to the environment, and nuclear weapons, yes he looks bad, even in comparison with Hillary
Clinton , which says a great deal about just how awful he truly is.
I'm personally more frightened by Trump than Clinton. I've lived through almost 8 years of Obama,
plus Bush and Clinton how much worse than those could another 4-8 years of the same be? Trump is a
terrifying like my house on fire. But at the same time, I can certainly understand the desire to vote
for the Green with a clear conscience.
Perhaps we'll get lucky, and Hillary's campaign will collapse before the convention. Bernie would
be the first candidate I could really vote for (and who'd have a real chance at winning).
Why not put your vote where your words are? We're Senator Bernie Sanders to be the candidate, my
vote would be his. If he's not, and he endorses Secretary Clinton, then my vote goes to Doctor Jill
Stein, my favorite candidate anyway. Given the momentum Sanders has generated, were he, instead of supplicating
himself to Clinton following her coronation, to stand behind Ms. Stein Only in my dreams. Sigh
The DLC Third-Way Clintonite Obamacrats will not let Bernie become nominee no matter what. If the
party can't coronate Clinton, the party will try to bolt the severed head of Joe Biden onto Clinton's
headless body . . and run THAT.
That right there is what convinced me that the woman is a psychopath. She should have been carried
out out of the interview in a straight jacket, and yet there are some people who trying to make her
president. Trump may be a narcissist, but I would not say that he's psychotic.
If nothing else you need to support Trump for the survival of humanity.
Thinking about a Trump/hillary_clinton. contest reminds me of the movie 'The Sting'; where a couple of honest
con men take down a dishonest con man who killed their friend. I see Hillary as the dishonest con man.
In reality Trump is NOT to the left of Hillary on universal healthcare. Read his website.
Look since the guy is a major presidential candidate whether one likes that or not, I have no problem
directing people to his website. See how he puts his actual policy positions, such as they are, in his
own words.
Interventionism and trade remain to be seen as personally I think his positions on them are likely
to still uh evolve as they say during the campaign season. So I'm leaving the verdict out there.
I brought up this idea right when he became the presumptive nominee but this isn't really a pivot
left. He's always been less of a hawk than Hillary. One of the few positions he has been relatively
consistent on. I see him biding his time for a full pivot until Bernie is out of the picture. Here's
to hoping that doesn't happen.
My apologies, my friend. Didn't mean to step on you. Meant it as a concurrence. Sipping coffee slowly
today. You're one of my favorite people here for your regularly spot on, insightful comments.
Yes, my big effort to tell myself that Life Under Trump may not be as horrible as I fear is that
the record of outsider presidents (Carter) and celebrity governors (Schwarznegger and Jesse Ventura)
is they get very little done.
Modern governors are bound by devolution and mandates. They are just glorified city managers with
the staff to do the city manager's job. Even popular, insider governors can do very little. The President
can set the terms by which the governors operate.
I'm concerned that HRC will get more done than the Donald, but little of HRC's actions will be positive.
California handled Schwarznegger without too many problems as he tried unsuccessfully to "break down
boxes".
He replaced, via recall, the forgettable democratic Governor Gray Davis who simply disappeared from
politics.
As I recall, Davis papered over the CA energy crisis until after the election, figuring that when
the s**t hit the fan, he'd have been safely reinstalled in office.
I see HRC as possibly getting more wars started, TPP/TTIP approved, a grand bargain done on SS, and
providing more coddling to the financial, medical and insurance industries.
If many or all of HRC's possible negative accomplishments will not be done by Trump, then that could
justify electing a president who accomplishes little..
Yea Schwarznegger was ok. He made a few very devoted enemies in a few unions. But he was probably
far better on pushing environmental issues than Jerry fracking Brown ever was or will be. If it was
him versus Jerry at this point, I might very well prefer Arnold.
I think Trump at least understands that you can't take money from people who don't have any. His
casino enterprise in Atlantic City may have taught him that.
Like Anne Amnisia's link yesterday, I feel like I know where I stand with a Mussolini and can envision
taking a bullet honorably in resistance where the DNC method has been slowly killing me my whole adult
life and, short of Bernie, I can't see how to resist!
If he's ineffectual and doesn't start more wars, at least its more time to organize and Trump's the
kind of "leader" that might give focus to resistance.
Yves, I wish I thought you were right. But The Duck is so bizarre, so definitively unhinged, that
no one can predict what he'll do. He changes positions as the wind blows. And when he follows any philosophy
at all, it's the "Conservative" philosophy. He doesn't believe in global warming. He once said that
there should be NO minimum wage. I'm a Bernie fan, not a Hillary fan, but I would never, ever take the
risk of letting the Hare-Brained Jabberwocky into any position of power, which means, probably, that
I have to vote for Hillary, and even start sending her money after the primaries. Probably.
His healthcare plan on his campaign website is the usual Republican gibberish – repeal Obamacare,
sell insurance across state lines, block grant Medicaid.
He suggested 20-30,000 troops to Syria in response to a debate question, then said he would never
do that, but send " air power and military support" instead. (
LINK )
edit: Position on the website is also to give veterans the ability to "choose" healthcare outside
the VA system. (I'm not knowledgeable to say if this would actually help current pressing VA issues,
but it is a move from a national public health service model to a private care model, so not leftward).
Thanks for that. I think the general idea holds, though: it's a populist remake of politics, and
I think if Trump stakes out some 'unconventional' positions that are to the 'left' of HRC, he could
beat her.
Well, if by left you meant 'left' then we agree :) His appeal is much broader, though IMO a combination
of rightward demagoguery and leftward populist-i-ness.
That VA notion is a dagger pointed at the heart of all those people who for whatever reason, "took
the King's shilling" or drew the short straws in the draft lotteries or, before that, were nailed and
"inducted" just by living in heavy-draft-quota areas. And of course the Greatest Generation, so many
of whom got drug into earlier US imperial wars (Narrative notwithstanding.)
Sending GIs to docs outside the VA system (itself under siege for generations now by the same shits
who bring on the Forever War that generates ever more damaged people needing those "services"), to docs
who in my experience pretty uniformly have zero knowledge of vet-specific problems and diseases and
injuries, who will be paid how much to treat what quota of veterans, again? Crucifying GIs on the HMO
cross, so people can pretend there's "care" for them, via docs who are even more likely than VA docs
(who at least have some protections against arbitrary rules and policies and firings, in a "system"
run by many who institutionalize actual CARE as the main idea) to "go along with the minimization-hurry-up-and-die
program"?
The whole notion is straight Rule #2: "GO DIE, FOKKER! And do it quietly, out of sight, and with
minimum fuss, in a structure that so diffuses the abuses over space and time that it's extremely difficult
for the affected population to even gather the numbers to show how bad it is." Straight "more continuing
more opaque fog of war" bullshit. The same kind of sales BS as used to sell the rest of neoliberalist
misery ("Don't whine now, fools - you voted for it, I have the validated results of the elections right
here, so now it's All Nice And Legal, seeee?) from NAFTA and preceding frauds and vast FIREs, on up
to the present scams.
In the meantime, the Military-Industrial Juggernaut continues to gain mass and momentum. Trump can
natter about "war in the Mideast is a bad deal for the US" (Mideast seemingly not including AfPak, China,
Africa, South America, etc.) as a "bad deal." But will he have any interest in spooling down the turbines
on the enormous Milo Minderbinder Enterprises machine that is daily being "upgraded" and "up-armored"
and "re-weaponed" and "re-doctrined" and "mission-creeped," with the happy participation of every business,
large and small, that can wangle or "extend" a procurement or "study" contract to expand and lethality
and simple bureaucratic-growth size and incompetence (as a military force, in the old sense of what
armies are supposed to do for the Emperoro) of the monster, even as we blog participants do our mostly
ineffectual (if intellectually pleasing) nattering?
Civilian Control of the Military is a dishonest myth - true only in the sense that the Captains of
MICIndustry and drivers of "policy" are not currently Active Duty, though they all, along with the generals
(who live like kings, of course) belong to the same clubs and dip deeply into the same MMT Cornucopia.
And the MIC, from what I read, is quite open and pleased about the state of affairs
I would argue that the MIC is simply part of the 20 percent that derive their middle class existence
by serving at the beck and call of the 1 percent. You are describing the symptoms and not the disease.
We are in the grip of "credentialled" doctors and lawyers. Just as most litigation and most of what
lawyers do is destructive to the average person, it is estimated that half of all surgeries done in
the US are unnecessary. the HIC (health industrial complex) has brainwashed the public to believe that
we need $20,000 per month medications and artificial discs. As you have doubtless seen the third leading
cause of death in the US is medical mistakes. They happen in the VA and in the private sector. Maybe
the notion of more medical care is better is simply not valid. At some point we will have to realize
that rationing in a rational way is going to have to happen. I would rather have someone who went to
medical school decide on what is going to be rationed than some lawyer or business administrator.
There sure is a lot packed into that comment. But my experience with VA doctors and other caregivers
(speaking as a retired "private sector" nurse, VA care recipient and former attorney) is that except
for the psychiatrists and some of the docs that perform disability examinations, the VA caregivers actually
provide care, and they seem to do it pretty well, given the constant attrition of resources and burgeoning
case load the neolibs are imposing. Personal tale: the Medicare 'provider" at the full-spectrum clinic
I used to use was all hot to perform a "common surgical procedure that most older men need." A fee-generating
TURP, which pretty rarely improves the victim's life. The VA doc, looking at the same condition and
presentation, noted the down-sides pretty carefully and said that until I was a lot more "restricted,"
there was no way I "needed" any such invasive procedure. But then his income is not influenced by the
number of cuts he makes
Most of what lawyers do any more, and this has been true for a long time, is combat over wealth transfers,
economic warfare. Ever since partnership was killed off as the mandatory form of lawyer business operations,
with attendant personal liability for partner actions, the rule is "eat what you kill, and kill all
you can." Most doctors I know have caregiving as their primary motivation in going into medicine. (Most
nurses, the same to a much greater extent, and since they start with smaller debt and fewer chances
to bleed the patient and the system that bleeds the nurse pretty badly, they can carry that decency
forward.)
Interesting, of course, that more and more doctors have joint MD and MBA credentials. And working
with other operatives, are gradually and maybe inexorably forcing more of their fellows into "medical
cooperatives" like HCA and JSA, where they become salaried wage slaves with productivity targets and
metrics, and thus "rationers" de facto, by having to respond to "metrics" that are all driven by the
basic business model: "More and more work, from fewer and fewer people, for less and less money, for
higher and higher costs, with ever more crapified outcomes for the mope-ery." Although, I might offer,
there are some of my fellow mopes who actually do benefit from those back surgeries (yes, maybe most
of them are unwarranted, but not all) and meds that only cost "$20,000 per month" because of MARKETS.
Imagine Trump winning as a GOP canidate by running to the left of the DNC canidate. The vision of
the GOP having a collective ulcer/Rovian Meltdown is making me giggle like a schoolgirl all day.
Frankly, I'm *much* more worried about HRC in the Whitehouse than I am about Trump. Reason why is
that he's a relative outsider, not an Establishment guy - and there is always Congress to deal with.
Its not like he would have a total dictatorship, whereas HRC would be able to do far more and deeper
damage to the nation.
My position is Sanders or bust, and I say that as a 20-year member of the GOP (now independent).
Like you said, he changes his positions all the time, and Clinton is no doubt a serious warmonger/war
criminal, but he did also say that he would "bomb the s- out of ISIS," which one might also be inclined
to characterize as trigger happy.
I am equally terrified at the prospect of having Clinton or Trump at the nuclear controls, which
is why we should all send Bernie a few bucks today. The MSM have already gone into full Clinton v Trump
general election mode, though that is certain to change once Bernie wins California.
If you read what Trump has said about our foreign policy, he has been consistent in his view that
the US can't and shouldn't be acting as an imperalist. He does not use those words, but he's said this
often enough that I've even linked to articles describing how Trump is willing to depict America as
being in decline, and this as one manifestation. In addition, his foreign policy speech was slammed
basically because it broke with neocon orthodoxy. I have not read it but people I respect and who are
not temperamentally inclined to favor Trump have, and they said it was sensible and among other things
argued that we could not be fighting with China and Russia at the same time, and pumped for de-escalating
tensions with Russia as the country whose culture and interests were more similar to ours than China's.
Having said that, calling out our belligerence and TPP as bad ideas seem to be the only issues on
which he's not been all over the map (well, actually, he has not backed down on his wall either .)
The other reason to think he might stick with this position more consistently than with others is
that his core voters come from communities where a lot of people have fought in the post-9/11 Middle
Eastern conflicts. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Trump has strong support among
veterans and active duty soldiers, and it's due to his speaking out against these wars.
Trump can probably get away with continuing to shape shift till Labor Day, since most voters don't
make up their minds till close to the election. It's not pretty to watch him make a bold statement and
then significantly walk it back in the next 24 hours, particularly if it's an issue you care about and
he's said something that is so nuts that it sounds like he cares more about his Nielsen rating than
what makes sense for the country. If he can't put enough policy anchors down by the fall and stick to
them, he will lose a lot of people who might give him a shot out of antipathy to Clinton.
That may well be the case and he was right to call out the Iraq war as a "mistake" during that debate
(given his otherwise unconventional rhetoric, however, I was actually a bit disappointed that he didn't
use the more correct term war crime), but he has also said that he wants to bring back torture and then
some.
As far as I'm concerned though, the race right now is between Clinton and Bernie and I'm fairly confident
that Bernie still has a good chance since he is sure to take California (which, luckily for Bernie,
will seem like a huge surprise).
In a match up between Trump and Clinton my own personal thoughts (that a democratic – i.e. neoliberal
– white house will at least continue to move people to the left, whereas a republican white house will
only galvanize people around bringing another neoliberal to the white house) are irrelevant because
I have virtually no doubt that Trump will win.
Yes, his enthusiasm for torture is pretty creepy and you get a taste of it here indirectly: "That
Saddam, he was a really bad guy but he sure could take care of those terrorists!" While Trump does seem
to genuinely disapprove of all the people our wars have killed for no upside (a commonsense position
in absence among our foreign policy elites), he seems overly confident that we can identify baddies
well and having identified them, we should have no compunction about being brutal with them.
"That Saddam, he was a really bad guy but he sure could take care of those terrorists!"
His meaning here is we should have stayed out of it and let the "really bad guy" (Saddam) handle
Al Quaeda. Of course, the Bush neocons dishonestly morphed Saddam into Al Quaeda. You know the rest
of the story.
I'm willing to bet that he's saying a lot of this stuff for his audience–people who are generally
a pretty angry and bloodthirsty lot. I'm not saying that he's not going to come out for peace, love
and contrition when he's elected president, but I think it is safe to say that his rhetoric now is completely
unrelated to how he'd go about actually governing.
OK, so normally that'd be a horrible admission–if the Democrats hadn't had the brilliant idea of
foisting Hillary onto the American people. What a brain-dead move! I myself could have been persuaded
to support Bernie, but Hillary is the Devil incarnate as far as I'm concerned.
One fact that we have to remember is all the people who designed, advocated for, implemented, and
defended "enhanced interrogation" and than who use "Clintonisms" to say we no longer use torture (because
we never did – "enhanced interrogation") AND because we are "rendering" them someplace else and our
friends are doing the enhanced interrogation – well, such lying devious people in my view are far, far
worse than The Donald.
In my view, there appears to be considerable evidence that the US still defacto tortures – and that
is far, far worse than the appalling, but at least truthful statement of how Trump feels. And of course,
pink misting people may not be torture, but it can't be separated.
Again, which is worse:
A. The Donald up front advocates a policy (of torture), people can be mobilized to oppose it. No legalisms,
dissembling, and every other term that can be used to obfuscate what the US is REALLY doing.
B. The US government asserts it no longer tortures. How many readers here have confidence that that
is a factually true statement, that can be said without word games?
Is saying we should torture WORSE than saying we don't torture, but WE ARE???
I feel the same way. It's preferable to have someone take the morally reprehensible pro-torture stance
than to pretend to be against it while secretly renditioning prisoners and so forth.
except for the fake wmds that started it. and abu ghraib. and the reasons the contractors were hung
in fallujah. and the fake alliance between saddam and al quaida. and outing valerie plame when joe wilson
blew the whistle on the fake purpose of the aluminum tubes.
Enough electoral fraud has been evidenced that I think that the numbers are going to be gamed to
be closer to the non-representative polling that flood the MSM. He may win, but they aren't going to
allow him to win by a lot in such a delegate heavy state.
Unfortunately, I think you are quite right that the California numbers will be rigged/gamed. I had
become quite cynical about American politics, thanks to Obama the More Effective Evil's reign and the
Bush and the Supremes Florida gambit back in 2000. But this primary vote rigging has really moved my
marker so far that I am not even sure what word to use what's more cynical than super duper cynical?
So here's an idea I've been pondering how can the people try to prevent or find this? Could we exit
poll outside the voting places? Yes it would be a limited sample of just one local place but it's something
and in aggregate if lots of people were doing this
I too think they might try to game California. And this is quite alarming considering California
is usually too unimportant to even game. I figure the elections are usually honest here, probably because
they just don't matter one whit. But this time it might matter and they might steal the vote.
"core voters come from communities where a lot of people have fought in the post-9/11 Middle
Eastern conflicts. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Trump has strong support
among veterans and active duty soldiers"
This.
People tend to also forget that there's a lot of us Gen-X'ers that were deployed over there over
25 years ago, when it was popular, for the same damned thing. Nothing has changed. Sure, some leadership
folks have been taken out, but the body count of Americans soldiers has only risen,and the Region is
now worse off.
The "first time" we had more folks die from non-combat related accidents than from actual combat.
Some of us are sick of our political and corporate establishment selling out our fellow soldiers and
Veterans, even worse is the way they have been treated when they come home. I'm not a Trump supporter,
but this part of his message not only resonates with me, but angers me further. Why? Because I know
that if Hillary Clinton walks into The Oval Office, even more Americans are going to die for lust of
more power and influence.
HRC is simply the evilest human being I have ever seen in politics in my lifetime. Trump may be an
idiot, crass, authoritarian, and any number of negative things, but he is not "evil" – she is.
If the mash up continues as Clinton v. Trump and barring any character sinking actions of Trump,
this man will win in November. To paraphrase Shivani, Clinton is speaking entirely in high minded self-interest,
while Trump has latched onto and is pressing a actual truths of reality (regardless of his personal
convictions or what he wlll actually do if elected).
Trump is more liberal than Clinton here. What exactly are her redeeming qualities again?
I can't really think of any HRC redeeming qualities. "Retail politicking" doesn't seem to be one
of them. Lambert, you no doubt saw this video of her confronted with rising health insurance costs post-ACA?
Her word salad response doesn't begin to address the real issues
During a recent town hall event, a small business owner explained to the Democratic front-runner
that her health insurance has gone up so significantly for her family that the thought of providing
benefits to her employees is secondary at this point.
"As a small business owner, not only are you trying to provide benefits to your employees,
you're trying to provide benefits to yourself. I have seen our health insurance for my own family,
go up $500 dollars a month in the last two years. We went from four hundred something, to nine hundred
something. We're just fighting to keep benefits for ourselves. The thought of being able to provide
benefits to your employees is almost secondary, yet to keep your employees happy, that's a question
that comes across my desk all the time. I have to keep my employees as independent contractors for
the most part really to avoid that situation, and so I have turnover"
"We do not qualify for a subsidy on the current health insurance plan. My question to you
is not only are you looking out for people that can't afford healthcare, but I'm someone that can
afford it, but it's taking a big chunk of the money I bring home."
To which Hillary responded, to make a long story short, that she knows healthcare costs are going
up, and doesn't understand why that would ever be the case.
"What you're saying is one of the real worries that we're facing with the cost of health insurance
because the costs are going up in a lot of markets, not all, but many markets and what you're describing
is one of the real challenges."
"There's a lot of things I'm looking at to try to figure out how to deal with exactly the
problem you're talking about. There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to
the real world test, will this really help a small business owner or a family be able to afford it.
What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that's what I don't understand."
"What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that's what I don't
understand." - this from a woman who ostensibly is an expert on health care delivery?
The link is from Zero Hedge but in any case watch the video. Or wait for it to appear in a Trump
campaign ad:
"Or wait for it to appear in a Trump campaign ad" Haha!
I am surprised she didn't pull out the "90% coverage" false-positve. We haven't seen that pony enough.
The notion of imploring "scientific" method here is interesting in light of the party's blood oath to
meritocracy. "There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to the real world
test ". It also implies that the process is natural and no accountability is necessary.
Another great DNC experiment. Throwing the blacks in jail for 20 years over nothing "oh well, we
need to try more!" I cannot imagine being in prison right now for some minor drug offense and hearing
the Clintons spew this nonsense.
Jeff Gundlach, one of the few iconoclasts and reigning king of bonds on Wall Street:
"People are going to start putting greater focus on Hillary (Clinton). Voters are going to say, 'No.
I don't want this,'" he told Reuters. "Hillary is going to evolve into an unacceptable choice. If she
is such a great candidate, how come (Bernie Sanders) is beating her?"
Even more. He's based in LA so there's a 400 mile air gap between him in the goldbugging, glibertarian,
wannabe John Galt culture of the Valley exemplified by Peter Theil.
How about a picture of Gundlach for tomorrow's antidote ?
It is warm heartening to see this site who consistently leaning left warming for the Donald. Clinton
is a horrible candidate, flawed human being and her presidency is guaranteed to be marred by scandal
after scandal and deep polarization.
Bern would be a great choice but he has no chance, the corrupt Democratic establishment will stick with
Clinton.
I inuited months ago that the warming to Donald thing would happen. I have a growing conviction that
most of the people here, maybe even you, are going to vote for Donald in November. Even Jason will vote
for Donald (unless he is being employed by that pro-Hillary super pac which I don't think is the case
but just throwing it out there since there are empirically speaking people being paid to produce pro
Hillary comments on the internet). Barring something truly interesting and novel happening between now
and then that is.
The way things are going now this plane seems set for an effortless autopilot victory for Trump.
I have no doubt that everyone will regret too. They'll even regret before they cast the vote, and do
it anyway. Oh man, that's some truly black humor. OK I'll make an even grander prediction: Trump will
inaugurate the post postmodern era (whatever historians eventually decide to call it) where our entire
conception and perception of reality as a society undergoes a radical and unpleasant change. It's a
unique time to be alive. Aren't we lucky?
Wait. I just had an incredible insight. We're already out of the postmodern era, and I can date it
from Sept. 11, 2001as the exit. Historian are going to say that this was a short era, a transitional
era of illusions, delusions and fear, where complete non-reality Trumped the real for an ever so short
period of time. But now we're going to be shocked awake, and what's coming next is going to be incredible
and horrific. Damn, it's such an awesome and strange feeling to see things so clearly all of a sudden!
It's really happening. So this why I've been obsessing over this stuff much recently.
I tried to find a short clip of Brunhilde riding her horse into the flames in Gotterdammerung right
before Valhalla collapses, which is what voting for Trump would be like for me, but I couldn't find
out.
There was an antiwar left on the msm during the Bush years? Kerry's campaign message was "Ill be
W 2.0." Kerry himself was that awful, but there was no antiwar left in the msm. I thought the absence
was the direct cause for the rise of blogs. The real crisis is the shift of websites such as TalkingPointMemo
and CrooksandLiars to Team Blue loyalist sites or when Digby brought on Spoonfed.
Yep. 2006 was when the Dems decapitated the left blogosphere, and as a result we have no independent
media, except for lonely outposts like this one, and whatever those whacky kidz are doing with new media.
I keep donating to Bernie because even if he somehow doesn't win the nomination, he can force Hillary
to be much more like him – if HRC wants Bernie voters to clinch the deal for her. Bernie staying in
and fighting to the end (and my money says he wins) is great and if Hillary doesn't become Bernie, then
the only one that can beat Trump is Bernie, and the super-delegates have got to see that.
Bottom line, Hillary has to become Bernie to beat Trump. Is that going to happen? We'll see.
Bernie staying in until the very end serves two purposes (he CAN still win, especially when he carries
California). The first is, again, he CAN win. The second purpose is to prevent Hillary from shifting
right the way she REALLY wants to for the general. She will have to keep tacking left to fend off a
major slide towards Bernie. The "center" (actually right wing) is out of reach for her as long as Bernie
is there.
Sorry to rain on your thesis, but absent the nomination, all Bernie can do is to force Hillary to
*message* more like him. With her, the operative phrase is "words are wind". There is nothing whatever
to keep her from immediately ditching every progressive-sounding campaign stance once she is in office,
just as Obama did. And I guarantee you that if she does become president, that is precisely what she
will do.
Trump knows the counterweight better than anyone. He's the guy you keep on the job because he's entertaining,
knowing he will sell you out if you let him, and you let him, when it serves a purpose, to adjust the
counterweight.
POLITICS, RE feudalism, is a game, and he loves it, despite the heartburn. All that debt inertia.preventing
the economic motor from gaining traction is psychological. That much he knows, which is a lot more than
the rest of the politicians, making him a better dress maker. But like the others, he has no idea what
to do about it.
He vascillates to maintain options, including a path to the future, while others rule themselves
out. Of course hiring good people is the answer, but most Americans are politicians, like anywhere else,
wanting to know little more than their cubicle, because the net result of majority behavior is punishing
work, in favor of consumers, competing for advantage.
If you spent this time developing skills and finding a spouse that won't cut your throat, you will
do quite well. The casino isn't life; it just keeps a lot of people busy, with busy work. Government
is hapless.
It's hard to know if Trump sees militarization and imperialism as bad because they're bad or bad
because it's not Donald Trump in charge, with a great big straw sucking Benjamins between those rectally
pursed lips. It may take an agent provocateur bullshitter to call bullshit, but that says nothing about
what Trump will do as president. What's likeliest, given his record, is an opportunistic seizure of
the Treasury to rival the occupation of Iraq. When I gaze into my crystal ball at a Trump administration
I see cronyism, graft, corruption, nepotism, and deceit of monumental dimensions, just like the gold
letters spelling Trump plastered over everything he lays his stubby little hands on. Because the Clintons
are appalling doesn't make Trump appealing. It's a farcical contest, and every way, we lose.
You echo my feelings. My loathing of Clinton knows no bounds, and I cannot vote for her, no matter
what. But I simply don't trust Trump. He's a gold-digger extrodinaire, and quite the accomplished showman.
He knows how to play to the crowd, and he's clearly quite quick to shape shift. The wrecked tatters
of what's called the USA "media" gives Trump a YOOOGE pass on simply everything and anything the man
says or does.
I don't trust Trump, and although, yes, he has says a few things that I agree with – and usually
stuff that no one else at his level will ever say – it's essentially meaningless to me. I think Trump
would be a disaster as President, and my "take" – which is based on my own opinion – is that he'll be
Grifter El Supremo and make sure that he walks off with stacks and gobs and buckets of CA$H. For him.
And if the country really tanks and goes bankrupt? So What?
Plus all this about Trump not being a War Hawk? I don't trust it. With the other breath, he's constantly
spewing about "building up" the damn military, which, allegedly Obama has "weakened." Like, we really
need to be spending another gazillion of our tax dollars "building up" the Military??? WHY? If The Donald
is so against all these foreign wars, then why do we need to spend even more money on the Military???
All that signals to me is that Donald expects to go large on MIC investments for HIMSELF.
Story time: so, when I married the Mrs, I offered to fix the mother in laws old bug. She turned me
down and has since demand that I fix what is now a rust bucket, not worth one manhour of my time, going
around to the neighbors, all critters on govt checks rapidly falling behind RE inflation, to build consensus
to the end, among women using men and men using women, all of them having thrown their marriages under
the bus, as if majority vote is going to get me to do something I have no intention of doing.
When hospital gave Grace that shot and sent her to the ICU, per Obamacare expert protocol, all the
critters went into CYA mode, and ultimately called the family, to confirm that the wife and I must be
on drugs, which they did. I don't blame the morons running the court system, and she's the mother in
law.
That debt is nothing more than psychology, but it is more effective than a physical prison. Silicon
Valley is the as is abutment, simply reinforcing stupid with ever greater efficiency, but it is the
endpoint on a collapsing bridge with no retreat, because automation has systematically destroyed the
skill pool and work ethic required to advance further, replacing them with make work and make work skills.
Competing with China and the Middle East to build carp infrastructure to keep As many economic slaves
as busy as possible is not the path forward. As you have seen, govt data is far closer to being 180
degrees wrong than being correct, as designed, which you should expect, from those holding out ignorance
as a virtue.
There are far more elevators that need fixing than I could ever get to, and I am quite capable of
fixing them in a manner that generates power. Who becomes president is irrelevant.
My family in Ohio is massive, they made a killing on RE and currency arbitrage, after selling all
the family farms, and have nothing real to show for it, but rapidly depreciating sunk costs, waiting
to do it again. Rocket scientists.
If the GWOT has cost us $4 Trillion, somebody made $4 Trillion.
That/those somebodies are not about to give up the kind of behavior that makes that
kind of money.
If there is any real, actual third-rail in American politics, it's the MIC budget.
This fact has never been openly acknowledged, even though the American people are pretty sure that
threatening the will of the MIC cost the life of at least one well known politician.
Trump may talk about that enormous waste now, but after his private screening of the Zapruder film
he's going to STFU and get with the program like all the rest.
OTOH, like Yves has pointed out, if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be
ignored, get nothing done, and I'm not sure I see a down-side to that.
if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored, get nothing done
Exactly my feeling. He will be hated and fought constantly, whereas Clinton (if nominated) is guaranteed
to screw things up. Like her husband (who by the way will be there whispering in ears and making passes
at maids) she will triangulate on issues and pass destructive GOP legislation and likely drag this country
into another foreign policy blunder, where I am betting more young, under-educated, poor citizens with
no prospects or options will be sent to slaughter (themselves and others).
EH? I think The Donald will just go Large on MIC investments for himself. He talks a good game, but
he keeps saying that he's going "build up" the Military, even as he's stating that we shouldn't be fighting
in all of these wars. Why, then, do we need to "build up" the Military?
No one ever said Trump was stupid. I'm sure he's rubbing his grubby tiny vulgarian mitts with glee
thinking about how he, too, can get in on that sweet sweet SWEET MIC payola grift scam. Count on it.
Trump doesn't need to see the Zapruder film. He was alive then and knows the story, just like everyone
else of a certain age. Nay, verily, he just means to cash in on it.
Watt4Bob
May 13, 2016 at 12:30 pm
"OTOH, like Yves has pointed out, if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored,
get nothing done, and I'm not sure I see a down-side to that."
I too view that as a feature and not a bug. Seriously, in the last 10, 20, 30 years, I would ask,
what law is viewed as making things better? Was Sarbanes Oxley suppose to do something??? Maybe the
law is OK, they just won't enforce it
I know Obamacare is relentlessly disparaged here, others think it is better than nothing.
Many of you youngsters don't realize this, but there was a time, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, that
there were no deductibles, co-pays, narrow networks, and that you had confidence that your doctor may
have over treated and tested you, but you weren't afraid that you would die because it was too expensive
to treat you.
Just like I don't care if GDP goes up because i won't see any of it, I don't care about all the cancer
research because I am certain I won't be able to afford it, even though I have health "insurance" .
"Employer-sponsored retiree health coverage once played a key role in supplementing Medicare," observe
Tricia Neuman and Anthony Damico of the foundation. "Any way you slice it, this coverage is eroding."
Since 1988, the foundation says, among large firms that offer active workers health coverage, the
percentage that also offer retiree health plans has shrunk to 23% in 2015 from 66% in 1988. The decline,
which has been steady and almost unbroken, almost certainly reflects the rising cost of healthcare and
employers' diminishing sense of responsibility for long-term workers in retirement.
.
Financial protection against unexpected healthcare costs is crucial for many Medicare enrollees, especially
middle- and low-income members, because the gaps in Medicare can be onerous. The deductible for Medicare
Part A, which covers inpatient services, is $1,288 this year, plus a co-pay of $322 per hospital day
after 60 days. Part B, which covers outpatient care, has a modest annual deductible of $166 but pays
only 80% of approved rates for most services.
====================================================
80% of 100,000$ means 20K is left over – with cancer treatments*, kidney treatments, cardiovascular
treatments, such a scenario is more likely than a lot of people will imagine.
*treatments don't include those foam slippers that they charge you 25$ for .
But the consequences of the shift away from employer-sponsored retiree benefits go beyond the rise
in costs for the retirees themselves. Many are choosing to purchase Medigap policies, which fill in
the gaps caused by Medicare's deductibles, cost-sharing rates and benefit limitations. That has the
potential to drive up healthcare costs for the federal government too. That's because Medigap policies
tend to encourage more medical consumption by covering the cost-sharing designed to make consumers more
discerning about trips to the doctor or clinic. Already, nearly 1 in 4 Medicare enrollees had a Medigap
policy - almost as many as had employer-sponsored supplemental coverage.
..
The trend is sure to fuel interest on Capitol Hill in legislating limits to Medigap plans. Such limits
have supporters across the political spectrum: Over the past few years, proposals to prohibit Medigap
plans from covering deductibles have come from the left-leaning Center for American Progress, the centrist
Brookings Institution and conservatives such as Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).
================================
please stop going to the doctor, its expensive .just expire
First time poster, long time lurker. You don't think that Sanders success in the race pushed HRC
to embrace debt free 4 year public college?
We'll see what specific policy commitments come out of the convention, but I don't think the current
campaign would have the same issues if Bernie wasn't there.
Please don't mistake me either, ideologically I'm with Sanders and was supporting him until the NYDN
article and the delegate math became pretty much impossible. If I had my druthers, he'd be the candidate,
but it looks quite quite unlikely now.
I'm concerned that HRC will pivot after the election and give support to the TPP but even then I'm
still anti-Trump more.
Actually, a poster with your email commented in 2014 under another handle. There seems to be a rash
lately of infrequent or new commenters who "support Sanders but" or "supported Sanders until" lately.
For some reason.
That said, you could be right on college (
see here for a comparison of the plans ). It's just that Clinton's talking point about not wanting
to pay for Trump's children is so unserious I can't believe the plan is serious.
I dunno. I see a lot of people decry Trump's immigration ban on Muslims, but Hillary's record as
SecState was incredibly violent toward Muslims internationally and also includes presiding
over a defacto immigration ban from specific "problem" states- banning people for security reasons being
much more tactful than banning Muslims per se.
The nativist appeal Trump is making doesn't go much farther than naming the intent of policy Hillary
has been actually pursuing. Trump wants to use the demonisation of Muslims since 9/11 as a political
lever to gain power and will use anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant (weird to see the two conflated so frequently)
sentiment to achieve specific political goals, preferably sublating it into keynesian infrastructure
programs (wall building or whatever). Hillary intends to keep bombing societies that are increasingly
visibily disintegrating from the cumulative effects of climate change, colonial oppression and marginalisation,
foreign intervention, etc. It's not obvious who gets the benefit of the doubt in a lesser evil contest.
Trump is breaking the "lesser of two evils" argument.
Let's be clear about something here. The "lesser of two evils" is not an argument to find which candidate
is "the less evil." It's an argument used to justify the assumption that your candidate is the less
evil of the other. While else is it that Democrats say Clinton is the less evil while Republicans argue
that Trump is the less evil.
It's obvious watching leftist pundits (many of whom I respect) come out and flatly assert "Clinton
is the better of the two." And there heads usually explode right off their shoulders when they run into
someone who disagrees or is simply skeptical of the claim.
The real problem is when Trump dose speak on trade and war policy, he exposes the fallacy of the
argument. We can't take Trump's word for it – even though we already know Hillary is likely lying, so
it's still a tie. The notion that Trump might actually be honest here isn't even permitted to be considered
because that would make Trump the less evil of the two.
The problem I keep running into is just how do you measure "evil?" This gets even harder to do when
you can't take either at their word. There is always some deeper calculous we are expected to project
on the candidates in order to arrive at our pre-supposed conclusion that our candidate is always the
less evil.
It's the main reason I will not be voting for either.
Forgive me for piling on today Btw,.anyone know who this Carmen Yarrusso is? Excerpt from Counterpunch
(today)
"Trump may be a (loose-cannon) unpredictable evil. But then, based on her long track record, Clinton
is a very predictable evil. In fact, Trump is left of Clinton on such things as legal marijuana, NATO
aggression, and trade policy. His crazy proposals (e.g. Mexican wall, banning Muslims) are just bluster
with zero chance of becoming reality. If Congress can stop Obama, it can stop Trump. But Clinton has
a predictable pro-war track record (Iraq, Libya, Syria) and a predictable track record of changing positions
for political expediency (e.g. Iraq war, NAFTA, Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000, immigration, gun control,
the Keystone XL pipeline, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, same-sex marriage). How can you be sure she
won't conveniently change her current progressive positions as president? A Trump presidency just might
force Democratic Party elites to start seriously addressing the populist concerns they now arrogantly
ignore.
If you vote for Clinton as the lesser of two evils, you're compromising your moral values, you're
condoning the Democratic Party's shoddy treatment of millions of progressives, and you're sabotaging
future real change. You're virtually guaranteeing the Democratic Party elites will put you in this position
again and again. If you refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, maybe you'll help elect Trump (or
maybe your write-in or third party choice will win). But you'll certainly send a very clear message
to Democratic Party elites that you'll no longer tolerate being ignored, marginalized, or shamed with
false lesser of two evil choices."
lol watching people attack Trump well, not sure if it's Clinton's army out to scare us about the
horrors Trump will cause. now it's like the Devil we know vs the Devil we don't know. Kind of hard to
compare Trump to Hillary. Hillary's effective brand of evil is well established and is quite thorough,
shown by the primary votes in NY and AZ, for example. watching the Elites attack, belittle and completely
ignore the existence of Bernie gives us a little clue of what is in store if Hillary gets her way. Trump
is the "known unknown" to use Rumsfeld terminology.
Evil is as evil does. aka Hillary
this is perhaps the one and only time I ever will vote Republican. and I abhor Republicans. Hillary
has earned her reputation, Trump.. well Trump or no Trump, it won't be Hillary getting my vote. Keeping
Bernie out, we all lose.
No, I don't support the current administration's drone war, nor did I support the horrible Iraq war
of 2003, but that doesn't answer my question. I don't understand "Hillary is lying" as a tautology and
the conclusion being that Trump is a better bet than HRC because of that.
But in regards to your question, do you think that the drone war stance will change in the next administration
whether's it's HRC or Trump? Trump said he wants to get more aggressive on terrorists than we currently
are, explicitly endorsing torture.
Well even Sanders has come out in favor of drones, so probably, unless one is die hard Jill Stein
all the way. Then one's hands are entirely clean if also entirely ineffective.
Yeah, because voting for drone strikes, imperialism and corruption is more effective at getting rid
of those things than not voting for drone strikes, imperialism and drone strikes
Theyre both liars. If youre trusting Donald to not drone strike or trusting Hillary to not torture,
youre being duped.
As for your comment further down about Trump saying he wants to torture people more Its not as if
Obama has stopped Bush's torture regime or closed Guantanamo. Hillary too would continue more things.
Honestly I still dont understand why Trump is so much scarier than Hillary. Their differences are
mostly kayfabe. All that xenophobic racist demagogy Trump is doing? More kayfabe. Im still voting Stein,
because I dont vote for corrupt imperialists.
Stein is likewise kayfabe. If the party had gone with Anderson he might well have pulled a Bernie
in the last general election. That just wouldn't do, so the party was rather brazenly railroaded into
nominating Stein.
Just as the best lies are 99% truth the best con-jobs are the ones containing the maximum amount
of truthiness. Some days I like the things I hear Trump saying, the next he gives me a sick feeling
with chills down my spine. Sure, he's not sticking to the approved neo-con, neo-lib, Washington consensus
script but just how stupid do you have to be to not know that Saddam Hussein was a secular Bathist dictator
who executed anyone who he saw as a threat to his power, especially muslim extremists. Just because
Trump can spout off a truthy factoid that is only news to the brain-dead Fox News masses doesn't mean
he is any more of an honest dealer than Bush Jr. Does anyone think Bush, Cheney or Rumsfield were operating
under any illusions that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11? Of course not, they either saw
an opportunity or they engineered an opportunity to do what they wanted to do. Trump has shown himself
to be a bully comfortable with marshaling mob violence or the threat of mob violence. He is an authoritarian
and no defender of civil liberties, habeous corpus or the Geneva convention. He's exactly the type of
megalomanic that would try and seize power in an ailing democracy like our own, and I have no doubts
that if elected he will create some sort of Constitutional crisis that could end in a military coup
or Trump installed as a dictator. He already has a silent pissed-off army of violent brown shirts on
his side. I don't like the way this situation looks and people on the left with intelligence and a grasp
of history are deluding themselves if they think Trump isn't a very dangerous person.
In a possibly unrelated note, I'm 99% sure someone deeply keyed the full length of my car (truck
actually) yesterday while I was surfing for no other reason than my Bernie Sanders bumper sticker right
here in sunny, liberal southern California. Could it have been a Clinton supporter or a joy vandal who
likes keying random people's cars – sure. But if Trump wins I wonder how long it is before halal restaurants
and muslim dry cleaners start getting their windows smashed, then burned. How long before Hindus and
brown people start getting attacked (as a common occurrence, not outlier events that are punished as
they are now) because they are confused as being Muslim or Mexican or deliberately because they just
aren't white and should go home. There's a very nasty underbelly to this Trump thing and I don't like
it.
I agree on the nasty underbelly. On the other hand, I find it refreshing that Trump mentions the
millions of people slaughtered by our foreign policy. I don't hear that from Clinton, at all.
" I find it refreshing that Trump mentions the millions of people slaughtered by our foreign policy.
I don't hear that from Clinton, at all."
Ditto, me too, but I'm not about to cherry-pick Trump's schizophrenic and ever shifting talking points
then soft-peddle candidate Trump while telling people not to worry. I like silver-linings, staying optimistic
and being contrarian (I wouldn't hang out here otherwise) but why ignore the very troubling subtext
in the rest of Trump's speech? The anti-democratic, sneering remarks about suspected terrorists being
executed immediately in Saddam's Iraq instead of "on trial for fifteen years" in pansy-cakes weak, habeas
corpus America. Trump offhandedly mentions; 'Oh by the way, don't buy the lowball collateral damage
numbers you hear from the Pentagon, we're unnecessarily killing a lot of brown people abroad.' But then
he fans the flames of racism with stump speeches about building a wall and banning all muslims from
entering the USA. I can tell you which message his supporters are comprehending if you're unsure. Despite
being a politically heterodox chameleon Trump is showing his true colors. Just because Trump is willing
to break with the orthodoxy while he is campaigning doesn't mean he isn't an aspiring tyrant. Don't
be fooled. Trump isn't enlightened or altruistic, he's a talented demagogue pulling a Con on America-
that's it.
By the way, I wanted to add I am not in any way considering a vote for Hillary if she does in fact
become the Democratic nominee. I am very troubled by the prospect of a President Trump but I will not
allow my vote to be held hostage by the DNC and the very tired "lesser of evils arguments" I realized
my last comment might be construed as a "Trump must be stopped at all costs" Clinton rationalization.
It was not. Trump will be on the conscience of those who vote for him and those who have enabled him.
Maybe we should look at what Trump recently said at AIPAC – y'know, that itsy bitsy little lobby
that seems to strike fear into the hearts of all US politicians Trump included – to get a sense of his
ME policy,
shall we
?
snip
'In Spring 2004, at the height of violence in the Gaza Strip, I was the Grand Marshal of the 40th
Salute to Israel Parade, the largest single gathering in support of the Jewish state."
"My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran. I have been in business
a long time. I know deal-making and let me tell you, this deal is catastrophic – for America, for
Israel, and for the whole Middle East."
"First, we will stand up to Iran's aggressive push to destabilize and dominate the region. Iran
is a very big problem and will continue to be, but if I'm elected President, I know how to deal with
trouble. Iran is a problem in Iraq, a problem in Syria, a problem in Lebanon, a problem in Yemen,
and will be a very major problem for Saudi Arabia. Literally every day, Iran provides more and better
weapons to their puppet states.
Hezbollah in Lebanon has received sophisticated anti-ship weapons, anti-aircraft weapons, and
GPS systems on rockets. Now they're in Syria trying to establish another front against Israel from
the Syrian side of the Golan Heights."
Just last week, American Taylor Allen Force, a West Point grad who served in Iraq and Afghanistan,
was murdered in the street by a knife-wielding Palestinian. You don't reward that behavior, you confront
it!
It's not up the United Nations to impose a solution. The parties must negotiate a resolution themselves.
The United States can be useful as a facilitator of negotiations, but no one should be telling Israel
it must abide by some agreement made by others thousands of miles away that don't even really know
what's happening.
When I'm president, believe me, I will veto any attempt by the UN to impose its will on the Jewish
state.
Already, half the population of Palestine has been taken over by the Palestinian ISIS in Hamas,
and the other half refuses to confront the first half, so it's a very difficult situation but when
the United States stands with Israel, the chances of peace actually rise. That's what will happen
when I'm president.
We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem – and
we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally,
the state of Israel."
Yup, it's like he and Hillary are just night and day, huh?
I mean other than the fact that Hillary actually BACKS the Iran Deal but don't let that get in the
way of a good "but Hillary" meeting.
The two candidates will be identical where it's most important – e.g. w/ Israel and the ME – just
like all of the presidential candidates.
You would think the Obama administration may have taught us something about perceiving reality oh
wait that's right, it really was Hillary and not poor Obama who's been doing all that killing over the
last 8 years and the Donald's really a renegade "outsider" billionaire who's just scaring the pants
off of the Establishment, right?
Wow. Just wow.
Obama Hope Junkies so desperate that they're shooting Trumpodil straight into their minds.
I'm confused. What does this have to do with the topic of the post? The YouTube has nothing to do
with the deplorable Beltway consensus on Israel, of which Trump is a part.
As US-driven wars plummet the Muslim world ever deeper into jihadi-ridden failed state chaos,
events seem to be careening toward a tipping point. Eventually, the region will become so profuse
a font of terrorists and refugees, that Western popular resistance to "boots on the ground" will
be overwhelmed by terror and rage. Then, the US-led empire will finally have the public mandate it
needs to thoroughly and permanently colonize the Greater Middle East.
It is easy to see how the Military Industrial Complex and crony energy industry would profit from
such an outcome. But what about America's "best friend" in the region? How does Israel stand to benefit
from being surrounded by such chaos?
Tel Aviv has long pursued a strategy of "divide and conquer": both directly, and indirectly through
the tremendous influence of the Israel lobby and neocons over US foreign policy.
A famous article from the early 1980s by Israeli diplomat and journalist Oded Yinon is most explicit
in this regard. The "Yinon Plan" calls for the "dissolution" of "the entire Arab world including
Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula." Each country was to be made to "fall apart along sectarian
and ethnic lines," after which each resulting fragment would be "hostile" to its neighbors." Yinon
incredibly claimed that:
"This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run"
According to Yinon, this Balkanization should be realized by fomenting discord and war among the
Arabs:
"Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way
to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon."
So, you can see that Trump has said the right things into the right ears – read: AIPAC – as far as
anyone of import is concerned – read: not any of us – and so now he's free to say whatever else he thinks
he needs to.
I mean, Sheldon Adelson endorsed him so he can't be THAT scary to Israel-first billionaires and their
bed-buddies, right?
Ooops, I forgot he's an outsider that everyone's scared of. My bad. Hillary will be so much worse.
Robert Parry at ConsortiumNews has written an insightful article about the damage that has been caused
by both the neocon ideologues' control of US foreign policy and the neoliberals' control of economic
policy, their powerful political and propaganda apparatus, and what we can expect from the legacy political
party candidates for the presidency, focusing on Clinton and her past positions regarding the Middle
East.
It is noteworthy that the dominance of failed neocon and neoliberal policies over the past few decades
has coincided with consolidation and concentration of ownership of corporate media in very few hands.
As with restoring the Glass-Steagall Act and breaking up the TBTFs, reinstating limits on media ownership
and control is an important and necessary measure to breaking the influence these few individuals have
had over national policy.
Being Left of Hillary is a really really really low bar. He probably is, but thats probably because
Hillary is right wing. You know, like almost all American politicians from both parties. Trumps not
left of Bernie (at least not yet or not right now: I expect hes going to swing left in the general to
scoop up Bernie voters), and Bernies just an Eisenhower Republican, which is admittedly to the left
of basically all the other politicians today.
Quoting from memory, context foreign policy: "If our Presidents had gone to the beach every day of
the year fifteen years ago, we would have been in much better shape." (Note this includes Bush.)
"... The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the disease,
as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak perspective (truly,
we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your pick or get a combo, it's
all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It can and should be cured. ..."
"... The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I
once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new car,
er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked, stripped,
repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state. ..."
"... Because inflated salaries , inflated stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities are month to month, these should
evaporate more quickly, over a debris field once known as some of richest counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest
of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll
settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with people actually producing some small value for society, and minding
their own business. ..."
"... Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep
state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors
to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent
media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment media.
Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle to survive
in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command. ..."
"... Watch an old program like"Yes, Minister" to understand how it works. Politicians come and go, but the permanent state apparatchiks
doesn't. ..."
"... The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences. The
social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally susceptible
to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on Wall St; pigs get
fat, hogs get slaughtered. ..."
So, after getting up late, groggy, and feeling overworked even before I started, I read
this article . Just
after, I had to feed a dozen cats and dogs, each dog in a separate room out of respect for their territorialism and aggressive desire
to consume more than they should (hmm, where have I seen this before), and in the process, forgot where I put my coffee cup. Retracing
steps, I finally find it and sit back down to my 19-inch window on the ugly (and perhaps remote) world of the state, and the endless
pinpricks of the independent media on its vast overwhelmingly evil existence. I suspect I share this distractibility and daily estrangement
from the actions of our government with most Americans .
We are newly bombing Libya and still messing with the Middle East? I thought that the wars the deep state wanted and started were
now limited and constrained! What happened to lack of funds, lack of popular support, public transparency that revealed the stupidity
and abject failure of these wars?
Deep state. Something systemic, difficult to detect, hard to remove, hidden. It is a spirit as much as nerves and organ.
How do your starve it, excise it, or just make it go away? We want to know. I think this explains the popularity of infotainment
about haunted houses, ghosts and alien beings among us. They live and we are curious
and scared.
The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the
disease, as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak
perspective (truly, we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your
pick or get a combo, it's all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It
can and should be cured.
My summary of the long Jeffrey Goldberg piece is basically that Obama has become more fatalistic (did he mean to say fatal?) since
he won that Nobel
Peace Prize back in 2009 . By the way, the "Nobel prize" article contains this gem, sure to get a chuckle:
"Obama's drone program is regularly criticized for a lack of transparency and accountability, especially considering incomplete
intelligence means officials are often unsure about who will die. "
[M]ost individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names," Micah Zenko, a scholar at
the Council on Foreign Relations told the New York Times."
This is about all the fun I can handle in one day. But back to what I was trying to say.
The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I
once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new
car, er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked,
stripped, repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state.
Because
inflated salaries ,
inflated
stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities
are month to month, these should evaporate more quickly, over a debris field
once known as some of richest
counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government
basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with
people actually producing some small value for society, and minding their own business.
Can a lack of public support reduce the deep state, or impact it? Well, it would seem that this is a non-factor, except for the
strange history we have had and are witnessing again today, with the odd successful popular and populist-leaning politician and their
related movements. In my lifetime, only popular figures and their movements get assassinated mysteriously, with odd polka dot dresses,
MKULTRA suggestions, threats against their family by their competitors (I'm thinking Perot, but one mustn't be limited to that case),
and always with concordant pressures on the sociopolitical seams in the country, i.e riots and police/military activations. The
bad dealings toward, and genuine fear
of, Bernie Sanders within the Democratic Party's wing of the deep state is matched or exceeded only by the genuine terror of
Trump among the Republican deep state wing. This reaction to something or some person that so many in the country find engaging and
appealing - an outsider who speaks to the growing political and economic dissatisfaction of a poorer, more indebted, and
more regulated population – is
heart-warming, to be sure. It is a sign that whether or not we do, the deep state thinks things might change. Thank you, Bernie and
especially Donald, for revealing this much! And the "republicanization" of the Libertarian Party is also a bright indicator blinking
out the potential of deep state movement and compromise in the pursuit of "stability."
Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep
state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors
to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent
media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment
media. Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle
to survive in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command.
Maybe we will one day soon be able to debate how deep the deep state really is, or whether it was all just a dressed up, meth'ed
up, and eff'ed up a sector of society that deserves a bit of jail time, some counseling, and a new start . Maybe some job training
that goes beyond the printing of license plates. But given the destruction and mass murder committed daily in the name of this state,
and the environmental disasters it has created around the world for the future generations, perhaps we will be no more merciful to
these proprietors of the American empire as they have been to their victims. The ruling class deeply fears our judgment, and in this
dynamic lies the cure.
LIST OF DEMANDS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM FINANCIAL CATASTROPHE
I.CURB CORRUPTION AND EXCESSIVE POWER IN THE FINANCIAL ARMS OF THE US GOVERNMENT
A. FEDERAL RESERVE
1. Benjaman Bernanke to be removed as Chairman immediately
2. New York Federal Reserve Bank and all New York City offices of the Federal Reserve system will be closed for at least 3
years
3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation
4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels
5. Interest rate manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years
6. Balance sheet manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years
7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years
B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT
1. Timothy Geithner to be removed as Secretary immediately
2. All New York City offices of the Department will be closed for at least 3 years
3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation
4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels
5. Market manipulation/intervention to be prohibited for at least five years
7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years
II. END THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF GIANT BANKS AND PROTECT AMERICANS FROM FURTHER EXPOSURE TO THEIR COLLAPSE
A. END CORRUPT INFLUENCE
1. Lifetime ban on government employment for TARP recipient employees and corporate officers, specifically including Goldman
Sachs and JP Morgan Chase
2. Ten year ban on government work for consulting firms, law firms, and individual consultants and lawyers who have accepted
cash from these entities
3. All contacts by any method with federal agencies and employees prohibited for at least five years, with civil and criminal
penalties for violation
B. PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM FURTHER HARM AT THE HANDS OF GIANT BANKS
1. No financial institution with assets of more than $10billion will receive federal assistance or any 'arm's-length' bailouts
2. TARP recipients are prohibited from purchasing other TARP recipient corporate units, or merging with other TARP recipients
3. No foreign interest shall be allowed to acquire any portion of TARP recipients in the US or abroad
III. PREVENT CORPORATE ACCOUNTING AND PENSION FUND ABUSES RELATED TO THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
A. CORPORATE ACCOUNTING
1. Immediately implement mark-to-market accounting rules which were improperly suspended, allowing six months for implementation.
2. Companies must reserve against impaired assets under mark-to-market rules
3. Any health or life insurance company with more than$100 million in assets must report on their holdings and risk factors,
specifically including exposure to real estate, mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, and other exotic financial instruments.
These reports will be to state insurance commissions and the federal government, and will also be made available to the public
on the Internet.
B. PENSION FUNDS
1. All private and public pension funds must disclose their funding status and establish a plan to fully fund accounts under
the assumption that net real returns across all asset classes remain at zero for at least ten years.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You know what happens when politicians get into Number 10; they want to take their place on the
world stage.
Sir Richard Wharton: People on stages are called actors. All they are required to do is look plausible, stay sober,
and say the lines they're given in the right order.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Some of them try to make up their own lines.
The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences.
The social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally
susceptible to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on
Wall St; pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
The failed coup in Turkey is a significant indication of institutional weakness and also vulnerability. The inability to exercise
force of will in Syria is another. The list of failures is getting too long.
An interesting article on John McCain. I disagree with the contention that McCain hid knowledge that many American POWs were left
behind (undoubtedly some voluntarily choose to remain behind but not hundreds ). However, the article touched on some ideas that
rang true:
Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders
in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and
so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national
figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that
may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed
the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total
impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history.
An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin
soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky.
One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who
are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within
their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best
career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard
evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise.
The gist is that elite need a kill switch on their front men (and women).
Seems to be a series of pieces dealing with Vietnam POWs: the following linked item was interesting and provided a plausible explanation:
that the US failed to pay up agreed on reparations…
Remarkable and shocking. Wheels within wheels – this is the first time I have ever seen McCain's father connected with the infamous
Board of Inquiry which cleared Israel in that state's attack on USS LIBERTY during Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights.
Another stunning article in which the author makes reference to his recent acquisition of what he considers to be a reliably authentic
audio file of POW McCain's broadcasts from captivity. Dynamite stuff. The conclusion regarding aspiring untenured historians is
quite downbeat:
Also remarkable; fantastic. It's hard to believe, and a testament to the boldness of Washington dog-and-pony shows, because this
must have been well-known in insider circles in Washington – anything so damning which was not ruthlessly and professionally suppressed
and simply never allowed to become part of a national discussion would surely have been stumbled upon before now. Land of the
Cover-Up.
"... This means the "default position" of the Clinton campaign and her friendly media is, "if there's something wrong in the world, criticize George W. Bush." ..."
"... "Why not? It worked for Obama. Maybe it will work for her as well," Bolton said. "And I think the fact that the media are aiding and abetting this approach shouldn't surprise anybody. I think no matter who the Republican nominee was this year, the media were going to be – as the Wall Street Journal has so aptly called them – stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign. And that's exactly what they're doing." ..."
"... Most people watching 90 minutes of a debate like that don't score it on this debating point, or that debating point. They look at the entire thing. They want to know about the character of the people. And I think the fact that Trump was there for 90 minutes and held his own, or more than, in a format that Hillary Clinton has been familiar with since she was in law school, accomplished what he needed to accomplish. ..."
"I think it's entirely understandable that what Clinton will try to do is avoid criticizing Obama,
because she desperately needs to recreate the Obama coalition on November the 8th," said Bolton.
"She has gone out of her way, including in her 600-page-long tedious memoir about her days at the
State Department, failing to distance herself from Obama."
This means the "default position" of the Clinton campaign and her friendly media is, "if there's
something wrong in the world, criticize George W. Bush."
"Why not? It worked for Obama. Maybe it will work for her as well," Bolton said. "And I think
the fact that the media are aiding and abetting this approach shouldn't surprise anybody. I think
no matter who the Republican nominee was this year, the media were going to be – as the Wall Street
Journal has so aptly called them – stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign.
And that's exactly what they're doing."
Bolton thought Trump "did what he needed to do" at the first presidential debate:
Most people watching 90 minutes of a debate like that don't score it on this debating point,
or that debating point. They look at the entire thing. They want to know about the character of
the people. And I think the fact that Trump was there for 90 minutes and held his own, or more
than, in a format that Hillary Clinton has been familiar with since she was in law school, accomplished
what he needed to accomplish.
My critique of his performance would be that he missed opportunities. For example, you mentioned
the foreign policy section, when they were asked about cyber warfare, and the dangers to the United
States of hacking, and that gave Clinton a chance to give a little college-type lecture on Russia
– by the way, omitting China, Iran, North Korea, and others – I thought at that point Trump could
have talked about her email homebrew server for his entire time, and just drilled that point home.
But, you know, people at home aren't sitting there grading on that basis. I think the second
debate, and the third debate, will be very different, and those – particularly in the media –
who now confidently predict the outcome of the election, based on their take of this debate, are
smoking something.
2) Trade. With only 4 percent of the world's population, we buy almost one-fourth of the world's
goods. Every country is champing at the bit to get into our markets. We have tremendous leverage
on trade that we have not used. We do not want or need trade wars. But we should, in a friendly way,
tell other countries-especially the Chinese-"We want to trade with you, but we can't sustain our
huge trade deficit. You are going to have to find some things to buy from us, too."
3) Immigration.
With 58 percent of the world's population-almost 4 billion people-having to get by on $4 or less
a day, hundreds of millions would come here over the next few years if we simply opened our borders.
Our entire infrastructure-our schools, jails, sewers, hospitals, roads-and our economy as a whole
could not handle such a massive, rapid influx of people. The American people are the kindest, most
generous people in the world, and we have already allowed many millions more than any other country
to immigrate here, legally and illegally. But we must do a much better job enforcing our immigration
laws.
4) Wars. I am now the only Republican left in Congress who voted against going to war in
Iraq. For the first three of four years, it was the most unpopular vote I ever cast. I even once
was disinvited to speak at a Baptist church. Now, it is probably the most popular vote I ever cast.
The American people are tired of permanent, forever wars. While everyone wants a friendly relationship
with Israel, I do not believe the American people will continue to support wars that primarily benefit
Israel but cause thousands of young Americans to be killed or horribly maimed for life.
5) Jobs. Almost any member of Congress, if asked what is the greatest need in their district,
would probably say more good jobs. Radical environmentalists have caused many thousands of U.S. businesses
to go to other countries or close for good. We have ended up with the best-educated waiters and waitresses
in the world. When I was in Vietnam a few years ago, I was told if you wanted to start a business
there, you just went out and did it. The place was booming. It is now apparently easier to start
a small business in some former communist countries than in the supposedly free-enterprise U.S.
... ... ...
Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. represents the 2nd district of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives.represents
the 2nd district of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives.
"... "Over the last 25 years, the number of people living in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of humanity to under 10 percent." This is roughly true, according to World Bank data, but the story of how it happened goes against his whole speech - which argues that this progress is a result of the "globalization" that Washington leads and supports wherever it has influence in the developing world. In fact, the majority of the reduction in extreme poverty during this period (more than 1.1 billion people worldwide) took place in China. But during this period China was really the counterexample to the "principles of open markets" with which Obama insists "we must go forward, not backward." ..."
"... If we go back a bit more and look at 1981–2012, China accounted for even more of the reduction of the world population in extreme poverty, about 70 percent. This would indicate that other parts of the developing world increased their economic and social progress during the 21st century, relative to China, and indeed many developing countries did (as compared to the last two decades of the 20th century). But China played an increasingly large role in reducing poverty in other countries during this period. ..."
"... It was so successful in its economic growth and development - by far the fastest in world history - that it became the largest economy in the world, and pulled up many developing countries through its imports. Chinese imports went from a negligible 0.1 percent of other developing countries' exports to 3 percent, from 1980–2010. China also provided hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, loans, and aid to low- and middle-income countries in the 21st century. (In the last few years, Chinese growth has slowed, along with that of most countries, and that has contributed - although perhaps not as much as Europe has - to the global slowdown since 2011.) ..."
"... the "principles of open markets" that Obama refers to is really code for "policies that Washington supports." ..."
"... In his defense of a world economic order ruled by Washington and its rich country allies, President Obama also asserted that "we have made international institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund more representative." But that is a gross exaggeration: the most recent reform of IMF voting shares left the US with an unchanged 16.7 percent share, enough to veto many important decisions (that require an 85 percent majority) by itself; and it left Washington and its traditional rich country allies with a solid majority of more than 60 percent of votes. Of course, it is the developing countries, especially poorer ones, that are most subject to IMF decisions. But the IMF is - by a gentleman's agreement among the rich country governments - headed by a European, and the World Bank by an American. It should not be surprising if these institutions do not look out for the interests of the developing world. ..."
President Obama Inadvertently Gives High Praise to China
in UN Speech
By Mark Weisbrot
President Obama's speech at the UN last week was mostly a
defense of the world's economic and political status quo,
especially that part of it that is led or held in place by
the US government and the global institutions that Washington
controls or dominates. In doing so, he said some things that
were exaggerated or wrong, or somewhat misleading. It is
worth looking at some of the things that media reports on
this speech missed.
"Over the last 25 years, the number of people living
in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of
humanity to under 10 percent." This is roughly true,
according to World Bank data, but the story of how it
happened goes against his whole speech - which argues that
this progress is a result of the "globalization" that
Washington leads and supports wherever it has influence in
the developing world. In fact, the majority of the reduction
in extreme poverty during this period (more than 1.1 billion
people worldwide) took place in China. But during this period
China was really the counterexample to the "principles of
open markets" with which Obama insists "we must go forward,
not backward."
China's historically unprecedented economic growth in the
past 25 years (or 35 years, or even more) was accomplished
with state-owned enterprises and banks dominating the
economy. State control over investment, technology transfer,
and foreign exchange was vastly greater than in other
developing countries. China rejected the neoliberal policies
of an "independent central bank," indiscriminate opening to
international trade and investment, and rapid privatization
of state companies. Instead, it chose a gradual transition,
over 35 years, from an overwhelmingly planned economy to a
mixed economy in which the state still plays a leading role.
Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned
enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016
(as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the
economy.
If we go back a bit more and look at 1981–2012, China
accounted for even more of the reduction of the world
population in extreme poverty, about 70 percent. This would
indicate that other parts of the developing world increased
their economic and social progress during the 21st century,
relative to China, and indeed many developing countries did
(as compared to the last two decades of the 20th century).
But China played an increasingly large role in reducing
poverty in other countries during this period.
It was so
successful in its economic growth and development - by far
the fastest in world history - that it became the largest
economy in the world, and pulled up many developing countries
through its imports. Chinese imports went from a negligible
0.1 percent of other developing countries' exports to 3
percent, from 1980–2010. China also provided hundreds of
billions of dollars in investment, loans, and aid to low- and
middle-income countries in the 21st century. (In the last few
years, Chinese growth has slowed, along with that of most
countries, and that has contributed - although perhaps not as
much as Europe has - to the global slowdown since 2011.)
Of course, the "principles of open markets" that Obama
refers to is really code for "policies that Washington
supports." Some of them are the exact opposite of "open
markets," such as the lengthening and strengthening of patent
and copyright protection included in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) agreement. President Obama also made a plug
for the TPP in his speech, asserting that "we've worked to
reach trade agreements that raise labor standards and raise
environmental standards, as we've done with the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, so that the benefits [of globalization] are more
broadly shared." But the labor and environmental standards in
the TPP, as with those in previous US-led commercial
agreements, are not enforceable; whereas if a government
approves laws or regulations that infringe on the future
profit potential of a multinational corporation - even if
such laws or regulations are to protect public health or
safety - that government can be hit with billions of dollars
in fines. And they must pay these fines, or be subject to
trade sanctions.
In his defense of a world economic order ruled by
Washington and its rich country allies, President Obama also
asserted that "we have made international institutions like
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund more
representative." But that is a gross exaggeration: the most
recent reform of IMF voting shares left the US with an
unchanged 16.7 percent share, enough to veto many important
decisions (that require an 85 percent majority) by itself;
and it left Washington and its traditional rich country
allies with a solid majority of more than 60 percent of
votes. Of course, it is the developing countries, especially
poorer ones, that are most subject to IMF decisions. But the
IMF is - by a gentleman's agreement among the rich country
governments - headed by a European, and the World Bank by an
American. It should not be surprising if these institutions
do not look out for the interests of the developing world.
"We can choose to press forward with a better model of
cooperation and integration," President Obama told the world
at the UN General Assembly. "Or we can retreat into a world
sharply divided, and ultimately in conflict, along age-old
lines of nation and tribe and race and religion."
But the rich country governments led by Washington are not
offering the rest of the world any better model of
cooperation and integration than the failed model they have
been offering for the past 35 years. And that is a big part
of the problem....
China's historically unprecedented economic growth in the
past 25 years (or 35 years, or even more) was accomplished
with state-owned enterprises and banks dominating the
economy. State control over investment, technology transfer,
and foreign exchange was vastly greater than in other
developing countries. China rejected the neoliberal policies
of an "independent central bank," indiscriminate opening to
international trade and investment, and rapid privatization
of state companies. Instead, it chose a gradual transition,
over 35 years, from an overwhelmingly planned economy to a
mixed economy in which the state still plays a leading role.
Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned
enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016
(as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the
economy....
Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned
enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016
(as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the
economy....
Yale Professors Offer Economic Prescriptions
By Brenda Cronin - Wall Street Journal
Richard C. Levin, president of Yale - and also a professor
of economics - moderated the conversation among Professors
Judith Chevalier, John Geanakoplos, William D. Nordhaus,
Robert J. Shiller and Aleh Tsyvinski....
An early mistake during the recession, Mr. Levin said, was
not targeting more stimulus funds to job creation. He
contrasted America's meager pace of growth in gross domestic
product in the past few years with China's often double-digit
pace, noting that after the crisis hit, Washington allocated
roughly 2% of GDP to job creation while Beijing directed 15%
of GDP to that goal....
Repeatedly there are warnings from Western economists that
the Chinese economy is near collapse, nonetheless economic
growth through the first 2 quarters this year is running at
6.7% and the third quarter looks about the same. The point is
to ask and describe how after these last 39 remarkable years:
Before the crash, complacent Democrats, ... tended to agree
with them that the economy was largely self-correcting.
Who is a complacent Democrat? Obama ran as a fiscal
conservative and appointed a GOP as his SecTreas. Geithner
was a "banks need to be bailed out" and the economy self
corrects. Geithner was not in favor of cram down or mortgage
programs that would have bailed out the injured little folks.
Democrats like Romer and Summers were in favor a fiscal
stimulus, but not enough of it. I expect to see the Clinton
economic team include a lot more women and especially focus
on economic policies that help working women and families.
I have always thought that a big reason for the Bush
jobless recovery was his lack of true fiscal stimulus. Bush
had tax cuts for the wealthy, but the latest from Summers
shows why trickle down does not work.
Full employment may have been missing from the 1992
platform, but full employment was pursued aggressively by
Bill Clinton. He got AG to agree to allow unemployment to
drop to 4% in exchange for raising taxes and dropping the
middle class tax cuts. Bill Clinton used fiscal policy to tax
the economy and as a break so monetary policy could be
accommodating.
He should include raising the MinWage. Maybe that has not
changed but it is a lynchpin for putting money in the pockets
of the working poor.
"... Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free" market? Are longer and stronger patent and copyright monopolies the results of a free market? ..."
"... The NYT should up its game in this respect. It had a good piece on the devastation to millions of working class people and their communities from the flood of imports of manufactured goods in the last decade, but then it turns to hand-wringing nonsense about how it was all a necessary part of globalization. Actually, none of it was a necessary part of a free trade. ..."
"... First, the huge trade deficits were the direct result of the decision of China and other developing countries to buy massive amounts of U.S. dollars to hold as reserves in this period. This raised the value of the dollar and made our goods and services less competitive internationally. This problem of a seriously over-valued dollar stems from the bungling of the East Asian bailout by the Clinton Treasury Department and the I.M.F. ..."
"... The second point is political leaders are constantly working to make patents and copyrights stronger and longer. This raises the price that ordinary workers have to pay for everything from drugs to computer games. The result is lower real wages for ordinary workers and higher incomes for the beneficiaries of these rents. It also slows economic growth since markets are not smart enough to distinguish between a 10,000 percent price increase due to a tariff and a 10,000 percent price increase due to a patent monopoly. (In other words, all the bad things that "free trade" economists say about tariffs also apply to patents and copyrights, except the impact is far larger in the later case.) ..."
Why are none of the "free trade" members of
Congress pushing to change the regulations that require
doctors go through a U.S. residency program to be able to
practice medicine in the United States? Obviously they are
all protectionist Neanderthals.
Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of
pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is
somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free"
market? Are longer and stronger patent and copyright
monopolies the results of a free market?
The NYT should up its game in this respect. It had a good
piece on the devastation to millions of working class people
and their communities from the flood of imports of
manufactured goods in the last decade, but then it turns to
hand-wringing nonsense about how it was all a necessary part
of globalization. Actually, none of it was a necessary part
of a free trade.
First, the huge trade deficits were the direct result of
the decision of China and other developing countries to buy
massive amounts of U.S. dollars to hold as reserves in this
period. This raised the value of the dollar and made our
goods and services less competitive internationally. This
problem of a seriously over-valued dollar stems from the
bungling of the East Asian bailout by the Clinton Treasury
Department and the I.M.F.
If we had a more competent team in place, that didn't
botch the workings of the international financial system,
then we would have expected the dollar to drop as more
imports entered the U.S. market. This would have moved the
U.S. trade deficit toward balance and prevented the massive
loss of manufacturing jobs we saw in the last decade.
The second point is political leaders are constantly
working to make patents and copyrights stronger and longer.
This raises the price that ordinary workers have to pay for
everything from drugs to computer games. The result is lower
real wages for ordinary workers and higher incomes for the
beneficiaries of these rents. It also slows economic growth
since markets are not smart enough to distinguish between a
10,000 percent price increase due to a tariff and a 10,000
percent price increase due to a patent monopoly. (In other
words, all the bad things that "free trade" economists say
about tariffs also apply to patents and copyrights, except
the impact is far larger in the later case.)
Finally, the fact that trade has exposed manufacturing
workers to international competition, but not doctors and
lawyers, was a policy choice, not a natural development.
There are enormous potential gains from allowing smart and
ambitious young people in the developing world to come to the
United States to work in the highly paid professions. We have
not opened these doors because doctors and lawyers are far
more powerful than autoworkers and textile workers. And, we
rarely even hear the idea mentioned because doctors and
lawyers have brothers and sisters who are reporters and
economists.
Addendum:
Since some folks asked about the botched bailout from the
East Asian financial crisis, the point is actually quite
simple. Prior to 1997 developing countries were largely
following the textbook model, borrowing capital from the West
to finance development. This meant running large trade
deficits. This reversed following the crisis as the
conventional view in the developing world was that you needed
massive amounts of reserves to avoid being in the situation
of the East Asian countries and being forced to beg for help
from the I.M.F. This led to the situation where developing
countries, especially those in the region, began running very
large trade surpluses, exporting capital to the United
States. (I am quite sure China noticed how its fellow East
Asian countries were being treated in 1997.)
"... By the standards of the Nuremberg trials, then, the aggressive, unjustified invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 were unquestionably war crimes. A just government would have put Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, and so forth on trial. One might note that the Nuremberg trials, the crime was taken seriously enough to earn condemnation to death by hanging. ..."
Howard Frant 09.29.16 at
4:21 am @ 130:
'… She is somewhat
interventionist
militarily. Of course,
people aren't content
just to say that, they
have to say that she is a
"war criminal" (sorry,
could I have some
specifics on this?)….'
I was giving this a rest,
but since you ask, it is
my duty to comply with
your request.
First, we need to
determine what a war
criminal is. I go by the
standards of the
Nuremberg War Crimes
Trials, in whose
charter
we read
(Article 6):
The following acts,
or any of them, are
crimes coming within
the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal for which
there shall be
individual
responsibility:
(a) CRIMES AGAINST
PEACE: namely,
planning, preparation,
initiation or waging
of a war of
aggression, or a war
in violation of
international
treaties, agreements
or assurances, or
participation in a
common plan or
conspiracy for the
accomplishment of any
of the foregoing….
I think this is a
pretty good definition of
a war crime, although if
you disagree I will be
glad to argue in its
favor.
By the standards
of the Nuremberg trials,
then, the aggressive,
unjustified invasion and
occupation of Iraq in
2003 were unquestionably
war crimes. A just
government would have put
Bush, Cheney, Rice,
Powell, and so forth on
trial. One might note
that the Nuremberg
trials, the crime was
taken seriously enough to
earn condemnation to
death by hanging.
Clinton's connection
to this crime was, of
course, at least her vote
in 2002 to enable it,
which made her an
accomplice. Her
subsequent excuse was
'bad intelligence', but
given her position as a
US senator, her
connections, her powers,
her fame, and her
undoubted wits, it is
almost impossible to
believe that she believed
Bush's pack of lies. It
seems much more likely
that her calculus was as
follows: 'If the war goes
"badly", it'll be on
Bush. If it goes "well",
we Democrats will have
been in on it. Win-win.'
However, one must concede
that if she were brought
to trial, she might be
able to plead monumental
ignorance and
incompetence. Of course
there will be no such
trial, so everyone
confronted by the
question must answer it
for her- or himself with
whatever means may be at
hand. To me the evidence
seems pretty conclusive.
Layman 09.30.16 at 1:20 pm @ 197 -
If the war was a criminal act, then voting
for the war, by making the voter an
accomplice, was also a criminal act.
Believable
ignorance, incompetence, or
other personal defects might mitigate, but
would not exonerate.
I asked about 'going
on with this' because at least one
participant seemed to feel that the
cataloguing of Clinton's flaws had become
superfluous. Some people might regard war
criminality as a flaw, so perhaps we are
offending as we persist.
Layman
09.30.16 at 2:54 pm
Anarcissie: "If the war was a criminal act, then voting for
the war, by making the voter an accomplice, was also a
criminal act."
Look, I personally believe it was wrong to
vote for the authorization, and that it was a political
calculation, but I wonder if you've actually read the
resolution? It is consistent with the claim that some people
make, that they assumed that Bush would act in concert with
the UN, because the resolution says he would act in concert
with themUN. The resolution was passed in October, the Bush
admin went to the UN in November, but failed to get a clear
authorization from the UN for the war.
You brought up Nuremberg. How many people were prosecuted
at Nuremberg for the crime of having voted for the Enabling
Law of 1933, which granted dictatorial powers and led
directly to everything that followed. None, right? Doesn't
that undermine your case?
Layman 09.30.16 at 2:38 am @ 169:
'"Because a proper trial can't be held, people must make up their minds
individually."
Which is another way of saying that it is not a fact, and that you acknowledge
it isn't a fact, and that rather undermines your entire response.'
I
think you are mistaken. If you believe in any sort of objective universe, then
there are facts which are hidden - in fact, given our lack of omniscience, most
of them. Nevertheless we must proceed in the world in some way, so we - some of
us, anyway - try to establish an idea of the facts through the best evidence
available, rational procedures, intuition, and so on. Some people believe that
the question of whether Clinton is a war criminal is important. There is a
reasonable argument in favor of the proposition, which Howard Frant wanted to
know, or pretended to want to know. I have given it.
Do you really want to go on with this? It does not make your favored
candidate look good, and in any case, most of the people reading and writing
here evidently don't really care that much one way or the other.
Hillary supporters, or "the media," had reason to be happy: She looked healthy! She probably could
have kept reciting her snarky little talking points for another hour.
In fact, it was the best I've ever seen Hillary. She avoided that honking thing she does, smiled
a lot - a little too much, actually (maybe ease up on the pep pills next time) - and, as the entire
media has gleefully reported, she managed to "bait" Trump.
... ... ...
Hillary - with assists from the moderator - "baited" Trump on how rich he is, the loan from his
father, a lawsuit in 1972, the birther claims, who he said what to about the Iraq War from 2001 to
2003, and so on.
... ... ...
For the media, their gal was winning whenever precious minutes of a 90-minute debate were
spent rehashing allegations about Trump. Ha ha! We prevented Trump from talking about issues
that matter to the American people! That was scored as a "win."
... in foreign
policy, the modern American president has become a virtual
monarch. He or she can launch military actions without
congressional approval (just ask Presidents Clinton and
Obama), reach agreements with foreign nations, and establish
or rescind diplomatic relations. The Constitution is supposed
to check the power of the president to declare war or to
enter treaties, but presidents have been shedding those
restraints for generations. The president holds the power of
war and peace in his or her hands, and the entire world -
including our enemies - pays attention to the president's
every word and deed.
If you're a geopolitical rival of the United States, Trump
is a delight. He's America's leading Putin apologist, wasting
several agonizing turns in the debate defending Russia from
the charge of meddling in U.S. elections and bizarrely
wondering if a "400-pound" man "sitting on their bed" hacked
Democratic National Committee e-mails. He said he hasn't
"given lots of thought to NATO" and then went ahead and
proved the truth of that statement by fundamentally
misunderstanding the alliance. He treats it as a glorified
protection racket whereby NATO countries allegedly pay us to
defend Europe and they're not paying what they owe. He even
doubled down on his claim - an incredibly bizarre claim given
Russia's military resurgence - that NATO "could be obsolete."
...
Reply
Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 06:49 AM
pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs...
,
Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 07:05 AM
I agree Gary Johnson is not ready to be commander in chief
but he is far more ready than Trump. A low bar.
likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs...
, -1
Why you are reproducing neocon garbage in this blog ?
"He's America's leading Putin apologist"
That's pretty idiotic statement, even taking into account
the abhorrent level of Russophobia of the US elite for whom
Russophobia by-and-large replaced anti-Semitism. .
Anybody who blabber such things (and that includes Ms.
Goldman Sachs) should not be allowed to approach closer then
10 miles to Washington, DC, to say nothing about holding any
elected government position.
"... HRC, the PTB, deep state, neo-lib-cons, still think they can 'win' by using these kinds of blatant domineering tactics. ..."
"... I was surprised, while watching the debate, at how subdued it all was. The subject matter was clearly circumscribed by previous agreement. The public can never escape the scripted product they receive; and another way of saying this, is that the agreed-upon lies, always make up the bulk of the debate. ..."
"... The narrative is sanitized to an important degree, and just shows the effect of suffocating control. Neither person won the debate after all, for the oppressively scripted event was only meant to impress the public with the idea that the race is still a close one. And who, after all, knows what will happen. ..."
"... To anyone awake and questioning the legitimacy of the 'arrangements' made for the election, especially the 'newborn' skeptics who abound at this point, this whole 'show' is just confirmation of their worst fears. ..."
A last point about the debate. They are very scripted, organised, funelled, etc. Much much
more so than the public realises, by the promoters (network), the PTB, etc. Viperous bitter discussions
take place about what can or cannot be mentioned. (I presume as that is the case in other countries
besides the US.) Trump tweeted he 'held back' because he did not want to embarass HRC, but imho
he was muzzled in part by the ''deals' as the show itself illustrated, softball to HRC and interrupting
DT etc. Imho HRC was given the questions beforehand, DT not (but who knows?) and basically everything
was organised beforehand to put him at a disadvantage.
HRC, the PTB, deep state, neo-lib-cons, still think they can 'win' by using these kinds
of blatant domineering tactics. The point has been made by many: all these standard coercitive
controlling moves can now backfire badly, they only serve to show up that the Establishment creeps
use illegit. actions, and in any case Trump supporters won't be moved an inch, he could give out
a recipe for Texas BBQ (as one pol I saw did but for rabbit, see previous posts), or flat out
ask the moderator, well IDK, what do you think? and that would be peachy..
Trump followed the no. 1 rule (campaign for myself not against the other), as he was surely
advised to do. Various excuses, rationalisations are put forward for it: he wanted to appeal to
the conventional Repub base, appear as a legit candidate to ppl who had never seen him 'live'
before, he is holding back for the next debates, etc. Still, his performance was not tops, in
the sense of a maverick breaking the mold, he fell down, was a disapointment. He was shown up
to be low man on the pole, constrained by negotiations which he could not dominate, rules which
he could not transgress. Of course many DT supporters and possible new ones perceived the manipulations
quite clearly, and were thus on his side, so a mixed bag. (It's all optics so i wrote nothing
about the real issues.)
I was surprised, while watching the debate, at how subdued it all was. The subject matter
was clearly circumscribed by previous agreement. The public can never escape the scripted product
they receive; and another way of saying this, is that the agreed-upon lies, always make up the
bulk of the debate.
The narrative is sanitized to an important degree, and just shows the effect of suffocating
control. Neither person won the debate after all, for the oppressively scripted event was only
meant to impress the public with the idea that the race is still a close one. And who, after all,
knows what will happen.
While inside the debate moderator Lester Holt failed to ask questions about joblessness, medical
care, student loans, police murder or mass incarceration, New York police outside the debate
showed the world how to suppress free speech with a soft hand, diverting more than two thousand
protesters into "free speech zones" long lines and checkpoints and spaces artfully designed
to prevent groups from concentrating in one place or finding each other.
If the Green Party's Jill Stein had been allowed in this week's presidential debate, it would
have transformed the discussion and altered the race. That's why Democrats and Republicans
kept it a duopoly-only affair. "The only circumstances in which either Trump or Clinton can
muster a minimally compelling argument, is against each other."
To anyone awake and questioning the legitimacy of the 'arrangements' made for the election,
especially the 'newborn' skeptics who abound at this point, this whole 'show' is just confirmation
of their worst fears.
The Powers That Are can't do anything right any longer. Everything they do is
wrong, and is immediately apparent as wrong, on the big screen and booming through the big megaphone.
They'd do better just to lay off but, like all the extras brought on to push Xmas after Thanksgiving,
there are just too many of them wound-up and let loose, stepping and slipping from one pile of
dog-doo to another, as they tear down the streets of NYC and Hollywood.
I think there's a very good chance that this is the year the extravaganza implodes.
"... Both were highly disciplined, one being a billionaire who has made it mostly on his own and the other having survived in public life for at least 45 years with no jail time. ..."
"... Hillary's response was that Donald had used bad language in public, lacked the proper "temperament" to be president, and favored the rich whom she would hit with higher taxes to pay for her giveaways. That last line about the rich is a bit much given the fact that Hillary is the creature of Wall Street, Hollywood, and large donations. Whereas Donald relies on mostly modest donations. ..."
After Hillary's coughing spells, after her wobbly display at the Sept. 11 ceremony in New York
City (she almost fell face forward on the running board of her van), after her admission to pneumonia
and all the rumors that admission gave rise to, you had expected something highly dramatic. Perhaps
the cough would return. Perhaps she might pass out under
Donald Trump 's
relentless barbs, possibly to be wheeled out on a gurney. Or perhaps you thought
Donald might explode
or go into a wild rant. Well, it did not happen. Both debaters pretty much played to form. Both
were highly disciplined, one being a billionaire who has made it mostly on his own and the other
having survived in public life for at least 45 years with no jail time.
... Donald had
things under control. As he has done for weeks he was talking directly to the American public through
the awkward stage prop of Hillary. He would start up the economy from its measly growth rate of barely
2 percent. He would get Americans working again. He would tear up trade agreements that favor crony
capitalists and foreign governments. He would prevent companies from leaving America unscathed. Hillary
had been a part of this system for decades. She was a standpatter and defender of the status quo.
She had revealed bad judgment.
Hillary's response was that
Donald had used
bad language in public, lacked the proper "temperament" to be president, and favored the rich whom
she would hit with higher taxes to pay for her giveaways. That last line about the rich is a bit
much given the fact that Hillary is the creature of Wall Street, Hollywood, and large donations.
Whereas Donald
relies on mostly modest donations. Oh, yes, and her needling him on his "temperament" - who
was the last presidential candidate to be attacked for his temperament? Does the name Ronald Reagan
come to mind?
... ... ...
Perhaps Hillary did not notice it because
Donald talks like
an ordinary American rather than a standard-issue politician, but he was talking to America and she
was talking to official Washington. Official Washington claimed he "missed opportunities." He could
have done more with the Wall, Obamacare in free-fall, immigration and immigrant criminals, terrorism
and Benghazi. He should have done more with her errant emails, the Clinton Foundation, her mishandling
of classified documents. He could have cited her lies to Congress, the FBI and how FBI Director James
Comey has contradicted her on her lies.
"... He said he wasn't aware one of Mrs. Clinton 's tech staffers called the deletion of her emails a "coverup operation," but said none of the other information made public about grants of immunity or efforts to delete the messages has changed his mind. ..."
"... Mr. Comey also said he couldn't remember another instance where the subject of an investigation - Mrs. Clinton 's former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, sat in on the FBI 's interview with another subject, in this case Mrs. Clinton . ..."
He said he wasn't aware one of
Mrs. Clinton
's tech staffers called the deletion of her emails a "coverup operation," but said none of the other
information made public about grants of immunity or efforts to delete the messages has changed his
mind.
Mr. Comey also
said he couldn't remember another instance where the subject of an investigation -
Mrs. Clinton
's former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, sat in on the
FBI 's interview with another subject, in this case
Mrs. Clinton
.
"... The neoliberalist denial that anything was wrong with their economic model before or after 2008 could well create the perfect storm for chaos with either result ..."
"... Trump was Trump, Hillary was Hillary, but the real Trump is a New York blowhard 'type' most Americans are very familiar with, a bit annoyed by, but definitely not 'scared' of. That's a very tough sale Hillary the mainstream media has for itself. On the other hand Hillary was Hillary. Same old same old Washington insider politician yada yada that most people are tired of, especially in these endless hard economic times. 'Cancel that show' is the natural reaction, as Demian says. ..."
"... Who's Scarier: This has to be Clinton. Of course we know both will be obedient to the deep state, the militarist and financial elites, Israel, and so on. But look at the difference between Obama and Clinton. Obama sensibly held back from full on rape of Syria, he's been non-belligerent toward Iran. ..."
"... So there are different grades of Neocon. Clinton would be the full on "we lied, we lied, he died" sort. My guess is that Trump, a know-nothing feeling his way, would be a less confident neocon and therefore more cautious, if not much more cautious, and would continue forward with the 'normal relations with Russia' concept he has made a big deal of. ..."
...The colluding media-commercial-complex getting properly rogered by one of
the monsters it gave birth to. Poetic really.
The neoliberalist denial
that anything was wrong with their economic model before or after 2008 could
well create the perfect storm for chaos with either result
.
The main emotion of any sane and well-informed leftist is disgust after watching 45
minutes of the debatoid, and that's how I felt.
Horserace Talk:
Demian's point at 49 is excellent: "But Trump did not come across as beyond the pale
in this debate. Thus, he took away the narrative that the public needs to believe in
order not to do what it would usually do – vote out the incumbent party when it is
unhappy with the status quo."
Trump was Trump, Hillary was Hillary, but the real Trump is a New York blowhard
'type' most Americans are very familiar with, a bit annoyed by, but definitely not
'scared' of. That's a very tough sale Hillary the mainstream media has for itself. On
the other hand Hillary was Hillary. Same old same old Washington insider politician yada
yada that most people are tired of, especially in these endless hard economic times.
'Cancel that show' is the natural reaction, as Demian says.
Who's Scarier: This has to be Clinton. Of course we know both will be obedient to
the deep state, the militarist and financial elites, Israel, and so on. But look at the
difference between Obama and Clinton. Obama sensibly held back from full on rape of
Syria, he's been non-belligerent toward Iran.
So there are different grades of Neocon. Clinton would be the full on "we lied,
we lied, he died" sort. My guess is that Trump, a know-nothing feeling his way, would be
a less confident neocon and therefore more cautious, if not much more cautious, and
would continue forward with the 'normal relations with Russia' concept he has made a big
deal of.
But hey, his 'cut the taxes for the rich' insanity is a pretty horrible deform from
an already horrible status quo. Anyway, vote for Jill as a protest is my half-hearted
advice. It's depressing and disgusting and we are helplessly watching it roll on.
/div>
nothing will change | Sep 28, 2016 1:27:22 AM |
83
The Hell Bitch was nothing more than an edition of the Enquirer, bringing up long ago
attacks on Trump, that have absolutely nothing to do with policy or Americas future.
And her face was just too made up,with her false eyelashes fluttering behind a wall of
pancake makeup,her eyes glittering with some demonic presence,as she lashed out like a
furriner extolling all immigrants,weirdos and fat foreign beauty queens and not
appealing one iota to US deplorables.
And yeah,both genuflected to Israel,but is there a more powerful influential force in
America than the dual citizen traitors?A sad and terrible fact,but they own every media
outlet,witnessed by the fact there is not one MSM outlet pro Trump,a never before
scenario in our history.
And of course world leaders don't like Trump,as he will cut off the spigots and make
them pay for their own defense,instead of US.
But only those prejudiced rufus and America haters fail to note that.
Forgive me if this is a repeat, but it wouldn't hurt if so, since so rarely does a third
candidate get mentioned. Amy Goodman did the American public a great service by
publishing the transcript of the debate, with Jill Stein's answers (had she been
permitted to attend) within the transcript - you really, really all should read this:
So Hitlary is apparently alive and not in jail contrary to previous rumors.
Lame-scream media announced her win in the debate as 1-0 - does it mean the
establishment is not behind Trump, who received some strange endorsements recently from
former enemies like Ted Cruz?
What I consider interesting is that being that far in the game still any options seem
to be opened:
1) Killary wins (trough rigged votes or claim of Russian hacking in favor of Trump)
2) Trump wins
3) Congress appoints the president because of tie in the electoral votes
4) Obama continues his presidency because of some "emergency": "Russian hackers"
attacking the election systems, false flag massacre in the US, ME, Ukraine, "natural"
disaster (is the constitution still suspended after 9/11 and COG in play? NDAA?)
5) Bernie Sanders joins the race as an independent because of new grave evidence
against Hitlary
6) Hitlary withdraws "because of her sudden health problems" - Demockrats appoint
Biden, Pence, Michelle Obama, ...?
7) Military organizes a coup against Obama
8) Security apparatus organizes a coup against Hitlary after her election
9) Deep state organizes a coup against Trump after his election (remember "business
plot" against FDR headed by Prescott Bush and defused by general Butler?)
10) Third party wins because Trump and Clinton become unelectable
Anyway many signals indicate that we are to see an "October Surprise" for sure.
It seems that the plan is the keep people guessing until the very end.
Trump did great for a guy who has never run for political office before – and didn't
cram for the debate. Hillary has debated at the presidential level so many times she
could probably do it half of it in her sleep. If I go into the ring with heavyweight
boxing champion Tyson Fury and manage to survive a round with all but one of my
teeth, it's fair to say that I won. …
Maybe the herd is right. Maybe it's a simple matter of she did better, he did
worse. But I keep thinking, debates are graded on a curve. She was supposed to kick
his ass. Yet there he is, dead even in the polls with her.
Well, "We The People" still have some time before the election to get the
psycho-ops weapons we do not have – mental masturbators on behalf of our
"populist" issues…
From Robert Reich:
THE NEW COMMON GROUND BETWEEN POPULIST LEFT AND RIGHT
The old debate goes something like this:
'You don't believe women have reproductive rights."
"You don't value human life."
Or this:
"You think everyone should own a gun."
"You think we're safer if only criminals have them."
Or this:
"You don't care about poor people."
"You think they're better off with handouts."
Or this:
"You want to cut taxes on the rich."
"You want to tax everyone to death."
But we're seeing the emergence of a new debate where the populist left
and right are on the same side:
Both are against the rich to spend as much as they want corrupting our
democracy.
Both are against crony capitalism.
Both are against corporate welfare.
Both are against another Wall Street bailout.
Both want to stop subsidizing Big Agriculture, Big Oil, and the
pharmaceutical industry.
Both want to close the tax loophole for hedge fund partners.
Both want to ban inside trading on Wall Street.
Both want to stop CEOs from pumping up share prices with stock buy-backs
… and then cashing in their stock options.
Both want to stop tax deductions of CEO pay over $1 million.
Both want to get big money out of politics, reverse Citizens United, and
restore our democracy,
If we join together, we can make these things happen.
Lots of words in your response, but I don't see where you
identified the model candidate who meets your high standards. You just told
us that HRC doesn't, which we already knew. Does no one meet your standards,
or is there a reason you won't say who?
Re "lesser of two evils"–if you don't like Trump or HRC, the election
boils down to three choices:
– you vote for the greater evil
– you vote for someone who can't win, or you stay home, which is effectively
a half vote for the greater evil
– you vote for the lesser evil
Not choosing is essentially half-ass choosing the greater evil.
–
skunk
|
August 28, 2016 at 10:24 am
|
Pub, I don't think she has eight years left in her, she's about to croak on
stage, limiting her ability to forget what happened yesterday so she or
(another democrat) can carry the democratic mantra tomorrow. She has passed
out, fallen, tripped like a Ford just not going down hill yet, had her
intestines ripped out because of bad behavior, and this is just in public.
Imagine how many blunders have occurred with her in private. She is a
disaster just waiting to happen, a Nixon at a Kennedy debate. She hasn't
held a press conference in almost 3/4 of a year, is trying to ride to the
rescue of her own created problems under the guise of the Clinton
foundation. 8 years, I want to see her survive the next eight weeks.
Plus there is nothing left to choose from except 100% pure unadulterated,
political evil.
Now, who's your ideal politician? We'll loosen the requirements. You can
choose from life or literature. :-)
skunk
|
August 28, 2016 at 11:56 am
|
I don't think so, I know her and Bill too well. She even got mad when I was
going to send somebody over there to have Bill take the drug test. Like we
really need politicians who are beholden to their drug dealers.
As for ideal politician, I can't say we have ever had one beyond the
founders, and life so is different today that the comparison is moot.
Buddy Haley was on the right track, but since the wrong track is the
majority it just goes to show how doomed politics really is.
This country
got outsmarted by the Germans and had to retaliate by out gunning them and
never recognizing their grievances. Now that the tables have turned and we
are the guilty ones, we turn to denial and war as the end of all solutions.
Their is no political solution, hence the beating of the dead horse as it
gets pitch black outside. And it's hard to fight the reaper coming up behind
you with his surprise execution when you can no longer see where you are
going.
skunk
|
August 28, 2016 at 1:23 pm
|
Haven't looked into it that closely. I first thought that the three 2 term
succession administrations since the founding of the country was the greater
consideration of the end of all, now that i've been proved wrong, I aint so
sure what's goin on next.
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 28, 2016 at 6:26 pm
|
Pub,
So, if only 25% of the eligible voters participate, as opposed to the usual
40something%, you believe that the additional non-voters are saying little
or nothing?
"Not choosing is essentially half-ass choosing the greater evil".
But
doesn't choosing the lesser of two evils simply perpetuate evil? Saying
something like "yea, we know this is not really a democracy, the political
parties do of course decide who we vote for, but ah shucks, it is fun to
pretend, and yea, the system is obviously corrupt but my candidate promises
that he/she will change that. And just because he/she takes money from bad
people doesn't mean he/she'll do just like every other politician has done,
always, my candidate will be different. To heck with Einstein's theory of
insanity."
So is it not conceivable that the lessor of two evil votes "is
essentially half-ass choosing" to be duped over and over again? While a
non-vote might say enough is enough?
Anyway, you seem to represent living proof that the conditioning in
regards to what a non-vote truly means is working quite well. The following
being a solid example of that conditioning:
"three choices:
– you vote for the greater evil
– you vote for someone who can't win, or you stay home, which is effectively
a half vote for the greater evil
– you vote for the lesser evil"
But what if nobody voted other than a small number of political zombies,
and of course the establishment?
"Anyway, you seem to represent living proof that the conditioning in
regards to what a non-vote truly means is working quite well. The following
being a solid example of that conditioning"
You know how self-righteous and condescending this is, right? And from
what I've seen of your logic and the evidence you muster to support you're
opinion, I see little reason for such arrogance other than possibly
insecurity.
If you can't name a single political leader from anywhere in time or
space that meets your standards of righteousness, that says a lot. And I
suspect I know what it says. You don't want to show your true colors, or you
feel you can't back up your choice.
Which is it?
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 28, 2016 at 8:44 pm
|
Wow, pub, you are even more of a zombie than I thought. I write ten times as
many words on this board as you do, teeming with contentions that you could
challenge, but you ignore nearly all of those opportunities to defend your
champion of less evil only to keep coming back with some lame nonsense about
who I might support.
And by "condescending" do you mean like this:"Lots of words in your
response, but I don't see where you identified the model candidate who meets
your high standards".
But of course telling me what we 'should' be talking about after suggesting
that my "words" are not worthy of any effort on your part, is not just
condescending but rudely so and evasive. As if the topic here is what you
say it is, not HRC's questionable behavior, but instead this all important
quest of yours to discover my "single political leader from anywhere in time
or space". As if such folly matters in the actual time and space that we can
do something about.
And questioning my "true colors" as if suggest that I'm trolling or
whatever. Should I now expect the name-calling and context tweaking to
follow? Or must the moaning and chanting simply go on until election day.
who is your dreammm can-di-da-te?", lessor of two evils, do you have an
ideal can-di-date? you only have 3 choices, ya 'know. lessor of two evils.
lessor of two evils. All leaders have flaws. not voting as I do is half-ass.
wanna talk about the best candidate taken from all of history. lessor of two
evils. don't be half-ass. lessor of two evils. I like standing in line, do
you?
But then too there is the big tell of big tells:
"And from what I've seen of your logic and the evidence you muster to
support you're opinion, I see little reason for such arrogance other than
possibly insecurity".
Do have any notion of how hypocritical and low-integrity it is to not
provide 'any' support for such a claim? What logic! What evidence! What
reason do you 'actually' see? Where be the 'why'? Did you flunk English all
through school?
I've written enough on this board that even the laziest blogger at the
worst site could of found at least some sort of an example, or shred of
evidence, to back up at least something. Crap like your comment just says
"hey look, I don't know the first rule of sound analysis, or good writing in
general, but I've analyzed you using low standards and I don't like you
because you don't agree with me and that makes you insecure". Wow again.
BRUCE E. WOYCH
|
August 29, 2016 at 1:46 pm
|
Closer to Homebase: "WHO CARES?"
Department of Homeland Security Has Surprise for Bernie Supporters at DNC
Lawsuit Hearing
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: August 29, 2016
There are political issues not being covered by mainstream media
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/08/department-of-homeland-security-has-surprise-for-bernie-supporters-at-dnc-lawsuit-hearing/
…that
have more to do with election questions concerning the DNC and its efforts
to evade accountability for its conduct, along with certain too close for
comfort insider support to keep things confused:
(QUOTED)
The lawsuit against the DNC is Wilding et al v DNC Services Corporation and
Deborah 'Debbie' Wasserman Schultz. The case is being heard in the Federal
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. (Case Number
16-cv-61511-WJZ.) The Sanders supporters are being represented in the
lawsuit by the following law firms: Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers of Miami;
Cullin O'Brien Law, P.A. of Fort Lauderdale, Florida; and Antonino G.
Hernandez P.A. of Miami.
(QUOTED):
"the first hearing on August 23 in the Federal lawsuit that has been filed
by Senator Bernie Sanders' supporters against the Democratic National
Committee and its former Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The lawsuit, which
currently has more than 100 plaintiffs and more than a thousand in the wings
with retainer agreements, is charging the DNC with fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, deceptive conduct, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary
duty, and negligence."
MAINSTREAM MEDIA FAILED TO COVER IT.
Regardless of the voting; the exposure of corrupting political practice must
be considered equal to the election voting itself.
thoughtful person
|
August 29, 2016 at 9:27 pm
|
"Some progressives seem to prefer purity over progress. This puts a
millstone around the necks of pragmatic progressives, like HRC, who are
warriors and make the compromises necessary to gain and then exercise power
for progressive ends"
Bob Snodgrass
|
September 1, 2016 at 1:19 pm
|
Wow, I found your article OK although too much in the all pure or all evil
genre. We can't deal with this kind of problem in isolation from the rest of
our culture and government, any more than we can impose a nationally funded
Medicare for all without changing our NASCAR, celebrity/millionaire
worshipping, racialist- tribalist (not the same as racist which has lost
most of its meaning, closer to Barry Goldwater's viewpoint) controlling
central core. That's a tall order, not even Bernie has the answer although
reducing financialization & imposing a security transaction tax would be a
start. If we somehow snuck in Medicare for all or an improved and expanded
Obamacare, the controlling central core which includes the Koch brothers,
would ensure that it failed because of their stranglehold on Washington and
federal + state budgets.
Turing to the comments, there are many that make
me cringe. This is a harmful side of the Internet, reading comments makes me
feel that Armageddon is nigh. It is not in reality.
"... Reuters reports that an investigation conducted by it in 2013 found that around three-fourths of the 50 biggest U.S. technology companies use practices that are similar to Apple's to avoid paying tax. So Verstager has taken on not just one giant, but the worlds corporate elite. She should not lose. But even if she does this time, this is a battle well begun. ..."
"... Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and from the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic conditions ..."
"... Those who support globalisation support this power disparity. ..."
The case of Apple's Irish operations is an extreme example of such tax avoidance accounting. It relates
to two Apple subsidiaries Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe. Apple Inc US has
given the rights to Apple Sales International (ASI) to use its "intellectual property" to sell and
manufacture its products outside of North and South America, in return for which Apple Inc of the
US receives payments of more than $2 billion per year. The consequence of this arrangement is that
any Apple product sold outside the Americas is implicitly first bought by ASI, Ireland from different
manufacturers across the globe and sold along with the intellectual property to buyers everywhere
except the Americas. So all such sales are by ASI and all profits from those sales are recorded in
Ireland. Stage one is complete: incomes earned from sales in different jurisdictions outside the
Americas (including India) accrue in Ireland, where tax laws are investor-friendly. What is important
here that this was not a straight forward case of exercising the "transfer pricing" weapon. The profits
recorded in Ireland were large because the payment made to Apple Inc in the US for the right to use
intellectual property was a fraction of the net earnings of ASI.
Does this imply that Apple would
pay taxes on these profits in Ireland, however high or low the rate may be? The Commission found
it did not. In two rather curious rulings first made in 1991 and then reiterated in 2007 the Irish
tax authority allowed ASI to split it profits into two parts: one accruing to the Irish branch of
Apple and another to its "head office". That "head office" existed purely on paper, with no formal
location, actual offices, employees or activities. Interestingly, this made-of-nothing head office
got a lion's share of the profits that accrued to ASI, with only a small fraction going to the Irish
branch office. According to Verstager's Statement: "In 2011, Apple Sales International made profits
of 16 billion euros. Less than 50 million euros were allocated to the Irish branch. All the rest
was allocated to the 'head office', where they remained untaxed." As a result, across time, Apple
paid very little by way of taxes to the Irish government. The effective tax rate on its aggregate
profits was short of 1 per cent. The Commissioner saw this as illegal under the European Commission's
"state aid rules", and as amounting to aid that harms competition, since it diverts investment away
from other members who are unwilling to offer such special deals to companies.
In the books, however, taxes due on the "head office" profits of Apple are reportedly treated
as including a component of deferred taxes. The claim is that these profits will finally have to
be repatriated to the US parent, where they would be taxed as per US tax law. But it is well known
that US transnationals hold large volumes of surplus funds abroad to avoid US taxation and the evidence
is they take very little of it back to the home country. In fact, using the plea that it has "permanent
establishment" in Ireland and, therefore, is liable to be taxed there, and benefiting from the special
deal the Irish government has offered it, Apple has accumulated large surpluses. A study by two non-profit
groups published in 2015 has argued that Apple is holding as much as $181 billion of accumulated
profits outside the US, a record among US companies. Moreover, The Washington Post reports that Apple's
Chief Executive Tim Cook told its columnist Jena McGregor, "that the company won't bring its international
cash stockpile back to the United States to invest here until there's a 'fair rate' for corporate
taxation in America."
This has created a peculiar situation where the US is expressing concern about the EC decision
not because it disputes the conclusion about tax avoidance, but because it sees the tax revenues
as due to it rather than to Ireland or any other EU country. US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew criticised
the ruling saying, "I have been concerned that it reflected an attempt to reach into the U.S. tax
base to tax income that ought to be taxed in the United States." In Europe on the other hand, the
French Finance Minister and the German Economy Minister, among others, have come out in support of
Verstager, recognizing the implication this has for their own tax revenues. Governments other than
in Ireland are not with Apple, even if not always for reasons advanced by the EC.
... ... ...
Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and from
the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate
countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic
conditions. The costs of garnering that difference are, therefore, often missed. Reuters
reports that an investigation conducted by it in 2013 found that around three-fourths of the 50
biggest U.S. technology companies use practices that are similar to Apple's to avoid paying tax.
So Verstager has taken on not just one giant, but the worlds corporate elite. She should not
lose. But even if she does this time, this is a battle well begun.
I think the common misconception that multinational corporations exist because "they are big
companies that happen to operate in more than one country" is one of the biggest lies ever told.
From the beginning (e.g. Standard Oil, United Fruit) it was clear that multinational status
was an exercise in political arbitrage.
" Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and
from the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate
countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic conditions
"
Those who support globalisation support this power disparity.
"... I'd actually say that endorsing Hillary very much reflects conservative ideals and Republican (party) principles. Kudos to them on maintaining their streak. ..."
> "Since The Arizona Republic began publication in
1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican
for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical
appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican
principles"
I'd actually say that endorsing Hillary very much
reflects conservative ideals and Republican (party)
principles. Kudos to them on maintaining their streak.
"... I think one reason Sanders was respected by some of these people, even when his views were radically opposed to theirs, was because this theme of fairness resonated with them, they sensed he was operating on a similar principle, even if disagreeing on the content. ..."
"... I actually find it easier to imagine why someone listening to the debate might place forlorn hope in Trump than to conjure up the people who could listen to Clinton's platitudes and not recall any of the history. Corey Robin is right that Trump is a standard Republican in everything but style, but there was also a break between the Republican electorate and the Republican establishment that put Trump on that stage, and Clinton has embraced the Republican establishment. ..."
"... In Labour Party politics, the insistence of the PLP on Tory-lite policy stances seems, from my great distance, farcical. The Clinton embrace of the Republican establishment drains the last drop of populism from the Democrats even while Late Trump proves how ill-suited the Republicans are to populist appeal despite years of petty demagoguery. ..."
"... I think Trump differs very substantially from the standard Republican politician. Sure he mostly channels the same meme's, but he is willing to consume some sacred ideological cows at the same time. ..."
"... Given that Trump loudly opposes trade deals, it is difficult to say that he on economics is a typical Republican. People vote for Trump because they think the system is rigged against them, and Hilary Clinton is running as the candidate of the status quo. They will see Hilary's resemblance to past candidates as a reminder of what they have gotten from the past 40 years of government policy. ..."
"... Clinton is socially embedded but apparently unaware of the deficiencies of elite performance. This makes her a favorite of the new class, but also makes it very difficult to rally broad popular support or avoid policy disaster. ..."
"... She wants George W Bush's vote. No joke. Why so many on the left are clueless about this and what it implies about policy is left as an exercise. ..."
"... Sure, he supported the Iraq War, but at least he lies about it. And Hillary (with Lester Holt's help) successfully maneuvered around her own vulnerability on that score. She doesn't need to be invoking GW Bush. ..."
"... aside from the Iran agreement, HRC has pretty much carried the neocons water. ..."
"... in the primaries, Trump seriously trashed Bush's most excellent Mesopotamian adventure. Hillary can't do that without creating blowback from her vote for the war. ..."
"... She may well believe that, but if so it's self-deception. She'll get nothing from Republicans in Congress, who will treat her as even more illegitimate than Obama. ..."
"... No way the median Republican member of Congress will open up to a primary challenge just because Clinton is playing nice with the Bushes. ..."
"... Only of the many unhelpful aspects of the HRC presidency will be that since her reachout to Republicans turns off base Dems, she is likely to face a Repub House and Senate, who will be at least as obstructive to her as they have been to Obama. That leaves her room to abandon all the half-hearted dog treats she threw to the Bernie supporters as "now impossible", and plenty of room to get "bipartisan" on passing the TPP and cutting SS. ..."
"... And it won't impede her military desires to enlarge the empire one iota. ..."
"... The comments here strike me as very sensible and sober. Given that the CT community shares little with a great swath of the electorate and in fact share HRC's view that they are both deplorable and irredeemable, its probably sound reasoning to deduce that if people here thought HRC won, a great many 'others' believe the opposite. ..."
"... Hillary succeeded in the first debate because she didn't fall over, cough a lot, and looked alive in that bright, red dress. That isn't enough to convince voters that she's not the candidate of the past. ..."
"... We begin from the assumption that Clinton is standard-bearer of "neoliberalism," and then interpret everything she does as evidence of that. ..."
"... the Democratic Party was once the party of the working class and old-style liberalism, but, starting with Bill Clinton, they abandoned this, and now they have lost the loyalty of the working class. In actuality, the last old-style liberal in the Democratic Party was Mondale, and he lost the popular vote by eighteen percentage points, more than anyone since. ..."
"... In foreign policy, we need a new term that we can drain of all meaning, and so Clinton becomes a "neoconservative," virtually indistinguishable from Charles Krauthammer, and eager to rain down destruction on the rest of the world. ..."
"... A no-fly zone? Those neocons will stop at nothing! ..."
Against a background anxiety surrounding a
sense that things are not working. The old ideologies are not working, every
thing has to change and we hate much of the change we do see creeping up. The
conservative party serves up a wrecking ball. The reform party serves up the
status quo warmed over. ("Intelligent surge") We fear change. We fear the
continuation of the status quo and the degeneration the status quo promises to
continue.
Yan
09.27.16 at 5:46 pm
"On the other hand, there's a not so small current in American politics that
would hear that, that Trump didn't pay his taxes, and think, with him, that he
was indeed smart for having outsmarted the system. …This is a nation of conmen
(and women)…"
I think this is right but misleading, since the voters who
probably liked that comment don't see themselves as conmen out for a quick
buck, but as victims gaming a rigged system. They think taxes are an injustice,
and that they're John Dillinger fighting for their rightful earnings against
the thieving IRS.
This is generally important for understanding Trump voters: for all their
quirks, at bottom they are, like most Americans, very strongly motivated by a
skewed notion of fairness: they think others are cutting in line, getting a
handout, getting special rights and favors.
I think one reason Sanders was respected by some of these people, even
when his views were radically opposed to theirs, was because this theme of
fairness resonated with them, they sensed he was operating on a similar
principle, even if disagreeing on the content.
bruce wilder
09.27.16 at 6:20 pm
Watching British Labour Party politics from afar is like seeing Democratic
Party politics in a fun house mirror. One thing that is writ in primary colors
and big block letters in the Labour Party struggle is the tension between the
new class and everyone else seeking protection from the globalizing plutocracy
and whose only ideological models are anachronisms.
I actually find it
easier to imagine why someone listening to the debate might place forlorn hope
in Trump than to conjure up the people who could listen to Clinton's platitudes
and not recall any of the history. Corey Robin is right that Trump is a
standard Republican in everything but style, but there was also a break between
the Republican electorate and the Republican establishment that put Trump on
that stage, and Clinton has embraced the Republican establishment.
In Labour Party politics, the insistence of the PLP on Tory-lite policy
stances seems, from my great distance, farcical. The Clinton embrace of the
Republican establishment drains the last drop of populism from the Democrats
even while Late Trump proves how ill-suited the Republicans are to populist
appeal despite years of petty demagoguery.
I think Trumps policies frequently look like a generic Republicans because he
didn't enter this election as a serious candidate, and now that he's the actual
nominee he's been scrambling to come up with any policies at all. So he's
copying from the party that nominated him.
His campaign has always been very ad hoc. Look at his "make Mexico pay for
the wall" thing. He clearly just threw that out there as bluster, then when it
went viral cobbled together a pseudo plan to make it sound plausible.
His line on taxes was perfect, unfortunately. On taxes, for a lot of people
the question is whether he behaved legally. If you can legally not pay taxes
but you do anyway, you're a chump. Can anyone who does their own taxes honestly
say that they've chosen to NOT take an exemption or deduction for which they
were qualified? I can't.
The people who feel this way may wish it wasn't legal for Trump to do this.
But as far as condemning him for it assuming it WAS legal… maybe they can drum
up some generic resentment of the rich, or tell themselves that he probably
broke the law somewhere, somehow, but that's about it. They're not going to
adopt a principled belief that he should pay taxes he doesn't have to pay. And
if Democrats push on this there's no shortage of "rich democrat does lawful but
resentment inducing rich-guy thing" stories that can be used as a smokescreen.
Now… are Trumps taxes actually on the level? Probably not. I suppose the IRS
will tell us eventually, after the election. It's not like Trump will release
them in the meantime.
Other than that Hillary Clinton won but it won't matter because
conservatives live in a creepy little bubble where HRC is a shadowy murderess
who assassinates her rivals and must be kept from the throne at all costs.
Omega Centauri
09.27.16 at 6:28 pm
I think Trump differs very substantially from the standard Republican
politician. Sure he mostly channels the same meme's, but he is willing to
consume some sacred ideological cows at the same time.
Just recently he
said he'd allow over the counter contraception. He tried to Savage war hero
John McCain because he'd been captured. He hasn't just thrown away the dog
whistle, he is willing to jetison any part of the ideology he finds
inconvenient.
Watson Ladd
09.27.16 at 6:51 pm
Given that Trump loudly opposes trade deals, it is difficult to say that he
on economics is a typical Republican. People vote for Trump because they think
the system is rigged against them, and Hilary Clinton is running as the
candidate of the status quo. They will see Hilary's resemblance to past
candidates as a reminder of what they have gotten from the past 40 years of
government policy.
bruce wilder
09.27.16 at 7:06 pm
Omega Centauri @ 21
Listening to Trump has a way of casting his audience into
the same position as the dogs in a Gary Larson
Far Side
cartoon, where
the dogs only hear a few words they are hungry to hear.
Clinton's patter seems more conventionally structured, but its highlights
are righteous self-regard, well past its sell-by date.
There is no coherence (beyond class interest) to Trump. He is a socially
isolated Billionaire who is lazy, inattentive, arrogant . . . but put him in
front of an audience and he will talk randomly until he finds a laugh or
applause.
Clinton is socially embedded but apparently unaware of the deficiencies
of elite performance. This makes her a favorite of the new class, but also
makes it very difficult to rally broad popular support or avoid policy
disaster.
She will win the election, but after that . . . things are unlikely to go
well.
People make the observation that both have high negatives. But, beneath
those high negatives, each has pursued coalition-building strategies almost
guaranteed to narrow their respective bases of support below a majority
threshold.
Why isn't Clinton saying "Trump is a more reckless, less coherent George W.
Bush"
She wants George W Bush's vote. No joke. Why so many on the
left are clueless about this and what it implies about policy is left as an
exercise.
politicalfootball
09.27.16 at 7:46 pm
I wouldn't read too much into HRCs apparent decision not to tar Trump with
Bush.
That's a charge that simply wouldn't stick. Trump has quite
persuasively separated himself from the Bushes - and vice versa.
Sure, he supported the Iraq War, but at least he lies about it. And
Hillary (with Lester Holt's help) successfully maneuvered around her own
vulnerability on that score. She doesn't need to be invoking GW Bush.
I would be curious for Bruce to explain anything that Hillary has actually
done
to get Bush's vote. Seems to me she continues to run to the left.
Omega Centauri
09.27.16 at 8:33 pm
I'm not Bruce, but
aside from the Iran agreement, HRC has pretty much
carried the neocons water.
But, I think its mainly that the Bushes see
Trump as crazy beyond the pale, and Clinton as a somewhat steady hand. Also
in the primaries, Trump seriously trashed Bush's most excellent Mesopotamian
adventure. Hillary can't do that without creating blowback from her vote for
the war.
JimV
09.27.16 at 8:56 pm
I agree with Bruce Wilder than HRC doesn't want to offend Republicans
unnecessarily. He seems to see it as a character flaw, and maybe it is, but it
could be simply that she can get more done in office if she doesn't make a lot
of bitter Republican enemies. And I think it is the polite way to behave even
with those with whom you disagree, but I won't lobby for that motive here.
If
Trump avoided taxes legally and that is a smart, enviable thing to do, why
doesn't he release his tax information to show how smart he was? Why is he
really hiding the information? Inquiring campaign adds will want to know, if
people can't figure that out for themselves.
Ideology: I like the ideology that climate science is not a hoax, that
universal health insurance is a good thing with more work needed on it, and
some other parts of HRC's agenda that do not seem to be the current ideology
(in power).
"Smart surge": that was another palpable hit by Bruce Wilder (along with
"no-fly zone in Syria"). Ouch. (I'm not being sarcastic, if it is difficult to
tell.) I'm going to write her a letter opposing that. She's sent me a couple
letters, so I should have her return address. I think I haven't recycled the
last one yet.
Layman
09.27.16 at 9:25 pm
"…it could be simply that she can get more done in office if she doesn't make a
lot of bitter Republican enemies."
She may well believe that, but if so
it's self-deception. She'll get nothing from Republicans in Congress, who will
treat her as even more illegitimate than Obama.
There's no obvious
incentive for them to do anything else, and the base think she's a murderer and
traitor.
No way the median Republican member of Congress will open up to a
primary challenge just because Clinton is playing nice with the Bushes.
marku52
09.27.16 at 9:46 pm
Only of the many unhelpful aspects of the HRC presidency will be that since
her reachout to Republicans turns off base Dems, she is likely to face a Repub
House and Senate, who will be at least as obstructive to her as they have been
to Obama. That leaves her room to abandon all the half-hearted dog treats she
threw to the Bernie supporters as "now impossible", and plenty of room to get
"bipartisan" on passing the TPP and cutting SS.
And it won't impede
her military desires to enlarge the empire one iota.
A Trump presidency would be hated by all parties to the duo-gopoly, and
would be stymied at everything.
The point about not paying tax is on point, I think. I wrote something yonks
ago about Berlusconi and 'patrimonial populism' – the idea being that
Berlusconi was seen as both the figurehead of the nihilistic "screw politics"
crowd and a national sugar daddy, dishing out favours from the national budget
in just the same way that he lobbed sweeteners to business partners. One
Italian commentator spotted a graffito that called on Berlusconi to abolish
speed limits – "Silvio, let us speed on the autostrada!" Because you knew
he
would, and if you voted for him, hey, maybe he'd let you do it too.
(Berlusconi hasn't been in government for a while, but he was Prime Minister
for ten years in total between 1994 and 2011. He's still involved in three
court cases relating to corruption and fraud, and has been found guilty in
another; he served a sentence of house arrest and community service. He will be
80 on Thursday.)
kidneystones
09.27.16 at 10:05 pm
The comments here strike me as very sensible and sober. Given that the CT
community shares little with a great swath of the electorate and in fact share
HRC's view that they are both deplorable and irredeemable, its probably sound
reasoning to deduce that if people here thought HRC won, a great many 'others'
believe the opposite.
derrida derider
09.27.16 at 11:17 pm
The best way to assess how a national TV debate went is to watch the whole
thing with the sound turned off. Swing voters are almost by definition the
least interested watchers who will just not care about coherence, patter,
policy, ideology, etc because they don't just don't care about politics much.
Subconscious impressions, mainly set by body language with perhaps the odd
striking expression, are what persuades or dissuades them.
ZM 09.27.16 at 11:24 pm @ 45:
'This is a paper by Paul Gilding on a war time mobilisation response,
although he isn't connected to the Democrats I don't think: WAR. What Is It
Good For? WWII Economic Mobilisation An Analogy For Climate Action
http://media.wix.com/ugd/148cb0_1bfd229f6638410f8fcf230e12b1e285.pdf
'
I criticized the war metaphor before, mostly on literary or stylistic grounds,
but having seen this publication, I feel it is necessary to offer as well a
practical consideration, out of character as that may be. War metaphors and
models appeal to many people because a good-sized war, especially in our era,
appears as an existential crisis, and in properly organized wartime all
dissidence and discussion are swept away by the power of necessity, harnessed
by great leaders and experts. It is a paradise of authority.
kidneystones
09.28.16 at 12:25 am
@ 52 "My main takeaway from the debate is that it finally refuted any notion
that Trump has any idea what he's doing."
What markers did Trump provide that are significantly different from any of
the ravings that propelled him past a stable of extremely well-funded and
politically-skilled GOP politicians?
The fact that a rodeo clown like Trump is even on the same stage as HRC
suggests that whatever his perceived defects here, Trump commands the
attention, affection, and respect of almost as many Americans, perhaps more,
than the candidate of Goldman-Sachs.
Trump is not going to 'win' any of the debates. Trump is marketing the Trump
brand on the biggest stage possible. What actually takes place on stage is
negligible in a world where superficiality is much more important than
substance.
What will happen is that Trump is going to remind the audience that Hillary
does indeed sound very clever and well-grounded. Then, he'll catalogue the
questions: 'How can HRC credibly claim not to know what the initial 'C' means
on a classified document?' etc.
The most recent good poll I saw on HRC identified the voters' principal
concerns with HRC: Syria, Libya, emails – in short, her judgment and her
honesty.
Hillary succeeded in the first debate because she didn't fall over,
cough a lot, and looked alive in that bright, red dress. That isn't enough to
convince voters that she's not the candidate of the past.
As others have noted, the Dukakis title doesn't make any sense to me at all.
She's done.
kidneystones
09.28.16 at 12:30 am
And then there's the health issue (the one that can't be wished away).
The Arizona Republic, Arizona's biggest newspaper (Phoenix), just endorsed
Clinton for President, the first time it has endorsed a Democrat in its
126-year history.
Glen Tomkins
09.28.16 at 1:56 pm
Rich,
"…that no one is really pushing these propaganda lines on people."
That's the very thing, isn't it? That's what US politics has gotten too.
There is a very conventional approach to a national campaign that dictates that
you do messaging, which means that you carefully avoid saying anything with any
public policy entailments. Having the candidate say anything of this sort is
especially to be avoided, because that ties the campaign most concretely to
specifics, and specific public policy your side advocates can be fitted into a
different, hostile, theoretical frame by the other side. Yet candidates have to
say things, it's expected. So they have refined a method that avoids
propagandizing for anything in terms more concrete than "Make America Great
Again", or "Stronger Together", both of which are brilliant at hinting at
whatever good thing you might want them to mean, without pushing any actual
policy.
In that silence from the campaigns themselves step all of the sorts of
sophisticated people such as those of us in the CT commentariat. The media rise
no higher on the intellectual food chain than the attempt to fill the silence
with theorizing about campaigns as horse races, who's winning and why. We here
at CT are a superior sort, so we tend to weave in theories about the actual
supposed subject of politics, public policy. But at all levels of this effort,
we theorize because we are of the species Homo theoreticus, and we must have
theories. The more sophisticated we are the more we need them. We fill the
silence by propagandizing on a DIY, freebie basis.
Not that any of this is new. Swift told us all about it in Tale of a Tub,
the oracle of our age. Think of this campaign as a tub bobbing on the waves.
Worry it as you will, and it just moves to the next wave.
Glen Tomkins: "We here at CT are a superior sort, so we tend to weave in
theories about the actual supposed subject of politics, public policy."
Does
not fit the observables. These theories are not about public policy and are not
good on any theoretical level (even if you consider this goodness to be
possible if it is decoupled from fact and is purely a matter of internal
consistency).
Almost all of these "theories" are based on a simple three-step;
1. HRC is the lesser evil.
2. I can't stand voting for someone purely as the lesser evil: my ego
requires that I affirmatively support someone.
3. Therefore the lesser evil is really kind of good and anyone against it is
bad.
As usual, I find a lot of discussion here about worlds totally unlike the one
that I live in.
We begin from the assumption that Clinton is
standard-bearer of "neoliberalism," and then interpret everything she does as
evidence of that.
Um… people.. she was Secretary of State. Can we really
think of no reason she might favor an agreement that includes the US and east
Asia, but not China, other than subservience to international capital? Can we
think of no reason a Secretary of State might want to encourage fracking in
Bulgaria other than anticipated future contributions from the oil and gas
industry? (Hint: Russia is monopoly supplier of natural gas to Europe, and not
shy about reminding them of that.)
In this imaginary world,
the Democratic Party was once the party of the
working class and old-style liberalism, but, starting with Bill Clinton, they
abandoned this, and now they have lost the loyalty of the working class. In
actuality, the last old-style liberal in the Democratic Party was Mondale, and
he lost the popular vote by eighteen percentage points, more than anyone since.
In foreign policy, we need a new term that we can drain of all meaning,
and so Clinton becomes a "neoconservative," virtually indistinguishable from
Charles Krauthammer, and eager to rain down destruction on the rest of the
world.
Um.. people… destruction has been raining down on Syria for years
now. There have been 400,000 people killed, and, as you may have noticed, a
whole lot of refugees. The left doesn't seem to be overly concerned about this,
other than bitterly oppose any attempts to use military force to do anything
about it.
A no-fly zone? Those neocons will stop at nothing!
If Obama
had carried out his threat over the "red line" by striking at the Syrian air
force, it would have saved many, many lives, but that would be imperialism.
Possibly people at CT, even Americans, have gotten used to thinking of
politics in parliamentary terms, in which platforms actually have some
practical effect, and winning means winning a legislative majority. (That's the
only way a Sanders candidacy would have made sense.) As you know, though, the
US doesn't work that way, and so the question is what can get done. If Clinton
is able to actually carry out the things she is talking about – an increase in
the minimum wage, paid family leave, increased infrastructure spending -- it
will make a much bigger difference in people's lives than bringing back
Glass-Steagall would.
likbez
09.28.16
at 4:45 pm
@80
Rich,
This "HRC is the lesser evil" is a very questionable line of thinking that
is not supported by the facts.
How Hillary can be a lesser evil if by any reasonable standard she is a war
criminal. War criminal like absolute zero is an absolute evil. You just can't
go lower.
Trump might be a crook, but he still did not committed any war crimes. Yet.
Calling the people whose endorsements Clinton has spent her time since the DNC
pursuing "moderate Republicans" seems suspect. After all, apart from Wall
Street financier types whose rigid party identification tends to dissolve in
the bipartisan solvent of the neoliberal financial establishment [I shouldn't
say "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" or liberals will throw a tantrum], the
Republican public figures she's been most aggressive about shepherding into her
corner are the neoconservative foreign policy hawks whose coups, death squads,
invasions, and so on were allegedly supposed to embody the worst and most
immoderate
excesses of the Bush and Reagan administrations.
It seems the idea is to impress so-called moderate
voters
with a show
of establishment unanimity across all prior "extremes" as a show of Clinton's
seriousness and Trump's unseriousness, but then we have to reckon with the way
"moderate voters" is most often a euphemism for "low-information voters with a
vague sense of not wanting to be seen as rocking the boat who otherwise don't
give much of a damn about electoral politics at all", which has little to do
with what "moderate" means when describing actual public figures.
If we took any real effort to directly hash out "moderate"
inclinations of the depoliticized public at large the same way we do those of
the institutions through which this public is supposed to funnel its political
engagement, we'd probably come up with something very different.
Also, Rich @ 106, you're more or less echoing what Nathan Robinson writes
about "objectively pro-Trump" anti-leftist Hillary supporters
here
.
ZM's wartime mobilisation, bob's politics of continual catastrophe, or even
bruce's Two-To-Three-Year Plan will not happen, in part because of
neoliberalism's constant drive toward depoliticization of issues that might
interfere with short-term corporate profits
, and also in part because
First-World politics is well practiced at not giving a shit about the suffering
of the Third World
Which of course is where the most immediately catastrophic suffering from
climate change will be borne at least at first. Lee's "chink in the rightwing
cognitive armor" won't happen either, not in response to any empirical facts
about the actual climate: this cognitive armor exists because there are vested
interests promoting its existence, interests that aren't themselves stupid
enough to completely deny the basic parameters of climate science (
e.g.
).
If anything the least starry-eyed one here is Layman for implying that
neoliberalism would tackle climate change by radically reconfiguring market
incentives to make prevention and/or mitigation a profitable business, which is
close to how people like Charles Koch see the issue too - but in this case I
have to agree with everybody else here that this kind of gentle nudging of
markets wouldn't be enough, without slamming on the brakes much harder than our
current thoroughly marketized mechanisms are capable of doing.
What's needed is impossible under our present institutions, and what's
possible is inadequate.
Will G-R #114: "this cognitive armor exists because there are vested interests
promoting its existence"
I don't think so. I think it emerged when the Great
Chain of Being was overturned in the public imagination in the middle of the
18th Century (see Lovejoy) and so, at the same moment, the market economy began
to be accepted as a way to escape the status positions of traditional society.
The change in emotional expectation about the source of social status
immediately formed a left/right politics, generally reflecting the interests of
the have-nots and the haves. Promotion by vested interests is not a cause of
this, rather it is a predicable symptom of it.
And it won't be overturned by anything less than a reversal in the reign of
the status-psychology of money which has characterized the last 250 years.
Which may be closer than we think, because a part of "status" has always
been since ancient times a signal of being able to avoid need - but it is
unavoidably becoming ever clearer that our basest owners are in the richest
things superfluous.
Perhaps we will soon be ready to read the social tragedy of our next
romantic Shelleyan horror myth: the Trumpenstein monster!
"... As secretary of state in 2011, Mrs. Clinton vocally supported the war against Libya to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi on the heels of his abandonment of weapons of mass destruction. She boasted with the dripping arrogance of Julius Caesar after Gaddafi's death: "We came, we saw, he died." She insisted that regime change in Libya was for humanitarian purposes. She agreed with President Barack Obama that to be faithful to "who we are," we must overthrow governments that are oppressing their citizens by force and violence. ..."
"... Like the French Bourbons who forgot nothing and learned nothing, Mrs. Clinton eagerness to initiate wars for regime change was undiminished by the Iraq and Libya debacles. She urged war against Syria to oust President Bashar al-Assad. She confidently insinuated that we could transform Syria into a flourishing democracy sans James Madisons, George Washingtons or Thomas Jeffersons because of our unique nation-building genius. ..."
"... Wars for regime change are immoral. We have not been tasked by a Supreme Being to appraise foreign nations like a schoolmarm and to invade those to whom we have superciliously assigned a failing grade. ..."
"... Wars for regime change also violate international law. Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter generally prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…." Article 51 creates a narrow exception for wars in self-defense "if an armed attack occurs…." Regime change wars do not fit that narrow exception. ..."
"... Mrs. Clinton underscores in her memoir that she would rather be "caught trying" something kinetic than to try masterly inactivity like Fabius Maximus. She would rather be criticized for fighting too many wars for regime change than too few. She is the war hawks' dream candidate. ..."
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton champions wars to effectuate regime change.
Their immorality, illegality and stupidity do not diminish Mrs. Clinton's enthusiasm for treating
independent nations as serfs of the United States.
As first aady, she warmly supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which made it the policy of
the Unites States to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. As United States Senator, she
invoked the 1998 policy in voting for the 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force Against Iraq.
Saddam's successors proved a cure worse than the disease. Shiite dominated governments allied
with Iran, oppressed Sunnis, Kurds, and Turkmen, and created a power vacuum that gave birth to
the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Our national security has been weakened.
As secretary of state in 2011, Mrs. Clinton vocally supported the war against Libya to
overthrow Muammar Gaddafi on the heels of his abandonment of weapons of mass destruction. She
boasted with the dripping arrogance of Julius Caesar after Gaddafi's death: "We came, we saw, he
died." She insisted that regime change in Libya was for humanitarian purposes. She agreed with
President Barack Obama that to be faithful to "who we are," we must overthrow governments that
are oppressing their citizens by force and violence.
Libya predictably descended into dystopia after Gaddafi's murder. (It had no democratic
cultural, historical, or philosophical credentials.) Tribal militias proliferated. Competing
governments emerged. ISIS entered into the power vacuum in Sirte, which has required the return
of United States military forces in Libya. Terrorists murdered our Ambassador and three other
Americans in Benghazi. Gaddafi's conventional weapons were looted and spread throughout the
Middle East. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled and are continuing to flee Libyan shores
for Europe. North Korea and Iran hardened their nuclear ambitions to avoid Gaddafi's grisly fate.
Our national security has been weakened.
Like the French Bourbons who forgot nothing and learned nothing, Mrs. Clinton eagerness to
initiate wars for regime change was undiminished by the Iraq and Libya debacles. She urged war
against Syria to oust President Bashar al-Assad. She confidently insinuated that we could
transform Syria into a flourishing democracy sans James Madisons, George Washingtons or Thomas
Jeffersons because of our unique nation-building genius.
She forgot South Sudan. We midwifed its independence in 2011. Despite our hopes and prayers,
the new nation descended into a gruesome ongoing civil war including child soldiers between the
Dinka led by President Salva Kiir and the Nuer led by former Vice President Riek Machar. More
than 50,000 have died, more than 2.2 million have been displaced, and a harrowing number have
been murdered, tortured or raped. South Sudan epitomizes our nation-building incompetence.
Wars for regime change are immoral. We have not been tasked by a Supreme Being to appraise
foreign nations like a schoolmarm and to invade those to whom we have superciliously assigned a
failing grade. As Jesus sermonized in Matthew 7: 1-3:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that
is in thine own eye?"
Thus, Thomas Jefferson wrote to President James Monroe in 1823: "The presumption of dictating to
an independent nation the form of its government is so arrogant, so atrocious, that indignation
as well as moral sentiment enlists all our partialities and prayers in favor of one and our equal
execrations against the other."
Wars for regime change also violate international law. Article 2 (4) of the United Nations
Charter generally prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state…." Article 51 creates a narrow exception for wars in
self-defense "if an armed attack occurs…." Regime change wars do not fit that narrow exception.
They are also stupid, like playing Russian roulette. We lack the wisdom necessary to insure that
successor regimes will strengthen rather than weaken our national security taking into account,
among other things, the staggering military and financial costs of propping up corrupt,
incompetent, and unpopular governments.
Mrs. Clinton underscores in her memoir that she would rather be "caught trying" something
kinetic than to try masterly inactivity like Fabius Maximus. She would rather be criticized for
fighting too many wars for regime change than too few. She is the war hawks' dream candidate.
Domestic-policy successes such as paid family leave count for little if the U.S. is at
war with Russia.
Hillary Clinton has some impressive goals for the United States. And it is
conceivable that, to whatever extent, she can even achieve them. These include
(courtesy of
NPR
):
Make public college debt-free. Fund universal pre-K. Create a comprehensive
background check system and close loopholes. Give the government a role in
setting insurance rates. Waive deportation and give undocumented residents a
path to legal status. Enact an infrastructure plan that also serves as a
stimulus to the economy. Raise capital gains taxes [We will overlook her
coziness with Wall Street for the moment.]
But what does domestic-policy success avail us if the United States is fighting
a major war? It is common knowledge that when it comes to foreign policy, Hillary
Clinton gives many of us on the left the heebie-jeebies. A blurb on the issues
page of her official campaign website suggests traditional Democratic
overcompensation on defense, but to the nth degree: "Military and defense[:] We
should maintain the best-trained, best-equipped, and strongest military the world
has ever known."
The extent to which Russian President Vladimir Putin considers Ms. Clinton a
nemesis (and Donald Trump a potential ally) can be seen in a new article by
Simon Shuster at
Time
. But, obviously, no American election should be
decided by which candidate the leader of another superpower prefers. The real
issue, without going into detail, is her policy toward Russia, summarized by
Jeffrey Sachs at Huffington Post
.
… she championed a remarkably confrontational approach with Russia based on
NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia and a new nuclear arms race that will
cost American taxpayers more than $355 billion over a decade.
There we have the two weakest links of Hillary Clinton foreign policy bundled
into one. She is likely to increase tensions with Russia, thus putting us at risk
of war with nuclear weapons, the modernization of which she champions.
To put it another way, an aggressive stance toward Russia and more nuclear
weapons would cancel out domestic initiatives and achievements. After all, what
good is paid parental leave if the United States is waging a major war and not
only is there no money left over from defense for such programs, but, the number
of families left standing to benefit from these programs is, shudder, drastically
diminished?
Bottom line: Without a visionary policy that works toward alleviating tensions
with, not confronting or attacking, other countries, domestic policy successes
count for little.
Here it is. John and Robert Kennedy devoted their greatest commitments and energies to the prevention
of war and the preservation of peace. To them that was not an abstract formula but the necessary
foundation of human life. But today's Democrats have become the Party of War: a home for arms merchants,
mercenaries, academic war planners, lobbyists for every foreign intervention, promoters of color
revolutions, failed generals, exploiters of the natural resources of corrupt governments. We have
American military bases in 80 countries, and there are now American military personnel on the ground
in about 130 countries, a remarkable achievement since there are only 192 recognized countries. Generals
and admirals announce our national policies. Theater commanders are our principal ambassadors. Our
first answer to trouble or opposition of any kind seems always to be a military movement or action.
Nor has the Democratic Party candidate for president this year, Hillary Clinton, sought peace. Instead
she has pushed America into successive invasions, successive efforts at "regime change." She has
sought to prevent Americans from seeking friendship or cooperation with President Vladimir Putin
of Russia by characterizing him as "another Hitler." She proclaims herself ready to invade Syria
immediately after taking the oath of office. Her shadow War Cabinet brims with the architects of
war and disaster for the past decades, the neocons who led us to our present pass, in Iraq, in Afghanistan,
Syria, Libya, Yemen, in Ukraine, unrepentant of all past errors, ready to resume it all with fresh
trillions and fresh blood. And the Democrats she leads seem intent on worsening relations with Russia,
for example by sending American warships into the Black Sea, or by introducing nuclear weapons ever
closer to Russia itself.
In fact, in all the years of the so-called War on Terror, only one potential American president
has had the intelligence, the vision, the sheer sanity to see that America cannot fight the entire
world at once; who sees that America's natural and necessary allies in this fight must include the
advanced and civilized nations that are most exposed and experienced in their own terror wars, and
have the requisite military power and willingness to use it. Only one American candidate has pointed
out how senseless it is to seek confrontation with Russia and China, at the same time that we are
trying to suppress the very jihadist movements that they also are attacking.
That candidate is Donald Trump. Throughout this campaign, he has said that as president, he would
quickly sit down with President Putin and seek relaxation of tensions between our nations, and possible
collaboration in the fight against terrorists. On this ground alone, he marks himself as greatly
superior to all his competitors, earlier in the primaries and now in the general election.
Imagine that while George W. Bush was governor of
Texas and president of the United States, various people and companies decided
to write him checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars, just because they
thought he was a great guy. Those people and companies, just coincidentally,
happened to have interests that were affected by the policies of Texas and the
United States. But when he thanked them for their money, Bush never promised to
do anything in particular for them. You would be suspicious, right?
Now, that's roughly what has been happening with the Clinton Foundation.
Various people and companies have been writing checks for millions of dollars
to the Foundation during the same time that Hillary Clinton was secretary of
state and, following that, the most likely next president of the United
States-a title she has held since the day Barack Obama's second term began.
(The Clintons finally decided to
scale back the Foundation
earlier this week.)
... ... ...
So the real question is this: Do you think it would be appropriate for people and companies
affected by U.S. policy to be writing $1 million checks directly to the Clintons? If the answer
is yes, then you should be against any campaign finance rules whatsoever. If the answer is no,
you should be worried about the Clinton Foundation.
Vinny Idol
|
August 25, 2016 at 8:02 pm
|
I disagree whole heartedly with this post. The clinton foundation is a
big deal, because its proof positive that America was founded on Money
laundering, the elite that run this country make and made their money
through money laundering; and no one wants that in the White House. Thats
ok for the rest of America sociery, but not the government where peoples
lives hang on the balance through every speech, law and policy that is
conducted on capitol hill.
The Clintons destroyed Libya, Honduras, Haiti through their money
laundering scheme called the clinton foundation. Theres no justification
for that.
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 12:40 am
|
Trump thinks very highly of Reagan, but very lowly of Mexicans, so if
Trump were to win I suspect he will secretly sell some of our nukes, this
finally giving him the financial boost needed to overtake Carlos Slim on
the list of the world's richest men. This 'deal of deals' then also
harkens back to another historical 'deal' (Iran/Contra), and of course
Reagan, while simultaneously eliminating Trump's deepest regret which is
that of being bested by a Mexican. This being the real reason that he
decided to run in the first place.
Probably though, HRC will win. The
problem there being that all of the scrutiny that she has been receiving
for so long, coupled with Bills' infidelities, and other various setbacks
and slights, have left her very angry and bitter. Combining this seething
hatred of all humans, especially men, with the fact that there has never
been a women president to look up to, HRC's only influence is a secretary
who worked for Woodrow Wilson by the name of Mildred Jingowitz, or Ms.
Jingo as she was called. Ms. Jingo stands out for HRC because she
actually wrote the Espionage Act of 1917 and the the Sedition Act of
1918. Those combining to "cover a broader range of offenses, notably
speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war
effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government
bonds."
"The Sedition Act of 1918 stated that people or countries cannot say
negative things about the government or the war."
"It forbade the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive
language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed
forces or that caused others to view the American government or its
institutions with contempt." Most importantly though, these acts gave the
Government the legal right to prosecute draft dodgers, and …these could
bring an end to at least some of the scrutiny that has plagued HRC for so
long just so long as we remain at war.
So, if you are wondering what any of this has to do with the Clinton
Foundation, well, HRC used the Foundation to facilitate at least one very
large arms deal with at least one Royal Gulfie. But it matters little
whether she used the foundation or not, HRC used her tenure at Foggy
Bottom to arrange a record number of weapons deals, and of course she is
mad as hell and determined to prove just how tough women can be (and
there is of course one man who she respects, H. Kissinger).
Anyway, it doesn't take a historian specializing in the build-up
leading to the two World Wars to figure out the rest. BOOM!!!
I'm a long-time reader. I admire what you and Simon have
done educating us about the financial crisis and its aftermath, and I
agree with most of your political positions, especially related to the
corrupting influence of money in politics. I have seen this first hand
over my years in politics and government, and I believe it is the single
most important issue we face because progress on all others depends on
it.
But in taking yet another hack at Hillary Clinton in this post, you've
contradicted yourself in a way that unravels your argument, while
engaging in false equivalencies and blowing a key fact out of proportion.
First, the internal contradiction:
"Bill and Hillary are getting on in years, they only have one child,
and she is married to a hedge fund manager. When you have that much
money, a dollar in your foundation is as good as a dollar in your bank
account. Once you have all your consumption needs covered, what do you
need money for?"
You imply, here, that the Clintons' wealth and Marc Mezvinsky's hedge
fund income have made the marginal value of another dollar in income de
minimis for the Clintons' personal finances. Then you write,
paraphrasing, that a dollar donated to the Foundation is as good as a
dollar deposited in their personal bank account; therefore, you imply,
money that goes to their foundation is as corrupting as money that goes
into their personal accounts.
You see the problem in claiming that a contribution to the Clinton
Foundation is a powerful incentive for HRC to tilt her foreign policy
positions, right? You just made the case for why a donation to the
Foundation has little personal value to the Clintons:
MV of $ to bank account = 0.
MV of $ to Foundation = MV of $ to bank account.
But you don't proceed to: Therefore, MV of $ to Foundation = 0. So,
according to your logic, there can be no corrupting influence.
You follow this, writing:
"If you're a Clinton, you want to have an impact in the world, reward
your friends, and burnish your legacy. A foundation is an excellent
vehicle for all of those purposes, for obvious reasons. It is also an
excellent way to transfer money to your daughter free of estate tax,
since she can control it after you die."
Your imply that the Clintons give equal weight to their desires to
reward their friends, burnish their legacy, and have an impact on the
world. What evidence do you have of this? Also, you implicitly denigrate
their charitable motives by describing them as a desire "to have an
impact on the world" without a nod to their clear intent to have an
impact that is profoundly constructive. You also speculate, without
providing any support, that the Foundation is a tax avoidance scheme to
enrich their daughter. I think you've crossed a line here.
Now for the false equivalencies:
"Imagine that while George W. Bush was governor of Texas and president
of the United States, various people and companies decided to write him
checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars, just because they thought he
was a great guy. Those people and companies, just coincidentally,
happened to have interests that were affected by the policies of Texas
and the United States. But when he thanked them for their money, Bush
never promised to do anything in particular for them. You would be
suspicious, right?"
Why imagine? We have the real-world case of the Saudis bailing out
George W's Harken Energy while his father was president. Of course, this
is only one example of how the lucrative Bush-Saudi relationship
generated income that went straight into the Bush "coffers".
So you implicitly compare HRC's alleged conflict related to the
family's charity with the Bush family conflict related to their own
personal bank accounts. While HW Bush, as president, made use of his long
friendship with the Saudis for the family's personal gain, HRC gave
access to the likes of the crown prince of Bahrain and Nobel Peace Prize
Winner Muhammad Yunus. Not equivalent. Not even close. I wonder how
routine it is for a Secretary of State to meet with the crown prince of
an oil-producing nation or a Nobel Prize winner versus how routine is it
for foreign oligarchs friendly to a president to bailout his son.
But at least the Saudis were allies of the US. Today, the GOP nominee
has undisclosed but apparently significant business ties to close allies
of the president of our greatest strategic adversary, and expresses his
admiration for an autocrat who is seizing territory in Europe and
terminating his opponents. I've missed your post on this one, though I'm
sure there is one.
One last point: This controversy involved some 85 meetings or
telephone calls HRC granted to Foundation donors. The media have morphed
this into 85 meetings, dropping the "and telephone calls," and made this
out to be a pretty big number. Naive readers and Hillary haters have
accepted it as such. If fact, 85 meetings and telephone calls over four
years are, well, de minimis.
Many of these donors had standing sufficient to get them in the door
whether they gave to the Foundation or not. But let's say all of them
gained access solely as a result of their donations. Over the four years
HRC was Secretary of State, 85 meetings and telephone calls work out to
1.8 meetings/calls per month. Let's make a guess that she met or talked
on the phone with an average of 15 people a day. So, one of every 250
people HRC met or had a phone call with each month, or 21 out of 3000
each year, would have secured their contact with her by donating to the
Foundation. 85 doesn't look so big in context, especially since no one
has presented any evidence of any quid pro quos.
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 2:42 am
|
Philip,
The 85 meetings occurred during about half of HRC's term and I've not
heard anyone else dilute things with "phone calls".
Plus, the Bahrainis
were approved for a major arms deal after donating. The Prince tried to
make an appointment with HRC privately, but was made to go through State
Dept. channels before being allowed a meeting.
HRC was also involved in the selling of more weapons in her term than
all of those occurring during the Bush 43 terms combined.
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 2:50 am
|
Philip.
Also, there is this:
"You had a situation, that The Wall Street Journal reported, where
Hillary Clinton herself intervened in a case dealing with taxes with UBS,
a Swiss bank, and then, suddenly, after that, UBS began donating big to
the Clinton Foundation. So there are many examples of-I mean, there's oil
companies-that's another one I should mention right now, which is that
oil companies were giving big to the Clinton Foundation while lobbying
the State Department-successfully-for the passage of the Alberta Clipper,
the tar sands pipeline."
David Sarota, interview:
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/25/weapons_pipelines_wall_st_did_clinton
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 9:40 am
|
Other noteworthy donors to the Clinton Foundation:
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
Carlos Slim
Chairman & CEO of Telmex, largest New York Times shareholder
James Murdoch
Chief Operating Officer of 21st Century Fox
Newsmax Media
Florida-based conservative media network
Thomson Reuters
Owner of the Reuters news service
$500,000-$1,000,000
Google
News Corporation Foundation
Philanthropic arm of former Fox News parent company
$250,000-$500,000
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publisher
Richard Mellon Scaife
Owner of Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
$100,000-$250,000
Abigail Disney
Documentary filmmaker
Bloomberg Philanthropies
Howard Stringer
Former CBS, CBS News and Sony executive
Intermountain West Communications Company
Local television affiliate owner (formerly Sunbelt Communications)
$50,000-$100,000
Bloomberg L.P.
Discovery Communications Inc.
George Stephanopoulos
ABC News chief anchor and chief political correspondent
Mort Zuckerman
Owner of New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report
Time Warner Inc.
Owner of CNN parent company Turner Broadcasting
First, I'd appreciate it if you could provide a cite
supporting the statement that move arms sales occurred during HRC's four
years than during W's eight years. I'd like to look under the cover of
that one.
Also, it's important to note that a lot more people are involved in
approving arms sales than the SoS, including Republicans on the Hill.
Second, the AP touted its original story as being "meetings" but when
you read the story itself you found it was "meetings and phone calls."
Subsequently, the media and commentariat referred to 85 meetings,
dropping reference to phone calls.
Now for the arms sales to Bahrain. This one is especially juicy
because it's an excellent example of how HRC is being tarred.
The US has massive military assets in Bahrain, which hosts the largest
US military outpost in the Gulf. We've been making massive arms sale to
Bahrain for many years. So no surprise that we'd make some when HRC was
SoS.
And considering the strategic importance of Bahrain, there's no
surprise in HRC meeting with the crown prince. The surprise would be if
she declined to do so.
Now, if memory serves, and I encourage you to check me on this, the US
suspended arms sales to Bahrain while HRC was SoS in response to the
Bahrain's suppression of dissent among its Shia minority. Later, we
partially lifted the suspension to allow sales of arms Related to
protecting our huge naval base in Bahrain. I think this decision also
came while HRC was SoS.
So, the arm sales to Bahrain illustrates my objections to the facile
claims that contributions to the CF suggest that HRC is corrupt. These
claims bring one sliver of information to the discussion: so and so
donated money to the CF and then talked to HRC on the phone (or got a
meeting). No evidence is produced that there's a causal relationship
between the two much less a quid pro quo in which the donation and
meeting led HRC to act in an official capacity to benefit the
contributor.
All of the examples I've seen so far, the oil companies, UBS, etc. are
like this. No context, no evidence of a quid pro quo, all inuendo.
publiustex
|
August 26, 2016 at 10:20 am
|
I consider some of these contributors to be unsavory, and I wish they'd
give the Clinton Foundation a lot more money so they'd have less to sink
into GOP House and Senate races.
Philip Diehl
|
August 26, 2016 at 11:05 am
|
Ray LaPan-Love: You left out this quote from the interview with David
Sirota. Context matters.
'DAVID SIROTA: Well, my reaction to it is that
I think that if you look at some of these individual examples, I think
Paul is right that it's hard to argue that their donations to the
foundation got them access. They are - a lot of these people in the AP
story are people who knew her."
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 11:21 am
|
Pub,
I can't remember where I saw the comparison between the arms sales of HRC
and the shrub. But, if it comes to me I'll add it later. Meanwhile, here
is a link to lots of related info:
And yes, "no context, no evidence of a quid pro quo", and almost as if
she knew she might run for the prez job.
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 11:41 am
|
Sorry Phillip, but gee whiz, am I to assume that nobody else has any
'context' on a story that is difficult to miss. Where does one draw such
lines? And the spin you are hoping for is somewhat unwound by David using
the phrase "hard to argue". That could be interpreted to simply mean that
the CF is good at obfuscating. And as someone who has worked in politics
and even for a large NPO, I can atably assure you
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 11:59 am
|
….!!!!!! my cursor got stuck on the previous comment as I tried to use
spell-check.
Anyway, I was trying to comfratably assure you that these organizations
are commonly structured to allow for deceptive practices. The Sierra Club
for example has affiliates that collect donations and then those funds
are used to pay the overhead of the affiliate 'before' any money is
donated to the Sierra Club. Thus, the Sierra club's solicitation costs
are not reflected in the percentage of funds used toward whatever cause.
This is not of course very subtle, and a Foundation such the CF could not
likely get away something this obvious, but…schemes such those exposed by
the Panama Papers should make us all hesitant to assume anything.
I'm a long-time fan of your smart writing and the important work that
you (and Simon) do. But what's with this constant Clinton Derangement
Syndrome? Why look so hard to find some morsel of "scandal" with the
Clintons when there's an entire herd of elephants in the room with the
Republican candidate??
As a wealth manager of many years, I must disagree with your
dismissive assessment of the Clintons' personal philanthropy as a
personal piggy bank. For sure, in a regular family foundation (many of my
clients!) the grants and donations are entirely at the discretion of the
controlling family, and very often it's all about shiny brass plaques and
photo ops with museum directors or mayors. Fine, that's our system, and
at least something gets done. And then the donors die and the plaques
fade. A shawl has no pockets.
But the Clinton operation is unique: they choose specific issues,
partner with competent outside groups, and then direct enormous extra
outside funds - not just their own meager foundation money - to tackle
the problems. This is only possible because of their international
status; not a Gates nor a Slim nor a Zuckerberg could engineer the same.
One can certainly speculate about who got access (a phone call,
seriously?) or who was schmoozed in what way in order to secure their
donations. But to broad-brush the whole of the Clinton philanthropy as
personal corruption is truly unfair. And it sure doesn't make sense when
there's so much worse and genuinely scandalous material on the other side
just waiting to be uncovered.
Keep the faith!
Bruce E. Woych
|
August 27, 2016 at 2:39 pm
|
Note: (from Global Research critique @ (eg:
https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/suite
) cited above:
"Philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist, Andre
Vltchek has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest
books are: "Exposing Lies Of The Empire" and "Fighting Against Western
Imperialism". Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. Point
of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a
book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book
about Indonesia: "Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear". Andre is making
films for teleSUR and Press TV.
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 27, 2016 at 3:42 pm
|
Bruce, (been awhile),
High grade stuff there. Yet, I'm not as taken by Caros' comment as you
seem to be. Near the end, this part: "The Clinton family business is
benefiting themselves AND OTHERS by way of their prominence."
To begin with, the Clinton's influence in arming the royal gulfies may
get us all killed, and so his comparison to the Bushs, while apt in a
current sense, it may well be…dangerously premature. Then too, Caro is of
course taking sides as if the Clintons don't fully realize the P.R.
benefits of giving away other peoples money. Which segs the question of
how could the Clintons have put so much time and effort into Hillary's
run, while creating so many pitfalls for themselves? Did they think the
Repubs might get nice? Are they stupid, arrogant maybe? Or just so
corrupt that they just can't stop like so many kleptomaniacs? In any
case, it isn't only Trump's fitness that we should be questioning.
I'm all for reducing the unmanageably high levels of total immigration
into the U.S., and I strongly believe in penalizing illegal employers, but I
think you have exaggerated the number of illegal immigrants.
According to Numbers USA, there are about 12 million illegal immigrants in
the U.S.:
"... Of course the root cause is Baathists aligned with non Sunnis running a sector of land lusted after by the Saudis and GCC. ..."
"... That the US supported the Sunnis (since the Iranians ousted CIA puppets) against the Baathists did not start the civil war, it merely keeps it growing in lust for death and destruction. ..."
"... While that Sep 2012 skirmish in Benghazi included CIA ground troops otherwise there securing the sea lanes supporting Syrian Al Qaeda with Qaddafi's arms, less stingers. ..."
"... "Settle for the crooked, Wall St, war monger because real change is too hard and the other guy is insane, supported by racists and don't think Russia should praise American exceptionalism." ..."
"As for Syria, here too I'm not sure why you think this country caused its civil war, but it
did not."
Of course the root cause is Baathists aligned with non Sunnis running a sector of land lusted
after by the Saudis and GCC.
That the US supported the Sunnis (since the Iranians ousted CIA puppets) against the Baathists
did not start the civil war, it merely keeps it growing in lust for death and destruction.
While that Sep 2012 skirmish in Benghazi included CIA ground troops otherwise there securing
the sea lanes supporting Syrian Al Qaeda with Qaddafi's arms, less stingers.
ilsm August 31, 2016 9:44 pm
"Settle for the crooked, Wall St, war monger because real change is too hard and the other
guy is insane, supported by racists and don't think Russia should praise American exceptionalism."
Obama might as well have voted with Hillary for AUMF forever, he is running it.
"... Here's an interesting analysis someone posted to reddit (in annoying gif screenshot form) about Holt being biased in favor of Clinton: https://i.redd.it/jixd3s8d05ox.png ..."
"... And here's a semi-CT saying that NBC tipped Clinton off to the debate questions a week in advance: http://baltimoregazette.com/clinton-received-debate-questions-week-debate/ ..."
Here's an interesting analysis someone posted to reddit (in annoying gif screenshot form)
about Holt being biased in favor of Clinton:
https://i.redd.it/jixd3s8d05ox.png
"... To my untrained eyes and ears, Hillary Clinton doesn't look sufficiently healthy – mentally or otherwise – to be leading the country. If you disagree, take a look at the now-famous " Why aren't I 50 points ahead " video clip. Likewise, Bill Clinton seems to be in bad shape too, and Hillary wouldn't be much use to the country if she is taking care of a dying husband on the side. ..."
"... So when Clinton supporters ask me how I could support a "fascist," the answer is that he isn't one. Clinton's team, with the help of Godzilla, have effectively persuaded the public to see Trump as scary. The persuasion works because Trump's "pacing" system is not obvious to the public. They see his "first offers" as evidence of evil. They are not. They are technique. ..."
"... The battle with ISIS is also a persuasion problem. The entire purpose of military action against ISIS is to persuade them to stop, not to kill every single one of them. We need military-grade persuasion to get at the root of the problem. Trump understands persuasion, so he is likely to put more emphasis in that area. ..."
"... Most of the job of president is persuasion. Presidents don't need to understand policy minutia. They need to listen to experts and then help sell the best expert solutions to the public. Trump sells better than anyone you have ever seen, even if you haven't personally bought into him yet. You can't deny his persuasion talents that have gotten him this far. ..."
As most of you know, I had been endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, for my personal safety,
because I live in California. It isn't safe to be a Trump supporter where I live. And it's bad for
business too. But recently I switched my endorsement to Trump, and I owe you an explanation. So here
it goes.
1. Things I Don't Know: There are many things I don't know. For example, I don't know the
best way to defeat ISIS. Neither do you. I don't know the best way to negotiate trade policies. Neither
do you. I don't know the best tax policy to lift all boats. Neither do you. My opinion on abortion
is that men should follow the lead of women on that topic because doing so produces the most credible
laws. So on most political topics, I don't know enough to make a decision. Neither do you, but you
probably think you do.
Given the uncertainty about each candidate – at least in my own mind – I have been saying I am
not smart enough to know who would be the best president. That neutrality changed when Clinton proposed
raising estate taxes. I understand that issue and I view it as robbery by government.
I'll say more about that, plus some other issues I do understand, below.
... ... ...
4. Clinton's Health: To my untrained eyes and ears, Hillary Clinton doesn't look sufficiently
healthy – mentally or otherwise – to be leading the country. If you disagree, take a look at the
now-famous "
Why aren't I 50 points ahead " video clip. Likewise, Bill Clinton seems to be in bad shape too,
and Hillary wouldn't be much use to the country if she is taking care of a dying husband on the side.
5. Pacing and Leading: Trump always takes the extreme position on matters of safety and
security for the country, even if those positions are unconstitutional, impractical, evil, or something
that the military would refuse to do. Normal people see this as a dangerous situation. Trained persuaders
like me see this as something called pacing and leading . Trump "paces" the public – meaning
he matches them in their emotional state, and then some. He does that with his extreme responses
on immigration, fighting ISIS, stop-and-frisk, etc. Once Trump has established himself as the biggest
bad-ass on the topic, he is free to "lead," which we see him do by softening his deportation stand,
limiting his stop-and-frisk comment to Chicago, reversing his first answer on penalties for abortion,
and so on. If you are not trained in persuasion, Trump look scary. If you understand pacing and leading,
you might see him as the safest candidate who has ever gotten this close to the presidency. That's
how I see him.
So when Clinton supporters ask me how I could support a "fascist," the answer is that he isn't
one. Clinton's team, with the help of Godzilla, have effectively persuaded the public to see Trump
as scary. The persuasion works because Trump's "pacing" system is not obvious to the public. They
see his "first offers" as evidence of evil. They are not. They are technique.
And being chummy with Putin is more likely to keep us safe, whether you find that distasteful
or not. Clinton wants to insult Putin into doing what we want. That approach seems dangerous as hell
to me.
6. Persuasion: Economies are driven by psychology. If you expect things to go well tomorrow,
you invest today, which causes things to go well tomorrow, as long as others are doing
the same. The best kind of president for managing the psychology of citizens – and therefore the
economy – is a trained persuader. You can call that persuader a con man, a snake oil salesman, a
carnival barker, or full of shit. It's all persuasion. And Trump simply does it better than I have
ever seen anyone do it.
The battle with ISIS is also a persuasion problem. The entire purpose of military action against
ISIS is to persuade them to stop, not to kill every single one of them. We need military-grade persuasion
to get at the root of the problem. Trump understands persuasion, so he is likely to put more emphasis
in that area.
Most of the job of president is persuasion. Presidents don't need to understand policy minutia.
They need to listen to experts and then help sell the best expert solutions to the public. Trump
sells better than anyone you have ever seen, even if you haven't personally bought into him yet.
You can't deny his persuasion talents that have gotten him this far.
In summary, I don't understand the policy details and implications of most of either Trump's or
Clinton's proposed ideas. Neither do you. But I do understand persuasion. I also understand when
the government is planning to confiscate the majority of my assets. And I can also distinguish between
a deeply unhealthy person and a healthy person, even though I have no medical training. (So can you.)
I will be
live streaming my viewing of the debate Monday night, with my co-host and neighbor,
Kristina Basham . Tune your television to the debate and use your phone or iPad with the Periscope
app, and look for me at @ScottAdamsSays.
"... Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day. Most important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with all reasonable people and nations, concentrating our forces and efforts against the true enemies of civilization. Thus, to dwell on his faults and errors is to evade the great questions of war and peace, life and death for our people and our country. You and I will have to compensate for his deficits of civility, in return for peace, we may hope as Lincoln hoped, among ourselves and with all nations. ..."
"... No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously as this essay does. ..."
Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day. Most
important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with
all reasonable people and nations, concentrating our forces and efforts against the true enemies
of civilization. Thus, to dwell on his faults and errors is to evade the great questions of war
and peace, life and death for our people and our country. You and I will have to compensate for
his deficits of civility, in return for peace, we may hope as Lincoln hoped, among ourselves and
with all nations.
No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously
as this essay does.
But for anyone who is the slightest bit aware of how the maniac imperialists have hijacked
the public means of persuasion for a generation to the detriment of countless foreign countries
as well as our own, the obsession with turning Trump into a cartoon character with joke "policies"
should sound an alarm.
No "politician" was ever going to buck this system. Bernie Sanders, fiery and committed though
he was, proved that. It was always going to take an over-sized personality with an over-sized
ego to withstand the shit storm that a demand for profound change would create, and some "incivility"
seems a small price to pay to break the vice grip of the status quo.
I, for one, have no intention of squandering this opportunity to throw sand in the gears. There
has never been a third candidate allowed to plead their case in a presidential "debate" since
Ross Perot threw a scare into TPTB in 1992. Should clinton manage to pull this one out, the lesson
of Trump will be learned, and we may not be "given" the opportunity to choose an "outsider" again
for a very long time. It's worth taking a minute to separate the message from the messenger.
"... It is not clear what the NYT thinks it is telling readers with this comment. The economy grows and creates jobs, sort of like the tree in my backyard grows every year. The issue is the rate of growth and job creation. While the economy has recovered from the lows of the recession, employment rates of prime age workers (ages 25-54) are still down by almost 2.0 percentage points from the pre-recession level and almost 4.0 percentage points from 2000 peaks. There is much research ** *** showing that trade has played a role in this drop in employment. ..."
"... It is not surprising that Ford's CEO would say that shifting production to Mexico would not cost U.S. jobs. It is likely he would make this claim whether or not it is true. Furthermore, his actual statement is that Ford is not cutting U.S. jobs. If the jobs being created in Mexico would otherwise be created in the United States, then the switch is costing U.S. jobs. The fact that Michigan and Ohio added 75,000 jobs last year has as much to do with this issue as the winner of last night's Yankees' game. ..."
"... The piece goes on to say that the North American Free Trade Agreement has "for more than two decades has been widely counted as a main achievement of [Bill Clinton]." It doesn't say who holds this view. The deal did not lead to a rise in the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, which was a claim by its proponents before its passage. It also has not led to more rapid growth in Mexico which has actually fallen further behind the United States in the two decades since NAFTA. ..."
"... It is worth noting that none of the analyses that provide the basis for this assertion take into the account the impact of the increased protectionism, in the form of longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which are a major part of the TPP. These forms of protection are equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent on the protected items. As they apply to an ever growing share of the economy, the resulting economic losses will expand substantially in the next decade, especially if the TPP is approved. ..."
NYT Editorial In News Section for TPP Short on Substance
When the issue is trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the New York Times
throws out its usual journalistic standards to push its pro-trade deal agenda. Therefore it is
not surprising to see a story * in the news section that was essentially a misleading advertisement
for these trade deals.
The headline tells readers that Donald Trump's comments on trade in the Monday night debate
lacked accuracy. The second paragraph adds:
"His aggressiveness may have been offset somewhat by demerits on substance."
These comments could well describe this NYT piece.
For example, it ostensibly indicts Trump with the comment:
"His [Trump's] first words of the night were the claim that "our jobs are fleeing the country,"
though nearly 15 million new jobs have been created since the economic recovery began."
It is not clear what the NYT thinks it is telling readers with this comment. The economy
grows and creates jobs, sort of like the tree in my backyard grows every year. The issue is the
rate of growth and job creation. While the economy has recovered from the lows of the recession,
employment rates of prime age workers (ages 25-54) are still down by almost 2.0 percentage points
from the pre-recession level and almost 4.0 percentage points from 2000 peaks. There is much research
** *** showing that trade has played a role in this drop in employment.
The NYT piece continues:
"[Trump] singled out Ford for sending thousands of jobs to Mexico to build small cars and worsening
manufacturing job losses in Michigan and Ohio, but the company's chief executive has said 'zero'
American workers would be cut. Those states each gained more than 75,000 jobs in just the last
year."
It is not surprising that Ford's CEO would say that shifting production to Mexico would
not cost U.S. jobs. It is likely he would make this claim whether or not it is true. Furthermore,
his actual statement is that Ford is not cutting U.S. jobs. If the jobs being created in Mexico
would otherwise be created in the United States, then the switch is costing U.S. jobs. The fact
that Michigan and Ohio added 75,000 jobs last year has as much to do with this issue as the winner
of last night's Yankees' game.
The next sentence adds:
"Mr. Trump said China was devaluing its currency for unfair price advantages, yet it ended
that practice several years ago and is now propping up the value of its currency."
While China has recently been trying to keep up the value of its currency by selling reserves,
it still holds more than $4 trillion in foreign reserves, counting its sovereign wealth fund.
This is more than four times the holdings that would typically be expected of a country its side.
These holdings have the effect of keeping down the value of China's currency.
If this seems difficult to understand, the Federal Reserve now holds more than $3 trillion
in assets as a result of its quantitative easing programs of the last seven years. It raised its
short-term interest rate by a quarter point last December, nonetheless almost all economists would
agree the net effect of the Fed's actions is the keep interest rates lower than they would otherwise
be. The same is true of China and its foreign reserve position.
The piece goes on to say that the North American Free Trade Agreement has "for more than
two decades has been widely counted as a main achievement of [Bill Clinton]." It doesn't say who
holds this view. The deal did not lead to a rise in the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, which
was a claim by its proponents before its passage. It also has not led to more rapid growth in
Mexico which has actually fallen further behind the United States in the two decades since NAFTA.
In later discussing the TPP the piece tells readers:
"Economists generally have said the Pacific nations agreement would increase incomes, exports
and growth in the United States, but not significantly."
It is worth noting that none of the analyses that provide the basis for this assertion
take into the account the impact of the increased protectionism, in the form of longer and stronger
patent and copyright protections, which are a major part of the TPP. These forms of protection
are equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent on the protected items. As they apply to
an ever growing share of the economy, the resulting economic losses will expand substantially
in the next decade, especially if the TPP is approved.
Hillary Clinton's campaign manager Robby Mook and other top Democrats refused to answer whether
Clinton wants President Barack Obama to withdraw the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) from consideration
before Congress during interviews with Breitbart News in the spin room after the first presidential
debate here at Hofstra University on Monday night.
The fact that Mook, Clinton campaign
spokesman Brian Fallon, and Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairwoman Donna Brazile each refused
to answer the simple question that would prove Clinton is actually opposed to the Trans Pacific Partnership
now after praising it 40 times and calling it the "gold standard" is somewhat shocking.
After initially ignoring the question entirely four separate times, Mook finally replied to Breitbart
News. But when he did respond, he didn't answer the question:
BREITBART NEWS: "Robby, does Secretary Clinton believe that the president should withdraw the
TPP?"
ROBBY MOOK: "Secretary Clinton, as she said in the debate, evaluated the final TPP language
and came to the conclusion that she cannot support it."
BREITBART NEWS: "Does she think the president should withdraw it?"
ROBBY MOOK: "She has said the president should not support it."
Obama is attempting to ram TPP through Congress as his last act as president during a lame duck
session of Congress. Clinton previously supported the TPP, and called it the "Gold Standard" of trade
deals. That's something Brazile, the new chairwoman of the DNC who took over after Rep. Debbie Wasserman
Schultz (D-FL) was forced to resign after email leaks showed she and her staff at the DNC undermined
the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and in an untoward way forced the nomination
into Clinton's hands, openly confirmed in her own interview with Breitbart News in the spin room
post debate. Brazile similarly refused to answer if Clinton should call on Obama to withdraw the
TPP from consideration before Congress.
"... If you're wondering why a large portion of American consumers are strung out and breathless and have trouble spending more and cranking up the economy, here's the New York Fed with an answer. And it's going to get worse. ..."
"... That the real median income of men has declined 4% since 1973 is an ugly tidbit that the Census Bureau hammered home in its Income and Poverty report two weeks ago, which I highlighted in this article – That 5.2% Jump in Household Income? Nope, People Aren't Suddenly Getting Big-Fat Paychecks – and it includes the interactive chart below that shows how the real median wage of women rose 36% from 1973 through 2015, while it fell 4% for men... ..."
"... Nominal wages are sticky downwards but not real wages. That is why the FED, the banks, the corporate sector and the economists support persistent inflation, i.e. it lowers real wages. The "study" correlating wage growth with aging is one of those empirical pieces by economists to obscure the role of inflation in lowering real wages. ..."
"... Real Wage Growth chart very interesting, crossing negative at about 55 for no college, and 43 for a Bachelor's degree. 43!! Not even halfway through a work-life, and none better since 2003 at best. ..."
By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and
author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at
Wolf Street.
The New York Fed published an eye-opener of an article on its blog,
Liberty Street Economics , seemingly about the aging of the US labor force as one of the big
economic trends of our times with "implications for the behavior of real wage growth." Then it explained
why "negative growth" – the politically correct jargon for "decline" – in real wages is going to
be the new normal for an ever larger part of the labor force.
If you're wondering why a large portion of American consumers are strung out and breathless and
have trouble spending more and cranking up the economy, here's the New York Fed with an answer. And
it's going to get worse.
The authors looked at the wages of all employed people aged 16 and older in the Current Population
Survey (CPS), both monthly data from 1982 through May 2016 and annual data from 1969 through 1981.
They then restricted the sample to employed individuals with wages, which boiled it down to 7.6 million
statistical observations.
Then they adjusted the wages via the Consumer Price Index to 2014 dollars and divide the sample
into 140 different "demographic cohorts" by decade of birth, sex, race, and education. As an illustration
of the principles at work, they picked the cohort of white males born in the decade of the 1950s.
That the real median income of men has declined 4% since 1973 is an ugly tidbit that the Census
Bureau hammered home in its Income and Poverty report two weeks ago, which I highlighted in this
article –
That 5.2% Jump in Household Income? Nope, People Aren't Suddenly Getting Big-Fat Paychecks –
and it includes the interactive chart below that shows how the real median wage of women rose 36%
from 1973 through 2015, while it fell 4% for men...
The number of public companies have been cut in half in the last 20 years. Just for one metric.
So for those born in the 50's, reaching middle or senior management by the time they were in
their mid 40's (1999) was increasingly harder as the probability of getting squeezed out multiplied.
In the last ten years, the birth / death rate of startups / small business has reversed as well.
There is probably ten other examples of why age is not the mitigating criteria for the decline
in wages. It's not skill sets, not ambition, not flexibility. Pure number of chances for advancement
and therefore associated higher wages has declined precipitously.
Anti Trust Enforcement went out the window as Neo-Liberal policies converted to political donations
for promoting consolidation.
Now watch even those in their 20-30 age group will experience the same thing as H-1b unlimited
takes hold with the Obama / Clinton TTP burning those at younger demographics. Are you going to
say they are "too old" as well to write software?
Tell me where you want to go, and I will focus on selective facts and subjective interpretation
of those selective facts to yield the desired conclusions.
Barack Peddling Fiction Obama – BS at the B.L.S. – has a multiplicity of these metrics.
Nominal wages are sticky downwards but not real wages. That is why the FED, the banks, the
corporate sector and the economists support persistent inflation, i.e. it lowers real wages. The
"study" correlating wage growth with aging is one of those empirical pieces by economists to obscure
the role of inflation in lowering real wages.
Real Wage Growth chart very interesting, crossing negative at about 55 for no college, and
43 for a Bachelor's degree. 43!! Not even halfway through a work-life, and none better since 2003
at best.
The VAT export rebate is a huge subsidy to exporters who
are exporting to non-VAT countries such as the US. That's
why nearly every large country has VAT. VAT rebates also
give foreign producers a competitive advantage over US
manufacturers in third-country markets.
It's also a major incentive for US companies to supply the
US market via Mexico or other VAT countries, since VAT
countries rely on VAT for a huge chunk of their tax base.
Since foreign profits of US companies are not taxed unless
repatriated, the incentives against US production are
compounded.
Or ... VAT is just a sales tax collected on the production
side. It's not like importers to the US get to avoid US
sales taxes.
MacAuley -> sanjait...
, -1
The difference is that VAT countries tend to rely much
more heavily on the VAT than the US relies on sales taxes,
so sales taxes are much less than VAT. Sales taxes in the
US range from Zero in Indiana to 7.5% in California. VAT
rates in the EU range between 20% and 25%. The VAT is 16%
in Mexico and 17% in China.
There may be some
intellectual equivalence in your argument, but the
real-world difference is huge.
Dave Maxwell :
, -1
The VAT indirectly subsidizes exports. If you have country
A that relies 100% on VAT for tax revenue then the
exporting corporation in that country incurs and pays zero
taxes on exports. If the company exports 100% of its
product that company pays zero in taxes.
In the US states generally exclude sales tax on materials
purchased for manufacturing and on products sold for
resale and for export outside that state (including to
other states)so there is similarity with the VAT. The big
difference is magnitude of the tax. States sales taxes
average around 7% compared to VAT in the 15% to 20% range.
VAT is a much bigger subsidy.
Sanjait -> Dave Maxwell...
, -1
Well, I should have scrolled down before expressing
disbelief.
But if you want to talk facts, then note that
no country relies 100% on a VAT. No country is even close:
Mexico is actually the highest in reliance on
consumption taxes generally (which is how the OECD
classifies a VAT), but as the report notes, only part of
the consumption tax mix is VAT. It also includes other
excise taxes and fees. In Mexico I'd assume this includes
oil industry revenues going to the government, which as of
recently made up a third of the national government's
total revenue mix.
Anyway, what is the point you guys are really trying to
make? Is it that the policy mix of taxes has some effect
on export incentives? Well, yeah that's true. But
consumption taxes aren't even the whole story there. How
about the way the US handles international transfer
pricing? Lots of things factor in.
Actually most countries have VAT and when two countries
with VAT trade, then VAT is always raised on all goods
where they are sold to an end consumer. Simple. The issue
comes when a country has no VAT and relies almost only on
income tax. Income tax is then levied on exports but not
on imports, so that the exports from such a country are at
a relative disadvantage UNLESS the real exchange rate
adjusts (as it should). Because the real exchange rate
should adjust to equalize such effects, this argument is
really just hot air. But of course, if he really wanted to
do something about it, he could offer to institute a VAT
himself, as most countries have.
"... FDR once said, "A nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself." This is happening in the United States in the most literal sense, given that our political and economic system are wedded to a market-driven system willing to destroy the planet, while relentlessly undermining those institutions that make a democracy possible. ..."
"... War is no longer an instrument to be used by political powers, but a form of rule, a general condition of the social order itself -- a permanent social relation and organizing principle that affects all aspects of the social order. In fact, the US has moved from a welfare state in the last forty years to a warfare state, and war has now become the foundation for politics, wedded to a misguided war on terror, the militarization of everyday life ..."
"... Politics has become a comprehensive war machine that aggressively assaults anything that does not comply with its underlying economic, religious, educative and political fundamentalisms. ..."
"... The vocabulary of war has become normalized and mobilizes certain desires, not only related to violence and social combat, but also in the creation of agents who act in the service of violence. ..."
"... This retreat into barbarism is amplified by the neoliberal value of celebrating self-interest over attention to the needs of others. It gets worse. As Hannah Arendt once observed, war culture is part of a species of thoughtlessness that legitimates certain desires, values and identities that make people insensitive to the violence they see around them in everyday life. ..."
"... A one-dimensional use of data erases the questions that matter the most: What gives life meaning? What is justice? What constitutes happiness? These things are all immeasurable by a retreat into the discourse of quantification. ..."
"... Reducing everything to quantitative data creates a form of civic illiteracy, undercuts the ethical imagination, kills empathy and mutilates politics. ..."
"... America's obsession with metrics and quantitative data is a symptom of its pedagogy of oppression. Numerical values now drive teaching, reduce culture in the broadest sense to the culture of business and teach children that schools exist largely to produce conformity and kill the imagination. Leon Wieseltier is right in arguing that the unchecked celebration of metrics erases the distinction "between knowledge and information" and substitutes quantification for wisdom. ..."
"... The left appears to have little interest in addressing education as central to how people think and see things. Education can enable people to recognize that the problems they face in everyday life need a new language that speaks to those problems. What is particularly crucial here is the need to develop a politics in which pedagogy becomes central to enabling people to understand and translate how everyday troubles connect to wider structures. ..."
"... We no longer live in a democracy. The myth of democracy has to be dismantled. ..."
"... We have to make clear that decisions made by the state and corporations are not in the general interest. We must connect the war on Black youth to the war on workers and the war on the middle class ..."
"... As Martin Luther King recognized at end of his life, the war at home and the war abroad cannot be separated. Such linkages remain crucial to the democratic project. ..."
Henry Giroux:FDR once said, "A nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself."
This is happening in the United States in the most literal sense, given that our political and economic
system are wedded to a market-driven system willing to destroy the planet, while relentlessly undermining
those institutions that make a democracy possible. What this suggests and the book takes up in multiple
ways is that the United States is at war with its own idealism, democratic institutions, the working
and middle classes, minority youth, Muslims, immigrants and all of those populations considered disposable.
War has taken on an existential quality in that we are not simply at war; rather, as Étienne
Balibar insists, "we are in war," inhabiting a war culture that touches every aspect of society.
War is no longer an instrument to be used by political powers, but a form of rule, a general condition
of the social order itself -- a permanent social relation and organizing principle that affects all
aspects of the social order. In fact, the US has moved from a welfare state in the last forty years
to a warfare state, and war has now become the foundation for politics, wedded to a misguided war
on terror, the militarization of everyday life, and a culture of fear, which have become its most
important regulative functions. Politics has become a comprehensive war machine that aggressively
assaults anything that does not comply with its underlying economic, religious, educative and political
fundamentalisms.
As a comprehensive war machine, the United States operates in the service of a police state, violates
civil liberties and has given rise to a military-industrial-surveillance complex that President Eisenhower
could never have imagined. For instance, the largest part of the federal budget -- 600 billion dollars
-- goes to the military. The US rings the earth with military bases, and the US military budget is
larger than those of all other advanced industrial countries combined. And that doesn't count the
money spent on the National Surveillance State and intelligence agencies.
... ... ...
What's interesting about the war metaphor is that it produces a language that celebrates what
the US should be ashamed of, including the national surveillance state, the military-industrial complex,
the war on whistleblowers, the never-ending spectacle of violence in popular culture and endless
wars abroad. The vocabulary of war has become normalized and mobilizes certain desires, not only
related to violence and social combat, but also in the creation of agents who act in the service
of violence.
Violence is not only normalized as the ultimate measure for solving problems, but also
as a form of pleasure, especially with regard to the production of violent video games, films and
even the saturation of violence in daily mainstream news. Violence saturates American life, as it
has become cool to be cruel to people, to bully people and to be indifferent to the suffering of
others. The ultimate act of pleasure is now served up in cinematically produced acts of extreme violence,
produced both to numb the conscience and to up the pleasure quotient.
This retreat into barbarism is amplified by the neoliberal value of celebrating self-interest
over attention to the needs of others. It gets worse. As Hannah Arendt once observed, war culture
is part of a species of thoughtlessness that legitimates certain desires, values and identities that
make people insensitive to the violence they see around them in everyday life.One can't have
a democracy that organizes itself around war because war is the language of injustice -- it admits
no compassion and revels in a culture of cruelty.
How does the reduction of life to quantitative data -- testing in schools, mandatory minimums
in sentencing, return on investment -- feed into the cultural apparatuses producing a nation at war
with itself?
This is the language of instrumental rationality gone berserk, one that strips communication of
those issues, values and questions that cannot be resolved empirically. This national obsession with
data is symbolic of the retreat from social and moral responsibility. A one-dimensional use of data
erases the questions that matter the most: What gives life meaning? What is justice? What constitutes
happiness? These things are all immeasurable by a retreat into the discourse of quantification.
This
type of positivism encourages a form of thoughtlessness, undermines critical agency, makes people
more susceptible to violence and emotion rather than reason. Reducing everything to quantitative
data creates a form of civic illiteracy, undercuts the ethical imagination, kills empathy and mutilates
politics.
The obsession with data becomes a convenient tool for abdicating that which cannot be measured,
thus removing from the public sphere those issues that raise serious questions that demand debate,
informed judgment and thoughtfulness while taking seriously matters of historical consciousness,
memory and context. Empiricism has always been comfortable with authoritarian societies, and has
worked to reduce civic courage and agency to an instrumental logic that depoliticizes people by removing
matters of social and political responsibility from ethical and political considerations.
America's obsession with metrics and quantitative data is a symptom of its pedagogy of oppression.
Numerical values now drive teaching, reduce culture in the broadest sense to the culture of business
and teach children that schools exist largely to produce conformity and kill the imagination. Leon
Wieseltier is right in arguing that the unchecked celebration of metrics erases the distinction
"between knowledge and information" and substitutes quantification for wisdom.
This is not to say that all data is worthless or that data gathering is entirely on the side of
repression. However, the dominant celebration of data, metrics and quantification flattens the human
experience, outsources judgement and distorts the complexity of the real world. The idolatry of the
metric paradigm is politically and ethically enervating and cripples the human spirit.
In ignoring the power of the pedagogical function of mainstream cultural apparatuses, many on
the left have lost their ability to understand how domination and resistance work at the level of
everyday life. The left has relied for too long on defining domination in strictly structural terms,
especially with regard to economic structures. Many people on the left assume that the only form
of domination is economic. What they ignore is that the crises of economics, history, politics and
agency have not been matched by a crisis of ideas. They don't understand how much work is required
to change consciousness or how central the issue of identification is to any viable notion of politics.
People only respond to a politics that speaks to their condition. What the left has neglected is
how matters of identification and the centrality of judgment, belief and persuasion are crucial to
politics itself. The left underestimates the dimensions of struggle when it gives up on education
as central to the very meaning of politics.
The left appears to have little interest in addressing education as central to how people think
and see things. Education can enable people to recognize that the problems they face in everyday
life need a new language that speaks to those problems. What is particularly crucial here is the
need to develop a politics in which pedagogy becomes central to enabling people to understand and
translate how everyday troubles connect to wider structures.
What do you want people to take away from the book?
Certainly, it is crucial to educate people to recognize that American democracy is in crisis and
that the forces that threaten it are powerful and must be made visible. In this case, we are talking
about the merging of neoliberalism, institutionalized racism, militarization, racism, poverty, inequities
in wealth and power and other issues that undermine democracy.
We no longer live in a democracy. The myth of democracy has to be dismantled. To understand that,
we need to connect the dots and make often isolated forms of domination visible -- extending from
the war on terror and the existence of massive inequalities in wealth and power to the rise of the
mass incarceration state and the destruction of public and higher education. We have to make clear
that decisions made by the state and corporations are not in the general interest. We must connect
the war on Black youth to the war on workers and the war on the middle class, while exposing the
workings of a system that extorts money, uses prison as a default welfare program and militarizes
the police as a force for repression and domestic terrorism. We must learn how to translate individual
problems into larger social issues, create a comprehensive politics and a third party with the aim
not of reforming the system, but restructuring it. As Martin Luther King recognized at end of
his life, the war at home and the war abroad cannot be separated. Such linkages remain crucial to
the democratic project.
Peter K. :
September 27, 2016 at 06:45 AM DeLong on helicopter money: "The swelling wave of argument and
discussion around "helicopter money" has two origins:
First, as Harvard's Robert Barro says: there has been no recovery since 2010.
The unemployment rate here in the U.S. has come down, yes. But the unemployment rate has come
down primarily because people who were unemployed have given up and dropped out of the labor force.
Shrinkage in the share of people unemployed has been a distinctly secondary factor. Moreover, the
small increase in the share of people with jobs has been neutralized, as far as its effects on how
prosperous we are, by much slower productivity growth since 2010 than America had previously seen,
had good reason to anticipate, and deserves.
The only bright spot is a relative one: things in other rich countries are even worse.
..."
I thought Krugman and Furman were bragging about Obama's tenure.
"Now note that back in 1936 [John Maynard Keynes had disagreed][]:
"The State will have to exercise a guiding influence... partly by fixing the rate of interest,
and partly, perhaps, in other ways.... It seems unlikely that the influence of banking policy on
the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself.... I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive
socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment;
though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which public authority will
co-operate with private initiative..."
By the 1980s, however, for Keynes himself the long run had come, and he was dead. The Great Moderation
of the business cycle from 1984-2007 was a rich enough pudding to be proof, for the rough consensus
of mainstream economists at least, that Keynes had been wrong and Friedman had been right.
But in the aftermath of 2007 it became very clear that they-or, rather, we, for I am certainly
one of the mainstream economists in the roughly consensus-were very, tragically, dismally and grossly
wrong."
DeLong sounds very much left rather than center-left. His reasons for supporting Hillary over
Sanders eludes me.
Hillary's $275 billion over 5 years is substantially too small as center-leftist Krugman put it.
Now we face a choice:
Do we accept economic performance that all of our predecessors would have characterized as grossly
subpar-having assigned the Federal Reserve and other independent central banks a mission and then
kept from them the policy tools they need to successfully accomplish it?
Do we return the task of managing the business cycle to the political branches of government-so
that they don't just occasionally joggle the elbows of the technocratic professionals but actually
take on a co-leading or a leading role?
Or do we extend the Federal Reserve's toolkit in a structured way to give it the tools it needs?
Helicopter money is an attempt to choose door number (3). Our intellectual adversaries mostly
seek to choose door number (1)-and then to tell us that the "cold douche", as Schumpeter put it,
of unemployment will in the long run turn out to be good medicine, for some reason or other. And
our intellectual adversaries mostly seek to argue that in reality there is no door number (3)-that
attempts to go through it will rob central banks of their independence and wind up with us going
through door number (2), which we know ends badly..."
------------
Some commenters believe more fiscal policy via Congress is politically more realistic than helicopter
money.
I don't know, maybe they're right. I do know Hillary's proposals are too small. And her aversion
to government debt and deficit is wrong given the economic context and market demand for safe assets.
"Moreover, the small increase in the share of people with jobs has been neutralized, as far as
its effects on how prosperous we are, by much slower productivity growth since 2010 than America
had previously seen, had good reason to anticipate, and deserves."
?????? The rate of (measured) productivity growth is not all that important. What has happened
to real median income.
And why are quoting from Robert Barro who is basically a freshwater economist. Couldn't you
find somebody sensible?
Barro wants us to believe we have been at full employment all along. Of course that would mean
any increase in aggregate demand would only cause inflation. Of course many of us think Barro
lost it years ago.
These little distinctions are alas lost on PeterK.
[1] Do we accept economic performance that all of our predecessors would have characterized
as grossly subpar-having assigned the Federal Reserve and other independent central banks a mission
and then kept from them the policy tools they need to successfully accomplish it?
[2] Do we return the task of managing the business cycle to the political branches of government-so
that they don't just occasionally joggle the elbows of the technocratic professionals but actually
take on a co-leading or a leading role?
[3] Or do we extend the Federal Reserve's toolkit in a structured way to give it the tools
it needs?
Helicopter money is an attempt to choose door number (3). Our intellectual adversaries mostly
seek to choose door number (1)-and then to tell us that the "cold douche", as Schumpeter put it,
of unemployment will in the long run turn out to be good medicine, for some reason or other. And
our intellectual adversaries mostly seek to argue that in reality there is no door number (3)-that
attempts to go through it will rob central banks of their independence and wind up with us going
through door number (2), which we know ends badly...""
---------------------
Conservatives want 1 and 2 ends badly, so 3 is the only choice.
Lambert: " "Smart" is one of those 10%-er weasel words. Was NAFTA smart? Why or what not? Smart
for whom?"
----
Indeed. Whether a deal is smart to make depends on one's real objective. Hows'about clearing that
question up, Mrs C?
"... Global is gone as a main driving force, pan-European is gone, and whether the United States will stay united is far from a done deal. We are moving towards a mass movement of dozens of separate countries and states and societies looking inward. All of which are in some form of -impending- trouble or another. ..."
"... And of course it's confusing that the protests against the 'old regimes' and the growth and centralization -first- manifest in the rise of faces and voices who do not reject all of the above offhand. That is to say, the likes of Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage may be against more centralization, but none of them has a clue about growth being over. They don't get that part anymore than Hillary or Hollande or Merkel do. ..."
"... Dems in the US, Labour in the UK, and Hollande's 'Socialists' in France have all become part of the two-headed monster that is the political center, and that is (held) responsible for the deterioration in people's lives. ..."
But nobody seems to really know or understand. Which is odd, because it's not that hard. That
is, this all happens because growth is over. And if growth is over, so are expansion and centralization
in all the myriad of shapes and forms they come in.
Global is gone as a main driving force, pan-European is gone, and whether the United States
will stay united is far from a done deal. We are moving towards a mass movement of dozens of separate
countries and states and societies looking inward. All of which are in some form of -impending-
trouble or another.
What makes the entire situation so hard to grasp for everyone is that nobody wants to acknowledge
any of this. Even though tales of often bitter poverty emanate from all the exact same places
that Trump and Brexit and Le Pen come from too.
That the politico-econo-media machine churns out positive growth messages 24/7 goes some way
towards explaining the lack of acknowledgement and self-reflection, but only some way. The rest
is due to who we ourselves are. We think we deserve eternal growth.
And of course it's confusing that the protests against the 'old regimes' and the growth
and centralization -first- manifest in the rise of faces and voices who do not reject all of the
above offhand. That is to say, the likes of Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage may be
against more centralization, but none of them has a clue about growth being over. They don't get
that part anymore than Hillary or Hollande or Merkel do.
So why these people? Look closer and you see that in the US, UK and France, there is nobody
left who used to speak for the 'poor and poorer'. While at the same time, the numbers of poor
and poorer increase at a rapid clip. They just have nowhere left to turn to. There is literally
no left left.
Dems in the US, Labour in the UK, and Hollande's 'Socialists' in France have all become
part of the two-headed monster that is the political center, and that is (held) responsible for
the deterioration in people's lives. Moreover, at least for now, the actual left wing may
try to stand up in the form of Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders, but they are both being stangled
by the two-headed monster's fake left in their countries and their own parties.
================================================
This is from today's Links, but I didn't have a chance to post this snippet. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RL1A225NBEA
Long time since we had 5% – if the whole system is financial scheme is premised on growth,
and there is less and less of it ever year, it doesn't look sustainable. How bad http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/09/200pm-water-cooler-9272016.html#comment-2676054does
it have to get for how many before the model is chucked???
In the great depression, even the bankers were having a tough time. If the rich are exempt
from suffering, I think history has shown that a small elite can impose suffering on masses for
a long time…
'there is nobody left who used to speak for the 'poor and poorer'.
Actually, there are plenty who SPEAK for the poor, there just is NONE who ACT.
How would we measure this growth that is supposed to be over? Yes of course there are the conventional
measurements like GDP, but it's not zero. Yes of course if inflation is understated it would overstate
GDP, and yes GDP measurements may not measure much as many critics have said. But what about other
measures?
Is oil use down, are CO2 emissions down, is resource use in general down? If not it's growth
(or groath). This growth is at the cost of the planet but that's why GDP is flawed. And the benefit
of this groath goes entirely to the 1%ers, but that's distribution.
The left failed, I don't know all the reasons (and it's always hard to oppose the powers that
be, the field always tilts toward them, it's never a fair fight) but it failed. That's what we
see the results of.
Someone very smart said "the Fed makes the economy more stable".
He also quoted The Princess Bride: "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you
think".
Definition of stable: firm; steady; not wavering or changeable.
As in: US GDP growth of a paltry 1.22% per year.
But hey it only took an additional trillion $ in debt per year to stay "stable".
there are plenty who SPEAK for the poor, there just is NONE who ACT.
========
That's why in 1992 Francis Futurama refirmed the end of history that was predicted by Hegel some
150 years earlier.
"... "I don't believe she has the stamina to be the president," he said on Fox. "You know, she's home all the time." ..."
"... Better late then never. This issue should be raised during the debates. Serious neurological disease that Hillary is suffering from should be a campaign issue. It is a fair game. ..."
"... That does not make Trump immune from counter-attacks as he is older then Clinton and might have skeletons in the closet too, but voters have right to know the real state of health of candidates. ..."
"... "Khan Gambit" was the most shameful part of Clinton attacks on Trump. ..."
The Morning After the Debate, Donald Trump Goes on the Attack http://nyti.ms/2cSvOlO
NYT - ALEXANDER BURNS - SEPT. 27, 2016
A defensive Donald J. Trump lashed out at the debate moderator, complained about his microphone
and threatened to make Bill Clinton's marital infidelity a campaign issue in a television appearance
on Tuesday just hours after his first presidential debate with Hillary Clinton.
And defying conventions of civility and political common sense, Mr. Trump leveled cutting personal
criticism at a Miss Universe pageant winner, held up by Mrs. Clinton in Monday night's debate
as an example of her opponent's disrespect for women.
Mr. Trump insisted in the Fox News appearance that he had been right to disparage the beauty
queen, Alicia Machado, for her physique.
"She was the winner and she gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem,"
said Mr. Trump, who was the pageant's executive producer at the time. "Not only that - her attitude.
And we had a real problem with her."
Mrs. Clinton mentioned Ms. Machado by name, quoting insults that Ms. Machado has attributed
to Mr. Trump and noting that the pageant winner had become a citizen to vote in the 2016 election.
During the debate, he showed disbelief at the charge that he had ridiculed Ms. Machado, asking
Mrs. Clinton repeatedly, "Where did you find this?"
But Mr. Trump abruptly shifted course a few hours later, with comments that threatened to escalate
and extend an argument that appeared to be one of his weakest moments of the debate.
Mrs. Clinton assailed him late in the debate for deriding women as "pigs, slobs and dogs."
Mr. Trump had no ready answer for the charge of sexism, and offered a muddled reply that cited
his past feud with the comedian Rosie O'Donnell.
His comments attacking Ms. Machado recalled his frequent practice, during the Republican primaries
and much of the general election campaign, of bickering harshly with political bystanders, sometimes
savaging them in charged language that ended up alienating voters. In the past, he has made extended
personal attacks on the Muslim parents of an Army captain killed in Iraq and on a Hispanic federal
judge.
Trump aides considered it a sign of progress in recent weeks that the Republican nominee was
more focused on criticizing Mrs. Clinton, and less prone to veering off into such self-destructive
public feuds.
Going after Ms. Machado may be especially tone deaf for Mr. Trump, at a moment in the race
when he is seeking to reverse voters' ingrained negative views of his personality. Sixty percent
of Americans in an ABC News/Washington Post poll this month said they thought Mr. Trump was biased
against women and minorities, and Mrs. Clinton has been airing a television commercial highlighting
his history of caustic and graphic comments about women.
Mrs. Clinton pressed her advantage on Tuesday, telling reporters on her campaign plane that
Mr. Trump had raised "offensive and off-putting" views that called into question his fitness for
the presidency.
"The real point," she said, "is about temperament and fitness and qualification to hold the
most important, hardest job in the world."
Both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton will strike out on the campaign trail on Tuesday with the goal
of framing the debate's outcome to their advantage. While Mr. Trump is in Florida, Mrs. Clinton
plans to campaign in North Carolina, a traditionally Republican state where polls show her and
Mr. Trump virtually tied.
It will likely take a few days to measure any shift in the race after the candidates' clash
at Hofstra University on Long Island. Polls had shown the presidential race narrowing almost to
a dead heat on the national level, with Mr. Trump drawing close to Mrs. Clinton in several swing
states where she had long held an advantage.
But Mr. Trump appeared thrown on Tuesday by his uneven performance the night before, offering
a series of different explanations for the results. On Fox, he cited "unfair questions" posed
by the moderator, Lester Holt of NBC News, and insinuated that someone might have tampered with
his microphone.
Moving forward in his contest with Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump said he might "hit her harder,"
perhaps raising the issue of "her husband's women." Should Mr. Trump opt for that risky approach,
he could begin to do so during a campaign swing in Florida on Tuesday.
And in another indication that Mr. Trump has little intention of shifting his tone, the Republican
nominee repeated the attack on Mrs. Clinton that spurred their Monday exchange about gender in
the first place: that she lacks the physical vigor to be president.
"I don't believe she has the stamina to be the president," he said on Fox. "You know, she's
home all the time."
Mrs. Clinton was dismissive on Tuesday of Mr. Trump's barbs, shrugging off a question about
his threat to go after Mrs. Clinton and her husband personally and his dismay about the microphone.
"Anybody who complains about the microphone is not having a good night," she said. ...
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... Shamed and Angry: Alicia Machado, a Miss Universe
Mocked by Donald Trump http://nyti.ms/2cSGwsk
NYT - MICHAEL BARBARO and MEGAN TWOHEY - Sep 27
For 20 years, Alicia Machado has lived with the agony of what Donald J. Trump did to her after
she won the Miss Universe title: shame her, over and over, for gaining weight.
Private scolding was apparently insufficient. Mr. Trump, at the time an executive producer
of the pageant, insisted on accompanying Ms. Machado, then a teenager, to a gym, where dozens
of reporters and cameramen watched as she exercised.
Mr. Trump, in his trademark suit and tie, posed for photographs beside her as she burned calories
in front of the news media. "This is somebody who likes to eat," Mr. Trump said from inside the
gym. ...
(The Donald is clearly no slouch in that department.)
Trump, 'the candidate who almost always flies home in his private Boeing 757 to Trump Tower in
New York or to his palatial Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla.' ...
Donald Trump Means Business in Iowa: Night in Motel, and a Day in Church
http://nyti.ms/1UlcJI3
NYT - MAGGIE HABERMAN - JAN. 24, 2016
MUSCATINE, Iowa - Donald J. Trump spent the last seven months saying he wanted to win. Now
he is really acting like it. ...
On Friday night, the candidate who almost always flies home in his private Boeing 757 to Trump
Tower in New York or to his palatial Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., instead slept in a
Holiday Inn Express in Sioux Center, Iowa. ("Good mattress," he said afterward. "Clean.") ...
"I don't believe she has the stamina to be the president," he said on Fox. "You know, she's
home all the time."
Better late then never. This issue should be raised during the debates. Serious neurological
disease that Hillary is suffering from should be a campaign issue. It is a fair game.
That does not make Trump immune from counter-attacks as he is older then Clinton and might
have skeletons in the closet too, but voters have right to know the real state of health of candidates.
This is a fair game.
"... The manner is which she secured the Democratic nomination is a signature of the Clinton style. The Clinton 'charitable foundation' is a beacon for everything that is wrong with the American economic and political system today. ..."
"... I consider this upcoming national election to be the signal failure of the two party political system as it is today, choked by a self-referential elite, corrupted by a lust for power and big money. ..."
"The narcissist devours people, consumes their output, and casts the empty, writhing shells aside."
Sam Vaknin
I make it no secret that I find Hillary Clinton to be both morally repugnant and appallingly dishonest.
The manner is which she secured the Democratic nomination is a signature of the Clinton style.
The Clinton 'charitable foundation' is a beacon for everything that is wrong with the American economic
and political system today.
But that does not mean that I am blind to what is being offered by The Donald.
I consider this upcoming national election to be the signal failure of the two party political
system as it is today, choked by a self-referential elite, corrupted by a lust for power and big
money.
What Krugman doesn't get is that trade
is resonating as a an issue and it's resonating for a reason. Look at Brexit. Preaching to the choir
that we should it ignore it - it makes corporations and the donor class happy - doesn't change that
fact.
Maybe you missed the simple point.
Having a sales tax is not trade protection. Trump is either an idiot or he is playing people
to be idiots. I guess you are OK with this.
I have repeatedly pointed out
that if country A mostly uses VAT (which taxes imports but not exports) and country B mostly
uses income tax (which taxes exports but not imports) then that affects the effective exchange
rate.
IN PRINCIPLE the exchange rate should adjust for this. The question is whether it does (but
note also the incentive to export effects). The problem with all these issues is that it is
complicated and for people who can't think in terms of more than 15 words at a time it is difficult.
The US$ and Mexican peso do float
with respect to each other so you are correct. Besides, the Republican plan to replace those
massive income tax cuts for the rich that Trump wants is to hit the rest of us with sales (aka
VAT) taxes.
"... Bill Clinton's tenure wasn't all good. He said the "era of big government was over." He enacted Republican lite policies which helped lead to the financial crisis. He didn't enact policies that helped globalization's losers. The Clinton years ended in a tech-stock bubble and financial crisis in East Asia. ..."
"... The reason to win elections is not just to prevent disastrous conservative policies. It's to enact good policies. Left policies are better than center-left. Hillary is center-left as Krugman pointed out. Corbyn is left. Yes the next 40 days has a contest between between the center-left and insane right, but that doesn't mean we cant' fact check the center-left pundits like Krugman. ..."
Trump was proud he evaded taxes and yet he complains about the state of American infrastructure?
He babbled incoherently about Yellen and the Fed.
Yes Republicans and Bush squandered the fact
that Clinton/Gingrich balanced the budget with tax cuts for the rich.
Krugman has made the distinction between center-left and left in the context of attacking Bernie
Sanders. Read Simon Wren-Lewis's blog post on UK Labour.
Hillary rightly lambasted trickle-down economics last night and contrasted Republican economics
with Democrats' "middle class" economics. But she mostly went after Trump at a personal level and
I thought she was effective. Maybe in the next debates she'll talk more about economics.
Her description of what caused the financial crisis wasn't really accurate but so what, it was
close enough.
She did brag about her husband's tenure (and how many times during the primary we were told by
supporters that it wasn't fair to equate her with her husband.
Which is where Trump would go off on NAFTA.
Bill Clinton's tenure wasn't all good. He said
the "era of big government was over." He enacted Republican lite policies which helped lead to the
financial crisis. He didn't enact policies that helped globalization's losers. The Clinton years
ended in a tech-stock bubble and financial crisis in East Asia.
Simon Wren-Lewis's blog post doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe it's my fault. All he does is
link to the Owen Smith piece which says Labour doesn't poll well and SWL complains Corbyn won't win
elections.
The reason to win elections is not just to prevent disastrous conservative policies. It's
to enact good policies. Left policies are better than center-left. Hillary is center-left as Krugman
pointed out. Corbyn is left. Yes the next 40 days has a contest between between the center-left and
insane right, but that doesn't mean we cant' fact check the center-left pundits like Krugman.
As even Krugman pointed out, Hillary's "investment" of $275 billion over 5 years is substantially
too small. It will lead to a reliance on monetary policy from a shaky Fed which may create more asset
bubbles if regulators and regulations aren't up to the task of preventing them.
It was very center-left of Hillary to brag that her plan is revenue neutral. Maybe that's the
smart thing to do politically, but not economically and it's not being honest with the voters.
I hate how shes smiling and at one part almost laughed at something serious like this is a game.
she never directly responds to what lester or trump asks, but you see trump directly answering
or responding to what she asks. One thing i want to know is, but will never know, does she want
to destroy this country or is she so ignorant that she will destroy it by trying to help. Her
views are wrong on economy, there may be somethings that i will agree with her but when it comes
to economy she will wreck this country.
If Hillary is in the White House then we may as well has the Islamic flag above it instead of
the stars & stripes. Craigslist has ads for protesters to be paid to show where there's a Trump
rally to harass. In the paper a few months back a man woke to find windows of his car bashed in.
The car had a Trump sticker. The anti Trump climate in networks NBC & MSNBC & CNN & Morning CBS.
On YouTube Hillary is bringing 65K rufugees to US next year.
"... Yes, people kept saying how they wish Trump would win the R primaries because it would be so exciting when he took his attack to Hillary and gave her what she may very well deserve. And I was always "I'll believe it when I see it, not until then". ..."
"... May be… He could easily bury her, but preferred not to. He was definitely unprepared. Also he might be afraid of Clinton clan. ..."
"... He's 70 years old and can be knocked off balance defending !insults! about a beauty queen. ..."
Yes, people kept saying how they wish Trump would win the R primaries because it would be so
exciting when he took his attack to Hillary and gave her what she may very well deserve. And I
was always "I'll believe it when I see it, not until then".
I don't think Trump was vastly different in the R primary debates (he was unfocused and narcissistic
then as well), but I always suspected somehow that he would play softball rather than hardball
when it came to the REAL showdown with Clinton (no "little Rubio" here). Well I told ya so. Although
there are 3 more debates so I guess I could still be proved wrong. But it's looking like I told
you so.
What so great or even fun and entertaining about Trump again? These circuses are completely
boring!!! Well he's not Clinton I suppose there is always that.
----
I guess the 10% think they got there by doing well on tests and not sheer luck and choosing the
right parents. Hmm well screw em.
likbez
"I have seen people say he is saving it….?dry powder?"
May be… He could easily bury her, but preferred not to. He was definitely unprepared. Also
he might be afraid of Clinton clan.
"A lot of people check out after the first 30 minutes of one debate and never come back."
True -- It was pretty disgusting performance on both sides.
ChiGal in Carolina
Just had my first in-person encounter with an apparent Trump supporter, 40ish lifeguard at
the community pool down here. He was very pleased with last night's debate, thought Trump showed
he has self-control and was generally presidential (!).
All my friends and family thought Clinton "won" but it's not gonna matter.
charles leseau
He's 70 years old and can be knocked off balance defending !insults! about a beauty queen.
Amen. It takes very little wit to point out immediately how irrelevant such a thing is to a
presidential debate, but instead he walked right into it like a rattled kid who doesn't think
half a second before responding.
Here's St. Clair's liveblog of the big debate. Sampler
+ Lester Holt needs to be extremely cautious tonight. Lots of police and armed security in
the debate hall. No sudden movements. Holt must keep his hands firmly on the podium at all times.
+ Bill and Melania shake hands at center stage. Bill whispers something in her ear. I think
it was: "Text me."
+ No national anthem. Kaepernick wins!
+ Hillary enters, as the Woman in Red. The stains of Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Syria and Yemen.
"Gah. A VAT is basically a sales tax. It is levied on both
domestic and imported goods, so that it doesn't protect
against imports - which is why it's allowed under
international trade rules, and not considered a
protectionist trade policy."
I think what Trump was
getting at was that exports are typically exempt from VAT.
So while Krugman is correct that Mexican VAT applies
equally to Mexican goods sold in Mexico and US goods
imported into Mexico, it doesn't apply to Mexican goods
exported to the US.
But honestly, who cares? Trump is not espousing any
sort of realistic solution to the problems facing the
middle class. Imposing tariffs, tearing up trade
agreements, and kicking out immigrants is baby talk
intended to placate the ill-informed.
Yes I think trump garbled his point
In the briefing he got from his brain trust
I suspect he heard something like this
The vat advantage is more like an undervalued peso
effect on lowering "the cost "
of US exports
But without the protectionist effect of raising the cost
of US imports
Perhaps his apparent ADHD
Betrayed him here
He heard the word protectionist and forgot the details and
the precise fact
There is no protectionist effect of the vat export rebate
PRD -> pgl...
, -1
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is the arithmetic I'm
picking up from Krugman which shows Trump's fallacy.
If you have a $10,000 Mexican car that paid a $2,000
VAT, the exporter gets reimbursed for the $2,000 dollar
paid in VAT which would normally get passed along to the
consumer, thus making the price that it is exported at
$8,000. That $8,000 dollar car would subsequently pay
sales tax in the USA.
If you have a $10,000 USA car being exported to Mexico,
it would get the VAT tax added on to be passed along to
the consumer, thus making it $12,500. That same car would
pay sales tax in the United States on it being worth
$10,000.
So basically, the Mexican car is actually only worth
$8,000 because the VAT that would have been passed along
to the consumers (and had been paid already) is reimbursed
to the exporter. The American car is worth $10,000 and
must pay the VAT, because the Mexican car would pay the
VAT in Mexico as well. Essentially he's equating an $8,000
Mexican car with a $10,000 American car.
Shah of Bratpuhr :
, -1
I highly doubt Trump considers people that understand
economics to be his target audience. Trump speaks only to
his target audience not about issues, but rather how they
feel right now at this exact moment. Perhaps his strategy
is to keep people angry and fearful enough by Election
Day?
His message to his audience: "you feel badly because
you're not rich", audience nods, "it's this scapegoat's
fault", audience cheers, "Only I can rid you of this
scapegoat and when I do, you'll feel better"
Paine -> Shah of Bratpuhr...
, -1
Yes
He has learned the devil can easily hide in the
details
JohnH :
, -1
"Trump's whole view on trade is that other people are
taking advantage of us - that it's all about dominance,
and that we're weak."
You have to admit, Trump was
right...he just doesn't understand who's taking advantage
of whom. He really should understand this (and probably
does)...the winners are all around him on Park Ave, Fifth
Ave, and Wall Street. Of course, you'd never expect Trump
to admit that he's part of the predatory class, would you?
Ben Groves :
, -1
Trade agreements hurt a lot of country's that American
"businesses" deal with more than America a good deal of
the time. NAFTA killed Mexican farming. It was part of the
package along with the 2002 subsidy agreement after 9/11
that started nationalizing agri-business. This also
allowed drug production to take off and cartels to expand
quickly, using the increased volume of business
transactions to ship more drugs across the borders into
Donald Trump supporters noses and veins.
"After a shaky start, Clinton was mostly prepared, disciplined, and methodical in her attacks.
By contrast, after landing some early blows on trade, Trump was mostly winging it" [NBC]. That's
how it felt to me. Of course, 10%-ers like preparation. Preparation leads to passing your test! But
in this case, they are right to do so.
==================================================== Trump could have brought up:
deplorables – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground
Goldman Sachs – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground
email – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground
bankers – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground
I have seen people say he is saving it….?dry powder? A lot of people check out after the first
30 minutes of one debate and never come back. And I'm really into it – and I doubt I will waste my time again. Even though I am a big believer
in judging people/politicians by what they do and not what they say, Trump's immaturity has frayed
my last nerve. He's 70 years old and can be knocked off balance defending !insults! about a beauty
queen.
"... Should Trump succeed in renegotiating US trade deals, corporations - currently at their most indebted level in history - will be deprived of revenues to service their debts. Some will default. ..."
"... Meanwhile, realizing whatever benefits accrue from more domestic production takes time and capital to construct plants. That's a problem, when corporate leverage already is too high. ..."
"... Most likely, the Business Roundtable will sit down for The Talk with Trump, and his wacky promises to restructure the global trade system will quickly be forgotten. ..."
No chief executive at the nation's 100 largest companies had donated to
Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign through August, a sharp
reversal from 2012, when nearly a third of Fortune 100 CEOs supported Mitt
Romney.
One executive is quoted taking offense at Trump's ethnic slurs. But that
doesn't explain the complete unanimity. What does explain it: overseas sales
account for a third of large companies' revenues. Chart:
Should Trump succeed in renegotiating US trade deals, corporations -
currently at their most indebted level in history - will be deprived of
revenues to service their debts. Some will default.
Meanwhile, realizing whatever benefits accrue from more domestic
production takes time and capital to construct plants. That's a problem, when
corporate leverage already is too high.
Most likely, the Business Roundtable will sit down for The Talk with
Trump, and his wacky promises to restructure the global trade system will
quickly be forgotten.
If Donnie's serious, then he's Herbert Hoover II, and the long-suffering Dr
Hussman becomes a billionaire after the Crash Heard Round the World.
"... This is an impossible task. She is a war criminal, a stanch neoliberal (like her husband, who sold Democratic Party to Wall Street) and unrepentant neocon. ..."
"... My feel is that Democrats lost the support of rank and file union members in this election cycle. Serial betrays starting from Bill Clinton "triangulation" and "third way" scams finally got under the skin of workers and they do not any longer consider Democratic Party as a political entity representing their interests. And financial oligarchy and professional classes voters are not numerous enough to secure the victory. ..."
Trump supporters will not be converted.
What we need to do is 1) get people who lean Clinton to show up and vote for her and 2) convince
fence-sitters that she's the better choice and to show up and vote for her. Towards that end, we
need to establish what's important to them: policy positions, nice clothes, likes dogs? Find out
what appeals to THEM, not necessarily you, and if Clinton has those traits even a little bit then
make the pitch for her based on those traits. Engage those voters. Don't just speculate on what might
or should appeal to them. Ask them what is important to them and ASK FOR THEIR VOTE!
I have come across a few Trump
supporters in my travels and what they all have in common is what they have to say about Hillary,
while about Trump they are mostly mute.
Hillary hate is strong.* It's
not as widespread in eastern MA as it is in other parts of the country but where it exists
it looks like it's just as intense.
*There's no intellectual consistency to it. It's visceral.
"convince fence-sitters that
she's the better choice and to show up and vote for her"
This is an impossible task. She
is a war criminal, a stanch neoliberal (like her husband, who sold Democratic Party to Wall
Street) and unrepentant neocon.
Trump might be a crook and as bad as she is, but in a larger scale of things he did not
committed the crimes she committed. Yet. And at least on the surface he is against neoliberal
globalization.
My feel is that Democrats lost the support of rank and file union members in this election
cycle. Serial betrays starting from Bill Clinton "triangulation" and "third way" scams finally
got under the skin of workers and they do not any longer consider Democratic Party as a political
entity representing their interests. And financial oligarchy and professional classes voters
are not numerous enough to secure the victory.
And that might well spells doom for Demorats.
On the other hand Trump could bury Clinton but choose do not even touch her most vulnerable
points (Iraq war vote, emailgate, Libya, Clinton Foundation scam. health issues, Bill Clinton
"legacy"). Is he afraid of something or just saving the shots ? Also he looked completely unprepared.
Clinton relied on notes and pre-defined gambits, while Trump relied on intuition. It did not
play well for him.
"... Personally, I came out of this feeling more sympathetic to Trump as a person, believe it or not. I think he genuinely sees the infrastructural decay and it frosts him. ..."
"... Same with "you had 30 years to solve it." Undeniably true; Clinton's whole "let's build on our success" schtick is such a steaming lot of 10%-er-ness. But if Trump wants to make this election a referendum on the political class, he's going to have to do a lot better than this ..."
"... Hillary gave no indication she is going to change the course we are on now; in fact, reading between the lines, she thinks things are going great and there is no reason to change anything. ..."
"... I think there is a better chance that Trump will actually try to fix things, but tax policy and several other things did not give me great hope that he has any idea how to fix things, or will learn & adapt quickly enough. On the plus side, some people talk better than they deliver; some people deliver better than they talk. At least there's a chance he's one of the latter. ..."
"... I can't find where he would refuse "trade deals", only ones "These Morons running things" have negotiated. I'm betting he would push them with minor changes, as will HRC. ISDS is a foregone conclusion, with either. Jesus, one of his advisors is Larry f'n Kudlow. If the regulars here are not appalled by the guys he has surrounded himself with, I sure am. I can see it coming… ..."
"... I think Trump's probably serious about trade. But if I understand the structural issues correctly, it doesn't really matter whether he is serious or not. Apparently the Republican base is now strongly opposed to free trade. ..."
"... If my assessment is correct, TPP dies with a Trump win. There isn't an option to reopen negotiations, is there? A brand new "Trump style" treaty would take years to negotiate, and he has "one term" written all over him. This also would kill TISA, right? Is it technically contingent on TPP passing first? ..."
"... The Democrats in opposition will be just as feckless as the Republicans have been effective. ..."
"... One particular provision of TISA is as bad as anything in TPP (bar ISDS) and that is the prohibition on remunicipalization of privatized public resources. Governments would not be allowed to take back things such as British Rail that have been sold off to the private sector, and would be prohibited from nationalizing any other public good now in private hands. It's another hit to national sovereignty. ..."
"... HRC, you knew from the beginning, who she was tied to/advised by/paid for by. She is a "known known". We are all seeking to know what or who DT represents, as he is harder to pin down. ..."
"... I don't think Clinton won every category just most. I think Trump won on "there is no evidence Russia hacked the DNC". ..."
"... How are we gonna survive 4 years with either of them at the helm? ..."
"... That was my take exactly. Since I don't honestly think Stein is going to win, and I think Johnson might be worse than either of these, I was hoping one of them would give me a reason to feel optimistic that they would do a decent job. They … both failed horribly. ..."
"... What universe are they living in? Half of these people used to be Bernie supporters. Are people that easily manipulated? Did I used to be that easily manipulated? Or have I gone completely insane now. This was some kind of masterful performance? She mouthed a lot of decent sounding platitudes with no specifics re: policy (while everyone praises her for specifics, and I think she championed the ideas of specifics themselves) while doing a decent but not great job of hitting Trump on some areas where he's very vulnerable. ..."
"... He did a great job finding areas where she's vulnerable, but a terrible job of hitting her on them. ..."
"... "Are people that easily manipulated?" Yes. Was I that easily manipulated? Probably. Don't feel bad though most of us were naïve enough to believe the BS for at least some period of time. ..."
"... Uh it's scripted reality TV. The "debates" are vetted and agreed upon by the two parties who sponsored the darn thing via their little pretend front group. Anyone, at this point, who thinks these things matter is fooling themselves. It's a 90 minute infomercial, so if you find infomercials masterful then I guess. ..."
"... Thank you for pointing out that as usual, the unconstitutional and illegitimate two-party duopoly has excluded other candidates who will be on the ballot. Who exactly gave them this privilege of exclusion? ..."
"... Private enterprise, Jim. You can always put up the money for third party candidates to debate on prime time. Thought that was how the market "works". ..."
"... I disagree strongly that Trump is incoherent; I saw him in Bangor. What he is, is discursive and improvisational. He has his main points that he always ..."
"... However, that style doesn't work for him in this debate. He doesn't get to determine the structure, there's no time in a two minute answer to do the kind of excursions he likes to do, and the crowd was told not to react. ..."
"... The format works very much against Trump, and very much for Clinton. Delivering bullet points successfully is a marker that a candidate is president-y. Considering what PowerPoint has done to the Pentagon, that might not be such a great idea, but it is what it is and we are where we are. ..."
"... I'm surprised that no one mentioned the one best line to the non political junkie. They HATE political commercials. He nailed her on spending Millions attacking him and he came across gentlemanly saying he wouldn't / hasn't done that to her. ..."
"... Honestly, I've seen 5 years olds who could resist the bait better than Trump… ..."
"... I don't know why this is surprising, Trump is the narcissist he is regardless of what people want to project on him. Of course none of that makes Clinton any better. Whether it's effective, eh who knows, if it's authoritarians voting for him maybe that is what they like, but I don't think there are enough of them for him to win on that alone. If people are just casting random angry votes for anything but the status quo then maybe. ..."
"... I disagree. I think both candidates are isolated within elite bubbles, leading to behaviors we consider narcissistic (armchair diagnosis, when you think about it. I mean, "I'm with her….") ..."
"... So which one is the Grandiose and the other an Insecure type ..."
"... ….Did anyone else notice how consistently Hillary looked down at the podium? I believe she was being fed "Cliff Notes" ON AN IPAD by her staff re every topic that was bought up….she was ALWAYS looking down and, I assume she was being fed CUES AND WORDS OR PHRASES that she should use….she not only looked down a lot before the time she was supposed to speak but also looked down a lot during her responses…… ..."
"... OTOH, Trump was "winging it" and "shooting from the hip"…..Hillary won because the notes kept her on track….If trump had done any serious prep and could take advice, he could have destroyed her…But, he doesn't do prep, so he can't effectively respond……. ..."
"... Hillary's closing comments were stronger, but by then I don't think their were many left watching who were "Persuadables"….those of us left were "political junkies" hoping for a last lap NASCAR worthy Candidate Crash….. ..."
"... I think Trump had the opportunity to win the debate handed to him on a silver platter by Hillary, but his failure to Prepare and Do the Little Things that would have helped him be ready for her totally expected responses/statements/stalking points cost him dearly….. ..."
"... He remains the Rich Guy, who does what he wants….. She remains the Robotic Gal, who will probably get what she wants…. ..."
"... Yes she was looking down a lot. Were they allowed to have iPads to look at? ..."
"... I think one of the CBS commentators said that Hillary appeared to be using notes. She did look down a lot, and I also thought she seemed unusually subdued. At times she appeared to look sleepy and bored. I don't think this "debate" changed anyone's mind. I think Trump was trying to "dial it back", and he did miss several opportunities to zing Clinton. It did confirm one thing for me – we're all screwed. ..."
"... I don't think in the great scheme of things this matters much. If there was an iPad and it worked for Clinton, then why the heck didn't the Trump team give their guy an equivalent advantage? ..."
"... Two impressions, on the bus where I could just hear them, it was pretty equal. Both spouted nonsense and both had decent points regarding the other. Home where I had visuals, before I switched, she looked relaxed and yes healthy. She even appeared amused by him.He was flustered and floundering. There were at least two opportunities where he could have landed blows on her policies which he lost by being defensive. His judgment is better than her's, but that is an incredibly low bar. Based on 2, she won. ..."
"... Ironic that in this post-democratic world I watched my first political debate ever. Give the credit to the great entertainer: Donald Trump. Problem was: he wasn't the least bit entertaining tonight. I thought Clinton did well, however she is playing a losing hand. Trump is on the right side of all the issues that matter. Unfortunately(for everyone) the only reality Clinton and the entire western political establishment cares about is how many of the 1% will pay $500 a plate for a dinner and a speech. ..."
"... Bottom line is, all Murica could do was cough up these two turds. Yeah, deliberately mixed metaphor. Main difference is, if Trump gets elected it will certify Murica before the whole world as a country full of arseholes who've finally got to elect their very own Arsehole in Chief. ..."
"... One point made by a friend of the blog: Neither candidate appealed to anyone other than their base. And it's hard to see why anyone undecided would be moved. It's even harder to see why a voter committed to Johnson or Stein would move. ..."
"... Watched the whole thing. Trump missed a good opportunity to respond to Hillary's comment that trickle down was the reason for the financial crisis. Trump could have spoken up and said it was Goldman Sachs and big banks that played the key role in bringing on the financial crisis – which would have lead many to think again about her speeches at GS. Outside of the fact that Hillary's comment made me super confused – and maybe Trump as well – it would have been great if he could have mentioned the banks and what did she promise the big banks during her speeches. ..."
"... I was wondering if he's holding the GS speech transcripts in reserve? I was hoping for more of a pounding. I wonder if his team will do polling to determine how hard-hitting he can go before it gets too negative? The history of Glass-Steagall repeal is pretty damning. I'm also hoping to hear her defence of her cattle futures trading, but perhaps that is too ancient of history? ..."
"... Also, was interesting wrt his usage of the word "secretary" - a la Scott Adams, I suspect he's hoping the average viewer will subconsciously associate Hillary with the office secretary, rather than Secretary of State. ..."
"... Before I forget, Trump was very strong on trade, early. Nailed Clinton on NAFTA, nailed her on TPP. Fits right in with "you've had 30 years," but (B team, not top tier school) he didn't keep hammering that point. An early win (on the theory that debates are won early) but for me overshadowed by the rest of it). ..."
"... Absolutely. If it had been a 35 minute debate, Trump would have won hands down. Of course, the minute they moved to taxes, the incoherence of Trump's economic policy becomes apparent. ..."
"... Among others, 3 mistakes by Trump that a seasoned politician wouldn't have made. First, Clinton accuses him of not paying maids, contractors, architects, etc. and Trump basically agrees. He doesn't dispute this, instead says "maybe they didn't do the work." In a time of economic stagnation, this was a miss. (A seasoned politician would have just lied and said "not true.") Second, the tax stuff where Clinton outlines possible reasons he isn't releasing and he didn't do the simple thing and say "none of those are true." Instead, maybe not paying taxes is a "smart thing." Third, Trump can't even do the short work to memorize a story tying the creation of ISIS to Clinton's interventionism (and thus refugee crisis). Instead he bloviates about the Iran deal that very few Americans know enough about to judge good or bad. ..."
"... Not having watched one second of this "debate," I think it's important to note that there are many different kinds of communication. As far as I can tell, Trump's a decent salesman. That's a very specific type of communication, that specifically is NOT about delivering information or or enhancing understanding. It's about establishing control of your target and leading them to do/buy what you want them to do/buy. It doesn't sound like he figured out a way to make this very different situation work for him, the way he apparently did the very different Republican debates. Note that I'm not claiming he IS a master communicator. I don't think either of them are. ..."
"... Trump is giving mixed messages - that's his communication failure. We're supposed to be disgusted by Obama/Clinton foreign policy, but it's never clear why. Because the policy is failed at the start - intervening in Middle Eastern affairs is foolish? Or, we should be intervening for the sake of American power? Trump never articulates a policy goal either way. This is the empty rhetoric of "America first." He never argues a long term strategy of foreign policy for America or the world at large ..."
"... I don't consider Hillary Clinton very smart. Her complete lack of morals and empathy are a far more significant factor in her success than her intelligence. Trump seems fairly bright in some ways, and he's certainly good at understanding certain kinds of non-verbal communication. (For example, all that gold that seems so vulgar to one audience is very appealing to another.) Beyond that, I have no strong opinion about him in this regard. Do I think he's a sizzling intellect? No. ..."
"... I'm basically with Lambert: the best we can hope for is gridlock. But since Clinton is running as an efficient, bloodthirsty Republican, and what she really wants to do is wage war, which requires no Congressional action, Trump's the better bet for gridlock, even with a Republican majority. We'll get Democrats forced to playact the role of "Democrat;" it's something. ..."
"... Clinton doesn't have her thumbs on the button yet she's just threatened Russia with a cyber-war in retaliation for purported Russian attacks on the DNC etc., 'hacks' for which there is less proof than there is an interest on Clinton's part in changing the channel away from what the 'hacks' revealed about her own nefarious doings. So, in retaliation for something that may not have happened at all Clinton's instinct is to hit what could well be the wrong guy because it suits her personal interest – more egregious still, in this instance the wrong guy happens to be engaged in an existential struggle for independent, sovereign survival on the same planet as the US Empire and quite desperately needs an American leader of calibre. ..."
"... If he'd wanted to win he could've sat down with any high school coach to map out a strategy and a set of talking points that would not just defeat Clinton, but quite possibly send a bunch of people to jail. That's why it's Trump (or could've been Cruz). You could not draw a more perfect stereo-typically encumbered character beside which to contrast Clinton, whose entire public career persona has been premised on 'breaking down' same – even if her husband did send a million poor, mostly young black Americans away to rot in fantastically lucrative private prisons working for slave wages. ..."
"... Trump doesn't have to play that "arrest the banker" card to win, and there are plenty of reasons why he would not, including he wants to stay alive. Plus, there's selling and then there's giving away. ..."
"... Senior Romney strategist: Trump brought 20 minutes of material to a 90 minute show. ..."
"... Personally, I'm not sure laziness is a disqualifying characteristic in a Presidential candidate. If a machine is so broken that all its outputs are bad, then it behooves one to turn the crank more slowly than faster. ..."
"... This was a pathetic performance all around. Hillary looked like a polished turd in the debate, compared to Trump who came off as an unpolished turd. My feeling is that Hillary was the "winner" though that word doesn't seem suitable. ..."
"... Yes she jabbed him to death, while Trump held his punches. The question is: why? Having already done the Foreman trick of KOing five guys in one night, was he guarding against punching himself out? Seeing he's already won debates with aggression, was he trying to win by playing defense? Am I simply reading into it what I want to – spinning for Trump to excuse a mediocre performance? ..."
"... Did Trump suffer a mini-stroke on stage? After slurring a word, he began to answer questions for a while with incoherent, freely associated chains of slogans and phrases. This, about the time he blurted out about Hillary's stamina–, psychological projection perhaps? Then he began to list to his left and lean pronouncedly on his podium. After the debate, he left the hall rather too promptly. Was the elderly Trump physically fit enough to withstand a one-on-one 90 minute debate? ..."
I think he genuinely sees the infrastructural decay and it frosts him.
Yes, and connects the $6 trillion invested in blowing up the Middle East to what it could have
been used for instead, and repeatedly called out big bureaucracy for big mistakes.
Personally, I came out of this feeling more sympathetic to Trump as a person, believe
it or not. I think he genuinely sees the infrastructural decay and it frosts him.
Same with "you had 30 years to solve it." Undeniably true; Clinton's whole "let's build
on our success" schtick is such a steaming lot of 10%-er-ness. But if Trump wants to make this
election a referendum on the political class, he's going to have to do a lot better than this
Agreed here. My SO put it better than me: Hillary gave no indication she is going to change
the course we are on now; in fact, reading between the lines, she thinks things are going great
and there is no reason to change anything. " And Trump did do a good job of identifying a
number of things that are wrong, even if he wasn't particularly articulate in discussing them.
I think there is a better chance that Trump will actually try to fix things, but tax policy
and several other things did not give me great hope that he has any idea how to fix things, or
will learn & adapt quickly enough. On the plus side, some people talk better than they deliver;
some people deliver better than they talk. At least there's a chance he's one of the latter.
Hillary… we know what we are getting. She won't deliver better than she talks. I have nothing
kind to say here, other than she did a good job of finishing her sentences, and her tax policy
is better than Trump's. And that she used to be much, much better in debates. I remain flummoxed
that people are giving her credit for doing well in this one.
Trump makes an occasional noise in that direction, IF there has been a related segment on the
talk shows or one of the conservative sites. Where in his stated policy (ie on his website or
in positions in writing) is anything to suggest he will fix any of that misery? Tax cuts and deregulation?
Letting him negotiate trade deals, instead of Obama people?
I can't find where he would refuse "trade deals", only ones "These Morons running things"
have negotiated. I'm betting he would push them with minor changes, as will HRC. ISDS is a foregone
conclusion, with either. Jesus, one of his advisors is Larry f'n Kudlow. If the regulars here
are not appalled by the guys he has surrounded himself with, I sure am. I can see it coming…
At least Trump has the good taste not to have Kudlow sit on his lap. Or vice versa.
Reading liberals explain how George W. Bush is just a misunderstood patriot has been…educational.
Not in the way they intend.
I think Trump's probably serious about trade. But if I understand the structural issues
correctly, it doesn't really matter whether he is serious or not. Apparently the Republican base
is now strongly opposed to free trade. (I think most already were, but now they have permission
to affirmatively say so, and pick up stragglers.)
I know Obama is counting on getting votes from people thrown out of office and looking for
lobbying work. But I don't think there will be enough of them, will there? The Dems aren't going
to flip either house, it looks like - certainly not by large numbers. That means there won't be
tons of "loose" Republican votes, Republicans returning won't be incentivized to betray their
incoming President for Obama, and Democrats on their way out may see shrinking lobbying opportunities,
as the Democratic Party - IF Clinton doesn't take power - will be very weak at both the federal
and state level.
If my assessment is correct, TPP dies with a Trump win. There isn't an option to reopen
negotiations, is there? A brand new "Trump style" treaty would take years to negotiate, and he
has "one term" written all over him. This also would kill TISA, right? Is it technically contingent
on TPP passing first?
I am looking forward to Democratic Senators using secret holds and such to stop Republican
tax plans that benefit corporations and the wealthy.
Okay, now that I've stopped laughing, I'll correct this. I'm assuming BERNIE will use holds
and such to stop this stuff. But it will be entertaining to watch the Democrats explain why the
Republican can top from the bottom, but they never can.
@aab – "This also would kill TISA, right? Is it technically contingent on TPP passing first?"
I don't think TISA depends on TPP being passed. As I understand it, they are being negotiated
separately.
One particular provision of TISA is as bad as anything in TPP (bar ISDS) and that is the
prohibition on remunicipalization of privatized public resources. Governments would not be allowed
to take back things such as British Rail that have been sold off to the private sector, and would
be prohibited from nationalizing any other public good now in private hands. It's another hit
to national sovereignty.
You are right, indeed. I just think DT is getting more "benefit of the doubt" than is warranted,
given what I know of his past, and the sources he apparently uses, and the advisors he surrounds
with.
HRC, you knew from the beginning, who she was tied to/advised by/paid for by. She is a
"known known". We are all seeking to know what or who DT represents, as he is harder to pin down.
HRC and Bill are the most successful organized crime outfit since Wall St., and that
is enough to categorize them, even without the obvious foreign policy horrors .
How are we gonna survive 4 years with either of them at the helm?
That was my take exactly. Since I don't honestly think Stein is going to win, and I think
Johnson might be worse than either of these, I was hoping one of them would give me a reason to
feel optimistic that they would do a decent job. They … both failed horribly.
And what is up with all the people on NBC and now in my twitter feed repeating this mantra
that "We had high expectations for Hillary, and she exceeded them!"
What universe are they living in? Half of these people used to be Bernie supporters. Are
people that easily manipulated? Did I used to be that easily manipulated? Or have I gone completely
insane now. This was some kind of masterful performance? She mouthed a lot of decent sounding
platitudes with no specifics re: policy (while everyone praises her for specifics, and I think
she championed the ideas of specifics themselves) while doing a decent but not great job of hitting
Trump on some areas where he's very vulnerable.
He did a great job finding areas where she's vulnerable, but a terrible job of hitting
her on them.
She did a better job of finishing her sentences, but … wow. That was the bar for coherence
and specificity here.
Meanwhile, my twitter feed is full of people who think one or the other landed telling blows.
The pundits all think she was terrif. His partisans seem to think he did well.
He looked like he was posing half the time. I don't even know what to say about her expressions.
I hate when people talk about stuff like that but what else is there to say here?
My SO and I were constantly covering our eyes and putting our heads down and occasionally laughing
at each others expressions and occasionally laughing so hard we had tears running down our eyes
at what (both) the candidates were saying. Now it's over I just want to cry.
I know a lot of people here are not fans of the Green Party, but hate on Jill all you want,
she would have almost certainly been better up there tonight than either of these people. It would
have been hard to be worse.
"Are people that easily manipulated?" Yes. Was I that easily manipulated? Probably. Don't
feel bad though most of us were naïve enough to believe the BS for at least some period of time.
This was some kind of masterful performance?
Uh it's scripted reality TV. The "debates" are vetted and agreed upon by the two parties
who sponsored the darn thing via their little pretend front group. Anyone, at this point, who
thinks these things matter is fooling themselves. It's a 90 minute infomercial, so if you find
infomercials masterful then I guess.
Personally, I'm boycotting these things until they actually allow ALL the candidates that qualify
for the ballot on stage.
Thank you for pointing out that as usual, the unconstitutional and illegitimate two-party
duopoly has excluded other candidates who will be on the ballot. Who exactly gave them this privilege
of exclusion?
Trump can go off on 5 tangents in each sentence. I keep waiting for him to make his damn point,
already. It all comes off as gibberish. I cannot wait for a verbatim transcript of this cluster****.
It will be largely incomprehensible. As for "HER", I aint with her either. We are screwwwed.
It was like that in the Republican debates for anyone who bothered to read the transcripts.
Trump was incoherent, the other candidates were basically coherent (wrong, liars and horrible
many of them, but able to form a coherent sentence. Trump stood out).
I disagree strongly that Trump is incoherent;
I saw him in Bangor. What he is, is discursive and improvisational. He has his main points
that he always circles back to, but he riffs and reacts to the crowd.
However, that style doesn't work for him in this debate. He doesn't get to determine the
structure, there's no time in a two minute answer to do the kind of excursions he likes to do,
and the crowd was told not to react.
The format works very much against Trump, and very much for Clinton. Delivering bullet
points successfully is a marker that a candidate is president-y. Considering what PowerPoint has
done to the Pentagon, that might not be such a great idea, but it is what it is and we are where
we are.
Prediction markets are saying she killed him. I would look to see the results of multiple online
polls. Both Hillary and Trump fans will be trying to game them but it will be hard to skew results
across the entire web.
Dunno with Rs, but the online polls showed Sanders to be a winner in debates where the MSM
called him a loser, and Sanders continued gains in later, conventional polls v. Clinton seemed
way more in line with the online polls than MSM takes.
I'm surprised that no one mentioned the one best line to the non political junkie. They
HATE political commercials. He nailed her on spending Millions attacking him and he came across
gentlemanly saying he wouldn't / hasn't done that to her.
All I can think after I watched this is that I could have dismembered, dissected, discombobulated,
and reduced Hillary not only to cells, not just to molecules, but to quarks.
looking at it, I just can't see how anybody could think Trump is actually very smart, or smart,
or much above ANY New York cabbie…or any or those horses in central park….or the south end of
any of those horses….
Honestly, I've seen 5 years olds who could resist the bait better than Trump…
I don't know why this is surprising, Trump is the narcissist he is regardless of what people
want to project on him. Of course none of that makes Clinton any better.
Whether it's effective, eh who knows, if it's authoritarians voting for him maybe that is what
they like, but I don't think there are enough of them for him to win on that alone. If people
are just casting random angry votes for anything but the status quo then maybe.
I disagree. I think both candidates are isolated within elite bubbles, leading to behaviors
we consider narcissistic (armchair diagnosis, when you think about it. I mean, "I'm with her….")
I watched the debate on CSPAN, where a split screen was used that showed the candidates at
all times…
….Did anyone else notice how consistently Hillary looked down at the podium? I believe
she was being fed "Cliff Notes" ON AN IPAD by her staff re every topic that was bought up….she
was ALWAYS looking down and, I assume she was being fed CUES AND WORDS OR PHRASES that she should
use….she not only looked down a lot before the time she was supposed to speak but also looked
down a lot during her responses……
OTOH, Trump was "winging it" and "shooting from the hip"…..Hillary won because the notes
kept her on track….If trump had done any serious prep and could take advice, he could have destroyed
her…But, he doesn't do prep, so he can't effectively respond…….
She was told to smile when he attacked….she did this……this response aggravated me, but didn't
hurt her with the public of "Undecideds"
He was told to refrain from interrupting…he did an excellent job of interjecting comments at
the beginning, but lost control as the night wore on…..
Lester was about the worst Moderator I have listened/watched/prayed for during a Debate…..of
course, the job is "thankless"
Hillary's closing comments were stronger, but by then I don't think their were many left
watching who were "Persuadables"….those of us left were "political junkies" hoping for a last
lap NASCAR worthy Candidate Crash…..
I think Trump had the opportunity to win the debate handed to him on a silver platter by
Hillary, but his failure to Prepare and Do the Little Things that would have helped him be ready
for her totally expected responses/statements/stalking points cost him dearly…..
He remains the Rich Guy, who does what he wants….. She remains the Robotic Gal, who will
probably get what she wants….
Yes she was looking down a lot. Were they allowed to have iPads to look at?
I felt she was listening a lot–she had that look some newscasters have when their
producers are telling them updated news or giving suggestions through an ear device. Could she
have been wired up? Are there rules about this?
I think one of the CBS commentators said that Hillary appeared to be using notes. She did
look down a lot, and I also thought she seemed unusually subdued. At times she appeared to look
sleepy and bored. I don't think this "debate" changed anyone's mind. I think Trump was trying
to "dial it back", and he did miss several opportunities to zing Clinton. It did confirm one thing
for me – we're all screwed.
I don't think in the great scheme of things this matters much. If there was an iPad and
it worked for Clinton, then why the heck didn't the Trump team give their guy an equivalent advantage?
(If true, this shows the dangers of an overly lean campaign team.)
Two impressions, on the bus where I could just hear them, it was pretty equal. Both spouted
nonsense and both had decent points regarding the other. Home where I had visuals, before I switched,
she looked relaxed and yes healthy. She even appeared amused by him.He was flustered and floundering.
There were at least two opportunities where he could have landed blows on her policies which he
lost by being defensive. His judgment is better than her's, but that is an incredibly low bar.
Based on 2, she won.
Based on the nonsense they both reeled off the biggest loser tonight, election day and the
future are the American people either way.
J-Yel must be shocked that Trump ripped her early on. The earnest bureaucrats at the Fed are
not used to being fodder for campaign criticism.
Trump went on to call today's economy a "big fat Bubble." (I call it Bubble III.) He implied
that one rate hike will be the pin that pops it, and he's probably right.
Knowing this does not mean he can do anything about it. Currently J-Yel plans to hike in December
during the interregnum, when the US political system is inert and the MSM is all focused on cabinet
picks.
Almost certainly, the next president will have a close-up, personal encounter with a harsh
recession. The only advice from pros is "get it behind you early." That's why I have it penciled
in for 2017-18.
That's what the hotel people think (see yesterday's water cooler). Hotel bookings being a fine
indicator of the animal spirits of the managing and investing classes. Whether they are a leading
indicator remains to be seen….
And in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson, who wanted cheap credit to finance the Vietnam
War and his Great Society, summoned Fed chairman William McChesney Martin to his Texas ranch.
There, after asking other officials to leave the room, Johnson reportedly shoved Martin against
the wall as he demanding that the Fed once again hold down interest rates. Martin caved, the
Fed printed money, and inflation kept climbing until the early 1980s.
Ironic that in this post-democratic world I watched my first political debate ever. Give
the credit to the great entertainer: Donald Trump. Problem was: he wasn't the least bit entertaining
tonight. I thought Clinton did well, however she is playing a losing hand. Trump is on the right
side of all the issues that matter. Unfortunately(for everyone) the only reality Clinton and the
entire western political establishment cares about is how many of the 1% will pay $500 a plate
for a dinner and a speech.
Regarding tonight's shenanagans, I thought Lester Holt was the winner. A good moderator should
be virtually invisible, let the candidates do their thing. Clinton scored her debating points
but I'm not convinced that won her any votes. Was Trump performing in a strait jacket? Seemed
like he was more worried about appearing reserved and presidential. And holy repetitive! I was
looking forward to Tyson-Spinks, instead I got Tyson-Douglas! Yet I wouldn't be surprised if it
all worked and Trump comes out ahead in the polls. He certainly didn't look scary tonight. Boring
yes, however doesn't boring deflate these ideas that he's an out of control amateur who can't
be trusted?
Bottom line is, all Murica could do was cough up these two turds. Yeah, deliberately mixed
metaphor. Main difference is, if Trump gets elected it will certify Murica before the whole world
as a country full of arseholes who've finally got to elect their very own Arsehole in Chief.
One point made by a friend of the blog: Neither candidate appealed to anyone other than
their base. And it's hard to see why anyone undecided would be moved. It's even harder to see
why a voter committed to Johnson or Stein would move.
Therefore, we would not expect the polls to move. And what matters is a tiny population of
voters in swing counties in swing states (not national polls), which data is not available to
us.
Of course, since the political class is all in for Clinton, they will portray it as an overwhelming
win for Clinton (as did I, since I am a 10%-er manqué ). However, exactly as with TV
advertising, the pronouncements of the political class have had greatly diminished returns this
year….
I'll be interested what old-school people like Nooners have to say….
I don't see them as playing only to their respective bases - it seems like they also were trying
to affect overarching narratives. Clinton's case against Trump is that he's monstrous. I think
he cut against that indictment tonight (and it wasn't a foregone conclusion that he would). Trump's
case against Clinton is that she's a corrupt and dishonest version of politics as usual, which
already is corrupt and dishonest. I don't know whether she moved the dial on that. Apart from
immediate reactions, wonder if there will be any shifts.
Watched the whole thing. Trump missed a good opportunity to respond to Hillary's comment
that trickle down was the reason for the financial crisis. Trump could have spoken up and said
it was Goldman Sachs and big banks that played the key role in bringing on the financial crisis
– which would have lead many to think again about her speeches at GS. Outside of the fact that
Hillary's comment made me super confused – and maybe Trump as well – it would have been great
if he could have mentioned the banks and what did she promise the big banks during her speeches.
Very good point on Goldman. In a way, it seems that Clinton threw the kitchen sink on Trump
(her assault on his business dealings, using the income tax thing as a hook, was prepared but
highly effective). But Trump didn't throw the kitchen sink back at her. Odd.
Voting has already started. I don't see any benefit to going soft on her. He relied on free
media in the primary, and he has much less money than she does. If he's serious about winning,
this was an important opportunity that he apparently blew. The next one isn't even a pseudo-debate,
is it? I read today it's a Town Hall - i.e., completely useless. Actually less than useless; it
should be a very poor format for him, and a very protected format for her.
By the time they get to the next direct confrontation, a lot of votes will have been banked.
i'm starting to try to mentally prepare myself for a clinton win. or steal, or whatever. "i
survived reagan, i didn't totally lose it during the time of the chimp, i can do this. happy thoughts".
I can't. I'm too afraid of her. I can picture surviving Trump. But Clinton really scares me.
I have a draft age child; that's a not insignificant element. That plus TPP.
@aab – I feel your pain about your kid and the draft. I was in the first draft lottery in 1969
and came out with #27. Fortunately, I was able to avoid being drafted due to it being suspended
for the first 90 days of 1972 because they had enough soldiers and were beginning to draw down
the forces in Viet Nam.
I was wondering if he's holding the GS speech transcripts in reserve? I was hoping for
more of a pounding. I wonder if his team will do polling to determine how hard-hitting he can
go before it gets too negative? The history of Glass-Steagall repeal is pretty damning. I'm also
hoping to hear her defence of her cattle futures trading, but perhaps that is too ancient of history?
Also, was interesting wrt his usage of the word "secretary" - a la Scott Adams, I suspect
he's hoping the average viewer will subconsciously associate Hillary with the office secretary,
rather than Secretary of State.
Old news (from May), but sad to see the "fact checkers" on the
birther
origins …
Before I forget, Trump was very strong on trade, early. Nailed Clinton on NAFTA, nailed
her on TPP. Fits right in with "you've had 30 years," but (B team, not top tier school) he didn't
keep hammering that point. An early win (on the theory that debates are won early) but for me
overshadowed by the rest of it).
Absolutely. If it had been a 35 minute debate, Trump would have won hands down. Of course,
the minute they moved to taxes, the incoherence of Trump's economic policy becomes apparent.
Among others, 3 mistakes by Trump that a seasoned politician wouldn't have made. First,
Clinton accuses him of not paying maids, contractors, architects, etc. and Trump basically agrees.
He doesn't dispute this, instead says "maybe they didn't do the work." In a time of economic stagnation,
this was a miss. (A seasoned politician would have just lied and said "not true.") Second, the
tax stuff where Clinton outlines possible reasons he isn't releasing and he didn't do the simple
thing and say "none of those are true." Instead, maybe not paying taxes is a "smart thing." Third,
Trump can't even do the short work to memorize a story tying the creation of ISIS to Clinton's
interventionism (and thus refugee crisis). Instead he bloviates about the Iran deal that very
few Americans know enough about to judge good or bad.
Trump's team needs to slap some sense into him (if that's possible and he can listen). So many
winning arguments left on the table (and ripe for Trump's simple language, too).
Upon a second watch of the debate (ok, I'm crazy), he actually does make the point about the
creation of ISIS. Unfortunately, his rhetoric ends on "we should have taken the oil." So he doesn't
distinguish the story as the failure of Obama/Clinton foreign policy as a policy of interventionism
. His argument is that interventionism must pay out in some way.
Trump didn't help himself by claiming earlier that Clinton has been fighting ISIS her whole
life. That obvious gaffe makes it hard to hear anything he says later in the debate.
I'm in agreement with Corey Robin - Trump is not a master communicator. Pace Scott
Adams.
Also, it's not nice that Hillary buys negative ads
Not having watched one second of this "debate," I think it's important to note that there
are many different kinds of communication. As far as I can tell, Trump's a decent salesman. That's
a very specific type of communication, that specifically is NOT about delivering information or
or enhancing understanding. It's about establishing control of your target and leading them to
do/buy what you want them to do/buy. It doesn't sound like he figured out a way to make this very
different situation work for him, the way he apparently did the very different Republican debates.
Note that I'm not claiming he IS a master communicator. I don't think either of them are.
So many people are saying she was obviously looking down a lot and reading from notes or possibly
an iPad. If so, why wouldn't he call her out on it?
Trump is giving mixed messages - that's his communication failure. We're supposed to be
disgusted by Obama/Clinton foreign policy, but it's never clear why. Because the policy is failed
at the start - intervening in Middle Eastern affairs is foolish? Or, we should be intervening
for the sake of American power? Trump never articulates a policy goal either way. This is the
empty rhetoric of "America first." He never argues a long term strategy of foreign policy for
America or the world at large .
NATO is just a tool. For what? Not clear.
If you think, well: America shouldn't be articulating a strategy for global politics. Fine.
I'm happy to listen, but so far, Trump hasn't even made this idea coherent.
Bear in mind, I didn't watch tonight. I'm not an expert on Trump. But I'm so sick of all this
discourse around "intelligence" and "communication" that defines both concepts in extremely limited
and fundamentally false ways that align with the proclivities of those in the position to do the
defining. I don't consider Hillary Clinton very smart. Her complete lack of morals and empathy
are a far more significant factor in her success than her intelligence. Trump seems fairly bright
in some ways, and he's certainly good at understanding certain kinds of non-verbal communication.
(For example, all that gold that seems so vulgar to one audience is very appealing to another.)
Beyond that, I have no strong opinion about him in this regard. Do I think he's a sizzling intellect?
No.
Again, salesmanship has nothing to do with messaging per se. In fact, one sales technique
would be to using contradictory messaging at differing points in the sales path, to confuse the
target. Salesmanship is about control and manipulation.
Persuasion is a different process, where messaging, as the term is generally used, matters.
I would have liked him to take her out tonight. But beyond the strategic goal of keeping her
out of power, I don't know whether I'd prefer a smart and/or disciplined Trump over a less smart,
less disciplined one. I'd like him to be smart enough not to be a stooge for the existing "bipartisan"
elite, since merely resisting their desires and goals seems like it would good for the rest of
us. But it's possible (probable?) he means all or part of that noxious traditional Republican
swill he's offering up. In which case, being less smart and less disciplined might be better in
terms of him acting as an obstacle to business as usual - as long as he's stubborn.
I'm basically with Lambert: the best we can hope for is gridlock. But since Clinton is
running as an efficient, bloodthirsty Republican, and what she really wants to do is wage war,
which requires no Congressional action, Trump's the better bet for gridlock, even with a Republican
majority. We'll get Democrats forced to playact the role of "Democrat;" it's something.
That's why I focus mostly on the structural stuff. We know what Clinton is and will do,
and it's horrendous. That's why throwing the Trump spanner into the works is worth doing. I would
love for him to govern way to the left of how he ran, just as Obama governed way to the right
of how he ran. But there really aren't a lot of incentives for Trump to do that, unlike for Obama.
I'm not naive enough to count on Trump's human decency, although I do get the impression he may
have a sliver of it, unlike both Obama and Clinton. But I also think he's sincerely racist. If
Clinton wasn't such a profound and effectively violent racist, Trump's racism would really give
me pause.
Anyway, my key point is that doing very badly in the format and conditions of tonight's event
does not prove he is a bad communicator in some overarching sense.
Now that's what I call talent. But as one of them is going to be President, I just want to
point out the one thing worth noting she said all night.
Clinton doesn't have her thumbs on the button yet she's just threatened Russia with a cyber-war
in retaliation for purported Russian attacks on the DNC etc., 'hacks' for which there is less
proof than there is an interest on Clinton's part in changing the channel away from what the 'hacks'
revealed about her own nefarious doings. So, in retaliation for something that may not have happened
at all Clinton's instinct is to hit what could well be the wrong guy because it suits her personal
interest – more egregious still, in this instance the wrong guy happens to be engaged in an existential
struggle for independent, sovereign survival on the same planet as the US Empire and quite desperately
needs an American leader of calibre.
I know it's hard to look past the enormous frozen smile, still, close your eyes and try to
remember the look in her eyes, the downward cut of her mouth and clamped jaw when Trump briefly
brushed past a sore spot – that person in there, that is the person who will be the next Leader
of The Free World, that is to say, the woman who will lead the revolution of the globalists over
the tyranny of nations. The effort to re-assert US hegemony will prove calamitous.
It does seem to me that the voice that can proclaim with little evidence that Russia hacked
into the DNC can easily become the same voice that can proclaim with little evidence that Iraq
has WMDs (that is the modern version of that for the enemy du jour of course).
That's actually brilliant, and the fact he didn't/hasn't so far supports my thesis – so don't
expect him to try it. Trump doesn't want to win – what he wants is to lose without being a 'loser'.
It's been evident for a long time now.
If he'd wanted to win he could've sat down with any high school coach to map out a strategy
and a set of talking points that would not just defeat Clinton, but quite possibly send a bunch
of people to jail. That's why it's Trump (or could've been Cruz). You could not draw a more perfect
stereo-typically encumbered character beside which to contrast Clinton, whose entire public career
persona has been premised on 'breaking down' same – even if her husband did send a million poor,
mostly young black Americans away to rot in fantastically lucrative private prisons working for
slave wages.
I suspect if he wanted to win he would spend on advertising, just saying. It may or may not
pan out, but why not make use of things that might help him win if winning was what he wanted?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-special-1474910731
Trump doesn't have to play that "arrest the banker" card to win, and there are plenty of reasons
why he would not, including he wants to stay alive. Plus, there's selling and then there's giving
away.
If he wanted to loose and yet come out a winner, then I'd expect him to take the high ground
or stake a claim in a way that would allow him to claim the vote was rigged. Not seeing that at
all.
The critical issue is, we're undecideds moved?
How about this blog? By definition, undecideds don't much like either… Pretty much like NC. So
who here is now decided? And which way?
Personally, I'm not sure laziness is a disqualifying characteristic in a Presidential candidate.
If a machine is so broken that all its outputs are bad, then it behooves one to turn the crank
more slowly than faster.
Just finished watching. She cleaned his clock, and I wanted to see him prevail. The exchange
early in the debate about Trump not paying people … that really came back to mind when he started
talking about how the countries we support don't pay their fair share. Really hypocritical. Bad
night for DT; he will be hopping mad, kind of like after that trip to Mexico. I wonder what his
reaction will be in next day or two.
I think Adams is prone to tunnel vision – focusing on one thing he especially likes or dislikes
– as exemplified by his recent switch in endorsement from Hillary ("for my safety, as I live in
CA") to Trump, based on Hillary's endorsement (hard to tell if genuine or mere triangulation)
of the estate tax.
In tonight's case, I suspect any points Trump may have won for the statement Adams focuses
on were more than negated by his stop-and-frisk inanity, but being white like Adams, I can't claim
to speak for the AA community in any way.
On a separate-but-related note, my sister – who strongly supported Bernie during the primaries
– does seem to fit Adam's claim that subjective impressions rule, and we humans busily construct
rational-sounding narratives to justify our gut takes. In her case, she appears to have been as
off-put by Hillary's Martin-Shkreli-esque smug smirking as Yves was:
I watched almost all of it and thought he did pretty well, in fact i thought he totally trounced
her in many areas. I'm shocked to see every single mainstream media outlet say she was the clear
winner and he was the total loser and unprepared. She was smug and ingenuous [sic – she clearly
meant 'dis'-], can't stand her.
Sanders supporters are not representative of anything other than Sanders supporters…but they
do constitute a decent chuck of Dem voters and bigger chunk of independents. The ones who were
paying attention were painfully of the MSM misrepresentations re Sanders, the DNC putting its
finger on the scale (confirmed only by Wikileaks), Clinton campaign totally bogus attacks (BernieBros,
when he had more female millennial supporters than male AND Clinton supporters were more aggressive
in social media than Sanders supporters), and the rampant cheating in NY and even worse in CA.
So there is a burning resentment of Clinton in many Sanders voters looking for continued proof
of Clinton's dishonesty and bad character.
Having said all that, a contact who is a "pox on both their houses" type said the comments
re Clinton's smugness were widespread. The question is then how big a demerit that is to different
voters.
This was a pathetic performance all around. Hillary looked like a polished turd in the
debate, compared to Trump who came off as an unpolished turd. My feeling is that Hillary was the
"winner" though that word doesn't seem suitable.
I will preface this by saying that substance and issues are completely irrelevant now. If you
are someone who cares about that stuff then you're out of luck this time around.
1) All the people who already like Trump thought he was great, while everyone who hates him
will stick with Hillary. Independents, I don't know. I can't imagine that people are going to
be motivated to do much of anything either way after that.
2) Trump had multiple opputinites to destroy Hillary and end the race but passed them all up.
The consequence is that this will continue dragging out. Hillary did about as well as she could
have considering how compromised she is; she is lucky that Trump is was so unprepared.
3) Trump had shown an ability to learn from his mistakes. I want to believe that he will immediately
start doing preparation for the next debate rather than blowing this off. If he fails to, whether
or not he can win will be in doubt.
4) As someone else mentioned the one thing of actual import said tonight was by Hillary: she
reiterated that she wants to get belligerent with Russia over these these cyber attacks, even
though there is zero evidence of Russian involvement in them. This is a reaffirmation of of why
Hillary scares the crap out of me, and the reason she is unfit to be president.
5) We know something more about Trump's character now: He's a smart, lazy, loudmouthed braggart
who relies on his very good intuition and people skills decide things. He wings everything because
he can't be bothered to study anything too deeply. Hillary? She is a very well scripted psychopath
with bad people skills. And she enjoys war. Lots and lots of war.
6) I'm going to call this debate a wash even if it was slightly in Hillary's favor. Trump is
still on a trajectory to win, he's just going to have to put in actual effort accomplish that–which
he should realize now.
7) We are screwed no matter who is president in 2017, but simply as a matter of survival we
have to support Trump.
8) surprisingly Hillary didn't keel over tonight. This is both good and bad. Good for Trump
because Hillary is someone he's likely to win against, bad for us because there is still a slight
chance that Hillary could win, meaning that war war and more war, including nuclear war, could
be on the agenda from 2017 on. I don't believe we'll survive that.
Trump is talking about problems… Hillary is talking about solutions. Voters always want
to hear solutions.
#DebateNight
- Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz)
September
27, 2016
So Clinton stole Trump's clothes on law and order (which she would do; "super-predators,"
for-profit prisons).
Yes she jabbed him to death, while Trump held his punches. The question is: why? Having
already done the Foreman trick of KOing five guys in one night, was he guarding against punching
himself out? Seeing he's already won debates with aggression, was he trying to win by playing
defense? Am I simply reading into it what I want to – spinning for Trump to excuse a mediocre
performance?
I guess all politicians and non-politicians have their limitations. Trump's talent is he's
a salesman and what he sells is himself. He's not an intellectual. He's likely not even a thoughtful
person. What amused me most tonight was his egotism. Compared to Trump, if Narcissus looked at
his reflection he'd be filled with self loathing.
"Personally, I came out of this feeling more sympathetic to Trump as a person, believe it or
not. I think he genuinely sees the infrastructural decay and it frosts him. Same with "you had
30 years to solve it." Undeniably true; Clinton's whole "let's build on our success" schtick is
such a steaming lot of 10%-er-ness. But if Trump wants to make this election a referendum on the
political class, he's going to have to do a lot better than this. If you regard success in the
debate as emitting presidential markers (like NATO Article 5), then Clinton unquestionably won."
Well said and thanks for doing this, Lambert. I went to bed right after the debate so it's
great to get a recap with this excellent comment thread. I watched on C-Span and after the debate
the candidates went down to the foot of the stage and it seemed that apart from family no one
wanted to shake Trump's hand. The whole crowd was around Clinton. Trump and his family just looked
at each other and headed for the exit. It was weird and sad.
Did Trump suffer a mini-stroke on stage? After slurring a word, he began to answer questions
for a while with incoherent, freely associated chains of slogans and phrases. This, about the
time he blurted out about Hillary's stamina–, psychological projection perhaps? Then he began
to list to his left and lean pronouncedly on his podium. After the debate, he left the hall rather
too promptly. Was the elderly Trump physically fit enough to withstand a one-on-one 90 minute
debate?
"... The first is that Clinton has consistently sided with the conventional wisdom in Washington at the time about what the U.S. should do in response to any conflict or crisis. She has reliably backed more aggressive measures abroad in part because that is what pundits and analysts in Washington are usually demanding on any given issue. She isn't one to resist demands to "do something," because she typically sees no reason to resist them, and often enough she is making the same demands. ..."
"... Clinton will have few opportunities to advance a domestic agenda in the face of determined resistance in Congress. Even if Clinton has a Senate majority, she won't have one in the House, so it is doubtful that she will be able to get any "domestic reforms" passed. ..."
"... It is quite possible that governing as an liberal hawk will "derail her presidency," as Walt says, but we have at least one example that tell us that isn't necessarily true. Obama has presided over eight continuous years of war, including at least two interventions that he started and continued illegally without Congressional approval, and yet he is poised to leave office with a reasonably good approval rating ..."
"... That isn't going to discourage Clinton from her usual interventionism. The Obama years have reminded us of the unfortunate truth that the public will tolerate quite a few foreign wars as long as the direct costs to the U.S. in American lives are low. ..."
"... Remember, Clinton doesn't think that the Libyan war was a failure or a mistake, but rather considers it "smart power at its best." ..."
Stephen Walt
isn't persuaded that Hillary Clinton will be as hawkish a president as her record suggests:
If Clinton goes overboard with more globalization, expanded U.S. security guarantees, open-ended
nation-building in distant lands, or even expensive acts of international philanthropy, all those
skeptical people beguiled by Trump or Sanders will be even angrier. By contrast, if she can win
over some of the people during her first term, her popularity will soar and re-election would
be easy. The lesson? Clinton should focus on domestic reforms and not on international crusades.
And as former State Department officials Jeremy Shapiro and Richard Sokolsky suggest, that's been
her basic inclination all along.
Clinton would be unwise to pursue an even more activist and militarized foreign policy
agenda as president, but Walt and I agree about this because we generally view that sort of foreign
policy as dangerous and contrary to American interests anyway. It does seem foolish for any president
to want to do the things that Clinton thinks the U.S. should do, but that is not a reason to think
it won't happen. I have made my objections to Shapiro and Sokolsky's piece
before , so I won't repeat all of them here, but there are at least four major reasons why we
should assume that Clinton's foreign policy will be even more hawkish and interventionist than Obama's
.
The first is that Clinton has consistently sided with the conventional wisdom in Washington at
the time about what the U.S. should do in response to any conflict or crisis. She has reliably backed
more aggressive measures abroad in part because that is what pundits and analysts in Washington are
usually demanding on any given issue. She isn't one to resist demands to "do something," because
she typically sees no reason to resist them, and often enough she is making the same demands.
The
second is that Clinton won't be able to "focus on domestic reforms" alone because foreign events
and her public enthusiasm for U.S. "leadership" won't allow her to do that. There will probably be
a new civil war or international crisis at some point over the next four years, and she will feel
compelled to be seen doing something about it, and given her record that will almost certainly mean
deeper U.S. involvement than most Americans would prefer.
The third is that Clinton will have few
opportunities to advance a domestic agenda in the face of determined resistance in Congress. Even
if Clinton has a Senate majority, she won't have one in the House, so it is doubtful that she will
be able to get any "domestic reforms" passed. The one area where Congress is totally submissive to
the executive is foreign policy, and that is what Clinton will spend a disproportionate amount of
her time on because she will mostly be stymied at home. Clinton won't be hemmed in by budgetary concerns.
The other party has been insisting for years that we must throw more money at the Pentagon, and there
is no reason to think that Clinton worries about paying for this through borrowing. Finally, Clinton
will be inheriting at least two ongoing wars, one of which she will be under significant pressure
to escalate, and she will also inherit the Obama administration's horrible enabling of the Saudi-led
war on Yemen. In that sense, it won't be entirely up to Clinton how much time these matters take
up in her first term, because she is already committed to continuing these missions for the foreseeable
future.
It is quite possible that governing as an liberal hawk will "derail her presidency," as Walt says,
but we have at least one example that tell us that isn't necessarily true. Obama has presided over
eight continuous years of war, including at least two interventions that he started and continued
illegally without Congressional approval, and yet he is poised to leave office with a reasonably
good approval rating and (if this scenario is to be believed) about to be succeeded as president
by a member of his own party.
That isn't going to discourage Clinton from her usual interventionism.
The Obama years have reminded us of the unfortunate truth that the public will tolerate quite a few
foreign wars as long as the direct costs to the U.S. in American lives are low. So we should expect
Clinton to rely heavily on air wars and missile strikes as Obama and her husband did. There presumably
won't be a repeat of something on the scale of Iraq, but we should assume that there will be other
Libya-like interventions and some of them will be in places that we're not even thinking about at
the moment.
Remember, Clinton doesn't think that the Libyan war was a failure or a mistake, but rather
considers it "smart power at its best." I'm fairly sure about all this because Clinton has never
given us any reason to think that she doesn't want to govern this way, and almost everything in her
foreign policy record says that this is how she will govern.
While the Press celebrates the Democratic Party victory of the first female billionaire in history,
a somber legal battle is going on in the shadows.
The State Department report on Hillary Clinton's emails, and the different legal proceedings which
followed, establish that she is guilty of :
Obstruction of Justice by Mrs. Clinton and her advisors (Section 1410) ;
Obstruction of Criminal Enquiries (Section 1511) ;
Obstruction of the application of local and Federal laws (Section 1411) ;
Federal crime of negligence with classified information and documents (Section 1924) ;
Detention in her computer, at home and on a non-secure server, of 1,200 secret documents (Section
1924)
Felony – Mrs. Clinton declared under oath to a Federal judge that she had given all her emails
to the State Department. However, the Inspector General of the State Department declared this
week that this was a lie (Section 798) ;
Moreover, she declared under oath that the State Department had authorised her to use her
personal computer to work at home. The Inspector General of the State Department declared this
week that this was a lie (Section 798) ;
Mrs. Clinton did not alert the authorities, nor even her own Department, that her personal
computer had been hacked several times. Yet she had asked her system administrator to try to protect
her computer.
Misappropriation and Concealment. The Clinton Foundation and Mrs. Clinton were corrupted so
that the State Department would close their eyes to various practices (Rico Law and Section 1503).
In principle, and since the facts and their gravity have been established by the FBI, the State
Departement, and a Federal judge, Hillary Clinton should have been arrested this week.
Bernie Sanders, the other candidate for the Democratic nomination, was counting on Mrs. Clinton's
arrest before their party's convention. He therefore decided to stay in the running, although he
does not have enough delegates. But he was summoned to the White House, and informed that President
Barack Obama would prevent his administration from applying the law. Obama then followed through
by publicly announcing his support for the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton.
Springsteen, who has dramatised the plight of working-class Americans in his music, said he
understands how Trump could seem "compelling" to people who are economically insecure.
"The
absurdity is beyond cartoon-like. But he's gotten close enough [to the White House] so it can
make you nervous," he told the talk show Skavlan.
"I don't think he's going to win, but even him running is a great embarrassment if you're
an American," he said.
Trump knows how to tell voters "some of the things they want to hear," he added, including
to people "uncomfortable with the 'browning' of America."
"We have certain problems in the United States – tremendous inequality of wealth
distribution. That makes for ripe ground for demagoguery," Springsteen said.
"He has a very simple answer to all these very, very complex problems."
Springsteen recorded the interview with the talk show ahead of next week's release of his
memoir, Born to Run, which describes his childhood in New Jersey and rise to fame.
The singer, famous for his onstage stamina, has drawn a diverse field of devoted fans for
decades, including New Jersey governor Chris Christie, one of Trump's most public backers.
Springsteen insisted for years that he would let his music speak for him but has been more
openly political since the election in 2004, when he campaigned for John Kerry in his
unsuccessful bid to win the White House from George W Bush.
One hit wonder boy who climbed to fame on the back of his jingoistic melody 'Born in the
USA.' What he knows about politics could be written on a stamp!
I don't know too about Hilary being the ebb and flow of this countrys future. She outspent
Trump 3 to 1. She spent a wooping 360 million dollars on this campaign alone. The
Libertarian party also spent it up up to 7 million for their parties choice of President.
Some are saying that Hilary is not so popular with the vulture class. Those who feel
that her 300,000 a plate dinners to raise huge wads of cash could be spent on the poor.
1. Springsteen is eminently qualified to comment on being in a moronic state. (Huh?)
2. The issue doesn't revolve around the candidates' intelligence , but rather the ability
to make sound, timely and balanced judgments on many things with which you may or may not
have requisite familiarity. THOSE DECISIONS MUST BE MADE WITH COURAGE and sometimes almost
instantly.
3. Then, there is there are the issues of Trust, Honesty, Openness and the SECURITY OF THE
UNITED STATES.
But, then, I'm a Yank. (I hold 2 MBA's, I'm a Senior, a former executive with a major
international corporation, a father and grandfather, and a Veteran.), so what do I know?
against Sanders (who gave up far too soon) neither Hillary nor Trump would have a chance.
But the DNC, in its corrupt establishment wisdom, cf. Mme Wassermann-Schultz... undermined
his fair chances of raising real questions of why America is slipping economically,
socially, morally.
Who of the two is going to be less destructive for the US and the world ?
Well , I am not ready to say the lady is.
A professional politician and a non professional one. By the look of what the present has
to offer, I would be inclined to go for the non professional.
Goldman Sachs made Hillary's tie? Does she even wear a tie?
===============
$675,000.00 says Goldman Sachs has her tied around their chubby greedy finger.
Springsteen and Trump are alike in that they are both cowards when it came time for them to
do their duty in Vietnam. Springsteen told his draft board he was homosexual (funny he
hasn't been acting homosexual), whereas Trump got deferments for heel spurs. Dick Cheny is
like Springsteen and Trump as well in this regard.
I thought you Americans had finally decided that the Vietnam campaign was a bad error of
political judgement. Nothing cowardly about saying "no" to a draft that included, inter
alia, carpet bombing of innocents and applications of agent orange where the fall out is
still happening.
"... Tonight's first US presidential debate involves two candidates who actually depict emphatically the high degree of the US politics degeneration: deeply pro-establishment, war-thirsty Hillary Clinton, against the reserve of the establishment , racist billionaire Donald Trump. ..."
"... She knows that these voters, and especially the American youth, had enough of the neoliberal establishment in previous years, and therefore, it would be very hard to be persuaded that the warmongering Hillary has been "relocated" further to the Left. There is no need to expose her absolute commitment to conduct more dirty wars because the US deep state and the neocons know very well that she will focus on this policy, in case that she will be the next US president. Furthermore, it seems that she does not expect anything from the most conservative voters to the Right, who are clearly determined to support Trump. ..."
"... It appears that after Sanders, the US voters are left with zero options, again. Yet, they do have options which the corporate media don't want to become known. ..."
...Tonight's first US presidential debate involves two candidates who actually depict emphatically
the high degree of the US politics degeneration: deeply pro-establishment, war-thirsty Hillary Clinton,
against the
reserve of the establishment, racist billionaire Donald Trump.
No matter how they act, no matter what they say and what rhetoric they use, they can both be identified,
more or less, by the few characteristics above. It would be rather pointless for someone to expect
anything better from both.
As we approach the day of the US elections, time is running out and the two candidates will naturally
focus on one thing: fix their picture to attract more voters and increase their chances to win. As
polls show that it will be a tight race, the two will try to attract as many voters as possible from
the huge tank of undecided US citizens.
Hillary took a good taste from the fight for the Democratic nomination against Bernie Sanders.
She will probably try to retain a more progressive profile which was forced to exhibit during the
race against Bernie, in order to gain voters from the tank of the mass movement he created. She
knows that these voters, and especially the American youth, had enough of the neoliberal establishment
in previous years, and therefore, it would be very hard to be persuaded that the warmongering Hillary
has been "relocated" further to the Left. There is no need to expose her absolute commitment to conduct
more dirty wars because the US deep state and the neocons know very well that she will focus on this
policy, in case that she will be the next US president. Furthermore, it seems that she does not expect
anything from the most conservative voters to the Right, who are clearly determined to support Trump.
Trump has also a difficult job. He has to find a balance between the highly conservative audience,
which is the core of his voters, and the more moderate, undecided ones, who may determine the outcome
of the elections. Therefore, he is expected to smooth his extremely patriotic (to the point that
becomes racist) rhetoric, in order to
become "more presidential", as actually warned recently by the establishment. He
knows that he can't win without taking a crucial percentage of the more moderate tank.
It appears that after Sanders, the US voters are left with zero options, again. Yet, they
do have options which the corporate media don't want to become known.
"... My hunch is still that this election will come down to a deeply felt "not-Clinton" attitude in the general U.S. electorate. ..."
"... Both candidates are obviously lying. Clinton proudly knows some very selective facts ..."
"... The fate of the world should not be left in the hands of some Intellectuals but Idiots , to people who can not see beyond their noses, to "thinkers" for whom human history starts with their high school prom. ..."
"... Trump started off horribly. He went after Hillary on foreign policy at the end which was pretty decent.. ..."
"... Both went after each others shadiness. Very fun to watch. I'm not sure if it will amount to much of anything, but I at least enjoyed that she was gotten after for her atrocious policymaking. ..."
"... Nothing of substance is allowed to be discussed. Their main function is to convince Americans that these two are the only possible choices to vote for on 8 November. ..."
"... Spending energy on discussing presidential elections only feeds the established political psycopathy, and energizes the inherently corrupt status quo. I feel that my energy would be better spent reinforcing my local community, where a much higher degree of open democracy manifests. ..."
"... The only countries I know about that still apply true and open democracy are Iceland and to a lesser degree Costa Rica. In Iceland at least, there is still a very valid reason to vote in the national elections. For the rest of us unfortunate souls I'm afraid that ship has sailed. ..."
"... The idea that cataclysmic change is necessary for improvement is madness. A dramatic collapse of the Western economies will likely lead to the evil elite thrusting us into WW3. From which humanity may never recover. Collapse of the US economy has a good chance of them lashing out with their military to retain their hegemony, also leading to WW3, or a cataclysmic nuclear war. ..."
"... Any dramatic political change will far more likely lead to the eventual rise of a fascist demagogues across western politics. The way US politics is headed, with Trump and Hitlery. ..."
"... She fully intends to finish the annihilation of the Shia crescent from one end to the other for her Israeli/Saudi masters. The U.S. will be at war with Iran within a year if she is elected ..."
"... If Trump wins, he too will eventually be convinced to start a war with them at the behest of his Israeli/Saudi/CIA handlers, but I expect that 'project' to take years before he's confident enough to commit to it. The U.S. might be gone by then. You would think Iranians would be a little more inclined to go with him in the interests of a few more years of Iranian self-preservation. ..."
"... I'm somewhat convinced that if Clinton wins office (not an election); 2017 will make the last 15 years seem peaceful. My only question is; will it go nuclear? Given the insane development of small nukes, stupidly called tactical, too many have themselves convinced there is justification for their use. ..."
"... You're link to a worldwide vote for U.S. president is interesting, but Iran voting for Clinton? yeah, that one threw me for a loop as well, but as you pointed out, 17 or so votes for Clinton out of 79 million Iranians is pretty much meaningless. probably just a cluster of 'progressive' exchange students. ..."
"... Forcefully resisting the brand of globalization imposed on us by the thugs and slave drivers of disaster capitalism is a moral obligation all world citizens should embrace. When people in power live in the castle of their own lies, it is time to dismantle the fortress. When governance has lost all moral ground and reason, it is time to call for a revolution ..."
"... The foundational myths of the United States are becoming less and less credible by the day. As more people stop believing them and, even more importantly, realize that others do not believe them either, compliance in the system becomes less and less. ..."
"... People do not even need to think in terms of self sacrifice for some greater good, or in terms of being part of a revolution. They actually only have to realize that their own best interests are served better by non compliance than compliance. ..."
"... In recent history 19.6% of Americans voted for neither Clinton nor Bush in 1992. A hard hurdle to beat I reckon, and frankly I can't see it happening. ..."
"... Wrong, catalysmic collapse is what lies in stall for the US and probably Europe but it's not annihilation. Just that they got no money for hegemony anymore but they are still alive. And they still chose to remain alive just like in the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The whole debate was unreal. Trump was bragging about his business successes with a sad grim while Hillary with a forever ironic botoxed smile and an empty look in her eyes looked like a worn out robot. It was more a scene from the Muppets show than a presidential debate! ..."
"... I like Trump because he is hated by all the right people. ..."
From the first reactions I see the show made no difference to the outcome of the U.S. election. Both
sides spin that their paymasters won.
My hunch is still that this election will come down to a deeply felt "not-Clinton" attitude
in the general U.S. electorate.
Would that be good or bad? I don't know. Both candidates are obviously lying. Clinton proudly
knows some very selective facts . Her general plans can be inferred from her political history.
They would be mostly bad for this world. Trump doesn't care about facts, nor do most voters. Nobody
seems to know what his real plans would be. With him we all are in for a lot of surprises - likely
bad ones.
From a global perspective the election again shows why U.S. global influences must be cut to size.
The fate of the world should not be left in the hands of some
Intellectuals
but Idiots , to people who can not see beyond their noses, to "thinkers" for whom human history
starts with their high school prom. Their linear analysis, their inexperience with real life,
their linear solutions are inadequate for our complex, non-linear world. This needs to change.
Such a change requires some cataclysmic events. Both candidates seem well positioned to achieve
such.
"Both candidates are obviously lying. Clinton proudly knows some very selective facts. Her general
plans can be inferred from her political history. They would be mostly bad for this world. Trump
doesn't care about facts, nor do most voters."
Trump started off horribly. He went after Hillary on foreign policy at the end which was pretty
decent.. All and all it was cringworthy but entertaining. I think I'll be writing Harambe instead
of voting for these 2
Trump also kept pimping his business.. He clearly wants to advertise! Both went after each others
shadiness. Very fun to watch. I'm not sure if it will amount to much of anything, but I at least
enjoyed that she was gotten after for her atrocious policymaking.
Missed the 'debate'. In the USA the Amalgamated Republicrat/Demoblican Party controls the debates
and limits participation in them to themselves ... the Republicrat and Demoblican candidates.
Nothing of substance is allowed to be discussed. Their main function is to convince Americans
that these two are the only possible choices to vote for on 8 November.
I hope that more of us than ever before choose a candidate other than one of these two, ideally
that both of these trail the aggregate vote cast for candidates other than themselves. That's
the cataclysmic event I'd like to see happen.
These people and this system depend entirely on power that we the people give them. Spending energy
on discussing presidential elections only feeds the established political psycopathy, and energizes
the inherently corrupt status quo. I feel that my energy would be better spent reinforcing my
local community, where a much higher degree of open democracy manifests.
I am not from the US, but the same principle applies here. The only countries I know about
that still apply true and open democracy are Iceland and to a lesser degree Costa Rica. In Iceland
at least, there is still a very valid reason to vote in the national elections. For the rest of
us unfortunate souls I'm afraid that ship has sailed.
The idea that cataclysmic change is necessary for improvement is madness. A dramatic collapse
of the Western economies will likely lead to the evil elite thrusting us into WW3. From which
humanity may never recover. Collapse of the US economy has a good chance of them lashing out with
their military to retain their hegemony, also leading to WW3, or a cataclysmic nuclear war.
Any dramatic political change will far more likely lead to the eventual rise of a fascist demagogues
across western politics. The way US politics is headed, with Trump and Hitlery.
And if it's not as bad as the next to worst outcomes, then the time lost necessary over the
short to midterm of combating climate change, Will mean chronic food and water shortages in the
frayed will see humans are reverting to selfish struggle.
Putting your head in a hole in the sand is not going to make your or my national government
go away.
Yes, certainly work at the more democratic, more local levels of government. But if we want
to stop the wars - I do - we have to (re)gain control of the national government to do so. At
least we citizens of the US - author of all war in this century - must do so.
Paying attention to these two is a waste of time. The only way to deal with them,
and their endless replacements, is to deal them out of the popular vote.
No
to Clinton, no to Trump on 8 November ... and every election year thereafter to their elephant
and jackass replacements and to those in the House and Senate as well, until we can select a minimalist
platform acceptable to us in our majority and replace such candidates from the menagerie with
spokespeople chosen from among ourselves.
It's a multiyear program, but that's what it will take, it seems to me. Alternatives welcome.
But it does seem to me that change is essential, and that we're the only ones who can bring it
about. I'm going to do my part. I hope my 229,000,000 fellows will too.
john@8 - You're link to a worldwide vote for U.S. president is interesting, but Iran voting for
Clinton? That's hard to believe. She fully intends to finish the annihilation of the Shia
crescent from one end to the other for her Israeli/Saudi masters. The U.S. will be at war with
Iran within a year if she is elected (and I regretfully but sincerely expect both to happen).
Drinking the blood of live infants is only going to keep her corpse alive for - what - maybe a
year or two? She is going to hit the ground running, and will not be satisfied until the Iranian
death toll cracks two million. She came, she saw, they died [cackle, cackle!].
If Trump wins, he too will eventually be convinced to start a war with them at the behest
of his Israeli/Saudi/CIA handlers, but I expect that 'project' to take years before he's confident
enough to commit to it. The U.S. might be gone by then. You would think Iranians would be a little
more inclined to go with him in the interests of a few more years of Iranian self-preservation.
Since the on-line fantasy election is in English and only 31 Iranians have voted so far, it's
probably too early to tell. I'm thinking they are not representative of the other 78 million Iranians,
but who really knows?
Indeed, left port a decade ago.
Posted by me @ Ian Welsh's;
Didn't watch any of "it" (not a debate).
With all that's going on in the world today, militarily,
I'm somewhat convinced that if Clinton
wins office (not an election); 2017 will make the last 15 years seem peaceful.
My only question is; will it go nuclear? Given the insane development of small nukes, stupidly
called tactical, too many have themselves convinced there is justification for their use.
Us humans are not the brightest bulbs in the known universe; I've removed optimistic/optimism
from my vocabulary.
In my definition of intelligence; humans are not even in the top 100…
That's my view at this time; voting is a very bad joke.
You're link to a worldwide vote for U.S. president is interesting, but Iran voting for
Clinton? yeah, that one threw me for a loop as well, but as you pointed out, 17 or so votes
for Clinton out of 79 million Iranians is pretty much meaningless. probably just a cluster of
'progressive' exchange students.
All members of the fake left advocate that the system must be changed progressively from
within and that a collapse would be mainly a disaster for the poor and weak. This notion is
as valid as to claim that a building destroyed by an earthquake is in need of some fresh window
dressing. Regardless of the global elite's arrogance, a systemic collapse is on its way and
will exponentially take hold of the planet within two or three decades. The super-rich will
eventually have nowhere to run or hide, and no private armies to protect them from the wrath
of nature.
Forcefully resisting the brand of globalization imposed on us by the thugs and slave
drivers of disaster capitalism is a moral obligation all world citizens should embrace. When
people in power live in the castle of their own lies, it is time to dismantle the fortress.
When governance has lost all moral ground and reason, it is time to call for a revolution ( Gilbert
Mercier )
so vote however the fuck you want, but please spare us your tedious proselytizing.
Dan's point in 12 is an excellent one. The foundational myths of the United States are becoming
less and less credible by the day. As more people stop believing them and, even more importantly,
realize that others do not believe them either, compliance in the system becomes less and less.
People do not even need to think in terms of self sacrifice for some greater good, or in terms
of being part of a revolution. They actually only have to realize that their own best interests
are served better by non compliance than compliance.
One early example is the housing crisis back in 2008. People simply stopped paying their mortgages
while continuing to live in the houses. Banks were able to force a bailout, but that only encouraged
more people to feel justified in defaulting. Ignore your debts to credit card companies, banks,
etc and you are striking a serious blow against the system. While actually freeing yourself.
That is just one more example of resistance. Dan mentioned many others. The system's best weapon
is that they got most people to believe in it, which encourages semi voluntary obedience.
Wrong, catalysmic collapse is what lies in stall for the US and probably Europe but it's not
annihilation. Just that they got no money for hegemony anymore but they are still alive.
And they still chose to remain alive just like in the Soviet Union.
The whole debate was unreal. Trump was bragging about his business successes with a sad grim
while Hillary with a forever ironic botoxed smile and an empty look in her eyes looked like a
worn out robot. It was more a scene from the Muppets show than a presidential debate!
That's it. Trump blew this thing, in my view. Hillary caught her stride about a half-hour in, and
showed herself to be presidential. He came off as extremely unprepared. I cannot believe Trump helped
himself tonight, though for all I know, the voters loved him. Hillary didn't have a big win, but
she did win, and I believe that she stopped the bleeding for her campaign.
I know that everybody has a different standard for Trump, but if Trump ends up judged the winner
of this debate in the polls, I don't know what to say anymore. There is no way Donald Trump is ready
to be President of the United States. No way. And I don't believe many undecided voters changed their
mind to vote for Trump based on his performance tonight.
"... Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we've got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us. As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack . We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses. ..."
"... "We need to respond to evolving threats from states like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS. We need a military that is ready and agile so it can meet the full range of threats, and operate on short notice across every domain, not just land, sea, air and space, but also cyberspace". ..."
"... "serious political, economic and military responses" ..."
"... notwithstanding ..."
"... The mainstream The Hill newspaper bannered, "Clinton: Treat cyberattacks 'like any other attack'" , and reported that, "Since many high-profile cyberattacks could be interpreted as traditional intelligence-gathering - something the US itself also engages in - the White House is often in a tricky political position when it comes to its response". That's not critical of her position, but at least it makes note of the crucial fact that if the US were to treat a hacker's attack as being an excuse to invade Russia, it would treat the US itself as being already an invader of Russia - which the US prior to a President Hillary Clinton never actually has been, notwithstanding the routine nature of international cyber espionage (which Clinton has now stated she wants to become a cause of war), which has been, and will continue to be, essential in the present era. ..."
"... The International Business Times, an online-only site, headlined September 1 st , "Clinton: US should use 'military response' to fight cyberattacks from Russia and China" , and reported that a Pentagon official had testified to Congress on July 13 th , that current US policy on this matter is: "When determining whether a cyber incident constitutes an armed attack, the US government considers a broad range of factors, including the nature and extent of injury or death to persons and the destruction of or damage to property. Cyber incidents are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the national security leadership and the president will make a determination if it's an armed attack". ..."
"... Hillary's statement on this matter was simply ignored by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, Fox, CNN, The Nation, The Atlantic, Harper's, National Review, Common Dreams, Alternet, Truthout, and all the rest of the US standard and 'alternative news' reporting organizations. Perhaps when Americans go to the polls to elect a President on November 8th, almost none of them will have learned about her policy on this incredibly important matter. ..."
"... Hillary's statement was in line with the current Administration's direction of policy, but is farther along in that direction than the Obama Administration's policy yet is. ..."
"... On Tuesday, June 14 th , NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO's Article V "collective defense" provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country. ..."
"... NATO is now alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton's home computer , this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her US State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian's then snooping into the US State Department business that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the US President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the US, trigger NATO's mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the US government in going to war against Russia, if the US government so decides. ..."
"... And finally, we did talk about cyber-security generally. I'm not going to comment on specific investigations that are still alive and active, but I will tell you that we've had problems with cyber-intrusions from Russia in the past, from other countries in the past, and, look, we're moving into a new era here, where a number of countries have significant capacities, and frankly we've got more capacity than anybody both offensively and defensively, but our goal is not to suddenly in the cyber-arena duplicate a cycle of escalation that we saw when it comes to other arms-races in the past, but rather to start instituting (9:00) some norms so that everybody's acting responsibly. ..."
"... "neoconservative" ..."
"... Hillary is now the neoconservatives' candidate . (And she's also the close friend of many of them, and hired and promoted many of them at her State Department .) If she becomes the next President, then we might end up having the most neoconservative (i.e., military-industrial-complex-run) government ever. This would be terrific for America's weapons-makers, but it very possibly would be horrific for everybody else. That's the worst lobby of all, to run the country . (And, as that link there shows, Clinton has received over five times as much money from it as has her Republican opponent.) ..."
"... George Herbert Walker Bush knows lots that the 'news' media don't report (even when it has already been leaked in one way or another), and the Clinton plan to destroy Russia is part of that. Will the Russian government accept it? Or will it do whatever is required in order to defeat it? This is already a serious nuclear confrontation . ..."
Hillary Clinton, on September 19th, was endorsed for President, by the most historically important,
intelligent, and dangerous, Republican of modern times.
She was endorsed then by the person who in 1990 cunningly engineered the end of the Soviet Union
and of its Warsaw Pact military alliance in such a way as
to continue the West's war against Russia so as to conquer Russia gradually for the owners of
US international corporations. The person, who kept his plan secret even from his closest advisors,
until the night of 24 February 1990, when he told them that what he had previously instructed them
to tell Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as the West's future military intentions about Russia if
the USSR were to end, was actually a lie.
He also told them that they were henceforth to proceed forward on the basis that the residual
stump of the former Soviet Union, Russia, will instead be treated as if it still is an enemy-nation,
and that the fundamental aim of the Western alliance will then remain: to conquer Russia (notwithstanding
the end of the USSR, of its communism, and of its military alliances) - that the Cold War is to end
only on the Russian side, not at all, really, on the Western side. (All of that is documented from
the historical record, at that linked-to article.)
This person was the former Director of the US CIA, born US aristocrat, and committed champion
of US conquest of the entire world, the President of the United States at the time (1990):
George Herbert Walker Bush .
He informed the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy, Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend - as she posted
it, apparently ecstatically, on September 19th, to her facebook page after personally having just
met with Mr. Bush - "The President told me he's voting for Hillary!!" She then confirmed this to
Politico the same day, which headlined promptly,
"George H.W. Bush to Vote for Hillary" .
G.H.W. Bush is an insider's insider: he would not do this if he felt that Hillary Clinton wouldn't
carry forward his plan (
which has been adhered-to by each of the US Presidents after him ), and if he felt that Donald
Trump - Bush's own successor now as the Republican US candidate for President - would not carry it
forward. (This was his most important and history-shaping decision during his entire Presidency,
and therefore it's understandable now that he would be willing even to cross Party-lines on his Presidential
ballot in order to have it followed-through to its ultimate conclusion.)
What indications exist publicly, that she will carry it forward? Hillary Clinton has already publicly
stated (though tactfully, so that the US press could ignore it) her intention to push things up to
and beyond the nuclear brink, with regard to Russia:
Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election
systems. So, we've got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight
to those who go after us. As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will
treat cyber attacks just like any other attack . We will be ready with serious political,
economic and military responses.
Russia denies that it did any such thing, but
the US even taps the phone conversations of Angela Merkel and other US allies ; and, of course,
the US and Russia routinely hack into each others' email and other communications; so, even if Russia
did what Clinton says, then to call it "like any other attack" against the United States and to threaten
to answer it with "military responses", would itself be historically unprecedented - which is what
Hillary Clinton is promising to do.
Historically unprecedented, like nuclear war itself would be. And she was saying this in the context
of her alleging that Russia had "attacked" the DNC (Democratic National Committee), and she as President
might "attack" back, perhaps even with "military responses". This was not an off-the-cuff remark
from her - it was her prepared text in a speech. She said it though, for example, on 26 October 2013,
Britain's Telegraph had headlined,
"US 'operates 80 listening posts worldwide, 19 in Europe, and snooped on Merkel mobile 2002-2013'
: US intelligence targeted Angela Merkel's phone from 2002 to 2013, according to new eavesdropping
leaks".
But now, this tapping against Merkel would, according to Hillary Clinton's logic (unless she intends
it to apply only by the United States against Russia), constitute reason for Germany (and
34 other nations ) to go to war against the United States.
Clinton also said there: "We need to respond to evolving threats from states like Russia,
China, Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS. We need a
military that is ready and agile so it can meet the full range of threats, and operate on short notice
across every domain, not just land, sea, air and space, but also cyberspace".
She also said that the sequester agreement between the Congress and the President must end, because
US military spending should not be limited: "I am all for cutting the fat out of the budget and making
sure we stretch our dollars But we cannot impose arbitrary limits on something as important as our
military. That makes no sense at all. The sequester makes our country less secure. Let's end it and
get a budget deal that supports America's military". She wasn't opposing "arbitrary limits" on non-military
spending; she implied that that's not "as important as our military".
She was clear: this is a wartime US, not a peacetime nation; we're already at war, in her view;
and therefore continued unlimited cost-overruns to Lockheed Martin etc. need to be accepted, not
limited (by "arbitrary limits" or otherwise). She favors "cutting the fat out of the budget" for
healthcare, education, subsidies to the poor, environmental protection, etc., but not for war, not
for this war. A more bellicose speech, especially against "threats from states like Russia, China,
Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS", all equating "states"
such as Russia and China, with "terrorist networks like ISIS", could hardly be imagined - as if Russia
and China are anything like jihadist organizations, and are hostile toward America, as such jihadist
groups are.
However, her threat to respond to an alleged "cyber attack" from Russia by "serious political,
economic and military responses" , is unprecedented, even from her. It was big news when she
said it, though virtually ignored by America's newsmedia.
The only US newsmedia to have picked up on Clinton's shocking threat were Republican-Party-oriented
ones, because the Democratic-Party and nonpartisan 'news' media in the US don't criticize a Democratic
nominee's neoconservatism - they hide it, or else find excuses for it (even after the Republican
neoconservative President George W. Bush's catastrophic and
lie-based neoconservative invasion of Iraq - then headed by the Moscow-friendly Saddam Hussein
- in 2003, which many Democratic office-holders, such as Hillary Clinton backed).
So, everything in today's USA 'news' media is favorable toward neoconservatism - it's now the
"Establishment" foreign policy, established notwithstanding the catastrophic Iraq-invasion,
from which America's 'news' media have evidently learned nothing whatsoever (because they're essentially
unchanged and committed to the same aristocracy as has long controlled them).
However, now that the Republican Party's Presidential nominee, Donald Trump, is openly critical
of Hillary Clinton's and George W. Bush's neoconservatism, any Republican-oriented 'news' media that
support Trump's candidacy allows its 'journalists' to criticize Clinton's neoconservatism; and, so,
there were a few such critiques of this shocking statement from Clinton.
The Republican Party's "Daily Caller" headlined about this more directly than any other US 'news'
medium,
"Clinton Advocates Response To DNC Hack That Would Likely Bring On WWIII" , and reported, on
September 1st, that "Clinton's cavalier attitude toward going to war over cyber attacks seems to
contradict her assertion that she is the responsible voice on foreign policy in the current election".
The Republican Washington Times newspaper headlined
"Hillary Clinton: US will treat cyberattacks 'just like any other attack'" , and reported that
she would consider using the "military to respond to cyberattacks," but that her Republican opponent
had indicated he would instead use only cyber against cyber: "'I am a fan of the future, and cyber
is the future,' he said when asked by Time magazine during the Republican National Convention about
using cyberweapons". However, Trump was not asked there whether he would escalate from a cyber attack
to a physical one. Trump has many times said that having good relations with Russia would be a priority
if he becomes President. That would obviously be impossible if he (like Hillary) were to be seeking
a pretext for war against Russia.
The mainstream The Hill newspaper bannered,
"Clinton: Treat cyberattacks 'like any other attack'" , and reported that, "Since many high-profile
cyberattacks could be interpreted as traditional intelligence-gathering - something the US itself
also engages in - the White House is often in a tricky political position when it comes to its response".
That's not critical of her position, but at least it makes note of the crucial fact that if the US
were to treat a hacker's attack as being an excuse to invade Russia, it would treat the US itself
as being already an invader of Russia - which the US prior to a President Hillary Clinton never actually
has been, notwithstanding the routine nature of international cyber espionage (which Clinton has
now stated she wants to become a cause of war), which has been, and will continue to be, essential
in the present era.
The International Business Times, an online-only site, headlined September 1 st ,
"Clinton: US should use 'military response' to fight cyberattacks from Russia and China" , and
reported that a Pentagon official had
testified to Congress on July 13 th , that current US policy on this matter is: "When
determining whether a cyber incident constitutes an armed attack, the US government considers a broad
range of factors, including the nature and extent of injury or death to persons and the destruction
of or damage to property. Cyber incidents are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the national
security leadership and the president will make a determination if it's an armed attack".
Hillary's statement on this matter was simply ignored by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal,
Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, Fox, CNN, The Nation, The Atlantic, Harper's, National
Review, Common Dreams, Alternet, Truthout, and all the rest of the US standard and 'alternative news'
reporting organizations. Perhaps when Americans go to the polls to elect a President on November
8th, almost none of them will have learned about her policy on this incredibly important matter.
Hillary's statement was in line with the current Administration's direction of policy, but is
farther along in that direction than the Obama Administration's policy yet is.
As
the German Economic News article had noted, but only in passing: "Just a few months ago, US President
Barack Obama had laid the legal basis for this procedure and signed a decree that equates hacker
attacks with military attacks". However, this slightly overstated the degree to which Obama has advanced
"this procedure". On 1 April 2016 - and not as any April Fool's joke - techdirt had headlined
"President Obama Signs Executive Order Saying That Now He's Going To Be Really Mad If He Catches
Someone Cyberattacking Us" and linked to the document, which techdirt noted was "allowing the
White House to issue sanctions on those 'engaging in significant malicious cyber-enabled activities'".
The writer, Mike Masnick, continued, quite accurately: "To make this work, the President officially
declared foreign hacking to be a 'national emergency' (no, really) and basically said that if the
government decides that some foreign person is doing a bit too much hacking, the US government can
basically do all sorts of bad stuff to them, like seize anything they have in the US and block them
from coming to the US". What Hillary Clinton wants to add to this policy is physical, military, invasion,
for practices such as (if Russia becomes declared by the US President to have been behind the hacking
of the DNC) what is actually routine activity of the CIA, NSA, and, of course, of Russia's (and other
countries') intelligence operations.
It wasn't directly Obama's own action that led most powerfully up to Hillary Clinton's policy
on this, but instead NATO's recent action - and NATO has always been an extension of the US President,
it's his military club, and it authorizes him to go to war against any nation that it decides to
have been invaded by some non-member country (especially Russia or China - the Saudis, Qataris, and
other funders behind international jihadist attacks are institutionally prohibited from being considered
for invasion by NATO, because the US keeps those regimes in power, and those regimes are generally
the biggest purchasers of US weapons). I reported on this at The Saker's site, on 15 June 2016, headlining
"NATO Says It Might Now Have Grounds to Attack Russia" . That report opened:
On Tuesday, June 14 th ,
NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons
in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO's Article V
"collective defense"
provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to
strike back against the attacking country.
NATO is now alleging that because
Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton's home computer , this action of someone
in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her US State Department communications to her
unsecured home computer and of such a Russian's then snooping into the US State Department business
that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and
would, if the US President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the US, trigger NATO's mutual-defense
clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the US government in going to war against Russia,
if the US government so decides.
So, Obama is using NATO to set the groundwork for Hillary Clinton's policy as (he hopes) America's
next President. Meanwhile, Obama's public rhetoric on the matter is far more modest, and less scary.
It's sane-sounding falsehoods. At the end of the G-20 Summit in Beijing, he held a
press conference September
5th (VIDEO at this link) , in which he was asked specifically (3:15) "Q: On the cyber front,
do you think Russia is trying to influence the US election?" and he went into a lengthy statement,
insulting Putin and saying (until 6:40 on the video) why Obama is superior to Putin on the Syrian
war, and then (until 8:07 in the video) blaming Putin for, what is actually, the refusal of the Ukrainian
parliament or Rada to approve the federalization of Ukraine that's stated in the Minsk agreement
as being a prerequisite to direct talks being held between the Donbass residents and
the Obama-installed regime
in Kiev that's been
trying to exterminate the residents of Donbass . Then (8:07 in the video), Obama got around to
the reporter's question:
And finally, we did talk about cyber-security generally. I'm not going to comment on specific
investigations that are still alive and active, but I will tell you that we've had problems with
cyber-intrusions from Russia in the past, from other countries in the past, and, look, we're moving
into a new era here, where a number of countries have significant capacities, and frankly we've got
more capacity than anybody both offensively and defensively, but our goal is not to suddenly in the
cyber-arena duplicate a cycle of escalation that we saw when it comes to other arms-races in the
past, but rather to start instituting (9:00) some norms so that everybody's acting responsibly.
He is a far more effective deceiver than is his intended successor, but Hillary's goals and his,
have always been the same: achieving what the US aristocracy want. Whereas she operates with a sledgehammer,
he
operates with a scalpel . And he hopes to hand this operation off to her on 20 January 2017.
This is what Hillary's statement that "the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any
other attack" is reflecting: it's reflecting that the US will, if she becomes President, be actively
seeking an excuse to invade Russia. The Obama-mask will then be off.
If this turns out to be the case, then it will be raw control of the US Government by the
military-industrial complex, which includes the arms-makers plus the universities . It's the
owners - the aristocrats - plus their servants; and at least 90% of the military-industrial complex
support Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Like her, they are all demanding that the sequester be ended
and that any future efforts to reduce the US Government's debts must come from cutting expenditures
for healthcare, education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, and expenditures
on the poor; no cuts (but only increases) for the military. This is based on the conservative theory,
that the last thing to cut in government is the military.
George Herbert Walker Bush knows lots that the 'news' media don't report (even when it has already
been leaked in one way or another), and
the
Clinton plan to destroy Russia is part of that. Will the Russian government accept it? Or will
it do whatever is required in order to defeat it? This is already
a serious nuclear confrontation .
"... First, I would certainly agree that Trump lies. Which is not to be confused with his inchoate policy prescriptions and vast ignorance. But as I have noted, Trump lies are – to use an overused phrase – "transparent". ..."
"... Compare to Hillary's lies – which are well crafted, well designed, and are lawyerly dissertations on misdirection and obfuscation. As well as being made to advance policy goals that are for the benefit of the 1%. Is Hillary against TPP in ANY sense of the meaning of the word "against" ? ..."
"... And with regard to media "fact checkers" – their "fact" checks take political statements at face value, and strike me as hopelessly unsophisticated and naive, and additionally hopelessly uninformed. As well as the "frame" of the question. Do a search regarding whether Clinton started birtherism. And than do a search whether Clinton used racist dog whistles to advance her 2008 campaign. Quite a difference. Which is effectively worse (hmmm – thats a twofer: is Clinton using dog whistles or is the media not asking relevant questions worse)??? ..."
"... People understand that it is all hype, all spin, and usually worse all the time. Is that too cynical? Well, when money and power are involved, it probably isn't…. ..."
"... An interesting take in that article, essentially arguing that the public has been gaslighted for so long by PR and image scrubbing that they crave Trump because his egotism is at least real ..."
"... So classic! The example Loofbourow gives to show how people are sick of gaslighting is… a classic case of gaslighting itself, as Trump never said he "loves" Putin, and Putin never called him a "genius". Rather these are the memes that our Acela Bubble gaslighters have been flooding into our brains. ..."
"... brangelina article . ..."
"... There is no perfect explanation that will account for Trump supporters' anger. They seem to share with Bernie Sanders supporters a deep sense of betrayal, of fundamental and unsolvable mistrust. ..."
"... One major problem with clinton's campaign message of portraying trump as nuts and 'unfit' is that 1) trump has no history of mental illness or known medical issues. I've read he doesn't drink and hasn't had any incidents where he's lost his temper and done something crazy that she can point to. 2) the whole 'unfit' thing presumes that people have confidence in the current political class and will reject someone who isn't up to that standard. ..."
"One visible frustration shared by Team Clinton and its many allies in the punditocracy is
that many voters are ignoring what they think the rules should be, particularly that Trump routinely
says things that are false, yet poll responses suggest that respondents don't care all that much
about how often Trump lies or wings it and gets it wrong."
First, I would certainly agree that Trump lies. Which is not to be confused with his inchoate
policy prescriptions and vast ignorance. But as I have noted, Trump lies are – to use an overused
phrase – "transparent".
Compare to Hillary's lies – which are well crafted, well designed, and are lawyerly dissertations
on misdirection and obfuscation. As well as being made to advance policy goals that are for the
benefit of the 1%. Is Hillary against TPP in ANY sense of the meaning of the word "against" ?
And with regard to media "fact checkers" – their "fact" checks take political statements
at face value, and strike me as hopelessly unsophisticated and naive, and additionally hopelessly
uninformed. As well as the "frame" of the question. Do a search regarding whether Clinton started
birtherism. And than do a search whether Clinton used racist dog whistles to advance her 2008
campaign. Quite a difference. Which is effectively worse (hmmm – thats a twofer: is Clinton using
dog whistles or is the media not asking relevant questions worse)???
Now, for me, its hard to believe that media people, whose ONLY job is to write about politics,
are so uninformed as to not understand the term "dog whistle" or to not understand that an awful
lot of politics is trying to smear your opposition without leaving fingerprints. How many stories
have you read in the MSM about the Clinton foundation that gave a detailed analysis of what they
spend money on by someone that you trust really understands and can explain how a charity should
operate???
Now, this link to "Brangelina" I think actually is pertinent to why media "fact checkers" are
so scorned – the second half of the article offers insight how the modern press relations business
runs circles around the media and how people who want to portray a "message" can easily do so.
People understand that it is all hype, all spin, and usually worse all the time. Is that
too cynical? Well, when money and power are involved, it probably isn't….
An interesting take in that article, essentially arguing that the public has been gaslighted
for so long by PR and image scrubbing that they crave Trump because his egotism is at least real:
You know who does seem authentic? Someone who does everything out of nothing but naked
self-interest, and admits it frankly. Someone who makes no pretense that he's trying to live
up to some notion of decency. Someone whose only metric - whose admitted basis of action on
any topic - is how it will affect him. Donald Trump loves Vladimir Putin. Why? Because Putin
called him a genius. What else could possibly matter? To pretend one cares about anything else
would be just that: a pretense. His rationale may not be good, but it is at least pure, uncontaminated
by considerations of how things will look.
So classic! The example Loofbourow gives to show how people are sick of gaslighting is…
a classic case of gaslighting itself, as Trump never said he "loves" Putin, and Putin never called
him a "genius". Rather these are the memes that our Acela Bubble gaslighters have been flooding
into our brains.
And another quote that ends the brangelina article
.
There is no perfect explanation that will account for Trump supporters' anger. They
seem to share with Bernie Sanders supporters a deep sense of betrayal, of fundamental and unsolvable
mistrust. And of course a great deal of that sense of grievance has to do with class,
and race, and gender - and the economy and our justice system and racism and education and
income inequality and foreign wars and xenophobia.
But we're in danger of missing a huge chunk of what drives the American psyche if we forget
just how frivolous we are, if we forget to look at what Americans actually think about and
watch in their spare time. And that isn't politics. It's The Bachelorette. It's Instagram.
It's the Kardashians. This week, it's Brangelina and the peculiar wave of nostalgia their breakup
inspired as we remember a time when we weren't quite this jaded.
The Jolie-Pitt divorce has been hailed as the end of an era. So it is: The end of their
union marks the end of a style of celebrity fluent in rewriting the narrative, of spinning
scandal into decency and a happy ending so convincing that people threw away their #TeamJen
shirts. Sure, sure, this is a "real family." Yes, these are "real people." This story is no
doubt "complicated." But secretly, we believe complexity is a con. Really, the end of Brangelina
just confirms our suspicions: It's lies all the way down, just as we always feared.
One major problem with clinton's campaign message of portraying trump as nuts and 'unfit'
is that 1) trump has no history of mental illness or known medical issues. I've read he doesn't
drink and hasn't had any incidents where he's lost his temper and done something crazy that she
can point to. 2) the whole 'unfit' thing presumes that people have confidence in the current political
class and will reject someone who isn't up to that standard.
Trump just needs to seems reasonable and not like the whacko seen in the constant barrage of
clinton ads.
Everyone's gotten over sensitized after that creepy but brief head bobbing incident. If you
hadn't seen that, I doubt you't take any notice of her nodding here. Looks more like an attempt
to channel nervousness or hide the effort to stay faux pleasant.
I'm more bothered by her claim that she's "met the standard" for releasing health records.
Bullshit. McCain released 10,000 pages and Shrub, 4,000. By contrast, she's given a page or two
of letters from her local Dr. Feelgood.
It depends on what the meaning of the word "standard" is..
This is just one of the reasons she isn't up by 50.. no one trusts her so why bother to care
about her policy or her proposals. She will just make up excuses as she goes along for whatever
she wants to do.
It's worth pointing out she said she's had memory problems since the concussion when she had
her interview with the fbi. So she's reaping what she's sowed as far as doubts about her health.
It's not like she's been consistent about how good her health is….much like she's not consistent
about…well…
Dunno if this has been posted here but this is part 3: "The following is adapted from the new
book Superpredator: Bill Clinton's Use and Abuse of Black America .
The Evictor-in-Chief
Bill Clinton's crime policies left many poor people with only two options: prison, or homelessness.
by Nathan J. Robinson
"... Informative to follow the link and get more of what Trump said and what Clinton waffles upon.
League of Conservation Voters is a DNC front. ..."
"... Clean coal, like her clean tar sands' pipeline costs more in HGH than just burning low sulfur
stuff. So much needs to stay in the ground, not a Clinton theme. Nor one for LCV! ..."
"... She doesn't pander to the left or to the peacenicks. I bet the debate will all about diversity
and little about economic populism. The center-left dislikes the left, just like in the UK. ..."
Clean coal, like her clean tar sands' pipeline costs more in HGH than just burning low sulfur
stuff. So much needs to stay in the ground, not a Clinton theme. Nor one for LCV!
She doesn't pander to the left or to the peacenicks. I bet the debate will all about diversity
and little about economic populism. The center-left dislikes the left, just like in the UK.
"... While Dems throw younger voters under the bus, they are cozying up to "W"–quite literally. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3806509/Photo-Michelle-Obama-George-W-Bush-hugging-edited.html ..."
"... A whole generation of school kids in their formative years got the message from their parents that Bills behavior was a national embarrassment. So why would they be excited about or vote for Mrs. Clinton? ..."
"... I'm pretty jaded and cynical but that photo of Michelle Obama hugging GWB shocked even me. It's getting scathing comments on Twitter as well (cf @DavidSirota for one). ..."
"... You should probably read the book: Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas. It looks like Michelle was a dangerous, power hungry player from the very beginning. ..."
One thing I never see discussed in the media is the effect of the sorry Clinton/Lewinsky/Impeachment
episode on millennials. As a parent of school kids in the suburbs at that time I can tell you
that I and other parents were none too pleased to see the presidents sexual infidelities on the
evening news and headlined in the paper for all youngsters to see (and emulate?).
A whole generation
of school kids in their formative years got the message from their parents that Bills behavior
was a national embarrassment. So why would they be excited about or vote for Mrs. Clinton?
Jomo–We don't see anything about Billy's former indiscretions in the news anymore.
They'd rather the millennials forget about it.
That's all been carefully swept back into a little box gathering dust in the corner.
How convenient.
'Look over there! It's a Trump!'.
Distractions, distractions…
I lost all respect for Hellary (not that I had much, to begin with) when she 'stood by her
man' following the Monica incident.
She would have impressed me had she planted her foot up his a** all the way up to her cankles,
instead.
I've no doubt part of the 'bargain' of her staying by his side was to get her into the WH.
I've thought that since it happened. Call me Nostradamus.
I'm pretty jaded and cynical but that photo of Michelle Obama hugging GWB shocked even me.
It's getting scathing comments on Twitter as well (cf @DavidSirota for one).
Michelle was the only one I had any respect for… now… POOF like Keyser Soze that respect is
gone.
You should probably read the book: Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas. It looks like Michelle was a dangerous, power hungry player from the very beginning.
"... The trouble is that the candidate they are meant to support does not appear to find that show particularly horrifying ..."
"... People under 40 or 35 grew up under title IX. Electing the wife of a lousy President isnt relevant ..."
"... Then of course, 9/11 would also explain the voting problems. Fear mongering doesn't work when fear mongering has been omnipresent in the lives of millennials for 15 years. ..."
"... Basically, a bunch of Democrats are voting against their interests because they are shallow as they seem. ..."
"... Why the young don't like Hillary? Our friends got blown apart in a war, came home w/ ptsd-missing limbs, getting little care & she wants even more war. Her husband's trade deals destroyed the economy & we know she is pro TPP. ..."
"... She is clearly a liar & has track record of a sell out. She & DNC cheated Bernie & we can't forgive even if he has. ..."
"... The Clintons have been terrible for a long time. The question is why are (did) so many Democrats especially older ones voting against their own interests. ..."
"... I've tried multiple times to explain this to my parents, but they just can't get how much has changed since the 90s, especially for the young. It's key, of course, that they still rely on the New York Times and PBS to get their news. They view "blogs" with reflexive disdain. ..."
"... When I go from hospital room to room at work there are many more older folks (40+) watching fox news, expressing interest in Trump & their hatred of the Clintons. Except in CT where everyone loves their Dems, corrupt or not. This was over last yr working in CT, NY, ME & AZ. I don't see how Clinton can win unless she cheats. ..."
"... So yes, lie, cheat, and steal, those are three things she and her crew excel at. ..."
"... Or, in short form, why the young (and a lot of other people) don't like HIllary: Why would they? The strange media delusion that the dislike needs to be explained, and is moreover terribly puzzling and hard to explain, is itself in greater need of explanation. ..."
"... That Newsweek article you posted on Hillary's millennial "problem" is an amazing read. So satisfying to finally see something in MSM that states obvious truths. Nice little video clip too. ..."
"... Many younger American voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's chances, have significant ideological differences with the candidate. ..."
"... Millennials might vote for Dad or Mom. They are being asked to vote for Granny, who is wobbly, eccentric and does not even live in the same Century as them. ..."
"Here is my own wild take on why millennials don't support Clinton "enough": Many younger American
voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's chances, have significant
ideological differences with the candidate. That's my theory. Many liberal pundits seem unimpressed
by this idea perhaps because it suggests that votes must be earned in a democracy, but it does
have the benefit of the evidence."
And
"The Clinton campaign might be forgiven for imagining these voters would "come home" had it
not spent the weeks since the Democratic Convention fundraising and playing Bush administration
endorsement bingo. The trouble is not that young people are insufficiently familiar with the neoconservative
horror show of their own childhoods. The trouble is that the candidate they are meant to support
does not appear to find that show particularly horrifying ."
And
"There are only so many times one can insist that young voters capitulate to a political party's
sole demand-vote for us!-in exchange for nothing."
I would suggest the ideological differences extend past the 38 age barrier, but
1. People under 40 or 35 grew up under title IX. Electing the wife of a lousy President isnt
relevant
2. No one under 38 voted for Bill Clinton. The youth haven't twisted themselves into voting for
that ass in the first place. Even then Bill's 1996 campaign when he failed to crack 50% against
Mumbly Joe was marked by record low minority turnout, just what is being worried about now. Gee.
3. Then of course, 9/11 would also explain the voting problems. Fear mongering doesn't work when
fear mongering has been omnipresent in the lives of millennials for 15 years.
Basically, a bunch of Democrats are voting against their interests because they are shallow
as they seem.
Why the young don't like Hillary?
Our friends got blown apart in a war, came home w/ ptsd-missing limbs, getting little care & she
wants even more war. Her husband's trade deals destroyed the economy & we know she is pro TPP.
She is pro fracking, pushing it overseas & once in office will promote it here. She is a corporatist bankster & won't release Goldman speeches. We have no jobs, no prospects, large amount of school
debt & must come of age during the second great depression. She is clearly a liar & has track
record of a sell out. She & DNC cheated Bernie & we can't forgive even if he has.
The Clintons have been terrible for a long time. The question is why are (did) so many Democrats
especially older ones voting against their own interests.
Obama enjoys a relative popularity with young people despite being a disaster.
My guess is, that after twelve years of Reagan and Bush, any Democrat was a relief. Unfortunately,
so many in the Democratic Party and in the commentariat came of age during that time, so they
just assume that this is the way that it has to be.
Actually, no, Clinton did not look like a good option in 1992, and certainly wasn't my choice
in the primary. Even then there were a lot of people who only got talked into voting for him in
November on the lesser evil principle, regretted it, and did not vote for him again in 1996.
Plus they turned Ross Perot into a crazy loon because he kept attacking nafta, which was a
big deal at the time, effectively making it a more "manageable" two person race.
Hmmm…….Now that I think about it, that sounds kind of familiar.
Katniss–Looking back, I think when I voted for Ross Perot that was the last time I voted for
someone I actually wanted, rather than just voting the LOTE.
Bernie was the only candidate since I've actually wanted to win. I'm heartsick and mad as hell
he's not in the running.
BTW, I'm still trying to figure out how DWS beat Tim Canova in FL after all the dirty dealings
about DWS came out? More manipulation at the polls?
This is definitely true of my parents (both barely pre-boomers). After watching McGovern flop,
then Carter flail, they both assumed the Clintons were the best a liberal could hope for in this
country. Also my mother admired Hillary for being an unapologetic career woman when, especially
in the South, this was still controversial.
Indeed, having grown up in the age of Reagan and George HW, I basically agreed with them in
the 90s, even though I hoped more would be possible at some point. It wasn't until the financial
crisis (and, importantly, beginning to read NC!) that I began to realize how toxic the Clinton
legacy really was. Also, as a grad student, I was teaching lots of millennials and began to realize
how genuinely screwed they were by what we now all call the neoliberal (and neocon) era.
I've tried multiple times to explain this to my parents, but they just can't get how much has
changed since the 90s, especially for the young. It's key, of course, that they still rely on
the New York Times and PBS to get their news. They view "blogs" with reflexive disdain.
When I told "older" people I would vote for Bernie, now Trump to shake things up-all I got
was a lecture. Clinton's will protect wall street & 401ks. And I think there is a lot of fear
about moving away from the token/chosen candidates.
When I go from hospital room to room at work there are many more older folks (40+) watching fox
news, expressing interest in Trump & their hatred of the Clintons. Except in CT where everyone
loves their Dems, corrupt or not. This was over last yr working in CT, NY, ME & AZ. I don't see
how Clinton can win unless she cheats.
In Philly last time around they had 53 precincts that were without a single non-Obama vote.
Not one. The Black Panthers at the door shooed out the Republican observers and the magic happened,
this time around it will be much easier. And then we might end up with hanging chads on steroids,
with an 8-person Supreme Court that should be a fun-fest.
So yes, lie, cheat, and steal, those are three things she and her crew excel at.
Or, in short form, why the young (and a lot of other people) don't like HIllary: Why would they? The strange media delusion that the dislike needs to be explained, and is moreover terribly
puzzling and hard to explain, is itself in greater need of explanation.
That Newsweek article you posted on Hillary's millennial "problem" is an amazing read. So satisfying to finally see something in MSM that states obvious truths. Nice little video
clip too.
Many younger American voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's
chances, have significant ideological differences with the candidate.
Millennials might vote for Dad or Mom. They are being asked to vote for Granny, who is wobbly,
eccentric and does not even live in the same Century as them.
That Newsweek article you posted on Hillary's millennial "problem" is an amazing read. So satisfying to finally see something in MSM that states obvious truths. Nice little video
clip too.
"... So Obama sent Emails to Clinton's private Email address that contained classified information. Was his handle "BBC"? Truly funny! ..."
"... I find this revelation to be particularly galling, how richly this entire crew deserves ankle bracelets at a very minimum for perjury. When the president and the SoS lie and break the law and nothing happens…um precisely where do we go from there? ..."
I find this revelation to be particularly galling, how richly this entire crew deserves ankle
bracelets at a very minimum for perjury. When the president and the SoS lie and break the law
and nothing happens…um precisely where do we go from there?
"... The real standard will be, as it was for Obama in 2008, the capacity to touch people on an emotional level. Policy does not matter. Obama touched our desire for positive human solidarity (black and white together) The foundation of Trump's appeal is also on a emotional level. Trump, at his best, exudes a powerful resentment–a type of negative solidarity based on anger and contempt. ..."
"What standards do you think will matter for who really wins the debate, as in does better
with voters."
The real standard will be, as it was for Obama in 2008, the capacity to touch people on
an emotional level. Policy does not matter. Obama touched our desire for positive human solidarity
(black and white together) The foundation of Trump's appeal is also on a emotional level. Trump,
at his best, exudes a powerful resentment–a type of negative solidarity based on anger and contempt.
i just saw a good comment at the guardian comparing trump to chemo, the "poison that we take
to cure us of the dnc/rnc cancer in hope they don't kill us first".
"... Supposedly, per this Social Security Works advocate, Trump's advisor told Paul Ryan he will agree to cutting Social Security, ala 2008 0bama's advisor telling Canadian officials that 0bama wouldn't really negotiate NAFTA. ..."
Supposedly, per this Social Security Works advocate, Trump's advisor told Paul Ryan he will
agree to cutting Social Security, ala 2008 0bama's advisor telling Canadian officials that 0bama
wouldn't really negotiate NAFTA.
"In 2015, the work rate (or employment-to-population
ratio) for American males ages 25 to 54 was slightly lower
than it had been in 1940, at the tail end of the Great
Depression. If we were back at 1965 levels today, nearly 10
million additional men would have paying jobs. The collapse
of male work is due almost entirely to a flight out of the
labor force-and that flight has on the whole been voluntary.
The fact that only 1 in 7 prime-age men are not in the labor
force points to a lack of jobs as the reason they are not
working."
Uh Nick – thanks for telling us what we already knew –
labor force participation is down. But do you realize how you
just contradicted yourself. Keynesians like myself would
agree that is due to a lack of jobs (aka low aggregate
demand). So is this a voluntary thing?
Let's read on:
"these unworking men are floated by other household
members (wives, girlfriends, relatives) and by Uncle Sam.
Government disability programs figure prominently in the
calculus of support for unworking men-ever more prominently
over time."
Since government provided benefits have not been scaled up
by our policy makers – he must think the hard working ladies
are cuddling young men for their good lucks or something. Uh
Nick – come to NYC and you will see that the ladies here
think this is so stupid. His next excuse is all those dudes
in prison. Seriously? Does this AEI clown not realize crime
is much lower than it was a generation ago? This piece was
dumb even by AEI "standards". But at least he did not dwell
on the Tyler Cowen porn thing.And at the risk of repeating
myself (and Noah Smith) if their thesis that young men had
suddenly decided to loaf, then the inward shift of the labor
supply curve would mean higher real wages than we are seeing.
Reply
Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 09:37 AM
pgl said in reply to pgl...
I decided to put these thoughts in the following Econospeak
post which goes a little further debunking the
misrepresentations from the AEI hack:
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
Alive as you or me
Says I, But Joe, you're ten years dead
I never died, says he
I never died, says he
In Salt Lake, Joe, says I to him
Him standing by my bed
They framed you on a murder charge
Says Joe, But I ain't dead
Says Joe, But I ain't dead
The copper bosses killed you, Joe
They shot you, Joe, says I
Takes more than guns to kill a man
Says Joe, I didn't die
Says Joe, I didn't die
And standing there as big as life
And smiling with his eyes
Joe says, What they forgot to kill
Went on to organize
Went on to organize
Joe Hill ain't dead, he says to me
Joe Hill ain't never died
Where working men are out on strike
Joe Hill is at their side
Joe Hill is at their side
From San Diego up to Maine
In every mine and mill
Where workers strike and organize
Says he, You'll find Joe Hill
Says he, You'll find Joe Hill
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
Alive as you or me
Says I, But Joe, you're ten years dead
I never died, says he
I never died, says he
[More about Joe Hill and Alfred Hayes at the link.]
Reply
Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:10 AM
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Fortunately I will have very little spare time for idle or
addle minded leisure now until well after the election and
even well after the subsequent coronation save those days so
rainy that outdoor activity is entirely impractical.
Reply
Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:14 AM
pgl said...
I never liked Ross Douhart. The political right thinks he has
written something very important:
"At the same time, outside the liberal tent, the feeling
of being suffocated by the left's cultural dominance is
turning voting Republican into an act of cultural rebellion -
which may be one reason the Obama years, so good for
liberalism in the culture, have seen sharp G.O.P. gains at
every level of the country's government. This spirit of
political-cultural rebellion is obviously crucial to Trump's
act."
Vote for a racist like Trump because liberals are
suffocating. Did I say I really do not like Ross Douhart?
Reply
Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:55 AM
Peter K. said in reply to pgl...
Again we agree. (Signs of the apocalypse? I guess Trump is
going to win.)
Douchehat is the worst hypocrite. He wants
readers to believe he's an expert in morality and morale
rectitude and that's what conservative should be known for
when in reality Republicans chose Trump as their candidate,
one grand example of immorality and dishonesty.
And still Douthat turns on the liberals as behaving badly.
Suffocating? Howabout the insanity of the Republican
convention? That was suffocating.
He even quotes Internet Troll Steve Sailor!!!
*rubs eyes*
"(The alt-right-ish columnist Steve Sailer made the punk
rock analogy as well.)"
It's like Douthat writing about JohnH or BINY. Every one
of Sailor's Internet comments would be racist ones about
immigration. He's mentally unhinged.
"But it remains an advantage for the G.O.P., and a
liability for the Democratic Party, that the new cultural
orthodoxy is sufficiently stifling to leave many Americans
looking to the voting booth as a way to register dissent."
Clueless Douthat. The culture is getting better in certain
ways because the TV executives just want to sell advertising
and these performers are popular. It's capitalism at work.
Kudos to John Oliver for winning an Emmy.
"Among millennials, especially, there's a growing
constituency for whom right-wing ideas are so alien or
triggering, left-wing orthodoxy so pervasive and
unquestioned, that supporting a candidate like Hillary
Clinton looks like a needless form of compromise."
Note the disdain for millennials. "Triggering."
Conservative like Douthat and Bobo Brooks "trigger" the
hate and anger centers of my brain.
The fact is that Samantha Bee is right and NBC facilitated
the rise of Trump with the Apprentice and treating him well
on other shows like Jimmy Fallon and SNL.
[ Do not use sickening
language on this blog. Never ever use such language here. ]
Reply
Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 02:44 PM
pgl said...
I have provided this link to some of the papers by Michael
Bruno – many co-authored by Jeffrey Sachs – for a couple of
reasons:
The minor reason is they have a nice paper on the Dutch
Disease – something JohnH thinks he understands but he needs
to read up on this topic. But the main reason has to do with
a stupid comment from Paine on my Econospeak post, which goes
to show how very little Paine actually learned in graduate
school.
I was try to paint a picture of some Real Business Cycle
claim that Bruno and Sachs emphasized when I was in graduate
school. I never truly bought their story as I was (and still
am) a die hard Keynesian. But here is how it went as applied
to the early 1980's (the period I was talking about). If a
nation enjoys a massive real appreciation and if aggregate
demand does not matter (the New Classical view which we
Keynesians do not buy) then the real wages of its domestic
workers rise. These workers supply more labor driving down
wages relative to domestic prices. So domestic firms hire
more workers.
That is their story. I do not buy it as I was clearly
mocking it. Alas Paine never learned this. And so he mocks
someone who did. Just another day at the EV comment section.
Aals.
Reply
Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 12:24 PM
anne said in reply to pgl...
Just another day at the -- ------- section.
The New York Times did what we should expect newspapers to
do when reporting on presidential campaigns, it told readers
that Donald Trump's energy plans don't make any sense. In the
first paragraph of a piece * on a speech Donald Trump gave in
Pittsburgh, the NYT told readers that his promise to increase
production of both coal and natural gas is "impossible." This
is of course true, since the fuels are substitutes. In fact,
the main reason coal production has fallen sharply in the
last five years has been the boom in low cost natural gas
from fracking. If we increase the latter further, then it is
almost inevitable that it will result in a further drop in
coal production.
Mr. Trump may not know he is promising the impossible, but
now NYT readers do.
Dean seems to be saying that coal production fell as a result
of a fall in its demand curve which would lower coal prices
along the supply curve. This chart of coal prices confirms
this story:
All excellent points but let me expand on one that I have
blogged about:
"his estimates of the additional growth we
would get from cutting taxes and deregulating are wildly
inflated, and the cuts to nondefense appropriations would
amount to cuts of approximately 25 percent over 10 years
which is not politically feasible."
Cutting nondefense Federal purchases by 25% would be very
bad policy. At the same time, it would not reduce spending by
nearly the made up numbers Trump is claiming even if this
really bad policy were passed.
Of course Trump is not as bad as Paul Ryan whose magic
astericks if actually turned into a real policy proposal
would mean eliminating all nondefense Federal purchases. And
for some reason people consider Ryan a serious policy person.
No? He is nothing more than a lying clown.
Anon. :
, -1
How do you reconcile these views with the lack of reaction
from the stock market as Trump's chances improve?
For being an outsider he seems devoid of new ideas and other
than some distinctions in defense, immigration, and trade,
mostly conventional. Hardly a change candidate, only more of
the same.
Trump: Many criticisms of current government.
No workable solutions.
Trump is a pure outsider. He knows almost nothing about what
it takes to govern.
Trump would speechify and present bread and circuses while
Pence or Bannon would do the real work in the shadows
The
question people should ask?: Will Trump policy help my
situation?
Trump: Many criticisms of current government.
No workable solutions.
Trump is a pure outsider. He knows almost nothing about what it takes to govern.
Trump would speechify and present bread and circuses while Pence or Bannon would do the real work
in the shadows
The question people should ask?: Will Trump policy help my situation?
"Trump is a pure outsider. He
knows almost nothing about what it takes to govern."
Does not the absence of Washington experience
make him preferable by definition? ;-)
Because we know the results of those who supposedly "knew something" (the son of previous
President with English language problems and "change we can believe in" -- junior senator with
questionable biography and very little experience in governing as well as Joe Lieberman as
his Senate mentor).
But in more serious mode it is unclear whether he can be worse then Hillary, who is "status
quo" candidate.
My hope is that with his paleoconservaive inclinatins, he might be able to suppress excessive
financization and slightly tame Wall Street sharks. Looks like he does not like Wall Street
and that might be huge positive.
While Hillary is definitely is in the pocket (like her husband Bill).
According to Mark Thoma for internal economic policy Trump is a more questionable choice.
And that might well be true. But neoliberalism is now in deep internal crisis anyway, so all
choices are bad.
As for foreign policy he is definitely preferable over more jingoistic and reckless neocon
Hillary.
Looks like we have a very difficult choice here folks.
I'm shocked at how quickly the
GOP has fallen in line behind his anti free trade policies. It appears that the official platform
of the GOP is now in favor of protectionism and subsidies. The silence from the small-l libertarian
wing of the GOP has been deafening.
Neoliberal globalization had already run its course and a reversal is in cards. Brexit was
the first swan.
That means "Free traders" now are under the gun as the results of their policies are pretty
evident and different from the promise that "a rising tide lifts all boats". Republicans attitude
reflect this reality -- that's why Trump managed to get into position he is now.
"Peak (or more correctly Plato) Oil" is another big factor here and if the price dynamics
is up this will be another nail in the coffin of neoliberal globalization.
As Obama put it in different context "I am the only one who is standing between you and
pitchforks". And he really served this role for eight long years.
But the mood of electorate changed dramatically. That's why both parties now try to distance
themselves from this idea at least for the period of elections.
With Trump election pitchforks might really move closer to their targets. That's why Wall
Street and "Clinton's Demorats" are so firmly behind Hillary candidacy.
Hillary is a "status quo" candidate and has two additional advantages over Trump:
-- her failing health which might prevent serving her the full term,
-- there is a possibility of her impeachment for "emailgate", which really would be a "skeleton
in the closet" for her administration.
"... "In terms of booked TV and radio ad time from today through election day, Team Clinton is tracking at roughly 33 times the outlay of Team Trump" [ Advertising Age ]. "To put all this another way, of the $149,912,723 millon in booked TV and radio spending through election day for these three presidential candidates, $145,299,727 is being spent by the Clinton campaign combined with pro-Clinton PACs." Wowsers. ..."
"In terms of booked TV and radio ad time from today through election
day, Team Clinton is tracking at roughly 33 times the outlay of Team Trump"
[
Advertising
Age
]. "To put all this another way, of the $149,912,723 millon in booked
TV and radio spending through election day for these three presidential
candidates, $145,299,727 is being spent by the Clinton campaign combined
with pro-Clinton PACs." Wowsers.
"Trump's ads last ran nearly a week ago in four battleground states:
Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Since then, the GOP
presidential nominee has ceded the airwaves to Hillary Clinton - and is only
poised to launch a limited, less-targeted ad campaign in the days before
next week's debate" [
Politico
].
"Hillary Clinton is reserving $30 million in digital advertising as she
seeks to connect with young voters" [Business Insider]. The quotes in this
thing are pathetic, both Michelle Obama and Clinton's. Anybody who uses the
trope "I get that" automatically doesn't.
"Elizabeth Warren Tells Hillary Clinton Not To Hire Wall Street Donors" [
International
Business Times
]. At the Center for American Progress:
"I know that personnel is policy," she told the group. "But let me be
clear - when we talk about personnel, we don't mean advisors who just pay
lip service to Hillary's bold agenda [irony, surely?], coupled with a
sigh, a knowing glance, and a twiddling of thumbs until it's time for the
next swing through the revolving door, serving government then going back
to the very same industries they regulate. We don't mean Citigroup or
Morgan Stanley or BlackRock getting to choose who runs the economy in
this country so they can capture our government."
This,
before
November 8! They must be gritting their teeth in
Brooklyn, as Warren underlines her status as a party baron once more.
"The Clinton Global Initiative wraps up its 12th and final annual meeting
Wednesday amid intense scrutiny about the access its donors received while
Hillary Clinton was the nation's top diplomat" [
McClatchy
].
So I guess they're closing out the fund? And the payouts will come over the
course of a future Clinton administration….
Our endorsement is rooted in respect
for her intellect, experience and courage. ...
In any normal election year, we'd compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the
issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise
in a race where one candidate - our choice, Hillary Clinton - has a record of service and a raft
of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his
plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent
editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern
American history.)
But this endorsement would also be an empty exercise if it merely affirmed the choice of Clinton
supporters. We're aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs.
Clinton - because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate
who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent
and a political system that seems broken. ...
2008 Crisis Deepened the Ties Between Clintons and Goldman Sachs
http://nyti.ms/2cLHnuY
NYT - NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and SUSANNE CRAIG - Sep 24
A blue-ribbon commission had just excoriated Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks for
fueling the financial crisis. Prosecutors were investigating whether Goldman had misled investors.
The company was a whipping boy for politicians looking to lay blame for the crash.
But in spring of 2011, Lloyd C. Blankfein, leading one of the nation's most reviled companies,
found himself onstage with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, one of the nation's most admired
public figures at the time. And Mrs. Clinton had come to praise Goldman Sachs.
The State Department, Mrs. Clinton announced that day in an auditorium in its Foggy Bottom
headquarters, would throw its weight behind a Goldman philanthropic initiative aimed at encouraging
female entrepreneurs around the world - a program Goldman viewed as central to rehabilitating
its reputation.
Mrs. Clinton's blessing - an important public seal of approval for Goldman at a time when it
had few defenders in Washington - underscored a long-running relationship between one of the country's
most powerful financial firms and one of its most famous political families. Over 20-plus years,
Goldman provided the Clintons with some of their most influential advisers, millions of dollars
in campaign contributions and speaking fees, and financial support for the family foundation's
charitable programs.
And in the wake of the worst crash since the Great Depression, as the firm fended off investigations
and criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike, the Clintons drew Goldman only closer. Bill
Clinton publicly defended the company and leased office space from Goldman for his foundation.
Mrs. Clinton, after leaving the State Department, earned $675,000 to deliver three speeches at
Goldman events, where she reassured executives that they had an important role to play in the
nation's recovery.
The four years between the end of the financial crisis and the start of Mrs. Clinton's second
White House bid revealed a family that viewed Wall Street's elite as friends and collaborators
even as the public viewed them with suspicion and scorn. ...
So these people think it is a big deal for the Sec of State to appear at a dinner with GS where
the bank starts a program to help women in business throughout the world.
10,000 Women is a program organized by Goldman Sachs with the goal of helping to grow local
economies by providing business education, mentoring and networking, and access to capital to
underserved women entrepreneurs globally. ...
I know about the program. A local charity group I do a little work for has partnered with it.
My question was doe the writers in that Times article mention the program?
If not, it is just another in a long series of attacks on the Clintons with little basis in
fact. I am not a big fan of either of them, but this treatment is beyond the pale.
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
The NYT board like Mrs. Clinton has no idea about providing for the common defense.
Experience that could not remember nor take responsibility for safeguarding information that
could damage US well being...........
Nor remember the most basic requirements for filing public records.
"... In many ways, Donald Trump follows the Republican playbook on fiscal policy. He believes in low taxes for the wealthy, and he wants to scale back or eliminate social insurance programs such as Obamacare. But there are two programs he has indicated he will try to protect, Social Security and Medicare. The question is whether he is serious about insulating these programs from cuts or saying whatever is needed to get votes, and whether these programs can be protected if he implements his tax cut plans. ..."
"... However, his estimates of the additional growth we would get from cutting taxes and deregulating are wildly inflated, and the cuts to nondefense appropriations would amount to cuts of approximately 25 percent over 10 years which is not politically feasible. If his plan were implemented, the debt would likely go up by trillions leaving Republicans with just three choices, reverse the tax cuts, make cuts to programs such as Medicare and Social Security, or accept the higher debt numbers. ..."
"... Many people struggling to make ends meet each month believe that it doesn't matter much for their lives who is elected president; their lives will go on much the same. But that is not true. Despite Trump's attempt to convince you otherwise, the working class has a lot to lose if he makes it to the White House. ..."
Donald Trump's chances of becoming president are higher than I ever expected them to be, and there is
a chance that he will be able to put his economic plans into place. He claims his economic policies
will be good for the working class, but in reality his plans for high income tax cuts and deregulation
adhere closely to standard Republican ideology that has favored the wealthy and powerful. Even his plans
for international trade, an area where he claims populist support, would hurt far more people than it
would help. Here are the four areas where Trump's economic plans concern me the most:
Social Security and Medicare: In many ways, Donald Trump follows the Republican playbook on
fiscal policy. He believes in low taxes for the wealthy, and he wants to scale back or eliminate social
insurance programs such as Obamacare. But there are two programs he has indicated he will try to protect,
Social Security and Medicare. The question is whether he is serious about insulating these programs
from cuts or saying whatever is needed to get votes, and whether these programs can be protected if
he implements his tax cut plans.
Donald Trump's latest tax plan does not increase the national debt as much as his original plan,
revenues will "only" fall between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion over a decade instead of $9.5 trillion.
Trump has claimed that all of the lost revenue will be made up through the plan's impact on economic
growth, cuts to nondefense appropriations (essentially everything except defense, Social Security, and
Medicare), and deregulation.
However, his estimates of the additional growth we would get from cutting taxes and deregulating
are wildly inflated, and the cuts to nondefense appropriations would amount to cuts of approximately
25 percent over 10 years which is not politically feasible. If his plan were implemented, the debt would
likely go up by trillions leaving Republicans with just three choices, reverse the tax cuts, make cuts
to programs such as Medicare and Social Security, or accept the higher debt numbers.
Republican members of Congress, who would almost surely be in control if Trump wins the election,
will not reverse the tax cuts. But they have been eager to cut entitlement programs, only the threat
of a veto from Obama stood in their way. Would Trump allow the debt to skyrocket, or would he, as I
believe, end up signing legislation from Congress that includes large cuts to Social Security and Medicare?
Despite his promises, two key programs the working class relies upon would be vulnerable with Trump
as president.
Deregulation: I've already mentioned Trump's plan to reduce regulation, to the point of calling
for severe reductions in the budgets of agencies such as the EPA, the Education Department, food safety
enforcement, and a reversal of Dodd-Frank and other financial regulation. Deregulation of the magnitude
Trump is proposing would be a disaster waiting to happen.
There are obvious dangers to areas such as the environment and food safety, but sticking with economics
it would also make the financial system, which needs more regulation not less, more likely to crash
again. There would be more tolerance of monopoly power – a source of rising inequality, and less protection
generally of workers and consumers from powerful business interests. Trump claims that deregulation
will create economic growth, but that didn't happen when Reagan and Bush deregulated and there's no
reason to think it will be different this time.
Federal Reserve Composition and Independence: Trump's statements about the Fed have been inconsistent.
In November he said that Janet Yellen hasn't raised interest rates "because the Obama administration
and the president doesn't want her to." But in May he said, "I'm not a person that thinks Janet Yellen
is doing a bad job. I happen to be a low-interest rate person unless inflation rears its ugly head,"
which he added he doesn't see happening anytime soon. But more recently he has gone back to a critical
stance, saying that Fed Chair Yellen is "obviously political," that "She's doing what Obama wants her
to do," and that she "should be ashamed of herself."
Trump has said he would replace Yellen if he is elected, and given his obvious lack of knowledge
about monetary policy he would likely rely upon his advisors to select a new Fed Chair and make appointments
to the Federal Reserve Board. That means we are likely to get a Chair and Board members who are hawkish
on inflation, opposed to financial regulation, more likely to base policy on strict adherence to a Taylor
rule (according to this framework, interest rates should have already been increased), and less likely
to take aggressive action if the economy crashes (except perhaps to bail out cronies on Wall Street).
That would be bad enough, especially for the working class who would take a back seat to concerns
about inflation and the interests of the financial sector, but my biggest worry is that Trump would
compromise the independence of the Fed. Trump's personality is such that he will want to be in control
of policy, and he will likely appoint people who are willing to do his bidding. The Fed's reputation
with the public is has fallen in recent years, and Trump's false accusation that the Fed is working
to serve Obama's political interests hasn't helped. If he further politicizes the Fed by appointing
Board members who will implement policy at his direction, it could do damage to the Fed as an institution
that would be very difficult to reverse.
International Trade: Trump's plans to renegotiate trade deals and impose tariffs on countries
that will not bend to his will have been discussed at length, and most economists believe it would be
very harmful for the economy. So let me just note that the most recent
estimate of the consequences of his
trade policy from the Peterson Institute is that his plan would cost the economy 4 million jobs,
send us into a recession, and be "horribly destructive." That's just an estimate, the actual number
could be larger or smaller, but whatever the actual number it would be very costly for workers.
There is little doubt that international trade has had a negative impact on workers in recent decades,
but the loss of millions of jobs and a recession is not the solution to this problem. We need tax and
transfer policies that ensure the gains from trade are widely shared, enhanced social protections for
workers who lose their jobs, and a concerted effort to attract more businesses that offer decent employment
opportunities. Trump's plans do not address these important issues.
Many people struggling to make ends meet each month believe that it doesn't matter much for their
lives who is elected president; their lives will go on much the same. But that is not true. Despite
Trump's attempt to convince you otherwise, the working class has a lot to lose if he makes it to the
White House.
"... my goodness..she didn't realise what she was getting into? Clearly her advisors / staff etc. are just as idiotic, careless and zombied-out as she is. (See also Paul Combetta story about the e-mails.) ..."
"... I saw a headline yesterday, that she plans to put inheritance tax at 65% (?), what will her potential Repub and pro-establishment type voters think of that? Yikes! (Insiders know this is just trash talk.) ..."
"... One might say she lost the plot because she is sick, imho she never grasped politics at all, nor computers - the internet, nor the MSM, because, hmm running a criminal enterprise is a completely different kind of biz. ..."
"... Let's not forget that besides winning in dubious circumstances a Senate seat, and being nominated by Obiman (whole ugly squirming can of worms there for sure) she is a two-time loser. She lost to her rival Barak while doing all to undermine him, and then in RL lost to Sanders but won by cheats, manipulations, and fraud. ..."
"... You have to compare with Obama who did the same show. The comedian did give her a chance in the beginning to talk policy but she did not take it. By playing defensive she enabled/encouraged him to get through to his last nasty question. ..."
"... To go to a show like this and answer in one-liners is a very bad idea. She must have gone completely unprepared. ..."
somebody @ 98,
my goodness..she didn't realise what she was getting into? Clearly her
advisors / staff etc. are just as idiotic, careless and zombied-out as she is. (See also
Paul Combetta story about the e-mails.)
I saw a headline yesterday, that she plans to put inheritance tax at 65% (?), what will
her potential Repub and pro-establishment type voters think of that? Yikes! (Insiders know
this is just trash talk.)
One might say she
lost the plot because she is sick, imho she never grasped politics at all, nor computers
- the internet, nor the MSM, because, hmm running a criminal enterprise is a
completely
different kind of biz.
Let's not forget that besides winning in dubious circumstances a Senate seat, and
being nominated by Obiman (whole ugly squirming can of worms there for sure) she is a
two-time loser. She lost to her rival Barak while doing all to undermine him, and then
in RL lost to Sanders but won by cheats, manipulations, and fraud.
You have to compare with Obama who
did the same show. The comedian did give her a chance in the beginning to talk policy
but she did not take it. By playing defensive she enabled/encouraged him to get through
to his last nasty question.
Hillary would have still had a chance to talk policy after that Trump commercial -
explaining why America is already great whatever.
To go to a show like this and answer in one-liners is a very bad idea. She must have
gone completely unprepared.
"... telling pollsters that they now favor the Donald seems to be the only way many people have to tell Hillary and the people around her what they think of them. ..."
And Jill Stein is eager to do so now. She could do a far better job than Sanders too, because
her progressive vision, unlike his, doesn't end at the country's borders. She, unlike he, would
at least try to take American imperialism on.
But in the actual world, Jill Stein is still "Jill who?," and telling pollsters that they
now favor the Donald seems to be the only way many people have to tell Hillary and the people
around her what they think of them.
"... More power, more money, more control goes to a smaller group of people. We were disenfranchised, without noticing it. The financiers and their new nobility of discourse took over the world as completely as the aristocracy did in 11th century. ..."
"... The last decisive battle for preservation of democracy now takes place in the US. Its unlikely champion, Donald Trump , is hated by the political establishment, by the bought media, by instigated minorities as much as Putin, Corbyn or Le Pen are hated. ..."
More power, more money, more control goes to a smaller group of people. We were
disenfranchised, without noticing it. The financiers and their new nobility of
discourse took over the world as completely as the aristocracy did in 11th century.
Russia with its very limited democracy
is still better off: their nobility
of discourse polled less than three per cent of the votes in the last elections,
though they are still heavily represented in the government.
The last decisive battle for preservation of democracy now takes place in the
US. Its unlikely champion, Donald Trump
, is hated by the political establishment,
by the bought media, by instigated minorities as much as Putin, Corbyn or Le Pen are
hated.
"... By Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, Research Fellow, UNU-WIDE, Laurence Roope, Researcher, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, and Finn Tarp, Director, UNU-WIDER. Originally published at VoxEU ..."
"... See original post for references ..."
"... John Ross argues that the reduction in poverty has been pretty much all China. I'm also not convinced China is actually that much richer than before. A sweatshop worker has a higher income than a traditional farmer, but probably has a lower standard of living, and while the traditional farmer maintains the natural resource base, the industrial worker destroys it. ..."
"... Globalization is an economic and ecological disaster. We have outsourced wealth creation to China and they do it in the most polluting way possible, turning their country into a toxic waste dump in the process. ..."
"... The peasants slaving away in the cinder block hellholes of their factories churning out the crapola on Wal-Mart's shelves also get paid squat, while the leaders of the Chinese Criminal Party steal half of their effort for themselves and smuggle the loot out, to get away from the pollution. The other half gets stolen by the likes of Wal-Mart and Apple. ..."
"... The elites sold globalization as something that would generate such a munificent surplus that those in harms way would be helped. It ends up as a lie, where the elites the world over help themselves to the stolen sweat of the lowest people in society, with nothing left over, except for a polluted planet. ..."
"... Yes, those who "have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years" are indeed experiencing "considerable discontent." But this anodyne phrasing masks the reality of entire communities seeing their means of livelihood ripped out and shipped across the globe. This rhetoric makes it sound like, Oh those prosperous American workers can't buy as many luxuries now, boo hoo, when the standard practice from NAFTA on of globalization-as-corporate-welfare has meant real impoverishment for hundreds of thousands of individuals, entire cities and large chunks of whole states. As Lambert always says, Whose economy? ..."
...if you look at absolute inequality, as opposed to relative inequality, inequality has increased
around the world. This calls into question one of the big arguments made in favor of globalization:
that the cost to workers in advanced economies are offset by gains to workers in developing economies,
and is thus virtuous by lowering inequality more broadly measured.
By Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, Research Fellow, UNU-WIDE, Laurence Roope, Researcher, Health
Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, and Finn Tarp, Director, UNU-WIDER. Originally published
at VoxEU
Since the turn of the century, inequality in the distribution of income, together with concerns
over the pace and nature of globalisation, have risen to be among the most prominent policy issues
of our time. These concerns took centre stage at the recent annual G20 summit in China. From President
Obama to President Xi, there was broad agreement that the global economy needs more inclusive and
sustainable growth, where the economic pie increases in size and is at the same time divided more
fairly. As President Obama emphasised, "[t]he international order is under strain." The consensus
is well founded, following as it does the recent Brexit vote, and the rise of populism (especially
on the right) in the US and Europe, with its hard stance against free trade agreements, capital flows
and migration.
... ... ...
The inclusivity aspect of growth is now more imperative than ever. Globalisation has not been
a zero sum game. Overall perhaps more have benefitted, especially in fast-growing economies in the
developing world. However, many others, for example among the working middle class in industrialised
nations, have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years. It is unsurprising that
this has bred considerable discontent, and it is an urgent priority that concrete steps are taken
to reduce the underlying sources of this discontent. Those who feel they have not benefitted, and
those who have even lost from globalisation, have legitimate reasons for their discontent. Appropriate
action will require not only the provision of social protection to the poorest and most vulnerable.
It is essential that the very nature of the ongoing processes of globalisation, growth, and economic
transformation are scrutinised, and that broad based investments are made in education, skills, and
health, particularly among relatively disadvantaged groups. Only in this way will the world experience
sustained – and sustainable – economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come.
John Ross argues that the reduction in poverty has been pretty much all China. I'm also
not convinced China is actually that much richer than before. A sweatshop worker has a higher
income than a traditional farmer, but probably has a lower standard of living, and while the traditional
farmer maintains the natural resource base, the industrial worker destroys it.
Only in this way will the world experience sustained – and sustainable
– economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come.
Globalization is an economic and ecological disaster. We have outsourced wealth creation
to China and they do it in the most polluting way possible, turning their country into a toxic
waste dump in the process.
The peasants slaving away in the cinder block hellholes of their factories churning out
the crapola on Wal-Mart's shelves also get paid squat, while the leaders of the Chinese Criminal
Party steal half of their effort for themselves and smuggle the loot out, to get away from the
pollution. The other half gets stolen by the likes of Wal-Mart and Apple.
The elites sold globalization as something that would generate such a munificent surplus
that those in harms way would be helped. It ends up as a lie, where the elites the world over
help themselves to the stolen sweat of the lowest people in society, with nothing left over, except
for a polluted planet.
The notable presence of public policies that exacerbate racial and economic inequality and
the lack of will by Washington to change the system mean that the ethnic/racial wealth gap is
becoming more firmly entrenched in society.
"broad based investments are made in education, skills, and health, particularly among relatively
disadvantaged groups. Only in this way will the world experience sustained – and sustainable
– economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come."
…I guess if the skills were sustainable low chemical and diverse farming in 5 acre lots or
in co-ops then I might have less complaint, however the skills people apparently are going to
need are supervising robots and going to non jobs in autonomous vehicles and being fed on chemical
mush shaped like things we used to eat, a grim dystopia.
Yesterday I had the unpleasant experience of reading the hard copy nyt wherein kristof opined
that hey it's not so bad, extreme poverty has eased (the same as in this article, but without
this article's Vietnamese example where 1 v. 8 becomes 8 v. 80),ignoring the relative difference
while on another lackluster page there was an article saying immigrants don't take jobs from citizens
which had to be one of the most thinly veiled press releases of some study made by some important
sounding acronym and and, of course a supposed "balance" between pro and anti immigration academics.
because in this case, they claim we're relatively better off.
So there you have it, it's all relative. Bi color bird cage liner, dedicated to the ever shrinking
population of affluent/wealthy who are relatively better off as opposed to the ever increasing
population of people who are actually worse off…There was also an article on the desert dwelling
uighur and their system of canals bringing glacier water to farm their arid land which showed
some people who were fine for thousands of years, but now thanks to fracking, industrial pollution
and less community involvement (kids used to clean the karatz, keeping it healthy) now these people
can be uplifted into the modern world(…so great…) that was reminiscent of the nyt of olde which
presented the conundrum but left out the policy prescription which now always seems to be "the
richer I get the less extreme poverty there is in the world so stop your whining and borrow a
few hundred thousand to buy a PhD "
Yes, those who "have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years" are
indeed experiencing "considerable discontent." But this anodyne phrasing masks the reality of
entire communities seeing their means of livelihood ripped out and shipped across the globe. This
rhetoric makes it sound like, Oh those prosperous American workers can't buy as many luxuries
now, boo hoo, when the standard practice from NAFTA on of globalization-as-corporate-welfare has
meant real impoverishment for hundreds of thousands of individuals, entire cities and large chunks
of whole states. As Lambert always says, Whose economy?
Three reading recommendations for anyone who doesn't grasp your sentiment, shared by millions:
Sold Out , by Michelle Malkin Outsourcing America , by Ron Hira America: Who
Stole the Dream? , by Donald L. Barlett
Reply ↓
Mr. Galifianakis then briefly interrupted the interview to play a campaign commercial for Mr.
Trump, claiming the billionaire businessman was the show's top sponsor. He then wrapped up the
exchange by telling Mrs. Clinton the two should stay in touch.
"What's the best way to reach you? Email?" he said.
The State Department said Friday it likely has more than 2,800 new emails former Secretary Hillary Clinton never turned over but
were recovered by the FBI, and will begin releasing them in batches beginning next month.
But only a small percentage will be processed before the election, the department said in court, arguing its resources are stretched
too thin to get them done.
All told, the FBI turned over 15,171 emails it recovered that involved Mrs. Clinton, and of those about 60 percent have been deemed
purely personal. That leaves some 5,600 that are work-related, but based on a sample of data, nearly half of those are duplicates,
leaving the 2,800 or so that are new.
Does that mean that he knewq that he is sending email to an unsecure private server?
Notable quotes:
"... The president's previously unreported use of a pen name is referenced in notes from federal investigators' April 5, 2016 interview with Huma Abedin ..."
President Obama emailed
Hillary Clinton
using a pseudonym while she served as his secretary of state, according to
FBI documents released Friday.
The president's previously unreported use of a pen name
is referenced in notes from federal investigators' April 5, 2016 interview with
Huma Abedin,
one of Mrs.
Clinton's closest aides, contained within 189 pages of records released late Friday afternoon
by the
FBI concerning its review of the Democratic presidential nominee's use of a private email
server while in office.
During that interview, investigators showed the aide an email exchange dated June 28, 2012
with the subject "Re: Congratulations!"
"Abedin did
not recognize the name of the sender. Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be a
pseudonym used by the president,
Abedin exclaimed
'How is this not classified?'" according to the
FBI's summary of the interview.
"Abedin then
expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy
of the email."
The
FBI's revelation quickly spurred questions about the president's past claims concerning his
knowledge of
Mrs. Clinton's private email server.
Mrs. Clinton's
non-governmental email address was first revealed in 2013 when a Romanian computer hacker
breached the AOL account of Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime
Clinton
confidant, and subsequently leaked messages to the media that were sent to an account operated by
Mrs. Clinton's
outside of the .gov realm.
"... The polls are turning against her. "But Trump is lying!" Of course he is. Everyone knows he is lying. He is a salesman seeking his own advantage. He is expected to lie and to exaggerate. He does not even hide it. He is authentic in his lying. That's why he is - to many people - still a likeable man who one can deep down basically trust. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is a politician. She claims not lie. But from her extensive public record people know that lying is exactly what she does. She is not thereby not authentic. She does not inspire confidence. Nor does she inspire sympathy. Just see her terrible, angry performance above. ..."
"... Does she really believe that campaign ads with Michael Hayden, Max Boot and other failed neocons will get her any votes? ..."
"... She already lost the young people. She lost the military who are far less interventionist than the politicians. No one of the real, non-interventionist left will ever vote for her. Here move to the right, away from criticizing the Republican party, enables Republicans to win more congressional seats than necessary ..."
"... Some may also wish to checkout this post "The Hidden Smoking Gun: the Combetta Cover-Up" http://www.thompsontimeline.com/the-hidden-smoking-gun-the-combetta-cover-up/ ..."
"... And I concur, she has lost this election by her own doing. The anger and frustration she exudes in the vid to the very people expected to volunteer for GOTV calls and rally's, poll watchers, transporting voters to the polls and so much more shows the depth of the cocoon she's living in. That's the real Hillary, btw. She is totally detached and out of touch with her base. ..."
"... Demonising of Russia and Putin must stop. Direct or indirect training and weaponising jihadis must stop. In that respect the only hope seems Trump. And that's why US citizens have an obligation to the World: Vote for Trump (otherwise Clinton wins) ..."
"... If there is one country in the World that needs regime change, it is the USA. 15 years of warmongering neocons is enough! ..."
"... Who gives a flying fart about this election or either of the establishment's offerings. Unfortunately voting by the American electorate will only bestow legitimacy on a corrupt system of management by those that hide in the shadows and conduct the business of 'national interest' as it were their own. ..."
"... The Republic is dead! Replaced with an Imperial executive to which all political power and all the levers of power have been given under the original Continuity of Government Act declaration on 9/11, which suspends the Constitution in whole or part under secret clauses. ..."
"... Lies by Trump?As far as I know, I haven't seen any, maybe some walk back on off the cuff stuff, but remember any news of Trump comes from serial liars who own the MSM, and there is not one MSM news outlet in America pro Trump, and that includes Fox. Any accusing lies promoted by serial liars should not be taken as truth. ..."
"... First axiom in know your enemy. ..."
"... Worse than that, demonizing Clinton's foreign policy is making alibis for the real author of the last eight years' catastrophes, Barack Obama. The US has just openly attacked Syrian forces in alliance with Islamic State. ..."
"... Seems a few people are unaware of the fundamental policy of the Outlaw US Empire: Attain Full Spectrum Domination of the planet and its people as spelled out in its own publications--Vision 2010 and Vision 2020. Clinton is the one wanting to further that goal; Trump is not. ..."
"... The only neocon I can think of that's as ugly as Clinton is Cheney. ..."
"... She is a neocon;. Any country that is not run by US corporations and whose leaders do not contribute to the Clinton Foundation may be bombed... ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard is one of the few people in Congress that is not a crook or an idiot, and who understands the existential threat posed by nuclear war. ..."
"... It is all a complete sham, a circus, but I guess, what else can one do, how can one live? Ppl need to hang onto their afforded, allowed, 'ersatz' agency, the dot power of one vote one perso opinion is built-in, deliberately, and as managed by the MSM and Diebold (other..) is just a scam, a confidence trick. I like Jill Stein, fine, no results. ..."
"... Remember for ex. the massive w-wide protests, biggest ever, against the invasion of Iraq, which had no effect on events at all. ..."
"... I agree that Trump is a much more attractive lier, but his "abolish the EPA my first day in office" expresses a death wish for the species I can't reconcile with. Such stupidity, however and unlike WW3, is survivable and from Trump has the look of a forward bargaining position, but who can know? Kill us fast or kill us slow? At least with slow the body may awake before its dead and try to save itself. ..."
"... Trump has John Bolton as one of his foreign policy advisors. He is likely to become Sec. of State if Trump wins. ..."
"... As to Trump's potential cabinet picks, what's been said is nothing more than media speculation, particularly the promotion of Bolton by neocon-based media. Given that former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's Trump's main Foreign Policy advisor is an arch adversary of Bolton, I very much doubt there's any credibility in what's being written in media. And the hype surrounding Bolton as SoS reached its peak at the end of August with very little being said since. ..."
"... Oh jeez Tulsi Gabbard another invention of the CIA connected to hari krishna cults and everything you'd expect from a poltician made in the same factory as Barack Obama, fake deracinated unrecognizable name and all. ..."
"... No one in their right mind should vote for Hillary Clinton, regardless of your feelings about Trump. ..."
"... Whoever wins will be seen as illegitimate by half of the country. America is entering terminal stage, regardless the outcome of this race. With Trump you get the horrible end, with Clinton - endless horror. I'd vote for Trump. ..."
"... The American election has NOTHING to do with what goes on in Syria. Everything that happens there which is done by the U.S. is done on orders of the Rothschild cabal in its City of London, the owners of the U.S. and almost every other nation in the world today. Rothschild's neo cons carry the orders into action. None of it is random. All of it is part of their plot. ..."
"... I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump wins. Voters for Trump are much like voters for Brexit in Britain. A blind fury against what is being done to them by neo-liberal banksterism. Which is manifested in racism and xenophobia. ..."
"... It's a sort of popular revolt against neo-liberal corporatism, which expects consumers to buy, but exports the jobs which might furnish the income for consumption to China. In the end, corporate chiefs will understand that people have to have income in order to be able to spend, but not now. ..."
"... Trump reverse-messages through "dancing muslims" and "bad bad Iran deal" which serves to focus attention in a DIRECTION. Not to reality. ..."
"... "In fact, in all the years of the so-called War on Terror, only one potential American president has had the intelligence, the vision, the sheer sanity to see that America cannot fight the entire world at once; who sees that America's natural and necessary allies in this fight must include the advanced and civilized nations that are most exposed and experienced in their own terror wars, and have the requisite military power and willingness to use it. Only one American candidate has pointed out how senseless it is to seek confrontation with Russia and China, at the same time that we are trying to suppress the very jihadist movements that they also are attacking. ..."
"... That candidate is Donald Trump." ..."
"... I've never voted for a Republican, ever (and maybe twice for Democrats), but I expect to vote for Trump. Clinton is a certifiable nutjob when it comes to destabilizing countries like Libya and Syria, and provoking Russia. She belongs nowhere near power. ..."
"... I feel voting for either major party candidate would be simply perpetuating a broken system. Very sad state of affairs in the world. My own country is like this but perhaps not quite so in your face. ..."
"... Could one argue - a sincere question - that HRC does represent a large part of the electorate - MIC (war party), security, big corps, media, new media, higher education and its scams, banking and banksters, health insurance etc. Big. Gov. and all the employees in there, basically the upper classes and middles? ..."
"... For those considering not voting, please consider that your vote for Jill Stein this year could help her get to the 5% threshold that would provide funding and ballot access for the Green Party in future elections. ..."
"... The economist Michael Hudson has made the excellent point that a President Trump would face, in effect, two opposition parties in Congress. So his ability to achieve his crazier policies would be extremely limited. ..."
"... Hell there are two documentaries at the top of NEtflix's list right now glorifying the Nazis in Ukraine and the White Helmets farce in Syria. Five Star rated. Literally every current show on TV and most films find a way to reference scary Russia. The "savvy" TV watcher is WITH HER to the point that they can laugh off her collapsing in public like it's no big deal!! ..."
"... The words that come out of Hillary's mouth, would have to be spoken by someone else, to be believed. She is totally maxed out on her lack of credibility. The Clintons sold out working people a long time ago. ..."
"... Hilton would probably be less disastrous for the domestic side of things, what with 3-4 USSCt nominations coming up and the whole racism/illegal migrants pot about to boil over. But Hilton is Yisrael's goy-to girl and her history in the ME is almost as frightening as her threats for a NFZ in Syria. She is to Netanyahu as Monica is to Bilton. ..."
"... I can almost see TheDonald going into the-art-of-the-deal mode and telling Netanyahu no more playing softball, if you want the $38 billion get your fucking fat ass in line with Palestine. ..."
"... The Democrats would have to be out of their stinking minds to put Biden in the running. He is a political dinosaur, erratic in his speech, mean spirited, and is fit to charm no one. He is probably senile. He has an irrational hatred for Putin, so don't count on surviving a Biden presidency, either. Since Sanders was swindled out of the nomination, it would only be the decent thing to do, to give him the nomination, since he at least received a huge number of votes. ..."
"... US citizens have been turning a toy steering wheel for so long, being assured with certainty their whole lives that it's connected to and controls the front wheels. A little over-reaction when the wheel actually does something for once is understandable and expected. ..."
"... After watching Rouhani and Lavrov speeches at the UN it struck me just how inane the US system is that it cannot present a lucid and logical argument through it's political elite. Seriously. The best we can have is Kerry's and Power's emotive obfuscation that is neither cogent nor persuasive. The US is losing its shorts based on rhetoric alone. Remember Kennedy's little photo collection of Cuban countryside littered with missile launchers? Or the Shock and Awe Hour on CNN, live from Baghdad? ..."
"... Clinton and the Democratic party have lost the base, possibly forever. Counting on the war loving, anti-worker, reactionary "center" is the poison the Democrats swallowed. Both the Republican and the Democratic party are damaged beyond repair and this whole "democracy" fraud is wearing thinner than ever. ..."
"... I repeat -- do not blow shit up, like the political system, if you do not know where the pieces will land (and on whom), and how to put them back together again. ..."
"... This has to be the best proof yet that the establishment is totally delusional and has gone off the deep end. This "murderous hostile dictator" to quite a few in this country seems to be the only grownup in the room. God help us with our "betters" thinking like this, we are in for a real shit storm. ..."
"... It seems Clinton left a classified briefing book in her room at a Moscow hotel a while back. I guess we are lucky that it wasn't the infamous nuclear football. ..."
The U.S. presidential election of 2016 is decided. Hillary Clinton will not win. She
knows it:
(You can turn the sound off. It is irrelevant.)
Clinton was
talking
during a video conference of the Laborers' International Union of North
America. She is furious with everything around her. She does not understand why she (again)
failed.
The polls are turning against her. "But Trump is lying!" Of course he is. Everyone
knows he is lying. He is a salesman seeking his own advantage. He is expected to lie and to
exaggerate. He does not even hide it. He is authentic in his lying. That's why he is - to
many people - still a likeable man who one can deep down basically trust.
Hillary Clinton is a politician. She claims not lie. But from her extensive public
record people know that lying is exactly what she does. She is not thereby not authentic.
She does not inspire confidence. Nor does she inspire sympathy. Just see her terrible,
angry performance above.
Does she really believe that
campaign ads with
Michael Hayden, Max Boot and other failed neocons will get her any
votes?
She already lost the young people. She lost the military who are
far less interventionist
than the politicians. No one of the real, non-interventionist
left will ever vote for her. Here move to the right, away from criticizing the Republican
party,
enables Republicans
to win more congressional seats than necessary
:
Through the end of May, the plan to "disaggregate" Trump, as it was described in one
lengthy email, remained a source of frustration for Miranda, the campaign's go-between
on messaging at the DNC. In the same email, subject-lined "Problem with HFA [Hillary For
America]," he argued that the campaign's frame - that "Trump is much worse than regular
Republicans" - would give down-ballot GOP candidates an "easy out" and put every
Democrat not named Clinton at a possible disadvantage. ("It might be a good strategy
ONLY for Clinton," Miranda wrote.) Worse, he added, the strategy would put the party "at
odds" with the its own broader message against Republicanism.
This is a (well deserved) disaster for her party.
There is some Hail Mary chance for the Democrats to still win. Immediately retire
Clinton for medical reasons. Draft Sanders and offer Tulsi Gabbard the vice-presidency.
Otherwise, I predict, Trump will win.
To what outcome?
Nobody knows. Electing Trump is a blind dart throw with unpredictable results. But that
still feels better than to again see a Clinton in the White House.
This morning brings an article in Politico by one of RFK's speech writers on why he is
voting for Trump as the "peace candidate" -- be it ever so humble, even tenuous, when
the alternative is Clinton.
The Guardian has Clinton declaring her magic way to defeat ISIL is to kill Baghdadi
... yup, more of the old-time religious "cut of the head of the snake" mythology
From the get-go 'quickened' US voters were FU Deep State not necessarily USA-USA-Trump.
Nothing's changed. Except being more convinced every day a vote for Trump is the ONLY
means we have to 'smoke the hive'. And buy some time. For better angels to emerge.
And yes, I'm sure someone will take issue with the site BUT the post is written by the
attorney who worked with the gal that discovered Oh Shit Guy's Reddit posts -
"All of this was caused by the amazing sleuthing of a student majoring in eDiscovery
and litigation, then promoted by a Twitter parody account, then expanded upon and
disseminated by an army of Reddit users. Nothing can be weirder than this election,
but I hope this article proves that this revelation didn't involve a "conspiracy"
between Putin and Trump -- it was simply the crowdsourced efforts of people who are sick
and tired of Hillary Clinton's corruption and cover-ups."
Some are speculating that this newly found material is why she canceled her NC
fundraiser on Tuesday and has all but disappeared from the campaign trail.
And I concur, she has lost this election by her own doing. The anger and frustration
she exudes in the vid to the very people expected to volunteer for GOTV calls and
rally's, poll watchers, transporting voters to the polls and so much more shows the
depth of the cocoon she's living in. That's the real Hillary, btw. She is totally
detached and out of touch with her base.
Heh I have been banging on about this for ages and now it is MS. The polls play
catch-up; not because they are rigged though that is definetly easy to do (and some
might be I wouldn't know) but because the polls are run by hangers-on to the PTB,
establishment types who cater to their brethen that can afford the fees and have
expectations concerning the result.
The methods used are deficient, there is a subconscious / old regulatory element in
play, the rules are thus, the procedure is this, the automatic machine analysis (which
nobody except some rare top dogs understand, statistics is a lost art/science) churns
out these results, etc.
To not loose credibility for evah, they have to adjust a bit, get real, and start
getting with what is going on. In fact the polls (in the main, carried out by
independent biz. who charge for their services) are better than, but can be compared to,
the BLS who spew out meaningless numbers that don't reflect the employment situation in
the USA. No doubt at the BLS hordes of employees are busy following the directives and
the laid-down calc. procedures and so on, but they churn out fantasy numbers in favor of
a political imperative.
We make our own reality
is getting not only tired, old
but a point or rebellion. Other measures (GDP) are just as bad.
Demonising of Russia and Putin must stop.
Direct or indirect training and weaponising jihadis must stop.
In that respect the only hope seems Trump.
And that's why US citizens have an obligation to the World: Vote for Trump (otherwise
Clinton wins)
If there is one country in the World that needs regime change, it is the USA.
15 years of warmongering neocons is enough!
Who gives a flying fart about this election or either of the establishment's offerings.
Unfortunately voting by the American electorate will only bestow legitimacy on a corrupt
system of management by those that hide in the shadows and conduct the business of
'national interest' as it were their own.
The Republic is dead! Replaced with an
Imperial executive to which all political power and all the levers of power have been
given under the original Continuity of Government Act declaration on 9/11, which
suspends the Constitution in whole or part under secret clauses. This Act has been
renewed ever since, including recently by Obama, now labeled as a 'State of Emergency'.
Under a SoE all political power is entrusted to the executive branch under the President
who assumes all power. They just have not informed the public on what is entailed when a
SoE is declared. The President has become a figurehead, taking orders from the wealthy
oligarchs, and either exalted or to be dismissed by a Praetorian Guard, whose commanders
in the military security surveillance complex are in the pay of these same
oligarchs.
Congress is now a redundant body playing a farcical role in a grotesque
pantomime of Republicanism. This state of affairs is largely repeated to varying degrees
throughout western civilization or wherever the western oligarch's sphere of influence
extends.
Lies by Trump?As far as I know, I haven't seen any, maybe some walk back on off the cuff
stuff, but remember any news of Trump comes from serial liars who own the MSM, and there
is not one MSM news outlet in America pro Trump, and that includes Fox.
Any accusing lies promoted by serial liars should not be taken as truth.
In his co-conference with Clinton with some military people, Trump talked about the
generals being reduced to "rubble," and said more or less openly he would fire generals
who couldn't deliver. Trump is running on a platform of winning wars, as in conquering
the people instead of just flying over a wasteland created by bombing. He is not the
peace candidate. He is MacArthur versus Hilary's Truman.
Worse than that, demonizing Clinton's foreign policy is making alibis for the real
author of the last eight years' catastrophes, Barack Obama. The US has just openly
attacked Syrian forces in alliance with Islamic State. Just today I read more boasts of
supposedly preemptive attacks, which means unprovoked, by the highly unstable south
Korean state on the north. NATO is moving troops into eastern Europe while preparing for
war. Trump has no problem with this, and pretending Clinton is somehow going to be worse
is more or less insane.
As for the liar thing? Trump did not get billions by being honest. The Clintons pay
taxes, which is probably more than you can say for Trump.
You cannot vote against someone. Either you vote for someone who actually ran for
some of the things you want, or your vote against Trump or Clinton will be read as
support for things you don't want. If you're against the US attacks on the world, then
you need to vote for someone like Gloria La Riva or Jerry White. (Who? You ask.
Precisely.) They at least know that invading other countries is not just a deplorable
vice, but business. Trump is for business, just like Clinton.
Seems a few people are unaware of the fundamental policy of the Outlaw US Empire: Attain
Full Spectrum Domination of the planet and its people as spelled out in its own
publications--Vision 2010 and Vision 2020. Clinton is the one wanting to further that
goal; Trump is not. Neither will actually pursue the interests of the citizenry--only
Stein and the Greens have stated they will. The only neocon I can think of that's as
ugly as Clinton is Cheney.
Thank you, kind sir. Hillary is a bad news bear. One columnist at counterpunch.org
descibed her as a "moral mosster," (tED RALL THE CARTOONIST)
She is a neocon;. Any
country that is not run by US corporations and whose leaders do not contribute to the
Clinton Foundation may be bombed...
I do not ave any speakers hooked up to my Pc, so I
didn't have to listen to her... There are some great new cartoons caLLed Masha and the
Bear - from the dreaded Russia... EXCEllent. Mentioned on rt.com news a douple of months
ago... RT is one of the best news shows in the world.
I rather like the suggestion: "Draft Sanders and offer Tulsi Gabbard the
vice-presidency." Tulsi Gabbard is one of the few people in Congress that is not a crook or an idiot, and
who understands the existential threat posed by nuclear war.
Ppl are actually writing about voting for that or that figure, Clinton, Trump, third
party, Wilders, in different contexts / countries? Like their personal expression on
Facebouk *likes* expressed in a vote has some import or validity or will be even ever
taken into account? (My posts about predictions of the vote in the US are at another
level.)
It is all a complete sham, a circus, but I guess, what else can one do, how
can one live? Ppl need to hang onto their afforded, allowed, 'ersatz' agency, the dot
power of one vote one perso opinion is built-in, deliberately, and as managed by the MSM
and Diebold (other..) is just a scam, a confidence trick. I like Jill Stein, fine, no
results.
Remember for ex. the massive w-wide protests, biggest ever, against the invasion of
Iraq, which had no effect on events at all.
To my mind, the biggest danger the US faces is someone who can distract the electorate
for another term with foreign entanglements. Opposition is organizing across the
left/right spectrum and the depth of the legitimacy crisis is growing with each day of
the Dollary Clump Campaign.
I agree that Trump is a much more attractive lier, but his "abolish the EPA my first
day in office" expresses a death wish for the species I can't reconcile with. Such
stupidity, however and unlike WW3, is survivable and from Trump has the look of a
forward bargaining position, but who can know? Kill us fast or kill us slow? At least
with slow the body may awake before its dead and try to save itself.
Trump has John Bolton as one of his foreign policy advisors. He is likely to become Sec.
of State if Trump wins.
He is more keen on war than Clinton if that is possible. And
it's highly likely Trump will listen to him. Even if he doesn't he will hold enough
power to make an impact.
No matter who wins it is likely the wars will continue.
As to Trump's potential cabinet picks, what's been said is nothing more than media
speculation, particularly the promotion of Bolton by neocon-based media. Given that
former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's Trump's main Foreign Policy advisor is an arch adversary
of Bolton, I very much doubt there's any credibility in what's being written in media.
And the hype surrounding Bolton as SoS reached its peak at the end of August with very
little being said since.
Oh jeez Tulsi Gabbard another invention of the CIA connected to hari krishna cults and
everything you'd expect from a poltician made in the same factory as Barack Obama, fake
deracinated unrecognizable name and all.
No one in their right mind should vote for Hillary Clinton, regardless of your feelings
about Trump. There is not only a trail of corruption a mile long with money from Saudi
Arabia and other shady places, but a real threat to the world as we know it in the form
of her warmongering. It appears Hillary and people like George Soros want to flood the
world with refugees after the blow up countries, thereby giving the government reason to
form a police state. The eventual goal seems to be globalization in the form of one
government for one world.
Thats if we survive the nuclear holocaust that would take place if we attack Russia
which no one wants. We need to forge closer with Russia as we share some common
interests and common enemies. No one wants to watch the world burn so the elites can
gain more power. The people are tired of it. It should never have gotten to the point
where its at in America. Its on a bad course. This election is the most important of our
lifetimes as its really for the fate of the human race as we know it
Whoever wins will be seen as illegitimate by half of the country. America is entering
terminal stage, regardless the outcome of this race. With Trump you get the horrible
end, with Clinton - endless horror. I'd vote for Trump.
When Hillary loses, we'll be treated to a bevy of thought-pieces on how only the
suppressed-but-all-too-real power of male chauvinism separated her - "the clearly better
qualified candidate" - from the prize that she deserved. If Bernie Sanders' milquetoast
coffee shop social democrat youths could be successfully re-cast as racist, chair
throwing "Bernie Bros," then anything is possible. Anyone left of Mussolini who has any
spine at all (if such people exist) will be "Naderized" pretty heavily. The only
advantage of the Olympics vs. national elections is that the former, while replete with
much the same sort of rancid schmaltz and mind-killing banality as the latter, is
mercifully short by comparison.
All this is on the assumption that votes count in American "elections," which is pure
nonsense. The votes are fixed always. Besides, the same money owns both parties and the
media (and practically everything else) so what difference does it make who is put in
office (not elected)? None. Words are meaningless coming from a political prostitute's
mouth.
The American election has NOTHING to do with what goes on in Syria. Everything that
happens there which is done by the U.S. is done on orders of the Rothschild cabal in its
City of London, the owners of the U.S. and almost every other nation in the world today.
Rothschild's neo cons carry the orders into action. None of it is random. All of it is
part of their plot.
However, the Russians may have a better plot - simply tell the truth and then act upon
it.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump wins. Voters for Trump are much like voters for
Brexit in Britain. A blind fury against what is being done to them by neo-liberal
banksterism. Which is manifested in racism and xenophobia.
All are being lied to, and
they won't achieve what they want.
It's a sort of popular revolt against neo-liberal corporatism, which expects
consumers to buy, but exports the jobs which might furnish the income for consumption to
China. In the end, corporate chiefs will understand that people have to have income in
order to be able to spend, but not now.
Now we have blind revolt against poverty. The same in de-industrialised Ohio as in
post-industrial Wales. In the latter case, they were being heavily funded by the EU for
reconstruction, but they still voted for Brexit. Trump in Ohio much the same.
Neither candidate ever really address foreign policy. Cuz everyone knows all roads lead
to zion. And all the switches get flipped if anyone touches that rail. So Trump
reverse-messages through "dancing muslims" and "bad bad Iran deal" which serves to focus
attention in a DIRECTION. Not to reality. Cuz reality might get him whacked.
We are all dancing on the edge of sanity. Having lived the very definition of
insanity for more years than one cares to admit. Most can't tell the difference anymore.
All things considered. This is BEST. ELECTION. EVER.
"In fact, in all the years of the so-called War on
Terror, only one potential American president has had the intelligence, the vision, the
sheer sanity to see that America cannot fight the entire world at once; who sees that
America's natural and necessary allies in this fight must include the advanced and
civilized nations that are most exposed and experienced in their own terror wars, and
have the requisite military power and willingness to use it. Only one American candidate
has pointed out how senseless it is to seek confrontation with Russia and China, at the
same time that we are trying to suppress the very jihadist movements that they also are
attacking.
That candidate is Donald Trump."
I've never voted for a Republican, ever (and maybe twice for Democrats), but I expect
to vote for Trump. Clinton is a certifiable nutjob when it comes to destabilizing
countries like Libya and Syria, and provoking Russia. She belongs nowhere near power.
I'm afraid that Trump might behave like a loose canon with respect to Korea, and
other smaller countries. That would still not be the disaster that going toe to toe with
Russia would be.
Srdja Trifkovic, the brilliant foreign affairs editor for Chronicles Magazine, has
given high marks to Trump for a foreign policy speech, and an "advantage Trump" for the
recent commander-in-chief interview.
Last I heard, he has a non-existent replacement for Obamacare (I seriously doubt just
letting companies compete across state lines will solve most of the problems), and
generally seems weak regarding domestic and economic policy. Let's hope he hires good
people, and is not just a good listener, but also makes good calls.
That's precisely my thoughts. Very well said. I'm not American so perhaps my voice
counts for a different perspective than the domestic population but at the same time
it's painfully obvious both candidates are vying for a chance to serve big business.
Perhaps in slightly different ways but they both will surely bow down before most of the
same powerful interests. Both have no interest in reigning in the MIC nor environmental
destruction. Just look at the competition for the Israeli government's blessing.
I feel voting for either major party candidate would be simply perpetuating a broken system.
Very sad state of affairs in the world. My own country is like this but perhaps not quite so in your
face. It's like, I regret voting in the last election for my country's liberal party candidate
because in the end he operates like the conservative incumbent just with a different face. In the
USA it's much more bold faced though.
Trump may be somewhat of a wildcard but I wouldn't count on him being much different
in the end if he indeed wins the election. Who he's already surrounded himself with in
the Republican party is very telling and doesn't exactly point to change in my eyes.
I've never voted for a Republican, ever (and maybe twice for
Democrats), but I expect to vote for Trump.,
Same here. But Trump is not an orthodox Republican. If McCain, Romney, or a Bush were
running against Hillary, I would vote Green, as I did in the last election.
The keys, which are explained in depth in Lichtman's book "Predicting the Next
President: The Keys to the White House 2016" are:
Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats
in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds
mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in
foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in
foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national
hero.
The Dems don't have enough keys to win this election, according to Licthman. He sounds
like a Republican but gives the impression that he hates Trump (but that could just be
to maintain respectability with his academic colleagues).
Lichtman's system is pretty simple and assumes that an election turns around whether
voters are satisfied with the performance of the incumbent party. On a basic level,
common sense tells one that that is indeed what elections are about. And in this
election cycle, people are fed up with the status quo. So what the Dems do is run the
most status quo candidate imaginable. The way Dems hoped to get around this problem is
to convince people that this is not a normal election, that Trump is beyond the pale.
(Lichtman follows that line himself in that interview.)
Another factor that might come into play that I haven't seen mentioned in the
mainstream press is that blacks are as fed up with the state of things as anyone. The
Dem strategy of triangulation depends on getting enough demographics into their camp.
But I have a feeling that Hillary will lose a lot of black votes that Obama got. They
showed their loyalty to Obama by voting for Hillary in the primaries. The pressure to
show that loyalty a second time is weaker, since his term is almost over.
Could one argue - a sincere question - that HRC does represent a large part of the
electorate - MIC (war party), security, big corps, media, new media, higher education
and its scams, banking and banksters, health insurance etc. Big. Gov. and all the
employees in there, basically the upper classes and middles?
Yeah, but it's not a majority.
DT represents - or pretends to - some portions of the underclass, veterans, the
left-outs, white workers in de-industralised zones, cops fighting crime, the
nefarious influence of foreigners (criminals etc.), national pref. of a kind, and on
an on?
You'd think as a graduate of Yale Law School she would know that "Why aren't I...."
is incorrect. Maybe she did know that at one time and now it's just the meds.
No fun being a grammar cop, but it"s "Why am I not...." But then as W showed, you
don't have to speak standard English to be the pres.
For those considering not voting, please consider that your vote for Jill Stein this
year could help her get to the 5% threshold that would provide funding and ballot access
for the Green Party in future elections.
The economist Michael Hudson has made the excellent point that a President Trump would
face, in effect, two opposition parties in Congress. So his ability to achieve his
crazier policies would be extremely limited.
He would likely be a one term POTUS, and
during that term the American people would be afforded some breathing space to
acknowledge how off the rails things have gotten, and some time to start to build true
alternatives. Clinton delivers more of the same with the attendant illusion of normality
which provided cover for Obama. More of the same means direct confrontation with Russia
and China.
Nope. The millenials/meme generation/literally everyone under 30, the SJWs young and
old, the MIC horde(who btw are the current class with the most to lose with a vote
against the status quo, and friggin YUGE in number since this is the only remaining
growth industry), the "military"; well the ones who want to keep their jobs, retirees
who remember who Trump really is, everyone in higher education, big Pharma,
"liberals"....
The people voting for Trump are the isolated, vanilla nouveau rich; a few Hollywood
pundits, and racist retirees.
I visit enough of the normal internet and the real street to know this, no poll will
reflect it, and you can't predict anything based on rallies, pundits, or even the
actions and personalities of the candidates themselves. FEAR is what sells Hillary, not
her personality or lack of. Everyone is afraid of Russia, etc bc of the current regime's
lies. And by regime I mean the media, too. Hell there are two documentaries at the top
of NEtflix's list right now glorifying the Nazis in Ukraine and the White Helmets farce
in Syria. Five Star rated. Literally every current show on TV and most films find a way
to reference scary Russia. The "savvy" TV watcher is WITH HER to the point that they can
laugh off her collapsing in public like it's no big deal!!
The "non-interventionist left" is literally in the few thousands at most. Hell half
of us are here on this board.
Anyway it doesn't matter. The officials/spinmeisters will stay, just like Obama kept
Bush's people. Trump will fall in line if he hasn't already, and when they show him the
MIC balance sheets he'll be just as much if not more "ALL IN" than Clinton. He's already
pushing for and even more fascistic police force.
She'll have to keel over permanently for Trump to win. Even if he wins by a hair,
there will be malfeasance.
The words that come out of Hillary's mouth, would have to be spoken by someone else, to
be believed. She is totally maxed out on her lack of credibility. The Clintons sold out
working people a long time ago.
b:
"There is some Hail Mary chance for the Democrats to still win. Immediately retire
Clinton for medical reasons. Draft Sanders and offer Tulsi Gabbard the vice-presidency."
Yeah, good to see some out-of-the-box thinking, especially when it reflects my multiple
comments on this august blog going back to February when I
predicted
Hilton will bow out or be knocked out and Biden will step in. I'm
stickin'
to that prediction.
But at this point Sanders is a lot farther out of the box than Biden, and I like
that. Maybe a side-deal with Sanders is the way the Democrats shut him up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Electing Trump is a blind dart throw with unpredictable results. But that still
feels better than to again see a Clinton in the White House."
I tend to agree. Hilton would probably be less disastrous for the domestic side of
things, what with 3-4 USSCt nominations coming up and the whole racism/illegal migrants
pot about to boil over. But Hilton is Yisrael's goy-to girl and her history in the ME is
almost as frightening as her threats for a NFZ in Syria. She is to Netanyahu as Monica
is to Bilton.
I can almost see TheDonald going into the-art-of-the-deal mode and telling Netanyahu
no more playing softball, if you want the $38 billion get your fucking fat ass in line
with Palestine.
If Biden steps in, it's election over. Bernie, I don't know. I don't think the
country is going to elect a septuagenarian Jew ideologue over a septuagenarian Queens
blow-hard with bad hair.
no matter how much it shouts
no matter if it is alive or dead
nsa spielberg lucas vision computer simulation
to saturn infinity
or body double thinner look alike e
she it cannot win a race or a fight
No One Beats Al Qaeda
The US has tried for years to beat Al Qaeda, but now, after Americans have given up
much freedom to central government and borrowed trillions of dollars from central banks,
there is more terrorism than ever before. Nevertheless, don't blame the FBI or the CIA,
or Bush or Obama. There is no shame in being beaten by the best.
Al Qaeda must be at least a generation ahead of the US – both strategically and
technologically.
In fact, the only weakness of Al Qaeda is that they keep leaving their passports at
the crime scene, but consider that their passports are indestructable. America simply
doesn't have the technology yet to make indestructable passports, so clearly, those Al
Qaeda scientists in those caves in Afghanistan are at least a generation ahead of the
US. Al Qaeda passports are so tough that they were found on the street after the towers
collapsed – unscathed. Maybe this doesn't sound as scary as it should … until one
considers that none of the four black boxes were recovered from the towers. So,
America's most indestructable technology (black boxes) were vaporized under conditions
where Al Qaeda passports survived – unscathed. It's not as if American black boxes are
crap either (they have never been completely destroyed before); it's that Al Qaeda
technology is just that good.
What other possible explanation could there be? It's almost as if …
See what I mean about strategic brilliance? Al Qaeda almost tricked me into
considering whether 9/11 could be an inside job, and whether those Al Qaeda scientists
in those Afghan caves are not really a generation ahead of the US, but an inside job is
clearly impossibe because the CIA is not allowed to operate inside the US.
The evidence for Al Qaeda superiority is overwhelming. Consider that Al Qaeda knocked
down three towers with only two planes! No one else could have done that. Two planes hit
two towers, and then a third tower (WTC7) collapsed a few hours later. The NIST
explained a few years later that it was an ordinary office fire that resulted in what
everyone says looks exactly like a controlled demolition, but how is it that only Al
Qaeda knew that WTC 7 was the only building in the world that would collapse exactly
like a controlled demolition as a result of an ordinary office fire? What's more, they
somehow tricked the owner, Larry Silverstein, and John Kerry too, into claiming years
earlier that we brought WTC 7 down as a controlled demolition because it was badly
damaged, but how did they trick America's best into confessing to a conspiracy that
never happened? Clearly, they even have some kind of mind control.
I could go on for pages and pages, but there is one hope – Israel. Israel may lag
behind Al Qaeda scientists in those Afghan caves, but their strategic brilliance may be
as advaned as that of Al Qaeda, so America's best bet is to give Israel all of our
technology, and to borrow trillions more dollars and give them to Israel.
Unfortunately, Al Qaeda has already thought of this, and may have successfully
neutralized Israel when it tricked several Mossad agents into setting up cameras ahead
of time on 9/11 and dancing with joy when the towers collapsed. Even if Al Qaeda's
preemptive move has made it politically impossible to give everything to Israel, at
least Israel is our strongest ally in the region and is thus far more important than
before 9/11 …
The Democrats would have to be out of their stinking minds to put Biden in the running.
He is a political dinosaur, erratic in his speech, mean spirited, and is fit to charm no
one. He is probably senile. He has an irrational hatred for Putin, so don't count on
surviving a Biden presidency, either. Since Sanders was swindled out of the nomination,
it would only be the decent thing to do, to give him the nomination, since he at least
received a huge number of votes.
Sanders has discredited himself. He really WAS a sheepdog!
Evil vs. awful? Why not
vote Green?
Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice
-- Martin Luther King
US citizens have been turning a toy steering wheel for so long, being assured with certainty
their whole lives that it's connected to and controls the front wheels. A little over-reaction when
the wheel actually does something for once is understandable and expected.
After watching Rouhani and Lavrov speeches at the UN it struck me just how inane the US
system is that it cannot present a lucid and logical argument through it's political
elite. Seriously. The best we can have is Kerry's and Power's emotive obfuscation that
is neither cogent nor persuasive. The US is losing its shorts based on rhetoric alone.
Remember Kennedy's little photo collection of Cuban countryside littered with missile
launchers? Or the Shock and Awe Hour
on CNN, live from Baghdad?
Clinton and the Democratic party have lost the base, possibly forever. Counting on the
war loving, anti-worker, reactionary "center" is the poison the Democrats swallowed.
Both the Republican and the Democratic party are damaged beyond repair and this whole
"democracy" fraud is wearing thinner than ever.
Did you all catch Netanyahu's UN address? It was more Warner Bros cartoonery of course
put notably, only the US, and a few puupets like Jordan and Egypt were there to listen
to him. So it was like a standup comedian performing to a packed audience his family and
and like 2 friends.
Didn't someone say that about the fascists in Germany? "Oh, Hindenberg, von Papen, and
the army will keep him in line." I'm not saying Trump is a fascist (still at the theory
and not practice of mass violence), but he is a volatile and dangerously delusional
demagogue.
Hasn't anybody ever heard of the notion of "The Imperial Presidency"? I mean, Arthur
Schlesinger only wrote a damn best-seller on it.
Assuming, bizarrely, that he can't ginger up enough Tea Partiers to ram his agenda
through (they effectively run the House), he still has plenty of executive authority and
will find more than enough ambitious hacks to do his bidding in the Trump
"Administration." The Presidential limo should be a clown car.
And further assuming, contra to sejomoje fine exposition at 65, he oddly enough gets
elected. The last I saw, he still fails in the Electoral College, despite The Duckhead's
rise in the polls.
I repeat -- do not blow shit up, like the political system, if you do not know where
the pieces will land (and on whom), and how to put them back together again.
Trump could
easily
fuck up, and get us all killed. Could he be impeached
before he did serious damage? Who knows?
For real change, don't vote Orange. Or Greeen. Vote Red.
Years ago, during the Bush v. Gore debates, the sound was off on the TV and my wife (who
doesn't follow politics) made the remark: "Gore is going to lose". I asked her why she
thought so and she said "Bush seems very comfortable with who he is, Gore doesn't look
like it" (this was after the bit where Gore charged the podium and Bush looked back, a
bit surprised and amused.
The point is this: I have come to believe that debates are won and lost largely on
visuals - it's like a cattle auction. The one with the greatest presence, the poise, the
body language and the one you feel comfortable with is the one that wins. The media may
care deeply about whether the candidate correctly identified some obscure Iraqi general,
but the public doesn't really care.
It will be an interesting debate to see (I'm tempted to watch it with the sound off).
Evil reinforces evil and unchecked, leads to Orwell's chilling outlook: "a boot stamping
on a human face - forever".
The duopoly is a shell game. The more focused one is on finding the lesser-evil
pebble, the less one is aware that they are being played. And the more that is lost, the
more eager are the dupes to play again.
It may be that nothing changes until the 'reset'
(the point at which the "music
stops" and failure can no longer be covered up)
but still, I'd rather light a candle
than curse the darkness.
That's liberalism's fault, not the left's. They're the religious
wackadoos trying to build a bourgeois utopia, not us! You and I both know the liberal
State is a self-enforcing fraud designed to manage the affairs of (and only of) the
bourgeoisie and their property.
I repeat -- do not blow shit up, like the political system, if you do not know where
the pieces will land (and on whom), and how to put them back together again.
And
WHY NOT?
I'm in Uncle Sambo's dominion, too, but that doesn't mean that I don't see the whole
stinkin' show needs to be blown up, like that scene in
Platoon
when the suicide
bomber runs into the command room of the Americans during the night raid. Beauty
scene...and their faces! If Trump wants to 'splode the whole thing, perhaps for the
reason the Frontline feature asserts of him being lampooned at the 2011 White House
Correspondents Dinner, then I'm just dandy with that. Besides, your scaremongering of
The Big Orange One, intermixed with...oh wait, your whole post is that. Pure,
unadulterated scaremongering. Have you even looked at his opponent and that prospect? I
see you have warmth for the Russians in Donetsk, so why wouldn't you want to take a
chance with Trump? He has repeated his respect for Russia and their leadership, DESPITE
the negative effect that the fruits of propaganda in recent years would entail. He has
gone out on a limb for Russia.
And I respect that.
At the very least, I have heard someone mention, maybe on the Saker boards, that
Donald will be so inept (perhaps due to gridlock) that he will effectively freeze the
gears of empire. I'm sure several Generals, as he says, would appreciate that, knowing
that suicide is on the horizon with Hillary. Get out of here with that "Donald's small
fingers on the red button" thing, Rufus. Take it back to Slate.
More power, more money, more control goes to a smaller group of people. We were
disenfranchised, without noticing it. The financiers and their new nobility of
discourse took over the world as completely as the aristocracy did in 11th century.
Russia with its very limited democracy
is still better off: their nobility
of discourse polled less than three per cent of the votes in the last elections,
though they are still heavily represented in the government.
The last decisive battle for preservation of democracy now takes place in the
US. Its unlikely champion, Donald Trump
, is hated by the political establishment,
by the bought media, by instigated minorities as much as Putin, Corbyn or Le Pen are
hated.
I think she was being sarcastic. She was talking to a trade union and - probably - this
was not meant to become public.
The so called "right to work" is highly popular in the
US. It means trade unions cannot force their membership on you when you work in
unionized industries.
German trade unions never did this. When there is a strike you simply do not get
paid. Union membership is kind of insurance. In industries like the car industry (or
airlines, transport) employers cannot keep services running with non unionized labor.
So when Hillary turns against the "right for non union membership" she is doing
something in support of the labor bureaucracy unpopular to something like 75 percent of
the population. It is useless anyway as this seems state regulated.
Neither Obama nor Sanders seem to have fallen into a similar trap.
Donald Trump has made this the most difficult election to assess since 1984. We have
never before seen a candidate like Donald Trump, and Donald Trump may well break
patterns of history that have held since 1860.
We've never before seen a candidate who's spent his life enriching himself at the
expense of others. He's the first candidate in our history to be a serial fabricator,
making up things as he goes along. Even when he tells the truth, such as, "Barack
Obama really was born in the U.S.," he adds two lines, that Hillary Clinton started
the birther movement, and that he finished it, even though when Barack Obama put out
his birth certificate, he didn't believe it. We've never had a candidate before who
not just once, but twice in a thinly disguised way, has incited violence against an
opponent. We've never had a candidate before who's invited a hostile foreign power to
meddle in American elections. We've never had a candidate before who's threatened to
start a war by blowing ships out of the water in the Persian Gulf if they come too
close to us. We've never had a candidate before who has embraced as a role model a
murderous, hostile foreign dictator. Given all of these exceptions that Donald Trump
represents, he may well shatter patterns of history that have held for more than 150
years, lose this election even if the historical circumstances favor it.
and
I think the fact that he's a bit of a maverick, and nobody knows where he stands on
policy, because he's constantly shifting. I defy anyone to say what his immigration
policy is, what his policy is on banning Muslims, or whoever, from entering the
United States, that's certainly a factor. But it's more his history in Trump
University, the Trump Institute, his bankruptcies, the charitable foundation, of
enriching himself at the expense of others, and all of the lies and dangerous things
he's said in this campaign, that could make him a precedent-shattering candidate.
and for some sanitiy in who to vote for
and, you know, I've seen this movie before. My first vote was in 1968, when I was the
equivalent of a millennial, and lots of my friends, very liberal, wouldn't vote for
Hubert Humphrey because he was part of the Democratic establishment, and guess what?
They elected Richard Nixon.
Re: the academic with the perfect record of predicting presidential races.
" We've never had a candidate before who has embraced as a role model a
murderous, hostile foreign dictator. "
This has to be the best proof yet that the establishment is totally delusional and
has gone off the deep end. This "murderous hostile dictator" to quite a few in this
country seems to be the only grownup in the room. God help us with our "betters"
thinking like this, we are in for a real shit storm.
It seems Clinton left a classified briefing book in her room at a Moscow hotel a while
back. I guess we are lucky that it wasn't the infamous nuclear football.
"... If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or his speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman. His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most people are already at - he would not be the nominee. ..."
"... We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables." ..."
"Conservative" Christians aren't going to stop voting
Republican. They're just going to offer a different
reason for doing it, when asked.
I will bet all the
money in my pockets against all the money in Rod's
pockets that there will NEVER, in either of our
lifetimes, be a time when he feels compelled by his
principles to vote for a Democratic candidate for
federal office over a Republican one.
And finally, I note that someone above asked a
version of the same question I've periodically had: What
does Dreherdom look like? If orthodox Christians
controlled the levers of power, what do you propose to
DO with your (cultural AND legal) authority? And what
will be the status of the "other" in that brave new
world?
[NFR: They will be captured and enslaved and sent
to work in the
boudin
mines. And I will spend whatever percentage
of the Gross National Product it takes to hire the
Rolling Stones to play "Exile On Main Street" live, from
start to finish, in a national broadcast that I will
require every citizen to watch, on pain of being
assigned to hard labor in the boudin mines. Also, I will
eat boudin. - RD]
[Connor: While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for
many traditional Catholics. The end goal is the
re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which
means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture,
and a state which governs according to Christian
principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation, and in
that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be
necessary.]
That's interesting. Well, I think you're
right that about 3/4 of the readers would lose their
minds if that was stated as an explicit political goal.
It would confirm in the minds of many the suspicion that
the primary strategy of the religious right is the
establishment of an anti-democratic, theocracy or
Caesaropapist regime. I would consider that the extreme
"utopian" or some would even say "totalitarian" position
of religious conservatives and not "conservative" in any
sense that I understand "Conservatism".
Saltlick's minimal requirement seems to moderate that
goal to "a national reaffirmation that our rights, as
partially defined in the Constitution and Bill of
Rights, come from God the Creator, that life is valuable
from the moment of conception, and that the traditional
family is the best promoter of sound moral, cultural and
economic health.", but even in that he regards it as
only a half-measure for Saltlick. Needless to say, what
a "traditional" family is would need some definition.
If nothing short of establishing the City of God on
earth would secure the comfort of some Christians then
that is a pretty high bar and you have every right to
feel insecure… as do the rest of us.
I would be curious to know how many of your
co-religionists on these boards share your view? And how
many would reject it?
Mr Dreher, I always read your articles with great
interest, although I often disagree with you. For
example, I don't think anybody of any political
persuasion is going to try to stamp out Christianity or
those who espouse it. Indeed, I think many people will
be delighted if all Christians would exercise the
Benedict Option. A lot of people are tired of the
Religious Right's attempt to gain political power in
order to impose Christian views of morality. A lot of
people believe that there should be a separation of
church and state, not only in the Constitutional sense
of having no state-established religion, but also in the
general sense that morality should be a private matter,
not the subject of politics.
[NFR: That's
incredibly naive. Aside from procedural laws, all laws
are nothing but legislated morality. Somebody's morality
is going to be reflected in law. It is unavoidable. -
RD]
Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been
responsible for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump.
Have you ever given a care about that? Do you care that
Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be
more antisemitic than the native whites of the US that
you fret about over and over?
Sharpton isn't
running for president and I didn't vote for him when he
was. Same for Jesse Jackson. I'm well aware of
antisemitism within the black community but doubt it
comes anywhere close to that of the alt-right and
nationalist groups, who foment hate against both blacks
and Jews. And duh, of course there's plenty of
anti-semitism among Muslims. Who's pretending otherwise.
It also appears that you didn't read what I wrote.
I
favor strong borders but think you can do so without
demagoguery and appealing to people's baser instincts
and hatreds, which is what Trump does. I realize all you Trump apologists aren't about to
recognize the danger the man poses. I don't care as long
as there are enough people who do to keep him out of the
presidency.
Rod, you clearly have unresolved cognitive dissonance,
because if your vote is based on which candidate is best
with religious liberty and the right of Christians to
live as Christians, the answer is clear and unambiguous:
Trump. Yet you refuse to vote for him.
The author of
this piece actually has you nailed perfectly, which is
why it makes you so uncomfortable. He sees that you are
absolving yourself from the consequences of political
engagement by acting like you can stay firm on your
principles, while refusing to choose from the only two
real sides on offer. That choice is the messy business
of politics, and inevitably imperfect because politics
is a human practice and humans are fallen. Because you
are unwilling to make that choice, you are out of the
politics business whether you realize it or not.
What you have not abandoned, but I believe should
when it comes to the topics of politics, is the public
square.
You recognize that your generation failed to fight.
You very clearly have no intention of fighting even now.
You have decided to build a Benedict Option because you
think that's the only viable option. That's fine. In
fact, I heartily approve.
But other people have chosen differently. They have
chosen to fight. Donald Trump for one. You might not
like his methods. But he's not willing to see his
country destroyed without doing everything he can to
stop it. He's not alone. Many people are standing up and
recognizing that though the odds are long, they owe it
to their children and grandchildren to stand up and be
counted. That choice deserves respect too, Rod.
The problem with you is not the BenOp, but your
active demonization of those who actually have the
temerity to fight for their country instead of
surrendering it to go hide in your BenOp bunker with
you.
Trump, the alt-right, etc. may be wrong
metaphysically and they may be wrong ethically, but they
are right about some very important things – things that
you, Rod Dreher, and your entire generation of
conservatives were very, very wrong on. Rather than
admit that, you want to stand back from the fight,
pretending you're too gosh darned principled to soil
your hands voting for one of the two candidates who have
a shot to be our president, and acting like you're a
morally superior person for doing so.
You should focus on the important work of building
and evangelizing for BenOp, and leave the field of
political discourse to those who are actually willing to
engage in the business of politics.
"I realize all you Trump apologists aren't about to
recognize the danger the man poses. I don't care as long
as there are enough people who do to keep him out of the
presidency."
So basically this boils down to you
asking us to trust that your gut is right in spite of
what we can see with our lying eyes?
Yeah, no thanks.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so
many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that
doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double
intensity?
Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible
for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you
ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's
Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more
antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you
fret about over and over?
Rod, when you say the following, you articulate exactly
why I have reluctantly become a libertarian:
-"On a
practical level, that means that I will no longer vote
primarily on the social issues that have dictated my
vote in the past, but I will vote primarily for
candidates who will be better at protecting my
community's right to be left alone."-
Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage
oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, I
concluded that libertarianism and either the current
Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that
those of us with traditional religious and moral
convictions can hope for in a decidedly post-Christian
America. I wrote about why I believe this to be so at
http://www.skiprigney.com/2015/04/29/how-the-ssm-debate-made-me-a-libertarian/
I don't believe for a minute that the majority of
elected officials in the Republican Party have the
backbone to stand up for religious liberty in the face
of corporate pressure. You need look no farther than how
the Republicans caved last year in Indiana on the
protection of religious liberty.
There are many libertarians who are going to work to
protect the rights of people to do things that undermine
the common good. But, I have more faith that they'll
protect the rights of a cultural minority such as
traditionalist Christians than I have in either the
Republicans or the Democrats.
It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against
identity politics. It's just that they have a far
simpler view of identity politics. There are white
people, and there are blah people. White people will be
in charge, and blah people can have a piece of the pie
to the extent they agree to pretend to be white people.
Cecelia wonders: "Are we as a people really capable of
being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to
be manipulated by people like Trump?"
My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a
Republic if our government creates the conditions for a
thriving middle class: the most important condition
being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live
an independent existence. The vast majority of
manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and even
higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development)
are increasingly being outsourced as well.
If you look at the monthly payroll jobs reports put
out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you will see that
the vast majority of new jobs are in retail trade,
health care and social assistance, waitresses and
bartenders, and government. Most of these jobs are
part-time jobs. None of these jobs produce any goods
than can be exported. Aside from government jobs, these
are not jobs that pay well enough for people to thrive
independently. This is why more Americans aged 25-34
live with their parents than independently with spouses
and children of their own. It is also why many people
now must work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet.
As for government jobs, they are tax-supported, and thus
a drain on the economy. I'm not a libertarian. I
recognize that government provides many crucial
services. But it is unproductive to have too many
bureaucrats living off of tax revenues.
Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without
a thriving middle class, democracy is unsustainable.
Struggling people filled with hate and resentment are
ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces.
Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well.
His goal was to make it unthinkable for his country to
descend into civil war ever again. He achieved this.
Before Franco, Spain was a Third World h*llhole plagued
by radical ideologies like communism, regional
separatism, and anarchism. [Fascism had its following as
well, but it was never too popular. The Falange (which
was the closest thing to a fascist movement in Spain,
though it was not really fascist, as it was profoundly
Christian and rejected Nietzschean neo-paganism) was
irrelevant before Francoism. Under Francoism, it was one
of the three pillars that supported the regime (the
other two being monarchists and Catholics), but it was
never the most influential pillar.] When Franco died,
Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and
the second-fastest growing economy in the world (behind
only Japan). It became a liberal democracy almost
overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked
what he thought his most important legacy was. He
replied, "The middle class." Franco was not a democrat,
but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy in
Spain.
To get back to the US, we now have a Third World
economy. We can't too surprised that our politics also
look increasingly like those of a Third World country.
Thus, the rise of Trump, Sanders, the alt-right, the
SJW's, Black Lives Matter, etc.
The evolution of the MSM into an
American version of Pravda/Izvestia has been a lengthy
process and dates back at least to the days of Walter
Lippmann (ostensibly a journalist but upon whom
Roosevelt, Truman and JFK had no qualms about calling
for advice).
With the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon
of the blogosphere, the MSM has no choice but to cast
off whatever pretensions to objectivity they may have
had and, instead, now preach to the choir so they can
keep themselves viable in an increasingly competitive
market where more people get their news from such as
Matt Drudge than from the NY-LA Times or the WaPo
Suppose a more composed candidate stood up against the
PC police, and generally stood for these same 6
principles, and did so in a much more coherent and
rational manner. I propose that he would be demolished
within no time at all. Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you
think he would be doing in this election? Trumps three
ring show prevents the charges against him from finding
any fertile soil to grow in. If he ran on principle
instead of capturing an undefined spirit, if he tried to
answer the charges against him in a rational manner, all
it would do it produce more fertile soil for the PC
charges to stick. Trump may have stumbled upon the model
for future conservative candidates when running in a
nation where the mainstream press is so thoroughly
against you. Just make a lot of noise and ignore them.
If you engage in the argument with them, they'll destroy
you.
@Cecelia: The issue is not Trump – it is those who
support him. Are we as a people really capable of being
citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be
manipulated by people like Trump ?
Yes. Tell me,
during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and
Imperial Japan began their march to what would bring
this world to war and state-sponsored genocide, why did
my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the
30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at
the supposed lack of prospects for improvement in their
lives that Trump's followers whine about? By any
standard, conditions then were worse for the white
working class than is the case today, and yes, my
grandparents were working class: one grandfather worked
for the railroad, the other for a lumber mill. And yes,
there was alcoholism, and domestic abuse, and crime, and
suicide amongst the populace in the 1930s. The role of
religion was more pervasive then, but to tell the truth,
I expect Rod would describe my grandparents on both side
as Moral Therapeutic Deists; by Rod's standard I believe
that is true for most Christians throughout history.
Just what is different about today, that brings all
this rage and resentment? Could it be that racial and
ethnic and religious minorities, and women now have a
piece of the pie and a good part of the white working
class cannot stand it?
And Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as does the
fact that so very many Americans support him, whether
wholeheartedly swallowing his poison, or because they
close their eyes and minds and hearts to just what kind
of a man he is.
The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in
and of itself isnt necessarily bad. However, the
annihilation of culture, religion, and autonomy at the
hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian
elite certainly is – and that is what is happening under
what is referred to as globalization. The revolt against
the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington has
now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the
rebels be swift and complete.
"You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central
tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever
happens, white people are to blame and should continue
paying for it."
If we all accept your definition then
we can't argue with you. Whatever you want to call it,
there is an entire industry (most conservative media)
that feeds a victimization mentality among whites,
conservatives, evangelicals etc (all those labels apply
to me by the way) that closely resembles the grievance
outlook. The only difference is in what circles it is
taken seriously. Why else do so many of us get so bent
out of shape when employees have the audacity to say
"happy holidays" at the department store. As made
apparent on this blog we do need to be realistic and
vigilant about the real threats and the direction the
culture is going, but by whining about every perceived
slight and insisting everyone buy into our version of
"Christian America" (while anointing a vile figure like
Trump as our strongman) we are undercutting the
legitimate grievances we do have.
Everyone has heard how far is moving small car
production to Mexico and forwarded saying no one in
America will lose their jobs because the production will
be shifted to SUVs and other vehicles.
That's not the
problem the problem is instead of creating more jobs in
America the jobs are being created in Mexico and not
helping Americans.
"BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative
now active in the game will not drop out. They may not
like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than
they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up."
Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed.
They claim that they hate Disneyworld because of their
pro-gay policies, but when they have to choose between
Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses.
What happens when the status quo media turns a
presidential election into a referendum regarding the
media's ability to shape public opinion and direct
"purchasing" choices?
The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are
waking up to it.
This will almost always mean voting for the
Republicans in national elections, but in a primary
situation, I will vote for the Republican who can
best be counted on to defend religious liberty, even
if he's not 100 percent on board with what I
consider to be promoting the Good. If it means
voting for a Republican that the defense hawks or
the Chamber of Commerce disdain, I have no problem
at all with that.
How is this different than cultural conservatives
voted before Trump?
We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone
can pretty much agree that the traditionalists lost. Now
whether Dreher et all lost because the broader culture
refused to listen or because they simply couldn't make a
convincing argument is a question that surrounds a very
particular program pursued by conservatives,
traditionalists and the religious right. It is certain
that the Republican Party as a vehicle for those values
has been taken out and been beat like a rented mule. It
seems to that Josh Stuart has pulled a rabbit out of the
hat. Trump is, if anything, pretty incoherent and
whatever "principles" he represents were discovered in
the breach; a little like bad gunnery practice, one shot
low, one shot lower and then a hit. If Trump represents
anything it is the fact that the base of the party was
not who many of us thought they were. Whatever Christian
values we thought they were representing are hardly
recognizable now.
What truly puzzles me more and
increasingly so is Rod's vision of what America is
supposed to be under a Dreher regime. I'm not sure what
that regime looks like? Behind all the theological
underpinning and high-sounding abstractions what does a
ground-level political and legislative program for
achieving a society he is willing to whole-heartedly
participate in look like?
Politics is a reflection of culture but culture is
responsive to politics. What political order does the
Ben Op crowd wish to install in place of the one we have
now – short of the parousia – and how does that affect
our life and autonomy as citizens and individuals? He
says Christians just want to be left alone but they seem
to have made and are still making a lot of noise for
people who want to be left alone so I have to assume
they want something over and above being left alone.
I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What
minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or
changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or
equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that
allows Rod and company to relax?
a couple "ideas" come to mind. re: deplorable. SOME (no
value in speculating or establishing a number) are
deplorable. it's funny (actually, quite sad) Trump's we
don't have time to be politically correct mantra is
ignored when his opponent (a politician who helped
establish the concept of politically correctness) steals
a page from his playbook. on a certain level, perhaps
the eastern elite, intellectual liberal grabbed the
"irony" hammer from the toolbox? ever the shrewd,
calculating (narcissistic and insecure) carny barker,
Trump has not offered any "new" ideas. he's merely (like
any politician) put his finger in the air and decided to
"run" from the "nationalist, racist, nativist, side of
the politically correct/incorrect betting line. at the
end of the day, there are likely as many deplorable
folks on the Clinton bandwagon; it's just (obviously)
not in her interests to expose these "boosters" at HER
rallies/fundraising events. in many ways it speaks to
the lesser of two evils is still evil "idea". politics –
especially national campaigns are not so much about
which party/candidate has the better ideas, but rather
which is less deplorable.
"Instead, it has everything to do with his
wink/nod attitude toward the alt-right and white
nationalist groups and with his willingness to
appropriate their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own
advancement. He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary
to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob
violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has
unleashed dark forces that will not easily be quelled
even if, and probably especially if, he loses. The
possibility that he might win has left me wondering
whether I even belong in this country any more, no
matter how much sympathy I might feel for the folks
globalism has left behind."
One can just as easily make the point that the
globalists have unleashed dark forces against white
people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
The most interesting part of the essay is near the end,
where he briefly discusses how non-whites might react to
our political realignment.
After all, will the white
liberal be able to manipulate these groups forever?
For example, we are seeing the 'official black
leaders' who represent them on TV shift from being
activist clergymen to being (white paid and hosed) gay
activists and mulattoes from outside the mainstream of
black culture. How long can this continue?
"Call it anti-Semitic if
you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other
Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable
hate for Trump.
"thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter;
(2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests,
not so-called universal interests, matter; (4)
entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters;
(6) PC speech-without which identity politics is
inconceivable-must be repudiated."
They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd
world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold
Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them."
The Jews, having lived as strangers among foreign
peoples for the better part of 2 millennia, have always
been on the receiving end of racial hatred. As a result
many Western Jews have an instinctive mistrust of
nationalist movements and have a natural tendency towards
globalism.
The media has done a splendid job of portraying Trump
as the next Hitler, so, understandably, there's a lot of
fear. My Jewish grandparents are terrified of the man.
I am not a globalist, and (due to the SCOTUS issue)
will probably vote for Trump, even though I have no love
for the man himself. I think the "Trump the racist" meme
is based on confirmation bias, not reality, but I
understand where the fear comes from.
"I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas
assume that Ben Op is a one-dimensional, cultural
dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives into
irrelevant enclaves.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean
idea that the best American ways of living work their
way up from organic, formative local communities that
have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural
experience. Without independent formative local
communities, we human beings are mere products rolling
off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education
conglomerate.
If these formative communities hold to authentic,
compassionate Judeo-Christian values and practices, all
the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an
alternative to the assembly-line politically correct
cultural warriors being produced by many of our elite
cultural institutions."
Bingo.
If you want to fundamentally transform the culture,
you have to withdraw from it, at least partially. But
there's no need to wall yourself off. A Benedict Option
community can and should be politically active,
primarily at the local level, where the most good can be
done.
The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration
didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have
anything to do with the crumbling world around them.
They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen
their souls, and then went out into the world and
rebuilt it for Christ.
"Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on
that notion. Trump merely pointed our the absolute
hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns
for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing
about her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was
is to engage in the same sort of dishonesty for which
Clinton is so well known.
I never cared much for Trump
but he has all the right enemies and is growing on me.
"It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against
identity politics. It's just that they have a far
simpler view of identity politics. There are white
people, and there are blah people. "
They love Ben
Carson and Allan West, last time I checked neither men
were white.
"Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi
Germany and Imperial Japan began their march to what
would bring this world to war and state-sponsored
genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who
were teenagers in the 30s not succumb to all this doom,
gloom, and anger at the supposed lack of prospects for
improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine
about?"
Well, back then, the government was doing
stuff for the common people. A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA,
Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered the
"forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to
multinationals and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and
women that make up the backbone of our economy have been
forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember them
- with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump.
The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both
parties reminds me of this quote from C.S.
Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast":
"…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question:
whether "democratic behavior" means the behavior that
democracies like or the behavior that will preserve a
democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to
occur to them that these need not be the same."
Globalism is just swell for the multinational
corporation, but it is nothing more or less than
Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given
legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it,
like Frankenstein, will turns on its creator and
imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence.
One can just as easily make the point that the
globalists have unleashed dark forces against white
people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
And you would have the benefit of evidence (or, well,
evidence that is not stale by nearly a century). It
wasn't Trump supporters beating up people in San Jose.
And if you look to Europe as a guide to what can happen
in America, things start looking far, far worse.
"I guess the question I
want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would
necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is
the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and
company to relax?"
While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many
traditional Catholics. The end goal is the
re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which
means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture,
and a state which governs according to Christian
principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation, and in
that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be
necessary.
I am guessing that Rod has not said this explicitly,
or laid out a concrete plan, because he is writing a
book for Christians in general. And if you get into too
many specifics, you are going to run right into the
enormous theological and philosophical differences
between Catholicism and Protestantism.
Also, if Rod were to start talking about "The Social
Reign of Christ the King", 3/4 of you would lose your
minds.
Of course, the current prospect for a Christian
culture and state look bleak, to say the least. But we
can play the long game, the Catholic Church is good at
that. It took over 300 years to convert the Roman
Empire. It was 700 years from the founding of the first
Benedictine monastery until St. Thomas Aquinas and the
High Middle Ages. We can wait that long, at least.
I rather think, in concurrence with Prof. Cole, that
Trump is a simulacrum within a simulacrum with a
simulacrum: there is no "extra-mediatic" Trump
candidate, ergo there is no "extra-mediatic"
presidential electoral race (if limited to the two
"mainstreamed" candidates), ergo there is no
presidential election tout court, ergo there is no
democracy at the presidential election level in the
U.S–just simulacra deceptively reflecting simulacra, in
any case, the resulting effect is a mirage, a
distortion, but above all an ILLUSION.
All this is, it seems to me, is a transition to a
different favorite deadly sin. We've had pride, avarice,
and the current favorite is lust; the new favorite
appears to be wrath. Gluttony, sloth, and envy have not
been absent, but they have not been the driving force in
politics recently.
Also important was the fact that FDR did not stoke
the fires of class conflict. A patrician himself, FDR's
goal was not to overturn the existing social order but
rather to preserve it by correcting its injustices. FDR
was the moderate leader the country needed at the time.
Without him, we might well have succumbed to a demagogic
or perhaps even dictatorial government under Charles
Coughlin, Huey Long, or Norman Thomas. In contrast,
Hillary and Trump seek to use fringe groups (BLM,
alt-right) for their own agendas. Let's hope whoever
wins can keep her or his pets mollified and contained,
but courting extremists is always a risky business.
Indeed, Hillary may be worse than Trump in this respect,
since there appears to be no daylight between her and
the SJW's.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean
idea that the best American ways of living work their
way up from organic, formative local communities that
have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural
experience. Without independent formative local
communities, we human beings are mere products rolling
off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education
conglomerate.
Ben Op or not, its always a great
notion. And you don't have to withdraw from the culture,
THIS IS American culture (traditionally speaking). We
just need to reaffirm it.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies
from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one
that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with
double intensity?
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a long list of unpaid
contractors suing her… of course that's because she
never built hotels, and I don't think she ever declared
bankruptcy either. We have a batch of slumlords in
Milwaukee who are little Trumps… they run up hundreds of
thousands of dollars in fines for building violations,
declare bankruptcy or plead poverty and make occasional
payments of $50, and meantime they spend tends of
thousands of dollars buying up distressed property at
sheriff's auctions. All of them are black, all of them
have beautiful homes in mostly "white" suburbs, and I
wouldn't vote for any of them for dogcatcher, much less
president.
That said, Hillary is an ego-bloated lying sleaze,
and I wouldn't vote for her if she were running against
almost anyone but Trump.
Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous
warnings about right-wing white mobs that are about to
rememerge any day. It's been decades since there was a
white riot in this country.
There hasn't been a real riot of any nature in quite
a while. And no, that little fracas in Milwaukee doesn't
count. A few dozen thugs burning four black-owned
businesses while everyone living in the neighborhood
denounces then falls short of a riot.
I agree that we are not likely to see right-wing
"white" mobs posing much of a threat to anyone… they're
mostly couch potatoes anyway. But it is true that until
the 1940s, a "race riot" meant a white mob rampaging
through a black neighborhood. And there have been very
few black riots that went deep into a "white"
neighborhood … they stayed in black neighborhoods too.
This is an election about feeling under siege.
But we're not, and most of the adults in the room
know it.
Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach
test for pundits peddling a point of view.
I think that explains a lot of Trump's support. Its
not who he is, what he says, or what he does or will do,
its what they think they SEE in him. I have to admit, I
did a bit of that over Barack Obama in 2008, and he did
disappoint. Obama has been one of our best presidents in
a long time, but that's a rather low bar.
"There are, then, two developments we are likely to see
going forward. First, cultural conservatives will
seriously consider a political "Benedict Option,"
dropping out of the Republican Party and forming a
like-minded Book Group, unconcerned with winning
elections and very concerned with maintaining their
"principles." Their fidelity is to Aristotle rather than
to winning the battle for the political soul of America.
…"
You know, people spout this stuff as if the
Republican party is conservative. It started drifting
from conservative frame more than forty years ago. By
the time we get to the 2000 elections, it;s been home an
entrenched band of strategics concerned primarily with
winning to advance policies tat have little to do with
conservative thought.
I doubt that I will become a member of a book club.
And I doubt that I will stop voting according to my
conservative view points.
I generally think any idea that Christians are going
to be left to their own devices doubtful or that they
would want to design communities not already defined by
scripture and a life in Christ.
_______________
"If the Ben Op doesn't call on Christians to abandon
politics altogether, it does call on them to recalibrate
their (our) understanding of what politics is and what
it can do. Politics, rightly understood, is more than
statecraft. Ben Op politics are Christian politics for a
post-Christian culture - that is, a culture that no
longer shares some key basic Christian values . . ."
I am just at a loss to comprehend this. A person who
claims to live in Christ already calibrates their lives
in the frame of Christ and led by some extent by the
Spirit of Christ. Nothing about a world destined to
become more worldly will change that. What may happen is
that a kind of christian spiritual revival and renewal
will occur.
" . . . orthodox Christians will come to be seen as
threats to the common good, simply because of the views
we hold and the practices we live by out of fidelity to
our religion. . ."
If this accurate, that christians are deemed a threat
to the state, unless that threat is just to their
participation, the idea "safe spaces" wheres christians
hang out and do their own thing hardly seems a
realistic. If christians are considered a threat – then
most likely the ultimate goal will be to get rid of them
altogether. You outlaw faith and practice. Or you do
what HS and colleges have done to students who arrive on
the campuses. You inundate them with how backward their
thinking until the student and then proceed to tell them
they are just like everyone else.
Believers are expected to be in the world and not of
it. And by in it, I think Christ intended them to be
active participants.
"Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but
National Review has a small piece about Archbishop
Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to become more
engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and
the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as
well."
Let me answer it for him. Perhaps just like not
everyone is called to the contemplative life in a
monastery but are called to the secular world, so is the
church as a whole these days individually called to
different arenas. That said, the basic principles of the
Ben Op are hardly opposed to being active in the broader
community. It just means there has to be some
intentionality in maintaining a Christian worldview in a
hostile larger culture.
"The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration
didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have
anything to do with the crumbling world around them.
They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen
their souls, and then went out into the world and
rebuilt it for Christ."
Just a technical comment. You
have to pay attention to which orders you are referring
to, because many of them were indeed founded to retreat
from the world. At one time, the idea of a monk
wandering outside of the monastery, or a nun
particularly, was considered scandalous. I read alot of
monastic history about 20 years ago, and I seem to
recall the Benedictines were actually focused on prayer
and manual labor/work within the monastery area. It was
later with orders like the Dominicans that were sent out
into the community, and they caused the bishops a lot of
headaches because they competed with priests and bishops
in preaching publicly. It took awhile to sort out who
was allowed to do what. Modern religious orders founded
since the 18th century are quite different from the old
orders.
Another area of interest you could check out, besides
reading some of the religious rules of life of many of
these old orders just for the sake of comparison, is the
differences between the cenobitic and eremitic monastic
communities of the very early church. The original
founding of religious orders even back then was also
considered a direct challenge to the church hierarchy
and took a lot of time sorting out that they weren't
some kind of troublemakers, too. Modern Catholics have
entirely too little knowledge of the development and
maybe too pious a view of it.
The question is this: what do you do when the policies
or ideas you stand for or at least, agree with, are
advanced by someone with as appalling a character as
Trump? What I observe in practice is that friends and
acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues
find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and
vile character – which makes them less than honest as
well.
I'd be more impressed if, after Edwin Edwards,
Trump's fans said "Vote for the swindler, it's
important" – rather than use lies or their own credulity
to defend him.
I read this on Friday and have thought much about it
since. I came by earlier this evening and had about half
of a long post written in response, but got too caught
up in the Georgia/Missouri game to finish it. I also
determined that it wouldn't matter what I said. The
conservatives would continue to harp about the evils of
identity politics, refusing to acknowledge the long
history of conservatives engaging in identity politics
in both Europe and America from roughly the high Middle
Ages to the present. It seemed more rational to delete
what I had written rather than save it and come back to
finish it.
It just so happened that as the game ended,
I clicked on Huffingtonpost to check the headlines. Lo
and behold, the top story was this one about Jane
Goodall's latest statement regarding identity politics
in the animal kingdom:
"What I observe in practice is that friends and
acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues
find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and
vile character – which makes them less than honest as
well."
I don't defend his vile character. I
readily admit it. So do most of those I know who intend
to vote for him.
It's too bad that Clinton is at least equally vile.
For Hillary that's a big problem – the "character"
issue is at best a wash, so the choice boils down to
other things.
The most highly motivated voters in this election
cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt
and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does
not bode well for Clinton.
"I guess the question I
want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would
necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is
the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and
company to relax?"
------
I think those are good questions, and read in the best
light possible, might be interpreted as being asked by
someone honestly seeking to understand the concerns of
traditional Christians today.
I can't answer for Rod, but for me the short answers
are,
"1) In present America, I don't think there are any
"cultural change" possible which might reassure
Christians, because we are in a downward spiral which
has not yet run its course. The articles and commentary
posted here by Rod show we've not yet reached the peak
of what government and technology will do to the lives
of believing Christians.
2) The post-BenOp - perhaps decades in the future -
vision that would allow me to relax would be a national
reaffirmation that our rights, as partially defined in
the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God the
Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of
conception, and that the traditional family is the best
promoter of sound moral, cultural and economic health.
I'd relax a bit, though not entirely, if that happened.
In a September 2015 interview with NBC, Clinton
defended partial-birth abortions again and voiced her
support for late-term abortions up until birth, too.
She also openly supports forcing taxpayers to fund
these abortions by repealing the Hyde Amendment. The
amendment prohibits direct taxpayer funding of abortion
in Medicaid. If repealed, researchers estimate that
33,000 more babies will be aborted every year in the
U.S.
Yes, We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of
Deplorables.
"Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing
in this election? Trumps three ring show prevents the
charges against him from finding any fertile soil to
grow in."
I think far too much credit is being given
to Mr. Trump. The reason he can stand is because the
people he represents have been fed up with the some of
what he stands for long before he entered the fray.
If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good
stead save or his speaking style which is far more
formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches
through and gives the impression that he's an everyman.
His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity.
His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if
his message was counter to where most people are already
at - he would not be the nominee.
There's a difference in being a .Mr. Trump fan and a
supporter. As a supporter, I would be curious to know
what lies I have used to support him. We have some
serious differences, but I think my support has been
fairly above board. In fact, i think the support of most
have been fairly straight up I am not sure there is much
hidden about Mr. Trump.
The only new issue that has been brought up is the issue
of staff accountability. Has he neglected to pay his
staff, is this just an organizational natter or complete
nonsense.
The other factor that has played out to his
advantage are the news stories that repeatedly turn out
false, distorted or nonexistent.
The media already in the credibility hole seems very
content to dig themselves in deeper.
I didn't see the post where you disavowed
liberals as well, so I was too hasty with the "your
side"
Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings
about right-wing white mobs that are about to rememerge
any day. It's been decades since there was a white riot
in this country.
fwiw, my sense is that the Benedict Option (from the
snippets that you have shared with usm particularly in
the posts on Norcia and other communities already
pursuing some sort of "option") represents a return of
conservative Christians to a more healthy, hands-off
relationship with national politics. Conservative
Christians danced with the Republican Party for a
long-time, but past a certain point had to stop
pretending that the Republican Party cared more about
them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and
the MIC mainly). Liberal Christians, some of them,
danced with the other side of Mammon (big government and
social programs, etc) and perhaps just got absorbed. But
the point is I think you are returning to a better
place, reverting to some sort of norm, the alliance with
the GOP was a strange infatuation that wasn't going to
sustain anyway.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so
many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that
doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double
intensity?
Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible
for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you
ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's
Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more
antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you
fret about over and over?
Rod, when you say the following, you articulate exactly
why I have reluctantly become a libertarian:
-"On a
practical level, that means that I will no longer vote
primarily on the social issues that have dictated my
vote in the past, but I will vote primarily for
candidates who will be better at protecting my
community's right to be left alone."-
Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage
oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, I
concluded that libertarianism and either the current
Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that
those of us with traditional religious and moral
convictions can hope for in a decidedly post-Christian
America. I wrote about why I believe this to be so at
http://www.skiprigney.com/2015/04/29/how-the-ssm-debate-made-me-a-libertarian/
I don't believe for a minute that the majority of
elected officials in the Republican Party have the
backbone to stand up for religious liberty in the face
of corporate pressure. You need look no farther than how
the Republicans caved last year in Indiana on the
protection of religious liberty.
There are many libertarians who are going to work to
protect the rights of people to do things that undermine
the common good. But, I have more faith that they'll
protect the rights of a cultural minority such as
traditionalist Christians than I have in either the
Republicans or the Democrats.
It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against
identity politics. It's just that they have a far
simpler view of identity politics. There are white
people, and there are blah people. White people will be
in charge, and blah people can have a piece of the pie
to the extent they agree to pretend to be white people.
Cecelia wonders: "Are we as a people really capable of
being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to
be manipulated by people like Trump?"
My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a
Republic if our government creates the conditions for a
thriving middle class: the most important condition
being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live
an independent existence. The vast majority of
manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and even
higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development)
are increasingly being outsourced as well.
If you look at the monthly payroll jobs reports put
out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you will see that
the vast majority of new jobs are in retail trade,
health care and social assistance, waitresses and
bartenders, and government. Most of these jobs are
part-time jobs. None of these jobs produce any goods
than can be exported. Aside from government jobs, these
are not jobs that pay well enough for people to thrive
independently. This is why more Americans aged 25-34
live with their parents than independently with spouses
and children of their own. It is also why many people
now must work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet.
As for government jobs, they are tax-supported, and thus
a drain on the economy. I'm not a libertarian. I
recognize that government provides many crucial
services. But it is unproductive to have too many
bureaucrats living off of tax revenues.
Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without
a thriving middle class, democracy is unsustainable.
Struggling people filled with hate and resentment are
ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces.
Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well.
His goal was to make it unthinkable for his country to
descend into civil war ever again. He achieved this.
Before Franco, Spain was a Third World h*llhole plagued
by radical ideologies like communism, regional
separatism, and anarchism. [Fascism had its following as
well, but it was never too popular. The Falange (which
was the closest thing to a fascist movement in Spain,
though it was not really fascist, as it was profoundly
Christian and rejected Nietzschean neo-paganism) was
irrelevant before Francoism. Under Francoism, it was one
of the three pillars that supported the regime (the
other two being monarchists and Catholics), but it was
never the most influential pillar.] When Franco died,
Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and
the second-fastest growing economy in the world (behind
only Japan). It became a liberal democracy almost
overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked
what he thought his most important legacy was. He
replied, "The middle class." Franco was not a democrat,
but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy in
Spain.
To get back to the US, we now have a Third World
economy. We can't too surprised that our politics also
look increasingly like those of a Third World country.
Thus, the rise of Trump, Sanders, the alt-right, the
SJW's, Black Lives Matter, etc.
The evolution of the MSM into an
American version of Pravda/Izvestia has been a lengthy
process and dates back at least to the days of Walter
Lippmann (ostensibly a journalist but upon whom
Roosevelt, Truman and JFK had no qualms about calling
for advice).
With the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon
of the blogosphere, the MSM has no choice but to cast
off whatever pretensions to objectivity they may have
had and, instead, now preach to the choir so they can
keep themselves viable in an increasingly competitive
market where more people get their news from such as
Matt Drudge than from the NY-LA Times or the WaPo
Suppose a more composed candidate stood up against the
PC police, and generally stood for these same 6
principles, and did so in a much more coherent and
rational manner. I propose that he would be demolished
within no time at all. Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you
think he would be doing in this election? Trumps three
ring show prevents the charges against him from finding
any fertile soil to grow in. If he ran on principle
instead of capturing an undefined spirit, if he tried to
answer the charges against him in a rational manner, all
it would do it produce more fertile soil for the PC
charges to stick. Trump may have stumbled upon the model
for future conservative candidates when running in a
nation where the mainstream press is so thoroughly
against you. Just make a lot of noise and ignore them.
If you engage in the argument with them, they'll destroy
you.
@Cecelia: The issue is not Trump – it is those who
support him. Are we as a people really capable of being
citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be
manipulated by people like Trump ?
Yes. Tell me,
during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and
Imperial Japan began their march to what would bring
this world to war and state-sponsored genocide, why did
my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the
30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at
the supposed lack of prospects for improvement in their
lives that Trump's followers whine about? By any
standard, conditions then were worse for the white
working class than is the case today, and yes, my
grandparents were working class: one grandfather worked
for the railroad, the other for a lumber mill. And yes,
there was alcoholism, and domestic abuse, and crime, and
suicide amongst the populace in the 1930s. The role of
religion was more pervasive then, but to tell the truth,
I expect Rod would describe my grandparents on both side
as Moral Therapeutic Deists; by Rod's standard I believe
that is true for most Christians throughout history.
Just what is different about today, that brings all
this rage and resentment? Could it be that racial and
ethnic and religious minorities, and women now have a
piece of the pie and a good part of the white working
class cannot stand it?
And Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as does the
fact that so very many Americans support him, whether
wholeheartedly swallowing his poison, or because they
close their eyes and minds and hearts to just what kind
of a man he is.
The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in
and of itself isnt necessarily bad. However, the
annihilation of culture,religion, and autonomy at the
hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian
elite certainly is – and that is what is happening under
what is referred to as globalization. The revolt against
the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington has
now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the
rebels be swift and complete.
"You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central
tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever
happens, white people are to blame and should continue
paying for it."
If we all accept your definition then
we can't argue with you. Whatever you want to call it,
there is an entire industry (most conservative media)
that feeds a victimization mentality among whites,
conservatives, evangelicals etc (all those labels apply
to me by the way) that closely resembles the grievance
outlook. The only difference is in what circles it is
taken seriously. Why else do so many of us get so bent
out of shape when employees have the audacity to say
"happy holidays" at the department store. As made
apparent on this blog we do need to be realistic and
vigilant about the real threats and the direction the
culture is going, but by whining about every perceived
slight and insisting everyone buy into our version of
"Christian America" (while anointing a vile figure like
Trump as our strongman) we are undercutting the
legitimate grievances we do have.
Everyone has heard how far is moving small car
production to Mexico and forwarded saying no one in
America will lose their jobs because the production will
be shifted to SUVs and other vehicles.
That's not the
problem the problem is instead of creating more jobs in
America the jobs are being created in Mexico and not
helping Americans.
"BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative
now active in the game will not drop out. They may not
like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than
they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up."
Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed.
They claim that they hate Disneyworld because of their
pro-gay policies, but when they have to choose between
Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses.
What happens when the status quo media turns a
presidential election into a referendum regarding the
media's ability to shape public opinion and direct
"purchasing" choices?
The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are
waking up to it.
This will almost always mean voting for the
Republicans in national elections, but in a primary
situation, I will vote for the Republican who can
best be counted on to defend religious liberty, even
if he's not 100 percent on board with what I
consider to be promoting the Good. If it means
voting for a Republican that the defense hawks or
the Chamber of Commerce disdain, I have no problem
at all with that.
How is this different than cultural conservatives
voted before Trump?
If we elect Trump as POTUS, we deserve everything that
happens to us.
Don't blame the progressives when Trump says
something about defaulting on the US debt and the stock
market crashes.
Don't blame the progressives when China moves ahead
us by leaps and bound in science and technology because
we pull a Kansas and cut taxes left right and center,
then decide to get rid of all government-funded
research.
Don't blame the progressives when The Wall doesn't
get built, Trump says "who, me? I never promised
anything!" Ditto for the lack of return of well-paid
coal-mining jobs.
And don't blame the progressives when you discover
Trump has sold you down the river for a song, refuses to
appoint "conservatives" as SCOTUS judges, and throws the
First Amendment out the window.
We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone
can pretty much agree that the traditionalists lost. Now
whether Dreher et all lost because the broader culture
refused to listen or because they simply couldn't make a
convincing argument is a question that surrounds a very
particular program pursued by conservatives,
traditionalists and the religious right. It is certain
that the Republican Party as a vehicle for those values
has been taken out and been beat like a rented mule. It
seems to that Josh Stuart has pulled a rabbit out of the
hat. Trump is, if anything, pretty incoherent and
whatever "principles" he represents were discovered in
the breach; a little like bad gunnery practice, one shot
low, one shot lower and then a hit. If Trump represents
anything it is the fact that the base of the party was
not who many of us thought they were. Whatever Christian
values we thought they were representing are hardly
recognizable now.
What truly puzzles me more and
increasingly so is Rod's vision of what America is
supposed to be under a Dreher regime. I'm not sure what
that regime looks like? Behind all the theological
underpinning and high-sounding abstractions what does a
ground-level political and legislative program for
achieving a society he is willing to whole-heartedly
participate in look like?
Politics is a reflection of culture but culture is
responsive to politics. What political order does the
Ben Op crowd wish to install in place of the one we have
now – short of the parousia – and how does that affect
our life and autonomy as citizens and individuals? He
says Christians just want to be left alone but they seem
to have made and are still making a lot of noise for
people who want to be left alone so I have to assume
they want something over and above being left alone.
I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What
minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or
changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or
equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that
allows Rod and company to relax?
a couple "ideas" come to mind. re: deplorable. SOME (no
value in speculating or establishing a number) are
deplorable. it's funny (actually, quite sad) Trump's we
don't have time to be politically correct mantra is
ignored when his opponent (a politician who helped
establish the concept of politically correctness) steals
a page from his playbook. on a certain level, perhaps
the eastern elite, intellectual liberal grabbed the
"irony" hammer from the toolbox? ever the shrewd,
calculating (narcissistic and insecure) carny barker,
Trump has not offered any "new" ideas. he's merely (like
any politician) put his finger in the air and decided to
"run" from the "nationalist, racist, nativist, side of
the politically correct/incorrect betting line. at the
end of the day, there are likely as many deplorable
folks on the Clinton bandwagon; it's just (obviously)
not in her interests to expose these "boosters" at HER
rallies/fundraising events. in many ways it speaks to
the lesser of two evils is still evil "idea". politics –
especially national campaigns are not so much about
which party/candidate has the better ideas, but rather
which is less deplorable.
"Instead, it has everything to do with his
wink/nod attitude toward the alt-right and white
nationalist groups and with his willingness to
appropriate their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own
advancement. He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary
to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob
violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has
unleashed dark forces that will not easily be quelled
even if, and probably especially if, he loses. The
possibility that he might win has left me wondering
whether I even belong in this country any more, no
matter how much sympathy I might feel for the folks
globalism has left behind."
One can just as easily make the point that the
globalists have unleashed dark forces against white
people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
The most interesting part of the essay is near the end,
where he briefly discusses how non-whites might react to
our political realignment.
After all, will the white
liberal be able to manipulate these groups forever?
For example, we are seeing the 'official black
leaders' who represent them on TV shift from being
activist clergymen to being (white paid and hosed) gay
activists and mulattoes from outside the mainstream of
black culture. How long can this continue?
"Call it anti-Semitic if
you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other
Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable
hate for Trump.
"thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter;
(2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests,
not so-called universal interests, matter; (4)
entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters;
(6) PC speech-without which identity politics is
inconceivable-must be repudiated."
They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd
world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold
Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them."
The Jews, having lived as strangers among foreign
peoples for the better part of 2 millennia, have always
been on the receiving end of racial hatred. As a result
many Western Jews have an instinctive mistrust of
nationalist movements and a natural tendency towards
globalism.
The media has done a splendid job of portraying Trump
as the next Hitler, so, understandably, there's a lot of
fear. My Jewish grandparents are terrified of the man.
I am not a globalist, and (due to the SCOTUS issue)
will probably vote for Trump, even though I have no love
for the man himself. I think the "Trump the racist" meme
is based on confirmation bias, not reality, but I
understand where the fear comes from.
"I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas
assume that Ben Op is a one-dimensional, cultural
dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives into
irrelevant enclaves.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean
idea that the best American ways of living work their
way up from organic, formative local communities that
have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural
experience. Without independent formative local
communities, we human beings are mere products rolling
off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education
conglomerate.
If these formative communities hold to authentic,
compassionate Judeo-Christian values and practices, all
the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an
alternative to the assembly-line politically correct
cultural warriors being produced by many of our elite
cultural institutions."
Bingo.
If you want to fundamentally transform the culture,
you have to withdraw from it, at least partially. But
there's no need to wall yourself off. A Benedict Option
community can and should be politically active,
primarily at the local level, where the most good can be
done.
The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration
didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have
anything to do with the crumbling world around them.
They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen
their souls, and then went out into the world and
rebuilt it for Christ.
"Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on
that notion. Trump merely pointed our the absolute
hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns
for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing
about her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was
is to engage in the same sort of dishonesty for which
Clinton is so well known.
I never cared much for Trump
but he has all the right enemies and is growing on me.
"It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against
identity politics. It's just that they have a far
simpler view of identity politics. There are white
people, and there are blah people. "
They love Ben
Carson and Allan West, last time I checked neither men
were white.
"Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi
Germany and Imperial Japan began their march to what
would bring this world to war and state-sponsored
genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who
were teenagers in the 30s not succumb to all this doom,
gloom, and anger at the supposed lack of prospects for
improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine
about?"
Well, back then, the government was doing
stuff for the common people. A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA,
Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered the
"forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to
multinationals and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and
women that make up the backbone of our economy have been
forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember them
- with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump.
The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both
parties reminds me of this quote from C.S.
Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast":
"…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question:
whether "democratic behavior" means the behavior that
democracies like or the behavior that will preserve a
democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to
occur to them that these need not be the same."
Globalism is just swell for the multinational
corporation, but it is nothing more or less than
Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given
legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it,
like Frankenstein, will turns on its creator and
imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence.
One can just as easily make the point that the
globalists have unleashed dark forces against white
people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
And you would have the benefit of evidence (or, well,
evidence that is not stale by nearly a century). It
wasn't Trump supporters beating up people in San Jose.
And if you look to Europe as a guide to what can happen
in America, things start looking far, far worse.
"I guess the question I
want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would
necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is
the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and
company to relax?"
While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many
traditional Catholics. The end goal is the
re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which
means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture,
and a state which governs according to Christian
principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation, and in
that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be
necessary.
I am guessing that Rod has not said this explicitly,
or laid out a concrete plan, because he is writing a
book for Christians in general. And if you get into too
many specifics, you are going to run right into the
enormous theological and philosophical differences
between Catholicism and Protestantism.
Also, if Rod were to start talking about "The Social
Reign of Christ the King", 3/4 of you would lose your
minds.
Of course, the current prospect for a Christian
culture and state look bleak, to say the least. But we
can play the long game, the Catholic Church is good at
that. It took over 300 years to convert the Roman
Empire. It was 700 years from the founding of the first
Benedictine monastery until St. Thomas Aquinas and the
High Middle Ages. We can wait that long, at least.
I rather think, in concurrence with Prof. Cole, that
Trump is a simulacrum within a simulacrum with a
simulacrum: there is no "extra-mediatic" Trump
candidate, ergo there is no "extra-mediatic"
presidential electoral race (if limited to the two
"mainstreamed" candidates), ergo there is no
presidential election tout court, ergo there is no
democracy at the presidential election level in the
U.S–just simulacra deceptively reflecting simulacra, in
any case, the resulting effect is a mirage, a
distortion, but above all an ILLUSION.
All this is, it seems to me, is a transition to a
different favorite deadly sin. We've had pride, avarice,
and the current favorite is lust; the new favorite
appears to be wrath. Gluttony, sloth, and envy have not
been absent, but they have not been the driving force in
politics recently.
Also important was the fact that FDR did not stoke
the fires of class conflict. A patrician himself, FDR's
goal was not to overturn the existing social order but
rather to preserve it by correcting its injustices. FDR
was the moderate leader the country needed at the time.
Without him, we might well have succumbed to a demagogic
or perhaps even dictatorial government under Charles
Coughlin, Huey Long, or Norman Thomas. In contrast,
Hillary and Trump seek to use fringe groups (BLM,
alt-right) for their own agendas. Let's hope whoever
wins can keep her or his pets mollified and contained,
but courting extremists is always a risky business.
Indeed, Hillary may be worse than Trump in this respect,
since there appears to be no daylight between her and
the SJW's.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean
idea that the best American ways of living work their
way up from organic, formative local communities that
have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural
experience. Without independent formative local
communities, we human beings are mere products rolling
off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education
conglomerate.
Ben Op or not, its always a great
notion. And you don't have to withdraw from the culture,
THIS IS American culture (traditionally speaking). We
just need to reaffirm it.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies
from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one
that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with
double intensity?
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a long list of unpaid
contractors suing her… of course that's because she
never built hotels, and I don't think she ever declared
bankruptcy either. We have a batch of slumlords in
Milwaukee who are little Trumps… they run up hundreds of
thousands of dollars in fines for building violations,
declare bankruptcy or plead poverty and make occasional
payments of $50, and meantime they spend tends of
thousands of dollars buying up distressed property at
sheriff's auctions. All of them are black, all of them
have beautiful homes in mostly "white" suburbs, and I
wouldn't vote for any of them for dogcatcher, much less
president.
That said, Hillary is an ego-bloated lying sleaze,
and I wouldn't vote for her if she were running against
almost anyone but Trump.
Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous
warnings about right-wing white mobs that are about to
rememerge any day. It's been decades since there was a
white riot in this country.
There hasn't been a real riot of any nature in quite
a while. And no, that little fracas in Milwaukee doesn't
count. A few dozen thugs burning four black-owned
businesses while everyone living in the neighborhood
denounces then falls short of a riot.
I agree that we are not likely to see right-wing
"white" mobs posing much of a threat to anyone… they're
mostly couch potatoes anyway. But it is true that until
the 1940s, a "race riot" meant a white mob rampaging
through a black neighborhood. And there have been very
few black riots that went deep into a "white"
neighborhood … they stayed in black neighborhoods too.
This is an election about feeling under siege.
But we're not, and most of the adults in the room
know it.
Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach
test for pundits peddling a point of view.
I think that explains a lot of Trump's support. Its
not who he is, what he says, or what he does or will do,
its what they think they SEE in him. I have to admit, I
did a bit of that over Barack Obama in 2008, and he did
disappoint. Obama has been one of our best presidents in
a long time, but that's a rather low bar.
"There are, then, two developments we are likely to see
going forward. First, cultural conservatives will
seriously consider a political "Benedict Option,"
dropping out of the Republican Party and forming a
like-minded Book Group, unconcerned with winning
elections and very concerned with maintaining their
"principles." Their fidelity is to Aristotle rather than
to winning the battle for the political soul of America.
…"
You know, people spout this stuff as if the
Republican party is conservative. It started drifting
from conservative frame more than forty years ago. By
the time we get to the 2000 elections, it;s been home an
entrenched band of strategics concerned primarily with
winning to advance policies tat have little to do with
conservative thought.
I doubt that I will become a member of a book club.
And I doubt that I will stop voting according to my
conservative view points.
I generally think any idea that Christians are going
to be left to their own devices doubtful or that they
would want to design communities not already defined by
scripture and a life in Christ.
_______________
"If the Ben Op doesn't call on Christians to abandon
politics altogether, it does call on them to recalibrate
their (our) understanding of what politics is and what
it can do. Politics, rightly understood, is more than
statecraft. Ben Op politics are Christian politics for a
post-Christian culture - that is, a culture that no
longer shares some key basic Christian values . . ."
I am just at a loss to comprehend this. A person who
claims to live in Christ already calibrates their lives
in the frame of Christ and led by some extent by the
Spirit of Christ. Nothing about a world destined to
become more worldly will change that. What may happen is
that a kind of christian spiritual revival and renewal
will occur.
" . . . orthodox Christians will come to be seen as
threats to the common good, simply because of the views
we hold and the practices we live by out of fidelity to
our religion. . ."
If this accurate, that christians are deemed a threat
to the state, unless that threat is just to their
participation, the idea "safe spaces" wheres christians
hang out and do their own thing hardly seems a
realistic. If christians are considered a threat – then
most likely the ultimate goal will be to get rid of them
altogether. You outlaw faith and practice. Or you do
what HS and colleges have done to students who arrive on
the campuses. You inundate them with how backward their
thinking until the student and then proceed to tell them
they are just like everyone else.
Believers are expected to be in the world and not of
it. And by in it, I think Christ intended them to be
active participants.
"Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but
National Review has a small piece about Archbishop
Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to become more
engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and
the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as
well."
Let me answer it for him. Perhaps just like not
everyone is called to the contemplative life in a
monastery but are called to the secular world, so is the
church as a whole these days individually called to
different arenas. That said, the basic principles of the
Ben Op are hardly opposed to being active in the broader
community. It just means there has to be some
intentionality in maintaining a Christian worldview in a
hostile larger culture.
"The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration
didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have
anything to do with the crumbling world around them.
They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen
their souls, and then went out into the world and
rebuilt it for Christ."
Just a technical comment. You
have to pay attention to which orders you are referring
to, because many of them were indeed founded to retreat
from the world. At one time, the idea of a monk
wandering outside of the monastery, or a nun
particularly, was considered scandalous. I read alot of
monastic history about 20 years ago, and I seem to
recall the Benedictines were actually focused on prayer
and manual labor/work within the monastery area. It was
later with orders like the Dominicans that were sent out
into the community, and they caused the bishops a lot of
headaches because they competed with priests and bishops
in preaching publicly. It took awhile to sort out who
was allowed to do what. Modern religious orders founded
since the 18th century are quite different from the old
orders.
Another area of interest you could check out, besides
reading some of the religious rules of life of many of
these old orders just for the sake of comparison, is the
differences between the cenobitic and eremitic monastic
communities of the very early church. The original
founding of religious orders even back then was also
considered a direct challenge to the church hierarchy
and took a lot of time sorting out that they weren't
some kind of troublemakers, too. Modern Catholics have
entirely too little knowledge of the development and
maybe too pious a view of it.
The question is this: what do you do when the policies
or ideas you stand for or at least, agree with, are
advanced by someone with as appalling a character as
Trump? What I observe in practice is that friends and
acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues
find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and
vile character – which makes them less than honest as
well.
I'd be more impressed if, after Edwin Edwards,
Trump's fans said "Vote for the swindler, it's
important" – rather than use lies or their own credulity
to defend him.
I read this on Friday and have thought much about it
since. I came by earlier this evening and had about half
of a long post written in response, but got too caught
up in the Georgia/Missouri game to finish it. I also
determined that it wouldn't matter what I said. The
conservatives would continue to harp about the evils of
identity politics, refusing to acknowledge the long
history of conservatives engaging in identity politics
in both Europe and America from roughly the high Middle
Ages to the present. It seemed more rational to delete
what I had written rather than save it and come back to
finish it.
It just so happened that as the game ended,
I clicked on Huffingtonpost to check the headlines. Lo
and behold, the top story was this one about Jane
Goodall's latest statement regarding identity politics
in the animal kingdom:
"What I observe in practice is that friends and
acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues
find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and
vile character – which makes them less than honest as
well."
I don't defend his vile character. I
readily admit it. So do most of those I know who intend
to vote for him.
It's too bad that Clinton is at least equally vile.
For Hillary that's a big problem – the "character"
issue is at best a wash, so the choice boils down to
other things.
The most highly motivated voters in this election
cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt
and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does
not bode well for Clinton.
"I guess the question I
want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would
necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is
the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and
company to relax?"
------
I think those are good questions, and read in the best
light possible, might be interpreted as being asked by
someone honestly seeking to understand the concerns of
traditional Christians today.
I can't answer for Rod, but for me the short answers
are,
"1) In present America, I don't think there are any
"cultural change" possible which might reassure
Christians, because we are in a downward spiral which
has not yet run its course. The articles and commentary
posted here by Rod show we've not yet reached the peak
of what government and technology will do to the lives
of believing Christians.
2) The post-BenOp - perhaps decades in the future -
vision that would allow me to relax would be a national
reaffirmation that our rights, as partially defined in
the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God the
Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of
conception, and that the traditional family is the best
promoter of sound moral, cultural and economic health.
I'd relax a bit, though not entirely, if that happened.
In a September 2015 interview with NBC, Clinton
defended partial-birth abortions again and voiced her
support for late-term abortions up until birth, too.
She also openly supports forcing taxpayers to fund
these abortions by repealing the Hyde Amendment. The
amendment prohibits direct taxpayer funding of abortion
in Medicaid. If repealed, researchers estimate that
33,000 more babies will be aborted every year in the
U.S.
Yes, We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of
Deplorables.
"Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing
in this election? Trumps three ring show prevents the
charges against him from finding any fertile soil to
grow in."
I think far too much credit is being given
to Mr. Trump. The reason he can stand is because the
people he represents have been fed up with the some of
what he stands for long before he entered the fray.
If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in
good stead save or his speaking style which is far more
formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches
through and gives the impression that he's an everyman.
His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity.
His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if
his message was counter to where most people are already
at - he would not be the nominee.
There's a difference in being a .Mr. Trump fan and a
supporter. As a supporter, I would be curious to know
what lies I have used to support him. We have some
serious differences, but I think my support has been
fairly above board. In fact, i think the support of most
have been fairly straight up I am not sure there is much
hidden about Mr. Trump.
Hillary Clinton,
"Laws have to be backed up with resources and
political will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious
beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."
Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of
Deplorables.
That's a shame RD, because I was looking forward to
joining a like-minded Book Group, unconcerned with
winning elections and very concerned with maintaining
our "principles." With fidelity is to Aristotle rather
than to winning the battle for the political soul of
America.
[NFR: You can still have your Ben Op book
group. - RD]
I'm going to start and end with globalization by
referring to G.K.Chesterton in Orthodoxy(pg 101).
"This is what makes Christendom at once so perplexing
and so much more interesting than the Pagan empires;…If
anyone wants a modern proof of all this, let him
consider the curious fact that, under Christianity,
Europe has broken up into individual nations. Patriotism
is a perfect example of this deliberate balance of one
emphasis against another emphasis. The instinct of the
Pagan empire would have said, 'You shall all be Roman
citizens, and grow alike; let the German grow less slow
and reverent; the Frenchmen less experimental and
swift.' But the instinct of Christian Europe says, 'Let
the German remain slow and reverent, that the Frenchman
may the more safely be swift and experimental. We will
make an equipoise out of these excesses. The absurdity
called Germany shall correct the insanity called
France."
Isn't it interesting that has Christianity has left the
northern hemisphere for the southern, that Europe has
tried union, the USA has been into interventionism, and
globalization has become so mainstream. You shall all be
one world citizens doesn't have a balancing instinct.
And Chesterton was deliberating about the balancing
instinct.
I think Mitchell is basically right. Aside from his jab
at the Benedict Option, I have just one quibble with his
analysis: "And Trump is the first American candidate to
bring some coherence to them, however raucous his
formulations have been."
Wrong. Trump is definitely
not the first candidate to do this. He was preceded by
Pat Buchanan, who also brought (and still brings) much
more coherence to the six ideas than Trump. Clearly,
Buchanan ran at a time when the post-1989 order was in
its infancy, and so few saw any fundamental problem with
it. He was ahead of his time. But he was a candidate
that presented the six ideas and attracted a
non-negligible amount of support. Trump is not a pioneer
in this regard. People should give Buchanan his due.
I hope Trump wins; he's rather bizarre and not very
likable as a person, but the last 25 years have been
disastrous politically in Western nations and it's time
to repudiate the ruling orthodoxy. The US still is the
Western hegemon and exports its ideas across the
Atlantic (most unfortunate in cases like "critical
whiteness studies"); if there's change in the US towards
a (soft, civic) nationalism, it might open up new
options in Europe as well.
In any case these are exciting times…however it turns
out, we may well be living through years which will be
seen as decisive in retrospect.
This comment on the Politico article stood out to me:
"It is its very existence, and mantra, for a religion
the advertise itself, something that is frowned upon as
being Incredibly un-American under the Constitution, and
contrary to our core beliefs. Yes Republicans not only
embrace this, they help their religion advertise."
In other words, this commenter admits that he
believes it "incredibly un-American" for religions to
"advertise," and, by extension, to even exist (he says
advertising is religion's "very existence.")
The comment has a high number of "thumbs-up."
We really are in trouble. America has become Jacobin
country.
Red brick
September 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish
cousins and the several other Jewish business associates
I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.'
Perhaps
due to very recent memories that herrenvolk regimes are
not good for the Jews. The online troll army of out and
proud anti-semites can't help but contribute to this.
Re "the DC elites are clueless" what ABOUT John Kasich
up there on the podium advocating for the latest free
trade deal? Yessir, that'll get us in our "states that
begin with a vowel" to totally change our minds on that,
you betcha!
Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test
for pundits peddling a point of view. Funny how he
proves so many intellectuals right about so many
contradictory things, all without having to take
responsibility for any particular idea.
Nobody has remained more adamant than the writer of this
blog that there is something sacred about sex between
one woman and one man, and them married. God bless him
for staying true.
So I am going to try to say( G.K Chesterton please
forgive me)…..Let the LBGTQIA remain true to their
identity, that the married male/female may be more
safely true to their identity. We can make an equipoise
out of these excesses( despite those who want us to be
all the same). The absurdity called LBGTQIA shall
correct the insanity called one man/one woman.
Trump is certainly not unraveling
identity politics. He's adding another identity to the
grievance industry, that of (downscale) whites.
You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central
tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever
happens, white people are to blame and should continue
paying for it. Whether you agree with white identity
politics or not, its proponents are obviously not
adding
to the grievance industry, but attempting to
defend against it, i.e. stating that white people are
not
to blame for everything, and no, they
shouldn't
continue to pay for it. To merely maintain
that position is sufficient to be labeled as a white
supremacist by the grievance industry hacks.
Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but
National Review has a small piece about Archbishop
Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to become
more
engaged in the public square, not less. Your
name and the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece
as well.
Dear mainstream media: you have lost your
credibility because you are incapable of skeptical
inquiry into your chosen candidate or official
statistics/ pronouncements.
Your dismissal of
skeptical inquiries as "conspiracies" or "hoaxes" is
nothing but a crass repackaging of the propaganda
techniques of totalitarian state media.
Dear MSM: You have forsaken your duty in a
democracy and are a disgrace to investigative,
unbiased journalism.
You have substituted
Orwellian-level propaganda for honest, skeptical
journalism. We can only hope viewers and advertisers
respond appropriately, i.e. turn you off.
Here's the mainstream media's new mantra:
"skepticism is always a conspiracy or a hoax."
The Ministry of Propaganda and the MSM are now one
agency.
The curtain is being pulled back on the Wizard of Oz.
How soon before the Wicked Witch starts to melt?
Do people who are willing to accept characterization as
"angry, provincial bigots" still have any right to
political self-expression? Believe it or not, it's an
important question.
Identity politics definition: a tendency for people of a
particular religion, race, social background, etc., to
form exclusive political alliances, moving away from
traditional broad-based party politics.
I find it odd
that the party of older white straight Christian men
accuses the party of everyone else to be guilty of
"identity politics". It just doesn't make any sense.
(1) borders matter; Ok, but they're not all that.
(2) immigration policy matters; Ditto. We should have a
policy.
(3) national interests, not so-called universal
interests, matter; Depends. National interests matter,
but if they are all that matters… I think you just
stepped outside the Gospels.
(4) entrepreneurship matters; It can, for good OR for
evil.
(5) decentralization matters; Another thorny one… SOME
things need to be more decentralized, some don't, and we
need to have an honest conversation about which is
which.
(6) PC speech-without which identity politics is
inconceivable-must be repudiated. ABSOLUTELY!
All in
all, I think this Georgetown prof has done the usual
short list of The Latest Attempt To Reduce Reality To a
Nice Short Checklist.
Not much of a guide to the future. We could all write
our own lists.
You can largely agree with Mitchell's six points (and,
for the most part I do) and nonetheless recognize that
an unprincipled, ruthless charlatan like Trump–a
pathological liar and narcissist interested in nothing
but his own self-promotion–will do nothing meaningful to
advance them. His latest birther charade shows him for
the lying, unprincipled scum bucket he is.
The
cultural ground is shifting as the emptiness of advanced
consumer capitalism and globalism becomes ever more
apparent. Large scale organizations are, by their very
nature, dehumanizing, demoralizing, and corrupt. I've
believed so for the better part of my life now. It's
that belief that lead me to the University of Rochester
and Christopher Lasch in the 1980s and, subsequently to
MacIntyre, Rieff, and Berry. It's also a belief that has
lead me to distrust both the corporate order and
politics as a means to salvation. I certainly don't
consider myself a conservative, at least not in the
shallow American sense of the term, and the chances that
I will ever vote for a Republican again are nil. But I'm
not a liberal in the American sense of the term either
because agreeing with Mitchell's six points pretty much
pretty much rules me out of that tribe. I have, for a
long time, felt pretty homeless in the American
wilderness.
I suppose that's one reason I keep reading your blog,
Rod, though I disagree deeply with many of your views.
As a Jew, I'm not much interested in the Benedict
Option, but I do agree that our society suffers from a
certain soul sickness that politics, consumption, and
technology can't cure.
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish
cousins and the several other Jewish business associates
I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.
As one
of those American Jews who feels a deep hatred for
Trump, perhaps I can shed some light on the reasons. It
has nothing to do with his alleged desire to enforce
borders. Nations require them. Nor does it have anything
to do with his lip service to Christianist values. He's
no Christian. He's pure heathen.
Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod
attitude toward the alt-right and white nationalist
groups and with his willingness to appropriate their
anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's
dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone
familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob violence. To
anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark
forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and
probably especially if, he loses. The possibility that
he might win has left me wondering whether I even belong
in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I
might feel for the folks globalism has left behind.
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish
cousins and the several other Jewish business associates
I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump…They seem to
think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world
immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold
Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them.
Or it could be that Trump reminds them of some
historical figure who was rather bad for the Jews. I
wonder who that could be?
And saying all the Jews that the commenter knows feel
an "uncontrollable" emotion
is
a touch
anti-Semitic.
But to talk about the OP: Joshua Mitchell gives the
game away by consistently referring to 1989 as the state
of a "new order," which he thinks is a combination of
globalization and identity politics. Of course neither
was new. Admittedly globalization received a boost by
the end of the Cold War, but it's been well underway for
a century or so. Mitchell wants to return to Reagan's
"morning in America." But there was no such morning.
"Identity politics" is what the suffragettes and
abolitionists would have been accused of, if the term
had been invented back in their day. Are there stupid
things done and said under the umbrella of "identity
politics"? Of course. That doesn't make the
discrimination and mistreatment that led to such
politics any less real.
The fundamental flaw in Mitchell's argument, though,
is that the Trump he describes (or, more accurately,
wishes for) simply doesn't exist. The Trump he describes
has ideas and beliefs. It's a little ironic that
Mitchell thinks that Trump "expressly opposes" the ideas
of Marx and Nietzsche, because the real-world Trump has
no beliefs other than he is an ubermensch.
I read an entire article on Trump in which Hitler
wasn't mentioned once.
It wasn't even smug, and there was no list of liberal
cliches and denunciations of heretics so between
drooling I never knew whether shout "Boo!" or "Hurah!"
Couldn't they throw in one "racist, sexist,
homophobic" so I could feel morally superior to stupid
white people in fly-over country?
Having now read Mitchell's article, all I can say is
that while I agree with his six points, his hope that
Trump is some kind of pragmatist is deeply misguided.
Like most political scientists, he knows little about
history.
For thise who think Trump is harmless, here
he is, tonight, riffing on his
Clinton assassination fantasies.
Where is Leni
Reifenstahl when you need her? Trump is no pragmatist.
He's no Christian. And he's no leader.
If Mitchell is correct–and I believe that he is–how does
this bode poorly for conservative Christians? If the
BenOp is primarily a reaction to the post-1989 culture,
shouldn't the crumbling of that culture obviate the need
for a BenOp?
[NFR: Well, if there were a candidate
advocating these positions who WASN'T Donald Trump, I
would eagerly vote for him or her. I think Trump is
thoroughly untrustworthy and demagogic. But I would not
be under any illusion that casting a vote for that
person - again, even if he or she was a saint - would
mean any kind of Christian restoration. The Ben Op is
premised on the idea that we are living in
post-Christian times. The Ben Op is a religious movement
with political implications, not a political movement.
Liquid modernity will not suddenly solidify depending on
a change of government in Washington. - RD]
This is an election about feeling under siege. Once that
is understood all else makes sense. It is also a
manifestation about what happens when a word is
overused, in this case racism. It creates a reaction of,
"Ask us if we care," which becomes, "Yeah, we are, and
we like it."
It backfires.
The Ben Op may prove to be in better position that it
looks.
I think populists who haven't gotten much attention from
either party are projecting an awful lot onto a
seriously flawed candidate who doesn't have firm
convictions on anything, beyond making the sale. This
objective he pursues by being willing to say whatever he
thinks will get him the sale, with no regard for decency
or truth or consistency. If he gets himself elected, who
knows what he will do to retain his popularity with what
he perceives to be the majority view. Those hoping for a
sea change are engaged in some pretty serious wishful
thinking, I think.
@T.S.Gay, You are correct that this election is a battle
of Nationalism vs Globalism. But, Nationalism is
Identity Politics in its purest form and that is why the
Globalist oppose it.
Globalists use identity politics,
that is true. However, they bear no love for the
identities they publicly promote. Rather, they
dehumanize them, using them as nothing more than weapons
against Nationalism.
As a Nationalist I will support and promote my
Nation(People), but I also recognize the inherent right
of other Nations(Peoples) to support and promote
themselves.
I'm absolutely sure Donald Trump isn't going to do to
us, what that other person has planned for us
deplorables:
"Laws have to be backed up with resources
and political will and deep-seated cultural codes,
religious beliefs and structural biases have to be
changed."
After her shot across the bow promises to marginalize
us in society, complete with cheers from those at her
back, that is just about all that counts.
Mitchell's description echoes Oliver Stone's comments
from Oct. 2001: "There's been conglomeration under six
principal princes-they're kings, they're barons!-and
these six companies have control of the world! … That's
what the new world order is. They control culture, they
control ideas. And I think the revolt of September 11
was about 'F- you! F- your order!'"
It is quite amusing to contemplate how it works. An
average progressive (I mean average progressive with
brains, not SJW) comes with a genuine desire to
criticize Trump for his ideas. But he faces something
"deplorable" almost at once. "Deplorable" things are
known to immediately trigger the incessant spouting of
words like "bigot", "racist", logically impossible
"white nationalist", "chovinist", fascist and on, and
on, and on. No way to control it, completely automatic.
A deep-seated emotional reaction all the way long from
uncle Freud's works. And, as a result, Trump's actual
ideas remain largely uncriticized. And the ideas that
are often mentioned but seldom confronted with a
coherent critical response are almost impossible to
defeat. So yes, his ideas are thinly buried in his
rhetoric. There are simply too many of them for being
suddenly blurted out even without all of the above,
especially when similar ideas simultaneously blossom all
around Europe. French Revolution, Russian Revolution,
American Progressivism – the West is simply tired of two
centuries of modernist and postmodernist experiments.
And now the giant starts awakening. Though, instead of
"thinly buried", I would rather prefer "subtly woven"
metaphor.
sure the ground is moving – it was inevitable.
Everything changes.
But is Trump a harbinger of the change? Or is he – or
rather his supporters – simply hoping to stop change –
to bring back some nostalgic notion of 1950's America?
Trump is a con man who seeks only his own
aggrandizement. He is not really committed to any
refutation of the existing order. He lies constantly and
when one set of lies stops working he switches to a new
set of lies. He was forced to back down on birtherism –
which is what propelled him to the attention of the Fox
News conspiracy folks. And let us be clear – birtherism
is fundamentally racist. Now he has to give up his
birther position so he can get the votes of a few soccer
Moms. So he creates new lies – Hilary started
birtherism. It becomes impossible to keep up with his
lies. And as he bounces from one new set of realities to
another – he takes his supporters along with him. He is
playing a con – making a sale.
Now he suggests that the Secret Service detail give
up their guns and then "Let's see what happens to her".
There is no great movement with him – just a demented
man who thrives on the adoration of the crowds and will
say anything however obscene to get those cheers.
The issue is not Trump – it is those who support him.
Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a
Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by
people like Trump ?
Very interesting piece, and I had not really connected
the Brexit and EU jitters to what's going on in the US –
and I think Mitchell is right about that. When we were
still in primary season and Trump was ahead, I recall
one author – probably on The Corner – wondered how a
Trump presidency might look. He figured Trump would be
very pragmatic, perhaps actually fixing Obamacare, and
focusing on our interests here at home.
"I will vote primarily for candidates who will be
better at protecting my community's right to be left
alone."
I've been voting that way for years; mostly
Republicans, but a good sprinkling of Democrats as well.
Good article. I think Mitchell identifies the right
ideas buried within Trump's rhetoric. But even if it
were true that Trump had no ideas, I would still vote
for him. After all, where have politic ideas gotten us
lately?
"Conservative principles" espoused by wonks
and political scientists culminated in the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Ideology told us that democracy was a
divine right, transferable across time and culture.
Moreover, do we really want our politicians playing
with ideas? Think back to George W. Bush's speech at the
2004 Republican convention, perhaps the most idea-driven
speech in recent history. The sight of W. spinning a
neo-Hegelian apocalyptic narrative was like watching a
gorilla perform opera.
I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume
that Ben Op is a one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out
of cultural/religious conservatives into irrelevant
enclaves.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean
idea that the best American ways of living work their
way up from organic, formative local communities that
have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural
experience. Without independent formative local
communities, we human beings are mere products rolling
off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education
conglomerate.
If these formative communities hold to authentic,
compassionate Judeo-Christian values and practices, all
the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an
alternative to the assembly-line politically correct
cultural warriors being produced by many of our elite
cultural institutions.
A recently heard description of Trump – a fat, orange,
poorly educated, intellectually shallow pathologic liar,
bigot, and narcissistic jerk.
Well, I don't know that
much about the guy, but some of that description seems
correct. He rarely reads, he says, gets his information
from "the shows", so if there are intellectual
preparations which we should expect in a presidential
candidate he falls short, but those preparations usually
create some intellectual bias, which he doesn't seem to
have on any important matter. So maybe just "muddling
through" problems as they arise will work. One has to
hope so, because whatever ability to do that he has is
all he's got.
"cavalierly undermining decades worth of social and
political certainties"
Sorry, that is just silly. Only
political junkies and culture warriors even care about
stuff like this. In my life… in my experience of living
in the USA every day, none of this matters. It just
doesn't.
People don't live their lives thinking about any of
those things cited. What would it mean to you or me to
have "borders matter"? Ford just announced they were
moving some more production to Mexico. That decision
WILL affect the lives of those who lose their jobs. Does
anyone honestly think that anyone… even a President
Trump, would lift a finger to stop them? Of course not.
It is silly to assert otherwise.
Very good essay and commentary, but I caution against
the notion that you are looking at permanent change.
JonF's two 20th century ideas (Free Trade benefits
everyone and Supply Side economics) are not going away.
In fact, Larry Kudlow, the crassest exponent of both
those ideas is one of Trump's economic advisors.
BenOp
is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now
active in the game will not drop out. They may not like
the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than they
like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up.
Great. He's got six ideas. Six ideas with either no
detailed policy or approach attached to them, policies
or approaches that seemingly change on a whim (evidence
that at best he hasn't given much thought to any of
them), or has no realistic political path for making
those ideas a reality.
"That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may
at times be, leads us toward: A future where states
matter."
With that sentence, I think Mitchell stumbles
into a truth he might not have intended - The "state" -
as in "administrative state" - is going to continue
growing even under Trump.
Given the increasing intolerance of our society for
traditional values, that's all Christians need to know.
Clint writes:
"Hillary Clinton,
'L;aws have to be backed up with resources and political
will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious bel:efs
and structural biases have to be changed.
Uh Oh --
We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of
Deplorables."
"He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone
familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob violence. To
anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark
forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and
probably especially if, he loses."
Given the amount
violence and disruption your side has caused this year
this accusation really should be laughable. Trump
supporters aren't out beating up Clinton supporters and
making sure they can't have a rally in the wrong
neighborhood. Members of the alt-right aren't
threatening student journalists with violence on their
own campuses, or getting on stage with speakers they
dislike and slapping them.
It's your own side that has been perpetuating the mob
violence while the liberal establishment denies it or
excuses it.
This post is spot-on; thank you for sharing the
preliminary BenOp talking points.
We need Thomas Paine's
Common Sense
for our
age, for these are times that try men's souls. Problem
is this: Paine's citizenry were 90% literate, unified by
culture, and cognitively engaged … today we're 70%
literate (at 4th grade reading level), multicultural,
and amused to death.
Hillary just can't help herself. Her political instincts (and those of her
campaign) are just plain stupid. Everything backfires on her, probably because
she is living in a fantasy bubble called the Political Industrial Complex (PIC).
The Political Industrial Complex encompasses all those elites whose livelihoods
are predicated on central-control of resources and who determine who is allowed
to succeed in society. It is a bipartisan exclusive club. It includes the Politicians
and their career staffers. It includes crony donors and lobbyists who reap government
windfalls and special treatment that average citizens cannot obtain. It includes
the PIC industrial base of pollsters, consultants, etc. And it includes the
pliant news media, whose success rest on access to those in power, and in return
for access making sure no bad news will disrupt said power.
This strange and bizarre parallel universe is where all the political elites
hang out – isolated from Main Street America (and the commoner world as well).
The denizens of the PIC are very wealthy, very cozy with each other and one
of they live in the most dense echo chamber on the planet.
Hillary is just the epitome of Political Correctness dripping from the center
of the PIC.
But now Hillary has created a massive movement in the country, outside the
PIC. She has created " The Deplorables! ".
It is becoming a badge of honor to be feared and attacked by the PIC. It
is becoming fun to watch members of the PIC just collapse into lick-spittle
rage, as the voters reject their self-anointed brilliance.
For example :
Hillary, you recently labeled me - and millions of Americans like me
- "deplorable."
I am not deplorable. What I am is your worst nightmare: a woman, a mother
and a voter who sees right through you.
In your remarks to an LGBT group, with liberal millionaire mouthpiece
Barbra Streisand hosting your appearance, you waved your invisible scepter
and banished millions of people from respectable society, just because you
felt like it.
"Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it,"
you said last Friday. "There are people like that, and [Trump] has lifted
them up."
Well, I'm concerned about national security, supportive of law enforcement,
and a believer in traditional marriage. How does that make me "deplorable?"
You may be a deplorable if you just got your car inspected.
If you're deployable, you're definitely deplorable.
If you wake before noon, if you call Islamic terrorists Islamic terrorists,
if you don't have an Obamaphone and you don't believe that global warming
is "settled science" - can you say deplorable?
…
Or if while watching the second Monday night NFL game you were less irritated
by the streaker than you were by all the fawning coverage of Colin Kaepernick
on the pre-game show.
You may be a deplorable if you resent training your H1-B replacement.
Or the fact that the Earned Income Tax Credit is NOT earned.
Nothing says deplorable like the National Rifle Association.
Hillary wanted to brand Trump Voters as subhuman (well, at least below the
standards of the PIC). But by giving them a name, she gave them a rallying point,
a joint cause.
Honestly, how could she have helped Trump even more? Given her political
skills I am sure we will find out soon enough.
The author fails to distinguish between two (intermixed) faction so of Repugs
-- neocons and neolib.
Neoconservatives and neoliberals are "enemy within" the Republican Party as
they have nothing to do with either republicanism or conservatism. They are Empire
builders. Neocons should be purged as they definitely do not belong. They already
started moving to Democratic party (Robert Kagan is a typical case) ...
Neoliberals are more complex and difficult case. They are the essence of the
current republican establishment, the face of the party. Here a Stalin-type purge
(Trotskyites were very influential before the purge) is necessary to get rid of
this faction, in order to return the Party to Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt
roots...
Notable quotes:
"... Only one outcome in November would forestall a complete, likely irreversible fracturing: the election of Hillary Clinton. Thus, many elite Republican operators-including lobbyists, elected officials, and pundits-are desperately hoping that Trump loses. Some are limited to expressing this desire privately, for fear of alienating the conservative voters on whom their continued electoral (or business) prospects depend. ..."
"... Republicans who were especially devoted to Marco Rubio during the primary-whose interests align with the perpetuation of the party's status quo-are perhaps the most strident in their wish for a Trump defeat. ..."
"... Under a President Trump, such establishmentarian actors would lose power. Maybe they'd retain some measure of influence within the administration, as Trump exerted his deal-making prowess to bring them into the fold, but their interests would no longer be paramount. Other forces would have propelled Trump to victory, and he would likely prioritize them in governance. ..."
"... "True conservatives" of the Cruz variety could feasibly come to include the free marketeers and conventional national-security hawks who cannot countenance Trump. ..."
"... It should also be noted that while this schism is especially pronounced among elites-such as those with sinecures at prestigious think tanks, or lobbyists with powerful clients to please-the divisions are far less evident at the voter level. Support for Trump among Republicans is around 90 percent , according to recent polling. ..."
"... those whose livelihood depends on conservative-movement institutions have added incentive to root for a Trump loss. ..."
"... In sum, Trump poses an existential threat to American movement [neo]conservatives. Hillary is their only hope. ..."
Obviously there is . It has been developing for years, and could be seen
to some extent in earlier presidential cycles, but was opened fully and dramatically
by the improbable candidacy of Donald Trump. Only one outcome in November
would forestall a complete, likely irreversible fracturing: the election of
Hillary Clinton. Thus, many elite Republican operators-including lobbyists,
elected officials, and pundits-are desperately hoping that Trump loses. Some
are limited to expressing this desire privately, for fear of alienating the
conservative voters on whom their continued electoral (or business) prospects
depend.
Republicans who were especially devoted to Marco Rubio during the primary-whose
interests align with the perpetuation of the party's status quo-are perhaps
the most strident in their wish for a Trump defeat. (Recall that the few
areas where Rubio prevailed earlier this year included
Washington, D.C., and its
Northern Virginia suburbs-locations that have profited immensely from the
post-9/11 military-industrial buildup.)
Under a President Trump, such establishmentarian actors would lose power.
Maybe they'd retain some measure of influence within the administration, as
Trump exerted his deal-making prowess to bring them into the fold, but their
interests would no longer be paramount. Other forces would have propelled Trump
to victory, and he would likely prioritize them in governance.
After Trump's election, many conservative organs and their congressional
allies would position themselves as Trump's enemies, coordinating with Democrats
on key initiatives to block his agenda. At the same time, other conservative
organs, in tandem with Trump-sympathetic factions of the Republican congressional
caucus, would coalesce around the sitting president and support his agenda.
Eventually, these factions' coexistence within the same movement would prove
untenable, practically and philosophically.
The result would be less overall leverage for traditional Republican institutions
in Washington, the kind whose existence is premised on the maintenance of the
decades-old "three-legged stool" formula-social conservatism, free markets,
and hawkish foreign policy-for entrenching conservative political power. Trump
would saw off one or two of the stool's legs, and there would be no replacing
them, at least not in the short term.
Though a Trump win would necessitate a realignment, it would not happen overnight.
Think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation
would not undergo a sudden ideological makeover; institutional inertia precludes
such rapid transformation. Change would happen slowly, but surely. A president
always influences the ideological composition of the body politic-within his
own party and the opposition. For instance, Obama's eight-year term has reshaped
the Democratic Party coalition, and also engendered commensurate shifts within
internal Republican dynamics.
Under a President Trump, the Republican congressional caucus and affiliated
movement-conservative entities would be constantly wracked by internecine warfare
of the type that was on vivid display during the GOP primaries. No doubt Ted
Cruz would be at the forefront of whatever organized conservative opposition
to Trump emerged as he positioned himself for a likely presidential primary
challenge in 2020. Cruz would be well situated to pick up the mantle of "true
conservatism"-however that ended up getting defined-and he would be able to
(convincingly) blame establishment-GOP squishes for fostering the conditions
that gave rise to Trump. "True conservatives" of the Cruz variety could
feasibly come to include the free marketeers and conventional national-security
hawks who cannot countenance Trump.
Conversely, under a President Hillary, movement conservatives could comfortably
unify the party in opposition to their longstanding enemy, papering over the
ideological divisions exposed by Trump. Such divisions would still exist, but
dealing with them would be subordinated to the overriding task of undermining
Hillary. Movement conservatives could easily discount Trump's nomination and
failed general-election run as an aberration, and revert more or less back to
form. They'd probably proffer some superficial initiatives to address "Trump_vs_deep_state"
at the urging of prominent columnists-the somber panel discussions would be
manifold-but "Trump_vs_deep_state" as a political program is so ill-defined and malleable
that, in practice, any remedial actions wouldn't amount to much.
It should also be noted that while this schism is especially pronounced
among elites-such as those with sinecures at prestigious think tanks, or lobbyists
with powerful clients to please-the divisions are far less evident at the voter
level. Support for Trump among Republicans is
around 90 percent , according to recent polling. In addition to keeping
the traditional movement-conservative coalition intact, a Trump loss would narrow
the gap between ordinary Republican voters and conservative elites, who could
unite in their disdain for Hillary. Thus, those whose livelihood depends on
conservative-movement institutions have added incentive to root for a Trump
loss.
In sum, Trump poses an existential threat to American movement [neo]conservatives.
Hillary is their only hope.
Michael Tracey is a journalist based in New York City.
BenOp is unrealistic. conservative Christians will not stop voting Republicans.
Notable quotes:
"... Conservative" Christians aren't going to stop voting Republican. They're just going to offer a different reason for doing it, when asked. ..."
"... Well, I think you're right that about 3/4 of the readers would lose their minds if that was stated as an explicit political goal. It would confirm in the minds of many the suspicion that the primary strategy of the religious right is the establishment of an anti-democratic, theocracy or Caesaropapist regime. ..."
"... A lot of people are tired of the Religious Right's attempt to gain political power in order to impose Christian views of morality. ..."
"... A lot of people believe that there should be a separation of church and state, not only in the Constitutional sense of having no state-established religion, but also in the general sense that morality should be a private matter, not the subject of politics. ..."
"... So basically this boils down to you asking us to trust that your gut is right in spite of what we can see with our lying eyes? Yeah, no thanks. ..."
"... Conservative Christians danced with the Republican Party for a long-time, but past a certain point had to stop pretending that the Republican Party cared more about them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and the MIC mainly). ..."
"... Liberal Christians, some of them, danced with the other side of Mammon (big government and social programs, etc) and perhaps just got absorbed. But the point is I think you are returning to a better place, reverting to some sort of norm, the alliance with the GOP was a strange infatuation that wasn't going to sustain anyway. ..."
"... So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double intensity? ..."
"... Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over? ..."
"... Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, I concluded that libertarianism and either the current Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that those of us with traditional religious and moral convictions can hope for in a decidedly post-Christian America. ..."
"... "Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump?" ..."
"... My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a Republic if our government creates the conditions for a thriving middle class: the most important condition being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live an independent existence. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and even higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development) are increasingly being outsourced as well. ..."
"... Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without a thriving middle class, democracy is unsustainable. Struggling people filled with hate and resentment are ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces. ..."
"... Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well. His goal was to make it unthinkable for his country to descend into civil war ever again. He achieved this ..."
"... When Franco died, Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and the second-fastest growing economy in the world (behind only Japan). It became a liberal democracy almost overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked what he thought his most important legacy was. He replied, "The middle class." Franco was not a democrat, but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy in Spain. ..."
"... The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in and of itself isnt necessarily bad. However, the annihilation of culture, religion, and autonomy at the hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian elite certainly is – and that is what is happening under what is referred to as globalization. The revolt against the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington has now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the rebels be swift and complete. ..."
"... "You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should continue paying for it." ..."
"... "BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up." ..."
"... Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed. They claim that they hate Disneyworld because of their pro-gay policies, but when they have to choose between Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses. ..."
"... The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are waking up to it. ..."
"... We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone can pretty much agree that the traditionalists lost. ..."
"... "Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on that notion. Trump merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing about her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was is to engage in the same sort of dishonesty for which Clinton is so well known. ..."
"... Well, back then, the government was doing stuff for the common people. A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA, Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered the "forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to multinationals and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and women that make up the backbone of our economy have been forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember them - with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump. ..."
"... The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both parties reminds me of this quote from C.S. Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast": "…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic behavior" means the behavior that democracies like or the behavior that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same." ..."
"... Globalism is just swell for the multinational corporation, but it is nothing more or less than Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it, like Frankenstein, will turns on its creator and imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence. ..."
"... If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or his speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman. His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most people are already at - he would not be the nominee. ..."
"... Good article. I think Mitchell identifies the right ideas buried within Trump's rhetoric. But even if it were true that Trump had no ideas, I would still vote for him. After all, where have politic ideas gotten us lately? ..."
"... "Conservative principles" espoused by wonks and political scientists culminated in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ideology told us that democracy was a divine right, transferable across time and culture. ..."
"... In fact, Larry Kudlow, the crassest exponent of both those ideas is one of Trump's economic advisors. ..."
"... We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables." ..."
"Conservative" Christians aren't going to stop voting Republican.
They're just going to offer a different reason for doing it, when asked.
I will bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in Rod's
pockets that there will NEVER, in either of our lifetimes, be a time when
he feels compelled by his principles to vote for a Democratic candidate
for federal office over a Republican one.
And finally, I note that someone above asked a version of the same question
I've periodically had: What does Dreherdom look like? If orthodox Christians
controlled the levers of power, what do you propose to DO with your (cultural
AND legal) authority? And what will be the status of the "other" in that
brave new world?
[NFR: They will be captured and enslaved and sent to work in the
boudin
mines. And I will spend whatever percentage of the Gross National Product
it takes to hire the Rolling Stones to play "Exile On Main Street" live,
from start to finish, in a national broadcast that I will require every
citizen to watch, on pain of being assigned to hard labor in the boudin
mines. Also, I will eat boudin. - RD]
While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many traditional Catholics.
The end goal is the re-establishment of the social reign of Christ,
which means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture, and a state
which governs according to Christian principles (read Quas Primas).
In that situation, and in that situation alone, would the Ben Op no
longer be necessary.]
That's interesting. Well, I think you're right that about 3/4 of the
readers would lose their minds if that was stated as an explicit political
goal. It would confirm in the minds of many the suspicion that the primary
strategy of the religious right is the establishment of an anti-democratic,
theocracy or Caesaropapist regime. I would consider that the extreme "utopian"
or some would even say "totalitarian" position of religious conservatives
and not "conservative" in any sense that I understand "Conservatism".
Saltlick's minimal requirement seems to moderate that goal to "a national
reaffirmation that our rights, as partially defined in the Constitution
and Bill of Rights, come from God the Creator, that life is valuable from
the moment of conception, and that the traditional family is the best promoter
of sound moral, cultural and economic health.", but even in that he regards
it as only a half-measure for Saltlick. Needless to say, what a "traditional"
family is would need some definition.
If nothing short of establishing the City of God on earth would secure
the comfort of some Christians then that is a pretty high bar and you have
every right to feel insecure… as do the rest of us.
I would be curious to know how many of your co-religionists on these
boards share your view? And how many would reject it?
Mr Dreher, I always read your articles with great interest, although
I often disagree with you. For example, I don't think anybody of any political
persuasion is going to try to stamp out Christianity or those who espouse
it. Indeed, I think many people will be delighted if all Christians would
exercise the Benedict Option.
A lot of people are tired of the Religious Right's attempt to gain
political power in order to impose Christian views of morality.
A lot of people believe that there should be a separation of church
and state, not only in the Constitutional sense of having no state-established
religion, but also in the general sense that morality should be a private
matter, not the subject of politics.
[NFR: That's incredibly naive. Aside from procedural laws, all laws
are nothing but legislated morality. Somebody's morality is going to be
reflected in law. It is unavoidable. - RD]
Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring
up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do
you care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more
antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and
over?
Sharpton isn't running for president and I didn't vote for him when he
was. Same for Jesse Jackson. I'm well aware of antisemitism within the black
community but doubt it comes anywhere close to that of the alt-right and
nationalist groups, who foment hate against both blacks and Jews.
And duh,
of course there's plenty of anti-semitism among Muslims. Who's pretending
otherwise. It also appears that you didn't read what I wrote. I favor strong
borders but think you can do so without demagoguery and appealing to people's
baser instincts and hatreds, which is what Trump does.
I realize all you Trump apologists aren't about to recognize the danger
the man poses. I don't care as long as there are enough people who do to
keep him out of the presidency.
Rod, you clearly have unresolved cognitive dissonance, because if your vote
is based on which candidate is best with religious liberty and the right
of Christians to live as Christians, the answer is clear and unambiguous:
Trump. Yet you refuse to vote for him.
The author of this piece actually has you nailed perfectly, which is
why it makes you so uncomfortable. He sees that you are absolving yourself
from the consequences of political engagement by acting like you can stay
firm on your principles, while refusing to choose from the only two real
sides on offer. That choice is the messy business of politics, and inevitably
imperfect because politics is a human practice and humans are fallen. Because
you are unwilling to make that choice, you are out of the politics business
whether you realize it or not.
What you have not abandoned, but I believe should when it comes to the
topics of politics, is the public square.
You recognize that your generation failed to fight. You very clearly
have no intention of fighting even now. You have decided to build a Benedict
Option because you think that's the only viable option. That's fine. In
fact, I heartily approve.
But other people have chosen differently. They have chosen to fight.
Donald Trump for one. You might not like his methods. But he's not willing
to see his country destroyed without doing everything he can to stop it.
He's not alone. Many people are standing up and recognizing that though
the odds are long, they owe it to their children and grandchildren to stand
up and be counted. That choice deserves respect too, Rod.
The problem with you is not the BenOp, but your active demonization of
those who actually have the temerity to fight for their country instead
of surrendering it to go hide in your BenOp bunker with you.
Trump, the alt-right, etc. may be wrong metaphysically and they may be
wrong ethically, but they are right about some very important things – things
that you, Rod Dreher, and your entire generation of conservatives were very,
very wrong on. Rather than admit that, you want to stand back from the fight,
pretending you're too gosh darned principled to soil your hands voting for
one of the two candidates who have a shot to be our president, and acting
like you're a morally superior person for doing so.
You should focus on the important work of building and evangelizing for
BenOp, and leave the field of political discourse to those who are actually
willing to engage in the business of politics.
No lengthy cerebral essay will cover up the fact that Trump is a crude,
belligerent, and unethical con-artist. Clinton for her part has her own
problems but both are a blot on American history. No amount of blabber will
put a shine on Trump's character. He is for himself, and no one else.
"I realize all you Trump apologists aren't about to recognize the danger
the man poses. I don't care as long as there are enough people who do
to keep him out of the presidency."
So basically this boils down to you asking us to trust that your
gut is right in spite of what we can see with our lying eyes? Yeah, no thanks.
fwiw, my sense is that the Benedict Option (from the snippets that you have
shared with us particularly in the posts on Norcia and other communities
already pursuing some sort of "option") represents a return of conservative
Christians to a more healthy, hands-off relationship with national politics.
Conservative Christians danced with the Republican Party for a long-time,
but past a certain point had to stop pretending that the Republican Party
cared more about them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and
the MIC mainly).
Liberal Christians, some of them, danced with the other side of Mammon
(big government and social programs, etc) and perhaps just got absorbed.
But the point is I think you are returning to a better place, reverting
to some sort of norm, the alliance with the GOP was a strange infatuation
that wasn't going to sustain anyway.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters…
Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and
even with double intensity?
Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up
more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you
care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic
than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over?
Rod, when you say the following, you articulate exactly why I have reluctantly
become a libertarian:
-"On a practical level, that means that I will no longer vote primarily
on the social issues that have dictated my vote in the past, but I will
vote primarily for candidates who will be better at protecting my community's
right to be left alone."-
Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage oral arguments
presented before the Supreme Court, I concluded that libertarianism and
either the current Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that
those of us with traditional religious and moral convictions can hope for
in a decidedly post-Christian America.
I don't believe for a minute that the majority of elected officials in
the Republican Party have the backbone to stand up for religious liberty
in the face of corporate pressure. You need look no farther than how the
Republicans caved last year in Indiana on the protection of religious liberty.
There are many libertarians who are going to work to protect the rights
of people to do things that undermine the common good. But, I have more
faith that they'll protect the rights of a cultural minority such as traditionalist
Christians than I have in either the Republicans or the Democrats.
It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics.
It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There
are white people, and there are blah people. White people will be in charge,
and blah people can have a piece of the pie to the extent they agree to
pretend to be white people.
Cecelia wonders: "Are we as a people really capable of being citizens
of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like
Trump?"
My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a Republic if our government
creates the conditions for a thriving middle class: the most important condition
being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live an independent existence.
The vast majority of manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and
even higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development) are increasingly
being outsourced as well.
If you look at the monthly payroll jobs reports put out by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, you will see that the vast majority of new jobs are
in retail trade, health care and social assistance, waitresses and bartenders,
and government. Most of these jobs are part-time jobs. None of these jobs
produce any goods than can be exported. Aside from government jobs, these
are not jobs that pay well enough for people to thrive independently. This
is why more Americans aged 25-34 live with their parents than independently
with spouses and children of their own. It is also why many people now must
work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. As for government jobs, they
are tax-supported, and thus a drain on the economy. I'm not a libertarian.
I recognize that government provides many crucial services. But it is unproductive
to have too many bureaucrats living off of tax revenues.
Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without a thriving middle
class, democracy is unsustainable. Struggling people filled with hate and
resentment are ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces.
Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well. His goal was to make
it unthinkable for his country to descend into civil war ever again. He
achieved this. Before Franco, Spain was a Third World h*llhole plagued by
radical ideologies like communism, regional separatism, and anarchism. [Fascism
had its following as well, but it was never too popular. The Falange (which
was the closest thing to a fascist movement in Spain, though it was not
really fascist, as it was profoundly Christian and rejected Nietzschean
neo-paganism) was irrelevant before Francoism. Under Francoism, it was one
of the three pillars that supported the regime (the other two being monarchists
and Catholics), but it was never the most influential pillar.] When
Franco died, Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and the second-fastest
growing economy in the world (behind only Japan). It became a liberal democracy
almost overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked what he
thought his most important legacy was. He replied, "The middle class." Franco
was not a democrat, but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy
in Spain.
To get back to the US, we now have a Third World economy. We can't too
surprised that our politics also look increasingly like those of a Third
World country. Thus, the rise of Trump, Sanders, the alt-right, the SJW's,
Black Lives Matter, etc.
The evolution of the MSM into an American version of Pravda/Izvestia
has been a lengthy process and dates back at least to the days of Walter
Lippmann (ostensibly a journalist but upon whom Roosevelt, Truman and JFK
had no qualms about calling for advice).
With the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon of the blogosphere,
the MSM has no choice but to cast off whatever pretensions to objectivity
they may have had and, instead, now preach to the choir so they can keep
themselves viable in an increasingly competitive market where more people
get their news from such as Matt Drudge than from the NY-LA Times or the
WaPo
Suppose a more composed candidate stood up against the PC police, and generally
stood for these same 6 principles, and did so in a much more coherent and
rational manner. I propose that he would be demolished within no time at
all. Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election?
Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any
fertile soil to grow in. If he ran on principle instead of capturing an
undefined spirit, if he tried to answer the charges against him in a rational
manner, all it would do it produce more fertile soil for the PC charges
to stick. Trump may have stumbled upon the model for future conservative
candidates when running in a nation where the mainstream press is so thoroughly
against you. Just make a lot of noise and ignore them. If you engage in
the argument with them, they'll destroy you.
@Cecelia: The issue is not Trump – it is those who support him. Are
we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are
we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump ?
Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial
Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored
genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the
30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack
of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine
about?
By any standard, conditions then were worse for the white working class
than is the case today, and yes, my grandparents were working class: one
grandfather worked for the railroad, the other for a lumber mill. And yes,
there was alcoholism, and domestic abuse, and crime, and suicide amongst
the populace in the 1930s.
The role of religion was more pervasive then, but to tell the truth,
I expect Rod would describe my grandparents on both side as Moral Therapeutic
Deists; by Rod's standard I believe that is true for most Christians throughout
history.
Just what is different about today, that brings all this rage and resentment?
Could it be that racial and ethnic and religious minorities, and women now
have a piece of the pie and a good part of the white working class cannot
stand it?
And Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as does the fact that so very
many Americans support him, whether wholeheartedly swallowing his poison,
or because they close their eyes and minds and hearts to just what kind
of a man he is.
The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in and of itself isnt
necessarily bad. However, the annihilation of culture, religion, and autonomy
at the hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian elite certainly
is – and that is what is happening under what is referred to as globalization.
The revolt against the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington
has now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the rebels be swift
and complete.
"You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance
industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should
continue paying for it."
If we all accept your definition then we can't argue with you. Whatever
you want to call it, there is an entire industry (most conservative media)
that feeds a victimization mentality among whites, conservatives, evangelicals
etc (all those labels apply to me by the way) that closely resembles the
grievance outlook. The only difference is in what circles it is taken seriously.
Why else do so many of us get so bent out of shape when employees have the
audacity to say "happy holidays" at the department store. As made apparent
on this blog we do need to be realistic and vigilant about the real threats
and the direction the culture is going, but by whining about every perceived
slight and insisting everyone buy into our version of "Christian America"
(while anointing a vile figure like Trump as our strongman) we are undercutting
the legitimate grievances we do have.
Everyone has heard how far is moving small car production to Mexico and
forwarded saying no one in America will lose their jobs because the production
will be shifted to SUVs and other vehicles.
That's not the problem the problem is instead of creating more jobs in
America the jobs are being created in Mexico and not helping Americans.
"BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active
in the game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush
politics gives them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going
to give it up."
Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed. They claim that
they hate Disneyworld because of their pro-gay policies, but when they have
to choose between Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses.
What happens when the status quo media turns a presidential election
into a referendum regarding the media's ability to shape public opinion
and direct "purchasing" choices?
The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are waking up to it.
This will almost always mean voting for the Republicans in national elections,
but in a primary situation, I will vote for the Republican who can best
be counted on to defend religious liberty, even if he's not 100 percent
on board with what I consider to be promoting the Good. If it means voting
for a Republican that the defense hawks or the Chamber of Commerce disdain,
I have no problem at all with that.
How is this different than cultural conservatives voted before Trump?
We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone can pretty much
agree that the traditionalists lost.
Now whether Dreher et all lost because the broader culture refused to
listen or because they simply couldn't make a convincing argument is a question
that surrounds a very particular program pursued by conservatives, traditionalists
and the religious right. It is certain that the Republican Party as a vehicle
for those values has been taken out and been beat like a rented mule. It
seems to that Josh Stuart has pulled a rabbit out of the hat. Trump is,
if anything, pretty incoherent and whatever "principles" he represents were
discovered in the breach; a little like bad gunnery practice, one shot low,
one shot lower and then a hit. If Trump represents anything it is the fact
that the base of the party was not who many of us thought they were. Whatever
Christian values we thought they were representing are hardly recognizable
now.
What truly puzzles me more and increasingly so is Rod's vision of what
America is supposed to be under a Dreher regime. I'm not sure what that
regime looks like? Behind all the theological underpinning and high-sounding
abstractions what does a ground-level political and legislative program
for achieving a society he is willing to whole-heartedly participate in
look like?
Politics is a reflection of culture but culture is responsive to politics.
What political order does the Ben Op crowd wish to install in place of the
one we have now – short of the parousia – and how does that affect our life
and autonomy as citizens and individuals? He says Christians just want to
be left alone but they seem to have made and are still making a lot of noise
for people who want to be left alone so I have to assume they want something
over and above being left alone.
I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning
the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows
Rod and company to relax?
a couple "ideas" come to mind. re: deplorable. SOME (no value in speculating
or establishing a number) are deplorable. it's funny (actually, quite sad)
Trump's we don't have time to be politically correct mantra is ignored when
his opponent (a politician who helped establish the concept of politically
correctness) steals a page from his playbook. on a certain level, perhaps
the eastern elite, intellectual liberal grabbed the "irony" hammer from
the toolbox? ever the shrewd, calculating (narcissistic and insecure) carny
barker, Trump has not offered any "new" ideas. he's merely (like any politician)
put his finger in the air and decided to "run" from the "nationalist, racist,
nativist, side of the politically correct/incorrect betting line. at the
end of the day, there are likely as many deplorable folks on the Clinton
bandwagon; it's just (obviously) not in her interests to expose these "boosters"
at HER rallies/fundraising events. in many ways it speaks to the lesser
of two evils is still evil "idea". politics – especially national campaigns
are not so much about which party/candidate has the better ideas, but rather
which is less deplorable.
"Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod attitude toward the
alt-right and white nationalist groups and with his willingness to appropriate
their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's dangerous.
Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms,
and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark
forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially
if, he loses. The possibility that he might win has left me wondering whether
I even belong in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I might
feel for the folks globalism has left behind."
One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed
dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
The most interesting part of the essay is near the end, where he briefly
discusses how non-whites might react to our political realignment.
After all, will the white liberal be able to manipulate these groups
forever?
For example, we are seeing the 'official black leaders' who represent
them on TV shift from being activist clergymen to being (white paid and
hosed) gay activists and mulattoes from outside the mainstream of black
culture. How long can this continue?
"Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.
"thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy
matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter;
(4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without
which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated."
They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration,
stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat
to them."
The Jews, having lived as strangers among foreign peoples for the better
part of 2 millennia, have always been on the receiving end of racial hatred.
As a result many Western Jews have an instinctive mistrust of nationalist
movements and a natural tendency towards globalism.
The media has done a splendid job of portraying Trump as the next Hitler,
so, understandably, there's a lot of fear. My Jewish grandparents are terrified
of the man.
I am not a globalist, and (due to the SCOTUS issue) will probably vote
for Trump, even though I have no love for the man himself. I think the "Trump
the racist" meme is based on confirmation bias, not reality, but I understand
where the fear comes from.
"I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume that Ben Op
is a one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives
into irrelevant enclaves.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best
American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local
communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience.
Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere
products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.
If these formative communities hold to authentic, compassionate Judeo-Christian
values and practices, all the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an
alternative to the assembly-line politically correct cultural warriors being
produced by many of our elite cultural institutions."
Bingo.
If you want to fundamentally transform the culture, you have to withdraw
from it, at least partially. But there's no need to wall yourself off. A
Benedict Option community can and should be politically active, primarily
at the local level, where the most good can be done.
The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut
themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world
around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls,
and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ.
"Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on that notion. Trump
merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her
ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing about
her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was is to engage in the same
sort of dishonesty for which Clinton is so well known.
I never cared much for Trump but he has all the right enemies and is
growing on me.
"It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics.
It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There
are white people, and there are blah people. "
They love Ben Carson and Allan West, last time I checked neither men
were white.
"Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial
Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored
genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the
30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack
of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine
about?"
Well, back then, the government was doing stuff for the common people.
A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA, Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered
the "forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to multinationals
and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and women that make up the backbone of
our economy have been forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember
them - with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump.
The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both parties reminds me
of this quote from C.S. Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast": "…They ever
be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic behavior"
means the behavior that democracies like or the behavior that will preserve
a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that
these need not be the same."
Globalism is just swell for the multinational corporation, but it is
nothing more or less than Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given
legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it, like Frankenstein,
will turns on its creator and imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence.
One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed
dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor
easily quelled.
And you would have the benefit of evidence (or, well, evidence that is
not stale by nearly a century). It wasn't Trump supporters beating up people
in San Jose. And if you look to Europe as a guide to what can happen in
America, things start looking far, far worse.
"I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning
the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows
Rod and company to relax?"
While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many traditional Catholics.
The end goal is the re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which
means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture, and a state which
governs according to Christian principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation,
and in that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be necessary.
I am guessing that Rod has not said this explicitly, or laid out a concrete
plan, because he is writing a book for Christians in general. And if you
get into too many specifics, you are going to run right into the enormous
theological and philosophical differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.
Also, if Rod were to start talking about "The Social Reign of Christ
the King", 3/4 of you would lose your minds.
Of course, the current prospect for a Christian culture and state look
bleak, to say the least. But we can play the long game, the Catholic Church
is good at that. It took over 300 years to convert the Roman Empire. It
was 700 years from the founding of the first Benedictine monastery until
St. Thomas Aquinas and the High Middle Ages. We can wait that long, at least.
I rather think, in concurrence with Prof. Cole, that Trump is a simulacrum
within a simulacrum with a simulacrum: there is no "extra-mediatic" Trump
candidate, ergo there is no "extra-mediatic" presidential electoral race
(if limited to the two "mainstreamed" candidates), ergo there is no presidential
election tout court, ergo there is no democracy at the presidential election
level in the U.S–just simulacra deceptively reflecting simulacra, in any
case, the resulting effect is a mirage, a distortion, but above all an ILLUSION.
All this is, it seems to me, is a transition to a different favorite deadly
sin. We've had pride, avarice, and the current favorite is lust; the new
favorite appears to be wrath. Gluttony, sloth, and envy have not been absent,
but they have not been the driving force in politics recently.
Also important was the fact that FDR did not stoke the fires of class
conflict. A patrician himself, FDR's goal was not to overturn the existing
social order but rather to preserve it by correcting its injustices. FDR
was the moderate leader the country needed at the time. Without him, we
might well have succumbed to a demagogic or perhaps even dictatorial government
under Charles Coughlin, Huey Long, or Norman Thomas. In contrast, Hillary
and Trump seek to use fringe groups (BLM, alt-right) for their own agendas.
Let's hope whoever wins can keep her or his pets mollified and contained,
but courting extremists is always a risky business. Indeed, Hillary may
be worse than Trump in this respect, since there appears to be no daylight
between her and the SJW's.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best
American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local
communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience.
Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere
products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.
Ben Op or not, its always a great notion. And you don't have to withdraw
from the culture, THIS IS American culture (traditionally speaking). We
just need to reaffirm it.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters…
Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and
even with double intensity?
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a long list of unpaid contractors suing
her… of course that's because she never built hotels, and I don't think
she ever declared bankruptcy either. We have a batch of slumlords in Milwaukee
who are little Trumps… they run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines
for building violations, declare bankruptcy or plead poverty and make occasional
payments of $50, and meantime they spend tends of thousands of dollars buying
up distressed property at sheriff's auctions. All of them are black, all
of them have beautiful homes in mostly "white" suburbs, and I wouldn't vote
for any of them for dogcatcher, much less president.
That said, Hillary is an ego-bloated lying sleaze, and I wouldn't vote
for her if she were running against almost anyone but Trump.
Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings about right-wing
white mobs that are about to rememerge any day. It's been decades since
there was a white riot in this country.
There hasn't been a real riot of any nature in quite a while. And no,
that little fracas in Milwaukee doesn't count. A few dozen thugs burning
four black-owned businesses while everyone living in the neighborhood denounces
then falls short of a riot.
I agree that we are not likely to see right-wing "white" mobs posing
much of a threat to anyone… they're mostly couch potatoes anyway. But it
is true that until the 1940s, a "race riot" meant a white mob rampaging
through a black neighborhood. And there have been very few black riots that
went deep into a "white" neighborhood … they stayed in black neighborhoods
too.
This is an election about feeling under siege.
But we're not, and most of the adults in the room know it.
Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test for pundits
peddling a point of view.
I think that explains a lot of Trump's support. Its not who he is, what
he says, or what he does or will do, its what they think they SEE in him.
I have to admit, I did a bit of that over Barack Obama in 2008, and he did
disappoint. Obama has been one of our best presidents in a long time, but
that's a rather low bar.
"There are, then, two developments we are likely to see going forward. First,
cultural conservatives will seriously consider a political "Benedict Option,"
dropping out of the Republican Party and forming a like-minded Book Group,
unconcerned with winning elections and very concerned with maintaining their
"principles." Their fidelity is to Aristotle rather than to winning the
battle for the political soul of America. …"
You know, people spout this stuff as if the Republican party is conservative.
It started drifting from conservative frame more than forty years ago. By
the time we get to the 2000 elections, it;s been home an entrenched band
of strategics concerned primarily with winning to advance policies tat have
little to do with conservative thought.
I doubt that I will become a member of a book club. And I doubt that
I will stop voting according to my conservative view points.
I generally think any idea that Christians are going to be left to their
own devices doubtful or that they would want to design communities not already
defined by scripture and a life in Christ.
_______________
"If the Ben Op doesn't call on Christians to abandon politics altogether,
it does call on them to recalibrate their (our) understanding of what politics
is and what it can do. Politics, rightly understood, is more than statecraft.
Ben Op politics are Christian politics for a post-Christian culture - that
is, a culture that no longer shares some key basic Christian values . .
."
I am just at a loss to comprehend this. A person who claims to live in
Christ already calibrates their lives in the frame of Christ and led by
some extent by the Spirit of Christ. Nothing about a world destined to become
more worldly will change that. What may happen is that a kind of christian
spiritual revival and renewal will occur.
" . . . orthodox Christians will come to be seen as threats to the common
good, simply because of the views we hold and the practices we live by out
of fidelity to our religion. . ."
If this accurate, that christians are deemed a threat to the state, unless
that threat is just to their participation, the idea "safe spaces" wheres
christians hang out and do their own thing hardly seems a realistic. If
christians are considered a threat – then most likely the ultimate goal
will be to get rid of them altogether. You outlaw faith and practice. Or
you do what HS and colleges have done to students who arrive on the campuses.
You inundate them with how backward their thinking until the student and
then proceed to tell them they are just like everyone else.
Believers are expected to be in the world and not of it. And by in it,
I think Christ intended them to be active participants.
The question is this: what do you do when the policies or ideas you stand
for or at least, agree with, are advanced by someone with as appalling a
character as Trump? What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances
of mine who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his
utterly indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest
as well.
I'd be more impressed if, after Edwin Edwards, Trump's fans said "Vote
for the swindler, it's important" – rather than use lies or their own credulity
to defend him.
I read this on Friday and have thought much about it since. I came by earlier
this evening and had about half of a long post written in response, but
got too caught up in the Georgia/Missouri game to finish it. I also determined
that it wouldn't matter what I said. The conservatives would continue to
harp about the evils of identity politics, refusing to acknowledge the long
history of conservatives engaging in identity politics in both Europe and
America from roughly the high Middle Ages to the present. It seemed more
rational to delete what I had written rather than save it and come back
to finish it.
It just so happened that as the game ended, I clicked on Huffingtonpost
to check the headlines. Lo and behold, the top story was this one about
Jane Goodall's latest statement regarding identity politics in the animal
kingdom:
"What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances of mine
who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his utterly
indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest as well."
I don't defend his vile character. I readily admit it. So do most of
those I know who intend to vote for him.
It's too bad that Clinton is at least equally vile.
For Hillary that's a big problem – the "character" issue is at best a
wash, so the choice boils down to other things.
The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents
pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment.
That does not bode well for Clinton.
"I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning
the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows
Rod and company to relax?"
------
I think those are good questions, and read in the best light possible, might
be interpreted as being asked by someone honestly seeking to understand
the concerns of traditional Christians today.
I can't answer for Rod, but for me the short answers are,
"1) In present America, I don't think there are any "cultural change"
possible which might reassure Christians, because we are in a downward spiral
which has not yet run its course. The articles and commentary posted here
by Rod show we've not yet reached the peak of what government and technology
will do to the lives of believing Christians.
2) The post-BenOp - perhaps decades in the future - vision that would
allow me to relax would be a national reaffirmation that our rights, as
partially defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God
the Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of conception, and that
the traditional family is the best promoter of sound moral, cultural and
economic health. I'd relax a bit, though not entirely, if that happened.
In a September 2015 interview with NBC, Clinton defended partial-birth
abortions again and voiced her support for late-term abortions up until
birth, too.
She also openly supports forcing taxpayers to fund these abortions by
repealing the Hyde Amendment. The amendment prohibits direct taxpayer funding
of abortion in Medicaid. If repealed, researchers estimate that 33,000 more
babies will be aborted every year in the U.S.
Yes, We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.
"Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election?
Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any
fertile soil to grow in."
I think far too much credit is being given to Mr. Trump. The reason he
can stand is because the people he represents have been fed up with the
some of what he stands for long before he entered the fray.
If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or his
speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts)
delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman.
His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections"
tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most
people are already at - he would not be the nominee.
There's a difference in being a .Mr. Trump fan and a supporter. As a
supporter, I would be curious to know what lies I have used to support him.
We have some serious differences, but I think my support has been fairly
above board. In fact, i think the support of most have been fairly straight
up I am not sure there is much hidden about Mr. Trump.
The only new issue that has been brought up is the issue of staff accountability.
Has he neglected to pay his staff, is this just an organizational natter
or complete nonsense.
The other factor that has played out to his advantage are the news stories
that repeatedly turn out false, distorted or nonexistent.
The media already in the credibility hole seems very content to dig themselves
in deeper.
I didn't see the post where you disavowed liberals as well, so I was
too hasty with the "your side"
Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings about right-wing
white mobs that are about to rememerge any day. It's been decades since
there was a white riot in this country.
fwiw, my sense is that the Benedict Option (from the snippets that you have
shared with usm particularly in the posts on Norcia and other communities
already pursuing some sort of "option") represents a return of conservative
Christians to a more healthy, hands-off relationship with national politics.
Conservative Christians danced with the Republican Party for a long-time,
but past a certain point had to stop pretending that the Republican Party
cared more about them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and
the MIC mainly). Liberal Christians, some of them, danced with the other
side of Mammon (big government and social programs, etc) and perhaps just
got absorbed. But the point is I think you are returning to a better place,
reverting to some sort of norm, the alliance with the GOP was a strange
infatuation that wasn't going to sustain anyway.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters…
Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and
even with double intensity?
Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up
more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you
care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic
than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over?
Rod, when you say the following, you articulate exactly why I have reluctantly
become a libertarian:
-"On a practical level, that means that I will no longer vote primarily
on the social issues that have dictated my vote in the past, but I will
vote primarily for candidates who will be better at protecting my community's
right to be left alone."-
Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage oral arguments presented
before the Supreme Court, I concluded that libertarianism and either the
current Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that those of
us with traditional religious and moral convictions can hope for in a decidedly
post-Christian America. I wrote about why I believe this to be so at
http://www.skiprigney.com/2015/04/29/how-the-ssm-debate-made-me-a-libertarian/
I don't believe for a minute that the majority of elected officials in
the Republican Party have the backbone to stand up for religious liberty
in the face of corporate pressure. You need look no farther than how the
Republicans caved last year in Indiana on the protection of religious liberty.
There are many libertarians who are going to work to protect the rights
of people to do things that undermine the common good. But, I have more
faith that they'll protect the rights of a cultural minority such as traditionalist
Christians than I have in either the Republicans or the Democrats.
It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics.
It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There
are white people, and there are blah people. White people will be in charge,
and blah people can have a piece of the pie to the extent they agree to
pretend to be white people.
Cecelia wonders: "Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of
a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump?"
My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a Republic if our government
creates the conditions for a thriving middle class: the most important condition
being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live an independent existence.
The vast majority of manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and
even higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development) are increasingly
being outsourced as well.
If you look at the monthly payroll jobs reports put out by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, you will see that the vast majority of new jobs are
in retail trade, health care and social assistance, waitresses and bartenders,
and government. Most of these jobs are part-time jobs. None of these jobs
produce any goods than can be exported. Aside from government jobs, these
are not jobs that pay well enough for people to thrive independently. This
is why more Americans aged 25-34 live with their parents than independently
with spouses and children of their own. It is also why many people now must
work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. As for government jobs, they
are tax-supported, and thus a drain on the economy. I'm not a libertarian.
I recognize that government provides many crucial services. But it is unproductive
to have too many bureaucrats living off of tax revenues.
Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without a thriving middle
class, democracy is unsustainable. Struggling people filled with hate and
resentment are ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces.
Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well. His goal was to make
it unthinkable for his country to descend into civil war ever again. He
achieved this. Before Franco, Spain was a Third World h*llhole plagued by
radical ideologies like communism, regional separatism, and anarchism. [Fascism
had its following as well, but it was never too popular. The Falange (which
was the closest thing to a fascist movement in Spain, though it was not
really fascist, as it was profoundly Christian and rejected Nietzschean
neo-paganism) was irrelevant before Francoism. Under Francoism, it was one
of the three pillars that supported the regime (the other two being monarchists
and Catholics), but it was never the most influential pillar.] When Franco
died, Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and the second-fastest
growing economy in the world (behind only Japan). It became a liberal democracy
almost overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked what he
thought his most important legacy was. He replied, "The middle class." Franco
was not a democrat, but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy
in Spain.
To get back to the US, we now have a Third World economy. We can't too
surprised that our politics also look increasingly like those of a Third
World country. Thus, the rise of Trump, Sanders, the alt-right, the SJW's,
Black Lives Matter, etc.
The evolution of the MSM into an American version of Pravda/Izvestia
has been a lengthy process and dates back at least to the days of Walter
Lippmann (ostensibly a journalist but upon whom Roosevelt, Truman and JFK
had no qualms about calling for advice).
With the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon of the blogosphere,
the MSM has no choice but to cast off whatever pretensions to objectivity
they may have had and, instead, now preach to the choir so they can keep
themselves viable in an increasingly competitive market where more people
get their news from such as Matt Drudge than from the NY-LA Times or the
WaPo
Suppose a more composed candidate stood up against the PC police, and generally
stood for these same 6 principles, and did so in a much more coherent and
rational manner. I propose that he would be demolished within no time at
all. Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election?
Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any
fertile soil to grow in. If he ran on principle instead of capturing an
undefined spirit, if he tried to answer the charges against him in a rational
manner, all it would do it produce more fertile soil for the PC charges
to stick. Trump may have stumbled upon the model for future conservative
candidates when running in a nation where the mainstream press is so thoroughly
against you. Just make a lot of noise and ignore them. If you engage in
the argument with them, they'll destroy you.
@Cecelia: The issue is not Trump – it is those who support him. Are we as
a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply
fools to be manipulated by people like Trump ?
Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial
Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored
genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the
30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack
of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine
about? By any standard, conditions then were worse for the white working
class than is the case today, and yes, my grandparents were working class:
one grandfather worked for the railroad, the other for a lumber mill. And
yes, there was alcoholism, and domestic abuse, and crime, and suicide amongst
the populace in the 1930s. The role of religion was more pervasive then,
but to tell the truth, I expect Rod would describe my grandparents on both
side as Moral Therapeutic Deists; by Rod's standard I believe that is true
for most Christians throughout history.
Just what is different about today, that brings all this rage and resentment?
Could it be that racial and ethnic and religious minorities, and women now
have a piece of the pie and a good part of the white working class cannot
stand it?
And Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as does the fact that so very
many Americans support him, whether wholeheartedly swallowing his poison,
or because they close their eyes and minds and hearts to just what kind
of a man he is.
The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in and of itself isnt
necessarily bad. However, the annihilation of culture,religion, and autonomy
at the hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian elite certainly
is – and that is what is happening under what is referred to as globalization.
The revolt against the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington
has now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the rebels be swift
and complete.
"You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance
industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should
continue paying for it."
If we all accept your definition then we can't argue with you. Whatever
you want to call it, there is an entire industry (most conservative media)
that feeds a victimization mentality among whites, conservatives, evangelicals
etc (all those labels apply to me by the way) that closely resembles the
grievance outlook. The only difference is in what circles it is taken seriously.
Why else do so many of us get so bent out of shape when employees have the
audacity to say "happy holidays" at the department store. As made apparent
on this blog we do need to be realistic and vigilant about the real threats
and the direction the culture is going, but by whining about every perceived
slight and insisting everyone buy into our version of "Christian America"
(while anointing a vile figure like Trump as our strongman) we are undercutting
the legitimate grievances we do have.
Everyone has heard how far is moving small car production to Mexico and
forwarded saying no one in America will lose their jobs because the production
will be shifted to SUVs and other vehicles.
That's not the problem the problem is instead of creating more jobs in
America the jobs are being created in Mexico and not helping Americans.
"BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the
game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives
them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up."
Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed. They claim that
they hate Disneyworld because of their pro-gay policies, but when they have
to choose between Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses.
What happens when the status quo media turns a presidential election
into a referendum regarding the media's ability to shape public opinion
and direct "purchasing" choices?
The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are waking up to it.
This will almost always mean voting for the Republicans in national elections,
but in a primary situation, I will vote for the Republican who can best
be counted on to defend religious liberty, even if he's not 100 percent
on board with what I consider to be promoting the Good. If it means voting
for a Republican that the defense hawks or the Chamber of Commerce disdain,
I have no problem at all with that.
How is this different than cultural conservatives voted before Trump?
If we elect Trump as POTUS, we deserve everything that happens to us.
Don't blame the progressives when Trump says something about defaulting
on the US debt and the stock market crashes.
Don't blame the progressives when China moves ahead us by leaps and bound
in science and technology because we pull a Kansas and cut taxes left right
and center, then decide to get rid of all government-funded research.
Don't blame the progressives when The Wall doesn't get built, Trump says
"who, me? I never promised anything!" Ditto for the lack of return of well-paid
coal-mining jobs.
And don't blame the progressives when you discover Trump has sold you
down the river for a song, refuses to appoint "conservatives" as SCOTUS
judges, and throws the First Amendment out the window.
We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone can pretty much agree
that the traditionalists lost. Now whether Dreher et all lost because the
broader culture refused to listen or because they simply couldn't make a
convincing argument is a question that surrounds a very particular program
pursued by conservatives, traditionalists and the religious right. It is
certain that the Republican Party as a vehicle for those values has been
taken out and been beat like a rented mule. It seems to that Josh Stuart
has pulled a rabbit out of the hat. Trump is, if anything, pretty incoherent
and whatever "principles" he represents were discovered in the breach; a
little like bad gunnery practice, one shot low, one shot lower and then
a hit. If Trump represents anything it is the fact that the base of the
party was not who many of us thought they were. Whatever Christian values
we thought they were representing are hardly recognizable now.
What truly puzzles me more and increasingly so is Rod's vision of what
America is supposed to be under a Dreher regime. I'm not sure what that
regime looks like? Behind all the theological underpinning and high-sounding
abstractions what does a ground-level political and legislative program
for achieving a society he is willing to whole-heartedly participate in
look like?
Politics is a reflection of culture but culture is responsive to politics.
What political order does the Ben Op crowd wish to install in place of the
one we have now – short of the parousia – and how does that affect our life
and autonomy as citizens and individuals? He says Christians just want to
be left alone but they seem to have made and are still making a lot of noise
for people who want to be left alone so I have to assume they want something
over and above being left alone.
I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning
the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows
Rod and company to relax?
a couple "ideas" come to mind. re: deplorable. SOME (no value in speculating
or establishing a number) are deplorable. it's funny (actually, quite sad)
Trump's we don't have time to be politically correct mantra is ignored when
his opponent (a politician who helped establish the concept of politically
correctness) steals a page from his playbook. on a certain level, perhaps
the eastern elite, intellectual liberal grabbed the "irony" hammer from
the toolbox? ever the shrewd, calculating (narcissistic and insecure) carny
barker, Trump has not offered any "new" ideas. he's merely (like any politician)
put his finger in the air and decided to "run" from the "nationalist, racist,
nativist, side of the politically correct/incorrect betting line. at the
end of the day, there are likely as many deplorable folks on the Clinton
bandwagon; it's just (obviously) not in her interests to expose these "boosters"
at HER rallies/fundraising events. in many ways it speaks to the lesser
of two evils is still evil "idea". politics – especially national campaigns
are not so much about which party/candidate has the better ideas, but rather
which is less deplorable.
"Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod attitude toward the
alt-right and white nationalist groups and with his willingness to appropriate
their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's dangerous.
Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms,
and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark
forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially
if, he loses. The possibility that he might win has left me wondering whether
I even belong in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I might
feel for the folks globalism has left behind."
One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed
dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
The most interesting part of the essay is near the end, where he briefly
discusses how non-whites might react to our political realignment.
After all, will the white liberal be able to manipulate these groups
forever?
For example, we are seeing the 'official black leaders' who represent
them on TV shift from being activist clergymen to being (white paid and
hosed) gay activists and mulattoes from outside the mainstream of black
culture. How long can this continue?
"Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.
"thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy
matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter;
(4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without
which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated."
They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration,
stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat
to them."
The Jews, having lived as strangers among foreign peoples for the better
part of 2 millennia, have always been on the receiving end of racial hatred.
As a result many Western Jews have an instinctive mistrust of nationalist
movements and a natural tendency towards globalism.
The media has done a splendid job of portraying Trump as the next Hitler,
so, understandably, there's a lot of fear. My Jewish grandparents are terrified
of the man.
I am not a globalist, and (due to the SCOTUS issue) will probably vote
for Trump, even though I have no love for the man himself. I think the "Trump
the racist" meme is based on confirmation bias, not reality, but I understand
where the fear comes from.
"I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume that Ben Op
is a one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives
into irrelevant enclaves.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best
American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local
communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience.
Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere
products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.
If these formative communities hold to authentic, compassionate Judeo-Christian
values and practices, all the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an
alternative to the assembly-line politically correct cultural warriors being
produced by many of our elite cultural institutions."
Bingo.
If you want to fundamentally transform the culture, you have to withdraw
from it, at least partially. But there's no need to wall yourself off. A
Benedict Option community can and should be politically active, primarily
at the local level, where the most good can be done.
The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut
themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world
around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls,
and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ.
"Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on that notion. Trump
merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her
ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing about
her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was is to engage in the same
sort of dishonesty for which Clinton is so well known.
I never cared much for Trump but he has all the right enemies and is
growing on me.
"It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics.
It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There
are white people, and there are blah people. "
They love Ben Carson and Allan West, last time I checked neither men
were white.
"Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial
Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored
genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the
30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack
of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine
about?"
Well, back then, the government was doing stuff for the common people.
A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA, Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered
the "forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to multinationals
and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and women that make up the backbone of
our economy have been forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember
them - with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump.
The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both parties reminds me of
this quote from C.S. Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast":
"…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic
behavior" means the behavior that democracies like or the behavior that
will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur
to them that these need not be the same."
Globalism is just swell for the multinational corporation, but it is
nothing more or less than Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given
legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it, like Frankenstein,
will turns on its creator and imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence.
One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed
dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
And you would have the benefit of evidence (or, well, evidence that is not
stale by nearly a century). It wasn't Trump supporters beating up people in
San Jose. And if you look to Europe as a guide to what can happen in America,
things start looking far, far worse.
"I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning
the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows
Rod and company to relax?"
While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many traditional Catholics.
The end goal is the re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which
means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture, and a state which
governs according to Christian principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation,
and in that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be necessary.
I am guessing that Rod has not said this explicitly, or laid out a concrete
plan, because he is writing a book for Christians in general. And if you
get into too many specifics, you are going to run right into the enormous
theological and philosophical differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.
Also, if Rod were to start talking about "The Social Reign of Christ
the King", 3/4 of you would lose your minds.
Of course, the current prospect for a Christian culture and state look
bleak, to say the least. But we can play the long game, the Catholic Church
is good at that. It took over 300 years to convert the Roman Empire. It
was 700 years from the founding of the first Benedictine monastery until
St. Thomas Aquinas and the High Middle Ages. We can wait that long, at least.
I rather think, in concurrence with Prof. Cole, that Trump is a simulacrum
within a simulacrum with a simulacrum: there is no "extra-mediatic" Trump
candidate, ergo there is no "extra-mediatic" presidential electoral race
(if limited to the two "mainstreamed" candidates), ergo there is no presidential
election tout court, ergo there is no democracy at the presidential election
level in the U.S–just simulacra deceptively reflecting simulacra, in any
case, the resulting effect is a mirage, a distortion, but above all an ILLUSION.
All this is, it seems to me, is a transition to a different favorite deadly
sin. We've had pride, avarice, and the current favorite is lust; the new
favorite appears to be wrath. Gluttony, sloth, and envy have not been absent,
but they have not been the driving force in politics recently.
Also important was the fact that FDR did not stoke the fires of class
conflict. A patrician himself, FDR's goal was not to overturn the existing
social order but rather to preserve it by correcting its injustices. FDR
was the moderate leader the country needed at the time. Without him, we
might well have succumbed to a demagogic or perhaps even dictatorial government
under Charles Coughlin, Huey Long, or Norman Thomas. In contrast, Hillary
and Trump seek to use fringe groups (BLM, alt-right) for their own agendas.
Let's hope whoever wins can keep her or his pets mollified and contained,
but courting extremists is always a risky business. Indeed, Hillary may
be worse than Trump in this respect, since there appears to be no daylight
between her and the SJW's.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best
American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local
communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience.
Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere
products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.
Ben Op or not, its always a great notion. And you don't have to withdraw
from the culture, THIS IS American culture (traditionally speaking). We
just need to reaffirm it.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters…
Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and
even with double intensity?
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a long list of unpaid contractors suing
her… of course that's because she never built hotels, and I don't think
she ever declared bankruptcy either. We have a batch of slumlords in Milwaukee
who are little Trumps… they run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines
for building violations, declare bankruptcy or plead poverty and make occasional
payments of $50, and meantime they spend tends of thousands of dollars buying
up distressed property at sheriff's auctions. All of them are black, all
of them have beautiful homes in mostly "white" suburbs, and I wouldn't vote
for any of them for dogcatcher, much less president.
That said, Hillary is an ego-bloated lying sleaze, and I wouldn't vote
for her if she were running against almost anyone but Trump.
Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings about right-wing
white mobs that are about to rememerge any day. It's been decades since
there was a white riot in this country.
There hasn't been a real riot of any nature in quite a while. And no,
that little fracas in Milwaukee doesn't count. A few dozen thugs burning
four black-owned businesses while everyone living in the neighborhood denounces
then falls short of a riot.
I agree that we are not likely to see right-wing "white" mobs posing
much of a threat to anyone… they're mostly couch potatoes anyway. But it
is true that until the 1940s, a "race riot" meant a white mob rampaging
through a black neighborhood. And there have been very few black riots that
went deep into a "white" neighborhood … they stayed in black neighborhoods
too.
This is an election about feeling under siege.
But we're not, and most of the adults in the room know it.
Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test for pundits
peddling a point of view.
I think that explains a lot of Trump's support. Its not who he is, what
he says, or what he does or will do, its what they think they SEE in him.
I have to admit, I did a bit of that over Barack Obama in 2008, and he did
disappoint. Obama has been one of our best presidents in a long time, but
that's a rather low bar.
"There are, then, two developments we are likely to see going forward. First,
cultural conservatives will seriously consider a political "Benedict Option,"
dropping out of the Republican Party and forming a like-minded Book Group,
unconcerned with winning elections and very concerned with maintaining their
"principles." Their fidelity is to Aristotle rather than to winning the
battle for the political soul of America. …"
You know, people spout this stuff as if the Republican party is conservative.
It started drifting from conservative frame more than forty years ago. By
the time we get to the 2000 elections, it;s been home an entrenched band
of strategics concerned primarily with winning to advance policies tat have
little to do with conservative thought.
I doubt that I will become a member of a book club. And I doubt that
I will stop voting according to my conservative view points.
I generally think any idea that Christians are going to be left to their
own devices doubtful or that they would want to design communities not already
defined by scripture and a life in Christ.
_______________
"If the Ben Op doesn't call on Christians to abandon politics altogether,
it does call on them to recalibrate their (our) understanding of what politics
is and what it can do. Politics, rightly understood, is more than statecraft.
Ben Op politics are Christian politics for a post-Christian culture - that
is, a culture that no longer shares some key basic Christian values . .
."
I am just at a loss to comprehend this. A person who claims to live in
Christ already calibrates their lives in the frame of Christ and led by
some extent by the Spirit of Christ. Nothing about a world destined to become
more worldly will change that. What may happen is that a kind of christian
spiritual revival and renewal will occur.
" . . . orthodox Christians will come to be seen as threats to the common
good, simply because of the views we hold and the practices we live by out
of fidelity to our religion. . ."
If this accurate, that christians are deemed a threat to the state, unless
that threat is just to their participation, the idea "safe spaces" wheres
christians hang out and do their own thing hardly seems a realistic. If
christians are considered a threat – then most likely the ultimate goal
will be to get rid of them altogether. You outlaw faith and practice. Or
you do what HS and colleges have done to students who arrive on the campuses.
You inundate them with how backward their thinking until the student and
then proceed to tell them they are just like everyone else.
Believers are expected to be in the world and not of it. And by in it,
I think Christ intended them to be active participants.
"Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but National Review has
a small piece about Archbishop Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians
to become more engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and the
Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as well."
Let me answer it for him. Perhaps just like not everyone is called to
the contemplative life in a monastery but are called to the secular world,
so is the church as a whole these days individually called to different
arenas. That said, the basic principles of the Ben Op are hardly opposed
to being active in the broader community. It just means there has to be
some intentionality in maintaining a Christian worldview in a hostile larger
culture.
"The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut
themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world
around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls,
and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ."
Just a technical comment. You have to pay attention to which orders you
are referring to, because many of them were indeed founded to retreat from
the world. At one time, the idea of a monk wandering outside of the monastery,
or a nun particularly, was considered scandalous. I read alot of monastic
history about 20 years ago, and I seem to recall the Benedictines were actually
focused on prayer and manual labor/work within the monastery area. It was
later with orders like the Dominicans that were sent out into the community,
and they caused the bishops a lot of headaches because they competed with
priests and bishops in preaching publicly. It took awhile to sort out who
was allowed to do what. Modern religious orders founded since the 18th century
are quite different from the old orders.
Another area of interest you could check out, besides reading some of
the religious rules of life of many of these old orders just for the sake
of comparison, is the differences between the cenobitic and eremitic monastic
communities of the very early church. The original founding of religious
orders even back then was also considered a direct challenge to the church
hierarchy and took a lot of time sorting out that they weren't some kind
of troublemakers, too. Modern Catholics have entirely too little knowledge
of the development and maybe too pious a view of it.
The question is this: what do you do when the policies or ideas you stand
for or at least, agree with, are advanced by someone with as appalling a
character as Trump? What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances
of mine who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his
utterly indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest
as well.
I'd be more impressed if, after Edwin Edwards, Trump's fans said "Vote
for the swindler, it's important" – rather than use lies or their own credulity
to defend him.
I read this on Friday and have thought much about it since. I came by earlier
this evening and had about half of a long post written in response, but
got too caught up in the Georgia/Missouri game to finish it. I also determined
that it wouldn't matter what I said. The conservatives would continue to
harp about the evils of identity politics, refusing to acknowledge the long
history of conservatives engaging in identity politics in both Europe and
America from roughly the high Middle Ages to the present. It seemed more
rational to delete what I had written rather than save it and come back
to finish it.
It just so happened that as the game ended, I clicked on Huffingtonpost
to check the headlines. Lo and behold, the top story was this one about
Jane Goodall's latest statement regarding identity politics in the animal
kingdom:
"What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances of mine
who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his utterly
indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest as well."
I don't defend his vile character. I readily admit it. So do most of
those I know who intend to vote for him.
It's too bad that Clinton is at least equally vile.
For Hillary that's a big problem – the "character" issue is at best a
wash, so the choice boils down to other things.
The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents
pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment.
That does not bode well for Clinton.
"I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning
the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows
Rod and company to relax?"
------
I think those are good questions, and read in the best light possible, might
be interpreted as being asked by someone honestly seeking to understand
the concerns of traditional Christians today.
I can't answer for Rod, but for me the short answers are,
"1) In present America, I don't think there are any "cultural change"
possible which might reassure Christians, because we are in a downward spiral
which has not yet run its course. The articles and commentary posted here
by Rod show we've not yet reached the peak of what government and technology
will do to the lives of believing Christians.
2) The post-BenOp - perhaps decades in the future - vision that would
allow me to relax would be a national reaffirmation that our rights, as
partially defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God
the Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of conception, and that
the traditional family is the best promoter of sound moral, cultural and
economic health. I'd relax a bit, though not entirely, if that happened.
In a September 2015 interview with NBC, Clinton defended partial-birth
abortions again and voiced her support for late-term abortions up until
birth, too.
She also openly supports forcing taxpayers to fund these abortions by
repealing the Hyde Amendment. The amendment prohibits direct taxpayer funding
of abortion in Medicaid. If repealed, researchers estimate that 33,000 more
babies will be aborted every year in the U.S.
Yes, We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.
"Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election?
Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any
fertile soil to grow in."
I think far too much credit is being given to Mr. Trump. The reason he
can stand is because the people he represents have been fed up with the
some of what he stands for long before he entered the fray.
If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or
his speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts)
delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman.
His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections"
tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most
people are already at - he would not be the nominee.
There's a difference in being a .Mr. Trump fan and a supporter. As a
supporter, I would be curious to know what lies I have used to support him.
We have some serious differences, but I think my support has been fairly
above board. In fact, i think the support of most have been fairly straight
up I am not sure there is much hidden about Mr. Trump.
Hillary Clinton, "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated
cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."
Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.
That's a shame RD, because I was looking forward to joining a like-minded
Book Group, unconcerned with winning elections and very concerned with maintaining
our "principles." With fidelity is to Aristotle rather than to winning the
battle for the political soul of America.
[NFR: You can still have your Ben Op book group. - RD]
I'm going to start and end with globalization by referring to G.K.Chesterton
in Orthodoxy(pg 101).
"This is what makes Christendom at once so perplexing and so much more interesting
than the Pagan empires;…If anyone wants a modern proof of all this, let
him consider the curious fact that, under Christianity, Europe has broken
up into individual nations. Patriotism is a perfect example of this deliberate
balance of one emphasis against another emphasis. The instinct of the Pagan
empire would have said, 'You shall all be Roman citizens, and grow alike;
let the German grow less slow and reverent; the Frenchmen less experimental
and swift.' But the instinct of Christian Europe says, 'Let the German remain
slow and reverent, that the Frenchman may the more safely be swift and experimental.
We will make an equipoise out of these excesses. The absurdity called Germany
shall correct the insanity called France."
Isn't it interesting that has Christianity has left the northern hemisphere
for the southern, that Europe has tried union, the USA has been into interventionism,
and globalization has become so mainstream. You shall all be one world citizens
doesn't have a balancing instinct. And Chesterton was deliberating about
the balancing instinct.
I think Mitchell is basically right. Aside from his jab at the Benedict
Option, I have just one quibble with his analysis: "And Trump is the first
American candidate to bring some coherence to them, however raucous his
formulations have been."
Wrong. Trump is definitely not the first candidate to do this. He was
preceded by Pat Buchanan, who also brought (and still brings) much more
coherence to the six ideas than Trump. Clearly, Buchanan ran at a time when
the post-1989 order was in its infancy, and so few saw any fundamental problem
with it. He was ahead of his time. But he was a candidate that presented
the six ideas and attracted a non-negligible amount of support. Trump is
not a pioneer in this regard. People should give Buchanan his due.
I hope Trump wins; he's rather bizarre and not very likable as a person,
but the last 25 years have been disastrous politically in Western nations
and it's time to repudiate the ruling orthodoxy. The US still is the Western
hegemon and exports its ideas across the Atlantic (most unfortunate in cases
like "critical whiteness studies"); if there's change in the US towards
a (soft, civic) nationalism, it might open up new options in Europe as well.
In any case these are exciting times…however it turns out, we may well be
living through years which will be seen as decisive in retrospect.
This comment on the Politico article stood out to me: "It is its very existence,
and mantra, for a religion the advertise itself, something that is frowned
upon as being Incredibly un-American under the Constitution, and contrary
to our core beliefs. Yes Republicans not only embrace this, they help their
religion advertise."
In other words, this commenter admits that he believes it "incredibly
un-American" for religions to "advertise," and, by extension, to even exist
(he says advertising is religion's "very existence.")
The comment has a high number of "thumbs-up."
We really are in trouble. America has become Jacobin country.
Red brick
September 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.'
Perhaps due to very recent memories that herrenvolk regimes are not good
for the Jews. The online troll army of out and proud anti-semites can't
help but contribute to this.
Re "the DC elites are clueless" what ABOUT John Kasich up there on the podium
advocating for the latest free trade deal? Yessir, that'll get us in our
"states that begin with a vowel" to totally change our minds on that, you
betcha!
Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test for pundits peddling
a point of view. Funny how he proves so many intellectuals right about so
many contradictory things, all without having to take responsibility for
any particular idea.
Nobody has remained more adamant than the writer of this blog that there
is something sacred about sex between one woman and one man, and them married.
God bless him for staying true.
So I am going to try to say( G.K Chesterton please forgive me)…..Let the
LBGTQIA remain true to their identity, that the married male/female may
be more safely true to their identity. We can make an equipoise out of these
excesses( despite those who want us to be all the same). The absurdity called
LBGTQIA shall correct the insanity called one man/one woman.
Trump is certainly not unraveling identity politics. He's adding another
identity to the grievance industry, that of (downscale) whites.
You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance
industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should
continue paying for it. Whether you agree with white identity politics or
not, its proponents are obviously not adding to the grievance industry,
but attempting to defend against it, i.e. stating that white people are
not to blame for everything, and no, they shouldn't continue
to pay for it. To merely maintain that position is sufficient to be labeled
as a white supremacist by the grievance industry hacks.
Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but National Review has a
small piece about Archbishop Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to
become more engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and
the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as well.
Dear mainstream media: you have lost your credibility because
you are incapable of skeptical inquiry into your chosen candidate or
official statistics/ pronouncements. Your dismissal of skeptical
inquiries as "conspiracies" or "hoaxes" is nothing but a crass repackaging
of the propaganda techniques of totalitarian state media.
Dear MSM: You have forsaken your duty in a democracy and are a
disgrace to investigative, unbiased journalism. You have substituted
Orwellian-level propaganda for honest, skeptical journalism. We can
only hope viewers and advertisers respond appropriately, i.e. turn you
off.
Here's the mainstream media's new mantra: "skepticism is always
a conspiracy or a hoax." The Ministry of Propaganda and the MSM
are now one agency.
The curtain is being pulled back on the Wizard of Oz. How soon before
the Wicked Witch starts to melt?
Do people who are willing to accept characterization as "angry, provincial
bigots" still have any right to political self-expression? Believe it or
not, it's an important question.
Identity politics definition: a tendency for people of a particular religion,
race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving
away from traditional broad-based party politics.
I find it odd that the party of older white straight Christian men accuses
the party of everyone else to be guilty of "identity politics". It just
doesn't make any sense.
(1) borders matter; Ok, but they're not all that.
(2) immigration policy matters; Ditto. We should have a policy.
(3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; Depends.
National interests matter, but if they are all that matters… I think you
just stepped outside the Gospels.
(4) entrepreneurship matters; It can, for good OR for evil.
(5) decentralization matters; Another thorny one… SOME things need to be
more decentralized, some don't, and we need to have an honest conversation
about which is which.
(6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated.
ABSOLUTELY!
All in all, I think this Georgetown prof has done the usual short list
of The Latest Attempt To Reduce Reality To a Nice Short Checklist.
Not much of a guide to the future. We could all write our own lists.
You can largely agree with Mitchell's six points (and, for the most part
I do) and nonetheless recognize that an unprincipled, ruthless charlatan
like Trump–a pathological liar and narcissist interested in nothing but
his own self-promotion–will do nothing meaningful to advance them. His latest
birther charade shows him for the lying, unprincipled scum bucket he is.
The cultural ground is shifting as the emptiness of advanced consumer
capitalism and globalism becomes ever more apparent. Large scale organizations
are, by their very nature, dehumanizing, demoralizing, and corrupt. I've
believed so for the better part of my life now. It's that belief that lead
me to the University of Rochester and Christopher Lasch in the 1980s and,
subsequently to MacIntyre, Rieff, and Berry. It's also a belief that has
lead me to distrust both the corporate order and politics as a means to
salvation. I certainly don't consider myself a conservative, at least not
in the shallow American sense of the term, and the chances that I will ever
vote for a Republican again are nil. But I'm not a liberal in the American
sense of the term either because agreeing with Mitchell's six points pretty
much pretty much rules me out of that tribe. I have, for a long time, felt
pretty homeless in the American wilderness.
I suppose that's one reason I keep reading your blog, Rod, though I disagree
deeply with many of your views. As a Jew, I'm not much interested in the
Benedict Option, but I do agree that our society suffers from a certain
soul sickness that politics, consumption, and technology can't cure.
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.
As one of those American Jews who feels a deep hatred for Trump, perhaps
I can shed some light on the reasons. It has nothing to do with his alleged
desire to enforce borders. Nations require them. Nor does it have anything
to do with his lip service to Christianist values. He's no Christian. He's
pure heathen.
Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod attitude toward the
alt-right and white nationalist groups and with his willingness to appropriate
their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's dangerous.
Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms,
and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark
forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially
if, he loses. The possibility that he might win has left me wondering whether
I even belong in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I might
feel for the folks globalism has left behind.
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump…They
seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop
pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to
them.
Or it could be that Trump reminds them of some historical figure who
was rather bad for the Jews. I wonder who that could be?
And saying all the Jews that the commenter knows feel an "uncontrollable"
emotion is a touch anti-Semitic.
But to talk about the OP: Joshua Mitchell gives the game away by consistently
referring to 1989 as the state of a "new order," which he thinks is a combination
of globalization and identity politics. Of course neither was new. Admittedly
globalization received a boost by the end of the Cold War, but it's been
well underway for a century or so. Mitchell wants to return to Reagan's
"morning in America." But there was no such morning.
"Identity politics" is what the suffragettes and abolitionists would
have been accused of, if the term had been invented back in their day. Are
there stupid things done and said under the umbrella of "identity politics"?
Of course. That doesn't make the discrimination and mistreatment that led
to such politics any less real.
The fundamental flaw in Mitchell's argument, though, is that the Trump
he describes (or, more accurately, wishes for) simply doesn't exist. The
Trump he describes has ideas and beliefs. It's a little ironic that Mitchell
thinks that Trump "expressly opposes" the ideas of Marx and Nietzsche, because
the real-world Trump has no beliefs other than he is an ubermensch.
I read an entire article on Trump in which Hitler wasn't mentioned once.
It wasn't even smug, and there was no list of liberal cliches and denunciations
of heretics so between drooling I never knew whether shout "Boo!" or "Hurah!"
Couldn't they throw in one "racist, sexist, homophobic" so I could feel
morally superior to stupid white people in fly-over country?
Having now read Mitchell's article, all I can say is that while I agree
with his six points, his hope that Trump is some kind of pragmatist is deeply
misguided. Like most political scientists, he knows little about history.
For thise who think Trump is harmless, here he is, tonight, riffing on
his
Clinton assassination fantasies. Where is Leni Reifenstahl when you
need her? Trump is no pragmatist. He's no Christian. And he's no leader.
If Mitchell is correct–and I believe that he is–how does this bode poorly
for conservative Christians? If the BenOp is primarily a reaction to the
post-1989 culture, shouldn't the crumbling of that culture obviate the need
for a BenOp?
[NFR: Well, if there were a candidate advocating these positions who
WASN'T Donald Trump, I would eagerly vote for him or her. I think Trump
is thoroughly untrustworthy and demagogic. But I would not be under any
illusion that casting a vote for that person - again, even if he or she
was a saint - would mean any kind of Christian restoration. The Ben Op is
premised on the idea that we are living in post-Christian times. The Ben
Op is a religious movement with political implications, not a political
movement. Liquid modernity will not suddenly solidify depending on a change
of government in Washington. - RD]
This is an election about feeling under siege. Once that is understood all
else makes sense. It is also a manifestation about what happens when a word
is overused, in this case racism. It creates a reaction of, "Ask us if we
care," which becomes, "Yeah, we are, and we like it."
It backfires.
The Ben Op may prove to be in better position that it looks.
I think populists who haven't gotten much attention from either party are
projecting an awful lot onto a seriously flawed candidate who doesn't have
firm convictions on anything, beyond making the sale. This objective he
pursues by being willing to say whatever he thinks will get him the sale,
with no regard for decency or truth or consistency. If he gets himself elected,
who knows what he will do to retain his popularity with what he perceives
to be the majority view. Those hoping for a sea change are engaged in some
pretty serious wishful thinking, I think.
@T.S.Gay, You are correct that this election is a battle of Nationalism
vs Globalism. But, Nationalism is Identity Politics in its purest form and
that is why the Globalist oppose it.
Globalists use identity politics, that is true. However, they bear no
love for the identities they publicly promote. Rather, they dehumanize them,
using them as nothing more than weapons against Nationalism.
As a Nationalist I will support and promote my Nation(People), but I
also recognize the inherent right of other Nations(Peoples) to support and
promote themselves.
I'm absolutely sure Donald Trump isn't going to do to us, what that other
person has planned for us deplorables:
"Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated
cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."
After her shot across the bow promises to marginalize us in society,
complete with cheers from those at her back, that is just about all that
counts.
Mitchell's description echoes Oliver Stone's comments from Oct. 2001: "There's
been conglomeration under six principal princes-they're kings, they're barons!-and
these six companies have control of the world! … That's what the new world
order is. They control culture, they control ideas. And I think the revolt
of September 11 was about 'F- you! F- your order!'"
Very interesting piece, and I had not really connected the Brexit and EU
jitters to what's going on in the US – and I think Mitchell is right about
that. When we were still in primary season and Trump was ahead, I recall
one author – probably on The Corner – wondered how a Trump presidency might
look. He figured Trump would be very pragmatic, perhaps actually fixing
Obamacare, and focusing on our interests here at home.
"I will vote primarily for candidates who will be better at protecting
my community's right to be left alone."
I've been voting that way for years; mostly Republicans, but a good sprinkling
of Democrats as well.
Good article. I think Mitchell identifies the right ideas buried within
Trump's rhetoric. But even if it were true that Trump had no ideas, I would
still vote for him. After all, where have politic ideas gotten us lately?
"Conservative principles" espoused by wonks and political scientists
culminated in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ideology told us that democracy
was a divine right, transferable across time and culture.
Moreover, do we really want our politicians playing with ideas? Think
back to George W. Bush's speech at the 2004 Republican convention, perhaps
the most idea-driven speech in recent history. The sight of W. spinning
a neo-Hegelian apocalyptic narrative was like watching a gorilla perform
opera.
I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume that Ben Op is a
one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives
into irrelevant enclaves.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best
American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local
communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience.
Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere
products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.
If these formative communities hold to authentic, compassionate Judeo-Christian
values and practices, all the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an
alternative to the assembly-line politically correct cultural warriors being
produced by many of our elite cultural institutions.
"cavalierly undermining decades worth of social and political certainties"
Sorry, that is just silly. Only political junkies and culture warriors
even care about stuff like this. In my life… in my experience of living
in the USA every day, none of this matters. It just doesn't.
People don't live their lives thinking about any of those things cited.
What would it mean to you or me to have "borders matter"? Ford just announced
they were moving some more production to Mexico. That decision WILL affect
the lives of those who lose their jobs. Does anyone honestly think that
anyone… even a President Trump, would lift a finger to stop them? Of course
not. It is silly to assert otherwise.
Very good essay and commentary, but I caution against the notion that you
are looking at permanent change. JonF's two 20th century ideas (Free Trade
benefits everyone and Supply Side economics) are not going away. In
fact, Larry Kudlow, the crassest exponent of both those ideas is one of
Trump's economic advisors.
BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the
game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives
them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up.
Great. He's got six ideas. Six ideas with either no detailed policy or approach
attached to them, policies or approaches that seemingly change on a whim
(evidence that at best he hasn't given much thought to any of them), or
has no realistic political path for making those ideas a reality.
"That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may at times be, leads
us toward: A future where states matter."
With that sentence, I think Mitchell stumbles into a truth he might not
have intended - The "state" - as in "administrative state" - is going to
continue growing even under Trump.
Given the increasing intolerance of our society for traditional values,
that's all Christians need to know.
Clint writes:
"Hillary Clinton,
'L;aws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated
cultural codes, religious bel:efs and structural biases have to be changed.
Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables."
"He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings,
pogroms, and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed
dark forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially
if, he loses."
Given the amount violence and disruption your side has caused this year
this accusation really should be laughable. Trump supporters aren't out
beating up Clinton supporters and making sure they can't have a rally in
the wrong neighborhood. Members of the alt-right aren't threatening student
journalists with violence on their own campuses, or getting on stage with
speakers they dislike and slapping them.
It's your own side that has been perpetuating the mob violence while
the liberal establishment denies it or excuses it.
This post is spot-on; thank you for sharing the preliminary BenOp talking
points.
We need Thomas Paine's Common Sense for our age, for these are
times that try men's souls. Problem is this: Paine's citizenry were 90%
literate, unified by culture, and cognitively engaged … today we're 70%
literate (at 4th grade reading level), multicultural, and amused to death.
Joseph R.
Murray II
Guest
columnist
Political incorrectness is to Trump what spinach is to
Popeye: Columnist.
When the term paleo-conservative is floated in conversation,
most folks imagine a creature out of Jurassic World. But paleo-conservatism
- a near extinct brand of conservatism that heralds limited
government, nonintervention, economic nationalism and Western
traditions - is finding a comeback in an unlikely spokesperson.
The history-making campaign of
Donald Trump
is turning the clock of U.S. politics back to a
time when hubris was heroic and the truth, no matter how blunt,
was king. It is resurrecting a political thought that does not
play by the rules of modern politics.
And as the nation saw the top-tier
GOP
candidates take the stage for the first time, they saw
Trump, unapologetic and confident, alongside eight candidates
clueless on how to contain him and a tongue-lashed Rand Paul.
The debate itself highlighted the fear a Trump candidacy is
creating throughout the political establishment. The very first
question asked the candidates to pledge unconditional support to
the eventual GOP nominee and refrain from a third-party run.
Trump refused.
But why should he blindly accept the party's unknown nominee?
If Jeb Bush receives the nomination, the GOP will put forth a
candidate who favors amnesty and is weak on trade, supportive of
Common Core and unable, if not unwilling, to come out from under
his brother's failed foreign policy.
In refusing to take the pledge, Trump was honest, and it is
his honesty that has made his campaign endearing. Trump has no
secrets and turns what many consider mistakes into triumphs.
The incident with
Megyn Kelly
is a prime example. When moderator Kelly
confronted Trump about his past comments about women, Trump
refused to apologize and told Kelly there is no time for
political correctness.
In the aftermath, Trump blasted Kelly's performance and
landed in hot water. In an interview with CNN's Don Lemon, Trump
said that "[y]ou could see there was blood coming out of her
eyes. Blood coming out of her - wherever."
The "wherever" part created a firestorm. Though vague, Trump
detractors claimed that the "wherever" part meant Trump was
implying Kelly was menstruating, while Trump claimed he was
referring to her nose. Trump's version made more sense, but to a
political class desperate to derail him, the headlines went with
the former.
Those in the Beltway resumed drafting Trump's political
obituary. But while they were busy scribbling, post-debate polls
showed Trump jumped in the polls. Republicans are ignoring their
orders from headquarters and deflecting to the Donald.
Shell-shocked, his foes, unwilling to admit their politically
correct system has tanked, failed to understand that political
incorrectness is to Trump what spinach is to Popeye.
"So many 'politically correct' fools in our country," Trump
tweeted. "We have to all get back to work and stop wasting time
and energy on nonsense!"
Is he not correct? Days before the nation started debating
Kelly's metaphorical blood, an unauthorized immigrant in New
Jersey pleaded guilty to actually spilling the blood of
30-year-old Sviatlana Dranko and setting her body on fire. In
the media, Dranko's blood is second fiddle. This contrast is not
lost on the silent majority flocking to Trump.
Trump's candidacy is about so much more than personality.
Once the media are forced to report Trump's positions, instead
of his persona, even more Americans will see that Trump is the
sole Republican who rejects a "free trade" that gives away the
keys to the store and opposed the ill-fated Iraq war. He is the
type of candidate Americans always wanted but the party
establishments are too afraid to provide.
The last time America saw a strong paleo-conservative was
Pat Buchanan
in 1996. An early win in Louisiana caused
Buchanan to place second in Iowa and first in New Hampshire
Lacking money, Buchanan was steamrolled by the establishment
in Arizona and, in terms of paleo-conservatism, many thought he
was the Last of the Mohicans.
Trump's campaign is Buchananesque with one difference: Trump
has money, and loads of it. He can fend off any attack and
self-finance his campaign. He is establishment kryptonite.
This reality is what makes him the new face of
paleo-conservativism. It might also make him president.
Joseph R. Murray II is a civil-rights attorney, a
conservative commentator and a former official with Pat
Buchanan's 2000 campaign.
"... traditional ways of life are dissolving as a new class of entrepreneur-warriors are wielding unprecedented power - and changing the global landscape. ..."
"... It's a huge psychological dent in people's faith in the system. I think what's going to happen in the next few years is huge unemployment in the middle class in America because a lot of their jobs will be outsourced or automated. ..."
Novelist Rana Dasgupta recently turned to nonfiction to explore the explosive
social and economic changes in Delhi starting in 1991, when India launched a
series of transformative economic reforms. In
Capital: The Eruption of Delhi, he describes a city where the epic hopes
of globalization have dimmed in the face of a sterner, more elitist world. In
Part 1 of an interview with the
Institute for New Economic
Thinking, Dasgupta traces a turbulent time in which traditional ways
of life are dissolving as a new class of entrepreneur-warriors are wielding
unprecedented power - and changing the global landscape.
Lynn Parramore: Why did you decide to move from New York to Delhi
in 2000, and then to write a book about the city?
Rana Dasgupta: I moved to be with my partner who lived in Delhi, and soon
realized it was a great place to have landed. I was trying write a novel and
there were a lot of people doing creative things. There was a fascinating intellectual
climate, all linked to changes in society and the economy. It was 10 years since
liberalization and a lot of the impact of that was just being felt and widely
sensed.
There was a sense of opportunity, not any more just on the part of business
people, but everyone. People felt that things were really going to change in
a deep way - in every part of the political spectrum and every class of society.
Products and technology spread, affecting even very poor people. Coke made ads
about the rickshaw drivers with their mobile phones -people who had never had
access to a landline. A lot of people sensed a new possibility for their own
lives.
Amongst the artists and intellectuals that I found myself with, there were
very big hopes for what kind of society Delhi could become and they were very
interested in being part of creating that. They were setting up institutions,
publications, publishing houses, and businesses. They were thinking new ideas.
When I arrived, I felt, this is where stuff is happening. The scale of conversations,
the philosophy of change was just amazing.
LP: You've interviewed many of the young tycoons who emerged during
Delhi's transformation. How would you describe this new figure? How do they
do business?
RD: Many of their fathers and grandfathers had run significant provincial
businesses. They were frugal in their habits and didn't like to advertise themselves,
and anyway their wealth remained local both in its magnitude and its reach.
They had business and political associates that they drank with and whose weddings
they went to, and so it was a tight-knit kind of wealth.
But the sons, who would probably be now between 35 and 45, had an entirely
different experience. Their adult life happened after globalization. Because
their fathers often didn't have the skills or qualifications to tap into the
forces of globalization, the sons were sent abroad, probably to do an MBA, so
they could walk into a meeting with a management consultancy firm or a bank
and give a presentation. When they came back they operated not from the local
hubs where their fathers ruled but from Delhi, where they could plug into federal
politics and global capital.
So you have these very powerful combinations of father/son businesses. The
sons revere the fathers, these muscular, huge masculine figures who have often
done much more risky and difficult work building their businesses and have cultivated
relationships across the political spectrum. They are very savvy, charismatic
people. They know who to give gifts to, how to do favors.
The sons often don't have that set of skills, but they have corporate skills.
They can talk finance in a kind of international language. Neither skill set
is enough on its own by early 2000's: they need each other. And what's interesting
about this package is that it's very powerful elsewhere, too. It's kind of a
world-beating combination. The son fits into an American style world of business
and finance, but the thing about American-style business is that there are lots
of things in the world that are closed to it. It's very difficult for an American
real estate company or food company to go to the president of an African country
and do a deal. They don't have the skills for it. But even if they did, they
are legally prevented from all the kinds of practices involved, the bribes and
everything.
This Indian business combination can go into places like Africa and Central
Asia and do all the things required. If they need to go to market and raise
money, they can do that. But if they need to sit around and drink with some
government guys and figure out who are the players that need to be kept happy,
they can do that, too. They see a lot of the world open to themselves.
LP: How do these figures compare to American tycoons during, say,
the Gilded Age?
RD: When American observers see these people they think, well, we had these
guys between 1890 and 1920, but then they all kind of went under because there
was a massive escalation of state power and state wealth and basically the state
declared a kind of protracted war on them.
Americans think this is a stage of development that will pass. But I think
it's not going to pass in our case. The Indian state is never going to have
the same power over private interests as the U.S. state because lots of things
have to happen. The Depression and the Second World War were very important
in creating a U.S. state that was that powerful and a rationale for defeating
these private interests. I think those private interests saw much more benefit
in consenting to, collaborating in, and producing a stronger U.S. state.
Over time, American business allied itself with the government, which did
a lot to open up other markets for it. In India, I think these private interests
will not for many years see a benefit in operating differently, precisely because
continents like Africa, with their particular set of attributes, have such a
bright future. It's not just about what India's like, but what other places
are like, and how there aren't that many people in the world that can do what
they can do.
LP: What has been lost and gained in a place like Delhi under global
capitalism?
RD: Undeniably there has been immense material gain in the city since 1991,
including the very poorest people, who are richer and have more access to information.
What my book tracks is a kind of spiritual and moral crisis that affects rich
and poor alike.
One kind of malaise is political and economic. Even though the poorest are
richer, they have less political influence. In a socialist system, everything
is done in the name of the poor, for good or for bad, and the poor occupy center
stage in political discourse. But since 1991 the poor have become much less
prominent in political and economic ideology. As the proportion of wealth held
by the richest few families of India has grown massively larger, the situation
is very much like the break-up of the Soviet Union, which leads to a much more
hierarchical economy where people closest to power have the best information,
contacts, and access to capital. They can just expand massively.
Suddenly there's a state infrastructure that's been built for 70 years or
60 years which is transferred to the private domain and that is hugely valuable.
People gain access to telecommunication systems, mines, land, and forests for
almost nothing. So ordinary people say, yes, we are richer, and we have all
these products and things, but those making the decisions about our society
are not elected and hugely wealthy.
Imagine the upper-middle-class guy who has been to Harvard, works for a management
consultancy firm or for an ad agency, and enjoys a kind of international-style
middle-class life. He thinks he deserves to make decisions about how the country
is run and how resources are used. He feels himself to be a significant figure
in his society. Then he realizes that he's not. There's another, infinitely
wealthier class of people who are involved in all kinds of backroom deals that
dramatically alter the landscape of his life. New private highways and new private
townships are being built all around him. They're sucking the water out of the
ground. There's a very rapid and seemingly reckless transformation of the landscape
that's being wrought and he has no part in it.
If he did have a say, he might ask, is this really the way that we want this
landscape to look? Isn't there enormous ecological damage? Have we not just
kicked 10,000 farmers off their land?
All these conversations that democracies have are not being had. People think,
this exactly what the socialists told us that capitalism was - it's pillage
and it creates a very wealthy elite exploiting the poor majority. To some extent,
I think that explains a lot of why capitalism is so turbulent in places like
India and China. No one ever expected capitalism to be tranquil. They had been
told for the better part of a century that capitalism was the imperialist curse.
So when it comes, and it's very violent, and everyone thinks, well that's what
we expected. One of the reasons that it still has a lot of ideological consensus
is that people are prepared for that. They go into it as an act of war, not
as an act of peace, and all they know is that the rewards for the people at
the top are very high, so you'd better be on the top.
The other kind of malaise is one of culture. Basically, America and Britain
invented capitalism and they also invented the philosophical and cultural furniture
to make it acceptable. Places where capitalism is going in anew do not have
200 years of cultural readiness. It's just a huge shock. Of course, Indians
are prepared for some aspects of it because many of them are trading communities
and they understand money and deals. But a lot of those trading communities
are actually incredibly conservative about culture - about what kind of lifestyle
their daughters will have, what kinds of careers their sons will have. They
don't think that their son goes to Brown to become a professor of literature,
but to come back and run the family business.
LP: What is changing between men and women?
RD: A lot of the fallout is about families. Will women work? If so, will
they still cook and be the kind of wife they're supposed to be? Will they be
out on the street with their boyfriends dressed in Western clothes and going
to movies and clearly advertising the fact that they are economically independent,
sexually independent, socially independent? How will we deal with the backlash
of violent crimes that have everything to do with all these changes?
This capitalist system has produced a new figure, which is the economically
successful and independent middle-class woman. She's extremely globalized in
the sense of what she should be able to do in her life. It's also created a
set of lower-middle-class men who had a much greater sense of stability both
in their gender and professional situation 30 years ago, when they could rely
on a family member or fellow caste member to keep them employed even if they
didn't have any marketable attributes. They had a wife who made sure that the
culture of the family was intact - religion, cuisine, that kind of stuff.
Thirty years later, those guys are not going to get jobs because that whole
caste value thing has no place in the very fast-moving market economy. Without
a high school diploma, they just have nothing to offer. Those guys in the streets
are thinking, I don't have a claim on the economy, or on women anymore because
I can't earn anything. Women across the middle classes - and it's not just across
India, it's across Asia -are trying to opt out of marriage for as long as they
can because they see only a downside. Remaining single allows all kinds of benefits
– social, romantic, professional. So those guys are pretty bitter and there's
a backlash that can become quite violent. We also have an upswing of Hindu fundamentalism
as a way of trying to preserve things. It's very appealing to people who think
society is falling apart.
LP: You've described India's experience of global capitalism as traumatic.
How is the trauma distinct in Delhi, and in what ways is it universal?
RD: Delhi suffers specifically from the trauma of Partition, which has created
a distinct society. When India became independent, it was divided into India
and Pakistan. Pakistan was essentially a Muslim state, and Hindis and Sikhs
left. The border was about 400 kilometers from Delhi, which was a tiny, empty
city, a British administrative town. Most of those Hindis and Sikhs settled
in Delhi where they were allocated housing as refugees. Muslims went in the
other direction to Pakistan, and as we know, something between 1 and 2 million
were killed in that event.
The people who arrived in Delhi arrived traumatized, having lost their businesses,
properties, friends, and communities, and having seen their family members murdered,
raped and abducted. Like the Jewish Holocaust, everyone can tell the stories
and everyone has experienced loss. When they all arrive in Delhi, they have
a fairly homogeneous reaction: they're never going to let this happen to them
again. They become fiercely concerned with security, physical and financial.
They're not interested in having nice neighbors and the lighter things of life.
They say, it was our neighbors that killed us, so we're going to trust only
our blood and run businesses with our brother and our sons. We're going to build
high walls around our houses.
When the grandchildren of these people grow up, it's a problem because none
of this has been exorcised. The families have not talked about it. The state
has not dealt with it and wants to remember only that India became independent
and that was a glorious moment. So the catastrophe actually becomes focused
within families rather than the reverse. A lot of grandchildren are more fearful
and hateful of Muslims than the grandparents, who remembered a time before when
they actually had very deep friendships with Muslims.
Parents of my generation grew up with immense silence in their households
and they knew that in that silence was Islam - a terrifying thing. When you're
one year old, you don't even know yet what Islam is, you just know that it's
something which is the greatest horror in the universe.
The Punjabi businessman is a very distinct species. They have treated business
as warfare, and they are still doing it like that 70 years later and they are
very good at it. They enter the global economy at a time when it's becoming
much less civilized as well. In many cases they succeed not because they have
a good idea, but because they know how to seize global assets and resources.
Punjabi businessmen are not inventing Facebook. They are about mines and oil
and water and food -things that everyone understands and needs.
In this moment of globalization, the world will have to realize that events
like the Partition of India are not local history anymore but global history.
Especially in this moment when the West no longer controls the whole system,
these traumas explode onto the world and affect all of us, like the Holocaust.
They introduce levels of turbulence into businesses and practices that we didn't
expect necessarily.
Then there's the trauma of capitalism itself, and here I think it's important
for us to re-remember the West's own history. Capitalism achieved a level of
consensus in the second half of the 20th century very accidentally, and by a
number of enormous forces, not all of which were intended. There's no guarantee
that such consensus will be achieved everywhere in the emerging world. India
and China don't have an empire to ship people off to as a safety valve when
suffering become immense. They just have to absorb all that stuff.
For a century or so, people in power in Paris and London and Washington felt
that they had to save the capitalist system from socialist revolution, so they
gave enormous concessions to their populations. Very quickly, people in the
West forgot that there was that level of dissent. They thought that everyone
loved capitalism. I think as we come into the next period where the kind of
consensus has already been dealt a huge blow in the West, we're going to have
to deal with some of those forces again.
LP: When you say that the consensus on capitalism has been dealt
a blow, are you talking about the financial crisis?
RD: Yes, the sense that the nation-state - I'm talking about the U.S. context
- can no longer control global capital, global processes, or, indeed, it's own
financial elite.
It's a huge psychological dent in people's faith in the system. I think
what's going to happen in the next few years is huge unemployment in the middle
class in America because a lot of their jobs will be outsourced or automated.
Then, if you have 30-40 percent unemployment in America, which has always
been the ideological leader in capitalism, America will start to re-theorize
capitalism very profoundly (and maybe the Institute of New Economic Thinking
is part of that). Meanwhile, I think the middle class in India would not have
these kinds of problems. It's precisely because American technology and finance
are so advanced that they're going to hit a lot of those problems. I think in
places like India there's so much work to be done that no one needs to leap
to the next stage of making the middle class obsolete. They're still useful.
Lynn Parramore is contributing editor at AlterNet. She is cofounder of Recessionwire,
founding editor of New Deal 2.0, and author of "Reading the Sphinx: Ancient
Egypt in Nineteenth-Century Literary Culture." She received her Ph.D. in English
and cultural theory from NYU. Follow her on Twitter @LynnParramore.
"... "emails" has been the most frequently recalled word in Americans' reports of news about Mrs. Clinton - the exceptions being the week of the Democratic convention, when emails fell to second place, and this past week when "pneumonia" and "health" eclipsed emails. ..."
"... the research shows that the relevance of Mrs. Clinton's emails is very real in the minds of average Americans. ..."
"... Americans are certainly not ignoring the election and they appear to be closely following what constitutes the campaign as it unfolds. As a result, the public may be learning about the candidates' temperament, character, personality and health issues, but from what they tell us, Americans aren't getting much in the way of real substance. ..."
Since July we have asked more than 30,000 Americans to say exactly what
it was they read, saw or heard about the two major party candidates over the
past several days. The type of information getting through to Americans
varies significantly depending on whether the candidate in question is Mr.
Trump or Mrs. Clinton. Americans' daily reports about Mr. Trump are directly
tied to what he is doing and saying. If Mr. Trump talks about Muslim parents
and their son who was killed in action, that's what the public remembers. If
he goes to Mexico or Louisiana, that's what they recall reading or hearing
about him. If Mr. Trump calls President Obama the founder of the Islamic
State, "ISIS" moves to the top of the list of what Americans tell us they
are hearing about the Republican candidate.
What Americans recall hearing about Mrs. Clinton is significantly less
varied. Specifically - and to an extraordinary degree - Americans have
consistently told us that they are reading and hearing about her handling of
emails while she was secretary of state during President Obama's first term.
In eight of the past 10 weeks, "emails" has been the most frequently
recalled word in Americans' reports of news about Mrs. Clinton - the
exceptions being the week of the Democratic convention, when emails fell to
second place, and this past week when "pneumonia" and "health" eclipsed
emails.
When Matt Lauer of NBC News questioned Clinton about her emails for a
third of the allotted time during the commander-in-chief forum on MSNBC
earlier this month, he was criticized for focusing on an irrelevant issue.
But the research shows that the relevance of Mrs. Clinton's emails is
very real in the minds of average Americans.
... ... ...
For as long as I have been involved in election year research, the
absence of serious discussion of issues and policies by the candidates has
been a source of disgruntlement with the campaign process. So far, it
doesn't look like 2016 is providing an exception. Americans are
certainly not ignoring the election and they appear to be closely following
what constitutes the campaign as it unfolds. As a result, the public may be
learning about the candidates' temperament, character, personality and
health issues, but from what they tell us, Americans aren't getting much in
the way of real substance.
The moderators of the coming series of debates will most likely focus
directly on the candidates' positions on issues. This may shift what
Americans tell us they are learning about the candidates, and if so, it
could signal a significant upgrade in the way the process is working.
But that also means that a lot still depends on the candidates themselves
and how they end up shaping the contours of the debates.
This set of principles in the core of "Trump_vs_deep_state" probably can be
improved, but still are interesting: "... If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation of the
system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since
the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted
out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy
matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4)
entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which
identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated. ..."
"... These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided us toward, siren-like, since 1989. ..."
"... if anti-Trumpers convince themselves that that's all ..."
"... What is going on is that "globalization-and-identity-politics-speak" is being boldly challenged. Inside the Beltway, along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, there is scarcely any evidence of this challenge. There are people in those places who will vote for Trump, but they dare not say it, for fear of ostracism. ..."
"... Out beyond this hermetically sealed bicoastal consensus, there are Trump placards everywhere, not because citizens are racists or homophobes or some other vermin that needs to be eradicated, but because there is little evidence in their own lives that this vast post-1989 experiment with "globalization" and identity politics has done them much good. ..."
"... The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton. ..."
"... Another page in the annals of American elite incompetence, only five days after the ceasefire in Syria was negotiated, we broke it by bombing a well-known Syrian position. After Russia took us to the woodshed, Samantha Power responds by basically saying, "We messed up, but Russia is a moralistic hypocrite because they support Assad and he is, like, really bad and stuff." ..."
"... They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them. ..."
"... The enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and Trump can only be understood as an overdue awakening of voters--finally recognizing that voting for more of the same tools of the plutocrats and oligarchs (which was represented by all candidates other than Trump and Sanders) will only serve the war profiteers, neocons, and other beltway bandits--at the expense of every other voter. ..."
"... Once the voters have awakened, they will not return to slumber or accept the establishment politics as usual. It is going to be a very interesting process to watch, and the political operatives who think we will return to the same old GOP and Democratic politics as usual should brace themselves for a rude awakening. ..."
"... Trump vs. Clinton = Nationalism vs. Globalism ..."
If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation
of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the
world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that
he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders
matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called
universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization
matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must
be repudiated.
These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment
with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided
us toward, siren-like, since 1989.
That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may at times be, leads
us toward: A future where states matter. A future where people are citizens,
working together toward (bourgeois) improvement of their lot. His ideas
do not yet fully cohere. They are a bit too much like mental dust that has
yet to come together. But they can come together. And Trump is the first
American candidate to bring some coherence to them, however raucous his
formulations have been.
Mitchell goes on to say that political elites call Trump "unprincipled,"
and perhaps they're right: that he only does what's good for Trump. On the other
hand, maybe Trump's principles are not ideological, but pragmatic. That is,
Trump might be a quintessential American political type: the leader who gets
into a situation and figures out how to muddle through. Or, as Mitchell puts
it:
This doesn't necessarily mean that he is unprincipled; it means rather
that he doesn't believe that yet another policy paper based on conservative
"principles" is going to save either America or the Republican Party.
Also, Mitchell says that there are no doubt voters in the Trump coalition
who are nothing but angry, provincial bigots. But if anti-Trumpers convince
themselves that that's all the Trump voters are, they will miss something
profoundly important about how Western politics are changing because of deep
instincts emerging from within the body politic:
What is going on is that "globalization-and-identity-politics-speak"
is being boldly challenged. Inside the Beltway, along the Atlantic
and Pacific coasts, there is scarcely any evidence of this challenge. There
are people in those places who will vote for Trump, but they dare not say
it, for fear of ostracism.
They think that identity politics has gone too
far, or that if it hasn't yet gone too far, there is no principled place
where it must stop. They believe that the state can't be our only large-scale
political unit, but they see that on the post-1989 model, there will, finally,
be no place for the state.
Out beyond this hermetically sealed bicoastal consensus, there are Trump
placards everywhere, not because citizens are racists or homophobes or some
other vermin that needs to be eradicated, but because there is little evidence
in their own lives that this vast post-1989 experiment with "globalization"
and identity politics has done them much good.
There's lots more here, including his prediction of what's going to happen
to the GOP.
Read the whole thing.
The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be
insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the
Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton.
Another page in the annals of American elite incompetence, only five
days after the ceasefire in Syria was negotiated, we broke it by
bombing a well-known Syrian position. After Russia took us to the woodshed,
Samantha Power responds by basically saying, "We messed up, but Russia is
a moralistic hypocrite because they support Assad and he is, like, really
bad and stuff."
Which not only makes it seem more likely that we were targeting
Assad's forces to anyone reasonably distrustful of American involvement
in the war, but also shows the moral reasoning ability of nothing greater
than a 6 year old.
Seriously, accusing Russia of moralism, and then moralistically trying
to hide responsibility by listing atrocities committed by Assad? It is self-parody.
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.
"thinly buried in his rhetoric:
borders matter;
immigration policy matters;
national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter;
entrepreneurship matters;
decentralization matters;
PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must
be repudiated."
They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration,
stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat
to them.
I cannot speak to what is best for conservative Christians, but change is
definitely in the air. Since the start of this election, I have had a clear
sense that we are seeing a beginning of a new political reality.
The enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and Trump can only be understood
as an overdue awakening of voters--finally recognizing that voting for more
of the same tools of the plutocrats and oligarchs (which was represented
by all candidates other than Trump and Sanders) will only serve the war
profiteers, neocons, and other beltway bandits--at the expense of every
other voter.
Too many voters have finally come to recognize that neither party serves
them in any real way. This will forcibly result in a serious reform process
of one or both parties, a third party that actually represents working people,
or if neither reform or a new party is viable-–a new American revolution,
which I fear greatly.
Once the voters have awakened, they will not return to slumber or
accept the establishment politics as usual. It is going to be a very interesting
process to watch, and the political operatives who think we will return
to the same old GOP and Democratic politics as usual should brace themselves
for a rude awakening.
I'm certainly not
the first to say this, but perhaps the first to post it on this blog. RD,
perhaps rightfully, has steered this post toward the Benedict Option, but
what should be debated is the repudiation of globalization and identity
politics.
"Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and
deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases
have to be changed."
Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.
"... Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo? ..."
"... Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years? ..."
"... Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads? ..."
"... Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets. ..."
"... Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation ..."
"... Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all. ..."
"... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
"... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
"... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
"... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
"... Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused. ..."
"... There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with. ..."
"... Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. ..."
"... As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now. ..."
"... If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family. ..."
"... Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice. ..."
"... What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us. ..."
...Arriving on Capitol Hill to repair ties between Trump and party elites,
Gov. Mike Pence was taken straight to the woodshed.
John McCain told Pence that Putin was a "thug and a butcher," and Trump's
embrace of him intolerable.
Said Lindsey Graham: "Vladimir Putin is a thug, a dictator … who has
his opposition killed in the streets," and Trump's views bring to mind Munich.
Putin is an "authoritarian thug," added "Little Marco" Rubio.
What causes the Republican Party to lose it whenever the name of Vladimir
Putin is raised?
Putin is no Stalin, whom FDR and Harry Truman called "Good old Joe" and "Uncle
Joe." Unlike Nikita Khrushchev, he never drowned a Hungarian Revolution in blood.
He did crush the Chechen secession. But what did he do there that General Sherman
did not do to Atlanta when Georgia seceded from Mr. Lincoln's Union?
Putin supported the U.S. in Afghanistan, backed our nuclear deal with Iran,
and signed on to John Kerry's plan have us ensure a cease fire in Syria and
go hunting together for ISIS and al-Qaida terrorists.
Still, Putin committed "aggression" in Ukraine, we are told. But was that
really aggression, or reflexive strategic reaction? We helped dump over a pro-Putin
democratically elected regime in Kiev, and Putin acted to secure his Black Sea
naval base by re-annexing Crimea, a peninsula that has belonged to Russia from
Catherine the Great to Khrushchev. Great powers do such things.
When the Castros pulled Cuba out of America's orbit, we decided to keep Guantanamo,
and dismiss Havana's protests?
Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine.
But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect
a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo?
... ... ...
Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so,
it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy,
and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years?
... ... ...
Is Putin's Russia more repressive than Xi Jinping's China? Yet, Republicans
rarely use "thug" when speaking about Xi. During the Cold War, we partnered
with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand
Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required
it.
Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How
does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping
"thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads?
>>During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah
of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park
Chung-Hee of South Korea
buttressed could be even more pertinent)
Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians
and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like
idiots or puppets.
Rubio
and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the
time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in
a state of constant agitation whenever US forces are not actively engaged
in combat somewhere. They are loud voices, yes, but irrational voices, too.
Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray
and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically
mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even
more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia
as a friend. That makes no sense at all.
"Just" states the starvation of the Ukraine is a western lie. The Harvest
of Sorrow by Robert Conquest refutes this dangerous falsehood. Perhaps "Just"
believes The Great Leap Forward did not lead to starvation of tens of millions
in China. After all, this could be another "western lie". So to could be
the Armenian genocide in Turkey or slaughter of Communists in Indonesia.
As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because
Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to
interact with the "smartest person in the room".
I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has
visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may
reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat
in that context.
The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin
to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic
narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage
his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia
fear-monger bashing.
And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person
in the room".
P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that
portends more Global Cop wreckage.
John asks, "We also have to deal with our current allies. Whom would
Mr. Buchanan like to favor?"
Well, we could redouble our commitment to our democracy and peace loving
friends in Saudi Arabia, we could deepen our ties to those gentle folk in
Egypt, and maybe for a change give some meaningful support to Israel. Oh,
and our defensive alliances will be becoming so much stronger with Montenegro
as a member, we will need to pour more resources into that country.
Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not
"favor him." The two terms should not be confused.
There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US
should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in
the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with.
"During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of
Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park
Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it (funny, you failed
to mention Laos, South Vietnam, Nicaragua, Noriega/Panama, and everyone's
favorite 9/11 co-conspirator and WMD developer, Saddam Hussein). either
way how did these "alliances" work out for the US? really doesn't matter,
does it? it is early 21st century, not mid 20th century. there is a school
of thought in the worlds of counter-terrorism/intelligence operations, which
suggests if you want to be successful, you have to partner with some pretty
nasty folks. Trump is being "handled" by an experienced, ruthless (that's
a compliment), and focused "operator". unless, of course, Trump is actually
the superior operator, in which case, this would be the greatest black op
of all time.
"From Russia With Money - Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset and Cronyism,"
"Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo,
17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors" or sponsored speeches by former
President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The Post.
Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control
of energy. Once you understand that then the (evil)actions of the Western
elite make sense. Anyone who stands in the way of those things is an "enemy".
This is how they determine an "enemy".
As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel
they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism
was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now.
If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the
globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed
with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian
and supports the family.
Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are
lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the
reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed
any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented
as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice.
What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is
reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us.
You need to substitute PIC (a.k.a., The Elites or Political Class)) for
neoliberal elite for the article to make more sense.
Notable quotes:
"... Our nation is in the grip of such poisonous thinking. The DNC with its "Super Delegates" already has a way to control who will be their candidate. In an irony to beat all ironies, the DNC's Super Delegates were able to stop Bernie Sanders... ..."
"... The reason Trump is still rising (and I believe will win handily) is he clearly represents the original image of America: a self made success story based on capitalism and the free market. ..."
This election cycle is so amazing one cannot help but think it has been scripted
by some invisible, all-powerful, hand. I mean, how could we have two completely
opposite candidates, perfectly reflecting the forces at play in this day and
age? It truly is a clash between The Elites and The Masses!
Main Street vs Wall & K Street.
The Political Industrial Complex (PIC – a.k.a., The Elites or Political Class)
is all up arms over the outsider barging in on their big con. The PIC is beside
itself trying to stop Donald Trump from gaining the Presidency, where he will
be able to clean out the People's House and the bureaucratic cesspool that has
shackled Main Street with political correctness, propaganda, impossibly expensive
health care, ridiculous taxes and a national debt that will take generations
to pay off.
The PIC has run amok long enough – illustrated perfectly by the defect ridden
democrat candidate: Hillary Clinton. I mean, how could you frame America's choices
this cycle
any better than this --
Back in July, Democratic presidential nominee and former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton said, "there is
absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of
state and the Clinton Foundation."
On Monday of this week,
ABC's Liz Kreutzer reminded people of that statement, as a new batch
of emails reveal that there was a connection, and
it was cash .
…
The Abedin emails reveal that the longtime Clinton aide apparently served
as a conduit between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton while
Clinton served as secretary of state. In more than a dozen email exchanges,
Abedin provided expedited, direct access to Clinton for donors who had contributed
from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In many instances,
Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band, who worked with the Foundation
throughout Hillary Clinton's tenure at State, coordinated closely with Abedin.
In Abedin's June deposition to Judicial Watch, she conceded that part of
her job at the State Department was taking care of "
Clinton family matters ."
This is what has Main Street so fed up with Wall & K street (big business,
big government). The Clinton foundation is a cash cow for Clinton, Inc. So while
our taxes go up, our debt sky rockets and our health care becomes too expensive
to afford, Clan Clinton has made 100's of millions of dollars selling access
(and obviously doing favors, because no one spends that kind of money without
results).
The PIC is circling the wagons with its news media arm shrilly screaming
anything and everything about Trump as if they could fool Main Street with their
worn out propaganda. I seriously doubt it will work. The Internet has broken
the information monopoly that allowed the PIC in the not too distant past to
control what people knew and thought.
Massachusetts has a long history of using the power of incumbency to
cripple political opponents. In fact, it's a leading state for such partisan
gamesmanship. Dating back to 1812, when Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed into
law a redistricting plan for state Senate districts that favored his Democratic-Republican
Party, the era of Massachusetts rule rigging began. It has continued, unabated,
ever since.
Given the insider dealing and venality that epitomized the 2016 presidential
primary process, I'd hoped that politicians would think twice before abusing
the power of the state for political purposes. Galvin quickly diminished
any such prospect of moderation in the sketchy behavior of elected officials.
He hid his actions behind the thin veil of fiscal responsibility. He claimed
to be troubled by the additional $56,000 he was going to have to spend printing
ballots to accommodate Independent voters. He conveniently ignored the fact
that thousands of these UIP members have been paying taxes for decades to
support a primary process that excludes them.
…
In my home state of Kansas, where my 2014 candidacy threatened to take
a U.S. Senate seat from the Republicans, they responded predictably. Instead
of becoming more responsive to voters, our state's highly partisan secretary
of state, Kris Kobach, introduced legislation that would bring back one
of the great excesses of machine politics: straight party-line voting –
which is designed to discourage voters from considering an Independent candidacy
altogether. Kobach's rationale, like Galvin's, was laughable. He described
it as a "convenience" for voters.
The article goes on to note these acts by the PIC are an affront to the large
swath of the electorate who really choose who will win elections:
In a recent Gallup poll, 60 percent of Americans said they do not feel
well-represented by the Democrats and Republicans and believe a third major
party is needed. Fully 42 percent of Americans now describe themselves
as politically independent .
That means the two main parties are each smaller in size than the independents
(68% divided by 2 equals 34%), which is why independents pick which side will
win. If the PIC attacks this group – guess what the response will look like?
I recently had a discussion with someone from Washington State who is pretty
much my opposite policy-wise. She is a deep blue democrat voter, whereas I am
a deep purple independent who is more small-government Tea Party than conservative-GOP.
She was lamenting the fact that her state has caucuses, which is one method
to blunt Main Street voters from having a say. It was interesting that we quickly
and strongly agreed on one thing above all else: open primaries. We both knew
that if the voters had the only say in who are leaders
would be, all sides could abide that decision easily. It is when PIC intervenes
that things get ugly.
Open primaries make the political parties accountable to the voters. Open
primaries make it harder for the PIC to control who gets into office, and reduces
the leverage of big donors. Open primaries reflect the will of the states and
the nation – not the vested interests (read bank accounts) of the PIC.
Without doubt, one of the most troublesome aspects of the current system
is its gross inefficiency. Whereas generations ago selecting a nominee
took relatively little time and money , today's process has resulted
in a near-permanent campaign. Because would-be nominees have to
win primaries and open caucuses in several states, they must put
together vast campaign apparatuses that spread across the nation, beginning
years in advance and raising tens of millions of dollars.
The length of the campaign alone keeps many potential candidates on the
sidelines. In particular, those in positions of leadership at various
levels of our government cannot easily put aside their duties and
shift into full-time campaign mode for such an extended period.
It is amazing how this kind of thinking can be considered legitimate. Note
how independent voters are evil in the mind of the PIC, and only government
leaders need apply. Not surprising, their answer is to control access to the
ballot:
During the week of Lincoln's birthday (February 12), the Republican Party
would hold a Republican Nomination Convention that would borrow from the
process by which the Constitution was ratified. Delegates to the
convention would be selected by rank-and-file Republicans in their local
communities , and those chosen delegates would meet, deliberate,
and ultimately nominate five people who, if willing, would each
be named as one of the party's officially sanctioned finalists for its presidential
nomination. Those five would subsequently debate one another a half-dozen
times.
Brexit became a political force because the European Union was not accountable
to the voters. The EU members are also selected by members of the European PIC
– not citizens of the EU. Without direct accountability to all citizens (a.k.a.
– voters) there is no democracy –
just a variant
of communism:
During the Russian Civil War (1918–1922), the Bolsheviks nationalized
all productive property and imposed a policy named war communism,
which put factories and railroads under strict government control,
collected and rationed food, and introduced some bourgeois management of
industry . After three years of war and the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion,
Lenin declared the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921, which was to give
a "limited place for a limited time to capitalism." The NEP lasted until
1928, when Joseph Stalin achieved party leadership, and the introduction
of the Five Year Plans spelled the end of it. Following the Russian Civil
War, the Bolsheviks, in 1922, formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(USSR), or Soviet Union, from the former Russian Empire.
Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Leninist parties
were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members as
the broad base; they were made up only of elite cadres approved by higher
members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to party discipline
.
Emphasis mine. Note how communism begins with government control of major
industries. The current con job about Global Warming is the cover-excuse for
a government grab of the energy sector. Obamacare is an attempt to grab the
healthcare sector. And Wall Street already controls the banking sector. See
a trend yet?
This is then followed by imposing a rigid hierarchy of "leaders" at all levels
of politics – so no opposing views can gain traction. Party discipline uber
alles!
Our nation is in the grip of such poisonous thinking. The DNC with its "Super
Delegates" already has a way to control who will be their candidate. In an irony
to beat all ironies, the DNC's Super Delegates were able to stop Bernie Sanders...
The reason Trump is still rising (and I believe will win handily) is he clearly
represents the original image of America: a self made success story based on
capitalism and the free market.
His opponent is the epitome of the Political Industrial Complex – a cancer
that has eaten away America's free market foundation and core strength. A person
who wants to impose government on the individual.
"... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
"... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
"... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
"... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
As I've stated many times, Obama the
narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping
about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room".
I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral
contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the
mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context.
The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to
hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic
supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted
ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing.
And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person
in the room".
P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends
more Global Cop wreckage.
"... These OFF episodes occur without warning when the patient is in the ON state and at unexpected times ..."
"... OFF episodes can have a tremendous negative impact on patients' daily lives. The potential for unexpected loss of motor function or the unpredictable onset of benefit of one's PD medications can result in patients' avoidance of certain social settings and hinder performance of simple daily tasks such as eating, bathing and dressing. ..."
"... I think the fact she bounced back so quickly and put on a great act at Chelsea's three hours after being unable to walk would indicate this is not pneumonia plus dehydration plus overheating (overheating seems a big stretch given the temps that morning). So the question is, if not those then what? ..."
"... And no, I think the campaign's credibility is pretty much shot on any and all excuses they provide which do not stand up to simple logic and common sense. ..."
This neurological disorder, by definition, most frequently occurs as
the result of long-term (usually at least 3 months duration) or high-dose
use of
antipsychotic
drugs.
…
In some cases, an individual's legs can be so affected that walking becomes
difficult or impossible
…
Respiratory irregularity, such as grunting and difficulty breathing,
is another symptom associated with tardive dyskinesia, although studies
have shown that the prevalence rate is relatively low
These OFF episodes occur without warning when the patient is in the ON
state and at unexpected times. The goal of levodopa therapy is to maintain
a constant blood level of levodopa that is expected to result in a constant
supply of levodopa to the brain and, therefore, a constant level of dopamine
and dopaminergic stimulation. However, the brain does not utilize dopamine
at a constant rate. Changes in activity level or changes in mood such as
agitation or anxiety result in an increased use of dopamine. The brain then
depletes the reserves of dopamine, and more time is required to rebuild
that dopamine deficit. As a result, a patient in the ON state can unexpectedly
and suddenly turn OFF when their normal PD medications are typically effective.
OFF episodes can have a tremendous negative impact on patients' daily
lives. The potential for unexpected loss of motor function or the unpredictable
onset of benefit of one's PD medications can result in patients' avoidance
of certain social settings and hinder performance of simple daily tasks
such as eating, bathing and dressing. Further, a patient's varying
consumption of dopamine from variable "daily stresses" as well as the loss
of dopaminergic cells, exacerbates the frequency, duration and severity
of OFF episodes.
Does Hillary suffer from one of these? No clue – not a doctor. But I
think the fact she bounced back so quickly and put on a great act at Chelsea's
three hours after being unable to walk would indicate this is not pneumonia
plus dehydration plus overheating (overheating seems a big stretch given the
temps that morning). So the question is, if not those then what?
And no, I think the campaign's credibility is pretty much shot on any
and all excuses they provide which do not stand up to simple logic and common
sense. Hillary's responses to the Benghazi and Email issues torched that.
Not to mention the fact we heard a string of conflicting and changing reasons
all day long. This indicates we are not done yet hearing more "clarifications".
Like Hillary regularly gets so dehydrated she faints :
Bill Clinton's attempt on Monday at downplaying his wife's recent fainting
spell may have backfired.
During an interview with CBS News' Charlie Rose, the former president
said that Hillary Clinton has "on more than one occasion" had a fainting
episode after becoming "severely dehydrated."
So this HAS happened before – guess that is why
the secret service were so well choreographed.
"... Rooster coming home to roost! I would wager the reason the DNC email server was compromised was due to the lack of security on Clinton's "personal" (read political) email server. HRC left the IT Security door open and that exposed everyone she was in contact with – government, DNC and friends! ..."
Everyone is proposing those toxic DNC emails that roiled the Democrat National
Convention this weekend were hacked by Russia. Which I actually do not doubt.
But please understand, to hack into a system someone needs to be sloppy and
"invite" the hackers in! So how is it that HRC emails and DNC emails were both
exposed to the voters during this election year?
Clinton's server was configured to allow users to connect openly from
the Internet and control it remotely using Microsoft's Remote Desktop Services.
[64] It is known that hackers in Russia were aware of
Clinton's non-public email address as early as 2011 . [71]
It is also known that Secretary Clinton and her staff were aware of
hacking attempts in 2011, and were worried about them. [72]
In 2012, according to server records, a hacker in Serbia scanned
Clinton's Chappaqua server at least twice , in August and in December
2012. It was unclear whether the hacker knew the server belonged to Clinton,
although it did identify itself as providing email services for clintonemail.com
. [64] During 2014, Clinton's server was the target
of repeated intrusions originating in Germany, China, and South Korea.
Threat monitoring software on the server blocked at least five
such attempts. The software was installed in October 2013, and for three
months prior to that, no such software had been installed.
Now we know for a fact the "personal" side of Clinton's electronic communication
was to pave the way for her second run at the presidential election. In fact,
the server originated in 2008 to support her first run. Clinton would not want
"Personal Political" emails to become public – for many reasons! (especially
to hide any nexus between
Bill's speaking fees and State Department Policy decisions ).
Everyone knows Politicians set up one account for "official business" and
one for political business – a separation required by federal law. So if HRC
was in communication with politicians and the DNC, it was through her personal
server!
We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private
commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in
regular contact from her personal account . We also assess that
Secretary Clinton's use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a
large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal
e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and
receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.
Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile
actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account.
Rooster coming home to roost! I would wager the reason the DNC email
server was compromised was due to the lack of security on Clinton's "personal"
(read political) email server. HRC left the IT Security door open and that exposed
everyone she was in contact with – government, DNC and friends!
Coming on the heels of Brexit and in tandem with many other
anti-globalist-cronyism movements, it is a societal reaction
that has been building for years (since Bush 2, and definitely
since the Tea Party before it was co-opted by the Political
Elite). When the elite bend and break the rules to line their
pockets, and the masses end up being severely financially
impacted in return, then there is going to be a visceral
response to those hoarding the nation's riches and
opportunities.
What is amazing is the depth of ignorance (or compliance) in
the news media. Take Jonathan Chait at the New York Times, who
has been in near constant apocalyptic fit since the "debate" on
national security.
Hillary Clinton Is a Flawed But Normal
Politician. Why Can't America See That?
My only quibble with Chait is I would title it:
Hillary Clinton Is a Flawed But
Typical
Politician.
Why Can't America See That?
My only response is to inform Chait of the blatantly
obvious: Of course we see Clinton as a typical and flawed
politician!!
So were the establisment GOP contenders in the primary. So
are all the power brokers in the Political Industrial Complex (PIC).
So is the pliant, PIC-suckling news media.
Why do you think Clinton is sinking in the polls during an
election cycle where the vast majority of voters on Main Street
USA see the country heading in the wrong direction? Does this
translate to "more of the same please?"!!
Why would a swath of voters who sees their slice of the
American Dream being trampled want more of the same policies
from the "globalist" Political Elite sitting behind their gated
communities in their posh mansions?
Of course we see her that way. She is simply not what the
country wants – nor deserves.
The PIC should realize that when their best argument is "the
worst of us is better than anyone from outside the PIC" – they
have hit rock bottom. And it is sooooo obvious!
"... Though while bereaved families are forced to crowd fund to bring Blair to court, any legal defence mounted by the multimillionaire will come from the public purse. They have raised over £160,000 to date so the story is not yet over. ..."
"... Yet Blair has no shame and remains belligerent. On the day the Chilcot Inquiry report was published he declared he would do the same again. Later that day veteran anti-war campaigner and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called a press conference to apologise on behalf of Labour for the war. Such a move is central to why Corbyn has won such an enthusiastic mass following after first standing for and winning the Labour leadership in the summer of 2015. ..."
"... The seeds of the deep bitterness about mainstream politicians and the establishment were sown in 2003. When Britain joined the US assault on Iraq despite the opposition of the majority of the population it politicised millions. The 2 million strong demonstration organised by the Stop the War Coalition in February 2003 was Britain's biggest ever. But Chilcot proved that Blair had already promised US president George W Bush that Britain would be with him "whatever". ..."
"... The warmongers' contempt for the electorate, let alone the people of Iraq and region, is staggering. ..."
The Chilcot report went further than many expected in condemning Tony Blair's
role in the invasion of Iraq. As Judith Orr says, it also reinforced the need
to be vigilant against all warmongers.
It took 12 days for the Chilcot report on the Iraq war to be read aloud non-stop
at the Edinburgh Festival event last month. The 2.6 million words of the report
were not the whitewash some had feared. In fact they were a confirmation of
what so many of those who protested against the war at the time said.
There were no lawyers on the Chilcot panel; this inquiry was never going
to call for charges against chief British warmonger Tony Blair. But families
of soldiers killed in the war are using the evidence brought forward in the
report to pursue a legal case against him. Because, although he didn't take
a line on the legality of the war, Chilcot criticised the process Blair drove
through to declare that invasion was legal: "We have, however, concluded that
the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK
military action were far from satisfactory."
As human rights lawyer Philippe Sands pointed out, "'Far from satisfactory'
is a career-ending phrase in mandarin-speak, a large boot put in with considerable
force."
Though while bereaved families are forced to crowd fund to bring Blair
to court, any legal defence mounted by the multimillionaire will come from the
public purse. They have raised over £160,000 to date so the story is not yet
over.
Yet Blair has no shame and remains belligerent. On the day the Chilcot
Inquiry report was published he declared he would do the same again. Later that
day veteran anti-war campaigner and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called a press
conference to apologise on behalf of Labour for the war. Such a move is central
to why Corbyn has won such an enthusiastic mass following after first standing
for and winning the Labour leadership in the summer of 2015.
The seeds of the deep bitterness about mainstream politicians and the
establishment were sown in 2003. When Britain joined the US assault on Iraq
despite the opposition of the majority of the population it politicised millions.
The 2 million strong demonstration organised by the Stop the War Coalition in
February 2003 was Britain's biggest ever. But Chilcot proved that Blair had
already promised US president George W Bush that Britain would be with him "whatever".
The warmongers' contempt for the electorate, let alone the people of
Iraq and region, is staggering.
Guccifer 2.0
's latest release of DNC documents is generally described as:
In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents.
It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress
account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security
experts attending the London conference.
Guccifer 2.0 drops more DNC docs by Cory Bennett.
The "600 megabytes of documents" is an attention grabber, but how much of
that 600 megabytes is useful and/or interesting?
The answer turns out to be, not a lot.
Here's an overview of the directories and files:
/CIR
Financial investment data.
/CNBC
Financial investment data.
/DNC
Redistricting documents.
/DNCBSUser
One file with fields of VANDatabaseCode StateID VanID cons_id?
/documentation
A large amount of documentation for "IQ8," apparently address cleaning software.
Possibly useful if you want to know address cleaning rules from eight years
ago.
/DonorAnalysis
Sound promising but is summary data based on media markets.
/early
Early voting analysis.
/eday
Typical election voting analysis, from 2002 to 2008.
/FEC
Duplicates to FEC filings. Checking the .csv file, data from
2008. BTW, you can find this date (2008) and later data of the same type at:
http://fec.gov .
/finance
More duplicates to FEC filings. 11-26-08 NFC Members Raised.xlsx (no credit
cards) – Dated but 453 names with contacts, amounts raised, etc.
September 14th, 2016
Guccifer 2.0 dropped
a new bundle of DNC documents on September 13, 2016! Like most dumps, there
was no accompanying guide to make use of that dump easier.
Not a criticism, just an observation.
As a starting point to make your use of that dump a little easier, I am posting
an ls -lR listing of all the files in that dump, post extraction
with 7z and unrar .
Guccifer2.0-13Sept2016-filelist.txt .
I'm working on a list of the files most likely to be of interest. Look for
that tomorrow.
I can advise that no credit card numbers were included in this dump.
While selling public offices surprises some authors, whose names I omitted
out of courtesy to their families, selling offices is a regularized activity
in the United States.
Every four years, just after the Presidential election, " United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions " is published. It is commonly known as the "Plum Book" and is
alternately published between the House and Senate.
The Plum Book is a listing of over 9,000 civil service leadership and
support positions (filled and vacant) in the Legislative and Executive branches
of the Federal Government that may be subject to noncompetitive appointments,
or in other words by direct appointment.
These "plum" positions include agency heads and their immediate subordinates,
policy executives and advisors, and aides who report to these officials.
Many positions have duties which support Administration policies and programs.
The people holding these positions usually have a close and confidential
relationship with the agency head or other key officials.
Even though the 2012 "plum" book is currently on sale for $19.00 (usual price
is $38.00), given that a new one will appear later this year, consider using
the free online version at:
Plum Book 2012
.
The online interface is nothing to brag on. You have to select filters and
then find to obtain further information on positions. Very poor UI.
However, if under title you select "Chief of Mission, Monaco" and then select
"find," the resulting screen looks something like this:
To your far right there is a small arrow that if selected, takes you to the
details:
If you were teaching a high school civics class, the question would be:
How much did Charles Rivkin have to donate to obtain the position of Chief
of Mission, Monaco?
Monaco, bordering France on the Mediterranean coast, is a popular resort,
attracting tourists to its casino and pleasant climate. The principality
also is a banking center and has successfully sought to diversify into services
and small, high-value-added, nonpolluting industries.
Entering the name Rivkin, Charles and select "Get Listing."
Rivkin's contributions are broken into categories and helpfully summed to
assist you in finding the total.
Contributions to All Other Political Committees Except Joint Fundraising
Committees – $72399.00
Joint Fundraising Contributions – $22300.00
Recipient of Joint Fundraiser Contributions – $36052.00
Caution: There is an anomalous Rivkin in that last category, contributing
$40 to Donald Trump. For present discussions, I would subtract that from the
grand total of:
$130,711 to be the Chief of Mission, Monaco.
Realize that this was not a lump sum payment but a steady stream of contributions
starting in the year 2000.
Jane Hartley paid DNC $605,000 and then was nominated by Obama to serve
concurrently as the U.S. Ambassador to the French Republic and the Principality
of Monaco.
Contributions to Super PACs, Hybrid PACs and Historical Soft Money Party
Accounts – $5000.00
Contributions to All Other Political Committees Except Joint Fundraising
Committees – $516609.71
Joint Fundraising Contributions – $116000.00
Grand total: $637,609.71.
So, $637,609.71, not $605,000.00 but also as a series of contributions starting
in 1997, not one lump sum .
You don't have to search discarded hard drives to get pay-to-play appointment
pricing. It's all a matter of public record.
PS: I'm not sure how accurate or complete
Nominations & Appointments (White House) may be, but its an easier starting
place for current appointees than the online Plum book.
PPS: Estimated pricing for "Plum" book positions could be made more transparent.
Not a freebie. Let me know if you are interested.
"... "You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" smirked Clinton to cheers and laughter. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it." They are "irredeemable," but they are "not America." ..."
"... "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two baskets." First there are "the deplorables, the racists, and the haters, and the people who … think somehow he's going to restore an America that no longer exists. So, just eliminate them from your thinking." And who might be in the other basket backing Donald Trump? They are people, said Clinton, "who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them. … These are people we have to understand and empathize with." ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of ..."
Speaking to 1,000 of the overprivileged at an LGBT fundraiser,
where the chairs ponied up $250,000 each and Barbra Streisand sang,
Hillary Clinton gave New York's social liberals what they came to
hear.
"You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call
the basket of deplorables. Right?" smirked Clinton to cheers and
laughter. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic,
you name it." They are "irredeemable," but they are "not America."
This was no verbal slip. Clinton had invited the press in to
cover the LGBT gala at Cipriani Wall Street where the cheap seats
went for $1,200. And she had tried out her new lines earlier on
Israeli TV:
"You can take Trump supporters and put them in two baskets."
First there are "the deplorables, the racists, and the haters, and
the people who … think somehow he's going to restore an America that
no longer exists. So, just eliminate them from your thinking." And
who might be in the other basket backing Donald Trump? They are
people, said Clinton, "who feel that the government has let them
down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them. …
These are people we have to understand and empathize with."
In short, Trump's support consists of one-half xenophobes,
bigots, and racists, and one-half losers we should pity.
And she is running on the slogan "Stronger Together."
Her remarks echo those of Barack Obama in 2008 to San Francisco
fat cats puzzled about those strange Pennsylvanians.
They are "bitter," said Obama, they "cling to guns or religion or
antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment
or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustration."
In short, Pennsylvania is a backwater of alienated Bible-banging
gun nuts and bigots suspicious of outsiders and foreigners.
But who really are these folks our new class detests, sneers at,
and pities? As African-Americans are 90 percent behind Clinton, it
is not black folks. Nor is it Hispanics, who are solidly in the
Clinton camp.
Nor would Clinton tolerate such slurs directed at Third World
immigrants who are making America better by making us more diverse
than that old "America that no longer exists."
No, the folks Obama and
Clinton detest, disparage, and pity are the white working- and
middle-class folks Richard Nixon celebrated as Middle Americans and
the Silent Majority.
They are the folks who brought America through the Depression,
won World War II, and carried us through the Cold War from Truman in
1945 to victory with Ronald Reagan in 1989.
These are the Trump supporters. They reside mostly in red states
like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Middle Pennsylvania, and southern,
plains, and mountain states that have provided a disproportionate
share of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who fought and
died to guarantee the freedom of plutocratic LGBT lovers to laugh at
and mock them at $2,400-a-plate dinners.
Yet, there is truth in what Clinton said about eliminating "from
your thinking" people who believe Trump can "restore an America that
no longer exists."
For the last chance to restore America, as Trump himself told
Christian Broadcasting's "Brody File" on Friday, September 9, is
slipping away:
"I think this will be the last election if I don't win … because
you're going to have people flowing across the border, you're going
to have illegal immigrants coming in and they're going to be
legalized and they're going to be able to vote, and once that all
happens, you can forget it."
Politically and demographically, America is at a tipping point.
Minorities are now 40 percent of the population and will be 30
percent of the electorate in November. If past trends hold, 4 of 5
will vote for Clinton.
Meanwhile, white folks, who normally vote 60 percent Republican,
will fall to 70 percent of the electorate, the lowest ever, and will
decline in every subsequent presidential year.
The passing of the greatest generation and silent generation,
and, soon, the baby-boom generation, is turning former red states
like Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada purple,
and putting crucial states like Florida and Ohio in peril.
What has happened to America is astonishing. A country 90 percent
Christian after World War II has been secularized by a dictatorial
Supreme Court with only feeble protest and resistance.
A nation, 90 percent of whose population traced their roots to
Europe, will have been changed by mass immigration and an invasion
across its Southern border into a predominantly Third World country
by 2042.
What will then be left of the old America to conserve?
No wonder Clinton was so giddy at the LGBT bash. They are taking
America away from the "haters," as they look down in moral supremacy
on the pitiable Middle Americans who are passing away.
But a question arises for 2017.
Why should Middle America, given what she thinks of us, render a
President Hillary Clinton and her regime any more allegiance or
loyalty than Colin Kaepernick renders to the America he so abhors?
"... cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy. ..."
"... Neoliberalism cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. ..."
"... In this form, cultural nationalism provides national ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation among thelower orders. ..."
"... As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora – where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within the global and imperial hierarchy. ..."
This is where cultural nationalism comes in. Only it can serve to mask, and
bridge, the divides within the 'cartel of anxiety' in a neoliberal context.
Cultural nationalism is a nationalism shorn of its civic-egalitarian and developmentalist
thrust, one reduced to its cultural core. It is structured around the culture
of thee conomically dominant classes in every country, with higher or lower
positions accorded to other groups within the nation relative to it. These positions
correspond, on the whole, to the groups' economic positions, and as such it
organises the dominant classes, and concentric circles of their allies, into
a collective national force. It also gives coherence to, and legitimises, the
activities of the nation-state on behalf of capital, or sections thereof, in
the international sphere.
Indeed, cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising
ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy.
Neoliberalism
cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards
the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important
interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. The activities of the state
on behalf of this or that capitalist interest necessarily exceed the Spartan
limits that neoliberalism sets. Such activities can only be legitimised as being
'in the national interest.'
Second, however, the nationalism that articulates
these interests is necessarily different from, but can easily (and given its
function as a legitimising ideology, it must be said, performatively) be mis-recognised
as, nationalism as widely understood: as being in some real sense in the interests
of all members of the nation. In this form, cultural nationalism provides national
ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation
among thelower orders.
As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every
ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense
competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically
and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora
– where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within
the global and imperial hierarchy.
Except for a commitment to neoliberal policies, the economic policy content
of this nationalism cannot be consistent: within the country, and inter-nationally,
the capitalist system is volatile and the positions of the various elements
of capital in the national and international hierarchies shift constantly as
does the economic policy of cultural nationalist governments. It is this volatility
that also increases the need for corruption – since that is how competitive
access of individual capitals to the state is today organised.
Whatever its utility to the capitalist classes, however, cultural nationalism
can never have a settled or secure hold on those who are marginalised or sub-ordinated
by it. In neoliberal regimes the scope for offering genuine economic gains to
the people at large, however measured they might be, is small.
This is a problem for right politics since even the broadest coalition of
the propertied can never be an electoral majority, even a viable plurality.
This is only in the nature of capitalist private property. While the left remains
in retreat or disarray, elec-toral apathy is a useful political resource but
even where, as in most countries, political choices are minimal, the electorate
as a whole is volatile. Despite, orperhaps because of, being reduced to a competition
between parties of capital, electoral politics in the age of the New Right entails
very large electoral costs, theextensive and often vain use of the media in
elections and in politics generally, and political compromises which may clash
with the high and shrilly ambitiou sdemands of the primary social base in the propertied
classes. Instability, uncertainty ...
"... What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless. ..."
"... As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose. ..."
"... Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense). ..."
"... Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions. ..."
"... The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits. ..."
"... If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation. ..."
"... Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest. ..."
"... With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade? ..."
What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass
the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's
tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines
or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing
them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign
country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through
a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some
commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and
transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless.
As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and
Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And
WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose.
diptherio
Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th
century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian
and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much
always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world"
even makes sense).
Norb
Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political
Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics
cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being
defined as who gets what in social interactions.
What folly. All this complexity and strident study of minutia to bring
about what end? Human history on this planet has been about how societies
form, develop, then recede form prominence. This flow being determined by
how well the society provided for its members or could support their worldview.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and
his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when
they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever.
This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the
mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which
are reaching limits.
Only by thinking, and communicating in the broader terms of political
economy can we hope to understand our current conditions. Until then, change
will be difficult to enact. Hard landings for all indeed.
flora
If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports
instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should
be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports
teams would follow game rules by self-regulation.
LA Mike September 17, 2016 at 8:15 pm
While in traffic, I was thinking about that today. For some time now,
I've viewed the traffic intersection as being a good example of the social
contract. We all agree on its benefits. But today, I thought about it in
terms of the Friedman Neoliberals.
Why should they have to stop at red lights. Wouldn't the whole thing
just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out
of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest.
sd
Something I have wondered for some time, how does tourism fit into trade?
With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending
impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization
and trade?
I Have Strange Dreams
Other things to consider:
– negative effects of immigration (skilled workers leave developing countries
where they are most needed)
– environmental pollution
– destruction of cultures/habitats
– importation of western diet leading to decreased health
– spread of disease (black death, hiv, ebola, bird flu)
– resource wars
– drugs
– happiness
How are these "externalities" calculated?
"... Something along the lines of Sweden, or maybe Germany: the means of production is left in private hands and the owning class is welcome to get rich (there are the equivalent of billionaires in both countries) but there are strict limits as to how much they can screw their workers, cheat their customers or damage the environment. ..."
"... Also, basic social welfare matters (healthcare, child care etc.) are publicly provided, or at least publicly backstopped. The model may not be perfect but it appears to work quite well all in all. ..."
"... Sweden has no taxes on inheritance or residential property, and its 22 percent corporate income tax rate is far lower than America's 35 percent." ..."
"... I do not think that drag queens reading stories, Lionel Shriver's speech and backlash, or the latest Clinton scandal mean civilizational death. They are outliers, but serve to remind the vast majority of the country that there is plenty of room in America for eccentrics of every description to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ..."
"... HRC is not really unthinkable. She is just not preferable. A vote for HRC is an acquiescence to the status quo of corrupt, big money politics. Voting for the status quo is unthinkable only if you think the apocalypse is around the next bend. Let's be serious. ..."
"... "we are at the mercy of systematic forces, difficult to name, which can be manipulated by the powerful but not governed by them, and that our problems are unsolvable" ..."
"... I would argue that the "system" is capitalism grown decadent and corrupt. It is a secular religion that we've given ourselves over to and is exactly as he describes: a massive systemic force that some can manipulate for their own gain, but as a society we've lost the will or ability to control it's macro forces which have the power grind up whole demographics, communities, or crash the whole economy. ..."
"... The reaction and fall out from the financial crisis amounted to everyone shrugging and declaring innocence and ignorance. They seemed to say, how could anyone see such a thing coming or do anything about it? How could anyone control such a huge system? ..."
"... I'm always struck by these posts detailing how everything is coming apart in America. I look around and frankly, life looks pretty good. Maybe it's because I'm a minority female, who grew up poor and now has a solidly middle class life. My mother, God rest her soul, was smarter and worked harder than I ever will but did not have one-quarter of the opportunities (education, housing) I've had. My sons have travelled the globe, and have decent jobs and good friends. I am grateful. ..."
"... I wouldn't say that [neo] Liberalism is "spent" as a force, rather that its credibility is. As a cultural force (covering both politics and the economy, among other things), its strength is and remains vast. It is Leviathan. For all intents and purposes, it defines the culture, and thus dictates the imperatives and methods, of our governing and economic elites. ..."
"... Bush proved that electing an imbecile to the Presidency has real consequences for our standing in the world. ..."
"... Trump starts speaking without knowing how his sentence will end, and then he will go to down fighting to defend whatever it was he said even though he never really meant it in the first place. That mix of arrogance and stupidity is more dangerous than Bush. ..."
"... Totally unconvincing. It couldn't be more obvious that Hillary stands for rule by globalists whereas Trump intends to return control of the federal government to We the People. ..."
"... Which candidate is traveling to Louisiana? Flint? Detroit? Mexico (on behalf of America)? Which candidate calls tens of millions of Americans irredeemable and thus it would be justified in exterminating them? ..."
"... What makes Mr. Cosimano so sure that what America is passing into is anything like a "civilization" at all? We could simple pass into barbarism. Can anyone name the leaders who hope to build any kind of civilization at all? ..."
"... For 70+ years, other than while working on a university degree in history, I never gave a thought to civilizational collapse, so I would have been a poor choice to ask for a definition of the term. But after a few years of reading TAC I think I have a handle on it. It's a situation in which someone or some group sees broad social change they don't like. So probably civilizational collapse is constant and ongoing. ..."
"... I would only point out that there is no clear path to economic safety for working Americans, whether they are white are black. Training and hard work will only take you so far in our demand-constrained economy. Whether black optimism or white pessimism turns out to be empirically justified is far from certain. We are constructing the future as we speak, and our actions will determine the answer to this question. ..."
"... As the WikiLeaks dox show, it wasn't "barrel bombs" or "chemical warfare against his own people" that made the elites hungry to overthrow the government there, it was the 2009 decision by Syria not to allow an oil pipeline through from Qatar to Turkey, whereupon the CIA was directed to start funding jihadists and regime change. ..."
"... I'd note that Popes going back to Leo XIII have written on the destructive effects of capitalism or rather the unmitigated pursuit of wealth. Both Benedict and Francis have eloquently expressed the need for a spiritual conversion to solve the world's problems. A conversion which recognizes our solidarity with one another as well as our obligation to the health of Creation. I rather doubt we will find the impetus for this conversion among our politicians. ..."
"... The problem is not civilization-level, Mr. Dreher. The problem is species -level. Humanity as a whole is discovering that it cannot handle too high a level of technology without losing its ability to get feedback from its environment. Without that feedback, its elite classes drift off into literal insanity. The rest of the society soon follows. ..."
"... James Parker in The Atlantic comes to a similar conclusion from a very different starting place ..."
"... "For Trump to be revealed as a salvational figure, the conditions around him must be dire. Trump_vs_deep_state-like fascism, like a certain kind of smash-it-up punk rock-begins in apprehensions of apocalypse." ..."
"... Classical [neo]liberalism presents itself not as a tentative theory of how society might be organized but as a theory of nature. It claims to lay out the forces of nature and to make these a model for social order. Thus free-market fundamentalism, letting the market function "as nature intended". It's an absurd position when applied dogmatically, and no more "natural" than other economic arrangements humans might come up with. ..."
"... Further, as I suggest, our two camps "left" and "right" are no longer distinctly left and right in any traditional sense. The market forces and self-marketing that lead to the fetishization of identity by the left are the same market forces championed by the capitalist right. In America today, both left and right are merely different bourgeois cults of Self. ..."
"... "Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors) has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the world ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American conservatives." ..."
Re: we have yet to hear a cogent description of what "bridled" capitalism
is/looks like
Something along the lines of Sweden, or maybe Germany: the means
of production is left in private hands and the owning class is welcome
to get rich (there are the equivalent of billionaires in both countries)
but there are strict limits as to how much they can screw their workers,
cheat their customers or damage the environment.
Also, basic social welfare matters (healthcare, child care etc.)
are publicly provided, or at least publicly backstopped. The model may
not be perfect but it appears to work quite well all in all.
I think a lot of American capitalists would welcome those bridles.
As for Hanby's critique of the liberal order that (thankfully) prevails
in the West, it is only because of that liberal order that we are freely
discussing these matters here, that we can talk about a Benedict Option
in which we can create an economy within the economy, because in the
non-liberal orders that prevailed through most of history, and that
still prevail in a lot of places, we'd be under threat from the state
for free discussion, and we would have little or no choice of education
or jobs, because we'd be serfs or slaves or forced by government to
go into a certain line of work (like my husband's Mandarin teacher,
a scientist who was forced into the countryside during the Cultural
Revolution and then told that she had to become a language teacher.)
I'd be interested to know what kind of system Hanby would like to
see replace our liberal order. Presumably one where he would be in charge.
[neo]Liberalism is exhausted? What does that even mean, except as a
high-brow insult?
If there is one statistic that disproves this claim, it's that religious
attendance is plummeting and the number of people who are "nones" are
rising rapidly.
What's exhausted is religion as a necessary component of social life.
Since that is indisputably true, I guess the only thing that is left
is for the remaining stalwarts resisting the tide to project this idea
of exhaustion onto the other side.
[NFR: You don't understand his point. He's not talking about liberalism
as the philosophy of the Democratic Party. He's talking about liberalism
as the political culture and system of the West. - RD]
"There is nothing like a good shock of pain for dissolving certain
kinds of magic."
Could be that Trump is God's Hot Foot Angel With The Dirty Face waking
Americans up to the increasingly Godless Agenda of The Washington Establishment
and The Corporate Media.
Talk about cynical. There's a lot to take exception to here, but let's
start with this:
"In other words, the fact that we are in civilizational crisis is
becoming unavoidably apparent, though there is obviously little agreement
as to what this crisis consists in or what its causes are and little
interest from the omnipresent media beyond how perceptions of crisis
affect voter behavior."
Possibly because he's one of the relatively few people who think
we're in such a crisis. A lot of us – Republican and Democrat – still
believe ideas and ideals are important and we support them (and their
torchbearers, however flawed) with all the vigor we can muster.
I do not think that drag queens reading stories, Lionel Shriver's
speech and backlash, or the latest Clinton scandal mean civilizational
death. They are outliers, but serve to remind the vast majority of the
country that there is plenty of room in America for eccentrics of every
description to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I
will admit to thinking this kind of thing much more important on college
campuses, where it can affect the quality of an education.
"We would not see it as a crisis of soul, but a crisis of management…"
Probably true: I'm not so sure that our founding principles really
envision our civilization as having a soul rather than virtues. And
the idea of a national government mucking around with the souls of the
people gives me the heebie-jeebies much as Putin's alliance with the
Orthodox church does you. And if there's anything we can take from the
current election, I think it's that Americans have had enough sociologists,
economists, lawyers, and other "experts" tell them what to do to last
a lifetime. It's part and parcel of the distrust you just posted about.
And I'm not at all sure that Americans are generally despairing,
though it's pretty clear they think our country is on the wrong track.
Hillary ought to be running away with this thing – why isn't she? Because
she's seen as more of the same. Sanders offered the hope of something
new, something transformative: the same thing people see in Trump. Their
hope MAY be misplaced but time will tell. This election cycle ought
to make people a little less confident in their predictions.
"Hope is hard, I admit. But my response is that it is not the pessimist
about liberalism who lacks hope, but the optimist who cannot see beyond
its horizons."
Hope is hard if you're investing in our institutions to carry us
through. They aren't designed to. Our hope is in Christ, Our Redeemer,
and that His will "be done on earth as it is in Heaven." And I will
gladly admit to not being able to see beyond liberalism's horizons –
again, the predictions of experts and philosophers haven't held up too
well over time.
I can say that blithely because my hope is not in liberalism, ultimately.
Do I think some semblance of liberalism can and will survive? Yes, but
the cultural struggles we are going through are part and parcel of the
system. Do I like that? No.
And as much as we need to reinforce communities (through the BenOp)
we also need to recognize that our job isn't always to understand and
prepare. As Christians, it is to obey. It means we repent, fast, and
pray. It means we take the Great Commission seriously even when it's
uncomfortable.
I'm sorry to rip your friend here, I just don't find his piece compelling
at all.
HRC is not really unthinkable. She is just not preferable. A vote for
HRC is an acquiescence to the status quo of corrupt, big money politics.
Voting for the status quo is unthinkable only if you think the apocalypse
is around the next bend. Let's be serious.
Voting for Trump is unthinkable because he is totally clueless about
seemingly he talks about. His arrogance is only surpassed by his ignorance.
Gary Johnson was excoriated because he did not know what Aleppo is.
I bet a paycheck Trump couldn't point to Syria on a map. Trump get's
no serious criticism for insistence that we steal Iraq's oil, his confusion
about why Iran wasn't buying our airplanes, his assertion that Iran
is North Koreas largest trading partner, that South Korea and Japan
ought to have nukes, his threats to extort our NATO allies. There are
dozens of gems like these, but you get the picture. One only needs to
read transcripts from his interviews to understand the limits of his
intellect. Voting for such a profound ignoramus is truly unthinkable.
Teenagers born after 2000 – the so-called 'Generation Z' – are
the most socially conservative generation since the Second World War,
a new study has found.
The youngsters surveyed had more conservative views on gay marriage,
transgender rights and drugs than Baby Boomers, Generation X or Millennials.
The questioned were more prudent than Millennials, Generation X and
Baby Boomers but not quite as cash-savvy as those born in 1945 or before.
…
Only 14 and 15-year-olds were surveyed, by brand consultancy The Gild,
as they were classed as being able to form credible opinions by that
age.
When asked to comment on same-sex marriage, transgender rights and
cannabis legislation, 59 per cent of Generation X teenagers said they
had conservative views.
Around 85 per cent of Millennials and those in Generation X had a
'quite' or 'very liberal' stance overall.
When asked for their specific view on each topic only the Silent
Generation was more conservative that Generation Z.
One in seven – 14% – of the 14 and 15-year-olds took a 'quite conservative'
approach, while only two per cent of Millennials and one per cent of
Generation X.
The Silent Generation had a 'quite conservative' rating of 34
per cent.
I think this was done in Britain but as we know, social trends in
the rest of the West tend to spill over into the States.
Are we looking at another Alex P. Keaton generation? Kids likely
to rebel against the liberalism of their parents?
I can never quite understand the tension between these two concepts:
enlightenment liberalism as a spent force, enervated, listless, barely
able to stir itself even in its own defense, and simultaneously weaponized
SJWism, modern day Jacobins, an army of clenched-jawed fanatics who
will stop at nothing to destroy its enemies.
It seems that one of these perspectives must be less true than the
other.
[NFR: SJWs are a betrayal of classical liberalism. - RD]
I realize that I only comment here when something sets me off, and not
when I agree with you (which is after all why I keep reading you).
So here I am agreeing with this post.
"we are at the mercy of systematic forces, difficult to name, which
can be manipulated by the powerful but not governed by them, and that
our problems are unsolvable"
I would argue that the "system" is capitalism grown decadent and
corrupt. It is a secular religion that we've given ourselves over to
and is exactly as he describes: a massive systemic force that some can
manipulate for their own gain, but as a society we've lost the will
or ability to control it's macro forces which have the power grind up
whole demographics, communities, or crash the whole economy.
The reaction and fall out from the financial crisis amounted to everyone
shrugging and declaring innocence and ignorance. They seemed to say,
how could anyone see such a thing coming or do anything about it? How
could anyone control such a huge system?
As your friend says, even if we want to exert more control over this
system (which we can with the will), this would end up being a technocratic
project, not a spiritual one. Sad because a spiritual argument against
the excesses of capitalism might actually gain more traction at this
point, than tired liberal arguments.
I'm always struck by these posts detailing how everything is coming
apart in America. I look around and frankly, life looks pretty good.
Maybe it's because I'm a minority female, who grew up poor and now has
a solidly middle class life. My mother, God rest her soul, was smarter
and worked harder than I ever will but did not have one-quarter of the
opportunities (education, housing) I've had. My sons have travelled
the globe, and have decent jobs and good friends. I am grateful.
My friends and I went out the other night in Austin, and there were
families, very diverse, walking in the outdoor mall, standing in line
to buy $5 scoops of ice cream for their children. Not hipsters, or God
forbid the elite, just regular middle class folk enjoying an evening
out. The truth is, life has improved immeasurably for many Americans.
Do we have serious problems? Of course, but can we have just a wee bit
of perspective?
You may be right about the problem, but not its nature. Capitalism
is not an impersonal force that can't be controlled, it's what people
do economically if they are left alone to do it. The problem comes when
people are not, simply put, virtuous. When people seek a return on investment
that is not simply reasonable, but rather the most they can possibly
get. We have had a capitalist system for long enough that some people
who are both good at manipulating it and, often, unethical enough to
not care what impact their choices have on others, have accumulated
vast amounts of wealth while others, over generations, have made choices
that have not been profitable, have lost wealth.
There used to be mechanisms for preventing these trends to continue
to their logical conclusion, as they are here. Judea had Jubilee. The
Byzantine Empire had an Emperor whose interests were served by a prosperous
landed middle class to populate the Thematic armies and who would occasionally
step in and return the land his part time soldiers had lost through
bad loans from aristocrats. We have no such mechanism for a farmer to
regain land lost due to foreclosure.
We should not redistribute wealth in such a way that a person has no
incentive to work, but we should never allow a person's means of earning
a livelihood to be taken from them.
I wouldn't say that [neo] Liberalism is "spent" as a force, rather that its
credibility is. As a cultural force (covering both politics and the
economy, among other things), its strength is and remains vast. It is
Leviathan. For all intents and purposes, it defines the culture, and
thus dictates the imperatives and methods, of our governing and economic
elites. The crisis of Western political legitimacy that is manifest
in the nomination of Trump, Brexit and numerous other movements and
incidents is a sign that the legitimacy of this order has been undermined
and is dissolving within the societies it effectively governs; in some
unspoken sense, the unwashed masses of the West (those not part of the
so-called "New Class") have come to understand that they have been betrayed
by the Liberal order, that it has not lived up to its promises, even
that it is becoming or has become a force destructive of their communities
and their ability to thrive as human beings.
The ever-increasing autonomy promised by the Liberal order has turned
out to be a poisoned chalice for many. As it has dissolved the bonds
of families and communities, it has atomized people into individuals
without traditional social supports in an increasingly cutthroat and
uncaring world. People cannot help but understand that they have lost
something or are missing something, even if they are not able to articulate
or identify that loss. It is a sickness of the soul, in the sense that
the ailment is somewhere close to the heart of what it means to be human.
We are what we are, and the Liberal order is pushing us into opposition
to our own natures, as if we can choose to be something other than what
we are.
This idea that Democrats hate Hillary in the same way Republicans despise
Trump is way off base in my opinion. This attempt at equivalency, like
so many others, is false. I voted for Sanders because I liked him better,
but I am not holding my nose to vote for Hillary Clinton. There are
several things I actually admire about her, including her attention
to detail and tenacity. I'll always remember how she sat before Congress
as First Lady, no paper or crib sheet in sight, and presented her detailed
and compelling case for national health care . I thought that was awesome
then, and still do.
Still, as I've noted many times, I never liked the Clintons that
much, mainly because I hated a lot of what Bill Clinton stood for and
what he did. Aside from his embarrassing sexual escapades, most of that
pertained to positions that seemed more Republican than Democratic (on
welfare mothers, mental patients, deregulation of the broadcast industry,
etc.) I also didn't like their position on abortion nor the way their
people treated Gov. Casey at the party convention, nor the dialing back
on Jimmy Carter's uncompromising stand for human rights in the third
world. Some of Hillary's hawkish positions are still a concern, but
what she stands for in general is far and away more humane and within
my understanding of what's good for the country and the world at large
than anything Republicans represent. Their ideas hurt people on too
many fronts to justify voting for them just because I may agree with
them on principle when it comes to matters such abortion. Trump just
adds insult to injury in every regard.
Very well said. What accounts for the relative optimism of minorities
vs. whites?
State of the economy, personal situation, optimism that your kids future
will be better than yours, etc. In all of these surveys, it is the pessimism
of whites, untethered from empirical reality, that stands out as the
outlier.
"Sad because a spiritual argument against the excesses of capitalism
might actually gain more traction at this point, than tired liberal
arguments."
It would gain more traction, and it would be better focused at what
is much larger cause of the current social, economic, and family problems
of the working classes.
But the argument won't be made, because the majority of those that
believe in a societal crisis have pinned the origin of this crisis on
feminism, the sexual revolution, and SJW, and have bought in full the
bootstraps language of the radical capitalism. Even the majority crunchy
cons, that would be sympathetic to the arguments against capitalism,
would rather try to solve the ills of the world via cultural instead
of economic ways.
Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors)
has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the
world ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American
conservatives
[NFR: Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict said the same thing.
- RD]
Bush proved that electing an imbecile to the Presidency has real
consequences for our standing in the world. Trump is just as stupid,
but he is far more dangerous. At least Bush wasn't a egomaniac.
Trump starts speaking without knowing how his sentence will end, and
then he will go to down fighting to defend whatever it was he said even
though he never really meant it in the first place. That mix of arrogance
and stupidity is more dangerous than Bush.
"In fact, I doubt we any longer possess enough of a 'civilization' to
understand what a 'civilizational crisis' would really mean."
I think someone has no idea what "civilization" means. None of his
definitions apply.
What we are seeing is the radical change in Western Civilization
from the old Graeco-Roman/Christian model to a yet undefined American
model. (Which is why Islam in Europe is not very important. Europe is
no longer very important.) No one guards the "glory that was Greece"
any more. We've moved out of that. The debate will be when did the transition
occur. Did it begin in the 19th Century with the Age of Invention? Did
it occur in the flash of gunpowder that was WW1? Was it the blasting
to rubble of Monte Cassino when the weapons of the new blew the symbol
of the old to ruin? Was it the moment men stood upon the Moon and nothing
the bronze age pilers of rocks had to say was of any value any more?
The key to understanding the change is that the old values are dead
and we are in the process of creating new ones. No one knows where that
is going to go. It is all too new.
Hanby is wrong. We have a civilization, but it is leaving his in
the dust.
Totally unconvincing. It couldn't be more obvious that Hillary stands
for rule by globalists whereas Trump intends to return control of the
federal government to We the People.
Which candidate is traveling to Louisiana? Flint? Detroit? Mexico
(on behalf of America)? Which candidate calls tens of millions of Americans
irredeemable and thus it would be justified in exterminating them?
Seriously, only one of these two appears interested in leading the
nation.
"What's exhausted is religion as a necessary component of social
life."
This is so hilariously untrue, but also very sad that the secular
Left cannot see its own idols or even read its own headlines.
What does he think is happening in the United States besides the
rise of a revolutionary moral order, ruled by fickle tastemakers who
believe that their own emotions and thoughts have creative power? How
else would history have a "side"? How else could "gender" be entirely
unmoored from sex and any other scientific fact? Progressivism even
has "climate change" as its chosen apocalypse which will visit destruction
if not enough fealty is granted to an ever-more-omnipotent and omniscient
central government? Does he not see how over and over again, this week's
progressive leaders attacks last week's? Amy Schumer, anyone?
Once a culture abolishes the One True God, as ours has, then that
culture begins to find other sources for the attributes of God and for
the definitions of virtues and vices.
What makes Mr. Cosimano so sure that what America is passing into
is anything like a "civilization" at all? We could simple pass into
barbarism. Can anyone name the leaders who hope to build any kind of
civilization at all?
Never forget that there is a real and clear choice before us.
Clinton will deliver amnesty to 40 million illegals. Continue the
1 million legal immigrants per yer all from the Third World. She will
radically upsize the Muslim refugee influx to hundreds of thousands
per year. All terrible things.
Trump will do the opposite. This will make a massive difference to
the future of the country - Trump, good…Clinton, bad - and is what this
election is about.
For 70+ years, other than while working on a university degree in history,
I never gave a thought to civilizational collapse, so I would have been
a poor choice to ask for a definition of the term. But after a few years
of reading TAC I think I have a handle on it. It's a situation in which
someone or some group sees broad social change they don't like. So probably
civilizational collapse is constant and ongoing.
As for me, I'm outside somewhere every day and so far not even a
tiny piece of the sky has fallen on me.
@xrdsmom
Empirical reality depends on where you stand. Younote that your prospects
have improved relative to your mom's. For the working class whites working
at low paying jobs, they have declined. Is their anger simply a response
to loss of white privilege? In the sense that this privilege consisted
of access to well-paying jobs out of high school, the answer is yes.
I would only point out that there is no clear path to economic safety
for working Americans, whether they are white are black. Training and
hard work will only take you so far in our demand-constrained economy.
Whether black optimism or white pessimism turns out to be empirically
justified is far from certain. We are constructing the future as we
speak, and our actions will determine the answer to this question.
It's true a lot of people couldn't point to Syria; because that's how
important it is to most people. So why are we now involved in a full
scale war there, when the American people clearly stated they didn't
want another war?
As the WikiLeaks dox show, it wasn't "barrel bombs" or "chemical
warfare against his own people" that made the elites hungry to overthrow
the government there, it was the 2009 decision by Syria not to allow
an oil pipeline through from Qatar to Turkey, whereupon the CIA was
directed to start funding jihadists and regime change.
Hillary is not as corrupt as some think nor is Trump likely to be able
to enact much of his agenda(most of which he has no commitment to –
it is all a performance). So I do not see either as end times candidates.
However – a civilization must assure certain things – order, cohesion,
safety from invasion and occupation. It also must assure that the resources
we secure from the earth are available – good soil, clean water, sustainable
management of energy sources etc. This is where our civilization is
failing – if you doubt this – spend a moment looking up soil erosion
on Google. Or dead zones Mississippi and Nile deltas. Depletion of fish
stocks. Loss of arable land and potable water all over the planet. Is
this calamitous failure a function of liberalism or capitalism run amok?
Perhaps the two go hand in hand?
I'd note that Popes going back to
Leo XIII have written on the destructive effects of capitalism or rather
the unmitigated pursuit of wealth. Both Benedict and Francis have eloquently
expressed the need for a spiritual conversion to solve the world's problems.
A conversion which recognizes our solidarity with one another as well
as our obligation to the health of Creation. I rather doubt we will
find the impetus for this conversion among our politicians.
But there are certainly all over the earth groups of people who have
experienced this conversion and are seeking to build civilizations which
are just and sustainable. Rod has written about some – his friends in
Italy as an example.
The problem is not civilization-level, Mr. Dreher. The problem is
species -level. Humanity as a whole is discovering that it cannot handle
too high a level of technology without losing its ability to get feedback
from its environment. Without that feedback, its elite classes drift
off into literal insanity. The rest of the society soon follows.
The trick is going to be recovering our connection with the Realities
of existence without bringing technological civilization down or re-engineering
Humanity into something we would not recognize.
Color me less than optimistic about our prospects.
"I really think there is a pervasive, but unarticulated sense that
liberalism is exhausted, that we are at the mercy of systematic forces,
difficult to name, which can be manipulated by the powerful but not
governed by them, and that our problems are unsolvable. The reasons
for this anxiety are manifold and cannot be reduced to politics or economics…"
"For Trump to be revealed as a salvational figure, the conditions
around him must be dire. Trump_vs_deep_state-like fascism, like a certain kind
of smash-it-up punk rock-begins in apprehensions of apocalypse."
Hanky's diagnosis is brilliant. Yes, thanks for posting, Rod.
One of our fundamental problems, along with the conceptual horizons
imposed by liberalism, is the obsolete language of "left" and "right"
that we continue to apply when weighing our options. This too is part
of why we can't construct a politics of hope, and in my reading it explains
the decline of the left into identity politics (our Democratic Party
is not any more "the left" in any meaningful way) and of the right into
"movement conservatism" or Trumpian nationalism.
Classical [neo]liberalism presents itself not as a tentative theory of
how society might be organized but as a theory of nature. It claims
to lay out the forces of nature and to make these a model for social
order. Thus free-market fundamentalism, letting the market function
"as nature intended". It's an absurd position when applied dogmatically,
and no more "natural" than other economic arrangements humans might
come up with.
The only truly rock solid aspect of classical liberalism in my mind
is its theory of individual dignity, the permanent and nonnegotiable
value of each individual in essence and before the law. The left has
taken this and run with it and turned it into a divination of individual
desire and self-definition, which is something different. The capitalist
right has taken it and turned it into a theory of individual responsibility
for one's economic fate, which is helpful in ways, but not decisive
or even fully explanatory as to why people end up where they are. And
a lot of people are not in a good place thanks to the free trade enthusiasts
who believe what they're up to somehow reflects the eternal forces of
nature.
Further, as I suggest, our two camps "left" and "right" are no
longer distinctly left and right in any traditional sense. The market
forces and self-marketing that lead to the fetishization of identity
by the left are the same market forces championed by the capitalist
right. In America today, both left and right are merely different bourgeois
cults of Self.
It should be no surprise that the inalienable dignity of the individual,
that rock solid core of liberal thinking, grew directly from the Christian
soil of Paul's assertion of the equality of all–men, women, Greek, Jew,
freed, slave–in Christ. (Galatians 3:28) The world's current thinking
on "human rights" is merely a universalized version of Paul's thought,
hatched in a Christian Europe by philosophes who didn't recognize
just how Christian they were.
After all the utopian dusts settle, whether the dust of Adam Smith
or the dust of PC Non-Discrimination, we must see that the one thing
holding us together is this recognition that the political order must
respect human rights. The core issue at present is thus that we legislate
in ways that reflect a realistic understanding of these rights. As for
"movement conservatism" or PC progressivism, they each represent pipe
dreams that don't address the economic or legal challenges in coherent
ways, and they each sacrifice true rights at one altar or another.
The obsolete language of "left" and "right" keeps us unwilling to
grapple with the real economic and legal challenges, if only because
we're too busy cheerleading either one version of the capitalist cult
or the other.
I'm looking forward to The Benedict Option mainly as providing
some answers as to how the remnant of faithful Christians in this mayhem
might both hold their faith intact while perhaps simultaneously developing
less utopian modes of thinking about community. The neoliberal order
may very well be shaping up to be for us something like the pagan Roman
Empire was to the early church. We finally have to face that, politically
speaking, we are in the world but not of it.
Re: Clinton will deliver amnesty to 40 million illegals.
Will she be inviting them in from parallel universes? Because we
do not have 40 million illegals. The number is closer to eleven million.
Also the president can't do this on his/her own. Congress has to
act. The House will remain GOP. The Senate may too, or will flip back
to GOP after 2018. As I mentioned Clinton's hands will be tied as much
as Obama's have been since 2010. That includes Supreme Court appointments.
Only the most boring of moderates will get through– sure, they won't
overturn Roe or Oberfell, but they won't rubber stamp much new either.
"Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors)
has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the world
ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American conservatives."
[NFR: Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict said the same thing. -
RD]"
It doesn't sit well for two reasons: (a) we have yet to hear a cogent
description of what "bridled" capitalism is/looks like and (b) capitalism
has its faults, but it has raised far more boats than it has swamped.
Until we hear an admission of (b) and an explanation of (a), their statements
will continue to fall on deaf ears. Particularly from Pope Francis, whose
grip on economic ideas seems tenuous at best.
"... If that record is perceived as unacceptable, then again it doesn't much matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent or incumbent party loses. ..."
"... The Clinton email thing does not begin to rise to the level of Watergate or the Monica Lewinsky affair, except perhaps in the fever swamps of Fox News. ..."
"... My guess is that ultimately the two third parties fielding candidates this election will not trigger this key; they are what Lichtman calls "perennial third parties" and not really insurgencies led by well-known political figures, which is when the third party key is generally triggered. ..."
"... Having said all that, I congratulate the author for recognizing and engaging with Lichtman's work. It's a very substantial theory with a great track record that, for reasons I don't fully understand, is generally overlooked by journalists who write about such things. ..."
"... Right now, polling composite scores put Hillary Clinton at +5 or more over Trump in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Virginia. Add in the safely blue states and her floor is 272 electoral votes, even assuming she underperforms relative to her polling by 5 points across the board. Hillary wins even on a bad night. ..."
"... We elected Obama in large part to repudiate Bush, who was a total disaster. Now, if your hypothesis holds, we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute. In 4 or 8 years, which loser will the Democrats trot out to repudiate Trump, who is virtually guaranteed to be a total disaster? Most sane Americans just want this roller coaster to be over. ..."
"... Trump has the momentum right now, as Hillary Clinton stumbles. ..."
"... The overall national numbers show a slight and late recovery from recession. However, the average and median numbers conceal a split, in which a majority of voters did not participate in the recovery, especially in key swing states. ..."
"... Trump is actively drawing support from this sense of failure to recover, so it is not just theoretical. I'd score the recovery against the incumbent too, because key voting segments would. ..."
"... We are seeing a good example of the preference cascade. For well over a year Clinton has been capped at 45%, usually in the low 40's. As it becomes more respectable to vote for Trump, the more people are willing to move from the undecided/third party column to the Trump column. ..."
"... If I recall correctly, Lichtman also scores both the foreign policy/military success and failure keys differently. ISIS is a foreign policy failure, but not on the public perception of Pearl Harbor, the fall of Vietnam, or the Iran hostage crisis. And the Iran deal is a foreign policy success, but not on the level of, say, winning WWII. ..."
"... Polls, by themselves, don't predict much, and certainly not long-term – although I agree that Clinton remains the likely winner this year. ..."
"... Obama (I did not vote for him in '08 or '12) has succeeded and some areas, and failed in others – such is the nature of the job. ..."
"... As a student of history, I suspect his presidency will be graded somewhere between B- and C+; slightly above average. Whereas, by your assessment, his predecessor was "can't miss" disasters (D- leaning toward F). ..."
"... we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute ..."
"... At the end of the day, though, Lichtman's model, like most models of voting behavior, is not intended so much as a predictive system as an attempt to explain how voters make decisions. The Lichtman theory does a remarkable job of modeling such decision-making, and demonstrates clearly his hypothesis that presidential elections are mostly referenda on the performance of the incumbent party. That doesn't mean it will always be so, but he makes a compelling case that it's been that way since the Civil War. ..."
"... Obama's economy isn't gonna help Hillary Clinton. Government data show that the economy only grew by 1.2 percent in the second quarter. First quarter growth was also revised down from 1.1 percent to 0.8 percent. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton addressed the sluggish economy in her speech last night, admitting that Americans "feel like the economy just isn't working." Although she cited economic growth under president Obama, she insisted that "none of us can be satisfied with the status quo." ..."
In 1976, Washington insider Averell Harriman famously said of Georgia peanut
farmer Jimmy Carter, the one-term governor and presidential aspirant, "He can't
be nominated, I don't know him and I don't know anyone who does.'' Within months
Jimmy Carter was president. Harriman's predictive folly serves as an allegory
of democratic politics. The unthinkable can happen, and when it does it becomes
not only thinkable but natural, even commonplace. The many compelling elements
of Carter's unusual presidential quest remained shrouded from Harriman's vision
because they didn't track with his particular experiences and political perceptions.
Call it the Harriman syndrome.
The Harriman syndrome has been on full display during the presidential candidacy
of Donald Trump. He couldn't possibly get the Republican nomination. Too boorish.
A political neophyte. No organization. No intellectual depth. A divisive character
out of sync with Republicans' true sensibilities. Then he got the nomination,
and now those same perceptions are being trotted out to bolster the view that
he can't possibly become president. Besides, goes the conventional wisdom, demographic
trends are impinging upon the Electoral College in ways that pretty much preclude
any Republican from winning the presidency in our time.
But Trump actually can win, despite his gaffe-prone ways and his poor standing
in the polls as the general-election campaign gets under way. I say this based
upon my thesis, explored in my latest book ( Where They Stand: The American
Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians ), that presidential elections
are largely referendums on the incumbent or incumbent party. If the incumbent's
record is adjudged by the electorate to be exemplary, it doesn't matter who
the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent wins. If
that record is perceived as unacceptable, then again it doesn't much matter
who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent or incumbent
party loses.
Worth noting is that Lichtman himself scores the keys differently than does
the author of this post. As the inventor of the system, his analysis deserves
considerable weight. In particular, he scores the nomination contest key,
the scandal key, and the challenger charisma key as all favorable to Democrats.
I'm not sure I agree with him about the nomination contest key, but I
think that, by the criteria he used in analyzing past elections, he's right
about the other two. The Clinton email thing does not begin to rise
to the level of Watergate or the Monica Lewinsky affair, except perhaps
in the fever swamps of Fox News. As far as charisma, Lichtman identified
four 20th-century candidates as charismatic: the two Roosevelts, Kennedy,
and Reagan. Trump is not in that league.
The third-party key is, as the author states, not really possible to
call at this point. My guess is that ultimately the two third parties
fielding candidates this election will not trigger this key; they are what
Lichtman calls "perennial third parties" and not really insurgencies led
by well-known political figures, which is when the third party key is generally
triggered.
One other point is worth mentioning. Lichtman's first key, the incumbent
mandate key, changed during the development of his theory. It was originally
based on whether the incumbent party had received an absolute majority of
the popular vote in the previous election (which, in this case, would have
favored the Democrats). But, because that led to the system predicting an
incorrect outcome in one particular election (I don't remember which one),
he changed it to the current comparison of seats won in the previous two
mid-terms. I think there's a case to be made that the advanced state of
the gerrymandering art may have rendered this key useless; it is now entirely
possible for a party to gain seats from one mid-term to the next while actually
doing less well in the popular vote. In fact, that's exactly what happened
from 2010 to 2014; the percentage of the vote that Republican house members
received was lower in 2014 than it was in 2010, even though they gained
more seats in 2014. In any case, I don't think that it really favors Trump
in the way the author of the OP thinks it does.
Having said all that, I congratulate the author for recognizing and
engaging with Lichtman's work. It's a very substantial theory with a great
track record that, for reasons I don't fully understand, is generally overlooked
by journalists who write about such things.
I'm highly skeptical of this kind of historic analysis. It's the sort of
thing that works until it doesn't, and even then only sort of works because
the idea's proponents wind up explaining away the exceptions.
What I trust is polling. It's quite well refined, and averaging the results
of multiple polls tends to smooth out errors.
Right now, polling composite scores put Hillary Clinton at +5 or
more over Trump in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Colorado, Wisconsin,
and Virginia. Add in the safely blue states and her floor is 272 electoral
votes, even assuming she underperforms relative to her polling by 5 points
across the board. Hillary wins even on a bad night.
Of course Trump might close some of that gap in the next seven weeks.
We'll see.
"If the incumbent's record is adjudged by the electorate to be exemplary,
it doesn't matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does.
The incumbent wins. If that record is perceived as unacceptable, then
again it doesn't much matter who the challenger is or what he or she
says or does. The incumbent or incumbent party loses."
That is a compelling hypothesis which I find very plausible. As our two
parties drift farther apart and become incapable of giving us any representatives
whom we find exemplary, what happens to us? We elected Obama in large
part to repudiate Bush, who was a total disaster. Now, if your hypothesis
holds, we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is
becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute. In 4 or 8 years, which
loser will the Democrats trot out to repudiate Trump, who is virtually guaranteed
to be a total disaster? Most sane Americans just want this roller coaster
to be over.
I'm highly skeptical of this kind of historic analysis. It's the
sort of thing that works until it doesn't, and even then only sort of
works because the idea's proponents wind up explaining away the exceptions.
This, in spades. Plus, many of these keys are so subjective (at least
prospectively) as to render them meaningless for anything but fun predictive
parlor games.
What I trust is polling. It's quite well refined, and averaging
the results of multiple polls tends to smooth out errors.
Yes and no. Gallup thought this, too, when it predicted Dewey would defeat
Truman. Nate Silver was absolutely positive that Trump could never ever
ever win the Republican nomination, until he did.
My analysis is that under the old, pre-Big Data-driven elections (i.e.
micro-targeting your likely voters, registering them if they are unregistered,
and stopping at nothing (probably not even the election laws) in getting
them to the polls), Trump would win rather handily, but under the new Big
Data-driven campaigns that the initial Obama campaign was the first to master,
Clinton is a huge favorite, baggage and all. Organization and ground game
trumps a lot – not everything, but a lot.
The overall national numbers show a slight and late recovery from recession.
However, the average and median numbers conceal a split, in which a majority
of voters did not participate in the recovery, especially in key swing states.
Trump is actively drawing support from this sense of failure to recover,
so it is not just theoretical. I'd score the recovery against the incumbent
too, because key voting segments would.
Averaging polls is the sort of thing people not good at math like to say,
believing it makes them sound good at math.
We are seeing a good example of the preference cascade. For well
over a year Clinton has been capped at 45%, usually in the low 40's. As
it becomes more respectable to vote for Trump, the more people are willing
to move from the undecided/third party column to the Trump column.
If I recall correctly, Lichtman also scores both the foreign policy/military
success and failure keys differently. ISIS is a foreign policy failure,
but not on the public perception of Pearl Harbor, the fall of Vietnam, or
the Iran hostage crisis. And the Iran deal is a foreign policy success,
but not on the level of, say, winning WWII.
I'm highly skeptical of this kind of historic analysis. It's
the sort of thing that works until it doesn't, and even then only sort
of works because the idea's proponents wind up explaining away the exceptions.
What I trust is polling. It's quite well refined, and averaging
the results of multiple polls tends to smooth out errors.
Lichtman has been able to predict successfully the popular-vote winner
for the last 7 or 8 elections, in many cases many months in advance – which,
by standards of electoral prediction models, is pretty remarkable. Polls,
by themselves, don't predict much, and certainly not long-term – although
I agree that Clinton remains the likely winner this year.
@Tim, How has/is Obama "becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute."?
The consensus might be on the Foreign Policy side of the equation, but truthfully,
he's spent 8 years cleaning up the mess handed him by the "total disaster"
who preceded him. If you want the rollercoaster to be over, get off the
rollercoaster. That is to say, most of the excitement offered by the rollercoaster
lies in its design (partisan/tribal/echo chamber nonsense).
See: Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, emails, Parkinson's, etc., etc. be
legitimate concerns for a John Q. Public, the hyperbolic birther indignation
does a disservice to critical thinking, rational Americans. Make no mistake,
the GOP candidate has literally made a career (TV/Pro Wrestling) trading
in this currency, but in the end, such hyperbole is a distraction. Obama
(I did not vote for him in '08 or '12) has succeeded and some areas, and
failed in others – such is the nature of the job.
As a student of history, I suspect his presidency will be graded
somewhere between B- and C+; slightly above average. Whereas, by your assessment,
his predecessor was "can't miss" disasters (D- leaning toward F).
I also fail to see how President Obama, a veritable reincarnation of Bill
Clinton, but without the scandals, is "becoming more of a disaster each
passing minute." We have less (visible) war, we have more jobs, and we have
better pay. Yes, the small segment of the population that was paying peanuts
for narrowly-defined healthcare 'plans' is paying more now for healthcare
than they were 6 years ago, but a large segment now has healthcare that
previously did not. This will take decades to unfold but the savings will
be immense over the long run. Our international prestige is as high or higher
than it was at its peak in 2002 (before Bush started the stupider of his
two wars).
It's barely an exaggeration to say that, outside of the echo chamber,
none of partisan concerns of the right wing are shared by the electorate
at large. The plight of the underclass (of any color) is not being addressed
regardless of which candidate you choose in this election. Immigration is
a red herring issue, designed to hide the fact that your boss hasn't given
you a raise in 20 years.
I'm sure it makes Obama haters and Republican partisans feel good to think
that Obama's Presidency is the cause for Hillary Clinton's loss (if she
does indeed lose). Economic indicators along with Presidential approval
ratings however suggest that if Hillary does lose it will be in spite of
the electorates feelings on Obama not because of it.
many of these keys are so subjective (at least prospectively) as to render
them meaningless for anything but fun predictive parlor games.
That is the usual objection to Lichtman's theory. But his work gives
pretty clear examples of what he considers the kind of events that drive
his predictors. For example, "foreign policy/military success" looks like
winning WWII and not like the Iran nuclear deal; "foreign policy/military
failure" looks like Pearl Harbor and not ISIS' (temporary) success in gaining
territory. "Scandal" looks like Watergate, and not like Clinton's email
(or, interestingly, Iran/Contra, if memory serves). "Social unrest" looks
like the summer of 1968, and not like the shootings in Orlando, Dallas,
and San Bernadino.
In short, events that drive his predictors are things that are the main
(or even sole) subject of national conversation for weeks. Deciding what
events are such drivers is not completely objective, perhaps, but it's also
not hard to figure out what the author of the system would consider a given
event. A system like his only works if one scores things as honestly as
possible, and not as one might wish them to be. Then it can work very well.
At the end of the day, though, Lichtman's model, like most models
of voting behavior, is not intended so much as a predictive system as an
attempt to explain how voters make decisions. The Lichtman theory does a
remarkable job of modeling such decision-making, and demonstrates clearly
his hypothesis that presidential elections are mostly referenda on the performance
of the incumbent party. That doesn't mean it will always be so, but he makes
a compelling case that it's been that way since the Civil War.
With the chance that Donald will be President, and his followers rejecting
outright the Washington establishment and corporate media as enemies; if
he does come to power, who are We, the People, supposed to respect and trust?
How can you be loyal to, and obey the laws of, a country governed by "Washington
insiders"? How can you trust the liberal, coastal, educated, elite media
reporting government malfeasance? In who or what should we place our trust?
Dark days ahead, dark days.
The hope must be in a reinvigorated Republican Party in 2018 and 2020. As
Trump again raises his birther conspiracy, the strongman will give voters
plenty of reasons to reject his incoherent campaign. Total waste, when 2016
should have firmly been in Republican hands. I understand why he demolished
the Republican field and realigned the issues that galvanize Republican
voters, but in the end his pathological narcissism will be his downfall.
If he wins, it will be the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic
Party. They will control government from 2018 to the end of our lives.
Obama's economy isn't gonna help Hillary Clinton. Government data show
that the economy only grew by 1.2 percent in the second quarter. First quarter
growth was also revised down from 1.1 percent to 0.8 percent.
Hillary Clinton addressed the sluggish economy in her speech last
night, admitting that Americans "feel like the economy just isn't working."
Although she cited economic growth under president Obama, she insisted that
"none of us can be satisfied with the status quo."
"... Seems a dangerous practice to rely on one's size to shield them from consequences of ineffectual decisions. I think we are already stretched thin, but our size buffers the stumbles. ..."
"... Like the runner on pain killers, who keeps running despite a shattered knee caps. Sometimes we press through our pain. Sometimes we need to slow down. Sometimes we need to stop. But unless we experience the pain – we simply don't know. ..."
"... It all starts with that ridiculous belief in "American Exceptionalism". The belief that we are the one country, the only country, who is going to save the world, again and again. ..."
"... Once you've adopted this frame of reference, what happens anywhere in the world for any Reason is America's fault and responsibility. And once you put on those exceptionally colored glasses it's not possible to have a rational view of other countries and their actions; because they can never be seen as anything other than an affirmation or rejection of our exceptionalism. Another effect of this is, being exceptional, whatever America does is just and pure and right. ..."
"... It blinds us to our own stupidity and errors, it gets us sucked into other peoples troubles and it makes it easy for other countries to manipulate us to their ends. ..."
Ben Denison
criticizes a familiar flaw in foreign policy commentary:
When a surprising event occurs that threatens U.S. interests, many are
quick to blame Washington's lack of leadership and deride the administration
for failing to anticipate and prevent the crisis. Recent examples from the
continuing conflict in Syria, Russia's intervention in Ukraine, Iran's pursuit
of a nuclear weapon, and even the attempted coup in Turkey, all illustrate
how this is a regular impulse for the foreign policy punditry class. This
impulse, while comforting to some, fails to consider the interests and agency
of the other countries involved in the crisis. Instead of turning to detailed
analysis and tracing the international context of a crisis, often we are
bombarded with an abundance of concerns about a lack of American leadership.
The inability or unwillingness to acknowledge and take into account the agency
and interests of other political actors around the world is one of the more
serious flaws in the way many Americans think and talk about these issues. This
not only fails to consider how other actors are likely to respond to a proposed
U.S. action, but it credits the U.S. with far more control over other parts
of the world and much more competence in handling any given issue than any government
has ever possessed or ever will. Because the U.S. is the preeminent major power
in the world, there is a tendency to treat any undesirable event as something
that our government has "allowed" to happen through carelessness, misplaced
priorities, or some other mistake. Many foreign policy pundits recoil from the
idea that there are events beyond our government's ability to "shape" or that
there are actors that cannot be compelled to behave as we wish (provided we
simply have enough "resolve"), because it means that there are many problems
around the world that the U.S. cannot and shouldn't attempt to fix.
When a protest movement takes to the streets in another country and is then
brutally suppressed, many people, especially hawkish pundits, decry our government's
"failure" to "support" the movement, as if it were the lack of U.S. support
and not internal political factors that produced the outcome. When the overthrow
of a foreign government by a protest movement leads to an intervention by a
neighboring major power, the U.S. is again faulted for "failing" to stop the
intervention, as if it could have done so short of risking great power conflict.
Even more absurdly, the same intervention is sometimes blamed on a U.S. decision
not to attack a third country in another part of the world unrelated to the
crisis in question. In order to claim all these things, one not only has to
fail to take account of the interests and agency of other states, but one also
has to believe that the rest of the world revolves around us and every action
others take can ultimately be traced back to what our government does (or doesn't
do). That's not just shoddy analysis, but a serious delusion about how people
all around the world behave. At the same time, there is a remarkable eagerness
on the part of many of the same people to overlook the consequences of things
that the U.S. has actually done, so that many of our pundits ignore our own
government's agency when it suits them.
"At the same time, there is a remarkable eagerness on the part of many
of the same people to overlook the consequences of things that the U.S.
has actually done, so that many of our pundits ignore our own government's
agency when it suits them."
It is the failure of the after party assessment. Regardless of success
or failure (however defined) the tend not to have an after action report
by the political class is why there's little movement in this area.
Seems a dangerous practice to rely on one's size to shield them from
consequences of ineffectual decisions. I think we are already stretched
thin, but our size buffers the stumbles.
Like the runner on pain killers, who keeps running despite a shattered
knee caps. Sometimes we press through our pain. Sometimes we need to slow
down. Sometimes we need to stop. But unless we experience the pain – we
simply don't know.
It all starts with that ridiculous belief in "American Exceptionalism".
The belief that we are the one country, the only country, who is going to
save the world, again and again.
Once you've adopted this frame of reference, what happens anywhere
in the world for any Reason is America's fault and responsibility. And once
you put on those exceptionally colored glasses it's not possible to have
a rational view of other countries and their actions; because they can never
be seen as anything other than an affirmation or rejection of our exceptionalism.
Another effect of this is, being exceptional, whatever America does is just
and pure and right.
It blinds us to our own stupidity and errors, it gets us sucked into
other peoples troubles and it makes it easy for other countries to manipulate
us to their ends.
"one also has to believe that the rest of the world revolves around us
and every action others take can ultimately be traced back to what our government
does (or doesn't do). That's not just shoddy analysis, but a serious delusion
about how people all around the world behave."
It also overlooks the quality of those we send to do the meddling and
intervening.
We don't have enough intelligent, educated, competent people.
The imperial Brits had their own problems, Lord knows, But the general
level of British competence, intelligence, and education in the Raj and
other colonies was far higher than that of our own congeries of corrupt,
half-educated hacks and incompetents.
"... "Trump must hold all 24 states carried by Mitt Romney in 2012 and add Ohio and Florida to the tally. A loss in Florida, Ohio or in increasingly competitive North Carolina – which Romney carried by just 2.2 percentage points over President Barack Obama – would hand Clinton the presidency"" [ US News ]. ..."
"... Voters in mid-September do not swing between Clinton and Trump (my colleagues and I have dubbed that The Mythical Swing Voter), but between undecided and/or third-party support and Clinton or Trump ..."
"... The Republican establishment doesn't trust Trump. But they need him, and are in the process of supplying the efficient field organization ..."
"... Hillary represents despair in the form of cynicism and resignation, as evidenced by the fact that neither she, nor her surrogates, nor even her flacks in the press really pretend to believe in what she is selling. ..."
"... Trump represents despair in the form of anger and desperation, the willingness to embrace a strongman and a charlatan in the (false) hopes of regaining some kind of control over 'the system', whatever it is (which is a fascinating question, by the way.) ..."
"... He's the one who convinced these folks that Clinton was in the pocket of Wall Street. ..."
"... He's the one who convinced them she was a tool of wealthy elites. ..."
"... He's the one who convinced them she was a corporate shill. She supported the TPP! ..."
"... most of it can be laid at the feet of Bernie Sanders. He convinced young voters that Hillary Clinton was a shifty, corrupt, lying shill who cared nothing for real progressive values-despite a literal lifetime of fighting for them. Sadly, that stuck. ..."
"... To date, we hear Bernie did it, Colin did it, Bush did it, Trump (or his baby-sized foundation) did it, Goldman Sachs offered it, or pneumonia caused it. ..."
"... re: The Despair Election " Both are absolutely awful, indeed unthinkable, albeit in different ways, and yet this is what liberal neoliberal order has come to." There, fixed it. ..."
"... Pennsylvania is often cited as a model of the country as a whole with Philidelphia, on one end, Pittsburgh on the other, and the south in between. In reality it is a good model in some ways but not that way. ..."
"... The Philidelphia area has the new shipping facilities and is poised to gain logistics jobs especially under any new trade deal with Europe. ..."
"... Pittsburgh has rusting steel factories, decaying infrastructure, industrial pollution that is scary, and is now serving as a testbed for driverless uber. ..."
"... And Central Pennsylvania has farming families that are unsure what will happen. Rural towns that have been transformed, and in some cases irretrievably polluted, by fracking. And factories that may or may not stay in business. ..."
"... Some percentage (say 1 or so) of those people have won in the new economy. Others such as the educated in Pittsburgh may be poised to take advantage of high speed rail to build a new tech hub, or they may be too late. And many others are simply shut out of real power or decisionmaking. ..."
"... I expect that Clinton will carry the cities and Trump will carry the rural areas. The deciding vote will lie in the suburbs which have swung both ways. ..."
"... She is an abominable candidate, a wooden speaker, a cynical triangulator, and-to put it kindly-ethically challenged." ..."
"... Is anyone asking Kevin Drum, why blame Bernie Sanders when the Democratic Party tied one of their hands behind their back by overwhelming supporting the candidate that almost half of America already hated? ..."
"... When every poll showed that Clinton had barely fifty percent of America that didn't dislike her at the start, ..."
"... Still the party elite, for reasons that had nothing to do with what was best for the country decided to game the system and nominate Clinton despite her flaws, her well noted campaign problems (as in she is terrible at it) ..."
"... Clearly the only people to blame if Clinton loses, are the people who insisted that she was the only candidate from the beginning – the Clintons, their donors, the Democratic Party which they have corrupted so completely. ..."
"... 'Hillary Clinton was a shifty, corrupt, lying shill who cared nothing for real progressive values…' ..."
"Trump must hold all 24 states carried by Mitt Romney in 2012 and
add Ohio and Florida to the tally. A loss in Florida, Ohio or in increasingly
competitive North Carolina – which Romney carried by just 2.2 percentage
points over President Barack Obama – would hand Clinton the presidency""
[
US News ].
UPDATE "Why the Whole Trump-Clinton Election Could Probably Just Be Held
in Pennsylvania" [
New York Times ]. This is a very interesting article, well worth a read.
It caught my eye because Pennsylvania is also part of the shipping story,
with new warehousing and infrastructure. So I'd be interested in what our
Pennsylvania readers think. Another tidbit: "Voters in mid-September
do not swing between Clinton and Trump (my colleagues and I have dubbed
that The Mythical Swing Voter), but between undecided and/or third-party
support and Clinton or Trump. So the larger that pool, the larger the
potential swing." And one more: "Voting is a major cost for many Americans
with hourly wage jobs." So I could have filed this under Class Warfare.
"The Republican establishment doesn't trust Trump. But they need
him, and are in the process of supplying the efficient field organization
he's never shown any interest in building" [
Bloomberg ]. "
... ... ...
UPDATE "Clinton and Trump's demographic tug of war" (handy charts) [
WaPo ]. I knew before I looked at this they wouldn't slice by income.
UPDATE "The Despair Election" [
The American Conservative ]. Quoting Michael Hanby, a Catholic philosopher:
"hat we have in this election is fundamentally a contest between two forms
of despair: Hillary represents despair in the form of cynicism and resignation,
as evidenced by the fact that neither she, nor her surrogates, nor even
her flacks in the press really pretend to believe in what she is selling.
There is obvious cynicism within Trump_vs_deep_state as well; his supporters, on those
rare occasions when he makes sense, seem to know that he is lying to them.
But Trump represents despair in the form of anger and desperation, the
willingness to embrace a strongman and a charlatan in the (false) hopes
of regaining some kind of control over 'the system', whatever it is (which
is a fascinating question, by the way.) Both are absolutely awful,
indeed unthinkable, albeit in different ways, and yet this is what liberal
order has come to."
UPDATE "A Reuters survey found local governments in nearly a dozen, mostly
Republican-dominated counties in Georgia have adopted plans to reduce the
number of voting stations, citing cost savings and efficiency" [
Reuters ]. Don't they always.
* * *
A Scott Adams roundup. Chronologically: "It turns out that Trump's base
personality is 'winning.' Everything else he does is designed to get that
result. He needed to be loud and outrageous in the primaries, so he was.
He needs to be presidential in this phase of the election cycle, so he is"
[
Scott Adams ].
"Sometimes you need a 'fake because' to rationalize whatever you are
doing. … When Clinton collapsed at the 9-11 site, that was enough to end
her chances of winning. But adding the 'fake because' to her 'deplorable'
comment will super-charge whatever was going to happen anyway" [
Scott Adams ].
"Checking My Predictions About Clinton's Health" [
Scott Adams ].
"The Race for President is (Probably) Over" [
Scott Adams ]. "If humans were rational creatures, the time and place
of Clinton's 'overheating' wouldn't matter at all. But when it comes to
American psychology, there is no more powerful symbol of terrorism and fear
than 9-11 . When a would-be Commander-in-Chief withers – literally – in
front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel
unsafe. And safety is our first priority."
* * *
As soon as the race tightened, there was a rash of stories about Millenials
[ugh] not voting for Clinton. And now various Democrat apparatchiks
have started to browbeat them, apparently believing that's the best
strategy. Here's one such: "Blame Millennials for President Trump" [
Daily Beast ]. I'm sure you've seen others.
UPDATE Other Democrat operatives are preparing the way to pin the blame
on anybody but the Democrat establishment and the candidate it chose. Here,
Kevin Drum squanders the good will on his balance sheet from his story on
lead and crime: "Don't Hate Millennials. Save It For Bernie Sanders" [Kevin
Drum,
Mother Jones ].
I reserve most of my frustration for Bernie Sanders. He's the one
who convinced these folks that Clinton was in the pocket of Wall Street.
She gave a speech to Goldman Sachs! He's the one who convinced them
she was a tool of wealthy elites. She's raising money from rich
people! He's the one who convinced them she was a corporate shill.
She supported the TPP! He's the one who, when he finally endorsed
her, did it so grudgingly that he sounded like a guy being held hostage.
He's the one who did next to nothing to get his supporters to stop booing
her from the convention floor. He's the one who promised he'd campaign
his heart out to defeat Donald Trump, but has done hardly anything since-despite
finding plenty of time to campaign against Debbie Wasserman Schultz
and set up an anti-TPP movement.
There's a reason that very young millennials are strongly anti-Clinton
even though the same age group supported Obama energetically during
his elections-and it's not because their policy views are very different.
A small part of it is probably just that Clinton is 68 years old (though
Sanders was older). Part of it is probably that she isn't the inspirational
speaker Obama was. But most of it can be laid at the feet of Bernie
Sanders. He convinced young voters that Hillary Clinton was a shifty,
corrupt, lying shill who cared nothing for real progressive values-despite
a literal lifetime of fighting for them. Sadly, that stuck.
In other words, these young (i.e., silly, unlike wise old farts like
Drum) didn't
"do their own research." And so apparently the demonic Sanders found
it very easy to deceive them. Sad! Oh, and it's also interesting to see
liberal Drum explicitly legitimizing hate. Again, this election has been
wonderfully clarifying.
"Don't Hate Millennials. Save It For Bernie Sanders" [Kevin Drum,
Mother Jones].
Shouldn't we blame Hillary Clinton for people's perception that she is
in the pocket of Wall Street, that she is tool of wealthy elites, that she
is a corporate shill, and that she supports the TPP? Because she is in the
pocket of Wall Street, she is tool of wealthy elites, she is a corporate
shill, and she does support the TPP (few people really believe her recent
claims to oppose it).
Wow. Read that for a ride on the blame train. When are HRC and her buddies
going to start offering something instead of pointing the finger at others?
To date, we hear Bernie did it, Colin did it, Bush did it, Trump
(or his baby-sized foundation) did it, Goldman Sachs offered it, or pneumonia
caused it.
re: The Despair Election " Both are absolutely awful, indeed unthinkable,
albeit in different ways, and yet this is what liberal neoliberal order
has come to." There, fixed it.
Indeed, the Democrat freakout about millennials is hilarious. They're
trotting out Al Gore and the discredited notion that votes for Nader spoiled
the election, rather than, say, a defective candidate.
UPDATE "Why the Whole Trump-Clinton Election Could Probably Just
Be Held in Pennsylvania" [New York Times]. This is a very interesting
article, well worth a read. It caught my eye because Pennsylvania is
also part of the shipping story, with new warehousing and infrastructure.
So I'd be interested in what our Pennsylvania readers think.
I strongly suspect that will depend upon which Pennsylvania voter you
ask. Pennsylvania is often cited as a model of the country as a whole
with Philidelphia, on one end, Pittsburgh on the other, and the south in
between. In reality it is a good model in some ways but not that way.
The Philidelphia area has the new shipping facilities and is poised
to gain logistics jobs especially under any new trade deal with Europe.
Pittsburgh has rusting steel factories, decaying infrastructure,
industrial pollution that is scary, and is now serving as a testbed for
driverless uber.
And Central Pennsylvania has farming families that are unsure what
will happen. Rural towns that have been transformed, and in some cases irretrievably
polluted, by fracking. And factories that may or may not stay in business.
Some percentage (say 1 or so) of those people have won in the new
economy. Others such as the educated in Pittsburgh may be poised to take
advantage of high speed rail to build a new tech hub, or they may be too
late. And many others are simply shut out of real power or decisionmaking.
I expect that Clinton will carry the cities and Trump will carry
the rural areas. The deciding vote will lie in the suburbs which have swung
both ways.
At the beginning, the author says about Clinton, "She is an abominable
candidate, a wooden speaker, a cynical triangulator, and-to put it kindly-ethically
challenged."
Then, he spends the rest of the article asking why Millenials don't
want to vote for her.
I have no words.
And the best part is the last line: "If Trump wins, we'll get what we
deserve"
Is anyone asking Kevin Drum, why blame Bernie Sanders when the Democratic
Party tied one of their hands behind their back by overwhelming supporting
the candidate that almost half of America already hated?
When every poll showed that Clinton had barely fifty percent of America
that didn't dislike her at the start, when all the polls after Trump
had pretty much cinched the nomination made it clear that Sanders was the
stronger candidate, the only logical choice if you wanted a Democratic President
was to nominate Sanders. Still the party elite, for reasons that had
nothing to do with what was best for the country decided to game the system
and nominate Clinton despite her flaws, her well noted campaign problems
(as in she is terrible at it), and the fact that no matter how many
times she reintroduces herself a huge percentage of people do not like her
and largely do not trust her (and didn't before Sanders even entered the
race) and pretend she could wipe the floor with Trump.
Clearly the only people to blame if Clinton loses, are the people
who insisted that she was the only candidate from the beginning – the Clintons,
their donors, the Democratic Party which they have corrupted so completely.
This coupled with media idiots like Drum who either are paid to be
oblivious and chose that life OR are so divorced from the reality of life
for the majority of Americans they cannot comprehend why anyone could despise
the status quo they would be willing to roll the dice with the unknown quantity.
I might have tried taking it on, but there will be no convincing him
(or the readers stupid enough to blame Sanders or the millenials). He cannot
blame the candidate herself and her machine, because that would admit that
the Empress not only has no clothes, is a physical wreck, and has more strings
attached than a marionette is a fast route to oblivion in a dying industry
even if he has already realized it.
"... What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships? ..."
"... You gotta remember, [neo]liberals love to justify bad behavior, by pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior. ..."
"... Remember, when someone like David Duke endorses Donald Trump and Trump says, "Who is David Duke, and why should I care?" this proves Trump is a racist. When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is? ..."
"... So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in order to get favors from the government? Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships then? ..."
"... The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it. Since any damning evidence in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't make any difference. ..."
"... Under Obama's administration political considerations trump the law every time. ..."
"... What are you talking about? Every media outlet except FOX is sucking at Hillary's big toes, and even at times FOX is sucking her toes and licking them. Whether it be in the US or Canada or the bloody UK. Hell NBC deleted a segment from a broadcast last night when Bill Clinton said Hillary "Frequently fainted" sorry I mean "occasionally fainted" that of course saved them all of 1.5 seconds from their 1hr broadcast time limit, which was their excuse. ..."
"... It is like when the talking heads on one news program (CNN I believe) described New York City on Sunday as "Sweltering", when it was 78 Degrees out, in an attempt to make Hillary's lie about dehydration seem more legitimate. Obviously they are "pro-Trump". ..."
"... Wouldn't surprise me. Here's the thing on CBC editing the news [thehill.com] earlier too. ..."
For the past several months, the hacker who calls himself "Guccifer 2.0"
has been releasing documents about the Democratic National Committee. Today,
he has released a new hoard of documents. Politico reports: The hacker persona
Guccifer 2.0 has released a new trove of documents that allegedly reveal more
information about the Democratic National Committee's finances and personal
information on Democratic donors, as well as details about the DNC's network
infrastructure. The cache also includes purported memos on tech initiatives
from Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine's time as governor of Virginia,
and some years-old missives on redistricting efforts and DNC donor outreach
strategy. Most notable among Tuesday's documents may be the detailed spreadsheets
allegedly about DNC fundraising efforts, including lists of DNC donors with
names, addresses, emails, phone numbers and other sensitive details. Tuesday's
documents regarding the DNC's information technology setup include several reports
from 2010 purporting to show that the committee's network passed multiple security
scans.
In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents.
It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress
account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security
experts attending [a London cybersecurity conference].
meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:09AM (#52885111)
Journal
Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Informative)
What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their
hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships?
Iconoc ( 2646179 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:12AM (#52885127)
Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:40AM
(#52885673) Journal
You gotta remember, [neo]liberals love to justify bad behavior, by
pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior.
It is as if they are four year olds getting in trouble, and saying "but
Billy's Mom lets him drink beer/smoke dope". The problem is, nobody calls
it "childish" behavior (which it is), because that is insulting to children.
Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @04:28PM (#52888579)
Journal
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, when someone like David Duke endorses Donald Trump and
Trump says, "Who is David Duke, and why should I care?" this proves Trump
is a racist. When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend
and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is?
Ambassadorships to friendly countries, the UK in particular, have always
been given as rewards to political friends. You could count the number of
people who became UK ambassador on merit on one hand which had been run
through a wood chipper.
The reason you didn't know about this before is because it never became
an issue. Tuttle made a bit of a kerfuffle a decade ago, but it takes a
lot to start a diplomatic incident with a close ally and being ambassador
to the UK or France or Australia really requires no great skill as a peacemaker.
If you were being particularly charitable, you could even say that fundraisers
and diplomats have a lot in common.
Everyone has plenty of dirty laundry, including you and me. 'Innocent
until proven guilty' is an excellent attitude in criminal court, but the
attitude 'innocent until doxxed' skews our perceptions and gives power to
doxxers. Honestly I'm a bit surprised these leaks haven't found more than
'omg, politics at political party!'
Remember, parties are not obligated to be democratic or unbiased. Legally
and constitutionally there's only one vote, the general election in November.
Anyone* can be nominated as a candidate for that election, and if both parties
decided to nominate whomever they pleased they might be breaking their own
rules but not the law. Everything up to and including the conventions is
just meant to give supporters a feel of involvement and to remove unpopular
candidates without invoking the wrath of their supporters. But the parties
want to win, and if one candidate seems more 'electable' you can bet the
party will give then a leg up on the rest.
meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @11:28AM (#52886055)
Journal
So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in
order to get favors from the government? Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships
then?
meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @02:02PM (#52887279)
Journal
There's been plenty of interesting stuff in previous releases of Hillary's
particular emails. I would say the most amazing was acknowledgment that
the reason we backed the moderate beheaders in Syria against Assad was so
the Israelis would feel better about a nuclear Iran without a stable Syria
as a base of operations for Hezbollah. The 400,000 war dead, the creation
of ISIS, the blowback attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Brussels, Nice,
Orlando, and the refugee crisis that threatens to destabilize all of western
Europe...no problem for Hillary and her supporters. It's unreal. But here
we are.
Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:38AM (#52885273)
The last set showed laws broken by DNC (Score:5, Informative)
The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance
laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it. Since any damning evidence
in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't
make any difference.
Now, if a similar trove of documents from the RNC was dumped, you can
bet the DOJ would be all over it. Under Obama's administration political
considerations trump the law every time.
DumbSwede ( 521261 ) <[email protected]> on Wednesday September
14, 2016 @10:31AM (#52885603) Homepage Journal
I'd say Glass Houses is the real reason (Score:2)
There is reluctance to take actions base on evidence uncovered by illegally
hacked emails. Doing so would invite more entities with political motivations
to just hack more...
Mashiki ( 184564 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `ikihsam'> on Wednesday September
14, 2016 @10:25AM (#52885549) Homepage
What are you talking about? Every media outlet except FOX is sucking
at Hillary's big toes, and even at times FOX is sucking her toes and licking
them. Whether it be in the US or Canada or the bloody UK. Hell NBC deleted
a segment from a broadcast last night when Bill Clinton said Hillary "Frequently
fainted" sorry I mean "occasionally fainted" that of course saved them all
of 1.5 seconds from their 1hr broadcast time limit, which was their excuse.
Nearly every site is sucking at her toes. Even on reddit from /r/politics
to /r/news to /r/worldnews is deleting anti-Hillary stories, even when they
use the exact title.
Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:57AM
(#52885797) Journal
It is like when the talking heads on one news program (CNN I believe)
described New York City on Sunday as "Sweltering", when it was 78 Degrees
out, in an attempt to make Hillary's lie about dehydration seem more legitimate.
Obviously they are "pro-Trump".
Mashiki ( 184564 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `ikihsam'> on Wednesday September
14, 2016 @11:31AM (#52886073) Homepage
(arstechnica.com)
223
Posted
by
BeauHD
on Friday September 02, 2016 @08:10PM
from the
data-capturing-devices
dept.
An anonymous reader shares with us an excerpt from a
report via Ars Technica:
As she was being
confirmed as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton
contacted Colin Powell to ask him about his use of a
Blackberry while in the same role. According to a
Federal Bureau of Investigations memorandum
published today
(PDF), Powell warned Clinton
that if it became public that she was using a
Blackberry to "do business," her e-mails would be
treated as "official" record and be subject to the
law. "Be very careful," Powell said according to the
FBI. "I got around it all by not saying much and not
using systems that captured the data."
Perhaps Clinton's troubles began when she
switched from a Blackberry-hosted e-mail account to
an account on her Clintonemail.com domain -- a
domain
hosted on an Apple Power Mac "G4 or G5" tower
running in the Clintons' Chappaqua, New York
residence. The switch to the Power Mac as a server
occurred the same month she exchanged messages with
Powell.
The Power Mac, originally purchased in 2007 by
former President Clinton's aide Justin Cooper, had
acted as the server for presidentclinton.com and
wjcoffice.com. Cooper managed most of the technology
support for Bill Clinton and took charge of setting
up Hillary Clinton's new personal mail system on the
Power Mac, which sat alongside a firewall and
network switching hardware in the basement of the
Clintons' home.
But the Power Mac was having difficulty
handling the additional load created by Blackberry
usage from Secretary Clinton and her staff, so a
decision was made quickly to upgrade the server
hardware. Secretary Clinton's deputy chief of staff
at the State Department, Huma Abedin, connected
Cooper with Brian Pagliano, who had worked in IT for
the secretary's 2008 presidential campaign. Cooper
inquired with Pagliano about getting some of the
campaign's computer hardware as a replacement for
the Power Mac, and Pagliano was in the process of
selling the equipment off.
by
quantaman
(
517394
)
writes:
on
Saturday
September
03,
2016
@03:20AM
(
#52820193
)
A
sailor
going
and
photographing
classified
sections
of a
submarine
over
a
period
of
months.
Basically
looking
like
he
was
engaged
in
active
espionage.
Oooh,
"10
people
were
actually
punished
for
similar
or
lesser
offenses
than
what
Mrs.
Clinton
got
away
with
yesterday".
This
should
be
good
for
a
laugh.
1.
"pleaded
guilty
in
2005
to
illegally
sneaking
classified
documents
from
the
National
Archives
by
stuffing
papers
in
his
suit.
He
later
destroyed
some
of
them
in
his
office
and
lied
about
it."
Nope,
he
was
deliberately
removed
classified
documents
and
they
proved
he
lied
about
it.
2.
"Peter
Van
Buren,
a
foreign
service
officer
for
Hillary's
State
Department,
was
fired
and
his
security
clearance
revoked
for
quoting
a
Wikileaks
document
AFTER
publishing
a
book
critical
of
Clinton.
In
fact,
the
Washington
Post
reported
that
one
of
his
firing
infractions
was
"showing
'bad
judgement'
by
criticizing
Clinton
and
then-Rep.
Michele
Bachmann
on
his
blog."
Sounds
more
like
someone
being
punished
for
writing
a
book
critical
of
their
employer.
3.
Was
a
CIA
director
storing
classified
info
at
home.
This
is
the
most
comparable
though
the
CIA
director
was
dealing
with
more
sensitive
information,
should
have
been
more
aware
than
Hillary,
and
it
sounds
like
he
knew
he
had
mishandled
classified
intel.
So a
little
worse
than
Hillary
though
roughly
comparable.
He
also
got
pardoned
by
Bill
Clinton
before
he
even
finished
the
plea
deal.
So
that
actually
kinda
sets
a no
jail-time
incident.
4.
"A
Navy
intelligence
specialist
admitted
Thursday
that
he
smuggled
classified
documents
out
of
Fort
Bragg
in
folders
and
his
pants
pockets,
then
sold
them
for
$11,500
to a
man
he
believed
was
a
Chinese
agent."
Wow,
#4
and
they're
already
claiming
a
guy
trying
to
sell
classified
intelligence
to
the
Chinese
was
a
lesser
offence
than
Hillary?
I
seriously
checked
all
of
the
examples
and
even
read
the
links
on a
few
that
looked
promising.
This
one
was
actually
hilarious:
Lab
Tech
Steals
Data
from
Nuclear
Facility.
Jessica
Lynn
Quintana,
a
former
worker
at
the
Los
Alamos
National
Laboratory,
pleaded
guilty
in
federal
court
to
"knowingly
removing
classified
information
from
the
national
security
research
laboratory,
after
she
took
home
sensitive
documents
and
data
from
the
lab
last
year."
Talk
about
misrepresenting
the
facts.
She
was
charged
because
she
was
running
a
meth
lab!!
Still
I
learned
something,
don't
believe
a
damn
thing
you
read
on
"The
Political
Insider".
(f) Whoever,
being entrusted
with or having
lawful
possession or
control of any
document,
writing, code
book, signal
book, sketch,
photograph,
photographic
negative,
blueprint, plan,
map, model,
instrument,
appliance, note,
or information,
relating to the
national
defense, (1)
through gross
negligence
permits the same
to be removed
from its proper
place of custody
or delivered to
anyone in
violation of his
trust, or to be
lost, stolen,
abstracted, or
destroyed, or
(2) having
knowledge that
the same has
been illegally
removed from its
proper place of
custody or
delivered to
anyone in
violation of its
trust, or lost,
or stolen,
abstracted, or
destroyed, and
fails to make
prompt report of
such loss,
theft,
abstraction, or
destruction to
his superior
officer-
Shall be fined
under this title
or imprisoned
not more than
ten years, or
both.
tl;dr - she didn't
have to know it was
wrong, she simply had to
be "extremely careless"
(aka, "grossly
negligent")
tl;dr - she
didn't have
to know it
was wrong,
she simply
had to be
"extremely
careless"
(aka,
"grossly
negligent")
And despite the
fact the FBI
director used the
phrase "extreme
carelessness" wrt
the handling of
sensitive info,
somehow the
defenders of
lawlessness still
admit to the fact
that she very
clearly committed
multiple crimes.
I know you
paid shills
like to try
to sway
people to
your side
with a good
bit of
cherry
picking, you
really
should pick
your targets
better.
And
did
that
"extreme
carelessness"
result
in
confidential
information
being
destroyed
or
delivered
to
people
in
violation
of
trust?
Interesting
how you
removed half
a clause
from your
copy & paste
from above,
specifically:
through
gross
negligence
permits
the
same
to
be
removed
from
its
proper
place
of
custody
Was
Clinton's
email server
a proper
place of
custody? If
not, then
she violated
that statute
through
gross
negligence
at minimum.
One,
we
don't
know
what/if
anything
was
stolen,
we
just
know
that
there
was
at
least
one
successful
login
to
the
server
via
Tor
on a
user
account
where
the
owner
claimed
no
knowledge
of
the
software:
http://www.politico.com/story/...
[politico.com]
Two,
Clinton
did
not
do
the
reasonable
thing
in
the
setting
up
of
the
server,
nor
recognizing
classified
information,
nor
allowing
her
aids
to
re-handle
the
information
in
rather
careless
ways,
so
by
your
very
own
logic,
she
should
be
held
criminally
responsible
for
her
actions.
(prnewswire.com)
628
Posted
by
BeauHD
on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:00AM
from the
turn-your-head-and-cough
dept.
schwit1
PR Newswire:
Concerns about Hillary Clinton's
health are "serious --
could be disqualifying for the position of President
of the U.S.
," say nearly 71% of 250 physicians
responding to an
informal internet survey
by the Association of
American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). About 20%
said concerns were "likely overblown, but should be
addressed as by full release of medical records."
Only 2.7% responded that they were "just a political
attack; I have confidence in the letter from her
physician and see no cause for concern." While more
than 81% were aware of her history of a concussion,
only 59% were aware of the cerebral sinus
thrombosis, and 52% of the history of deep venous
thrombosis. More than 78% said the health concerns
had received "not enough emphasis" in the media, and
only 2.7% that there had been "too much emphasis."
Nearly two-thirds said that a physician who had a
concern about a candidate's fitness to serve for
health reasons should "make the concerns known to
the public." Only 11% said a physician should "keep
silent unless he had personally examined the
patient," and 10% that the candidate's health was
"off limits for public discussion." A
poll of 833 randomly selected registered voters
by Gravis Marketing showed that nearly half (49%)
were not aware of the "well documented major health
issues that Hillary Clinton has." Nearly
three-fourths (74%) were unaware of Bill Clinton's
statement that Hillary suffered a "terrible"
concussion requiring "six months of very serious
work to get over." The majority (57%) thought that
candidates should release their medical records.
"...a full 95% of the cash that went to Greece ran a trip through Greece
and went straight back to creditors which in plain English is banks. So,
public taxpayers money was pushed through Greece to basically bail out banks...So
austerity becomes a side effect of a general policy of bank bailouts that
nobody wants to own. That's really what happened, ok?
Why are we peddling nonsense? Nobody wants to own up to a gigantic bailout
of the entire European banking system that took six years. Austerity was
a cover.
If the EU at the end of the day and the Euro is not actually improving
the lives of the majority of the people, what is it for? That's the question
that they've brought no answer to.
...the Hamptons is not a defensible position. The Hamptons is a very
rich area on Long Island that lies on low lying beaches. Very hard to defend
a low lying beach. Eventually people are going to come for you.
What's clear is that every social democratic party in Europe needs to
find a new reason to exist. Because as I said earlier over the past 20 years
they have sold their core constituency down the line for a bunch of floaters
in the middle who don't protect them or really don't particularly care for
them. Because the only offers on the agenda are basically austerity and
tax cuts for those who already have, versus austerity, apologies, and a
minimum wage."
Mark Blyth
Although I may not agree with every particular that Mark Blyth may say, directionally
he is exactly correct in diagnosing the problems in Europe.
And yes, I am aware that the subtitles are at times in error, and sometimes
outrageously so. Many of the errors were picked up and corrected in the comments.
No stimulus, no plans, no official actions, no monetary theories can be sustainably
effective in revitalizing an economy that is as bent as these have become without
serious reform at the first.
This was the lesson that was given by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. There
will be no lasting recovery without it; it is a sine qua non . One cannot
turn their economy around when the political and business structures are systemically
corrupt, and the elites are preoccupied with looting it, and hiding their spoils
offshore.
"... "State Department Delays Records Request About Clinton-Linked Firm Until After The 2016 Election" [ International Business Times ]. "Beacon Global Strategies is a shadowy consulting firm that's stacked with former Obama administration officials, high profile Republicans and a number of Hillary Clinton's closest foreign policy advisers. But beyond its billing as a firm that works with the defense industry, it is unclear for whom specifically the company works, exactly what it does, and if Beacon employees have tried to influence national security policy since the firm's founding in 2013. ..."
"... UPDATE "New York-based Teneo, with 575 employees, markets itself as a one-stop shop for CEOs to get advice on a wide range of issues, including mergers and acquisitions, handling crises and managing public relations. For its services, it generally charges clients monthly retainer fees of $100,000 to $300,000." [ Wall Street Journal , "Teneo, Consulting Firm with Clinton Ties, Eyes $1 Billion IPO"]. Founder Douglas Band was Bill Clinton's body man . One can only wonder what a body man does to become worth $1 billion to, well, the people who made him worth a billion. ..."
"... The donors expect that their support of the Clinton Foundation will help them get access to the State Department, [Doug] Band see above] expects that he can count on [Huma] Abedin to help, and Abedin seems to understand that she needs to be responsive to Band. This would be a lot of effort for powerful people to expend, if it led to nothing at all. ..."
"... UPDATE "Even as the Clintons are touting plans to distance themselves from their foundation and limit its fundraising if Hillary Clinton is elected president, they're planning one last glitzy fundraising bash on Friday to belatedly celebrate Bill Clinton's 70th birthday" [ Politico ]. ..."
"... "Plans called for performances by Wynton Marsalis, Jon Bon Jovi and Barbra Streisand, according to people briefed on the planning. They said that major donors are being asked to give $250,000 to be listed as a chair for the party, $100,000 to be listed a co-chair and $50,000 to be listed as a vice-chair." Sounds lovely! How I wish I could go… ..."
"State Department Delays Records Request About Clinton-Linked Firm Until
After The 2016 Election" [
International Business Times ]. "Beacon Global Strategies is a shadowy consulting
firm that's stacked with former Obama administration officials, high profile
Republicans and a number of Hillary Clinton's closest foreign policy advisers.
But beyond its billing as a firm that works with the defense industry, it is
unclear for whom specifically the company works, exactly what it does, and if
Beacon employees have tried to influence national security policy since the
firm's founding in 2013.
UPDATE "New York-based Teneo, with 575 employees, markets itself as a one-stop
shop for CEOs to get advice on a wide range of issues, including mergers and
acquisitions, handling crises and managing public relations. For its services,
it generally charges clients monthly retainer fees of $100,000 to $300,000."
[
Wall Street Journal , "Teneo, Consulting Firm with Clinton Ties, Eyes $1
Billion IPO"]. Founder Douglas Band was Bill Clinton's
body man
. One can only wonder what a body man does to become worth $1 billion to,
well, the people who made him worth a billion.
"[I]n many of these [Clinton Foundation] episodes you can see expectations
operating like an electrical circuit. The donors expect that their support of
the Clinton Foundation will help them get access to the State Department, [Doug]
Band see above] expects that he can count on [Huma] Abedin to help, and Abedin
seems to understand that she needs to be responsive to Band. This would be a
lot of effort for powerful people to expend, if it led to nothing at all. There
are two obvious possibilities. One is that the State Department actually was
granting important favors to Clinton Foundation donors that the many sustained
investigations have somehow failed to detect. The other, which is more likely,
is that someone, somewhere along the line, was getting played" [
The New Yorker ]. Surely those two possibilities are not mutually exclusive?
And public office is being used for private gain in either case?
UPDATE "Even as the Clintons are touting plans to distance themselves from
their foundation and limit its fundraising if Hillary Clinton is elected president,
they're planning one last glitzy fundraising bash on Friday to belatedly celebrate
Bill Clinton's 70th birthday" [
Politico ].
"Plans called for performances by Wynton Marsalis, Jon Bon Jovi
and Barbra Streisand, according to people briefed on the planning. They said
that major donors are being asked to give $250,000 to be listed as a chair for
the party, $100,000 to be listed a co-chair and $50,000 to be listed as a vice-chair."
Sounds lovely! How I wish I could go…
"But part of the answer lies in something Americans have a hard time
talking about: class. Trade is a class issue. The trade agreements we have
entered into over the past few decades have consistently harmed some
Americans (manufacturing workers) while just as consistently benefiting
others (owners and professionals). …
To understand "free trade" in such a way has made it difficult for people
in the bubble of the consensus to acknowledge the actual consequences of the
agreements we have negotiated over the years."
13. How can we know you won't (again) impulsively damage
relationships with crucial allies to preserve your own ego?
Hillary Clinton added,
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Dopey Prince @Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our U.S.
politicians with daddy's money. Can't do it when I get
elected. #Trump2016
Is such incompetence in messaging a reflection of Hillary Clinton
own confusion? Or are the categories "terrorist and dictator" versus
"crucial allies" solely depending on the size of payments to the
Clinton Foundation?
She is sliding to throwing mud ,. what ever will stick will do
the trick I guess .This started after some polls showing the
Donald ahead a few points .
I recognize election season is always crazy in the states,
especially as an outside observer looking in, but this cycle
seems so far beyond that norm compared even to 4 years ago it
makes me quite uncomfortable. It reeks of a growing desperation
by the elites to me. The 2012 campaigns of the two major parties
were a circus by any measure, but they seem completely measured
and intellectual by this year's standards.
I understand American culture dwells a lot on violence, but
the new standards of political rhetoric disturb me greatly. It
seems most of the country's population is either willfully
ignorant of the destruction their country creates or cheers it
on wildly and willingly. How anybody could advocate carpet
bombing without irony or rebuttal is frightenening. That it
could drum up support - well that's just depressing.
The two most important topics in this election, nuclear
weapons and global warming, both candidates have been decidedly
silent about. It scares me that neither party even attempts to
appeal to the left anymore, except by manipulating them by fear
and non existent 'security' issues. If it's all about PR and
perception management anyways, I wonder why Clinton wears her
right leaning nature and war mongering history on her sleeve?
Maybe content and debate matters less than I assume it does to
the average American voter. Maybe it's totally about spectacle
and personality now and nothing else. Sad, sad days for those
who live in the middle of the Empire but it's hard to be
sympathetic sometimes. It seems the hot new consumer electronic
device gets more of a thorough analysis and debate than does
either major party candidates' platform (if you could even call
it that).
Vote republican and catastrophic, irreversible climate change
is almost guaranteed, with a hearty chance of more war and more
regime change operations (despite attempts to paint the
candidate as 'isolationist').
Vote democrat for more wars and regime change, with the
status quo of environmental destruction happily maintained
(despite the attempts to paint the candidate as an
'environmentalist').
this us election is much more pathetic then usual... witnessing
the standing president refer to putin akin to saddam hussain is
frankly insane, but shows how depraved the usa has gotten...
and, besides that, since when did the average usa person even
know where any place outside the usa was on a map, let alone
having actually been their? oh - i guess it doesn't matter...
as @1 originalone says basically 'putin did it'...
The Obama administration authorized CIA backing of the
rebellion almost before it started. In all likelihood, it
started several years before the revolt, and the authorization
was to provide legal cover for activity that was already
ongoing.
Unfortunately, your observations are sharp,
correct and to the point. All I can weakly offer is something
Ralph Nader said. Ralph Nader once noted that the difference
between the democrats and republicans is the difference between
a car hitting a wall at 60 miles per hour versus 120 miles per
hour. Not so anymore. Now both cars will hit the wall going as
fast as they can. And the passengers will jump for joy at the
speed.
"... Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated with rapid technological change. ..."
"... On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern libertarianism. ..."
"... the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism both in economics and politics. ..."
"... In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern "yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced racial superiority as their battle cry. ..."
Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests
that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated
with rapid technological change.
... ... ...
On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian
perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been
the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern
libertarianism. Responding to the colonists' complaint that taxation by
the British was a form of tyranny, Samuel Johnson published his 1775 tract,
"Taxation No Tyranny: An answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American
Congress," asking the obvious question, "how is it that we hear the loudest
yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" In The Works of Samuel Johnson,
LL. D.: Political Tracts. Political Essays. Miscellaneous Essays (London: J.
Buckland, 1787): pp. 60-146, p. 142.
... ... ...
By the late 19th century, David A Wells, an industrial technician who later
became the chief economic expert in the federal government, by virtue of his
position of overseeing federal taxes. After a trip to Europe, Wells reconsidered
his strong support for protectionism. Rather than comparing the dynamism of
the northern states with the technological backward of their southern counterparts,
he was responding to the fear that American industry could not compete with
the cheap "pauper" labor of Europe. Instead, he insisted that the United States
had little to fear from, the competition from cheap labor, because the relatively
high cost of American labor would ensure rapid technological change, which,
indeed, was more rapid in the United States than anywhere else in the world,
with the possible exception of Germany. Both countries were about to rapidly
surpass England's industrial prowess.
The now-forgotten Wells was so highly regarded that the prize for the best
economics dissertation at Harvard is still known as the David A Wells prize.
His efforts gave rise to a very powerful idea in economic theory at the time,
known as "the economy of high wages," which insisted that high wages drove economic
prosperity. With his emphasis on technical change, driven by the strong competitive
pressures from high wages, Wells anticipated Schumpeter's idea of creative destruction,
except that for him, high wages rather than entrepreneurial genius drove this
process.
Although the economy of high wages remained highly influential through the
1920s, the extensive growth of government powers during World War I reignited
the antipathy for big government. Laissez-faire economics began come back into
vogue with the election of Calvin Coolidge, while the once-powerful progressive
movement was becoming excluded from the ranks of reputable economics.
... ... ...
With Barry Goldwater's humiliating defeat in his presidential campaign,
the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance
right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism
both in economics and politics. Symbolic of the narrowness of this new
mindset among economists, Milton Friedman's close associate, George Stigler,
said in 1976 that "one evidence of professional integrity of the economist is
the fact that it is not possible to enlist good economists to defend minimum
wage laws." Stigler, G. J. 1982. The Economist as Preacher and Other Essays
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press): p. 60.
In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages
was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern
"yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as
the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders
and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced
racial superiority as their battle cry.
One final irony: evangelical Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist
movement. Today, some of them are providing the firepower for the epidemic of
neoliberalism.
"... the US has been successful in dictating neoliberal policies, acting partly through the IMF and World Bank and partly through direct pressure. ..."
"... From roughly the mid 1930s to the mid 1970s a new "interventionist" approach replaced classical liberalism, and it became the accepted belief that capitalism requires significant state regulation in order to be viable. In the 1970s the Old Religion of classical liberalism made a rapid comeback, first in academic economics and then in the realm of public policy. ..."
"... Neoliberal theory claims that a largely unregulated capitalist system (a "free market economy" not only embodies the ideal of free individual choice but also achieves optimum economic performance with respect to efficiency, economic growth, technical progress, and distributional justice. ..."
"... The policy recommendations of neoliberalism are concerned mainly with dismantling what remains of the regulationist welfare state. ..."
"... This paper argues that the resurgence and tenacity of neoliberalism during the past two decades cannot be explained, in an instrumental fashion, by any favorable effects of neoliberal policies on capitalist economic performance. On the contrary, we will present a case that neoliberalism has been harmful for long-run capitalist economic performance, even judging economic performance from the perspective of the interests of capital. It will be argued that the resurgence and continuing dominance of neoliberalism can be explained, at least in part, by changes in the competitive structure of world capitalism, which have resulted in turn from the particular form of global economic integration that has developed in recent decades. The changed competitive structure of capitalism has altered the political posture of big business with regard to economic policy and the role of the state, turning big business from a supporter of state-regulated capitalism into an opponent of it. ..."
"... Second, the neoliberal model creates instability on the macroeconomic level by renouncing state counter-cyclical spending and taxation policies, by reducing the effectiveness of "automatic stabilizers" through shrinking social welfare programs,3 and by loosening public regulation of the financial sector. This renders the system more vulnerable to major financial crises and depressions. Third, the neoliberal model tends to intensify class conflict, which can potentially discourage capitalist investment.4 ..."
"... The evidence from GDP and labor productivity growth rates supports the claim that the neoliberal model is inferior to the state regulationist model for key dimensions of capitalist economic performance. There is ample evidence that the neoliberal model has shifted income and wealth in the direction of the already wealthy. However, the ability to shift income upward has limits in an economy that is not growing rapidly. Neoliberalism does not appear to be delivering the goods in the ways that matter the most for capitalism's long-run stability and survival. ..."
"... Once capitalism had become well established in the US after the Civil War, it entered a period of cutthroat competition and wild accumulation known as the Robber Baron era. In this period a coherent anti-interventionist liberal position emerged and became politically dominant. Despite the enormous inequalities, the severe business cycle, and the outrageous and often unlawful behavior of the Goulds and Rockefellers, the idea that government should not intervene in the economy held sway through the end of the 19th century. ..."
"... Small business has remained adamantly opposed to the big, interventionist state, from the Progressive Era through the New Deal down to the present. This division between big and small business is chronicled for the Progressive Era in Weinstein (1968). In the decades immediately following World War II one can observe this division in the divergent views of the Business Roundtable, a big business organization which often supported interventionist programs, and the US Chambers of Commerce, the premier small business organization, which hewed to an antigovernment stance. ..."
"... By contrast, the typical small business faces a daily battle for survival, which prevents attention to long-run considerations and which places a premium on avoiding the short-run costs of taxation and state regulation. This explains the radically different positions that big business and small business held regarding the proper state role in the economy for the first two-thirds of the twentieth century. ..."
"... This long-standing division between big business and small business appeared to vanish in the US starting in the 1970s. Large corporations and banks which had formerly supported foundations that advocated an active government role in the economy, such as the Brookings Institution, became big donors to neoliberal foundations such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. As a result, such right-wing foundations, which previously had to rely mainly on contributions from small business, became very wealthy and influential.10 It was big business=s desertion of the political coalition supporting state intervention and its shift to neoliberalism that rebuilt support for neoliberal theories and policies in the US, starting in the 1970s. With business now unified on economic policy, the shift was dramatic. Big grants became available for economics research having a neoliberal slant. The major media shifted their spin on political developments, and the phrase "government programs" now could not be printed except with the word "bloated" before it. ..."
"... Globalization is usually defined as an increase in the volume of cross-border economic interactions and resource flows, producing a qualitative shift in the relations between national economies and between nation-states (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 5; Kozul-Wright and Rowthorn, 1998, p. 1). Three kinds of economic interactions have increased substantially in past decades: merchandise trade flows, foreign direct investment, and cross-border financial investments. We will briefly examine each, with an eye on their effects on the competitive structure of contemporary capitalism. ..."
"... By the close of the twentieth century, capitalism had become significantly more globalized than it had been fifty years ago, and by some measures it is much more globalized than it had been at the previous peak of this process in 1913. The most important features of globalization today are greatly increased international trade, increased flows of capital across national boundaries (particularly speculative short-term capital), and a major role for large TNCs in manufacturing, extractive activities, and finance, operating worldwide yet retaining in nearly all cases a clear base in a single nation-state. ..."
"... Some analysts argue that globalization has produced a world of such economic interdependence that individual nation-states no longer have the power to regulate capital. However, while global interdependence does create difficulties for state regulation, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. Nation-states still retain a good deal of potential power vis-a-vis capitalist firms, provided that the political will is present to exercise such power. For example, even such a small country as Malaysia proved able to successfully impose capital controls following the Asian financial crisis of 1997, despite the opposition of the IMF and the US government. ..."
"... Globalization appears to be one factor that has transformed big business from a supporter to an opponent of the interventionist state. It has done so partly by producing TNCs whose tie to the domestic markets for goods and labor is limited. ..."
"... Globalization has produced a world capitalism that bears some resemblance to the Robber Baron Era in the US. Giant corporations battle one another in a system lacking well defined rules. Mergers and acquisitions abound, including some that cross national boundaries, but so far few world industries have evolved the kind of tight oligopolistic structure that would lay the basis for a more controlled form of market relations. Like the late 19th century US Robber Barons, today's large corporations and banks above all want freedom from political burdens and restraints as they confront one another in world markets.18 ..."
"... The existence of a powerful bloc of Communist-run states with an alternative "state socialist" socioeconomic system tended to push capitalism toward a state regulationist form. It reinforced the fear among capitalists that their own working classes might turn against capitalism. It also had an impact on relations among the leading capitalist states, promoting inter-state unity behind US leadership, which facilitated the creation and operation of a world-system of state-regulated capitalism.19 The demise of state socialism during 1989-91 removed one more factor that had reinforced the regulationist state. ..."
"... If state socialism re-emerged in one or more major countries, perhaps this might push the capitalist world back toward the regulationist state. However, such a development does not seem likely. Even if Russia or Ukraine at some point does head in that direction, it would be unlikely to produce a serious rival socioeconomic system to that of world capitalism. ..."
Department of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute Thompson Hall
University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 U.S.A. Telephone 413-545-1248
Fax 413-545-2921 Email [email protected] August, 2000 This paper was published
in Rethinking Marxism, Volume 12, Number 2, Summer 2002, pp. 64-79.
Research assistance was provided by Elizabeth Ramey and Deger Eryar. Research
funding was provided by the Political Economy Research Institute of the University
of Massachusetts at Amherst. Globalization and Neoliberalism 1 For some
two decades neoliberalism has dominated economic policymaking in the US and
the UK. Neoliberalism has strong advocates in continental Western Europe and
Japan, but substantial popular resistance there has limited its influence so
far, despite continuing US efforts to impose neoliberal policies on them. In
much of the Third World, and in the transition countries (except for China),
the US has been successful in dictating neoliberal policies, acting partly through
the IMF and World Bank and partly through direct pressure.
Neoliberalism is an updated version of the classical liberal economic thought
that was dominant in the US and UK prior to the Great Depression of the 1930s.
From roughly the mid 1930s to the mid 1970s a new "interventionist" approach
replaced classical liberalism, and it became the accepted belief that capitalism
requires significant state regulation in order to be viable. In the 1970s the
Old Religion of classical liberalism made a rapid comeback, first in academic
economics and then in the realm of public policy.
Neoliberalism is both a body of economic theory and a policy stance.
Neoliberal theory claims that a largely unregulated capitalist system (a "free
market economy" not only embodies the ideal of free individual choice but also
achieves optimum economic performance with respect to efficiency, economic growth,
technical progress, and distributional justice. The state is assigned a
very limited economic role: defining property rights, enforcing contracts, and
regulating the money supply.1 State intervention to correct market failures
is viewed with suspicion, on the ground that such intervention is likely to
create more problems than it solves.
The policy recommendations of neoliberalism are concerned mainly with
dismantling what remains of the regulationist welfare state. These recommendations
include deregulation of business; privatization of public activities and assets;
elimination of, or cutbacks in, social welfare programs; and reduction of taxes
on businesses and the investing class. In the international sphere, neoliberalism
calls for free movement of goods, services, capital, and money (but not people)
across national boundaries. That is, corporations, banks, and individual investors
should be free to move their property across national boundaries, and free to
acquire property across national boundaries, although free cross-border movement
by individuals is not part of the neoliberal program. How can the re-emergence
of a seemingly outdated and outmoded economic theory be explained? At first
many progressive economists viewed the 1970s lurch toward liberalism as a temporary
response to the economic instability of that decade. As corporate interests
decided that the Keynesian regulationist approach no longer worked to their
advantage, they looked for an alternative and found only the old liberal ideas,
which could at least serve as an ideological basis for cutting those state programs
viewed as obstacles to profit-making. However, neoliberalism has proved to be
more than just a temporary response. It has outlasted the late 1970s/early 1980s
right-wing political victories in the UK (Thatcher) and US (Reagan). Under a
Democratic Party administration in the US and a Labor Party government in the
UK in the 1990s, neoliberalism solidified its position of dominance.
This paper argues that the resurgence and tenacity of neoliberalism during
the past two decades cannot be explained, in an instrumental fashion, by any
favorable effects of neoliberal policies on capitalist economic performance.
On the contrary, we will present a case that neoliberalism has been harmful
for long-run capitalist economic performance, even judging economic performance
from the perspective of the interests of capital. It will be argued that the
resurgence and continuing dominance of neoliberalism can be explained, at least
in part, by changes in the competitive structure of world capitalism, which
have resulted in turn from the particular form of global economic integration
that has developed in recent decades. The changed competitive structure of capitalism
has altered the political posture of big business with regard to economic policy
and the role of the state, turning big business from a supporter of state-regulated
capitalism into an opponent of it.
The Problematic Character of Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism appears to be problematic as a dominant theory for contemporary
capitalism. The stability and survival of the capitalist system depends on its
ability to bring vigorous capital accumulation, where the latter process is
understood to include not just economic expansion but also technological progress.
Vigorous capital accumulation permits rising profits to coexist with rising
living standards for a substantial part of the population over the long-run.2
However, it does not appear that neoliberalism promotes vigorous capital accumulation
in contemporary capitalism. There are a number of reasons why one would not
expect the neoliberal model to promote rapid accumulation. First, it gives rise
to a problem of insufficient aggregate demand over the long run, stemming from
the powerful tendency of the neoliberal regime to lower both real wages and
public spending. Second, the neoliberal model creates instability on the
macroeconomic level by renouncing state counter-cyclical spending and taxation
policies, by reducing the effectiveness of "automatic stabilizers" through shrinking
social welfare programs,3 and by loosening public regulation of the financial
sector. This renders the system more vulnerable to major financial crises and
depressions. Third, the neoliberal model tends to intensify class conflict,
which can potentially discourage capitalist investment.4
The historical evidence confirms doubts about the ability of the neoliberal
model to promote rapid capital accumulation. We will look at growth rates of
gross domestic product (GDP) and of labor productivity. The GDP growth rate
provides at least a rough approximation of the rate of capital accumulation,
while the labor productivity growth rate tells us something about the extent
to which capitalism is developing the forces of production via rising ratios
of means of production to direct labor, technological advance, and improved
labor skills.5 Table 1 shows average annual real GDP growth rates for six leading
developed capitalist countries over two periods, 1950-73 and 1973-99. The first
period was the heyday of state-regulated capitalism, both within those six countries
and in the capitalist world-system as a whole. The second period covers the
era of growing neoliberal dominance. All six countries had significantly faster
GDP growth in the earlier period than in the later one.
While Japan and the major Western European economies have been relatively
depressed in the 1990s, the US is often portrayed as rebounding to great prosperity
over the past decade. Neoliberals often claim that US adherence to neoliberal
policies finally paid off in the 1990s, while the more timid moves away from
state-interventionist policies in Europe and Japan kept them mired in stagnation.
Table 2 shows GDP and labor productivity growth rates for the US economy for
three subperiods during 1948-99.6 Column 1 of Table 2 shows that GDP growth
was significantly slower in 1973-90 B a period of transition from state-regulated
capitalism to the neoliberal model in the US B than in 1948-73. While GDP growth
improved slightly in 1990-99, it remained well below that of the era of state-regulated
capitalism. Some analysts cite the fact that GDP growth accelerated after 1995,
averaging 4.1% per year during 1995-99 (US Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2000).
However, it is not meaningful to compare a short fragment of the 1990s business
cycle expansion to the longrun performance of the economy during 1948-73.7
Column 2 of Table 1 shows that the high rate of labor productivity growth
recorded in 1948- 73 fell by more than half in 1973-90. While there was significant
improvement in productivity growth in the 1990s, it remained well below the
1948-73 rate, despite the rapid spread of what should be productivity-enhancing
communication and information-management technologies during the past decade.
The evidence from GDP and labor productivity growth rates supports the
claim that the neoliberal model is inferior to the state regulationist model
for key dimensions of capitalist economic performance. There is ample evidence
that the neoliberal model has shifted income and wealth in the direction of
the already wealthy. However, the ability to shift income upward has limits
in an economy that is not growing rapidly. Neoliberalism does not appear to
be delivering the goods in the ways that matter the most for capitalism's long-run
stability and survival.
The Structure of Competition and Economic Policy
The processes through which the dominant economic ideology and policies
are selected in a capitalist system are complex and many-sided. No general rule
operates to assure that those economic policies which would be most favorable
for capitalism are automatically adopted. History suggests that one important
determinant of the dominant economic ideology and policy stance is the competitive
structure of capitalism in a given era. Specifically, this paper argues that
periods of relatively unconstrained competition tend to produce the intellectual
and public policy dominance of liberalism, while periods of relatively constrained,
oligopolistic market relations tend to promote interventionist ideas and policies.
A relation in the opposite direction also exists, one which is often commented
upon. That is, one can argue that interventionist policies promote monopoly
power in markets, while liberal policies promote greater competition. This latter
relation is not being denied here. Rather, it will be argued that there is a
normally-overlooked direction of influence, having significant historical explanatory
power, which runs from competitive structure to public policy. In the period
when capitalism first became well established in the US, during 1800-1860, the
government played a relatively interventionist role. The federal government
placed high tariffs on competing manufactured goods from Europe, and federal,
state, and local levels of government all actively financed, and in some cases
built and operated, the new canal and rail system that created a large internal
market. There was no serious debate over the propriety of public financing of
transportation improvements in that era -- the only debate was over which regions
would get the key subsidized routes.
Once capitalism had become well established in the US after the Civil
War, it entered a period of cutthroat competition and wild accumulation known
as the Robber Baron era. In this period a coherent anti-interventionist liberal
position emerged and became politically dominant. Despite the enormous inequalities,
the severe business cycle, and the outrageous and often unlawful behavior of
the Goulds and Rockefellers, the idea that government should not intervene in
the economy held sway through the end of the 19th century.
From roughly 1890 to 1903 a huge merger wave transformed the competitive
structure of US capitalism. Out of that merger wave emerged giant corporations
possessing significant monopoly power in the manufacturing, mining, transportation,
and communication sectors. US industry settled down to a more restrained form
of oligopolistic rivalry. At the same time, many of the new monopoly capitalists
began to criticize the old Laissez Faire ideas and support a more interventionist
role for the state.8 The combination of big business support for state regulation
of business, together with similar demands arising from a popular anti-monopoly
movement based among small farmers and middle class professionals, ushered in
what is called the Progressive Era, from 1900-16. The building of a regulationist
state that was begun in the Progressive Era was completed during the New Deal
era a few decades later, when once again both big business leaders and a vigorous
popular movement (this time based among industrial workers) supported an interventionist
state. Both in the Progressive Era and the New Deal, big business and the popular
movement differed about what types of state intervention were needed. Big business
favored measures to increase the stability of the system and to improve conditions
for profit-making, while the popular movement sought to use the state to restrain
the power and privileges of big business and provide greater security for ordinary
people. The outcome in both cases was a political compromise, one weighted toward
the interests of big business, reflecting the relative power of the latter in
American capitalism.
Small business has remained adamantly opposed to the big, interventionist
state, from the Progressive Era through the New Deal down to the present. This
division between big and small business is chronicled for the Progressive Era
in Weinstein (1968). In the decades immediately following World War II one can
observe this division in the divergent views of the Business Roundtable, a big
business organization which often supported interventionist programs, and the
US Chambers of Commerce, the premier small business organization, which hewed
to an antigovernment stance.
What explains this political difference between large and small business?
When large corporations achieve significant market power and become freed from
fear concerning their immediate survival, they tend to develop a long time horizon
and pay attention to the requirements for assuring growing profits over time.9
They come to see the state as a potential ally. Having high and stable monopoly
profits, they tend to view the cost of government programs as something they
can afford, given their potential benefits. By contrast, the typical small
business faces a daily battle for survival, which prevents attention to long-run
considerations and which places a premium on avoiding the short-run costs of
taxation and state regulation. This explains the radically different positions
that big business and small business held regarding the proper state role in
the economy for the first two-thirds of the twentieth century.
This long-standing division between big business and small business appeared
to vanish in the US starting in the 1970s. Large corporations and banks which
had formerly supported foundations that advocated an active government role
in the economy, such as the Brookings Institution, became big donors to neoliberal
foundations such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.
As a result, such right-wing foundations, which previously had to rely mainly
on contributions from small business, became very wealthy and influential.10
It was big business=s desertion of the political coalition supporting state
intervention and its shift to neoliberalism that rebuilt support for neoliberal
theories and policies in the US, starting in the 1970s. With business now unified
on economic policy, the shift was dramatic. Big grants became available for
economics research having a neoliberal slant. The major media shifted their
spin on political developments, and the phrase "government programs" now could
not be printed except with the word "bloated" before it.
This switch in the dominant economic model first showed up in the mid 1970s
in academic economics, as the previously marginalized Chicago School spread
its influence far beyond the University of Chicago. This was soon followed by
a radical shift in the public policy arena. In 1978- 79 the previously interventionist
Carter Administration began sounding the very neoliberal themes B deregulation
of business, cutbacks in social programs, and general fiscal and monetary austerity
B that were to become the centerpiece of Reagan Administration policies in 1981.
What caused the radical change in the political posture of big business regarding
state intervention in the economy? This paper argues that a major part of the
explanation lies in the effects of the globalization of the world capitalist
economy in the post-World War II period.
Globalization and Competition
Globalization is usually defined as an increase in the volume of cross-border
economic interactions and resource flows, producing a qualitative shift in the
relations between national economies and between nation-states (Baker et. al.,
1998, p. 5; Kozul-Wright and Rowthorn, 1998, p. 1). Three kinds of economic
interactions have increased substantially in past decades: merchandise trade
flows, foreign direct investment, and cross-border financial investments. We
will briefly examine each, with an eye on their effects on the competitive structure
of contemporary capitalism.
Table 3 shows the ratio of merchandise exports to gross domestic product
for selected years from 1820 to 1992, for the world and also for Western Europe,
the US, and Japan. Capitalism brought a five-fold rise in world exports relative
to output from 1820-70, followed by another increase of nearly three-fourths
by 1913. After declining in the interwar period, world exports reached a new
peak of 11.2% of world output in 1973, rising further to 13.5% in 1992. The
1992 figure was over fifty per cent higher than the pre-World War I peak.
Merchandise exports include physical goods only, while GDP includes services,
many of which are not tradable, as well as goods. In the twentieth century the
proportion of services in GDP has risen significantly. Table 4 shows an estimate
of the ratio of world merchandise exports to the good-only portion of world
GDP. This ratio nearly tripled during 1950-92, with merchandise exports rising
to nearly one-third of total goods output in the latter year. The 1992 figure
was 2.6 times as high as that of 1913.
Western Europe, the US, and Japan all experienced significant increases in
exports relative to GDP during 1950-92, as Table 3 shows. All of them achieved
ratios of exports to GDP far in excess of the 1913 level. While exports were
only 8.2% of the total GDP of the US in 1992, exports amounted to 22.0% of the
non-service portion of GDP that year (Economic Report of the President,
1999, pp. 338, 444).
Many analysts view foreign direct investment as the most important form of
cross-border economic interchange. It is associated with the movement of technology
and organizational methods, not just goods. Table 5 shows two measures of foreign
direct investment. Column 1 gives the outstanding stock of foreign direct investment
in the world as a percentage of world output. This measure has more than doubled
since 1975, although it is not much greater today than it was in 1913. Column
2 shows the annual inflow of direct foreign investment as a percentage of gross
fixed capital formation. This measure increased rapidly during 1975-95. However,
it is still relatively low in absolute terms, with foreign direct investment
accounting for only 5.2 per cent of gross fixed capital formation in 1995.
Not all, or even most, international capital flows take the form of direct
investment. Financial flows (such as cross-border purchases of securities and
deposits in foreign bank accounts) are normally larger. One measure that takes
account of financial as well as direct investment is the total net movement
of capital into or out of a country. That measure indicates the extent to which
capital from one country finances development in other countries. Table 6 shows
the absolute value of current account surpluses or deficits as a percentage
of GDP for 12 major capitalist countries. Since net capital inflow or outflow
is approximately equal to the current account deficit or surplus (differing
only due to errors and omissions), this indicates the size of net cross-border
capital flows. The ratio nearly doubled from 1970-74 to 1990-96, although it
remained well below the figure for 1910-14.
Cross-border gross capital movements have grown much more rapidly
than cross-border net capital movements.11 In recent times a very large
and rapidly growing volume of capital has moved back and forth across national
boundaries. Much of this capital flow is speculative in nature, reflecting growing
amounts of short-term capital that are moved around the world in search of the
best temporary return. No data on such flows are available for the early part
of this century, but the data for recent decades are impressive. During 1980-95
cross-border transactions in bonds and equities as a percentage of GDP rose
from 9% to 136% for the US, from 8% to 168% for Germany, and from 8% to 66%
for Japan (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 10). The total volume of foreign exchange
transactions in the world rose from about $15 billion per day in 1973 to $80
billion per day in 1980 and $1260 billion per day in 1995. Trade in goods and
services accounted for 15% of foreign exchange transactions in 1973 but for
less than 2% of foreign exchange transactions in 1995 (Bhaduri, 1998, p. 152).
While cross-border flows of goods and capital are usually considered to be
the best indicators of possible globalization of capitalism, changes that have
occurred over time within capitalist enterprises are also relevant. That is,
the much-discussed rise of the transnational corporation (TNC) is relevant here,
where a TNC is a corporation which has a substantial proportion of its sales,
assets, and employees outside its home country.12 TNCs existed in the pre-World
War I era, primarily in the extractive sector. In the post-World War II period
many large manufacturing corporations in the US, Western Europe, and Japan became
TNCs.
The largest TNCs are very international measured by the location of their
activities. One study found that the 100 largest TNCs in the world (ranked by
assets) had 40.4% of their assets abroad, 50.0% of output abroad, and 47.9%
of employment abroad in 1996 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 125). While this
shows that the largest TNCs are significantly international in their activities,
all but a handful have retained a single national base for top officials and
major stockholders.13 The top 200 TNCs ranked by output were estimated to produce
only about 10 per cent of world GDP in 1995 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 122).
By the close of the twentieth century, capitalism had become significantly
more globalized than it had been fifty years ago, and by some measures it is
much more globalized than it had been at the previous peak of this process in
1913. The most important features of globalization today are greatly increased
international trade, increased flows of capital across national boundaries (particularly
speculative short-term capital), and a major role for large TNCs in manufacturing,
extractive activities, and finance, operating worldwide yet retaining in nearly
all cases a clear base in a single nation-state.
While the earlier wave of globalization before World War I did produce a
capitalism that was significantly international, two features of that earlier
international system differed from the current global capitalism in ways that
are relevant here. First, the pre-world War I globalization took place within
a world carved up into a few great colonial empires, which meant that much of
the so-called "cross-border" trade and investment of that earlier era actually
occurred within a space controlled by a single state. Second, the high level
of world trade reached before World War I occurred within a system based much
more on specialization and division of labor. That is, manufactured goods were
exported by the advanced capitalist countries in exchange for primary products,
unlike today when most trade is in manufactured goods. In 1913 62.5% of world
trade was in primary products (Bairoch and Kozul-Wright, 1998, p. 45). By contrast,
in 1970 60.9% of world exports were manufactured goods, rising to 74.7% in 1994
(Baker et. al., 1998, p. 7).
Some analysts argue that globalization has produced a world of such economic
interdependence that individual nation-states no longer have the power to regulate
capital. However, while global interdependence does create difficulties for
state regulation, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. Nation-states still
retain a good deal of potential power vis-a-vis capitalist firms, provided that
the political will is present to exercise such power. For example, even such
a small country as Malaysia proved able to successfully impose capital controls
following the Asian financial crisis of 1997, despite the opposition of the
IMF and the US government. A state that has the political will to exercise
some control over movements of goods and capital across its borders still retains
significant power to regulate business. The more important effect of globalization
has been on the political will to undertake state regulation, rather than on
the technical feasibility of doing so. Globalization has had this effect by
changing the competitive structure of capitalism. It appears that globalization
in this period has made capitalism significantly more competitive, in several
ways. First, the rapid growth of trade has changed the situation faced by large
corporations. Large corporations that had previously operated in relatively
controlled oligopolistic domestic markets now face competition from other large
corporations based abroad, both in domestic and foreign markets. In the US the
rate of import penetration of domestic manufacturing markets was only 2 per
cent in 1950; it rose to 8% in 1971 and 16% by 1993, an 8-fold increase since
1950 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 116).
Second, the rapid increase in foreign direct investment has in many cases
placed TNCs production facilities in the home markets of their foreign rivals.
General Motors not only faces import competition from Toyota and Honda but has
to compete with US-produced Toyota and Honda vehicles. Third, the increasingly
integrated and open world financial system has thrown the major banks and other
financial institutions of the leading capitalist nations increasingly into competition
with one another.
Globalization appears to be one factor that has transformed big business
from a supporter to an opponent of the interventionist state. It has done so
partly by producing TNCs whose tie to the domestic markets for goods and labor
is limited. More importantly, globalization tends to turn big business
into small business. The process of globalization has increased the competitive
pressure faced by large corporations and banks, as competition has become a
world-wide relationship.17 Even if those who run large corporations and financial
institutions recognize the need for a strong nationstate in their home base,
the new competitive pressure they face shortens their time horizon. It pushes
them toward support for any means to reduce their tax burden and lift their
regulatory constraints, to free them to compete more effectively with their
global rivals. While a regulationist state may seem to be in the interests of
big business, in that it can more effectively promote capital accumulation in
the long run, in a highly competitive environment big business is drawn away
from supporting a regulationist state.
Globalization has produced a world capitalism that bears some resemblance
to the Robber Baron Era in the US. Giant corporations battle one another in
a system lacking well defined rules. Mergers and acquisitions abound, including
some that cross national boundaries, but so far few world industries have evolved
the kind of tight oligopolistic structure that would lay the basis for a more
controlled form of market relations. Like the late 19th century US Robber Barons,
today's large corporations and banks above all want freedom from political burdens
and restraints as they confront one another in world markets.18
The above interpretation of the rise and persistence of neoliberalism attributes
it, at least in part, to the changed competitive structure of world capitalism
resulting from the process of globalization. As neoliberalism gained influence
starting in the 1970s, it became a force propelling the globalization process
further. One reason for stressing the line of causation running from globalization
to neoliberalism is the time sequence of the developments. The process of globalization,
which had been reversed to some extent by political and economic events in the
interwar period, resumed right after World War II, producing a significantly
more globalized world economy and eroding the monopoly power of large corporations
well before neoliberalism began its second coming in the mid 1970s. The rapid
rise in merchandise exports began during the Bretton Woods period, as Table
3 showed. So too did the growing role for TNC's. These two aspects of the current
globalization had their roots in the postwar era of state-regulated capitalism.
This suggests that, to some extent, globalization reflects a long-run tendency
in the capital accumulation process rather than just being a result of the rising
influence of neoliberal policies. On the other hand, once neoliberalism became
dominant, it accelerated the process of globalization. This can be seen most
clearly in the data on cross-border flows of both real and financial capital,
which began to grow rapidly only after the 1960s.
Other Factors Promoting Neoliberalism
The changed competitive structure of capitalism provides part of the explanation
for the rise from the ashes of classical liberalism and its persistence in the
face of widespread evidence of its failure to deliver the goods. However, three
additional factors have played a role in promoting neoliberal dominance. These
are the weakening of socialist movements in the industrialized capitalist countries,
the demise of state socialism, and the long period that has elapsed since the
last major capitalist economic crisis. There is space here for only some brief
comments about these additional factors.
The socialist movements in the industrialized capitalist countries have declined
in strength significantly over the past few decades. While Social Democratic
parties have come to office in several European countries recently, they no
longer represent a threat of even significant modification of capitalism, much
less the specter of replacing capitalism with an alternative socialist system.
The regulationist state was always partly a response to the fear of socialism,
a point illustrated by the emergence of the first major regulationist state
of the era of mature capitalism in Germany in the late 19th century, in response
to the world=s first major socialist movement. As the threat coming from socialist
movements in the industrialized capitalist countries has receded, so too has
to incentive to retain the regulationist state.
The existence of a powerful bloc of Communist-run states with an alternative
"state socialist" socioeconomic system tended to push capitalism toward a state
regulationist form. It reinforced the fear among capitalists that their own
working classes might turn against capitalism. It also had an impact on relations
among the leading capitalist states, promoting inter-state unity behind US leadership,
which facilitated the creation and operation of a world-system of state-regulated
capitalism.19 The demise of state socialism during 1989-91 removed one more
factor that had reinforced the regulationist state.
The occurrence of a major economic crisis tends to promote an interventionist
state, since active state intervention is required to overcome a major crisis.
The memory of a recent major crisis tends to keep up support for a regulationist
state, which is correctly seen as a stabilizing force tending to head off major
crises. As the Great Depression of the 1930s has receded into the distant past,
the belief has taken hold that major economic crises have been banished forever.
This reduces the perceived need to retain the regulationist state.
Concluding Comments
If neoliberalism continues to reign as the dominant ideology and policy stance,
it can be argued that world capitalism faces a future of stagnation, instability,
and even eventual social breakdown.20 However, from the factors that have promoted
neoliberalism one can see possible sources of a move back toward state-regulated
capitalism at some point. One possibility would be the development of tight
oligopoly and regulated competition on a world scale. Perhaps the current merger
wave might continue until, as happened at the beginning of the 20th century
within the US and in other industrialized capitalist economies, oligopoly replaced
cutthroat competition, but this time on a world scale. Such a development might
revive big business support for an interventionist state. However, this does
not seem to be likely in the foreseeable future. The world is a big place, with
differing cultures, laws, and business practices in different countries, which
serve as obstacles to overcoming the competitive tendency in market relations.
Transforming an industry=s structure so that two to four companies produce the
bulk of the output is not sufficient in itself to achieve stable monopoly power,
if the rivals are unable to communicate effectively with one another and find
common ground for cooperation. Also, it would be difficult for international
monopolies to exercise effective regulation via national governments, and a
genuine world capitalist state is not a possibility for the foreseeable future.
If state socialism re-emerged in one or more major countries, perhaps
this might push the capitalist world back toward the regulationist state. However,
such a development does not seem likely. Even if Russia or Ukraine at some point
does head in that direction, it would be unlikely to produce a serious rival
socioeconomic system to that of world capitalism.
A more likely source of a new era of state interventionism might come from
one of the remaining two factors considered above. The macro-instability of
neoliberal global capitalism might produce a major economic crisis at some point,
one which spins out of the control of the weakened regulatory authorities. This
would almost certainly revive the politics of the regulationist state. Finally,
the increasing exploitation and other social problems generated by neoliberal
global capitalism might prod the socialist movement back to life at some point.
Should socialist movements revive and begin to seriously challenge capitalism
in one or more major capitalist countries, state regulationism might return
in response to it. Such a development would also revive the possibility of finally
superceding capitalism and replacing it with a system based on human need rather
than private profit.
"... Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending existing
integration, hoping to win enough popular support that their efforts are not thwarted. On the evidence
of the U.S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have run its course. ...
..."
"... I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion
of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" -- "Workers of the World,
Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848 ..."
"... Krugman sort of said this when he saw that apparel multinationals were shifting jobs out of
China to Bangladesh. Like $3 an hour is just way too high for workers. ..."
"... The "populists" are raging against global trade which benefits the world poor. The Very Serious
economists know what is really going on and have to interests of the poor at heart. Plus they are smarter
than the "populists" who are just dumb hippies. ..."
"... And what about neocolonialism and debt slavery ? http://historum.com/blogs/solidaire/245-debt-slavery-neo-colonialism-neoliberalism.html
..."
"... International debtors are the modern colonialists, sucking the marrow of countries; no armies
are needed anymore to keep those countries subjugated. Debt is the modern instrument of enslavement,
the international banks, corporations and hedge funds the modern colonial powers, and its enforcers
are instruments like the Global Bank, the IMF, and the corrupt, collaborationist governments (and totalitarian
regimes) of those countries, supported and propped up by these neo-colonials. ..."
"... Cover your a$$ much Larry? No mention of mass immigration? No mention of the elites' conscious,
planned attack on homogeneous societies in Western Europe, the US, and now Japan? ..."
"... The US was 88% European as of 1960. As of 1800 it was like 90% English. So yes, it was basically
a homogeneous society prior to the immigration act of 1965. Today it is extremely hard for Europeans
to get into the US -- but easier for non-Europeans. Now why would that be? Hmm .... ..."
"... The only trade that is actually free is trade not covered by laws and/or treaties. All other
trade is regulated trade. ..."
"... Here's a good rule to follow. When someone calls something the exact opposite of what it is,
in all probability they are trying to hustle your wallet. ..."
"... ISIS was invented by Wall Street who financed them. ISIS is a scam, just like Bin Laden's group,
just like "COMMUNISM!!!!" to control people. To manipulate them. ..."
"... Guys, the bourgeois state is a protection racket and always has been. It makes you feel safe,
secure and "feel like man". So we can enjoy every indulgent individual lust the world has to offer.
Then comes in dialectics of what that protection racket should do. ..."
"... To me, the bourgeois state is nothing more than a protection racket for the rich, something
you should not forget. ..."
"... I find it rather precious that Summers pretends not to understand why people hate TPP. I do
not think there is any real widespread antipathy toward global integration, though it does pose some
rather substantial systemic dangers, as we saw in the global financial collapse. What people, including
me, oppose is how that integration is structured. These agreements are about is not "free trade", but
removing all restrictions on global capital and that is a big problem. ..."
"... TPP is not free trade. It is protectionism for the rich. ..."
"... All or most modern "free trade" agreements are like that. What people oppose is agreements
which impoverish them and enrich capital. ..."
"... More free trade arrangement are not always better trade arrangements. People have seen the
results of the labor race to the bottom caused by earlier free trade agreements; and now they are guessing
we're going to get the same kind of race to the bottom with TPP when we have to put all of our environmental
laws and other domestic regulations into capitalist competition with backward countries. ..."
"... progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY, MD) could simply treat union busting the same way
any OTHER major muscling or manipulation of the free market is treated: make it a felony. ..."
"... Summers: "Pie in the Sky" So trade negotiations would have to be lead by labor advocates and
environmental groups -- sounds great to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the goods
and service producers (i.e. capital owners) would have any incentive to promote trade under such a negotiated
trade agreement... or that trade would actually occur. You'd have to eliminate private enterprise incentives
to profit I think.. not something the U.S.'s "individualism" god can't tolerate. ..."
"... Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either increased
global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick which to believe.
..."
What's behind the revolt against global integration? : Since the end of World War II, a broad
consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity has been
a pillar of the international order. ...
This broad program of global integration has been more successful than could reasonably have
been hoped. ... Yet a revolt against global integration is underway in the West. ...
One substantial part of what is behind the resistance is a lack of knowledge. ...The core of
the revolt against global integration, though, is not ignorance. It is a sense - unfortunately
not wholly unwarranted - that it is a project being carried out by elites for elites, with little
consideration for the interests of ordinary people. ...
Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending
existing integration, hoping to win enough popular support that their efforts are not thwarted.
On the evidence of the U.S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have
run its course. ...
Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up
rather than a top-down project. The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing
its consequences. This would mean a shift from international trade agreements to international
harmonization agreements, whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would
be central, while issues related to empowering foreign producers would be secondary. It would
also mean devoting as much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation
or evade regulation through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And
it would mean an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but
still hope desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.
I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion
of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" -- "Workers of the
World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848
Krugman sort of said this when he saw that apparel multinationals were shifting jobs out of
China to Bangladesh. Like $3 an hour is just way too high for workers.
A large part of the concern over free trade comes from the weak economic performances around the
globe. Summers could have addressed this. Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker - both sensible economists
- for example recently called on the US to do its own currency manipulation so as to reverse the
US$ appreciation which is lowering our net exports quite a bit.
What they left out is the fact that both China and Japan have seen currency appreciations as
well. If we raise our net exports at their expense, that lowers their economic activity. Better
would be global fiscal stimulus. I wish Larry had raised this issue here.
The "populists" are raging against global trade which benefits the world poor. The Very Serious
economists know what is really going on and have to interests of the poor at heart. Plus they
are smarter than the "populists" who are just dumb hippies.
One of the most fundamental reasons for the poverty and underdevelopment of Africa (and of
almost all "third world" countries) is neo-colonialism, which in modern history takes the shape
of external debt.
When countries are forced to pay 40,50,60% of their government budgets just to pay the interests
of their enormous debts, there is little room for actual prosperity left.
International debtors are the modern colonialists, sucking the marrow of countries; no
armies are needed anymore to keep those countries subjugated. Debt is the modern instrument of
enslavement, the international banks, corporations and hedge funds the modern colonial powers,
and its enforcers are instruments like the Global Bank, the IMF, and the corrupt, collaborationist
governments (and totalitarian regimes) of those countries, supported and propped up by these neo-colonials.
In reality, not much has changed since the fall of the great colonial empires. In paper, countries
have gained their sovereignty, but in reality they are enslaved to the international credit system.
The only thing that has changed, is that now the very colonial powers of the past, are threatened
to become debt colonies themselves. You see, global capitalism and credit system has no country,
nationality, colour; it only recognises the colour of money, earned at all cost by the very few,
on the expense of the vast, unsuspected and lulled masses.
Debt had always been a very efficient way of control, either on a personal, or state level.
And while most of us are aware of the implementations of personal debt and the risks involved,
the corridors of government debt are poorly lit, albeit this kind of debt is affecting all citizens
of a country and in ways more profound and far reaching into the future than those of private
debt.
Global capitalism was flourishing after WW2, and reached an apex somewhere in the 70's.
The lower classes in the mature capitalist countries had gained a respectable portion of the
distributed wealth, rights and privileges inconceivable several decades before. The purchasing
power of the average American for example, was very satisfactory, fully justifying the American
dream. Similar phenomena were taking place all over the "developed" world.
Cover your a$$ much Larry? No mention of mass immigration? No mention of the elites' conscious,
planned attack on homogeneous societies in Western Europe, the US, and now Japan?
There is of course no reasonable answering to prejudice, since prejudice is always unreasonable,
but should there be a question, when was the last time that, say, the United States or the territory
that the US now covers was a homogeneous society?
Before the US engulfed Spanish peoples? Before the US engulfed African peoples? Before the
US engulfed Indian peoples? When did the Irish, just to think of a random nationality, ruin "our"
homogeneity?
I could continue, but how much of a point is there in being reasonable?
The US was 88% European as of 1960. As of 1800 it was like 90% English. So yes, it was basically
a homogeneous society prior to the immigration act of 1965. Today it is extremely hard for Europeans
to get into the US -- but easier for non-Europeans. Now why would that be? Hmm ....
ISIS was invented by Wall Street who financed them. ISIS is a scam, just like Bin Laden's
group, just like "COMMUNISM!!!!" to control people. To manipulate them.
It is like using the internet to think you are "edgy". Some dudes like psuedo-science scam
artist Mike Adams are uncovering secrets to this witty viewer............then you wonder why society
is degenerating. What should happen with Mike Adams is, he should be beaten up and castrated.
My guess he would talk then. Boy would his idiot followers get a surprise and that surprise would
have results other than "poor mikey, he was robbed".
This explains why guys like Trump get delegates. Not because he uses illegal immigrants in
his old businesses, not because of some flat real wages going over 40 years, not because he is
a conman marketer.........he makes them feel safe. That is purely it. I think its pathetic, but
that is what happens in a emasculated world. Safety becomes absolute concern. "Trump makes me
feel safe".
Guys, the bourgeois state is a protection racket and always has been. It makes you feel
safe, secure and "feel like man". So we can enjoy every indulgent individual lust the world has
to offer. Then comes in dialectics of what that protection racket should do.
To me, the bourgeois state is nothing more than a protection racket for the rich, something
you should not forget.
I find it rather precious that Summers pretends not to understand why people hate TPP. I do
not think there is any real widespread antipathy toward global integration, though it does pose
some rather substantial systemic dangers, as we saw in the global financial collapse. What people,
including me, oppose is how that integration is structured. These agreements are about is not
"free trade", but removing all restrictions on global capital and that is a big problem.
Actually, this is my first actual response to the post itself, but you were too busy being and
a*****e to notice. All or most modern "free trade" agreements are like that. What people oppose
is agreements which impoverish them and enrich capital.
This has become a popular line, and it's not exactly false. But so what if it were a "free trade"
agreement? More free trade arrangement are not always better trade arrangements. People have
seen the results of the labor race to the bottom caused by earlier free trade agreements; and
now they are guessing we're going to get the same kind of race to the bottom with TPP when we
have to put all of our environmental laws and other domestic regulations into capitalist competition
with backward countries.
" The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. "
" ... whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central ...
"
+1
Now if we could just adopt that policy internally in the United States first we could then
(and only then) support it externally across the world.
Easy approach: (FOR THE TEN MILLIONTH TIME!) progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY,
MD) could simply treat union busting the same way any OTHER major muscling or manipulation of
the free market is treated: make it a felony. FYI (for those who are not aware) states can
add to federal labor protections, just not subtract.
A completely renewed, re-constituted democracy would be born.
Biggest obstacle to this being done in my (crackpot?) view: human males. Being instinctive
pack hunters, before they check out any idea they, first, check in with the pack (all those other
boys who are also checking in with the pack) -- almost automatically infer impossibility to overcome
what they see (correctly?) as wheels within wheels of inertia.
Self-fulfilling prophecy: nothing (not the most obvious, SHOULD BE easiest possible to get
support for actions) ever gets done.
I'm not the only one seeking a new path forward on trade.
by Jared Bernstein
April 11th, 2016 at 9:20 am
"...
Here's Larry's view of the way forward:
"The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project.
The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing its consequences. This would
mean a shift from international trade agreements to international harmonization agreements,
whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central, while issues
related to empowering foreign producers would be secondary. It would also mean devoting as
much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation or evade regulation
through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And it would mean
an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but still hope
desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.
Good points, all. "Bottom-up" means what I've been calling a more representative, inclusive
process. But what's this about "international harmonization?""
It's a way of saying that we need to reduce the "frictions" and thus costs between trading
partners at the level of pragmatic infrastructure, not corporate power. One way to think of
this is TFAs, not FTAs. TFAs are trade facilitation agreements, which are more about integrating
ports, rail, and paperwork than patents that protect big Pharma.
It's refreshing to see mainstreamers thinking creatively about the anger that's surfaced
around globalization. Waiting for the anger to dissipate and then reverting back to the old
trade regimes may be the preferred path for elites, but that path may well be blocked. We'd
best clear a new, wider path, one that better accommodates folks from all walks of life, both
here and abroad."
Summers: "Pie in the Sky" So trade negotiations would have to be lead by labor advocates and
environmental groups -- sounds great to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the
goods and service producers (i.e. capital owners) would have any incentive to promote trade under
such a negotiated trade agreement... or that trade would actually occur. You'd have to eliminate
private enterprise incentives to profit I think.. not something the U.S.'s "individualism" god
can't tolerate.
Imagine a trade deal negotiated by the AFL-CIO. Labor wins a lot and capital owners lose a little.
We can all then smile and say to the latter - go get your buddies in Congress more serious about
the compensation principle. Turn the table!
"consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity " --
"The Great Illusion" (
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion
)
That increased trade is a bulwark against war rears its ugly head again. The above book which
so ironically delivered the message was published in 1910.
Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either
increased global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick
which to believe.
Our problems began back in the 1970s when we abandoned the Bretton Woods international capital
controls and then broke the unions, cut taxes on corporations and upper income groups, and deregulated
the financial system. This eventually led a stagnation of wages in the US and an increase in the
concentration of income at the top of the income distribution throughout the world:
http://www.rwEconomics.com/Ch_1.htm
When combined with tax cuts and financial deregulation it led to increasing debt relative to
income in the importing countries that caused the financial catastrophe we went through in 2008,
the economic stagnation that followed, and the social unrest we see throughout the world today.
This, in turn, created a situation in which the full utilization of our economic resources can
only be maintained through an unsustainable increase in debt relative to income:
http://www.rwEconomics.com/htm/WDCh3e.htm
This is what has to be overcome if we are to get out of the mess the world is in today, and
it's not going to be overcome by pretending that it's just going to go away if people can just
become educated about the benefits of trade. At least that's not the way it worked out in the
1930s: http://www.rwEconomics.com/LTLGAD.htm
"... From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to Oakland, a new generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state that has dominated the world ever since the Cold War ended. ..."
"... young rebels are reacting to a single stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in a few hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting. They have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against the resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the impunity ..."
"... In the "glorious thirty years" after World War II, North America and Western Europe achieved remarkable rates of economic growth and relatively low levels of inequality for capitalist societies, while instituting a broad range of benefits for workers, students and retirees. From roughly 1980 on, however, the neoliberal movement, rooted in the laissez-faire economic theories of Milton Friedman, launched what became a full-scale assault on workers' power and an attempt, often remarkably successful, to eviscerate the social welfare state. ..."
"... "Washington consensus" meant that the urge to impose privatisation on stagnating, nepotistic postcolonial states would become the order of the day. ..."
"... While neoliberalism has produced more unequal societies throughout the world, nowhere else has the income of the poor declined quite so strikingly. The concentration of wealth in a few hands profoundly contradicts the founding principles of Israel's Labour Zionism, and results from decades of right-wing Likud policies punishing the poor and middle classes and shifting wealth to the top of society. ..."
"... Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History and the director of the Centre for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan. His latest book, ..."
"... Engaging the Muslim World , is just out in a revised paperback edition from Palgrave Macmillan. He runs the Informed Comment website. ..."
"... A version of this article was first published on Tom Dispatch . ..."
"... The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. ..."
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN - From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to Oakland, a new
generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state that has dominated
the world ever since the Cold War ended. The massive popular protests that
shook the globe this year have much in common, though most of the reporting
on them in the mainstream media has obscured the similarities.
Whether in Egypt or the United States, young rebels are reacting to a
single stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in
a few hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting.
They have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against
the resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the
impunity
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN - From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to
Oakland, a new generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state
that has dominated the world ever since the Cold War ended. The massive popular
protests that shook the globe this year have much in common, though most of
the reporting on them in the mainstream media has obscured the similarities.
Whether in Egypt or the United States, young rebels are reacting to a single
stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in a few
hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting. They
have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against the
resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the impunity
of the white-collar criminals who have run riot in societies everywhere. They
are objecting to high rates of unemployment, reduced social services, blighted
futures and above all the substitution of the market for all other values as
the matrix of human ethics and life.
Pasha the Tiger
In the "glorious thirty years" after World War II, North America and
Western Europe achieved remarkable rates of economic growth and relatively low
levels of inequality for capitalist societies, while instituting a broad range
of benefits for workers, students and retirees. From roughly 1980 on, however,
the neoliberal movement, rooted in the laissez-faire economic theories of Milton
Friedman, launched what became a full-scale assault on workers' power and an
attempt, often remarkably successful, to eviscerate the social welfare state.
Neoliberals chanted the mantra that everyone would benefit if the public
sector were privatised, businesses deregulated and market mechanisms allowed
to distribute wealth. But as economist David Harvey
argues, from the beginning it was a doctrine that primarily benefited the
wealthy, its adoption allowing the top one per cent in any neoliberal society
to capture a disproportionate share of whatever wealth was generated.
In the global South, countries that gained their independence from European
colonialism after World War II tended to create large public sectors as part
of the process of industrialization. Often, living standards improved as a result,
but by the 1970s, such developing economies were generally experiencing a levelling-off
of growth. This happened just as neoliberalism became ascendant in Washington,
Paris and London as well as in Bretton Woods institutions like the International
Monetary Fund. This "Washington consensus" meant that the urge to impose
privatisation on stagnating, nepotistic postcolonial states would become the
order of the day.
Egypt and Tunisia, to take two countries in the spotlight for sparking the
Arab Spring, were successfully pressured in the 1990s to privatise their relatively
large public sectors. Moving public resources into the private sector created
an almost endless range of opportunities for staggering levels of corruption
on the part of the ruling families of autocrats
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunis and
Hosni Mubarak in Cairo. International banks, central banks and emerging
local private banks aided and abetted their agenda.
It was not surprising then that one of the first targets of Tunisian crowds
in the course of the revolution they made last January was the
Zitouna bank, a branch of which they torched. Its owner? Sakher El Materi,
a son-in-law of President Ben Ali and the notorious owner of
Pasha, the well-fed pet tiger that prowled the grounds of one of his sumptuous
mansions. Not even the way his outfit sought legitimacy by practicing "Islamic
banking" could forestall popular rage. A 2006 State Department cable released
by WikiLeaks
observed, "One local financial expert blames the [Ben Ali] Family for chronic
banking sector woes due to the great percentage of non-performing loans issued
through crony connections, and has essentially paralysed banking authorities
from genuine recovery efforts." That is, the banks were used by the regime to
give away money to his cronies, with no expectation of repayment.
Tunisian activists similarly directed their ire at foreign banks and lenders
to which their country owes $14.4bn. Tunisians are still railing and rallying
against the repayment of all that money, some of which they believe was
borrowed profligately by the corrupt former regime and then squandered quite
privately.
Tunisians had their own one per cent, a thin commercial elite,
half of whom were related to or closely connected to President Ben Ali.
As a group, they were accused by young activists of mafia-like, predatory practices,
such as demanding pay-offs from legitimate businesses, and discouraging foreign
investment by tying it to a stupendous system of bribes. The closed, top-heavy
character of the Tunisian economic system was blamed for the bottom-heavy waves
of suffering that followed: cost of living increases that hit people on fixed
incomes or those like students and peddlers in the marginal economy especially
hard.
It was no happenstance that the young man who
immolated himself and so sparked the Tunisian rebellion was a hard-pressed
vegetable peddler. It's easy now to overlook what clearly ties the beginning
of the Arab Spring to the European Summer and the present American Fall: the
point of the Tunisian revolution was not just to gain political rights, but
to sweep away that one per cent, popularly imagined as a sort of dam against
economic opportunity.
Tahrir Square, Zuccotti Park, Rothschild Avenue
The success of the Tunisian revolution in removing the octopus-like Ben Ali
plutocracy inspired the dramatic events in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and even
Israel that are redrawing the political map of the Middle East. But the 2011
youth protest movement was hardly contained in the Middle East. Estonian-Canadian
activist Kalle Lasn and his anti-consumerist colleagues at the Vancouver-based
Adbusters Media Foundation
were inspired by the success of the revolutionaries in Tahrir Square in
deposing dictator Hosni Mubarak.
Their organisation specialises in combatting advertising culture through
spoofs and pranks. It was Adbusters magazine that sent out the call
on Twitter in the summer of 2011 for a rally at Wall Street on September 17,
with the now-famous hash tag #OccupyWallStreet. A thousand protesters gathered
on the designated date, commemorating the 2008 economic meltdown that had thrown
millions of Americans out of their jobs and their homes. Some camped out in
nearby Zuccotti Park, another unexpected global spark for protest.
The Occupy Wall Street movement has now spread throughout the United States,
sometimes in the face of serious acts of repression, as in
Oakland, California. It has followed in the spirit of the Arab and European
movements in demanding an end to special privileges for the richest one per
cent, including their ability to more or less buy the US government for purposes
of their choosing. What is often forgotten is that the Ben Alis, Mubaraks and
Gaddafis were not simply authoritarian tyrants. They were the one per
cent and the guardians of the one per cent, in their own societies - and loathed
for exactly that.
Last April, around the time that Lasn began imagining Wall Street protests,
progressive activists in Israel started planning their own movement. In July,
sales clerk and aspiring filmmaker Daphne Leef found herself
unable
to cover a sudden rent increase on her Tel Aviv apartment. So she started
a protest Facebook page similar to the ones that fuelled the Arab Spring and
moved into a tent on the posh Rothschild Avenue where she was soon joined by
hundreds of other protesting Israelis. Week by week, the demonstrations grew,
spreading to cities throughout the country and
culminating on September 3 in a massive rally, the largest in Israel's history.
Some 300,000 protesters came out in Tel Aviv, 50,000 in Jerusalem and 40,000
in Haifa. Their demands
included not just lower housing costs, but a rollback of neoliberal policies,
less regressive taxes and more progressive, direct taxation, a halt to the privatisation
of the economy, and the funding of a system of inexpensive education and child
care.
Many on the left in Israel are also
deeply troubled by the political and economic power of right-wing settlers
on the West Bank, but most decline to bring the Palestinian issue into the movement's
demands for fear of losing support among the middle class. For the same reason,
the way the Israeli movement was inspired by Tahrir Square and the Egyptian
revolution has been downplayed, although
"Walk like an Egyptian" signs - a reference both to the Cairo demonstrations
and the 1986 Bangles hit song - have been spotted on Rothschild Avenue.
Most of the Israeli activists in the coastal cities know that they are victims
of the same neoliberal order that displaces the Palestinians, punishes them
and keeps them stateless. Indeed, the Palestinians, altogether lacking a state
but at the complete mercy of various forms of international capital controlled
by elites elsewhere, are the ultimate victims of the neoliberal order. But in
order to avoid a split in the Israeli protest movement, a quiet agreement was
reached to focus on economic discontents and so avoid the divisive issue of
the much-despised West Bank settlements.
There has been little reporting in the Western press about a key source of
Israeli unease, which was palpable to me when I visited the country in May.
Even then, before the local protests had fully hit their stride, Israelis I
met were complaining about the rise to power of an Israeli one per cent. There
are now
16 billionaires in the country, who control $45bn in assets, and the current
crop of 10,153 millionaires is 20 per cent larger than it was in the previous
fiscal year. In terms of its distribution of wealth, Israel is now among the
most unequal of the countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development. Since the late 1980s, the average household income of families
in the bottom fifth of the population has been declining at an annual rate of
1.1 per cent. Over the same period, the average household income of families
among the richest 20 per cent went up at an annual rate of 2.4 per cent.
While neoliberalism has produced more unequal societies throughout the
world, nowhere else has the income of the poor declined quite so strikingly.
The concentration of wealth in a few hands profoundly contradicts the founding
principles of Israel's Labour Zionism, and results from decades of right-wing
Likud policies punishing the poor and middle classes and shifting wealth to
the top of society.
The indignant ones
European youth were also inspired by the Tunisians and Egyptians - and by
a similar flight of wealth. I was in Barcelona on May 27, when the police attacked
demonstrators camped out at the Placa de Catalunya, provoking widespread consternation.
The government of the region is currently led by the centrist Convergence and
Union Party, a moderate proponent of Catalan nationalism. It is relatively popular
locally, and so Catalans had not expected such heavy-handed police action to
be ordered. The crackdown, however, underlined the very point of the protesters,
that the neoliberal state, whatever its political makeup, is protecting the
same set of wealthy miscreants.
Spain's "indignados" (indignant ones) got
their start in mid-May with huge protests at Madrid's Puerta del Sol Plaza
against the country's persistent 21 per cent unemployment rate (and double that
among the young). Egyptian activists in Tahrir Square
immediately sent a statement of warm support to those in the Spanish capital
(as they would months later to New York's demonstrators). Again following the
same pattern, the Spanish movement does not restrict its objections to unemployment
(and the lack of benefits attending the few new temporary or contract jobs that
do arise). Its targets are the banks, bank bailouts, financial corruption and
cuts in education and other services.
Youth activists I met in Toledo and Madrid this summer
denounced
both of the country's major parties and, indeed, the very consumer society that
emphasised wealth accumulation over community and material acquisition over
personal enrichment. In the past two months Spain's young protesters have concentrated
on demonstrating against cuts to education, with crowds of 70,000 to 90,000
coming out more than once in Madrid and tens of thousands in other cities. For
marches in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement,
hundreds of thousands reportedly took to the streets of Madrid and Barcelona,
among other cities.
The global reach and connectedness of these movements has yet to be fully
appreciated. The Madrid education protesters, for example, cited for inspiration
Chilean students who, through persistent, innovative, and large-scale demonstrations
this summer and fall, have forced that country's neoliberal government, headed
by the increasingly unpopular billionaire president Sebastian Pinera, to inject
$1.6bn in new money into education. Neither the crowds of youth in Madrid nor
those in Santiago are likely to be mollified, however, by new dorms and laboratories.
Chilean students have
already moved on from insisting on an end to an ever more expensive class-based
education system to demands that the country's lucrative copper mines be nationalised
so as to generate revenues for investment in education. In every instance, the
underlying goal of specific protests by the youthful reformists is the neoliberal
order itself.
The word "union" was little uttered in American television news coverage
of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, even though factory workers and sympathy
strikes of all sorts played a
key role in them. The right-wing press in the US actually went out of its
way to contrast Egyptian demonstrations against Mubarak with the Wisconsin rallies
of government workers against Governor Scott Walker's measure to cripple the
bargaining power of their unions.
The Egyptians, Commentary typically
wrote,
were risking their lives, while Wisconsin's union activists were taking the
day off from cushy jobs to parade around with placards, immune from being fired
for joining the rallies. The implication: the Egyptian revolution was against
tyranny, whereas already spoiled American workers were demanding further coddling.
The American right has never been interested in recognising this reality:
that forbidding unions and strikes is a form of tyranny. In fact, it wasn't
just progressive bloggers who saw a connection between Tahrir Square and Madison.
The head of the newly formed independent union federation in Egypt dispatched
an
explicit expression of solidarity to the Wisconsin workers, centering on
worker's rights.
At least,Commentary did us one favour: it clarified
why the story has been told as it has in most of the American media. If the
revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya were merely about individualistic political
rights - about the holding of elections and the guarantee of due process - then
they could be depicted as largely irrelevant to politics in the US and Europe,
where such norms already prevailed.
If, however, they centered on economic rights (as they certainly did), then
clearly the discontents of North African youth when it came to plutocracy, corruption,
the curbing of workers' rights, and persistent unemployment deeply resembled
those of their American counterparts.
The global protests of 2011 have been cast in the American media largely
as an "Arab Spring" challenging local dictatorships - as though Spain, Chile
and Israel do not exist. The constant speculation by pundits and television
news anchors in the US about whether "Islam" would benefit from the Arab Spring
functioned as an Orientalist way of marking events in North Africa as alien
and vaguely menacing, but also as not germane to the day to day concerns of
working Americans. The inhabitants of Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan clearly
feel differently.
Facebook flash mobs
If we focus on economic trends, then the neoliberal state looks eerily similar,
whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship, whether the government is nominally
right of centre or left of centre. As a package, deregulation, the privatisation
of public resources and firms, corruption and forms of insider trading and interference
in the ability of workers to organise or engage in collective bargaining have
allowed the top one per cent in Israel, just as in Tunisia or the US, to capture
the lion's share of profits from the growth of the last decades.
Observers were puzzled by the huge crowds that turned out in both Tunis and
Tel Aviv in 2011, especially given that economic growth in those countries had
been running at a seemingly healthy five per cent per annum. "Growth", defined
generally and without regard to its distribution, is the answer to a neoliberal
question. The question of the 99 per cent, however, is: Who is getting the increased
wealth? In both of those countries, as in the US and other neoliberal lands,
the answer is: disproportionately the one per cent.
If you were wondering why outraged young people around the globe are chanting
such similar slogans and using such similar tactics (including Facebook "flash
mobs"), it is because they have seen more clearly than their elders through
the neoliberal shell game.
Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History and
the director of the Centre for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan.
His latest book,
Engaging the Muslim World, is just out in a revised paperback edition from
Palgrave Macmillan. He runs the
Informed Comment website.
A version of this article was first published on
Tom Dispatch.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and
do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Yet another response [ to globalization] is that I term 21stcentury fascism.The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad strokes,
this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital
and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global
working class – such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the
South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the specter of downward
mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism
and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant
workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying
ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an
idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare
and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed
even as heroic.
Notable quotes:
"... over-accumulation ..."
"... Cyclical crises ..."
"... . Structural crises ..."
"... systemic crisis ..."
"... social reproduction. ..."
"... crisis of humanity ..."
"... 1984 has arrived; ..."
"... The crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society. ..."
"... In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class ..."
"... It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. ..."
"... Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic. ..."
World capitalism is experiencing the worst crisis in its 500 year history.
Global capitalism is a qualitatively new stage in the open ended evolution of
capitalism characterised by the rise of transnational capital, a transnational
capitalist class, and a transnational state. Below, William I. Robinson argues
that the global crisis is structural and threatens to become systemic, raising
the specter of collapse and a global police state in the face of ecological
holocaust, concentration of the means of violence, displacement of billions,
limits to extensive expansion and crises of state legitimacy, and suggests that
a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward to the poor majority of
humanity is the only viable solution.
The New Global Capitalism and the 21st Century Crisis
The world capitalist system is arguably experiencing the worst crisis in
its 500 year history. World capitalism has experienced a profound restructuring
through globalisation over the past few decades and has been transformed in
ways that make it fundamentally distinct from its earlier incarnations. Similarly,
the current crisis exhibits features that set it apart from earlier crises of
the system and raise the stakes for humanity. If we are to avert disastrous
outcomes we must understand both the nature of the new global capitalism and
the nature of its crisis. Analysis of capitalist globalisation provides a template
for probing a wide range of social, political, cultural and ideological processes
in this 21st century. Following Marx, we want to focus on the internal dynamics
of capitalism to understand crisis. And following the global capitalism perspective,
we want to see how capitalism has qualitatively evolved in recent decades.
The system-wide crisis we face is not a repeat of earlier such episodes such
as that of the the 1930s or the 1970s precisely because capitalism is fundamentally
different in the 21st century. Globalisation constitutes a qualitatively new
epoch in the ongoing and open-ended evolution of world capitalism, marked by
a number of qualitative shifts in the capitalist system and by novel articulations
of social power. I highlight four aspects unique to this epoch.1
First is the rise of truly transnational capital and a new global production
and financial system into which all nations and much of humanity has been integrated,
either directly or indirectly. We have gone from a world economy, in
which countries and regions were linked to each other via trade and financial
flows in an integrated international market, to a global economy, in
which nations are linked to each more organically through the transnationalisation
of the production process, of finance, and of the circuits of capital accumulation.
No single nation-state can remain insulated from the global economy or prevent
the penetration of the social, political, and cultural superstructure of global
capitalism. Second is the rise of a Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC), a
class group that has drawn in contingents from most countries around the world,
North and South, and has attempted to position itself as a global ruling class.
This TCC is the hegemonic fraction of capital on a world scale. Third
is the rise of Transnational State (TNS) apparatuses. The TNS is constituted
as a loose network made up of trans-, and supranational organisations together
with national states. It functions to organise the conditions for transnational
accumulation. The TCC attempts to organise and institutionally exercise its
class power through TNS apparatuses. Fourth are novel relations of inequality,
domination and exploitation in global society, including an increasing importance
of transnational social and class inequalities relative to North-South inequalities.
Cyclical, Structural, and Systemic Crises
Most commentators on the contemporary crisis refer to the "Great Recession"
of 2008 and its aftermath. Yet the causal origins of global crisis are to be
found in over-accumulation and also in contradictions of state
power, or in what Marxists call the internal contradictions of the capitalist
system. Moreover, because the system is now global, crisis in any one place
tends to represent crisis for the system as a whole. The system cannot expand
because the marginalisation of a significant portion of humanity from direct
productive participation, the downward pressure on wages and popular consumption
worldwide, and the polarisation of income, has reduced the ability of the world
market to absorb world output. At the same time, given the particular configuration
of social and class forces and the correlation of these forces worldwide, national
states are hard-pressed to regulate transnational circuits of accumulation and
offset the explosive contradictions built into the system.
Is this crisis cyclical, structural, or systemic? Cyclical crises
are recurrent to capitalism about once every 10 years and involve recessions
that act as self-correcting mechanisms without any major restructuring of the
system. The recessions of the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and of 2001 were
cyclical crises. In contrast, the 2008 crisis signaled the slide into astructural
crisis. Structural crises reflect deeper contradictions that can only
be resolved by a major restructuring of the system. The structural crisis of
the 1970s was resolved through capitalist globalisation. Prior to that, the
structural crisis of the 1930s was resolved through the creation of a new model
of redistributive capitalism, and prior to that the structural crisis of the
1870s resulted in the development of corporate capitalism. A systemic crisis
involves the replacement of a system by an entirely new system or
by an outright collapse. A structural crisis opens up the possibility
for a systemic crisis. But if it actually snowballs into a systemic crisis –
in this case, if it gives way either to capitalism being superseded or to a
breakdown of global civilisation – is not predetermined and depends entirely
on the response of social and political forces to the crisis and on historical
contingencies that are not easy to forecast. This is an historic moment of extreme
uncertainty, in which collective responses from distinct social and class forces
to the crisis are in great flux.
Hence my concept of global crisis is broader than financial. There are multiple
and mutually constitutive dimensions – economic, social, political, cultural,
ideological and ecological, not to mention the existential crisis of our consciousness,
values and very being. There is a crisis of social polarisation, that is, of
social reproduction. The system cannot meet the needs or assure the
survival of millions of people, perhaps a majority of humanity. There are crises
of state legitimacy and political authority, or of hegemony and
domination. National states face spiraling crises of legitimacy as they
fail to meet the social grievances of local working and popular classes experiencing
downward mobility, unemployment, heightened insecurity and greater hardships.
The legitimacy of the system has increasingly been called into question by millions,
perhaps even billions, of people around the world, and is facing expanded counter-hegemonic
challenges. Global elites have been unable counter this erosion of the system's
authority in the face of worldwide pressures for a global moral economy. And
a canopy that envelops all these dimensions is a crisis of sustainability rooted
in an ecological holocaust that has already begun, expressed in climate change
and the impending collapse of centralised agricultural systems in several regions
of the world, among other indicators.
By a crisis of humanity I mean a crisis that is approaching systemic
proportions, threatening the ability of billions of people to survive, and raising
the specter of a collapse of world civilisation and degeneration into a new
"Dark Ages."2
Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way
as to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the
known history of life on earth.
This crisis of humanity shares a
number of aspects with earlier structural crises but there are also several
features unique to the present:
The system is fast reaching the ecological limits of its reproduction.
Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way as
to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the
known history of life on earth.3 This mass extinction would
be caused not by a natural catastrophe such as a meteor impact or by evolutionary
changes such as the end of an ice age but by purposive human activity. According
to leading environmental scientists there are nine "planetary boundaries"
crucial to maintaining an earth system environment in which humans can exist,
four of which are experiencing at this time the onset of irreversible environmental
degradation and three of which (climate change, the nitrogen cycle, and
biodiversity loss) are at "tipping points," meaning that these processes
have already crossed their planetary boundaries.
The magnitude of the means of violence and social control is unprecedented,
as is the concentration of the means of global communication and symbolic
production and circulation in the hands of a very few powerful groups.
Computerised wars, drones, bunker-buster bombs, star wars, and so forth,
have changed the face of warfare. Warfare has become normalised and sanitised
for those not directly at the receiving end of armed aggression. At the
same time we have arrived at the panoptical surveillance society and the
age of thought control by those who control global flows of communication,
images and symbolic production. The world of Edward Snowden is the world
of George Orwell; 1984 has arrived;
Capitalism is reaching apparent limits to its extensive
expansion. There are no longer any new territories of significance that
can be integrated into world capitalism, de-ruralisation is now well advanced,
and the commodification of the countryside and of pre- and non-capitalist
spaces has intensified, that is, converted in hot-house fashion into spaces
of capital, so that intensive expansion is reaching depths never
before seen. Capitalism must continually expand or collapse. How or where
will it now expand?
There is the rise of a vast surplus population inhabiting a "planet
of slums,"4 alienated from the productive economy, thrown
into the margins, and subject to sophisticated systems of social control
and to destruction – to a mortal cycle of dispossession-exploitation-exclusion.
This includes prison-industrial and immigrant-detention complexes, omnipresent
policing, militarised gentrification, and so on;
There is a disjuncture between a globalising economy and a nation-state
based system of political authority. Transnational state apparatuses
are incipient and have not been able to play the role of what social scientists
refer to as a "hegemon," or a leading nation-state that has enough power
and authority to organise and stabilise the system. The spread of weapons
of mass destruction and the unprecedented militarisation of social life
and conflict across the globe makes it hard to imagine that the system can
come under any stable political authority that assures its reproduction.
Global Police State
How have social and political forces worldwide responded to crisis? The
crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society.
Both right and left-wing forces are ascendant. Three responses seem to be in
dispute.
One is what we could call "reformism from above." This elite reformism is
aimed at stabilising the system, at saving the system from itself and from more
radical responses from below. Nonetheless, in the years following the 2008 collapse
of the global financial system it seems these reformers are unable (or unwilling)
to prevail over the power of transnational financial capital. A second response
is popular, grassroots and leftist resistance from below. As social and political
conflict escalates around the world there appears to be a mounting global revolt.
While such resistance appears insurgent in the wake of 2008 it is spread very
unevenly across countries and regions and facing many problems and challenges.
Yet another response is that I term 21stcentury fascism.5
The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad
strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational
capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of
the global working class – such as white workers in the North and middle
layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the
specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation,
homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats,
such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century
fascism evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy
and xenophobia, embracing an idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture
normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination
with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.
The need for dominant groups around the world to secure widespread, organised
mass social control of the world's surplus population and rebellious forces
from below gives a powerful impulse to projects of 21st century fascism. Simply
put, the immense structural inequalities of the global political economy cannot
easily be contained through consensual mechanisms of social control. We have
been witnessing transitions from social welfare to social control states around
the world. We have entered a period of great upheavals, momentous changes and
uncertainties. The only viable solution to the crisis of global capitalism is
a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward towards the poor majority
of humanity along the lines of a 21st century democratic socialism, in which
humanity is no longer at war with itself and with nature.
About the Author
William I. Robinson is professor of sociology, global and
international studies, and Latin American studies, at the University of California-Santa
Barbara. Among his many books are Promoting Polyarchy (1996),
Transnational Conflicts (2003), A Theory of Global Capitalism
(2004), Latin America and Global Capitalism (2008),
and
Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity (2014).
A pretty devious scheme -- creating difficulty for the government neoliberal
wanted to depose by pushing neoliberal reforms via IMF and such. They channeling
the discontent into uprising against the legitimate government. Similar process
happened with Yanukovich in Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians ..."
"... it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt. ..."
"... President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison. ..."
"... Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. ..."
"... No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi, but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing what they preached. ..."
"... According to the European model of diplomacy imposed upon the globe, countries have interests not friends. ..."
"... A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting. ..."
"... Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist. ..."
"... On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. ..."
"... This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed. ..."
"... you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting firearms. ..."
"... The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited by (((foreign powers))) ..."
"... This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years ago Syria was a peaceful country. ..."
"... Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick countries do sick things. ..."
"... no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate on this naked truth. ..."
"... when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all other rights. ..."
"... This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch with US, Saudi etc $$$s. ..."
"... I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against humanity, crimes of war. ..."
"... As one of the bloggers rightly stated Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. ..."
"... If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually a compliment to Assad. Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective power around. Russia was still busy recovering. ..."
"... As demeter said Posted by: Demeter @14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money. Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started, if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils, and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition. ..."
"... Salafism is Racism. It de-egitimizes the entire anti Assad revolution. ..."
"... Wesley Clark's "seven countries in five years" transcript for anyone who has forgotten: http://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annotated ..."
"... the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments to use extremists as a weapon. ..."
"... Furthermore, Debsisdead sets up the same "binary division" that he says he opposes by tarnishing those who oppose using extremists as a weapon of state as Assad loving racists. The plot was described by Sy Hersh in 2007 in "The Redirection" . ..."
"... The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels, or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional, diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish. ..."
"... "the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree. ..."
"... It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years, from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau, in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually had. ..."
"... It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style religious dictatorship on Syria. ..."
"... The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial problem. ..."
"... All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing. If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes upon each other. We've not evolved here. ..."
"... t in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries. ..."
"... Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory, the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place. ..."
"... Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government. ..."
"... There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil. But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's government would have won this war quite a while ago. ..."
"... And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live. ..."
"... Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire! ..."
"... I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient' and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and articles have been written explicitly defining it. ..."
"... American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus and let the market run things. ..."
"... The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice. The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative. ..."
"... The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock news. ..."
"... The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's Neuschwanstein. ..."
"... I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971 to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do not know. ..."
"... Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well. ..."
"... I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism" when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. ..."
"... Manifest Destiny is fundamentalism. ..."
"... "Full Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in nature. ..."
"... I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started. Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls in the vice and all. ..."
"... He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know this very well. ..."
"... Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors know that as a fact. ..."
"... if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly. ..."
"... If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without foreign help. ..."
"... OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and who initially joined the "rebels". http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097 ..."
"... And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari ..."
"... of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files", assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof). ..."
"... i seriously doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings. they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance of how the region is. ..."
"... also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european "powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary. ..."
"... Look I know the MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and contributors. ..."
"... The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful). ..."
"... Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism besides the Kurds. ..."
"... There's no way to a solution for the Syrian people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control. ..."
"... As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people. In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc. ..."
"... So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil", corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved, nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter. ..."
"... Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem. This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist form of Islam. ..."
"... Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control. People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired on police and civilians. ..."
"... I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government. ..."
"... There were a lot of people posting how Bashar al Assad was doing full neoliberalism. And at was true. ..."
"... So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA, pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife' (sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.) ..."
It is sad to see so many are so locked into their particular views that they
see any offering of an alternative as 'neoliberal' or laughable or - if it weren't
so serious - Zionist.
1/ I do not see the Syrian civil war as racist or race based, I do believe
however that the rejection of all Islamic fundamentalism as being entirely comprised
of 'headchoppers' is racist down to its core. It is that same old same old whitefella
bullshit which refuses to consider other points of view on their own terms but
considers everything through the lens of 'western' culture which it then declares
wanting and discards.
2/ Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked
off the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting
neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians. I realize many have
quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue
- mostly because he is seen to be standing up to American imperialism. That
is a virtuous position but it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself
and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put
his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt.
3/ President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention
to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in
western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while
developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective
there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from
President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi
of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and
astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison.
4/ These Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of
politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to
regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end
in itself.
5/ My Syrians friends are an interesting bunch drawn from a range of people
currently living inside and outside of Syria. Some longer term readers might
recall that I'm not American, don't live in America and nowadays don't visit
much at all. The first of the 'refugee' Syrians I got to know, although refugee
is a misnomer since my friend came here on a migrant's visa because his skills
are in demand, is the grandchild of Palestinian refugees - so maybe he is a
refugee but not in the usual sense. Without going into too many specifics as
this is his story not mine, he was born and lived in a refugee camp which was
essentially just another Damascus suburb. As he puts it, although a Palestinian
at heart, he was born in Syria and when he thinks of home it is/was Damascus.
All sides in the conflict claimed to support Palestinian liberation, yet he
and his family were starved out of their homes by both Syrian government militias
and the FSA.
When he left he was initially a stateless person because even though he was
born in Syria he wasn't entitled to Syrian citizenship. He bears no particular
grudge against the government there but he told me once he does wish they were
a lot smarter.
On the other hand he also understands why the people fighting the government
are doing so. I'm not talking about the leadership of course (see above - pols
are pols) but the Syrians who just couldn't take the fading future and the petty
oppression by assholes any longer.
6/ No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi,
but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them
to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing
what they preached.
I really despair at the mindset which reduces everything to a binary division
- if group A are the people I support they must all be wonderful humans and
group B those who are fighting Group A are all evil assholes.
If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even though they
have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause) then everyone in Group
B must be pro-Zionist even though I don't know what they say about it (the leadership
of the various resistance groups are ME politicians and therefore most claim
to also support Palestinian independence). Yes assholes in the opposition have
done sleazy deals with Israel over Golan but the Ba'ath administration has done
similar opportunist sell outs over the 40 years when the situation demanded
it.
I fucking hate that as much as anyone else who despises the ersatz state
of Israel, but the reality is that just about every ME leader has put expedience
ahead of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only
leader I'm aware of who didn't. Why do they? That is what all pols and diplomats
do not just Arab ones. According to the European model of diplomacy imposed
upon the globe, countries have interests not friends.
As yet no alternative to that model has succeeded since any attempt to do
so has been rejected with great violence. The use of hostages offered by each
party to guarantee a treaty was once an honorable solution, the hostages were
well treated and the security they afforded reduced conflict - if Oblamblam
had to put up one of his daughters to guarantee a deal does anyone think he
would break it as easily as he currently does? Yet the very notion of hostages
is considered 'terrorism' in the west. But I digress.
The only points I wanted to make was the same as those I have already made:
A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting.
Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does
not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria
but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term
resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous
sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those
resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or foreign
mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically
good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless
name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are too
stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.
If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever it
was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure in the
knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination and Zionism
but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?
Posted by b on September 12, 2016 at 03:33 AM |
Permalink
Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless
name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are
too stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.
why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling,
i see exactly the same.
This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture
and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region
wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian,
Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.
you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism
however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting
firearms.
The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad
was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited
by (((foreign powers)))
If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended
a long time ago.
This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in
USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions
and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years
ago Syria was a peaceful country.
Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and
bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has
become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick
countries do sick things.
If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have
ended a long time ago
no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking
teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the
backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it
would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing
away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate
on this naked truth.
If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even
though they have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause)...
when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the
map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds
of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all
other rights.
so thanks, b, for headlining this obfuscatory drivel. thus, for posterity.
This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus
in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for
America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ
eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other
countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside
the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch
with US, Saudi etc $$$s.
Here again is the reality of where this all started, article from 2012
(below.). And never forget Wesley Clark's Pentagon informant after 9/11
of attacking "seven countries in five years." Those in chaos through US
attacks or attempted "liberation" were on the list, a few more to go and
they are a bit behind schedule. All responsible for this Armageddon should
be answering for their actions in shackles and yellow jump suits in The
Hague.
|~b~ Thank you for putting Debsisdead's comment @ 135 prior post into readable
form. Failing eyesight made the original in its extended format difficult
to read.
Reference Debsisdead comment:
Your definition of neoliberal would be nice to have. Usually it is used
as ephemerally as a mirage, to appear in uncountable numbers of meaning.
Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS
neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity? Neoliberal seems best used as
the reactionary faux historic liberalism as applied to economic agendas
(neocon is the political twin for neoliberal, libertarian had been previously
been co-opted).
Instead of F•UK•US•i, maybe a F•UK•UZoP would suffice (France•United
Kingdom•United Zionist occupied Palestine) given the spheres of influence
involved.
Agree with your observations about the limited mentality of dualism;
manichaeism is a crutch for disabled minds unaware and blind to subtle distinctions
that comprise spectrums.
Though not paying close attention to Syrian history, it was Hafez al-Assad
who became master of the Syrian Ba'athist coup d'état and politically stabilised
Syria under Ba'athist hegemony. In the midst of the 'Arab-spring' zeitgeist,
an incident involving a child with security forces led to a genuine public
outcry being suppressed by state security forces. This incident, quickly
settled became cause célèbre for a subsequent revolt, initially by SAA dissidents
but soon thereafter by external interests having the motive of regime overthrow
of Syrian Ba'athists and their leadership. Other narratives generally make
little sense though may contain some factors involved; the waters have been
sufficiently muddied as to obscure many original factors - possibly Bashar
al-Assad's awareness of his security forces involvement in US rendition
and torture as to compromise his immediately assuming command of his security
forces in the original public protest over the child. Those things are now
well concealed under the fogs of conflict and are future historians to sort.
I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts
to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against
humanity, crimes of war.
Classic western sheeple disconnect. As one of the bloggers rightly stated
Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries
in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. This total disconnect with global
realities is a massive problem in the west cause the 86000 elite /oligarchs
r pushing for a war with both the bears/ Russian and Chinese along with
Iran. These countries have blatantly stated they will not be extorted by
fascism. All western countries r all living a Corporate state. Just look
all around every facet of our society is financialised. Health ,education
, public services.
Wake up cause if we dont we will be extinct Nuclear winter
I am of syrian origin, born in Beirut Lebanon.
My family lived a happy life there, but shortly after I was born, Israel
invaded Lebanon, and my family fled and emigrated to Europe, I was 1 year
old.
I call major bullshit on your piece.
If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually
a compliment to Assad.
Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening
to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective
power around. Russia was still busy recovering.
What do you think would
have happened had Assad not pretended he would go along? Syria would have
been bombed to pieces right then. Why did Assad change his mind later and
refused to cooperate with Qatar, Saudi and US? Because the balance of power
was about to change. Iran and Russia were rising powers (mainly in the military
field).
I could say so much more. I stopped reading your post when you mentioned
that your Palestinian friend ( I know the neighbourhood in Damascus, it
is called Yarmouk and it is indeed a very nice suburb) does not have Syrian
citizenship. Do you know why Palaestinians don't get Syrian citizenship?
Because they are supposed to return to their homeland Palestine.
And they can only do that as Palestinians and not as Syrians. That is
why.
And that so many (not all!) Palestinians chose to backstab the country
that has hosted them and fed them and gave them a life for so many years,
and fought side by side with islamist terrorists and so called Free Syrian
Army traitors is a human error, is based on false promises, is lack of character
and honour and understanding of the broader context and interests. How will
some of these fools and misguided young men feel when they realise that
they have played right into the hand of their biggest enemy, the Zionists.
I would like to remind some of you who might have forgotten that famous
incident described by Robert Fisk years ago, when a Syrian Officer told
him upon the capture of some of these "freedom fighters' on Syrian soil,
one of them said: "I did not know that Palestine was so beautiful", not
realising that he was not fighting in Palestine but in Syria.
And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam
that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists
call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their
rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live.
Though reluctant to get involved in what seems to be for some a personal
spat, I would like to point out one fundemental point that renders the above
published and counter arguments difficult to comprehend which is that they
lack a time frame.
The 'Syrian opposition' or what ever you wish to call it is not now what
it was 6 years ago. Thus, for me, at least, it is not possible to discuss
the make up of the opposition unless there are some time frames applied.
An example is a Syrian who was an officer in the FSA but fled to Canada
last year. He fled the Syrian conflict over 3 years ago to Turkey -which
is how I know him - where he did not continue ties with any group. He simply
put his head down and worked slavishly living at his place of work most
of the time to escape to Canada - he feared remaining in Istanbul. He claimed
that he and others had all been taken in by promises and that the conflict
had been usurped by extremists. He was not a headchopper, he was not the
beheader of 12 year old children. He was and is a devout Muslim. He was
a citizen of Aleppo city. I know him and of him through other local Syrians
in Istanbul and believe his testimony. I mention him only to highlight that
the conflict is not what it was, not what some intended it to be ... Nor
is it what some paint it to be. There are many who fight whomever attacks
their community be they pro / anti Government. - Arabs especially have extended
village communities/ tribes and pragmatically they 'agree' to be occupied
as long as they are allowed to continue their lives in peace. If conflict
breaks out they fight whomever is necessary.
DebIsDead makes some very excellent points in his/her comments. They
deserve appraisal and respectful response. It is also clear thar he/she
is writing defensively in some parts and those detract from what is actually
being said.
The piece suffers from several errors. As demeter said Posted by: Demeter
@14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering
for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money.
Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started,
if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on
and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils,
and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition.
You can't change the fact that it took less than 2 years for the opposition
to be dominated by both foreign and domestic takfiris who wanted to impose
saudi style culture on an open relatively prosperous cosmopolitan country.
They've succeeded in smashing it to pieces. Snuff your balanced account
and your bold anti racism
Debsisdead sets up a strawman - racism against Islamic fundamentalists
and validity of opposition against Assad - and uses this to sidestep
that the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments
to use extremists as a weapon.
"If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever
it was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure
in the knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination
and Zionism but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?"
Passive-aggressive much?
The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels,
or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch
his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional,
diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish.
"the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures
ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree.
It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in
Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately
ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms
or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's
patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years,
from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran
out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau,
in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not
in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually
had.
No the issue was not 'climate change'. The aquifers in Syria had been
falling for years, even when rainfall was above normal. Don't blame the
weather.
"The more the merrier" - tell me exactly how people having more children
than they can support creates wealth? It doesn't and it never has.
Whenever governments treat their people as if they were cattle, demanding
that they breed the 'correct' number of children rather than making the
decision based on their own desires and judgement of how many they can support,
the result is always bad.
Assad treated the people of Syria as if they were cattle. Surely this
deserves mention?
Cultural "left" bullshit at its best. Cultural "leftists" don't need to
know any hostory or have any understanding of a political issue: it's sufficient
to pull out a few details from the NATO press and apply their grad school
"oppression" analysis.
Thanks to b for posting the comment of Debs is Dead. The point I would take
issue with is where he states "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO,
adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue. . ."
I don't believe this is a correct realization. I think the many to whom
he refers know very well that any person in leadership of a country can
be found to have flaws, major and minor, and even to have more of such than
the average mortal. The crucial counterpoint, however, which used to be
raised fairly often, is that it is the acceptance of the majority of the
people governed by such leaders that ought to be the international norm
for diplomatic relations.
I respect the knowledge DiD has gained from his Syrian friends and contacts.
But I also remember a man called Chilabi and am very leery of destabilization
attempts this country has been engaged in lo these many generations, using
such displaced persons as surrogates. And rather than properly mourn the
9/11 victims and brave firemen and rescuers of that terrible day, I find
myself mourning the larger tragedy of unnecessary wars launched as a consequence
of our collective horror at that critical moment in our history.
After making sound point about black-and-white worldview being unrealistic,
the guy goes full retard. Position towards Palestinians as the one and only
criteria to judge ME developments... C'mon, it's not even funny.
And while started from a "My Syrian friends" then he goes on reasoning on
behalf of one single ex-Palestinian ex-Syrian guy...
Looks like self-revelation of a kind. Some guy, sitting in Israel, or whatever,
waging informational warfare for the Mossad/CIA/NGO who pays his rent.
"The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the
sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing
that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids."
DiD: "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as
some sort of model of virtue. . ." The big reveal is that DiD can't name
a single contributor here who has written that Assad is "some sort of model
of virtue."
It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional
Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians
who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style
religious dictatorship on Syria.
The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has
largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a
Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion
surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is
in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives
of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their
original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial
problem.
Thanks for addressing the problem of angry comments by some posters who
just want to throw verbal grenades is unacceptable. I hope this site continues
to be a great source for sharing information and ideas.
Why in God's name was this pointless comment by Debs is Dead promoted this
way?!!! The only point being made, that I can see, is that the war in Syria
does have some legitimate issues at its root. WELL OF COURSE IT DOES. The
Hegemon rarely to never makes up civil unrest in countries it wants to overthrow
out of whole cloth. They take some dispute that is already there and ramp
it up; this process escalates until it turns into some form of a proxy war
or coup. In other words, the domestic political process is DISTORTED until
it is no longer remotely recognizable as a domestic process.
So sure, if the US and its allies had not stoked political factionism
in Syria into a global proxy war, we could discuss the fine details of the
Syrian domestic process very usefully. At this point, though, IT IS IRRELEVANT.
I do agree on one point: Assad joins the horrendous list of overlords
who thought they could make a deal with the Hegemon on their own terms.
Assad will pay for that mistake with his life very soon I would guess and
I think that Putin will too, though that might take a little longer. If
they had chosen to stand on principle as Chavez did, maybe they would be
dead as Chavez is (possibly done in, who knows), but they'd be remembered
with honor as Chavez is.
It is a shame no one stood up for Libya, for a surviving Gaddafi would have
emerged considerably stronger - as Assad eventually will.
Whatever genuine opposition there was has long been hijacked by opportunistic
takfiris, wahabbists and there various paymasters. And so as ruralito says
@25: "The fight IS "binary...". The fight is indeed binary, the enemy is
plural. Assad versus the many appearances of both the first and fourth kind.
Appearances to the mind are of four kinds.
Things either are what they appear to be;
or they neither are, nor appear to be;
or they are, and do not appear to be;
or they are not, and yet appear to be.
Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man's task. ~Epictetus
Where there is obfuscation lay the enemy, hence Russia's long game of
identification.
Does anyone remember the essay posted on this site a while back titled "The
Feckless Left?" I don't believe B posted it, but if memory serves it's posted
front and centre on the navigation bar beside this piece?
It really hammers those people like Tariq Ali, who while surely having
legitimate grievances against the Assad govt, opened the door for legitimation
of foreign sponsored war. They thought that funneling millions of dollars
worth of training, weapons and mercs would open the door for another secular
govt, but this time much 'better.' Surely.
No one thinks Assad is great. I really have trouble understanding where
that notion comes from. It's just that the alternative is surely much worse.
Lots of people didn't like Ghaddafi but jesus, I'm sure most Libyans would
wish they could turn back the clock (at the risk of putting words in their
mouths). It's not binary, no one sees this as good vs evil, its just that
its become so painfully obvious at this point that if the opposition wins
Syria will be so fucked in every which way. Those with real, tangible grievances
are never going to have their voices heard. It will become the next Libya,
except the US and it's clients will actually have a say in what's left of
the political body in the country if you could even label it that at that
point (which is quite frightenening in my eyes. Libya is already a shit
show and they don't have much of a foothold there besides airstrikes and
that little coastal base for the GNA to have their photo ops).
I find it ironic that when criticisms are levelled at Assad from the
left they usually point out things that had he done more of, and worse of,
he probably would be free of this situation and still firmly in power. If
he had bowed down to Qatar and the KSA/USA I wonder if the 'armed opposition'
would still have their problems with him? That's the ultimate irony to me.
If he had accepted the pipelines, the privatization regimes, etc. would
they still be hollering his name? It's very sad that even with the balancing
act he did his country has been destroyed. Even if the SAA is able to come
out on top at this point, the country is wholly destroyed. What's even the
point of a having a 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate' opposition when they're
essentially fighting over scraps now. I'd be surprised if they could rebuild
the country in 120 years. Libya in my eyes will never be what it once was.
It'll never have the same standards of living after being hit with a sledgehammer.
I don't mean to be ironic or pessimistic, its just a sad state of affairs
all around and everyday it seems more and more unlikely that any halfway
decent solution for the POPULATION OF SYRIA, not Assad, will come out of
this.. It's like, I'm no nationalist, but in many countries I kind of would
rather that than the alternative. Ghaddafi wasn't great but his people could've
been a lot worse of - and ARE a lot worse of now. I'm no Assad fan, but
my god look what the alternative is here. If it wasnt 95% foreign sponsored
maybe id see your point.
Read the essay posted on the left there. "Syria, the Feckless Left" IIRC.
I thought that summed up my thoughts well enough.
And guys, even if you agree with me please refrain from the name calling.
It makes those of you with a legitimate rebuttal seem silly and wrong. I've
always thought MoA was so refreshing because it was (somewhat) free of that.
At least B is generating discussion. I kind of appreciate that. It's nice
to hear ither views, even if they are a little unrealistic and pro violent
and anti democratic.
An example of an armed opposition with legitimate grievances that is
far from perfect but still very sympathetic (in my eyes) is hizbollah. They
have real problems to deal with. While they recieve foreign sponsorship
they aren't a foreign group the way the Syrian opposition is. And they will
be all but destroyed when their supply lines from Syria are cut off. I wonder
how that fits in with OPs post.
What makes Debs is Dead's turgid comment so irrational is that it endorses
Regime Change in Syria as an ongoing, but necessary and inevitable, "good".
But in doing so it tip-toes around the fact that it doesn't matter how Evil
an elected President is, or is not, it's up to the the people who elected
him to decide when they've had enough. It most certainly is NOT Neoconned
AmeriKKKa's concern.
Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME
countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single
individual.
It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and counting)
hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.
Whatever happened to the age old expression that one has to walk in someone
else's shoes to understand their walk in life?
In an all too obvious fashion, another arm chair expert is blessing the
world with his/her drivel.
To make it as concise as possible:
What would you have done in Assad's position? The U.S. is trying to annex
Syria since 1948 and never gave up on the plan to convert it to what the
neo-fascists turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and the Republic of
Yugoslavia - whereas Yemen is still in the making, together with Ukraine,
Turkey and Africa as a whole.
In the light of U.S. 'foreign policy', the piece reeks of the stench
of obfuscation.
Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME
countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single
individual.
We shouldn't be surprised. Even a basic pragmatic approach to this conflict
has been lost by many in the one sided, over the top shower of faeces that
is the western MSM.
It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and
counting) hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.
All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing.
If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region
we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes
upon each other. We've not evolved here.
It is impossible for any one of us to possess the whole picture, which is
why we pool our experience, and benefit from these discussions. The thing
I see at the root of the Syrian war is the process of ethnic cleansing.
In many cases that involve murderous prejudice, it erupts as civil war;
but in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at
sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries.
Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory,
the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place.
The objectives of the perpetrators have nothing to do with the convictions
of the fundamentalists who do the dirty work; and the sectarian and mercenary
troops are merely the tools of those who are creating hell on earth.
I agree with what papa wrote at the top of this thread:
why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling,[?]
i see exactly the same. This war is about destroying real history, civilization,
culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in
that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it.
Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.
Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors
of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels
and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad
is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words
carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths
of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all
kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government.
Debsisdead has always brought much food for thought to this watering
hole. I have always respected him, and I think he has a fine mind. Nonetheless,
despite the valuable contribution of this piece as a beginning place, in
which we might reevaluate some of our presumptions, I maintain there are
a few errors which stand out, and ought to be discussed.
I call into question these two points:
(1) Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does
not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
Up thread @14, we were reminded of Robert Fisk's report about misdirected,
misinformed "freedom fighters" naively wandering around in Syria, while
thinking that they were fighting in Palestine. In this ruin of Syria, where
the well-intentioned are captured, or co-opted into evil acts against the
civilian population, --is it really incumbent upon us, --from where we sit,
to agonize over the motives of those who are committing the actual atrocities
against the defenseless? What is the point?
(2) On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria
but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term
resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous
sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those
resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or
foreign mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were
so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil.
But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have
died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's
government would have won this war quite a while ago.
And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam
that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic
fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living
according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver
to live.
Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the
mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to
take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire!
@9 I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to
define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient'
and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even
everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover
for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism
is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and
articles have been written explicitly defining it.
"Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS
neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity?"
American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for
decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries
money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus
and let the market run things.
I usually enjoy DiD's rants (rant in the nice sense), but in this case he
is wrong. His remarks are out of date.
No doubt he has Syrian friends in NZ, including the Syro-Palestinian
he mentions. They will have been living their past vision of Syria for some
time. Yes, back in 2011, there was a big vision of a future democratic Syria
among the intellectuals. However those who fight for the rebellion are not
middle class (who left) but rural Islamist Sunnis, who have a primitive
al-Qa'ida style view.
The Syrian civil war is quite like the Spanish civil war. It started
with noble republicans, including foreigners like Orwell, fighting against
nasty Franco, but finished with Stalin's communists fighting against Nazi-supported
fascists.
The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in
April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war
oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice.
The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative.
Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked off
the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting
neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians.
The Ba'thist regime is a mafia of the family, not a dictatorship of Bashshar.
Evidently their own interest plays a premier role, but otherwise why not
in favour of the Syrian people? There's lot of evidence in favour of Syrian
peace.
The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock
news.
The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap
the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's
Neuschwanstein.
Islam and its backward dictates, and Christianity with its backward dictates
and Manifest Destiny are problematic.
I may be white and I may be a fella but don't believe I'm in the fold as
described. Fundamentalists of any sort are free to believe as they will
but when they force it on others via gun, govt, societal pressures, violence
there's trouble. I've seen comparisons to the extremes from Christianity's
past with the excuse of Islam as being in its early years. No excuses. Fundies
out. But we don't see that in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Facts on
the ground rule. Iran had a bit more moderation but only under the tyrant
Shah. A majority may have voted for the Islamic Republic and all that entails
but what of the minority?
BTW, where are the stories (links) that show Bashar has embraced neoliberalism?
In the end, DiD reduced to pointing to two evils (with multi-facets) and
it looks like Assad is the lesser. But who can come up with a solution for
a country so divided and so infiltrated by outsiders? And here in the US,
look at the choice of future leaders that so many do not want. Where is
the one who will lead the US out of its BS? And who will vote for him/her?
Thanks to B for republishing the comment from Debsisdead. The comment raises
some issues about how people generally see the war in Syria, if they know
of it, as some sort of real-life video game substitute for bashing one side
or another.
I am not sure though that Debsisdead realises the full import of what
s/he has said and that much criticism s/he makes about comments in MoA comments
forums could apply equally to what s/he says and has said in the past.
I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar
al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how
he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971
to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when
Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda
in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises
he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between
and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do
not know.
Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government
did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That
is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know
if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to
cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once
Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF
and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as
privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well.
But one thing that Debsisdead has overlooked is the fact that Bashar
al Assad is popular among the Syrian public, who returned him as President
in multi-candidate direct elections held in June 2014 with at least 88%
of the vote (with a turnout of 73%, better than some Western countries)
and who confirmed his popularity in parliamentary elections held in April
2016 with his Ba'ath Party-led coalition winning roughly two-thirds of seats.
The fact that Syrians themselves hold Assad in such high regard must
say something about his leadership that has endeared him to them. If as
Debsisdead suggests, Assad practises self-interested "realpolitik" like
so many other Middle Eastern politicians, even to the extent of offering
reconciliation to jihadis who lay down their weapons and surrender, how
has he managed to survive and how did Syria manage to hold off the jihadis
and US-Turkish intervention and supply before requesting Russian help?
Copeland @58: I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism"
when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. Admittedly it's tough to 'name'
the problem. I'm sure I speak for most here that the problem isn't fundamentalism
but 'warring imperialist fundamentalist and misogynist Sunni Islam' that
is the problem.
It'd be nice to have a brief and accurate way of saying
what this is: 'Saudi Arabia violently exporting its worst form of Islam'.
When people refer to Christian fundamentalism they use the broad term
as well. Nothing is otherwise wrong with denominational belief, if past
a certain point it is not fundamentalist. You say the problem is not fundamentalism,
but something else. Indeed, the problem is fundamentalism.
Manifest
Destiny is fundamentalism. There are even atheist fundamentalists. "Full
Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in
nature. We are awash in fundamentalism, consumerist fundamentalism, capitalist
fundamentalism. If we are unlucky and don't succeed in changing the path
we are on; then we will understand too late the inscription that appeared
in the Temple of Apollo: "Nothing too much".
They say that the first casualty of war is truth and from what I read in
comments such a mental state prevails among readers, they see Assad, quite
reasonably, as the only one who can end this horrible war and the only one
who is really interested in doing so while US and even seemingly Russia
seems to treat this conflict as a instrument of global geopolitical struggle
instigated by US imperial delusions.
But of course one cannot escape conclusion that although provoked by
the CIA operation Bashir Assad failed years befor 2011 exactly because,
living in London, did not see neoliberalism as an existential threat ad
his father did but a system that has its benefits and can be dealt with,
so for a short while Saddam, Gaddafi and Mubarak thought while they were
pampered by western elites.
Now Assad is the only choice I'd Syrians want to keep what would resemble
unified Syrian state since nobody else seems to care.
I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator
prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started.
Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his
country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls
in the vice and all.
He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided
to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk
going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know
this very well.
Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only
win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors
know that as a fact.
Which is precisely why he "must go" prior to any such elections. He would
be invincible.
"This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically
good or evil it would have ended a long time ago."
Question to you:
if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and
Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly.
If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers
does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise
Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without
foreign help.
And that, my friend, may be the biggest oft ignored cui bono of the entire
Syrian war.
If Assad goes:
Syria falls apart. Western Golan has no more debtor nation to be returned
to as far as the UN go. It immediately becomes fee simple property of the
occupying entity, for as long as the occupier shall exist (and, with Western
Golan included, that might be a bit longer perchance...).
Hizbullah loses both its best supply line and all the strategic depth
it might have as well as the only ally anywhere close enough to help. It
becomes a military non-entity. Who benefits?
I think this cui bono (and a double one at that!) is a $100 difficulty
level question, although it feels like a $64k one.
Best opinion post I've yet read on this site. "Binary division," also very
much affects the U.S. election. If you hate Hillary, you must just LOVE
Trump, even though many of the best reasons to hate her--her arrogance,
her incompetence, her phoniness, her lies, her and Bill's relentless acquisition
of great wealth, etc.--are also reasons to hate Trump. Assad is a bastard,
Putin is a bastard, Saddam was a bastard--but so are Obama, Netanyahu, Hollande,
etc. Is it REALLY that hard to figure out?
@ 62 john... we'll have to wait for debs to explain how all that (in your
link) adds up, so long as no one calls him any name/s.... i'd like to say
'the anticipation of debs commenting again is killing me', but regardless,
killing innocent people in faraway lands thanks usa foreign policy is ongoing..
OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow
who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic
reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture
in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and
who initially joined the "rebels". http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097
And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to
work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA).
He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari
not even sure where to begin...this article is barely worthy of a random
facebook post and contains a roughly even mix of straw men and stuff most
people already know and don't need dictated to them by random internet folks.
of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition
houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files",
assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too
hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof).
i seriously
doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi
after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings.
they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always
machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance
of how the region is.
and then there's "just about every ME leader has put expedience ahead
of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only
leader I'm aware of who didn't". that might be a surprise to nasrallah and
a fair share of iran's power base. i'd also say "expedience" is an odd way
to describe the simple choice of avoiding israeli/saudi/US aggression in
the short term since the alternative would be what we're seeing in syria
and libya as we speak. again, not an endorsment of their relative cowardice.
just saying i understand the urge to avoid salfist proxy wars.
[also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths
in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european
"powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring
their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary.]
as for "calling all islamic fundamentalism" "headchopping" being "racist",
be sure not to smoke around all those straw men. never mind the inanity
of pretending that all islamic "fundamentalism" is the same. never mind
conflating religion with ethnicity. outside of typical western sites that
lean to the right and are open about it few people would say anything like
that. maybe you meant to post this on glenn beck's site?
whatever. hopefully there won't be more guest posts in the future.
I read this site regularly and give thanks to the numerous intelligent posters
who share their knowledge of the middle east and Syria in particular. Still,
I do try to read alternative views to understand opposition perspectives
no matter how biased or damaging these might they appear to the readers
of this blog. So in the wake of recent agreements, I try find out what the
mainstream media is saying about the Ahrar al-Sham refusal to recognize
the US/Russia sponsored peace plan....and type that into google.......and
crickets. All that comes up is a single Al-Masdar report.
Look I know the
MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks
at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition
of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason
this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and
contributors.
The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he
made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against
Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready
one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful).
The other ironic point, Debs is guilty of many things he blames other
for, hence comments about his hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness.
The essay I refered to earlier at 45/46 from this site I'll post below.
I think it has a lot of bearing on what DiD is implying here. It's DEFINITELY
worth a read and is probably the reason why I started appreciating this
site in the first place.
Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the
war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel
to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me
to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism
besides the Kurds. But now that we understand the makeup and texture of
these groups much more and to continue support, even just in the most minor
of ways, is really disheartening.
There's no way to a solution for the Syrian
people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate
to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will
come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control.
WORTH A READ. ONE OF THE BEST THINGS EVER POSTED ON MoA.
Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM |
79
The problem with this post is simple: all this might have been true back
when the insurgency STARTED. TODAY it is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.
As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western
elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means
necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people.
In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT
insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia,
etc., etc.
So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil",
corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved,
nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter.
I don't know and have never read ANYONE who is a serious commenter on
this issue - and by that I mean NOT the trolls that infest every comment
thread on every blog - who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At
this point it does not matter. He personally does not matter. What matters
is that Syria is not destroyed, so that Hizballah is not destroyed, so that
Iran is not destroyed, so that Israel rules a fragmented Middle East and
eventually destroys the Palestinians and that the US gets all the oil for
free. This is what Russia is trying to defend, not Assad.
And if this leaves a certain percentage of Syrian citizens screwed over
by Assad, well, they should have figured that out as much as Assad should
have figured out that he never should have tried to get along with the US.
Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79
In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT
insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia,
etc., etc.
"We had to be fighters," he said, "because we didn't find any other
job. If you want to stay inside you need to be a part of the FSA [Free
Syrian Army, the group that has closest relations with the West]. Everything
is very expensive. They pay us $100 a month but it is not enough.
"All this war is a lie. We had good lives before the revolution.
Anyway this is not a revolution. They lied to us in the name of religion.
"I don't want to go on fighting but I need to find a job, a house.
Everything I have is here in Muadhamiya."
...
.. who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At this point it does
not matter. He personally does not matter.
...
Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79
Well, according to RSH, who specialises in being wrong...
Assad does matter because he is the ELECTED leader chosen by the People
of Syria in MORE THAN ONE election.
Did you forget?
Did you not know?
Or doesn't any of that "democracy" stuff matter either?
Israel said its aircraft attacked a Syrian army position on Tuesday after
a stray mortar bomb struck the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, and it
denied a Syrian statement that a warplane and drone were shot down.
The air strike was a now-routine Israeli response to the occasional spillover
from fighting in a five-year-old civil war, and across Syria a ceasefire
was holding at the start of its second day.
Syria's army command said in a statement that Israeli warplanes had attacked
an army position at 1 a.m. on Tuesday (2200 GMT, Monday) in the countryside
of Quneitra province.
The Israeli military said its aircraft attacked targets in Syria hours
after the mortar bomb from fighting among factions in Syria struck the Golan
Heights. Israel captured the plateau from Syria in a 1967 war.
The Syrian army said it had shot down an Israeli warplane and a drone
after the Israeli attack.
Denying any of its aircraft had been lost, the Israeli military said
in a statement: "Overnight two surface-to-air missiles were launched from
Syria after the mission to target Syrian artillery positions. At no point
was the safety of (Israeli) aircraft compromised."
The seven-day truce in Syria, brokered by Russia and the United States,
is their second attempt this year by to halt the bloodshed.
Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the
warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem.
This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to
convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist
form of Islam. T
here are of course many fundamentalists (the Amish and some
Mennonites are examples from Christianity) that are not evangelical, or
put severe (no violence, no manipulation, no kidnapping, stop pushing if
the person says 'no') limits on their evangelism.
Only the Saudis, or pushers
of their version of Islam, seem to put no limits at all on their sect's
crusade.
Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took
up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control.
People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired
on police and civilians.
There are plenty of people in the United States right now who are just
as oppressed - I would wager more so - than anyone in Syria. Immigrants
from the south are treated horribly here. There are still black enclaves
in large cities where young men are shot by the police on a daily basis
for suspicious behavior and minor driving infractions. And then there are
the disenfranchised white folks in the Teaparty who belong to the NRA and
insist on 'open carry' of their weapons on the street and train in the back
woods for a coming war. Tell me what would happen if there were a guarantor
these people found believable who promised them that if they took up arms
against the government (and anyone else in the country they felt threatened
by) they would be guaranteed to win and become the government of a 'New
America'. What if that foreign guarantor were to pay them and improve their
armaments while providing political cover.
I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection
in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline
decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened
in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most
resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this
is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't
care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no
one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government.
"All of the petrodollars Saudi Arabia spends to advance this claim of
leadership and the monopolistic use of Islam's greatest holy sites to manufacture
a claim of entitlement to Muslim leadership were shattered by this collective
revolt from leading Sunni Muslim scholars and institutions who refused to
allow extremism, takfir, and terror ideology to be legitimized in their
name by a fringe they decided that it is even not part of their community.
This is the beginning of a new era of Muslim awakening the Wahhabis spared
no efforts and no precious resources to ensure it will never arrive."
Assad (=> group in power), whose stated aim was to pass from a 'socialist'
to a 'market' economy. Notes.
*decreased public sector employment.* -- was about 30%, went far
lower (1) - was a staple: one 'smart' graduate in the family guaranteed
a good Gvmt job, could support many.
*cut subsidies* (energy, water, housing, food, etc.) drought (2005>)
plus these moves threw millions into cities with no jobs.. pre-drought
about 20% agri empl. cuts to agri subsidies created the most disruption.
…imho was spurred by the sharply declining oil revenues (peak oil..)
which accounted for ?, 15% GDP in 2002 for ex to a few slim points edging
to nil in 2012, consequences:
> a. unemployment rose 'n rose (to 35-40% youth? xyz overall?), and social
stability was affected by family/extended f/ district etc. organisation
being smashed. education health care in poor regions suffered (2)
> b. small biz of various types went under becos loss of subs, competition
from outsiders (free market policy), lack of bank loans it is said by some
but idk, and loss of clients as these became impoverished. Syria does not
have a national (afaik) unemployment scheme. Assad to his credit
set up a cash-transfer thingie to poor families, but that is not a subsitute
for 'growing employment..'
*opened up the country's banking system* (can't treat the details..)
So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash
FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA,
pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife'
(sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.)
1. all nos off the top of my head.
2. Acceptance of a massive refugee pop. (Pals in the past, Kurds, but
numerically important now, Iraqis) plus the high birth rate
2011> 10 year plan syria in arabic (which i can't read) but look at images
and 'supporters' etc.
Spirited defense of the establishment from one of financial oligarchy members.
" The economy overall is doing just fine." Does this include QE? If the Fed is pouring
billions of new money into the economy, how accurate is it to say that the economy
is doing just fine?
Notable quotes:
"... "That was a number that was devised, statistically devised, to make politicians - and in particular, presidents - look good. And I wouldn't be getting the kind of massive crowds that I'm getting if the number was a real number." ..."
"... In the 1950s and 1960s, for instance, organized labor was fairly convinced that the government was purposely underestimating inflation and the cost of living to keep Social Security payments low and wages from rising. George Meany, the powerful head of the American Federation of Labor at the time, claimed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which compiled both employment and inflation numbers, had "become identified with an effort to freeze wages and is not longer a free agency of statistical research." ..."
"... Employment figures are sometimes seen as equally suspect. Jack Welch, the once-legendary former CEO of GE, blithely accused the Obama administration of manipulating the final employment report before the 2012 election to make the economic recovery look better than it was. "Unbelievable jobs numbers … these Chicago guys will do anything … can't debate so change numbers," he tweeted ..."
"... His arguments were later fleshed out by New York Post columnist John Crudele , who went on to charge the Census Bureau (which works with BLS to create the samples for the unemployment rate) with faking and fabricating the numbers to help Obama win reelection. ..."
"... The chairman of the Gallup organization, Jim Clifton, sees so many flaws with the way unemployment is measured that he has called the official rate a "Big Lie." In the Democratic presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders has also weighed in, saying the real unemployment rate is at best above 10 percent. ..."
"... What a useless article. The author explains precisely nothing about what the official statistics do and do not measure, what they miss and what they capture. ..."
"... I had the same impression as well. Notice he does not mention that the Gallop number is over 10% and is based on their polling data. ..."
"... But never mentioned that Reagan changed how Unemployment was figured in the early 80's. He included all people in the military service, as employed. Before that, they was counted neither way. He also intentionally left out that when Obama, had the unemployed numbers dropped one month before the election, from 8.1% to 7.8% --because it was believed that no one could be reelected if it was above 8%. ..."
"... U6 is 9.8% for March 2016. We still have 94 million unemployed and you want to say its 5 % what journalistic malpractice. ..."
"... Trump has emphasized that he is looking at the percent of the population that is participating in the workforce - and that this participation rate is currently at historical lows -- and Trump has been clear that his approach to paying down the national debt is based on getting the participation rates back to historical levels ..."
"... "The government can't lie about a hundred billion dollars of Social Security money stolen for the Clinton 'balanced budget', that would be a crime against the citizens, they would revolt. John, come one now. " ..."
"... I didn't say it first, Senator Ernest Hollings did, on the Senate floor. ..."
"... And here is how they did it: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 ..."
"... There is plenty of evidence the figures are cooked, folks, enough to fill a book: Atlas Shouts. Don't believe trash like this article claims. GDP, unemployment and inflation are all manipulated numbers, as Campbell's Law predicts. ..."
"... I can't believe the Washington Post prints propaganda like this. ..."
"... I do remember when the officially-announced unemployment rate stopped including those who were no longer looking for work. That *was* a significant shift, and there's no doubt it made politicians (Reagan, I think it was) look better; of course, no President since then has reversed it, as it would instantly make themselves look worse. ..."
"... Working one hour a week, at minimum wage, is 'employed', according to the government. No wonder unemployment is at 5%. ..."
"... Add in people who are working, but want and need full time jobs, add in people who have dropped out of the labor market and/or retired earlier than they wanted to, and unemployment is at least 10%. Ten seconds on Google will show you that. ..."
"... The writer should be sacked for taking a very serious issue and turning it into a piece of non-informative fluff. Bad mouthing Trump and Sanders is the same as endorsing Hilly. ..."
Yes, Donald Trump is wrong about unemployment. But he's not the only one. -
The Washington Post
Listen to President Obama, and you'll hear that job growth is stronger than
at any point in the past 20 years, and - as
he said in his final State of the Union address - "anyone claiming that
America's economy is in decline is peddling fiction."
Listen to Donald Trump and you'll hear something completely different. The
billionaire Republican candidate for president told The Washington Post last
week that
the economy is one big Federal Reserve bubble waiting to burst, and that
as for job growth, "we're not at 5 percent unemployment. We're at a number that's
probably into the 20s if you look at the real number." Not only that, Trump
said, but the numbers are juiced: "That was a number that was devised, statistically
devised, to make politicians - and in particular, presidents - look good. And
I wouldn't be getting the kind of massive crowds that I'm getting if the number
was a real number."
It's easy enough to dismiss - as a phalanx of economists and analysts
did - Trump's claims as yet another one of his all-too-frequent campaign
lines that have little to do with reality. But with this one, at least, Trump
is tapping into a deep and mostly overlooked well of popular suspicion of government
numbers and a deeply held belief that what "we the people" are told about the
economy by the government is
lies, damn
lies and statistics designed to benefit the elite at the expense of the
working class. The stubborn persistence of these beliefs should be a reminder
that just because the United States is doing well in general, that doesn't mean
everyone in the country is. It's also a warning to experts and policymakers
that in the real world,
there is no "the economy," there are many, and generalizations have a way
of glossing over some very rough patches.
Since the mid-20th century, when the U.S. government began keeping
and compiling our modern suite of economic numbers, there has been constant
skepticism of the reports, coming from different corners depending on economic
trends and the broader political climate. In the 1950s and 1960s, for instance,
organized labor was fairly convinced that the government was purposely underestimating
inflation and the cost of living to keep Social Security payments low and wages
from rising. George Meany, the powerful head of the American Federation of Labor
at the time, claimed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which compiled both
employment and inflation numbers, had "become identified with an effort to freeze
wages and is not longer a free agency of statistical research."
Over the decades, those views hardened. Throughout the 1970s, as workers
struggled with unemployment and stagflation, the government continually tweaked
its formulas for measuring prices. By and large, these changes and new formulas
were designed to make the figures more accurate in a fast-changing world. But
for those who were already convinced the government was trying to paint a deliberately
false picture, the tweaks and innovations were interpreted as a devious way
to avoid spending money to help the ailing middle class, not trying to measure
what was actually happening to design policies to help address it. The commissioner
of BLS at the time, Janet Norwood, dismissed those concerns
in testimony to Congress in the late 1970s, saying that when people don't
get the number they want, "they feel there must be something wrong with the
indicator itself."
Employment figures are sometimes seen as equally suspect. Jack Welch,
the once-legendary former CEO of GE,
blithely accused the Obama administration of manipulating the final employment
report before the 2012 election to make the economic recovery look better than
it was. "Unbelievable jobs numbers … these Chicago guys will do anything … can't
debate so change numbers," he tweeted after that last October report showed
better-than-expected job growth and lower-than-anticipated unemployment rate.
His arguments were later fleshed out by New York Post columnist
John Crudele, who went on to charge the Census Bureau (which works with
BLS to create the samples for the unemployment rate) with faking and fabricating
the numbers to help Obama win reelection.
These views are not fringe. Type the search terms "inflation
is false" into Google, and you will get reams of articles and analysis from
mainstream outlets and voices, including investment guru Bill Gross (who referred
to inflation numbers as a "haute
con job"). Similar results pop up with the terms "real
unemployment rate," and given how many ways there are to count employment,
there are legitimate issues with the headline number.
The cohort that responds to Trump reads those numbers in a starkly different
light from the cohort laughing at him for it. Whenever the unemployment rate
comes out showing improvement and hiring, those who are experiencing dwindling
wages and shrinking opportunities might see a meticulously constructed web of
lies meant to paint a positive picture so that the plight of tens of millions
who have dropped out of the workforce can be ignored. The chairman of the
Gallup organization, Jim Clifton, sees so many flaws with the way unemployment
is measured that he has called the
official rate a "Big Lie." In the Democratic presidential campaign,
Bernie Sanders has also weighed in, saying the real unemployment rate is
at best above 10 percent.
Beneath the anger and the distrust - which extend to a booming stock market
that helps the wealthy and banks flush with profit even after the financial
crisis - there lies a very real problem with how economists, the media and policymakers
discuss economics. No, the bureaucrats in the Labor and Commerce departments
who compile these numbers aren't a cabal engaged in a cover-up. And no, the
Fed is not an Illuminati conspiracy. But the idea that a few simple big numbers
that are at best averages to describe a large system we call "the economy" can
adequately capture the stories of 320 million people is a fiction, one that
we tell ourselves regularly, and which millions of people know to be false to
their own experience.
It may be true that there is a national unemployment rate measured at
5 percent.
But it is also true that for white men without a college degree, or white men
who had worked factory jobs until the mid-2000s with no more than a high school
education, the unemployment reality is much worse (though it's even worse for
black
and Hispanic men, who don't seem to be responding by flocking to Trump in
large numbers). Even when those with these skill sets can get a job, the pay
is woefully below a living wage. Jobs that don't pay well still count, in the
stats, as jobs. Telling people who are barely getting by that the economy is
just fine must appear much more than insensitive. It is insulting, and it feels
like a denial of what they are experiencing.
The chords Trump strikes when he makes these claims, therefore, should be
taken more seriously than the claims themselves. We need to be much more diligent
in understanding what our national numbers do and do not tell us, and how much
they obscure. In trying to hang our sense of what's what on a few big numbers,
we risk glossing over the tens of millions whose lives don't fit those numbers
and don't fit the story. "The economy" may be doing just fine, but that doesn't
mean that everyone is. Inflation might be low, but millions can be struggling
to meet basic costs just the same.
So yes, Trump is wrong, and he's the culmination of decades of paranoia and
distrust of government reports. The economy overall is doing just fine.
But people are still struggling. We don't have to share the paranoia or buy
into the conspiratorial narrative to acknowledge that. A great nation, the one
Trump promises to restore, can embrace more than one story, and can afford to
speak to those left out of our rosy national numbers along with those whose
experience reflect them.
the3sattlers, 4/8/2016 1:05 PM EDT
" The economy overall is doing just fine." Does this include QE? If the
Fed is pouring billions of new money into the economy, how accurate is it
to say that the economy is doing just fine?
james_harrigan, 4/8/2016 10:14 AM EDT
What a useless article. The author explains precisely nothing about
what the official statistics do and do not measure, what they miss and what
they capture.
Derbigdog, 4/8/2016 11:40 AM EDT
I had the same impression as well. Notice he does not mention that
the Gallop number is over 10% and is based on their polling data.
captdon1, 4/8/2016 5:51 AM EDT
Not reported by WP
The first two years of Obama's presidency Democrats controlled the house
and Senate. The second two years, Republicans controlled the Senate. The
last two years of Obama's term, the Republicans controlled house and Senate.
During this six years the national debt increase $10 TRILLION and the Government
collected $9 TRILLION in taxes and borrowed $10 TRILLION. ($19 Trillion
In Six Years!!!) (Where did our lovely politicians spend this enormous amount
of money??? (Republicans and Democrats!)
reussere, 4/8/2016 1:43 AM EDT
Reading the comments below it strikes me again and again how far out
of whack most people are with reality. It's absolutely true that using a
single number for the employment rate reflects the overall average of the
economy certainly doesn't measure how every person is doing, anymore than
an average global temperature doesn't measure any local temperatures.
One thing not emphasized in the article is that there is a number of
different statistics. The 5% figure refers to the U-3 statistic. Nearly
all of the rest of the employment statistics are higher, some considerably
so because they include different groups of people. But when you compare
U-3 from different years, you are comparing apples and apples. The rest
of the numbers very closely track with U-3. That is when U-3 goes up and
down, U-6 go up and down pretty much in lockstep.
It is unfortunate that subpopulations of Americans are doing far worse
(and some doing far better) than average. But that is the nature of averages
after all. It is simply impossible for a single number (or even a group
of a dozen different employment measurements) to accurately reflect a complex
reality.
Smoothcountryside, 4/8/2016 12:04 PM EDT
The alternative measures of labor underutilization are defined as U-1
through U-6 with U-6 being the broadest measure and probably the closes
to the "true" level of unemployment. Otherwise, all the rest of your commentary
is correct.
southernbaked, 4/7/2016 11:02 PM EDT
Because this highly educated writer is totally bias, he left out some
key parts, I personally lived though. He referred back to the late 70's
twice. But never mentioned that Reagan changed how Unemployment was
figured in the early 80's. He included all people in the military service,
as employed. Before that, they was counted neither way. He also intentionally
left out that when Obama, had the unemployed numbers dropped one month before
the election, from 8.1% to 7.8% --because it was believed that no one could
be reelected if it was above 8%.
Then after he was sworn in--- in January, they had to readjust the numbers
back up. They blamed it on one employees mistakes-- PS. no one was fired
or disciplined for fudging. Bottom line is, for every 1.8 manufacturing
job, there are 2 government jobs, that is disaster. Because this writer
is to young to have lived in America when it was great. When for every 1
government job, you had 3 manufacturing jobs.
I will enlighten him. I joined the workforce -- With no higher education
-- when you merely walked down the road, and picked out a job. Because jobs
hang on trees like apples. By 35 I COMPLETELY owned my first 3 bedroom brick
house, and the 2 newer cars parked in the driveway. Anyone care to try that
now ??
As for all this talk about education-- I have a bit of knowledge about
that subject-- because I paid in full to send all under my roof through
it. Without one dime of aide from anyone. The above writer is proof-- you
can be heavily educated, and DEAD WRONG. There is nothing good about this
economy. Signed, UN-affiliated to either corrupted party
Bluhorizons, 4/7/2016 9:43 PM EDT
"we're not at 5 percent unemployment. We're at a number that's probably
into the 20s if you look at the real number." Trump is correct. The unemployment
data is contrived from data about people receiving unemployment compensation
but the people who's unemployment has ended and people who have just given
up is invisible.
"It may be true that there is a national unemployment rate measured at
5 percent. But it is also true that for white men without a college degree,
or white men who had worked factory jobs until the mid-2000s with no more
than a high school education, the unemployment reality is much worse "
The author goes on and on about the legitimate distrust of government
unemployment data and then tells us Trump is wrong. But the article convinces
us Trump is right! So, this article its not really about the legitimate
distrust of government data is is about the author's not liking Trump. Typical
New Left bs
Aushax, 4/7/2016 8:24 PM EDT
Last jobs report before the 2012 election the number unusually dropped
then was readjusted up after the election. Coincidentally?
George Mason, 4/7/2016 8:15 PM EDT
U6 is 9.8% for March 2016. We still have 94 million unemployed and
you want to say its 5 % what journalistic malpractice.
F mackey, 4/7/2016 7:57 PM EDT
hey reporter,Todays WSJ, More than 40% of the student borrowers aren't
making payments? WHY? easy,they owe big $ money$ & cant get a job or a well
paying job to pay back the loans,hey reporter,i'd send you $10 bucks to
buy a clue,but you'd probably get lost going to the store,what a %@%@%@,another
reporter,who doesn't have a clue on whats going on,jmo
SimpleCountryActuary, 4/7/2016 7:57 PM EDT
This reporter is a Hillary tool. Even the Los Angeles Times on March
6th had to admit:
"Trump is partly right in saying that trade has cost the U.S. economy
jobs and held down wages. He may also be correct - to a degree - in saying
that low-skilled immigrants have depressed salaries for certain jobs or
industries..."
If this is the quality of reporting the WaPo is going to provide, namely
even worse than the Los Angeles Times, then Bezos had better fire the editorial
staff and buy a new one.
Clyde4, 4/7/2016 7:34 PM EDT [Edited]
This article dismissing Trump is exactly what is wrong with journalism
today - all about creating a false reality for people instead of investigating
and reporting
Trump has emphasized that he is looking at the percent of the population
that is participating in the workforce - and that this participation rate
is currently at historical lows -- and Trump has been clear that his approach
to paying down the national debt is based on getting the participation rates
back to historical levels
The author completely ignored the big elephant in the room -- that is
irresponsible journalism
The author may want to look into how the unemployment rate shot up in
2008 when the government extended benefits and then the unemployment rate
plummeted again when unemployment benefits were decrease (around 2011, I
believe) - if I were the author I would do a little research into whether
the unemployment rate correlates with how much is paid out in benefits or
with unemployment determined through some other approach (like surveys
dangerbird1225, 4/7/2016 7:25 PM EDT
Bunch of crap. If you stop counting those that stop looking for a job,
your numbers are wrong. Period. Why didn't this apologist for statistics
mention that?
"The government can't lie about a hundred billion dollars of Social
Security money stolen for the Clinton 'balanced budget', that would be a
crime against the citizens, they would revolt. John, come one now. "
I didn't say it first, Senator Ernest Hollings did, on the Senate
floor.
"Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next
and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The
actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until
now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000." - Senate speech, Democratic
Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999
Go to New Orleans Chicago Atlanta Los Angeles Detroit stop anybody on
the street and ask if unemployment is 5% and that there is a 95% chance
a guy can get a job.
Then you will have a statistic reference point. Its not a Democratic
or republican issue because both of them have manipulated the system for
so long its meaningless. Go Trump 2016 and get this crap sorted out with
common sense plain English
AtlasRocked, 4/7/2016 4:37 PM EDT
There is plenty of evidence the figures are cooked, folks, enough
to fill a book: Atlas Shouts. Don't believe trash like this article claims.
GDP, unemployment and inflation are all manipulated numbers, as Campbell's
Law predicts.
I can't believe the Washington Post prints propaganda like this.
TimberDave, 4/7/2016 2:23 PM EDT
I do remember when the officially-announced unemployment rate stopped
including those who were no longer looking for work. That *was* a significant
shift, and there's no doubt it made politicians (Reagan, I think it was)
look better; of course, no President since then has reversed it, as it would
instantly make themselves look worse.
astroboy_2000, 4/7/2016 1:28 PM EDT
This would be a much more intelligent article if the writer actually
said what the government considers as 'employed'.
Working one hour a week, at minimum wage, is 'employed', according
to the government. No wonder unemployment is at 5%.
Add in people who are working, but want and need full time jobs,
add in people who have dropped out of the labor market and/or retired earlier
than they wanted to, and unemployment is at least 10%. Ten seconds on Google
will show you that.
The writer should be sacked for taking a very serious issue and turning
it into a piece of non-informative fluff. Bad mouthing Trump and Sanders
is the same as endorsing Hilly.
Manchester0913, 4/7/2016 2:12 PM EDT
The number you're referencing is captured under U6. However, U3 is the
traditional measure.
Son House, 4/7/2016 2:24 PM EDT
The government doesn't claim that working one hour a week is employed.
Google U 3 unemployment. Then google U 6 unemployment. You can be enlightened.
Liz in AL, 4/7/2016 7:21 PM EDT
I've found this compilation of all 6 of the "U-rates" very useful. It
encompasses the most restrictive (and thus smallest) U-1 rate, though the
most expansive U-6. It provides brief descriptions of what gets counted
for each rate, and (at least for more recent years) provides the ability
to compare at the monthly level of detail.
U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven
This
article outlines the main elements of
rupture and continuity in the global political economy since the global
economic crisis of
2008-2009. While the current calamity poses a more systemic challenge to
neoliberal
globalization than genetically similar turbulences in the
semi-periphery during the 1990s, we find that evidence for its
transformative significance remains mixed. Efforts to reform the distressed
capitalist models in the North encounter severe resistance, and the
broadened multilateralism of the G-20 is yet
to provide effective global economic governance. Overall,
neoliberal
globalization looks set to survive, but in more heterodox and
multipolar fashion. Without tighter coordination between old and emerging
powers, this new synthesis is unlikely to inspire lasting solutions to
pressing global problems such as an unsustainable international financial
architecture and the pending environmental catastrophe, and may even fail to
preserve some modest democratic and developmental gains
of the recent past.
"... He said they took an innocuous email that she had received from one of her underlings and put the markings on it that indicated it was an email classified as SECRET. They asked Hillary if she had ever seen the email before, she said, "No." ..."
"... The FBI by marking the email with the markings that indicated that it was SECRET was only attempting to get Hillary to indicate that she understood what the markings meant and she did. ..."
The FBI set up a trap for Hillary Clinton during their questioning of her
and she fell right into it, according to Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Judge Napolitano appeared yesterday morning on the Don Imus Show on WABC
radio and told Imus that at one point early in their questioning of her they
lied to her. He said that, under law, they are allowed to do so and did so
to set a trap.
He said they took an innocuous email that she had received from one of
her underlings and put the markings on it that indicated it was an email
classified as SECRET. They asked Hillary if she had ever seen the email
before, she said, "No."
But upon reading the email, she went on to say, "I don't know why this is
marked secret. There is nothing classified in it." Bam, she fell into the
trap.
The FBI by marking the email with the markings that indicated that it
was SECRET was only attempting to get Hillary to indicate that she
understood what the markings meant and she did.
Judge Napolitano also told Imus that there will be more negative news coming
out about the Clintons, especially the Clinton Foundation, He did not
provide details.
"... How can anyone take the claim that Hillary has pneumonia seriously? Are everyone's bullsh*t detectors are broken? ..."
"... Very likely to be BS. All speculation at this point...though I haven't got the will to sift through the MSM and blogosphere to attempt a reading between the lines. ..."
"... Speculation that she may have late stage Parkinsons is reaching a fever pitch. Parkinsons patients often contract pneumonia. ..."
"... What is happening now with Hillary is not another example of planning by the deep state; it is just the usual pattern among declining empires that their systems are too corrupt for good leaders to be chosen. ..."
"... Hillary is and has been a very sick lady for some time now. The fire, energy and determination she exuded during the 2008 campaign has not been visible during this run. The image of her stubbornly giving a speech in the rain to thousands of supporters in '08 are not seen this time around. The packed rally's are gone. She's a shell of the person she once was. ..."
"... Kaine was the Governor. Virginia put Obama in the White House. ..."
"... I am suggesting the neolib leadership has known Hillary's ailment was extremely serious for some time now, and I'm just guessing here, but I'm confident many tried to talk her out of running in '16 for the sake of her health and her family. ..."
"... What we are witnessing is Operation 'it takes a Village', that is, the entire Dem elite cabal has circled their wagons to ensure Hillary's lifelong wish is realized -- being sworn in as the first woman to the U.S. Presidency no matter how ill she may be. ..."
"... The pneumonia narrative that is peddled by her campaign and echoed by western presstitute media is obviously damage control. ..."
"... The Democratic Party doesn't really care if the Republicans win. C'mon, now. Democrats might be unreliable on enacting the GOP policy the Third Way imperialist traitors want. Republicans will be very reliable at "balancing" the needs of the rich and well-connected with the bother of the poor and atomized. ..."
"... That comment is definitely the best speculation about Hillary's condition I have seen thus far. I started reading Atlantic comments recently. The Atlantic's posts are about as pro-Hillary as Salon's, but the comment section of the Atlantic turns out not to be a Dem echo chamber, as Salon and HuffPo entertainingly are. ..."
"... It's just that the signs of whatever her neurological disorder are becoming more prominent -- coughing fits, seizures, queer eye movement, a lack of energy and now collapse. ..."
"... ...The action of her security detail in the video reveals that they are aware of an ongoing issue. ..."
At this juncture I don't believe one damn thing the press (CCM; corporate
controlled media) says about anything; and especially Clinton's health.
I think she's on her way out.
Word is that Hillary is suffering from "vascular dementia" and will probably
die within a year. Or maybe even before the elections.
My guess is she
would be replaced by her vice presidential pick Tim Kaine or possibly Joe
Biden. Kain would perhaps be less than a total disaster, but relatively
little information about him can be discovered immediately. Biden is a hopeless,
ancient, corrupt political hack.
Or maybe Hillary will be secretly "replaced" by a double (the Beatles
ruse)? If she suddenly recovers the conspiracy world will instantly go on
red alert.
NY Times initially reported Hillary's collapse as a stumble. Do they understand
in that elite tower that YouTube video all over Twitter almost in real time
showed a dramatic fainting collapse? NYT needs a competent PR pro to explain
in easy to understand English that it must improve its lying so it accords
with immediately and easily observed reality. But ... too arrogant, too
privileged. I suppose, though, we should take some hope from the breakdown
of traditional uniparty media/propaganda.
From Wikipedia
: "In early 1984, Chernenko was hospitalized for over
a month, but kept working by sending the Politburo notes and letters. During
the summer, his doctors sent him to Kislovodsk for the mineral spas, but
on the day of his arrival at the resort Chernenko's health deteriorated,
and he contracted
pneumonia
.
Chernenko did not return to the Kremlin until later in 1984.
By the end of 1984, Chernenko could hardly leave the Central Clinical
Hospital, a heavily guarded facility in west Moscow, and the Politburo was
affixing a facsimile of his signature to all letters, as Chernenko had done
with Andropov's when he was dying. Chernenko's illness was first acknowledged
publicly on 22 February 1985 during a televised election rally."
No, Sec Clinton clearly goes rigid, the distinction is important.
Here's a video with a close up of her feet on the left in the second half
of the video.
How can anyone take the claim that Hillary has pneumonia seriously? Are
everyone's bullsh*t detectors are broken?
She lambasted those who claimed that she was ill only a week or so before.
So why would she try to hide any real illness - especially one that seems
rather mild (mild enough that she went to the 911 event and appeared healthy
when leaving Chelsea's apartment). Shifting explanations from the campaign
were amateurish for a condition that was supposedly diagnosed on FRIDAY.
As pointed by commenters on several different websites:
>> a pneumonia vaccine is recommended for anyone over 65 and with Hillary
hectic campaign schedule and travels she should have had the vaccine;
>> getting dragged into the van is not consistent with "overheated"
or pneumonia;
>> if she had pneumonia, why would she get close to a child
(after
leaving she Chelsea's apartment)
?
"Pneumonia" is likely to be BS. See my comment @11.
Very likely to be BS. All speculation at
this point...though I haven't got the will to sift through the MSM and blogosphere
to attempt a reading between the lines.
With that said, where there is smoke there's fire. Her limited public
schedule appears to be protecting something. Trump will no doubt play hardball
with the networks as only he can, but in the end he should engage Hillary
to share as much podium time as he can.
Sec Clinton clearly goes rigid, the distinction is important. Here's
a video with a close up of her feet on the left in the second half of the
video.
Also, to me it looks like she is doing that head bobbing thing again,
like she did when she was asked questions by several reporters simultaneously
while walking, and then at the Democratic convention. On those two previous
occasions, one had to point out that a person can have a (petit mal) seizure
without falling. This time, she fell.
Hillary's fund-raising trip to California planned for today and tomorrow
has been cancelled. The pneumonia story provides cover for that. (Which
is not to say that she does not have pneumonia. The point is that pneumonia
cannot explain her collapse.)
Speculation that she may have late stage Parkinsons is reaching a fever
pitch. Parkinsons patients often contract pneumonia. From a personal and
not political point of view, watching the videos was painful.
I think
she is withdrawing from the race in a matter of days.
Clinton would eliminate all other Dem contenders and
then she'd be pulled at the last minute for Biden to step in.
That seems to employ an interpretive framework common here at MoA. This
is that the Empire is infinitely knowledgeable and clever, so that anything
of geopolitical significance that happens anywhere must be explained as
another clever trick by the Empire's planners and strategists. (Obama fools
Putin once again with Turkey's invasion of Syria.)
So Hillary is to be seen as a mere instrument of the US Establishment,
in the same way that Obama is. (Obama does seem to be a creation
of the CIA
.) But I see Hillary more as an American Chernenko, as
Petri Krohn
does at #6 above. What is happening now with Hillary is
not another example of planning by the deep state; it is just the usual
pattern among declining empires that their systems are too corrupt for good
leaders to be chosen.
Heh,
deplorables
is not proper Eng. but from Sp. / Fr.
Before this incident - was
Game Over
…since at least a month…
The 'health' meme will be used as that is a legit, for HRC to get off
the stage. Rather than the e-mail scandal (Comey, head of FBI, could not
recommend 'prosecution' as he and his brother are tied to the Clintons in
various huge lucrative deals), the Total Corruption (bold it) of the Clinton
Foundation has to be swept under the lying carpet, etc.
HRC is on her last buckling legs and seizure bobbing head. So sad 'n
bad that her performance on stage etc. even if carefully monitored and contolled
by guardians, the audience who scrutinise are no longer fooled.
Besides her own ambition, is the q. of overall corruption. Billions were
invested in HRC, now they have to write down the loss, or are rabid about
being misled, angry at being lied to, some still want her propped up as
a Zombie, raking in fav decisions, others are like …this is the END…cue
music…
My hunch for quite some time now has been Hillary has some debilitating
affliction that modern medicine cannot overcome. Many have speculated that
it might be Parkinson's or what blues said @3 "vascular dementia". Whatever
her diagnosis is it appears to be neurologically related given her falls,
her seizures, her concussion (which I believe was a Traumatic Brain Injury
aka TBI). A concussion is a mild brain injury that can take up to three
or so months to recover. TBI's are a lifetime.
A family member of mine had a serious fall in her early sixties and she
was hospitalized with a TBI for six months. The first couple of weeks were
in ICU and then she was transferred to a long-term nursing facility. She
takes coumadin due to the two serious injuries to her brain. Sadly, her
health continues to deteriorate and she will remain in a long-term nursing
facility till her last breath.
Hillary is and has been a very sick lady for some time now. The fire,
energy and determination she exuded during the 2008 campaign has not been
visible during this run. The image of her stubbornly giving a speech in
the rain to thousands of supporters in '08 are not seen this time around.
The packed rally's are gone. She's a shell of the person she once was.
blues @3 said "My guess is she would be replaced by her vice presidential
pick Tim Kaine or possibly Joe Biden. Kain would perhaps be less than a
total disaster, but relatively little information about him can be discovered
immediately. Biden is a hopeless, ancient, corrupt political hack."
Tim Kaine IS Obama's third term. He IS Obama's pick. Not Hillary's. Kaine
screwed Hillary in '08 by peeling off many of Hillary's super delegates
in Virginia to support Obama. I know what that man did to eliminate her
support in this state as do many others who left the Party, as I did, in
total disgust. Never forget Virginia was a fire red state until the '08
election. Kaine was the Governor. Virginia put Obama in the White House.
A funny thing happened a couple of years after the '08 election along
with other extremely odd wins for other D's in both local and statewide
elections in Virginia. The voting machines in several key districts that
went blue were quietly removed due to a preponderance of evidence of manipulation.
There was only one alt news outlet that covered the story. No one in mainstream
touched it. I'm thinking both parties were aware, both parties manipulated
and both parties agreed to kill the story. Lots of elections I'm sure would
be over turned like say the match up b/w George Allen and Jim Webb...
I am suggesting the neolib leadership has known Hillary's ailment was
extremely serious for some time now, and I'm just guessing here, but I'm
confident many tried to talk her out of running in '16 for the sake of her
health and her family. But knowing Hillary, and pretty much any woman who
had come so close to reaching the pinnacle of her/their lifetime dreams
-- to crack the highest glass ceiling in elite land -- the US Presidency
-- she wasn't going to let any illness, no matter how serious, get in her
way.
What we are witnessing is Operation 'it takes a Village', that is, the
entire Dem elite cabal has circled their wagons to ensure Hillary's lifelong
wish is realized -- being sworn in as the first woman to the U.S. Presidency
no matter how ill she may be. Phase two of Operation 'it takes a Village'
is to have in place Obama's chosen predecessor -- Tim Kaine ready to take
the helm when she finally succumbs to her illness.
I predict she won't make it to November. Then what?
The pneumonia narrative that is peddled by her campaign and echoed by western
presstitute media is obviously damage control. I wonder how all those powerful
elites that gave her millions of bribes (donor money) must feel now. The
chance that she will need to be replaced is real and propping up a replacement
will again cost millions. Trump who has been dragged trough the mud (his
naked wife, small penis, ...) is remarkably tame on the issue. If it's not
because both he and Clinton have conspired right from the start, then it
must be that his campaigns strategy is to look like the "nice guy".
Here's
her "pneumonia" episode but from another angle. If you watch her hands,
it's clear she lost total control which of course is confirmed seconds later
when she drops like a rag doll.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/11-EAzsGxgQ
And again her creepy performance before the journos. The comments are
also quite funny: "This honestly creeped me out... I think it was demon
coming out of her..." or "My guess is that she's truly a reptilian creature
and it's fighting to retain its humanoid form."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMHOcmDVBP0
If such episode would occur during her presidency she'd probably wag
the dog like her husband did during the Lewinsky case and bomb some pharmaceutical
factories to rubbles in some poor defenseless country.
Guess Google will have to crank
their false search results
up a notch as to prevent Jill Stein causing
a 2000 election moment and having the republicans win.
The Democratic Party doesn't
really
care if the Republicans
win. C'mon, now. Democrats might be unreliable on enacting the GOP policy
the Third Way imperialist traitors want. Republicans will be very reliable
at "balancing" the needs of the rich and well-connected with the bother
of the poor and atomized.
@22 Demian,
Kindly leave your bourgeois liberal priors at the door. Clearly you are
a self-absorbed managerialist who believes in the holiness of the Quantified
Self and one-true-wayism, i.e. the Problem personified, or you would recognize
that competence is not uniform across subjects and your ideological quest
for bourgeois excellence motivates nobody who's sane and honest.
So, having said that, it's a lot easier to run a stage show when you
control the angles (Fernsehen) than when you don't. And statecraft is, aside
from the cold-blooded murder required to subjugate a people against its
will, just stagecraft writ large.
I have been reading a lot of sites and am now convinced that Clinton has
been very ill for some time. There are countless photos which give it away
- from the neurological test of gripping two fingers presented to her which
her aides do often, to the pictures of aides taking her pulse while waiting
for her ride yesterday, the repeated head movements she makes when being
'ambushed' by journalist, the placement of her hands to stop trembling,
the coughing, the weird fixed smile - they all indicate middle-stage Parkinson's.
Yes, there has been speculation about Parkinson's for months, but I never
accepted that, because Parkinson's is characterized by the inability to
initiate movement, so that a feature is having a stone-faced look, which
Hillary does not have.
She can't walk, she can't control her own oral secretions and so she
is aspirating them...they are going down into her lung. Hence the cough,
and now aspiration pneumonia. Her fall and head injury weren't the cause...something
caused the fall.
I think she has a progressive neurological disease. Some speculate
Parkinson's, but I favor Progressive Supranuclear Palsy...the disease
the late Dudley Moore, actor, had. It is insidious in onset but starts
with balance and gait difficulties. It's been 4 years since Hillary
fell and got her concussion, so the disease is inexorably progressing.
Also...she had to be dragged into that van. Her feet were being dragged.
If this was the first time something like this happened, she would have
been taken to the ER. No lay people would have done anything else. So,
this is a recurrent problem they've dealt with before.
The symptoms of the disease listed by Wikipedia seem to match what we've
seen of Hillary pretty well.
That comment is definitely the best speculation about Hillary's condition
I have seen thus far. I started reading Atlantic comments recently. The
Atlantic's posts are about as pro-Hillary as Salon's, but the comment section
of the Atlantic turns out not to be a Dem echo chamber, as Salon and HuffPo
entertainingly are.
A psychopath runs for president of the United States with serious
medical problems when they worship the God of Mammon/private finance/global
plutocracy/or whatever you call our Hillary sick society.
That is an incredible story. I followed the link, and sure
enough, the addresses match. Why would someone put a medical facility in
an expensive residential building?
mischi : "what kind of a psychopath runs for president of the United States
with serious medical problems?"
The kind of person millions of Americans
would vote for: an habitual liar, a psycho, a person with cold-hearted ambition
and no compunction over spilled blood.
Hillary Clinton is a metaphor now, and is a testament to the level to
which this country has sunk.
She still doesn't strike me as sociopathic.
Just very ambitious, completely dishonest, highly blackmailable, and, by
the look of it, seriously ill.
I think the question should be - what person, or more likely, what group
of people make a vulnerable (however flawed) person with quickly progressing
disability run for POTUS on their behalf, and what do they hope to achieve
through her weakness and dependency on them, while fully accessing the greatest
executive power on planet Earth?
Someone on ZH just observed that Pres's Wilson and FDR were both basically
disabled by the time each presided over US entering another World War. Ominous.
(and I am not saying D Trump would be any better, just possibly harder
to control - and even that comes with a big question mark, reality show
hosting and all)
Maybe Hillary is being used as a means to an end. The Clintons
and the Bushes hide a rat's nest of secrets. She runs for the presidency,
in the way someone in the mafia might have to pay off a debt. And for an
example elsewhere, General Pinochet, the infamous head of the Chilean Junta,
escaped prosecution over reasons of incapacity to stand trial and ill health,
even though he was arrested, extradited, and brought back to Chile for trial.
The cancer that is the Clinton Foundation will escape scrutiny probably
because it remains an instrument of the permanent government, or Deep State.
But nothing would surprise me now. If there is an October Surprise, it is
probably another damn coup. It seems we are on a roll. Don't get too comfortable,
or think that we will come out unscathed, or that we will not have another
president selected for us.
The funny thing with the Hillary at 9/11 video was that they showed the
stumble but the part with the woman holding her up before the misstep is
sort of hidden.
jackrabbit @41 said "There were few concerns about her health during the
campaign for the Democratic nomination. Most of the heath concerns raised
have been in the last few weeks."
This is not accurate. Many have been
posting and discussing her health for many, many months now with some for
years. Drudge, Breitbart, the Conservative Treehouse, Right Side, Gateway
Pundit and so many more.
It's just that the signs of whatever her neurological disorder are becoming
more prominent -- coughing fits, seizures, queer eye movement, a lack of
energy and now collapse.
I know I've been following her health concerns for several years now.
It's just hard to do b/c her team protects and covers up for her. Nothing
to see here...move along...and the useless political press corp says nothing.
Only alt news and the right do.
Copeland@42 -
"...Maybe Hillary is being used as a means to an end..."
Give yourself a little more credit, Copeland. She
IS CLEARLY
being
used as a means to an end. What everyone should be wondering about isn't
whether she or Kaine will be sitting in the White House, but who is the
next Cheney that will be pulling the strings behind the scenes for either
of them. What is the next 9/11 the future Cheney is scheming? The thought
that either of these two will actually run anything is preposterous - they
are distractions. They are to serve as the brightly-dressed clowns with
big, floppy shoes and neon green wigs dancing around in front of us while
some version of Cheney II opens up the gold vaults and blood chutes back
in DC.
I'll humbly suggest that most people
are looking in the rear-view
mirror
for answers. Every U.S. citizens should
look closely in
the shadows around them now
for their next evil masters. The U.S.
MSM is
not
trying to get Hillary elected. They are desperately trying
to look like they are
so the debate goes on endlessly
. And it's working
absolutely wonderfully in an insidious, evil, psychopathic sort of way.
Americans are easy - we will all honestly be surprised by the
next
9/11 and it's inevitable result. Hillary or Trump are just sideshow freaks;
they're
not
the main attraction.
'Means to an end' is the job description of the entire
political class. We need to make choices of representatives/spokespersons
from among ourselves, and ultimately to empower ourselves, to turn down
our own deplorable, now exclusive reliance on representatives/spokespersons.
No one has our interests at heart but ourselves.
No to Clinton, no to Trump
.
...The action of her security detail in the video reveals that they are
aware of an ongoing issue. First, a collapse after an alleged pneumonia
diagnosis should have meant immediate medical care. Instead she is ferried
to her daughter's apartment and back on the street in an hour. Second, the
detail circles around her as she is placed in the van, blocking the view,
in a practiced deliberate manner. There is no surprise or second glances.
@ Paveway IV, I think you are right. Best to keep an eye on the shadows
gathering around us.
@ crone, Thanks for that video; but I thought is
was a little creepy that the doctor identifies his means of gathering evidence,
with the methods of the CIA
Hillary Clinton is a metaphor now, and is a testament
to the level to which this country has sunk.
I used to think that Lady Macbeth is the literary character who best
represents Hillary, but now I think it is Zola's
Nana
:
Nana
tells the story of Nana Coupeau's rise from streetwalker
to high-class prostitute during the last three years of the French Second
Empire. …
"What emerges from [Nana] is the completeness of Nana's destructive
force, brought to a culmination in the thirteenth chapter by a kind
of roll call of the victims of her voracity".
Zola has Nana die a horrible death in July 1870 from smallpox: "What
lay on the pillow was a charnel house, a heap of pus and blood, a shovelful
of putrid flesh. The pustules had invaded the whole face, so that one
pock touched the next". Outside her window the crowd is madly cheering
"To Berlin! To Berlin!" to greet the start of the Franco-Prussian War,
which will end in defeat for France and the end of the Second Empire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1IDQ2V1eM&feature=youtu.be
PARKINSONS
& Hillary. Seems credible. By a doctor. Goes back to 2005 & observes minutely--
even certain ways of using the hands. As far as I can see he's accounted
for every symptom. The clips are really interesting.
It should be beyond obvious that Clinton is not fit for the office of president.
Further, it could be said she is not concerned about her country, but rather
her own self aggrandizement.
The very embodiment of the worst of all possible leaders.
She's in advanced Parkinson's. Her symptoms can't be masked anymore.
Even
Google (which is in league with the Clintons) will suggest "Parkinson's"
if you type "hillary clinton p" into a search box.
Even if Hillary has no more events like she did on Sunday until the election,
it is very clear that she has Parkinson's, and there's a lot of buzz about
that on the Net. So keeping her name on the ballot on election day would
do more damage to the legitimacy of the American political system than the
theft of the 2000 election did. So I doubt that the establishment will run
the risk of keeping her name on.
And if she does manage to make it to November and get elected, her chances
of making it through another two months to get inaugurated are not that
good.
"What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question
the interventionist consensus in foreign policy."
But today we have this:
Trump pledges big US military expansion . Trump doesn't appear to have
any coherent policy, he just says whatever seems to be useful at that particular
moment.
"... Liberal hawks will complain that the Iraq war was run incompetently (and it was), but they don't give up on the idea of preventive war or the belief that the U.S. is entitled to attack other states more or less at will in the name of "leadership." Neoconservatives will fault Obama for not doing more in Libya after the regime was overthrown, but it would never occur to them that toppling foreign governments by force is wrong or undesirable. There remains a broad consensus that the U.S. "leads" the world and in order to exercise that "leadership" it is free to destabilize and attack other states as it sees fit. The justifications change from country to country, but the assumptions behind them are always the same: we have the right to interfere in the affairs of other nations, our interference is benevolent and beneficial (and any bad results cannot be tied to our interference), and "failure" to interfere constitutes abdication of "leadership." ..."
"... Everyone is familiar with Iraq war dead-enders, who continue to claim to this day that the war had been "won" by the end of Bush's second term and that it was only by withdrawing that the U.S. frittered away its "victory." The defense of the Libyan war is somewhat different, but at its core it shares the same ideological refusal to own up to failure. In Libya, the mistake was not in taking sides in a civil war in which the U.S. had nothing at stake, but in failing to commit to an open-ended mission to stabilize the country after the regime was overthrown. Libyan war supporters don't accept that their preferred policy backfired and harmed the country it was supposedly trying to help. That would not only require them to acknowledge that they got one of the more important foreign policy questions of the last decade badly wrong, but it would contradict one of their core assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. As far as they're concerned, Libya is still the "model" and "good" intervention that they claimed it was five years ago, and nothing that has happened in Libya can ever prove otherwise. ..."
"... unfortunately pro-war dead-enders continue to have considerable influence in shaping our foreign policy debates on other issues. They bring the same bankrupt assumptions to debates over what the U.S. should be doing in Syria, Ukraine, Iran, and elsewhere, and they apply the same faulty judgment that led them to think regime change and taking sides in foreign civil wars was smart. They still haven't learned anything from the failures of previous interventions (because they don't accept that they were failures), and so keep making many of the same mistakes of analysis and prescription that they made in the past. ..."
Andrew Bacevich has written an excellent
article on the need to end our ongoing "war for the Greater Middle East."
This part jumped out at me in connection with the debate over the
Libyan war:
A particular campaign that goes awry [bold mine-DL]
like Somalia or Iraq or Libya may attract passing attention, but
never the context in which that campaign was undertaken [bold mine-DL].
We can be certain that the election of 2016 will be no different.
It is almost never mentioned now, so it is easy to forget that many Libyan
war supporters initially argued for intervention in order to save the "Arab
Spring." Their idea was that the U.S. and its allies could discourage other
regimes from forcibly putting down protests by siding with the opposition in
Libya, and that if the U.S. didn't do this it would "signal" dictators that
they could crush protests with impunity. This never made sense at the time.
Other regimes would have to believe that the U.S. would consistently side with
their opponents, and there was never any chance of that happening. If it sent
any message to them, the intervention in Libya sent other regimes a very different
message: don't let yourself be internationally isolated like Gaddafi, and you
won't suffer his fate. Another argument for the intervention was that it would
change the way the U.S. was perceived in the region for the better. That didn't
make sense, either, since Western intervention in Libya wasn't popular in most
countries there, and even if it had been it wouldn't change the fact that the
U.S. was pursuing many other policies hated by people throughout the region.
It was on the foundation of shoddy arguments such as these that the case for
war in Libya was built.
Bacevich is right that many critics fault specific interventions for their
failings without questioning the larger assumptions about the U.S. role in the
region that led to those wars. Liberal hawks will complain that the Iraq
war was run incompetently (and it was), but they don't give up on the idea of
preventive war or the belief that the U.S. is entitled to attack other states
more or less at will in the name of "leadership." Neoconservatives will fault
Obama for not doing more in Libya after the regime was overthrown, but
it would never occur to them that toppling foreign governments by force is wrong
or undesirable. There remains a broad consensus that the U.S. "leads" the world
and in order to exercise that "leadership" it is free to destabilize and attack
other states as it sees fit. The justifications change from country to country,
but the assumptions behind them are always the same: we have the right to interfere
in the affairs of other nations, our interference is benevolent and beneficial
(and any bad results cannot be tied to our interference), and "failure" to interfere
constitutes abdication of "leadership."
To make matters worse, every intervention always has a die-hard group of
dead-enders that will defend the rightness and success of their war no matter
what results it produces. They don't think the war they supported every really
went "awry" except when it was ended "too soon." Everyone is familiar with
Iraq war dead-enders, who continue to claim to this day that the war
had been "won" by the end of Bush's second term and that it was only by withdrawing
that the U.S. frittered away its "victory." The defense of the Libyan war is
somewhat different, but at its core it shares the same ideological refusal to
own up to failure. In Libya, the mistake was not in taking sides in a civil
war in which the U.S. had nothing at stake, but in failing to commit to an open-ended
mission to stabilize the country after the regime was overthrown. Libyan war
supporters don't accept that their preferred policy backfired and harmed the
country it was supposedly trying to help. That would not only require them to
acknowledge that they got one of the more important foreign policy questions
of the last decade badly wrong, but it would contradict one of their core assumptions
about the U.S. role in the world. As far as they're concerned, Libya is still
the "model" and "good" intervention that they claimed it was five years ago,
and nothing that has happened in Libya can ever prove otherwise.
That might not matter too much, but unfortunately pro-war dead-enders
continue to have considerable influence in shaping our foreign policy debates
on other issues. They bring the same bankrupt assumptions to debates over what
the U.S. should be doing in Syria, Ukraine, Iran, and elsewhere, and they apply
the same faulty judgment that led them to think regime change and taking sides
in foreign civil wars was smart. They still haven't learned anything from the
failures of previous interventions (because they don't accept that they were
failures), and so keep making many of the same mistakes of analysis and prescription
that they made in the past.
"... Some of the other – possible – position purchases were a little disturbing, though, such as Julius Genachowski's FCC Chairmanship or Tony West's appointment as Deputy Attorney General. If true that donations were the clincher, then it does smell a little like corruption. ..."
"... In addition to Jim Haygood's report above I would flag Lee Fang's Twitter bulletin, which includes emails (you click on the actual emails imaged in the tweet to read the original) that reveal Colin Powell and Jeffrey Leeds discussing how much the Clintons hate Obama ("that man"), and how questionable Hillary's health is. This appears to be from a separate DNC Leaks hack of Powell's emails unrelated to the Guccifer 2.0 release. ..."
"... But the quote of the evening so far is from a Colin Powell email complaining about how Hillary is responsible for the whole email debacle at State and was trying to scapegoat him for her mess despite his protestations. Boy, was Powell pissed off, and to the point: " Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris. " ..."
I saw that too, earlier today and at first I thought "another example!".
Then I stepped back and realized that other than an inflation gauge,
so what? That has been a perk for donors in this country (and many other
I assume) for over 200 years… at least as far as the ambassadorships are
concerned.
Some of the other – possible – position purchases were a little disturbing,
though, such as Julius Genachowski's FCC Chairmanship or Tony West's appointment
as Deputy Attorney General. If true that donations were the clincher, then
it does smell a little like corruption.
I was away from the computer for a few hours and all leak-hell has broken
loose. Unfortunately, the actual dumps are not being made as easy to access
directly as in prior releases - the Guccifer 2.0 release requires a "torrent"
download and DNCLeaks.org seems to have been vaporized. And there's a lot
of it, so we're having to rely on piecemeal, secondhand reports at the moment.
In addition to Jim Haygood's report above I would flag Lee Fang's
Twitter bulletin, which includes emails (you click on the actual emails
imaged in the tweet to read the original) that reveal Colin Powell and Jeffrey
Leeds discussing how much the Clintons hate Obama ("that man"), and how
questionable Hillary's health is. This appears to be from a separate DNC
Leaks hack of Powell's emails unrelated to the Guccifer 2.0 release.
But the quote of the evening so far is from a Colin Powell email
complaining about how Hillary is responsible for the whole email debacle
at State and was trying to scapegoat him for her mess despite his protestations.
Boy, was Powell pissed off, and to the point: " Everything HRC touches
she kind of screws up with hubris. "
Clinton is neither well-liked nor trusted. She is just a marionette promoted
by neocon cabal. Sanders team has a point that Clinton is like the job candidate
wit the impressive resume who sounds great on paper, but then when you meet her
in person, you realize she's not he right person for the job.
Notable quotes:
"... She has never acknowledged, maybe even to herself, that routing diplomatic emails with classified information through a homebrew server was an outrageous, reckless and foolish thing to do, and disloyal to Obama, whose administration put in place rules for record-keeping that she flouted. ..."
"... And Hillary did not merely fail the ask the right questions. The questions were asked and the answers were given. Joe Biden, Robert Gates and much of the military and intelligence communities advised against the Libya intervention. Hillary just chose to ignore the advice, because she is a radical neoconservative at heart. ..."
"... She volunteered that that the United States should continue to "look for missions" that NATO will support ..."
"... She vows to go around looking for new military adventures. ..."
"... Maureen is right that Hillary has huge character problems. Sure, she can't admit mistakes and compulsively blames others when things go wrong. That's a given. But it's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that she will take our country down the wrong path, both in terms of domestic and foreign policy. ..."
"... She has had 40-some years to develop this kind of judgment, imagination and long term reflection, and she has proudly, aggressively, mean-spiritedly run the opposite direction every time and viciously attacked anyone who called her on it. It's time to stop this game of "wondering" whether she can change, wondering whether all of these terrible moments were "the real Hillary" or not. They were. Voting someone in as President on the hope that they will be a completely different person once in office then they have been in 40 years is the definition of insanity. ..."
"... it's about her paranoia about secrecy that made her think she could get away with a private email server in one of the nation's most high-profile jobs, or taking huge sums of money for Wall Street speeches she now refuses to release, or doubling-down on her ill-considered, if not ill-informed (as you note), hawkish regime change views by advocating for it again in Libya that has, as a result, turned into an ISIS outpost. ..."
"... Clinton did herself no favors in the debate, drawing even more attention to her dependence on that money and the impossibility of being completely free to make policy without repaying debts. ..."
"... They don't, but it is telling that Bill said that. His chosen exaggeration displays who he sees as Hillary's side in this. When he says, "they are coming for us" he means Wall Street. ..."
"... "Clinton, who talked Obama into it" on Libya and claimed credit, but when it went poorly, she blamed Obama for listening to her, "On Libya, she noted that "the decision was the president's."" That is her claim to experience, and not something we ought to vote to experience again. ..."
"... Hillary is a self-serving, power hungry politician. She is only ever sorry if she fails to get what she wants, or is forced to explain her actions. She feels she is above "the masses." As for her qualifications, job titles alone don't cut it. What did she actually accomplish as a Senator or SecState? Any major laws? Treaties? No. She failed with Russia, Syria and Libya to name just a few. She is not qualified to be president based on qualifications and personality. ..."
... Clinton sowed suspicion again, refusing to cough up her Wall Street speech
transcripts.
... ... ...
Hillary alternately tried to blame and hug the men in her life, divvying
up credit in a self-serving way.
After showing some remorse for the 1994 crime bill, saying it had had "unintended"
consequences, she stressed that her husband "was the president who actually
signed it." On Libya, she noted that "the decision was the president's." And
on her desire to train and arm Syrian rebels, she recalled, "The president said
no."
But she wrapped herself in President Obama's record on climate change and,
when criticized on her "super PACs," said, well, Obama did it, too.
Sanders accused her of pandering to Israel after she said that "if Yasir
Arafat had agreed with my husband at Camp David," there would have been a Palestinian
state for 15 years.
Bernie is right that Hillary's judgment has often been faulty.
She has shown an unwillingness to be introspective and learn from her mistakes.
From health care to Iraq to the email server, she only apologizes at the point
of a gun. And even then, she leaves the impression that she is merely sorry
to be facing criticism, not that she miscalculated in the first place.
... ... ...
She has never acknowledged, maybe even to herself, that routing diplomatic
emails with classified information through a homebrew server was an outrageous,
reckless and foolish thing to do, and disloyal to Obama, whose administration
put in place rules for record-keeping that she flouted.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story Wouldn't it be a relief to
people if Hillary just acknowledged some mistakes?
... ... ...
Clinton accused Sanders of not doing his homework on how he would break up
the banks. And she is the queen of homework, always impressively well versed
in meetings. But that is what makes her failure to read the National Intelligence
Estimate that raised doubts about whether Iraq posed a threat to the U.S. so
egregious.
P. Greenberg El Cerrito, CA
Maureen Dowd fundamentally misunderstands Hillary Clinton's foreign policy
failings. When it comes to Libya, Clinton does not merely need to apologize
for getting distracted by other global issues and "taking her eye off the
ball". The decision to go in was wrong, not the failure to follow through.
And Hillary did not merely fail the ask the right questions. The
questions were asked and the answers were given. Joe Biden, Robert Gates
and much of the military and intelligence communities advised against the
Libya intervention. Hillary just chose to ignore the advice, because she
is a radical neoconservative at heart.
Clinton continues to adhere to the neoconservative approach to foreign
policy. Her choice of words during the Brooklyn debate were significant.
She volunteered that that the United States should continue to "look
for missions" that NATO will support. That says it all. She vows
to go around looking for new military adventures.
Maureen is right that Hillary has huge character problems. Sure,
she can't admit mistakes and compulsively blames others when things go wrong.
That's a given. But it's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is
that she will take our country down the wrong path, both in terms of domestic
and foreign policy.
And please Maureen, stop denigrating Bernie Sanders with pejorative adjectives
and vague accusations. He has held elective office for 35 years, showing
leadership and good judgment and good values.
Brett Morris California,
She has had 40-some years to develop this kind of judgment, imagination
and long term reflection, and she has proudly, aggressively, mean-spiritedly
run the opposite direction every time and viciously attacked anyone who
called her on it. It's time to stop this game of "wondering" whether she
can change, wondering whether all of these terrible moments were "the real
Hillary" or not. They were. Voting someone in as President on the hope that
they will be a completely different person once in office then they have
been in 40 years is the definition of insanity.
That said, of course she is better than the republicans. But she is the
worst possible candidate for the Democratic Party, especially in this era
where we have a serious opportunity to turn away from Reagan's Overton Window.
And right now we actually have a candidate available who represents our
best ideas. Can't we just ditch her while we have the chance? If she gets
elected, more war is absolutely guaranteed. A one-term Presidency is also
highly likely, because nobody will be on her side. She loses trust and support
the more she exposes herself, every time.
Paul Long island
I agree when you say of Hillary Clinton, "She has shown an unwillingness
to be introspective and learn from her mistakes." That is only part of her
problem because her judgment seems always wrong, despite all the "listening
tours," whether it's about her paranoia about secrecy that made her
think she could get away with a private email server in one of the nation's
most high-profile jobs, or taking huge sums of money for Wall Street speeches
she now refuses to release, or doubling-down on her ill-considered, if not
ill-informed (as you note), hawkish regime change views by advocating for
it again in Libya that has, as a result, turned into an ISIS outpost.
To say she's "sorry" would only confirm her consistently bad judgment since
she has so much to be sorry about. So, what we have instead is a very "sorry"
candidate who, despite her resume and establishment backing, is having immense
trouble overcoming "a choleric 74-year-old democratic socialist" and will
have an even harder time if she's the Democratic nominee in November.
Rima Regas is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA
Hillary isn't sorry. Bill is definitely not sorry. Bernie Sanders isn't
a senator with few accomplishments.
Hillary isn't sorry about anything. She hasn't apologized for the superpredator
comment. Saying she wouldn't say it now is hardly an apology and during
Thursday's debate, she talked about her husband apologizing for it instead
of talking about herself (since that was what she was being asked to do),
when Bill has yet to apologize. (Clips here: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2bw) If
anything, he doubled down on defending her and himself. When it comes to
mass-incarceration, they both exhibit a kind of moral absenteeism. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2b7
On money in politics, Clinton did herself no favors in the debate,
drawing even more attention to her dependence on that money and the impossibility
of being completely free to make policy without repaying debts. Debbie
Wasserman Schultz was no help to her this week when in an answer, she included
big money in the "Big Tent" that the democratic party is supposed to be.
http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2bO
During his entire tenure in both houses of Congress, Sanders has distinguished
himself as one who can work with the other side, propose legislation gets
things done through amendments. There is a yuuuge difference in approach
between Clinton and Sanders and the willingness to trust Sanders over Clinton.
When the choice in front of Americans becomes Trump versus Clinton or Sanders,
Sanders wins by a wider margin. Sanders will take more from Trump.
Mark Thomason is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich
So Bill claimed Bernie supporters think, "Just shoot every third person
on Wall Street and everything will be fine."
They don't, but it is telling that Bill said that. His chosen exaggeration
displays who he sees as Hillary's side in this. When he says, "they are
coming for us" he means Wall Street.
"Clinton, who talked Obama into it" on Libya and claimed credit,
but when it went poorly, she blamed Obama for listening to her, "On Libya,
she noted that "the decision was the president's.""
That is her claim to experience, and not something we ought to vote to
experience again.
That is important, because she still wants to sink us deeper into it.
Her own adviser on this says, Hillary "does not see the Libya intervention
as a failure, but as a work in progress."
"Like other decisions, it was put through a political filter and a paranoid
mind-set." That is the essence of what makes Hillary so dangerous in a responsible
office. From Iraq in the beginning to Libya now, the homework lady did all
her work and then saw the wrong things and got it wrong.
Joe Pike Gotham City
Hillary is a self-serving, power hungry politician. She is only ever
sorry if she fails to get what she wants, or is forced to explain her actions.
She feels she is above "the masses." As for her qualifications, job titles
alone don't cut it. What did she actually accomplish as a Senator or SecState?
Any major laws? Treaties? No. She failed with Russia, Syria and Libya to
name just a few. She is not qualified to be president based on qualifications
and personality.
"... True. I attribute it all to deep-seated self loathing. Somewhere deep down the vestigal organ known as the "conscience" is paying attention. ..."
"... was taken as evidence in his own mind ..."
"... Liberals believe in addressing every issue within a socio-economic context (Crime, Terrorism, …) Except racism. That issue is context free ..."
"... Kids just feel and act, unconditioned. ..."
"... They are pure and genuine. They are not cheaters. Kids are our masters, we must learn from them. We should be more like kids. ..."
"... Today we can learn from them, just watch these kids in action. ..."
"... I was a-falling 'till you put on the brakes ..."
"... "I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will lead to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine private sector confidence" Neel Kashkari ..."
"... "In the minds of many, soil is simply dirt, but without it we would all cease to exist. Unlike the water we drink and the air we breathe, soil is not protected in the EU and its quality is getting worse" ..."
"Basket of deplorables," how pithy a metaphor for placing your detractors
in a container from which their voices and needs can be discounted. Clinton
gives us a great turn of phrase with which we can contemplate her inclination
to strip the prerogatives of citizenship – such as the inclination not to select
her at the ballot – from her detractors.
Agamben's thesis is that western constitutional democracies inevitably turn
to the state of exception and strip citizenship from their peoples on the way.
We have been at it a long time in America. The delightful new twist is contemplating
the election of a candidate who tells us that not being a card carrying identity
politics connected elitist, or sycophant of, will get you relegated to the ranks
of homo sacer – the bare human. And oh yes, the Secretary is inclined to be
the decider. There is no functional distinction between the nightmares these
candidates represent.
Re: Charles Blow, "if the basket fits…"
_____________
Blow makes it official: this is the Best Election Ever for Team Blue.
First they get to bring their "kick-the-left" game up to the next level
with the mugging of the Sanders campaign. Then they (finally!) get to copulate
in public with their neo-con friends-with-benefits. And now, as Blow demonstrates,
they are at last free to spew their hate against the ignorant chumps in
flyover: all the bile they have piled up but just couldn't articulate because
you gotta be PC ("impolitic" dixit Blow).
Read the comments on the NYT articles or in other liberal goodthink rags:
HRC was just articulating what the entire Acela bubble wanted to say but
was too tactful. Listen to HRC making the actual comments: there were no
boos or gasps, just laughter (sadly showing how part of the LGBT movement
has become appallingly intolerant: a vast cry from the movement's origins).
Blow is just one voice in a blue chorus singing battlesongs against the
poor and the left. A very clarifying election indeed.
> "Wells Fargo Exec Who Headed Phony Accounts Unit Collected $125 Million"
[Fortune]. I think it's very important that a woman –Carrie Tolstedt - shattered
the glass ceiling for accounting control fraud.
When the story first broke a few days ago, I knew right away (as in,
before even finishing reading the headline) that this was another accounting
control fraud. It's really sad that NC is the only place where the term
"control fraud" is used in connection with this scandal.
I was entertaining a variation of that very idea. Some honest to God
disgruntled and disappointed Justice Fighter from the FBI goes rogue, righting
Comey's wrong, with the Russian Conspiracy twist(polonium) thrown in for
ironic flair.
The only positive thing to happen during this election season is
the death of mainstream media. With their insufferable propaganda fully
exposed, there is no coming back.
I have a bleaker view of human cognition, and so disagree. It must be
noted that in the past couple weeks, an NC commenter honestly felt he needed
to inform me of my own country of origin, because in his mind this was something
that I clearly needed to be schooled about. Yes, the fact that I disagreed
with his narrative was taken as evidence in his own mind that he
needed to school me - to teach me where I'm from, and teach me how my friends
and family died. A clearer example of basic cognitive failure would be hard
to come by.
Yet, as 20th century world history shows very clearly, when a culture
shifts in that direction, such self-certain lunacy just becomes the new
order of the day. It becomes the style.
It seems that many of my previous NC comments mention Robert Jay Lifton's
books, and, well, can't avoid doing it again. Critics of his analyses fault
them for being "unfalsifiable," etc, but I counter by saying that they were
offered in a totally different spirit as a summary of his painstaking observations
rather than a cognitive theory.
If there's any hope of digging out of the cultural hole in the near term,
I'd say that'd be the place to start.
""Wells Fargo Exec Who Headed Phony Accounts Unit Collected $125 Million"
[Fortune]. I think it's very important that a woman –Carrie Tolstedt - shattered
the glass ceiling for accounting control fraud."
See? We're living in a post racist, sexist world. Now it's not only white
men who can eff over everyone else, African-Americans and women can join
that elite club of amoral people. And get rich doing it!
Liberals believe in addressing every issue within a socio-economic
context (Crime, Terrorism, …)
Except racism. That issue is context free
Maybe it is just me but I disagree vehemently with this sentiment.
The reasoning is fairly simple: these issues that are used to divide
us (racism, sexism, religion, economics) are made much stronger when the
economy is the weakest.
If you need proof look to the great industrial states of the Midwest
with their racist (now, never before) governments: Michigan, Wisconsin,
Ohio, and even Rauner in Illinois. These political beliefs would never gain
traction when the economies were going great. Working people have taken
the brunt of the globalization bullshit and the endless contempt of "Clinton
Liberals" everywhere (apparently)
Economic hardship is an amplifier of racism. This is what the limousine
liberals never seem to understand. For them is it much more satisfying to
demonstrate their moral superiority through contempt for the deplorables.
2 days ago i went to a local park just to swing and to be honest, cry…
where no one would be put out. took about a minute for a toddler to bring
me a tiny flower…i didn't even know she was near. at first i was embarrassed
but then realized her heart will grow thru endearing gestures. i smiled
and asked her if she could show me how to swing as high as she does. hope
yall get a rise out of kids. they can be near at the strangest moment…when
we let them.
Given that we're all becoming resigned to having a horrible president
yet again I'm taking a surprising delight in the proliferating Clinton conspiracy
theories after her collapse Sunday (the body double, the catheter, etc.).
I hadn't seen this one before and thought I would share with the group –
that Chelsea's 10M condo (where Hillary was taken), at
The Whitman at 21 E. 26th St. in the NY – is supposedly (I have no idea)
the same building as has listed "
Metrocare Home Services "
The conspiracy theory is that Hillary has her own private hospital in
the same building, which going to "Chelsea's apartment" is cover for.
I'm sure it's not true but, like all the others, it'd be pretty funny
if it was and I'm sure the Clinton team would have zero compunction about
the deception involved.
It is amazing what one can come up with when one absolutely does not
trust another. Let me say, first of all, that Hillary allowing herself to
go out on a hot day in the middle of a large crowd after working like a
"demon" (!!!) is not the best political move. It is like sticking one's
head into the jaws of the conspiracy theorists and saying bite down hard.
But, if, perhaps Clinton is not soooo politically inept, which, Lord
knows, she gives every evidence of being, here is an alternative perspective
I cooked up with a little appetizer. . .
First item..The Clintons tell Loretta Lynch they want to keep her on
at DOJ. But that will be hard to do if she is the face of not filing charges
against Hillary. Let's do an impromptu meeting (Bill and Loretta Lynch)
on airplane, then put it out in marquis letters so the conspiracy theorists
run with it. Loretta Lynch honorably steps down, gets to keep her job if
Hillary is elected.
From this line of thinking, conspiratorial as it also well is, Hillary
is expected to clobber Donald Trump in the debates. Politically speaking,
she has set for herself a very high bar, being so qualified and all. Let's
use this illness thing, cook up a minor illness and Hillary faints at the
9/11 memorial. The conspiracy theorists run away with it, she is on death's
door, yadayada. Some upside is that she will engender some sympathy.
Two weeks later at Hofstra, bar much lower, she comes back as robust
as can be, bar set much , much lower. Headlines read "Clinton Comes Back
Swinging" and "Clinton Alive and Well at Hofstra".
In the movie "Being There", the super rich guy played by Melvyn Douglas
has a mini hospital in his home. Maybe that's standard operating procedure
for the oligarchs!
And one door away from the emergency chute that empties in the sub basement,
where a disused subway tunnel has been refurbished to whisk away any particularly
privacy-oriented presidential candidate, safe from prying eyes.
The whole building seems to have been the admin. headquarters for an
outfit called Metrocare Home Services before it was refitted as a swanky,
4-unit residential building. Amusing, but no "there" there.
Besides, she or anyone else with dough can have an ostentatiously well-appointed
sickroom within the apartment, regardless of previous or present tenants
of the building. And a home health care business wouldn't make a particularly
useful front to stockpile advanced treatments etc. for what ails her. They
tend not to keep much inventory, in my limited experience.
Had my catalytic converter stolen by thieves with battery operated sawsall's.
They are under the car
and out in two minutes. Locally they get $40.00-50.00 for them. Cost to
replace…Dealer $2,200.00,
local guy you know $1200.00 .
Police report in my area from two weeks ago said 12 were stolen in one
night's rampage.
Car broken into, rummaged thru, change stolen from center console.
Money stolen = About four bucks
Damage to car = Shattered window, prybar damage to "A" pillar and window
seals, when they tried to pry the window open = $1500.
Damage/theft ratio = 375 to 1
But according to this morning's post, they were probably tearing up my
s##t because they were hungry, so I guess I should blame myself for only
paying half my income in various taxes.
That statement is wrong on numerous levels, number one of which is that
while an employer may withhold earnings of a W-2 employee for the purpose
of paying income taxes, it is the employee that pays those taxes. Until
a return is filed and processed, the withheld amount is a deposit made on
the employee's behalf. The amount of the deposit is based on the gross wages
of the employee. If the tax rate drops, also would the deposit, and ultimately
the tax. But the amount of gross wages are unaffected.
Also, last I checked, employers generally don't pay sales or property
taxes for employees on non-employment related purchases.
Oh good God, over 40% of the population gets their payroll taxes back.
Yes, it sucks that they are taken out to begin with, particularly when
there are definitely pay periods when the 50 bucks could be utilized to
pay a co pay or buy things that one needs.
Additionally, if you are paying property taxes to begin with you're one
up on much of the population, it means you have a house or a car. You've
made a conscious choice to own things. The streets your car and house are
located on aren't free. The schools in your communities aren't no cost.
I'm so over people whining about paying taxes.
My comment strictly relates to the erroneous characterizations of the
responsibility for paying taxes and the effect of a tax reduction on gross
wages asserted by Robert Hahl.
I did not intend to address the amount thereof, justification for, nor
the proper amount of self-righteousness a taxpayer may exude for paying
said taxes.
I probably should have just called BS on his claim that he pays 50% in
taxes or called him on his lack of empathy for those that actually go hungry(many
of which are CHILDREN.)
My first instinct to tell those fortunate enough to have to pay is to
tell them to go ahead and "spite" the system by getting that job at BK so
they can live the "good life" on minimum wage and then they too can not
pay taxes….of course, they'll also forgo retirement accounts, vacation days,
owning a home, struggle with owning a car and the costs associated with
it, etc, etc but hey, they won't be paying 50% in taxes.
Personally, I am profoundly grateful that our family pays a percentage
in taxes(not 50% but above Mitt Romney.) It means we can afford a car, a
house and we have a decent income. It means I can afford that DVD that I
pay sales tax on. All in all it means our family is accumulating wealth.
Anyway, I should have directed this at the OP, not you.
Pretty sure my federal taxes go to defense contractors to make war. My
state and local taxes cover what doesn't come from the feds anymore cause
they're too busy spending on war. That's why I complain.
They go organizations that work on roads, they go to organizations that
make sure you have clean water, organizations that make sure your kids don't
eat lead, organizations that make sure you aren't eating food filled with
e coli- Don't go to the states to help pay for schools or other local programs
not covered by your local or state taxes.
Don't get me wrong, way too much money goes to war. On that we are in
absolute agreement however, be angry instead that our government has so
much potential to do so much more than destroy with that money. Our government
could be doing more for things like schooling or health care and it would
be a way better use of the monies we pay.
I think the right and left agree that the government is failing us. Where
we disagree is on what to do about it. The right thinks that things will
be better if the government gets smaller and gets out of the way. I tend
to disagree. It needs good leaders that believe in accountability and have
vision. It needs people to right size it, not downsize it and people that
negotiate in good faith with the private sector, not roll over for it.
A government is only as good as it's leadership and right now we've got
some pretty questionable leadership.
I would dearly love to know how to get it all back every year, having
spent my entire life under 30k and paying (aggregate) about 20% per anum.
What really gets me is listening to co-workers go on about how people go
on welfare because the gov't gives them so much money.
All my experiences with those on welfare is it's a pretty miserable experience.
After my stepfather died, my mom had to get help financially for her 3 minor
children. They means tested everything, she couldn't even own a car for
more than something ridiculous like $3000.
I also know someone who turned down work because actually working hours
she did not know would be guaranteed the next month would have cut her food
stamps the following month.
It seems positively contradictory to me to set up a system that encourages
reliance forever because you are continually threatening the safety net
of a person the minute they get a tiny bit ahead.
Personally, I'd love to see the government start doing what it does for
the very rich and allowing or helping people to put assets away in an "emergency
account(up to $5,000)." Instead it's only the really rich and middle class
who get to put money away tax free for retirement(401ks, hsas, IRAs) schools
for their kids, health care, etc, etc. All of this money is meant for long
term savings which for someone on the bottom of the income ladder is something
they can't do because they're too worried about having access to money when
that crappy $3000 car breaks down.
It's a stupid, crazy system and I know we could be doing better.
I am told that the tattoo approval test is a generational thing…if you're
old, you are not likely to have one or know a friend who has one (most of
time…many wonderful older people – in this country or many other countries
– have them).
Then you have theft of theft, that is, theft of property.
Property theft is under reported, it feels to me (based on my personal
experience and talking with neighbors around here…do i live in a bad neighborhood?).
Going from memory here, but I seem to recall reading in a car magazine
- late 60s, early 70s - that master thieves in NYC could drop a 4-speed
transmission from a curb-parked Corvette in 8 minutes flat.
Dropping a trans is not a trivial task.
Now butchers with sawzalls can swipe a cat converter in 2 minutes, with
two quick, crude cuts through a thinwall exhaust pipe.
Just goes to show how skills have declined. :-(
I was a butcher cutting up meat
My hands were bloody, I'm dying on my feet
I was a surgeon 'till I start to shake
I was a-falling 'till you put on the brakes
"I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending
by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will
lead to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine
private sector confidence" Neel Kashkari
I am surprised you didn't comment on this, Lambert. The federal deficit
is just a number. Kashkari's argument that increasing the deficit implies
future higher taxes is bunk – displaying a lack in understanding monetary
theory. I admit to only a cursory understanding, but the real purpose of
income taxes is to slow the flow of money through the economy to reduce
inflationary pressures. Federal infrastructure spending would boost the
lagging economy, with virtually no downside. There is absolutely no need
to pay-down the debt. I would be more comfortable with Kashkari as the treasurer
of my local PTA than a regional Federal Reserve Bank president. Can't we
do better?
Kashkari's argument that increasing the deficit implies future higher
taxes is bunk – displaying a lack in understanding monetary theory.
Kashkari, as a big banker, would presumably be the recipient of those
higher taxes, since he would presumably be part of those financing said
deficit. He's talking business, not monetary theory. It's the flexian way
to presume that managers are there to be served.
Can either cut taxes, boost spending, or raise interest rates to suppress
inflation.
Taxing citizens give value to the currency and thereby makes them willing
to sell their goods and services to gov to obtain sufficient taxes to pay
tax.
So gov levies a tax to obtain goods and services, not dollars that have
no value to the entity that creates them.
She argued in part that, thanks to its new tools of forward guidance
and long-term asset purchases, the Fed would be able to offset the next
recession, even if interest rates eventually stabilized at historically
low levels.
…
Yet] two years into this hypothetical recession, the Fed would be refusing
to provide more accommodation, even though the unemployment rate would
be above 9 percent and it would be expecting the inflation rate to be
falling further below its target for another three years.
But I wonder why the good econo-doctor has only got religion now that
he is off the Fed.
Southern California Gas Co. agreed to a $4-million settlement Tuesday
to end a criminal case filed by Los Angeles County prosecutors over
the utility's handling of the massive gas leak near Porter Ranch last
year.
The gas company pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor count of failing
to immediately notify the California Office of Emergency Services and
Los Angeles County Fire Department of the leak that began on or around
Oct. 23, 2015, in the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage field. The utility
will pay the maximum fine of $75,000 for that three-day delay, according
to the L.A. County district attorney's office.
The gas company will pay $232,500 in state penalties on top of that
fine and $246,672 for the fire department's response to the leak.
Three other misdemeanor counts will be dismissed when the utility
is sentenced on Nov. 29.
End of story. Literally.
This is believed to be one of the largest releases in human history of
the most powerful green house gas.
another confusing plantidote. Is the plantidoe the yellow flower or is
it the green thingies by the rocks?
I suppose it's up to the viewer to decide. Which seems like a lot of
work. Some crackpot might choose the rocks themselves and then argue that
there's microscopic plants on the rocks and that's what they mean. if you
can't see them, that's your problem. The world is like that, crackpots pointing
at things only they can see and blaming you for not seeing them. Then kicking
your ass if they can.
Things should be obvous. And they are obvious, if you know what's what.
Then you don't need to kick people's ass unless they really deserve it.
mostly you just lay around waiting for people to see the things you see,
knowing that they would if they could. That's a lot different than blaming
them and kicking their ass. That's a lot of work - to kick someone's ass.
What a pain. Work is to be avoided if at all possible. That should be obvious
to everybody
Thank you for keeping the spotlight focused on efforts of the TBTF banks
and transnational corporations to gain passage of the TPP, TTIP and TiSA,
Lambert. Appears their lobbyists and the Obama administration have a full-court
press underway on members of Congress now. One can only guess at what is
being offered our congressional representatives for their vote during the
lame duck session after the November election in exchange for trading away
our national sovereignty.
"……..Doctors get continuing medical education (CME) through events like
lectures and conferences. CME is necessary because many physicians practise
for 30 or 40 years, and medicine is changing continuously, so they cannot
rely on their medical school training, which might have happened in the
1960s. Doctors are required to get a certain number of hours of CME every
year. You might imagine that doctors learn from unbiased experts dedicated
to learning. Actually, nothing is further from the truth. The dirty little
secret is that virtually all CME is sponsored heavily by Big Pharma giving
them huge influence over what information is presented to doctors.
Every single level of CME has been corrupted by $$$. Let's start at the
bottom.
In virtually every hospital in North America, there are lectures called
'rounds'. They happen in every specialty and almost every single day, mostly
at lunchtime. What a great idea. Doctors would spend lunchtime teaching
each other the intricacies of their specialty. Sorry, no. Most doctors don't
prepare a full hours worth of lecture topic. Most are too busy to spend
an hour listening a the lecture anyway. So, the friendly drug rep from Big
Pharma helpfully gets lunch for everybody. Free lunch! That helps bring
in the audience, but it doesn't help the fact that they still need a speaker………"
This probably explains, IMO, the pickle that HRC finds herself in
It isn't about her health, it's about her judgment. It's about the apparent
decision not to disclose the pneumonia diagnosis until they were forced
to – and even then, they tried three other "explanations" before – hours
later – they announced that fully 48 hours earlier, she had been diagnosed
with pneumonia. First, she wasn't feeling well. Then she became overheated.
Then she was dehydrated. It wasn't until some time after her reappearance
on the street looking fine and dandy that they disclosed the pneumonia.
Do you see the pattern? It's the same one we saw with the e-mails. We're
seeing it with the Clinton Foundation. This is a woman who doesn't seem
to feel any obligation or accept any responsibility for playing by the rules,
for following the protocols.
And she has the nerve to blame the right-wing conspiracy that's out to
get her when in reality she creates much of the controversy all by herself.
I don't frankly care if she has or had pneumonia or her toenail fungus
was acting up, but what she has once again managed to do is make it impossible
for people to believe whichever story qualifies as the latest, and if anything
she said before then has even a shred of truth in it.
What I fear, and what I do think would be a concern, is if the pneumonia
diagnosis is a giant head-fake designed to cover up that she may be experiencing
some neurological problems, perhaps related to the 2012 concussion (and
Lord only knows if that story was factual) that even her husband says took
her every bit of 6 months to recover from.
I get why she would want to hide anything even remotely like that, but
what she doesn't seem to understand is that she really has no right, as
a candidate for the highest office in the land, to hide it. Again, and again,
she allows her personal ambition to cloud her judgment; years and years
of important and wealthy people telling her she's one of the smartest people
in the room, paying to be in her presence, have convinced her she just knows
better than anyone. That she doesn't have to listen, that she has nothing
to learn.
And sometimes, she probably does, but she doesn't ever seem to be able
to know when she doesn't. That – the judgment problem – that's what she
has, and that's what matters here.
Oh, I absolutely agree with you she has a judgment problem, straight
down to ignoring good advice.
I just think it is interesting that the post I was commenting on seems
to be a jab at doctors and continuing education and
Pharma may be responsible for many things, Hillary Clinton's decision
not to follow her doctor's instructions on rest and fluid aren't one of
them though. They are in no way responsible for "the pickle that HRC finds
herself in." Hillary owns that.
The EU did have a Soil Framework Directive in the works for years but
it was eventually stymied by the UK, as
George Monbiot has pointed out . One of the good things about Brexit
is that it will undoubtedly improve the EU's capacity to bring forward more
environmental protect directives – the UK has always been one of the main
obstacles in this.
"I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending
by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will lead
to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine private sector
confidence" Neel Kashkari
"In the minds of many, soil is simply dirt, but without it we would
all cease to exist. Unlike the water we drink and the air we breathe, soil
is not protected in the EU and its quality is getting worse"
Primary Day in NH. I went about 6:45p, 15 minutes before the polls closed.
On my way out, I asked the nice ladies staffing the place if turnout had
been light. They said "Very" and made disappointed faces.
"... My money's on H Clinton suffering a "serious relapse" into pneumonia, necessitating an 'indefinite' postponement of the debates. ..."
"... Native what, Algonquin? As in, "Hillary" =..small pox infested blankets. ..."
"... like your idol, you never reply with a straight answer when engaged on your talking points. I think you owe us - all the American people - much, much more than that. ..."
"... It's obvious you missed the fact I was 'speaking' tongue-in-cheek when I commented, as I was referencing an earlier comment regarding Warfarin being used to eradicate rats. (That and the *wink* I'd added sailed right over your head, apparently). Hateful? Yes. I've grown to hate Clinton for her complete dishonesty. ..."
"... First she says she turned over all the emails, and then Oops! The FBI found thousands more. ..."
"... She said she didn't have classified info on her personal server. Oops! Proven to be a lie once again. ..."
"... In response she said she didn't know how to distinguish classified emails from others. Really?! Remember, she was a senior partner at a law firm before entering the White House as First Lady. ..."
"... I don't expect her to participate in the debates, even if she doesn't drop out. I think that is the plan all along unless she's really behind in the polls. ..."
"... Nixon increased food stamps, created the EPA, expanded Medicaid… Maybe we could resurrect him to have an option to the left of the Goldwater Girl. ..."
"... I've read that Nixon was for socialized medicine, but it wasn't good enough for Teddy Kennedy, who helped kill it. ..."
"... If Clinton is elected, one can only hope she follows the "good" NIxon model. but my fear is she will be an even more hawkish Obama, cynically saying one thing while doing another. ..."
"... The Democrats and moderate Republicans pushed Nixon to do things, but that countervailing force is gone now. ..."
"... He also nominated L. Powell, of the infamous "Powell memo" , to the SCOTUS…and while he(Nixon) might have publically postured and declared-"we're all keynesians now", the new deal was being hijacked (Hayeked) where it mattered. ..."
"... If Hillary really does have pneumonia - who knows, though, as the announcements and reporting have not necessarily been paragons of candor - it is serious. Pneumonia can turn fatal to old folks (68 is plenty old enough), sometimes when it seems to be under control. At the least, it can be debilitating for months. ..."
"... Something's fishy here. Whatever her problem really is I found it strange her handlers floated out the term, "pneumonia." Why use such a scary, ominous sounding word when something more benign, like a "mild respiratory ailment" would've sufficed just fine? ..."
"... Sounds like the beginning of "plausible deniability" exit possibilities have begun. ..."
"... Exactly, she should have been resting. IF she was diagnosed with pneumonia, she should have suspended activities for a few days. She is not President, there was nothing vital for her to do this weekend. Send delegates to the fundraisers, and offer a statement about 9/11. ..."
"... But instead she ends up having an episode that is clearly NOT pneumonia and there are at least two damning videos about it. Of course that means there is the other question: does she really have pneumonia or was that the least problematic excuse they could come up with? ..."
"... unfit to serve as president ..."
"... pre-9/11 memorial, one allegation floating in the conservative blogosphere was that Hillary Clinton wears a catheter given some odd bulges in some Clinton photos. ..."
"... Our real enemies aren't the rulers who act in their interest but the corporations, if we know a way by pure deceit to defeat them it might be more than worth it. But just getting tweedledee instead of tweddledum acting in their name not really. All we've done is pervert our own capacity to perceive reality for a non-plan. Our politicians already take advantage of our gullibility to believing whatever (Iraq had WMD etc.). ..."
"... That is not just pneumonia, she was having a seizure, something else that has been observed on video. Didn't they originally say this was dehydration? ..."
"... Epilepsy as a side effect of something tramatic versus Pneumonia. Fancy blue Zeiss lenses are sometimes used to treat epilepsy. Short-term, often predictable loss of motor control is common. An aide being close at all times, as in the person guiding her to the van, would be expected. ..."
"... Pneumonia does not produce motor issues but is often accompanied by powerful bouts of coughing. Pneumonia does not require an aide but generally involves lots of bed rest. It doesn't lead to rapid dehydration either. She was there for less than an hour. ..."
"... If they had planned better they would have said that Hillary had a bout of food poisoning. Instead it was the explained as the heat and then, Hillary showing no obvious symptoms, trying to imitate Typhoid Mary. I thought politicians were better at fibbing than this. ..."
"... [H]er visible symptoms are consistent with a severe and/or long untreated case of pneumonia ..."
"... However, the facts of the situation are not. As far as "severe" goes, according to her release, she was diagnosed on Friday, and given antibiotics. As anyone who has suffered bacterial respiratory infection knows, antibiotics will usually get you on the road to recovery pretty quickly. Combined with plenty of fluid intake, she should have been out of the woods, not hurtling towards a complete physical breakdown. Also, the prevailing message is that its's a "mild" case and that the real bugbear is dehydration. It stretches credulity to suggest a person with a team of handlers surrounding her at all times can't keep hydrated. ..."
"... "Undiagnosed?" Seriously? She is admittedly under the care and supervision of some ..."
"... As someone who has suffered from pneumonia three times in his life, the fact is that when I was at my sickest point in each battle (high fever, massive coughing, exhaustion), at no time did I become spastic. A person who loses complete motor function due to pneumonia needs to get rushed to a hospital, not her daughter's apartment. ..."
"... I agree with the pneumonia claim being dodgy. Does not add up to what happened on the tape. ..."
"... Has anyone commented on the two women who to appear to be nurses who are accompanying Clinton? ..."
"... PS the dropping metal thing looked like it might be a lipstick. ..."
"... One of the 'nurses' appears to be her personal doctor, Dr Lisa Bardack, who was named in the press release stating that Hillary has pneumonia. ..."
"... In these photos you can see Dr Bardack appearing to take her pulse as they walked and also appearing to test Hillary's motor skills by asking her to squeeze her fingers. Also notice when her pulse is being taken that Hillary puts her right hand flat on on her chest – she does this a lot – does she do it to hide/control a tremor? ..."
"... I remember back in the day laughing at the efforts of the old Soviet Union or North Korea trying to hide the health failures of their leaders… welcome to the club ..."
"... I wish Hillary well and hope she recovers from what ever ails her. However, watching the two videos prior to her entering the car, you can see she is leaning against the chrome pillar for support, her right shoulder is significantly lower than her left, then as she walks forward she can't control her head, her right foot goes completely backward and is dragging along the ground, then she collapses into the car. Perhaps a doctor can explain all this, but I have had pneumonia three times and never had these symptoms. ..."
"... I also wonder what the little metal vile or what not was that dropped from her pants or around her as she was falling. ..."
"... I've been privately comparing her Chappaqua MD to Michael Jackson's MD, in that ..."
"... Her medical report looked like it was written by Hillary's lawyers, ..."
"... She's been awfully amped at some of her events, which could be Adderall or other upper-ish drugs, which a conservative MD might be reluctant to prescribe regularly to someone of her age. But the idea of drug interactions is actually sorta obvious and should have occurred to me. ..."
"... Many 'celebrities' (esp. secretive ones) receive concierge medical care, which tends to be substandard. Maybe it's b/c of the secrecy, i dunno… but it tends to be lousy. ..."
"... extend that thought to all professional services. I get the impression that despite their wealth, many celebrities are awful bad at finding competent service providers. ..."
"... Indeed, when I volunteered at a treatment centre, a fair number of high-functioning chemically-dependent patients (C-level execs, senior clinicians, politicians) came in as - and this choice of words is intentional - victims of bespoke top-flight one-2-one primary care as provided by luxury outfits in London's Harley Street or "hospitals" ..."
"... What usually pushed the patients I saw over the edge - and gave the medicine-as-consumerism practitioners sufficient worry to finally throw in the towel - was an episode of physical collapse as both the doctors and their unfortunate charges fell off the tightropes they'd been walking. ..."
"... You'd expect someone at Hillary's level to have a top doctor at a NY teaching hospital but you can't keep secrets in places like that ..."
"... When it comes to VIP patients if anyone were to access their records you better have a reason. Those are the only patients where the officials take Hipaa seriously. Fired, fined and lose your license. Hope that gossip rag pays well. ..."
"... My reaction to that is why the hell didn't she step down at that time, at least for a while, if her memory was so compromised? If she was so affected by a concussion, she was obviously not well enough to be conducting business as SOS. ..."
"... Yet she uses that as an excuse now in relation to her total disregard for security concerns and that makes it all okay, regardless of the outcome created? ..."
"... Not just meds being out of wack. It could be drug abuse. As if any one would deny any thing she wanted. This would enplane why they felt it necessary to be less than forthcoming on the issue. ..."
"... I highly doubt it is pneumonia. What grandmother with a serious illness show up at her daughter's house with a not even 3 month old and a two year old? There's campaigning and then there's the family dynasty. I doubt even Hilary's ambitions would put herself ahead of her grandkids. Regardless, it is poor judgement and more fodder for Trump. ..."
"... If intentional "Here's a woman who cares more for herself then her child or grand children" ..."
"... If unintentional "Here's a woman who's judgement is so poor she puts her family at risk with a contagious disease. If she's that unthinking about her actions towards her family, what about America's families." ..."
"... Chelsea took one for the Team. Any detour to a hospital or other non-private space would have sparked untold media frenzies. Oh, wait… ..."
"... Ms Clinton and Mr Mezvinsky's apartment has six and a half bathrooms, a home office and den, plus a 252-square-foot planting terrace and a private storage unit. ..."
"... My guess is, though, that Chelsea's was the only place they could go that was close by and where they were guaranteed to be able to control the situation. Had she been taken to a hospital, there's no way any of what transpired would not have ended up being leaked. ..."
"... How many hands did Clinton shake between receiving her diagnosis and being on medication for 24 hours? ..."
"... Pretty sure I'm not the only one who's noticed that all the coughing Clinton does she does into her hand, not into her elbow, so she's pretty much a traveling Typhoid Mary. ..."
"... Yes, I suppose 6+ bathrooms would be required in the Clinton family. ..."
Hateful?! afisher, if we hate you, it is because, like your idol, you
never reply with a straight answer when engaged on your talking points.
I think you owe us - all the American people - much, much more than that.
afisher– It's obvious you missed the fact I was 'speaking' tongue-in-cheek when I
commented, as I was referencing an earlier comment regarding Warfarin being
used to eradicate rats. (That and the *wink* I'd added sailed right over
your head, apparently). Hateful? Yes. I've grown to hate Clinton for her complete dishonesty.
First she says she turned over all the emails, and then Oops! The FBI
found thousands more.
She said she didn't have classified info on her personal server.
Oops! Proven to be a lie once again.
In response she said she didn't know how to distinguish classified emails
from others.
Really?! Remember, she was a senior partner at a law firm before entering
the White House as First Lady.
As to my "ignorance"?
THAT I take exception to. Education does not come just from books or schooling.
"Hateful and ignorance"?
If you're still paying off that student loan for a college education, you
should demand your money back.
My mere h.s. education taught me better than that.
I don't expect her to participate in the debates, even if she doesn't
drop out. I think that is the plan all along unless she's really behind
in the polls.
"But on April 17, 1973, Nixon stunned reporters by saying that he had
conducted an investigation that raised the prospect of involvement by White
House officials."
"Mr. Ziegler told a puzzled press corps that this was now the "operative
statement," repeating the word operative six times. Finally, R. W. Apple
Jr. of The New York Times asked, "Would it be fair for us to infer, since
what the president said today is now considered the operative statement,
to quote you, that the other statement is no longer operative, that it is
now inoperative?" "
Now we need to recycle more Nixon people and have Dick Cheney endorse
HRC's health, perhaps by saying. "Many people thought my health was suspect
in 1999, but, through medical science, I've been able to continue to "serve"
my country until the present day." Maybe the Clinton campaign is reaching out to Cheney today..
And Nixon's politically inspired war on drugs did have rehab and treatment
as part of the plan, which was largely removed by subsequent administrations
who ramped up prison time.
I've read that Nixon was for socialized medicine, but it wasn't good
enough for Teddy Kennedy, who helped kill it. Sometimes cynical, self-serving people do good things when pushed, while
compromised "good" people do harmful things.
If Clinton is elected, one can only hope she follows the "good" NIxon
model. but my fear is she will be an even more hawkish Obama, cynically
saying one thing while doing another.
The Democrats and moderate Republicans pushed Nixon to do things, but
that countervailing force is gone now.
He also nominated L. Powell, of the infamous "Powell memo" , to the SCOTUS…and
while he(Nixon) might have publically postured and declared-"we're all keynesians
now", the new deal was being hijacked (Hayeked) where it mattered.
If Hillary really does have pneumonia - who knows, though, as the announcements
and reporting have not necessarily been paragons of candor - it is serious.
Pneumonia can turn fatal to old folks (68 is plenty old enough), sometimes
when it seems to be under control. At the least, it can be debilitating
for months.
As for her use of Coumadin it's been well-known and pretty widely reported
for years.
The media speculation about her health, though, is little more than the
usual political season bullshit. Believe nothing; it's all crap. No matter
who is purveying it.
I experienced pneumonia at age 39. I was given antibiotics and told to
go home and rest. The next week of my life was nothing short of a near death
experience and for a couple of months thereafter, I was in a physically
weak condition. If Hillary was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday, as the
AP has reported, her entourage would have had to not only carry her into
her car, they would have had to carry her out as well, and probably with
an IV still attached.
I don't know whether I've ever had pneumonia, but I've had both bacterial
bronchitis and type A influenza. My experiences were quite bad, although
not as severe as yours. In both cases, it took a month for me to fully recover.
When I had "walking" pneumonia, I could only pray for a cough as mild
and infrequent as hillary's seemed to be. Every time I had to cough, which
was constantly, I had to wrap my arms tightly around my ribs and squeeze
because otherwise the pain was unbearable.
Something's fishy here. Whatever her problem really is I found it strange
her handlers floated out the term, "pneumonia." Why use such a scary, ominous
sounding word when something more benign, like a "mild respiratory ailment"
would've sufficed just fine?
Sounds like the beginning of "plausible deniability" exit possibilities
have begun.
Exactly, she should have been resting. IF she was diagnosed with pneumonia,
she should have suspended activities for a few days. She is not President,
there was nothing vital for her to do this weekend. Send delegates to the
fundraisers, and offer a statement about 9/11.
There was no reason for her
to soldier on this weekend. Oh, but it would have fueled the rumors. No,
it would have done a lot to end the rumors. She gets up in front of the
press, and notes that they know she went to the doctor, she has developed
a mild case of pneumonia and as sad as it makes her to miss X, Y and Z she
is going to take the weekend to rest and allow the antibiotics to get started.
"I will be sending __________to this event, and Chelsea to represent me
at the 9/11 memorial" or something like that.
But instead she ends up having an episode that is clearly NOT pneumonia
and there are at least two damning videos about it. Of course that means
there is the other question: does she really have pneumonia or was that
the least problematic excuse they could come up with?
And if you find the speculation 'feverish' and "unpleasant" I suggest
you turn off the media, the news and the internet until you hear otherwise
because this is not going to go away, and even if it fades unless she starts
leaping up stairs, stops coughing and frankly never has a moment of confusion
on this campaign again it will start all over. Largely because most people
do not believe Hillary Clinton or her people about anything, and have no
reason to do so especially when their stories don't really add up.
But he delivered his lengthy inaugural address in a pouring March rain.
Hillary would at least have an umbrella. (Didn't Obama at one of his inaugurations?
Or have I mixed a remembered picture from some other occasion with memories
of an inauguration?)
Hillary is done. The video is absolutely damning and it was taken from
three angles. Metal objects were falling out of her pant leg. During her
big coughing spell, there was video of her vomiting mucus into a glass and
then drinking it. She's had her Dukakis moment and doesn't know it yet.
Obama has said Trump is unfit to serve as president and other
comments like:
"I continue to believe Mr. Trump will not be president," Obama said
at a news conference in California after a meeting with southeast Asian
leaders. "And the reason is that I have a lot of faith in the American
people. Being president is a serious job. It's not hosting a talk show,
or a reality show."
I used to think that right wing conspiracies about an Obama third term
were bullshit, through and through. But now I am concerned about a peaceful
transition in power. Will Obama give the reins to Trump? Will he put off
the election until there is a better result?
More importantly, will the American people be okay with that?
Could you post the links to those videos, I haven't seen the one with
the metal things falling out of her pants leg or the one with her drinking
vomit.
pre-9/11 memorial, one allegation floating in the conservative blogosphere
was that Hillary Clinton wears a catheter given some odd bulges in some
Clinton photos.
just repeating what I read…i'm in the camp that extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence.
unfortunately I doubt anyone will get Clinton to raise her pant legs
in public.
I had to wear one of those catheters for about a week after a procedure.
I had the smallest one available and there is no way the wrinkles in those
pictures accounts for the actual size of an empty bag, let alone one with
natural fluids. It's nonsense.
The mucus glass video is a total fake. Watch the source video, there
is clearly no green blob (though your source is a much better edit then
the one I saw on twitter).
As far as the fall, I have seen only two video with distinctly different
angles (main 45 degree angle and then one slightly off centered) and then
a third that is the same is the main video but mirrored laterally. I have
no idea why no one else points that out or why people are claiming it is
a third angle.
So let's give the old gal, who is no respecter of truth and decency herself
I would have to observe, a break, ok? Because we are such careful kindly
people who want to make sure of all the facts we think we have access to
before making any kind of statement or judgment about events. The Dem campaign,
the ants eating the aphids (see my little post below) being all about honesty
and issues and all that. Because "we" are "better than that," and so we
get our wings eaten off and milked of our sustenance and provide handy snack
food for the Foraminifera Rulers…
I am not advocating proving any breaks of excuses (if this is what you
mean). I am of the opinion that (in our dichotomous world) Trump is a poor
candidate, but that Clinton needs to go. That said, we need to
make sure the supporting material is real. I find the glob video highly
suspect, especially as the globes appear to disappear in translucent water
and glass as soon as the glass is brought down from her sip.
Well what do you imagine will happen if we decide not to be honest to
those who aren't honest. The resurrection of Bernie Sanders candidacy in
time for the election via our strategic lying or something?
Nah. So why not preserve an attempt at objectivity being we are going
to get screwed regardless.
Our real enemies aren't the rulers who act in
their interest but the corporations, if we know a way by pure deceit to
defeat them it might be more than worth it. But just getting tweedledee
instead of tweddledum acting in their name not really. All we've done is
pervert our own capacity to perceive reality for a non-plan. Our politicians
already take advantage of our gullibility to believing whatever (Iraq had
WMD etc.).
You're absolutely right about the mistakenly described "different" angle
that is actually a mirrored image, which I myself didn't catch either until
you mentioned it on my post of the video yesterday. (It's obvious of course
from the direction the van is facing, but the eye doesn't always catch the
"obvious.") The better angle from almost directly behind Clinton is harder
to find as a standalone video, and I haven't seen it posted as much. Here's
the best link I could find in a quick search.
She wasn't vomiting mucus, she lost – or deliberately spit out – the
cough drop she had put in her mouth earlier. I've done that myself, usually
out of fear of inadvertently inhaling the cough drop if I'm hit with a spell
of coughing.
That's my take as well, she was just trying to do it discretely.
Thing is, if we saw her occasionally spit a cough drop into a handkerchief
and then make a joke about all the talking she does, she might be seen as
more human and therefore likeable.
Epilepsy as a side effect of something tramatic versus Pneumonia. Fancy blue Zeiss lenses are sometimes used to treat epilepsy.
Short-term, often predictable loss of motor control is common.
An aide being close at all times, as in the person guiding her to the van,
would be expected.
Pneumonia does not produce motor issues but is often accompanied
by powerful bouts of coughing. Pneumonia does not require an aide but generally
involves lots of bed rest. It doesn't lead to rapid dehydration either.
She was there for less than an hour.
She didn't cough in the video and she couldn't stand on her own when
she moved from the post.
If they had planned better they would have said that Hillary had a bout
of food poisoning. Instead it was the explained as the heat and then, Hillary
showing no obvious symptoms, trying to imitate Typhoid Mary. I thought politicians
were better at fibbing than this.
These strange and erroneous notions about pneumonia and its effects are
spreading and they're pernicious. There's no way for us to be certain the reports of Hillary having pneumonia
are true or not, but her visible symptoms are consistent with a severe and/or
long untreated case of pneumonia, symptoms which can include shaking, dehydration,
feeling faint or passing out, high fever, "out of body" experience, severe
cough, and so on.
The people who are reporting their own experiences with pneumonia in
this thread can testify. I've been there too. I had a severe cough for weeks.
Motor problems seemed to hit from out of the blue. I passed out in a supermarket
line. When I finally got to the ER they hooked me up to an IV stat because
I was so dehydrated. I was in the hospital for eleven days on IV antibiotics
and fluids. And it was months before I recovered fully.
All of Hillary's visible symptoms are consistent with such a severe case
of pneumonia.
On the other hand, it could be something else or something else and pneumonia.
It's serious. And it could be deadly even if treated.
[H]er visible symptoms are consistent with a severe and/or long untreated
case of pneumonia
However, the facts of the situation are not. As far as "severe" goes, according to her release, she was diagnosed
on Friday, and given antibiotics. As anyone who has suffered bacterial respiratory
infection knows, antibiotics will usually get you on the road to recovery
pretty quickly. Combined with plenty of fluid intake, she should have been
out of the woods, not hurtling towards a complete physical breakdown. Also,
the prevailing message is that its's a "mild" case and that the real bugbear
is dehydration. It stretches credulity to suggest a person with a team of
handlers surrounding her at all times can't keep hydrated.
"Undiagnosed?" Seriously? She is admittedly under the care and supervision
of some medical staff. Pneumonia is fairly easy to spot if you're
examined. It's not like she's homeless or someone avoiding medical interaction
because of lack of insurance or funds.
As someone who has suffered from pneumonia three times in his life,
the fact is that when I was at my sickest point in each battle (high fever,
massive coughing, exhaustion), at no time did I become spastic. A person
who loses complete motor function due to pneumonia needs to get rushed to
a hospital, not her daughter's apartment.
While you caution against speculation, you actually engage in some pretty
tenuous, and I believe dangerous speculation in an attempt to lend credence
to what is obviously a poor, belated cover story.
You are way too optimistic re the curative powers of antibiotics. You've
got no idea how long she had it. And I've had much less serious infections
that have not responded well to meds. I'm as healthy as a horse yet I've
had multiple instances of it taking more than one course of antibiotics
to do much.
Having said that, I agree with the pneumonia claim being dodgy. Does
not add up to what happened on the tape.
Has anyone commented on the two women who to appear to be nurses
who are accompanying Clinton? They are in the video, both are
wearing identical navy blue dresses with short sleeves and both wear
flat beige colored shoes. They help Clinton into the vehicle.
I just wondered if it was standard procedure for medical personnel to
always travel with presidential candidates.
PS the dropping metal thing looked like it might be a lipstick.
One of the 'nurses' appears to be her personal doctor, Dr Lisa Bardack,
who was named in the press release stating that Hillary has pneumonia.
In these photos you can see Dr Bardack appearing to take her pulse
as they walked and also appearing to test Hillary's motor skills by asking
her to squeeze her fingers. Also notice when her pulse is being taken that
Hillary puts her right hand flat on on her chest – she does this a lot –
does she do it to hide/control a tremor?
It's also interesting that Dr Bardack just happened to be immediately
on hand when required – so it's not just a nurse but a doctor by her side
at all times now?
(Don't like using an obviously right wing website for the photos but
it's the best I can find at the moment).
I remember back in the day laughing at the efforts of the old Soviet
Union or North Korea trying to hide the health failures of their leaders…
welcome to the club … I wonder when the body double appears?!
I wish Hillary well and hope she recovers from what ever ails her.
However, watching the two videos prior to her entering the car, you can
see she is leaning against the chrome pillar for support, her right shoulder
is significantly lower than her left, then as she walks forward she can't
control her head, her right foot goes completely backward and is dragging
along the ground, then she collapses into the car. Perhaps a doctor can
explain all this, but I have had pneumonia three times and never had these
symptoms.
Even before she moves her head is shaky and cocked upwards. It doesn't
look good. I also wonder what the little metal vile or what not was that
dropped from her pants or around her as she was falling.
Oh, duh, I NEVER thought of that, that her meds could be what's messing
her up. I've been privately comparing her Chappaqua MD to Michael Jackson's
MD, in that
1. Her medical report looked like it was written by Hillary's lawyers,
2. You'd expect someone at Hillary's level to have a top doctor at a
NY teaching hospital but you can't keep secrets in places like that and
3. She's been awfully amped at some of her events, which could be
Adderall or other upper-ish drugs, which a conservative MD might be reluctant
to prescribe regularly to someone of her age. But the idea of drug interactions
is actually sorta obvious and should have occurred to me.
Many 'celebrities' (esp. secretive ones) receive concierge medical
care, which tends to be substandard. Maybe it's b/c of the secrecy, i dunno…
but it tends to be lousy.
"Many 'celebrities' (esp. secretive ones) receive concierge medical care,
which tends to be substandard."
extend that thought to all professional services. I get the impression
that despite their wealth, many celebrities are awful bad at finding competent
service providers.
Indeed, when I volunteered at a treatment centre, a fair number of high-functioning
chemically-dependent patients (C-level execs, senior clinicians, politicians)
came in as - and this choice of words is intentional - victims of bespoke
top-flight one-2-one primary care as provided by luxury outfits in London's
Harley Street or "hospitals" of the kind where a liveried footman helps
you from the limo at the entrance.
The drug regimes these places offered usually started with uppers or
downers to help, in the words of Philip Marlow, with the occasional "humps"
in the road; except of course, eventually it was all humps.
Then came the polypharmacy in often ever more bizarre and scarcely feasible
doses and combinations.
What usually pushed the patients I saw over the edge - and gave the medicine-as-consumerism
practitioners sufficient worry to finally throw in the towel - was an episode
of physical collapse as both the doctors and their unfortunate charges fell
off the tightropes they'd been walking.
When it comes to VIP patients if anyone were to access their records
you better have a reason. Those are the only patients where the officials
take Hipaa seriously. Fired, fined and lose your license. Hope that gossip
rag pays well.
Yves, I hadn't thought of that either. Good point offered by ambrit.
Excuses don't cut it with me, however. The end result is still the same.
I'm still having a problem with her saying that she doesn't remember
certain 'security briefings' back in 2012 due to her concussion. WHAT?
My reaction to that is why the hell didn't she step down at that
time, at least for a while, if her memory was so compromised? If she was
so affected by a concussion, she was obviously not well enough to be conducting
business as SOS.
Yet she uses that as an excuse now in relation to her total disregard
for security concerns and that makes it all okay, regardless of the outcome
created?
I have the same feelings about any drugs she may be on or medical condition
she obviously has if she's not willing to reveal it. She is not currently
well enough to be elected POTUS. The excuse for her behavior doesn't change
the facts her health is obviously compromised in some way, as it was then,
and should disqualify her.
Which, of course, is why she and her team are trying to hide it.
It's 'her turn' no matter what, apparently.
Is she setting the stage for if/when she starts a war with Russia, so
she can then fly above the destruction on Air Force One and blame her poor
decision on her meds this time?
Not just meds being out of wack. It could be drug abuse. As if any
one would deny any thing she wanted. This would enplane why they felt it
necessary to be less than forthcoming on the issue.
But then there is that cage little thing called the lack of evidence.
I highly doubt it is pneumonia. What grandmother with a serious illness
show up at her daughter's house with a not even 3 month old and a two year
old? There's campaigning and then there's the family dynasty. I doubt even
Hilary's ambitions would put herself ahead of her grandkids. Regardless,
it is poor judgement and more fodder for Trump.
If intentional "Here's a woman who cares more for herself then her
child or grand children"
If unintentional "Here's a woman who's judgement is so poor she puts
her family at risk with a contagious disease. If she's that unthinking about
her actions towards her family, what about America's families."
Once you connect the 9/11 event with that head bobbing incident. She
has something serious going on with her health. Ironically, she may actually
be telling the truth when she says she can't remember things about the e-mail
server, if she has Parkinson's.
By Sunday, and assuming she started on the antibiotics on Friday, she
had at least 24 hours of medication on board. And assuming she was not running
a fever, she would not be considered to be contagious when she arrived at
her daughter's.
Also, let's remember that Chelsea's apartment is no cold-water flat;
it is a 5,000 sq. ft. space that cost $10 million.
Here's a link to some photos and more .
Ms Clinton and Mr Mezvinsky's apartment has six and a half bathrooms,
a home office and den, plus a 252-square-foot planting terrace and a
private storage unit.
The couple will also enjoy two dishwashers, two washer/dryers, his
and her maze-like closet spaces and commodes, as well as natural light
flooding the female dressing room – with double-sided vanity mirrors.
'Wives eyes light up when they see the closets,' said Ms Lazenby,
the daughter of James Bond actor George Lazenby.
'They smile and say they'll need more clothes to live here. Their
husbands just shake their heads.
'The long apartment, located at 21 East 26th St enables 'one spouse
to be fast asleep while the other has a huge dinner party. All on one
floor,' she added.
One person who toured the building, which was built in 1924 by luxury
textile manufacturer Clarence B. Whitman & Sons, joked that residents
of The Whitman will have a longer walk to their kitchen than many New
Yorkers have to the corner store.
So…my point is that in a space that large, there was little danger of
exposing the babies to anything contagious.
I'm sure they do, but with 24 hours of medication, and assuming no fever
(and assuming she even had pneumonia), she likely wasn't contagious anyway.
In fact, most day care facilities/homes and schools permit children to
return under those same guidelines.
My guess is, though, that Chelsea's was the only place they could go
that was close by and where they were guaranteed to be able to control the
situation. Had she been taken to a hospital, there's no way any of what
transpired would not have ended up being leaked.
How many hands did Clinton shake between receiving her diagnosis and
being on medication for 24 hours?
Pretty sure I'm not the only one who's noticed that all the coughing
Clinton does she does into her hand, not into her elbow, so she's pretty
much a traveling Typhoid Mary.
Sorry, but my head's still spinnin' over the "6 1/2 bathrooms", which
begs the question how full of 'it' must a couple with 2 small children be
that they require that many bathrooms?
I remain disgusted with the fact Hillary claimed they were 'broke' when
they left the WH, and only able to afford '2 houses, Chelsea's education,
and helping out relatives'.
Yes, I suppose 6+ bathrooms would be required in the Clinton family.
"Why Are The Media Objectively Pro-Trump?"
[Paul Krugman,
The New York Times
]. He's got a point. After
all, the press systematically suppressed stories
about Sanders, who would have been a stronger
opponent for Trump than Clinton.
At the end of the day, I have concluded that my
focus on Hillary as of late (vs. Trump) has as much
to with my disgust for the mainstream media as
anything else.
To see these organs, which have destroyed this
country by keeping the people uninformed for
decades, now rally around a sickly, corrupt,
oligarch coddling politician as the empire enters
the collapse stage is simply too much to stomach.
Although I'm still voting 3rd party, it's now become
obvious that if my sentiments are widely reflected
across the country, Donald Trump will win the
election handily. As I tweeted earlier today:
The only positive thing to happen during this
election season is the death of mainstream media.
With their insufferable propaganda fully exposed,
there is no coming back.
Another positive thing is the demise of the
Bush dynasty. And if Donald Trump pulls it off,
the Clinton dynasty. I can't decide with is
worse though I tend to detest the Clinton
dynasty more especially now the its present star
is mucking the place up.
Another positive thing is the demise of the
Bush dynasty. And if Donald Trump pulls it off,
the Clinton dynasty. I can't decide with is
worse though I tend to detest the Clinton
dynasty more especially now the its present star
is mucking the place up.
Speaking of losing credibility… here is a
real shocker via The Hill:
CBS News edited a video clip and
transcript to remove former President Bill
Clinton's comment during an interview that
Hillary Clinton, now the Democratic
presidential nominee, "frequently" fainted
in the past.
Bill Clinton sat down with CBS's Charlie
Rose on Monday to try to clear the air
around questions regarding his wife's health
after she collapsed while getting into a van
at a 9/11 memorial ceremony on Sunday.
"Well, if it is, then it's a mystery to
me and all of her doctors," Bill Clinton
said when Rose asked him if Hillary Clinton
was simply dehydrated or if the situation
was more serious. "Frequently - well, not
frequently, rarely, on more than one
occasion, over the last many, many years,
the same sort of thing's happened to her
when she got severely dehydrated, and she's
worked like a demon, as you know, as
secretary of State, as a senator and in the
year since."
But the "CBS Evening News" version cut
Clinton's use of "frequently" out. And a
review by The Hill of the official
transcript released by the network shows
that Clinton saying "Frequently - well, not
frequently," is omitted as well.
Their credibility has eroded constantly with
the rise of alternative methods of
communication…it's just the election cycle that
lays it bare, like rain washing away a bunch of
soil where roots have already died.
According to evolving campaign lore, Donald Trump's son called failed Republican
candidate John Kasich ahead of Trump's VP pick in July and told him he could
be "the most powerful vice president" ever-in charge of foreign policy, and
domestic too-if he agreed to come on board.
While Trump's people have
denied such a lavish entreaty ever occurred, it has become a powerful political
meme: the Republican nominee's lack of experience would force him to default
to others, particularly on the international front, which is a never-ending
series of flash points dotting Europe, Asia, and the Middle East like a child's
Lite Brite.
On the Democratic side there is no such concern-Hillary Clinton has plenty
of experience as a senator and secretary of state, and was a "two-for-one" first
lady who not only took part (unsuccessfully) in the domestic health-care debate,
but
passionately advocated (successfully) for the bombing campaigns in Bosnia
and Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
So what of Trump and Clinton's vice-presidential picks? For starters, they
are both hawkish.
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence was an apt pupil of Bush and Cheney during the neoconservative
years, voting for the Iraq War in 2002 and serving as one of David Petraeus's
cheerleaders in favor of the 2007 surge. He has since supported every intervention
his fellow Republicans did, even giving
early praise to Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration for the 2011
intervention in Libya.
On the other side, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine is as far from the Bernie Sanders
mold as they come: a centrist Democrat who supports a muscular, liberal-interventionist
foreign policy, and who has been pushing for greater intervention in Syria,
just like Hillary Clinton.
If veeps do matter-and as we saw with
Dick Cheney , in many ways they can, bigtime-the non-interventionists can
expect nothing but the status quo when it comes to war policy and the war machine
at home for the next four years. Under the right conditions, Pence would help
drag Trump to the right on war and defense, and Kaine would do nothing but bolster
Clinton's already hawkish views on a host of issues, including those involving
Syria, Russia, the Middle East, and China.
If anything, Pence could end up having more influence in the White House,
said Bonnie Kristian, a writer and
fellow at Defense
Priorities , in an interview with TAC . "With these two campaigns,
I would predict that Pence would have more of a chance of playing a bigger role
[in the presidency] than Tim Kaine does," she offered. Pence could bring to
bear a dozen years of experience as a pro-war congressman, including two years
on the foreign-affairs committee. "He's been a pretty typical Republican on
foreign policy and has a lot of neoconservative impulses. I don't think we could
expect anything different," she added.
For his part, Trump "has been all over the place" on foreign policy, she
said, and while his talk about restraint and Iraq being a failure appeals to
her and others who would like to see America's overseas operations scaled back,
his bench of close advisors is not encouraging.
Walid Phares ,
Gen. Michael Flynn ,
Chris Christie ,
Rudy Giuliani : along with Pence, all could fit like neat little pieces
into the Bush-administration puzzle circa 2003, and none has ever expressed
the same disregard for the Bush and Obama war policies as Trump has on the campaign
trail.
"On one hand, [Trump] has referred to the war in Iraq and regime change as
bad and nation-building as bad, but at the same time he has no ideological grounding,"
said Jack Hunter, politics editor at
Rare . If Trump leaves the policymaking up to others, including Pence, "that
doesn't bode well for those who think the last Republican administration was
too hawkish and did not exhibit restraint."
Pence,
Kristian reminds us , gave a speech just last year at the Conservative Political
Action Conference (CPAC) in which he called for a massive increase in military
spending. "It is imperative that conservatives again embrace America's role
as leader of the free world and the arsenal of democracy," Pence said, predicting
then that 2016 would be a "foreign-policy election."
"He embraces wholeheartedly a future in which America polices the world-forever-refusing
to reorient our foreign policy away from nation-building and toward restraint,
diplomacy and free trade to ensure U.S. security," Kristian wrote in
The Hill back when Pence accepted his place on the Trump ticket
in July. Since then, he has muted his support for Iraq (Trump has said Pence's
2003 vote doesn't matter, even calling it
"a mistake" ). Clearly the two men prefer to meet on the issue of Islamic
threats and the promise of "rebuilding the military," areas where they have
been equally enthusiastic.
Meanwhile, former Bernie Sanders supporters should be rather underwhelmed
with Kaine on national-security policy. On one hand,
writers rush to point out that Kaine split with President Obama and Hillary
Clinton just a few years ago, arguing the administration could not continue
to use the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to fight ISIS
in Iraq and Syria. He also proposed legislation with Sen. John McCain to
update the War Powers Act; the bill would have required the president to
consult with Congress when starting a war, and Congress to vote on any war within
seven days of military action. That would tighten the constitutional responsibilities
of both branches, the senators said in 2013.
On the War Powers Act, Kaine gets points with constitutionalists like University
of Texas law professor Steven Vladeck, who said Kaine's effort "recognizes,
as we all should, the broader problems with the War Powers Resolution as currently
written-and with the contemporary separation of war powers between Congress
and the executive branch." But on the issue of the AUMF, Vladeck and others
have not been so keen on Kaine.
Kaine has made
two proposals relating to the AUMF, and both would leave the door open to
extended overseas military combat operations-including air strikes, raids, and
assassinations-without a specific declaration of war. The first directs the
president to modify or repeal the 2001 AUMF "by September 2017"; the second,
authored with Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, keeps the 2001 AUMF but updates the
2002 AUMF used to attack Iraq to include ISIS.
A revised AUMF is likely to do precisely what the Bush administration
sought to do in the run-up to the Iraq War: codify a dangerous unilateral
theory of preemptive war, and provide a veneer of legality for an open-ended
conflict against an endlessly expanding list of targets.
While he might be applauded for trying to strengthen "the rule of law on
foreign policy," said Kristian, it's not clear he wants to do it "to scale back
these interventions." As a member of both the armed-services and foreign-relations
committees, he has already argued for greater intervention in Syria, calling
for "humanitarian zones"-which, like "no-fly zones" and "no-bombing zones,"
mean the U.S. better be ready to tangle with the Syrian president and Russia
as well as ISIS.
Plus, when Kaine was running for his Senate seat in 2011, and Obama-with
Clinton's urging-was in the midst of a coalition bombing campaign in Libya,
Kaine
was much more noncommittal when it came to the War Powers Act, saying Obama
had a "good rationale" for going in. When asked if he believed the War Powers
Act legally bound the president to get congressional approval to continue operations
there, he said, "I'm not a lawyer on that."
If anything, Kaine will serve as a reliable backup to a president who is
perfectly willing to use military force to promote "democracy" overseas. He
neither softens Clinton's edges on military and war, nor is necessary to sharpen
them. "Does Tim Kaine change [any dynamic]? I don't think so," said Hunter,
adding, "I can't imagine he is as hawkish as her on foreign policy-she is the
worst of the worst."
So when it comes to veep picks, the value is in the eye of the beholder.
"If you are a conservative and you don't think Trump is hawkish enough, you
will like it that Pence is there," notes Hunter. On the other hand, if you like
Trump's attitude on the messes overseas-preferring diplomacy over destruction,
as he said in his
speech Wednesday -Pence might make you think twice, added Kristian. "I'm
not sure Pence is going to further those inclinations, if indeed they do exist."
To make it more complicated, the American public is unsure how it wants to
proceed overseas anyway. While a majority favor airstrikes and sending in special-operations
groups to fight ISIS in Syria, only a minority want to insert combat troops
or even fund anti-Assad groups, according to an
August poll . A slim majority-52 percent-want to establish no-fly zones.
Yet only 31 percent want to to see a deal that would keep Bashar Assad in power.
A tall order for any White House.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance reporter.
"... If Donald Trump really is doing Presidential Campaign as performance art, it may turn out that his Doctor's letter about his awesome health is the most brilliant aspect of it. Call me wild and crazy but I'm beginning to think that item with its sheer obvious level of BS was a fairly brilliant parody of what we have seen and probably will see from Clinton. ..."
"... The Putin-did-it comments on that article are depressing and ..."
If Donald Trump really is doing Presidential
Campaign as performance art, it may turn out that his
Doctor's letter about his awesome health is the most
brilliant aspect of it. Call me wild and crazy but I'm
beginning to think that item with its sheer obvious
level of BS was a fairly brilliant parody of what we
have seen and probably will see from Clinton.
Of course, he isn't and that means it is just taking the BS to the nth degree
at least until we see the new Clinton release.
RE: poisoning - gee, who is next in line
behind Hillary? I mean, on the Dem side? This
whole "political season" is looking more like
something out of the Borgia era. And there is
no history of one part or another of the CIA
poisoning people like Fidel Castro or whatever,
and how many parts of the CIA and the other
bits of runaway Empire would like Clinton gone
so maybe they could slide a Biden into the slot…
"Questions for the presidential candidates on nuclear
terrorism, proliferation, weapons policy, and energy"
Can we first stop talking about nuclear terrorism like it's actually a thing?
If no terrorists managed to get the bomb during the deluge of corruption and
broken bureaucracy that was the collapse of the USSR (yes, NATO and Pentagon,
the Soviet Union also isn't a thing anymore), then none ever are.
No nuclear
country, be it Pakistan or anyone else, is dumb enough to hand over a nuke.
Can you imagine the witch hunt that would ensue if someone turned a city into
a mushroom cloud? Assuming WW3 didn't just start right then and there. No amount
of money would make the certain risk of getting caught worth it.
All that leaves is a dirty bomb, which is actually a whole lot of effort
for something that is no better than an infinitely easier fertilizer bomb.
If Hillary Clinton or any other Democratic nominee had to leave the race,
the DNC would need to gavel back into session and re-do the process all over
again. The DNC consists of more than 200 members, selected by Democrats in
all 50 states as well as the chairs and vice chairs of each state party.
Except this time, the average Joe rank-and-file Democrat would be shut out;
it is the DNC officials that were railed at throughout this year's campaign
who are afforded the power of finding a replacement.
Article
III, Section 1
, the clause that provides the DNC with that power, is
as straightforward as can be: "The Democratic National Committee shall have
general responsibility for the affairs of the Democratic Party between
National Conventions...This responsibility shall include...filling vacancies
in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President."
Now the idea that Hillary can beat Trump looks pretty questionable. Probably
corrupt honchos at DNC now realized that by sinking Sanders they sunk the Party.
Notable quotes:
"... "The people don't want a phony Democrat." – President Harry Truman, Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action, 1952 ..."
"... Totally 'liberating' these Truman quotes for FB electioneering. Corporate 'crapification' of both Republican and Democratic parties is complete, since the most authentic – like it or not – candidates in this election are not party members per usual (Trump and Sanders). Think we may already have our third party… the Up Yours party! ..."
"... Trump's support sure looks like a big middle finger salute to the party establishment more than anything else. ..."
"... You have forgotten the rules: when it is close to fifty fifty but Clinton has the advantage it is a clear victory for Clinton, when Sanders has the advantage it must be a tie! Especially for the Bezos Gazette and the Grey Lady's fish wrap. ..."
"... - Poll: Clinton would easily beat Trump How shameless is that? ..."
"... I mainly only listen to local NPR programs, the NPR classical/jazz station (local), and some of the weekend non-news shows. I avoid NPR Faux Nooz Lite like the plague. ..."
"... It's now owned by the corporations anyway. ..."
"... Post owner Jeff Bezos was rated "Worst boss in the world" by the ITUC (International Trade Union Confederation), ..."
"... Amazon was awarded a $16.5 million contract with the State Department the last year Clinton ran it. ..."
"... The lower and middle classes do all the work and the upper, leisure Class, live in the lap of luxury. The lower class does the manual work; the middle class does the administrative and managerial work and the upper, leisure, class live a life of luxury and leisure. ..."
"... Number one among the Nuremberg principles and charter of the United Nations: no aggressive war. So yes perhaps the MSM should be painting that little mustache on Hillary rather than Trump. Trump seems eager to build walls to keep the rest of the world out. By contrast the 20th century fascists were all militarists and big believers that "war is the health of the state." When the media go on and on about Trump as fascist it could be a case of what the psychologists call projection. ..."
"... That said, there has always been an authoritarian bully boy quality to the modern Republican party and Trump seems quite willing to appeal to it. But it was always there–the unfortunate result of our transition from republic to empire. Perhaps our bloated and far too powerful military establishment is to blame. Politicians are always in danger of temptation by this "ring of power." ..."
"... murdering people a central tenet of one's life? ..."
"... Reading through some of the specific polls that fivethirtyeight uses, it's interesting that some of them don't try to catch it. They outsource the demographic projection to some other group, for example, or they do things like saying landlines are close enough to a good approximation that they don't need to include cell phones. And something else about the polls, nearly all of them were conducted before the Democratic debate in Michigan, which seems kind of odd then to base any predictions off of them unless one assumes debates held in the very location of the election are irrelevant (which itself is interesting). ..."
"... Yeah, I think Clinton's general election pitch is pretty straightforward. She's the pragmatic Republican protecting us from Trumpomania. No Good Democrat would prefer Hitler over a Republican, after all! ..."
"... Banner ad from the HC campaign on my email site today "Stand with Hillary to fight Trump." ..."
Yesterday was one of those days when there was a settlement.
"It is a pity that Wall Street, with its ability to control all the wealth
of the nation and to hire the best law brains in the country, has not produced
some statesmen, some men who could see the dangers of bigness and of the
concentration of the control of wealth. Instead of working to meet the situation,
they are still employing the best law brains to serve greed and self-interest.
People can only stand so much and one of these days there will be a settlement."
– Senator Harry S. Truman, Congressional Record, 1937
"The people don't want a phony Democrat." – President Harry Truman,
Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic
Action, 1952
Totally 'liberating' these Truman quotes for FB electioneering. Corporate
'crapification' of both Republican and Democratic parties is complete, since
the most authentic – like it or not – candidates in this election are not
party members per usual (Trump and Sanders). Think we may already have our
third party… the Up Yours party!
You have forgotten the rules: when it is close to fifty fifty but
Clinton has the advantage it is a clear victory for Clinton, when Sanders
has the advantage it must be a tie! Especially for the Bezos Gazette and
the Grey Lady's fish wrap.
Here is similar grossly biased "reporting": On The Hill's home page today
there is an article link:
Poll: Clinton would easily beat Trump
Sanders also tops Trump in a hypothetical general election matchup.
From the article itself:
Democrat Hillary Clinton would defeat Republican presidential rival
Donald Trump by double digits in a hypothetical general election matchup,
according to a poll released Wednesday.
Clinton would edge out Trump by 13 points in a one-on-one
vote, 51 percent to 38 percent , in the latest NBC News/Wall
Street Journal survey.
Trump, the controversial GOP front-runner, would lose even more soundly
to Bernie Sanders should the Independent Vermont senator secure the
Democratic nomination.
Sanders bests Trump by 18 points, 55 to 37 percent.
Sanders picked up a surprise win over Clinton in Michigan on
Tuesday, though Clinton expanded her overall delegate lead.
I mainly only listen to local NPR programs, the NPR classical/jazz
station (local), and some of the weekend non-news shows. I avoid NPR Faux
Nooz Lite like the plague. A lot of their stenographers also work for
Fox (really). It's a pointless exercise in futility to waste my valuable
time and brain cells listen to Faux Nooz National Propaganda Radio.
NPR here in san diego said it was a win for hill because she got more delegates
when missippi and michigan are added together…
...Comments re sanders
not having congressional support are actually even more true with trump,
he will face considerable obstruction, while clinton will take the reins
from obama on the fly and drive the buggy full tilt down the road to neo
libbercon utopia
...Capitalism is essentially the same as every other social system since
the dawn of civilisation.
The lower and middle classes do all the work and the upper, leisure
Class, live in the lap of luxury. The lower class does the manual work;
the middle class does the administrative and managerial work and the upper,
leisure, class live a life of luxury and leisure.
The nature of the Leisure Class, to which the benefits of every system
accrue, was studied over 100 years ago.
"The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions",
by Thorstein Veblen.
(The Wikipedia entry gives a good insight. It was written a long time
ago but much of it is as true today as it was then. This is the source of
the term conspicuous consumption.)
We still have our leisure class in the UK, the Aristocracy, and they
have been doing very little for centuries.
The UK's aristocracy has seen social systems come and go, but they all
provide a life of luxury and leisure and with someone else doing all the
work.
Feudalism – exploit the masses through land ownership
Capitalism – exploit the masses through wealth (Capital)
Today this is done through the parasitic, rentier trickle up of Capitalism:
a) Those with excess capital invest it and collect interest, dividends
and rent.
b) Those with insufficient capital borrow money and pay interest and rent.
All this was much easier to see in Capitalism's earlier days.
Malthus and Ricardo never saw those at the bottom rising out of a bare
subsistence living. This was the way it had always been and always would
be, the benefits of the system only accrue to those at the top.
It was very obvious to Adam Smith:
"The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed
to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained
in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is
supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy
who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money.
But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords,
no usurers and no tax gatherers."
Like most classical economists he differentiated between "earned" and
"unearned" wealth and noted how the wealthy maintained themselves in idleness
and luxury via "unearned", rentier income from their land and capital.
We can no longer see the difference between the productive side of the
economy and the unproductive, parasitic, rentier side. This is probably
why inequality is rising so fast, the mechanisms by which the system looks
after those at the top are now hidden from us.
In the 19th Century things were still very obvious.
1) Those at the top were very wealthy
2) Those lower down lived in grinding poverty, paid just enough to keep
them alive to work with as little time off as possible.
3) Slavery
4) Child Labour
Immense wealth at the top with nothing trickling down, just like today.
This is what Capitalism maximized for profit looks like.
Labour costs are reduced to the absolute minimum to maximise profit.
The beginnings of regulation to deal with the wealthy UK businessman
seeking to maximise profit, the abolition of slavery and child labour.
The function of the system is still laid bare.
The lower class does the manual work; the middle class does the administrative
and managerial work and the upper, leisure, class live a life of luxury
and leisure.
The majority only got a larger slice of the pie through organised Labour
movements.
By the 1920s, mass production techniques had improved to such an extent
that relatively wealthy consumers were required to purchase all the output
the system could produce and extensive advertising was required to manufacture
demand for the chronic over-supply the Capitalist system could produce.
They knew that if wealth concentrated too much there would not be enough
demand.
Of course the Capitalists could never find it in themselves to raise
wages and it took the New Deal and Keynesian thinking to usher in the consumer
society.
In the 1950s, when Capitalism had healthy competition, it was essential
that the Capitalist system could demonstrate that it was better than the
competition.
The US was able to demonstrate the superior lifestyle it offered to its
average citizens.
Now the competition has gone, the US middle class is being wiped out.
The US is going third world, with just rich and poor and no middle class.
Raw Capitalism can only return Capitalism to its true state where there
is little demand and those at the bottom live a life of bare subsistence.
Capitalism is a very old system designed to maintain an upper, Leisure,
class. The mechanisms by which parasitic, rentier, "unearned", income are
obtained need to kept to an absolute minimum by whatever means necessary
(legislation, taxation, etc ..)
Michael Hudson's book "Killing the Host" illustrates these problems very
well.
When you realise the true nature of Capitalism, you know why some kind
of redistribution is necessary and strong progressive taxation is the only
way a consumer society can ever be kept functioning. The Capitalists never
seem to recognise that employees are the consumers that buy their products
and services and are very reluctant to raise wages to keep the whole system
going.
A good quote from John Kenneth Galbraith's book "The Affluent Society",
which in turn comes from Marx.
"The Marxian capitalist has infinite shrewdness and cunning on everything
except matters pertaining to his own ultimate survival. On these, he is
not subject to education. He continues wilfully and reliably down the path
to his own destruction"
Marx made some mistakes but he got quite a lot right.
Jeez, no one told me that global employees are the global consumers.
So as we all increase profits by cutting labour costs we are effectively
cutting our own throats.
You got it.
Number one among the Nuremberg principles and charter of the United
Nations: no aggressive war. So yes perhaps the MSM should be painting that
little mustache on Hillary rather than Trump. Trump seems eager to build
walls to keep the rest of the world out. By contrast the 20th century fascists
were all militarists and big believers that "war is the health of the state."
When the media go on and on about Trump as fascist it could be a case of
what the psychologists call projection.
That said, there has always been an authoritarian bully boy quality
to the modern Republican party and Trump seems quite willing to appeal to
it. But it was always there–the unfortunate result of our transition from
republic to empire. Perhaps our bloated and far too powerful military establishment
is to blame. Politicians are always in danger of temptation by this "ring
of power."
Really, this is one of Earth's oldest taboos, and yet it has become cool
to flaunt your not-caring-about it like that is some badge of honor, and
better qualifies you for office. How about if say kindness, and honesty,
and "first, do no harm," were exalted into the same high positions? Everything
would be flipped on its head, and in my opinion, we'd be a lot better for
it. It's not silly.
I was in the bag for Bernie from day one, but I like to look ahead and
see what I'm getting myself into. My own expectations of B. Obama were quite
low in 2008 but he managed to underperform them (while the Republicans came
through in grand style).
So what does a thoughtful person see ahead with a President Bernie? Can
we cast a clear eye? How does this play out?
I'm thinking of looking to possible comparisons to previous (J. Carter,
'76) and current (J. Corbyn across the pond, in progress) cases of, well,
political outsider from the left end up at the head of the table (and maybe
some similar qualities of temperament), and what happened then.
If memory serves (and please set me straight if it doesn't) Carter, always
something of a loner, had a hard time getting traction with Congress, as
well as considerably confusion and derision from the (nascent, burgeoning)
neo-con right that came after, and from within his own party, and the press.
I believe I see a similar overall pattern (again, correct me) for Corbyn,
only more so: press is skeptical to derisive, and Labor is still procession
what it all really means for them (how much of this is sheer denial of inevitable
transformation and how much is stubborn inertial durability is not clear
to me). Lessons here might serve not only to anticipate some obvious pitfalls,
but perhaps to sidestep (or even strategically use) some of them.
A Bernie presidency would represent a huge challenge for the Dem establishment,
not completely different from what the Republican party is going through
but with different specifics (and also a later start). Without a continuing
and active grassroots network (writing, marching, contributing, putting
up candidates, etc), I think Bernie would be dead in the water come 2017.
And accepting a largely negative reaction from business, how much will be
a unified front, and what kind of internecine squabbling could take place?
Can a post-presidential grassroots activist network flip Congress in
two years (it took the Tea Party 4-6)? I don't think Sanders has a second
term without significant success in his first? The stakes are even higher;
2020 is a census year, as in: redistricting time.
Also, the disenfranchised usually get hit the hardest when systems shift
gears (for example, loss of some good policies in the ACA rollout, not to
mention the website). Given a hostile business front that will try to punish
the vulnerable, what is the blowback on a $15 minimum wage.
Thoughts? Links? Take your time, no rush (yet). Lambert?
Reading through some of the specific polls that fivethirtyeight uses,
it's interesting that some of them don't try to catch it. They outsource
the demographic projection to some other group, for example, or they do
things like saying landlines are close enough to a good approximation that
they don't need to include cell phones. And something else about the polls,
nearly all of them were conducted before the Democratic debate in Michigan,
which seems kind of odd then to base any predictions off of them unless
one assumes debates held in the very location of the election are irrelevant
(which itself is interesting).
For example, to pick on the YouGov poll that underestimated younger voter
support for Sanders. It was conducted a week ago, and the poll found that
1/3 of Dem primary voters had not firmly decided on their candidate at that
time. YouGov also included a sample that was 30% for those under 45, whereas
exit polling from CNN suggests actual turnout for those under 45 was more
like 45%. And it gave a 32 point advantage to Sanders in the under 30 crowd,
whereas CNN's exit poll suggested an actual spread of more like 62 points.
When things go as expected, the various assumptions and simplifications
hold. But that very bias makes it virtually impossible to predict discontinuous
change, since by definition, that is assumed away by the modeling.
But isn't the takeaway there that she lost the independents in large
numbers? How does she win a general election without young voters and independents?
My guess is she would pivot in her usual clumsy manner away from the more
left-leaning positions she's been pushed to take, and go back to her comfort
zone as a center-right Rockefeller-style Republican with a (D) after her
name.
I am less concerned that she is screwed than that the Dem establishment
would rather screw us all over in order to protect their comfortable positions
in the power structure.
Yeah, I think Clinton's general election pitch is pretty straightforward.
She's the pragmatic Republican protecting us from Trumpomania. No Good Democrat
would prefer Hitler over a Republican, after all!
Independents have been breaking hard for Sanders (not just in Michigan).
In CNN's exit polling, for example, in SC – a state Clinton won by a huge
margin – Sanders still actually won voters under 30 (by 8 points) and Independents
(by 7 points). Go to a state that was competitive, like Massachusetts, and
it's a 30 point spread for voters under 30 and a 33 point spread on Independents.
CNN didn't even do exit polling in places like Minnesota and Kansas. In
Oklahoma, Sanders won under 30 voters by 65 points and Independents by 48.
Neocons like Nicholas Kristof support Hillar y, no question about it. But that
does not make her less disonest. Actually that makes her more "dishonest/liar/don't
trust her/poor character."
Notable quotes:
"... But Clinton's big challenge is the trust issue: The share of voters who have negative feelings toward her has soared from 25 percent in early 2013 to 56 percent today, and a reason for that is that they distrust her. Only a bit more than one-third of American voters regard Clinton as "honest and trustworthy." ..."
"... Indeed, when Gallup asks Americans to say the first word that comes to mind when they hear "Hillary Clinton," the most common response can be summed up as "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character." Another common category is "criminal/crooked/thief/belongs in jail." ..."
"... Hillary isn't crooked. She is dishonest in the sense that she gets to power by any means she can, including doing a complete turn on long-held opinions or saying she's evolved but not changing the bits and pieces that go with that evolution. She is dishonest in the sense that she defends taking money from Wall Street but refuses to show what she took it for, while maintaining that she has never changed a decision as a result. The thing is, she's never been faced with having to vote against Wall Street in any significant way or make a decision that, potentially, Wall Street would view as negative. ..."
"... She is intellectually dishonest in that she adopts her opponents' positions in name only but refuses to adopt the planks that go along with it, all the while calling herself a progressive who gets things done. Hillary Clinton has always been a neoliberal Democrat. She and Bill Clinton redefined center right democrat during his tenure. There is nothing wrong with owning up to that political bent. There is everything wrong with pretending someone you are not, as evidenced by her favorability numbers. ..."
"... Dishonesty and the paranoid secrecy that goes with it are fundamental to her personality. That many American are not wrong in their widespread judgment of her character. That is something that juries and other such groups judge well. ..."
"... She has many specific instances of dishonesty. She was not shot at in Bosnia for example. Her sneaky dishonest attacks on Bernie were accompanied by sly smiles when she did them, pleased with herself for laying out a considered and prepared lie. ..."
"... To support Hillary, you must believe receiving hundreds of millions from special interests (speaking fees, the foundation & campaign) does not make you beholden to those special interests. Democrats used to claim money given to politicians had a corrupting influence, but now with Hillary the chosen one, Democrats require a showing of quid pro corruption. ..."
"... Her foreign policy experience--it should scare us all. She voted for the Iraq war before politically being required to apologize for it. As Sec. of State, she supported bombing Libya into a stateless terrorist haven, supported rebels, turned terrorists in Syria and she is an Israeli hawk. ..."
"... It is not because she is a woman. That is an excuse. It is because she is an extreme hawk, a Washington Consensus neoliberal of trade deals and Wall Street. It is because she is Hillary, not because Hillary happens to be a woman. ..."
"... No other candidate running for president has given paid speeches to Wall Street and corporate America. Clinton is the ONLY candidate to do so. She accepted speaking fees until early 2015 knowing she was about to announce her candidacy. This is UNPRECEDENTED. ..."
"... This label of dishonesty that trails Clinton is not just about the most recent stuff. There's the story from way back when about how the Clintons took almost $200,000 worth of stuff when they left the White House. They eventually decided to return or pay for $114,000 worth of items. Things they'd claimed to have received before taking up residence were shown to have been received after they arrived; they claimed as personal gifts things donors specified as designated for the White House itself, etc. ..."
"... So, repeat after me--taking hundreds of millions from every special interest group does not in any way influence Hillary's independent judgment. Keep repeating and eventually you will believe it. See how easy that is. ..."
"... Now on to repeating how the neocon foreign policy hawks supporting Hillary as the best commander in chief is good. ..."
"... is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 22 hours ago ..."
"... People have noticed how assiduously both Clintons have courted money over the years, whether it is Whitewater and everything else leading up to the present day fundraising, including the Times' revelatory piece on Ukrainian money in an energy deal, it all reeks, but as is wont with the Clintons, stops just shy of actual misdeed. ..."
"... With the proliferation of small digital sound recording devices, someone out there made a recording. And when it winds up public (probably during the general election campaign when it would do the most damage), it will be Mrs. Clinton's "47% moment". ..."
"... People find her dishonest and untrustworthy because she is. It doesn't take an advanced degree to see that she's a self-interested political animal through and through. She has a long, well-documented history of taking whatever position is most politically expedient and changing it when the polling changes. ..."
"... Furthermore her and her husband's well-documented history of taking money from everybody from Wall St. banksters to foreign autocrats for everything from private speeches the proceeds of which go directly into their pockets to their "foundation" suggests at the minimum a clueless recklessness about the appearance or corruption and at worst outright contempt for the intelligence of American voters. ..."
"... Again, it doesn't take membership in Mensa to apply a little critical thought and personal experience to the issue of her honesty or trustworthiness. Anybody who's ever done anything they felt even the tiniest bit ethically or morally uncomfortable about in order to keep their job or anybody who's observed this behavior in even the smallest or least significant way from colleagues knows Wall St. banksters and the Saudis princes don't give millions of dollars to people who aren't minimally receptive to their interests and people who take those millions don't do so with the intention of turning off that spigot down the line. ..."
"... What if decades of facially shady conduct is true? What if Bill Safire is right that HRC is a congenital liar? Why doesn't HRC give all this the lie by releasing her speech transcripts? Since leaving office the Clintons and the Foundation have amassed millions. Can we not think, as did Honore de Balzac that "behind every great fortune is a great crime"? How Mrs. Clinton must actually hate Barack Obama, Bernard Sanders and those under 40 who have or may yet deny her the crown. ..."
"... Often, the corruption is in the form of compensation after the public official leaves office. I used to work in NJ State Government. I can cite numerous examples of regulators who left public service, and were rewarded with lucrative contracts by the firms they formerly regulated. This would sometimes be laundered. For example, the former public official would join a law firm or consulting firm, and suddenly that firm would get a big contract from the firm they formerly regulated. ..."
"... In the case of Mrs Clinton, she was a "private citizen" only temporarily. She resigned as Secretary of State, but it was public knowledge that she was going to announce a Presidential run. ..."
"... She may not be dishonest, but boy is she greedy. ..."
"... Hillary is less transparent. She hides a lot. Does that make her dishonest? Maybe not. But unlikeable for sure. ..."
"... Sorry--the burden is squarely on Hillary to explain how money corrupts politicians, but she, Bill, the foundation and campaign taking hundreds of millions from special interests does not. Or, is a politician free to take all of the money her heart desires, unless there is iron clad proof of quid pro quo corruption? And if you believe that. you agree with the right wing majority in Citizens United. ..."
"... So the whitewashing of Hillary by the nominal Progressives begins. Whether or not she is "fundamentally" honest, as Jill Abrahamson has written, means what exactly? That she won't rob a bank, or pick your pocket? Yet she will defend bankers who rob their own banks and brokers who pick their investors' pockets every trading day by skimming others' potential profits with their high speed trades. Her husband's candidacy was rescued by winning the New York primary after his loss in New Hampshire and as President he deregulated the banks, and once he was in private life again, he became a centa millionaire by speaking in front of bankers. One would be naive to believe the Clintons did not make a deal the the banks put out the word. Perhaps there was no quid pro quo, but there certainly was some quo pro quid. Ditto for Hillary. ..."
"... Why a "Progressive" would paper over the record of Goldwater girl turned "NeoLiberal," which is pretty much the same thing, who is fundamentally against everything real Progressives stand for boggles the imagination. ..."
AFTER the New York primary, the betting websites are giving Hillary Clinton
about a 94 percent chance of being the Democratic nominee, and Donald Trump
a 66 percent chance of ending up as the Republican nominee.
But Clinton's big challenge is the trust issue: The share of voters who
have negative feelings toward her has soared from 25 percent in early 2013 to
56 percent today, and a reason for that is that they distrust her. Only a bit
more than one-third of American voters regard Clinton as "honest and trustworthy."
Indeed, when Gallup asks Americans to say the first word that comes to
mind when they hear "Hillary Clinton," the most common response can be summed
up as "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character." Another common category
is "criminal/crooked/thief/belongs in jail."
... My late friend and Times colleague William Safire in 1996
dubbed Clinton "a congenital liar."
... Then there's the question of Clinton raking in hundreds of thousands
of dollars from
speeches to Goldman Sachs and other companies. For a person planning to
run for president, this was nuts. It also created potential conflicts of interest
...
... As for the fundamental question of whether Clinton risked American national
security with her email server, I suspect the problem has been exaggerated
Hillary isn't crooked. She is dishonest in the sense that she gets
to power by any means she can, including doing a complete turn on long-held
opinions or saying she's evolved but not changing the bits and pieces that
go with that evolution. She is dishonest in the sense that she defends taking
money from Wall Street but refuses to show what she took it for, while maintaining
that she has never changed a decision as a result. The thing is, she's never
been faced with having to vote against Wall Street in any significant way
or make a decision that, potentially, Wall Street would view as negative.
She is intellectually dishonest in that she adopts her opponents'
positions in name only but refuses to adopt the planks that go along with
it, all the while calling herself a progressive who gets things done. Hillary
Clinton has always been a neoliberal Democrat. She and Bill Clinton redefined
center right democrat during his tenure. There is nothing wrong with owning
up to that political bent. There is everything wrong with pretending someone
you are not, as evidenced by her favorability numbers.
Hillary is not, nor has she ever been a progressive Democrat. That title
is reserved for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison,
and many other distinguished Democrats who have been in the progressive
trenches for decades.
http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2cQ
You can't pretend to be someone you're not and expect everyone else to
play along. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-27p
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich
23 hours ago
Yes, Hillary is dishonest.
Dishonesty and the paranoid secrecy that goes with it are fundamental
to her personality. That many American are not wrong in their widespread
judgment of her character. That is something that juries and other such
groups judge well.
She has many specific instances of dishonesty. She was not shot at
in Bosnia for example. Her sneaky dishonest attacks on Bernie were accompanied
by sly smiles when she did them, pleased with herself for laying out a considered
and prepared lie.
If she is elected, we will be so sick of this that NYT columnists will
be writing "how could we have not seen this?" Well, it is them leading the
way.
They should expect to be reminded loudly and often.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC
22 hours ago
To support Hillary, you must believe receiving hundreds of millions
from special interests (speaking fees, the foundation & campaign) does not
make you beholden to those special interests. Democrats used to claim money
given to politicians had a corrupting influence, but now with Hillary the
chosen one, Democrats require a showing of quid pro corruption.
Sorry -- either money is corrupting or it is not, and the Clintons have
personally received hundreds of millions from every possible special interest.
By supporting Hillary you are saying special interest money is a good thing.
The Times also ran an interesting profile in the magazine section about
how Hillary became a hawk. She follows the neocons playbook and as stated
in the piece, one of her significant military advisors is a Fox news pundit.
Hillary admits a mutual admiration with Kissinger.
So I don't trust Hillary when she says special interests do not influence
her judgment. If they really don't--which is impossible to believe--they
have wasted millions paying for 40 minute speeches. Lobbyists don't contribute
money to candidates who don't not help their causes.
Her foreign policy experience--it should scare us all. She voted
for the Iraq war before politically being required to apologize for it.
As Sec. of State, she supported bombing Libya into a stateless terrorist
haven, supported rebels, turned terrorists in Syria and she is an Israeli
hawk.
All of this causes grave concerns that go well beyond trust.
It comes down to the fact the HRC is the best Democratic aspirant for
the party's presidential nomination in 2016.
I cast my ballot for her in the Illinois primary and will gladly do so
again in November.
Do I have reservations? Surely.
But think of the reservations about some earlier Democratic as well as
Republican nominees ....
Franklin Delano Roosevelt reneged on his longtime support for the League
of Nations and adamantly refused to cross swords with Southern Democrats.
Would you vote for Hoover, Landon, or Willkie?
Harry Truman had longstanding ties to Kansas City's Pendergast gang.
I would have voted for him.
Eisenhower evaded a golden opportunity to denounce Joseph McCarthy while
campaigning in Wisconsin during 1952. He forfeited the opportunity to call
out McCarthy for his frontal attack on General George C. Marshall.
JFK as a US Senator stepped to the side on the Joseph McCarthy issue
because his father was something of an enthusiast. If I could have voted
in 1960, it would have been easy to vote for JFK rather than RMN.
LBJ was a political animal to his very core, but hands down a better
choice than Senator Goldwater.
Jimmy Carter had made his way to the governorship of Georgia because
of ties to the Talmadge organization that was out-and-out segregationist.
In campaigning for the governorship JEC was something of a muted segregationist.
I gladly voted for him over Gerald Ford.
And so on and so forth.
Saints don't rise to the presidency.
David Underwood,is a trusted commenter Citrus Heights
18 hours ago
Dishonest, you want dishonest, try Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the whole lot
of them. She is evasive, she has made some exaggerations like being shot
at, and yes she voted for W to attack Saddam if he did not stop killing
his own people. She also has supported the Syrian rebels, as many of us
have done, until they got subverted by Daesh.
The email issue is a GOP tail chase which is going nowhere, but keeps
them accusing her, just as they did with Benghazi. She is tough putting
up with all the crap I see from people here. Lies, opinions made of suppositions,
unprovable accusations, a lesser person would have folded by now.
Anetliner Netliner, is a trusted commenter Washington, DC area 20
hours ago
I will vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee, but find her deeply
untrustworthy. Examples, gong back to the early '90s:
-The commodities trading episode. Clinton asserted that she learned to
trade commodities "by reading the Wall Street Journal", which is impossible.
I was a great fan of Clinton's until I heard her utter this falsehood on
national television.
-Travelgate. Career civil service employees improperly fired at Clinton's
behest, so that they could be replaced with the services of a member of
the Clintons' inner circle.
-Poor judgment on foreign policy: Iraq (not bothering to read the National
Intelligence Estimate before voting to go to war.) Libya. No fly zone in
Syria. Failure to close the U.S. mission to Libya in the summer of 2012:
the UK closed its mission in response to growing danger; why did the U.S.
not follow suit?
-Poor judgment in governmental administration: use of a private e-mail server.
Initial explanation: "I didn't want to carry two devices." (Absurd on its
face to anyone who has ever used a smart phone.)
-Shifting positions: Keystone XL, Trans-Pacific Partnership, single-payer
health care.
-Distortion of opponents' positions. From the current campaign: distortion
of Bernie Sanders' positions on the auto bailout and gun control.
I could go on, but the pattern is clear. I respect Clinton's intelligence,
but deplore her duplicity and poor judgment. I'll support her in November
only because the alternatives are worse.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 22 hours ago
It is not because she is a woman. That is an excuse. It is because
she is an extreme hawk, a Washington Consensus neoliberal of trade deals
and Wall Street. It is because she is Hillary, not because Hillary happens
to be a woman.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 22 hours ago
"and yet, she has been highly vetted prior to becoming First Lady,
most certainly so prior to becoming a Senator for NYC"
Nonsense. Nobody vets the President's wife. She is who he married. Nobody
vets a Senator either. We've got some pretty strange Senators, arrested
in bathrooms and stuff. They'd never get past vetting.
RLS, is a trusted commenter Virginia 19 hours ago
Winchestereast,
No other candidate running for president has given paid speeches
to Wall Street and corporate America. Clinton is the ONLY candidate to do
so. She accepted speaking fees until early 2015 knowing she was about to
announce her candidacy. This is UNPRECEDENTED. Of course, congressional
Democrats don't say it publicly but many wish that Clinton had shown better
judgment.
Siobhan, is a trusted commenter New York 21 hours ago
This label of dishonesty that trails Clinton is not just about the
most recent stuff. There's the story from way back when about how the Clintons
took almost $200,000 worth of stuff when they left the White House. They
eventually decided to return or pay for $114,000 worth of items. Things
they'd claimed to have received before taking up residence were shown to
have been received after they arrived; they claimed as personal gifts things
donors specified as designated for the White House itself, etc.
It's this kind of stuff that leaves people feeling that the Clintons
just aren't trustworthy.
1. I did *absolutely nothing wrong*.
2. You can't *prove* I did anything wrong.
3. Technically speaking, no law was actually violated.
4. Well, it's a stupid law anyhow.
5. Everybody does it.
pjd, is a trusted commenter Westford 18 hours ago
"... if that's corrupt then so is our entire campaign finance system."
Yes, it is. It is driven by massive amounts of money. The only "sin"
committed by Ms. Clinton in the case of her speaking fees is to take publicly
traceable money. Meanwhile, the rest of the bunch are taking cash by the
truckload thanks to the Supreme Court-approved Citizens United.
Politics _is_ a dirty business. No one is innocent.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
You and Kristof have joined the growing Democratic chorus that money
is just a fact of politics. It may be true, but wasn't there a time Democrats
advocated for taking money out of politics by overturning Citizens United?
Or is it like Hillary's speaking transcripts, the Dems will agree to getting
money out of politics when the Republicans do.
So, repeat after me--taking hundreds of millions from every special
interest group does not in any way influence Hillary's independent judgment.
Keep repeating and eventually you will believe it. See how easy that is.
Now on to repeating how the neocon foreign policy hawks supporting
Hillary as the best commander in chief is good.
Rima Regas,is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 22 hours
ago
Mark,
I have no disagreements with you. It is my personal code of ethics
that stops me from going there, for as long as she isn't caught red handed.
People have noticed how assiduously both Clintons have courted money
over the years, whether it is Whitewater and everything else leading up
to the present day fundraising, including the Times' revelatory piece on
Ukrainian money in an energy deal, it all reeks, but as is wont with the
Clintons, stops just shy of actual misdeed.
That is what the trust and favorability stats keep telling us, over and
over again, no matter whether it is conservatives or democrats who are polled
and, now, the Bernie Or Bust movement that is being vilified by the neoliberal
punditry. There comes a time when people have had it up to here and it is
my sense that it may finally be here. That is the topic of my Sunday essay.
Krugman just posted a new blog post on a related topic. See my comment there.
Money and greed are the root of all evil.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 21 hours ago
As for the speeches, you do not have to prove an actual "favor" in return
for millions in payments. Any attorney (and Mrs. Clinton is an attorney)
who has had any exposure to the canons of attorney ethics knows that both
actual impropriety, and APPEARANCES of impropriety are to be avoided. "Appearance"
requires no proof of an actual quid pro quo. Besides, the payments can be
interpreted as payments in hope of future considerations. should she be
in a position to provide such considerations.
And if she is elected President and never gives them a break, as she
says she won't, that is maybe even worse. Is there anything as dishonest
as a public official who takes a bribe, and then does not deliver for the
briber?
With the proliferation of small digital sound recording devices,
someone out there made a recording. And when it winds up public (probably
during the general election campaign when it would do the most damage),
it will be Mrs. Clinton's "47% moment".
AC, Astoria, NY 6 hours ago
People find her dishonest and untrustworthy because she is. It doesn't
take an advanced degree to see that she's a self-interested political animal
through and through. She has a long, well-documented history of taking whatever
position is most politically expedient and changing it when the polling
changes.
Furthermore her and her husband's well-documented history of taking
money from everybody from Wall St. banksters to foreign autocrats for everything
from private speeches the proceeds of which go directly into their pockets
to their "foundation" suggests at the minimum a clueless recklessness about
the appearance or corruption and at worst outright contempt for the intelligence
of American voters.
Again, it doesn't take membership in Mensa to apply a little critical
thought and personal experience to the issue of her honesty or trustworthiness.
Anybody who's ever done anything they felt even the tiniest bit ethically
or morally uncomfortable about in order to keep their job or anybody who's
observed this behavior in even the smallest or least significant way from
colleagues knows Wall St. banksters and the Saudis princes don't give millions
of dollars to people who aren't minimally receptive to their interests and
people who take those millions don't do so with the intention of turning
off that spigot down the line.
Ronald Cohen, is a trusted commenter Wilmington, N.C. 19 hours ago
Nicholas Kristoff blames the media for the view that Hillary Clinton
is dishonest and untrustworthy. I agree that the media as a blameworthy
record in this election cycle of pushing Donald J. Trump by trumpeting his
antics until he became a real danger while ignoring Bernard Sanders because
he didn't suit the coronation of HRC in an effort, ongoing, of shoving Clinton
down the National throat.
What if decades of facially shady conduct is true? What if Bill Safire
is right that HRC is a congenital liar? Why doesn't HRC give all this the
lie by releasing her speech transcripts? Since leaving office the Clintons
and the Foundation have amassed millions. Can we not think, as did Honore
de Balzac that "behind every great fortune is a great crime"? How Mrs. Clinton
must actually hate Barack Obama, Bernard Sanders and those under 40 who
have or may yet deny her the crown.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
Even if you support Hillary, it is good to know who is paying her what.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 21 hours ago
Often, the corruption is in the form of compensation after the public
official leaves office. I used to work in NJ State Government. I can cite
numerous examples of regulators who left public service, and were rewarded
with lucrative contracts by the firms they formerly regulated. This would
sometimes be laundered. For example, the former public official would join
a law firm or consulting firm, and suddenly that firm would get a big contract
from the firm they formerly regulated.
In the case of Mrs Clinton, she was a "private citizen" only temporarily.
She resigned as Secretary of State, but it was public knowledge that she
was going to announce a Presidential run. A lot different than, say,
Janet Reno giving a speech.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
@RM--you raise an excellent point. If you outlined a political couple who
did what the Clintons have done making money from special interests, but did
not reveal their identities, everyone would agree they would be unduly influenced
by special interest money. Reveal their identities and suddenly Hillary's supporters
suspend previous beliefs that money corrupts politicians. And that is why nothing
ever changes.
Ronald Cohen, is a trusted commenter Wilmington, N.C. 19 hours ago
"The others are worse" argument should be addressed to the DNC and the
party mandarins who won't field an honest candidate. If we don't vote for
HRC then the party that ran her is to blame. Where are "the best and the
brightest"? Why is our choice always between the dregs?
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
Remember when you could say that money in politics was a corrupting influence
and democrats did not challenge you to show a quid pro quo? Democrats have
suddenly adopted the conservative majority's reasoning in Citizens United
there must be a quid pro quo for money to be bad.
We need to tell all of the lobbyists and special interests funneling
money to the Clintons they are wasting their money because unlike other
politicians, they can never be influenced by that money.
organic farmer, NY 6 hours ago
If 50% of Kristof's statements were true or 'mostly true', would he be
still employed by the NYT? If I told the truth half the time, I doubt my
family and co-workers would be impressed! If 50% of what my employees say
were lies, they would get fired.
As a female middle-aged Democrat, I will vote for Clinton in November
if I have to, but it won't be with any enthusiasm or confidence, and certainly
I will not be voting for a leader I believe in. As a woman, I admire her
intelligence, ambition, and determination, and I'm fairly convinced her
integrity is probably somewhat better than many in politics, but we desperately
need a President with a different vision for our future. We don't need a
divisive leader beholden to Big Banks, Big Ag, Big Business, Big Military
- this will not serve the United States well.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 19 hours ago
It would not be my fault that the Democratic party chose to force upon
the voting public a candidate with high negatives. Such high negatives,
that even Ted Cruz could defeat her.
Janice Badger Nelson, is a trusted commenter Park City, Utah, from
Boston 15 hours ago
She may not be dishonest, but boy is she greedy.
You have got to hand it to her though, she has been through the mill
and still stands there. I cannot imagine the humiliation she must have felt
over the Lewinsky debacle. That alone would have done most of us in. But
she ran for Senate and then President, became the Secretary of State and
now is leading as the democratic candidate for President.
In her 60's. Quite remarkable, if you think about it. I do not know how
she does it other than the fact she has supportive people surrounding her
and that must help. I also think that she feels entitled somehow, and that
is troubling to me. I also think her opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, is
a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy. I like that so much. Hillary
is less transparent. She hides a lot. Does that make her dishonest? Maybe
not. But unlikeable for sure.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 20 hours ago
I won't. A decision to support the lesser of two evils is a decision
to support an evil. Maybe if you sat it out, or voted third party, it would
be a message to the major parties to nominate better candidates.
Perhaps, to record that you came to vote, and found both candidates unsupportable,
you could write in "none of the above"
But vote the rest of the ticket.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 18 hours ago
@Christine--you got me. You are right. Those special interests just gave
Hillary and Bill hundreds of millions because they oppose everything the
special interests want. None of the policies Hillary advocates are favored
by any of those special interests. They are wasting their money!
Sorry--the burden is squarely on Hillary to explain how money corrupts
politicians, but she, Bill, the foundation and campaign taking hundreds
of millions from special interests does not. Or, is a politician free to
take all of the money her heart desires, unless there is iron clad proof
of quid pro quo corruption? And if you believe that. you agree with the
right wing majority in Citizens United.
Of course you can believe that, but never again state that money corrupts
politicians, nor ever state lobbyist spending tens of millions to influence
policy is bad.
amboycharlie, Nagoya, Japan 9 hours ago
So the whitewashing of Hillary by the nominal Progressives begins.
Whether or not she is "fundamentally" honest, as Jill Abrahamson has written,
means what exactly? That she won't rob a bank, or pick your pocket? Yet
she will defend bankers who rob their own banks and brokers who pick their
investors' pockets every trading day by skimming others' potential profits
with their high speed trades. Her husband's candidacy was rescued by winning
the New York primary after his loss in New Hampshire and as President he
deregulated the banks, and once he was in private life again, he became
a centa millionaire by speaking in front of bankers. One would be naive
to believe the Clintons did not make a deal the the banks put out the word.
Perhaps there was no quid pro quo, but there certainly was some quo pro
quid. Ditto for Hillary.
The Clinton Foundation took huge donations from dictatorial regimes worldwide
and Hillary as SecState, rewarded them with arms deals they would otherwise
not have gotten, due to their human rights violations. The list of apparent
crimes by the Clintons goes on and on. Why a "Progressive" would paper
over the record of Goldwater girl turned "NeoLiberal," which is pretty much
the same thing, who is fundamentally against everything real Progressives
stand for boggles the imagination.
Thomas Zaslavsky, is a trusted commenter Binghamton, N.Y. 16 hours
ago
Wcdessert Girl, you are straining so hard to smear Bernie Sanders that
you deserve to have a busted gut. (No that I'm wishing it upon you.) He
got the normal Congressional salary (not all that large; barely upper middle
class, these days) and the normal Congressional benefits (sure, we should
all get them), and you question his financial integrity? Be ashamed.
Now, try to defend Hillary without a baseless smear against anyone else.
Liberty Apples, Providence 9 hours ago
``One basic test of a politician's honesty is whether that person
tells the truth when on the campaign trail, and by that standard Clinton
does well.''
Excuse me?
She lied about Sanders support for the auto bailout.
She lied about Sanders support for the Paris climate accord.
She was in knots trying to explain her position on the $15 minimum wage.
You get the idea. The truth has always been an inconvenience for the
Clintons.
Barry, Minneapolis 10 hours ago
She lies about little things. Hot sauce. Medium sized things. Coming
under fire; she only wanted to carry one cell; the papers that turned up
in a parlor. Big things. "If I had known then." That was as bad as Nixon's
"secret plan."
"What is frightening is the desperation. It's like the [US neoliberal] elite
are afraid of something terrible. " -- that a very asute observation,
" Globalization is unraveling before their eyes from negative interest rates
to Brexit. Turning their world upside down. " -- also true, although
neoliberalism still successfully counterattack in selected countries and
recently scored two wins in Latin America (Argentina and Brazil)
Notable quotes:
"... The atmosphere feels like 1974 just before Richard Nixon resigned. Except, it is completely reversed. The establishment is protecting Hillary Clinton. They are spinning up a whirlwind. What is frightening is the desperation. It's like the elite are afraid of something terrible. ..."
"... I presume it has to be that millions of incorrigibles are recognizing the oligarchs' scams. Globalization is unraveling before their eyes from negative interest rates to Brexit. Turning their world upside down. ..."
"... Ms. Clinton and/or whichever member of her staff decided to use The Clinton Rules for Obfuscation and Avoidance as a way to address what was clearly some kind of medical event. ..."
"... Given that she wasn't whisked away in an ambulance, and didn't spend any time in an emergency room, whatever it was that happened must not have been entirely unanticipated or unusual – it may just be that she had the great misfortune of exhibiting these symptoms in public and not in the privacy of her own home. ..."
"... But let's recap, shall we? First, she was constructively absent from the campaign trail for the entire month of August. She did few events and not as much traveling. She also was not spending any time with the media, giving no pressers for months. Criticism mounted, so – wonder of wonders – when she got her spiffy new plane, the invites went out to the media to join her on the plane, and she held her first presser in months just this past Thursday. ..."
"... She looked fine. Her color was good, she looked rested. The next night, she did a high-dollar fundraiser hosted by Barbra Streisand. Again, she looked and sounded fine. Yet, it was that day that her physician says she was diagnosed with pneumonia and given antibiotics. ..."
"... Then, on Sunday, with temps in the low 80's and low humidity, she falls ill. She looked okay walking to her car, but she leaned on the post for support and then appeared to collapse getting into the van. Did she lose her footing on the curb? ..."
"... She sustained a serious concussion in 2012, when she fainted as a complication of a stomach virus that caused her to be dehydrated. The concussion gave her double vision, for which she wore special lenses for a time. She was not allowed to fly. A follow up visit to the doctor revealed that she had a blood clot in a vein between her brain and her skull so she was put on blood thinners. Her husband says it took every bit of six months for her to recover from the concussion. ..."
"... She's also had DVTs in her legs, and has an underactive thyroid for which I presume she takes medication. ..."
"... no matter how infrequent – post-concussion symptoms will call into question her mental abilities, which would be the death knell for her candidacy. ..."
"... she and her people spoon feed us one somewhat-plausible explanation after another, apparently in the hope they will hit on one that makes people stop asking questions about it ..."
"... This is how the Clintons – both of them – handle everything, and it's exactly why Hillary finds herself the topic of conversation and speculation everywhere. ..."
"... Also, not sure I believe the pneumonia story. Wouldn't put it past them to fabricate that. How is taking about health issues w/o talking about her concussion, blood clots, and rat poison meds …. an honest talk about her health? ..."
"... If Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's -- or some other neurological impairment leading to her frequent "spells" and falls -- the Democratic Party should ask her to step aside and allow someone in better health to run. ..."
"... As they move her away from that post she was leaning against, her arms stay rigid behind her back. My friend used to call this "offing", as in on or off, which was different from his freezing of gait, and happened to him when he was under stress. ..."
"... the coughing, even the pneumonia could be caused by difficulty swallowing. ..."
"... It could be Vascular Parkinsonism. I just wish she would be strong enough to admit she is weak. ..."
"... Ah, thanks for explaining why her arms were like that behind her back. At first I thought she was handcuffed. ..."
"... Noel's How to Prove Me Wrong about Hillary's Parkinson's Disease is worth a look. ..."
"... Forget Parkinson's, what about MS. ..."
"... after the DVT Hillary would have been placed on an anticoagulant, especially with all those plane trips. Then there is that fall she had last year. If she were on Coumadin at that time with a fall & head trauma can cause a bleed. Also MDs are nervous about putting someone on a blood thinner that is at risk for frequent falls. This whole situation is crazy. ..."
"... I'd bet that Clinton shopped around until she found a doctor willing to work with a minimal paper trail and certainly zero electronic trail. ..."
"... It isn't logical to believe a sudden press release used as a distraction. With past episodes of fainting, falling, concussion and ongoing treatment, this qualifier is put out to run up the flagpole. Please note the moment the handlers suddenly jump to surround and hide the candidate from the cameras. ..."
"... Daily Mail even goes as far as to say the candidate was "thrown into the seat like a sack of beef" (paraphrasing) ..."
"... Was that doctor EpiPen that opened the door to the van? ..."
"... So she has what could be very contagious? And she rests at Chelsea's home and plays with the kids? Anyone want some real cheap swamp land in the Everglades? ..."
"... my guess is at Chelsea's they could give her a quick shot of amphetamines so we could then get the "look, the candidate can actually walk unaided!" photo op when she emerged. ..."
"... So that's how low we've sunk, we're supposed to vote for the elderly, sickly, serial war criminal, pathological liar old lady because she can actually walk. Oh, and "because she's a woman". ..."
"... I'd just like to point out how annoying it is that the media stenographers on many sites today are slavishly repeating the Hillary campaign's pneumonia story without a single speck of actually checking, either through logic or investigation, whether any of it makes sense. Though admittedly there is a tiny bit doubt starting to creep through the media narrative; maybe they're thinking that this is the fig leaf they need to feel like they still have credibility–which is just them fooling themselves. ..."
"... Since stuff coming from the mainstream media is provably guaranteed to be just some sht they made up, or passing along some sht someone else made up without questioning it, I don't think there's anything wrong with just ignoring the msm and believing whatever you feel like believing from the internet; unlike with the msm there is at least a decent chance that that stuff might be true. ..."
"... Policies? Pay no attention to what emerges from the candidates mouths, as Obama said in 2008 "Hilary will say anything, and change nothing", she can be at a rally and yell "I'm fighting for you!" and 15 minutes later she is meeting with a Wall St CEO on new ways to rip people off. I'm not saying her opponent is any better ..."
"... Focus on the candidate's health is always appropriate. Particularly so when the ability of the candidate to serve out their term is a legitimate question. It is the height of arrogance for a candidate to accept the nomination without the full expectation that they will be ready to serve the full term at stake. For a candidate to attempt to proceed through concealment of substantive health issues is an expression of complete unaccountability. ..."
"... If Hillary had been more honest about her physical condition, folks wouldn't be stooping to armchair diagnoses, which is normal human behavior for those to whom the truth has not been forthcoming. ..."
"... Not a one-time diagnosis. She apparently has had a deep venous thrombosis and more recently cavernous sinus thrombosis. I suspect because of this (two discrete episodes) a decision has been made for chronic continuing use of coumadin. Like all medications, a decision is made as to whether the benefits of treatment using that medication outweigh the projected risks of the medication. Properly managed, the risks are fairly small. But the key is proper management, which may be difficult given the demands of the position as POTUS. ..."
"... I also believe her travel did and would put her at greater risk. https://www.stoptheclot.org/learn_more/air_travel_and_thrombosis.htm ..."
"... This just in: Hillary Clinton to Release More Medical Records After Pneumonia Diagnosis http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-plans-to-rest-amid-health-concerns-1473694474 ..."
"... More"? Like how many more? ..."
"... How many more? As many as it takes, one dollop at a time, until she hits the sweet spot where the questions stop. It was always destined to take the same path as the e-mails and every other questionable thing Clinton's been associated with – that's how they roll! ..."
"... "One-shoe" Hillary is now the butt of visual jokes, as her signature red arrow is repurposed into a stretcher: http://tinyurl.com/zbza8ph ..."
"... At this point, Clinton would have as much success convincing the public that she's released all the medical records that are relevant to her run for president as she would convincing us that she was part of a grand experiment whereby an entire medical team has been shrunk to Fantastic Voyage size, and injected into her bloodstream so that she can be under constant care. ..."
"... If she became spastic, and collapsed (unexpectedly) just trying to get into an SUV, what kind of risk is she going to be under during the first debate? ..."
"... Everyone is going to be watching for any slight, "unnatural," twitch, or, movement for the whole episode. ..."
"... The question really is: Is a vote for Clinton a vote for Tim Kaine??? ..."
"... Here's why. If humans were rational creatures, the time and place of Clinton's "overheating" wouldn't matter at all. But when it comes to American psychology, there is no more powerful symbol of terrorism and fear than 9-11 . When a would-be Commander-in-Chief withers – literally – in front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel unsafe. And safety is our first priority. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton just became unelectable. The mainstream media might not interpret today's events as a big deal. After all, it was only a little episode of overheating. And they will continue covering the play-by-play action until election day. But unless Trump actually does shoot someone on 5th Avenue, he's running unopposed." ..."
"... seems to me that Hillary could likely be suffering from subcortical vascular dementia. ..."
"... If diagnosed in 2012-13, which seems likely given her concussion and brain clot diagnoses, she would now begin to experience a severe physical decline and pneumonia is a frequent cause of death for those suffering from subcortical vascular dementia. ..."
I agree with all of Anne's great comments above on Hillary Clinton's
9-11 fainting episode.
The atmosphere feels like 1974 just before Richard Nixon resigned.
Except, it is completely reversed. The establishment is protecting Hillary
Clinton. They are spinning up a whirlwind. What is frightening is the desperation.
It's like the elite are afraid of something terrible.
It can't be Donald Trump; he is one them. Instead, I presume it has
to be that millions of incorrigibles are recognizing the oligarchs' scams.
Globalization is unraveling before their eyes from negative interest rates
to Brexit. Turning their world upside down.
If you want to blame anyone for all this armchair medical discussion,
look no further than Ms. Clinton and/or whichever member of her staff decided
to use The Clinton Rules for Obfuscation and Avoidance as a way to address
what was clearly some kind of medical event.
Given that she wasn't whisked away in an ambulance, and didn't spend
any time in an emergency room, whatever it was that happened must not have
been entirely unanticipated or unusual – it may just be that she had the
great misfortune of exhibiting these symptoms in public and not in the privacy
of her own home.
Whatever this is or was, it is how she chose to handle it that has led
to all this discussion.
But let's recap, shall we? First, she was constructively absent from
the campaign trail for the entire month of August. She did few events and
not as much traveling. She also was not spending any time with the media,
giving no pressers for months. Criticism mounted, so – wonder of wonders
– when she got her spiffy new plane, the invites went out to the media to
join her on the plane, and she held her first presser in months just this
past Thursday.
She looked fine. Her color was good, she looked rested. The next
night, she did a high-dollar fundraiser hosted by Barbra Streisand. Again,
she looked and sounded fine. Yet, it was that day that her physician says
she was diagnosed with pneumonia and given antibiotics.
Then, on Sunday, with temps in the low 80's and low humidity, she
falls ill. She looked okay walking to her car, but she leaned on the post
for support and then appeared to collapse getting into the van. Did she
lose her footing on the curb?
So, first we heard she wasn't feeling well. Then we heard she was overheated
and dehydrated. Some hours later, we were told of the pneumonia diagnosis,
and then – like a miracle – she comes walking out of her daughter's apartment
building looking quite chipper. Did she get IV fluids? Who knows?
She sustained a serious concussion in 2012, when she fainted as a complication
of a stomach virus that caused her to be dehydrated. The concussion gave
her double vision, for which she wore special lenses for a time. She was
not allowed to fly. A follow up visit to the doctor revealed that she had
a blood clot in a vein between her brain and her skull so she was put on
blood thinners. Her husband says it took every bit of six months for her
to recover from the concussion.
She's also had DVTs in her legs, and has an underactive thyroid for which
I presume she takes medication.
Could she be having periodic bouts of vertigo as a result of the concussion?
Other effects that linger, or pop up from time to time? Doesn't seem unreasonable,
but here's the thing: we are never going to know if that's the case, because
unlike pneumonia for which you can take an antibiotic and be done with,
ongoing – no matter how infrequent – post-concussion symptoms will call
into question her mental abilities, which would be the death knell for her
candidacy.
So, she and her people spoon feed us one somewhat-plausible explanation
after another, apparently in the hope they will hit on one that makes people
stop asking questions about it – but the problem is that this method just
adds to the sense people have that she's still hiding something and so the
speculation goes on.
This is how the Clintons – both of them – handle everything, and it's
exactly why Hillary finds herself the topic of conversation and speculation
everywhere.
Yes to this (Anne. September 12, 2016 at 9:57 am):
My real issue with this whole event is that, had Clinton not collapsed,
we wouldn't know anything about the alleged pneumonia. It's the same
old story: she does what she wants until events conspire to force her
to make public whatever it was she wanted to remain private.
And even
then, she continues to hold close as much information as possible for
as long as possible, before being more or less forced to get it all
out there.
Also, not sure I believe the pneumonia story. Wouldn't put it past
them to fabricate that. How is taking about health issues w/o talking about
her concussion, blood clots, and rat poison meds …. an honest talk about
her health?
It's probably a lot worse than a case of walking pneumonia. The video
below was posted to yootoobs three days before Hillary Clinton collapsed
into her own footprint like a world tower of trade:
A) Parkinson's Disease has several stages. Hillary appears to be ten
years into the progression at least and somewhere in the disease's middle
stages. Also,
B) the medication used to treat Parkinson's has its own serious side
motor effects, which she seems to exhibit.
C) And finally C, not only does Parkinson's debilitate its victim randomly
and episodically, and ultimately in its latter stages will make keeping
up a daily schedule of activities impossible, it also is typically accompanied
by non-motor symptoms of delusions and hard mood swings: eg, anxiety/depression
and rage.
If Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's -- or some other neurological impairment
leading to her frequent "spells" and falls -- the Democratic Party should
ask her to step aside and allow someone in better health to run. Naturally
being Hillary Clinton she would hotly refuse and retreat to her bunker with
Eva Braun to lean on, but the certain ferocity of her reaction doesn't relieve
the party leadership of this responsibility.
I long ago abandoned any hope for that party, but in an alternate universe
where they had not become mobbed-up and corrupt to the core, Clinton would
get a public call from party elders now to do the right thing for the country
and endorse a substitute candidate.
Having lived with someone who had Parkinson's, and after looking closely
at the video of her on 9/11, I think she has Parkinson's.
As they move her away from that post she was leaning against, her arms
stay rigid behind her back. My friend used to call this
"offing", as in on or off, which was different from his freezing of gait,
and happened to him when he was under stress.
Just too many things, the coughing, the blue sunglasses, the falling,
the coughing, even the pneumonia could be caused by difficulty swallowing.
It could be Vascular Parkinsonism. I just wish she would be strong enough
to admit she is weak.
What is concerning is that after the DVT Hillary would have been placed
on an anticoagulant, especially with all those plane trips. Then there is
that fall she had last year. If she were on Coumadin at that time with a
fall & head trauma can cause a bleed. Also MDs are nervous about putting
someone on a blood thinner that is at risk for frequent falls. This whole
situation is crazy. Feel bad, don't like her, adios-time to take all that
foundation money and retire.
It isn't logical to believe a sudden press release used as a distraction.
With past episodes of fainting, falling, concussion and ongoing treatment,
this qualifier is put out to run up the flagpole. Please note the moment
the handlers suddenly jump to surround and hide the candidate from the cameras.
Daily Mail even goes as far as to say the candidate was "thrown into
the seat like a sack of beef" (paraphrasing) If this is so, that isn't a
response for someone fainting as much as perhaps the attempt to hide symptoms
from observers. Was that doctor EpiPen that opened the door to the van?
Was this an attempt to divert attention from the real issue?
As a great philosopher once said; "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit
out of my hat"
So she has what could be very contagious? And she rests at Chelsea's
home and plays with the kids? Anyone want some real cheap swamp land in
the Everglades?
This is the tell, if she actually had pneumonia they would not just have
hustled her off to Chelsea's place, my guess is at Chelsea's they could
give her a quick shot of amphetamines so we could then get the "look, the
candidate can actually walk unaided!" photo op when she emerged.
So that's how low we've sunk, we're supposed to vote for the elderly,
sickly, serial war criminal, pathological liar old lady because she can
actually walk. Oh, and "because she's a woman". (So we got the last
8 years of disaster because of the candidate's dermis, and we"ll get the
next 4 years of disaster because of the candidate's pubis).
I'd just like to point out how annoying it is that the media stenographers
on many sites today are slavishly repeating the Hillary campaign's pneumonia
story without a single speck of actually checking, either through logic
or investigation, whether any of it makes sense. Though admittedly there
is a tiny bit doubt starting to creep through the media narrative; maybe
they're thinking that this is the fig leaf they need to feel like they still
have credibility–which is just them fooling themselves.
Since stuff coming from the mainstream media is provably guaranteed
to be just some sht they made up, or passing along some sht someone else
made up without questioning it, I don't think there's anything wrong with
just ignoring the msm and believing whatever you feel like believing from
the internet; unlike with the msm there is at least a decent chance that
that stuff might be true.
Policies? Pay no attention to what emerges from the candidates mouths,
as Obama said in 2008 "Hilary will say anything, and change nothing", she
can be at a rally and yell "I'm fighting for you!" and 15 minutes later
she is meeting with a Wall St CEO on new ways to rip people off. I'm not
saying her opponent is any better
Focus on the candidate's health is always appropriate. Particularly
so when the ability of the candidate to serve out their term is a legitimate
question. It is the height of arrogance for a candidate to accept the nomination
without the full expectation that they will be ready to serve the full term
at stake. For a candidate to attempt to proceed through concealment of substantive
health issues is an expression of complete unaccountability.
It's not the candidate's prerogative to decide upon what information
the voters will make their choice.
If Hillary had been more honest about her physical condition, folks
wouldn't be stooping to armchair diagnoses, which is normal human behavior
for those to whom the truth has not been forthcoming.
Not a one-time diagnosis. She apparently has had a deep venous thrombosis
and more recently cavernous sinus thrombosis. I suspect because of this
(two discrete episodes) a decision has been made for chronic continuing
use of coumadin. Like all medications, a decision is made as to whether
the benefits of treatment using that medication outweigh the projected risks
of the medication. Properly managed, the risks are fairly small. But the
key is proper management, which may be difficult given the demands of the
position as POTUS.
"More"? Like how many more? If this is more opining by her Chappaqua
MD, that does not qualify as "records". This is beginning to resemble the
forced drip of e-mails…..
How many more? As many as it takes, one dollop at a time, until she hits
the sweet spot where the questions stop. It was always destined to take
the same path as the e-mails and every other questionable thing Clinton's
been associated with – that's how they roll!
What continues to boggle my mind is why she doesn't seem to understand
that THIS is why such a significant segment of the electorate doesn't trust
her; it's so obvious, and yet she continues to employ this strategy and
it could cost her the election.
Assuming she is healthy enough to participate in the first debate, it
should be a doozy.
At this point, Clinton would have as much success convincing the public
that she's released all the medical records that are relevant to her run
for president as she would convincing us that she was part of a grand experiment
whereby an entire medical team has been shrunk to Fantastic Voyage size,
and injected into her bloodstream so that she can be under constant care.
The Fantastic Voyage scenario might actually be more believable.
In other words, it's just one more thing that doesn't really matter because
only those in her basket of adorables believe anything she says – and they
believe everything, no matter how the story shifts and changes.
If she became spastic, and collapsed (unexpectedly) just trying to get
into an SUV, what kind of risk is she going to be under during the first
debate?
The stress of being thrust into the biggest "fishbowl" imaginable
( largest TV audience ever being predicted) with all the "marbles" on the
table would freak out the healthiest human alive.
Everyone is going to be
watching for any slight, "unnatural," twitch, or, movement for the whole
episode.
What drama! I wouldn't be surprised if some pretext is found to nix the
debate. The risk for her is just too great, IMO, of course.
Each time she releases medical records, it gives her chorus another chance
to sing (in harmony) that she has clearly demonstrated that she
is healthy. After a few of these, the corporate press will feign impatience,
and any talk about Hillary's health will be cast aside as coming from conspiracy
theorists. No one will ever question why the issue wasn't resolved up front
with a full disclosure.
All of this is fine (I guess) except if she is hiding Parkinson's, which
is completely debilitating as far as the Presidency is concerned.
The question really is: Is a vote for Clinton a vote for Tim Kaine???
Now, the REALLY cynical might conjecture that Clintoon is thinking the
BEST meme to save the election for herself is that she spins it that she
pulls a William Henry Harrison – don't worry about voting for Clintoon!!!
I'll only be president for 30 or so days!
Hey, your not really voting for me Your really voting for Kaine!
Only decades later is the Clinton tomb excavated and it is revealed that
she was a Disney animatronic programmed by Goldman Sachs – those "speeches"
were really charades to allow the cables to be plugged in so the updated
software could be downloaded…
If the media is in the pocket of the Clintons, why now are we finding
out about her "illness" ….hmmmmm….
"If you are following breaking news, Hillary Clinton abruptly left the
9-11 memorial today because she was reportedly "overheated." Her campaign
says she is fine now. You probably wonder if the "overheated" explanation
is true – and a non-issue as reported – or an indication of a larger medical
condition. I'm blogging to tell you it doesn't matter. The result is the
same.
Here's why. If humans were rational creatures, the time and place
of Clinton's "overheating" wouldn't matter at all. But when it comes to
American psychology, there is no more powerful symbol of terrorism and fear
than 9-11 . When a would-be Commander-in-Chief withers – literally – in
front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel
unsafe. And safety is our first priority.
Hillary Clinton just became unelectable. The mainstream media might
not interpret today's events as a big deal. After all, it was only a little
episode of overheating. And they will continue covering the play-by-play
action until election day. But unless Trump actually does shoot someone
on 5th Avenue, he's running unopposed."
Teh Guardian is running reports and every accompanying image is of some
other event with Killary stepping, smiling, unassisted into a car. What
a disgrace that shill sheet is.
robnume September 12, 2016 at 9:58 pm
Having worked in an emergency/trauma center for years, no, I won't say what
I did as I like anonymity, it seems to me that Hillary could likely
be suffering from subcortical vascular dementia. Upon a diagnoses of
this kind, one can expect to live from 3 to 5 years. If diagnosed in
2012-13, which seems likely given her concussion and brain clot diagnoses,
she would now begin to experience a severe physical decline and pneumonia
is a frequent cause of death for those suffering from subcortical vascular
dementia.
Rosario September 13, 2016 at 3:03 am
I used to think all the health speculation with Hillary was sexist and bogus
until her ordeal Sunday. The pneumonia diagnosis is absolutely bizarre and
doesn't quite line up with her visual symptoms at the 9/11 memorial. Pneumonia
was the best her staff could come up with? I guess they think we live in
a world without the internet and Youtube. Hillary doesn't look like she
had pneumonia Friday at the fundraiser. The same day she was apparently
diagnosed, which implies the first day of treatment when symptoms for bacterial
infections are at their absolute worst. She actually looked like she was
in her element, bright as rain. In addition, how in the hell do you have
a "pneumonia episode"? Apparently it came on real hard Sunday morning (ironically,
the time of day when the body is most capable during illness) then magically
went away an hour later for her to have a chipper, non-coughing, non-fatigued
photo op with a little girl (it was so identity politics staged it was comical)...
"... It is not wise to demonize foreign leaders or worship them. Foreign policy needs sometimes to work with even some of the worst actors. ..."
"... We need to support institutions that work to guarantee and protect human rights for all. A personality cult that worships leaders promotes intolerance and the abuse of human rights. ..."
"... Krooogman is jus a useful moralistic idiot aiding and abetting [hillary compaigh] with humanist [neo]liberal anathemas. A policy of Russia constriction by uncle S and his posse ..."
"... [It would be better if] Current neocon democrats "display an ounce of statesmanship" and use any before they send out the aircraft carriers, bombers, drones and CIA arms for the next ISIL. ..."
"... Yes, Kerry talks while the DoD and CIA do the murdering. ..."
"... You are just a political writer, paid to reflect your bosses views. A proper journalist would at least provide a minimally balanced view. In your case we know your answer before we open the newspaper. ..."
"... No leftist calls krooogman a leftist. He is a a status quo elitist. An enlightenment humanist [interventionist neo]liberal. A convinced self-deluded neo-classical economist. A major political ignoramus... And a very decent little tabby cat. All rolled up into one pint sized ambitious. Self assured. Nassau county bright boy now aged but undaunted anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:38 AM http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/opinion/david-brooks-snap-out-of-it.html September 22, 2014 Snap Out of It By David Brooks President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a lone thug sitting atop a failing regime.... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/thomas-friedman-putin-and-the-pope.html October 21, 2014 Putin and the Pope By Thomas L. Friedman One keeps surprising us with his capacity for empathy, the other by how much he has become a first-class jerk and thug.... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-whos-playing-marbles-now.html December 20, 2014 Who's Playing Marbles Now? By Thomas L. Friedman Let us not mince words: Vladimir Putin is a delusional thug.... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html December 21, 2014 Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion By Paul Krugman Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug.... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/thomas-friedman-czar-putins-next-moves.html January 27, 2015 Czar Putin's Next Moves By Thomas L. Friedman ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be in danger.... anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:38 AM http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/world/middleeast/white-house-split-on-opening-talks-with-putin.html September 15, 2015 Obama Weighing Talks With Putin on Syrian Crisis By PETER BAKER and ANDREW E. KRAMER WASHINGTON - Mr. Obama views Mr. Putin as a thug, according to advisers and analysts.... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/opinion/mr-putins-mixed-messages-on-syria.html September 20, 2015 Mr. Putin's Mixed Messages on Syria Mr. Obama considers Mr. Putin a thug, his advisers say.... ilsm -> anne... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 03:18 PM Putin might ask why us army jihadis fought with cia jihadis in Assad's country? a subject one thug can raise with a bigger thug. ..."
"... Thug. I wonder if these bright liberals consider the word they like to use so much ? u can feel their thrill every time they hurl it at a target. Long live the self righteous [neo]Liberal goon squad ..."
"... thugs -- A target of colonial masters ..."
"... if your candidate cannot go to a hospital.... looks like a serious neurolgic issue to me. Let the spin begin is trump's Putin or Clinton neuopathy? ..."
"... I remember reading John Kenneth Galbraith describe how when he was being threatened by the original McCarthy, the strategy he chose was to name McCarthy using every name he could think of. The strategy worked, and Galbraith was forgotten by McCarthy. I suspect the strategy will work again. ..."
"... In the name of plain old fashion reasonable ness let's not turn krooogman the self righteous [neo] liberal " crusader" into a new kold war reactionary liberal just yet ..."
"... innuendo see as much deplorable assassination in moscow as folks dying at Clinton hands. And those 250k killed in 5 years of CIA blundering in Syria are Obama Clinton not Putin. ..."
"... Ok, so on your planet the civil war in Syria was caused entirely by CIA intervention? That's what you're going with? ..."
"... No of course not! The CIA is 'playing' 1300 year old schism in Islam. It is Sunni versus Shiite, the rest in funding, equipping, cheerleading by GCC royal, US and Israel. ..."
"... Official Washington's "group think" on the Ukraine crisis now has a totalitarian feel to it as "everyone who matters" joins in the ritualistic stoning of Russian President Putin and takes joy in Russia's economic pain, with liberal economist Paul Krugman the latest to hoist a rock. ..."
"... The anti-war left sees the demonization of foreign leaders as clearing the way for war and invasion. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's National Security Advisers Are a "Who's Who" of the Warfare State ..."
"... The list of key advisers - which includes the general who executed the troop surge in Iraq and a former Bush homeland security chief turned terror profiteer - is a strong indicator that Clinton's national security policy will not threaten the post-9/11 national-security status quo that includes active use of military power abroad and heightened security measures at home. ..."
It is not wise to demonize foreign leaders or worship them.
Foreign policy needs sometimes to work with even some of the worst actors.
For example, Russia is in Syria and can either promote more violence or
work to end the civil war. Right now, they have agreed with the US to support
a cease fire.
Demonization of Russia led directly to the Vietnam War, the Cambodian horror,
the Taliban and a lot of bad outcomes.
We need to support institutions that work to guarantee and protect human
rights for all. A personality cult that worships leaders promotes intolerance
and the abuse of human rights. We need a strategy of building and strengthening
institutions that are committed to protecting ethnic minorities and offer
a change alternative to violent acting out.
Well said. One can debate the virtues and vices of Vladimir Putin indefinitely,
and historians will do so, but throwing the lives and security of young
Americans into the mill of short term political opportunism, at the service
of the campaign meme of the week, is not responsible.
Of course, Trump has
also behaved like a nincompoop in discussing Putin and Russia in ways that
do no display an ounce of statesmanship.
Who is "throwing the lives and security of young Americans into the mill
of short term political opportunism"?
I'm guessing you are saying Hillary is doing that by criticizing Putin
or something, but I can't fathom how you connect those dots.
Dan Kervick -> sanjait...
No, Krugman.
Krugman obediently parrots and amplifies whatever attack theme the campaign
decides to promote on any given week, and is clearly coordinating with a
number of other hyper-partisan "journalists" and apparatchiks, who sing
in harmony from the same hymn books. The man is a certifiable political
hack.
I'm surprised that Team D had not yet floated the charge that Putin gave
Clinton pneumonia with some infected umbrella pellet gun.
Paine -> sanjait...
No no
Krooogman is jus a useful moralistic idiot aiding and abetting [hillary
compaigh] with humanist [neo]liberal anathemas.
A policy of Russia constriction by uncle S and his posse
Paine -> Paine ...
Will Hillary take a forward policy stance on mother Russia.
Out do Barry- Kerry. I'm still hoping she's capable of evolution to good POTUS.
My best friends ardent fury at her bloody pals.
Has tempered me some. Nothing ever confirms convictions grounded in personal loathing
I've learned to love her since Bernie burned out over Pennsylvania or
was it Ohio ?
Paine -> Paine ...
However nothing about loving her requires me to support her legacy or her
entourage
Or like too many thin skinned compromises here. Attack those who can not find in their heart. Any love for such a compromised
saint
As dear Hill
ilsm -> Dan Kervick...
[It would be better if]
Current neocon democrats "display an ounce of statesmanship" and use any
before they send out the aircraft carriers, bombers, drones and CIA arms
for the next ISIL.
ilsm -> Dan Kervick...
Yes, Kerry talks while the DoD and CIA do the murdering.
gh : ,
Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner. How is it possible that you remain so
leftist, in spite of all the evidence ? You are just a political writer,
paid to reflect your bosses views. A proper journalist would at least provide
a minimally balanced view. In your case we know your answer before we open
the newspaper.
What a shame.
Paine -> djb...
Tempest in a tea pot. No leftist calls krooogman a leftist. He is a a status quo
elitist.
An enlightenment humanist [interventionist neo]liberal.
A convinced self-deluded neo-classical economist.
A major political ignoramus...
And a very decent little tabby cat.
All rolled up into one pint sized ambitious.
Self assured. Nassau county bright boy
now aged but undaunted
ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic
experiment and unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western
country around Russia will be in danger....
First of all, let's get this straight: The Russian Federation of 2016
is not the Soviet Union of 1986. True, it covers most of the same territory
and is run by some of the same thugs....
Thug. I wonder if these bright liberals consider the word they like to use
so much ? u can feel their thrill every time they hurl it at a target. Long live the self righteous
[neo]Liberal goon squad
" historical --
a member of a religious organization of robbers and assassins in India.
Devotees of the goddess Kali, the Thugs waylaid and strangled their victims,
usually travelers, in a ritually prescribed manner. They were suppressed
by the British in the 1830s."
Dat is about as much heavy liftin as the lettered folk can handle: hurling
insults. Take dat. "Geeves, send them a message!" Message: Thugs! Mission accomplished and now we must rest.
ilsm -> Paine ...
if your candidate cannot go to a hospital....
looks like a serious neurolgic issue to me. Let the spin begin is trump's
Putin or Clinton neuopathy?
anne :
Paul Krugman terrifies me, simply terrifies me. A pusher of a Cold War,
a pusher of McCarthyism, a person who is obviously collecting a list of
names and only waiting to name names. I however will be no Krugman martyr
and am also collecting names and will name names even before being ordered
to and I have already decided who I will be naming first.
[ I remember reading John Kenneth Galbraith describe how when he was
being threatened by the original McCarthy, the strategy he chose was to
name McCarthy using every name he could think of. The strategy worked, and
Galbraith was forgotten by McCarthy. I suspect the strategy will work again.
]
anne -> anne...
I need to find the Galbraith reference, and I also remember that Krugman
was attacking Galbraith before, well, "the line forms on the right."
Paine -> anne...
Anne,
In the name of plain old fashion reasonable ness let's not turn krooogman the self righteous
[neo] liberal " crusader" into a new kold war reactionary liberal just yet
The conversion of one section of new dealers into
that rumpus of uncle hegomony.'s Dupes
Was awful enough.
Not to contemplate yet another wholesale herd like.
Transduction of their "liberal values"
In the name of individual liberty and the rights of humanity
What Economists Can Learn From Evolutionary Theorists
By Paul Krugman - European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy
I guess it is no secret that even John Kenneth Galbraith, still the public's
idea of a great economist, looks to most serious economists like an intellectual
dilettante who lacks the patience for hard thinking....
ilsm -> Pinkybum...
innuendo see as much deplorable assassination in moscow as folks dying at
Clinton hands. And those 250k killed in 5 years of CIA blundering in Syria are Obama
Clinton not Putin.
Ok, so on your planet the civil war in Syria was caused entirely by CIA
intervention? That's what you're going with?
So, not the tyranny of the Assad regime, supported by Russia. And not
the emergence of ISIS. Those, by your accounting, are not primary causes
of the conflict, but instead it was the meager support the CIA offered the
FSA alliance, according to you. Pfft.
ilsm -> sanjait...
No of course not!
The CIA is 'playing' 1300 year old schism in Islam. It is Sunni versus
Shiite, the rest in funding, equipping, cheerleading by GCC royal, US and
Israel.
Official Washington's "group think" on the Ukraine crisis now has a totalitarian
feel to it as "everyone who matters" joins in the ritualistic stoning of
Russian President Putin and takes joy in Russia's economic pain, with liberal
economist Paul Krugman the latest to hoist a rock.
China's Market Crash Means Chinese Supergrowth Could Have Only 5 More
Years to Run
By Brad DeLong
Ever since I became an adult in 1980, I have been a stopped clock with
respect to the Chinese economy. I have said -- always -- that at most, Chinese
supergrowth likely has five more years to run.
Then there will come a crash -- in asset values and expectations, if
not in production and employment. After the crash, China will revert to
the standard pattern of an emerging market economy without successful institutions
that duplicate or somehow mimic those of the North Atlantic. Its productivity
rate will be little more than the 2 percent per year of emerging markets
as a whole; catch-up and convergence to the North Atlantic growth-path norm
will be slow if at all; and political risks that cause war, revolution or
merely economic stagnation rather than unexpected booms will become the
most likely surprises.
I was wrong for 25 years straight -- and the jury is still out on the
period since 2005. Thus, I'm very hesitant to count out China and its supergrowth
miracle. But now "a" crash -- even if, perhaps, not "the" crash I was predicting
-- is at hand....
[ Twenty-five years of wrongness, why not another 25? Never ever ask
why such wrongness, however. ]
Peter K. -> sanjait...
"The weird existence of people who somehow loved Bernie Sanders while also
being apologists for Putin continues to defy the notion of cognitive dissonance."
The anti-war left sees the demonization of foreign leaders as clearing
the way for war and invasion.
The center-left Demcocrats' anti-democratic practices during the primary
were hypocritical. At leas Debbie Wasserman-Shultz was ousted as chair of
the DNC.
Dan Kervick -> sanjait...
The context is that a murderers row of 2002/3 vintage neocons has now adopted
the Clinton campaign as its preferred vehicle for its further murderous
adventures and interventionist follies. Apparently only the (very) elder
neocon leader Norman Podhoretz is not in yet.
ilsm -> sanjait...
Somehow Putin is weak on plundering his country.
Bush and Obama are $4,000B in WAR waste on Iraghistan and Yemen.
McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason
without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making
unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially
in order to restrict dissent or political criticism." The term has its origins
in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting
roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression
against supposed communists, as well as a campaign spreading fear of their
influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents. Originally
coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of Republican U.S. Senator
Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, "McCarthyism" soon took on a broader meaning,
describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more
generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as
demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.
Hillary Clinton's National Security Advisers Are a "Who's Who" of the
Warfare State
By Zaid Jilani, Alex Emmons, and Naomi LaChance
HILLARY CLINTON IS meeting with a new national security "working group"
that is filled with an elite "who's who" of the military-industrial complex
and the security deep state.
The list of key advisers - which includes the general who executed the
troop surge in Iraq and a former Bush homeland security chief turned terror
profiteer - is a strong indicator that Clinton's national security policy
will not threaten the post-9/11 national-security status quo that includes
active use of military power abroad and heightened security measures at
home.
It's a story we've seen before in President Obama's early appointments.
In retrospect, analysts have pointed to the continuity in national security
and intelligence advisers as an early sign that despite his campaign rhetoric
Obama would end up building on - rather than tearing down - the often-extralegal,
Bush-Cheney counterterror regime. For instance, while Obama promised in
2008 to reform the NSA, its director was kept on and its reach continued
to grow.
Obama's most fateful decision may have been choosing former National
Counterterrorism Center Director John Brennan to be national security adviser,
despite Brennan's support of Bush's torture program. Brennan would go on
to run the president's drone program, lead the CIA, fight the Senate's torture
investigation, and then lie about searching Senate computers.
That backdrop is what makes Clinton's new list of advisers so significant.
It includes Gen. David Petraeus, the major architect of the 2007 Iraq
War troop surge, which brought 30,000 more troops to Iraq. Picking him indicates
at partiality to combative ideology. It also represents a return to good
standing for the general after he pled guilty to leaking notebooks full
of classified information to his lover, Paula Broadwell, and got off with
two years of probation and a fine. Petraeus currently works at the investment
firm KKR & Co.
Another notable member of Clinton's group is Michael Chertoff, a hardliner
who served as President George W. Bush's last secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security, and who since leaving government in 2009 has helmed
a corporate consulting firm called the Chertoff Group that promotes security-industry
priorities. For example, in 2010, he gave dozens of media interviews touting
full-body scanners at airports while his firm was employed by a company
that produced body scanning machines. His firmalso employs a number of other
ex-security state officials, such as former CIA and NSA Director Michael
Hayden. It does not disclose a complete list of its clients - all of whom
now have a line of access to Clinton.
Many others on the list are open advocates of military escalation overseas.
Mike Morell, the former acting director of the CIA, endorsed Clinton last
month in a New York Times opinion piece that accused Trump of being an "unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation." The Times was criticized for not disclosing
his current employment by Beacon Global Strategies, a politically powerful
national-security consulting firm with strong links to Clinton. Three days
later, Morell told Charlie Rose in a PBS interview that the CIA should actively
assassinate Russians and Iranians in Syria.
During his time at the CIA, Morell was connected to some of the worst
scandals and intelligence failures of the Bush administration. In his book,
he apologizes for giving flawed intelligence to Colin Powell about Iraq's
supposed weapons of mass destruction, but defends the CIA torture program
as legal and ethical.
Jim Stavridis, a former NATO supreme allied commander Europe on Clinton's
advisory group, told Fox News Radio in July, when he was being vetted by
Clinton as a possible vice presidential nominee, that "we have got to get
more aggressive going into Syria and Iraq and go after [ISIS] because if
we don't they're going to come to us. It's a pretty simple equation." He
said he would "encourage the president to take a more aggressive stance
against Iran, to increase our military forces in Iraq and Syria, and to
confront Vladmir Putin" over his moves in Crimea.
The New York Times reported in 2011 that Michael Vickers, a former Pentagon
official on Clinton's new list, led the use of drone strikes. He would grin
and tell his colleagues at meetings, "I just want to kill those guys."
Others on the list played a role in the targeted killing policies of
the Obama administration, including Chris Fussell, a top aide to Gen. Stanley
McChrystal, and now a partner with him at his lucrative consulting firm,
the McChrystal Group....
"... I want to throw a chair at the elitist propaganda coming from the radio. ..."
"... Their political coverage is truly awful - horse race analysis cheerleading for HRC, no substantive talk about issues just a constant human interest sideshow anecdotal. ..."
"... They also seem to have exactly the same stories as same day's NYT - makes one wonder who's actually disseminating all the talking points. ..."
"... Yah I know but I also learned from NPR Trump is bad because he likes Putin who keeps invading nations and killing a bunch of folks and gives govt contracts to his friends – unlike good USA. All stated matter of factly by NPR analysts. ..."
"... It's amazing how everything has to get sloppy around Clinton. People, news papers, news shows, whatever. As soon as they decide to sign on with Camp Clinton, they all have to start making excuses for her. Sloppy excuses. Excuses with a smell of skunk to them. ..."
"... They should loose those donors, it would be a cleansing act that might result in more creative and honest programming. ..."
Used to have NPR going from wakey until bedtime. Now, I read about roses
and meditate. Much more serenity. Now, my agitation comes from NC. And it's
because world affairs are agitating, not because I want to throw a chair
at the elitist propaganda coming from the radio.
Their political coverage is truly awful - horse race analysis cheerleading
for HRC, no substantive talk about issues just a constant human interest
sideshow anecdotal. The Bernie coverage was a disgrace. I was raised
on a steady diet of NPR, and realized the headlines are all the same as
when I was a kid: Middle East "violence," Israeli politics, poor person
suffering anecdote, refugee porn.
I tune in from time to time just to make sure it hasn't changed. What
change there has been seems to be ever more shrill neoliberal pablum spoon-fed
with small words as though to eight-graders. They also seem to have
exactly the same stories as same day's NYT - makes one wonder who's actually
disseminating all the talking points.
I stopped listening to them after they did a long, sympathetic piece
on how Israeli soldiers were traumatized by the injuries they inflicted
on Palestinian kids during the first Intifada. The idea that they should
suffer from implacable guilt was not not discussed.
Yah I know but I also learned from NPR Trump is bad because he likes
Putin who keeps invading nations and killing a bunch of folks and gives
govt contracts to his friends – unlike good USA. All stated matter of factly
by NPR analysts.
Yes, "hold on for the ride." Now even the MSM is split on whether to
all of a sudden be skeptical of the stuff Camp Clinton puts out re Hill's
health. If she quits due to ill health, can she keep her campaign contributions?
She's got Parkinson's disease, or at least severe aftershocks from her earlier
brain trouble. She's not gonna get better.
It's amazing how everything has to get sloppy around Clinton. People,
news papers, news shows, whatever. As soon as they decide to sign on with
Camp Clinton, they all have to start making excuses for her. Sloppy excuses.
Excuses with a smell of skunk to them.
And once they give in, it sticks to them. They can no longer be trusted.
Whatever you thought of them before is now forever clouded. They are ruined.
I don't know about Democracy Now - haven't listened lately. But Krugman
went from a columnist I respected to idiotic Clinton shill starting this
year. His attacks on Sanders and his supporters and his excuse making for
Clinton's Iraq vote totally destroyed his credibility for me. Maybe he is
worth reading if he stays far away from the subject of Clinton, but I no
longer care enough to find out.
And, all this on top of the constant, daily, weekly, and monthly, never
ending, stream of rancid revelations being unearthed regarding her shady
public/private financial juggling act. Like, simply running for President
isn't stressful enough.
I stopped listening after Bush, Jr. was elected and immediately cut-off
aid to foreign family planning orgs that mentioned mentioned abortion as
an option to their patients. Ol' Cokie assured NPR listeners it was no big
thing, nothing to see here, move along people. I tore the radio out of the
dash and threw it out the window…
I gave up on NPR when I got sick and tired of Cokie Roberts condescending
republican talking points. It is very much a megaphone for center right
elites.
I've read that people who work there say that if they did not do the
center right slant, they would lose a vast majority of their big donor funding.
They should loose those donors, it would be a cleansing act that might
result in more creative and honest programming.
I only listen to local public radio and tune away if there is NPR news
content.
Chicago Public Radio (WBEZ) is an exception on local public radio. It
is awful and I will not listen to it, their programming has devolved to
whining elitist **** talk radio. It is insufferable.
"... She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. ..."
"... "Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi. ..."
"... Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies and beyond. ..."
"... Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves" ..."
"... History shows that what flows in Hillary's political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated blood. ..."
"... Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because they are illegal. ..."
"... Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable. Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her past points to her making it worse. ..."
"... I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will vote for Clinton. ..."
"... Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter. ..."
Secretary Hillary Clinton is asking Democratic voters to believe that she
has experienced a "Road to Damascus" conversion from her roots as a leader of
the "New Democrats" – the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party.
... ... ...
Hillary and Obama made sure that they did not even have to risk their "lap
dog" developing a spine. No IG was their ideal world.
...The idea that the State Department IG, appointed by President Obama, is
"partisan" in the sense of being "anti-Clinton" is facially bizarre in that
Obama is a strong supporter of Hillary.
HRC is, and always has been, bad news. She shouldn't have even run for
prez the first time. She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain
to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. I hope
the indictment comes down very soon, so Bernie can just be presumed the
Democratic nominee.
"Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were
the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more
generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral
trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in
a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed
extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion
project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions
on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi.
Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy
in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean
Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies
and beyond.
Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly
chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi
government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would
be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves"
The past is prologue. History shows that what flows in Hillary's
political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated
blood. I agreed with her when she spoke of a vast right wing conspiracy,
as it was obvious to anyone paying attention, and I could understand the
Clinton's defensive secrecy given the relentlessly personal assaults they
were under. But I object to the epidemic of secrecy that has infested what
should be the public sphere of our government.
Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their
official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying
attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public
that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because
they are illegal.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer
of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public
is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable.
Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He
lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her
past points to her making it worse.
The "unlikeability" factor of Hillary Clinton, and her husband Bill,
grows ever deeper in the American public. She drips with a uncouth and meglomaniacal
drive to be president. I am not sure she can win an election, even with
many voters pulling the lever for her in fear of the greater evil. I am
not sure she is the lesser evil, and I think others may feel the same way
election time.
Mmmmmf it's hard not to think she's the lesser of two evils when she's
running against a candidate who's openly deranged–and I can guarantee she
will be running against such a one, even before the Republicans pick one
to nominate. All of theirs are deranged. They had a "deep bench," and they
were all deranged. If Hillary inspires a large number of voters–and I'm
a Sanders fan, but apparently she does–maybe they'll all come out and vote
a straight D ticket, which might help us in that Home for
the Deranged which is our Congress. And I doubt that Hillary would nominate
another Scalia, Alito or Thomas. She probably wouldn't know where to look,
for one thing. Did I mention that I'm a Sanders fan?
care to list all of Trumps left wing positions? single payer – nope he's
not for that anymore, read his actual healthcare proposals. a few social
issues like abortion? oh maybe but he keeps changing positions there as
well (truthfully I don't' see these issues as really being right or left
at all, but in the American political system they usually are seen that
way) opposition to trade deals? … ok maybe that.
I'm not sure Kasich is deranged, but he is a warmonger for sure, then
so is Hillary. Rubio might not be deranged but he's a neocon and a neophyte.
I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will
not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will
vote for Clinton. I attend a local community college (prepping for
grad school) outside of Philadelphia in an area that Killary will easily
carry thanks to a lot of older feminists that still use the feminist card
to justify their vote.
Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern
states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the
Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only
one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter.
The Libertarians have their convention in July, and they might put up
an interesting nominee. Could be Jesse Ventura or McAffee of net security
and Belize escape fame. Ventura would be a good prez, in my opinion.
That's where Bernie can really do some good. He can't snap his fingers
and have medicare for all, but he can put in SEC heads, SecTreasury, and
economic advisers that make sense, like Bill Black, yes, who put some bankers
in jail after the S&L debacle under Reagan. Iceland put 13 bankers in jail
recently. Here in the cowardly US they just pay a fine amounting to a small
percentage of what they stole. No problem for them at all. Just a cost of
doing business.
"... In fact, HRC may be a better prospect for neocons, because they can distract the Dem base with how cool it is for a "strong woman" to send men into battle. Anyone opposed must be a misogynist/sexist pig. By contrast Jeb would be too obvious. ..."
"... "There is no prospect of a non-interventionist president." ..."
"... Exactly. Obama has certainly proved this to be true, for those who might've thought otherwise. And since it is true, if one is going to vote anyway, then the decision won't be made on the basis of not "wanting more wars with terrible outcomes." There will have to be another, different, deciding factor, since that factor would rule out Ms. Clinton AND every other candidate. ..."
"... Yes, I have to second Lysander's view. People - both in and outside the US - must first disabuse themselves of ANY notion that the US is a democratic state, that "changes" in leadership will actually bring about ANY difference in foreign/domestic policy and that the American war criminal ship can be righted by the people utilizing the "democratic" mechanisms at their disposal. ..."
"... Furthermore, after the Obama debacle and his utter betrayal etc of his supporters if anyone thinks someone in the American Establishment is looking out for their peon asses why then they probably also believe that the US was "surprised/caught off guard" - yet again - by ISIS et al in Iraq. ..."
"... I wish Rand Paul had his fathers balls, but he doesnt. Ron was a Libertarian pretending to be a Republican, while Rand is a Republican pretending to be a Libertarian... Rand would be no different than any other Republican or Democratic establishment schmuck. ..."
"... I never did like Ron Pauls economic policy, being left leaning, and I'm doubtful whether he would have actually accomplished anything useful as President, but his NonInterventionism was admirable and I was happy to put his name in in the Rethug primary in 2012 for that reason alone. ..."
"... Mr. Kristol said he, too, sensed "more willingness to rethink" neoconservatism, which he called "vindicated to some degree" by the fruits of Mr. Obama's detached approach to Syria and Eastern Europe. Mr. Kagan, he said, gives historical heft to arguments "that are very consistent with the arguments I made, and he made, 20 years ago, 10 years ago." ..."
"... After all the slaughter these people feel like crowing. They are clearly, as JSorrentine often reminds us, pyschopath butchers. ..."
"... Incidentally, where is the outrage from Samantha Powers about the ISIS massacre in Tikrit? ..."
"... Well, I guess the world just can't talk about how the amazingly rapid rise of ISIS/L and fall of Iraq completely continues the plans of the apartheid genocidal state of Israel's - and their traitorous Zionist partners in the American Establishment - as set out in the Yinon Plan and Clean Break strategies because - HOW FORTUITOUS...I mean, terribly sad and unexpected, sorry - some unlucky Israeli teenagers just happened to be "kidnapped" by "Hamas" just as the ISIS show was kicking off or so that's what the apartheid genocidal state of Israel is telling the world. ..."
"... Shrillary wouldn't be where she is today if she wasn't criminally insane. I want her to become President. She'll redefine the meaning of Eerily Inept (a label coined by Gore Vidal and attached to G Dubya Bush). Her greatest moment was when Lavrov called her out on her RESET button and pointed out, with a chuckle, "You got it wrong. It doesn't say RESET it says SHORT CIRCUIT." ..."
"... Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who argued in favor of arming Syrian rebels, said last week at an event in New York hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, "this is not just a Syrian problem anymore. I never thought it was just a Syrian problem. I thought it was a regional problem. ..."
"... Why, even HILLARY is just SOOOO SURPRISED about people trying to erase boundaries, huh? Funny, she should have read further into yesterday's times where it seems that the Zionist mouthpiece of record was desperately trying to get "out in front" of anyone mentioning that the fracturing of Iraq and the ME was all part of long-time Israeli strategy: ..."
"... In 2006, it was Ralph Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel turned columnist, who sketched a map that subdivided Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and envisioned Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics emerging from a no-longer-united Iraq. Two years later, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg imagined similar partings-of-the-ways, with new microstates -- an Alawite Republic, an Islamic Emirate of Gaza -- taking shape and Afghanistan splitting up as well. Last year, it was Robin Wright's turn in this newspaper, in a map that (keeping up with events) subdivided Libya as well. ..."
"... As president she's da bomb! ..."
"... Hillary is a loathsome war mongering bitch. She almost had a public orgasm when Libyan leader Quadaffi was tortured and murdered by US supported Libyan rebels. The muder of Chris Stevens was a case of what goes around comes around. ..."
"... A point which nobody else has made as far as I know. To wit there is a big overlap between the banking and Israel lobbies since wealthy Jews account for a hugely disproportionate number of top financial movers and shakers. Anything that helps the financial industry also helps the war mongering Israel and neo con lobbies. The heavily Jewish Fed is another enabler of all that is wrong with America today. ..."
"... I, also agree, with the possible exception of replacing the word "Zionist", with the word "Corporatist", although both can be rightly used. We'll still get the person the 1%ers want us to have. Ain't Oligarchies grand? ..."
"... Hillary's election depends on two things still unknown: her health and whether the Republicans can manage to choose someone sufficiently batshit crazy to make her the best of abysmal alternatives. ..."
"... HRH is a Neo Liberal of Arianne 'Sniff Sniff' Huffington's type, the 'Third Way Up Your Ass' of Globalist NAFTA/TPP Free Trade Neonazi destruction of labor and environmental protections, and in your face with NOOOOO apologies. ..."
"... And Victoria Nuland indicates that she agrees with her husband Robert Kagan's criticism of Obama's foreign policy. ..."
"... Would it be safe to say Hillary's White Trash ? ..."
"... There are some really nice photographs of Hillary being very friendly with bearded famous Libyan Islamists (Gaddafi was still alive then). In combination with Benghazi - I think you probably can connect the people greeting Hillary with what happened there (and today's Iraq) I would not think she has a chance to convince with foreign policy. ..."
"... 'You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region that is profound. Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in contests for power there.'" Now, if only he had mentioned the states included and featured the (United) States and Israel. Obama...usually a day late and a dollar short and leading or retreating from behind. ..."
"... I would rank Obama as the most cynical one. He is doing the dark colonial art. You can berate Bush for bombing Iraq (Obama did that with Libya, just as bad), but he did sink American manpower and treasure for all this futile nation building stuff, ie he tried to repair it. ..."
"... Obama tried to double down on the nation building stuff in Afghanistan, even copying the "surge". He is still not out of Afghanistan. ..."
"... He then tried to continue Bush's policy on the cheap, scrapping the nation building stuff and concentrating on shock and awe in Libya. When Russia put a stop to that in Syria he doubled down on the subversion supporting guerilla groups. He is now back in Iraq with allies supporting a "Sunni" insurrection by proxy. After a "color revolution" in Ukraine. ..."
"... It is not "US foreign policy" but the policy of the british empire. If he was running a US foreign policy, he would at least sometimes do something positive for Americans, by accident if nothing more. ..."
"... Economic policy to vote on? Are you joking? Whichever party we elect we get Neoliberalism anyway. ..."
"... "That smile and her gloating about his death made me feel she was some sort of sociopath." Massinissa, you meant psychopath, didn't you? ..."
Here is the reason why Hillary Clinton should never ever become President
of the United States.
A (sympathetic) New York Times profile of neocon Robert Kagan has
this on Clinton II:
But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his "mainstream" view of
American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists
are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently
attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the
guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy
heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.
"I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy," Mr. Kagan said,
adding that the next step after Mr. Obama's more realist approach "could
theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table" if elected president.
"If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," he added,
"it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly
her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it
something else."
Want more wars with terrible outcomes and no winner at all? Vote the neocon's
vessel, Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, by the way, is also
a coward,
unprincipled and
greedy. Her achievements as Secretary of State were about zero. Why would
anyone vote for her?
Posted by b on June 16, 2014 at 09:09 AM |
Permalink
I'm afraid you focus too much on elections that have no meaning. It seems
we may be cornered into choosing between HR Clinton and Jeb Bush. The latter,
I'm sure, would earn equal praise from the Kagan clan. There is no prospect
of a non-interventionist president. There is no prospect of a president
that is not a Zionist stooge.
In fact, HRC may be a better prospect for neocons, because they can
distract the Dem base with how cool it is for a "strong woman" to send men
into battle. Anyone opposed must be a misogynist/sexist pig. By contrast
Jeb would be too obvious.
Personally, I don't think she is anyone to worry about gaining the office.
Too much hatred of her by most Americans, from her serial lying to her terrible
foreign policy, to her standing by bent dick, in her lust for power. She
will be backed by feminazis,homonazis and zionazis(Kagan).
Not enough devil worshippers in America,at least not yet,and I believe
Americans,from current events that our traitor MSM will be unable to counter
with their usual BS,that we are down the rabbit hole of idiotic intervention,and
we will end this nonsense,and return to worrying about America,not foreign
malevolent monsters like Israel.
Well,I can at least hope,it springs eternal.
"There is no prospect of a non-interventionist president."
Exactly. Obama has certainly proved this to be true, for those who
might've thought otherwise. And since it is true, if one is going to vote
anyway, then the decision won't be made on the basis of not "wanting more
wars with terrible outcomes." There will have to be another, different,
deciding factor, since that factor would rule out Ms. Clinton AND every
other candidate.
Yes, I have to second Lysander's view. People - both in and outside
the US - must first disabuse themselves of ANY notion that the US is a democratic
state, that "changes" in leadership will actually bring about ANY difference
in foreign/domestic policy and that the American war criminal ship can be
righted by the people utilizing the "democratic" mechanisms at their disposal.
I understand that some speak to how corrupt our institutions are but
there always seems to be a "feel-goodiness" - i.e., we can still fix it
all, boys and girls, if you all just clap your hands LOUDER!! - implicit
in their analyses/prescriptions when there should be nothing but anger,
fear and revulsion towards the fascist war criminal state that we live within.
Furthermore, after the Obama debacle and his utter betrayal etc of
his supporters if anyone thinks someone in the American Establishment is
looking out for their peon asses why then they probably also believe that
the US was "surprised/caught off guard" - yet again - by ISIS et al in Iraq.
"There is no chance of a non-interventionist president"
I wish Rand Paul had his fathers balls, but he doesnt. Ron was a
Libertarian pretending to be a Republican, while Rand is a Republican pretending
to be a Libertarian... Rand would be no different than any other Republican
or Democratic establishment schmuck.
I never did like Ron Pauls economic policy, being left leaning, and
I'm doubtful whether he would have actually accomplished anything useful
as President, but his NonInterventionism was admirable and I was happy to
put his name in in the Rethug primary in 2012 for that reason alone.
Great post, b. I saw the article and felt the same thing. While commentators
are right to say that the foreign policy of the U.S. remains largely untouched
regardless of which candidate or party wins the White House (which the NYT
piece does a fine job illustrating), I do think Hillary is the worst the
Democrats have to offer.
What I found amazing about the story is how neocons are now preening
about as if they have been vindicated:
Mr. Kristol said he, too, sensed "more willingness to rethink" neoconservatism,
which he called "vindicated to some degree" by the fruits of Mr. Obama's
detached approach to Syria and Eastern Europe. Mr. Kagan, he said, gives
historical heft to arguments "that are very consistent with the arguments
I made, and he made, 20 years ago, 10 years ago."
After all the slaughter these people feel like crowing. They are clearly,
as JSorrentine often reminds us, pyschopath butchers.
Incidentally,
where is the outrage from Samantha Powers about the ISIS massacre in Tikrit?
Well, I guess the world just can't talk about how the amazingly rapid
rise of ISIS/L and fall of Iraq completely continues the plans of the apartheid
genocidal state of Israel's - and their traitorous Zionist partners in the
American Establishment - as set out in the
Yinon Plan and Clean Break strategies because - HOW FORTUITOUS...I mean,
terribly sad and unexpected, sorry - some unlucky Israeli teenagers just
happened to be "kidnapped" by "Hamas" just as the ISIS show was kicking
off or so that's what the apartheid genocidal state of Israel is telling
the world.
Yeah, I bet the apartheid genocidal state of Israel probably has just
NO IDEA about what's going on in Iraq what with their harrowing search -
read: collective punishment for the residents of the
illegally occupied territories - for the 3 missing boys who haven't
been ransomed or claimed to have been taken by anyone.
Wait a second...what if it was ISIS/L and NOT Hamas that "kidnapped"
the boys!!!Holy tie-in, Bat-Man!!!!
Then there would be NO WAY that what we're witnessing is the furthering
of the Yinon Plan because the apartheid genocidal Israelis would never instigate
false flag terror to further/distract from their own ends/agenda, would
they?
Nah.
A Qaeda-inspired group calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq and
Syria - Palestine, West Bank claimed responsibility for the kidnappings,
saying it wanted to avenge Israel's killing of three of its group in
the Hebron area late last year and to try to free prisoners from Israeli
jails. The credibility of the claim was not immediately clear.
But clear enough for the Zionist mouthpiece of the NYT to print it, right?
Shrillary wouldn't be where she is today if she wasn't criminally
insane. I want her to become President. She'll redefine the meaning of Eerily
Inept (a label coined by Gore Vidal and attached to G Dubya Bush). Her greatest
moment was when Lavrov called her out on her RESET button and pointed out,
with a chuckle, "You got it wrong. It doesn't say RESET it says SHORT CIRCUIT."
Then he laughed. At her, not with her. She's a sick, intellectually lazy,
dumb, joke. America deserves her.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who argued in
favor of arming Syrian rebels, said last week at an event in New York
hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, "this is not just a Syrian
problem anymore. I never thought it was just a Syrian problem. I thought
it was a regional problem. I could not have predicted, however,
the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq
and trying to erase boundaries to create an Islamic state."
Why, even HILLARY is just SOOOO SURPRISED about people trying to
erase boundaries, huh? Funny, she should have read further into yesterday's
times where it seems that the Zionist mouthpiece of record was desperately
trying to get "out in front" of anyone mentioning that the fracturing of
Iraq and the ME was all part of long-time Israeli strategy:
In 2006, it was Ralph Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel turned
columnist, who sketched a map that subdivided Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
and envisioned Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics emerging from a no-longer-united
Iraq. Two years later, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg imagined similar
partings-of-the-ways, with new microstates -- an Alawite Republic, an
Islamic Emirate of Gaza -- taking shape and Afghanistan splitting up
as well. Last year, it was Robin Wright's turn in this newspaper, in
a map that (keeping up with events) subdivided Libya as well.
Peters's map, which ran in Armed Forces Journal, inspired conspiracy
theories about how this was America's real plan for remaking the Middle
East. But the reality is entirely different: One reason these maps have
remained strictly hypothetical, even amid regional turmoil, is that
the United States has a powerful interest in preserving the Sykes-Picot
status quo.
This is not because the existing borders are in any way ideal. Indeed,
there's a very good chance that a Middle East that was more politically
segregated by ethnicity and faith might become a more stable and harmonious
region in the long run.
My favorite part of the above column is that it references a previous
column from the Zionist NYT from last year in which a war criminal even
drew up the
new map of the ME!!
Oh, but that war criminal thought SYRIA was going to be the trigger that
allowed for the culmination of the Yinon Plan. Oops!
And then ALSO YESTERDAY in the
NYT everyone's favorite little war Establishment mouthpiece Nicholas
Kristoff had this to say:
The crucial step, and the one we should apply diplomatic pressure to
try to achieve, is for Maliki to step back and share power with Sunnis
while accepting decentralization of government.
If Maliki does all that, it may still be possible to save Iraq. Without
that, airstrikes would be a further waste in a land in which we've already
squandered far, far too much.
DECENTRALIZATION, huh? Why, Nicky, that sounds like what Putin has suggested
for Ukraine, huh? Shhhhhhhh
And of course Mr. Fuckhead Tom Friedman weighs in ALSO YESTERDAY in the
NYT with this:
THE disintegration of Iraq and Syria is upending an order that has defined
the Middle East for a century. It is a huge event, and we as a country
need to think very carefully about how to respond. Having just returned
from Iraq two weeks ago, my own thinking is guided by five principles,
and the first is that, in Iraq today, my enemy's enemy is my enemy.
Other than the Kurds, we have no friends in this fight. Neither Sunni
nor Shiite leaders spearheading the war in Iraq today share our values.
The ME is going to be split up inevitably: check
The US/Israel are JUST NOWHERE to be found: check
Thanks, Tom, you fucking war criminal scum!!!
To review:
Everyone in the Establishment - fake left, right, center, dove, hawk,
blah blah - says that it's just inevitable now that Iraq and the ME will
probably be broken up.
Everyone in the Establishment also agrees that NO ONE could see this
whole ISIS etc shitpile coming, right?
Anyone else get the feeling that this is a coordinated continuation of
the Zionist Plan for the Middle East?
Naahh. Nothing to see here, fuckers!!! Move along!!!!
She ties right in with the whole pink power agenda. She is the woMAN
version and can also be useful for the women=victims, but, no way for the
women/whore
women/victim/whore is quintessentially Pussy Riot
And if you criticize HC you are just a woman hater!
(you know like antisemitic)
Same as Obama- criticize him, you are just a racist
Shuts the complaints right off!
Hillary is a loathsome war mongering bitch. She almost had a public
orgasm when Libyan leader Quadaffi was tortured and murdered by US supported
Libyan rebels. The muder of Chris Stevens was a case of what goes around
comes around.
A point which nobody else has made as far as I know. To wit there
is a big overlap between the banking and Israel lobbies since wealthy Jews
account for a hugely disproportionate number of top financial movers and
shakers. Anything that helps the financial industry also helps the war mongering
Israel and neo con lobbies. The heavily Jewish Fed is another enabler of
all that is wrong with America today.
lysander @ 4: "There is no prospect of a president that is not a Zionist
stooge."
I, also agree, with the possible exception of replacing the word
"Zionist", with the word "Corporatist", although both can be rightly used.
We'll still get the person the 1%ers want us to have. Ain't Oligarchies
grand?
Hillary's election depends on two things still unknown: her health
and whether the Republicans can manage to choose someone sufficiently batshit
crazy to make her the best of abysmal alternatives. I think her health
is the critical variable, as the PTB are going to make sure that the Republican
candidate will come out strongly for privatization of social security and
reversing the 19th amendment. Vote-rigging and gerrymandering will maintain
a sufficiently close election to preserve the simulacrum of a free election.
HRH is a Neo Liberal of Arianne 'Sniff Sniff' Huffington's type,
the 'Third Way Up Your
Ass' of Globalist NAFTA/TPP Free Trade Neonazi destruction of labor and
environmental
protections, and in your face with NOOOOO apologies.
That she is a totally-disjointed Royal is clear in her 'dead broke' claim.
That she is a famous Hectorian, constantly checking which way public opinion
is flowing, then crafting
her confabulated dialogue as screed to her real intents, is well known.
Der Prevaricator.
What should be equally well known, if news got around, Hillary (and UKs
Milliband) grifted
Hamid Karzai $5 BILLION of Americans' last life savings, stolen from US
Humanitarian Aid
to Afghanistan, then made five trips to Kabul for no apparent purpose, before
announcing
that her $-35 MILLION 'dead broke' presidential campaign had been paid off
by 'anonymous
donors'. This is all public record; in the 2009 International Conference
on Afghanistan in
London, right in the conference speeches, framed as 'Karzai's demand', but
in fact, that
speech of Karzai's was written by US State Department. I read the drafts.
'Bicycling'.
Hillary soon had to fly back one more time and grift Karzai an emergency
$3.5 BILLION
theft, after he lost Americans' $5 BILLION while speculating in Dubai R/E
by looting
his Bank of Kabul. Her 'injection of capital' saved the bank from being
audited, and
no doubt saved all the Kaganites from an embarrassing and public episiotomy.
In the end, Hillary retired with a fortune of $50 MILLION, again announced
publicly, which
together with the $-35 MILLION campaign payoff in violation of all US election
regulations,
is exactly 1% of the $8.5 BILLION she grifted to Karzai. She's in the 'One
Percent Club'.
"It's a Great Big Club, ...and you ain't in it!" George 'The Man' Carlin
But who cares? I'll tell you. The Russian know about this grift, certainly
the Israelis
know about this grift, the Millibandits know, the London Karzais know, and
if G-d forbid,
Hillary became HRHOTUS, Americans will be blackmailed down to their underdrawers.
There are some really nice photographs of Hillary being very friendly
with bearded famous Libyan Islamists (Gaddafi was still alive then). In
combination with Benghazi - I think you probably can connect the people
greeting Hillary with what happened there (and today's Iraq) I would not
think she has a chance to convince with foreign policy.
"Well at the risk of being a smartass her achievements were negative,
the American hegemony is in worse condition because of her."
Because of her and it.
Dubhaltach gets it right, and as applied to events inclusive of and after
9-11-2001. The purported masterful seamless garment of conspiracy,
yet it weakened the US and helped get Israel whacked good by Hezbollah.
As for the unmentioned Saudi, it is of course impossible that Saudi could
outplay longterm both the US and Israel longterm.
Just as it was impossible Chalabi could outplay the neocons and help
win Iran the Iraq War. Who is playing catch up and who is
playing masterfully cohesive and unbeatable conspiracy?
Dubhaltach gets it right, the US will be pushed out of the Mideast and
Israel is longterm DOOMED.
Here is Obama in the very recent Remnick interview
"Obama said:
'You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region
that is profound. Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in
contests for power there.'" Now, if only he had mentioned the states
included and featured the (United) States and Israel. Obama...usually a
day late and a dollar short and leading or retreating from behind.
I would rank Obama as the most cynical one. He is doing the dark
colonial art. You can berate Bush for bombing Iraq (Obama did that with
Libya, just as bad), but he did sink American manpower and treasure for
all this futile nation building stuff, ie he tried to repair it.
Obama tried to double down on the nation building stuff in Afghanistan,
even copying the "surge". He is still not out of Afghanistan.
He then tried to continue Bush's policy on the cheap, scrapping the
nation building stuff and concentrating on shock and awe in Libya. When
Russia put a stop to that in Syria he doubled down on the subversion supporting
guerilla groups. He is now back in Iraq with allies supporting a "Sunni"
insurrection by proxy. After a "color revolution" in Ukraine.
He just "sold" US foreign policy in a different target group, Hillary
will sell it to her target group, Jeb Bush to his.
It is not "US foreign policy" but the policy of the british empire.
If he was running a US foreign policy, he would at least sometimes do something
positive for Americans, by accident if nothing more.
"That smile and her gloating about his death made me feel she was
some sort of sociopath." Massinissa, you meant psychopath, didn't you?
the following is an excerpt from essay written by James at Winter Patriot:
"... Psychopaths are people without a conscience; without compassion
for others; without a sense of shame or guilt. The majority of people carry
within them the concern for others that evolution has instilled in us to
allow us to survive as groups. This is the evolutionary basis of the quality
of compassion. Compassion is not just a matter of virtue; it is a matter
of survival. Psychopaths do not have this concern for others and so are
a danger to the survival of the rest of us.
Psychopaths, as a homogeneous group, would not survive one or two generations
by themselves. They are motivated only by self interest and would exploit
each other till they ended up killing each other. Which gives one pause
for thought! They are parasites and need the rest of us to survive. In doing
so they compromise the survival of the whole species.
Psychopaths represent approximately between 1% and 20% of the population
in western countries depending on whose research you go by and also depending
on how broad a definition of the condition you adopt. It is generally held,
though, that there is a hard core of between 4-6% or so and maybe another
10 -15% of the population that is functionally psychopathic in that they
will exploit their fellow human being without hesitation.
The hard core are untreatable. They see nothing wrong with who or what
they are. The other 10-15% group may be persuaded to act differently in
a different environment or a different society. The second group act out
of a misguided strategy of survival. I'll concentrate on the hard core 5%
and the singular fact that must be borne in mind with them is that they
are incapable of change for the better. They cannot reform or be reformed.
And you can take that to the bank in every case! They must never be trusted.
Documented liars like those that populate the current Kiev regime
can be confidently assumed to be psychopaths from their behaviour and so
will never negotiate in good faith and will always renege on any deals they
make. The same can be said for the governments of the US and UK who back
them. Historically, they have never made a treaty that they did not subsequently
break."
James' essay is extremely informative wrt group psychopathy... some of
you may want to give it a read:
psychopath: a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal
or violent social behavior.
an unstable and aggressive person. "schoolyard psychopaths will gather around
a fight to encourage the combatants"
Mina, now that I've looked up these links for you, I am confused myself!
Since a sociopath is less of a danger to the rest of us, I prefer to call
TPTB and their puppets psychopaths. Not your bad at all, apparently the
two are so similar as to there being difficulty telling them apart.
btw, I always enjoy your posts ~ not only do I get new info, but often
new sources... which is great. Thanks!
Now in view of recent Hillary health problems actions of Wasserman Schultz need
to be revisited. She somehow avoided criminal prosecution for interfering with the
election process under Obama administration. That's clearly wrong. The court
should investigate and determine the level of her guilt.
Moor did his duty, moor can go. This is fully applicable to Wasserman Schultz.
BTW it was king of "bait and switch" Obama who installed her in this position. And
after that some try to say that Obama is not a neocon. Essentially leaks mean is
that Sander's run was defeated by the Democratic Party's establishment dirty tricks
and Hillary is not a legitimate candidate. It's Mission Accomplished, once again.
"Clinton is a life-long Republican. She grew up in an all-white Republican suburb,
she supported Goldwater, and she supported Wall Street banking, then became a DINO
dildo to ride her husband's coattails to WH, until the NYC Mob traded her a NY Senator
seat for her husband's perfidy. She never said one word about re-regulating the
banks."
How could this anti-Russian hysteria/bashing go on in a normal country -- the
level of paranoia and disinformation about Russia and Putin is plain crazy even
for proto-fascist regimes.
Notable quotes:
"... Wasserman Schultz reluctantly agreed to relinquish her speaking role at the convention here, a sign of her politically fragile standing. ..."
"... Democratic leaders are scrambling to keep the party united, but two officials familiar with the discussions said Wasserman Schultz was digging in and not eager to vacate her post after the November elections. ..."
"... Sanders on Sunday told CNN's Jake Tapper the release of DNC emails that show its staffers working against him underscore the position he's held for months: Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go. ..."
"... "I don't think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC not only for these awful emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people, and I don't think her leadership style is doing that," Sanders told Tapper ..."
"... But again, we discussed this many, many months ago, on this show, so what is revealed now is not a shock to me." ..."
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz will not
have a major speaking role or preside over daily convention proceedings this
week, a decision reached by party officials Saturday after emails surfaced raising
questions about the committee's impartiality during the Democratic primary.
The DNC Rules Committee on Saturday named Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, as permanent
chair of the convention, according to a DNC source. She will gavel each session
to order and will gavel each session closed.
"She's been quarantined," another top Democrat said of Wasserman Schultz,
following a meeting Saturday night. Wasserman Schultz faced intense pressure
Sunday to resign her post as head of the Democratic National Committee, several
party leaders told CNN, urging her to quell a growing controversy threatening
to disrupt Hillary Clinton's nominating convention.
Wasserman Schultz reluctantly agreed to relinquish her speaking role
at the convention here, a sign of her politically fragile standing. But
party leaders are now urging the Florida congresswoman to vacate her position
as head of the party entirely in the wake of leaked emails suggesting the DNC
favored Clinton during the primary and tried to take down Bernie Sanders by
questioning his religion. Democratic leaders are scrambling to keep the
party united, but two officials familiar with the discussions said Wasserman
Schultz was digging in and not eager to vacate her post after the November elections.
... ... ...
One email appears to show DNC staffers asking how they can reference Bernie
Sanders' faith to weaken him in the eyes of Southern voters. Another seems to
depict an attorney advising the committee on how to defend Hillary Clinton against
an accusation by the Sanders campaign of not living up to a joint fundraising
agreement.
Sanders on Sunday told CNN's Jake Tapper the release of DNC emails that
show its staffers working against him underscore the position he's held for
months: Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go.
"I don't think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC not only for
these awful emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because
we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people, and I don't
think her leadership style is doing that," Sanders told Tapper on "State
of the Union," on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
"I am not an atheist," he said. "But aside from all of that, it is an outrage
and sad that you would have people in important positions in the DNC trying
to undermine my campaign. It goes without saying, the function of the DNC is
to represent all of the candidates -- to be fair and even-minded."
He added: "But again, we discussed this many, many months ago, on this
show, so what is revealed now is not a shock to me."
... ... ...
Several Democratic sources told CNN that the leaked emails are a big source
of contention and may incite tensions between the Clinton and Sanders camps
heading into the Democratic convention's Rules Committee meeting this weekend.
"It could threaten their agreement," one Democrat said, referring to the
deal reached between Clinton and Sanders about the convention, delegates and
the DNC. The party had agreed to include more progressive principles in its
official platform, and as part of the agreement, Sanders dropped his fight to
contest Wasserman Schultz as the head of the DNC.
"It's gas meets flame," the Democrat said.
Michael Briggs, a Sanders spokesman, had no comment Friday.
The issue surfaced on Saturday at Clinton's first campaign event with Tim
Kaine as her running mate, when a protester was escorted out of Florida International
University in Miami. The protester shouted "DNC leaks" soon after Clinton thanked
Wasserman Schultz for her leadership at the DNC.
This is Christopher Hitchens biting analysis from previous Presidential elections,
but still relevant
Notable quotes:
"... The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk that still has not been dispelled. ..."
"... the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen. ..."
"... If you recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others, you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable Roger Tamraz , for another example. ..."
"... It found that the Clinton administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax (as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with Chinese military-industrial associations). ..."
"... Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations (still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent pros . You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon. ..."
"... Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud, hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary Clinton's other brother, Hugh , and, hey, they , respectively, got a presidential commutation and a presidential pardon, too. ..."
"... Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications, too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic. ..."
"... In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. ..."
"... Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness and masochism to me. ..."
It was apt in a small way that the first
endorser of Hillary Rodham Clinton for secretary of state should have been
Henry Kissinger. The last time he was nominated for any position of responsibility-the
chairmanship of the 9/11 commission-he accepted with many florid words about
the great honor and responsibility, and then he withdrew when it became clear
that he would have to disclose the client list of Kissinger Associates. (See,
for the article that began this embarrassing process for him, my Slate
column "The
Latest Kissinger Outrage.")
It is possible that the Senate will be as much of a club as the undistinguished
fraternity/sorority of our ex-secretaries of state, but even so, it's difficult
to see Sen. Clinton achieving confirmation unless our elected representatives
are ready to ask a few questions about conflict of interest along similar lines.
And how can they not? The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations
came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk
that still has not been dispelled. Former President Bill Clinton has recently
and rather disingenuously offered to submit his own foundation to scrutiny (see
the
work of my Vanity Fair colleague Todd Purdum on the delightful friends
and associates that Clinton has acquired since he left office), but
the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in
office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were
wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen.
Just to give the most salient examples from the Clinton fundraising scandals
of the late 1990s: The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight published
a list of witnesses called before it who had either "fled
or pled"-in other words, who had left the country to avoid testifying or
invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination. Some Democratic members
of the committee said that this was unfair to, say, the Buddhist nuns who raised
the unlawful California temple dough for then-Vice President
Al Gore, but however fair you want to be, the number of those who found
it highly inconvenient to testify fluctuates between 94 and 120. If you
recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others,
you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance
to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National
Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of
this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the
White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable
Roger Tamraz, for another example.
Related was the result of a House select
committee
on Chinese espionage in the United States and the illegal transfer to China
of advanced military technology. Chaired by Christopher Cox, R-Calif., the committee
issued a
report
in 1999 with no dissenting or "minority" signature. It found that the Clinton
administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax
(as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with
Chinese military-industrial associations).
Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations
(still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent
pros. You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar
bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise
Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill
Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon.
Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud,
hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they
got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary
Clinton's other brother,
Hugh, and, hey, they, respectively, got a presidential commutation
and a presidential pardon, too. In the Hugh case, the money was returned
as being too embarrassing for words (and as though following the hallowed custom,
when busted or flustered, of the Clinton-era DNC). But I would say that it was
more embarrassing to realize that a former first lady, and a candidate for secretary
of state, was a full partner in years of seedy overseas money-grubbing and has
two greedy brothers to whom she cannot say no.
Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications,
too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another
scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of
Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something
simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership
with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably
have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to
look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic.
China, Indonesia, Georgia-these are not exactly negligible countries on our
defense and financial and ideological peripheries. In each country, there are
important special interests that equate the name Clinton with the word pushover.
And did I forget to add what President Clinton pleaded when the revulsion at
the Rich pardons became too acute? He claimed that he had concerted the deal
with the government of Israel in the intervals of the Camp David "agreement"!
So anyone who criticized the pardons had better have been careful if they didn't
want to hear from the Anti-Defamation League. Another splendid way of showing
that all is aboveboard and of convincing the Muslim world of our evenhandedness.
In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the
Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. A president absolutely
has to know of his chief foreign-policy executive that he or she has no other
agenda than the one he has set. Who can say with a straight face that this
is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty
is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is
ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either
of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently
was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of
her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him
for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What
may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness
and masochism to me.
Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a columnist for Vanity Fair and
the author, most recently, of
Arguably, a collection of essays.
"... To hear the mainstream news media retell the story of the contentious 2000 presidential election, one would think that it all boils down to Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court decision created huge controversy and poisons public life to this day. But this focus on the decision serves to obscure an act of great duplicity on the part of the media that dwarfs the impact of that case: namely, that if it hadn't been for actions they took on television on Election Night, November 7, 2000, there never would have been a Bush v. Gore or a Florida recount in the first place. ..."
"... by 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Election Night, a cover-up had already begun. ..."
To hear the mainstream news media retell the story of the contentious
2000 presidential election, one would think that it all boils down to Bush v.
Gore. The Supreme Court decision created huge controversy and poisons public
life to this day. But this focus on the decision serves to obscure an act of
great duplicity on the part of the media that dwarfs the impact of that case:
namely, that if it hadn't been for actions they took on television on Election
Night, November 7, 2000, there never would have been a Bush v. Gore or a Florida
recount in the first place.
It is a story of voter suppression. As it turns out, most of what we think
was important about that election-hanging chads, butterfly ballots, 36 days
of legal jousting-is unimportant. And by 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Election
Night, a cover-up had already begun.
In view of the recent events the old question arise again: Was Hillary Clinton already on warafin when she suffered her latest fall?
Notable quotes:
"... Secretary Clinton was started on Coumadin, also known as warfarin. This medication significantly reduces - though it does not eliminate - the chance of a future blood clot. ..."
"... This extends to other facets of life; a simple fall that would be shook off by anyone else can give a patient on blood thinners a lethal brain bleed. The risks and benefits of anticoagulation must be weighed against the risk of a stroke if one does not use blood thinners; and is a choice for every patient to make with their physician. ..."
"... This does not include the possibility of an intracranial bleed, which could cause major cognitive disabilities without being lethal. ..."
"... There is a non-trivial possibility that Secretary Clinton will suffer a major bleed of some kind. ..."
"... Vamsi Aribindi is a medical student who blogs at the Medical Intellectual . ..."
Her
medical history includes two deep vein thromboses (DVTs) in 1998 and 2009,
as well as a cerebral venous sinus thrombosis in 2012. A thromboses is a clot;
basically, the formation of a solid plug inside a vein, a misfire of the body's
ability to plug holes and stop bleeding. While I could not find news articles
discussing the 2009 incident in further detail, the
1998 incident was a proximal DVT - one that had ascended into the popliteal
vein - an especially dangerous form of DVT that is most likely to cause a condition
called pulmonary embolus which can be fatal. A cerebral venous sinus thrombosis
is also a deadly condition, with a mortality of
approximately
10 percent and negative cognitive effects, though survivors make a good
recovery.
When anyone has multiple unprovoked clots, meaning there was no obvious reason
for the body to misfire it's clot formation system such as surgery or active
cancer, and especially when someone has a clot in an unusual location such as
the brain, an extensive workup is indicated to look for causes. Some such causes
include previously undetected cancers, inherited or random genetic disorders,
and autoimmune disorders. That workup was negative in Secretary Clinton's case,
per her doctor's letter. This is not unusual; there are many disorders that
we have not yet discovered, and in all likelihood Secretary Clinton's particular
clotting disorder happens to be one that has not yet been discovered.
When someone has such a clotting disorder, as a precaution patients are often
started on a medication to prevent the formation of clots. These medications
are known as anticoagulants or blood thinners. Secretary Clinton was started
on Coumadin, also known as warfarin. This medication significantly reduces -
though it does not eliminate - the chance of a future blood clot.
What is the side effect of blood thinners? A greater chance of bleeding and
greater difficulty stopping a bleed once it happens. An elderly patient on blood
thinners who is subsequently injured in a car crash is a nightmare for a trauma
team. This extends to other facets of life; a simple fall that would be
shook off by anyone else can give a patient on blood thinners a lethal brain
bleed. The risks and benefits of anticoagulation must be weighed against the
risk of a stroke if one does not use blood thinners; and is a choice for every
patient to make with their physician.
In Secretary Clinton's case, what is her risk of bleeding? Secretary Clinton
is over 65, and she has had multiple falls (in
2005, 2009, and 2011, and 2012); the 2009 fall resulting in a broken elbow
and the last one resulting in a concussion. According to
guidelines
put out by the American College of Chest Physicians, two risk factors puts her
in the category of high-risk patients, meaning her risk of bleeding while on
long-term anticoagulation is 6.5 percent per year. The mortality from a major
bleed is
approximately
10 percent. This does not include the possibility of an intracranial
bleed, which could cause major cognitive disabilities without being lethal.
What is Secretary Clinton's precise risk? It is difficult to say. She does
receive excellent medical care, and presumably has her dose of warfarin closely
monitored by many professionals. In addition, she may soon switch to newer anticoagulants
which are easier to take and dose than warfarin, though it is unclear if they
are truly any safer.
Ultimately, all that can be said is this: There is a non-trivial possibility
that Secretary Clinton will suffer a major bleed of some kind. The worst
possible scenario? Trump and Clinton are nominated, and Clinton suddenly suffers
a devastating bleed in the middle of the campaign, leaving a likely underqualified
vice presidential pick to try and fight Donald Trump. However, the risk of this
is likely small; and it is not as if 74-year-old Senator Bernie Sanders is free
of health risks either. Patients and doctors both hate uncertainty, and yet
we deal with it every day. I don't believe Secretary Clinton's increased risks
are anything that should disqualify her from the presidency, but they are certainly
something to ponder.
DNC is just a cesspool of neocon sharks. No decency whatsoever. What a bottom
feeders. Will Sanders supporters walk out ?
Notable quotes:
"... They made Craigslist posts on fake Trump jobs talking about women needing to be hot for the job and "maintain hotness" https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803 ..."
"... DNC and Hillary moles inside the Bernie campaign https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4776 ..."
"Hey Josh, since the Sanders camp keeps pushing stories about the money
laundering, we're prepping a Medium post from either our CFO or our CEO
we want to run by you. It will sharply state that the criticisms are wrong,
etc.. basically our talking points in a Medium post format with some extra
detail."
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4091
DWS on Bernie staying in the race in April: "Spoken like someone who
has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding
of what to do"
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5477 )
Calling someone a Bernie Bro for wanting to interview DWS about money
laundering, which they call "a shit topic". Asks for an interview next week
on another topic.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13319
Media Collaboration
"I think the best reporter to give the news to ahead of time is Greg
Sargent at the Washington Post. But, the specific reporter is not as important
as getting it to an outlet before the news breaks so we can help control
the narrative on the front"
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11242
More media collusion (Politico) "Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before
it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it. Let me know if you
see anything that's missing and I'll push back." Thanks to
/u/PM_ME_OR_PM_ME
"-- Last night, Hillary attended two high-dollar fundraisers in New
York City. The first, from 6:15 p.m. to 7:45 p.m., was at the home of Maureen
White and Steven Rattner. Approximately 15 attendees contributed $100,000+
to attend. Then, from 8:15 p.m. to 9:45 p.m., she went to the home of Lynn
Forester de Rothschild. Another 15 people ponied up more than 100K to attend."
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/1238
"less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed
in the state parties' coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest
Federal Election Commission filing"
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/1724
Targeting Wall Street donors. Thanks
/u/Cygnus_X
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/998
More info: "One big Clinton donor on Wall Street said that Bush donors
are prime targets and that 'we're a big tent.' Potential sources of support
for Clinton could include people like Jack Oliver, who also served as a
top fundraiser for Jeb Bush. Both Johnson and Oliver did not respond to
requests for comment.The race for Wall Street cash will be intense."-
/u/Cygnus_X
Personal note: honestly this feels like browsing a bunch of high school
girls' emails. "Is there a fuck you emoji", "bahahaha", someone links to
round of applause by lady gaga.
Tons of media manipulation.
Also, kinda feel bad for Bernie supporters now. The system, like trump
mentioned in his speech, was against you completely.
The real question is whether the email are authentic or not. They are.
Neoliberal propaganda honchos just decided to use a smoke screen to conceal this
fact using Russia as a bogeyman.
Russian might be guilty of many things, but in no way it is
responsible for corruption of DNC and this subversive actions/covert operations
used for installing Hillary Clinton as a candidate from the Democratic Party. .
Notable quotes:
"... Is it OK to cheat, lie and deceive - as Clintons and DNC did - and then defend themselves by saying that "nobody would know, if it wasn't for those damn Russians"? Even the idea is preposterous: how we find out about this corruption is irrelevant, the point is there was corruption and cheating. ..."
"... So the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions. ..."
"... [Under Clintons] democracy has become conspiracy ..."
"... Are you constipated? Blame it on Russia. ..."
"... Oh and blaming Russia for revealing the truth. The truth was not attacked, but who revealed the truth is suddenly the bad guy. So desperate and out of sorts. :) ..."
"... There's no proof, besides an unsourced article in the Washington Post form 'security experts', that Russia had anything to do with this. What we do know is that immediately after the leaks became public various news outlets produced obviously planted hit pieces claiming some kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin, and again with precisely zero evidence as back up. It's gob smacking that the Clinton campaign would risk an international incident with a nuclear power to cover for their shitty behaviour, but then again it's Hillary Clinton so perhaps not. ..."
"... It may indeed be Russian hackers who gained access to the emails which confirm the DNC was all along in the tank for Clinton, and was actively placing a thumb on the scale from day one in the primary process. ..."
"... But the bottom line here is that if the DNC had not so conspired, there would be no emails to leak, now would there? For Mook and others to now be placing blame on the hackers, rather than on those who produced the embarrassing material that the hackers exposed, is diversionary and inexcusable. ..."
"... The funniest thing is, they don't even deny the authenticity of the emails. Basically, DNC says that someone is guilty of revealing the truth. You can hardly stoop any lower. Blaming Russia is just a cherry on the cake. ..."
"... How nice to have an eternal scapegoat: TheRussiansAreComing!TheRussiansAreComing! This will obviously be RodHam's theme as President. Perhaps to the point of annihilation. Neo-Conne! ..."
"... My biggest issue with Hillary from the start has been her continued nonchalance when it comes to matters of national security. She acts as if she is above the need to keep sensitive information safe from potential enemies, both foreign and domestic. That's a pretty scary attitude coming from someone who is likely to be this nation's next leader. ..."
"... It's amazing. Caught red handed and still deflecting. Take responsibility for Christ sak ..."
"... ".....Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced, in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize his support. ..."
"... The more interesting part is that this blame is just a distraction from the larger issue, that the entire political system is corrupted and broken. This is just business as usual, only this instance was revealed. ..."
I honestly can't wait for when the pro-clinron commentors arrive. I can
see it now "this doesn't matter if you vote 3rd party you're voting for
trump." It won't matter that this is all the fault of the DNC, it will be
on us. I'm calling it now ;)
Is it OK to cheat, lie and deceive - as Clintons and DNC did - and then
defend themselves by saying that "nobody would know, if it wasn't for those
damn Russians"? Even the idea is preposterous: how we find out about this
corruption is irrelevant, the point is there was corruption and cheating.
Interestingly, this is a favorite defense of all authoritarians. They
always claim that if it benefits the "enemy", it is ok to suppress it. Stalin
had a concept of "objectively aiding the enemy" - it meant that maybe the
person was not a conscious traitor, but his/her actions helped the enemy
- and that was enough. Is Guardian and Clintons now marching down this road
of extreme "us versus them" ideology?
What's is next? Will Clintons ban Bernie from speaking because it would
"aid Trump"? (and by extension in their paranoid thinking, it would aid
Russia).
"Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling
us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and
are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
So the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions.
Another reason on the list as to why I won't be voting for Hillary. Why
did DNC act very anti-democratic?
A vote for Hillary is a vote for continued corruption.
Rather than blaming they ought to be taking responsibility for their own
words. But they'd have to be adults with integrity to do that. The tragedy
and travesty of it is the willful, routine, nonchalant effort to subvert
the Constitution and the will of the people. These kinds of machinations
have always gone on within both parties and should always be exposed. The
SuperPACS, the dark money, the secret maneuverings, the totally broken primary
system, all designed to stop our having our say. People elsewhere often
wonder about "our" choices for the White House. Now they can see how much
of that free choice has been wrested away over time, and how imperative
it is that we ordinary people start working on positive change within the
elective system. In my opinion all the DNC participants should lose their
jobs and be made to cool their heels in jail a while, because without consequences
we may as well just burn the Constitution and Bill of Rights right now and
be done with it, for all the respect these documents are given by our politicians.
What a revolting mess it all is on both sides, with ordinary people the
losers, as always.
Oh and blaming Russia for revealing the truth. The truth was not attacked,
but who revealed the truth is suddenly the bad guy. So desperate and out
of sorts. :)
There's no proof, besides an unsourced article in the Washington Post form
'security experts', that Russia had anything to do with this. What we do
know is that immediately after the leaks became public various news outlets
produced obviously planted hit pieces claiming some kind of collusion between
the Trump campaign and Putin, and again with precisely zero evidence as
back up. It's gob smacking that the Clinton campaign would risk an international
incident with a nuclear power to cover for their shitty behaviour, but then
again it's Hillary Clinton so perhaps not.
A big part of the problem is that Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) is still
in her position. If the Democratic Party place a value on performance, she
should have been fired after the 2014 mid-terms.
Part of the problem is that the DNC is too closely aligned with the interests
of one political family. Competence and other considerations count for a
lot less than loyalty. DWS kept her position because of the ties to Clinton
and Clintons donors, not because she did a good job and grew the party.
The opposite has happened.
Frankly, Obama bears some degree of responsibility for this because he's
the one who canned Howard Dean, who actually had a track record of success
at winning elections and growing the party through two election cycles.
Instead Obama replaced him with a guy like Tim Kaine, who wasn't up to the
task either. Dean also did a good job of navigating the very difficult 2008
election. Kaine and DWS did poorly in the capacity as DNC Chair.
As president, Obama has done a lot right. But his neglect of the DNC
is part of his legacy, and it isn't a good one.
That's nice that those damn Russians 'stole' their email. However, those
damn Russians didn't write them. I dislike and distrust Hillary and DWS
more now that I did a week ago, and that takes some doing. Hillary is Nixon.
Paranoid. Dishonest. Devious.
how in the name of god can the overly compensated chairwoman of the democratic
party conspire against a candidate supported by nearly half of democratic
primary voters ???
Kaine is in the same boat as Clinton on the TPP - the Good Ship Hypocrite.
Both hope like hell that TPP gets passed in the lame duck so they can make
a show of being against it to gain some progressive cred. If Obama and his
colleagues Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan can't get TPP done before his term
ends, Clinton and Kaine's reservations re TPP will disappear faster than
a snowflake in July. It's like Clinton's about face on the Keystone pipeline
- she got a heads up from Obama that he wasn't going to approve it anyway,
so she came out against it.
I love the irony of the comment from the Clinton Campaign..... '' This is
further evidence the Russian Government is trying to influence the outcome
of an election ''.
Heavens forbid that the USA would ever stoop so low as to try and influence
the outcome of other Countries elections !!!
It of course being totally above Americians to indulge such devious behaviour
.
Very true, and Hillary was happy to support the violent Honduras coup of
an elected government and still very much supports that new violent regime.
And the new regime is very friendly to western big corporate 'interests'.
Of course. Hillary is old-school.
Doesn't matter who did it, the Russians, Anonymous, Edward Snowden. The
point is that the DNC is revealed as partisan and rigged. In addition to
minimizing her role at the convention, I believe Wasserman Schultz should
be dumped from any position of leadership, along with other DNC leaders.
No wonder people are fed up with politics as usual.
"Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling
us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and
are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
And Mook is the expert who whispered that lie in his own ear.
Great photo, Mook the Spook, her lover, a few bigtime aids. They got
caught like Nixon's plumbers at Watergate. So they would like to blame the
Russians for their writing calumnies and antiSemitic slanders against Sanders.
They look pretty stupid!
Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling us that Russian state
actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these
emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
It may indeed be Russian hackers who gained access to the emails which confirm
the DNC was all along in the tank for Clinton, and was actively placing
a thumb on the scale from day one in the primary process.
Sanders knew it, and we as his supporters also knew it and made reference
to that very issue repeatedly in countless comment threads here at the Guardian
and elsewhere.
But the bottom line here is that if the DNC had not so conspired,
there would be no emails to leak, now would there?
For Mook and others to now be placing blame on the hackers, rather than
on those who produced the embarrassing material that the hackers exposed,
is diversionary and inexcusable.
The Clinton campaign is moving closer and closer to blowing this election
completely and allowing the most dangerous candidacy I've ever seen in my
lifetime actually win this thing.
They've already selected a VP pick which effectively thumbs their nose
at the very progressives whose enthusiasm they will need at the voting booths,
and now here they are trying to deflect blame for unconscionable skullduggery
in the primary process onto foreign actors.
Debbie Wassermann Schultz should have been fired long ago, so blatant and
obvious were her shenanigans.
This kind of tone-deaf ineptitude could see all of us paying an unimaginable
price in November. All it will take at this point is a few more mass shootings
(at which we here in the US have a particular talent) to feed into Trump's
narrative and we'll all be waking up in January in a country we don't even
recognize.
The funniest thing is, they don't even deny the authenticity of the
emails. Basically, DNC says that someone is guilty of revealing the truth.
You can hardly stoop any lower. Blaming Russia is just a cherry on the cake.
Just saw Bernie on CNN basically saying the Nr1 priority is to defeat D.
Trump, then keep fighting the good fight from within the Democratic Party
trying to reform it from within.
A big thing he misses here that the top honcho Mrs Hillary Clinton is one
of the main reasons of what the Democratic Party has become. She will be
a huge obstruction to anything resembling reform. You might as well pack
up and go 3rd party and show the Dems that way what American voters want.
4 years of Trump might actually be a lot better to shake up the corrupt
DNC then 4-8 years of Hillary and who knows how many years of Republicans
2 follow (and believe me, Hillary will do a lot of damage to the democratic
brand!)
Clinton is desperate to lurk voters by anything, then let it be those Russians
that hacked her mail. A Russian proverb to the point - "A bad dancer always
blames his balls that hamper him".
If they'd backed off, allowed their MSM protectors to bury the story, this
whole thing would have died down in a week. A few angry Bernie Bros notwithstanding
there's nothing in the emails that we didn't know already. Yes the DNC and
the Hillary Clinton campaign were one and the same....shock! Yes sections
of the corporate owned media are colluding with the Democratic Party....wowsers!!
But no, they couldn't help themselves. Now we've got the Democratic nominee
for the Presidency alleging, with zero proof, that her opponent is engaged
in a conspiracy to commit criminal acts with a foreign power! Seriously
who thought this was a good idea?
How nice to have an eternal scapegoat: TheRussiansAreComing!TheRussiansAreComing!
This will obviously be RodHam's theme as President. Perhaps to the point
of annihilation. Neo-Conne!
My biggest issue with Hillary from the start has been her continued nonchalance
when it comes to matters of national security. She acts as if she is above
the need to keep sensitive information safe from potential enemies, both
foreign and domestic. That's a pretty scary attitude coming from someone
who is likely to be this nation's next leader.
Putin ate my homework (TM). What Debbie and the gang did is worse, much worse than this sorry article
tries to portray. For example, what sort of Democratic Party tries to use Bearnie's religion
agsinst him ?!?
".....Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including
Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's
rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced,
in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize
his support.
****"It might may [sic] no difference, but for KY and WA can we get someone
to ask his belief," Brad Marshall, CFO of DNC, wrote in an email on May
5, 2016. "Does he believe in God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish
heritage.
I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with
my peeps. My southern baptist peeps woudl draw a big difference between
a Jew and an atheist."****
"Amy Dacey, CEO of the DNC, subsequently responded "AMEN," according
to the email"
The more interesting part is that this blame is just a distraction from
the larger issue, that the entire political system is corrupted and broken.
This is just business as usual, only this instance was revealed.
Has anyone here worked, I mean truly worked in the pre-election process,
behind the scenes, witnessing the dirty business that is gathering electoral
votes during caucuses and primaries? It is a total sham. It is where under-the-table
deals are made for promised loyalties to certain candidates, where those
that have the most, bribe others to vote a certain way, where quid pro quo
rules over democracy or a candidates stance on issues and/or policies. It
is where future cabinet positions are secured, based on allegiance to party
hierarchy and strong-arming. Your vote means nothing, only a small select
group determines candidates, and ultimately the president.
DNC Chair Wasserman is just one cog in a massive political machine, one
run rampantly out of control. And this happens on both sides, among both
parties. It is where the personal selfish love of money, power, and fame
outstrip the will of the people.
Long live hackers for keeping a check on an obviously corrupted system.
The mainstream media isn't doing their jobs anymore, someone has to. The
media have merely become the pretorian band for the super class, those elite
that truly control this country from behind the scenes, pulling the puppet
strings attached to the soulless politicians.
We are again presented with two candidates whom have each proven their
desire to negate the will of the nation, for purely selfish reasons. Neither
is truly qualified for this office.
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought
to trust no [hu]man living with the power to endanger the public liberty".
-John Adams-
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more
corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters"
-Ben Franklin-
This short article contains several very deep observations. Highly
recommended...
Notable quotes:
"... There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. ..."
"... This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over. ..."
"... First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form. ..."
"... So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. ..."
"... I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children. ..."
"... Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile ..."
CHRIS HEDGES : Well, reducing the election to personalities
is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon
Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism. It's a system where corporate power has
seized all of the levers of control. There is no way to vote against the interests
of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen,
under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George
W. Bush carried out. We've seen the executive branch misinterpret the 2001 Authorization
to Use Military Force Act as giving itself the right to assassinate American
citizens, including children. I speak of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son.
We have bailed out the banks, pushed through programs of austerity. This
has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate
power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate
coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over.
I just came back from Poland, which is a kind of case study of how
neoliberal poison destroys a society and creates figures like Trump. Poland
has gone, I think we can argue, into a neofascism.
First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country.
Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education,
public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now
watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know,
they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political
system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form.
So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that
in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But
the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they
want us to focus on. We've got to break away from political personalities
and understand and examine and critique the structures of power. And, in fact,
the Democratic Party, especially beginning under Bill Clinton, has carried water
for corporate entities as assiduously as the Republican Party. This is something
that Ralph Nader understood long before the rest of us, and stepped out very
courageously in 2000. And I think we will look back on that period and find
Ralph to be an amazingly prophetic figure. Nobody understands corporate power
better than Ralph. And I think now people have caught up with Ralph.
And this is, of course, why I support Dr. Stein and the Green Party. We have
to remember that 10 years ago, Syriza, which controls the Greek government,
was polling at exactly the same spot that the Green Party is polling now-about
4 percent. We've got to break out of this idea that we can create systematic
change within a particular election cycle. We've got to be willing to step out
into the political wilderness, perhaps, for a decade. But on the issues of climate
change, on the issue of the destruction of civil liberties, including our right
to privacy-and I speak as a former investigative journalist, which doesn't exist
anymore because of wholesale government surveillance-we have no ability, except
for hackers.
I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've
printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never
exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And
the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're
appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes
the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party
-- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus
in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into
the Clinton campaign.
The fact is, Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned
children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70
percent of the original recipients were children.
This debate over -- I don't like Trump, but Trump is not the phenomenon.
Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get
rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile, maybe Ted Cruz.
Looks like from this point Hillary is an underdog. Attempt to swipe under the
carpet her health problems failed. Version about pneumonia as fake as it sound
only made matters worse. Now she is officially a person with
"unidentified serious health problem" in this race. Does she
have an immunodeficiency ? For some reason Clinton Foundation put a lot of
efforts in helping AIDS patients.
She now will face perfectly reasonable questions about whether she's
physically up to serving as president. There are also strong doubts if this is
really 's pneumonia. And even pneumonia is a dangerous condition at her age.
Notable quotes:
"... the risk was enormous - and it's blown up in their faces. Because now the story isn't just that Clinton is ill. It's that, once again, she's untrustworthy - and this time about her own health. ..."
"... Both of these candidates are too old to realistically carry out the responsibilities associated with arguably the most difficult, demanding job in the world. There is a minimum age for the Senate, and there should be a maximum allowable age to seek and serve in the executive branch. ..."
"... Why was the Friday diagnosis not made public, particularly in light of rampant speculation? Why did it take the candidate literally collapsing for the disclosure to be made? ..."
"... I'm a Democrat, a Medical Doctor, and will never vote for Trump. Now that I've made that clear, let me say that there's something wrong with this story. A patient of her age would never be diagnosed at home with pneumonia, much less a presidential candidate. A 68 year old with suspected pneumonia would be sent to the hospital for X RAYS. It doesn't make sense. ..."
"... In the video, it appears that she was suffering a seizure. She has no control of her movements and has to carried to the van. If it was dehydration or symptoms of pneumonia, she would not have appeared perfectly normal less than 2 hours later. You cannot rehydrate someone from collapse in 90 minutes. Her physician is hiding her condition which is fine, but the voters have a right to know her true health status. ..."
"... Something about all this just doesn't ring true. A diagnosis of pneumonia, made at home and not mentioned until after a serious public incident. A presidential candidate collapses at a public event and is not rushed to a hospital, but to her daughter's apartment. Looks like another attempt to control the flow of information and manage what the public knows. That is Hillary Clinton's stock in trade. ..."
"... It's kind of amusing to watch the story change. She's not sick. Well, allergies. Well allergies and today, just overheating. No actually, pneumonia. Las Vegas should offer odds in the various possibilities of the next iteration if the story. ..."
"... If her stumble hadn't been caught on camera, we wouldn't know that she had any health issues at all. ..."
"... Well, if this is a cover-up of some sort, it has gone too far. Whatever the outcome, the public will not forgive or forget. ..."
"... Mrs. Clinton, who I once hoped to see elected, has spent the summer cozying the elites in very rarified airs and walking away with sacks of cash for it, while the very few public events she has recently and briefly attended, it is apparent that she is barely able to function. ..."
"... What I saw on film today from many different angles has me horrified and disturbed. That was not walking pneumonia. She should have been to the hospital, not an hour of rest at home, after that episode. Something it not right about this, and there will be a reckoning if the truth is not forthcoming. ..."
"... I think it is a mistake for Hillary and her campaign to try to blow this pneumonia diagnosis as no big thing. Pneumonia can be spread via breathing and coughing. Hillary has had at least two coughing fits, she has been in crowds, she hugged a little girl today and spent an hour or so in Chelsea's apartment (presumably Chelsea's infant was at home). ..."
"... So many commenters are worried what Trump will say but the video of Hillary buckling and being hauled into the van head- first is as bad as it gets, no one has to say anything. ..."
"... Alright. Let's buy the party line from Hillary's people about the pneumonia shtick, which was generated after multi-hours of secrecy into a PR disaster while holding her own press people - many sympathetic to her - in the dark. ..."
"... But at best it makes the unspoken party line that as her people were calling talk of Hillary health issues last week a 'conspiracy' she was being diagnosed with respiratory infections a the same time, unannounced and under the table. ..."
"... So she knew she had pneumonia, then hugged that little girl? After going to her daughter's apartment, who has very young children? That someone would have pneumonia is perfectly reasonable. That it's being spun like this is not. ..."
"... Unfortunately, it looks like Secretary Clinton is propped up against a stanchion, semi-conscious, and then proceeds to collapse as she is helped to the vehicle and lifted inside. ..."
"... Nonsense! First it was total denial. Then it was 'overheating' (on a pleasant NYC day.) And then when a pedestrian's video came out on Twitter, its 'a little pneumonia'. Nonsense. I've had pneumonia, your lungs get filled with fluid and you can barely breathe. And by the way, if she did have pneumonia, it was massively irresponsible of her to be in a crowd or to hug that little girl. No more lies. We have a right to know ..."
"... Once again team Hillary covered up the facts - until a viral video ruined the cover story - and the press lapped up the spin unquestioningly (even lying about the temperature at the event). Information about the health of the candidates is extremely important to the public but the press wont break ranks and act like real journalists. Makes one wonder about Hillary's one month absence from the campaign trial that the Times reported was unprecedented but was to raise money from fat cats. ..."
"... This is getting stranger and stranger by the day. Strange times call for strange outcomes: Get Sanders back on the wagon and trump the Trumpster as we all well know only he can. ..."
"... My theory, and the word is theory, is she knows she's quite ill but wants to cement her legacy as the first female President of the United States no matter how short lived it might be. ..."
"... The conspiracy of the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media, e.g. the New York Times and the Washington Post to cover up news about Hillary's health is what all Americans should worry about. ..."
"... It wasn't until the story got so big that the campaign, the New York Times, and the Washington Post could no longer ignore it that we learned about a diagnosis. ..."
"... I jogged today in NJ, 40 minutes from NYC, on a beautiful "cool" day unlike the hot days before. Was NYC really hot as described that caused her to become dehydrated/overcome by heat? Something ain't kosher here... ..."
"... Mrs. Clinton lost consciousness, called a syncope episode. She should have been brought to a hospital by ambulance. She needed to have full blood work, an EKG, a chest X-ray, a CT of the head, a neuro and cardiac consult. She needs to be on a cardiac monitor for 24 hours. Especially since she is on Coumadin a powerful blood thinner for previous blood clots which has significant complications. ..."
"... One more attempt to deceive the public for political purposes. I do not believe the pneumonia story. And why didn't they tell us about it in Friday when the diagnosis was made? Her physician should be careful, she should be deposed. Mrs. Clinton put herself out there and we have a right to know her health problems now that she collapsed in public at a routine low stress event. I am a licensed practicing Emergency Medicine physician for 35 years, Board Certified. ..."
"... Clinton didn't lose her balance, as the NYT put it, she collapsed and had to be carried to her car. My God, is the NYT, in its mission to relentlessly push Clinton's candidacy, now refusing to report simple facts? Have we reached a new low in journalism now? Clinton collapsed! I hope Mrs. Clinton the best in regards to her own health, but for the NYT to purposely refuse to report what everyone saw is outrageously dishonest. ..."
"... So, the focus group came back with pneumonia, eh? I can't think of any reason they'd lie about this. Btw, the weather service reported late morning Manhattan temp of 77F and humidity of 42% The media have led us to believe that the heat index was nearing 9.47 Trillion F...But they've never misled me before...sarc/off ..."
"... Pneumonia diagnosed on Friday, really? A dozen reporters follow Mrs. Clinton all day, did they visit the Mt. Kisco Medical Group? This isn't a condition you can diagnose over the phone, and someone as important as a Presidential candidate ought to have a proper diagnosis which would include x-rays and blood tests. ..."
"... Many of the comments are support Mrs. Clinton and claim a little pneumonia is not a problem. It may not be. The big issue here is TRUST. Can we believe what she or her camp says about her health issues? Anybody her takes her word on face value is a fool. She has lied to us so many times. ..."
"... NY I don't believe the campaign explanation. I think it is a fib. My sense is that Mrs. Clinton has had underlying health issues which have and will continue to be aggravated by the rigors of a Presidential campaign. To me, an undecided voter, she does not seem healthy and age has caught up with her in startling fashion. ..."
"... Did any of the commenters here actually see the video...?!? She passed out while standing up..! Is our president, the president of the United States going to need babysitting so she doesn't pass out on here feet, fall and hit her head again? It's like the Seven Plagues with you people... ..."
"... Ehhh, she fainted and was then carried the last couple of feet inside the van by 2 or 3 people; she also visibly loses one of her shoes in the process. How is she "fine" again? ..."
After Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia and put on antibiotics,
she did not, as her physician recommended, take time out to rest.
Instead, she attended a fundraiser featuring Barbra Streisand.
Then on Sunday morning, she attended the 9/11 commemoration,
became "overheated," and woozily wobbled rather dramatically. Ninety
minutes later she exited her daughter Chelsea's apartment building to
tell the press she was "feeling great." The Secret Service permitted
a young girl to come over to give the candidate a hug.
It was only a few hours later when her campaign finally announced
that she has pneumonia and is recovering.
So the campaign chose to lie. The potential reward was considerable:
namely, an absence of politically damaging news stories about Clinton's
medical condition. But the risk was enormous - and it's blown up in
their faces. Because now the story isn't just that Clinton is ill. It's
that, once again, she's untrustworthy - and this time about her own
health.
That's why the announcement that she has pneumonia will only fuel
more speculation about Clinton's physical condition, with potentially no
end in sight. The world saw her collapse, and 90 minutes later, the
candidate looked America in the eye and proclaimed that she was feeling
great. Except now we know that she wasn't.
Both of these candidates are too
old to realistically carry out the responsibilities
associated with arguably the most difficult, demanding
job in the world. There is a minimum age for the Senate,
and there should be a maximum allowable age to seek and
serve in the executive branch.
The presidency ages
everyone who assumes the duties; when it comes to the
White House, 50 is the new 70, not vice versa.
riclys, Brooklyn, New York
I sincerely hope Mrs Clinton's health improves . But why do I get the
feeling that this is not over? Why was the Friday diagnosis not made public,
particularly in light of rampant speculation? Why did it take the candidate
literally collapsing for the disclosure to be made?
What else are we not
being told, and what further public health-related episodes might we have to
witness? As with so many things Clinton, even answers lead to more
questions. Bottom-line though, let us all fervently hope that Mrs Clinton's
health is as good as we are being told it is.
Gladys Vazquez, Miami
I'm a Democrat, a Medical Doctor, and will never vote for Trump. Now
that I've made that clear, let me say that there's something wrong with this
story. A patient of her age would never be diagnosed at home with pneumonia,
much less a presidential candidate. A 68 year old with suspected pneumonia
would be sent to the hospital for X RAYS. It doesn't make sense.
Melissa Los Angeles
It wasn't a "stumble" - the way her head flailed it looked like
fainting or even a seizure.
@PISonny Manhattan, NYC
Pneumonia cannot be confirmed without an
X-Ray. She had a full day on Friday, what with her 'basket of deplorables'
speech, and then interviews to the press, followed by interview with Cuomo. When
did she have the X-Ray done?
Something does not add up here. More lies, more cover-up, more unfit.
Thomas, Corey 7 hours ago
In the video, it appears that she was suffering a seizure. She has no
control of her movements and has to carried to the van. If it was
dehydration or symptoms of pneumonia, she would not have appeared perfectly
normal less than 2 hours later. You cannot rehydrate someone from collapse
in 90 minutes. Her physician is hiding her condition which is fine, but the
voters have a right to know her true health status.
Mark Markarian, Pleasantville, NY
Yeah, Hillary's being treated for pneumonia and I'm Captain James Tiberius Kirk.
Larry NY,
Something about all this just doesn't ring true. A
diagnosis of pneumonia, made at home and not mentioned until after a serious
public incident. A presidential candidate collapses at a public event and is not
rushed to a hospital, but to her daughter's apartment. Looks like another
attempt to control the flow of information and manage what the public knows.
That is Hillary Clinton's stock in trade.
Michael Pasadena, CA
It's kind of amusing to watch the story
change. She's not sick. Well, allergies. Well allergies and today, just
overheating. No actually, pneumonia. Las Vegas should offer odds in the various
possibilities of the next iteration if the story.
OldNYCGirl, Boston, MA
If her stumble hadn't been caught on camera, we wouldn't know
that she had any health issues at all. Why did it take more than 8
hours for her campaign to disclose this after she left the ceremony? If
there is nothing to hide, why didn't they say something immediately
about the illness that was diagnosed several days ago?
Jack NY, NY
The problem with Clinton is that you have no way of
knowing what the truth is. A woman who would lie so easily and often about her
email debacle, not to mention her Benghazi testimony and her lies about some
video causing the attack in Benghazi, would find it also easy to lie about her
health.
As a former Obama voter, I'm going with Trump. He's not the greatest
candidate but at least he gives the impression of being honest -- sometimes too
honest. His faults are those of a non-politician and that's refreshing after
decades of phoniness n Washington.
Le Sigh Murrakuh
Looking over this timeline, how many hours
passed before this penumonia announcement, that should have been released as
soon as it became a diagnosis, not after a horrible episode of goodness knows
what that was we all saw?
As one of the reviled lefties who are on the outside
of either party, I want to see the lung x-ray. I was horrified to see the left dorso-lateral view that a citizen filmed today, as it was a terrible and real
medical emergency.
To learn she recovered for a short time at Chelsea's
apartment and then left again, all chipper in the public eye as if a hair was
never out of place. Well, if this is a cover-up of some sort, it has gone too
far. Whatever the outcome, the public will not forgive or forget.
Mrs. Clinton,
who I once hoped to see elected, has spent the summer cozying the elites in very
rarified airs and walking away with sacks of cash for it, while the very few
public events she has recently and briefly attended, it is apparent that she is
barely able to function.
What I saw on film today from many different angles has
me horrified and disturbed. That was not walking pneumonia. She should have been
to the hospital, not an hour of rest at home, after that episode. Something it
not right about this, and there will be a reckoning if the truth is not
forthcoming. This is a candidate for the presidency of the United States of
America, not a run of the mill celebrity entitled to their wall of privacy.
Lynn in DC um, DC
I think it is a mistake for Hillary and her
campaign to try to blow this pneumonia diagnosis as no big thing. Pneumonia can
be spread via breathing and coughing. Hillary has had at least two coughing
fits, she has been in crowds, she hugged a little girl today and spent an hour
or so in Chelsea's apartment (presumably Chelsea's infant was at home). Either
someone is being very irresponsible or we are hearing lies again.
It is
great that Hillary is on antibiotics and has been rehydrated but perhaps she
should stay home for the sake of her own health and let Tim Kaine do the heavy
lifting.
So many commenters are worried what Trump will say but the video of Hillary
buckling and being hauled into the van head- first is as bad as it gets, no one
has to say anything.
TheZeitgeist Santa Monica, CA
Alright. Let's buy the party line
from Hillary's people about the pneumonia shtick, which was generated after
multi-hours of secrecy into a PR disaster while holding her own press people -
many sympathetic to her - in the dark.
But at best it makes the unspoken party line that as her people
were calling talk of Hillary health issues last week a 'conspiracy' she
was being diagnosed with respiratory infections a the same time,
unannounced and under the table.
The woman either has the worst PR flacks or worst intrinsic PR instinct of
any public figure I've ever seen. I just can't figure out who's the more hapless
in the Big Hillary operation.
Jonathan Colorado
So she knew she had pneumonia, then hugged
that little girl? After going to her daughter's apartment, who has very young
children? That someone would have pneumonia is perfectly reasonable. That it's being
spun like this is not.
John Murray Midland Park, NJ
Unfortunately, it looks like
Secretary Clinton is propped up against a stanchion, semi-conscious, and then
proceeds to collapse as she is helped to the vehicle and lifted inside.
Oakwood New York
Nonsense! First it was total denial. Then it was
'overheating' (on a pleasant NYC day.) And then when a pedestrian's video came
out on Twitter, its 'a little pneumonia'. Nonsense. I've had pneumonia, your
lungs get filled with fluid and you can barely breathe. And by the way, if she
did have pneumonia, it was massively irresponsible of her to be in a crowd or to
hug that little girl. No more lies. We have a right to know
Michael S is a trusted commenter Wappingers Falls, NY
Once again
team Hillary covered up the facts - until a viral video ruined the cover story -
and the press lapped up the spin unquestioningly (even lying about the
temperature at the event). Information about the health of the candidates is
extremely important to the public but the press wont break ranks and act like
real journalists. Makes one wonder about Hillary's one month absence from the
campaign trial that the Times reported was unprecedented but was to raise money
from fat cats.
will w CT
This is getting stranger and stranger by the day.
Strange times call for strange outcomes: Get Sanders back on the wagon and trump
the Trumpster as we all well know only he can.
Said Ordaz Manhattan
Dear apologists of the NYT, stop denying it,
she's really really sick, and you know it. Do us all a favor, start doing your
job and investigate the true extent of her illness, and actual state of health.
JEFF S is a trusted commenter Brooklyn, NY 10 hours ago
Reporters were with
her all day Friday and she had that national security briefing, a press
conference, did an interview with CNN which aired today, did the fund raiser and
opened up about half of the Trump supporters. When was there time for her to be
examined for pneumonia? And wouldn't it be necessary to have a chest x-ray in a
hospital to rule out something else. And then she attended today's memorial at
Ground Zero? Something is very fishy.
I don't think there's any question she will have a stroke sooner or later
although obviously it could be tomorrow, it could be next year, it could be a
decade from now. Who knows? It seems to me if I were her doctor, I would highly
recommend against running for President. My theory, and the word is theory, is
she knows she's quite ill but wants to cement her legacy as the first female
President of the United States no matter how short lived it might be.
Of course, the Hillary crowd here who have been in denial about her health
all along will remain in denial. If she is indeed ill, for the sake of the
country, she should just give it up and still give the democrats time to put up
somebody less contenteous than she is.
S. Austin Los Angeles
The conspiracy of the Clinton campaign and
the mainstream media, e.g. the New York Times and the Washington Post to cover
up news about Hillary's health is what all Americans should worry about. When
she had her coughing fit last week, why did she blame it on allergies and keep
the real reason quiet when she knew on FRIDAY she has pneumonia? Even after we
saw the video of her semi-collapsing today, the "real" story was not told.
It
wasn't until the story got so big that the campaign, the New York Times, and the
Washington Post could no longer ignore it that we learned about a diagnosis.
Her health is a real concern and not the conspiracy theory all the Liberal
elites want to apply to anyone who questions her health.
dlglobal N.J. 11 hours ago
I jogged today in NJ, 40 minutes from NYC, on a
beautiful "cool" day unlike the hot days before. Was NYC really hot as described
that caused her to become dehydrated/overcome by heat? Something ain't kosher
here...
rich williams long island ny 8 hours ago
Mrs. Clinton lost consciousness,
called a syncope episode. She should have been brought to a hospital by
ambulance. She needed to have full blood work, an EKG, a chest X-ray, a CT of
the head, a neuro and cardiac consult. She needs to be on a cardiac monitor for
24 hours. Especially since she is on Coumadin a powerful blood thinner for
previous blood clots which has significant complications.
One more attempt to
deceive the public for political purposes. I do not believe the pneumonia story.
And why didn't they tell us about it in Friday when the diagnosis was made? Her
physician should be careful, she should be deposed. Mrs. Clinton put herself out
there and we have a right to know her health problems now that she collapsed in
public at a routine low stress event. I am a licensed practicing Emergency
Medicine physician for 35 years, Board Certified.
in disbelief Manhattan 8 hours ago
Clinton didn't lose her balance, as the
NYT put it, she collapsed and had to be carried to her car. My God, is the NYT,
in its mission to relentlessly push Clinton's candidacy, now refusing to report
simple facts? Have we reached a new low in journalism now? Clinton collapsed! I
hope Mrs. Clinton the best in regards to her own health, but for the NYT to
purposely refuse to report what everyone saw is outrageously dishonest.
Z USA 10 hours ago
As a medical resident, I am perplexed by the pneumonia
diagnosis. Pneumonia is diagnosed with a chest x-ray. Did she undergo a chest
x-ray on Friday? Also, pneumonia can be quite a serious illness - it doesn't
seem wise for her campaign to allow her to interact with young children
(apparently she hugged a child?) given the diagnosis. I don't want to say it but
as Trump likes to say, "something is going on here." I don't want to stoke the
conspiracy theorists, but I think it's time we get some more information about
her health...
Michel Santa Barbara 11 hours ago
All of a sudden NYT is no longer able to
bury the story about her fainting and stumbling as it has done so far today,
much to the shame of people who call themselves journalists and are in fact
nothing more than shameful surrogates for a hugely failing candidates
Sue Cleveland
If she was told she had pneumonia on Friday, why
did they not release that information then?
Dr.J Atlanta
I have had pneumonia myself. She will get better.
With all the plane flights and her grueling schedule, I am not surprised she got
sick. That said, even if she were gravely ill, why would that make Trump a more
appealing candidate? She has chosen a vice presidential candidate who reflects
her values and the values of our country. I fully expect Secretary Clinton to be
fine, but if heaven forbid she is not, Tim Kaine is a far better choice than
Donald Trump or Mike Pence.
Steve New York 5 hours ago
I know, it's the fault of the Sander's supporters
that her health is now an issue. It's always the fault of the Sander's
supporters for any of the problems that Clinton has. The DNC is not at all at
fault for saddling Democrats with a candidate whom few trust and now has the
additional question of health. Thanks a lot DNC.
Sarah Minneapolis 10 hours ago
The commenter who is a medical doctor is
right: The current state of medicine requires an x-ray to be diagnosed with
pneumonia. One safe bet is that Chelsea doesn't have an x-ray machine in her
swank NYC apartment.
I don't know what's more pathetic: The NYT "news" coverage of Clinton's
health issues or the fact that all the NYT Picks comments are pro-Hillary.
The storied NYT has become a caricature of a liberal rag. MSM has completely
failed to do its job, as far as Clinton is concerned. Doesn't any journalist
there have any semblance of a professional conscience left?
Jon Dama Charleston, SC 10 hours ago
Gee - so Giuliani was right after all.
He's been commenting that Hillary doesn't look good for the past weeks - and
gathering much savage criticism from the liberal press for saying so. No wonder
he was a great mayor - he can spot a problem from a New York mile. Now let's
learn if this is just a bout of pneumonia; or something worse - perhaps related
to that fall. Hmm - don't count on the truth from her headquarters - we'll have
to wait and see.
Gagg Door County, WI 10 hours ago
So, the focus group came back with
pneumonia, eh? I can't think of any reason they'd lie about this. Btw, the
weather service reported late morning Manhattan temp of 77F and humidity of 42%
The media have led us to believe that the heat index was nearing 9.47 Trillion
F...But they've never misled me before...sarc/off
Here There 10 hours ago Today was the nicest weather in weeks, the humidity
was about 35 percent, and at 9 am the sunlight isn't a major issue.
In other words, not buying.
Chicklet is a trusted commenter Douglaston, NY 5 hours ago
Pneumonia
diagnosed on Friday, really? A dozen reporters follow Mrs. Clinton all day, did
they visit the Mt. Kisco Medical Group? This isn't a condition you can diagnose
over the phone, and someone as important as a Presidential candidate ought to
have a proper diagnosis which would include x-rays and blood tests.
Hopefully it's a simple bacterial pneumonia that readily responds to
antibiotics. I hope her physician picked a modern medication, more modern than
her obsolete thyroid medicine and blood thinners. One would think she could get
the best care in the world instantly- this doesn't seem right...
Steve Dimick Las Vegas
Many of the comments are support Mrs.
Clinton and claim a little pneumonia is not a problem. It may not be. The big
issue here is TRUST. Can we believe what she or her camp says about her health
issues? Anybody her takes her word on face value is a fool. She has lied to us
so many times.
Peter Albany.
NY I don't believe the campaign explanation. I
think it is a fib. My sense is that Mrs. Clinton has had underlying health
issues which have and will continue to be aggravated by the rigors of a
Presidential campaign. To me, an undecided voter, she does not seem healthy and
age has caught up with her in startling fashion.
TB NY 6 hours ago
The video of Mrs. Clinton as she "loses balance" at an
event where a very large number of professional "reporters" were in attendance,
including some accompanied by people with expensive video cameras on their
shoulders, was attributed to "Twitter user Zdenek Gazda".
What a stunning indictment of the media, particularly those who were assigned
to cover the Democratic nominee for President; the one who was diagnosed with
pneumonia two days ago. But they didn't know that, to be fair, otherwise they
might have actually kept an eye on her at the ceremony.
It took one guy with a smartphone to change the whole dynamic of the story.
Not a journalist, it should be noted. Just some guy with a smartphone, and some
curiosity.
Too bad he wasn't around on Friday. We might have learned about the pneumonia
diagnosis.
Disgraceful.
seniordem Arizona
Pneumonia can be quite a surprising event. I
am a bit older than Hillary and last year, I suddenly without any warning, found
my self on the floor and unable to get up by myself. The medical technicians
told us that it would be OK for my spouse to drive me to the hospital where it
came as much as a surprise as my fall to find out that I had Pneumonia. The next
day I came home and was on my feet a day later. Antibiotics certainly are a
wonder of our time. To sum up my experience In the jargon of New York "Who
knew"? We wish Hillary well and look for her to be able to resume her campaign
soon.
Seb Williams Orlando, FL
It says so much about the Clintons that
even something like this is difficult to trust. Pneumonia -- fine. Nobody's
going to begrudge her that, it happens. Why the compulsive secrecy, obfuscation,
press-dodging? At her age, why on earth was she not sent for x-rays?
I'm really baffled by the sycophancy in these comments. Here's a woman who
employs a personal physician and aspires to be President of the United States
being utterly reckless with *her own health*. That is not "strength", that's
scary.
Mike B Tampa, FL 10 hours ago
Did any of the commenters here actually see the
video...?!? She passed out while standing up..! Is our president, the president
of the United States going to need babysitting so she doesn't pass out on here
feet, fall and hit her head again? It's like the Seven Plagues with you
people... What in the name of humanity is it going to take to make you
understand that she is not well.... She is in no way capable to serve, no
possible way!
Frank E AK 11 hours ago
Ehhh, she fainted and was then carried the last
couple of feet inside the van by 2 or 3 people; she also visibly loses one of
her shoes in the process. How is she "fine" again?
Pol Pont California 7 hours ago
Hillary is surrounded by either a bunch of
liars or incompetents. If she had a pneumonia why not say so last Friday and
take her to ground zero for 30 minutes which was well enough under the
circumstances and not let her stand there until she fainted knowing that she was
unwell. We all have a colds and other passing illnesses at the worst possible
time. Are they trying to make her really ill?
Cryptapocalypse USA 7 hours ago
NYT- this development is exactly why all
these pieces in the Times poo-pooing health concerns were ill-advised and even
suggested complicity on the Time's part to minimize what are obviously multiple
strange behaviors by Mrs. Clinton. Even a person without medical training can
recognize that she has some problems, whatever they may be. I am sick of the
attempts by the Times and other mainstream publications to convince the public
that a common sense observation that Mrs. Clinton has frail health is wrong. The
fact that you also question Mr. Trumps health does not lessen the sting of
attempts to minimize concerns about Mrs. Clinton. What will you do if she has an
epileptic fit during the debates? You may be eating more and more proverbial
crow as time goes on. Please start doing your job as journalists and not as
apologists for either candidate.
Hey Joe Somewhere In The US 7 hours ago
The Clintons lie and hold back on the
most ridiculous things. Pneumonia is treatable, and carries no shame. But the
poor handling of this makes ya wonder if it isn't something worse. They've brought this on themselves. I hope she is well. And if she isn't,
stop everything and deal with it. And if she does get well, don't do stupid
things like this, or do them off camera.
Baron95 Westport, CT 9 hours ago
Anyone living in the NYC area knows that
this morning 8-9AM during the ceremony, the weather was neither hot, nor humid.
Instead it was a perfect 70s with low humidity (35%).
Why does the NYT insist on calling it "hot and humid"? Is it to fit the
Clinton narrative?
Also there were hundreds of reports throughout the day of Mrs. Clinton near
fainted, being carried out is a hurry.
Yet, the NYT only reports on it after it gets the proper "narrative" from the
official Clinton campaign release.
Is that what journalism is supposed to be?
Joe Schuler Norwalk, CT 10 hours ago
Stonewalling, followed by suspect cover
stories, has been a constantly recurring theme during Mrs. Clinton's campaign.
Large media sources, including my once-trusted NY Times, have been shockingly
complicit in abetting these attempts at deceit. What has happened to you guys?
ADCM Many Places 10 hours ago
As a preliminary matter let me say that Trump
is a disaster.
That said, I've grown so weary of the secrecy, minimizing and misdirection
from the Clintons and this campaign. And I don't want to hear any of the
'vast-right-wing-conspiracy' or 'Trump-is-a-whole-lot-worse' tripe! Voters
deserve honesty and respect from candidates and we aren't getting it.
I'm just sick at the choice of a Nixonian-like presidency from Clinton or a
dictatorship from Trumpolini.
Thanks a lot republican and democratic parties!
Shines66 Florida 7 hours ago
Is it time for the DNC to select an alternative
to Clinton? She is not well and will not be able to perform duties of the
presidency. Her health condition is going to get Mr. Trump elected.
Krugman: "Last summer,... when Mr. Trump ... promised not to cut Social Security,... insiders like
William Kristol gleefully declared that he was "willing to lose the primary to win the general."
In reality, however, Republican voters don't at all share the elite's enthusiasm for entitlement cuts...
"
"G.O.P. establishment was also sure that Mr. Trump would pay a heavy price for asserting that we
were misled into Iraq - evidently unaware just how widespread that (correct) belief is among Americans
of all political persuasions."
Trade, Trump, and Downward Class Warfare, by Mark Kleim an: A conversation with my Marron
Institute colleague Paul Romer yesterday crystallized an idea I'd been toying with for some time.
In a nutshell: opponents of taxing the rich have destroyed, on a practical level, the theoretical
basis for believing that free trade benefits everyone.
The Econ-101 case for free trade is straightforward: Trade benefits those who produce exports
and those who consume imports (including producers who use imported goods as inputs). It hurts
the producers of goods which can be made better or more cheaply abroad. But the gains to the winners
exceed the gains to the losers: that is, the winners could make the losers whole and still come
out ahead themselves. Therefore, trade passes the Pareto test.
[Yes, this elides a number of issues, including path-dependency in increasing-returns and learning-by-doing
markets on the pure-economics side and the salting of actual agreements with provisions that create
or protect economic rents on the political-economy side. It also ignores the biggest gainers from
trade: workers in low-wage countries, most notably the Chinese factory workers whose parents were
barefoot peasants.]
So when the modern Republican Party (R.I.P), in the name of "small government" and opposition
to "class warfare," set its face against policies to redistribute the gains from economic growth,
it destroyed the theoretical basis for thinking that a rising tide would lift all the boats, rather
than lifting the yachts and swamping the trawlers. Free trade without redistribution (especially
the corrupt version of "free trade" with corporate rent-seeking written into it) is basically
class warfare waged downwards. ...
"... Sanders is a touchy subject with me. The man was offered a spot on the Green party ticket, and obviously didn't take it. Considering the public disgust with the two slimeballs we're stuck with now, I believe he'd have had a real shot at the presidency. Despite my rating him as a C- at best, I'd have voted for the man. It's my opinion he'd have gotten a whole lot of Trump's base too. The poorer members of the GOP know they're getting the shaft, and I suspect a great many of them would have defected too. ..."
"... There was a theory early-on that Sanders never was really serious, but instead was running as a "sheepdog" to lead the dirty hippy lefties to Clinton. ..."
Sanders is a touchy subject with me. The man was offered a spot on
the Green party ticket, and obviously didn't take it. Considering the public
disgust with the two slimeballs we're stuck with now, I believe he'd have
had a real shot at the presidency. Despite my rating him as a C- at best,
I'd have voted for the man. It's my opinion he'd have gotten a whole lot
of Trump's base too. The poorer members of the GOP know they're getting
the shaft, and I suspect a great many of them would have defected too.
There was a theory early-on that Sanders never was really serious,
but instead was running as a "sheepdog" to lead the dirty hippy lefties
to Clinton. That theory looks more plausible now than it did earlier.
Buying iPhone is mistake in itself. but as for neocon propaganda machine do
you thing that Google or Yahoo are better? they are not.
Notable quotes:
"... Anyone else notice that their apple iphone has turned into a raging anti-trump propaganda machine? I'm talking about the news headlines apple pushes to you when you slide your home screen all the way to the right. ..."
"... I didn't pay $700 for my iphone 6 to get a neocon propaganda machine. ..."
"... I have never actually read the anti trump stories that apple feeds my iphone because i didn't want to set up a preference for such things. I just see the headlines and they are quite negative. This is not the phone responding to my preference. It is content that is being deliberately pushed by Apple to my phone sans any info suggesting that i want it. ..."
"... Paying $700 for a $200 phone says unflattering things about i-Phone owners. ..."
Anyone else notice that their apple iphone has turned into a raging anti-trump propaganda machine?
I'm talking about the news headlines apple pushes to you when you slide your home screen all the
way to the right.
I didn't pay $700 for my iphone 6 to get a neocon propaganda machine.
Piotr Berman | Aug 6, 2016 4:22:11 PM | 6
Sometimes you get something extra with no additional cost. For 700 bucks you should get hourly
updates from the Lord of the Universe, so neocon urgent news are perhaps a step in this direction
:-)
More seriously, this is the fault of the browser and evil business model. Some click is cheerfully
interpreted as your request to get bombarded from some source, and sometimes it is clear how to
undo it, sometimes not.
Browsers should not have such features, but this is what makes them profitable.
Coming in near future: discount versions of cars that are steered by a computer. Every
few minutes the car stops and restarts only after you confirmed with clicks that you have seen
another ad.
alaric | Aug 6, 2016 5:13:45 PM | 14
"More seriously, this is the fault of the browser and evil business model. Some click is cheerfully
interpreted as your request to get bombarded from some source"
I have never actually read the anti trump stories that apple feeds my iphone because i didn't
want to set up a preference for such things. I just see the headlines and they are quite negative.
This is not the phone responding to my preference. It is content that is being deliberately pushed
by Apple to my phone sans any info suggesting that i want it.
Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 6, 2016 11:26:13 PM | 30
I didn't pay $700 for my iphone 6 to get a neocon propaganda machine.
alaric | Aug 6, 2016 2:41:59 PM | 3
Paying $700 for a $200 phone says unflattering things about i-Phone owners.
"... It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less. ..."
"... U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582 billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40 billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil, sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand ..."
"... As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. ..."
"... "I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary, "like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor." ..."
"... America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said during a campaign stop in South Carolina. ..."
"... Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent. ..."
"... Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars – if not hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute, estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next eight years. ..."
"... He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. ..."
"... The Super PAC that backed Bush funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending by $102 billion a year. ..."
"... Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner to audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse – the usual suspects. ..."
"... Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut in defense spending. ..."
"... At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National Guard. ..."
"... Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest employers in the area. ..."
"... During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're spending billions." ..."
"... Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue, he's got the right idea. ..."
"... In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more with so much less. ..."
Donald Trump could be the only presidential candidate talking sense about
for the American military's budget. That should scare everyone.
"I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right
now," the real- estate-mogul-turned-tautological-demagogue said on Meet the
Press. "It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you
know what? We can do it for a lot less."
He's right.
U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget
for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582
billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40
billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil,
sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand
As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain
an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also
right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons
systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The much-maligned F-35 will cost at least $1.5 trillion during the 55 years
that its manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, expects it to be flying. That number
is up $500 billion from the original high estimate. But with a long list of
problems plaguing the stealth fighter, that price will most likely grow.
"I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary,
"like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because
of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor."
America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington
is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions
on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We
can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)
said during a campaign stop in South Carolina.
Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure
out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to
the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent.
Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would
likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars – if not
hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute,
estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next
eight years.
Ballistic-missile-launching submarines aren't cheap, for example, and Cruz
wants 12 of them. "If you think it's too expensive to defend this nation," Cruz
said, "try not defending it."
He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the
Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault
vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military
spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10
years.
Ohio Governor John Kasich might be expected to have a more reasonable stance.
After all, he sat on the House Armed Services Committee for almost 18 years,
where he slashed budgets and challenged wasteful Pentagon projects.
But that past is a liability for him. The Super PAC that backed Bush
funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not
wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending
by $102 billion a year.
Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong
support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner
to
audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse – the usual suspects.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record
in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to
reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut
in defense spending.
A Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II joint strike
fighter flies toward its new home at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, January
11, 2011. REUTERS/U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Joely Santiago/Handout
At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion
albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose
a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer
to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National
Guard.
Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring
jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he
pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General
Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest
employers in the area.
Yet, Sanders ideological beliefs can sometimes
color his views. He was chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee
in 2014 as scandal swept the Department of Veterans Affairs. Even as many VA
supporters called for reforms, Sanders defended the hospital system because
he felt conservatives were attacking a major government social-welfare agency.
He still defends his stewardship of the committee. "When I was chairman,
what we did is pass a $15-billion piece of legislation,"
Sanders
said during a recent debate with Clinton. "We went further than any time
in recent history in improving the healthcare of the men and women in this country
who put their lives on the line to defend us."
In the age of terrorism and Islamic State bombers, the prevailing political
wisdom holds that appearing soft on defense can lose a candidate the general
election. For many of the 2016 presidential candidates, looking strong means
spending a ton of cash. Even if you're from the party that holds fiscal responsibility
as its cornerstone.
But Trump doesn't care about any of that. In speech after speech, he has
called out politicians and defense contractors for colluding to build costly
weapons systems at the price of national security.
During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the
trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as
our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when
I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're
spending billions."
Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue,
he's got the right idea.
In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about
the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh
truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more
with so much less.
Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The
ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in
conversation and you'll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have
heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you
know what it is?
Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major
role in a remarkable variety of crises: the
financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which
the
Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health
and education, resurgent child poverty,
the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of
Donald
Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently
unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same
coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power
can there be than to operate namelessly?
Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets
what they deserve.
So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as
an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian
faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin's theory
of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human
life and shift the locus of power.
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations.
It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised
by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency.
It maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved
by planning.
Bookmarks is our new weekly email from the books team with our pick of the
latest news, views and reviews, delivered to your inbox every Thursday
Read more
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and
regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation
of labour and collective bargaining by
trade
unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of
a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous:
a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich
everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive
and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
We internalise and reproduce its creeds.
The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit,
ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may
have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures,
even when they can do little to change their circumstances.
Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's because
you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your
credit card is maxed out, you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your
children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it's your fault.
In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and
self-defined as losers.
Paul Verhaeghe: An economic system that rewards psychopathic
personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities
Read more
Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About
Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness,
performance anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it's unsurprising that Britain,
in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously applied, is
the loneliness capital of Europe. We are all neoliberals now.
***
The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the
delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and
Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified
by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and the gradual development of Britain's welfare
state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as
nazism and communism.
In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government
planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control.
Like Mises's book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely
read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy
an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek
founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism
– the Mont Pelerin Society
– it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.
As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek's view that governments
should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way – among
American apostles such as
Milton Friedman – to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward
for efficiency.
Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost its name.
In 1951, Friedman was happy to
describe himself as a neoliberal. But soon after that, the term began to
disappear. Stranger still, even as the ideology became crisper and the movement
more coherent, the lost name was not replaced by any common alternative.
At first, despite its lavish funding, neoliberalism remained at the margins.
The postwar consensus was almost universal:
John Maynard Keynes's economic prescriptions were widely applied, full employment
and the relief of poverty were common goals in the US and much of western Europe,
top rates of tax were high and governments sought social outcomes without embarrassment,
developing new public services and safety nets.
But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic
crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter
the mainstream. As Friedman remarked, "when the time came that you had to change
... there was an alternative ready there to be picked up". With the help of
sympathetic journalists and political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially
its prescriptions for monetary policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter's administration
in the US and Jim Callaghan's government in Britain.
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice should have been
promoted with the slogan 'there is no alternative'
After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package
soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions,
deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services.
Through the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation,
neoliberal policies were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much
of the world. Most remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged
to the left: Labour and the Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes,
"it is hard to think of another utopia to have been as fully realised."
***
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have
been promoted with the slogan "there is no alternative". But,
as Hayek remarked on a visit to Pinochet's Chile – one of the first nations
in which the programme was comprehensively applied – "my personal preference
leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government
devoid of liberalism". The freedom that neoliberalism offers, which sounds so
beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to mean freedom for the
pike, not for the minnows.
Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to
suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the
freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest
and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from
the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.
Naomi Klein documented that neoliberals
advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were
distracted. Photograph: Anya Chibis for the Guardian
As Naomi Klein documents in
The Shock Doctrine, neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises
to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted: for example, in the
aftermath of Pinochet's coup, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, which Friedman
described as "an opportunity to radically reform the educational system" in
New Orleans.
Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed
internationally, through trade treaties incorporating "investor-state
dispute settlement": offshore tribunals in which corporations can press
for the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have
voted to restrict sales of
cigarettes, protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy
bills or prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations
have sued, often successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre.
Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly
became one
Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition relies upon
universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers
and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime
of assessment and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the
losers. The doctrine that Von Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic
nightmare of central planning has instead created one.
Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly
became one. Economic growth has been markedly slower in the neoliberal era (since
1980 in Britain and the US) than it was in the preceding decades; but not for
the very rich. Inequality in the distribution of both income and wealth, after
60 years of decline, rose rapidly in this era, due to the smashing of trade
unions, tax reductions, rising rents, privatisation and deregulation.
The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water,
trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set
up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens
or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When
you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates
the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other
outlays. The rest reflects the fact that
they have you over a barrel.
Those who own and run the UK's privatised or semi-privatised services make
stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India,
oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico,
Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone
services and soon became the world's richest man.
Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in
Why We Can't Afford the Rich, has had a similar impact. "Like rent,"
he argues, "interest is ... unearned income that accrues without any effort".
As the poor become poorer and the rich become richer, the rich acquire increasing
control over another crucial asset: money. Interest payments, overwhelmingly,
are a transfer of money from the poor to the rich. As property prices and the
withdrawal of state funding load people with debt (think of the switch from
student grants to student loans), the banks and their executives clean up.
Sayer argues that the past four decades have been characterised by a transfer
of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy:
from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those
who make their money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest
or capital gains. Earned income has been supplanted by unearned income.
Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not only are
the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering
public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in
Ill Fares the Land, Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot
be allowed to collapse, which means that competition cannot run its course.
Business takes the profits, the state keeps the risk.
The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments
use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise
remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations
and re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every
organ of the public sector.
Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises
it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced,
our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts.
Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending.
But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder
democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment
of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and
former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement.
Large numbers of people have been shed from politics.
Chris Hedges
remarks that "fascist movements build their base not from the politically
active but the politically inactive, the 'losers' who feel, often correctly,
they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment". When political
debate no longer speaks to us, people become responsive
instead to slogans, symbols and sensation. To the admirers of Trump, for
example, facts and arguments appear irrelevant.
Judt explained that when the thick mesh of interactions between people and
the state has been reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, the only
remaining force that binds us is state power. The totalitarianism Hayek feared
is more likely to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that
arises from the delivery of public services, are reduced to "cajoling, threatening
and ultimately coercing people to obey them".
***
Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine
staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of
anonymities.
The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers.
Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We
find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in
the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry,
has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover
that
Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in the world, founded the
institute that set up the
Tea Party movement. We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his
thinktanks,
noted that "in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation
is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised".
The nouveau riche were once disparaged by those who had inherited their
money. Today, the relationship has been reversed
The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. "The
market" sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity
or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What "the market
wants" tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. "Investment",
as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive
and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets
to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same
word for different activities "camouflages the sources of wealth", leading us
to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.
A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had inherited
their money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off
as rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors
style themselves entre preneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.
These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness
of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers
do not know for whom they toil; the companies registered through a network
of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that
even the
police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the tax arrangements that
bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.
The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are influenced
by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some
justice – that it is used today
only pejoratively. But they offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves
as classical liberals or libertarians, but these descriptions are both misleading
and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there is nothing novel about
The Road to Serfdom, Bureaucracy or Friedman's classic work,
Capitalism and Freedom.
***
For all that, there is something admirable about the neoliberal project,
at least in its early stages. It was a distinctive, innovative philosophy promoted
by a coherent network of thinkers and activists with a clear plan of action.
It was patient and persistent. The Road to Serfdom became the path to
power.
Letters: For neoliberals to claim that their view supports
the current distribution of property and power is almost as bonkers as the Lockean
theory of property itself
Read more
Neoliberalism's triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire
economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic
theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the
70s, there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008
there was ... nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have
produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years.
Every invocation of Lord Keynes is an admission of failure. To propose Keynesian
solutions to the crises of the 21st century is to ignore three obvious problems.
It is hard to mobilise people around old ideas; the flaws exposed in the 70s
have not gone away; and, most importantly, they have nothing to say about our
gravest predicament: the environmental crisis. Keynesianism works by stimulating
consumer demand to promote economic growth. Consumer demand and economic growth
are the motors of environmental destruction.
What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is that it's
not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed.
For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to
develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system,
tailored to the demands of the 21st century.
George Monbiot's How Did We Get into This Mess? is published this month
by Verso. To order a copy for £12.99 (RRP £16.99) ) go to
bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online
orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99.
All this discussion missed the most important point: Obama is neocon and neoliberal
and he did what he was supposed to do. "Change we can believe is" was a masterful
"bait and switch" operation to full the gullible electorate. he was just a useful
puppet for globalist. They used him and they will threw him to the dust bin of history
sweetened with $200k speeches.
Notable quotes:
"... The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people! ..."
"... So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes? ..."
"... Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency. ..."
"... Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328 ..."
"... 'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with???? ..."
"... Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy! ..."
"... Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder. ..."
"... Obama's presidency: 1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up. 2. Record # of people living on food stamps. 3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it) 4. Stagnant income for average family 5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income. 6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up. 7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore. ... ... Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over. ..."
"... Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed. ..."
"... Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts. ..."
"... Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary? Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement. ..."
"... "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries. ..."
"... "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter? ..."
"... Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians. ..."
"... Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined. ..."
"... Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
"... Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.) ..."
"... Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did. ..."
"... Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed). ..."
"... Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence. ..."
"... Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states. ..."
"... Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street. ..."
"... Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color, ..."
"... Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state. ..."
"... Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen ..."
"... Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons. ..."
"... Which of these things make you "so proud?" ..."
"... You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it. ..."
"... To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd. ..."
"... This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on. ..."
"... Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world. ..."
"... Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex. ..."
"... I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-). ..."
"... TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy. ..."
The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative
corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third
party in the United States that represents ordinary American people!
kittehpavolvski
So, if we're about to see the best of Obama, what have we been seeing
hitherto?
waitforme
So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone
strikes?
ForestTrees
Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign
countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never
had happened under a Trump presidency.
'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by
drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US
is not at war with????
What a fatuous article about the world's leading terrorist.
And of course we shouldn't forget that he had prosecuted more whistleblowers
than all other presidents combined.
Let's not forget that he claims and has exercised his 'right' to murder
his own citizens on the basis of secret evidence - one being a 16 year old
boy. And when the White House spokesman was asked why the boy was murdered
by drone, he said 'He should have had a more responsible father'.
He sings off on his 'Kill List' of domestic and foreign nationals every
Tuesday, dubbed 'Terror Tuesday' by his staff.
Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy!
ID7715785
Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us --
even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He
has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He
has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo.
He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and
a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call
it murder.
ninjamia
Oh, I know. He'll repeat the snide and nasty remarks about Trump that
he gave at the Press Club dinner. Such style and grace - not.
Casting Donald Trump as the Big Bad Wolf doesn't bring about real change.
And sadly, in his almost 8 years in office (2 years with absolute control
over the Congress) Barack Obama has brought about little real change. For
him it is a slogan.
Larry Robinson
Obama's presidency:
1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay
it up.
2. Record # of people living on food stamps.
3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to
hide it)
4. Stagnant income for average family
5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up
despite stagnant income.
6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance
cost up.
7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until
its threat is too big to ignore.
... ...
Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He
is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after
Bush's term was over.
shinNeMIN -> Larry Robinson
$500 million worth of arm supply?
hadeze242 -> Major MajorMajor
while Obama's messy military interventions become more and more confused,
chaotic and tragic his personal appearance gets ever more Hollywood: perfect
attire, smile and just the right words. I would prefer the inverse, less
tailoring and neat haircuts, but more honesty and transparency. e.g., Obama
lied about the NSA for how long in this first term. Answer: all four years
long and beyond into the 2nd term.
BostonCeltics
Six more months until he goes into the dustbin of history. Small minded
people in positions of power who take things personally are the epitome
of incompetence.
Mats Almgren
Obama became a worse president than Bush. Endless moneyprinting, bombing
nine countries, created a operation Condor 2.0 with interventions in Venezuela,
Brazil and Argentina, didn't withdraw any troops from Afghanistan, lifted
the weapon embargo on Vietnam to sell US weapons and at the same time forcing
Vietnam to not do trade deals with China, intimidating the Phillipines from
doing trade with China, restarted the cold war which had led to biggest
military ramp up in Eastern Europe since 1941, drone bombed weddings and
hospitals and what not, supported islam militants in Libya, Syria and Iraq
which has led to total devastation in these countries. And there has been
an increase in the constant US interventionism regarding European elections
and referendums. And has continuously protected the dollar hegemony causing
death and destruction thoughout the world.
With that track record it's easy to say that Obama might be worst US
president ever. And there has been hardly any critism and critical thinking
in the more and more propagandistic and agenda driven western media.
It's like living in the twilight zone reading the media in Sweden and
Britain.
Jose Sanchez -> Mats Almgren
Blame a president for trying to sell what we still manufacture are you?
Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is;
has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and
nothing has changed.
NewWorldWatcher
The new leader of the Republican party thinks that that it was stupid
to go into Iraq and Afghanistan but it would be good to carpet bomb ISIS.
He IS a great Republican. No wonder this party is on the fringe of extinction.
Mats Almgren -> NewWorldWatcher
Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against
intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared
that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts.
trundlesome1
Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of
taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those
Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic
policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like
Bill and Hillary?
Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements
for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement.
zootsuitbeatnick
"This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is
the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster
as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison
for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who
gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma
industries.
That's as hyper-competitive as Trump is selfless.
Try to be at least a little reality-based.
hadeze242
the best of Pres. Obama? Perhaps only someone living a life in the UK
could dream this strange dream? Great, compared to whom, to what? Never
since WW2 has the US & world seen such a weak, openly-prejudiced, non-performing
Pres. Remember O's plan to save Afghanistan? Lybia? Then, working (bombing)
with Putin's Russia to collaterally bomb the beautiful, developed, cultural
nation of Syria. To what end I ask? To create refugees? Obama has never
been at his best, always only at his worst. Ah, yes, his smooth-lawyered
sentences come with commas & periods and all that, but there is no feeling
inside the man. This man is a great, oratory actor. His promises are well-written
& endless, but delivery is never coming. Yes, we can .. was his electoral
phrase. No, we can't ... after 8 long, wasted yrs was his result.
NewWorldWatcher
In Las Vegas they are gaming on how many votes will Trump lose by not
who will win. A Trump loss will be in excess of 10 Million votes.......5to2
odds. The worse loss in recent history!
Janet Re Johnson -> NewWorldWatcher
From your mouth to God's ears. But I'm a big baseball fan, so I know
it ain't over till it's over.
Larry Robinson
Also it's when Obama talks out of outburst rather than from a teleprompter
that you can tell his true capability as a leader or lack thereof.
Notice that Obama said ... not once has an advisor tells him to use the
term "radical Islam" ... . Well Mr Obama, it's your own call to decide what
term to use on this issue so why are you bringing your advisors out for
credence. Right or wrong that's your own decision so you should stand behind
it. When you bring advisors in to defend what should be your own call it
shows WEAKNESS.
Obama basically tells everyone that he needs his advisors to tell him
what do b/c he does NOT know how to handle it by himself. So who's the leader
here, Obama or his advisors? Is Obama just a puppet that needs his advisors
to pull the string constantly? Ouch.
It's the prompter-free moment like this that the truth about Obama comes
out. I wonder why Trump has not picked this clear hole up yet.
raffine
The POTUS will crush Mr Trump like a 200 year old peanut.
Carolyn Walas Libbey -> raffine
The POTUS is about as useful as an old condom.
PortalooMassacre
Exposed to the toxic smugness of Richard Wolffe, I'm beginning to see
what people find attractive about Donald Trump's refreshing barbarism.
guy ventner -> synechdoche
"Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly
when taken off a teleprompter?
Ron Shuffler
"Greatest President since Lincoln" "I am proud - so proud! - to say that
this man is MY President! Personally, I am ashamed that this man is my President.
But anyway, here's what Richard Wolffe and y'all are so proud of:
Here's what your favorite President actually did:
Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around
2,600 innocent civilians.
Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined.
Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Deported at least 2.8 million "illegal" immigrants
Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot
Act.)
Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions
than Bush ever did.
Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing
terrorist militias (many of whom we armed).
Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made
it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport
thousands of children who came here to escape the violence.
Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and
pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states.
Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street.
Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality
here, especially in communities of color,
Left Guantanamo open (though as Commander-in-Chief he could have
closed it down with a phone call).
Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza
- and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the
right-wingers in control of that state.
Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them
cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen
Sent billions of dollars to the new military rulers of Egypt
Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons.
Which of these things make you "so proud?"
BG Davis -> Ron Shuffler
You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care
(Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting
for it.
At the same time, you overestimate the simplicity of just closing Guantanamo
prison with "a phone call." So he makes the phone call; then what happens
to the prisoners? They aren't all innocent non-entities who just happened
to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Larry Robinson
It's only in the mind of die hard liberals that Obama has been strong
against terrorists. Just look at how he handles Syria situation. Asad -
a Shiite govt - is a sworn enemy to ISIS - a Sunni organization so if you
are serious about ISIS you should utilize Asad, right? Well no, Obama is
so hell-bent on unseating Asad that he supports those rebels that are also
Sunni-based and cozy with ISIS. To him getting rid of Asad who poses
no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is
basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd.
Lafcadio1944
What part of Obama's criminal acts in office do think are the best? For
me the very best of Obama is how he can project power so suavely while standing
before the world as a prima facia criminal. TORTURE IS ILLEGAL!! Under the
law those who order and/or carry out torture MUST be prosecuted. THAT IS
INTERNATIONAL, TREATY AND DOMESTIC US LAW.
The oh so great and powerful Obama he of such dignity in office has SHOWN
UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THE RULE OF LAW!!!
But that's OK he will say bad things about Trump.
This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in
a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government
has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to
congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase
catches on.
I want to vomit when the press acts so hypocritically ready to jump all
over Putin or China in a heart beat - but challenge US officials who openly
violate the law - not a chance.
babymamaboy
Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive
as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant
groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by
continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in
the world.
It would be really easy for him to call it like it is -- we don't care
who you worship, just don't mess with our oil. But he actively feeds the
narrative while chiding Trump for being too enthusiastic about it. I guess
that's what passes for US leadership these days.
urgonnatrip
Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic,
completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put
into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions,
created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for
no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex.
How has Barack done? He's held them in check and avoided an escalation
to WW3. I wish I could say the next president was going to continue the
trend but somehow I doubt it.
KerryB -> urgonnatrip
You had me right up until the last line. I'm confident that Hillary
Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role
played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie
Sanders would have you believe ;-).
zolotoy -> KerryB
Yeah, just ignore Hillary Clinton's actual record, right?
AgnosticKen
TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy.
Pathological Liar – All About PATHOLOGICAL LYING, Lying, Self-Deception, Types,
Classification, from Pseudologia Fantastica to Habitual Lying.
Pathological Liar – Definition
Pathological liar refers to a liar that is compulsive
or impulsive, lies on a regular basis and is unable to control their lying
despite of foreseeing inevitable negative consequences or ultimate disclosure
of the lie. Generally lies told by a pathological liar have self-defeating
quality to them and don't serve the long term material needs of the person.
Therefore pathological lying is lying that is caused by a pathology, occurs
on a regular basis, is compulsive or impulsive & uncontrolled, and has self-defeating,
self-trapping quality to it.
Lying or self-deception is a part of everyday human interactions. In
many cases lying can be beneficial for those who lie and those who are being
lied to. Most of this type of lying with positive consequences occurs in
a controlled way, thoughtfully, with careful weighting of beneficial consequences.
Unlike these, the lies told by a pathological liar are uncontrolled and
are likely to have damaging consequences.
Pathological lying covers a wide range of lying behavior, from pseudologia
fantastica to habitual lying. Lying is a commonly found clinical component
with people who suffer from impulse control disorders such as gambling,
compulsive shopping, substance abuse, kleptomania etc. Pathological lying
is generally caused by a combination of factors, which may include genetic
components, dysfunctional or insecure childhood, dyslexia or other type
of cerebral dysfunction. Such conditions may host environment that is likely
to emerge chronic or pathological lying as an adaptive defense mechanism.
Dysfunctional family, parental overprotection, sibling rivalry, mental retardation
are among many causes of pathological lying.
Low Self-Esteem And Pathological Lying
Low self-esteem is a commonly found feature in pathological liars. The
lie maybe an attempt to feel good about themselves, generally for a short
period of time, similar to the effect of drugs & alcohol. The same lie or
deceit repeated over and over may create a myth of personal well-being or
success or displacement of faults of own failures on others, thus creating
an imaginary fantasy protection bubble, which may reinforce self-esteem.
Pathological liars repeatedly use deceit as an ego defense mechanism, which
is primarily caused by the lack of ability to cope with everyday problems
in more mature ways (Selling 1942).
Pathological Liar – Causes
Causes of development of pathological lying can be, but are not limited
to, one or more of the factors mentioned below:
A dysfunctional family;
Sexual or physical abuse in childhood;
Neuropsychological abnormalities; such as borderline mental retardation,
learning disabilities etc.
Impulse control disorders; such as kleptomania, pathological gambling,
compulsive shopping.
Accommodating or suggestible personality traits;
Personality disorders such as Sociopathic, Narcissistic, Borderline,
Histrionic and more;
Some of the more extreme forms of pathological lying is Pseudologia
Fantastica. This is a matrix of facts & fiction, mixed together in a
way that makes the reality and fantasy almost indistinguishable. The
pseudologue type pathological liar makes up stories that seem possible
on the surface, but over time things start falling apart. Pseudologues
have dynamic approach to their lies, they are likely to change the story
if confronted or faced with disbelief, they have excessive anxiety of
being caught and they desperately try to modify their story to something
that would seem plausible to create or preserve a sense of self that
is something they wish they were or at least something better than they
fear others would find out they are. The excessive anxiety is driven
by unusually low self-esteem, the person tries to hide reality by creating
a fake reality, and once the story has enduring quality to it, he/she
is likely to repeat it and if repeated enough times he/she might start
believing in it as well. This reality escape can be triggered of a past
incident or of an unbearable present for the pseudologue.
About 30% of daydreaming pathological liars have brain dysfunction.
For some it may take the form of learning disabilities, ex. dyslexia.
Often those with cerebral dysfunction have greater verbal production
& lower developed logical, analytical parts of the brain, thus they
often fail to control verbal output.
Habitual Liar
Habitual pathological lying is, as the name suggest, habitual. Habitual
liar lies so frequently, that it becomes a habit, as a result, he/she
puts very little effort in giving a thought about what the output is
going to be, nor does he/she care much to process whether it's a lie
or not, it's simply a reflex & very often can be completely unnecessary
or even opposite to his/her own needs. If he/she stops & thinks about
it, he/she knows clearly it's a lie.
Habitual liars lie for a variety of reasons, which include, but are
not limited to:
Take advantage of the situation or misguide a rival
Avoid confrontation or punishment
Cover up lack of knowledge
Cover up embarrassment
To entertain oneself or others
Reinforce self-esteem, because of failing own expectation
Receive unearned praise or avoid disappointment or disproval
For no reason whatsoever
Habitual liars gives very few if any psychical or vocal signs of
lying, due to the effortless nature of lying. That said, since he/she
gives a very little thought to his/her lies, they are usually inconsistent
& obvious.
Fear is a major contributor in developing habitual lying in a child
& further advancement into adulthood, more so in conditions when the
child finds truth telling results in more frequent or more severe punishment.
Lack of appreciating and likelihood of unwanted consequences of telling
the truth may result in frequent opting out for lying, which often involves
less punishment & therefore becomes more desirable.
Impulsive Pathological Liar – Impulse Control Disorders & Lying
Impulsive pathological liar lies due to impulse control problem,
he/she lies to fulfill his/her present (in the moment) needs, without
thinking of future negative effects that can be caused because of the
lie. Impulsive pathological liar generally suffers from impulse control
disorders, such as kleptomania, pathological gambling, compulsive shopping
etc. Those suffering from impulse control disorders fail to learn from
past negative experiences, frequently suffer from depression, likely
to have history of substance abuse in family or have substance abuse
problems themselves, likely to have deficiency in brain serotonin. Increase
in brain serotonin may have positive effect in decreasing impulsiveness,
such medication may have positive effects, however there hasn't been
clinical research performed to confirm or deny this theory.
Substance Abuse Associated Pathological Liar
Self-Deception is an undeniable part of addictive process. People
abuse alcohol or other drugs constantly lie to themselves & others to
avoid embarrassment, conflict, as well as to obtain the substance. Getting
off substance requires learning to distance oneself from the deceit,
therefore learning to be truthful is generally a part of any Alcoholics
Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous program.
Signs of Lying
Human detection of deceit can be summarized by the following seven signs.
7 Signs of Lying
Disguised smiling
Lack of head movement
Increased rate of self-adapters (eg., movements such playing with
an object in hands, scratching one's head etc.)
Increased/Heightened pitch of voice
Reduced rate of speech
Pause fillers ("uh", "hm", "er")
Less corresponding, matching nonverbal behavior from the other communication
methods (ex. the movement of hands doesn't match the substance of the
lie that is being told orally)
This is an article from 2008 campaign. Still relevant.
Notable quotes:
"... Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths are successful, even celebrated. I don't propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies. Hillary lies, repeatedly and recklessly. ..."
"... In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she's got the right stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough. No one cares as much. In Hillary's lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy. ..."
"... Hillary does have more experience manipulating the interface of MSM and the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what's headlines one day is yesterday's onions the next. ..."
"... Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she'd have some 'splaining to do. But like Scarlett O'hara, she'd think about it tomorrow. I'm talking about her vote on the war in Iraq. ..."
"... In 2002, Hillary voted for war with her eye on the prize. Within a few days of the 9/11 attack on WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the U.S. presidency, she'd have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance that would kill two birds with one stone. ..."
Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths
are successful, even celebrated. I don't propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton
by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths
have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies. Hillary
lies, repeatedly and recklessly.
She lies when she doesn't need to. And she lies as much for self-aggrandizement
as for political gain.
Sociopaths, driven by an unnatural appetite to get what they want NOW–a t.v.
set or the presidency– can't suffer the patience it takes to craft a lie
carefully. And their narcissism, coupled with a complete lack of morality,
enables them to advance the most outrageous lies. Lies that make you shake your
head in disbelief. Lies that end up on "Meet the Press."
What me worry Hillary. By the time she's busted, the lie has done its work.
Confronted, she's cool as a sociopath:"So, I made a mistake." Or I'm a victim
of someone else who lies. I voted for the Iraq war because Bush bamboozled
me.
In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she's got the right
stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump
up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose
her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully
constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough.
No one cares as much. In Hillary's lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy.
Lies to show she's got CIC and foreign policy credentials claim she
"landed under sniper fire" in Bosnia.
"helped bring peace to Ireland"
"negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into Kosovo"
The historical record, various eye-witnesses, and contemporaneous sources
prove all three claims false "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Further, Hillary has taken the lion's share of credit for SCHIP. Orrin Hatch,
with the disclaimer that he likes her, felt honor-bound to answer this claim
honestly: "…does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No – Teddy does, but she doesn't."
It is clear from HRC's First Lady records, recently released by The National
Archives and President Clinton's Library, as well as numerous eye-witness and
Press reports that whatever her private thoughts, HRC was head cheerleader on
Bill's NAFTA team. Ironically, just days before the Ohio and Texas primaries,
Hillary exploited a timely but inaccurate AP report to raise doubts about Obama's
NAFTA stance. She succeeded in shifting the contest's outcome.
Days after AP was contradicted by its own sources within the Canadian government
and Press, she continued to hector her rival with yesterday's news until the
clock ran out. Though no longer news, latest developments point to Clinton as
the NAFTA waffler.
Hillary does have more experience manipulating the interface of MSM and
the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what's
headlines one day is yesterday's onions the next.
Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus
and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she'd have some 'splaining
to do. But like Scarlett O'hara, she'd think about it tomorrow. I'm talking
about her vote on the war in Iraq.
Let's not mince words. I'm talking about her vote FOR the war in Iraq.
In 2002, Hillary voted for war with her eye on the prize. Within a few
days of the 9/11 attack on WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the
U.S. presidency, she'd have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still
burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance
that would kill two birds with one stone.
More next diary: From the ashes of 9/11, a new Hillary rises
Crooked Hillary will never release transcripts, but they might be leaked...
Politic is pro Clinton media, more like a part of her campaign staff, then independent
media. So it's surprising that they can't hide this skeleton in the closet under
the veil of silence. Looks like Hillary now is on hot stove with that. It's not
just lack of judgment and "make money fast" mentality on her part. This is plain
vanilla corruption.
Notable quotes:
"... Surrogates for both Democratic candidates sniped back and forth on the cable shows Friday over whether Hillary Clinton should release the transcripts of her paid speeches to financial institutions, as Bernie Sanders again suggested during the previous night's debate that the lack of disclosure bespeaks a lack of judgment. ..."
"... Speaking earlier in the day on CNN, Clinton supporter and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) appeared to break with the campaign line in remarking of the candidate's decision-making behind the release of transcripts, "I think she will. I think she's been clear that she's going to, and yes I would." ..."
"... Clinton has long maintained that she will release the transcripts of her paid speeches when every other candidate in both parties does the same. Asked whether that should be the standard, Gillibrand demurred. ..."
"... "I think everyone makes their own judgment," remarked Gillibrand, who like Finney, suggested tax returns as a better standard by which voters should judge the candidates. ..."
Surrogates for both Democratic candidates sniped back and forth on the cable
shows Friday over whether Hillary Clinton should release the transcripts of
her paid speeches to financial institutions, as Bernie Sanders again suggested
during the previous night's debate that the lack of disclosure bespeaks a lack
of judgment.
A senior adviser to Clinton's campaign on Friday decried the Sanders' campaign's
insinuation.
"This is what the Sanders campaign wants, right? The insinuation that there
is something nefarious," Karen Finney said during an interview on MSNBC, remarking
that when Sanders was asked directly about whether the speeches changed Clinton's
policies, he "had no answer."
Finney added, "I wish that on that stage, Sen. Sanders would have looked
Hillary Clinton in the eye and just said directly what he has insinuated time
and time again, that there is, you know, some connection, perhaps because she
got paid for making a speech, that somehow influenced any activity or action
she has ever taken. And that's what's really what's at the heart of this."
Chief pollster and strategist Joel Benenson insisted that Sanders himself
had put the issue to rest by failing to point to a specific instance.
The Sanders campaign, meanwhile, conceded that its candidate could have been
more direct in addressing whether money from Wall Street and other interests
has tainted Clinton's judgment and credibility.
"Well, I suppose he could have," senior adviser Tad Devine told MSNBC's "Andrea
Mitchell Reports." "There's a lot of issues he hasn't really gone nearly as
hard as he could."
In particular, Devine pointed to Clinton's 2001 vote as a senator for
the Bankruptcy Reform Act as one possible instance, after she opposed it as
first lady.
Clinton has explained the vote as one she changed at the insistence of then-Sen.
Joe Biden. When Mitchell made that point, Devine mused, "She also received enormous
contributions from the financial industry, too."
"Our argument is not that Hillary Clinton is corrupt," Devine said. "OK,
and I know everybody's looking for that argument. Bernie's argument is that
the system is corrupt, and if you're going to participate in it, you're not
going to be able to change things."
Finney, as other members of Clinton campaign have done, rejected the notion
that Clinton's paid speech transcripts are important to undecided voters.
"Well again, Sen. Sanders is trying to use this to make an allegation to
which he has absolutely no response when asked where is the proof. So I think
a lot of voters also find that very offensive," Finney said. "And moreover,
I have to tell you that if you are trying to figure out how to send your kid
to college, if you are trying to figure out how to take care of a sick parent
or wanting your child's schools to be improved, this is not something you care
about."
"I mean, I understand, I think we understand the sort of media fascination
with this," Finney said. "But I'm just telling you, I mean, I have been out
there on the road talking to voters. This never comes up."
Clinton's surrogates, meanwhile, continued to press Sanders to release his
tax returns. Sanders himself said he would release the 2014 returns at some
point later Friday.
Speaking earlier in the day on CNN, Clinton supporter and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
(D-N.Y.) appeared to break with the campaign line in remarking of the candidate's
decision-making behind the release of transcripts, "I think she will. I think
she's been clear that she's going to, and yes I would."
Clinton has long maintained that she will release the transcripts of her
paid speeches when every other candidate in both parties does the same. Asked
whether that should be the standard, Gillibrand demurred.
"I think everyone makes their own judgment," remarked Gillibrand, who like
Finney, suggested tax returns as a better standard by which voters should judge
the candidates.
"... Often described as "drama queens" or "abusive," they too frequently create chaos in situations where others would smoothly deal with the normal differences and disappointments that arise from time to time for all of us. ..."
"... These habits now would suggest to me comorbid diagnoses, that is, a combination of borderline personality emotional hyper-reactivity with narcissistic and/or psychopathic (conning) patterns. ..."
"... manipulation is defined as deception used for personal gain, without concern for victims." ..."
Women, and men, with borderline personality disorder seem not to know how
to stop arguing (link is external).
Often described as "drama queens" or "abusive,"
they too frequently create chaos in situations where others would smoothly deal
with the normal differences and disappointments that arise from time to time
for all of us.
... ... ...
There may well be some individuals with BPD who are genuinely manipulative
or sadistic.
These habits now would suggest to me comorbid diagnoses, that is, a combination
of borderline personality emotional hyper-reactivity with narcissistic and/or
psychopathic (conning) patterns.
In the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (cited in Bowers,
2002) ... manipulation is defined as deception used for personal gain, without
concern for victims."
"... At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent. ..."
"... The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that all his autoworkers in Michigan weren't only cheap labor to be exploited; they were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they'd be able to afford his Model Ts. ..."
Memo: From Nick Hanauer To: My Fellow Zillionaires
You probably don't know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud
and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than
30 companies across a range of industries-from itsy-bitsy ones like the night
club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the
first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising
company that was
sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own
a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I'm no different
from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And
also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that
the other 99.99 percent of Americans can't even imagine. Multiple homes, my
own plane, etc., etc. You know what I'm talking about. In 1992, I was selling
pillows made by my family's business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores
across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked
up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then,
that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed.
I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough-and that
time wasn't far off-people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor.
And Filene's. And Borders. And on and on.
Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy,
was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends,
both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was
a guy you've probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a
fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I
told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time.
It just happened that the second Jeff-Bezos-called me back first to take up
my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The
other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when
trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online
idea; people just weren't yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally
checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don't vary in
quality-Bezos' great insight). Cybershop didn't make it, just another dot-com
bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.
But let's speak frankly to each other. I'm not the smartest guy you've ever
met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at
all-I can't write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance
for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where
things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our
future now?
I see pitchforks.
At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the
dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is
lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse
really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent
controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent
shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent;
the bottom 50 percent,
just 12 percent.
But the problem isn't that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic
to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is
at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly
becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies
change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to
late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.
Memo: From Nick Hanauer To: My Fellow Zillionaires
You probably don't know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud
and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than
30 companies across a range of industries-from itsy-bitsy ones like the night
club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the
first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising
company that was
sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own
a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I'm no different
from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And
also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that
the other 99.99 percent of Americans can't even imagine. Multiple homes, my
own plane, etc., etc. You know what I'm talking about. In 1992, I was selling
pillows made by my family's business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores
across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked
up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then,
that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed.
I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough-and that
time wasn't far off-people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor.
And Filene's. And Borders. And on and on.
Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy,
was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends,
both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was
a guy you've probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a
fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I
told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time.
It just happened that the second Jeff-Bezos-called me back first to take up
my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The
other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when
trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online
idea; people just weren't yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally
checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don't vary in
quality-Bezos' great insight). Cybershop didn't make it, just another dot-com
bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.
But let's speak frankly to each other. I'm not the smartest guy you've ever
met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at
all-I can't write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance
for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where
things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our
future now?
I see pitchforks.
At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams
of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is lagging
far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really,
really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent
controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent
shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent;
the bottom 50 percent,
just 12 percent.
But the problem isn't that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic
to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is
at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly
becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies
change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to
late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.
And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live
in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won't last.
If we don't do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the
pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising
inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated
like this and the pitchforks didn't eventually come out. You show me a highly
unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are
no counterexamples. None. It's not if, it's when.
Many of us think we're special because "this is America." We think we're
immune to the same forces that started the Arab Spring-or the French and Russian
revolutions, for that matter. I know you fellow .01%ers tend to dismiss this
kind of argument; I've had many of you tell me to my face I'm completely bonkers.
And yes, I know there are many of you who are convinced that because you saw
a poor kid with an iPhone that one time, inequality is a fiction.
Here's what I say to you: You're living in a dream world. What everyone wants
to believe is that when things reach a tipping point and go from being merely
crappy for the masses to dangerous and socially destabilizing, that we're somehow
going to know about that shift ahead of time. Any student of history knows that's
not the way it happens. Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and
then suddenly. One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people
are in the streets, and before you know it, the country is burning. And then
there's no time for us to get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and
fly to New Zealand. That's the way it always happens. If inequality keeps rising
as it has been, eventually it will happen. We will not be able to predict when,
and it will be terrible-for everybody. But especially for us.
***
The most ironic thing about rising inequality is how completely unnecessary
and self-defeating it is. If we do something about it, if we adjust our policies
in the way that, say, Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression-so
that we help the 99 percent and preempt the revolutionaries and crazies, the
ones with the pitchforks-that will be the best thing possible for us rich folks,
too. It's not just that we'll escape with our lives; it's that we'll most certainly
get even richer.
The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that
all his autoworkers in Michigan weren't only cheap labor to be exploited; they
were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he
raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they'd be able to afford
his Model Ts.
What a great idea. My suggestion to you is: Let's do it all over again. We've
got to try something. These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my
customer base. And yours too.
It's when I realized this that I decided I had to leave my insulated world
of the super-rich and get involved in politics. Not directly, by running for
office or becoming one of the big-money billionaires who back candidates in
an election. Instead, I wanted to try to change the conversation with ideas-by
advancing what my co-author, Eric Liu, and I call "middle-out" economics. It's
the long-overdue rebuttal to the trickle-down economics worldview that has become
economic orthodoxy across party lines-and has so screwed the American middle
class and our economy generally. Middle-out economics rejects the old misconception
that an economy is a perfectly efficient, mechanistic system and embraces the
much more accurate idea of an economy as a complex ecosystem made up of real
people who are dependent on one another.
Which is why the fundamental law of capitalism must be: If workers have more
money, businesses have more customers. Which makes middle-class consumers, not
rich businesspeople like us, the true job creators. Which means a thriving middle
class is the source of American prosperity, not a consequence of it. The middle
class creates us rich people, not the other way around.
On June 19, 2013, Bloomberg published an
article I wrote called "The Capitalist's Case for a $15 Minimum Wage."
Forbes
labeled it "Nick Hanauer's near insane" proposal. And yet, just weeks after
it was published, my friend David Rolf, a Service Employees International Union
organizer, roused fast-food workers to go on strike around the country for a
$15 living wage. Nearly a year later, the city of Seattle
passed a $15 minimum wage. And just 350 days after my article was published,
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray signed that ordinance into law. How could this happen,
you ask?
It happened because we reminded the masses that they are the source of growth
and prosperity, not us rich guys. We reminded them that when workers have more
money, businesses have more customers-and need more employees. We reminded them
that if businesses paid workers a living wage rather than poverty wages, taxpayers
wouldn't have to make up the difference. And when we got done, 74 percent of
likely Seattle voters in a
recent poll agreed that a $15 minimum wage was a swell idea.
The standard response in the minimum-wage debate, made by Republicans and
their business backers and plenty of Democrats as well, is that raising the
minimum wage costs jobs. Businesses will have to lay off workers. This argument
reflects the orthodox economics that most people had in college. If you took
Econ 101, then you literally were taught that if wages go up, employment must
go down. The law of supply and demand and all that. That's why you've got John
Boehner and other Republicans in Congress insisting that if you price employment
higher, you get less of it. Really?
The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich
and our employees poor.
Because here's an odd thing. During the past three decades, compensation
for CEOs grew 127 times faster than it did for workers. Since 1950, the CEO-to-worker
pay ratio has increased 1,000 percent, and that is not a typo. CEOs
used to earn 30 times the median wage; now they rake in 500 times. Yet no
company I know of has eliminated its senior managers, or outsourced them to
China or automated their jobs. Instead, we now have more CEOs and senior executives
than ever before. So, too, for financial services workers and technology workers.
These folks earn multiples of the median wage, yet we somehow have more and
more of them.
The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich and
our employees poor. So for as long as there has been capitalism, capitalists
have said the same thing about any effort to raise wages. We've had 75 years
of complaints from big business-when the minimum wage was instituted, when women
had to be paid equitable amounts, when child labor laws were created. Every
time the capitalists said exactly the same thing in the same way: We're all
going to go bankrupt. I'll have to close. I'll have to lay everyone off. It
hasn't happened. In fact, the data show that when workers are better treated,
business gets better. The naysayers are just wrong.
Most of you probably think that the $15 minimum wage in Seattle is an insane
departure from rational policy that puts our economy at great risk. But in Seattle,
our current minimum wage of $9.32 is already nearly 30 percent higher than the
federal minimum wage. And has it ruined our economy yet? Well, trickle-downers,
look at the data here: The two cities in the nation with the highest rate of
job growth by small businesses
are
San Francisco and Seattle. Guess which cities have the highest minimum wage?
San Francisco and Seattle. The
fastest-growing big city in America? Seattle. Fifteen dollars isn't a risky
untried policy for us. It's doubling down on the strategy that's already allowing
our city to kick your city's ass.
It makes perfect sense if you think about it: If a worker earns $7.25 an
hour, which is
now
the national minimum wage, what proportion of that person's income do you
think ends up in the cash registers of local small businesses? Hardly any. That
person is paying rent, ideally going out to get subsistence groceries at Safeway,
and, if really lucky, has a bus pass. But she's not going out to eat at restaurants.
Not browsing for new clothes. Not buying flowers on Mother's Day.
Is this issue more complicated than I'm making out? Of course. Are there
many factors at play determining the dynamics of employment? Yup. But please,
please stop insisting that if we pay low-wage workers more, unemployment will
skyrocket and it will destroy the economy. It's utter nonsense. The most insidious
thing about trickle-down economics isn't believing that if the rich get richer,
it's good for the economy. It's believing that if the poor get richer, it's
bad for the economy.
I know that virtually all of you feel that compelling our businesses to pay
workers more is somehow unfair, or is too much government interference. Most
of you think that we should just let good examples like Costco or Gap lead the
way. Or let the market set the price. But here's the thing. When those who set
bad examples, like the owners of Wal-Mart or McDonald's, pay their workers close
to the minimum wage, what they're really saying is that they'd pay even less
if it weren't illegal. (Thankfully both companies have recently said they would
not oppose a hike in the minimum wage.) In any large group, some people absolutely
will not do the right thing. That's why our economy can only be safe and effective
if it is governed by the same kinds of rules as, say, the transportation system,
with its speed limits and stop signs.
Wal-Mart is our nation's largest employer with some 1.4 million employees
in the United States and more than
$25 billion in pre-tax profit. So why are Wal-Mart employees the largest
group of Medicaid recipients in many states? Wal-Mart could, say, pay each of
its 1 million lowest-paid workers an extra $10,000 per year, raise them all
out of poverty and enable them to, of all things, afford to shop at Wal-Mart.
Not only would this also save us all the expense of the food stamps, Medicaid
and rent assistance that they currently require, but Wal-Mart would still earn
more than $15 billion pre-tax per year. Wal-Mart won't (and shouldn't) volunteer
to pay its workers more than their competitors. In order for us to have an economy
that works for everyone, we should compel all retailers to pay living wages-not
just ask politely.
We rich people have been falsely persuaded by our schooling and the affirmation
of society, and have convinced ourselves, that we are the main job creators.
It's simply not true. There can never be enough super-rich Americans to power
a great economy. I earn about 1,000 times the median American annually, but
I don't buy thousands of times more stuff. My family purchased three cars over
the past few years, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a
year, just like most American men. I bought two pairs of the fancy wool pants
I am wearing as I write, what my partner Mike calls my "manager pants." I guess
I could have bought 1,000 pairs. But why would I? Instead, I sock my extra money
away in savings, where it doesn't do the country much good.
So forget all that rhetoric about how America is great because of people
like you and me and Steve Jobs. You know the truth even if you won't admit it:
If any of us had been born in Somalia or the Congo, all we'd be is some guy
standing barefoot next to a dirt road selling fruit. It's not that Somalia and
Congo don't have good entrepreneurs. It's just that the best ones are selling
their wares off crates by the side of the road because that's all their customers
can afford.
So why not talk about a different kind of New Deal for the American people,
one that could appeal to the right as well as left-to libertarians as well as
liberals? First, I'd ask my Republican friends to get real about reducing the
size of government. Yes, yes and yes, you guys are all correct: The federal
government is too big in some ways. But no way can you cut government substantially,
not the way things are now. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush each had eight
years to do it, and they failed miserably.
Republicans and Democrats in Congress can't shrink government with wishful
thinking. The only way to slash government for real is to go back to basic economic
principles: You have to reduce the demand for government. If people are getting
$15 an hour or more, they don't need food stamps. They don't need rent assistance.
They don't need you and me to pay for their medical care. If the consumer middle
class is back, buying and shopping, then it stands to reason you won't need
as large a welfare state. And at the same time, revenues from payroll and sales
taxes would rise, reducing the deficit.
This is, in other words, an economic approach that can unite left and right.
Perhaps that's one reason the right is beginning, inexorably, to wake up to
this reality as well. Even Republicans as diverse as Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum
recently came out in favor of raising the minimum wage, in defiance of the Republicans
in Congress.
***
One thing we can agree on-I'm sure of this-is that the change isn't
going to start in Washington. Thinking is stale, arguments even more so. On
both sides.
But the way I see it, that's all right. Most major social movements have
seen their earliest victories at the state and municipal levels. The fight over
the eight-hour workday, which ended in Washington, D.C., in 1938, began in places
like Illinois and Massachusetts in the late 1800s. The movement for social security
began in California in the 1930s. Even the Affordable Health Care Act-Obamacare-would
have been hard to imagine without Mitt Romney's model in Massachusetts to lead
the way.
Sadly, no Republicans and few Democrats get this. President Obama doesn't
seem to either, though his heart is in the right place. In his State of the
Union speech this year, he mentioned the need for a higher minimum wage but
failed to make the case that less inequality and a renewed middle class would
promote faster economic growth. Instead, the arguments we hear from most Democrats
are the same old social-justice claims. The only reason to help workers is because
we feel sorry for them. These fairness arguments feed right into every stereotype
of Obama and the Democrats as bleeding hearts. Republicans say growth. Democrats
say fairness-and lose every time.
But just because the two parties in Washington haven't figured it out yet
doesn't mean we rich folks can just keep going. The conversation is already
changing, even if the billionaires aren't onto it. I know what you think: You
think that Occupy Wall Street and all the other capitalism-is-the-problem protesters
disappeared without a trace. But that's not true. Of course, it's hard to get
people to sleep in a park in the cause of social justice. But the protests we
had in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis really did help to change the debate
in this country from death panels and debt ceilings to inequality.
It's just that so many of you plutocrats didn't get the message.
Dear 1%ers, many of our fellow citizens are starting to believe that capitalism
itself is the problem. I disagree, and I'm sure you do too. Capitalism, when
well managed, is the greatest social technology ever invented to create prosperity
in human societies. But capitalism left unchecked tends toward concentration
and collapse. It can be managed either to benefit the few in the near term or
the many in the long term. The work of democracies is to bend it to the latter.
That is why investments in the middle class work. And tax breaks for rich people
like us don't. Balancing the power of workers and billionaires by raising the
minimum wage isn't bad for capitalism. It's an indispensable tool smart capitalists
use to make capitalism stable and sustainable. And no one has a bigger stake
in that than zillionaires like us.
The oldest and most important conflict in human societies is the battle over
the concentration of wealth and power. The folks like us at the top have always
told those at the bottom that our respective positions are righteous and good
for all. Historically, we called that divine right. Today we have trickle-down
economics.
What nonsense this is. Am I really such a superior person? Do I belong at
the center of the moral as well as economic universe? Do you?
My family, the Hanauers, started in Germany selling feathers and pillows.
They got chased out of Germany by Hitler and ended up in Seattle owning another
pillow company. Three generations later, I benefited from that. Then I got as
lucky as a person could possibly get in the Internet age by having a buddy in
Seattle named Bezos. I look at the average Joe on the street, and I say, "There
but for the grace of Jeff go I." Even the best of us, in the worst of circumstances,
are barefoot, standing by a dirt road, selling fruit. We should never forget
that, or forget that the United States of America and its middle class made
us, rather than the other way around.
Or we could sit back, do nothing, enjoy our yachts. And wait for the pitchforks.
"... Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an e-mail showing that reality appears. ..."
"... spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. ..."
"... sheepdog is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his so-called campaign. ..."
Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an
e-mail showing that reality appears. He is, in fact, with his total
and immediate roll-over, even as the corruption of the process was categorically
exposed by the e-mails, making no pretense otherwise, spitting in the
face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy
of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. He was the geriatric Obama,
dispensing more Hopium for the dopes. And when Clinton feigns adoption of
Sanders policy, like not signing the TPP, she is LYING.
Diana, July 28, 2016
Sanders' own campaign called him the "youth whisperer", but sheepdog
is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting,
correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This
was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his
so-called campaign. Perhaps he did so hoping that the DNC would play
fair, but that goes to show you he's no socialist. A real socialist would
have been able to size up the opposition, not made any gentleman's agreements
with them and waged a real campaign.
rtj1211, July 26, 2016
So far as I'm aware, there must be a mechanism for an Independent to
put their name on the ballot.
If the majority of people in the USA are really thinking that voting
for either Hillary or the Donald is worse than having unprotected sex with
an HIV+ hooker, then the Independent would barely need any publicity. They'd
just need to be on the ballot.
Course, the Establishment might get cute and put a far-right nutcase
up as 'another Independent' so as they would have someone who'd do as they
were told no matter what.
But until the US public say 'da nada! Pasta! Finito! To hell with the
Democrats and the GOP!', you'll still get the choice of 'let's invade Iran'
or 'let's nuke Russia'. You'll get the choice of giving Israel a blowjob
or agreeing to be tied up and have kinky sex with Israel. You'll get the
choice of bailing out Wall Street or bailing out Wall Street AND cutting
social security for the poorest Americans. You'll get the choice of running
the USA for the bankers or running the USA for the bankers and a few multinational
corporations.
Oh, they'll have to fight for it, just as Martin Luther King et al had
to fight for civil rights. They may have the odd candidate shot by the CIA,
the oil men or the weapons men. Because that's how US politics works.
But if they don't want a Republican or a Republican-lite, they need to
select an independent and vote for them.
The rest of us? We have to use whatever influence we have to try and
limit what they try to do overseas…….because we are affected by what America
does overseas…….
Sanders as a pupil of the king of "bait and switch" Obama
Notable quotes:
"... I think he will come to deeply regret what he has done. He has betrayed these people who believed in this political revolution. We heard this same kind of rhetoric, by the way, in 2008 around Obama. ..."
CHRIS HEDGES : Well, I didn't back Bernie Sanders because-and
Kshama Sawant and I had had a discussion with him before-because he said that
he would work within the Democratic structures and support the nominee.
And
I think we have now watched Bernie Sanders walk away from his political moment.
You know, he - I think he will come to deeply regret what he has done. He
has betrayed these people who believed in this political revolution. We heard
this same kind of rhetoric, by the way, in 2008 around Obama.
"... That means backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP. Shame on him! He told his followers to think of pie in the sky in the decades it will take to take over the Democratic Party from below, from school boards, etc. ..."
"... What on earth is revolution if it doesn't include either remove the rot in the Democratic Party, the Wall Street control, or start another party? It had to be one or the other. Here was his chance. I think he missed it. ..."
"... He did miss his chance. Some people were suggesting that he should walk and form his own party. Particularly how the party treated him. ..."
"... The Democrats and the Republicans together have made it almost impossible for a third party to get registered in every state. To run in every state. To get just all of the mechanics you need because of all the lawsuits against them. The Green Party is the only party that had already solved that. Apart from the Libertarian Party. ..."
"... The oligarchs have joined the Republicans and the Democrats are now seen to be the same party, called the Democratic Party. Here was his chance to make an alternative. ..."
"... I believe Hillary's the greater evil, not Trump, because Trump is incompetent and doesn't have the staff around him, or the political support that Hilary has. ..."
"... I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care. ..."
"... I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight! ..."
"... Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. ..."
"... I agree with Hudson that HRC is the greater threat. I also agree with him that Bernie makes no sense. What the hell did Bernie have to lose? He could have accepted the prez nomination with the Greens. In fact, he should have run third party from the git-go. By sucking up to the dems that politically raped him, Bernie is exhibiting a variation of Stockholm syndrome. ..."
"... Bernie's problem in the end is that he couldn't see that in order to gain power in the Democratic Party (i.e., in order to dislodge the Clintons), the Left might (probably would) have to lose an election. ..."
"... The Democratic PoC (Party of Clinton) had to be shown as a party that could not win an election without its left half. He wrongly saw the powerless Trump as the greater threat, something that could only be done if he still at least marginally trusted Hillary to ever keep her word on anything. He will come to see that as his greatest mistake of all. ..."
"... Bernie reminds me of Gorbachev. Both clearly saw what the problem was with their respective societies, but still thought that things could be fixed by changing their respective parties. Bernie it seems, like Gorbachev before him, can not intellectually accept that effective reforms require radical action on the existing power structures. Gorbachev could not break with the Communist system and Bernie can not break with the Democratic party. ..."
"... I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care. ..."
"... I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight! ..."
"... Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. ..."
PERIES: Let's turn to Sanders's strategy here. Now, Sanders is, of course,
asking people to support Hillary. And if you buy into the idea that she is the
lesser of two evils candidate, then we also have to look at Bernie's other strategy
– which is to vote as many people as we possibly can at various other levels
of the elections that are going on at congressional levels, Senate level, at
municipal levels. Is that the way to go, so that we can avoid some of these
choices we are offered?
HUDSON: Well, this is what I don't understand about Sanders's strategy. He
says we need a revolution. He's absolutely right. But then, everything he said
in terms of the election is about Trump. I can guarantee you that the revolution
isn't really about Trump. The way Sanders has described things, you have to
take over the Democratic Party and pry away the leadership, away from Wall Street,
away from the corporations.
Democrats pretend to be a party of the working class, a party of the people.
But it's teetering with Hillary as it's candidate. If ever there was a time
to split it, this was the year. But Bernie missed his chance. He knuckled under
and said okay, the election's going to be about Trump. Forget the revolution
that I've talked about. Forget reforming the Democratic Party, I'm sorry. Forget
that I said Hillary is not fit to be President. I'm sorry, she is fit to be
President. We've got to back her.
That means backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP. Shame on him!
He told his followers to think of pie in the sky in the decades it will take
to take over the Democratic Party from below, from school boards, etc.
Labor unions said this half a century ago. It didn't work. Bernie gave up
on everything to back the TPP candidate, the neocon candidate.
What on earth is revolution if it doesn't include either remove the rot
in the Democratic Party, the Wall Street control, or start another party? It
had to be one or the other. Here was his chance. I think he missed it.
PERIES: I think there's a lot of people out there that agree with
that analysis, Michael. He did miss his chance. Some people were suggesting
that he should walk and form his own party. Particularly how the party treated
him. But there is another choice out there. In fact, we at the Real News
is out there covering the Green Party election as we are speaking here, Michael.
Is that an option?
HUDSON: It would have been the only option for him. He had decided
that you can't really mount a third party, because it's so hard. The Democrats
and the Republicans together have made it almost impossible for a third party
to get registered in every state. To run in every state. To get just all of
the mechanics you need because of all the lawsuits against them. The Green Party
is the only party that had already solved that. Apart from the Libertarian Party.
So here you have the only possible third party he could have run on this
time, and he avoided it. I'm sure he must of thought about it. He was offered
the presidency on it. He could of used that and brought his revolution into
that party and then expanded it as a real alternative to both the Democrats
and the Republicans. Because the Republican Party is already split, by the fact
that the Tea Party's pretty much destroyed it. The oligarchs have joined
the Republicans and the Democrats are now seen to be the same party, called
the Democratic Party. Here was his chance to make an alternative.
I don't think there will be a chance like this again soon. I believe
Hillary's the greater evil, not Trump, because Trump is incompetent and doesn't
have the staff around him, or the political support that Hilary has. I
think Bernie missed his chance to take this party and develop it very quickly,
just like George Wallace could have done back in the 1960s when he had a chance.
I think Chris Hedges and other people have made this point with you. I have
no idea what Bernie's idea of a revolution is, if he's going to try to do it
within the Democratic Party that's just stamped on him again and again, you're
simply not going to have a revolution within the Democratic party.
I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as
you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role
that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight
for universal health care.
I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce
advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled.
Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud
to stand with her tonight!
Sanders' campaign was premised on exactly the opposite. How can anyone
now take Bernie seriously?
Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful
human being I've ever known in my life.
Okay. I know this comment will bring forth much backlash, but I'm gonna
put it out there anyway since my 'give-a-shitter' was severely cracked over
4 yrs ago (when 2 sheriff's deputies evicted me from my home while I had
been current on my pymts when the bank foreclosed and the response from
EVERY govt agency I contacted told me to "hire a lawyer", which I couldn't
afford, with one costing much more than I owed on my home of 20 yrs). I
had bought my first house by the time I graduated h.s. and had owned one
ever since until now.
My 'give-a-shitter' completely shattered this year with the election,
so here goes:
So it seems we are offered 3 choices when we vote. Trump, Hillary or
Green.
To someone who is among the 8-10 MILLION (depending on whose figures
you believe) whose home was illegally taken from them by the banksters,
I would welcome a 4th choice since none of the 3 offered will improve my
life before I die.
The consensus seems to be that it'll take decades to create change through
voting.
I'm a divorced woman turning 65. I don't feel I have decades to wait,
while I am forced to live in a place that doesn't even have a flush toilet
because it's all I can afford. To someone my age with no degrees or special
skills, the job market is nonexistent, even if I lived in a big city (where
I couldn't afford the rent).
When I see reports of an increase in new homes being built, I'd love
to see a breakdown showing exactly how many of those homes will be primary
residences and how many are second (or third, or fourth) homes.
There are 4 new custom homes being built within a half mile of me.
None will be primary residences. All will be 'vacation' homes.
Yet if we're to believe the latest figures, "the housing market is improving!"
For whom?
Yes, I'm extremely disappointed that Bernie bailed on us. I doubt either
of us will live long enough to see the change required to change this govt
and save the planet with our current choices this election.
I fear the only thing that this election has given me was initially great
hope for my future, before being plunged into the darkness of the same ol',
same ol' as my only choices.
I was never radical or oppositional in my life but I would now welcome
a revolution. I don't see me living long enough to welcome that change by
voting. Especially with the blatant voter suppression and all else that
transpired this election.
While the govt and political oligarchs may fear Russia & ISIS, if they
met 8-10 million of us victims of the banksters, they would come to realize
real fear, from those within their homeland.
Most are horrified when I offer this view, saying I'd be thrown in prison.
Hmmm…considering that…I'd be fed, clothed, housed-and I'd have a flush toilet!
Gads, I'd love to see millions of us march on Washington & literally
throw those in power out of their seats onto the lawn, saying "enough is
enough"!
So I guess my question is, does anyone else feel as 'at the end of their
rope' as I do?
Can you even truly imagine being in my position and what you would do or
how you would feel?
Yes. I screamed, cried, and wrote Bernie's campaign before his endorsement
speech was even completed, expressing my disappointment, after foregoing
meals to send him my meager contributions.
My hopes were shattered and I'm growing impatient for change.
crittermom/Bullwinkle – here's one of the articles by Chris Hedges on
Bernie Sanders:
"Because the party is completely captive to corporate power," Hedges
said. "And Bernie has cut a Faustian deal with the Democrats. And that's
not even speculation. I did an event with him and Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein
and Kshama Sawant in New York the day before the Climate March. And Kshama
Sawant ,the Socialist City Councilwoman from Seattle and I asked Sanders
why he wanted to run as a Democrat. And he said - because I don't want to
end up like Nader."
"He didn't want to end up pushed out of the establishment," Hedges said.
"He wanted to keep his committee chairmanships, he wanted to keep his Senate
seat. And he knew the forms of retribution, punishment that would be visited
upon him if he applied his critique to the Democratic establishment. So
he won't."
Fair enough. I don't know enough about Nader to care. To me, it was just
the about-face that Bernie did, going from denouncing Hillary (albeit not
very strongly) to embracing her. I think if I had been one of his supporters
who cheered him on, sent him money, got my hopes raised that he would go
all the way, I would have been very disappointed. Almost like a tease.
I'd wanted Bernie to run as an Independent more than anything, but I
can understand him wanting to keep his Senate seat and chairs. Without them,
he has no power to bring change.
I had believed he had a good chance to win, whipping a big Bernie Bird to
both parties and changing things in my lifetime, running Independent.
I now realize just how completely corrupt our political system is. Far
worse than I ever could have imagined. Wow, have my eyes been opened!
I'm beginning to think this election may just come down to who has the
bigger thugs, Trump or HRC.
I agree with Hudson that HRC is the greater threat. I also agree
with him that Bernie makes no sense. What the hell did Bernie have to lose?
He could have accepted the prez nomination with the Greens. In fact, he
should have run third party from the git-go. By sucking up to the dems that
politically raped him, Bernie is exhibiting a variation of Stockholm syndrome.
Bernie's problem in the end is that he couldn't see that in order
to gain power in the Democratic Party (i.e., in order to dislodge the Clintons),
the Left might (probably would) have to lose an election.
The Democratic PoC (Party of Clinton) had to be shown as a party
that could not win an election without its left half. He wrongly saw the
powerless Trump as the greater threat, something that could only be done
if he still at least marginally trusted Hillary to ever keep her word on
anything. He will come to see that as his greatest mistake of all.
Bernie reminds me of Gorbachev. Both clearly saw what the problem
was with their respective societies, but still thought that things could
be fixed by changing their respective parties. Bernie it seems, like Gorbachev
before him, can not intellectually accept that effective reforms require
radical action on the existing power structures. Gorbachev could not break
with the Communist system and Bernie can not break with the Democratic party.
Bernie is too nice for his own good. He should have used the DNC machinations
as an excuse to go back on his promise to endorse. "I made that promise
on the assumption that we would all be acting in good faith. Sadly, that
has proved not to be the case."
But no, he's too much of a politician, or too nice, or has too much sense
of personal pride…or had his life and his family threatened if he didn't
toe the line (not that I'm foily). Whatever his motivations, we don't get
a "Get out of Responsibility Free" card just because one dude
made some mis-steps. If that's all it takes to derail us, we're
so, so screwed.
I also agree with Hudson and EndOfTheWorld that HRC is the greater threat
and that Sanders makes no sense.
Sure, the Dems probably threatened to kick him off of Congressional Committees
and to back a rival in Vermont.
So what! With his tenure and at his age, what's really to lose? If he
couldn't face off someone in his home state, it's probably time to retire
anyway. And it's not like he was ever in it for the money.
The best he gets now is mild tolerance from his masters. "Give me your
followers and lick my boots." What a coward, could have made history, now
he's a goat.
It's actually not so surprising given his long history of working within
the mainstream system, simply along its fringes. I think many may have been
falling into the '08 Obama trap of seeing what they wanted to see in him.
As a senator he's had plenty of opportunities to grandstand, gum up the
works, etc, and he really never does. Even his "filibuster" a few years
back wasn't all that disruptive.
EndOfTheWorld- totally agree with you. I just shake my head at Bernie.
Diametrically opposed to Clinton, he suddenly turns around and embraces
her! What? I will never understand that.
"America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective
president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for
the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and
that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity."
He's right too. I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming
President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just
look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she
gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some
more. Power and money are her goals.
She has called Putin "Hitler", said she wants to expand NATO, and again
said she wants to take out Assad. Well, how is she going to do that when
Russia is in there? God, she is scary. I just hope that there's a big Clinton
Foundation email leak to finish her off.
Trump is out there, but at least he wants to try to negotiate peace (of
course, if war wasn't making so many people rich, it would be stopped tomorrow).
He's questioning why NATO is necessary, never mind its continual expansion,
and he wants to stop the TPP.
God, I'd be happy with even one of the above. Hillary will give us TPP,
more NATO, more war, and a cackle. Please, if anyone has some loose emails
hanging around, now is the time!
I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as
you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role
that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight
for universal health care.
I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce
advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled.
Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud
to stand with her tonight!
Sanders' campaign was premised on exactly the opposite. How can anyone
now take Bernie seriously?
Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful
human being I've ever known in my life.
Butch – "…she helped lead the fight for universal health care." Did she
now? Here's a good quote on how she felt about universal health care:
"Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly
version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons
deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to
exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national
health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.)
"David, tell me something interesting." That was then First Lady Hillary
Clinton's weary and exasperated response – as head of the White House's
health reform initiative – to Harvard medical professor David Himmelstein
in 1993. Himmelstein was head of Physicians for a National Health Program.
He had just told her about the remarkable possibilities of a comprehensive,
single-payer "Canadian style" health plan, supported by more than two-thirds
of the U.S. public. Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein
noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's
40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and
being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective
plan on offer."
"... Bernie had cashed in on the Revolution that he had betrayed, citing as evidence the purchase of a third ..."
"... I said there might be more to the story, like the fact that Bernie had signed a book deal (ala the Clintons) where he would tell the story of his Glorious Revolution (which ended up with him dumping his foot soldiers into the vaults of the very machine they were warring against.) And guess what? I was right. ..."
On Tuesday afternoon, my friend Michael Colby, the fearless environmental
activist in Vermont,
sent me news that Bernie Sanders had just purchased a new waterfront house
on in North Hero, Vermont. I linked to the story on my Facebook page, quipping
that Bernie had cashed in on the Revolution that he had betrayed, citing
as evidence the purchase of a third house for the Sanders family, a
lakefront summer dacha for $600,000.
This ignited a firestorm on Zuckerburg's internet playpen. People noted that
Bernie and Jane lived a penurious existence, surviving on coupons and the kindness
of strangers, and the house was just a cramped four-bedroom fishing shack on
a cold icy lake with hardly any heat–a place so forsaken even the Iroquois of
old wouldn't camp there–which they were only able to afford because Jane sold
her dead parents' house.
I said there might be more to the story, like the fact that Bernie had
signed a book deal (ala the Clintons) where he would tell the story of his Glorious
Revolution (which ended up with him dumping his foot soldiers into the vaults
of the very machine they were warring against.) And guess what? I was right.
Coming in November to a bookstore near you….Our
Revolution by Thomas Dunne Books.
The love for Bernie is truly blind. It's also touching. I've never seen Leftists
defend the purchase of $600,000 lakefront summer homes with such tenacity!
... ... ...
By the way, the median cost of homes sold in North Hero, Vermont so far this
year is $189,000.
... ... ...
Fulfilling his pledge to Hillary, Bernie Sanders took to the pages of the
Los Angeles Times to plead with his followers to get behind Clinton
as the one person who could "unite the country" against Trump.
In the wake
of this pathetic capitulation to the Queen of Chaos, our Australian Shepard,
Boomer, drafted an Open Letter on behalf of all sheepdogs renouncing any association
with Bernie Sanders. One of the signatories (a Blue Healer from Brentwood) swore,
however, that she saw Sander's head popping out of Paris Hilton's handbag…
A friend lamented the fact that all of the fun and spirit had gone out of
the election campaign since Sanders was "neutralized." Was Bernie neutralized?
I thought that Bernie neutralized himself. And it was hard to watch. Like an
x-rated episode of Nip/Tuck.
vice presidential pick is a proxy for what we can expect from her administration.
Now we know the result.
Notable quotes:
"... "The super delegate vote will determine the healthy survival or possible death of the Democratic party! Hillary or Trump are both unacceptable candidates and would be disasters for the country! We should not be forced to choose between them! ..."
"... Are you high?!?! She has NO record of achieving ANYTHING of consequence, other than have a road and a post office named. And her "experience" includes things like supporting (and receiving money from) violent third-world dictators, peddling fracking all over the world, selling political favors in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation Money-Laundering Operation, and leaving a trail of bodies composed of people who "accidentally" died when they knew too much about her and her criminal/sexual predator husband. ..."
"... The article references tpp as a deal breaker for progressives, which of course it should be. The writer should have mentioned that Obama is pushing hard for the tpp - corporate sellout that he is. ..."
"... That's a pretty small consolation to struggling people and why they gravitate to a guy like Trump. Trump is successfully attacking from the left. I had a Trump supporter arguing TPP to me the other day. Democrats claim to be the "unity" party, but still tell those of us on the left to shut up and put up with their corporate policy. I have yet to have a Democrat argue anything but Trump fear in support of their candidate. ..."
"... Just a heads up. Trump is AGAINST TPP. Trump is AGAINST Super PAC's & ridiculous money in politics. Trump is AGAINST foreign interventionist wars. On the flip side, Hillary WILL sign TPP into law if elected. She will NEVER fight against Super PAC's or campaign finance because she IS the problem in that arena. Hillary is also a war hawk who not only supported the Iraq War, but also delivered us Libya, Syria, ISIS, and so on. ..."
"... The Guardian seemingly could care less about Hillary's crimes! They want to shove her cluelessness down everyones throats. She was a disaster as Secretary of State, and would be an even worse President. People are starting to wise up about the agenda of left-wing media. Hillary is a criminal, and the Guardian supports her totally... It speaks to the lack of integrity at the Guardian! ..."
"... And for the record, Hillary is NOT a progressive, will NEVER be a progressive, and has NO interest in progressives after they vote for her. THAT IS THE TRUTH. ..."
"... I won't vote for a party that rigged the primaries from Sanders by committing election fraud against his supporters. ..."
"For many progressives, and Democrats in general, it's a wait-and-see moment
around [Clinton's] vice presidential pick," said Stephanie Taylor of the Progressive
Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), who called the imminent decision "a proxy
for what we can expect from her administration".
"If she picks someone like [Massachusetts senator] Elizabeth Warren who has
this track record of fighting for the issues that people care about ... that
will be a signal that will energise greatly the Democratic base," Taylor told
the Guardian in an interview. Picking the moderate Virginia governor, Tim Kaine,
or the US agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, would do the opposite, she warned.
Despite some recent gestures toward the Warren and Sanders wing of the party,
progressives are nervous due to Clinton's refusal to budge on trade, where the
Obama administration has been trying to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) agreement through Congress.
"There are very powerful corporate interests who are very strongly opposed
to blocking TPP," said Taylor. "It's the ugly reality of corporate capture that
we are seeing.
"If Clinton picks someone like Tim Kaine who voted for fast-track, that –
combined with the glaring omission of TPP from the Democratic platform – will
depress energy and will be an anaemic choice," she added.
... ... ...
"For many progressives, and Democrats in general, it's a wait-and-see moment
around [Clinton's] vice presidential pick," said Stephanie Taylor of the Progressive
Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), who called the imminent decision "a proxy
for what we can expect from her administration".
"If she picks someone like [Massachusetts senator] Elizabeth Warren who has
this track record of fighting for the issues that people care about ... that
will be a signal that will energise greatly the Democratic base," Taylor told
the Guardian in an interview. Picking the moderate Virginia governor, Tim Kaine,
or the US agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, would do the opposite, she warned.
Despite some recent gestures toward the Warren and Sanders wing of the party,
progressives are nervous due to Clinton's refusal to budge on trade, where the
Obama administration has been trying to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) agreement through Congress.
"There are very powerful corporate interests who are very strongly opposed
to blocking TPP," said Taylor. "It's the ugly reality of corporate capture that
we are seeing.
"If Clinton picks someone like Tim Kaine who voted for fast-track, that –
combined with the glaring omission of TPP from the Democratic platform – will
depress energy and will be an anaemic choice," she added.
Rachman Cantrell
Trying to change the minds of Hillary fans is not productive at this
point in time. None of our votes matter until after the convention. Only
the super delegates can decide what happens with the Democratic nominee!
We need to put our efforts into changing their minds! The following is a
letter I sent to my state super delegates. Please use the following link
to write to your own delegates and feel free to copy or modify what I wrote.
"The super delegate vote will determine the healthy survival
or possible death of the Democratic party! Hillary or Trump are both
unacceptable candidates and would be disasters for the country! We should
not be forced to choose between them! Polls show that most Bernie
supporters will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances and I am
one of them! Hillary may survive her legal woes past the primary but
Trump will use them to win if she is the candidate. To avoid that probability
please vote for Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee for president!
Super delegates have a serious decision to make. Vote for Hillary with
the likelihood of a Trump presidency and a drastically shrinking party
or vote for Bernie and open the doors to millions of new Democrats with
a revitalized and growing party! I hope you make the right decision!
Thank you"
Use the link below to send to all super delegates. Copy my message, modify
or write your own. It only takes about fifteen minutes to send to all delegates
state by state but leave your zip code blank in the form. This may be our
last chance to get Bernie in the White House! http://www.lobbydelegates.com/engage.php
Eileen Kerrigan -> aguy777
Are you high?!?! She has NO record of achieving ANYTHING of consequence,
other than have a road and a post office named. And her "experience" includes
things like supporting (and receiving money from) violent third-world dictators,
peddling fracking all over the world, selling political favors in exchange
for donations to the Clinton Foundation Money-Laundering Operation, and
leaving a trail of bodies composed of people who "accidentally" died when
they knew too much about her and her criminal/sexual predator husband.
As for continuing in Obama's footsteps, that would mean more war, more
fracking, passing the TPP, more pollution, more corruption, more income
inequality, more offshore tax havens ... yeah, that sounds like a GREAT
plan!!
Vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. Bernie should have endorsed
her, but took the safe route (for him to remain in the thick of the Dem
party).
toosinbeymen
The article references tpp as a deal breaker for progressives, which
of course it should be. The writer should have mentioned that Obama is pushing
hard for the tpp - corporate sellout that he is.
DrRoss555
I just watched Mrs. Clinton speak in Ohio. She is such a nasty, pandering
fear monger....I guess the other side is too, but this woman takes it to
unprecedented levels.
Nasty...no wonder black people are on the hunt for cops....just listen
to this woman
dougtheavenger -> DrRoss555
THE WAGES OF MOST BLACK AMERICANS ARE KEPT ARTIFICIALLY LOW BY POLICIES
ENDORSED BY HILLARY.
The influx of cheap, immigrant labor keeps wages low, but this is NOT
the result of free market forces. Cheap immigrant labor is subsidized by
the government. Without government subsidy 50% of immigrants would not come
and 100% of those earning less than $15/hour would not come. Lacking certain
advantages that natives have, immigrants cannot live on the wages half of
them earn. Only governmenT subsidy of low wages EITC, etc. make immigration
(at the cost of $7,000 for a family of 4) a rational choice for them.
SagiGirl -> DrRoss555
Jill Stein is such a contrast to Hillary. She's calm and cool, well spoken,
and has human-based values along with a mighty strength and intellect. I
can't wait to vote for her.
mjclarity
Clinton is the Blair of the Democratic party, a Republican/Tory in progressive
clothing. So emulating the failed politics of laying opposition cuckoos
in the progressive nest seems like a bad tactic to me.
dougtheavenger -> mjclarity
Hillary is mainly a crook. Yes, she supports TPP and NAFTA and other
policies that keep wages artificially low, but she does it for money, not
ideology.
ID704291
When Ann O'Leary says, "We are not going to get there unless we elect
Hillary Clinton to be president," she sounds pretty tone deaf. Kossacks
have banned all discussion of concerns about Clinton on their blog, basically
telling the left to get lost.
Democracy for America is toothless and leaderless, and its unattended
locals tend to go off the rails attracting neo Nazis and other extremists.
DNC is pushing education as they have since the 1980s, but that really only
means that if you cannot afford it, or aren't among the highest in your
class, you don't matter, and it's your fault you are doing better.
That's a pretty small consolation to struggling people and why they
gravitate to a guy like Trump. Trump is successfully attacking from the
left. I had a Trump supporter arguing TPP to me the other day. Democrats
claim to be the "unity" party, but still tell those of us on the left to
shut up and put up with their corporate policy. I have yet to have a Democrat
argue anything but Trump fear in support of their candidate.
Otterboxman Yep
Hillary will never get my vote. I've voted democrat in the past but will
not vote democrat this year. I can barely stand it when Trump opens his
mouth, but it is even worse when Hillary does. The current POTUS has taken
us so far off course that Hillary's plan will never bring us back on course.
It is about jobs, our productivity, and our pursuit of happiness. The two
parties don't get it. They want to make it about race, gender, abortion,
guns, citizenship...They should make it about the good things that the USA
had going for it and quit picking out which group got trampled to get there.
We were great but now we just sit across from each other pointing fingers
and calling names.
Stephen Mitchell 11h ago
1. Sanders: Clinton has backed "virtually every trade agreement that
has cost the workers of this country millions of jobs"
2. Sanders: Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street
3. Sanders: Hillary Clinton = D.C. Establishment
4. Sanders: Democrat Establishment immigration policies would drive down
Americans' wages, create open borders
5. Sanders: Clinton supports nation-building in Middle East through war
and invasion
Sanders: "And now, I support her 100%."
DurbanPoisonWillBurn
Anyone who believes Hillary is progressive deserves the horrible outcome
a Hillary presidency will bring. How ANYONE can still support Hillary is
beyond me. The woman has accomplished NOTHING except chaos & failure. Wake
up folks. Hillary does NOT care about you. She cares about power, money,
and making deals that benefit HER. Vote Jill Stein
DurbanPoisonWillBurn JimJayuu
Just a heads up. Trump is AGAINST TPP. Trump is AGAINST Super PAC's
& ridiculous money in politics. Trump is AGAINST foreign interventionist
wars. On the flip side, Hillary WILL sign TPP into law if elected. She will
NEVER fight against Super PAC's or campaign finance because she IS the problem
in that arena. Hillary is also a war hawk who not only supported the Iraq
War, but also delivered us Libya, Syria, ISIS, and so on.
Daniel Staggers
"If she picks someone like [Massachusetts senator] Elizabeth Warren who
has this track record of fighting for the issues that people care about
... that will be a signal that will energise greatly the Democratic base,"
All that would mean is she knows that's all she'd have to do to get the
stupid people to vote for her. You know, like the person who wrote this
article? Never mind committing treason hundreds of times over, just get
Warren, right?
clicker2 -> Daniel Staggers
The Guardian seemingly could care less about Hillary's crimes! They
want to shove her cluelessness down everyones throats. She was a disaster
as Secretary of State, and would be an even worse President. People are
starting to wise up about the agenda of left-wing media. Hillary is a criminal,
and the Guardian supports her totally... It speaks to the lack of integrity
at the Guardian!
DurbanPoisonWillBurn -> Daniel Staggers
Pocahontas is a sellout just like Bernie. Elizabeth Warren is a fraud.
She claims progressive but lives like a neo-liberal war hawk. Just the sight
of Warren disgusts progressives the world over. And for the record,
Hillary is NOT a progressive, will NEVER be a progressive, and has NO interest
in progressives after they vote for her. THAT IS THE TRUTH.
Steve Connor
Hillary (and Bernie) shows just how low the Democrat party has become
in terms of true leadership and ideas for making America great again. They
have none. Bernie's popularity was with young voters looking for a free
ride and typical idealistic view of the world, Hillary was the embodiment
of corruption in politics and she rose to power on that, not what she did
for her adopted State of NY, or the country. Her ideas (not her's) are of
failed Democrat policy and ideas over the past 10 years and especially the
last 25.
Ezajur -> Steve Connor
Bernie was not about a free ride. He was about reprioritisation. His
ideas to make America great again are excellent.
eastbayradical
Wall Street's Warmongering Madame is the perfect foil for Donald Trump's
huckster-populism: a pseudo-progressive stooge whose contempt for the average
person and their intelligence is palpable.
She's an arch-environmentalist who has worked tirelessly to spread fracking
globally.
She supports fortifying Social Security but won't commit to raising the
cap on taxes to do so.
She's a humanitarian who has supported every imperial slaughter the US
has waged in the past 25 years.
She cares deeply about the plight of the Palestinians but supported the
starvation blockade and blitzkrieg of Gaza and couldn't bother to mention
them but in passing in a recent speech before AIPAC.
She's a stalwart civil libertarian, but voted for Patriot Acts 1 and
2 and believes Edward Snowden should be sent to federal prison for decades.
She stands with the working class but has supported virtually every international
pact granting increased mobility and power to the corporate sector at its
expense in the past 25 years.
She cares with all her heart about African-Americans but supports the
objectively-racist death penalty and the private prison industry.
She will go to bat for the poor but supported gutting welfare in the
'90s, making them easier prey to exploiters, many of whom supported her
husband and her financially.
She worries about the conditions of the poor globally, but while Sec.
of State actively campaigned against raising the minimum wage in Haiti to
60 cents an hour, thinking 31 cents an hour sounded better for the investor
class whose interests are paramount to her.
She's not a bought-and-paid-for hack, oh no, no, no, but she won't ever
release the Wall Street speeches for which she was paid so handsomely.
She's a true-blue progressive, just ask her most zealous supporters,
who aren't.
Missy Saugus
I won't vote for a party that rigged the primaries from Sanders by
committing election fraud against his supporters. Why is this being
ignored and shoved under the rug? The nomination rightfully belongs to Sanders.
It is the ultimate insult to expect people to vote for the ones who stole
this from Sanders. The ones who, now that the precedent has been set, will
be sure that the next Bernie Sanders has no chance. The Dems are dirty.
They are criminal. And apparently untouchable.
Bernie should have walked. #FreeBernie
ID550456
If Clinton picks a Clintonite neoliberal VP: pro TPP, pro GMO, pro banker,
pro oil, etc. I think it's a safe bet that most of Sanders' supporters will
either sit out the election or vote Green Party, however revolting the prospect
of Trump/Pence may be. I know I will.
Fear4Freedom
"A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicates one third of Bernie Sanders'
supporters cannot see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton in November.
This could spell trouble for Clinton who will likely need Sanders' backers
in order to win the White House." Hillary has a way with "everyday Americans",
it's just not a good way...no one wants to vote for someone they think is
"UNTRUSTWORTHY".
eastbayradical
The new talking point being put forward by Clinton's hapless supporters
is that she'll push to overturn Citizens United.
They know this because she said so in passing at a $20,000 a plate soiree
she had recently in Dollarsville County, USA.
Ezajur -> Rich Fairbanks
Her hapless supporters won primaries with media, establishment, DNC and
big money entirely for her and against Bernie. And he went from 3 to 46%
in 12 months. Now that's worth bragging about.
I suppose getting 54% for such a lousy candidate as Hillary is something
to brag about.
Ezajur -> markdman
I'm a Bernie supporter.
Killary. Drillary. Billary. Shillary.
Its all good.
I also hate Trump.
eastbayradical -> Joe Smith
"The Clinton platform is pretty good for any progressive..."
Clinton has shown a willingness to say whatever she feels needs to be
said to further her political career. She speaks in different dialects depending
the audience. She's a principle combatant against racism when speaking to
African-American audience. She's an ardent feminist when in front of liberal
women's groups. She's not one to spare a laudatory word for corporate America
and Wall Street when speaking before bankers.
What we can and should go on is her record going back to her time as
First Lady during the presidency of Bill Clinton (whom she never differed
with on policy and whom she says will manage the economy if elected).
Here are policies, initiatives, and actions that Hillary Clinton has
supported over the years:
--Deregulation of the investment banks (and against reinstatement of
Glass-Steagall)
--The destruction of welfare (which has caused the numbers living in extreme
poverty to double since its passage)
--NAFTA
--The Defense of Marriage Act
--TPP
--Fracking
--The objectively-racist death penalty
--The private prison industry
--Patriot Acts 1 and 2
--The Iraq War
--The bombing of Libya
--Military intervention in Syria
--The Saudi dictatorship
--Israel's starvation blockade and blitzkrieg against Gaza
--The right-wing coup in Honduras
--Investor-friendly repression and cronyism in Haiti
--A 31 cents/hour minimum wage in Haiti (and against attempts to raise it)
--The fight against free public university tuition
--The fight against single-payer health care
--Acceptance of tens of millions of dollars of corporate money
--Credit-card industry favored bankruptcy laws
--The bail-out of Wall Street
Her record is "pretty good for any progressive" whose head is lodged
in their ass.
eastbayradical
The bankers' buddy and spittle-flecked Clinton surrogate Barney Frank
just the other day declared contemptuously that party platforms are "irrelevant."
You know, party platforms--like the Democratic Party platform that's
being larded with Sanders-friendly "policy goals" that Wall Street's Warmongering
Madame will feel no obligation to fulfill if she's elected president.
With his coming endorsement, Sanders makes himself not simply useless
to the fight against the capitalist status quo; no--he has become a direct
impediment to it.
Whenever people on the left side of the political spectrum, whatever
their reasoning, vote for servants of Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the
national security apparatus, the political center of gravity moves another
notch decisively to the right.
We're constantly told that if we don't vote for the latest pseudo-progressive
stooge the Dems put forward that we're effectively voting for the Republicans.
In other words, if we don't vote for stooges who in many respects are
indistinguishable from Republicans, that systematically cede the political
initiative to Republicans, that it is we who might as well be Republicans!
Meanwhile, these same "progressives" are nowhere to be seen when a fight
kicks off in the streets against imperial war or austerity or police brutality
or lay-offs. No, of course not: they're too busy doing nothing waiting for
the next opportunity to vote for another crop of corporate liberals who'll
save us from the Republicans.
It's fair to ask what all this voting for corporate liberals has gotten
us over the past 25 years. Here's a list of signature policies supported
and/or enacted by the last two Democratic Party presidents, Bill Clinton
and Barack Obama:
--Deregulation of investment banks and telecommunications
--The Omnibus Crime Bill (mass incarceration)
--The destruction of welfare (which caused extreme poverty to double in
the 15 years after its passage)
--The sanctions regime against Iraq (which killed 500,000 Iraqi children)
--NAFTA
--CAFTA
--TPP
--Fracking
--The objectively-racist death penalty
--The Defense of Marriage Act
--Historic levels of repression against whistle-blowers
--Preservation of Bush-era tax cuts on the rich
--Patriots Acts 1 and 2
--Massive expansion of NSA spying
--Years of foot-dragging on climate change
--Support for Israeli atrocities
--Support for the right-wing coup in Honduras
--Support for fraudulent election in Haiti
--Support for the Saudi dictatorship
--Support for a 31 cents/hour minimum wage in Haiti and against attempts
to raise it
--Oil drilling on the Atlantic seaboard, Gulf of Mexico, and the Arctic
--A $1 trillion 20-year "modernization" of the US's nuclear weapons arsenal
--Historically high numbers of deportations
--Drone missile strikes that have killed large numbers of civilians and
inflamed anti-US hatred
--Health care reform that has fortified the power of the insurance cartel
not weakened or obliterated it
--Industry-approved bankruptcy "reform"
--The bail-out of Wall Street
ClearItUp
Her reflexive warmongering attitude is what majority of progressives
have problems with. There is absolutely nothing in this article about it.
Elizabeth Warren won't solve Hillary's problem, but a foreign policy, total
opposite of her last speech, that was reviewed by neocon talking heads,
as a sober analysis, is what is wrong. What people want to hear is: "We
made a mistake in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. We will do our best and resolve
them without machinations, and never engage in regime change." No ifs and
buts, we will defend out friends and allies, nonsense she constantly says,
no annihilating threat to any country, for any reason. Bring someone like
Phyllis Bennis on board as an adviser. Maybe she can teach Hillary a few
things. Only, then if she clearly shows she has changed course, she may
start getting a little ahead.
"... If undertaken in earnest, the exercise will prove uncomfortable. The establishment centrists who oppose Trump worry, as they should, that he will violate the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, yet few spoke up when Michael Bloomberg presided over a secret program that profiled and spied on Muslim American students, sowing mistrust while generating zero counterterrorism leads. ..."
"... The establishment centrists who denounced Edward Snowden would have to admit that, if Trump is half as bad as they fear, Americans will be better served knowing the scope and capabilities of NSA surveillance than living in ignorance of it. Some will be forced to admit to themselves that they hope the military remains sprinkled with whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning to speak out against serious abuses. ..."
"... For 16 years or more, establishment centrists have been complicit in a historically reckless trend. Come 2017, it may place Donald Trump at a big table, much like the one on The Apprentice ..."
Wake up, establishment centrists: Donald Trump is coming!
After the Vietnam War and Watergate and the spying scandals uncovered by
the Church Committee and the Nixon Administration cronies who nearly firebombed
the Brookings Institution, Americans were briefly inclined to rein in executive
power-a rebuke to Richard Nixon's claim that "if the president does it, that
means it's not illegal." Powerful committees were created to oversee misconduct-prone
spy agencies. The War Powers Resolution revived a legislative check on warmaking.
"In 34 years," Vice President Dick Cheney would lament to ABC News in a January
2002 interview, "I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability
of the president of the United States to do his job. I feel an obligation...
to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them to our successors."
The Bush Administration aggressively moved to expand executive power, drawing
on the dubious legal maneuvering of David Addington, John Yoo, and their enablers.
Starting in 2005, the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, would repeatedly
insist that Bush's assertions of executive power violated the Constitution.
Nonetheless, Obama inherited a newly powerful executive branch, just as Cheney
had hoped. And rather than dismantle it, Obama spent two terms lending the imprimatur
of centrist, establishment bipartisanship to Cheney's vision.
Now, Donald Trump is coming.
Civil libertarians have long warned the partisans who trusted Bush and Obama,
and the establishment centrists who couldn't imagine anyone in the White House
besides an Al Gore or John Kerry or John McCain or Mitt Romney, that they were
underestimating both the seriousness of civil liberties abuses under Bush and
Obama and the likelihood of even less responsible leaders wreaking havoc in
the White House.
Three years ago, in "
All the Infrastructure a Tyrant Would Need, Courtesy of Bush and Obama ,"
I warned that "more and more, we're counting on having angels in office and
making ourselves vulnerable to devils," and that come January, 2017, an unknown
person would enter the Oval Office and inherit all of these precedents:
The president can order American citizens killed, in secret, without
any judicial or legislative review, by declaring them terrorists posing
an imminent threat.
The president can detain prisoners indefinitely without charges or trial.
The president can start a torture program with impunity.
The president can conduct warrantless surveillance on tens of millions
of Americans and tap a database that allows metadata archived in 2007 to
be accessed in 2017.
The federal government can
collect and store DNA swabs of people who have been arrested even if
they are released and never convicted of any crime.
Now, Donald Trump is coming. And many establishment centrists are professing
alarm. There is nothing more establishment than Robert Kagan, a fellow at the
Brookings Institution, writing an op-ed in the Washington Post. He
begins by observing that if Trump wins, his coalition will include tens of millions
of Americans.
"Imagine the power he would wield then," Kagan
wrote . "In addition to all that comes from being the leader of a mass following,
he would also have the immense powers of the American presidency at his command:
the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, the military. Who
would dare to oppose him then? Certainly not a Republican Party that laid down
before him even when he was comparatively weak. And is a man like Trump, with
infinitely greater power in his hands, likely to become more humble, more judicious,
more generous, less vengeful than he is today, than he has been his whole life?
Does vast power un-corrupt?"
Kagan's article seemed well-received and widely shared among establishment
centrists.
Yet neither he nor most others who share his fears have yet acknowledged
their bygone failures of imagination, or granted that civil libertarians were
right: The establishment has permitted the American presidency to get dangerously
powerful.
While writing or sharing articles that compare Trump to Hitler, Mussolini,
and Franco, few if any have called on Obama or Congress to act now "
to tyrant-proof the White House ." However much they fear Trump, however
rhetorically maximalist they are in warning against his elevation, even the
prospect of him controlling the entire apparatus of the national security state
is not enough to cause them to rethink their reckless embrace of what Gene Healy
calls "
The Cult of the Presidency ," a centrist religion that persisted across
the Bush administration's torture chambers and the Obama administration's unlawful
War in Libya.
With a reality-TV bully is on the doorstep of the White House, still they
hesitate to urge reform to a branch of government they've long regarded as more
than co-equal.
They needn't wait for the Nixon-era abuses to replay themselves as farce
or worse to change course. Their inaction is irresponsible. Just as the conservative
movement is duty bound to grapple with its role in a populist demagogue seizing
control of the Republican Party, establishment centrists ought to grapple with
the implicit blessing they've given to the extraordinary powers Trump would
inherit, and that even the less-risky choice, Hillary Clinton, would likely
abuse.
If undertaken in earnest, the exercise will prove uncomfortable. The
establishment centrists who oppose Trump worry, as they should, that he will
violate the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, yet few spoke up when Michael
Bloomberg presided over a secret program that profiled and spied on Muslim American
students, sowing mistrust while generating zero counterterrorism leads.
The establishment centrists who denounced Edward Snowden would have to
admit that, if Trump is half as bad as they fear, Americans will be better served
knowing the scope and capabilities of NSA surveillance than living in ignorance
of it. Some will be forced to admit to themselves that they hope the military
remains sprinkled with whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning to speak out against
serious abuses.
For 16 years or more, establishment centrists have been complicit in a historically
reckless trend. Come 2017, it may place Donald Trump at a big table, much like
the one on The Apprentice , where he'll decide not which B-list celebrity
to fire, but which humans to kill. Establishment centrists could work to strip
the presidency of that power.
"... The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other. ..."
"... Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president since 2009. ..."
"... I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their version of events into play. ..."
"... The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious; Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive, i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded. It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he dies. ..."
"... You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much else. ..."
"... There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively; you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy with a bad heart condition? ..."
"... He and Hillary lead separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence, and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House should she be elected. ..."
"... some presidential couples become closer in the White House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively estranged. ..."
"... The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics, as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on any number of fronts. ..."
The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other.
Edward Klein documents why and how in this entertaining and fast moving
book. It's a good political beach read.
It's mostly about three elections: that of 2008, where Barack Obama came
from behind to knock off front-runner Hillary Clinton for the nomination,
with charges and countercharges of race-card-playing in the South Carolina
primary; 2012, where Bill Clinton made a whizbang nominating speech for
someone he can't stand and Hillary drank the Kool-Aid in agreeing to lie
about Benghazi - `it was a spontaneous riot caused by a video' - to seal
Obama's reelection; and the 2016 election, where Obama promised Clinton
he'd support Hillary in exchange for their carrying his water, then reneged
on it.
There are tons of details and fly-on-the-wall accounts of conversations.
The Clintons come off much better than the Obamas do. We know most of the
Clintons' dirt already and, as a nation, don't seem to care too much, but
meanwhile they seem to have a clue about how to run the country, while the
Obamas don't. Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded
from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president
since 2009.
I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their
version of events into play. Klein found leakers near the Obamas who
are unhappy with them, but many Clinton sources appear to be lifelong friends
seemingly given the green light to talk for this book - people who wouldn't
jeopardize their relationship to do so. And for many of the quotations,
there would be no question in the Clintons' minds who had given them - people
party to conversations where only one or two others were present. So it
stands to reason the anonymous sources don't mind the Clintons knowing.
The Clintons, heavily covered for over 20 years, may realize there isn't
much that can hurt them that hasn't already been printed. We all know about
Monica, Clinton's womanizing, the financial scandals dating back to Arkansas
days, Hillary's temper and so on. And a lot of the inside poop here is either
flattering - Bill Clinton as political mastermind, say - or humanizing.
It's remarkable that the Clintons stay together after all they've been through,
but they seem politically fascinated with each other. And it's remarkable
how many times Hillary initially tells Bill off about something, only to
agree later that he's right and go ahead with it. Quite cute, say, is the
anecdote about how Bill convinced Hillary to "have some work done" on her
face after leaving the State Department, by first doing it himself.
The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have
been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious;
Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive,
i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing
his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded.
It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he
dies.
The Obamas seem more on the defensive and more paranoid. You don't get
any sense of Klein's sources spinning the narrative back in their direction.
Barack comes across as a narcissist stemming from a deepset insecurity about
his lack of experience pre-presidency. He's someone who doesn't read much
beyond popular novels but thinks he's brilliant. He's visibly bored with
the dull business of running the country. He doesn't prepare in advance
for big international conferences, who he'll meet and what they'll talk
about; he figures he'll just wing it. Detractors (like Hillary) call his
administration "rudderless".
He's threatened by Bill Clinton, who not only isn't intimidated by him
but tries to lecture him. (There's a priceless account of a dinner between
the two couples - the strained conversations, Obama ignoring Clinton by
reading his Blackberry under the table, Obama sneaking out and coming back
a while later smelling of cigarettes.) He's shielded from much by Valerie
Jarrett, who surrounds him with sycophants and upon whom he relies too much.
She has her own room in the presidential quarters and is the only outsider
who eats with the family. He thinks he can move the world with his speeches.
You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much
else. Michelle more or less invites herself and friends to Oprah Winfrey's
Hawaii estate for a joint birthday party, in part to draw her back into
the Obamas' camp and keep her out of Hillary's. The weeklong stay goes fine,
but Oprah resists any political rapprochement, and even starts promoting
Hillary not long afterwards.
Obama picks Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg (a third Democratic family as
powerful as the Obamas or Clintons) as ambassador to Japan, a way-too-late
thanks for Kennedy family support in 2008 - and, apparently, just to get
her halfway around the world from Hillary's candidacy.
It amazes me that the Obamas would work this hard to undermine their
own party's frontrunner for the 2016 nomination. The Clintons will have
raised a billion dollars for the run.
There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively;
you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy
with a bad heart condition?
His penthouse over the Clinton Library in Little Rock is his bachelor
pad - Hillary avoids Little Rock - and effectively the Playboy Mansion South,
the scene of many swinging parties. Klein suggests that the town not only
shields its favorite son from scrutiny, but that its women, married and
single alike, line up to sleep with him. Klein quotes one person saying
Clinton will hit on married women even in front of their own husbands. (You'd
think in Arkansas this would get a man shot, but then most other men there
don't enjoy lifelong Secret Service protection.) He and Hillary lead
separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence,
and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House
should she be elected.
Klein notes some presidential couples become closer in the White
House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation
on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively
estranged. Michelle Obama, of whom White House staffers are terrified,
will burst in suddenly on her husband if he's in a room with other women;
she's suspicious of him, believing he'd like to emulate Clinton's ways.
Her post-White House plans, according to this book, don't include him. She
and Valerie Jarrett, who plans to follow her, envision a high life of globetrotting
funded by wealthy donors where they sit on corporate boards and don't have
to do much work.
Barack Obama wants to retain control of the party, but Bill Clinton already
sees him losing his clout and political capital.
The real question mark goes back to Bill Clinton's health. If he dies
- a guy with this bad a heart condition? Waitresses and Little Rock matrons,
think about it - some think Hillary, relying upon his advice forever, may
not go ahead with a presidential run. It often sounds like more his obsession
than hers, other than the first-woman-president thing. The family foundation's
reins have been handed to Chelsea, in part to take pressure off Bill, and
she is being positioned as his replacement as Mom's closest advisor and
confidante. Others think Chelsea would encourage her mother to run if Bill
dies because it's what he would have wanted. You get the feeling that Hillary,
for all her ambition, doesn't have all that much fire in the belly - that
it's Bill who's given her the vision, encouraged her, pushed her, made her
see a path through obstacles, and been willing to fight battles large and
small where she would have been more inclined to go along, get along and
acquiesce.
Truly surreal is the ending. Bill tells an appalled Hillary, in front
of friends, exactly how to stage his funeral if he dies before the election:
what to wear (widow's weeds), where to do it (Arlington, he's a former commander
in chief.) If properly done, he said, the video footage will be worth a
couple of million votes." Not for nothing do they call him the smartest
political mind of his time.
PS The day before I filed this, I saw a story online at Business Insider
quoting an unnamed Clinton confidante attacking this book as lies, all lies,
nothing but lies. The story didn't specifically rebut anything or cite any
specific error in the book; it reprised a finding of an error in one of
Klein's previous books. It suggests to me, though, this book is right, if
the attack against it is as unspecific as "lies, lies, nothing but lies."
Perhaps the Clinton camp is doing some preventive public fulminating so
that they can deny the unflattering or unfavorable parts of it. I still
think they planted a lot of this.
The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about
Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly
what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics,
as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on
any number of fronts.
"... Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS and his power spouse. ..."
"... Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery. ..."
Blood Feud is a political hardball slammed into the guts of the two most powerful
couples in the Democratic Party. Ed Klein who won fame for his earlier ":The
Amateur": book about the Obama dysfunctional White House has returned with another
blockbuster rich with gossip and political junkie insider poop.
Among the
revelations of Mr Klein":
The Clintons and Obamas loathe one another.
The Clintons worked hard for Obama to be re-elected in 2008. They anticipated
that this support would result in Obama';s support for Hillary in her anticipated
2016 quest for the POTUS. This deal has not seen fruition. The Clintons
accuse Obama of lying and a lack of loyalty to the Clintons.
Michelle Obama wears the pants in the family as Barack is an uxorious
husband. Michelle has considered a run for the Illinois Senate seat but
is wary of this political race due to the hard work it would entail.
Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She
is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s
closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS
and his power spouse.
Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they
seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery.
Bill Clinton continues his adulterous ways.
Look for a Hillary run for president in 2016 in a campaign masterminded
by Bill. Both Clintons are eager to return to the White House.
Oprah Winfrey feels betrayed by the Obamas and has little to do with
them. She will probably support Hillary in 2016 as will Caroline and the
Kennedy family.
Hillary and the State Department screwed up the Benghazi terrorist attack
and covered up to protect their butts.
Obama has proven to be a weak chief executive who is unable to work
well with congressional leaders. Obama is not well respected in the Democratic
Party.
Edward Klein has done yeoman-like work in presenting this short but very
revealing look into the lives of the Clintons and Obamas.
All readers who want to learn more about the kind of people leading our nation
should read this book and have their eyes opened.
Recommended and controversial. Read it and decide what you think!
"... Fink has also promoted the privatization of Social Security, while mocking the idea of retiring at 65, which is easy for a business executive who sits at a desk all day to say, rather than working on an assembly line or as a waiter. ..."
"... Well it's dog eat dog and I gotta think about my own needs at this stage. Ergo, here I stay. And someone younger will have to wait. Not great. If I felt more secure about SS & Medicare, I would be more willing to retire sooner, rather than later. But not the way things look now. ..."
"... He was more than mildly successful in his own landscaping business after being forced out, but the way he was treated will forever remind me of what advantage some corporations will try to get away with, and has always persuaded me not to invest in my own company's, less protected 401(k) selections ..."
"... Never heard of this parasite, so thanks for the heads up. I'm sure HRC will find some very useful role for him in her admin. ..."
"... BlackRock is a blight. Ugh. Just gets worse by the day. ..."
"... Don't count out Jamie, nor Victoria Nuland as Secretary of State. ..."
"... Some role too for Samantha Powers. Ugh. ..."
"... The reason I will never ever vote for HRC is that every single thing that comes out of her mouth is horse manure. It's so easy for her to say, "I will raise taxes on the rich", for example, knowing full well that later she can just say "we tried, but it was not politically possible" due to any of a hundred reasons. ..."
"... Her campaign promises now are totally meaningless. I'm interested in possible third party candidates McAffee and Jesse Ventura, who could actually win the election, but if I have a choice between the Donald and the Hildabeast, I will choose Trump. ..."
Fink has also promoted the privatization of Social Security,
while mocking the idea of retiring at 65, which is easy for a business
executive who sits at a desk all day to say, rather than working on
an assembly line or as a waiter.
Yes, I know this is Dayen's quote and not Yves'.
But I'm disturbed every time I see this argument about "desk work" vs
"manual labor" WRT working longer. Its true of course but fails to recognize
that many who sit behind desks are also being forced out of their jobs (and
yes, this includes "business executives" too) well before 65, have little
chance of being hired for anything else and thus don't really have a choice
to work longer. Unless you're part of the super elite you're not much better
off than the manual laborer when it comes to staying employed past your
mid to late fifties, let alone your mid to late sixties.
I'm extremely lucky (and know it and am grateful) to have what is viewed
as a "desk job" as I approach my golden years. I am able to and plan to
keep working possibly into my early '70s. Why? Well for one thing: because
I can. For another, to save as much as possible just in case. Child of Depression
Era parents, yadda yadda. And if I can pass on something to my nieces and
nephews… well good.
The problem as I see it is not so much that I am able to continue working
into my 70s but that my ability to do so, combined with that sinking feeling
that I really should and need to due to current circumstances, is that I
am preventing someone younger from ascending the ladder. And at this time,
someone would definitely be hired or promoted to take my place.
Well it's dog eat dog and I gotta think about my own needs at this
stage. Ergo, here I stay. And someone younger will have to wait. Not great.
If I felt more secure about SS & Medicare, I would be more willing to retire
sooner, rather than later. But not the way things look now.
Can't find the details but I think I recall some startling tid bits about
W.T. Grant advising Reagan's commission on overhauling military retirement
pay (part of which was greatly increasing allowances for food clothing and
housing that were not included in retirement pay calculations). We had the
odd situations of retirees that retired early enough (grandfathered, I think),
that got higher retirement pay (based on 50% of base pay which, for them,
was a far higher percentage of their total pay) than those of us who retired
later, at higher total pay, but a lower percentage of base pay, such that
the earlier retirees cost of living raises outpaced our keeping up with
inflation).
After the deed was done, I thought I heard that only four or five W.T.
Grant employees that had built up substantial seniority that would have
provided healthy retirement pay were able to remain employed until they
reached 65 years of age (and that they were essentially senior executives
at or near the top).
The more common case seemed to be like my friend's father, a master of
many trades, seemingly a most effective employee in any position assigned,
as well as being a well regarded President of the Lions Club and active
in other civic minded organizations, promoted into a management position
at Uniroyal, seemingly to exempt him from union protection. They found his
capabilities "inadequate" at 17.5 years, just when he would have started
accumulating substantial retirement benefits.
He was more than mildly successful in his own landscaping business
after being forced out, but the way he was treated will forever remind me
of what advantage some corporations will try to get away with, and has always
persuaded me not to invest in my own company's, less protected 401(k) selections
(in my case, the once great Kodak).
The reason I will never ever vote for HRC is that every single thing
that comes out of her mouth is horse manure. It's so easy for her to say,
"I will raise taxes on the rich", for example, knowing full well that later
she can just say "we tried, but it was not politically possible" due to
any of a hundred reasons.
Her campaign promises now are totally meaningless. I'm interested
in possible third party candidates McAffee and Jesse Ventura, who could
actually win the election, but if I have a choice between the Donald and
the Hildabeast, I will choose Trump.
"... On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries. ..."
"... The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. ..."
"... In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves. ..."
"... The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites. ..."
"... In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. ..."
"... Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process; ..."
"... Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands. ..."
"... The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". ..."
"... by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement. ..."
"... it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. ..."
"... "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage" ..."
"... It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria) ..."
"... The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left ..."
"... the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. ..."
"... The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. ..."
On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the
neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas
votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational
Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal
Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries.
The huge expansion of the anti-globalization movement over the past few years was under control,
for the time being, and the EU elites would not have to resort to sanctions against a country at
the core of the Union – such as those which may soon be imposed against Poland.
In fact, the only reason they have not as yet been imposed is, presumably, the fear of Brexit,
but as soon as the British people finally submit to the huge campaign of intimidation ("Project Fear")
launched against them by the entire transnational elite, Poland's – and later Hungary's – turn will
come in earnest.
The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the
'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were
simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. The interesting thing,
however, is that in the Greek case it was the so-called "NewLeft" represented by SYRIZA, which not
only accepted the worst package of measures imposed on Greece (and perhaps any other country) ever,[ii]
but which is also currently busy conducting a huge propaganda campaign (using the state media, which
it absolutely controls, as its main propaganda tool) to deceive the exhausted Greek people that the
government has even achieved some sort of victory in the negotiations! At the same time, the working
class – the traditional supporters of the Left – are deserting the Left en masse and heading towards
the neo-nationalist parties: from Britain and France to Austria. So how can we explain these seemingly
inexplicable phenomena?
Nationalism vs. neo-nationalism
As I tried to show in the past,[iii] the emergence of the modern nation-state in the 17th-18th
centuries played an important role in the development of the system of the market economy and vice
versa. However, whereas the 'nationalization' of the market was necessary for the development of
the 'market system' out of the markets of the past, once capital was internationalized and therefore
the market system itself was internationalized, the nation state became an impediment to further
'progress' of the market system. This is how the NWO emerged, which involved a radical restructuring
not only of the economy, with the rise of Transnational Corporations, but also of polity, with the
present phasing out of nation-states and national sovereignty.
Inevitably, the phasing out of the nation-state and national sovereignty led to the flourishing
of neo-nationalism, as a movement for self-determination. Yet, this development became inevitable
only because the alternative form of social organization, confederalism, which was alive even up
to the time of the Paris Commune had in the meantime disappeared.
In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet
but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within
which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves.
The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th
century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture
is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above'
by the Transnational and national elites.
This globalist culture is based on the globalization ideology of multiculturalism, protection
of human rights etc., which in fact is an extension of the classical liberal ideology to the NWO.
In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so
to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to
millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. It is not therefore accidental that globalist
ideologists characterize the present flourishing of what I called neo-nationalism, as the rise of
'illiberalism'.'[iv] It is therefore clear that we have to distinguish between old (or classical)
nationalism and the new phenomenon of neo-nationalism. To my mind, the main differences between them
are as follows:
a) Nationalism developed in the era of nation-states as a movement for uniting
communities with a common history, culture and usually language under the common roof of nation-states
that were emerging at the time but also even in the 20th century when national liberation movements
against colonialist empires were fighting for their own nation states. On the other hand, neo-nationalism
developed in the era of globalization with the aim of protecting the national sovereignty of nations
which was under extinction because of the integration of their states into the NWO;
b) Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for
one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at
the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization
process;
c) Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the
past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the
nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war
demands.
Naturally, given the origin of many neo-nationalist parties and their supporters, elements of
the old nationalist ideology may penetrate them, such as the Islamophobic and anti-immigration trends,
which provide the excuse to the elites to dismiss all these movements as 'far right'. However, such
demands are by no means the main reasons why such movements expand. Particularly so, as it can easily
be shown that the refugee problem is also part and parcel of globalization and the '4 freedoms' (capital,
labor, goods and services) its ideology preaches.
The rise of the neo-nationalist movement
Therefore, neo-nationalism is basically a movement that arose out of the effects of globalization,
particularly as far as the continuous squeezing of employees' real incomes is concerned––as a result
of liberalizing labor markets, so that labor could become more competitive. The present 'job miracle',
for instance, in Britain, (which is characterized as "the job creation capital of the western economies"),
hides the fact that, as an analyst pointed out, "unemployment is low, largely because British workers
have been willing to stomach the biggest real-terms pay cut since the Victorian era".[v]
The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western
part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself
Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a
significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World".Of course, given the political and economic power that the elites have concentrated against these
neo-nationalist movements, it is possible that neither Brexit nor any of these movements may take
over, but this will not stop of course social dissent against the phasing out of national sovereignty.
The same process is repeated almost everywhere in Europe today, inevitably leading many people
(and particularly working class people) to turn to the rising neo-nationalist Right. This is not
of course because they suddenly became "nationalists" let alone "fascists", as the globalist "NewLeft"
(that is the kind of Left which is fully integrated into the NWO and does not question its institutions,
e.g. the EU) accuses them in order to ostracize them. It is simply because the present globalist
"NewLeft" does not wish to lead the struggle against globalization, while, at the same time, the
popular strata have realized that national and economic sovereignty is incompatible with globalization.
This is a fact fully realized, for example, by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia,
which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists
to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying
to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media
etc.) with this patriotic movement.
But, it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party
in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible
with national sovereignty. As Le Pen stressed, (in a way that the "NewLeft" has abandoned long
ago!):
"Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate
it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international
finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum
wage".[vi]
In fact, the French National Front is the most important neo-nationalist party in Europe and may
well be in power following the next Presidential elections in 2017, unless of course a united front
of all globalist parties (including the "NewLeft" and the Greens), supported by the entire TE and
particularly the Euro-elites and the mass media controlled by them, prevents it from doing so (exactly
as it happens at present in Britain with respect to Brexit). This is how Florian Philippot the FN's
vice-president and chief strategist aptly put its case in a FT interview:
"The people who always voted for the left, who believed in the left and who thought that it
represented an improvement in salaries and pensions, social and economic progress, industrial
policies . these people have realized that they were misled."[vii]
As the same FT report points out, to some observers of French politics, the FN's economic policies,
which include exiting the euro and throwing up trade barriers to protect industry, read like something
copied from a 1930s political manifesto, while Christian Saint-Étienne, an economist for Le Figaro
newspaper, recently described this vision as "Peronist Marxism".[viii] In fact, in a more recent
FT interview, Marine Le Pen, the FN president went a step further in the same direction and she called,
apart from exiting from the Euro––that she expects to lead to the collapse of the Euro, if not of
the EU itself, (which she-rightly–welcomes)––for the nationalization of banks. At the same time she
championed public services and presented herself as the protector of workers and farmers in the face
of "wild and anarchic globalization which has brought more pain than happiness ".[ix]
For comparison, it never even occurred to SYRIZA (and Varoufakis who now wears his "radical" hat)
to use such slogans before the elections (let alone after them!) Needless to add that her foreign
policy is also very different from that of the French establishment, as she wants a radical overhaul
of French foreign policy in which relations with the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would
be restored and those with the likes of Qatar and Turkey, which she alleges support terrorism, reviewed.
At the same time, Le Pen sees the US as a purveyor of dangerous policies and Russia as a more suitable
friend.
Furthermore, as it was also stressed in the same FT report, "the FN is not the only supposedly
rightwing European populist party seeking to draw support from disaffected voters on the left. Nigel
Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party has adopted a similar approach and has been discussing
plans "to ring-fence the National Health Service budget and lower taxes for low earners, among a
host of measures geared to economically vulnerable voters who would typically support Labor".[x]
Similar trends are noticed in other European countries like Finland, where the anti-NATO and pro-independence
from the EU parties had effectively won the last elections,[xi] as well as in Hungary, where neo-nationalist
forces are continuously rising,[xii] and Orban's government has done more than any other EU leader
in protecting his country's sovereignty, being as a result, in constant conflict with the Euro-elites.
Finally, the rise of a neo-nationalist party in Poland enraged Martin Schulz, the loudmouthed gatekeeper
of the TE in the European Parliament, who accused the new government as attempting a "dangerous 'Putinization'
of European politics."[xiii]
However, what Eurocrats like Martin Schulz "forget" is that since Poland joined the EU
in 2004, at least two million Poles have emigrated, many of them to the UK. The victory of the Law
and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc, PiS) in October 2015 was due not just to a backlash by
traditional Polish voters to the bulldozing of their values by the ideology of globalization but
also to the fact, as Cédric Gouverneur pointed out, that "the nationalist, pro-religion, protectionist,
xenophobic PiS has attracted these disappointed people with an ambitious welfare programme: a family
allowance of 500 zloty ($130) a month per child, funded through a tax on banks and big business;
a minimum wage; and a return to a retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men (PO had planned to
raise it to 67 for both).[xiv] In fact, PiS used to be a conservative pro-EU party when they were
in power between 2005 and 2007, following faithfully the neoliberal program, and since then they
have become increasingly populist and Eurosceptic. As a result, in the last elections they won the
parliamentary elections in both the lower house (Sejm) and the Senate, with 37.6% of the vote, against
24.1% for the neoliberals and 8.8% for the populist Kukiz while the "progressive" camp failed to
clear the threshold (5% for parties, 8% for coalitions) and have no parliamentary representation
at all!
The bankruptcy of the Left
It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic
and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process
has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three
decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite
in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined
by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria).
Furthermore, there is little doubt anymore that it was the intellectual failure of the Left to
grasp the real significance of a new systemic phenomenon, (i.e. the rise of the Transnational Corporation
that has led to the emergence of the globalization era) and its consequent political bankruptcy,
which were the ultimate causes of the rise of a neo-nationalist movement in Europe. This movement
is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class
that used to support the Left, whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization
but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated
into the New World Order. In fact, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic
movement against globalization, thanks mainly to the activities of the globalist Left, it was left
to the neo-nationalist movement to fight against globalization in general and against the EU in particular.
Almost inevitably, in view of the campaigns of the TE against Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, Syria), worrying Islamophobic trends have developed within several of these neo-nationalist
movements, some of them turning their old anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, supported on this by Zionists
themselves![xv] Even Marine Le Pen did not avoid the temptation to lie about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism,
stressing that "there is no Islamophobia in France but there is a rise in anti-Semitism".
Yet, she is well aware of the fact that Islamophobia was growing in France well before Charlie
Hebdo,[xvi] with racial attacks against Islamic immigrants, (most of whom live under squalid conditions
in virtual ghettos) being very frequent. At the same time, it is well known that the Jewish community
is mostly well off and shares a very disproportionate part of political and economic power in the
country to its actual size, as it happens of course also––and to an even larger extent–– in UK and
USA. This is one more reason why Popular Fronts for National and Social Liberation have to be built
in every country of the world to fight not only Eurofascism and the NWO-which is of course the main
enemy––but also any racist trends developing within these new anti-globalization movements, which
today take the form of neo-nationalism. This would also prevent the elites from using the historically
well-tested 'divide and rule' practice to divide the victims of globalization.
Similarly, the point implicitly raised by the stand of the British "NewLeft" in general on the
issue of Brexit cannot just be discussed in terms of the free trade vs. protectionism debate, as
the liberal (or globalist) "NewLeft" does (see for instance Jean Bricmont[xvii] and Larry Elliott[xviii]
of the Guardian). Yet, the point is whether it is globalization itself, which has led to the present
mass economic violence against the vast majority of the world population and the accompanying it
military violence. In other words, what all these "NewLeft" trends hide is that globalization is
a class issue. But, this is the essence of the bankruptcy of the "NewLeft" , which is reflected in
the fact that, today, it is the neo-nationalist Right which has replaced the Left in its role of
representing the victims of the system in its globalized form , while the Left mainly
represents those in the middle class or the petty bourgeoisie who benefit from globalization. Needless
to add that today's bankrupt "NewLeft" promptly characterized the rising neo-nationalist parties
as racist, if not fascist and neo-Nazis, fully siding with the EU's black propaganda campaign against
the rising movement for national sovereignty.
This is obviously another nail in the coffin of this kind of "NewLeft" , as the millions of European
voters who turn their back towards this degraded "NewLeft" are far from racists or fascists but simply
want to control their way of life rather than letting it to be determined by the free movement of
capital, labor and commodities, as the various Soroses of this world demand!
The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over
Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left,[xix] whilst the latter
has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural
globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order––a defining moment
in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. In the Austrian elections, it became once more
clear that the Left expresses now the middle class, while the neo-nationalists the working class.
As the super-globalist BBC presented the results:
Support for Mr Hofer was exceptionally strong among manual workers – nearly 90%. The vote for
Mr Van der Bellen was much stronger among people with a university degree or other higher education
qualifications. In nine out of Austria's 10 main cities Mr Van der Bellen came top, whereas Mr Hofer
dominated the rural areas, the Austrian broadcaster ORF reported (in German).[xx]
The process of the NewLeft's bankruptcy has been further enhanced by the fact that, faced with
political collapse in the May 2014 Euro-parliamentary elections, it allied itself with the elites
in condemning the neo-nationalist parties as fascist and neo-Nazi. However, today, following the
successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization (mainly through the World
Social Forum, thanks to the activities of the globalist "NewLeft" ),[xxi] it is up to the neo-nationalist
movement to fight globalization in general and the EU in particular. It is therefore clear that the
neo-nationalist parties which are, in fact, all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements
that have simply filled the huge gap created by the globalist "NewLeft" . Thus, this "NewLeft" ,
Instead of placing itself in the front line among all those peoples fighting globalization and the
phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty, it has indirectly promoted globalization,
using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, supposedly founded on Marxism.
On the other side, as one might expect, most members of the Globalist "NewLeft" have joined the
new 'movement' by Varoufakis to democratize Europe, "forgetting" in the process that 'Democracy'
was also the West's propaganda excuse for destroying Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Today, it seems that
the Soros circus is aiming to use exactly the same excuse to destroy Europe, in the sense of securing
the perpetuation of the EU elites' domination of the European peoples and therefore the continuation
of the consequent economic violence involved. The most prominent members of the globalist "NewLeft"
who have already joined this new DIEM 'movement' range from Noam Chomsky and Julian Assange to Suzan
George and Toni Negri, and from Hillary Wainwright of Red Pepper to CounterPunch and
other globalist "NewLeft" newspapers and journals all over the world. In this context, it is particularly
interesting to refer to Slavoj Žižek's commentary on the 'Manifesto' that was presented at the inaugural
meeting of Varoufakis's new movement in Berlin on February 2016.[xxii]
Neo-nationalism and immigration
So, the unifying element of neo-nationalists is their struggle for national sovereignty, which
they (rightly), see as disappearing in the era of globalization. Even when their main immediate motive
is the fight against immigration, indirectly their fight is against globalization, as they realize
that it is the opening of all markets, including the labor markets, particularly within economic
unions like the EU, which is the direct cause of their own unemployment or low-wage employment, as
well as of the deterioration of the welfare state, given that the elites are not prepared to expand
social expenditure to accommodate the influx of immigrants. Yet, this is not a racist movement but
a purely economic movement, although the TE and the Zionist elites, with the help of the globalist
"NewLeft" , try hard to convert it into an Islamophobic movement––as the Charlie Hebdo case
clearly showed[xxiii]–––so that they could use it in any way they see fit in the support of the NWO.
But, what is the relationship of both neo-nationalists and Euro-fascists to historical fascism
and Nazism? As I tried to show elsewhere,[xxiv] fascism, as well as National Socialism, presuppose
a nation-state, therefore this kind of phenomenon is impossible to develop in any country fully integrated
into the NWO, which, by definition, cannot have any significant degree of national sovereignty. The
only kind of sovereignty available in the NWO of neoliberal globalization is transnational sovereignty,
which, in fact, is exclusively shared by members of the TE. In other words, fascism and Nazism were
historical phenomena of the era of nation-state before the ascent of the NWO of neoliberal globalization,
when states still had a significant degree of national and economic sovereignty.
However, in the globalization era, it is exactly this sovereignty that is being phased out for
any country fully integrated into the NWO. Therefore, the only kind of 'fascism' still possible
today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which
is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may
be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case
of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not
only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. However, as there is overwhelming
evidence of the full support they have enjoyed by the Transnational Elite and (paradoxically?) even
by the Zionist elite,[xxv] they should more accurately be called Euro-fascists.
It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties, which are all under attack by the TE,
constitute cases of movements that simply filled the huge gap left by the globalist Left, which,
instead of placing itself in the front line of all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing
out of their economic and national sovereignty,[xxvi] indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments
based on an anachronistic internationalism, developed a hundred years ago or so. The neo-nationalist
parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working
class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects
of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into
the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy.
National and Social Liberation Fronts everywhere!
So, at this crucial historical juncture that will determine whether we shall all become subservient
to neoliberal globalization and the transnational elite (as the DIEM25 Manifesto implies through
our subordination to the EU) or not, it is imperative that we create a Popular Front in each country
which will include all the victims of globalization among the popular strata, regardless of their
current political affiliations.
In Europe, in particular, where the popular strata are facing economic disaster, what is urgently
needed is not an "antifascist" Front within the EU, as proposed by the 'parliamentary juntas' in
power and the Euro-elites, also supported by the globalist "NewLeft" (such as Diem25, Plan B in Europe,
Die Linke, the Socialist Workers' Party in the UK, SYRIZA in Greece and so on), which would, in fact,
unite aggressors and victims. An 'antifascist' front would simply disorient the masses and make them
incapable of facing the real fascism being imposed on them[xxviii] by the political and economic
elites, which constitute the transnational and local elites. Instead, what is needed is a Popular
Front for National and Social Liberation, which that could attract the vast majority of the people
who would fight for immediate unilateral withdrawal from the EU – which is managed by the European
part of the transnational elite – as well as for economic self- reliance, thus breaking with globalization.
To my mind, it is only the creation of broad Popular Fronts that could effect each country's exit
from the EU, NAFTA and similar economic unions, with the aim of achieving economic self-reliance.
Re-development based on self-reliance is the only way in which peoples breaking away from globalization
and its institutions (like the EU) could rebuild their productive structures, which have been dismantled
by globalization. This could also, objectively, lay the ground for future systemic change, decided
upon democratically by the peoples themselves. Therefore, the fundamental aim of the social struggle
today should be a complete break with the present NWO and the building of a new global democratic
community, in which economic and national sovereignty have been restored, so that peoples could then
fight for the ideal society, as they see it.
Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher, editor of Society & Nature/
Democracy and Nature/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. He has also been a columnist
for the Athens Daily Eleftherotypia since 1990. Between 1969 and 1989 he was Senior Lecturer in Economics
at the University of North London (formerly Polytechnic of North London). He is the author of over
25 books and over 1,500 articles, many of which have been translated into various languages.
This article is based on Ch. 4 of the book to be published next month by Progressive Press,
The New World Order in Action, vol. 1: The NWO, the Left and Neo-Nationalism. This is a major three-volume
project aiming to cover all aspects of the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization
http://www.progressivepress.com/book-listing/new-world-order-action
Notes:
Bruno Waterfield, "Juncker vows to use new powers to block the far-right", [i]The Times,
24/5/2016
[xviii] see for instance Larry Elliott, "How free trade became the hot topic vexing voters
and politicians in Europe and the US" , The Guardian , 28/3/2016
[xix] Francis Elliott et al. 'Working class prefers Ukip to Labour", The Times , 25/11/2014
"... Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with this information. Even if she didn't have to turn over this e-mail to the commission investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn't it be relevant? Shouldn't this be information she volunteers? And why didn't the Republicans who were supposedly so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement? ..."
"... Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi involvement in the attacks because she didn't want to endanger the millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation? These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed to prevent. ..."
"... Do you really expect Obama's DOJ will do anything against Hitlery Clinton? It is one criminal gangster racket. ..."
"... The NeoCons and NeoLibs - McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and many others were totally involved with Iraq, the other endless wars and Benghazi. McCain was in Ukraine doing Nudelman/Soros zio bidding too. ..."
"... The Clintons came to power in to poor state of Arkansas, where Ollie North financed Iran-Contra running drugs through Mena AK while Bill was Gov. , of course with the sophisticated set-up of money laundering schemes and front businesses done by the CIA The CIA drug running through Mena continued after Iran-Contra, with George H.W. Bush's blessing and full knowledge. BCCI bank was one of the money laundering banks for the drug money and helped finance Clinton's first presidential campaign. Bush and Clinton's happy bromance is no surprise, and just the tip of the iceberg. It should be no surprise with the Bush family background that the Clintons have been so dirty and corrupt, yet so immune from serious pursuit of prosecution. ..."
"... Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lying, sleazy whore and is totally loyal to the Oligarchs and Sunni Moslems who've paid her billions of dollars in bribes. Like the pedophile pervert William Jefferson Clinton she would "rather climb a tree to tell a lie than tell the truth standing on the ground." ..."
"... Unless Blumenthal's emails contained information obtained from the US government, they would not have been classified when he sent them. So I don't see how he would be in trouble for sending them or Hillary for receiving them. If the government decided afterwards to make the information classified, then wouldn't he and Hillary have been obliged to delete them from their private servers? To me, the information seems more like gossip and I can't see either one of them getting into over these particular emails. ..."
"... If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. She will burn it to the ground before she gives up her dream. ..."
"... It's difficult to estimate if the Democrat lumpenproletariat will ever blame Hillary for anything, but objectively, if the lumpens realize that Hillary KNEW this was coming down and did NOTHING to prepare the Democrat Party to have a PLAN B (Joe Biden) ready, the lumpens should be mightily pissed. ..."
"... Look at the complexity of the emails and their concepts and compare that with the banal dumbed down soup which is served upp at each campaign speech. ..."
Something that has gone unnoticed in all the talk about the investigation
into Hillary Clinton's e-mails is the content of the original leak that started
the entire investigation to begin with. In March of 2013, a Romanian
hacker calling himself Guccifer hacked into the AOL account of Sidney Blumenthal
and leaked to Russia Today
four e-mails containing intelligence on Libya that Blumenthal sent to Hillary
Clinton.
For those who haven't been following this story, Sidney Blumenthal
is a long time friend and adviser of the Clinton family who in an unofficial
capacity sent many "intelligence memos" to Hillary Clinton during her tenure
as Secretary of State . Originally displayed on RT.com in Comic Sans
font on a pink background with the letter "G" clumsily drawn as a watermark,
no one took these leaked e-mails particularly seriously when they came out in
2013. Now, however, we can cross reference this leak with
the
e-mails the State Department released to the public .
The first three e-mails in the Russia Today leak from Blumenthal
to Clinton all appear word for word in the State Department release.
The
first e-mail Clinton
asks to have printed and she also
forwards it to her deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan. The
second e-mail Clinton describes as "useful insight" and
forwards it to Jake Sullivan asking him to circulate it. The
third e-mail is also
forwarded to Jake Sullivan . The fourth e-mail is missing from the State
Department record completely.
This missing e-mail
from February 16, 2013 only exists in the
original leak and states that French and Libyan intelligence agencies had
evidence that the
In Amenas and
Benghazi attacks were funded by "Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia."
This seems like a rather outlandish claim on the surface, and as such
was only reported by conspiracy types and fringe media outlets. Now, however,
we have proof that the other three e-mails in the leak were real correspondence
from Blumenthal to Clinton that she not only read, but thought highly enough
of to send around to others in the State Department. Guccifer speaks English
as a second language and most of his writing consists of rambling conspiracies,
it's unlikely he would be able to craft such a convincing fake intelligence
briefing. This means we have an e-mail from a trusted Clinton adviser
that claims the Saudis funded the Benghazi attack, and not only was this not
followed up on, but there is not any record of this e-mail ever existing except
for the Russia Today leak.
Why is this e-mail missing? At first I assumed it must be
due to some sort of cover up, but it's much simpler than that. The e-mail in
question was sent after February 1st, 2013, when John Kerry took over as Secretary
of State, so it was not part of the time period being investigated. No one is
trying to find a copy of this e-mail. Since Clinton wasn't Secretary of State
on February 16th, it wasn't her job to follow up on it.
So let's forget for a minute about the larger legal implications of the e-mail
investigation. How can it be that such a revelation about Saudi Arabia
was made public in a leak that turned out to be real and no one looked into
it? Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton
trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough
to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary
of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed
the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with
this information. Even if she didn't have to turn over this e-mail to the commission
investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn't it be relevant? Shouldn't this
be information she volunteers? And why didn't the Republicans who were supposedly
so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement?
Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi
involvement in the attacks because she didn't want to endanger the
millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation?
These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed
to prevent.
Another E-Mail Turns Up Missing
Guccifer uncovered something else in his hack that could not be verified
until the last of the e-mails were released by the State Department last week.
In addition to the four full e-mails he released, he also
leaked a screenshot of Sidney Blumenthal's AOL inbox. If we cross reference
this screenshot with the Blumenthal e-mails in the State Department release,
we can see that the e-mail with the subject "H: Libya security latest.
Sid" is missing from the State Department e-mails.
This missing e-mail is certainly something that would have been requested
as part of the investigation as it was sent before February 1st and clearly
relates to Libya. The fact that it is missing suggests one of two possibilities:
The State Department does have a copy of this e-mail but deemed
it top secret and too sensitive to release, even in redacted form.
This would indicate that Sidney Blumenthal was sending highly classified
information from his AOL account to Secretary Clinton's private e-mail server
despite the fact that he never even had a security clearance to deal with
such sensitive information in the first place. If this scenario explains
why the e-mail is missing, classified materials were mishandled.
The State Department does not have a copy, and this e-mail was
deleted by both Clinton and Blumenthal before turning over their subpoenaed
e-mails to investigators, which would be considered destruction of evidence
and lying to federal officials. This also speaks to the reason
why the private clintonemail.com server may have been established in the
first place. If Blumenthal were to regularly send highly sensitive yet technically
"unclassified" information from his AOL account to Clinton's official government
e-mail account, it could have been revealed with a FOIA request. It has
already been established that Hillary Clinton deleted 15 of Sidney Blumenthal's
e-mails to her, this discrepancy was discovered when Blumenthal's e-mails
were subpoenaed, although
a State Department official claims that none of these 15 e-mails have
any information about the Benghazi attack. It would seem from the subject
line that this e-mail does. And it is missing from the public record.
In either of these scenarios, Clinton and her close associates are
in violation of federal law. In the most generous interpretation where
this e-mail is simply a collection of rumors that Blumenthal heard and forwarded
unsolicited to Clinton, it would make no sense for it to be missing. It would
not be classified if it was a bunch of hot air, and it certainly wouldn't be
deleted by both Blumenthal and Clinton at the risk of committing a felony.
In the least generous interpretation of these facts, Sidney Blumenthal
and Hillary Clinton conspired to cover up an ally of the United States funding
the assassination of one of our diplomats in Libya.
Why A Grand Jury Is Likely Already Convened
After the final e-mails were released by the State Department on February
29th, it has been reported in the last week that:
Clinton's IT staff member who managed the e-mail server, Bryan
Pagliano, has been
given immunity by a federal judge which suggests that he will be giving
testimony to a grand jury about evidence that relates to this investigation
and implicates himself in a crime. Until now, Pagliano has been pleading
the fifth and refusing to cooperate with the investigation.
The hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazar Lehel) just had an 18-month temporary
extradition order to the United States
granted by a Romanian court , despite being indicted by the US back
in 2014. Is Guccifer being extradited now in order to testify to
the grand jury that the screengrab with the missing e-mail is real?
Attorney General Loretta Lynch was
interviewed by Bret Baier and she would not answer whether or not a
grand jury has been convened in this case. If there was no grand
jury she could have said so, but if a grand jury is meeting to discuss evidence
she would not legally be allowed to comment on it.
This scandal has the potential to completely derail the Clinton campaign
in the general election . If Hillary Clinton really cares about the
future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while
there is still time to nominate another candidate. This is not a right wing
conspiracy, it is a failure by one of our highest government officials to uphold
the laws that preserve government transparency and national security. It's time
for us to ask Secretary Clinton to tell us the truth and do the right thing.
If the United States government is really preparing a case against Hillary
Clinton, we can't wait until it's too late.
Mrs. Clinton, and let's call her by her proper name Hillary Clinton -
not the familiar "Hillary" that even the most right-of-the-aisle commentators
use - is a compulsive liar.
Rhetorically: how can anyone give even a shred of credence to anything
that she might utter? She lies so much that the only conclusion that an
objectively observant informed person can reach is that she has permanently
lost touch with reality. Given that fact, she therefore is a psychotic personality.
I am amazed that no one in the medical profession, assuming that there are
independent minds within that group, has spoken out about this psychological
affliction of Mrs. Clinton's.
Mrs. Clinton is a blight upon the Nation. Seriously, I work and associate
with people who whole-heartedly support her candidacy for president. After
all that has been revealed since 2014 I can only conclude that continuing
political support for Mrs. Clinton can only stem from a profound anti-intellectualist
philosophy.
so let me get this straight....the saudis took down the twin towers on
911 2001 and then paid for the benghazi attacks and ambassador murders on
911 2012 and the Bush and Clinton families knew about this but made up stories
to protect their saudi pals?
BUSH killed 2 million people in Iraq for WMD he never found, but this
piece of brilliant journalism focuses on "missing" emails that "somehow"
should prove that the Saudis did it and hypothetically crucifies Hillary
who was just Secretary of State taking orders from Obama who's not mentioned
in this again brilliant piece. I guess the Saudis financed the American
Iraq invasion too.
The Bushes and Clintons have been best friends and See Eye Aye drug runners
going back to Mena, Arkansas.
The Romneys are also Bush best buddies. The Romneys and Bushes are best
friends with the Mormon hinckley family very well connected to Mormon Church
and their John Jr. tried to kill Reagan.
The NeoCons and NeoLibs - McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and
many others were totally involved with Iraq, the other endless wars and
Benghazi. McCain was in Ukraine doing Nudelman/Soros zio bidding too.
We're a Banana Republic pure and simple. Yes, we're the most powerful
Banana Republic to ever exist in the history of the world too.
The Clintons came to power in to poor state of Arkansas, where Ollie
North financed Iran-Contra running drugs through Mena AK while Bill was
Gov. , of course with the sophisticated set-up of money laundering schemes
and front businesses done by the CIA The CIA drug running through Mena
continued after Iran-Contra, with George H.W. Bush's blessing and full knowledge.
BCCI bank was one of the money laundering banks for the drug money and helped
finance Clinton's first presidential campaign. Bush and Clinton's happy
bromance is no surprise, and just the tip of the iceberg. It should be no
surprise with the Bush family background that the Clintons have been so
dirty and corrupt, yet so immune from serious pursuit of prosecution.
And yes, there is so much more. it's deep, dark and dirty.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lying, sleazy whore and is totally loyal
to the Oligarchs and Sunni Moslems who've paid her billions of dollars in
bribes. Like the pedophile pervert William Jefferson Clinton she would "rather
climb a tree to tell a lie than tell the truth standing on the ground."
That said, there is zero probability that the United States Department
of Injustice will indict her. Anyone expecting the Feral Bureau of Intimidation
and Department of Injustice to enforce equal application of the Law are
going to be disappointed. Again. The Rule of Law doesn't apply to the Oligarchs
who own the Feral government and their LOYAL political parasites.
I wouldn't be so sure about that dude. Have you seen Bill lately? He
looks beaten to a pulp. The dark side tends to eat their own when it benefits
their ultimate goals. Hillary might be that one, of many to (yet) come.
Hillary Rodham Clinton was bribed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabian to
cover up their role in the assassination of Ambassador Stevens. All United
States Secretary's of State take bribes to cover up attacks by foreign governments
on United States diplomatic and Armed Forces personnel. At this point what
difference does it make?
Why would the Saudis fund that? Stevens was CIA working on arming the
jihadis in Syria against Assad. Some of which the US Army screwed up with
obsolete shit weapons, I think.
So lovely, the largest Israeli-Neocon ally being responsible for the
loss of Clinton, their main candidate other than Jeb.
God does work in mysterious way, explained by the great Discordian religious
principle : "Imposing order creates disorder". The greeks grokked it first.
Unless Blumenthal's emails contained information obtained from the
US government, they would not have been classified when he sent them. So
I don't see how he would be in trouble for sending them or Hillary for receiving
them. If the government decided afterwards to make the information classified,
then wouldn't he and Hillary have been obliged to delete them from their
private servers? To me, the information seems more like gossip and I can't
see either one of them getting into over these particular emails.
As server-gate progresses it will be interesting to see whether Hillary
learned anything from Watergate where Nixon got in trouble not because he
ordered the Watergate breakins, but because he tried to cover them up.
If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country
and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time
to nominate another candidate. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party,
and the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. She will burn it to the ground
before she gives up her dream.
No, there are many political interests in the Democratic party, just
like the Republican Party. Same interests, in most cases, overlapping sets
of funding. That must be what the parties so contend over, more contributions?
Contending power centers, mafia rules, courtier rules, an ecosystem of
parasites specialized in their evolution for extracting carbon and energy
from the government. Parasites divert metabolic energy to their own uses,
and the host may die as a result.
If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country
and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still
time to nominate another candidate.
It's difficult to estimate if the Democrat lumpenproletariat will
ever blame Hillary for anything, but objectively, if the lumpens realize
that Hillary KNEW this was coming down and did NOTHING to prepare the Democrat
Party to have a PLAN B (Joe Biden) ready, the lumpens should be mightily
pissed.
Anyone notice how the email says "Islamists in Saudi Arabia" but the
article hints that "The Saudis" funded it? I'm not an HRC fan, but I think
she gets a pass on this one. Like if David Duke gave a bunch of money to
Hezbollah and the papers said "The Americans are funding Hezbollah"...
BLumenthal and Killary need to be waterboarded until they give up their
sources. Look at the complexity of the emails and their concepts and
compare that with the banal dumbed down soup which is served upp at each
campaign speech.
They are living in the real world, we are their slaves.
"... The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. ..."
"... Interventionists usually can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action. That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that wreck the lives of millions of people. ..."
"... This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive, militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy. ..."
"... This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. ..."
"... It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support for the war was in making it happen. ..."
The New York Times
reports on
Hillary Clinton's role in the Libyan war. This passage sums up much of what's wrong with how
Clinton and her supporters think about how the U.S. should respond to foreign conflicts:
Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders "said all the right things about supporting democracy
and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to
pull this off," said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. "They gave us
what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe." [bold mine-DL]
It's not surprising that rebels seeking outside support against their government tell representatives
of that government things they want to hear, but it is deeply disturbing that our officials are frequently
so eager to believe that what they are being told was true. Our officials shouldn't "want to believe"
the self-serving propaganda of spokesmen for a foreign insurgency, especially when that leads to
U.S. military intervention on their behalf. They should be more cautious than normal when they are
hearing "all the right things." Not only should our officials know from previous episodes that the
people saying "all the right things" are typically conning Washington in the hopes of receiving support,
but they should assume that anyone saying "all the right things" either doesn't represent the forces
on the ground that the U.S. will be called on to support or is deliberately misrepresenting the conditions
on the ground to make U.S. involvement more attractive.
"Wanting to believe" in dubious or obviously bad causes in other countries is one of the biggest
problems with ideologically-driven interventionists from both parties. They aren't just willing to
take sides in foreign conflicts, but they are looking for an excuse to join them. As long as they
can get representatives of the opposition to repeat the required phrases and pay lip service to the
"right things," they will do their best to drag the U.S. into a conflict in which it has nothing
at stake. If that means pretending that terrorist groups are democrats and liberals, that is what
they'll do. If it means whitewashing the records of fanatics, that is what they'll do. Even if it
means inventing a "moderate" opposition out of thin air, they'll do it. This satisfies their desire
to meddle in other countries' affairs, it provides intervention with a superficial justification
that credulous pundits and talking heads will be only too happy to repeat, and it frees them from
having to come up with plans for what comes after the intervention on the grounds that the locals
will take care of it for them later on.
The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in
other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want
to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. If one
takes for granted that there must be sympathetic liberals-in-waiting in another country that will
take over once a regime is toppled, one isn't going to worry about the negative and unintended consequences
of regime change. Because interventionists have difficulty imagining how U.S. intervention can go
awry or make things worse, they are also unlikely to be suspicious of the motives or goals of the
"good guys" they want the U.S. to support. They tend to assume the best about their would-be proxies
and allies, and they assume that the country will be in good hands once they are empowered. The fact
that this frequently backfires doesn't trouble these interventionists, who will have already moved
on to the next country in "need" of their special attentions.
The article continues:
The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving
Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton's
questions have come to pass.
If the article is referring to anyone in the administration, this might be true, but as a general
statement it couldn't be more wrong. Many skeptics and opponents of the intervention in Libya warned
about many of the things that the Libyan war and regime change have produced, and they issued these
warnings before and during the beginning of U.S. and allied bombing. Interventionists usually
can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore
all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action.
That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that
wreck the lives of millions of people.
The report goes on to quote Anne-Marie Slaughter referring to Clinton's foreign policy inclinations:
"But when the choice is between action and inaction, and you've got risks in either direction,
which you often do, she'd rather be caught trying."
This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends
up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action
and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive,
militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she
already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently
backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy.
Maybe the most striking section of the report was the description of the administration's initial
reluctance to intervene, which Clinton then successfully overcame:
France and Britain were pushing hard for a Security Council vote on a resolution supporting
a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from slaughtering his opponents. Ms. Rice was
calling to push back, in characteristically salty language.
"She says, and I quote, 'You are not going to drag us into your shitty war,'" said Mr. Araud,
now France's ambassador in Washington. "She said, 'We'll be obliged to follow and support you,
and we don't want to.'
This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially
was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. It also
shows how confused everyone in the administration was about the obligations the U.S. owed to its
allies. The U.S. isn't obliged to indulge its allies' wars of choice, and it certainly doesn't have
to join them, but the administration was already conceding that the U.S. would "follow and support"
France and Britain in what they chose to do. As we know, in the end France and Britain definitely
could and did drag the U.S. into their "shitty war," and in that effort they received a huge assist
from Clinton.
It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official
besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support
for the war was in making it happen.
"... ...Ironically, even as U.S. officials confront defiance from the rival Libyan leaders in Tripoli and Tobruk, they have won cooperation from Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist militia whose members were once driven out of Libya by Col Muammar Gaddafi and developed close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. ..."
"... After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte, U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious glee and declared , "we came, we saw, he died." ..."
"... Now, Belhadj, who has since branched off into various business ventures including an airline, is viewed as a key American ally with his militia helping to protect Sirraj and other GNA officials operating from the Tripoli naval base. (Gee, how could an Al Qaeda-connected jihadist with an airline present a problem?) ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... Since the Cold War, we've been run by the Neo-Cons - Bill Clinton was a Neo-Con poorly disguised and his wife is an outright Neo-con and a very very dangerous woman. ..."
"... Bush/bin Laden family relationships, linked them to the Bush/CIA recruitment and launching of the CIA asset "al Qaeda" during the Russo/Afghan campaign, Al Qaeda, operating under CIA/Mossad aegis and control has been correctly identified ever since then as the manpower provider and major executor of most if not all of the "terrorism which has gone down in the past twenty years, thus making bin Laden and al Qaeda the much sought after black hats, the "boogeymen" behind and justifying all of this stuff. ..."
"... In any case, these people who were living in Libya had a strikingly different story to report re the standard of living that obtained in that country, Gaddafi's rule, etc., from what we were learning from the HRC-run US State Department. Moreover, for their trouble, for their wish to report their experience and tell their fellow Americans the real truth about Libya, they were muzzled and threatened, and from what I remember, soon found out that when you cross the US government and its foreign policy representatives by reporting truths they don't want the world to hear, the price will be very high. Very high indeed. I believe they soon found themselves unable to find gainful employment and had to subsist on hand-outs from interested and sympathetic listeners. ..."
"... It used to be a point of honor in Old Europe for a politician or a public servant who committed a monumental blunder or dishonorable act to resign from his office. If the act was sufficiently serious then suicide might have been called for. In Japan seppuku was a form of self-inflicted capital punishment for samurai and politicians who had committed serious offenses because they had brought shame to themselves and others with whom they were associated. ..."
"... Libya, Flight MH17, the corruption in Ukraine, missile sites being installed in Poland and Romania are never or hardly ever mentioned, and that's not because any of those subjects are not news worthy. It's good against evil. ..."
"... My worry is that Hillary will make a move to bring home the biggest prize of all, and that will be the conquering of Russia. This doesn't have anything to do with gender, it's what is inside ones soul, and of course their agenda. ..."
"... Authoritarians with a lust for power and/or wealth will seek to become autocrats ruling their fiefs according to their personal desires and ambitions without regard for and total indifference towards their subjects. If there is anyone among the tired, the poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free there will always be a need for people with courage to speak truth to power. ..."
"... The mass media are truly enemies of the people of the United States, and with the economic concentrations that support them, have waged economic and propaganda war upon the United States. They are thereby traitors, engaged in a right-wing revolution, and should be utterly destroyed in their ability to do ..."
The Obama administration is hoping that it can yet salvage Hillary Clinton's
signature project as Secretary of State, the "regime change" in Libya, via a
strategy of funneling Libya's fractious politicians and militias – referred
to by one U.S. official as chaotic water "droplets" – into a U.S.-constructed
"channel" built out of rewards and punishments.
...In recent days, competing militias, supporting elements of the three governments,
have converged on Sirte, where the Islamic State jihadists have established
a foothold, but the schisms among the various Libyan factions have prevented
anything approaching a coordinated attack. Indeed, resistance to the U.S.-backed
Government of National Accord (GNA) appears to be growing amid doubts about
the political competence of the hand-picked prime minister, Fayez Sirraj.
...Thus far, however, many Libyan political figures have been unwilling to
jump into the "channel," which has led the Obama administration to both impose
and threaten punishments against these rogue water "droplets," such as financial
sanctions and even criminal charges.
...Ironically, even as U.S. officials confront defiance from the rival
Libyan leaders in Tripoli and Tobruk, they have won cooperation from Abdelhakim
Belhadj, who was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist
militia whose members were once driven out of Libya by Col Muammar Gaddafi and
developed close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
After the 9/11 attacks and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Belhadj was
tracked by the CIA and captured in Malaysia in 2004 before being renditioned
back to Libya, where he was imprisoned until 2010. In 2011, after Secretary
of State Clinton convinced President Obama to join an air war against the Gaddafi
regime on "humanitarian" grounds, Belhadj pulled together a jihadist force that
helped spearhead the decisive attack on Tripoli.
After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte,
U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing
of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious
glee and
declared,
"we came, we saw, he died."
Now, Belhadj, who has since branched off into various business ventures
including an airline, is viewed as a key American ally with his militia helping
to protect Sirraj and other GNA officials operating from the Tripoli naval base.
(Gee, how could an Al Qaeda-connected jihadist with an airline present a problem?)
... ... ...
Summing up the confusing situation, The New York Times reported on June 2,
"One Western official who recently visited the country said the political mood
in Libya had become increasingly confrontational during recent months as the
United Nations, acting under pressure from the United States and its allies,
has struggled to win acceptance for the unity government."
... ... ...
Now, the Obama administration is trying to re-impose order in the country
via a hand-picked group of new Libyan officials and by building a "channel"
to direct the flow of the nation's politics in the direction favored by Washington.
But many Libyan water "droplets" are refusing to climb in.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra
stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his
latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com).
Debbie Menon, June 4, 2016 at 4:07 pm
American Foreign Policy: Dumbed Down
Since the Cold War there has been a narrowing of foreign policy debate.
Does this explain why Washington blunders from one fiasco to another?
Since the Cold War, we've been run by the Neo-Cons - Bill Clinton
was a Neo-Con poorly disguised and his wife is an outright Neo-con and a
very very dangerous woman.
Erik, June 5, 2016 at 7:17 am
While the narrowing of debate may be attributed to control by economic
concentrations of the elections and mass media tools of democracy, it is
also due to a poorly structured government. Congress has never been able
to debate meaningfully due to politics, and the executive has stolen almost
all power of Congress over wars, and runs them continually to get campaign
contributions from military industry.
For example, Congress utterly failed to debate the Civil War issues from
1820 to 1860, producing nothing but tactical compromises, never bringing
the sides to common terms and recognition of the rights and interests of
each other. It never seriously debated the issues of Vietnam, nor the wars
since.
This is why I advocate a College of policy analysis as a fourth branch
of the federal government, to both analyze and debate the issues of each
region, preserving the minority viewpoint and the inconvenient solution.
It would make available commented summaries of history and fact, analyses
of current situations by each discipline and functional area, and debated
syntheses of anticipated developments, potential changes due to events human
or natural, and the impact of policy alternatives, with comments reflecting
the various viewpoints or possibilities. Not many of the uneducated would
read the results, but politicians and vocal citizens could more readily
be shown to violate what the experts generally agree is workable,
The College would be conducted largely by internet with experts at the
universities, applying expert analysis of every region with a broad range
of skills and disciplines, and moderated textual debate with the broadest
range of viewpoints.
Debbie Menon, June 4, 2016 at 5:02 pm
Robert has done a good job, and made the point again, which needs repeating
until it becomes common gospel.
Bush/bin Laden family relationships, linked them to the Bush/CIA
recruitment and launching of the CIA asset "al Qaeda" during the Russo/Afghan
campaign, Al Qaeda, operating under CIA/Mossad aegis and control has been
correctly identified ever since then as the manpower provider and major
executor of most if not all of the "terrorism which has gone down in the
past twenty years, thus making bin Laden and al Qaeda the much sought after
black hats, the "boogeymen" behind and justifying all of this stuff.
The fact that the spinmeisters were directed to tell us that Osama bin
Laden and al Qaeda are dead only tells us that they have some other means
of "justifying" the wars and what is going to happen next, which will lead
the sheeple into following them right over the edge of the cliff, and when
the time is right, run out the new and bigger version to carry the lie onward
to…. what?
One of the reasons I find it so difficult to write lately, is that I
feel I am repeating the same thing again, and again. Which does not inspire
the best of efforts.
Bill Bodden, June 4, 2016 at 5:53 pm
The theme of Hillary's blunders may be addressed constantly, but for
many of us the variations almost always reveal an aspect or element of which
we were not aware and another nail that should be driven into HRC's "coffin."
This person and her enablers and accomplices are a threat to countless people
around the world justifying a constant chorus of criticism until the polls
close on November 8th. The great tragedy is that her Republican opponent
is probably as perilous as she is.
Zachary Smith, June 4, 2016 at 9:22 pm
Publishing variations and new information and/or conclusions is useful
to interested current readers as well as those who are new to the site.
If an essay title doesn't appeal to me I don't always examine it at all.
After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte,
U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon
hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her
hands in obvious glee and declared, "we came, we saw, he died."
In any event, this one just can't be republished too often. The murderous
***** Hillary will – if allowed to become POTUS – be a disaster beating
out Bush the Dumber.
Obama had a job when he entered the White House – coddling and greasing
the skids for the lawless Bankers. He has done that very, very well. So
far as I can tell he merely outsourced the rest of the Presidency to the
neocons and neoliberals. How else can you explain Hillary and Victoria Nuland
and the TPP?
SFOMARCO, June 4, 2016 at 4:42 pm
"So what we're doing with the Government of National Accord is we're
trying to create a channel, for national unity and reconciliation, and for
building the institutions Libya needs, for building enough stability so
the economy can come back, so they can pump oil, which Libya needs for Libyans,
distribute the wealth fairly, equitably, in a way that brings people in,
and take advantage of Libya's natural resources to rebuild the country.
…" Seems like the status quo ante, sans Ghaddafi. Another expectation a
la "topple Saddam and the people will throw flowers and sweets at the liberators"?
And now a fluid mechanics metaphor to put Libya back to where it was in
2011?
Bob Van Noy, June 4, 2016 at 7:46 pm
I totally agree with your thought SFOMARCO. As I read this I was thinking,
so now it's a channel. It seems that coming up with a good metaphor is the
basis of American Foreign Policy. This is a hang-up of mine. Back in the
Vietnam War all we heard was about dominoes falling which makes such an
impressive mental "image." Several years ago I was stunned when I watched
Errol Morris' "Fog of War." When Morris sat Robert McNamara down with a
North Vietnamese contingent, and he was asked what the War was all about,
he started to explain The Domino Theory, and the Vietnamese became agitated
and basically told him that that was poor theory, and that he hadn't bothered
to educate himself on Vietnamese history or he would know better. I was
dumbfounded by that insight. 58,000 casualties because McNamara apparently
didn't have the time to understand Vietnamese History!
How many wars do we have going on now? What do we know of the countries
we're dealing with? We really need to get out of the Empire business once
and for all. I've watched Hillary enough to realize that regardless of her
Wellesley education; she's not that bright.
dahoit, June 5, 2016 at 11:18 am
Totally agree;She is an idiot,who just follows the current memes of her
Zionist masters. Not one damn evidence of critical thinking ever emanating
from her crooked mouth. Imagine if the moron hadn't gotten on the crazy
train of Iraq, and shown astute thinking, as every other astute thinker
realized (Zionists and toads excluded of course)that its destabilization
would bring chaos throughout the region.
Of course,this might have been purposeful, but only her Ziomasters knew
that, she is incapable.
Susan Raikes Sugar, June 4, 2016 at 5:38 pm
Yes, Debbie, you're probably right about the hands pulling the strings
in this devastating - and also demented - picture. The latter because I've
listened to people who were in Libya before we pulled our shenanigans there
a la Saddam and Iraq. It seems to be very very difficult for anyone in US
governing circles to learn lessons from an incident gone horribly wrong.
Could it be arrogance?
In any case, these people who were living in Libya had a strikingly
different story to report re the standard of living that obtained in that
country, Gaddafi's rule, etc., from what we were learning from the HRC-run
US State Department. Moreover, for their trouble, for their wish to report
their experience and tell their fellow Americans the real truth about Libya,
they were muzzled and threatened, and from what I remember, soon found out
that when you cross the US government and its foreign policy representatives
by reporting truths they don't want the world to hear, the price will be
very high. Very high indeed. I believe they soon found themselves unable
to find gainful employment and had to subsist on hand-outs from interested
and sympathetic listeners.
Bill Bodden, June 4, 2016 at 6:21 pm
It seems to be very very difficult for anyone in US governing
circles to learn lessons from an incident gone horribly wrong. Could
it be arrogance?
It used to be a point of honor in Old Europe for a politician or
a public servant who committed a monumental blunder or dishonorable act
to resign from his office. If the act was sufficiently serious then suicide
might have been called for. In Japan seppuku was a form of self-inflicted
capital punishment for samurai and politicians who had committed serious
offenses because they had brought shame to themselves and others with whom
they were associated.
In the United States and its satrapies, miscreants are much more "pragmatic."
They enlist public relations fabricators to hoodwink the people into believing
their naked emperor or empress is dressed in the finest of raiments so they
can continue to commit more travesties.
Abe, June 4, 2016 at 5:54 pm
What started out as an attempt to divide and destroy Iran's arc of influence
across the region has galvanized it instead.
Moving the mercenary forces
of IS out of the region is instrumental in ensuring they "live to fight
another day." By placing them in Libya, Washington and its allies hope they
will be far out of reach of the growing coalition truly fighting them across
the Levant. Further more, placing them in Libya allows other leftover "projects"
from the "Arab Spring" to be revisited, such as the destabilization and
destruction of Algeria, Tunisia and perhaps even another attempt to destabilize
and destroy Egypt.
IS' presence in Libya could also be used as a pretext for open-ended
and much broader military intervention throughout all of Africa by US forces
and their European and Persian Gulf allies. As the US has done in Syria,
where it has conducted operations for now over a year and a half to absolutely
no avail, but has managed to prop up proxy forces and continue undermining
and threatening targeted nations, it will likewise do so regarding IS in
Libya and its inevitable and predictable spread beyond.
Despite endless pledges by the US and Europe to take on IS in Libya,
neither has admitted they themselves and their actions in 2011 predictably
precipitated IS' rise there in the first place. Despite the predictable
danger destabilizing and destroying Libya posed to Europe, including a deluge
of refugees fleeing North Africa to escape the war in Libya, predicted by
many prominent analysts at the time even before the first of NATO's bombs
fell on the country, the US and Europe continued forward with military intervention
anyway.
One can only surmise from this that the US and Europe sought to intentionally
create this chaos, planning to fully exploit it both at home and abroad
to continue its campaign to geopolitically reorder MENA.
Of note is that the unity government is not of Libya nor of the Libyan
people. It is imposed by the US and is simply yet another example of US
Corpocracy (read control of democracy by US corps and banks). That the UN
gives it support demonstrates yet again that the UN has become an extension
of the 0.01%
rosemerry, June 5, 2016 at 3:25 pm
All those years of Gaddaffi being a friend, an enemy, a friend once more,
and all the time he worked effectively for Libyans and other Africans, building
giant works for water and agriculture in Libya, providing services, listening
to the people (!!!! who would do that in the USA?) and working to extend
communications to all Africa. Removing him, with all the other destruction,
was completely unforgivable and as we see has ruined yet another country.
Hillary's sins are many-no need to repeat it.
Zahid Kramet, June 5, 2016 at 4:06 am
Regime change, as envisaged by the US, will not survive.And neither will
capitalism in its present unregulated form.This is what the Arab Spring
was and is all about.The US 'plants' in the Middle East have no future,
thus the Clinton doctrine is doomed to fail.Trump, for all his inane ways
of expressing it, has the better idea:he wants to compete on the consumer
products front with an American label.The option is proxy wars led by the
Pentagon and military industrial complexes of the world's three great powers,
which will eventually lead to World War 111and the destruction of all mankind.
Susan Raikes Sugar, June 5, 2016 at 4:17 am
Here is a YouTube video from a series on Hillary's uncharmed life. Relevant
here because it treats the subject of Libya Before, and Libya After. That
we purposefully targeted this country in the same way we have targeted Syria,
Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine, Honduras, Iran (multiple pointless and unfounded threats),
as well as most recently Argentina, planted unrest and then pointed to our
dirty deeds as the reason our vaunted Secretary of State was compelled to
carry out regime-change - that's the story here. But for what reason? She's
an egomaniac whose rationale rests mostly on: Because we can, could, will
- and no one will dare stop us.
Evil? Wicked? It's hard to know how best to characterize someone like
this, but the repelling revelations are endless… If she becomes President
of the United States, the tragic end may be that there will be no more stories.
Someone with an incriminating past like Hillary's may not care about just
blowing the entire Earth away one day. I suspect she could be just that
selfish. She seems to be endowed with the mindset of a serial killer.
Channeling drops and running psy-ops, the machine Clinton helped set
in motion,
Is digging a ditch, the drainage from which, will accumulate sooner or later.
All will work out, though Republicans pout, and the pundits refute attribution-
The "A Team" is ready to lend a hand steady, and Clinton will calm this
commotion!
Now that Ukraine has become the refrain for successful destabilized mayhem,
The mission complete is a model replete with the fruits of a policy triumph.
The same in Brazil was achieved with good will, and the populace has been
preempted,
Chaos resulting through lack of consulting has adequately served to co-opt
them.
Those financial vultures and big-banking cultures will send in their
thieves for a banquet-
Behind those closed doors, the corporate whores are assembling cohorts adapted:
They'll get Saakashvili, he's touchy and feely, Jaresko will also be drafted-
They'll subvert with abandon inserted to stand-in, and as government puppets
they'll crank it.
Now that Brazil's got some corporate shills, and those cronies avoided
indictment,
Michel Temer may serve, because we observe, he's been banned for his acts
of corruption.
He'll now volunteer, and Wall Street will cheer, because Roussef got no
help from Clinton,
Touting motives progressive she's quite the obsessive 'til real women garner
excitement!
If Haftar gets sloppy, some bin Laden copy will step in to the fray and
replace him.
The margin of error for counterfeit terror is large, so there's no need
to worry,
The engineered fraud of a threat from abroad will be stoked by those waves
of migration.
If they run out of boats they'll use rubber tube floats, the Atlantic is
such a quick swim!
The only thing left, and the choice must be deft, is a foreign-born finance
advisor.
They're in ready supply, though Heaven knows why, and their provenance seems
quite consistent-
Like the one in Brazil, who gave banksters a thrill, he'll insure that the
Dinar will prosper.
Austerity measures will save all those treasures Gadaffi retained like a
miser!
Yes, that Neocon panel is digging a channel, that seems more akin to
a ditch,
But the "A Team" will fix it, and Haftar won't nix it, a Jihadi safe-zone
will emerge,
They'll be launching more strikes, we ain't seen the likes, that excrescence
will flow unabated.
The channel will capture to Neocon rapture all that spume and there won't
be a hitch.
But they'll need a Team Leader, a channeling seeder, with clandestine
skills leaner and meaner,
He'll have to have guts, not some amateur klutz, because courage will make
him or break him,
He'll be thrown in that ditch on behalf of the witch whose nefarious schemes
spew that stench:
A shadowy stranger they call "Carlos Danger", they can't trust just any
old wiener!
His fedora pulled low, and that trench-coat bestow a clandestine and
camouflaged perch.
He'll emerge from the mist, a cell phone in his fist, standing by to tweet
classified selfies,
If he opens that coat anywhere near the moat, it won't matter if boxers
or briefs,
The whole White House staff will get a good laugh, but he's got no image
to smirch.
He'll monitor droplets insuring the witch gets real-time situation reports.
As the channel gets filled with that sewage distilled from another R2P disaster,
She'll be watching the screen with her friend Abba Dean as intelligence
analysts squirm,
Classified pictures could compromise strictures if emails were found in
his shorts.
As drops coalesce, she'll rely on the press to obscure any overflow drama.
Suave Carlos Danger will make like a stranger, awaiting his next big assignment.
If the press were to ask us, that could be Damascus, but secrecy rules must
prevail.
There's no need to flaunt, he'll remain nonchalant, to prevent any legacy
trauma.
The Syrian gambit might be just a scam, but the Russians could really
get spooked.
Then something could drop with an ominous flop, and it won't be a laugh
or a cackle.
Engaged on that spectrum twixt knife and the the rectum may arise an indelible
quote:
"We spoke with a voice, but you gave us no choice. We came, and we saw,
and we nuked."
Joe Tedesky, June 5, 2016 at 1:23 pm
Muammar Gaddafi's biggest mistake was his believing he could govern a
sovereign nation. I use to think that it was all about oil. I believe that
the U.S. is largely carrying out Israel's Yinon plan, but there is more.
It's not so much a U.S. plan, as it is a U.S./London/Zionist conquest for
world hegemony. I realize how most of you who frequent this site, already
know this, but the majority of Americans I'm afraid don't have a clue. The
western media has promoted the narrative that America is fighting against
radical Muslims, and that by winning this war in the Middle East democracy
will soon follow. By Robert Parry keeping this Libyian story alive is a
good thing. Our MSM is papering over the real reason for all this war, by
reporting as much as they can the childish antics of our presidential candidates.
Libya, Flight MH17, the corruption in Ukraine, missile sites being
installed in Poland and Romania are never or hardly ever mentioned, and
that's not because any of those subjects are not news worthy. It's good
against evil.
My worry is that Hillary will make a move to bring home the biggest
prize of all, and that will be the conquering of Russia. This doesn't have
anything to do with gender, it's what is inside ones soul, and of course
their agenda.
Bill Bodden, June 5, 2016 at 2:00 pm
Beyond death and taxes there are two constants. Authoritarians with
a lust for power and/or wealth will seek to become autocrats ruling their
fiefs according to their personal desires and ambitions without regard for
and total indifference towards their subjects. If there is anyone among
the tired, the poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free there will
always be a need for people with courage to speak truth to power.
This nation has always been fortunate to have courageous people rise to
oppose malicious power – Thomas Paine, Eugene Debs, Emma Goldman, Mother
Jones, Muhammad Ali, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Robert Parry, Daniel Ellsberg,
Edward Snowden, etc. – but they have had limited success against the plutocrats
and their puppets in the political oligarchies. That failure is due, in
part, to an ill-informed and apathetic populace.
Joe B, June 6, 2016 at 8:00 am
Very true and well said. The mass media are truly enemies of the
people of the United States, and with the economic concentrations that support
them, have waged economic and propaganda war upon the United States. They
are thereby traitors, engaged in a right-wing revolution, and should be
utterly destroyed in their ability to do so.
The failed Libyan policy was one of the key sources of hundred of thousand refugees in Europe now.
As well as Syrian events (where all this hired for overthrowing Gaddafi fighters went next)
Notable quotes:
"... a proper tally of the ideological culprits who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in Libya ..."
"... Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect regime change in a third Middle East country. ..."
"... Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney. ..."
"... Hillary says she made a "mistake" on the Bush era Iraq invasion vote. She did not make a mistake she engaged in an deliberate act of political expediency and cowardice. Everyone with a brain knew Bush was cooking up the Iraq invasion based on nothing. She knew but took the political choice not an intelligent one. ..."
"... She has been a failure at just about every position she has held. She was fired from Watergate. A miserable failure leading healthcare reform (in the 90's- for those of you millienials that missed it). She did nothing as a Senator, having her eyes on the oval office. ..."
"... Dickerson to Clinton: "Let me ask you. So, Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold in part, because of chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that supposed to be one of the lessons that we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the Iraq war is to have a plan for after?" ..."
"... A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure" of classified information. ..."
"... She is either lying or totally incompetent to perform any job in the United States Government. ..."
"... This article spotlights the failed Libyan policy which will gain importance as violence is exported beyond Syria and Mali and millions more refugees are created. ..."
"... Sanders or bust. No neolibs, no Dinos for me. This is not a Ralph Nader situation. I simply will not support any more fake Democrats. Bill neolibbed us. Obama neolibbed us. Hillary did and will neolib us. ..."
"... The Empire lies through its teeth, we all know that. The Colonel had actually been cleaning up his act to the point he was getting cautious praise from Washington ..."
Some of the better-informed commentators on the recent terrorist attacks by ISIS have noticed
the reassertion of the 2002-2003 understanding of the Middle East: that all-out war is the only sensible
policy and Israel is our most faithful ally in the region. It is an opportunist line, and it is being
pushed hardest by opportunists on the far right. But a proper tally of the ideological culprits
who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in
Libya. In the Democratic debate on November 14, Clinton got away with saying this unchallenged:
CLINTON: Well, we did have a plan, and I think it's fair to say that of all of the Arab
leaders, Gaddafi probably had more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else. And when
he moved on his own people, threatening a massacre, genocide, the Europeans and the Arabs, our
allies and partners, did ask for American help and we provided it. And we didn't put a single
boot on the ground, and Gaddafi was deposed. The Libyans turned out for one of the most successful,
fairest elections that any Arab country has had. They elected moderate leaders. Now, there has
been a lot of turmoil and trouble as they have tried to deal with these radical elements which
you find in this arc of instability, from north Africa to Afghanistan. And it is imperative that
we do more not only to help our friends and partners protect themselves and protect our own homeland,
but also to work to try to deal with this arc of instability, which does have a lot of impact
on what happens in a country like Libya.
In response, Martin O'Malley said that Libya was "a mess" and Bernie Sanders said that Iraq had
produced half a million PTSD casualties among Americans who served there. Neither showed the slightest
indication of having mastered what happened in Libya: the centrality of Clinton's influence in the
catastrophic decision to overthrow the government, and the proven consequences -- civil war in Libya
itself and the opening of an Islamist pipeline from Libya to Syria and beyond.
Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't
have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support
for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He
threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable
and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the
secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian
and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect
regime change in a third Middle East country.
Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with
NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc
of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has
pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American
mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney.
... ... ...
David Bromwich is a Professor of Literature, Yale University
Mike Rodriguez · Jacksonville, Florida
Hillary no. Sanders yes. The US political establishment of both parties no.
Lybia is the least of these "mistakes" . Bush and Obama and Congress never had a clue what
they were doing in the Middle East. We are paying a price for a weak and spiritless political
system characterized by voter apathy and ignorance.
Hillary? Why is she running? Why are the Republicans all running? Man alive we have got little
or nothing really. But one of these is going to win no matter how small the voter turnout.
Hillary says she made a "mistake" on the Bush era Iraq invasion vote. She did not make
a mistake she engaged in an deliberate act of political expediency and cowardice. Everyone with
a brain knew Bush was cooking up the Iraq invasion based on nothing. She knew but took the political
choice not an intelligent one.
Goethe Gunther · Las Cruces, New Mexico
Thank you for this piece. Hillary Clinton and Richard Perle drink from the same neo-con/neo-liberal
global political well. I CAN NOT vote for this person. Gaddafi was murdered as a matter of personal
vendetta to avoid exposing allege monies he offered Sarkozy's campaign, amongst other issues that
will take too much space to elucidate.
But Obama and Hillary, because of their actions in Libya, made the world a more dangerous place.
And herer is Hillary on the brutal murder of Gadaffi:
https://youtu.be/mlz3-OzcExI
Gero Lubovnik · Belarus Polyteknik University
How does Hillary continually escape the truth and proper vetting? She has been a failure
at just about every position she has held. She was fired from Watergate. A miserable failure leading
healthcare reform (in the 90's- for those of you millienials that missed it). She did nothing
as a Senator, having her eyes on the oval office. Libya and the rest of the middle east,
her "Reset Button" with Russia (how's that workin' out?) who blitzkreiged Crimea and screwed Ukraine
entirely, working toward parity of trade with China (who is building a military base in the South
China Sea). Abject failure. And then one has to wonder how she and Bill amassed a personal fortune,
providing no goods or products, nor services of meaningful value? [Answer: Clinton Foundation
money laundering machine- where magic happens in past, present and future quid pro quo]?
AND YOU WANT TO CORONATE HER AS PRESIDENT [EMPRESS], completel with pen and phone??? And then
you wonder why America is becoming a second or third world nation.
Charles Hill · Clifton High School
This was a HUGE error. Gaddafi used to say "the West would never overthrow him because they
did not want a Somalia on the Mediterranean coast". I guess Hillary and Obama did.
And you can not blame this on Bush. Bush got Gaddafi to give up his WMD and Gaddafi was causing
no trouble. He was only fighting the Islamists inside his country that Hillary and Obama decided
to support. Now ISIS is running things there.
Brian Donahue · New York, New York
The US has a habit of destabilizing these countries (Iraq and Libya). Chaos results. Hillary
will be very dangerous as president. She is too quick to use force with no end strategy at all.
Clarc King · Bronx, New York
A fair representation of the reality of American foreign policy taken over by the satanic,
elitist, neoliberal mob. Libya, once an ally and most progressive state in Africa, was destroyed
and is now governed, if you can call it that, by a CIA asset. No wonder people resist American
Regime Change. Hillary, a warmonger for Imperialism, cannot possibly be considered for the US
presidency. The US citizenry must act quickly and form a new presidential platform.
Linda LaRoque · Odessa College
If you're under 50 you really need to read this. If you're over 50, you lived through it, so
share it with those under 50.
Amazing to me how much I had forgotten! When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary
to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn't
even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about
$13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.
Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her
first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood - both were forced to withdraw their names
from consideration.
Next she chose Janet Reno - husband Bill described her selection as "my worst mistake." Some
may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious
sect in Waco , Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.
Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission.
Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier's radical
views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.
Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations.
She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White
House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.
Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and
Kennedy was forced to resign.
Many younger votes will have no knowledge of "Travelgate." Hillary wanted to award unfettered
travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson - and the White House Travel Office refused
to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations,
cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale
was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds.
A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.
Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend,
Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was
investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and
the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even
knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.
Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years
of service to seven presidents.
Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill
Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense. Some of her more
notable decisions in the debacle were:
She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation
they settled with Ms. Jones.
She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr
as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation
led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. Hillary's
devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath'
to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives. Hillary
avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by
repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times
while under oath.
After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White
House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.
Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary
of State and the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton Foundation - we have no idea what shoe
will fall next.
That's all well and good, and probably all true and then some, but the candidates running against
her, even with all their clearance for viewing information, have NO IDEA what Clinton and her
State Depertment were doing then. Only she and MAYBE Obama does. It has become clear that the
State Department was running rogue, just like the IRS and the AG's office were.
Terry Lee · Telgar
The State Department was running rogue?! Only she and MAYBE Obama knows what was going on?
It seems that you know what was going on, too. LOL!
Elizabeth Fichtl
The country is waking up.
Question put to HRC during the debate.
Dickerson to Clinton: "Let me ask you. So, Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold
in part, because of chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President
Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson
was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that supposed to be one of the lessons that
we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the
Iraq war is to have a plan for after?"
Leslie Ware · Preston High School
Just a few reasons to take Clinton to trial:
1.Under 18 USC 793 subsection F, the information does not have to be classified to count as
a violation. The intelligence source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity
of the ongoing probe, said the subsection requires the "lawful possession" of national defense
information by a security clearance holder who "through gross negligence," such as the use of
an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper,
secure location.
Subsection F also requires the clearance holder "to make prompt report of such loss, theft,
abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer. "A failure to do so "shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
The source said investigators are also focused on possible obstruction of justice. "If someone
knows there is an ongoing investigation and takes action to impede an investigation, for example
destruction of documents or threatening of witnesses, that could be a separate charge but still
remain under a single case," the source said. Currently, the ongoing investigation is led by the
Washington Field Office of the FBI.
2. A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented
Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure"
of classified information. … "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized
retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States
or be used to advantage by a foreign nation," the agreement states.
Moreover, the agreement covers information of lesser sensitivity. ("In addition to her SCI
agreement, Clinton signed a separate NDA for all other classified information. It contains similar
language, including prohibiting 'negligent handling of classified information,' requiring her
to ascertain whether information is classified and laying out criminal penalties.") Well, that
is awkward, as the FBI continues its investigation into potential negligent handling of classified
information.
3. 18 U.S. Code § 1001
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction
of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully-
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves
international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years,
or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section
1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel,
for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a
judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a)
shall apply only to-
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement
of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document
required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer
within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee,
commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
Its time to escalate this investigation and show the Country how unethical and criminal this
pretender to the presidency really is.
Clinton also should be totally disqualified from a Security Clearance, simply because of her
previous behavior and nonchalant lack of safeguarding of classified information. All the while
saying she did not recognize the information was CLASSIFIED. She is either lying or totally
incompetent to perform any job in the United States Government.
Clinton for Trial 2016.
Mike Kelly
OK, we get it. You don't like HRC.
The rest of this is a crock. There's simply no evidence that HRC Actually did any of the dire
things you are claiming in your long and tiresome post. Virtually all of the classified information
was classified by the State Department or CIA AFTER it was received and sent by HRC. As a result,
your allegations do not hold water. Certainly much different from outing a CIA agent for political
purposes, as was done during the previous administration.
David Auner · Springfield, Missouri
This article spotlights the failed Libyan policy which will gain importance as violence
is exported beyond Syria and Mali and millions more refugees are created. The point about
repubs being sharper is just wrong - they have honed absurd talking points with Luntz while wasting
tax dollars on Benghazi. O'Malley's mess comment was adequate - debate prep can not prepare for
every oddly crafted rewrite of history. Rebutting Clinton's narrative would involve hours of pointing
out the failures of State's and Obama's narratives in most of their tenure. Sanders knows more
than what this article has put forward but a vigorous debate would touch on classified information
about the CIA station in Benghazi and their disastrous activities - which candidates must avoid
for now. Debates fail easily - the author of this article fails with adequate time for a deeper
analysis.
Elvin B. Ross · University of Idaho
Sanders or bust. No neolibs, no Dinos for me. This is not a Ralph Nader situation. I simply
will not support any more fake Democrats. Bill neolibbed us. Obama neolibbed us. Hillary did and
will neolib us.
Paul Mountain · Works at Love_Unlimited
US politicians aren't paid to think, they're paid to follow the leader, and when it comes to
Middle Eastern policy that's Israel, the Bible, and the Congressional Military Industrial Complex.
Michael Rinella · Works at State University of New York Press
The Empire lies through its teeth, we all know that. The Colonel had actually been cleaning
up his act to the point he was getting cautious praise from Washington - and then when globalization
destablized his economy (foreign workers in eastern Libya taking jobs from the locals) they fell
over themselves to put a knife in his back.
James Charles O'Donnell III
Why is the institutional American left so frantic to nominate Sec. Clinton, the candidate who
is A) unquestionably THE LEAST PROGRESSIVE choice; and B) by far THE LEAST VIABLE contender in
a general election, with a cornucopia of baggage, not all of which is imaginary?
Hillary Clinton has managed DECADES of poor polling, with consistently high negative favorability
ratings, especially among independents -- and a huge "trustability" problem. That "dodging sniper
fire" fabrication she repeatedly told ON VIDEO will probably be exploited in the general election
to cement the American people's (accurate) perception that Ms. Clinton is dishonest, and that
will sink her electoral chances for good -- and the LEFT, too, unfortunately (so much for those
SCOTUS seats!).
With Bernie Sanders, AN ACTUAL PROGRESSIVE, looking for all the world like a national winner,
inspiring record-breaking crowds and grass-roots donations, the liberal establishment is bizarrely
(corruptly) pushing for the coronation of the ONLY Democrat who could possibly lose in 2016 --
and the one who, on policy, is an open neoconservative war hawk and Wall Street champion, a career
enemy of the 99%... UNBELIEVABLE.
Before the revolution, Libya was a secure, prospering, secular Islamic country
and a critical ally providing intelligence on terrorist activity post–September
11, 2001. Qaddafi was no longer a threat to the United States. Yet Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton strongly advocated and succeeded in convincing the
administration to support the Libyan rebels with a no-fly zone, intended to
prevent a possible humanitarian disaster that turned quickly into all-out war.
... ... ...
Despite valid ceasefire opportunities to prevent "bloodshed in Benghazi"
at the onset of hostilities, Secretary Clinton intervened and quickly pushed
her foreign policy in support of a revolution led by the Muslim Brotherhood
and known terrorists in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. One of the Libyan
Rebel Brigade commanders, Ahmed Abu Khattala, would later be involved in the
terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Articulating her indifference
to the chaos brought by war, Secretary Clinton
stated on May 18, 2013, to the House Oversight Committee and the American
public, "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk
one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this
point, does it make?"
... ... ...
U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Charles R. Kubic served worldwide for over 32 years
as a Navy Seabee, and retired in 2005. He served as a senior policy analyst
in the Reagan White House, and was appointed in March 2016 as a National Security
Policy Advisor to Donald Trump.
"... Kessler points out that Clinton's protestations that the material under investigation was not marked classified is immaterial, writing, "The pertinent laws make no distinction between classified material that is marked as such or not. If material is classified and is handled improperly, that is a violation of criminal laws." ..."
"... The FBI investigation has been galvanized further by recent revelations involving emails sent by Abedin and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, as well as the fact that State Department BlackBerry devices belonging to Abedin and Mills have likely been liquidated or sold. ..."
"... There's not an agent in the service who wants to be in Hillary's detail. If agents get the nod to go to her detail, that's considered a form of punishment among the agents. ..."
"... The most egregious example of Clinton's arrogance was evidenced in one particularly nasty incident when she was First Lady. One former agent related, "The first lady steps out of the limo, and another uniformed officer says to her, 'Good morning, ma'am.' Her response to him was 'F-- off.' I couldn't believe I heard it." ..."
Ronald Kessler, writing for The Daily Mail, testifies that Hillary Clinton and her
long-time aide Huma Abedin were detested by members of the Secret Service because
the two women arrogantly treated the Secret Service agents like dirt.
Kessler, the author of
The Secrets of the FBI and The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal
the Hidden Lives of the Presidents, dismisses claims by members
of the media that the current FBI investigation of Clinton is restricted to
a "security investigation." He attests that the investigation of Clinton means
that she violated criminal laws, as the FBI will not launch an investigation
unless laws have been violated. Kessler points out that Clinton's protestations
that the material under investigation was not marked classified is immaterial,
writing, "The pertinent laws make no distinction between classified material
that is marked as such or not. If material is classified and is handled improperly,
that is a violation of criminal laws."
The FBI investigation has been galvanized further by recent revelations
involving emails sent by
Abedin and Clinton aide
Cheryl Mills, as well as the fact that State Department BlackBerry devices
belonging to Abedin and Mills have likely been
liquidated or sold.
Some of the anecdotes involving the imperiousness and haughtiness of Clinton
and Abedin include:
In 2008, Abedin lost her way driving Chelsea Clinton to the February 2008
Democrat presidential debate in Los Angeles. One agent who tried to help Abedin
recalled, "She was belligerent and angry about being late for the event, no
appreciation for any of it, not a thank-you or anything. That was common for
her people to be rude."
Another Los Angeles imbroglio occurred when Abedin, who was not wearing a
pin certifying her identity, tried to bluster past a female Secret Service agent.
The agent, unaware of Abedin's identity, said, "You don't have the proper identification
to go beyond this point." Another agent told Kessler, "Huma basically tried
to throw her weight around. She tried to just force her way through and said
belligerently, 'Do you know who I am?''"
Kessler noted that Secret Service Agents are not required to carry luggage
for their protectees, but they will if they like them. One agent recollected
that, in Abedin's case, "The agents were just like, 'Hey, you're going to be
like that? Well, you get your own luggage to the car. Oh, and by the way, you
can carry the first lady's luggage to the car, too. She'd have four bags, and
we'd stand there and watch her and say, 'Oh, can we hold the door open for you?'"
The agent added, "When it's convenient for them, they'll utilize the service
for whatever favor they need, but otherwise, they look down upon the agents,
kind of like servants."
An agent who still works for the Secret Service asserted:
There's not an agent in the service who wants to be in Hillary's
detail. If agents get the nod to go to her detail, that's considered a form
of punishment among the agents. She's hard to work around, she's known
to snap at agents and yell at agents and dress them down to their faces,
and they just have to be humble and say, "Yes ma'am," and walk away. Agents
don't deserve that. They're there to do a job, they're there to protect
her, they'll lay their life down for hers, and there's absolutely no respect
for that. And that's why agents do not want to go to her detail.
The most egregious example of Clinton's arrogance was evidenced in one
particularly nasty incident when she was First Lady. One former agent related,
"The first lady steps out of the limo, and another uniformed officer says to
her, 'Good morning, ma'am.' Her response to him was 'F-- off.' I couldn't believe
I heard it."
Hillary was famous for wanting the Secret Service to be invisible; one former
agent said, "We were basically told, the Clintons don't want to see you, they
don't want to hear you, get out of the way. Hillary was walking down a hall,
you were supposed to hide behind drapes used as partitions. Supervisors would
tell us, 'Listen, stand behind this curtain. They're coming,' or 'Just stand
out of the way, don't be seen.'"
Hillary berated a White House electrician changing a light bulb, screaming
that he should have waited until the First Family was gone. Franette McCulloch,
the assistant White House pastry chief at the time, remembered, "He was a basket
case."
FBI agent Coy Copeland told Kessler that Hillary had a "standing rule that
no one spoke to her when she was going from one location to another."
One agent was abused by Hillary during the Kenneth Starr investigation of
the Whitewater scandal; he said, "Good morning, Mrs. Clinton," and she ranted,
"How dare you? You people are just destroying my husband… And where do you buy
your suits? Penney's?"
Weeks later, the agent confessed to Copeland, "I was wearing the best suit
I owned."
"... Michele Flournoy, formerly the third-ranking civilian in the Pentagon under President Barack Obama, called for "limited military coercion" to help remove Assad from power in Syria, including a "no bombing" zone over parts of Syria held by U.S.-backed rebels. ..."
"Information Clearing House" - "Defense One" - The woman expected to run
the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton said she would direct U.S. troops to push
President Bashar al-Assad's forces out of southern Syria and would send more
American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region.
Michele Flournoy, formerly the third-ranking civilian in the Pentagon under
President Barack Obama, called for "limited military coercion" to help remove
Assad from power in Syria, including a "no bombing" zone over parts of Syria
held by U.S.-backed rebels.
A weak president with jingoistic and incompetent Secretary of State is a pretty
explosive mix. A sociopathic female president with neocons inspired jingoistic foreign
policy can be a disaster for the country.
Notable quotes:
"... Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi's forces. In fact, Mr. Obama's defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a "51-49" decision, it was Mrs. Clinton's support that put the ambivalent president over the line. ..."
"... Anne-Marie Slaughter, her director of policy planning at the State Department, notes that in conversation and in her memoir, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly speaks of wanting to be "caught trying." In other words, she would rather be criticized for what she has done than for having done nothing at all. ..."
"... Libya's descent into chaos began with a rushed decision to go to war, made in what one top official called a "shadow of uncertainty" as to Colonel Qaddafi's intentions. ..."
"... She pressed for a secret American program that supplied arms to rebel militias, an effort never before confirmed. ..."
"... Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, has seized on her role in the larger narrative of the Libyan intervention; during a recent debate, he said he feared that "Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change." ..."
"... ...aftermath of the 2011 intervention: the Islamic State only "300 miles from Europe," a refugee crisis that "is a human tragedy as well as a political one" and the destabilization of much of West Africa. ..."
"... "She says, and I quote, 'You are not going to drag us into your shitty war,'" said Mr. Araud, now France's ambassador in Washington. "She said, 'We'll be obliged to follow and support you, and we don't want to.' The conversation got tense. I answered, 'France isn't a U.S. subsidiary.' It was the Obama policy at the time that they didn't want a new Arab war." ..."
"... "We don't want another war," she told Mr. Lavrov, stressing that the mission was limited to protecting civilians. "I take your point about not seeking another war," she recalled him responding. "But that doesn't mean that you won't get one." ..."
The president was wary. The secretary
of state was persuasive. But the ouster
of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya
a failed state and a terrorist haven.
Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders "said all the right things
about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions,
providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off," said Philip H.
Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. "They gave us what we wanted to hear.
And you do want to believe."
Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies
in bombing Colonel Qaddafi's forces. In fact, Mr. Obama's defense secretary,
Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a "51-49" decision, it was Mrs. Clinton's
support that put the ambivalent president over the line.
The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving
Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers
to Mrs. Clinton's questions have come to pass.
This is the story of how a woman whose Senate vote for the Iraq war may have
doomed her first presidential campaign nonetheless doubled down and pushed for
military action in another Muslim country. As she once again seeks the White
House, campaigning in part on her experience as the nation's chief diplomat,
an examination of the intervention she championed shows her at what was arguably
her moment of greatest influence as secretary of state. It is a working portrait
rich with evidence of what kind of president she might be, and especially of
her expansive approach to the signal foreign-policy conundrum of today: whether,
when and how the United States should wield its military power in Syria and
elsewhere in the Middle East.
... ... ...
Anne-Marie Slaughter, her director of policy planning at the State Department,
notes that in conversation and in her memoir, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly speaks
of wanting to be "caught trying." In other words, she would rather be criticized
for what she has done than for having done nothing at all.
... ... ...
Libya's descent into chaos began with a rushed decision to go to war,
made in what one top official called a "shadow of uncertainty" as to Colonel
Qaddafi's intentions. The mission inexorably evolved even as Mrs. Clinton
foresaw some of the hazards of toppling another Middle Eastern strongman.
She pressed for a secret American program that supplied arms to rebel militias,
an effort never before confirmed.
... ... ...
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, has seized on her role in the larger
narrative of the Libyan intervention; during a recent debate, he said he feared
that "Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change."
... ... ...
...aftermath of the 2011 intervention: the Islamic State only "300 miles
from Europe," a refugee crisis that "is a human tragedy as well as a political
one" and the destabilization of much of West Africa.
... ... ...
France and Britain were pushing hard for a Security Council vote on a resolution
supporting a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from slaughtering
his opponents. Ms. Rice was calling to push back, in characteristically salty
language.
"She says, and I quote, 'You are not going to drag us into your
shitty war,'" said Mr. Araud, now France's ambassador in Washington. "She said,
'We'll be obliged to follow and support you, and we don't want to.' The conversation
got tense. I answered, 'France isn't a U.S. subsidiary.' It was the Obama policy
at the time that they didn't want a new Arab war."
... ... ...
"We don't want another war," she told Mr. Lavrov, stressing that the
mission was limited to protecting civilians. "I take your point about not seeking
another war," she recalled him responding. "But that doesn't mean that you won't
get one."
"... "There never was, at any time, data belonging to the Clintons stored in Denver. Ever," said Dovetail Solutions CEO Andy Boian, who added that Clinton's server was always in a New Jersey data center. "We do not store data in any bathrooms." ..."
"... Private e-mail servers are unusual because they carry greater risks of getting hacked, said Scott W. Burt, president and CEO of Integro, a Denver e-mail management company. ..."
"... Platte River, which submitted a bid for the e-mail job, stepped in four months after Clinton left the secretary job on Feb. 1, 2013, and three months after Sidney Blumenthal , a former Clinton White House staffer, reported that his e-mail account had been hacked, exposing messages sent to Clinton. ..."
"... "We were literally hired in June 2013," Boian said, "and because we use industry best practices, we had (Clinton's) server moved to a data center in New Jersey. It remained in that spot until last week," when the FBI picked it up Aug. 12. ..."
"... "The role of Platte River Networks was to upgrade, secure and manage the e-mail server for both the Clintons and their staff beginning June 2013. Platte River Networks is not under investigation. We were never under investigation. And we will fully comply with the FBI," he said. ..."
"... Platte River Networks opened in September 2002, offering information technology services to small businesses. Services included computer maintenance, virus and malware control, and emergency technical support, according to an archive of its old website. ..."
"... Two years later, the company moved into a condo owned by company co-founder Treve Suazo at Ajax Lofts, 2955 Inca St., a few blocks from the South Platte River. ..."
"... A year later, the company began offering cloud-based services, which makes company data available online so employees can access software and services from any device. ..."
"... Platte River continues to win awards and has grown. Last week, it was named, for the fourth consecutive year, to CRN's Next-Gen 250 . The list highlights companies that are " ahead of the curve " in their IT offerings. ..."
And when Platte River became the latest name to emerge in the Clinton e-mail
controversy, the company maintained its silence - until last week, when it hired
a crisis-communications expert to defend against political innuendo, death threats
and allegations that it stored her e-mail in the bathroom of a downtown Denver
loft.
"There never was, at any time, data belonging to the Clintons stored
in Denver. Ever," said Dovetail Solutions CEO Andy Boian, who added that Clinton's
server was always in a New Jersey data center. "We do not store data in any
bathrooms."
Hillary Clinton's decision to have an employee set up a
private e-mail server in her New York home in 2008 has plagued the former
secretary of state's presidential campaign.
The FBI is investigating whether any of her private e-mails contained sensitive
information and should have been classified - and not stored on a computer inside
her house.
Private e-mail servers are unusual because they carry greater risks of getting
hacked, said Scott W. Burt, president and CEO of Integro, a Denver e-mail management
company.
"There are a lot of people you could hire, and they would set up (an e-mail
server) and run it. That's not hard. But there's no real reason to do that,"
Burt said. "The main motivator is you're nervous about what is in your e-mail.
It's a control thing."
Boian said Platte River had nothing to do with Clinton's private home server.
Platte River, which submitted a bid for the e-mail job, stepped in four months
after Clinton left the secretary job on Feb. 1, 2013, and three months after
Sidney Blumenthal, a former Clinton White House staffer, reported that his
e-mail account had been hacked, exposing messages sent to Clinton.
"We were literally hired in June 2013," Boian said, "and because we use
industry best practices, we had (Clinton's) server moved to a data center in
New Jersey. It remained in that spot until last week," when the FBI picked it
up Aug. 12.
Platte River also is not in possession of any Clinton e-mail backups, he
said.
"The role of Platte River Networks was to upgrade, secure and manage
the e-mail server for both the Clintons and their staff beginning June 2013.
Platte River Networks is not under investigation. We were never under investigation.
And we will fully comply with the FBI," he said.
Platte River Networks opened in September 2002, offering information
technology services to small businesses. Services included computer maintenance,
virus and malware control, and emergency technical support, according to an
archive of its old website.
Two years later, the company moved into a condo owned by company co-founder
Treve Suazo at Ajax Lofts, 2955 Inca St., a few blocks from the South Platte
River.
A year later, the company began offering cloud-based services, which
makes company data available online so employees can access software and services
from any device.
Today, Platte touts itself as a full-service IT management firm.
It also lists Suazo, its CEO, and Brent Allshouse, its chief financial officer,
as co-founders. According to
industry publication CRN, Platte River expected to grow to $6 million in
sales in 2014, from $4.7 million a year earlier.
But as early as 2006, Tom Welch was listed as a partner, the same title given
to Suazo and Allshouse.
Before the Clinton scandal blew up, Platte River Networks welcomed attention.
David DeCamillis joined the company in 2008 and, as its director of business
development, became its public face, using news releases to promote industry
awards and appearing on
Fox31 Denver's
"Good Day Colorado" as a tech expert.
In 2012, Platte River was
named Ingram Micro's Rainmaker of the Western Region, an honor that California
technology distributor gives its fastest-growing business partners based on
revenue, peer-to-peer leadership and use of Ingram Micro's cloud services.
That same year, the company won the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce's
Small Business of the Year award. The award is vetted by the chamber and
independent judges, said Abram Sloss, executive director of the chamber's small-business
development center.
"We really look for companies that have a good chance for a strong uptick
and have solid growth," Sloss said. While the chamber can offer advice to members
who suddenly are thrown into the media spotlight - for good or bad - Sloss said
he has not heard from the company.
"Gosh, if I was the company who the Clintons hired, it'd be hard not to say,
'We are a trusted provider that one of the influential families in the United
States hired,' " Sloss said.
Platte River continues to win awards and has grown. Last week, it was
named, for the fourth consecutive year, to
CRN's Next-Gen 250 . The list highlights companies that are "
ahead of the curve" in their IT offerings.
In June, it moved to a 12,000-square-foot building at 5700 Washington St.
A photo on Platte River's
blog shows 30 people posing in the new building.
Platte River did not make DeCamillis, now its vice president of sales and
marketing, available for comment.
But DeCamillis
told The Washington Post that no one at the company had expected this kind
of attention, which he said included death threats that caused the company to
pull employee information from its website.
If they had, he said, "we would never have taken it on."
Platte River Networks timeline
2002: Platte River Networks founded
2004: Moves to 2955 Inca St., Unit 2K
Feb. 1, 2013: Hillary Clinton's last day as secretary of state
June 2013: Hired to manage Clinton-family e-mail server, which
is moved from their Chappaqua, N.Y., home to a secure data center in New
Jersey
June 18, 2015: Hosts
open house for new headquarters at 4700 Washington St.
Aug. 11, 2015: FBI asks for Clinton's e-mail server
Aug. 12, 2015: Delivers Clinton's server to the FBI from New
Jersey
"... Which means she broke the law. Being "cleared to see it" doesn't mean you can see it anywhere you want, any time you want. There are requirements for handling the information. And a server in her basement that did not use encrypted connections for months, and then had the default VPN keys on the VPN appliance once they started using encryption, and an Internet-connected printer on the same network is nowhere near close to meeting those requirements. ..."
"... His journalist girlfriend had a clearance. According to your gross misunderstanding of our classification system, what crime did Petraeus commit? He had a clearance, and his girlfriend had a clearance. If "had a clearance" is good enough to excuse Clinton, then why was it not good enough to excuse Patraeus? ..."
"... Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they were requested from the House as part of an official investigation. She chose to print out everything she claimed was relevant (probably to avoid giving away metadata in headers, etc.) ..."
"... Being that Clinton didn't give a damn about securing the physical server and didn't give a damn about securing the messages sent through the server, it seems strange that she suddenly cares about security practices when deleting e-mail messages about yoga classes. ..."
"... Oh, did I mention that deleting the e-mail messages would be considered an obstruction of justice if it were done by a typical citizen? ..."
All indications are she wasn't very careful while actively using the
server. However, once she started getting requests to produce data from
it, then she suddenly got very careful. Even if she did do nothing wrong,
that is a very stark change in behavior that just happened to coincide with
legal requests to hand over data.
The FBI found the "key piece(s)". Comey then said "No prosecutor would
pursue this case" and dropped it. He was probably right--but only because
of her last name. If I did that, I might get out after 5 years or so. Heck,
one of my counterparts got in trouble for a single line in a controlled
document which had the same info in the public domain. I'm sick of these
"Nothing to see here" claims--just look at any security briefing and it's
spelled out. We just had another one, and according to it I would be required
to report her if she was in my office.
That whole 'we little people would be in prison if we did this' meme
is such bullshit.
You used the wrong tense. It's not "would be". It's "are". There are
"little people" currently in prison for negligent handling of classified.
Right now. Actually in prison.
She didn't do anything, beyond send and receive stuff she was cleared
to see.
Which means she broke the law. Being "cleared to see it" doesn't mean
you can see it anywhere you want, any time you want. There are requirements
for handling the information. And a server in her basement that did not
use encrypted connections for months, and then had the default VPN keys
on the VPN appliance once they started using encryption, and an Internet-connected
printer on the same network is nowhere near close to meeting those requirements.
Petreus is brought up endlessly. Y'know, the guy who gave classified
stuff to his journalist girlfriend
His journalist girlfriend had a clearance. According to your gross misunderstanding
of our classification system, what crime did Petraeus commit? He had a clearance,
and his girlfriend had a clearance. If "had a clearance" is good enough
to excuse Clinton, then why was it not good enough to excuse Patraeus?
but you ought to at least acknowledge that it was a tiny percentage
of the traffic
Please cite where the statute states the percentage of allowable leaks.
and that stuff probably would've been sent on the unclassified DOS
server had she been using that
First, government servers are regularly scanned for classified, so it
would have been caught long before there were thousands of classified in
her email. Second, the unclassified DoS server is far, far, far more secure
than her basement server. For example, they don't have default VPN keys
installed.
What we have here is a witch hunt for something - anything - about
Benghazi that could paint Clinton in a politically unfavorable light.
No, this has absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi. But shouting "Benghazi!!!!"
does a great job getting people like you to turn off their critical thinking
and accept this week's excuse.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @06:31PM (
#52778125 )
Yes it does, read the laws. There is a Navy person who facing 20 years
to life for disposing of a phone which had his picture while inside the
sub. That is one of the more extreme cases, but it's literally a Web Search
to prove you are wrong (shill?) Intent comes in to play _only_ for the penalty.
Comey spent hours in front of Congress explaining, very patiently,
over and over, that the reason he could not recommend prosecution against
Clinton is because all of the suspected crimes required proof of intent,
which the FBI did not have.
Transcript of Gowdy questioning Comey. Lots of context, but note the
bolded section :
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified
information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That
is true?
Comey : There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey : She used multiple devices during the four years of her
term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned
to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey : No. We found work related email, thousands, that were
not returned.
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted
work related emails from her personal account.
Comey : That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work
related emails in - on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or
when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt
that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email
system.
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the
emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content
individually?
Comey : No.
Gowdy : Well, in the interest of time and because I have a
plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more
of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat.
False exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey : Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence
of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy : Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey : That is right?
Gowdy : Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job
you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of
a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the
public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction
that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve. You
would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also - intent.
You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started,
when it ended and the number of emails whether They were originally classified
or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably,
under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries
or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should
have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information.
You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United
States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends
is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson.
He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept
the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress
because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office,
thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were
classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked
and you don't know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the
destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence
of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely
do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code
section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on
this date.' It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial
evidence or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove,
specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there's no precedent
for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing
to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email
scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track
justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That
if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information
you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion
to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today
is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to,
the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently
than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @05:50PM (
#52777831 )
Powell used an aol account. He did NOT put a private server in his house!
Same for Rice. Powell used it for non-state NON-classified business.
Hillary has lied so many times about this server, is is clear to any
hones observer that she was hiding activities of corruption with the Clinton
foundation and did not want FOIA to discover her activities.
Hillary was supposed to have government archivists sort through the mails,
not her personal attorneys. That was a violation of the federal records
act.
She had classified information on the server, despite assertions that
she did not- caught in another lie. She said all work related mails were
turned over. Another lie- the FBI found thousands of work related mails
not turned over, including classified.
Sure, Clinton sucks, but the big knock against her and her email
server was that she wasn't secure enough with it.
My quibble was the blatant arrogance of the act. That private server
was clearly a move to preserve final editing rights of her tenure at the
State Department and evade any future FOIA requests that may crop up during
her next run for the presidency; and was there ever any doubt that she would
run again? The fact that she thought she could get away with it after experiencing
the fallout from the exact same move by members of the Bush administration
while she was a sitting Senator in Washington reinforces the feeling that
her arrogance knows no bounds. She took a page out of the neocon playbook
and figured she would show them how it's done.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @08:13PM (
#52778643 )
1. She put classified info on a private unsecured server where it was
vulnerable, contrary to the law which she was fully advised of upon taking
office.
2. She did all her work through that server, hiding it from all 3 government
branches (congressional oversight, executive oversight, and the courts)
and public FOIA requests.
3. When the material was sought by the courts and congress, she and the
state department people lied under oath claiming the material did not exist
(perhaps Nixon cronies should have all lied about tapes existing).
4. After her people knew the material was being sought, the server's files
were transferred (by private IT people w/o clearances) to her lawyers (no
clearances).
5. She and her lawyers deleted over 30000 e-mails, claiming they were only
about yoga and her daughter's wedding dress (Nixon cut a few minutes of
tape).
6. They then wiped the files with bit bleach (a step not needed for yoga
or wedding dress e-mails). (Nixon did not degauss all his tapes)
7. They handed the wiped server to the FBI, and hillary publicly played
ignorant with her "with a CLOTH?" comment (absolute iin-you-face arrogance
against the rule of law) (Nixon did not hand tape recorders with erased
tapes to the FBI)
Prove you are sincere, and not a total unprincipled partisan hack:
Are you a Nixon supporter?
Would you accept this behavior from Donald Trump or Dick Cheney?
Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @08:24PM (
#52778703 )
Hillary Clinton's IT guy purchased an MS Exchange hosting contract from
Platte River. The standard package came with a periodic backup to a Datto
appliance, which takes snapshots of the Windows disk image several times
a day. The appliance copies the snapshot to Datto's data center in real
time. You can erase or even destroy the Windows machine drives and still
use the snapshots to restore the disks to the snapshot of the time and date
of your chosing.
The FBI confiscated the appliance from Platte River and seized the server
from Datto. They have all the emails she sent and received since the start
of her State Department tenure.
Hillary Clinton co-mingled personal and official government communications
on her private email server. All of those communications are subject to
the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act.
Her personal emails ceased to be personal when she co-mingled them with
official government communications. HRC and her lawyers were not authorized
to decide what is relevant to FRA and FOIA and what is not.
HRC and her lawyers deleted 30,000 or so emails that are not recoverable
- therefore she is in violation of both the FRA and FOIA.
HRC should be, at the very least, in front of a jury to answer for her
actions.
I guess the people that are making accusations over that are either
ignorant, or disingenuous.
Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they were requested
from the House as part of an official investigation. She chose to print
out everything she claimed was relevant (probably to avoid giving away
metadata in headers, etc.) and then effectively "burned" the server, including
(by her lawyer's own admission) tens of thousands of messages.
FBI investigations have now come up with thousands of emails which were
NOT turned over in that paper dump. How many could have been part of those
that were deleted and then lost when the server was wiped? We'll never know.
Many of them were likely deleted in error, with her lawyers not realizing
which ones should have been retained as they were going through tens of
thousands of documents. But were ALL of these official state department
emails recovered by the FBI (now 15,000+) deleted "in error"?
That's what's troubling about all of this. We have no way of knowing
whether there may have been significant spoliation of evidence here (that's
the legal term for intentionally, recklessly, or negligently destroying
evidence). If this were a corporation who had been issued a subpoena and
they acted in this manner, and it was later proven that they "lost" over
ten thousand relevant documents in the process of their destruction of "irrelevant"
documents, they would likely face significant legal sanctions, perhaps even
criminal charges.
Legally, the safe course in this instance would have been to put the
server in a secure location with legal supervision by Clinton's counsel
until the matter could be resolved. Clinton's use of BleachBit is not surprising
here -- not because it's proper protocol to delete secure information, but
because it's the only reasonable way to delete potentially incriminating
evidence of spoliation (even if most of it was accidental or whatever).
If they hadn't used a very secure deletion protocol, then Clinton's attorneys
would have been doing a VERY poor job at protecting her legally.
Personally, I'm not sure it's likely there was any "evil memo" buried
among the State Department correspondence that could prove anything. (And
if there were, I'm not convinced Clinton realized it.) On the other hand,
I'm sure she had a bunch of private email dealings that she wouldn't want
to get out -- if for nothing else then for bad public relations. Hence the
destruction of everything on the server -- it's in line with the privacy
paranoia that likely caused her to set up the server in the first place.
But could there have been worse stuff there too? Maybe. Doesn't seem like
we'll ever know, though, does it?
Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they
were requested from the House as part of an official investigation.
She chose to print out everything she claimed was relevant (probably
to avoid giving away metadata in headers, etc.)
In other words, she willingly destroyed information she was required
to hand over.
The full Headers and all Metadata are part of the Record and part of
the E-mail; If you are requested to hand over the e-mails: you have no right
to exclude or remove headers, even if your standard e-mail software does
not normally display the headers when you are reading the message.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @09:10PM (
#52778941 )
A: "But anyone could hack in and see her emails, it's totally unsecure!"
B: "She used BleachBit."
A: "That proves she had something to hide!"
Being that Clinton didn't give a damn about securing the physical server
and didn't give a damn about securing the messages sent through the server,
it seems strange that she suddenly cares about security practices when deleting
e-mail messages about yoga classes.
Oh, did I mention that deleting the e-mail messages would be considered
an obstruction of justice if it were done by a typical citizen?
Congress committees have a couple really tough prosecutors as chairs and that
created a ground for Hillary impeachment if she is elected. Also "August
break" due to Hillary deteriorating health creates a problem for Hillary campaign
as the candidate now is considered by many voters as too frail to hold a POTUS position.
This negative impression is supported now by so many facts that it can 't be changed
by rabid attacks on Trump. Some Clinton actions in "bathroom server" scandal now
can be attributed to her senility.
Notable quotes:
"... Campaign spokesman Brian Fallon is calling the FBI's move to give the notes to Congress "an extraordinarily rare step that was sought solely by Republicans for the purposes of further second-guessing the career professionals at the FBI." ..."
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign says it wants FBI documents on the
investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server to be shared publicly
and not just with members of Congress.
Campaign spokesman Brian Fallon is calling the FBI's move to give the
notes to Congress "an extraordinarily rare step that was sought solely by Republicans
for the purposes of further second-guessing the career professionals at the
FBI."
Fallon says if the material is going to be shared outside the Justice Department,
it "should be released widely so that the public can see them for themselves."
He says Republicans should not be allowed to "mischaracterize" the information
"through selective, partisan leaks."
A Republican-led House oversight panel is reviewing the documents that have
been classified as secret.
According to Gowdy, "the committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally
after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and
would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming
that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself
had her records when Congress first requested them."
Notable quotes:
"... According to Gowdy, "the committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself had her records when Congress first requested them." ..."
"... Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. The Republicans chant while Rome burns. How about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.... ..."
"... Did Clinton say she's never had a subpoena? Yes. Did a subpoena get issued? Yes. Was the whole interview at that point discussing a point in time months before the subpoena got issued? Yes. ..."
"... Karl Rove has so often said that it is who DOES NOT vote that determines the outcome, and now we have the Tea Party. ..."
"... The Clintons ARE very close personal family friends with the entire Bush clan. When the TV cameras are off and the reporters are gone, they are a very tight group who see the world thru like greedy eyes. Check this out. ..."
"... Having someone who is the brother of one former president and the son of another run against the wife of still another former president would be sweetly illustrative of all sorts of degraded and illusory aspects of American life, from meritocracy to class mobility. ..."
"... Wall Street has long been unable to contain its collective glee over a likely Hillary Clinton presidency. ..."
"... the matriarch of the Bush family (former First Lady Barbara) has described the Clinton patriarch (former President Bill) as a virtual family member, noting that her son, George W., affectionately calls his predecessor "my brother by another mother." ..."
"... If this happens, the 2016 election would vividly underscore how the American political class functions: by dynasty, plutocracy, fundamental alignment of interests masquerading as deep ideological divisions, and political power translating into vast private wealth and back again. ..."
"... Most of our presidents were horn dogs. Their wives know about it in many cases, but they knew that it was part of the package. The only difference was that before Clinton, the press would never think of reporting about sexual dalliances. ..."
"... Clinton is not materially different to many GOP candidates outside the loons. ..."
"... She has stiff competition: Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power, Carly Fiorina, etc. She might win the title, though. ..."
"... So after years of trying to turn Benghazi into a scandal, the email thing is mostly meaningless to Democrats. So congratulations Republicans, you blew your chance. ..."
In a statement on Wednesday, Republican congressman Trey Gowdy accused the
former secretary of state of making an "inaccurate claim" during an interview
on Tuesday. Responding to a question about the controversy surrounding her email
server while at the US state department, Clinton had told CNN: "I've never had
a subpoena."
But Gowdy said: "The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not
sought to make them public. I would not make this one public now, but after
Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have
no choice in order to correct the inaccuracy."
Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told the Guardian that Gowdy's accusation
itself was inaccurate, insisting that the congressman had not issued a subpoena
until March.
"She was asked about her decision to not to retain her personal emails after
providing all those that were work-related, and the suggestion was made that
a subpoena was pending at that time. That was not accurate," Merrill wrote in
an email.
Gowdy also posted a copy of the subpoena on the Benghazi committee's website.
According to Gowdy, "the committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally
after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself,
and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming
that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton
herself had her records when Congress first requested them."
Lester Smithson 9 Jul 2015 16:00
Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. The Republicans chant while
Rome burns. How about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq....
kattw 9 Jul 2015 12:41
Gotta love when people say they have no choice but to do something absurd,
then choose to do something absurd rather than not.
Did Clinton say she's never had a subpoena? Yes. Did a subpoena get
issued? Yes. Was the whole interview at that point discussing a point in
time months before the subpoena got issued? Yes.
Yes, Mr. Legislator: you DID subpoena Clinton. Several months AFTER she
did the thing in question, which the interviewer wanted to know why she
did in light of subpoenas. And really, what was she thinking? After all,
a subpoena had already been issued, ummm, 3 months into the future! Why
was she not psychic? Why did she not alter her actions based on something
that congress would do eventually? How DARE she not know what the fates
had decried!
Mr. Legislator, you were given the opportunity to not spin this as a
political issue, and to be honest about the committee's actions. You chose
to do otherwise. Nobody forced you to do so. You had plenty of choices -
you made one. Don't try to shift that onto a lie Clinton never told. She's
got plenty of lies in her closet, many stupidly obvious - calling one of
her truths a lie just shows how much of an ideological buffoon you really
are.
ExcaliburDefender -> Dan Wipper 8 Jul 2015 23:47
Whatever. Dick Cheney should have been tried in the Hague and incarcerated
for 50 lifetimes. Most voters have decided to vote party lines, the next
16 months is for the 10% undecided and a few that can be swayed.
Karl Rove has so often said that it is who DOES NOT vote that determines
the outcome, and now we have the Tea Party.
Plenty of time for outrage, faux or real. We haven't had a single debate
yet. Still get to hear from Chafee on the metric system and whether evolution
is real or not from the GOP.
Jill Stein for President <-------|) Paid for by David Koch and Friends
Herr_Settembrini 8 Jul 2015 23:25
Quite frankly, I've long since passed the point of caring about Benghazi,
and the reason why is extremely simple: this has been a nakedly partisan
investigation, stretching on for years now, that has tried to manufacture
a scandal and fake outrage in order to deny Obama re-election in 2012, and
now (since that didn't work) to deny Clinton the election in 2016.
The GOP doesn't have one shred of credibility left about this issue--
to the point that if they were able to produce photographs of Obama and
Clinton personally storming the embassy, America would collectively shrug
(except of course for the AM talk radio crowd, who are perpetually angry
anyway, so nobody would notice).
TET68HUE -> StevePrimus 8 Jul 2015 23:08
The Clintons ARE very close personal family friends with the entire
Bush clan. When the TV cameras are off and the reporters are gone, they
are a very tight group who see the world thru like greedy eyes. Check this
out.
JEB BUSH V. HILLARY CLINTON: THE PERFECTLY ILLUSTRATIVE ELECTION
BY GLENN GREENWALD
@ggreenwald
12/17/2014
Jeb Bush yesterday strongly suggested he was running for President in
2016. If he wins the GOP nomination, it is highly likely that his opponent
for the presidency would be Hillary Clinton. Having someone who is the
brother of one former president and the son of another run against the wife
of still another former president would be sweetly illustrative of all sorts
of degraded and illusory aspects of American life, from meritocracy to class
mobility. That one of those two families exploited its vast wealth
to obtain political power, while the other exploited its political power
to obtain vast wealth, makes it more illustrative still: of the virtually
complete merger between political and economic power, of the fundamentally
oligarchical framework that drives American political life.
Then there are their similar constituencies: what Politico termed "money
men" instantly celebrated Jeb Bush's likely candidacy, while the same publication
noted just last month how Wall Street has long been unable to contain
its collective glee over a likely Hillary Clinton presidency. The two
ruling families have, unsurprisingly, developed a movingly warm relationship
befitting their position: the matriarch of the Bush family (former First
Lady Barbara) has described the Clinton patriarch (former President Bill)
as a virtual family member, noting that her son, George W., affectionately
calls his predecessor "my brother by another mother."
If this happens, the 2016 election would vividly underscore how the
American political class functions: by dynasty, plutocracy, fundamental
alignment of interests masquerading as deep ideological divisions, and political
power translating into vast private wealth and back again. The educative
value would be undeniable: somewhat like how the torture report did, it
would rub everyone's noses in exactly those truths they are most eager to
avoid acknowledge. Email the author:
[email protected]
StevePrimus 8 Jul 2015 22:33
Clinton's nomination as a democratic candidate for president is a fait
accompli, as is Bush's nomination on the GOP card. The amusing side show
with Rubio, Trump, Sanders, Paul, Walker, Perry, Cruz, et al can be entertaining,
but note that Clinton and Bush seem much closer aligned with each other
than either sueems to be to Sanders on the left and Graham on the right.
MtnClimber -> CitizenCarrier 8 Jul 2015 20:41
Read some history books and learn.
Most of our presidents were horn dogs. Their wives know about it
in many cases, but they knew that it was part of the package. The only difference
was that before Clinton, the press would never think of reporting about
sexual dalliances.
Among those that cheated are:
Washington
Jefferson
Lincoln
Harding
FDR
Eisenhower
JFK
LBJ
Clinton
Not bad company, but they all cheated. It seems like greater sexual drive
is part of the package for people that choose to be president.
RossBest 8 Jul 2015 20:24
There is an obvious possible explanation here. She was talking about
things in the past and ineptly shifted in effect into the "historical present"
or "dramatic present" and didn't realize she was creating an ambiguity.
That is, she was talking about the times when she set up the email system
and used it and later deleted personal emails and she intended to deny having
received any relevant subpoenas AT THOSE TIMES.
I'm not a Clinton supporter but this seems plausible. But inept.
zchabj6 8 Jul 2015 20:10
The state of US politics...
Clinton is not materially different to many GOP candidates outside
the loons.
CitizenCarrier -> Carambaman 8 Jul 2015 17:54
My personal favorite was when as 1st Lady during a trip to New Zealand
she told reporters she'd been named in honor of Sir Edmund Hillary.
She was born before he climbed Everest. He was at that time an obscure
chicken farmer.
BorninUkraine -> duncandunnit 8 Jul 2015 17:44
You mean, she lies, like Bill? But as snakes go, she is a lot more dangerous
than him.
BorninUkraine -> Barry_Seal 8 Jul 2015 17:40
She has stiff competition: Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power, Carly
Fiorina, etc. She might win the title, though.
Dennis Myers 8 Jul 2015 16:30
This sort of thing is exactly why anything they throw at her won't stick.
Like the boy who cried wolf, when the wolf actually came, no one was listening
anymore. So after years of trying to turn Benghazi into a scandal, the
email thing is mostly meaningless to Democrats. So congratulations Republicans,
you blew your chance.
"... Guciffer found top secret E-mail on Blumenthal's (I think that is the guy) account according to the agents who studied Guciffer's computer. ..."
"... The legality of her choice has yet to be determined and will likely hinge on the degree to which classified government documents were exposed or disseminated. It was - and still is - against the rules published by the State Department. ..."
"... It is also an amazingly arrogant act by a politician who often attacked previous administrations for their use of "private emails" and overall lack of transparency. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has been insecure for years and for many reasons. ..."
"... A person is insecure, a network is unsecured. No? ..."
"... I saw a video where Alabama State troopers are talking about how Hillary and Bill used to swap women. She also apparently has a big affinity for cocaine..though I guess in all fairness that's most of Hollywood and liberal Washington. ..."
Guciffer found top secret E-mail on Blumenthal's (I think that is
the guy) account according to the agents who studied Guciffer's computer.
You can always tell when a politician lies; their lips are moving.
DLivesInTexas
"The arrangement, while it appears unusual, was and is acceptable
and legal, according to the State Department."
The legality of her choice has yet to be determined and will likely
hinge on the degree to which classified government documents were exposed
or disseminated. It was - and still is - against the rules published by
the State Department.
It is also an amazingly arrogant act by a politician who often attacked
previous administrations for their use of "private emails" and overall lack
of transparency.
Genny G
Hillary Clinton has been insecure for years and for many reasons.
StrongHarm
A person is insecure, a network is unsecured. No? Author should
correct title.
I saw a video where Alabama State troopers are talking about how
Hillary and Bill used to swap women. She also apparently has a big affinity
for cocaine..though I guess in all fairness that's most of Hollywood and
liberal Washington. As a conservative myself, what I detest about the
woman most is not how she affects republicans, but how she affects her own
supporters. She claims to be 'looking out for the little guy' and minorities
so she can get votes, but when the cameras aren't rolling, she's doing business
with corrupt corporations and trying to live like a queen. A lot of politicians
are dishonest, but she really takes the cake.
This is an important summary of symptom that are known from open sources...
Notable quotes:
"... Road to Recovery from Parkinson's Disease ..."
"... This situation with Hillary is like the sickly, mentally deficient child of a recently deceased monarch being installed as a puppet ruler who is completely under the control of shadowy advisers. ..."
"... Not just other countries, Doomberg. Mrs. Wilson did a great job of hiding her husband's stroke which left him in a coma as she ran the country. It has happened here before, as well. ..."
"... e psychopaths are selected never elected ..."
Hillary's health is declining, as anyone who has looked at her can see. The
question is: What condition does she have? A board certified Anesthesiologist
has written a memo of Hillary's health. Feel free to pass it along to doctors
and to analytics and criticize it.
Hillary Clinton (HRC) has suffered a variety of health issues. Unfortunately,
she has declined to make her medical records public. In July of 2015 her personal
physician released a letter asserting her "excellent physical condition." Unfortunately,
multiple later episodes recorded on video strongly suggest that the content
of the letter is incorrect. This discussion is designed to sort through the
known facts and propose a possible medical explanation for these events. In
keeping with Occam's Razor, a single explanation that covers everything is preferred.
In 2009, HRC fell and broke her elbow . Little else
was made public.
[i]
On December 17, 2012, while Secretary of State, HRC fell and suffered
a concussion.
[ii] Later, a transverse sinus thrombosis was diagnosed, resulting in
chronic anticoagulation therapy.
[iii] Her post-concussion syndrome was declared "recovered" in about
six months.
[iv] The original fall was publicly attributed to dehydration following
gastroenteritis.
An email from Huma Abedin (HRC's closest advisor) on January
26, 2013, says that HRC "is often confused."
[v]
Photos show being assisted up what appears to be the steps of a residential
porch. This apparently happened in February of 2016. On August 4, 2016,
Reuters and Getty published the photos.
[vi]
At a rally on May 2, 2016, HRC demonstrates classic PD hand
posturing .
[vii] She has
no lectern in front, so she starts with her right hand pressed against her
chest. At the 18:02 mark, she starts gesturing with her right hand, which
is in a very unnatural position that is common in PD.
On July 21, 2016 HRC was filmed talking to reporters at close range
when several spoke at once. Without warning, she started a bizarre
head-bobbing episode that must be seen rather than described. After
several cycles, she regained control and declared that the reporters "must
try the iced chai."
[viii]
On July 28, 2016, during the balloon drop, HRC suddenly looks
up with a frozen wide-mouth and wide-eyed stare . After a couple
of seconds she regains control and a more normal expression.
[ix]
On August 5, HRC declared that she had "short circuited"
[x] a response to Chris Wallace in an interview that aired July 31 on
Fox News Sunday.
[xi]
August 6, 2016, at a campaign rally, HRC freezes with wide eyes
in response to protestors . A large black male who commonly accompanies
her leans in and tells her "It's OK. We're not going anywhere. Keep talking…"
Shortly after, she laughs strangely and then says "OK. Here we are. We'll
keep talking."
[xii]
Several recent photos show HRC with an inappropriately exaggerated
wide-mouthed smile and extreme wide-open eyes . Several videos
show her laughing inappropriately and for extended periods. Numerous events
have been interrupted by prolonged episodes of coughing unrelated to any
infectious cause.
This discussion will not argue that the black male is carrying
a diazepam injector, since there is a plausible argument that it is actually
a small flashlight, and is seen in other video to be such. We will also
not discuss the circular area on her tongue. It appears to be the site of
a mass excision. Benign explanations that do not bear on chronic health
issues may easily be proffered.
Discussion:
The HRC campaign meme is that "there's nothing to see here."
But numerous trained observers have noted multiple other, more subtle bits that
strongly support the argument below.
After the 2012 fall, HRC had post-concussion syndrome (PCS). She should have
declared herself unable to fulfill her duties as Secretary of State. Her resignation
from the position shortly thereafter may have satisfied this need without public
medical discussion. If no other questionable medical signs had appeared, this
discussion would end here. But the other events and signs point to a single
cause for the fall, and it is not the public explanation. Further, HRC's statement
early in her tenure as Secretary of State that she would serve only four years
can be read in the context of a progressive disease that was known as she assumed
the post.
It is the premise of this discussion the HRC is most likely suffering from
Parkinson's Disease (PD).
It explains every one of the items listed above. Further, since it is a diagnosis
primarily made by observation, the video record is sufficient to create a high
degree of certainty.
The 2009 fall where HRC broke her elbow suggests that she had working protective
reflexes, and her arm took the brunt of the fall. But three years later, she
had a catastrophic fall where her reflexes were unable to help her. It is notable
that this fall took place at home, where she would have been unstressed and
in a familiar setting. Failing reflexes are common in PD. Poor balance is also
common in PD, and a fall without working protective reflexes is a prescription
for head injury. Her subsequent concerns with transverse sinus thrombosis are
plausibly related to the fall. Her need for fresnel lens glasses also fits with
post-concussion syndrome.
Huma Abedin's email comment can be referring to PCS as well, since it was
during the six-month period of rehab. One must, however, be cautious not to
overlook persistent cognitive problems that PCS can have. (Editorial note: The
reader will note that this discussion is giving the benefit of the doubt to
as many HRC memes as can reasonably earn it.)
2016 starts a spate of new data. The photos of HRC being helped up the steps
is consistent with a fall similar to 2012, but with a security detail close
enough to catch her before she fell to the ground. This matches the loss of
reflexes and balance with PD.
On July 21 a video of HRC is posted that has many observers calling a "seizure."
We should note the setting. She is answering questions, and then multiple
reporters call out at the same time. Such a shock is often too much stress for
a PD patient, and the patient suffers an "on/off" episode. Higher control turns
off and an unpredictable dyskinesia takes over. Shortly she switches back "on"
and regains control. Her mind froze during the "off" state, but was aware, so
she is able to speak again, but inappropriately.
It should be noted that such dyskinesias are sufficiently common with long
term treatment that they have a name: Parkinson's Disease LevoDopa Induced Dyskinesia
(PD LID).
A week later, during the balloon drop at the Convention, HRC suddenly "freezes."
This is an "off" moment manifested by bradykinesia, another PD problem. The
particular form is a brief oculogyric crisis, complete with head arched back,
fixed gaze, and wide open mouth. Again, this is common in PD. We should compare
it to HRC's facial expressions on "Live with Kelly and Michael" on November
19, 2015. [xiii]
At 6:30 in that video, we also see a PD tremor and posture in her left hand
when it comes to rest momentarily. In most videos her hands are in constant
motion or clasped against some object. These are strategies to suppress a tremor.
HRC's description of her false answers to Chris Wallace as a "short circuit"
is extremely unusual.
It comes from the field of electronics, in which HRC has never been involved.
The Urban Dictionary definition is electrical, and there is no popular or slang
usage. But one semi-technical description of PD calls it "short-circuiting"
brain circuits.
[xiv] Did she hear this during a doctor's explanation of her disease? It
would not be unusual to parrot such a phrase if she has PD.
Days later, HRC "freezes" again at a campaign rally. This "off" state is
like the others, triggered by a startle/stress reaction. But what is more telling
is that the security detail gives her specific instructions in an attempt to
get her to turn "on" again. She then parrots those exact words as she restarts.
This is another PD sign.
The numerous episodes of prolonged coughing are another tell. Swallowing
disorders are very common in PD. They can lead to aspiration pneumonia, the
most common cause of death in PD. But before that they lead to chronic difficulty
swallowing saliva. It gets onto the vocal cords, leading to coughing in an attempt
to clear them. The high frequency of these episodes strongly suggests a major
swallowing disorder.
Multiple episodes of inappropriate and extended laughter have also been documented.
This, again, is common in PD.
We do not have video evidence of the "pill rolling" tremor that is common
in PD. But that is not a major concern for our thesis. Treatment with levodopa
can reduce it. Also, PD sufferers develop a variety of techniques to hide it.
Since it is a tremor at rest, keeping the hands in motion suppresses it. Grasping
objects such as a lectern can also hide it. As long as the hands are busy, it
is usually not visible.
Summary:
HRC probably has PD.
She has had clinical symptoms for a minimum of 4 years, and probably much
longer, given that the fall leading to her head injury required a significant
progression of the disease. All of her bizarre physical actions since that time
fit nicely into the spectrum of signs that we expect in PD. And since PD explains
all of them, we have a high probability of a correct diagnosis. It has almost
certainly been treated with levodopa. Some of her symptoms may be related to
this drug treatment.
It is most curious that all of the bizarre physical signs seem to be in 2016
videos. HRC was a public figure in 2015, with a lot of campaign work underway.
Yet all of the oddities seem to be within the last several months. This suggests
a significant progression of her PD. We also know that her contact with the
public has been rigidly controlled. She has not done news conferences during
the campaign. These would be highly stressful to a PD sufferer and would elicit
many PD signs.
PD is a chronic disease with a downhill prognosis. HRC's instability and
frequent cough suggest that her PD is advanced. This is not a good outlook for
someone running for the Presidency. The office of the President is one of the
highest stress jobs in the world. Stress sets off PD episodes, which render
the sufferer incapable of proper response.
At this point, a bit of speculation seems appropriate. HRC talks about her
yoga sessions. But no one we know of has ever documented one. It is possible
that this is cover for sessions designed to teach her coping mechanisms for
PD or for rest breaks. Exhaustion makes PD worse.
HRC's coughing suggests that her swallowing disorder is advanced, placing
her closer to an aspiration pneumonia that would disable or kill her. That's
bad enough, but PD has one more, even more dangerous step in its progression.
As PD continues, cognitive problems can develop. In time, they become full-blown
dementia. The United States cannot survive if its President is mentally impaired.
Conclusion:
It is not appropriate for a physician to make a diagnosis at a distance.
But since the evidence in the public record so strongly suggests that HRC has
moderate to advanced PD, it is imperative that HRC release her complete
medical record to an impartial panel of physicians for review. It is not
necessary for the public at large to see them. Such a panel should be secure
in its deliberations and should present a summary to the public. If she has
PD, the panel would know and it would be made public. If not, then the air would
clear.
Note on authorship:
The author of this document is a board-certified Anesthesiologist with 36
years of experience. That brings with it the ability to understand medical discussions,
but not the expertise to evaluate PD signs and symptoms.
The first subject matter expert is a close friend of the author. This person
is a brilliant businessman who was forced to sell his interest in eight successful
businesses because early onset PD made him unable to continue in the daily duties
of business. He is well versed in PD and sees its ravages in himself.
The second subject matter expert is the author's brother. He is an RN who
spent two years working 12-hour shifts caring for PD patients in a nursing home.
This saturation experience allows him to pick up PD signs automatically. He
notes that he called HRC's PD and levodopa therapy when he watched the famous
"What difference does it make?" exchange. Her mannerisms and behavior were classic
and stereotypical.
Of interest is that during a teleconference, the author called the others
to look at HRC's left hand during the "Live With Kelly and Michael" video. The
clip was played, and neither of the others even saw her hand. They
were both riveted to her eyes, and both exclaimed that her eyes were "classic
PD." The clip had to be played a second and third time before they could even
take their gaze away from her eyes. They did finally see her hand and agree
that it was also demonstrating PD.
Very thorough observations. If this turns out to be true it's beyond
me that the Democrats would continue to back her as a candidate for president.
Poor judgment in my opinion.
If this turns out to be true it's beyond me that the Democrats would
continue to back her as a candidate for president. Poor judgment in
my opinion.
This situation with Hillary is like the sickly, mentally deficient
child of a recently deceased monarch being installed as a puppet ruler who
is completely under the control of shadowy advisers.
This is the kind of thing that used to happen in places like Imperial
China or Egypt during the time of the pharaohs... this should not be happening
in the United States of America!
Not just other countries, Doomberg. Mrs. Wilson did a great job of
hiding her husband's stroke which left him in a coma as she ran the country.
It has happened here before, as well.
Mrs. Wilson didn't live in today's technical world. Mrs. Wilson didn't
have deployed forces at play carrying massive weapons of war. Neither did
she have nuclear armaments at her disposal. Mrs. Wilson wasn't involved
in a war with an enemy army that America had imported onto it's own soil.
Mrs. Wilson didn't use the most childish judgement ever by conducting
government business on her own basement servers leaving the entire country
open to malicious mismanagement. Mrs. Wilson didn't abandon American citizens
in Benghazi and leave them to be mutilated and murdered because she wanted
to take a nap.
Even without dementia, she's proven that she is an inept government worker
and is not qualified for the position and will place America in jeopardy.
The fact that the democratic party hires people to make comments like
yours on the internet is further proof that corruption is part and parcel
of weak and greedy people who put the well being of their own country low
on their list of priorities. Unless the democrats are forwarding your payment
for that comment to Saudi Arabia, you'd be a traitor.
Don't forget Ronald and Nancy. Yes, dementia happens to Republicans too,
and Donald Trump clearly has cognitive issues that prevent him from staying
on script or exhibiting the smallest shred of empathy for others.
Dimentia came much later, after he had served his two terms. Nice try
though. But, I suppose that since he wore hearing aids, this only helped
him really, he could turn the volume down when idiots began talking too
much.
The psychopaths are selected never elected, 'tis a game of charades,
whilst Obummer and Michael await in The Dark House wings, martial law shall
be what the 'happy couple' sings.
FDR had already been diagnosed with terminal congestive heart failure
and was periodically mentally incompetent before he ran for re-election
in November of 1944. He probably should have resigned prior to finishing
his third term, and DEFINITELY should not have run for a fourth, but the
truth about his health had been kept from the American people.
the majority of the democrats backing her are doing it not because they
like her but because they stupidly fear Trump more than her.
i expect they will put their head in the sand about this news and hope
it doesn't get any traction. yes that's right, they'd rather have a sickly
ill president, then one that is tee total, clean and healthy as an ox
While Bill was President, the Clintons were found to have, illegally,
of course, a number of FBI files on the "enemies". Sorry, I can't recall
the whole story.
The RINO and Democrat establishments both fear that Donald Trump will
free U.S. policy from the control of globalist interests, cutting off the
gravy train for the vast majority of professional politicians who have been
in the pay of the globalist cabal for the past 30 years.
Lynch: How is your granddaughter Chelsea? Bubba: She's fine. How are your grandkids? Lynch: They're doing great too. Bubba: Too bad if anything were to happen to them
I understand she said something about being a steady hand at the time
of reckoning. Funny always thought of the anti Christ would be a man.
Does this make me sexist?
"... Applebaum's column title refers to "disastrous nonintervention," but the U.S. has been meddling in Syria's conflict to some degree for many years. Indeed, Syria is in such a miserable state because multiple outside states have been interfering and taking sides in the war. There may be no better example of how outside intervention prolongs and intensifies a civil war than Syria, and yet Syria hawks always conclude that the real problem is that Western governments haven't done more to add to the misery. The "consequences of nonintervention" are not, in fact, the consequences of the U.S. decision not to bomb in 2013, but rather they are the consequences of the actions that many actors (including the U.S.) have taken in Syria in their destructive efforts to "shape" the conflict. ..."
"... The backlash against proposed military action in Syria in 2013 was a remarkable moment in the U.S. and Britain. It was the first time that the U.S. and U.K. governments had their plan to attack another country effectively overruled by the people's elected representatives. As it turns out, it was a fleeting moment, and it doesn't seem likely to be repeated anytime soon. Popular resistance to the next war was virtually non-existent, and both the U.S. and British governments have returned to their old ways of starting and backing unnecessary wars. Obama has unfortunately learned the lesson that he should avoid consulting those representatives on these matters in the future, and so he has gone back to starting and waging wars without authorization. The foreign policy elite in the U.S. have similarly learned all the wrong things from this episode. Instead of recognizing how unpopular their preferred policies were/are and respecting what the public wanted, most have concluded that public opinion should simply be ignored from now on. ..."
"... The U.S. could have been more deeply involved in the conflict than it is for many years, but all that would have meant was that the U.S. was doing more to inflict death and destruction on a suffering country. When interventionists "mourn" a decision not to bomb, they are regretting the decision not to kill people in another country that posed no threat to the U.S. or any of our allies. That's a horrible position, and it's no wonder that most Americans still recoil from it. ..."
Anne Applebaum
bemoans the decision not to bomb Syria three years ago:
I repeat: Maybe a U.S.-British-French intervention would have ended in
disaster. If so, we would today be mourning the consequences. But sometimes
it's important to mourn the consequences of nonintervention too. Three years
on, we do know, after all, exactly what nonintervention has produced.
One of the more frustrating things about the debate over Syria policy is
the widely-circulated idea that refraining from military action makes a government
responsible for any or all of the things that happen in a foreign conflict later
on. Somehow our government is responsible for the effects of a war when it
isn't directly contributing to the conflict by dropping bombs, but
doesn't receive any blame when it is helping to stoke the same conflict by other
means. Many pundits lament the failure to bomb Syria, but far fewer object to
the harm done by sending weapons to rebels that have contributed to the overall
mayhem in Syria.
Applebaum's column title refers to "disastrous nonintervention," but
the U.S. has been meddling in Syria's conflict to some degree for many years.
Indeed, Syria is in such a miserable state because multiple outside states have
been interfering and taking sides in the war. There may be no better example
of how outside intervention prolongs and intensifies a civil war than Syria,
and yet Syria hawks always conclude that the real problem is that Western governments
haven't done more to add to the misery. The "consequences of nonintervention"
are not, in fact, the consequences of the U.S. decision not to bomb in 2013,
but rather they are the consequences of the actions that many actors (including
the U.S.) have taken in Syria in their destructive efforts to "shape" the conflict.
Let's remember what the Obama administration proposed doing in August 2013.
Obama was going to order attacks on the Syrian government to punish it for the
use of chemical weapons, but his officials insisted this would be an "unbelievably
small" action in order to placate skeptics worried about an open-ended war.
If the attack had been as "unbelievably small" as promised, it would have weakened
the Syrian government's forces but likely wouldn't have changed anything about
the overall conflict. Even judged solely by how much of the Syrian government's
chemical weapons arsenal it eliminated, it would have been less successful than
the disarmament agreement that was reached.
If the intervention had expanded and turned into a much more ambitious campaign,
as opponents of the proposed bombing feared it could, it would have almost certainly
redounded to the benefit of jihadist groups because it was attacking their enemies.
It seems fair to assume that a "successful" bombing campaign in 2013 would have
exposed more of Syria to the depredations of ISIS and other jihadists. It would
not have hurt ISIS or other jihadists in the least since they were not going
to be targeted by it, so it is particularly absurd to try to blame ISIS's later
actions on the decision not to attack. If the bombing campaign was perceived
to be "not working" quickly enough, that would have prompted demands for an
even larger U.S. military role in Syria in the months and years that followed.
Bombing Syria in 2013 would not have ended the war earlier, but would have made
the U.S. a more involved party to it than it is today. I fail to see how that
would have been a better outcome for the U.S. or the people of Syria. It is
doubtful that fewer Syrians overall would have been killed and displaced in
the wake of such a bombing campaign. It is tendentious in the extreme to assert
that the decision not to bomb is responsible for the war's later victims and
effects.
The backlash against proposed military action in Syria in 2013 was a remarkable
moment in the U.S. and Britain. It was the first time that the U.S. and U.K.
governments had their plan to attack another country effectively overruled by
the people's elected representatives. As it turns out, it was a fleeting moment,
and it doesn't seem likely to be repeated anytime soon. Popular resistance to
the next war was virtually non-existent, and both the U.S. and British governments
have returned to their old ways of starting and backing unnecessary wars. Obama
has unfortunately learned the lesson that he should avoid consulting those representatives
on these matters in the future, and so he has gone back to starting and waging
wars without authorization. The foreign policy elite in the U.S. have similarly
learned all the wrong things from this episode. Instead of recognizing how unpopular
their preferred policies were/are and respecting what the public wanted, most
have concluded that public opinion should simply be ignored from now on.
Perhaps the biggest flaw in the Applebaum's interventionist lament is the
complete failure to acknowledge that other states and groups have their own
agency and would have continued to do harm in Syria regardless of what the U.S.
did or didn't do. Bombing Syria in 2013 wouldn't have made the conflict any
easier to resolve, nor would it have altered the interests of the warring parties.
It would have been an exercise in blowing things up and killing people to show
that we were taking "action." It would have been the most senseless sort of
intervening for the sake of being seen to intervene.
The U.S. could have been
more deeply involved in the conflict than it is for many years, but all that
would have meant was that the U.S. was doing more to inflict death and destruction
on a suffering country. When interventionists "mourn" a decision not to bomb,
they are regretting the decision not to kill people in another country that
posed no threat to the U.S. or any of our allies. That's a horrible position,
and it's no wonder that most Americans still recoil from it.
"... A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never has a war she did not like. They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized coverage from MSM. ..."
"... Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal. ..."
"... Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals. They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower. ..."
"... But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmongers and all bets might be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem) ..."
Obama and Hill Clinton are Saudi tools same as W. Keeping AUMF going the
past 8 years lets W off a lot of the Iraq/WMD and Afghanistan hooks!
Bill's adventures included firing a general for commenting on the craziness
of losing people over Serbia.
Bill's evolutionary adventures in the Balkans are anti Russian neocon
trials. Their exceptionalism pushed Russia around and moved NATO eastward
reneging on deals Bush Sr. had with the Russians.
Hillary, extending Bill's neocon meme* over Ukraine and Libya are nearing
W level insanity.
Nuland (married to the neocon Kagan family) came with Strobe Talbot in
1993.
We really facing a vote for a person who would probably be convicted
by Nuremberg tribunal.
All those factors that are often discussed like Supreme court nominations,
estate tax, etc, are of secondary importance to the cardinal question --
"war vs peace" question.
A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another
neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never has a war she did not like.
They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized
coverage from MSM.
Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters
like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a
vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal.
"Trump this and Trump that" blabbing can't hide this important consideration.
Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals.
They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower.
Moreover, after Bush II there is a consensus that are very few people
in the USA who are unqualified to the run the country. From this point of
view Trump is extremely qualified (and actually managed to master English
language unlike Bush II with his famous Bushisms ).
But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question
in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmongers and all bets might
be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem)
"... But potentially opening an important view on the US diplomatic correspondence for four years to any state with the desire to read it is something really special. A unique achievement of Secretary Clinton. ..."
"... for any specialist with even superficial knowledge of computer security the level of incompetence and arrogance demonstrated is simply unreal. Especially after the latest FBI documents. ..."
And here's a pro tip: the best ways to judge a candidate's character are
to look at what he or she has actually done, and what policies he or she
is proposing.
... ... ...
In other words, focus on the facts. America and the world can't afford another
election tipped by innuendo.
After Bush II administration it is generally unclear what should be the
level of crime committed to be arrested.
But potentially opening an important view on the US diplomatic correspondence
for four years to any state with the desire to read it is something really
special. A unique achievement of Secretary Clinton.
Now I am not so sure that the level of incompetence of Hillary and her
aides in this sordid saga is less it was for the key figures of Bush II
administration (who also used a private email server for a while with impunity,
although not for State Department activities).
But for any specialist with even superficial knowledge of computer
security the level of incompetence and arrogance demonstrated is simply
unreal. Especially after the latest FBI documents.
Can you imagine that they have no technical knowledge of how to create
the archive of emails in Windows Server directly and used Apple laptop and
then Gmail account and then intermediaries to achieve the necessary result.
This is something so stupid and reckless that there is no words for it.
Also wiping out this "bathroom" mail server with BleachKit is a very
suspicious activity for any person under investigation.
All indications are she wasn't very careful while actively using the
server. However, once she started getting requests to produce data from
it, then she suddenly got very careful. Even if she did do nothing wrong,
that is a very stark change in behavior that just happened to coincide with
legal requests to hand over data.
...The FBI found the "key piece(s)". Comey then said "No prosecutor would
pursue this case" and dropped it. He was probably right--but only because
of her last name. If I did that, I might get out after 5 years or so. Heck,
one of my counterparts got in trouble for a single line in a controlled
document which had the same info in the public domain. I'm sick of these
"Nothing to see here" claims--just look at any security briefing and it's
spelled out. We just had another one, and according to it I would be required
to report her if she was in my office.
...Yes it does, read the laws. There is a Navy person who facing 20 years
to life for disposing of a phone which had his picture while inside the
sub. That is one of the more extreme cases, but it's literally a Web Search
to prove you are wrong (shill?) Intent comes in to play _only_ for the penalty.
...I like how the argument has devolved here to "If Bush did it, then
it's ok". PopeRatzo, is Dubya really your moral compass? Your guiding light?
...Except ALL 22 MILLION Bush administrative emails were recovered from
tape backups. Clinton wiped the data AFTER the FOIA request. I don't know
of a single person that has decided one day to delete ALL their personal
emails, except Clinton.
https://www.wired.com/2009/12/...
[wired.com] another source
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
[npr.org] , another
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
[npr.org] . Yep you're idiot.
...My quibble was the blatant arrogance of the act. That private server
was clearly a move to preserve final editing rights of her tenure at the
State Department and evade any future FOIA requests that may crop up during
her next run for the presidency; and was there ever any doubt that she would
run again? The fact that she thought she could get away with it after experiencing
the fallout from the exact same move by members of the Bush administration
while she was a sitting Senator in Washington reinforces the feeling that
her arrogance knows no bounds. She took a page out of the neocon playbook
and figured she would show them how it's done.
...1. She put classified info on a private unsecured server where it
was vulnerable, contrary to the law which she was fully advised of upon
taking office.
2. She did all her work through that server, hiding it from all 3 government
branches (congressional oversight, executive oversight, and the courts)
and public FOIA requests.
3. When the material was sought by the courts and congress, she and the
state department people lied under oath claiming the material did not exist
(perhaps Nixon cronies should have all lied about tapes existing).
4. After her people knew the material was being sought, the server's
files were transferred (by private IT people w/o clearances) to her lawyers
(no clearances).
5. She and her lawyers deleted over 30000 e-mails, claiming they were
only about yoga and her daughter's wedding dress (Nixon cut a few minutes
of tape).
6. They then wiped the files with bit bleach (a step not needed for yoga
or wedding dress e-mails). (Nixon did not degauss all his tapes)
7. They handed the wiped server to the FBI, and hillary publicly played
ignorant with her "with a CLOTH?" comment (absolute iin-you-face arrogance
against the rule of law) (Nixon did not hand tape recorders with erased
tapes to the FBI)
Prove you are sincere, and not a total unprincipled partisan hack: Are
you a Nixon supporter? Would you accept this behavior from Donald Trump
or Dick Cheney?
"... Clintons crimes with national security leaks and destruction of federal records investigators got no prosecution. The democrat camp has no convictions. The curve Hillary is on is the same one any tin pot dictator enjoys. ..."
"... False equivalence. The world was different in 2008-2012 , Powell had far fewer hackers when he was lying about Iraq. The tech world was much less threatening. Powell learned from his training, knew better than to go past secure networks for sensitive information. He also knew about federal records act and penalties. ..."
"... Clinton crimes are called scandals. She got no convictions. ..."
"... Should Trump take the brass ring, let us hope he isn't really as brash or inept as Bush Jr, but that's asking a LOT ..."
"... And if Hillary does win (as expected), let's look forward to having that charming rogue in the White House at her side. Let's manage to bring the wars to an end & have peace rule the planet, mostly. ..."
"... That last sentence is certainly something we can and should hope for. However, given her somewhat hawkish disposition and likely need to demonstrate that she has the balls to be commander in Chief, I would not preclude the possibility of a little fighting somewhere. However, the consolation is that she did not ask the generals "if we have nukes why don't we use them"? Turns out there are worser things than bad. ..."
"... As someone who has been involved in the national security system for more than four decades, I can't help but nearly vomit when I read Hillary's answers to the FBI's questions. Had I or any other cleared employee of lesser stature given the same answers, we would have been fired if not prosecuted for our behavior. Here irresponsible behavior was dangerous to our security and disgusting. ..."
"... You think Clinton is going to turn out to be bolder and more progressive than her elite and plutocratic backers suspect. Maybe. Time will tell. But I'm just saying that if part of the Democrats' goal was to generate the kind of electoral groundswell that would sweep a whole new progressive House into power, you don't get that kind of result by nominating party royalty and an old guard representative of the national establishment and the administrations of the last century. ..."
"... Not once has an indictment, no arrests, how do people keep holding on to some belief that there must be something to it? I know people will say the euphemism, where there is smoke there is fire, but come on. Mind you the secrecy the Clintons exhibit does their cause no good, but just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you! ..."
"... If any of the scandals went to a jury instead of being swept under the rug, we might have judgements. If I did what Clinton did with information security I would be in jail. If I did that with federal records I would do time as well! ..."
And here's a pro tip: the best ways to judge a candidate's character are
to look at what he or she has actually done, and what policies he or she
is proposing.
... ... ...
In other words, focus on the facts. America and the world can't afford another
election tipped by innuendo.
"True, there aren't many efforts to pretend that Donald Trump is a paragon
of honesty. But it's hard to escape the impression that he's being graded
on a curve."
Trump supporters would have you believe his immigration policy is the
same as that of Jeb! and little Marco. Never mind what he told that white
audience. They would also have you believe he is all for equal rights for
black people. Never mind what he told that white audience.
Krugman is saying that Bush was the most dishonest candidate ever in
2000. Well - that was so 16 years ago. Romney 2012 was much worse. And Trump
2016 is reminding me of Romney 2012.
A curve! while Clintons crimes with national security leaks and destruction
of federal records investigators got no prosecution. The democrat camp has
no convictions. The curve Hillary is on is the same one any tin pot dictator
enjoys.
It's actually the same one Colin Powell enjoyed, except Hillary's private
email system was far more secured and, unlike Powell's janky use of an AOL
account that got hacked, there's no evidence HRC's was compromised.
False equivalence. The world was different in 2008-2012 , Powell had
far fewer hackers when he was lying about Iraq. The tech world was much
less threatening. Powell learned from his training, knew better than to
go past secure networks for sensitive information. He also knew about federal
records act and penalties.
Yes isn't it remarkable how Trump can say opposite things within the same
month, week or even in the same speech - and just be considered to have
"evolved" rather than being chastised for trying to pander to all sides.
Again if he were judged by a standard even half as critical as a Clinton
he would have evaporated long time ago.
George Bush Jr (particularly with 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and the financial
crash) was a spectacularly inept president and considered one of the worst
ever.
His predecessor was a largely successful yet quite 'colorful' president,
who had great economic success with the internet boom, which VP Al Gore
did have a minor legislative hand in dontchaknow. Barely fought a war. Got
impeached.
Both fellows were loved or hated by a lot of people, who don't talk to
one another much.
It has now come to pass that a guy who reminds us of the former is running
against the spouse of the latter. Complications ensue. Go figure.
Should Trump take the brass ring, let us hope he isn't really as
brash or inept as Bush Jr, but that's asking a LOT, so don't chance
it, please.
And if Hillary does win (as expected), let's look forward to having
that charming rogue in the White House at her side. Let's manage to bring
the wars to an end & have peace rule the planet, mostly.
That last sentence is certainly something we can and should hope for.
However, given her somewhat hawkish disposition and likely need to demonstrate
that she has the balls to be commander in Chief, I would not preclude the
possibility of a little fighting somewhere. However, the consolation is
that she did not ask the generals "if we have nukes why don't we use them"?
Turns out there are worser things than bad.
And which Clinton robots are running around like tailgunner Joe screaming
that Putin is trying to out do AIPAC?
The democrat peace movement steps aside for spreading organized murder
from expensive weapons system to do "civilian protective operations" and
the Saudi's bidding against Shiites.
Keep the money flowing and the drones causing justifiable at lest to
Lockheed and Boeing shareholders "militarily proportional collateral damage".
"Barely fought a war." Bill's little wars in the Balkans rubber the Tsar's
nose in it, broke up a several small countries, bombed the Chinese embassy
at great profit from a B-2 (it did not rain that day) and US still pays
NATO for a huge military base there.
Obama and Hill Clinton are Saudi tools same as W. Keeping AUMF going the
past 8 years lets W off a lot of the Iraq/WMD and Afghanistan hooks!
Bill's adventures included firing a general for commenting on the craziness
of losing people over Serbia.
Bill's evolutionary adventures in the Balkans are anti Russian neocon
trials. Their exceptionalism pushed Russia around and moved NATO eastward
reneging on deals Bush Sr. had with the Russians.
Hillary, extending Bill's neocon meme* over Ukraine and Libya are nearing
W level insanity.
Nuland (married to the neocon Kagan family) came with Strobe Talbot in
1993.
We really facing a vote for a person who would probably be convicted
by Nuremberg tribunal. All those factors that are often discussed like Supreme
court nominations, estate tax, etc, are of secondary importance to the cardinal
question -- "war vs peace" question.
A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another
neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never have a war she did not like.
They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized
coverage from MSM.
Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters
like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a
vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal. "Trump this and Trump that"
blabbing can't hide this important consideration.
Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals.
They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower.
Moreover, after Bush II there is a consensus that are very few people
in the USA who are unqualified to the run the country. From this point of
view Trump is extremely qualified (and actually managed to master English
language unlike Bush II with his famous Bushisms ).
But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question
in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmonger and all bets might
be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem)
W been out for over 7 years and the body bag strategy is the same. Obama
ran on ending Iraq and he did NOT vote for AUMF!
I suggest the collateral damage caused by Obama and Clinton is surging
past W, who had only 6 years to do it.
Clinton and Obama will be at it 8 years and for Libya and Syria are [related
to percent of population] past Iraq. Syria has military appropriate collateral
damage more than Iraq since 1993.
You cannot call someone nut so you can ignore facts.
As someone who has been involved in the national security system for
more than four decades, I can't help but nearly vomit when I read Hillary's
answers to the FBI's questions. Had I or any other cleared employee of lesser
stature given the same answers, we would have been fired if not prosecuted
for our behavior. Here irresponsible behavior was dangerous to our security
and disgusting.
Hillary is every bit as honest as her husband was when he answered "I
have not had sex with that woman." The two of them deserve each other. The
rest of the country deserves neither of them.
As someone who also knows a little about network security and the umpteen
bazillion ways most people violate stated policies, including Secretaries
Rice and Powell who established the precedent at State for Hillary's use
of a private email system ...
I think you're overreacting, and myopic, and possibly concern trolling.
I agree the 2nd trolly paragraph the commenter paints himself as a kook
still luridly fascinated with Bill Clinton's sex life. haha
But I think it's worth pointing out that people who work or have worked
for the government in less illustrious (non political) positions are subject
to a lot of what seems like nit-picky draconian rules, under threat of having
one's work life made miserable, at least for a time, for breaking any little
one of them.
It's just the nature of the beast of that type of govt employment. It's
a lot of stress. And politically appointed & elected government workers
at least seem to get away with a lot comparatively.
So I think it's worth acknowledging, when seen from that position, the
attitude, and feelings, are understandable, even if you don't agree with
it.
I would drop the 2nd paragraph in future if you want to be heard. Because
otherwise people don't think about what you said before it because you've
just come across as one of those kind of people who were telling lame old
tired monica jokes a decade after the fact. *sigh*
The key question is whether that will be better or worse for the country.
I think Hillary is a more dangerous war criminal, then just corrupt businessman
like Trump. Trump university is less important then the vote for Iraq war,
IMHO.
You think Clinton is going to turn out to be bolder and more progressive
than her elite and plutocratic backers suspect. Maybe. Time will tell. But
I'm just saying that if part of the Democrats' goal was to generate the
kind of electoral groundswell that would sweep a whole new progressive House
into power, you don't get that kind of result by nominating party royalty
and an old guard representative of the national establishment and the administrations
of the last century.
That would be more (arguably) true if Hillary weren't drawing votes from
such Republicans. Which naturally concerns progressive Dems. This is perhaps
a wave that alters the GOP for a long time.
According to the Clinton Rules, the appearance of the possibility of
impropriety, no matter how trivial or technical in nature, is to be deemed
prima facie as credible evidence of guilt, and any and all innuendo brought
forth is to be treated as serious.
Thus, Whitewater. And Vince Foster. And Benghazi. And "Wall Street speeches."
And everything related to the word "emails." And State Dept "access". And
whatever else is the manufact-roversy of the day.
Meanwhile, the media and the public widely regard both Hillary and Trump
as "dishonest", as if there were any semblance of equivalence.
It's clear why this happens ... there is a confluence of interest, among
Republicans, Bernie Busters, and the media, in manufacturing controversy
surrounding Hillary Clinton. The GOP wants to weaken her. The Busters resent
her. And the media desperately wants a horse race and to be able to create
"both sides do it" equivalence in order to bolster their own reputations
for objectivity. The sad thing is that so many Americans are gullible enough
to buy it.
This whole thing is amazing. For thirty years, the republicans discover
a scandal on average about twice a year, starting I think with White Water.
Oh sure all official and all, Congressional Hearings, investigators and
in the end nada. Not once has an indictment, no arrests, how do people
keep holding on to some belief that there must be something to it? I know
people will say the euphemism, where there is smoke there is fire, but come
on. Mind you the secrecy the Clintons exhibit does their cause no good,
but just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get
you!
After Bush II administration it is generally unclear what should be the
level of crime committed to be arrested.
But potentially opening an important view on the US diplomatic correspondence
for four years to any state with the desire to read it is something really
special. A unique achievement of Secretary Hillary.
Now I am not so sure that the level of incompetence of Hillary and her
aides in this sordid saga is less it was for the key figures of Bush II
administration (who also used a private email server for a while with impunity,
although not for State Department activities).
But for any specialist with even superficial knowledge of computer security
the level of incompetence and arrogance demonstrated is simply unreal. Especially
after the latest FBI documents.
Can you imagine that they have no technical knowledge of how to create
the archive of emails in Windows Server directly and used Apple laptop and
then Gmail account and intermediaries to achieve the necessary result. This
is something so stupid and reckless that there is no words for it.
Also wiping out this "bathroom" mail server with BleachKit is a very
suspicious activity for any person under investigation.
All indications are she wasn't very careful while actively using the
server. However, once she started getting requests to produce data from
it, then she suddenly got very careful. Even if she did do nothing wrong,
that is a very stark change in behavior that just happened to coincide with
legal requests to hand over data.
...The FBI found the "key piece(s)". Comey then said "No prosecutor would
pursue this case" and dropped it. He was probably right--but only because
of her last name. If I did that, I might get out after 5 years or so. Heck,
one of my counterparts got in trouble for a single line in a controlled
document which had the same info in the public domain. I'm sick of these
"Nothing to see here" claims--just look at any security briefing and it's
spelled out. We just had another one, and according to it I would be required
to report her if she was in my office.
...Yes it does, read the laws. There is a Navy person who facing 20 years
to life for disposing of a phone which had his picture while inside the
sub. That is one of the more extreme cases, but it's literally a Web Search
to prove you are wrong (shill?) Intent comes in to play _only_ for the penalty.
...I like how the argument has devolved here to "If Bush did it, then
it's ok". PopeRatzo, is Dubya really your moral compass? Your guiding light?
...Except ALL 22 MILLION Bush administrative emails were recovered from
tape backups. Clinton wiped the data AFTER the FOIA request. I don't know
of a single person that has decided one day to delete ALL their personal
emails, except Clinton.
https://www.wired.com/2009/12/...
[wired.com] another source
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
[npr.org] , another
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
[npr.org] . Yep you're idiot.
...My quibble was the blatant arrogance of the act. That private server
was clearly a move to preserve final editing rights of her tenure at the
State Department and evade any future FOIA requests that may crop up during
her next run for the presidency; and was there ever any doubt that she would
run again? The fact that she thought she could get away with it after experiencing
the fallout from the exact same move by members of the Bush administration
while she was a sitting Senator in Washington reinforces the feeling that
her arrogance knows no bounds. She took a page out of the neocon playbook
and figured she would show them how it's done.
...1. She put classified info on a private unsecured server where it
was vulnerable, contrary to the law which she was fully advised of upon
taking office.
2. She did all her work through that server, hiding it from all 3 government
branches (congressional oversight, executive oversight, and the courts)
and public FOIA requests.
3. When the material was sought by the courts and congress, she and the
state department people lied under oath claiming the material did not exist
(perhaps Nixon cronies should have all lied about tapes existing).
4. After her people knew the material was being sought, the server's files
were transferred (by private IT people w/o clearances) to her lawyers (no
clearances).
5. She and her lawyers deleted over 30000 e-mails, claiming they were only
about yoga and her daughter's wedding dress (Nixon cut a few minutes of
tape).
6. They then wiped the files with bit bleach (a step not needed for yoga
or wedding dress e-mails). (Nixon did not degauss all his tapes)
7. They handed the wiped server to the FBI, and hillary publicly played
ignorant with her "with a CLOTH?" comment (absolute iin-you-face arrogance
against the rule of law) (Nixon did not hand tape recorders with erased
tapes to the FBI)
Prove you are sincere, and not a total unprincipled partisan hack:
Are you a Nixon supporter?
Would you accept this behavior from Donald Trump or Dick Cheney?
One law for the king another for me. If any of the scandals went to
a jury instead of being swept under the rug, we might have judgements. If
I did what Clinton did with information security I would be in jail. If
I did that with federal records I would do time as well!
At least three of Hillary Clinton's top aides – including one with ties to the Muslim
Brotherhood – used emails hosted on Clinton's private server while she was secretary of state,
according to several reports.
At a news conference Tuesday at the U.N., Clinton directly addressed media about the
revelation that she conducted her business as secretary of state using a private email account
instead of the secure and archived government system.
She
acknowledged she deleted thousands of personal emails and said she turned over hard copies of
messages to the State Department that she deemed to be work related.
But Clinton apparently wasn't the only one at the State Department using private email.
Weekly Standard senior writer Stephen Hayes told Fox News, "Two of Hillary Clinton's top
aides used personal email while they were employed at the State Department."
Hayes specifically named Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, who served as
Clinton's longtime deputy chief of staff. Abedin and Clinton worked closely together for
nearly 20 years.
"The State Department has evidence of this," he said.
In another report, the gossip website Gawker claimed both Abedin and Phillippe Reines,
Clinton's communications strategist, used the private email addresses.
Abedin's emails would be of particular interest because she has known ties to the Muslim
Brotherhood – a group that's bent on "destroying Western civilization from within" – and other
Islamic supremacists.
Hayes said, "The question, I think becomes: Were they emailing with Hillary Clinton from
their personal email addresses to her personal email address about State Department business,
about Benghazi, including sensitive classified information?
"Those are questions that I think (Rep.) Trey Gowdy and the House Benghazi Committee is
going to want to look at very carefully."
Government watchdog Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit against the State Department seeking
all emails from 2009 to 2013 between Clinton, Abedin and Nagla Mahmoud, wife of Muslim
Brotherhood leader Mohammed Morsi.
"Now we know why the State Department didn't want to respond to our specific request for
Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's communications," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said
in a statement. "The State Department violated FOIA law rather than admit that it couldn't and
wouldn't search the secret accounts that the agency has known about for years. This lawsuit
shows how the latest Obama administration cover-up isn't just about domestic politics but has
significant foreign policy implications."
Abedin and Clinton worked closely together for nearly 20 years.
As WND has
extensively reported
, the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic supremacist connections not only
extend to Abedin's mother and father, who are both deeply tied to al-Qaida fronts, but to
Abedin herself.
Major news media profiles of Abedin report she was born of Pakistani and Indian parents,
without delving much further into her family's history.
As
WND
reported
, a manifesto commissioned by the ruling Saudi Arabian monarchy places the work of
an institute that employed Abedin at the forefront of a grand plan to mobilize U.S. Muslim
minorities to transform America into a Saudi-style Islamic state, according to Arabic-language
researcher Walid Shoebat.
Abedin
was an assistant editor for a dozen years for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs for the
Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs. The institute – founded by her late father and
currently directed by her mother – is backed by the Muslim World League, an Islamic
organization in the Saudi holy city of Mecca that was founded by Muslim Brotherhood leaders.
The 2002 Saudi manifesto shows that "Muslim Minority Affairs" – the mobilizing of Muslim
communities in the U.S. to spread Islam instead of assimilating into the population – is a key
strategy in an ongoing effort to establish Islamic rule in America and a global Shariah, or
Islamic law, "in our modern times."
WND reported
Abedin also was a member of the executive board of the Muslim Student Association, which was
identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group in a 1991 document introduced into evidence
during the terror-financing trial of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation.
At
her father's Saudi-financed Islamic think tank,
WND
reported
, Abedin worked alongside Abdullah Omar Naseef, who is accused of financing
al-Qaida fronts.
Naseef is deeply connected to the Abedin family.
WND was first to report
Huma's mother,
Saleha Abedin, was the official representative of Naseef's terror-stained Muslim World League
in the 1990s.
Shoebat previously reported that as one of 63 leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood, the de
facto female version of the Muslim Brotherhood, Saleha Abedin served alongside Nagla Ali
Mahmoud, the wife of Muslim Brotherhood figure Mohammed Morsi, Egypt's now ousted president.
Saleha Abedin and Morsi's wife both were members of the Sisterhood's Guidance Bureau,
Shoebat found
.
Huma worked with al-Qaida front man
Abdullah Omar Naseef is secretary-general of the Muslim World League, an Islamic charity
known to have spawned terrorist groups, including one declared by the U.S. government to be an
official al-Qaida front.
The institute founded by Huma Abedin's father reportedly was a quiet, but active, supporter
of Naseef.
The institute bills itself as "the only scholarly institution dedicated to the systematic
study of Muslim communities in non-Muslim societies around the world."
Huma
served on the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs's editorial board from 2002 to 2008.
Documents obtained by Shoebat revealed that Naseef served on the board with Huma from at
least December 2002 to December 2003.
Naseef's sudden departure from the board in December 2003 coincides with the time at which
various charities led by Naseef's Muslim World League were declared illegal terrorism fronts
worldwide, including by the U.S. and U.N.
The MWL, founded in Mecca in 1962, bills itself as one of the largest Islamic
non-governmental organizations.
But according to U.S. government documents and testimony from the charity's own officials,
it is heavily financed by the Saudi government.
The MWL has been accused of terrorist ties, as have its various offshoots, including the
International Islamic Relief Organization, or IIRO, and Al Haramain, which was declared by the
U.S. and U.N. as a terror financing front.
Indeed, the Treasury Department, in a September 2004 press release, alleged Al Haramain had
"direct links" with Osama bin Laden. The group is now banned worldwide by U.N. Security
Council Committee resolution 1267.
There long have been accusations that the IIRO and MWL also repeatedly funded al-Qaida.
In 1993, bin Laden reportedly told an associate that the MWL was one of his three most
important charity fronts.
An Anti-Defamation League profile of the MWL accuses the group of promulgating a
"fundamentalist interpretation of Islam around the world through a large network of charities
and affiliated organizations."
"Its ideological backbone is based on an extremist interpretation of Islam," the profile
states, "and several of its affiliated groups and individuals have been linked to
terror-related activity."
In
2003, U.S. News and World Report documented that accompanying the MWL's donations, invariably,
are "a blizzard of Wahhabist literature."
"Critics argue that Wahhabism's more extreme preachings – mistrust of infidels, branding of
rival sects as apostates and emphasis on violent jihad –laid the groundwork for terrorist
groups around the world," the report continued.
An Egyptian-American cab driver, Ihab Mohamed Ali Nawawi, was arrested in Florida in 1990
on accusations he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent and a former personal pilot to bin Laden. At
the time he was accused of serving bin Laden, he also reportedly worked for the Pakistani
branch of the MWL.
The MWL in 1988 founded the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, developing chapters in about 50
countries, including for a time in Oregon until it was designated a terrorist organization.
In
the early 1990s, evidence began to grow that the foundation was funding Islamist militants in
Somalia and Bosnia, and a 1996 CIA report detailed its Bosnian militant ties.
The U.S. Treasury designated Al Haramain's offices in Kenya and Tanzania as sponsors of
terrorism for their role in planning and funding the 1998 bombings of two American embassies
in East Africa. The Comoros Islands office was also designated because it "was used as a
staging area and exfiltration route for the perpetrators of the 1998 bombings."
The New York Times reported in 2003 that Al Haramain had provided funds to the Indonesian
terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, which was responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings that killed
202 people. The Indonesia office was later designated a terrorist entity by the Treasury.
In February 2004, the U.S. Treasury Department froze all Al Haramain's financial assets
pending an investigation, leading the Saudi government to disband the charity and fold it into
another group, the Saudi National Commission for Relief and Charity Work Abroad.
In September 2004, the U.S. designated Al-Haramain a terrorist organization.
In June 2008, the Treasury Department applied the terrorist designation to the entire
Al-Haramain organization worldwide
Bin Laden's brother-in-law
In August 2006, the Treasury Department also designated the Philippine and Indonesian
branch offices of the MWL-founded IIRO as terrorist entities "for facilitating fundraising for
al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist groups."
The Treasury Department added: "Abd Al Hamid Sulaiman Al-Mujil, a high-ranking IIRO
official [executive director of its Eastern Province Branch] in Saudi Arabia, has used his
position to bankroll the al-Qaida network in Southeast Asia. Al-Mujil has a long record of
supporting Islamic militant groups, and he has maintained a cell of regular financial donors
in the Middle East who support extremist causes."
In the 1980s, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law, ran the Philippines
offices of the IIRO. Khalifa has been linked to Manila-based plots to target the pope and U.S.
airlines.
The IIRO has also been accused of funding Hamas, Algerian radicals, Afghanistan militant
bases and the Egyptian terror group Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya.
The New York Post reported the families of the 9/11 victims filed a lawsuit against IIRO
and other Muslim organizations for having "played key roles in laundering of funds to the
terrorists in the 1998 African embassy bombings" and for having been involved in the
"financing and 'aiding and abetting' of terrorists in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing."
'Saudi government front'
In a court case in Canada, Arafat El-Asahi, the Canadian director of both the IIRO and the
MWL, admitted the charities are near entities of the Saudi government.
Stated El-Asahi: "The Muslim World League, which is the mother of IIRO, is a fully
government-funded organization. In other words, I work for the government of Saudi Arabia. I
am an employee of that government.
"Second, the IIRO is the relief branch of that organization, which means that we are
controlled in all our activities and plans by the government of Saudi Arabia. Keep that in
mind, please," he said.
Despite its offshoots being implicated in terror financing, the U.S. government never
designated the MWL itself as a terror-financing charity. Many have speculated the U.S. has
been trying to not embarrass the Saudi government.
Saleha Abedin has been quoted in numerous press accounts as both representing the MWL and
serving as a delegate for the charity.
In 1995, for example, the Washington Times reported on a United Nations-arranged women's
conference in Beijing that called on governments throughout the world to give women
statistical equality with men in the workplace.
The report quoted Saleha Abedin, who attended the conference as a delegate, as "also
representing the Muslim World League based in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim NGO Caucus."
The U.N.'s website references a report in the run-up to the Beijing conference that also
lists Abedin as representing the MWL at the event.
The website posted an article from the now defunct United States Information Agency quoting
Abedin and reporting she attended the Beijing conference as "a delegate of the Muslim World
League and member of the Muslim Women's NGO caucus."
In the article, Abedin was listed under a shorter name, "Dr. Saleha Mahmoud, director of
the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs."
WND confirmed the individual listed is Huma Abedin's mother. The reports misspelled part of
Abedin's name. Her full professional name is at times listed as Saleha Mahmood Abedin S.
Saleha Mahmood formerly directed the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in the U.K. and
served as a delegate for the Muslim World League, an Islamic fundamentalist group Osama bin
Laden reportedly told an associate was one of his most important charity fronts.
In February 2010, Clinton spoke at Dar Al-Hekma College in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where
Abedin was an associate professor of sociology at the time.
Clinton, after she was introduced by Abedin, praised the work of the terror-tied professor.
"I have to say a special word about Dr. Saleha Abedin," Clinton said. "You heard her
present the very exciting partnerships that have been pioneered between colleges and
universities in the United States and this college. And it is pioneering work to create these
kinds of relationships.
"But I have to confess something that Dr. Abedin did not," Clinton continued, "and that is
that I have almost a familial bond with this college. Dr. Abedin's daughter, one of her three
daughters, is my deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, who started to work for me when she was a
student at George Washington University in Washington, D.C."
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/muslim-brotherhood-princess-used-clinton-email-server/#jU3DUhHxWVbOpRBH.99
"... As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction? ..."
"... "We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap. ..."
"... Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale. This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria. And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton. ..."
As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a
bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to
spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction?
"We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap.
Under my definiton of "sociopath", Hillary Clinton qualifies on that one
alone. Of course there are others….
*** My father, too, turned bribes into gifts. ***
I know some saintly people myself, and have no difficulty accepting this
claim at face value. Stretching the analogy to the Clinton Foundation is, in
my opinion, a stretch too far. If Hillary was as pure as the driven snow, why
did she work so hard to ensure her communications were beyond the reach of the
Freedom Of Information Act? Why has the State department refused to release
her meeting schedules until after the election?
Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale.
This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan
of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria.
And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off
Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton.
"... Bernie disgraced himself and drove a dagger through the heart of youth involvement in the democratic process. Millions of kids believd in him. He's is even more repellent that Clinton. Faced with evidence that the DNC had rigged the nomination process in favour of Clinton, what did he do? He backed her. Beyond shame. ..."
Bernie sold out. If not that, then he was simply in it as faux opposition
from the start. Having unified the militant and disgruntled outliers, he
then readily doffed his cap and sheperded his gullible followers towards
the only practical Democratic alternative available.
Wasted effort. The 'masters' in the shadows are about to throw the harridan
under the bus. Her brazen air of arrogance and entitlement is about to fade
as she comes to realise, that albeit Comey having been got at, he's still
succeeded in striking a severe blow against her, and also at the not-so-tin-hat
conspiracy of inappropriate, and increasingly overt, institutional support,
in the face of documented lies, in your face hypocrisy, and corruption oozing
from every orifice of a maverick administration.
The seeds have been planted for a defense of diminished responsibility.
Don't fall for it! Hillary, (and her illustrious spouse), deserve not a
smidgen of pity.
''We came, we saw, he died'', she enthusiastically and unempathically
cackled.
Just about sums it up
Michael109 fflambeau 2d ago
Bernie disgraced himself and drove a dagger through the heart of
youth involvement in the democratic process. Millions of kids believd in
him. He's is even more repellent that Clinton. Faced with evidence that
the DNC had rigged the nomination process in favour of Clinton, what did
he do? He backed her. Beyond shame.
"... This who Hillary Clinton is. It's all about money and access. You know I'm not a Trump supporter, but I absolutely can see why people would vote for him to throw a rock through these people's collective window. ..."
What do Cher, Leonardo DiCaprio, Magic Johnson and Jimmy Buffett all
have in common? They're with her.
Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, buoyed by rising poll numbers and a sputtering
Donald Trump campaign, are using August to raise tens of millions of dollars
in cash before the fall sprint.
Clinton will embark on a three-day, eight-fundraiser trip to California
next week, headlining a mix of star studded events with tech icons, athletes
and movie stars.
On Monday, August 22, Clinton will headline a top dollar fundraiser at
the Beverly Hills home of Cheryl and Haim Saban, the billionaire owner of
Univision and one of Clinton's wealthiest backers.
Clinton and her aides will then head down the street to another fundraiser
at the Beverly Hills home of Hall of Fame basketball player and businessman
Magic Johnson. That event, which according to Clinton donors in California
is expected to raise millions of dollars, will also be hosted by Willow
Bay and Bob Iger, the CEO of The Walt Disney Company, and Marilyn and Jeffrey
Katzenberg, the CEO of DreamWorks Animation.
The next day, Clinton will headline two events in Laguna Beach, including
a $33,400-per-person event hosted by Stephen Cloobeck, the CEO of Diamond
Resorts.
Later in the day, according to invites obtained by CNN, Clinton will
headline a fundraiser at the home of Leonardo DiCaprio, the Oscar-winning
actor known for his roles in Titanic, The Revenant and The Wolf of Wall
Street.
Scooter Braun, the agent that discovered Justin Beiber, and Tobey Maguire,
the actor known for his roles in the Spider-Man series, will also host the
star-studded event.
Sounds like fun for those celebrities and rich people, flooding the Democratic
Party nominee's coffers with campaign cash. Meanwhile, here in flood-ravaged
Louisiana, preliminary estimates claim that as many as 110,000 people lost their
homes (or at least suffered enormous damage to them),
suffering nearly $21 billion in losses.
Obama golfs with celebrities, Hillary parties with them and takes their cash.
This should not be forgotten. These are the oligarchs who rule us. It's despicable.
Do not believe for one second that there's any reason why Hillary Clinton cannot
get here. Donald Trump got here, spent a few hours, then left. So could she,
if she wanted to. But she would di$appoint her donor$.
This who Hillary Clinton is. It's all about money and access. You know
I'm not a Trump supporter, but I absolutely can see why people would vote for
him to throw a rock through these people's collective window.
You might want to study up. (Actually, that could be said to you on many,
many issues.) Perjury is lying on a point that is "material" to the case.
The judge in the Paula Jones lawsuit ruled that Bill's relationship with
Monica was not material to it, hence, no perjury.
But yeah, if it had been perjury, of course it's every bit as
bad as a president ordering federal agencies to break the law and obstruct
a criminal investigation in order to cover up his subordinates' illegal
eavesdropping on political opponents. Yep. Sure is.
Re: Bill Clinton was clearly guilty of both. That, not 'sex with an intern'
is why he was impeached.
In what way was Bill Clinton guilty of "Obstruction of justice"? I am
unaware of any criminal investigation he interfered in.
Also, Clinton was not even guilty of perjury in a the purely legal sense
of the term, since the lies he told (yes, they were lies) were not germane
to the matter on which he was testifying. A perjury charge requires that
to be true.
Sorry, should have acknowledged @Chris 1 on this as well:
And the denial continues in denying that there's anything anyone
can do, so let's do nothing. If you lived your moral life this way you'd
be a wreck.
It's a classic example of the "Futility" argument. Seriously, Albert
O. Hirschman's book explains a vast amount of conservative rhetoric. Here's
the Amazon link:
Another of his books, Exit, Voice and Loyalty (see further link
on that Amazon page), is also important and could helpfully explain, for
instance, different responses to the Catholic abuse scandals.
I agree that "political pundits, talk radio hosts, blog writers and blog
commenters who are complaining about a lack of tweets and visits" are "pathetic,
whiny, insecure, self-absorbed and a host of other bad things." I also agree
that nobody should be questioning the motives of people who are in the midst
of mucking out their homes, no matter what they are saying.
If President Obama is smart, he will give very little in the way of speeches,
or impromptu talks. He will simply ask as many people as possible, what
do you need, what is still lacking, what can we do to help you? If he talks
to the press, he will begin by saying "There are times when a visit from
the President of the United States is not going to make things better, and
might even distract from essential work. I came as soon as people on the
ground told me it would be acceptable, and would do more good than harm."
The perjury for which Clinton was had nothing to do with the Paula Jones
suit (a civil case in a state court, presided over by a former Clinton student).
He was impeached for lying to a federal grand jury. Same goes for the obstruction
of justice charge, nothing to do with Paula Jones or civil cases, everything
to do with the Federal investigation of Clinton's doings.
I was out of the country, in Bosnia in fact, at the time, so my ignorance
is excusable. My failing to check up the 'facts' presented by a Lefty isn't.
"... Near the start of the speech, Clinton said, "We are an exceptional nation because we are an
indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable nation." That isn't true, but Clinton's acceptance
of this claim confirms that she understands "American exceptionalism" in a particularly warped way that
justifies interfering all over the globe. That is what Albright's "indispensable nation" rhetoric meant
twenty years ago, and it's what Clinton's rhetoric means today. ..."
"... Cozying up to authoritarian rulers has been and continues to be a significant part of U.S.
"leadership," and if you are in favor of the latter you are going to be stuck with the former. This
rhetoric is especially absurd coming from someone who has repeatedly stressed the importance of supporting
U.S. clients in the Gulf. ..."
"... Overall, Clinton's speech could have been given by a conventional Republican hawk, and some
of the lines could have been lifted from the speeches of some of this year's Republican presidential
contenders. ..."
"... That's exactly what Clinton believes, unfortunately. When she unveiled her "stronger together"
slogan, one of the points she made was that we should have "a bipartisan, even non-partisan foreign
policy." She is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat. ..."
"... Bill Kristol used to call himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, too. Maybe he will again. Hillary
must be the only person left who actually thinks embracing the neocons is a way to win votes. But if
that were true, Rubio would be the GOP nominee, rather than the guy who, for all his many faults, didn't
pander to them. ..."
"... Cozying up to dictators is bad, unless they donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation.
In that case, you're not "cozying up" to the dictators - you're "reassuring allies" and "protecting
America's credibility." ..."
"... Would the mushroom cloud campaign ad that obliterated the Goldwater candidacy have the same
effect today upon a neocon candidate? Is the ad even copyrighted or otherwise available? ..."
"... Has the American Legion given any Democrat running for president a warm response? Muted sounds
about right to me. Clinton was speaking to many more people than the audience in front of her. She won't
get very many votes from those in the military. No Democrat ever does. Undecided voters (all 2 or 3%
of them), especially Republicans are her real target audience. She looks to sound suitably strong more
important, calm and measured. A safe if not perfect choice for President. Old World Order , August 31,
2016 at 4:32 pm She has learned nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, she just doubled down on permanent
war. Not surprising, but deeply depressing all the same. ..."
"... If our foreign policy wasn't so obviously failed, I wouldn't mind bipartisan consensus but
since it is FUBAR, I want something new. I just wish I had the ear of any of my fellow Republicans who
consider themselves Religious Conservatives. I just can't get over their blind faith in U.S. hegemony,
especially when they screech at the thought of U.S. politicians doing something as benign as running
a Transportation Fund. Yet they have no problem inflicting these imbeciles with life and death decisions
on the rest of the world. ..."
"... When I see Ted Cruz or a Rubio gaze into the camera about how vital it is for the U.S. to suppress
Russia and China and run the M.E. (they use different words), it astounds me since it contradicts the
Protestant tradition so much where one should be suspicious of human nature. ..."
"... Indispensable to what? Wholesale destabilization of the Middle East? ..."
"... I don't want Trump to win, but neither do I want Clinton to think she has a mandate for this
kind of militarism. Sadly, when it comes foreign policy, it appears not to matter which party has the
presidency anymore. ..."
"... Meanwhile, over at the WaPo, neocon cheerleader Jennifer Rubin loves the same speech: Hillary
Clinton is a responsible centrist .. . ..."
"... If she gets elected I see a high probability of a hot war with Russia. She wouldn't start it
intentionally, it would be the pinnacle of our foreign policy establishment living in their own reality.
I actually have a scenario in mind, when I read Russian sourced sites it strengthens my convictions.
To bad our 'Russian experts' use Ouija boards and entrails instead of actually studying the Russians.
..."
"... Don't be surprised if Clinton pushes Russia to the edge or the US gets mired in a proxy war
with Russia. Everything is a Russian hack/conspiracy these days. They will find a reason to start something.
Smells like yellow cake to me. ..."
"... Hilary should figure out that she is losing votes to Johnson and Stein and perhaps tone back
the rhetoric. Granted she was probably trying to look all Commander in Chiefy but she is so tone deaf
on this stuff. ..."
"... The problem is that the cult that passes for Conservatives in this country values strength
over all. Clinton cannot afford to come across as weak to these people. She is aiming exactly for the
Jennifer Rubins of the world. In America, we do the strong thing, even if it is the wrong thing, because
we will go to hell if we appear to be weak. ..."
Hillary Clinton's
speech to the American Legion in Cincinnati didn't contain anything new or surprising. It was
billed as an endorsement of "American exceptionalism" defined as support for activist foreign policy
and global "leadership," and that is what Clinton delivered. One thing that struck me while listening
to it was the muted response from the audience. Despite Clinton's fairly heavy-handed efforts to
present herself as a friend of veterans and champion of the military, the crowd didn't seem very
impressed. The delivery of the speech was typically wooden, but then no one expects stirring oratory
from Clinton. Either the audience wasn't interested in what they were hearing, or they found Clinton
to be a poor messenger, or both.
The substance was mostly boilerplate cheerleading for the status quo in foreign policy, but a
few particularly jarring lines stood out. Near the start of the speech, Clinton said, "We are
an exceptional nation because we are an indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable
nation." That isn't true, but Clinton's acceptance of this claim confirms that she understands "American
exceptionalism" in a particularly warped way that justifies interfering all over the globe. That
is what Albright's "indispensable nation" rhetoric meant twenty years ago, and it's what Clinton's
rhetoric means today.
Clinton thought that she was dinging Trump when she said, "We can't cozy up to dictators." That
would be all right if it were true, but it is hard to take seriously from a committed supporter of
U.S. "leadership." Cozying up to authoritarian rulers has been and continues to be a significant
part of U.S. "leadership," and if you are in favor of the latter you are going to be stuck with the
former. This rhetoric is especially absurd coming from someone who has repeatedly stressed the importance
of supporting U.S. clients in the Gulf. Clinton has made a point of promising that the U.S.
will stay quite cozy with our despotic clients when she is president, and it is likely that the U.S.
will probably get even cozier still if she has anything to say about it.
Overall, Clinton's speech could have been given by a conventional Republican hawk, and some
of the lines could have been lifted from the speeches of some of this year's Republican presidential
contenders. There were brief nods to the nuclear deal with Iran and New START that a Republican
wouldn't have made, but they were only mentioned in passing. Clinton insisted that "America must
lead" and conjured up a vision of the vacuums that would be created if the U.S. did not do this.
This is a standard hawkish line that implies that the U.S. always has to be involved in conflict
and crises no matter how little the U.S. has at stake in them.
At one point, Clinton asserted, "Defending American exceptionalism should always be above politics."
That amounts to saying that our foreign policy debates should always be narrowly circumscribed and
most of our current policies should always remain beyond challenge or major revision. That's not
healthy for the quality of our foreign policy debates or our foreign policy as a whole, and it shows
the degree to which Clinton is out of touch with much of the country that she thinks this is a credible
thing to say.
"At one point, Clinton asserted, 'Defending American exceptionalism should always be above politics.'
That amounts to saying that our foreign policy debates should always be narrowly circumscribed
and most of our current policies should always remain beyond challenge or major revision."
That's exactly what Clinton believes, unfortunately. When she unveiled her "stronger together"
slogan, one of the points she made was that we should have "a bipartisan, even non-partisan foreign
policy." She is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat.
Broad consensus is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I'd argue that some degree of consensus
is necessary in order for a democratic system to function. But any such consensus should emerge
from vigorous debate, which does not exist in Washington or in the mainstream media. It should
not be simply imposed on the country by an unchallenged, ossified elite that is either stuck in
the Cold War past or has a vested interest in renewing the Cold War.
Bill Kristol used to call himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, too. Maybe he will again. Hillary
must be the only person left who actually thinks embracing the neocons is a way to win votes.
But if that were true, Rubio would be the GOP nominee, rather than the guy who, for all his many
faults, didn't pander to them.
Cozying up to dictators is bad, unless they donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation.
In that case, you're not "cozying up" to the dictators - you're "reassuring allies" and "protecting
America's credibility."
Would the mushroom cloud campaign ad that obliterated the Goldwater candidacy have the same
effect today upon a neocon candidate? Is the ad even copyrighted or otherwise available?
Has the American Legion given any Democrat running for president a warm response? Muted sounds
about right to me. Clinton was speaking to many more people than the audience in front of her.
She won't get very many votes from those in the military. No Democrat ever does.
Undecided voters (all 2 or 3% of them), especially Republicans are her real target audience.
She looks to sound suitably strong more important, calm and measured. A safe if not perfect choice
for President.
She has learned nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, she just doubled down on permanent war. Not
surprising, but deeply depressing all the same.
Here's hoping that someone – anyone, really – keeps this loathsome throwback to the worst aspects
of US foreign policy of the past 20 years out of the White House.
If our foreign policy wasn't so obviously failed, I wouldn't mind bipartisan consensus but
since it is FUBAR, I want something new. I just wish I had the ear of any of my fellow Republicans
who consider themselves Religious Conservatives. I just can't get over their blind faith in U.S.
hegemony, especially when they screech at the thought of U.S. politicians doing something as benign
as running a Transportation Fund. Yet they have no problem inflicting these imbeciles with life
and death decisions on the rest of the world.
When I see Ted Cruz or a Rubio gaze into the camera about how vital it is for the U.S.
to suppress Russia and China and run the M.E. (they use different words), it astounds me since
it contradicts the Protestant tradition so much where one should be suspicious of human nature.
Do these people believe that corrupt politicians in the U.S. are suddenly anointed by God and
transformed into world leaders in a sudden act of Grace? Sorry for the rant but I would seriously
love to ask someone this question. This is not a troll at all. I have pondered this many times.
How would Huckabee respond to this? He wrote a lucid essay on Iran about 10yrs ago before he went
full Neocon.
What a choice we face in November – give full executive authority to either:
1. The volatile vulgarian who is smart enough to reject the tired nation-building, Democracy
Evangelization, Responsibility-to-Protect, and other dangerous establishment policies. But who
doesn't think much at all about foreign policy and could even blunder into a big war out of personal
pique.
OR
2. The champion of mindless and discredited bellicosity. Who is - probably - smart enough to
avoid a new large ground war or nuclear despite her dangerous anti-Russian rhetoric, but who will
CERTAINLY initiate one or more new unnecessary, unjust and futile military interventions.
I wish she would stop putting out this nonsense. I really don't want to skip my vote for president,
but this sort of nonsense leaves me cold. I don't want Trump to win, but neither do I want
Clinton to think she has a mandate for this kind of militarism. Sadly, when it comes foreign policy,
it appears not to matter which party has the presidency anymore.
We are an Exceptional nation because we are an Indispensable nation
This is a tautology. You can swap the words exceptional and indispensable and have the exact
same sentence.
Commenter Man, yet another example of how people will create their own reality. I am certain
I will read the same tripe tomorrow when I peruse the links on 'realclearpolitics.com'. It is
the only Neocon portal that I bother with.
If she gets elected I see a high probability of a hot war with Russia. She wouldn't start
it intentionally, it would be the pinnacle of our foreign policy establishment living in their
own reality. I actually have a scenario in mind, when I read Russian sourced sites it strengthens
my convictions. To bad our 'Russian experts' use Ouija boards and entrails instead of actually
studying the Russians.
Don't be surprised if Clinton pushes Russia to the edge or the US gets mired in a proxy war
with Russia. Everything is a Russian hack/conspiracy these days. They will find a reason to start
something. Smells like yellow cake to me.
Hilary should figure out that she is losing votes to Johnson and Stein and perhaps tone back
the rhetoric. Granted she was probably trying to look all Commander in Chiefy but she is so tone
deaf on this stuff.
The problem is that the cult that passes for Conservatives in this country values strength
over all. Clinton cannot afford to come across as weak to these people. She is aiming exactly
for the Jennifer Rubins of the world. In America, we do the strong thing, even if it is the wrong
thing, because we will go to hell if we appear to be weak.
"... "the prosecutor has all the power. The Supreme Court's suggestion that a plea bargain is a fair and voluntary contractual arrangement between two relatively equal parties is a total myth… What really puts the prosecutor in the driver's seat is the fact that he - because of mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines (which, though no longer mandatory in the federal system, are still widely followed by most judges), and simply his ability to shape whatever charges are brought - can effectively dictate the sentence by how he publicly describes the offense". ..."
"... Prosecutorial discretion is now practically unlimited in the United States. This discretion is an essential feature of any dictatorship . It's the essence of any system that separates people into aristocrats, who are above the law, versus the public, upon whom their 'law' is enforced. It's the essence of "a nation of men, not of laws". ..."
"... Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system" ..."
"... Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically. Clinton stated a 'nonpaper' was a document with no official heading, or identifying marks of any kind, that can not be attributed to the US Government. Clinton thought a 'nonpaper' was a way to convey the unofficial stance of the US Government to a foreign government and believed this practice went back '200 years.' When viewing the displayed email, Clinton believed she was asking Sullivan to remove the State letterhead and provide unclassified talking points. Clinton stated she had no intention to remove classification markings" ..."
"... issues sending secure fax" ..."
"... They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it" ..."
"... "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure". So: she knew that it was classified information but wanted to receive it so that she would be able to say, "I didn't know that it was classified information". ..."
"... The FBI avoided using the standard means to investigate a suspect higher-up ..."
"... That alone proves the Obama Administration's 'investigation' of Clinton's email system to have been a farce ..."
"... the prosecutor in Hillary's case (the Obama Administration) clearly didn't want her in the big house; they wanted her in the White House. ..."
The famous judge Jed Rakoff
has accurately and succinctly
said that, in the American criminal 'justice' system, since 1980 and especially after 2000, and
most especially after 2010, "the prosecutor has all the power. The Supreme Court's suggestion
that a plea bargain is a fair and voluntary contractual arrangement between two relatively equal
parties is a total myth… What really puts the prosecutor in the driver's seat is the fact that he
- because of mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines (which, though no longer mandatory in the
federal system, are still widely followed by most judges), and simply his ability to shape whatever
charges are brought - can effectively dictate the sentence by how he publicly describes the offense".
If an Administration wants to be merely pretending an 'investigation', it's easy: identify, as
the topic for the alleged 'investigation', not the criminal laws that indisputably describe what
the suspect can clearly be proven to have done, but instead criminal laws that don't. Prosecutorial
discretion is now practically unlimited in the United States. This discretion is an essential feature
of any
dictatorship . It's the essence of any system that separates people into aristocrats, who are
above the law, versus the public, upon whom their 'law' is enforced. It's the essence of
"a nation
of men, not of laws".
But, different people focus on different aspects of it.
Conservatives notice it in Clinton's case because she was not prosecuted.
Progressives notice it in Clinton's case because other people (ones without the clout) who did
what she did (but only less of it), have been prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced for it. The result,
either way, is
dictatorship , regardless of anyone's particular perspective on the matter. Calling a nation
like that a 'democracy' is to strip "democracy" of its basic meaning - it is foolishness. Such a
nation is
an aristocracy, otherwise called an "oligarchy". That's the opposite of a democracy (even if
it's set up so as to pretend to be a democracy).
2: The FBI chose to believe her allegations, instead of to investigate or challenge them.
For example: On page 4 of
the FBI's record of their interview with Hillary dated 2 July 2016 , they noted: " Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system"
. But they already had seen
this email . So,
they asked her about that specific one: " Clinton stated she did not remember the email
specifically. Clinton stated a 'nonpaper' was a document with no official heading, or identifying
marks of any kind, that can not be attributed to the US Government. Clinton thought a 'nonpaper'
was a way to convey the unofficial stance of the US Government to a foreign government and believed
this practice went back '200 years.' When viewing the displayed email, Clinton believed she was asking
Sullivan to remove the State letterhead and provide unclassified talking points. Clinton stated she
had no intention to remove classification markings" .
Look at the email
: is her statement about it - that " issues sending secure fax" had nothing
to do with the illegality of sending classified U.S. Government information over a non-secured, even
privatized, system - even credible? Is the implication by Clinton's remark, that changing the letterhead
and removing the document'a classified stamp, would solve the problem that Jake Sullivan - a highly
skilled attorney himself - had brought to her attention, even credible? Well, if so, then wouldn't
the FBI have asked Sullivan what he was referring to when his email to Clinton said " They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it" .
The FBI provided no indication that there was any such follow-up, at all. They could have plea-bargained
with Sullivan, to get him to testify first, so that his testimony could be used in questioning of
her, but they seem not to have been interested in doing any such thing. They believed what she said
(even though it made no sense as a response to the problem that Sullivan had just brought to her
attention: the problem that emailing to her this information would violate several federal criminal
statutes.
Clinton, in other words, didn't really care about the legality. And, apparently, neither did the
FBI. Her email in response to Sullivan's said simply: "If they can't, turn into nonpaper
w no identifying heading and send nonsecure". So: she knew that it was classified information but
wanted to receive it so that she would be able to say, "I didn't know that it was classified information".
In other words: she was instructing her advisor: hide the fact that it's classified information,
so that when I receive it, there will be no indication on it that what was sent to me is classified
information.
3:
The FBI avoided using the standard means to investigate a suspect higher-up:
obtaining plea-deals with subordinates, requiring them to cooperate, answer questions and
not to plead the Fifth Amendment (not to refuse to answer) . (In Hillary's case, the Obama Administration
actually did plea-deals in which they allowed the person who was supposed to answer all questions,
to plea the Fifth Amendment to all questions instead. This is allowed only when the government doesn't
want to prosecute the higher-up - which in this case was Clinton. That alone proves the Obama Administration's
'investigation' of Clinton's email system to have been a farce.)
A plea-deal isn't a Constitutional process:
Jed Rakoff's article explained why it's not. The process is informal, but nowadays it's used
in more than 97% of cases in which charges are brought, and in more than 99% of all cases (including
the 92% of cases that are simply dropped without any charges being brought). That's the main reason
why nowadays "the prosecutor has all the power". Well, the prosecutor in Hillary's case (the Obama
Administration) clearly didn't want her in the big house; they wanted her in the White House.
"... It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions. ..."
"... If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles, and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth. ..."
"... Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal constitution. ..."
"... It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism. ..."
"... he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order, Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments and politics in the crisis that followed. ..."
"... What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success. ..."
= = = I am actually honestly suggesting an intellectual exercise which, I think, might
be worth your (extremely valuable) time. I propose you rewrite this post without using the
word "neoliberalism" (or a synonym). = = =
It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold
on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all
the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the
performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures
thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version
of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions.
bruce wilder 09.03.16 at 7:47 pm
In the politics of antonyms, I suppose we are always going get ourselves confused.
Perhaps because of American usage of the root, liberal, to mean the mildly social democratic
New Deal liberal Democrat, with its traces of American Populism and American Progressivism, we
seem to want "liberal" to designate an ideology of the left, or at least, the centre-left. Maybe,
it is the tendency of historical liberals to embrace idealistic high principles in their contest
with reactionary claims for hereditary aristocracy and arbitrary authority.
If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary",
the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the
existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles,
and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise
their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place
their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth.
All of that is by way of preface to a thumbnail history of modern political ideology different
from the one presented by Will G-R.
Modern political ideology is a by-product of the Enlightenment and the resulting imperative
to find a basis and purpose for political Authority in Reason, and apply Reason to the design
of political and social institutions.
Liberalism doesn't so much defeat conservatism as invent conservatism as an alternative to
purely reactionary politics. The notion of an "inevitable progress" allows liberals to reconcile
both themselves and their reactionary opponents to practical reality with incremental reform.
Political paranoia and rhetoric are turned toward thinking about constitutional design.
Mobilizing mass support and channeling popular discontents is a source of deep ambivalence
and risk for liberals and liberalism. Popular democracy can quickly become noisy and vulgar, the
proliferation of ideas and conflicting interests paralyzing. Inventing a conservatism that competes
with the liberals, but also mobilizes mass support and channels popular discontent, puts bounds
on "normal" politics.
Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives
can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal
constitution.
I would put the challenges to liberalism from the left and right well behind in precedence
the critical failures and near-failures of liberalism in actual governance.
Liberalism failed abjectly to bring about a constitutional monarchy in France during the first
decade of the French Revolution, or a functioning deliberative assembly or religious toleration
or even to resolve the problems of state finance and legal administration that destroyed the ancient
regime. In the end, the solution was found in Napoleon Bonaparte, a precedent that would arguably
inspire the fascism of dictators and vulgar nationalism, beginning with Napoleon's nephew fifty
years later.
It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject
failures of Liberalism that created fascism. And, this was especially true in the wake of
World War I, which many have argued persuasively was Liberalism's greatest and most catastrophic
failure. T he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany,
Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order,
Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments
and politics in the crisis that followed.
If liberals invented conservatism, it seems to me that would-be socialists were at pains to
re-invent liberalism, and they did it several times going in radically different directions, but
always from a base in the basic liberal idea of rationalizing authority. A significant thread
in socialism adopted incremental progress and socialist ideas became liberal and conservative
means for taming popular discontent in an increasingly urban society.
Where and when liberalism actually was triumphant, both the range of liberal views and the
range of interests presenting a liberal front became too broad for a stable politics. Think about
the Liberal Party landslide of 1906, which eventually gave rise to the Labour Party in its role
of Left Party in the British two-party system. Or FDR's landslide in 1936, which played a pivotal
role in the march of the Southern Democrats to the Right. Or the emergence of the Liberal Consensus
in American politics in the late 1950s.
What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism
running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial
in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were
arguably results of the earlier program's success.
It is almost a rote reaction to talk about the Republican's Southern Strategy, but they didn't
invent the crime wave that enveloped the country in the late 1960s or the riots that followed
the enactment of Civil Rights legislation.
Will G-R's "As soon [as] liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have . . .overcome the
socialist and fascist challenges [liberals] are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response
to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare
state, hello neoliberalism" doesn't seem to me to concede enough to Clinton and Blair entrepreneurially
inventing a popular politics in response to Reagan and Thatcher, after the actual failures
of an older model of social democratic programs and populist politics on its behalf.
I write more about this
over at
my blog (in a somewhat different context).
John Quiggin 09.04.16 at 6:57 am
RW @113 I wrote a whole book using "market liberalism" instead of "neoliberalism", since I wanted
a term more neutral and less pejorative. So, going back to "neoliberalism" was something I did
advisedly. You say
The word is abstract and has completely different meanings west and east of the Atlantic. In
the USA it refers to weak tea center leftisms. In Europe to hard core liberalism.
Well, yes. That's precisely why I've used the term, introduced the hard/soft distinction and explained
the history. The core point is that, despite their differences soft (US meaning) and hard (European
meaning) neoliberalism share crucial aspects of their history, theoretical foundations and policy
implications.
=== quote ===
Neoliberalism is an ideology of market fundamentalism based on deception that promotes "markets"
as a universal solution for all human problems in order to hide establishment of neo-fascist regime
(pioneered by Pinochet in Chile), where militarized government functions are limited to external
aggression and suppression of population within the country (often via establishing National Security
State using "terrorists" threat) and corporations are the only "first class" political players.
Like in classic corporatism, corporations are above the law and can rule the country as they see
fit, using political parties for the legitimatization of the regime.
The key difference with classic fascism is that instead of political dominance of the corporations
of particular nation, those corporations are now transnational and states, including the USA are
just enforcers of the will of transnational corporations on the population. Economic or "soft"
methods of enforcement such as debt slavery and control of employment are preferred to brute force
enforcement. At the same time police is militarized and due to technological achievements the
level of surveillance surpasses the level achieved in Eastern Germany.
Like with bolshevism in the USSR before, high, almost always hysterical, level of neoliberal
propaganda and scapegoating of "enemies" as well as the concept of "permanent war for permanent
peace" are used to suppress the protest against the wealth redistribution up (which is the key
principle of neoliberalism) and to decimate organized labor.
Multiple definitions of neoliberalism were proposed. Three major attempts to define this social
system were made:
Definitions stemming from the concept of "casino capitalism"
Definitions stemming from the concept of Washington consensus
Definitions stemming from the idea that Neoliberalism is Trotskyism for the rich. This
idea has two major variations:
Definitions stemming from Professor Wendy Brown's concept of Neoliberal rationality
which developed the concept of Inverted Totalitarism of Sheldon Wolin
Definitions stemming Professor Sheldon Wolin's older concept of Inverted Totalitarism
- "the heavy statism forging the novel fusions of economic with political power that he
took to be poisoning democracy at its root." (Sheldon Wolin and Inverted Totalitarianism
Common Dreams )
The first two are the most popular.
likbez 09.04.16 at 5:03 pm
bruce,
@117
Thanks for your post. It contains several important ideas:
"It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures
of Liberalism that created fascism."
"What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism
running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial
in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were
arguably results of the earlier program's success."
Moreover as Will G-R noted:
"neoliberalism will be every bit the wellspring of fascism that old-school liberalism was."
Failure of neoliberalism revives neofascist, far right movements. That's what the rise of far
right movements in Europe now demonstrates pretty vividly.
"... As soon liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have moved overcome the socialist and fascist challenges (the Fukuyamaist "end of history" and/or "end of ideology") these ideologues are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism ..."
"... I'm thinking more of local governments like the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago. ..."
"... So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc. through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people and institutions that will ..."
"... Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt. ..."
"... The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed ..."
"... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. ..."
"... That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing. ..."
"... The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed ..."
"... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
"... I do think it is helpful to see the deregulation of finance beginning in the Carter and Reagan Administrations leading eventually to the GFC of 2008 as an historical project and a political whole, in which there have been deviations between the stated intentions of advocates, the reasonable anticipation of consequences by experts and the self-interested pursuit of short-term advantage in regulatory evasion and reform. ..."
As far as a definition, at least on the level of ideology I'd go with the following simplified-to-the-utmost
historical overview…
1. Liberalism (the 18th- and 19th-century bourgeois ideology of capitalism) defeats conservatism
(the 18th- and 19th-century aristocratic ideology of anti-capitalism)
2. Triumphant liberalism faces insurgent ideological challenges from its left and right (i.e.
Quiggin's "three-party system" model, except the three parties are clearly understood to be socialism,
liberalism, and fascism)
3. Liberalism is forced to respond to these challenges, in particular responding to the socialist
critique with the ideology of Keynesian interventionist "welfare liberalism" - ideologues of older
liberalism consider this response itself a taint of corruption
4. As soon liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have moved overcome the socialist
and fascist challenges (the Fukuyamaist "end of history" and/or "end of ideology") these ideologues
are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges
was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism
In any case, it's utterly bizarre to see people object so stridently to "neoliberalism" who
simultaneously don't seem to have a problem with the imperialist, anti-intellectual, and quite
frankly racist connotations of the term "tribalism".
Will G-R 09.02.16 at 4:19 pm
Bruce @ 104, I'm not clued into the SoCal-specific issues (so I don't know exactly how much a
Chinatown -esque narrative should be raised in contrast to your description of LA water
infrastructure as "the best of civic boosterism") but I'm thinking more of local governments
like the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history
of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago.
he fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every American,
even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe a sigh
of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at local
government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are
asserting their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts.
So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone
in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc.
through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people
and institutions that will get rid of these officials if they overstep the bounds of
what we as a nation consider acceptable. (This also extends to more informal institutions
like the media: the local paper might not be shining the light on local corruption, but the media
as such can fulfill its function and redeem its institutional legitimacy if something too egregious
falls into the national spotlight.)
Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the
local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as
the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external
oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent
overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt.
The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project
of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed . This
is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow
get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations.
I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit
wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows
in part how neoliberalism has failed.
" American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also
been pro-union…"
Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free
flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens.
Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue
governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international
courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue
that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.
I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in
practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting
neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't
delivered.
That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who
no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation
delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing.
The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project
of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed. This is
an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow
get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations.
I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit
wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows
in part how neoliberalism has failed.
... I do think it is helpful to see the deregulation of finance beginning in the Carter and
Reagan Administrations leading eventually to the GFC of 2008 as an historical project and a political
whole, in which there have been deviations between the stated intentions of advocates, the reasonable
anticipation of consequences by experts and the self-interested pursuit of short-term advantage
in regulatory evasion and reform.
"... Lesse evilism that Bill Clinton used for moving Democratic Party into neoliberal camp (as in "those f*ckers from trade unions will vote for Dems anyway, they have nowhere to go") no longer works. ..."
@111 The obvious explanation for union endorsements of Clinton is that they expected her to win
the Democratic nomination, as she did. And of course they would endorse her against any Republican.
What else could they do>
The most obvious test case is the teachers unions. Obama's administration was clearly hostile
to the (think of Rahm Emanuel!), but they nonetheless endorsed him, as the lesser evil.
likbez 09.04.16 at 7:29 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
John,
@112
"The most obvious test case is the teachers unions. Obama's administration was clearly hostile
to the (think of Rahm Emanuel!), but they nonetheless endorsed him, as the lesser evil."
Lesse evilism that Bill Clinton used for moving Democratic Party into neoliberal camp (as in
"those f*ckers from trade unions will vote for Dems anyway, they have nowhere to go") no longer
works.
Far right will absorb those working class and lower white collar votes. And they became a political
force to recon with, which disposed neocons from the Republican establishment (all those Jeb!,
Kasich, Cruz, and Rubio crowd ) despite all efforts of the party brass. Welcome to the second
reincarnation of Weimar republic.
Trade union management, which endorsed Hillary, now expects that more than half of union members
will probably vote against Hillary. In some cases up to 2/3.
So Dem neolibs became a party that is not supported by the working class and if identity politics
tricks fail to work, they might get a a blowback in November. They can rely only on a few voting
blocks that benefitted from globalization, such as "network hamsters" (programmers, system administrators,
some part of FIRE low level staff, and such) and few other mass professionals. That's it.
"... Already feeling marginalized and often targeted, the boys and men described themselves as "searchers" or "seekers," kids looking for a group with which to identify and where they would feel they belonged. "When you enter puberty, it's like you have to choose a branch," said one ex-Nazi. "You have to choose between being a Nazi, anti-Nazi, punk or hip- hopper-in today's society, you just can't choose to be neutral" (cited in Wahlstrom 2001, 13-14). ..."
"... The systematic deprivation of adequate rest and food may have been a deliberate ploy of the camp organizers to reduce the chances of dissent since time, energy, initiative, and planning are needed to develop a collective sense of grievance. ..."
"... Festivals are excellent opportunities for far-right groups to spread the word about their successes to like-minded activists and sympathizers, since visitors come from as far away as Italy to see White Power music bands. In the festival mentioned above, a folk-dance act in the afternoon attracted only some hundred spectators, but evening performances by the U.S. band Youngland drew a large crowd that pushed to the front of the stage, leaving only limited space for burly skinheads indulging in pogo dancing. The music created a ritual closeness and attachment among the audience, shaping the emotions and aggression of the like-minded crowd, initially in a playful way, but one that switched into brutality a few moments later. ..."
"... it is intriguing to see some of the same mechanisms and dynamics in play in creating and sustaining an extremist movement. The importance of performance and music in eliciting loyal participation from young adherents comes up in the articles about Germany, Sweden, and India. Likewise the importance of the emotional needs of boys as they approach manhood, and the hyper-masculine themes of violence and brutality in the neo-Nazi organizations that appeal to them, recurs in several of the essays. ..."
nderstand the dynamics of far-right extremism without understanding far-right extremists? Probably
not; it seems clear we need to have a much more "micro" understanding of the actors than we currently
have if we are to understand these movements so antithetical to the values of liberal democracy.
And yet there isn't much of a literature on this subject.
An important exception is a 2007 special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography
, curated by Kathleen Blee (
link ). This volume brings
together several ethnographic studies of extremist groups, and it makes for very interesting reading.
Kathleen Blee is a pioneer in this field and is the author of
Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement (2002). She writes in Inside Organized
Racism :
Intense, activist racism typically does not arise on its own; it is learned in racist groups
. These groups promote ideas radically different from the racist attitudes held by many whites.
They teach a complex and contradictory mix of hatred for enemies, belief in conspiracies, and
allegiance to an imaginary unified race of "Aryans." (3)
One of Blee's key contributions has been to highlight the increasingly important and independent
role played by women in right-wing extremist movements in the United States and Europe.
The JCE issue includes valuable studies of right-wing extremist groups in India, France, Germany,
the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. And each of the essays is well worth reading, including especially
Blee's good introduction. Here is the table of contents:
Key questions concerning the mechanisms of mobilization arise in almost all the essays. What are
the mechanisms through which new adherents are recruited? What psychological and emotional mechanisms
are in play that keep loyalists involved in the movement? Contributors to this volume find a highly
heterogeneous set of circumstances leading to extremist activism. Blee argues that an internalist
approach is needed to allow us to have a more nuanced understanding of the social and personal
dynamics of extremist movements. What she means by externalist here is the idea that there
are societal forces and "risk factors" that contribute to the emergence of hate and racism within
a population, and that these factors can be studied in a general way. An internalist approach, by
contrast, aims at discovering the motives and causes of extremist engagement through study of the
actors themselves, within specific social circumstances.
But it is problematic to use data garnered in externalist studies to draw conclusions about micromobilization
since it is not possible to infer the motivations of activists from the external conditions in
which the group emerged. Because people are drawn to far-right movements for a variety of reasons
that have little connection to political ideology (Blee 2002)-including a search for community,
affirmation of masculinity, and personal loyalties- what motivates someone to join an anti-immigrant
group, for example, might-or might not-be animus toward immigrants. (120)
Based on interviews, participant-observation, and life-history methods, contributors find a mix of
factors leading to the choice of extremist involvement: adolescent hyper-masculinity, a desire to
belong, a history of bullying and abuse, as well as social exposure to adult hate activists. But
this work is more difficult than many other kinds of ethnographic research because of the secrecy,
suspiciousness, and danger associated with these kinds of activism:
Close-up or "internalist" studies of far-right movements can provide a better understanding of
the workings of far-right groups and the beliefs and motivations of their activists and supporters,
but such studies are rare because data from interviews with members, observations of group activities,
and internal documents are difficult to obtain.... Few scholars want to invest the considerable
time or to establish the rapport necessary for close-up studies of those they regard as inexplicable
and repugnant, in addition to dangerous and difficult. Yet, as the articles in this volume demonstrate,
internalist studies of the far right can reveal otherwise obscured and important features of extreme
rightist political mobilization. (121-122)
A few snippets will give some flavor of the volume. Here is Michael Kimmel's description
of some of the young men and boys attracted to the neo-Nazi movement in Sweden:
Insecure and lonely at twelve years old, Edward started hanging out with skinheads because he
"moved to a new town, knew nobody, and needed friends." Equally lonely and utterly alienated from
his distant father, Pelle met an older skinhead who took him under his wing and became a sort
of mentor. Pelle was a "street hooligan" hanging out in street gangs, brawling and drinking with
other gangs. "My group actually looked down on the neo-Nazis," he says, because "they weren't
real fighters." "All the guys had an insecure role as a man," says Robert. "They were all asking
'who am I?'" ...
Already feeling marginalized and often targeted, the boys and men described themselves
as "searchers" or "seekers," kids looking for a group with which to identify and where they would
feel they belonged. "When you enter puberty, it's like you have to choose a branch," said one
ex-Nazi. "You have to choose between being a Nazi, anti-Nazi, punk or hip- hopper-in today's society,
you just can't choose to be neutral" (cited in Wahlstrom 2001, 13-14). ...
For others, it was a sense of alienation from family and especially the desire to rebel against
their fathers. "Grown-ups often forget an important component of Swedish racism, the emotional
conviction," says Jonas Hallen (2000). "If you have been beaten, threatened, and stolen from,
you won't listen to facts and numbers."(209-210)
Here is Meera Sehgal's description of far-right Hindu nationalist training camps for
young girls in India:
The overall atmosphere of this camp and the Samiti's camps in general was rigid and authoritarian,
with a strong emphasis on discipline. ... A number of girls fell ill with diarrhea, exhaustion,
and heat stroke. Every day at least five to ten girls could be seen crying, wanting to go home.
They pleaded with their city's local Samiti leaders, camp instructors, and organizers to be allowed
to call their parents, but were not allowed to do so. ... Neither students nor instructors were
allowed to get sufficient rest or decent food.
The training was at a frenetic pace in physically trying conditions. Participants were kept
awake and physically and mentally engaged from dawn to late night. Approximately four hours a
day were devoted to physical training; five hours to ideological indoctrination through lectures,
group discussions, and rote memorization; and two hours to indoctrination through cultural programming
like songs, stories, plays, jokes, and skits. Many girls and women were consequently soon physically
exhausted, and yet were forced to continue. The systematic deprivation of adequate rest and
food may have been a deliberate ploy of the camp organizers to reduce the chances of dissent since
time, energy, initiative, and planning are needed to develop a collective sense of grievance.
Indoctrination, which was the Samiti's first priority, ranged from classroom lectures and small
and large group discussions led by different instructors, to nightly cultural programs where skits,
storytelling, songs, and chants were taught by the instructors and seasoned activists, based on
the lives of various "Hindu" women, both mythical and historical. (170)
And here is Fabian Virchow's description of the emotional power of music and spectacle
at a neo-Nazi rally in Germany:
Festivals are excellent opportunities for far-right groups to spread the word about their
successes to like-minded activists and sympathizers, since visitors come from as far away as Italy
to see White Power music bands. In the festival mentioned above, a folk-dance act in the afternoon
attracted only some hundred spectators, but evening performances by the U.S. band Youngland drew
a large crowd that pushed to the front of the stage, leaving only limited space for burly skinheads
indulging in pogo dancing. The music created a ritual closeness and attachment among the audience,
shaping the emotions and aggression of the like-minded crowd, initially in a playful way, but
one that switched into brutality a few moments later.
The aggression of White Power music is evident in the messages of its songs, which are either
confessing, demonstrating self-assertion against what is perceived as totally hostile surroundings,
or requesting action (Meyer 1995). Using Heavy Metal or Oi Punk as its musical basis, White Power
music not only attracts those who see themselves as part of the same political movement as the
musicians, but also serves as one of the most important tools for recruiting new adherents to
the politics of the far right (Dornbusch and Raabe 2002).
Since the festival I visited takes place only once a year, and because performances of White
Power bands are organized clandestinely in most cases and are often disrupted by the police, the
far-right movement needs additional events to shape and sustain its collective identity. As the
far right and the NPD and neo-Nazi groupuscules in particular regard themselves as a "movement
of action," it is no surprise that rallies play an important role in this effort. (151)
Each of these essays is based on first-hand observation and interaction, and they give some insight
into the psychological forces playing on the participants as well as the mobilizational strategies
used by the leaders of these kinds of movements. The articles published here offer a good cross-section
of the ways in which ethnographic methods can be brought to bear on the phenomenon of extremist right-wing
activism. And because the studies are drawn from five quite different national contexts (Sweden,
Germany, Netherlands, India, France), it is intriguing to see some of the same mechanisms and
dynamics in play in creating and sustaining an extremist movement. The importance of performance
and music in eliciting loyal participation from young adherents comes up in the articles about Germany,
Sweden, and India. Likewise the importance of the emotional needs of boys as they approach manhood,
and the hyper-masculine themes of violence and brutality in the neo-Nazi organizations that appeal
to them, recurs in several of the essays.
Along with KA Kreasap, Kathleen Blee is also the author of a 2010 review article on right-wing
extremist movements in Annual Reviews of Sociology (
link ). These are the kinds of hate-based organizations and activists tracked by the Southern
Poverty Law Center (
link ), and that seem to be more visible than ever before during the current presidential campaign.
The essay pays attention to the question of the motivations and "risk factors" that lead people to
join right-wing movements. Blee and Kreasap argue that the motivations and circumstances of mobilization
into right-wing organizations are substantially more heterogeneous than a simple story leading from
racist attitudes to racist mobilization would suggest. They argue that antecedent racist ideology
is indeed a factor, but that music, culture, social media, and continent social networks also play
significant causal roles.
"... Several recent posts have commented on the rise of a nationalistic, nativist politics in numerous contemporary democracies around the world. ..."
"... Wasserman emphasizes the importance of ideas and culture within the rise of Austrofascism, and he makes use of Gramsci's concept of hegemony as a way of understanding the link between philosophy and politics. The pro-fascist right held a dominant role within major Viennese cultural and educational institutions. ..."
"... The ideas represented within its institutions ran a broad spectrum, yet its discourse centered on radical anti-Semitism, German nationalism, völkisch authoritarianism, anti-Enlightenment (and antimodernist) thinking, and corporatism. The potential for collaboration between Catholic conservatives and German nationalists has only in recent years begun to attract scholarly attention. ..."
Several recent posts have commented on the rise of a nationalistic, nativist politics in numerous
contemporary democracies around the world. The implications of this political process are deeply
challenging to the values of liberal democracy. We need to try to understand these developments.
(Peter Merkl's research on European right-wing extremism is very helpful here;
Right-wing Extremism in the Twenty-first Century .)
One plausible approach to trying to understand the dynamics of this turn to the far right is to
consider relevantly similar historical examples. A very interesting study on the history of Austria's
right-wing extremism between the wars was published recently by Janek Wasserman,
Black Vienna: The Radical Right in the Red City, 1918-1938 .
Wasserman emphasizes the importance of ideas and culture within the rise of Austrofascism,
and he makes use of Gramsci's concept of hegemony as a way of understanding the link between philosophy
and politics. The pro-fascist right held a dominant role within major Viennese cultural and educational
institutions. Here is how Wasserman describes the content of ultra-conservative philosophy and
ideology in inter-war Vienna:
The ideas represented within its institutions ran a broad spectrum, yet its discourse centered
on radical anti-Semitism, German nationalism, völkisch authoritarianism, anti-Enlightenment
(and antimodernist) thinking, and corporatism. The potential for collaboration between Catholic
conservatives and German nationalists has only in recent years begun to attract scholarly attention.
(6)
This climate was highly inhospitable towards ideas and values from progressive thinkers. Wasserman
describes the intellectual and cultural climate of Vienna in these terms:
At the turn of the century, Austria was one of the most culturally conservative nations in Europe.
The advocacy of avant-garde scientific theories therefore put the First Vienna Circle- and its
intellectual forbears- under pressure. Ultimately, it left them in marginal positions until several
years after the Great War. In the wake of the Wahrmund affair, discussed in chapter 1, intellectuals
advocating secularist, rationalist, or liberal views faced a hostile academic landscape.
Ernst Mach, for example, was an intellectual outsider at the University of Vienna from 1895
until his death in 1916. Always supportive of socialist causes, he left a portion of his estate
to the Social Democrats in his last will and testament. His theories of sensationalism and radical
empiricism were challenged on all sides, most notably by his successor Ludwig Boltzmann. His students,
among them David Josef Bach and Friedrich Adler, either had to leave the country to find appointments
or give up academics altogether. Unable to find positions in Vienna, Frank moved to Prague and
Neurath to Heidelberg. Hahn did not receive a position until after the war. The First Vienna Circle
disbanded because of a lack of opportunity at home. (110-111)
The whole thing smells to high heaven. The only reason to trust that there are no direct quid
pro quos is, perversely, that there are so many donations and so many speeches and interactions
that they all begin to seem normal.
Yes, there may be smoke and no fire, in the legal sense, but let us not pretend there are no
issues here.
I don't know if relying on the same people over time is bad or loopy or what. I know that old
friends are the best friends, so this does not bother me so much.
I will add, which is almost never pointed out, that while the Clintons really are money grubbers
(see them stealing White House silverware and HRC unbelievably stupidly giving all those Goldman
Sachs talks for money she did not need and for which she should have known she would be criticized
while running, which Bernie certainly did plenty, although somehow Trump has so far laid off that),
the Clintons have in fact publicly released 33 years of their tax returns right up to the latest
ones. They may be money grubbers, but it is pretty much all out there to see.
... ...
Beverly Mann
August 30, 2016 5:05 pm
What bothers me–what strikes me as weird–is the extent to which she relies on Abedin, especially,
but also Mills and a few others. They're like human security blanket, without which she can't
function, it appears.
And: Oooooh, yeah, Trump's hiding not just something but a lot of things. Believe me.
Gage Skidmore / Flickr
In accepting the invitation of President Enrique Pena Nieto to fly to Mexico City, the
Donald was taking a major risk.
Yet it was a bold and decisive move, and it paid off in
what was the best day of Donald Trump's campaign.
Standing beside Nieto, graciously complimenting him and speaking warmly of Mexico and
its people, Trump looked like a president. And the Mexican president treated him like one,
even as Trump restated the basic elements of his immigration policy, including the border
wall.
The gnashing of teeth up at the
New York Times
testifies to Trump's triumph:
"Mr. Trump has spent his entire campaign painting Mexico as a nation of rapists, drug
smugglers, and trade hustlers. … But instead of chastising Mr. Trump, Mr. Pena Nieto
treated him like a visiting head of state … with side-by-side lecterns and words of
deferential mush."
As I wrote in August, Trump "must convince the nation … he is an acceptable, indeed, a
preferable alternative" to Hillary Clinton, whom the nation does not want.
In Mexico City, Trump did that.
He reassured
voters who are leaning toward him that he can be president. As for those who are
apprehensive about his temperament, they saw reassurance.
For validation, one need not rely on supporters of Trump. Even Mexicans who loathe Trump
are conceding his diplomatic coup.
"Trump achieved his purpose," said journalism professor Carlos Bravo Regidor. "He looked
serene, firm, presidential." Our "humiliation is now complete," tweeted an anchorman at
Televisa.
President Nieto's invitation to Trump "was the biggest stupidity in the history of the
Mexican presidency," said academic Jesus Silva-Herzog.
Not since Gen. Winfield Scott arrived for a visit in 1847 have Mexican elites been this
upset with an American.
Jorge Ramos of Univision almost required sedation.
When Trump got back to the States, he affirmed that Mexico will be paying for the wall,
even if "they don't know it yet."
Indeed, back on American soil, in Phoenix, the Donald doubled down. Deportations will
accelerate when he takes office, beginning with felons. Sanctuary cities for illegal
immigrants will face U.S. sanctions. There will be no amnesty, no legalization, no path to
citizenship for those who have broken into our country. All laws will be enforced.
Trump's stance in Mexico City and Phoenix reveals that there is no turning back. The die
is cast. He is betting the election on his belief that the American people prefer his
stands to Clinton's call for amnesty.
A core principle enunciated by Trump in Phoenix appears to be a guiding light behind his
immigration policy.
"Anyone who tells you that the core issue is the needs of those living here illegally
has simply spent too much time Washington. … There is only one core issue in the
immigration debate, and that issue is the well-being of the American people. … Nothing even
comes a close second."
The "well-being of the American people" may be the yardstick by which U.S. policies will
be measured in a Trump presidency. This is also applicable to Trump's stand on trade and
foreign policy.
Do NAFTA, the WTO, MFN for China, the South Korea deal, and TPP advance the "well-being
of the American people"? Or do they serve more the interests of foreign regimes and
corporate elites?
Some $12 trillion in trade deficits since George H.W. Bush gives you the answer.
Which of the military interventions and foreign wars from Serbia to Afghanistan to Iraq
to Libya to Yemen to Syria served the "well-being of the American people"?
Are the American people well-served by commitments in perpetuity to 60- and 65-year-old
treaties to wage war on Russia and China on behalf of scores of nations across Eurasia,
most of which have been free riders on U.S. defense for decades?
Trump's "core issue" might be called
Americanism.
Whatever the outcome of this election, these concerns are not going away. For they have
arisen out of a deeply dissatisfied and angry electorate that is alienated from the elites
both parties.
Indeed, alienation explains the endurance of Trump, despite his recent difficulties.
Americans want change, and he alone offers it.
In the last two weeks, Trump has seen a slow rise in the polls, matched by a perceptible
decline in support for Clinton. The latest Rasmussen poll now has Trump at 40, with Clinton
slipping to 39.
This race is now Trump's to win or lose. For he alone brings a fresh perspective to
policies that have stood stagnant under both parties.
And Hillary Clinton? Whatever her attributes, she is uncharismatic, unexciting, greedy,
wonkish, scripted, and devious, an individual you can neither fully believe nor fully
trust.
Which is why the country seems to be looking, again, to Trump, to show them that they
will not be making a big mistake if they elect him.
If Donald Trump can continue to show America what he did in Mexico City, that he can be
presidential, he may just become president.
"... Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trump_vs_deep_state is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed. ..."
"... The only thing more ludicrous than voting for Donald Trump would be to vote for Hilary Clinton. Whilst Trump is evidently crude, vulgar, bombastic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic, his manifest personality flaws pale into insignificance when compared to the the meglomaniacal, prevaricating, misandristic, puff adder, who is likely to oppose him! ..."
"... Clinton is the archetypal political parasite, who has spent a lifetime with her arrogant snout wedged firmly in the public trough. Like Obama, Bush, et al, Clinton is just another elitist Bilderberger sock puppet, a conniving conspirator in the venal kleptocracy, located in Washington D.C, otherwise known as the U.S. federal government. ..."
"... Trump at least is not in thrall to the system and thus, by default, can be perceived by the average blue-collar American as being an outsider to the systemic corruption that pervades the whole American political process. A horrible choice, but the lesser of two evils. ..."
"... Trump was always a Democrat, before now and so were a lot of other Americans. America is watching how the Democrat Party is destroying America. The race card is a low blow to Trump supporters. Illegal immigration is a legitimate issue in the US. It has nothing to do with racism. ..."
"... British capitalism grew because of two things cheap coal that made using the new steam engine and the protected monopoly markets offered by the empire which also provided monopoly access to the resources of those countries. American capitalism grew up behind high tariff walls, ditto Chinese capitalism now. ..."
"... TTIP will be used by big capital both here in Europe and in the US to drive down the wages and working conditions of workers in Europe and the US, and that is why the EU is solely a bosses agenda and workers here in Britain have more to gain by leaving the EU, an EU that has crucified workers in Greece just so German bankers don't lose. ..."
"... Politicians in the U.S. are inherently corrupt, both figuratively and literally (they just hide it better as perks and campaign contributions). Politicians in the U.S. make promises, but ultimately it is just rhetoric and nothing ever gets delivered on. Once elected, they revert to the Status Quo of doing nothing – or they vote for the bills of the interest groups that supported them during the election. ..."
"... It seems noone wants to talk about anything other than vilifying Trump supporters because their vested interests are all about grind working people into the dust so the high end of town can make every more money. No wonder Trump is cutting through. The whole world has been watching our leaders sell us down the river in these deals. ..."
"... The working class tens of millions have the votes and if need be, the guns. Thank you, second amendment. Essentially they're presented with the prospect of their kids spending their working lives slaving at $10-$20 an hour, or to die trying to alter the future of that elite-orchestrated course of events. What would an American choose? ..."
"... All Clinton has to offer is more of the same lying and "free trade" deals, and subterfuge and killing. Trump says he's gonna step up, bring the jobs back to America, get the mass of people moving forward again, so Trumps is gonna win this thing. ..."
"... Free trade isn't free. It has cost millions of Americans their jobs, even their homes and hopes for the future. Both parties have taken American workers for granted even worse than the Democrats have taken Blacks for granted lately. ..."
"... What we need is a Labor party to represent those of US who have to work to earn a living, as opposed to those who were born wealthy, or gained their wealth through stock manipulation/dividends and fraud. It is the working people who actually create new wealth. Trump's bigotry does not bother white blue collar workers because they mostly agree and hate and fear Blacks. The Venn diagram of bigots, white laborers and the south overlap almost 100%. ..."
"... Taibbi in the latest Rolling Stone says the same thing. Taibbi went to listen to Trump's speeches. Trump pillories Big Pharma, unemployment and trade deals and Wall Street. He's less warlike than Clinton. ..."
"... So it is very possible Clinton will be hit from the LEFT by Trump. That is how bad the Democratis really are. ..."
"... And 'change' – I.e more globalism, means less and less job security: economic security slipping away at a unprecedented rate. Transnational interests basically rule America, not to mention the mainstream media, whose job it is to attack Trump. Many millions have seen through this facade. Democrat or Republican, the incestuous political establishment is being exposed like never before. ..."
"... Trump is revealing what other candidates refuse to admit: that they are owned before they even step foot into Washington. I mean - Clinton is Goldman and Sachs, TTIP, Monsanto approved! And this is who the Guardian are siding with? Go figure... ..."
"... I think his denouncing trade deals is what made the Republicans, (aka, Corporatist Party of which Hillary should clearly be a part of-but save for another day) go bonkers. They cannot control this guy and he's making sense in the trade department. It's not as if suddenly the Republican party has grown a set of morals. ..."
"... Because Sanders will support Hillary as he promised to do -- does that sound like a revolutionary? Bill Clinton invented NAFTA. Get it? ..."
"... They abandoned the working classes in favour of grabbing middle class votes and relied on working class voters continuing to support them, because they had "nowhere else to go". ..."
"... This reminded me of something I heard on NPR this weekend: Charles Evers, Medgar Evers' brother and a prominent civil rights activist since the 50's, is endorsing Trump. ..."
"... Interestingly you have raised issues that are all very complex -- and that is just the problem. We have become a society that promotes complexity and then does not want to discuss and analyze those complex issues, but wants to oversimplify and fight and make the "other side" be a devil. Are we all getting dumbed down to slogans and cliches? ..."
"... The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer. ..."
"... Frank offers insights that Clintonites can ignore at their peril. As the widow of a hardworking man who was twice the victim of "outsourcing" to Malaysia and India, and whose prolonged illness brought with it savings-decimating drug costs, I can well see how Trump's appeal goes beyond xenophobia and racism. ..."
"... Trump is saying that NAFTA and neo-liberalism have failed the American people. ..."
"... You could be describing Hillary and Bill the fraudulent guy who "feels your pain". Liars and in the pockets of bankers, that couple is not your friend. ..."
"... I don't see a true value to trade if it involves loss of jobs and lowered pay. I do see value in fair trade where we receive somewhat equal return ..."
"... The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress. ..."
"... I'm living in Japan, where in the past decade they have taken in 11 refugees. That's not 11 million or even 11 thousand. I mean 11. ..."
"... And guess what, they are not racist. They have borders and they are not racist. I know this is a hard concept for progressives to get their heads around, but believe it or not it is possible. ..."
"... The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress. ..."
...the Republican frontrunner is hammering home a powerful message about free trade and its victims
....because the working-class white people who make up the bulk of Trump's fan base show up in
amazing numbers for the candidate, filling stadiums and airport hangars, but their views, by and
large, do not appear in our prestige newspapers. On their opinion pages, these publications take
care to represent demographic categories of nearly every kind, but "blue-collar" is one they persistently
overlook. The views of working-class people are so foreign to that universe that when New York Times
columnist Nick Kristof wanted to "engage" a Trump supporter last week, he made one up, along with
this imaginary person's responses to his questions.
When members of the professional class wish to understand the working-class Other, they traditionally
consult experts on the subject. And when these authorities are asked to explain the Trump movement,
they always seem to zero in on one main accusation: bigotry. Only racism, they tell us, is capable
of powering a movement like Trump's, which is blowing through the inherited structure of the Republican
party like a tornado through a cluster of McMansions.
... ... ...
Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about
it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan to build a wall
along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political fame. He did it again during the
debate on 3 March: asked about his
political excommunication by Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about ... trade.
It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the many companies
that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make to those
companies' CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US.
Trump embellished this vision with another favorite left-wing idea: under his leadership, the
government would "start competitive bidding in the drug industry." ("We don't competitively bid!"
he marveled – another true fact, a
legendary boondoggle brought to you by the George W Bush administration.) Trump extended the
critique to the military-industrial complex, describing how the government is forced to buy
lousy but expensive airplanes thanks to the power of industry lobbyists.
... ... ...
Trade is an issue that polarizes Americans by socio-economic status. To the professional class,
which encompasses the vast majority of our media figures, economists, Washington officials and Democratic
power brokers, what they call "free trade" is something so obviously good and noble it doesn't require
explanation or inquiry or even thought. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree on this, and
no amount of facts can move them from their Econ 101 dream.
To the remaining 80 or 90% of America, trade means something very different. There's a video going
around on the internet these days that shows a room full of workers at a Carrier air conditioning
plant in Indiana being told by an officer of the company that the factory is being moved to Monterrey,
Mexico and that they're all going to lose their jobs.
As I watched it, I thought of all the arguments over trade that we've had in this country since
the early 1990s, all the sweet words from our economists about the scientifically proven benevolence
of free trade, all the ways in which our newspapers mock people who say that treaties like the North
Atlantic Free Trade Agreement allow companies to move jobs to Mexico.
Well, here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what
it looks like. The Carrier executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language about
the need to "stay competitive" and "the extremely price-sensitive marketplace." A worker shouts "Fuck
you!" at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can "share" his "information".
His information about all of them losing their jobs.
But there is another way to interpret the Trump phenomenon. A map of his support may coordinate
with racist Google searches, but it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair,
with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington's free-market consensus have brought
the rest of America.
Advertisement
It is worth noting that Trump is making a point of assailing that Indiana air conditioning company
from the video in his speeches. What this suggests is that he's telling a tale as much about economic
outrage as it is tale of racism on the march. Many of Trump's followers are bigots, no doubt, but
many more are probably excited by the prospect of a president who seems to mean it when he denounces
our trade agreements and promises to bring the hammer down on the CEO that fired you and wrecked
your town, unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Here is the most salient supporting fact: when people talk to white, working-class Trump supporters,
instead of simply imagining what they might say, they find that what most concerns these people is
the economy and their place in it. I am referring to a study just published by Working America, a
political-action auxiliary of the AFL-CIO, which interviewed some 1,600 white working-class voters
in the suburbs of Cleveland and Pittsburgh in December and January.
Support for Donald Trump, the group found, ran strong among these people, even among self-identified
Democrats, but not because they are all pining for a racist in the White House. Their favorite aspect
of Trump was his "attitude," the blunt and forthright way he talks. As far as issues are concerned,
"immigration" placed third among the matters such voters care about, far behind their number one
concern: "good jobs / the economy."
"People are much more frightened than they are bigoted," is how the findings were described to
me by Karen Nussbaum, the executive director of Working America. The survey "confirmed what we heard
all the time: people are fed up, people are hurting, they are very distressed about the fact that
their kids don't have a future" and that "there still hasn't been a recovery from the recession,
that every family still suffers from it in one way or another."
Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor Council in Fort Wayne, puts
it even more bluntly when I asked him about working-class Trump fans. "These people aren't racist,
not any more than anybody else is," he says of Trump supporters he knows. "When Trump talks about
trade, we think about the Clinton administration, first with Nafta and then with [Permanent Normal
Trade Relations] China, and here in Northeast Indiana, we hemorrhaged jobs."
"They look at that, and here's Trump talking about trade, in a ham-handed way, but at least he's
representing emotionally. We've had all the political establishment standing behind every trade deal,
and we endorsed some of these people, and then we've had to fight them to get them to represent us."
Now, let us stop and smell the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance
the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America – one of our two monopoly parties –
chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the tribune
of the enlightened professional class, a "creative class" that makes innovative things like derivative
securities and smartphone apps. The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured,
had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen
to them any longer.
What Lewandowski and Nussbaum are saying, then, should be obvious to anyone who's dipped a toe
outside the prosperous enclaves on the two coasts. Ill-considered trade deals and generous bank bailouts
and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies
have taken their toll. As Trump says, "we have rebuilt China and yet our country is falling apart.
Our infrastructure is falling apart. . . . Our airports are, like, Third World."
Trump's words articulate the populist backlash against [neo]liberalism that has been building
slowly for decades and may very well occupy the White House itself, whereupon the entire world will
be required to take seriously its demented ideas.
Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we
liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions,
for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their
twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trump_vs_deep_state is just a crude
and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed.
Below is a letter that General Jonathan Wainwright sent to Soldiers discharged from the military,
following their service in World War II. As our military downsizes and many choose to leave the
service, I think this letter reminds us of the charge to continue to reflect the values of our
individual services and be examples within our communities.
To: All Personnel being Discharged from the Army of the United States.
You are being discharged from the Army today- from your Army. It is your Army because your
skill, patriotism, labor, courage and devotion have been some of the factors which make it
great. You have been a member of the finest military team in history. You have accomplished
miracles in battle and supply. Your country is proud of you and you have every right to be
proud of yourselves.
You have seen, in the lands where you worked and fought and where many of your comrades
died, what happens when the people of a nation lose interest in their government. You have
seen what happens when they follow false leaders. You have seen what happens when a nation
accepts hate and intolerance.
We are all determined that what happened in Europe and in Asia must not happen to our country.
Back in civilian life you will find that your generation will be called upon to guide our country's
destiny. Opportunity for leadership is yours. The responsibility is yours. The nation which
depended on your courage and stamina to protect it from its enemies now expects you as individuals
to claim your right to leadership, a right you earned honorably and which is well deserved.
Start being a leader as soon as you put on your civilian clothes. If you see intolerance
and hate, speak out against them. Make your individual voices heard, not for selfish things,
but for honor and decency among men, for the rights of all people.
Remember too, that No American can afford to be disinterested in any part of his government,
whether it is county, city, state or nation.
Choose your leaders wisely- that is the way to keep ours the country for which you fought.
Make sure that those leaders are determined to maintain peace throughout the world. You know
what war is. You know that we must not have another. As individuals you can prevent it if you
give to the task which lies ahead the same spirit which you displayed in uniform.
Accept and trust the challenge which it carries. I know that the people of American are
counting on you. I know that you will not let them down.
Goodbye to each an every one of you and to each and every one of you, good luck!
J.M. WAINWRIGHT
General, U.S. Army
Commanding
Albert Matchett
Why Americans are supporting him begins to make sense. A lot like here in the UK, our politicians
have reduced amount of money that people have available to spent And can not understand why sales
turnovers keeps going down.
No money, No sale. Companies say made abroad equals higher profits but Not if the goods made
can not be sold, Because we have to many unemployed or minimum hours contracts or low income people.
matt88008
The only thing more ludicrous than voting for Donald Trump would be to vote for Hilary
Clinton. Whilst Trump is evidently crude, vulgar, bombastic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic,
his manifest personality flaws pale into insignificance when compared to the the meglomaniacal,
prevaricating, misandristic, puff adder, who is likely to oppose him!
Clinton is the archetypal political parasite, who has spent a lifetime with her arrogant
snout wedged firmly in the public trough. Like Obama, Bush, et al, Clinton is just another elitist
Bilderberger sock puppet, a conniving conspirator in the venal kleptocracy, located in Washington
D.C, otherwise known as the U.S. federal government.
Trump at least is not in thrall to the system and thus, by default, can be perceived by
the average blue-collar American as being an outsider to the systemic corruption that pervades
the whole American political process. A horrible choice, but the lesser of two evils.
Trump was always a Democrat, before now and so were a lot of other Americans. America is watching
how the Democrat Party is destroying America. The race card is a low blow to Trump supporters.
Illegal immigration is a legitimate issue in the US. It has nothing to do with racism.
Protecting America from potential terrorists entering the county is a real issue. We can look
what happened in Paris and Cologne. These are concerns of the people of America and they want
protection and solutions. It has nothing to do with racism.
The biggest reason people support Trump is because they trust his financial aptitude. They
honestly feel he can bring America back to greatness.
I personally don't care for his personality and don't completely trust him but I may have to
vote for him, considering my other choices. As soon as Rubio and Kasich drop out, Cruz will take
off. Rubio, if he truly hates Trump, as he acts, may want to drop out sooner than later.
British capitalism grew because of two things cheap coal that made using the new steam engine
and the protected monopoly markets offered by the empire which also provided monopoly access to
the resources of those countries. American capitalism grew up behind high tariff walls, ditto
Chinese capitalism now.
British capitalism went into relative decline from the mid nineteenth century because of the
opening up those monopoly markets to overseas competition.
TTIP will be used by big capital both here in Europe and in the US to drive down the wages
and working conditions of workers in Europe and the US, and that is why the EU is solely a bosses
agenda and workers here in Britain have more to gain by leaving the EU, an EU that has crucified
workers in Greece just so German bankers don't lose.
If the soft left and that includes much of what passes for the left in the PLP continues to
pander to the interests of big capital then the working classes will continue to be alienated
from the Labour party.
To the middle class soft left choose a side, there are only two, labour or capital
. If you choose capital you personally maybe ok for a while, but capitalist expansion is now
threatening the environment and with it food and water security. Capitalism rests on continuous
expansion but is now pushing against natural limits and when capitalist states come under too
many restrictions to their expansion you have the perfect recipe for war and in 2016 a war between
the largest capitalist states has the risk of going nuclear.
I'll just bet that if you were to look a little closer, you might find that there are a lot of
different races voting for Trump, so stop trying to brand him as racist. That is just another
trick the opposition wants you to fall for. The corporations are fearful that they might have
to actually give a high paying job to an American, tsk, tsk.
It's ironic that a billionaire is leading the inter-class revolution.
I don't completely buy into the premise (last paragraph) that most liberals are well educated
and well off and that it's liberals -- speaking of the electorate -- that have turned their backs
on blue collar workers. There are many working-class Democrats -- that's part of Bernie Sanders'
base, the youth of America is very liberal and very under-employed, non-Evangelical Black people
tend to vote liberal/Democrat -- at least according to the GOP, the Clinton campaign & the polls
-- so to state that it's liberals who've turned their backs on the blue collar class is folly.
Now, the statement that liberal politicians have turned their backs on their working-class
base, as well as the working-class Republicans, is very true, and that's a result of too much
money in politics. Pandering to lobbyists while ignoring the electorate.
What I don't understand about the liberal electorate is why so freakin' many low-income voters
choose Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Why so many, supposed, educated people (at least smarter
than the rank-&-file Republican voter, goes the legend) would vote against their best interests
and support a lying, flip-flopping, war-mongering, say-anything-get-elected, establishment crony
is beyond comprehension.
If it comes down to it, at least with Trump you know where his money came from. How, exactly,
is it that the Clintons went from being broke as hell after leaving the White House to having
a net worth of over $111M in just 16 years? Since Slick Willy left office, except for the past
four years, hasn't Hillary always been a government employee? Except, you know, when she's campaigning.
She's worth $35M, herself, is there that much money in selling books? If not, then she got paid
-- bribed -- quite handsomely to speak at private functions.
Both Clintons exemplify Democratic politicians who've utterly ignored the working class while
pander to and serving only the executive class of America. Ronald Reagan would be proud of both
Bill and Hillary Clinton's devotion to the 'trickle down' theory of economics.
One thing that's important to consider, too, is how voting for politicians who claim to have
your back on wedge issues is really shooting yourself in the foot economically. Wedge issues are
the crumbs the Establishment allows the electorate to feast on while they (the Establishment)
rob the Treasury blind, have their crimes decriminalized, start wars to profiteer from, write
policy, off-shore jobs, suppress wedges, evade taxes, degrade the environment, monopolize markets,
bankrupt emerging markets, and generally hoard all the economic growth for themselves.
Friends don't let friends vote for neo-liberalists!
Politicians in the U.S. are inherently corrupt, both figuratively and literally (they just
hide it better as perks and campaign contributions). Politicians in the U.S. make promises, but
ultimately it is just rhetoric and nothing ever gets delivered on. Once elected, they revert to
the Status Quo of doing nothing – or they vote for the bills of the interest groups that supported
them during the election.
As far as racism is concerned, why is it racist to want to send undocumented people out of
a country that they entered illegally in the first place?
This seems to be the general accusation levied against Europeans and Americans (i.e. whites).
We seem to have the obligation to take in refugees from all over the world otherwise we are seen
as racists. Yet, I see no effort by the Gulf States, Saudi or any other Muslim country taking
some of the Syrians. This would make a lot more sense since they have the commonality of language,
religion and culture. But nobody deems them to be racists.
What a brilliant article. It seems noone wants to talk about anything other than vilifying
Trump supporters because their vested interests are all about grind working people into the dust
so the high end of town can make every more money. No wonder Trump is cutting through. The whole
world has been watching our leaders sell us down the river in these deals.
This is probably the first article I've read that gives a clear-eyed account of exactly why Trump
is gaining so much support. More of this and less of the sneery pieces would be much more enlightening
to those of us who have been baffled by his continuing success.
People had the opportunity to elect Ross Perot who focused on Trade without using racism, back
in 92. Perot, also a billionaire predicted all the catastrophic impact due to free trade and kept
warning everybody. The majority decided otherwise...
Correct! Even Obama won't use the words "working class"...they are now ' dirty words'.. The working
class are fed up being ignored, patronized, lied to, and manipulated with words by politicians
in both the US and Australia.
Politicians think that all they have to do is 'look good' and say the right thing. Then wait
a bit, change the words and continue to manipulate things from backrooms.
Trump doesn't do that-and that is why people are voting for him...
However, if he got into power he would have to do exactly the same as the others to survive
The working class tens of millions have the votes and if need be, the guns. Thank you, second
amendment. Essentially they're presented with the prospect of their kids spending their working
lives slaving at $10-$20 an hour, or to die trying to alter the future of that elite-orchestrated
course of events. What would an American choose?
The Guardian openly abuses blue collar workers on a daily basis and is at a loss to understand
why they can't connect with them. This is another non-story.
All Clinton has to offer is more of the same lying and "free trade" deals, and subterfuge
and killing. Trump says he's gonna step up, bring the jobs back to America, get the mass of people
moving forward again, so Trumps is gonna win this thing.
Almost all of Trump's proposals, as well as those of other candidates, cannot be implemented without
the concurrence of Congress. Tariffs must pass both houses, while ratification of treaties requires
a 2/3 supermajority in the Senate. A question for each of the so-called debates ought to concern
how each candidate intends to convince congress to pass his/her most contentious proposal.
Trump is awful but he taps into passion, fear and real concerns. If these corrupt phony political
parties can't help real people then this is what we get -- Trump, Hillary Clinton and fake revolutionary
Bernie Sanders who promised to support the evil Clinton when she wins the rigged nomination. Trump
is no worse than the other fake chumps pretending to be our friends.
"We liberals..." You disgust me. While you defend Trumps supporters as not entirely consumed with
racism as much as fear, as people who actually may have interests in the economy and in trade,
as workers who, just maybe, SHOULD have the right to work in an airconditioning factory that ISN'T
in Mexico, or China, or Indonesia.... while you defend these not-really-not-totally-racist working
class people you excoriate them and continue on your merry little way trashing Trump. Staying
safe, staying disgusted with the man, and walking the Party Line like a good little establishment
"liberal." The true liberal doesn't exist anymore. Your article sucks. If anyone other than Crass
Mr. Trump gets elected to the presidency of this country we will continue down the same road of
useless wars for the MIC and Banking Scum, the 1%, whatever you wish to call them and it will
be more painful than it is now. Because what's really important is the correct opinion on everything.
Not that things change radically and that the working classes of all colors and creeds begin to
see some fair shakes, which would happen under Trump.
I happen to know someone who worked in his company, who didn't even know the man but was on his
payroll. It got around to him that this employee had exhausted his health benefits with the company
he chose (he had leukemia) and he was hitting up other employees for money to pay his cancer care
bills so he could continue treatment. Trump got word of this and didn't even know this person
only that he worked for his company - and sent word to the hospital that he guaranteed payment
and that the hospital should take care of him as well as possible and he would be responsible.
He told the family to keep it a secret, but of course a few people got wind of it. THAT is exactly
the opposite of what Mr. Clean Romney did letting an employee drop dead for lack of health insurance,
but he'd be SUCH a better president, sooooo caring. Trump is the only one who isn't bought and
paid for on the Hill of Vipers and that's what attracts us racist, white, gun-toting, immigrant-hating,
blah blah blah fill-in-the-blanks-you-liberal-twit people towards Trump. And those pulling out
all the stops to "Stop Trump" are just making it more clear than ever that the presidency is and
has been hand picked and cleared as willing to dance on the puppeteer's strings and do the insiders
and oligarchy's bidding.
Thomas Frank is often right, but not this time. If working class white Americans of a certain
type wanted to support a candidate who is against all this neo-liberal free-trade nonsense, they
could easily support Bernie Sanders. He's an outsider like Trump as far as the American political
class goes, but has actually done good things as a Senator and stands up for workers. It's interesting
that it's not just NAFTA and job losses that these Trump supporters are interested in, it's the
xenophobia as well, the anti-Muslim hysteria, and the thuggish behavior of beating down protesters
at the Trump rallies. Frank just can't blame the media class for all that...it exists and happens
and Trump fans the flames. Trump could care LESS about working class Americans, he cares ONLY
about himself - the classic demagogue.
Free trade has undoubted winners and losers, but historically attempts to 'protect' or 'control'
a nation's economy have ended badly in stagnation and political authoritarianism. Obvious case
in point, the Soviet Union in the latter half of the twentieth century. Conversely opening up
the economy to competition seems to do exactly the opposite, eg the Chinese 'economic miracle'.
A controlled economy might count as 'left-wing' but its the kind of example of Socialism gone
bad that socialists feel embarrassed about.
As for racism, its not hard to pick up the racist signals from Trump, genuine or not, so anyone
supporting him has a nose-holding ability which those with moral sensibilities will find difficult.
Perhaps 'he/she's a racist but ...' is not such an uncommon stance, yet when it comes to the head
of state, its that much harder to turn a blind eye. Of course lots of Germans did it very successfully
in the 1930s and 40s.
Bullshit. Europe is doing better than both America and China. Free trade plus corruption does
not equal prosperity. A little less "free trade" and a little less corrupt elites goes a long
way towards prosperity.
Free trade isn't free. It has cost millions of Americans their jobs, even their homes and
hopes for the future. Both parties have taken American workers for granted even worse than the
Democrats have taken Blacks for granted lately.
The Republicans have kept most blue collar laborers in their party because they appeal to their
bigotry and their religious snobbery. Republicans have made few offers to even attempts to help
US because they don't have to and they don't want to.
Current Democrats are almost as bad, but at least they have a past track record of helping
create a vibrant middle class.
What we need is a Labor party to represent those of US who have to work to earn a living,
as opposed to those who were born wealthy, or gained their wealth through stock manipulation/dividends
and fraud. It is the working people who actually create new wealth. Trump's bigotry does not bother
white blue collar workers because they mostly agree and hate and fear Blacks. The Venn diagram
of bigots, white laborers and the south overlap almost 100%.
I believe the KISS principle is popular in America, is that why things go so well for Trump?
Have I applied the KISS principle Keep It Simple, Stupid. Don't be afraid to ask questions,
relax yourself and all else by calling yourself a simple, stupid, snail; I'll try to get there,
but you'll have to be pedagogic and it will take enough time, preferably I want to sleep a night
on the matter (sound judgement depends (but not only necessary but not sufficient) on considering
and weighing the significantly complete set of related aspects, and this complete set may take
considerable time to bring to the table another tip; in strong or new intellectual or emotional
states keep calm and imagine filter words with your palms covering your ears). Prestige and vanity
of own relative worth can be very expensive. If you do a wrong, more or less, try to neutralize
the wrong, rather than have the prestigious attitude that direct or implied admittance of wrong
is hurting your vain surface, since with accountability and a degree of transparency will ultimately
have consequences of the wrong, and by not swiftly correcting them you are accountable for this
reluctance too.
Part of the KISS principle is to remind you of assumptions, explicit and emotional, as well
as remind you of what's hidden. To be aware of what you do not know is a way of making emotional
assumptions explicit which help in explicit risk assessment. An emotional assumption such as "everything
feels fine" can turn into "I assume there is no hidden nearby hostile crocodiles in the Zambezi
river we're about to pass into."
So Trump's success is all about trade imbalance and its negative impact on the American working
class, which the author perceives as predominantly white. This is far from the truth: many if
not most workers in agricultural, custodial, fast food, landscaping, road maintenance...are Africa-American,
Hispanics, or undocumented workers.
Does Trump also speak for those people who work in jobs that have been turned down by the white
working class? Would he stand up for them by, for example, calling to raise the minimum wage to
$14 an hour?
Taibbi in the latest Rolling Stone says the same thing. Taibbi went to listen to Trump's speeches.
Trump pillories Big Pharma, unemployment and trade deals and Wall Street. He's less warlike than
Clinton.
So it is very possible Clinton will be hit from the LEFT by Trump. That is how bad the
Democratis really are.
And blah blah blah... Actually, Trump's is a very optimistic picture of the USA.
And 'change' – I.e more globalism, means less and less job security: economic security
slipping away at a unprecedented rate. Transnational interests basically rule America, not to
mention the mainstream media, whose job it is to attack Trump. Many millions have seen through
this facade. Democrat or Republican, the incestuous political establishment is being exposed like
never before.
Trump is revealing what other candidates refuse to admit: that they are owned before they
even step foot into Washington. I mean - Clinton is Goldman and Sachs, TTIP, Monsanto approved!
And this is who the Guardian are siding with? Go figure...
I think his denouncing trade deals is what made the Republicans, (aka, Corporatist Party of
which Hillary should clearly be a part of-but save for another day) go bonkers. They cannot control
this guy and he's making sense in the trade department. It's not as if suddenly the Republican
party has grown a set of morals.
The question of course is how serious is he? Is he true or co-opting Bernie's message? One
thing's for certain, he's against increasing the minimum wage.
"But, taxes too high, wages too high, we're not going to be able to compete against the
world. I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is," he told debate moderator Neil
Cavuto when asked if he would raise wages. "People have to go out, they have to work really
hard and have to get into that upper stratum. But we cannot do this if we are going to compete
with the rest of the world. We just can't do it." Politico, 11/12/15
Brilliant, brilliant column! I will add, because no one else calls him on these things, that Obama
is still pushing TPP, has increased the number of H1B Visa holders in the US, and is now giving
the spouses of H1B Visa holders the right to work, meaning they, too can take a job that might
have gone to a US citizen, and Obama has essentially cut the retirement benefits working class
seniors have paid for all their lives. Yet no one calls him on these things, except Trump.
Where did this general theme of insulting voters come from? Calling Trump supporters racists idiots
is no way to win their votes. You can not win an election by being an insulting troller.
The same people who attack Trump engage in even worse behavior. No wonder Trump will win the
election.
What is your take on free trade? What is your take on protectionism? Well the real question
is "What is best for our country?" Work, services and manufacturing of goods, is a dynamic thing.
At some times there is lots of work for most people, at some times hardly any work is available.
The amount of work available is a factor of 3 things, 1. Initiatives to work. 2. Financing
of these initiatives. 3 Law and order. Either individuals start their own business through an
initiative and if people with money believe in that individual and initiative they get financed
as long as there is law and order so that the financing gives a return of investment. Or existing
business start their own initiatives with their own money, investors' money or loans.
When people sit on their money out of fear, lack of quality initiatives or qualified abilities,
the economy hurts and people are going to be out of work. It works like a downward spiral, when
people have no income, they cannot buy services and goods, and the business can therefore not
sell, more people lose their jobs, less people buy and so on.
On the other hand, if people are hired, more people get money and purchase things from businesses,
demand increases, businesses hire more people to meet demand, more people get money, and purchase
more things from the businesses. The economy goes in a thriving upward spiral.
What about trade between nations? Well as you have understood, there is a dynamic component
of the economy of a nation. There is an infrastructure, not only roads, electric grids, water
and sewage piping, but a business infrastructure. Institutions such as schools, universities,
private companies providing education to train the workforce. A network of companies that provide
tools, knowledge, material, so that a boss simply can purchase a turn-key solution from the market,
after minimal organising, after the financing has been made. These turn-key solutions to provide
goods and services to the market and thus make money for the initiative makers and provide both
jobs and functions as an equalising of resources. Equalising if the initiative makers take patents,
keep business secrets and have abilities that are more competitive than the rich AND do not sell
their money-making opportunity to the rich but fight in the market.
In other words, if you sit on a good initiative and notice you are expanding in the market
(and thus other players are declining in their market share, including the rich), don't be stupid.
Now a hostile nation to your nation, knows about this infrastructure. This infrastructure takes
time to build up. One way to fight nations is to destroy their infrastructure by outcompeting
them with low prices. All businesses in a sector is out-sourced. But the thing is, if a nation
tries to do this, and if you have floating currencies (and thus you have your own currency, which
is very important to a nation), your own currency will fall in relative value. (e.g. businesses
in China gets dollars for sold goods to USA, sell them (the dollars they got) and buy yuan (the
currency in China), this increased sell pressure will cause the dollar to drop in value) If you
import more than you export. Therefore your nation's business will have an easier time to sell
and export. Thus there is a natural balance.
But, if your nation borrows money from the hostile nation, then this correction of currency
value will not occur. The difference in export and import will be balanced by borrowing money
and the currency value will stay the same.
Thus all your manufacturing businesses and thus the infrastructure can be destroyed within
a nation because of imports are more than exports and the nation borrows money.
Then when the nation is weak and dependent on the industry of the hostile nation a decisive
stab in can occur and your nation will be destroyed and taken over by the hostile nation.
Free trade naturally includes the purchasing of land and property. Thus while we exchange perishable
goods for hard land and property, there is a slow over taking of the nation's long term resources,
all masked off under the parole of free trade. Like a drug addict we crave for the easy way out
buying cheap perishable goods while the land is taken over by foreign owners protected by our
own ownership laws. The only way out of this is replacing free trade with regulated trade. In
our nation's own interest.
Thus free trade can be very destructive. It really is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Trump is a disruptor -- and this moribund political economic system deserves disruption. The feeble
Democrats could only come up with Sanders (who cringingly promised to support Hillary once she
overwhelms him in the rigged system) is not in the same class. Bigoted clown in some ways he expresses
the anger millions feel. Get used to it.
Im sorry. No matter how smart you like to appear when you commenting on the Guardian after saying
things like "Trump is far and away the smartest, brainiest, most intelligent candidate running
on either side" how can anyone take your views serious?
Yeah maybe not all voters are racists. Sure. But most of them still are. Most Trump voters
are also extremely uneducated, ignorant and filled with right wing media false fact anger. "To
make America great again" I have never laughed so hard in my life before. America isn't in bad
shape right now. There are always problems but building a wall (which is hysterical) to save us
from immigrants for example is just plain crazy.
Trump of course inserts real issues like Veterans. Trade. Ok. Its easy to say one thing but
when you look at his past, he's ruined various businesses and is currently under investigation
for fraud.
To say that that DT is smart is crazy. The guy cannot articulate anything to save his life
and when you look at how protesters get (mis)handled at his rallies how can you even come on here
and say the things you do. YOu should be ashamed of yourself. But sure have a President that's
ignoring Climate change and you will see where Florida will be in a few years. Ironically they
vote for Trump so the joke in the end will be on them.
This article may have some good points but still, Donald Trump is nothing more but
an opportunist. He doesn't really give a shit about you, the little white class. He's not intelligent
or even capable to LEAD a country like ours. Europe is laughing at us already. The circus was
fun for a while but I think its time to get realistic and stop this monkey show for good.
Trump/Cruz are monsters who have plans for the take-over of the US. Trump will be like his friend
Carl Icahn. He will take all he can in profit. Sell off parts cheap off-shore. Ignore the ex-workers
living under a bridge. Cruz the Domionionist Evangelical will say Armageddon is in the Bible as
he creates it in the Middle East. Neither man should be running for President, but the system
has been captured by the likes of Rupert Murdoch who is drilling for oil in Syria with his friends
Cheney and the Rothschilds. The Koch Brothers Father set up the John Birch Society. Jeb Bush from
a family of many generations who supported Hitler too. We are seeing the bad karma of the West
in bright lights including the poor whites who thought being a white male meant something. They
flock to any help they think they can get from the master-con-man Trump or the Bible man Cruz.
Yes. The US was systematically gutted by people like Romney and friends who made fortunes for
themselves. One of Trump's best friends, Carl Icahn, the hostile take-over artist, knows exactly
how the game is run. It begins by doing and saying anything to get control. Americans are now
chum for the sharks and they know it. Following a cheap imitation of Hitler is not the answer.
Nor is the Evangelical Armageddon Cruz promised his Father.
What this article fails to understand is that racism was always an essential feature of Reaganomics.
Reagan told the mostly poorer white voters of the south and midwest to vote tax cuts for the 1%
on the theory this would increase general prosperity. When that prosperity failed to materialize,
the Republicans always blamed minorities: welfare queens, mexican rapists, etc. Racism was essentially
a feature of their economic model.
Now look at Trump's economic model. It's a neoliberal's dream. He doesn't have a meaningful
critique of the system - that's Bernie Sanders. Instead, Trump picks fights with the Chinese and
Mexicans, to further stoke the racism of his base under the guise of an economic critique. That's
just more of the same. It's what Republicans have been doing for three decades.
The only way in which any of this is new is that Trump fronts the racism instead of hiding
it. That has less to do with Trump than with the slightly deranged mindset of white Republicans
after 7 years of a black President. You think it's a coincidence these people are lining up for
King Birther?
Sorry, Thomas Frank - this is all about race. There are many flavors of neoliberal critique;
Trump has chosen the most flagrantly racist one. His entire appeal begins and largely ends with
race. It's the RACISM, stupid. That and little else.
You don't know what you are talking about. You are the one who is stupid. Obama is pushing bills
that destroy US jobs. Maybe you don't depend on a paycheck to live, but millions of people do.
Too bad you are so removed from reality that you can't empathize.
'Neoliberalism' is a tired cliche , a revanchist term designed to help pseudo-intellectual millenials
sound and feel quasi-intelligent about themselves as they grope, blindly towards a worldview they
feel safe about endorsing.
One must also look at the anti-Trump brigade to find many of his audience. Below in no particular
order are major reasons why he has millions of supporters.
The Anti-Trump Brigade
GOP
Tea Party
Politicians, elected officials in DC all parties.
DC media from TV to internet
Romney, Gingrich, Scarborough, Beck and other assorted losers.
One thing in common they all have very high negatives, particularly the politicians and media
outlets.
Yes! I got on the Trump train after seeing Fox News CEO Ailes' horrible press release insulting
Trump the day before Fox News was to moderate a GOP debate.
The lack of journalistic ethics was so egregious... and then when not one other media outlet
called Fox on their bullshit, not even NPR... I said hey, it is essential to democracy to treat
candidates fairly. they are not treating him fairly! The media hates democracy!?
Good article focusing in on what should really concern us - trade. In particular our inability
to make goods rather than provide services. This is one of the reasons for the slide in lower
middle class lifestyles which is fueling support for Trump
Protectionism can be very destructive. Japan forced Detroit to improve the quality of its cars.
Before Toyota and Honda did it, why would GM and Ford want to make a car that lasted 200,000 miles?
Cheap foreign labor was only one of the reasons for the decline of US manufacturing.
Redonfire,
When I tell one of my sons that globalisation has shafted the european working an d middle class,
he says" yes, but what about its creation of a Chinese and Indian middle class"
I reply that I care as much about them as they care about me.
And "service industry" jobs are also being offshored to call centers and the like. When was the
last time you heard a US accent when you called tech support or any other call center?
because ultimately, I feel based upon listening to my family members who are working class white
folks, they feel that Bernie is a communist, not a socialist, and they don't trust that (or likely
really know the difference). So unfortunately for Da Bern, he will never be able to attract most
of these votes, even though he and The great Hair have (in general) some of the same policies.
The real question is why will the left not turn to the Hair, and get 70% of what they want, having
to listen to bragado and Trump_vs_deep_states as the trade off?
He wants to deport millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants.
I have to say this doesn't seem wildly outrageous - many of them will be working in the black
economy, and helping to further undercut wages in the US. Actually seems quite reasonable. Trump
is still a buffoon, but why throw this at him, when there is soo much else to go at?
The weakness of Labour under Blair has caused the same problems. They abandoned the working
classes in favour of grabbing middle class votes and relied on working class voters continuing
to support them, because they had "nowhere else to go". It worked for "New Labour" for a
while, then us peasants got fed up with the Hampstead Set running the show for their own class
and we started voting UKIP or, as in my case, despairing and not voting at all.
Thank God Jeremy Corbyn has put Labour back on track & pushed the snobbish elements of the
people's party back to the margins!
This reminded me of something I heard on NPR this weekend: Charles Evers, Medgar Evers' brother
and a prominent civil rights activist since the 50's, is endorsing Trump.
The reason is because the media and most of the people are involved in character debates about
him and that's just a game. You support "your guy" and try to denigrate "their guy". It's a game
of insults and no-one ever won an argument by insulting their opponent.
Trump policies show that he wants a trade war, that he wants to build a wall, which will do
little or nothing, at great cost, and he wants to exclude Muslims, when Americans have experienced
more attacks from Christian Terrorists, and American civilians are still 25 times more likely
to die falling out of bed than in a terrorist attack.
He wants to abolish corporate tax entirely, without saying where the money will come from
instead (that means you).
He wants to cut spending on education. But hasn't said if that's because he wants someone
else to do the job, or because he wants a stupid electorate. The Federal Government spends
1.3% of it's budget on education - how much can actually be saved and doesn't the 4.3% spent
on national debt interest indicate somewhere where more can be saved ?
He opposes democracy in the Middle East & prefers the stability of dictators (despite the
chaos that existed in the US, right after independence).
He wants more sanctions on Iran - proving his detachment from reality. The Iran nuclear
deal was pragmatic. It was agreed when we knew Russia, China and India were preparing to lift
their own sanctions, leaving the world with no real leverage to get a better deal.
He supports gun rights, saying they save lives, even though more people die from accidental
shootings, than are saved when used defensively. I am a gun owner in favor of more gun control,
because I want to see the balance shifted to give law-abiding citizens a greater advantage
over criminals. (at this point, the gun nuts jump in saying "criminals don't obey the law".
Yes they do when in jail. If we abolished any law that was ever broken....we would have NO
LAWS).
He wants fewer vaccinations for children, to avoid the (discredited) problems with autism.
He wants a more isolationist diplomatic approach & more military.
He focuses on the criminal activity of illegal aliens, even though crime rates are lower
in their communities than in the general population.
He doesn't want the minimum wage raised, he wants more minimum wage jobs - even though
people on minimum wage often require state and federal financial assistance, just to live.
Interestingly you have raised issues that are all very complex -- and that is just the problem.
We have become a society that promotes complexity and then does not want to discuss and analyze
those complex issues, but wants to oversimplify and fight and make the "other side" be a devil.
Are we all getting dumbed down to slogans and cliches?
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
and who signed the job-crushing NAFTA legislation that allowed companies to move jobs offshore?
Bill Clinton........ the Republican in Democrat clothing.
The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere
else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them
any longer.
"Neo-Liberalism" was given an impetus push with the waning days of the Carter administration when
de-regulation became a policy.....escalated tremendously during Reagan and the rest is history......participated
in by both major US political parties.
They never looked back and never looked deep into the consequences for the average folk. Famously
said, "You can't put the toothpaste back into the tube", applies to global trade also. The toothpaste
is out of the tube. Any real change will be regressive, brutal and probably bring about more wars
around the globe.
What has to change and can is the political attitude of the upcoming political leaders and
the publics willingness to focus more on what a, "progressive" society should be.
To totally eliminate the abject greed inherent in the "free economies" (an oxymoron if ever) that
is crushing most of the working classes around the world under "global free trade (agreements)"
will be impossible.
A re-focus on what is meant by the "commons" would help enormously. And an explanation that
would appeal to the common folk by pointing out the natural opportunities to all of us (with the
exception of the true elites) by developed intellectuals and common folk leaders would also benefit
all.
By the "commons" I mean:
General benefit to most common working class people which would include the "class" definition
of "middle classes"....which are in too many cases floundering in the current economic climate.
Universal health care.
An expansion of production "co-ops".
Universal education through at least 2-4 years of "college".
A general overhaul of our Military/Industrial/Intelligence etc./Complex.
A re-allocation of our collected tax priorities (applies to the above).
A "commons" focus on a total rebuilding of our rusted, commercially destroyed environments
all across this country (and across the world).
Capitalism is a game.
There needs to be a firewall between the free flows of rabid global capital and the true needs
of a progressive society.
The game of capitalism needs rules and referees to back up those rules.
There has to be political/public will to back up those rules and referees with force of law.
We need a total new vision for the globe.
Without it we will succumb to total social/economic chaos.
We here in the US have no true progressive vision exhibited by any candidate.
Bernie Sanders comes close but no cigar.
Hillary C. is trying to exert the vision of seeking the presidency as a kind of, "family business."
Trump is appealing to many who have been trashed by globalization.......
Continuous warfare is not a foreign policy. Greed and narcissism is not a national one. We
continue to fail in history lessons.
As I would expect, Thomas (The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule; What's the Matter With Kansas?)
Frank offers insights that Clintonites can ignore at their peril. As the widow of a hardworking
man who was twice the victim of "outsourcing" to Malaysia and India, and whose prolonged illness
brought with it savings-decimating drug costs, I can well see how Trump's appeal goes beyond xenophobia
and racism.
Everybody knows that Trump sends jobs overseas and employs illegals, even his devotees. This destroys
Frank's argument that people adore Trump because he sympathizes with their pain and actively wants
to help them.
Frank did not write that "people adore Trump because he sympathizes with their pain and actively
wants to help them." As Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor
Council in Fort Wayne, said, "We've had all the political establishment standing behind every
trade deal, and we endorsed some of these people, and then we've had to fight them to get them
to represent us."
Ill-considered trade deals (NAFTA ended a million jobs) and generous bank
bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever
– these policies have taken their toll.
Trump is saying that NAFTA and neo-liberalism have failed the American people.
You could be describing Hillary and Bill the fraudulent guy who "feels your pain". Liars and
in the pockets of bankers, that couple is not your friend.
Frank's argument is on what his followers believe to be true. Frank admits that their beliefs
may be naive. He is writing on the reasons for Trump's popularity.
Beyond who or what i vote for, It is nice to see a news article focusing on issues and platforms
instead of one of the many attacks or other issues seperating politics from legislation. I want
news on candidates positions, ideas, plans. This circus of he said she said and the other junk
used to sway votes or up ratings is beyond dumb.
Free trade is like all other good ideas, it only works if it is kept in balance.
Understanding the internal structure of the Atom is a good idea. Proliferating Hydrogen bombs,
the same idea taken way too far..
And as for bad human ideas, well just the worst thing on the planet.
People support Trump and the very different Corbyn because they can see that that our current
version of Free trade is hopelessly inefficient and screws everybody except the very rich.
They care about power. Progressives don't give a sod about the minorities or supposedly oppressed
groups they bang on about. They want power and they are getting lots of it. When the West burns,
those progressives who acquired enough power will be safe inside their walled fortresses with
their bodyguards.
Its' a sad truth that corporations have used trade deals to increase profits by shipping jobs
to areas where pay is sometimes 1/10 of pay in US. Sanders is the only other politician voicing
concern. In fact Sanders is responsible for the stall on the next trade deal with China and Japan.
Japan and China uses devaluation s a trade barrier and World Trade does nothing. we are constrained
in our ability to devalue our currency because of the effect on the stock market. many Americans
rely on money invested into stocks and bonds.
I don't see a true value to trade if it involves loss of jobs and lowered pay. I do see
value in fair trade where we receive somewhat equal return , like 60/40, like in China and
Japan where the return is more like 80 for them 20 for us.
Yes, Trump does talk about jobs/economy but let us not forget that the Third Reich also promised
to end runaway inflation and unemployment. To a large extent, they did low unemployment levels.
However, racism was an important galvanizing factor.
In the Middle Ages, racism was a galvanizing factor in the Crusades. Muslims dominated Mediterranean
trade and stop it, European monarchy used racism against Moors/Saracens/Turks to garner support
against the Muslims at that time.
So, for history,s sake, let,s just call a spade a spade..........Trump is racist and so are
his supporters (among other things).
While I'm no fan of big corporations or NAFTA (which was negotiated by Bush #1 and Brian Mulroney,
both conservatives), no one seems to be talking about the other side of the equation - demand.
Perhaps jobs are going to Mexico, China etc. in part because consumers won't pay the cost of a
product manufactured in rich nations. Small example - a big outdoors co-op here in Canada used
to sell paniers and other bike bags made by a company in Canada. Consumers would not buy them
because they cost more, so the firm closed down and that co-op's bike equipment now comes from
Viet Nam.
If Trump forces Apple or Ford to return jobs to the US, will the products they make
be too expensive for the consumers? If a tariff wall goes up around the US, will the notoriously
frugal American shoppers start to get annoyed because, while they have t-shirt factories in wherever
state, the products they want cost more than what they want (or can) pay for?
I don't have any special insight into the effects on consumer prices of tariffs, but I do think
it's at least prudent to include that in the discussion before starting a trade war.
Hilarious.. talk about "I love the uneducated!" Yeah because everything he rants about with free
trade he has benefited from.. let us not forget MADE IN CHINA Trump suits.
The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly)
and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full
of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress.
I'm living in Japan, where in the past decade they have taken in 11 refugees. That's not 11
million or even 11 thousand. I mean 11.
Progressives may be surprised to hear that Japan is a wonderful country, not only free from
imported terrorism but also mind-boggling safe. I mean "leave your laptop on the street all day
and it won't get stolen" safe. They also have cool anime and Pokemon and toilets which are like
the Space Shuttle.
And guess what, they are not racist. They have borders and they are not racist. I know
this is a hard concept for progressives to get their heads around, but believe it or not it is
possible.
By the way, they think Europeans are absolute INSANE to let in these touchy-feely economic
migrants. They're right, and Europe is going to pay one hell of a pric
Neil24
The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant
Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully
idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling
Congress.
When Donald Trump, Ben Carson and other political outsiders first denounced
political correctness, they instantly struck a nerve. They were promising to
peel back the mushy language that government and so-called sophisticates use
to conceal simple truths.
That urge came over me as I watched Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, along
with Jeb Bush, argue over each other's immigration flip-flops during last week's
GOP debate. Because Fox moderators used videos to demonstrate the differences
between where the candidates once stood and where they stand, the truth was
obvious, yet none of the three rivals dared say it.
Why couldn't even one acknowledge that he changed his position and explain
why? And if none would, why didn't the others just say, "You're lying"?
These are three men I admire, yet each lacked the courage to be honest on
a crucial point during a televised job interview. When did the truth become
so toxic and untruths so acceptable?
Spin and puffery have a long history in politics, but something has snapped
in our culture that we no longer even expect our leaders to talk straight. We
have become immune to lies and the liars who tell them.
I blame it on the Clintons. Their survival despite a quarter-century of shameful
dishonesty has led the way in lowering the bar for integrity in public life.
The lost in mail laptop and disappear thumb drive with archived emails story is incredibly fishy.
The whole story in incredible. Both Hillary and her close aides (especially Huma ) come out as completely
incompetent idiots, who can't be trusted any sensitive information. This level of incompetence combined
with recklessness is pretty typical for female sociopath
Notable quotes:
"... The Donald Trump campaign has already called for Clinton to be "locked up" for her carelessness handling sensitive information. The missing laptop and thumb drive raise a new possibility that Clinton's emails could have been obtained by people for whom they weren't intended. ..."
"... The archives on the laptop and thumbdrive were constructed by Clinton aides in 2013, using a convoluted process, before her emails were turned over to State Department officials and later scrubbed to determine which ones had classified information and should either be withheld from public view or could be released with redactions. The archive of messages would contain none of those safeguards, potentially exposing classified information if it were ever opened and its contents read. ..."
"... The archive was created nearly a year before the State Department contacted former secretaries of state and asked them to turn over any emails that they had sent using private accounts that pertained to official business. A senior Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, told the FBI that the archive on the laptop and thumb drive were meant to be "a reference for the future production of a book," according to the FBI report. ..."
"... Whatever the rationale, the transfer of Clinton's emails onto two new storage devices, one of which was shipped twice, created new opportunities for messages to be lost or exposed to people who weren't authorized to see them, according to the FBI report. (The Clinton campaign didn't immediately respond to a request to comment for this story.) ..."
"... The disappearing laptop and thumb drive story is incredibly fishy. Either Team Hillary is lying about it, or they are spectacularly incompetent and reckless with national security information. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton: Incompetent, Or Criminal? Both. ..."
"... Dear God, from the Daily Beast article, apparently they were using one of the laptops as a way to transfer the emails to a contractor they had hired. Since no one knew how to do it, they effected the transfer by sending the entire archive to a personal gmail account, then transfering it again to the contractor. So we have a massive store containing quite classified information going to a major tech company, entirely over the internet with only ssl protection I can only presume, because they could not figure out how to transfer a file system. The incompetence here is astonishing. Even a Google employee who forwards sensitive information to a personal gmail account would risk being fired. ..."
"... Of course the most important detail to come out of this is the use of BleachBit. You don't use that software to delete emails about yoga classes. ..."
"... The employee "transferred all of the Clinton e-mail content to a personal Google e-mail (Gmail) address he created," the FBI found. From that Gmail address, he downloaded the emails into a mailbox named "HRC Archive" on the Platte River server. ..."
"... Honestly, Rod you should highlight this. I can assure you that if something this mindbogglingly reckless were ever done at a major tech company the employee would either be fired or told to find work elsewhere but never enter the office again (because severance is expensive and bad pr). I assume the same is true of the government as well. ..."
Why, exactly, did the FBI wait until Labor Day Weekend to dump
this startling news about Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal? Hard to believe it was a coincidence
that official Washington wanted this story to have the best chance of going away. From the Daily
Beast:
A laptop containing a copy, or "archive," of the emails on Hillary Clinton's
private server was apparently lost-in the postal mail-according to an FBI report released
Friday. Along with it, a thumb drive that also contained an archive of Clinton's emails has been
lost and is not in the FBI's possession.
The Donald Trump campaign has already called for Clinton to be "locked up" for her carelessness
handling sensitive information. The missing laptop and thumb drive raise a new possibility that
Clinton's emails could have been obtained by people for whom they weren't intended. The FBI
director has already said it's possible Clinton's email system could have been
remotely accessed by foreign hackers.
The revelation of the two archives is contained in a detailed
report about the FBI's investigation of Clinton's private email account. The report contained
new information about how the archives were handled, as well as how a private company deleted
emails in its possession, at the same time that congressional investigators were demanding copies.
More:
The archives on the laptop and thumbdrive were constructed by Clinton aides in 2013, using
a convoluted process, before her emails were turned over to State Department officials and later
scrubbed to determine which ones had classified information and should either be withheld from
public view or could be released with redactions. The archive of messages would contain none of
those safeguards, potentially exposing classified information if it were ever opened and its contents
read.
The FBI has found that Clinton's emails contained classified information, including information
derived from U.S. intelligence. Her campaign has disputed the classification of some of the emails.
The archive was created nearly a year before the State Department contacted former secretaries
of state and asked them to turn over any emails that they had sent using private accounts that
pertained to official business. A senior Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, told the FBI that the archive
on the laptop and thumb drive were meant to be "a reference for the future production of a book,"
according to the FBI report. Another aide, however, said that the archive was set up after
the email account of a Clinton confidante and longtime adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, was compromised
by a Romanian hacker.
Whatever the rationale, the transfer of Clinton's emails onto two new storage devices,
one of which was shipped twice, created new opportunities for messages to be lost or exposed to
people who weren't authorized to see them, according to the FBI report. (The Clinton campaign
didn't immediately respond to a request to comment for this story.)
Read it all. The disappearing laptop and thumb drive story is incredibly fishy. Either
Team Hillary is lying about it, or they are spectacularly incompetent and reckless with national
security information.
It is like going through a red light because you weren't paying close enough attention as
opposed to consciously choosing to run a red light
Lousy analogy. Running a red is a momentary lapse, not a years-long, well-thought-out conspiracy,
with considerable effort given to covering tracks (BleachBit).
No one in the media wants to say it, but this report almost entirely exonerates Clinton. Yes,
she's lawyerly and is inclined to walk too close to the line, but no – she didn't do anything
immoral or unethical. If at some point it turns out that she's actually done something wrong then
we revisit, but the obsession with this 'crimeless coverup' prevents us from stating the obvious
– Clinton is a solid candidate for President, intelligent, diligent and serious enough to guide
the nation through difficult times. Trump is uncontroversially not.
The moral equivalence games the media plays with the two candidates amounts to a cancer in
our civic fiber that allows us not to put away our childish things.
We could have had Carly Fiorina dealing with the challenge of cyber warfare in the 21st century.
Voters are choosing a woman who put an insecure server containing national security communications
in her basement, and sold our intention and opportunities to do good in the world to rich people
for her own financial gain.
(I lean toward voting for Trump. My issue is the immense paperwork drag on health care delivery
and the increase in cost caused by the "affordable" care act. I expect more of the same with Clinton.
)
Dear God, from the Daily Beast article, apparently they were using one of the laptops as a
way to transfer the emails to a contractor they had hired. Since no one knew how to do it, they
effected the transfer by sending the entire archive to a personal gmail account, then transfering
it again to the contractor. So we have a massive store containing quite classified information
going to a major tech company, entirely over the internet with only ssl protection I can only
presume, because they could not figure out how to transfer a file system. The incompetence here
is astonishing. Even a Google employee who forwards sensitive information to a personal gmail
account would risk being fired.
This sort of astonishing incompetence is exactly why I originally thought this was a big deal.
The reason you don't want HRC running her own server is because she plainly doesn't know how to
manage, or even hire for, all the inane details of information security.
Of course the most important detail to come out of this is the use of BleachBit. You don't
use that software to delete emails about yoga classes.
Jay, or, and hear me out, like the other Bill, there has to come a point in time where the shear
amount of claims of criminal behavior has to be considered. The other Bill got away with rape
for years, maybe its time to consider that this Bill and his wife lack credibility in the face
of accusers that HRC has denigrated and called Bimbos.
Leftists make me sick in this. They will cry that we should always believe the victim unless
one of their political leaders are accused. You want to take out a conservative? Give credible
evidence that he is guilty of rape or sexual harassment. We quit voting for them. Your side, deny,
deny, deny….and ultimately demand we move on, just like a previous poster's five stages of a Clinton
scandal.
The only exception to this I can think of is Weiner, not because he did something that is horrible.
No, you guys abandoned him because he was pathetic and embarrassing.
This is the direct quote from the Daily Beast article:
After trying unsuccessfully to remotely transfer the emails to a Platte River server, Hanley
shipped the laptop to the employee's home in February 2014. He then "migrated Clinton's emails"
from the laptop to a Platte River server.
That task was hardly straightforward, however, and ended up exposing the email archive yet
again, this time to another commercial email service.
The employee "transferred all of the Clinton e-mail content to a personal Google e-mail
(Gmail) address he created," the FBI found. From that Gmail address, he downloaded the emails
into a mailbox named "HRC Archive" on the Platte River server.
Honestly, Rod you should highlight this. I can assure you that if something this mindbogglingly
reckless were ever done at a major tech company the employee would either be fired or told to
find work elsewhere but never enter the office again (because severance is expensive and bad pr).
I assume the same is true of the government as well.
It really makes the Nixon comparisons seem apt, except she has an out for her supporters in
simply claiming that she is a bumbling idiot.
The good liberals here who are starting the writing on the wall with Crooked Hillary should begin
considering the fact that Trump isn't that bad and is actually pretty good in many ways. Come
on over, you will be welcomed warmly.
"... Does it get money because of the Clintons involvement in raising money? Undoubtedly, without their participation it can't raise anywhere near that amount of money, and the reason is that their high public profile means that people believe that by giving to them they can influence policy, ..."
Low level personnel in the US government are expected to reject gifts, or if culturally they cannot,
then they turn them over to their agency, unless it is something like a coffee or a sandwich.
There is an expectation that people are going to not just not actually corrupt their job by doing
favors for people who give them gifts or do them favors, but that they will avoid the appearance of
corruption that is generated by accepting gifts.
The supreme court doesn't agree with that anymore. Anyone can accept any kind of bribe as long as
they don't let it influence their actions. You can't see the desk for the treasure that's being dumped
onto political tables to fund campaigns and line their personal pockets.
This is a foreign practice, one that is corrupt and should be rooted out nationally. Accepting gifts
creates a corrupting environment, no matter what the recipient does, because EVERYONE understands that
the gift is intended to influence policy or gain access so that the person can influence policy. The
person giving the gift knows it, or they wouldn't give it, the person receiving the gift knows it, but
"deep down in their honest hearts" they're not going to allow it to influence their work and decisions?
No of course not. Buying access is the same as putting a stack of cash into someone's pocket to get
them to vote one way or another on a bill of interest.
Does the Clinton foundation do good work? Sure. Does it get money because of the Clintons involvement
in raising money? Undoubtedly, without their participation it can't raise anywhere near that amount
of money, and the reason is that their high public profile means that people believe that by giving
to them they can influence policy, even if those people are not in office (through backchannels
and whispers and introductions).
Does every person donating to the Clinton foundation want to influence policy, or are they primarily
motivated by wanting to fund it's good works? This is impossible to tell. Even someone as prominent
and perhaps morally blameless Elie Wiesel isn't there to eat cookies and have tea and talk about the
weather if he's in Hillary Clinton's office. That is not what he is there for. That kind of meeting
is not purely a social call, it's an effort to influence policy, whether it is related to statements
on the Armenian genocide or the Sudan or god knows what.
Is he a person that she should meet with, whether he gives a donation to her foundation or not? Maybe
that is her job. Probably most of these meetings are that way. That's why public officials are expected
to put investments and charities into trusts and blinds and under separate management when they're in
office, to help establish the boundary between their public responsibilities and their private interests
including their charitable interests.
It doesn't matter to me whether she did anything that she shouldn't have done, legally. The letter
of the law is insufficient to dictate the actions of moral people. Is it disqualifying? She's already
been disqualified in my mind, this is just another thing.
Is it disturbing and annoying to me to see the double standard where promoters are willing to weasel
and explain away whatever the Clintons have done that for any person on the other side of the aisle
would be moral issues that disqualify them from office?
If you are still on the fence in the Democratic primary, or still
persuadable, you should know that Vox interviewed a number of political
scientists about the electability of Bernie Sanders, and got responses
ranging from warnings about a steep uphill climb to predictions of a
McGovern-Nixon style blowout defeat. …
On electability, by all means consider the evidence and reach your
own conclusions. But do consider the evidence - don't decide what you
want to believe and then make up justifications. The stakes are too
high for that, and history will not forgive you.
Well ok then obviously Putin is now hacking the Reuters polls now, too.
From the always apocalyptic ZeroHedge:
Trump's rise in popularity began when he started reaching out
to the black and hispanic communities and Hillary's slide began as more
and more disturbing facts were exposed of Hillary's time as Secretary of
State.
– "Murdoch told Ailes he wanted Fox's debate moderators - Kelly, Bret
Baier, and Chris Wallace - to hammer Trump on a variety of issues. Ailes,
understanding the GOP electorate better than most at that point, likely
thought it was a bad idea. "Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee,"
Ailes told a colleague around this time. But he didn't fight Murdoch on
the debate directive.
On the night of August 6, in front of 24 million people, the Fox moderators
peppered Trump with harder-hitting questions." [Roger's Angels]
Fascinating article, including tactics on taking down the powerful. "It
took 15 days to end the mighty 20-year reign of Roger Ailes at Fox News,
one of the most storied runs in media and political history."
"Making things look worse for Ailes, three days after Carlson's suit
was filed, New York published the accounts of six other women who claimed
to have been harassed by Ailes over the course of three decades. "
6 More Women Allege That Roger Ailes Sexually Harassed Them
So, who had that story cooking and ready to serve? Call me a conspiracy
nut, but one of Hillary's big problems is (or was) her husband's womanizing.
Now right wingers are worse!
My comment is in moderation limbo – how similar to Catholic limbo, I
have no idea…
Anyway, the point I always make is that Murdoch is not ideologically and/or
repub conservative – other than he believes he should be able to make as
much money as possible. His interest in Ailes was always primarily the ability
of Ailes to bring in great profits for Fox.
"... The prospect of Trump TV is a source of real anxiety for some inside Fox.
The candidate took the wedge issues that Ailes used to build a loyal audience at
Fox News - especially race and class - and used them to stoke barely containable
outrage among a downtrodden faction of conservatives. ..."
Also, Ailes has made the Murdochs a lot of money - Fox News generates
more than $1 billion annually, which accounts for 20 percent of 21st Century
Fox's profits - and Rupert worried that perhaps only Ailes could run the
network so successfully. "Rupert is in the clouds; he didn't appreciate
how toxic an environment it was that Ailes created," a person close to the
Murdochs said. "If the money hadn't been so good, then maybe they would
have asked questions."
…
What NBC considered fireable offenses, Murdoch saw as competitive advantages.
He hired Ailes to help achieve a goal that had eluded Murdoch for a decade:
busting CNN's cable news monopoly. Back in the mid-'90s, no one thought
it could be done. "I'm looking forward to squishing Rupert like a bug,"
CNN founder Ted Turner boasted at an industry conference. But Ailes recognized
how key wedge issues - race, religion, class - could turn conservative voters
into loyal viewers.
…. The prospect of Trump TV is a source of real anxiety for some inside
Fox. The candidate took the wedge issues that Ailes used to build a loyal
audience at Fox News - especially race and class - and used them to stoke
barely containable outrage among a downtrodden faction of conservatives.
Where that outrage is channeled after the election - assuming, as polls
now suggest, Trump doesn't make it to the White House - is a big question
for the Republican Party and for Fox News. Trump had a complicated relationship
with Fox even when his good friend Ailes was in charge; without Ailes, it's
plausible that he will try to monetize the movement he has galvanized in
competition with the network rather than in concert with it. Trump's appointment
of Steve Bannon, chairman of Breitbart, the digital-media upstart that has
by some measures already surpassed Fox News as the locus of conservative
energy, to run his campaign suggests a new right-wing news network of some
kind is a real possibility. One prominent media executive told me that if
Trump loses, Fox will need to try to damage him in the eyes of its viewers
by blaming him for the defeat.
=======================================
Just to reiterate a point I have made time and again, with Murdoch it is
all about the money.
It will indeed be ironic if Fox news collapses because the ultimate outcome
of their brand of "conservatism" failed to become president.
I can see the new "network" questioning whether that Australian, an internationalist,
really wants whats best for America…
Yeah. the first image I got when I read that headline was the scene in Breaking Bad when a
phone rings, Walter opens a drawer and has to look through about a dozen phones to find the one
that is ringing.
The most significant thing we learn is that "The employee "transferred all of the Clinton e-mail
content to a personal Google e-mail (Gmail) address he created," the FBI found. From that Gmail
address, he downloaded the emails into a mailbox named "HRC Archive" on the Platte River server."
Americans must be (or are at least expected to be) the most schizophrenic of all people on
the earth. They are not only supposed to believe that the FBI/NSA (the former Marcy Wheeler, I
believe, thinks is also spying on Americans' emails) cannot locate a copy of the deleted emails,
but that the FBI can't get a warrant to get the 'deleted' emails from Google. Who on earth, on
any other day, or in reference to anything else, actually believes that an email deleted from
a Gmail account is simultaneously deleted from Google's servers & archives?
Even the Hardy Boys would have conducted a harder hitting investigation. What ever happened
to the vaunted tough-as-nails FBI? Talk about pulling your punches. Yeesh!
Add to this Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Libya sex slaves to get a fuller picture. Looks like she is a
worthy descendant of south slave owners.
Notable quotes:
"... I would say we have a major election campaign going on right now where one candidate's campaign strategy with a mostly in the bag press seem to be all about 'hot button' secondary issues. Not that their opponent is so hot on the primary issues either, although I'd say they find a nut every couple of weeks. ..."
"... I'm encouraging everyone to watch the documentary Restrepo ..."
"... See that woman crying over her dead child, killed by an American bomb, dropped with impunity?…why don't you go tell her how much better off she is, now that she doesn't have to wear a burka….go on, tell her… ..."
Navy analysis found that a Marine's case would draw attention to Afghan 'sex slaves'
WaPo
The Martland case opened a dialogue in which numerous veterans of the war in Afghanistan said
they were told to ignore instances of child sex abuse by their Afghan colleagues. The Defense
Department's inspector general then opened an investigation into the sexual assault reports and
how they were handled by U.S. military officials who knew about them.
==========================================
US values in action – protecting the powerful and screwing the helpless…..
"This is a serious turning point for all the people of Afghanistan, but in particular for
the hard-fought gains women and girls have been able to enjoy." - Hillary Clinton, Nov 15,
2013
Found myself in a discussion with a recent ex-senator about invading Iraq. I had been attacking
the premise that we needed to attack Iraq because terrorism, AND military capabilities and that
it was based on lies and misinformation and doing pretty well, when the Senator said but think
about Afghanistan – women no longer have to wear the Burka, and girls are going to school. This
was after a report in the foreign press about attacks on schools with female students and how
women were choosing to wear the burka because the harassment of women wearing western clothing
being ignored. The utter ignorance of that statement floored me. I fully admit I was so gobsmacked
I was speechless, and he moved on. I ended up sending him the link to a very good series in Newsday
about how badly things were going in Afghanistan less than six months later. Already too late.
Funny how the women get mentioned at the most interesting times.
Your comment illuminates how politics focuses on "hot button" secondary issues to distract
attention from dismal primary issues.
When gross insecurity rules in a war zone, all other aspects of life (including gender equality)
take a back seat to survival. Indeed, war is correlated with social conservatism, so the cultural
climate is not receptive to change, and may even backslide.
Here's a glimpse into the lost world of Kabul University in the 1980s (complete with a dandy
in the left background who resembles an Afghan Tom Wolfe):
I would say we have a major election campaign going on right now where one candidate's campaign
strategy with a mostly in the bag press seem to be all about 'hot button' secondary issues. Not
that their opponent is so hot on the primary issues either, although I'd say they find a nut every
couple of weeks.
So much of the run up to the AUMF vote and the invasion reminds me of the current climate surrounding
the election.
I'm encouraging everyone to watch the documentary Restrepo , which
is available on both Netflix and Youtube (at present). The realities of what we're doing in Afghanistan
are indefensible.
See that woman crying over her dead child, killed by an American bomb, dropped with impunity?…why
don't you go tell her how much better off she is, now that she doesn't have to wear a burka….go
on, tell her…
My spouse, bless his heart, works for a company embedded in the military-industrial complex.
Three years ago, I accompanied him to the company Christmas bash (one of those compromises in
a marriage and besides I am living well on his paycheck) where the new CEO spoke to the 'troops.'
He ended his talk with a paean to the marvelous gains in freedom for Afghan women and girls
that the US's invasion (sorry, liberation) of Afghanistan has produced). The employees cheered
and I refrained from vomiting only by incredible force of will . And, I would have ruined my new
dress specially purchased at GoodWill for the occasion.
"They are dead, but thanks to us, they can be buried in a bikini…….."
The old "we had to destroy the village to save it" plan.
Somehow, I don't think we'd have gone to war in the Middle East, if "Fighting for Women's Rights"
was the justification.
"Personally, I don't think……..they don't really want to be involved in this war…….they took
our freedom away and gave it to the g##kers. But they don't want it. They would rather be alive
than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards."
RE: Marine's case: Be sure to read two of the comments attached to this link - they're both
recent and show on the first page of comments:
From - Buckley Family: "… Bear in mind when Maj. Brezler wrote his report he had no Classified
Networks in his area. He used his personal computer to write that report and other reports many
which were Classified by the Higher Command once they received them. They failed to let Maj. Brezler
know that they had classified his reports. He was trying to do his job with the resources that
he had available to him."
From - tsn100: " … Afghans hide behind Islam, this is not at all what Islam teaches, this is
a cultural thing, Afghan culture allows this, the Taliban movement started when a young boy was
raped and the family came to Mullah Omar who was just an unknown preacher and asked him to help,
this was at the height of the Afghan civil war, Mullah Omar went and caught the culprit and had
him shot, or hanged cant remember, that
"... Clinton has gone days between events in some cases and hasn't given a press conference in more than 270 days, a fact that Republicans have been eager to highlight. ..."
"... The press has badgered Clinton's running mate Tim Kaine and other top surrogates, Vice President Biden among them, about Clinton's whereabouts and why she has kept such a low profile with the election only two months away. ..."
"... The only running Hillary is doing is AWAY from truth and accountability. ..."
"... Leading the lambs to slaughter. There's Syria. There's Iran. There's Russia. And boom! boom!! There's China. They'll all fall in a week. Just like Afghanistan. Just like Libya. Just like Iraq. Just like Yemen. Just like Egypt. Just like the Ukraine. And just like Syria. ..."
"... But it was Hillary, Biden, Kerry and the Democrats who voted for the war. Man up and take responsibility for a change. A vote for Hillary is a vote for war ..."
"... Hillary does not know a Classified Message or that she exposed secrets to enemies? By the way an Iranian nuclear scientist who was spying for the U.S. was exposed by Hillary's emails. He was just executed. ..."
"... And as for the University find out why Bill Clinton made 17 million from an on line University that gave donations to the Clinton foundation for favorable treatment overseas. Then get back to me. ..."
"... 50 old guard internationalists that need their old school ideas swept into the dust bin of history. I thought democrats hated Neocons? Now you love them? ..."
In that time, controversy has exploded over Clinton Foundation ties to the State Department. A
steady drip of developments surrounding Clinton's use of a private email server also persists, punctuated
by Friday's release by the FBI of documents pertaining to its investigation into her email set-up.
Those controversies have dragged Clinton's already-dismal approval rating to new lows and have
kept her from slamming the door shut on Trump.
"It used to look like Clinton should just spend the fall at the International Space Station watching
Trump implode, but it raises the question of whether you can disappear from the campaign trail without
it having some effect," said Marquette University pollster Charles Franklin, whose Wisconsin survey
found Clinton's favorability declining across every metric.
Clinton has gone days between events in some cases and hasn't given a press conference in
more than 270 days, a fact that Republicans have been eager to highlight.
The press has badgered Clinton's running mate Tim Kaine and other top surrogates, Vice President
Biden among them, about Clinton's whereabouts and why she has kept such a low profile with the election
only two months away.
"I don't think anyone can tell her story as well as she can, so she needs to be out there telling
it," said Democrat Nina Turner, a former top spokesperson for Bernie Sanders. "You have to face the
voters if you want them to vote for you. You have to be out there talking to them and engaging with
them and having real conversations and dialogue."
Leading the lambs to slaughter.
There's Syria.
There's Iran.
There's Russia.
And boom! boom!! There's China. They'll all fall in a week.
Just like Afghanistan.
Just like Libya. Just like Iraq.
Just like Yemen.
Just like Egypt.
Just like the Ukraine.
And just like Syria.
Hillary told the FBI that she had a massive brain injury and blood clot due to a concussion, so
she can't remember anything.
You give her too much credit. And you lie.
Hillary did not broker a peace agreement between Israel and Hamas regarding GAZA.
There is no agreement.
Israel has built a big wall along the GAZA strip to assist their security..
2) As US Senator, Hillary Clinton was a member of the highly classified -
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
3) As Sec of State - Clinton was the boss of the entire US State Dept.
And she signed the following
"CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT",
that she had received the "security indoctrination" etc.,
. . but she clung to her precious Blackberry like a life preserver. She demanded to be able to
use her Blackberry. After all, the President of the United States used HIS Blackberry ( a specially
altered, secure Blackberry ) all the time! It's Ssoooo cool! Why can't she have a special Blackberry
too?
"Saddam has weapons of mass destruction." Turned out all that was found were leaky canisters left
over from the Iran/Iraq war in 1983. For that Bush and all who voted for him set the mid-east
on fire. That's so far up the stupid scale it doesn't ever register.
But it was Hillary, Biden, Kerry and the Democrats who voted for the war. Man up and take responsibility
for a change. A vote for Hillary is a vote for war
Hillary does not know a Classified Message or that she exposed secrets to enemies? By the way
an Iranian nuclear scientist who was spying for the U.S. was exposed by Hillary's emails. He was
just executed.
And Shrillary has no concept of how to handle classified information and left her unsecured server
containing above Top-Secret information open to hostile intelligence services. She should be prosecuted.
Others have for much less.
Tim Kaine graduated from Harvard, did missionary work in Central America, and then was mayor
of Richmond, Lt. Governor, Governor of Virginia, and a U.S. Senator. Trump is a lying, racist,
casino owner with four bankruptcies, three marriages. and a phony "university.".
Obama went Harvard and is an idiot. Missionary work-who cares? He was bad in every office he held
proving Democrats will elect idiots. As for Trump -- you clearly don't know squat about starting
or running a big business. Every Bank that got stuck in a BK is still with Trump because ALL banks
play the odds. Trump as made them billions.
And as for the University find out why Bill Clinton
made 17 million from an on line University that gave donations to the Clinton foundation for favorable
treatment overseas. Then get back to me.
50 old guard internationalists that need their old school ideas swept into the dust bin of history.
I thought democrats hated Neocons? Now you love them?
"... The Triad is the United States, Western and Central Europe, and Japan. This group of countries has become a single imperialist power, the leader of which is the US. This has led to the deepening of the depth of the crisis. The crisis is in the shape of an "L". The normal crisis is in the shape of a "U", the economy rises up after the decline. But this crisis is different. There is no way out of the crisis; the only way to get out is to move out of capitalism. There is no other possible solution. Capitalism should be considered as a moribund system. In order to survive it is moving to destruction and to wars. ..."
"... Maybe Russia is moving in this direction, but not as much as China, because it has paid a very big price for the destruction of the shock therapy from Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Those leaders have led Russia to a private oligarchy, closely related to the international financial capitalism of the US, Germany and others. This has reduced Russian capacity of control. But now Russia is moving gradually towards reestablishing control of the state over its own economy. ..."
"... The world now is in serious danger. The collective imperialism of the US, Western Europe and Japan are run by US leadership. In order to keep their exclusive control over the whole planet, they do not accept independence of other countries. They do not respect the independence if China and Russia. That is why we are about to face continuous wars all over the world. The radical Islamists are the allies of imperialism, because they are supported by the US in order to carry out destabilization. This is permanent war. I do believe that the best response to it is the Eurasian project. Russia should unite with China, Central Asian countries, Iran and Syria. This alliance could be also very attractive for Africa and good parts of Latin America. In such a case, imperialism would be isolated. ..."
Samir Amin, world-known economist, explains the reason of decadent condition of the modern
economy and gives the recipe of the salvation from global imperialism. An exclusive
interview for Katehon
I can sum my point of view on the situation over the modern economy in the following way. We have
been in a long systemic crisis of capitalism, which has started in 1975 with the end of the convertibility
of the Dollar in gold. It is not a like the famous financial crisis in 2008. No, it is a long systematic
crisis of monopoly capitalism which started forty years ago and it continues. The capitalists reacted
to the crisis with the sets of measures. The first one was to strengthen centralization of control
over the economy by the monopolies. An oligarchy is ruling all capitalist countries – the United
States, Germany, France, Great Britain and Russia as well. The second measure was to convert all
economic activity productions into subcontractors of monopoly capital. I mean, they have not even
a hint of freedom. Competition is just rhetoric, there is no competition. There is an oligarchy which
is controlling the whole economic system. Now, we are facing a united front of imperialist powers,
which are forming a Collective imperialism of the Triad.
The Triad is the United States, Western and Central Europe, and Japan. This group of countries
has become a single imperialist power, the leader of which is the US. This has led to the deepening
of the depth of the crisis. The crisis is in the shape of an "L". The normal crisis is in the shape
of a "U", the economy rises up after the decline. But this crisis is different. There is no way out
of the crisis; the only way to get out is to move out of capitalism. There is no other possible solution.
Capitalism should be considered as a moribund system. In order to survive it is moving to destruction
and to wars.
We have an alternative which is the socialism. I know that it is not very popular to say, but
the only solution is socialism. It is a long road which starts from reducing the power of the oligarchy,
reinforcing the state control and establish a state-capitalism, which should replace private capitalism.
It doesn't mean that private capitalism will not survive, but it should be subordinated to state
control. The state control should be used also in order to support a social progressive policy. This
should guarantee good full-employment, social services, education, transport, infrastructure, security
etc.
The role of China is very big, because it is, perhaps, the only country in the world today, which
has a sovereign project. That means that it is trying to establish a pattern of modern industry,
in which of course, private capital has a wide place, but it is under the strict control of the state.
Simultaneously it gives a view of the present to the culture. The other pattern of Chinese economy
culture is based on family producers. China is walking on two legs: following the traditions and
participating globalization. They accept foreign investments, but keep independence of their financial
system. The Chinese bank system is exclusively state-controlled. The Yuan is convertible only to
a certain extent, but under the control of the bank of China. That is the best model that we have
today to respond to the challenge of globalists imperialism.
Maybe Russia is moving in this direction, but not as much as China, because it has paid a
very big price for the destruction of the shock therapy from Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Those leaders
have led Russia to a private oligarchy, closely related to the international financial capitalism
of the US, Germany and others. This has reduced Russian capacity of control. But now Russia is moving
gradually towards reestablishing control of the state over its own economy.
The world now is in serious danger. The collective imperialism of the US, Western Europe and
Japan are run by US leadership. In order to keep their exclusive control over the whole planet, they
do not accept independence of other countries. They do not respect the independence if China and
Russia. That is why we are about to face continuous wars all over the world. The radical Islamists
are the allies of imperialism, because they are supported by the US in order to carry out destabilization.
This is permanent war. I do believe that the best response to it is the Eurasian project. Russia
should unite with China, Central Asian countries, Iran and Syria. This alliance could be also very
attractive for Africa and good parts of Latin America. In such a case, imperialism would be isolated.
Years ago, Seinfeld royalties freed Steve Bannon, the new CEO of Trump's
presidential campaign, from needing to work for a living, allowing him to throw
himself into extremist and racist alt-right politics.
Working in the film business, I briefly met the Donald Trump Republican presidential
campaign's new CEO, Steve Bannon, during the 1990s when he was a Hollywood investment
banker. As one producer whom Bannon helped raise capital for told me, even back
then he was an angry, racist, egregiously aggressive, and inappropriately temperamental
character.
Bannon was also whip smart with a sophisticated understanding of how the
media works.
Inside the liberal bubble, Democrats may be taking Bannon's appointment to
help run Trump's campaign as a something of a joke. But, at their peril, they
underestimate Bannon's ability to harm Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential
nominee.
Bannon was one of the early Harvard MBA-type financial pirates who realized
that Wall Street money could be tapped to finance film and television, often
with disastrous results for the investors but with great results for the Hollywood
studios and the financial engineers like Bannon who brokered the deals.
In the late '80s-early '90s, Wall Street discovered that intellectual property
like movies and television and the companies that owned them could be bought,
sold and traded just like hard assets such as real estate and commodities. Bannon
engineered some of those transactions, first as a specialist at Goldman Sachs,
then at his own boutique investment bank Bannon & Co., and briefly in partnership
with a volatile manager Jeff Kwatinetz (whose first claim to fame was discovering
the heavy metal band Korn and managing The Backstreet Boys).
Bannon was tough and merciless. It was Bannon who personally stuck the shiv
in the heart of former superagent and Disney President Michael Ovitz, effectively
ending the career of the man who had been known as the most powerful person
in Hollywood.
After being fired by Disney, Ovitz set out to create a powerful new entertainment
company called the American Management Group, with clients like Leonardo DiCaprio
and Cameron Diaz, in which Ovitz invested over $100 million of his own money.
(I remember visiting AMG's new offices, the most expensive and lavish in Beverly
Hills, with millions of dollars in art by the likes of Mark Rothko and Jasper
Johns adorning the walls.) But AMG was an abject failure, bleeding millions
of dollars a month, while Ovitz desperately sought a buyer. Finally, the only
available buyer was Kwatinetz and Bannon.
According to
Vanity Fair , Bannon went alone to see Ovitz and offered him $5 million,
none in cash. After a moment of silence, Ovitz told Bannon, "If I didn't know
you personally, I'd throw you out of the room." But out of options, Ovitz ended
up selling to Kwatinetz and Bannon's company, effectively ending Ovitz's legendary
Hollywood career. (Remember that, Hillary.)
Bannon's smartest (or luckiest) deal was brokering the sale of Rob Reiner's
company, Castle Rock Entertainment, to Ted Turner. In lieu of part of its brokerage
fee, Bannon & Co. agreed to take a piece of the future syndication revenues
from five TV shows, one of which turned out to be "Seinfeld." The rest is history.
The Seinfeld royalties freed Bannon (with a
reported
net worth of $41 million) from needing to work for a living, allowing him
to try his hand at producing (including the Sean Penn-directed "Indian Runner"
and a number of right-wing documentaries) and then to throw himself into extremist
and racist alt-right politics.
He invested $1 million in a laudatory film about Sarah Palin and became a
close confidante. He then attached himself to Andrew Breitbart and took over
Breitbart News after Andrew Breitbart's sudden death at 43, moving the already
far-right website closer to the openly white nationalist alt-right. There he
became a major advocate for Trump before being tapped to help run his campaign.
But Bannon's real danger doesn't come so much from his work with Breitbart
News, which plays mostly to the angry, racist white base. It comes more from
the Bannon-funded Government Accountability Institute, a research institute
staffed with some very smart and talented investigative journalists, data scientists
and lawyers.
GAI's staff does intensive and deep investigative research digging up hard-to-find,
but well-documented dirt on major politicians and then feeding it to the mainstream
media to disseminate to the general public.
Among other things, its staff has developed protocols to access the so-called
"deep web," which consists of a lot of old or useless information and information
in foreign languages which don't show up in traditional web searches, but often
contains otherwise undiscoverable and sometimes scandalous information which
Bannon then feeds to the mainstream media.
For example, Bannon is responsible for uncovering former liberal New York
congressman Anthony Weiner (husband of Hillary Clinton's personal aide Huma
Abedin) tweeting photos of his crotch to various women. Bannon hired trackers
to follow Weiner's Twitter account 24 hours a day until they eventually uncovered
the infamous crotch shots. They released them to the mass media, effectively
ending Weiner's political career. (Remember that, Hillary.)
Bannon's mantra for GAI is "Facts get shares, opinions get shrugs." GAI's
strategy is to feed damaging, fact-based stories that will get headlines in
the mainstream media and change mass perceptions. According to
Bloomberg , "GAI has collaborated with such mainstream media outlets as
Newsweek, ABC News, and CBS's "60 Minutes" on stories ranging from insider trading
in Congress to credit card fraud among presidential campaigns. It's essentially
a mining operation for political scoops."
One of Bannon's key insights is that economic imperatives have caused mainstream
media outlets to drastically cut back budgets for investigative reporting. "The
modern economics of the newsroom don't support big investigative reporting staffs,"
says Bannon. "You wouldn't get a Watergate, a Pentagon Papers today, because
nobody can afford to let a reporter spend seven months on a story. We can. We're
working as a support function."
So GAI's strategy is to spend weeks and months doing the fact-based research
that investigative reporters in the mainstream media no longer have the resources
to do, creating a compelling story line, and then feeding the story to investigative
reporters who, whatever their personal political views, are anxious in their
professional capacity to jump on. As a key GAI staffer says, "We're not going
public until we have something so tantalizing that any editor at a serious publication
would be an idiot to pass it up and give a competitor a scoop."
It's likely no accident that in the week since Bannon officially joined the
Trump campaign, media attention has shifted from focusing primarily on Trump's
gaffes to potential corrupting contributions to the Clinton Foundation in exchange
for access to Secretary of State Clinton.
GAI's biggest, and most effective project has been to uncover the nexus between
Bill and Hillary's paid speeches, contributions to the Clinton Foundation by
corrupt oligarchs and billionaires, and access to the State Department by donors.
The research culminated in the book "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweitzer, president
of GAI, and published by mainstream publisher Harpers.
The back cover of "Clinton Cash" summarizes its premise:
"The Clintons typically blur the lines between politics, philanthropy,
and business. Consider the following: Bill flies into a Third World country
where he spends time in the company of a businessman. A deal is struck.
Soon after, enormous contributions are made to the Clinton Foundation, while
Bill is commissioned to deliver a series of highly paid speeches. Some of
these deals require approval or review by the US government and fall within
the purview of a powerful senator and secretary of state. Often the people
involved are characters of the kind that an American ex-president (or the
spouse of a sitting senator, secretary of state, or presidential candidate)
should have nothing to do with."
Bannon and Schweitzer have so far failed to prove any explicit quid pro quo.
But they're highly successful at making the nexus between the Clinton Foundation,
Bill and Hillary Clinton's paid speeches, and special access for donors feel
dirty and unseemly.
Before and after its publication, "Clinton Cash" got considerable play in
the mainstream media.
The New York Times ran a front-page story with the headline, "Cash Flowed
to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal," drawing on research from "Clinton
Cash."
In an
op-ed piece in The Washington Post, Larry Lessig, Harvard Law professor
and progressive crusader against money in politics concluded, "On any fair reading,
the pattern that Schweitzer has charged is corruption." And it seems that Bannon
and Schweitzer have more damaging research on the Clintons that they will drip
out through the campaign. Schweitzer has
warned that more emails are coming showing Clinton's State Department doing
favors for foreign oligarchs.
Bannon's strategy may not be enough to win the White House for Trump. But
it will almost certainly do further damage to Clinton. Voters already think
Clinton is less trustworthy than Trump. According to a recent
Quinnipiac poll, 53 percent of likely voters say Trump is not honest (with
42 percent saying he is honest). But a huge 66 percent of voters say Clinton
is not honest, compared to 29 percent who say she is.
Bannon's work for Trump could drive Clinton's honesty score even lower. Clinton's
core strategy has been to disqualify Trump as a potential president and commander-in-chief
among a majority of voters. Bannon's strategy is to do the same for Clinton.
Faced with a choice between two presidential candidates whom a large swath
of voters find untrustworthy and distasteful, Trump's outrageousness may still
enable Clinton to grind out a victory from a sullen electorate. But it's going
to get even uglier. And even if Clinton wins, popular distrust could harm her
ability to govern.
In that context, it would be a huge mistake for Democrats and the Clinton
campaign to underestimate Steve Bannon. This piece was reprinted by Truthout
with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission
or license from the source.
Miles Mogulescu Miles Mogulescu is an entertainment attorney/business affairs
executive, producer, political activist and writer. Professionally, he is a
former senior vice president at MGM. He has been a lifelong progressive since
the age of 12 when his father helped raise money for Dr. Martin Luther King,
who was a guest in his home several times. More recently, he organized a program
on single-payer health care at the Take Back America Conference, a two-day conference
on Money in Politics at UCLA Law School, and "Made in Cuba," the largest exhibition
of contemporary Cuban art ever held in Southern California. He co-produced and
co-directed Union Maids , a film about three women union organizers in Chicago
in the 1930s and '40s, which was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Feature
Documentary.
"... The deletion took place between March 25 and March 31, the FBI learned in a May 3 interview. The name of the person who deleted the emails was redacted from the FBI's notes. ..."
"... The Times story was published on March 2. ..."
"... I am unsympathetic to any person involved in such a discussion that circumvents state secrets protocol because they don't have access to a secure computer. That is an excuse not acceptable. That is saying "I didn't know any better" to folks who are sitting at the highest levels of state secrets! That is plain B.S. in my opinion. ..."
"... A urinating contest between State and CIA operatives who really didn't need State permission to pull the trigger on drone strikes is not an excuse for Hillary to have 22-SAP running loose on her email un-secure un-authorized servers/storage units. I remain unsympathetic to Hillary or anyone else who compromises state secrets at that level because it is inconvenient to find a secure means to communicate. ..."
The deletion took place between March 25 and March 31, the FBI learned in a May 3 interview.
The name of the person who deleted the emails was redacted from the FBI's notes.
"In a follow-up FBI interview on May 3, 2016, ------ Indicated he believed he had an 'oh s--t'
moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from PRN server
and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system
containing Clinton;s e-mails," the FBI notes released on Friday stated.
This is crazy. 3 weeks after NYT publish Clinton email
server story, there was a big wipe of her emails conducted
BleachBit is a special computer software that is designed to "prevent recovery" of files so
that, as House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman
Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said last week, "even God can't read them."
After the conclusion of the investigation in July, the FBI Director James Comey recommended no
charges against Clinton but added that the Democratic presidential nominee was "extremely
careless" in handling classified material.
The fact that the FBI had this info but excluded it from their deliberations on whether or not to
indict, then did a Labor Day weekend dump when most Americans won't be paying attention, is pretty
conclusive evidence that the FBI under Comey & Lynch is actively working to shield Clinton.
..painfull to realize we have all be played for years by the democrats and yes republicans and large
corporate businesses. Time to take back our control of ourselves and choices, real choices, and not
sell our votes for a freaking free cell phone or promises of free this, free that.....
Actually if you dig deeper you will find that both parties are VERY corrupt. The only way to get
things done is to make deals and cover for each other. Our political system has totally gone amuck.
Actually, I have... and the RNC is fairly clean. The party learned a lesson with Nixon. Sure people
may not have liked the Bush's, but at least they were fairly honest. And Reagan was an awesome President.
Also, Trump can't be bought and is a political outsider.
The DNC and DemocRATs, haven't learned their lesson yet... Slick Willy was almost fully impeached
(House not Senate impeached)... but DemocRATs played party politics and let him go. We ALL know he
was guilty and repeatedly lied under oath (perjury and obstruction)... something you or I would go
to prison for.
Well said. And it fact, as someone commented above, this entire political process & "election" is
little more than a charade. (A bad one at that.)
...Don't be too surprised if/when, sometime in the few weeks, some sort of (manufactured/contrived)
'national emergency' develops, necessitating the 'temporary suspension' of: a) the election process;
b) the Bill of Rights; or c) the entire US Constitution -- and imposition of martial law -- 'Just
until Order can be Restored.' (Or some such bunch of gibberish.)
Given what we've seen over the
last 7+ years, it's darn near predictable: Americans should anticipate an "October Surprise" the
likes of which the world has never seen.
IMPORTANT: when writing "HiLlARy" be sure to use a lowercase L (l), not an uppercase i (I), so it
appears as "hillary" to internet search engines and won't be censored. All corporate media, including
Google, Facebook, and Twitter are filtering the unique word "hiliary." You must spell "hillary" correctly,
so that means using a lowercase L in place of the uppercase i in HiLlARy.
The twitter screen cap clearly shows, "PRN held a conference call
with President Clinton's staff"??
Then, the person who's name is redacted, who was evidently interviewed by the FBI, "deleted the
Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server...
... and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing
Clinton's e-mails"
Kind of unclear, since the conference call was with PRESIDENT Clinton's staff, is this PRESIDENT
Clinton's archive mailbox, on the PRN server containing PRESIDENT Clinton's emails???
Thanks, so in Dec of 2014, Cheryl Mills told 'him' to make changes to email retention setting for
Clinton's emails, and after the PRN conference call, 3/25/15, 'he' realized that 'he' didn't do what
Cheryl told 'him' to do in Dec of 2014, so 'he' did what Cheryl told 'him' to do, 3+ months late,
and wiped 'his' butt with BleachBit on some exported .PST files 'he' created??
Somehow it doesn't
look very much like the headline of this story makes it out to be??
Oh and there is the small minor point that on Nov. 26, 2014 President Obama signs into law an updated
Federal Records Act requiring public officials to forward all work-related email to their government
address. Then comes the Cheryl Mills directive to change retention settings. THEN he/she remembers
didn't follow orders ("the Oh S***" moment) so deletes all pst files plus back ups. NOTHING TO SEE
HERE!!!! /sarcasm
A reminder, the data this firm had in its possession had state secrets including 22-Top Secret-Special
Access Programs. None of these firms had clearance for such. Wonder if everyone whose fingerprints
were on these files got vetted by the FBI and or Intel to determine if they read what they had in
their hands if for no other reason than curiosity?
We are assuming that the server in PRN's management had 'all' Hillary's emails on it, but has there
been proof shown to the public that the server in New Jersey had 'all' Hillary's emails?
The 7
email chains, with 22 TS/SAP information containing emails seem to be from 2011 and 2012, with the
2012 very likely being the New Years Holliday.
Back in June, WSJ reported that the majority seemed to be discussions about a planned CIA drone
strike in Pakistan, that did not end up happening, and it started because the CIA let the US diplomat
in Islamabad know, a day or so before Christmas, so State could weigh in.
Well said. We, the People, may very well never know the details on this batch of state secrets...nothing
new about the Intel folks being tight-lipped. Nothing I've read on-line has given any info on what
the SAP email contained...but, T.S./SAP is the most rigidly controlled/guarded state secret and I
doubt any will become public knowledge. Any way this Hillary state secrets compromise is sliced,
it is a violation of state secrets protocol in my opinion. From the gist of the FBI notes provided
so far, there was little or no effort by the FBI personnel to 'dig' into 'intent,' thus glossing
over a specific state secret statutes. Nor did the FBI team devote much time to 'chasing' the means
by which these 22-T.S./SAP jumped the gap from State's closed-loop secure email system to Hillary's
rogue system...why not?
Lastly, I wonder if anyone from the Intel folks sat-in and or participated
in Hillary's 'walk-in-the-park soft-ball' not under oath chat with the FBI...the Intel folks got
'hurt' badly with Hillary's compromise of the 22 SAP in my opinion.
Many of today's cable news talking heads are mentioning the planned Pakistan drone strike discussions
as if it is now a forgone conclusion. Those of us who don't pay WSJ can read the story from other
sources...
"Some of those emails were then sent by Clinton's aides to her personal email account, officials
told the Journal.
The vaguely worded messages didn't mention the "CIA," "drones" or details about the targets, the
Journal reported.
The emails were written within the often-narrow time frame in which State Department officials
had to decide whether or not to object to drone strikes before the CIA pulled the trigger, officials
told the newspaper. The still-secret emails are still a part of the ongoing FBI investigation.
One exchange reported by the Journal came before Christmas in 2011 when the U.S. ambassador sent
a note about a planned strike that sparked an email chain between Clinton's senior advisers. Officials
said the exchange was clear those involved in the email were having discussions because they were
away from their offices and didn't have access to a classified computer."
I am unsympathetic to any person involved in such a discussion that circumvents state secrets protocol
because they don't have access to a secure computer. That is an excuse not acceptable. That is saying
"I didn't know any better" to folks who are sitting at the highest levels of state secrets! That
is plain B.S. in my opinion.
And, yet, Hillary's fawning faithful followers are buying the ruse.
Such rationalization of compromising state secrets infuriates men and women in the field who can
die (Amb. Stevens and the men who rushed to their own deaths to help protect Stevens) because of
such bureaucratic idiocy in my opinion beginning with Hillary and her immediate minions merits the
wrath of We, the People not admiration...some of whom questioned Hillary's email mess early-on such
as Amadin who believed Hillary's email stuff was 'outrageous!"
"Outrageous" is an understatement on steroids in my opinion that would get anyone else prison time.
Our Amb. to Pakistan initiated these 'chains', because CIA 'requested input'; those requests seems
to have been off the secure system. The drone operators were not in danger.
If the CIA had pulled
the trigger, it would have before State gave the input CIA asked for, if they traveled to secure
lines.
This is one of the reasons the CIA is dropping out of drone strikes; moving forwards the Defense
Dept. will pull the trigger.
The argument between State and CIA over these discussions does not seem to have started because
of Hillary, and it doesn't seem to have ended because of Hillary. It is only because of the FOIA
disclosures that we know they seem to have agreed to disagree on this subject.
A urinating contest between State and CIA operatives who really didn't need State permission to pull
the trigger on drone strikes is not an excuse for Hillary to have 22-SAP running loose on her email
un-secure un-authorized servers/storage units. I remain unsympathetic to Hillary or anyone else who
compromises state secrets at that level because it is inconvenient to find a secure means to communicate.
Did you read the ViceNews article about the Vaughn Index they received on the 7 'chains' that contain
the 22 emails? You do realize that in at least one chain, a news agency article link, and possible
quote, is being forwarded, and the article is likely the source of the TS/SAP information, don't
you? Even after it is leaked to someone like the NYT or Guardian, a TS/SAP document is still considered
TS/SAP by the NSA, right? Even after everyone on the planet who is interested has read the information,
discussing it on the non-secure system is considered against procedures, right?
"A large number of emails at the center of the Clinton FBI probe appear to have been between U.S.
diplomats in Pakistan and the State Department in Washington D.C. discussing planned drone strikes."
http://www.inquisitr.com/31881... ... "The emails were sent in 2011 and 2012 through a private
server and contained information that allowed the State Department input into a potential drone strike,
where they had the opportunity to voice either opposition or support for the planned strike."
Based on the The Inquisitor article, and the ViceNews article, 8 emails seem to be regarding the
CIA drone strike, and one of the remaining 3 chains was about the news article.
I still remain unsympathetic to anyone caught-up in this compromise of state secrets. Too many lessor
mortals have been severely punished for a lot less and the powerful escape any consequences for Hillary's
mess. The RULE OF LAW is being 'shaded' if not outright lost in this mess!
William Card > iRon Madden
Hillary is a walking psyop. NOTHING about her is real.
Chez Kiva > Chez Kiva • 20 hours ago
A memory lapse? I don't think so. Careless? Yes, careless to a fault. People died. Agents
were outed.
And, the entire thing is a ruse to keep we the Americans from discussing the real infraction,
which is that these CIA players were involved in destroying Libya and simultaneously causing
the Syrian civil war. It wasn't an 'embassy' it was a safe house for all the lettered covert
operatives and arms dealers. That's why she believes here role as 'guardian of State secrets'
is safe.
Mark this "Classified:" We are deliberately involved in destroying 7 countries mid-east in a
row. Iran (read nuclear) comes next!- General Wesley Clark.
CheeseEatingSurrenderMonkey > Fred_Shrinka
"Accidently" used BLEACHBIT "guaranteed unrecoverable" Secure Data Erase program?
"... A top aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department agreed to try to obtain a special diplomatic passport for an adviser to former President Bill Clinton in 2009, according to emails released Thursday, raising new questions about whether people tied to the Clinton Foundation received special access at the department. ..."
"... The exchange about the passport, between Mr. Band and Huma Abedin, who was then a top State Department aide to Mrs. Clinton, was included in a set of more than 500 pages of emails made public by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that sued for their release. ..."
"... "Need get me/justy and jd dip passports," Mr. Band wrote to Ms. Abedin on July 27, 2009, referring to passports for himself and two other aides to Mr. Clinton, Justin Cooper and John Davidson. ..."
"... Traveling with a former president does not convey any special diplomatic status, the State Department indicated in a statement regarding the emails. "Diplomatic passports are issued to Foreign Service officers or a person having diplomatic or comparable status," the statement said. ..."
"... "Any individuals who do not have this status are not issued diplomatic passports," it said, adding that "the staff of former presidents are not included among those eligible to be issued a diplomatic passport." ..."
A top aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department agreed to try to obtain a special diplomatic
passport for an adviser to former President Bill Clinton in 2009, according to emails released Thursday,
raising new questions about whether people tied to the Clinton Foundation received special access
at the department.
The request by the adviser, Douglas J. Band, who started one arm of the Clintons' charitable foundation,
was unusual, and the State Department never issued the passport. Only department employees and others
with diplomatic status are eligible for the special passports, which help envoys facilitate travel,
officials said.
... ... ...
The exchange about the passport, between Mr. Band and Huma Abedin, who was then a top State Department
aide to Mrs. Clinton, was included in a set of more than 500 pages of emails made public by Judicial
Watch, a conservative legal group that sued for their release.
"Need get me/justy and jd dip passports," Mr. Band wrote to Ms. Abedin on July 27, 2009, referring
to passports for himself and two other aides to Mr. Clinton, Justin Cooper and John Davidson.
... ... ...
But a person with knowledge of the issue, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that the
three men were arranging to travel with Mr. Clinton to Pyongyang less than a week later for the former
president's secret negotiations. Mr. Clinton already had a diplomatic passport as a former president.
... ... ...
Traveling with a former president does not convey any special diplomatic status, the State Department
indicated in a statement regarding the emails. "Diplomatic passports are issued to Foreign Service officers or a person having diplomatic or
comparable status," the statement said.
"Any individuals who do not have this status are not issued diplomatic passports," it said, adding
that "the staff of former presidents are not included among those eligible to be issued a diplomatic
passport."
The emails released by Judicial Watch also include discussions about meetings between Mrs. Clinton
and a number of people involved in major donations to the Clinton Foundation.
In one exchange in July 2009, Ms. Abedin told Mrs. Clinton's scheduler that Mr. Clinton "wants
to be sure" that Mrs. Clinton would be able to see Andrew Liveris, the chief executive of Dow Chemical,
at an event the next night. Dow Chemical has been one of the biggest donors to the Clinton Foundation,
giving $1 million to $5 million, records show.
Ms. Abedin arranged what she called "a pull-aside" for Mr. Liveris to speak with Mrs. Clinton
in a private room after she arrived to give a speech, according to the emails, which did not explain
the reason for the meeting.
The person with knowledge of the issue said that this email chain also related to Mr. Clinton's
North Korea trip because Mr. Liveris had offered to let Mr. Clinton use his private plane.
A separate batch of State Department documents
released by Judicial Watch last month also revealed contacts between the State Department and Clinton
Foundation donors. In one such exchange, Mr. Band sought to put a billionaire donor in touch with
the department's former ambassador to Lebanon.
Donald J. Trump, Mrs. Clinton's Republican opponent, has seized on the documents, saying they
revealed a "pay to play" operation.
"... The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status. ..."
"... Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over. Ukraine is not going to attack Russia. ..."
"... Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe. Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe. ..."
"... Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put their war planes into the air. ..."
"... Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional, indispensable" country. No other country has this rank ..."
"... A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of" any such country. ..."
"... If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government is out to lunch. ..."
"... Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington can be a partner. ..."
"... These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony. ..."
"... Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World Hegemony ..."
Russia so desperately desires to be part of the disreputable and collapsing West that Russia is
losing its grip on reality.
Despite hard lesson piled upon hard lesson, Russia cannot give up its hope of being acceptable
to the West. The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status.
Russia miscalculated that diplomacy could solve the crisis that Washington created in Ukraine and
placed its hopes on the Minsk Agreement, which has no Western support whatsoever, neither in Kiev
nor in Washington, London, and NATO.
Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories
to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over.
Ukraine is not going to attack Russia.
Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe.
Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being
Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe.
Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little
cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared
enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put
their war planes into the air.
This is the failure of diplomacy, not its success. Diplomacy cannot succeed when only one side
believes in diplomacy and the other side believes in force.
Russia needs to understand that diplomacy cannot work with Washington and its NATO vassals who
do not believe in diplomacy, but rely instead on force. Russia needs to understand that when Washington
declares that Russia is an outlaw state that "does not act in accordance with international norms,"
Washington means that Russia is not following Washington's orders. By "international norms," Washington
means Washington's will. Countries that are not in compliance with Washington's will are not acting
in accordance with "international norms."
Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional,
indispensable" country. No other country has this rank.
A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz
Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military
policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's
unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power
to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent
the re-emergence of" any such country.
Russia, China, and Iran are in Washington's crosshairs. Treaties and "cooperation" mean nothing.
Cooperation only causes Washington's targets to lose focus and to forget that they are targets. Russia's
foreign minister Lavrov seems to believe that now with the failure of Washington's policy of war
and destruction in the Middle East, Washington and Russia can work together to contain the ISIS jihadists
in Iraq and Syria. This is a pipe dream. Russia and Washington cannot work together in Syria and
Iraq, because the two governments have conflicting goals. Russia wants peace, respect for international
law, and the containment of radical jihadists elements. Washington wants war, no legal constraints,
and is funding radical jihadist elements in the interest of Middle East instability and overthrow
of Assad in Syria. Even if Washington desired the same goals as Russia, for Washington to work with
Russia would undermine the picture of Russia as a threat and enemy.
Russia, China, and Iran are the three countries that can constrain Washington's unilateral action.
Consequently, the three countries are in danger of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. If these countries
are so naive as to believe that they can now work with Washington, given the failure of Washington's
14-year old policy of coercion and violence in the Middle East, by rescuing Washington from the quagmire
it created that gave rise to the Islamic State, they are deluded sitting ducks for a pre-emptive
nuclear strike.
Washington created the Islamic State. Washington used these jihadists to overthrow Gaddafi in
Libya and then sent them to overthrow Assad in Syria. The American neoconservatives, everyone of
whom is allied with Zionist Israel, do not want any cohesive state in the Middle East capable of
interfering with a "Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates."
The ISIS jihadists learned that Washington's policy of murdering and displacing millions of Muslims
in seven countries had created an anti-Western constituency for them among the peoples of the Middle
East and have begun acting independently of their Washington creators.
The consequence is more chaos in the Middle East and Washington's loss of control.
Instead of leaving Washington to suffer at the hands of its own works, Russia and Iran, the two
most hated and demonized countries in the West, have rushed to rescue Washington from its Middle
East follies. This is the failure of Russian and Iranian strategic thinking. Countries that cannot
think strategically do not survive.
The Iranians need to understand that their treaty with Washington means nothing. Washington has
never honored any treaty. Just ask the Plains Indians or the last Soviet President Gorbachev.
If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government
is out to lunch.
Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both
governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington
can be a partner.
These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony.
Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World
Hegemony.
Only Russia and China can save the world from Armageddon, but are they too deluded and worshipful
of the West to save Planet Earth?
If you are implying that Hillary Clinton supports the center left, you have
clearly not been paying attention her entire career, or to the careers of those
with whom she has surrounded herself. Even with today's ridiculously shifted
Overton window, there is nothing "left" about being an oligarch or a war criminal.
Can't speak for NC as a whole, but in my opinion, NC writers are criticizing
the person likely to win the election. These issues of corruption need to be
hashed out and handled well before inauguration.
Perhaps NC is providing a bit of balance, given the rest of the MSM has about
11 anti-Trump pieces for every 2 anti-HRC ones?
And having browsed through the FBI interview notes with Clinton, her defence against serious wrongdoing
is that she is a mixture of forgetful and incompetent. Is this really the best the Dems can do?
Good question, this NC reader is just pretty fed up with the status quo (maybe
others want to chime in):
– Unlimited immunity from prosecution for banking executive criminals
– More shiny new undeclared "nation-building" and "RTP" wars
– Globalist trade deals that enshrine unaccountable corporate tribunals over
national sovereignty, environmental and worker protection, and self-determination
– America's national business conducted in secrecy at the behest of corporate
donors to tax-exempt foundations
– Paid-for quid-pro-quo media manipulation of candidate and election coverage
– Health care system reform designed to benefit entrenched insurance providers
over providing access to reasonable-cost basic care.
Based on the above I'd say the 11:2 ratio looks about right.
Hillary lied again claiming that the existence of her bathroom mail server was a common knoleadge.
Some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were unaware of the server
Notable quotes:
"... some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that emails by Clinton
only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email address ..."
"... The F.B.I. said that some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were aware she used a private email
address but did not know she had set up a private server. The aides said they were "unaware of the existence
of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at State or when it became public knowledge." ..."
Mrs. Clinton said in her interview it was "common knowledge" that she had a private email address
because it was "displayed to anyone with whom she exchanged emails." But the F.B.I. said in a summary
of its findings that "some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that
emails by Clinton only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email
address."
The F.B.I. said that some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were aware she used a private email
address but did not know she had set up a private server. The aides said they were "unaware of the
existence of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at State or when it became public knowledge."
"some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that emails by Clinton
only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email address." I have
no idea what kind of email client would hide the contents of the from/reply-to field. How does
their spam filter work if it doesn't reveal who sent it? Why do they read stuff when they don't
have any idea who sent it? Did the F.B.I. really simply accept these statements as facts? Maybe
they all just use cell phones and could care less who else is in the loop.
"Three weeks later, a Platte River employee realized he had not deleted the emails as instructed.
The employee said he then used a special program called BleachBit to delete the files." He was
told to delete files that any nitwit knows shouldn't be deleted and delete only means delete if
they can't be found again but now it turns out he was supposed to shred them after removing the
staples.
The clear signal is that if you are going to break laws, hide information from future legal
discovery and generally stonewall investigators with easily disproven statements be very certain
that it at the behest of your liege lord. Laws are for the peasants. Justice is blind for the
elite because no one dares look.
fresno dan
Now we find out a laptop was "lost" in the mail.
Damn, this is gonna be really bad….for the post office.
Of course, it will be hard to spin when it turns out it was addressed to Putin in Hillary's handwriting…
Bunk McNulty, September 3, 2016 at 9:57 am
"The sh!t has hit the fan."
Higgs Boson
What sh!t? What fan? Remember, the FBI gave HRC a pass. Nothing to see. It was all a big "nothingburger".
The only people that keep harping on this are right-wing rubes who get their marching orders from
Putin's army of hackers. It's been assimilated into the Clinton Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy mythos.
Now go vote for Her, because "love [of what, they don't specify] Trumps hate."
"During [Sysadmin's] December 22, 2015 FBI interview, Pagliano recalled a conversation with
[Redacted] at the beginning of Clinton's tenure, in which [Redacted] advised he would not be
surprised if classified information was being transmitted to Clinton's personal server." (Page
28)
Clinton could not give an example of how the classification of a document was determined;
rather she stated there was a process in place at State before her tenure, and she relied on
career foreign service professionals to appropriately mark and handle classified information.
Clinton believed information should be classified when it relates to [Redacted] the use of
sensitive sources, or sensitive deliberations." (Page 26)
She relied on State officials to use their judgment when e-mailing her and could not recall
anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received
at her e-mail address. The FBI provided Clinton with copies of her classified e-mails ranging
from CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET/SAP and Clinton said she did not believe the e-mails contained
classified information." (Page 26)
"State employees interviewed by the FBI explained that emails from Clinton only contained
the letter "H" in the sender field and did not display their e-mail address. The majority of
the State employees interviewed by the FBI who were in e-mail contact with Clinton indicated
they had no knowledge of the private server in her Chappaqua residence. Clinton's immediate
aides, to include Mills, Abedin, Jacob Sullivan, and [Redacted] told the FBI they were unaware
of the existence of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at the State or when it
became public knowledge.
Possible Censorship
There were no e-mails provided by Williams & Connolly to State or the FBI dated from January
21, 2009 to March 18, 2009. FBI investigation identified an additional 18 days where Clinton
did not provide State any responsive e-mail. FBI investigation determined 14 of the 18 days
where Clinton did not provide State any responsive e-mail correspond with e-mail outages affecting
Clinton's personal server systems as a result of both Hurricane Irene and Hurricane Sandy.
FBI investigation indicated other explanations for gaps in Clinton's e-mail production could
include user deletion prior to PRN's transfer of Clinton's e-mails for review…" (Page 27)
Security Threats
"Forensic analysis noted that on January 5, 2013, three IP addresses matching known Tor
exit nodes were observed accessing a user e-mail account on the Pagliano Server believe to
belong to President Clinton staffer [Redacted] FBI investigation indicated the Tor user logged
in to [Redacted] email account and browsed e-mail folders and attachments. When asked during
her interview, [Redacted] stated to the FBI she is not familiar with nor has she ever used
Tor Software" (Page 29)
"The FBI does not have in its possession any of Clinton's 13 mobile devices which potentially
were used to send e-mails using Clinton's clintonemail.com e-mail addresses. As a result, the
FBI could not make a determination as to whether any of the devices were subject to compromise.
Similarly, the FBI does not have in its possession two of the five iPad devices which potentially
were used by Clinton to send and receive e-mails during her tenure… (Page 30)
"Investigation identified multiple occurrences of phishing and/or spear-phishing e-mails
sent to Clinton's account during her tenure as Secretary of State. [Paragraph Redacted]…
Clinton received another phishing e-mail, purportedly sent from the personal e-mail account
of State official [Redacted]. The email contained a potentially malicious link. Clinton replied
to the email [Redacted] stating, "Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!"
… Open source information indicated, if opened the targeted user's device may have been infected,
and information would have been sent to at least three computers overseas, including one in
Russia." (page 31)
Pages 33 – 47 are redacted. About one third of the entire review is redacted.
However email tag data works, her name appears as "H" because she isn't using her typical
address. The address I have seen H appear in is [email protected].
Something about the contact data shows her as H.
There is an exchange between her and mega donor Ms. Rothschild that I saw this in. In the
email Clinton apologizes for inconveniencing her and literally says, "Let me know what penance
I owe you."
I have no idea what kind of email client would hide the contents of the from/reply-to
field.
"Friendly" ones, like, say, Outlook. Some people just don't care for all that gobbledygook,
and Microsoft aims to please. Of course, the sender can put whatever they want in the comment
field.
If this is not obstruction of justice then what is: " ...Representative
Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah and the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee, said that the deletion of the emails violated an order his committee issued to Mrs.
Clinton in 2012 and a subpoena issued by the Benghazi committee in 2015."
Notable quotes:
"... These were not Hillary Clinton's emails - they were government records, and this was potentially one of the largest security breaches at the State Department because they had all these years of security records that just went out the door, ..."
"... Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, called the F.B.I. documents "a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency."\ ..."
According to the F.B.I., in December 2014 a top aide to Mrs. Clinton told the company that
housed her server to delete an archive of emails from her account. The company, Platte River
Networks, apparently never followed those instructions. On March 2, 2015, The New York Times
reported that Mrs. Clinton had exclusively used a personal email account when she was secretary
of state. Two days later, the congressional committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi,
Libya, and Mrs. Clinton's response to them, told the technology firms associated with the email
account that they had to retain "all relevant documents" related to its inquiry.
Three weeks later, a Platte River employee realized he had not deleted the emails as instructed.
The employee said he then used a special program called BleachBit to delete the files. The F.B.I.
said Mrs. Clinton was unaware of the deletions.
The F.B.I. said it was later able to find some of the emails, but did not say how many emails
were deleted, or whether they were included in the 60,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton said she sent
and received while secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
But Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah and the chairman of the House Oversight
and Government Reform Committee, said that the deletion of the emails violated an order his
committee issued to Mrs. Clinton in 2012 and a subpoena issued by the Benghazi committee in 2015.
He said he planned to seek answers from Mrs. Clinton about the deletions. "These were not
Hillary Clinton's emails - they were government records, and this was potentially one of the
largest security breaches at the State Department because they had all these years of security
records that just went out the door," Mr. Chaffetz said. "It's a very black-and-white order.
There's no wiggle room."
Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, called the F.B.I.
documents "a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency."\
The F.B.I. released only small portions of its thick files on the Clinton investigation, and
Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who leads the Senate Judiciary Committee,
accused the F.B.I. of withholding key documents - including many unclassified ones - from public
view.
The selective release, he said, produced "an incomplete and possibly misleading picture of the
facts without the other unclassified information that is still locked away from the public and
even most congressional staff."
"... "When I was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush," You knew exactly where this article was going once you read the first 14 words. ..."
"... The author was chief ethics lawyer for the George W. Bush Administration. Why does that bother me? I realize this guy's term was from 2005 to 2007 and the Abu Ghraib story pretty much broke in early 2005, ..."
"... How much did the Clinton campaign pay for this Op-Ed? 'Every one does it' and 'it's not illegal'. 'It's how business is done.' How about doing a real in-depth investigation on the Clinton Foundation and perceived favors to donors NYT, instead of more opinion? ..."
"... Clearly a planted article. Nice try. Is everyone aware that the Foundation paid off Clinton's '08 campaign debt? They gave $400,000 and considered "payment for the campaign's mailing lists" ..."
"... According to former Justice Department Deputy Assistant Attorney General Shannen Coffin, there are at least three different categories of federal laws which may be implicated. ..."
"... One, the ethics and government act, which says you can't use a public office for private gain for yourself or even for a charity. So in giving special access to the donors for the Clinton Foundation, the ethics and government act is implicated. So perhaps Mr. Painter is a bit hasty dismissing such claims. ..."
"... If it was only about getting a government post or an arranged meeting, I would agree. But this seems different because significant amounts of money changed hands as a result of State Department intervention. And a lot of that money ended up at the Foundation or as speaking fees to Bill Clinton. How is this not seen as foreign donations effecting an American election - which I believe is illegal. ..."
"... Mr. Painter: You say "There is little if any evidence that federal ethics laws were broken by Mrs. Clinton". So if there is even "little" evidence that the laws were broken, then shouldn't American electorate consider it when making their election day decisions? ..."
"... You did not mention that there was no independent investigation on this subject, so there is no way to know whether there was "little" or "significant" or "overwhelming" evidence that the laws were broken. ..."
"... And finally, even if the written laws were not broken, what about the immorality of what Clintons did? Has morality been completely removed from the public square in this once great country? ..."
"... If there was no evidence of corruption at the Clinton Foundation, then why did Bill Clinton's speaking fees increase astronomically (from roughly $100,000 to $850,000) during Hillary's tenure at the State Department? ..."
"... as the neocons and neolibs in power withdraw from the govt's former "general welfare" Constitutional role and concentrate on enriching themselves and their friends - it would pay for citizens to become more aware of how the sector works. ..."
"... the system they devised inevitably empowers some groups more than others. Since democratic theory defines government officials as representatives of the voters, it encourages constituents to influence the decisions of those agents. Ideally, politicians should not favor the interests of some groups over others, but reality dictates otherwise. ..."
"... In the contest for influence, money inevitably plays a major, although not always decisive, role. In an effort to limit this role, we have developed both formal and informal methods to constrain human greed. The law prohibits bribery, for example. To discourage subtler forms of influence-buying, we have developed codes of ethics that pressure officials to limit financial connections with groups or individuals who might seek their help. ..."
"... Public opinion can serve as a powerful tool to enforce these codes. This explains the informal requirement that a president divest herself of financial connections that might affect her decisions. If Clinton rejects this tradition, she will undermine an important method of limiting the influence of moneyed interests in government. We have too few such tools as it is. ..."
"... Our laws are relatively stringent and prevent the crassest forms of corruption, and our culture makes lesser but legal offenses dangerous politically. But to imagine that any government, anywhere, could function without either those sorts of alliances or some equally corruptible strongman central oversight is is as naive and dangerously idealistic. ..."
"... How would someone feel if they found out that a doctor who prescribed them a medication is also paid large sums by a pharmaceutical company to promote the drug? Or, if the doctors owns substantial amount of stock in the company? Appearances do matter and it is likely that such conflicts do impact judgement. These kinds of allowances are being cleaned up across the country, at least in medicine. ..."
"... I am fine if they get higher salaries, but it is time to clean up the political corruption and crony capitalism. It is a shame that we hold our politicians to such incredible low standards and it is not a surprise that so many people don't bother to vote. ..."
"... It doesn't matter how good or bad the work of the Clinton Foundation is. That is not the question. The question is the motivation of many who contribute to the foundation. Are they motivated by altruism or is donating in a big way a ploy to gain access to Mrs. Clinton. ..."
"... I doubt that Clinton breached a fundamental legal boundary. However, the Clinton's have always seen the bright line and have decided to test the boundaries. From using police to secure women while governor to taking money from Walmart to major financial institutions to the email scandal, the Clinton's do it again and again and blame a vast right wing conspiracy. The Clinton foundation used Doug Band as a bag man securing commercial contracts for Bill and Hilary while he had a senior role at the foundation (flashing red lights). Huma took money off the state department books as did other Clinton confidants (flashing red lights), etc. They can't help themselves. Are these actives illegal? Probably not. However, we seek to be inspired by our leaders, we want leaders who are better than the average, better than us. ..."
"... When Bill can trot off to Russia, get 750k for a speech at the same time that business interests of the donor is before the State Department, it smells. The crux of the matter is the rotten judgement. ..."
"... You want a POTUS who has good judgement. The relentless chasing of a buck mixed with the appearance of impropriety, real or imagined, is the problem. When mixed with her poor judgement on the emails and her poor judgement on invading Iraq and disrupting Libya, you have a problem which explains her low approval rating. She is just fortunate that she has Trump to run against. ..."
"... If we look back to the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, those that were screaming the loudest for justice were having extramarital affairs during the "investigation". Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde. And then there was Dennis Hastert. ..."
"... You bring up yet another problem with Hilary. She has covered for her sexual predator husband for decades, including harassing and publicly shaming her husband's sexual assault victims. And there are many going back to his Oxford days. How is that ok? ..."
"... The Trumpster won the Republican nomination precisely because of voter disgust over the in-crowd culture of politicians and donors. Bernie Sanders came close to winning the Democratic nomination for much of the same reason. Hilary and her entire family need to wake up fast if she has any hope or desire to get elected. We all know where Hilary's money is coming from. Does Hilary know where her voters are coming from and where they are now? ..."
"... To put this in a nutshell, The Clinton's self-enriching behavior- and use of public office for private gain - is troubling in the extreme ..."
"... During her tenure as Secretary of State (as reported by the AP) of the 154 non-official meetings at least 85 of those individuals were private-sector donors who contributed up to $156 million to Clinton Foundation initiatives. ..."
"... The report comes on top of other far more incriminating investigations revealing the appearance of quid pro quo with foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation. Perhaps the worst example was when investors who profited from the Clinton State Department's approval of a deal for Russia's atomic energy agency's acquisition of a fifth of America's uranium mining rights subsequently pumped money into the Clinton Foundation. ..."
"... I hate to say this but the Clintons are America's version of Russian Oligarchs - and their Foundation almost a glorified form of money laundering. I can only pray that in 2020, us Dems may find a better president ,and that the Clintons be soon forgotten. ..."
"... Without seeing the 30,000 deleted emails, how is anyone qualified to say no laws were broken? Besides, who cares what the chief ethics lawyer for a president who authorized torture thinks? ..."
This is not the typical foundation funded by family wealth earned by
an industrialist or financier. This foundation was funded almost entirely by donors, and to the
extent anyone in the Clinton family "earned" the money, it was largely through speaking fees for
former President Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton when she was not secretary of state. This
dependence on donations - a scenario remarkably similar to that of many political campaigns -
means that the motivations of every single donor will be questioned whenever a President Clinton
does anything that could conceivably benefit such donors.
... ... ...
This kind of access is the most corrupting brand of favoritism and
pervades the entire government. Under both Republican and Democratic presidents, top
ambassadorial posts routinely go to campaign contributors. Yet more campaign contributors hound
these and other State Department employees for introductions abroad, preferred access and
advancement of trade and other policy agendas. More often than not the State Department does
their bidding.
... ... ...
The problem is that it does not matter that no laws were broken, or
that the Clinton Foundation is principally about doing good deeds. It does not matter that
favoritism is inescapable in the federal government and that the Clinton Foundation stories are
really nothing new. The appearances surrounding the foundation are problematic, and it is and
will be an albatross around Mrs. Clinton's neck.
... ... ...
As for Chelsea Clinton, anti-nepotism laws, strengthened after
President Kennedy appointed his brother Robert as attorney general, could prevent her mother from
appointing her to some of the highest government positions. But she could give her mother
informal advice, and there are a great many government jobs for which she would be eligible. She
does not need the Clinton Foundation to succeed in life.
Richard W. Painter, a professor of law at the University of
Minnesota, was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007.
Majortrout, is a trusted commenter Montreal 2 days ago
"When I was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush," You knew
exactly where this article was going once you read the first 14 words.
chichimax, albany, ny 2 days ago
I have a hard time focusing on this article. The author was chief ethics lawyer for the
George W. Bush Administration. Why does that bother me? I realize this guy's term was from
2005 to 2007 and the Abu Ghraib story pretty much broke in early 2005, but, thinking
about those other lawyers for that Bush and what they said was okay, it really gives me the
creeps to think about focusing on anything this guy might say about ethics. Just sayin'.
Lori, San Francisco 2 days ago
How much did the Clinton campaign pay for this Op-Ed? 'Every
one does it' and 'it's not illegal'. 'It's how business is done.' How about doing a real
in-depth investigation on the Clinton Foundation and perceived favors to donors NYT, instead
of more opinion?
If the foundation is so squeaky clean there should be no problem.
Or has Hilary made it clear you won't get a front row seat at her next mythical press
conference? Or has she threatened to stop sending you the press releases from her campaign you
report as news?
Ange, Boston 2 days ago
Clearly a planted article. Nice try. Is everyone aware that
the Foundation paid off Clinton's '08 campaign debt? They gave $400,000 and considered
"payment for the campaign's mailing lists"
Crabby Hayes, Virginia 2 days ago
According to former Justice Department Deputy Assistant
Attorney General Shannen Coffin, there are at least three different categories of federal laws
which may be implicated.
One, the ethics and government act, which says you can't use
a public office for private gain for yourself or even for a charity. So in giving special
access to the donors for the Clinton Foundation, the ethics and government act is implicated.
So perhaps Mr. Painter is a bit hasty dismissing such claims.
Randy, Largent 2 days ago
If it was only about getting a government post or an arranged
meeting, I would agree. But this seems different because significant amounts of money changed
hands as a result of State Department intervention. And a lot of that money ended up at the
Foundation or as speaking fees to Bill Clinton. How is this not seen as foreign donations
effecting an American election - which I believe is illegal.
Isa Ten, CA 2 days ago
Mr. Painter: You say "There is little if any evidence that
federal ethics laws were broken by Mrs. Clinton". So if there is even "little" evidence that
the laws were broken, then shouldn't American electorate consider it when making their
election day decisions?
You did not mention that there was no independent
investigation on this subject, so there is no way to know whether there was "little" or
"significant" or "overwhelming" evidence that the laws were broken.
Your main argument is that "everyone" does that. Perhaps, it is
time to change that and Trump is the man who can do it. Is it fear of this kind of change that
frightens so many NeverTrumpsters into rejecting him?
And finally, even if the written laws were not broken, what
about the immorality of what Clintons did? Has morality been completely removed from the
public square in this once great country?
David Keltz, Brooklyn 2 days ago
If there was no evidence of corruption at the Clinton Foundation, then why did Bill
Clinton's speaking fees increase astronomically (from roughly $100,000 to $850,000) during
Hillary's tenure at the State Department?
Did he suddenly become more sought after, nearly 8 or 9 years after his presidency? If
there was no evidence of corruption, then why did Hillary Clinton use her authority to appoint
herself onto the Haiti Relief Fund Board, where her sole relief efforts entailed asking people
not to donate to the Red Cross, but to the Clinton Foundation?
John D., Out West 2 days ago
One thing that comes through loud & clear in the comments: a lot
of people don't have a clue how non-profit organizations work. For a sector that's responsible
for most of the good things in this country these days - as the neocons and neolibs in
power withdraw from the govt's former "general welfare" Constitutional role and concentrate on
enriching themselves and their friends - it would pay for citizens to become more aware of how
the sector works.
James Lee, Arlington, Texas August 31, 2016
The framers of our Constitution had no illusions about the weaknesses of human nature. They
carefully crafted our charter of government to pit the officials of each branch against each
other, to obstruct the kind of collusion that could undermine the foundations of a free
society.
Despite their best efforts, however, the system they devised inevitably empowers some
groups more than others. Since democratic theory defines government officials as
representatives of the voters, it encourages constituents to influence the decisions of those
agents. Ideally, politicians should not favor the interests of some groups over others, but
reality dictates otherwise.
In the contest for influence, money inevitably plays a major, although not always
decisive, role. In an effort to limit this role, we have developed both formal and informal
methods to constrain human greed. The law prohibits bribery, for example. To discourage
subtler forms of influence-buying, we have developed codes of ethics that pressure officials
to limit financial connections with groups or individuals who might seek their help.
Public opinion can serve as a powerful tool to enforce these codes. This explains the
informal requirement that a president divest herself of financial connections that might
affect her decisions. If Clinton rejects this tradition, she will undermine an important
method of limiting the influence of moneyed interests in government. We have too few such
tools as it is.
confetti, MD August 31, 2016
I don't think that favoritism in political life will ever go
away, for the simple reason that political power isn't attained in a vacuum. It requires
sturdy alliances by definition, and those are forged via exchange of valued items - material
goods, policy compromises, position, status, assistance and other durable support. Our
laws are relatively stringent and prevent the crassest forms of corruption, and our culture
makes lesser but legal offenses dangerous politically. But to imagine that any government,
anywhere, could function without either those sorts of alliances or some equally corruptible
strongman central oversight is is as naive and dangerously idealistic.
Of course the Clintons wheeled and dealed - but well within the
law.
I'm more interested in what end that served and the real
consequences than the fact that it occurred. In their case, an effective charity that aided
many very vulnerable people was sustained, and no demonstrable compromises that negatively
affected global policies occurred.
It's the Republicans and truly sold out Democrats, who have
forever been deep in the pocket of big money and whose 'deals' in that department cause
tangible harm to the populace, that I'm more concerned with. This is their smoke and mirrors
show.
Alexander K., Minnesota August 31, 2016
How would someone feel if they found out that a doctor who prescribed them a medication
is also paid large sums by a pharmaceutical company to promote the drug? Or, if the doctors
owns substantial amount of stock in the company? Appearances do matter and it is likely that
such conflicts do impact judgement. These kinds of allowances are being cleaned up across the
country, at least in medicine.
It is time that conflict of interest for politicians at all levels is taken seriously by
the public. I am fine if they get higher salaries, but it is time to clean up the
political corruption and crony capitalism. It is a shame that we hold our politicians to such
incredible low standards and it is not a surprise that so many people don't bother to vote.
Great editorial.
Michael Belmont, Hewitt, New Jersey 2 days ago
It doesn't matter how good or bad the work of the Clinton
Foundation is. That is not the question. The question is the motivation of many who contribute
to the foundation. Are they motivated by altruism or is donating in a big way a ploy to gain
access to Mrs. Clinton. The AP analysis suggests that is just what went on. At the very
least it looks bad. Appearances are everything in politics.
Hillary doesn't need to appear to be unethical should she
be elected. Bad enough she has Bill by her side. She doesn't need a special prosecutor
investigator distracting her presidency with an influence peddling scandal. Like it or not,
Republicans will be hunting for her political hide. Hillary doesn't need to paint a bulls-eye
for them.
Chris, 10013 2 days ago
I doubt that Clinton breached a fundamental legal boundary. However, the Clinton's have
always seen the bright line and have decided to test the boundaries. From using police to
secure women while governor to taking money from Walmart to major financial institutions to
the email scandal, the Clinton's do it again and again and blame a vast right wing conspiracy.
The Clinton foundation used Doug Band as a bag man securing commercial contracts for Bill and
Hilary while he had a senior role at the foundation (flashing red lights). Huma took money off
the state department books as did other Clinton confidants (flashing red lights), etc. They
can't help themselves. Are these actives illegal? Probably not. However, we seek to be
inspired by our leaders, we want leaders who are better than the average, better than us.
In the Clintons, we have highly competent, experienced, politicians who have repeated
shown deep ethical problems. She is the best candidate by far. It's unfortunate that our
future President never learned what ethics are.
Robert, Minneapolis 2 days ago
An interesting article. It is probably true that many, if not most, politicians are
influence sellers to a degree. I suspect that the Clintons are just better at it. It is fair
to say that we do not know if laws have been broken. But it is also fair to say that
appearances matter, and that the Clintons are very good at lining their own pockets at the
same time the foundation does it's good work.
When Bill can trot off to Russia, get 750k for a speech at the same time that business
interests of the donor is before the State Department, it smells. The crux of the matter is
the rotten judgement.
You want a POTUS who has good judgement. The relentless chasing of a buck mixed with
the appearance of impropriety, real or imagined, is the problem. When mixed with her poor
judgement on the emails and her poor judgement on invading Iraq and disrupting Libya, you have
a problem which explains her low approval rating. She is just fortunate that she has Trump to
run against.
Madelyn Harris, Portland, OR 2 days ago
So glad to see many NYT readers here recognize the hypocrisy in this opinion piece. The
message is "All of them do it, it's mostly legal, though it's distasteful and problematic.
However, Hillary is the only one who should stop doing it because it looks bad."
The loudest voices of this partisan attack should be under the same scrutiny and be
compelled to practice what they preach. If we look back to the Bill Clinton and Monica
Lewinsky scandal, those that were screaming the loudest for justice were having extramarital
affairs during the "investigation". Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde. And then there
was Dennis Hastert.
Let's start looking into the personal emails of Paul Ryan, Jason Chaffetz, Donald Trump,
Trey Gowdy, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz. Imagine what we would find! Legal, but ethically
problematic exchanges and clearly illegal exchanges that would justify imprisonment. If they
ask for justice, we should provide it.
Lori, San Francisco 2 days ago
You bring up yet another problem with Hilary. She has covered for her sexual predator
husband for decades, including harassing and publicly shaming her husband's sexual assault
victims. And there are many going back to his Oxford days. How is that ok?
John D., Out West 2 days ago
An excellent piece, actually tethered to reality and non-profit law and practice ...
finally! Yes, all the Clinton clan needs to divorce themselves from the foundation, and I'm
not sure why they would wait until after the election to do so.
It seems the loudest critics are of the tribe that created campaign finance law as it
stands today, with the CU case having created a legal system of bribery across the board in
government. C'mon guys, be consistent, or it's the big H word for you!
RNW, Albany, CA 2 days ago
When it comes to ethics and public officials, appearances do in indeed MATTER! Cronyism and
conflicts of interest might elicit a big yawn from the political class, their fellow travelers
and camp followers but arouse anger and indignation from voters. Remember those guys?
We're the ones that politicians suddenly remember every few years with they come. hats in
hand, begging for donations and, most of all, our votes. (The plea for donations is a farce.
Except for a few outliers, they don't really need or want OUR donations.)
The Trumpster won the Republican nomination precisely because of voter disgust over the
in-crowd culture of politicians and donors. Bernie Sanders came close to winning the
Democratic nomination for much of the same reason. Hilary and her entire family need to wake
up fast if she has any hope or desire to get elected. We all know where Hilary's money is
coming from. Does Hilary know where her voters are coming from and where they are now?
Tembrach, Connecticut 2 days ago
I preface this by saying that I am proud Democrat & will vote for Mrs. Clinton, as Mr.
Trump is beyond the pale of decency
To put this in a nutshell, The Clinton's self-enriching behavior- and use of public
office for private gain - is troubling in the extreme
During her tenure as Secretary of State (as reported by the AP) of the 154 non-official
meetings at least 85 of those individuals were private-sector donors who contributed up to
$156 million to Clinton Foundation initiatives.
The report comes on top of other far more incriminating investigations revealing the
appearance of quid pro quo with foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation. Perhaps the worst
example was when investors who profited from the Clinton State Department's approval of a deal
for Russia's atomic energy agency's acquisition of a fifth of America's uranium mining rights
subsequently pumped money into the Clinton Foundation.
Mrs Clinton rightly condemns Trump for playing footsy with Putin. But pray tell, what
exactly was this?
I hate to say this but the Clintons are America's version of Russian Oligarchs - and
their Foundation almost a glorified form of money laundering. I can only pray that in 2020, us
Dems may find a better president ,and that the Clintons be soon forgotten.
Thought Bubble, New Jersey 2 days ago
Without seeing the 30,000 deleted emails, how is anyone qualified to say no laws were
broken? Besides, who cares what the chief ethics lawyer for a president who authorized torture
thinks?
More than half of the people who managed to score a personal one on one meeting with Hillary Clinton
while she was Secretary of State donated money to the Clinton Foundation, either as an individual
or through a company where they worked. "Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million.
At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million," the Associated Press
reported.
Does that make Hillary corrupt? Yes. It does.
At this writing, there is
no evidence that anyone received any special favors as a result of their special access to Clinton.
Not that treats were not requested. They were. (The most amusing was Bono's
request to stream his band's music into the international space station, which was mercifully
rejected.)
That's irrelevant. She's still corrupt.
Clinton's defenders like to point out that neither she nor her husband
draw a salary from their foundation. But that's a technicality.
The Clintons
extract millions of dollars in travel expenditures, including luxurious airplane accommodations
and hotel suites, from their purported do-gooder outfit. They exploit the foundation as a patronage
mill, arranging for it to hire their loyalists at extravagant six-figure salaries. Charity Navigator,
the Yelp of non-profits, doesn't bother to issue a rating for the Clinton foundation due to the pathetically
low portion of money
($9 million out of $140 million in 2013) that makes its way to someone who needs it.
"It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a
slush fund for the Clintons," says Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog
group.
As a measure of how institutionally bankrupt American politics is, all this
crap is technically
legal. But that doesn't mean it's not corrupt.
Public relations experts
caution politicians like the Clintons that the
appearance of impropriety is almost as bad as its actuality. If it looks
bad, it will hurt you with the polls. True, but that's not really the point.
The point is: access is corruption.
It doesn't matter that the lead singer of U2 didn't get to live out his rocker
astronaut fantasy. It's disgusting that he was ever in a position to have it
considered. To put a finer point on it, ethics require that someone in Hillary
Clinton's position never, ever take a meeting or correspond by email or offer a
job to someone who donated money to her and her husband's foundation. Failure
to build an unscalable wall between government and money necessarily creates a
corrupt quid pro quo:
"Just got a call from the Clinton Foundation. They're
shaking us down for a donation. Should we cough up a few bucks?"
"Hillary could be president someday. Chelsea could end up in the Senate. It
couldn't hurt to be remembered as someone who threw them some money when they
asked."
This, I 100% guarantee you, was the calculus when Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hillary for a one- or two-hour speech. She doesn't have anything new to say that everyone hasn't already heard million times before. It's not like she shared any valuable stock tips during those talks. Wealthy individuals and corporations pay politicians for one thing: access.
Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net, is the author of the
book "Snowden," the biography of the NSA whistleblower.
I am getting those "living a past life" feelings; swimming with a school of
my fellow fish, and sensing that a huge fishing net is being drawn in, with my
group in it. Feeling the slack noose around my horse-neck, slowly begin to
tighten; Seeing a hardening in the faces of the formerly "friendly" occupying
soldiers of my little town.
Google is Censoring Hillary's Health Problems Search Results
"... The era of unchallenged neoliberal dominance is clearly over. Hopefully, it will prove to have been a relatively brief interruption in a long term trend towards a more humane and egalitarian society. Whether that is true depends on the success of the left in putting forward a positive alternative. ..."
"... Third, the "individualist" thingies work as long as people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have reason to be pro leftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is, and this drum should be banged more. ..."
"... Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not ..."
"... I can't speak for other industrialized democracies, but in the US, there is essentially no ability for the left to engage in structural change. Every avenue has been either blocked by the 18th century political structures of the US (sometimes exploited in extraordinary ways by the monied powers that those structures enable) or subsumed by the neoliberal individualist marketification of everything. ..."
"... To just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature. ..."
"... I just think we should call what he calls "tribalism" by its proper name - fascism - instead of deliberately tainting our theories with overtones of an "enlightened civilized wisdom versus backwards tribal savages" narrative that itself is central to fascist/"tribalist" ideology and therefore belongs in the dustbin of history. Surely flouting Godwin's Law is a lesser sin than knowingly perpetuating the discourses of racism. ..."
"... Marxism isn't evil and Nazism is evil. So political ideology can be evil or just wrong and accomplish evil. We are indebted to Marx for describing the nature of class warfare and the natural trends of accumulation based economics , but we now know his solution is a failure. So either we learn from this or we cling on to outmoded ideas and remain irrelevant. ..."
"... It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not planning around it would be foolish. ..."
"... It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money. ..."
"... Punching "globalism" into Google returns the following definition from Merriam-Webster: "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence - compare imperialism, internationalism." ..."
"... I agree with bob mcm that Trump_vs_deep_state isn't fascism. It's not a serious analysis to say that it is. ..."
"... I take note of the Florida primary results, just in: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz did just fine, as did her hand-picked Democratic Senate candidate, the horrible Patrick Murphy. ..."
"... Oh, and Rubio is back. Notice of the death of neoliberalism might be premature. ..."
"... I mean Judas Iscariot, I mean Bill Clinton, you can make a case that he did his best to salvage something from the wreckage. To repeat what I've said here before, when he was elected the Democrats had lost five of the last six elections, most by landslides. The one exception was the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, who was despised by the left. The American people had decisively rejected what the Democrats were selling. False consciousness, no doubt. ..."
"... The obscurity and complexity of, say, Obamacare or the Greek bailout is a cover story for the looting. ..."
"... The problem is not that the experts do not understand consequences. The problem is that a broken system pays the top better, so the system has to be broken, but not so broken that the top falls off in collapse. ..."
"... Very well said. Resource limits shadow the falling apart of the global order that the American Interest link Peter T points to. If the billionaires are looting from the top and the response is a criminal scramble at the bottom, the unnecessariat will be spit out uncomprehending into the void between. ..."
"... So much concern about the term tribalism. Well what is fascism? The use of tribalism to grasp political power and establish a totalitarian political order. Sound reasonable? Pick any fascism you like, the Nazis ( master race) the theocratic fascists in the US ( Christian rule ) Catholic Fascism ( Franco's Spain) , you name it. It walks and talks like tribalism. Trump-ism is the not so new face of American fascism. It's race based, it xenophobic, it's embraces violence, has a disdain for civil liberties and human rights, and it features the great leader. Doesn't seem to difficult to make the connection. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is the politics of controlled dismantling of the institutions of a society that formerly worked for a larger portion of its participants. Like a landlord realizing increased cash flow from a decision to forego maintenance and hire gangsters to handle rent collection, neoliberalism seeks to divert the dividends from disinvestment to the top ..."
"... The cadre managing this technically and politically difficult task - it is not easy to take things apart without critical failures exemplified by system collapse prompting insurrection or revolution - are rewarded as are society's owners, the 1/10th of 1%. Everybody else is screwed - either directly, or by the consequences of the social disintegration used to feed a parasitic elite. ..."
"... "Lesser evil" is a story told to herd the masses. If there are two neoliberal politicians, both are corrupt. Neither intends to deliver anything to you on net; they are competing to deliver you. ..."
"... I am not enthusiastic about this proposed distinction between "hard" and "soft" neoliberalism. Ideologically, conservative libertarians have been locked in a dialectic with the Clintonite / Blairite neoliberals - that's an old story, maybe an obsolete story, but apparently not one those insist on seeing neoliberalism as a monolithic lump fixed in time can quite grasp, but never mind. ..."
"... Good cop, bad cop. Only, the electorate is carefully divided so that one side's good cop is the other side's bad cop, and vice versa. ..."
"... In fact, there was a powerful fascist movement in many Allied states as well. Vichy France had deep, strong domestic roots in particular, but the South African Broederbond and Jim Crow USA with its lynchings show how fascism and democracy (as understood by anti-Communists) are not separate things, but conjunctural developments of the capitalist states, which are not organized as business firms. ..."
"... "an obligation to vote in a democracy" ..."
"... orders you to consent ..."
"... if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right ..."
"... Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent. ..."
The failure of neoliberalism poses both challenges and opportunities for the
left. The greatest challenge is the need to confront rightwing tribalism as
a powerful political force in itself, rather than as a source of political support
for hard neoliberalism. Given the dangers posed by tribalism this is an urgent
task. One part of this task is that of articulating an explanation of the failure
of neoliberalism and explaining why the simplistic policy responses of tribalist
politicians will do nothing to resolve the problems. The other is to appeal
to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism, such as solidarity and
affection for long-standing institutions and to counterpose them to the
self-seeking individualism central to neoliberalism, particularly in the hard
version with which political tribalism has long been aligned.
The great opportunity is to present a progressive alternative to the accommodations
of soft neoliberalism. The core of such an alternative must be a revival of
the egalitarian and activist politics of the postwar social democratic moment,
updated to take account of the radically different technological and social
structures of the 21st century. In technological terms, the most important development
is undoubtedly the rise of the Internet. Thinking about the relationship between
the Internet economy and public policy remains embryonic at best. But as a massive
public good created, in very large measure, by the public sector, the Internet
ought to present opportunities for a radically remodeled progressive policy
agenda.
In political terms, the breakdown of neoliberalism implies the need for a
political realignment. This is now taking place on the right, as tribalists
assert their dominance over hard neoliberals. The most promising strategy for
the left is to achieve a similar shift in power within the centre-left coalition
of leftists and soft neoliberals.
This might seem a hopeless task, but there are positive signs, notably in
the United States. Although Hillary Clinton, an archetypal soft neoliberal,
has won the Democratic nomination for the Presidency and seems likely to win,
her policy proposals have been driven, in large measure by the need to compete
with the progressive left. There is reason to hope that, whereas the first Clinton
presidency symbolised the capture of the Democratic Party by soft neoliberalism,
the second will symbolise the resurgence of social liberalism.
The era of unchallenged neoliberal dominance is clearly over. Hopefully,
it will prove to have been a relatively brief interruption in a long term trend
towards a more humane and egalitarian society. Whether that is true depends
on the success of the left in putting forward a positive alternative.
Brett 08.30.16 at 5:49 am
I don't know. I think for a true triumph over the existing order, we'd need
true international institutions designed to enhance other kinds of protections,
like environmental and labor standards world-wide. That doesn't seem to
be in the wings right now, versus a light version of protectionism coupled
with perhaps some restoration of the welfare state (outside of the US –
inside the US we're going to get deadlock mildly alleviated by the Supreme
Court and whatever types of executive orders Clinton comes up with for the
next eight years).
Andrew Bartlett 08.30.16 at 6:15 am
"The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of
tribalism, such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions"
My only worry with that is the strong overlap between tribalism and racism,
at least in it's political forms. Harking to the myth of a monocultural
past could be seen by some as 'affection for long-standing institutions'.
(I know that's not what the author is thinking, but left has had it's racism
and pro-discrimination elements, and I am wary of giving too much opportunity
for those to align with that of the right)
bruce wilder 08.30.16 at 7:29 am
I wonder, how do you envision this failure of neoliberalism?
It seems like an effective response would depend somewhat on how you
think this anticipated political failure of neoliberalism plays out over
the next few years. And, it is an anticipated failure, yes? or do you see
an actual political failure as an accomplished fact?
And, if it is still an anticipated failure, do you see it as a political
failure - the inability to marshall electoral support or a legislative coalition?
Or, an ideological style that's worn out its credibility?
Or, do you anticipate manifest policy failure to play a role in the dynamics?
MisterMr 08.30.16 at 9:31 am
"The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism,
such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions and to counterpose
them to the self-seeking individualism central to neoliberalism"
I don't agree with this. First, appealing to tribalism without actually
believing in it is a dick move. Second, actually existing tribalists are
arseholes, or rather everyone when is taken by the tribalist demon becomes
an arsehole.
Third, the "individualist" thingie work as long as people believe that
they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most
people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have
reason to be pro lftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude
self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is,
and this drum should be banged more.
PS: about increasing inequality, there are two different trends that
usually are mixed up:
1) When we look at inequality at an international level, the main determinant
is differential "productivity" among nations. The productivity of developing
nations (mostly China) went up a lot, and this causes a fall in international
inequality.
2) When we look at inequalityinside a nation, it depends mostly on how
exploitative the economic system is, and I think that the main indicator
of this is the wage share of total income; as the wage share fell, income
inequality increased. This happened both in developed and developing countries.
These two determinants of inequality are mixed up and this creates the
impression that, say, the fall in wages of American workers is caused by
the ascent of Chinese workers, whereas instead both American and Chinese
workes lost in proportion, but the increase in productivity more than compensated
the fall in relative wages.
Mixing up these two determinants causes the rise in nationalism, as workers
in developed nations believe that they have been sacrificed to help workers
in developing nations (which isn't true). This is my argument against nationalism
and the reason I'm skeptic of stuff like brexit, and this makes me sort
of allergic to tribalism.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 11:43 am
This analysis by Quiggin is spot on. Clearly the way forward holds both
promise and great peril, especially in the nuclear age. The notion that
Trump is just more of the same from the GOP is deluded. He represents a
dangerous insurgency of radical rightists , who can be quite fairly be called
racist and religious extremist based fascists. A Trump win could well close
the curtain on democracy in America. Neo liberalism is being repudiated
, will the elite now turn to the fascists to hold their ground, as happened
in Germany? It's a troubling question.
casmilus 08.30.16 at 11:46 am
"The great opportunity is to present a progressive alternative to the
accommodations of soft neoliberalism. The core of such an alternative
must be a revival of the egalitarian and activist politics of the postwar
social democratic moment, updated to take account of the radically different
technological and social structures of the 21st century. In technological
terms, the most important development is undoubtedly the rise of the
Internet."
Why is that any more important than the invention of digital computers,
starting from the 1940s? Just a further evolution. The real challenge is
from robotics, 3D printing and AI drivers for such processes. That really
will liquidate a lot of skilled labour; computing created a new industry
of jobs and manufacturing.
bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 11:59 am
4: From my point of view, neoliberalism…long supply chains and logistics;
downward pressure on wages and the social wage; the growth of finance to
supply consumer credit to prop up effective demand; the culture of self-improvement
and self-management to reduce overhead and reproduction costs…no longer
supports accumulation of capital or reproduction of political legitimacy.
IOW, an economic failure.
(Anwar Shaikh's new book is definitive)
Martin 08.30.16 at 1:21 pm
Is there any knowledge of who supports tribalism? The analysis so far seems
to be in terms of tribalist policies, emotions etc, but not of who the tribalists
are, and why they support tribalist 'solutions' rather than say socialism.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 1:36 pm
Is there any knowledge of who supports tribalism? The analysis so far seems
to be in terms of tribalist policies, emotions etc, but not of who the tribalists
are, and why they support tribalist 'solutions' rather than say socialism.
Tribalism is hard wired in our genes. It can be over come with education
but too few voters ever get beyond an emotional response to what they perceive.
It's no accident that conservatives do anything they can to undermine education
and promote religious based ignorance. That's how they win elections. But
this is a dangerous game, sometimes a Hitler or a Trump shows up and steals
the show.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:00 pm
MisterMr @ 5: Third, the "individualist" thingies work as long as
people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence
enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality,
so most people have reason to be pro leftish policies both in "moralistic"
terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious,
but today it is, and this drum should be banged more.
This is where it becomes problematic that so much of this conversation
happens within individual First-World nation-states, because the inequalities
"tribalists" are interested in maintaining are precisely the inequalities
between nations on a global scale. If the "most people" you're
talking about includes the masses of recently-proletarianized working people
in the Third World, then sure "most people" have reason to be pro-left.
But when we have this conversation in a setting like this, we all implicitly
know that "most people" refers at best to the working classes of countries
like Australia and the US, and these people still perceive a decided
interest in maintaining the global economic hierarchies for which "tribalism"
serves this conversation as a signifier.
For the working classes of the First World wrapped up in their "tribalist"
defense of a global aristocracy of nations, to truly believe they're on
the losing side would mean to accept that the defense of national sovereignty
from neoliberal globalization is an inherently lost cause. If they're to
defect from the cause of "tribalism" and join the Left, this would mean
accepting a critique of the "long-standing institutions" of First-World
social democracy that appears to go much farther left even than John Quiggin
appears willing to go. (As in, the implementation of social-democratic institutions
in First-World capitalist societies is inherently a tool for enabling the
economic domination of the First World over the Third World, by empowering
a racialized labor aristocracy to serve as foot soldiers of global imperialism,
and so on and so on à la Lenin.)
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap
to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely
not "hard-wired in our genes", it's an inherently modern creation
of the inherently modern political and economic forces that first created
the "imagined community" of the modern nation-state and continue to put
incredible amounts of energy into indoctrinating various populations in
its various national mythologies.
Far from being an inherent solution to this problem, education - within
the context of a national education system, educating its pupils as Americans/Australians/etc.
- is an utterly indispensable mechanism by which this process is accomplished.
Interestingly, I share all the premises, and yet none of the optimistic
conclusions. Because soft neoliberalism (and in fact even hard neoliberalism)
is much closer sociologically, politically and ideologically to the left
than tribalism is, I see the end of the hegemonic neoliberal ideology and
the correlative rise of tribalism as (somewhat paradoxically) the guarantee
for perpetual neoliberal power in the short and middle term, at least for
two reasons.
First of all, left-inclined citizens will most likely always vote for
neoliberal candidates if the alternative is a tribalist candidate (case
in point: in 9 months or so, I will in all likelihood be offered a choice
between a hard neoliberal and Marine Le Pen; what then?).
Moreover, even if/when tribalist parties gain power, their relative sociological
estrangement from the elite sand correlative relative lack of political
power all but guarantees in my mind that they will govern along the path
of least resistance for them; that is to say hard neoliberalism (with a
sprinkle of tribalist cultural moves). This is how the FPO ruled Carinthia,
for instance, and how I would expect Trump to govern in the (unlikely) eventuality
he reached power.
Finally, mass migration are bound to intensify because of climate change
(if for no other reason) and the trend internationally in advanced democratic
countries seems to be towards national divergence and hence national reversion.
I don't see how an ideologically coherent left-oriented force can emerge
in this context, but of course I would love to be proved wrong on all counts.
Lupita 08.30.16 at 2:22 pm
Bravo, Will G-R!
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 2:37 pm
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to
be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not "hard-wired
in our genes", it's an inherently modern creation of the inherently modern
political and economic forces that first created the "imagined community"
of the modern nation-state and continue to put incredible amounts of energy
into indoctrinating various populations in its various national mythologies.
Far from being an inherent solution to this problem, education - within
the context of a national education system, educating its pupils as Americans/Australians/etc.
- is an utterly indispensable mechanism by which this process is accomplished.
)))))))))))))))
I don't agree. It's true that tribalism has morphed into what you call
national mythologies , but the basis for this is our evolutionary heritage
which divides the world into them and us. This no doubt had survival benefits
for hunter gatherer social units but it's dangerous baggage in today's world.
I find your comments about education curious. Are you advocating ignorance?
I think you confuse education with indoctrination , they are not the same
thing.
The question of what ideology an ideologically coherent left-oriented force
would come together around is indeed an important question, but I'll try
not to dwell on my hobbyhorses too much.
For now I'll add a slightly different area to consider this through:
current First World "left" populations (especially in the U.S.) want to
turn everything into individual moral questions through which a false solidarity
can be expressed and through which opposing people can be shamed. For instance,
I've thought a good deal about how environmental problems are the most important
problems in general at the moment, and how it's clear that they require
a redesign of our infrastructure. This is not an individual problem - no
amount of volunteer action will work. Yet people on the left continually
exert pressure to turn this into a conflict of morally good renouncers vs
wasters, something that the right is quite ready to enhance with their own
ridiculous tribal boundary markers (google "rolling coal").
You see this with appeals to racism. Racism is a real problem and destroys
real people's lives. But treating it as an individual moral problem rather
than a social, structural one is a way of setting boundaries around an elite.
The challenge for the left is going to be developing a left that, no matter
what it's based around, doesn't fall back into this individualist new-class
status preservation.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 3:15 pm
@ Bob Zannelli, you're continuing to draw on the language of sociobiology
and evolutionary psychology without the social-scientific rigor to justify
it. (Of course, to many if not most social scientists, the very fields of
sociobiology and evopsych are largely premised on a lack of such rigor to
begin with, but that's another story.) In particular, the term doing the
heavy lifting to provide your get-out-of-rigor-free card is "morphed". What
has been the historical trajectory of this "morphing"? What social and political
institutions have been involved? With what political interests, and what
economic ones? If you think about those kinds of questions, you might make
some headway toward understanding why social scientists generally interpret
the sociocultural aspects of racism and fascism as essential, and the biological
aspects as essentially arbitrary.
To be fair, a large part of the fault here is John Quiggin's for using
a word with as much fraught ideological baggage as "tribalism" to do so
much of his own heavy lifting. The ironic thing is, the polemical power
that probably motivated Quiggin to use that word in the first place comes
from the very same set of ideological associations (e.g. "barbaric", "savage",
"uncivilized", etc.) whose application to modern political issues of race
and nationality he would probably characterize as "tribalist" in the first
place!
Holden Pattern 08.30.16 at 3:20 pm
@ comment 16:
I can't speak for other industrialized democracies, but in the US,
there is essentially no ability for the left to engage in structural change.
Every avenue has been either blocked by the 18th century political structures
of the US (sometimes exploited in extraordinary ways by the monied powers
that those structures enable) or subsumed by the neoliberal individualist
marketification of everything.
So what remains, especially given the latter, is marketing and individual
action - persuasion, shame, public expressions of virtue. That's all that
is available to the left in the United States, especially on issues like
racism and environmental problems.
So while it's good fun to bash the lefty elites in their tony coastal
enclaves and recount their clueless dinner party conversations, it's shooting
fish in a barrel. Easy for you and probably satisfying in a cheap way, but
the fish probably didn't put themselves in the barrel, and blaming them
for swimming in circles is… problematic.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 3:26 pm
@ Bob Zannelli, you're continuing to draw on the language of sociobiology
and evolutionary psychology without the social-scientific rigor to justify
it. (Of course, to many if not most social scientists, the very fields of
sociobiology and evopsych are largely premised on a lack of such rigor to
begin with, but that's another story.) In particular, the term doing the
heavy lifting to provide your get-out-of-rigor-free card is "morphed". What
has been the historical trajectory of this "morphing"? What social and political
institutions have been involved? With what political interests, and what
economic ones? If you think about those kinds of questions, you might make
some headway toward understanding why social scientists generally interpret
the sociocultural aspects of racism and fascism as essential, and the biological
aspects as essentially arbitrary.
)))))))))))
I hope it's clear that I do not discount the assertion that nationalism
and racism are part of social constructs that favor class interest. My point
is that political agendas have to work with the clay they start with. To
just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology
is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility
of human nature. This is a dangerous illusion, it leads right to the gulags.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
To be fair, a large part of the fault here is John Quiggin's for using
a word with as much fraught ideological baggage as "tribalism" to do so
much of his own heavy lifting. The ironic thing is, the polemical power
that probably motivated Quiggin to use that word in the first place comes
from the very same set of ideological associations (e.g. "barbaric", "savage",
"uncivilized", etc.) whose application to modern political issues of race
and nationality he would probably characterize as "tribalist" in the first
place!
"Easy for you and probably satisfying in a cheap way, but the fish probably
didn't put themselves in the barrel, and blaming them for swimming in
circles is… problematic."
I come out of the same milieu, so I don't see why it's problematic to
call attention to this. I
helped to change JQ's opinion on part of it (as he wrote later, the
facts were the largest influence on his change of opinion, but apparently
what I wrote helped) and he's an actual public intellectual in Australia.
As intellectuals our personal actions don't matter but sometimes our ideas
might.
Activism and social movements can help, even in the U.S. (I think that
350.org has had a measurable effect) so I wouldn't say that a structural
approach means that nothing is possible.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 4:06 pm
@ Bob Zannelli: To just discount the reality of our evolutionary
baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist
ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature.
As hesitant as I am to play the
"Fallacy
Man" game, this is a common strawman about Marxism. In the words of
Mao Tse-Tung, as quoted by the eminent evolutionary biologist and Marxist
Richard Lewontin: "In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken,
but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a
different basis." As far as human biological capacities, it's perfectly
clear from any number of everyday examples that we're able to ignore all
sorts of outward phenotypic differences in determining which sorts of people
to consider more and less worthy of our ethical consideration, as long as
the ideological structure of our culture and society permits it - so the
problem is how to build the sort of culture and society we want to see,
and telling wildly speculative "Just-So stories" about how the hairless
ape got its concentration camps doesn't necessarily help in solving this
problem.
On the contrary, the desire to root social phenomena like what Quiggin
calls "tribalism" in our genes is itself an ideological fetish object of
our own particular culture, utilizing our modern reverence for science to
characterize social phenomena allegedly dictated by "biology" as therefore
natural, inevitable, or even desirable. Here, have a
reading /
listening recommendation.
RobinM 08.30.16 at 4:20 pm
Like Will G-R at 17 and Bob Zannelli at 19, I, too, found the use of the
term "tribalism" in the original post a bit disturbing. It's almost always
used as a pejorative. And it suggests that the "tribalists" require no deeper
analysis. I'm sure it's been around for much longer, but I think I first
took note of it when the Scottish National Party was shallowly dismissed
as a mere expression of tribalism. That the SNP (which, by the way, I do
not support) was raising questions about the deep failures of the British
system of politics and government long before these failures became widely
acknowledged was thus disregarded. Currently, an aspect of that deep failure,
the British Labour Party seems to be in the process of destroying itself,
again in part, in my estimation, because one side, among whom the 'experts'
must be numbered, seem to think that those who are challenging them can
be dismissed as "tribalists." There are surely a lot more examples.
More generally, the resort to "tribalism" as an explanation of what is
now transpiring is also, perhaps, neoliberalism's misunderstanding of its
own present predicaments even while it is part of the arsenal of weapons
neoliberals direct against their critics?
But in short, the evocation of "tribalism" is not only disturbing, it's
dangerously misleading. Those seeking to understand what may now be unfolding
should avoid using it, not least because there are also almost certainly
a whole lot of different "tribes."
awy 08.30.16 at 5:06 pm
so what's the neoliberal strategy for preserving good governance in the
face of insurgencies on the left and right?
Yankee 08.30.16 at 5:08 pm
This just in , about good tribalism (locality-based) vs bad tribalism
("race"-based, ie perceived or assumed common ancestry). It's about cultural
recognition; nationalism, based on shared allegiance to a power structure,
is different, although related (sadly)
"But as a massive public good created, in very large measure, by the public
sector .." With a large assist from non-profit-making community movements,
as with Wikipedia and Linux. (IIRC the majority of Internet servers run
on variants of the noncommercial Linux operating system, as do almost all
smartphones and tablets.) CT, with unpaid bloggers and commenters, is part
of a much bigger trend. Maybe one lesson for the state-oriented left is
to take communitarianism more seriously.
The Internet, with minimal state regulation after the vital initial pump-priming,
technical self-government by a meritocratic cooptative technocracy, an oligopolistic
commercial physical substructure, and large volumes of non-commercial as
well as commercial content, is an interesting paradigm of coexistence for
the future. Of course there are three-way tensions and ongoing battles,
but it's still working.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 5:42 pm
RobinM, to clarify, I do think that what Quiggin calls tribalism is worth
opposing in pretty absolute terms, and I even largely agree with the meat
of his broader "three-party system" analysis. I just think we should
call what he calls "tribalism" by its proper name - fascism - instead of
deliberately tainting our theories with overtones of an "enlightened civilized
wisdom versus backwards tribal savages" narrative that itself is central
to fascist/"tribalist" ideology and therefore belongs in the dustbin of
history. Surely flouting Godwin's Law is a lesser sin than knowingly perpetuating
the discourses of racism.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 6:18 pm
In the words of Mao Tse-Tung, as quoted by the eminent evolutionary biologist
and Marxist Richard Lewontin:
Now Mao Tse-Tung, there's role model to be quoted. The thing about science
is that's it true whether you believe it not, the thing about Marxism is
that it's pseudo science and
it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and
the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious. I know, I know
, maybe someone will get it right some day.
A realist politics doesn't ignore science , this doesn't mean that socialism
is somehow precluded, in fact the exact opposite. We have to extend democracy
into the economic sphere, until we do this, we don't have a democratically
based society. It's because of human nature we need to democratize every
center of power, no elite or vanguard if you prefer can be ever be trusted.
But democracy isn't easy, you have to defeat ignorance , a useful trait
to game the system , by the elite, and create a political structure that
takes account of human nature , not try to perfect it. One would hope leftists
would learn something from history, but dogmas die hard.
Igor Belanov 08.30.16 at 6:50 pm
Bob Zannelli @27
"about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and it gave us Stalin
, the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and the dear leader
in North Korea to name the most obvious."
To claim that Marxism 'gave us' all those wicked people must be one of
the least Marxist statements ever written! No doubt if Stalin and Pol Pot
hadn't come across the works of a 19th century German émigré then they would
have had jobs working in a florists and spending all the rest of their time
helping old ladies over the road.
Good to see Bob being consistent though. A few comments back he was suggesting
that humans are biologically 'tribalist', but now he's blaming all evil
on political ideology.
"I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment
will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment;
though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by
which public authority will co-operate with private initiative."
Sebastian_H 08.30.16 at 7:26 pm
'Tribalism' is giving members of what you perceive as your tribe more leeway
than you give others. (Or negatively being much more critical of others
than you would be of your tribe). It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough
that not planning around it would be foolish. Lots of 'civilization' is
about lubricating the rough spots created by tribalism while trying to leverage
the good sides.
One of the failures of neo-liberalism is in assuming that it can count
on the good side of tribalism while ignoring the perceived responsibilities
to one's own tribe. It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism
is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about
it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the
money. So then when it comes time to say "for the good of the UK we need
you to do X" lots of people won't listen to you. John asks a good question
in exploring what comes next, but it isn't clear.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 7:30 pm
about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and
it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and
the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious."
To claim that Marxism 'gave us' all those wicked people must be one of
the least Marxist statements ever written! No doubt if Stalin and Pol Pot
hadn't come across the works of a 19th century German émigré then they would
have had jobs working in a florists and spending all the rest of their time
helping old ladies over the road.
Good to see Bob being consistent though. A few comments back he was suggesting
that humans are biologically 'tribalist', but now he's blaming all evil
on political ideology.
)))))))))))))
Marxism isn't evil and Nazism is evil. So political ideology can
be evil or just wrong and accomplish evil. We are indebted to Marx for describing
the nature of class warfare and the natural trends of accumulation based
economics , but we now know his solution is a failure. So either we learn
from this or we cling on to outmoded ideas and remain irrelevant.
In the Soviet Union , science, art and literature were under assault,
with scientists, artist and writers sent to the gulag or murdered for not
conforming to strict Marxist Leninist ideology. Evolution, quantum mechanics,
and relativity were all attacked as bourgeois science. ( The need for nuclear
weapons forced Stalin later to allow this science to be sanctioned) These
days, like the Catholic Church which can no longer burn people at the stake
, old Marxists can just castigate opinions that don't meet Marxist orthodoxy.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 8:53 pm
@ Sebastian_H: It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not
planning around it would be foolish.
But again, when we're talking about "tribalism" not in terms of some
vague quasi-sociobiological force of eternal undying human nature, but in
terms of the very modern historical phenomena of racism and nationalism,
we have to consider the way any well-functioning modern nation-state has
a whole host of institutions devoted to indoctrinating citizens in whatever
ideological mythology is supposed to underpin a shared sense of national
and/or racial identity. It should go without saying that whatever we think
about general ingroup/outgroup tendencies innately hardwired into human
nature or whatever, this way of relating our identities to historically
contingent social institutions and their symbols is only as innate or hardwired
as the institutions themselves.
It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for
the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they
feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money.
At least in my view, economists are usually slipperier than that. The
arguments I've seen for neoliberal free trade (I'm not quite sure what to
make of the term "globalism") generally involve it being good for "the economy"
in a much more abstract sense, carefully worded to avoid specifying whether
the growth and prosperity takes place in Manchester or Mumbai. And there's
even something worth preserving in this tendency, in the sense that ideally
the workers of the world would have no less international/interracial solidarity
than global capital already seems to achieved.
To me the possibility that neoliberal free trade and its degradation
of national sovereignty might ultimately undermine the effectiveness of
all nationalist myths, forging a sense of global solidarity among the collective
masses of humanity ground under capital's boot, is the greatest hope or
maybe even the only real hope we have in the face of the neoliberal onslaught.
Certainly if there's any lesson from the fact that the hardest-neoliberal
political leaders are often simultaneously the greatest supporters or enablers
of chauvinistic ethnonationalism, it's that this kind of solidarity is also
one of global capital's greatest nightmares.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 9:05 pm
Punching "globalism" into Google returns the following definition from
Merriam-Webster: "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper
sphere for political influence - compare imperialism, internationalism."
I find it fascinating, and indicative of the ideological tension immanent
in fascist reactionaries' use of the term, that the two terms listed as
comparable to it are traditionally understood in modern political theory
as diametrically opposed to each other.
bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 9:17 pm
Recommending Joshua Clover's new book. Riot -Strike – Riot Prime
The strike, the organized disruption at the point of production, is no
longer really available. Late capitalism, neoliberalism is now extracting
surplus from distribution, as it did before industrialism, and is at the
transport and communication streams that disruption will occur. And this
will be riot, and there won't be much organization, centralization, hierarchy
or solidarity. I am ok with "tribalism" although still looking for a better
expression, and recognizing that a tribe is 15-50 people, and absolutely
not scalable. Tribes can network, and people can have multiple and transient
affiliations.
Clover's model is the Paris Commune.
(PS: If you don't like "tribe" come up with a word or expression that
usefully describes the sociality of Black Lives Matter (movement, maybe)
or even better Crooked Timber.)
Almost all people are primarily led by emotions and use reason only secondarily,
to justify the emotions.
There is a rude set of socio-economic "principles" which they call upon
to buttress these arguments. You can hear these principles at any blue-collar
job site, and you can hear them in a college lecture on economics, too:
–nature is selfish
–resources are scarce
–money measures real value
–wants are infinite
–there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL)
–you have to work for your daily bread
–incentives matter
–people want to keep up with the Joneses
–labor should be geographically mobile
–government is inefficient
–welfare destroys families
–printing money causes inflation
–the economy is a Darwinian mechanism
These are either false, or else secondary and ephemeral, and/or becoming
inopportune and obsolete. None of them survives inspection by pure reason.
Yet this is an aggregate that buzzes around in almost everyone's head,
is INTERNALIZED as true, for expectations both personal and social. And
which causes most of our problems.
Consider TANSTAAFL: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Yet
obviously there is such a thing as a cheaper lunch, or else there would
be no such thing as the improvement in the standard of living. …Okay, you
say, but "resources are scarce." …Well no, we are quickly proceeding to
the point where technological change and substitution will end real scarcity,
and without ecological degradation. Therefore: can cheaper lunches proceed
to the point where they are effectively free for the purposes of meeting
human need, "your daily bread"? …Well no, you say, because people are greedy,
and beyond their needs, they have wants: "wants are infinite." …But wait,
wants really cannot be infinite, because a "want" takes mental time to have,
and you only have so many hours in every day, and so many days in your life.
In fact your wants are finite, and quite boring, and the Joneses' wants
are finite sand boring too. (Though why you want to keep up with those boneheads
the Joneses is a bit beyond me.) …Okay, you say, but "incentives matter":
if you give people stuff, they will just slack off: "welfare destroys families."
…But wait a minute. If we have insisted that people must work to feel self-worth,
yet capitalism puts people out of work until there are no jobs available,
and there are no business opportunities to provide ever-cheaper lunches,
isn't welfare the least of our problems, isn't welfare a problem that gets
solved when we solve the real problem?
But what is the real problem? Is the real problem that we don't know
how to interact with strangers without the use of money, and so we think
that money is a real thing? Is the real problem your certain feeling that
we need to work for our self-worth? Is the real problem that capitalism
is putting itself out of business, and showing that these so-called principles
are just a bunch of bad excuses? Is the real problem that we are all caught
in a huge emotional loop of bad thinking, now becoming an evident disaster?
bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 9:26 pm
And also of course, people looking at Trump and his followers (or their
enemies and opponents in the Democratic Party) and seeing "tribalism" are
simply modernists engaging in nostalgia and reactionary analysis.
Trump_vs_deep_state is not fascism, and a Trump Rally is not Nuremberg. Much closer
to Carnival
Wiki: "Interpretations of Carnival present it as a social institution
that degrades or "uncrowns" the higher functions of thought, speech, and
the soul by translating them into the grotesque body, which serves to renew
society and the world,[37] as a release for impulses that threaten the
social order that ultimately reinforces social norms ,[38] as a social
transformation[39] or as a tool for different groups to focus attention
on conflicts and incongruities by embodying them in "senseless" acts."
I agree with bob mcm that Trump_vs_deep_state isn't fascism. It's not a serious
analysis to say that it is.
"Tribalism" was coined as a kind of shorthand for what Michael Berube
used to refer to "I used to consider myself a Democrat, but thanks to 9/11,
I'm outraged by Chappaquiddick." It's the wholesale adoption of what at
first looks like a value or belief system but is actually a social signaling
system that one belongs to a group. People on the left refer to this signaling
package as "tribal" primarily out of envy (I write somewhat jokingly) because
the left no longer has a similarly strong package on its side.
Greg McKenzie 08.30.16 at 11:47 pm
"Tribalism" feeds into the factionalism of parties. The left has a strong
faction both inside the ALP and the Liberal Party. The Right faction, in
the NLP, is currently in ascendancy but this will not last. Just as the
Right faction (in the ALP) was sidelined by clever ALP faction battles,
the current members of the NLP's Right faction are on borrowed time. But
all politicians are "mugs" as Henry Lawson pointed out over a hundred years
ago. Politicians can be talked into anything, if it gives them an illusion
of power. So "tribalism" is more powerful than "factionalism" simply because
it has more staying power. Left faction and Right faction merely obey the
demands of their tribal masters.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 1:47 am
. . . the left no longer has a similarly strong package on its side
honestly, I do not think "tribalism" is a "strong package" on Right or
Left. Part of the point of tribalism in politics is just how superficial
and media driven it is. The "signaling package" is put together and distributed
like cigarette or perfume samples: everybody gets their talking points.
Pretending to care dominates actually caring. On the right - as Rich
points out with the reference to "rolling coal", some people on the Right
who have donned their tribal sweatshirts get their kicks out of supposing
that somebody on the Left actually cares and they can tweak those foolishly
caring Lefties.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 1:57 am
I take note of the Florida primary results, just in: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
did just fine, as did her hand-picked Democratic Senate candidate, the horrible
Patrick Murphy.
Oh, and Rubio is back. Notice of the death of neoliberalism might
be premature.
Martin 08.31.16 at 2:11 am
@ Bob Zannelli 10: To describe something as "hard wired" is to give up:
what course of action could we take? But, then, why isn't everyone a member
of the tribalist party? Has everyone, always, been of the tribalist party?
(I know someone could argue, 'everyone is racist' or 'all these white liberals
are just as racist really', but even if that is somehow true, most are members
of the socialist party or the neoliberal party).
Rather than deciding it is all too hard, we can at least find out who
supports tribalism, why it makes sense to them, whether it benefits them,
how it benefits them, if it does, and why they support it anyway, if it
does not benefit them.
I suppose (I am guessing here), some tribalists are benefiting from differential
government support, such as immigration policies that keep out rival potential
employees, or tariff policies that keep out competitors; or at least, that
they used to benefit like that. But Crooked Timber should have readers
who can answer this kind of question from their expertise.
I suppose it's too late to try to convince people here that the term "neoliberalism"
is a virus that devastates the analytic functions of the brain, but I'll
try. The term is based on a European use of the word "liberal" that has
never had any currency in the US. It's a wholly pejorative term based on
a misunderstanding of Hayek (who did *not* believe in laissez-faire), but
may be a reasonable approximation of the beliefs of , say, Thatcher. Then
that term was confounded with a totally unconnected term invented by Peters,
who was using the word "liberal" in the American sense. And presto, we have
a seamless worlwide philosophy with "hard" and "soft" variants.
As far as, say, H. Clinton is concerned, I can see no respect in which
it would be wrong to describe her as just a "liberal" in the American sense.
American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade.
It's also been pro-union– so we can just say that's *soft* neoliberalism
and preserve our sense that we are part of a world-wide struggle. Or not.
Bernie Sanders was celebrated by the left for supporting a tax on carbon
(without mentioning, of course, what price of gasoline he was contemplating),
but this is an excellent illustration of what Peters would have considered
a neoliberal policy. The term now just seems to mean anything I don't like.
As for Benedict Arnold, I mean Judas Iscariot, I mean Bill Clinton,
you can make a case that he did his best to salvage something from the wreckage.
To repeat what I've said here before, when he was elected the Democrats
had lost five of the last six elections, most by landslides. The one exception
was the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, who was despised
by the left. The American people had decisively rejected what the Democrats
were selling. False consciousness, no doubt.
So rather than spending a lot of time celebrating victory over this hegemonic
ideology, perhaps people should be talking about liberalism and whatever
we're calling the left alternative to it.
Peter T 08.31.16 at 10:54 am
"Tribalism" is unhelpful here, because it obscures the contribution "tribalism"
has made and can make to effective social democracy. It was on the basis
of class and national tribalisms (solidarities is a better word) that social
democracy was built, and its those solidarities that give it what strength
it still has. That others preferred, and still prefer, other forms of solidarity
– built around region or religion or language – should neither come as a
surprise nor be seen as basis for opposition. It's the content, not the
form, that matters.
Self-interest is too vague and shifting, international links too weak,
to make an effective politics. Our single most pressing problem – climate
change – can clearly only be dealt with internationally. Yet the environmental
and social problems that loom almost as large are clearly ones that can
best be dealt with on national or sub-national scales. As this becomes clearer
I expect the pressure to downsize and de-link from the global economy will
intensify (there are already signs in this direction). The social democrat
challenge is then to guide local solidarities towards democracy, not decry
them.
If we're really looking for a general word that works across national boundaries,
it's a well-used one: conservatism. People sometimes object that conservatives
in one country are not the same as conservatives in another country, but
really the differences are not much greater than in liberalism across countries,
socialism, etc. Conservatism includes the characteristics of authoritarianism
and nationalism. U.S. "tribalism" is its local manifestation: the use of
"tribalism" to denote a global style of conservatism denotes a particular,
contemporary type of conservatism, just as neoliberalism is a type of liberalism.
You could divide JQ's three groups into left, liberal, conservative but
since you're using neoliberal as the middle one (e.g. a contemporary mode)
then "tribalism" or something like it seems appropriate for the last.
Note that there is no word for a contemporary mode of leftism, because
there isn't one. The closest is the acephalous or consensus style of many
recent movements and groups, but that mode hasn't won elections or taken
power.
John Quiggin,
What I see as the missing point here, and perhaps we disagree upon it's
significance, is resource limitations. We can't avoid the violent reversion
to zero sum games unless we address the problem (exactly when it has or
will reach crisis point is perhaps a point of disagreement) of expanding
population meets finite resources (or even meets already fully owned resources).
I don't buy the argument that there a technological solution, or the
argument that population will stabilize before it gets too bad (I don't
see what will drive it – because Malthus was partly right).
If people are unable to survive where they are, they will try to move,
and people already living where they are moving to won't like it. Perhaps
we are already seeing some of this, perhaps not. But it will drive tribalism
(joining together to keep the "invaders" out) and won't drive the left.
I have a feeling that the "left" should be replaced by a "green" view of
the world, but for one thing, that will need a new economics – perhaps on
the lines sketched out by Herman Daly. Maybe the term "left" is too associated
with a Marxist view of the world to be useful any more.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 2:00 pm
Apart from the obvious advantages "fascism" brings to the table - the sense
of describing "Trump_vs_deep_state" in terms of what it seeks to develop into and not
in terms of its current and clearly underdeveloped form, as well as the
sense of tying our current state of poorly grasped ideological confusion
back to WWII as the last clear three-way "battlefield of ideologies" pitting
liberalism against fascism against socialism - the term is broadly symbolically
appropriate for the same reasons it was originally adopted by Mussolini.
The sense of national solidarity and "strength through unity" (i.e. the
socialist element of National Socialism) is exactly what John Quiggin is
characterizing as "the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism", and
the direct invocation of the Roman fasces as a symbol of pure authority
is exactly what Z is getting at with the term "archism". Sure our latter-day
manifestation of fascism hasn't (yet) led to an honest-to-God fascist
regime in any Western country, but to kid ourselves that this isn't
what it seeks or that it couldn't potentially get there would be, well,
a bit too uncomfortably Weimar-ish of us.
Besides which, I get that pooh-poohing about Godwin's Law and "everybody
I don't like is Hitler" and so on is a nearly irresistible tic in today's
liberal discourse, but c'mon people… we're all comfortable using the term
"neoliberalism", which means we're all willing to risk having the same Poli
Sci 101 conversations over and over again in the mainstream ("yes, Virginia,
Hillary Clinton and Paul Ryan are both liberals!") for the sake
of our own theoretical clarity. At the very least "fascism" would have fewer
problematic discursive connotations than "tribalism", which I absolutely
refuse to use in this conversation without putting it in sneer quotes.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:17 pm
The problem with neoliberalism is that it isn't really compatible
with a modern free market economy. Simply because that system isn't
well enough understood to allow experts, let alone informed amateurs,
to reach a consensus on what a particular change will actually do. .
. . It is the inability of the neoliberal communication style to credibly
promise control that lost it.
You seem to be dancing around the elite corruption that is motivating
the rationales provided by neoliberalism. We are going to improve efficiency
by privatizing education, health care, pensions, prisons, transport. Innovation
is the goal of deregulating finance, electricity. That is what they say.
The obscurity and complexity of, say, Obamacare or the Greek bailout
is a cover story for the looting.
The problem is not that the experts do not understand consequences.
The problem is that a broken system pays the top better, so the system has
to be broken, but not so broken that the top falls off in collapse.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:35 pm
Will G-R @ 55
So you know what Trump_vs_deep_state wants to become, so we should call it that,
rather than describe what it is, because the ideological conflicts of 80
years ago were so much clearer.
We live in the age of inverted totalitarianism. Trump isn't Mussolini,
he's an American version of Berlusconi, a farcical rhyme in echo of a dead
past. We probably are on the verge of an unprecedented authoritarian surveillance
state, but Hillary Clinton doesn't need an army of blackshirts. The historical
fascism demanded everything in the state. Our time wants everything in an
iPhone app.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:54 pm
reason @ 54
Very well said. Resource limits shadow the falling apart of the global
order that the American Interest link Peter T points to. If the billionaires
are looting from the top and the response is a criminal scramble at the
bottom, the unnecessariat will be spit out uncomprehending into the void
between.
It is hard to see optimism as a growth stock. But, an effective left
would need something to reintroduce mass action into politics against an
elite that is groping toward a solution that entails replacing the masses
with robots.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 3:38 pm
"Trump_vs_deep_state" may be the term du jour in the US, but let's try to kick our
stiflingly banal American habit of framing everything around our little
quadrennial electoral freak shows. After all, the US and our rigid two-party
system have always been an outlier in the vigor with which real political
currents have been forced to conform to the narrow partisan vocabulary of
either a left-liberal or a right-liberal major party. If hewing religiously
to a patriotic sense of US institutionalism is supposed to ultimately save
the liberal political sphere from the underlying political-economic forces
that threaten it, we might as well take a page from the Tea Party and start
marching around in powdered wigs and tricorn hats for all the good it'll
do us.
In the rest of the Western world, particularly in Central and Eastern
Europe, the "fascist" parties (Golden Dawn in Greece, Jobbik in Hungary,
Ataka in Bulgaria, etc.) are generally less euphemistic about their role
as fascist parties, and what forced sense of euphemism does exist
seems to provide little more than a rhetorical opportunity for mockingly
transparent coyness . To be fair, the predominant far-right parties
in richer Western European countries (the FN, AfD, UKIP, etc.) are a bit
more earnestly vague about their ambitions, so maybe a good compromise would
be to call them (along with Trump) "soft fascists" in contrast to the "hard
fascists" of Golden Dawn or Ataka. But fascism still makes much more sense
than any other existing "-ism" I've seen, unless we want to just make one
up.
Marc 08.31.16 at 3:48 pm
Analogies can obscure more than they illuminate.
RichardM 08.31.16 at 4:11 pm
> You seem to be dancing around the elite corruption that is motivating
the rationales provided by neoliberalism.
Fair point. On the other hand, if neoliberalism rule, then neoliberals
will be the rulers. And if not, not. Whatever the nature of the rulers,
they rarely starve. Worldwide, average corruption is almost certainly lower
in mostly-neoliberal countries than in less-neoliberal places like China,
Zimbabwe, North Korea, …
The key thing is, take two neoliberal politicians, only one of whom is
(unusually) corrupt. One entirely intends to deliver what you ask for, admittedly
while ensuring they personally have a nice life being well-fed, warm and
listened-to. The other plans to take it all and deliver nothing.
Given that nobody trustworthy knows anything, at least in a form they
can explain, you can't get useful information as to which is which. 300
hours of reading reports of their rhetoric in newspapers, blogs, etc. leaves
you none the wiser. And by the time you have a professional-level of knowledge
of what's going on, you are part of the problem.
Might as well just stick to looking at who has which label next to their
name, or who has good hair.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 4:16 pm
Marc, the discourse of Godwin's Law has done a wonderful job solidifying
the delusion that what '20s-through-'40s-era fascists once represented is
categorically dead and buried, which is why it seems like the word can't
be used as anything other than an obtuse historical analogy. But it's not
an analogy - it's a direct insinuation that what these people currently
represent is a clear descendant of what those people once represented, however
mystified by its conditioned aversion to the word "fascism" itself. On the
contrary, if we surrender to the Godwin's Law discourse and accept that
fascism can never mean anything in contemporary discourse except
as an all-purpose "everything I don't like is Hitler" analogy or whatever,
it means we've forgotten what it means to actually be anti-fascist.
BTW, the link from the last comment isn't working for whatever reason,
so
here's Take 2 .
Bob Zannelli 08.31.16 at 5:27 pm
So much concern about the term tribalism. Well what is fascism? The
use of tribalism to grasp political power and establish a totalitarian political
order. Sound reasonable? Pick any fascism you like, the Nazis ( master race)
the theocratic fascists in the US ( Christian rule ) Catholic Fascism (
Franco's Spain) , you name it. It walks and talks like tribalism. Trump-ism
is the not so new face of American fascism. It's race based, it xenophobic,
it's embraces violence, has a disdain for civil liberties and human rights,
and it features the great leader. Doesn't seem to difficult to make the
connection.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 6:14 pm
RichardM: Whatever the nature of the rulers, they rarely starve.
Still not getting it. The operative question is whether the rulers feast
because the society works or because the society fails.
Neoliberalism is the politics of controlled dismantling of the institutions
of a society that formerly worked for a larger portion of its participants.
Like a landlord realizing increased cash flow from a decision to forego
maintenance and hire gangsters to handle rent collection, neoliberalism
seeks to divert the dividends from disinvestment to the top
The cadre managing this technically and politically difficult task
- it is not easy to take things apart without critical failures exemplified
by system collapse prompting insurrection or revolution - are rewarded as
are society's owners, the 1/10th of 1%. Everybody else is screwed - either
directly, or by the consequences of the social disintegration used to feed
a parasitic elite.
The key thing is, take two neoliberal politicians, only one of
whom is (unusually) corrupt. One entirely intends to deliver what you
ask for, admittedly while ensuring they personally have a nice life
being well-fed, warm and listened-to. The other plans to take it all
and deliver nothing.
Again, you are not getting it. This isn't about lesser evil. "Lesser
evil" is a story told to herd the masses. If there are two neoliberal politicians,
both are corrupt. Neither intends to deliver anything to you on net;
they are competing to deliver you.
Any apparent choice offered to you is just part of the b.s. The "300
hours of reading" is available if you need a hobby or the equivalent of
a frontal lobotomy.
I am not enthusiastic about this proposed distinction between "hard"
and "soft" neoliberalism. Ideologically, conservative libertarians have
been locked in a dialectic with the Clintonite / Blairite neoliberals -
that's an old story, maybe an obsolete story, but apparently not one those
insist on seeing neoliberalism as a monolithic lump fixed in time can quite
grasp, but never mind.
Good cop, bad cop. Only, the electorate is carefully divided so that
one side's good cop is the other side's bad cop, and vice versa.
Hillary Clinton is running the Democratic Party in such a way that she
wins the Presidency, but the Party continues to be excluded from power in
Congress and in most of the States. This is by design. This is the neoliberal
design. She cannot deliver on her corrupt promises to the Big Donors if
she cannot play the game Obama has played so superbly of being hapless in
the face of Republican intransigence.
In the meantime, those aspiring to be part of the credentialed managerial
classes that conduct this controlled demolition while elaborating the surveillance
state that is expected to hold things together in the neo-feudal future
are instructed in claiming and nurturing their individual political identity
against the day of transformation of consciousness, when feminism will triumph
even in a world where we never got around to regulating banks.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 6:33 pm
Will G-R, Bob Zannelli
Actual, historical fascism required the would-be fascists to get busy,
en masse . Trump (and Clinton) will be streamed on demand so you
can stay home and check Facebook. Hitler giving a two-hour 15000 word speech
and Trump, Master of the Twitterverse, belong to completely different political
categories, if not universes.
There are so many differences and those differences are so deep and pervasive
that the conversation hardly seems worth having.
stevenjohnson 08.31.16 at 7:54 pm
Historical fascism included not just Hitler's Germany, but Mussolini's Italy,
Franco's Spain, Salazar/Caetano's Portugal, Ionescu's Romania, the Ustase
in Croatia, Tiso's Slovakia, Petliura's movement in Ukraine, and, arguably,
Dollfuss' Austria, Horthy's Hungary, Imperial Japan, Peronist Argentina,
the Poland of the post Pilsudski junta (read Beck on the diplomatics of
a Jewish state in Uganda, which is I think symptomatic wishful thinking.)
There is a strong correlation between the nations whose rulers accepted
fascists into the government and losing WWI. The rest were new, insecure
states that could profit their masters by expansion. At the time, the so-called
Allies, except for the USSR, were essentially the official "winners" of
WWI and therefore united against the would be revisionists like Germany.
Therefore it was desirable to propagandize against the Axis as uniquely
fascist.
In fact, there was a powerful fascist movement in many Allied states
as well. Vichy France had deep, strong domestic roots in particular, but
the South African Broederbond and Jim Crow USA with its lynchings show how
fascism and democracy (as understood by anti-Communists) are not separate
things, but conjunctural developments of the capitalist states, which are
not organized as business firms.
Democracy is associated even with genocide, enslavement of peoples and
mass population transfers to colonists. It began with democracy itself,
with the Spartans turning Messenians into Helots and Athenians expropriating
Euboeans and massacring Melians. Russian Cossacks on the Caucasian steppes
or Paxton Boys in the US continued the process. When democracy came to the
Ottoman empire, making Turkey required the horrific expulsion of the Armenians.
(Their Trail of Tears was better publicized than the Cherokee's.) But the
structural need to unify a nation by excluding Others led to the bloody
expulsion of Greeks as well. The confirmation of national identity by a
mix of ethnic, religious and racial markers required mass violence and war,
as seen in the emergence of the international system of mercantilist capitalist
states.
The wide variations in historical fascism conclusively demonstrate every
notion of fascism is somehow something essentially, metaphysically, antithetical
is wrong. Fascism and democracy are not an antinomy. Particular doctrines
that assert this, like the non-concept of "totalitarianism," serve as a
kind of skeleton for political movements and parties. Since the triumph
of what we in the US call McCarthyism all mainstream and all acceptable
alternative politics share this same skeleton. It is unsurprising that such
a beast is somehow not organically equipped to be an effective left. It's
SYRIZA in Greece defining itself by the rejection of the KKE. There is no
such thing as repudiation of revolution that doesn't imply accepting counter-revolution.
Evan Neely 08.31.16 at 8:03 pm
The problem I have with attempts to appeal to the supposedly "positive"
aspects of tribalism, solidarity and the affection for longstanding institutions,
is that it's presuming these aren't just our abstractions of something that's
felt at a much more primal level. Tribalists don't love solidarity for the
sake of the principle of solidarity: they feel solidarity because they love
the specific people like them that they love and hate others.
One set of tribalists doesn't look at another and say "hey, we respect
the same principles." It says "they're not our tribe!!!" Point being, you're
never going to get them on your side with appeals to abstractions. You're
almost certainly never going to get them on your side no matter what you
do.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 9:07 pm
There is no vast neoliberal conspiracy . . .
There obviously is a vast political movement, coordinated in ideology
and the social processes of partisan politics and propaganda. Creating a
strawperson "conspiracy" does not erase actual Clinton fundraising practices
and campaign tactics, which exist independent of whatever narrative I weave
them into.
There are no corrupt promises from Clinton to big donors . . .
Calling our present-day GOP as led by Trump "fascism" is calling it a break
with the past GOP. Corey Robin has been over this quite a bit here, but
in many important respects there is no break. GWB, for instance, sometimes
required attendees at his rallies to take a personal loyalty oath. And GWB
is hailed by some people here as being the good conservative because he
said that not all Muslims were bad, while, of course, killing a million
Muslims. The contemporary GOP is an outgrowth of GOP tradition, and while
some leftists may find calling all conservatism fascism convincing, I think
that it's only convincing for the tiny number of people who adhere to their
ideology.
But conservatism and fascism are both right-wing and people can argue
indefinitely about where the boundary is. So rather than talk about ideal
types, let's look at how the rhetoric of calling it fascism works. Calling
Trump_vs_deep_state fascism is primarily the rhetoric of HRC supporters, because functionally,
what everyone pretty much agrees on is that when fascists appear, people
on the left through moderate right are supposed to drop everything and unite
in a Popular Front to oppose them.
I don't think that people should drop everything. I think that HRC is
going to win and that forming the mental habit of supporting the Democratic
Party is easy to do and hard to break, and I think that the people who become
Democratic Party supporters because of the threat of Trump / "fascism" are
going to spend the next four years working directly against actual left
interests.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 10:06 pm
Rich, I think it would be a mistake to consider this as a question of "our
present-day GOP as led by Trump". First because Trump isn't "leading" the
GOP in any meaningful sense;
as Jay Rosen's recent Tweet-storm encapsulates nicely , the GOP's institutional
leadership is still liberal through and through, even if its ideological
organs pander in some ideally implicit sense to what might otherwise be
a fascist constituency. And second because Trump isn't really "leading"
his own constituents either; if he were to make a high-profile about-face
on the issues his voters care about, they'd likely be just as eager to dump
him as Bernie Sanders' most passionate leftist supporters were to ignore
his pro-Clinton appeals at the DNC.
What's interesting about Trump isn't really anything to do with Trump
per se, so much as what Trump's constituency would do if the normal functioning
of the liberal institutions constraining it were to be disrupted in a serious
way. Europe in the 1910s through 1940s was full of such disruptions, and
should such an era return, the ideological currents we're now viewing through
a heavily tinted institutional window would become much clearer.
Ragweed 08.31.16 at 10:23 pm
Val etc.
I think that John's use of the word "tribalist" here means a world-view
that explicitly values members of an in-group more than members not of the
in-group. It is different from racism because it may be over other factors
than race – religion, citizenship, nationalism, or even region. And the
key word is explicitly. The big difference between tribalist and both neoliberal
and left positions is that the other two are generally universalist.
Neoliberals profess that everyone will be better off with deregulation,
free markets, and technocratic solutions, and often explicitly reject the
idea of something benefitting one racial, religious, or national group over
another (though not the educated or wealthy, because these are allegedly
meritocratic outcomes of the neoliberal order).
The left likewise generally argues for an increase in equality and equal
distribution of resources for all, whether that be class-based or based
on some sort of gender, race, or sexual equality.
So on an issue like a free trade deal, a neoliberal argument would support
it, because gains of trade and various other reasons why it would make everyone
better off; a leftist argument would oppose it on the grounds that it would
make everyone worse off; and a tribalist argument would oppose it on the
grounds that it took jobs away from American citizens, but wouldn't worry
too much about the other guys.
Of course, the lines are not always clear and distinct, they often overlap,
mix, and borrow arguments from each other, and there are often hypocrisies'
and inconsistencies (and John's point anyway is that the neoliberals tend
to draw on coalitions with the other two factions), but I think it is a
good general description of the distinction.
And it is different from the more sociological use of tribal to mean
any in-group/out-group distinction and social solidarity formation. Everyone
is tribal in the sociological sense, but the tribalist that John is referring
explicitly approves of that tribalism. A left intellectual may look down
on "ignorant, racist, blue-collar Trump supporters", with as much bias as
any tribalist, but would generally want them to have better education and
a guarantee income so they were no longer ignorant and racist, whereas the
tribalist generally thinks the other guy is less deserving.
Sam Bradford 09.01.16 at 9:20 am
What I wonder/worry about is whether tribalism, nationalism, call it what
you will, is a necessity.
It's very difficult for me to imagine an internationalist order that
provides the kind of benefits to citizens that I'd want a state to provide.
It's much easier to imagine nation states operating as enclaves of solidarity
and mutual aid in an amorphous, anarchic and ruthless globalised environment.
Yet the creation of a nation requires the creation of an in-group and an
out-group, citizens and non-citizens.
To put it more concretely: in my own country, New Zealand, the traditional
Maori form of social organisation – a kind of communitarianism – currently
appeals to me as offering more social solidarity and opportunity for human
flourishing than our limp lesser-of-three-evils democracy. It is a society
in which there is genuine solidarity and common purpose. Yet it is, literally,
tribal; it admits no more than a few thousand people to each circle of mutual
aid. I am sometimes tempted to believe that it is the correct way for human
beings to live, despite my general dislike for biological determinism. I
think I would rather abandon my obligations to the greater mass of humanity
(not act against them, of course, just accept an inability to influence
events) and be a member of a small society than be a helpless and hopeless
atom in a sea of similar, utterly disenfranchised atoms.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 4:32 pm
Bob Zannelli: Gee what a concept, an obligation to vote in a democracy.
As flawed as the US political process is, voting still matters and can affect
change. It's not easy , but then it's never easy to reform anything.
Just to give voice to
the
contrary perspective , voter turnout appears to play at least some role
in the ideological process by which the US electoral system claims legitimacy:
even though in purely procedural terms an election could work just fine
if the total number of ballots was an infinitesimal fraction of the number
of eligible voters ("Bill Clinton casts ballot, Hillary defeats Trump by
2 votes to 1!") low voter turnout is nonetheless depicted as a crisis not
just for any particular candidate or party but for the entire electoral
process. Accordingly, if I decide not to vote and thereby to decrease voter
turnout by a small-but-nonzero amount, I'm adding a small-but-nonzero contribution
to the public argument that the electoral process as presently institutionalized
is illegitimate, so unless we propose to add a "none of the above" option
to every single race and question on the ballot, to argue that citizens
have an obligation to vote is to argue that they are obliged not to "vote"
for the illegitimacy of the system as such. And plenty of ethical and political
stances could be consistent with such a "vote", not the least of which is
a certain historical stance whose proponents argued that "whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it…"
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:05 pm
I mean that just as people who believe the US government is legitimate should
have the right to express their political preference at the ballot box,
people who believe the US government is illegitimate should have the right
to express their political preference at (the abstention from) the ballot
box, and that it's at least possible for this to be a consistent political
and ethical stance. Do you disagree? Is the legitimacy of your government
a first premise for you? If so, Thomas Jefferson would like a word.
(Not to imply that I hold any particular fealty to the US nationalist
mythology of the "Founding Fathers" and so on, but hey, they articulated
a certain liberal political philosophy whose present-day adherents should
at least be consistent about it.)
Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 5:14 pm
I mean that just as people who believe the US government is legitimate should
have the right to express their political preference at the ballot box,
people who believe the US government is illegitimate should have the right
to express their political preference at (the abstention from) the ballot
box, and that it's at least possible for this to be a consistent political
and ethical stance. Do you disagree? Is the legitimacy of your government
a first premise for you? If so, Thomas Jefferson would like a word.
(Not to imply that I hold any particular fealty to the US nationalist
mythology of the "Founding Fathers" and so on, but hey, they articulated
a certain liberal political philosophy whose present-day adherents should
at least be consistent about it.) {}
Jefferson has never impressed me very much ( except for his church state
separation advocacy) His ideal of a democratic agrarian slave society I
find not too appealing. He talked about the blood of tyrants but he spent
his time drinking fine wines and being waiting on by his slaves during the
revolutionary war. You're entitled to any views you want, but you're not
entitled to be respected if you're views are nonsensical. Good luck on the
revolution, I hope that works out for you.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:15 pm
Also, not to get personal, but the smarm here is so thick you could cut
it with a knife…
"Did I get you right? Is your response to an argument you find uncomfortable
to simply intone 'holy shit'? Holy shit…"
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:20 pm
So wait, did you not recognize the quote from the Declaration of Independence,
or what? Your argument invoked "an obligation to vote in a democracy"
. My counterargument is that if government is supposed to be premised
on the consent of the governed, there can never be "an obligation to vote
in a democracy", because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of
consent. As Žižek might put it, your ideal appears to be a democratic system
that orders you to consent .
Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 5:37 pm
So wait, did you not recognize the quote from the Declaration of Independence,
or what? Your argument invoked "an obligation to vote in a democracy". My
counterargument is that if government is supposed to be premised on the
consent of the governed, there can never be "an obligation to vote in a
democracy", because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent.
As Žižek might put it, your ideal appears to be a democratic system that
orders you to consent.{}
I think anyone who expects to move the country away from Neo Liberalism
to a more progressive direction without voting is a fool. What's the alternative
, over throwing the government? If this is the plan we better not discuss
it on social media. Of course it's all nonsense, if the US government was
ever thrown it would be by the far right as almost happened under FDR during
the hey day of fascism around the world. I think too many here are still
living in a Marxist fantasy world , no one here is going to establish the
dictatorship of the proletarians. Let's get real.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 6:09 pm
if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right
So let's get this straight… the only choice we have is between the center
and the far right, yet it's far leftists' fault for not being centrists
that the politics of centrism itself keeps drifting farther and farther
to the right. Screw eating from the trashcan, it's like you're mainlining
pure grade-A Colombian ideology.
stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 6:24 pm
Will G-R@86 "… because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent."
Incorrect. Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent. Not voting
is meaningless, and will be interpreted as suited.
Bob Zannelli@87 "Let's get real."
Okay. What's real is, the game is rigged but you insist on making everyone
ante up and play by the rules anyhow. What's real, is you have nothing to
do with the left, except by defining the Democratic Party as the left. What's
real is that the parties could just as well be labeled the "Ins" and the
"Outs," and that would have just as much to do with the left, which is to
repeat, nothing.
bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 6:59 pm
Bob Zannelli: What's the alternative?
There is no alternative.
Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 7:01 pm
So let's get this straight… the only choice we have is between the center
and the far right, yet it's far leftists' fault for not being centrists
that the politics of centrism itself keeps drifting farther and farther
to the right. Screw eating from the trashcan, it's like you're mainlining
pure grade-A Colombian ideology{}
Right because the left is too busy plotting the revolution to engage
in politics.
bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 7:09 pm
Hillary Clinton is engaging in politics and she's teh most librul librul
evah! Why isn't that enough? It is not her fault, surely, that the devil
makes her do unlibrul things - you have to be practical and practically,
there is no alternative. We have to clap louder. That's the ticket!
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 7:25 pm
stevenjohnson: Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent.
So why then is low voter turnout interpreted as a problem for democracy?
Why wouldn't it be a cause for celebration if a large majority of the population
was so happy with the system that they'd be happy with whoever won? On the
contrary, a helpless person's tacit refusal to respond to a provocation
can be the exact opposite of consent if whoever has them at their mercy
actually needs a reaction: think of a torture victim who sits in
silence instead of pleading for mercy or giving up the information the torturer
is after. Whether or not it truly does need it, the ideology of liberal
democracy at least acts as if it needs the legitimating idea that its leaders
are freely and actively chosen by those they govern, and refusing to participate
in this choice can be interpreted as an effort to deprive this ideology
of its legitimating idea.
bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 7:45 pm
Will G-R @ 94
Low voter turnout is interpreted as a problem by some people on
some occasions. Why generalize to official "ideology" from their idiosyncratic
and opportunistic pieties?
Why are the concerns of, say, North Carolina's legislature that only
the right people vote not official ideology? Or, the election officials
in my own Los Angeles County, where we regularly have nearly secret elections
with hard-to-find-polling-places - we got down to 8.6% in one election in
2015.
Obama's DHS wants to designate the state election apparatus, critical
infrastructure. Won't that be great? I guess Putin may not be able to vote,
after all!
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 8:12 pm
Bob, my impression is that CT is supposed to be a philosophy-oriented discussion
space (or it wouldn't be named after a line from Kant for chrissake) and
in philosophy one is supposed to subject one's premises to ruthless and
unsparing criticism, or at least be able to fathom the possibility of doing
so - including in this case premises like the legitimacy of the US government
or the desirability of capitalism. Especially in today's neoliberal society
there are precious few spaces where a truly philosophical outlook is supposed
to be the norm, and honestly I'm offended that you seem to want to turn
CT into yet another space where it isn't.
stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 8:27 pm
Bob Zannelli@95 Don't worry, your left credentials are quite in order. I'm
not a regular, I post here occasionally for the same reason I occasionally
post at BHL, sheer amazement at the insanity of it all. My views are quite
beyond the pale.
Nonetheless your views, even though they pass for left at CT, are nonsense.
Corey Robin's project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology
of individual minds (characters? souls?) is not useful for real politics.
His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA for its total failure
in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making
sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle
of Seattle are acceptable because they are pure, untainted by anything save
failure.
As for your dismissal of Marxist fantasies, I take it you do not believe
economic crisis is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism
leads to war to redivide the world. And despite your alleged interest in
the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any in other countries,
unlike this country where everybody is middle class.
Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform,
it needs regime change. That's happening. Nixon failed, Trump might fail,
but the long slow march of the owners through the institutions of power,
gentrifying as they go, continues.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 8:46 pm
Bruce @ 95, correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that state and (especially)
local governments in the US typically are viewed as highly prone
to borderline-illegitimizing levels of corruption - imagine how we'd characterize
the legitimacy of a City-State of Ferguson, or a Republic of Illinois under
President Blagojevich - and part of what maintains the impression of legitimacy
is the possibility of federal intervention on the people's behalf if things
at the lower levels get out of hand. Where the federal government hasn't
done so, notably in the case of African-American communities before the
mid to late 20th century, is precisely where arguments for the illegitimacy
of the entire system have gained serious traction. So IMO there could actually
be quite a bit of subversive potential if the population at large were to
openly reject the elected officials in Washington, DC as no more inherently
legitimate than those in Raleigh, NC or Los Angeles County. (I briefly tried
to look up the location within LA of its county seat and found that
Wikipedia's article "Politics of Los Angeles County" was entirely about
its citizens' voting record in federal politics, which itself illustrates
the point.)
Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered. ..."
"... I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
"... The fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every American, even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe a sigh of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at local government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are asserting their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts. ..."
"... Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt. ..."
"... Corey Robin's project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology of individual minds (characters? souls?) is not useful for real politics. His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA for its total failure in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle of Seattle are acceptable because they are pure, untainted by anything save failure. ..."
"... I take it you do not believe economic crisis is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism leads to war to redivide the world. And despite your alleged interest in the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any in other countries, unlike this country where everybody is middle class. ..."
"... Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change. ..."
" American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also
been pro-union…"
Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free
flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or
citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to
sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international
courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue
that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.
I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in
practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism
into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered.
That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer
believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering
prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing.
The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left.
The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has
failed. This is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists
somehow get the upperhand.
I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations. I am hoping
that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen.
They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism
has failed.
Will G-R 09.02.16 at 4:19 pm
Bruce @ 104, I'm not clued into the SoCal-specific issues (so I don't know exactly how much a
Chinatown-esque narrative should be raised in contrast to your description of LA water
infrastructure as "the best of civic boosterism") but I'm thinking more of local governments like
the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history
of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago.
The fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every
American, even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe
a sigh of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at
local government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are asserting
their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts.
So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone
in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc.
through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people
and institutions that will get rid of these officials if they overstep the bounds of
what we as a nation consider acceptable. (This also extends to more informal institutions like
the media: the local paper might not be shining the light on local corruption, but the media as
such can fulfill its function and redeem its institutional legitimacy if something too egregious
falls into the national spotlight.)
Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the
local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as
the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external
oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent
overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt.
stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 8:27 pm
Bob Zannelli@95 Don't worry, your left credentials are quite in order. I'm not a regular, I post
here occasionally for the same reason I occasionally post at BHL, sheer amazement at the insanity
of it all. My views are quite beyond the pale.
Nonetheless your views, even though they pass for left at CT, are nonsense. Corey Robin's
project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology of individual minds (characters?
souls?) is not useful for real politics. His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA
for its total failure in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making
sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle of Seattle are acceptable
because they are pure, untainted by anything save failure.
As for your dismissal of Marxist fantasies, I take it you do not believe economic crisis
is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism leads to war to redivide the
world. And despite your alleged interest in the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any
in other countries, unlike this country where everybody is middle class.
Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime
change. That's happening. Nixon failed, Trump might fail, but the long slow march of the
owners through the institutions of power, gentrifying as they go, continues.
"... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. ..."
"... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
" American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also
been pro-union…"
Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free
flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens.
Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments
without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if
they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what
benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.
I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in
practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting
neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't
delivered.
That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer
believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering
prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing. The center-right hasn't
really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project of putting neoliberalism into
practice and of selling it to the masses has failed. This is an opportunity for the left but also
a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is
too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations.
I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us
that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that
he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed.
"... Clinton cannot recall, or chooses not to recall, a briefing she received on January 22, 2009. Either one implicates her as incompetent or a liar. I say both... ..."
"... "she could only work at State for a few hours a day" So her paycheck was cut to reflect her shorter hours like everybody else, right? ..."
"... That's why she invaded Libya which had nothing to do with anything. She was only half conscious. ..."
"... She bombed Libya because she forgot Soweto Obama had already won the Nobel Peace Prize. ..."
"... When someone with severe anti-social personality disorder tells you "I don't recall," especially when 'recalling' would result in negative consequences for a particular action or actions, it is usually not a problem with memory. ..."
"... So she get the Nuclear Key and forgets about when to use it or if she actually did. Very convenient setup. ..."
"... Clinton said she never sent classified data from her server. Turned out to be false. Using BleachBit shows she was trying to destroy evidence. ..."
With much of the recent discussion focusing on Hillary Clinton's general health condition, and
mental acuity in particular, we wonder if the FBI just threw her under the bus with the following
statement which links Hillary's "inability" to remember her transition instructions with her 2012
concussion and blood clot:
CLINTON stated she received no instructions or direction regarding the preservation or production
of records from State during the transition out of her role as Secretary of State in early 2013.
However, in December of 2012, CLINTON suffered a concussion and then around the New Year had a
blood clot. Based on her doctor's advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and
could not recall every briefing she received . CLINTON did not have any discussions with aides
about turning over her email records, nor did anyone from State request them. She believed her
work-related emails were captured by her practice of sending email to the state.gov email address
of her staff. CLINTON was unaware of the requirement to turn over printed records at that time.
Her physical records were boxed up and handled by aides.
The original, on page 9 of 11:
CLINTON stated she received no instructions or direction regarding the preservation
or production of records from State during the transition out of her role as Secretary of State
in early
2013, However, in December of 2012, CLINTON suffered a concussion and then around the New Year
had a blood clot. Based on her doctor's advice, she could only work at State lor a few hours a
day and
could not recall every briefing she received. CLINTON did not have airy discussions with aides
about
turning over her email records, nor did anyone from State request them. She believed her work-related
emails were captured by her practice of sending email to the state.gov email addresses of her
staff.
CLINTON was unaware of the requirement to turn over printed records at that time. Her physical
records
were boxed up and handled by aides.
Clinton cannot recall, or chooses not to recall, a briefing she received on January 22,
2009. Either one implicates her as incompetent or a liar. I say both...
Clinton's sole briefing occurred on January 22, the day after the Senate confirmed
her to the post. On that date, as the nation's top diplomat, Clinton signed a document acknowledging
she received a security briefing.
"I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature
and protection of SCI," or the nation's highest classified materials, was part of the pledge
in the document.
It amazes me how Alex Jones, Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin have such an extensive network
they can now plant their CONSPIRACY THEORIES in FBI reports.
Clearly the Russians are behind it. Better for vote Clinton.
Here is the definitive video on the true state of Hillary's health and why she should not be elected
president of the USA. Hillary is quite ill and the media is doing a masterful job of covering
it up.
When someone with severe
anti-social personality disorder tells you "I don't recall," especially when 'recalling' would
result in negative consequences for a particular action or actions, it is usually not a problem
with memory.
Here is an idea: The govt needs to build a senior care facility just outside DC, perhaps on the
grouds of Langley. Top drawer care and facilities for , for, for , elderly prior elected or appointed
officials. It woudl be a safe zone for them, nothing they say is recorded but then again limited
visitors.For recreation thay woudl have conference rooms and board rooms, even a copy of the Oval
Office-those deemed messed up go live there and have the make believe meetings and conversations
thay always wanted to have without creating problems.
Newly elected or appointed officials woudl be taken out there for field trips to be shown what
happens when you lose your effectiveness.
The cost woudl be offset by not having to pay for secret service, not paying their retirement
(that goes to the facility) or pay for private planes to travel.
Put Reid, Pelosi, McCain, mcConnell there to start. Bush , both of them, Cheney--add enough
of these folks they can hold make beleve meetings. Then add Hillary --they can hold make beleve
cabinet meetings, authorize huge spendng programs, start wars without declarign them--
it wodl be a make believe garden of eden.
we could build on this and make is a offer they cannot refuse.
This is frgiin priceless as her health is not a concern.....until she needs an excuse for treaon
- LOCK HER UP: Hillary Clinton told the FBI she did not recall all the briefings she received
on handling sensitive information as she made the transition from her post as U.S. secretary of
state, due to a concussion suffered in 2012.
Wait. Time out. Don't you see the chess move? She's going to use the "I had a brain clot" to escape
doing Federal jail time. Kind of like when your girlfriend tells you "not tonight, honey, I've
got a headache." Except we're all going to end up with headaches if she beats the rap and gets
elected.
"CLINTON stated she received no instructions or direction regarding the preservation or
production of records from State during the transition out of her role as Secretary of State
in early 2013."
Clinton said she never sent classified data from her server. Turned out to be false. Using
BleachBit shows she was trying to destroy evidence.
"... Is Donald Trump really as stupid as the press seems to think? And if not, how do we explain the press's version of countless Trumpian controversies lately? ..."
"... What is not in doubt is that if the election were to revolve around fundamental policy proposals (what an innovation!), it would be Trump's to lose. As Patrick Buchanan has observed, "on the mega-issue, America's desire for change, and on specific issues, Trump holds something close to a full house." ..."
"... On out-of-control immigration and gratuitously counterproductive foreign military adventures, he has seriously wrong-footed Hillary Clinton. He has moreover made remarkable progress in focusing attention on America's trade disaster. Thanks in large measure to his plain talk, the Clintons have finally been forced into ignominious retreat on their previous commitment to blue-sky globalism. For more on Hillary Clinton's trade woes, click here . ..."
"... Trump's hawkish stance not only packs wide popular appeal but, as I know from more than two decades covering the global economy from a vantage point in Tokyo, it addresses disastrous American policy-making misconceptions going back generations. ..."
"... Smith based his intellectual edifice on the rather pedestrian observation that rainy England was good at raising sheep, while sunny Portugal excelled in growing grapes. What could be more reasonable than for England to trade its wool for Portugal's wine? But, while Smith's case is a charming insight into eighteenth century simplicities, the fact is that climate-based agricultural endowments have long since ceased to play a decisive role in First World trade. Today the key factor is advanced manufacturing. By comparison, not only is agriculture a negligible force but, as I documented in a book some years ago, even such advanced service industries as computer software are disappointing exporters. ..."
"... In theory China should be a great market for, for instance, the U.S. auto industry – and it is, sort of. The Detroit companies have been told that while their American-made products are not welcome, they can still make money in China provided only they manufacture there AND bring their most advanced production know-how. ..."
"... Corporate America's Chinese subsidiaries moreover are expected almost from the get-go to export. In the early days they sell mainly to Africa and Southern Asia but then, as they approach state-of-the-art quality control, they come under increasing pressure to export even to the United States – with all that that implies for the job security of the very American workers and engineers who developed the advanced production know-how in the first place. ..."
"... Naturally all this has gone unnoticed in such reflexively anti-Trump media as the Washington Post . (A good account , however, is available at the pro-Trump website, Breitbart.com.) ..."
Is Donald Trump really as stupid as the press seems to think? And if not, how do we explain
the press's version of countless Trumpian controversies lately?
Take, for instance, the Kovaleski affair. According to a recent Bloomberg survey, no controversy
has proven more costly to Trump.
The episode began when, in substantiating his erstwhile widely ridiculed allegation that Arabs
in New Jersey had publicly celebrated the Twin Towers attacks, Trump unearthed a 2001 newspaper account
in which law enforcement authorities were stated to have detained "a number of people who were allegedly
seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the
devastation on the other side of the river." This seemed to settle the matter. But the report's author,
Serge Kovaleski, demurred. Trump's talk of "thousands" of Arabs, he alleged, was an exaggeration.
Trump fired back. Flailing his arms wildly in an impersonation of an embarrassed, backtracking
reporter, he implied that Kovaleski had bowed to political correctness.
So far, so normal for this election cycle. But it turned out that Kovaleski is no ordinary Trump-dissing
media liberal. He suffers from arthrogryposis, a malady in which the joints are malformed.
For Trump's critics, this was manna from heaven. Instead of merely accusing the New York real
estate magnate of exaggerating a minor, if disturbing, sideshow in U.S.-Arab relations, they could
now arraign him on the vastly more damaging charge of mocking a disabled person.
Trump pleaded that he hadn't known Kovaleski was handicapped. This was undermined, however, when
it emerged that in the 1980s the two had not only met but Kovaleski had even interviewed Trump in
Trump Tower. Trump was reduced to pleading a fading memory, something that those of us of a certain
age can sympathize with, but, of course, it didn't wash with Trump's accusers.
In responding directly to the charge of mocking a disabled person, Trump commented: "I would never
do that. Number one, I have a good heart; number two, I'm a smart person." Setting aside point one
(although to the press's chagrin, many of Trump's acquaintances have testified that a streak of considerable
private generosity underlies his tough-guy public image), it is hard to see how anyone can question
point two. Even if he really is the sort of unspeakable buffoon who might mock someone's disability,
he surely has enough political smarts to know that there is no profit in doing so in a public forum.
There has to be something else here, and, as we will see, there is. Key details have been swept
under the rug. We will get to them in a moment but first let's review the wider context. Candidate
Trump's weaknesses are well-known. He is unusually thin-skinned and can readily be lured into tilting
at windmills. His reality-television persona is sometimes remarkably abrasive. His penchant for speaking
off-the-cuff has resulted in a series of exaggerations and outright gaffes.
All that said, if he ends up losing in November, it will probably be less because of his own shortcomings
than the amazing lengths to which the press has gone in misrepresenting him – painting him by turns
weird, erratic, and downright sinister.
What is not in doubt is that if the election were to revolve around fundamental policy proposals
(what an innovation!), it would be Trump's to lose. As Patrick Buchanan has observed, "on the mega-issue,
America's desire for change, and on specific issues, Trump holds something close to a full house."
On out-of-control immigration and gratuitously counterproductive foreign military adventures,
he has seriously wrong-footed Hillary Clinton. He has moreover made remarkable progress in focusing
attention on America's trade disaster. Thanks in large measure to his plain talk, the Clintons have
finally been forced into ignominious retreat on their previous commitment to blue-sky globalism.
For more on Hillary Clinton's trade woes, click
here
.
Trump's hawkish stance not only packs wide popular appeal but, as I know from more than two
decades covering the global economy from a vantage point in Tokyo, it addresses disastrous American
policy-making misconceptions going back generations.
The standard Adam Smith/David Ricardo case for free trade, long considered holy writ in Washington,
has in the last half century become ludicrously anachronistic.
Smith based his intellectual edifice on the rather pedestrian observation that rainy England
was good at raising sheep, while sunny Portugal excelled in growing grapes. What could be more reasonable
than for England to trade its wool for Portugal's wine? But, while Smith's case is a charming insight
into eighteenth century simplicities, the fact is that climate-based agricultural endowments have
long since ceased to play a decisive role in First World trade. Today the key factor is advanced
manufacturing. By comparison, not only is agriculture a negligible force but, as I documented in
a book some years ago, even such advanced service industries as computer software are disappointing
exporters.
For nations intent on improving their manufacturing prowess (and, by extension, their standing
in the world incomes league table), a key gambit is to manipulate the global trading system. Japan
and Germany were the early leaders in intelligent mercantilism but in recent years the most consequential
exemplar has been China.
In theory China should be a great market for, for instance, the U.S. auto industry – and it
is, sort of. The Detroit companies have been told that while their American-made products are not
welcome, they can still make money in China provided only they manufacture there AND bring their
most advanced production know-how.
While such an arrangement may promise good short-term profits (nicely fattening up those notorious
executive stock options), the trade-deficit-plagued American economy is immediately deprived of badly
needed exports. Meanwhile the long-term implications are devastating. In industry after industry,
leading American corporations have been induced not only to move jobs to China but to transfer their
most advanced production technology. In many cases moreover, almost as soon as a U.S. company has
transferred its production secrets to a Chinese subsidiary, these "migrate" to rising Chinese competitors.
Precisely the sort of competitively crucial technology that in an earlier era ensured that American
workers were not only by far the world's most productive but the world's best paid have been served
up on a silver salver to America's most formidable power rival.
Corporate America's Chinese subsidiaries moreover are expected almost from the get-go to export.
In the early days they sell mainly to Africa and Southern Asia but then, as they approach state-of-the-art
quality control, they come under increasing pressure to export even to the United States – with all
that that implies for the job security of the very American workers and engineers who developed the
advanced production know-how in the first place.
Almost alone in corporate America, the Detroit companies have hitherto baulked at shipping their
Chinese-made products back to the United States but their resolve is weakening. Already General Motors
has announced that later this year it will begin selling Chinese-made Buicks in the American, European,
and Canadian markets. It is the thin end of what may prove to be a very large wedge.
Naturally all this has gone unnoticed in such reflexively anti-Trump media as the Washington
Post . (A good
account , however, is available at the pro-Trump website, Breitbart.com.)
For the mainstream press, the big nation-defining issues count as nothing compared to Trump's
personal peccadillos, real or, far too often, imagined.
This brings us back to Kovaleski. Did Trump really mean to mock a handicapped person's disability?
On any fair assessment, the answer is clearly No. As the Catholics 4 Trump website has documented,
the media have suppressed vital exonerating evidence.
The truth is that Trump's frenetic performance bore no resemblance to the rigid look of arthrogryposis
victims. Pointing out that Kovaleski conducted no on-camera interviews in the immediate wake of the
Trump performance, Catholics 4 Trump has commented:
Shouldn't the media have been chomping at the bit to get Kovaleski in front of their cameras
to embarrass Trump and prove to the world Trump was clearly mocking his disability? If the media
had a legitimate story, that is exactly what they would have done and we all know it. But the
media couldn't put Kovaleski in front of a camera or they'd have no story…..But, if they showed
video of Trump labeled "Trump Mocks Disabled Reporter," then put up a still shot of Kovaleski,
they knew you, the viewer, would assume Kovaleski's disability must make his arms move without
control.
According to Catholics 4 Trump, in the same speech in which he presented his Kovaleski cameo,
Trump acted out similar histrionics to portray a flustered U.S. general. Meanwhile, on another occasion,
he used the same wildly flapping hand motions to lampoon Ted Cruz's rationalizations on waterboarding.
Thus as neither the flustered general nor Ted Cruz are known to be physically handicapped, we have
little reason to assume that Trump's Kovaleski routine represented anything other than an admittedly
eccentric portrayal of someone prevaricating under political pressure.
Perhaps the ultimate smoking gun in all this is the behavior of the Washington Post .
On August 10, it published a particularly one-sided account by Callum Borchers. When someone used
the reader comments section to reference the alternative Catholics 4 Trump explanation, the links
were deleted almost immediately. As Catholics 4 Trump pointed out, the Post 's hidden agenda
suddenly stood revealed for all to see:
This demonstrates that the Washington Post is aware of evidence existing that contradicts
their conclusions, and that they are willfully attempting to conceal it from their readers. If
Borchers and WaPo were honest and truly wanted to report ALL of the evidence for and against and
let the readers decide, they would have to include the video of Kovaleski and the video of Trump
impersonating a flustered General and a flustered Cruz. Any objective report would include both
evidence for and against a certain interpretation of the Trump video.
What are we to make of the various other press controversies that have increasingly dogged the
Trumpmobile? For the most part, not much.
One recurring controversy concerns how rich Trump really is. The suggestion is that his net worth
is way short of the $10 billion he claims.
He has come in for particular flak from the author Timothy O'Brien, who a decade ago pronounced
him worth "$250 million tops." Although O'Brien continues to pop up regularly in places like the
Washington Post and Bloomberg, his methodology has been faulted by Forbes magazine,
which, of course, has long been the ultimate authority in such matters.
What can be said for sure is that even the best informed and most impartial calculation can only
be tentative. The fact is that the Trump business is private and thus not subject to daily stock
market assessment.
There is moreover a special complication almost unique to the Trump business - the value of his
brand. In Trump's own mind, he seems to think of himself as a latter-day Cesar Ritz – albeit he projects
less an image of five-star discretion as high-rolling hedonism. That the brand is a considerable
asset, however, is obvious from the fact that he franchises it to, among others, independent real-estate
developers. That said, it is an intangible whose value moves up and down in the same elevator as
The Donald's personal standing in global esteem.
All that said, in a major assessment last year, Forbes editor Randall Lane put Trump's
net worth at $4.5 billion. Although that is way short of Trump's own estimate, it still bespeaks
world class business acumen.
Another controversy concerns the country of origin of Trump campaign paraphernalia. After he disclosed
that his ties were made in China, his criticism of America's huge bilateral trade deficit with China
was denounced as hypocrisy.
Again there is less here than meets the eye. It is surely not unprincipled for someone to argue
for laws to be changed even while in the meantime he or she continues to benefit from the status
quo.
Warren Buffett, for instance, has often suggested that tax rates should be raised for plutocrats
like himself. In the meantime, however, he continues to pay lower rates than many of his junior staff
and nobody calls him a hypocrite. By the same token, many Ivy League-educated journalists privately
criticize the legacy system under which their children and the children of other graduates of top
universities enjoy preferential treatment in admissions. Few if any such parents, however, would
stand in the way of their own children cashing in on the system. Should they?
Perhaps Trump's most egregious experience of press misrepresentation was sparked when he archly
urged Russia to hack into Clinton's personal server to discover her missing emails. "Russia, if you're
listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," he said. "I think you
will probably be rewarded mightily by our press!"
This was sarcasm laid on with a trowel but the press, of course, wasn't buying it. Yet it is not
as if sarcasm is new to American politics. No less a figure than Abraham Lincoln had a famously sarcastic
tongue and the press laughed along with him. When someone complained of Ulysses Grant's drinking,
for instance, Lincoln rushed to the defense of the Union's most successful general. "Can you tell
me where he gets his whiskey," Lincoln asked. "Because, if I can only find out, I will send a barrel
of this wonderful whiskey to every general in the army."
Then there was Harry Truman, the man who declared himself in search of a one-handed economist.
When he was not making fun of dismal scientists, he found plenty of other opportunities for caustic
wit. After he was presented with the Chicago Tribune 's front page saying "Dewey Defeats
Truman," for instance, he commented: "I knew I should have campaigned harder!"
As for Trump, his wit is clearly a major draw with the ordinary voters who flock to his meetings.
Yet little of it is ever recycled in the press. In the case of the Russia hacking joke indeed, many
commentators were so humorless as to mutter darkly about a threat to national security. At Slate,
Osita Nwanevu interviewed a lawyer to see what could be done to arraign Trump on treason charges.
(The answer was nothing.) Meanwhile at Politico, Nahal Toosi and Seung Min Kim reported that Trump's
crack had "shocked, flabbergasted, and appalled lawmakers and national security experts across the
political spectrum." They quoted Philip Reiner, a former national security official in the Obama
administration, describing Trump as a "scumbag animal." Reiner went on to comment: "Hacking email
is a criminal activity. And he's asked a foreign government – a murderous, repressive regime – to
attack not just one of our citizens but the Democratic presidential candidate? Of course it's a national
security threat."
Countless other examples could be cited of how the press has piled on in ways that clearly make
a mockery of claims to fairness. All this is not to suggest that Trump hasn't made many unforced
errors. His handling of the Khizr Khan affair in particular played right into the press's agenda.
As Khan had lost a son in Iraq, his taunts should have been ignored. By challenging Khan, Trump was
charging the cape, not the matador. The matador, of course, was Hillary, and she was actually highly
exposed. Trump, after all, could have simply confined his riposte to the fact that but for her vote,
and the votes of other Senators, the United States would never have entered Iraq, and Khan's unfortunate
son would still be alive.
Where does Trump go from here? Although it is probably too late to get the press to fall into
line in observing traditional standards of fairness, Trump can make it harder for the press to deliver
cheap shots.
He needs to stake out the high ground and get a serious policy discussion going. The debates should
help but the first one is still more than a month away. In the meantime one strategy would be to
compile detailed, authoritative reports on trade, immigration, and other key issues. While such reports
would not reach everyone, in these days of the internet they would find a useful readership among
an influential, if no doubt relatively small, cadre of thoughtful constituents. They could thus work
indirectly but powerfully to change the tone of the campaign. Certainly such an initiative would
be hard for the mainstream press simply to ignore – and even harder completely to misrepresent.
Eamonn Fingleton is the author of In the Jaws of the Dragon: America's Fate in the Coming
Era of Chinese Hegemony . He interviewed Trump for Forbes magazine in 1982.
"... Donald Trump once denounced his Republican primary opponents as being "totally in cahoots" with the unlimited-money super PACs supporting their campaigns. But that was then, and this is now. This week, Trump announced he hired the man whose activism literally led to the creation of super PACs , and whose most recent gig was leading a pro-Trump super PAC. ..."
Donald Trump once denounced his Republican primary opponents as being "totally in cahoots" with
the unlimited-money super PACs supporting their campaigns. But that was then, and this is now. This
week, Trump announced he hired
the man whose activism literally led to the creation of super PACs , and whose most recent gig
was leading a pro-Trump super PAC.
That man is David Bossie. The longtime head of the conservative nonprofit Citizens United is now
Trump's deputy campaign manager. Yes, that Citizens United.
The conservative nonprofit group filed a lawsuit in 2007 against the Federal Election Commission.
The case eventually snowballed into a 2010 Supreme Court decision that legalized unlimited corporate
and union spending in elections, so long as it remained independent from candidates and political
parties. A subsequent lower court decision based entirely on the Citizens United ruling opened the
door to unlimited giving by wealthy individuals and, in turn, the FEC created super PACs to allow
for this money to flow.
Trump was once the candidate who denounced big money and declared his independence from donor
influence through his self-financing. Now, he's schmoozing with big donors and asking for their advice
as he prods them for money, while employing supporters of further campaign finance deregulation.
"It does paint Donald Trump's campaign as not being friendly to campaign finance reform," said
Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for the pro-campaign finance reform group Public Citizen.
That may be of little surprise, considering the Republican Party platform calls for the elimination
of all campaign contribution limits
That means that Justin Cooper has full access to all Hillary email information, which is illegal.
Notable quotes:
"... Longtime Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who helped set up the private email account that Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state, was the person "usually responsible" for setting up her new devices and syncing them to the server. ..."
"... another person whose name is redacted, also helped Clinton set up her BlackBerry. ..."
Longtime Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who helped set up the private email account that Hillary
Clinton used as secretary of state, was the person "usually responsible" for setting up her new devices
and syncing them to the server.Top aides Huma Abedin and Monica Hanley, as well as
another person
whose name is redacted, also helped Clinton set up her BlackBerry.
According to Abedin and Hanley, Clinton's old devices would often disappear to parts "unknown
once she transitioned to a new device."
Cooper, according to the report, "did recall two instances where he destroyed Clinton's old mobile
devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer."
The FBI said it uncovered multiple instances
of phishing or spear-phishing emails sent to Clinton's account, including one
that appeared to be sent from another State official's account. Clinton
responded to the email by trying to confirm that the person actually sent it,
adding, "I was worried about opening it!"
But in another incident, the FBI noted that Abedin emailed someone (whose
name is redacted) conveying Clinton's concern that "someone [was] hacking into
her email" after receiving an email from a "known [redacted] associate
containing a link to a website with pornographic material."
"There is no additional information as to why Clinton was concerned about
someone hacking into her e-mail account, or if the specific link referenced by
Abedin was used as a vector to infect Clinton's device," the FBI's report
states, and after roughly two lines of redacted text goes on to note that "open
source information indicated, if opened, the targeted user's device may have
been infected, and information would have been sent to at least three computers
overseas, including one in Russia."
The former secretary of state's email server was in fact a series of three servers used over a
period of time from approximately 2007 to 2015, beginning with an Apple server installed by a
former aide to her husband.
That server was replaced in 2009 with a server installed by a former
IT specialist for Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, which was then supplanted in 2013 by a
server installed by a vendor, Denver-based Platte River Networks.
That server, housed in a data
center in New Jersey, was voluntarily handed over to the FBI in 2015.
The report said there was "no additional information" about the email or more about why Clinton was
concerned about the hack, or whether the link Abedin referred to in her email was "used as a vector
to infect Clinton's device."
Following roughly two lines of redacted text, the report states, "Open
source information indicated, if opened, the targeted user's device may have been infected, and information
would have been sent to at least three computers overseas, including one in Russia."
In its investigation, the FBI turned up 13 total mobile devices connected to two different phone
numbers that had potentially been used to send emails from Clinton's personal account, including
eight email-capable BlackBerrys that she used during her tenure as secretary of state. Lawyers for
Clinton said in late February of 2016 that they were unable to find any of the 13 devices identified
by the bureau.
The FBI also identified five iPads "associated with Clinton" that were potentially used to send
emails from Clinton's private system. The bureau managed to obtain three of those iPads, none of
which contained any potentially classified information.
As she transitioned between mobile devices, two people interviewed by the FBI said the whereabouts
of Clinton's previous devices would "frequently become unknown." One aide to former President Bill
Clinton who also helped the family set up the initial personal email server in their Chappaqua, New
York, home said that on two occasions he "destroyed Clinton's old mobile devices by breaking them
in half or hitting them with a hammer."
"... The unnamed staffer deleted the files after remembering an earlier request from longtime Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that changed "email retention policies" for Clinton's server. ..."
But weeks after the Times published its story, the FBI's investigation found that an individual,
whose name was redacted, used an online program called BleachBit to delete a file on the server containing
Clinton's emails.
The unnamed staffer deleted the files after remembering an earlier request from
longtime Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that changed "email retention policies" for Clinton's server.
Speaking to the FBI on May 3, 2016, "[redacted] indicated he believed he had an 'oh shit'
moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN
server and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server
system containing Clinton's e-mails."
"... Hillary Clinton lost several mobile telephones carrying e-mails from her private server during her time in office ..."
"... "[Huma] Abedin and [former Clinton aide Monica] Hanley indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's [mobile] devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device," one report indicates. ..."
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost several mobile telephones carrying e-mails from
her private server during her time in office, according to newly-released FBI documents on the investigation
into her mishandling of classified information.
"[Huma] Abedin and [former Clinton aide Monica] Hanley indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's
[mobile] devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device," one report
indicates.
On other occasions, a staffer would destroy Clinton's old mobile phones "by breaking them in half
or hitting them with a hammer," the FBI documents reveal.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) won her primary Tuesday, a positive development for the
congresswoman after a tumultuous past few months.
Wasserman Schultz beat progressive law professor Tim Canova, who
drew on the same anti-corporate momentum that fueled the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.), earning him national attention and
significant contributions from Sanders supporters. The political novice was even
raising more money than Wasserman Schultz during the campaign.
With
98 percent of the votes counted, Wasserman Schultz had 57 percent, to Canova's 43 percent, according
to The Associated Press.
Not that long ago, even talking about a possible Wasserman Schultz defeat would have been outlandish.
She ran the Democratic National Committee, held a
safe blue seat and had never had a competitive primary.
But
furor at Wasserman Schultz grew during the presidential primary as many progressives criticized
her for seeming to tip the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton, and lingering frustrations over her
management of the party spilled into the open. Canova campaigned against her as the "quintessential
corporate machine politician." In March, President Barack Obama
endorsed Wasserman Schultz, an early indication that the congresswoman needed some help in retaining
her seat.
Wasserman Schultz
resigned as DNC chair on the eve of the convention last month as Sanders supporters gathered
in Philadelphia
took to the streets and protested her. The catalyst was
a leak of DNC staffers' emails that seemed to show the party working to help get Clinton elected
― even though it was supposed to be neutral in the primary. The congresswoman wanted to keep her
speaking spot at the convention, but ultimately, she was
forced to give that up as well.
Wasserman Schultz also faced
outrage from progressives for co-sponsoring legislation to
gut new rules put forward by the Obama administration intended to rein in predatory payday lending.
The activist group Allied Progressive
released an ad in Florida, hitting the DNC chair for teaming up with Republicans to defeat the
policy.
For Sanders supporters, the race became a fight against corporate interests and a way to eke out
a victory after the senator's loss in the Democratic presidential primary.
Yet despite this dissatisfaction, Canova's candidacy lagged. Sanders sent out
fundraising emails on his behalf, but he never went to Florida and campaigned in person.
"There are a lot of people who
feel disappointed," Canova told The Atlantic. "There are a lot of people in South Florida who
wanted Bernie Sanders to come down."
Clinton, meanwhile,
paid a surprise visit to a Wasserman Schultz field office and praised the congresswoman when
she was in Miami last month. She also
won the district against Sanders by a landslide.
Being tied to Sanders could also have been a double-edged sword, as Canova told NBC News.
"Bernie ran
a lousy campaign in Florida," he said. "Bernie had his problems with certain constituencies that
I don't have problems with."
The 23rd district is heavily Democratic, and Wasserman Schultz is expected to win in November.
There is a simpler explanation: Trump is hated and constantly vilified by neoliberal
MSM because he threatens neoliberal establishment and imperial bureaucracy. Especially
neocons. That's why they changed party affiliation and will vote for Hillary. They
have found a new friend.
Notable quotes:
"... he is often mocked for having small hands and goofy orange hair; he eats
profane food like McDonald's; ..."
"... But Trump is a monster! Yes, but given the right circumstance, so are you.
His ugliness is simply more apparent than that of other managers of the state's
sacred violence. ..."
"... Think his call to deport illegally undocumented workers is fascist? The
Obama administration, garbed as it is with the shimmering rhetoric of victimhood,
has already deported over 2,500,000 human beings-23 percent more than Bush. ..."
"... How about his pledge to torture suspected terrorists? Clinton-Bush-Obama
beat him to it. They just don't talk about it like he does. And let's not limit
it to foreigners; Obama didn't bat an eye as elderly tax protester Irwin Schiff
died of cancer chained to a prison bed far away from his family for breaking the
sacred taboo against being too stingy in sharing his resources with the collective.
..."
"... How about the time Trump promised to target terrorists' families? Obama,
the great defender of Islam, already trumped that when he murdered people like U.S.
citizen Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, who hadn't seen his father
for two years. This teen and his friends were blown apart by the Nobel prize winner
while having a campfire dinner, apparently for the sinful dreams of his father.
..."
"... From Buzzfeed to Vanity Fair , CNN, the New York Times , broadcast networks,
Wall Street, Fortune 500 companies, academia, Hollywood, music stars, Silicon valley,
and NPR, to both party establishments, everyone's united in this orgy of outrage.
It's almost like the scapegoat purgings of yesteryear, but again, because of the
cross of Christ scrambling people's tribal unity, there is always a counter-factional
push-back. ..."
"... Still, scapegoating partially unifies. Just why is it that old enemies
like Romney, the DNC, and the media unite to expose Trump's shady timeshare-like
university gimmick but offer deafening crickets for Hillary's use of the Haiti earthquake
to secure an exclusive gold-mining contract for her brother? Trump's shamelessness
reveals the banality of the establishment's passe violence. ..."
"... The thing that drives this outrage mob mad is the mirror Trump's vulgar
speech holds up to the state's violence-based unity. ..."
"... In the popular imagination inspired by the mainstream media, Trump is a
wolf whose fangs will bring violent chaos from which the lamb herd must unite to
protect us. ..."
"... But peel off the wool skins and you'll see the [neoliberal] herd is itself
a wolf pack that wants to eat you too. Just in a way that gets them crooned about
on late-night comedy and earns them Nobel prizes while they quietly blow up kids.
..."
"... When Trump says the U.S. should have taken the oil in Iraq, he gets universal
sneers from the established imperial class the way a drunken wingman is eliminated
from the bar for loudly telling his friend to close the deal and "nail" the girl
he's chatting up. ..."
Reading René Girard helped me understand why so many hate the Donald.
•
Donald Trump is the scapegoat supreme of our time.
Don't kill the messenger. See, to have a scapegoat is to not know you have
one. It is to unite in common cause with other actors in your community to purge
a common monster to preserve peace and order. Trump, more than any other figure
in our present culture, fits that bill. (Yes, Trump and his supporters scapegoat
other groups as well.)
Having dedicated his life to the study of scapegoating as the origin of culture,
the late anthropologist René Girard is someone who should join every conservative's
pantheon. He argues that human beings unconsciously stumbled upon a circuit
breaker that kept violence from virally overwhelming our ancient communities:
the common identification and expulsion of a common enemy. The catharsis and
solidarity scapegoating provides led early people to mythologize their victims
into gods.
.... ... ...
Trump even viscerally looks the part of the old scapegoat kings who would
be ceremonially paraded before being sacrificed: he is often mocked for
having small hands and goofy orange hair; he eats profane food like McDonald's;
he loves gaudy decoration in an age of "shabby chic"; he calls himself a winner
in a culture where people must offer faux humility to gain status. Trump, who
has repeatedly said that were he not her father he would be dating his daughter,
is even accused of breaking the age-old taboo against incestual lust.
... ... ...
But Trump is a monster! Yes, but given the right circumstance, so are
you. His ugliness is simply more apparent than that of other managers of the
state's sacred violence. Let's be frank here: though his speech is scarily
vulgar, the violence he promises is already occurring.
Think his call to deport illegally undocumented workers is fascist? The
Obama administration, garbed as it is with the shimmering rhetoric of victimhood,
has already deported over 2,500,000 human beings-23 percent more than Bush.
How about his pledge to torture suspected terrorists? Clinton-Bush-Obama
beat him to it. They just don't talk about it like he does. And let's not limit
it to foreigners; Obama didn't bat an eye as elderly tax protester Irwin Schiff
died of cancer chained to a prison bed far away from his family for breaking
the sacred taboo against being too stingy in sharing his resources with the
collective.
How about the time Trump promised to target terrorists' families? Obama,
the great defender of Islam, already trumped that when he murdered people like
U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, who hadn't seen
his father for two years. This teen and his friends were blown apart by the
Nobel prize winner while having a campfire dinner, apparently for the sinful
dreams of his father.
Let's not pretend it is avant-garde to vilify Trump. Everyone's doing it,
especially the cool people, the ones, like us, preoccupied with social status
but hiding it in speech always patronizingly preening about victims. From
Buzzfeed to Vanity Fair, CNN, the New York Times, broadcast
networks, Wall Street, Fortune 500 companies, academia, Hollywood, music stars,
Silicon valley, and NPR, to both party establishments, everyone's united in
this orgy of outrage. It's almost like the scapegoat purgings of yesteryear,
but again, because of the cross of Christ scrambling people's tribal unity,
there is always a counter-factional push-back.
Still, scapegoating partially unifies. Just why is it that old enemies
like Romney, the DNC, and the media unite to expose Trump's shady timeshare-like
university gimmick but offer deafening crickets for Hillary's use of the Haiti
earthquake to secure an exclusive gold-mining contract for her brother? Trump's
shamelessness reveals the banality of the establishment's passe violence.
The thing that drives this outrage mob mad is the mirror Trump's vulgar
speech holds up to the state's violence-based unity. The one thing the
crowd can't stand is a scapegoat's refusal to apologize for its sins. Look at
how the old victors of history wrote of their witch hunts, with the victims
admitting guilt.
In the popular imagination inspired by the mainstream media, Trump is
a wolf whose fangs will bring violent chaos from which the lamb herd must unite
to protect us. He just needs to flinch and admit he's a wolf! But peel
off the wool skins and you'll see the [neoliberal] herd is itself a wolf pack
that wants to eat you too. Just in a way that gets them
crooned
about on late-night comedy and earns them Nobel prizes while they quietly
blow up kids. Trump refuses to apologize for his rhetoric, and so there
is no blood for the wolves to complete their feast.
I'm not saying he hasn't promised to make grave violence. But look who writes
history: the winning crowd. In the pagan world, Oedipus was cast as the scapegoat
who accepts all guilt for his community's woes. Yet behind the mythic veil,
it takes two to tango in the deadly dance of violent rivalry. Today's myth is
being written by people who use victimism to hide the continuance of sacred
violence. Watch out for the false catharsis they're trying to create in purging
Trump. It will not satisfy.
When Trump says the U.S. should have taken the oil in Iraq, he gets universal
sneers from the established imperial class the way a drunken wingman is eliminated
from the bar for loudly telling his friend to close the deal and "nail" the
girl he's chatting up.
... ... ...
David Gornoski is your
neighbor-as
well as an entrepreneur, speaker and writer. He recently launched a project
called A Neighbor's Choice, which seeks to introduce Jesus' culture of nonviolence
to both Christians and the broader public. A Florida promoter of local agriculture,
he also writes for WND.com, FEE.org, AffluentInvestor.com, and AltarandThrone.com.
TPP: "'It's very challenging to get people
to commit the political capital to move forward when the doubts are so
significant about what the United States will do," [Eric Altbach, a senior
vice president at the Albright Stonebridge Group] said" [
Politico
].
"Organizations including the Communications Workers of America, CREDO
Action, Democracy for America and several others sent a letter to Clinton on
Thursday asking her to make a 'clear, public and unequivocal statement'
opposing any vote on TPP" [
Politico
].
It will be interesting to parse Clinton's next statement, if any. (Remember
that Clinton's 10% base is cosmopolitan, and supports trade. She won't be
punished for remaining "equivocal.")
James Carville: "Whatever weaknesses Clinton has, Trump constantly covers
them up" [
Vanity
Fair
]. Hmm. I'd love to see a timeline that combines Clinton corruption
eruptions and Trump gaffes, if anybody knows of one. Although creating a
timeline like that would be an awful lot of work.
Ready4Hillary
: Think of it this way. If you asked someone,
"Would you like to climb into an old scow full of garbage?" most people
would say "No." But if you say, "Would you like to be saved at any cost
from the apocalyptic flood that is rising to destroy your city?" most
people would say "Yes." The trick is to focus on the second thing and not
be too specific about the first thing. OK?
Hillary
: am I the garbage scow in that analogy?
Ready4Hillary
: the point is, less is more. OK?
"Clinton's advisers tell her to prep for a landslide" [
Politico
].
"Revealing a level of confidence Clinton's inner circle has been eager to
squash for weeks, outside advisers have now identified victories in
Pennsylvania and New Hampshire as the path of least resistance, delivering
for the Democratic nominee more than the 270 electoral votes needed to take
the White House. And they are projecting increased confidence about her
chances in Republican-leaning North Carolina, a state that could prove as
critical as Ohio or Pennsylvania." I'd add a few grains of salt to this:
First, Clinton is notoriously surrounded by sycophants. Second, I think this
is messaging, and not reporting: The Clinton campaign wants early voters to
go with a winner. Third, a massive electoral win doesn't necessarily
translate to a popular vote landslide. Hence, an electoral landslide
combined with a much closer popular vote will do nothing to help Clinton in
a coming legitimacy crisis (and could even exacerbate it).
"There's almost no chance our elections can get hacked by the Russians.
Here's why" [
WaPo
].
War Drums
Putin on 2016: "All this should be more dignified" [
Bloomberg
].
Gotchyer
casus belli
right here…
Realignment
"So you think you can take over the Democrat Party?" [
South
Lawn
]. Cogent points. On the other hand, what's sauce for the sheepdog
is sauce for a century-long record of third-party #FAIL. Past results are no
guarantee of future performance.
"Downballot Republicans and top GOP leaders are dumping Trump" [
NBC
].
"[Y]esterday came this campaign video from John McCain, who's engaged in a
tough re-election fight: "If Hillary Clinton is elected, Arizona will need a
senator who will act as a check," he said, all but admitting that Trump is
unlikely to win in November. And McCain won't be the last GOPer making this
'check on Hillary' argument.
"Kissinger, George Schultz mull Clinton endorsement" [
The
Hill
]. Can't we just be open about this and set up a war criminals PAC?
Clinton's 2009 ethics agreement: "I currently hold and will continue
to hold my position with The Clinton Family Foundation, which maintains
all its assets in cash. If confirmed as Secretary of State, I will not participate
personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct
and predictable effect upon this foundation, unless I first obtain a written
waiver or qualify for a regulatory exemption" (pdf) [
Cryptome ]. First, "will not participate" sets a much higher bar than
the ludicrously low "quid pro quo" standard set by Clinton's operatives
and supporters. Second, is it really usual for charitable foundation to
keep "all its assets in cash"? Why would Foundation do that? And why even
say it does? (I'm resisting a joke about "maintains all its assets in Bitcoin"….)
"On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton is a big critic of for-profit
universities, attacking them for charging high prices but offering students
little support and delivering degrees of questionable value. Her administration,
she says, would crack down 'on for-profit colleges and loan servicers who
have too often taken advantage of borrowers'" [
USA Today ]. "What Clinton doesn't mention are her close family connections
to for-profit Laureate Education and the hefty $9.8 billion in loans accumulated
just by students at Laureate's Walden University in Minnesota… If Clinton
wonders why so many voters consider her to be graspy and question her trustworthiness,
she need look no further than the tangled, lucrative ties among Laureate,
its owners, the Clinton family and the Clinton Foundation." Graspy.
"Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has run an unusually cheap
campaign in part by not paying at least 10 top staffers, consultants and
advisers, some of whom are no longer with the campaign, according to a
review of federal campaign finance filings" [
Reuters
].
"[N]ot compensating top people in a presidential campaign is a departure
from campaign finance norms." Hirohito Award candidate, there.
"Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign raised an eye-popping $143
million in August for her candidacy and the Democratic Party, the best
showing of her campaign, her team said Thursday" [
Agence
France Presse
]. Ka-ching. And not doubling down. Squaring down.
When reviewing an email from October of 2012, for example, Clinton said that
while she did not recall the message specifically, she described an individual
involved with the communication as "someone who was well acquainted with
handling classified information" and "described him as someone she held in high
regard."
She said she "relied on" the individual, whose name is redacted in
the FBI notes, and she had "no concern over his judgement and ability to handle
classified information."
"... In addition, Clinton said she did not remember a State email going out in late June 2011 informing employees of the importance of securing their personal email accounts in correlation with the upgrading of her clintonemail.com server. ..."
Clinton "did recall the frustration over State's information technology systems," the FBI said in
its notes from the interview.
In addition, Clinton said she did not remember a State email
going out in late June 2011 informing employees of the importance of securing their personal email
accounts in correlation with the upgrading of her clintonemail.com server.
Clinton said she did not consider switching over to a State.gov account, as she, according to
the report, "understood the email system used by her husband's personal staff had an excellent track
record with respect to security and had never been breached."
Any reasonable investigator would instantly understand that she is trying to sell him the
Brooklyn bridge. In no way with her career she can be unaware of such things.
Clinton told the FBI that she did not know what the
"(C)" portion markings on an email chain signified, explaining that she thought
it meant the paragraphs were marked in alphabetical order.
As far as her knowledge of the various classification levels of U.S.
government information, Clinton responded that she took all classified material
seriously regardless of the "level," be it "TOP SECRET," "SECRET" or
"CONFIDENTIAL."
"... Clinton "had no knowledge of the reasons for selecting it to install it in the basement" of her Chappaqua, New York, home. ..."
"... Clinton also denied using the server to avoid the Federal Records Act, and did not have any conversations about using the server to avoid the Freedom of Information Act, according to the FBI's investigation notes. ..."
Clinton was not part of the decision to move from the Apple server managed by Cooper to a [windows]
server built by Bryan Pagliano, according to the report, which stated that Clinton "had no knowledge
of the reasons for selecting it to install it in the basement" of her Chappaqua, New York, home.
Clinton also denied using the server to avoid the Federal Records Act, and did not have
any conversations about using the server to avoid the Freedom of Information Act, according to
the FBI's investigation notes.
NYT comments are just overflowing from neoliberal supported of this neocon warmonger Hillary.
Amazing !!!
Notable quotes:
"... The fact that Hillary or any senior elected official can operate outside of a secure system without automated detection/correction is the real issue here. I expect many more govt' officials are doing the same, but in a less politically charged atmosphere. No investigations in their cases as there is no trophy at the end. ..."
"... So who is minding the computer farm? Government computer systems/policies need to be reviewed, training reinforced, and automatic incident tracking of activity to and from undocumented server IP addresses. Automated systems should prevent government officials through their lack of knowledge from using systems that do not comply. ..."
"... There is something fishy about her desire to maintain a private email server at her home at the same time she is working as a public official in the role of secretary of state. There is also the perceived conflict of interest between this role as the nation's top diplomat and her connection with the Clinton foundation. ..."
"... If she exchanged favors for contributions to the foundation, which many suspect she did, the smoking guns have probably been deleted by now. She was given plenty of time to sort through her emails to cover her tracks before turning them over to investigators. ..."
"... Her evasiveness and attempt to avoid FOIA requests have certainly earned her the nickname crooked Hillary. ..."
"... The fact that so many people support Clinton, in the face of her egregious and arguably criminal behavior, speaks to the fact that a large number of people vote strictly party line. ..."
"... The bottom line is that we are a very partisan nation whose voters support their candidate no matter how flawed is that person. ..."
"... IF HRC played by the rules like everyone must, and simply used the State Department email, all of this could have been avoided. Yet she refused to use her State email even though it was offered to her. ..."
"... ultimately, this shows the incompetence of the IT people in the government agencies handling her communications. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is ultimately responsible for making sure her classified communications are secure, and she should have been asking people questions to make sure this was the case. I am a Democrat but I have grave misgivings regarding her judgement and handling of this matter. ..."
"... The most important finding is that the federal government is woefully incompetent in designing, implementing, and maintaining large information systems. ..."
"... These are plainly false statements to the FBI, and so crimes. She did not do it "out of convenience" but to avoid public records act, and to get more privacy. Huma admitted that much, as have others. She got repeated warnings. We've heard that from those who warned her, who were told not to say it again. "I don't recall" any of them is just not credible. She is supposed to recall being warned. ..."
"... She did not think those things were classified? She's Sec of State. She knows which subjects are classified, and many of those were. She knew that. She got the most classified stuff there is, because she was Sec of State. ..."
"... The biggest concern of all is that she did this in deliberate defiance of the requirements of law, the public records requirements, for the express purpose of violating that law. The FBI just decided that it was not investigating THAT law, and so ignored it. Yet those are felonies, not just little things. ..."
"... I am not concerned by Hillary's emails. I am very upset by the refusal of the media and politicians to address the real issues of our classification system. We have known since at least the Pentagon Papers, and probably earlier, that the purpose of classifying information is to keep it from the American people more than from our adversaries. ..."
"... "But Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, which has used the email issue as one of its main weapons against Mrs. Clinton, called the documents "a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency." ..."
"... Clinton apparently didn't know an email server from a jar of mayonnaise. I can understand that -- not sure I would either. ..."
"... But if I were starting out on a 4-year stint as US Secretary of State, it would occur to me that I'd probably send or receive a sensitive email or two somewhere along the way, and I'd wonder whether sending and receiving those emails over a private server located in my home might be a good idea. ..."
"... Lame very lame Hillary excuses . But the problem comes from both sides Democrat or Republican and there lame excuses . From the deficit from the Trickle down economy , deregulation to Trade-deal and the lost of jobs . Tax cut to tax inversion .. If we want change , Then why are voter still voting in Incumbents . The ones that made the problems we have . Shame us who do.. Vote the incumbents out of office .. ..."
"... With over 75% of the country stating Hillary cannot be trusted, it's important to also consider the severe lack of accountability and level of arrogance displayed. If she's willing to take the lowest road possible, voting her into office will be a huge mistake. ..."
"... You gotta be kidding me. All we get each day, all day is more breathless Trump 'News'. On the front page no less. Each smirk and foible is covered ad nauseum as if it were actually new worthy. You rarely hear about the other candidate. No policy comparisons for pete's sake. Until today. ..."
Among the other key findings in the F.B.I. documents:
■ Mrs. Clinton regarded emails containing classified discussions about planned drone strikes as
"routine."
■ She said she was either unaware of or misunderstood some classification procedures.
■ Colin L. Powell, a former secretary of state, had advised her to "be very careful" in how she
used email.
Scot, Seattle 7 hours ago
Until I hear crowds chanting "lock him up" in relation to George Bush or Dick Cheney and
the Iraq war, I'm going to have a hard time taking this gross witch hunt seriously. The
contrast between Clinton's email administration screw-up and the unbroken daisy-chain of
once-in-a-century global catastrophes committed by the Bush administration is so huge as to be
hard to grasp.
Paul, Canada 6 hours ago
Sorry folks, but time to point out what has been missed by everyone as they attempt to make
this a political election issue.
There is no way Hillary or any elected official should be given the opportunity to use a
private email server. Any technology org worth its salt will have its systems and computer
usage policies locked down tight.
Any action by a user that falls outside these policies must be automatically detected and
investigated by the systems teams. Wrongs identified, computer users advised on proper usage,
and corrective action taken to prevent reoccurrence.
The fact that Hillary or any senior elected official can operate outside of a secure
system without automated detection/correction is the real issue here. I expect many more govt'
officials are doing the same, but in a less politically charged atmosphere. No investigations
in their cases as there is no trophy at the end.
So who is minding the computer farm? Government computer systems/policies need to be
reviewed, training reinforced, and automatic incident tracking of activity to and from
undocumented server IP addresses. Automated systems should prevent government officials
through their lack of knowledge from using systems that do not comply.
Hillary nor other officials are computer experts. They should not be expected to be
responsible for this. I would say there is a greater risk in how these systems are being
currently managed.
Peter, New York 6 hours ago
Sadly this supports the Donald's charge about Hillary's questionable judgment. There is
something fishy about her desire to maintain a private email server at her home at the same
time she is working as a public official in the role of secretary of state. There is also the
perceived conflict of interest between this role as the nation's top diplomat and her
connection with the Clinton foundation.
If she exchanged favors for contributions to the foundation, which many suspect she
did, the smoking guns have probably been deleted by now. She was given plenty of time to sort
through her emails to cover her tracks before turning them over to investigators.
Her evasiveness and attempt to avoid FOIA requests have certainly earned her the
nickname crooked Hillary. Even if you don't like Trump, it is very difficult to make the
case that Clinton is a better alternative.
Lois Brenneman, New Milford, PA 3 hours ago
The fact that so many people support Clinton, in the face of her egregious and arguably
criminal behavior, speaks to the fact that a large number of people vote strictly party line.
In their view, no matter what Clinton has done, she is still better than having a
Republican in the White House and, most esp, better than Donald Trump. I am hardly one who can
complain, however, as I basically do the same thing. I'd probably vote for my dog before I
would a Democrat even if it means voting for a flawed candidate. I find Clinton to be the very
pits of all possible candidates, much like the Dems view of Trump.
The bottom line is that we are a very partisan nation whose voters support their
candidate no matter how flawed is that person. If anyone else was heading the Dem ticket,
I suspect that person would win by a landslide in 2016. With Clinton heading up the party,
Trump just may win. Choosing her as the candidate was arguably the stupidest thing the Dems
could have possibly done
Wally Wolf, Texas 6 hours ago
ENOUGH!! Compared to what G.W. Bush did (the facts are known to all) while president and
what Donald Trump did as a business man (Trump University, numerous bankruptcies, tax evasion
and/or avoidance, questionable modeling agency practices, and on and on), Hillary Clinton's
emails are small potatoes. If people allow this ridiculous email situation to cripple Hillary
and allow Trump to become president then they will have to live with the fallout and, believe
me, it will be disastrous.
Joseph, NYC 4 hours ago
IF HRC played by the rules like everyone must, and simply used the State Department
email, all of this could have been avoided. Yet she refused to use her State email even though
it was offered to her.
If she did not do this to cover up her activities then she really bad judgement, and if she
did it to cover up her activities, why did she do so? Either way, she is not a person to be
entrusted with the Presidency. This is what is causing the nightmare Trump to still be
competitive and to be catching up with her in the polls. If he wins HRC and the DNC have noone
to blame but themselves.
gary, Washington state 6 hours ago
Congress asked Bush-Cheney in 2007 for emails surrounding the firing of eight U.S.
attorneys. AG Gonzales could not produce the email because it was sent on a non-government
email server, gwb43.com, which was run by the RNC. No smoking gun--sorry about that.
Over time it was revealed that 22 White House officials including Karl Rove used private RNC
email accounts for government business. In April 2007, Dana Perino admitted that approximately
5 million messages may have been deleted from that server. In 2009, watchdog groups announced
that technicians had recovered 22 million emails that were deleted somehow from gwb43.com.
Many of these messages were recovered from other government email servers.
Clearly gwb43.com was under the legal obligations of the Presidential Records Act, which each
of these 22 million deletions violated. Republican leaders (like Chris Christie, Karl Rove,
etc.) who are now enraged by Hillary Clinton's email server were then uncritical of the Bush
administration and its behavior.
Is this American exceptionalism--hypocrisy, political pretense, and selective enforcement of
laws?
Sam Crow, SF Bay Area 3 hours ago
ultimately, this shows the incompetence of the IT people in the government agencies
handling her communications. As the Secretary of State, how can they not have procedures
in place which would prevent this from happening? Hillary Clinton is ultimately
responsible for making sure her classified communications are secure, and she should have been
asking people questions to make sure this was the case. I am a Democrat but I have grave
misgivings regarding her judgement and handling of this matter.
Thomas MacLachlan, Highland Moors, Scotland 5 hours ago
Having read through these 58 pages, it's clear that all they say is that Hillary is not a
savvy technologist. She made her decision to use a private email system without understanding
the implications of it regarding security, access control, data integrity, or retention. Also,
none of her staff was competent in the technology involved, either. At a low level, perhaps.
But not at a high level, where the architecture defines how all these pieces of the system
work together. It was that area that fell apart and has caused her the myriad of political
problems she now faces with this.
The most important finding is that the federal government is woefully incompetent in
designing, implementing, and maintaining large information systems. At State back then,
the system was full of holes and was very hackable. By comparison, Hillary's system was more
secure, though unauthorized. But you can't have a parade of different administrators or
consultants go stomping through the implementation and expect it to hold together, either.
The government needs to get their act together to provide systems which are actually secure
and globally available. This isn't just a technology statement. The workflows involved and
usage processes need to be well defined, and users need to be trained on them. And the
technical staff needs to show some leadership so that they can help guide senior staff to the
right solutions.
The buck stops with Hillary, but she is certainly not the guilty party in this.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 8 hours ago
These are plainly false statements to the FBI, and so crimes. She did not do it "out of
convenience" but to avoid public records act, and to get more privacy. Huma admitted that
much, as have others. She got repeated warnings. We've heard that from those who warned her,
who were told not to say it again. "I don't recall" any of them is just not credible. She is
supposed to recall being warned.
She did not think those things were classified? She's Sec of State. She knows which
subjects are classified, and many of those were. She knew that. She got the most classified
stuff there is, because she was Sec of State.
The biggest concern of all is that she did this in deliberate defiance of the requirements
of law, the public records requirements, for the express purpose of violating that law. The
FBI just decided that it was not investigating THAT law, and so ignored it. Yet those are
felonies, not just little things.
This is an outrage. It has grown far beyond just a few emails.
EdBx, Bronx, NY 7 hours ago
I am not concerned by Hillary's emails. I am very upset by the refusal of the media and
politicians to address the real issues of our classification system. We have known since at
least the Pentagon Papers, and probably earlier, that the purpose of classifying information
is to keep it from the American people more than from our adversaries.
There is no conclusive evidence that our nation has been harmed by the classified
information released by Daniel Ellsburg, Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden. On the other hand
it is certainly known that great harm was done by the misuse and abuse of classified
information by duly authorized government officials in getting us into the war in Iraq. The
lesson is that it is more important who we choose as president than how they maintained their
email accounts several years ago.
Also, while we may not have known it in 2008, we should know now that government officials
should operate under the assumption that anything on a computer is subject to hacking, no
matter how secure we think the system is.
chichimax, albany, ny 7 hours ago
It is amazing how much scrutiny this and the Clinton Foundation have gotten and how little
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and the "torture memos" got. Not to
mention the whole sum of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo episodes. Scrutiny of Hillary Clinton, thy
name is petty. Lack of scrutiny of the entire Bush Administration's misdeeds, thy name is
HUGE.
DCC, NYC 4 hours ago
"But Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, which has used
the email issue as one of its main weapons against Mrs. Clinton, called the documents "a
devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency."
Wow, the head of the RNC finds that Hillary has a lack of judgment and honesty and is
incompetent. And we value his assessment because
he..........helped.............nominate......... Trump. Yep, his opinion really matters!
MyThreeCents, San Francisco 4 hours ago
Clinton apparently didn't know an email server from a jar of mayonnaise. I can
understand that -- not sure I would either.
But if I were starting out on a 4-year stint as US Secretary of State, it would occur
to me that I'd probably send or receive a sensitive email or two somewhere along the way, and
I'd wonder whether sending and receiving those emails over a private server located in my home
might be a good idea.
I'd probably conclude that it was advisable to get myself a State Department email address,
and use it every now and then. True, US enemies reportedly hacked the State Department server,
along with the personal emails of several top Clinton aides, which may make one think it's
pointless even to try to keep one's emails secure. But it's much easier to hack a private
server located in someone's home than it is to hack a State Department email server.
A bored 14-year old kid probably could have hacked Clinton's private server in 15 minutes.
Kathryn Horvat, Salt Lake City 57 minutes ago
More and more I find myself upset with the poor judgment of the leaders of the Democratic
Party, who allowed and encouraged her to run for president. She already was encumbered by a
lot of baggage, not to mention her loss to Obama in 2008. I also wonder about the judgment of
the New York Times , which engaged in the most openly biased reporting and opinion pieces I
have ever seen.
How could so many seasoned politicians have been so blind?
David Howell, 33541 57 minutes ago
Lame very lame Hillary excuses . But the problem comes from both sides Democrat or
Republican and there lame excuses . From the deficit from the Trickle down economy ,
deregulation to Trade-deal and the lost of jobs . Tax cut to tax inversion .. If we want
change , Then why are voter still voting in Incumbents . The ones that made the problems we
have . Shame us who do.. Vote the incumbents out of office ..
fmofcali, orange county 1 hour ago
With over 75% of the country stating Hillary cannot be trusted, it's important to also
consider the severe lack of accountability and level of arrogance displayed. If she's willing
to take the lowest road possible, voting her into office will be a huge mistake. How can
you have a commander in chief that refuses to simply take accountability and always blames her
staff for the issues she clearly creates?!
moviebuff, Los Angeles 1 hour ago
If this were Nixon - a man I detested, mind you - we'd have empowered Senate and House
committees to look into disqualifying him as a candidate. Did those who still support Hillary
Milhous Clinton even read the article on which they're commenting? Sending the emails
privately, the order to delete, the use of Bleach bit after she was ordered to preserve the
emails, throwing her aides under the bus… her behavior makes RMN look like Abe Lincoln.
J.D., USA 1 hour ago
I've worked as a tech consultant for years and I've seen this same ignorance from so many
people, that it's not surprising. E-mail is something most people use, but it's not something
most people understand, so they don't really get how unsecured it is. Was it a potentially
dangerous mistake to make? Yes. Was it surprising? Absolutely not. But, more because most
people don't understand e-mail, than because of any lapse in reasoning or malicious intent on
her part.
... ... ..
Malebranchem, Ontario, NY 1 hour ago
You gotta be kidding me. All we get each day, all day is more breathless Trump 'News'.
On the front page no less. Each smirk and foible is covered ad nauseum as if it were actually
new worthy. You rarely hear about the other candidate. No policy comparisons for pete's sake.
Until today.
"The newly disclosed documents, while largely reinforcing what had already been known
about the F.B.I. investigation, provided a number of new details about Mrs. Clinton's use
of a private email system, which has shadowed her presidential campaign for more than a
year."
As another commenter said, "There's no there there." It is the NYT that is casting a shadow
over Secretary Clinton's campaign. Wake me when you actually start covering this Presidential
race.
"... The FBI that conducted a criminal investigation into Clinton's email server is serving under a Democratic administration. The director, appointed by Barack Obama, said Clinton was "Extremely careless" in handling classified material. The State Dept's Inspector General found that Clinton lied when she said she had permission to use a private server. ..."
"... she definitely had poor email practice. but so did 3 of her four immediate predecessors at state, who used private email; at least 2 of their inboxes also contained material later classified. so did Karl Rove, who used private servers while running two wars as presidential chief of staff. 3 million of the last administration's emails are missing, rather tnan 30,000. so yes, she continued past poor email practices, but nothing that was illegal or even unusual. So why is only her email under investigation. ..."
"... Anybody remember Valerie Plame? You want to talk about compromising national security? How about the Bush Administration revealing the secret identity of a covert CIA operative working on Iran's Nuclear Program capabilities?? ..."
"... After she gets elected they will start the impeachment process along with a complete cold shoulder to all her attempts at getting anything accomplished. We could have had Bernie. ..."
"... So, she's in great health for opening pickle jars, but not so great when it comes to her memory. And on top of her failing memory, Colin Powell essentially went public to say her camp is lying and using him as a defense for using a private server. ..."
"... She didn't recall "all the briefings she received on handling gov documents"? Well maybe she wasn't fit for the job of handling gov documents then. ..."
"... It's called mishandling classified documents, and it is a crime. She's not facing consequences because of who she is and the influence she has. Had it been random Jane Doe however, there'd be serious repercussions. ..."
"... I am stunned by reading the responses to this article. It doesn't matter what Hillary does, most of you will simply defend her or ignore her issues ..."
"... Hillary could drive through a soccer field in a drunken stupor, killing dozens of kids and you sheep would blame the car or the booze! ..."
"... The fact that not a single person who originated any of these emails, nor anyone else who were on the email distribution lists, have ever received so much as an administrative rebuke about any of these, and Comey testified that there were no plans at all to investigate ANYONE who were responsible for actually writing and sending these emails. ..."
"... James Constantino What do you not comprehend about "classified at the time" you just proved Tom Johnson correct when he stated " It doesn't matter what Hillary does, most of you will simply defend her or ignore her issues" ..."
"... She set up a private server in her house, used that server to exchange classified materials and then claims a loss of memory of briefings to safeguard those materials after her term was over at State to explain the erasure of thousands of emails. I'm no Trump fan but this is just as bad as Nixon's white house tapes. This is why I voted for Bernie. ..."
"... So Hillary couldn't remember security briefings she received in 2009 because of a concussion she received in 2012? This doesn't pass the laugh test. Nothing is every her responsibility and she has never ever done anything wrong. Is the concussion still impacting her memory? ..."
"... If the globalist media wasn't bought, they would have such information in a few days from deciding to find such information which should be available. I have worked for government departments before not only are policies and procedures issued to you and/or read out to you, you are also required to sign on the dotted line that you have understood them. Whats happening around HRC is just a shameful cover-up and surely the people know it by now? ..."
"... Yes, this is someone we want to be President. Someone who can't rememeber security breifings. "The extraordinary disclosure was made as the FBI published details of its agents' interview with the former secretary of state which was conducted days before the agency's director ruled out any charges against her. ..."
"... Queue health rumors again(Re: concussion). Also, I like how the I don't recall defense worked just fine for regean and Iran contra, but republicans don't apply the same standard when concerning Clinton ..."
"... Awww. I see.. She's in perfect health but when it is convenient she will use her illnesses to her advantage. Got it. ..."
"... Our records show that Clinton sent & received thousands of cables with "(C)" paragraph classification markings. The FBI report, although not fatal for Democratic loyalists but I think it is devastating to average Americans. ..."
"... So, what about the bit where she claimed she turned over ALL work-related e-mails, yet we keep finding ones that weren't turned over, and even more that were deleted with specialty wiping software? ..."
"... Wow! this is so damaging! cant' remember anything , lost so many phones and didn't know how to read a classified documents! She is unfit to run a lemonde stand! With all her handlers and executive assistance and Huma for 24/7, you would think she will know more! ..."
"... You can all sleep good tonight. Once all your children die in the wars she wants to continue she will say, "in hindsight, I regretted using bombs on all those innocent kids while president." Kudos DNC. ..."
"... Hillary's new defense: If you've had a FALL you can't RECALL ..."
"... Holy crap, - Clinton was also asked about the (C) markings within several documents that FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress represented classified information. Clinton told the FBI she was unaware of what the marking meant. "Clinton stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," the interview notes stated. Hillary Clinton told the FBI she did not recall all of the briefings she received due to a concussion she suffered in 2012. This woman is unfit period. http://www.cnn.com/.../hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-notes/ ..."
"... Kat Hathaway - Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she lacked recollection of key events. She said she "could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information," according to the FBI's notes of their July 2 interview with Clinton. The notes revealed that Clinton relied heavily on her staff and aides determining what was classified information and how it should be handled. ..."
"... So bringing up her health issues us an "unfounded attack" but then she uses those very same health issues to cover her ass? ..."
"... We invaded Iraq in 2003 GWB was reelected in 2004, this peanuts compared to that. ..."
Clinton told investigators she could not recall getting any briefings on how to handle classified
information or comply with laws governing the preservation of federal records, the summary of her
interview shows.
"However, in December of 2012, Clinton suffered a concussion and then around the
New Year had a blood clot," the FBI's summary said. "Based on her doctor's advice, she could only
work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received."
A Clinton campaign aide said Clinton only referenced her concussion to explain she was not at
work but for a few hours a day at that time, not that she did not remember things from that period.
The concussion was widely reported then, and Republicans have since used it to attack the 68-year-old
candidate's health in a way her staff have said is unfounded.
The FBI report, which does not quote Clinton directly, is ambiguous about whether it was her concussion
that affected her ability to recall briefings.
- SEPTEMBER 02 2016 -
DONALD J. TRUMP
STATEMENT ON FBI
RELEASING CLINTON
INTERVIEW NOTES
★ ★ ★
"Hillary Clinton's answers to the FBI about
her private email server defy belief. I was
absolutely shocked to see that her answers
to the FBI stood in direct contradiction to
what she told the American people. After
reading these documents, I really don't
understand how she was able to get away
from prosecution." - Donald J. Trump
The FBI that conducted a criminal investigation into Clinton's email server is serving under
a Democratic administration. The director, appointed by Barack Obama, said Clinton was "Extremely
careless" in handling classified material. The State Dept's Inspector General found that Clinton
lied when she said she had permission to use a private server.
These are departments in a Democratic administration, not a vast right wing conspiracy. The
fact that Republicans try to make hay out of the facts in this case do not change the fact that
Clinton, according to a Democrat's STate Dept and FBI, acted carelessly and was less than truthful.
Anthony Zenkus she definitely had poor email practice. but so did 3 of her four immediate
predecessors at state, who used private email; at least 2 of their inboxes also contained material
later classified. so did Karl Rove, who used private servers while running two wars as presidential
chief of staff. 3 million of the last administration's emails are missing, rather tnan 30,000.
so yes, she continued past poor email practices, but nothing that was illegal or even unusual.
So why is only her email under investigation.
Anybody remember Valerie Plame? You want to talk about compromising national security? How
about the Bush Administration revealing the secret identity of a covert CIA operative working
on Iran's Nuclear Program capabilities??
How about Bush commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby who obstructed and derailed the investigation??
How about the way Republicans attacked Plame who was a loyal employee of the CIA for over 20
years??
Republicans are the true threats to our national security,not Hillary Clinton.
The attacks on Hillary will only get worse over the next month, then they break out the big one,
the October surprise. Everyone that chose her over Bernie should have seen this. After she
gets elected they will start the impeachment process along with a complete cold shoulder to all
her attempts at getting anything accomplished. We could have had Bernie.
Michelle Becker Wrong. The Stamford Study shows without question that the states without paper
trails had her way outperforming the exit polls where it wasn't statistically possible without
some kind of tampering. Add to that the placebo ballots in California, the voter purge in AZ,
IL, NY, and it would have been a much different result. Could she have won legitimately? We'll
never know thanks to the DNC leaks of collusion with the HRC camp, the media, and others. But
hey, enjoy the status quo, your fracking, your endless wars, your corporate influence in Congress.
This is what you wanted. Knock yourself out. USA. USA.
So, she's in great health for opening pickle jars, but not so great when it comes to her memory.
And on top of her failing memory, Colin Powell essentially went public to say her camp is lying
and using him as a defense for using a private server. I simply don't know how establishment
Dems keep trying to cover this obviously nagging problem they have with their candidate. What
a horrible choice between these two awful major party nominees.
It's called mishandling classified documents, and it is a crime. She's not facing consequences
because of who she is and the influence she has. Had it been random Jane Doe however, there'd
be serious repercussions.
Here is a question for all the angry white male Trump supporters.
Republicans control the Senate
and the House. Republicans control 31 states as governors including the rust belt states. So if
republicans are in control why haven't they created high wage jobs that you whine about? Why has
the economy slowed with republicans running government? Why haven't they fixed the immigration
problem? The republican congress can pass a bill tomorrow to build Trump's wall and hire a deportation
force. The republican congress can pass a balanced budget anytime the want? Taxes too high? Republicans
can cut the tax rate to zero if they want. My point is why do republicans want to blame the president
and Hillary for every problem known to man while their republican leaders sit on their butts doing
nothing to solve a single problem. Maybe you need to tell congress to stop investigating and pass
a Jobs Bill.
I am stunned by reading the responses to this article. It doesn't matter what Hillary does,
most of you will simply defend her or ignore her issues. The article clearly states:
The
FBI has concluded Clinton was wrong: At least 81 email threads contained information that was
classified at the time, although the final number may be more than 2,000, the report says. Some
of the emails appear to include discussion of planned future attacks by unmanned US Military drones,
the FBI report says.
Hillary could drive through a soccer field in a drunken stupor, killing dozens of kids
and you sheep would blame the car or the booze!
Here's the thing... all 81 email chains that the FBI claims were "classified" didn't originate
with Clinton. All were sent to her... none were marked as classified... and no one who actually
composed and sent these emails thought that they should have been classified at the time.
The fact that not a single person who originated any of these emails, nor anyone else who
were on the email distribution lists, have ever received so much as an administrative rebuke about
any of these, and Comey testified that there were no plans at all to investigate ANYONE who were
responsible for actually writing and sending these emails.
If you really expect me to take this seriously as anything other than a republican fever dream,
please show me ANY wrongdoing on Clinton's part that involves more than being copied on someone
else's email chain... because as evil master plans go, that's kind of reaching.
James Constantino What do you not comprehend about "classified at the time" you just proved
Tom Johnson correct when he stated " It doesn't matter what Hillary does, most of you will simply
defend her or ignore her issues"
She set up a private server in her house, used that server to exchange classified materials
and then claims a loss of memory of briefings to safeguard those materials after her term was
over at State to explain the erasure of thousands of emails. I'm no Trump fan but this is just
as bad as Nixon's white house tapes. This is why I voted for Bernie.
So Hillary couldn't remember security briefings she received in 2009 because of a concussion
she received in 2012? This doesn't pass the laugh test. Nothing is every her responsibility and
she has never ever done anything wrong. Is the concussion still impacting her memory?
Since I'm sure you won't believe me from over in your fact free world, here is the exact quote
from the Reuter's article: "Clinton said she received no instructions or direction regarding the
preservation or production of records from (the) State (Department) during the transition out
of her role as Secretary of State in 2013.
"However, in December of 2012, Clinton suffered a
concussion and then around the New Year had a blood clot (in her head). Based on her doctor's
advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing
she received," the report said.
Whether she intended to use a private server and/or was briefed about the Department's policies
and procedures is one thing. Surely the State Department has records of whether HRC was briefed
or not and the main question is whether she then decided not to comply.
If the globalist media wasn't bought, they would have such information in a few days from
deciding to find such information which should be available. I have worked for government departments
before not only are policies and procedures issued to you and/or read out to you, you are also
required to sign on the dotted line that you have understood them. Whats happening around HRC
is just a shameful cover-up and surely the people know it by now?
Actually she should have been briefed when she was the FIrst Lady..and then again when she was
a senator..and then again when she was secretary of state.
Yes, this is someone we want to be President. Someone who can't rememeber security breifings.
"The extraordinary disclosure was made as the FBI published details of its agents' interview with
the former secretary of state which was conducted days before the agency's director ruled out
any charges against her.
Agents noted that Clinton could not recall being trained to handle classified materials as
secretary of state, and had no memory of anyone raising concerns about the sensitive information
she received at her private address.
The Democratic presidential nominee also 'did not recall receiving any emails she thought should
not be on an unclassified system,' the FBI's report declared.
She did not recall all of the briefings she received on handling sensitive information as she
made the transition from her post as secretary of state, due to a concussion she suffered in 2012."
Nodens Caedmon
"Couldn't recall all briefings on preserving documents."
Who needs to remember security briefings
definitely not someone running for president.
Why even mention the concussion? She can't remember more than 10% of her briefings even if she
is far above average, she would have to review the notes to jog her memory for even partial recall
as everyone must do when asked to testify about events like this.
With the number of briefings
and variety of subjects, her memory is the least useful way to recreate those meetings, with or
without a concussion, if ten people at the meetings recounted their memories, it would sound like
ten different meetings, the notes and minutes are the only reliable sources.
For some important decisions, she might remember quite a bit but there are natural limits to
memory that are quite severe unless you have unique innate skills.
Queue health rumors again(Re: concussion). Also, I like how the I don't recall defense worked
just fine for regean and Iran contra, but republicans don't apply the same standard when concerning
Clinton
Nancy Gilbert
Awww. I see.. She's in perfect health but when it is convenient she will use her illnesses
to her advantage. Got it.
Obviously the powers that be want Hillary. That's why we've got a choice between her and trump.
As bad as she is, she looks like a saint next that madman. Ha! For now on I will be sitting next
to the overweight peeps. That way I will look slim.
From Wikileaks: Note on Clinton FBI report: Our records show that Clinton sent & received
thousands of cables with "(C)" paragraph classification markings.
The FBI report, although not fatal for Democratic loyalists but I think it is devastating to average
Americans.
So, what about the bit where she claimed she turned over ALL work-related e-mails, yet we
keep finding ones that weren't turned over, and even more that were deleted with specialty wiping
software?
Mani Rand
Wow! this is so damaging! cant' remember anything , lost so many phones and didn't know how
to read a classified documents! She is unfit to run a lemonde stand! With all her handlers and
executive assistance and Huma for 24/7, you would think she will know more!
Now let's watch all the Libs quantify all of this LOL. She could run naked through Times Square
and the Huffpos would somehow justify her actions as bold and showing off her leadership capabilities
You can all sleep good tonight. Once all your children die in the wars she wants to continue
she will say, "in hindsight, I regretted using bombs on all those innocent kids while president."
Kudos DNC.
Holy crap, - Clinton was also asked about the (C) markings within several documents that FBI
Director James Comey testified before Congress represented classified information. Clinton told
the FBI she was unaware of what the marking meant. "Clinton stated she did not know and could
only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," the interview notes
stated. Hillary Clinton told the FBI she did not recall all of the briefings she received due
to a concussion she suffered in 2012. This woman is unfit period.
http://www.cnn.com/.../hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-notes/
Kat Hathaway - Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she lacked recollection of key events. She
said she "could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal
records or handling classified information," according to the FBI's notes of their July 2 interview
with Clinton. The notes revealed that Clinton relied heavily on her staff and aides determining
what was classified information and how it should be handled.
"We are also reminded that Clinton repeatedly vowed she'd surrendered
every single government business-related email upon the State Department's
request" [
New
York Post
].
This was an extraordinary lie: She hoarded and attempted to destroy
thousands of emails which, like the one The Post describes, involved
government business - some of it highly sensitive and significant (such
as the 30 emails related to the Benghazi massacre that the FBI recovered
but the State Department has yet to disclose). Converting government
records to one's own use and destroying them are serious crimes, even if
no classified information is involved.
I rarely find myself agreeing with a
National Reviewcolumnist
writing in the New York Post, but "converting government records to one's
own use and destroying them":
Yes, exactly
.
Just scanned through the report – there's a whole lot that Clinton didn't
recall. She also said that she relied on the judgment of the people that sent
her emails, when it came to the proper handling of classified material. So, in
other words, this detail-oriented policy wonk couldn't remember anything about
this and besides, it's somebody else's fault if classified information was
handled improperly.
I still have a hard time understanding why people find her dishonest.
CLINTON was not involved in the decision to move from the Apple server
managed by JUSTIN COOPER to a server built by BRYAN PAGLIANO. Therefore,
CLINTON had no knowledge of the reasons for selecting to install it in
the basement of CLINTON's New York residence.
When Clinton had technical issues with her email account, she
contacted COOPER to resolve the issues. She could not recall ever
contacting PAGLIANO for technical support.
Brazen, brazen lies. Compare:
Bryan Pagliano, the former State Department IT specialist who managed
Hillary Clinton's private email server, was hired by the State Department
as a political appointee. Pagliano had previously worked as an IT
director for Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.
[Pagliano] was ultimately involved in setting up Clinton's email
server at her home in Chappaqua, New York, and maintained it while
working at the State Department.
The Clinton campaign says he was paid
separately by the Clintons for all work on the server during that time.
Pagliano was a former Clinton campaign staffer, shoehorned into State as
a Clinton political appointee, separately paid
by the Clintons
to set
up a server
in their house
… but
Hillary never even talked to him
,
so she claims. Here is a photo of Pagliano posing with Hillary, as she
remained mute:
Needless to say, given Pagliano's immunized testimony to the FBI, plenty
of evidence is available to indict Hillary for lying to the FBI, totally
aside from her premeditated federal records crimes.
There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the picture of
Pagliano and Clinton. He must have attended one of those $5,000 a plate
dinners which entitles you to a quick photo in the reception line. You
can't possibly expect her to remember all of the people who have anted up
for one of those!
I just want to point out that the release of this on a Friday before a 3
day weekend is simply a coincidence and has absolutely nothing to do with
trying to "throw shade" or diminish the impact of the release. I mean there
are people who posit that things are released on Friday for news management
purposes. Poppycock says I – PURE COINCIDENCE. When have the Clintoons ever
done something like that????
I just do this because there are a lot of cynical people at NC who might
ponder if the FBI is in cahoots with Hillary and does this to in some way to
try and lessen the newsworthiness of this release, or simply out of a
bureaucratic self protection instinct because it might show the
investigation of the FBI was less than stellar…
I am so glad I'm not cynical…
"... According to the bureau's review of server logs, someone accessed an email account on Jan. 5, 2013, using three IP addresses known to serve as Tor "exit nodes" - jumping-off points from the anonymity network to the public internet. ..."
An unknown individual using the encrypted privacy tool Tor to hide their tracks
accessed an email account on a Clinton family server, the FBI revealed Friday.
The incident appears to be the first confirmed intrusion into a piece of
hardware associated with Hillary Clinton's private email system, which
originated with a server established for her husband, former President Bill
Clinton.
The FBI disclosed the event in its newly released
report
on the former secretary of state's handling of classified information.
According to the bureau's review of server logs, someone accessed an
email account on Jan. 5, 2013, using three IP addresses known to serve as Tor
"exit nodes" - jumping-off points from the anonymity network to the public
internet.
The owner of the account, whose name is redacted in the report, said she was
"not familiar with nor [had] she ever used Tor software."
Good question, this NC reader is just pretty fed up with the status quo (maybe others want
to chime in):
– Unlimited immunity from prosecution for banking executive criminals
–
More shiny new undeclared "nation-building" and "RTP" wars
– Globalist trade deals that
enshrine unaccountable corporate tribunals over national sovereignty, environmental and worker
protection, and self-determination
– America's national business conducted in secrecy at
the behest of corporate donors to tax-exempt foundations
– Paid-for quid-pro-quo media
manipulation of candidate and election coverage
– Health care system reform designed to
benefit entrenched insurance providers over providing access to reasonable-cost basic care.
Based on the above I'd say the 11:2 ratio looks about right.
Really enjoyed Atrios easy-breezy
summation
of Clinton Foundation / State Department skullduggery…
"…a bit unseemly in that way that the sausage factory is a bit gross, but it
basically seems to fall in 'this is how things work' territory as far as I can
tell…"
Breezy is right. It does lead me to ask if this were not the Clinton
Foundation but was the Bush Foundation or the Rubio Foundation or…would this
still be just be the way things work? I do not think so.
Don't get me wrong I have great admiration for Atrios (he is right on the
money regarding Social Security and self-driving cars), but the double
standard where both Obama and Clinton are concerned is strong at Eschaton,
and I'm sorry to say with him as well.
Accepting this as the way things work is just accepting that corruption
is the norm and there is nothing to be done about it. So unless you are
willing to shut up about supposed misdeeds of all elected officials and
political candidates because this is the way it is done, you need to get the
f*ck over the idea that this is NORMAL and ACCEPTABLE.
And I don't see that happening over there, or at Daily Kos, or… once the
subject is out is out of the tribe.
I can understand the "it's OK when
our people
do it" double
standard. Family/tribe/team, we are all trained to do that. What I don't
understand is how one could ever arrive at Clinton Foundation = our
people prerequisite to applying it in this instance. WT actual F?
I think you are coming at this from far too realistic a point of
view. You aren't looking at this as the Foundation is a tool, like a
speech or a fundraiser, in order to provide
wealthy
worthy
individuals/groups/corporations/nations a means to expedite access to
the government official, in this case Clinton. You think of it as a
false charity. But for the greasing the wheels is normal operating
procedure, what this was was a gift to open more avenues for the
wheels to be greased. It's up to you…or me…or even the people of Flint
among others to use that opportunity.
Breezy is right. It does lead me to ask if this were not the
Clinton War With Russia
but was the
Bush War With Iraq
or the
Rubio War With Syria
or…would this still be just
be the way things work? I do not think so.
Don't get me wrong I have great admiration for Atrios (he is right on
the money regarding Social Security and self-driving cars), but the
double standard where both Obama and Clinton are concerned is strong at
Eschaton, and I'm sorry to say with him as well.
Accepting this as the way things work is just accepting that
endless and new wars
is the norm and there is nothing to be done
about it. So unless you are willing to shut up about supposed
endless new wars
of all elected officials and political
candidates because this is the way it is done, you need to get the f*ck
over the idea that this is NORMAL and ACCEPTABLE.
And I don't see that happening over there, or at Daily Kos, or… once
the subject is out is out of the tribe.
Excellent interview. I've bookmarked Ortel's website and am looking
forward to his forthcoming writings. I was not aware of the differences
between laws regulating charities versus other forms of organizations, so
the interview as a starting point was very useful for me.
It has now been 271 days since Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton held a press
conference.
#HidingHillary is a campaign strategy to prevent Clinton from making public gaffes. By
avoiding unscripted questions and public appearances that are not carefully controlled by the
campaign, the tactic is designed to allow Clinton's opponent, Republican presidential nominee
Donald Trump, to hand her the presidency through his own self-inflicted wounds.
#HidingHillary might minimize the risk of mistakes for Clinton, but it bolsters Trump's
ability to set the narrative. Under the leadership of Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon, Trump's
campaign is taking full advantage of #HidingHillary, focusing on Clinton's many scandals and more
recently on Trump's immigration policy in an attempt to redirect the political conversation.
"... For much of the last century the illusion of social progress sold through the New Deal, the Great Society and more recently through capitalist enterprise 'freed' from the bind of social accountability, ..."
"... The Clinton's special gift to the people -- citizens, workers; the human condition as conceived through a filter of manufactured wants to serve the interests of an intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt 'leadership' class, lies in the social truths revealed by their actions. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, poses the greater-evilism of an ossified political class against the facts of its own creation now in dire need of resolution- wars to end wars, environmental crisis to end environmental crises, economic predation to end economic predation and manufactured social misery to end social misery. Hillary Clinton's roster of donors is the neoliberal innovation on Richard Nixon's enemies list- government as a shakedown racket where friend or foe and policies promoted or buried, are determined by 'donation' status rather than personal animus. ..."
"... That is most ways conservative Republican Richard Nixon's actual policies were far Left of those of contemporary Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, is testament to the ideological mobility of political pragmatism freed from principle. ..."
"... That Hillary Clinton is the candidate of officialdom links her service to Wall Street to America's wars of choice to dedicated environmental irresolution as the candidate who 'gets things done.' ..."
"... As historical analog, the West has seen recurrent episodes of economic imperialism backed by state power; in the parlance, neoliberal globalization, over the last several centuries. ..."
"... Left unstated in the competitive lesser-evilism of Party politics is the incapacity for political resolution in any relevant dimension. Donald Trump is 'dangerous' only by overlooking how dangerous the American political leadership has been for the last one and one-half centuries. So the question becomes: dangerous to whom? Without the most murderous military in the world, public institutions like the IMF dedicated to economic subjugation and predatory corporations that wield the 'free-choices' of mandated consumption, how dangerous would any politicians really be? And with them, how not-dangerous have liberal Democrats actually been? Candidates for political office are but manifestations of class interests put forward as systemic intent. ..."
"... The liberals and progressives in the managerial class who support the status quo and are acting as enforcers to elect Hillary Clinton are but one recession away from being tossed overboard by those they serve within the existing economic order. ..."
into political power. The structure of economic distribution seen through Foundation 'contributors;'
oil and gas magnates, pharmaceutical and technology entrepreneurs of public largesse, the murder-for-hire
industry (military) and various and sundry managers of social decline, makes evident the dissociation
of social production from those that produced it.
For much of the last century the illusion of social progress sold through the New Deal, the
Great Society and more recently through capitalist enterprise 'freed' from the bind of social accountability,
if not exactly from the need for regular and robust public support, served to hold at bay the perpetual
tomorrow of lives lived for the theorized greater good of accumulated self-interest. The Clinton's
special gift to the people -- citizens, workers; the human condition as conceived through a filter
of manufactured wants to serve the interests of an intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt
'leadership' class, lies in the social truths revealed by their actions.
Being three or more decades in the making, the current political season was never about the candidates
except inasmuch as they embody the grotesquely disfigured and depraved condition of the body politic.
The 'consumer choice' politics of Democrat versus Republican, Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump,
poses the greater-evilism of an ossified political class against the facts of its own creation now
in dire need of resolution- wars to end wars, environmental crisis to end environmental crises, economic
predation to end economic predation and manufactured social misery to end social misery. Hillary
Clinton's roster of donors is the neoliberal innovation on Richard Nixon's enemies list- government
as a shakedown racket where friend or foe and policies promoted or buried, are determined by 'donation'
status rather than personal animus.
That is most ways conservative Republican Richard Nixon's actual policies were far Left of
those of contemporary Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, is testament to the ideological mobility
of political pragmatism freed from principle. The absurd misdirection that we, the people, are
driving this migration is belied by the economic power that correlates 1:1 with the policies put
forward and enacted by 'the people's representatives', by the answers that actual human beings give
to pollsters when asked and by the ever more conspicuous hold that economic power has over political
considerations as evidenced by the roster of pleaders and opportunists granted official sees by the
political class in Washington.
To state the obvious, dysfunctional ideology- principles that don't 'work' in the sense of promoting
broadly conceived public wellbeing, should be dispensable. But this very formulation takes at face
value the implausible conceits of unfettered intentions mediated through functional political representation
that are so well disproved by entities like the Clinton Foundation. Political 'pragmatism' as it
is put forward by national Democrats quite closely resembles the principled opposition of Conservative
Republicans through unified service to the economic powers-that-be. That Hillary Clinton is the
candidate of officialdom links her service to Wall Street to America's wars of choice to dedicated
environmental irresolution as the candidate who 'gets things done.'
As historical analog, the West has seen recurrent episodes of economic imperialism backed
by state power; in the parlance, neoliberal globalization, over the last several centuries.
The result, in addition to making connected insiders rich as they wield social power over less existentially
alienated peoples, has been the not-so-great wars, devastations, impositions and crimes-against-humanity
that were the regular occurrences of the twentieth century. The 'innovation' of corporatized militarization
to this proud tradition is as old as Western imperialism in its conception and as new as nuclear
and robotic weapons, mass surveillance and apparently unstoppable environmental devastation in its
facts.
Left unstated in the competitive lesser-evilism of Party politics is the incapacity for political
resolution in any relevant dimension. Donald Trump is 'dangerous' only by overlooking how dangerous
the American political leadership has been for the last one and one-half centuries. So the question
becomes: dangerous to whom? Without the most murderous military in the world, public institutions
like the IMF dedicated to economic subjugation and predatory corporations that wield the 'free-choices'
of mandated consumption, how dangerous would any politicians really be? And with them, how not-dangerous
have liberal Democrats actually been? Candidates for political office are but manifestations of class
interests put forward as systemic intent.
The complaint that the Greens- Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka, don't have an effective political
program approximates the claim that existing political and economic arrangements are open to challenge
through the electoral process when the process exists to assure that effective challenges don't arise.
The Democrats could have precluded the likelihood of a revolutionary movement, Left or Right, for
the next half-century by electing Bernie Sanders and then undermining him to 'prove' that challenges
to prevailing political economy don't work. The lack of imagination in running 'dirty Hillary' is
testament to how large- and fragile, the perceived stakes are. But as how unviable Hillary Clinton
and Donald Trump are as political leaders becomes apparent- think George W. Bush had he run for office
after the economic collapse of 2009 and without the cover of '9/11,' the political possibilities
begin to open up.
The liberals and progressives in the managerial class who support the status quo and are acting
as enforcers to elect Hillary Clinton are but one recession away from being tossed overboard by those
they serve within the existing economic order. The premise that the ruling class will always
need dedicated servants grants coherent logic and aggregated self-interest that history has disproven
time and again. A crude metaphor would be the unintended consequences of capitalist production now
aggregating to environmental crisis.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both such conspicuously corrupt tools of an intellectually
and spiritually bankrupt social order that granting tactical brilliance to their ascendance, or even
pragmatism given the point in history and available choices, seems wildly generous. For those looking
for a political moment, one is on the way.
"... The Democratic presidential nominee called the United States an "exceptional nation," and said the country has a "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." ..."
"... Recalling in their fevered minds the legendary Reagan Democrats who took the bait approved of a "walking tall" pitch, the Clintons believe millions of silent majority, Dick Cheney Democrats will cross the aisle to keep America great. ..."
"... Like Rome, we make a waste land and call it peace. ..."
"... It's very similar to the whole entire democracy at the end of a rifle thing we've been doing now for over a decade. Our exceptionally unique brand of freedom to choose as long as you choose as we wish if you will. Go America! ..."
"... "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." LOL! ……Wha!/! she was serious!? Your sh*tting me! ..."
Hillary, liberator of Libya, preaches to the American Legion choir in Ohio:
The Democratic presidential nominee called the United States an "exceptional nation,"
and said the country has a "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress."
Recalling in their fevered minds the legendary Reagan Democrats who took the bait
approved of a "walking tall" pitch, the Clintons believe millions of silent majority,
Dick Cheney Democrats will cross the aisle to keep America great.
It's very similar to the whole entire democracy at the end of a rifle thing we've been
doing now for over a decade. Our exceptionally unique brand of freedom to choose as long as you
choose as we wish if you will. Go America!
Heh, maybe some of us figure the wrath beats the alternative to sitting
through another presidential cycle of sternly worded letters and petitions
from the left.
*sigh*
It would be so much easier if I could get an HMO approved frontal lobotomy
than I could either join the GOp lynch mob who thinks everything is some
liberal plot or be hunky dory with representation that tells you to your
face that they've rigged the system to thwart you ever actually having an
individual that you actually want representing you.
They lost... Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was re-elected.
Notable quotes:
"... Tad Devine, Mark Longabaugh, and Julian Mulvey, who helped lead Sanders' campaign and drove his highly acclaimed media presence, will help Democrat Tim Canova's campaign in the closing days of his race against Wasserman Schultz in South Florida, where congressional primaries will be held Aug. 30. ..."
"... While Wasserman Schultz is still the favorite in her race, people aligned with Sanders have seized on Canova's candidacy as a proxy for their disapproval of Wasserman Schultz's stewardship of the DNC, pouring money into his effort. The addition of DML signals an increasing professionalization of the anti-Wasserman Schultz effort. ..."
The consulting firm that made Bernie Sanders' ads in the 2016 presidential race
is going to work for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's primary challenger.
Tad Devine, Mark Longabaugh, and Julian Mulvey, who helped lead Sanders'
campaign and drove his highly acclaimed media presence, will help Democrat Tim
Canova's campaign in the closing days of his race against Wasserman Schultz
in South Florida, where congressional primaries will be held Aug. 30.
It's the latest move from Sanders supporters to go after Wasserman Schultz,
after their outrage stemming from leaked emails drove her to resign as chairman
of the Democratic National Committee this week.
The move is a concrete step forward in Sanders' attempt to spread his "political
revolution" after the end of his presidential campaign and another boost to
Canova, a previously little-known law professor who has raised millions of dollars
for his run against Wasserman Schultz. It's also the first tangible sign of
heavier involvement from his political circles in down-ballot races between
now and November. Sanders had previously endorsed Canova and raised money online
for him and a selection of other congressional candidates.
While Wasserman Schultz is still the favorite in her race, people aligned
with Sanders have seized on Canova's candidacy as a proxy for their disapproval
of Wasserman Schultz's stewardship of the DNC, pouring money into his effort.
The addition of DML signals an increasing professionalization of the anti-Wasserman
Schultz effort.
The consultants' firm, Devine Mulvey Longabaugh, was behind spots like the
famous "America" ad that helped define Sanders' campaign as he rose to prominence
against Hillary Clinton, and it has worked for a wide range of down-ballot campaigns
this cycle. Canova's campaign was already working with Revolution Messaging,
Sanders' digital firm, as well.
. Rivals and challengers of
the past whether it be the British Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union have
all fall by the way side in the titanic struggle of nation states and Great Powers.
So I asked Ms Rivlin, hypothetically, how she thought Americans would react if in a couple of
decades to come a significant and visible economic gap opened up between the USA and China.\
... She
failed to see, whether intentionally or not, that whatever one thinks about the merits of
seriousness or silliness of such talk and concerns, a lot of people in America believe it is
happening as encapsulated in Mr Trump's campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again". Clearly, a
great deal of people in America think the country is in terminal decline and want something
radical to reverse such decline. Hence their messenger Donald Trump and his rhetoric of America
First.
...Part of what Trump
represents is not only a deep seated anxiety that America is on a downward trajectory this
century, hence his China
bashing and protectionist rhetoric, his candidacy also represents a white backlash against
the increasing and rapid demographic changes in America society. America is on course by the
2050s to no longer be a white majority country. The population growth of non-white ethnic
minorities is over taking that of white Americans. Thus Trump's dog whistle racism with lines
such as: "We speak English in this country, not Spanish!"
At the rally in Everett, Guiliani asked rally-goers to get out their phone & text $$ to a certain
address.
I was shocked, what about "I'm funding my own campaign, I don't want your money." Guiliani
said something about how it is about gaining a big number of people who are donating. Donate $1,
if you want to, but just do it.
I was trying to think of the reasoning behind this. It was certainly counter-messaging. I would
suppose it is data-mining. Many people have multiple email addresses … it is easy to create an
anonymous email address just to get a Trump rally ticket. I thought of it myself, to avoid spam.
But most people only have one cell-phone number. Trump thanked Susan Hutchinson, head of the the
state Republican Party. I would imagine she was asking the Trump campaign to get as much info
about attendees as possible. That would explain why Guiliani and not Trump said this.
There may be another explanation. Clinton and the DNC have been running pretty insistent fund
raising campaign over the last couple of weeks as focused on number of donors as on money. Clearly
this was another version of Clinton's popularity over Trump.
As they are asking for $1 on the last day of this reporting period there could be a desire to
head that one off at the pass.
Or they could want your info, and to head that off at the pass.
If defeating Clinton is becoming more important, then voting for Trump
becomes more necessary.
I am getting more inclined all the time to vote for Trump. A vote FOR
Trump counts twice as hard aGAINST Clinton as a vote for some beautiful
Third Party.
Every ballot is a bullet on the field of political combat.
2020? To pick over the dry bones left by Bush Term 5?
Some people say a Trump presidency would be a disaster. No. We
already have a disaster.
Trump is a ridiculous blowhard buffoon. He's also against more
nation-building, questions NATO/Putin war mongering, thinks the
mainstream media is completely corrupt, wants to put the ACA out of
its misery, and actually opposes globalist trade deals. I couldn't
care less if he said mean things about Rosie O'Donnell.
You know the Republicans could have picked a better
candidate.
Oh wait they didn't do that because their intent was to hand
this to Hillary.
I'm so tired of hearing how "I have to" do things after a
small band of oligarchs chose the candidates I have to choose
from.
I don't have to vote for Trump the buffoon and I don't have
to vote for Clinton the corrupt and I can continue to not vote
for either of the duopoly. As long as you continue to play the
lesser evil game you can be assured the oligarchy is going to
continue to pick bad and worse for you.
I'm opting out of the sick and twisted game the GOP and
Democratic Party have going on and those of you who continually
vote for the bad choices you are given can blame yourselves for
the outcome(instead of projecting the outcome onto everyone who
refuses to eat the oligarchy's dog food.)
The 8-year partisan alternation pattern structurally
imposed by Amendment XXII indicates that it was the R party's
"turn."
Their intent was to hand this to Jeb! or Ted! or some
other vetted insider to claim the R party's 8 years of
spoils.
As the howls of protest and invective from Ted! made
clear, Trump's nomination was totally unplanned. Trump punked
the R party. And they still haven't gotten over their
butthurt.
Oh they left him in place because he is the perfect
buffoon to run against Queen Hillary(after all they sat
and debated whether or not to make him the nominee ad
nauseaum) and he gives the double bonus of once he loses
being able to allow them to wail, gnash their teeth and
fundraise against the Democrats and Hillary Clinton. Don't
kid yourself Clinton is interposable and will serve her
purpose just as well as Ted! or Jeb! for the oligarchy.
It's Her turn.
This is a game and the electorate are chumps that just
keep playing it.
No matter who you vote for, or don't, the US will end up with
either Clinton or Trump as prez, barring a catastrophic event, eg,
death of one or t'other.
So, you not only have to decide how you can live with who you
vote for, but you have to think about how you will live with who
you get. Maybe it won't be good enough to say, "Not the president
of me."
They're both horrible choices and I intend to prepare myself
to have to live with either of them.
I also intend to remind people that vote for team bad or team
worse that THEY are the ones who force this game to continue by
insisting that only a Democrat or Republican can win.
It won't matter if we don't live that long due to World War
Clinton with Russia. If you think Clinton poses no more danger of
nuclear annihilation than Trump would, then your logic is
impeccable.
But if you think a President Clinton poses a real and
non-trivial risk of global nuclear extermination in a way that a
President Trump just simply would not, then you might decide to
defer "vote your dreams" for now, and "vote your survival" for
Trump so you can live long enough to collect the Big Jackpot in
2024.
Both Trump and Hillary are frightening alternatives for President -
though Trump seems "the lesser of two evils". Hillary is starting to
appear like a female anti-Christ - Damiena Thorn or Nicole Carpathia -
the more I learn about her. Regardless which one wins I tend to agree
with the commenter here who suggested one of the two VP candidates
would be the acting executive.
I am tempted to vote Green just on the possibility the Green Party
might become a viable second party - especially if matching funds
become available. But I can't get past viewing the Green Party as a
clueless amalgam of underemployed ex-philosophy students.
Writing-in Sanders is tempting - but I don't trust write-ins will
be counted or reported in any meaningful way. As a last resort I can
leave President an undercount and register a "No!" vote in what seems
the best possible way to do that.
I will vote. None of the relatively good choices choices offer much
to realistically hope for and the bad choices are scary bad and
horrifyingly bad.
"But I can't get past viewing the Green Party as a clueless
amalgam of underemployed ex-philosophy students."
This made me chuckle, since many of my very best friends are
actually underemployed Phil majors, along with a healthy cohort of
underemployed art historians, medievalists etc.
"... The "Global War on Terror" ™ is now a member of the standard vocabulary of Hucksterism. Joining phrases like "Welfare Moms", "Illegal Aliens" "FreeSh#tArmy", etc. ..."
"... She cares so much about the veterans, she is going to make sure to create more of them! ..."
"... Someone should remind Hillary that presidents don't get to declare war. It's so nice to know though that she intends to carry on her proud tradition of foreign nationals having to buy their influence instead of getting it for free by way of hacking. ..."
"... I believe the Patriot Act views hacks by persons or non-governmental agencies as acts of terrorism. I'm sure I'll be corrected if this is wrong. I also had the impression the Patriot Act treats some of the kinds of sabotage commonly used in the labor movements of the last century as acts of terrorism. ..."
"... Obama's beefing up of our atomic arsenals and Hillary's push to out-hawk Obama mixed with the footsie our military and diplomacy seem inclined to play with Russia and China is extremely frightening. ..."
"... Hillary is exceptionally stupid apparently. She's been itching for a fight with Russia. There is no other explanation for Ukraine or Syria. The big ol moneypot that they can collect from war is just too tempting. ..."
It was extremely eerie
watching
Clinton deliver neo-fascist rhetoric in Ohio while an alert
flashed across the screen announcing Brazil's Senate's official removal of
Dilma Rousseff.
C-Span claims to offer transcripts, but they do not always work.
Some highlights:
– Hacks will be viewed as acts of war
– the VA will not be privatized (healthcare and education… meh those are okay)
– Quoted Reagan within the first 5-10 minutes
– We need to reevaluate our nuclear presence… to make it stronger. (!#$*)
– We are the best #MERica
Rather evilly brilliant, in the
Report From Iron Mountain
vein.
Terrorism as a permanent, amorphous threat is producing some cultural
fatigue. Good to have a War on Hackery on the back burner, since that will
never end either, and blame can be attributed freely (as the evil Russians
have already learnt to their sorrow).
The "Global War on Terror" ™ is now a member of the standard
vocabulary of Hucksterism. Joining phrases like "Welfare Moms", "Illegal
Aliens" "FreeSh#tArmy", etc.
Someone should remind Hillary that presidents don't get to declare
war. It's so nice to know though that she intends to carry on her proud
tradition of foreign nationals having to buy their influence instead of
getting it for free by way of hacking.
I believe the Patriot Act views hacks by persons or non-governmental
agencies as acts of terrorism. I'm sure I'll be corrected if this is wrong.
I also had the impression the Patriot Act treats some of the kinds of
sabotage commonly used in the labor movements of the last century as acts of
terrorism.
Obama's beefing up of our atomic arsenals and Hillary's push to
out-hawk Obama mixed with the footsie our military and diplomacy seem
inclined to play with Russia and China is extremely frightening.
This
27th of October I'll drink a shot to Vasili Arkhipov and make a little
prayer he didn't save the world in vain.
How inspiring and uplifting but than there's "Putin is Hitler" and other
masterful strokes from America's top diplomat Sect of State Clinton. She's
already earned her Noble Peace prize in Obama's tradition so let's
preemptively give it to her now and continue that precedent.
What will Clinton do when she realizes she's picking on someone who can
fight back?
BTW very interesting analysis from MoonofAlabama regarding Turkey's
invasion into Syria is not so good for US regime change in Syrian with hints
this is calculated btwn Russia/Turkey/Syria. Had assumed Turkey's invasion
was quite bad for Syria/Russia now I'm not sure.
The GWOT and Russia are meant to focus the rubes attention away from
the fact that:
-We are rapidly turning into a Banana Republic
-We have no Bananas. Or that 95% of the bananas we do have are owned
by 1% of the population, who use the money and influence generated by
having all the bananas to make sure the government doesn't interfere with
the goal of getting 100% of the remaining 5%.
– Our half-azzed GWOT has totally fooked things up in the Middle East.
Turkey, Iran and Russia are closer to the problem than we are. Doesn't
surprise me that they might cooperate in order to straighten out the
mess.
And if they can make our doofuses in Washington look like ineffectual
idiots while doing it, so much the better.
Looking back…….for a long time, even here in the USA, the US has
always backed the landowners/business owners/oligarchs/kleptocrats, when
confronted by any opposition wanting a more even "distribution of the
pie".
And since they can't say "We are going to war so US Multi-Nationals
can keep their stuff/increase their market share/gain access to raw
materials", the talk is all about "Liberating the (fill in the blank)
people from the (name of opposition dictator) regime.
Dictators turning machine guns on striking coal miners = "Repression
of worker rights"
US law enforcement/US Army turning machine guns on striking coal
miners = Suppressing Commie-inspired domestic unrest.
"Picking on someone who can fight back"
Um, America doesn't do that, we just smash the defenseless ones. And we
still lose, contrary to the Hollywood, media, and MIC myth-making. In the
main theater Putin would smash NATO in an afternoon, everywhere else it's
CIA Keystone cops, own goals, and drone bombs on kids in hospitals.
Hillary is exceptionally stupid apparently. She's been itching
for a fight with Russia. There is no other explanation for Ukraine or
Syria. The big ol moneypot that they can collect from war is just too
tempting.
Because we never misattribute hacks (see below)… I was afraid when Ronny
had access to the button, but I'm starting to get really fearful of HRC's
possible access. Saner heads in the DoD (if that can even be believed) might
have throw water on her.
It was saner heads in the DoD who restrained Obama from starting a war
against Syria. I realize many leftists are bigoted anti-militaritic anti-militarites.
That bigotry causes such left wing anti-militaritic bigots to miss some
events and trends of opinion within the military.
I am well aware of the fact the DoD already constrained Obama on
Syria. I actually am a fan of the Department of DEFENSE, yet the fact
that we have a $700B war budget shows there are many in the military
and Pentagon who are far from sane.
So we will now go to war with individuals? Or do we just declare war on
whatever country they're operating out of?
Does it count who's getting hacked? Or what? I know Hillary thinks her
private e-mails are best kept private, but do we go to war if someone hacks
them? Or do we only go to war because she mixed some state secrets in with
them? It quickly gets confusing. Or what if Hillary hacks Bill to see if
he's still messing around with Monica? Does who we go to war against depend
of whether he is or not?
And I know Hillary is pretty pissed that the DNC got hacked, but do they
count? Because a political party is more like a club, and is certainly not a
part of the government. And what about corporations? You know they're going
to want to get in on this fun. Corporate espionage? We'll declare war on
Microsoft at the request of Apple?
We're going to need a whole branch of government to figure this all out.
I was going to suggest Homeland Security, but they're pretty busy right now
bugging the reporters' interviews at the DNC lawsuit.
To be sure, it's not clear what Trump would do if elected, because so many
of his "positions" are little more than sound bites. Still, here are six issues
in which he is mixing progressive or liberal Republican stances amid his authoritarian
outbursts. That strange brew means that for the first time in decades, Americans
could be facing two candidates with progressive planks on many issues.
1. The Anti-Free Trader. On no other issue does Trump so
closely parallel Sanders as he is when slamming trade deals and bragging that
he, the great negotiator, would push American CEOs into keeping jobs here or
bring them back. Last week, he singled out
Carrier Air Conditioning,
Ford and
Eaton Corp. for moving manufacturing abroad. A week before, he
boasted, "I'm going to get Apple to start making their computers and their
iPhones on our land, not in China. How does it help us when they make it in
China?"
Suffice it to say that Trump is to the left of Clinton on trade deals, at
least when it comes to sound bites.
2. Cutting America's Military Budget. That sounds out of
sync coming from Trump, who has repeatedly said he wants to rebuild the military
and never misses a chance to threaten ISIL. But according to reporters who have
trailed him since last year, he has repeatedly called for cutting military spending
by closing America's overseas military bases. "Donald Trump could be the only
presidential candidate talking sense about the American military's budget. That
should scare everyone," wrote Matthew Gault in a detailed
piece for Reuters. "As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can
build and maintain an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying
now. He's also right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive
prestige weapons systems."
It's hard to imagine that Trump will be the "peace candidate" in the campaign,
as a liberal strategist
told the Nation's Greider. But closing overseas bases would be
a hard break from both Republican and Democratic Party orthodoxy, including
under Obama, where the Pentagon budget keeps rising and temporary cuts, like
sequestration, are seen as creating unnecessary crises. Here, too, Trump's positioning
could track to the left of Clinton. And unlike Sanders, whose state has an F-35
fighter plane base, Trump has explicitly said that plane was a waste of money.
"Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue, he's got
the right idea,"
wrote Gault.
3. Rejecting Big Money Political Corruption. You can expect
Trump will go after Clinton as a corrupt insider cashing in on her connections,
no matter how many millions he, as the nominee, would end up raising for Republicans
for the fall or take from party coffers because presidential campaigns cost
upward of $1 billion. Trump has the higher moral ground, compared to Clinton,
who hasn't even released the texts of her speeches to Wall Street banks or discussed
returning speaking fees. As Trump touts, he's been on the check-writing side
of America's corrupt but legal system of financing candidates for decades.
Trump's stance here echoes Sanders. It barely matters that Clinton has said
she would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn decisions like
Citizens United, which created giant new legal loopholes for wealthy
interests and individuals. Being the rich outsider forced to play along, not
the political insider taking the checks, is in Trump's favor, pushing him to
the left of Clinton.
4. Preserving Social Security and Medicare. As most progressives
know, millions of baby boomers approaching their senior years are going to be
relying on Social Security for most of their income and for Medicare as their
health plan. Progressives also know that Social Security benefits could be cut
by a fifth after 2030 because of that demographic bump, and have proposed raising
payroll taxes to preserve benefits and increase them. Trump,
unlike the other GOP candidates, wants to leave Social Security alone, saying
a booming economy will fix the shortfall. While we have heard that before-Reagan's
rising tide lifts all boats-Trump's status quo stance is completely at odds
with the modern GOP, which wants to up the age when one can start taking Social
Security benefits, create new payment formulas, means-test recipients or flat-out
privatize it.
Clinton
said she wants to preserve Social Security and raise payments to people
who need it most, such as widowers, who see cuts after a spouse dies, women
and poor people who have historically been underpaid compared to white men.
Sanders, in contrast, said benefits must be raised for everyone. Trump's stance
on this issue is far from ideal, but it's outside the GOP's mainstream. It's
neither constructive nor destructive, but that tends to neutralize the issue
in a fall campaign with Clinton.
5. Lowering Seniors' Prescription Drug Costs. Here's another
issue where Trump is saying he wants to do what Democrats like Obama, Clinton
and Sanders have long called for, but which has been blocked by congressional
Republicans. Trump wants the feds to negotiate buying in bulk from pharmaceutical
companies, which has been explicitly prohibited by the GOP in past legislation.
"We don't do it. Why? Because of the drug companies," Trump
said in January before the New Hampshire primary. This is another issue
where he is blurring the lines with Clinton and the Democrats.
6. Breaking Health Insurance Monopolies. Trump has railed
against the health insurance industry for preserving its state-by-state monopolies
under Obamacare, saying neither Democrats nor Republicans made an effort to
repeal a 1945 law that prevents Americans from buying cheaper policies in another
state. "The insurance companies," Trump
said, "they'd rather have monopolies in each state than hundreds of companies
going all over the place bidding… It's so hard for me to make deals… I can't
get bids."
We know that Trump has pledged to get rid of Obamacare and he hasn't said
much about its replacement other than it would involve consumers crossing state
lines. But this is another area where Trump's sound bites can superficially
push him to the left of Clinton, who has made defending Obamacare part of her
campaign and agenda if elected president.
"... compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury ..."
"... compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders. ..."
"... "This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar, and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing American lives." ..."
"... In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling "get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother." ..."
"... "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent." ..."
Hillary Clinton has indeed become well known as a serial liar, as fully two-thirds
of Americans,
68 percent in a recent poll, said she was neither honest nor trustworthy.
Not only does Clinton lie to protect herself, as she has regarding Benghazi
and her private email server, but she lies when there appears to be no benefit
to doing so.
For example, she famously claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary
for his conquering of Mt. Everest, even though that didn't happen until six
years after Clinton was born. She also notoriously claim she landed under sniper
fire in Bosnia in 1996, when newspaper and video accounts revealed exactly the
opposite.
"Robert Reich, M.D., a New York City psychiatrist and expert in psychopathology,
says compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury,"
Dr. Gina Loudon, a political psychology and behavior expert, told WND. "Otherwise,
compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial,
borderline and narcissistic personality disorders.
"This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with
her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing
out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar,
and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing
American lives."
In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been
a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary
of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling
"get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail
for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton
left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained
to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother."
These types of outbursts continued after Hillary left her office as secretary
of state. An aide on her presidential campaign
told the New York Post last October: "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like
tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought
the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been
getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent."
How Hillary can defend herself from two major and intermixed scandals: emailgate and Clinton cash
is unclear to me. Also her strong reputation of a neocon warmonger represents serious weakness
on any foreign policy discussion. Essentially she can be buried just with the list of her ;achievements".
So Trump is deeply right when he said "It can be dangerous. You can sound scripted or phony - like you're
trying to be someone you're not." Cards are on the table. They just need to be played.
"I believe you can prep too much for those things," Mr. Trump said in an interview last week.
"It can be dangerous. You can sound scripted or phony - like you're trying to be someone you're not."
she is searching for ways to bait him into making blunders. Mr. Trump, a supremely confident communicator,
wants viewers to see him as a truth-telling political outsider and trusts that he can box in Mrs.
Clinton on her ethics and honesty.
He has been especially resistant to his advisers' suggestions that he take part in mock debates with
a Clinton stand-in. At their first session devoted to the debate, on Aug. 21 at Mr. Trump's club
in Bedminster, N.J., the conservative radio host Laura Ingraham was on hand to offer counsel and,
if Mr. Trump was game, to play Mrs. Clinton, said Trump advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity
because the debate preparations were supposed to be kept private. He declined.
Instead, Mr. Trump asked a battery of questions about debate topics, Mrs. Clinton's skills and possible
moderators, but people close to him said relatively little had been accomplished.
...
"I know who I am, and it got me here," Mr. Trump said, boasting of success in his 11 primary debate
appearances and in capturing the Republican nomination over veteran politicians and polished debaters.
"I don't want to present a false front. I mean, it's possible we'll do a mock debate, but I don't
see a real need."
Mr. Trump is certain that he holds advantages here, saying Mrs. Clinton is likely to come across
as a typical politician spouting rehearsed lines.
"... the person who set up her email should have set up "filters and alerts that said any email that came with a classified header." ..."
"... You know, create an alert that says this shouldn't be on this system and deal with it so that you don't, you know, consume it in this way. But the administrator didn't do it and she didn't know to do it because the whole time she had a very specific process in place. If it is classified, print it out and let me deal with it in hard copy, which is why she had complete confidence to say, 'I never dealt with anything marked classified.'" ..."
Monday night on "CNN Tonight," supporter of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, billionaire
Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, said Clinton did nothing wrong because the person who set up her
email should have set up "filters and alerts that said any email that came with a classified header."
...
And so you go - look, I was in this business. My first career, my first company, all I did was install
local area networks and messaging and email systems and I had my own personal server in my office
until about 2010, and so I've been through this whole process. And so she talks to the admin who
is responsible, she doesn't know any better, and takes his or her advice."
"I think it was a he,"
he continued. "And it just so happens that he was given immunity by the Justice Department so we
haven't had a chance to hear any of this. But for that personal server, if that admin had done his
job like I had done my job doing the same thing, I would have set up filters and alerts that said
any email that came with a classified header or any of the determined classified markings like the
little 'c' Director Comey mentioned, pop it out, right?
You know, create an alert that says this shouldn't be on this system and deal with it so that
you don't, you know, consume it in this way. But the administrator didn't do it and she didn't know
to do it because the whole time she had a very specific process in place. If it is classified, print
it out and let me deal with it in hard copy, which is why she had complete confidence to say, 'I
never dealt with anything marked classified.'"
"... As you note, its not clear that we in the US need ANY immigration; it's hard to claim that 300 million people is not enough. If we choose to allow immigration, it should be few and strongly selective, i.e. the cream of the crop and selected to benefit the US. ..."
"... But it benefits the Mandarin class, so opposition or even debate been defined by them as heresy. It appears that the non-Mandarin class, who has to live with the downsides, is staring to reject this orthodoxy. ..."
"... We import, legally, 50,000 people (plus families IIRC) via a random visa lottery. This verges on insanity. ..."
"... H1-B applicants require a BA or equivalent, but are then selected by lottery. Hardly selected specifically for the needs of the country. In 2015, 6 of the top 10 firms by number of applications approved were Indian IT firms (i.e. outsourcing. I'm sure you are aware of the long term and recent complaints concerning direct replacement of US citizens by these workers. ..."
"... I find the system you describe which relies, by design, on perpetually importing new waves of a helot underclass to be both immoral and unsustainable. ..."
It's remarkable how rarely the immigration debate is prefaced with an explicit
prior that we should give absolute priority to what is best for the receiving
county and their citizens.
As you note, its not clear that we in the US need ANY immigration;
it's hard to claim that 300 million people is not enough. If we choose to
allow immigration, it should be few and strongly selective, i.e. the cream
of the crop and selected to benefit the US.
Its not credible to complain about low employment/population ratios,
limited wage pressures, high poverty rates, overburdened social safety nets,
limited prospects for those on the left side of the bell curve, and inequality,
and simultaneously support more immigration of the poor, unskilled, or difficult
to assimilate.
But it benefits the Mandarin class, so opposition or even debate
been defined by them as heresy. It appears that the non-Mandarin class,
who has to live with the downsides, is staring to reject this orthodoxy.
We import, legally, 50,000 people (plus families IIRC) via a random
visa lottery. This verges on insanity.
H1-B applicants require a BA or equivalent, but are then selected
by lottery. Hardly selected specifically for the needs of the country. In
2015, 6 of the top 10 firms by number of applications approved were Indian
IT firms (i.e. outsourcing. I'm sure you are aware of the long term and
recent complaints concerning direct replacement of US citizens by these
workers.
I'm in favor of significant penalties for employing illegal workers.
Yes lets debate who is going to take care of washing and changing adult
diapers on 80 million baby boomers as they deteriorate towards their final
resting place, and who is going to dig the holes if we have deported all
those who know which end of a shovel is the business end.
"... Neoliberals use the term "alt-right" as shorthand for those who don't drink the Clinton neocon Kool-Aid. ..."
"... The bigotry of warmongering neoliberals against anyone who disagrees. ..."
"... The alt.* hierarchy is a major class of newsgroups in Usenet, containing all newsgroups whose name begins with "alt.", organized hierarchically. The alt.* hierarchy is not confined to newsgroups of any specific subject or type, although in practice more formally organized groups tend not to occur in alt.*. ... (Wikipedia) ..."
"... It basically was like snorting a line of Cocaine. We keep on going back and it is getting less and less pleasurable. ..."
"... The final stage will probably be the stripping of all national function with the economy. Much like the free market intellectuals want. This will finally expose it. White's will know. The government they were taught to hate, liquidated, instead a new market state replaced. Their democracy decayed and Capitalists running international slave states instead pushing less product for their indentured servitude. Then we are right back to Bismark and Wells. ..."
The burgeoning neolib dog whistle "alt-right" is short for "a$$hole
who thinks Clinton should go to jail for 1000 times the misconduct that
would get that a$$hole 10 years hard time".
Neoliberals use the term "alt-right" as shorthand for those who don't
drink the Clinton neocon Kool-Aid.
The bigotry of warmongering neoliberals against anyone who disagrees.
Fred C. Dobbs -> anne...
(So-called 'alt groups' have been around
since the earliest days of the internet.)
The alt.* hierarchy is a major class of newsgroups in Usenet, containing
all newsgroups whose name begins with "alt.", organized hierarchically.
The alt.* hierarchy is not confined to newsgroups of any specific subject
or type, although in practice more formally organized groups tend not to
occur in alt.*. ... (Wikipedia)
Ben Groves :
There are a lot of Jews in the "Alt-Right"(aka, a Spencer invented term,
that they need to at least admit). Most have ties to neo-conservatism in
their past outside the desperate paleo types hanging on. To me, they are
"racist", but lets face it, the gentile left can just be as racist and historically,
more dangerous. Trying to be reactionary is just not a neo-liberal thing.
Fabians were quite racist as HG Wells outright said he was. Their vision
of globalism was a Eurocentric world of socialism and those 3rd world "brownies"
were setting socialism back and needed it to be enforced on them. The Nazi's
took Fabian economics and that dream to the nadir.
The problem is, the 'Alt-Right' is so upfront about it with a typical
neo-liberal economic plan. Even their "nationalism" has a * by it. Economic
Nationalism isn't just about trade deals, but a organic, cohesive flow to
the nation. Being in business isn't about stuffing your pockets, it is about
serving your country and indeed, stuff like the Epi-pen price hikes would
be considered treason. You would lower your prices or off with your head.
This, is a area where the "Alt-Right" doesn't want to do. They are not true
connies in the Bismark-ian sense. They want a nominal judeo-christianity
inside a classically liberal mindset of market expansion where white's pull
the strings. That is simply dialectical conflict. Who invented capitalism?
It was Sephardic Jews(say, unlike Communism which attracted Ashkenazi much
to Herr Weitling chagrin). Modern materialism is all things like Trump really
care about. So do his handlers like Spencer. Without the Jews, there is
no capitalism period. They financed it through several different methods
since the 1600's. Even the American Revolution was financed by them and
the founders absolutely knew where the bread was buttered. The Great Depression
was really the death rattle of the House of Rothschild and its British Empire(with
the Federal Reserve pushing on the string to completely destroy them, but
that is another post for another time). Capitalism as a system does not
work and never has worked.
It basically was like snorting a line of Cocaine. We keep on going
back and it is getting less and less pleasurable.
The final stage will probably be the stripping of all national function
with the economy. Much like the free market intellectuals want. This will
finally expose it. White's will know. The government they were taught to
hate, liquidated, instead a new market state replaced. Their democracy decayed
and Capitalists running international slave states instead pushing less
product for their indentured servitude. Then we are right back to Bismark
and Wells.
ilsm -> Ben Groves, -1
"gentile left" bigotry is founded against po' white folk who are not as
educated in the logical fallacies the limo libruls use to continue plundering
them.
Everyone is so busy calling out Trumpistas they do not see their own
"inclusive frailty".
The immigration issue is the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's
outreach to the black community . . .
Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put
the press and everyone else on notice: "He said enough for now!!!" The "flip-flop"
issue is minor at this point.
What's important is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the
White House. Mr. Trump must make it clear to the black community that he
needs their help.
He has little time and should immediately apologize for the Republican
Party's mistake of accepting the democrats' decades of influence over the
black community.
He must confront the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities
(and the poor). What's "historical" about Donald Trump" campaign is he actually
represents "racial unity."
Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "poverty." Like President
Johnson he needs to use "poverty" to overcome a preceding president's popularity.
He has as his political base "poor whites." His efforts now must focus on
"winning" the support of "poor blacks."
He has "ONE JOB" as this point if he wants to be president . . . He must
make the black community understand "the opportunity presented."
Mr. Trump must go directly to the black community (not the black establishment
political brokers) and make things "clear" that a "VOTE" for Trump is the
black community's only available opportunity for racial equality.
Likewise, Mr. Trump needs to have his "poor white" political base understand
the importance of "moving past" those things that have separated us. Mr.
Trump needs "racial unity" rallies from this point forward.
The immigration issue is how he won the primaries and it is the issue that
has made him popular with his fans. It is typically the focus of his speeches.
How can you suggest that the democrats are attempting to distract anyone
on immigration? Trump is the one who talks about it constantly.
"... Your article fails to make a clear enough distinction between legal and illegal immigration. It suggests Trump is anti-immigration and anti-immigrants - which is not the case. This is a common error in the debate. ..."
"... You are so silly. How many times has Hillary changed her mind on immigration? In fact, I am sure all of you recall a time when she suggested a fence and deportation. ..."
"... Here's Hillary in favor of a wall and deportations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DckY2dRFtxc ..."
"... Hungary and Norway way are building walls..Israel has several ..Mexico put up one for the Guatemalen exodus..in the mean time Hillarys plan for improving Jobs for Black youth is importing tens of thousand more ..."
"... One of the prime reasons for the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico was NAFTA, which ended up displacing hundreds of thousands of farm owners and millions of farm workers due to NAFTA regulations. ..."
The immigration issue is the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's
outreach to the black community . . .
Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put
the press and everyone else on notice: "He said enough for now!!!" The "flip-flop"
issue is minor at this point.
What's important is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the
White House. Mr. Trump must make it clear to the black community that he
needs their help.
He has little time and should immediately apologize for the Republican
Party's mistake of accepting the democrats' decades of influence over the
black community.
He must confront the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities
(and the poor). What's "historical" about Donald Trump" campaign is he actually
represents "racial unity."
Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "poverty." Like President
Johnson he needs to use "poverty" to overcome a preceding president's popularity.
He has as his political base "poor whites." His efforts now must focus on
"winning" the support of "poor blacks."
He has "ONE JOB" as this point if he wants to be president . . . He must
make the black community understand "the opportunity presented."
Mr. Trump must go directly to the black community (not the black establishment
political brokers) and make things "clear" that a "VOTE" for Trump is the
black community's only available opportunity for racial equality.
Likewise, Mr. Trump needs to have his "poor white" political base understand
the importance of "moving past" those things that have separated us. Mr.
Trump needs "racial unity" rallies from this point forward.
Your article fails to make a clear enough distinction between legal
and illegal immigration. It suggests Trump is anti-immigration and
anti-immigrants - which is not the case. This is a common error in the
debate.
You are so silly.
How many times has Hillary changed her mind on immigration? In fact, I am sure all of you recall a time when she suggested a fence
and deportation.
Hungary and Norway way are building walls..Israel has several ..Mexico put
up one for the Guatemalen exodus..in the mean time Hillarys plan for improving
Jobs for Black youth is importing tens of thousand more .
If they are so good why doesn't Europe take them for us..
What gets lost in all of this how the USA allowed Mexico to spiral into
the corrupt, poor country they currently are.
It's time for the US to get firm with Mexico and help them get on their
feet - which their corrupt leaders will hate, but tough shit. There is no
excuse to border the United States of America and have such poor living
standards for their people.
Although not ideal, a wall is a very direct message to Mexico's govt
that the US will not tolerate their corrupt government and drug cartels.
What's wrong with Trump changing his stance? He listened to his supporters
(most of whom think some type of amnesty is appropriate) and tweaked his
immigration plan.. *gasp*
It seems like a mature, reasonable move from an intelligent strong leader
- which Trump is.
He will be an excellent President.
One of the prime reasons for the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico
was NAFTA, which ended up displacing hundreds of thousands of farm owners
and millions of farm workers due to NAFTA regulations.
The trouble with both candidates is the Believability Factor. No mater
what they may say, it's doubtful they will do what they say. There needs
to be election laws that make ignoring campaign 'promises' once in office
impeachable.
Trump's original platform of deporting 11 million illegals isn't doable.
That would involve round-ups and incarcerations last seen in Nazi Germany.
I don't think the American people at large would stand for that.
So the spiel has been morphing into something more palatable to Joe Average.
He keeps trying to placate his base by having his surrogates assure them
that nothing has changed but it obviously has.
"... the one thing about intelligence is we should stand for truth to power-meaning we should always say what we believe, and lay the facts out, lay the tough right facts out and then you let the policymakers make the decisions that they have to make. What has happened in the last 10 years, frankly in the last 8 years, is we have seen a level of dishonesty coming out of both the policy and the decision making structure with the American people." ..."
"... Because of the President's and the Secretary of State's-among other officials in the Obama administration-unwillingness to hear all the facts, including ones they needed to but didn't want to hear, Flynn says the President has presented a narrative to the American people about the war on terrorism and radical Islamism that is simply inaccurate. ..."
"... The intelligence process starts really at the ground level, but the priorities-the priorities, Matt, for an intelligence system and the intelligence community in our country and that's the President of the United States. ..."
"... "That means infiltrating into refugee populations, that means conducting of smart information operations," Flynn said. "Most people don't know but these guys have very sophisticated information operations going on, with publications of magazines and websites. They have leaders in their groups that have thousands and thousands-I'm talking tens of thousands of followers on social media and Instagram and Twitter. ..."
"... Then I call for in the book a new 21st century alliance. This is where we really come to how we take the Arab community to task on how they plan to fix this cancerous disease inside of their own body that has metastasized and grown exponentially over the last five or six years and certainly actually over the last eight to 10 years. So it's one thing to go after the ideology, just like we went after Communism for 40 years ..."
"... He is a street savvy strategic leader type person who has a vision for this country, and he's turned it into this phrase of 'Make America Great Again.'" ..."
NEW YORK CITY, New York - Retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, who served for more than two years as
the director of President Barack Obama's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), leveled explosive charges
against the President and his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an exclusive hour-long
interview with Breitbart News Daily on Friday.
Specifically, during an exclusive interview about his book
The Field of Fight , Flynn said that Obama and Clinton were not interested in hearing
intelligence that did not fit their "happy talk" narrative about the Middle East. In fact, he alleged
the administration actively scrubbed training manuals and purged from the military ranks any thinking
about the concept of radical Islamism. Flynn argued that this effort by Obama, Clinton and others
to reduce the intelligence community to gathering only facts that the senior administration officials
wanted to hear-rather than what they needed to hear-helped the enemy fester and grow, while weakening
the United States on the world stage.
"The administration has basically denied the fact that we have this problem with 'Radical Islamists,'"
Flynn said during the interview. "And this is a very vicious, barbaric enemy and I recognize in the
book that there is an alliance of countries that are dedicated basically against our way of life
and they support different groups in the Islamic movement, principally the Islamic State and formerly
Al Qaeda-although Al Qaeda still exists. The administration denied the fact that this even existed
and then told those of us in the government to basically excise the phrase 'radical Islamism' out
of our entire culture, out of our training manuals, everything. That was a big argument I had internally
and I talked a little bit about it in the Senate testimony that I gave two years back."
Later in the interview, Flynn was even more specific, calling out Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
for not wanting to hear all the facts about what was happening in the Middle East-only some of them.
"There's a narrative that the President and his team, including Hillary Clinton, wanted to
hear-instead of having the tough news or the bad news if you will that they needed to hear," Flynn
said. "Now, there's a big difference. And the one thing about intelligence is we should stand
for truth to power-meaning we should always say what we believe, and lay the facts out, lay the
tough right facts out and then you let the policymakers make the decisions that they have to make.
What has happened in the last 10 years, frankly in the last 8 years, is we have seen a level of
dishonesty coming out of both the policy and the decision making structure with the American people."
Because of the President's and the Secretary of State's-among other officials in the Obama
administration-unwillingness to hear all the facts, including ones they needed to but didn't want
to hear, Flynn says the President has presented a narrative to the American people about the war
on terrorism and radical Islamism that is simply inaccurate.
"The President has said they're jayvee, they're on the run, they're not that strong, what difference
does it make what we call-that's being totally dishonest with the American public," Flynn said.
"There's one thing that Americans are, and we're tough, resilient people but we have to be told
the truth. I think what a lot of this is, in fact what I know a lot of it is. It's a lot of happy
talk from a President who did not meet the narrative of his political ideology or his political
decision-making process to take our country in a completely different direction and frankly that's
why I'm sitting here talking to you here today, Matt. The intelligence process starts really
at the ground level, but the priorities-the priorities, Matt, for an intelligence system and the
intelligence community in our country and that's the President of the United States. "
The Obama administration's refusal to take these threats seriously and his, Flynn said, "has allowed
an enemy that is using very smart, savvy means to impact our way of life."
"That means infiltrating into refugee populations, that means conducting of smart information
operations," Flynn said. "Most people don't know but these guys have very sophisticated information
operations going on, with publications of magazines and websites. They have leaders in their groups
that have thousands and thousands-I'm talking tens of thousands of followers on social media and
Instagram and Twitter. So we are not even allowed to go after these kinds of things right
now. This is the problem-it's a big problem. In fact, if we don't change this we're going to see
this strengthening in our homeland."
Flynn also laid out how to defeat radical Islamism, a plan he has stated repeatedly that the Obama
Administration has ignored.
"The very first thing is we have to clearly define the enemy and we have to get our own house
in order, which this administration has not done," Flynn said. "We have to figure out how are
we going to organize ourselves. Then I call for in the book a new 21st century alliance. This
is where we really come to how we take the Arab community to task on how they plan to fix this
cancerous disease inside of their own body that has metastasized and grown exponentially over
the last five or six years and certainly actually over the last eight to 10 years. So it's one
thing to go after the ideology, just like we went after Communism for 40 years , but I also
say in the book we have to crush this enemy wherever they exist. We cannot allow them to have
any safe haven. We are dancing around the sort of head of a pin, when we know these guys are in
certain places around the world and our military is not allowed to go in there and get them. The
'mother may I' has to go all the way back up to the White House."
He said the fight has to be very similar to how the United States, over decades, thoroughly degraded
Communism on the world stage.
"There's no enemy that's unbeatable," Flynn said. "We can beat any enemy. We put our minds
to it, we decide to do that, we can beat any enemy. And there's no ideology in the world that's
better than the American ideology. We should not allow, because they mask themselves behind the
religion of Islam, we should not allow our ideology, our way of life, our system of principles,
our values that are based on a Judeo-Christian set that comes right out of our Constitution-we
should not fear that. In fact, we should fight those that try to impose a different way of life
on us. That's what we did against the Nazis, that's what we did against the Communists for the
better part of a half a century-in fact, more than half a century. Now we are dealing with another
Ism, and that's radical Islamism, and we're going to have to fight it-and we're going to be fighting
it for some time. But tactically we can defeat this enemy quickly. Then what we have to do is
we have to fight the ideology, and we can do that diplomatically, politically, informationally
and we can do that in very, very smart ways much greater than we're doing right now."
Flynn is a lifelong Democrat, and again served in this senior Obama administration position for
more than two years, but is now publicly supporting Republican nominee Donald Trump for president.
He spoke at the Republican National Convention in support of Trump, and has been publicly speaking
out in favor of the GOP nominee for some time now.
"My role as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency-that's almost a 20,000 person organization
in 140 plus countries around the world," Flynn said. "I was also the senior military and intelligence
officer not only for the Defense Department but for the country. So I mean I was basically told
'hey, you know what, what you're saying we don't like. So you're out.' To Donald Trump, though,
and I haven't known him that long but I met him a year ago-in fact a year ago this month. The
conversation that we had, which was an amazing conversation, I found a guy that like I to say,
'he gets it.' He gets it. He is a street savvy strategic leader type person who has a vision
for this country, and he's turned it into this phrase of 'Make America Great Again.'"
... ... ...
LISTEN TO LT. GEN. MICHAEL FLYNN ON BREITBART NEWS DAILY ON SIRIUSXM 125 THE PATRIOT CHANNEL:
"... With Huma becoming a lightening rod of the whole access issue, the cynical part of me figures this is not an ill timed, but well timed family tragedy with a sympathetic hard working mistreated wife… ..."
"... It isn't that it happened. It is the timing. ..."
"... Oh for heaven's sake! Clearly the man is compulsive, he will never stop. And he is willing to risk job, career and family for his addiction. Kudos to Huma for putting the well-being of her child first and leaving him sort out his addiction by himself .! ..."
"... "I think it's a little – it's often a little more challenging when you're in politics because your private life, and I think everybody craves their own privacy, and so I think your private life is displayed to the world in a way that you otherwise wouldn't have to deal with if one spouse is a private person and the other person's in politics as was the case certainly in my marriage," Abedin said. ..."
"... "But I think it works if you fully support each other." During the podcast, she mentioned she is on out on the campaign trail a lot of the time and her husband helps to care for her son. " I have a four-year-old son and I don't think I could do this if I didn't have the support of a spouse who is willing to basically be a stay-at- home dad as much as he possibly can so I'm able to be on the road," Abedin said. ..."
"... "I miss my son but I don't worry about him because I know between this little village we've created between Anthony and my in-laws and my mom and our families and this wonderful woman who we have helping us I can go out and be the best professional woman that I can be because I have that support." ..."
With Huma becoming a lightening rod of the whole access issue, the cynical part of me figures
this is not an ill timed, but well timed family tragedy with a sympathetic hard working mistreated
wife…
I mean if the mayoral campaign blowup of his career comeback for the same issues… (done on
camera no less).
No, it isn't beyond credulity. I never said he didn't do it. But apparently this has been going
on since last year with a woman he has never met. And unless I missed something, she leaked this.
Why out this now? Other times he goofed and it was public, OR was done to upset his comeback weak
though it might have been. But why now? At some point in the next few days some advantage for
the woman may change my mind, but otherwise it is very convenient.
Read the comments on the little Abedin story, and one has to conclude that our species is mostly
Fokked. I particularly like this one:
Oh for heaven's sake! Clearly the man is compulsive, he will never stop. And he is willing
to risk job, career and family for his addiction. Kudos to Huma for putting the well-being
of her child first and leaving him sort out his addiction by himself .!
Which follows this text from the article:
"I think it's a little – it's often a little more challenging when you're in politics
because your private life, and I think everybody craves their own privacy, and so I think your
private life is displayed to the world in a way that you otherwise wouldn't have to deal with
if one spouse is a private person and the other person's in politics as was the case certainly
in my marriage," Abedin said.
"But I think it works if you fully support each other."
During the podcast, she mentioned she is on out on the campaign trail a lot of the time
and her husband helps to care for her son.
" I have a four-year-old son and I don't think I could do this if I didn't have
the support of a spouse who is willing to basically be a stay-at- home dad as much as he possibly
can so I'm able to be on the road," Abedin said.
"I miss my son but I don't worry about him because I know between this little village
we've created between Anthony and my in-laws and my mom and our families and this wonderful
woman who we have helping us I can go out and be the best professional woman that I can be
because I have that support."
Big Jim Thompson, former US Attorney in Chicago and former Governor of Illinois, got married
to a former assistant US attorney and a child was somehow produced. Little Samantha was, like
the marriage from the gossip I heard and pontificating in the papers, just popped out to scotch
rumors about Thompson's polarity.
The salient part of the tale is that while Thompson was out campaigning with his spouse, with
Baby Samantha in tow, neither parent noticed that the kid was, like, seriously sick, fever as
I recall of over 104 degrees, and some brave campaign worker had to do the parenting thing and
see the kid got medical attention.
Reported that Thompson et ux were irked that this threw the campaign schedule off. Did not
keep him from getting elected… This guy was also on the "9/11 Commission," and has lots of other
notable corruption connection credentials:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Thompson
One claim to fame was obtaining conviction of former Governor Otto Kerner for public corruption,
taking race track stock for helping the track owners get more racing dates. Chief witness was
Marge Everett, attorney for the racetrack corporation. She got disbarred in IL, so Thompson flew
her personally to CA and testified on her behalf before the "fitness committee" of the CA bar,
that she was an upright moral person fit to be admitted to the CA bar. Shortly after, as I recall,
ol' Marge got in trouble for peddling stock and other valuables to the CA officials who oversaw
the doling out of racing dates (ka-ching!) to her new client, a CA racetrack corporation…
"I have a four-year-old son and I don't think I could do this if I didn't have the support
of a spouse who is willing to basically be a stay-at- home dad as much as he possibly can so
I'm able to be on the road," Abedin said.
With Basic Income, maybe she can stay home as well…
"... If we believe the mainstream media and the Establishment it protects and promotes, Trump has no chance of winning the presidential election. For starters, Trump supporters are all Confederate-flag waving hillbillies, bigots, fascists and misogynists. In other words. "good people" can't possibly vote for Trump. Even cartoon character Mike Doonesbury is fleeing to Vancouver to escape Trump_vs_deep_state. (Memo to the Doonesbury family: selling your Seattle home will barely net the down payment on a decent crib in Vancouver.). For another, Trump alienates the entire planet every time he speaks. The list goes on, of course, continuing with his lack of qualifications. ..."
"... But suppose this election isn't about Trump or Hillary at all. Suppose, as political scientists Allan J. Lichtman and Ken DeCell claimed in their 1988 book, Thirteen Keys to the Presidency , that all presidential elections from 1860 to the present are referendums on the sitting president and his party. ..."
"... Author/historian Robert W. Merry sorts through the 13 analytic keys in the current issue of The American Conservative magazine and concludes they "could pose bad news for Clinton." ..."
Based on this analytic structure, Trump may not just win the election in November--he might
win by a landslide.
If we believe the mainstream media and the Establishment it protects and promotes, Trump has
no chance of winning the presidential election. For starters, Trump supporters are all Confederate-flag
waving hillbillies, bigots, fascists and misogynists. In other words. "good people" can't possibly
vote for Trump. Even cartoon character Mike Doonesbury is fleeing to Vancouver to escape Trump_vs_deep_state. (Memo to the
Doonesbury family: selling your Seattle home will barely net the down payment on a decent crib in
Vancouver.). For another, Trump alienates the entire planet every time he speaks. The list goes on, of course, continuing with his lack of qualifications.
But suppose this election isn't about Trump or Hillary at all. Suppose, as political scientists
Allan J. Lichtman and Ken DeCell claimed in their 1988 book,
Thirteen Keys to the Presidency , that all presidential elections from 1860 to the present are
referendums on the sitting president and his party.
If the public views the sitting president's second term favorably, the candidate from his party
will win the election. If the public views the sitting president's second term unfavorably, the candidate
from the other party will win the election.
Author/historian Robert W. Merry sorts through the 13 analytic keys in the current issue of
The American
Conservative magazine and concludes they "could pose bad news for Clinton."
If five or fewer are negative for the incumbent, the incumbent party will win the election. If
six or more are negative, the incumbent party loses the election. Merry counts eight negatives for
President Obama's second term, which if true spells defeat for the Clinton ticket.
"... The Clinton campaign has deliberately positioned its response as an offensive boomerang rather than a rebuttal: Don't defend against the attacks, just redirect fire at the messenger ..."
"... But the politics are made harder amid the drip-drip revelations from the newly released emails demonstrating the messy overlap between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, which leave even many Clinton-inclined voters wondering what she was really up to and why it's so hard for her to explain it. ..."
The Clinton campaign has deliberately positioned its response as an offensive boomerang rather
than a rebuttal: Don't defend against the attacks, just redirect fire at the messenger. "It holds
up a mirror to Donald Trump and what his campaign is about, and says everything you need to know
about Donald Trump and where these kinds of crazy conspiracy theories are coming from," as one
campaign aide put it.
... ... ...
But the politics are made harder amid the drip-drip revelations from the newly released emails
demonstrating the messy overlap between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, which
leave even many Clinton-inclined voters wondering what she was really up to and why it's so hard
for her to explain it.
"... The media's obsession with reporting every drop of saliva to emerge from Donald Trump's mouth for the last year and a half, accompanied by requisite pearl clutching and gasps of offense, wasn't done by accident. Instead, it was a carefully planned campaign to set the bulk of the American populace up to automatically discard any criticism of the Clinton Cult without question ..."
"... What all that does accomplish, however, is generate the mindset that is now terrifying in its willingness to completely ignore any and all facts that the Clinton Foundation is a huge money-laundering organization. ..."
The media's obsession with reporting every drop of saliva to emerge from
Donald Trump's mouth for the last year and a half, accompanied by requisite
pearl clutching and gasps of offense, wasn't done by accident. Instead, it was
a carefully planned campaign to set the bulk of the American populace up to
automatically discard any criticism of the Clinton Cult without question
,
because the Cultists use the language and connections that have been inserted
into the national psyche as being Trump-related.
So, having made a great fuss over how Trump admires Putin, and spreading the
theme that Putin would love to have Trump in the Oval Office, they then embrace
with enthusiasm the contention of the DNC that their databases were "hacked by
Russians, probably at the behest of government agencies," even though there was
no possible way that could have been determined if, as they contend, they
weren't aware of the hack until just a few months ago. Oh, and it helps if you
believe Russian intelligence agencies are going to hire hackers stupid enough
to all but leave their names and addresses around to be "discovered."
What all that does accomplish, however, is generate the mindset that is
now terrifying in its willingness to completely ignore any and all facts that
the Clinton Foundation is a huge money-laundering organization.
I have
seen people who take great pride in their skepticism dismiss the multiple
articles exposing the corruption as "unfounded rubbish." I've been told the AP
article is "a farce." Point them to articles by qualified professionals showing
the utter absence of any proof the Clinton Foundation is a philanthropic
organization for anyone but the people it's named for, and the dismissal is
abrupt and total.
I don't know if it's cultism or just that people know she's going to be
elected and don't want to think about the consequences, but the vast number of
those who won't even consider shenanigans is appalling. It's all part of that
Republican conspiracy, and that's all they care to know.
Hillary Clinton's pay-for-play scandal is threatening to derail her campaign.
Public outrage follows revelations that the Foundation took foreign cash during
Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, that Clinton aide Huma Abedin was
helping Foundation donors get favors and access from the State Department, and
that Clinton aide Cheryl Mills was doing assignments for the Clinton Foundation
while on the State Department payroll.
In a letter Monday to Foundation president Donna Shalala, Priebus demands
transparency.
"I am writing to you to call on the Clinton Foundation and all of the entities
under its umbrella to release all correspondence its officials had with the State
Department during Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state," Priebus added.
As I am sure you are well aware, a spate of recent news reports involving
the Clinton Foundation's relationship with the Clinton State Department has
renewed serious concerns about conflicts of interest and whether donors to the
foundation benefitted from official acts under then-Secretary Clinton.
"It isn't just "suspicious." It's influence peddling, which is corrupt
by definition. And there's a whole infrastructure, institutional and technical, to support it." Lambert Strether of
Corrente.
Notable quotes:
"... here you have Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton having this Clinton Foundation, with billions of dollars pouring into it from some of the world's worst tyrannies ..."
"... Bill and Hillary Clinton are being personally enriched by those same people, doing speeches, for many hundreds of thousands of dollars, in front of them, at the same time that she's running the State Department, getting ready to run for president, and soon will be running the executive branch. ..."
"... the problem here is that the Clintons have essentially become the pioneers of eliminating all of these lines, of amassing massive wealth from around the world, and using that to boost their own political power, and then using that political power to boost the interests of the people who are enriching them in all kinds of ways. ..."
[W]hat Donna Brazile said in that video that you played is nothing short of laughable. It's not
questioned when Republicans do favors for their donors? Of course it is. In fact, it's been a core,
central critique of the Democratic Party, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, for years, that
Republicans are corrupt because they serve the interest of their big donors. One of the primary positions
of the Democratic Party is that the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court has corrupted politics
because it allows huge money to flow into the political process in a way that ensures, or at least
creates the appearance, that people are doing favors for donors.
And so, here you have Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton having this Clinton Foundation, with billions
of dollars pouring into it from some of the world's worst tyrannies, like Saudi Arabia and the United
Arab Emirates and Qatar and other Gulf states, other people who have all kinds of vested interests
in the policies of the United States government. And at the same time, in many cases, both Bill and
Hillary Clinton are being personally enriched by those same people, doing speeches, for many hundreds
of thousands of dollars, in front of them, at the same time that she's running the State Department,
getting ready to run for president, and soon will be running the executive branch. …
And so, the problem here is that the Clintons have essentially become the pioneers of eliminating
all of these lines, of amassing massive wealth from around the world, and using that to boost their
own political power, and then using that political power to boost the interests of the people who
are enriching them in all kinds of ways. And of course questions need to be asked, and suspicions
are necessarily raised, because this kind of behavior is inherently suspicious. And it needs a lot
of media scrutiny and a lot of attention, and I'm glad it's getting that.
Huffington Post reporter David Seaman terminated for questioning Hillary's
health
David Seaman says he was terminated by Huffington Post late Sunday night for
submitting an article that questioned Hillary's health and for linking to a
Paul Joseph Watson video that's been watched by over 3.5 million people.
In the following video, it's obvious the reporter fears for his life, as he
mentions several times that he's not suicidal or depressed or clumsy in any
way.
It looks like he made this video in case he disappears or has "an accident"
some time in the near future:
Josef Stalin speech, March 3, 1937; In its confidential letter of July
29, 1936, on the espionage-terrorist activities of the
Trotskyist-Zinovievist bloc, the Central Committee of the RKP once again
called upon Party organizations to display the utmost vigilance, the ability
to discern enemies of the people, no matter how well masked they may be. The
confidential letter stated:
"Now that it has been proved that the Trotskyist-Zinovievist fiends are
uniting in the struggle against Soviet power, all the most infuriated and
vicious enemies of the toilers of our country-the spies, provocateurs,
diversionists, whiteguards, kulaks, and so on; when all boundaries have been
obliterated between these elements on the one hand and the Trotskyists and
Zinovievists on the other; all of our Party organizations and all members of
the Party must understand that vigilance on the part of Communists is
imperative on every sector and under all circumstances. The inalienable
quality of every Bolshevik under present conditions must be the ability to
discern an enemy of the Party, no matter how well masked he may be."
Dr. Drew was fired from CNN for questioning her healthcare into question.
Deep vein thrombosis and hypothyroidism are a concern for a presidential
candidate of her age. DVT is a concern since managing clots is difficult. NC
covered this issue recently so I'll be on my way.
"... people need to realize what they read is not the truth.. words can and are used to deceive... propaganda seems to be one of the central roles of all media at this point in time... folks need to beware of this.. ..."
"... Mark Twain said that if you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed. ..."
"... Do not pay attention to the fact the emperor has no clothes. Just look at this other guy!" ..."
"... Will we USAians ever wake up to 9/11 => Afghanistan => Iraq => Libya => Syria => Ukraine => Yemen ... ..."
"... How many innocents have 'our' emperors - Bush XLI, Clinton XLII, Bush XLIII, Obama XLIV, coming soon? Clinton XLV - killed in the runup to and execution of series of criminal aggressions post-9/11? Two million? If Clinton sets the world on fire the numbers will rise by two orders of magnitude. ..."
"... There have been rumours that the US government was helping to bankroll certain social media companies in return for access. I would say that the US government will step in and potentially rescue NYT and the like from being closed down. They serve an intrinsic and important service to the elite. They will not abandon it. ..."
"... The CIA has bankrolled many startups ... maybe they could take out ads for Raytheon and General Atomic products, run US military/CIA recruitment ads? Pay for placement of articles like Mark Sleboda 's, 'The Turkish Invasion Of Syria As Path To "Regime Change"'? ..."
"... The NYTimes going bellyup ... happened to the Washington Post and the WSJ. Maybe Eric Schmidt will buy it? Or Rupert Murdoch. ..."
"... I wonder if the CIA bankrolled Rupert Murdoch? The CIA took out a $500 million data storage contract with Amazon just before Bezos bought the WaPo. Come to think of it, having control of the WaPo, WSJ, and NYTimes archives would be just what Dr. Orwell ordered. Mark Sleboda could then work for the MiniTrue, revising the past as required. ..."
"... Like all psychopaths, they have a one-track mind that doesn't allow an effective strategy when it comes to bipedal meat units. Their answer to convincing you of their lies is to proffer more outrageous lies. It's kind of like the newspapers fighting declining advertising revenue by making the print smaller, stuffing the paper with more ads at higher rates and raising the price for a printed newspaper. Damn it, why won't you monkeys OBEY! ..."
"... That's an excellent point, b. I don't even remember the last time I've read anything truthful in any western MSM outlet. Almost everything is a spin of various degree. NYT is one of worst offenders, so another lying piece is not at all surprising. ..."
"... From the Wikipedia article Factoid : The term was coined in 1973 by American writer Norman Mailer to mean a "piece of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it's not actually true, or an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print." ..."
"... This is a basic tool of Western mainstream propaganda. Sprinkle every article full of "factoids" or small lies. These lies are not about the core topic of article, so they are unlikely to be challenged. Their only purpose is to enforce the narrative and demonize the enemy. When small lies or "lielets" are repeated often enough, they become factoids, meaning that they are no longer recognized as lies. ..."
The New York Times is desperate for new readers and therefore tries to branch into the
realm of The Onion and other satirical sites. It attempts to show that allegedly Russia
controlled media spread false stories for political purpose - by providing a false media story. The
purpose of the NYT doing such is yours to guess.
The sourcing of
that Page 1 story is as weak as its content. It starts with claiming that opponents of Sweden
joining NATO must be somehow Russia related and are spreading false stories:
As often happens in such cases, Swedish officials were never able to pin down the source of the
false reports.
Duh! But it must have been Russia. Because Swedish internal opposition to joining NATO would be
incapable of opining against it. Right? Likewise anti-EU reports and opposition to the EU within
the Czech Republic MUST be caused by Russian disinformation and can in now way be related to mismanagement
of the EU project itself.
The sourcing for the whole long pamphlet is extremely weak:
But they, numerous analysts and experts in American and European intelligence
point to Russia as the prime suspect, noting that preventing NATO expansion is a centerpiece of
the foreign policy of President Vladimir V. Putin, who invaded Georgia in 2008
largely to forestall that possibility.
Whoa! "Experts in American and European intelligence" can of course be trusted not to ever spread
false stories or rumors about Russia influencing "news". Such truth tellers they are and have always
been.
Then follows, in a claim about false stories(!) spread by Russia, that factually false claim that
Russia "invaded Georgia in 2008". It was obvious in the very first hours of the Georgia war,
as we then noted
, that Georgia started it. A European Union commission later
confirmed that it was
Georgia, incited by the Bush government, that started the war. The NYT itself
found
the same . All Russia did was to protect the areas of South Ossetia and Abchazia that it was
officially designated to protect by the United Nations! No invasion of Georgia took place.
And what was the alleged reason that Russia "invaded" Georgia for? "Largely to forestall".."NATO
expansion"? But it was NATO that
rejected Georgia's membership
in April 2008. Why then would Russia "invade" Georgia in August 2008 to prevent a membership
that was surely not gonna happen?
Utter a-historic nonsense.
The who tale, written by Neil MacFarquhar
, is a long list of hearsay where Russia is claimed to have influenced news but without
ever showing any evidence.
the extensive cooperation between the New York Times and the CIA with spying as well as with
manipulating foreign news
the acknowledged spreading of false stories about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq an behalf
of the Bush administration by the NY Times itself.
As Carl Bernstein
described in his
book about the CIA and the media:
Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the [Central Intelligence] Agency were
Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times
, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal,
and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA
include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press,
United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the
Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune.
By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been
with the New York Times , CBS and Time Inc.
Bernstein shows that the NYT cooperation with the U.S. government and its intelligence agencies
was very extensive and continues uninterrupted up to today.
To lament about alleged Russian influence on some news outlets while writing a disinformation
filled piece, based on "experts in American and European intelligence", for an outlet with proven
CIA cooperation in faking news, is way beyond hypocrisy.
Through this piece the NYT becomes its own parody. Did the author and editors recognize that?
Or are they too self-unconscious for even such simple insight?
Posted by b on August 29, 2016 at 11:04 AM |
Permalink
thanks b... people need to realize what they read is not the truth.. words can and are used
to deceive... propaganda seems to be one of the central roles of all media at this point in time...
folks need to beware of this..
Although, NYT, is bleeding and is losing audience, I am amazed that it is still in print. The
Guardian is posting loss in millions of pounds, and that is what I expect NYT to be doing.
"Do not pay attention to the fact the emperor has no clothes. Just look at this other guy!" That
seems to be the official US opinion on Russia as expressed by the Clinton campaign, the NYT, and
the other usual suspects purveying official US propaganda.
An amusing thing about the NYT's is the most-emailed/read lists, which are almost always well
represented by articles such as "what to cook this weekend" and "48hrs in Tulsa." This is often
despite the steady stream of heady world events. My take is that most readers of the Times want
to be seen/known as Times readers, but would really prefer to be reading tabloids. The difference
is becoming less obvious by the day.
One small quibble with this: But it was NATO that rejected Georgia's membership in April 2008.
. That April meeting did not really reject Georgia's membership. The discussion was just postponed
to a later meeting. It wasn't until after Russia thrashed Georgia in August that the US took the
membership issue off the table.
@3 wbl, "Do not pay attention to the fact the emperor has no clothes. Just look at this other
guy!"
That's the answer isn't it?
Will we USAians ever wake up to 9/11 => Afghanistan => Iraq => Libya => Syria => Ukraine
=> Yemen ...
How many innocents have 'our' emperors - Bush XLI, Clinton XLII, Bush XLIII, Obama XLIV,
coming soon? Clinton XLV - killed in the runup to and execution of series of criminal aggressions
post-9/11? Two million? If Clinton sets the world on fire the numbers will rise by two orders
of magnitude.
Don't look at Trump! Don't look at Me! Look at Vladimir, behind the tree!
Ya gotta wanna believe. How many USAians still wanna believe?
There have been rumours that the US government was helping to bankroll certain social media
companies in return for access. I would say that the US government will step in and potentially
rescue NYT and the like from being closed down. They serve an intrinsic and important service
to the elite. They will not abandon it.
It's been amusing to watch this electoral season as the Times has dropped all pretense of objectivity.
While actual news accounts continue to lightly pepper the broadsheet, the headlines, article placement
and, most importantly, what falls before and after the fold is so transparently partisan one is
increasingly startled to find well reported and honest journalism.
I remember back in the first Intifada when Abe Rosenthal had Palestinian youth throwing soviet
made rocks while he glossed Sabra and Shatila massacres. The Times was pretty "Onion"y then, but
the political coverage this year makes me weep for my country as what little good left in it chokes
on growing torrents of BS, obfuscation, prevarication and bombast.
The CIA has bankrolled many startups ... maybe they could take out ads for Raytheon and
General Atomic products, run US military/CIA recruitment ads? Pay for placement of articles like
Mark Sleboda 's, 'The Turkish Invasion Of Syria As Path To "Regime Change"'?
The NYTimes going bellyup ... happened to the Washington Post and the WSJ. Maybe Eric Schmidt
will buy it? Or Rupert Murdoch.
I wonder if the CIA bankrolled Rupert Murdoch? The CIA took out a $500 million data storage
contract with Amazon just before Bezos bought the WaPo. Come to think of it, having control of
the WaPo, WSJ, and NYTimes archives would be just what Dr. Orwell ordered. Mark Sleboda could
then work for the MiniTrue, revising the past as required.
jsn@12: do you really think that objectivity of NYT exhibits seasonal variation? Like neutral
to positive stories about Russia between Easter and Passover, and a more usual dreck for the rest
of the year?
There is still difference between NYT and tabloids. This is the most recent article in NY Post
about Russia in NY Post:
Putin is gobbling up whatever he can – while Obama does nothing
By Benny Avni August 17, 2016 | 8:22pm.
As Americans focus on who'll replace President Obama, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin marches
around the globe unabated, rushing to gobble up anything and everything he can before the new
president...
Are we already in the second of the four stages to victory?
I don't know much about the MSM, and even less about H. Clinton, but what was that all about
with the speech she made concerning the "alt-right"? Who in their right mind would bring to the
mainstream attention the existence of a body of contradictory writing?
Is it the same thing here with NYT? Is the sheer prevalence of opposing opinion from its readers
forcing the MSM - led by flagship NYT - to turn and address the phenomenon?
I could not have dared to hope we could already be at stage 2:
First they ignore you.
Then they ridicule you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
--Gandhi
Grieved@17 - I'm going to argue we're at stage 2.5, Grieved. DDOS attacks on RT and Sputnik, 'managed'
Google search rankings, censored tweets, NSA on your desktop/cellphone. The powers that be and
western MSM are having a conniption fit and they are very angry.
Like all psychopaths, they have a one-track mind that doesn't allow an effective strategy
when it comes to bipedal meat units. Their answer to convincing you of their lies is to proffer
more outrageous lies. It's kind of like the newspapers fighting declining advertising revenue
by making the print smaller, stuffing the paper with more ads at higher rates and raising the
price for a printed newspaper. Damn it, why won't you monkeys OBEY!
Piotr@14,
The season to which I refer is, as I said, the electoral one!
The Times blows (or is it sucks?) very much with the political weather, though regretfully
our elections now blow for long enough to constitute multiple seasons proper.
I've long suspected that light seasoning of truth they sprinkle beneath the fold or deep inside
is there so that when the bogosity of one of their major narratives periodically explodes they
can scrape thin truths from the back pages and later paragraphs to claim the've been reporting
the truth all along!
That's an excellent point, b. I don't even remember the last time I've read anything truthful
in any western MSM outlet. Almost everything is a spin of various degree. NYT is one of worst
offenders, so another lying piece is not at all surprising.
Russia invading Georgia in 2008 fits the definition of factoid , as defined by Norman Mailer
in 1973:
From the Wikipedia article
Factoid : The term was coined in 1973 by American writer Norman Mailer to mean a "piece
of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it's not actually true, or an invented
fact believed to be true because it appears in print."
This is a basic tool of Western mainstream propaganda. Sprinkle every article full of "factoids"
or small lies. These lies are not about the core topic of article, so they are unlikely to be
challenged. Their only purpose is to enforce the narrative and demonize the enemy. When small
lies or "lielets" are repeated often enough, they become factoids, meaning that they are no longer
recognized as lies.
"... We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes
and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in return.
We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests.
..."
"... Barack Obama, our president, served two terms… the first black president ever… but did our
condition get better? Did financially, politically, academically with education in our community… did
things get better? Are our young people working more? ..."
"... If having the Black working community start totally hammering the Dems becomes "cool" the Dem's
are screwed for a long time. ..."
"... Obama trashed all of America, blacks and whites, while transferring millions of jobs overseas
to Bangladesh, China, Mexico, etc. ..."
... following interview with New Black Panther Quanell X requires no further commentary – he breaks
it down quite succinctly:
Let me say this to the brothers and sisters who listened and watched that speech… We may not
like the vessel [Donald Trump] that said what he said, but I ask us to truly examine what he said.
Because it is a fact that for 54 years we have been voting for the Democratic Party like no
other race in America. And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given
them. We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes
and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in
return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our
best interests.
...
I want to say and encourage the brothers and sisters… Barack Obama, our president, served
two terms… the first black president ever… but did our condition get better? Did financially,
politically, academically with education in our community… did things get better? Are our young
people working more?
I've said that repeatedly. The question for hillary isn't what does the survey show, but how many
will actually be motivated enough to go vote. They may not show up and pull the lever for trump
this go round, but they may be curious enough to see what happens to just stay home and let things
work themselves out to see what the result will be
"... Mo Elleithee, who did tours separately as a top aide to Clinton and Tim Kaine and is now executive director of the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service, is nervous that the impact will be much deeper and long lasting. ..."
"... In addition to the health questions and rigged election talk, Elleithee cited Trump's encouragement of Second Amendment voters to do something about a Clinton presidency's court appointments ..."
"... Huma Abedin should be arrested, charged with espionage, and mis-handling of classified material, and imprisoned for a long long time, according to recent email releases. ..."
"... It's deflection because she doesn't want to explain why her family foundation takes money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. ..."
"... The Saudis are buying access--not funding Clinton Foundation initiatives to help women and children. ..."
"... Horatio N. Fisk Are you saying she didn't delete e-mails and use bleaching software to try to hide her tracks? ..."
"... Classic Clinton propaganda. Are you HONESTLY trying to say she did NOTHING wrong? Then WHY is she stopping doing what she is doing IF she steals the presidency. All along Clinton has denied everything and EVERY SINGLE TIME she has been PROVEN to be a liar! She claimed she NEVER sent a classified email - you called those that said she did lunatic conspiracy theorists - turns out YOU WERE LYING! ..."
"... If ever a person was so obviously unfit to hold the office of POTUS - it's Clinton. Indeed James Comey said anyone else who did what she did would NEVER be able to hols ANY government office, and would either be in jail or minimum sacked. ..."
"... SHAME ON YOU for doing your Josepg Goebbels act. The innocent blood she is GUARANTEED to spill will be on the hands of every single person who votes for that war criminal ..."
"... Hillary is fit to be president? Based on what? Her accomplishments? Her ability to properly handle classified data? Her ability to lie? Being beholden to her big donors from Wall Street, Foreign Countries, shady sources, who made her a 1%er? ..."
"... No one has to de-legitimize Clinton. She's done a fine job all by herself! She lied to the faces of geiving parents, infront of the coffins containing the remains of their loved ones. She lied to the American people, over and over, about her server and the emails she "turned over". She lied to Congress about those same subjects ..."
"... She refuses to give a press conference where the questions are not scripted for her. She used her "Charitable Foundation" to sell access to the State Dep, let people like Bloomenthal decide what decisions she made as Sec State. She panders to blacks, treating them like children. You Go Hillary! Keep making the case for how unfit for office you are! ..."
"... Sure, Mr Trump is not a polished highly trained politician, and ends up very often with foot in mouth disease. But Donald J Trump single-handedly defeated the totally corrupt Republican establishment, and ripped the nomination out of their hands. ..."
"... Those treasonous RINO (especially the warmonger NeoCons) political hacks are still screaming, and the GOP is self-destructing before our eyes. They are fleeing in panic to the sinking, burning SS Clinton, as the establishment newsmedia desperately tries to hide the self-destructing, dying Hillary from the public. Good riddance; ..."
"... Too funny...Hillary hides from the press and the only thing she has got is to make Trump look like a deranged psychopath. That's all she has. She has already waffled on TPP because of Trump. She has not been forced to reckon with her own immigration policies or how she will deal with the refugee crisis. ..."
"... I'm an Independent, I march to my own beat. That said, as a US militay veteran and having served honorably in the United States Marine Corps, in a term I'm sure fellow veterans can understand... "Hillary Rodham Clinton is a scumbag." I'm voting for Dr. Jill Stein on November 8, 2016. ..."
"... Donald Trump really doesn't have to do very much at this point to impune Hillary Clinton 's reputation. She has already done that to herself. Her actions are indefensible and all he has to do is remind people of it and convince the idiots who keep defending her and can't see her crimes that are right in front of their faces. She has lied to us and Congress, concealed her crimes and sold us out time and time again for her own personal gain. ..."
The Clinton delegitimization project is now central to Donald Trump's campaign and such a prime
component of right-wing media that it's already seeped beyond extremist chat rooms into "lock her
up" chants on the convention floor, national news stories debating whether polls actually can be
rigged, and voters puzzling over that photo they think they saw of her needing to be carried up the
stairs.
The Clinton campaign has deliberately positioned its response as an offensive boomerang rather
than a rebuttal: Don't defend against the attacks, just redirect fire at the messenger. "It holds
up a mirror to Donald Trump and what his campaign is about, and says everything you need to know
about Donald Trump and where these kinds of crazy conspiracy theories are coming from," as one campaign
aide put it.
But the Democrat's team is aware of how this might factor in beyond November.
"Some of the campaign and allies' conspiracies are designed to delegitimize her personally. Most
are simply designed to spread fear and mistrust. And I am sure if she wins, the right wing will continue
to spread these theories," said Clinton senior adviser Jennifer Palmieri. Palmieri is in favor of
ignoring most of the wackiness but warned: "Just because they may have zero basis in truth doesn't
mean they can't be corrosive. So in this cycle I believe you have to call out the truly destructive
theories calmly, but aggressively, and in real time."
... ... ...
For days, Clinton campaign officials purposefully ignored questions coming at them from the Trump-intertwined
Breitbart News about her health, according to an aide. But after Fox News host Sean Hannity devoted
an episode of his show to a Clinton rumor medical panel, complete with an eager-to-please urologist
in a white coat, they shifted gears: a long release emailed to reporters two weeks ago with sourced
debunkings of all the rumors and a statement from her doctor attesting that supposedly leaked medical
records were forged.
... ... ...
Mo Elleithee, who did tours separately as a top aide to Clinton and Tim Kaine and is now executive
director of the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service, is nervous that the impact will
be much deeper and long lasting.
... ... ...
In addition to the health questions and rigged election talk, Elleithee cited Trump's encouragement
of Second Amendment voters to do something about a Clinton presidency's court appointments and
Trump adviser Roger Stone's suggestion of bloodshed if Trump loses.
Original unedited comments. Red bold/italic emphasis is mine
Mike
Davis
How does one poison a black widow spider? Hillary Clinton is already poison.
She and Slick have been poison for four decades.
It is Obama and Clinton wanting to bring radical Islam jihadists here to America. There is no
possible way to screen them at present. Even HS has no clue how to screen terrorists out and admit
so. Huma Abedin should be arrested, charged with espionage, and mis-handling of classified material,
and imprisoned for a long long time, according to recent email releases. Of course, losing her
radical Islam lover, might be too much for the sickened Hillary to withstand.
Donald J Trump wants to keep radical Islam sharia law jihadists out, along with other criminals,
drug dealers, who would endanger the innocent Americans. You liberals support the criminal dying
Clinton; therefore you support her policies, including the middle-class wrecking ball TPP and
NAFTA.
It's deflection because she doesn't want to explain why her family foundation
takes money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Doing so would weaken her credibility as a human
rights champion. The Saudis are buying access--not funding Clinton Foundation initiatives
to help women and children. We should be scrutinizing our arms sales to oppressive regimes
like Saudi Arabia and standing up for human rights. Not taking money when it is convenient, selling
our best weapons to dictatorships, and then pretending the rest of the world believes we are some
City on a Hill human rights champions.
Thus the dilemma for the gutless Dems, attack the character of Trump while
defending the 100% lack of character of the email deleting, ambassador murdering money laundering
lying under oath criminal piece of shit..
Good luck with that..
Horatio N. Fisk · Works at Writer, Gadfly
Good luck with proving any of what you said;. You can't
David J. Lekse · Indianapolis, Indiana
Horatio N. Fisk Are you saying she didn't delete e-mails and use bleaching software to
try to hide her tracks?
Paul Marston · Works at Self-Employed
Classic Clinton propaganda. Are you HONESTLY trying to say she did NOTHING wrong? Then
WHY is she stopping doing what she is doing IF she steals the presidency. All along Clinton has
denied everything and EVERY SINGLE TIME she has been PROVEN to be a liar! She claimed she NEVER
sent a classified email - you called those that said she did lunatic conspiracy theorists - turns
out YOU WERE LYING!
The sheer contempt you and all the other Clinton drones have for the American public is genuinely
sickening. It has been PROVEN she rigged the primaries - and had to sack 5 staff for it, yet Clinton
claims she did nothing wrong.
If ever a person was so obviously unfit to hold the office of POTUS - it's Clinton. Indeed
James Comey said anyone else who did what she did would NEVER be able to hols ANY government office,
and would either be in jail or minimum sacked.
SHAME ON YOU for doing your Josepg Goebbels act. The innocent blood she is GUARANTEED to spill
will be on the hands of every single person who votes for that war criminal
Bob Rousseau
Pretty pathetic when the do nothing, low IQ Republicans have to resort to conspiracy theories
and lies to win elected office. If their voters werent so stupid and toxic, conspiracy theories
would be immediately identified for what they are; right wing garbage.
Marlin Johnson
Hillary is fit to be president? Based on what? Her accomplishments? Her ability to properly
handle classified data? Her ability to lie? Being beholden to her big donors from Wall Street,
Foreign Countries, shady sources, who made her a 1%er?
Not securing the Mexican border so illegal aliens can continue to flood in to be exploited
with low paying jobs, burdening social service budgets and taking American jobs? By allowing 550,000
unvetted Syrian refugees enter our country risking that some may be ISIS? Or having Bill back
in the White House seeking sexual favors from young interns? Of course you would mind if it were
your daughter working as an intern. And Hillary can launch vicious personal character attacks
against the victims of Bill's sexual assaults.
Wayne Barron
No one has to de-legitimize Clinton. She's done a fine job all by herself! She lied to
the faces of geiving parents, infront of the coffins containing the remains of their loved ones.
She lied to the American people, over and over, about her server and the emails she "turned over".
She lied to Congress about those same subjects.
She refuses to give a press conference where the questions are not scripted for her. She
used her "Charitable Foundation" to sell access to the State Dep, let people like Bloomenthal
decide what decisions she made as Sec State. She panders to blacks, treating them like children.
You Go Hillary! Keep making the case for how unfit for office you are!
Mike Davis
Sure, Mr Trump is not a polished highly trained politician, and ends up very often with
foot in mouth disease. But Donald J Trump single-handedly defeated the totally corrupt Republican
establishment, and ripped the nomination out of their hands.
Those treasonous RINO (especially the warmonger NeoCons) political hacks are still screaming,
and the GOP is self-destructing before our eyes. They are fleeing in panic to the sinking, burning
SS Clinton, as the establishment newsmedia desperately tries to hide the self-destructing, dying
Hillary from the public. Good riddance; thank you Mr Trump.
Tammy McKinnon · Florida State University
Too funny...Hillary hides from the press and the only thing she has got is to make Trump
look like a deranged psychopath. That's all she has. She has already waffled on TPP because of
Trump. She has not been forced to reckon with her own immigration policies or how she will deal
with the refugee crisis.
Not much about terror either. She released a tax plan but that is meaningless piece of paper
that all candidates put out there..you must get Congress on your side and Republicans will not
go for increases.
Then there is her free public college plan. Obamacare is collapsing and voters are going to
see it firsthand Nov 1st (if Obama doesn't delay it until after the election)
Yeah, the wind is behind her(and the MSM)....it wasn't rosy for her at the end of July. We
were told that didn't matter ...but now it does?
Tammy McKinnon · Florida State University
Bethsabe David,
Dems have perfected unsubstantiated attacks in elections. Remember Reid saying that Romney's
tax returns showed he had paid no taxes? Remember the commercial accusing Romney of murder and
the crying husband? (big lie) Oh and the Hillary camp started the birther movement. All 'lies'
are not created equal. Hillary is dangerous.
Trump is not "loosing" (spell check is your friend Bethsabe) He was doing very well the end
on July and we still have a ways to go.
Benjamin Andrew Marine · American University
Doug Perry,
I'm an Independent, I march to my own beat. That said, as a US militay veteran and
having served honorably in the United States Marine Corps, in a term I'm sure fellow veterans
can understand... "Hillary Rodham Clinton is a scumbag." I'm voting for Dr. Jill Stein on November
8, 2016.
Michael Iger
Republicans demonize opponents its in their nature and the Clinton's have been on that long
list of enemies now for decades. We see it too with Obama and Trump's birther charges and McConnell
talking about not cooperating with the President at a price of hurting the country. Hilary, both
as a Clinton and a Democrat, is going to get a double dose in her term of office. The real loser
is the country that becomes stalemated and dysfunctional at the top which then permeates the society.
We have a dysfunction group in this country with some power and until it changes must deal with
it. With Trump's campaign of bigotry and racism that may change sooner than later as the country
wakes up to reality of the mess and its done. With stalemate very little gets done and problems
don't get solved.
Michael Welby · Owner at Self-Employed
Yeah, it is Republicans that demonize. That is why, in Reno, Hillary draped the KKK all over
trump. YOu do it too: bigot, racist.
With such warm greetings and suggesting of cooperation, what the hell do you expect. She may win
the office. She will accomplish nothing. Nothing.
Donald Trump really doesn't have to do very much at this point to impune Hillary Clinton 's reputation.
She has already done that to herself. Her actions are indefensible and all he has to do is remind
people of it and convince the idiots who keep defending her and can't see her crimes that are
right in front of their faces. She has lied to us and Congress, concealed her crimes and sold
us out time and time again for her own personal gain.
"... there's an opportunity for Trump to draw a sharp contrast with Clinton, who also has issues engaging with the press as a whole. ..."
"... "If Trump were to more broadly engage the broader media landscape, he can provide a clear contrast to Hillary Clinton, who is clearly playing a 'run out the clock' strategy with regard to the press," McCall said. ..."
Jeff McCall, a professor of media studies at Depauw University, agrees there's an opportunity
for Trump to draw a sharp contrast with Clinton, who also has issues engaging with the press as a
whole.
"If Trump were to more broadly engage the broader media landscape, he can provide a clear
contrast to Hillary Clinton, who is clearly playing a 'run out the clock' strategy with regard to
the press," McCall said.
"Trump should speak to any and all news outlets and mention during each of those interviews that
he is there to speak to the electorate while Hillary ducks the tough questioning and won't even hold
a press conference."
But a more exposed Trump, McCall said, only works if he stays on the narrative the campaign wishes
to articulate.
"If he expands his media range, but has flimsy or off-target messages, he will just contribute to
the perception that his messaging and campaign are rather untethered," he said.
"... On numerous occasions we have recognized Congress' legitimate interest in preventing the money that is spent on elections from exerting an "'undue influence on an officeholder's judgment"' and from creating "4he appearance of such influence,"' beyond the sphere of quid pro quo relationships. I ..."
"... Corruption can take many forms. Bribery may be the paradigm case. But the difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one's behalf. ..."
"... Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority's apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences docs not accord with the theory or reality of politics. ..."
On numerous occasions we have recognized Congress' legitimate interest in preventing the money that
is spent on elections from exerting an "'undue influence on an officeholder's judgment"' and from
creating "4he appearance of such influence,"' beyond the sphere of quid pro quo relationships. Id.,
at 150; see also. e.g., id., at 143-144. 152-154; Colorado II, 533 U. S.. at 441; Shrink Missouri.
528 U. S., at 389.
Corruption can take many forms. Bribery may be the paradigm case. But the difference
between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is
not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one's behalf.
Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority's apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements
can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences docs not accord with the theory or reality
of politics.
It certainly does not accord with the record Congress developed in passing BCRA. a record
that stands as a remarkable testament to the energy and ingenuity with which corporations, unions,
lobbyists, and politicians may go about scratching each other's backs - and which amply supported
Congress' determination to target a limited set of especially destructive
"... With polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton
to tailor her message for each region and for each venue. ..."
"... As I said before, this is likely something that is being fed to her by her no doubt well paid
consultants. ..."
"... Still, I have made an interesting observation that I wonder if you noticed. You presented two
charts, one with holding corporations accountable placed at the top, and the other placing decline in
manufacturing jobs at the top in the same position. ..."
"... They are the same network; point by point. I even compared them using paint and found them
to be a perfect match. The only difference is that one is negative and the other is positive. ..."
"... This completely misunderstand Clinton's approach to the Vulgar people of the United States,
which is: Insectionality, not intersectionality, that is the Vulgar People are treated as Insects. ..."
"... The only Intersection understood by Hilarity Clinton is the one between herself, money and
power. All else is irrelevant. ..."
"... Hillary is an intersectional feminist? ..."
"... As another untrained clown in intersectional feminism, I'm skeptical about Clinton, especially
reading Thomas Frank's description of the International Women's Day event at the Clinton Foundation
one year ago: ..."
"... Microlending is a perfect expression of Clintonism, since it brings together wealthy financial
interests with rhetoric that sounds outrageously idealistic. Microlending permits all manner of networking,
posturing, and profit taking among the lenders while doing nothing to change actual power relations-the
ultimate win-win." ..."
"... Wait a minute that tangle of buzz phrases connected helter-skelter by lines is a REAL post
from the Clinton campaign? Until I read the whole piece I thought it was well done satire. I guess The
Onion being bought out doesn't really matter much. In modern American politics satire now seems roughly
as difficult a task as exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum or measuring the position and velocity
of an electron simultaneously. ..."
DFA = Democracy for America. This was Howard Dean's organization and part of his 50 state strategies.
During non-campaign seasons, he sent campaign organizers touring the country giving short classes
on how to organize and manage a political campaign. They came to Wichita and it was something
to see, a lot of local Democratic office holders, some even in the State House had signed up.
One guy had held his house seat for 8 years and much of the information they were bringing was
completely new to him. Yes, a state level Democrat had won 4 election cycles without even knowing
the basics. This was the state of the Democratic Party back then – and is largely that way now.
Now I am going from memory here, but Clinton's "intersectional" was covered in these classes,
with at least the basic idea. The idea was to consider how different elements within your campaign
plank are connected. And where those connections are poor, to build up a rhetorical foundation
on how to address the contradictions. As I said, the idea is not to build connections between
different parts of the planks, but how to present separate planks to the voter as being relevant.
It's a good exercise, a way of organizing your issues and thinking how they all might fit together.
Now Clintion's hairball – good word by the way – likely takes it to the absurd degree.
With polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton
to tailor her message for each region and for each venue.
–KACHING- As I said before, this is likely something that is being fed to her by her no
doubt well paid consultants.
Still, I have made an interesting observation that I wonder if you noticed. You presented
two charts, one with holding corporations accountable placed at the top, and the other placing
decline in manufacturing jobs at the top in the same position.
They are the same network; point by point. I even compared them using paint and found them
to be a perfect match. The only difference is that one is negative and the other is positive.
This completely misunderstand Clinton's approach to the Vulgar people of the United States,
which is: Insectionality, not intersectionality, that is the Vulgar People are treated as Insects.
The only Intersection understood by Hilarity Clinton is the one between herself, money
and power. All else is irrelevant.
As another untrained clown in intersectional feminism, I'm skeptical about Clinton, especially
reading Thomas Frank's description of the International Women's Day event at the Clinton Foundation
one year ago:
"What this lineup suggested is that there is a kind of naturally occurring solidarity between
the millions of women at the bottom of the world's pyramid and the tiny handful of women at its
very top The mystic bond between high-achieving American professionals and the planet's most victimized
people is a recurring theme in [Hillary Clinton's] life and work What the spectacle had to offer
ordinary working American women was another story.
She enshrined a version of feminism in which liberation is, in part, a matter of taking out
loans from banks in order to become an entrepreneur the theology of microfinance Merely by providing
impoverished individuals with a tiny loan of fifty or a hundred dollars, it was thought, you could
put them on the road to entrepreneurial self-sufficiency, you could make entire countries prosper,
you could bring about economic development itself What was most attractive about microlending
was what it was not, what it made unnecessary: any sort of collective action by poor people coming
together in governments or unions The key to development was not doing something to limit the
grasp of Western banks, in other words; it was extending Western banking methods to encompass
every last individual on earth.
Microlending is a perfect expression of Clintonism, since it brings together wealthy financial
interests with rhetoric that sounds outrageously idealistic. Microlending permits all manner of
networking, posturing, and profit taking among the lenders while doing nothing to change actual
power relations-the ultimate win-win."
I'm too confused with all of this, but it sounds to me like a concept called "interlocking
systems of oppression" and your figure two seems to provide useful diagrammatic example.
The diagram offers no understanding of the intersectional dynamics of oppression, carefully
cropping out the oppressors - most of whom are Hillary backers - along with the oppressed, who
are all affected differently in their lived experiences by their particular relationship
to oppressive conditions.
Lumping these focus-tested ill conditions together with a rat's nest of undistinguished connections
misleadingly equates the interests of persons with their set of group memberships (Fascism is
Italian for bundle-ism) and sets the stage for those conditions to be traded off and weighed against
each other on net in the future. I believe this is the essence of what is called "triangulation".
Wait a minute that tangle of buzz phrases connected helter-skelter by lines is a REAL post
from the Clinton campaign? Until I read the whole piece I thought it was well done satire. I guess
The Onion being bought out doesn't really matter much. In modern American politics satire now
seems roughly as difficult a task as exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum or measuring the
position and velocity of an electron simultaneously.
ilsm ->
Chris G
...
Obama certainly did nothing to put US into the nightmare of
peace and prosperity, while Killary will threw the US into
perpetual war with bigger adversaries than Sunni goatherds.
Obama certainly did nothing to put US into the nightmare of
peace and prosperity, while Killary will threw the US into
perpetual war with bigger adversaries than Sunni goatherds.
What are US "agents" doing on the ground in Syria?
Looks like they are trying to elect Hillary.
=== quote ===
It is almost as if some journalists believe that deliberately
damaging relations with Russia is a price worth paying to
embarrass and defeat Trump. If that is so, they are
delusional.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director
of the Council for the National Interest.
Trump, Russia, and the Washington Post: Reader Beware
There's more hype than evidence in the paper's claims that
Moscow orchestrates politics in Europe and America.
By PHILIP GIRALDI
"... Hillary Clinton, a neoliberal, neocon, corporatist PACster politician, is unlikely to inspire millennials or progressives ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is a sitting duck. And her vulnerability has nothing to do with the manufactured hype ..."
"... This on top of charges by the FBI that she was reckless, make her uniquely vulnerable ..."
"... Then there's her numerous "sniper fire in Bosnia" type gaffs, and a record of flip-flops on the issues that is virtually unprecedented in modern politics. And if the flip-flops in the primary weren't enough, her personnel appointments so far show she's going to try to go from corporate centrist to progressive to corporate centrist in the space of a year. You'd almost have to be an idiot to lose to her. ..."
Hillary Clinton, a neoliberal, neocon, corporatist
PACster politician, is unlikely to inspire millennials or progressives,
and some version of 2014 could easily play out again. As I've said all
along, Hillary Clinton is a sitting duck. And her vulnerability has
nothing to do with the manufactured hype or the …er… trumped up charges
Republicans have been ginning up for years now. In fact, in some strange
way, they may help Clinton, by discrediting some of the legitimate issues
that could yet dog her.
The emails – a self-inflicted tragedy of almost
Shakespearean proportions – won't go away, and now they suggest a pattern of
appointments with supporters of the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of
State that was, at best, inappropriate, at worst, illegal. This on top
of charges by the FBI that she was reckless, make her uniquely vulnerable
to attack ads.
Then there's her numerous "sniper fire in Bosnia"
type gaffs, and a record of flip-flops on the issues that is virtually
unprecedented in modern politics. And if the flip-flops in the primary
weren't enough, her personnel appointments so far show she's going to try to
go from corporate centrist to progressive to corporate centrist in the space
of a year. You'd almost have to be an idiot to lose to her.
... ... ...
But if Trumps' new team manages to reel him in, and
formulate a coherent attack on Clinton, all bets are off.
"... Hillary will win, and it will be more than business as usual. Influence peddling and pay to play will accelerate. The neocon money will flow into the system and foreign policy will be a debacle. We may very well be approaching WWIII. ..."
"... Under a Clinton II presidency, long-term international turmoil and confrontation lie ahead no matter what their family foundation may attempt to achieve. ..."
If Clinton gets elected, she will be under investigation prior to the inauguration. The Republicans
will use their hold on the house to start several investigations on November 9.
However, the GOP (continuing a party tradition) will cruise right past several true issues,
and lock onto the one thing they believe will hold the most shock value. This will turn out to
not be provable, or not be all that interesting to anyone but die-hard GOP supporters, and she
will exit the investigations as powerful, if not more so, than before.
There are plenty of reasons to investigate the Clinton machine, but if you expect this clown
show to do it competently I have a bridge to sell you…
No this one is backfiring already as most of the donors were people HRC would have met anyway,
including Nobel Peace winners! and the 89 out of 154 people has not been released. And the article
does not note any mischief but that there were meetings!
Or that there are a ton of other government officials have spouses that run well run charities.
Matt Yglesias has de-bunked this one a lot and my guess disappears relatively quickly.
This is as worthless evidence as Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.
Hillary will win, and it will be more than business as usual. Influence peddling and pay to
play will accelerate. The neocon money will flow into the system and foreign policy will be a
debacle. We may very well be approaching WWIII.
The economy will continue to hollow out due to central bank hubris, government stimulus, and
non-free trade deals. Income inequality will get worse. The middle class will continue to shrink.
After leaving office, Bill Clinton could have devoted his energies to Habitat for Humanity (like
Jimmy Carter) or thrown his energies into helping an existing organisation (like the Bill & Melinda
Gates foundation). He didn't, because he wanted the "fruits" of his philanthropic work to accrue
to him and his family. And so it is not unreasonable to ask exactly what those fruits are, especially
those gained while Hillary Clinton was serving as the nation's chief diplomat.
Under a Clinton II presidency, long-term international turmoil and confrontation lie ahead
no matter what their family foundation may attempt to achieve.
Problems are undeniable, but severity of the condition can be assessed only by qualified doctors
after studying all medical record. Which should be a requred stp for all US presidential candidates.
CNN presstitutes do disservice to the nation downplaying the concerns.
Notable quotes:
"... So, will Hillary accept Trump's challenge to release her medical records? I think we all know the answer to that... ..."
... reminds Americans about Trump's self-professed medical disability, which allowed him to avoid
serving in the Vietnam War Second, this baseless attack on Clinton's health reeks of the same conspiracy
theory junk we have heard before from him
...Even the way Trump's cheerleader-in-chief Rudy Giuliani
recently tried to support his claim that Clinton was very ill smacked of typical conspiracy fare:
...
CNN User
So, will Hillary accept Trump's challenge to release her medical records? I think we all
know the answer to that...
Just like showing up for a press conference, she just has too much to lose by being open with
voters.;
...prominent medical practitioners who have expressed sincere concern. The most prominent of which
is Dr. Bob Lahita, the Chairman of the Department of Medicine at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center
who has frequently been called on to opine for health on CBS, MSNBC, ABC, Fox, and local news outlets.
"This
is a very unusual story with Hillary," said Lahita, pointing to the two blood clots that Hillary's
been diagnosed with in the past. "The fact that she's having these clots and she's had two bouts
of thrombosis is disconcerting to say the least."
"I don't think it's a conspiracy," said Lahita when asked if questions about Hillary's health
are the musings of far-right agitators or a legitimate question. "You go back to the history of our
presidents and we've had many presidents up until Lyndon Johnson who've concealed their health during
their campaigns." "It had dire effects for our country, going from Kennedy to Roosevelt, to Woodrow
Wilson, whose wife ran the White House for some time," he continued. "So we have issues here and
I think both candidates should be very forthcoming and perhaps have an impartial panel of physicians
review the data and make that kind of decision before Americans go to the poll."
Donald Trump is challenging Hillary Clinton to release her "detailed" medical records and put
the questions surrounding her health status to rest. "I think that both candidates, Crooked Hillary
and myself, should release detailed medical records," Trump tweeted Sunday evening.
"I have no problem in doing so! Hillary?" he said.
Clinton so far has refused to release her detailed medical history.
It is unclear to what extent Trump represents a threat to Washington establishment and how easily
or difficult it would be to co-opt him. In any case "deep state" will stay in place, so the capabilities
of POTUS are limited by the fact of its existence. But comments to the article are great !
Notable quotes:
"... It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914. ..."
"... Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history. ..."
"... And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet. ..."
"... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
"... Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan, had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in the Persian Gulf in 1991. ..."
"... Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm". ..."
"... There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet. ..."
"... The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex. At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and the needs of veterans of past wars. ..."
"... Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed states and economic rubble. ..."
"... But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers they coddle. ..."
"... But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction of a stable regime in Libya. ..."
"... Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on day one in office. ..."
"... Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO and ground forces in South Korea and Japan. ..."
"... At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy. ..."
"... Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken ..."
"... Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced or dismantled that easily. ..."
"... The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself due to being hollowed out :) ..."
"... David, you are missing some fairly strong evidence that 911 was an inside job. ..."
"... As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition. ..."
"... I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American people to go to war. ..."
"... So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power. This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war. ..."
"... There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran. There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one) Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil. IMO ..."
"... As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot. The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex. ..."
"... In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control the perceived enemies of Capitalism. ..."
"... Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving as his special envoy to the middle east. ..."
"... @lloydholiday Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher. ..."
"... As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil. ..."
"... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
"... Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS. ..."
"... @FreeOregon It will shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment, centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control. ..."
"... All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was Trump from here on in! ..."
Wow. Super Tuesday was an earthquake, and not just because Donald Trump ran the tables. The best
thing was the complete drubbing and humiliation that voters all over America handed to the little
Napoleon from Florida, Marco Rubio.
So doing, the voters began the process of ridding the nation of the GOP War Party and its neocon
claque of rabid interventionists. They have held sway for nearly three decades in the Imperial City
and the consequences have been deplorable.
It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically
foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks
the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914.
Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the
neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing
would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history.
Yet at that crucial inflection point there was absolutely nothing at stake with respect to the
safety and security of the American people in the petty quarrel between Saddam Hussein and the Emir
of Kuwait.
The spate, in fact, was over directional drilling rights in the Rumaila oilfield which straddled
their respective borders. Yet these disputed borders had no historical legitimacy whatsoever. Kuwait
was a just a bank account with a seat in the UN, which had been created by the British only in 1899
for obscure reasons of imperial maneuver. Likewise, the boundaries of Iraq had been drawn with a
straight ruler in 1916 by British and French diplomats in the process of splitting up the loot from
the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
As it happened, Saddam claimed that the Emir of Kuwait, who could never stop stuffing his unspeakably
opulent royal domain with more petro dollars, had stolen $10 billion worth of oil from Iraq's side
of the field while Saddam was savaging the Iranians during his unprovoked but Washington supported
1980s invasion. At the same time, Hussein had borrowed upwards of $50 billion from Kuwait, the Saudis
and the UAE to fund his barbaric attacks on the Iranians and now the sheiks wanted it back.
At the end of the day, Washington sent 500,000 US troops to the Gulf in order to function as bad
debt collectors for three regimes that are the very embodiment of tyranny, corruption, greed and
religious fanaticism.
They have been the fount and exporter of Wahhabi fanaticism and have thereby fostered the scourge
of jihadi violence throughout the region. And it was the monumental stupidity of putting American
(crusader) boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia that actually gave rise to Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the
tragedy of 9/11, the invasion and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act and domestic
surveillance state and all the rest of the War Party follies which have followed.
Worse still, George H.W. Bush's stupid little war corrupted the very political soul and modus
operandi of Washington. What should have been a political contest over which party and prospective
leader could best lead a revived 1920s style campaign for world disarmament was mutated into a wave
of exceptionalist jingoism about how best to impose American hegemony on any nation or force on the
planet that refused compliance with Washington's designs and dictates.
And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do
with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere
high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet.
Indeed, as the so-called OPEC cartel crumbles into pitiful impotence and cacophony and as the
world oil glut drives prices eventually back into the teens, there can no longer be any dispute.
The blazing oilfields of Kuwait in 1991 had nothing to do with domestic oil security and prosperity,
and everything to do with the rise of a virulent militarism and imperialism that has drastically
undermined national security.
It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the
War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in
the middle east and beyond.
Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA
and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan,
had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our
way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their
attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed
against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in
the Persian Gulf in 1991.
Yes, the wholly different Shiite branch of Islam centered in Iran had a grievance, too. But that
wasn't about America's liberties and libertine ways of life, either. It was about the left over liability
from Washington's misguided cold war interventions and, specifically, the 1953 CIA coup that installed
the brutal and larcenous Shah on the Peacock Throne.
The whole Persian nation had deep grievances about that colossal injustice--a grievance that was
wantonly amplified in the 1980s by Washington's overt assistance to Saddam Hussein. Via the CIA's
satellite reconnaissance, Washington had actually helped him unleash heinous chemical warfare attacks
on Iranian forces, including essentially unarmed young boys who had been sent to the battle front
as cannon fodder.
Still, with the election of Rafsanjani in 1989 there was every opportunity to repair this historical
transgression and normalize relations with Tehran. In fact, in the early days the Bush state department
was well on the way to exactly that. But once the CNN war games in the gulf put the neocons back
in the saddle the door was slammed shut by Washington, not the Iranians.
Indeed at that very time, the re-ascendant neocons explicitly choose to demonize the Iranian regime
as a surrogate enemy to replace the defunct Kremlin commissars. Two of the most despicable actors
in the post-1991 neocon takeover of the GOP--Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz--actually penned a secret
document outlining the spurious anti-Iranian campaign which soon congealed into a full-blown war
myth.
To wit, that the Iranian's were hell bent on obtaining nuclear weapons and had become an implacable
foe of America and fountain of state sponsored terrorism.
Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime
minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing
The Realm".
Whether he immediately signed off an all of its sweeping plans for junking the Oslo Accords and
launching regime change initiatives against the Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria is a matter of
historical debate. But there can be no doubt that shortly thereafter this manifesto became the operative
policy of the Netanyahu government and especially its virulent campaign to demonize Iran as an existential
threat to Israel. And that when the younger Bush took office and brought the whole posse of neocons
back into power, it became Washington's official policy, as well.
After 9/11 the dual War Party of Washington and Tel Aviv was off to the races and the US government
began its tumble toward $19 trillion of national debt and an eventual fiscal calamity. That's because
the neocon War Party sucked the old time religion of fiscal rectitude and monetary orthodoxy right
out of the GOP in the name of funding what has in truth become a trillion dollar per year Warfare
State.
There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary
Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity
to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases
and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet.
Right then and there the GOP was stripped of any fiscal virginity that had survived the Reagan
era of triple digit deficits. Right on cue the contemptible Dick Cheney was quick to claim that Reagan
proved "deficits don't matter", meaning from that point forward whatever it took to fund the war
machine trumped any flickering Republican folk memories of fiscal prudence.
The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the
American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex.
At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's
purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and
the needs of veterans of past wars.
Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards
of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet
Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the
planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's
far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted
with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests
had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed
states and economic rubble.
The Bush era War Party also committed an even more lamentable error in the midst of all of its
foreign policy triumphalism and its utter neglect of the GOP's actual purpose to function as an advocate
for sound money and free markets in the governance process of our two party democracy. Namely, it
appointed Ben Bernanke, an avowed Keynesian and big government statist who had loudly proclaimed
in favor of "helicopter money", to a Federal Reserve system that was already on the verge of an economic
coup d'état led by the unfaithful Alan Greenspan.
That coup was made complete by the loathsome bailout of Wall Street during the 2008 financial
crisis. And the latter had, in turn, been a consequence of the massive speculation and debt build-up
that had been enabled by the Fed's own policies during the prior decade and one-half.
Now after $3.5 trillion of heedless money printing and 86 months of ZIRP, Wall Street has been
transformed into an unstable, dangerous casino. Honest price discovery in the capital and money markets
no longer exists, nor has productive capital been flowing into real investments in efficiency and
growth.
Instead, the C-suites of corporate America have been transformed into stock trading rooms where
business balance sheets have been hocked to the tune of trillions in cheap debt in order to fund
stock buybacks, LBOs and M&A deals designed to goose stock prices and the value of top executive
options.
Indeed, the Fed's unconscionable inflation of the third massive financial bubble of this century
has showered speculators and the 1% with unspeakable financial windfalls that are fast creating not
only an inevitable thundering financial meltdown, but, also, a virulent populist backlash. The Eccles
Building was where the "Bern" that is roiling the electorate was actually midwifed.
And probably even the far greater political tremblor represented by The Donald, as well.
Yes, as a libertarian I shudder at the prospect of a man on a white horse heading for the White
House, as Donald Trump surely is. His rank demoguery and poisonous rhetoric about immigrants, Muslims,
refugees, women, domestic victims of police repression and the spy state and countless more are flat-out
contemptible. And the idea of building a horizontal version of Trump Towers on the Rio Grande is
just plain nuts.
But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created
celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign
Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers
they coddle.
So even as The Donald's election would bring on a thundering financial crash on Wall Street and
political upheaval in Washington-–the truth is that's going to happen anyway. Look at the hideous
mess that US policy has created in Syria or the incendiary corner into which the Fed has backed itself
or the fiscal projections that show we will be back into trillion dollar annual deficits as the recession
already underway reaches full force. The jig is well and truly up.
But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that
Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit
the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that
the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either
a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally
right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction
of a stable regime in Libya.
Even his bombast about Obama's bad deal with Iran doesn't go much beyond Trump's ridiculous claim
that they are getting a $150 billion reward. In fact, it was their money; we stole it, and by the
time of the next election they will have it released anyway.
Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with
guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on
day one in office.
Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold
war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO
and ground forces in South Korea and Japan.
At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore
the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf
out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where
governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy.
He might also come down with wrathful indignation on the Fed if its dares push toward the criminal
zone of negative interest rates. As far as I know, The Donald was never mis-educated by the Keynesian
swells at Brookings, either. No plain old businessman would ever fall for the sophistry and crank
monetary theories that are now ascendant in the Eccles Building.
When it comes to the nation's current economy wreckers-in-chief, Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer,
he might even dust off on day one the skills he honed during 10-years on the Apprentice.
Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable....
A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic
thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect
that religious opinions should be respected. Its evil effects must be plain enough to everyone.
... There is, in fact, nothing about religious opinions that entitles them to any more respect
than other opinions get. On the contrary, they tend to be noticeably silly. ... No, there is nothing
notably dignified about religious ideas. They run, rather, to a peculiarly puerile and tedious
kind of nonsense. At their best, they are borrowed from metaphysicians, which is to say, from
men who devote their lives to proving that twice two is not always or necessarily four. At their
worst, they smell of spiritualism and fortune telling. Nor is there any visible virtue in the
men who merchant them professionally. Few theologians know anything that is worth knowing, even
about theology, and not many of them are honest. ... But the average theologian is a hearty, red-faced,
well-fed fellow with no discernible excuse in pathology. He disseminates his blather, not innocently,
like a philosopher, but maliciously, like a politician. In a well-organized world he would be
on the stone-pile. But in the world as it exists we are asked to listen to him, not only politely,
but even reverently, and with our mouths open. H. L. Mencken
Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers
the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced
or dismantled that easily.
The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and
removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable
of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to
control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself
due to being hollowed out :)
As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and
only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This
is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition.
I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century"
(PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American
people to go to war.
So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power.
This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because
the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war.
There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran.
There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled
the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP
oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and
the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began
again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one)
Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted
his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap
is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil.
IMO
BTW the Kuwaiti Royalty were friends of the Bushes.
We also did Israel a favor as Saddam was funding suicide bombers in Palestine ($20,000.00 to
the family for every suicide bomber) Arab mothers were happy to have their kids blown up for that
Saddam "reward." Ever notice how the suicide bombs ended/slowed in Israel after Saddam was deposed.
I did. Also Saddam was amassing his military on the Saudi's border at that time (Saddam wanted
Saudi oil to pay off his war debt) and so as a favor the the Saudi King (Bush's buddy) we ended
that threat. Yipee for us. This is never brought out in serious debate or news coverage. So if
someone says it was not about the oil...It was about the oil and always has been. It is all about
the oil. Oil is short for corporate cash cow money.
SD is right, Osama hated the fact that Bush's infidels were in the land of Mecca, and that
was one of the major instigators for the 9/11 attacks. Efing arrogant, ignorant Bush keeping "Merica"
safe. Clinton could have done a much better job cleaning up those King George the 1st's foreign
policy blunders, so I fault him to a degree too.
There are some good web sites that talk about this..I don't have them handy.
You are absolutely right. As Chas Freeman, who was our ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the
1991 Gulf War, has recounted, the stationing of American troops on Saudi soil in response to Saddam's
invasion of Kuwait presented a serious issue given that "[m]any Saudis interpret their religious
tradition as banning the presence of non-Muslims, especially the armed forces of nonbelievers,
on the Kingdom's soil." Shortly after the invasion, Freeman was present at a meeting between King
Fahd and Vice-President Cheney at which the King, overruling most of the Saudi royal family, agreed
to allow U.S. troops to be stationed in his country. This decision was premised on the clear understanding,
stressed by Cheney, that the American forces would be removed from Saudi Arabia once the immediate
threat from Saddam was over.
When that did not happen, Fahd faced serious domestic problems. Several prominent Muslim clerics
who objected to his policies were sent into exile, further inflaming the religious community.
More significantly for us, Osama Bin Laden began to call for the overthrow of the monarchy and
elevated his jihadist fight against the U.S. His Saudi passport was revoked for his anti-government
rhetoric, and in April 1991, threatened with arrest, he secretly departed Saudi Arabia for the
Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, never to return. The result, ten years later, was 9-11.
As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot.
The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency.
Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons
has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex.
In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist
regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control
the perceived enemies of Capitalism.
Now, we talk 24/7 about the Islamic threat, while the Islamists are being supported by our
closest allies and elements in the deep state in Washington.
We rarely hear about the Shah of Iran and OUR CIA back in 1953. Nor about OBL and his stated reason's
for 9/11. Including the vengeful and childish bombardment of highlands behind Beirut by our terribly
expensive recommissioned Battle Ship -- Imagine the thinking behind taking that 'thing' out of
mothballs to Scare the A - rabs. Invading Grenada was Ollie North's idea to save face.
Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies
on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam
was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving
as his special envoy to the middle east.
@lloydholiday I lived
in MPLS. You would be amazed at how sacrificially 'liberal' they are, much like Merkel and the
deluded Germans. Minn let in thousands of Ethiopians and other Muslims who are now giving natives
a major headache, much like Europe.
The women over 30 are nearly fanatic over Black oppression, voted for Obama in droves, and
appear to be willing to sacrifice the interests of their own children in favor of aliens and minorities
(my own niece raised in Minn is a fanatic in this regard). Rubbero is a loser with a wind up tongue.
They are easily impressed by patter however inarticulate.
@lloydholiday
Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his
idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may
have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests
from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon
won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man
toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher.
As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and
their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who
wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous
game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans
as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil.
It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed
by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant
today in the middle east and beyond.
Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be
PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS.
If the GOP disappears, there's always the brain dead Democrats. What we need is an end to both
parties. The best way to accomplish that is to cancel the entirety of the Fed Gov. Just get rid
of all of it. Let the states become countries and compete on the world stage. Let all those holding
Federal paper (the national debt) use it in their bathroom as toilet paper. Cancel the debt -
ignore it - lets start fresh with no central bank and real money based on something that the politicians
can't conjure into existence. I suggest gold and silver as history has shown that they work well.
@bill5 What I never
hear anyone state is that if we had let the Russians alone in Afghanistan this whole mess would
have never happened. Isn't that what originally allowed the Taliban and Obama bin Laden rise to
power? I though Reagan was a great president but made a catastrophic error in aligning with the
islamic insurgents against Russia . The Russians knew a radical Islamic state on their border
would be a problem and the existing Afghan government, an ally of Russia, asked them to help quell
the islamist civil war. The Russians would have ruthlessly eliminated the islamists without worrying
about causing any greenhouse gas emissions or hurting anyones feelings.
@FreeOregon It will
shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years
of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment,
centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled
by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control.
All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed
for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and
liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going
to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was
Trump from here on in!
What is amazing is that such column was published is such a sycophantic for Hillary and openly anti-Trump
rag as NYT. In foreign policy Hillary is the second incarnation of Cheney... Neocons rules NYT coverage
of Presidential race and, of course, they all favor Hillary. Of course chances that some on neocons
who so enthusiastically support her, crossing Party lines are drafted, get M16 and send to kill brown
people for Wall Street interests now is close to zero. Everything is outsourced now. But still, it is
simply amazing that even a lonely voice against neocon campaign of demonization of Trump got published
in NYT ...
MSM shilling for Hillary is simply overwhelming, so why this was in NYT is a mystery to me. But
this article of Maureen Dowd in on spot. Simply amazing how she manage to publish it !!!
Notable quotes:
"... Hillary will keep the establishment safe. Who is more of an establishment figure, after all? Her husband was president, and he repealed Glass-Steagall, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and got rid of those pesky welfare queens. ..."
"... Hillary often seems more Republican than the Gotham bling king, who used to be a Democrat and donor to Democratic candidates before he jumped the turnstile. ..."
"... Hillary is a reliable creature of Wall Street. Her tax return showed the Clintons made $10.6 million last year, and like other superrich families, they incorporated with the Clinton Executive Services Corporation (which was billed for the infamous server). Trump has started holding up goofy charts at rallies showing Hillary has gotten $48,500,000 in contributions from hedge funders, compared to his $19,000. ..."
"... Unlike Trump, she hasn't been trashing leading Republicans. You know that her pals John McCain and Lindsey Graham are secretly rooting for her. There is a cascade of prominent Republicans endorsing Hillary, donating to Hillary, appearing in Hillary ads, talking up Hillary's charms. ..."
"... Robert Kagan, a former Reagan State Department aide, adviser to the McCain and Mitt Romney campaigns and Iraq war booster, headlined a Hillary fund-raiser this summer. Another neocon, James Kirchick, keened in The Daily Beast , "Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the abyss." ..."
"... The Democratic nominee put out an ad featuring Trump-bashing Michael Hayden, an N.S.A. and CIA chief under W. who was deemed "incongruent" by the Senate when he testified about torture methods. And she earned an endorsement from John Negroponte, a Reagan hand linked to American-trained death squads in Latin America. ..."
"... Politico reports that the Clinton team sent out feelers to see if Kissinger, the Voldemort of Vietnam, and Condi Rice, the conjurer of Saddam's apocalyptic mushroom cloud, would back Hillary. ..."
"... The Hillary team seems giddy over its windfall of Republicans and neocons running from the Trump sharknado. But as David Weigel wrote in The Washington Post, the specter of Kissinger, the man who advised Nixon to prolong the Vietnam War to help with his re-election, fed a perception that "the Democratic nominee has returned to her old, hawkish ways and is again taking progressives for granted." ..."
"... Hillary is a safer bet in many ways for conservatives. Trump likes to say he is flexible. What if he returns to his liberal New York positions on gun control and abortion rights? ..."
"... Trump is far too incendiary in his manner of speaking, throwing around dangerous and self-destructive taunts about "Second Amendment people" taking out Hillary, or President Obama and Hillary being the founders of ISIS ..."
"... Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals. Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, don't shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone. ..."
"... You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war. If you want to carry the GOP banner, your fabrications have to be more sneaky. ..."
"... "You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war." ..."
"... Anyone who believes Bill Clinton didn't know exactly what was going on is just kidding themselves. One clue, for example. They moved the WMD 'intelligence" investigation to the DOD under Paul Wolfowitz. LOL! ..."
"... Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and "Listen Liberal: Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?" echoes Ms. Dowd's sentiments. In a recent column Frank says that with Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/13/trump-clinton-elec... ..."
"... "America's two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party system. And within that one party, the political process bears a striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Come November, Clinton will have won her great victory – not as a champion of working people's concerns, but as the greatest moderate of them all." ..."
"... We've also managed to select one of biggest dissemblers, enablers, war hawks, fungible flip-floppers, pay for play con artists, scandal mongerers candidates since Tricky Dicky. Congratulations America! We did it. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Wet get the government we deserve." ..."
"... The reaction by many to Ms Dowd's column clearly shows that the "save the world" "lesser evil" argument only works is one is willing to suspend belief on the demonstrated evil of Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Clinton could well take us to war against Russia. In Syria, Clinton is spoiling to give Russia a punch in the nose, on the theory that Russia will back down and the US will have a free hand there. She advocates a a no-fly zone for Russian jets in Syria. The idea there is to create a confrontation, shoot down a couple of Russian jets and teach them a lesson. There is also the CIA and Pentagon "Plan B" for the Syrian negotiations. ..."
"... It's always wonderful to see when the truth comes out in the end: Hillary is the perfect Repulican candidate and this is also prove of the fact that on finance and economic issues Democrats and old mainstream Republicans have been in in the same pocket...even under Obama. ..."
"... One night after the election on the Carson show Goldwater quipped that he didn't know how unpopular a president he would have been until Johnson adopted his policies... ..."
"... All the things you say about Hillary are true. She is an establishment favorite. She did indeed vote to support Bush and his insane desire to invade Iraq. ..."
"... Did we all forget the millions who went for Bernie and his direct and aggressive confrontation of Hillary's Wall Street/corporate ties? That was a contest between what used to be the Dem party of the people and the corporate friendly Dem party of today. We understood then that Hillary represented the Right; why the surprise now? (The right pointing arrow on the "H" logo is so appropriate.) ..."
"... There are reasons Hillary is disliked and distrusted by nearly a majority of us. My reasons are she is of and for the oligarchs and deceitful enough to run as a populist. ..."
"... America tried to liberalize in the 1960's and the response was swift and violent as three of the greatest liberal lions and voices the country has ever known - JFK, MLK and RFK - were gunned down. ..."
"... While one can endlessly argue the specific details of those ghastly assassinations of America's liberal superstars, in my view, all three of those murders rest on the violent, nefarious right-wing shoulders and fumes of moneyed American 'conservatism' that couldn't stand to share the profits of their economic parasitism with society. ..."
"... I truly believe that Congressional Republicans in the House are already drafting articles of impeachment should Hillary become President. Dowd may claim that Republicans are in lock step with her, but don't be surprised when the talk of impeachment starts soon after Jan 20, 2017. ..."
"... We need a multi party system. With 2 parties dominating the politics, its like having a monopoly of liberalism or conservatism which just does not represent the width and depth of views our citizens resonate with. Having voted democrat all my life, to me Hillary does not represent my choice (Bernie does). ..."
"... This annoys me..."like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history" Maureen is talking about Hillary, but she might as well be talking about her own newspaper. Hillary got it wrong, but so did the New York Times editorial board. ..."
"... The Bush Administration hinted that the anti-war people were traitors and terrorist sympathizers and everybody got steamrolled. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/opinion/culture-war-with-b-2-s.html ..."
"... HRC couldn't have asked for a better opponent if she'd constructed him out of a six-foot pile of mildewed straw. By running against Trump, the whole Trump and nothing but the Trump, and openly courting neocon war criminals and "establishment" Republicans, she's outrageously giving CPR to what should have been a rotting corpse of a political party by now. ..."
"... By giving new life to the pathocrats who made Trump possible, Clinton is only making her own party weaker and more right-wing, only making it easier for down-ticket Republicans to slither their way back into power.... the better to triangulate with during the Clinton restoration. Grand Bargain, here we come. TPP, (just waiting for that fig leaf of meager aid for displaced American workers) here we come. Bombs away. ..."
"... She'll have to stop hoarding her campaign cash and share it with the down-ticket Democrats running against the same well-heeled GOPers she is now courting with such naked abandon. ..."
"... The Empress needs some new clothes to hide that inner Goldwater Girl. ..."
All these woebegone Republicans whining that they can't rally behind their flawed candidate is
crazy. The G.O.P. angst, the gnashing and wailing and searching for last-minute substitutes and exit
strategies, is getting old. They already have a 1-percenter who will be totally fine in the Oval
Office, someone they can trust to help Wall Street, boost the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cuddle with
hedge funds, secure the trade deals beloved by corporate America, seek guidance from Henry Kissinger
and hawk it up - unleashing hell on Syria and heaven knows where else.
The Republicans have their candidate: It's Hillary. They can't go with Donald Trump. He's too
volatile and unhinged. The erstwhile Goldwater Girl and Goldman Sachs busker can be counted on to
do the normal political things, not the abnormal haywire things. Trump's propounding could drag us
into war, plunge us into a recession and shatter Washington into a thousand tiny bits.
Hillary will keep the establishment safe. Who is more of an establishment figure, after all?
Her husband was president, and he repealed Glass-Steagall, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and
got rid of those pesky welfare queens.
Pushing her Midwestern Methodist roots, taking advantage of primogeniture, Hillary often seems
more Republican than the Gotham bling king, who used to be a Democrat and donor to Democratic candidates
before he jumped the turnstile.
Hillary is a reliable creature of Wall Street. Her tax return showed the Clintons made $10.6
million last year, and like other superrich families, they incorporated with the Clinton Executive
Services Corporation (which was billed for the infamous server). Trump has started holding up goofy
charts at rallies showing Hillary has gotten $48,500,000 in contributions from hedge funders, compared
to his $19,000.
Unlike Trump, she hasn't been trashing leading Republicans. You know that her pals John McCain
and Lindsey Graham are secretly rooting for her. There is a cascade of prominent Republicans endorsing
Hillary, donating to Hillary, appearing in Hillary ads, talking up Hillary's charms.
Robert Kagan, a former Reagan State Department aide, adviser to the McCain and Mitt Romney
campaigns and Iraq war booster, headlined a Hillary fund-raiser this summer. Another neocon, James
Kirchick,
keened in The Daily Beast , "Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the
abyss."
She has finally stirred up some emotion in women, even if it is just moderate suburban Republican
women palpitating to leave their own nominee, who has the retro air of a guy who just left the dim
recesses of a Playboy bunny club.
The Democratic nominee put out an ad featuring Trump-bashing Michael Hayden, an N.S.A. and
CIA chief under W. who was deemed "incongruent" by the Senate when he testified about torture
methods. And she earned an endorsement from John Negroponte, a Reagan hand linked to American-trained
death squads in Latin America.
Politico reports that the Clinton team sent out feelers to see if Kissinger, the Voldemort
of Vietnam, and Condi Rice, the conjurer of Saddam's apocalyptic mushroom cloud, would back Hillary.
Hillary has written that Kissinger is an "idealistic" friend whose counsel she valued as secretary
of state, drawing a rebuke from Bernie Sanders during the primaries: "I'm proud to say Henry Kissinger
is not my friend."
The Hillary team seems giddy over its windfall of Republicans and neocons running from the
Trump sharknado. But as
David Weigel wrote in The Washington Post, the specter of Kissinger, the man who advised Nixon
to prolong the Vietnam War to help with his re-election, fed a perception that "the Democratic nominee
has returned to her old, hawkish ways and is again taking progressives for granted."
And
Isaac Chotiner wrote in Slate, "The prospect of Kissinger having influence in a Clinton White
House is downright scary."
Hillary is a safer bet in many ways for conservatives. Trump likes to say he is flexible.
What if he returns to his liberal New York positions on gun control and abortion rights?
Trump is far too incendiary in his manner of speaking, throwing around dangerous and self-destructive
taunts about "Second Amendment people" taking out Hillary, or President Obama and Hillary being the
founders of ISIS. And he still blindly follows his ego, failing to understand the fundamentals
of a campaign. "I don't know that we need to get out the vote," he told Fox News Thursday. "I think
people that really wanna vote are gonna get out and they're gonna vote for Trump."
Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals.
Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to
the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history,
don't shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone.
You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the
Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al
Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war. If you want to carry the GOP banner,
your fabrications have to be more sneaky.
As
Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted on MSNBC, "the candidate in the race most like George
W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a foreign policy perspective is in fact Hillary Clinton, not the Republican
nominee."
And that's how Republicans prefer their crazy - not like Trump, but like Cheney.
JohnNJ, New jersey August 14, 2016
For me, this is her strongest point:
"You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day
of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including
Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war."
There are still people who believe her excuse that she only voted for authorization, blah,
blah, blah.
Anyone who believes Bill Clinton didn't know exactly what was going on is just kidding
themselves. One clue, for example. They moved the WMD 'intelligence" investigation to the DOD
under Paul Wolfowitz. LOL!
Red_Dog , Denver CO August 14, 2016
Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and "Listen Liberal: Or What
Ever Happened to the Party of the People?" echoes Ms. Dowd's sentiments. In a recent column Frank
says that with Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/13/trump-clinton-elec...
"America's two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party system. And within
that one party, the political process bears a striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Come
November, Clinton will have won her great victory – not as a champion of working people's concerns,
but as the greatest moderate of them all."
And great populist uprising of our times will be gone --- probably for many years.
FDR Liberal , Sparks, NV August 14, 2016
Spot on column Ms. Dowd.
As Americans we are to blame that these two major party candidates are the only viable ones
seeking the presidency. Yes, fellow citizens we are to blame because in the end we are the ones
that voted for them in various primaries and caucuses. And if you didn't attend a caucus or vote
in a primary, you are also part of problem.
In short, it is not the media's fault, nor is it the top .1%, 1% or 10% fault, nor your kids'
fault, nor your parents' fault, nor your neighbors' fault, etc.
It is our fault because we did this together. Yes, we managed y to select a narcissist, xenophobe,
anti-Muslim, racist, misogynist, and dare I say buffoon to the GOP ticket.
We've also managed to select one of biggest dissemblers, enablers, war hawks, fungible
flip-floppers, pay for play con artists, scandal mongerers candidates since Tricky Dicky. Congratulations
America! We did it. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Wet get the government we deserve."
Martin Brod, NYC August 14, 2016
The reaction by many to Ms Dowd's column clearly shows that the "save the world" "lesser
evil" argument only works is one is willing to suspend belief on the demonstrated evil of Hillary
Clinton.
The Green Party and Libertarian parties provide sane alternatives to the two most distrusted
candidates of the major parties. As debate participants they
would offer an alternative to evil at a time when the planets count-down clock is racing to mid-night.
pathenry, berkeley August 14, 2016
Clinton could well take us to war against Russia. In Syria, Clinton is spoiling to give
Russia a punch in the nose, on the theory that Russia will back down and the US will have a free
hand there. She advocates a a no-fly zone for Russian jets in Syria. The idea there is to create
a confrontation, shoot down a couple of Russian jets and teach them a lesson. There is also the
CIA and Pentagon "Plan B" for the Syrian negotiations.
If the negotiations fail, give stingers to our "vetted allies". Who will those stingers be
used against? Russia. At least the ones not smuggled to Brussels. And then there is the plan being
bandied about by our best and brightest to organize, arm and lead our "vetted allies" in attacks
on Russian bases in Syria. A Bay of Pigs in the desert. A dime to a dollar, Clinton is supportive
of these plans.
All of this is dangerous brinksmanship which is how you go to war.
Mike A. , East Providence, RI August 14, 2016
The second Pulitzer quality piece from the NYT op-ed columnists in less than a month (see Charles
Blow's "Incandescent With Rage" for the first).
heinrich zwahlen , brooklyn August 14, 2016
It's always wonderful to see when the truth comes out in the end: Hillary is the perfect
Repulican candidate and this is also prove of the fact that on finance and economic issues Democrats
and old mainstream Republicans have been in in the same pocket...even under Obama.
For real progressives it's useless to vote for her and high time to start a new party. Cultural
issues are not the main issues that pain America, it's all about the money stupid.
JohnD, New York August 14, 2016
... One night after the election on the Carson show Goldwater quipped that he didn't know
how unpopular a president he would have been until Johnson adopted his policies...
Lee Elliott , Rochester August 14, 2016
You've written the most depressing column I've read lately. All the things you say about
Hillary are true. She is an establishment favorite. She did indeed vote to support Bush and his
insane desire to invade Iraq. But it was that vote kept her from being president in 2008.
Perhaps that will convince her to keep the establishment a little more at arm's length. When there
is no other behind for them to kiss, then you can afford to be a little hard to get.
As for Trump, he is proving to be too much like Ross Perot. He looks great at first but begins
to fade when his underlying lunacy begins to bubble to the surface.
Speaking of Perot, I find it an interesting coincidence that Bill Clinton and now Hillary Clinton
will depend on the ravings of an apparent lunatic in order to get elected.
citizen vox, San Francisco August 14, 2016
Why the vitriol against Dowd? Did we all forget the millions who went for Bernie and his
direct and aggressive confrontation of Hillary's Wall Street/corporate ties? That was a contest
between what used to be the Dem party of the people and the corporate friendly Dem party of today.
We understood then that Hillary represented the Right; why the surprise now? (The right pointing
arrow on the "H" logo is so appropriate.)
Last week's article on how Hillary came to love money was horrifying; because Bill lost a Governor's
race, Hillary felt so insecure she called all her wealthy friends for donations. Huh?! Two Harvard
trained lawyers asking for financial help?! And never getting enough money to feel secure?! GIVE
ME A BREAK (to coin a phrase).
There are reasons Hillary is disliked and distrusted by nearly a majority of us. My reasons
are she is of and for the oligarchs and deceitful enough to run as a populist.
If readers bemoan anything, let it be that the populist movement of the Dem party was put down
by the Dem establishment. We have a choice between a crazy candidate of no particular persuasion
and a cold, calculating Republican. How discouraging.
Thanks, Maureen Dowd.
Chris, Louisville August 14, 2016
Maureen please don't ever give up on Hillary bashing. It needs to be done before someone accidentally
elects her as President. She is most like Angela Merkel of Germany. Take a look what's happening
there. That is enough never to vote for Hillary.
Susan e, AZ August 14, 2016
I recall the outrage I, a peace loving liberal who despised W and Cheney, felt while watching
the made for TV "shock and awe" invasion of Iraq. I recall how the"liberal Democrats" who supported
that disaster with a vote for the IRW could never quite bring themselves to admit their mistake
- and I realized that many, like Hillary, didn't feel it was a mistake. Not really. It was necessary
for their political careers.
For me, its not a vote for Hillary, its a vote for a candidate that sees killing innocent people
in Syria (or Libya, or Gaza, etc.) as the only way to be viewed as a serious candidate for CIC.
I'm old enough to remember another endless war, as the old Vietnam anti-war ballad went: "I ain't
gonna vote for war no more."
John, Switzerland August 14, 2016
Maureen Dowd is not being nasty, but rather accurate. It is nasty to support and start wars
throughout the ME. It is nasty to say (on mic) "We came, we saw, he died" referring to the gruesome
torture-murder of Qaddafi.
Will Hillary start a war against Syria? Yes or no? That is the the "six trillion dollar" question.
Socrates , is a trusted commenter Downtown Verona, NJ August 13, 2016
It's hard to a find a good liberal in these United States, not because there's anything wrong
with liberalism or progressivism, but because Americans have been taught, hypnotized and beaten
by a powerfully insidious and filthy rich right-wing to think that liberalism, progressivism and
socialism is a form of fatal cancer.
America tried to liberalize in the 1960's and the response was swift and violent as three
of the greatest liberal lions and voices the country has ever known - JFK, MLK and RFK - were
gunned down.
While one can endlessly argue the specific details of those ghastly assassinations of America's
liberal superstars, in my view, all three of those murders rest on the violent, nefarious right-wing
shoulders and fumes of moneyed American 'conservatism' that couldn't stand to share the profits
of their economic parasitism with society.
The end result is that political liberals are forced to triangulate for their survival in right-wing
America, and you wind up with Presidents like Bill Clinton and (soon) Hillary Clinton who know
how to survive in a pool of right-wing knives, assassins and psychopaths lurking everywhere representing
Grand Old Profit.
... ... ...
Dotconnector, New York August 14, 2016
The trickery deep within the dark art of Clintonism is triangulation. By breeding a nominal
Democratic donkey with a de facto Republican elephant, what you get is a corporatist chameleon.
There's precious little solace in knowing that this cynical political hybrid is only slightly
less risky than Trumpenstein.
And the fact that Henry Kissinger still has a seat at the table ought to chill the spine of
anyone who considers human lives -- those of U.S. service members and foreign noncombatants alike
-- to have greater value than pawns in a global chess game.
Bj, is a trusted commenter Washington,dc August 13, 2016
I truly believe that Congressional Republicans in the House are already drafting articles
of impeachment should Hillary become President. Dowd may claim that Republicans are in lock step
with her, but don't be surprised when the talk of impeachment starts soon after Jan 20, 2017.
They didn't succeed with Bill. And they were chomping at the bit to try to impeach Obama
over his use of executive orders and his decision not to defend an early same sex marriage case.
They are just waiting for inauguration to start this process all over again - another circus and
waste of taxpayer money.
petey tonei, Massachusetts August 14, 2016
Two party system is not enough for a country this big, with such a wide spectrum of political
beliefs. We need a multi party system. With 2 parties dominating the politics, its like having
a monopoly of liberalism or conservatism which just does not represent the width and depth of
views our citizens resonate with. Having voted democrat all my life, to me Hillary does not represent
my choice (Bernie does). Heard on NPR just today from on the ground reporters in Terre Haute,
Indiana, the bellwether of presidential elections, the 2 names that were most heard were Trump
and Bernie Sanders, not Hillary. Sadly, Bernie is not even the nominee but he truly represents
the guts, soul of mid America
Schrodinger, is a trusted commenter Northern California August 14, 2016
This annoys me..."like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder
in U.S. history" Maureen is talking about Hillary, but she might as well be talking about her
own newspaper. Hillary got it wrong, but so did the New York Times editorial board.
What about Ms Dowd herself? Of the four columns she wrote before the vote on October 11th,
2002, only two mentioned the war vote, and one of those was mostly about Hillary. Dowd said of
Hillary that, "Whatever doubts she may have privately about the war, she is not articulating her
angst as loudly as some of her Democratic colleagues. She knows that any woman who hopes to be
elected president cannot have love beads in her jewelry case."
In her column 'Culture war with B-2's', Dowd comes out as mildly anti-war. "Don't feel bad
if you have the uneasy feeling that you're being steamrolled", Dowd writes, "You are not alone."
Fourteen years later that column still looks good, and I link to it at the bottom. However, Dowd
could and should have done a lot more. I don't think that anybody who draws a paycheck from the
New York Times has a right to get on their high horse and lecture Hillary about her vote. They
ignored the antiwar protests just like they ignored Bernie Sanders' large crowds.
Karen Garcia , is a trusted commenter New Paltz, NY August 13, 2016
HRC couldn't have asked for a better opponent if she'd constructed him out of a six-foot
pile of mildewed straw. By running against Trump, the whole Trump and nothing but the Trump, and
openly courting neocon war criminals and "establishment" Republicans, she's outrageously giving
CPR to what should have been a rotting corpse of a political party by now.
By giving new life to the pathocrats who made Trump possible, Clinton is only making her
own party weaker and more right-wing, only making it easier for down-ticket Republicans to slither
their way back into power.... the better to triangulate with during the Clinton restoration. Grand
Bargain, here we come. TPP, (just waiting for that fig leaf of meager aid for displaced American
workers) here we come. Bombs away.
With three months to go before this grotesque circus ends, Trump is giving every indication
that he wants out, getting more reckless by the day. And that's a good thing, because with her
rise in the polls, Hillary will now have to do more on the stump than inform us she is not Trump.
She'll have to ditch the fear factor. She'll have to start sending emails and Tweets with something
other than "OMG! Did you hear what Trump just said?!?" on them to convince voters.
She'll have to stop hoarding her campaign cash and share it with the down-ticket Democrats
running against the same well-heeled GOPers she is now courting with such naked abandon.
The Empress needs some new clothes to hide that inner Goldwater Girl.
The two sources of her problems are beginning to merge much as two weather depressions might
collide and become a hurricane. One is the already well-trodden matter of her use of a private
email server while Secretary of State. The other relates to the Clinton Foundation and whether
donors received preferential access to her while she served in that post.
Two bombs dropped on the Clinton campaign at once on Monday. First it emerged that the FBI has
collected and delivered to the State Department almost 15,000 new emails not previously seen and
a federal judge ordered the department to accelerate their release to the public. Meanwhile, a
conservative group called Judicial Watch released details of still more emails detailing exactly
how donors to the foundation set about trying to get Ms Clinton's attention.
... ... ...
Questions have been swirling for weeks about whether or not Ms Clinton was drawn into giving
special favours to some of her husband's pals in return for their giving generously to the
charitable foundation he set up after leaving the presidency – a pay and play arrangement. On
Monday, Judicial Watch unveiled details that showed exactly how that might have happened thanks
to emails it had accessed through the courts sent to and from Huma Abedin, a close Clinton
confidante and her deputy chief of staff during her four years at the State Department.
... ... ...
In attempt to forestall the trouble that is already upon his wife, Mr Clinton announced this
week that should she win the presidency, several things will change at his Foundation. First and
foremost it would cease to take money from any foreign governments and donors and only from
US-based charities and individuals. He would also step down from the foundation entirely and
cease personally to raise funds for it.
...many voters are simply afraid that with Ms Clinton in the White House the whole tawdry
cycle will just start all over again and nothing else with get done in Washington
It was only one in a long parade of late-August fundraisers Ms Clinton has attended, but it
stands out for the generosity required of those who attended. The price of admission for the
20-odd guests who obliged was a stunning $200,000. That was double the $100,000 charged for
guests who mingled recently with Ms Clinton in Omaha at the home of Susan Buffett, the daughter
of Warren Buffett, the veteran investment oracle.
... ... ...
As of Monday, she and Mr Kaine had harvested no less than $32 million for the Hillary Victory
Fund, which will be distributed to her campaign, the Democratic National Committee and state
parties. A lot of was raised in last week as Ms Clinton hopscotched from party to party on
Martha's Vineyard and Cape Code in Massachusetts.
"... vote for Clinton is vote for globalization, while vote for Trump is vote for anti-globalization ..."
"... Recall that the Obomber passed the legislation that legalized propaganda (lying to the public) and permits no remedy other than the ability to protest in fenced in free speech zones until the cops show up as head knockers or agents provocateurs. ..."
"... You say that Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him. Anyone's economic policies will be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for Trump. That's baked into the political and economic structure of things. It is part of the natural order. ..."
"... The difference with Trump is that after the economic catastrophe that will happen--is now happening , it may be possible under a Trump administration to pick things up and rebuild. Under any other likely regime, the aftermath of economic catastrophe will be limitless debt peonage and unlimited oligarchy. ..."
"... The shooting down of an Israeli warplane by Syria has not been reported by Western and Israeli media sources. According to Sputnik, on August 21, "the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on Western Syria, targeting a government army base at Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and another in the al-Quneitra province after a six-hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air raids over the Golan Heights." ..."
Some real beauties in there alright. Kerry giving himself yet another uppercut.
"...U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President
Bashar Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, ..."
Not Assad must go. Not close. Yet, still blissfully ignorant of the fact their more extreme
moderates are getting their jollies out of hacking sick 12 year old kids heads off with fishing
knive. I wonder at what point does 'moderate' become a dirty word...?
@Noirette Pt1
Big crowds scare Hillary these days. Best not to shake her up too much. I wonder though,
how she expects to compete with Trumps fervour... must be pretty happy that they can do a nice
back door job on election day. When opening act Rudy G is getting pummelled with calls of 'does
Rudy have Alzheimer's...?' you know you're doing something right - really, just...awesome political
theatre.
The ZioMedia is in the tank for Hillary. Impossible for a candidate who cannot draw a crowd to
be "ahead in the polls". And a candidate who packs 10K ppl into any given space at will to be
"behind in the polls". Humiliatingly low turnout for the HBomb is stage-crafted by all ziomedia
outlets to hide this embarrassing fact.
Recall that Billy Blowjob ushered in Media Consolidation which gave 5 ziomedia corporations
carte blanche to bullshit the public.
Recall that the Obomber passed the legislation that legalized propaganda (lying to the
public) and permits no remedy other than the ability to protest in fenced in free speech zones
until the cops show up as head knockers or agents provocateurs.
I was reading articles on the Turkish attack into Syria and there is no mention of the Syrian
government nor whether/when/if Turkey will engage the Syrian Army. But then I found this chart
from CNN:
For one thing, they pretend ISIS has no support. We all know differently. Also, it looks like
every one is fighting ISIS except ..... Free Syrian Army and Saudi Arabia and Gulf Allies.
You say that Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most
likely to vote for him. Anyone's economic policies will be catastrophic for those most likely
to vote for Trump. That's baked into the political and economic structure of things. It is part
of the natural order.
The difference with Trump is that after the economic catastrophe that will happen--is now
happening , it may be possible under a Trump administration to pick things up and rebuild. Under
any other likely regime, the aftermath of economic catastrophe will be limitless debt peonage
and unlimited oligarchy.
The shooting down of an Israeli warplane by Syria has not been reported by Western and Israeli
media sources. According to Sputnik, on August 21, "the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on
Western Syria, targeting a government army base at Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and another
in the al-Quneitra province after a six-hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air
raids over the Golan Heights."
It was struck. An SA-9 from the Iftiraas Air Defense Base and an SA-2 near the Khalkhaala AB
were fired. But, the technical wizardry was most on display when an S-300 (SA-10 "Grumble) super-air-defense
missile was fired from the Republican Guard base near the Mazza AB at the foot of Qaasiyoon Mountain
west of Damascus. This was done so that the F-16's electronic countermeasures would first fix
on the SA-2 and SA-9 while the S-300 plowed forward to exterminate the vermin inside the Israeli
aircraft. The S-300 vaporized the Israeli bomber. No evidence was seen of the pilot ejecting.
Instead, eyewitness accounts described a ball of fire over the Golan and the remains scattering
into the air over the Huleh Valley in Palestine.
Also, the Israelis lost 2 helicopters while flying missions over the Golan Heights in an effort
to bolster the sagging morale of the Takfiri rats of Nusra/Alqaeda and Al-Ittihaad Al-Islaami
li-Ajnaad Al-Shaam. The 2 helicopters went down over the area near Qunaytra City and were reportedly
shot down by shoulder fired, heat-seeking missiles deployed throughout the Syrian Army.
"... "Of course Julian Assange is right. Hillary Clinton's harangue depicting Donald Trump as the enabler of some insidious 'Alt Right' movement whose Grand Dragon is Vladimir Putin is too absurd for words," Jatras said on Friday. "It would be just silly if it weren't so dangerous." ..."
"... She and her surrogates have been banging the 'Kremlin agent' drum for some time. But when Trump asks rock-ribbed GOP [Republican] crowds if it wouldn't be a great thing to get along with Russia and team up with Moscow to fight ISIS [Islamic State], he gets thunderous approval, ..."
"... Jatras suggested that Clinton's latest attacks on Trump as an alleged racist were meant to distract attention from the latest WikiLeaks documents exposing the leaked information related to "pay to play" between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. ..."
"... He also argued that Clinton's attacks were meant to distract pubic attention from her own record of controversy and alleged corruption. "Any American worthy of the name hates her and the whole rotten Deep State she fronts for: the profiteers on endless wars, the globalist corporations that dump their American workers to import their foreign-made goods duty free and the driving down of wages due to a glut of imported foreign labor," he said. ..."
"... Jatras suggested that these policies that Clinton as secretary of state and her husband, President Bill Clinton had implemented and supported were far more worthy of hate than the false accusations she was throwing against Trump. "Those are things all Americans, whether white, black, brown, red, or yellow should hate, and Hillary right along with them," he concluded. Jatras also formerly served as adviser to the Senate Republican leadership. ..."
US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's attempt to falsely portray her Republican
opponent Donald Trump as a racist extremist is absurd, silly and dangerous, former US Department
of State diplomat Jim Jatras told Sputnik.
On Thursday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
told Fox News in an interview that Clinton's campaign was full of anti-Russia hysteria as the Democrats
were trying to undermine the campaign of their opponent, Republican nominee Donald Trump.
"Of course Julian Assange is right. Hillary Clinton's harangue depicting Donald Trump as
the enabler of some insidious 'Alt Right' movement whose Grand Dragon is Vladimir Putin is too
absurd for words," Jatras said on Friday. "It would be just silly if it weren't so dangerous."
Jatras said he agreed with Assange's assessment that Clinton's increasingly wild charges against
Trump were not based on any reality. "She should get some kind of tinfoil hat award for the finest
piece of political paranoia totally divorced from facts in all of American history," Jatras said.
Hillary Clinton's Anti-Russian Campaign May BackfireJatras also pointed out the falsity of Clinton's
related claim that former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, who endorsed Trump this week
was a racist. "Take her attack on Nigel Farage. Evidently now it is now 'racist' to believe citizens
are shareholders of their own country and have a right to decide who gets in and who doesn't, and
that dangerous people should be excluded," Jatras argued.
However, Jatras expressed skepticism as to how effective Clinton's racist and Russophobic attacks
would prove to be.
"She and her surrogates have been banging the 'Kremlin agent' drum for some time. But when
Trump asks rock-ribbed GOP [Republican] crowds if it wouldn't be a great thing to get along with
Russia and team up with Moscow to fight ISIS [Islamic State], he gets thunderous approval,"
Jatras observed.
Jatras suggested that Clinton's latest attacks on Trump as an alleged racist were meant to
distract attention from the latest WikiLeaks documents exposing the leaked information related to
"pay to play" between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.
He also argued that Clinton's attacks were meant to distract pubic attention from her own
record of controversy and alleged corruption. "Any American worthy of the name hates her and the
whole rotten Deep State she fronts for: the profiteers on endless wars, the globalist corporations
that dump their American workers to import their foreign-made goods duty free and the driving down
of wages due to a glut of imported foreign labor," he said.
Jatras suggested that these policies that Clinton as secretary of state and her husband, President
Bill Clinton had implemented and supported were far more worthy of hate than the false accusations
she was throwing against Trump. "Those are things all Americans, whether white, black, brown, red,
or yellow should hate, and Hillary right along with them," he concluded. Jatras also formerly served
as adviser to the Senate Republican leadership.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., argued on Thursday that the FBI failed to asked Hillary
Clinton the right questions during its interview last month, if it was truly
trying to decide her intent in using a private, unsecured, unauthorized email
server.
Appearing on Fox's
America's Newsroom
, Gowdy said he thoroughly
reviewed the FBI's notes from the interview and was surprised there were no
questions addressing the former secretary of state's intent.
"Remember [FBI director] James Comey said she
was not indicted because he didn't have sufficient evidence on the issue of
intent? I didn't see any questions on the issue of intent," the congressman said.
While on the campaign trail in Iowa, giving a speech for wife Hillary Clinton, Bill's hands were noticeably trembling–and not from being in hot water with Hillary.
Kaposi's sarcoma lesions appear on Clinton's forehead. (depicted)
On CNN 12/6/13 Wolf Blitzer interviewed Clinton in regards to the death of Nelson Mandela. He
was sporting a nice big lesion on his forehead. There have been scandalous reports about him having
a secret HIV test in April of this year and though I don't follow the Star, Globe or any Murdoch
rag, I figure they are probably as right as any news these days.
I'll leave it to you to see the interview later once CNN posts it to their blogs. I had
to watch the jobless figures fraud once again. The 7% figure is fantasy and if it were to be 7% it
would mean three percent are underemployed or have just left the planet.
I find it appropriate that Bill Clinton would be on considering he signed off on NAFTA and the
sucking sound that were US jobs going across the borders and oceans. Maybe harsh justice has
come. I assume Clinton knows where he contracted it though as we all know he DID NOT
HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN, but he did with all the others.
"... I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous President before him. ..."
"... With all their concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit centers. ..."
"... The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves noble for empowering foreign nationals. ..."
I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats
trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current
Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous
President before him.
In 2014 he deported nine times more people than had
been deported twenty years earlier. Some years it was nearly double the
numbers under George W. Bush. And yes, I know it was not strict fillibuster
proof majority in the Senate for his first two years, but damn close and
the only thing we got was a half assed stimulus made up largely of tax stimulus
AND that gift to for profit medicine and insurance, the ACA.
With all their
concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration
reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators
who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit
centers.
Trump says mean things, but the Democrats, well once again actions should
speak louder than words but it isn't happening.
The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor
and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves
noble for empowering foreign nationals.
I guess this is one way for a supposedly pro-labor party to liquidate
its working class elements.
"When the Democratic National Committee announced its $32 million fundraising
haul last month, it touted the result as evidence of 'energy and excitement'
for Hillary Clinton's nomination for the White House and other races down the
ballot. The influx of money, however, also owes in part to an unprecedented
workaround of political spending limits that lets the party tap into millions
of dollars more from Clinton's wealthiest donors" [
Bloomberg ]. "At least $7.3 million of the DNC's July total originated with
payments from hundreds of major donors who had already contributed the maximum
$33,400 to the national committee, a review of Federal Election Commission filings
shows. The contributions, many of which were made months earlier, were first
bundled by the Hillary Victory Fund and then transferred to the state Democratic
parties, which effectively stripped the donors' names and sent the money to
the DNC as a lump sum. Of the transfers that state parties made to the DNC for
which donor information was available, an overwhelming proportion came from
contributions from maxed-out donors."
Lovely. Doubling down on the Victory Fund scam. Word of the day: Effrontery.
Re: Clintons campaign possible strategy of making a vote for Clinton
'a vote for a winner'.
I know its conventional opinion that when in doubt, people prefer to
vote for who they perceive to be a 'winner', but I wonder if this really
applies with two such disliked candidates. I've a theory that one reason
Brexit won is that the polls beforehand saying it would be a narrow 'no',
gave 'permission' for people to vote with their conscience rather than their
pragmatism. In other words, presented with a 'pragmatic, but dirty' vote
for X, but a 'fun, but risky' vote for Y', people will vote X if its very
close or it looks like Y will win, but may be tempted to vote Y if they
are pretty sure X will win.
Part of me thinks the Clinton campaign would have tested the theory to
the limit before going for a strategy like this, but the evidence from the
nomination campaign is that they are all tactics, no strategy. It seems
to me to be a very risky game to play, not least because promoting Clinton
as a sure winner may make wavering progressives simply opt to stay at home.
I don't even think you have to be a progressive for that to be a concern
if you are the Clinton campaign.
They know the public is not enthusiastic about voting for her for the most
part, and yet they are setting up a meme where she is unbeatable. It isn't
necessarily going to just keep Trump voters home. But how many people who
don't want Clinton but really don't want Trump will be able to convince
themselves that there is no need to go hold their nose and vote for her.
Republicans who think she is too far left, but he is crazy for instance
will be just as likely to stay home as the lefties who know she is lying
Neoliberal War Criminal, but not fascist like Trump. (And I know the real
fascism signs are all with Clinton, but some may have missed it).
On fascism I had the exact same thought after reading Adolph Reeds "Vote
For the Lying, NeoLiberal War-Monger, It's Important" link last week.
Reed's critique was that communist leader Thallman failed to anticipate
Hitler's liquidation of all opposition, but frankly with Hillary's and Donald's
respective histories its hard for me to see how Trump is more dangerous
on this: Hillary has a deep and proven lethal track record and wherever
she could justify violent action in the past she has, she keeps an enemies
list, holds grudges and acts on them, all thoroughly documented.
I certainly won't speculate that Trump couldn't do the same or worse,
given the state of our propaganda and lawlessness amongst the elite, but
like all the other negatives in this campaign its hard to ascertain who
really will be worse. Lambert's bet on gridlock in a Trump administration
has the further advantage of re-activating the simulation of "anti-war,
anti-violence" amongst Dem nomenklatura.
We have collectively known Donald Trump and much of his family for the
last 30 or 40 years. Over the years, he has evoked different emotions in
me. (Usually being appalled by his big-city, realestate tycoon posturing
etc). However, I have never been frightened by him. To
me, he is more like a bombastic, well loved, show-off uncle.
Today I see Trump as a modern day prophet (spiritual teacher). A bringer
of light (clarity) to the masses. We live in a rigged system that gives
Nobel Peace Prizes to mass murderers; that charges a poor child $600 for
a $1 lifesaving Epipen. Trump is waking up The People. Finalllyyyyyy!!
In my experience, people usually do not change for the better as they
age. However, it does happen!; peasant girl (Joan of Arc), patent inspector
(Einstein)
It's not about what Trump will or won't do. It's about not handing all
three branches of government over to the GOP, which has the Libertarian
agenda of eliminating said government altogether. I find it interesting
that so many people scornful of identity politics nevertheless seem to be
as addicted as anyone to making this a horse race between two candidates
that has no real far-reaching consequences beyond with each will or won't
do in the Oval Office.
So true: "My view is that triumphalism from the Clinton campaign - which
now includes most of the political class, including the press and both party
establishments, and ignores event risk - is engineered to get early voters
to "go with the winner."–Lambert
I have noticed on Google News several "Clinton weighing cabinet choices"
articles, to me there is whistling past the graveyard quality to all this.
They want the election over now-the votes are just a formality.
They really really do not have any short term memory do they? I mean
it took sticking both thumbs on the scale and some handy dandy shenanigans
with voters to get her past the Primary finish line. And her opponent there
was much nicer about pointing out her flaws than her current opponent. It
is true they won't have any obvious elections that disprove their position
out there, but when you are spending millions and your opponent nothing
and he is still within the margin of error with you in the states that people
are watching the closest…
Although that isn't considering the fears of what other shoes have to
drop both in the world and in the news that could derail her victory parade,
they may have more to fear from that.
One of the problems Democrats have and the 50 state strategy addressed
is voting in very Democratic precincts. Without constant pressure, many
proud Democrats won't vote because they don't know any Republicans. It's
in the bag. College kids are the worst voters alive. They will forget come
election day or not be registered because they moved. Dean squeezed these
districts. These districts are where Democrats , out in 2010 and 2014 and
even a little in 2012. Mittens is a robber baron.
If Democratic turnout is low and Hillary wins with crossover votes, what
happens? It's very likely those Republicans vote for down ticket Republicans.
Even for the people who have to vote against Trump, if they believe he is
a special kind of super fascist will they bother to vote for the allies
of a crook such as Hillary? It's possible Hillary wins and drops a seat
in the Senate depending on turnout.
I think it's clear Hillary isn't going to bring out any kind of voter
activism. Judging from photos in Virginia where one would hope a commanding
Hillary victory could jump start the Democrats for next year's governors
and legislative races, the Democratic Party is dead or very close to it.
What if Hillary wins but does the unthinkable and delivers a Republican
pickup in the Senate? She needs to keep Republicans from coming out because
she isn't going to drive Democratic turnout to a spot where that can win
on its own.
Hillary needs to win to keep the never Trump crowd in the GOP from voting
because she knows the Democratic side which relies on very Democratic districts
and transient voters will not impress. An emboldened GOP congress will be
a tough environment for Hillary, and GOP voters won't tolerate bipartisanship
especially for anyone suspected of not helping the party 100%. Those House
Republicans have to face 2018 and the smaller but arguably more motivated
electorate. They will come down hard on Hillary if she can't win the Senate
which a literal donkey could do.
Hell I don't want Clinton to win by any margin. But if anyone thinks
that the bipartisan nature of her possible victory will mean anything but
Republicans hunting her scalp, and dare I say getting it, they are not paying
attention. As much as both the Benghazi and the email thing has them all
flummoxed because the real crimes involved with both are crimes they either
agree with or want to use. The Foundation on the other hand, not so much,
they will make the case that this is a global slush fund because it is.
And the McDonnell decision is not going to save her Presidency, much as
it would if she were indicted in a Court.
I should add, that is with or without winning the Senate. Much of the
loyalty any Dems there have towards her will disappear when it is obvious
that she keeps most of the money AND has no coattails. Oh, they might not
vote to impeach her, but that is about it.
Hillary's only defense is to win the Senate and to be able to stifle
investigations through the appearance of a mandate. 2018 is the 2012 cycle,
and that is 2006 which should be a good year for the Republicans (a credit
to Howard Dean). It's a tough map for Team Blue. If they don't win the Senate
in November, they won't win it in 2018.
With 2018 on its way, a weak Democratic situation will make the Democrats
very jumpy as Hillary is clearly not delivering the coattails they imagined.
She isn't going to have a mandate. Oh, the electoral college count might
look good. But regardless of who wins this sucker, I'm betting this is going
to be one of the lowest, if not the lowest, voter turnout for any Presidential
election in the last century. I would not be surpised if more people stay
home than vote. And that is not a mandate.
The Senate isn't going to stifle investigations. She doesn't even have
to help the Dems get a majority for that problem of conviction if impeached
to rear its ugly head. No way is there going to be 2/3 of the Senate in
one party or the other. That still won't stop the House. Just as it didn't
for her husband.
I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats
trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current
Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous
President before him. In 2014 he deported nine times more people than had
been deported twenty years earlier. Some years it was nearly double the
numbers under George W. Bush. And yes, I know it was not strict fillibuster
proof majority in the Senate for his first two years, but damn close and
the only thing we got was a half assed stimulus made up largely of tax stimulus
AND that gift to for profit medicine and insurance, the ACA. With all their
concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration
reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators
who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit
centers.
Trump says mean things, but the Democrats, well once again actions should
speak louder than words but it isn't happening.
The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor
and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves
noble for empowering foreign nationals.
I guess this is one way for a supposedly pro-labor party to liquidate
its working class elements.
Is that Huma in a blue dress under the Resolute desk?
Pairadimes d Here2Go •Aug 27, 2016 9:14 PM
Ramirez is a genius.
zeronetwork d debtor of last resort •Aug 27, 2016 8:15 PM
The thought process Donald has started is not going to fade very soon. Still
few weeks before election. I am sure Donald got some more cards in his sleeve.
are we there yet •Aug 27, 2016 8:36 PM
I have a solution for Hillary's in-continuance and mobility declining problems.
The chair behind the presidents desk should be a wheelchair with a bedpan.
Otherwise the term 'campaign trail' will take on a whole new meaning.
Fox News' Shepard Smith appeared intent on having a guest on his program Thursday say that Republican
presidential nominee Donald Trump is a racist.
Wall Street Journal investigative reporter James Grimaldi joined Smith on Fox Reports immediately
after Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's speech in Reno, Nev., during which she charged that Trump
will "make America hate again."
"He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party,"
she said.
Smith said that "the problem with any attempt to rebut her" was that "she used Donald Trump's own
words, what's historically accurate on his policies on all reviewed points."
He turned to Grimaldi and said, "Where do you begin with this?"
"I don't know. It was pretty extraordinary and pretty hard-hitting," the reporter replied.
Grimaldi went on to explain that Trump "trades in hyperbole," giving Clinton more fodder to
work with.
Smith interjected: "He trades in racism, doesn't he?"
The Wall Street Journal reporter was not willing to go that far. "Well, I'll leave that up
to the commentators. … I'm not one to generally label people like that, so I would pass on that
question."
"... Here is the 'furthest back' shot. TV coverage did not show these. ..."
"... Bizzaro event. Minuscule, there is almost nobody there. It was deliberatly set up in 'small space' for the cams. The only other important ppl present are one man (Head of the college or? idk) and the Mayor of Reno. The only signs shown say *USA* are not appropriate and are whipped out only when Killary comes onstage. Doesn't even look like a Democrat event! Never mind an important campaign rally for *drum rolls* the person anointed to become Prez. of the most powerful country on Earth, the World Queen or Hegemon. ..."
"... The US is fracturing...Moreover the speech was perhaps the weakest from any pol I have ever heard. ..."
Part 1. ;) Got dragged into Killary's alt-right speech at Truckee Meadows Community College, Reno,
Nevada, Aug 2016. Only content: 100% against Trump , as sidebars, Alex Jones, Nigel Farage,
Putin, David Duke.
The official MSM version is 31 mins - the frame is just her with a fixed cam centered nothing
around. Sparse occasional clapping (real, one can see the clappers in other vids).. She speaks
as one would to a parterre of 30-50 ppl, not as in a campaign rally. A longer version (MSM) is
45 mins and shows some of the preliminaries, some guy, then the Mayor of Reno, youngish blondine,
introducing her. Killary was apparently hours late. (> youtube.) Killary is dressed in green.
To the interesting part. She spoke at the same College in Feb. 2015. Note: red dress, the brick
pillars typical of the college, and the big windows behind. A big hall…
link This shot shows the other direction, see the small windows at the side and back
link The event has all the hallmarks of a 'proper' pol show, no need to list. Note the Hall, quite
large, is not full. The signs are blue and are for Hillary, for Women, for Nevada and so on.
Part 2. The Aug. 2016 event took place at the College but either in a small part of the back of
the big hall or another locale (similar in architecture obviously)
link The widest shot Aug. 2016. AFGE (men with black Ts) = American Federation of Gvmt. Employees.
link Here is the 'furthest back' shot. TV coverage did not show these.
link The only shot I could find showing the audience facing her. Note the ppl behind her facing
out, i.e. the cams (shown on TV etc.) are not identifiable.
link Bizzaro event. Minuscule, there is almost nobody there. It was deliberatly set up in 'small
space' for the cams. The only other important ppl present are one man (Head of the college or?
idk) and the Mayor of Reno. The only signs shown say *USA* are not appropriate and are whipped
out only when Killary comes onstage. Doesn't even look like a Democrat event! Never mind an important
campaign rally for *drum rolls* the person anointed to become Prez. of the most powerful country
on Earth, the World Queen or Hegemon.
After the speech, vids show H.C. talking to a very few ppl, 25 at most, not answering "reporters"
questions, two tiny trays of confections were offered. Bwwahhh. She ate one choc. There was also
a stop at a Reno Coffee shop (10 ppl?) which made no sense. On these occasions she is accompanied
by the Mayor in a cosy girly coffee thingie. (> youtube.)
The US is fracturing...Moreover the speech was perhaps the weakest from any pol I have
ever heard.
okie farmer@80 Lavrov is on a loser if he accepts this "moderate terrorist" BS from Kerry. Those
"moderates" have replaced Islamic state in Jerablus, soon to be expanded to cover that huge area
between Jerablus, Azaz and Al-bab,all without a fight and apparent agreement with IS. Next could
be the area is controlled by Turkish and US "moderate" head choppers, which of course nobody will
be allowed to attack. They should only be called moderate if they oppose Assad and do not carry
arms, otherwise its just a case of changing labels, in which case the terrorists could never lose.
I find it hard to believe that so soon after the so called normalization of ties and trade deals
between Russia and Turkey, Turkey could do what they have threatened to do for years, invade Syria
and set up prospective no fly zones. I suppose we must wait and see, but in my opinion, it does
not look good.
I agree. Russia has been stabbed in the back by Turkey, and the US is backing Turkey ... of
course they were backing the Kurds, too, until they weren't.
Erdogan is utterly unreliable ... or he is utterly reliable if you're relying on duplicity
and betrayal.
"... But the party's latest generation of "New Democrats" - self-described "moderates" who are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to steer the party to the right - have noticed this trend and are now fighting back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the hub for contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper, " Ready for the New Economy ," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing on economic inequality. Former Obama chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way trustee, recently argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe for disaster" for Democrats. ..."
"... The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic issues," wrote Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001 article in The American Prospect . "The DLC thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base - unionists, blacks, feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally." ..."
"... Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed. The organization had virtually no grassroots supporters; it was funded almost entirely by corporate donors. Its executive council, Dreyfuss reported , was made up of companies that donated at least $25,000 and included Enron and Koch Industries. A list of its known donors includes scores of the United States' most powerful corporations, all of whom benefit from a Democratic Party that embraces big business and is less reliant on labor unions and the grassroots for support. ..."
"... The height of the DLC's triumph may well have been in the 1990s, when it claimed President Bill Clinton as its most prominent advocate, celebrating his disastrous welfare cuts (which were supported by Hillary Clinton as the first lady), his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement and his speech declaring that the "era of big government is over." These initiatives had the DLC's footprint all over them. ..."
"... The DLC's prescribed Third Way also found a home on Downing Street in England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the DLC, adopted its strategies and lent his name to its website. According to the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the Third Way , he said in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old Left preoccupied by state control, high taxation and producer interests." ..."
"... When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate. She quickly became a major player for the DLC, serving as a prominent member of the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at conferences on multiple occasions and serving as chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and 2008 elections. ..."
"... She also adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of many of the now infamous documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond. ..."
"... The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a similar role against Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as "The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism." ..."
"... However, the DLC's influence eventually waned . A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So, when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator. "You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC," he wrote when pressed by the magazine . "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC." ..."
"... When the DLC closed, it records were acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding members. In September 2015, the foundation hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power ..."
"... Citizens United ..."
"... So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing New Democrats to key posts in his White House. The same Bill Daley who works for a hedge fund and is on the board of trustees for Third Way was also President Obama's White House chief of staff . And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's direction in the 2016 election. ..."
"... The remaining champions of the DLC agenda have been increasingly active in trying to push back against populism. On October 28, 2015, Third Way published an ambitious paper, "Ready for the New Economy," that aims to do just that. The paper falsely argues that "the narrative of fairness and inequality has, to put it mildly, failed to excite voters," and says "these trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value of today's populist agenda." ..."
"... When Clinton announced her tax plan, Dow Jones quoted Jim Kessler, a Third Way staffer, praising the plan. On social media , Third Way staffers are routinely cheering on Clinton and attacking Sanders and O'Malley . ..."
"... and where she will be ..."
"... Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president . Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always been wildly overstated , but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support. He attracted a large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term "Netroots" in support of his candidacy . For a time, Dean was leading in the polls during the primary. ..."
"... Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who attacked him for running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and Dean's supporters was so intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas described it as a "civil war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same group that ambushed his candidacy precisely because it appealed to the party's left-leaning base. ..."
"... The tendency of some progressives to downplay, ignore or deflect populist critiques of Clinton's record was observed by Doug Henwood in his 2014 Harper's piece "Stop Hillary." ..."
"... In the article, he describes the "widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as a progressive paragon" as misguided. "In fact, a close look at her life and career is perhaps the best antidote to all these great expectations," Henwood writes. "The historical record, such as it is, may also be the only antidote, since most progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in anything but the most general, flattering terms." ..."
A discussion about how the Democrats could be compromised by their relationship with the
financial institutions that fund their campaigns was unthinkable in past presidential debates.
Such a discussion falls way outside the narrow parameters of debate that have dominated political
discourse in the mainstream media for decades. But at the
Democratic
debate in Iowa this November, this issue was front and center: Hillary Clinton was forced to
defend her financial relationship with Wall Street
numerous times on network television.
Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed.
Clinton's response to populist attacks on her Wall Street connections has largely been to adopt
similar language and policy positions as her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. In many ways she is
trying to minimize the differences between her and Sanders, rather than emphasize them. "The differences
among us," she said of her opponents at the
Iowa debate , "pale in comparison to what's happening on the Republican [side]."
But the party's latest generation of
"New Democrats" - self-described
"moderates" who
are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to steer the party to the right - have
noticed this trend and are now fighting back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the
hub for contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper, "
Ready for the
New Economy ," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing on economic inequality. Former Obama
chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way trustee, recently
argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe for disaster" for Democrats.
This "ideological gulf" inside the party, as The Washington Post's
Ruth Marcus describes it , is not a new phenomenon. Before there was Third Way, there was the
Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). And before there was Bill Daley, there was Hillary Clinton -
a key member of the
DLC's leadership team during her entire tenure in the US Senate (2000-2008). As Clinton seeks
progressive support, it is important to consider her role in the influential movement to, as
The American Prospect describes
it , "reinvent the [Democratic] party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and
a pro-business, pro-free market outlook." This fairly recent history is an important part of Clinton's
record, and she owes it to primary voters to answer for it.
But before all of these events shaped public opinion, the party was largely guided by the ideas
of the Democratic Leadership Council.
Founded by Southern Democrats in 1985 , the group sought to transform the party by pushing it
to embrace more conservative positions and win support from big business.
Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed.
The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less
radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic
issues," wrote Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001
article in The American Prospect
. "The DLC thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base - unionists, blacks,
feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally."
Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed. The organization
had virtually no grassroots supporters; it was funded almost entirely by corporate donors. Its executive
council, Dreyfuss reported
, was made up of companies that donated at least $25,000 and included Enron and Koch Industries.
A list of its known donors includes scores of the United States' most powerful corporations, all
of whom benefit from a Democratic Party that embraces big business and is less reliant on labor unions
and the grassroots for support.
The organization's influence was significant, especially in the 1990s. The New York Times
reported
that during that era "the Democratic Leadership Council was a maker of presidents." Its influence
continued into the post-Clinton years. Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt
and countless others all
lent their names in support of the organization. The DLC and its think tank, the
Progressive Policy Institute (PPI),
were well financed and published a seemingly endless barrage of
policy papers , op-eds
and declarations
in their numerous publications.
"It is almost hard to find anyone who wasn't involved with [the DLC]" said Mark Schmitt, a staffer
for the nonpartisan New America Foundation think tank, in an interview with Truthout. "This was before
there were a lot of organizations, and the DLC provided a way for politicians to get involved and
to be in the same room with important people."
The DLC's prescribed Third Way also
found a home on Downing
Street in England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the DLC,
adopted its strategies and lent
his name to its website. According to the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the
Third Way ,
he said in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old Left preoccupied
by state control, high taxation and producer interests."
As recently as 2014, Blair has continued to urge the UK's Labour Party to remain committed to
these ideals. "Former UK prime minister Tony Blair has urged Labour leader Ed Miliband to stick to
the political centre ground, warning that the public has not 'fallen back in love with the state'
despite the global financial crisis,"
according to the Financial Times , which noted that the left-wing base of his party has rejected
his centrist leanings. "His decision as prime minister to join the US in its invasion of Iraq - as
well as his free-market leanings - have made him a
hate figure among the most leftwing Labour activists."
Hillary Clinton as a New Democrat
When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate. She quickly became
a major player for the DLC, serving as a
prominent member of
the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at
conferences
on multiple occasions
and serving as
chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
New Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about bringing together big
business and the Democrats.
More importantly, Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed. She tried to portray
herself as a crusader for family values when she
introduced legislation to ban violent video games and
flag burning in 2005.
She also
adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on
terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of
many of the now infamous
documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically
increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond.
The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition
to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a
similar role against
Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as
"The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism."
However, the DLC's influence eventually
waned
. A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive
voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So,
when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his
name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator.
"You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in
the DLC," he wrote when
pressed by the magazine
. "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC."
The DLC's decline continued: A growing sense of discontent among progressives, Clinton's loss
in 2008 and the economic crisis that followed turned the DLC into something of a political liability.
And in 2011, the Democratic Leadership Council
shuttered
its doors .
When the DLC closed, it records were
acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting
repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding
members. In September 2015, the foundation
hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power . Amazingly,
O'Malley provided a
favorable
blurb for the book, praising it as a "reminder of the core principles that still drive Democratic
success today."
The 2016 Election and New Democrats
The DLC's demise was seen as a victory by many progressives, and the populist tone of the 2016
primary is being celebrated as a sign of rising progressivism as well. But it is probably too soon
to declare that the "battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is coming to an end," as Adam Green,
cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, recently
told the Guardian .
Consider the way Marshall spun the closing of the DLC. "With President Obama consciously reconstructing
a winning coalition by reconnecting with the progressive center, the pragmatic ideas of PPI and other
organizations are more vital than ever," he said in an
interview with Politico .
His reference to "PPI and other organizations" refers to the still-existing Progressive Policy
Institute and Third Way. These institutions have the same
Wall Street support and continue to push the same agenda that their predecessor did.
New Democrats' guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick to defend Clinton.
Many of these "centrist" ideas lack popular support these days. But New Democrats were never really
about popular support; they were about bringing together big business and the Democrats. The group's
board of trustees is almost
entirely made up of Wall Street executives. Further, in the aftermath of the 2010 Citizens
United Supreme Court decision, these same moneyed interests
have more influence over the political process than ever before.
"These organizations now are basically just corporate lobbyists today," Schmitt said.
So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing
New Democrats to key posts in his White House. The same Bill Daley who
works for a hedge fund and is on the
board of trustees for Third Way
was also President Obama's
White House chief of
staff . And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's
direction in the 2016 election.
The remaining champions of the DLC agenda have been increasingly active in trying to push back
against populism. On October 28, 2015, Third Way published an ambitious paper,
"Ready for the
New Economy," that aims to do just that. The paper
falsely
argues that "the narrative of fairness and inequality has, to put it mildly, failed to excite
voters," and says "these trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value
of today's populist agenda."
The report attacks Sanders' proposals for expanding Social Security and implementing a single-payer
health-care system directly, making
faulty
claims about both proposals. It also advises Democrats to avoid the "singular focus on income
inequality" because its "actual impact on the middle class may be small."
"Third Way and its allies are gravely misreading the economic and political moment," said Richard
Eskow, a writer for Campaign for America's Future, in a
rebuttal
to the paper. "If their influence continues to wane, perhaps one day Americans can stop paying
the price for their ill-conceived, corporation- and billionaire-friendly agenda."
Eskow is right to use the word "if" instead of "when." Progressives ignore these efforts at their
own peril. Despite their archaic and flawed ideas, Third Way's reports and speakers still get undue
attention in the mainstream media. For instance, The Washington Post
devoted 913 words to Third Way's new paper, describing it as part of a "big economic fight in
the Democratic Party." The article provided a platform for Third Way's president Jonathan Cowan to
attack Sanders. "We propose that Democrats be Democrats, not socialists," he said. This tone is the
status quo for New Democrats in the media. Their guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick
to defend Clinton.
When Clinton was attacked for working with former Wall Street executives, The Wall Street Journal
quoted PPI president Will Marshall, defending her. "The idea that you have to excommunicate anybody
who ever worked in the financial sector is ridiculous,"
he said .
"The Necessities of the Moment": Will Clinton Run Back to the Right?
Of course, the New Democrats' preference for Clinton shouldn't surprise anyone. She has been an
ally for years. And while they have expressed concern over her leftward tilt, they are confident,
as
the Post reported , that "she'll tack back their way in a general election." For instance,
her recent opposition to the
Trans-Pacific Partnership - which Third Way is
supporting aggressively - has centrists "disappointed" but not worried.
"Everyone knew where she was on that and where she will be , but given the necessities
of the moment and a tough Democratic primary, she felt she needed to go there initially," New Democratic
Coalition chairman Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wisconsin)
told the Guardian (emphasis added).
Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important to be critical, even of candidates for whom
you will likely vote.
If New Democrats aren't worried that Clinton's populist rhetoric is sincere, progressives probably
should be worried that it isn't. As DLC founder Al From
told the Guardian : "Hillary will bend a little bit but not so much that she can't get herself
back on course in the general [election] and when she is governing."
Some, however, are confident that if elected, Clinton will have to spend political capital on
the very populist ideas she is now embracing.
"When you make these kind of promises it will be difficult to just go back on them," said the
New America Foundation's Mark Schmitt. "She will have to work on many of these issues if she is elected."
Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told Truthout that his group's
emphasis is to make any Democratic candidate responsive to the issues important to what he calls
the
"Warren wing" of the party, which espouses the more populist economic beliefs of Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Massachusetts). Like Warren, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee hasn't endorsed
a candidate in the race as of now.
"It is not about one candidate; it is about trying to make all the candidates address the issues
we care about," Green said, citing debt-free education, expanding Social Security benefits and supporting
Black Lives Matter as key issues.
Liberals, Clinton and Partisan Amnesia
It is understandable why some progressives are hesitant to be critical of Clinton: They fully
expect that soon she will be the only thing standing between them and some candidate from the "Republican
clown car," as Green described the GOP field.
But voting pragmatically in a general election is one thing. Ignoring or apologizing for Clinton's
very recent and troubling record is another. Too many progressives are engaged in a sort of willful
partisan amnesia and are accepting the false narrative that Clinton is "a populist fighter who for
decades has been an advocate for families and children," as some unnamed
Clinton advisers told The New York Times.
Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, who
has
endorsed Hillary Clinton for president . Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always
been
wildly overstated , but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record
aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his campaign for the Democratic
nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support.
He attracted a large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term
"Netroots" in
support of his candidacy . For a time, Dean was
leading in the polls during the primary.
Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who
attacked him
for running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally
by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and
Dean's supporters was so intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas
described it as a "civil war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for
Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same group that ambushed his
candidacy precisely because it appealed to the party's left-leaning base.
Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton to respond to left critiques will likely
not come again soon.
Yet Moulitsas recently
endorsed Clinton in a column for The Hill. Moulitsas was one of the key bloggers who supported
Dean in 2004 and helped create the Netroots in its infancy. His goal, he said often, was
"crashing the gate" of the Democratic establishment. But his uncritical support for Clinton,
the quintessential establishment candidate, has turned much of
his own blog into evidence of how some progressives are dismissing recent history for partisan
reasons. In the last contested Democratic primary, Moulitsas was extremely
critical
of Clinton. Now, he is helping her
do to Sanders what the DLC did to Dean.
Why are the likes of Dean and Moulitsas so quick to embrace Clinton after years of battling with
her and her allies in the so-called "vital center?" Only they know for sure. In the case of Dean,
it may well be because he was never a real populist to begin with. In 2003, Bloomberg did a story
asking Vermonters to talk about Dean's ideology. "Howard is not a liberal. He's a pro-business, Rockefeller
Republican,"
said Garrison Nelson, a political science professor at the University of Vermont. This sentiment
is shared by many Vermonters, on both the
left
and
right .
But for other self-identified progressives who have embraced the establishment candidate, such
as Moulitsas, the answers may be simpler: partisan loyalty and ambition. The fact is the odds of
Clinton winning the nomination are very good. And for the likes of Moulitsas - who now writes columns
for an establishment
DC paper and is a
major fundraiser for Democrats - being on the side of the winner will certainly make him more
friends in DC than supporting the self-identified socialist that opposes her.
Moulitsas argues that Clinton has dismissed "her husband's ideological baggage" and is "aiming
for a truly progressive presidency." He is now a true believer, he claims. It is up to readers to
decide if they find his argument to be credible, especially compared to the conflicting statements
he has made for many years. Many on
his own blog are skeptical.
But, lastly, the main reason many progressives are willing to overlook Clinton's record is simply
fear. They are afraid of a Republican president, and it is hard to blame them. The idea of a President
Trump - or Carson or Cruz - is extremely frightening for many people. This is entirely understandable.
But even if one feels obligated to vote for Clinton in the general election, should she win the nomination,
that does not mean her record ought to be ignored. Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important
to be critical, even of candidates for whom you will likely vote.
The Historical Record: "The Only Antidote"
The tendency of some progressives to downplay, ignore or deflect populist critiques of Clinton's
record was observed by Doug Henwood in his 2014 Harper's piece
"Stop Hillary."
In the article, he describes the "widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as a progressive paragon"
as misguided. "In fact, a close look at her life and career is perhaps the best antidote to all these
great expectations," Henwood writes. "The historical record, such as it is, may also be the only
antidote, since most progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in anything but the most general,
flattering terms."
Cleary, Clinton's historical record reveals much to be concerned about, including her long career
as a New Democrat. For the first time in recent memory, however, progressives actually have some
leverage to make her answer for this record.
Clinton has a reasonably competitive opponent who has challenged her on her record of Wall Street
support, her
dismissal of the Glass-Steagall Act and her
vote for war in Iraq . She should also be challenged vigorously on her role with the DLC.
Circumstances have created a unique moment where Clinton has to answer these tough questions.
But it may be a fleeting moment. Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton - or any major
establishment politician - to respond to left critiques will likely not come again soon. Copyright,
Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission .
Michael Corcoran
is a journalist based in Boston. He has written for The Boston Globe, The Nation,
The Christian Science Monitor, Extra!, NACLA Report on the Americas and other publications. Follow
him on Twitter: @mcorcoran3 .
"... The issue we've always asked ourselves here is, why was she hiding this in the first place? Why did she have a private server? Obviously it was concealing, what was she concealing? And the most obvious possible answer was the [Clinton] Foundation. ..."
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, we've been speculating for a year about what the email scandal was
all about and I think we were diverted for a year about the classification. It's a real issue, serious
issue, but that was never the issue.
The issue we've always asked ourselves here is, why was she
hiding this in the first place? Why did she have a private server? Obviously it was concealing, what
was she concealing? And the most obvious possible answer was the [Clinton] Foundation.
"... The clearest evidence that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had something to hide in her emails is the way she made sure their contents stayed hidden, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. said Thursday. ..."
"... Clinton famously laughed off a question about whether she had wiped her private email server. ..."
The clearest evidence that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had something to
hide in her emails is the way she made sure their contents stayed hidden, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.
said Thursday.
Clinton famously laughed off a question about whether she had wiped her private email server.
"What?
Like with a cloth or something?" she asked. "I don't know how it works digitally at all."
"... The department has so far released about half of the schedules. Its lawyers said in a phone conference with the AP's lawyers that the department now expects to release the last of the detailed schedules around Dec. 30, weeks before the next president is inaugurated. ..."
(Associated Press) Seven months after a federal judge ordered the State Department to begin releasing
monthly batches of the detailed daily schedules showing meetings by Hillary Clinton during her time
as secretary of state, the government told The Associated Press it won't finish the job before Election
Day.
The department has so far released about half of the schedules. Its lawyers said in a phone conference
with the AP's lawyers that the department now expects to release the last of the detailed schedules
around Dec. 30, weeks before the next president is inaugurated.
The AP's lawyers late Friday formally asked the State Department to hasten that effort so that
the department could provide all Clinton's minute-by-minute schedules by Oct. 15. The agency did
not immediately respond.
vote for Clinton is vote for globalization, while vote for Trump is vote for anti-globalization
Notable quotes:
"... "As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone, is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a tyrant's court " - ..."
"... In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism. ..."
"... Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000; Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen. ..."
"... Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before voting commences. ..."
"... In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The Donald.' Sad days for the Republic. ..."
"... US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby. ..."
"... The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/ ..."
"... Paul Joseph Watson responds to Hillary's racism speech - The Truth About Hillary's 'Alt-Right' Speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufkHt8dgG8I ..."
"... But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities, he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding, the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword, waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull? ..."
"... All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination. The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC ..."
"... ...Hillary is a one woman criminal enterprise and she's the monster's mother. [a comment from the intercept] ..."
"... It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence ..."
"... Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till some dignity. ..."
"... Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate just said no to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation. ..."
"... "MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative, D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years. ..."
"... [Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...] ..."
"... Outside the two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ..."
"... It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help. More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans where he lags. ..."
"... it makes the msm look like what it actually is - propaganda tool for the 1% with jackass journalists in tow.. ..."
"... As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of issues to sway voters. ..."
"... It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this, as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care. ..."
"... Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention, with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also facing off with the Russians. ..."
"... Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine. ..."
"... It may be that, despite his rethoric, and like Oboma before him, Trump will bring all those things too, should he win, but we DO know for sure what Killary intends, because we have already seen her handywork, and she has promised more of the same ..."
"... The proper question is : after Obama, why do people like you still think that voting is of any use? ..."
"... "What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her only way out... ..."
"... Shillary! Such refined thinking. Face it, the US has always been corrupt. ..."
"... If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns. ..."
"... The foreign policy of the American ruling class, in addition to the impoverishment of American society to fund the vast military apparatus, has had the most horrifying consequences for the peoples of the countries targeted. The war fomented by the United States in Syria has reduced the population of that country from 23 million to about 17 million, killed up to half a million people, and displaced over 13 million. ..."
"... Returning to protectionism and fair trade will lift all American boats, not just the Wall Street Zionists ..."
"... America, despite glowing MSM BS, is on the ropes of neoliberalism. As an older American,I remember a land of plenty, with good jobs for all, instead of fast food retail hell. ..."
"... What is unbelievable is the fact that she corruptly stole the primary with the help of the DNC and the ziomedia, but no one cares. ..."
"... For clear light on the positive relationship between a Trump presidency and the US economy, David Stockman offers wisdom. Take a look from time to time at his website to educate yourself: http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/ ..."
"... Now it is time for people to start saying Roberts is a shill for Trump. If you've read what he has written about Trump, he's highly critical. His point is simple: Do you support those who are so blatantly against Trump? Or, put the other way around, are you in favor of continued oligarchic rule. ..."
This pic comparing a young Donald Trump with a child figure in some old
Nazi propaganda was
posted by Doug
Saunders , supposedly a serious international-affairs columnist
at the Canadian Globe
and Mail.
It is illogical, childish nonsense. But Saunders is by far the only one disqualifying himself
as serious commentator by posting such bullshit. Indeed, the villain-ification of Donald Trump is
a regular feature which runs through U.S. and international media from the left to the right.
Is there any villain in U.S. (political) culture Donald Trump has not been compare to? Let me
know what to search for.
I doubt that this assault on Trump's character is effective. (Hillary Clinton is a
more fitting
object .) Potential Trump voters will at best ignore it. More likely they will feel confirmed
in their belief that all media and media people are anti-Trump and pro-Clinton.
The onslaught only validates what himself Trump claims: that all media are again him, independent
of whatever policies he may promote or commit to.
The jokes on them. Older voters, smarter voters are voting for Trump. If he remains on message
and points out those things that do matter then he can win. He has to stop the joking around and
being nasty. Be serious and get to the point.
Trump can joke and talk all the nonsense he want, still it won't change my mind. I know Hillary
including Bernie Sanders - they're from the same pot of shit.
The only question remain, should I vote for Jill Stein to bring her Green Party percentage
up? Jill Stein spoke repeatedly she will stop all aids to any country and NOT only Israel if
human right are abuse - not exact words.
Further she is a strong support of BDS even as Canada Green Party leader not in favor "Canadian
MP Elizabeth May told reporters on Monday that she will stay on as leader of Canada's Green Party
after saying she was considering stepping down because of her opposition to the party's recently-adopted
policy of endorsing the strategy of Boycott Divest and Sanction against Israel. "
For decades, at least 40 years, it was a whisper that the international medias have been sitting
in the lap of a certain 3 letter agency. The mission: Manufacturing Consent by Deception.
Globalism, War & Chaos
brought by The Establishment owners of Deep Shadow Government. This quote from Robert Faurisson who is tagged a Halocaust denier may offend those who cannot
be criticized:
"As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone,
is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through
its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a
tyrant's court " -
In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking
the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth
Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young
to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection
of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism.
~ ~ ~
Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog
Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000;
Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen.
Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before
voting commences.
In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went
to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be
an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere
mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading
a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total
lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The
Donald.' Sad days for the Republic.
People vote against their own self interests only because bought-and-paid-for MSM and political
pundits SAY that a third-party can't win.
If everyone would simply turn off toxic media and simply vote for their best interest the establishment
would stop taking us all for granted.
What is better: Trump is elected but Obama-Hillary Democratic "Third-Way" back-stabbing sell-outs are replaced
by a real left opposition led by Greens? - OR -
Obama-Hillary fake left squashes real opposition for another 8 years while extending and deepening
the soul-crushing neolib/neocon disaster?
"Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote
for him."
US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based
more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned
by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby.
Carter (D) = 39%
Reagan (R) = 32%
Anderson (I) = 21%
Who took it? Polls are still unreliable. The poll sampling is key.
I don't have a vote. On November 08, the real problem is one of the two will be (s)elected.
Your decision does weigh heavily and guarantees the selection. Can you support another 4-8 years
of the certified corrupt Clinton couple?
There is a third way to effectively cast a ballot outside the two main party's candidates and
that is not to vote at all. This is effective as a historical fact that some fraction of eligible
voters did not participate (whatever the cause) and the winning candidate was enabled by some
plurality rather than a majority of the eligible electorate. Throwing away one's vote in a fit
of moral superiority is an effective way to throw away one's voting rights, but then the 'moral
majority' that wrecked the Republic never realised their culpability and still haven't. Not one
of the minority candidates became anything more than a sad footnote to history - not one.
I guess instead of violating Goodwin law, or complain one-sidedly, we should eschew "Hitlery"
and "fascist Trump", and find some high-brow metaphors. My proposals:
Hillary and Trump
But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities,
he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released
from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding,
the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword,
waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver
the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull?
All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination.
The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling
for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support
HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal. The launching
of the self-proclaimed "Our Revolution" website/organization is yet another DNC-based sham that
studiously avoids any mention of the military or foreign policy on its "Issues" page, which again
belies its nature since the #1 issue for all Genuine Progressives is War and being against it.
Still have 10 weeks to go. Stein has earned all the votes within my household.
I'm not a big fan of Trump's but I find that people don't argue about his politics, but insult
him and his wife on a personal basis.
This makes me think that it's the turn of the 'Left' in the USA to become immature and resort
to name calling. Remember when it was the 'Right' that made fun of Kerry's Purple Heart?
Which also exposes the problem with politics worldwide - the Left and the Right have met at
the extremes and we now see progressives arguing for burkinis and the right arguing for workers'
rights by trying to prevent the TPP, etc.
It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being
widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes
onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence - no, not the
one that is derived from fancy questionnaires, or adding numbers.
Real intelligence includes the understanding that sitting in a glasshouse throwing rocks does
not qualify to be such. It also includes the understanding to be inseparable part of one's environment
- a shared environment indicating that there is only interdependence, not separation.
Furthermore, real intelligence includes compassion, kindness and the will to walk in somebody
else's shoes.
This intelligence is sorely missing in the majority of people that are entrusted with 'journalistic'
work, or working in public offices. The stench of being "holier that thou" is covering the U.S.A.
and wafts to Europe were it is now also modus operandi.
The best course of action would be to punish those who engage in this kind of demagoguery with
nonobservance.
It won't be Trump who brings us fascism as the images implies, but more likely Clinton if she
wins and if the Democrats can win over one of the Houses of Congress. As the campaign goes on,
these comparisons add up and create in the minds of anybody anti-Trump an actual equivalency to
in particular Hitler. This is one half of the combustion needed to go down the road to fascism.
There is something else that Trump given the Russian hysteria is being called--a traitor. The
thing is, Hillary supports believe this to be true in a criminal sense. It is not just some throw
away smear normal for any election. I have seen way too way postings in major democratic party
sites calls for basically the resurrection of the House Un-American Activities Committee. These
supporters are historically clueless on what they are asking for, and I would imagine the same
with much of the democratic party lawmakers in Congress.
I can see if Hillary wins, witch hunts against anti-war protesters, or people who believe we
should have rapprochement with Russia and China. The goal will be to criminalize and punish dissenting
views on foreign and war policies because the constant Putin/Trump/Hitler/Stalin/etc comparisons
created the foundation for actual criminal accusations.
And the witch hunts will spread beyond war and foreign policy. Look at what is going on in
Europe. Literally, and I do mean literally, every problem is being attributed to Putin "weaponizing"
some issue. Serious politicians accused Putin of using drunken Russian fans during the Euro futbol
championships of starting fights to support Brexit. The Polish minister for internal security
accused Putin of master minding the Paris terrorist attacks. And these guys get away with the
most outlandish accusations. As the real Nazis understood, repetition of lies is the foundation
of propaganda to move people into action.
The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling
for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support
HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal.
Well the resident Zio-Racist Hill-shill (rufus magister | Aug 26, 2016 11:47:38 AM | 5) likes
to pretend he is some sort of progressive, but still can't keep from outing himself by banging
on non-stop about the Zio-Racists favourite talking points (Heil hillary and "holocaustholocaustholocaut!!")
She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing
empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness
will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff [.]
Very interesting because I have been discussing with colleagues here the Don should be honing
his debating skill sets as Hillary is a trained lawyer/politician.
Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton
foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming
shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till
some dignity.
Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate
just said no
to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels
to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation.
. . .Clinton's use of BleachBit undermines her claims that she only deleted innocuous "personal"
emails from her private server
"If she considered them to be personal, then she and her lawyers had those emails deleted.
They didn't just push the delete button, they had them deleted where even God can't read
them.
"They were using something called BleachBit You don't use BleachBit for yoga emails."
"When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see."
Vitriol galore! If the arguments made above ... either way ... are the best we can do then
maybe electing Hillary and hoping for WW3 is the lessor of evils. As I've said before, not a bad
idea.
Posted by: From The Hague | Aug 26, 2016 2:22:04 PM | 34
"MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering
idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative,
D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears
of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years.
To be bold here: a 'left' mother loves her child as much as a 'right' mother and even more
so the grandparents. Any grandparent here that denies their grandchildren their love based on
the fact that their children cling on to a different belief? And that it is in its entirety -
made believe by the Plutocrats and the sheople throw shit at each other instead of UPWARDS
.
[Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...]
Just yesterday, one of Britain's most prominent right-wing leaders, Nigel Farage, who stoked
anti-immigrant sentiments to win the referendum on leaving the European Union, campaigned with
Donald Trump in Mississippi. Farage has called for a ban on the children of legal immigrants from public schools and
health services, has said women are quote "worth less" than men, and supports scrapping laws
that prevent employers from discriminating based on race ― that's who Trump wants by his side.
The godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian President Vladimir
Putin.
In fact, Farage has appeared regularly on Russian propaganda programs. Now he's standing
on the same stage as the Republican nominee.
Hatred of Trump is nothing more than cloaked Jewish hatred of white Christians. Go ahead and take
my comment down, but you are too smart to not know the truth deep down in your heart. This above
all else, lie to yourself to protect the Jewish lies.
About the most successful 'breakaway political movement' ever was probably the Dixiecrats in the
1948 election which actually garnered a small fraction of the electoral college, but that was
using the apparatus of an organised national political party existent regionally. Outside the
two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ...Next time keep your idiot elections to yourselves - Please.
On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential
candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled
his New York Times op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the
process whereby Trump had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career
intelligence officer, is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit
them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities…
In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation."
So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United
States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington
but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because
there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded
and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were,
respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many
more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey,
Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few
in the Congress. All are
major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter
what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.
And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's
one-sided pro-Israeli
diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the
widely condemned January 2001
last minute pardon of
Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize
that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The
only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described
as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have
been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests
since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely
cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering
to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise
to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.
=====
So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United
States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington
but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because
there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded
and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were,
respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many
more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey,
Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few
in the Congress. All are
major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter
what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.
And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's
one-sided pro-Israeli
diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the
widely condemned January 2001
last minute pardon of
Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize
that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The
only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described
as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have
been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests
since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely
cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering
to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise
to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.
Tom @38: "Trump the racist Appealing to African-Americans was just a demented and sick desperate
joke. "
It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help.
More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans
where he lags.
As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured
out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of
issues to sway voters.
It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this,
as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be
working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care.
Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria
and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention,
with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also
facing off with the Russians.
Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning
they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more
murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more
profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine.
Make no mistake about that, these shitty Hillary-supporting people cannot claim that they do
not know what that that is what they are doing, because she has been quite vocal in her support
for more war and more murder (on behalf of Isreal naturally)
It may be that, despite his rethoric, and like Oboma before him, Trump will bring all those
things too, should he win, but we DO know for sure what Killary intends, because we have already
seen her handywork, and she has promised more of the same
The proper question is : after Obama, why do people like you still think that voting is of any
use?
When did it ever change anything? You going to have to come up with something a tad more effective than mere voting if you want
it to change. Personally I think the US deserves a Trump presidency.
"What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her
only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her
only way out...
Look what they did to Reagan and the pope JP2 - GHWB failed with his assassins, but after the
attempts, both these puppets were basically doing what told, with only little freedom left to
do some good things (served well for maintaining appearances).
Which brings again that question to my mind - why did they let Hinckley the patsy out recently,
what's he's being set up for..?
Oooo! Shillary! Such refined thinking. Face it, the US has always been corrupt. "The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding
Industry" reviewed here:
http://www.chicagoreviewpress.com/american-slave-coast--the-products-9781613748206.php says it all. Thomas Jefferson, a hero? What about George Washington, the land owner? Trump and Clinton are only unusual in that most Duhmericans have finally no choice but to admit
they are venal. Stein, who could NEVER win, seems honorable. Johnson may be a wacked out libertarian, but he
is a well meaning wacko.
Great choices for the great democracy, light of the world, exceptional nation! I agree, Duhmerican politics are stupid ... the dumbest people in the world make it so. Then
again, is any place humans habitate NOT idiotically insane stupid?
"Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote
for him."
If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times
for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through
hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns.
The Godfather image is a popular one these days. The Godmother use it to deflect attention
from her own role as cackling harridan, wailing banshee of DDD&D ... others note that
"Godfather"
Biden visits Turkey
The foreign policy of the American ruling class, in addition to the impoverishment of American
society to fund the vast military apparatus, has had the most horrifying consequences for the
peoples of the countries targeted. The war fomented by the United States in Syria has reduced
the population of that country from 23 million to about 17 million, killed up to half a million
people, and displaced over 13 million.
Thirteen years after the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of at least a million
people, some 4.4 million Iraqis are internally displaced, with over a quarter million forced
to flee the country.
Questions of foreign policy are not decided, much less deliberated, within the framework
of elections. Nowhere in the 2016 presidential race is there a serious debate, for instance,
on the character of the US alliance with Turkey or the consequences of launching a de facto
NATO invasion of Syria. Congress holds no hearings or votes. It neither seeks nor desires to
play a serious role.
As for the people, they simply have no say.
The press plays a key role in the deception and disenfranchisement of the population. One
tactic employed by the corporate-controlled media is simply to exclude "minor" developments
such as a US-backed invasion of Syria from the so-called "news." The most remarkable feature
of the media coverage to date of the Turkish incursion is its virtual non-existence. It is
a good bet, due to the media's corrupt silence, that the percentage of the US population that
is even aware of the invasion is in the single digits.
Returning to protectionism and fair trade will lift all American boats, not just the Wall Street
Zionists, so I am perplexed at b's comment.
America, despite glowing MSM BS, is on the ropes of neoliberalism. As an older American,I remember
a land of plenty, with good jobs for all, instead of fast food retail hell.
I don't think b has any
idea of the realities being endured by US, as the media refuses to give US reality ,instead rosy
economic garbage where not once in Obombas terrible reign have they created enough jobs to keep
up with the expanding population, and as DT says ,the inner cities are hellholes, witness the NBA
star Dwayne Wades cousin shot in Chicago pushing a baby stroller.
I had a nurse from Hempstead NY, when i had the big C, who said an old man in a wheelchair had a
pit bull tied to it to ward off potential crooks. WTF?
And now the antisemitism card is played by the serial liars, Bannon is accused of calling Jews
whiny. Well ,as a longtime observer, he is spot on there.
And the lying times says 90% chance for Hell bitch victory.
What is unbelievable is the fact that she corruptly stole the primary with the help of the DNC
and the ziomedia, but no one cares.(her supporters) If not emblematic of the depravity of liberals, those
who wish the death of others so they live in safety (which of course is poppycock) what is?
And when Trump gets her in the debates, he'll destroy the MSM narrative of BS.
There is one villain Trump has not been compared to: Hillary Clinton.
And don't be the kettle calling the pot black, whoever the author of this ill-researched piece
is. Your own journalism strikes me as irresponsible when you claim, "Trump's economic policies
as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him." Catastrophic?
Really? Who exactly is "most likely to vote for him" that would not benefit from better trade
deals and more corporate incentives for domestic business? The global elite? They're the ones
who definitely won't benefit, but they also definitely won't vote for him. Get your thinking straight.
For clear light on the positive relationship between a Trump presidency and the US economy,
David Stockman offers wisdom. Take a look from time to time at his website to educate yourself:
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/
Now it is time for people to start saying Roberts is a shill for Trump. If you've read what
he has written about Trump, he's highly critical. His point is simple: Do you support those who
are so blatantly against Trump? Or, put the other way around, are you in favor of continued oligarchic
rule.
Like Roberts, I am so opposed to Clinton that Trump seems (even ever so slightly) the lessor
of evils.
"... video of Bill Clinton clearly shows Kaposi Sarcoma on the forehead and inside the left eyelid. ..."
"... There is a long list of adverse neurological after-effects of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, some of them short term and others that are long term. Surgeons who deal with these issues refer to the long term and permanent loss of cognitive function as "pump head", so named because the patient was kept alive by a heart-lung machine during surgery. ..."
"... It's very likely that Bill Clinton has been dealing with a form of "pump head" since he underwent bypass surgery in February 2010. ..."
"... Absolutely looks like HIV to me. I have seen it, believe me, working in a hospital as a PA for over 20 years. ..."
"... To be honest..I had thought that maybe Bill Clinton was HIV positive back a year ago or so. I managed to see him on TV and was shocked at how totally wasted away he looked. Just my 2 cents though. ..."
"... If he has HIV it should be known to many sex partners as he has had. ..."
In their new
book, Bill & Hillary: So This is That Thing Called Love, the authors interview Clinton
insiders who claim that Bill slept with so many women that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly forced
him to get an HIV test from the doctor. This is because the former President "favored unprotected
sex."
And while the first tests came back negative, HIV and AIDS might explain an ongoing mystery.
Over the years, both Clintons have kept their medical records a secret. Clinton has explained his
rapidly changing appearance to his heart surgery and "new diet" but he has looked increasingly thin
and weak at Hillary campaign rallies.
As Rush Limbaugh opined, looking at Bill Clinton on the campaign trail, Rush only sees Preparation
H, Geritol, Fixodent, and Depends. Bill Clinton looks like his health is on a rapid recline.
The Dec 6 2013 video of Bill Clinton clearly shows Kaposi Sarcoma on the forehead and inside
the left eyelid. Hillary's neurological problems are probably from:
PRIMARY CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM (CNS) LYMPHOMA
Your central nervous system consists of your brain, spinal cord, and spinal nerves. This
system controls all the workings of your body. HIV can infect and damage parts of it.
Primary CNS lymphoma is a type of cancer that typically occurs in people with CD4 counts
less than 50 cells/mm3. This type of cancer affects the lymph system in your brain and spinal
cord. Symptoms of this type of cancer can include:
Headache
Memory loss
Confusion
Other neurological changes
(Other conditions may cause the same symptoms. Consult your healthcare provider if you have
any of these symptoms.)
Diagnosis includes many of the same types of tests as those for Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma-but
because CNS lymphoma affects the brain directly, your healthcare provider may want to do a
brain biopsy as well. Radiation therapy is the most common treatment for AIDS-related CNS lymphoma.
For more information, see the National Cancer Institute's General Information About Primary
CNS Lymphoma.
Pierce, June 16, 2016 at 1:03 am
this is a stupid article, first of all HIV doesn't cause neurological signs unless you have
crytococcous neoformans, PML, HIV dementia which will only happen if he is not taking medications
which as a doctor i'm 100 percent sure,
NEXT people forgot that BILL CLINTON had a CABG(cornary artery bypass procedure) this procedure
which has a side effect of NEUROTOXICITY. Even though he might of had side effects from this procedure
his IQ is not affected.
DONT LISTEN TO THIS GARBAGE ARTICLE
Gunnar, July 2, 2016 at 7:04 pm
Your response sounds emotional, Pierce. There is a long list of adverse neurological after-effects
of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, some of them short term and others that are
long term. Surgeons who deal with these issues refer to the long term and permanent loss of cognitive
function as "pump head", so named because the patient was kept alive by a heart-lung machine during
surgery.
It's very likely that Bill Clinton has been dealing with a form of "pump head" since he
underwent bypass surgery in February 2010.
Laura, May 17, 2016 at 4:42 pm
Absolutely looks like HIV to me. I have seen it, believe me, working in a hospital as a PA
for over 20 years. This is what happens to humans when they live a degenerative lifestyle.
Not everyone gets HIV but something else gets them. You can't fool Mother Nature. She will get
you in the end.
Robert says: February 25, 2016 at 9:59 pm
To be honest..I had thought that maybe Bill Clinton was HIV positive back a year ago or so.
I managed to see him on TV and was shocked at how totally wasted away he looked. Just my 2 cents
though. I wouldn't wish that disease on any body.
Debbie says: February 25, 2016 at 5:23 pm
If he has HIV it should be known to many sex partners as he has had. How many are at
risk? Even Hillary may be at risk..Is that where her cough has come from ???? Does she have it?
Is thatwhat Obama has had on them?
"... "As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone, is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a tyrant's court " - ..."
"... In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism. ..."
"... Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000; Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen. ..."
"... Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before voting commences. ..."
"... In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The Donald.' Sad days for the Republic. ..."
"... US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby. ..."
"... The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/ ..."
"... Paul Joseph Watson responds to Hillary's racism speech - The Truth About Hillary's 'Alt-Right' Speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufkHt8dgG8I ..."
"... But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities, he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding, the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword, waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull? ..."
"... All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination. The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC ..."
"... ...Hillary is a one woman criminal enterprise and she's the monster's mother. [a comment from the intercept] ..."
"... It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence ..."
"... Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till some dignity. ..."
"... Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate just said no to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation. ..."
"... "MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative, D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years. ..."
"... [Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...] ..."
"... Outside the two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ..."
"... It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help. More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans where he lags. ..."
"... it makes the msm look like what it actually is - propaganda tool for the 1% with jackass journalists in tow.. ..."
"... As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of issues to sway voters. ..."
"... It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this, as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care. ..."
"... Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention, with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also facing off with the Russians. ..."
"... Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine. ..."
"... The proper question is : after Obama, why do people like you still think that voting is of any use? ..."
"... "What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her only way out... ..."
"... If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns. ..."
This pic comparing a young Donald Trump with a child figure in some old
Nazi propaganda was
posted by Doug
Saunders , supposedly a serious international-affairs columnist
at the Canadian Globe
and Mail.
It is illogical, childish nonsense. But Saunders is by far the only one disqualifying himself
as serious commentator by posting such bullshit. Indeed, the villain-ification of Donald Trump is
a regular feature which runs through U.S. and international media from the left to the right.
Is there any villain in U.S. (political) culture Donald Trump has not been compare to? Let me
know what to search for.
I doubt that this assault on Trump's character is effective. (Hillary Clinton is a
more fitting
object .) Potential Trump voters will at best ignore it. More likely they will feel confirmed
in their belief that all media and media people are anti-Trump and pro-Clinton.
The onslaught only validates what himself Trump claims: that all media are again him, independent
of whatever policies he may promote or commit to.
The jokes on them. Older voters, smarter voters are voting for Trump. If he remains on message
and points out those things that do matter then he can win. He has to stop the joking around and
being nasty. Be serious and get to the point.
Trump can joke and talk all the nonsense he want, still it won't change my mind. I know Hillary
including Bernie Sanders - they're from the same pot of shit.
The only question remain, should I vote for Jill Stein to bring her Green Party percentage
up? Jill Stein spoke repeatedly she will stop all aids to any country and NOT only Israel if
human right are abuse - not exact words.
Further she is a strong support of BDS even as Canada Green Party leader not in favor "Canadian
MP Elizabeth May told reporters on Monday that she will stay on as leader of Canada's Green Party
after saying she was considering stepping down because of her opposition to the party's recently-adopted
policy of endorsing the strategy of Boycott Divest and Sanction against Israel. "
For decades, at least 40 years, it was a whisper that the international medias have been sitting
in the lap of a certain 3 letter agency. The mission: Manufacturing Consent by Deception.
Globalism, War & Chaos
brought by The Establishment owners of Deep Shadow Government. This quote from Robert Faurisson who is tagged a Halocaust denier may offend those who cannot
be criticized:
"As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone,
is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through
its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a
tyrant's court " -
In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking
the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth
Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young
to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection
of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism.
~ ~ ~
Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog
Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000;
Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen.
Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before
voting commences.
In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went
to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be
an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere
mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading
a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total
lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The
Donald.' Sad days for the Republic.
People vote against their own self interests only because bought-and-paid-for MSM and political
pundits SAY that a third-party can't win.
If everyone would simply turn off toxic media and simply vote for their best interest the establishment
would stop taking us all for granted.
What is better: Trump is elected but Obama-Hillary Democratic "Third-Way" back-stabbing sell-outs are replaced
by a real left opposition led by Greens? - OR -
Obama-Hillary fake left squashes real opposition for another 8 years while extending and deepening
the soul-crushing neolib/neocon disaster?
"Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote
for him."
US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based
more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned
by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby.
Carter (D) = 39%
Reagan (R) = 32%
Anderson (I) = 21%
Who took it? Polls are still unreliable. The poll sampling is key.
I don't have a vote. On November 08, the real problem is one of the two will be (s)elected.
Your decision does weigh heavily and guarantees the selection. Can you support another 4-8 years
of the certified corrupt Clinton couple?
There is a third way to effectively cast a ballot outside the two main party's candidates and
that is not to vote at all. This is effective as a historical fact that some fraction of eligible
voters did not participate (whatever the cause) and the winning candidate was enabled by some
plurality rather than a majority of the eligible electorate. Throwing away one's vote in a fit
of moral superiority is an effective way to throw away one's voting rights, but then the 'moral
majority' that wrecked the Republic never realised their culpability and still haven't. Not one
of the minority candidates became anything more than a sad footnote to history - not one.
I guess instead of violating Goodwin law, or complain one-sidedly, we should eschew "Hitlery"
and "fascist Trump", and find some high-brow metaphors. My proposals:
Hillary and Trump
But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities,
he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released
from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding,
the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword,
waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver
the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull?
All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination.
The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling
for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support
HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal. The launching
of the self-proclaimed "Our Revolution" website/organization is yet another DNC-based sham that
studiously avoids any mention of the military or foreign policy on its "Issues" page, which again
belies its nature since the #1 issue for all Genuine Progressives is War and being against it.
Still have 10 weeks to go. Stein has earned all the votes within my household.
I'm not a big fan of Trump's but I find that people don't argue about his politics, but insult
him and his wife on a personal basis.
This makes me think that it's the turn of the 'Left' in the USA to become immature and resort
to name calling. Remember when it was the 'Right' that made fun of Kerry's Purple Heart?
Which also exposes the problem with politics worldwide - the Left and the Right have met at
the extremes and we now see progressives arguing for burkinis and the right arguing for workers'
rights by trying to prevent the TPP, etc.
It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being
widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes
onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence - no, not the
one that is derived from fancy questionnaires, or adding numbers.
Real intelligence includes the understanding that sitting in a glasshouse throwing rocks does
not qualify to be such. It also includes the understanding to be inseparable part of one's environment
- a shared environment indicating that there is only interdependence, not separation.
Furthermore, real intelligence includes compassion, kindness and the will to walk in somebody
else's shoes.
This intelligence is sorely missing in the majority of people that are entrusted with 'journalistic'
work, or working in public offices. The stench of being "holier that thou" is covering the U.S.A.
and wafts to Europe were it is now also modus operandi.
The best course of action would be to punish those who engage in this kind of demagoguery with
nonobservance.
It won't be Trump who brings us fascism as the images implies, but more likely Clinton if she
wins and if the Democrats can win over one of the Houses of Congress. As the campaign goes on,
these comparisons add up and create in the minds of anybody anti-Trump an actual equivalency to
in particular Hitler. This is one half of the combustion needed to go down the road to fascism.
There is something else that Trump given the Russian hysteria is being called--a traitor. The
thing is, Hillary supports believe this to be true in a criminal sense. It is not just some throw
away smear normal for any election. I have seen way too way postings in major democratic party
sites calls for basically the resurrection of the House Un-American Activities Committee. These
supporters are historically clueless on what they are asking for, and I would imagine the same
with much of the democratic party lawmakers in Congress.
I can see if Hillary wins, witch hunts against anti-war protesters, or people who believe we
should have rapprochement with Russia and China. The goal will be to criminalize and punish dissenting
views on foreign and war policies because the constant Putin/Trump/Hitler/Stalin/etc comparisons
created the foundation for actual criminal accusations.
And the witch hunts will spread beyond war and foreign policy. Look at what is going on in
Europe. Literally, and I do mean literally, every problem is being attributed to Putin "weaponizing"
some issue. Serious politicians accused Putin of using drunken Russian fans during the Euro futbol
championships of starting fights to support Brexit. The Polish minister for internal security
accused Putin of master minding the Paris terrorist attacks. And these guys get away with the
most outlandish accusations. As the real Nazis understood, repetition of lies is the foundation
of propaganda to move people into action.
The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling
for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support
HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal.
Well the resident Zio-Racist Hill-shill (rufus magister | Aug 26, 2016 11:47:38 AM | 5) likes
to pretend he is some sort of progressive, but still can't keep from outing himself by banging
on non-stop about the Zio-Racists favourite talking points (Heil hillary and "holocaustholocaustholocaut!!")
She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing
empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness
will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff [.]
Very interesting because I have been discussing with colleagues here the Don should be honing
his debating skill sets as Hillary is a trained lawyer/politician.
Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton
foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming
shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till
some dignity.
Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate
just said no
to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels
to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation.
. . .Clinton's use of BleachBit undermines her claims that she only deleted innocuous "personal"
emails from her private server
"If she considered them to be personal, then she and her lawyers had those emails deleted.
They didn't just push the delete button, they had them deleted where even God can't read
them.
"They were using something called BleachBit You don't use BleachBit for yoga emails."
"When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see."
Vitriol galore! If the arguments made above ... either way ... are the best we can do then
maybe electing Hillary and hoping for WW3 is the lessor of evils. As I've said before, not a bad
idea.
Posted by: From The Hague | Aug 26, 2016 2:22:04 PM | 34
"MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering
idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative,
D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears
of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years.
To be bold here: a 'left' mother loves her child as much as a 'right' mother and even more
so the grandparents. Any grandparent here that denies their grandchildren their love based on
the fact that their children cling on to a different belief? And that it is in its entirety -
made believe by the Plutocrats and the sheople throw shit at each other instead of UPWARDS
.
[Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...]
Just yesterday, one of Britain's most prominent right-wing leaders, Nigel Farage, who stoked
anti-immigrant sentiments to win the referendum on leaving the European Union, campaigned with
Donald Trump in Mississippi. Farage has called for a ban on the children of legal immigrants from public schools and
health services, has said women are quote "worth less" than men, and supports scrapping laws
that prevent employers from discriminating based on race ― that's who Trump wants by his side.
The godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian President Vladimir
Putin.
In fact, Farage has appeared regularly on Russian propaganda programs. Now he's standing
on the same stage as the Republican nominee.
During a campaign rally in Nevada, US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke about the
dangers of right-wing forces in power, as well as about problems of racism. "Clinton noted that her rival Donald Trump supported the policies of Russian President Vladimir
Putin. As for relations with Russia, the views of Donald Trump come contrary to the views of all
American presidents, from "Truman to Reagan."
"He talks casually of abandoning our NATO allies, recognizing Russia's annexation of Crimea,
giving the Kremlin a free hand in eastern Europe. American presidents from Truman, to Reagan,
to Bush, to Clinton, to Obama have rejected the kind of approach Trump is taking on Russia. And
we should, too," Clinton said.
Hatred of Trump is nothing more than cloaked Jewish hatred of white Christians. Go ahead and take
my comment down, but you are too smart to not know the truth deep down in your heart. This above
all else, lie to yourself to protect the Jewish lies.
About the most successful 'breakaway political movement' ever was probably the Dixiecrats in the
1948 election which actually garnered a small fraction of the electoral college, but that was
using the apparatus of an organised national political party existent regionally. Outside the
two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ...Next time keep your idiot elections to yourselves - Please.
On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential
candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled
his New York Times op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the
process whereby Trump had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career
intelligence officer, is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit
them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities…
In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation."
So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United
States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington
but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because
there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded
and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were,
respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many
more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey,
Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few
in the Congress. All are
major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter
what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.
And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's
one-sided pro-Israeli
diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the
widely condemned January 2001
last minute pardon of
Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize
that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The
only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described
as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have
been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests
since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely
cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering
to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise
to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.
=====
So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United
States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington
but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because
there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded
and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were,
respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many
more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey,
Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few
in the Congress. All are
major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter
what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.
And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's
one-sided pro-Israeli
diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the
widely condemned January 2001
last minute pardon of
Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize
that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The
only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described
as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have
been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests
since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely
cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering
to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise
to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.
Tom @38: "Trump the racist Appealing to African-Americans was just a demented and sick desperate
joke. "
It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help.
More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans
where he lags.
However, a position that he is not racist is ... misguided, say. Through most of his life,
Trump simply donated to all elected politicians in areas where he was doing business, as it is
apparently necessary for every serious developer. But in recent years he became sort of Republican
activists, and his premiere issue was "birthism". A conspiracy theory alleging that Obama was
born abroad. Incidentally, Ted Cruz was born abroad, in Canada, of non-citizen father and American
citizen mother, and, surprise, surprise, he is perfectly eligible to run for President, but simple
legal arguments like that, not to mention actual documents from a hospital in Hawaii did not satisfy
the insane crowd. The only motivation that is non-insane is ugly: harping on "otherness" of mix-race
President with Muslim first name and African last name.
Or Trump harping that he would be more successful in foreign policy because he would be "more
respected" than a women or a Black boy.
Trump supports police brutality, down to gunning down unarmed poor folks (to err on the side
of caution) and death penalty, for innocently accused as it turned later. Somehow a white person
killing poor women and refrigerating the corpses does not lead to conniptions and full page newspaper
ads, unlike black youth accused of rape. This is really harking to good old time of lynch mobs.
LITERALLY.
And this: "Trump blamed financial difficulties partly on African American accountants.
"I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza - black guys counting my money!"
O'Donnell's book quoted Trump as saying. "I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my
money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting
my money. Nobody else. . . . Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the
guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really
is; I believe that. It's not anything they can control."
As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured
out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of
issues to sway voters.
It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this,
as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be
working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care.
Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria
and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention,
with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also
facing off with the Russians.
Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning
they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more
murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more
profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine.
Make no mistake about that, these shitty Hillary-supporting people cannot claim that they do
not know what that that is what they are doing, because she has been quite vocal in her support
for more war and more murder (on behalf of Isreal naturally)
It may be that, despite his rethoric, and like Oboma before him, Trump will bring all those
things too, should he win, but we DO know for sure what Killary intends, because we have already
seen her handywork, and she has promised more of the same
There's Hillary, whose delusion is that she has any political game. Certainly not enough to
get elected President, even against a reality TV host. Then there's Donald, whose delusion is
that he actually _is_ the person he plays on TV.
In the midst of the insanity is Jill. JIILLLLLLL people!
OT, but did Bill marry Hill as a firewall against any possibility he might act on his more
than occasional human/humane instincts? She certainly would have none of that, he must've known.
NOTHING must stand in the way of ambition.
What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign (or whatever verb works for this
presidential nominee situation), Apologize to all the voters who chose her. Explain that she would
probably be impeached and would be essentially neutered. She should then tell the public that Bernie Sanders would do the best for all the people of
this nation.
"What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her
only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her
only way out...
Look what they did to Reagan and the pope JP2 - GHWB failed with his assassins, but after the
attempts, both these puppets were basically doing what told, with only little freedom left to
do some good things (served well for maintaining appearances).
Which brings again that question to my mind - why did they let Hinckley the patsy out recently,
what's he's being set up for..?
Oooo! Shillary! Such refined thinking. Face it, the US has always been corrupt. "The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding
Industry" reviewed here:
http://www.chicagoreviewpress.com/american-slave-coast--the-products-9781613748206.php says it all. Thomas Jefferson, a hero? What about George Washington, the land owner? Trump and Clinton are only unusual in that most Duhmericans have finally no choice but to admit
they are venal. Stein, who could NEVER win, seems honorable. Johnson may be a wacked out libertarian, but he
is a well meaning wacko.
Great choices for the great democracy, light of the world, exceptional nation!
I agree, Duhmerican politics are stupid ... the dumbest people in the world make it so. Then
again, is any place humans habitate NOT idiotically insane stupid?
"Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote
for him."
If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times
for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through
hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns.
Peter at 68: No, that's conventional economic thinking. Americans or any people will have good
economic times if the government stimulates the economy in ways that grow high-paying jobs, restructures
economic power toward workers, and massively redistributes income to the middle and working classes.
Empire or no Empire.
...
"Vladimir Putin is the grand-godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism.", Hillary
Clinton said, (while standing in front of a gigantic American Flag, without a trace of Irony detectable
in her voice).
Posted by: Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 5:22:34 PM | 50
Yep. Dangerously stupid.
Superficial and self-absorbed Hollywoodishness; the polar opposite of self-aware.
The Godfather image is a popular one these days. The Godmother use it to deflect attention
from her own role as cackling harridan, wailing banshee of DDD&D ... others note that
"Godfather"
Biden visits Turkey
The foreign policy of the American ruling class, in addition to the impoverishment of American
society to fund the vast military apparatus, has had the most horrifying consequences for the
peoples of the countries targeted. The war fomented by the United States in Syria has reduced
the population of that country from 23 million to about 17 million, killed up to half a million
people, and displaced over 13 million.
Thirteen years after the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of at least a million
people, some 4.4 million Iraqis are internally displaced, with over a quarter million forced
to flee the country.
Questions of foreign policy are not decided, much less deliberated, within the framework
of elections. Nowhere in the 2016 presidential race is there a serious debate, for instance,
on the character of the US alliance with Turkey or the consequences of launching a de facto
NATO invasion of Syria. Congress holds no hearings or votes. It neither seeks nor desires to
play a serious role.
As for the people, they simply have no say.
The press plays a key role in the deception and disenfranchisement of the population. One
tactic employed by the corporate-controlled media is simply to exclude "minor" developments
such as a US-backed invasion of Syria from the so-called "news." The most remarkable feature
of the media coverage to date of the Turkish incursion is its virtual non-existence. It is
a good bet, due to the media's corrupt silence, that the percentage of the US population that
is even aware of the invasion is in the single digits.
You forgot to add: "anyone who willfully votes for either Red Donald or Blue Hillary is a moral
leper, ...one who will still have to cough up a $4.5 TRILLION King's Ransom on April 15th for
Mil.Gov.Fed metastasizing Technocracy, regardless, and still have to pay $650 BILLION a year of
that YUUGE ransom in interest-only debt (sic) tithes to The Chosen."
Shillary @50 -- Hillary Clinton is completely devoid of any sense of irony or humour. She's a complete
emotional and, I would add, intellectual dud. She seems to be a good lawyer, though --- in the US
lawyers as far as the eye can see.
Shillary @50 -- Hillary Clinton is completely devoid of any sense of irony or humour. She's a
complete emotional and, I would add, intellectual dud. She seems to be a good lawyer, though ---
in the US lawyers as far as the eye can see.
OT
GENEVA - The United States and Russia say they have resolved a number of issues standing in the
way of restoring a nationwide truce to Syria and opening up aid deliveries, but were unable once
again to forge a comprehensive agreement on stepping up cooperation to end the brutal war that
has killed hundreds of thousands.
After meeting off-and-on for nearly 10 hours in Geneva on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State John
Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov could point to only incremental progress in filling
in details of a broad understanding to boost joint efforts that was reached last month in Moscow.
Their failure to reach an overall deal highlighted the increasingly complex situation on the
ground in Syria - including new Russian-backed Syrian government attacks on opposition forces,
the intermingling of some of those opposition forces with an al-Qaida affiliate not covered by
the truce and the surrender of a rebel-held suburb of Damascus - as well as deep divisions and
mistrust dividing Washington and Moscow.
The complexities have also grown with the increasing internationalization of what has largely
become a proxy war between regional and world powers, highlighted by a move by Turkish troops
across the Syrian border against Islamic State fighters this week.
Kerry said he and Lavrov had agreed on the "vast majority" of technical discussions on steps
to reinstate a cease-fire and improve humanitarian access. But critical sticking points remain
unresolved and experts will remain in Geneva with an eye toward finalizing those in the coming
days, he said.
```
Lavrov echoed that, saying "we still need to finalize a few issues" and pointed to the need to
separate fighters from the al-Nusra Front, which has ties to al-Qaida, from U.S.-backed fighters
who hold parts of northwest Syria.
"We have continued our efforts to reduce the areas where we lack understanding and trust, which
is an achievement," Lavrov said. "The mutual trust is growing with every meeting."
Yet, it was clear that neither side believes an overall agreement is imminent or even achievable
after numerous previous disappointments shattered a brief period of relative calm earlier this
year.
The inability to wrest an agreement between Russia and the U.S. - as the major sponsors of
the opposing sides in the stalled Syria peace talks - all but spells another missed deadline for
the U.N. Syria envoy to get the Syrian government and "moderate" opposition back to the table.
```
In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed
the importance of keeping the details secret.
```
And, underscoring deep differences over developments on the ground, Kerry noted that Russia disputes
the U.S. "narrative" of recent attacks on heavily populated areas being conducted by Syrian forces,
Russia itself and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia. Russia maintains the attacks it has been
involved in have targeted legitimate terrorist targets, while the U.S. says they have hit moderate
opposition forces.
~~~
At the same time, the Obama administration is not of one mind regarding the Russians. The Pentagon
has publicly complained about getting drawn into greater cooperation with Russia even though it
has been forced recently to expand communication with Moscow. Last week, the U.S. had to call
for Russian help when Syrian warplanes struck an area not far from where U.S. troops were operating.
U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President Bashar
Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, open humanitarian aid corridors, and
concentrate any offensive action on the Islamic State group and other extremists not covered by
what has become a largely ignored truce.
For their part, U.S. officials say they are willing to press rebels groups they support harder
on separating themselves from the Islamic State and al-Nusra, which despite a recent name change
is still viewed as al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria.
Those goals are not new, but recent developments have made achieving them even more urgent
and important, according to U.S. officials. Recent developments include military operations around
the city of Aleppo, the entry of Turkey into the ground war, Turkish hostility toward U.S.-backed
Kurdish rebel groups and the presence of American military advisers in widening conflict zones.
Meanwhile, in a blow to the opposition, rebel forces and civilians in the besieged Damascus
suburb of Daraya were to be evacuated on Friday after agreeing to surrender the town late Thursday
after four years of grueling bombardment and a crippling siege that left the sprawling area in
ruins.
The surrender of Daraya, which became an early symbol of the nascent uprising against Assad,
marks a success for his government, removing a persistent threat only a few miles from his seat
of power.
Returning to protectionism and fair trade will lift all American boats,not just the Wall Street
Zionists,so I am perplexed at b's comment.
America,despite glowing MSM BS,is on the ropes of neoliberalism.As an older American,I remember
a land of plenty,with good jobs for all,instead of fast food retail hell.I don't think b has any
idea of the realities being endured by US,as the media refuses to give US reality,instead rosy
economic garbage where not once in Obombas terrible reign have they created enough jobs to keep
up with the expanding population,and as DT says,the inner cities are hellholes,witness the NBA
star Dwayne Wades cousin shot in Chicago pushing a baby stroller.
I had a nurse from Hempstead NY,when i had the big C,who said an old man in a wheelchair had a
pit bull tied to it to ward off potential crooks.WTF?
And now the antisemitism card is played by the serial liars,Bannon is accused of calling Jews
whiny.Well,as a longtime observer,he is spot on there.
And the lying times says 90% chance for Hell bitch victory.
Will saying it so often make it so?Nah.
What is unbelievable is the fact that she corruptly stole the primary with the help of the DNC
and the ziomedia,but no one cares.(her supporters)If not emblematic of the depravity of liberals,those
who wish the death of others so they live in safety(which of course is poppycock)what is?
And when Trump gets her in the debates,he'll destroy the MSM narrative of BS.
Part 1. ;) Got dragged into Killary's alt-right speech at Truckee Meadows Community College, Reno,
Nevada, Aug 2016. Only content: 100% against Trump , as sidebars, Alex Jones, Nigel Farage,
Putin, David Duke.
The official MSM version is 31 mins - the frame is just her with a fixed cam centered nothing
around. Sparse occasional clapping (real, one can see the clappers in other vids).. She speaks
as one would to a parterre of 30-50 ppl, not as in a campaign rally. A longer version (MSM) is
45 mins and shows some of the preliminaries, some guy, then the Mayor of Reno, youngish blondine,
introducing her. Killary was apparently hours late. (> youtube.) Killary is dressed in green.
To the interesting part. She spoke at the same College in Feb. 2015. Note: red dress, the brick
pillars typical of the college, and the big windows behind. A big hall…
The event has all the hallmarks of a 'proper' pol show, no need to list. Note the Hall, quite
large, is not full. The signs are blue and are for Hillary, for Women, for Nevada and so on.
Posted by: okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80
Re: Geneva negotiations...
Love the goto clause:
"In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed
the importance of keeping the details secret."
Yeah, keeping the details secret so that next time the Yankees backstab Russia, observers won't
immediately realise that they were, in fact, just shooting themselves in the foot. Again.
Part 2. The Aug. 2016 event took place at the College but either in a small part of the back of
the big hall or another locale (similar in architecture obviously)
Bizzaro event. Minuscule, there is almost nobody there. It was deliberatly set up in 'small
space' for the cams. The only other important ppl present are one man (Head of the college or?
idk) and the Mayor of Reno. The only signs shown say *USA* are not appropriate and are whipped
out only when Killary comes onstage. Doesn't even look like a Democrat event! Never mind an important
campaign rally for *drum rolls* the person anointed to become Prez. of the most powerful country
on Earth, the World Queen or Hegemon.
After the speech, vids show H.C. talking to a very few ppl, 25 at most, not answering "reporters"
questions, two tiny trays of confections were offered. Bwwahhh. She ate one choc. There was also
a stop at a Reno Coffee shop (10 ppl?) which made no sense. On these occasions she is accompanied
by the Mayor in a cosy girly coffee thingie. (> youtube.)
The US is fracturing...Moreover the speech was perhaps the weakest from any pol I have ever
heard.
Wait a minute! They ID'd the hacker and it's a business in Israel? And it forced Apple to an
emergency software upgrade. But I thought all the evil hackers were Russians working for the government.
There is one villain Trump has not been compared to: Hillary Clinton.
And don't be the kettle calling the pot black, whoever the author of this ill-researched piece
is. Your own journalism strikes me as irresponsible when you claim, "Trump's economic policies
as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him." Catastrophic?
Really? Who exactly is "most likely to vote for him" that would not benefit from better trade
deals and more corporate incentives for domestic business? The global elite? They're the ones
who definitely won't benefit, but they also definitely won't vote for him. Get your thinking straight.
For clear light on the positive relationship between a Trump presidency and the US economy,
David Stockman offers wisdom. Take a look from time to time at his website to educate yourself:
okie farmer@80 Lavrov is on a loser if he accepts this "moderate terrorist" BS from Kerry. Those
"moderates" have replaced Islamic state in Jerablus, soon to be expanded to cover that huge area
between Jerablus, Azaz and Al-bab,all without a fight and apparent agreement with IS. Next could
be the area is controlled by Turkish and US "moderate" head choppers, which of course nobody will
be allowed to attack. They should only be called moderate if they oppose Assad and do not carry
arms, otherwise its just a case of changing labels, in which case the terrorists could never lose.
I find it hard to believe that so soon after the so called normalization of ties and trade deals
between Russia and Turkey, Turkey could do what they have threatened to do for years, invade Syria
and set up prospective no fly zones. I suppose we must wait and see, but in my opinion, it does
not look good.
@88, curtis, 'But I thought all the evil hackers were Russians working for the government'
Maybe they are ... Russian emigre hackers working for the Israeli government?
@92 hl,
I agree. Russia has been stabbed in the back by Turkey, and the US is backing Turkey ... of
course they were backing the Kurds, too, until they weren't.
Erdogan is utterly unreliable ... or he is utterly reliable if you're relying on duplicity
and betrayal.
Now it is time for people to start saying Roberts is a shill for Trump. If you've read what
he has written about Trump, he's highly critical. His point is simple: Do you support those who
are so blatantly against Trump? Or, put the other way around, are you in favor of continued oligarchic
rule.
Like Roberts, I am so opposed to Clinton that Trump seems (even ever so slightly) the lessor
of evils.
1 "Donald Trump is worse than Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12182955/Donald-Trump-is-worse-than-Irans-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad.html
2 "Donald Trump Is America's Gift To Bin Laden"
www.huffpost.com/us/entry/10445156
Gesine Hammerling@89 - "...What would happen if Trump won the majority of the members of the
Electoral College but they voted for Clinton?..."
The Electoral College vote is absolute - the candidate that gets 270 of the 538 votes wins,
so Clinton would be elected. If neither candidate gets that many, then an immediate vote by the
House of Representatives decides. The popular vote that takes place at the same time is utterly
meaningless other than to chose one of two bribe-funneling political parties who, in turn, chose
their typically party-loyal electors. There's a bit more to it than that, but that sums it up.
And, yes, the state political parties could chose electors who would jump ship and vote for the
other party. That will be the way they will ensure Clinton is elected in November regardless of
who the little people think they're voting for. Anyone who is familiar with the process knows
this will happen, including the Republican Party. Trump obviously knows the fix is in.
The paradox comes about because the political parties at the state level have slowly taken
over the process of choosing who goes to the electoral college. The founders' original intent
was to have (presumably) the best and the brightest citizens representing each state, making an
informed decision that would produce the 'best' choice. There were no political parties to speak
of when the Constitution was penned. In fact, the founders were rather suspicious of them in general
but did not go so far as to prohibit them (to our eventual ruin). They never intended the rigged,
two-party freak show popularity contest masquerading as an election that we have today.
For a bit more nuance in the choice of state electors, their vote pledge and 'jumping ship' (if
it's allowed by law in that state, see
faithless electors
.
I check the CPI every now and then looking for the US to drop. The Corruption Perception Index
depends on the perception which can be molded by the media. But as more people wake up, I expect
the US ranking to drop. Our 2015 ranking is 16 (behind countries in north-east Europe and Canada
and New Zealand). http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015
russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play
hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms,
it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons?
that's the answer to that bs...
as for turkey, clearly the apk has a 'get rid of the kurds' agenda.. works well in their alliance
with isis up to a point.. as for turkish/usa alliance and a no fly zone - if russia goes along
with this, they better get a hell of a trade off out of it.. i can't see it, although i see the
usa continuing on in their support of saudi arabia etc, using their mercenary isis army and saudi
arabia to continue to funnel arms sales and weaponry... it is what they do best, bullshite artists
that they are...
"... Bill & Hillary: So This is That Thing Called Love ..."
"... video of Bill Clinton clearly shows Kaposi Sarcoma on the forehead and inside the left eyelid. ..."
"... There is a long list of adverse neurological after-effects of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, some of them short term and others that are long term. Surgeons who deal with these issues refer to the long term and permanent loss of cognitive function as "pump head", so named because the patient was kept alive by a heart-lung machine during surgery. ..."
"... It's very likely that Bill Clinton has been dealing with a form of "pump head" since he underwent bypass surgery in February 2010. ..."
"... Absolutely looks like HIV to me. I have seen it, believe me, working in a hospital as a PA for over 20 years. ..."
"... To be honest..I had thought that maybe Bill Clinton was HIV positive back a year ago or so. I managed to see him on TV and was shocked at how totally wasted away he looked. Just my 2 cents though. ..."
"... If he has HIV it should be known to many sex partners as he has had. ..."
In their new
book, Bill & Hillary: So This is That Thing Called Love, the authors interview Clinton
insiders who claim that Bill slept with so many women that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly forced
him to get an HIV test from the doctor. This is because the former President "favored unprotected
sex."
And while the first tests came back negative, HIV and AIDS might explain an ongoing mystery.
Over the years, both Clintons have kept their medical records a secret. Clinton has explained his
rapidly changing appearance to his heart surgery and "new diet" but he has looked increasingly thin
and weak at Hillary campaign rallies.
As Rush Limbaugh opined, looking at Bill Clinton on the campaign trail, Rush only sees Preparation
H, Geritol, Fixodent, and Depends. Bill Clinton looks like his health is on a rapid recline.
The Dec 6 2013 video of Bill Clinton clearly shows Kaposi Sarcoma on the forehead and inside
the left eyelid. Hillary's neurological problems are probably from:
PRIMARY CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM (CNS) LYMPHOMA
Your central nervous system consists of your brain, spinal cord, and spinal nerves. This
system controls all the workings of your body. HIV can infect and damage parts of it.
Primary CNS lymphoma is a type of cancer that typically occurs in people with CD4 counts
less than 50 cells/mm3. This type of cancer affects the lymph system in your brain and spinal
cord. Symptoms of this type of cancer can include:
Headache
Memory loss
Confusion
Other neurological changes
(Other conditions may cause the same symptoms. Consult your healthcare provider if you have
any of these symptoms.)
Diagnosis includes many of the same types of tests as those for Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma-but
because CNS lymphoma affects the brain directly, your healthcare provider may want to do a
brain biopsy as well. Radiation therapy is the most common treatment for AIDS-related CNS lymphoma.
For more information, see the National Cancer Institute's General Information About Primary
CNS Lymphoma.
Pierce, June 16, 2016 at 1:03 am
this is a stupid article, first of all HIV doesn't cause neurological signs unless you have
crytococcous neoformans, PML, HIV dementia which will only happen if he is not taking medications
which as a doctor i'm 100 percent sure,
NEXT people forgot that BILL CLINTON had a CABG(cornary artery bypass procedure) this procedure
which has a side effect of NEUROTOXICITY. Even though he might of had side effects from this procedure
his IQ is not affected.
DONT LISTEN TO THIS GARBAGE ARTICLE
Gunnar, July 2, 2016 at 7:04 pm
Your response sounds emotional, Pierce. There is a long list of adverse neurological after-effects
of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, some of them short term and others that are
long term. Surgeons who deal with these issues refer to the long term and permanent loss of cognitive
function as "pump head", so named because the patient was kept alive by a heart-lung machine during
surgery.
It's very likely that Bill Clinton has been dealing with a form of "pump head" since he
underwent bypass surgery in February 2010.
Laura, May 17, 2016 at 4:42 pm
Absolutely looks like HIV to me. I have seen it, believe me, working in a hospital as a PA for
over 20 years. This is what happens to humans when they live a degenerative lifestyle. Not everyone
gets HIV but something else gets them. You can't fool Mother Nature. She will get you in the end.
Robert says: February 25, 2016 at 9:59 pm
To be honest..I had thought that maybe Bill Clinton was HIV positive back a year ago or so. I
managed to see him on TV and was shocked at how totally wasted away he looked. Just my 2 cents
though. I wouldn't wish that disease on any body.
Debbie says: February 25, 2016 at 5:23 pm
If he has HIV it should be known to many sex partners as he has had. How many are at risk? Even
Hillary may be at risk..Is that where her cough has come from ???? Does she have it? Is thatwhat
Obama has had on them?
In this gif the thumb of his right hand has a lot going on independently of the rest of his
fingers. Take a look at his left hand, and you will see the less noticeable tremor in his index
and middle fingers.
"... Syndicalist is not usually how we think of our current economic structure. But remember that syndicalism means economic control by the producers. Capitalism is different. It places by virtue of market structures all control in the hands of the consumers. The only question for syndicalists, then, is which producers are going to enjoy political privilege. It might be the workers, but it can also be the largest corporations. ..."
"... Autarky is the name given to the idea of economic self-sufficiency. Mostly this refers to the economic self determination of the nation-state. The nation-state must be geographically huge in order to support rapid economic growth for a large and growing population. ..."
The most definitive study on fascism written in these years was As We Go Marching by John T. Flynn.
Flynn was a journalist and scholar of a liberal spirit who had written a number of best-selling books
in the 1920s. It was the New Deal that changed him. His colleagues all followed FDR into fascism,
while Flynn himself kept the old faith. That meant that he fought FDR every step of the way, and
not only his domestic plans. Flynn was a leader of the America First movement that saw FDR's drive
to war as nothing but an extension of the New Deal, which it certainly was.
As We Go Marching came out in 1944, just at the tail end of the war, and right in the midst of
wartime economic controls the world over. It is a wonder that it ever got past the censors. It is
a full-scale study of fascist theory and practice, and Flynn saw precisely where fascism ends: in
militarism and war as the fulfillment of the stimulus spending agenda. When you run out of everything
else to spend money on, you can always depend on nationalist fervor to back more military spending.
Flynn, like other members of the Old Right, was disgusted by the irony that what he saw, almost
everyone else chose to ignore. After reviewing this long history, Flynn proceeds to sum up with a
list of eight points he considers to be the main marks of the fascist state.
As I present them, I will also offer comments on the modern American central state.
Point 1. The government is totalitarian because it acknowledges no restraint on its powers.
If you become directly ensnared in the state's web, you will quickly discover that there are indeed
no limits to what the state can do. This can happen boarding a flight, driving around in your hometown,
or having your business run afoul of some government agency. In the end, you must obey or be caged
like an animal or killed. In this way, no matter how much you may believe that you are free, all
of us today are but one step away from Guantanamo.
No aspect of life is untouched by government intervention, and often it takes forms we do not
readily see. All of healthcare is regulated, but so is every bit of our food, transportation, clothing,
household products, and even private relationships. Mussolini himself put his principle this way:
"All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." I submit to you that
this is the prevailing ideology in the United States today. This nation, conceived in liberty, has
been kidnapped by the fascist state.
Point 2. Government is a de facto dictatorship based on the leadership principle.
I wouldn't say that we truly have a dictatorship of one man in this country, but we do have a
form of dictatorship of one sector of government over the entire country. The executive branch has
spread so dramatically over the last century that it has become a joke to speak of checks and balances.
The executive state is the state as we know it, all flowing from the White House down. The role
of the courts is to enforce the will of the executive. The role of the legislature is to ratify the
policy of the executive. This executive is not really about the person who seems to be in charge.
The president is only the veneer, and the elections are only the tribal rituals we undergo to confer
some legitimacy on the institution. In reality, the nation-state lives and thrives outside any "democratic
mandate." Here we find the power to regulate all aspects of life and the wicked power to create the
money necessary to fund this executive rule.
Point 3. Government administers a capitalist system with an immense bureaucracy.
The reality of bureaucratic administration has been with us at least since the New Deal, which
was modeled on the planning bureaucracy that lived in World War I. The planned economy- whether in
Mussolini's time or ours- requires bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is the heart, lungs, and veins of the
planning state. And yet to regulate an economy as thoroughly as this one is today is to kill prosperity
with a billion tiny cuts.
So where is our growth? Where is the peace dividend that was supposed to come after the end of
the Cold War? Where are the fruits of the amazing gains in efficiency that technology has afforded?
It has been eaten by the bureaucracy that manages our every move on this earth. The voracious and
insatiable monster here is called the Federal Code that calls on thousands of agencies to exercise
the police power to prevent us from living free lives.
It is as Bastiat said: the real cost of the state is the prosperity we do not see, the jobs that
don't exist, the technologies to which we do not have access, the businesses that do not come into
existence, and the bright future that is stolen from us. The state has looted us just as surely as
a robber who enters our home at night and steals all that we love.
Point 4. Producers are organized into cartels in the way of syndicalism.
Syndicalist is not usually how we think of our current economic structure. But remember that syndicalism
means economic control by the producers. Capitalism is different. It places by virtue of market structures
all control in the hands of the consumers. The only question for syndicalists, then, is which producers
are going to enjoy political privilege. It might be the workers, but it can also be the largest corporations.
In the case of the United States, in the last three years, we've seen giant banks, pharmaceutical
firms, insurers, car companies, Wall Street banks and brokerage houses, and quasi-private mortgage
companies enjoying vast privileges at our expense. They have all joined with the state in living
a parasitical existence at our expense.
Point 5. Economic planning is based on the principle of autarky.
Autarky is the name given to the idea of economic self-sufficiency. Mostly this refers to the
economic self determination of the nation-state. The nation-state must be geographically huge in
order to support rapid economic growth for a large and growing population.
Look at the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. We would be supremely naive to believe that
these wars were not motivated in part by the producer interests of the oil industry. It is true of
the American empire generally, which supports dollar hegemony. It is the reason for the North American
Union.
Point 6. Government sustains economic life through spending and borrowing.
This point requires no elaboration because it is no longer hidden. In the latest round, and with
a prime-time speech, Obama mused about how is it that people are unemployed at a time when schools,
bridges, and infrastructure need repairing. He ordered that supply and demand come together to match
up needed work with jobs.
Hello? The schools, bridges, and infrastructure that Obama refers to are all built and maintained
by the state. That's why they are falling apart. And the reason that people don't have jobs is because
the state has made it too expensive to hire them. It's not complicated. To sit around and dream of
other scenarios is no different from wishing that water flowed uphill or that rocks would float in
the air. It amounts to a denial of reality.
As for the rest of this speech, Obama promised yet another long list of spending projects. But
no government in the history of the world has spent as much, borrowed as much, and created as much
fake money as the United States, all thanks to the power of the Fed to create money at will. If the
United States doesn't qualify as a fascist state in this sense, no government ever has.
Point 7. Militarism is a mainstay of government spending.
Have you ever noticed that the military budget is never seriously discussed in policy debates?
The United States spends more than most of the rest of the world combined. And yet to hear our leaders
talk, the United States is just a tiny commercial republic that wants peace but is constantly under
threat from the world. Where is the debate about this policy? Where is the discussion? It is not
going on. It is just assumed by both parties that it is essential for the US way of life that the
United States be the most deadly country on the planet, threatening everyone with nuclear extinction
unless they obey.
Point 8. Military spending has imperialist aims.
We've had one war after another, wars waged by the United States against noncompliant countries,
and the creation of even more client states and colonies. US military strength has led not to peace
but the opposite. It has caused most people in the world to regard the United States as a threat,
and it has led to unconscionable wars on many countries. Wars of aggression were defined at Nuremberg
as crimes against humanity.
Obama was supposed to end this. He never promised to do so, but his supporters all believed that
he would. Instead, he has done the opposite. He has increased troop levels, entrenched wars, and
started new ones. In reality, he has presided over a warfare state just as vicious as any in history.
The difference this time is that the Left is no longer criticizing the US role in the world. In that
sense, Obama is the best thing ever to happen to the warmongers and the military-industrial complex.
The Future
I can think of no greater priority today than a serious and effective antifascist alliance. In
many ways, one is already forming. It is not a formal alliance. It is made up of those who protest
the Fed, those who refuse to go along with mainstream fascist politics, those who seek decentralization,
those who demand lower taxes and free trade, those who seek the right to associate with anyone they
want and buy and sell on terms of their own choosing, those who insist they can educate their children
on their own, the investors and savers who make economic growth possible, those who do not want to
be felt up at airports, and those who have become expatriates.
It is also made of the millions of independent entrepreneurs who are discovering that the number
one threat to their ability to serve others through the commercial marketplace is the institution
that claims to be our biggest benefactor: the government.
How many people fall into this category? It is more than we know. The movement is intellectual.
It is political. It is cultural. It is technological. They come from all classes, races, countries,
and professions. This is no longer a national movement. It is truly global.
And what does this movement want? Nothing more or less than sweet liberty. It does not ask that
the liberty be granted or given. It only asks for the liberty that is promised by life itself and
would otherwise exist were it not for the Leviathan state that robs us, badgers us, jails us, kills
us.
This movement is not departing. We are daily surrounded by evidence that it is right and true.
Every day, it is more and more obvious that the state contributes absolutely nothing to our wellbeing;
it massively subtracts from it.
Back in the 1930s, and even up through the 1980s, the partisans of the state were overflowing
with ideas. This is no longer true. Fascism has no new ideas, no big projects-and not even its partisans
really believe it can accomplish what it sets out to do. The world created by the private sector
is so much more useful and beautiful than anything the state has done that the fascists have themselves
become demoralized and aware that their agenda has no real intellectual foundation.
It is ever more widely known that statism does not and cannot work. Statism is the great lie.
Statism gives us the exact opposite of its promise. It promised security, prosperity, and peace;
it has given us fear, poverty, war, and death. If we want a future, it is one that we have to build
ourselves. The fascist state will not give it to us. On the contrary, it stands in the way.
In the end, this is the choice we face: the total state or total freedom. Which will we choose?
If we choose the state, we will continue to sink further and further and eventually lose all that
we treasure as a civilization. If we choose freedom, we can harness that remarkable power of human
cooperation that will enable us to continue to make a better world.
In the fight against fascism, there is no reason to be despairing. We must continue to fight with
every bit of confidence that the future belongs to us and not them.
Their world is falling apart. Ours is just being built.Their world is based on bankrupt ideologies.
Ours is rooted in the truth about freedom and reality. Their world can only look back to the glory
days. Ours looks forward to the future we are building for ourselves.
Their world is rooted in the corpse of the nation-state. Our world draws on the energies and creativity
of all peoples in the world, united in the great and noble project of creating a prospering civilization
through peaceful human cooperation. We possess the only weapon that is truly immortal: the right
idea. It is this that will lead to victory.
"All of the leftists out themselves by stating Communists are Fascists."
I have only heard leftists
vehemently deny that communists are fascists. I have never heard a leftist say that communists
are fascists. Do you have a link?
BTW, what could possibly be more fascist than re-education camps?
The State is that which is controlled by the nation in question. A Government is not the state,
nor is it the nation. A government is a secular organization emplaced to impose a set of rules
that benefit one nation over all other under the same government.
The failure of the west is not that it allows any one given state to control the power, but
that it allows secular governments dominante and forcibly submit all nations to it's demands by
a foreign nation. The argument against the state is one that decries the European dominance in
the US. It's an anti-European control in European created countries narrative.
The state that is allowed to exist and hold power within the US is not the state of her citizens
or the nations they consist of. It is a foreign state claiming rightful sovereignty through both
economic terrorist and threats of force and active persecution.
The US has been under the rule of a global criminal cartel for decades now. That cartel is
a nation onto it's own, and it uses deception, propaganda and economic means to hide it's existence.
It is successful because it controls the media, which is the largest propaganda outlet to have
ever been devised. It can chose whom to promote and whom to deny the right to exist. We are at
this very moment reading an article from one of it's propaganda arms on a site controlled by a
different proganda arm that it also controls.
Clinton has a reasonably competitive opponent who has challenged her on her
record of Wall Street support, her dismissal
of the Glass-Steagall Act and her
vote for war in Iraq. She should also be challenged vigorously on her role
with the DLC.
Circumstances have created a unique moment where Clinton has to answer these
tough questions.
POLITICO) Donald Trump dug deeper into the archives Friday to point out Hillary Clinton's
complicated history of racially divisive politics, including her infamous "super-predators"
comment from the 1990s.
"The Clinton's are the real predators…" Trump wrote in a tweet
linking to an Instagram video.
The video begins with Hillary Clinton in 1996, defending her husband's controversial crime
bill, which has long been criticized for its impact on minority communities with respect to
mass incarceration.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/trump-clintons-are-the-real-predators/#hCaMDGFQDlFMqhZS.99
"... her way of life has marinated for a long time now in the culture of wealth, influence, and power - and a way of thinking engrained deeply in our political ethos, one in which one's own power in democracy is more important than democracy itself. ..."
...She is, after all, a favorite of the giant banks, the CEOs and hedge funds she now was castigating.
Between 2009 and 2014, Clinton's list of top 20 donors starts out with Citigroup and includes JPMorgan
Chase, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, whose chief Lloyd Blankfein has
invested in Clinton's son-in-law's boutique hedge
fund. These donors are, as the website Truthout's
William Rivers Pitt notes, "the ones who gamed the
system by buying politicians like her and then proceeded to burn the economy down to dust and ash
while making a financial killing in the process."
They're also among the deep-pocket outfits that paid
for speeches and appearances by Hillary or Bill Clinton to the tune of more than $125 million
since they left the White House in 2001. It could hardly escape some in that crowd on Roosevelt Island,
catching a glimpse of the towers of power and might across the river: Can we really expect someone
so deeply tethered to the financial and business class – who moves so often and so easily among its
swells – to fight hard to check their predatory appetites, dismantle their control of Congress, and
stand up for the working people who are their prey?
Consider the two Canadian banks with financial
ties to the Keystone XL pipeline that fully or partially paid for eight speeches by Hillary Clinton.
Or her $3.2 million in lecture fees from the tech
sector. Or the
more than $2.5 million in paid speeches for companies and groups lobbying for fast-track trade.
According to TIME magazine and the Center for
Responsive Politics, in 2014, "Almost half of the money from Hillary Clinton's speaking engagements
came from corporations and advocacy groups that were lobbying Congress at the same time… In all,
the corporations and trade groups that Clinton spoke to in 2014 spent $72.5 million lobbying Congress
that same year."
Then look at
David Sirota's recent reporting for the International Business Times, especially the
revelation that while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, her department "approved $165 billion
worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation,
according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data… nearly double
the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department
during the same period of President George W. Bush's second term."
Those nations include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar,
each of which "gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the
department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil
liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents."
Further, American defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed who sold those arms and their delivery
systems also shelled out heavily to the $2 billion Clinton
Foundation and the Clinton family. According to Sirota, "In all, governments and corporations
involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton's State Department have delivered between $54 million
and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments
to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation
publishes only a rough range of individual contributors' donations, making a more precise accounting
impossible."
The Washington Postreports that among the approximately 200,000 contributors there have
also been donations from many other countries and corporations, overseas and domestic business leaders,
the odious Blackwater Training Center, and even Rupert Murdoch of celebrity phone hacking fame.
Meredith McGehee, policy director of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, told David Sirota:
"The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the
Clintons was to give to this foundation."
We pause here to note: All of these donations were apparently legal, and as others have written,
at least we know who was doling out the cash, in contrast to those anonymous sources secretly channeling
millions in "dark money" to the chosen candidates of the super rich.
... ... ..
We see "exactly Washington's problem" in how, during the 1990s, Bill Clinton became the willing
agent of Wall Street's push to deregulate, a collaboration that enriched the bankers but eventually
cost millions of Americans their homes, jobs, and pensions.
Thanks to documents that came to light last year
(one even has a handwritten note attached that reads: "Please eat this paper after you have read
this."), we understand more clearly how a small coterie of insiders maneuvered to get President Clinton
to support repeal of the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act that had long protected depositors from
being victimized by bank speculators gambling with their savings. Repeal led to a wave of Wall Street
mergers.
As you can read in stories by Dan Roberts in
The Guardianand
Pam and Russ Martens online, the ringleader of the effort was Secretary of the Treasury Robert
Rubin, who breathlessly persuaded the president to sign the repeal and soon left office to join Citigroup,
the bank that turned out to be the primary beneficiary of the deal. When it overreached and collapsed,
Citigroup received the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of U.S. finance. Rubin, meanwhile,
earned $126 million from the bank over ten years.
According to
The New York Times, Rubin "remains a crucial kingmaker in Democratic policy circles" and,
as an adviser to the Clintons, "will play an essential role in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign
for president…"
Hillary Clinton, as a young Methodist growing up in Park Ridge, Illinois, was weaned on the social
ethics of John Wesley, a founder of Methodism and a courageous champion of the poor and needy; we
have her word for it and the witness of others. "Do all the good you can," the Methodist saying goes,
"in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever
you can."
But over time, Hillary Clinton achieved superstar status among Washington's acculturated class
– that swollen colony of permanent denizens of our capital who may have come from the hinterlands
but can hardly resist the seductive ways of a new and different culture in which the prevailing mindset
is: It's important to do good but more important to do well.
Lawrence Lessig believes she is an unlikely reformer – "which is precisely why she might be a
particularly effective one." But her way of life has marinated for a long time now in the culture
of wealth, influence, and power - and a way of thinking engrained deeply in our political ethos,
one in which one's own power in democracy is more important than democracy itself.
... ... ...
Sep_Arch • 9 months ago
The Clinton foundation is basically a money-laundering operation for an influence-peddling scam.
When Hillary is President, just as when she was Senator and Secretary of State, she will base
her decisions mostly on what will put more money into her family's pockets. After all, they are
hobnobbing with billionaires now. She will tell herself she is "pro-business" and being "realistic"
as she guts the middle class and puts all of her power behind the TPP, big corporations, and Wall
Street. And too many liberals will remain deaf, dumb and blind....
Guest Reader • a year ago
I will not be supporting Clinton either because of the financial interests behind her. Also because
of the record of the Democrats on many issues over the years, a group she has been deeply with
... so this is not entirely about Clinton herself, but even Obama, you could say, since the two
were fairly similar policy-wise, and now we've had eight years of this already.
I don't want more of the same. Plus, her campaign is based on this mythology that the country
is doing so much better, economically, and nothing could be further from the truth. This mythology
being pushed, because she running for office following a Democrat's administration, and one in
which she has been part of.
Again, to me, this is about domestic economics. I am deeply disappointed and exhausted by the
health care dispute. We should have an improved expanded Medicare for all, and, with dental and
vision, like any other developed nation.
We should NOT be going into more of these so-called "free" trade agreements. They are destroying
the standard of living for Americans, hitting people at the bottom the hardest.
vallehombre • a year ago
The current system allows a range of only two possibilities in electoral choices - between the
far right and the farther right.
HRC is channeling Goldwater via PNAC and then some while Sanders is Eisenhower light at best,
trying to catch some Huey Long soundbites on the way by. Yet we are supposed to act as if any
of this is news.
The allowed candidates are products of the state of our disappearing Republic and citizens
have been so effectively conditioned to accept our situation that we stumble to our destruction
as meekly compliant as the folks of an earlier generation shuiffled weeping into gas chambers.
There is no perspective presented here or anywhere other than that of our self identified elites
for the simple reason it has become the sole ethos of our existence. To fault a single person,
HRC in this case, for promoting arms sales and profiting personally from them ignores the structure
of the entire system, the anticipated "benefits" almost every citizens has come to expect as a
natural right (if not divinely ordained) and a "good life" that in real terms resembles little
more than a long, drawn out narcissistic display of communal suicide.
If it is true people create the government they deserve, or maybe accept, then the choice between
the far right and the farther right more accurately reflect the state of our nation than we care
or dare to admit.
oneski > vallehombre • a year ago
... and a "good life" that in real terms resembles little more than a long, drawn out narcissistic
display of communal suicide.
Quite the diagnosis! And there's the added bonus of enriching the lives of others whilst attempting
to postpone the inevitable.
The Swiss own one of the world's largest food companies and the world's largest elevator company.
It's a safe bet both their customers are easy to identify.
falken751 • a year ago
This is what is coming in this country politicians, better get ready for it, especially Clinton
and her Republican buddies. We don't need or want and millionaire politicians like her and her
husband.
"A massive and growing anti-austerity movement will take to the streets of London on Saturday,
June 20, with demonstrators demanding "an alternative to austerity and to policies that only benefit
those at the top."
Tens of thousands are expected to march from the Bank of England to Parliament Square on Saturday,
protesting the conservative government's "nasty, destructive cuts to the things ordinary people
care about-the [National Health Service], the welfare state, education and public services."
Organized by The People's Assembly-a politically unaffiliated national campaign against austerity-the
demonstration comes in the wake of UK elections in early May that saw the Conservative (Tory)
Party seizing the majority of Parliamentary seats and Prime Minister David Cameron sweeping back
to power."
Get ready politicians, and watch your backs.
Bassy Kims of Yesteryear • a year ago
The utter sellout of the Democratic Party over these last decades is entirely responsible for
the harrowing slide of the USA to the Right. The Republican flavor of bacon isn't even worth mentioning,
as those meatpuppets sold their souls many decades ago.
The rape of the poor and the middle class, the Neocon wars, the offshoring... all the worst
things in this nation stem directly from our betrayal by the Democratic Party. The upcoming passage
of the TPP, blacked out all across the MSM and across most of the alternative media, is proof
positive of this.
The sellout of the Democratic Party, and how we must respond to that sellout, must be the root
of any article on our oppression, and any article on how to respond to our national rape. Step
One is raising the consciousness of the DNC's rubes. They must understand their betrayal in order
to rise above it, and to consider alternatives such as Jill Stein, alternatives such as work stoppages
and demonstrations. Otherwise, there is no hope for America - none at all.
Fool_me_twice_shame_on_ME • a year ago
All this is blatantly obvious and yet there are still so many Americans who remain clueless and
believe she has their interests at heart because they are gullible enough to believe her incredibly
empty campaign rhetoric. Well, there's the willful ignorance, coupled with the unbelievable shallowness
of basing her single qualification for the Oval Office on the type of genitalia she has, or on
name recognition alone, or the very telling amount of favoritism she gets in the CORPORATE media
and their need to vote for "the winning candidate," regardless of values and priorities. If a
voter wants genuine effort and concern in championing middle class causes, there is Bernie Sanders.
His voting record and history go back 30 years and it didn't just get completely revamped by focus
groups for the up-coming election. Simple logic should alert voters to Hillary, Inc.'s loyalties.
Why is it that in spite of all of Hillary's new-found list of concerns in her "populist" rhetoric
(which seem to only come about after Bernie Sanders speaks to them) her long list of Wall Street
campaign financiers still choose her as their favorite choice in the election? Could it be she
is only saying these things to pander for votes, with no intention of keeping any promises after
the election (just like Obama did)? To the corporate funders of her campaign it's just the cost
of doing business. They spend a few million on her and get billions back when she wins the White
House. It's a great return on investment, but just like Obama, the voters will always come a distant
second to Wall Street demands. This is NOT how you fix things in Washington. This is how you guarantee
"business as usual."
Avatar Ken • a year ago
"Can she really stand above the cesspool that is Washington - filled not with criminals but with
decent people inside a corrupted system trying to do what they think is good"
What a fcuking load of shite! They´re predominantly a load of rapacious, venal sociopaths who
should be in one of the prisions they love to build to house the poor. And Killary´s at the top
of the heap.
Popillius > pgathome1 • a year ago
I have no illusions about HRC - I loathe some of her positions. As for you boyz who fell for BHO
(in spite of his neoliberalism being on full display) - you haven't learned a thing. You are going
to honestly swallow that somebody heard that somebody heard from somebody in their "inner circle"
that Bill Clinton said that about his wife? What evidence do you have that is true? Do you not
see the mountains of ratfucking garbage out there about the Clintons? Their policies aside - which
can absolutely be loathesome - you are going to go online and breathlessly assert that you heard
someone heard that someone close to the Clintons said that? No wonder you fell for BHO so hard.
Sarah Jackson • a year ago
Democrats are in a lying frenzy, just as much so as the other faithful party. Moyers doesn't really
have anything left to say of any value unless it too is a lie of sorts. As an example, he revises
the obliteration of New Deal regulation by implying the President was mislead into doing so. No,
that's not what happened. And we don't have a Democracy. But when we don't live in a Democracy,
it is the news media's role to produce something less than honest. We're supposed to forget Sirota
was a part of AIPAC, and Moyers was part of an administration that served corporations dedicated
to genocide.
"Since I follow this year's presidential primaries very closely, I have
recently noticed the same physical characteristics of AIDS patients being
exhibited by Bill Clinton's appearance and persona. At first, anyone may
think he is getting up in age and the deteriorating features are natural.
However, on further examination, one has to conclude Bill Clinton is a very
ill man suffering from advanced stages of AIDS.
Like Charlie Sheen, Bill Clinton has lived a sexually promiscuous lifestyle
and has contracted AIDS. Hillary Clinton is doing everything she can to keep
it quiet. It is very apparent at almost all Hillary Clinton campaign rallies
and speeches where Bill is in attendance that he is a very sick man."
In Darwin Porter and Danforth Prince's new book, Bill & Hillary: So This is
That Thing Called Love, Clinton insiders claim that Bill slept with so many
women that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly forced him to get an AIDS test
from the doctor. This is because the former President "favored unprotected
sex."
No doubt neither of them are running on full health. Bill has been listless,
had a drastic weight loss, trembling hands, red blotches on his face and a
number of other definite signs of ill health, many which are common AIDS
symptoms.
Re: Clintons campaign possible strategy of making a vote for Clinton 'a vote
for a winner'.
I know its conventional opinion that when in doubt, people prefer to vote
for who they perceive to be a 'winner', but I wonder if this really applies
with two such disliked candidates. I've a theory that one reason Brexit won is
that the polls beforehand saying it would be a narrow 'no', gave 'permission'
for people to vote with their conscience rather than their pragmatism. In other
words, presented with a 'pragmatic, but dirty' vote for X, but a 'fun, but
risky' vote for Y', people will vote X if its very close or it looks like Y
will win, but may be tempted to vote Y if they are pretty sure X will win.
Part of me thinks the Clinton campaign would have tested the theory to the
limit before going for a strategy like this, but the evidence from the
nomination campaign is that they are all tactics, no strategy. It seems to me
to be a very risky game to play, not least because promoting Clinton as a sure
winner may make wavering progressives simply opt to stay at home.
I don't even think you have to be a progressive for that to be a concern
if you are the Clinton campaign.
They know the public is not enthusiastic about voting for her for the most
part, and yet they are setting up a meme where she is unbeatable. It isn't
necessarily going to just keep Trump voters home. But how many people who
don't want Clinton but really don't want Trump will be able to convince
themselves that there is no need to go hold their nose and vote for her.
Republicans who think she is too far left, but he is crazy for instance will
be just as likely to stay home as the lefties who know she is lying
Neoliberal War Criminal, but not fascist like Trump. (And I know the real
fascism signs are all with Clinton, but some may have missed it).
On fascism I had the exact same thought after reading Adolph Reeds
"Vote For the Lying, NeoLiberal War-Monger, It's Important" link last
week.
Reed's critique was that communist leader Thallman failed to
anticipate Hitler's liquidation of all opposition, but frankly with
Hillary's and Donald's respective histories its hard for me to see how
Trump is more dangerous on this: Hillary has a deep and proven lethal
track record and wherever she could justify violent action in the past
she has, she keeps an enemies list, holds grudges and acts on them, all
thoroughly documented.
I certainly won't speculate that Trump couldn't do the same or worse,
given the state of our propaganda and lawlessness amongst the elite, but
like all the other negatives in this campaign its hard to ascertain who
really will be worse. Lambert's bet on gridlock in a Trump administration
has the further advantage of re-activating the simulation of "anti-war,
anti-violence" amongst Dem nomenklatura.
We have collectively known Donald Trump and much of his family
for the last 30 or 40 years. Over the years, he has evoked
different emotions in me. (Usually being appalled by his big-city,
realestate tycoon posturing etc). However, I have
never
been frightened by him. To me, he is more like a bombastic, well
loved, show-off uncle.
Today I see Trump as a modern day prophet (spiritual teacher). A
bringer of light (clarity) to the masses. We live in a rigged
system that gives Nobel Peace Prizes to mass murderers; that
charges a poor child $600 for a $1 lifesaving Epipen. Trump is
waking up The People. Finalllyyyyyy!!
In my experience, people usually do not change for the better
as they age. However, it does happen!; peasant girl (Joan of
Arc), patent inspector (Einstein)
It's not about what Trump will or won't do. It's about not handing
all three branches of government over to the GOP, which has the
Libertarian agenda of eliminating said government altogether. I find
it interesting that so many people scornful of identity politics
nevertheless seem to be as addicted as anyone to making this a horse
race between two candidates that has no real far-reaching consequences
beyond with each will or won't do in the Oval Office.
The Republican elite is clearly and strongly aligned with
Clinton, which reflects the status quo consensus.
It is certainly possible that the elected Republicans in the
House and the Senate will follow Trump or Trump will follow them.
But right now, that seems no more possible than that elected
Republican leadership (the ones most indebted to and aligned with
the donors/rest of the elite) will rebel at Trump and his takeover
of the party. Moreover, IF Trump's in, the Democrats will be forced
to enact the roll of "Democrat," thus guaranteeing some obstacle
somewhere.
Clinton is a Republican. Claiming she won't govern like a
Republican basically means relying on the Freedom Caucus to stop
her. I would just as soon not have to count on those guys to keep
throwing poop at the neoliberal walls - especially since they're
all being directly targeted in this election.
So true: "My view is that triumphalism from the Clinton campaign - which
now includes most of the political class, including the press and both party
establishments, and ignores event risk - is engineered to get early voters
to "go with the winner."–Lambert
I have noticed on Google News several "Clinton weighing cabinet choices"
articles, to me there is whistling past the graveyard quality to all this.
They want the election over now-the votes are just a formality.
They really really do not have any short term memory do they? I mean
it took sticking both thumbs on the scale and some handy dandy
shenanigans with voters to get her past the Primary finish line. And her
opponent there was much nicer about pointing out her flaws than her
current opponent. It is true they won't have any obvious elections that
disprove their position out there, but when you are spending millions and
your opponent nothing and he is still within the margin of error with you
in the states that people are watching the closest…
Although that isn't considering the fears of what other shoes have to
drop both in the world and in the news that could derail her victory
parade, they may have more to fear from that.
One of the problems Democrats have and the 50 state strategy
addressed is voting in very Democratic precincts. Without constant
pressure, many proud Democrats won't vote because they don't know any
Republicans. It's in the bag. College kids are the worst voters alive.
They will forget come election day or not be registered because they
moved. Dean squeezed these districts. These districts are where
Democrats , out in 2010 and 2014 and even a little in 2012. Mittens is
a robber baron.
If Democratic turnout is low and Hillary wins with crossover votes,
what happens? It's very likely those Republicans vote for down ticket
Republicans. Even for the people who have to vote against Trump, if
they believe he is a special kind of super fascist will they bother to
vote for the allies of a crook such as Hillary? It's possible Hillary
wins and drops a seat in the Senate depending on turnout.
I think it's clear Hillary isn't going to bring out any kind of
voter activism. Judging from photos in Virginia where one would hope a
commanding Hillary victory could jump start the Democrats for next
year's governors and legislative races, the Democratic Party is dead
or very close to it.
What if Hillary wins but does the unthinkable and delivers a
Republican pickup in the Senate? She needs to keep Republicans from
coming out because she isn't going to drive Democratic turnout to a
spot where that can win on its own.
Hillary needs to win to keep the never Trump crowd in the GOP from
voting because she knows the Democratic side which relies on very
Democratic districts and transient voters will not impress. An
emboldened GOP congress will be a tough environment for Hillary, and
GOP voters won't tolerate bipartisanship especially for anyone
suspected of not helping the party 100%. Those House Republicans have
to face 2018 and the smaller but arguably more motivated electorate.
They will come down hard on Hillary if she can't win the Senate which
a literal donkey could do.
Hell I don't want Clinton to win by any margin. But if anyone
thinks that the bipartisan nature of her possible victory will mean
anything but Republicans hunting her scalp, and dare I say getting
it, they are not paying attention. As much as both the Benghazi and
the email thing has them all flummoxed because the real crimes
involved with both are crimes they either agree with or want to
use. The Foundation on the other hand, not so much, they will make
the case that this is a global slush fund because it is. And the
McDonnell decision is not going to save her Presidency, much as it
would if she were indicted in a Court.
I should add, that is with or without winning the Senate. Much
of the loyalty any Dems there have towards her will disappear when
it is obvious that she keeps most of the money AND has no
coattails. Oh, they might not vote to impeach her, but that is
about it.
Hillary's only defense is to win the Senate and to be able to
stifle investigations through the appearance of a mandate. 2018
is the 2012 cycle, and that is 2006 which should be a good year
for the Republicans (a credit to Howard Dean). It's a tough map
for Team Blue. If they don't win the Senate in November, they
won't win it in 2018.
With 2018 on its way, a weak Democratic situation will make
the Democrats very jumpy as Hillary is clearly not delivering
the coattails they imagined.
She isn't going to have a mandate. Oh, the electoral
college count might look good. But regardless of who wins
this sucker, I'm betting this is going to be one of the
lowest, if not the lowest, voter turnout for any Presidential
election in the last century. I would not be surpised if more
people stay home than vote. And that is not a mandate.
The Senate isn't going to stifle investigations. She
doesn't even have to help the Dems get a majority for that
problem of conviction if impeached to rear its ugly head. No
way is there going to be 2/3 of the Senate in one party or
the other. That still won't stop the House. Just as it didn't
for her husband.
"... Trump's presidential campaign had seized on the news of Clinton's briefing to label her an "insider threat." The Trump campaign emailed reporters to point out the news that an Army training presentation previously identified Clinton as a threat ..."
Trump's presidential campaign had seized on the news of Clinton's
briefing to label her an "insider threat." The Trump campaign emailed reporters to
point out the news that an Army training presentation previously identified
Clinton as a threat, as the Washington Examiner previously
reported.
Clinton was investigated by the FBI for mishandling
classified information that appeared on a private email server she had set up, but
agency chief James Comey decided not to recommend charges.
Trump is attractive precisely because the Establishment fears and loathes him because 1) they
didn't pick him and 2) he might upset the neoconservative Empire that the Establishment elites view
as their global entitlement.
The Establishment is freaking out about Donald Trump for one reason: they didn't pick him.
The Establishment is freaking out because the natural order of things is that we pick the presidential
candidates and we run the country to serve ourselves, i.e. the financial-political elites.
Donald Trump's candidacy upsets this neofeudal natural order, and thus he (and everyone
who supports him) is anathema to the Establishment, heretics who must be silenced, cowed, marginalized,
mocked and ultimately put back in their place as subservient debt-serfs.
... ... ...
The utter cluelessness of the professional apologists and punditry would be laughable if it
wasn't so pathetic: the more you fume and rage that Trump is unqualified, narcissistic, singularly
inappropriate, etc. etc. etc., the more appealing he becomes to everyone who isn't inside the protective
walls of your neofeudal castle.
The people outside the cozy walls of the protected elites don't care if he is unqualified (by
the standards of those who get to pick our presidents for us) narcissistic, singularly inappropriate,
and so on--they are cheering him on because you, the multitudes of water-carriers for the Imperial
elites, the teeming hordes of well-paid, I-got-mine-so-shut-the-heck-up pundits, flacks, hacks, sycophants,
apparatchiks, toadies, lackeys, functionaries, leeches and apologists, are so visibly afraid that
your perks, wealth, influence and power might drain away if the 80% actually get a say.
Dear pundits, flacks, hacks, sycophants, apparatchiks, toadies, lackeys, functionaries, leeches
and apologists: we're sick of you, every one of you, and the neofeudal Empire you support. We
want you cashiered, pushed outside the walls with the rest of us, scraping by on well-earned and
richly deserved unemployment.
"... from my perspective the history of the last forty five years of senior economic advisors to U.S. Presidents seems mostly a competition to see who could piss on Great Society and New Deal remedies in favor of "market-based incentives" fast enough. ..."
"... This bunch has taken our economy and so our country from its position in 1976 to its position in 2016. If you have been among the educated 20% you have benefited from their policy prescriptions over the past 40 years. The rest not so much. This kind of WSJ establishment worship does not travel well outside of NYC, DC, SF, LA, and Boston. ..."
"Economists Who've Advised Presidents Are No Fans of Donald
Trump"
Okay I am a guy that wouldn't piss on Trump if he
was on fire but this lead gets a little too close to "Praising
with Faint Damns" for my taste. I mean who on this list is
supposed to impress?
Okay Stiglitz. And I think Christine Romer had a medium
level role as did maybe her husband. But
from my perspective
the history of the last forty five years of senior economic
advisors to U.S. Presidents seems mostly a competition to
see who could piss on Great Society and New Deal remedies
in favor of "market-based incentives" fast enough.
I am not saying that this unanimity doesn't mean something
important. Just that as phrased we are talking kind of a low
bar.
mrrunangun :
, -1
This bunch has taken our economy and so our country from
its position in 1976 to its position in 2016. If you have
been among the educated 20% you have benefited from their
policy prescriptions over the past 40 years. The rest not
so much. This kind of WSJ establishment worship does not travel
well outside of NYC, DC, SF, LA, and Boston.
"Donald Trump now needs a swing of only 3 to 4 percentage points in key battleground states
to win this election" [
MarketWatch ]. "according to a new poll in Michigan, one of the key states in play, as well
as the latest polls in other key states… Meanwhile, Trump faces even smaller deficits in other
key battleground states. According to the polling averages calculated by Real Clear Politics,
Trump trails by just 5 points in Ohio, 4 points in Florida and 2 points in North Carolina. Recent
polls have also put him level with Clinton in Nevada and Iowa." Lambert here: My view is that
triumphalism from the Clinton campaign - which now includes most of the political class, including
the press and both party establishments, and ignores event risk - is engineered to get early voters
to "go with the winner."
Our Revolution: "The senator hailed as a major accomplishment his delegates' work crafting
what he called the "strongest and most progressive" platform in the Democratic Party's history.
And he vowed to implement many of its planks" [
Seven Days ]. Sanders: "'If anybody thinks that that document and what is in that platform
is simply going to be resting on a shelf somewhere accumulating dust, they are very mistaken,'
he said. 'We are going to bring the platform alive and make it the blueprint for moving the Democrats
forward in Congress and all across this country." So, more than "values." However, where there's
less to hate in the Dem platform than usual, it's hardly adequate for the challenges facing the
country. Now, if the operational definition of "bring the platform alive" means "incorporate all
the Sanders planks the Dem establishment voted down," I'd be a lot happier. I haven't heard that
yet.
"... The genius of the corporate coup that has overtaken US democracy is not that it dominates the GOP - the party that has long favored corporate power anyway - but that it has maneuvered even the opposition party into submission as well. The brightest minds on Wall Street are experts at hedging bets, and they play politics just as they play finance. Such dynamics are key to understanding not only the role of the Clinton candidacy in the eyes of corporate America, but the perceived threat posed by the Sanders campaign with its persistent advocacy for people over corporations. ..."
"... a leading banking executive called Clinton's tough talk about Wall Street "theatrics" made necessary in response to the Sanders campaign, adding that he predicts she'll be known as "Mrs. Wall Street" if elected. ..."
"... These realities show that the "rigged system" concerns of ordinary voters are not overblown. In a stroke of strategic brilliance, corporate power has created a playing field where even its perceived opponents are advancing its agenda. ..."
"... "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient," says noted activist and author Noam Chomsky , "is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." ..."
"... Defined as a liberal, she is in fact a consummate establishment Democrat: a hawkish corporate apologist who happens to be pro-choice. Yes, she is to the left of the GOP candidates - she doesn't deny climate change, wants to preserve Obamacare and won't entertain outlandish ideas like privatizing Social Security - but she's still well within the bounds of acceptability to the US corporate oligarchy that does not want fundamental, systemic change. Rest assured, under her watch the system will stay rigged. ..."
The genius of the corporate coup that has overtaken US democracy is not
that it dominates the GOP - the party that has long favored corporate power
anyway - but that it has maneuvered even the opposition party into submission
as well. The brightest minds on Wall Street are experts at hedging bets, and
they play politics just as they play finance. Such dynamics are key to
understanding not only the role of the Clinton candidacy in the eyes of
corporate America, but the perceived threat posed by the Sanders campaign with
its persistent advocacy for people over corporations.
Clinton, who once
served on the board of Walmart, the gold standard of predatory corporatism,
is so tight with corporate power that she's now making efforts to downplay her
relationships.
CNBC reports that she is postponing fundraisers with Wall Street
executives, no doubt concerned that voters are awakening to the toxic influence
of corporations on politics and government. Already in the awkward position of
explaining
six-figure checks from Wall Street firms for speaking engagements and
large charitable donations from major banks, Clinton realizes that she must
try to distance herself from her corporate benefactors.
And the fat cats fully understand. "Don't expect folks on Wall Street to be
offended that Clinton is distancing herself from them,"
CNBC reports. "In fact, they see it as smart politics and they understand
that Wall Street banks are deeply unpopular."
Indeed, everyone knows the game, and few are worried that Clinton - whose
son-in-law is a former Goldman Sachs executive who now runs a hedge fund -
is any kind of threat to the power structure. This explains why a
leading banking executive called Clinton's tough talk about Wall Street
"theatrics" made necessary in response to the Sanders campaign, adding that he
predicts she'll be known as
"Mrs. Wall Street" if elected.
These realities show that the "rigged system" concerns of ordinary
voters are not overblown. In a stroke of strategic brilliance, corporate power
has created a playing field where even its perceived opponents are advancing
its agenda. And the fiction is propagated with impressive expertise, as
moderate, corporate-friendly Democrats are portrayed in the mainstream media as
"flaming liberals." Even though Barack Obama, for example, filled his
administration with Wall Street veterans and stalwarts after his election in
2008 - including Tim Geithner, Michael Froman, Larry Summers and a host of
others - he is frequently described as a liberal not just by those
on the right, but even in
mainstream media.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient," says noted activist
and author
Noam Chomsky, "is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but
allow very lively debate within that spectrum."...
This is what has happened during the centrist Obama administration, which
bailed out Wall Street without prosecuting even one executive responsible for
bringing about the 2008 economic collapse. It also happened in the centrist
administration of Bill Clinton, who was attacked by conservatives as an
"extreme liberal" while doing little to earn the designation. The Clinton
administration, with vocal support from the first lady, deregulated
telecommunications and the financial sector, pushed hard for passage of the
North American Free Trade Agreement - a tremendous gift to corporate interests
and a major blow to the working class - and passed legislation on
crime and welfare that was anything but liberal.
Such is the role that corporate America wants Hillary Clinton to play today.
Defined as a liberal, she is in fact a consummate establishment Democrat: a
hawkish corporate apologist who happens to be pro-choice. Yes, she is to the
left of the GOP candidates - she doesn't deny climate change, wants to preserve
Obamacare and won't entertain outlandish ideas like privatizing Social Security
- but she's still well within the bounds of acceptability to the US corporate
oligarchy that does not want fundamental, systemic change. Rest assured, under
her watch the system will stay rigged.<
Digging deep into Hillary's connections to Wall Street, Abby Martin reveals how the Clintons' multi-million-dollar
political machine operates.
This episode chronicles the Clintons' rise to power in the '90s on
a right-wing agenda; the Clinton Foundation's revolving door with Gulf state monarchies, corporations
and the world's biggest financial institutions; and the establishment of the hyper-aggressive "Hillary
Doctrine" while secretary of state.
Learn the essential facts about the great danger she poses, and why she's the US Empire's choice
for its next CEO.
"... You're confusing the left with Democrats. One of the clarifying things about this year is how clear it is that's not true. ..."
"... There is ample evidence that a solid majority of those identifying as or tending to generally vote Democratic (not quite the same as party registration, but in less openly corrupt and weird times, that was how polling defined D voters) rejected Hillary Clinton as a candidate, but were prevented from knowing about her opponent, being able to vote in the primary, or having their completed ballot counted as they had marked it. ..."
"... Bernie's endorsement should have been tied to the release of those speeches. After all, he made quite a big deal about those speeches during his campaign appearances. ..."
And again, everyone is just pretending that the monumental election fraud that just occurred
is completely irrelevant. I'm mystified as to why. To me, it's a national catastrophe that a party
can simply suspend democracy completely, flip machine counts, deregister or reregister hundreds
of thousands of Bernie voters (and yes, it was very specifically Bernie voters), subtract votes
during the count and add them to Clinton in real time–and everyone accepts this as entirely legitimate?
Doesn't the complete cancellation of democracy by a dynastic family bother anyone??? Why even
vote?
Today's reminder that the Democratic Party (which, as Lambert points out below, is NOT the
same as "the left") did not nominate an Iraq War supporter through any kind of democratic process.
There is ample evidence that a solid majority of those identifying as or tending to generally
vote Democratic (not quite the same as party registration, but in less openly corrupt and weird
times, that was how polling defined D voters) rejected Hillary Clinton as a candidate, but were
prevented from knowing about her opponent, being able to vote in the primary, or having their
completed ballot counted as they had marked it.
My question is why should a progressive vote for Hillary Clinton?
If a progressive wants to show the strength of her movement and also the number of folks who
represent her values, a progressive would vote for Stein.
Perhaps it could be argued that if a certain progressive lives in a swing state, she should
consider voting for Clinton to prevent Trump from taking office, but that is no most progressive
voters.
But, in general, a progressive voting for a candidate such as Clinton who is so actively courting
big money and establishment Republicans. . .that would dilute and weaken the progressive presence
in my view.
Now that HRC released her taxes can we expect the transcripts, too? Hillary Clinton has been looking into releasing her transcripts for paid speeches to Wall St.
and other special interests for 189 days http://iwilllookintoit.com/
Bernie's endorsement should have been tied to the release of those speeches. After all, he
made quite a big deal about those speeches during his campaign appearances.
They got to Bernie somehow. Cf the scene in Godfather II where the mobster sees his Sicilian relative sitting in the back
of the room and changes his story.
That's very good. We're getting a lot of stories like this, including from our own #SlayTheSmaugs.
At some point, I'd like to aggregate them. Readers, do you know of any other field reports from Philly?
"... Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems the United States will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic clothing. ..."
"... Bill Clinton had triangulated his presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished Aid to Families With Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right wing. He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had destroyed FDR's legacy, notably by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. ..."
"... Bill Clinton might not have inhaled marijuana, but he certainly had inhaled the poison of right-wing ideas. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's political measures. She used the terrible expression "superpredators," supported the crime bill and made a hash of health insurance reform . Liza Featherstone talks about Hillary Clinton's faux feminism , and she links her critique to class themes, which is as it should be. Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend the rights of all women. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and justice for women is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, she sided with the rich and powerful , which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street. ..."
"... On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower Republican, but a war hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated for war in Libya and the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died," she said and laughed loudly. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims she did not, but, of course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has not released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her feminism. ..."
"... Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality in CEO compensations in general should exist at a much-reduced level. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is a 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive talk, but never really walked the progressive walk. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "Ike." He refused to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died" Clinton. He also wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to cancel or erase. ..."
"... the Republicans -- starting with Hillary Clinton's youth idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other to dismantle the New Deal ..."
"... GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency ..."
"... The Democrats have become the Old Republicans and Hillary Clinton is more neocon than traditional conservative of the Eisenhower type. ..."
"... She is a pro-business, Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some pinkwashers or greenwashers use progressive agendas to sell regressive policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the " Queen of Chaos ." Clinton is the queen of deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism ..."
"... Charles Koch (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her book, Dark Money ) expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could vote for Hillary this time around. ..."
...Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems the United States
will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic clothing.
We're all Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand
for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?
Eisenhower Republicans were, by today's standards, quite moderate. The quote refers to the 1990s,
and already Bill Clinton had triangulated his presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished
Aid to Families With Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right wing.
He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had destroyed FDR's legacy, notably
by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. And he was so "tough on crime" that during the 1992 presidential
campaign season, he had gone back to his home state of Arkansas to witness the execution of Ricky
Ray Rector, who was "mentally deficient." Bill Clinton might not have inhaled marijuana, but
he certainly had inhaled the poison of right-wing ideas.
As we all know, Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's political measures.
She used the terrible expression
"superpredators," supported
the crime bill and made a
hash of health
insurance reform. Liza Featherstone
talks about Hillary Clinton's faux feminism, and she links her critique to class themes, which
is as it should be. Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend the
rights of all women.
Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and justice for women
is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, she
sided with the rich and powerful, which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street.
The really important question is how someone who has constantly sided with the rich can campaign
as a progressive, as a friend of people of color and even as a feminist? Michelle Alexander exposed
the hypocrisy of the situation in arguing that "Hillary
Clinton doesn't deserve the black vote."
On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower Republican, but a war
hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated
for war in Libya and the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died,"
she said and laughed loudly.
This cruel statement does not take into account the mess and mayhem left behind after the intervention,
something President Obama calls a "shit
show" and his worst mistake. But it is the companion piece to her major fellow elite "feminist"
Madeleine Albright
declaring that killing half a million Iraqis is worth it.
Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims
she did not, but, of course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has not
released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her feminism.
... ... ...
Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality in CEO compensations
in general should exist at a much-reduced level. In his book Listen, Liberal,
Thomas Frank tells the story of a Clinton convention meeting he attended and what he witnessed was
Hillary Clinton as "Ms. Walmart," pretending she cares about all women. Frank, who is genuinely worried
about rising inequality in the United States and racial justice, suggests that elite feminism
is worried about the glass ceiling for CEOs, but does not even worry about working-class women who
have "no floors" under them. Hillary Clinton is a 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive
talk, but never really walked the progressive walk.
It would indeed be a symbolic change if the US elected a woman president, but for the symbol
not to be empty, something more is needed. If a woman president does not improve the lot of the majority
of women, then what is the good of a symbol?
Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "Ike." He refused
to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died"
Clinton. He also wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to cancel
or erase.
...the Republicans -- starting with Hillary Clinton's youth
idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other
to dismantle the New Deal and the Great Society programs that Democrats had set up.
Noam Chomsky argues that the GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency,
for it has gone off the political cliff. The Democrats have become the Old Republicans and Hillary
Clinton is more neocon than traditional conservative of the Eisenhower type.
So Hillary Clinton, the Republican, is poised to win in November, but her Republicanism is
closer to George W. Bush's and even more conservative than Ronald Reagan's -- except on the societal
issues that have now reached a kind of quasi-consensus like same-sex marriage. She is a pro-business,
Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some pinkwashers or greenwashers use
progressive agendas to sell regressive policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the "Queen
of Chaos." Clinton is the queen of deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism, whose election
will be made easier by her loutish, vulgar, sexist loudmouth of an opponent.
In his book The Deep State, Mike Lofgren
quotes H.L. Mencken,
who gave away what explains the success of the political circus: "The whole aim of practical politics
is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives were past masters at this creation of
hobgoblins, but now Hillary Clinton, the opportunist, can outdo them and out-Republicanize them.
I think Ike would not like her; she might now be even more reactionary than Goldwater. Indeed,
Charles Koch (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her book,
Dark Money) expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could vote
for Hillary this time around.
... ... ...
Pierre Guerlain is a professor
of American studies at Université Paris Ouest, Nanterre, France.
"... the Clintons separated claims on economic production from that-which-was-produced. The claims went to one group- connected financiers, as the task of economic production remained with a freshly diminished working class. This politicized money system can be seen most clearly in the distance between those who received 'free' money in the Wall Street bailouts and those who didn't. ..."
"... Graph: the liberal economists who support Clinton-Obama-Clinton-omics have long claimed that job losses in 'low value-added' occupations like manufacturing would be made up for in the high value-added industries. In fact, employment for the prime-age workers who must work to live has plummeted since NAFTA was passed as low-wage and increasingly contingent service sector jobs have replaced manufacturing employment. This has required the robots-stole-their-jobs fallacy as productivity (the 'benefit' of automation) has fallen to five-decade lows. Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve. ..."
"... As the Wall Street bailouts demonstrated, the public purse is virtually bottomless when social emergencies require rectification. The problem is that Hillary Clinton has spent her career poisoning the well for public expenditures in the public interest through both the misdirection that taxes are a binding constraint on public expenditures and by corrupting the public realm to the point where nothing works as advertised. ..."
"... Graph: The Clinton's state-capitalism works for their Wall Street patrons by transferring a larger piece of an economy in decline to it while using identity politics to divide working class interests. Liberal economists understood that resurgent capitalism would redistribute income and wealth upward but argued that 'we all benefit' from the rich being made richer. This was derided as 'trickle-down' economics when Ronald Reagan re-introduced the concept. As history has it, the actual result is broad economic decline where the already wealthy use state power to immiserate the 'bottom' 80% – 90% of the population. Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve. ..."
"... Jay Gould once speculated that he "could hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." Rising liberal vitriol directed against working class supporters of Donald Trump pits the near-precariat with 'private' health insurance, pensions and recovered home equity against those without them with little apparent understanding of the broadly declining circumstances for all but the very rich (graph above). Democrats sold trade agreements, deregulation, privatization and balanced budgets as ways to 'grow the economic pie.' ..."
Those frightened at the prospect of Donald Trump being elected need to explain precisely where they
were when Democrats launched their three-decade-long class war against the great majority of the
American people. The Clintons passed NAFTA in 1994 after Republicans had been unable to get it passed
because of (righteous) opposition from organized labor. They 'freed' Wall Street from social accountability
while making it more dependent than ever on government bailouts. They cut social spending while increasing
the economic vulnerability of the poor. Both the dotcom stock bubble and the housing bubble began
under the Clintons and were caused by their finance-friendly policies. The Clintons are singularly
responsible for the Democrats' turn toward finance capitalism that has dispossessed the middle class,
immiserated the working class and left the poor to fight over the crumbs that fall to them.
In
the abstract, but never-the-less relevant, terms of economic theory the Clintons separated claims
on economic production from that-which-was-produced. The claims went to one group- connected financiers,
as the task of economic production remained with a freshly diminished working class. This politicized
money system can be seen most clearly in the distance between those who received 'free' money in
the Wall Street bailouts and those who didn't.
Bankers, hedge funds and private equity received billions
in low interest 'non-recourse' loans while the American political establishment urged austerity as
the moral antidote appropriate for the rest of us. The spectacle of bankers, with the support of
leading figures in the Obama administration, claiming that their clearly defrauded borrowers presented
a 'moral hazard' to them would be as implausible in fiction as it was true in fact.
Graph: the liberal economists who support Clinton-Obama-Clinton-omics have long claimed that
job losses in 'low value-added' occupations like manufacturing would be made up for in the high value-added
industries. In fact, employment for the prime-age workers who must work to live has plummeted since
NAFTA was passed as low-wage and increasingly contingent service sector jobs have replaced manufacturing
employment. This has required the robots-stole-their-jobs fallacy as productivity (the 'benefit'
of automation) has fallen to five-decade lows. Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve.
The political establishment now circling the wagons around Hillary Clinton feeds at the trough
of money creation and depends on the misdirection that in 'normal' circumstances nature ties its
distribution to economic product produced. Upon his election in 1992 Bill Clinton claimed to have
inherited an 'unexpectedly' large budget deficit that tied his hands with respect to social spending.
The result was that Mr. Clinton abandoned his political program except inasmuch as the 'private'
economy that included Wall Street, arms manufacturers, pharmaceutical and telecommunications companies
and the insurance industry were 'freed' from social accountability as government funds and privileges
continued to be directed to them. The money was somewhere 'found' to bomb Iraq for eight years but
that needed to keep the poor living indoors and eating regular meals had to be cut because the Federal
budget deficit required it.
Upon election Barack Obama did essentially the same thing claiming a fiscal emergency in 2010
that required cutting Social Security and Medicare as he spent
$6 trillion – $14 trillion to save
Wall Street. That unlimited funds were found for Wall Street but none could be found to restore the
fortunes of the victims of Democratic 'trade' agreements and the predatory finance of Wall Street
renders evident the class-war being perpetrated by the Democrats. Liberal economists- court jesters
dressed in the garb of storied academics, prattled on about the 'zero-lower bound' (cartoon monetary
economics) as the Clintons and Barack Obama forewent the power of the public purse that FDR used
to create the Federal jobs programs that brought tens of thousands of desperate citizens out of the
misery of the Great Depression.
When Hillary Clinton outlined her 'economic' program she claimed that upon election she would
direct Congress to create ten million jobs rebuilding infrastructure without explaining how this
jibed with her public career as a deficit hawk, how rebuilding infrastructure would create ten million
jobs when Mr. Obama's program created at best a few thousand and why this wouldn't be just one more
Clinton scam to shove public resources to their cronies? As the Wall Street bailouts demonstrated,
the public purse is virtually bottomless when social emergencies require rectification. The problem
is that Hillary Clinton has spent her career poisoning the well for public expenditures in the public
interest through both the misdirection that taxes are a binding constraint on public expenditures
and by corrupting the public realm to the point where nothing works as advertised.
Graph: The Clinton's state-capitalism works for their Wall Street patrons by transferring
a larger piece of an economy in decline to it while using identity politics to divide working class
interests. Liberal economists understood that resurgent capitalism would redistribute income and
wealth upward but argued that 'we all benefit' from the rich being made richer. This was derided
as 'trickle-down' economics when Ronald Reagan re-introduced the concept. As history has it, the
actual result is broad economic decline where the already wealthy use state power to immiserate the
'bottom' 80% – 90% of the population. Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve.
Bill Clinton and / or Barack Obama could have created government jobs programs to employ dispossessed
workers at living wages just like FDR did. They could have even claimed the economic emergencies
they helped create as reasons for doing so. Mainstream economic theory has 'free-trade' beneficiaries
compensating those displaced by it. However, the Clintons and Mr. Obama chose instead to promote
the right-wing lie of a binding budget constraint to limit and / or preclude increased social spending
more effectively than the old-line Republican misery squad could have ever imagined possible. So
the question for Hillary Clinton is: will she prove her husband and Barack Obama to be ruling class
tools for lying about Federal budget constraints on social spending or will she maintain the lie
to renege on her promise of creating ten million jobs?
Jay Gould once speculated that he "could hire one-half of the working class to kill the other
half." Rising liberal vitriol directed against working class supporters of Donald Trump pits the
near-precariat with 'private' health insurance, pensions and recovered home equity against those
without them with little apparent understanding of the broadly declining circumstances for all but
the very rich (graph above). Democrats sold trade agreements, deregulation, privatization and balanced
budgets as ways to 'grow the economic pie.' With history having demonstrated otherwise, the Party
leadership now wants to change the subject. Barack Obama is selling the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership)
'trade' agreement as a geopolitical endeavor. Hillary Clinton now claims she will recover the ghost
of FDR that national Democrats spent the last forty-years exorcising. In the parlance: whatever.
The day after Election Day will be like any other in the sense that the problems of looming environmental
catastrophe, gratuitous wars and long-term economic decline will remain profit-generating 'opportunities'
in the realm of official concern. The American political establishment is calcified and out of ideas.
The problem is that the residual rationales and institutional tendencies lean toward catastrophe
generation. Democrats saved Wall Street in particular, and finance capitalism more generally, to
kill again. The most destructive militarists in modern history have attached themselves to Hillary
Clinton and the American war machine. Unless functional politics are recovered and asserted outside
the electoral system more of the same is the outcome that Western political economy is designed to
produce.
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book
Zen Economics
is published by CounterPunch Books.
Krauthammer is probably the most gifted neocon propagandist. Kind of
Joseph
Goebbels of neocons (I know, I know). But despite his considerable and undisputable gifts as a propagandist,
I can't read him without a shoot of Stoli. He is so predictably jingoistic that sometimes I think he
was hired by Putin to destroy any semblance of rational thinking in Washington establishment. An interesting
question is what he drinks to write such articles.
Notable quotes:
"... In Syria, the minds of the 7th century are doing their 7th century thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them (read: assassinate Assad). ..."
"... In the Ukraine, another group of mid 18th Century thinking is doing their 18th century thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them. ..."
"... These right wing neocon chickenhawks like Krauthammer and the politicians who ascribe to the "Just bomb 'em, invade 'em, and disband their military" school of thought are precisely the reason the world is in such "disarray". The sooner these blood thirsty miscreants are no longer influential, the sooner things might turn around. Certainly the security of the civilized world is at stake but bombing the heck out of everything (especially if they have brown skin) is not the answer. And given the damage the GHWB/Cheney and li'l bush/Cheney catastrophe CAUSED, the "sooner" part of the equation is likely to take another 100 years. Thanks neocons. Thanks for nothing but fear, blood, destruction, and grief. ..."
In the South China Sea, China is doing it's China thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them.
In Syria, the minds of the 7th century are doing their 7th century thing. Krauthammer's
answer? Bomb them (read: assassinate Assad).
In the Ukraine, another group of mid 18th Century thinking is doing their 18th century
thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them.
In Iran, the Iranians are doing what any sovereign nation would do when threatened by outside
forces (i.e. Israel and the US)- arm themselves in order to create a deterrent to invasion or
worse. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them, destroy the deterrent, and invade.
As far as Cuba is concerned, bomb them too (I guess).
These right wing neocon chickenhawks like Krauthammer and the politicians who ascribe to
the "Just bomb 'em, invade 'em, and disband their military" school of thought are precisely the
reason the world is in such "disarray". The sooner these blood thirsty miscreants are no longer
influential, the sooner things might turn around. Certainly the security of the civilized world
is at stake but bombing the heck out of everything (especially if they have brown skin) is not
the answer. And given the damage the GHWB/Cheney and li'l bush/Cheney catastrophe CAUSED, the
"sooner" part of the equation is likely to take another 100 years. Thanks neocons. Thanks for
nothing but fear, blood, destruction, and grief.
"... The clear signals of Clinton's readiness to go to war appears to be aimed at influencing the course of the war in Syria as well as US policy over the remaining six months of the Obama administration ..."
"... Last month, the think tank run by Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official considered to be most likely to be Clinton's choice to be Secretary of Defense, explicitly called for "limited military strikes" against the Assad regime. ..."
"... earlier this month Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director, who has been advising candidate Clinton, declared in an interview that the next president would have to increase the number of Special Forces and carry out air strikes to help "moderate" groups against President Bashal al-Assad. ..."
"... When Panetta gave a belligerent speech at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night, he was interrupted by chants from the delegates on the floor of "no more war!" ..."
The clear signals of Clinton's readiness to go to war appears to be aimed at influencing
the course of the war in Syria as well as US policy over the remaining six months of the Obama
administration. (She also may be hoping to corral the votes of Republican neoconservatives
concerned about Donald Trump's "America First" foreign policy.)
Last month, the think tank run by Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official
considered to be most likely to be Clinton's choice to be Secretary of Defense, explicitly called
for "limited military strikes" against the Assad regime.
And earlier this month Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director, who has been
advising candidate Clinton, declared in an interview that the next president would have to
increase the number of Special Forces and carry out air strikes to help "moderate" groups against
President Bashal al-Assad.
When Panetta gave a belligerent speech at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday
night, he was interrupted by chants from the delegates on the floor of "no more war!"
"... You know, here's somebody who actually pushed Obama to go into the Libyan operation. You know, Obama was reticent to enter the operation in Libya. The French were very eager. And Hillary Clinton led the charge against Libya. ..."
"... This shows, to my mind, a profound dangerous tendency to go into wars overseas, you know, damn the consequences. And I think, therefore, if you're looking at this from outside the United States, there's a real reason to be terrified that whoever becomes president -- as Medea Benjamin put it to me in an interview, whoever wins the president, there will be a hawk in the White House. ..."
You know, here's somebody who actually pushed Obama to go into the Libyan operation. You
know, Obama was reticent to enter the operation in Libya. The French were very eager. And Hillary
Clinton led the charge against Libya.
This shows, to my mind, a profound dangerous tendency to go into wars overseas, you know,
damn the consequences. And I think, therefore, if you're looking at this from outside the United
States, there's a real reason to be terrified that whoever becomes president -- as Medea Benjamin
put it to me in an interview, whoever wins the president, there will be a hawk in the White
House.
"... Q.-beyond that, do you still feel that if that information on those American servicemen who are missing in action is forthcoming from the Vietnamese, that then this country has a moral obligation to help rebuild that country, if that information is forthcoming? ..."
"... THE PRESIDENT [Carter]. Well, the destruction was mutual . You know, we went to Vietnam without any desire to capture territory or to impose American will on other people. We went there to defend the freedom of the South Vietnamese. And I don't feel that we ought to apologize or to castigate ourselves or to assume the status of culpability. ..."
"... Carter did when Brzezinski said the Shah of Iran was a friend of ours. ..."
When dealing with foreign policy it's important to think on at least 3
levels:
Grand Structure
State
Domestic
Will a Clinton presidency be hawkish?
A. Grand Structure: No clear successor to the United States as hegemon
has emerged to stymie hawkish ambitions. China and Russia exist, of course,
but can do little to stop US ambitions. Verdict, yes, hawkish.
B. State: though US hegemony is in a period of decline, clearly the
United States' ruling class is still very much interested and capable of
using the Middle East as a demented sandbox to cause other nations to
continue to need its security services. China looms as a potential rising
hegemon. Verdict: yes, still hawkish.
C. Domestic: the ruling class investor coalitions backing Clinton are
very, very interested in a robust foreign economic policy that favor an
interventionist foreign policy. The segments of US society that are opposed
to this will not be represented or listened to in Clinton's domestic
coalition, either: declining industries, the working class/labor. The
professional 10% that Thomas Frank identifies as the broader Dem base tends
to acquiesce to Democratic-led wars. Without a reborn, and far more
militant, anti-war movement, the verdict has to be: yes, Hawkish.
The professional 10% and much of middle class america, by and large,
doesn't serve in the military and doesn't encourage or let their kids
serve either, so they're ok with war. It also seems that the PTB through
a combination of corporate media marginalization, robust police state
repression, and the lack of conscription has minimized the impact of any
anti-war movement.
longer term movement politics to take power, at least before the PTB
blow us all up?
"[W]e should expect Clinton to shape her foreign policy to neutralise the
threat to her nomination in 2020 from the left of her party. So forget
Hillary the hawk. To consolidate her Democrat base she will be even more
cautious abroad than Barack Obama has been"
For the moment ignoring Obama's nuclear weapons policy and NATO
belligerence, don't I wish!
But this sounds very voluntaristic to me, as though the US doesn't face a
problem with its empire that might appear to oblige belligerence. For example,
if the case is valid that the US has much reason to fear economic consolidation
between Europe and Asia, then Clinton/Kagan/Nuland et al are servants of
empire, not mad dogs. If, as some say, such a consolidation would undermine
dollar hegemony, maybe they feel the script is written. That doesn't mean I
don't oppose them, it just means opposing them involves a lot more than being
for peace, nonviolent resolution of disputes and such.
Mike Whitney over at Counterpunch has an interesting article reviewing
Brzezinski's new book, The Broken Chessboard, with Brzezinski explaining that
the US has lost its ability to be the indispensable nation. Maybe HRC will
listen. Carter did when Brzezinski said the Shah of Iran was a friend of ours.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/25/the-broken-chessboard-brzezinski-gives-up-on-empire/
When has Clinton ever listened to anyone who wasn't promoting war, war,
and more war? Expecting Clinton to respond like Carter in respect to foreign
policy is as fruitless as expecting her foundation's "charitable works" to
be comparable to Carter's work with Habitat for Humanity.
Carter: 4 years in office without a single shot fired in anger,
imagine the moral and political fortitude required to keep the
Military-Monster-That-Must-Be-Fed at bay like that for so long. Yes
Carter played lots of footsie with special ops but perhaps we awarded the
recent Peace Prize to the wrong guy.
so it was the least bloody of any president? and carter did
pressure latin american dictators on human rights, unlike
presidents before and after him. east timor was the worst, no
defense of him there. we sent money to support the indonesian
regime. but carter was no clinton.
Clinton and Reagan didn't just appear fully formed. Carter
started trashing unions before they abandoned the Democrats in
1980. Carter created the Carter doctrine.
Bill is just a personally immoral version of Carter who is
capable of self reflection, but Jimmy was building those houses
to atone.
Carter still came in a strong post Vietnam Era. Sending
soldiers abroad wouldn't be too popular.
So many Carter favs (Timor, the Shah is an island of
stability, defending Samoza…) but this has to be
one of the best
:
Q.-beyond that, do you still feel that if that
information on those American servicemen who are missing
in action is forthcoming from the Vietnamese, that then
this country has a moral obligation to help rebuild that
country, if that information is forthcoming?
THE PRESIDENT [Carter].
Well, the
destruction was mutual
. You know, we went to
Vietnam without any desire to capture territory or to
impose American will on other people. We went there to
defend the freedom of the South Vietnamese. And I don't
feel that we ought to apologize or to castigate ourselves
or to assume the status of culpability.
My opinion: we went to Vietnam to keep the Golden
Triangle open for heroin trafficking to fund all the
covert CIA ops in the rest of the world. It shut down when
we lost. US then opened up Afghanistan route, thanks to
Jimmy Carter and Brezinski. Which is why we are where we
are today in Afghanistan. Just can't shake the poppy
monkey.
The problem with your theory is that the shift in
heroin production to the Golden Triangle didn't occur
until after the US involvement. Same as in Afghanistan.
And in Nicaragua. I.e., the pattern is the US invades
for other reasons, then the CIA starts running dope to
funnel guns to "freedom fighters", then drug use spikes
in the US.
Read Alfred McCoy, The Politics of Heroin in
Southeast Asia.
– The Obama administration's reckless foreign policy, particularly the
toppling of governments in Libya and Ukraine, has greatly accelerated the
rate at which these anti-American coalitions have formed. In other words,
Washington's enemies have emerged in response to Washington's behavior.
Obama can only blame himself.
was editorial or a quote from Brz himself, and the top headline was from
2012:
Zbigniew Brzezinski: The man behind Obama's foreign policy
Posty Masters
1
day ago
Good job. If every one can just get one
person to change, you will not have to put
up with more of the same. Lies, cheating
and selling out the American People.
Munchmá Fuzi Qüchi
5
days ago
She is straight up evil as fuck. If you can't see
that something is wrong with you.
John Henke
2
days ago
She has no soul.
cougar351
1
hour ago
She a trail of destruction. Imagine a state
official stealing money from the Haitians they
sorely needed for survival after the devastation
created by the massive earthquake. Very crooked
Verbatim reenactment of highlights
of the deposition transcript. For more information and to
support this project, please go to
www.ClintonEmailsOnFilm.com
Neocons will support Hillary breaking the ranks of Republican Party, as she is one of them:
"The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but
the country still can be."
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?" ..."
"... Even more than his economic positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives. ..."
"... In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November. ..."
"... "Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad. Trump's election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy," Cohen said, adding that "he has already damaged it considerably." ..."
"... In a March 1 interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he said. "She would be vastly preferable to Trump." ..."
"... The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick, a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official; and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department official. ..."
"... Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several neoconservatives, who admire his call for "moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on human rights and democracy. ..."
"... Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might, wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines. ..."
"... "The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." ..."
Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would
be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role
he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?"
Even more than his economic
positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts
of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group
is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives.
In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin
and consider Israel's security non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy
and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote
for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November.
"Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department
official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad.
Trump's election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy," Cohen said, adding
that "he has already damaged it considerably."
Cohen, an Iraq war backer who is often called a neoconservative but said he does not identify
himself that way, said he would "strongly prefer a third party candidate" to Trump, but added: "Probably
if absolutely no alternative: Hillary."
In a March 1
interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed
the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton
over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he said. "She would be vastly preferable
to Trump."
Cohen helped to organize an open letter signed by several dozen GOP foreign policy insiders -
many of whom are not considered neocons - that
was published Wednesday night by the military blog War on the Rocks. "[W]e are unable to support
a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head," the letter declared. It cited everything from Trump's
"admiration for foreign dictators" to his "inexcusable" support for "the expansive use of torture."
The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter
Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick,
a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official;
and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department
official.
Several other neocons said they find themselves in an impossible position, constitutionally incapable
of voting for Clinton but repelled by a Republican whose foreign policy views they consider somewhere
between nonexistent and dangerous - and disconnected from their views about American power and values
abroad.
"1972 was the first time I was old enough to vote for president, and I did not vote. Couldn't
vote for McGovern for foreign policy reasons, nor for Nixon because of Watergate," said Elliott Abrams,
a former national security council aide to George W. Bush who specializes in democracy and the Middle
East. "I may be in the same boat in 2016, unable to vote for Trump or Clinton."
Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, something of a dean of Washington neoconservatives,
said he would seek out a third option before choosing between Trump and Clinton.
"If it's Trump-Clinton, I'd work with others to recruit a strong conservative third party candidate,
and do my best to help him win (which by the way would be more possible than people think, especially
when people - finally - realize Trump shouldn't be president and Hillary is indicted)," Kristol wrote
in an email.
Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several
neoconservatives, who admire his call for "moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on
human rights and democracy.
Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when
Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might,
wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines.
"The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be
saved, but the country still can be."
In an interview, Kagan said his opposition to Trump "has nothing to do with foreign policy."
Since my video went viral and
catapulted Hillary's health back into the national
spotlight, we've seen more examples of Clinton behaving
bizarrely, while the establishment has launched a
cover-up.
Excerpted from McIntyre In The Morning | KABC-AM (8/16/2016)
The controversy surrounding Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's health continues
to swirl. KABC's Dr. Drew Pinsky says the former Secretary of State may be receiving inadequate health
care that is not optimal for her condition.
Drew told some tall tales about what medicines are used, especially about treating blood clots.
Coumadin is still much widely used, but it's only fault is the needed blood testing weekly or
bi-weekly. The medicine he pushed is very expensive, (Eliquis), when compared to Coumadin, though
it doesn't require the blood testing that Coumadin does. However, Coumadin does the same thing
as the more expensive medicine.
Here, Coumadin is the standard go-to medicine for blood clots,
after the blood has been thinned with Lovenox injections, and this is still taught in all major
medical schools. I have to agree that this was nothing but an interview to set up Trump, from
a non-psychiatric physician, who is trying to psychoanalyze him as being hypermanic.
However, physicians have stated that Hillary is sociopathic, which is much much worse, since
they are the type that constantly lie, and become cold-blooded killers. Drew did admit that Trump
did not have a narcissistic personality disorder. Trump has a personality born from the boroughs
of New York. New Yorkers are tough, and do not care to tell it like it is.
+Bri G.
True, but new medicines are always expensive in their patent phase, until generic forms are out.
Eliquis is one of the most ridiculously overpriced drugs that there are, for what it does.
Do I like Greg Mankiw's positions? No. But he and others of his
ilk are at least sane and intelligent, and certainly not "white
nationalists" (dog whistle: racists).
There are some many progressive
people here who perhaps aren't impressed with a lot of these
economists or HRC.
First off, there is only one practical goal: push HRC to more
progressive positions.
Second, elect and support progressives down the ballot.
Nihilism is an easy pose. Changing the world, a bit harder.
Like in 20th neoliberalism created the fertile soil for far
right.
So, in a way, those "sane and intelligent" neoliberals are
enablers and supporters of far right. That means that Greg Mankiw
can be legitimately viewed as an enabler of neofascism in the
USA.
You just need to see how this played in Europe to see the
writing on the wall. Boiling anger at neoliberal globalization,
stagnation or dramatic decline of family income (over 50 and
unemployed phenomena), growing debt, and loss of jobs (and perspectives)
is a dangerous, explosive mix.
Externality if you like, that neoliberals did not took into
account with all their rush to extract profits whenever they
can (vampire squid behavior is a neoliberal paradigm).
As Matt Tabbi aptly said "The world's most powerful investment
bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity,
relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells
like money." The problem is that this is a standard neoliberal
behavior and in no way it is limited to GS.
Putting a large part of the US population against the wall
of poverty (there is another country within the USA -- a third
world county inhabited by Wall-Mart workers, single mothers and
like) was deliberate, government supported, and a very destructive
action. The USDA Food and Nutrition Service reported that as
of September 2014, there were around 46.5 million individual
food stamp recipients (22.7 million households).
"... If Hillary Clinton wins, within a year of her inauguration, she will be under investigation by a special prosecutor on charges of political corruption, thereby continuing a family tradition. ..."
"... Of 154 outsiders whom Clinton phoned or met with in her first two years at State, 85 had made contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and their contributions, taken together, totaled $156 million. ..."
"... Conclusion: access to Secretary of State Clinton could be bought, but it was not cheap. Forty of the 85 donors gave $100,000 or more. Twenty of those whom Clinton met with or phoned dumped in $1 million or more. ..."
"... On his last day in office, January 20, 2001, Bill Clinton issued a presidential pardon to financier-crook and fugitive from justice Marc Rich, whose wife, Denise, had contributed $450,000 to the Clinton Library. ..."
Prediction: If Hillary Clinton wins, within a year of her inauguration, she will be under
investigation by a special prosecutor on charges of political corruption, thereby continuing a family
tradition.
... ... ...
Of 154 outsiders whom Clinton phoned or met with in her first two years at State, 85 had made
contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and their contributions, taken together, totaled $156 million.
Conclusion: access to Secretary of State Clinton could be bought, but it was not cheap. Forty
of the 85 donors gave $100,000 or more. Twenty of those whom Clinton met with or phoned dumped in
$1 million or more.
To get to the seventh floor of the Clinton State Department for a hearing for one's plea, the
cover charge was high. Among those who got face time with Hillary Clinton were a Ukrainian oligarch
and steel magnate who shipped oil pipe to Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions and a Bangladeshi economist
who was under investigation by his government and was eventually pressured to leave his own bank.
The stench is familiar, and all too Clintonian in character.
Recall. On his last day in office, January 20, 2001, Bill Clinton issued a presidential pardon
to financier-crook and fugitive from justice Marc Rich, whose wife, Denise, had contributed $450,000
to the Clinton Library.
The Clintons appear belatedly to have recognized their political peril.
Bill has promised that, if Hillary is elected, he will end his big-dog days at the foundation
and stop taking checks from foreign regimes and entities, and corporate donors. Cash contributions
from wealthy Americans will still be gratefully accepted.
One wonders: will Bill be writing thank-you notes for the millions that will roll in to the family
foundation-on White House stationery?
"... The Clinton approach from hereon in is one of masquerade: appropriate the Bernie Sanders aura, give the impression that the party has somehow miraculously moved leftward, and snap up a stash of votes come November. ..."
"... clinging to the fiction that the Clintons are somehow progressive. This ignores the fundamental fact that Bill Clinton, during his presidential tenure through the 1990s, made parts of the GOP strategy plan relatively progressive by way of comparison. Stunned by this embrace of hard right ideas, the Republicans would be kept out of the White House till 2000. ..."
The reality is that millions were readying themselves to vote for him come November precisely because
he was Sanders, meshed with the ideas of basic social democracy. He betrayed them.
The Clinton approach from hereon in is one of masquerade: appropriate the Bernie Sanders aura,
give the impression that the party has somehow miraculously moved leftward, and snap up a stash of
votes come November.
The approach of the Republicans will be self-defeating, clinging to the fiction that the Clintons
are somehow progressive. This ignores the fundamental fact that Bill Clinton, during his presidential
tenure through the 1990s, made parts of the GOP strategy plan relatively progressive by way of comparison.
Stunned by this embrace of hard right ideas, the Republicans would be kept out of the White House
till 2000.
Be wary of any language of change that is merely the language of promise. Keep in mind that US
politics remains a "binary" choice, an effective non-choice bankrolled by financial power.
"... He's no more a progressive revolutionary than any other member of Congress, nor Washington's bipartisan criminal class, bureaucrats included – Sanders a card-carrying member throughout his deplorable political career. ..."
"... A major concern is the group's tax status as a 501(c)(4) organization able to get large donations from anonymous sources – meaning the usual ones buying influence, letting Sanders pretend to be progressive and revolutionary while operating otherwise. ..."
"... Claire Sandberg was the initiative's organizing director. "I left and others left because we were alarmed that Jeff (Weaver) would mismanage this organization as he mismanaged the campaign," she explained. ..."
"... She fears Weaver will "betray its core purpose by accepting money from billionaires and not remaining grassroots funded and plowing that billionaire cash into TV instead of investing it in building a genuine movement." ..."
"... Vermont GOP vice chairman Brady Toensing blasted Sanders for "preach(ing) transparency and then tr(ying) to set up the most shadowy of shadowy fund-raising organization to support" what he claims to endorse. ..."
"... Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
"... His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." ..."
He's no more a progressive revolutionary than any other member of Congress, nor Washington's
bipartisan criminal class, bureaucrats included – Sanders a card-carrying member throughout his deplorable
political career.
Endorsing Hillary Clinton after rhetorically campaigning against what she represents exposed his
duplicity – a progressive in name only. An opportunist for his own self-interest, he wants his extended
15 minutes of fame made more long-lasting.
Claiming his new initiative "will fight to transform America and advance the progressive agenda
(he) believe(s) in" belies his deplorable House and Senate voting records, on the wrong side of most
major issues, especially supporting most US wars of aggression.
A separate Sanders Institute intends operating like his Our Revolution initiative. Maybe his real
aim is cashing in on his high-profile persona – including a new book due out in mid-November titled
"Our Revolution: A Future To Believe In."
Save your money. Its contents are clear without reading it – the same mumbo jumbo he used while
campaigning.
It excludes his deplorable history of promising one thing, doing another, going along with Washington
scoundrels like Hillary to get along, betraying his loyal supporters – the real Sanders he wants
concealed.
On August 24, The
New York Times said his Our Revolution initiative "has been met with criticism and controversy
over its financing and management."
It's "draw(ing) from the same pool of 'dark money' (he) condemned" while campaigning. After
his former campaign manager Jeff Weaver was hired to lead the group, "the majority of its staff
resigned," said The Times – described as "eight core staff members…"
"The group's entire organizing department quit this week, along with people working in digital
and data positions." They refused to reconsider after Sanders urged them to stay on.
A major concern is the group's tax status as a 501(c)(4) organization able to get large donations
from anonymous sources – meaning the usual ones buying influence, letting Sanders pretend to be progressive
and revolutionary while operating otherwise.
Claire Sandberg was the initiative's organizing director. "I left and others left because we were
alarmed that Jeff (Weaver) would mismanage this organization as he mismanaged the campaign," she
explained.
She fears Weaver will "betray its core purpose by accepting money from billionaires and not remaining
grassroots funded and plowing that billionaire cash into TV instead of investing it in building a
genuine movement."
Vermont GOP vice chairman Brady Toensing blasted Sanders for "preach(ing) transparency and then
tr(ying) to set up the most shadowy of shadowy fund-raising organization to support" what he claims
to endorse.
"What I'm seeing here is a senator who is against big money in politics, but only when" it applies
to others, not himself, Toensing added.
Campaign Legal Center's Paul S. Ryan said "(t)here are definitely some red flags with respect
to the formation of this group…We're in a murky area."
Is Sanders' real aim self-promotion and enrichment? Is his Our Revolution more a scheme than an
honest initiative?
Is it sort of like the Clinton Foundation, Sanders wanting to grab all he can – only much less
able to match the kind of super-wealth Bill and Hillary amassed?
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at
[email protected].
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive
for Hegemony Risks WW III."
After Obama Victory, Shrieking White-Hot Sphere Of Pure Rage Early GOP Front-Runner For 2016
Sources say the screaming orb might be the only potential candidate that would tap into Republicans'
deep-seated, seething fury after this election.
Friday, August 26, 2016 at 03:49
PM
Obama certainly did nothing to put US into the nightmare of peace and prosperity, while Killary
will threw the US into perpetual war with bigger adversaries than Sunni goatherds.
What are
US "agents" doing on the ground in Syria?
"There is no evidence she's a crook". "There's no evidence that she gave favors for money….."
"A vote against Hillary is a vote for Trump".
There were similar people in Germany 70 years ago who were saying "Hitler did some really good
things, before he started killing Jews and invading other countries……."
This stuff makes me want to pull my hair out.
That's not the way it works, dammit. There isn't going to be a "smoking gun" most of the time.
Unless they do something by being arrogant or stupid, and even then there will be apologists/head
in the sand types.
A million dollar gift to the Clinton Foundation, gives you things that won't be in any written
contract. It goes without saying, like Kabuki theater.
Like her book advances and speaking fees. Absolutely nothing Hillary Clinton has to say is
worth $250,000. It's a cover to pay for future services rendered.
The burgeoning neolib dog whistle "alt-right" is short for "a$$hole who thinks Clinton should
go to jail for 1000 times the misconduct that would get that a$$hole 10 years hard time".
Neoliberals
use the term "alt-right" as shorthand for those who don't drink the Clinton neocon Kool-Aid.
The bigotry of warmongering neoliberals against anyone who disagrees. There isn't enough fascism going around?
@ 1 rr.. i thought paveway described it best (his post below).. this is
the little game that has been going on for some time and includes all the
designations - moderates, isis, white helmets - you name it... this is the
line of bs the usa is hoping dupes believe... ps, i also thought curtis
comment from george carlin on the previous thread was great and what has
come to typify usa foreign policy - " "Fighting for peace is like screwing
for virginity."
paveways comment :
"A NATO country has just rolled tanks into Syria and sent in head-chopper
ground forces - the same ones Syria, Russia and Iran have been trying to
kill for months on end in Aleppo and Idlib. ISIS isn't putting up much resistance
in Jarabulus because they're too busy trading their ISIS ID cards/flags
for al Nusra or al Zenki ID cards/flags. Head-choppers need paychecks to
feed their families, too:
Headchopper #1: "Snackbar - somebody is shooting at us! What flag are
we suppose to be flying today, brother?"
Headchopper #2: "Look on your paycheck, brother..."
Headchopper #1: "No good, brother - it's from ISIS. That was last week!"
Headchopper #2: "I'll get on the radio - our leaders should know, God
willing..."
(a few minutes later...)
Headchopper #2: "Nobody knows for sure, but put on this white helmet
for now, brother. Soros' checks are clearing."
Headchopper #1: "Does that mean I have to shave? Snackbar... can't we
just be al Nusra this week?"
Headchopper #2: "No flags yet.. But you have to shave anyway, brother.
The CIA won't pay you for FSA Nusra if you look too Wahhabi head-chopperish.
Have a Captagon and calm down. Our Turkish brothers will be here soon."
Posted by: PavewayIV | Aug 24, 2016 11:41:49 AM | 78"
"... FBI Admits Clinton Used Software Designed To "Prevent Recovery" And "Hide Traces Of" Deleted Emails ..."
"... Assange: Clinton's Campaign is Full of 'Disturbing' Anti-Russia 'Hysteria' http://sputniknews.com/us/20160826/1044654512/assange-clinton-russia-hysteria.html ..."
AUGUST 25, 2016
State Admits Benghazi Material in New Cache of Emails Clinton Failed to Produce
(Washington DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that a federal court has ordered the
State Department to review newly found Clinton emails and turn over responsive records
by September 13. And, in two other Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits, the State
Department is scheduled to release additional emails from former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton's non-state.gov email system beginning September 30. In a court filing
this week, the State Department admitted it had found Benghazi-related documents among
the 14,900 Clinton emails and attachments uncovered by the FBI that Mrs. Clinton deleted
and withheld from the State Department.
~ ~ ~ ~
Is this not a reminder of the missing 18 minutes in the Nixon tapes that helped to put
him down?
74 days ahead; so breathe normally. They could use the same route as those FBI Vince
Foster investigation docs – vanished, disappeared from the National Archives.
Already, however, the whole enterprise is in turmoil, thanks to the resignations of several of its
top staff members even before it was off the ground, who were angered by the decision of Senator
Sanders and his wife, Jane Sanders, to appoint his former campaign manager, John Weaver, as its top
officer over their very clearly expressed objections.
Among those heading to the exits was Claire
Sandberg, who was the digital organising director of the campaign and the organising director of
Our Revolution. Her entire department of four people quit, in fact.
She and the others who joined the revolt, including Kenneth Pennington, who was to be the digital
director of Our Revolution, were opposed to Mr Weaver's involvement both for reasons of personality
clashes and because they felt he mismanaged the Senator's campaign in part by spending too much money
on television advertising and failing to harness grassroots support.
They also contended that Mr Weaver would only exacerbate an additional concern they had with the
new entity namely that it has been set up as a so-called 501(c)(4) organisation, which, because of
its charitable status, is in theory not allowed to work directly with the election of political candidates
and is able to receive large sums from anonymous donors.
A large part of the premise of Mr Sanders's campaign for president had been precisely to wean
political campaigns from the flood of dark money that flows into them. That the Our Revolution entity
has been set up precisely to take such money looked to them like a betrayal.
According to several reports a majority of the staff appointed to run the new outfit resigned
as soon as the appointment of Mr Weaver was confirmed on Monday
"... Some Stooges have expressed a preference for Trump over Killary ..."
"... Bannon, personally, has not been accused of anti-Semitism, however. ..."
"... He's just less likely to touch off a global war than Clinton is. What happens to the United States of America is not my concern, and if a series of catastrophic national-leadership decisions cause it to collapse, that is America's business. I'm not saying it would not affect me, because it most certainly would – the collapse of the world's largest (or second-largest) single economy would affect everyone. ..."
Some Stooges have expressed a preference for Trump over Killary,…BUt iF–and I say IF -Trump
embraces these "alt-right' vermin…then he is just as unfit to be POTUS as Killary..
"There are, of course, many strains of thinking under the "alt-right" umbrella. Some factions
are preoccupied with a return to "traditional values," while others espouse a philosophy called
"Human Biodiversity": the belief that there are significant biological differences between people
of different races, which justifies treating them differently. (The other name for this is "scientific
racism.") Anti-Semitism is common, in various forms, ranging from Holocaust denial to full-bore
denunciations of Jews as agents of the collapse of white Christian society. Bannon, personally,
has not been accused of anti-Semitism, however.
The common thread, however, that connects members of these different factions is a shared desire
to protect Western civilization from what many refer to as "white genocide." This manifests in
opposition to things like immigration and multiculturalism, as well as a steadfast aversion to
political correctness and to establishment politics of all kinds, including Republican."
The 'alt-right' need to be exterminated every bit as much as fascist warmonger vermin.
Absolutely. Trump would make a terrible president. He's just less likely to touch off a global
war than Clinton is. What happens to the United States of America is not my concern, and if a
series of catastrophic national-leadership decisions cause it to collapse, that is America's business.
I'm not saying it would not affect me, because it most certainly would – the collapse of the world's
largest (or second-largest) single economy would affect everyone.
But it is up to Americans to
determine their nation's course, and I'm sure they do not welcome meddling any more than any other
country does. I will say their political crisis is appalling, and that their choice has come down
to Trump or Clinton is beyond appalling, but in the end it is Americans who must take responsibility
for that. That is America's business, and all of my disagreements with America stem from its activities
outside its own borders.
Also, all those rabbiting on about Russia showing a clear preference for Trump should take
note of Europe's oft-expressed and extremely public endorsement of Clinton.
Yes…this is a **real ** dilemma….super corrupt pathological lying (barking) warmonger psycho….OR….prone
to be manipulated by white supremacist ideology nutjob…
The State Department must start releasing the additional 15,000 emails uncovered during the
FBI's investigation into
Hillary
Clinton 's private server starting on Sept. 13.
...
As she faces increasing scrutiny, allies acknowledge it highlights the larger problem that
looms over her campaign: Trust.
...the foundation and email controversies are both problems for Clinton.
Pomkiwi
GreatUncle
Aug 25, 2016 7:02 PM
As a matter of habit I run CC Cleaner after I close my browser. Imagine
my surprise when I get a message 'Firefox is still running - needs to be
closed to continue cleaning'. I click ok close it then get a message '
not closing would you like to force it to close?' That works - perhaps I
should disconnect my router to be sure lol.
GreatUncle
css1971
Aug 25, 2016 6:21 PM
Got to admit I use CC cleaner and leave it to always destructively clean.
Then by the time more data is overewritten hundreds of times you exceed the
20 layer or so limit of being able to peal bakc the layer.
Microsoft is
lazy or more to the point it intentionally leaves you exposed for failing to
do this as standard.
Makes the spooks job alot harder.
Dre4dwolf
Aug 25, 2016 5:53 PM
All the emails are out there on the internet, the server had no encryption, out
there somewhere is some nerd with all of Hillary Clintons Emails hanging on his
wall as a testament to his great conquest over " the server ".
Hillary
Clintons emails are like pokemon, they are all over the place, you just gota
"catch um all " by finding people willing to "trade".
Also, there are always two copies on an email chain
1 copy on Hillary Clintons Server
and
1 copy on the recipient/sending server, you need two servers to have a "
back and forth" conversation on the internet between two different email
domains.
So one way to get all the emails would be:
1) Compile a list of known email contacts from the pool of emails you
already have
2) Get a judge to sign a warrant to force the domains / hosting companies of
those email contacts to turn over their data
3) ? Profit as 90% of the missing emails are recovered?
There is a very small chance that the 30,000 emails missing were each from
30,000 unique people.
Most likeley its less than 1000 contacts and most of them will have benign
emails associated with them that were not deleted (so they are in the contact
list pool).
The NSA has all this data, everyone knows the NSA has all this data, thus
far most of the leaked emails PROBABLY COME FROM NSA AGENTS who are concerned
about the future of the country.
asierguti
Aug 25, 2016 5:48 PM
I worked for a big data recovery company, and there is more effective and
easier way to destoy de data. Just take out the hard drive, open it and scratch
every platter. That's it, the data is now gone forever, unless you (insert the
NSA here) have a copy.
I rembeber we had a law enforcement agency coming with a hard drive from a
guy they wanted to prosecute. That bastard opened the hard drive, scratched
every platter, even bent them, and smashed every single chip.
Rubicon727
Aug 25, 2016 5:57 PM
Here's what one website questioning WHO can call for and "Independent Counsels,
Special Prosecutors, Special Counsels, and the Role of Congress
| By Jack Maskell | Legislative Attorney | June 20, 2013 |
.. Congress may
also have a legislative role in designing a statutory mechanism for the
appointment of "independent counsels" or "special prosecutors," as it did in
title VI of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Under the provisions of that
law relating to the appointment of "independent counsels" (called "special
prosecutors" until 1983), the Attorney General was directed to petition a
special three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals to name an independent
counsel upon the receipt of credible allegations of criminal misconduct by
certain high-level personnel in the executive branch of the federal government
whose prosecution by the Administration might give rise to an appearance of a
conflict of interest. In 1999, Congress allowed the "independent counsel"
provisions of law to expire. Upon the expiration of the law in June of 1999, no
new "independent counsels" or "special prosecutors" may be appointed by a
three-judge panel upon the application of the Attorney General.
The Attorney General retains the general authority to designate or name
individuals as "special counsels" to conduct investigations or prosecutions of
particular matters or individuals on behalf of the United States. Under
regulations issued by the Attorney General in 1999, the Attorney General may
appoint a "special counsel" from outside of the Department of Justice who acts
as a special employee of the Department of Justice under the direction of the
Attorney General.
The NSA has all of Killary's Emails in triplicate. .. If they were encrypted in transit
they can have them cracked and broken in about 10 minutes apiece.
They can search them and have them and all metadata that goes with them in a
few clicks of a mouse. .. They know what routers the Emails went through on
their way to China and Soros.
Hackers, my ass, that's what the NSA does and it has a budget of billions
and billions. ... What do people not understand about spying on the web?
Live Hard, If The FBI Wants Emails They Dial NSA-2001 And Ask For Alex, Die
Free
~ DC v2.0
smacker
Aug 25, 2016 6:20 PM
I've had BleachBit running on my system for a fair while and never been that
impressed with it, although all of these programs delete some stuff.
A far
better one that actually works well to clean stuff up is:
(Nirsoft have a huge range of small free progs for doing all sorts of
things)
Still, if the Clintonista had BleachBit running, she had
intent
.
LN
Aug 25, 2016 6:22 PM
"
FBI Admits Clinton Used Software Designed To "Prevent Recovery"
"
"Beyond simply deleting files, BleachBit includes advanced features such as
shredding files to prevent recovery
, wiping free disk space to
hide traces of files deleted by other applications, and vacuuming Firefox to
make it faster. Better than free, BleachBit is open source."
Besides for nefarious reasons, why else would someone use this type of
software? And to top it off, this software is open source shareware... in her
world that means free.....
"... Trump's Northern Virginia and Maryland state director, asked why Mrs Clinton was dressed for winter during a recent campaign t. ..."
"... "How many of you would wear a wool coat in August?" he said, according to The Louden Times ..."
"... "The woman who seeks to be the first female president of the United States wears a wool coat at every single thing. Have you ever stopped to wonder why? ..."
"... "It's a big deal, folks. This woman is very, very sick and they're covering it up. ..."
Addressing a gathering of Women4Trump in the town of Middleburg, John Jaggers, Trump's Northern Virginia
and Maryland state director, asked why Mrs Clinton was dressed for winter during a recent campaign
t.
"The woman who seeks to be the first female president of the United States wears a wool coat at
every single thing. Have you ever stopped to wonder why?
"It's a big deal, folks. This woman is very, very sick and they're covering it up.
"You're not so much talking about
Hillary Clinton being
president for eight years, you're talking about
Tim Kaine being president for eight years. Because that's what we're dealing with here."
It' sad that Trump campaign does not exploit this weakness of Hillary to the fullest extent...
Actually the author is wrong about "Clinton, a verb, emails." more correct is "Clinton,
a verb, to jail"
That headline is Hillary Clinton's biggest current problem. At this point, it has become akin to
how Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign used to be described: "a noun, a verb, 9/11."
Clinton has
entered similar linguistic territory, because any headline using the word "Clinton" and the word
"emails" now triggers a consistent reaction from the public. Details, even fresh new ones, don't
even really matter all that much at this point - all people are really hearing now is: "Clinton,
a verb, emails."
"... The clintons are a terminally vulgar and unethical couple ..."
"... Mr. Clinton always had an easy, breezy relationship with wrongdoing. But the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul. ..."
The clintons are a terminally vulgar and unethical couple
Out of order quotes:
Mr. Clinton always had an easy, breezy relationship with wrongdoing. But the Democratic
Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent
of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won
the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.
"... Washington Post, Salon, Slate, Think Progress ..."
"... Trump never overtly used the word "assassinate." He says he was just suggesting that advocates of the Second Amendment vote, and was being sarcastic. A sarcastic invocation to vote would sound very different. A sarcastic invocation to vote might be, "The American way to change things is to vote. But maybe you care so much about shooting, you won't be able to organize to vote." ..."
This piece is a follow-up of a Lakoff's article, Understanding
Trump , published by Common Dreams last month.
Responsible reporters in the media normally transcribe political speeches so that they can accurately
report them. But Donald Trump's discourse style has stumped a number of reporters. Dan Libit, CNBC's
excellent analyst is one of them. Libit writes:
His unscripted speaking style, with its spasmodic, self-interrupting sentence structure, has
increasingly come to overwhelm the human brains and tape recorders attempting to quote him.
Trump is, simply put, a transcriptionist's worst nightmare: severely unintelligible, and yet,
incredibly important to understand.
Given how dramatically
recent polls have turned on his controversial public utterances, it is not hyperbolic to say
that the very fate of the nation, indeed human civilization, appears destined to come down to
one man's application of the English language - and the public's comprehension of it. It has turned
the rote job of transcribing into a high-stakes calling. […]
Trump's crimes against clarity are multifarious: He often speaks in long, run-on sentences,
with frequent asides. He pauses after subordinate clauses. He frequently quotes people saying
things that aren't actual quotes. And he repeats words and phrases, sometimes with slight variations,
in the same sentence.
Some in the media ( Washington Post, Salon, Slate, Think Progress , etc.) have called
Trump's speeches "word salad." Some commentators have even attributed his language use to "early
Alzheimer's," citing "erratic behavior" and "little regards for social conventions." I don't believe
it.
I have been repeatedly asked in media interviews about such use of language by Trump. So far as
I can tell, he is simply using effective discourse mechanisms to communicate what his wants to communicate
to his audience. I have found that he is very careful and very strategic in his use of language.
The only way I know to show this is to function as a linguist and cognitive scientist and go through
details.
Let's start with sentence fragments. It is common and natural in New York discourse for friends
to finish one another's sentences. And throughout the country, if you don't actually say the rest
of a friend's sentence out loud, there is nevertheless a point at which you can finish it in your
head. When this happens in cooperative discourse, it can show empathy and intimacy with a friend,
that you know the context of the narrative, and that you understand and accept your friend's framing
of the situation so well that you can even finish what they have started to say. Of course, you can
be bored with, or antagonistic to, someone and be able to finish their sentences with anything but
a feeling of empathy and intimacy. But Trump prefers to talk to a friendly crowd.
Trump often starts a sentence and leaves off where his followers can finish in their minds what
he has started to say. That is, they commonly feel empathy and intimacy, an acceptance of what is
being said, and good feeling toward the speaker. This is an unconscious, automatic reaction, especially
when words are flying by quickly. It is a means for Trump to connect with his audience.
The Second Amendment Incident
Here is the classic case, the Second Amendment Incident. The thing to be aware of is that his
words are carefully chosen. They go by quickly when people hear them. But they are processed unconsciously
first by neural circuitry - and neurons operate on a thousandth-of-a-second time scale. Your neural
circuitry has plenty of time to engage in complex forms of understanding, based on what you already
know.
Trump begins by saying, "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment."
He first just says "abolish," and then hedges by adding "essentially abolish." But having said "abolish"
twice, he has gotten across the message that she wants to, and is able to, change the Constitution
in that way.
Now, at the time the Second Amendment was written, the "arms" in "bear arms" were long rifles
that fired one bullet at a time. The "well-regulated militia" was a local group, like a contemporary
National Guard unit, regulated by a local government with military command structure. They were protecting
American freedoms against the British.
The Second Amendment has been reinterpreted by contemporary ultra-conservatives as the right of
individual citizens to bear contemporary arms (e.g., AK-47's), either to protect their families against
invaders or to change a government by armed rebellion if that government threatens what they see
as their freedoms. The term "Second Amendment" activates the contemporary usage by ultra-conservatives.
It is a dog-whistle term, understood in that way by many conservatives.
Now, no president or Supreme Court could literally abolish any constitutional amendment alone.
But a Supreme Court could judge that that certain laws concerning gun ownership could be unconstitutional.
That is what Trump meant by "essentially abolish."
Thus, the election of Hillary Clinton threatens the contemporary advocates of the 'Second Amendment.'
Trump goes on:
"By the way, and if she gets to pick [loud boos] - if she gets to pick her judges, nothing
you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."
Here are the details.
" By the way ," marks a parallel utterance, one that does not linearly follow from what
was just said, but that has information relevant to what was just said.
"And" here marks information that follows from what was just said.
"If she gets to pick …" When said the first time, it was followed immediately by loud boos. The
audience could finish the if-clause for themselves, since the word "pick" in context could only be
about Hillary picking liberal judges. Trump goes on making this explicit, "if she gets to pick her
judges…"
"Gets to" is important. The metaphor here with "to" is that Achieving a Purpose Is Reaching a
Destination" with the object of "to" marking the pick. The "get" in "get to" is from a related metaphor,
namely, that Achieving a Purpose Is Getting a Desired Object. In both Purpose metaphors, the Achievement
of the Purpose can be stopped by an opponent. The "if" indicates that the achievement of the purpose
is still uncertain, which raises the question of whether it can be stopped.
"Her judges" indicates that the judges are not your judges, from which it follows that they will
not rule the way you want them to, namely, for keeping your guns. The if-clause thus has a consequence:
unless Hillary is prevented from becoming president, "her judges" will change the laws to take away
your guns and your Constitutional right to bear arms. This would be a governmental infringement on
your freedom, which would justify the armed intervention of ultra-conservatives, what Sharon Angle
in Nevada has called the "Second Amendment solution." In short, a lot is entailed - in little time
on a human timescale, but with lots of time on a neural timescale.
Having set this up, Trump follows the if-clause with "Nothing you can do, folks." This is a shortened
version in everyday colloquial English of "There will be nothing you can do, folks." That is, if
you let Hillary take office, you will be so weak that you will be unable to stop her. The "folks,"
suggests that he and the audience members are socially part of the same social group - as opposed
to a distant billionaire with his own agenda.
Immediately after "nothing you can do," Trump goes on: "Although the Second Amendment people,
maybe there is."
"Although" is a word used to contrast one possible course of events with an opposite possibility.
Trump has just presented a possible course of events that is threatening to ultra-conservative Second
Amendment advocates. "Although the Second Amendment people" calls up the alternative for those who
would act violently to protect their Second Amendment right.
"Maybe" brings up a suggestion. "Maybe there is" suggests that there is something the "Second
Amendment People" can do to prevent Hillary from taking office and appointing liberal judges who
would take away what they see as their Constitutional rights.
"I don't know" is intended to remove Trump from any blame. But it acts unconsciously in the opposite
way. It is like the title of the book I wrote, "Don't Think of an Elephant." The way the brain works
is that negating a frame activates the frame. The relevant frame for "Second Amendment people" is
use of arms to protect their rights against a government threatening to take away their rights. This
is about the right to shoot, not about the right to vote. Second Amendment conservative discourse
is about shooting, not about voting.
The point here is that Trump's use of language is anything but "word salad." His words and his
use of grammar are carefully chosen, and put together artfully, automatically, and quickly.
Trump never overtly used the word "assassinate." He says he was just suggesting that advocates
of the Second Amendment vote, and was being sarcastic. A sarcastic invocation to vote would sound
very different. A sarcastic invocation to vote might be, "The American way to change things is to
vote. But maybe you care so much about shooting, you won't be able to organize to vote."
He didn't say anything like that. And he chose his words very, very carefully.
Believe Me! Some People Say…
People in the media have asked me about Trump's use of "Believe me!" and "Many people say" followed
by a statement that is not true, but that he wants he audience to believe. Why does he use such expressions
and how do they work in discourse? To understand this, one needs to look at the concept of lying.
Most people will say that a lie is a false statement. But a study by linguists Linda Coleman and
Paul Kay pointed out more than 30 years ago that the situation is more complex.
If a statement happens to be false, but you sincerely believe that it is true, you are not lying
in stating it. Lying involves a hierarchy of conditions defining worse and worse lies. Here is the
hierarchy:
You don't believe it.
You are trying to deceive.
You are trying to gain advantage for yourself.
You are trying to harm.
As you add conditions in the hierarchy, the lies get worse and worse.
Though this is the usual hierarchy for lies, there are variations: A white lie is one that is
harmless. A social lie is one where deceit is general helpful, as in, "Aunt Susie, that was such
a delicious Jello mold that you made." Other variations include exaggeration, flattery, kidding,
joking , etc.
Lying is a form of uncooperative discourse. But most discourse is cooperative, and there are rules
governing it that the philosopher Paul Grice called "maxims" in his Harvard Lectures in 1967. Grice
observed that uncooperative discourse is created when the maxims are violated. Grice's maxims were
extended in the 1970's by Eve Sweetser in a paper on lying.
Sweetser postulated a Maxim of Helpfulness:
In Cooperative Discourse, people intend to help to help one another.
She then observed that there were two models used in helpful communication.
Ordinary Communication
If people say something, they are intending to help if and only if they believe it.
People intend to deceive, if and only if they don't intend to help.
Justified Belief
People have adequate reasons for their beliefs.
What people have adequate reason to believe is true.
Though this model does not hold for all situations (e.g., kidding), they are models that are used
by virtually everyone unconsciously all day every day. If I tell my wife that I saw my cousin this
morning, there is no reason to deceive, so I believe it (Ordinary Communication). And since I know
my cousin well, if I believe I saw him, then I did see him (Justified Belief). Such principles are
part of our unconsciously functioning neural systems. They work automatically, unless they become
conscious and we can attend to them and control them.
Trump uses these communication models that are in your brain. When he says "Believe me!" he is
using the principle of Justified Belief, suggesting that he has the requisite experience for his
belief to be true. When those in Trump's audience hear "Believe me!", they will mostly understand
it automatically and, unconsciously and via Justified Belief, will take it to be true.
When Trump says, "Many people say that …" both principles are unconsciously activated. If many
people say it, they are unlikely to all or mostly be deceiving, which means they believe it, and
by Justified Belief, it is taken to be true.
You have to be on your toes, listening carefully and ready to disbelieve Trump, to avoid the use
of these ordinary cognitive mechanisms in your brain that Trump uses for his purposes.
Is He "On Topic?"
Political reporters are used to hearing speeches with significant sections on a single policy
issue. Trump often goes from policy to policy to policy in a single sentence. Is he going off topic?
So far as I can discern, he always on topic, but you have to understand what his topic is. As
I observed in my Understanding Trump paper, Trump is deeply, personally committed to his version
of Strict Father Morality. He wants it to dominate the country and the world, and he wants to be
the ultimate authority in this authoritarian model of the family that is applied in conservative
politics in virtually every issue area.
Every particular issue, from building the wall, to using our nukes, to getting rid of inheritance
taxes (on those making $10.9 million or more), to eliminating the minimum wage - every issue is an
instance of his version of Strict Father Morality over all areas of life, with him as ultimately
in charge.
As he shifts from particular issue to particular issue, each of them activates his version of
Strict Father Morality and strengthens it in the brains of his audience. So far as I can tell, he
is always on topic - where this is the topic.
Always Selling
For five decades, Trump has been using all these techniques of selling and trying to make deals
to his advantage. It seems to have become second nature for him to use these devices. And he uses
them carefully and well. He is a talented charlatan. Keeping you off balance is part of his game.
As is appealing to ordinary thought mechanisms in the people he is addressing.
It is vital that the media, and ordinary voters, learn to recognize his techniques. When the media
fails to grasp what he is doing, it gives him an advantage. Every time someone in the media claims
his discourse is "word salad, " it helps Trump by hiding what he is really doing.
"Regret" or Excuse
One day after the above was written, Trump made a well-publicized statement of "regret."
"Sometimes, in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don't choose the
right words or you say the wrong thing.
I have done that.
And believe it or not, I regret it.
And I do regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain.
Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues. …"
He did not give any specifics.
What we have just seen is that he chooses his words VERY carefully. And he has done that here.
He starts out with "sometimes," which suggests that it is a rare occurrence on no particular occasions
- a relatively rare accident. He continues with a general, inescapable fact about being a presidential
candidate, namely, that he is always "in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues."
The words "heat" and "multitude" suggest that normal attention to details like word choice cannot
operate in presidential campaign. In short, it is nothing that he could possibly be responsible for,
and is a rare occurrence anyway.
Then he uses the word "you." This shifts perspective from him to "you," a member of the audience.
You too, if you were running for president, would naturally be in such uncontrollable situations
all the time, when "you don't choose the right words or you say the wrong thing." It's just a matter
of choosing "the right words." This means that he had the right ideas, but under natural, and inevitable
attentional stress, an unavoidable mistake happens and could happen to you: "you" have the right
ideas, but mess up on the "right words."
He then admits to "sometimes" making an unavoidable, natural mistake, not in choosing the right
ideas, but in word choice and, putting yourself in his shoes, "you say the wrong thing" - that is,
you are thinking the right thing, but you just say it wrong - "sometimes."
His admission is straightforward - "I have done that" - as if he had just admitted to something
immoral, but which he has carefully described as anything but immoral.
"And believe it or not, I regret it." What he is communicating with "believe it or not," is that
you, in the audience, may not believe that I am a sensitive soul, but I really am, as shown by my
statement of regret. He then emphasizes his statement of personal sensitivity: "And I do regret it,
particularly where it may have caused personal pain." Note the "may have caused." No admission that
he definitely DID "cause personal pain." And no specifics given. After all, they don't have to be
given, because it is natural, unavoidable, accidental, and so rare as to not matter. He states this:
"Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues." In short, it's a trivial matter to
be ignored - because it is a natural, unavoidable, accidental mistake, only in the words not the
thoughts, and is so rare as to be unimportant. All that in five well-crafted sentences!
Note how carefully he has chosen his words. And what is the intended effect? He should be excused
because inaccurate word choice is so natural that it will inevitably occur again, and he should not
be criticized when the stress of the campaign leads inevitably to mistakes in trivial word choice.
But there is a larger effect. Words have meanings. The words he carefully uses, often over and
over, get across his values and ideas, which are all too often lies or promotions of racist, sexist,
and other un-American invocations. When these backfire mightily, as with the Khans, there can be
no hiding behind a nonspecific "regret" that they were just rare, accidental word choice mistakes
too trivial for the public to be "consumed with." This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Better late then never. That's bold attack we all need. After Khna gabmit, you need to nail Hillary
who is trying to drive on anti-Russian sentiment and demonization by neoliberal press of the opponent.
Bravo Trump !!!
Notable quotes:
"... "Hillary Clinton is a bigot who sees people of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future," the GOP presidential nominee declared at a rally here Wednesday night. "She's going to do nothing for African-Americans. She's going to do nothing for the Hispanics. She's only going to take care of herself, her husband, her consultants, her donors. These are the people she cares about." ..."
"... he likened his own campaign against the European establishment to the brash developer's insurgent bid for the White House. ..."
"Hillary Clinton is a bigot who sees people of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy
of a better future," the GOP presidential nominee declared at a rally here Wednesday night. "She's
going to do nothing for African-Americans. She's going to do nothing for the Hispanics. She's only
going to take care of herself, her husband, her consultants, her donors. These are the people she
cares about."
... ... ...
Trump has repeatedly likened his own campaign to Brexit in arguing for "peaceful regime change"
in the U.S. on Election Day. The mogul recently predicted that he would soon be known by the moniker
"Mr. Brexit."
Inviting the British politician to the stage at his Wednesday rally, the GOP nominee called it
an "honor" to stand with Farage, who all but endorsed Trump as he likened his own campaign against
the European establishment to the brash developer's insurgent bid for the White House.
Speaking to audience members who appeared somewhat baffled at his presence, Farage spoke of how
he and allies overcame opposition from the political establishment and even a set of foreign leaders
that included U.S. President Obama. As the crowd here booed, Farage pointedly accused Obama of talking
down to the British. "He treated us as if we were nothing," Farage said. "One of the oldest functioning
democracies in the world, and here he was telling us to 'vote remain.'"
As Trump stood over his shoulder, a smile on his face, Farage pointedly did not endorse Trump
- but he came very, very close. "I could not possibly tell you how you should vote in this election,"
he said. "But I will say this, if I was an American citizen, I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton
if you paid me!"
Farage urged Trump supporters to take advantage of the "fantastic opportunity" they face in November.
"You can go out. You can beat the pollsters. You can beat the commentators. You can beat Washington.
And you'll do it by doing what we did for Brexit in Britain. We had our own people's army of ordinary
citizens," he said. "Anything is possible if enough people are prepared to stand up against the establishment."
Walking back to the podium, Trump nodded, calling Election Day a chance for the country to "re-declare"
its independence. "It's time to recapture our destiny," he said.
Signpost 5
minutes ago
Words mean very little really. The proof is in
the pudding. These democrats are very skilled at
saying slick words and calling others racists.
That's basically a democrats main campaign
slogan. "You're a racist!"
But let's look for a moment at what they have
accomplished. After 8 years of a democrat
President black people are suffering. Look at the
inner cities. Detroit, Milwaukee, ect. We see the
anger and hopelessness. 58% of black youth are
unemployed. Illegal aliens get treated better
that black Americans. And the Hispanics only help
their own once they get control of anything.
Diversity isn't a Hispanic employers strong suit.
95 million Americans are out of work. But Obama
says the economy is thriving. The democrats know
how to say the slick words. But it is only their
elite who make any money. The rest of you are on
food stamps. So, do we want 4 more years like the
last 8? Someone like Clinton who will talk the bs
while your families go without? Or do you want
someone who can create jobs. As we can see by
looking at the Clinton foundation emails, she got
hers already. Wow. She was selling a possible
future presidency while she was Secretary of
State. She figured the American people would be
too dumb to find out.
Out with the democrats. Time to change the
batter.
Greg Collins 5
minutes ago
Where is Hillary Clinton can't give a press
conference answer real question American can tell
truth and you want to vote for a liar
misstatements YouTube video and email poor
judgment policy open border bring Syria Muslims
terrorist will come in and attack kill your
family this is what you are vote for and corrupt
foundation no thanks
crosswalkuser 4
minutes ago
With Hillary blatant corruption record it looks
as though its Hillary who could shoot someone and
still be elected as Americans are bent on having
a new Pantygon where they see have the generals
being women and the other half being gay men
matching the current media.
still rockin' 7
minutes ago
While Trump is a idiot, he is correct that the
only thing Hillary cares about with Blacks and
Hispanics are their votes. After that she will
keep them on the Democratic treadmill with no
possible chance of advancement for the masses.
For decades the Democrats have promised them
prosperity and given them just enough to live a
meager existence while lining their own pockets.
Some of the wealthiest Congressional politicians
are Democrats!
Ghassanids 1
hour ago
As someone who is branded as "Hispanic" by the
government, I am not looking to be taken care of
by Clinton nor Trump. Where is all this language
coming from? I'm just a normal citizen trying to
live out my term on Earth. What's the deal?
James D 3
hours ago
Any politician who talks about citizens as
belonging to some biologically defined group, as
if they all should think and vote alike based on
that biological similarity, is a shallow bigot.
It doesn't matter what biological feature they
decide to focus on at the moment, whether it be
gender, age, skin color, ethnicity, sexuality,
...... putting people into a box and stereotyping
them is disgusting bigotry.
Richard 3
hours ago
We have Nero and Caligula running for the
American presidency. The question is which one is
which?
"... recently, the paper's former Washington bureau chief, the veteran journalist Hedrick Smith, asked an important question: ..."
"... Smith, who traveled the country to write his latest book ..."
"... also serves as the executive editor of the Reclaim the American Dream website, where he keeps a keen eye on efforts to revitalize politics closest to where people live. In his op-ed essay he answered his own question by reporting that "a broad array of state-level citizen movements are pressing for reforms… to give average voters more voice, make elections more competitive and ease gridlock in Congress." ..."
"... There's a lot of energy stirring in the states, including efforts to create a fairer economy. Unlike our paralyzed and polarized Congress, state legislators - those with eyes to see and ears to hear - know the walking-wounded casualties from the long campaign against working people conducted by Big Business and rabid free-marketeers over the past three decades. Among the stunned and shell-shocked are millions of survivors barely hanging on after the financial crash of 2008 and the Great Recession that followed. They live down the street and around the corner, a mere few blocks from the state capitol. ..."
"... Here at BillMoyers.com , just as Hedrick Smith's essay appeared last weekend, we were finishing a small book - 95 pages - by one of those state legislators: Minnesota's David Bly. After teaching in the public schools for 30 years he retired and ran for the Minnesota House of Representatives, where he is now serving his fourth term. What he's seen close-up prompted him to write ..."
"... You can order a copy from the publisher's website . It is short in length but not of passion. Here, with permission, is an excerpt: ..."
"... The Spirit Level ..."
"... Capital in the 21 st Century ..."
"... Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal ..."
"... Winner-Take-All Politics ..."
"... Who Stole the American Dream? ..."
"... Citizen's United ..."
"... The Minneapolis Star Tribune ..."
"... Excerpted with permission from Levins Publishing. All rights reserved. ..."
"... Moyers & Company ..."
"... Bill Moyers Journal: The Conversation Continues , ..."
Our collapse from an "opportunity for all" middle-class economy to a "winner-take-all," dog-eat-dog
system is behind many problems we face as a society.
18 Comments
An ice sculpture reading Middle Class is displayed as people gather to protest before the beginning
of the Republican National Convention on August 26, 2012 in Tampa, Florida. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty
Images)
In The New York Times recently, the paper's former Washington bureau chief,
the veteran journalist Hedrick Smith, asked an important question: "Can
the States Save American Democracy?" Smith, who traveled the country to write his latest
book, Who Stole the American
Dream?, also serves as the executive editor of the
Reclaim the American Dream website, where he keeps
a keen eye on efforts to revitalize politics closest to where people live. In his op-ed essay he
answered his own question by reporting that "a broad array of state-level citizen movements are pressing
for reforms… to give average voters more voice, make elections more competitive and ease gridlock
in Congress."
There's a lot of energy stirring in the states, including efforts to create a fairer economy.
Unlike our paralyzed and polarized Congress, state legislators - those with eyes to see and ears
to hear - know the walking-wounded casualties from the long campaign against working people conducted
by Big Business and rabid free-marketeers over the past three decades. Among the stunned and shell-shocked
are millions of survivors barely hanging on after the financial crash of 2008 and the Great Recession
that followed. They live down the street and around the corner, a mere few blocks from the
state capitol.
Here at BillMoyers.com, just as Hedrick Smith's essay
appeared last weekend, we were finishing a small book - 95 pages - by one of those state legislators:
Minnesota's David Bly. After teaching in the public schools for 30 years he retired and ran for the
Minnesota House of Representatives, where he is now serving his fourth term. What he's seen close-up
prompted him to write We All Do Better: Economic Priorities for a Land of Opportunity. You
can order a copy from the publisher's
website. It is short in length but not of passion. Here, with permission, is an excerpt:
Not so long ago, the words "Land of Opportunity" really meant something for all Americans. We
pretty much took it for granted that each and every one of us should have the opportunity to develop
our God-given talents to reach our greatest potential. This didn't mean that everyone would choose
to use that opportunity, or that anyone would be forced to use it. It did, however, mean that everyone
had that opportunity…. As the late Sen. Paul Wellstone once said, "We all do better when we all do
better."
Things are changing, and not for the better. All too often, we hear stories of families evicted
from their homes when unemployment runs out, or senior citizens who must choose between buying groceries
and life-sustaining medications, or the single mother who can't get a job because she must spend
her time nursing her invalid son. We open the paper to read yet another story about the achievement
gap in our schools. We watch the news and are shocked to learn that the United States is the world's
leader in putting its citizens behind bars.
These kinds of thing don't happen, or at least shouldn't, when there is a nationwide commitment
for everyone to have what they need to develop their potential. This commitment goes beyond lip service
and political speeches. It involves deliberate policies that maintain what I call a "middle-class
economy." A middle-class economy is not one in which every single person makes a certain amount of
money. Even in a middle-class economy, some are rich and some are poor. But most of the people have
most of the money. Most of the people can take care of themselves and fully develop their potential.
Those that can't take care of themselves for any number of understandable reasons can count on the
rest of us to get them through the rough spots.
Right now we are in the process of losing our middle-class economy. We know this from news stories,
and far too many of us know it from bitter personal experience. This loss of our middle-class economy
and the resultant shift to a "winner-take-all" economy of rich and poor are behind most of the problems
with which we struggle as a society.
The Spirit Level by
Richard Wilkinson
and Kate Pickett helped me see how and why this is so. The authors demonstrate in powerful terms
how growing inequality is crippling both our society and our economy in ways that will make it harder
to address critical problems we face as a nation. Page after page of graphs illustrate how we have
fallen behind other developed nations in the things a well-functioning economy must provide. Wilkinson
and Pickett make a solid case that it is not so much the average income of a society that matters.
More important is how that income is distributed. Countries that have the most equal income distribution
do best on health and social indicators.
According to Wilkinson and Pickett, who are epidemiologists, income inequality is related to "lower
life expectancy, higher rates of infant mortality, shorter height, poor self-reported health, low
birth weight, AIDS and depression." They collected data from dozens of other rich countries on health,
level of trust, mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction, life expectancy, infant mortality, teenage
birth rates, obesity, children's educational performance, homicides, imprisonment and social mobility.
"What is most exciting about our research is that it shows that reducing inequality would increase
the well-being and quality of life for all of us," the authors say. Today we have a choice: use public
investment to reduce inequality or pay for the social harm caused by inequality.
Right now we are in the process of losing our middle-class economy.
Wilkinson and Pickett also
believe: "Modern societies will depend increasingly on being creative, adaptable, inventive, well-informed
and flexible, able to respond generously to each other and to needs wherever they arise. Those are
societies not in hock to the rich, in which people are driven by status insecurities, but of populations
used to working together and respecting each other as equals." Any search for economic salvation
that is motivated and driven by the greed of its individual participants is bound to fail.
Ours is the oldest modern democracy, but present-day policies and court decisions are undermining
our basic democratic principles. Immense power has been ceded to a cadre of financial elites who
have figured out how to buy their way into control of our government. The past 30 years have seen
two related trends: (1) an unraveling of benefits and opportunities for the vast majority of Americans,
and (2) a massive increase in wealth for a relative handful of people. Leading economists assure
us that if we don't take decisive action, we can expect more of the same. Economist Emmanuel Saez
has carefully analyzed the shift toward a rich-and-poor economy. He says, "The market itself doesn't
impose a limit on inequality, especially for those at the top." His partner in research, Thomas Piketty,
has further documented and explained income inequality in his book Capital
in the 21st Century. As I write this, the very wealthy are enjoying a good recovery
from the recession of 2008 while the vast majority of Americans fall further behind.
Our descent from an economy that provided for all of us to one that provides for only the few
has been no accident. Nor was it inevitable. The story of how government has gone from limiting greed
to encouraging it is chronicled in several recent books. Kim Phillips-Fein in Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade
Against the New Deal; Paul Pierson and Jacob S. Hacker in
Winner-Take-All Politics; and Hedrick Smith in Who Stole the American Dream?
tell much the same story in different ways. When the Supreme Court determined that money was speech
in 1976, things began to change quickly. The super-rich suddenly gained an advantage in their campaign
to silence the power of people and weaken our democracy. Today, with the Supreme Court decision on
the Citizen's United case, corporations are "people," and even misinformation and lies spread
by these strange new "people" are protected speech.
Economic value is created by law. We often use the words "free market" to describe our current
economic system, but that system, as much as any other, rests on a set of legal rules and a system
to enforce those rules. So it matters who writes the laws or what interests those laws serve. Similarly,
the distribution of wealth and the flow of capital can flow one way or the other with the stroke
of an official pen. Property rights and the distribution of wealth can deny liberty to some just
as easily as they bestow it on others. Amartya Sen, a Nobel Award-winning economist, argues that
hunger is not a product of the shortage of food. Instead, hungry people lack rights (the entitlement)
to eat. The law decides, or as Sen puts it, "The law stands between food availability and food entitlement.
Starvation deaths can reflect legality with a vengeance."
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who served 1930-41, argued that the Constitution protects
"liberty in a social organization which requires the protection of law against the evils which menace
the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people." Beginning with the founding of our nation,
we have a rich tradition of concern for equality and protection from the abuses that wealth, poorly
distributed, can bring about. As America waged war with Britain for independence over 200 years ago,
the revolutionary patriot and journalist super-patriot Tom Paine advocated that public employment
be utilized to assist those needing work, that a system of social security should provide for retirement
at age 60, and that the state should provide funds so that poor families could educate and care for
their children. In another example, the end of the Civil War saw the passage of amendments to the
Constitution that banned slavery and limited the degree to which states could discriminate against
their citizens. These amendments, in turn, broadened democracy and set us on a path that eventually
resulted in the establishment of voting rights for blacks and women.
So, how do we build and maintain an enduring middle-class economy? In my judgment, every middle-class
economy must be built on these five foundations:
Quality education for everyone
Health care for everyone
A world-class transportation system
Energy systems that maintain a clean and safe environment
Living wages for working people
Each of these is being challenged today by anti-democratic forces. Budget cuts are wreaking havoc
at all levels of education. College is harder to afford, increasingly results in crippling debt and
does not guarantee job prospects
The last 30 years have seen a corporate war against American workers.
We hear that we have the
best health care in the world, but the numbers tell us differently. Our health outcomes do not measure
up to the rest of the developed world because our system, even with the advances made with the Affordable
Care Act, does not assure universal access.
Prosperous economies require that goods and people can move around easily. Investment in transportation
infrastructure is essential. We all feel the cost as roads, bridges and public transportation are
neglected.
Environment, energy and land use go hand-in-hand in a middle-class economy. A clean, safe environment
supports good health and quality of life for everyone. Instead of moving forward on clean energy
and correcting harmful practices, we continue to rely on fossil fuels and to live with the economic
and environmental consequences.
The fifth foundation of a middle-class economy is living-wage jobs. Generations before us took
for granted that hard-working Americans would share in our prosperity. We have abandoned that understanding.
Wages for most Americans have flatlined in spite of continuing pressure from rising costs of life's
essentials. In a 2014 survey by the Pew Foundation, over 10 times as many respondents said their
incomes were falling behind the cost of living than said they were getting ahead.
The last 30 years have seen a corporate war against American workers. Corporation after corporation
shipped middle-class jobs to Third-World countries. Now, politicians across the country invariably
meet out-of-work industrial workers who ask them what they can do about the sell-off of jobs in America.
All too often, the politician has no response and no idea what to do. Some extreme free-market ideologues
even say that what is happening to so many works is actually a good thing, something that in the
long run will make our economy better off. Of course, many of those making such claims have high-paying
jobs, stable jobs representing the interests of the financial elite.
Here in Minnesota wages for new hires, adjusted for inflation, have been heading downward since
2006 and fell to $ll.64 in 2011. The minimum wage went from one of the lowest in the country to $9.50.
A family three (the average family size in Minnesota) would need an hourly wage of $l6.34 to make
it. How can anyone feel secure and support a family with that kind of discrepancy? People working
full-time deserve the dignity of a living wage, but our policies are moving us in the opposite direction.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune, for example, tells of a 59-year-old truck driver who lived
well on the 4l-cents-a-mile he made 16 years ago, but now he is making the exact same amount in the
face of much higher living costs. He works six days a week instead of the five he used to and still
can barely make ends meet.
These are by no means isolated cases in my home state or elsewhere. Economist Robert Reich wrote
this about the battered middle class: "Having been roughed up, they face years of catch-up to get
to where the once were. They feel poorer because they are poorer. They feel less secure because they
are less secure. The crisis's severity - and the fact that it surprised most 'experts' - shocked
them. The large income and wealth losses compounded their sense of vulnerability."
How do those of us in public office respond?
Former Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota tells the story of the working man who was standing in
line to pay his last respects to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. "Did you know the president?" a
reporter asked him. "No," the man said through tears, "but he knew me."
That is our obligation today - to close the distance between the governed and the governing by
rebuilding a middle-class economy. The five foundations of that economy have this in common: they
are all "we" concepts. We all benefit when they are in place, and we all suffer when they crumble.
When we work together toward our common good, we grow a middle-class economy. When we work against
each other as individuals, we are on the road to becoming a Third World economy. As much as I hate
to say it, this is exactly the path we are on.
Much of my book is concerned with my home state of Minnesota, where I serve in the state legislature.
But I'm sure you will also see that much of what I say about my home state applies just as much to
yours. We are all in this together. We all need to get our state and federal spending priorities
focused in a way that will make a difference. That way is the way of rebuilding our middle-class
economy and opportunity for all.
Excerpted with permission from Levins Publishing. All rights reserved.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 License.
Bill Moyers is the
managing editor of Moyers & Company and BillMoyers.com. His previous shows on PBS included
NOW with Bill Moyers and Bill Moyers Journal. Over the past three
decades he has become an icon of American journalism and is the author of many books, including
Bill Moyers Journal: The Conversation Continues,
Moyers on Democracy, and
Bill Moyers: On Faith & Reason. He was one of the organizers of the Peace Corps, a special
assistant for Lyndon B. Johnson, a publisher of Newsday, senior correspondent for CBS News and a
producer of many groundbreaking series on public television. He is the winner of more than 30 Emmys,
nine Peabodys, three George Polk awards.
David Bly is serving his fourth term in the Minnesota House of Representatives. He is the author
of We All Do Better.
He retired after teaching for 30 years in the Minnesota public school system. David Bly and his wife
Dominique live in Northfield, Minnesota.
"... And, pardon me for being a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorist, I wonder if this was the dirt that the Clinton campaign was planning to use against Bernie before he endorsed you-know-who on July 12. ..."
"... President Sanders was not to last long at BC and she left for still unknown circumstances soon after the purchase of the property. ..."
"... The next Presidents, Cjristine Plunkett, Mike Smith and Carol Moore then sold off large portions of the property to real estate developers and then, when the ship finally sank under increasingly hopeless and clueless leadership, all of whom could not increase enrollment or or raise any funds (in fact we were eventually told that the school had given up fund raising), Burlington College went into a relentless downward spiral which tragically and painfully closed its doors in May, 20016. ..."
"... It may ultimately have been the straw that broke the camel's back, and it looks terrible that Jane Sanders was at the helm and instrumental in making the decision, but it also sounds like it was a bold effort – that the Board of Directors signed off on – to change the school's fortunes, and one that unfortunately could not overcome years of struggle and financial instability. ..."
My comments on this link: Jane Sanders used to be president of Burlington
College.
And, pardon me for being a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorist, I wonder if this was the dirt
that the Clinton campaign was planning to use against Bernie before he endorsed you-know-who on
July 12.
But if she left five years ago, it is difficult to see how she could be blamed for this specific
problem. Whatever her role in the financial problems may have been (and I admit I don't understand
that well), her successors were responsible for what was done subsequently, and if they knew they
might have to close down should have taken steps to protect student records and ensure their future
accessibility.
This was a comment left on that article by someone named Sandy Baird:
Thank you for this reporting. The demise of Burlington College was not caused by Jane Sanders.
The Board of trustees and the then President Jane Sanders bought the property from the Catholic
diocese. President Sanders was an ambitious President and sought to increase the enrollment
by creating substantial, innovative and effective programs, which included the Burlington College/Cuba
Semester abroad and by increasing the profile of the school in the community and state. Jane's
plan always was to create a thriving campus for a growing student body and for a unique college
which had as its mission the "building of sustainable, just, humane and beautiful communities."
However, President Sanders was not to last long at BC and she left for still unknown circumstances
soon after the purchase of the property.
The next Presidents, Cjristine Plunkett, Mike Smith and Carol Moore then sold off large
portions of the property to real estate developers and then, when the ship finally sank under
increasingly hopeless and clueless leadership, all of whom could not increase enrollment or
or raise any funds (in fact we were eventually told that the school had given up fund raising),
Burlington College went into a relentless downward spiral which tragically and painfully closed
its doors in May, 20016.
The school, the property and the beach will now be picked up by the
developer, Eric Farrell and the beach goes to the City. In a final irony, Eric Farrell was
awarded an honorary doctorate degree at the final graduation of the school in May when its founder, Stu Lacase gave the graduation address.
Burlington College was always a fragile concern. Its website notes that in the early days,
it "had no financial backing, paid its bills when they came due, and paid its President when
it could." Jane Sanders's plan to place a big bet on expansion in order to put the school on
a more solid long-term footing was similar to decisions made by other college presidents, and
sometimes those bets simply don't work out.
On the last quote, that's how I read it. Owning real estate on the Lake Champlain waterfront
is not, ipso facto , a crazy thing to do. It sounds like the college just couldn't outrun
trouble. I still don't think it's a good look, though.
It may ultimately have been the straw that broke the camel's back, and it looks terrible that
Jane Sanders was at the helm and instrumental in making the decision, but it also sounds like
it was a bold effort – that the Board of Directors signed off on – to change the school's fortunes,
and one that unfortunately could not overcome years of struggle and financial instability.
The college should have provided the transcripts before it locked the doors, but it looks to
me like they wouldn't have been able to do it even then without the state's financial assistance.
If Jane had only known, she could have gotten the Board to approve a donation to the Clinton
Foundation, right?
Looks terrible? Seriously? I'm sorry, but I can't raise my pulse at all because someone took
a rational chance her successors were unable to carry through successfully.
As for providing the transcripts before locking the doors, that would have been problematic,
as so many places want original transcripts from the institution and won't accept something that
has come through the hands of the student. Those alumni are going to be dogged by that as long
as they need transcripts unless the state or somebody funds permanent access.
Amen, did anyone hear the screaming about this same scenario when small college had Ben Sasse
as President of College? He left, others followed and undid some of his actions and eventually
the small college suffered.
Apparently it is fine for some people to have these behaviors overlooked and not so for others.
I believe there is a word for that – hmmm, I'm sure it will come to me eventually.
"... This needs more play. I am a blue-collar refugee, and most of my circle are same. They all seem to be captive to the messaging of the business press, and Trump, that we have lost some "competition" with China, India, etc. for the manufacturing business. The corporations and their minions in gov. are guilty of the real "un-patriotic" acts. ..."
"... The entire logic of how great globalization is is flawed at its heart. A. We have a much higher standard of living than other countries; so B. Let's "level the playing field" with those other countries. So A + B = a reversion of our country's standard of living to the global mean. ..."
"... Cue globalists who insist the citizens benefit anyway because they get to buy cheap stuff…now that they're unemployed. Oops ..."
"…the administration is absolutely right that America needs tools to counter China's growing
influence in Asia and around the world…"
So US industry with tacit blessing of US industrial policy spends 2 decades transferring our
manufacturing capabilities to a communist state…so…now we need "tools" to cage the dragon we created?
Not saying I would ever vote for Trump but this circular bullshit boggles the mind and sends me
screaming into the night.
This needs more play. I am a blue-collar refugee, and most of my circle are same. They
all seem to be captive to the messaging of the business press, and Trump, that we have lost some
"competition" with China, India, etc. for the manufacturing business. The corporations and their
minions in gov. are guilty of the real "un-patriotic" acts.
I don't know that "communist" really is a qualifier, though. If an ostensibly "commie" country
is "winning" at capitalism, what does that say about capitalism as a belief system? If a person
thinks that a free market sorts all these issues, they would have to be willing to just not buy
the goods produced in the cheap labor/dirty environment country, in order to make "losers" out
of them…how feasible is this?
The entire logic of how great globalization is is flawed at its heart.
A. We have a much higher standard of living than other countries; so
B. Let's "level the playing field" with those other countries.
So A + B = a reversion of our country's standard of living to the global mean.
Quick question: who thinks that is a good idea (pick one):
1. The owners of the means of production since they get to dramatically lower their costs;
or
2. The citizens of the country.
(Cue globalists who insist the citizens benefit anyway because they get to buy cheap stuff…now
that they're unemployed. Oops.)
From the Financial Times article 8/14/16, "during the first decade of this century" Trump worked
with Bayrock. That was a shift away from his Real Estate business, the last? being his Trump Soho
that failed. The point being that he hasn't been active in real estate for nearly a decade and
his 'Trump labeling" may be enhancing his wealth, but it certainly isn't a sign of good business
acumen.
He is relying on people forgetting when he got out of the business that made him wealthy. Relying
on him, IMO is risky business.
We need China more than they need us? Why? For what purpose? We are the customer. They are
a provider of labor. We have unutilized labor here. ???
I really am curious as to why you said that.
"China National Chemical Corp. received approval from U.S. national security officials for
its takeover of Swiss agrochemical and seeds company Syngenta AG, seen as the biggest regulatory
hurdle that the $43 billion acquisition faces.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. has cleared the transaction, the companies
said in a statement Monday. The deal, expected to be completed by the end of the year, is still
subject to antitrust review by regulators worldwide, according to the statement."
I'll say one thing about Farage – I wish our members of congress could give speeches that were
half as entertaining as some of his are. He has some absolute classics on youtube, including the
'who the hell are you?' speech in the European Parliament.
"The People" (as in We The People), standing in line, want Hillary Clinton charged and tried
by a USA Court of Law.
The population, as a whole, is realizing that the Grifters have been lying to us about almost
everything.
It is that moment when it suddenly dawns on a person (they grok) that their wife/husband/boss/friend/mother/father……
is a sociopath . Suddenly ALL the chaos in their lives makes perfect sense. The
light goes on!
Former leader of the UK Independent Party Nigel Farage, credited for Brexit, addressed the
audience at a Trump campaign rally in Jackson, Mississippi on Wednesday night.
"You can beat the pollsters, you can beat the commentators, you can beat Washington," Farage
said to cheers. "If you want change, you better get your walking boots on."
"Anything is possible if enough decent people want to fight the establishment," Farage said.
"... Donald Trump keeps saying, "I think we have a movement here" to his audiences. At the Akron speech, he said "I am fighting for a peaceful regime change in our own country." ..."
"... I suspect that Donald Trump has awoken from The Great Slumber . ( Māyā means illusion, fraud, deception, magic that misleads and creates disorder) ..."
Re, "Donald Trump's road show has detoured this month to states with no political value to
a Republican nominee in a general election."
Donald Trump keeps saying, "I think we have a movement here" to his audiences. At the Akron
speech, he said "I am fighting for a peaceful regime change in our own country."
I suspect that Donald Trump has awoken from The Great Slumber . ( Māyā means illusion, fraud, deception, magic that misleads and creates disorder)
Under neoliberalism like under communism political parties to become far more ideologically uniform
than they used to be. So we have hard neoliberal party and soft neoliberal party and voters are limited
between choosing Pepsi or Cola. And press became just presstitutes for political machine of the parties,
especially during election. Those despicable presstitutes now are afraid to talk about the issue facing
the country and denigrate to discussion personalities exclusively.
"Trump has laid bare journalism's [ pressitutes ]contradictions - reporters' desire to be critical
of politicians without criticizing anything they stand for "
Notable quotes:
"... The dems brand themselves as old time liberal to some constituencies. The repubs brand themselves as conservative to some constituencies. This works for dems and it works for repubs. The straw man arguments fill the boob tube and pass for democracy and self government. ..."
"... But this year, after so many years, standard baloney like "Bush kept us safe" did not placate the repub base, which is in a serious world of hurt (death rates of poorer middle aged white people are going up!). And the dems faced the most ground shaking challenge to the orthodoxy since Gene McCarthy, as millennials working 2 or 3 jobs saw that the "highest standard of living in the world" had the same relation to reality as pancake syrup has to …maple trees. ..."
"... We're at the beginning of the beginning – where the 99% is catching on that the vampire squid's gain is our loss. Its gonna be a bumpy ride… ..."
Hillary Clinton enjoys about a five-point polling lead over Donald Trump. One way to look at
this is that it's a margin, at this stage of a presidential race, that is rarely reversed.
Here's another way. The Democrats had a successful convention, the Republicans didn't. Clinton's
campaign has been smooth; Trump's has careened between disasters. She has reached out to independents
and Republicans; he has insulted the family of a soldier killed in Iraq, along with people with
disabilities, Latinos and women. Clinton has outspent him 3 to 1.
And she's only ahead by five percentage points.
I keep saying the Clinton campaign is like a hot air balloon with a tear in it. They have to keep
frantically pumping more hot air into it, simply to stay aloft.
Trump hasn't spent a dime on TV, either. (I'm sure that he isn't filling up Republican consultants'
rice bowls is one reason they hate him.)
Policy
UPDATE "No Need to Build The Donald's Wall, It's Built" [Tom
Dispatch]. Wait, wait. Obama's policy now is what Trump's would be? And Democrats >and Trump
are frothing and stamping over nothing? Is the problem that the wall's not beautiful? What?
fresno dan
UPDATE "No Need to Build The Donald's Wall, It's Built" [Tom Dispatch]. Wait, wait. Obama's
policy now is what Trump's would be? And Democrats and Trump are frothing and stamping over nothing?
Is the problem that the wall's not beautiful? What?
====================================== The dems brand themselves as old time liberal to some constituencies. The repubs brand themselves
as conservative to some constituencies. This works for dems and it works for repubs. The straw
man arguments fill the boob tube and pass for democracy and self government.
But it makes for a politics that is completely and totally irrelevant to most people. It is
designed not to address issues, and reality is its enemy.
But this year, after so many years, standard baloney like "Bush kept us safe" did not placate
the repub base, which is in a serious world of hurt (death rates of poorer middle aged white people
are going up!). And the dems faced the most ground shaking challenge to the orthodoxy since Gene
McCarthy, as millennials working 2 or 3 jobs saw that the "highest standard of living in the world"
had the same relation to reality as pancake syrup has to …maple trees.
We're at the beginning of the beginning – where the 99% is catching on that the vampire squid's
gain is our loss. Its gonna be a bumpy ride…
"... Hillary made the huge mistake of mixing public and private messages while using her personalized email server – before risking a massive scandal by refusing to make the documents public. ..."
"... Hillary is particularly concerned about intimate emails to longtime aide Huma Abedin – who married U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner in a ceremony that many ridiculed as a political arrangement. ..."
Hillary Clinton isn't just caught in a political scandal over her missing emails from her stint
as secretary of state – she's also terrified of personal revelations about a secret lesbian lifestyle!
Now a world-exclusive investigation by The National ENQUIRER reveals that some of the presidential
candidate's famously "deleted" emails are packed full of lesbian references and her lovers' names.
"I don't think she's so concerned about emails referring to her as secretly gay," said a Clinton
insider. "That's been out for years – her real fear is that the names of some of her lovers would
be made public!"
The ENQUIRER learned the list of Hillary's lesbian lovers includes a beauty in her early 30s who
has often traveled with Hillary; a popular TV and movie star; the daughter of a top government official;
and a stunning model who got a career boost after allegedly sleeping with Hillary. Hillary made
the huge mistake of mixing public and private messages while using her personalized email server
– before risking a massive scandal by refusing to make the documents public.
"That's clearly why she went to the extraordinary step of deleting everything," the high-ranking
source told The ENQUIRER .
Hillary is particularly concerned about intimate emails to longtime aide Huma Abedin – who
married U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner in a ceremony that many ridiculed as a political arrangement.
"... That said, what I believe is needed in the USA is a doubling down on Corporate Boards of Directors and CEOs to create a crisis, an American intervention, if you will, that demands companies bring back the idea that Profits alone are not all that matters. Serving the Nation you are born in, raised in, educated in, and then making a profitable income from certainly needs to be focused in on. ..."
"... An additional factor in the financial woes of the falling middle class is the changing demographics here in the US - the growing numbers of single mothers, who are far more likely to struggle financially than a two income household. I make no judgment regarding how people form their family units, but life is especially hard for single mothers. ..."
"... Its even more difficult for journalists in Guardian. They have to destroy chances of only candidate addressing inequality and climate change (Bernie), completely surrender their integrity to corporations, lament over those issues post factum, and yet be paid miserably only in hundreds of thousands for such colossal betrayal of humanity. Its worth at billions to actively participate in destroying future of your kids. Or is it? ..."
"... We need a new Federal Minimum Wage, and the wealthiest need to start paying up. Trump claims that business in the US pay the highest tax rate. That's just not true. I'm not talking about putting the burden on small business, but the multi-nationals and Wall Street. ..."
"... And we can blame Billary and Hussein for it. Their "free-trade" decisions, along with their shameful endorsement of open-borders, have lowered wages for everyone, except for financiers. Interestingly, it was those who've suffered the brunt of the elites' decisions who voted for Britain to leave the EU. Ironically, those who professed to stand for the middle and lower classes, revealed their hypocrisy when they joined the Mandarins in opposing for Britain to leave the totalitarian EU. ..."
"... Like the Trojans fearing present-giving presents, so should the working man loath the elites who promised to have their best interests at heart. That is the same promise communism gave the workers, only to turn on and enslave them. Today the workers don't stand a chance: the Marxists and bankers are on the same side sneering at the working classes who are demeaned as being racist, jingoistic xenophobes. ..."
"... An article in Forbes that explains why Obamacare is a scam. ObamaCare Enriches Only The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders ..."
"... I agree with you that he never did. Obama is a corporatist and globalist. If you think Obamacare is bad wait until his trade deals are past. He sold Americans out for the profits of multinational corporations. Hillary will continue his work. I understand the true meaning of his words now. ..."
"... The US middle class has been disintegrating for decades as inequity grows ..."
"... Clinton is in hiding. I can't find her in the Guardian today. She is a habitual liar and the whole world has all the evidence it needs. All of her promises are bullshit. Bernie has been right the whole time and he is smart not to endorse. Bernie has always known what she is and Bernie's supporters have no reason to support her. ..."
"... It means she is corrupt, dishonest, and unqualified to be anything but an inmate. ..."
"... the middle class has been decimated.. This financial category is only about 35% of was it was in the early 70's.. additionally the definition of middle class has changed drastically as well.. believe it or not your middle class if your earn more than 50k a year!.. this is part of the reason we are as a nation borrowing a trillion dollars a year.. when will the silenced majority wake up and start voting and stop spending on products that are vastly over priced. ..."
"... My kid had a persistent tummy ache. Doc said intestinal blockage; take him to the ER immediately. Seven hours and one inconclusive CAT scan later, he's home again with symptoms unchanged. Two days later the pain went away. Cost: $12,000 with about $10,000 covered by union health insurance. So that's at least $2,000 out of pocket to me for seven hours in hospital, zero diagnosis and zero relief from symptoms. Medicine as a criminal enterprise? So what? Who's gonna stop it? The press? The law? ..."
"... I sympathize. I also agree with you. The US medical system is criminal. It is cruel, discriminatory, ruthless, often ineffective, and often incompetent. The only reason the administrators ("health" maintenance corporations) aren't in jail is because they use some of their obscene profits to buy Congress -- which passes laws like Obama's ACA or Bush's big Pharma swindle. I have no idea what to do about it though -- maybe if everyone refused to pay their premiums and medical bills, the money managers would notice. A sort of strike. ..."
"... SIngle-payer is the answer. Of course, the insurance companies and big pharma use scare tactics to stop that from happening. They talk about government waste, completely ignoring their own waste. They ignore the billions of dollars that they skim off of the top each year before applying any money for actual medical care. Wake up, people. Medical care should be run by the government or non-profit organizations, not by for-profit corporations. ..."
"... Despite the financial situation in middle-and lower income families that has been steadily declining under the past 8 years of the Obama administration, most in that group will support Hillary and propagate the Same problems for 4 more years. They stand no hope unless they break from the knee-jerk support of the "Democratic" Party. ..."
"... So they should support Donald Trump and the conservative party? Last time I checked raising taxes on the middle class while lowering taxes on the rich didn't really help anyone but the rich. The Republican party never gave two shits about middle and lower class, and there's no point believing they will start now. ..."
"... Isn't choosing to have three children very selfish if you cannot support them financially. People always find someone else to blame. ..."
"... "Race" card!!?? Where the hell did I mention anything about race or are you really as dumb as your reply suggests. Plus, you don't require a test to decide if you can afford children or not. It basic family planning. It's people like you in society that has the place in a mess with your "blame anyone but meself attitude" If I'm considered horrible, at least I'm not totally dumb and irrisponsible like you. ..."
"... Bill Maher recently (July 1, 2016; Overtime) editorialized about the state "laboratories" where new ideas are tested and evaluated. Maher compared the divergent fates of California and Kansas plus Louisiana. ..."
"... It's interesting. According to my household income I'm in the "upper" tier for the DC-metro region. But it really doesn't feel that way. Even those of us who make a good income are more and more stretched. In comparison to most of the country, I am well off. I own a car, just bought a house, I can afford to go out to eat a couple times a week. But, I even get to the end of the month with only $100 in the bank. That's because other downward pressures on pay aren't taken into account, such as student debt. My expensive undergraduate and graduate education didn't come cheap, and while that education affords people higher pay, if you end up taking less of it home. It kinda equals out. ..."
"... Sometimes my husband and I think about having kids, and then we realise that even with our good paying jobs, we can't afford day care in our area. I get paid the most, so I can't quit my job but if my husband quit to care for a child, we would really be strapped. Can I really be considered an upper tier household if I can't afford to have kids? If I can't afford to go on vacation once a year? If I haven't bought new clothes in two years? If I have no savings and a freak medical bill might just tip me over the edge? ..."
"... Suggest you give Andrew Tobias' book a read to think outside the box a good education often constructs for us: https://www.amazon.com/Only-Investment-Guide-Youll-Ever/dp/0544781937?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc ..."
"... You can cut student debt in the U.S. by attending a good community college for two years and then transferring to a state university. Most kids are unwilling to do this--no frats or prestige in community colleges! ..."
"... Beginning in the 1970s, a majority of the middle class began to resent the taxation needed to continue support for these liberal policies, and they began to vote for conservative politicians who promised to remove them as they "only helped the undeserving poor." White racism played a role in this as the lower class was invariably portrayed in political speeches and advertising as group of lazy black people. ..."
"... No, it was created in response to the Bolshevik revolution, in particular, to that genius who said "Let's just shoot the royal family and be done with this." ..."
"... All of these things have come under attack since the USSR fell apart, probably on that exact day. And who overthrew the USSR? Overeducated middle class, not the poor or the rich. Who was Occupy Wall Street, Arab Spring... the recent protests against the French labor law tightenings, ALL the middle class. ..."
"... The greatest threat to governments has, and always will be, from within. And this threat is from the middle class, almost exclusively. Therefore, we are to be crushed and controlled tightly ..."
"... funny how this media outlet didn't publish these types of reports while the primary was hot. It was all "Hilary is inevitable and supporting Bernie is supporting Trump" type garbage. ..."
"... Probably he means to say Americans habitually ask new acquaintances, "What do you do for a living?" That's absolutely a query about income and personal worth, though slightly disguised, and it's a question I have never widely encountered anywhere else in the world, nor while living overseas the last ten years. ..."
"... This article is extremely dishonest. First, it claims that she has 'three other jobs'. Second, she has children, for whom she presumably gets child support. So what's her *real* income? ..."
"... When those in poverty or on the verge of it are single mothers, you tend to wonder if there are some other issues as well. I don't recall a time in American history where a single mother of several children could take care of herself when completely on her own. ..."
"... I teach in inner city schools. There are so many problems, money is one of them but all the money won't solve the problem of poor learning attitudes, disaffection, poor discipline and nonexistent work ethic . ..."
"... A lot of the students get no discipline at home and their parents don't expect them to learn anything. They are resistant to the whole process of focus on new knowledge , absorb, drill, recall , deploy newly learned thing. ..."
"... I don't know what solution there is to this. My nieces and nephews did well in school, studied hard, and went on to university. They didn't do drugs, rape or be raped, and stayed away from unsavory kids. BUT--they went home to two parents every night, a father and mother, which I think would have made them successful at school no matter what their income. ..."
"... The US economy isn't competitive anymore. It started with the labor cost being too high, so factories moved out. Then the entire supply chain moved out. Now the main consumer market is also moving out. Once that is gone, we will have no more leverage. ..."
"... The US education is good, but students are lazy, undisciplined, and incurious. In silicon valley, more than 75% of highly paid technical personnel are foreign born. Corporations making money with foreign workers here and abroad, on foreign markets. Taking these away and you will see the economy crash. ..."
"... Labor costs were too high. Have some more kool-aid. The elite didn't want labor to have any bargaining power whatsoever . They wanted to dictate the terms to labor believing that they were the only ones who should have any say in matters. The elite wanted to maximize their profits at the expense of their own citizens. They wanted slave labor . They wanted powerless people to dance to their tune. How could an advanced nation's labor possibly compete with slave labor . ..."
"... Sadly ..... thee isn't any hope for these people in the foreseeable future . Their economic decline has been happening for quite some time now and shows no sign of abating whatsoever . The economic foundations of their lives have been steadily pulled out from under them by the financial elite and their subservient political cultures , the Republican and Democratic Parties . The Republicans have never really given a damn about them and the Democrats have long abandoned them . These poor people of North Carolina are adrift on a sinking raft on easy ocean of indifference by the political cultures of America . To those in power , they don't exist . They don't count . They don't matter . ..."
"... The trend in the U.S, along with almost every other major nation in the world over the past 35 years has been to exclusively serve the interests of the financial elite and only their needs . All sense of fairness , justice and decency have been totally discarded . ..."
"... Tax breaks after tax breaks , tax shelters , free movement of capital , etc., etc. would sum up the experience of the financial elite over the past 35 years . They have become incredibly wealthy now and are still not satisfied . They want more . They want it all . They want what little you have and their political servants which help them get . ..."
"... Political discourse pertaining to the plight of those like these folks in North Carolina is all window dressing . In the end , you can be certain that it will amount to nothing . Just like it has for decades now . The financial elite are in control and they are not going to give any of that control up . As a matter of fact , they are going to tighten their grip . They will invent crisis to have their agendas imposed upon an increasingly powerless and bewildered public . They will take advantage of every naturally occurring crisis to advance their agenda . ..."
"... The problem is the job exporting American elite class. NAFTA was an economics, political, and social experiment with all the downside on the former, mostly lower middle class. Non-aligned examination of the available data shows how disastrous NAFTA has been to America's bubbas. Thanks to Bush 41 and Bill Clinton. WTO was all Bill. Of the mistakes Obama has made TPP would be the worst. The question is, really, do we favor global fairness (an even playing field for all earth's peoples) and a climate-killing consumerist world, or our own disadvantaged (courtesy of our financial and political elite) citizens. Not an easy choice. Death by poison or hanging. No treaty can benegotiated fairly in secret. ..."
"... The tragic irony is that the anger against rule by the 1% manifests in things like support for Trump, a typical example of the greed and excess of the 1%. Americans need to question outside their desperately constrained paradigms more. It will help focus their anger more strategically, and possibly lead to solutions. Don't hold your breath, the inequality gap is accelerating the wrong way. ..."
"... I think the US is heDing for trouble. It is the middle class that maintains civil society and gives a sense of hope. This is an interesting open letter by a zillionaire to his peers warning them what happens without a string middle class. A thought provoking read. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014 ..."
"... The elite of the USA have done exactly what the Romans did and what the Pre-Revolutionary French did.... drain the lower classes while enriching themselves. "Taxes are for little people" is not just a pithy quote, it has become the reality as the elite rig the system so they benefit and the lower classes pay. They need to wake up or they will get exactly what the Romans Got (collapsed empire) or the French got (Violent Revolution). Wake up America! It is time to choose your side in the class war the elite continue to execute while telling us there is no "Class War" - you can't pull yourself up by your boot straps while they are pulling the rug out from under you! ..."
"... My wife used to employ recent graduates from Georgetown University with poli. sci., psychology, sociology degrees, to stack books for $10/hr. It took them on average 2-3 years, before finding work in their field. ..."
"... Education is NOT about finding a job! It's about learning ways to seek wisdom and rationality, and to assimilate (not deny) new knowledge throughout your life--and that's exactly what's lacking in the US! Our schools are factories to turn out standard robots to be used by the owners of this country, whether they practice law or flip burgers. ..."
I was stumped by the very idea that someone has the $money, the time, the energy to
go out and study for 3 bachelor degrees. This woman doesn't look old enough to have had time to get
3 degrees.
That said, what I believe is needed in the USA is a doubling down on Corporate Boards
of Directors and CEOs to create a crisis, an American intervention, if you will, that demands companies
bring back the idea that Profits alone are not all that matters. Serving the Nation you are born
in, raised in, educated in, and then making a profitable income from certainly needs to be focused
in on.
Why on earth isn't Main Stream Media doing this, along with all of CONGRESS and the President?
What is their excuse? Even if you brought back all the robotic jobs to US soil, you would also end
up bringing a large number of administrative jobs back here, too, just to keep up with the business
at hand. It is critical that we rebuild our infrastructure, yet we see NO immediate or Long-term
plans to do so. How can we, without the support of the Business Class to support the whole nation
through Paying their Taxes to the US Tax System? There is no excuse that will do, in my book. Profits
to the top tier need to be STOPPED so long as businesses are going outside of the United States Borders.
Period.
Typical of what's happening around the world. The trillions of dollars lurking in tax havens is
the reason why economies are stagnating. Money makes the world go round, however detouring to
the Cayman Islands, the flow stops and the poverty begins. Spend locally and reject multi national
corporations. Give your local communities a chance to prosper,
An additional factor in the financial woes of the falling middle class is the changing demographics
here in the US - the growing numbers of single mothers, who are far more likely to struggle financially
than a two income household. I make no judgment regarding how people form their family units,
but life is especially hard for single mothers.
"The 2016 presidential race has superficially been dominated by talk of this declining middle.
First from Bernie Sanders, then Hillary Clinton and even Donald Trump's promise to Make America
Great Again"
"And even"??? What a laugh. Even if you hate Trump its clear The Guardian has written every
article possible to prevent his rise and they have failed miserably. Hillary amd Sanders are dominating
conversatiin. Trump is by far.
One thing us for sure. 15 million illegals and thousands more every month is not making the
middle class more secure.
They are shrinking, and you expect them to tolerate "Make America Mexico Again"? In these times?
Donor money is ruining the country. They hate Trump because he doesnt need these arrogant donors
who have never heard "no" their whole lives.
Its even more difficult for journalists in Guardian. They have to destroy chances of only candidate
addressing inequality and climate change (Bernie), completely surrender their integrity to corporations,
lament over those issues post factum, and yet be paid miserably only in hundreds of thousands
for such colossal betrayal of humanity. Its worth at billions to actively participate in destroying
future of your kids. Or is it?
It isn't immigration that costing jobs - it's employers who know they can pay these people
less for their work. We need a new Federal Minimum Wage, and the wealthiest need to start
paying up. Trump claims that business in the US pay the highest tax rate. That's just not
true. I'm not talking about putting the burden on small business, but the multi-nationals and
Wall Street.
You can see in western Europe at the moment that a minimum wage desn't work without a whole host
of other protective legislation. A minimum wage doesn't reach to the self employed, and it doesn't
prevent the use of flexible or non-guaranteed hours contracts making use of a larger than is required
labour pool. Not to mention the black market / cash in hand trade.
And we can blame Billary and Hussein for it.
Their "free-trade" decisions, along with their shameful endorsement of open-borders, have lowered
wages for everyone, except for financiers.
Interestingly, it was those who've suffered the brunt of the elites' decisions who voted for Britain
to leave the EU.
Ironically, those who professed to stand for the middle and lower classes, revealed their hypocrisy
when they joined the Mandarins in opposing for Britain to leave the totalitarian EU.
Like the Trojans fearing present-giving presents, so should the working man loath the elites
who promised to have their best interests at heart.
That is the same promise communism gave the workers, only to turn on and enslave them.
Today the workers don't stand a chance: the Marxists and bankers are on the same side sneering
at the working classes who are demeaned as being racist, jingoistic xenophobes.
You realize most of the votes in favor of NAFTA were Republican and most against were Democratic,
right? You know that "free trade" has been an item in the Republican platform (and increasingly
the Democratic one) for years before Clinton and Obama were ever in office, right? Know some elementary
facts about U.S, politics before posting nonsense.
Ed Thurmann: it's not teacher-bashing, it's just the old recycled "black family values" spiel
that was introduced into the poverty debate in the '60s by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Moynihan,
not so BTW, is Hillary Clinton's intellectual hero. So you can expect a hell of a lot more of
these cliches after January of next year.
An article in Forbes that explains why Obamacare is a scam. ObamaCare Enriches Only The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders
Robert Lenzner , CONTRIBUTOR
I'm trying to wise up 300 million people about money & finance
So far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. Thats more than
double the gains made in the broad stock market index, the S & P 500. The shares of CIGNA are
up 63%, Wellpoint 47% and United Healthcare 28%. And if you go back to the early 2010 passage
of ObamaCare, you will find that Obama's sellout of the public interest has allowed the public
companies the ability to raise their premiums, especially on small business, dramatically multiply
their profits and send the value of their common stocks up by 200%-300%. This is bloody scandalous
and should be a cause for concern even as the Republican opponents of the bill threaten the close-down
of the government.
We warned you back on December4, 2009 in my blog " The Horrendous Truth About Health Care Reform"
that the Obama White House was handing a " free ride for the health insurance industry" that would
allow premium hikes of 8%-10% a year by CIGNA, Humana HUM +1.56%, Aetna AET +0.45%, UnitedHealth
Group UNH +0.58% and Wellpoint, and as well a $500 billion taxpayer subsidy, a half trillion dollars
without any requirement that the health insurers had to spend the subsidy on medical care. Several
US Senators including Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia spoke to me openly of the outrageous sellout
being foisted on the nation's uninsured citizens.
At the time I wrote, Goldman Sachs research operation estimated that the 5 giants would increase
profits by 10% a year from 2010 to 2019, sending their shares up an average of 59%. In truth,
the shares of CIGNA and some others are up a multiple of several times since the contest was resolved
by a very tight vote in early 2010. One startling reason for this amazing performance was that
Obama took off the table "proposals to significantly reduce health care costs" as the giveaway
in getting the bill through, according to Ron Susskind's best-selling book ,"Confidence Men,"
which I wrote about in a blog on September 24, 2011. ( "Obama's Incoherent Policy-Making") Some
3 years later, UnitedHealthCare Group(UNH) was rewarded by being added to the elite list of the
Dow 30 industrials.
I understood belatedly that there would have been no Affordable Care Act of 2010 if the White
House had not given into demands from the giant profit-making health insurance companies. Had
he not done so, I am being assured that there would have been no bill passed, a priority goal
that Obama promised in his 2008 Presidential campaign. How the profits have risen so impressively
requires further investigation as the bill is meant to limit the profits earned to 20% of the
revenues.
One of the other downsides to the supposed reform bill was the surprisingly unfair treatment
of small business owners who faced even larger potential premiums for their employees. It has
been the fear of these higher health costs that has resulted in the overwhelming trend toward
hiring part-time employees whom the employers need not offer healthcare insurance.
So much for the reforms embedded in the mis-labeled Affordable Care Act of 2010. It may not
die a bloody demise this month, but it is certain to be reformed itself, let's hope for the benefit
of the 300 million, not just the millions of lucky shareholders who may have understood the ramification
of ObamaCare, which was to multiply the profits of five giant insurance companies, just as the
major bank oligopoly was rewarded by the federal bailouts and Fed monetary policy.
I agree with you that he never did. Obama is a corporatist and globalist. If you think Obamacare
is bad wait until his trade deals are past. He sold Americans out for the profits of multinational
corporations. Hillary will continue his work. I understand the true meaning of his words now.
"We are a nation of immigrants" meaning he prefers cheap illegal labor when 46 million Americans
live in poverty. Soon cheap foriegn will be unlimited and legal in the US with worker mobility.
Even for professional jobs. Can you imagine competing with foreigners in the US who make 30 cents
an hour? It's depressing really. Here are some of the highlights of the TPP that will throw Americans
further into poverty.
My heart goes out to these beleaguered families. In the late 1970s/80s I held down a full-time
job in DC and freelanced feverishly to make ends meet. I lived below the official poverty line
in an expensive, yet thoroughly crappy, flat. That recession-riddled era of energy chaos, leading
into Reagan's 'voodoo' economics regime (the risible idea of 'trickle-down', the US becoming the
world's largest debtor), was another hot mess.
The US middle class has been disintegrating for
decades as inequity grows, thanks in large part to the poor governance of Republican presidents
(Nixon's stagflation, the disastrous shifts under GW Bush).
Clinton is in hiding.
I can't find her in the Guardian today.
She is a habitual liar and the whole world has all the evidence it needs.
All of her promises are bullshit.
Bernie has been right the whole time and he is smart not to endorse.
Bernie has always known what she is and Bernie's supporters have no reason to support her.
Her disapproval ratings will top Trump now.
The voters are now going to show her what the meaning of is, really is.
It means she is corrupt, dishonest, and unqualified to be anything but an inmate.
Her disapproval ratings are high, but not up with Trump's and they never will be. You can vote
for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, in November. Or Gary Johnson, the Libertarian. But
Bernie will not be a candidate, and he will eventually endorse Clinton -- after he is sure he's
won certain concessions in the Democratic platform. That's your reality in July 2016, not in February.
the middle class has been decimated.. This financial category is only about 35% of was it was
in the early 70's.. additionally the definition of middle class has changed drastically as well..
believe it or not your middle class if your earn more than 50k a year!.. this is part of the reason
we are as a nation borrowing a trillion dollars a year.. when will the silenced majority wake
up and start voting and stop spending on products that are vastly over priced..Turn off your phone,
stop buying all but essentials.. we need to force prices down until we complain and start voting
with our dollars little will change
What about the millions of married couples with kids..when the parents lose their jobs? That happens
very frequently. Should we take the kids away? Are you suggesting that poor people not be allowed to have children?
Then we have the religious nutcases that are against contraception and abortion, yet demonize
poor women for having children.
My kid had a persistent tummy ache. Doc said intestinal blockage; take him to the ER immediately.
Seven hours and one inconclusive CAT scan later, he's home again with symptoms unchanged. Two
days later the pain went away. Cost: $12,000 with about $10,000 covered by union health insurance. So that's at least $2,000 out of pocket to me for seven hours in hospital, zero diagnosis and
zero relief from symptoms. Medicine as a criminal enterprise? So what?
Who's gonna stop it? The press? The law?
Medicine as a criminal enterprise? So what?
Who's gonna stop it? The press? The law?
I sympathize. I also agree with you. The US medical system is criminal. It is cruel, discriminatory, ruthless, often ineffective, and often incompetent. The only reason the administrators ("health" maintenance corporations) aren't in jail is because
they use some of their obscene profits to buy Congress -- which passes laws like Obama's ACA or
Bush's big Pharma swindle. I have no idea what to do about it though -- maybe if everyone refused to pay their premiums
and medical bills, the money managers would notice. A sort of strike.
SIngle-payer is the answer. Of course, the insurance companies and big pharma use scare tactics to stop that from happening.
They talk about government waste, completely ignoring their own waste. They ignore the billions
of dollars that they skim off of the top each year before applying any money for actual medical
care. Wake up, people. Medical care should be run by the government or non-profit organizations,
not by for-profit corporations.
Corporations have only one goal...to make as much money as possible for themselves. Health
care is just a necessary nuisance.
Despite the financial situation in middle-and lower income families that has been steadily declining
under the past 8 years of the Obama administration, most in that group will support Hillary and
propagate the Same problems for 4 more years. They stand no hope unless they break from the knee-jerk
support of the "Democratic" Party.
So they should support Donald Trump and the conservative party? Last time I checked raising taxes
on the middle class while lowering taxes on the rich didn't really help anyone but the rich. The
Republican party never gave two shits about middle and lower class, and there's no point believing
they will start now.
This article mentions Latonia Best and her three children.
Is there a Mr Best around? It has always been tough to raise a family on the salary of a single parent.
The breakdown of the American family is a probably the biggest reason for the supposed struggles
of the middle class. People have to take responsibility for their lives.
traditionally, the middle class had the guy going out to work, and his wife staying at home to
look after the kids. Once children are in school and childcare is reduced, I don't see how a
woman working and raising her kids alone, is any more expensive than a man supporting himself,
his wife and their kids.
It used to be possible. It used to be doable. wealth disparity ind income inequality mean that
is no longer the case, at least certainly not for the average middle class. In the UK anyway,
it's now a sign of wealth. This has nothing top do with the family and everything to do with income
disparity.
Ah. I was waiting for some "bubba" to pull the race card. Congratulations.
Maybe we should make everyone take a test to prove that they can afford children. No children for poor people. Nice.
"Race" card!!?? Where the hell did I mention anything about race or are you really as dumb as
your reply suggests.
Plus, you don't require a test to decide if you can afford children or not. It basic family planning.
It's people like you in society that has the place in a mess with your "blame anyone but meself
attitude" If I'm considered horrible, at least I'm not totally dumb and irrisponsible like you.
$3,333.33 is actually not a lot of money to raise a family of four on. Let's do some math, shall
we?!
Taxes: $800 (rough estimate)
Health Insurance: I'm going to estimate $300 because she probably has dependents on her coverage
and that's what I paid one dependent a while back.
Car: I'm going to estimate $150. My car payment is $300, but let's say she got a cheaper, used
car.
Rent: Let's say $1,000/month (I did a quick search and found that this seemed like a good price
for a two bedroom)
Bills: Let's round up to $150/month for gas, electricity, water, sewage
Food: Let's say she spends $80/week, so roughly $320 a month (you know, she's a thrifty shopper)
All of that leaves about $313 left for gas, phone, college tuition, maybe internet and cable
at home. I don't know how she does it.
Worst of all was the town of Goldsboro – one of three metropolitan areas in North Carolina
at the bottom of the national league table.
North Carolina, Michigan, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma ... more ...
Sad stories in states run by Republicans. Toxic rivers, shootings, poisoned tap water, bankruptcy,
daily earthquakes ...
Bill Maher recently (July 1, 2016; Overtime) editorialized about the state "laboratories"
where new ideas are tested and evaluated. Maher compared the divergent fates of California and
Kansas plus Louisiana.
Only five countries produced more last year than California: the U.S., China, Japan, Germany
and the United Kingdom.
So -- North Carolina with fouled rivers, a collapsing middle class, discriminatory laws --
or a thriving California?
Goldsboro remains far from the sort of economic catastrophe seen in parts of the rust belt,
but these are signs of financial stress that are hard to ignore. The strain on the middle class
across much of the country may not have gone unnoticed by politicians, but locals here fear
there is little talk of the investment in skills, high-paying jobs and civic infrastructure
needed to arrest the slide.
Republican shills will have to admit -- finally that Republican policies ruin lives, ruin the
economy and ruin the environment. Truth appears more powerful than slogans and slanders. Who knows?
They might even acknowledge climate change.
I believe it is the wars and needs of the military-industrial-banking complex that sap far too
much from the economy. Both parties are guilty of supporting them.
North Carolina with fouled rivers, a collapsing middle class, discriminatory laws -- or a thriving
California?
Since 2013, North Carolina has the fastest GDP growth of any state. The NC economy is not in bad
shape. This lady lives in one of the poorest areas in the state, she should move 45 minutes north
to thriving Raleigh or Durham - the population in that area is booming, they need teachers.
The dumping of coal ash into the Dan river was a corporate crime, not a policy decision. Neither
party is responsible for criminal actions by individuals or corporations, that's just silly. (The
republicans have been too lax in holding Duke Energy to account but the damage done is not a political
issue)
HB2 is a disgrace but the legislature is in the process of correcting it and the Governor is likely
to lose the election in the fall which bodes well for anti-HB2 people. Don't forget that California
voters voted to ban gay marriage not even 10 years ago. It's not a paradise of wealth and enlightenment,
no place is.
Why should we feel sorry for the American middle class they have elected for all the misery that
has befallen them!
If America was a fascist state I could sympathise but it's not. Americans have let their social
rights being eroded by a mendacious and cunning establishment.
One good example of how Americans don't give a shit is the very expensive wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan which have cost gazillions to the US taxpayer and not a whimper from the US population.
If one can compare that to the Vietnam war which created its own critical cinema genre, protest
songs, large demonstrations etc...you know that todays average Americans responsibility for the
mess they find themselves in is non existent. They just bend over and take it and have little
whine about it from time to time.
What about the people that didn't vote for the "misery" as you call it?
What about the fact that whichever way you vote in the US you're screwed?
And I don't know about you, but you must not know many Americans. The number of my friends
who have been tear gassed during marches against the Iraq war flies in the face of your argument.
Have you, yourself, even uttered a whimper against it?
I will support proper child-support and healthcare and everything that can be done to make this
woman's life easier and secure her kids' futures BUT
Three kids is a LOT for two people to handle, let alone one.
To paraphrase Lady Bracknell, to raise one child alone may be regarded as a misfortune; to
attempt to raise three looks like carelessness. To try to raise three alone in the United States
is MADNESS.
I live in the USA. I'm in a stable long-term relationship. I don't make much money. I can't
afford kids.
2 + 2 = 4
Poor me. I don't say I have a right to kids because I need them or I have so much love to give
or blah, blah, blah. I just can't. Not here. This is a cruelly individualistic country. It is
built to serve those who serve themselves. Namely, the young, healthy, smart, motivated and single.
There is no political foundation or tradition of altruism here. Maybe back in Ireland where there's
a system to support me and some healthcare and family. Not here. Madness.
But she's got the kids now. What is she supposed to do? Hand them back to someone? If she and
the childrens' father had them when life was looking more stable and she didn't have to work 4
jobs to make ends meet, she can hardly be blamed now for their existence.
You are living in the now and choose not to have children because you feel you can't afford
them. However, in the future, you may find that you can afford them, and therefore choose to conceive.
If your circumstances change after that and you are no longer able to afford to care for them
without working excessive hours and living in poverty, there's not a lot you can do other than
get on with it. No point blaming her for something that is irreversible.
It's interesting. According to my household income I'm in the "upper" tier for the DC-metro region.
But it really doesn't feel that way. Even those of us who make a good income are more and more
stretched. In comparison to most of the country, I am well off. I own a car, just bought a house,
I can afford to go out to eat a couple times a week. But, I even get to the end of the month with
only $100 in the bank. That's because other downward pressures on pay aren't taken into account,
such as student debt. My expensive undergraduate and graduate education didn't come cheap, and
while that education affords people higher pay, if you end up taking less of it home. It kinda
equals out.
Sometimes my husband and I think about having kids, and then we realise that even with our
good paying jobs, we can't afford day care in our area. I get paid the most, so I can't quit my
job but if my husband quit to care for a child, we would really be strapped. Can I really be considered
an upper tier household if I can't afford to have kids? If I can't afford to go on vacation once
a year? If I haven't bought new clothes in two years? If I have no savings and a freak medical
bill might just tip me over the edge?
There's something very, very wrong. How rich do you need to be before you don't feel like you're
struggling?
You can cut student debt in the U.S. by attending a good community college for two years and then
transferring to a state university. Most kids are unwilling to do this--no frats or prestige in
community colleges!
The huge middle class in the USA was created by the liberal economic polices of the 1930s, which
were designed to help the lower class.
Beginning in the 1970s, a majority of the middle class began to resent the taxation needed
to continue support for these liberal policies, and they began to vote for conservative politicians
who promised to remove them as they "only helped the undeserving poor." White racism played a
role in this as the lower class was invariably portrayed in political speeches and advertising
as group of lazy black people.
What the middle class did not understand was that their continued existence depended on these
liberal programs, as most of the benefits went to the middle class, not the lower class as they
assumed. As the liberal programs began to disappear, so did the economic security of the middle
class.
One would think they would have figured all of this out by now, but they have not, and they
continue to vote for conservatives.
No, it was created in response to the Bolshevik revolution, in particular, to that genius who
said "Let's just shoot the royal family and be done with this."
When that happened, the ruling class got scared, and said "OK, minimum wage, vacation, sick
pay, 40 hr work week, no child labor, great schooling, etc"
All of these things have come under attack since the USSR fell apart, probably on that exact
day. And who overthrew the USSR? Overeducated middle class, not the poor or the rich. Who was
Occupy Wall Street, Arab Spring... the recent protests against the French labor law tightenings,
ALL the middle class.
The greatest threat to governments has, and always will be, from within. And this threat is
from the middle class, almost exclusively. Therefore, we are to be crushed and controlled tightly.
" squeezed middle class tell tales of struggle " Too bad they voted for the big squeeze herself -- Bernie
could have set them free from the path of exploitation she has planned for them immediately after
her election by imposing the TPP upon the very fools who will elect her. Stop watching
the Kartrashians and read about actual policy implications for your family and especially your
children, if you had, none of you would have supported Clinton.
funny how this media outlet didn't publish these types of reports while the primary was hot. It
was all "Hilary is inevitable and supporting Bernie is supporting Trump" type garbage.
I lived in Pittsburgh for 8 years, being European I sent them to public school...well, after a
year in which my six years old son was suspended twice for running around at lunchtime when he
shouldn't (six years old tend to do that), numerous recesses where they were put in front of a
TV (we cannot send them outside, insurance doesn't cover if they get hurt and we got sued before),
and notes from teachers full of spelling mistakes......I had to send them to private school perpetuating
a cycle of poor people in public system and rich people (or middle class as i was at the time)
to private schools....
i don't know what needs to be done to fix the issue but it's the whole society that is really
divided along money lines and race lines and inequality is getting worse. But money trumps everything,
the US is the only place int he world where it's not considered unpolite to ask people :"what's
your worth?" meaning how much you make, what are your assets, etc.....instilling in people a mentality
of self worth based on money and consequentially a cutthroat environment where the more you have
the more you are worth, so at the top they squeeze the lower end, to make more money but also
because they think they are really not that worthy....its a perverse cycle that history taught
us doesn't bring any good because at a certain point the poor reach a critical mass that will
just revolt......I'm waiting for that, good luck...
I'm afraid my friend we disagree on that, excellent public schools are exceptions, there are some
but they are a minority (International statistics on education quality validate that), I don't
live in the US anymore but travel a lot there for business (at least 20 times a year). As for
the worth question I had it asked to me quite a few times and kind of everywhere, maybe it's unpolite,
I believe it's unpolite, but it happens regularly and only in the US (let me rephrase, in the
rest of the world it wouldn't be considered unpolite, that's too mild of a term, it would be considered
inconceivable). Said that I hope the US makes it and the "American Values" that you talk about
prevail, but i am afraid those values have changed and being substituted by less noble ones...
Probably he means to say Americans habitually ask new acquaintances, "What do you do for a living?"
That's absolutely a query about income and personal worth, though slightly disguised, and it's
a question I have never widely encountered anywhere else in the world, nor while living overseas
the last ten years. The question is so ingrained, though, that Americans who ask it don't think
of it as a query about net worth. They do, however, react with overflowing respect toward those
who answer in certain ways, and something akin to sympathy to those who answer in other ways.
All my foreign friends have noticed it, and all think it's weird.
This article is extremely dishonest. First, it claims that she has 'three other jobs'. Second,
she has children, for whom she presumably gets child support. So what's her *real* income?
Agree, I did my last year of high school in the US, in North Carolina of all places, in a top
private school, i was a middling student in Europe with flashes of brilliance in some subjects
but definitely far from the top of the class. When I arrived (it was in the 80s) I didn't speak
English. Well, I graduated with high honors int he top 5% and got my high school diploma, honestly
without having to study that much, school was not totally comparable but definitely way less challenging.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, a lot of private schools in the United States are severely lacking
in the rigor department. This is even true for many--not all--private schools that cater to well-to-do
families.
When those in poverty or on the verge of it are single mothers, you tend to wonder if there are
some other issues as well. I don't recall a time in American history where a single mother of
several children could take care of herself when completely on her own.
I know of single mothers
who are doing fine, but they employed and are also being helped by siblings and parents who already
have some wealth and free time to take care of the child. Maybe the issue is the fact that these
people are having kids at the wrong time or without enough thought. Divorce rates are incredibly
high in the US, and the percentage of children who have non-birth parents is very high as well.
What this all means is that the USA isn't teaching its citizens about having kids and the responsibility.
The USA is also not teaching men and women about birth control, or about being holding potential
partners to higher standards (and I don't mean looks). A lot of people in the USA are too shallow
and focus too much on aesthetics over reliability and now we have single mothers with fathers
who refuse to pay child support at all costs. There are too many problems with the USA, but I
feel that personal hygiene and responsibility with sexual partners should be on the top.
I teach in inner city schools. There are so many problems, money is one of them but all the money
won't solve the problem of poor learning attitudes, disaffection, poor discipline and nonexistent
work ethic .
A lot of the students get no discipline at home and their parents don't expect them
to learn anything. They are resistant to the whole process of focus on new knowledge , absorb,
drill, recall , deploy newly learned thing.
Americans have a religious reverence for individualism
and learning new things is a humbling experience and many people don't like it. Sure the adults
bang on about education but they aren't serious about it. They think all you need is to spend
more money , not do any actual work.
The problems in the inner city are so intransigent that I doubt anything can fix it. I have three
friends, all dedicated teachers, who taught in inner city schools in New Jersey and the stories
they have told me make my mind reel: a mother who punched a teacher (and gave her a concussion)
who "disrespected" her kid (by failing him, deservedly, in algebra), 15-year-olds who had pagers
so their pimps could call them, children who had five brothers and sisters--all with different
fathers. You couldn't make this stuff up.
I don't know what solution there is to this. My nieces and nephews did well in school, studied
hard, and went on to university. They didn't do drugs, rape or be raped, and stayed away from
unsavory kids. BUT--they went home to two parents every night, a father and mother, which I think
would have made them successful at school no matter what their income.
The Pew survey you cited noted that "...the share living in middle-income households fell from
55% in 2000 to 51% in 2014. Reflecting the accumulation of changes at the metropolitan level,
the nationwide share of adults in lower-income households increased from 28% to 29% and the share
in upper-income households rose from 17% to 20% during the period." In other words, most of the
decline in the middle class was due to their moving into the upper class.
The article was mostly about a declining rural area. The Guardian grinding its usual axes and
reaching the conclusion it intended to reach?
Middle class job death inflicted by cronie capitalism entertained by the political establishment
(examples): Private equity is not scrutinized by anti-trust legislation, buys any company and
sends jobs overseas. Cronie supporters of politicians get help in that some industry gets indicted
(e.g. more or less entire coal industry) or regulated into oblivion, for fake reasons, so that
cronie (solar panel) company gets subsidies. Of course, the latter goes under, no company on IV
survives without IV. Banks get bailed out, others not. GM gets bailed out, to maintain jobs, then
outsources.
The old members of middle class are not tolerated by our government and the cronies. Who is tolerated
as middle class is any kind of civil servant, and new immigrants. Revenge from 2 sides. Or call
it cultural revolution Mao style: Take their habitat.
Growing up in the SF Bay Area during the 70's there was a large disparity in academics between
schools even in the same district. At 11 years old the school district was rezoned and the new
school that I attended had much lower standards. So much so, that I came home the very first day
and complained to my mother that I had been assigned to a class for slow learners. Being so bored,
my grades started to drop. At 13 years, I tested out of mathematics and eventually tested out
of high school altogether and joined the military.
There my intelligence was appreciated (believe
it or not). The military provided a valuable work ethic and training in technology that have provided
a decent career and lifestyle since. It's too bad that America can't seem to provide adequate learning to the vast majority.
The US economy isn't competitive anymore. It started with the labor cost being too high, so factories
moved out. Then the entire supply chain moved out. Now the main consumer market is also moving
out. Once that is gone, we will have no more leverage.
The US education is good, but students are lazy, undisciplined, and incurious. In silicon valley,
more than 75% of highly paid technical personnel are foreign born. Corporations making money with
foreign workers here and abroad, on foreign markets. Taking these away and you will see the economy
crash.
Then you have Hillary wanting to sub divide a rapidly diminishing pie, and Trump wanting to
return to 1946. Good luck to them both.
Labor costs were too high. Have some more kool-aid. The elite didn't want labor to have any bargaining power whatsoever . They wanted to dictate
the terms to labor believing that they were the only ones who should have any say in matters. The elite wanted to maximize their profits at the expense of their own citizens. They wanted slave labor . They wanted powerless people to dance to their tune. How could an advanced nation's labor possibly compete with slave labor .
This is the same argument that slave owning , southern plantation owners used to fight against
the freeing of slaves . They to said that they would not longer be competitive and the overall
economy would suffer .
Are you telling us that an economy needs slave labor to exist ?
Sadly ..... thee isn't any hope for these people in the foreseeable future .
Their economic decline has been happening for quite some time now and shows no sign of abating
whatsoever . The economic foundations of their lives have been steadily pulled out from under them by the
financial elite and their subservient political cultures , the Republican and Democratic Parties
. The Republicans have never really given a damn about them and the Democrats have long abandoned
them . These poor people of North Carolina are adrift on a sinking raft on easy ocean of indifference
by the political cultures of America . To those in power , they don't exist . They don't count . They don't matter .
The trend in the U.S, along with almost every other major nation in the world over the past
35 years has been to exclusively serve the interests of the financial elite and only their needs
. All sense of fairness , justice and decency have been totally discarded .
Tax breaks after tax breaks , tax shelters , free movement of capital , etc., etc. would sum
up the experience of the financial elite over the past 35 years . They have become incredibly wealthy now and are still not satisfied . They want more . They
want it all . They want what little you have and their political servants which help them get
.
Political discourse pertaining to the plight of those like these folks in North Carolina is
all window dressing . In the end , you can be certain that it will amount to nothing . Just like
it has for decades now . The financial elite are in control and they are not going to give any of that control up .
As a matter of fact , they are going to tighten their grip . They will invent crisis to have their
agendas imposed upon an increasingly powerless and bewildered public . They will take advantage
of every naturally occurring crisis to advance their agenda .
There will be an end to their abuse , greed and domination until one day when everything changes
. The day when people have had enough . When people can't take it any more . History has demonstrated
this fact so often before . The mighty do fall . They always fall ..... but their fall is nowhere
to be seen at this time .
There is going to a great deal more pain for average folk before things get better .
A Presidential election featuring Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is clear evidence of this
fact.
Hopefully , these two bottom feeding , utter human failures represent the bottom of the barrel
but I doubt if they do .
Good luck to the good folks of North Carolina and countless others like them .... they / we
/ myself are going to need it .
On the contrary .... it's money that the elite have not paid out in wages .
It's money that the elite have illegally hidden from the taxman . It's money the the elite need to pay for the infrastructure that makes it possible to do business
in the first place . It's money that has been made from insider trading and backroom deals . It's money from the wealth that labour has basically created in the first place .
It's money that contributes to the social maintenance on a safe , civil society . It's money that the wealthy do not need .... they have all they could ever need now .
It is money that when distributed fairly keeps money in motion creating it's transfer into
additional hands which further circulates that money creating even more spending by people and
the consumption of goods and services which result in the creation of even more wealth .
Static capital kills economies .
I know that the elite like to think that they are the exclusive ones to create wealth but wealth
creation is the marriage between capital and labour . You can have all of the capital in the world
but without labour transforming it into greater wealth it can not possibly grow .
If anyone is guilty of stealing money it is the elite who steal from the economy causing the
economy's ill health .
The last 35 years are more than testimony to this fact .
Economies are dying wherever the elite have gotten their way .
The elite are the real killers of wealth and economies . Just look at any economy in the world
throughout history where the elite had all of the wealth to themselves . Their economies are highly
dysfunctional and their societies are full of social problems and crime .
This is an indisputable fact .
Greed kills wealth development .
Wealth development is directly tied to the well being of labour which allows for mass consumption
of goods and services .
You would have to be a complete idiot not to see this fact .
So my good doctor .... the money in any given economy really belongs to everyone , not just
the greedy elite .
You need to get a real perspective instead of constantly eyeing you own pile of wealth .
so the woman chose to have 3 daughters, is now choosing to foot the bill for their college education,
and wants me to feel sorry because she has to work her ass off to do all these things? how about
this.... don't have children you can't afford. a little personal responsibility in one's life
goes a long, long way.
We need to redefine middle class. I grew up middle class. We had one TV. Not a lot of clothes.
Took short, cheap vacations. Had no credit cards. Our lives were perfectly enjoyable. Many people
here in the US live way beyond their means.
We piled into the station wagon and headed out on short trips in the region. We visited historic
sites and were enriched by the experience. None of this $1000s on the trip to Disneyland. We didn't
feel deprived or entitled.
The key is not money but optimism. America is still richer, cleaner, and better run than most
other places. But the gap is rapidly closing. Scaling back the spending would not help here. It
would only further reduce the drive.
As a North Carolinian, there are two major issues. One, the right to bear arms and also, teacher
tenure and working conditions. Republicans have already taken away tenure from my younger colleagues,
but as an older teacher, I still have mine. Secondly, democrats want to take away gun rights on
the federal level, but state dems are usually more pro-gun in the conservative state.
SO for me, I will vote for a democratic state government and a republican federal government.
I will be proudly putting a Roy Cooper bumper sticker on my car. But due to the peaceful liberals,
I would be afraid to put a TRUMP sticker on my car because of recent violence against Trump supporters.
The problem is the job exporting American elite class. NAFTA was an economics, political, and
social experiment with all the downside on the former, mostly lower middle class. Non-aligned
examination of the available data shows how disastrous NAFTA has been to America's bubbas. Thanks
to Bush 41 and Bill Clinton. WTO was all Bill. Of the mistakes Obama has made TPP would be the
worst. The question is, really, do we favor global fairness (an even playing field for all earth's
peoples) and a climate-killing consumerist world, or our own disadvantaged (courtesy of our financial
and political elite) citizens. Not an easy choice. Death by poison or hanging. No treaty can benegotiated
fairly in secret.
The tragic irony is that the anger against rule by the 1% manifests in things like support for
Trump, a typical example of the greed and excess of the 1%.
Americans need to question outside their desperately constrained paradigms more. It will help
focus their anger more strategically, and possibly lead to solutions. Don't hold your breath, the inequality gap is accelerating the wrong way.
Fake, fake fake.
A woman with $40k and three children would *not* be paying 1/3 of her income in tax.
This woman does *not* live on $40k net or gross - she has three other jobs.
And her name looks *very* made up.
The elite of the USA have done exactly what the Romans did and what the Pre-Revolutionary French
did.... drain the lower classes while enriching themselves. "Taxes are for little people" is not
just a pithy quote, it has become the reality as the elite rig the system so they benefit and
the lower classes pay. They need to wake up or they will get exactly what the Romans Got (collapsed
empire) or the French got (Violent Revolution). Wake up America! It is time to choose your side
in the class war the elite continue to execute while telling us there is no "Class War" - you
can't pull yourself up by your boot straps while they are pulling the rug out from under you!
My wife used to employ recent graduates from Georgetown University with poli. sci., psychology,
sociology degrees, to stack books for $10/hr. It took them on average 2-3 years, before finding
work in their field. I keep telling my kids you need to earn a degree that has a skill for life
and will always be in demand, i.e. doctor, dentist, vet, engineer, scientist. Additionally, include
work oversees in your career.
Education is NOT about finding a job! It's about learning ways to seek wisdom and rationality,
and to assimilate (not deny) new knowledge throughout your life--and that's exactly what's lacking
in the US! Our schools are factories to turn out standard robots to be used by the owners of this
country, whether they practice law or flip burgers.
I was lucky that my parents were born and
raised before that happened. They went to what used to be called "country schools"--my dad to
a 1-room schoolhouse. Some of the so-called "knowledge" was patriotic trash, serving only the
rich elites, but they learned to be sturdy and to think for themselves, so I was lucky and learned
a lot at home. Without parents who practice the empathetic, rational morality needed in a democracy,
all the jobs in the world--especially if most are for flipping burgers--won't save this dreary
country.
You make an excellent point. Thinking about your life rather than just going for a crip major
in college would be an excellent way NOT to wind up stacking books for $10 an hour with a degree.
I can't count the number of my kids friends who select communications majors, or sociology or
women's studies and then are completely surprised when there are no jobs demanding their educational
background. What is it that they think they will be qualified to do after college?
From the article....
"Some lucky families saw themselves promoted to the upper income bracket." Here in a nutshell we see the author's underlying worldview. Getting to the upper income bracket has nothing to do with effort. Rather it's the result of
luck. It's something that is done to you by an outside force.
She can not offer anything as she is "kick the can down the road" neoliberal candidate serving financial
oligarchy, so playing fear card is her the only chance...
UPDATE "'You can get rid of Manafort, but that doesn't end the odd bromance Trump has with Putin,'
Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement" [Washington
Post]. That's our Democrats; gin up a war scare all to win Eastern Europeans in a swing state
(Ohio). That's what this article, read closely, boils down to, read carefully. (I love Mook's "bromance,"
so reminiscent of the Clinton campaign's vile BernieBro smear.)
UPDATE "Republicans in North Carolina are pulling out all the stops to suppress the state's reliably
Democratic black vote. After the Fourth Circuit court reinstated a week of early voting, GOP-controlled
county elections boards are now trying to cut early-voting hours across the state. By virtue of holding
the governor's office, Republicans control a majority of votes on all county election boards and
yesterday they voted to cut 238 hours of early voting in Charlotte's Mecklenburg County, the largest
in the state. 'I'm not a big fan of early voting,' said GOP board chair Mary Potter Summa, brazenly
disregarding the federal appeals court's opinion. 'The more [early voting] sites we have, the more
opportunities exist for violations'" [The
Nation]. Bad Republicans. On the other hand, if the Democrats treated voter registration like
a 365/24/7 party function, including purchasing IDs in ID states for those who can't afford them,
none of this would be happening.
"... "Companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have pledged to increase the share of exports in their overall revenues, and they have been seeking major deals in East and Central Europe since the 1990s, when NATO expansion began," said William Hartung, director of the Arms & Security Project at the Center for International Policy. Hartung noted that as some nations ramp up spending, U.S. firms will be "knocking at the door, looking to sell everything from fighter planes to missile defense systems." ..."
Some good links here. How arms merchants benefit from tensions with Russia:
"Companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have pledged to increase the share of exports in
their overall revenues, and they have been seeking major deals in East and Central Europe since
the 1990s, when NATO expansion began," said William Hartung, director of the Arms & Security Project
at the Center for International Policy. Hartung noted that as some nations ramp up spending, U.S.
firms will be "knocking at the door, looking to sell everything from fighter planes to missile
defense systems."
Anti-Russian hysteria and demonization of Trump is the key strategies for neoliberal media to secure
Hillary victory in November.
Anti-Russian hysteria is also a tool to maintain solidarity and suppress dissent against neoliberal
globalization. Those presstitutes will stop at nothing, even provocations and swiftboating are OK for them (See Khan
Gambit)
Notable quotes:
"... Oh, and I suppose Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton's vitriol is okay, right? Typical [neo]liberal ranting. Point the finger at someone else, but do the same thing and it's okay. ..."
"... When candidates wish to distinguish themselves or appeal to various segments of the electorate, there is nothing like a lot of demagoguery and fear mongering to bring attention to a candidate and his issues. ..."
"... It then becomes all the more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain solidarity. While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience is that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own parochial personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election. ..."
"... I think the divisions are easier to exploit in part because the society has become so greatly divided based of income inequality. ..."
"... WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after, vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s. ..."
"... The media became more fragmented as well. Broadcast media also used to be seen as a public service. But in the 1970s the major networks started to understand that it could also be a profit center -- and you had another shift in values, where the public function took a back-seat to profit maximization. The market also has become more cut-throat as the media environment has become more fragmented. ..."
"... [Neo]Liberals are largely to blame - they regarded their opponents as "uneducated" "swivel-eyed" etc. They ruthlessly played "identity politics" for all it was worth. They shut down meaningful debate. ..."
"... This is very true. Screaming racist at anyone challenging the liberal orthodoxy of black = victim and white = oppressor . ..."
"... The same is true of ignoring the many black lives that are ended by the type of people the police frequently come into contact with - other young black men. ..."
"... Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. ..."
"... That is the disaster that what current politicians totally fail. That needs to change. Will such, I doubt it. The current so called political platforms or manifestos, are basically useless and used only for propaganda. ..."
"... You left out WHO does the dirty work of the politicians. ..."
"... I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse. ..."
"... I have always wondered if "spin" is taught in journalism schools, or if it is taught by newspapers after graduation from journalism school. ..."
"... I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse. ..."
"... Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation were struck. ..."
"... That lead to the banking crisis/collapse in 2008, and to the 'solution' whereby most governments imposed 'austerity' and debt on ordinary people to keep most of the bankers 'functional' and 'solvent' ...and not only were the bankers not adequately regulated to curtail their activities, but they carried on paying themselves mega-currency bonuses for using taxpayer guarantees to rescue their dysfunctional businesses. ..."
"... I agree, its an entirely artificial construct. And the globalists are in a position to punish countries like Britain for its Brexit decision. But they cannot destroy Britain. Rather, it is the globalists who may be destroyed by the nationalism spreading across the globe. Many globalists are actually terrified by all this. General Electric has read the tea leaves and is already reacting: ..."
"... GE's Immelt Signals End to 7 Decades of Globalization http://fortune.com/2016/05/20/ge-immelt-globalization/ ..."
"... Fascinating link. The global corporate overlords only respond to sustained political pressure. Brexit was a wakeup call for them and the November election in the U.S. may be another... ..."
Oh, and I suppose Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton's vitriol is okay, right? Typical
[neo]liberal ranting. Point the finger at someone else, but do the same thing and it's okay.
The only difference today is that Donald Trump doesn't take the finger pointing and Democratic
vitriol laying down, he fires it right back at them and guess what, he keeps winning!
Vitriolic and polemical speech has been a ubiquitous ritual since the earliest democracies.
When candidates wish to distinguish themselves or appeal to various segments of the electorate,
there is nothing like a lot of demagoguery and fear mongering to bring attention to a candidate
and his issues. In the end, self-interest motivates voters, and fear is the biggest self-interest
of all. Using the specter of the opposition to scare small children and those who think like them
is a time honored tradition and well alive today. Further, as groups begin to prosper and start
being assimilated into the broader society, the individual self-interests diverge and it becomes
harder to hold them together as a cohesive group whose votes can be counted on. It then becomes
all the more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain
solidarity. While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience
is that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own
parochial personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election.
Noam Chomsky talked about this in "The Corporation." Our division and increased level of emotional
isolation is a direct result of marketing attacks on the human psyche designed to get us to buy
more products and services. I'm not sure how much of it is Machiavellian and how much is just
pure greed reaping it's inevitable harvest.
A smart comment. Greed and fear are indeed the primary drivers of behaviour in many arenas now,
and it's partly driven by corporations. This-or-that, black-and-white thinking is largely a product
of high emotion, which essentially makes us 'stupid' and unable to reason.
The impact of viewing - consciously or unconsciously - dozens of ads a day on the Internet,
or hours of tranced staring at screens, may be shown to be a major factor in the increasingly
mesmerised state of the populace.
That and, as these venerable politicos point out, the demise of political nous generally.
Many excellent points. I think the divisions are easier to exploit in part because the society
has become so greatly divided based of income inequality. People have completely different
frames of reference in terms of their experience, and anxieties, and so it becomes easier to dismiss
the concerns of others out-of-hand as illegitimate. You can also overlay racism as part of the
equation, which has always been present with varying degrees of intensity in the U.S.
WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have
been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after,
vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s.
The idea of a media culture that was objective and bipartisan is a newer idea. It was codified
by things like the Fairness Doctrine as well, which tended to moderate, and censor, public discussion
through broadcast media. When the Fairness Doctrine fell apart you had people like Limbaugh go
national with a highly partisan infotainment model.
The media became more fragmented as well. Broadcast media also used to be seen as a public
service. But in the 1970s the major networks started to understand that it could also be a profit
center -- and you had another shift in values, where the public function took a back-seat to profit
maximization. The market also has become more cut-throat as the media environment has become more
fragmented.
[Neo]Liberals are largely to blame - they regarded their opponents as "uneducated" "swivel-eyed"
etc. They ruthlessly played "identity politics" for all it was worth. They shut down meaningful
debate. Now it's come back to bite them in the form of Donald Trump. They don't like it now
they are on the receiving end.
This is the type of over-stating a position that they are prone to. But saying that "liberals"
are largely to blame is no different to them pointing the finger at "the right" for all the issues.
There's plenty of blame to go around, and it's evenly spread.
They ruthlessly played "identity politics" for all it was worth. They shut down meaningful
debate.
This is very true. Screaming racist at anyone challenging the liberal orthodoxy
of black = victim and white = oppressor .
A prime example of one of the issues is BLM. Pushing the view that any black person killed
by the police as dying at the hand of a racist cop.
Using whole population stats to compare the chances of being shot by the police, instead of
comparing socio-economic groups. It's not exactly unbiased to compare the chances of a poor black
man, and a white lawyer, of being stopped or shot by the police.
The same is true of ignoring the many black lives that are ended by the type of people
the police frequently come into contact with - other young black men.
Until both sides are truthful about what's happening, nothing is going to change. Both sides
- police and young black men - currently approach an interaction with each other fearful of the
other. This is made worse on both sides by the rhetoric.
If you listen to BLM and its supporters, then every cop is racist and wamnts to kill them.
Why would you do what the police officer tells you if you think you're just opening yourself up
to a racist cop killing you?
On the other side, the police apparently often assume that every young black man they encounter
both has a gun, and thinks they're racist, and therefore operates on that assumption and goes
for a shoot first and be safe option.
Neither of these will get any better while there is this lying and entrenched positions on
either side. You could also ask why anyone who's white would support an organization which doesn't
appear to care about the white victims of the police (of which AIUI there are an equal number).
Or the black murder victims who aren't killed by the police.
Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN,
WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. Every thing in the politicians
mind is open ended, and may or may not be adopted, considered, or maybe a totally different thing
than what they were elected for.
That is the disaster that what current politicians totally fail. That needs to change.
Will such, I doubt it. The current so called political platforms or manifestos, are basically
useless and used only for propaganda.
I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention
and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading
as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse.
Even my beloved Guardian is succumbing, publishing more and more pointless newsy opinion pieces
and less and less fact-based, hard news. I don't want to read five takes on a single world event.
I'd rather read the facts about five different world events and feel more informed at the end
of the day.
I have always wondered if "spin" is taught in journalism schools, or if it is taught by newspapers
after graduation from journalism school.
It gets so far out, you wonder what journalists think the readers think. It would be great
to be in on a backroom discussion about headlines and all paraphrasing in articles at the Washington
Post and Guardian.
I'll bet they sit around and chuckle as they try to cook up positive or negative spins. Its
more than facts.
I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention
and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading
as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse.
Even my beloved Guardian is succumbing, publishing more and more pointless newsy opinion pieces
and less and less fact-based, hard news. I don't want to read five takes on a single world event.
I'd rather read the facts about five different world events and feel more informed at the end
of the day.
I suspect we're seeing the consequences of two events... one political, the other financial (heavily
determined by the political, which happened first).
Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus
in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War
was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation
were struck.
That lead to the banking crisis/collapse in 2008, and to the 'solution' whereby most governments
imposed 'austerity' and debt on ordinary people to keep most of the bankers 'functional' and 'solvent'
...and not only were the bankers not adequately regulated to curtail their activities, but they
carried on paying themselves mega-currency bonuses for using taxpayer guarantees to rescue their
dysfunctional businesses.
As the UK-EU Referendum result has proved, populist politicians spouting bullsh*t can succeed
in this environment; especially when 'decent politicians' abdicate their responsibilities.
I agree, its an entirely artificial construct. And the globalists are in a position to punish
countries like Britain for its Brexit decision. But they cannot destroy Britain. Rather, it is
the globalists who may be destroyed by the nationalism spreading across the globe. Many globalists
are actually terrified by all this. General Electric has read the tea leaves and is already reacting:
Fascinating link. The global corporate overlords only respond to sustained political pressure.
Brexit was a wakeup call for them and the November election in the U.S. may be another...
"... I believe in the two founding principles of Jacksonian Democracy, social justice and economic fairness. Right now, I think that the Democratic Party-my great party-has got away from some of this ..."
"... If Hillary Clinton is elected, and not Donald Trump, Rickers says that income inequality-and particularly the "gap" between "the rich and the poor" will get worse. Clinton's refusal to focus on issues that matter to middle class Americans of all political stripes-including Democrats-is why Rickers is calling on Democrats nationwide to join him in a push to elect Donald Trump president of the United States. ..."
"... his party "used to stand for working people," but "Hillary Clinton's record-NAFTA, SHAFTA, favored nation status for China, Glass-Steagall, I mean we could go on and on and on-she's not been a friend of rural America and rural America knows that and it's shining in the primaries and caucuses. It's a huge ABC feeling out here, Anybody But Clinton." ..."
"... Bova added that Trump's support for protecting Americans' hard earned benefits like Social Security and Medicare-things that Americans, he says, can't trust Hillary Clinton with-is why his fellow Democrats should back him for president ..."
"... These same folks, I believe, have been assured that Trump will also protect and seek to strengthen their Social Security and Medicare benefits, and finally, after 20 to 30 years, put their lives back on a level playing field by undoing the very so called free-trade, world-trade, global-trade agreements that that hollowed-out their jobs, their families, their communities, their businesses. That is a powerful reason, a survival reason, for them to want to vote to elect Trump President. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... When asked about Clinton's supposed opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership-she previously supported it more than 40 times, but now claims to be against it as voters rebel against the deal-Rickers laughed. "That's just ridiculous," Rickers said. "She is one of the architects of the complete opposite position. This woman will say anything if she thinks she'll get a vote or money for it." ..."
On the Trumpocrats PAC website is
a video of David "Mudcat" Saunders, another lifelong Democrat, talking with Fox News.
I'm a Democrat," Saunders, who worked for many prominent national Democrats over his career, says
in the interview video. "I believe in the two founding principles of Jacksonian Democracy, social
justice and economic fairness. Right now, I think that the Democratic Party-my great party-has got
away from some of this."
If Hillary Clinton is elected, and not Donald Trump, Rickers says that income inequality-and
particularly the "gap" between "the rich and the poor" will get worse. Clinton's refusal to focus
on issues that matter to middle class Americans of all political stripes-including Democrats-is why
Rickers is calling on Democrats nationwide to join him in a push to elect Donald Trump president
of the United States. Rickers said:
Otherwise, the gap is going to continue to increase between the rich and the poor because a
lot of people don't have the ability now to rise up whether they're underemployed or facing hard
times. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is talking about Planned Parenthood or whatever-which is all
great, but that's not what we need. We need people to be self-sufficient and feed their families.
Trump speaks to that, and there are people all across this country who are fed up with it-obviously,
that's what this election is kind of all about. You have party registrations switching by the
tens of thousands in Ohio and Pennsylvania and elsewhere, and there's a lot of people-they don't
want to be Republicans, but they don't like either party anymore. We're going to give them a place
or organize out of, you know? A home, if you will.
Saunders said in the Fox interview that his party "used to stand for working people," but
"Hillary Clinton's record-NAFTA, SHAFTA, favored nation status for China, Glass-Steagall, I mean
we could go on and on and on-she's not been a friend of rural America and rural America knows that
and it's shining in the primaries and caucuses. It's a huge ABC feeling out here, Anybody But Clinton."
Billy Bova, another lifelong Democratic operative from Mississippi who is supportive of the effort,
told Breitbart News that the answer for Democrats who feel Hillary Clinton does not support them
is to back Donald Trump for president. Bova said in an email:
If you have historically been a working class, middle class person in areas of America that
produced good paying, blue collar factory jobs, white collar factory related jobs, small business
jobs in your towns around the plants and factories, it would be hard not to support a Trumpocrats
effort in electing Donald Trump! Historically, many regular-working Democratic voters have always
been most interested in a candidate that supports economic issues, not so much social issues,
but bottom-line pocketbook, kitchen table money issues that can pay their bills and help their
children. Trump shoots directly at their pocketbooks, gives them hope for a better future.
Bova added that Trump's support for protecting Americans' hard earned benefits like Social
Security and Medicare-things that Americans, he says, can't trust Hillary Clinton with-is why his
fellow Democrats should back him for president. He said:
These same folks, I believe, have been assured that Trump will also protect and seek to
strengthen their Social Security and Medicare benefits, and finally, after 20 to 30 years, put
their lives back on a level playing field by undoing the very so called free-trade, world-trade,
global-trade agreements that that hollowed-out their jobs, their families, their communities,
their businesses. That is a powerful reason, a survival reason, for them to want to vote to elect
Trump President.
... ... ...
"I think there's a pretty sour taste in a lot of guys' mouths about Iraq and about what happened
there," Jim Webb Jr., a Marine veteran and Webb's son-who is also a Trump supporter-told the
Washington Post. "You pour time and effort and blood into something, and you see it pissed away,
and you think, 'How did I spend my twenties?'"
The Post cast Webb's son's comments in the light of him praising Trump's vow to end nation-building
type of foreign policy that Republicans drove under the Bush administration. While Trump's vows to
steer clear of establishment status quo type foreign policy has cost him a handful of votes among
GOP elites in Washington, D.C., so the thinking goes, it has won him many more actual voters across
America in places like Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina-and
potentially even New York state.
... ... ...
JOBS, JOBS, JOBS: IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID
When asked about Clinton's supposed opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership-she previously
supported it more than 40 times, but now claims to be against it as voters rebel against the deal-Rickers
laughed. "That's just ridiculous," Rickers said. "She is one of the architects of the complete opposite
position. This woman will say anything if she thinks she'll get a vote or money for it."
And he said "hell no, absolutely no" he does not believe that Hillary Clinton is against the TPP.
"No way," Rickers said. "And she'll say something different when she's in front of another group.
Do you think she was saying that when she was being paid $250,000 a speech on Wall Street? No. And
she doesn't want anybody to know what she said there."
As for Trump, Rickers said he believes Trump on the issue of trade.
"At least during this campaign-I know he's said a lot of things in a lot of different directions,
but he's been pretty consistent that that is the foundation of his campaign, to rebuild the infrastructure
of the country," Rickers said. "I just wish he wouldn't get distracted all the time and just talk
about the main issue of his campaign, which is the rebuilding of the country."
On the Trumpocrats PAC website are videos of many other Democrats switching parties to vote for
Trump. David Abbott, a lifelong Democratic Party member and former local councilman from Kentucky,
switched parties to vote for Trump.
Donald Trump said lots (and lots) of thing during his hour-long town hall with Fox News's Sean Hannity
on Wednesday night.
This one - Trump talking about Hillary Clinton - stood out to me:
She is so protected. They are so protecting her. She hasn't had a news conference in, like, 250
days.
...Jokes aside, it's beyond ridiculous that one of the two people who will be elected president
in 80 or so days continues to refuse to engage with the press in this way.
But she does sit-down interviews! And she did a "press conference" with a moderator, um, moderating
the questions!
...
Clinton, who looked tired and had bags under her eyes, made a quick appearance before cameras in
New York today to show the opening to her meeting with several police chiefs from around the country.
Notice how not one single photographer used a camera FLASH while taking probably hundreds if not
even thousands of photos of Hillary Clinton. As we previously reported
Hillary is sensible to camera flashes and it may trigger some seizures in her:
This means that she has noticeable problems already in 2011, so her "serious neurological
disease" has been already evident at this time.
Notable quotes:
"... Emails released by Wikileaks show that Hillary Clinton looked into a drug used to treat sleepiness and Parkinson's disease after she apparently began suffering from "decision fatigue" back in 2011. ..."
"... The article also explains how "decision fatigue" could explain why "ordinarily sensible people get angry at colleagues," which is possibly a nod to Clinton's infamous temper tantrums that have left her staffers in tears. "Wow that is spooky descriptive," wrote Hillary in response to the article. ..."
"... In a separate email sent two months later, Hillary received information from her top foreign policy advisor Jacob Sullivan about a drug called Provigil (Modafinil), which is used to treat "excessive sleepiness in patients with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and multiple sclerosis," as well as "excessive sleepiness caused by narcolepsy". ..."
"... The fact that the drug is used to treat Parkinson's is interesting in light of what we were told by a Secret Service whistleblower earlier this month, that Hillary has a serious neurological disease. ..."
"... The date of the emails is significant because Hillary's apparent problems with "decision fatigue" were evident before she fell and hit her head in 2012. ..."
Emails released by Wikileaks show that Hillary Clinton looked into a drug used to treat sleepiness
and Parkinson's disease after she apparently began suffering from "decision fatigue" back in 2011.
Clinton sent an
email to close confidante and advisor Cheryl D. Mills on August 19, 2011 featuring the text of
an article entitled Do You Suffer From Decision Fatigue?
The article talks about how people in positions of power and influence can suffer from "decision
fatigue" that causes them to be "low on mental energy" and prompts the sufferer to "become reckless"
and "act impulsively".
The article also explains how "decision fatigue" could explain why "ordinarily sensible people
get angry at colleagues," which is possibly a nod to
Clinton's infamous temper tantrums that have left her staffers in tears. "Wow that is spooky
descriptive," wrote Hillary in response to the article.
In a separate
email sent two months later, Hillary received information from her top foreign policy advisor
Jacob Sullivan about a drug called Provigil (Modafinil), which is used to treat "excessive sleepiness
in patients with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and multiple sclerosis," as well as "excessive sleepiness
caused by narcolepsy".
The fact that the drug is used to treat Parkinson's is interesting in light of what we were
told by a
Secret Service whistleblower earlier this month, that Hillary has a serious neurological disease.
The date of the emails is significant because Hillary's apparent problems with "decision fatigue"
were evident before she fell and hit her head in 2012.
While the mainstream media continues to dismiss questions over Hillary's health as a "conspiracy
theory," more prominent voices are beginning to express the same concerns.
Yesterday we
reported on top doctor and Rutgers University Professor of Medicine Bob Lahita's call for Hillary
to be assessed by an impartial panel of physicians to ensure she is fit for office.
Hillary attempted to deflect suspicions over her health during an appearance on the Jimmy Kimmel
Live last night… by opening an already opened jar of pickles.
"... Trump is right to accuse the Bush administration of creating the mess, and also right to blame Obama for withdrawing American forces in 2011. Once the mess was made, the worst possible response was to do nothing about it (except, of course, to covertly arm "moderate Syrian rebels" with weapons from Libyan stockpiles, most of which found their way to al-Qaeda or ISIS). ..."
The first step to finding a solution is to know that there's a problem. Donald Trump
understands that the Washington foreign-policy establishment caused the whole Middle Eastern
mess. I will review the problem and speculate about what a Trump administration might do about it.
For the thousand years before 2007, when the Bush administration hand-picked Nouri al-Maliki to
head Iraq's first Shia-dominated government, Sunni Muslims had ruled Iraq. Maliki was vetted both
by the CIA and by the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.
With Iraq in the hands of an Iranian ally, the Sunnis–disarmed and marginalized by the dismissal
of the Iraqi army–were caught between pro-Iranian regimes in both Iraq and Syria. Maliki, as Ken
Silverstein reports in the
New Republic, ran one of history's most corrupt regimes, demanding among other things a 45% cut
in foreign investment in Iraq. The Sunnis had no state to protect them, and it was a matter of simple
logic that a Sunni leader eventually would propose a new state including the Sunni regions of Syria
as well as Iraq. Sadly, the mantle of Sunni statehood fell on Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who projected
not only an Islamic State but a new Caliphate as well. America had a dozen opportunities to preempt
this but failed to do so.
From a fascinating defector's account in the
Foreign Policy
website, we learn that the region's jihadists debated the merits of remaining non-state actors on
the al-Qaeda model versus attempting to form a state prior to the launch of ISIS. The defector reports
a 2013 meeting in which al-Baghdadi demanded the allegiance of al-Qaeda (that is, al-Nusra Front)
fighters in Syria:
Baghdadi also spoke about the creation of an Islamic state in Syria. It was important, he said,
because Muslims needed to have a dawla, or state. Baghdadi wanted Muslims to have their
own territory, from where they could work and eventually conquer the world….The participants differed
greatly about the idea of creating a state in Syria. Throughout its existence, al-Qaeda had worked
in the shadows as a non-state actor. It did not openly control any territory, instead committed
acts of violence from undisclosed locations. Remaining a clandestine organization had a huge advantage:
It was very difficult for the enemy to find, attack, or destroy them. But by creating a state,
the jihadi leaders argued during the meeting, it would be extremely easy for the enemy to find
and attack them….
Despite the hesitation of many, Baghdadi persisted. Creating and running a state was of paramount
importance to him. Up to this point, jihadis ran around without controlling their own territory.
Baghdadi argued for borders, a citizenry, institutions, and a functioning bureaucracy. Abu Ahmad
summed up Baghdadi's pitch: "If such an Islamic state could survive its initial phase, it was
there to stay forever."
Baghdadi prevailed, however, not only because he persuaded the al-Qaeda ragtag of his project,
but because he won over a
large number of officers from Saddam Hussein's disbanded army. America had the opportunity to
"de-Ba'athify" the Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army after the 2003 invasion, the way it de-Nazified the
German Army after World War II. Instead, it hung them out to dry. Gen. Petraeus' "surge" policy of
2007-2008 bought the Sunni's temporary forbearance with hundreds of millions of dollars in handouts,
but set the stage for a future Sunni insurgency, as I
warned in 2010.
Trump is right to accuse the Bush administration of creating the mess, and also right to blame
Obama for withdrawing American forces in 2011. Once the mess was made, the worst possible response
was to do nothing about it (except, of course, to covertly arm "moderate Syrian rebels" with weapons
from Libyan stockpiles, most of which found their way to al-Qaeda or ISIS).
Now the region is a self-perpetuating war of each against all. Iraq's Shia militias, which replaced
the feckless Iraqi army in fighting ISIS, are in reorganization under Iranian command on the model
of
Iran's Revolutionary Guards. The Kurds are fighting both ISIS and the Syrian government. ISIS
is attacking both the Kurds, who field the most effective force opposing them in Syria, as well as
the Turks, who are trying to limit the power of the Kurds. Saudi Arabia and Qatar continue to support
the Sunnis of Iraq and Syria, which means in effect funding either ISIS or the al-Nusra Front.
Russia, meanwhile, is flying bombing missions in Syria from Iranian air bases. Apart from its
inclination to bedevil the floundering United States, Russia has a dog in the fight: as a number
of foreign officials who have spoken with the Russian president have told me, Putin has told anyone
who asks that he backs the Iranian Shi'ites because all of Russia's Muslims are Sunni. Russia fears
that a jihadist regime in Iraq or Syria would metastasize into a strategic threat to Russia. That
is just what al-Baghdadi had in mind, as the Foreign Policy defector story made clear:
Baghdadi had another persuasive argument: A state would offer a home to Muslims from all over
the world. Because al-Qaeda had always lurked in the shadows, it was difficult for ordinary Muslims
to sign up. But an Islamic state, Baghdadi argued, could attract thousands, even millions, of
like-minded jihadis. It would be a magnet.
What Trump might do
What's needed is a deal, and a deal-maker. I have no information about Trump's thinking other
than news reports, but here is a rough sketch of what he might do:
Iraq's Sunnis require the right combination of incentives and disincentives. The disincentive
is just what Trump has proposed, an "extreme" and "vicious" campaign against the terrorist gang.
The United States and whoever wants to join it (perhaps the French Foreign Legion?) should exterminate
ISIS. That requires a combination of ruthless employment of air power with less squeamishness about
collateral damage as well as a division or two on the ground. America doesn't necessarily need to
deploy the kind of soldier who joined the National Guard to get a subsidy for college tuition. As
Erik Prince has suggested, private contractors could do the job cheaper, along with judicious
use of special forces.
While the US grinds up ISIS, it should find a former Iraqi general to lead a Sunni zone in Iraq,
and enlist former Iraqi army officers to join the war against ISIS. Gen. Petraeus no doubt still
has the payroll list for the "Sunni Awakening" and "Sons of Iraq." The Sunnis would get the incentive
of an eventual Sunni state, provided that they help crush the terrorists.
The US would give quiet support to the Kurds' aspirations for their own state, and encourage them
to take control of northern Syria along the Turkish border. If the US doesn't stand godfather to
a Kurdish state, the Russians will. The Turks won't like that, and it must be explained to them that
it is in their own best interests: the Kurds have twice as many children as ethnic Turks, and by
2045 will have more military-age men than do the Turks.
Possibly the US should propose a UN-supervised referendum to allow the Kurdish-majority provinces
of southeastern Turkey to secede and join the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds in a new state. That would be
good for Turkey. Those who vote "yes" are better off outside Turkey, and those who vote to stay in
Turkey have no excuse to support separatists in the future. There are several million Iranian Kurds,
and the US should encourage them to break away as well.
'Look, Vladimir, here's the deal'
The next conversation between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin might go something like this: "Look,
Vladimir, you say you're worried about Sunni terrorists destabilizing Russia. We're going to kill
all the terrorists or hire people to kill them for us. We're not going to arm jihadists to make trouble
for you like we did in Afghanistan during the Cold War. We leave you alone, and you get out of our
hair. You get to keep your naval station in Syria, and the Alawites get to have their own state in
the northwest. Give Basher Assad a villa in Crimea and put in someone else to replace him–anyone
you like. The Sunni areas of Syria will become a separate enclave, along with enclaves for
the Druze."
And Trump might add: "We're taking care of the Sunni terrorists. Now you help us take care of
the Iranians, or we'll do it ourselves, and you won't like that. You can either work together with
us and we tell the Iranians to shut down their centrifuges and their ballistic missile program, or
we'll bomb it. You don't want us to make the S-300 missiles you sold Iran look like junk–that's bad
for your arms business.
"As for Ukraine: let them vote on partition. If the eastern half votes to join Russia, you got
it. If not, you stay the hell out of it."
As Trump knows, everyone in a deal doesn't have to walk away happy. Only the biggest stakeholders
have to walk away happy. Everyone else can go suck eggs.
Russia can walk away with its Syrian naval station and some assurance that the Middle East jihad
won't spill over into its own territory. Syria's Alawites and Sunnis both can declare victory. The
Kurds, who provide the region's most effective boots on the ground, will be big winners. Iraq's Shi'ites
will be able to rule themselves but not over the Sunnis and Kurds, which is a better situation than
they had during the thousand years when the Sunnis ruled over them. Turkey won't like the prospect
of losing a chunk of its territory, even though it will be better off for it. Iran will lose its
aspirations to a regional empire, and won't like it at all, but no-one else will care.
Rebuilding America's military, one of Trump's campaign planks, is a sine qua non for
success. Russia as well as China should fear America's technological prowess today as much as Gorbachev
feared Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s. Russia and China are closing the
technology gap with the United States, and if the United States does not reverse that, not much else
it does will matter.
"... congressional Republicans subpoenaed three technology companies involved in her unusual home server setup. ..."
"... The subpoenas were issued after the companies did not cooperate with a House committee's investigation into the issue, said House Science panel Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas. ..."
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill Monday, congressional Republicans subpoenaed
three technology companies involved in her unusual home server setup.
The subpoenas were issued after the companies did not cooperate with
a House committee's investigation into the issue, said House Science panel Chairman
Lamar Smith, R-Texas.
I think to the extent Israel elite interests are congruent with interests of the US neocons Clinton
is pro-Israel. If they stray, she can change. The key here are interests of global corporations and
neoliberal globalization. As such Israel is just a pawn in a big game.
Notable quotes:
"... So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States. ..."
"... And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved ..."
"... Trump's crime, per Morell, is that he is disloyal to the United States because he is not sufficiently hostile to the evil Vladimir Putin, which somehow means that he is being manipulated by the clever Russian. Trump has indeed called for a positive working relationship with Putin to accomplish, among other objectives, the crushing of ISIS. And he is otherwise in favor of leaving Bashar al-Assad of Syria alone while also being disinclined to get involved in any additional military interventions in the Middle East or elsewhere, which pretty much makes him the antithesis of the Clintonian foreign policy promoted by Morell. ..."
"... The leading individual foreign donor to the Clinton Foundation between 1999 and 2014 was Ukrainian Viktor Pinchuk, who "directed between $10 and $25 million" to its Global Initiative, has let the Clintons use his private jet, attended Bill's Hollywood 65 th birthday celebration and hosted daughter Chelsea and her husband on a trip to Ukraine. Pinchuk is a Jewish oligarch married to the daughter of notoriously corrupt former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma. He is very closely tied to Israel, a supporter of regime change in his country, who was simultaneously donating money and also lobbying in Washington while Hillary was Secretary of State and promoting a similar agenda as part of her $5 billion program to "democratize" Ukraine. Clinton arranged a dozen meetings with substantive State Department officers for Pinchuk. ..."
"... Clinton supported Israel's actions in the 2014 Gaza War, which killed more than 500 children, describing them as an appropriate response to a situation that was provoked by Hamas. On the campaign trail recently husband Bill disingenuously defended Hillary's position on Gaza, saying that "Hamas is really smart. When they decide to rocket Israel they insinuate themselves in the hospitals, in the schools " placing all the blame for the large number of civilian casualties on the Palestinians, not on the Israelis. When the media began to report on the plight of the civilians trapped in Gaza Hillary dismissed the impending humanitarian catastrophe, saying "They're trapped by their leadership, unfortunately." ..."
"... Earlier, as a Senator from New York, Hillary supported Israel's building of the separation barrier on Palestinian land and cheer-led a crowd at a pro-Israel rally that praised Israel's 2006 devastation of Lebanon and Gaza. She nonsensically characterized and justified the bombing campaign as "efforts to send messages to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians – to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom " More than nine hundred civilians died in the onslaught and when a vote came up subsequently in Congress to stop the supply of cluster bombs to countries that use them on civilians Hillary voted against the bill together with 69 other pro-Israel senators. ..."
"... Hillary enjoys a particularly close relationship with Netanyahu, writing in November , "I would also invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House in my first month in office." She has worked diligently to "reaffirm the unbreakable bond with Israel – and Benjamin Netanyahu." She has boasted of her being one of the promoters of annual increases in aid to Israel while she was in the Senate and Secretary of State and takes credit for repeatedly using America's Security Council veto to defend it in the United Nations. ..."
"... o you know how Prince Bandar was coaching G.W. Bush to circumvent the enmity of neocons towards his father? ..."
"... It looks very much like the US public is starting to mirror the Eastern European public under Communism by automatically disregarding government media + there's the added feature of the internet as a new kind of high-powered Samizdat, that clearly worries the Establishment. ..."
On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential
candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled
his New York Times
op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the process whereby Trump
had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career intelligence officer,
is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what
he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence
business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian
Federation."
I have previously
observed
how incomprehensible the designation of "unwitting agent" used in a sentence together with "recruited"
is, but perhaps I should add something more about Morell that might not be clear to the casual reader.
Morell was an Agency analyst, not a spy, who spent nearly his entire career in and around Washington.
The high point of his CIA experience consisted of briefing George W. Bush on the President's Daily
Brief (PDB).
Morell was not trained in the arduous CIA operational tradecraft course which agent recruiters
and handlers go through. This means that his understanding of intelligence operations and agents
is, to put it politely, derivative. If he had gone through the course he would understand that when
you recruit an agent you control him and tell him what to do. The agent might not know whom exactly
he is really answering to as in a false flag operation, but he cannot be unwitting.
Morell appears to have a tendency to make promises that others will have to deliver on, but perhaps
that's what delegation by senior U.S. government officials is all about. He was also not trained
in CIA paramilitary operations, which perhaps should be considered when he drops comments about the
desirability of "covertly" killing Russians and Iranians to make a point that they should not oppose
U.S. policies in Syria, as he did in a
softball interview with Charlie Rose on August 6th.
Morell appears to be oblivious to the possibility that going around assassinating foreigners might
be regarded as state sponsored terrorism and could well ignite World War 3. And, as is characteristic
of chickenhawks, it is highly unlikely that he was intending that either he or his immediate family
should go out and cut the throats or blow the heads off of those foreign devils who seek to derail
the Pax Americana. Nor would he expect to be in the firing line when the relatives of those victims
seek revenge. Someone else with the proper training would be found to do all that messy stuff and
take the consequences.
Be that as it may, Morell was a very senior officer and perhaps we should accept that he might
know something that the rest of us have missed, so let's just assume that he kind of misspoke and
give him a pass on the "recruited unwitting agent" expression. Instead let's look for other American
political figures who just might be either deliberately or inadvertently serving the interests of
a foreign government, which is presumably actually what Michael Morell meant to convey regarding
Trump. To be sure a well-run McCarthy-esque ferreting out of individuals who just might be disloyal
provides an excellent opportunity to undertake a purge of those who either by thought, word or deed
might be guilty of unacceptable levels of coziness with foreign interests.
So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United
States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington
but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there
are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and
very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively,
often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer,
Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman,
Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are
major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter
what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.
And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's
one-sided pro-Israeli
diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely
condemned January 2001 last minute
pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons,
to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved.
The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be
described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they
have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests
since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely
cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to
Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political
prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.
Trump's crime, per Morell, is that he is disloyal to the United States because he is not sufficiently
hostile to the evil Vladimir Putin, which somehow means that he is being manipulated by the clever
Russian. Trump has indeed called for a positive working relationship with Putin to accomplish, among
other objectives, the crushing of ISIS. And he is otherwise in favor of leaving Bashar al-Assad of
Syria alone while also being disinclined to get involved in any additional military interventions
in the Middle East or elsewhere, which pretty much makes him the antithesis of the Clintonian foreign
policy promoted by Morell.
In comparison with the deeply and profoundly corrupt Clintons, Trump's alleged foreign policy
perfidy makes him appear to be pretty much a boy scout. To understand the Clintons one might consider
the hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it from foreign sources, that have flowed into the Clinton
Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State. And there is the clear
email evidence that Hillary exploited her government position to favor both foreign and domestic
financial supporters.
The leading
individual foreign donor to the Clinton Foundation between 1999 and 2014 was Ukrainian Viktor
Pinchuk,
who "directed between $10 and $25 million" to its Global Initiative, has let the Clintons use
his private jet, attended Bill's Hollywood 65th birthday celebration and hosted daughter
Chelsea and her husband on a trip to Ukraine. Pinchuk is a Jewish oligarch married to the daughter
of notoriously corrupt former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma. He is very closely tied to Israel,
a supporter of regime change in his country, who was simultaneously
donating money and also lobbying in Washington while Hillary was Secretary of State and promoting
a similar agenda as part of her $5 billion program to "democratize" Ukraine. Clinton arranged a dozen
meetings with substantive State Department officers for Pinchuk.
Hillary and Bill's predilection for all things Israeli and her promise to do even more in the
future is a matter of public record. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz asserted
that of all the political candidates in the primaries "Clinton had the longest public record of engagement
with Israel, and has spent decades diligently defending the Jewish state." In a speech to AIPAC in
March
she promised to take the "U.S.-Israel alliance to the next level." Hillary's current principal
financial supporter in her presidential run is Haim Saban, an Israeli who has described himself as
a "one issue" guy and that issue is Israel.
Hillary Clinton boasts of having "stood with Israel my entire career." Her website
promises to maintain "Israel's qualitative military edge to ensure the IDF is equipped to deter
and defeat aggression from the full spectrum of threats," "stand up against the boycott, divestment
and sanctions movement (BDS)," and "cut off efforts to unilaterally recognize Palestinian statehood
outside of the context of negotiations with Israel." In a letter to Haim Saban, Hillary
declared that "we need to make countering BDS a priority," which means she is prepared to support
laws limiting First Amendment rights in the U.S. in defense of perceived Israeli interests.
As part of the Obama Administration Hillary Clinton at first supported his attempts to pressure
Israel over its illegal settlements but has now backed off from that position, only rarely criticizing
them as a "problem" but never advocating any steps to persuade Netanyahu to reverse his policy. Notably,
she has repeatedly decried terroristic attacks on Israelis but has never acknowledged the brutality
of the Israeli occupation of much of the West Bank in spite of the fact that ten Palestinians are
killed for each Jewish victim of the ongoing violence.
Clinton supported Israel's actions in the 2014 Gaza War, which killed more than 500 children,
describing them as an appropriate response to a situation that was provoked by Hamas. On the campaign
trail recently husband Bill disingenuously
defended Hillary's position on Gaza, saying that "Hamas is really smart. When they decide to
rocket Israel they insinuate themselves in the hospitals, in the schools " placing all the blame
for the large number of civilian casualties on the Palestinians, not on the Israelis. When the media
began to report on the plight of the civilians trapped in Gaza Hillary dismissed the impending humanitarian
catastrophe, saying "They're trapped by their leadership, unfortunately."
Earlier, as a Senator from New York, Hillary supported Israel's building of the separation
barrier on Palestinian land and cheer-led a crowd at a pro-Israel rally that praised Israel's 2006
devastation of Lebanon and Gaza. She nonsensically
characterized and justified the bombing campaign as "efforts to send messages to Hamas, Hezbollah,
to the Syrians, to the Iranians – to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom "
More than nine hundred civilians died in the onslaught and when a vote came up subsequently in Congress
to stop the supply of cluster bombs to countries that use them on civilians Hillary voted against
the bill together with 69 other pro-Israel senators.
Hillary enjoys a particularly close relationship with Netanyahu,
writing in November, "I would also invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House in my
first month in office." She has worked diligently to "reaffirm the unbreakable bond with Israel –
and Benjamin Netanyahu." She has boasted of her being one of the promoters of annual increases in
aid to Israel while she was in the Senate and Secretary of State and takes credit for repeatedly
using America's Security Council veto to defend it in the United Nations.
So I think it is pretty clear who is the presidential candidate promoting the interests of a foreign
country and it ain't Trump. Hillary would no doubt argue that Israel is a friend and Russia is not,
an interesting point of view as Israel is not in fact an ally and has spied on us and copied our
military technology
to re-export to countries like China. Indeed, the most damaging spy in U.S. history Jonathan
Pollard worked for Israel. In spite of all that Israel continues to tap our treasury for billions
of dollars a year while still ignoring Washington when requests are made to moderate policies that
damage American interests. Against that, what exactly has Moscow done to harm us since the Cold War
ended? And who is advocating even more pressure on Russia and increasing the rewards for Israel,
presumably in the completely illogical belief that to do so will somehow bring some benefit to the
American people? Hillary Clinton.
utu, August 23, 2016 at 4:29 am GMT • 100 Words
Find the true reason why G.H. Bush was not allowed to get the 2nd term. Do you remember his
attempt to reign in Yitzhak Shamir when GHB was riding high popularity wave after the Desert Storm?
Do you remember anti-Bush Safire and Friedman columns in NYT week after week? Why Ross Perrot
was called in? Don't you see similarity with Teddy Rosevelt's run to prevent Taft's reelection
and securing Wilson's win? Do you know how Prince Bandar was coaching G.W. Bush to circumvent
the enmity of neocons towards his father? Answer these questions and you will know for whom
Bill Clinton worked. One more thing, Clinton did not touch Palestinian issue until last several
months of his presidency. He did not make G.H. Bush's mistake.
Miro23, August 23, 2016 at 5:45 am GMT • 100 Words
This a straightforward factual article about the Clinton sellout to Israel. So the question
may come down to the effectiveness of MSM propaganda.
It looks very much like the US public is starting to mirror the Eastern European public
under Communism by automatically disregarding government media + there's the added feature of
the internet as a new kind of high-powered Samizdat, that clearly worries the Establishment.
If the script follows through, then there's a good likelihood that the Establishment and their
façade players (Clintons, Bush, Romney, McCain etc) are reaching the end of the line, since like
in E.Europe, there's a background problem of economic failure and extreme élite/public inequality
that can no longer be hidden.
Philip Giraldi, August 23, 2016 at 10:32 am GMT • 100 Words
@hbm
hbm – the FBI concluded that someone working in the White House was MEGA but they decided that
they did not necessarily have enough evidence to convince a jury. He is still around and appears
in the media. As I would prefer not to get sued I will not name him but he is not a Clinton (though
he worked for them as well as for the two Bushes).
"... Yet after all this, Trump remains around 40% in the polls or better - and only about five points behind Hillary Clinton" [Brent Arends, MarketWatch ]. "n other words, in presidential election terms, it's still either party's race. ..."
"... Most elections see swings of several points between August and early November. Some see even bigger ones - at this point in 1988 Vice President George H.W. Bush looked like a no-hoper against Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis. Bush went on to win by seven points. ..."
"... "Three of the top four nonfiction hardcover best sellers in the New York Times Book Review on Sunday were anti-Hillary Clinton screeds ('Hillary's America' by Dinesh D'Souza, 'Crisis of Character' by Gary Byrne, and 'Armageddon' by Dick Morris), and the fourth, 'Liars' by Glenn Beck, was a more general assault on the liberal agenda that certainly has no kind words for Clinton" [ MarketWatch ]. And they say people don't read books any more… ..."
"... Joyce was still keeping her vote a secret, but she thought she knew why people were so angry. 'I think it's more that we don't trust politicians, period,' she said. 'We've gotten to a point in the United States where they're all liars or they're all cheaters or they've all done something wrong and we're gonna blow that up. And so we don't trust any of them.' The other women were nodding. 'And I think," Joyce said, 'that's where Trump's power came from." Joyce is a volatility voter, then. ..."
"... Clinton and "welfare reform": "Having abandoned the maternalists' sentimental defense of motherhood as a sacred calling, most second-wave feminists had no terms in which to mount a convincing justification for income support to poor mothers. ..."
"... Hillary's support for the bill reveals the deep fault lines of class and race that fractured the second-wave feminist movement, as white middle-class women purchased their independence from domestic labor by shifting the burden to working-class women of color " [ N+1 ]. Remember Nannygate ? There you have it. ..."
"Yet after all this, Trump remains around 40% in the polls or better - and only about five
points behind Hillary Clinton" [Brent Arends,
MarketWatch ]. "n other words, in presidential election terms, it's still either party's race.
Most elections see swings of several points between August and early November. Some see even bigger
ones - at this point in 1988 Vice President George H.W. Bush looked like a no-hoper against Massachusetts
Gov. Michael Dukakis. Bush went on to win by seven points.
There is no reason to think this election
will be less volatile than the norm…. Right now the bookmakers give Trump about a 25% chance of
winning. That's high enough to be alarming. But what's worse: If I had to take a wager at these
levels, I'd take the over rather than the under. This race, terrifyingly, is still open."
"That remarkable fact underscores how virtually unchallenged Clinton has been on the advertising
airwaves, as Democratic and Republican strategists alike say she has gone deeper into the election
calendar than any non-incumbent president they can remember in the modern era without sustained,
paid opposition on television" [
Politico ]. So, if election 2016 were a WWF match, the [good|bad] guy would be fighting with
one hand behind his back, and getting pounded, for sure, but….
"Three of the top four nonfiction hardcover best sellers in the New York Times Book Review
on Sunday were anti-Hillary Clinton screeds ('Hillary's America' by Dinesh D'Souza, 'Crisis of
Character' by Gary Byrne, and 'Armageddon' by Dick Morris), and the fourth, 'Liars' by Glenn Beck,
was a more general assault on the liberal agenda that certainly has no kind words for Clinton"
[
MarketWatch ]. And they say people don't read books any more…
"Our research suggests yet another reason not to overreact to news stories about the newest
poll: Media outlets tend to cover the surveys with the most "newsworthy" results, which can distort
the picture of where the race stands" [
WaPo ]. Look! Over there! Another fluctuation well inside the margin of error!
UPDATE "Despite frequent claims of the 'women's vote' working in Democrats' favor, much depends
on which women. Individually, these women's views vary widely, just as the county they live in.
Lake County [Ohio] has been nearly evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Collectively,
they make up a demographic that has reliably voted, and reliably voted Republican, in nearly every
election since 1972: Married women, especially white married women" [
NBC ]. Joyce was still keeping her vote a secret, but she thought she knew why people were
so angry. 'I think it's more that we don't trust politicians, period,' she said. 'We've gotten
to a point in the United States where they're all liars or they're all cheaters or they've all
done something wrong and we're gonna blow that up. And so we don't trust any of them.' The other
women were nodding. 'And I think," Joyce said, 'that's where Trump's power came from." Joyce is
a volatility voter, then.
UPDATE Re: Clinton and "welfare reform": "Having abandoned the maternalists' sentimental
defense of motherhood as a sacred calling, most second-wave feminists had no terms in which to
mount a convincing justification for income support to poor mothers. Other women were working;
why shouldn't they work too? But for middle-class women, work meant public recognition, self-determination,
the right to be seen as autonomous individuals and to participate in civic life. For welfare mothers,
especially black women, who made up two-thirds of all domestic workers by 1960, it meant watching
other women's children, preparing their food, and scrubbing their floors, services that professional
women increasingly relied on as they entered the workforce in greater numbers. The version of
welfare reform Bill Clinton envisioned was much more generous than the bill eventually passed
by the Republican Congress in 1996. It would have included child-care and job-placement programs - but
it would still have required welfare recipients to work. Hillary's support for the bill reveals
the deep fault lines of class and race that fractured the second-wave feminist movement, as
white middle-class women purchased their independence from domestic labor by shifting the
burden to working-class women of color " [
N+1 ]. Remember
Nannygate ? There you have it.
"... A congressional source confirmed to Fox News Tuesday that the House Government Oversight Committee had received a heavily redacted FBI summary of Hillary Clinton's session last month with FBI agents who interviewed her about her use of a private server for government business. The agents' notes were provided as well. ..."
"... Separately, the Republican chairman of the House Government Oversight Committee confirmed that even he does not have a high enough security clearance to read the documents in full. ..."
"... "As the chairman of the chief investigative body in the House, it is significant I can't even read these documents in their entirety," Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah told Fox News."This shows how dangerous it was to have this intelligence, highly classified to this day, on the former Secretary's unsecured personal server where it was vulnerable." ..."
"... The fact that portions of the FBI investigative file are heavily redacted and must be held and read by lawmakers in a secure facility on Capitol Hill shows how classified the material remains, despite claims made by the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... The campaign's call to release the FBI agents' notes appears suspect because the material is too highly classified to make public.The FBI told the committee that the documents cannot be released in part or in full without prior agency approval. ..."
"... "This information being highly classified according to the FBI is in direct conflict with what the State Department and Ms. Clinton have said is on the server. You could not have it both ways," former military intelligence officer Tony Shaffer said. "You cannot say one day this is unclassified 'nothing to see here' and the next day, only certain people can see this and you must not be able to take it outside of a secure facility." ..."
Republicans in Congress demanded the FBI turn over their notes from the
agency's interview with Hillary regarding her private email server.
The
agency dragged their feet.
But when the documents were turned over, most of the information was
hidden.
Hillary's emails contained so much classified information that the
notes were heavily redacted.
Not even members of Congress possessed the appropriate security
clearance to view the notes.
Fox News reports:
A congressional source confirmed to Fox News Tuesday that the
House Government Oversight Committee had received a heavily redacted
FBI summary of Hillary Clinton's session last month with FBI agents
who interviewed her about her use of a private server for government
business. The agents' notes were provided as well.
Separately, the Republican chairman of the House Government
Oversight Committee confirmed that even he does not have a high enough
security clearance to read the documents in full.
"As the chairman of the chief investigative body in the House,
it is significant I can't even read these documents in their
entirety," Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah told Fox News."This shows how
dangerous it was to have this intelligence, highly classified to this
day, on the former Secretary's unsecured personal server where it was
vulnerable."
The fact that portions of the FBI investigative file are
heavily redacted and must be held and read by lawmakers in a secure
facility on Capitol Hill shows how classified the material remains,
despite claims made by the Clinton campaign.
The campaign's call to release the FBI agents' notes appears
suspect because the material is too highly classified to make
public.The FBI told the committee that the documents cannot be
released in part or in full without prior agency approval.
"This information being highly classified according to the FBI
is in direct conflict with what the State Department and Ms. Clinton
have said is on the server. You could not have it both ways," former
military intelligence officer Tony Shaffer said. "You cannot say one
day this is unclassified 'nothing to see here' and the next day, only
certain people can see this and you must not be able to take it
outside of a secure facility."
This just proves Hillary Clinton is a liar.
She claimed she never sent or received any information that was marked
classified.
But the redacted notes - clearly hiding information that was so
classified not even a committee chair could read it - indicate Hillary
should have known classified intelligence was on her server.
The redacted notes also call into question FBI Director Comey's
decision not to recommend criminal charges be brought against Hillary.
As more details emerge, critics are convinced Director Comey failed to
recommend charges because Obama endorsed Hillary for President.
Announcing Hillary should be charged just weeks before she was to
accept the Democrat Party's nomination for president would have thrown
the race into chaos.
It also may have handed the nomination to Bernie Sanders, a candidate
many believe because of his socialist views was too extreme to win a
presidential election.
If Hillary was indicted and lost to Trump, Republicans could dismantle
Obama's entire agenda.
Protecting his achievements - namely ObamaCare - is a central reason
Obama endorsed Hillary and has fiercely attacked Donald Trump.
And many believe the FBI took a dive on the investigation because the
Director got cold feet about involving the Bureau during a presidential
election.
This is a real "Hillary for jail" type of news ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... While the boxes contained "dozens of FBI reports concerning Foster's death - including interviews with the medical examiner, U.S. Park Police officers, and White House aides about the contents of Foster's office" it was mysteriously missing the reports of Copeland and Clemente. ..."
"... "He examined all eight boxes but found no interviews by any investigator that detail either a meeting between Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster or the effects of a meeting between Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster on Vince Foster's state of mind. We did not limit ourselves to interviews by the two individuals [FBI agents] you mention." ..."
Aug 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-23/fbi-reports-linking-hillary-vince-foster-suicide-go-missing-national-archives"
Vince Foster was a mentor to
Hillary when they worked together at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas. When Bill was confirmed
as the 42nd President of the United States on January 20, 1993, Foster took a role as his Deputy
White House Counsel. 6 months later, to the day, Foster was found dead in Fort Marcy Park, along
the Potomac River, of an apparent "suicide" resulting from a gun shot from a .38 caliber revolver.
Like a lot of things surrounding the Clintons, Foster's "suicide" has always been shrouded
in mystery. A few months ago,
The Daily Mail interviewed former FBI agents Coy Copeland and Jim Clemente who claimed
that Hillary "triggered" Foster's "suicide" by "humiliating" him in front of colleagues just a few
days before
' Hillary put him down really, really bad in a pretty good-size meeting,
' Copeland says. ' She told him he didn't get the picture, and he would always
be a little hick town lawyer who was obviously not ready for the big time.'
Indeed, Hillary went so far as to blame Foster for all the Clintons' problems and
to accuse him of failing them , according to Clemente, who was also assigned by the
FBI to the Starr investigation and who probed the circumstances surrounding Foster's suicide.
'Foster was profoundly depressed, but Hillary lambasting him was the final straw because
she publicly embarrassed him in front of others,' says Clemente.
' Hillary blamed him for failed nominations, claimed he had not vetted them properly
, and said in front of his White House colleagues, ' You're not protecting
us ' and ' You have failed us ,' Clemente says. 'That was the final
blow.'
After the White House meeting, Foster's behavior changed dramatically ,
the FBI agents found. Those who knew him said his voice sounded strained, he became withdrawn
and preoccupied, and his sense of humor vanished. At times, Foster teared up. He talked of
feeling trapped.
On Tuesday, July 13, 1993, while having dinner with his wife Lisa, Foster broke down and
began to cry. He said he was considering resigning.
That weekend, Foster and his wife drove to the Eastern Shore of Maryland, where they saw
their friends, Michael Cardoza and Webster Hubbell, and their wives.
'They played tennis, they swam, and they said he sat in a lawn chair, just kind of sat there
in the lawn chair,' Copeland says. 'They said that just was not Vince.
He loved to play tennis, and he was always sociable, but he just sat over in the corner
by himself and stared off into space, reading a book.'
Two days later, Foster left the White House parking lot at 1:10 p.m. The precise time when
he shot himself could not be pinpointed. After Park Police found his body, they notified the
U.S. Secret Service at 8:30 p.m.
Based on what 'dozens' of others who had contact with Foster after that meeting told the
agents, while Foster was already depressed, 'The put-down that she gave him in that
big meeting just pushed him over the edge, ' Copeland says. 'It was the final straw
that broke the camel's back.'
No one can explain a suicide in rational terms. But the FBI investigation concluded
that it was Hillary's vilification of Foster in front of other White House aides, coming on
top of his depression, that triggered his suicide about a week later , Copeland and
Clemente both say.
The Daily Mail is now reporting that an "extensive investigation" has found that FBI reports
filed by those former agents have "gone missing" from records stored at the National Archives
and Records Service in College Park, MD. On two occasions, reporters went to the National
Archives to review boxes of evidence related to Vince Foster's death. While the boxes contained
"dozens of FBI reports concerning Foster's death - including interviews with the medical examiner,
U.S. Park Police officers, and White House aides about the contents of Foster's office" it was
mysteriously missing the reports of Copeland and Clemente.
Growing suspicious of the missing reports, The Daily Mail filed a FOIA request with Martha Murphy of the National Archives who subsequently reviewed all of the "
relevant FBI files, including those that had not been previously made public.
" An emailed response from Martha Murphy reported that the FBI files requested could still not
be found:
"He examined all eight boxes but found no interviews by any investigator that detail
either a meeting between Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster or the effects of a meeting between
Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster on Vince Foster's state of mind. We did not limit
ourselves to interviews by the two individuals [FBI agents] you mention."
But to be clear, according the Director of Communications and Marketing at the National
Archives, John Valceanu, just because the FBI agents' reports could not be located doesn't mean
they've been vanished :
'We do not agree with your conclusion that the records you requested are missing from the
National Archives simply because we were unable to locate any responsive records in response
to your request.'
Instead, Valceanu suggested the files might just be misplaced among the other 3,000 boxes of
records related to the FBI's investigation into the Clinton's Whitewater scandal.
Certainly, we can understand how difficult it must be to keep track of all the boxes of FBI
evidence related to past Clinton investigations but it does seem suspicious that this specific
report would be the one to go missing.
VegasBob -> Government needs you to pay taxes •Aug 23, 2016 4:05 PM
These wouldn't be the first documents Sidney Blumenthal stole from the National Archives.
Blankenstein -> Government needs you to pay taxes •Aug 23, 2016 4:23 PM
And they have a history with "missing" documents
" After nearly two years of searches and subpoenas, the White House said this evening that
it had unexpectedly discovered copies of missing documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's law
firm that describe her work for a failing savings and loan association in the 1980's."
"The mysterious appearance of the billing records, which had been the specific subject of
various investigative subpoenas for two years, sparked intense interest about how they
surfaced and where they had been"
"But Whitewater investigators believe that the billing records show significant
representation. They argue that the records prove that Ms. Clinton was not only directly
involved in the representation of Madison, but more specifically, in providing legal work on
the fraudulent Castle Grande land deal."
"Investigators believe this suggests that, at some point, this copy was passed from Vince
Foster to Hillary Clinton for her review.
In addition, investigators had the FBI conduct fingerprint analysis of the billing records.
Of significance, the prints of Vince Foster and Hillary Clinton were found."
The problem is most psychopaths tend to seek political power.
Mena Arkansas •Aug 23, 2016 4:10 PM
This is a great interview with Patrick Knowlton who was taking a leak in Fort Marcy Park
and saw a brown Honda - not the grey Honda Vince Foster drove.
According to him, the FBI actively covered up the whole crime.
They also attempted to intimidate the witnesses through gang stalking and other methods.
And the FBI "investigation" of JFK's death was really a cover up. J Edgar Hoover and the
Kennedy brothers hated each other. They were going to make Hoover retire when he reached the
mandatory retirement age of 70 in 1965. So he had no real interest in hunting for JFK's real
killers. The members of the Warren commission were probably picked because Hoover had
blackmail information on them and could control them to prevent them from reaching conclusions
that contradicted the FBI's report (which he leaked before the commission was even formed.)
Herdee •Aug 23, 2016 4:54 PM
There are highly trained people in what is called "Document Management."Oil Companies and
all major corporations and Government use these people in their operations every day. The
paper documents are stored separately in warehouses that specialize in this part of the
operation. The paper documents are scanned and stored. Many use sophisticated and highly
secure server farms to store electronic data on the paper version. Nothing just goes missing,
there are checks and balances throughout the process and everything is coded and recorded
whenever anything is accessed either electronically or through paper. At the server farm the
security is very tight everything is videotaped, security guards watch every single movement.
Sandy Berger the former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor, said he made a
"mistake" and was just "sloppy" when an FBI investigation revealed that he had stolen Top
Secret memos and documents from the National Archives relating to the events surrounding
al-Qaida attacks on America during the 1990s and in the year 2000. Archive security notified
the FBI when they discovered documents missing, and saw Berger stuffing papers into his pants,
socks, and a leather briefcase.
Democrats are defending Mr. Berger by attacking the "timing" of the revelation that he was,
ah, "sloppy." They stand behind his contention that he didn't really commit a crime, by
stuffing Top Secret material in his pants and removing them from Federal custody. The Democrat
spinmasters say that the revelation that Mr. Berger had "mistakenly" stuffed certain documents
in his pants relating to how Clinton handled terrorism prior to 9/11 is just Republican
trickery and an attempt by Bush to divert American's attention from his failures in the unjust
war in Iraq.
The likelihood is that the Clinton presidency will be tumultuous.
No Honeymoon: On the left, there are fewer hopes about Clinton than about
Barack Obama. The pressure will begin even before she takes office in what is likely to be a battle
royal in the lame duck session of Congress as Obama tries to force through his TPP trade deal.
New Energy: If the Sanders supporters stay engaged, there could be an organizational
form – his OurRevolution and his institute – that can do what a political party should do: educate
and mobilize around progressive issues; recruit and support truly progressive candidates. This
insurgency may continue to grow.
New Generation: It can't be forgotten how overwhelmingly Sanders won young
voters. He not only won 3 of 4 millennial voters in the Democratic primaries, he won a majority
of young people of color voting. Some of this was his message. Much of it was the integrity of
someone consistent in his views spurning the big money corruptions of our politics. These young
people are going to keep moving. They won't find answers in a Clinton administration. We're going
to see more movements, more disruptions, and more mobilizations – around jobs, around student
debt, about inequality, around criminal justice, immigration, globalization, and climate and more.
New Coalitions: Sanders and Trump clearly have shaken the coalitions of their
parties. Trump combined populism with bigotry and xenophobia to break up the Republican establishment's
ability to use the latter to support their neoliberal economics. Sanders attracted support of
the young across lines of race, challenging the Democratic establishment's ability to use liberal
identity politics to fuse minorities and upper middle class professionals into a majority coalition.
Clinton fended off the challenge, but the shakeup has only begun.
New Ideas: The Davos era has failed. There is no way it can continue down
the road without producing more and more opposition. This is now the second straight "recovery"
in which most Americans will lose ground. Already the elite is embattled intellectually on key
elements of the neo-liberal agenda: corporate globalization, privatization, austerity, "small
government," even global policing. Joe Stiglitz suggests that the Davos era is over, but that
is premature. What is clear is that it has failed and the struggle to replace it has just begun.
And that waving the white flag because Trump is besmirching populism mistakes today's farce for
history's drama.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Assange also pointed to Hillary Clinton's relations with Saudi Arabia that have led to great
angst among Israel, a country that now worries where her allegiances fall in the region. "[Her
connection to Saudi Arabia] is extensive. The relations between Hillary and Saudi Arabia. The
Clinton Foundation and Saudi Arabia," opined Assange. "Saudi Arabia is probably the single
largest donor to the Clinton Foundation. You can see Hillary's arms export policies where she was
Secretary of State favoring Saudi Arabia extensively."
The whistleblower also blasted Clinton for her allegations that Trump is a secret Russian
agent saying that "there is a much deeper connection between Hillary Clinton and Russia on record
than there is with Donald Trump." Assange pointed to the fact that her top strategic consultant
John Podesta sits on the board of a Russian connected fund and her pay-to-play activities
with Moscow businessmen who would make donations to the Clinton Foundation and then miraculously
receive State Department clearance to undertake business in the US.
Perhaps his most damning statements were Clinton's financial links to radical Jihadist groups
in the Middle East and the State Department's policy of using Libya as conduit to get arms
to Syria.
"The US government, at the time that Hillary Clinton was in charge of US foreign policy, did
use Libya as a conduit to get arms to Jihadists in Syria," said Assange. "That is well
established not just by a range of our materials, but also by the investigative work of Sy Hersh."
Assange also called into question links between Hillary Clinton's former employer LaFarge, a
cement company that the presidential candidate served on the board of directors for, which is now
under investigation for contracting with the Daesh (known colloquially as ISIS) terror network in
Syria.
"La Monde found that [LaFarge] paid ISIS/Daesh money, taxes if you will, for their operations in
certain areas and they engaged in a variety of business deals," said Assange. "Hillary Clinton's
involvement is that money from LaFarge in 2015 and 2016 went to the Clinton Foundation. Why did
it go to that foundation? There is a long-time connection between Hillary Clinton and La Farge
because she used to be on the board."
The idea that Hillary Clinton can be viewed as Saudi candidate is not as crazy as it looks.
She feels the smell of money and that's the most important thing in life for her.
Notable quotes:
"... The [neoliberal] media has had a field day commenting on Donald Trump's words about cooperation with Russia against ISIS, labeling him a 'Kremlin agent' and a danger to the Western security order. But what about Hillary Clinton and her foundation's ties to the Saudis? If Trump is 'Moscow's man', does that make Clinton the candidate of Middle Eastern sheikdoms? ..."
"... The media have accused Moscow of every sin imaginable, from meddling in America's elections, to using Trump advisor Paul Manafort, who was called 'the Kremlin's man in Ukraine', to outright calling Trump himself a 'Russian agent' . ..."
"... Former NATO chief Anders Rasmussen joined the party bashing Trump recently, slamming him for having "his own views on the Ukrainian conflict," and adding that to top it all off, "he praises President Putin!" ..."
"... The Times' piece reported on the fact that the Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the US State Department has repeatedly criticized for human rights abuses and discrimination against women. The offending countries purportedly include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Brunei, along with Algeria. Riyadh, the paper noted, was "a particularly generous benefactor," giving between $10 and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with at least another $1 million donated by the 'Friends of Saudi Arabia' organization. ..."
"... the plot thickens. On Sunday, conservative US and British media revealed that Huma Abedin, a longtime friend and top aid to Clinton, had worked as an assistant editor for a radical Islamic Saudi journal for over a decade. The publication, called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, featured everything from pieces opposed to women's rights, to articles blaming the US for the September 11 terror attacks. ..."
"... Abedin has long been accused by independent media in the US and elsewhere of having connections with Islamic organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood, charges which have long been labeled as nothing more than a conspiracy theory. ..."
The [neoliberal] media has had a field day commenting on Donald Trump's words about cooperation
with Russia against ISIS, labeling him a 'Kremlin agent' and a danger to the Western security order.
But what about Hillary Clinton and her foundation's ties to the Saudis? If Trump is 'Moscow's man',
does that make Clinton the candidate of Middle Eastern sheikdoms?
The US media has been relentless in its efforts to sink Republican presidential candidate Donald
Trump's campaign, in part due to the candidate's string of friendly remarks and gestures toward Russia
and President Vladimir Putin. The media have accused Moscow of every sin imaginable, from
meddling in America's elections, to using Trump advisor Paul Manafort, who was
called 'the Kremlin's man in Ukraine', to outright calling Trump himself a
'Russian agent'.
Former NATO chief Anders Rasmussen joined the party bashing Trump recently,
slamming him for having "his own views on the Ukrainian conflict," and adding that to top it
all off, "he praises President Putin!"
Admittedly, Mr. Trump does seem very open to the idea of negotiating with Russia, and even partnering
with Moscow to tackle some of the greatest challenges facing the world today, including radical Islamist
terrorism. In that sense, he may really be the most 'Russia friendly' presidential candidate the
US has seen since 1945, not counting the early 1990s, when Washington's friendly overtures toward
Russia were based on the condition that Moscow does everything US officials tell it to.
Does that
make him a puppet to the Russians, the Kremlin and to Vladimir Putin personally? Not likely. Despite
all the media investigations and even more accusations, no substantiated evidence has been presented
demonstrating that Trump has any significant business or personal interests in Russia which would
create a conflict of interest. The businessman held a Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow a few years
ago, and tried, unsuccessfully, to build a Trump tower in the Russian capital. But he also has assets
around the world, in Scotland, Dubai, and in over a dozen other countries. Does that make him the
agent of these countries, too?
Amid the endless suspicions surrounding 'Kremlin Agent Trump', a story in the New York Times unassumingly
titled'Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign' almost slipped through
the cracks, before blowing up on national television.
The Times' piece reported on the fact that the Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions
of dollars from countries that the US State Department has repeatedly criticized for human rights
abuses and discrimination against women. The offending countries purportedly include Saudi Arabia,
the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Brunei, along with Algeria. Riyadh, the paper
noted, was "a particularly generous benefactor," giving between $10 and $25 million to the Clinton
Foundation, with at least another $1 million donated by the 'Friends of Saudi Arabia' organization.
The scandal didn't end there. Speaking to CNN reporter Dana Bash, Clinton Campaign manager Robby
Mook
could not coherently explain why the Clintons weren't willing to stop accepting donations from
foreign 'investors' unless Clinton became president of the United States. Instead, Mook tried to
divert the question to Donald Trump, saying the candidate has never revealed his financials, and
adding that Mrs. Clinton had taken "unprecedented" steps to being "transparent."
And the plot
thickens. On Sunday, conservative US and British media
revealed that Huma Abedin, a longtime friend and top aid to Clinton, had worked as an assistant
editor for a radical Islamic Saudi journal for over a decade. The publication, called the Journal
of Muslim Minority Affairs, featured everything from pieces opposed to women's rights, to articles
blaming the US for the September 11 terror attacks.
In one article in January 1996, Abedin's own mother wrote a piece for the journal, where she complained
that Clinton, who was First Lady at the time, was advancing a "very aggressive and radically feminist"
agenda which was un-Islamic and dangerous for empowering women.
Abedin has long been accused by independent media in the US and elsewhere of having connections
with Islamic organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood, charges which have long been labeled
as nothing more than a conspiracy theory. But Sunday's story seems to have ruffled a few feathers
in some high places, with a Clinton campaign spokesperson
explaining (rather unconvincingly) to the New York Post that Abedin played no formal role in
the radical journal. "My understanding is that her name was simply listed on the masthead in that
periodical," the spokesman said.
These two stories, the first offering new details including dollar estimates about the money received
by the Clinton Foundation from the Saudis, and the second shedding light on her top advisor's apparent
ties to a Saudi journal propagating Islamist ideas, should lead the media to look for answers to
some very troubling questions. These should be the same kinds of questions asked earlier this summer,
when a formerly classified 28 page chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report was finally released, revealing
that Saudi officials had supported the hijackers who carried out the terrorist attacks against the
United States in 2001.
Two weeks ago at the Republican National Convention (RNC) a grieving mother blasted Hillary
Clinton for the debacle of the 2012 Benghazi attack. Last Thursday, at the Democratic National
Convention (DNC), grieving parents gave a speech criticizing Donald Trump for his statements
against Muslims.
While all the grieving parents deserve sympathy, the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening
and morning shows seemed to only care about the parents that showed up at the Democratic
Convention. Khizr Khan and his wife Ghazla's DNC appearance earned 55 minutes, 13 seconds of Big
Three network coverage, nearly 50 times more than Pat Smith, whose RNC speech honoring her son
earned just 70 seconds of airtime.
In the days (July 19 to August 1) that followed Smith's indictment of Clinton from the RNC
podium, CBS (3 seconds) ABC (13 seconds) and NBC (54 seconds) gave her speech a total of just
70 seconds of coverage.
In the four days (July 29 to August 1) following Khizr Khan and his wife Ghazala's speech
NBC (31 minutes, 39 seconds), offered the most amount of time followed by ABC (14 minutes, 21
seconds) and then CBS (9 minutes, 13 seconds).
This is a textbook case of bias-by-agenda: One of these stories (the Khan story) matched the
Democratic agenda, and the partisan media couldn't push it hard enough. The other (the Smith
story) reflected poorly on the Democratic nominee, so it was barely mentioned.
... ... ...
While Smith's emotional pleas were downplayed by the networks, Khan's speech and subsequent
back and forth with Trump were played up. On the July 29 edition of CBS This Morning co-anchor
Norah O'Donnell noted "One of the most powerful convention moments last night came from the
father of a Muslim-American soldier who was killed in Iraq in 2004. Khizir Khan criticized Donald
Trump for singling out Muslims during the campaign." Her CBS colleague Gayle King added: "That
appearance by the Khans is being described as one of the most powerful of the night. People were
moved to tears by the two of them standing there."
On the August 1Today show, substitute host Tamron Hall reported "Republican presidential nominee
Donald Trump campaigns in the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania today, but controversy
will follow him after his remarks about the parents of a Muslim-American soldier killed in Iraq."
Her colleague Andrea Mitchell added "Hillary Clinton is calling on Republicans to abandon Donald
Trump, and in her words, 'put country before party' because of his controversial comments about
Captain Khan and his family."
Earlier in the show, co-anchor Savannah Guthrie interviewed the Khans. But so far Pat Smith,
shamefully, has yet to be extended the same courtesy on any of the Big Three evening or morning
shows.
"... Despite all efforts by the media to distort Trump's position about "banning" Muslims, he has made perfectly clear time and again that he does not want to ban all Muslims. He wants to simply perform thorough and complete background checks on all immigrants coming from countries presently in the grips of violent Islamic terrorism. ..."
"... To her, Capt. Khan is not a just soldier who died defending his country in a foreign land. First and foremost, to her, he is a Muslim of Pakistani heritage and therefore is a perfect political pawn for just the right situation. ..."
"... For just about every American alive, Capt. Khan is an inspiring and unifying figure. To Hillary Clinton, he is a tool to be used to divide people. In her false promise of unifying America, she creates a national political Babylon. Her avaricious greed for more and more power knows no bounds. ..."
"... Politicians like Hillary Clinton slice and dice people into racial and gender groups. Then they toot on all their little "dog whistles" to send all their little demographic pawns scurrying in various directions. That is how you wind up with Khizr Khan standing on stage beside his head-scarved wife, waving around the U.S. Constitution and distorting Donald Trump's position on keeping radical Islamic terrorism at bay. ..."
"... Perhaps a better testimony from Khizr Khan would have been for him to talk about how Hillary Clinton was in the U.S. Senate when she voted to invade Iraq. Years later, after that position became politically unpopular, she changed her mind and joined new political forces to vacate all the land across Iraq that so many great American patriots like Capt. Humayun Khan had died for. ..."
"... It was her vote that sent Capt. Khan to his death. And then it was her decisions later to render that sacrifice worthless. ..."
Khizr Khan is a fine American and the father of a true American patriot. But now he is also everything
that is wrong with American politics today.
It is not entirely his fault, though he has only himself to blame for allowing his dead son to
be used for the most hideous of purposes and dragged through the gutter of nasty and dishonest partisan
politics.
Khan and his wife took to the stage at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia last week
to deliver an impassioned rebuke of Donald J.Trump that was universally celebrated by the media.
Even Republican politicos swooned at the gambit. The Clinton campaign trotted out the Muslim couple
because their son, Captain Humayun Khan, was killed by a car bomb in 2004 while guarding a base in
Iraq.
"If it was up to
Donald
Trump
, he never would have been in America," said Khan, sliding easily into the political tradition
of lying and distorting the position of one's opponent.
"Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims," he went on. "He disrespects other
minorities, women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls and ban us from
this country."
Despite all efforts by the media to distort Trump's position about "banning" Muslims, he has
made perfectly clear time and again that he does not want to ban all Muslims. He wants to simply
perform thorough and complete background checks on all immigrants coming from countries presently
in the grips of violent Islamic terrorism.
Yes, that means if you are a Muslim who wants to immigrate from Syria or Afghanistan, you are
going to get a lot more scrutiny than if you are a Jew trying to immigrate from Canada. That is most
unfortunate, but not nearly as unfortunate as innocents getting slaughtered by 10th Century savages
killing in the name of Allah.
Anyway, this higher scrutiny should be no obstacle for the likes of Khizr Khan and his family,
except for the additional hassle.
So, why would Khizr Khan choose to insert himself into politics and demean his son's sacrifice
by lying at a political convention on national television? The answer is simple: He allowed himself
to be tricked into it. And the Clinton campaign was all too eager to take advantage of him and his
family and Capt. Khan and use them for their own political partisan purposes.
Stop for a moment and ask yourself how exactly the Clinton campaign arrived at the decision to
trot out the Khan family in the middle of their highly-choreographed, exhaustively produced convention?
Were they just looking to give voice to the parents of a soldier? That would be a first. Did they
want parents of anyone who had died abroad in the defense of their country? Gee, why not pick the
parents of one of the fallen warriors who died defending the U.S. consulate in Benghazi? Oh, that's
right. They would have called
Hillary Clinton
a liar. Can't have that.
No. Politicians like Hillary Clinton do not see people like Capt. Humayun Khan as a soldier who
made the ultimate sacrifice on a foreign battlefield in defense of his country. Politicians like
Hillary Clinton see him only a demographic, a dispensable political pawn to be scooted around an
electoral map, the way generals used to move armies across giant maps of the lands they were invading.
But instead of liberating Europe from evil fascists, politicians like Hillary Clinton use their
long, worn croupier rakes to move their pawns about with the singular goal of advancing their own
personal political careers.
To her, Capt. Khan is not a just soldier who died defending his country in a foreign land.
First and foremost, to her, he is a Muslim of Pakistani heritage and therefore is a perfect political
pawn for just the right situation.
For just about every American alive, Capt. Khan is an inspiring and unifying figure. To Hillary
Clinton, he is a tool to be used to divide people. In her false promise of unifying America, she
creates a national political Babylon. Her avaricious greed for more and more power knows no bounds.
It is an open secret in Washington that politics is the last bastion of rampant racial profiling.
Both parties do it, but Democrats have taken it to a whole new scientific level.
Politicians like Hillary Clinton slice and dice people into racial and gender groups. Then
they toot on all their little "dog whistles" to send all their little demographic pawns scurrying
in various directions. That is how you wind up with Khizr Khan standing on stage beside his head-scarved
wife, waving around the U.S. Constitution and distorting Donald Trump's position on keeping radical
Islamic terrorism at bay.
Perhaps a better testimony from Khizr Khan would have been for him to talk about how Hillary
Clinton was in the U.S. Senate when she voted to invade Iraq. Years later, after that position became
politically unpopular, she changed her mind and joined new political forces to vacate all the land
across Iraq that so many great American patriots like Capt. Humayun Khan had died for.
It was her vote that sent Capt. Khan to his death. And then it was her decisions later to
render that sacrifice worthless.
Try sticking that into your dog whistle and blowing it.
Hurt writes the "Nuclear Option" column for The Washington Times. A former D.C. bureau chief
for the New York Post, he has covered the White House, Congress and presidential campaigns since
2001. Follow him on Twitter @charleshurt.
"... "The truth is, she was using it for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did." (Powell added, "It doesn't bother me. But it's okay; I'm free.") ..."
"... The Clintons' blatantly dishonest attempts to cover-up and deny their scandals are almost always worse than the scandals themselves. They are shameless and believe they are above reproach ..."
"... Ha. You realize that the first time that Hillary Clinton used the term "vast right wing conspiracy" was regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal? How did the GOP force Bill to take advantage of a subordinate? ..."
When People spoke with Powell Sunday night in the Hamptons, he was
blunter. "Her people have been trying to pin it on me,"
he said. "The truth is, she was using it for a year before I sent her a memo telling her
what I did." (Powell added, "It doesn't bother me. But it's okay; I'm free.")
JerseyCowboy > xplosneer
The Clintons' blatantly dishonest attempts to cover-up and deny their
scandals are almost always worse than the scandals themselves. They are shameless and believe
they are above reproach.
spudwhisperer > JerseyCowboy
I disagree - I think the scandals would be disqualifying and liable for prosecution even if
there were no cover-up.
mtbr1975 > xplosneer
I think a lot of that developed because of all the attempts to pin scandals on her... Can
you really blame her? Look at all the garbage she's been accused of... Everything from murder
to enabling Bill Clinton to cheat on her.
Uncle Luie > mtbr1975
100% true! From her lawyer billings in the early 80s, to Whitewater to Vince Foster,
Travel-gate and on and on. The most accurate thing she ever said was about the "vast right
wing conspiracy", also 100% true, just like Mconnell's plan to oppose and obstruct everything
Obama tries to accomplish. These people are dirt
oracle > Uncle Luie
"The most accurate thing she ever said was about the "vast right wing conspiracy", also
100% true"
Ha. You realize that the first time that Hillary Clinton used the term "vast right wing
conspiracy" was regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal? How did the GOP force Bill to take
advantage of a subordinate?
Disqus 30 > qaz zaq
Don't forget she's the devil and founded ISIS. Those are the best ones.
Lexi > Disqus
It's true trolly. Proof is all over the place. Wow- you are defending her like she's a
saint. Nobody is doing that. You seem full of morality (Not) to defend a serial liar who
corrupted our country in the worst possible ways. Sad you.
bookish1 > mtbr1975
Sorry, but it was Hillary who decided to set up her own email server, send classified
material, refuse to authorize a Benghazi rescue mission, make millions off the Russian uranium
deal, and "mistakenly" delete 30,000 emails. If she wasn't so inept and corrupt, she wouldn't
be hit with all these "scandals."
See how that works?
jar > xplosneer
This one is particularly mendacious as she has previously publicly stated that she chose
the private server so she would only have to carry one device. Of what relevance is Powell's
prior practice if this was her motivation? The fact is that she will throw up as many excuses
and deflections as she can, without any regard for the consistency of her arguments. This is
why over 60% of the American people find her dishonest and untrustworthy (or, as a recent poll
indicated, only 11% of the public finds her honest and trustworthy).
Yoch Man > Lew
The world has NOT changed much in 25 years and being young has nothing to do with it. I
have worked in IT for 26 years at a state level. If I had done what Clinton did back in 1989 I
would have been fired and gone to jail for several reasons. aside from top secret or
classified information. FERPA and the Federal records act are just two reasons. The Federal
records act is as old as 1950. Every single document that is compiled on work computers OR
work hours belongs to the state or Federal government. I also have an obligation to protect
emails addresses, employees that I work with. I must keep their personal information
confidential. Add on top of that a nations secrets.
In 1995 Bill Clinton passed legislation and clarified the Federal records act and classified
information. See state department manual "5 FAM". It has been there for 21 years. Hillary
Clinton is lying to you.
DB > Lew • 7 hours ago
Clinton hired her own IT boy. He was not in his 60s. You can make excuses for her age all
you like..... but it doesn't work. Btw, I have friends in their 60s who run major IT depts.
Being old yourself, you should know people can stay sharp barring some physical/cognitive
issues.
Lew > bookish1
How would you grant control of 1/5 of Americas Uranium? You believe if you owned 20% of
Berkshire Hathaway you'd start pushing Buffets buttons?
You think you'd be telling the board; I'll be taking home six tractor trailer loads of wrigley
gum for my son's birthday party?
You think you'd be telling "fruit of the loom" how to put a better cheaper elastic on their
underwear?...
This company will share in Corp. profit, little more...
Tyfereth > Admiral Nelson
Loathing Donald Trump and finding Hillary Clinton's serial mendaciousness and corruption
upsetting are not mutually exclusive propositions. There is literally no one who Hillary
Clinton won't blame to avoid personal responsibility for her actions, and while it may not
matter to her supporters that she's throwing General Powell under the bus, its a sign that we
are in for 8 years of Hillary Clinton making poor decisions, and deflecting blame onto others.
Raubüberfall
Hillary's reason for using a private email server was so she could control that source of
information, which the public and other State Dept. officials would now have access to only
through her. A shadow Secretary of State, that is, unaccountable to president, public, and law
enforcement alike.
This is from 2008. An interesting mention of Rove playbook that says, "Attack your opponent's
perceived strength."
Notable quotes:
"... Rove playbook that says, "Attack your opponent's perceived strength." If that strength is merely "perceived" and not real, it's a legitimate tactic, but Rove attacks even when the perception is justified, and the Clintons are now doing the same. ..."
"... Bill did this in New Hampshire when he contended that Obama was not really a consistent war opponent. Hillary put this tactic way out front on Meet the Press today. She said that Obama's campaign is premised entirely on his October 2002 speech, and she said that Obama did nothing after that speech. ..."
"... A key point that has not been made is, if Hillary Clinton is telling the truth that she secretly opposed the invasion on March 20, 2003, then she cannot possibly claim the mantle of a leader, because she did not speak out against the prospect of invasion, even though she, due to her celebrity status, had one of the loudest megaphones to do so. ..."
Many of your
recent posts on the Obama-Clinton contest are missing the forest for the trees. They are focusing
on
small annoyances from Camp Clinton. The big story of the last week is that the Clintons are
trying to strip Obama of his rightful advantage on the Iraq war "judgment" issue and carry out
the tactic from the Rove playbook that says, "Attack your opponent's perceived strength." If that
strength is merely "perceived" and not real, it's a legitimate tactic, but Rove attacks even when
the perception is justified, and the Clintons are now doing the same.
Bill did this in New Hampshire when he contended that Obama was not really a consistent war
opponent. Hillary put this tactic way out front on Meet the Press today. She said that Obama's
campaign is premised entirely on his October 2002 speech, and she said that Obama did nothing
after that speech. This is just an out and out lie; there are no shades of gray here. Here are
two examples of what Obama did after his October 2002 speech that I was able to find through a
simple Nexis search:
On March 4, 2003, an AP story picked up by an Illinois newspaper, the Belleville News Democrat,
states as follows:
"Barack Obama is criticizing the idea of war against Iraq and challenging his Democratic
opponents in the U.S. Senate race to take a stand on the question....'What's tempting is to
take the path of least resistance and keep quiet on the issue, knowing that maybe in two or
three or six months, at least the fighting will be over and you can see how it plays itself
out,' said Obama, a state senator from Chicago."
On March 17, 2003, the Chicago Sun Times reported this:
"Thousands of demonstrators packed Daley Center Plaza for a two- hour rally Sunday [two
days before Bush issued his ultimatum against Saddam and four days before the invasion], then
marched through downtown in Chicago's largest protest to date against an Iraq war. Crowd
estimates from police and organizers ranged from 5,000 to 10,000.... State
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago) told the crowd, 'It's not too late' to stop the war."
All of this is highly relevant, because Hillary's account of her own actions in the October
2002 - March 20, 2003 period (March 20 being the day of the invasion) is that she voted, not to
authorize war, but inspections, and that when the inspectors were there in March 2003, she, in
her own mind, opposed the invasion and would not have carried it out had she been President.
A key point that has not been made is, if Hillary Clinton is telling the truth that she secretly
opposed the invasion on March 20, 2003, then she cannot possibly claim the mantle of a leader,
because she did not speak out against the prospect of invasion, even though she, due to her celebrity
status, had one of the loudest megaphones to do so.
"... Eliot Cohen, or any member of the PNAC, calling Trump or anyone else 'fundamentally dishonest' is simply beyond the pale. It takes some serious nerve and arrogance for traitorous liars of this magnitude to be calling out Trump regardless of the veracity of their claims. ..."
"... Nothing pleases me more than the careerist parasites and wannabe czars of DC feeling compelled to justify their proven incompetence by slagging the guy who seems increasingly likely to be their boss. Now if only the other half of the DC cesspool can do the same, maybe something good can actually happen for the rest of the country. ..."
"... How terrific that the neocons are freaking out. Wait until the pharmaceuticals start hitting his healthcare proposals for bargaining down the cost of drugs. Good to have an outsider in the game. ..."
"... Instead of calling these opponents Neocons, we should be calling them the Israel Lobby. They will wage war against any politician who doesn't agree to make America's Middle East policy coextensive with that of Israel. They don't care if their attacks destroy the Republican Party, because their loyalties lie elsewhere. Their motto is rule or ruin. ..."
"... Whatever! There is one and only one reason why Bush-era foreign policy people are attacking Trump: He has rejected their extreme neocon warmongering. They want a president who will start whatever wars Netanyahu orders, and they think Trump will tell Netanyahu to go screw himself. ..."
The neocons in full revolt (or is it full revolting)!
God, I have not seen such unity within the neocon cabal since they were ginning up support for
the Iraq disaster. Trump does show how badly needed a full house cleaning and a serious
revamping of the foreign policy establishment is required. However, in this case, with Trump
being the complete wild card, I think a plan B is needed, whatever that might be.
It certainly is not Hillary! She has been embraced by high and mighty poobahs of the neocon
cabal so nothing changes with her in charge-more wars, more interventions, more regime
changes. We would keep trying until we get one right, as unlikely that might be.
PDXing, 3/3/2016 4:15 PM EST
Eliot Cohen, or any member of the PNAC, calling Trump or anyone else 'fundamentally
dishonest' is simply beyond the pale. It takes some serious nerve and arrogance for traitorous
liars of this magnitude to be calling out Trump regardless of the veracity of their claims.
David_Lloyd-Jones, 3/3/2016 3:41 PM EST [Edited]
Wey-yull, I'm no Republican, but FWIW I would think having Michael Chertoff and Robert
Zoellick against me would be winning the daily double.
All this and being condemned by The Mittens? Pure gravy. And people wonder why Trump is doing
so well? Seems pretty obvious to me.
There's only one hope for Rubio: where's Darth Cheney when you need him?
yibberat, 3/3/2016 3:23 PM EST
Nothing pleases me more than the careerist parasites and wannabe czars of DC feeling
compelled to justify their proven incompetence by slagging the guy who seems increasingly
likely to be their boss. Now if only the other half of the DC cesspool can do the same, maybe
something good can actually happen for the rest of the country.
And I hate Trump. But man this show is worth MANY buckets of popcorn.
Janine, 3/3/2016 12:58 PM EST
How terrific that the neocons are freaking out. Wait until the pharmaceuticals start
hitting his healthcare proposals for bargaining down the cost of drugs. Good to have an
outsider in the game.
JDavis, 3/3/2016 1:01 PM EST
The neocons will be quite happy in a Hillary administration. She's an even bigger warmonger
than Obama.
technokim, 3/3/2016 12:22 PM EST
Please tell me how any of these 50 self-purported national security and foreign policy
experts have done? Seems the world is less safe and increasingly more messed up as a direct
result of these "experts" actions and policies.
Uselessboy, 3/3/2016 12:37 PM EST
Conservatives certainly loved them when they were backing their unjustified Iraq invasion
and demanding respect for Bush even by those who thought he was breaking laws.
johng4, 3/3/2016 11:47 AM EST
Instead of calling these opponents Neocons, we should be calling them the Israel Lobby.
They will wage war against any politician who doesn't agree to make America's Middle East
policy coextensive with that of Israel. They don't care if their attacks destroy the
Republican Party, because their loyalties lie elsewhere. Their motto is rule or ruin.
JohnMIII, 3/3/2016 11:41 AM EST
Aren't these the same Necons that swore up and down that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction and was such a serious threat we needed to launch an invasion costing thousands of
lives and trillions of dollars? They have zero credibility anymore. Who cares what they say?
DirtyConSanchez, 3/3/2016 7:32 AM EST
Poor little neocon warmongers squealing like stuck war pigs. Too bad, no more war
profiteering for you little piggies. The big bad orange furred wolf Donald is coming to eat
your bacon. And he has a 150 million strong wolfpack coming along to assist him.
Trump '16
JDavis, 3/3/2016 5:55 AM EST
Michael Hayden suggesting insubordination isn't surprising. He and Cheney have been mucking
up this country for years with the dirt they collected when Hayden was director of the NSA.
They don't respect the presidency. They want all power for themselves.
Jason Oneil, 3/3/2016 4:53 AM EST
Conservative???
What a joke. The neocons and the Israel Lobby are in total panic....Trump is not their puppet
who will let them hijack our country into endless wars based on lies.
Expose these traitors.
ObjectiveReader1, 3/3/2016 4:26 AM EST [Edited]
Doc Zakheim and Bob Zoellick?! I oppose Trump but these two dolts have no credibility.
Zakheim was Undersecretary of Defense and Pentagon Comptroller under Bush Jr. He worked on the
disastrous funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which were debt financed. In
the run up to the Iraq invasion, Zakheim publicly stated that Saddam was working on a nuclear
bomb. Why doesn't Zakheim send a Letter to the American people apologizing for his role in not
telling American taxpayers the truth about how much the Iraq war was going to cost.
Bob Zoellick was US Trade Rep under Bush Jr. He worked on Cafta. He's an open borders guy.
Free trade agreements like Nafta have hurt American workers. Bernie Sanders and Trump both
openly criticize nafta and the TPP.
Open Borders Zoellick and Iraq War neocon Zakheim have no credibility.
pamfah_99, 3/3/2016 3:34 AM EST
Don't these people realize that no one listens to them. They are the people who got us into
Bush's mess in the mid-East that we are still paying for. Never mind all our vets who were
killed and injured. They just don't understand what Trump represents. They think we are stupid
and we are not. Go ahead and try to run Trump - see what happens to you. And Romney - that
moron - remember that comment about the 47% or whatever it was. Talk about the establishment
and the absolute disregard we had for us. Who listens to him either. About time the
Republicans let democracy take its course and stop trying to act like Nazis. We, as Americans,
have to right to vote for whomever we please.
Miro23, 3/3/2016 2:27 AM EST [Edited]
Their problem with Trump always comes back to the same point:
He said, "We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that, frankly, if they were
there and if we could have spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our
bridges, and all of the other problems - our airports and all the other problems we have - we
would have been a lot better off, I can tell you that right now.
We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East - we've done a tremendous
disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away
- and for what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is totally
destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4 trillion dollars or 5 trillion
dollars. I wish it were spent right here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads,
airports, and everything else that are all falling apart!"
They've smashed up Iraq and Libya, want to do the same to Syria and get on with bombing
Iran using US blood and money. They're more AINO's (Americans In Name Only) than
"Neo-Conservative" and couldn't care less about parties, Republicans, Democrats. They just
want a President who will shut up and do what they want – like Bush, Rubio or Clinton or
Romney(?) or some other Muppet.
PoliticallyIncorrect4, 3/3/2016 1:53 AM EST
Guess what, nobody gives a damned sh$%#$%# about what these think.
The people who developed GW Bush's national security agenda of international interventionism
-with the Iraq war as the prime example of the perils of such approach- are in no position to
lecture anyone on national security or international issues.
We have tried the professional politicians and their advisers. It didn't work. Time to move
ahead with a completely new approach.
dbi, 3/3/2016 12:39 AM EST
The Washington Post is calling Frances Townsend "a foreign policy expert"? Give it up. The
woman pretends to know the smallest tidbit of information in the Pentagon and White House but
the fact is, she doesn't have a security clearance and is not in any of the special briefings
or secret meetings. She isn't cleared for anything and talks in gibberish. Michael Hayden was
fired and he, too, has no security clearance and no access to confidential and secret material
and meetings in the DoD. More gibberish. These people, like others mentioned, are bitter and
basically unemployed under President Obama. They just can't get over it and move on.
Manray9, 3/3/2016 12:11 AM EST [Edited]
This collection of so-called "Republican foreign policy experts" are all hip-deep in
complicity for the Iraq fiasco. Maybe Trump is on to something in calling out Republican
"leaders" on the nation's greatest national security and foreign policy disaster since
Vietnam? Many people in America, and especially Trump supporters, are disgusted with the
course of events created and managed by the same malefactors now attacking Trump. The GOP big
shots just don't get it.
FedEx Sect 120, 3/3/2016 5:16 AM EST
It is amazing to me how all of these war hawks are complaining now about being lied to
about weapons of mass destruction. Those of us who called it a lie then were being told that
they were being unpatriotic or better yet un-American. Wake up folk every time a Republican is
in office we go to war. Then the Democrats have to clean up their mess. Then get blamed for
not doing the cleanup fast enough while Republicans stand in the way and hinder the Democrats
for cleaning it up properly. If the Republican get in office get ready to see our children in
another war. Get ready to go back to high unemployment , high foreclosures, high losses in
your retirement plan, and high bank failures. Don't forget who propped up Bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein,; yeah your great Republican leader Ronald Reagan. War War War War War
Swift301, 3/3/2016 12:09 AM EST
Eliot Cohen? Trump is totally nuts on many levels but Eliot Cohen is well, just follow his
career path, an endless wimp for war whose policy views have resulted in the largest increase
of influence in the Middle East of Iran ever:
"Cohen has referred to the War on Terrorism as "World War IV".[6] In the run-up to the 2003
Invasion of Iraq, he was a member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of
prominent persons who pressed for an invasion."
These are the mouthbreathers who brought us the Iraq War, supported Libyan intervention,
and support Syrian intervention. Our foreign policy would be better if directed by a statue.
Are these idiots going to realize that they're making us all want to vote for him more and
more? It's like PNAC founders Kagan and Cohen endorsing Hillary - pretty sure it's having the
opposite effect of what they want.
Stephen Clark, 3/2/2016 10:58 PM EST
Whatever! There is one and only one reason why Bush-era foreign policy people are
attacking Trump: He has rejected their extreme neocon warmongering. They want a president who
will start whatever wars Netanyahu orders, and they think Trump will tell Netanyahu to go
screw himself.
The State Department has announced that all work-related emails recovered from Hillary Clinton's
private servers will be released. In response to a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch, State said
it will disclose the FBI-recovered messages. Thousands will be released to the conservative watchdog
group, which has routinely released documents obtained through open-records lawsuits. The department
stated that it had "voluntarily agreed to produce non-exempt agency records responsive to plaintiff's
[Freedom of Information Act] request."
The State Department has not set a timeline for releasing the emails, although Reince Priebus,
chairman of the Republican National Committee, has implored the department to release the emails
prior to the election in November. A court conference to discuss the case is scheduled for Aug. 22.
... the revelation that investigators found a cache of information perhaps half the size of what
Clinton initially disclosed raised questions about how she and her lawyers determined which emails
they wanted to disclose or keep private, and how extensive a search they mounted.
... ... ...
David Kendall, Clinton's attorney, didn't respond to a request for comment on the methodology,
search terms, or other techniques that he and his colleagues used.
But in July, Comey gave some insight into the process, noting that unlike FBI investigators, Clinton's
attorneys didn't actually read all her emails.
..."Is it possible because of what her lawyers did that they were erasing things that were incriminating,
maybe involving items that you were not particularly investigating but these have now been destroyed
forever?" Rep. Glenn Grothman asked the FBI director.
...In another matter related to Clinton's email server, Judicial Watch released a series of emails
to and from top Clinton aide Huma Abedin that the group said showed Clinton had offered special favors
and access to top donors to the Clinton Foundation.
The emails show that Abedin fielded requests for meetings with Clinton, which came from big donors
via other intermediaries, including a top foundation official.
This article raises two interesting questions: "Did Pagliano committed a tax fraud by not
reporting his income from Clinton foundation?" and "What information his yet unreleased emails
to Clinton and her Huma Abedin contain? Also the article does not mention that there was a
second sysadmin, which was not granted immunity from prosecution by FBI and who probably know even
more the Pagliano about the setup of the server.
Notable quotes:
"... Pagliano also had an unusual employment arrangement. He was pulling down a six-figure salary at the State Department, which put him at the high-end of the pay scale for what appeared to be an ordinary tech support job. ..."
"... Paliano was also being paid on the side in cash by the Clinton family, something his immediate supervisors didn't know ..."
"... they were never clear on precisely what his job was and didn't know that during office hours, Pagliano was working for Clinton personally to maintain her private email system ..."
"... The only statement he has given on the record was to the FBI, which has never released a transcript of the interview. ..."
"... What started out as a dream job more than a decade ago has landed Pagliano a most unenviable role-a key witness in an election year scandal. ..."
"... Pagliano first came to work for Clinton in 2006, as part of her first presidential campaign, having worked as a systems engineer for a company that provides technical support and advice to nonprofits. ..."
"... Pagliano was responsible for the campaign headquarters' data center, oversight of other technology staff in the field, and working with contractors. ..."
"... Pagliano was paid, among other sources, by Clinton's Senate leadership PAC, according to campaign finance records. A leadership PAC is used for expenses that can't be paid out of campaign or committee funds. Clinton's was set up in part to help fund other Democratic races. But an investigation by The Intercept found that money from the PAC was used more to benefit Clinton's own campaign and her staff than other candidates. ..."
"... In the first four months of 2009-just before Pagliano took a job at the State Department working for the newly installed secretary-he was paid a total of $27,850 from the leadership PAC and two other campaign funds. ..."
"... In May 2009, Pagliano was hired at the State Department, as a "Schedule C" employee, a political appointee. ..."
"... Pagliano's job came with a handsome salary-around $140,000 per year, according to personnel information compiled by FedSmith, an analysis company. That put him on the very high end of State Department earners. For example, Pagliano was making about $13,000 more than the highest base salary allowed for Foreign Service employees, which includes career diplomats who serve in overseas posts, sometimes dangerous ones ..."
"... Hiring Pagliano, a technology specialist, was itself unusual since the department is filled with similarly skilled personnel. ..."
"... Pagliano was also hired at the highest "grade," 15, on the government pay scale. Career employees spend years climbing the pay ladder. ..."
"... What exactly Pagliano did at the department, however, wasn't clear to his bosses. And later, they would question whether his employment arrangement was above board. ..."
"... That's because while earning that hefty salary as a State Department employee, Pagliano was also being paid to perform "technology services for the Clinton family," ..."
"... Between 2009 and 2013, Pagliano was paid "by check or wire transfer in varying amounts and various times," the State IG found. He worked out of State Department headquarters but also made trips to New York to check on the server and maintain it. ..."
"... he top technology officials who oversaw Pagliano and wrote his performance evaluations-told investigators that during the four years Pagliano worked there, they didn't even know he was working on Clinton's email system ..."
"... What's more, Pagliano failed to list his outside income on a required personal financial disclosure that he filed each year, The Washington Post reported. ..."
"... The government gave Pagliano what's known as "use" immunity, which means that anything he told the FBI in the course of its investigation of Clinton's email system cannot be used to bring charges against him. (If evidence of a crime emerges from other sources, the government could still prosecute Pagliano.) ..."
"... "It's hard to believe that an IT staffer who set up Hillary Clinton's reckless email server never sent or received a single work-related email in the four years he worked at the State Department," Raj Shah, the deputy communications director for the RNC, told The Daily Beast at the time. ..."
"... For him, the biggest question of all may be, "How long can you stay quiet?" ..."
...Of all the characters in the political drama of Hillary Clinton's private email server,
none has been more mysterious-and potentially more important-than a 40-year-old technology
specialist named Bryan Pagliano.
... ... ...
But Pagliano also had an unusual employment arrangement. He was pulling down a six-figure
salary at the State Department, which put him at the high-end of the pay scale for what appeared
to be an ordinary tech support job. But Paliano was also being paid on the side in cash
by the Clinton family, something his immediate supervisors didn't know. In fact, they
were never clear on precisely what his job was and didn't know that during office hours, Pagliano
was working for Clinton personally to maintain her private email system.
...Congressional Republicans have seized on the FBI's findings of multiple devices as evidence
that Clinton is lying, and they have now asked the bureau to investigate whether she perjured
herself in testimony last year that touched on the email system.
... ... ...
... a federal judge in Washington is weighing whether Clinton should be deposed under
oath by a conservative watchdog group that has been one of the Clinton family's tireless
political foes.
... ... ...
...Pagliano has remained almost entirely silent in the face of his inquisitors. He has
rebuffed congressional requests. When he was ordered to give a deposition to the conservative
watchdog group, Judicial Watch, he declined to answer every question posed to him, invoking his
Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself 125 times. The only statement he has given
on the record was to the FBI, which has never released a transcript of the interview.
For Pagliano, working for Clinton was a major career booster, and personally enriching. But it
has come at a cost. What started out as a dream job more than a decade ago has landed
Pagliano a most unenviable role-a key witness in an election year scandal.
... ... ...
Pagliano first came to work for Clinton in 2006, as part of her first presidential
campaign, having worked as a systems engineer for a company that provides technical support and
advice to nonprofits. With Clinton, he started out as a kind of assistant, "providing
technical engineering and support," but worked his way up to leading the campaign's information
technology operations, according to his LinkedIn profile. The two were friendly. On his Facebook
page, Pagliano posted photos of him posing with the secretary, as well as her husband. They have
since been removed.
Pagliano was responsible for the campaign headquarters' data center, oversight of other
technology staff in the field, and working with contractors. When Clinton accepted Barack
Obama's nomination to become secretary of state, Pagliano set up the server in the Clintons' home
in Chappaqua, New York. Bill Clinton had already been using a server for his emails, but it was
deemed too small for the workload of a cabinet secretary.
Pagliano was paid, among other sources, by Clinton's Senate leadership PAC, according to
campaign finance records. A leadership PAC is used for expenses that can't be paid out of
campaign or committee funds. Clinton's was set up in part to help fund other Democratic races.
But an investigation by The Intercept found that money from the PAC was used more to benefit
Clinton's own campaign and her staff than other candidates.
Pagliano was well compensated. In the first four months of 2009-just before Pagliano took
a job at the State Department working for the newly installed secretary-he was paid a total of
$27,850 from the leadership PAC and two other campaign funds.
In May 2009, Pagliano was hired at the State Department, as a "Schedule C" employee, a
political appointee. It's easier to hire and fire such employees than it is career
government workers, but they're also subject to strict ethics rules. Pagliano's job came with
a handsome salary-around $140,000 per year, according to personnel information compiled by
FedSmith, an analysis company. That put him on the very high end of State Department earners. For
example, Pagliano was making about $13,000 more than the highest base salary allowed for Foreign
Service employees, which includes career diplomats who serve in overseas posts, sometimes
dangerous ones.
Hiring Pagliano, a technology specialist, was itself unusual since the department is
filled with similarly skilled personnel. But Schedule C employees also have a "confidential
or policy-determining relationship to their supervisor and agency head," according to the Office
of Personnel Management. The agency head in this case was Clinton. Schedule C authorities let a
cabinet official hire whomever she thinks is best suited for the job, even if that person doesn't
meet the on-paper requirements or is creating a redundant position.
Pagliano was also hired at the highest "grade," 15, on the government pay scale. Career
employees spend years climbing the pay ladder. Pagliano had no prior government service. And
while Schedule C employees may earn higher salaries than their career counterparts-indeed, the
authorities are sometimes used to attract highly paid, skilled workers from the private
sector-Pagliano appears to have been exceptionally well compensated for someone with his
background, which aside from working for the non-profit was limited to being Clinton's technology
director.
What exactly Pagliano did at the department, however, wasn't clear to his bosses. And
later, they would question whether his employment arrangement was above board.
That's because while earning that hefty salary as a State Department employee, Pagliano
was also being paid to perform "technology services for the Clinton family," Hillary
Clinton's lawyer told the State Department inspector general (PDF), which issued a blistering
report in May on Clinton's unorthodox use of a private email server-the one Pagliano installed
and maintained for her while she was the secretary.
Between 2009 and 2013, Pagliano was paid "by check or wire transfer in varying amounts and
various times," the State IG found. He worked out of State Department headquarters but also made
trips to New York to check on the server and maintain it.
Pagliano's arrangement raised many questions for his direct supervisors at the department when
it was revealed by the IG investigation. The State Department's chief information officer and the
deputy chief information officer-the top technology officials who oversaw Pagliano and wrote
his performance evaluations-told investigators that during the four years Pagliano worked there,
they didn't even know he was working on Clinton's email system. The impression at Foggy
Bottom was that Pagliano had been brought on to support "mobile computing issues across the
entire department." His bosses thought he was at State to work for everyone, not exclusively for
Clinton.
The officials told the IG that they "questioned whether [Pagliano] could support a private
client during work hours, given his capacity as a full-time employee."
***
What's more, Pagliano failed to list his outside income on a required personal financial
disclosure that he filed each year, The Washington Post reported. Government personnel rules
don't prohibit a political appointee like Pagliano also earning a side income, but there are
limits on how much he could earn, and the amounts must be disclosed. He would also have to report
the income on his tax returns.
How much the Clintons paid Pagliano while he worked at the State Department is unclear. He
declined to grant an interview to the State Department inspector general, as did Clinton and five
of her top aides.
Neither his lawyer nor the FBI have said whether Pagliano's immunity agreement covers his
employment arrangement and any violations that could have occurred as a result of his collecting
outside income or failing to report it. But immunity agreements can be fashioned to cover any
manner of subjects.
The government gave Pagliano what's known as "use" immunity, which means that anything he
told the FBI in the course of its investigation of Clinton's email system cannot be used to bring
charges against him. (If evidence of a crime emerges from other sources, the government could
still prosecute Pagliano.)
The full details of the immunity deal haven't been revealed publicly. But some key aspects
were revealed in a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch, which is seeking information on another
unusual employment arrangement-that of Huma Abedin, Clinton's senior aide. She was allowed to
hold multiple outside jobs, including for the Clinton Foundation, while also serving as Clinton's
deputy chief of staff at the State Department.
"The mere fact that the government was willing to offer Pagliano 'use' immunity here in
exchange for his testimony indicates that his fear of prosecution is more than fanciful or
speculative," Pagliano's lawyer, Mark MacDougall, wrote in a legal filing with the court hearing
Judicial Watch's case. The watchdog group also wanted to depose Pagliano. But his lawyer argued
that would put him at risk.
"Mr. Pagliano's prospective deposition will inevitably cover matters that might 'furnish a
link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute,'" MacDougall wrote. "The Court has authorized
Judicial Watch to obtain discovery relating to 'the creation and operation of clintonemail.com
for State Department business."
That subject was also the focus of the FBI investigation. So, Pagliano had reason to believe
that what he might say to Judicial Watch could put him at risk for prosecution, MacDougall
argued. As a result, Pagliano intended to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege and not answer any
of Judicial Watch's questions. The group didn't try to force him. But they wanted to videotape
the deposition. Pagliano would be captured on film, declining to answer dozens of questions about
his old boss and her complicated, careless email system. The judge ultimately ruled the
deposition would be recorded. He also required Pagliano to hand over a copy of his immunity
agreement, which was placed under seal. Judicial Watch isn't the only Clinton adversary that has
locked on Pagliano and what he knows.
Earlier this month, members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
questioned FBI Director James Comey about the findings of the bureau's investigation. Comey, who
had by then already said that Clinton was "extremely careless," left little doubt that Pagliano
was a key witness.
"What about Bryan Pagliano?… Do you know if he knew that she [Clinton] was not following
proper protocol here?" asked Rep. Buddy Carter, a Republican from Georgia, in regards to using a
private email system, which the inspector general had determined was at odds with department
rules.
"He helped set it up," Comey replied.
"He helped set it up? So obviously he knew," Carter said.
"Yeah. Obviously he knew that," Comey said.
... Comey said that the FBI had spent "thousands of hours" figuring out the architecture of
Clinton's email system, which was far more complex than the public had realized.
"Piecing all of that back together-to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in
which personal email was used for government work-has been a painstaking undertaking," Comey
said, made harder by the complex way in which the system was maintained.
"For example, when one of Secretary Clinton's original personal servers was decommissioned in
2013, the email software was removed," Comey said. "Doing that didn't remove the email content,
but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on
the floor. The effect was that millions of email fragments end up unsorted in the server's
unused-or 'slack'-space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of
the puzzle could be put back together."
Clinton's emails weren't the only ones that have been hard to piece back together. Pagliano's
have also been difficult to find.
***
In the many lawsuits brought under the Freedom of Information Act to force the release of
Clinton's emails and those of her aides-including one filed by The Daily Beast-Pagliano's emails
have been the hardest for State Department officials to locate. Initially, the State Department
claimed that there were no Pagliano emails-at least none that its investigators could discover. A
State Department official explained to The Daily Beast in May that the department had searched
for copies of Pagliano's emails in a backup known as a .pst file, but that officials couldn't
locate one for the period of time that covers Clinton's tenure as secretary. The Republican
National Committee, which had filed a lawsuit seeking copies of Pagliano's emails, was
incredulous. "It's hard to believe that an IT staffer who set up Hillary Clinton's reckless
email server never sent or received a single work-related email in the four years he worked at
the State Department," Raj Shah, the deputy communications director for the RNC, told The Daily
Beast at the time.
Also curious was that while the department found no .pst file for Pagliano's work during
Clinton's tenure, officials did find one for his work as a contractor-after Clinton had left
office. In order to reconstruct Pagliano's email record, the State Department looked for emails
of people who were likely to have corresponded with him or about him. (One such message actually
turned up in a batch of Clinton's own emails, which have been released for months now on a
rolling basis. Pagliano wrote to his boss to wish her a happy birthday. "To many more!" he wrote.
Clinton forwarded the message to an aide with a request to "Pls respond.")
...just this month, State came back with new information. Somehow, it had managed to narrow
down that giant universe of emails to just 1,300 that were either to or from Pagliano or "cc'd"
to him. The department was now confident that it could locate Pagliano's emails and turn them
over to the RNC. What may appear to some to be a willful effort to keep Pagliano's emails from
the public could also be sheer incompetence in record keeping. The inspector general criticized
the department's archiving system, and department officials have acknowledged that they need to
do a better job keeping track of officials' emails. But Republicans have seized on the missing
emails as an indication of a possible coverup, meant to protect the Democratic nominee. "Such
records might shed light on [Pagliano's] role in setting up Clinton's server, and why he was
granted immunity by the FBI," Shah told The Daily Beast. "But it seems that his emails were
either destroyed or never turned over, adding yet another layer to the secrecy surrounding his
role."
... Two technology employees told the inspector general that in late 2010 they "discussed
their concerns about Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email account" with John Bentel, who
was then the director of Information Resource Management in the office of the Executive
Secretariat, where Pagliano worked.
"In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on
Secretary Clinton's account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to
satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements," the IG found. "According to the staff member, the
Director [Bentel] stated that the Secretary's personal system had been reviewed and approved by
Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further."
But that review didn't happen. Judicial Watch now wants to depose Bentel under oath, too. The
judge hearing the case, Emmet Sullivan, said this month that he thought the deposition should
proceed... ...Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson, respectively the powerful chairmen of the
committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, have been after
Pagliano since last year to testify about the email system. Given that he has a immunity
protection, the senators have questioned why he won't speak.
... Refusing to answer questions doesn't constitute any admission of guilt on Pagliano's part.
But his silence has only fanned the flames of intrigue surrounding his role in the email scandal
and what more he may know about it.
...For him, the biggest question of all may be, "How long can you stay quiet?"
See also
http://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/trump-campaign-clinton-has-dysphasia-747294275911 Attempt
to dismiss problem with health from Hillary campaign are misdirected. Hiding Hillary continues to
dodge open questions events in favor of heavily staged and controlled media interviews. The Clinton
campaign is doing everything they can to hide Hillary from unscripted questions.
Appearing on MSNBC on Thursday, Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson
claimed that Clinton suffers from dysphasia, a brain dysfunction that affects a person's ability
to comprehend and formulate language.
"What's new are the other reports of the observations of Hillary Clinton's behavior and
mannerisms," Pierson said before mentioning "her dysphasia, the fact that she's fallen, she has
had a concussion."
Since a complete lack of evidence has never proven sufficient to put a Clinton conspiracy theory
to rest, the Clinton campaign has
pushed back forcibly against these rumors, releasing a statement from her longtime physician
Dr. Lisa Bardack reaffirming that "Secretary Clinton is in excellent health and fit to serve as President
of the United States."
"... about lesser-evil politics and what impact the election could have on the future of progressive politics. ..."
"... Ford quoted writer Steven Salait, who wrote recently, "Lesser evilism is possible only because we're so accustomed to seeing certain people as lesser human beings." ..."
"... Dr. Monteiro believes that Republican support for Clinton could signal the beginning of a "new Mccarthyism." ..."
"... "Now we've always known that the two-party system was essentially a one party system with two wings." he said, "But now, so many of the Republicans and the neocons and the liberals are gravitating to this big umbrella. But at the same time they're saying to anyone who would oppose their policy in Russia, or towards Korea or Syria, that somehow you are unpatriotic, you are on the payroll of Russia or some external force. So I would suggest that there's nothing more lethal than a Cold War liberal. They go beyond the conservatives." ..."
"... That's a real concern. When we look at Hillary Clinton, when we look at her support for surveillance, her lack of support for civil liberties…It's very important that we're not distracted by this issue of who people vote for, is it this party or that party ..."
"... "That's not to say that elections aren't important, they definitely are a gauge of where people are at, at any given point, but that's not where social change comes from. And we need to stand strong, we need to stand united, we need to be prepared to get out into the streets to continue to struggle around the issues, including issues that are to the left of the articulated position of Bernie Sanders himself, which are issues of peace and social justice that the Bernie movement resonated with." ..."
With election season in full swing, Democrats and defecting Republicans
have ramped up a campaign against the open bigotry of bombastic real estate magnate Donald Trump.
Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear spoke with Jane Cutter, editor of Liberationnews.org; Dr. Anthony
Monteiro, W.E.B. DuBois scholar and member of the Black Radical Organizing Collective; and Derek
Ford, Assistant Professor of Education Studies at DePauw University, about lesser-evil politics
and what impact the election could have on the future of progressive politics.
Cutter
explained that, historically, "Who's sitting in the White House is ultimately not the determining
factor" of a movement's vitality, and points to the presidency of Richard Nixon, considered to
be one of America's most conservative presidents. Cutter noted the many progressive measures passed
under the Nixon Administration due to pressure from the Civil Rights, Black Power, feminist and
LGBTQ movements.
"At that time, people were organized, people were mobilized, people were militant and in the
streets and, as a result, the Nixon Administration and other elements of the ruling class were
forced to give up numerous concessions that were in fact quite beneficial to the working class
of this country," she said.
Ford quoted writer Steven Salait, who wrote recently, "Lesser evilism is possible only
because we're so accustomed to seeing certain people as lesser human beings."
"By that he was saying that to call Hillary Clinton the lesser evil is to call the people of
Palestine, in Syria, Libya and Iraq, as lesser human beings, because her actions and her policies
have been so steadfastly hawkish there. It also disarms the movement and any potential for popular
uprising."
Dr. Monteiro believes that Republican support for Clinton could signal the beginning of
a "new Mccarthyism."
"Now we've always known that the two-party system was essentially
a one party system with two wings." he said, "But now, so many of the Republicans and the neocons
and the liberals are gravitating to this big umbrella. But at the same time they're saying to
anyone who would oppose their policy in Russia, or towards Korea or Syria, that somehow you are
unpatriotic, you are on the payroll of Russia or some external force. So I would suggest that
there's nothing more lethal than a Cold War liberal. They go beyond the conservatives."
He added, "I think Hillary represents something that we have to be very frightened of and we
really have to mobilize and steel ourselves for a really intense struggle against what she represents."
Cutter agreed, saying, "That's a real concern. When we look at Hillary Clinton, when we
look at her support for surveillance, her lack of support for civil liberties…It's very important
that we're not distracted by this issue of who people vote for, is it this party or that
party."
"That's not to say that elections aren't important, they definitely are a gauge of where
people are at, at any given point, but that's not where social change comes from. And we need
to stand strong, we need to stand united, we need to be prepared to get out into the streets to
continue to struggle around the issues, including issues that are to the left of the articulated
position of Bernie Sanders himself, which are issues of peace and social justice that the Bernie
movement resonated with."
Yet his real foreign policy record is closer to Hillary's than he likes to admit. Yes, he
opposed the Iraq war – and then proceeded to routinely vote to fund that war: ditto Afghanistan.
In 2003, at the height of the Iraq war hysteria, then Congressman Sanders
voted for a
congressional resolution hailing Bush:
"Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the nation to the President
as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military
operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism."
As the drumbeat for war with Iran got louder, Rep. Sanders voted for the
Iran Freedom
Support Act, which codified sanctions imposed since the fall of the Shah and handed out
millions to "pro-freedom" groups seeking the overthrow of the Tehran regime. The Bush
administration, you'll
recall, was running a regime change operation at that point which gave covert support to
Jundullah, a terrorist group responsible for murdering
scores of
Iranian civilians. Bush was also
canoodling with the
Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a weirdo cult group once designated as a terrorist organization (a label
lifted by Hillary Clinton's State Department after a
well-oiled public relations campaign).
Sanders fulsomely supported the Kosovo war: when shocked antiwar activists visited his Senate
office in Burlington, Vermont, he
called the cops
on them. At a Montpelier public meeting featuring a debate on the war, Bernie
argued
passionately in favor of Bill Clinton's "humanitarian" intervention, and pointedly told hecklers
to leave if they didn't like what he had to say.
As a Senator, his votes on civil liberties issues show a distinct pattern. While he voted
against the Patriot Act, in 2006 he voted
in favor of
making fourteen provisions of the Act permanent, including those that codified the FBI's
authority to seize business records and carry out roving wiretaps. Sanders voted no on the
legislation establishing the Department of Homeland Security, but by the time he was in the
Senate he was regularly voting for that agency's ever-expanding budget.
The evolution of Bernie Sanders – from his days as a Liberty Unionist radical and Trotskyist
fellow-traveler, to his first political success as Mayor of Burlington, his election to Congress
and then on to the Senate – limns the course of the post-Sixties American left. Although birthed
in the turmoil of the Vietnam war, the
vaunted anti-interventionism of this crowd soon fell by the wayside as domestic political
tradeoffs trumped ideology. Nothing exemplifies this process of incremental betrayal better than
Sanders'
support for the troubled F-35 fighter jet, the classic case of a military program that exists
only to enrich the military-industrial complex. Although the plane has been plagued with
technical difficulties, and has toted up hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns,
Sanders has stubbornly defended and voted for it because Lockheed-Martin manufactures it in
Vermont.
"... Turns out, the Podesta Group founded by none other than John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chair and chief strategies, was retained by the Russian-owned firm UraniumOne in 2012, 2014, and 2015 to lobby Hillary Clinton's State Department based on John Podesta's longstanding relations with the Clinton family – he was the White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton. ..."
The FBI and Department of Justice have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta
Group has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former Ukrainian
President Viktor Yanukovych.
It seems like just yesterday that the top campaign official for Donald Trump found himself caught
in the middle of a political dragnet for his work as a lobbyist on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych with
the media clamoring about his purported ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin as a reason why
the Republican nominee was a less desirable candidate than Hillary Clinton. Wait, that was just yesterday?
It turns out that Hillary Clinton's campaign guru, head of the lobbying firm the
Podesta Group, has found himself smack dab in the middle of the same
criminal investigation spawned when devious political operatives decide to merge
international relations with campaign politics. For weeks, the pages of the
Washington Post, the Daily Beast, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal
have chimed that Trump is a "Putin pawn" as part of some maniacal plot by the Kremlin
to interfere with the US election.
Turns out, the Podesta Group founded by none
other than John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chair and chief strategies, was retained
by the Russian-owned firm UraniumOne in 2012, 2014, and 2015 to lobby Hillary
Clinton's State Department based on John Podesta's longstanding relations with the
Clinton family – he was the White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton.
Interestingly, UraniumOne's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations
totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation from 2009 to 2013. Perhaps a more blatant
evidence of allegations that Hillary Clinton's State Department operated on a pay-to-play basis
is the fact that, as the New York Times reported last April, "shortly after the Russians
announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received
$500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was
promoting UraniumOne stock.
Not only are investigators wondering whether there was any impropriety in the lobbying
arrangement such as the provision of beneficial treatment by the State Department to an old
friend, but they are also probing the work that Viktor Yanukovych's regime paid the Podesta Group
to do while he was the head of the Ukrainian government.
The controversy for Podesta links to
his work for the Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a Brussels based organization that describes itself
as "an advocate for enhancing EU-Ukraine relations." Unfortunately for Mr. Podesta, the
organization has been described as "an operation controlled by Yanukovych" and tied to the former
leader's Party of Regions suggesting the Podesta Group may have been, like has been said of Paul
Manafort, tasked with greater reporting requirements pursuant to US law.
The Podesta Group quickly hired the white-shoe law firm Caplin & Drysdale as "independent,
outside legal counsel to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any
other individuals with regard to the Centre's potential ties to foreign governments or political
parties."
And the plot of the 2016 presidential election thickens.
"... The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting
malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The
draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character
string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code
associated with the same program, SECONDDATE. ..."
On Monday, a hacking group calling itself the "ShadowBrokers" announced an auction for what it claimed
were "cyber weapons" made by the NSA. Based on never-before-published documents provided by the whistleblower
Edward Snowden, The Intercept can confirm that the arsenal contains authentic NSA software,
part of a powerful constellation of tools used to covertly infect computers worldwide.
The provenance
of the code has been a matter of heated debate this week among cybersecurity experts, and while it
remains unclear how the software leaked, one thing is now beyond speculation: The malware is covered
with the NSA's virtual fingerprints and clearly originates from the agency.
The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting
malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public.
The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific
16-character string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers
leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE.
SECONDDATE plays a specialized role inside a complex global system built by the U.S. government
to infect and monitor what one document
estimated to be millions of computers around the world. Its release by ShadowBrokers, alongside
dozens of other malicious tools, marks the first time any full copies of the NSA's offensive software
have been available to the public, providing a glimpse at how an elaborate system outlined in the
Snowden documents looks when deployed in the real world, as well as concrete evidence that NSA hackers
don't always have the last word when it comes to computer exploitation.
But malicious software of this sophistication doesn't just pose a threat to foreign governments,
Johns Hopkins University cryptographer Matthew Green told The Intercept:
The danger of these exploits is that they can be used to target anyone who is using a vulnerable
router. This is the equivalent of leaving lockpicking tools lying around a high school cafeteria.
It's worse, in fact, because many of these exploits are not available through any other means,
so they're just now coming to the attention of the firewall and router manufacturers that need
to fix them, as well as the customers that are vulnerable.
So the risk is twofold: first, that the person or persons who stole this information might
have used them against us. If this is indeed Russia, then one assumes that they probably have
their own exploits, but there's no need to give them any more. And now that the exploits have
been released, we run the risk that ordinary criminals will use them against corporate targets.
The NSA did not respond to questions concerning ShadowBrokers, the Snowden documents, or its malware.
A Memorable SECONDDATE
The offensive tools released by ShadowBrokers are organized under a litany of code names such
as POLARSNEEZE and ELIGIBLE BOMBSHELL, and their exact purpose is still being assessed. But we do
know more about one of the weapons: SECONDDATE.
SECONDDATE is a tool designed to intercept web requests and redirect browsers on target computers
to an NSA web server. That server, in turn, is designed to infect them with malware. SECONDDATE's
existence was
first reported by The Intercept in 2014, as part of a look at a global computer exploitation
effort code-named TURBINE. The malware server, known as FOXACID, has also been
described in previously released Snowden documents.
Other documents released by The Intercept today not only tie SECONDDATE to the ShadowBrokers
leak but also provide new detail on how it fits into the NSA's broader surveillance and infection
network. They also show how SECONDDATE has been used, including to spy on Pakistan and a computer
system in Lebanon.
The top-secret manual that authenticates the SECONDDATE found in the wild as the same one used
within the NSA is a 31-page document titled "FOXACID
SOP for Operational Management" and marked as a draft. It dates to no earlier than 2010. A section
within the manual describes administrative tools for tracking how victims are funneled into FOXACID,
including a set of tags used to catalogue servers. When such a tag is created in relation to a SECONDDATE-related
infection, the document says, a certain distinctive identifier must be used:
The same SECONDDATE MSGID string appears in 14 different files throughout the ShadowBrokers leak,
including in a file titled SecondDate-3021.exe. Viewed through a code-editing program (screenshot
below), the NSA's secret number can be found hiding in plain sight:
All told, throughout many of the folders contained in the ShadowBrokers' package (screenshot below),
there are 47 files with SECONDDATE-related names, including different versions of the raw code required
to execute a SECONDDATE attack, instructions for how to use it, and other related files.
.
After viewing the code, Green told The Intercept the MSGID string's occurrence in both
an NSA training document and this week's leak is "unlikely to be a coincidence." Computer security
researcher Matt Suiche, founder of UAE-based cybersecurity startup Comae Technologies, who has been
particularly vocal in his analysis of the ShadowBrokers this week, told The Intercept "there
is no way" the MSGID string's appearance in both places is a coincidence.
Where SECONDDATE Fits In
This overview jibes with previously unpublished classified files provided by Snowden that illustrate
how SECONDDATE is a component of BADDECISION, a broader NSA infiltration tool. SECONDDATE helps the
NSA pull off a "man in the middle" attack against users on a wireless network, tricking them into
thinking they're talking to a safe website when in reality they've been sent a malicious payload
from an NSA server.
According to one December 2010 PowerPoint presentation titled "Introduction
to BADDECISION," that tool is also designed to send users of a wireless network, sometimes referred
to as an 802.11 network, to FOXACID malware servers. Or, as the presentation puts it, BADDECISION
is an "802.11 CNE [computer network exploitation] tool that uses a true man-in-the-middle attack
and a frame injection technique to redirect a target client to a FOXACID server." As another
top-secret slide puts it, the attack homes in on "the greatest vulnerability to your computer:
your web browser."
One slide points out that the attack works on users with an encrypted wireless connection to the
internet.
That trick, it seems, often involves BADDECISION and SECONDDATE, with the latter described as
a "component" for the former. A series of diagrams in the "Introduction to BADDECISION" presentation
show how an NSA operator "uses SECONDDATE to inject a redirection payload at [a] Target Client,"
invisibly hijacking a user's web browser as the user attempts to visit a benign website (in the example
given, it's CNN.com). Executed correctly, the file explains, a "Target Client continues normal webpage
browsing, completely unaware," lands on a malware-filled NSA server, and becomes infected with as
much of that malware as possible - or as the presentation puts it, the user will be left "WHACKED!"
In the other top-secret presentations, it's put plainly: "How
do we redirect the target to the FOXACID server without being noticed"? Simple: "Use NIGHTSTAND
or BADDECISION."
The sheer number of interlocking tools available to crack a computer is dizzying. In the
FOXACID manual, government hackers are told an NSA hacker ought to be familiar with using SECONDDATE
along with similar man-in-the-middle wi-fi attacks code-named MAGIC SQUIRREL and MAGICBEAN. A top-secret
presentation on FOXACID lists further ways to redirect targets to the malware server system.
To position themselves within range of a vulnerable wireless network, NSA operators can use a
mobile antenna system running software code-named BLINDDATE, depicted in the field in what appears
to be Kabul. The software can even be attached to a drone. BLINDDATE in turn can run BADDECISION,
which allows for a SECONDDATE attack:
Elsewhere in these files, there are at least two documented cases of SECONDDATE being used to
successfully infect computers overseas: An April 2013
presentation boasts of successful attacks against computer systems in both Pakistan and Lebanon.
In the first, NSA hackers used SECONDDATE to breach "targets in Pakistan's National Telecommunications
Corporation's (NTC) VIP Division," which contained documents pertaining to "the backbone of Pakistan's
Green Line communications network" used by "civilian and military leadership."
In the latter, the NSA used SECONDDATE to pull off a man-in-the-middle attack in Lebanon "for
the first time ever," infecting a Lebanese ISP to extract "100+ MB of Hizballah Unit 1800 data,"
a special subset of the terrorist group dedicated to aiding Palestinian militants.
SECONDDATE is just one method that the NSA uses to get its target's browser pointed at a FOXACID
server. Other methods include sending spam that attempts to exploit bugs in popular web-based email
providers or entices targets to click on malicious links that lead to a FOXACID server. One
document, a newsletter for the NSA's Special Source Operations division, describes how NSA software
other than SECONDDATE was used to repeatedly direct targets in Pakistan to FOXACID malware web servers,
eventually infecting the targets' computers.
A Potentially Mundane Hack
Snowden, who worked for NSA contractors Dell and Booz Allen Hamilton, has offered some context
and a relatively mundane possible explanation for the leak: that the NSA headquarters was not hacked,
but rather one of the computers the agency uses to plan and execute attacks was compromised. In a
series of tweets,
he pointed out that the NSA often lurks on systems that are supposed to be controlled by others,
and it's possible someone at the agency took control of a server and failed to clean up after themselves.
A regime, hacker group, or intelligence agency could have seized the files and the opportunity to
embarrass the agency.
No progressives worth their name would vote for Hillary. Betrayal of Sanders made the choice
more difficult, but still there no alternative. Clinton "No passaran!". Also "Clinton proved capable
of coming to an agreement with Sanders. He received good money,
bought a new house, published a book, and joined with Clinton, calling on his supporters to vote
for her"...
Crappy slogans like "hold
her feet to the fire" are lies. Has there ever been serious detail about that? I've seen this line over
and over. Hillary is dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal and will behave as such as soon as she get
into office. You can view her iether as (more jingoistic) Obama II or (equally reckless) Bush III.
If she wins, the next opportunity to check her neoliberal leaning will
be only during the next Persidential election.
Notable quotes:
"... ...was Clinton the better progressive choice against Sanders? Almost no Sanders-supporting Democratic voter would say yes to that. Not on trade, not on climate, not on breaking up too-big Wall Street banks, not on criminally prosecuting (finally) "too big to jail" members of the elite - not on any number of issues that touch core progressives values. ..."
"... It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable. ..."
"... She's now appointed two pro-TPP politicians to key positions on her campaign - Tim Kaine as her Vice President and Ken Salazar to lead her presidential transition team. It's time for progressives who helped Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable. ..."
"... The choice of Salazar is a pretty good sign that as expected we'll be seeing the 'revolving door' in full force in a Clinton administration. As head of the transition he'll have enormous influence on who fills thousands of jobs at the White House and federal agencies. ..."
"... It is really important to stop referring to "job-killing trade deals" and point out every single time they are mentioned that the TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not about "trade" in any sense that a normal person understands it. ..."
"... TPP & its ilk, like NAFTA and CAFTA before them, are about world government by multinational corporations via their Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions. ..."
"... Regulatory arb, slice of corruption, and like shareholder value memes an equity burnishing tool… ..."
"... One thing I liked about Thom Hartmann was he relentlessly drove home the point that the US succeeded, grew, and became the dominant economic power in the world through the use of TARIFFS. Tariffs are necessary. ..."
"... The nafta-shafta deals relinquish the right to even think about tariffs. You don't have a sovereign nation any more. ..."
"... You can visit the prosperous Samsung-suburb of Suwon, Korea and see all the abandoned manufacturing space (where Korea was just a step on the path to Vietnam and Bangladesh). ..."
"... Information revolution automation is substituting machines for human intelligence. Here the race to the bottom is a single step, and these "trade" deals are all about rules of governance that will apply when people have been stripped of all economic power. ..."
"... merely infinite wealth and power for a thin oligarchy of robot/machine owners? ..."
"... Globalization and Technologization is a canard they use to explain the impoverishment and death of the working class. ..."
"... The fact that auto manufactures moved plants to low wage, nonunion, right to work states actually highlights the fact that labor costs drive the decision where to locate manufacturing plants. ..."
...was Clinton the better progressive choice against Sanders? Almost no Sanders-supporting Democratic
voter would say yes to that. Not on trade, not on climate, not on breaking up too-big Wall Street
banks, not on criminally prosecuting (finally) "too big to jail" members of the elite - not on any
number of issues that touch core progressives values.
... ... ...
Becky Bond on the Challenge to Clinton Supporters
...Bond looks at what the primary has wrought, and issues this challenge to activists who helped
defeat Sanders: You broke it, you bought it. Will you now take charge in the fight to hold Clinton
accountable? Or will you hang back (enjoying the fruits) and let others take the lead? ("Enjoying
the fruits" is my addition. As one attendee noted, the Democratic Convention this year seemed very
much like "a jobs fair.")
Bond says this, writing in
The Hill (my emphasis):
Progressive Clinton supporters: You broke it, you bought it
It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to
take the lead on holding her accountable.
With Donald Trump tanking in the polls, there's room for progressives to simultaneously
crush his bid for the presidency while holding Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on the TPP
.
And yet:
She's now appointed two pro-TPP politicians to key positions on her campaign - Tim Kaine as her Vice President and Ken Salazar to lead her presidential transition team. It's
time for progressives who helped Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on
holding her accountable.
... ... ...
Bond has more on Salazar and why both he and Tim Kaine are a "tell," a signal of things to come
from Hillary Clinton: "The choice of Salazar is a pretty good sign that as expected we'll be seeing
the 'revolving door' in full force in a Clinton administration. As head of the transition he'll have
enormous influence on who fills thousands of jobs at the White House and federal agencies."
It is really important to stop referring to "job-killing trade deals" and point out every single
time they are mentioned that the TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not about "trade" in
any sense that a normal person understands it.
This is the evil behind the lie of calling these
"trade" agreements and putting the focus on "jobs." TPP & its ilk, like NAFTA and CAFTA before
them, are about world government by multinational corporations via their Investor State Dispute
Settlement (ISDS) provisions.
That's what's at stake; not jobs. The jobs will be lost to automation
anyway; they are never coming back. The TPP et al legal straight jackets do not sell out jobs,
that's already been done. No, what these phony trade agreements do is foreclose any hope of achieving
functioning democracies. Please start saying so!
I miss-typed above. Of course I meant TPP and not ttp.
Yes, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., certainly killed jobs. However, those jobs are not coming back
to these shores. In the higher wage countries, "good" jobs - in manufacturing and in many "knowledge"
and "service" sectors - as well as unskilled jobs, are being or have been replaced with automated
means and methods.
Just a few examples: automobile assemblers; retail cashiers; secretaries; steelworkers; highway
toll collectors; gas station attendants. ETC. Here's what's happened so far just in terms of Great
Lakes freighters:
"The wheelman stood behind Captain Ross, clutching a surprisingly tiny, computerized steering
wheel. He wore driving gloves and turned the Equinox every few seconds in whatever direction the
captain told him to. The wheel, computer monitors and what looked like a server farm filling the
wheelhouse are indicative of changes in the shipping industry. Twenty years ago, it took 35 crew
members to run a laker. The Equinox operates with 16, only a handful of whom are on duty at once."
TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not trade, and only very incidentally, jobs. The rulers
of the universe vastly prefer paying no wages to paying low wages, and whatever can be automated,
will be, eventually in low-wage countries as well as here and in Europe. A great deal of this
has already happened and it will continue. Only 5 sections of the TPP even deal with trade–that's
out of 29. Don't take this on my authority; Public Citizen is the gold standard of analysis regarding
these so-called "trade" agreements.
It took the OverClass several decades to send all those jobs away from our shores. It would
take several decades to bring those jobs back to our shores. But it could be done within a context
of militant belligerent protectionism.
Americans are smart enough to make spoons, knives and forks. We used to make them. We could
make them again. The only obstacles are contrived and artificial political-economic and policy
obstacles. Apply a different Market Forcefield to the American Market, and the actors within that
market would act differently over the several decades to come.
One thing I liked about Thom Hartmann was he relentlessly drove home the point that the US
succeeded, grew, and became the dominant economic power in the world through the use of TARIFFS.
Tariffs are necessary. They protect your industries while at the same time bringing in a lot of
revenue.
The nafta-shafta deals relinquish the right to even think about tariffs. You don't have a
sovereign
nation any more.
The first round of industrial revolution automation substituted machines for human/horse mechanical
exertion. We reached "peak horse" around 1900, and the move to low-wage/low-regulation states
was just a step on the global race to the bottom. You can visit the prosperous Samsung-suburb
of Suwon, Korea and see all the abandoned manufacturing space (where Korea was just a step on
the path to Vietnam and Bangladesh).
Information revolution automation is substituting machines for human intelligence. Here the
race to the bottom is a single step, and these "trade" deals are all about rules of governance
that will apply when people have been stripped of all economic power.
Will the rise of the machines lead to abundance for all, or merely infinite wealth and power
for a thin oligarchy of robot/machine owners? TPP and it's ilk may be the last chance for we the
people to have any say in it.
Manufacturing
is in decline due to Reagan's tax cuts and low investment. Globalization and Technologization
is a canard they use to explain the impoverishment and death of the working class.
@Squirrel – Labor costs, as you say, are a driving force; they are not the only one.
Notice that the products you mentioned are all large heavy items. In these cases the transportation
costs are high enough that the companies want their production to be close to their final market.
The lower cost of labor elsewhere is not enough to compensate for the higher shipping costs from
those locations. In addition, the wage gap between the US and other places has narrowed over the
past 20 years, mostly due to the ongoing suppression of wage gains in the US. Your examples are
exceptions that do not falsify the original premise that a huge amount of manufacturing has moved
to lower wage locations. And those moves are still ongoing, e.g., Carrier moving to Mexico.
The cost of manufactured goods has not fallen because the labor savings is going to profit
and executive compensation, not reduced prices.
The fact that auto manufactures moved plants to low wage, nonunion, right to work states actually
highlights the fact that labor costs drive the decision where to locate manufacturing plants.
"... Buchanan: "The Czechs had their Prague Spring. The Tunisians and Egyptians their Arab Spring. When do we have our American Spring? The Brits had their 'Brexit' and declared independence of an arrogant superstate in Brussels. How do we liberate ourselves from a Beltway superstate that is more powerful and resistant to democratic change? Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all beaver away for 'regime change' in faraway lands whose rulers displease us. How do we effect 'regime change' here at home?" ..."
"... He goes on to quote John F. Kennedy saying, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable," and closes with a reference to Credence Clearwater, "But if Hillary Clinton takes power, and continues America on her present course, which a majority of Americans rejected in the primaries, there is going to a bad moon rising." ..."
"... though both stood against the conservative mainstream to champion economic nationalism, the two men couldn't be further apart in their intellectual sophistication and their sense of poetry ..."
"... "Putin may be seeing the future with more clarity than Americans still caught up in a Cold War paradigm," Buchanan wrote. He also reassured readers that "Putin says his mother had him secretly baptized as a baby and professes to be a Christian." ..."
Straining for relevance, Buchanan attaches himself to Trump, expresses admiration for Vladimir
Putin.
... Buchanan, a senior advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan, and who was
once considered the go-to guy for paleoconservatives, seemed to have faded in importance from those
heady days when he co-hosted CNN's Crossfire, and gave the rousing and incendiary culture war speech
at the 1992 Republican Party convention.
As The Australian's Nikki Savva recently wrote, Buchanan "ran against the first George Bush for
the Republican nomination, promising to build a wall or dig a giant ditch along the border between
the US and Mexico. So it's not a new idea. The same people cheering Trump now applauded Buchanan
then - it's just their numbers have grown." Now, thanks to Donald Trump's candidacy, and the band
of white nationalists supporting him, Buchanan is in full pundefocating mode.
According to People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch, Buchanan, the author of the new book
"The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority," is all in
with Trump's claim that if he loses it will be because the election is rigged. And, furthermore,
according to Buchanan, Trump's loss could signal the beginning of a revolution in America.
In a WND column headlined "Yes, The System Is Rigged," Buchanan – whose column is syndicated in
a number of mainstream newspapers -- maintains that if the election "ends with a Clintonite restoration
and a ratification of the same old Beltway policies, would that not suggest there is something fraudulent
about American democracy, something rotten in the state?"
Buchanan: "The Czechs had their Prague Spring. The Tunisians and Egyptians their Arab Spring.
When do we have our American Spring? The Brits had their 'Brexit' and declared independence of an
arrogant superstate in Brussels. How do we liberate ourselves from a Beltway superstate that is more
powerful and resistant to democratic change? Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all
beaver away for 'regime change' in faraway lands whose rulers displease us. How do we effect 'regime
change' here at home?"
He goes on to quote John F. Kennedy saying, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable," and closes with a reference to Credence Clearwater, "But
if Hillary Clinton takes power, and continues America on her present course, which a majority of
Americans rejected in the primaries, there is going to a bad moon rising."
... ... ...
Interestingly, in a post-GOP convention column, Slate's Reihan Salam argued that Trump missed
a golden opportunity to soften his image: "He should have taken a page from Pat Buchanan, a man who
is in many ways Trump's spiritual predecessor. Though both Buchanan and Trump have indulged in inflammatory
racial rhetoric, and though both stood against the conservative mainstream to champion economic
nationalism, the two men couldn't be further apart in their intellectual sophistication and their
sense of poetry. And while Buchanan came to his blend of traditionalism and nationalism honestly,
one still gets the sense that Trump simply saw an opportunity to exploit the GOP's working-class
primary electorate and went for it."
In addition to his "inflammatory racial rhetoric," in recent years, Buchanan has not been shy
in expressing his admiration for Russia's Vladimir Putin. As Boulder Weekly's Dave Anderson recently
pointed out, in a 2013 column titled "Is Putin One of Us?" Buchanan "noted that while a 'de-Christianized'
United States has been embracing 'homosexual marriage, pornography, promiscuity, and the whole panoply
of Hollywood values,' the Russian president has stood up for traditional values. He praised Putin's
disparaging of homosexuals, feminists and immigrants."
"Putin may be seeing the future with more clarity than Americans still caught up in a Cold
War paradigm," Buchanan wrote. He also reassured readers that "Putin says his mother had him secretly
baptized as a baby and professes to be a Christian."
"... All these elections are equally fake. At some point you're going to have to stop pecking B.F. Skinner's levers, because the pellets have stopped coming out. But there's no point reasoning with you till your extinction burst finally subsides. ..."
"... This is not a very good piece for several reasons, one being only in the nonsense universe of US mainstream discourse can Clinton be termed a 'centrist' or can someone be depicted as a bona fide 'progressive' and also be a supporter of Clinton. I wouldn't waste a moment trying to pressure 'Clinton progressives' on anything – there is no historical evidence she or Bill have ever had the slightest interest in the public interest. At best a 'Clinton progressive' might claim to be 'defending' some existing public good, but good luck there as well – as Trump is not the source of any real 'threat', that distinction belonging to the existing power elites (military, financial, corporate, legal, media etc.) Clinton serves. ..."
"... The idea that Clinton ever was 'open' to progressives reminds me of why the putrid Rahm Emmanuel could dismiss the left as a 'bunch of retards'. Time to make them eat those words by taking ourselves and our values and our thinking seriously enough we stop fearing not being taken 'seriously' by so loathsome a crew as the Clintons. ..."
Here in Temple Grandin's touchy-feely slaughterhouse, Sanders gets 45% of the vote and leads
them down Hillary's cattle chute for slaughter – not cooption, not marginalization, but the bolt
gun to the head, with lots of sadistic poleaxing straight out of an illegal PETA video. The surviving
livestock are auctioned off for flensing through gleeful trading in influence. This we learn,
is not beyond redemption. In some demented psycho-Quaker sense, perhaps. What the fuck WON'T you
put up with?
In this psychotic mindset, Kim Jong Un's 99.97% victory proves he's like twice as worthwhile
as any Dem. Write him in. Nursultan Nazarbayev, too, his 98% success speaks for itself. Write
him in. All these elections are equally fake. At some point you're going to have to stop pecking
B.F. Skinner's levers, because the pellets have stopped coming out. But there's no point reasoning
with you till your extinction burst finally subsides.
Then we can talk about how you knock over moribund regimes.
This is not a very good piece for several reasons, one being only in the nonsense universe
of US mainstream discourse can Clinton be termed a 'centrist' or can someone be depicted as a
bona fide 'progressive' and also be a supporter of Clinton. I wouldn't waste a moment trying to
pressure 'Clinton progressives' on anything – there is no historical evidence she or Bill have
ever had the slightest interest in the public interest. At best a 'Clinton progressive' might
claim to be 'defending' some existing public good, but good luck there as well – as Trump is not
the source of any real 'threat', that distinction belonging to the existing power elites (military,
financial, corporate, legal, media etc.) Clinton serves.
There are 3 critical issues 'progressives', Greens, lefties, libertarians and others must come
together en masse to resist: TPP immediately, US foreign policy of permanent wars of aggression
now involving the entire Muslim world and fossil fuels. Don't waste any time hoping to influence
Clinton (you won't) or fretting about Trump. First TPP, then anti-War/anti-fossil fuels.
I am convinced TPP can be beaten – not with 'Clinton activists', but with a broad coalition
of interests. And once it has been beaten, the supremely idiotic 'war on terror' is next up. Americans'
votes and electoral desires have been ignored and suppressed. Other legitimate means therefore
must be taken up and utilized to change critical policy failures directly.
The idea that Clinton ever was 'open' to progressives reminds me of why the putrid Rahm Emmanuel
could dismiss the left as a 'bunch of retards'. Time to make them eat those words by taking ourselves
and our values and our thinking seriously enough we stop fearing not being taken 'seriously' by
so loathsome a crew as the Clintons.
"... Until she demonstrated her vile nature as Secretary of State, the problem with Hillary has been the cast of miscreants she surrounds herself with such as John Podesta. Obama might have actually at least not surrounded herself with such vile people, but Hillary's 2007 henchmen were a sign she was unfit for any office. Trying to grab an empty suit, Obama, before he made connections just made sense. ..."
"... Other than that, she was First Lady and an unremarkable Senator. The line about Mos Eisley from Star Wars accurately describes the Senate. ..."
"... I think "progressive" is a such a mushy term it's hard to fit anybody into it on any criteria other than that they identify themselves as such. ..."
"... That's why there's never a real answer to "Progress in what direction?" And the progressives of today have no historical "bloodline" connection to the Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century (except maybe some vague technocratic leanings, the 10% of that day). ..."
"... But if Hillary Clinton and Ezra Klein at al. get to call themselves progressive, it's a useless term ..."
"... All I ever hear from Clinton supporters (even those newly aligned former Bernie supporters), is 'because Trump'. They appear starry-eyed and brainwashed because she's 'not Trump'. I don't predict any of 'em pushing Clinton on any issues. ..."
"... Even if they tried, Clinton has already shown, IMO, that unless you have millions of dollars to throw at her feet you'll never get her attention, let alone force any change in her policies. ..."
"... 2020 starts on November 9. Even if Clinton seems legitimate on election day, she'll delegitimize herself in short order. She won't be able to help herself. ..."
"... IMO she already did that at the end of the campaign trail by choosing Kaine as her running mate, Salazar for her transition team (& suggesting Bill as economic advisor?). http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/hillary_clintons_choice_of_ken_salazar_comes_under_fire_video_20160818 ..."
"... Kaine, along with IIRC Rahm, purged the Democrats of activists from Howard Dean's 50-state strategy post-2006. ..."
"... Hillary is a lying war hawk. ..."
"... Too bad Sanders turned out to be a sheepdog for the D party. He really should get the best actor in a political campaign award. After he endorsed Clinton it was clear as day it was ALL one big performance. ..."
"... Young Sanders voters had a damned clear idea of the limits of what he was offering. They voted for him anyway, because he just sucked so much less than the jowly pair of creeps who stand before us now. ..."
"... Can anyone doubt that Hillary will pull a super-Obama once elected, rejecting all her promises and implementing their opposites once elected? It amazes me that many people do, that they think they will have some ability to control policy. If things get too hot in the kitchen politically speaking, isn't it OBVIOUS that a 2-pronged propaganda effort will be unleashed, to hide blatantly unpopular moves on the one hand, and/or talk them up as if they were falsely maligned and in the TINA category on the other. ..."
"... "This really matters. That Clinton is a better progressive choice than Trump is not much contested." Really? Reeeeaaaaa lly? Perhaps, as others have said way upthread, that is part of the problem right there. ..."
"... Reading the article at this link should help progressives get over their fear of a President Trump. That fear is the only thing preventing them from voting for someone other than Clinton. Maybe the progressives should consider the possibility that they have nothing to fear but fear itself. ..."
"... Because when he focuses on the last few-couple decades and especially the last few years, including CLINTON'S last few years, he makes serious sense. As well as his discussion of who has what military capabilities nowadays, and what a mistaken estimation of who has what military capabilities nowadays can lead the mistakers to lead their country into, box-canyon-of-no-return speaking-wise. ..."
Until she demonstrated her vile nature as Secretary of State, the problem with Hillary has
been the cast of miscreants she surrounds herself with such as John Podesta. Obama might have
actually at least not surrounded herself with such vile people, but Hillary's 2007 henchmen were
a sign she was unfit for any office. Trying to grab an empty suit, Obama, before he made connections
just made sense.
Other than that, she was First Lady and an unremarkable Senator. The line about Mos Eisley
from Star Wars accurately describes the Senate.
I think "progressive" is a such a mushy term it's hard to fit anybody into it on any criteria
other than that they identify themselves as such. I was there for the creation of the term, and
there was a lot of discussion about it in the blogosphere at the time. Basically, the conservatives
had managed, by dint of repetition, in making "liberal" a dirty word, so they needed rebranding.
That's all "progressive" is; a rebranding.
That's why there's never a real answer to "Progress
in what direction?" And the progressives of today have no historical "bloodline" connection to
the Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century (except maybe some vague technocratic
leanings, the 10% of that day).
I never liked the word liberal and never self-identified as such. Even as a kid, I think I
intuited its connection back to Locke and classical liberalism. I had been calling myself progressive
for a while, as it seemed like a nice connection to the earlier progressive movement pushing back
against the first Gilded Age and a way of talking about the left that wasn't too scary for people
trapped in the liberal paradigm.
But if Hillary Clinton and Ezra Klein at al. get to call themselves progressive, it's a useless
term. I've reverted back to "leftist". I strongly doubt Hill and Ezra will want that. We'll see.
Sorry, but I saw this article as little more than wishful thinking.
"It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to
take the lead on holding her accountable."
Not gonna happen.
Even if those supporting her were to 'make a little noise' over things they're opposed to, what
makes Bond think she'd listen? Wasn't the Dem convention revealing enough?
All I ever hear from Clinton supporters (even those newly aligned former Bernie supporters), is
'because Trump'.
They appear starry-eyed and brainwashed because she's 'not Trump'. I don't predict any of 'em
pushing Clinton on any issues.
Even if they tried, Clinton has already shown, IMO, that unless you have millions of dollars
to throw at her feet you'll never get her attention, let alone force any change in her policies.
2020 starts on November 9. Even if Clinton seems legitimate on election day, she'll delegitimize
herself in short order. She won't be able to help herself.
She also confirmed it at the convention by silencing those there to push for platform reform.
(I really had no idea just how much weight the head of a transition team carries until I watched
this video).
I'd like to add that although I will be in the voting booth come November, none of the presidential
candidates will get my vote. Trump is an ignorant egomaniac. Hillary is a lying war hawk. Johnson
is another right-wing looney. And Stein, while she has some really good stances, lied during the
CNN town hall (and I know because I actually read the Green Platform). I'm not even sure I will
vote for the Dem challenger to my lousy Repub senator because the challenger is just another party
hack who, like Hillary, only says what we want to hear.
Sanders did not "come out of nowhere".
I and others followed and heard him for years on the Tom Hartman show.
But I had gotten sick of hearing the talk but seeing no action and had stopped listening for at
least the past two years.
Also, the reason the "kids" took to him like wild was him calling for student loan cancellation.
And that's the god's truth.
Though his other messages about the rich looting us clean and needing to be stopped were what
any sane person in the country longed to hear and have changed.
Too bad Sanders turned out to be a sheepdog for the D party. He really should get the best actor in a political campaign award. After he endorsed Clinton it was clear as day it was ALL one big performance.
In my experience (6 years of pursuing a PhD late in life) young educated people today are so
much more savvy, less self-indulgent and broadly "grown up" than the peeved, aging boomers who
haunt this board…….. that this assertion is laugh-inducing.
Young Sanders voters had a damned clear idea of the limits of what he was offering. They voted
for him anyway, because he just sucked so much less than the jowly pair of creeps who stand before
us now.
Voting for someone who "sucked so much less" than the other candidates is not how a movement
gets started. If your assertion is correct, than things are not only looking dim for any reform
in the near future, but look equally bad for long range reform. Hate is too self consuming to
maintain constantly without renouncing ones humanity. Hope, as the histories of religions show,
can keep chugging along for millennia. "True believers" did start in the religious sphere and
transfer to other spheres of human endeavour.
I think what people have forgotten, or have no current experience with, is the actual radical,
and destructive nature of Capitalism as a social organizing structure. It is the ocean in which
we all swim or the air we all breathe, so take for granted – unreflectively. Commoners cannot
connect the misery they experience daily with the system they live under. Capitalists can only
double down on their life strategy. The second they hesitate, the game is up. It is an all or
nothing strategy. In America, you are given no breathing space. No tolerance for dissent.
A reformed capitalism ceases to be capitalism. Just as the divine right of Kings falls away
when individual liberty takes hold in the mind. The two thoughts are incompatible.
What is the capitalist goal? To control all- to exploit all? Don't capitalists already possess
that power in disguised form already? What is it that they want anyway? Power over individual
lives? Materially, the ruling elite have everything already, they have won the struggle of Owners
over Labor. We have come full circle to where the elite now require our public displays of affection
for their greatness once again. Freedom and liberty of the individual be dammed if not the right
individual.
If forced to express their vision for the human future, the ruling elite would be exposed as
the shallow frauds that they are. They have no vision other than the ceaseless striving for material
personal wealth. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are a logical result of an unrelenting capitalist
system. They are its products.
What is the logical end for capitalism? It is an ideology that needs competition to survive.
But what happens when there are no more foes to conquer? No more resources to exploit for profit?.
America is a nation of chaos because it is the leader of the capitalist world. It is not a
nation of diverse strength and stability. It is a teetering behemoth, struggling not to fall over
from neglect and self inflicted wounds perpetrated by sociopathic ideologues.
Hopefully, the con game has lost it's effectiveness as harsh reality sinks in. As always, its
having a plan ready to go and implement when the crash finally occurs. If the left does't have
that plan ready, we all deserve what comes.
I'm really baffled at the surprise felt at Hillary's choice of associates, and at the policy
decisions likely to follow. It reminds me of Condoleeza Rice statement that no one could have
seen 911 coming, when drills had been ongoing to handle exactly this eventuality.
Can anyone doubt that Hillary will pull a super-Obama once elected, rejecting all her promises
and implementing their opposites once elected? It amazes me that many people do, that they think
they will have some ability to control policy. If things get too hot in the kitchen politically
speaking, isn't it OBVIOUS that a 2-pronged propaganda effort will be unleashed, to hide blatantly
unpopular moves on the one hand, and/or talk them up as if they were falsely maligned and in the
TINA category on the other.
I state these opinions feeling on the one hand, as if I have 2 heads because this view seems
so marginal among the populace, but on the other feeling eerily vindicated, as if I've been seeing
a train coming down the track and striking a crowd of people, none of whom apparently saw or did
anything during its approach. Is not the political outcome obvious? Hasn't anyone else seen through
the level of propaganda diminishing her crimes as either nonexistent or unprosecutable?
Well, I can entertain myself watching the propaganda, and watching how far political and ethical
opinions can be twisted. Like the train metaphor, there's a certain macabre fascination to be
savored. This is undoubtedly corrosive to my ethical and moral sensibilities, but trivially compared
to all else.
God I hate the phony framing of "hold her feet to the fire". After she's elected there is simply
no way to do that. The only way her desired policies could be thwarted is by forcing enough members
of Congress not to vote for certain bills like the TPP. But even then, nothing we can do can force
her to change executive orders and executive branch policies or priorities.
Bond is not even going to do the feet-to-fire holding herself. She's assigning it to someone
else based on a standard she's devised. You broke it, you bought it. Give me a break.
If you want to send the democrat party a message, you deny them the win. Period. It's how elections
work. You don't get the job if your performance is piss poor.
All this wishy-washiness over giving an unsuitable candidate a job and then assigning someone
to stand guard over them to make sure they do it to your satisfaction when you've known from the
beginning that s/he won't is just a weak excuse for taking the easy way out.
You want to send a message to the democrat party that they better shape up now, you vote for
Trump. And hold HIS feet to the fire. Two birds, one stone
"Progressives who supported Clinton in the primary should use their leverage to ensure Clinton
makes good on her vow to stop TPP and keep other promises she made on the campaign trail to win
progressive votes. "
This is crapified politics that we've heard before, over and over. HOW are they going to "hold
her feet to the fire?" Has there ever been serious detail about that? I've seen this line over
and over, but it's NEVER operational, and more important, it can't be. The next opportunity is
4 long years off; she could be dead by then, so could they, and the Republicans will nominate
Cruz.
All that leaves is insurrectionary street action; anything else is easy to ignore, and they
know they have progressives hog-tied – hell, the progs did it to themselves.
This hogswill is nothing but the same lesser-evilism that got us here. I suspect GP agrees;
I'm responding to the quote.
I think "hold her feet to the fire" means progressives will get on all fours and act as an
Ottoman for Her Grace during a cold D.C winter's night. They seem to be doing it now.
"This really matters. That Clinton is a better progressive choice than Trump is not much contested."
Really? Reeeeaaaaa lly? Perhaps, as others have said way upthread, that is part of the problem
right there.
Perhaps people should consider the possibility that Clinton is the More Effective evil. Perhaps
a Trump Administration would be a bunch of sound and fury and clown car fire drills signifying
nothing. Whereas a Clinton Administration would be staffed and powered by Decromatic and Third
Way Cheneys who know where all the knobs, levers and buttons of power are. And they are determined
that what they want . . . they will get.
One of Ian Welsh's favorite commenters brought this link to his blog.
markfromireland PERMALINK
August 19, 2016
There are lots of reasons not to vote for Clinton and the suppurating corruption she represents.
Not letting her owners play with matches rates high among them
Some of the insulting language is harsh on the tender eyeballs of sensitive leftists. I would
suggest gritting one's teeth and powering through the relatively few insulting words and phrases.
Most of it is fact-based and evidence-supported reasoned reasons to prevent Clinton from getting
elected. Reading the article at this link should help progressives get over their fear of a President
Trump. That fear is the only thing preventing them from voting for someone other than Clinton.
Maybe the progressives should consider the possibility that they have nothing to fear but fear
itself.
Yes, one's eyeballs could be pretty tough and still find that one difficult. Still, it pays
to grind one's teeth and power through.
Because when he focuses on the last few-couple decades
and especially the last few years, including CLINTON'S last few years, he makes serious sense.
As well as his discussion of who has what military capabilities nowadays, and what a mistaken
estimation of who has what military capabilities nowadays can lead the mistakers to lead their
country into, box-canyon-of-no-return speaking-wise.
"... That means that out of all the TV channels we watch, the radio stations we listen to and the movies we see are owned by one of these six main corporations. ..."
"... People are almost "forced" to wonder if the media controls as well our public taste and interest. They control the information we receive, but not only that, they control exactly what we receive and the way we do, therefore they control what we think. Media companies do not care about how they can be more objective and provide people news and information with a neutral point of view (even thought it sounds contradictory). We could say that they "unintentionally" or "indirectly" tell us what to think and what to believe. ..."
"... The media's duty is to provide objective information to the public through newspapers, television and radio, in order for the public to make public as well as personal decisions in the diverse fields. ..."
Media ownership is becoming more and more concentrated these days as multi-billion dollar companies
such as News corporation, Time warner and Disney company control almost all the shares of the mass
media.
A total of six corporations control almost 90% of the mainstream media nowadays. That means that
out of all the TV channels we watch, the radio stations we listen to and the movies we see are owned
by one of these six main corporations. Is this a good or a bad situation? Is the fact that almost
the whole media is owned by a very few a positive or a negative aspect? Some argue that this brings
benefits to the free market, the multi-billion companies and ultimately, the viewers. On the other
hand, others say that this concentration of media ownership has a negative effect on the market and
on society as a whole (articleworld.org).
People are almost "forced" to wonder if the media controls as well our public taste and interest.
They control the information we receive, but not only that, they control exactly what we receive
and the way we do, therefore they control what we think. Media companies do not care about how they
can be more objective and provide people news and information with a neutral point of view
(even thought it sounds contradictory). We could say that they "unintentionally" or "indirectly"
tell us what to think and what to believe. A newspaper finds some news and automatically interprets
them, even though journalists try to focus on the facts, as many claim, they subconsciously have
and opinion about whatever subject they are reporting about. This takes us to the point of "lack
of diversity" that is a reality nowadays and that so many criticize. Danny Schechter, a television
producer, independent filmmaker, blogger, and media critic states that "we have many channels and
a tremendous lack of diversity." It wouldn't be strange to think that a news broadcast would withhold
information if it had a negative effect on the company.
From an international perspective, this situation of media merging is also beneficial for the
big conglomerates. For instance, News Corporation owns the top newspaper on 3 continents, that is
the Wall Street Journal in the U.S, The Sun in Europe and The Australian in Australia (Lutz, Jason,
2012). The positive aspect of this, is that the spreading of this "influence" is good for the company,
and at the same time, readers get what they want, which is reading that newspaper. However, the bad
aspect is that big conglomerates are big companies, and big companies main priority is always money,
above everything else. Getting more readers, viewers and listeners is for the one and only purpose
that matters to them: Money. That is what brings bad or "controversial" consequences, and one of
them is that in 2012, they avoided $875 million in U.S taxes (Lutz, Jason, 2012). That would have
been enough to double FEMA's budget, or to fund NPR for 40 years. Nonetheless, technically this cannot
be criticized since they are a private corporation after all. Another issue that is a big concern
in the European Union is the media transparency and plurality.
Transparency is an essential component
of pluralism (Stolte & Smith, 2010). Although the Council of Europe and the European Parliament have
brought out recommendations regarding media transparency in the last few years, these have not been
acted on. It is left to Member States to implement legislation regarding media ownership transparency,
and there is by no means a unified or standard approach to be found across Europe (Stolte & Smith,
2010). This is a big issue in the European Union. The media's duty is to provide objective information
to the public through newspapers, television and radio, in order for the public to make public as
well as personal decisions in the diverse fields.
It may sound scary -and it does to a lot of people- the fact that all our media is controlled
by a few big conglomerates, forming an oligopoly, with the power of doing -almost- whatever they
want. Also, it is true that this situation implies a very few and personal points of view, and the
opportunity for those big conglomerates to "control" in a way what goes out, and how it does. Making
the audience think in a certain way. This Infographic shows the media ownsership in the U.S currently.
This is a serious hit. And timing is perfect. Ukrainian government has connections to Hillary.
If this is not interference n US election, I do not know what is. And
Clinton Foundation ties to Ukraine are not investigated. Podesta firm (run by his brother) is
involved by this involvement is hashed down. There is an interesting implicit hypothesis
voiced in this article: the regime that replaced Yanukovich is less corrupt and less beholder to impoverishing
Ukraine for the benefit of neoliberals like Soros. But the truth is that the country is now is much
poor then it was under Yanukovich with his thieves. The best way to convert the country into debt slave
is to wage a war. That's exactly what new leaders immediately did. See
Ukraine denouement Michael Hudson.
Of course FBI will not be investigating that. Like they refuse to investigate things about Hillary.
Neoliberals are above the law, other people not so much.
Isicoff said that Trump is attempting to delegitimize the current political establishment. I
think he is correct if he means neoliberals (which MSM are afraid to call by name; imagine the same
situation with communists when members of communist party were prohibited to call themselves
communist; that would make communism closer to neoliberalism (which is essentially Trotskyism for
rich)
Notable quotes:
"... Another firm, the Podesta Group, headed by Tony Podesta, brother of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, was also recruited by a Manafort deputy and lobbied for the European Centre. In a lengthy statement Friday, the Podesta Group said it had retained another Washington law firm, Caplin & Drysdale,"to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with regard to the Centre's potential ties to foreign governments or political parties." ..."
"... The lobbyists, political operators and former politicians are allowed to play all three roles interchangeably and that has (and continues) to lead to US foreign policies that consistently work AGAINST the best interests of the American people and the future well being of the country BUT in the in financial best interests of the special interests who own our elected officials and the mainstream media and thus call the shots. ..."
"... This current case is a very close parallel to the case presidential candidate John McCains' chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, who was a paid lobbyist for for the former Soviet republic of Georgia which explains McCain's insistent that the US should intervene in the Russian/Geogian conflict of 2008 by bombing the pass thru which Russian troops were streaming into Georgia following Georgia attempt to claim South Ossetia and Abkhazia by force of arms. Yes, contrary to US media reports that was was started by the Georgians when they decided to invade and take back by force a couple of disputed regions and killed a number of Russian peacekeeper in the process. ..."
"... So I guess this means that the FBI will give the Clinton Foundation similar scrutiny since Manafort's $12 million is chump change compared to the hundreds of millions the Clintons got from shady foreign governments in exchange for special favors. Yeah, right! Funny, I didn't know Manafort had more power in the US than the Clintons and so was more dangerous to national security. ..."
"... Typical Clinton Machine deflection and distraction from their own worse crimes. Typical pro Hillary Yahoo 'news.' Read Breitbart and the Daily Caller, folks if you want real investigative reporting. ..."
"... The FBI and Department of Justice have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta Group has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. ..."
"... It turns out that Hillary Clinton's campaign guru, head of the lobbying firm the Podesta Group, has found himself smack dab in the middle of the same criminal investigation spawned when devious political operatives decide to merge international relations with campaign politics. For weeks, the pages of the Washington Post, the Daily Beast, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal have chimed that Trump is a "Putin pawn" as part of some maniacal plot by the Kremlin to interfere with the US election. ..."
"... The controversy for Podesta links to his work for the Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a Brussels based organization that describes itself as "an advocate for enhancing EU-Ukraine relations." Unfortunately for Mr. Podesta, the organization has been described as "an operation controlled by Yanukovych" and tied to the former leader's Party of Regions suggesting the Podesta Group may have been, like has been said of Paul Manafort, tasked with greater reporting requirements pursuant to US law. ..."
The Justice Department and the FBI are conducting a wide-ranging investigation into allegations
of corrupt dealings by the government of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, including
the hiring of Washington lobbyists for the regime by former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort,
a senior law enforcement official confirmed to Yahoo News.
The investigation, which was first reported by CNN, began two years ago after Yanukovych fled
Kiev to Moscow and was replaced by the current government of Petro Poroshenko, the official said.
But the inquiry has expanded in recent weeks in the wake of the discovery of documents showing $12.7
million in payments to Manafort by Yanukovych's Party of Regions political party. Investigators are
also looking into reports that Manafort recruited two top Washington lobbying firms to advocate on
behalf of a Belgian nonprofit that investigators now believe may have served as a front for Yanukovych's
party. Neither of the firms, the Mercury Group and the Podesta Group, registered with the U.S. Justice
Department as foreign agents - a requirement if they represented a foreign government or political
party.
The disclosure of the Justice Department investigation came on the same day that Manafort stepped
down as Trump's campaign chairman - news that sent new shockwaves through Republican circles. Manafort,
who served for years as a campaign consultant to Yanukovych, declined requests for comment. But a
close associate of his who asked not to be identified explained his resignation this way: Manafort
"is not going to take orders or relinquish power to people like" Kellyanne Conway, the new Trump
campaign manager, and Steve Bannon, the newly named CEO of the campaign. The Manafort associate also
blamed the rapidly unfolding Ukraine allegations on "oppo research" being spread by Corey Lewandowski,
Trump's former campaign manager and a bitter foe of Manafort
Ken Gross, a lawyer at Skadden Arps, which represents the Mercury Group, one of the lobbying firms
recruited by Manafort, told Yahoo News that his firm has been "engaged to look into the matter" of
whether Mercury was required to register as a foreign agent with the Justice Department when, at
Manafort's request, it agreed to represent the Brussels-based European Centre for a Modern Ukraine
in 2012. Lobbying reports reviewed by Yahoo News show that the firms sought to burnish Yanokovych's
reputation and lobbied against congressional resolutions condemning the regime's treatment of political
opponents and opposing Russian aggression in Ukraine.
Another firm, the Podesta Group, headed by Tony Podesta, brother of Hillary Clinton's campaign
chairman, John Podesta, was also recruited by a Manafort deputy and lobbied for the European Centre.
In a lengthy statement Friday, the Podesta Group said it had retained another Washington law firm,
Caplin & Drysdale,"to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other
individuals with regard to the Centre's potential ties to foreign governments or political parties."
The statement added: "When the Centre became a client, it certified in writing that 'none of the
activities of the Centre are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or
subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party.'
We relied on that certification and advice from counsel in registering and reporting under the Lobbying
Disclosure Act rather than the Foreign Agents Registration Act. We will take whatever measures are
necessary to address this situation based on Caplin & Drysdale's review, including possible legal
action against the Centre."
Sevgil Musaieva, editor of Ukrainskaye Pravda, a newspaper that has conducted multiple investigations
into corruption under the Yanukovych regime, told Yahoo News that she first met with a team of FBI
agents at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev two years ago. At the time, the new government headed by Poroshenko
had asked the FBI for assistance in tracking down millions of dollars that it believed had been stolen
by Yanukovych and his associates before they fled Kiev. "The FBI came to Kiev and started an investigation,"
she said. They asked her detailed questions about what she knew about allegations of corrupt dealings
by the Yanukovych regime.
But sources familiar with the probe say it expanded after a Ukrainian anticorruption bureau discovered
a "black book" said to show "off-the-books" cash payments from the party to Manafort totaling $12.7
million between 2007 and 2012. Entries show that some of the payments were signed by a former member
of the Ukrainian Parliament who was also a board member of the European Centre. Documents also purportedly
show payments to the executive director of the center, according to a source familiar with the probe,
reinforcing suspicions that the group was fronting for Yanukovych's political party.
Sage
The lobbyists, political operators and former politicians are allowed to play all three
roles interchangeably and that has (and continues) to lead to US foreign policies that
consistently work AGAINST the best interests of the American people and the future well being
of the country BUT in the in financial best interests of the special interests who own our
elected officials and the mainstream media and thus call the shots.
Manafort is getting all this negative publicity only now, years AFTER the fact, because of two
reasons---1) the political/special interests are deathly afraid that a Trump victory because
they may not be able to control him and thus he might upset their lucrative apple cart that
has made them obscenely wealthy at the expense of the rest of the country; and 2)secondly
because that Manafort was backing the wrong horse in a race in which the special interests are
actively trying to isolate and surround Russian militarily in order to remove a potential
obstacle to their goal of global domination thru bought and paid for US politicians.
However, this incestuous and obscene criminal behavior involving lobbyist/political operator
has been going on for a long time and it much wider spread than is normally reported because
the special interest owed media usually has no reason to expose it; in fact they usually have
reason NOT to expose it.
This current case is a very close parallel to the case presidential candidate John McCains'
chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, who was a paid lobbyist for for the former
Soviet republic of Georgia which explains McCain's insistent that the US should intervene in
the Russian/Geogian conflict of 2008 by bombing the pass thru which Russian troops were
streaming into Georgia following Georgia attempt to claim South Ossetia and Abkhazia by force
of arms. Yes, contrary to US media reports that was was started by the Georgians when they
decided to invade and take back by force a couple of disputed regions and killed a number of
Russian peacekeeper in the process.
Of course Scheunemann, unlike Manafort, came out completely unscathed and totally untouched by
the media because war lover McCain supported the special interests' agenda because unlike
Manafort, he was aiding and abetting the same "horse" the neo-con State Dept and the CIA had
their bets on.
A Mcp
So I guess this means that the FBI will give the Clinton Foundation similar scrutiny since Manafort's
$12 million is chump change compared to the hundreds of millions the Clintons got from shady foreign
governments in exchange for special favors. Yeah, right! Funny, I didn't know Manafort had more power
in the US than the Clintons and so was more dangerous to national security.
Typical Clinton Machine deflection and distraction from their own worse crimes. Typical pro Hillary
Yahoo 'news.' Read Breitbart and the Daily Caller, folks if you want real investigative reporting.
Billy Willy
So you biased Hillary asslickers think we don;t know about her SAME issues? So report on this
you morons:
The FBI and Department of Justice have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta Group
has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former Ukrainian
President Viktor Yanukovych.
It seems like just yesterday that the top campaign official for Donald Trump found himself caught
in the middle of a political dragnet for his work as a lobbyist on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych with
the media clamoring about his purported ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin as a reason why
the Republican nominee was a less desirable candidate than Hillary Clinton. Wait, that was just yesterday?
It turns out that Hillary Clinton's campaign guru, head of the lobbying firm the Podesta Group,
has found himself smack dab in the middle of the same criminal investigation spawned when devious
political operatives decide to merge international relations with campaign politics. For weeks, the
pages of the Washington Post, the Daily Beast, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal have
chimed that Trump is a "Putin pawn" as part of some maniacal plot by the Kremlin to interfere with
the US election.
Turns out, the Podesta Group founded by none other than John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chair
and chief strategies, was retained by the Russian-owned firm UraniumOne in 2012, 2014, and 2015 to
lobby Hillary Clinton's State Department based on John Podesta's longstanding relations with the
Clinton family – he was the White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton.
Interestingly, UraniumOne's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling
$2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation from 2009 to 2013. Perhaps a more blatant evidence of allegations
that Hillary Clinton's State Department operated on a pay-to-play basis is the fact that, as the
New York Times reported last April, "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire
a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian
investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting UraniumOne stock.
Not only are investigators wondering whether there was any impropriety in the lobbying arrangement
such as the provision of beneficial treatment by the State Department to an old friend, but they
are also probing the work that Viktor Yanukovych's regime paid the Podesta Group to do while he was
the head of the Ukrainian government.
The controversy for Podesta links to his work for the Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a Brussels
based organization that describes itself as "an advocate for enhancing EU-Ukraine relations." Unfortunately
for Mr. Podesta, the organization has been described as "an operation controlled by Yanukovych" and
tied to the former leader's Party of Regions suggesting the Podesta Group may have been, like has
been said of Paul Manafort, tasked with greater reporting requirements pursuant to US law.
The Podesta Group quickly hired the white-shoe law firm Caplin & Drysdale as "independent, outside
legal counsel to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals
with regard to the Centre's potential ties to foreign governments or political parties."
Alan
The bummers FBI who just let off Hillary who should have been indicted and imprisoned? What a
shock that they are involved.
This
Maureen Dowd
column reminds me writing about Western capitalist society by some not too brainwashed Soviet
propagandists. She managed to put into anti-trump diatibe (which is a requirement for
NYT writers; to writing such column is a must; this is just a survival skill) some really damning
things about Hillary.
Notable quotes:
"... She's like Lyin' Lochte, just sorry she got caught. Hearing her apologize is as likely as seeing those 33,000 yoga emails. ..."
"... I'm sorry the Clintons didn't realize until now how bad it was to be using the State Department as a favor factory for big donors to the foundation. I'm all for pay-for-play, but only at my golf courses. ..."
"... I'm sorry Hillary had to besmirch poor Colin Powell by claiming he gave her the idea for private emails. Hasn't his reputation suffered enough pushing that phony war at the U.N.? ..."
I hated to ship Paul off to Siberia. But Jared and Corey told me I couldn't get swept up in an
international money-laundering scandal while I was accusing Hillary of doing favors at State for
a money launderer and Clinton Foundation donor.
... ... ...
I'm sorry Huma is posing for Vogue instead of keeping her husband, the pervert, from
sexting online again.
... ... ...
I'm sorry that while I'm being too honest, Crooked Hillary is never really sorry for all her
lies and illegal operations. She's like Lyin' Lochte, just sorry she got caught. Hearing her
apologize is as likely as seeing those 33,000 yoga emails.
I'm sorry the Clintons didn't realize until now how bad it was to be using the State
Department as a favor factory for big donors to the foundation. I'm all for pay-for-play, but
only at my golf courses.
I'm sorry Hillary had to besmirch poor Colin Powell by claiming he gave her the idea for
private emails. Hasn't his reputation suffered enough pushing that phony war at the U.N.?
"... Carla, you are right about the main focus of these trade deals. Sure, it's about degrading labor and avoiding sensible regulation. More importantly, it's about making an end run around democracy and enscouncing the profiteers above governments. The Clinton's, along with Obama, have consistently sided with these elites. ..."
"... Trump is against globalistion, bad trade deals, interminable foreign wars and wants to fix America by bringing back jobs, etc. The standard line is that Trump is - oh horror – "racist" because he wants to stop immigation. Therefore, etc. ..."
"... FedupPleb – My thought exactly. Trump has personality issues but many of his positions, sketchy as they are, are in the right ballpark. Clinton by contrast seems to be rated "progressive" mainly because of surprisingly enduring loyalty to the Democrat brand. ..."
"... The Clintonites are selling First Woman President as an Identity-Progressive goal and achievement. Just as the Obamazoids sold First Black President as an Identity-Progressive goal and achievement. ..."
"... No, he has called for a $10 minimum wage. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/politics/donald-trump-minimum-wage Not great but not nuthin'. ..."
"... the bible thumping crowd. Those constituents are not internationalist or pro trade deals. They have been afraid of 'world government' as opposed to nationalism; they have wanted even more local control for decades. ..."
"... These 'allies' will move the ball. They will shake up the existing coalitions vs the stagnation and corruption we have now. Even as a switch between sets of oligarchs, if they keep Trump's promises, they will give the populace some breathing room. ..."
"... When a republican candidate, Trump, can push Hillary to the left on such major issues as on war and trade deals, is she really the progressive here? A true progressive would not need to be dragged or pushed to the left. These are MAJOR issues. ..."
"... Her warmonging and TPP support count against her. Her history in Haiti, etc., count against her. That's not to defend Trump as progressive in any meaningful sense. Just that Clinton is no improvement. ..."
"... Agreed. This is a joke and Becky Bond, whoever she is, is living in a fantasy world if she thinks these faux progressive careerists will do anything to jeopardize their cush positions (or chance at cush positions, pathetic as that is). ..."
"... I visit their blogs and watch them: its either outright Stockholm Syndrome (for those who had or have an ethical bone in their bodies) or insincere and dishonest posturing as "progressives" all around. They will hold Clinton as accountable as they held Obama. ..."
"... The Clinton supporters that live in her bubble are insiders will never betray her because they benefit from the jobs they hope/will have in her administration. ..."
"... "The narrative that it was the big bad obstructionist Republicans that stopped Obama's change is mostly false." I think it's totally false. If Obama had been who he portrayed on TV pre-election, the democrats would not have lost their seats in the next election. He gave the 2010 elections to the Republicans, so any obstruction from then on was his own creation. ..."
"... "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence." ..."
"... Average voters are a group to be messaged/pandered to on a 2/4/6 year cycle and then ignored between election cycles. ..."
"... When a politician says he cares about the common man, see who he golfs with, see who he has dinner with, it's not the common man ..."
"... Y'all can hold her feet to the fire all you want. She has asbestos feet. She'll never know the difference. She'll never even feel it. ..."
"... Yea hard to say who is even being addressed. Nobodies voting for Clinton with voting as their main act of political participation? ..."
"... Left activists? Let's be realistic how many left activist support Clinton? ..."
"... This post greatly diminishes my esteem for the opinions of Gaius Publius. "Hold her accountable" as proposed? While we're at it we can bell the cat. Both major parties and government in this country at all levels National, State, and Local are captured beyond any accountability to the public. Our government is no longer interested in the Public Interest and as for the Public Good the term "Good" is only a synonym for a Commodity - as in goods and services. ..."
"... The spectacle of Sanders kneeling and kissing the Clinton ring, even though reasonably 'spun' as a necessity for political 'survival' by Sanders, has left a bitter taste in the mouths of the "true believers" who flocked to Sanders. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has shown the depths to which the Clinton cabal will sink in the pursuit of power. Wresting that power out of the hands of the Despicable Duo will perhaps be more trouble than splitting the Party would be. Thus, if "we broke it," why not carry on as one part of the 'new normal' Democratic Party Spectrum. ..."
"... I have always asked who would win an election if we voted by policy instead of by name in an election? Of course I am assuming that a candidate would tell the truth about their positions from the beginning and not change after they won. Trump, Stein and Johnson have been honest about their positions but Clinton changes with the wind. ..."
"... The ridicule is a badge of honor. It is the "laughter of fools". Both candidates of the major parties are unacceptable in their own way. To vote for either is to accept subjugation with a smile. Don't be fooled. Whatever happens in the election will be blamed on minor parties by the losing side. Vote your conscience and know that if you were to vote for either major party candidate you would be complicit in the destruction that will follow. ..."
"... She will be in office for eight years and all the Trumpers will fortify their positions and mobilize on an even greater scale when she is done reigning whatever hell she brings with her. I'm seeing Weimar Republic politics here, and I don't like it. ..."
"... I have seen it argued that the biggest benefit of sticking with one of the mainstream parties is the 'ground game,' or organizational templates already in place. ..."
"... The corollary of the earlier assertion of mine about "true believers" is that, except for insular or separatist movements, true believers act as cadres around which larger aggregates coalesce to form an effective party. Trump is effecting this with his courting of the 'second division' level of Republican operatives. The outpouring of negative propaganda from the 'top tier' Republicans suggests a semi panic mind set. The virulence of the anti Trump screeching reinforces the perception that the senior Republicans fear that they can lose to Trump in the power struggle. ..."
"... All very true, ambrit. The Greens have been on the margins for longer than they should have been because the myth of Nader spoiling the 2000 election has had lasting effect. Hell, I believed it myself until I took the time to take a second look this year. ..."
"... I'd like to think that I'm not particularly in the vanguard here, and that many other people have recognized that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. The only option for progressives is to start filling in the ranks, to be vocal and to be active. To find talented candidates for down ticket races. ..."
"... tradeunions in the UK are both stronger and more radical in their leadership and membership than in the USA ..."
"... voting rule in the usa are state-by-state and filled with various opportunities for suppressing votes. ..."
Carla, you are right about the main focus of these trade deals. Sure, it's about degrading
labor and avoiding sensible regulation. More importantly, it's about making an end run around
democracy and enscouncing the profiteers above governments. The Clinton's, along with Obama, have
consistently sided with these elites.
. That Clinton is a better progressive choice than Trump is not much contested.
But shouldn't it be?
Trump is against globalistion, bad trade deals, interminable foreign wars and wants to
fix America by bringing back jobs, etc. The standard line is that Trump is - oh horror – "racist"
because he wants to stop immigation. Therefore, etc.
But don't workers have a genuine interest in protecting the bargaining power of labour? If
a capitalist declares that he will import workers from Mexico or India or Russia, or just export
his entire production chain to China, because US labour is too expensive. Is it more "progressive"
to declare these worried workers racist, or backward, or too intellectual challenged to see the
benefits of a global supply chain and its cheap ipads for all still in salaried (i.e. unoutsourced)
employment.
But no matter. Hillary says nice things about hispanic-americans and has long ties to the black
community over the last few decades as their standard of living has stagnated with everyone else.
She supports LGBT rights and Trump probably doesn't even though I can't think of any negative
statements he may have made but OK Hillary is the more Progressive candidate OK. Obviously.
"Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's LGBT community."
This is a very dark moment in America's history. A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub
not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens
because of their sexual orientation."
"It is a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation. It is an assault on the
ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want and express their identity."
"I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, and Jewish
people, are the targets of persecution and intimidation by radical Islamic preachers of hate
and violence, it's a "quality-of-life issue."
"If we want to protect the quality of life for all Americans – women and children, gay and
straight, Jews and Christians and all people – then we need to tell the truth about radical
Islam," he said.
FedupPleb – My thought exactly. Trump has personality issues but many of his positions,
sketchy as they are, are in the right ballpark. Clinton by contrast seems to be rated "progressive"
mainly because of surprisingly enduring loyalty to the Democrat brand.
The best definition of a brand I ever came across is "a compelling promise, reliably honoured".
How's that been working out for Dems in recent years?
The Clintonites are selling First Woman President as an Identity-Progressive goal and achievement.
Just as the Obamazoids sold First Black President as an Identity-Progressive goal and achievement.
Trump is of course against the minimum wage. Trump is interested in the power of labor, man
they can not pass legalized marijuana fast enough, and maybe I can pretend it all makes sense.
What Trump says doesn't matter (just like Clinton). Take a look at his VP and his advisors.
Pence is a dominionist nutjob and the rest of Trump's team are ultra-right-wing bible thumpers.
He may say he's against the TPP but his team is for it. As for the Constitution the Republicans
are always waving about, they really don't care what's in it unless they can use it to their advantage.
"take a look at his vp"-that selection was a bone he HAD to throw to the GOP bigwigs so he
could make it through the GOP convention. The VP will have no power in the Trump presidency, as
even the venerable Yves has pointed out. The only one who took control was Richard "the Bruce"
Cheney, and that was a special case.
The only way Pence will have power is if Trump gets whacked, which is indeed a possibility.
I'm not part of, but I have some direct personal experience with the bible thumping crowd.
Those constituents are not internationalist or pro trade deals. They have been afraid of 'world
government' as opposed to nationalism; they have wanted even more local control for decades.
These 'allies' will move the ball. They will shake up the existing coalitions vs the stagnation
and corruption we have now. Even as a switch between sets of oligarchs, if they keep Trump's promises,
they will give the populace some breathing room.
As I said to a coworker in a political discussion yesterday, there are very few issues
I would weigh above the Supreme Court, but Clinton's pro corporate, pro war stance has taken me
to that place.
I dispute that as a given also – When a republican candidate, Trump, can push Hillary to
the left on such major issues as on war and trade deals, is she really the progressive here? A
true progressive would not need to be dragged or pushed to the left. These are MAJOR issues.
Actually, there's evidence in her private speech (leaked emails, etc.) that Hillary is pretty
hostile to LGBT rights. Her public speech, of course, should be discounted as performative and
dishonest. I think Trump has made some very positive statements about the LGBT community, but
I can't point to a reference offhand. That could certainly be equally dishonest and performative.
But he doesn't have the same documented history of pandering that way, and unlike Hillary, he's
not an evangelical Christian. There's also evidence that in reality Hillary is quite racist, as
well.
I will step up and dispute that she's more progressive. I don't think she is. Her warmonging
and TPP support count against her. Her history in Haiti, etc., count against her. That's not to
defend Trump as progressive in any meaningful sense. Just that Clinton is no improvement.
How on earth does ANYONE [other than the FIRE industry, her neo-con pals and the climate killers]
"hold her accountable" or have any influence on her?
She's got the nomination, there's little doubt she'll win the election, she's got 100% of DNC
Dems behind her. WTF are folks supposed to do to have any sort of weight in a Clinton administration?
And if Ms. Bond is speaking to those close to Clinton, what makes her think they WANT to have
any influence for good?
Agreed. This is a joke and Becky Bond, whoever she is, is living in a fantasy world if
she thinks these faux progressive careerists will do anything to jeopardize their cush positions
(or chance at cush positions, pathetic as that is).
I visit their blogs and watch them: its either outright Stockholm Syndrome (for those who had
or have an ethical bone in their bodies) or insincere and dishonest posturing as "progressives"
all around. They will hold Clinton as accountable as they held Obama.
The Clinton supporters that live in her bubble are insiders will never betray her
because they benefit from the jobs they hope/will have in her administration. It is the mass
of voters who believed what she said are the ones that have to get out and hold her feet to the
fire. Most rolled over and said nothing as Obama's "change we can believe in" was only a slogan
to fool us. The narrative that it was the big bad obstructionist Republicans that stopped Obama's
change is mostly false. Obama never ever fought for real change. He talked a good game but did
nothing. The best way to make politicians listen to us is that we show up in mass (millions) in
DC and demand that government act in our behalf.
"The narrative that it was the big bad obstructionist Republicans that stopped Obama's
change is mostly false." I think it's totally false. If Obama had been who he portrayed on TV
pre-election, the democrats would not have lost their seats in the next election. He gave the
2010 elections to the Republicans, so any obstruction from then on was his own creation.
"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized
groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government
policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."
Average voters are a group to be messaged/pandered to on a 2/4/6 year cycle and then ignored
between election cycles.
My high school civics teacher (Los Angeles County public school) made a statement 30+ years
ago I still remember. "When a politician says he cares about the common man, see who he golfs
with, see who he has dinner with, it's not the common man"
About the only thing that needs to be updated in the statement is the "he" needs to be revised
to "he/she"
Perhaps the best the average citizen can hope for is that there are interest groups on both
sides on an issue, but a profitable business group with a rich source of funding vs a public interest
group depending on contributions seems mismatched.
Even when there are powerful business groups that differ on current policy, change is difficult,
for example US government price support for domestic sugar producers is opposed by the large sugar
industry consumers (candy makers, soft drink producers), but the TPP specifically leaves this
USA government subsidy in place.
Yea hard to say who is even being addressed. Nobodies voting for Clinton with voting as
their main act of political participation? Sometimes they might just be uninformed, or they
may have voted for her thinking she would fare better against Trump, or if better off they might
have voted their privilege, etc.. But they have no real power.
Left activists? Let's be realistic how many left activist support Clinton? I have no doubt
many supported Bernie while some may only support Stein etc. but Clinton? I have my doubts there
are almost ANY actual left activists who supported Clinton over Sanders (over Trump maybe, but
not over Sanders). But he means some talking head somewhere who isn't even an activist but has
a public platform? Those people have been bought and paid for.
This post greatly diminishes my esteem for the opinions of Gaius Publius. "Hold her accountable"
as proposed? While we're at it we can bell the cat. Both major parties and government in this
country at all levels National, State, and Local are captured beyond any accountability to the
public. Our government is no longer interested in the Public Interest and as for the Public Good
the term "Good" is only a synonym for a Commodity - as in goods and services.
I supported Sanders. The primary and convention made it clear that making change within the
system is no longer a real option. In the best of all possible worlds I feel it's time to tend
my garden - far away from the action and with my head held low.
The spectacle of Sanders kneeling and kissing the Clinton ring, even though reasonably
'spun' as a necessity for political 'survival' by Sanders, has left a bitter taste in the mouths
of the "true believers" who flocked to Sanders.
There should be little hope of those who embraced the cognitive dissonance that is the Clinton
campaign suddenly 'seeing the light' and pivoting to an internally activist position in the Democratic
Party. Far from righting the 'progressive' course of the Ship of State, many will conclude that
this is just another 'Ship of Fools.'
Any prospective transformative political movement needs a cadre of "true believers" to energize
and channel that energy in the "proper" direction. The Democratic Party has shown the depths
to which the Clinton cabal will sink in the pursuit of power. Wresting that power out of the hands
of the Despicable Duo will perhaps be more trouble than splitting the Party would be. Thus, if
"we broke it," why not carry on as one part of the 'new normal' Democratic Party Spectrum.
"True believers" respond to appeals to their better nature more readily than appeals to their
fear of 'others.' Real 'progressives' would rather live in a New Jerusalem than the White House
Outhouse.
The 'hostile takeover' of any political party requires a full housecleaning. Half measures will
not suffice.
I have always asked who would win an election if we voted by policy instead of by name
in an election? Of course I am assuming that a candidate would tell the truth about their positions
from the beginning and not change after they won. Trump, Stein and Johnson have been honest about
their positions but Clinton changes with the wind.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/25/443287/-
You'll want to scroll down, but Edwards won the debate focus groups and polled "undecideds"
in 2007 and 2008. Edwards was well to the left of Obama and Hillary from his campaign positions.
The ridicule is a badge of honor. It is the "laughter of fools". Both candidates of the
major parties are unacceptable in their own way. To vote for either is to accept subjugation with
a smile. Don't be fooled. Whatever happens in the election will be blamed on minor parties by
the losing side. Vote your conscience and know that if you were to vote for either major party
candidate you would be complicit in the destruction that will follow.
I would rather vote for what I want and not get it than to vote for what I don't want and get
it. –Eugene Debs. Sanders, you should have remembered the words of your hero whose picture hangs
on your office wall.
And on to the doom of a Trump presidency. The supposed logic that Hillary will "stop" Trump.
I guess people forget that all the right-wing populists that support Trump are not going anywhere.
They are having kids and they are rearing them in their toxic worldview. Hillary has done and
will do nothing to build an ideology that counters the Trump crowd. Cover our ears and our eyes
and it will all go away is the strategy. She will be in office for eight years and all the
Trumpers will fortify their positions and mobilize on an even greater scale when she is done reigning
whatever hell she brings with her. I'm seeing Weimar Republic politics here, and I don't like
it.
I have seen it argued that the biggest benefit of sticking with one of the mainstream parties
is the 'ground game,' or organizational templates already in place. The Greens are chided
for organizational weakness. Whether true or not, this "branding" of the Greens as feckless is
a major impediment to popular acceptance of the party. The marginalization of the Green Party
in the media magnifies whatever true weaknesses there are within the party.
The corollary of the earlier assertion of mine about "true believers" is that, except for
insular or separatist movements, true believers act as cadres around which larger aggregates coalesce
to form an effective party. Trump is effecting this with his courting of the 'second division'
level of Republican operatives. The outpouring of negative propaganda from the 'top tier' Republicans
suggests a semi panic mind set. The virulence of the anti Trump screeching reinforces the perception
that the senior Republicans fear that they can lose to Trump in the power struggle.
Even though the Sanders supporters have been 'schooled' in hard ball politics by the Clinton
camp, they still need a hope for success to motivate them to continue the struggle. The above
comments anet the Greens show a perception that the Greens cannot supply that success. It may
be all smoke and mirrors, but, absent some serious counter propaganda from the Green Party, the
ginned up MSM portrayal of the Greens as irrelevant is pretty much all the information the Sanders
supporters have to base a decision on. Get a Green governor, or some Green congresspeople, and
the Greens gain inestimable status. It may look like a chicken or egg puzzle, but better propaganda
is a good place to start.
It's time for the Greens to stop looking like victims and to start looking and acting like
victors.
Carla, you are right about the main focus of these trade deals. Sure, it's about degrading
labor and avoiding sensible regulation. More importantly, it's about rimning sn end rin around
democracy and ensconcing the profiteers above governments.
All very true, ambrit. The Greens have been on the margins for longer than they should have
been because the myth of Nader spoiling the 2000 election has had lasting effect. Hell, I believed
it myself until I took the time to take a second look this year.
I'd like to think that I'm not particularly in the vanguard here, and that many other people
have recognized that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. The only option for progressives
is to start filling in the ranks, to be vocal and to be active. To find talented candidates for
down ticket races.
Unfortunately, one of the ironies of the current Democratic party is that it still does have
some room for progressives in state and local office. That's why Zephyr Teachout is still a Democrat.
She can win without the full backing of the party. And, I suspect equally unfortunately, she reckons
that she would have a harder time running as a Green due to voter bias.
That's what needs to change. Voters need to see the Green party as a viable alternative. It
is indeed a chicken and egg problem. And that's why I see the Stein campaign as an important step
in helping rehabilitate the Green party in the minds of voters.
It is also critically important for progressives to not relent on our critique of neoliberalism
and the Democratic party. The so-called progressives like Adolph Reed and others who have already
capitulated need to be vigorously rejected.
If Stein can get enough support this year it may convince candidates of Teachout's caliber
that they can run successfully as Green party members and that will start the necessary momentum
to building the party from the local and state level upward.
Anyway, I've donated money to the Stein campaign and I've got my yard sign in front of my house
and my "none of the above" sticker on my truck. I'm doing what I can in my own way.
I'd like to make a couple of points to add to this little side discussion of the Sanders vs.
Corbyn compare and contrast.
tradeunions in the UK are both stronger and more radical in their leadership and membership
than in the USA. Union leadership in the usa is still wedded to the dem elite, sometimes against
the wishes of their members. There have been splits where some unions like nat nurses united and
chicago teachers unions have supported sanders and opposed elite dems, but imagine if uaw and
afscme had flipped on clinton. That would have really shaken things up. Insurgency plus institutional
support is much tougher for the elites to control.
voting rule in the usa are state-by-state and filled with various opportunities for
suppressing votes. Imagine if the rules were that anyone could join and vote if they paid
$5 and no 'purges' of voters or ridiculous rules like ny where you have to join 6 months in advance.
In fact the blairites/plp in england seem to be trying to recreate some of the same tricks and
traps that the dems used here.
Hillary Clinton's temperament, her "terrified staff," her mental symptom are all cause of concern.
Dangerous, abusive and paranoid
Cocaine addition amplifies in person pre-existing sociopathic traits.
Notable quotes:
"... Byrne talks drug use in the White House: ..."
"... But there was one particular staff member that they had come in in the morning, and they'd be so beat up and exhausted looking, worn out, exhausted to the point where they couldn't be seen saying good morning. And they'd go in their office and go the bathroom and come out of the bathroom completely elevated and happy and smiling. ..."
"... It was obvious you thought coke was being used? ..."
"... I'M a FEMALE and I CAN tell you that a woman, ESPECIALLY Clinton, is not fit to be the leader of the Free World. She's a hysterical and angry woman who's been cheated on her entire life. It's the truism: Hell hath NO fury such as a woman scorned". Be careful what you vote for America! ..."
"... Here in Arkansas it's pretty much common knowledge that she is evil as hell itself. If this woman is elected we're so terribly screwed. ..."
"... I wish people would stop calling it 'crazy'. Let's call it what it is -psychopathy! Look it up - pathological lying, glib charm, lack of empathy, anger if challenged, lack of remorse, blaming others for their own actions, etc. It's a loveless marriage, a sham, and poor Chelsea was probably born for appearances - she didn't have a chance. We need to address psychopathy as a country - these people need to be tested and kept out of important positions and certain vocations like law enforcement, military, doctors, etc. or we are doomed as a society. ..."
Former Secret Service officer Gary Byrne, author of the new book Crisis of Character, which examines
Hillary Clinton's conduct under his watch, appeared on Monday's broadcast of FOX News Channel's Hannity.
Byrne talked Hillary Clinton's temperament, her "terrified staff," Bill Clinton carrying on affairs,
drug use in the White House and more with host Sean Hannity. Byrne said Clinton was feared by her
staff and was notorious for her yelling. Byrne told Hannity that she has "blown up" at him and other
Secret Service agents.
"She gets angry at things that are policy issues that, you know, take time to fix, and she's got
this attitude where she wants things fixed right now, immediately. She screams and yells at people,"
Byrne said in an interview aired on Fox News.
"There's many examples that I site in my book where she blows up at people," Byrne said. "Like
I've said, she has blown up at me before, and agents, and her staff. At one time, I saw her staff
so afraid to tell her about a mistake that was made. They weren't upset about the waste of the mistake,
ordering the wrong invitations, they were terrified that someone was going to have to tell Hillary
Clinton that there was a mistake made."
Byrne says Clinton's behavior during his tenure in the Secret Service proved to him that she does
not have the temperament for the Oval office.
BYRNE: I feel so strongly that people need to know the real Hillary Clinton and how dangerous
she is in her behavior. She is not a leader. She is not a leader.
SEAN: She does not have the temperament?
BYRNE: She doesn't have the temperament. She didn't have the temperament to handle the social
office when she was First Lady, she does not have the temperament.
SEAN: She's dishonest.
BYRNE: She's dishonest, she habitually lies, anybody that can separate themselves from their
politics and review her behavior over the past 15 years…
SEAN: You're going to be accused of being political.
BYRNE: Absolutely I'm sure I will be, I have already and it's not.
SEAN: And what's your answer? Byrne: It's got nothing to do as politics.
Byrne talked wrote about then-President Bill Clinton's behavior, accusing him of carrying on multiple
affairs and gave his perspective on the Monica Lewinsky affair and the scandal as it was happening.
Byrne talked about several different affairs and how the Secret Service was expected to clean up
after him.
HANNITY: How many women do you know, for sure, that he had affairs with in the Oval Office?
BYRNE: In the White House complex? I'd say easily three, maybe four, that I know of.
HANNITY: And you could see Monica Lewinsky from a mile away?
BYRNE: Sure. Sure.
HANNITY: You knew she wanted to be near him.
BYRNE: She was certainly manipulated some of the staff, other officers, myself to find out
where he was-
HANNITY: She wasn't manipulating if you saw through it.
BYRNE: Yeah, I agree. But I saw through it right away, but she was trying to place herself
in his path, as he would move throughout the complex.
Byrne talks drug use in the White House:
HANNITY: Before I get into all the issues involving Bill and Hillary and what she knew and
didn't know and covering up and lying and you being put in the middle of all this. People use
drugs the at the White House?
BYRNE: There were some issues. One of the ones I comment in my book, and I'm very careful not
to tell too much about it because I don't want -- hopefully this person got on with their lives
and lived a healthy life. But there was one particular staff member that they had come in in the
morning, and they'd be so beat up and exhausted looking, worn out, exhausted to the point where
they couldn't be seen saying good morning. And they'd go in their office and go the bathroom and
come out of the bathroom completely elevated and happy and smiling.
HANNITY: It was obvious you thought coke was being used?
BYRNE: I did. And later on, I was
told that this particular person actually, they did something similar to an intervention and got
her help and got her to a clinic, and I never did see her again. But I understand she did all
right.
Kia Sophia
I'M a FEMALE and I CAN tell you that a woman, ESPECIALLY Clinton, is not fit to be the leader
of the Free World. She's a hysterical and angry woman who's been cheated on her entire life. It's
the truism: Hell hath NO fury such as a woman scorned". Be careful what you vote for America!
Trunks800
Where is the video that she is acting like Trump? Show me the proof or else it just all talk.
Too bad Trump is displaying his behavior like a man with dementia on tape and live on TV.
Sunny Skye
Here in Arkansas it's pretty much common knowledge that she is evil as hell itself. If this
woman is elected we're so terribly screwed.
Brian Brachel
She's a bipolar lunatic
Trish Dempsey
psychopaths!!!!
Donna Kurpaska
I wish people would stop calling it 'crazy'. Let's call it what it is -psychopathy! Look
it up - pathological lying, glib charm, lack of empathy, anger if challenged, lack of remorse,
blaming others for their own actions, etc. It's a loveless marriage, a sham, and poor Chelsea
was probably born for appearances - she didn't have a chance. We need to address psychopathy as
a country - these people need to be tested and kept out of important positions and certain vocations
like law enforcement, military, doctors, etc. or we are doomed as a society.
Lu Martinez
Hillary Clinton is definitely bipolar!
Debbie Shenton
I am Australian and I want this woman to disappear...for the safety of the western world ....she
is dangerous and insane and we don't want her leading not only the USA into despair but all off
us in the future ....god help us all !!!!!
"... You know, the light bulb over my head went on when Hillary said she was against the TPP "as currently written." Political speak for: she'll fiddle with some words, pronounce it fixed, and pass it ..."
"... her surrogates extol her penchant for "free trade" and are sure she will support it. ..."
You know, the light bulb over my head went on when Hillary said she was against the TPP
"as currently written." Political speak for: she'll fiddle with some words, pronounce it fixed,
and pass it.
And while she and Kaine claim now to be against the TPP, her surrogates extol her penchant
for "free trade" and are sure she will support it.
Manipulation of definitions is the most insidious type of lying...
Today's democrats are indeed neoliberals and twist the language like all neoliberals do.
George Orwell
probably is spinning in his grave looking to what extent they implemented his 1984 utopia NewSpeak as for
destruction of meaning of words and manipulation of language.
Notable quotes:
"... Hilary likes to redefine terms. 'We are the most progressive platform ever' she likes to say but, in one of her debates with Bernie she redefined "progressive" She said that we are making lots of progress on different issues. Therefore, her logic goes, she is 'progressive' ..."
"... So, instead of universal healthcare being progressive, we are mandated to pay for health insurance (not healthcare) in order to insure corporate healthcare insurance profits (the rentier fire sector) --………..this is Hilary's definition of progressive and, it is how she uses it when speaking and policy making. ..."
Hilary likes to redefine terms. 'We are the most progressive platform ever' she likes to say
but, in one of her debates with Bernie she redefined "progressive"
She said that we are making lots of progress on different issues. Therefore, her logic goes, she
is 'progressive'
So, instead of universal healthcare being progressive, we are mandated to pay for health insurance
(not healthcare) in order to insure corporate healthcare insurance profits (the rentier fire sector)
--………..this is Hilary's definition of progressive and, it is how she uses it when speaking and
policy making.
Beware her definitions… a re-working of the definition of is
Donald Trump says he'll implement tough new restrictions on administration officials and their
spouses giving paid speeches if he's elected to the White House.
The GOP nominee is telling a rally crowd in Wisconsin that he wants to ban the spouses of senior
government officials from collecting speaking fees as they serve.
He says he'll insist senior officials sign an agreement barring them from collecting speaking
fees from corporations with a registered lobbyist or any entity tied to a foreign government for
five years after leaving office.
Trump has criticized rival Hillary Clinton for the speaking fees she collected after leaving
her position as secretary of state and called on her to release the transcripts.
"... Pressed by the F.B.I. about her email practices at the State Department, Hillary Clinton told investigators that former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell had advised her to use a personal email account. ..."
"... Separately, in a 2009 email exchange that also emerged during the F.B.I. questioning, Mrs. Clinton, who had already decided to use private email, asked Mr. Powell about his email practices when he was the nation's top diplomat under George W. Bush, according to a person with direct knowledge of Mr. Powell's appearance in the documents, who would not speak for attribution. ..."
After months of "short circuiting" on her excuses for and defense of her use of a private
email server, Hillary Clinton has finally "revealed" why she used one in the first place. ... ...
...
Now, it turns out Hillary's trying to push blame for the whole fiasco on someone else entirely:
Colin Powell. As the
New York Times writes:
Pressed by the F.B.I. about her email practices at the State Department, Hillary
Clinton told investigators that former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell had advised her to
use a personal email account.
The account is included in the notes the Federal Bureau of Investigation handed over to
Congress on Tuesday, relaying in detail the three-and-a-half-hour interview with Mrs. Clinton
in early July that led to the decision by James B. Comey, the bureau's director, not to pursue
criminal charges against her.
Separately, in a 2009 email exchange that also emerged during the F.B.I. questioning,
Mrs. Clinton, who had already decided to use private email, asked Mr. Powell about his email
practices when he was the nation's top diplomat under George W. Bush, according to a person
with direct knowledge of Mr. Powell's appearance in the documents, who would not speak for
attribution.
The journalist Joe Conason first reported the conversation between Mrs. Clinton and Mr.
Powell in his coming book about Bill Clinton's postpresidency, "Man of the World: The Further
Endeavors of Bill Clinton," which The Times received an advanced copy of.
... Powell's office released a statement Friday saying the former secretary "has no
recollection of the dinner conversation." The statement did admit, however, that Powell "did
write former Secretary Clinton an email memo describing his use of a personal AOL email
account for unclassified messages and how it vastly improved communications within the State
Department."
The statement emphasized, however, that "at the time, there was no equivalent system within
the department." Also, Powell "used a secure state computer on his desk to manage classified
information."
As Townhall's Guy Benson explained in February, there are two key distinctions: Powell did
not set up a "recklessly unsecure private emails server" and conduct all official business on
it, and Powell only received two emails which were retroactively classified (at the lowest
level of classification!).
Clinton's email was not through a company like AOL, but on her own private server, which
was likely hacked by foreign powers like the Russians and the Chinese, according to former
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Even the Times admitted that "Powell did not have a server
at his house or rely on outside contractors, as Mrs. Clinton did at her home in Chappaqua,
N.Y."
"... Now the former first lady is refusing to even take blame for the use of the server, saying that the practice has been around for decades and that another former secretary of state. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has been an expert at bobbing and weaving around controversy during this election cycle, but the sheer magnitude of her recent scandals may end up blindsiding her with excuses this sloppy. ..."
Hillary Clinton has insisted from day one that her illegal use of a private email server was
no big deal at all, even if it put many Americans' lives at risk.
Now the former first lady is refusing to even take blame for the use of the server, saying
that the practice has been around for decades and that another former secretary of state.
"Now, it turns out Hillary's trying to push blame for the whole fiasco on someone else
entirely: Colin Powell. As the New York Times writes: Pressed by the F.B.I.about her email
practices at the State Department, Hillary Clinton told investigators that former Secretary of
State Colin L. Powell had advised her to use a personal email account."
Colin Powell has denied using a private email account for anything other than non-classified
material.
"And as we know, Hillary did use that email server for sending and receiving classified
information, while Powell did not. This is yet another case of Hillary trying to push her poor
judgement onto someone else. Unfortunately for her, Colin Powell isn't willing to quietly take
the fall for her."
Hillary Clinton has been an expert at bobbing and weaving around controversy during this
election cycle, but the sheer magnitude of her recent scandals may end up blindsiding her with
excuses this sloppy.
Her embrace of hawks is more than an electoral strategy.
The Hillary Clinton campaign has recently been trumpeting endorsements from
neoconservatives. The candidate's embrace of figures such as Robert Kagan, Max
Boot, and Eliot Cohen-all once regarded as anathema to the contemporary left-has
engendered a wave of pushback from progressive critics.
Jane Sanders, wife
of Bernie, is the most recent high-profile objector,
publicly expressing queasiness about Clinton's perceived allying with "architects
of regime change." Now, predictably, the pushback has been met with its own
pushback,
including from Brian Beutler of The New Republic, who cautions progressives
not to fret.
... ... ...
Kagan, who not so long ago was denounced by liberal Iraq War opponents,
co-signed a June report with Michèle Flournoy-the likely candidate for defense
secretary under Clinton-calling for escalated U.S. military presence in Syria,
a policy that could lead to all-out ground war or direct confrontation with
Russia. So it seems he may already be on Clinton's hawkish team in waiting.
Few reputable critics would argue that Hillary is herself a neoconservative.
Far more plausible is that she'll enable the implementation of a neoconservative
foreign-policy agenda by casting the neoconservatives' goals in liberal-interventionist
terms, thus garnering Democratic support for initiatives that would face widespread
opposition were they spearheaded by a Republican president. Lobe has
written that Hillary represents "the point of convergence between liberal
interventionism … and neoconservatism," and Hillary's willingness to empower
a foreign-policy establishment featuring neoconservatives shows that they have
in fact received concrete reputational benefit from lining up behind her.
Hillary may operate on the premise that anything that might conceivably garner
her additional votes is justified on that basis alone. Yet even on that premise,
heralding neoconservative ideologues doesn't make sense. Again, neoconservatives
have virtually no support in the electorate, as the recent Republican primary
contest indicated. Their base is mostly among elites. Beyond that, there's a
serious chance that continuing to tout these people will actually damage
her electoral fortunes by alienating left-wing voters who might be cajoled into
voting for the Democratic ticket, but can't countenance the possibility of ushering
the Iraq-invasion architects of the George W. Bush era back into power.
So if there's no obvious electoral upside, the most likely reason why Hillary
is reaching out to such characters is a deceptively simple one: she shares common
interests with them, respects their supposed expertise, and wants to bring them
into her governing coalition. For that, anyone interested in a sane foreign
policy over the next eight years should be exceedingly worried.
Michael Tracey is a journalist based in New York City.
"... "I want our party to be the home of the African-American voter once again. I want a totally inclusive country and I want an inclusive party," he said in a speech at the Fredericksburg Expo and Conference Center. ..."
US presidential candidate Donald Trump promised on Saturday to make
the Republican party inclusive and reach out to black voters, at a campaign rally in Fredericksburg,
Virginia.
MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Opinion polls regularly give Trump less than 10 percent of the vote of the
40 million-strong African-American community. Speaking in the key battleground state, Trump said
that the GOP "must do better and will do better."
"I want our party
to be the home of the African-American voter once again. I want a totally inclusive country and
I want an inclusive party," he said in a speech at the Fredericksburg Expo and Conference Center.
The real-estate mogul promised earlier that if elected, his policies would restore African-American
fortunes so dramatically that they would overwhelmingly vote for his reelection in 2020.
"... The host also criticized attempts by Hillary's campaign to downplay the damage wrought by FBI Director James Comey's detailed examination of Clinton's "homebrew" server that many intelligence professionals worry compromised US state secrets. "It's not like he gave her a stellar review and an A+" said Ruhle. ..."
"... only three of them had any markings whatsoever suggesting a possible classification, and I – there's a clip from that I wish you guys would run -." Ruhle jumped in and hammered the Congressman saying, "But only three is not zero… You either did it or you didn't do it. No?" ..."
Speaking on "MSNBC Live" Congressman Matt Cartwright (D-PA) was grilled
by host Stephanie Ruhle who demanded the Clinton surrogate who was appealing to Hillary's trustworthiness
explain how the former Secretary of State did not commit perjury.
... ... ...
Laying out a montage of Hillary Clinton's statements before the Benghazi Select Committee,
host Stephanie Ruhle couldn't help but ask her guest, Clinton surrogate and Pennsylvania Congressman
Matt Cartwright, "How is that not perjury?"
The host also criticized attempts by Hillary's campaign to downplay the damage wrought by
FBI Director James Comey's detailed examination of Clinton's "homebrew" server that many intelligence
professionals worry compromised US state secrets. "It's not like he gave her a stellar review and
an A+" said Ruhle.
The Congressman responded, "Here's what we established, when I questioned Director Comey. The
Question was, well, were there things marked classified that she sent or received? And out of tens
of thousands of emails that they were reviewing, only three of them had any markings whatsoever
suggesting a possible classification, and I – there's a clip from that I wish you guys would run
-."
Ruhle jumped in and hammered the Congressman saying, "But only three is not zero… You either did
it or you didn't do it. No?"
Here are some headlines, This is a textbook example of demonization. Persistent attempt
not to discuss issues important for Americans and concentrate on personalities, making a show out of
election. Out of a hundred that I analyzed only one was positive, around a dozen were
neutral. Everything else were brazen, rabid dog style attack of neoliberals on Trump.
Donald Trump has made the 2016 presidential race potentially the most important of the last century.
The Constitution repudiates presidential wars: they impoverish the people and undermine the rule
of law. Trump, if he heeds our advice, can make the Constitution's foreign policy the battleground
of the campaign.
He did a masterful job of exposing the folly of the war in Iraq. He correctly denounced Hillary
Clinton's Senate vote for that war and her later use of her position as secretary of state to wage
congressionally unauthorized war against Libya. Rather than learn from her mistakes, which gave birth
to ISIS, Clinton is redoubling her efforts to drag our nation into another unconstitutional war in
Syria.
The cornerstone of the Constitution's foreign policy is the exclusive entrustment of the war power
to Congress. We made an unprecedented break with history by making Congress the sentinel against
gratuitous wars. This was the most important decision we made in Philadelphia. We understood that
from the beginning of all government, the Executive has chronically concocted excuses to go to war
for power and fame. While Congress is not infallible, the institution has everything to lose and
nothing to gain from going to war.
We recognized that these features of the Executive and Legislative branches were timeless because
they reflected personalities of the respective institutions that are as constant as the force of
gravity. We examined every prior system of government for thousands of years. Regardless of their
state of technology, Egyptian pharaohs, Israel's kings, Genghis Khan, and King George III were indistinguishable
in their gravitation toward needless wars.
The proof of our timeless wisdom is in the results. Less than a century after the ratification
of the Constitution, by avoiding presidential wars the United States became the world's largest economy.
We attracted the best and the brightest from everywhere to make America the workshop of the world.
Trump's goal of regaining our former prosperity will be stillborn without restoring the Constitution's
foreign policy. We were present at the creation of the Constitution, and we left no room for ambiguity
about why we gave the war power to Congress. We call on Donald Trump to establish a precedent for
every presidential candidate: an unequivocal pledge in writing never to initiate war without a congressional
declaration. He should lead, and ask Hillary Clinton to follow. The pledges will make America great
again.
Trump is to be complimented for questioning alliance commitments that conflict with the pledge.
He has asked why we would protect the borders of other countries when we don't protect our own. At
present, the United States is obligated through treaties or executive promises to go to war to protect
69 countries. During our many years of public service, we rejected the idea of permanent friends
or enemies and warned against the danger of entangling alliances. Trump's "No Presidential Wars"
pledge will give him justification to extricate the United States from these military entanglements.
Why should we safeguard the borders of almost half of the world's countries, who will betray us whenever
their interests diverge from ours?
In his first foreign-policy address, Trump alluded to John Quincy Adams's signature statement
about the inseparability of foreign and domestic policy:
[The United States has] abstained from interference in the concerns of others. … Wherever the
standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her
benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. …
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners
of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the
wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors
and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change
from liberty to force. … she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. … [America's] glory
is not dominion, but liberty.
The United States is the safest country in history. All the armies of the world couldn't take
a drink from the Colorado or make a track in the Rockies. We now possess more than 7,000 nuclear
warheads and the biggest, most technologically advanced Navy and Air Force ever seen. By contrast,
when we wrote the Constitution in 1787, the world confronted six empires armed to the teeth: the
Chinese Empire, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, and
the Ottoman Empire. Despite massive superiority in manpower, ships, and weaponry, the British Empire
was unable to defeat us in our Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.
By avoiding standing
armies and entangling alliances, our foreign policy of self-defense unleashed the nation's resources
and focused our human capital on making us the richest nation in history. Our greatest entrepreneurs
did not squander their genius on warfare. But then our nation's leaders became seduced by the lure
of the limitless executive power that comes with war. Presidents of both parties replaced invincible
self-defense with a global military establishment in the false hope of dictating the affairs of other
nations. Presidents concocted pretexts to justify wars against Spain, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq, and
Libya. American jobs were traded away to attract professed foreign allies. The Democratic and Republican
nominees have not given the American electorate a choice against unconstitutional presidential wars
for more than half a century.
Now is the time for Trump to end overseas adventurism and trumpet the invincible self-defense
that made us the envy of the world. We have lost our way in abandoning the Constitution's foreign
policy. A "No Presidential Wars" pledge is the first step to refocusing the genius of our people
on production at home rather than destruction abroad. This is the way to make America great again.
We are the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. We are the champion and vindicator
only of our own.
George Washington and James Madison are a Virginia businessman and lawyer.
"... Trump is such a menace and defeating him is so important that I think freedom of speech should be limited temporarily (through informal ostracism and prudent editorial judgment, of course) and only pure HRC bots should be allowed to speak. But that is just my opinion, not my call. ..."
"... This is how I understand the Clintonbots. ..."
"... It is not enough to just vote for Clinton or support voting for Clinton against Trump. Let us also *pretend* that Clinton isn't more evil than her liberal supporters recognise, let us *pretend* that Donald Trump is unprecedented among Republicans, let us stop thinking and speaking what we think, let us do anything and say anything, use each and every conceivable argument, sacrifice all of our principles, honesty and future credibility in order to convince our followers and anyone still stupid enough to take our words seriously that Clinton is an angel of light and the difference between her and Trump is in no way less than the one between Heaven and Hell. ..."
> I do not think Crooked Timber should be featuring this hugely irresponsible line of thought
in their OP's. But that is my opinion, not my call.
Trump is such a menace and defeating him is so important that I think freedom of speech
should be limited temporarily (through informal ostracism and prudent editorial judgment, of
course) and only pure HRC bots should be allowed to speak. But that is just my opinion, not my
call.
> 1,2,3,4,5,6
This is how I understand the Clintonbots.It is not enough to just vote for Clinton or support voting for Clinton against Trump.
Let us also *pretend* that Clinton isn't more evil than her liberal supporters recognise, let
us *pretend* that Donald Trump is unprecedented among Republicans, let us stop thinking and speaking
what we think, let us do anything and say anything, use each and every conceivable argument, sacrifice
all of our principles, honesty and future credibility in order to convince our followers and anyone
still stupid enough to take our words seriously that Clinton is an angel of light and the difference
between her and Trump is in no way less than the one between Heaven and Hell.
Let us be completely uncritical of everything that she and her allies have ever done or
are doing at the moment, until the elections are over. Then, when she uses this free pass we have
given her to do the same things as President, we can be happy that at least we have saved the
world. And maybe, just maybe our absolute loyalty to the tribe and the establishment will be rewarded.
Amazon review of Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew... the word "conservative" was replaced by "neoliberal" as it more correctly
reflect the concept behind this social process.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberal ideology is championed on behalf of corporate elites who have now secured total control, even ownership, of the federal government. ..."
"... Elites need federal government revenue transferred to their realm via fat government contracts and juicy subsidies. They want government without regulation, and they want taxation imposed on the masses without real representation, but not on them. ..."
"... Neoliberals drew up a long term strategy to sabotage and disrupt the liberal apparatus. There ensued a vast selling-off of government assets (and favors) to those willing to fund the neoliberal movement. The strategy was concocted as a long term plan - the master blueprint for a wholesale transfer of government responsibilities to private-sector contractors unaccountable to Congress or anyone else. An entire industry sprung up to support conservatism - the great god market (corporate globalism) replaced anti-communism as the new inspiration. (page 93) ..."
"... But capitalism is not loyal to people or anything once having lost its usefulness, not even the nation state or the flag ..."
"... According to Frank, what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of governments; it is the capture of government by business interests. ..."
"... Neoliberals don't want efficient government, they want less competition and more profits - especially for defense contractors. Under Reagan, civil servants were out, loyalists were in. ..."
"... Contractors are now a fourth branch of government with more people working under contracts than are directly employed by government - making it difficult to determine where government stops and the contractors start in a system of privatized government where private contractors are shielded from oversight or accountability ..."
"... The first general rule of neoliberal administration: cronies in, experts out. ..."
"... Under Reagan, a philosophy of government blossomed that regarded business as its only constituent. ..."
"... Watergate poisoned attitudes toward government - helping sweep in Ronald Reagan with his anti-government cynicism. Lobbying and influence peddling proliferated in a privatized government. Lobbying is how money casts its vote. It is the signature activity of neoliberal governance - the mechanism that translates market forces into political action. ..."
"... Neoliberalism speaks of not compromise but of removing adversaries from the field altogether. ..."
"... One should never forget that it was Roosevelt's New Deal that saved capitalism from itself. Also, one should not forget that capitalism came out of the classical liberal tradition. Capitalists had to wrest power away from the landowning nobility, the arch neoliberal tradition of its time. ..."
Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew is another classic. This work, along with his more notable What's
The Matter With Kansas?, is another ground breaking examination into a major phenomenon of American
politics by one of America's foremost social analysts and critics. While What's The Matter With
Kansas? looked more at cultural behavior in explaining why Red State Americans have embraced corporate
elitist ideology and ballot casting that militates against their own economic self-interest, even
their very survival, this title deals more with structural changes in the government, economy,
and society that have come about as a result of a Republican right wing agenda. It is a perplexing
and sorry phenomenon that deserves the attention of a first rate pundit like Frank.
Neoliberal ideology is championed on behalf of corporate elites who have now secured total
control, even ownership, of the federal government. The Wrecking Crew is about a Republican
agenda to totally eliminate the last vestiges of the New Deal and Great Society, which have provided
social safety nets for ordinary working class Americans through programs such as Social Security
and Medicare. Corporate elites want to demolish only that part of government that doesn't benefit
the corporation. Thus, a huge military budget and intrusive national security and police apparatus
is revered, while education, health, welfare, infrastructure, etc. are of less utility for the
corporate state. High taxes on the corporations and wealthy are abhorred, while the middle class
is expected to shoulder a huge tax burden. Although Republicans rail against federal deficits,
when in office they balloon the federal deficits in a plan for government-by-sabotage. (Page 261)
Elites need federal government revenue transferred to their realm via fat government contracts
and juicy subsidies. They want government without regulation, and they want taxation imposed on
the masses without real representation, but not on them. The big government they rail at
is the same government they own and benefit from. They certainly do not want the national security
state (the largest part of government) or the national police system to go away, not even the
IRS. How can they fight wars without a revenue collection system? The wellspring of conservatism
in America today -- preserving connections between the present and past -- is a destroyer of tradition,
not a preserver. (Page 267)
Neoliberals drew up a long term strategy to sabotage and disrupt the liberal apparatus.
There ensued a vast selling-off of government assets (and favors) to those willing to fund the
neoliberal movement. The strategy was concocted as a long term plan - the master blueprint for
a wholesale transfer of government responsibilities to private-sector contractors unaccountable
to Congress or anyone else. An entire industry sprung up to support conservatism - the great god
market (corporate globalism) replaced anti-communism as the new inspiration. (page 93)
Market populism arose as business was supposed to empower the noble common people. But
capitalism is not loyal to people or anything once having lost its usefulness, not even the nation
state or the flag. (page 100) While the New Deal replaced rule by wealthy with its brain
trust, conservatism, at war with intellectuals, fills the bureaucracy with cronies, hacks, partisans,
and creationists. The democracy, or what existed of it, was to be gradually made over into a plutocracy
- rule by the wealthy. (Page 252) Starting with Reagan and Thatcher, the program was to hack open
the liberal state in order to reward business with the loot. (Page 258) The ultimate neoliberal
goal is to marketize the nation's politics so that financial markets can be elevated over vague
liberalisms like the common good and the public interest. (Page 260)
According to Frank, what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of governments;
it is the capture of government by business interests. The game of corporatism is to see
how much public resources the private interest can seize for itself before public government can
stop them. A proper slogan for this mentality would be: more business in government, less government
in business. And, there are market based solutions to every problem. Government should be market
based. George W. Bush grabbed more power for the executive branch than anyone since Nixon. The
ultra-rights' fortunes depend on public cynicism toward government. With the U.S. having been
set up as a merchant state, the idea of small government is now a canard - mass privatization
and outsourcing is preferred. Building cynicism toward government is the objective. Neoliberals
don't want efficient government, they want less competition and more profits - especially for
defense contractors. Under Reagan, civil servants were out, loyalists were in.
While the Clinton team spoke of entrepreneurial government - of reinventing government - the
wrecking crew under Republicans has made the state the tool of money as a market-based system
replaced civil service by a government-by-contractor (outsourcing). Page 137 This has been an
enduring trend, many of the great robber barons got their start as crooked contractors during
the Civil War. Contractors are now a fourth branch of government with more people working under
contracts than are directly employed by government - making it difficult to determine where government
stops and the contractors start in a system of privatized government where private contractors
are shielded from oversight or accountability. (Page 138)
The first general rule of neoliberal
administration: cronies in, experts out. The Bush team did away with EPA's office of enforcement
- turning enforcement power over to the states. (Page 159) In an effort to demolish the regulatory
state, Reagan, immediately after taking office, suspended hundreds of regulations that federal
agencies had developed during the Carter Administration. Under Reagan, a philosophy of government
blossomed that regarded business as its only constituent. In recent years, neoliberals have
deliberately piled up debt to force government into crisis.
Watergate poisoned attitudes toward government - helping sweep in Ronald Reagan with his
anti-government cynicism. Lobbying and influence peddling proliferated in a privatized government.
Lobbying is how money casts its vote. It is the signature activity of neoliberal governance -
the mechanism that translates market forces into political action. (Page 175)
It is the goal of the neoliberal agenda to smash the liberal state. Deficits are one means
to accomplish that end.- to persuade voters to part with programs like Social Security and Medicare
so these funds can be transferred to corporate contractors or used to finance wars or deficit
reduction.. Uncle Sam can raise money by selling off public assets.
Since liberalism depends on fair play by its sworn enemies, it is vulnerable to sabotage by
those not playing by liberalism's rules/ (Page 265) The Liberal State, a vast machinery built
for our protection has been reengineered into a device for our exploitation. (Page 8) Liberalism
arose out of a long-ago compromise between left-wing social movements and business interests.
(Page 266) Neoliberalism speaks of not compromise but of removing adversaries from the field altogether.
(Page 266) No one dreams of eliminating the branches of state that protect Neoliberalism's constituents
such as the military, police, or legal privileges granted to corporations, neoliberals openly
scheme to do away with liberal bits of big government. (Page 266)
Liberalism is a philosophy of
compromise, without a force on the Left to neutralize the magneticism exerted by money, liberalism
will be drawn to the right. (Page 274)
Through corporate media and right wing talk show, liberalism has become a dirty word. However,
liberalism may not be dead yet. It will have to be resurrected from the trash bin of history when
the next capitalist crisis hits. One should never forget that it was Roosevelt's New Deal
that saved capitalism from itself. Also, one should not forget that capitalism came out of the
classical liberal tradition. Capitalists had to wrest power away from the landowning nobility,
the arch neoliberal tradition of its time.
"... The violation of norms was similar, but Tom DeLay invented his scheme as a way of strengthening his Party and making it more
powerful in Congress, which was kinda his job, and he was quite successful in adding Republicans to the Texas delegation. ..."
"... Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't just violating the norms; she was trying to weaken her Party, draining away resources to the
Clinton campaign that they had no legitimate claim to from parts of the Party that needed those resources. And, it is part of a pattern
of leadership action to weaken the Party. (Patrick Murphy, her hand-picked candidate for U.S. Senate from Florida is exhibit one.) ..."
"... I think it is fair and accurate to describe the HVF transfer arrangements as a means of circumventing campaign financing limits
and using the State parties to subsidize the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of [June], the fund had brought in $142 million, . . . 44
percent [to] DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), . . . state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the
cash brought in by the committee - or only 0.56 percent. ..."
"... Beyond the transfers, much of the fund's $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit
the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties ..."
"... The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for "salary and overhead expenses" to reimburse it for fundraising efforts.
And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully
Pulpit Interactive - both of which also serve the Clinton campaign - for mailings and online ads that sometimes closely resemble Clinton
campaign materials. ..."
Wasn't Tom DeLay indicted and driven from Congress over a similar sort of money shuffle?
The violation of norms was similar, but Tom DeLay invented his scheme as a way of strengthening his Party and making it
more powerful in Congress, which was kinda his job, and he was quite successful in adding Republicans to the Texas delegation.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't just violating the norms; she was trying to weaken her Party, draining away resources to
the Clinton campaign that they had no legitimate claim to from parts of the Party that needed those resources. And, it is part
of a pattern of leadership action to weaken the Party. (Patrick Murphy, her hand-picked candidate for U.S. Senate from Florida
is exhibit one.)
bruce wilder 08.03.16 at 1:08 am
Layman @ 79
I am not interested in a prolonged back and forth, but I will lay out a bare outline of facts. I do not find much support for
your characterization of these arrangements, which give new meaning to the fungibility of funds. I think it is fair and accurate
to describe the HVF transfer arrangements as a means of circumventing campaign financing limits and using the State parties to
subsidize the Clinton campaign. Court rulings have made aggregate fund raising legal and invites this means of circumventing
the $2700 limit on individual Presidential campaign donations. Whether the circumvention is legal - whether it violates the law
to invite nominal contributions to State Parties of $10,000 and channel those contributions wholly to operations in support of
Clinton, while leaving nothing in State Party coffers is actually illegal, I couldn't say; it certainly violates the norms of
a putative joint fundraising effort. It wasn't hard for POLITICO to find State officials who said as much. The rest of this comment
quotes POLITICO reports dated July 2016.
Hillary Victory Fund, which now includes 40 state Democratic Party committees, theoretically could accept checks as large as
$436,100 - based on the individual limits of $10,000 per state party, $33,400 for the DNC, and $2,700 for Clinton's campaign.
Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of [June], the fund had brought in $142 million, . .
. 44 percent [to] DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), . . . state parties have kept less than $800,000
of all the cash brought in by the committee - or only 0.56 percent.
. . . state parties have received $7.7 million in transfers, but within a few days of most transfers, almost all of the cash
- $6.9 million - was transferred to the DNC . . .
The only date on which most state parties received money from the victory fund and didn't pass any of it on to the DNC was
May 2, the same day that POLITICO published an article exposing the arrangement.
Beyond the transfers, much of the fund's $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit
the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties.
The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for "salary and overhead expenses" to reimburse it for fundraising
efforts. And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital
consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive - both of which also serve the Clinton campaign - for mailings and online ads that sometimes
closely resemble Clinton campaign materials.
"... The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America. ..."
"... What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand. ..."
"... You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display. ..."
84@ The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that
we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are
many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America.
What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are
making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded
in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely
patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America
that 'we foreigners' cannot understand.
What is also clear from your comment is that you, and perhaps some others, believe that this
love of country and rich tapestry of subcultures somehow makes Americans very, very special and
beyond criticism.
We understand this much: Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor – 68 civilian casualties.
The US response: "..on the night of March 9-10, 1945…LeMay sent 334 B-29s low over Tokyo from
the Marianas. Their mission was to reduce the city to rubble, kill its citizens, and instill terror
in the survivors, with jellied gasoline and napalm that would create a sea of flames. Stripped
of their guns to make more room for bombs, and flying at altitudes averaging 7,000 feet to evade
detection, the bombers, which had been designed for high-altitude precision attacks, carried two
kinds of incendiaries: M47s, 100-pound oil gel bombs, 182 per aircraft, each capable of starting
a major fire, followed by M69s, 6-pound gelled-gasoline bombs, 1,520 per aircraft in addition
to a few high explosives to deter firefighters. [25] The attack on an area that the US Strategic
Bombing Survey estimated to be 84.7 percent residential succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of
air force planners…
The Strategic Bombing Survey, whose formation a few months earlier provided an important signal
of Roosevelt's support for strategic bombing, provided a technical description of the firestorm
and its effects on Tokyo: The chief characteristic of the conflagration . . . was the presence
of a fire front, an extended wall of fire moving to leeward, preceded by a mass of pre-heated,
turbid, burning vapors . . . . The 28-mile-per-hour wind, measured a mile from the fire, increased
to an estimated 55 miles at the perimeter, and probably more within. An extended fire swept over
15 square miles in 6 hours . . . . The area of the fire was nearly 100 percent burned; no structure
or its contents escaped damage."
The survey concluded-plausibly, but only for events prior to August 6, 1945-that
"probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time
in the history of man. People died from extreme heat, from oxygen deficiency, from carbon monoxide
asphyxiation, from being trampled beneath the feet of stampeding crowds, and from drowning. The
largest number of victims were the most vulnerable: women, children and the elderly."
The raids continue for all the 'best' military reasons…
"In July, US planes blanketed the few remaining Japanese cities that had been spared firebombing
with an "Appeal to the People." "As you know," it read, "America which stands for humanity, does
not wish to injure the innocent people, so you had better evacuate these cities." Half the leafleted
cities were firebombed within days of the warning. US planes ruled the skies. Overall, by one
calculation, the US firebombing campaign destroyed 180 square miles of 67 cities, killed more
than 300,000 people and injured an additional 400,000, figures that exclude the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (My italics)
http://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/2414/article.html
kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:59 am
@ 86 Both my parents served. My grand-fathers served, and most of my uncles and great-uncles
served – you know, the whole mess from being shot to dying in hospitals years after the war from
gas attacks. And I served, nothing special about any of this.
You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead
we get American exceptionalism proudly on display.
Should all the foreigners in your debt salute, or simply prostrate ourselves in awe?
Obama is a neocon and is fully dedicated to expansion and maintenance of the US global neoliberal
empire, at any cost for the US population. Racism card play against Trump, who opposes neoliberal interventionism,
is a variant of the classic " Divide et impera" strategy
Notable quotes:
"... Incidentally, historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone ..."
"... Historical amnesia means forgetting the Democratic Party isn't socialist or leftist ..."
"... Historical amnesia means forgetting all foundations are ways for the wealthy to shelter money and exercise influence, Koch's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Ford's, Soros', not just Clintons'. Historical amnesia means forgetting this government has always conducted foreign policy at the behest of special interests. ..."
"... Vilifying millions of people in preference to even asking if Trump hasn't got massive elite support is deeply, profoundly reactionary. Divide et impera has been the rulers' game for centuries. ..."
Incidentally, historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton
was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies
long after Clinton is gone and forgetting Barack Obama is still president, and won't even
be a lame duck till November.
Historical amnesia means forgetting the Democratic Party isn't
socialist or leftist, despite Bernie Sanders' long career as a sort of socialist (only informally
a Democrat.)
Historical amnesia means forgetting to even ask what "Watergate" was, and if or how it mattered
(or didn't.)
Historical amnesia means forgetting all foundations are ways for the wealthy to shelter
money and exercise influence, Koch's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Ford's, Soros', not just Clintons'.
Historical amnesia means forgetting this government has always conducted foreign policy at the
behest of special interests.
(Yes, Lupita believes that imperialism actually pays off for the whole country, which
presumably is why when her preferred rich people try to get their own she'll be for that. Nonetheless,
the idea is bullshit. At this point, I can only imagine people don't call her out on that because
they actually agree that "we" are all in it together with our owners.)
Historical amnesia includes forgetting Trump has run for president before, with the same personality
and the same tactics and the same party base. It is unclear how the essentially racist nature
of the vile masses has changed so much in four years.
Vilifying millions of people in preference to even asking if Trump hasn't got massive elite
support is deeply, profoundly reactionary. Divide et impera has been the rulers' game for centuries.
After stealing money from states to help Hillary, Politburo of democratic Party (aka DNC) now it
trying to sink trump is the ocean of lies and distortions. That also helps to hide Hillary helath
problems and emailgate fiasco. Attack is the best form of defense.
Notable quotes:
"... A vote for Trump is a middle-finger vote [ to neoliberal world globalization] . A Trump voter does not have to believe that Trump will do anything for him, only that Trump breaking the system won't be worse for the voter than for the system. ..."
"... Obama had a very easy time of it in 2012. He had an opponent highly vulnerable to easily formulated populist attacks and with only muted appeal within the ranks of his own Party. It enabled Obama to run a very highly controlled and modulated campaign, aiming at a very narrow margin, but highly certain victory, a strategy that served Obama's neoliberal policy agenda well, since he neither had to attack the predatory wealth Romney the tax-dodging vampire capitalist symbolized, nor did he have to make extravagant populist promises to bring out additional electoral support. ..."
"... Clinton has to worry about low voter turnout. Democrats lose low turnout elections and the Democratic Party apparatus is weak in many States, including North Carolina, Ohio and Florida, which are usually considered battlegrounds. If Democratic turnout is low enough, Trump can put unusual states like New York in play. ..."
"... these things may cause a pivot with Trump standing in place. It would be a pivot to Trump attacking a broader range of establishment elites on a broader range of issues. ..."
"... Ian Welsh notes that the story of the Trump meltdown is also a ready-made story of "a stab-in-the-back" by elites stealing the election. Trump is the past Teflon Master on these kinds of gotcha fests, but if the Media pivots away from playing gotcha with Trump saying hateful and alarming things about immigration and race to Trump saying arguably true things about foreign policy or economic policy that are kept in an undiscussed box by the perverted norms of conventional wisdom, that might be enough of a broadening pivot. Unlikely, but maybe. ..."
"... Trump's candidacy is an attack on the legitimacy of elites and elite discourse. The news Media is as much an opponent as Clinton. If he baits them, even inadvertently, into doing a pivot for him, that's worrisome. ..."
"... even if the attacks on the legitimacy of Clinton, the Media, the Republican establishment won't get far enough to win the election for Trump, they portend badly for Clinton's Administration. ..."
A vote for Trump is a middle-finger vote [ to neoliberal world
globalization]. A Trump voter does not have to believe that Trump will do anything
for him, only that Trump breaking the system won't be worse for the voter than for the system.
bruce wilder 08.03.16 at 4:57 pm
Romney was in every respect a conventional candidate, one that protected the Republican brand
and, more importantly, protected the Democratic brand and the Obama brand.
Obama had a very easy time of it in 2012. He had an opponent highly vulnerable to easily
formulated populist attacks and with only muted appeal within the ranks of his own Party. It enabled
Obama to run a very highly controlled and modulated campaign, aiming at a very narrow margin,
but highly certain victory, a strategy that served Obama's neoliberal policy agenda well, since
he neither had to attack the predatory wealth Romney the tax-dodging vampire capitalist symbolized,
nor did he have to make extravagant populist promises to bring out additional electoral support.
Clinton, ironically and even paradoxically, has a harder task because Trump is a "worse" candidate
than Romney.
Laying down markers for governance, as RP puts it, poses challenges Obama did not face in 2012.
Carefully calibrating her campaign to get predictable responses and turnout will be much harder.
bruce wilder 08.03.16 at 9:51 pm
Layman @ 143
Yours seems to me like a sound if conventional analysis.
Clinton has to worry about low voter turnout. Democrats lose low turnout elections and
the Democratic Party apparatus is weak in many States, including North Carolina, Ohio and Florida,
which are usually considered battlegrounds. If Democratic turnout is low enough, Trump can put
unusual states like New York in play.
Also, attacks on Trump by establishment Republicans, who are worried about his violation of
norms and by the Media Wurlitzer staging a gotcha ("oh my gosh, Trump didn't know about Crimea!")
- these things may cause a pivot with Trump standing in place. It would be a pivot to Trump attacking
a broader range of establishment elites on a broader range of issues.
Ian Welsh notes that the story of the Trump meltdown is also a ready-made story of "a stab-in-the-back"
by elites stealing the election. Trump is the past Teflon Master on these kinds of gotcha fests,
but if the Media pivots away from playing gotcha with Trump saying hateful and alarming things
about immigration and race to Trump saying arguably true things about foreign policy or economic
policy that are kept in an undiscussed box by the perverted norms of conventional wisdom, that
might be enough of a broadening pivot. Unlikely, but maybe.
Trump's candidacy is an attack on the legitimacy of elites and elite discourse. The news
Media is as much an opponent as Clinton. If he baits them, even inadvertently, into doing a pivot
for him, that's worrisome.
Again, I am firmly in the camp that thinks he has little chance in the election, but like Ian
Welsh and others, I tend to think he's a proof of concept for a more disciplined demagogue and
that he's accelerating the loss of legitimacy for the whole political system, and even if the
attacks on the legitimacy of Clinton, the Media, the Republican establishment won't get far enough
to win the election for Trump, they portend badly for Clinton's Administration.
They feel danger for their cushy positions and military industrial complex profits. Of course
they are concerned and denounce the irresponsibility of Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... I think we reached peak "Trump is not like anything we've seen before" today when 50 top GOP national security officials, many of them veterans of the George W. Bush administration, actually came out and said, Trump "would put at risk our country's national security." ..."
"... just go back and read some of Jane Mayer's reporting on Mr. "we must live on the edge" Hayden ..."
"... my personal favorite, John Negroponte, the man who thought Kissinger was too soft on the North Vietnamese, a Reaganite veteran of the Central America wars who Stephen Kinzer famously described as "a great fabulist." ..."
"... Even by the Reagan Administration's standards of fantasy and duplicity -- I know this will come as news to some, but Donald Trump didn't make up the practice of constructing an alternative reality; remember that Ron Suskind interview with Karl "we create our own reality" Rove? -- Negroponte stood out, completely devising a Honduras of his imagination, which not only helped it become a staging ground for the devastation of the Contra war but also turned that country into a hellscape. ..."
"... Anyway, these are the people who are now being trotted out to denounce the irresponsibility of Trump. ..."
I think we reached peak "Trump is not like anything we've seen before" today when 50 top GOP
national security officials, many of them veterans of the George W. Bush administration, actually
came out and said, Trump "would put at risk our country's national security."
Among the signatories to this statement:
Michael Hayden (just go back and read some of Jane
Mayer's reporting on Mr. "we must live on the edge" Hayden),
my personal favorite, John Negroponte, the man who thought Kissinger was too soft on the North Vietnamese, a Reaganite
veteran of the Central America wars who Stephen Kinzer famously described as "a great fabulist."
Even by the Reagan Administration's standards of fantasy and duplicity -- I know this will come as
news to some, but Donald Trump didn't make up the practice of constructing an alternative reality;
remember that Ron Suskind interview with Karl "we create our own reality" Rove? -- Negroponte stood
out, completely devising a Honduras of his imagination, which not only helped it become a staging
ground for the devastation of the Contra war but also turned that country into a hellscape.
Anyway, these are the people who are now being trotted out to denounce the irresponsibility
of Trump.
As neocons are neoliberals with the gun, no wonder they switched the party and became Hillary
cheerleaders.
Robert Kagan
is dyed-in-the-wool neocon, one of the founders of
PNAC (which
promoted the idea of global neoliberal empire led by the USA and the use of 9/11 style event as
vital for converting the USA into national security state) and cheerleader of Iraq war. He is
also the husband of
Victoria Nuland, who was
instrumental in bringing into power
neo-Nazis in Ukraine. In
this WaPo column he conveniently forget about his own track record and the track record of his wife,
openly accused Trump of fascist tendencies while being unable to use the words "neocons wars" and
"neoliberal globalization" in the whole article even once
Notable quotes:
"... What he off ers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. ..."
"... His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of "others" - Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees - whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. ..."
"... Trump is a negotiator. A fascist is a dictator. They have absolutely nothing in common. The neocon who wrote this propaganda is far more a fascist than Trump could ever be...demonstrated right here with his utilizing his media platform to spread propagandist lies...which is what Hitler did. ..."
"... You have no distaste for the strong man, Kagan. You have a distaste for not being in power. ..."
"... What does that say about those whose interests are served? What is your net worth Robert? How much did you make in the Bush administration, and how did you make it? What was the soldier cost? ..."
"... A Robert Kagan article lambasting the upcoming Reich in Israel will be forthcoming I assume. ..."
"... 'What these people do not or will not see is that, once in power, Trump will owe them and their party nothing". Just like GWB in 2000 and 2004? Where were your warnings then? ..."
But of course the entire Trump phenomenon has nothing to do with policy or ideology. It has
nothing to do with the Republican Party, either, except in its historic role as incubator of this
singular threat to our democracy. Trump has transcended the party that produced him. His growing
army of supporters no longer cares about the party. Because it did not immediately and fully
embrace Trump, because a dwindling number of its political and intellectual leaders still resist
him, the party is regarded with suspicion and even hostility by his followers. Their allegiance
is to him and him alone.
And the source of allegiance? We're supposed to believe that Trump's support stems from economic
stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not
economic remedies - his proposals change daily. What he off ers is an attitude, an aura of
crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture
that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence.
His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on
feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His
public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of "others" - Muslims,
Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees - whom he depicts
either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of
promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar
them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.
... ... ...
This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past
century, and it has generally been called "fascism." Fascist movements, too, had no coherent
ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society. "National socialism" was a bundle
of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was
anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical. Successful
fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Führer), in whom
could be entrusted the fate of the nation. Whatever the problem, he could fix it. Whatever the
threat, internal or external, he could vanquish it, and it was unnecessary for him to explain
how. Today, there is Putinism, which also has nothing to do with belief or policy but is about
the tough man who single-handedly defends his people against all threats, foreign and domestic.
Richard Elkind, 6/1/2016 4:06 PM EDT
Trump is a negotiator. A fascist is a dictator. They have absolutely nothing in common.
The neocon who wrote this propaganda is far more a fascist than Trump could ever
be...demonstrated right here with his utilizing his media platform to spread propagandist
lies...which is what Hitler did.
Faustfaust, 6/1/2016 3:57 PM EDT
Kagan,
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. Excerpts:
"Rather than pursuing a comprehensive peace with the entire Arab world, Israel should
work jointly with Jordan and Turkey to contain, destabilize, and roll-back those entities
that are threats to all three".
"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by
weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing
Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own
right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambition"
"Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting
diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey's and Jordan's actions against Syria,
such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are
hostile to the Syrian ruling elite".
"Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces".
Who are those proxy forces? ISIS? It seems so. These statements put you and your ilk in the
pot as corroborators for what has happened in the Middle East since it was written, and
foremost for Syria and its fallout.
Faustfaust, 6/1/2016 3:23 PM EDT
Robert Kagan,
You aren't afraid of strongmen. You prefer them as long as they are working for your interests
and those who you see as your group. Do you remember these excerpts in this letter to George
Bush that you signed in 2002?:
"As a liberal democracy under repeated attack by murderers who target civilians, Israel now
needs and deserves steadfast support.... We are both targets of what you have correctly called
an "Axis of Evil"... Israel is targeted... in part because it is an island of liberal,
democratic principles ...in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred... the United States
should lend its full support to Israel as it seeks to root out the terrorist network that
daily threatens the lives of Israeli citizens... Furthermore...we urge you to accelerate plans
for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq... every day that Saddam Hussein remains in
power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes... but chemical,
biological, or nuclear weapons"
In this letter you:
1. Are concerned about Israel and its citizens, and are willing to take extreme action on
their behalf, in a manner that is not reflected in your concern for American citizens.
You were willing to destroy nations in the Levant while you call "nazi" when Trump wants to
temporarily reduce travel for a group that has been prone to terrorism in the U.S. on a scale
that not even Israel as experienced.
Meanwhile, you have no issue with Israel's walls, population segregation, and ethnocentrism as
symbols of a strong man fascist government. While you spin language to paint Trump's
relatively mild suggestions as a sign of fascism, you have no issue cosigning the use of
liberal superlatives for Israel. Simply, your writing is disingenuous.
2. Have admitted to your support for the lie that the Iraq invasion was predicated upon, and
for Syria's destruction that is now occurring.
You have no distaste for the strong man, Kagan. You have a distaste for not being in
power.
JMater, 6/1/2016 8:47 AM EDT
Robert Kagan and the rest of the Israel firsters brought fascism to the US. They have used
the CUFI type of organizations and AIPaC and Wall Street money to brainwash Americans and
corrupt Washington to the core.
Faustfaust, 5/31/2016 7:45 PM EDT
"This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there
have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony
billionaire, a textbook egomaniac "tapping into" popular resentments and insecurities, and
with an entire national political party - out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply
out of fear - falling into line behind him".
Robert Kagan, the brave patriot sounding the alarm from his entrenched and curiously
across-the-aisle regular columnist position at the Washington Post.
Curiously, all of the mainstream writers in solidarity with the concerns of Trump supporters
in this democracy are silent.
What does that say about those whose interests are served? What is your net worth Robert?
How much did you make in the Bush administration, and how did you make it? What was the
soldier cost?
Has anyone in your immediate family ever served in the U.S. military?
Your World War II abuse is in bad taste Robert, and excessively disrespectful to the
population of this nation who your political class has asked to make an unconscionable regular
sacrifice for as long as this nation has existed. For shame.
Faustfaust, 5/31/2016 7:35 PM EDT
"Get right with the leader and his mass following or get run over".
Are you more comfortable with the Neocons running over the base? The number of people that
benefit in either situation seems skewed toward a small minority in your preference. Is this a
country of the politics of the minority?
"They praise the leader's incoherent speeches as the beginning of wisdom, hoping he will
reward them with a plum post in the new order. There are those who merely hope to survive.
Their consciences won't let them curry favor so shamelessly, so they mumble their pledges of
support, like the victims in Stalin's show trials, perhaps not realizing that the leader and
his followers will get them in the end anyway".
You are awfully bold with the allusions to genocidal regimes when addressing a population
whose families gave up hundreds of thousands of soldiers to save your people, while at the
same time Israel won't move a muscle to stop ISIS while they ethnically cleanse its region.
Private Subscriber, 5/31/2016 7:37 AM EDT
Mr. Kagan is a regular columnist for The Post whose biography is readily available. Every
column of his, including this one, is followed by a note that he served in President Reagan's
State Department.
The Post isn't remotely pathetic, but having little faith in the intelligence of other readers
and using the fourth-grade term "Shillary" is -- and I say that as a Sen. Sanders voter.
You seem awfully bold with the allusions to genocidal regimes as an argument against people
who want to reduce terrorism and have their immigration laws enforced, in light of your
support for a regime that is rabidly more ethno-nationalist in Israel.
You seem to be taking advantage of the emotions of people whom you obviously do not respect
nor appreciate. Perhaps you'll soon resort to drawing overly-simplistic illustrations of
political timelines embedded in cartoon explosives.
"A great number will simply kid themselves, refusing to admit that something very different
from the usual politics is afoot".
Well, let's be honest. It would not be unusual for Israel. These politics would be extremely
mild in Israel. A Robert Kagan article lambasting the upcoming Reich in Israel will be
forthcoming I assume.
'What these people do not or will not see is that, once in power, Trump will owe them and
their party nothing". Just like GWB in 2000 and 2004? Where were your warnings then?
Dodgers1, 5/31/2016 7:32 PM EDT
Before we talk about Trump, we should take a look at Obama, America's version of President
Snow in the movie "Hunger Games".
Edward Snowden, if he was ever kidnapped back to the United States, would most certainly be
persecuted by the State. If not for Snowden, we would have never have known about Obama's use
of technology to create and move forward with his version of a police state.
The folks voting for Trump know what they're getting. Media reports of Trump transgressions fall
upon deaf ears because the folks supporting Trump have no reason to have any faith whatsoever
in the neutrality of the press.
The GOP and Trump are still negotiating terms. HRC is trying to stay vertical.
kidneystones 08.08.16 at 6:55 am
News photographers cooperated in concealing Roosevelt's disability, and those who did not found
their camera views blocked by Secret Service agents, according to the FDR Presidential Museum
and Library's website.
Roosevelt's mastered the art of radio. Visual representations were tightly controlled. HRC's press
corps self-censors, much as they did for Obama.
First press conference in 240 days and the media show-up to applaud.
kidneystones 08.08.16 at 9:09 am
Head injuries, vertigo, memory loss, 'short-circuiting brains', are very different from polio.
Unless you believe all injuries/illnesses are the same. Of course, you never said you did, any
more than I 'stated' head injuries, vertigo, and memory loss disqualified you
You raise claims that you alone make, and then expect others to respond. Collapsing in a six-mile
race no more disqualified Carter to be re-elected as president.
It was you, not I who equated FDR and HRC. You sidestep entirely the question of press bias,
and FDR's concern with allowing the press to publicized images suggesting weakness.
But you and the few reading the thread see all this for themselves.
I don't expect, however, you understand and appreciate that your double standards re: gold
star families, etc, and those of the press, make the possibility of a Trump presidency more likely.
The WAPO is one of the few HRC organs to understand the dynamic. There are several good WAPO
articles on HRC's real failures as a senator.
Tilting the playing field in favor of HRC created most of her problems with the Dem base. Continuing
to tile the playing field may cost Dems the election.
"... Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back. Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans - market leaders in many states - are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives. ..."
"... The donor class candidate in 2016 promises to fight against the interests of the donor class using every dollar the donor class gives her. ..."
"... Gullible liberals cheer – parrot 'white nationalist' talking points on command – hold up signs – 'Willing to sell out for chance to call fellow Americans 'racist white nationalists.' ..."
What electing the donor class candidate again means to real wages, and why
Trump's promise to scrap and replace the Affordable Care Act with something
better matters: Zero Hedge citing the NYT: "…Health insurance companies
around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent
or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned
out to be sicker than expected.
Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests
are scaled back. Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans - market leaders in many
states - are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois,
25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee
and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the
federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with
insurance executives.
The donor class candidate in 2016 promises to fight against the interests
of the donor class using every dollar the donor class gives her.
Gullible liberals cheer – parrot 'white nationalist' talking points
on command – hold up signs – 'Willing to sell out for chance to call fellow
Americans 'racist white nationalists.'
"... Dem hacks are promoting the fiction that Sanders, again an Independent, will magically become the most powerful voice in the senate and a strong check (cough, cough) on the worst excesses of HRC and her many neocon friends and admirers. ..."
"... Given that the 'security establishment' consists almost entirely of quasi-fascists and grifters looking to get richer acting as agents for defense manufacturers and private security companies, these folks clearly see which candidate is likely to provide more of the filthy lucre. Wall st. and the Kochs both want a Clinton-Ryan partnership for 2016. ..."
Do you expect Philip Zelikow, John Negroponte, Eliot Cohen and the other 'natl security' signatories
of the letter, and now Susan Collins, to behave other than as they are behaving?
Is Negroponte
going to sign a letter saying "I am a right-wing jerk w blood on my hands who worked for, among
others, that idiot Reagan and by the way I can't vote for Trump who is also a jerk, very much
in line w the jerk I worked for"?
Is Susan Collins going to write an oped saying "I am a (supposedly) moderate Repub Senator
from Maine who supported McCain and now I'm going to be inconsistent and not vote for Trump even
though he's basically not too different from McCain. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."?
[I think Trump is somewhat worse than McCain, but I'm accepting the premise for the sake of argument.]
As for Alter, maybe he shd know better than to tweet the Collins oped, but I'm not going to
get into that.
kidneystones 08.09.16 at 2:28 am
Perhaps the best part of supporting Trump is that he's almost universally loathed by virtually
all the 'right people' elites on both sides of the aisle, and the 'morally-minded' billionaires.
I've argued before that I expect he'll accomplish less than 1/10th of what he wants to do.
Dem hacks are promoting the fiction that Sanders, again an Independent, will magically
become the most powerful voice in the senate and a strong check (cough, cough) on the worst excesses
of HRC and her many neocon friends and admirers.
Given that the 'security establishment' consists almost entirely of quasi-fascists and
grifters looking to get richer acting as agents for defense manufacturers and private security
companies, these folks clearly see which candidate is likely to provide more of the filthy lucre.
Wall st. and the Kochs both want a Clinton-Ryan partnership for 2016.
So, take your chances with Trump, or be prepared for another 4-8 years of no press conferences,
no transparency, and the same screw everyone but the rich policies that have brought us all to
this unhappy pass. Safer with Hillary?
You betcha!
Keith 08.09.16 at 3:20 am
RNB, our military-intelligence sector is so dedicated to spending their whole budget every
year, even to the detriment of our national defense, that any idiot could see through them.
And any idiot clearly has.
Donald 08.09.16 at 11:57 am
I suspect the reason that neocons hate Trump is not because he is a dangerous maniac, but became
he isn't the precise type of dangerous maniac they prefer. He shows contempt for the establishment
idiots that favored the Iraq War, not that Trump opposed it himself. That by itself would be unforgivable
for them.
Sanders was hated by many Democrats for the same reason–he pointed out that Clinton
supported the Iraq War and therefore had bad judgment, which undercuts the whole argument based
on her expertise in foreign policy. I am in no way saying that Sanders is the same as Trump. I
voted for Sanders and would vote for almost anyone against Trump.
It's possible to be terrified by the possibility of a Trump presidency and also be cynical
about the motives of the torture apologists and warmongers who criticize him.
Donald: "I suspect the reason that neocons hate Trump is not because he is a dangerous maniac,
but became he isn't the precise type of dangerous maniac they prefer."
The whole concept of
"recklessness" doesn't really have much meaning in this context. The foreign policy establishment
failed to actually reduce the number of nuclear weapons when it was possible to do so, for no
better reason than because it would have harmed the military-industrial complex. They have signally
failed to do anything to restrain the ability of the President to declare war at will, instead
preferring convenience in carrying out whatever ad hoc goal is current. They are steadily in the
process of converting alliances from deterrents to war to possible triggers for war. They did
not take any steps to sanction or put on trial war criminals who committed aggressive war and
torture. And the establishment candidate, HRC, just accused (through surrogates) of carrying out
an act of war against the U.S. (the supposed hacking incident) and declared Russia to be our enemy.
And if and when all of this falls into the hands of a demagogue, it will supposedly be the demagogue
that is reckless, not the establishment. Therefore we must always vote for the establishment,
because they've made the machine so dangerous to run that supposedly if they step away from the
controls for a moment it will blow up. That's nonsense. If they continue doing that for long enough,
eventually people will vote for a demagogue as the only other choice - and Trump won't be the
last one.
Another bit of nonsense is the whole constellation of ideas around unity, solidarity, allyship,
"we must work together", "no circular firing squad" etc. There is no unity or solidarity and the
whole idea that there is is manipulative - the people who call on it are not anyone's allies.
People have different goals. If the reason we're supposed to work together despite having different
goals is to defeat Trump, then we are not allies. We're each just going to do the minimum needed
to defeat Trump, and then we're enemies.
For all the talk of how Trump is endangering Republican Party candidates down ballot, Clinton
is working hard to take no advantage for the Democratic Party or progressive ideas. The "minimum
needed to defeat Trump" is conspicuously not anything likely to discredit or drive from office
the corrupt war mongers. Clinton seems determined to leave the Republican Party strong and progressive
Democrats weak and marginalized.
"... Khizr Khan's sound bite makes for good free political advertising, following the lead of Trump himself, but I don't believe he has read the Constitution, or if he has read it he didn't understand it. ..."
"... Obama taught constitutional law and a generation of his students will not understand that only Congress can declare war. ..."
"... The conditions that produced and enabled Trump are the Democratic Party policies in its fake posture as an opposition party serving the interests of working people. A vote for Hillary is a vote for more of the same-increasing disparity in wealth and income. ..."
"... The Democratic Party is bully enough to shut me and my chosen candidates down; and I don't like Trump, but I really like it when I see him kicking some lying elitist Democratic Party ass. ..."
"... Consider then the partisan nature of worthiness determined by Democrats in their vilification of Cindy Sheehan for daring to effect a change in the system that murdered her son, whose death was more recent, the same sorrow that Khizr Khan now deals with from a position of ignorance so common to Democrats, but so much more worthy of respect when the sorrow strikes out in their political favor, unlike with Cindy Sheehan, who struck out in opposition to the Democratic Party in electorally challenging Nancy Pelosi. ..."
"... It's absolutely not about the money. Pocket Constitution waving grieving father at DNC denouncing temporary ban on Muslim immigration coincidentally runs 'pay-to-play' US immigration visa procurement business. Deletes law firm website and 'wipes' web server clean. ..."
"... Love of freedom? Love of cash? Grieving Parent? How about all three? Neutral observer? That's a harder sell. ..."
"... Khizr M. Khan's website notes that he works to help clients with the E-2 and EB-5 programs that let overseas investors buy into U.S. companies and also provides green cards for family members. ..."
"... As a media-manipulation exercise, it just confirms that the Dems know how to deploy media resources of their own. The stunt was well-executed and achieved its purpose. ..."
"... The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America. ..."
"... What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand. ..."
"... You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display. ..."
"... Unlike Trump, Bush did it the right way. His team assassinated the character of his bereaved critic through the normal, respectable political channels. Meanwhile the man of the moment enjoyed plausible deniability and the praise of future journalists. ..."
"... Meanwhile, journalists, liberals, and Democrats are kvelling over John McCain's denunciation of Trump's comments about the Khans. They love this nearly annual morality tale, in which McCain is dutifully trotted out (or trots himself out) to clean up the mess of last night's frat party. ..."
"... In 2002, after Saxby Chambliss ran that disgusting ad against Max Cleland (which I talk about in the OP), John McCain said, "I'd never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield - it's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible." Six years later, McCain campaigned for Chambliss's reelection. ..."
Khizr Khan's sound bite makes for good free political advertising, following the lead of
Trump himself, but I don't believe he has read the Constitution, or if he has read it he didn't
understand it.
That should not trouble him overly much; Obama taught constitutional law and a generation
of his students will not understand that only Congress can declare war.
... ... ...
The conditions that produced and enabled Trump are the Democratic Party policies in its
fake posture as an opposition party serving the interests of working people. A vote for Hillary
is a vote for more of the same-increasing disparity in wealth and income.
To quote from "The Big Short", which the Clintons played no small part in bringing about by
the repeal of Glass-Steagall and passing NAFTA: "Truth is like poetry. And most people fucking
hate poetry."
The Democratic Party is bully enough to shut me and my chosen candidates down; and I don't
like Trump, but I really like it when I see him kicking some lying elitist Democratic Party ass.
I want to see if Democrats have it in them to stop being weasels.
Glenn 08.02.16 at 4:23 pm
Consider then the partisan nature of worthiness determined by Democrats in their vilification
of Cindy Sheehan for daring to effect a change in the system that murdered her son, whose death
was more recent, the same sorrow that Khizr Khan now deals with from a position of ignorance so
common to Democrats, but so much more worthy of respect when the sorrow strikes out in their political
favor, unlike with Cindy Sheehan, who struck out in opposition to the Democratic Party in electorally
challenging Nancy Pelosi.
kidneystones 08.02.16 at 9:57 pm
It's absolutely not about the money. Pocket Constitution waving grieving father at DNC
denouncing temporary ban on Muslim immigration coincidentally runs 'pay-to-play' US immigration
visa procurement business. Deletes law firm website and 'wipes' web server clean.
Trump has already seized on the 'If I were president, Captain Khan would be alive meme.'
How long till the Khan grieving father looking to profit from selling visas access scam blows
up the media narrative? What about Khan's business tax returns? Follow the money?
The media loves building the narrative of the hero almost as much as they love tearing it apart.
Think Trump will ignore Khan's entirely legitimate immigration business scam? I mean the one
he just deleted? Think the media won't give Trumps comments on that story any airtime?
Love of freedom? Love of cash? Grieving Parent? How about all three? Neutral observer?
That's a harder sell.
Pointing to any or all of Khan's deleted business activities/interests is a 'McCarthyite' slur
on the memory of a Gold Star mother and all others who so gloriously serve.
Going dark. What's the bet the Gold Star father goes off the radar because of 'family' issues?
"…
Khizr M. Khan's website notes that he works to help clients with the E-2 and EB-5 programs
that let overseas investors buy into U.S. companies and also provides green cards for family members.
It also said that he helps in the purchase of U.S. real estate and businesses. The website
lists his ability to practice in New York, though it gives a Washington phone number for the lawyer
who lives in Virginia. A man who answered the phone said the website was correct, though he would
not identify himself."
Mr. Khan evidently deleted his website after the Examiner story broke. Needless to say, the
facts clearly indicate a highly reputable individual specializing in helping foreign businesses
in the Middle East and elsewhere buy/invest in undervalued (we assume) US assets and provide green
cards for their families, all according to law.
There's clearly nothing in this account for Trump to make a fuss about.
So, why is Mr.Khan suddenly going to such lengths to conceal a business he clearly has no reason
to hide?
kidneystones 08.02.16 at 11:05 pm
TPM has pretty much dumped the Khan story, making it part of the past. No mention at all of stories
of Khan's financial incentives for opposing Trump, naturally. Josh does insert a 'distractor'
link to nutcase scare stories. As a media-manipulation exercise, it just confirms that the
Dems know how to deploy media resources of their own. The stunt was well-executed and achieved
its purpose. So, I fully expect the media and HRC supporters to recommend 'we all just move
on.'
Trump is doubling down on his beefs with the GOP establishment. No doubt, this is a full out
attack on the globalist-Koch branch of the GOP. The Kochs gave TPP-loving Ryan a standing ovation.
Good thing Dems are backing a candidate firmly in favor of TPP.
Obama, another TPP fan, jumped on the bandwagon – so it's unanimous.
Trump is the only major political candidate firmly opposed to ending the TPP. But don't support
him because Trump hates all Muslims. Just ask Capt. Khan's dad.
kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:37 am
84@ The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that
we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are
many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America.
What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are
making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded
in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely
patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America
that 'we foreigners' cannot understand.
What is also clear from your comment is that you, and perhaps some others, believe that this
love of country and rich tapestry of subcultures somehow makes Americans very, very special and
beyond criticism.
We understand this much: Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor – 68 civilian casualties.
The US response: "..on the night of March 9-10, 1945…LeMay sent 334 B-29s low over Tokyo from
the Marianas. Their mission was to reduce the city to rubble, kill its citizens, and instill terror
in the survivors, with jellied gasoline and napalm that would create a sea of flames. Stripped
of their guns to make more room for bombs, and flying at altitudes averaging 7,000 feet to evade
detection, the bombers, which had been designed for high-altitude precision attacks, carried two
kinds of incendiaries: M47s, 100-pound oil gel bombs, 182 per aircraft, each capable of starting
a major fire, followed by M69s, 6-pound gelled-gasoline bombs, 1,520 per aircraft in addition
to a few high explosives to deter firefighters. [25] The attack on an area that the US Strategic
Bombing Survey estimated to be 84.7 percent residential succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of
air force planners…
The Strategic Bombing Survey, whose formation a few months earlier provided an important signal
of Roosevelt's support for strategic bombing, provided a technical description of the firestorm
and its effects on Tokyo: The chief characteristic of the conflagration . . . was the presence
of a fire front, an extended wall of fire moving to leeward, preceded by a mass of pre-heated,
turbid, burning vapors . . . . The 28-mile-per-hour wind, measured a mile from the fire, increased
to an estimated 55 miles at the perimeter, and probably more within. An extended fire swept over
15 square miles in 6 hours . . . . The area of the fire was nearly 100 percent burned; no structure
or its contents escaped damage."
The survey concluded-plausibly, but only for events prior to August 6, 1945-that
"probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time
in the history of man. People died from extreme heat, from oxygen deficiency, from carbon monoxide
asphyxiation, from being trampled beneath the feet of stampeding crowds, and from drowning. The
largest number of victims were the most vulnerable: women, children and the elderly."
The raids continue for all the 'best' military reasons…
"In July, US planes blanketed the few remaining Japanese cities that had been spared firebombing
with an "Appeal to the People." "As you know," it read, "America which stands for humanity, does
not wish to injure the innocent people, so you had better evacuate these cities." Half the leafleted
cities were firebombed within days of the warning. US planes ruled the skies. Overall, by one
calculation, the US firebombing campaign destroyed 180 square miles of 67 cities, killed more
than 300,000 people and injured an additional 400,000, figures that exclude the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (My italics)
http://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/2414/article.html
kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:59 am
@ 86 Both my parents served. My grand-fathers served, and most of my uncles and great-uncles
served – you know, the whole mess from being shot to dying in hospitals years after the war from
gas attacks. And I served, nothing special about any of this.
You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead
we get American exceptionalism proudly on display.
Should all the foreigners in your debt salute, or simply prostrate ourselves in awe?
We're done.
JM Hatch 08.03.16 at 2:23 am
@41 Lee Arnold: Are you referring to the Warren Buffet who owns Fruit-of-the-Loom? The same
company which had Hillary's State Dept bust up a minimum wage law for Haiti's textile industry?
The same company which then donated to the Clinton Foundation for aid that never arrived to Haiti?
If not, then who is this Warren Buffet?
oldster 08.03.16 at 5:28 am
Still, there was one upside to Bush's minions attacks on Sheehan. Way back in those antediluvian
times, John Cole was still a supporter of Bush and the Iraq War. (Bless his heart, he soon learned
better) He defended the wing-nuts who were calling Sheehan a prostitute by saying that this was
metaphorical. This inspired The Editors writing at The Poor Man to write a response that featured
the phrase "enormous mendacious disembodied anus", which has passed into internet legend.
And probably passed out of internet legend once again, since of the people who were alive in
those days to be amused, very few are still alive to recall it. It was the heyday of war-blogging,
and anti-(war-blog)-blogging. We really sacrificed in those days, let me tell you–it was our own
personal Vietnam.
Corey Robin 08.03.16 at 4:53 am
The record of George W. Bush-the man who Ezra Klein claims would never have treated the Khans
the way Trump has-with regard to Cindy Sheehan, whose son was also killed in Iraq, is even worse
than I realized. As Brendan James reports in Slate:
It's true, as the people tipping their hats to Bush have pointed out, that the president
himself did not attack Sheehan the way Trump has gone after the Khans. But he didn't have to.
He let his underlings do it.
"Cindy Sheehan is a clown," said Bush's senior adviser and dirty trickster Karl Rove, whose
management of the media ecosystem was unparalleled. The Washington Post reported at the time
that Sheehan was a frequent topic of conversation between the president and his advisers. And
somehow, some way, Rove's sentiment trickled down into every pore of the conservative press.
Bill O'Reilly called Sheehan "dumb enough" to get "in bed" with the radical left. Glenn Beck
called Sheehan a "tragedy pimp" who was "prostituting her son's death." Rush Limbaugh said
she was somehow lying about having lost her son.
…
Unlike Trump, Bush did it the right way. His team assassinated the character of his bereaved
critic through the normal, respectable political channels. Meanwhile the man of the moment enjoyed
plausible deniability and the praise of future journalists.
Corey Robin 08.03.16 at 4:59 am
Meanwhile, journalists, liberals, and Democrats are kvelling over John McCain's denunciation
of Trump's comments about the Khans. They love this nearly annual morality tale, in which McCain
is dutifully trotted out (or trots himself out) to clean up the mess of last night's frat party.
Again, a little memory is helpful.
In 2002, after Saxby Chambliss ran that disgusting ad against Max Cleland (which I talk
about in the OP), John McCain said, "I'd never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield
- it's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible." Six years later, McCain campaigned for Chambliss's
reelection.
"... So, taking up CR's Nixon-McGovern analogy: Clinton risks coming into office as a thoroughly disliked President from day one. The level of suspicion and cynicism of expectation is very high. And, though Trump won't ever have a chance in the campaign, his way of attacking opponents is likely to intensify a broad spectrum of opinion that calls into question Clinton's legitimacy and real commitments. ..."
"... Nixon did experience pressure from the Republican Right, but he was also constrained by a Democratic Congress. If Nixon continued to govern as if the New Deal remained in place, it is because he faced a New Deal Congress. ..."
"... Clinton will face a similar problem, but it will be more of her own making, because her politics and her hold over the Democratic Party, depend on not challenging the Republican base of power in the States and in Congress. ..."
"... Trump might withhold an endorsement of Speaker Ryan for a few days, but the Democratic establishment isn't going to unseat Ryan, even though Ryan's district is one Obama won. ..."
"... One path to this whole thing coming apart is a new generation of much younger Democrats trying to gain power in States where the Republicans have been showing their true colors. They will have to fight the Democratic Establishment in Washington to do so, and fight very hard. ..."
"... The other is path is crisis. This is a politics of nominal stalemate, enabling a politics of sclerosis and corruption. ..."
"... These paths are far from mutually exclusive, but there's a very real risk that a fractured and weakened polity turns to authoritarianism. If your politics does not permit reasoned discussion and deliberation, authoritarianism is the alternative when some kind of adaptive reform is required by events. ..."
"... "Symbiosis" means the two sides work together, feed off each other. And, no I am not saying the Democrats in general feed off the Republicans, though obviously any two-party system locks the two Parties into a waltz in which one Party leads the other, with every step forward by one, a step back by the other. ..."
"... What I mean by "symbiosis" in this case is a more specific dynamic by which the Clintonites, who are corrupt centrists at best and reactionary conservatives at worst, keep control of the nominally progressive Party. ..."
"Anything can happen" is one of those things that people say and I suppose it is trivially true.
Certainly, if you are trying to sell click-thru's with alleged political news, you at the very
least want to preserve the possibility of (new) news. At this point, though, I fear that the affirmation,
"Trump could win this" suggests the opposite.
Clinton's campaign now faces the problem that
they have won . . . in August, but the election is in November.
Do they keep up the campaign, organized around "dangerous Donald"? Is there a risk of wearing
out its themes? Trump is in a box assigned to him by the Media. The Media have their canned narrative
thru which anything Trump says will be filtered. He's been neutered. The Media Publishers await
the spending of campaign cash, while the Editors have their orders.
Even Scott Adams has conceded that the Donald may have been bested by Clinton's "dangerous
Donald" propaganda and may be too inflexible in his personality to take any of the practical options
to come back.
What I would notice is that Clinton's campaign to get people to like her - "I'm with her" -
did not win. Clinton will win in November, certainly. But, she will take office as one of the
most seriously disliked politicians to win the Presidency in memory. I say this as someone who
voted for Tricky Dick Nixon over McGovern. Usually, the seriously disliked Presidents get elected
as Vice-President first. But, maybe she did - sorta. Maybe that's what her career as Secretary
of State did for her.
So, taking up CR's Nixon-McGovern analogy: Clinton risks coming into office as a thoroughly
disliked President from day one. The level of suspicion and cynicism of expectation is very high.
And, though Trump won't ever have a chance in the campaign, his way of attacking opponents is
likely to intensify a broad spectrum of opinion that calls into question Clinton's legitimacy
and real commitments.
Nixon did experience pressure from the Republican Right, but he was also constrained by a Democratic
Congress. If Nixon continued to govern as if the New Deal remained in place, it is because he
faced a New Deal Congress. Not just Democratic majorities, but long-standing majorities and committee
chairman who knew where the bodies were buried and how to pull the levers of power. That would
change only gradually with the seniority system scrapped in the mid-1970s and the New Deal politics
by which Congress critters played interests off against one another to maintain their own power
eroded decisively only in Reagan's second term, as trade liberalization and deregulation and other
policies took hold and the corporate executive class began their rise, driving changes in the
lobbyist culture and dynamic.
Clinton will face a similar problem, but it will be more of her own making, because her politics
and her hold over the Democratic Party, depend on not challenging the Republican base of power
in the States and in Congress. Clinton is not going to say to her minions, "OK, we've got this
won, let's funnel all the campaign money and effort into winning the House so we have opportunities
to govern effectively. Let's get Democratic Governors in place, so we can get Obamacare's Medicaid
expansion working properly without privatization."
Trump might withhold an endorsement of Speaker Ryan for a few days, but the Democratic establishment
isn't going to unseat Ryan, even though Ryan's district is one Obama won.
The Democratic Party - the rank and file and even the general run of Congress people - have
become much more "socialist" for lack of a better term, but they have no experience of power.
Few have served long in the Obama Administration. Most States are dominated by Republicans. In
some States, like Kansas and North Carolina, "dominated" really does mean dominated. Democrats
are a minority in Congress and the old leadership is retiring.
One path to this whole thing coming apart is a new generation of much younger Democrats trying
to gain power in States where the Republicans have been showing their true colors. They will have
to fight the Democratic Establishment in Washington to do so, and fight very hard.
The other is path is crisis. This is a politics of nominal stalemate, enabling a politics of
sclerosis and corruption.
These paths are far from mutually exclusive, but there's a very real risk that a fractured
and weakened polity turns to authoritarianism. If your politics does not permit reasoned discussion
and deliberation, authoritarianism is the alternative when some kind of adaptive reform is required
by events.
bruce wilder 08.10.16 at 5:00
pm
Faustusnotes misreads me on Benghazi. (What else is new?) I was not saying, "both sides do
it". That's not my point. My point is that the Right's obsessions with Benghazi (and with the
email server) are gifts to Clinton. They take issues where Clinton's bad judgment is on display,
and they transform them into a circus where what is on display instead is the Right's lunacy.
The Benghazi hearings made Clinton look good, if that were possible; embattled, persecuted
unwarrantedly. No sane person would want to pay much attention and the superficial takeaway
impression is that there is no there, there in Rightwing accusations and fantasizing.
"Symbiosis"
means the two sides work together, feed off each other. And, no I am not saying the Democrats
in general feed off the Republicans, though obviously any two-party system locks the two Parties
into a waltz in which one Party leads the other, with every step forward by one, a step back
by the other.
What I mean by "symbiosis" in this case is a more specific dynamic by which the Clintonites,
who are corrupt centrists at best and reactionary conservatives at worst, keep control of the
nominally progressive Party.
"... What I see is a Reagan, or a Bush, cheerfully admitting to American exceptionalism and in the need to kill at will. What frightens me is the inability of Americans to realize outsiders see pretty much the same willingness to kill at will from a Clinton, or Obama. ..."
"... And the truly frightening part is where team blue supporters insist that everyone pretend every 4 years that a Clinton, or Obama, is somehow less willing to kill at will than a Romney, or a Trump. ..."
"... We have a video of one political candidate laughing at murder, who 'never' holds press conferences, running to replace a president who expanded and entrenched the Bush-Cheney security state and who suppresses dissent and whistle-blowing with the vigor of a Nixon. Outsiders have learned to survive every 'too crazy to be true' you people elect. Of course, that's not as easy if one happens to live in the wrong part of the world. ..."
@491 This is very good, Corey. I think you are precisely right about how (ahem) informed outsiders
view the 'enormous' differences between the two political parties. What I see is a Reagan, or
a Bush, cheerfully admitting to American exceptionalism and in the need to kill at will. What
frightens me is the inability of Americans to realize outsiders see pretty much the same willingness
to kill at will from a Clinton, or Obama.
And the truly frightening part is where team blue supporters insist that everyone pretend every
4 years that a Clinton, or Obama, is somehow less willing to kill at will than a Romney, or a
Trump.
We have a video of one political candidate laughing at murder, who 'never' holds press conferences,
running to replace a president who expanded and entrenched the Bush-Cheney security state and
who suppresses dissent and whistle-blowing with the vigor of a Nixon. Outsiders have learned to
survive every 'too crazy to be true' you people elect. Of course, that's not as easy if one happens
to live in the wrong part of the world.
Re: Republican weakness. That's sure to be a much-studied topic. At the state level Republicans
are very strong. As 'racist' and 'sexist' as it is to say, the uniqueness of electing an African-American
and then, perhaps, the woman he defeated speak very positively about the US in general. This stuff
matters to you and that's nothing to be ashamed of.
"... We're seeing right now in real time exactly the same denunciations of one candidate by virtually all media outlets, all elite Dems, and many elite Republicans. When there were a number of candidates and two races and two outsiders, much of the press bias may have slipped beneath the radar. ..."
"... At some point probably very soon Trump is going to be the real underdog. Not the underdog of imagination, no longer a billionaire whining about not being treated fairly. But the target of an unrelenting series of negative news stories and TV and radio commercials that leave no doubt in the minds of most voters that Trump has much less of a chance of winning than Hillary. ..."
"... The anti-Trump stories are probably white noise already to many neutrals. Trump supporters stopped listening to the media long ago. ..."
"... When the NYT, MSNBC, Bill Mahr, and on and on and on all tell people they can't possibly vote for Trump, how do you think folks are going to respond? I mean, about being told they don't actually have a choice. Cause that's what's happening now. ..."
"... And the same people telling folks they don't have a choice are precisely the same people who predicted/promised that Trump would never win the nomination. Trump just needs to stay in the game. If he's within five points in October, I still say he edges it. ..."
We're seeing right now in real time exactly the same denunciations of one candidate by virtually
all media outlets, all elite Dems, and many elite Republicans. When there were a number of candidates
and two races and two outsiders, much of the press bias may have slipped beneath the radar.
At
some point probably very soon Trump is going to be the real underdog. Not the underdog of imagination,
no longer a billionaire whining about not being treated fairly. But the target of an unrelenting
series of negative news stories and TV and radio commercials that leave no doubt in the minds
of most voters that Trump has much less of a chance of winning than Hillary.
The anti-Trump stories
are probably white noise already to many neutrals. Trump supporters stopped listening to the media
long ago.
When the NYT, MSNBC, Bill Mahr, and on and on and on all tell people they can't possibly vote
for Trump, how do you think folks are going to respond? I mean, about being told they don't actually
have a choice. Cause that's what's happening now.
And the same people telling folks they don't have a choice are precisely the same people who
predicted/promised that Trump would never win the nomination. Trump just needs to stay in the
game. If he's within five points in October, I still say he edges it.
"... The difference is the media and the elites are openly producing elite narratives in a manner that really do make Trump the underdog. Trump won the nomination by claiming the media elites and most of the politicians in both parties are in the pockets of the rich. That's an argument that continues to resonate. ..."
"... The fact is that Trump and Sanders are both the result of a system that works precisely the way Trump and Saunders describe it. A significant block of voters understand that. ..."
"... These voters are extremely unlikely to be distracted by any stories on any topic. Their focus is on jobs and the indifference of the media and politicians of both political parties to the need for jobs. ..."
"... Trump's experience in the construction trades matters to voters because infrastructure construction provides short-terms and long-term jobs and training programs. Trump went to Detroit and described the city as HRC's blueprint for America. ..."
"... The problem for the media, the Democrats, and their supporters is that practically nobody sees HRC as anything but the ultimate insider agent of the rich, who happens to wear a dress. She first got to the WH as a political wife. She was parachuted into a safe Senate seat to start her 'run for office.' She was awarded a plum position in the administration in large part to placate her followers and heal some of the 'Clintons and their supporters are all racists' wounds. After leaving the administration, she and her husband earned millions which poured into a private foundation. The DNC and the Dems colluded to keep her only opponent from winning. The DOJ just ruled the Clintion Cash Cow to be beyond investigation. And now, this ultimate insider is re-packaging herself as 'the best darn change-agent' president 'women as tissues' has ever seen. And then there are the drones. ..."
"... The media can't cover the issues fairly because the issues confirm their chosen candidate can't be trusted on the issues that most Americans care about most. Most voters, including HRC voters, understand the difference between scare stories and solutions. ..."
"... Suffice to say a counter-narrative exists: one in which Trump has committed very few of the crimes which the gullible routinely swallow as fact ..."
"... Minds are made up, truth has to be sacrificed in order to 'prevent the end of mankind.' Rest assured, we'd be hearing precisely the same 'end of the world' spew were Bush, or any other placeholder the candidate ..."
"... The choice between HRC and Bush is essentially no choice ..."
"... The choice between HRC and Trump may actually be less of a choice than many believe ..."
"... Take a chance with Trump, or settle in for 4-8 more years of Obama, only worse ..."
"... Voters decide in November. I still say Trump edges it, at least ..."
Trump won the nomination by claiming the media and the elites rig the system against outsiders
like Bernie and him and that the media and elites of both parties are indifferent to the
problems and concerns of many, many voters.
The same thing is occurring in real-time now. The difference is the media and the elites are
openly producing elite narratives in a manner that really do make Trump the underdog. Trump won
the nomination by claiming the media elites and most of the politicians in both
parties are in the pockets of the rich. That's an argument that continues to resonate.
The fact is that Trump and Sanders are both the result of a system that works precisely the
way Trump and Saunders describe it. A significant block of voters understand that.
Voters also understand that HRC/Bush are simply the current/past iterations of a system that
denies any voice to ordinary voters. There will be no real change, except on the periphery and
that's the function of the elections – in a very real sense we're living the living, breathing
embodiment of Burke's conservatism.
Yes, LGBT rights are a good thing. After that, what?
kidneystones 08.10.16 at 11:28 pm
The fact is that a great many voters have seen their wages go down, or remain stagnant, over the
past two decades as they read stories day to day of a soaring stock market and all kinds of economic
good times.
These voters are extremely unlikely to be distracted by any stories on any topic. Their focus
is on jobs and the indifference of the media and politicians of both political parties to the
need for jobs.
Trump's experience in the construction trades matters to voters because infrastructure construction
provides short-terms and long-term jobs and training programs. Trump went to Detroit and described
the city as HRC's blueprint for America.
The problem for the media, the Democrats, and their supporters is that practically nobody sees
HRC as anything but the ultimate insider agent of the rich, who happens to wear a dress. She first
got to the WH as a political wife. She was parachuted into a safe Senate seat to start her 'run
for office.' She was awarded a plum position in the administration in large part to placate her
followers and heal some of the 'Clintons and their supporters are all racists' wounds. After leaving
the administration, she and her husband earned millions which poured into a private foundation.
The DNC and the Dems colluded to keep her only opponent from winning. The DOJ just ruled the Clintion
Cash Cow to be beyond investigation. And now, this ultimate insider is re-packaging herself as
'the best darn change-agent' president 'women as tissues' has ever seen. And then there are the
drones.
The media can't cover the issues fairly because the issues confirm their chosen candidate can't
be trusted on the issues that most Americans care about most. Most voters, including HRC voters,
understand the difference between scare stories and solutions.
Both candidates traffic in scare stories. Only one offers solutions that resonate with voters.
That candidate wins.
kidneystones 08.11.16 at 12:32 am
Actually, as we can see now. An awful lot of people are betting the farm that enough voters buy
into that narrative. As I mentioned above, the people promulgating precisely this myth have been
doing just that ever since he began running for office to no great effect.
Suffice to say a counter-narrative exists: one in which Trump has committed very few of the
crimes which the gullible routinely swallow as fact. Unless, of course, you and the vast majority
here are about to assert a complete lack of confirmation bias on this matter.
Minds are made up, truth has to be sacrificed in order to 'prevent the end of mankind.' Rest
assured, we'd be hearing precisely the same 'end of the world' spew were Bush, or any other placeholder
the candidate.
The choice between HRC and Bush is essentially no choice.
The choice between HRC and Trump may actually be less of a choice than many believe. We're
unlikely to get to that discussion any time soon.
No jobs, shitty schools and roads mean more votes for Trump.
Take a chance with Trump, or settle in for 4-8 more years of Obama, only worse. Many voters
have already decided. As we can see, the swing states are indeed swinging.
Voters decide in November. I still say Trump edges it, at least.
"... I don't see Trump as fascist in any workable, or historically grounded use of the term. ..."
"... The US government is an enormous cash-cow for an immense number of special interests. The notion that the PACs and special interests will just pack-up shop and write off the money they plan to make with a Bush/HRC in power is absurd. They'll hobble Trump they same way they handcuffed Carter, and start playing the same sorts of games. ..."
@ 592 'With Trump, X is fascism (roughly) which is why I'm against Trump in spite of the very
real possibility that a lot of his threats will turn out to be just empty talk.'
Recognizing
this is a blog comments section and that a certain degree of rhetorical excess is expected, I'd
be very curious to learn which 'threats' make Trump a 'fascist.'
I don't see Trump as fascist in any workable, or historically grounded use of the term.
I'm not at all confident in Trump's ability to pull the levers of government, hence my own
skepticism that he'll actually be able to rebuild the US economy in the way he's promising, or
achieve many, any of his foreign policy goals. However, I see no evidence whatsoever to support
the notion that any of his most fervent supporters would support abrogating any, or even some
parts of the constitution. He is absolutely running as some kind of 'time to clean up Washington'
populist. I'm certain, however, that those currently wielding power through their stooges in both
parties are entirely willing to make defying Trump a wise and enriching decision.
The US government is an enormous cash-cow for an immense number of special interests. The
notion that the PACs and special interests will just pack-up shop and write off the money they
plan to make with a Bush/HRC in power is absurd. They'll hobble Trump they same way they handcuffed
Carter, and start playing the same sorts of games.
If anyone does plan on seriously trying to make the case Trump is a fascist to me, at
least, they'll need to cite policy positions from Trump's web site. And we know how few are willing
to endure that....
"... In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. ..."
"... The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. ..."
"... Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? ..."
"... It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard Nixon, who also had a plan. ..."
"... Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted ..."
"... The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine (an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares. ..."
Criticizing Clinton from the right is just as reactionary as criticizing Trump from the right.
Further, assigning an individual such personal responsibility denies the reality of a bipartisan
system that administers an imperialist government with only a formal simulacrum of popular support.
That is, this "criticism" is fundamentally from the right.
In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's
policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy
for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. The careers of Stevenson and Bolton alone
show that the potential importance of security council veto means the President reserves direct
supervision for himself, no matter what an organizational chart may say.
The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama
who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued
after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. The implication that
for a Secretary of State to sell weapons to foreign nations isn't constituent service borders
on the silly. Besides, isolationism is not left win, never has been, never was.
And the implication that the any US government would ever favor supporting a leftish president
in Latin America because of its commitment to democracy thoroughly falsifies the nature of the
US government. Disappearing left criticism of Obama is thoroughly reactionary.
Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting
all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry
Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? Buying into this is
buying decades of reactionary propaganda. I suppose this is mindlessness enough to satisfy people
who alleged that SYRIZA was going to save Greece (the rock that should by the way have sunk Jacobin
magazines credibility, leaving next to the Titanic,) or Bernie Sanders was starting a revolution.
It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard
Nixon, who also had a plan. I suppose F. Foundling eager awaits Trump's great "Nixon goes
to China" moment. I have no idea why.
Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted.
As to which one it is, there has really never been much doubt that Clinton in the end will gain
enough minority support to carry the big cities. But if the reactionaries depress the turnout
enough, Trump has a shot at an electoral college victory, especially given the precedents on how
votes are counted.
The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine
(an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares.
"... You raise the Children's Defense Fund in her defense? HRC betrayed Marian Edelman, the CDF founder by supporting the catastrophic welfare bill. Peter Edelman was so disgusted that he resigned from HHS and the Clinton administration. Between the crime bill and and the welfare bill Clinton did an enormous amount of damage to black families. HRC conservative? Yes. You probably call it the Third Way. Democratic neoliberlism at its finest. ..."
You raise the Children's Defense Fund in her defense? HRC betrayed Marian Edelman, the CDF
founder by supporting the catastrophic welfare bill. Peter Edelman was so disgusted that he resigned
from HHS and the Clinton administration. Between the crime bill and and the welfare bill Clinton
did an enormous amount of damage to black families. HRC conservative? Yes. You probably call it
the Third Way. Democratic neoliberlism at its finest.
A leaked email from a top DNC official in May shows that Democratic insiders were really leery
of Clinton's strategy of trying to claim Trump is completely different from Republicans past and
present. As this official points out, that strategy actually runs the risk of harming down-ballot
Democrats running for office in Congress and state legislatures. It may help Clinton, but it's
not good for the party. It also shows that the line that so many have swallowed about Trump being
so different was actually a deliberate meme cultivated by Clinton's people, which then trickled
down the food chain of the media and so on down the line, and that it ran in the face of how other
DNC officials (and heavy-hitting members of Congress) wanted to frame the debate.
Here's the text of the email from Luis Miranda, the DNC official:
Hi Amy, the Clinton rapid response operation we deal with have been asking us to disaggregate
Trump from down ballot Republicans. They basically want to make the case that you either stand
with Ryan or with Trump, that Trump is much worse than regular Republicans and they don't want
us to tie Trump to other Republicans because they think it makes him look normal.
They wanted us to basically praise Ryan when Trump was meeting Ryan, or at a minimum to
hold him up as an example. So they want to embrace the "Republicans fleeing Trump" side, but
not hold down ballot GOPers accountable.
That's a problem. I pushed back that we cannot have our state parties hold up Paul Ryan
as a good example of anything. And that we can't give down ballot Republicans such an easy
out. We can force them to own Trump and damage them more by pointing out that they're just
as bad on specific policies, make them uncomfortable where he's particularly egregious, but
asking state Parties to praise House Republicans like Ryan would be damaging for the Party
down ballot.
Can you help us navigate this with Charlie? We would basically have to throw out our entire
frame that the GOP made Trump through years of divisive and ugly politics. We would have to
say that Republicans are reasonable and that the good ones will shun Trump. It just doesn't
work from the Party side. Let me know what you think.
Thanks, – Luis.
P.S. – – that strategy would ALSO put us at odds with Schumer, Lujan, Pelosi, Reid, basically
all of our Congressional Democrats who have embraced our talking points and have been using
them beautifully over the last couple of weeks to point out that GOPers in Congress have been
pushing these ugly policies for years. Trying to dump this approach would probably not work
with Members of Congress, it's worse than turning an aircraft carrier, we would lose 3/4 of
the fleet. Let me know what you think. It might be a good strategy ONLY for Clinton (which
I don't believe), I think instead she needs as many voices as possible on the same page.
Here's Trump's actual position on immigration and the deportations. Needless to say, some will
find it plenty offensive. But it's radically different from what you've described. Were Hayden
and company trashing a Dem, they'd be roundly and rightly condemned as precisely the same a-holes
who've done so much damage over the years. But with Trump as the target, GOP clowns speak with
the authority of god. Perfect.
"... ...As for the neocons, I'm quite sure that the real reason they hate him is because they think he actually might make peace with Russia and possibly deviate from the imperial agenda in other ways. In this, I have no sympathy for them.... ..."
"... The similarities between the ways the vox crowd and vulgar Marxists view politics is really striking." ..."
"... But 50 neocons some of them war criminals did issue a statement against.. ..."
> F Foundling @ 705: In any case, [solidarity] doesn't need to be irrational or to have to
do with narcissism (as suggested in 687) any more than acting in your own personal interests needs
to be irrational or to have to do with narcissism.
Thank you for thoughtful remarks @ 705
and @694.
"Rational" and "irrational" can be a cause of great confusion. It is not some virtue I wish
to ascribe, but, rather, to my mind, a matter of gamesmanship. As a strategy, not an ethic, solidarity
is a way of committing one's self irrationally to not reconsider one's interests.
The rat, betraying solidarity, is rational and selfish and calculating. Upholding solidarity
requires an irrational ethic to trump strategic reconsideration.
There can certainly be an element of enlightened self-interest in a commitment to solidarity.
We hope this gift of the self to the community is not done stupidly or without some deliberate
consideration of consequences.
But, in the game, in the political contest where solidarity matters, where elite power is confronted,
solidarity entails a degree of passionate commitment and even self-sacrifice. Whether expressed
as an individual act of "altruistic punishment" or the common unwillingness to cooperate with
the powers-that-be in a labor strike, there has to be a willingness to bear costs and forego opportunities.
People have to be a bit mad to want justice.
bruce wilder 08.13.16 at 12:47
am
engels and others may appreciate Michael Pettis on the Trump phenomenon.
He wrote this piece
back in March and for reasons I cannot quite fathom he tried to tie in the Jacksonians - as if
Donald Trump is some faded reprint of Andrew Jackson. But, ignore the part about the Jacksonians
in American history and pay attention to what he says about his friend who is a supporter of Trump.
It will complement Doug Henwood nicely, I suspect. And, Pettis has nothing nice to say about Trump - so no fear!
...As for the neocons, I'm quite sure that the real reason they hate him is because they
think he actually might make peace with Russia and possibly deviate from the imperial agenda in
other ways. In this, I have no sympathy for them....
The reason so many foreign policy pundits ... are opposed to trump is not because of the possibility
of making peace with Russia, but because they're liberal internationalists. They support the US
led international order, think US hegemony is generally a force for good, and oppose powers and
actors which will undermine the [neo]liberal order...
Reasons someone on a middle income from an economically declining region might support trump(that
aren't racism)
Ronan(rf),
"Reasons someone on a middle income from an economically declining region might support
trump(that aren't racism)
(1) support for other institutions (military , family, religion) mentioned above.
(2) people don't vote individually but as a member of a group. Being a relatively prosperous
member of a declining demographic has psychological consequences and perceived collective responsibilities.
(3) middle income business owners are not a stable group.(socially or economically)
(4) who do you think Is voting in these regions ? The poor in the US are less likely to
vote.
The similarities between the ways the vox crowd and vulgar Marxists view politics is really
striking."
Bruce thinks narcissism can be healthy, F. Foundling thinks it is excessive by definition. I understand
it in what I think is the classical sense as a relation which is properly directed at others turned
in on the individual. 'Narcissistic solidarity' would mean something like 'standing with oneself'-a
conceptual absurdity. (I agree with the broader point that solidarity isn't inherently altruistic
and doesn't preclude self-interest though.)
"... How many ordinary Americans under the age of 40 can look in the mirror and find the stuff of not one, but two autobiographies? That certainly speaks a remarkable level of – what shall we call it? Well, probably not modesty. ..."
"... 'if you don't support O, you're David Duke in a dress' stuff. No need to dredge up the practical politics of Hope and Change at this late date. ..."
@ 668 "Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign,
according to The New Yorker. "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy
directors."
"But there's more evidence that he's batshit crazy. He declaimed that he knew more
about ISIS than all the generals. He will trust no one's judgment but his own."
So, your argument is that Obama (your Muslim socialist) should never have been trusted to be
in the Oval Office.
And that by these, your standards, Trump is no crazier than the current Democratic president.
Oh, you don't need to. That boat sailed the moment you decided to make Obama level hubris grounds
for ineligibility. Obama's 'accomplishments prior to entering the Senate in 2004 are the stuff
of legend to the clueless, of course.
How many ordinary Americans under the age of 40 can look in the mirror and find the stuff
of not one, but two autobiographies? That certainly speaks a remarkable level of – what shall
we call it? Well, probably not modesty.
My life twice – plenty for everyone like to learn from! The perfect preparation for
a great presidency. That and my love of basketball. That's what makes me so smart! Did anyone
notice I'm young, black and handsome? Ignore that, please.
And we are where we are. I've elided the 'if you don't support O, you're David Duke in
a dress' stuff. No need to dredge up the practical politics of Hope and Change at this late date.
"... "You have to start off by saying, 'I want to thank the American people, especially Monica and Gennifer Flowers," anticipated a top Clinton ally with close ties to the campaign. "Nobody who is a friend of hers is going to want to say that in debate prep." ..."
This year in particular, it's a job that nobody close to Clinton is particularly eager to take
on. "You have to start off by saying, 'I want to thank the American people, especially Monica
and Gennifer Flowers," anticipated a top Clinton ally with close ties to the campaign. "Nobody who
is a friend of hers is going to want to say that in debate prep."
... ... ...
"It's a complicated debate prep," agreed Shrum. "The Clinton challenge is to prepare for the crazy
Trump who will probably show up, some kind of toned-down Trump, and the somewhere-in-between Trump."
Trump could spend 90 minutes berating Clinton for helping to found ISIS, Democrats said, or he could
turn on the moderator and the media so that Clinton simply becomes a bystander rather than a participant.
He could even devote real time to preparation and surprise Clinton by his substance on the issues.
This is a huge danger for Hillary... Now all those materials got into the hand of hostile and
very competent prosecutors.
Notable quotes:
"... "The FBI has turned over a 'number of documents' related to their investigation of former Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email server. Committee staff is currently reviewing the information that is classified SECRET. There are no further details at this time," a spokesperson for the House Oversight Committee said on Tuesday afternoon. ..."
"... The handover of the records all but guarantees the email issue will continue to dog Clinton this election cycle, although it is unclear what Republicans can do with them, given that they are classified materials. Still, her decision to set up a private server at the State Department, and the subsequent fallout, remains a sizable self-inflicted wound for Clinton, even as Donald Trump's various missteps have found him lagging behind the Democrat in national and battleground state polls. ..."
The FBI on Tuesday handed over to Congress classified records from its investigation into Hillary
Clinton's use of a private email server, the latest development in the scandal that the Democratic
nominee just can't shake.
Among the materials turned over to Capitol Hill was an FBI summary of
the 3½-hour interview Clinton submitted to at FBI headquarters early last month, according to the
ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff of California.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee also confirmed receiving a package of records
from the FBI about the Clinton email probe.
"The FBI has turned over a 'number of documents' related to their investigation of former Secretary
Clinton's use of a personal email server. Committee staff is currently reviewing the information
that is classified SECRET. There are no further details at this time," a spokesperson for the House
Oversight Committee said on Tuesday afternoon.
The handover of the records all but guarantees the email issue will continue to dog Clinton this
election cycle, although it is unclear what Republicans can do with them, given that they are classified
materials. Still, her decision to set up a private server at the State Department, and the subsequent
fallout, remains a sizable self-inflicted wound for Clinton, even as Donald Trump's various missteps
have found him lagging behind the Democrat in national and battleground state polls.
As it sent the materials up on Tuesday, the FBI warned publicly against leaking the documents.
"The material contains classified and other sensitive information and is being provided with the
expectation it will not be disseminated or disclosed without FBI concurrence," an FBI spokesperson
said in a statement.
But top Republicans are already pushing back, urging the FBI to publicly release of some of the
information.
"On initial review, it seems that much of the material given to the Senate today, other than copies
of the large number of emails on Secretary Clinton's server containing classified information, is
marked 'unclassified/for official use.' The FBI should make as much of the material available as
possible," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in a statement. "The public's business
ought to be public, with few exceptions. The people's interest would be served in seeing the documents
that are unclassified. The FBI has made public statements in describing its handling of the case,
so sharing documents in support of those statements wherever appropriate would make sense."
Trust the crooks in Ukraine to come up with
'documentary evidence' which can be used to show Trump is really Putin's man. I wonder how
big an IMF package Hillary had to promise them? Or did she strike a deal with Porky to get Crimea
back?
In the New York Times , of course; the Democrats' FOX News. They'd like to see a home
girl win.
I disagree. And not only regarding his extraordinarily dubious periodization of US political history.
This baloney about Republicanism does not make much sense. Also since the 1963 deep state became
the dominant political force and parties and elections became more of a legitimization show. .
I see Trump more like a reaction on hardships inflicted by neoliberal globalization on the
USA common folk. So he is standard bearer of the strata of population hit by globalization, the
strata which standard of living was dropping for the last two-three decades. Professional classes
and financial oligarchy support Hillary, but blue color workers switched to Trump by large numbers.
Trade union bosses expect that 50% or more of membership will vote for Trump. That's their way
to say "f*ck you" to neoliberal establishment and so far they are saying it pretty politely, if
we do not count several recent riots (which mainly involved black population). Now the neoliberal
elite is afraid that even the slightest trigger can produce uncontrollable situation.
That's why Hillary adopted a part of Sanders platform and is now against TPP (only until November:-)
A lot of people are just fed up.
That's why neocons such as Cruze and, especially, Rubio and Jeb! were defeated by Trump, and
why only machinations of DNC allowed Hillary to be crowned over Sanders (Sanders betrayal also
played a role).
This is a situation perfect for "color revolution" (what we miss is just a capable and well
financed three letter agency of some foreign power
In other words the US elite partially lost the control of ordinary people and MSM no longer can
brainwash them with previous efficiency because after 2008 the key idea of "trickle down economy"
- that dramatically rising inequality will provide Untermensch with enough crumps from the table
of Masters of the Universe (financial oligarchy) were proven to be false.
Financial oligarchy does not want to share even crumps and decent job almost totally disappeared.
Switch to contractor jobs and outsourcing means a significant drop in standard of living for,
probably, 80-90% of population. Unemployment after university graduation is now pretty common.
While neoliberalism managed to survive the crisis of 2008 the next crisis of neoliberalism
is probably close (let's, say, can happen within the current decade). The economic plunder of
the xUSSR economic space helped to delay this crisis for a decade or more, but now this process
is by-and-large over (although Russia still is a piece of economic space to fight for - so its
dismembering or color revolution is always in cards and not only for geopolitical reasons) . Secular
stagnation does not play well with neoliberal globalization, so nationalistic movements are on
the rise in different parts of the globe, including Europe. The "plato oil" situation does not
help either. So here all bets are off.
Note an unprecedented campaign of demonization of Trump in neoliberal media and attempt to
link him to Putin, playing on pre-existing Russophobia of the population. I especially like "Khan
gambit" (essentially swiftboating of Trump) and recent campaign salivating over the "assassination
attempt" on Hillary by inflating one (unfortunate) Trump remark completely our of proportion.
And that's only the beginning.
While the MSM has gone out of its way to question every plausible unintended consequence(s)
of Donald Trump's new
"extreme" vetting for immigrants, perhaps it is worth looking at some of the current
questions the US Immigration Services asks and compare those to Trump's proposals. They may not be
that far off.
To recap, Trump proposed an ideological test of "Islamic sympathizers" to be admitted,
focusing on issues including religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights.
And while some have
questioned
the validity of a test, and whether a presumed terrorist would even be honest in said test, the
experts and political pundits should take a look at what the US currently asks individuals.
Have you ever been involved in, or do you seek to engage in, money laundering?
Are you coming to the United States to engage in prostitution or unlawful commercialized vice
or have you been engaged in prostitution or procuring prostitutes within the past 10 years?
Have you ever committed or conspired to commit a human trafficking offense in the United States
or outside the United States?
Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever
engaged in terrorist activities?
Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization?
Have you ever ordered, incited, committed, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide?
Have you ever committed, ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in torture?
Have you, while serving as a government official, been responsible for or directly carried
out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom?
Have you ever been directly involved in the coercive transplantation of human organs or bodily
tissue?
Evidently, if any of the US allies (e.g. Saudi Arabia) answered these questions honestly, they
would not be admitted to the US. But, perhaps the best question still being asked to all
immigrants is as follows:
Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist
activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were involved, in any way, in persecutions associated
with Nazi Germany or its allies?
If the US government currently engages in these and other questionings, is it that far off to
ask if you are anti gay rights, anti Semitic or pro sharia law?
The Hidden Subtext Behind Putin's Third Slovenia Visit
Putin is no stranger to the ex-Yugoslav republic of Slovenia. In fact, in June 2001, when Slovenia
was still neither an EU nor a NATO member state, it was chosen as a neutral meeting place for the
first official meeting between him and the U.S. president George W. Bush. Ironically, the meeting
took place in the Brdo Castle near Kranj, one of the long-time Communist leader Tito's summer residences.
At that time, the U.S. high level officials did everything they could to flatter Putin and get him
to accept their hegemonic geopolitical agenda for Eastern Europe, Russia, and Eurasia in general.
For instance, during the press conference that followed their two-hour long discussions, Bush stated
that he could fully trust Putin in international matters because "he's an honest, straight-forward
man who loves his country. He loves his family. We share a lot of values. I view him as a remarkable
leader. I believe his leadership will serve Russia well."[1]
But, when Putin, unlike Yeltsin, whose hand-picked successor he was, proved unwilling to play
along with the U.S. plans, his stature in the U.S. foreign policy discourse quickly deteriorated
from that of "a remarkable leader" and an honest patriot to that of a brutal dictator and even "a
thug"…
####
Read on, read on!
The UNSG bid certainly looks like part of it though I doubt anyone from the Western blocs inc.
asia would be favorable, let alone balanced towards Russia. I'm not sure that Washington is stupid
enough to pick a fight with Europe over the Balkans, but then again Washington has a long record
of their actions causing blowback to their 'allies' and saying "Tough. That's the price for riding
on our coattails."
Must only be a matter of time then, when the US government discovers that Vladimir Putin might
have met Melania Trump (even if they just brushed past each other in a matter of seconds with
both of them looking away from each other) and BINGO! – the connection between Lord Sauron
and his robot Donald Trump is finally revealed.
Thos pressitute now talking not stop and ties of Trump and Russia. I wonder when rumors about
connections of Putin and Melania surface...
Notable quotes:
"... The article, very tendentious and rambling in the Post's normal diffuse style, short on facts, continues on page A10, half page above the fold, with the banner headline across the top "Russian meddling in European politics similar to DNC hack." ..."
"... Then in the Outlook section, page B4, in the continuation of an article about conspiracy theories, there is a large, very unflattering picture of a frowning Mr. Putin, captioned "Is Russian President Vladimir Putin controlling Donald Trump ? That's one conspiracy theory floating around the 2016 campaign." ..."
"... No doubt much of this is campaign related. Russia/Putin have been elected the sticks to beat Mr. Trunp with. If it continues until the election, however, it's likely public opinion, manufactured though it is, will be receptive to military action against Russia, as Hillary and her likely advisors have hinted openly, in Syria and the Ukraine. ..."
"... WAPO's anti-Russia/Putin articles are part of this agenda: The New Cold War but this time it's different. ..."
"... "The new Cold War is even more pointless than the first. Russia was cooperating with the West, and the Russian economy was integrated into the West as a supplier of raw materials. The neoliberal economic policy that Washington convinced the Russian government to implement was designed to keep the Russian economy in the role of supplier of raw materials to the West. Russia expressed no territorial ambitions and spent very little on its military. ..."
"... The new Cold War is the work of a handful of neoconservative fanatics who believe that History has chosen the US to wield hegemonic power over the world. Some of the neocons are sons of former Trotskyists and have the same romantic notion of world revolution, only this time it is "democratic-capitalist" and not communist. The new Cold War is far more dangerous than the old, because the respective war doctrines of the nuclear powers have changed. The function of nuclear weapons is no longer retaliatory. Mutually Assured Destruction was a guarantee that the weapons would not be used. In the new war doctrine nuclear weapons have been elevated to first-use in a preemptive nuclear attack. Washington first took this step, forcing Russia and China to follow. ..."
"... Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have raised tensions dramatically ..."
"... William Perry, Secretary of Defense in the Clinton regime, recently spoke of the danger of nuclear war being launched by false alarms resulting from such things as faulty computer chips. Fortunately, when such instances occurred in the past, the absence of tension in the relationship between the nuclear powers caused authorities on both sides to disbelieve the false alarms. Today, however, with constant allegations of pending Russian invasions, Putin demonized as "the new Hitler," and the buildup of US and NATO military forces on Russia's borders, a false alarm becomes believable ..."
For those that haven't seen it, this morning's Sunday Washington Post features several prominent
anti-Russia/Putin articles. One page A1, above the fold, is the headline "Russia's tactic's roil
Europe", with subordinate headlines "INTERVENTION IN NEIGHBOR'S POLITIC'S" (all caps) and "Kremlin's
alleged role in DNC hack is similar. The article, very tendentious and rambling in the Post's normal
diffuse style, short on facts, continues on page A10, half page above the fold, with the banner headline
across the top "Russian meddling in European politics similar to DNC hack."
A large picture of Red
Square is labeled "The Kremlin is visible to the right of a women looking at her smartphone in Red
Square. Russia has tried hard in recent years tout European countries to its side bankrolling the
countries extremist political parties and working to fuel a backlash against migrants."
Below that there's a small picture of Mr. Putin, looking very worried, captioned ""President Vladimir
Putin sought to build support for his vision, favoring authoritarian leaders over democratically
elected ones." The article says essentially the same thing, in a diffuse, very rambling manner.
Then in the Outlook section, page B4, in the continuation of an article about conspiracy theories,
there is a large, very unflattering picture of a frowning Mr. Putin, captioned "Is Russian President
Vladimir Putin controlling Donald Trump ? That's one conspiracy theory floating around the 2016 campaign."
No doubt much of this is campaign related. Russia/Putin have been elected the sticks to beat
Mr. Trunp with. If it continues until the election, however, it's likely public opinion, manufactured
though it is, will be receptive to military action against Russia, as Hillary and her likely advisors
have hinted openly, in Syria and the Ukraine.
Latest Seymour Hersh on Syria and other White House lies
Can you summarize what is Turkey's role in the ceaseless clash and bloodletting in Syria?
The Erdogan government was a covert supporter of the ISIS war against the Bashar al-Assad
government in Syria for years, rearming ISIS fighters, buying seized Syrian oil from the ISIS
at discount prices, and keeping the borders between Turkey and Syria, especially in Hakkari
province, open for a steady stream of anti-Assad jihadists from around the world who wanted
to join in the war against Syria. There also is evidence that some anti-Syrian factors in the
United States have welcomed the Erdogan support or, at the least, looked away when necessary.
Erdogan's constantly expanding extremism and grab for power was ignored, more or less, by many
in the mainstream US media until early this year, and President Obama, for reasons not known,
has yet to fully share the intelligence about Erdogan's political and religious obligations
with the nation.
The irony, or tragedy, of Erdogan's move to extremism is that throughout much of the last
decade he was seen as being fully in the Ataturk tradition in Turkey -- that of a strong leader
with strong religious beliefs who made sure that his nation remained secular. That is no longer
true, as the recent coup, and Erdogan's extremist response to it, has made clear. Those called
by Erdogan to go to the street and attack the army when the coup began to fail were not fighting
in support of democracy, as widely reported at first, but as Islamists fighting a secular military.
[.] "The new Cold War is even more pointless than the first. Russia was cooperating with the
West, and the Russian economy was integrated into the West as a supplier of raw materials.
The neoliberal economic policy that Washington convinced the Russian government to implement
was designed to keep the Russian economy in the role of supplier of raw materials to the West.
Russia expressed no territorial ambitions and spent very little on its military.
The new Cold War is the work of a handful of neoconservative fanatics who believe that
History has chosen the US to wield hegemonic power over the world. Some of the neocons are
sons of former Trotskyists and have the same romantic notion of world revolution, only this
time it is "democratic-capitalist" and not communist.
The new Cold War is far more dangerous than the old, because the respective war doctrines
of the nuclear powers have changed. The function of nuclear weapons is no longer retaliatory.
Mutually Assured Destruction was a guarantee that the weapons would not be used. In the new
war doctrine nuclear weapons have been elevated to first-use in a preemptive nuclear attack.
Washington first took this step, forcing Russia and China to follow.
The new Cold War is more dangerous for a second reason. During the first Cold War American
presidents focused on reducing tensions between nuclear powers. But the Clinton, George
W. Bush, and Obama regimes have raised tensions dramatically .
William Perry, Secretary of Defense in the Clinton regime, recently spoke of the danger
of nuclear war being launched by false alarms resulting from such things as faulty computer
chips. Fortunately, when such instances occurred in the past, the absence of tension in the
relationship between the nuclear powers caused authorities on both sides to disbelieve the
false alarms. Today, however, with constant allegations of pending Russian invasions, Putin
demonized as "the new Hitler," and the buildup of US and NATO military forces on Russia's borders,
a false alarm becomes believable ."[.]
~ ~ ~ ~
It has a great deal to do with keeping the greedy MISC fed and NATO relevant. {MISC -> military
industrial surveillance companies}
Emphasis mine.
What about Hillary Clinton my friend ? What a presstitute...
Notable quotes:
"... The media are completely biased...And spread utter lies about Trump, while Hillary immediately hires Debbie wasserman Schultz after she resigned in disgrace when exposed by DNC leaks/Europeans as cheating and colluding against another candidate. ..."
"The media is like an extension of the DNC at this point. They'll intentionally misinterpret
or exaggerate anything Trump says to try to help Hillary win the election," said a 50-year-old
college professor from California.
Of all the risible, most easily shucked off charges, this one takes the toupee. You cannot misinterpret
or exaggerate this:
"Barack Hussein Obama is the creator of ISIS. I mean...he's the literal inventor of ISIS."
Let that treasonous libel stand for the innumerable times Trump has demonstrated that he's a mental
dwarf, a vicious idiot, an unhinged loon. And that's calling it like it is, on his
express terms.
This man belongs in one of two cells: a padded one where he can be safe from his own mental
illnesses or a prison one for his financial shenanigans, death threats against others, incitement
to violence, "cruel and inhumane" abuse of his first wife (the actual charges that stuck, the
rape ones were retracted) and treason. I guess money really can buy anything.
But hell, I'd settle for seeing him safely ensconced in his own Towers. Anywhere but the White
House.
Thete's a certain sort of university-educated, somewhat cosmopolitan person, who probably places
a premium on rationality and an expectation that the world works in reasonably orderly manner.
And they're not just on the left. They read the newspaper - the Guardian or the Telegraph or the
New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. They plan their careers and their retirements.
And they cannot CONCEIVE of how Trump supporters (or many Brexit supporters) see the world.
They don't get it; they can't wrap their heads around the anger and resentment. And they can't
believe that that there are tens of MILLIONS of people like that. All of whom will vote.
Just as we've seen with recent mass shootings, the rational cannot process the IRrational.
'. . . he was trying to be distasteful/politically incorrect as usual, which is why I will
vote for the man. PC has ventured into thought policing on things, and along with the ultra
surveillance state we have moved towards, I don't want to be answering questions by the Gestapo
after I text a tacky joke to someone.'
This amazes me. It shouldn't, as it seems to be a commonly-held sentiment even here, but it
amazes me that people like this feel they have such a strong need to say "tacky" - or, more realistically,
racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic - things that somehow they stand no chance of being able
to continue saying unless an unhinged 70-year old man who is widely denounced for being
disreputable is elected to represent them. It just does not add up as a pile of emotions, let
alone as part of a political platform. This guy also seems to have such a poor grasp of history
and a hysteric sense of melodrama as to believe that someone who criticizes him for making "a
tacky joke" (or possibly just makes him feel awkward for having done so?) is the equivalent of
"the Gestapo." He's more melodramatic about the reception his jokes might receive than a maladjusted
teen who acts out in class.
I'm a former Democrat...And I'm voting for trump. Hillary Clinton is one of the most blatantly
corrupt politician I have ever seen.
The media are completely biased...And spread utter lies about Trump, while Hillary immediately
hires Debbie wasserman Schultz after she resigned in disgrace when exposed by DNC leaks/Europeans
as cheating and colluding against another candidate.
Hillary didn't address this disgusting, illegal, unethical behavior , but she rewards and condones
cheating voters with a JOB.
A good reason to vote for Trump, a very good reason whatever his other
intentions, is that he
does not want a war with Russia.
Hillary and her elite ventriloquists
threaten just that. Note the anti-Russian hysteria coming from her and her
remoras.
Such a war would be yet another example of the utter control of
America by rich insiders. No normal American has anything at all to gain by
such a war. And no normal American has the slightest influence over whether
such a war takes place, except by voting for Trump. The military has become
entirely the plaything of unaccountable elites.
A martial principle of great wisdom says that military stupidity comes in
three grades: Ordinarily stupid; really, really,
really
stupid; and
fighting Russia. Think Charles XII at Poltava, Napoleon after Borodino, Adolf
and Kursk.
Letting dilettantes, grifters, con men, pasty Neocons, bottle-blonde ruins,
and corporations decide on war is insane. We have pseudo-masculine dwarves
playing with things they do not understand. So far as I am aware, none of these
fern-bar Clausewitzes has worn boots, been in a war, seen a war, or faces any
chance of being in a war started by themselves. They brought us Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Isis, and can't win wars against goatherds with AKs. They are
going to fight…Russia?
A point that the tofu ferocities of New York might bear in mind is that wars
seldom turn out as expected, usually with godawful results. We do not know what
would happen in a war with Russia. Permit me a tedious catalog to make this
point. It is very worth making.
When Washington pushed the South into the Civil War, it expected a conflict
that might be over in twenty-four hours, not four years with as least 650,000
dead. When Germany began WWI, it expected a swift lunge into Paris, not four
years of hideously bloody static war followed by unconditional surrender. When
the Japanese Army pushed for attacking Pearl, it did not foresee GIs marching
in Tokyo and a couple of cities glowing at night. When Hitler invaded Poland,
utter defeat and occupation of Germany was not among his war aims. When the US
invaded Vietnam, it did not expect to be outfought and outsmarted by a
bush-world country. When Russia invaded Afghanistan it did not expect…nor when
America invaded Afghanistan, nor when it attacked Iraq, nor….
Is there a pattern here?
The standard American approach to war is to underestimate the enemy,
overestimate American capacities, and misunderstand the kind of war it enters.
This is particularly true when the war is a manhood ritual for masculine
inadequates–think Kristol, Podhoretz, Sanders, the whole Neocon milk bar, and
that mendacious wreck, Hillary, who has the military grasp of a Shetland pony.
If you don't think weak egos and perpetual adolescence have a part in deciding
policy, read up on Kaiser Wilhelm.
Now, if Washington accidentally or otherwise provoked a war with Russia in,
say, the Baltics or the Ukraine, and actually used its own forces, where might
this lead, given the Pentagon's customary delusional optimism? A very serious
possibility is a humiliating American defeat. The US has not faced a real enemy
in a long time. In that time the armed forces have been feminized and
social-justice warriorified, with countless officials having been appointed by
Obama for reasons of race and sex. Training has been watered down to benefit
girl soldiers, physical standards lowered, and the ranks of general officers
filled with perfumed political princes. Russia is right there at the Baltic
borders: location, location, location. Somebody said, "Amateurs think strategy,
professionals think logistics." Uh-huh. The Russians are not pansies and they
are not primitive.
What would Washington do, what would New York make Washington do, having
been handed its ass in a very public defeat? Huge egos would be in play, the
credibility of the whole American empire. Could little Hillary Dillary Pumpkin
Pie force NATO into a general war with Russia, or would the Neocons try to go
it alone–with other people's lives? (Russia also has borders with Eastern
Europe, which connects to Western Europe. Do you suppose the Europeans would
think of this?) Would Washington undertake, or try to undertake, the national
mobilization that would be necessary to fight Russia in its backyard? Naval
war? Nukes in desperation?
And, since Russia is not going to invade anybody unprovoked, Washington
would have to attack. See above, the three forms of military stupidity.
The same danger exists incidentally with regard to a war with China in the
South China Sea. The American Navy hasn't fought a war in seventy years. It
doesn't know how well its armament works. The Chinese, who are not fools, have
invested in weaponry specifically designed to defeat carrier battle groups. A
carrier in smoking ruins would force Washington to start a wider war to save
face, with unpredictable results. Can you name one American, other than the
elites, who has anything to gain from war with China?
What has
any
normal American, as distinct from the elites and
various lobbies, gained from any of our wars post Nine-Eleven? Hillary and her
Neocon pack have backed all of them.
It is easy to regard countries as suprahuman beings that think and take
decisions and do things. Practically speaking, countries consist of a small
number of people, usually men, who make decisions for reasons often selfish,
pathologically aggressive, pecuniary, delusional, misinformed, or actually
psychopathic in the psychiatric sense. For example, the invasion of Iraq, a
disaster, was pushed by the petroleum lobbies to get the oil, the arms lobbies
to get contracts, the Jewish lobbies to get bombs dropped on Israel's enemies,
the imperialists for empire, and the congenitally combative because that is how
they think. Do you see anything in the foregoing that would matter to a normal
American? These do not add up to a well-conceived policy. Considerations no
better drive the desire to fight Russia or to force it to back down.
I note, pointlessly, that probably none of America's recent
martial catastrophes would have occurred if we still had
constitutional government. How many congressmen do you think
would vote for a declaration of war if they had to tell their
voters that they had just launched, for no reason of
importance to Americans, an attack on the homeland of a
nuclear power?
There are lots of reasons not to vote for
Clinton and the suppurating corruption she represents. Not
letting her owners play with matches rates high among them
"... After Clinton recognized that even her strongest supporters doubted her statement, she attempted to walk it back. In doing so, she repeatedly lied again, but offered as an excuse a bizarre claim that she had "short-circuited" her answer. ..."
"... Who knows what that means? She claimed that she and Wallace were talking over each other and her answer had been misunderstood and misconstrued. Yet, Clinton said that Comey exonerated her as being "truthful" to the public when in fact he stated that she had been truthful during her three-hour, closed-door, unrecorded interview with the FBI. ..."
"... Could Clinton have legally received, opened, stored or sent a secret or top secret email without knowing it, as she has claimed? In a word: NO. ..."
"... That's because, on her first day in office, Clinton swore under oath that she recognized her legal obligation to recognize state secrets and treat them according to law - that is, to keep them in a secure government venue - whether they are marked as secrets or not. ..."
"... Last Sunday, Iran executed a scientist who sold Iranian nuclear secrets to the U.S. The secrets were eventually passed on to Secretary of State John Kerry for his use during the negotiations that led to the recent U.S.-Iran nuclear accord. But the sale of the secrets and the U.S.'s payments for them (several million dollars) were consummated under then-Secretary Clinton's watch. The scientist was lured back to Iran, fearing harm to his family. Upon his return, he was arrested, tried and convicted of treason. ..."
When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked last week if she has misled the American
people on the issue of her failure to safeguard state secrets contained in her emails, she told my
Fox News colleague, Chris Wallace, that the FBI had exonerated her. When pressed by Wallace, she
argued that FBI Director James Comey said that her answers to the American people were truthful.
After Clinton recognized that even her strongest supporters doubted her statement, she attempted
to walk it back. In doing so, she repeatedly lied again, but offered as an excuse a bizarre claim
that she had "short-circuited" her answer.
Who knows what that means? She claimed that she and Wallace were talking over each other and her
answer had been misunderstood and misconstrued. Yet, Clinton said that Comey exonerated her as being
"truthful" to the public when in fact he stated that she had been truthful during her three-hour,
closed-door, unrecorded interview with the FBI.
Clinton told a group of largely pro-Clinton journalists that she had short-circuited her remarks.
Then, she acknowledged that Comey had only referred to whatever she told the FBI as being truthful.
Then, she lied again, by insisting that she told the FBI the same things she has told the press and
the public since this scandal erupted in March 2015.
But that cannot be so, because she has issued a litany of lies to the press and to the public,
which the FBI would have caught. In her so-called clarifying remarks, she again told journalists
her oft-stated lie about returning all work-related emails to the State Department. She could not
have told that to the FBI because Director Comey revealed in July that the FBI found "thousands"
of unreturned work-related emails on her servers, some of which she attempted to destroy.
On the state secrets issue, she has told the public countless times that she never sent or received
anything marked classified. She could not have said that to the FBI, because even a novice FBI agent
would have recognized such a statement as a trick answer. Nothing is marked "classified." The markings
used by the federal government are "confidential" or "secret" or "top secret." When Director Comey
announced last month that the FBI was recommending against indictment, he revealed nevertheless that
his agents found 110 emails in 52 email threads containing materials that were confidential, secret
or top secret.
The agents also found seven email chains on her servers that were select access privilege, or
SAP. SAP emails cannot be received, opened or sent without knowing what they are, as a special alphanumeric
code, one that changes continually, must be requested and employed in order to do so. SAP is so secret
that the FBI agents investigating Clinton lacked access to the code.
Could Clinton have legally received, opened, stored or sent a secret or top secret email without
knowing it, as she has claimed? In a word: NO.
That's because, on her first day in office, Clinton swore under oath that she recognized her
legal obligation to recognize state secrets and treat them according to law - that is, to keep them
in a secure government venue - whether they are marked as secrets or not.
This past weekend, we learned how deadly the consequences of Clinton's failure to secure secrets
can be.
Last Sunday, Iran executed a scientist who sold Iranian nuclear secrets to the U.S. The secrets
were eventually passed on to Secretary of State John Kerry for his use during the negotiations that
led to the recent U.S.-Iran nuclear accord. But the sale of the secrets and the U.S.'s payments for
them (several million dollars) were consummated under then-Secretary Clinton's watch. The scientist
was lured back to Iran, fearing harm to his family. Upon his return, he was arrested, tried and convicted
of treason.
One email sent to Clinton, from Richard Morningstar, a former State Department special envoy for
Eurasian energy, referred to this scientist as "our friend." The fact that Clinton's aides referenced
this spying scientist as "our friend" shows a conscious awareness of their duty to hide and secure
state secrets - his name and what he had done for the U.S. Yet, at the same time, Clinton put these
state secrets at risk by having them sent to her via her nonsecure home servers. This "our friend"
email was a top-secret email, which Clinton failed to keep secure. It was either one of the 110 that
the FBI found on her servers or one of the work-related emails she did surrender.
Could this email have been used as evidence in the treason trial of the now-executed scientist?
That is not an academic question. Most of the intelligence community seriously mistrusts Clinton,
as her recklessness has jeopardized their work. Some feared that many of their undercover colleagues
were compromised or even killed due to Clinton's emails.
Hillary Rodham Clinton has established a clear and unambiguous record of deception. Her deceptions
are not about the time of day or the day of the week; they are about matters material to her former
job as Secretary of State and material to national security.
Do you know any rational person who continues to trust her?
Copyright 2016 Andrew P. Napolitano.
Distributed by Creators.com.
If the lamestream media were not fully in the bag for the harpy,
questions would be being asked about the mysterious death of the man whom
Assange says was the leaker to wikileaks of the Democratic National
Committee emails. Others have noted that several other people have died
mysteriously during the last few weeks including a UN figure who died from a
suspicous home weightlifting accident and an anti-Clinton researcher who
unexpectedly committed "suicide."
The Libya thing is still on record as a war crime and the fact is
indisputable that Clinton was the spearhead who convinced Obama, who has
indicated it was against his better judgment, to carry through on the
overthrow. Meanwhile, we have on record Clinton's barbaric gloat, "we came,
we saw, he died" with a horror movie type cackle. Also on record is the fact
that the jihadi element Clinton sponsored in the overthrow effort committed
a crime against humanity, a mass liquidation of Sub-saharan Africans
Khaddafi had settled in the city of Sirte in the wake of their seizure of
that city. It has been documented again in an article in this week's
blackagendareport by their regular reporter, Danny Haiphong.
Of course Trump is accused based on an ambiguous off-the-cuff comment he
made about 2nd amendment rights that he suggested violence against the
harpy. The media's cashing in on this issues makes relevant the harpy's own
statement in July, 2008 when she had been beaten by Obama but before the
convention which would confirm that defeat, that she was staying in the race
in case a "Robert Kennedy" incident occurs. This is a much more unambiguous
statement which could be construed as hoping for something favorable. Her
status as a major party candidate is a disgrace, particularly now that the
wikileaks disclosures have revealed the fraud engaged in to secure it.
Sanders, meanwhile, appears craven in light of these new disclosures. If she
triumphs, the last shreds of legitimacy will be gone from the yankee
imperium.
state secrets – just the words give me the creeps. reminds of police
states. state secrets keep the people, the employers of the united states
government, in the dark. criminal regimes everywhere flourish without
sunlight. states secrets are used as a cya tactic, as well. if the citizens
don't know what their government does, they can't object. we, the people,
are kept ignorant, which allows corruption to proliferate and produce people
like bill & hillary clinton.
hillary lied to congress, didn't she? why isn't she prosecuted?
donald trump is a braggart who lies so often and so much, the mind reels.
hillary clinton is a serial prevaricator, part-time criminal, thoroughly
corrupt, massively entitled, political hack who should have been yesterday's
news 25 years ago.
trump or clinton.
try not to cry.
"... WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington last month had been targeted because the operative was an informant. ..."
"... In an interview on Dutch television, the Australian cyberactivist invoked the unsolved killing of Seth Rich, 27, earlier this summer to illustrate the risks of being a source for his organization. Citing WikiLeaks protocol, Assange refused to confirm whether or not Rich was in fact a source for WikiLeaks, which has released thousands of internal DNC emails, some of them politically embarrassing. Experts and U.S. government officials reportedly believe that hackers linked to the Russian government infiltrated the DNC and gave the email trove to WikiLeaks. ..."
"... The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington has not established a motive for the killing but reportedly told the young man's family that he likely died during a robbery attempt turned tragic. His father, however, told Omaha CBS-affiliate KMTV he did not think it was a robbery because nothing was stolen: his watch, money, credit cards and phone were still with him. ..."
"... The WikiLeaks founder said that others have suggested that Rich was killed for political reasons and that his organization is investigating the incident. ..."
"... "I think it is a concerning situation. There isn't a conclusion yet. We wouldn't be able to state a conclusion, but we are concerned about it," he continued. "More importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens." ..."
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the
Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington
last month had been targeted because the operative was an informant.
In an interview on Dutch television, the Australian cyberactivist invoked
the unsolved killing of Seth Rich, 27, earlier this summer to illustrate the
risks of being a source for his organization.
Citing WikiLeaks protocol, Assange refused to confirm whether or not Rich
was in fact a source for WikiLeaks, which has released thousands of internal
DNC emails, some of them politically embarrassing. Experts and U.S. government
officials reportedly believe that hackers linked to the Russian government infiltrated
the DNC and gave the email trove to WikiLeaks.
But Assange was apparently interested in hinting about an even darker theory.
"Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often very
significant risks. There's a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, who was shot in
the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking
down the street in Washington," Assange said on Nieuwsuur. BuzzFeed drew more
attention to the interview in the U.S.
Somewhat startled, news anchor Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal said, "That was
just a robbery, I believe - wasn't it?"
"No, there's no finding," Assange responded. "I'm suggesting that our sources
take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."
"Why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?"
van Rosenthal asked.
"Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States,"
Assange said, "and that our sources face serious risks. That's why they come
to us, so we can protect their anonymity."
The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington has not established a motive
for the killing but reportedly told the young man's family that he likely died
during a robbery attempt turned tragic. His father, however, told Omaha CBS-affiliate
KMTV he did not think it was a robbery because nothing was stolen: his watch,
money, credit cards and phone were still with him.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the Democratic
National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington last
month had been targeted because the operative was an informant.
In an interview on Dutch television, the Australian cyberactivist invoked
the unsolved killing of Seth Rich, 27, earlier this summer to illustrate the
risks of being a source for his organization.
Citing WikiLeaks protocol, Assange refused to confirm whether or not Rich
was in fact a source for WikiLeaks, which has released thousands of internal
DNC emails, some of them politically embarrassing. Experts and U.S. government
officials reportedly believe that hackers linked to the Russian government infiltrated
the DNC and gave the email trove to WikiLeaks.
But Assange was apparently interested in hinting about an even darker theory.
"Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often very
significant risks. There's a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, who was shot in
the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking
down the street in Washington," Assange said on Nieuwsuur. BuzzFeed drew more
attention to the interview in the U.S.
Somewhat startled, news anchor Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal said, "That was
just a robbery, I believe - wasn't it?"
"No, there's no finding," Assange responded. "I'm suggesting that our sources
take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."
"Why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?"
van Rosenthal asked.
"Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States,"
Assange said, "and that our sources face serious risks. That's why they come
to us, so we can protect their anonymity."
The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington has not established
a motive for the killing but reportedly told the young man's family that he
likely died during a robbery attempt turned tragic. His father, however, told
Omaha CBS-affiliate KMTV he did not think it was a robbery because nothing was
stolen: his watch, money, credit cards and phone were still with him.
The WikiLeaks founder said that others have suggested that Rich was killed
for political reasons and that his organization is investigating the incident.
"I think it is a concerning situation. There isn't a conclusion yet.
We wouldn't be able to state a conclusion, but we are concerned about it," he
continued. "More importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when
that kind of thing happens."
WikiLeaks further fanned the flames of conspiracy by offering a $20,000 reward
for anyone with information leading to the conviction of the person responsible
for killing Rich.
"... As prospects for peace appear dim in places like the Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan and now with a renewed bombing of Libya, the President of the United States (and his heiress apparent) continue to display an alarming lack of understanding of the responsibilities as the nation's highest elected officer. As has been unsuccessfully litigated, Article II of the Constitution does not give the President right to start war; only Congress is granted that authority (See Article I, Section 8). ..."
"... Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. ..."
As prospects for peace appear dim in places like the Ukraine, Syria, Yemen,
Iraq and Afghanistan and now with a renewed bombing of Libya, the President
of the United States (and his heiress apparent) continue to display an alarming
lack of understanding of the responsibilities as the nation's highest elected
officer. As has been unsuccessfully litigated, Article II of the Constitution
does not give the President right to start war; only Congress is granted
that authority (See Article I, Section 8).
So for the nation's Chief
Executive Officer to willy-nilly arbitrarily decide to bomb here and bomb there
and bomb everywhere in violation of the Constitution might be sufficient standard
for that CEO to be regarded as a war criminal.
Surely, consistently upping
the stakes with a strong US/NATO military presence in the Baltics with the US
Navy regularly cruising the Black and Baltic Seas, accompanied by a steady stream
of confrontational language and picking a fight with a nuclear-armed Russia
may not be the best way to achieve peace.
In 1980, there was strong opinion among liberals that Ronald Reagan was close
to, if not a direct descendant of the Neanderthals and that he stood for everything
that Democrats opposed – and his eight years in office confirmed much of that
sentiment. In those days, many lefties believed that the Democrats were still
the party of FDR and JFK but today, the undeniable illusion is that the Dems
are now the party of war and big money and not the political party some of us
signed up for as new voters.
Ronald Reagan (R) was elected President as an ardent anti-communist who routinely
referred to Russia as the 'evil empire', a fierce free market proponent of balanced
budgets who in two terms in office never balanced a budget, a President who
dramatically slashed domestic social programs even though his family benefited
from FDR's New Deal and whose foreign policy strategy was to 'build-up to
build-down' (a $44 billion.20% increase in one year , 1982-1983) so as to
force the Russians to the table. Reagan, who was ready to engage in extensive
personal diplomacy, was an unlikely peacemaker yet he achieved an historic accomplishment
in the nuclear arms race that is especially relevant today as NATO/US are reintroducing
nuclear weapons into eastern Europe.
After having ascended to the USSR's top leadership position in March, 1985,
an intelligent and assertive Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev was
eager to improve relations with the United States but thought Reagan a "political
dinosaur" who was regarded by much of the American public as a 'trigger-happy
cowboy".
Even before the American President and Russian leader met, NATO ministers
in 1979 had unanimously adopted a strategy that included arms control
negotiations and a modernization of its current missile system as Russia deployed
its updated, most lethal generation of the
SS 20 Saber missiles. With an improved maximum range, an increased area
covered by multiple warheads and a more improved accuracy than earlier versions,
it was a missile that could easily reach western Europe with terrifying results.
As formal talks began between the US, Russia and NATO in 1981, massive anti
nuclear weapon demonstrations were taking place in the US and Europe adding
a political urgency for both countries to initiate discussions.
At that time, Reagan announced a proposal to abandon the Pershing I missiles
in exchange for elimination of the SS 20 which Gorbachev rejected.
By 1983,
the Soviets walked out and there were no talks in 1984 until a resumption in
March, 1985. US Secretary of State George Shultz had continued to meet with
Russian Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin since 1983. Shultz suggested that the
President meet with Dobrynin who had expressed his frustration to Shultz that
they were not dealing with the 'big
issues" and was rumored to be leaving his diplomatic post due to the Americans
unwillingness to negotiate. Two weeks earlier Russian Foreign Minister Andrei
Gromyko had publicly suggested a summit between the two nuclear power countries.
According to published reports at the time, while most of the White House
staff opposed the Dobrynin meeting, Reagan gave Shultz the green light.
By the time Reagan first met Gorbachev in
1985 in Geneva, the President was already driven by a deep instinctive fear
that modern civilization was on the brink of a biblical nuclear Armageddon that
could end the human race.
According to Jack Matlock who served as Reagan's senior policy coordinator
for Russia and later US Ambassador to Russia in his book, "Reagan
and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended,"one of Reagan's pre-meeting
notes to himself read "avoid any demand for regime change." From the beginning,
one of Reagan's goals was to establish a relationship that would be able to
overcome whatever obstacles or conflicts may arise with the goal of preventing
a thermonuclear war.
The meeting began with a traditional oval table diplomatic dialogue with
Reagan, who had no foreign policy experience, lecturing on the failings of the
"despised" Russian system and support for the SDI (Star Wars) program. Gorbachev,
who arrived looking like a spy complete with KGB-issue hat and overcoat, responded
by standing up to Reagan ("you are not a prosecutor and I am not the accused")
and was visibly irritated "why do you repeat the same thing (on the SDI); stop
this rubbish."
After a lengthy personal, private conversation, it became obvious that the
two men had struck a
cord of mutual respect with Reagan recognizing that the youthful articulate
Gorbachev was not the out- moded Politburo politician of his predecessors. At
the conclusion of Geneva, a shared trust necessary to begin sober negotiations
to ban nuclear weapons had been established. Both were well aware that the consequences
of nuclear war would be a devastation to mankind, the world's greatest environmental
disaster. At the end of their Geneva meeting, Reagan and Gorbachev agreed that
"nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."
During their October, 1986
Reykjavik meeting, the real possibility of a permanent, forever ban on all
nuclear weapons appeared possible until Gorbachev insisted on the elimination
of SDI's (Star Wars) from the final agreement and Reagan walked away. Gorbachev
relented; saving the potential long range treaty from failure and ultimately,
the SDI sunk under the weight of its own impossibility. While the summit ended
with measured progress, Reagan's stubbornness on SDI represented a significant
lost opportunity that would never come again.
In April, 1987 with Secretary Shultz in Moscow, Gorbachev proposed the elimination
of U.S. and Soviet shorter-range missiles and by June, NATO foreign ministers
announced support for the global elimination of all U.S. and Soviet intermediate-range
and shorter-range missile systems. In June, all the participating parties were
in agreement as Reagan agreed to eliminate all U.S. and Soviet shorter-range
missile systems.
As high level negotiations continued, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl added
icing to the cake, in August, 1987 by announcing that Germany, on its own, would
dismantle all of its 72
Pershing I missiles that Reagan-Gorbachev had earlier been unable to eliminate.
In December of 1987, Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev arrived in
Washington DC to sign the bilateral
Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces (including Short Range Missiles) known as the INF Treaty.
The Treaty eliminated 2,611 ground launched ballistic and cruise missile systems
with a range of between 500 and 5500 kilometers (310 -3,400 miles). Paris is
2,837 (1,762 miles) kilometers from Moscow.
In May 1988, the INF Treaty was
ratified by the US Senate in a surprising vote of 93 – 5 (four Republicans
and one Democrat opposed) and by May, 1991, all Pershing I missiles in Europe
had been dismantled. Verification of Compliance of the INF Treaty, delayed because
of the USSR breakup, was completed in December, 2001.
At an outdoor press briefing during their last meeting together and after
the INF was implemented, Reagan put his arm around Gorbachev. A reporter asked
if he still believed in the 'evil empire' and Reagan answered 'no." When asked
why, he replied "I was talking about another time, another era."
After the INF Treaty was implemented,
right wing opponents and columnists like George Will attacked Reagan as
a pawn for "Soviet propaganda" and being an "apologist for Gorbachev."
Some things never change.
Whether the Treaty could have been more far-reaching is questionable given
what we now know of Reagan's mental deterioration and yet despite their differences,
there is no indication that during the six year effort the two men treated each
other with anything other than esteem and courtesy.
In 1990, Secretary General Mikhail Gorbachev won the Nobel Peace Prize while
President Reagan, largely credited with ending the Cold War and bringing nuclear
stability to the world and back from a nuclear confrontation, was not nominated.
As the current US President and Nobel Peace Prize winner prepares to leave
office with a record of a Tuesday morning kill list, unconscionable drone attacks
on civilians, initiating bombing campaigns where there were none prior to his
election and, of course, taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin with unsubstantiated
allegations, the US-backed NATO has scheduled
AEGIS
anti ballistic missile shields to be constructed in Romania and Poland, challenging
the integrity of
INF Treaty for the first time in almost thirty years.
In what may shed new light on NATO/US build-up in eastern Europe, Russian
Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov
denied US charges in June, 2015 that Russia had violated the Treaty and
that the US had "failed to provide evidence of Russian breaches." Commenting
on US plans to deploy land-based missiles in Europe as a possible response to
the alleged "Russian aggression" in the Ukraine, Lavrov warned that ''building
up militarist rhetoric is absolutely counterproductive and harmful.' Russian
Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov suggested the United States was leveling
accusations against Russia in order to justify its own military plans.
In early August, the US Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security
Administration authorized the final development phase (prior to actual production
in 2020) of the
B61-21 nuclear bomb at a cost of $350 – $450 billion. A
thermonuclear weapon with the capability of reaching Europe and Moscow,
the B61-21 is part of President Obama's
$1 trillion request for modernizing the US aging and outdated nuclear weapon
arsenal.
Renee Parsons has been a
member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU
Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado,
an environmental lobbyist and staff member of the US House of Representatives
in Washington DC.
This is the first class analysis. Bravo Ted !!! It's sad that I found it only today. Deep insights
into what Khan gambit means. Bravo !
Notable quotes:
"... A week ago corporate media gatekeepers managed to transform the Democratic National Committee
internal emails released by WikiLeaks from what it really was – scandalous proof that Bernie Sanders
and his supporters were right when they said the Democratic leadership was biased and had rigged the
primaries against them ..."
"... Hillary's vote for an illegal war of choice that was sold with lies, was a major contributing
factor to the death of Captain Khan, thousands of his comrades, and over a million Iraqis. Iraq should
be a major issue in this campaign - against her. ..."
"... Instead, it's being used by his parents and the Democratic Party to bait Donald Trump into
a retro-post-9/11 "Support Our Troops" militaristic trap. Khan, you see, was " defending his country
." ..."
"... (How anyone can say U.S. soldiers in Iraq, part of an invasion force thousands of miles away
where no one threatens the United States, are "defending" the U.S. remains a long-running linguistic
mystery.) ..."
"... "Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son 'the best of America,'" Khizr Khan told the
convention. Unfortunately, the moniker can't apply to once-and-possible-future-first-daughter Chelsea
Clinton, who never considered a military career before collecting $600,000 a year from NBC News for
essentially a no-show job. But anyway… ..."
"... "If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America," Khizr Khan continued.
The cognitive dissonance makes my head spin. ..."
"... "Let me ask you: Have you even read the U.S. Constitution?" asked Khizr, who is originally
from Pakistan ..."
"... A good question. While we're at it, however, where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that
the president can send troops overseas for years at a time without a formal congressional declaration
of war? Where does it say that the United States can attack foreign countries that have done it no harm
and have never threatened it? ..."
"... As you'd expect Trump, he of little impulse control, has handled this about as poorly as possible.
Asked about Khizr Khan's remark that Trump hasn't made any sacrifices, he idiotically attempted to compare
his business dealings with the death of a son. Still, you have to grudgingly admire Trump for fighting
back against a guy you are officially not allowed to say anything mean about. ..."
"... Democrats have successfully appropriated images of patriotism and "optimism" – scare quotes
because this is not the kind of actual optimism in which you think things are going to actually get
better, but the bizarro variety in which you accept that things will really never get better so you'd
might as well accept the status quo – from the Republicans. This is part of Hillary Clinton's strategy
of taking liberal Democrats for granted while trying to seduce Republicans away from Trump. ..."
"... The Khan episode marks a high water mark for post-9/11 knee-jerk militarism. Even the "liberal"
party whose sitting incumbent two-term president captured the White House by running against the Iraq
war demands that everyone fall to their knees in order to pay homage to the "good" Muslims - those willing
to go to the Middle East to kill bad ones. ..."
"... Next time you see a panel of experts discussing a foreign crisis, pay attention: does anyone
argue against intervention? No. The debate is always between going in light and going in hard: bombs,
or "boots on the ground." Not getting involved is never an option. As long as this militaristic approach
to the world continues, the United States will never have enough money to take care of its problems
here at home, and it will always be hated around the world. ..."
"... Most Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake . Who speaks for us? No one in the media.
And no one in mainstream politics. ..."
"... Trump's proposal to ban Muslims can't possibly be racist because Muslims are not a race. If
the US were to ban European devotees of a white supremacist pagan cult - such cults do exist, and the
US has every right to ban its devotees if it so chooses - nobody would bat an eye. ..."
"... The vote to authorize the war in Iraq was in 2002. Khan's DNC speech was 14 years later (and
12 years after his son was killed), not 8 years later. ..."
"... "The rest of us who makes heroes of our dead…" "Perpetuate war by exalting sacrifice…" ..."
"... "Most Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake. Who speaks for us? No one in the media.
And no one in mainstream politics." The last sentence is incorrect. Donald Trump repeatedly said the
war was a mistake, even at times when it could have landed him in serious trouble. ..."
A week ago corporate media gatekeepers managed to transform the Democratic National Committee
internal emails released by WikiLeaks from what it really was – scandalous proof that Bernie Sanders
and his supporters were right when they said the Democratic leadership was biased and had rigged
the primaries against them, and that the system is corrupt – into a trivial side issue over
who might be responsible for hiking the DNC computers. Who cares if it was Russia? It's the content
that matters, not that it was ever seriously discussed.
Now here we go again.
Hillary's vote for an illegal war of choice that was sold with lies, was a major contributing
factor to the death of Captain Khan, thousands of his comrades, and over a million Iraqis. Iraq should
be a major issue in this campaign - against her.
Instead, it's being used by his parents and the Democratic Party to bait Donald Trump into
a retro-post-9/11 "Support Our Troops" militaristic trap. Khan, you see, was "defending
his country."(How anyone can say U.S. soldiers in Iraq, part of an invasion force thousands
of miles away where no one threatens the United States, are "defending" the U.S. remains a long-running
linguistic mystery.)
"Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son 'the best of America,'" Khizr Khan
told the convention. Unfortunately, the moniker can't apply to once-and-possible-future-first-daughter
Chelsea Clinton, who never considered a military career before collecting
$600,000 a year from NBC News for essentially a no-show job. But anyway…
"If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America," Khizr Khan continued.
The cognitive dissonance makes my head spin. Obviously, Trump's proposal to ban Muslims is racist
and disgusting. Ironically, however, it would have saved at least one life. If it was up to Donald
Trump, the Khans would still be in the United Arab Emirates. Humayan would still be alive. As would
any Iraqis he killed.
"Let me ask you: Have you even read the US Constitution?" asked Khizr, who is originally from
Pakistan. "I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words 'liberty' and
'equal protection of law." A good question. While we're at it, however, where does it say in
the U.S. Constitution that the president can send troops overseas for years at a time without a formal
congressional declaration of war? Where does it say that the United States can attack foreign countries
that have done it no harm and have never threatened it?
As you'd expect Trump, he of little impulse control, has handled this about as poorly as possible.
Asked about Khizr Khan's remark that Trump hasn't made any sacrifices, he
idiotically attempted to compare his business dealings with the death of a son. Still, you have
to grudgingly admire Trump for fighting back against a guy you are officially not allowed to say
anything mean about.
It has been widely remarked, always approvingly, that this year's Democrats have successfully
appropriated images of patriotism and "optimism" – scare quotes because this is not the kind
of actual optimism in which you think things are going to actually get better, but the bizarro variety
in which you accept that things will really never get better so you'd might as well accept the status
quo – from the Republicans. This is part of
Hillary Clinton's strategy of taking liberal Democrats for granted while trying to seduce Republicans
away from Trump.
The Khan episode marks a high water mark for post-9/11 knee-jerk militarism. Even the "liberal"
party whose sitting incumbent two-term president captured the White House by running against the
Iraq war demands that everyone fall to their knees in order to pay homage to the "good" Muslims -
those willing to go to the Middle East to kill bad ones.
Next time you see a panel of experts discussing a foreign crisis, pay attention: does anyone
argue against intervention? No. The debate is always between going in light and going in hard: bombs,
or "boots on the ground." Not getting involved is never an option. As long as this militaristic approach
to the world continues, the United States will never have enough money to take care of its problems
here at home, and it will always be
hated around the world.
Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for
ANewDomain.net,is the author of the book "Snowden,"
the biography of the NSA whistleblower.
Fidelios Automata, August 3, 2016 at 7:24
pm GMT • 100 Words
Trump's proposal to ban Muslims can't possibly be racist because Muslims are not a race.
If the US were to ban European devotees of a white supremacist pagan cult - such cults do exist,
and the US has every right to ban its devotees if it so chooses - nobody would bat an eye.
The First Amendment says that the government may not infringe in Americans' religious choices;
it says nothing about foreigners. If it did, it would be illegal for the US to give aid to Israel,
Saudi Arabia, and any other nation that discriminates by religion.
Dave Pinsen, August 5, 2016 at 4:12 am GMT
The vote to authorize the war in Iraq was in 2002. Khan's DNC speech was 14 years later
(and 12 years after his son was killed), not 8 years later.
utu, August 5, 2016 at 6:35 am GMT
"The rest of us who makes heroes of our dead…" "Perpetuate war by exalting sacrifice…"
Parsifal, August 5, 2016 at 7:39 am GMT • 100 Words
"Most Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake. Who speaks for us? No one in the media.
And no one in mainstream politics." The last sentence is incorrect. Donald Trump repeatedly said
the war was a mistake, even at times when it could have landed him in serious trouble.
On Thursday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump
apologized for comments that have been widely construed as calling for the assassination of Hillary
Clinton. "I apologize," Mr. Trump said, clearly struggling with the second word as he addressed supporters
at a campaign event in Philadelphia. "I misspoke, okay? It happens. Get over it."
On Tuesday, Mr. Trump had warned supporters, "If she gets to pick her judges-nothing you can do,
folks. Although, the Second Amendment people-maybe there is, I don't know."
Speaking on CNN later that day, campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson insisted that Trump meant
"that people that support their Second Amendment rights need to come together and get out and stop
Hillary Clinton from winning in November." When it was pointed out that Trump was referring to what
might happen after the election, Ms. Pierson explained, "He was saying what could happen. He doesn't
want that to happen."
The Clinton campaign, many in the media, and even prominent Republicans rejected this interpretation.
Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said, "This is simple-what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person
seeking to be the president of the United States should not suggest violence in any way."
Clinton's running mate, Tim Kaine, told reporters after an event in Texas, "Nobody who is seeking
a leadership position, especially the presidency, the leadership of the country, should do anything
to countenance violence."
Dan Rather, the former CBS news anchor, posted in Facebook that Trump "crossed a line with dangerous
potential. By any objective analysis, this is a new low and unprecedented in the history of American
presidential politics."
Writing in the Washington Post, Joe Scarborough, former Republican congressman and current
host of the MSNBC show "Morning Joe," called for "every Republican leader" to denounce Trump's assassination
suggestion and revoke their endorsement of the controversial candidate.
Regarding Trump's comment on the Second Amendment, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said, "I don't believe
this to be a serious statement." But Sessions added, "You absolutely shouldn't joke about it. It's
contrary to what we believe in."
Former CIA director Michael Hayden chimed in, "You aren't just responsible for what you say; you're
responsible for what people hear."
With his poll numbers plummeting, Trump was in full damage-control mode in Philadelphia. After
apologizing for his misstatement, he went on to say, "I'm a truth-teller. All I do is tell the truth.
But some people-some people misinterpret me. On purpose, on accident, I don't know. I was not calling
for the assassination of Hillary. Please. I'm not a violent person. Never. Never violent. My friends
can tell you. What I meant to call for was the assassination of terrorists or potential terrorists,
okay? And there are lots of them, people, I'm telling you, in Afghanistan and Iraq and wherever.
Men, women, and children. Guns, not guns. Wedding parties. Doesn't matter. Drones would work fine,
right?"
The response was immediate and overwhelmingly positive. President Barack Obama said, "Contrary
to my early statement, I now believe that Donald Trump is, indeed, fit to be president of the United
States."
Fifty prominent Republican foreign policy and national security experts-among them Hayden and
other veterans of George W. Bush's administration-signed a letter endorsing Trump's candidacy. "Donald
Trump is the answer to America's daunting challenges," the letter began, and went on to note that
"without a doubt, he possesses the single most important quality required of an individual who aspires
to be President and Commander-in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal."
Leon Panetta, Obama's former CIA director and Defense Secretary, told the Washington Post, "As
I have said on numerous occasions, we need a leader who is strong and decisive, who has the respect
of our generals and admirals, and the trust of our troops, especially our Special Forces, who maintain
U.S. credibility around the world. I now am comfortable with either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton
winning the presidency." At the Democratic National Convention, in July, Panetta had condemned Trump
because he "asks our troops to commit war crimes, endorses torture…and praises dictators."
On his morning show, Scarborough appeared to be reconciling with the Trump campaign. He said,
"I've been telling people for years that torture works. I know it works. You know it works. Donald
Trump knows it works. This is going to make members of the mainstream media and Democratic Party
uncomfortable, but you can make the argument, can't you, that shooting a member of al-Qaeda or ISIS,
even a U.S. citizen, causes less pain than waterboarding."
Nancy Lindborg, president of the U.S. Institute of Peace, issued a statement that said, "While
we applaud Mr. Trump's support for measured counterterrorism, we contend that diplomacy, reconciliation,
and no-fly zones are also necessary to achieve the U.S. goal of peace in the Middle East and remove
Assad from power in Syria."
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who has received criticism for refusing to withdraw his endorsement of
Trump, was heard joyfully singing his favorite campaign song, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
The Clinton campaign, though, remained skeptical of Trump's correction. Mook stated, "Trump has
zero foreign policy experience. Only one candidate in this race has the experience, knowledge, temperament,
and judgment to call for assassination. Only one of the candidates was in the room when the decision
was made to take out Osama bin Laden. Only one candidate has been privy to the president's kill list.
And that's Hillary Clinton. The track record is there."
On his FiveThirtyEight blog, Pollster Nate Silver wrote, "We now anticipate seeing a bump in Trump's
numbers, especially among college-educated voters."
David said...
For the demented people that say that Trump and Hillary
are the same thing, two things:
1. You're clearly not
rational and observing reality, you're reacting out of
some sense of immature pique.
2. Remember Nader and W. Bush. Tell me why Nader giving
W. Bush the White was a good thing.
But the real reason to fear Trump is not Trump. Trump
is the Republican base, but he has little skills as a
politician. The next Trump will be more to right, more
resentful, more white nationalist, and possibly more
dangerous.
The real danger to our democracy, sadly enough, is the
Republican bigoted base.
Don't believe me? Check the comments of right wing
websites. It's there in plain sight.
Reply
Friday, August 12, 2016 at 01:11 PM
likbez said in reply to David ...
The vote will be not "for" Hillary or Trump.
The vote will be against Hillary or Trump.
As Hillary is a war criminal by Nuremberg trial
standards she is like Kelvin absolute zero in evilness.
You just can't be more evil.
Can any intelligent person vote for her ?
Reply
Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 03:59 PM
Peter K. said...
The neoliberal totebaggers have given us a world of slow
growth and increasing anger and unrest.
Brexit. Trump.
Sanders. Corbyn. Etc.
I think they somehow feel if they can just make to the
finish line and elect Hillary things will be fine.
I am hoping Trump loses by a record margin. I hope the
GOP suffers badly.
Then the totebaggers will gloat but their problems will
just have started. The DNC email leaks show the problem.
It wasn't just a a few bad apples. They were doing their
job. It's who the totebaggers are. Like PGL. Like Sanjait.
It's like the Blairites trying unsuccessfully to limit the
vote in the Labour leadership election.
Hillary was bragging about how she received an average
donation of $44 in recent months.
She's just copying Sanders, stealing his mojo.
I dont' think Sanjait is going to enjoy the coming
revolution.
Nor will totebagger trash like PGL. He'll try to divert
the discussion with stuff like Gerald Friedman whose
analysis the Sanders campaign didn't even commission.
But it's easy to see through his BS. It's sad, really.
"... I have trouble believing that the GOP elite and pundit's horror regarding Trump is really about what he says or what policies he proposes. These are the same people who embraced Palin (and many other conspicuously terrible candidates) after all. I suspect their real problem with him is that he got the nomination without having to successfully pass through their approval process. ..."
"... They simply become apoplectic at the prospect of the great unwashed succeeding in getting the candidate they want rather than the one that's the overlord's choice ..."
I have trouble believing that the GOP elite and pundit's horror regarding
Trump is really about what he says or what policies he proposes. These are the
same people who embraced Palin (and many other conspicuously terrible
candidates) after all. I suspect their real problem with him is that he got the
nomination without having to successfully pass through their approval process.
They simply become apoplectic at the prospect of the great unwashed succeeding
in getting the candidate they want rather than the one that's the overlord's
choice.
Same thing probably goes for Sanders and Corbyn. Sure they really do
hate some of their policy positions (fuzzy as they are in Trump's case) but
that would seem like it would be of lesser concern to them than anything which
would reduce the power they've had to decide who the voters get to choose from.
It has been said that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all
of the people some of the time. Apparently, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders
wishes to fool all of the people, at least those who were once his loyal
devotees, all of the time. This writer received an enthusiastic email from some
organization talking about the next steps in Mr. Sanders 'revolution', and
requesting that this writer hold a house party to watch a speech to be given by
the senator, as part of the initiation of a new organization called 'Our
Revolution'.
Well, there is certainly something revolting about all this, but
it has nothing to do with a social change.
Mr. Sanders, that avowed socialist with a long and undistinguished career in
what passes in the U.S. for public service (well-paid 'service', that is), lost
all credibility with any but his most blindly loyal followers when, after
months of railing against everything that Hillary Clinton stands for, even to
the point of calling her unfit to be president, he put on a happy face and gave
her a glowing endorsement at the Democratic Convention. Does this sound to the
reader like a man of integrity? Does endorsing Miss Wall Street 2016 have that
ring of revolutionary fervor? Does such glowing support of the Princess of
Israel sound like part of revolutionary change
Methinks not. No, his support for Mrs. Clinton, and his forthcoming address
about 'Our Revolution', seem to be the work of a career politician who wants to
bask in whatever remains of the adulation of his naive and enthusiastic
youthful followers, while at the same time enjoying all the perquisites of 'the
good old boys' club'. The only thing he sacrifices along the way (in addition,
of course, to self-respect, but who in elected office has that anyway?), is
credibility. Oh, and integrity. And honesty. Well, maybe he does make many
sacrifices to enjoy both the prestige of change agent and maintainer of the
status quo. But really, does anyone do it better than he?
"... In his latest interview with Chris Hayes, Khizr Khan reveals that he was close friends with Lee Atwater, the racist GOP strategist. It looks like all of the old Reaganites are now snugly inside of Hillary's Big Tent. ..."
In his latest interview with Chris
Hayes, Khizr Khan reveals that he was close friends with Lee Atwater, the racist GOP strategist.
It looks like all of the old Reaganites are now snugly inside of Hillary's Big Tent.
For those of you too young to recall Atwater's demonic brand of politics. He's the guy who taught
the Republicans how to court the vote of white supremacists without "appearing" racists themselves.
(Hayes, of course, being "All In With Her," didn't pause to ask Khan about the nature of his relationship
to the architect of Reagan's "Southern Strategy.")
Here is Atwater unfiltered, bragging to Alexander Lamis, a political scientist at Case Western
Reserve University. At the time, Atwater was working in the Reagan White House:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"-that
hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff,
and you're getting so abstract. Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things
you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse
than whites.… "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and
a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
Lamis taped the interview. You can listen to the racist rant of Khan's pal, the man who constructed
the Big Tent theory of politics here.
"... One good thing that might come out of the fractious primaries, conventions and final election is that the two-party structure that controls the U.S. political system might fracture, if not fragment, into something unanticipated. If so, a new multi-party system might emerge and change the nation's political landscape. ..."
"... the whole world was watching ..."
"... David Rosen is the author of Sex, Sin & Subversion: The Transformation of 1950s New York's Forbidden into America's New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015). He can be reached at [email protected] ; check out www.DavidRosenWrites.com . ..."
The 2016 presidential election has been a roller-coaster ride with the last two
establishment-party candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, shoving and
pushing, snapping, slapping and snarling their way to the finish line. How the
November election turns out is an open question.
One good thing that might come out of the fractious primaries,
conventions and final election is that the two-party structure that controls
the U.S. political system might fracture, if not fragment, into something
unanticipated. If so, a new multi-party system might emerge and change the
nation's political landscape.
The election's winner, whether Democrat or Republican, is likely to usher in
a period of unexpected instability, even disruption, as the parties seek to
regain control over the electoral system, the American voter. They may fail.
Both parties are poised for possible break-up, but along very different
ideological lines.
The Republicans have been splintering since the 2010 election when the
rightwing Tea Party insurgency captured a significant slice of the
Congressional delegation. They ushered in a period of legislative gridlock
that has soured the American public on the do-nothing Washington.
Trump's presidential run has further fragmented traditional Republicans, but
in unanticipated ways. Conventional party "moderates" and "conservatives,"
like Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz, respectively, have been jettisoned. An
opportunistic huckster, a 21st century P.T. Barnum, is reconfiguring
the party's identity. Many mainstream stalwarts are jumping ship, refusing to
support the candidate. Nevertheless, he is appealing to an apparently large
and receptive segment of dissatisfied white working- and middle-class males,
let alone some of the 1 percent. Whether Trump wins or loses, a very different
Republican Party is likely to emerge.
The Democrats were destabilized by the disruptive 1968 Chicago convention,
when the whole world was watching; in the race of the two VPs, Richard
Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey. It collapsed following the '72 election when
Nixon routed Sen. George McGovern (SD). Mr. Clinton's victory in '92
reconstituted the party, establishing the formative neo-liberal period of
globalization when the U.S. flourished; a Mrs. Clinton victory in 2016 might
codify economic and social stagnation, furthering Pres. Obama's new normal to
nowhere.
Bernie Sanders unexpected popular appeal, especially among younger voters,
disrupted the Clinton machine's well-scripted plan. The WikiLeak revelations
as to the complicity of party officials in attempting to suppress Sanders
campaign only confirmed what most people already knew - the game is rigged. In
2016 election's new-speak, all Democrats are "progressives." How long after
the truce between Clinton "liberals" and Sanders "radicals" will the
progressive fiction of unity prevail?
Pres. Obama's 2008 campaign was based on the promise of "hope" and, over the
last eight years, hope has dissipated from American politics and life. Trump,
a masterful fear monger, has caught the spirit of this disillusionment,
proclaiming that he alone can "Make American Great America." Clinton champions
unity among the nation's divergent populace - whether in terms of racial, class
and gender sectors - and has called for a program to stay the course.
Both candidates - and their respective parties - are sitting on ticking time
bombs, of profound economic instability and social insecurity. No one knows
what's coming. Most threatening, incipient movements threaten to disrupt the
political order. Something altogether new might be in the works.
* * *
Today's U.S. political system was fashioned out of numerous incidents of
disruption that occurred over the last two centuries. Three factors have
driven this disruption - internal party splits, third-party alternatives and
charismatic insurgents. Each disruptive episode is uniquely distinct and
offers valuable insight into the formation of the nation's political culture.
The fragmentation that might follow from the 2016 presidential election could
prefigure a fundamental realignment of political power in U.S. politics.
Two of the most consequential political disruptions in U.S. history set the
parameters of modern American life. The first involved the collapse of the
Whig Party and the rise of the (original) Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln,
defining the Civil War era. The second involved Theodore Roosevelt's break
with the (modern) Robber-Baron Republicans in the pre-WW-I era that set the
stage for the rise of the Progressive movement, followed by the Great
Depression, F. D. Roosevelt's New Deal and rise of modern state capitalism.
Among third-party threats, two stand out. In 1856, the Know-Nothing's
American Party backed Millard Fillmore for president and secured nearly 1
million votes, a quarter of all votes cast. A century later, in 1948, racists
Southern Democrats launched the "Dixiecrat" that, a quarter-century later,
would become part of Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and remake the Republican
Party.
With regard to party fragmentation, two campaign splits stand out. In 1964,
many moderate Republicans, including Governors Nelson Rockefeller (NY) and
George Romney (MI), opposed conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater's presidential
run. In 1972, McGovern's electoral defeat marked the party's near collapse
until Clinton's '92 neo-liberal resuscitation.
Finally, the insurgent Eugene Debs, the nation's leading socialist at the
turn of the 20th century, challenged the corporatist political
system. He ran for president five times and was sentenced to a 10 years prison
term for opposing U. S. entry into WW-I. Ralph Nader continued this tradition,
but never – including the 2000 presidential election – achieved the level of
support that Debs received.
* * *
A possible break-up of the traditional two-party system might involve, for
example, the two parties morphing into four parties. In this scenario, each
major party would split into two factions, establishment and radical, whether
of the left for Democrats or right for Republicans – whatever left and right
might mean. These parties will likely include Libertarian and Green parties,
but also a host of single-issue, far-left groupings as well as white, Christian
nationalist.
A clock is ticking; the current political system is being squeezed by the
demands of a new capitalist global order. In the U.S., how this possible
political realignment works out – or if it doesn't – depends on changes in
demographics and economics. The changing composition of the American people,
of ethnic makeup, age-cohort and social class, is one axis of tension; and the
social economy, of wages and growing inequality, is a second.
The U.S. might well be a "better" - more politically representative -
country if it fragments along lines suggested by European democracies. At
least more voices would be added to the political mix, thus giving expression
to the complexity of the social and economic realignment remaking the nation.
The great tyranny of American democracy is that the 1 percent continues to
rule. The 1 percent wrote the Constitution and, as two leading
economists of the colonial economy, Jeffrey Williamson and Peter Lindert,
report, "Around 1774, the top one percent of free wealthholders in the
thirteen colonies held 12.6 percent of total assets, while the richest ten
percent held a little less than half of total assets." Two-centuries later, in
2010, the 1 percent still controls Congress as well as 35 percent of the
nation's wealth. It's time for change.
Join
the debate on Facebook
David Rosen is the author of
Sex, Sin & Subversion: The Transformation of 1950s New York's Forbidden into
America's New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015). He can be reached at [email protected];
check out www.DavidRosenWrites.com.
More articles by: David
Rosen
"... I am surprised a that so many commenters leave out the elephant in the root - the fact that by standards of Nuremberg trials Hillary Clinton is a war criminal. ..."
"... I'll briefly sum up the case by noting again Hillary Clinton, like Bill before her, is a creation of the former Democratic Leadership Council. When the Republicans started their journey to the far right the DLC captured the right of center people. That's the moderate Republican base. That was the answer to the southern strategy. Keep some social progressiveness. Remember GBW's compassionate Republicanism? We're going to get a Republican President, but we're going to make believe that she's a progressive Democrat. ..."
"... You are absolutely right that Hillary is a moderate Republican in a sheep skin of Democrat. That was Bill Clinton "Third Way" strategy from the very beginning. Essentially selling the Party to Wall Street. This "neoliberalization" of Democratic Party worked extremely well for Democratic brass for almost three decades. ..."
"... Professor Bacevich had shown that the main driver of the US militarism is neocons domination of the US foreign policy, and, especially, neocons domination in State Department regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in power. They profess that the US that is uniquely qualified to take on the worldwide foes of peace and democracy, forgetting, revising, or ignoring the painful lessons of World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq. And that establishing and maintaining the neoliberal empire is worth the price we pay as it will take the USA into the period of unprecedented peace. ..."
I am surprised a that so many commenters leave out the elephant in the root - the fact that
by standards of Nuremberg trials Hillary Clinton is a war criminal.
Hillary Clinton is certainly not the only one, but she is the only one running for president.
Equally credible cases can be made against W, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld.
Each supported an illegal war in which thousands of American lives were sacrificed for Big
Oil, and in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were murdered.
Each subscribes to belligerent, interventionist military policy. Each supports an American
Empire foreign policy.
Each supports arming the world. Each supports Israel's occupation and war against the Palestinian
people.
Each supports regime change, by force or stealth, where such will benefit US corporate or military
interests. Even at the expense of democratically elected governments.
== end of quote ===
How can any intelligent person vote for a war criminal ?
Jack August 14, 2016 6:27 pm
Oh no, not another HRC the criminal posts. War criminal in this case. Email fraud previously.
Failure of duty in Libya. Oh, remember Vincent Foster. Murder no less.
Trump is a sociopath and HRC has her delusional detractors. What good do they do? Well they
draw attention away from HRC's real worst traits.
I'll briefly sum up the case by noting again Hillary Clinton, like Bill before her, is
a creation of the former Democratic Leadership Council. When the Republicans started their journey
to the far right the DLC captured the right of center people. That's the moderate Republican base.
That was the answer to the southern strategy. Keep some social progressiveness. Remember GBW's
compassionate Republicanism? We're going to get a Republican President, but we're going to make
believe that she's a progressive Democrat.
All the definitions have changed since the '60s. She not a criminal. She's just put on a different
colored cloak to demonstrate her flexibility. Americans are apparently not yet ready for a good
old fashioned New Deal Democrat. Workers are afraid of unions. Americans never could stay out
of a good fight. And Democrats since the '70s have learned to love bankers and recognize that
if you let bankers have yet more money they'll shed some your way. Roosevelt didn't need their
cash. He had his family's banking empire. And he had real compassion. He was an old style Keynesian.
He understood the importance of the government spending money on the nation, and that the nation
would return that money to the wealthy as they spent it to stay alive.
Beverly Mann August 14, 2016 7:08 pm
Bingo.
Zachary Smith August 14, 2016 8:02 pm
To likbez August 14, 2016 5:44 pm
I agree that Hillary Clinton is many kinds of criminal. I also agree with the others that it no
longer matters in the US.
Nixon = unprosecuted treason. Reagan = unprosecuted treason. Bush Sr. = unprosecuted criminal in Iran Contra and more.
(Clinton 1 is a black hole for me in terms of information – I just don't know enough to say.)
Bush Jr. = unprosecuted torturer and war crimes in Iraq. Obama = unprosecuted drone killer and war crimes in Libya & Syria.
That's the Leaders. On down the ladder US policemen routinely kill people. Many are cold-blooded
executions. Very seldom is there any prosecution. Even rarer than that is a conviction.
Big Bankers plundered the US in 2008. Not a single prosecution that I know about.
... ... ...
US citizens are becoming numbed to violence by the sheer frequency frequency. And increasingly
have their noses in their handheld devices tuning out all the news. Having learned almost no history,
they're suckers for nearly any glib line from very talented propagandists.
A very nasty piece of work is about to become President of the US of A. She has done many things
for which better humans than her are in prison. If the email hackers produce actual evidence of actual
crimes, she will NOT be prosecuted. At the very worst the TPP-loving Neocon Kaine will become president.
This is the US in 2016.
likbez, August 14, 2016 10:23 pm
Jack,
You are absolutely right that Hillary is a moderate Republican in a sheep skin of Democrat. That
was Bill Clinton "Third Way" strategy from the very beginning. Essentially selling the Party to
Wall Street. This "neoliberalization" of Democratic Party worked extremely well for Democratic
brass for almost three decades.
You are probably wrong in your underestimation of the danger of the "new American militarism"
(Professor Bacevich coined the term) factor in the US foreign policy -- the desire to subdue all
other countries and establish global neoliberal empire. Which as Zachary Smith observed makes
each and every President since Clinton a war criminal, unless we adopt the Roman dictum "Winners
[in a war] are never sent to the court of law".
Professor Bacevich had shown that the main driver of the US militarism is neocons domination
of the US foreign policy, and, especially, neocons domination in State Department regardless of
whether Republicans or Democrats are in power. They profess that the US that is uniquely qualified
to take on the worldwide foes of peace and democracy, forgetting, revising, or ignoring the painful
lessons of World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq. And that establishing and maintaining the neoliberal
empire is worth the price we pay as it will take the USA into the period of unprecedented peace.
Bacevich scored a direct hit on the foundations of the American national security state with
this scathing critique, and demolishes the unspoken assumptions that he believes have led the
United States into a senseless, wasteful, and counter-productive perpetual war for perpetual peace.
These assumptions clearly visible in "Khan gambit" are as following: the USA has the unique
responsibility to intervene wherever it wants, for whatever purpose it wants, by whatever means
it wants -- and the supporting "trinity" of requirements for the USA to maintain a global military
presence, to configure its military forces for global power projection, and to counter threats
by relying on a policy of global interventionism.
The driving force in all recent wars is the desire to protect and enlarge the neoliberal empire.
That means that election of Hillary means war.
After Trump's asinine quip about a 2nd amendment "solution" to stopping
Clinton's presidential run, her campaign manager, Robby Mook, had
this
to say:
"What Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the President
of the United States should not suggest violence in any way."
A presidential candidate should not suggest violence in
any
way?!?
Really?
This coming from a high-level supporter of a candidate who…
…has supported
every
war during her political career?
…supported the use of civilian-butchering cluster bombs by Israel in Gaza?
…supported the brutal invasions by the Saudi dictatorship of Bahrain and
Yemen?
…enthusiastically pushed for the bombing of Libya that turned it into a
failed state?
…threatened use of nuclear weapons vs. Iran?
…supported the military coups against the elected governments in Honduras
and Egypt, turning both into violence-ridden basket cases?
…adores as her mentor the arch war criminal Henry Kissinger, orchestrator of
the tortures and killings of 10s of thousands?
Tell me, please, Clinton supporters, how is this not "suggest[ing] violence
in any way."
Is it because threats of violence don't count when they're promoted against
human beings who aren't Americans? Go ahead, probe the deeply caustic,
Trump-like racism behind that assumption.
Last Friday, four days before Trump issued his violent threat and a few
weeks after the constitution-waiving stunt at the Democratic convention, the
ACLU and a federal court finally forced the release of the Obama
administration's patently
unconstitutional guidelines
[2]
for killing people with drones (
nearly
90%
of whom were not the intended targets).
And yesterday, while the Republican sociopath was issuing his threat, the
Obama State Department approved the sale of more than
$1
billion in arms to Saudi Arabia
, no doubt to continue its bloody invasion
of Yemen, where the UN recently estimated that
two-thirds of the civilian casualties
are caused by Saudi air strikes.
Where was the Democratic and Republican outrage against those very real,
violent threats?
When Clinton wins the November election, will we stoop ever farther into an
Orwellian world as our first "feminist" president continues to shovel billions
in arms to arguably the most anti-feminist dictatorship on the planet? Where
violence against people doesn't count as violence due to their nationality
and/or the color of their skin?
If you're outraged about Trump's barbarous suggestion of 2
nd
Amendment "solutions" to elections, please don't stop there. Get your blood
boiling and then also, and just as forcefully, challenge Clinton's own
barbarous "solutions."
"A third of the members of the United Nations have felt Washington's
boot, overturning governments, subverting democracy, imposing blockades and
boycotts. Most of the presidents responsible have been liberal – Truman,
Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama…"
"One of the more violent presidents, Obama gave full reign to the
Pentagon war-making apparatus of his discredited predecessor. He prosecuted
more whistleblowers – truth-tellers – than any president. He pronounced
Chelsea Manning guilty before she was tried. Today, Obama runs an
unprecedented worldwide campaign of terrorism and murder by drone."
"In 2009, Obama promised to help "rid the world of nuclear weapons" and
was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. No American president has built more
nuclear warheads than Obama."
This is what happens when the Lame Stream Media gets a guest that doesn't fit the narrative and
handily puts the anchor in her place. They deflect and end the interview!
I don't think its bipolar disorder. I think she is incapable of improvising and totally
reliant on her script-writers who cannot agree on a stylistic approach.
Its not insanity, its just that she's completely and utterly fake.
On the subject of Trump, Stone said that "the Trump you see on TV is the only Trump there is,
he doesn't have two personalities, he has one personality."
He contrasted this with Hillary Clinton, who he described as having "two personalities."
"Publicly, she pretends to be the warm, likeable grandmother. But privately she is a foul
mouthed, short-tempered, nasty, vicious, extraordinarily abusive, maniac. I think she has
bipolar, at least."
Hillary Clinton thought Benghazi and her
email scandal
were behind her. Even though the FBI declined to charge her with massive negligence, those affected
by her incompetence aren't gonna let her off so easy.
The families of the Benghazi victims are
going after Hillary Clinton in court! This could be it for her!
The parents of two Americans killed in the 2012 terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities
in Benghazi, Libya, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in federal court Monday against Hillary Clinton.
In the suit, Patricia Smith and Charles Woods, the parents of Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods,
claim that Clinton's use of a private e-mail server contributed to the attacks. They also accuse
her of defaming them in public statements.
Smith was an information management officer and Woods was a security officer, both stationed
in Benghazi.
This is lawsuit could be what FINALLY puts Hillary away. The families deserve justice!
Essentially Rand Paul accused Hillary of perjury before Congress that should
be punished by five year imprisonment. He is the first senator that asked for her
imprisonment.
I love Rand Paul. Sad thing tho is Rand.. we the general public is think
she has the entire government wrapped around her finger.
louis santiago
I know it, and that tells me one thing. The system creates the illusion
that we have a say on who is president, but im starting to believe we don't,
it's all a facade. It's all rigged, I think Hillary will be president, seems
to me that either the democratic party is much more powerful or because
of the fact they are running the administration it gives them leverage to
call all thr shots, even our votes.
Look at what happened with Sander's votes, all rigged.
D Googolize
How obvious does it have to be when all the evidence of corruption is
out there? Director Comey laying out all the evidence of numerous lies and
not being able to prove intent is just obvious signs of bribery, threats
or both. Same thing with the dirtbag Loretta Lynch not answering any questions
in the press conference. How many damning emails will it take??
"... News Media bias. Excellent Lou Dobbs discussion with Newt Gingrich. Worthy of your time to Watch short Video ..."
"... Newt Gingrich: ..."
"... The elite media is dedicated to defeating Trump .. Trump should pattern his campaign on the model of Truman…media had written him off. ..."
"... And the elite media in newsroom after newsroom is dedicated to defeating Trump and I think every chance they get to try to get him off message, they will, ..."
News Media bias. Excellent Lou Dobbs discussion with Newt Gingrich. Worthy of your time to Watch
short Video
Newt Gingrich:
The elite media is dedicated to defeating Trump .. Trump should pattern his campaign
on the model of Truman…media had written him off.
"The elite media understands that if they allow Donald Trump to communicate directly
to the American people, he's just plain going to beat them. And he's going to win, and Hillary
is going to lose
And the elite media in newsroom after newsroom is dedicated to defeating Trump and I
think every chance they get to try to get him off message, they will," he said. "I
hope that Donald Trump will take, as his model, Harry Truman's campaign in 1948 where the entire
elite media had written Truman off and he came back, he pounded away, and he won the presidency
despite every expectation of the national establishment. I think Trump has the same opportunity
this year."
[more on Vid..Hillary's comment she short-circuited will return to hurt. What else did she
short-circuit? listen]
"... individuals' innate psychological predispositions to intolerance ("authoritarianism") interacting with changing conditions of societal threat. The threatening conditions, particularly resonant in the present political climate, that exacerbate authoritarian attitudes include, most critically, great dissension in public opinion and general loss of confidence in political leaders. Using purpose-built experimental manipulations, cross-national survey data and in-depth personal interviews with extreme authoritarians and libertarians, the book shows that this simple model provides the most complete account of political conflict across the ostensibly distinct domains of race and immigration, civil liberties, morality, crime and punishment, and of when and why those battles will be most heated. ..."
"... But the latent authoritarianism within them is triggered when they perceive a threat to the stable moral order. ..."
"... It's at this point in the talk when Haidt surely began to make his audience squirm. He says that in his work as an academic and social psychologist, he sees colleagues constantly demonizing and mocking conservatives. He warns them to knock it off. "We need political diversity," he says. And: "They are members of our community." ..."
"... The discourse and behavior of the Left, says Haidt, is alienating millions of ordinary people all over the West. It's not just America. We are sliding towards authoritarianism all over the West, and there's really only one way to stop it. ..."
"... we can reduce intolerance and defuse the conflict by focusing on sameness. We need unifying rituals, beliefs, institutions, and practices, he says, drawing on Stenner's research. The romance the Left has long had with multiculturalism and diversity (as the Left defines it) has to end, because it's helping tear us apart. ..."
"... If we don't have a feasible conservative party, we open the way for authoritarianism. ..."
"... I don't think the center can hold anymore. It's too late. The cultural left in this country is very authoritarian, at least as regards orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. On one of the Stenner slides, we see that she defines one characteristic of authoritarians as "punishing out groups." Conservative Christians are the big out group for the cultural left, and have been for a long time. ..."
"... The threat to the moral order is very real, and not really much of a threat anymore; it's a reality. ..."
"... Haidt says that the authoritarian impulse comes when people cease trusting in leaders. Yep, that's where a lot of us are, and not by choice. ..."
If you look back far enough in humankind's history, you will observe that you don't see civilizations
starting without their building temples first. Haidt, who is a secular liberal, is not making a theistic
point, not really. He's saying that the work of civilization can only be accomplished when a people
binds itself together around a shared sense of the sacred. It's what makes a people a people, and
a civilization a civilization. "It doesn't have to be a god," says Haidt. Anything that we hold
sacred, and hold it together, is enough.
The thing is, this force works like an electromagnetic
field: the more tightly it binds us, the more alien others appear to us, and the more we find it
impossible to empathize with them. This is what Haidt means by saying that morality binds and blinds.
Haidt quizzes the 700-800 people in the hall about their Hillary vs. Trump feelings. The group
- all psychologists, therapists, professors of psychology, and so forth - were overwhelmingly pro-Hillary
and anti-Trump. No surprise there. But then he tells them that if they believe that they could treat
without bias a patient who is an open Trump supporter, they're lying to themselves. In the America
of 2016, political bias is the most powerful bias of all - more polarizing by far than race, even.
Haidt turns to the work of social psychologist Karen Stenner, and her 2005 book
The Authoritarian Dynamic. The publisher describes the book like this (boldface emphases
mine):
What are the root causes of intolerance? This book addresses that question by developing a
universal theory of what determines intolerance of difference in general, which includes racism,
political intolerance, moral intolerance and punitiveness. It demonstrates that all these seemingly
disparate attitudes are principally caused by just two factors: individuals' innate psychological
predispositions to intolerance ("authoritarianism") interacting with changing conditions of societal
threat. The threatening conditions, particularly resonant in the present political climate,
that exacerbate authoritarian attitudes include, most critically, great dissension in
public opinion and general loss of confidence in political leaders. Using purpose-built
experimental manipulations, cross-national survey data and in-depth personal interviews with extreme
authoritarians and libertarians, the book shows that this simple model provides the most complete
account of political conflict across the ostensibly distinct domains of race and immigration,
civil liberties, morality, crime and punishment, and of when and why those battles will be most
heated.
Haidt says Stenner discerns three strands of contemporary political conservatism: 1) laissez-faire
libertarians (typically, business Republicans); 2) Burkeans (e.g., social conservatives who value
stability); and 3) authoritarians.
Haidt makes a point of saying that it's simply wrong to call Trump a fascist. He's too individualistic
for that. He's an authoritarian, but that is not a synonym for fascist, no matter how much the Left
wants to say it is.
According to Haidt's reading of Stenner, authoritarianism is not a stable personality trait. Most
people are not naturally authoritarian. But the latent authoritarianism within them is triggered
when they perceive a threat to the stable moral order.
It's at this point in the talk when Haidt surely began to make his audience squirm. He says that
in his work as an academic and social psychologist, he sees colleagues constantly demonizing and
mocking conservatives. He warns them to knock it off. "We need political diversity," he says. And:
"They are members of our community."
The discourse and behavior of the Left, says Haidt, is alienating millions of ordinary people
all over the West. It's not just America. We are sliding towards authoritarianism all over the West,
and there's really only one way to stop it.
At the 41:37 point in the talk, Haidt says that we can reduce intolerance and defuse the conflict
by focusing on sameness. We need unifying rituals, beliefs, institutions, and practices, he says,
drawing on Stenner's research. The romance the Left has long had with multiculturalism and diversity
(as the Left defines it) has to end, because it's helping tear us apart.
This fall, the Democrats are taking Stenner's advice brilliantly, says Haidt, referring to the
convention the Dems just put on, and Hillary's speech about how we're all better off standing together.
Haidt says this is actually good advice, period. "It's not just propaganda you wheel out at election
time," he says. If we don't have a feasible conservative party, we open the way for authoritarianism.
To end the talk, Haidt focuses on what his own very tribe - psychologists and academics - can
do to make things better. They can start by being aware of their own extreme bias. "We lean very
far left," he says, then shows a graph tracking how far from the center the academy has become over
the past 20 years.
Haidt says we don't need "equality" - that is, an equal number of conservatives and liberals in
the academy. We just need to have diversity enough for people to be challenged in their viewpoints,
so an academic community can flourish according to its nature. But this is not what we have. According
to the research Haidt presents, in 1996, liberals in the academy outnumbered conservatives 2:1. Today,
it's 5:1 - and the conservatives are concentrated in engineering and other technical fields. Says
Haidt: "In the core areas of the university - in the humanities and social sciences - it's 10 to
1 and 40 to 1."
The Right has left the university faculties, he said - and a lot of that is because they got tired
of the "hostile climate and discrimination"
"People who are not on the left … are often in the closet," says Haidt. "They can't speak up.
They can't criticize. They hear somebody say something, they believe it's false, but they can't speak
up and say why they believe it's false. And that is a breakdown in our science."
Until they repent (my word, not his), university professors will continue to be part of the problem,
not the solution, says Haidt. He ends by calling on his colleagues to "get our hearts in order."
To stop being moralistic hypocrites. To be humble. To be more forgiving, and more open to hearing
what their opponents have to say. Says Haidt, "If we want to change things, we need to do it more
from the perspective of love, not of hate."
I don't think the center can hold anymore. It's too late. The cultural left in this country is
very authoritarian, at least as regards orthodox Christians and other social conservatives.
On one of the Stenner slides, we see that she defines one characteristic of authoritarians as "punishing
out groups." Conservative Christians are the big out group for the cultural left, and have been for
a long time.
We are the people who defile what they consider most sacred: sexual liberty, including abortion
rights and gay rights. The liberals in control now (as distinct from all liberals, let me be clear)
have made it clear that they will not compromise with what they consider to be evil. We are the Klan
to them. Error has no rights in this world they're building.
If you'll recall my blogging about Hillary Clinton's convention speech, I really liked it in theory
- the unity business. The thing is, I don't believe for one second that it is anything but election
propaganda. I don't believe that the Democratic Party today has any interest in making space for
us. I wish I did believe that. I don't see any evidence for it. They and their supporters will drive
us out of certain professions, and do whatever they can to rub our noses in the dirt.
I know liberal readers of this blog will say, "But we don't!" To which I say: you don't,
maybe, but you're not running the show, alas.
The threat to the moral order is very real, and not really much of a threat anymore; it's a reality.
As I've written in this space many times, this is not something that was done to us; all of
us, Republicans and Democrats, Christians and non-Christians, have done this to ourselves. At this
point, all I want for my tribe is to be left alone. But the crusading Left won't let that happen
anymore.
They don't even want the Mormons to be allowed to play football foe the Big 12, for heaven's
sake. This assault is relentless. Far too many complacent Christians believe it will never hurt them,
that it will never happen where they live. It can and it will.
There is no center anymore. Alasdair MacIntyre was right. I may not be able to vote in good conscience
for Trump (and I certainly will not vote for Hillary Clinton), but I know exactly why a number of
good people have convinced themselves that this is the right thing to do. Haidt says that the authoritarian
impulse comes when people cease trusting in leaders. Yep, that's where a lot of us are, and not by
choice.
This week, I've been interviewing people for the Work chapter of my Benedict Option book. In all
but one case, the interviewees - lawyers, law professors, a doctor, corporate types, academics -
would only share their opinion if I promised that I wouldn't use their name. They know what things
are like where they work. They know that this is going to spread. That fear, that remaining inside
the closet, tells you something about where you are. When professionals feel that to state their
opinion would be to put their careers at risk, we are not in normal times.
The center has not held. I certainly wish Jon Haidt well. He's a good man doing brave, important
work. And I hope he proves me wrong on this. I honestly do. Because if I'm right, there goes America.
On the other hand, reasoning that this must not be true therefore it is not true is a good
way to get run over.
"... What struck me in the article was a conflict between attributing the DNC hack and a possible Clinton hack that the authors didn't even attempt to address. They claim analysts are very confident that Russian hackers, working for the government, hacked the DNC. But as to the possibility that anyone hacked Clinton's private server; well, if they did, they would have been way to savvy to leave any traces that they'd done so. A DNC hack; those sloppy Russian government hackers did it. A personal server; a real pro job. ..."
"... Hillary - if elected - will inherit economy in recession or on the brink of it, and her main preoccupation will be dealing with mounting domestic unrest, as well as with the wars she'll inherit from Obama. However she may want to, she'll be in no position to start another war. ..."
"... The US Dept of State is an equal-opportunity criminal syndicate ..."
"... There is always money for war, just no money for commons. ..."
"... Amazing how even the most obvious facts are denied by the largest margin of people - in spite of the truth being available to the contrary. People believed Goebbels and are now believing the propaganda from the cesspool of the totalitarian establishment, because they WANT TO. ..."
"... Regarding the to Nazi-standards evolving propaganda of the Western establishment, it would be helpful if people would stop 'googling' misinformation from the CIA 'search' engine aka data collection agency. There are other search engines available that will not skew the results. ..."
"... Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting. ..."
"... ...New emails showing ( the worse evil ) Hillarys lies and corruption would be perfect PR to highlight for one of Trump's principle core messages of Washintons and especially Hitlarys corruption. ..."
"... The war monger industries, think tanks, and DOD want a bigger war. They don't have to kill Obama, they are waiting for the Killary and are using every dirty trick to get her elected. ..."
"... We're sort of behind schedule on that DoD memo that Wesley Clark saw after 9/11 that said the US would "take out" seven countries in five years. Iraq, Syria, and Libya are basket cases. Somalia and Sudan aren't much better. That leaves Lebanon and Iran. ..."
"... People know that those aren't true threats to us so following the Brzezinski/PNAC doctrine of not allowing any country to rise in any region leads us to real powers Russia and China. I wonder if Vegas has any odds on which country we'll be at war with next. And will we do it directly or via some sad-sack like Ukraine? ..."
"... Excellent points. The propaganda process to convince the American people to accept war with Russia (Syria and Iran) has been going on for several years now (the military budgets are just beginning their upward ramp due to Russia). The process is nearly identical to what Bush and the neocons did with Saddam and the invasion of Iraq. And propaganda through the mass media is effective--upwards to 70% of the American people supported Bush's invasion. ..."
"... Hillary's brain will not survive the pressure of a presidency when half the country thinks she is liar and untrustworthy. Her health is already suspicious and she may collapse after her election as there would be huge demands on her. The next president of the USA won't be Hillary Clinton for long, it will be Tim Kayne. ..."
"... No doubt there could well be a lot more in what The Don doesn't say. But this election will be about low voter turn out. Record lows. Everyone is nauseous. Trump has his cult following. Hilary disgraced the Bernistas - none of them will vote for Hilary. Hilary has no one except the neocon rats who have jumped ship. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's Embrace of Kissinger Is Inexcusable. Bernie Sanders should call on her to repudiate him as the war criminal he is. https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clintons-embrace-of-kissinger-is-inexcusable/ ..."
"... As for the discussion on running out of money for wars ... well al-CIAduh/IS is much cheaper than the US uniformed armed forces, or the same people through the revolving door fighting as mercenaries. The KSA/GCC have been footing the bill ... because the same forces they're directing outwards will devastate them if and when they turn around and go for them directly. As times get harder for al-CIAduh/IS ... up against the Russians, Syrians, Iranians, Hezbulla ... it's got to occur to them that there's a much easier, much larger paycheck available in turning around and robbing the bank that's been feeding them rations. ..."
"... William Casey-CIA Director "We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ..."
"... William Casey-CIA Director "We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ..."
"... The New York Times is selling a world-view. You can't sell anyone anything they don't want to buy. The American public, having detected that their leaders have no idea how to bring them safely out of the wood of the "new economics", of the air economy, is begging to be told a story that - if we all close our eyes and believe real hard - will bring magic, fairy princess economy back to life. Life was OK ... nostalgia makes it better ... back when we used to hate the Russians. Let's hate 'em again. It's kind of a cargo cult mentality. ..."
"... Many times, back then, I would confront my comrades with the assertion that the mass produced media outlets (MPMO), such as the New York Times were nothing more than propaganda machines. "Hip" as they might have been, they just could not handle this concept. ..."
"... I also investigated the world of the eleetoids very deeply -- and I had several unique opportunities to do so. They are certainly not at all like us. They are generally quite vain and oddly shallow. Money, power, and organized violence are one and the same to them. Wall Street, Washington D.C., and the pentagon constellation are all on the same page. Crucially, none of these eleetoids is anywhere near what could be deemed sane. Their minds are profoundly warped just because they are what they are. ..."
"... And they are easily capable of setting off Armageddon. War and the proliferation of misery is not their goal in the end, much worse, it is simply a consequence, a symptom if you will, of their insanity. ..."
"... WADC and NYC attract psychopathy, so naturally our two choices for November are Alpha Psychopaths. That doesn't mean that the necrotic American ship of state will alter its course, only settle lower in the water, come to a gradual stop, tip downward at the bow, and then break in half. The psychopaths are The Vampire and will fly away, caww, caww, caww, leaving all the hoi polloi, the Little People, to drink and to drown. ..."
"... In some ways the rules of engagement for Syria are reminiscent of the restrictions placed on U.S. special operators in El Salvador in the 1980s. The U.S. forces in that tiny country helped train the embattled government's counter-insurgency forces. But they were not allowed to go into battle with the forces they trained. ..."
"... The people who have brainwashed the Americans are the problem just like in Hitler's time. Those global plutocratic families have been controlling the narrative for centuries and they seem to have convinced you it is the US citizens who are to blame for falling for the propaganda this time. ..."
Another example that so-called news in U.S. media is often more propaganda than valid
information is this NYT
piece on the "hack" of the Democratic National Committee:
WASHINGTON - A Russian cyberattack that targeted Democratic politicians was bigger than it first
appeared and breached the private email accounts of more than 100 party officials and groups,
officials with knowledge of the case said Wednesday.
...
A "Russian cyberattack"? How can the NYT claim such, in an opening paragraph, when even the Director
of U.S. National Intelligence
is unable to make such a judgement?
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, speaking about the hack of Democratic Party emails,
said on Thursday the U.S. intelligence community was not ready to "make the call on attribution"
as to who was responsible.
All the NYT lays out to backup its claim of a "Russian" hack is an anonymous Intelligence Committee
staffer who claims U.S. intelligence agencies "have virtually no doubt" about it. If that were true
why would the boss of these intelligence agencies publicly point out such doubts?
There is not even any evidence that the publishing of emails incriminating the DNC for manipulating
the Democratic primaries were the result of any "hack". It might have well been an insider who copied
the material and handed them to Wikileaks for publication. After the leak the DNC data analyst Seth
Rich was mutilated and murdered near his home in Washington DC. The case was obviously no robbery.
Julian Assange of Wikileaks pointed out that the circumstances of Rich's death are suspicious. I
first attributed that claim to Assange's typical exaggerations, but
the facts speak for themselves. The case indeed looks very much like a targeted killing. Who
did it and and why?
The "Russia is guilty" claim for whatever happened, without any proof, is becoming a daily diet
fed to the "western" public. A similar theme is the "barrel bombing" of (the
always same ) "hospitals" in Syria which is claimed whenever the Syrian government or its allies
hit some al-Qaeda
headquarter .
What struck me in the article was a conflict between attributing the DNC hack and a possible Clinton
hack that the authors didn't even attempt to address. They claim analysts are very confident that
Russian hackers, working for the government, hacked the DNC. But as to the possibility that anyone
hacked Clinton's private server; well, if they did, they would have been way to savvy to leave
any traces that they'd done so. A DNC hack; those sloppy Russian government hackers did it. A
personal server; a real pro job.
Hillary - if elected - will inherit economy in recession or on the brink of it, and her main preoccupation
will be dealing with mounting domestic unrest, as well as with the wars she'll inherit from Obama.
However she may want to, she'll be in no position to start another war.
America is in severe and accelerating decline, and simply has no resources for more wars.
The Dems and Repubs. always vie to wage the 'best, most just, necessary, wars.' Wars as in merciless
bombing and decimation and installation of a puppet Gvmt, not against and adversary who presents
a threat.
For B. Clinton, that was smashing Yugoslavia (plus various other, Africa etc.), while later
the Repub. Bushies concentrated on Iraq (but see Billy C on that, plus Iran sanctions…) and Afghanistan.
The two join together under Obama-Killary: Lybia and Syria. (Leaving much aside.)
Not of course that IRL the division is clear, it isn't, but that is what is used to bamboozle
the public. One war is baaaad, horrible, another is ee-ssential for security, and so all grinds
on, with one switch after another, year by year, nothing changes, with millions of deaths, maimed,
displaced, landscapes, agriculture, towns, whole countries, destroyed.
6 America is in severe and accelerating decline, and simply has no resources for more wars.
America prints fiat currency at will and posts numbers on computer terminals. The value of
this currency is indicated by its position as the petro-dollar. This arrangement is enforced by
American hegemony and illegitimate partnerships with other despotic governments which support
and maintain it's dominance as the world's most important currency.
There is always money for war, just no money for commons.
Amazing how even the most obvious facts are denied by the largest margin of people - in spite
of the truth being available to the contrary.
People believed Goebbels and are now believing the propaganda from the cesspool of the totalitarian
establishment, because they WANT TO.
Anybody that has ever had, or still has a shred of critical thinking left, will KNOW. The totalitarian,
corporate establishment, that has been inbreeding since thousands of years, is going for the kill.
The kill of 'democracy', the kill of freedom of speech, the killing of the 'pursuit of happiness'
and a new cold war among the different ethnicities on planet earth.
Therefore the so called 'racists' are actually 'Ethnicists' - denying ethnicities differing
from the white man the right to live. The right to exterminate non-white sub-humans at will.
Regarding the to Nazi-standards evolving propaganda of the Western establishment, it would
be helpful if people would stop 'googling' misinformation from the CIA 'search' engine aka data
collection agency. There are other search engines available that will not skew the results.
This is the result in regards to the tactics of the Western establishments' propaganda: It's called 'Psychological Projection' and has worked for millennia. To find out more about
it, one can look at the Wikipedia entry, or search anew for other sources:
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against
their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence
in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude
may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.
...New emails showing ( the worse evil ) Hillarys
lies and corruption would be perfect PR to highlight for one of Trump's principle core messages
of Washintons and especially Hitlarys corruption. But no instead of sitting back and letting the
new corruption unfold for himself to take advantage, the moronic narcissistic Trump has to make
it about him self again by saying his idiocies and outrages which diverts from his core message
that got him so much success.
Trump(et) needs to rely on getting fake liberals to be discouraged, apathetic or a vote for
third party, but Trump the King moron himself is driving these people into Hillarys camp.
The transition from Obama to Hillary mirrors the transition from Kennedy to Johnson. The
war monger industries, think tanks, and DOD want a bigger war. They don't have to kill Obama,
they are waiting for the Killary and are using every dirty trick to get her elected. Much
bigger wars are coming after January.
... ethnic cleansing that the modern Israeli's simply copy ...
Here we go with the US-Israel equivalence meme that is being pushed by the usual suspects.
As though nothing was learned in the last 80-120 years or so. If that were so, then Israel
might find itself in an even more precarious position. Actually, some might well say that Israel is turning back the clock to pre-modern
times, and joining with other reactionary forces to do so.
We're sort of behind schedule on that DoD memo that Wesley Clark saw after 9/11 that said the
US would "take out" seven countries in five years. Iraq, Syria, and Libya are basket cases. Somalia
and Sudan aren't much better. That leaves Lebanon and Iran.
People know that those aren't true
threats to us so following the Brzezinski/PNAC doctrine of not allowing any country to rise in
any region leads us to real powers Russia and China. I wonder if Vegas has any odds on which country
we'll be at war with next. And will we do it directly or via some sad-sack like Ukraine?
Excellent points. The propaganda process to convince the American people to accept war with
Russia (Syria and Iran) has been going on for several years now (the military budgets are just
beginning their upward ramp due to Russia). The process is nearly identical to what Bush and the
neocons did with Saddam and the invasion of Iraq. And propaganda through the mass media is effective--upwards
to 70% of the American people supported Bush's invasion.
January is already too late as this process has been going on for several years. The hysteria
is now building to a crescendo and is pretty much impossible to stop with reasoned arguments.
Speaking of influencing elections. The Ukrano-nazis look to be building up troop levels on
the Crimean border to show off horrible Russian/Putin aggression. Looks like the Ukrano-nazis
are willing to kill off a bunch of their own soldiers for propaganda effect.
Hillary's brain will not survive the pressure of a presidency when half the country thinks she
is liar and untrustworthy. Her health is already suspicious and she may collapse after her election
as there would be huge demands on her.
The next president of the USA won't be Hillary Clinton for long, it will be Tim Kayne.
No doubt there could well be a lot more in what The Don doesn't say. But this election will be
about low voter turn out. Record lows. Everyone is nauseous.
Trump has his cult following. Hilary disgraced the Bernistas - none of them will vote for Hilary.
Hilary has no one except the neocon rats who have jumped ship.
Will she be able to excite Obamas #HopeAndChange army...? I don't see them getting out of bed
sorry - and it's why you see #NeverTrump. It doesn't matter what Trump does, dem voter turn out
will be at historic lows.
The Guardian stated yesterday that Putin is ramping up for the 'invasion' (sic) of Crimea, but
went out of their way to leave the impression it was a Russian invasion, and not invasion by NATO,
behind a current World Bank-funded $10Bs looted from US taxpayers to rebuild Eastern Ukraine roads
and bridges to military load capacity, ... just another wholly illegal and pro-war act by the
ZIMF-WB to an unconstitutional dual-Israel junta coup leadership in Kiev, and made in violation
to a non-NATO state, with no expectation the 'loans' would ever be paid back, ...just as $35B
IMF loaned, then Kerry backstopped with US taxpayer savings, will never be repaid. Ever.
The 'War of Crimea' is necessary for many political purposes, but primarily to cover up that
July 2015 looting of $50B from the US Treasury by Kerry and the RINO Congress for war grift to
Ukraine that will never be repaid, stolen from SS and disability funds.
And behind that War of Crimea will come a US Militarized Police State of One Thousand Years,
to cover The Chosen's wholly illegal, usurious, odious, onerous synthetic CDS 'scheme' to transfer
all of WS's Exceptionalist *gambling debts* onto the backs of our grandchildren, when WS should
be tarred and feathered, then beaten with birch switches.
Instead, we get US Congress bleeting for Bibi and clapping at attention until the blood runs
from their fingernails down their arms, afraid to be the first to stop clapping. New America is
Kim Jung Un on steroids in 2017.
Tick tock! What's the plan to protect the US Constitution? Where's the patriot sitrep?
This stuff pervades the corporate media across the board :
A Rush to Judgment on Russian Doping . If war is the continuation of politics by other means,
'news' is the continuation of war by other means.
As for the discussion on running out of money for wars ... well al-CIAduh/IS is much cheaper
than the US uniformed armed forces, or the same people through the revolving door fighting as
mercenaries. The KSA/GCC have been footing the bill ... because the same forces they're directing
outwards will devastate them if and when they turn around and go for them directly.
As times get harder for al-CIAduh/IS ... up against the Russians, Syrians, Iranians, Hezbulla
... it's got to occur to them that there's a much easier, much larger paycheck available in turning
around and robbing the bank that's been feeding them rations.
When the oil-archies go up in smoke the free for all will begin in earnest ... 'protecting
world security'. Then US/Israeli troops will land in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar put out the
fires, grab the checkbooks, reseat their clients under the new dispensation. That'll be their
plan anyway. As Obama said, Hillary's will be his third term ... they hope. Pick the low-hanging
fruit on the way to Moscow and Beijing.
I liked the guy with the videos of no people at the Hillary rally. I liked Newt comparing Trump
to Truman ... they do seem so alike, on more than the Dewey Defeats Truman level. Harry was as
utterly unprepared as Donald is to be POTUS, and was whipsawed by the same old domestic gangsters
oblivious to the consequences of their free-flowing gravy-train at home.
While a good post, I wonder why b. would say "I first attributed that claim to Assange's typical
exaggerations..." I've not found him to exaggerate, typically, but I have found the MSM to want
us to believe that he does... Also, it is Marcy Wheeler (a woman), not Marc (this mistake has
been made here before).
A friend in Silicon Valley - with a seven-member family all voting for B Sanders - reported that
there seemed to be little doubt primaries were stolen. His polling station was managed by guys
with IT background (S. Valley, after all) - who witnessed manipulations, including the purging
of all provisional ballots.
The bottom line on this is ... ya gotta wanna believe. The New York Times is selling a world-view.
You can't sell anyone anything they don't want to buy. The American public, having detected that
their leaders have no idea how to bring them safely out of the wood of the "new economics", of
the air economy, is begging to be told a story that - if we all close our eyes and believe real
hard - will bring magic, fairy princess economy back to life. Life was OK ... nostalgia makes
it better ... back when we used to hate the Russians. Let's hate 'em again. It's kind of a cargo
cult mentality.
A measure of just how disjoint we all are. There's no there there where our
memories of America were, we need a magic spell to bring tinker belle back to life, so we can
fly back to never-never land again, live happily ever after. Things are very, very bad for the
USA.
I was an anti-Vietnam war protester. For the most part we were very loosely organized, or even
not at all organized. We were hippies, doing the whole mid-60s to mid-70s thing. Our city decided
to actually have the fire department stage a pro-war protest -- Strange times indeed!
Many times, back then, I would confront my comrades with the assertion that the mass produced
media outlets (MPMO), such as the New York Times were nothing more than propaganda machines. "Hip"
as they might have been, they just could not handle this concept. They were totally appalled
that I could dare to claim this. I was sort of like their first "conspiracy theorist". The comments
above reveal how times have changed. Even if they are still in psychological thrall to the propaganda
machinery, the seed of dark doubt has now been sewn in their bewildered hearts.
I also investigated the world of the eleetoids very deeply -- and I had several unique
opportunities to do so. They are certainly not at all like us. They are generally quite vain and
oddly shallow. Money, power, and organized violence are one and the same to them. Wall Street,
Washington D.C., and the pentagon constellation are all on the same page. Crucially, none of these
eleetoids is anywhere near what could be deemed sane. Their minds are profoundly warped just because
they are what they are.
And they are easily capable of setting off Armageddon. War and the proliferation of misery
is not their goal in the end, much worse, it is simply a consequence, a symptom if you will, of
their insanity.
@blues | Aug 12, 2016 5:19:22 AM | 54 "I was an anti-Vietnam war protester.
God bless you for that.
I'm still shocked how many people in Israel, Ukraine, ME, the Commonwealth, USA, Poland, are
eager to go to war because of twisted ideologies, money, stupidity, or some inner demons, sinful
desires.
May be we need another war after all, just to get rid of them, since they pose a mortal danger
to their host societies and cannot be restored to humanity in peaceful ways?
39;How does John Bolton fit with Trumps call for better Russian relations?I'd say he's thinking
of him like he thought of Newt, which is not much.
He does have to placate the warmongers a little bit,or else they'll call him soft on terror.
Stop getting hysterical over unknown unknowns.:)
He said he was being sarcastic about Obomba and IsUS,but again,like a jury,the American people
are given info that can't be taken back.Of course its true,and I guarantee it will come up again,as
we are still almost 3 months to the election.
And the propaganda,as someone mentioned,is unbelievable,and yes the word should be stricken
from the rolls.
WADC and NYC attract psychopathy, so naturally our two choices for November are Alpha Psychopaths.
That doesn't mean that the necrotic American ship of state will alter its course, only settle
lower in the water, come to a gradual stop, tip downward at the bow, and then break in half. The
psychopaths are The Vampire and will fly away, caww, caww, caww, leaving all the hoi polloi, the
Little People, to drink and to drown.
In some ways the rules of engagement for Syria are reminiscent of the restrictions placed on U.S.
special operators in El Salvador in the 1980s. The U.S. forces in that tiny country helped train
the embattled government's counter-insurgency forces. But they were not allowed to go into battle
with the forces they trained.
Roger Carstens, a former lieutenant colonel for the Green Berets who trained local forces in
Iraq and Afghanistan, told me there are good battlefield reasons for allowing the adviser to fight
with the forces he trains. "They gain legitimacy and credibility and they show your partner forces
that you share the risk," he said.
Carstens also said that fighting alongside indigenous troops is a kind of vetting process.
"The instructor gets to see whether the forces he is training have absorbed their training," which
he said is important to evaluate how effective they are.
This is debatable and a lot of nuance is absent from the statement. All debt is not the same,
and in fact for a sovereign that has only liabilities in it's own currency the only debt that
matters is that owed by the citizens to private banks. Will wait for an open thread to revisit.
The Americans are the problem.
They're not interested in foreign policy.
So if Trump can give them jobs and safety abroad, he may bomb the rest of the world.
We can't exclude he appoints a person like John Bolton.
@ From the Hague wrote "The Americans are the problem".............
The people who have brainwashed the Americans are the problem just like in Hitler's time. Those
global plutocratic families have been controlling the narrative for centuries and they seem to
have convinced you it is the US citizens who are to blame for falling for the propaganda this
time.
We will never overcome the Western sick form of social organization if we continue to blame
the wrong folks. We need to end private finance and return all those grifted earnings to the global
commons along with neutering inheritance globally so no one individually/family can control social
policy.
And then the media would not be the brainwashing mechanism it is now building credence for
more wars.
Arguments of Sanders supporters against Hillary are not perfectly applicable to Hillary vs Trump
contest.
Notable quotes:
"... If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere. ..."
"... You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what party is in office. ..."
"... What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . ..."
"... Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change and motives of votes become transparent. ..."
"... the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard. ..."
"... I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc. ..."
"... I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences . ..."
"... One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? ..."
"... Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance. ..."
"... Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well. Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and Independents is already under way. This is one of the forms it may take. ..."
"... Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance. Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified relief by western representatives. ..."
"... Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged and non powerful in todays' America. ..."
"... If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. ..."
"... Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it). ..."
"... Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST. ..."
"... Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures. But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill Clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive. ..."
Robin is relentless is arguing AGAINST, but he is quite light on arguing for anything. It is an
interesting question as to what he stands for.
His main argument is that zero information from "right wing" press is true. He seems unaware
that at times, actual facts are presented or not presented or suppressed by either media outlet,
depending on their corporate ownership and management slant of what should be reported. Me? I
read everything and decide if something is a fact. It is strange that factual reporting about
the actual many many FOIA lawsuits only gets printed in right wing press. They of course have
an agenda, but does not negate the facts they report. Like Clinton being allowed to be deposed
in a civil FOIA suit. That is a fact, with quotes from the Judge. CNN? I guess they couldn't afford
to report this factual development.
When you only read the press looking for a partisan set of narratives, you end up being partisan
and ill informed. When you read all the flavours of press in an desire to inform yourself, when
your goal is not a narrative but factual accounts of the truth, then you can be better informed.
So we have partisans, who only view Fox and we also have partisans who only view CNN. Both are
as bad as each other. One must be capable of decreeing the motives of each, and discarding the
nonfactual narratives, and then one can be fully informed.
Robin makes the assumption that facts only occur in his selected set of informational partisan
sources. Why? Because he is partisan. This then enables him to argue against a narrative, rather
than support his own narrative. He plays the neat trick of simply discarding any factual reporting
from places like Breibart. One can see interesting lacks of coverage on google search.
"Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any
communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a
person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."
So surely in America, Clinton with her wealth would take some legal action? I would if I
had her money, and wealth. Interesting that she has not? Perhaps you could write to her and
suggest she defend herself in a real and palpable way?
Yes and a lot of the press are trying to bury the news about another Sanders success. When you
look at how many voting districts he comes out top in, in is a large percentage. Clinton tends
to get closer or take the district if their is a higher population density.
The influence of the super delegates is a scandal in a "democratic process".
First I would be very careful taking what G gives, it is nowadays "fixing" news like Fox. Most
reliable, if speaking about polls the word can be used, is results of metastudies:
If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters
no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere.
Clinton won't cut it and she won't beat Trump. Trump will out her on every crooked deal she
has been involved in.
You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed
to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what
party is in office.
Is this is a Fox News plant article? yeah yeah, let's vote Clinton who promises a continuation
of Obama's policies. Will Trump make this much worse? Maybe. Trump or Clinton will in my opinion
do little to improve these issues quoted below. You have a different opinion. Great.
"Like the rest of America, Black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when
I came into office," said President Obama on December 19, in response to a question by Urban Radio
Networks White House Correspondent April Ryan.
What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that
President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation
since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in
office illustrates that.
Unemployment. The average Black unemployment under President Bush was 10 percent. The average
under President Obama after six years is 14 percent. Black unemployment, "has always been double"
[that of Whites] but it hasn't always been 14 percent. The administration was silent when Black
unemployment hit 16 percent – a 27-year high – in late 2011 .
Poverty. The percentage of Blacks in poverty in 2009 was 25 percent; it is now 27 percent.
The issue of poverty is rarely mentioned by the president or any members of his cabinet. Currently,
more than 45 million people – 1 in 7 Americans – live below the poverty line.
The Black/White Wealth Gap. The wealth gap between Blacks and Whites in America is at a 24-year
high. A December study by PEW Research Center revealed the average White household is worth $141,900,
and the average Black household is worth $11,000. From 2010 to 2013, the median income for Black
households plunged 9 percent.
Income inequality. "Between 2009 and 2012 the top one percent of Americans enjoyed 95 percent
of all income gains, according to research from U.C. Berkeley," reported The Atlantic. It was
the worst since 1928. As income inequality has widened during President Obama's time in office,
the president has endorsed tax policy that has widened inequality, such as the Bush Tax cuts.
Education: The high school dropout rate has improved during the Obama administration. However,
currently 42 percent of Black children attend high poverty schools, compared to only 6 percent
of White students. The Department of Education's change to Parent PLUS loans requirements cost HBCU's more than $150 million and interrupted the educations of 28,000-plus HBCU students.
SBA Loans. In March 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that only 1.7 percent of $23 billion
in SBA loans went to Black-owned businesses in 2013, the lowest loan of SBA lending to Black businesses
on record. During the Bush presidency, the percentage of SBA loans to Black businesses was 8 percent
– more than four times the Obama rate.
"All the equations showed strikingly uni- form statistical results: racism as we have measured
it was a significantly disequalizing force on the white income distribution, even when other factors
were held constant. A 1 percent increase in the ratio of black to white median incomes (that is,
a 1 percent decrease in racism) was associated with a .2 percent decrease in white inequality,
as measured by the Gini coefficient. The corresponding effect on top 1 percent share of white
income was two and a half times as large, indicating that most of the inequality among whites
generated by racism was associated with increased income for the richest 1 percent of white families.
Further statistical investigation reveals that increases in the racism variable had an insignifi-
cant effect on the. share received by the poorest whites and resulted in a decrease in the income
share of the whites in the middle income brackets."
"What I said, and still maintain, is that the struggle against racism is as important as the struggle
against other forms of oppression, including those with economic and financial causes."
We can agree on this statement. However, do we need to recognise that legislation alone will
not solve racism. A percentage of poor people turn against the "other" and apportion blame for
their issues.
" that campaign finance and banking reform will fix everything"
Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms
or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is
that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service
to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are
very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates
a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress
them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change
and motives of votes become transparent.
"The various forms of discrimination are not separable in real life. Employers' hiring and
promotion practices; resource allocation in city schools; the structure of transportation sys-
tems; residential segregation and housing quality; availability of decent health care; be- havior
of policemen and judges; foremen's prejudices; images of blacks presented in the media and the
schools; price gouging in ghetto stores-these and the other forms of social and economic discrimination
interact strongly with each other in determining the occupational status and annual income, and
welfare, of black people. The processes are not simply additive but are mutually reinforcing.
Often, a decrease in one narrow form of discrimination is accompanied by an increase in another
form. Since all aspects of racism interact, an analysis of racism should incorporate all its as-
pects in a unified manner."
My thesis is this: build economic equality and the the pressing toxins of racism diminish.
But yeah dismiss Sanders as a one issue candidate. he is a politician, which I acknowledge. He
has a different approach to clinton who will micro triangulate constantly depending on who she
in front of. I find his approach ore honest. Your mileage may vary.
" money spent on campaigns does not correlate very highly to winning"
No but overall money gets to decide on a narrow set of compliance in the candidates. But it
still correlates to winning. Look at the Greens with no cash. Without the cash, they will never
win. Sanders has proved that 1. We do not need to depend on the rich power brokers to select narrowly
who will be presented as a candidate. 2. He has proved that a voter can donate and compete with
corporate donations. I would rather scads of voter cash financing rather than corporate cash buying
influence. ABSCAM was a brief flash, never repeated to show us what really happens in back rooms
when a wad of cash arrives with a politician. That we cannot PROVE what happens off the grid,
we can and should rely on common sense about the influence of money. 85% of the American people
believe cash buys influence. The only influence on a politician should be the will of the people.
Sure, corporates can speak. Speech is free. Corporate cash as speech is a different matter. It
is a moral corruption.
"most contributions come after electoral success"
Yes part of the implied contract of corporates and people like the Koch Brothers: Look after
us and we will look after you. We will keep you in power, as long as you slant the legislation
to favour us over the voters.
You do realise the Clinton Foundation bought the assets of the DLC, a defunct organisation.
Part of the assets are the documents and records that contain the information about the Koch Brothers
donations and their executives joining the "management" of the DLC. Why would a Charity be interested
in the DLC documents? Ah it is a Clinton Foundation. Yeah yeah, there is no proof of anything
is there. No law was broken. Do I smell something ? Does human nature guide my interpretation
absent a clear statement from the Foundation of this "investment"?? Yes.
We have to start SOMEWHERE. Root causes are the best place to start.
Democrat or Republican, Blacks and Whites at the bottom are thrown in a race for the bottom
and this helps fuel the impoverishment of both. It is fuel to feed racism. My genuine belief.
Why is it wrong for democrats to pick their own party leader? Also Obama beat Hilary last time
so what's Bernies problem now? Also why moan about a system that's been in place for decades now,
surely the onus was on Sanders to attract more middle of the road dem voters? Finally I'm sure
republicans would also love to vote in Sanders, easy to demolish with attack ads before the election
(you'll note they've studiously ignored him so far).
the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in
admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy
is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and
deserves to get it good and hard.
explain to me why the blacks and Hispanics vote for her because it is a mystery to me. She
stands for everything they have had to fight against. So you have a 1%er-Wall St.-invade
Iraq-subprime-cheat the EU-Goldman Sachs-arms dealing-despot cuddling-fuck the environment
coalition. And blacks and Hispanics too? Are they out of their minds?
BERNIE SANDERS - OR ZIG AGAINST ZAG
.
If the American people don't come to their senses and give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination,
we're going to end up with a choice between Zig and Zag. Zig is Donald Trump, and Zag is Hillary
Clinton. To paraphrase Mort Sahl back in the sixties, the only difference between the two is if
Donald 'Zig' Trump sees a Black child lying in the street, he'd simply order his chauffeur to
run over him. If Hillary 'Zag' Clinton saw the kid, she'd also order her chauffeur to run over
him, but she'd weep, and go apologize to the NAACP, after she felt the bump.
.
WAKE UP, BLACK PEOPLE!!!
Giving aid to the Republicans? If you honestly believe that any criticisms I have is worse than
what I discuss, you need to give up politics and get a hobby. Trump will for example use her FOIA/email
issues like a stick to beat her with. This is not Soviet Russia where we all adopt the party line.
I'm not not ever have been a member of the Democratic Party. I COULD have been this year. Now?
Never. The solution to the nations problems will come from outside this party.
I prefer neither. You love fearmongering about how worse it will be under trump. Hmmm. I don't
buy that tale. Take Black family incomes. In the toilet. Under either party it goes south. Abortion?
Like slavery nothing ...... Nothing is going to change. It's too late to change that one. But
it's a useful tool to make us believe ONLY Clinton can protect us. Economically the Democrats
are essentially the same as the Republicans, more of the same corporate welfare. Would Clinton
cut Social Security? Maybe. I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just
can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to
lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved
she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the
same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching
support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc.
You believe a black family gays and women will sing Kumbaya under Clinton and all will be well.
I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences .
It would be perhaps remotely marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats,
socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing marxist about
it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that
we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans.
I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about
fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his
ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn
about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. Those groups believe in
changing the society through struggle into a model that fits their idea of the world whatever
that may be. He simply states his beliefs and suggests laws to adjust the society to human
needs, to eat, to live, to prosper in an equal footing.
It is a rather sad commentary on how the bar of integrity and honesty has been so lowered
that it doesn't even faze them
One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Their stance on gun and abortion issues?
Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance.
Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well.
Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic
party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and
Independents is already under way. This
is one of the forms it may take.
Recharging is always a good idea ... and never more so than in an election year as turbulent,
crazy, uplifting, disillusioning, energizing, maddening and fascinating as this one. I'll also
be away (for weeks) toward the end of this month.
Before you go, here's Carl Bernstein's interview with Don Lemon, in case you missed it:
Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum.
Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter.
This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance.
Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of
what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like
this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told
me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified
relief by western representatives.
Add to that the continual lies that are being aired in public and this is why the USA has lost
its way.
Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for
their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the
savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy
Hilary is to these people.
And since when does the USA have the ethical superiority to attack countries like Russia for cronyism
etc? This is unbelievable - a presidential nominee candidate is being investigated by the FBI
and she doesn't stand down?
Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose
name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged
and non powerful in todays' America.
I recall David Bowie's beautiful song This Is Not America. The Bernie supporters understand
that, all power to him, those who think like him, and his supporters.
Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro,
called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively.
You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a
Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never
heard of Obama. Things changed real fast.
Like its not obvious? There is now no paper trail to enable ensuring computer votes are true.
A man on the moon can now ensure who is going to be President, that was said by a premier computer
security expert.
Along with extensive disenfranchisement, numerous ways its pretty clear these outcomes are
preordained. Guess I am not going to be voting for either of the two appointed runners, its
pointless. I will vote for Bernie when its time in California.
And to branch out a bit, there are so many empty stock phrases to choose from in her 2016 campaign
alone, including "I'm with her" and "Breaking down barriers" courtesy of her 2008 campaign manager,
Mark Penn. Speaking of Penn, there's a hilarious little passage in "Clinton, Inc" (p. 65) which
describes Penn running through possible campaign slogans for 2008. "Penn began to walk through
all the iterations of Hillary slogans: Solutions for America, Ready for a change, Ready to lead,
Big challenges, Real Solutions; Time to pick a President... but then he seem to get a little lost...Working
for change, Working for you. There was silence, then snickers as Penn tried to remember all the
bumper stickers which run together sounded absurd and indistinguishable. The Hillary I know."....
Oy. ^__^
But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate
and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer:
In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times,
Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support
So I guess the former speaker of the NY assembly is just gonna have to vote for Hillary
from behind bars, instead of at the DNC? How "super-inconvenient."
If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably
more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only
is a distraction from their lack of policy.
Both their economic/domestic policies do little or
worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable
(although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either
is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton
seems to want to expand it).
If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not
Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters.
Most effective senator for the last 35 years and as Mayor or Burlington stopped corporate real
estate developers from turning Burlington into Aspen east coast version.
She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi,
turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected
president in Honduras and said nothing,
takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she
KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I
go on?
So please please explain how Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to wave a wand and fix racism? I
already know she will not fix poverty, she will slap a few ersatz bandaids onto bills that won't
pass and like the spoiled child will seek praise every time mommy gets him to shit on the potty.
You might recall a guy called Martin Luther King. he had some words about economic fairness and
poverty.
"" In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many
white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences
of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white
and Negro alike . "
nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life
is meaningless. The belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.
You love that word but rejection of the dysfunctional state of DNC politics is NOT
nihilism. Moral corruption around campaign finance is real. Moral corruption around money and
lobbyists is real. The desire to fix this, this is real. Seeking real change is not nihilism.
But yes, if it pleases you to continue in every other post with this word, do so. It's misuse
says more about you than Sanders.
Please tell me exactly how much HRC has done for the U.S.? I'm from NYC and when she brought her
carpet bagging ass here and as a 2 term senator she pushed 3 pieces of legislation thru. If you
look at Bernie Sanders voting record:
He's been one of the most effective senators in Congress and has been able to get things done
with cooperation from both sides of the aisle.
So tell me again, what's she done that's so notable?
Uh huh and your supporting a person:
That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta
in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements
that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency,
has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah
she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt....
Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes
a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures.
But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless
they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like
the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill Clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They
didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila
it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive.
"... Reading Time for the 1st time in decades made me feel better because I could not read it, at least not the way they intended it. It was like trying to compile FORTRAN with a source file written in C. I don't understand their language anymore so the reading experience is like looking for errors in your source code. Kind of liberating in a way. ..."
"... Everyone is recognizing the only way to become a Billionaire for now on is paying off politicians and becoming an extension of the federal government. Write rules in your favor or get the economic mercenaries whether they be the military - CIA - or the state department and take over a country a la Confessions of a Economic Hitman. Hillary is preferred since now you can induce a seizure and she turns into a signature pad with amnesia ..."
"... Circulation around 3 million copies. Probably covers most waiting rooms across the country and a few Grandmas. ..."
"... Here's a TIME magazine cover the day after 9/11/2016 when he gives his memorial dedication to those that perished that day with his unwavering pledge for the only investigation that matters!... ..."
Had to pick up and glance through a copy of Time recently before a dental appt. The other choices
were People, Good Housekeeping and some sales literature for dental equipment and other torture
gear.
Reading Time for the 1st time in decades made me feel better because I could not read it, at
least not the way they intended it. It was like trying to compile FORTRAN with a source file written
in C. I don't understand their language anymore so the reading experience is like looking for
errors in your source code. Kind of liberating in a way.
Everyone is recognizing the only way to become a Billionaire for now on is paying off politicians
and becoming an extension of the federal government. Write rules in your favor or get the economic mercenaries whether they be the military - CIA
- or the state department and take over a country a la Confessions of a Economic Hitman. Hillary is preferred since now you can induce a seizure and she turns into a signature pad
with amnesia
Here's a TIME magazine cover the day after 9/11/2016 when he gives his memorial dedication to those
that perished that day with his
unwavering pledge for the only investigation that matters!...
"... The 90's represent a time of relative economic prosperity and geopolitical dominance in the collective American imagination. Race relations, though briefly inflamed during the Los Angeles riots of 1992, remained relatively placid by the standards of U.S. history, and with the fall of the USSR, the United States became an unquestioned Global Hegemon. ..."
"... In this sense at least, the 90's were high times for the Clintons and their Neo-Liberal fellow travelers. Who had convinced themselves, along with much of the populace of the United States, that they had finally entered Francis Fukuyama's prophesied "End of History." ..."
"... Though Donald Trump promises to "Make America Great Again," his rhetoric recalls, not the beloved 1990s of the Clintons, but rather the decade from 1953 to 1963, the time between the Korean war and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. An era of middle-class flourishing and industrial expansion, when good paying factory work allowed unskilled laborers to achieve the "American Dream" of Suburban tranquility and economic comfort. An era of low crime and common purpose. An era when a beloved President first dreamt of landing a man on the moon and the covers of magazines like "Popular Mechanics" showcased grand visions of a future dominated by the wonders and comforts of American technology. Though of course profoundly philistine and materialist in nature (and thus genuinely American), it is a vision which remains quite distinct from violent, pathological visions dreamt of by the Clintons and their associates. ..."
"... This universal, imperialist programme of exploitation and domination is the explicit goal of the ideology of Neo-Liberalism, whose cause will seem all the more urgent to a newly elected and empowered Hillary Clinton. She will then have to face the reality of both a divided country at home and a rapidly decaying Neoliberal world order abroad. As Russia, China, Iran, and others begin to push back against the reign of U.S. led cultural Imperialism. ..."
"... A more cautious Trump presidency would likely approach the situation with a good deal of pragmatism by letting the United State's moment of unipolar hegemony naturally fade away as the world slowly drifts into the more organic and sustainable state of Multipolarity. ..."
"... Though derided by her detractors as a dangerous, ideologically driven hawk on foreign policy and praised by her devotees as a steady, experienced hand, possessing considerable analytic acumen. The truth is that, in reality, both assessments are correct. It is important to note, however, that for Hillary Clinton, the latter merely acts as a veneer for the former. Her strategic acumen, however potent it may be, remains merely the servant of the powerful chthonic forces which drive her damaged psyche. Despite any appearances to the contrary, in her purest essence, she remains a genuine fanatic. ..."
"... Regardless of these rumors, it is entirely fair to assert that Clinton, whether or not she is a practicing lesbian, is at least a functional one. Her projected persona, from the androgynous pantsuits to her open contempt for the Traditional female roles of wife and mother coupled with a fanatical devotion to the cause of universal LGBT "human rights," is an almost exact emulation of a butch lesbian aesthetic and sensibility. It is a direct mimicry of Western conceptions of corporate masculinity reconceptualized through the funhouse mirror of 1970's feminist ideology. It is this barely cryptic Lesbianism, which serves as the primary ideological scaffolding for Clinton's thought and action. An ideology that is driven almost purely by a profound ressentiment of all those who do not affirm its tenets. ..."
"... The very first action to be taken by a future Clinton administration will be an immediate reset of the U.S. policy on Syria. This intention has already been explicitly articulated and publicized in the international press and will mark a stark break with the Obama administration's previously more pragmatic approach. Syria was a war Obama was never particularly interested in and which he involved himself in only after intense pressure from his advisors (such as then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland). Although Obama would, of course, have favored a solution that resulted in the replacement of Assad with a malleable puppet regime which was friendly to both American and Zionist ambitions in the Region. His better instincts led him to avoid the more extreme Anti-Assad approach favored by the most hawkish members of his cabinet. ..."
"... Clinton's stratagem will be the direct inverse of Obama's more tolerant approach to Assad. For Clinton, destroying Assad, and by extension, the millions of innocents which his government protects from Jihadi terror represents a triple opportunity. Enabling her to strike a direct blow simultaneously against Iranian and Russian interests in the region while also appeasing her Zionist backers. Thus, it will become an immediate priority for her administration. ..."
"... The full weight of U.S. power will be used to reignite a conflict in the Donbass region, which will be justified under the pretense of restoring the "territorial integrity" of the Ukrainian Junta. This will enable the U.S. to continue its encirclement of Russia while also bleeding it of resources. This will make it, it is hoped by the U.S., more vulnerable, over the long term, to a hostile, U.S. funded, regime change which will be carried out by Atlanticist Fifth Columnist inside Russia. ..."
"... Clinton's domestic policies will be similarly reckless and aggressive. These will focus primarily upon stamping out any dissent, whether on the Left or the Right, to her rule. This should not be a difficult task, as the vast majority of Media elites in the United States are open supporters of her ideology. These elites will be in a particularly foul mood after the Election, as they have come to view Trump, and especially his supporters, as a mortal threat to their continued hegemony. A Clinton victory would then give them the leverage and pretext they need to begin punishing and marginalizing the Trump electorate that they so deeply despise. ..."
"... Needless to say, dissenters will suffer greatly under a Clinton regime. Those who oppose further aggressive U.S. actions across the globe will be dealt with as borderline traitors. Others who oppose the normalization of Sodomy and other related deviancies, such as Transgenderism, will be labeled bigots and suffer economic consequences as they are forced out of their jobs under the pretext of creating "safe work environmen ..."
The Summer of 2016 is proving to be a decisive one in both the United States and the
rest of the world. The long shadows currently being thrown against the wall by history will soon
morph into their full forms come November when the presidential contest is finally decided. With
the longest and most ominous being the potential ascension of Hillary Rodham Clinton to the office
of President of the United States of America.
Most Americans are instinctively aware of this, and it is this instinct which has seen
Hillary Clinton's unfavorable ratings rise to
historic levels.
This anti-Clinton aversion is born as much from experience as it is from intuition,
as Americans vividly recall her Husband's presidency and assume, correctly, that a second Clinton
presidency would repeat all of the vices of the first but without any of its virtues.
Indeed, the 1990's still loom large in the imagination of most Clintonites.
The 90's
represent a time of relative economic prosperity and geopolitical dominance in the collective American
imagination. Race relations, though briefly inflamed during the Los Angeles riots of 1992, remained
relatively placid by the standards of U.S. history, and with the fall of the USSR, the United States
became an unquestioned Global Hegemon.
A Hegemon which possessed the perfect freedom to strike its
enemies, both real and perceived, with near impunity across the Globe. As the people of Serbia and
Iraq learned, only too well, through horrible experience.
In this sense at least, the 90's were high
times for the Clintons and their Neo-Liberal fellow travelers. Who had convinced themselves, along
with much of the populace of the United States, that they had finally entered Francis Fukuyama's
prophesied "End of History."
Though Donald Trump promises to "Make America Great Again," his rhetoric recalls, not
the beloved 1990s of the Clintons, but rather the decade from 1953 to 1963, the time between the
Korean war and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. An era of middle-class flourishing and industrial
expansion, when good paying factory work allowed unskilled laborers to achieve the "American Dream"
of Suburban tranquility and economic comfort. An era of low crime and common purpose. An era when
a beloved President first dreamt of landing a man on the moon and the covers of magazines like "Popular
Mechanics" showcased grand visions of a future dominated by the wonders and comforts of American
technology. Though of course profoundly philistine and materialist in nature (and thus genuinely
American), it is a vision which remains quite distinct from violent, pathological visions dreamt
of by the Clintons and their associates.
In contrast, to Trump's inward looking, Populist-Nationalist synthesis, Clinton offers
Americans what is perhaps the most thoroughly pure version of Neo-Liberalism yet put forward on a
national political stage. Consisting of both unapologetic support for international capitalist exploitation
of labor as well as a virulent dedication to the continued unipolar geopolitical dominance of the
United State's burgeoning Imperium. Its explicit goal is not merely to enable its own citizens to
live the good life of uninhibited, rootless hedonism (the American Dream) but also to impose this
concept of "the good life" upon the rest of the world.
This universal, imperialist programme of exploitation and domination is the explicit
goal of the ideology of Neo-Liberalism, whose cause will seem all the more urgent to a newly elected
and empowered Hillary Clinton. She will then have to face the reality of both a divided country at
home and a rapidly decaying Neoliberal world order abroad. As Russia, China, Iran, and others begin
to push back against the reign of U.S. led cultural Imperialism.
A more cautious Trump presidency would likely approach the situation with a good deal
of pragmatism by letting the United State's moment of unipolar hegemony naturally fade away as the
world slowly drifts into the more organic and sustainable state of Multipolarity.
The same cannot be said, of course, for the path a potential Clinton administration
would take, however. Clinton will have no choice but to throw all of her energies behind a shrill,
last-ditch defense of the American Imperium, in both its physical, cultural and psychological manifestations.
Though derided by her detractors as a dangerous, ideologically driven hawk on foreign
policy and praised by her devotees as a steady, experienced hand, possessing considerable analytic
acumen. The truth is that, in reality, both assessments are correct. It is important to note, however,
that for Hillary Clinton, the latter merely acts as a veneer for the former. Her strategic acumen,
however potent it may be, remains merely the servant of the powerful chthonic forces which drive
her damaged psyche. Despite any appearances to the contrary, in her purest essence, she remains a
genuine fanatic.
When one looks back on the trajectory of her political career, it is not difficult to
perceive it as a series of carefully calculated moves which served only to move her continually closer
to capturing the presidency and the ultimate power it offers. While this is not exactly original
analysis, it is still startling and instructive to contemplate the truly bizarre length and breadth
of the ambition which has propelled her this far. Her husband's philandering, which has become the
stuff of legend in the United States and has resulted in at least one serious claim of sexual assault,
was obviously known to her from the beginning of their relationship. Her apparent ambivalence (if
not open approval) regarding her husband's behavior is likewise an open secret and has, at least
in part, contributed to the constant rumors regarding her potential homosexuality.
Regardless of these rumors, it is entirely fair to assert that Clinton, whether or not
she is a practicing lesbian, is at least a functional one. Her projected persona, from the androgynous
pantsuits to her open contempt for the Traditional female roles of wife and mother coupled with a
fanatical devotion to the cause of universal LGBT "human rights," is an almost exact emulation
of a butch lesbian aesthetic and sensibility. It is a direct mimicry of Western conceptions of corporate
masculinity reconceptualized through the funhouse mirror of 1970's feminist ideology. It is this
barely cryptic Lesbianism, which serves as the primary ideological scaffolding for Clinton's thought
and action. An ideology that is driven almost purely by a profound ressentiment of all those who
do not affirm its tenets.
It is this ressentiment which serves as the motivator for all of her endeavors, both
of the past and of the future. Once Clinton secures the full powers of the U.S. presidency, she will
then have the ultimate tool with which to wage war upon her perceived tormentors, i.e. all those
who do not willingly affirm her particularly deviant ideological proclivities.
This campaign of revenge will be waged on two separate fronts, one foreign and one domestic
and will seek an utter subjugation or eradication of her perceived enemies.
On the foreign front Clinton will immediately seek to reestablish U.S. dominance over
the three primary regions of Modern Geopolitical Conflict: The Greater Middle East, the South China
Sea, and Europe with a special focus on subduing the Russian Federation
The very first action to be taken by a future Clinton administration will be an immediate
reset of the U.S. policy on Syria. This intention has already been explicitly articulated and publicized
in the international press
and will mark a stark break with the Obama administration's previously
more pragmatic approach. Syria was a war Obama was never particularly interested in and which he
involved himself in only after intense pressure from his advisors (such as then-Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland). Although Obama would, of course, have favored a solution that
resulted in the replacement of Assad with a malleable puppet regime which was friendly to both American
and Zionist ambitions in the Region. His better instincts led him to avoid the more extreme Anti-Assad
approach favored by the most hawkish members of his cabinet.
Clinton's stratagem will be the direct inverse of Obama's more tolerant approach to
Assad. For Clinton, destroying Assad, and by extension, the millions of innocents which his government
protects from Jihadi terror represents a triple opportunity. Enabling her to strike a direct blow
simultaneously against Iranian and Russian interests in the region while also appeasing her Zionist
backers. Thus, it will become an immediate priority for her administration.
The policy will most likely take the form of a deluge of advanced armaments to the Syrian
Islamists currently at war with the Assad government, potentially including Jabhat Al Nusra whose
recent split with Al-Qaeda proper will make it a tempting potential ally in the new crusade against
Assad.
In addition to this new flow of arms, an attempt to establish a "no-fly zone" over Syria
will be made with the expressed purpose of denigrating the Syrian government's ability to defend
its people from Islamist terrorists. How this will be accomplished is still unclear, with the presence
of the Russian military posing an especially difficult challenge. However, a U.S. provocation to
open war is not entirely out of the question. Especially since a Clinton administration may view
Syria as a theatre which, given U.S. superiority in power projection, would potentially enable a
seemingly easy victory over Russian and Syrian forces.
Everything will depend on the actions of the Russian government, whether it decides
to double down on its ally or surrender to U.S. intimidation, as well as the disposition of Turkey.
In this sense, the recent Coup attempt may serve as a blessing in disguise, as it is well known that,
if not explicitly planned by the CIA, the Coup attempt was at the very least tacitly endorsed by
the Obama administration. These facts will weigh heavily on President Erdogan's mind if and when
a request is made to use Turkish airbases to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria.
The second theatre, which will serve as the medium-term priority, will be a renewed
attempt to further isolate and weaken the Russian Federation. This will involve both new deployments
of American Military forces and equipment to both the Baltic states and Eastern Ukraine.
The full
weight of U.S. power will be used to reignite a conflict in the Donbass region, which will be justified
under the pretense of restoring the "territorial integrity" of the Ukrainian Junta. This will enable
the U.S. to continue its encirclement of Russia while also bleeding it of resources. This will make
it, it is hoped by the U.S., more vulnerable, over the long term, to a hostile, U.S. funded,
regime change which will be carried out by Atlanticist Fifth Columnist inside Russia.
The third theatre, which will serve as the long-term priority, will be attempting to
contain China from asserting its sovereignty in the South China Sea and the island of Taiwan. This
will be by far the most difficult task facing a potential Clinton administration. China will possess
a distinct military advantage over U.S. forces in the region owing to its advanced area-denial capabilities
which will enable it effectively to neutralize the main tool of U.S. power projection: the aircraft
carrier. The exact course a Clinton administration would take in a potential showdown with China
is still unclear but given her past proclivities; it would not be a stretch to assume a choice for
confrontation over compromise would be made.
Clinton's domestic policies will be similarly reckless and aggressive. These will focus
primarily upon stamping out any dissent, whether on the Left or the Right, to her rule. This should
not be a difficult task, as the vast majority of Media elites in the United States are open supporters
of her ideology. These elites will be in a particularly foul mood after the Election, as they have
come to view Trump, and especially his supporters, as a mortal threat to their continued hegemony.
A Clinton victory would then give them the leverage and pretext they need to begin punishing and
marginalizing the Trump electorate that they so deeply despise.
This will involve not only formal purges of journalists and academics (which has already
become a regular occurrence in the U.S.) but also a renewed push to further hollow out what remains
of the American Middle class, as well as continuing to push an intrinsically violent LGBT ideology
further upon America's children.
Needless to say, dissenters will suffer greatly under a Clinton regime. Those who oppose
further aggressive U.S. actions across the globe will be dealt with as borderline traitors. Others
who oppose the normalization of Sodomy and other related deviancies, such as Transgenderism, will
be labeled bigots and suffer economic consequences as they are forced out of their jobs under the
pretext of creating "safe work environmen
ts".
Tax exemption for religiously affiliated schools and nonprofit organizations will be
revoked unless they agree to adhere to anti-discrimination laws which will require the affirmation
of LGBT ideology.
"... No wonder this man at a Trump campaign rally yesterday in Kissimmee, Florida, gave the finger
to CNN producer Noah Gray and other journalists, shouting, "Go home! You are traitors! I am an American
patriot!" ..."
Now we have CNN anchor Chris
Cuomo - former ABC News correspondent and "20/20" co-anchor, son of the late New York governor
Mario Cuomo, and brother of current New York governor Andrew Cuomo - confirming what so many suspect.
In June 2014, Cuomo openly admitted on camera that the media have abandoned all pretenses at journalistic
objectivity, but instead give Hillary Clinton "a free ride" and are her "biggest" promoters. At the
time, although Hillary had not yet declared she would run for the presidency, she was already getting
donations for her then-nonexistent presidential campaign.
Cuomo said:
"It's a problem because she's [Hillary Clinton] doing what they call in politics 'freezing
pockets,' because the donors are giving her money thinking she's going to run, that means they're
not going to have available money for other candidates if she doesn't. And I don't think she's
going to give it to them. We [the media] couldn't help her any more than we have, she's
got just a free ride so far from the media, we're the biggest ones promoting her campaign, so
it had better happen. "
No wonder this man
at a Trump campaign rally yesterday in Kissimmee, Florida, gave the finger to CNN producer Noah
Gray and other journalists, shouting, "Go home! You are traitors! I am an American patriot!"
"... she is living in a glass house funded by Goldman Sachs and should be throwing no stones. ..."
"... Clinton's been courting endorsements from billionaires Meg Whitman, Warren Buffett and Michael Bloomberg. Her own son-in-law is a "hedge fund guy", and the Wall Street Journal reported that "hedge fund money has vastly favored Clinton over Trump" to the tidy sum of $122m. Being bothered by what this portends for our economic future this is not a vote for Trump. ..."
"... She has embraced the endorsement of neocon John Negroponte and is even reportedly courting the endorsement of Henry Kissinger. As secretary of state, Clinton controversially supported not designating the 2009 ouster of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya as a coup ..."
"... turning a critical lens on the presidential candidate who supported the war that killed their son does not equate supporting her opponent. ..."
While she made fun of Trump on the stump for
having "a dozen or so economic advisers he just named: hedge fund guys, billionaire guys, six
guys named Steve, apparently," she is living in a
glass house funded by Goldman Sachs and should be throwing no stones.
They're not named Steve, but Clinton's been courting endorsements from billionaires
Meg Whitman,
Warren Buffett and Michael Bloomberg. Her own son-in-law is a
"hedge fund guy", and the Wall Street Journal
reported that "hedge fund money has vastly favored Clinton over Trump" to the tidy sum of
$122m. Being bothered by what this portends for our economic future this is not a vote for Trump.
And though Trump is hinting to his supporters that they might want to use the second amendment
to possibly assassinate Clinton or justices of the supreme court is disgusting, let's not forget
Clinton saying in May 2008 that she had to stay in that primary
because "Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California" and, ho hum, you never know
what might happen to presumptive nominee Barack Obama.
I bring this all up not to draw parallels between Clinton and Trump. She is clearly the more
capable person suited to preside over this corrupt,
perpetually and criminally violent enterprise known as the United States of America. But
let's not act like Clinton is a dove when it comes to matters of life and death.
She has
embraced the endorsement of neocon John Negroponte and is even reportedly courting the
endorsement of Henry Kissinger. As secretary of state, Clinton controversially supported not
designating the 2009 ouster of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya as a
coup, even though he was woken up by armed soldiers and
forced onto a plane and out of his country in his pajamas. She has since
defended her role in that situation, which has led to hell for women, children and
environmentalists, including the
assassination of indigenous activist Berta Cáceres. And as senator, Clinton
supported the Iraq war, a vote which helped lead to the death of US army captain Humayun
Khan.
Captain Khan's parents have valiantly and admirably taken on Trump and his ugly Islamophobia.
But turning a critical lens on the presidential candidate who supported the war that killed
their son does not equate supporting her opponent.
"Klein's book is an extension of the tabloid-style (but truthful) accounts of Clinton's relationship
with members of her own party. But its significance is it places in higher relief - the antipathy associated
with the expected intra-party "hand-off" - when the Obamas move out - and the Clintons return to their
place of "glory" - where they ruled from January 1993 to January 2001. "
* I received an advance review copy from a friend a few weeks ago and I have to say that whether
or not you're a Hillary fan - "Unlikeable" is as compelling as author Edward Klein's previous
two examinations about the Clintons - or more to the point - his examinations of the Clintons'
RELATIONSHIPS with other big wheels in Washington. Because other readers have already written
summaries about what Hillary - according to Klein - is all about, I'll focus on just two (2) of
the many takeaways I got from this book.
* 1 of 2) - As a journalist, I ask again - how much
of Klein's work is true? However objectionable it is that most of Klein's sources are anonymous
- I reach the inescapable conclusion that the more unflattering assertions against Hillary are
highly placed and credible members of the Democratic Party. Why? Because it's hard to believe
any GOP operative could poach incendiary word-for-word conversations between the Clintons and
others - without being physically in the same rooms. The irony is much of the inflammatory material
in "Unlikeable" appears - to me, anyway - to be coming NOT from right-wing partisans - but from
satellite extensions of the Clintons themselves.
* And the elephant in the room that bolsters Klein's credibility - is that Klein himself, a
self-admitted JFK fan and a former editor at Newsweek, Vanity Fair and the New York Times Magazine
- has never been successfully sued for libel - nor have any of his books been successfully discredited
as being loaded with patent lies. If untrue, there would be more than enough to warrant the Clintons
suing Klein and his publishers for libel. But it hasn't happened (yet), dating back to Klein's
first book about Hillary in 2005. (In Journalism 101 we're taught that Truth is the best defense
against libel - and that public figures like Hillary must prove malice - AND - that blatant untruths
have been printed which have caused irreparable harm.)
* If you're a Hillary fan, you have every right to regard "Unlikeable" as tabloid filth, but
that's an opinion, not a fact, framed by what you bring to the table. When the same type of books
are written about GOP figures, your emotions may provide a better sense of what I'm talking about.
* 2 of 2) - At this snapshot in time - the most "contemporaneously relevant" slice of material
in this more than 250-page book has to do with the controversy over Hillary's decision to install
a private email server when she was U.S. Secretary of State from 2009 to early 2013. Without apology
or qualification, Klein asserts that President Obama - and key members of his administration -
explicitly warned Hillary to not do it, despite her paranoia about snooping enemies resulting
from her many years as a public figure.
* I admit I do get the feeling that the President's closest personal adviser, Valerie Jarrett,
has a key role in campaign and policy strategy, including the release of adverse information against
Hillary. Nothing gets by her and this might explain, 1) why so many "insiders" were willing -
(or got permission) - to air the Clintons' dirty laundry to Edward Klein, and, 2) why the President's
own administration - (and not some right-wing conspiracy) - is more responsible for the FBI's
investigation of the email server issue - to proceed without obstruction. When the heat turned
up against Hillary, she asked the President to help, i.e., to "call off his dogs." According to
Klein, the President turned Hillary down.
* In sum, "Unlikeable" may be a lot of things, but it is not boring, Based on what was revealed
previously about the sour relations between the Clintons and the Obamas in Klein's "Blood Feud"
(2014) - the behind-the-scenes narrative remains unchanged. It's true that millions love and admire
Hillary Clinton outside of Washington. But inside the Beltway, she is feared and resented by enough
people at the highest reaches of the Democratic Party - adding another layer of woe on top of
the antipathy she has long gotten from the GOP. She might still get the White House because of
the fracturing of the GOP, even though Vice President Joseph Biden appeared to have less baggage
being his authentic self, e.g., the same guy in public and private, untouched by scandals, real
or imagined, a loyalist to the President in ways that Hillary was not.
The key assumption is that Valerie Jarrett absolutely hates Hillary and she has authorized
people to speak with Edward Klein on the topic of Hillary. The Obamas are out to destroy the Clintons
because they think the Clintons are about to lose a presidential election and they personally
do not like them anyway. Ed Klein's reporting seems extremely credible to me.
David, I was surprised to read your comment that "most of Klein's sources are anonymous" because
in his book, The Amateur, most of his sources allowed their names to be used. In fact, I was astonished
that Reverend Wright, who was interviewed by Klein for the book, said a member of Obama's team
visited him to ask if he could keep quiet until after the election. When Wright said that would
be impossible because he supports his family with the speaking fees he receives, the team member
offered him $250,000 which he accepted. It must be true because we haven't heard a peep from him
since, and it makes me wonder if they've continued to pay him hush money for the past seven years.
Also interviewed in the book is Obama's personal physician of 20 years, who didn't have very nice
things to say about Obamacare, and people from the Chicago political arena who helped him rise
from little-known senator to president of the United States (none of whom requested anonymity.)
Apparently, he made a lot of promises during that time that were completely disregarded once he
reached the White House. Needless to say, he left behind a plethora of disgruntled supporters
in Chicago. I couldn't put The Amateur down, and if Unlikeable is as well-written as that one,
I can't wait to receive it in the mail. Thanks for your review. I enjoyed reading it.
(CNN)Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump gave his first major
economic address on Monday. Most of the speech was devoted to putting forward
a more or less standard set of Republican policies -- Trump promised large tax
cuts that would primarily benefit higher-income taxpayers, ending the Affordable
Care Act and curtailing government regulation. But he also broke with Republican
orthodoxy, rejecting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, proposing renegotiating
NAFTA, and vowing to take a firmer stance on currency management and other issues
with our trading partners.
What would some of this mean in practice?
The proposal for tax cuts would put in place a system with three tax brackets
of 12%, 25%, and 33%. Trump didn't indicate the cutoffs for the brackets, so
it's not possible to determine how much the different groups would save. However,
it is certain that the highest-income taxpayers would save under the Trump plan.
Currently, high-income taxpayers pay a 39.6% tax rate on income over $415,000
for a single individual. If a high-level executive or Wall Street trader makes
$2.4 million a year (roughly
the average for the richest 1%), they would save $120,000 from their tax
bill just on the reduction in the top tax bracket. For the richest 0.1%, the
savings would average almost $700,000 a year.
Trump also called for large cuts in the corporate tax rate. Currently, corporations
pay on average
a bit more than 25% of their profits in taxes. Trump committed to a tax
code in which no corporation would pay more than 15% of its profits in taxes.
This implies a reduction in revenue from the corporate income tax of more than
25%, or a loss in revenue of close to $100 billion a year.
These tax cuts
are virtually certain to lead to large deficits, as occurred with previous tax
cuts under President Ronald Reagan and President George W. Bush. Trump has also
proposed a substantial boost to infrastructure spending (although, while more
spending on infrastructure is badly needed, this will further boost the deficit).
Trump has suggested he will address the deficit by reducing waste, but presidents
from both parties have promised to reduce waste for decades. Unless he is prepared
to make large cuts to programs like Social Security, Medicare, or the military,
it is inevitable that his tax cuts will hugely increase the budget deficit.
Some increase in the deficit would actually be a good thing, because the economy
has not yet replaced the demand lost when the housing bubble burst. However,
Trump's plan almost certainly goes too far and will lead to high interest rates
and/or serious problems with inflation.
Trump's attack on government regulations,
meanwhile, are an illusion. While some regulations surely are wasteful, the
vast majority serve important purposes, like keeping lead out of the water our
children drink. The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill has been a
particular target of Trump and other Republicans, yet small businesses
report
that credit has never been easier to get.
Meanwhile, the Affordable Care Act, which Trump promises to repeal, has given
insurance to millions of people. And contrary to Trump's claims, there is
no evidence it has cost jobs. In fact, job growth accelerated after the
ACA took effect.
Arguably, though, Trump's position on trade is the most interesting of the
policies he has outlined. We would benefit from having more balanced trade,
which could create millions of jobs, mostly in manufacturing. However it is
not clear that Trump knows how to get there.
He complained about countries not honoring our copyrights and patents. However,
more royalties for copyrights and patents are a tradeoff for a larger trade
deficit in manufactured goods. In other words, if we make China and Brazil pay
more money to Microsoft for Windows and to Pfizer for its drugs, then they will
have less money to buy our manufactured goods. Trump does not seem to appreciate
this trade-off and is promising that everyone will get more.
On the whole, the Trump agenda looks like the Republican agenda that we have
seen many times before: It centers on large tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations,
something that has not worked in the past to create either strong growth or
rising living standards for working people. And while Trump does offer a qualitatively
different perspective on trade, it is too contradictory to be able to determine
if it will actually benefit ordinary workers.
Dave Green
"Unless he is prepared to make large cuts to programs like Social Security,
Medicare, or the military, it is inevitable that his tax cuts will hugely
increase the budget deficit." <-----------This whole article could be summed
up to that one statement.
So much for an alternative to the "establishment." Same ole GOP spend
spend spend but lower taxes and pray that increased revenue leads to investments
that make up for the shortage. It's never worked and it wont work now.
Tax and spend liberal or no tax and spend conservative. Gee...Somehow
that looks familiar.
Twick33
I wonder why the silence about Omar Mateen's father at a Clinton rally.
If the parents of Dylan Roof showed up to a Trump rally and offered their
endorsement, it would be all over the news.
But, I am sure there is some justification that democrats will push.
REZIN8
@Twick33 They love minorities! And as they said. Terrorists are the minority
of muslims. Makes total sense.
LALefty
@Twick33
To be sure, that was an embarrassment to the Clinton campaign, but it hasn't
been at all silenced in the media. That story has been covered all day.
"In the past three decades, the share of U.S. citizens who think that it would be a 'good' or
'very good' thing for the 'army to rule'-a patently undemocratic stance-has steadily risen. In 1995,
just one in sixteen respondents agreed with that position; today, one in six agree. While those who
hold this view remain in the minority, they can no longer be dismissed as a small fringe, especially
since there have been similar increases in the number of those who favor a 'strong leader who doesn't
have to bother with parliament and elections' and those who want experts rather than the government
to 'take decisions' for the country.
Nor is the United States the only country to exhibit this trend. The proportion agreeing that
it would be better to have the army rule has risen in most mature democracies, including Germany,
Sweden, and the United Kingdom. … Lower support for democracy seems especially high among younger
adults." [
Conversable Economist ] (
original ).
I'm sure that for many Trump will spring to mind, but it's also noteworthy that the Democrat
nomenklatura just spent a solid year stamping out a movement that was struggling for
democratic norms through the electoral process . Not perhaps the best of tactics, if a healthy
democracy, as opposed to a well-funded Democrat Party, is your goal.
This article was written two years ago. Still current...
Notable quotes:
"... She was responding, but seemed a little off. I figured she was just distracted and didn't feel like it was worth her time. ..."
"... I kept going, but was starting to get frustrated. I decided I would ask her something I hadn't really planned on. I said, 'Ms. Clinton, some have suggested that you aren't healthy enough or are too old to pursue the presidency. Do you have a comment on that?' ..."
"... I knew I had crossed a line for her right away. She snapped back, 'It's my turn. I've done my time, and I deserve it.' Then she stormed off. ..."
"... When you consider her history of fainting spells, likely the result of strokes and the verbal gaffes she's made recently, you have to wonder if she isn't losing her mental faculties. ..."
"... Let's face it, she's not a rank amateur when it comes to politics. She's always demonstrated a talent for verbal manipulation and deception. But suddenly it's as if her mask has slipped exposing her ugly, arrogant sense of entitlement. ..."
"... I guarantee there's a lot of hand wringing going on in Democrat circles right now. They have a lot invested in Hillary as their best and only shot at replacing Obama. Between revelations about her health, her age, the gaffes she's made, the failure of her book, her low approval numbers… They're sweating bullets. ..."
The story goes that a freelance journalist Samuel Rosales-Avila was granted a short interview with
Hillary after her LA book signing. He wanted to do a article for a Hispanic publication and was
surprised when Hillary granted him a 20 minute meeting.
He got more than he bargained for…
I started asking Ms. Clinton questions. Mostly policy stuff, really focused on immigration.
She was responding, but seemed a little off. I figured she was just distracted and didn't feel
like it was worth her time.
I kept going, but was starting to get frustrated. I decided I would ask her something I hadn't
really planned on. I said, 'Ms. Clinton, some have suggested that you aren't healthy enough or
are too old to pursue the presidency. Do you have a comment on that?'
I knew I had crossed a line for her right away. She snapped back, 'It's my turn. I've done
my time, and I deserve it.' Then she stormed off.
After she left, one of her handlers came up to me and told me he would need the recording of
our interview and that it was now 'off the record'. I was shocked and disappointed, but it was
clear that it wasn't a negotiation.
Hillary's posse isn't denying that the meeting took place, but without that recording we only
have his version of what transpired.
When you consider her history of fainting spells, likely the result of strokes and the verbal
gaffes she's made recently, you have to wonder if she isn't losing her mental faculties.
Let's face it, she's not a rank amateur when it comes to politics. She's always demonstrated a
talent for verbal manipulation and deception. But suddenly it's as if her mask has slipped exposing
her ugly, arrogant sense of entitlement.
I guarantee there's a lot of hand wringing going on in Democrat circles right now. They
have a lot invested in Hillary as their best and only shot at replacing Obama. Between
revelations about her health, her age, the gaffes she's made, the failure of her book, her low
approval numbers… They're sweating bullets.
"... By Kevin O'Rourke, Chichele Professor of Economic History, All Souls College, University of Oxford; and Programme Director, CEPR. Originally published at VoxEU . ..."
"... I completely agree that the backlash has been a long time coming. We are decades into a slow motion train wreck at this point. The evidence is there for any who wish to see it. ..."
Aug 12, 2016 |
By Kevin O'Rourke, Chichele Professor of Economic History, All Souls College,
University of Oxford; and Programme Director, CEPR.
Originally published at VoxEU.
After the Brexit vote, it is obvious to many that globalisation in general, and European integration
in particular, can leave people behind – and that ignoring this for long enough can have severe political
consequences. This column argues that this fact has long been obvious. As the historical record demonstrates
plainly and repeatedly, too much market and too little state invites a backlash. Markets and states
are political complements, not substitutes.
The main point of my 1999 book with Jeff Williamson was that globalisation produces both winners
and losers, and that this can lead to an anti-globalisation backlash (O'Rourke and Williamson 1999).
We argued this based on late-19th century evidence. Then, the main losers from trade were European
landowners, who found themselves competing with an elastic supply of cheap New World land. The
result was that in Germany and France, Italy and Sweden, the move towards ever-freer trade that had
been ongoing for several years was halted, and replaced by a shift towards protection that benefited
not only agricultural interests, but industrial ones as well. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic,
immigration restrictions were gradually tightened, as workers found themselves competing with
European migrants coming from ever-poorer source countries.
...
The globalisation experience of the Atlantic economy prior to the Great War
speaks directly and eloquently to globalisation debates today – and the
political lessons from this are sobering.
"Politicians, journalists, and
market analysts have a tendency to extrapolate the immediate past into the
indefinite future, and such thinking suggests that the world is irreversibly
headed toward ever greater levels of economic integration. The historical
record suggests the contrary."
"Unless politicians worry about who gains and who loses,î we continued,
ìthey may be forced by the electorate to stop efforts to strengthen global
economy links, and perhaps even to dismantle them … We hope that this book will
help them to avoid that mistake – or remedy it."
...If the English want continued Single Market access, they will have to swallow continued labour
mobility. There are complementary domestic policies that could help in making that politically
feasible. We will have to wait and see what the English decide. But there are also lessons for the
27 remaining EU states (28 if, as I hope, Scotland remains a member). Too much market and too little
state invites a backlash. Take the politics into account, and it becomes clear (as Dani Rodrik has
often argued) that markets and states are complements, not substitutes.
UK Toryism today is not so much a political party espousing an ideology as
it is an ideology that has taken over a political party. It is the ideolgy of
exploitation of a tiny clique over an entire society and has become, through
extensive and relentless propoganda, embedded the fabric of UK society. It is a
class ideology that requires a middle classes and poorer apirants to the middle
classes to accept cuts to their influence and hence wealth by creating an
demonising a constructed underclass. The underclass serves as:
1. a frightening lesson to those who do not conform
2. scapegoats for every kind of social and cultural ill
3. a fungible source of wandering labour who can be compelled to exploitation
and discarded at will
It demands the destruction of the state that supports people and replaces it
with a state that supports business interests only. Everything must become a
commodity – especially humans. It is an ideology that decries income
distribution to the less wealthy but in every instance creates laws that ensure
distribution of vast majority of wealth to the wealthiest. It is the insurance
company for the wealthy as well. The taxpayer is the insurer.
The greatest single example of wealth redistribution from the politically
weak is the student loan wheeze. The mob in their greatest exploits could not
have contrived a more elaborate form of extortion. As Tory idoeology
'crapifies' every job in the UK, they goad the young into what have become
school factories, turning out people with certificates but often very little
relevant qualification for a shrinking economy. Meanwhile the governement sells
the loans to "investors" (themselves and their friends) for pence on the pound.
Create the law that create the conditions that create the cash flow, and
never lift a finger to do a real days work.
What's not to like?
Given the over population of the island, that oil is running out, and that
they have gutted any social and cultural cohesive factor, and even if Brexit
evaporates, the long term bodes ill anyway.
paul
So if the EU was completely different in action and intent, we would not
have had brexit?
Is labour mobility a really an expression of individual freedom, or coercive
displacement in the face of the internal devaluation insisted upon by the
technocrats?
Its the former for JC Juncker and the latter for the workers at the
sports direct gulags.
Globalisation is a mechanism to strengthen corporations and the elites that
own them, we would never had heard of the term otherwise.
The europroject has steadfastly committed itself to this end and nothing
will be allowed to interfere with it.
A highly coupled,regionally constrained 'free trade' area is the only way to
achieve this end.
Why is brexit going to be painful? The same reason a chinese finger trap is
difficult to get out of, it's designed that way.
The eurogroup cannot admit that it now only serves as an iron lung for the
financial sector.
Popular reaction against it is to be welcomed, It's the only thing that will
work.
windsock
"It is astonishing in retrospect how few people argued strongly for more
services rather than fewer people."
Well, Jeremy Corbyn did…
"Learning abroad and working abroad, increases the opportunities and skills
of British people and migration brings benefits as well as challenges at home.
But it's only if there is government action to train enough skilled workers
to stop the exploitation of migrant labour to undercut wages and invest in
local services and housing in areas of rapid population growth that they will
be felt across the country.'
And this Government has done nothing of the sort. Instead, its failure to
train enough skilled workers means we have become reliant on migration to keep
our economy functioning."
and
"It is sometimes easier to blame the EU, or worse to blame foreigners, than
to face up to our own problems. At the head of which right now is a
Conservative Government that is failing the people of Britain."
…but the Tories couldn't – they have been demonising the service users as
"scroungers" and "skivers" since Osborne introduced his austerity policies in
2010. Why on earth would he and Cameron – leading the Remain campaign, take the
opinions of such people (like me) into account?
Art Eclectic
I don't believe the lack of skilled workers is the problem. The problem
is the wages that professionals WANT to pay for skills do match up with what
labor needs/wants to make. Tech workers are a perfect example. US tech
companies want more HB1 visas, claiming there is not enough skilled labor.
The part they leave out is the skilled labor wages. A US citizen carrying
six figures in student load dept demands a higher wage than an Indian
immigrant on an HB1.
The professional class and corporations want to pay lower wages for
everything from child care to roofers to junior managers, so of course they
are all in favor of globalization and worker movement. There's bit of
classism there as well. The senior manager is pissed that some random coder
is making almost as much as he is. The professional is offended that a child
care worker can afford their own home and drive a middle class car. Keeping
wages low allows the professionals to maintain distinction of rank and
value.
You can see that impact in every discussion about minimum wages and
people complaining about fast food workers getting $15 a hour for
"low-skill" work.
Ancaeus
Lambert,
The subtext of this article is a fawning acceptance of the desirability of
globalization. Many of us reject globalization outright. We don't believe that
it can, or ever will, be "tamed". Nor do we desire to live in a world where its
pernicious effects must be forever mitigated. We do not want to be the
recipients of such long-term mitigation, with the consequent loss of dignity.
Instead, let us return to local products and services, produced by our
neighbors. The money we spend will stay in our community. What's more, the
social benefits of such local trade and the resulting thriving local economy go
well beyond economic ones.
The destruction of social cohesion is the primary externality that results
from "free trade". And, in my opinion, no amount of money can adequately
compensate for it. Returning to Brexit question, it is not clear to me that
these non-economic costs of free trade are made worthwhile by the supposed
non-economic benefits of the European project. From this side of the Atlantic,
it seems doubtful.
Agreed. I come at it from the other side: I think the (reasonably
controlled) exchange of people, ideas, goods, and services across national
borders is a good thing; however, I respect the right of those who dislike
globalization to do so. This post instead treats them with a thinly veiled
heaping of scorn on top of an implicit claim of calling people both stupid
and racist.
The notion at the end of the article that Brexit specifically, or
opposition to globalization more generally, is about market vs. the state is
nonsensical bordering on purposeful obtuseness. Western society today is not
characterized by too little state. The problem is what the state does.
Sound of the Suburbs
The BoE has taken more action that won't help and its been a long time since
2008.
More and more people have read Richard Koo's book and know fiscal stimulus
is required.
Ben Bernake and Janet Yellen had read Richard Koo's book and ensured the US
didn't impose austerity and go over the fiscal cliff.
Mario hasn't read Richard Koo's book and pushed the Club-Med nations over
the fiscal cliff.
The harsh austerity on Greece, killed the Greek economy altogether.
Reading Richard Koo's book is important, if only Mario would get a copy
before he wipes out the Club-Med economies and banking systems.
Mark Carney is from the Goldman stable and is naturally slow on the uptake
and is set in his old-fashioned banker ways.
Before you make a complete fool of yourself like Mario, here is an essential
video:
The IMF and World Bank spent 50 years imposing austerity, selling off
previously public companies and insisting on lower Government spending. The
trail of wreckage is spread across the world, South America, Africa, Asia and
finally Greece.
Bankers don't take responsibility for anything and so never learn from their
mistakes.
Well, The IMF, after 50 years, has finally realised this doesn't work.
At 15.30 mins. into the video you can see the UK situation.
There are massive bank reserves, adding to them will make no difference.
Comparing the charts, the UK's borrowing has gone down more since 2008 than
the US and the Euro-zone.
We are doing all the wrong things, like austerity.
If we had done the right things straight away the UK might still be
in the EU
(The Euro-zone figures look OK because the strong Northern nations aren't
doing too badly, looking at the Club-Med nations and Greece, it's a very
different story. The chart of Greece shows a nation being run into the ground.)
hotairmail
I voted Brexit not for the 'immigration issue' but for democracy. The EU
bureaucracy has too much power and leverages its Central Bank to keep wayward
states in line such as Greece, deliberately causing deflationary depressions
and mass unemployment in their wake. The disdain with which democratic leaders
are treated is typified by a rather famous video where a drunk Juncker greets
various heads of democratic governments and proceeds to treat them
disgracefully (search "Juncker bitch slap" on Youtube). That is not simply a
video of a drunk man being inappropriate – it shows you where the power lies
and what the bureaucracy routinely believes it can get away with.
Britain decided not to join the Euro bloc. It is well documented that its
design is not sustainable. It will either blow up and the thing will fall
apart, or they will need to implement new fiscal transfers from the rich parts
of the bloc to the less well off, as with an ordinary country. The Euro bloc
will need to make big changes to ensure the Euro stays together which involves
large costs to the richer nations such as Germany and Holland. But as most of
the EU decision making at inter governmental level is majority voting, it is
likely the UK would be outvoted to implement this via the EU – NOT the Euro
bloc. They will want to pick the pockets of the UK even though the reasons for
the transfers is nothing to do with the UK.
Turning to the immigartion issue itself, it seems to me this is just as much
about tax and benefits policy and its effects, as it is for free movement. As
an EU citizen when you come to the UK, you are automatically treated the same
as a UK citizen. This means you instantly have access to free health, free
schools, housing benefit and in work tax credits. These sums really add up. The
effect of these supports is to make labour very cheap to employers in the UK –
people can do very low value work and still make their way. The expansion of
the EU to the east made a vast pool of relatively poor labour available to
employers and we have witnessed an explosion of low value added work from "hand
car washes" to picking fruit (whilst fruit lays unpicked in their home
countries). People wring ther hands about why productivity and tax revenue
isn't growing despite rising employment coupled with an exploding housing
benefit and tax credit bill, pressure on schools and healthcare. Put quite
simply the UK cannot afford the services it has become used to with low value
added work, so something has to give. At the end of the day, a decent welfare
state in fact is NOT compatible with open borders. This is something the left
wing have yet to face properly. And ordinary people, far from being simply
'racist' and xenophobic, are simply exercising their choice at the ballot box
and they basically don't want to to see their lives get worse with lower wages,
fewer opportunities, poorer housing and reduced welfare and services.
A word of warning though about whether Brexit or the EU is protectionist or
left wing etc – there are actually quite well argued opinions on both sides.
For many Brexiteers, the EU actually represents a protectionist bloc that
hinders free trade with the world. Many on the left, coming from the pure
"international socialism" of the proper left wing also believe in fighting for
protections of workers on the international stage such as the EU and therefore
are not necessarily in step with their less well off followers, wondering who
stole their cheese. A free trading nation but with a controlled immigration
policy is actually quite appealing and may help to squeeze out the explosion of
low value added work.
On the democratic front, our politicians for decades have blamed the EU for
why they can't do x or y. Add in that for the ordinary Brit we've only ever
read articles about rules to implement "straight bananas" and the like, whilst
our media spends far more time covering the anglophone American election, you
can see there is no proper functioning "demos". And at the end of the day
although "status quo" was always the position of the Remain side of things,
this was never on the table. First we have the Euro issue and then we always
have the Rome Treaty we signed up to which clearly states "Ever closer union".
One final point about the vote split from the Ashcroft poll. You should note
that only 2 parties voters supported Leave – UKIP (96%) and the Tories (56%).
Labour and SNP were about the same at 62/63% to Remain. The idea that those who
voted Leave are council house dwelling northerners is far from the mark. If you
discount the fact that nationalist issues dominated proceedings in Scotland and
Northern Ireland, the vote was more decisive than at first glance – hence why
the Tories are treating this seemingly marginal result as so decisive – both
amongst their own voters and the prize of the UKIP support in the future.
Sorry for the rambling comment but there are lots of different angles to the
EU issue – I'd just like to leave you with how I feel the split amongst the
electorate occurs. Imagine a 4 box matrix, 2×2, with 'left' and 'right' on the
top and 'nightmare' and 'dream' along the left. Left wingers who voted to
remain have an international socialist dream. Right wingers who voted to Remain
see it as a rampant free trade dream. Those who voted to leave on the right saw
it as a socialist, protectionist nightmare. Those who voted leave on the left
saw it as a neo liberal nightmare. So, you can see the split isn't just about
whether you are left or right, free trade or protectionist – it has to be
overlaid with whether the EU better represents your hopes or is a threat. The
motivations for the vote are even more confusing than the coverage of those
supposed reasons.
sd
Shorter version: the only way
to keep capitalism in check is to pair it with a strong dose of socialism which
the greed of those in power rarely allows. Outcome is always the same: the
peasants revolt and management wonders why.
lyman alpha blob
The only reason globalization works for the meritorious technocrat class
that supports it is because they are able to take advantage of differences in
local currency values.
Funny how you hear all this talk about global trade being necessary and
unavoidable but never a global currency.
And now in France, a so-called Socialist government has weakened labor
protections. A situation where a proletariat forced to swallow this, along with
an easy immigration program, would spell trouble to anyone who has a knowledge
of history and human nature.
Plus, an even more immediate concern is that it appears globalization is an
environmental disaster that we may very well have precious little time to
correct.
dw
globalization isnt even all that popular among professionals since even
their jobs are at risk now. but its extremely popular among executives because
it makes their job easier. until their jobs end up being subject to it too. but
among the among 1% its very popular, at least until it becomes very hard to
make a profit or grow their business, since they all loose customers , and cant
raise prices
Mary Wehrheim
The reason why popular opinion turns toward solutions involving immigration
restriction rather than expansion of services is because….deficits. Watching
the GOP primary ads in the hermetically sealed conservative bubble that passes
for Kansas one would think that was the most pressing problem facing the US …
course they throw in the usual memes of terrorist and Obama care dangers with a
short sop about "more jobs" as rather an aside. The Powell memo propaganda
machine has been very successful in redirecting the popular world view through
the gaze of the 1%. Taxes = theft, just work harder (that one is finally
wearing a bit thin though after the wives got into the work force and people
got into deep debt over the past 40 years in a vain attempt to try and rise
above stagnant salaries), safety net = dependency, poverty = lazy habits,
privatization= efficiency, government and regulation = serfdom, and unions
interfere with the celestial harmony of the spheres that is markets.
Pookah Harvey
These same arguments can be made for the replacement of low skilled jobs by
robots, Closing borders will not help in this situation. Governments need to
start planning for a world where there will be less of what we now consider"
jobs" More services provided by government and lowering hours in the work week
soon have to be on the agenda for forward looking politicians or Dune's
Butlerian Jihad may come sooner than we think.
A guy named Karl Marx had an interesting little theory of value in
capitalism which explains that the more hours a person works = more profit
for the company. As automation deepens and spreads, companies will lay
people off, but they will never willingly reduce the hours worked for the
remaining employees.
Unless capitalism willingly adopts socialistic measures (and it never
will), it will keep herding workers – and eventually, itself – off a cliff.
Ché Pasa
These stories and the studies they're grounded in have been told over and
over again for decades now. They're true, and in some cases they are so
complete and compelling as to demolish once and for all the consensus ideology
of Neo-LibCon rule, and yet…
Our rulers do not listen. Our rulers do not care. They are lost in a
post-modern decoupling of truth and fact from anything they need concern
themselves with.
It's pure religion tangled with power.
The more stories and studies showing just how wrong they and their
ideology/religion are, the more they don't listen, the more they don't care.
Ulysses
"Our rulers do not listen. Our rulers do not care. They are lost in a
post-modern decoupling of truth and fact from anything they need concern
themselves with.
It's pure religion tangled with power.
The more stories and studies showing just how wrong they and their
ideology/religion are, the more they don't listen, the more they don't
care."
Very well said! Here in the U.S. we have enshrined in our fundamental law
the right: "to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This
first right amongst the bill of rights was only granted to us after Shay's
Rebellion showed the elites that the people wouldn't simply roll over and
subject themselves to an authoritarian government.
When this petitioning failed, in the 1770s, to produce satisfactory
results our independent nation was born amidst great tumult. Now we face a
similar crossroads: move forward into a potentially better life, after
toppling the transnational kleptocracy, or guarantee the further degradation
of humanity by failing to do more than meekly petition the kleptocrats to
throw us a few more crumbs.
We need to stop trying to persuade those who benefit from exploiting us
to stop through constructing ever more convincing arguments. The kleptocrats
need to suffer tangible consequences for their crimes, through massive
non-compliance with their wishes and monkey-wrenching of their systems.
Indigenous peoples in Brazil have just shown us how to proceed by halting
the dam.
Zvi Namenwirth. He did a pioneering early study measuring the rhetoric of
wealth transfer in American party platforms. I noticed twenty years ago that
the swings tacked according to Kondratieff curves, which measure shifts between
growth in manufacturing vs. agriculture. That's likely what you're seeing now
with the balance shifting from labor to capital (the 1%) since the early '70s.
It's not as important to look at general inflation as it is to measure the
relative changes in prices among different sectors. Given that parties
represent different interest groups, it's likely these stresses show up in
political speech.
But then that would mean politics drives economics and no economist wants to
admit that.
washunate
I completely agree that the backlash has been a long time coming. We are
decades into a slow motion train wreck at this point. The evidence is there for
any who wish to see it.
I completely disagree, though, with the conclusion. What is going on is not
about an insufficiently large state. Rather, it's that the state has been
entrenching inequality rather than addressing it. Our contemporary experience
with excessive concentration of wealth and power is not an outcome of markets.
It's an outcome of public policy. Implying that Brexit voters specifically, or
anti-globalization advocates more generally, are stupid and racist says a lot
more about the biases and blind spots in our intellectual class than it does
about the victims of globalization as western governments have implemented it
over the past few decades.
Events of 2012 and 2013 now definitely come into forefront. Here is old
National Enquirer speculation that now got new currency.
EconomicPolicyJournal.com " The tabloids often express truth that cannot be expressed for political
reasons in the MSM. 1987 the National Enquirer nailed Gary Hart in the Donna Rice affair. 2007
the National Enquirer nailed John Edwards over the Rielle Hunter and bastard baby affair. 1992
the Globe nailed deadbeat dad Bill Clinton over his affair and baby with black street hooker
Bobbie Ann Williams (that story has been completely confirmed and his son Danny Williams is age 29 today
in year 2014). The tabloids have for decades said the JFK assassination was a high level domestic plot
- again 100% correct with the recent tabloids fingering VP Lyndon Johnson as the primary culprit. The
tabloids also nailed Jesse Jackson with his mistress and love child. Tabloids are very good when it
comes to exposing adultery, medical problems and when a celebrity is dying. Digging up and exposing
personal dirt is the forte of tabloids."
"... Only days after The ENQUIRER exclusively reported that Secretary of State HILLARY CLINTON was at the center of a shocking brain cancer drama and was undergoing extensive secret medical tests, her reps went public with the news on Sunday night Dec. 30 that she was indeed hospitalized in New York City and disclosed that she was battling a blood clot that had formed following her head concussion earlier this month! ..."
"... The 65-year-old former First Lady fainted earlier this month and after an exhaustive investigation by The ENQUIRER, we broke a bombshell cover story that hit newsstands a few days ago that revealed insiders believe Hillary is battling brain cancer, and sources said she was facing a hush-hush battery of medical tests to confirm the diagnosis. ..."
"... "Behind the scenes, Hillary has suffered blinding headaches, problems with her vision and memory, plus terrifying blackouts – and those closest to her say she's hiding a brain cancer secret," a source revealed, according to our bombshell report. ..."
"... "This has been covered up for months, but details of Hillary's cancer situation are beginning to leak out, and it's the real reason she's giving up her position as Secretary of State." ..."
UPDATE : 1/2/13 6:30PM EST - HILLARY CLINTON has been discharged from New York-Presbyterian
Hospital.
UPDATE : 1/2/13 5:30PM EST - HILLARY CLINTON briefly left the hospital building where
she is being treated for a blood clots in order to have tests done at another location on the medical
campus at New York-Presbyterian Hospital on Wednesday afternoon. She was back about an hour later.
Her husband Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea accompanied her as she was transported in a van with
the Secret Service.
UPDATE : 12/31/12 4:54PM EST - DATELINE NEW YORK - A rep for hospitalized Secretary of
State HILLARY CLINTON confirms the blood clot is lodged near her brain confirming The NATIONAL ENQUIRER's
special reports on her condition.
Doctors said the clot is located in the vein in the space between the brain and the skull
behind the right ear.
Only days after The ENQUIRER exclusively reported that Secretary of State HILLARY CLINTON
was at the center of a shocking brain cancer drama and was undergoing extensive secret medical tests,
her reps went public with the news on Sunday night Dec. 30 that she was indeed hospitalized in New
York City and disclosed that she was battling a blood clot that had formed following her head concussion
earlier this month!
"Her doctors will continue to assess her condition, including other issues associated with her
concussion, " Philippe Reines , a State Department senior advisor said. "They will
determine if any further action is required."
Clinton is being treated with anti-coagulants at New York-Presbyterian Hospital and she will be
monitored there for the next 48 hours, Reines said.
The 65-year-old former First Lady fainted earlier this month and after an exhaustive investigation
by The ENQUIRER, we broke a bombshell cover story that hit newsstands a few days ago that revealed
insiders believe Hillary is battling brain cancer, and sources said she was facing a hush-hush battery
of medical tests to confirm the diagnosis.
"Behind the scenes, Hillary has suffered blinding headaches, problems with her vision and memory,
plus terrifying blackouts – and those closest to her say she's hiding a brain cancer secret," a source
revealed, according to our bombshell report.
"If Hillary is indeed diagnosed with brain cancer, the fear that she could die in a manner of
months has devastated those in her inner circle.
"This has been covered up for months, but details of Hillary's cancer situation are beginning
to leak out, and it's the real reason she's giving up her position as Secretary of State."
This lesser evilness trap is a standard trick inherent in two party system setup, designed to prevent
voting for third party candidate and essentially limiting public discourse to selection between two
oligarchy stooges. Moreover Hillary is definitely greater evil. Invoking of Nader to justify voting
for Hillary is pure neoliberal propaganda designed to get the establishment candidate (who has significant
and dangerous for any politician, to say nothing about POTUS, health problems) into White House. that
why neoliberal MSM are baking non-stop at Trump, trying exaggerate any his misstep to galactic proportions.
...
Notable quotes:
"... Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American ..."
"... Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers. ..."
"... Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump. ..."
"... She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. ..."
"... Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. ..."
"... "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity." ..."
"... I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals. ..."
"... I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades? ..."
"... The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess. ..."
"... I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. ..."
"... As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything ..."
"... You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country. ..."
"... Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of. ..."
"... As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager? ..."
"... It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking administration. ..."
"... Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention. ..."
"... I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House. ..."
"... You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed. ..."
"... Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things. ..."
"... Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way. ..."
"... He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed. ..."
"... While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative, scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in? No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry, not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake". ..."
"... Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband, all to further the Clinton's. ..."
"... IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected, she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place will be gutted. ..."
"... Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war? ..."
"... It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV. ..."
"... You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear. ..."
"... If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now. ..."
"... "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.) ..."
"... Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer." ..."
"... That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care. ..."
"... clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign. ..."
"... it's common knowledge that the current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels. Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate it. ..."
"... At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip. It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about all the things the media spends so much time discussing." ..."
"... Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical ..."
"... The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games. ..."
"... Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards. ..."
"... HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc. ..."
"... They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex ..."
"... "When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism and sexism. ..."
"... He is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his parting speech. ..."
"... Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics ..."
"... Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more going on than meets the eye. ..."
"... Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed by a dictatorship. ..."
"... A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy". ..."
"... How could Trump become a dictator? Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile. Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally lining up behind Clinton?) Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking like crazy. ..."
"... Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for Trump to attempt a mass purge. ..."
"... Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled "checks and balances" come into play for once in your life! ..."
"... How could Trump become a dictator? ..."
"... This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight. ..."
"... While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not. ..."
PERIES: So Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary
Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of
Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American
. Now, this type of association game, which is supposed to make it difficult for Sanders supporters
to criticize Clinton, what implication does this have on the overall politics in this country?
HUDSON: Well, it certainly changed things in earlier elections. The Republican convention was
as is normal, all about their candidate Trump. But surprisingly, so was the Democratic convention.
That was all about Trump too – as the devil. The platform Hillary's running on is "I'm not Trump.
I'm the lesser evil."
She elaborates that by saying that Trump is Putin's ploy. When the Democratic National Committee
(someone within it, or without) leaked the information to Wikileaks, the Democrats and Hillary asked,
"Who benefits from this"? Ah-ha. Becaue Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because
he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out,
to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks
toward Bernie's followers.
Then Assange did an Internet interview and implied that it was not a cyberwar attack but a leak
– indicating that it came from an insider inn the DNC. If this is true, then the Democrats are simply
trying to blame it all on Trump – diverting attention from what the leaks' actual content!
This is old-fashioned red baiting. I saw it 60 years ago when I was a teenager. I went to a high
school where teachers used to turn in reports on what we said in class to the FBI every month. The
State Department was emptied out of "realists" and staffed with Alan Dulles-type Cold Warriors. One
couldn't talk about certain subjects. That is what red-baiting does. So the effect at the Democratic
Convention was about Hillary trying to avoid taking about her own policies and herself. Except for
what her husband said about "I met a girl" (not meaning Jennifer Flowers or Monica Lewinski.)
The red baiting succeeded, and the convention wasn't about Hillary – at least, not her economic
policies. It was more about Obama. She tied herself to Obama, and next to Trump = Putin, the convention's
second underlying theme was that Hillary was going to be Obama's third term. That's what Obama himself
said when he came and addressed the convention.
The problem with this strategy is it's exactly the problem the Republicans faced in 2008, when
voters turned against George Bush's administration. Voters wanted change. And they do today. Hillary
did not say "I'm going to have hope and change from the last years of Obama." She said, in effect,
"I'm not going to change anything. I'm going to continue Obama's policies that have made you all
so prosperous." She talked about how employment is rising and everyone is better off.
Well, the problem is that many people aren't better off than the last eight years. Ten million
families have lost their homes, and most peoples' budgets are being squeezed. Obama saved the banks
not the economy. So Trump's line and the Republican line in this election could well be: "Are you
really better off than you were eight years ago? Or, are you actually worse off? Where are all your
gains? You're further in debt. You're having more difficulty meeting your paychecks, you're running
up your student loans. You're really not better off and we're going to be the party of hope and change."
Hillary can't really counter that with the policies she has. Trump and the Republicans can say
that even though she disavowed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the trade agreement with Europe,
all the Democratic representatives that voted for the TPP have won re-nomination, and it's still
on the burner.
Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she
did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have
become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally,
she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going
to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other
big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump.
What did Hilary actually say at the convention besides "I'm not Trump, Trump is worse." She's
trying to make the whole election over her rival, not over herself.
PERIES: Okay, so everything you say about Hillary Clinton may be true, and it's more in your favor
that it is true. She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported
even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. So
when we opened this interview we were talking about what the Bernie Sanders supporters should now
do, because Trump is starting to appeal like he's the candidate of ordinary people. So what are they
to do?
HUDSON: Well, if the election is between the most unpopular woman candidate in America and the
most unpopular male candidate, the winner is going to be whoever can make the election fought over
the other person. Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will
win if she can make the election all about Trump. It looks like she's able to do this, because
Trump is even more narcissistic than she is.
EndOfTheWorld- totally agree with you. I just shake my head at Bernie. Diametrically opposed
to Clinton, he suddenly turns around and embraces her! What? I will never understand that.
"America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president
that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity."
He's right too. I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes
me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been
involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others,
lies some more. Power and money are her goals.
She has called Putin "Hitler", said she wants to expand NATO, and again said she wants to take
out Assad. Well, how is she going to do that when Russia is in there? God, she is scary. I just
hope that there's a big Clinton Foundation email leak to finish her off.
Trump is out there, but at least he wants to try to negotiate peace (of course, if war wasn't
making so many people rich, it would be stopped tomorrow). He's questioning why NATO is necessary,
never mind its continual expansion, and he wants to stop the TPP.
God, I'd be happy with even one of the above. Hillary will give us TPP, more NATO, more war,
and a cackle. Please, if anyone has some loose emails hanging around, now is the time!
I honestly don't think there's any way to predict what Donald Trump will do if elected. He's
effectively a private citizen who, all of a sudden, will have access to every government secret
and lie, and no culpability for any of it. It's almost impossible to imagine what that would be
like.
And it's what makes him so "dangerous."
I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But
what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every
bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public
and lied about for decades?
The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies,
to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens
have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes
to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess.
I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to
ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. I doubt he would
be able to get much done as there would be an establishment consensus to keep him firmly under
wraps. He would mostly busy himself with jetting around meeting foreign leaders and he might actually
be quite productive at that.
or he'll pass what he campaigns on which is standard Republican policy (sometimes) through
an entirely Republican legislature duh. So tax cuts, cuts to regulation etc.. Really he's campaigning
on these things and they CAN pass a Republican congress.
Yes, if Donnie is elected, we'll see some form of a Regency; that's what Pence is there for.
Donnie will be Clown Prince, while more traditionally evil Republican/DC technocrats "run" things.
It would be a re-doing of the Reagan/Bush-Baker and Bush/Cheney dynamic, as seen on reality TV.
As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit
down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life,
and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully
about anything. Does he lie exactly the way Hillary does? Of course not, she's the accomplished
professional, while Donnie spins plates and tries to misdirect by finding someone to insult when
they fall and shatter.
Vote for Hillary or not (I most likely won't, but can't predict much of anything in this all-bets-are-off
opera buffa), but by believing anything Donnie says, you risk being the chump he already thinks
you are.
You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be
trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does
that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others
who ran the country.
Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we
have to get rid of.
When was the last time a political candidate in any country was as hated by the establishment
as Trump is? That's all you need to know. As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents
our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will
be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that
Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind
touch that wager?
It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking
administration. Something, that for all her rhetoric, there is no reason to believe that
Clinton will change. As for waging war, we have a whole lot of information that for all his massive
drone wars and interventions in the Middle East, Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's
continuous advice for more more more military intervention.
I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known
is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to
the White House.
You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are
willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that
war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective –
not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed.
Once again, people are choosing from known despicable, unknown possibly lesser possibly greater
despicable, and unlikely to win third parties or write ins – everyone can only do that for themselves.
One New York reporter (sorry, I don't have the link) said that he has watched Trump his whole
life and he said, though he could say many bad things about Trump, racism wasn't one of them.
He said he had never in all his years of watching him known Trump to be racist in any way.
Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals
lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand),
and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the
country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very
nice way of saying things.
Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent
and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way.
He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that
just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed.
While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative,
scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at
them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little
conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in?
No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry,
not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake".
Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of
what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely
for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband,
all to further the Clinton's.
IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected,
she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation
will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization
Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place
will be gutted.
That's preposterous about Donnie not being racist. When the Central Park Five (released from
prison and compensated by the state for false impisonment) were arrested, Donnie took out full
page ads for days in the NYC papers, all but calling for those (innocent) boy's lynching. He was
raised in an explicitly racist milieu – his father arrested at a KKK tussle in Queens in the 1920's,
and successfully sued by the Nixon DOJ for his discriminatory rental policies…) and has a long
history of saying ignorant, absurd and racist things about "The Blacks."
"Clinton is awful, but that doesn't mean it's a better idea to elect a hateful, racist,
despicable con man"
Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress
just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump
antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war?
It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the
term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with
black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason
except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that
"supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has
Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for
him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV.
Hatred and racism is exhibited in leaders by being a war monger and gutting this nation with
the TPP and lousy trade deals that sell off our national sovereignty and democracy. You might
think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective
evil" is the evil to fear.
I am with
Noam Chomsky on this. If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close,
I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which
I'm too lazy to look up right now.
But as Pat said above, everyone must make up his or her own mind.
Has there ever been any evidence that this type of strategic voting has ever done any good
whatsoever or ever had its intended result? Just speculation but I'm guessing that only a very
few of the very politically astute would even bother. I say vote your conscience regardless and
let the chips fall where they may.
Not the voters fault that this is the best the two major parties could come up with.
Speaking of revolution, I emailed Chomsky yesterday and he replied. The below is my message
to him.
Professor Chomsky,
In the last years of his life, Martin Luther King, Jr. organized the Poor People's Campaign,
which essentially planned to occupy Capitol Hill. The campaign still happened after his death,
but not enough people showed up for it to have a great impact.
I've begun to advocate what would essentially be a continuation of the Poor People's
Campaign, but with a broader focus on the numerous crises facing humanity: climate change,
poverty, illegal wars, etc.
Would you possibly be interested in providing rhetorical support for this action?
Thank you so much for your efforts to make a better world.
The below is Chomsky's reply.
It was a wonderful and very important initiative, cruelly undermined by his assassination.
I hope you manage to revive it.
Butch – "…she helped lead the fight for universal health care." Did she now? Here's a good
quote on how she felt about universal health care:
"Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version
of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against,
the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single
payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.)
"David, tell me something interesting." That was then First Lady Hillary Clinton's weary and
exasperated response – as head of the White House's health reform initiative – to Harvard medical
professor David Himmelstein in 1993. Himmelstein was head of Physicians for a National Health
Program. He had just told her about the remarkable possibilities of a comprehensive, single-payer
"Canadian style" health plan, supported by more than two-thirds of the U.S. public. Beyond
backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive
coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection
and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer."
clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals
who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the
intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia,
the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign.
I love Michael Hudson. But like everyone commenting here he is needlessly thinking inside the
crumbling box of America's existing top-down, money-driven system of political discourse. So what
is it that keeps us from thinking outside this godawful box? I think we're all so deeply and habitually
embedded in the mode of being status quo critics that we're unable to enter the problem-solving
mode of finding alternatives to it. But to make government work in America, we need to think in
both modes.
So let's think outside the box for a minute. After all, it's common knowledge that the
current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American
politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels.
Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor
class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate
it.
At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus
system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip.
It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about
all the things the media spends so much time discussing." Yet like all presidential candidates
this year Bernie didn't take the next, logical step: he didn't call for the creation of a new
political discourse system. (Note that Hillary alone among the top three candidates never, ever
has a bad word to say against the current system.)
OK, so what might a new system look like? First off, it would be non-partisan, issue-centered
and deliberative. And citizen-participatory. It would make citizens and governments responsive
and accountable to each other in shaping the best futures of their communities. That's its core
principal.
More specifically, the format of a reality TV show like The Voice or American Idol could readily
be adapted to create ongoing, prime-time, issue-centered searches for solutions to any and all
of the issues of the day. And of course problem-solving Reality TV is just of any number of formats
that could work for TV. Other media could develop formats tap their strengths and appeal to their
audiences.
Thanks to the miracle of modern communications technologies, there's nothing to stop Americans
from having a citizen-participatory system of political discourse that gives all Americans an
informed voice in the political and government decisions that affect their lives. Americans will
flock in drove to ongoing, rule-governed problem-solving public forums that earn the respect and
trust of citizens and political leaders alike. When we create them, governments at local, state
and national levels will start working again. If we don't, our politics will continue to sink
deeper into the cesspool we're in now.
Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big
capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical, unless there is a real
socialist-ish movement out there educating and politicizing. In other words, while the political
system is indeed broken, the economy is also broken and it is hard to see "empowered" citizens
fixing the economy. What I think would happen is the politicians elected by these empowered citizens
would be opposed by big business and the politicians they own, nothing good would get done, and
there would be a business-financed media drumbeat that more democracy has been "proven" not to
work.
I don't think our political problems can be solved simply be electing better politicians –
though of course we do need better politicians.
The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of
the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side
of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's
not an insider and obviously won't play their games.
I have not had nearly the hardship you have had crittermom and I have not lived as long either,
but at 27, and being someone who has been discontent with social structure since middle school,
I have absolutely had enough. Genetics, environment, the combination of internal-external factors,
whatever it was I have always had a very ("annoying" and sarcastic) curiousity or oppositional
approach to things, especially things people do not question and accept as is (religion, government…).
Growing older has only led me to greater understanding of the pit we reside within and how
we probably will not get out. This election season in particular has been ridiculously… indescribable.
The utter incompetence of our selfish administrations is finally coming to a head and people are
completely oblivious, pulling the same stale BS that we have seen every four years since before
I was born.
Bernie totally blew it but, outside your hardship, don't ever think you effort was a waste.
For once an honest candidate appeared who was backed by the policies we need and you supported
that (as I did). That is the most we can do at this point. Bernie the man should absolutely be
criticized because he wanted a "revolution" then sold out to the Junta instead of biting back
when it would have really sent a message to the people and high rollers. He wasn't willing to
sacrifice what was necessary to make a stand. Instead he sided with the people that have made
careers sacrificing citizens like you–and that is terrible. The reality these people live in and
teach to others is such a lie.
Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War
Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful
chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even
before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally
one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents
have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something
about it afterwards.
So despite his potty mouth there's something to be said for Mr. Trump Goes to Washington. By
the time he figures out how to be caudillo it may be time for another election.
crittermom – HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting
an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole
time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton
Foundation, etc.
They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain,
and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations,
arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex. Who would have thought
that the guy running for the right wants to keep jobs in America, wants to stop wars, and the
one on the left is for the monied class! Right is left and left is right. Upside down world.
The following article is old now, from April, but it gives you an idea of "Why the Establishment
Hates Trump" and what he is planning on doing. Watch them go after him; they will vilify him.
"When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable
corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning
becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media
and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism
and sexism.
But the silenced policies he advocates are more like jumping into a crocodile pit. He
is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever
dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his
parting speech.
Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine
conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics.
Big Pharma is also called out with "$400 billion to be saved by government negotiation of
prices". The even more powerful HMO's are confronted by the possibility of a "one-payer system",
the devil incarnate in America's corporate-welfare state."
Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring
the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she
represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more
going on than meets the eye.
So I don't usually post here, just mostly read what other folks have to say.
Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is
what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed
by a dictatorship.
So if that is the case is Trump going to take us into the land of dictatorship (which I believe
is highly likely) or are any of us going to be able to tread water for a little longer with HRC
(who I agree is ugh a non-choice but hopefully the lesser of the two evils).
Looking this up I found the concept of the Tytler Cycle. Interesting and scary. This is off
wikipedia:
Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the
majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority
always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses
because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a
monarchy".
Anyway can someone refute this for me so I can sleep tonight? Thanks, in advance.
How could Trump become a dictator? Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile.
Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally
lining up behind Clinton?) Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking
like crazy.
Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in
and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for
Trump to attempt a mass purge.
So exactly how the hell would Trump impose his will on the American masses? Answer: No Way.
President Trump can only be a relatively weak president.
Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled
"checks and balances" come into play for once in your life!
Thank you! The same question I have been asking repeatedly throughout this charade. Everyone's
favorite line is "Trump will be a dictator [be afriad]!" The obvious question… how
?!
How is Trump going to have the same or any more power within or over the system than any president
before him?? What is a reasonable strategy with which he could upend and create domination over
this system with? This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed
when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient
omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also
fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight.
I have felt for a long time but have struggled to put into words the deep, strong aversion
I have towards Clinton (et al.)and that I feel any time I read about her or see her. There is
a phrase in the song Art War , by the Knack, that caught my ear; what I originally heard as, "malice
of forethought". To me this represents the idea that terrible, harmful, far-reaching, incompetent
decisions are made completely on purpose. After doing some research I discovered that the phrase
is actually "malice aforethought", related to murderous intent in legal definitions. A
second, more appropriate
definition here is "a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned
for the lives of others". This represents my internal shuddering exactly – a sort of willful, deadly
incompetence.
While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary
Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not.
"... CNN exit polls show that only about 47 percent of the Nader voters would have voted for Gore in a two way race, while 21 percent would have voted for Bush and 30 percent would have abstained from voting in the Presidential contest altogether. ..."
Well, a counterfactual: Bush v Gore 2000. I have heard arguments that if Nader had not run,
or if no one voted for him, Gore would have won Florida and hence the election.
Mike, I've no links to provide you with -you can easily find them – but the rebuttal to the
Nader-Gave-Us-Bush line is typically that 1) hundreds of thousands of registered Democrats in
Florida voted for Bush, and 2) Gore could not win his "home" (though he's really a pure product
of Washington, DC) state of Tennessee.
The Blame Nader narrative also ignores the fact that the Dems did little or nothing to contest
the blatant stealing of the election.
Thanks, Michael. They only way I see to disprove it is if they interviewed all 90,000+
Nader voters and > 50% in FL swore they would have voted for Bush - or some such.
It seems tough to disprove such an historical counterfactual hypothetical!
At any rate, I think this is what underlies Chomsky's reasoning.
Thanks for the link. From the Alternet article linked to at the end:
CNN exit polls show that only about 47 percent of the Nader voters would have voted for
Gore in a two way race, while 21 percent would have voted for Bush and 30 percent would have abstained
from voting in the Presidential contest altogether.
This would be the relevant evidence to prove the counterfactual hypothesis. I note that it
seems to be contradicted by the CNN polling data in the Truthdig article; what is unclear to me
is whether they are talking about FL voters, or national voters. It makes a difference if we are
focusing solely on FL (which in itself could be problematic if Nader's elimination swung the result
in other states - which I don't know.)
Anyway, as I said above, I do think it is this example and reasoning that underlies Chomsky's
logic. And mine. But I admit, I am abjectly unenthusiastic about it. I expect and hope that I
shall be able to vote 3rd party - I vote in NY.
Thanks again. And to you and all, I appreciate the civility of tone in this engagement. I realize
my view is probably in the minority here.
Gore got more votes overall than Bush and not all the votes were counted in FL in 2000 thanks
to a corrupt Supreme court. Bush was appointed, not elected, and that isn't Nader's fault.
Nader ran in 2004 too and got ,< 1% of the vote. Of course that election was stolen too but
neither Gore nor Kerry bothered to raise a fuss.
I think we ought to be concentrating more on the integrity of our elections in this country
rather than wringing our hands about who might be a 'spoiler'.
Can't stand the republicans but I haven't heard them whinging about Ross Perot for the last
20 years.
Sooooo tired of this analogy. And I voted for Gore in 2000. First, a couple of differences:
Gore was clearly a much better candidate and would have been a much better president than Bush.
And Gore was great on the environment.
Also, Gore lost primarily because of a tilted "liberal media" that seemed to MUCH prefer Bush.
Secondarily because he (or his people) ran one of the worst presidential campaigns I've ever seen.
Maybe the worst presidential campaign I've ever seen, as far as trying to take advantage of the
candidate's strengths (Trump in this general is working on catching up, though!)
Third was Clinton fatigue, which was very real at the time and did not help at all. Nader and
the cheating in Florida and the horrid Supreme Court decision (complete w/failures to recuse that
were kinda eyebrow raising) were also relevant, but none of this should have even come into play.
Gore had a lot to work with, Bush was a godawful candidate, and a competent campaign combined
with something even vaguely resembling fair media coverage would have made this a slam dunk 5+
% win despite the polarized country and a strong desire on the part of many to get rid of anything
associated with Bill. Even with all that, and Nader, if we hadn't allowed a truly criminal purge
of non-criminals from Florida's voter rolls, Gore wins. This was followed by the count fiasco,
more horribly biased media coverage (they were as desperate for Gore to quit then as they were
for Bernie to quit the last several months of his campaign, gotta give Bernie credit for fighting
harder and longer against worse odds), Gore inexplicably rolling over in a display that still
makes me shake my head in disbelief, and a just plain wrong Supreme Court decision that only happened
because justices w/family members working on Bush's campaign didn't recuse themselves.
But still, biggest difference for me? Neither of these are someone I want in the oval office.
"... Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American ..."
"... Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers. ..."
"... Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump. ..."
"... She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. ..."
"... Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. ..."
"... "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity." ..."
"... I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals. ..."
"... I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades? ..."
"... The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess. ..."
"... I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. ..."
"... As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything ..."
"... You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country. ..."
"... Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of. ..."
"... As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager? ..."
"... Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention. ..."
"... I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House. ..."
"... You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed. ..."
"... Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things. ..."
"... Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way. ..."
"... He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed. ..."
"... Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war? ..."
"... It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV. ..."
"... You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear. ..."
"... If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now. ..."
"... Professor Chomsky, ..."
"... In the last years of his life, Martin Luther King, Jr. organized the Poor People's Campaign, which essentially planned to occupy Capitol Hill. The campaign still happened after his death, but not enough people showed up for it to have a great impact. I've begun to advocate what would essentially be a continuation of the Poor People's Campaign, but with a broader focus on the numerous crises facing humanity: climate change, poverty, illegal wars, etc. Would you possibly be interested in providing rhetorical support for this action? ..."
"... Thank you so much for your efforts to make a better world. ..."
"... It was a wonderful and very important initiative, cruelly undermined by his assassination. I hope you manage to revive it. ..."
"... clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign. ..."
"... Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical ..."
"... The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games. ..."
"... All You Zombies" ..."
"... The Snake That Eats Its Own Tail, Forever and Ever. I know where I came from-but where did all you zombies come from? ..."
"... I felt a headache coming on, but a headache powder is one thing I do not take. I did once-and you all went away. So I crawled into bed and whistled out the light. You aren't really there at all. There isn't anybody but me-Jane-here alone in the dark. ..."
"... I miss you dreadfully! ..."
"... Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards. ..."
PERIES: So
Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your
website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever
strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support
for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is
anti-American
. Now, this type
of association game, which is supposed to make it difficult for Sanders supporters
to criticize Clinton, what implication does this have on the overall politics
in this country?
HUDSON: Well, it certainly changed things in earlier elections. The Republican
convention was as is normal, all about their candidate Trump. But surprisingly,
so was the Democratic convention. That was all about Trump too – as the devil.
The platform Hillary's running on is "I'm not Trump. I'm the lesser evil."
She elaborates that by saying that Trump is Putin's ploy. When the Democratic
National Committee (someone within it, or without) leaked the information to
Wikileaks, the Democrats and Hillary asked, "Who benefits from this"? Ah-ha.
Becaue
Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes
NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them
out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by
showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers.
Then Assange did an Internet interview and implied that it was not a cyberwar
attack but a leak – indicating that it came from an insider inn the DNC. If
this is true, then the Democrats are simply trying to blame it all on Trump
– diverting attention from what the leaks' actual content!
This is old-fashioned red baiting. I saw it 60 years ago when I was a teenager.
I went to a high school where teachers used to turn in reports on what we said
in class to the FBI every month. The State Department was emptied out of "realists"
and staffed with Alan Dulles-type Cold Warriors. One couldn't talk about certain
subjects. That is what red-baiting does. So the effect at the Democratic Convention
was about Hillary trying to avoid taking about her own policies and herself.
Except for what her husband said about "I met a girl" (not meaning Jennifer
Flowers or Monica Lewinski.)
The red baiting succeeded, and the convention wasn't about Hillary – at least,
not her economic policies. It was more about Obama. She tied herself to Obama,
and next to Trump = Putin, the convention's second underlying theme was that
Hillary was going to be Obama's third term. That's what Obama himself said when
he came and addressed the convention.
The problem with this strategy is it's exactly the problem the Republicans
faced in 2008, when voters turned against George Bush's administration. Voters
wanted change. And they do today. Hillary did not say "I'm going to have hope
and change from the last years of Obama." She said, in effect, "I'm not going
to change anything. I'm going to continue Obama's policies that have made you
all so prosperous." She talked about how employment is rising and everyone is
better off.
Well, the problem is that many people aren't better off than the last eight
years. Ten million families have lost their homes, and most peoples' budgets
are being squeezed. Obama saved the banks not the economy. So Trump's line and
the Republican line in this election could well be: "Are you really better off
than you were eight years ago? Or, are you actually worse off? Where are all
your gains? You're further in debt. You're having more difficulty meeting your
paychecks, you're running up your student loans. You're really not better off
and we're going to be the party of hope and change."
Hillary can't really counter that with the policies she has. Trump and the
Republicans can say that even though she disavowed the Trans-Pacific Partnership
and the trade agreement with Europe, all the Democratic representatives that
voted for the TPP have won re-nomination, and it's still on the burner.
Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look
at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over
to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist
in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate
of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not
going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side.
George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with
the Democratic Party, not Trump.
What did Hilary actually say at the convention besides "I'm not Trump, Trump
is worse." She's trying to make the whole election over her rival, not over
herself.
PERIES: Okay, so everything you say about Hillary Clinton may be true, and
it's more in your favor that it is true.
She is a candidate of Wall Street and
she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding
fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on.
So when we opened this
interview we were talking about what the Bernie Sanders supporters should now
do, because Trump is starting to appeal like he's the candidate of ordinary
people. So what are they to do?
HUDSON: Well, if the election is between the most unpopular woman candidate
in America and the most unpopular male candidate, the winner is going to be
whoever can make the election fought over the other person.
Trump will win if
he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can
make the election all about Trump.
It looks like she's able to do this, because
Trump is even more narcissistic than she is.
EndOfTheWorld- totally agree with you. I just shake my head at Bernie.
Diametrically opposed to Clinton, he suddenly turns around and embraces her!
What? I will never understand that.
"America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an
effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to
push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street,
and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity."
He's right too.
I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming
President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just
look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she
gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some
more. Power and money are her goals.
She has called Putin "Hitler", said she wants to expand NATO, and again
said she wants to take out Assad. Well, how is she going to do that when
Russia is in there? God, she is scary. I just hope that there's a big
Clinton Foundation email leak to finish her off.
Trump is out there, but at least he wants to try to negotiate peace (of
course, if war wasn't making so many people rich, it would be stopped
tomorrow). He's questioning why NATO is necessary, never mind its continual
expansion, and he wants to stop the TPP.
God, I'd be happy with even one of the above. Hillary will give us TPP,
more NATO, more war, and a cackle. Please, if anyone has some loose emails
hanging around, now is the time!
I honestly don't think there's any way to
predict what Donald Trump will do if elected.
He's effectively a private citizen who, all of a
sudden, will have access to every government
secret and lie, and no culpability for any of
it. It's almost impossible to imagine what that
would be like.
And it's what makes him so "dangerous."
I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta
and be less belligerent with Russia. But what
will happen when he and his
non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers
finally see every bit of redacted and
"confidential" information that has been
routinely hidden from the public and lied about
for decades?
The loss of sovereignty inherent in the
"trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East
policies, to name a few "strategies" this
country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We
private citizens have just not been privy to it.
How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is
elected and comes to know the government's
deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess.
I think its a safe assumption that if
Trump is elected he will be carefully
'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to
information that would upset the applecart.
I doubt he would be able to get much done as
there would be an establishment consensus to
keep him firmly under wraps. He would mostly
busy himself with jetting around meeting
foreign leaders and he might actually be
quite productive at that.
or he'll pass what he campaigns on
which is standard Republican policy
(sometimes) through an entirely
Republican legislature duh. So tax cuts,
cuts to regulation etc.. Really he's
campaigning on these things and they CAN
pass a Republican congress.
Yes, if Donnie is elected, we'll
see some form of a Regency; that's
what Pence is there for.
Donnie will be Clown Prince,
while more traditionally evil
Republican/DC technocrats "run"
things. It would be a re-doing of
the Reagan/Bush-Baker and
Bush/Cheney dynamic, as seen on
reality TV.
As for Donnie taking down TPP and
being the peace candidate, I think
people should sit down and take a
few deep breaths. As a New Yorker
who's observed him for his entire
public life, and as a 90 second
scanning of his career demonstrates,
the man cannot be trusted to speak
truthfully about anything. Does he
lie exactly the way Hillary does? Of
course not, she's the accomplished
professional, while Donnie spins
plates and tries to misdirect by
finding someone to insult when they
fall and shatter.
Vote for Hillary or not (I most
likely won't, but can't predict much
of anything in this all-bets-are-off
opera buffa), but by believing
anything Donnie says, you risk being
the chump he already thinks you are.
You're right. He'll make a
good court jester. That's about
it. as for "the man cannot be
trusted to speak truthfully
about anything" reminds me of
someone who gets on TeeVee and
does that well. And he really
didn't have any experience but
he got himself good handlers and
others who ran the country.
Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the
establishment. And the establishment is what
we have to get rid of.
When was the last
time a political candidate in any country
was as hated by the establishment as Trump
is? That's all you need to know. As flawed a
character as Trump is, he still represents
our last chance to challenge the
establishment. It won't be a pretty
presidency – but it will be entertaining –
however the alternative is the ultimate
horror show. Plus you are gambling that
Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end
the human race. Why would anyone in their
right mind touch that wager?
It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking administration. Something, that for all her rhetoric, there is no reason to believe that Clinton will change. As for waging war, we have a whole lot of information that for all his massive drone wars and interventions in the Middle East,
Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention.
I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House.
You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed.
Once again, people are choosing from known despicable, unknown possibly lesser possibly greater despicable, and unlikely to win third parties or write ins – everyone can only do that for themselves.
One New York reporter (sorry, I don't have the link) said that he has watched Trump his whole life and he said, though he could say many bad things about Trump, racism wasn't one of them. He said he had never in all his years of watching him known Trump to be racist in any way.
Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things.
Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way.
He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed.
While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative, scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in? No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry, not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake".
Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband, all to further the Clinton's.
IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected, she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place will be gutted.
That's preposterous about Donnie not being racist. When the Central Park Five (released from prison and compensated by the state for false impisonment) were arrested, Donnie took out full page ads for days in the NYC papers, all but calling for those (innocent) boy's lynching. He was raised in an explicitly racist milieu – his father arrested at a KKK tussle in Queens in the 1920's, and successfully sued by the Nixon DOJ for his discriminatory rental policies…) and has a long history of saying ignorant, absurd and racist things about "The Blacks."
"Clinton is awful, but that doesn't mean it's a better idea to elect a hateful, racist, despicable con man"
Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp.
Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war?
It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV.
Hatred and racism is exhibited in leaders by being a war monger and gutting this nation with the TPP and lousy trade deals that sell off our national sovereignty and democracy.
You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear.
I am with
Noam Chomsky
on this. If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now.
But as Pat said above, everyone must make up his or her own mind.
Has there ever been any evidence that this type of strategic voting has ever done any good whatsoever or ever had its intended result?
Just speculation but I'm guessing that only a very few of the very politically astute would even bother.
I say vote your conscience regardless and let the chips fall where they may.
Not the voters fault that this is the best the two major parties could come up with.
Speaking of revolution, I emailed Chomsky yesterday and he replied. The below is my message to him.
Professor Chomsky,
In the last years of his life, Martin Luther King, Jr. organized the Poor People's Campaign, which essentially planned to occupy Capitol Hill. The campaign still happened after his death, but not enough people showed up for it to have a great impact.
I've begun to advocate what would essentially be a continuation of the Poor People's Campaign, but with a broader focus on the numerous crises facing humanity: climate change, poverty, illegal wars, etc.
Would you possibly be interested in providing rhetorical support for this action?
Thank you so much for your efforts to make a better world.
The below is Chomsky's reply.
It was a wonderful and very important initiative, cruelly undermined by his assassination. I hope you manage to revive it.
Butch – "…she helped lead the fight for universal health care." Did she now? Here's a good quote on how she felt about universal health care:
"Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.)
"David, tell me something interesting." That was then First Lady Hillary Clinton's weary and exasperated response – as head of the White House's health reform initiative – to Harvard medical professor David Himmelstein in 1993. Himmelstein was head of Physicians for a National Health Program. He had just told her about the remarkable possibilities of a comprehensive, single-payer "Canadian style" health plan, supported by more than two-thirds of the U.S. public. Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer."
clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A
Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign.
I love Michael Hudson. But like everyone commenting here he is needlessly thinking inside the crumbling box of America's existing top-down, money-driven system of political discourse. So what is it that keeps us from thinking outside this godawful box? I think we're all so deeply and habitually embedded in the mode of being status quo critics that we're unable to enter the problem-solving mode of finding alternatives to it. But to make government work in America, we need to think in both modes.
So let's think outside the box for a minute. After all, it's common knowledge that the current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels. Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate it.
At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip. It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about all the things the media spends so much time discussing." Yet like all presidential candidates this year Bernie didn't take the next, logical step: he didn't call for the creation of a new political discourse system. (Note that Hillary alone among the top three candidates never, ever has a bad word to say against the current system.)
OK, so what might a new system look like? First off, it would be non-partisan, issue-centered and deliberative. And citizen-participatory. It would make citizens and governments
responsive
and
accountable
to each other in shaping the best futures of their communities. That's its core principal.
More specifically, the format of a reality TV show like The Voice or American Idol could readily be adapted to create ongoing, prime-time, issue-centered searches for solutions to any and all of the issues of the day. And of course problem-solving Reality TV is just of any number of formats that could work for TV. Other media could develop formats tap their strengths and appeal to their audiences.
Thanks to the miracle of modern communications technologies, there's nothing to stop Americans from having a citizen-participatory system of political discourse that gives all Americans an informed voice in the political and government decisions that affect their lives. Americans will flock in drove to ongoing, rule-governed problem-solving public forums that earn the respect and trust of citizens and political leaders alike. When we create them, governments at local, state and national levels will start working again. If we don't, our politics will continue to sink deeper into the cesspool we're in now.
Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical, unless there is a real socialist-ish movement out there educating and politicizing. In other words, while the political system is indeed broken, the economy is also broken and it is hard to see "empowered" citizens fixing the economy. What I think would happen is the politicians elected by these empowered citizens would be opposed by big business and the politicians they own, nothing good would get done, and there would be a business-financed media drumbeat that more democracy has been "proven" not to work.
I don't think our political problems can be solved simply be electing better politicians – though of course we do need better politicians.
The evil to fear is the most effective evil.
Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games.
I have not had nearly the hardship you have had crittermom and I have not lived as long either, but at 27, and being someone who has been discontent with social structure since middle school, I have absolutely had enough. Genetics, environment, the combination of internal-external factors, whatever it was I have always had a very ("annoying" and sarcastic) curiousity or oppositional approach to things, especially things people do not question and accept as is (religion, government…).
Growing older has only led me to greater understanding of the pit we reside within and how we probably will not get out. This election season in particular has been ridiculously… indescribable. The utter incompetence of our selfish administrations is finally coming to a head and people are completely oblivious, pulling the same stale BS that we have seen every four years since before I was born.
Bernie totally blew it but, outside your hardship, don't ever think you effort was a waste. For once an honest candidate appeared who was backed by the policies we need and you supported that (as I did). That is the most we can do at this point. Bernie the man should absolutely be criticized because he wanted a "revolution" then sold out to the Junta instead of biting back when it would have really sent a message to the people and high rollers. He wasn't willing to sacrifice what was necessary to make a stand. Instead he sided with the people that have made careers sacrificing citizens like you–and that is terrible. The reality these people live in and teach to others is such a lie.
Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards.
So despite his potty mouth there's something to be said for Mr. Trump Goes to Washington. By the time he figures out how to be caudillo it may be time for another election.
crittermom – HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc.
They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex. Who would have thought that the guy running for the right wants to keep jobs in America, wants to stop wars, and the one on the left is for the monied class! Right is left and left is right. Upside down world.
The following article is old now, from April, but it gives you an idea of "Why the Establishment Hates Trump" and what he is planning on doing. Watch them go after him; they will vilify him.
"When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism and sexism. But the silenced policies he advocates are more like jumping into a crocodile pit. He is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his parting speech. Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics. Big Pharma is also called out with "$400 billion to be saved by government negotiation of prices". The even more powerful HMO's are confronted by the possibility of a "one-payer system", the devil incarnate in America's corporate-welfare state."
Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more going on than meets the eye.
So I don't usually post here, just mostly read what other folks have to say.
Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed by a dictatorship.
So if that is the case is Trump going to take us into the land of dictatorship (which I believe is highly likely) or are any of us going to be able to tread water for a little longer with HRC (who I agree is ugh a non-choice but hopefully the lesser of the two evils).
Looking this up I found the concept of the Tytler Cycle. Interesting and scary. This is off wikipedia:
Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy".
Anyway can someone refute this for me so I can sleep tonight? Thanks, in advance.
Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile.
Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform,
literally
lining up behind Clinton?)
Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking like crazy.
Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be
physically impossible
for Trump to attempt a mass purge.
So exactly how the hell would Trump impose his will on the American masses? Answer: No Way.
President Trump can only be a relatively weak president.
Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled "checks and balances" come into play for once in your life!
Thank you! The same question I have been asking repeatedly throughout this charade. Everyone's favorite line is "Trump will be a dictator [be afriad]!" The obvious question…
how
?! How is Trump going to have the same or any more power within or over the system than any president before him?? What is a reasonable strategy with which he could upend and create domination over this system with? This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight.
I have felt for a long time but have struggled to put into words the deep, strong aversion I have towards Clinton (et al.)and that I feel any time I read about her or see her. There is a phrase in the song
Art War
, by the Knack, that caught my ear; what I originally heard as, "malice of forethought". To me this represents the idea that terrible, harmful, far-reaching, incompetent decisions are made completely on purpose. After doing some research I discovered that the phrase is actually "malice aforethought", related to murderous intent in legal definitions. A
second, more appropriate definition
here is "a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others". This represents my internal shuddering exactly–a sort of willful, deadly incompetence.
While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not.
crittermom – HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the
media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I
watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart
what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the
Clinton Foundation, etc.
They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the
status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it.
Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers,
weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex. Who would have
thought that the guy running for the right wants to keep jobs in
America, wants to stop wars, and the one on the left is for the monied
class! Right is left and left is right. Upside down world.
High level military commanders are more politicians then commanders. And if they belong to
neocons this is a dangerous and potentially explosive combination. Especially if State
Department is fully aligned with Pentagon, like happened under Secretary Clinton tenure.
Notable quotes:
"... He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of delivering weapons to Kiev. ..."
"... "I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,... ie do not get me into a war????" Breedlove wrote in one email, using the acronym for the president of the United States. How could Obama be persuaded to be more "engaged" in the conflict in Ukraine -- read: deliver weapons -- Breedlove had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell. ..."
"... Breedlove sought counsel from some very prominent people, his emails show. Among them were Wesley Clark, Breedlove's predecessor at NATO, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kiev. ..."
"... One name that kept popping up was Phillip Karber, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington DC and president of the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank founded by the former defense contractor BDM. By its own account, the foundation has helped eastern European countries prepare their accession into NATO. Now the Ukrainian parliament and the government in Kiev were asking Karber for help. ..."
"... According to the email, Pakistan had offered, "under the table," to sell Ukraine 500 portable TOW-II launchers and 8,000 TOW-II missiles. The deliveries could begin within two weeks. Even the Poles were willing to start sending "well maintained T-72 tanks, plus several hundred SP 122mm guns, and SP-122 howitzers (along with copious amounts of artillery ammunition for both)" that they had leftover from the Soviet era. The sales would likely go unnoticed, Karber said, because Poland's old weapons were "virtually undistinguishable from those of Ukraine." ..."
"... Karber noted, however, that Pakistan and Poland would not make any deliveries without informal US approval. Furthermore, Warsaw would only be willing to help if its deliveries to Kiev were replaced with new, state-of-the-art weapons from NATO. Karber concluded his letter with a warning: "Time has run out." Without immediate assistance, the Ukrainian army "could face prospect of collapse within 30 days." ..."
"... In March, Karber traveled again to Warsaw in order to, as he told Breedlove, consult with leading members of the ruling party, on the need to "quietly supply arty ( eds: artillery ) and antitank munitions to Ukraine." ..."
"... In an email to Breedlove, Clark described defense expert Karber as "brilliant." After a first visit, Breedlove indicated he had also been impressed. "GREAT visit," he wrote. Karber, an extremely enterprising man, appeared at first glance to be a valuable informant because he often -- at least a dozen times by his own account -- traveled to the front and spoke with Ukrainian commanders. The US embassy in Kiev also relied on Karber for information because it lacked its own sources. "We're largely blind," the embassy's defense attaché wrote in an email. ..."
"... At times, Karber's missives read like prose. In one, he wrote about the 2014 Christmas celebrations he had spent together with Dnipro-1, the ultranationalist volunteer battalion. "The toasts and vodka flow, the women sing the Ukrainian national anthem -- no one has a dry eye." ..."
"... Karber had only good things to report about the unit, which had already been discredited as a private oligarch army. He wrote that the staff and volunteers were dominated by middle class people and that there was a large professional staff that was even "working on the holiday." Breedlove responded that these insights were "quietly finding their way into the right places." ..."
"... In fact, Karber is a highly controversial figure. During the 1980s, the longtime BDM employee, was counted among the fiercest Cold War hawks. Back in 1985, he warned of an impending Soviet attack on the basis of documents he had translated incorrectly. ..."
"... He also blundered during the Ukraine crisis after sending photos to US Senator James Inhofe, claiming to show Russian units in Ukraine. Inhofe released the photos publicly, but it quickly emerged that one had originated from the 2008 war in Georgia. ..."
"... The reasons that Breedlove continued to rely on Karber despite such false reports remain unclear. Was he willing to pay any price for weapons deliveries? Or did he have other motives? The emails illustrate the degree to which Breedlove and his fellow campaigners feared that Congress might reduce the number of US troops in Europe. ..."
"... General Breedlove's departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a hardliner vis-a-vis Russia. ..."
"... What's more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into an even more important role after the November election -- she's considered a potential candidate for secretary of state. ..."
"... The now famous and appropriate quote from President Eisenhower: ..."
"... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. ..."
"... The idea of NATO as a defence organisation, following the 2nd World War was quite rational. The history of this organisation however, has shown, how a well meant intention can be misused to force through policies, which have nothing to do with the original purpose. Currently it would appear to have no other role, than to provide high ranking army officers with well paid employment, which can only be justified by way of international conflicts. In the absence of conflict, NATO would have no other cause for existence. ..."
"... The Cold War continues, only the enemy is not the Soviet Union but Russia. Ever since the war against Napoleon Russia has emerged as a threat to certain European interests, at first liberal and nationalist interests. After the Bolshevik Revolution the enemy was still Russia, now revitalized with extreme Bolshevik ideology. Hitler used this effectively to target liberals, leftists and especially Jews. ..."
"... After the fall of Communism nothing has really changed. The West is still urged to resist the Russian threat, a threat invented by Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists and perhaps Fascists. Donald Trump alone seems impervious to this propaganda. Let's at least give him credit in this case, if not in many others. NATO has become a permanent anti-Russian phony alliance, financed by America. ..."
"... These people are hell-bent to bring the world to the brink of war, with lies and excuses about fear of Russian attacks. So Poland was willing to step into the conflict with Ukraine and deliver lethal armament? All the while afraid of Russia invading it? ..."
"... Philip Breedlove is a war monger and should be fired from his position. The efforts of the group around him seeking to secure weapons for the Ukraine to intensify the conflict must have happened with Breedlove's knowledge and support. If not, then he is not capable to meet the demands of his job and should be dismissed for incompetence. Either way, this guy is unacceptable. ..."
"... Ms. Nuland is the same us official recorded by Russian intelligence trying to manipulate events in Ukraine before the overthrow of the president and all the tragic events that followed. That she is still working for US state dept. is puzzling to say the least. ..."
"... Very simple, he is attempting to INVENT a NEW ROLE for NATO, as it is well known in the domain of sociology: any organization strives for survival, especially when it becomes OBSOLETE. ..."
"... nato Breedhate? ..."
"... SPON was always parotting him. And SPON member Benjamin Bidder and many other SPON guys were foaming at the mouth with war rhetoric all the time in 2014-15. Shame on those fools. Finally, with this contribution you are approaching your real job. And this is to distribute information instead of propaganda. ..."
The newly leaked emails reveal a clandestine network of Western agitators around the NATO military
chief, whose presence fueled the conflict in Ukraine. Many allies found in Breedlove's alarmist public
statements about alleged large Russian troop movements cause for concern early on. Earlier this year,
the general was assuring the world that US European Command was "deterring Russia now and preparing
to fight and win if necessary."
The emails document for the first time the questionable sources from whom Breedlove was getting
his information. He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of
delivering weapons to Kiev.
The general and his likeminded colleagues perceived US President Barack Obama, the commander-in-chief
of all American forces, as well as German Chancellor Angela Merkel as obstacles. Obama and Merkel
were being "politically naive & counter-productive" in their calls for de-escalation, according to
Phillip Karber, a central figure in Breedlove's network who was feeding information from Ukraine
to the general.
"I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,... ie do not get me into a war????"
Breedlove wrote in one email, using the acronym for the president of the United States. How could
Obama be persuaded to be more "engaged" in the conflict in Ukraine -- read: deliver weapons -- Breedlove
had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Breedlove sought counsel from some very prominent people, his emails show. Among them were Wesley
Clark, Breedlove's predecessor at NATO, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European
and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kiev.
One name that kept popping up was Phillip Karber, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown
University in Washington DC and president of the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank founded
by the former defense contractor BDM. By its own account, the foundation has helped eastern European
countries prepare their accession into NATO. Now the Ukrainian parliament and the government in Kiev
were asking Karber for help.
Surreptitious Channels
On February 16, 2015, when the Ukraine crisis had reached its climax, Karber wrote an email to
Breedlove, Clark, Pyatt and Rose Gottemoeller, the under secretary for arms control and international
security at the State Department, who will be moving to Brussels this fall to take up the post of
deputy secretary general of NATO. Karber was in Warsaw, and he said he had found surreptitious channels
to get weapons to Ukraine -- without the US being directly involved.
According to the email, Pakistan had offered, "under the table," to sell Ukraine 500 portable
TOW-II launchers and 8,000 TOW-II missiles. The deliveries could begin within two weeks. Even the
Poles were willing to start sending "well maintained T-72 tanks, plus several hundred SP 122mm guns,
and SP-122 howitzers (along with copious amounts of artillery ammunition for both)" that they had
leftover from the Soviet era. The sales would likely go unnoticed, Karber said, because Poland's
old weapons were "virtually undistinguishable from those of Ukraine."
AFP
A destroyed airport building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk : Thousands were killed
in fighting during the Ukraine conflict.
Karber noted, however, that Pakistan and Poland would not make any deliveries without informal
US approval. Furthermore, Warsaw would only be willing to help if its deliveries to Kiev were replaced
with new, state-of-the-art weapons from NATO. Karber concluded his letter with a warning: "Time has run out." Without immediate assistance,
the Ukrainian army "could face prospect of collapse within 30 days."
"Stark," Breedlove replied. "I may share some of this but will thoroughly wipe the fingerprints
off."
In March, Karber traveled again to Warsaw in order to, as he told Breedlove, consult with leading
members of the ruling party, on the need to "quietly supply arty ( eds: artillery ) and antitank
munitions to Ukraine."
Much to the irritation of Breedlove, Clark and Karber, nothing happened. Those responsible were
quickly identified. The National Security Council, Obama's circle of advisors, were "slowing things
down," Karber complained. Clark pointed his finger directly at the White House, writing, "Our problem
is higher than State," a reference to the State Department.
... ... ...
'The Front Is Now Everywhere'
Karber's emails constantly made it sound as though the apocalypse was only a few weeks away. "The
front is now everywhere," he told Breedlove in an email at the beginning of 2015, adding that Russian
agents and their proxies "have begun launching a series of terrorist attacks, assassinations, kidnappings
and infrastructure bombings," in an effort to destabilize Kiev and other Ukrainian cities.
In an email to Breedlove, Clark described defense expert Karber as "brilliant." After a first
visit, Breedlove indicated he had also been impressed. "GREAT visit," he wrote. Karber, an extremely
enterprising man, appeared at first glance to be a valuable informant because he often -- at least
a dozen times by his own account -- traveled to the front and spoke with Ukrainian commanders. The
US embassy in Kiev also relied on Karber for information because it lacked its own sources. "We're
largely blind," the embassy's defense attaché wrote in an email.
At times, Karber's missives read like prose. In one, he wrote about the 2014 Christmas celebrations
he had spent together with Dnipro-1, the ultranationalist volunteer battalion. "The toasts and vodka
flow, the women sing the Ukrainian national anthem -- no one has a dry eye."
Karber had only good things to report about the unit, which had already been discredited as a
private oligarch army. He wrote that the staff and volunteers were dominated by middle class people
and that there was a large professional staff that was even "working on the holiday." Breedlove responded
that these insights were "quietly finding their way into the right places."
Highly Controversial Figure
In fact, Karber is a highly controversial figure. During the 1980s, the longtime BDM employee,
was counted among the fiercest Cold War hawks. Back in 1985, he warned of an impending Soviet attack
on the basis of documents he had translated incorrectly.
He also blundered during the Ukraine crisis after sending photos to US Senator James Inhofe, claiming
to show Russian units in Ukraine. Inhofe released the photos publicly, but it quickly emerged that
one had originated from the 2008 war in Georgia.
By November 10, 2014, at the latest, Breedlove must have recognized that his informant was on
thin ice. That's when Karber reported that the separatists were boasting they had a tactical nuclear
warhead for the 2S4 mortar. Karber himself described the news as "weird," but also added that "there
is a lot of 'crazy' things going on" in Ukraine.
The reasons that Breedlove continued to rely on Karber despite such false reports remain unclear.
Was he willing to pay any price for weapons deliveries? Or did he have other motives? The emails
illustrate the degree to which Breedlove and his fellow campaigners feared that Congress might reduce
the number of US troops in Europe.
Karber confirmed the authenticity of the leaked email correspondence. Regarding the questions
about the accuracy of his reports, he told SPIEGEL that, "like any information derived from direct
observation at the front during the 'fog of war,' it is partial, time sensitive, and perceived through
a personal perspective." Looking back with the advantage of hindsight and a more comprehensive perspective,
"I believe that I was right more than wrong," Karber writes, "but certainly not perfect." He adds
that, "in 170 days at the front, I never once met a German military or official directly observing
the conflict."
Great Interest in Berlin
Breedlove's leaked email correspondences were read in Berlin with great interest. A year ago,
word of the NATO commander's "dangerous propaganda" was circulating around Merkel's Chancellery.
In light of the new information, officials felt vindicated in their assessment. Germany's Federal
Foreign Office has expressed similar sentiment, saying that fortunately "influential voices had continuously
advocated against the delivery of 'lethal weapons.'"
Karber says he finds it "obscene that the most effective sanction of this war is not the economic
limits placed on Russia, but the virtual complete embargo of all lethal aid to the victim. I find
this to be the height of sophistry -- if a woman is being attacked by a group of hooligans and yells
out to the crowd or passersby, 'Give me a can of mace,' is it better to not supply it because the
attackers could have a knife and passively watch her get raped?"
General Breedlove's departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the
German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing
the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a
hardliner vis-a-vis Russia.
What's more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into
an even more important role after the November election -- she's considered a potential candidate
for secretary of state.
bubasan 07/28/2016
Upon reading this article, I am reminded of Dwight D Eisenhowers Farewell speech to the American
Public on January 17, 1961. So long as we continue the PC mentality of NOT Teaching History, as
it really was, we are going to repeat past mistake's. The now famous and appropriate quote
from President Eisenhower:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
Inglenda2 07/28/2016
The idea of NATO as a defence organisation, following the 2nd World War was quite rational.
The history of this organisation however, has shown, how a well meant intention can be misused
to force through policies, which have nothing to do with the original purpose. Currently it would
appear to have no other role, than to provide high ranking army officers with well paid employment,
which can only be justified by way of international conflicts. In the absence of conflict, NATO
would have no other cause for existence.
PeterCT 07/28/2016
Why is Breedlove so fat? He is setting a bad example to his troops. Show all comments
turnipseed 07/29/2016
The Cold War continues, only the enemy is not the Soviet Union but Russia. Ever since the
war against Napoleon Russia has emerged as a threat to certain European interests, at first liberal
and nationalist interests. After the Bolshevik Revolution the enemy was still Russia, now revitalized
with extreme Bolshevik ideology. Hitler used this effectively to target liberals, leftists and
especially Jews.
After the fall of Communism nothing has really changed. The West is still urged to resist
the Russian threat, a threat invented by Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists and perhaps
Fascists. Donald Trump alone seems impervious to this propaganda. Let's at least give him credit
in this case, if not in many others. NATO has become a permanent anti-Russian phony alliance,
financed by America.
90-grad 07/31/2016
Quite detailed article. Not being published in the german website. How to describe these people,
basically just trying to ignite bigger conflicts, or even war. Hardliner, hawks, to me not strong
enough. These are criminals of war, and they should be named accordingly. These are exactly the
kind of persons, who helped Bush to invade Irak, basing on false informations to the public. And
their peace endangering activities help politicians like H.Clinton to keep the peoble in fear,
solely to their own benefit. Disgusting!
huguenot1566 07/31/2016
Extremely disturbing
I don't even know here to begin. Breedlove, Karber, Clark all Americans, seemingly on their
own without Obama's permission, trying to exaggerate or fabricate evidence in order to start a
war with Russia and the danger to the world is profoundly terrifying (Iraq 2003). The US Embassy
in Ukraine saying they were in the dark and therefore relying on information from a college professor,
Karber, who still thinks we're in the Cold War along with Clark who was retired & meddling in
an unofficial capacity as far as the story implies tells me they should be brought up on charges.
And Breedlove is supposed to follow orders not make up his own policy & then try & manufacture
evidence supporting that policy to start war. If the US Embassy in Ukraine says they were in the
dark then clearly they were fishing for info to proactively involve themselves in another nation
& region's personal business. Congress & the U.S. military should investigate as these actions
violate the U.S. Constitution. Thankfully, Germany and NATO is able to say no. It tells Americans
that something isn't right on their end of this.
verbatim128 07/31/2016
Look who was crying wolf!
These people are hell-bent to bring the world to the brink of war, with lies and excuses about
fear of Russian attacks. So Poland was willing to step into the conflict with Ukraine and deliver
lethal armament? All the while afraid of Russia invading it? We, public opinion and most Western
peace-loving folk, are played like a fiddle to step into the fray to "protect" and further some
age-old ethnic and nationalistic rivalries. Time to put an end to this.
gerhard38 08/01/2016
Fucking war monger
Philip Breedlove is a war monger and should be fired from his position. The efforts of the
group around him seeking to secure weapons for the Ukraine to intensify the conflict must have
happened with Breedlove's knowledge and support. If not, then he is not capable to meet the demands
of his job and should be dismissed for incompetence. Either way, this guy is unacceptable.
aegiov 08/01/2016
Ms. Nuland is the same us official recorded by Russian intelligence trying to manipulate events
in Ukraine before the overthrow of the president and all the tragic events that followed. That
she is still working for US state dept. is puzzling to say the least. good reporting. thank you.
titus_norberto 08/02/2016
The Front Is Now Everywhere, indeed...
Quote: 'The Front Is Now Everywhere', yes indeed, we can go back to the Wilson administration,
he invented the League of Nations and his nation did not even joined.
There is a folly in American presidents, they believe they can solve worlds problems, especially
in the Middle East, with two invariable results:
1- utter failure plus CHAOS; and
2- utter disregard for DOMESTIC GOVERNANCE.
Now, the fact that the front is NOW 2016 everywhere is the result of failure one. Donald Trump
is the result of failure two. There is another aspect to consider, what is General Breedlove doing
? Very simple, he is attempting to INVENT a NEW ROLE for NATO, as it is well known in the domain
of sociology: any organization strives for survival, especially when it becomes OBSOLETE.
vsepr1975 08/03/2016
nato
Breedhate?
w.schuler 08/09/2016
Fat Bredlove is a war monger
This is true and it was obvious from the very beginning. But SPON was always parotting him.
And SPON member Benjamin Bidder and many other SPON guys were foaming at the mouth with war rhetoric
all the time in 2014-15. Shame on those fools. Finally, with this contribution you are approaching
your real job. And this is to distribute information instead of propaganda.
I'm not a fan of Hillary but strokes work differently depending on their intensity. I had
one in my late 20's from medication. I did not slur words but for a time I forgot words, I
knew what I wanted to say I just couldn't put things to words for a long time. I do believe
she has something serious going on that she is not disclosing but I don't think its Parkinson.
Roger Stone I do believe is showing signs of Parkinson however. Watch his videos and watch his
hands.... I think Hillary is having seizures, what kind?? I don't know I'm not a doctor. The
other weird thing is the abrasion on her tongue...why? again I don't know.
MsPony65
Not all Parkinson's patients have the tremors.
jane25449
You're right. You shouldn't be making diagnoses, but what the hay, it's important to know,
right? The medical records supposedly leaked from Dr. Lisa Bardack, says she has been
diagnosed with subcorticalvascular dementia with complex partial seizures ( Binswanger's
disease.) and she was put on anticonvulsants in 2013.
The big black guy who jumps on stage with her has been identified as Dr. Akunola , a
neurologist with the Neuroscience Group of New Jersey. The guy following behind him is seen
pulling out of his pocket what looks like a injection pen. There are other videos of her
surfacing out there you need to take a look at, especially showing her frequent falls. I think
because you are familiar with Parkinson's, you see a few symptoms that are indicative of it,
and automatically think it's that. You asked what may be the cause of her having to be helped
up the stairs.
Benswanger's causes one to have an unsteady gate, clumsiness and frequent falls and there
are vids showing her falling a lot , especially lately. I agree with you, they should reveal
their medical records, and I think years ago that was a requirement.
Binswanger's Disease
Information Page National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
Binswanger's
disease (BD), also called
subcortical vascular dementia
, is a type of dementia caused by
widespread, microscopic areas of damage to the deep layers of white matter in the brain. The damage
is the result of the thickening and narrowing (atherosclerosis) of arteries that feed the
subcortical areas of the brain. Atherosclerosis (commonly known as "hardening of the arteries") is a
systemic process that affects blood vessels throughout the body. It begins late in the fourth decade
of life and increases in severity with age. As the arteries become more and more narrowed, the blood
supplied by those arteries decreases and brain tissue dies. A characteristic pattern of BD-damaged
brain tissue can be seen with modern brain imaging techniques such as CT scans or magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI). The symptoms associated with BD are related to the disruption of subcortical neural
circuits that control what neuroscientists call
executive cognitive functioning
: short-term
memory, organization, mood, the regulation of attention, the ability to act or make decisions, and
appropriate behavior. The most characteristic feature of BD is psychomotor slowness - an increase in
the length of time it takes, for example, for the fingers to turn the thought of a letter into the
shape of a letter on a piece of paper. Other symptoms include forgetfulness (but not as severe as
the forgetfulness of Alzheimer's disease), changes in speech, an unsteady gait, clumsiness or
frequent falls, changes in personality or mood (most likely in the form of apathy, irritability, and
depression), and urinary symptoms that aren't caused by urological disease. Brain imaging, which
reveals the characteristic brain lesions of BD, is essential for a positive diagnosis.
Notable quotes:
"... Collected via e-mail, August 2016 ..."
"... early onset Subcortical Vascular Dementia ..."
"... According to these alleged "medical records," Hillary Clinton was diagnosed with early-onset Subcortical Vascular Dementia in 2013, and subsequent doctor visits suggested the condition was worsening. Additionally, the records noted that Clinton suffered intensified Complex Partial Seizures between 2013 and 2014. ..."
Right after the name of Hillary Clinton's
physician appeared in the news, suspect medical records attributed to that
doctor were "leaked" online.
Claim:
Leaked medical records document that Hillary
Clinton exhibits signs of dementia and serious illness.
unproven
Example:
[
Collected via e-mail, August 2016
]
Hillary Clinton diagnosed with "Complex Partial Seizures" and "
early
onset Subcortical Vascular Dementia
" as per a letter authored by
Lisa R. Bardack, M.D., Chairman of the Department of Medicine, Mount
Kisco Medical Group
Origin:
On 8
August 2016, a new Twitter account titled
@HillsMedRecords
appeared and published what the user behind the account claimed were leaked
medical records attesting to the poor health of Hillary Clinton.
The account was quickly deleted by its owner, but screenshots of the
purported records continued circulating on Twitter, allegedly showing
documents prepared by Dr. Lisa Bardack on 5 February and 20 March 2014:
According to these alleged "medical records," Hillary Clinton was
diagnosed with early-onset Subcortical Vascular Dementia in 2013, and
subsequent doctor visits suggested the condition was worsening.
Additionally, the records noted that Clinton suffered intensified Complex
Partial Seizures between 2013 and 2014.
One suspect aspect of the "leak" was that just days earlier, Dr. Bardack
was widely named in real press reports as having attested to Clinton's
medical fitness to serve as president. On 31 July 2016,
TIME
mentioned Bardack by name in an article about a letter she had released
documenting Clinton's physical health:
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is in "excellent
physical condition," her doctor said in a letter.
According to Dr. Lisa Bardack, her physician, Clinton, is in good
health, currently diagnosed with only hypothyroidism and seasonal pollen
allergies. The letter is the first of its kind to be released in the 2016
cycle, and comes as Clinton, 67, has come under scrutiny from some
Republicans for her age and questions about her health stemming from a
2012 incident in which she suffered from a blood clot and concussion.
Quite conveniently (and suspiciously), Bardack's name wasn't prominent in
the news as Clinton's physician prior to the release of that
letter, and just over a week later her name was used to give credibility
to "leaked" records (unusually coincidental timing, to say the least):
The "leaked" documents exhibited some obvious formatting differences from
the official letter issued by Dr, Bardack. In the "leaked" documents Bardack
is listed as "Chairman of the Department of Medicine, Mount Kisco Medical
Group," while the letterhead of the verified document referenced her as
"Chair of Internal Medicine[,] Diplomate of the American Board of Internal
Medicine." The official letter used real letterhead, whereas the purportedly
"leaked" documents were printed on plain paper. The "leaked" documents also
don't look like medical records, but rather like a report provided for
purposes extrinsic to a standard medical charting (with no indication to
whom or for what purpose such a report might have been provided).
We contacted the Mount Kisco Medical Group to ask whether the displayed
documents matched internal formatting of medical records or reports but were
unable to immediately reach anyone there who could answer that question. In
addition to contacting the practice, we've also asked doctors to review the
"leaked" records to determine whether they contained obvious signs of
fabrication visible to physicians (but not necessarily laymen).
Dr. Holland also gets the endocrinology wrong (hope she's got it right in
her book) when she refers to estrogen a "stress hormone that helps a woman be
resilient during her fertile years."
Stress hormones are part of the "flight or fight" response, and the major
stress hormones include
cortisol and epinephrine. Stress hormones can be released rapidly by the
body in response to a threat of some kind (running the gamut from a broken toe
to reading an article on how hormones make or break a woman's ability to be
president). This is not estrogen. Estrogen thickens the lining of the uterus,
affects breast tissue, and of course (like most hormones) has a multitude of
effects everywhere in the body. It is not, however, a stress hormone. It may
be able to counteract oxidative stress in some tissues, but that doesn't make
it a stress hormone).
The major source of estrogen before menopause is the developing egg and how
far the egg is in the cycle is what governs the release of estrogen, not stress.
The female endocrine system is just not built to churn out large amounts of
estrogen in response to stress. Also, girls don't have estrogen before puberty
so it would be a pretty poor evolutionary design for a stress hormones to only
kick in at puberty. Bad luck if you get chased by a saber-toothed tiger at the
age of eight!
... ... ...
Postmenopausal women are not biologically primed to handle stress any more
or less than premenopausal women. Hillary Clinton's hormones have nothing to
do with her qualifications, and I find any connection between the two, whether
well-intentioned or simply a book plug, an insult.
To say a woman's hormones are in some way related to her fitness to be president
then also means at some time you think she is less fit to be president. You
can't have it both ways.
There is no wisdom in menopause. There is wisdom, and then there is menopause.
All I care about is Ms. Clinton's wisdom, and that's all you should care about
too.
Jennifer Gunter is an obstetrician-gynecologist and author of
The Preemie Primer. She blogs at her self-titled site,
Dr. Jen Gunter.
Hillary Clinton reportedly has chronic health issues that may interfere with
the presidency, according to one political insider. The 68-year-old presumptive
Democratic nominee has never been too open about her medical history, but the
coughing fits alone may be enough to indicate that Clinton has some
serious health problems. Radar Online issued a report on Wednesday
that has an insider close to Hillary Clinton saying the presidential hopeful
is facing "mounting health issues."
Several coughing fits have been caught on camera as Hillary Clinton has campaigned
across the nation for the 2016 primary elections and caucuses. The Washington
Post reported in April that Clinton had
two public coughing fits in one week, leaving Democratic constituents wondering
if she's even healthy enough to become president. Actress Susan Sarandon even
said in May during an interview with Larry King that she won't endorse Hillary
Clinton as a presidential candidate because "she may have health issues."
... ... ...
In April, an article published on
KevinMD.com outlined some concerns about Hillary Clinton's health records,
but said that Clinton's health risks aren't anything that should disqualify
her from being president. However, "they are certainly something to ponder."
Was not WaPo a cheerleader of Iraq war? What a despicable hypocrites... Judging from comments it
is more and more difficult for them to deceive and brainwash the readers... The Trump campaign is a
movement MSM and neocons will never embrace. The media bias against Trump has reached unprecedented
proportions.
Notable quotes:
"... My other thought on this is that the Wahabbi theology, which the Saudis have spread so aggressively, is likely to poison the minds of fighting age Muslim males for many many generations to come. And if the House of Saud falls, the country will most likely fall to those under the sway of the Wahabbi clerics, with whom the Saudi monarchs have a tenuous alliance. IMO, if the House of Saud falls, the country is most likely to become an even more brutal theocracy than it already is. It's much more likely to turn into another ISIS state than a western style democracy. ..."
"... Among other things, it is highly doubtful that any other religion will ever be allowed on the Arabian peninsula, which speaks volumes about what will happen "free speech" or freedom of conscience in general in Saudi Arabia for the foreseeable future. ..."
"... As I've said before, ISIS Islam is indistinguishable from Saudi (Wahabbi) Islam. If ISIS is perverting Islam, then the Saudis, the Vatican of Islam are likewise perverting Islam. ..."
"... Insisting ISIS is not Islamic probably is intellectually dishonest and an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy, but what do you expect our leaders and Muslims who abhor Islamist violence to do? Its in the world's interests to repudiate Islamic State and disconnect it from mainstream Islam. It's simple pragmatism. ..."
"... I don't see what positive purpose it serves constantly to parrot that Islamic State are "true" Muslims. Where exactly does that lead us? We know what IS wants, and what its methods are. These individuals are thugs, not deep thinkers; their motive for doing what they are doesn't need to be overthought. There isn't anyone in the world who thinks Islamic State is composed of Episcopalians. ..."
"... Not saying they are "true" Muslims; that's certainly not for me to say. I am saying the Saudis are undeniably a "mainstream" sect, not a fringe sect. That's pretty hard to deny where the holiest sites in all of Islam are in Mecca and Medina, and the Saudis exert a huge influence over Mosque construction and Islamic education. ..."
"... But when I hear someone like this soldier's poor father say "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" I just want to throw up my hands because it so clearly does. ..."
"... That's one of big problems with Islam: the immutable word of God as expressed in the Koran is pretty consistently hateful. And "the Bible is just as bad" is not persuasive-- for Christians there's that whole "New Testament" thing and the Jews are busy winning Nobel Peace Prizes while their neighbors are refining the art of the suicide vest. ..."
"... We are at war with an ideology that is embedded in a religion. That's an inescapable fact. ..."
"... Capt. Humayun Khan was killed in combat in 2004, over 12 yrs ago. Yet Hillary & DNC brought his parents to be on the podium of the convention. Democrats and Hillary Clinton wanted to EXPLOIT HIS DEATH to hilt. And media bought it whole, hook, line & sinker. Then Trump opened his mouth (it does not matter what he says. The media will pulverize it). Trump became a punching bag of the media yet again. ..."
"... "Islamophobia" is a term meant to conflate all criticism of Islam with xenophobia and racism. It's intended to stifle thought shut down conversation. I reject it as a label; it's a nonsense term. ..."
"... Here's the reasons I'm afraid of Islam: 9/11, Mumbai, Boston, Paris, Brussels, Madrid, San Bernandino, Orlando etc etc, etc., death penalty for apostasy, death penalty for blasphemy, death penalty for homosexuality, death penalty for adultery, honor killings, female genital mutilation, misogyny etc etc. etc. ..."
"... I understand that here in the US, people are free to believe as they choose. As I've said before, I don't care if you worship a stone, as long as you don't throw it at me. The reality is that some mainstream sects of Islam (e.g. Wababbis) are spiritual Nazis, and I give them the same "respect" I would give to any other totalitarian ideology; that is, none. If I'm an "Islamophobe" for that, I'll wear it as badge of honor. ..."
"... The son of Mr Khan was an AMERICAN SOLDIER -- Are the Khans American Citizens? If so why are you calling them and their son Muslims .. Muslim is their religion. I don't hear anyone be called a Baptist Soldier was killed, His Baptist Parents are grieving. ..."
"... Mr. Khan and Democrats were attacking Donald Trump with false narratives, Mr. Khan made his son a Muslim Martyr on national television, to compare legal immigrants from middle east with so called refugees from countries of terror who are not vetted is like apples and oranges. Khans need to be angry with Terrorists no Mr Trump who wants to protect all Americans even them from the Jihadists. ..."
"... Their son was killed by Muslims who I am certain would not hesitate for one second to kill them also, yet Mr. Trump is the object of their ire, not the kind of Muslim that would blow up their son. The pocket Constitution Mr. Khan produced was a cheap theatrical prop, the Khan's have every right to have a political opinion and support Mrs. Clinton and even bad mouth Trump as much as they like; I find Trump quite indefensible however in my opinion the Khan's use of their son's sacrifice for a political commercial did only one thing, cheapened and diminished their son's memory. ..."
"... "Who wrote that? Did Hillary's scriptwriters write it?" ..."
"... First, thank you for your service. Second Trump is indefensible. However do not for one second believe that the Khan's were there to pay homage to the memory of their son, they were a commercial for Hillary Clinton plain and simple. By mixing their son's sacrifice with a political commercial in my eyes they cheapened their son's memory. ..."
"... Trump has no filter though. Although I agree with much of what he says about Islam ("Islam hates us" is more accurate than he knows-- Google "al wara wal bara") he's a loose cannon. Don't like him or Hillary, although on Islam Hillary is unquestionably worse. Bought and paid for by the Saudis, among the worst enemies America has ever known. ..."
"... They want Muslim prayer in our schools, but they do not want Christian prayer anywhere near them. ..."
"... My point is that Islamic thuggery has its roots in the religion itself. It's not at all the same as soccer hoologanism. Muhammed is the supreme example for all Muslims; the world's most perfect human. I'm sure you know the word "Sunni" essentially means example (of Muhammed). ISIS essentially claims that the prophet Muhammed was the original ISIS member. ..."
"... So who dug up this lawyer to speak at a democrate convention and why? What's so special about him? ..."
"... And what have Hillary and the Clinton's sacrificed? An ambassador and diplomat and others in Benghazi? The Dems and their racist elitist owners have a knack for chastising all average Americans (typically white Christians) as always wrong, while they search far and wide for an example that they can use to expand their multi-culturalism agenda. ..."
"... Your son served as a legal American. All Trump wants is proper vetting of people who as a group contain a small minority might do us severe harm. Since you were at the Democrat convention, may I inform you of a couple of things. First, our current president, Obama, never served in the military. Bill, the husband of the nominee you support, Hillary Clinton, never served; ..."
"... But it is worse. Bill Clinton (obviously I am reading reports and would be very unlikely to have first hand knowledge of all of these things) had an educational deferment for college during the VietNam "war." He then had an additional deferment during his two year Rhodes scholarship at Oxford. He joined a National Guard unit in Arkansas but did not report. ..."
"... You are very confused. The Clinton running for President is Hillary. The Republican opponent is Trump with 4 military deferments for his bad foot BUT he bragged he did his national patriotic service avoiding VD in New York. ..."
"... When Mr. Khan asked the question: what have you sacrificed? he opened the door to comparisons. Mr Obama is a current president, Mr Clinton a former president. The comparisons were perfectly legitimate. You consider it irrelevant I consider it relevant. That is called a difference of opinions. ..."
"If it was up to Donald Trump, [Humayun] never would have been in America," Khan said. "Donald
Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities, women, judges,
even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls and ban us from this country.
Muslim American Khizr Khan, whose son Humayun was killed while serving in the U.S. Army, offered
Republican candidate Donald Trump his copy of the Constitution during a speech at the Democratic
convention. (The Washington Post)
"Donald Trump," he said, "you are asking Americans to trust you with our future. Let me ask you:
Have you even read the U.S. Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy." He pulled a copy of the
Constitution from his pocket. "In this document, look for the words 'liberty' and 'equal protection
of law.' " Earlier this month, Trump promised congressional Republicans that he would
defend "Article XII" of the Constitution, which doesn't exist.
"Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery?" Khan asked. "Go look at the graves of the brave patriots
who died defending America - you will see all faiths, genders, and ethnicities.
"You have sacrificed nothing. And no one."
Norger, 8/3/2016
My other thought on this is that the Wahabbi theology, which the Saudis have spread so
aggressively, is likely to poison the minds of fighting age Muslim males for many many generations
to come. And if the House of Saud falls, the country will most likely fall to those under the
sway of the Wahabbi clerics, with whom the Saudi monarchs have a tenuous alliance. IMO, if the
House of Saud falls, the country is most likely to become an even more brutal theocracy than it
already is. It's much more likely to turn into another ISIS state than a western style democracy.
Among other things, it is highly doubtful that any other religion will ever be allowed
on the Arabian peninsula, which speaks volumes about what will happen "free speech" or freedom
of conscience in general in Saudi Arabia for the foreseeable future.
Katy Cordeth, 8/2/2016
@Katy.
As I've said before, ISIS Islam is indistinguishable from Saudi (Wahabbi) Islam. If
ISIS is perverting Islam, then the Saudis, the Vatican of Islam are likewise perverting Islam.
To say that "ISIS is not Islamic" is deception and complete intellectual dishonesty not
from you, but from our leaders. They literally think we must be lied to, that we can't handle
the truth. ISIS is very Islamic, in the sense that they are ultra orthodox.
Not if they ignore the parts of the Qur'an which promote peace and respect for all people,
Norger, and such passages do exist despite what your Mr. Spencer might tell you. Being orthodox
means not being able to cherry-pick the parts of one's holy texts one wishes and ignoring the
rest. It depends which definition of "orthodox" one is employing, but if this were the case the
Phelps clan could be described as orthodox.
Insisting ISIS is not Islamic probably is intellectually dishonest and an example of the
No true Scotsman fallacy, but what do you expect our leaders and Muslims who abhor Islamist violence
to do? Its in the world's interests to repudiate Islamic State and disconnect it from mainstream
Islam. It's simple pragmatism. It reminds non-Muslims that, in direct contravention of IS
(and Donald Trump's) goal, the majority do not support the kind of violence Islamists use; and
it stops impressionable Muslims such as those three British schoolgirls from viewing terrorists
as legitimate followers of their faith.
I don't see what positive purpose it serves constantly to parrot that Islamic State are
"true" Muslims. Where exactly does that lead us? We know what IS wants, and what its methods are.
These individuals are thugs, not deep thinkers; their motive for doing what they are doesn't need
to be overthought. There isn't anyone in the world who thinks Islamic State is composed of Episcopalians.
Norger, 8/2/2016
Not saying they are "true" Muslims; that's certainly not for me to say. I am saying the
Saudis are undeniably a "mainstream" sect, not a fringe sect. That's pretty hard to deny where
the holiest sites in all of Islam are in Mecca and Medina, and the Saudis exert a huge influence
over Mosque construction and Islamic education. It's not our leaders' job (and certainly
not mine)to decide which interpretation of Islam is "proper" or true. It is their job to recognize
threats to our national security and deal with them appropriately. As Sam Harris says, the Taliban,
Al Quaeda etc. offer up an entirely plausible interpretation of the faith. And there is no clear
dividing line between their "bad" Islam and "good" Islam.
Anwar al-Awlaki was supposedly a good or "moderate" Muslim until we found out he wasn't and
killed him in a drone strike. I wish I were as optimistic as you about the power of moderate Muslims
to transform the faith. But the threat of being labeled an apostate can be seriously hazardous
to one's health, even here in the US. But when I hear someone like this soldier's poor father
say "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" I just want to throw up my hands because it so clearly
does.
Norger, 8/3/2016
Tell me about those parts of the Koran that promote respect for all people if you can -- but
I will tell you they are far outnumbered by the hateful verses, which I could spend all day quoting,
And if you are going to quote that "whosoever kills another person it's as though he killed all
mankind verse" I suggest you quit the entire verse (including the always omitted language about
when it IS OK to kill another person) and the verse which follows, which describes the manner
in which such transgressors are to be killed.
That's one of big problems with Islam: the immutable word of God as expressed in the Koran
is pretty consistently hateful. And "the Bible is just as bad" is not persuasive-- for Christians
there's that whole "New Testament" thing and the Jews are busy winning Nobel Peace Prizes while
their neighbors are refining the art of the suicide vest.
BigPicture , 8/1/2016
Something worth repeating. Below, I quote from @Norger's comment. Mr. Norger said:
"We are at war with an ideology that is embedded in a religion. That's an inescapable
fact. Are we at war with all Muslims? I sure hope not. But if, in your words, the jihadis
represent "the worst," then we (particularly military and law enforcement) need to be able
to take a hard and unflinching look at our enemies' self-stated motivating ideology in order
to defeat it. That necessarily means developing a deep understanding of the most extreme Islamic
ideologies. The fact is that some Muslims will inevitably not find this "insulting" or "offensive."
It is noteworthy that in Sharia law, "slander" is not necessarily a false statement; it's any
discussion of something which the aggrieved party does not wish to be known. Unless we have
a death wish, "cultural sensitivity" should take a back seat to national security when lives
are at stake. We knew this after 9/11, the body count must rise once again before we learn
it again.
Don't know if Andrew McCarthy (federal prosecutor of the "Blind Sheik," Omar Abdel Rahman)
is also "beneath contempt" in your circles, but I would alsorecommend his book, "Willful Blindness."
(yes Ted Cruz ripped this off).
BigPicture View, 8/1/2016 8:02 AM EST
Capt. Humayun Khan was killed in combat in 2004, over 12 yrs ago. Yet Hillary & DNC brought
his parents to be on the podium of the convention. Democrats and Hillary Clinton wanted to EXPLOIT
HIS DEATH to hilt. And media bought it whole, hook, line & sinker. Then Trump opened his mouth
(it does not matter what he says. The media will pulverize it). Trump became a punching bag of
the media yet again.
Hillary exploited the death of Capt, Khan. The media had something to report besides zero.
Trump became the media punching bag, yet again Trump got free ads and voters' sympathy.
Every one got something out of it. Who is the loser??? Mr. & Mrs. Khan became suckers.
Norger, 8/1/2016 7:44 AM EST
"Islamophobia" is a term meant to conflate all criticism of Islam with xenophobia and racism.
It's intended to stifle thought shut down conversation. I reject it as a label; it's a nonsense
term.
Here's the reasons I'm afraid of Islam: 9/11, Mumbai, Boston, Paris, Brussels, Madrid,
San Bernandino, Orlando etc etc, etc., death penalty for apostasy, death penalty for blasphemy,
death penalty for homosexuality, death penalty for adultery, honor killings, female genital mutilation,
misogyny etc etc. etc.
To you, I'm a borderline racist for being concerned about these things. To me, you are a blind
apologist. Jihad is different in kind from anything the US military does. It's quite literally
murder as a sacrament, in the name of spreading or defending the faith. Afraid of Islam? You bet.
Among other things, "mutually assured destruction" means nothing to a country in possession of
nuclear weapons whose leaders are of this mindset (Iran, anyone?)
I understand that here in the US, people are free to believe as they choose. As I've said
before, I don't care if you worship a stone, as long as you don't throw it at me. The reality
is that some mainstream sects of Islam (e.g. Wababbis) are spiritual Nazis, and I give them the
same "respect" I would give to any other totalitarian ideology; that is, none. If I'm an "Islamophobe"
for that, I'll wear it as badge of honor.
"ISIS is not Islamic." Riiiight.
Michelle Ann, 7/31/2016 12:58 PM EST
The son of Mr Khan was an AMERICAN SOLDIER -- Are the Khans American Citizens? If so why
are you calling them and their son Muslims .. Muslim is their religion. I don't hear anyone be
called a Baptist Soldier was killed, His Baptist Parents are grieving.
Mr. Khan and Democrats were attacking Donald Trump with false narratives, Mr. Khan made
his son a Muslim Martyr on national television, to compare legal immigrants from middle east with
so called refugees from countries of terror who are not vetted is like apples and oranges. Khans
need to be angry with Terrorists no Mr Trump who wants to protect all Americans even them from
the Jihadists.
American, 7/31/2016 8:45 AM EST [Edited]
Any parent who has to bury a child is worthy of compassion, I cannot imagine a greater pain.
Captain Khan is a hero, there is nothing more noble than to lay down your life so another may
live. Mr. and Mrs. Khan used their son's memory to attack Mr. Trump, they politicized the death
of their son, they went on TV in front of an audience of millions with only one purpose: to attack
Mr. Trump.
Their son was killed by Muslims who I am certain would not hesitate for one second to kill
them also, yet Mr. Trump is the object of their ire, not the kind of Muslim that would blow up
their son. The pocket Constitution Mr. Khan produced was a cheap theatrical prop, the Khan's have
every right to have a political opinion and support Mrs. Clinton and even bad mouth Trump as much
as they like; I find Trump quite indefensible however in my opinion the Khan's use of their son's
sacrifice for a political commercial did only one thing, cheapened and diminished their son's
memory.
G_Minde, 7/31/2016 4:04 AM EST
"Who wrote that? Did Hillary's scriptwriters write it?"
For shame.
A father who has lost a son in our nation's service calls out The Donald – and his lame response
is to question whether or not the father wrote his own words?
The Donald can't believe that someone born in a country that had English as an official language,
trained as a lawyer, and with over 20 years in the United States can not make his own speech?
The Donald can't believe that someone with a darker skin tone than his can be eloquent?
The Donald can't handle that a family who has lost a son in our nation's service would disagree
with his proposed policy that would have kept them from coming to this country in the first place.
And when questioned about it, instead of being compassionate, or non-committal, or at least
*respectful* of the father of one of our fallen soldiers, questions whether or not those were
even his words.
Contrast that with former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, talking about how "Virtually every
night for four and a half years, writing condolence letters and reading about these mostly young
men and women, I wept."
Donald, when the father of a fallen solder says ""You have sacrificed nothing and no one, "
I don't think that staying that you have 'worked hard' to make money is really quite…sacrifice.
It's not like you have been one of the 'dollar a year' men like served under FDR in World War
Two. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't expect to 'work hard' in the course of making billions
of dollars.
You claim 'creating jobs' in the process of making money as a sacrifice you have made.
So how many jobs is the life of a son worth?
The Donald wants to be the Commander-in-Chief, but this is how he talks about the Families
of the Fallen. Such character. Such temperament.
Here's one Afghan veteran whose vote he will not be getting.
American, 7/31/2016 8:58 AM EST
First, thank you for your service. Second Trump is indefensible. However do not for one
second believe that the Khan's were there to pay homage to the memory of their son, they were
a commercial for Hillary Clinton plain and simple. By mixing their son's sacrifice with a political
commercial in my eyes they cheapened their son's memory.
Norger, 8/7/2016 10:08 AM EST
Yes, and the Republicans tried the same thing with a mother of one of soldiers killed in Benghazi;
she was ripped by many in the MSM, essentially for these same reasons. Not that there's any double
standard.
Trump has no filter though. Although I agree with much of what he says about Islam ("Islam
hates us" is more accurate than he knows-- Google "al wara wal bara") he's a loose cannon. Don't
like him or Hillary, although on Islam Hillary is unquestionably worse. Bought and paid for by
the Saudis, among the worst enemies America has ever known.
GeorgeVreelandHill1, 7/30/2016 10:37 PM EST
I agree with Trump on banning Muslims.
Far too many of them have killed innocent people around the world including in the United States.
Far too many of them chant "Death To America" in their streets and few have real respect for America.
I see Muslims all over Los Angeles and they want to do things their way according to their own
customs.
You say no to them and they sue.
A Christmas tree is an insult to them. They want Muslim prayer in our schools, but they do not want Christian prayer anywhere near
them.
They try to take over any space they are in.
On 9/11, there were two Arab boys pointing to the smoldering ruins of the Twin Towers.
They were laughing.
That is typical Muslim behavior towards America.
The United States is THE land of freedom, but Muslims are trying to take away as much of the freedom
as they can.
Their agenda is the Middle East agenda and they dare others to stop.
Well, stop them we must.
In America, you do what is according to the laws of this land and not the laws of other places.
Don't like it, then get out.
Or be banned.
George Vreeland Hill
Norger, 7/30/2016 10:50 PM EST
OK, so it appears you now agree you said that many Muslims are in fact intimidated into silence
even though you were outraged in your last post that I would suggest you said such a thing.
I don't doubt that political grievances play some part in this but there are many other groups
throughout the world (e.g. Christians in the Middle East, Tibetan Buddhists) who suffer oppression
equal or greater than that of Muslims, but don't resort to terroristic violence. (where are those
Tibetan suicide bombers). And sorry no, I don't think that western imperialism is responsible
for the second (or more) generation Islamist violence we are seeing in France, Belgium and Germany.
Islam reliably breeds a certain percentage of terrorists.
My point is that Islamic thuggery has its roots in the religion itself. It's not at all
the same as soccer hoologanism. Muhammed is the supreme example for all Muslims; the world's most
perfect human. I'm sure you know the word "Sunni" essentially means example (of Muhammed). ISIS
essentially claims that the prophet Muhammed was the original ISIS member. They emulate his
behavior in every way and (accurately) cite Islamic scripture in support of virtually every atrocity
they commit. It's not just "human nature;" it's an ideology of conquest, cloaked in a veneer of
religion.And ther is little or no difference between ISIS Islam and Saudi Islam. That fact alone
should terrify us.
I say that jihad terror is going to continue until we recognize it for what it is--religiously
motivated warfare. I'm supposed to be flattened by you telling me that "sounds like Trump?" Here's
my question to you: how can we possibly fight jihad terror effectively if we refuse to recognize,
name and study our enemies' self-stated motivating ideology? How can that possibly be helpful?
If we are "at war" with "violent extremism" then intentionally refusing to "come to grips" with
our enemies' self-stated motivating ideology is beyond foolish.
DPMP, 7/30/2016 9:24 PM EST
So who dug up this lawyer to speak at a democrate convention and why? What's so special
about him?
anagitator, 7/30/2016 8:45 PM EST
And what have Hillary and the Clinton's sacrificed? An ambassador and diplomat and others
in Benghazi? The Dems and their racist elitist owners have a knack for chastising all average
Americans (typically white Christians) as always wrong, while they search far and wide for an
example that they can use to expand their multi-culturalism agenda.
How many such average Americans also were killed in action and Hillary could care less because
it doesn't fit her or the elites agenda? The Clinton family will drag us into more wars to advance
the bankster interests.
Jake55, 7/30/2016 4:39 PM EST
For the, 70 plus years, Hillary has been destroying America. She in her term as the Governor's
wife was snorting so much cocaine that she drifted through that term. She had a good start with
Watergate, where she was fired for dishonesty and trying to manufacture evidence. Then during
her husband's vie for the presidential seat, she was a master at covering up his affairs and picadillos.
Rape, indiscretions...all covered up by Hillary. She has ruined many lives protecting her errant
husband and his sex crazed impulses.
... ... ...
Katy Cordeth, 7/30/2016 5:07 PM EST
Everything else in your comment was too asinine, hysterical (God help us indeed) and borderline-libellous
to respond to, but this Watergate calumny should be addressed.
OK, let's talk about your son, who gave his life AS AN AMERICAN soldier, and your Trump insult
by your rhetorical question of whether Trump has ever been to Arlington (where, BTW, my parents
are also buried...so it is a powerful image associated with this WaPo article).
Your son served as a legal American. All Trump wants is proper vetting of people who as a group
contain a small minority might do us severe harm.
Since you were at the Democrat convention, may I inform you of a couple of things. First, our
current president, Obama, never served in the military. Bill, the husband of the nominee you support,
Hillary Clinton, never served;
But it is worse. Bill Clinton (obviously I am reading reports and would be very unlikely to
have first hand knowledge of all of these things) had an educational deferment for college during
the VietNam "war." He then had an additional deferment during his two year Rhodes scholarship
at Oxford. He joined a National Guard unit in Arkansas but did not report. He picketed against
America while overseas. When he did not report to his Guard unit, he was, in June, sent a draft
notice. But he did not go. In August, two months later, the draft was changed to a lottery system
and he received a high number, meaning he would not go into the military. BUT...those who had
already received a draft note, as Bill, were not eligible for the lottery. How did he escape that??
And how can you therefore support Hillary?
What have you done personally to stop Muslim terrorists from striking us here in America?
BobSanderson, 7/30/2016 2:24 PM EST
You are very confused. The Clinton running for President is Hillary. The Republican opponent
is Trump with 4 military deferments for his bad foot BUT he bragged he did his national patriotic
service avoiding VD in New York.
How did you miss the revelant parties and facts on service?
American, 7/30/2016 2:39 PM EST
When Mr. Khan asked the question: what have you sacrificed? he opened the door to comparisons.
Mr Obama is a current president, Mr Clinton a former president. The comparisons were perfectly
legitimate. You consider it irrelevant I consider it relevant. That is called a difference of
opinions.
"... the U.S. system never has been democratic. It is a show–a very expensive one–that the capitalist class puts on every two years in order to control the citizenry and to provide a justification for U.S. imperialism. ..."
"... Now, the capitalist class that controls Rome is no longer national, but transnational, being based on the transnational corporations and financial institutions and enjoying the full support of the transnational capitalist media. ..."
"... new poles: Globaliists vs. Antiglobalists. ..."
"... Donald Trump is an antiglobalist. That's the reason he deserves the full support of all those who oppose the transnational capitalist class and its institutions, including the EU, NATO, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD, to name just a few. ..."
"... However, the election should not be about appearances but about policies. Obama sounded intelligent, but his policies all come out of the globalist think tanks, the CIA (his mum's former employer) and the neocon asylum in Washington. So chose: someone who sounds like a television personality with great positions, or… well we all know what Clinton stands for. ..."
"... submissives to the atomisation of all systems that might afford self-sufficiency to societies, that makes everybody absolutely dependent on and therefore subservient to international finance and it's program of enslavement. ..."
"... Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an e-mail showing that reality appears. ..."
"... spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. ..."
"... sheepdog is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his so-called campaign. ..."
"... If the majority of people in the USA are really thinking that voting for either Hillary or the Donald is worse than having unprotected sex with an HIV+ hooker, then the Independent would barely need any publicity. They'd just need to be on the ballot. ..."
"... Course, the Establishment might get cute and put a far-right nutcase up as 'another Independent' so as they would have someone who'd do as they were told no matter what. ..."
"... The Boy Wonder's credentials as a card-carrying New World Order shill haven't really been in question since January this year – when he penned this fact-free Russophobic screed: ..."
"... Owen Jones has lost all credibility with his quest for publicity at any price. He'd sell his granny for whatever he could get if it served his interests. He's a hypocrite and a propagandist opportunist. He doesn't give a fig about the Syrians, the Palestinians, the Yemeni or anyone else but himself. At best he is a worthless egocentric loser who wants to be heard, whatever drivel he is spouting and is a traitor to the socialist/centrist movement, his only loyalty is to himself. Nothing he writes or says can be taken seriously anymore. ..."
So, even though Clinton also isn't progressive, or honest, or sane, and even though she has no
interest in helping the disadvantaged or rebuilding social infrastructure, and even though she
conducted state business on a private email server so no one would be able to tell what nefarious
and illegal, and potentially insanely dangerous things she was doing, and even though she
presided over the Honduras debacle, and even though she authorised and gloated over the illegal
murder of a foreign head of state, and even though she has threatened to "obliterate" Iran and
take the confrontations with Russia and China to new heights that really might result in WW3, we
absolutely have to get behind her because – hello – she isn't Trump. And anyhow if we
get her to be POTUS and make sure there are lots of lovely Democrats in Congress, maybe we can
ask them to please do some of the socialist things Bernie talked about. They will probably say
yes, of course And anyhow, Owen's not sure if he mentioned this but Hillary isn't Trump…
Yes, this is what passes for political analysis when the neolibs are slipping you wads of cash
to endorse the unendorsable, the discredited and the morally broken.
The likes of Jones are paid to surrender their dignity and ethics and pretend this macabre farce
is something called "democracy", and to sell the decaying relics offered up for candidacy as if
they were real choices. That doesn't mean we have to pretend to believe them. If I were a US
citizen I'd take the only truly free choice left and decline to play this game of fake reality
any longer. And if we all did that, the game would be over, wouldn't it.
anonymous, July 27, 2016
I am a 57-year-old U.S. citizen. To disabuse those Europeans who both live in smaller
countries and have the blessing of a parliamentary system, the U.S. system never has been
democratic. It is a show–a very expensive one–that the capitalist class puts on every two
years in order to control the citizenry and to provide a justification for U.S. imperialism.
The citizens are convinced that they don't have to do a thing in order to make the "democracy"
work, and that if they don't like the results that either they are to blame or it is useless
to oppose the system. And outside of Rome, people are told that the Roman way is best because
it is legitimized by the vote of the citizens.
Now, the capitalist class that controls Rome is no longer national, but transnational,
being based on the transnational corporations and financial institutions and enjoying the full
support of the transnational capitalist media. And as the rise of the Alt-Right shows,
the old communist vs. far-right poles have become obsolete with the utter defeat and
assimilation of the Marxist left, and have been replaced with new poles: Globaliists vs.
Antiglobalists.
Donald Trump is an antiglobalist. That's the reason he deserves the full support of all
those who oppose the transnational capitalist class and its institutions, including the EU,
NATO, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD, to name just a few. There are not a
few "progressives" and "leftists" who refuse to support Trump because he doesn't sound
intelligent.
However, the election should not be about appearances but about policies. Obama sounded
intelligent, but his policies all come out of the globalist think tanks, the CIA (his mum's
former employer) and the neocon asylum in Washington. So chose: someone who sounds like a
television personality with great positions, or… well we all know what Clinton stands for.
dahoit, August 7, 2016
I agree totally, Trump is the answer for American recovery.
But the zionists want no part of America First and Israel on its own.
And that is why the MSM and web sites everywhere are in full throat propaganda mode for the
Hell Bitch.
I have never seen anything like this before, and the American people can see the fix is in,
but over our dead bodies, if necessary. I'm pissed to shite at this massive mis and
disinformation bliztkrieg.
It will backfire, just like all their attempts to marginalize him during the primaries.
physicsandmathsrevision, July 26, 2016
He's happy to support Clinton's murderous Jewish racist agenda. All perceived threats to
Israel must be destroyed. Iraq, Libya, Syria and (next up) Iran.
This is where leftist centrists think is a good place to stand in this terrifying age during
which we must endure the brain-dead analysis of commentators who, in truth, are most easily
understood as simple submissives to the establishment will … a will that everyone is afraid to
recognise as being dominated by Jewish money and its globalist anti-commutarian agenda….submissives
to the atomisation of all systems that might afford self-sufficiency to societies, that makes
everybody absolutely dependent on and therefore subservient to international finance and it's
program of enslavement. Are 'gays' a new officer class in this operation?
OffG Editor, July 26, 2016
The phrase "a Jewish racists agenda" should qualify for some award for unintended and
self-defeating irony.
If you can tell me how it clarifies, exlains or expands your point then I'll recognise you
have a valid reason for adding it that isn't racist or intentionally self-sabotaging.
proximity1, July 27, 2016
IF YOU can tell me how the remark is not arguably quite true based on a fair and honest
review of facts, then I'll recognise your valid objection to it.
But, as it seems to me, the simple fact that Clinton's policies aren't solely confined* to the
outrages which the writer describes as a "murderous Jewish racist agenda," does not make that
observation any the less true- does it!?
What, other than that, are you objecting to?
Richard Le Sarcophage, July 28, 2016
Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an e-mail showing that
reality appears. He is, in fact, with his total and immediate roll-over, even as the
corruption of the process was categorically exposed by the e-mails, making no pretense
otherwise, spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the
elite plutocracy of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. He was the geriatric Obama,
dispensing more Hopium for the dopes. And when Clinton feigns adoption of Sanders policy, like
not signing the TPP, she is LYING.
Diana, July 28, 2016
Sanders' own campaign called him the "youth whisperer", but sheepdog is accurate. I
have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose
the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her
from the start of his so-called campaign. Perhaps he did so hoping that the DNC would
play fair, but that goes to show you he's no socialist. A real socialist would have been able
to size up the opposition, not made any gentleman's agreements with them and waged a real
campaign.
rtj1211, July 26, 2016
So far as I'm aware, there must be a mechanism for an Independent to put their name on the
ballot.
If the majority of people in the USA are really thinking that voting for either Hillary or
the Donald is worse than having unprotected sex with an HIV+ hooker, then the Independent
would barely need any publicity. They'd just need to be on the ballot.
Course, the Establishment might get cute and put a far-right nutcase up as 'another
Independent' so as they would have someone who'd do as they were told no matter what.
But until the US public say 'da nada! Pasta! Finito! To hell with the Democrats and the GOP!',
you'll still get the choice of 'let's invade Iran' or 'let's nuke Russia'. You'll get the
choice of giving Israel a blowjob or agreeing to be tied up and have kinky sex with Israel.
You'll get the choice of bailing out Wall Street or bailing out Wall Street AND cutting social
security for the poorest Americans. You'll get the choice of running the USA for the bankers
or running the USA for the bankers and a few multinational corporations.
Oh, they'll have to fight for it, just as Martin Luther King et al had to fight for civil
rights. They may have the odd candidate shot by the CIA, the oil men or the weapons men.
Because that's how US politics works.
But if they don't want a Republican or a Republican-lite, they need to select an independent
and vote for them.
The rest of us? We have to use whatever influence we have to try and limit what they try to do
overseas…….because we are affected by what America does overseas…….
reinertorheit, July 26, 2016
Holy Schmoley, Batman!
The Boy Wonder's credentials as a card-carrying New World Order shill haven't really been
in question since January this year – when he penned this fact-free Russophobic screed:
Perhaps the most laughable thing in it is that he claims to be speaking for "the British Left"
mohandeer, July 26, 2016
Owen Jones has lost all credibility with his quest for publicity at any price. He'd
sell his granny for whatever he could get if it served his interests. He's a hypocrite and a
propagandist opportunist. He doesn't give a fig about the Syrians, the Palestinians, the
Yemeni or anyone else but himself. At best he is a worthless egocentric loser who wants to be
heard, whatever drivel he is spouting and is a traitor to the socialist/centrist movement, his
only loyalty is to himself. Nothing he writes or says can be taken seriously anymore.
"Clinton's false assassination outrage" was launched to suppress damaging new emails rulors the
Clinton goons are behind asssainatin of GNC staffer, who may have been the source of email leaks scandal
articles
Notable quotes:
"... I distinctly recall HRC pacing the 2008 DNC stage, furiously red-faced, making a thinly veiled reference to Obama and the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, then later shouting with great exasperation, "Ären't you going to 'do' anything about this (guy)", using 'do' in the full Mafia 'Trail of 50 Bodies' sense. ..."
"... How can one be so blind not to see that it's Hitlary, who is surrounded by the bloodthirsty CIA people pushing openly for world war? ..."
"... Hillary's false 'The Russians are coming!' is having as widespread and as dire results as anything the Trump has said. Her program is institutional, with the guy 'who used to run the CIA' - right - plugging assassinations himself, and Hillary pledging to continue Obama's program of murdering 'suspects' and everyone surrounding them, or just people who seem to be acting like you'd think 'suspects' might - while viewing them through an 8 or 10,000 mile long drinking straw. ..."
"... Actually, that's not the video where she made both those statements, but rather an after-play pre-rehearsed news event to immediately replace in the viewers' minds what was actually said, and the shocking raw horror of her psychopathy. ..."
"... "We came, we saw, he died, caww, caww, caww!" Remember, she'd just watched Ghadaffi be anally raped to death with a bayonet on closed-circuit satellite feed to the War Room. And that was her psychopathic response. ..."
"... Trump has a huge advantage over his opponents and critics. He's not a bribed, corrupt politician. The Dems and Republicans are all in the pockets of the Owners of the Military/ Industrial/ Security/ Trade/ pro-Israel Complex. They, and their followers, aren't allowed to stray from the Handed-down Wisdom script. It's an insurmountable obstacle for the anti-Trump crowd and b's perspective, (their) outrage (and fake sincerity) only helps Trump, and can only get worse. ..."
"... I suspect that Clinton will have some bad news in terms of leaked emails and ties between state department and Clinton foundation so by November when elected she will be embroiled in legal fights. ..."
"... The effect of all that hysterical shouting and screaming of the Hillary-bots: All members and all supporters of the NRA now know exactly what's on stake. ..."
"... the Charlie Rose interview with ex-CIA chief Morrell who is backing Clinton: Kill Russians and Iranians, threaten Assad,' https://www.rt.com/usa/355291-morrell-kill-russians-clinton/ ..."
"... Today's outing at The Wall Street Journal via ZH: Latest Hillary Email Scandal Reveals State Department "Favors" To Clinton Foundation http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-10/latest-hillary-email-scandal-shows-state-department-favors-clinton-foundation ..."
"... A TIME magazine cover recently depicted a headline "Can Hillary be Stopped". Were the editors of TIME suggesting she be assassinated? The media is merely a propaganda tool used to influence our every thought from buying toothpaste to voting for one of two candidates who will be "empty suits" (unless someone comes along who will resist the proffered script) called "President of the USA" - ..."
"... The internet has been an efficient tool to awaken the people... TPTB (or TPTA) are not adjusting too well. Rather than falsely present a "close race" as is their usual MO, they have persuaded almost 100% of the media to pile on Trump - they think people are too stupid to realize what is going on - same thing with the "polls" - with the "swing states" etc. People are NOT buying it this go round though. Obama's hope & change and subsequent same ol same ol has done alot to "change" people to no longer hope. Then along comes Trump - definitely not one of the establishment. ..."
"... The more the TPTB pile on Trump's every utterance, and the more they IGNORE the blatant crimes of HRC... imho, the more people will be inclined to vote Anybody But Clinton. Again, in my opinion, many Democrats will stay at home on election day. When in our history of elections has a candidate stolen an election and that fact been verified, and the guilty candidate as much as said to the Party "Deal with It"? ..."
"... Apologize for the tirade, but I have been a Democrat (actually a LEFTY) for almost 7 decades... in this election cycle most democrats are gleeful over what they see as the decline of the Republican Party, totally BLIND to the evaporation of the Democratic Party. I will never again work or vote for a Democrat - local or national. ..."
"... "The election will likely be decided on voter turn-out and get-out-the-vote volunteering efforts." If the primaries had been so decided Hillary would not still be in the race. Elections, no less than primaries, are decided by the (corrupt) vote counting. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/06/24/smoking-gun-approximately-15-of-bernies-votes-were-flipped-to-clinton-in-california/ ..."
"... Richard Charnin has documented the mathematical impossibility of the results in quite a few primaries. ..."
"... HAHAHA I think more than half the country understands The Washington Post sells lies, bias and bullshit ..."
"... Killary campaign is unravelling fast imho. Her health problems are all over the net, Assange seems to be hinting at the fact that Seth Rich (goog) was a source, the leaker of DNC mails. (Imho he was a conduit rather than source but who am I.) ..."
"... Who cares if he's clean? What matters is that he's not a war criminal, and can't be bought. That he can't be bought is why the Establishment is so dead-set against him. ..."
"... I can't understand your position, given your interest in Russia. Surely you're aware that Hillary would make Obama's relaunching of the Cold War look like a little skirmish? And she would not rest until Syria is destroyed like Libya. One of her advisers has said that he hopes she will kill Russians and Iranians in Syria; another said that NATO is too concerned about ISIS, and attention should go back to overthrowing the legitimate secular Syrian government. ..."
I distinctly recall HRC pacing the 2008 DNC stage, furiously red-faced, making a thinly veiled
reference to Obama and the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, then later shouting with great exasperation,
"Ären't you going to 'do' anything about this (guy)", using 'do' in the full Mafia 'Trail of 50
Bodies' sense.
The Cgiseb Trotskyist Now has already rewritten that out of history.
Back then HRC was speaking without notes, ...directly from her psychopathic brain. Trump was
clearly reading from a teleprompter, and you can gargle all you want about that, but the intent
was clear, 'crystal', as they say in the halls of Mossad-CIA: 'Do' HRH if she is selected. Who
do?
Then you have to wonder at the cynosure behind the curtain, and their intent, ...which seems
to me to be clearly to foment civil war, resolving the inevitable stall and flat spin death spiral
of QEn 'goosed' and 'juiced' global markets, so the looting can begin.
Chinyowinh made a compelling prediction that Bernie was a ruse to round up the Left and deliver
them with roses and chocolates to Hillary on a silver plate, which he did; and also that Donald
is a ruse to round up Right Wing Rabbinicals, Sovereigntists, Patriots and Crypto-Zionists, and
drive them all off Nut Bar Cliff in a hand basket, which he is.
But that prediction, which seems to have come true, doesn't answer intent. What is the intent
of the Chosen controlling all three houses of government, of course, forming a Holy Zionist Kleptocracy.
Why? What is their goal, besides enslaving all the Earners?
Their Solution is all-out civil war, and killing off all the useless EBC mouths to feed.
Then you have to wonder why nobody has 'done' the cynosures yet, as the bodies pile up.
Why do we let the cynosure control dissent? Why do we let them hector in the arguments?
Why waste a NY nanosecond even talking about this psyop brainwashing stress positioning?
"Those incoherent remarks were certainly off-the-cuff babble without a prepared script. Difficult
to follow even if someone were interested in doing so."
If this is the best that can be said about a candidate, it is not a recommendation. "Vote Trump,
he has most incoherent remarks!"
Most importantly, b correctly observes that Trump, a remarkably successful candidate, uses
highly emotional barely coherent speech (or incoherent, if you are charitably inclined), so to
compete with him one has to use methodical clear arguments and not an ounce of "false outrage".
Just compare with GOP propaganda in the preceding week: there was a deal with Iran allowing access
to "frozen" (de-facto, stolen money that belong to the state of Iran), and as a part of that deal
some money were sent to Iran before restoring banking connections. Clearly, it was a mean trick
on the side of Obama administration, as they are delaying the restoration of normal banking transactions,
but GOP is no in full false outrage about "illegal payment", "treason" and so on.
How about the outrage that Democrats do not use expression "Islamist radical" often enough
(or some other expression).
Emotional and rather base arguments are the specialty of GOP, so it is only fitting to respond
in kind. In a counter-narrative, GOP is bent on supplying every right wing psychopath with a ton
of machine guns and ammo so they can dispatch LGT folks, social workers, abortion clinics, the
public in shopping malls (then and now an armed psychopath is simply, a-politically insane) and
liberal politicians. This is an angle directed at "soccer mom" demographic.
And the situation is a bit scary. American gun nuts are numerous, organized, full of homicidal
fantasies (check what "stopping power" means, one of their favorite phrases) and, quite regrettably,
they have means to realize their fantasies when angry, depressed etc.
The media bias against Trump has reached unprecedented proportions.
I don't know he can be still considered a part of the establishment. Instead of futile speculations about what Trump did not say fueled by the lame-scream media
disinformation people should be talking about this:
How can one be so blind not to see that it's Hitlary, who is surrounded by the bloodthirsty
CIA people pushing openly for world war? Are you high on something bad to claim that Killary will be "slow decline" instead of immediate,
violent confrontation with the anti-empire block?!
Hillary's false 'The Russians are coming!' is having as widespread and as dire results as anything
the Trump has said. Her program is institutional, with the guy 'who used to run the CIA' - right
- plugging assassinations himself, and Hillary pledging to continue Obama's program of murdering
'suspects' and everyone surrounding them, or just people who seem to be acting like you'd think
'suspects' might - while viewing them through an 8 or 10,000 mile long drinking straw.
From the Olympics come the Americans ... booing the silver medal winning Russian, and her American
competitors labeling her a cheater.
There comes also a '
selfie ' from a young South Korean gymnast, with her new friend from North Korea. There is
talk of the USA and its stooges in South Korea making her pay for her 'impure hatred' of the imperially
defined other, her own flesh and blood!
World wide now ... who do love and who do you hate? The Americans? the Koreans? I'm loving
the two young Koreans in their selfie myself. Feel sorry for the twisted American swimmers. Amazing
they can still float with all the thick bile of hatred weighing them down.
Actually, that's not the video where she made both those statements, but rather an after-play
pre-rehearsed news event to immediately replace in the viewers' minds what was actually said,
and the shocking raw horror of her psychopathy.
"We came, we saw, he died, caww, caww, caww!" Remember, she'd just watched Ghadaffi be anally
raped to death with a bayonet on closed-circuit satellite feed to the War Room.
And that was her psychopathic response.
Here is an example. A still shot of Jackie climbing over the back of the limo as a Secret Service
agent rushes up to the limo, and shot from what angle and azimuth, you might ask, since the far
ground was level, except by a telephoto spotting scope.
There are 1000's of examples like this from the 9/11 recasting, that's what the Cgiseb Trotskyist
Now media people are for, to alter reality in real time, or very near to it.
19 Arabs who could not fly a Cessna flew two 757s through fighter jet maneuvers with full tanks
at full payload dropped two skyscrapers for the first time in history, and two other mythical
757s accomplished what Einstein never did: "They just vaporized!"
"Hillary just meant that we need a good Vice President, ...you know, just in case."
Cheney instituted a $5.8B domestic media Black Ops program, that continues to this day, and
both Red Donald and Blue Hillary are owned by the same cartels that control the Ops.
Trump has a huge advantage over his opponents and critics. He's not a bribed, corrupt politician.
The Dems and Republicans are all in the pockets of the Owners of the Military/ Industrial/ Security/
Trade/ pro-Israel Complex. They, and their followers, aren't allowed to stray from the Handed-down
Wisdom script. It's an insurmountable obstacle for the anti-Trump crowd and b's perspective, (their)
outrage (and fake sincerity) only helps Trump, and can only get worse.
He is catering for his core voters who made him win the primary but that group won't get him
elected in the general election.
He needs utter amnesia to change his image till October, and youtube and social media will
make sure he does not get a chance.
I suspect that Clinton will have some bad news in terms of leaked emails and ties between state
department and Clinton foundation so by November when elected she will be embroiled in legal fights.
It would be nice to see the Republican and Democrat Parties split.
Wikipedia on the National Rifle Association of America (NRA):
Membership surpassed 5 million in May 2013.
The effect of all that hysterical shouting and screaming of the Hillary-bots:
All members and all supporters of the NRA now know exactly what's on stake.
Brilliant PR from Trump; simple, effective and costless.
"Clinton's false assassination outrage" has accomplished its intent to suppress damaging emailo
scandal articles on the front pages, and especially viral on the internet is
"The ex-CIA chief, who worked with Clinton while she was secretary of state, told CBS This Morning
co-host Charlie Rose that Iran and Russia should "pay a big price" in Syria – and by that he meant
killing them."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
MSM global has it in the bag for Clinton but over the next weeks we will read the connections
between her office and pay-for-play Clinton Foundation.
Not surprised. Quite revealing the list of CF Board of Directors. There is a descriptor for
this that escapes one's capacity to spell. SO, HRC's Chief of Staff served on the CF Board, (2004-2009) then to State Department and back
to the Board (2013-present).
"Rudy Giuliani went to bat for Donald Trump during the Republican nominee's campaign rally in
Fayetteville, North Carolina"
I listened to Donald Trump's speech in Wilmington and what he said very clearly was that
if Hillary Clinton were elected president she would get to appoint judges to the Supreme Court
and among the other things that they would do to destroy us would be to do away with the Second
Amendment and your right to bear arms.
In my view, Trump was speaking to the ballot box... those who support the 2nd amendment (some
of whom have probably never voted) turning out in November in enough numbers to "stop Hillary"
A TIME magazine cover recently depicted a headline "Can Hillary be Stopped". Were the editors of TIME suggesting she be assassinated? The media is merely a propaganda tool used to influence our every thought from buying toothpaste
to voting for one of two candidates who will be "empty suits" (unless someone comes along who
will resist the proffered script) called "President of the USA" -
The internet has been an efficient tool to awaken the people... TPTB (or TPTA) are not adjusting
too well. Rather than falsely present a "close race" as is their usual MO, they have persuaded
almost 100% of the media to pile on Trump - they think people are too stupid to realize what is
going on - same thing with the "polls" - with the "swing states" etc. People are NOT buying it
this go round though. Obama's hope & change and subsequent same ol same ol has done alot to "change"
people to no longer hope. Then along comes Trump - definitely not one of the establishment.
The more the TPTB pile on Trump's every utterance, and the more they IGNORE the blatant crimes
of HRC... imho, the more people will be inclined to vote Anybody But Clinton. Again, in my opinion,
many Democrats will stay at home on election day. When in our history of elections has a candidate
stolen an election and that fact been verified, and the guilty candidate as much as said to the
Party "Deal with It"?
Apologize for the tirade, but I have been a Democrat (actually a LEFTY) for almost 7 decades...
in this election cycle most democrats are gleeful over what they see as the decline of the Republican
Party, totally BLIND to the evaporation of the Democratic Party. I will never again work or vote
for a Democrat - local or national.
Did you know that exit polls which document that Candidate B is winning are changed (falsified)
to agree with the corrupt counting that holds Candidate C the winner? It's official, nonsecret
policy of the companies that do exit-polling. Richard Charnin has documented the mathematical
impossibility of the results in quite a few primaries.
Killary campaign is unravelling fast imho. Her health problems are all over the net, Assange seems to be hinting at the fact that Seth
Rich (goog) was a source, the leaker of DNC mails. (Imho he was a conduit rather than source but
who am I.)
What is nuts about the personal-server e-mails is that what is important now, as everyone seems
to have copies, is who releases what when! (Assange, FBI, judiciary, others, possibly Trump …)
Some commentators correctly insist the personal server-classified info. etc. is secondary to
the Clinton Foundation Slush Fund, imho simply a bribery-influence-peddling-dark-deals *criminal*
enterprise. That angle seems to be also slowly coming to the surface.
So someone must be blamed and accused! The only candidate is Putin.
However it is Killary who is tied to 'shady' deals with Russia, the Uranium One matter.
Link from NYT, chosen on purpose as *MSM* o-so-supportive of the PTB, sober and prudent supposedly,
mealy-mouthed + covering up, obfuscating liars, according to others.
The cockamamie is strong in these parts, any ol' codswallop is being bought at full market value.
Has any one stopped long enough in spinning gold out of straw to consider candidate Trump's
remarks as reference to the constitution without waving the bloody flag which such reference usually
entails? A reasonable estimate of the percentage of the public having some sound knowledge of
the constitution is vanishingly small outside their familiarity with the second amendment which
would run upwards to 60% or slightly greater. This is the cost of not teaching civics in school.
Trump's reference can only be understood as such, nothing more, nothing less.
The balderdash suggestion that the intent of liquidation was present is a factor only in the
twisted imaginations of a few media manipulators. To give those manipulations any currency is
at great risk (don't believe), give those enhancing currency wide berth (don't trust), don't be
going selling the family milch cow for a handful of magic beans to that lot (run away as fast
as you can). Interesting times to live in - indeed.
It is interesting to observe that in a highly polarized political landscape, like we see currently
in USA (but also in a number of other countries, like Poland and Turkey), there is a wide belief
that the candidate/president/leader of the other side is so awful that if only the public fully
understood this awfulness he/she would become un-electable.
But, alas, it does not happen. In a milder times this was called "teflon effect", the most
obnoxious dirt goes away after a gentle spray with water. But as the adversaries are perceived
in increasingly demonic turns, perhaps a better metaphor is a vampire swiftly shrugging off any
attempt to wound it and kill.
"Wampira można zabić przebijając jego serce drewnianym kołkiem, najlepiej osinowym, albowiem
osika w wierzeniach Słowian miała moc odpędzania złych duchów." "One can kill a vampire by stabbing
it through the heart with a wooden stake, and best of all, made of aspen, as in the Slavic lore,
aspen had the ability to shun away the evil spirits". Vampires actually come from Slavic folk
lore, I was actually surprised that Americans think that any type of wooden stake could be used.
I guess "silver bullet" is a method closer to the imagination and home arsenal of contemporary
Americans.
Thus we can see the quests for a silver bullet or for a stake made of a proper type of wood.
How many times adversaries were cheered by the news that from now on, nobody could elect a Clinton,
or Mr. Trump? Quite notably, e-mails proved to be worthless. You can make a stake out of e-mails
and then drive it through a witch as many times as you want and she does not even need to regenerate:
no traces of a wound can be observed at all! A more sober analysis would show that there are no
records of e-mails dispelling evil spirits, killing vampires etc.
YouTube videos are perhaps a sterner material. But alas, showing the public that Mrs. Clinton
reports a killing with a maniacal glee is a total non-issue in U.S. of A. As of now, it is inconclusive
if it increased or decreased her popularity. Surely she became a darling of neocons and homicidal
retirees from CIA, and there exists a demographic that detests it, but the pluses and minuses
in electoral sense are so small that no one even tried to measure them.
And here comes sober foreign policy of Mr. Trump. He would pick fights only in American interests,
e.g. he does not overly care about Crimea and Latvia, thus kissing good bye to the vote of ethnic
Latvians and Ukrainians, but promises to shoot down Ruskies if they approach our ships and planes
too closely. So, on the credit side, no proxy wars for dubious reasons, on the debit side, WWIII
for no reason whatsoever. Promises to unleash torture programs above and beyond recent non-negligible
American experience also have a reception that is too mixed to assess.
And indeed, periodically we learned about an exhalation of the Trumpian orifice that should
bury his chances once for all. In general, Madam Secretary played that by the book. Mad dog attacks
are done only by proxy. She can make a declaration of virtue: "You will never see me singing praises
of foreign dictators and strongmen who do not love America". And who would not make little modest
requirement, "praise the strongmen only if they love America"? Trump, apparently, for him it suffices
that Putin calls him a genius (although that can be deconstructed as a love for America, and exquisite
taste to boot.) But her attacks remains proper, grammatical and dignified.
Charles Hugh Smith (blogger) is a nice chap, afaik sincere, consistent, with a big following for
long years. Has this perhaps counter-intuitive post up recently. For interest, plurality of opinion,
etc.:
I think that the linked article is a satire. Look at that passage:
Hillary has exhibited the typical flaw of liberal Democrats: fearful of being accused as being
soft on Russia, Syria, Iran, terrorism, etc. or losing whatever war is currently being prosecuted,
liberal Democrats over-compensate by pursuing overly aggressive and poorly planned policies.
The forward-thinking elements of the Deep State are not averse to aggressive pursuit of what they
perceive as American interests, but they are averse to quagmires and policies that preclude successful
maintenance of the Imperial Project.
"Forward-thinking elements of the Deep State". This is really funny. That really calls for
some definition of the Deep State. In USA, it is not that deep, I mean, denizens do not need to
hide in cellars, abandoned mines etc. although some members could have private bomb shelters and
other measures allowing to survive nuclear war. Instead we have a ruling class that socializes
(mostly) in public, where we can discern money people, power people, media people and intelligentsia,
think tanks and obedient sectors of the academia. The few who are "forward thinking" may be found
among FORMER members or acquaintances of the current members, but those, by definition, have no
decision making capacities.
GOP side of the ruling class is split: some would prefer a serial rapist over anyone who does
not believe in decreasing taxes, regulations etc. and Trump, for all his faults, is not THAT bad.
Additionally, an entire generation grew on hating anything related to Clintons. Other have various
grievances. In particular, the Koch brothers who are close to the center of deep power in GOP
side openly bet against Trump, working to assure that GOP will remain in the majority of both
houses of Congress. In that scenario, Clinton will harmless. Importantly, from Koch perspective,
overly energetic support of Trump may cost the majority in the Senate and dangerously weaken it
in the House.
Democratic side of the ruling class is in the minority (at least, within their class) so it
is more cohesive. Whatever minor foibles may be presented by HRC, there are barbarian at the gates
that have to be repelled. As Trump the Barbarian approaches the capital, they recognize the familiar
annoyance and will the their best to stop him.
"Amid the media-hyped furor over Donald Trump's 2nd Amendment comments and Wikileaks' suggestions
about the untimely death of DNC-staffer Seth Rich, we thought it perhaps of note that Democratic
strategist, and CNN host, has publicly called for the "illegal assassination of that son-of-a-bitch"
Julian Assange...
Meet Bob Beckel - Democratic strategist, CNN host (former Fox host), and clear "treasonous, traitor"
Assange-hater...
This strikes us as very dangerous talk... We wonder if he is being questioned or investigated
for such a public and unquestionable demand for someone to be murdered? Forget due process...
"just kill the son of a bitch."
Hitlary is a known absolute, unspeakable evil, there is a guarantee she'll escalate dramatically
the world tensions. She's has done sbsolutely NOTHING positive during her campaign, zilch, nada.
She's MSM's favorite. We have no chance for safe, normal life if she has presidential powers.
Trump, as many others observed, is an enigma, far less risky. Keeps us guessing but has already
inflicted some real damage to the evil empire. MSM has played some really dirty, biased game against
him. If he forfeits on his promises, his voters will tear him into pieces.
Personally I suggest voting AGAINST Killary, NOT for Trump.
There is absolutely no equivalence between these two alternatives.
While the Clinton campaign tries to make everybody believe that Trump was calling for the assassination
of Hillary, Hillary or someone associated very likely assassinated the DNC Wikileaks leaker Seth
Rich a couple of weeks ago. The Russia did the hack is as bogus as the North Korea hacked Sony
story and the most significant whistleblowing has up till now been done by individuals (Manning
and Snowden). The Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was shot in the back with no
motives for his murder as all his belongings were still on him.
Strangely silent is the mainstream media about the fitness of the Democrat candidate.
And causes for concern are growing. Without considering any statements she has made or positions
she has taken, and without presuming to speculate on psychiatric diagnoses, one can point to
certain observations. ..
Videos widely circulated on the internet are, if authentic, very concerning. One shows prolonged,
inappropriate laughter; another, strange head movements. In a third, she appeared momentarily
dazed and confused, and lost her train of thought.
Strangely silent indeed. (I found out about that post from a
piece at Breitbart , which mentions that Clinton's top aid said in an email that she is "often
confused".)
As much as I try to ignore the election travesty playing out, I can't help but notice Hillary
is getting sloppy about her murders. What her and Bill could do in their previous roles they can't
do now without drawing unwanted attention. This is why it's so important to own the press/newz.
This is a psychopathic strategy of yesteryear, yet Hillary's handlers cling to it desperately.
I'm not suggesting Hillary herself controls the press. Her masters are the same masters the NYT,
WaPo, CNN and network newz answer to. Whether you buy into the whole psychopath-this and psychopath-that
conspiracy, you have to admit Hillary (and Obama for that matter) go ballistic about 'leakers'.
Far more so than you would expect ANY normal, powerful person to react. Denial and counter-accusations
are 'normal'. Killing (or wishing the death) of leakers is not.
The usual tactic (for psychopaths) is to immediately blame someone else for something they
themselves are guilty of. Funny how Hillary's camp went nuts over Trump's reference to Second
Amemdment people changing the law. Who the hell would interpret this - literally - as Trump suggesting
they assassinate Hillary? You have to have a seriously sick and twisted mind to see that to begin
with, and then wage a futile campaign of outrage about it in the media. Even Hillary supporters
are starting to ask WTF??
Thanks, I missed the fact that Dr. Susan Berry is the author of that piece. I clicked on her
name and found this:
"Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons,
observes that "strangely silent is the mainstream media about the fitness" for presidential office
of Hillary Clinton. At AAPS' website, Orient summarizes the concerns about Clinton's health that
she says are growing:"
Dr. Orient has a lengthy article there, here are the last three paras:
"... The U.S. has had problems with incompetent leaders in the White House before. Mrs. Woodrow
Wilson (the "First First Lady President") was effectively President for the last year and a
half of her husband's term after he suffered a disabling stroke. She managed to conceal the
seriousness of Wilson's condition for a long time. This was the reason for the 25th amendment
to provide for replacing the President in case of disability.
While the U.S. government knows more and more about our medical histories and other aspects
of our lives, many details about the President are a secret. The press appears to care more
about the tax returns of Republican candidates than the medical records of Democrat Presidents
or candidates. And Secretary Clinton's public appearances have been rather carefully controlled.
Is it conceivable that Hillary supporters would really be voting for Huma Abedin, Clinton's
top aide, or for the First First Husband President, Bill Clinton? The American people are entitled
to know the objective medical facts about Secretary Clinton."
It's proven that Hellary ALREADY STOLE the nomination from Sanders.
Trump has not cheated in the elections so far.
So no, there is no equivalence here.
Indeed. I guess that Western democracy has become so degraded that many people can't grasp
or even notice this difference.
The way the system is rigged has been clear for some time, at least since Bill Clinton's second
term. You have two parties that are more or less identical in terms of the policies they implement,
except on social wedge issues. The candidate of both parties is pre-selected by the establishment.
What was unusual about the current election is that there were insurgencies in both
parties. The Republican insurgency succeeded; the Democratic one failed. That alone is reason
enough to vote for the Republican in this election (something I never even considered doing before).
The Establishment is freaking out about Donald Trump for one reason: they didn't pick him
. The Establishment is freaking out because the natural order of things is that we pick
the presidential candidates and we run the country to serve ourselves, i.e. the financial-political
elites.
Donald Trump's candidacy upsets this neofeudal natural order, and thus he (and everyone
who supports him) is anathema to the Establishment…
Just in case one has forgotten, don't we all know what our "constitutionalist" ammosexuals are
capable of? Who can forget Ammo-on Bundy and all the related fun at
Malheur?
And do you really believe The Donald is clean? What NYC property developer and
builder isn't mobbed up? I'm sure he's slid plenty of envelopes of cash across tables to state
and local politicians. Isn't most of the New York legislature under indictment? Or just the leadership?
Here is Jersey, our official motto is "The Pay-to-Play State."
And of course his penchant for shady business deals and bankruptcies fully vouches for
his undeniable probity.
Yeah, both Hilary and Bill look pretty used up. Spent. For what...? Haha... Great entertainment.
You seppos put on a great show. Would be pretty funny except for the fact you're all holding a
gun to your head and everyone else's.
I enjoy Bill still though. A yank I like. The Secret of Oz and The Money Masters are
essential viewing for those who want to know HOW they rig it. Here is something i posted in the
US Election thread, tho suits here now. Makes a great point about social media figures, the unspoken
polls...(what is the future...or...perhaps the now...?)
@133 Demian
Yeah, Orwellian indeed...
I am in no doubt she is suffering. I remember Trump ripping her a new hole when she failed
to appear with Bernie and O'Malley during a televised debate. Trump questioned her stamina
then, and while Trump draws sell out crowds each day, sometimes twice a day, she is appearing
only 3 times before Oct 9 I think.
You cant hide from what she's got. And she's got it bad.
Haha...Trump, yeah hes a buffoon, but he's more MSM than the MSM itself and is playing it like
a flute... Plus he's causing all sorts of chaos. Destroyed the Republicans already, Dems next.
Who cares if he's clean? What matters is that he's not a war criminal, and can't be bought.
That he can't be bought is why the Establishment is so dead-set against him.
I can't understand your position, given your interest in Russia. Surely you're aware that
Hillary would make Obama's relaunching of the Cold War look like a little skirmish? And she would
not rest until Syria is destroyed like Libya. One of her advisers has said that he hopes she will
kill Russians and Iranians in Syria; another said that NATO is too concerned about ISIS, and attention
should go back to overthrowing the legitimate secular Syrian government.
Doesn't the world have enough instability? It would just get worse under Hillary. Yet you refuse
to acknowledge that Trump is, at the very least, the lesser evil, apparently out of a liberal
smugness and dislike for his populism.
And I don't understand why you can't see this from the Russian point of view. Lavrov keeps
on talking about how the world is becoming multipolar, but that US elites refuse to accept this
new reality. It is obvious that Trump understands and accepts this new reality. That's why US
foreign policy types hate him.
Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign released a letter on Friday from her doctor attesting to
Mrs. Clinton's good health and fitness to serve as president based on a full medical evaluation.
The letter from Dr. Lisa Bardack of Mount Kisco, N.Y., summarized Mrs. Clinton's history of
treatment for a brain concussion, blood clots affecting her legs and brain on separate occasions,
an underactive thyroid gland and a family history of heart disease.
Mrs. Clinton, 67, regularly takes thyroid hormone to bring her levels to normal as well as the
anticoagulant drug Coumadin to help prevent new blood clots, Dr. Bardack wrote. Mrs. Clinton also
takes antihistamine drugs for seasonal pollen allergies and vitamin B-12.
Mrs. Clinton has faced questions about her health since 2012, when, as secretary of state, she
suffered a concussion and a blood clot - known as a transverse sinus venous thrombosis - in her
brain. Those were a result of a series of events caused by a stomach virus Mrs. Clinton acquired
while traveling abroad. While alone in her home after returning, she became dehydrated and then
fell from a faint, striking her head. She subsequently experienced double vision and temporarily
wore glasses with a Fresnel Prism to ease the difficulty with her eyesight.
Mrs. Clinton was treated at George Washington University Hospital in Washington, and then went to
NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia hospital in Manhattan before returning to her home in Chappaqua,
N.Y.
The concussion symptoms and double vision resolved within two months and Mrs. Clinton stopped
using the prism, Dr. Bardack wrote.
But former President Bill Clinton told a reporter that his wife's concussion "required six months
of very serious work to get over" and that she had "never lowballed" the severity of her head
injury.
Follow-up testing in 2013 showed "complete resolution of the effects of the concussion, as well
as total dissolution" of the blood clot, Dr. Bardack wrote. Mrs. Clinton did not release
statements from a neurologist, neurosurgeon or other specialist involved in her medical care in
Washington or New York.
Mrs. Clinton is the first presidential candidate in this cycle to make public a medical history.
But in the past many candidates have released copies of extensive records, agreed to personal
interviews or allowed their doctors to be interviewed.
Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, did not reply to an email request to interview Dr.
Bardack.
While Mrs. Clinton experienced blood clots in 1998, 2009 and 2012, tests showed that she did not
have any underlying disorder that put her at an increased risk of the clots. Tests are performed
to monitor the dose of Coumadin she takes and ensure that she has not experienced side effects,
Dr. Bardack wrote.
Mrs. Clinton's electrocardiogram was reported as normal, as were her blood lipids. Cancer
screening tests, including mammography, breast ultrasound, colonoscopy and gynecological
examination were normal.
Dr. Bardack did not disclose Mrs. Clinton's height and weight, which are standard items in
medical histories.
She said Mrs. Clinton eats a diet rich in lean protein, vegetables and fruits. She exercises
regularly, including yoga, swimming, walking and weight training.
Find out what you need to know about the 2016 presidential race today, and get politics news
updates via Facebook, Twitter and the First Draft newsletter.
"... Videos widely circulated on the internet are, if authentic, very concerning. One shows prolonged, inappropriate laughter; another, strange head movements. In a third, she appeared momentarily dazed and confused, and lost her train of thought. ..."
Strangely silent is the mainstream media about the fitness of the Democrat
candidate. And causes for concern are growing. Without considering any statements she
has made or positions she has taken, and without presuming to speculate on
psychiatric diagnoses, one can point to certain observations. ..
Videos widely circulated on the internet are, if authentic, very concerning. One
shows prolonged, inappropriate laughter; another, strange head movements. In a third,
she appeared momentarily dazed and confused, and lost her train of thought.
Another nice example of swiftboating. What scarifies for illegal and disastrous Iraq war that made
Iran region superpower mean?
Notable quotes:
"... "He says, 'You have sacrificed nothing and no one,'" Stephanopoulos asked. "Who wrote that,
did Hillary's scriptwriters write it?" Trump replied. "How would you answer that father?" Stephanopoulos
asked. "What sacrifice have you made?" ..."
"... In lieu of participating in a debate on Fox News earlier this year, Trump held a fundraiser
at which he said he raised millions of dollars for veterans' charities and given $1 million of his own.
When The Washington Post investigated, we found that he had overstated how much had been raised and
contributed and that Trump himself hadn't made a contribution. ..."
"... Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said during a campaign speech in Iowa on July
28 that he wanted to "hit" some of the speakers at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
"I was going to hit one guy in particular. A very little guy," Trump said to laughter. (Reuters) ..."
Trump's
response to the New York Times's Maureen Dowd was brief: "I'd like to hear his wife say something."
If your assumption was that Trump was suggesting that, as a Muslim woman, Ghazala Khan may have
been forced into a position of subservience, Trump made that point explicitly in
an interview with ABC News's George Stephanopoulos.
"I saw him," Trump said of the speech. "He was very emotional and probably looked like a nice
guy to me. His wife … if you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say."
"She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me," Trump continued.
"But a plenty of people have written that. She was extremely quiet, and it looked like she had nothing
to say. A lot of people have said that."
O'DONNELL: You were very nervous about going to the convention and actually were reluctant,
didn't really want to go out on the stage and especially didn't want to speak because you would
not be able to keep your composure and I have to say, I'm just like you. I don't think I would
have been able to do what your husband did out there last night.
How do you feel now about having gone to the convention and gone out on stage and seen what
an impact it's had?
GHAZALA KHAN: First of all, I thank all America who listened from their heart to my husband's
and my heart, and I'm so grateful for that. And it was very nervous because I cannot see my son's
picture, and I cannot even come in the room where his pictures are. That's why when I saw the
picture at my back I couldn't take it, and I controlled myself at that time. So, it is very hard.
While Khizr Khan spoke, a large photo of their son was displayed on the large video screens behind
the couple.
"He says, 'You have sacrificed nothing and no one,'" Stephanopoulos asked.
"Who wrote that, did Hillary's scriptwriters write it?" Trump replied.
"How would you answer that father?" Stephanopoulos asked. "What sacrifice have you made?"
"I think I've made a lot of sacrifices," Trump said. "I've worked very, very hard. I've created
thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs …"
"Those are sacrifices?" Stephanopoulos asked.
"Sure. I think they're sacrifices. I think when I can employ thousands and thousands of people,
take care of their education, take care of so many things," Trump said. "Even the military. I mean,
I was very responsible along with a group of people for getting the Vietnam Memorial built in downtown
Manhattan, which to this day people thank me for."
"I raised and I have raised millions of dollars for the vets," he added.
In lieu of participating in a debate on Fox News earlier this year, Trump held a fundraiser
at which he said he raised millions of dollars for veterans' charities and given $1 million of his
own. When The Washington Post investigated, we found that
he had overstated how much had been raised and contributed and that Trump himself hadn't made
a contribution.
It was only after that report that Trump wrote a check.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said during a campaign speech in Iowa on July 28
that he wanted to "hit" some of the speakers at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
"I was going to hit one guy in particular. A very little guy," Trump said to laughter. (Reuters)
I've long respected
Austin Bay
, and
so I found
this article of his
making the case for voting for Trump to be of interest,
and I think it deserves an audience.
Everyone who reads this blog regularly knows I've struggled long and hard with
the question of whether I can stomach voting for Trump, and I expect I'll probably
struggle with it right up to the moment of truth in the voting booth. But I've
long said that I respect those who will vote for him and are convinced it is the
right thing to do, although I also respect those who will not. There are
arguments-good arguments-to be made on either side.
Bay comes down on the pro-Trump side, and reminds us of some of Trump's good
points:
He won the nomination by boldly and relentlessly addressing difficult
political and social issues that his opponents preferred to either avoid or
carefully finesse. He damned political and media hacks who run down America.
When racist fanatics murdered cops Trump demanded law and order.
Bay feels that NeverTrumpers are fooling themselves as to the effects of their
non-support:
NeverTrumpLand's childish Sore Losers don't thwart the ambitions of
America's all-too-real Captain Crook-Hillary Clinton-and her privileged Clinton
Foundation cronies. Quite the opposite. In GetRealLand Sore Losers become
Crooked Hillary's political tools.
That's why I've never been part of the NeverTrump movement-my reluctance to
facilitate the election of Hillary Clinton. But I realize that many NeverTrumpers
are propelled into that camp by their belief that Trump would not necessarily be
better than Clinton-rather, that he and she would
both
be extremely bad,
just in different ways. Weighing a future that features a known and more
predictable type of badness (Clinton) with a more unknown and unpredictable type
of badness (Trump) would be hard enough, but it's compounded in this election by
what Donald Rumsfeld
might
call
the
unknown unknowns
of
both
of these candidates.
An awesome interview. I'm on the left so this is making me feel uncomfortable, but Trump is unapologetic
about wanting to end the cold war with Putin, that's worth voting for. Trump is not a Neocon. Is he
a con artist, or could he have the guts to kick the Neocons out? And he wants NATO to
"... *About the author: Michael Snyder is the founder and publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog and End Of The American Dream. Michael's controversial new book about Bible prophecy entitled "The Rapture Verdict" is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.* ..."
Hillary Clinton's health is starting to become a major political issue, and there are many that believe
that her health problems may force her to drop out before we even get to election day. On Sunday
evening, the Drudge Report ran a photo of Hillary struggling to get up a set of stairs along with
this headline: "2016: Hillary conquers the stairs". Well, it turns out that particular photo was
about six months old, but it sparked a much deeper debate about Hillary Clinton's health. As you
will see below, Clinton has been having seizures even while in public, she has been regularly having
horrible coughing fits, she has a very large hole in her tongue that has not been explained, and
she has been falling down way too often for a woman her age. No matter whether you are for her or
against her, it should be apparent to everyone that this is a woman that has some very serious health
issues.
Let's start with Clinton's very curious behavior during a recent campaign stop. When she
suddenly froze up, she was rapidly approached by a large African-American man that appeared at first
glance to be a Secret Service agent. The following comes from
Gateway Pundit…
In a recent campaign stop in a Union Hall in front of a
sparse crowd, at about the time when some liberal protesters began to protest, Hillary
Clinton suddenly froze. She looked dazed and lost. Seeing this, a group of men rushed to assist
the candidate on the stage. One man however gently pats the candidate's back and then says, "Keep
Talking."
An expert on Secret Service tactics told TGP Secret Service agents would not touch a candidate
in the manner that this individual did and especially Hillary Clinton. It has been
widely reported on Hillary's disdain for the agents who work to protect her. The man who touches
Hillary may be a member of Hillary's close staff – but he is NOT a Secret Service agent.
Since that time, it has been reported that the very large African-American gentleman that was
initially reported to be a Secret Service agent is actually a doctor instead, and
as you can see here it appears that he is carrying with him the kind of auto-injector that is
commonly used to inject someone with Diazepam…
Since that time, it has been reported that the very large African-American gentleman that was initially
reported to be a Secret Service agent is actually a doctor instead, and as you can see here it appears
that he is carrying with him the kind of auto-injector that is commonly used to inject someone with
Diazepam…
Secret Service agent was carrying an auto-injector with Diazepam pic.twitter.com/6d3B5mmaOe
- Azusa (@PositiveInt) August 8, 2016
If you are not familiar with Diazepam, it was originally called Valium. Here is more on this particular
drug from Wikipedia…
Diazepam, first marketed as Valium, is a medication of the benzodiazepine family that typically produces
a calming effect. It is commonly used to treat a range of conditions including anxiety, alcohol withdrawal
syndrome, benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome, muscle spasms, seizures, trouble sleeping, and restless
legs syndrome.[3]
It may also be used to cause memory loss during certain medical procedures.[4][5]
It can be taken by mouth, inserted into the rectum, injected into muscle, or injected into a vein.[5]When
given into a vein, effects begin in one to five minutes and last up to an hour.[5] By mouth, effects
may take 40 minutes to begin.[6]
It is quite noteworthy that this drug is often used to treat "seizures", because Clinton seems to
be having them with frightening regularity these days. In this video, you can watch Clinton go into
a seizure in public with a bunch of reporters around…
*About the author: Michael Snyder is the founder and publisher of The Economic Collapse
Blog and End Of The American Dream. Michael's controversial new book about Bible prophecy
entitled "The Rapture Verdict" is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.*
"... Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute, or make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of any kind to any politician illegal. ..."
"... Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks. Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations and limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders. ..."
"... Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with health insurance as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts the number of doctors. ..."
"... Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains, interest, and dividends subject to taxation. Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry. ..."
"... Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development. ..."
"... Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour. ..."
"... Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year restriction on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official. ..."
"... Free public education including college (4 year degree). ..."
"... Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for our things will never end until nothings left. ..."
"... This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not Bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade. ..."
There are all good ideas. However, population growth undermines almost
all of them. Population growth in America is immigrant based. Reverse immigration
influxes and you are at least doing something to reduce population growth.
How to "reverse immigration influxes"?
Stop accepting refugees. It's outrageous that refugees from
for example, Somalia, get small business loans, housing assistance,
food stamps and lifetime SSI benefits while some of our veterans are
living on the street.
No more immigration amnesties of any kind.
Deport all illegal alien criminals.
Practice "immigrant family unification" in the country of origin.
Even if you have to pay them to leave. It's less expensive in the end.
Eliminate tax subsidies to American corn growers who then undercut
Mexican farmers' incomes through NAFTA, driving them into poverty
and immigration north. Throw Hillary Clinton out on her ass and practice
political and economic justice to Central America.
I too am a lifetime registered Democrat and I will vote for Trump if
Clinton gets the crown. If the Democrats want my vote, my continuing party
registration and my until recently sizeable donations in local, state and
national races, they will nominate Bernie. If not, then I'm an Independent
forevermore. They will just become the Demowhig Party.
Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth
you cannot contribute, or make all elections financed solely by government
funds and make private contributions of any kind to any politician illegal.
Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number
of states a bank can operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately
owned by banks.
Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person
hood of corporations and limit of liability for corporate officers and
shareholders.
Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health
plans but do away with health insurance as a deductible for business.
Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts
the number of doctors.
Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income,
wages, capital gains, interest, and dividends subject to taxation.
Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and
revise industry.
Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive
infrastructure development.
Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour.
Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private
industry with a 10 year restriction on working for an industry you dealt
with in any way as a government official.
Free public education including college (4 year degree).
Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them
demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their
newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image.
Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for
our things will never end until nothings left.
This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because
she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail
so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some
trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels
like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at
the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's
not Bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals
the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade.
"... Along with all that came another plan, eliminating the estate tax, that could undercut his populist appeal. Its benefit would be limited to high-net-worth families like Trump's, with estates greater than $5.45 million, which are the only ones taxed under current law. ..."
"... "These reforms will offer the biggest tax revolution since the Reagan tax reform," Trump said, reading from a teleprompter. "I want to jump-start America." Then he ad-libbed, "It can be done. And it won't even be that hard." Trump also modified the size of personal income tax breaks he wants to give the wealthiest Americans. Instead of reducing the top tax bracket from 39.6 percent to 25 percent, as he previously proposed, he would now cut it to 33 percent, as proposed by House Republicans. That would limit, but not eliminate, some of the damage it would wreak on federal budgets. ..."
"... And analysts across the ideological spectrum noted that Trump's new child-care deduction, designed to appeal to educated female voters, would help middle- and upper-middle class families far more than lower-income workers struggling paycheck to paycheck. That's because low-income Americans pay very little to no federal income tax. ..."
Donald Trump tried rebooting his presidential campaign Monday with an economic
speech in Detroit focused on American pocketbook anxieties, pushing tax cuts
and deregulation to the forefront after weeks of self-inflicted controversies
and plummeting poll numbers.
But the relatively modest speech made news mostly because it hewed closely
to conventional Republican policy doctrine, a fresh tack for an unconventional
candidate.
He repackaged some of his
older proposals, including big tax reductions for corporations and business
partnerships, and added some new tax-reduction benefits for the middle-class
and the wealthy.
He also promised a fat income tax deduction for child-care expenses, a policy
his daughter
Ivanka first touted in her Republican National Convention address last month.
Along with all that came another plan, eliminating the estate tax, that
could undercut his populist appeal. Its benefit would be limited to high-net-worth
families like Trump's, with estates greater than $5.45 million, which are the
only ones taxed under current law.
What is Donald Trump's economic vision?
The speech was an anti-trade version of trickle down economics, as Trump
proposed to tweak the global economy to benefit US businesses.
"These reforms will offer the biggest tax revolution since the Reagan
tax reform," Trump said, reading from a teleprompter. "I want to jump-start
America." Then he ad-libbed, "It can be done. And it won't even be that hard."
Trump also modified the size of personal income tax breaks he wants to give
the wealthiest Americans. Instead of reducing the top tax bracket from 39.6
percent to 25 percent, as he previously proposed, he would now cut it to 33
percent, as proposed by House Republicans. That would limit, but not eliminate,
some of the damage it would wreak on federal budgets.
Trump kept his cool, sticking mostly to his script on how to make America
win again, as hecklers interrupted his speech more than a dozen times. He slammed
Hillary Clinton's economic policies and characterized her as a "candidate of
the past" while promising to "massively" cut regulations and renegotiate trade
deals in his quest for economic renewal.
Clinton is scheduled to deliver her economic rebuttal to Trump on Thursday,
also from Detroit.
Clinton is making jobs and the economy a centerpiece of her campaign, seeing
it as an area in which to draw a stark contrast with Trump. Her campaign tried
to preempt Trump's speech by posting a video Sunday arguing that "Trumponomics"
would trigger recession, job losses, and possibly another financial catastrophe.
Republican strategists praised Trump's speech for refocusing on a policy
area they see as his strength, and said Trump could have a "fighting chance"
against Clinton if, and only if, he spends the next three months delivering
his message in a disciplined and consistent manner.
He cannot afford to veer off course with any more unscripted personal attacks,
they said. Clinton's lead over Trump opened up by 10 points in the wake of both
conventions and a series of missteps including his
recent criticism of a Muslim couple whose son was killed in combat.
"It was a good, big-boy-pants speech," said Dave Carney, a Republican consultant
from New Hampshire.
"Compared to what he normally does, it was 180 degrees different. Ten days
ago, he was doing great, and then it was all over. The economy and national
security - those are the two baskets he should be peddling for the next 90 days,''
Carney said.
Some analysts expressed doubt whether the speech will make much of a difference
in a campaign they view as especially unorganized, with little to no ground
game in swing states.
"Is there anything different today than yesterday? I don't see that there
is," said Doug Heye, a Republican strategist and former spokesman for the Republican
National Committee who has said he would not vote for Trump.
"He'll give more speeches from teleprompters but it's hard to see how they
will make any more substantive difference for his campaign, because what you
see on the ground is a campaign that is nonexistent,'' Heye said. "It is a campaign
that exists on television and on Twitter but nowhere else."
The latest Real Clear Politics average of national polls showed Clinton with
a lead of more than 7 points.
Trump doubled down on his criticisms of Clinton throughout his speech, repeating
a false statement about Clinton wanting to raise taxes on the middle class,
even though the fact-checking organization Politifact rated his claim as
"pants on fire" three days ago.
Clinton herself took direct aim at Trump's speech during a rally in St. Petersburg,
Fla., Monday afternoon.
She said his recently-named economic advisers "tried to make his old tired
ideas sound new, but here's what we all know because we heard it again: his
tax plans will give super big tax breaks to large corporations and the really
wealthy, just like him and the guys who wrote the speech."
As with foreign policy, the Clinton campaign is painting Trump as too dangerous
and erratic to command the helm of the US economy.
They point to his business record, emphasizing his companies' multiple bankruptcies
and the slew of lawsuits from vendors and contractors he didn't pay, as evidence
he is not a good steward for the economy writ large.
The Clinton campaign ran interference against Trump's economic speech Monday
by hosting about a dozen press events in battleground states.
Gene Sperling, a former top Obama economic aide, said in one conference call
that even with the tweaks announced Monday, Trump's tax plan would exacerbate
income inequality by delivering the vast majority of its benefits to the top
1 percent of Americans.
And analysts across the ideological spectrum noted that Trump's new child-care
deduction, designed to appeal to educated female voters, would help middle-
and upper-middle class families far more than lower-income workers struggling
paycheck to paycheck. That's because low-income Americans pay very little to
no federal income tax.
The National Federation of Independent Business, a small business association,
praised Trump's proposal to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to
15 percent. The plan was seen as a bone to the GOP establishment.
The Clinton campaign criticized it Monday as simply another way to allow
millionaires and billionaires to pay lower taxes by reclassifying their salary
income as business income.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Senator John McCain's chief economic adviser during
the 2008 presidential campaign and president of the conservative American Action
Forum think tank, called Trump's economic plan "more relaunch than revised."
The new changes and Trump saying he plans to build upon GOP principles were
"a pretty clear olive branch to the rest of the Republican Party."
"That doesn't leave us with a lot of clarity about what his actual plan is,"
Holtz-Eakin said. "It's now a work in progress again."
"... One key change from Trump's earlier proposals is that he would set a new top individual income-tax rate of 33 percent. While that rate is higher than the 25 percent rate Trump had initially proposed, it still represents a cut from the current top rate of 39.6 percent. ..."
"... A news release from Trump's campaign said he wanted to ensure that the wealthy pay their ''fair share,'' using language that is more commonly heard from Democrats. But his proposals to cut individual tax rates and the tax rate on income from partnerships-along with eliminating the estate tax-mean the wealthy would pay less under his plan, said Kyle Pomerleau, director of federal projects at the conservative Tax Foundation. ..."
"... Some analysts have noted that Trump's proposal to end the special tax treatment of carried interest-the portion of investment gains paid to fund managers-might mean lower taxes for members of partnerships, which is how many private-equity funds are organized. Carried interest is currently taxed as capital gains, meaning the income qualifies for a tax rate as low as 23.8 percent. Under Trump's plan to cut business taxes, though, members of partnerships who get carried interest might be taxed at a 15 percent rate. ..."
"... Trump reiterated his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and his desire to renegotiate NAFTA, ''or walk away if we have to,'' according to his campaign's news release. He also seeks to reverse much of the Obama administration's climate-change and energy agenda by defending the coal industry, rescinding environmental rules, and asking TransCanada to renew its Keystone pipeline permit application if he's elected. ..."
"... Trump's speech follows his announcement last week of an unorthodox economic advisory council that includes financiers John Paulson, Andy Beal, and Stephen Feinberg, as well as energy executive Harold Hamm. Trump also announced raising $80 million for his campaign and party entities in July. ..."
Aug 08, 2016 | Bloomberg
Donald Trump on Monday sought to cast Hillary Clinton's economic program
as an ineffective relic, and to reset his own presidential campaign after a
string of missteps.
''We now begin a great national conversation about economic renewal for America,''
Trump said in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club, urging a return to his
''America-first'' governing vision.
''The city of Detroit is the living, breathing example of my opponent's failed
economic agenda,'' Trump said.
In prepared remarks released by Trump's campaign as he spoke, the nominee
proposed a temporary moratorium on new agency regulations. He also proposed
making U.S. families' child-care costs tax-deductible, which his daughter Ivanka
promised last month in a prime-time speech at the Republican National Convention.
Protesters repeatedly interrupted Trump, who acknowledged them more calmly
than he sometimes has at campaign rallies. ''This is all very well planned out,''
he said.
One key change from Trump's earlier proposals is that he would set a
new top individual income-tax rate of 33 percent. While that rate is higher
than the 25 percent rate Trump had initially proposed, it still represents a
cut from the current top rate of 39.6 percent.
That tweak will reduce the estimated cost of Trump's tax plan-which some
analysts had set at roughly $10 trillion over 10 years. But the child-care proposal-which
Trump in prepared remarks said would allow ''parents to fully deduct the average
cost of childcare spending"-also represented a new cost. That measure's price
tag would be roughly $20 billion a year, said economist Stephen Moore, a Trump
adviser.
''It's not a big cost,'' Moore said.
Trump's tax plan would slash the tax rate on corporate and business income
to 15 percent, down from a current top corporate tax rate of 35 percent. It
would also consolidate the current seven individual income tax rates to three,
with the lower two brackets set at 25 percent and 12 percent.
A news release from Trump's campaign said he wanted to ensure that the
wealthy pay their ''fair share,'' using language that is more commonly heard
from Democrats. But his proposals to cut individual tax rates and the tax rate
on income from partnerships-along with eliminating the estate tax-mean the wealthy
would pay less under his plan, said Kyle Pomerleau, director of federal projects
at the conservative Tax Foundation.
''His rhetoric is not lining up with his proposals,'' Pomerleau said.
Some analysts have noted that Trump's proposal to end the special tax
treatment of carried interest-the portion of investment gains paid to fund managers-might
mean lower taxes for members of partnerships, which is how many private-equity
funds are organized. Carried interest is currently taxed as capital gains, meaning
the income qualifies for a tax rate as low as 23.8 percent. Under Trump's plan
to cut business taxes, though, members of partnerships who get carried interest
might be taxed at a 15 percent rate.
Trump reiterated his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade
deal and his desire to renegotiate NAFTA, ''or walk away if we have to,'' according
to his campaign's news release. He also seeks to reverse much of the Obama administration's
climate-change and energy agenda by defending the coal industry, rescinding
environmental rules, and asking TransCanada to renew its Keystone pipeline permit
application if he's elected.
After Trump said Aug. 2 he would double Clinton's infrastructure spending
plan in a major government expansion, aides said he will speak later this summer
about his plan for the nation's roadways.
Trump's daughter's acknowledgement of soaring child-care costs, an issue
of growing importance in U.S. politics, won plaudits as Trump lags Clinton badly
in polls of female voters.
Child-care bills have proven to outpace rent and tuition costs in most states,
often threatening to derail parents' housing and job plans. The nation is the
third-most expensive for childcare among 34 countries, according to 2012 data
from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The issue offers a good example of the candidates' different approaches.
Where Trump is providing a simple supply-side prescription, Clinton is flooding
the debate with detail.
Her proposal includes tax relief but is more focused on government support
and broader investments in early childhood education, while pledging to ensure
that no family has to spend more than 10 percent of income on high-quality care.
Trump's speech follows his announcement last week of an unorthodox economic
advisory council that includes financiers John Paulson, Andy Beal, and Stephen
Feinberg, as well as energy executive Harold Hamm. Trump also announced raising
$80 million for his campaign and party entities in July.
Unveiling the council and the better-than-expected fundraising results, and
giving the Detroit speech major billing, were moves by the Trump campaign to
steady its course after the Democratic National Convention, where the Muslim
parents of a slain U.S. soldier spoke out against Trump and drew the Republican
nominee into a multi-day feud on Twitter and TV airwaves.
Between that and other controversies-including Trump's initial refusal to
endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan for re-election-Trump has seen his poll numbers
slumped and has worried Republicans who are eager to save their majorities in
Congress in November's elections.
Trump's plans align in many ways with the election-year policy proposals
rolled out by Ryan and House Republicans, including his call for undoing the
2010 Dodd-Frank Act and limiting any regulations that burden businesses. The
House plan wouldn't allow any new financial regulations to take effect unless
the House votes.
Trump, however, has proposed deeper tax-rate reductions. The House plan would
drop the top individual tax rates from 39.6 to 33 percent. Corporate tax rates,
meanwhile, would be lowered from 35 to 20 percent.
Billy House, Lynnley Browning, and Michelle Jamrisko contributed.
Donald Trump will propose a temporary moratorium on new financial regulations
in an economic speech Monday in Detroit in an effort to draw a stark contrast
with the domestic policies of Hillary Clinton, who he says "punishes" the American
economy.
The Republican presidential nominee's speech will focus on providing regulatory
relief for small businesses, according to senior campaign aides familiar with
its contents. More broadly, Trump will say he will not propose any new financial
regulations until the economy shows "significant growth," the aides said. Trump
has previously said he would repeal and replace the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.
Trump will also propose a repeal of the estate tax, sometimes called the
"death tax." Under current law, the 40 percent tax applies only to estates larger
than $5.45 million for individuals and $10.9 million for couples.
For U.S. businesses, Trump will propose a tax rate of 15 percent and suggest
strengthening intellectual-property protections. He's expected to call for three
income-tax brackets, down from the current seven. He'll call for the elimination
of special tax treatment for carried-interest income at private-equity firms
and other investment firms-the latter of which is a proposal his Democratic
rival
also supports .
Carried interest, which is a portion of investment gains paid to certain
investment managers, is currently taxed like capital gains-at rates that can
be as low as 23.8 percent. Trump proposes to tax them as ordinary income, but
for members of partnerships, that could actually mean a rate cut to 15 percent.
Trump will continue to stress his opposition to the proposed Trans-Pacific
Partnership trade agreement backed by the Obama administration and many prominent
Republicans in Congress, and he will reinforce his commitment to the coal industry,
saying a federal moratorium on some coal-mining permits would be the focus of
a targeted review in his administration.
Other items on his energy agenda, he is expected to reiterate in the speech,
include asking TransCanada to renew its Keystone pipeline permit application;
rescinding the Climate Action Plan and "waters of the U.S." rule; opening offshore
drilling; and killing the Paris climate agreement.
He will portray President Barack Obama's regulatory policies as having crushed
middle- and lower-class Americans and will propose making all child care tax
deductible. Clinton, in contrast, has
proposed a cap on child-care costs at 10 percent of a family's income.
Targeting the federal bureaucracy, Trump is expected to say that civil servants
whose focus is job-killing regulation should be replaced with experts who would
help create jobs.
Trump will take direct aim at the Clintons and Obama, pointing to Detroit
as an example of their failed economic policies. He will argue that their "record-breaking
pace of new regulations, tax increases, restrictions on private-energy production
and one-sided trade deals" have hurt Detroit and other cities, according to
excerpts of his remarks shared with Bloomberg Politics.
He will call Obama's Clinton-backed regulations a "lead-weight on the economy,
an anchor dragging us down." And he will say that Americans "need to hit the
pause buttons on these regulations so our businesses can reinvest in the economy."
"She's the candidate of the past and ours is the campaign of the future,"
Trump plans to say. "Every policy that has failed Detroit has been fully supported
by Hillary Clinton. The one common feature of every Hillary Clinton idea is
that it punishes you from working and doing business in the United States."
His campaign aides said this is one of several economic speeches Trump will
deliver this summer. One will include the unveiling of an
infrastructure spending plan , while another will focus on financial regulations
such as Dodd-Frank, the aides said.
Crunch Time
For Trump, the challenge at this stage in the race is two-fold. His campaign
is coming off one of its worst weeks following a series of self-inflicted gaffes
that led to a sharp dip in national and swing-state polls, and economic indicators
suggest that the economy is improving.
The nation's unemployment rate in July was 4.9 percent-a sharp decline from
a post-recession peak of 10 percent in October 2009, according to federal statistics.
Clinton, who was set to campaign in Florida on Monday, has spent the days
following the Democratic National Convention attacking Trump on the economy.
The Republican is pushing an agenda "that experts across the political spectrum
say would lead to a recession and cost millions of American jobs," the Clinton
campaign said in a statement Monday.
Independent voters-particularly small-business owners and their respective trade
groups-have argued for years that Obama's regulatory proposals have stifled
the economy. Trump's proposal to issue a moratorium on regulations could help
him win support from workers at mid-sized banks as well as small-business owners
who say it's unfair for them to comply with Dodd-Frank regulations written for
big banks.
Trump enlisted conservative economists Peter Navarro, Larry Kudlow, and Stephen
Moore; former Nucor CEO Dan DiMicco; and others to help with his speech.
Donors Watching
Republican donors and Trump supporters said they have high expectations for
the speech.
Texas investor Doug Deason, who backed Ted Cruz for president in the primary,
said he'd like to see Trump "lay out a plan to lower corporate taxes, eliminate
federal bureaucracy costs by 10 percent or more, end all corporate welfare programs,
convert welfare programs to work programs and dramatically reduce all of the
silly federal rules the current administration has put in place."
Deason, who helped Donald Trump Jr. raise money for his father in Dallas
and Houston last month, added that he'd also like to see Trump name three or
four agencies or departments he could eliminate.
Several donors said they're craving specifics on how to repatriate profits
trapped overseas, what exactly Trump would do with infrastructure, and how he'd
pay for it, and how he'd encourage capital investments in plants and equipment.
"I would hope that he would cover the full range of economic targets from
corporate and personal income tax to trade policy to regulatory reform and energy
strategy," said Wilbur Ross, chief strategy officer at WL Ross & Co., which
has invested more than $11 billion in distressed companies, including Bethlehem
Steel, since its founding in 2000.
"... This is something sometimes caused by stress or overstimulation. At the end of the DNC, I noticed a very odd reaction of Hillary's to all the things happening around her. At the time I played it off as her attempting to look like a normal person surprised by all the great things, but after a while I started to wonder. ..."
"... Her cognitive illness doesn't stop at seizures and facial tics. In an email from Hillary's right hand gal, Huma Abedin, mentioned to staffer Monica Hanley that Hillary is "often confused." ..."
"... It all amounts to a woman who is likely not all there. Someone who is prone to actions not wholly voluntary. No matter how you paint it, Hillary Clinton has some issues we should be very concerned about, and the media should be looking very closely into her health. ..."
"... While speculation about Hillary's health is nothing new, the recent uptick in concern is noticeable. Especially with all the recent footage of Clinton's physical oddities. ..."
Between Hillary's repeated
coughing fits,
incredibly low energy, and very odd reactions that seem more like she's overacting worse than
Jim Carrey, people have begun to question both Hillary's physical and mental health. Some speculate
that these odd behaviors stem from Hillary's concussion suffered in 2012, after having another one
of her fainting spells. Since then, there have been signs that she hasn't been quite right.
One
solid example is her sudden seizure when reporters asked her questions simultaneously. Clinton tries
to play it off, but to little effect.
This is something sometimes caused by stress or overstimulation. At the end of the DNC, I noticed
a very odd reaction of Hillary's to all the things happening around her. At the time I played it
off as her attempting to look like a normal person surprised by all the great things, but after a
while I started to wonder.
Her cognitive illness doesn't stop at seizures and facial tics. In an email from Hillary's right
hand gal, Huma Abedin, mentioned to staffer Monica Hanley that Hillary is "often confused."
It all amounts to a woman who is likely not all there. Someone who is prone to actions not wholly
voluntary. No matter how you paint it, Hillary Clinton has some issues we should be very concerned
about, and the media should be looking very closely into her health. If she isn't well, then we're
going to have a President who will often be MIA, or worse, make decisions that defy logic and reason,
pulling our nation into directions we don't want it going.
While speculation about Hillary's health is nothing new, the recent uptick in concern is noticeable.
Especially with all the recent footage of Clinton's physical oddities.
Paul Joseph Watson of Info Wars (just bear with me) released a video about it as well that covers
much of the concerns people are having about Hillary.
"... All this signs says this is a symptom of a much deeper health problem that she is trying to disguise. (My best guess is that the cough is a side-effect of industrial strength ACE inhibitors she takes to manage the raging hypertension that caused here "minor" strokes.) ..."
Clinton, like Donald Trump, has been very cagey about her medical history.
I noted a while
back that all evidence indicated that she has chronic health problems that are only barely
being held in check.
...We know that Hillary Clinton has suffered from fainting spells since at least 20o5. In
that year
she passed out, presumably sober, while giving a speech. In 2012, she passed out yet again
and suffered a
concussion.
Radar Online has reported that sources close to Hillary Clinton say she has suffered minor
strokes and may have multiple sclerosis. The book on Hillary by Ed Klein says that she
suffers from
depression and migraines.
... ... ...
She has also gained about thirty pounds during the course of the campaign and
is
suffering from mange
Hillary Clinton has had at least six of these public
coughing fits since the campaign started. Most of them did not take place
during "allergy season." And there is never any sneezing that accompanies the
cough which is a good indicator the problem is not allergies. And if allergies
were actually an issue, she'd take a megadose of benadryl or other
antihistamine before these public appearances. All this signs says this is a
symptom of a much deeper health problem that she is trying to disguise. (My
best guess is that the cough is a side-effect of industrial strength ACE
inhibitors she takes to manage the raging hypertension that caused here "minor"
strokes.)
"... While serving as President Barack Obama's secretary of state in mid-2009, Hillary Clinton fell and fractured her right elbow while walking to her car in the basement of the State Department, The New York Times reported . Clinton, 61 at the time, underwent surgery to repair the elbow ..."
"... Secretary Clinton fell again in 2011 while boarding a plane to Oman, but did not sustain injury. ..."
"... Secretary Clinton was hospitalized in December 2012 after doctors discovered a blood clot during a follow-up exam related to her concussion. "Mrs. Clinton's blood clot formed in a large vein along the side of her head, behind her right ear, between the brain and the skull," The New York Times reported , noting that Clinton also had a blood clot in her leg in 1998. She began taking blood thinners around the time of her hospital discharge. The concussion and subsequently discovered blood clot forced Clinton to ultimately take a month-long absence from her role as secretary of state. ..."
"... Prism glasses for double vision - "As she testified about the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, the secretary of state appeared to have tiny vertical lines etched onto the left lens of her new brown specs," the New York Daily News wrote in January 2013. "Clinton's spokesman confirmed Thursday night she is wearing the special glasses as a result of the fall and concussion she suffered last month, but he did not elaborate. Experts told the Daily News that Clinton likely has a Fresnel prism placed on her glasses. The adhesive panel is used to treat double vision." Fresnel prisms can be ground into a lens for longer term use, and the prism is not visible when built into the lens itself. ..."
"... Bill says recovery took six months - Fox News reported in May of 2014 that "Bill Clinton said earlier this week there's 'nothing to' the [Hillary] health questions - though at the same time, he revealed her recovery took about six months, which is much longer than the State Department had indicated." ..."
Hillary Clinton appeared to be wearing her corrective eyeglasses while campaigning Thursday in Las
Vegas, the same ones she used after suffering a fall and concussion a few years ago.
"Hillary Health Drama: Prism Glasses Back on Day After Coughing Seizure,"
the
Drudge Report tweeted Thursday morning, accompanied by a photo from The Associated Press.
The photo, which showed the 68-year-old Clinton meeting with employees at the Caesars Palace casino,
reignited questions about her health as it pertains to her public duties.
Gathered below are 10 times Hillary Clinton's health has been the subject of public discussion.
1. Coughing fits - In February 2016, presidential candidate Clinton suffered
her third public coughing fit during a speech in Harlem. "Clinton had to dig out a lozenge at last
year's Benghazi hearings,"
noted the Daily Mail, and "also suffered a coughing fit in Iowa back in January,
something she attributed to speaking a lot on her campaign tour." The fits prompted many to speculate
as to what could be causing them. Ear, nose, and throat specialist Dr. Jonathan Aviv
told "Inside Edition," "It's not just cough. There's some hoarseness, there's
some throat clearing, in fact there's frequent throat clearing. When you have these trio of symptoms,
you have to think of what I call throat burn reflux, which is acid reflux affecting the throat."
... ... ...
3. Fall fractures elbow - While serving as President Barack Obama's secretary
of state in mid-2009, Hillary Clinton fell and fractured her right elbow while walking to her car
in the basement of the State Department,
The
New York Times reported. Clinton, 61 at the time, underwent surgery to repair the elbow,
and missed at least one meeting with Obama as a result. "Having broken my right arm as secretary
of defense, and had the left arm operated on, I think I can truthfully say, I feel her pain," said
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates at the time. Secretary Clinton fell again in 2011 while boarding
a plane to Oman, but did not sustain injury.
4. Faint causes concussion - In late 2012, Secretary Clinton "sustained a concussion
after fainting,"
The Associated Press reported. The incident came just days before her scheduled
testimony about the Sept. 11 attack against a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, before
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Other officials from the department attended in her stead.
The State Department said Clinton was dehydrated because of a stomach virus, which had recently caused
her to back out of a trip to North Africa and the Persian Gulf.
5. Blood clot - Secretary Clinton was hospitalized in December 2012 after doctors
discovered a blood clot during a follow-up exam related to her concussion. "Mrs. Clinton's blood
clot formed in a large vein along the side of her head, behind her right ear, between the brain and
the skull,"
The New York Times reported, noting that Clinton also had a blood clot in her
leg in 1998. She began taking blood thinners around the time of her hospital discharge. The concussion
and subsequently discovered blood clot forced Clinton to ultimately take a month-long absence from
her role as secretary of state.
6. Prism glasses for double vision - "As she testified about the Sept. 11 attack
on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, the secretary of state appeared to have tiny vertical lines etched
onto the left lens of her new brown specs,"
the New York Daily News wrote in January 2013. "Clinton's
spokesman confirmed Thursday night she is wearing the special glasses as a result of the fall and
concussion she suffered last month, but he did not elaborate. Experts told the Daily News that Clinton
likely has a Fresnel prism placed on her glasses. The adhesive panel is used to treat double vision."
Fresnel prisms can be ground into a lens for longer term use, and the prism is not visible when built
into the lens itself.
7. Prescription blood thinner - In August 2015,
The Associated Press reported that Clinton was still taking Coumadin, a blood
thinner used to prevent blood clots. "Her Coumadin dose is monitored regularly and she has experienced
no side-effects from her medications," wrote Dr. Lisa Bardack, an internist who practices near Clinton's
suburban New York home. Previously, in a 2014 interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, Clinton said she
was "probably" on blood thinners for life.
8. Thyroid - Along with her blood thinner, Clinton takes Armour Thyroid, a thyroid
hormone replacement, antihistamines, and vitamin B12, the AP reported.
9. Brain damage comment - In May 2014,
The Washington Post reported that Republican strategist Karl Rove "distanced
himself from a provocative report in Monday's New York Post, saying he does not believe - as the
newspaper asserted he had said - that Clinton suffered 'brain damage' when she fell and sustained
a head injury in December 2012." Rove had been commenting on Clinton's prism glasses.
10. Bill says recovery took six months -
Fox News reported in May of 2014 that "Bill Clinton said earlier this week there's
'nothing to' the [Hillary] health questions - though at the same time, he revealed her recovery took
about six months, which is much longer than the State Department had indicated."
"... broadly, fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks. ..."
"... The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements, once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself (The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving Labor with the consequences. ..."
"... The article I cited above in Vox canvasses the opinion of five serious students of fascism, and none of them believe Trump is a fascist. I'd be most interested in knowing what you have been reading. ..."
"... If anything it is merely a very crude descriptive model of the political process. It doesn't define fascism as a particular set of beliefs that make it a distinct political ideology that can be differentiated from other ideologies ..."
"... Indeed by your standard virtually every state that has ever existed has to a greater or lesser extent been "fascist". ..."
"... My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD, and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to be taken seriously. ..."
"Fascism" has become the prefered term of abuse applied indiscriminately by the right thinking
to any person or movement which they want to tar as inherently objectionable, and which can therefore
be dismissed without the tedium of actually engaging with them at the level of ideas.
Most of the people who like to throw this word around couldn't give you a coherant definition
of what exactly they understand it to signify, beyond "yuck!!"
In fairness even students of political ideology have trouble teasing out a cosistent system
of beliefs, to the point where some doubt fascism is even a coherent ideology. That hardly excuses
the intellectual vacuity of those who use it as a term of abuse, however.
Precisely 3,248 angels can fit on the head of a pin. Parsing the true definition of "fascism"
is a waste of time, broadly, fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the
military, anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks.
As far as the definition "neo-liberalism" goes, yes it's a useful label. But let's keep it
simple: every society chooses how resources are allocated between Capital and Labor. The needle
has been pegged over on the Capital side for quite some time, my "start date" is when Reagan busted
the air traffic union. The hideous Republicans managed to sell their base that policies that were
designed to let companies be "competitive" were somehow good for them, not just for the owners
of the means of production.
The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements,
once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself
(The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving
Labor with the consequences.
fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't
see that today needs to go back to their textbooks
Which textbooks specifically?
The article I cited above in Vox canvasses the opinion of five serious students of fascism,
and none of them believe Trump is a fascist. I'd be most interested in knowing what you
have been reading.
As for your definition of "fascism", it's obviously so vague and broad that it really doesn't
explain anything. To the extent it contains any insight it is that public institutions (the state),
private businesses (the corporation) and the armed forces all exert significant influence on public
policy. That and a buck and and a half will get you a cup of coffee. If anything it is merely
a very crude descriptive model of the political process. It doesn't define fascism as a particular
set of beliefs that make it a distinct political ideology that can be differentiated from other
ideologies (again, see the Vox article for a discussion of some of the beliefs that are arguably
characteristic of fascist movements). Indeed by your standard virtually every state that has ever
existed has to a greater or lesser extent been "fascist".
My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of
right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD,
and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize
them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to
be taken seriously. Given that these movements are only growing in strength as faith in traditional
political movements and elites evaporate this is likely to produce exactly the opposite result.
Right wing populism isn't going to disappear just because the left keeps trying to wish it away.
Refusing to accept this basic political fact risks condemning the left rather than "the fascists"
to political irrelevance.
Even many center-left outlets barely touched on the massive mission creep. To give some
perspective, Slate, Mother Jones, and Buzzfeed News all
ran more stories about Trump's dust-up with an infant than they did on what was effectively
the start of a new war. ABC
World News Tonight mentioned the Libyan air strikes for only 20 seconds, 13 minutes into
the show, and NBC
Nightly News didn't mention the air strikes at all. The president's announcement that
the United States is bombing a new country has become entirely banal.
MRC's Bozell Lashes Out at 'Stupid' Trump Giving Media Excuse
to Not Cover DNC Leaks, Hillary
By
NB Staff |
August 6, 2016 | 10:17 AM EDT
Media Research Center President Brent Bozell was in rare
form on Tuesday night while speaking to Dana Loesch of The
Blaze TV in calling out Donald Trump as "stupid" for
giving the liberal media an endless number of excuses to
not cover the firings and Wikileaks dumps about the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's
latest problems with the truth.
Stiglitz: AUG 5, 2016 8
Globalization and its New Discontents
NEW YORK – Fifteen years ago, I wrote a little book, entitled Globalization
and its Discontents, describing growing opposition in the developing world
to globalizing reforms. It seemed a mystery: people in developing countries
had been told that globalization would increase overall wellbeing. So why
had so many people become so hostile to it?
Now, globalization's opponents in the emerging markets and developing
countries have been joined by tens of millions in the advanced countries.
Opinion polls, including a careful study by Stanley Greenberg and his associates
for the Roosevelt Institute, show that trade is among the major sources
of discontent for a large share of Americans. Similar views are apparent
in Europe.
How can something that our political leaders – and many an economist
– said would make everyone better off be so reviled?
One answer occasionally heard from the neoliberal economists who advocated
for these policies is that people are better off. They just don't know it.
Their discontent is a matter for psychiatrists, not economists.
But income data suggest that it is the neoliberals who may benefit from
therapy. Large segments of the population in advanced countries have not
been doing well: in the US, the bottom 90% has endured income stagnation
for a third of a century. Median income for full-time male workers is actually
lower in real (inflation-adjusted) terms than it was 42 years ago. At the
bottom, real wages are comparable to their level 60 years ago.
The effects of the economic pain and dislocation that many Americans
are experiencing are even showing up in health statistics. For example,
the economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton, this year's Nobel laureate, have
shown that life expectancy among segments of white Americans is declining.
Things are a little better in Europe – but only a little better.
Branko Milanovic's new book Global Inequality: A New Approach for the
Age of Globalization provides some vital insights, looking at the big winners
and losers in terms of income over the two decades from 1988 to 2008. Among
the big winners were the global 1%, the world's plutocrats, but also the
middle class in newly emerging economies. Among the big losers – those who
gained little or nothing – were those at the bottom and the middle and working
classes in the advanced countries. Globalization is not the only reason,
but it is one of the reasons.
Under the assumption of perfect markets (which underlies most neoliberal
economic analyses) free trade equalizes the wages of unskilled workers around
the world. Trade in goods is a substitute for the movement of people. Importing
goods from China – goods that require a lot of unskilled workers to produce
– reduces the demand for unskilled workers in Europe and the US.
This force is so strong that if there were no transportation costs, and
if the US and Europe had no other source of competitive advantage, such
as in technology, eventually it would be as if Chinese workers continued
to migrate to the US and Europe until wage differences had been eliminated
entirely. Not surprisingly, the neoliberals never advertised this consequence
of trade liberalization, as they claimed – one could say lied – that all
would benefit.
The failure of globalization to deliver on the promises of mainstream
politicians has surely undermined trust and confidence in the "establishment."
And governments' offers of generous bailouts for the banks that had brought
on the 2008 financial crisis, while leaving ordinary citizens largely to
fend for themselves, reinforced the view that this failure was not merely
a matter of economic misjudgments.
In the US, Congressional Republicans even opposed assistance to those
who were directly hurt by globalization. More generally, neoliberals, apparently
worried about adverse incentive effects, have opposed welfare measures that
would have protected the losers.
But they can't have it both ways: if globalization is to benefit most
members of society, strong social-protection measures must be in place.
The Scandinavians figured this out long ago; it was part of the social contract
that maintained an open society – open to globalization and changes in technology.
Neoliberals elsewhere have not – and now, in elections in the US and Europe,
they are having their comeuppance.
Globalization is, of course, only one part of what is going on; technological
innovation is another part. But all of this openness and disruption were
supposed to make us richer, and the advanced countries could have introduced
policies to ensure that the gains were widely shared.
Instead, they pushed for policies that restructured markets in ways that
increased inequality and undermined overall economic performance; growth
actually slowed as the rules of the game were rewritten to advance the interests
of banks and corporations – the rich and powerful – at the expense of everyone
else. Workers' bargaining power was weakened; in the US, at least, competition
laws didn't keep up with the times; and existing laws were inadequately
enforced. Financialization continued apace and corporate governance worsened.
Now, as I point out in my recent book Rewriting the Rules of the American
Economy, the rules of the game need to be changed again – and this must
include measures to tame globalization. The two new large agreements that
President Barack Obama has been pushing – the Trans-Pacific Partnership
between the US and 11 Pacific Rim countries, and the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership between the EU and the US – are moves in the
wrong direction.
The main message of Globalization and its Discontents was that the problem
was not globalization, but how the process was being managed. Unfortunately,
the management didn't change. Fifteen years later, the new discontents have
brought that message home to the advanced economies.
His campaign ended with him performing the classic role of shipdog for Hillary,
who shares none of his ideas and economic policies. If this is not Obama style "bait
and switch' I do not know what is...
Bernie Sanders: I support Hillary Clinton. So should everyone
who voted for me http://fw.to/mVDxuLJ
The conventions are over and the general election has officially begun.
In the primaries, I received 1,846 pledged delegates, 46% of the total.
Hillary Clinton received 2,205 pledged delegates, 54%. She received 602
superdelegates. I received 48 superdelegates. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic
nominee and I will vigorously support her.
Donald Trump would be a disaster and an embarrassment for our country
if he were elected president. His campaign is not based on anything of substance
- improving the economy, our education system, healthcare or the environment.
It is based on bigotry. He is attempting to win this election by fomenting
hatred against Mexicans and Muslims. He has crudely insulted women. And
as a leader of the "birther movement," he tried to undermine the legitimacy
of our first African American president. That is not just my point of view.
That's the perspective of a number of conservative Republicans.
In these difficult times, we need a president who will bring our nation
together, not someone who will divide us by race or religion, not someone
who lacks an understanding of what our Constitution is about.
On virtually every major issue facing this country and the needs of working
families, Clinton's positions are far superior to Trump's. Our campaigns
worked together to produce the most progressive platform in the history
of American politics. Trump's campaign wrote one of the most reactionary
documents.
Clinton understands that Citizens United has undermined our democracy.
She will nominate justices who are prepared to overturn that Supreme Court
decision, which made it possible for billionaires to buy elections. Her
court appointees also would protect a woman's right to choose, workers'
rights, the rights of the LGBT community, the needs of minorities and immigrants
and the government's ability to protect the environment.
Trump, on the other hand, has made it clear that his Supreme Court appointees
would preserve the court's right-wing majority.
Clinton understands that in a competitive global economy we need the
best-educated workforce in the world. She and I worked together on a proposal
that will revolutionize higher education in America. It will guarantee that
the children of any family in this country with an annual income of $125,000
a year or less – 83% of our population – will be able to go to a public
college or university tuition free. This proposal also substantially reduces
student debt.
Trump, on the other hand, has barely said a word about higher education.
Clinton understands that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality,
it is absurd to provide huge tax breaks to the very rich.
Trump, on the other hand, wants billionaire families like his to enjoy
hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax breaks.
Clinton understands that climate change is real, is caused by human activity
and is one of the great environmental crises facing our planet. She knows
that we must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and move
aggressively to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.
Trump, on the other hand, like most Republicans, rejects science and
the conclusions of almost all major researchers in the field. He believes
that climate change is a "hoax," and that there's no need to address it.
Clinton understands that this country must move toward universal healthcare.
She wants to see that all Americans have the right to choose a public option
in their healthcare exchange, that anyone 55 or older should be able to
opt in to Medicare, and that we must greatly improve primary healthcare
through a major expansion of community health centers. She also wants to
lower the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs.
And what is Donald Trump's position on healthcare? He wants to abolish
the Affordable Care Act, throw 20 million people off the health insurance
they currently have and cut Medicaid for lower-income Americans.
During the primaries, my supporters and I began a political revolution
to transform America. That revolution continues as Hillary Clinton seeks
the White House. It will continue after the election. It will continue until
we create a government which represents all of us and not just the 1 percent
– a government based on the principle of economic, social, racial and environmental
justice.
I understand that many of my supporters are disappointed by the final
results of the nominating process, but being despondent and inactive is
not going to improve anything. Going forward and continuing the struggle
is what matters. And, in that struggle, the most immediate task we face
is to defeat Donald
"... Hillary is definitely both a staunch dyed-in-the-wool neocon ("We came, we saw, he died", anti-Russia stance, appointment of Kagan and Nuland, her role in Syria, etc.) and "born again" ( deviating from Goldwater platform after marriage) neoliberal much like Slick Willie was/is. ..."
"... "long ago, conservatives decided to harness racial resentment to sell right-wing economic policies to working-class whites, especially in the South." ..."
"... Isn't the corollary to this that the Clintons harnessed racial resentment to sell neo-lib economic policies to poor blacks, especially in the South? ..."
"... Classist elitism, cultural chauvinism, standing pat in the economic center, bland words about small plans, neoconservative foreign policy & recruiting of capital-class Republicans are back in the driver's seat. This is the Democratic Party once again without a Sanders campaign to worry about. ..."
"... What strikes me as telling and important is that the New York Times was reporting on conservatives or neocons moving to support Hillary Clinton as early as July 2014. The sense being that Clinton was, in particular, a foreign policy conservative: ..."
"... Dismantling of Orthodox hegemony in east Europe.... Hapsburg at the neocon rise. Regime change in Moscow was in the strategy when Strobe Talbot brought in Mrs. Kagan in 1993 and Bill Clinton started arming Croatia and backing separatists in Bosnia and Kosovo. ..."
"... Clinton voted for universal war and then as SecState implemented it bad and hard. ..."
Check out Clintons in Serbia, who is Victoria Nuland, and on whose advisory committee is her husband
Robert Kagan?
You have a very limited and benign view of neocon and neoliberals.
Likbez said in reply to ilsm... , -1
An excellent comment. I am with you ilsm --
Hillary is definitely both a staunch dyed-in-the-wool neocon ("We came, we saw, he died",
anti-Russia stance, appointment of Kagan and Nuland, her role in Syria, etc.) and "born again"
( deviating from Goldwater platform after marriage) neoliberal much like Slick Willie was/is.
Anybody who tried to deny this denies the reality.
Police state?
Wall st sponsors
Debt reduction with stimulus?
Immigration, what demalarkey is that?
Energy is happening with tech.
Neocon, just war is pushing Putin around! She negotiated with Qaddafi! She and Kerry on
Assad, Benghazi shipping point to ISIS in 2012.
Clinton doesn't need to move to the center to beat Trump, since she is already in the center.
She's picking up a number of disaffected Republicans already without doing anything. Trump and
his campaign are a circus. Her advisers are probably recommending that she remain inoffensively
silent and allow Trump to continue eating his own tail.
Meanwhile, every result one would realistically have expected from the Democrats disposing
of the Sanders campaign has indeed come to pass. Classist elitism, cultural chauvinism, standing
pat in the economic center, bland words about small plans, neoconservative foreign policy & recruiting
of capital-class Republicans are back in the driver's seat. This is the Democratic Party once
again without a Sanders campaign to worry about.
ilsm -> Dan Kervick... ,
Yup!
anne : ,
What strikes me as telling and important is that the New York Times was reporting on conservatives
or neocons moving to support Hillary Clinton as early as July 2014. The sense being that Clinton
was, in particular, a foreign policy conservative:
Are they getting ready to ally themselves with Hillary Clinton?
ilsm -> anne... ,
Dismantling of Orthodox hegemony in east Europe.... Hapsburg at the neocon rise. Regime change
in Moscow was in the strategy when Strobe Talbot brought in Mrs. Kagan in 1993 and Bill Clinton
started arming Croatia and backing separatists in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Peggy Noonan: Trump 'doesn't have the skill set needed now' http://washex.am/2aAIwqk via @DCExaminer
- Aug 5
Conservative Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan said
Donald Trump doesn't have what it takes to win the White House.
In her latest column, Noonan wrote that the celebrity businessman has been unable to "take
yes for an answer" from the voters who made him the Republican presidential nominee.
"This is what became obvious, probably fatally so: Mr. Trump is not going to get serious
about running for president," she wrote. "He does not have a second act, there are no hidden
depths, there will be no 'pivot.' It is not that he is willful or stubborn, though he may be,
it's that he doesn't have the skill set needed now - discretion, carefulness, generosity, judgment.
There's a clueless quality about him."
After the GOP convention two weeks ago, Trump enjoyed a slight bump in national and some state-level
polls against Hillary Clinton, only to suffer a series of setbacks caused by his own controversial
comments.
As a result, his numbers have fallen in more recent polls and Clinton's have risen in light
of intense media scrutiny on Trump.
"All the damage done to him this week was self-inflicted," Noonan wrote. "The arrows he's taken
are arrows he shot.
I think this week marked a certain coming to terms with where the election is going. Politics
is about trends and tendencies. The trends for Donald Trump are not good, and he tends not to
change.
All the damage done to him this week was self-inflicted. The arrows he's taken are arrows he
shot. We have in seven days witnessed his undignified and ungrateful reaction to a Gold Star family;
the odd moment with the crying baby; the one-on-one interviews, which are starting to look like
something he does in the grip of a compulsion, in which Mr. Trump expresses himself thoughtlessly,
carelessly, on such issues as Russia, Ukraine and sexual harassment; the relitigating of his vulgar
Megyn Kelly comments from a year ago; and, as his fortunes fell, his statement that he "would
not be surprised" if the November election were "rigged." Subject to an unprecedented assault
by a sitting president who called him intellectually and characterologically unfit for the presidency,
Mr Trump fired back - at Paul Ryan and John McCain.
The mad scatterbrained-ness of it was captured in a Washington Post interview (*) with Philip
Rucker in which five times by my count-again, the compulsion-Mr. Trump departed the meat of the
interview to turn his head and stare at the television. On seeing himself on the screen: "Lot
of energy. We got a lot of energy." Minutes later: "Look at this. It's all Trump all day long.
That's why their ratings are through the roof." He's all about screens, like a toddler hooked
on iPad. ...
*- Donald Trump's Washington Post interview
should make Republicans panic http://wpo.st/Q4gq1
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
"Skill set" like the "set" that has the US squander $2T in war spending, endure huge casualties,
inflict massive collateral damage and is worse off than when Clinton voted for all of it.
When the Donald calls a general or administration official inept he means the above.
ilsm -> sanjait... , -1
One so easily conned not allowed in Oval Office.
Demalarkey. Crooked Hillary was conned like Colin Powell, the great equivocators.
Her vote was the switch that turned it all on!
Did she ever give a speech anywhere saying the Overseas Contingency Operations appropriation
were bad? Has she ever proposed ending it all? Send links.
But worse she equivocates about marked e-mails which at best show ignorance, and expects ignorance
from the audience.
Which is all right with the administration (DoJ) flying cover for her.
ilsm -> EMichael... , -1
HEH!
Clinton voted for universal war and then as SecState implemented it bad and hard.
"... It's the rigging of our economy – the increasingly tight nexus between wealth and political power. Big money has been buying political clout to get laws and regulations that make big money even bigger." ..."
"... Odds are that Clinton, now worth $100 million due to public service, will milk the system for all its worth, becoming the first to become a billionaire via public service. Reckoning? LOL! ..."
"... Aren't we used to the robber barons running the joint, yet? Clinton endorsed by the in crowd, including water boarders. ..."
"... Hillary is so well qualified to send everything to Wall St and get US into regime change in the former Soviet Union see how well it worked in Iraq, Afghanistan Libya... ..."
"... Logisticians do planning with the ops guys, we are the guys that tell "strategists": "you don't have transport etc to get there..." Been doing a bit of 'thought exercising' on the fighting for Estonia under defending small countries is "just war" meme. I could see the Clintons installing a fascist in Talinn like they did in Kyiv....... ..."
"... All because the democrats went from the party of perpetual small conventional profitable wars against third world guerillas and goatherds to taking on Russia run by evil. ..."
"... Trump did not have Qaddafi or anyone else done! ..."
Robert Reich--Democratic Party needs to start reckoning with reality, too.
"In a Gallup poll taken in mid-July, before the conventions, 82 percent said America was
on the wrong track. In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll just before that, 56 percent said
they preferred a candidate who would bring sweeping changes to the way the government functioned,
no matter how unpredictable those changes might be.
The major issue the public is reacting to isn't terrorism or racism. We didn't see these
numbers after 9/11. We didn't even get these sorts of responses in the late 1960s, when American
cities were torn by riots and when the Vietnam War was raging.
It's the rigging of our economy – the increasingly tight nexus between wealth and political
power. Big money has been buying political clout to get laws and regulations that make big
money even bigger."
Odds are that Clinton, now worth $100 million due to public service, will milk the system
for all its worth, becoming the first to become a billionaire via public service. Reckoning?
LOL!
ilsm -> JohnH...
Aren't we used to the robber barons running the joint, yet? Clinton endorsed by the in crowd,
including water boarders.
Hillary is so well qualified to send everything to Wall St and get US into regime change in
the former Soviet Union see how well it worked in Iraq, Afghanistan Libya....
I am betting on nuclear winter before climate disaster.
ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , -1
Logisticians do planning with the ops guys, we are the guys that tell "strategists": "you
don't have transport etc to get there..." Been doing a bit of 'thought exercising' on the fighting
for Estonia under defending small countries is "just war" meme. I could see the Clintons installing
a fascist in Talinn like they did in Kyiv.......
Russia moves in to "protect" Russian nationals (the reason for NATO was so Russia would
not move in to West Germany to protect socialists from US puppets).
The US' deployable armor brigade arrives to kasserns smoldering, gets chewed up and the B-61
start falling.
You could model a nuclear exchange that stops with a Red Army tank division irradiated.....
I see it going 99 Red Balloons.
All because the democrats went from the party of perpetual small conventional profitable wars
against third world guerillas and goatherds to taking on Russia run by evil.
ilsm -> ilsm... , -1
Then the demalarkey* comes up with: if US don't start WW III the small countries will get their
own nukes like Israel............
Not much different than US holding on to the button, but throws out a new range of MAD thought
exercises.
*"Oh my!! Trump will let everyone get nukes!"
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
I do not want crooked Hillary followed by a junior military officer with the "football". What
she knows about operation security and who advises her. Is quite troubling.
Isn't it interesting that the communists of China are seeking a long-term partnership with Russia
– a nominally capitalist country? Of course, Russia is seeking the same with China.
July 1, China marked an important date on July 1. It was the 95th anniversary of the founding
of the Chinese Communist Party. Chairman Xi Jinping addressed the solemn meeting devoted to this
event. In addition to the praises of "Long live!" (And deservedly so, since the CCP has much to
be proud of) there was Chairman Xi's speech which was short, but very important.
"The world is on the verge of radical change. We see how the European Union is gradually
collapsing, as is the US economy - it is all over for the new world order. So, it will never again
be as it was before, in 10 years we will have a new world order in which the key will be the union
of China and Russia. "
If the above translation is accurate I wonder what is meant by …key will be the union of
China and Russia . In any event, it appears that ideology is not at the core of the unity;
its something much deeper and more resilient. I offer that it is a shared view that embraces a
realization that the world can no longer accept global hegemony from the West otherwise catastrophe
is virtually certain in the form of (pick one or two): nuclear war, financial or ecological collapse.
Their mission is basically to save the world from Western insanity which handily trumps anything
that may separate them.
And, I think that the Chinese and Russians are far too wise to seek global hegemony for themselves.
The trick for them will be taking down the Western house of cards without triggering a catastrophic
miscalculation by the West. …Whew, now time for an hot fudge sundae.
I think it's mutual disgust with the USA's blatant and shameless rigging of the playing field
in every contest. If America can't win, then it's a loss for all of mankind. And it blabbers constantly
and loudly about its values, and then does things which completely contradict those supposed values,
and never appears to notice anything unusual or untoward about it.
"... There's no question that the guy was not just picked off a list of "Gold Star Muslim Families." And everyone who spoke at that convention was a Clinton supporter; that's one of the main reasons for the convention. But a better candidate, a candidate with better character and intellect, would never have fallen into such an obvious trap. ..."
"... I hope Trump runs ads that say "Why did Hillary have a guy --with Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi connections, an attorney who specializes in helping Arab Muslims into our country on greencards and visas, ..."
"... What often gets lost in the White Water, Castle Grande real estate kiting scam discussion, is that the original funds AND the monies for multiple inflated resale of those properties came from the Madison Savings and Loan, in cahoots with the State of Arkansas (Clintons cohorts) raiding a Federal fund (HUD) meant for low income housing. ..."
"... After embezzling and laudering hundreds of millions, they never built ANY low income housing for the poor. That's the nature of the Clinton's compassion for the poor. ..."
"... clinton got millions from 'sharia law education group' ..."
"... With the help of republicans demonizing Trump. Instead of talking about Clinton and all the dirt, the lies, the treasonous behavior, the e-mail scandal, her lying to the Benghazi families, etc. etc. Instead they keep harping on what they claim Trump said. In other words republicans going out of their way to help Clinton. ..."
"... More and more Khan is being exposed as a plant and a stooge for Hillary and the Democrat Party. And the Leftist media, an embedded wing of the Democrat Party, will not tolerate us exposing their lies, hypocrisies and false narratives. Which is all the more incentive to keep ON exposing them. ..."
"... We will have to deal with Trump's verbal antics, and take him to task, but we MUST see to it he is elected President. The Republican Party be damned! Our country is at stake. Khan will not be the person to decide this election, and we will not let him have that power. ..."
"... All the media types think "Trump going after the gold star muslim family" is hurting him. I don't think this has any effect on voters at all. The [neo]liberal playbook is to put a little girl in the boxing ring to throw punches, and if she's hit back they scream "how could you hit a little girl???" It's all theater and all very old shtick. I think real voters know this and are unaffected. ..."
"... Ever notice how the truth causes [neo]liberals to go batshit crazy? It's like sunlight to a vampire.... ..."
"... FACTS: A [neo]liberals worst enemy ..."
"... The Clinton Campaign has held up a Muslim Human Shield. You are no longer allowed to criticize them on "refugees" or "immigration". ..."
"... What the f does making sure we vet Syrian refugees have to do with the member of the Muslim brotherhood's losing a son in the first Irag war have to do with anything? The fact is the DNC dragged these poor people out there to try and smear Trump just because he wants to make sure no terrorist get in with these refugees. I believe the Khan's son was a US citizen, so what does this have to do with Syrian refugees, this is how the left lies time and time again. ..."
"... The last sentence says everything you need to know about [neo[liberals. Bravo to Bauer for standing up to this ignorant [neo]liberal Troll from CNN. You can count down 3, 2, 1....until the screaming [neo]liberal goes off after hearing facts. ..."
"... The newest form of ignorance out there Knowing what the Clinton campaign is Deliberately doing and making excuses and steering the viewers away from the reality that comes with common sense. Trump may not be the perfect candidate but sure as the Good lord loves me, Hillary represents Satan And everything wrong Corrupted and evil about humanity. If you vote for that woman (and I don't care if you write in someone else) but if you vote for that woman you are an accomplice to every evil the Democratic party now represents and that is just plain NO BS Common Sense. ..."
"... "You're like he worked for Hillary Clinton like that somehow makes him unqualified to speak about his son-" It simply makes everything he says suspect. ..."
"... I am sick of this. Trump criticized Khan, and it turned out he (Khan) is a Clinton insider, working for a group of lawyers who did the Clinton's frickin' taxes... ..."
"... When you participate in a partisan attack--as the Khan's, Pat Smith and Charles Wood have done -- then you're opening yourself to a partisan counter-attack. Having no defense for the deaths in Benghazi, the Hillary surrogates are reduced to claiming that the Khan's are neutral territory. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. ..."
"... If he cared about the memory of his son, he would shut the f**k up. His son didn't join the Army to support Hillary Clinton. Just another case of a Cindy Sheehan. Hillary voted on the war, because her independent research convinced her that regime change was necessary. ..."
"... Truth and facts are by definition "smears" on the Clintons... After all these years I have a pretty good grasp just exactly who and what they are... What I do not understand is how nearly half of the electorate in this country continues to drink the lemonade... ..."
"... We must distinguish between the son, who died in the service of this country, and the father, who has his own life and agenda. Trump was wrong if he criticized the son. The father is fair game. ..."
Appearing on Tuesday's New Day, liberal Daily Beast contributor and recurring CNN guest Dean Obeidallah
went ballistic after a fellow guest and Donald Trump supporter recalled that Khizr Khan has a history
of ties to the Clintons as the immigration expert was an employee of the law firm Hogan Lovells LLP,
which not only has represented the Clinton Foundation but also worked on immigration cases involving
the controversial EB-5 visa program.
After former South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer recalled Khan's connections to the
Clintons, the two got into a heated debate as Obeidallah incredulously accused the Trump supporter
of "smearing" Khan by merely introducing his links to the Clintons into the political conversation.
At 8:30 a.m. ET, Bauer brought up Khan's ties to the Clintons:
Mr. Khan worked for the Clintons. There is a direct connection. Nobody wants to engage in that
because of the loss of a child, which is a terrible thing, but again, he is continuing to push
this, too. He is making it political, and there is a bigger tie to the Clintons. He's worked for
them. He's worked for the EB-5 program, which is controversial.
The South Carolina Republican added:
Senator Grassley even pointed out there are inconsistencies and really not checks and balances
in a program that's let too many folks in that are questionable, individuals that probably should
never have been allowed in our country.
robert108 > bkeyser
He works for her, then shows up at her convention and lies about her opponent. He smeared himself
by his lack of integrity. Furthermore, papa khan is a sharia advocate, standing there with his
good little hijab wearing sharia wife, and waves the Constitution, as if he believes in it. A
complete crock, designed to serve his employer, Hillary.
bkeyser Mod > robert108
There's no question that the guy was not just picked off a list of "Gold Star Muslim Families."
And everyone who spoke at that convention was a Clinton supporter; that's one of the main reasons
for the convention. But a better candidate, a candidate with better character and intellect, would
never have fallen into such an obvious trap. You can blame Clinton, you can blame the Khan's,
but this is a story only because of Trump.
CruzAmnestiedHortence > bkeyser
I hope it remains a story.
I hope Trump runs ads that say "Why did Hillary have a guy --with Muslim Brotherhood and
Saudi connections, an attorney who specializes in helping Arab Muslims into our country on greencards
and visas, who has written and lectured admiringly of the "superiority" of Sharia law-- in
a prime time slot at her convention? And why is he carrying water for her? Could it be that this
Jihadist in a suit has financial and ideological interests in supporting her policy of importing
millions more Muslims?
Might Mr Khan understand that Trump policy objectives conflict with his professional AND ideological
goals?
Check out Breitbart now before they change it.....ALL the Benghazi mothers and widows are laying
wood to Hillary right now. Ugly. Hillary is going to LOSE this one eventually. Khan has already
said he wants out of the discussion. The Democrats will want out next.
Don Meaker > bkeyser
If you look at what Trump actually said, it was unexceptional. The outrageous part is what
the media shills are saying.
Gary Hall Mod > bkeyser
Certainly the broad electorate should be well aware (and, of course they are not) that many
many friends and associates of the Clinton's have been charged and found guilty - or plead guilty
of crimes. I think that there were 15 in the Whitewater development scam alone (oh, did the Clinton's
ever pay all those that lost all of their investment purchasing lots?). And then there were another
batch in this lot:
And for a little walk down memory lane (and I apologize, looks like the video has been taken
down - perhaps someone can locate it) -- PBS's Frontline production - "The Fixers."
What often gets lost in the White Water, Castle Grande real estate kiting scam discussion,
is that the original funds AND the monies for multiple inflated resale of those properties came
from the Madison Savings and Loan, in cahoots with the State of Arkansas (Clintons cohorts) raiding
a Federal fund (HUD) meant for low income housing.
After embezzling and laudering hundreds of millions, they never built ANY low income housing
for the poor.
That's the nature of the Clinton's compassion for the poor.
FACT: Trump spoke highly of Captain Khan and his scacrifice. But, NOT the outrageous rants
of the dead soldier's father.
FACT: Khizr M. Khan is a very rich Muslim attorney with DEEP ties to Saudi Arabia.
FACT: Khan is an immigration lawyer who specializes in a highly controversial program accused
of letting RICH Muslims buy their way into the U.S.
FACT: The E-2 and EB-5 are two of the most notoriously abused visa categories that essentially
allow wealthy foreigners to buy their way to U.S. residency, and possibly citizenship, with a
relatively modest investment,
FACT: Khan's website notes that he works to help clients with the E-2 and EB-5 programs that
let overseas investors buy into U.S. companies and also provides green cards for family members.
FACT: Khan has now taken his website down coz it exposes his hypocrisy.
FACT: Khan has written extensively about Sharia Law and wants to replace America's Constitution
with it.
FACT: Khan has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
ohio granny > bill
With the help of republicans demonizing Trump. Instead of talking about Clinton and all
the dirt, the lies, the treasonous behavior, the e-mail scandal, her lying to the Benghazi families,
etc. etc. Instead they keep harping on what they claim Trump said. In other words republicans
going out of their way to help Clinton.
DanB_Tiffin
Who is Khizr Khan, the father of a fallen US soldier?
01Aug2016 by Clarice Feldman
http://www.americanthinker.com...
"a Muslim Cindy Sheehan playing on people's sympathies to foster a Democratic Party political
agenda."
Simon Battle > DanB_Tiffin
The GOPe, rather than point out Khan's radical jihadi connections, are spending their time
to further divide in the Republican party. Who's side is the GOPe on? The Republican party, we
the people, have made our choice. We have chosen Donald Trump because he best represents us, the
Republican party. It's time for the GOPe to coalesce around the Republican party or get the hell
out of the way.
ohio granny > Simon Battle
Yep helping the democRATs slander Trump almost like they want Trump to lose. They are nothing
but hypocrites doing the democRATs dirty work.
CruzAmnestiedHortence > ohio granny
The GOPe went into "vandalize Trump's campaign" mode as soon as they realized they couldn't
steal the nomination 3 weeks ago.
JValjean > DanB_Tiffin
Moslem Americans with compelling personal narratives, i.e. losing a child on the battlefield,
do not have an unassailable right to haughtily lecture other Americans on what's proper Americanism,
that includes presidential candidates. If "Moslem Gold Star Families" are indeed not unicorns,
perhaps there is a better and less controversial avatar in that community to legitimately promote
its political agenda other than the baggage laden Mr. Khan.
ZombieProcesses > JValjean
The Clintonistas were being lazy. No need not to be as the press (and the globalistas in the
GOP) will focus on the prey, not the bait.
twfuller • 5 days ago
More and more Khan is being exposed as a plant and a stooge for Hillary and the
Democrat Party. And the Leftist media, an embedded wing of the Democrat Party, will not
tolerate us exposing their lies, hypocrisies and false narratives. Which is all the more
incentive to keep ON exposing them.
We will have to deal with Trump's verbal antics, and take him to task, but we MUST see
to it he is elected President. The Republican Party be damned! Our country is at stake. Khan
will not be the person to decide this election, and we will not let him have that power.
Never thought that the Clinton News Network would admit that just
being associated with the Clintons was a smear on your character. I
always thought it was but I now see CNN agrees.
PJ1193
What part of Mr Khan calling Trump a racist then wrapping himself in his dead sons memory
to shut off a response to his personal smear of Trump not a sick thing to do. We all know what
this is about and all this faux outrage by the left is pure bull$#!+.....Plus Mr Khan is a
radical Sharia defending Islamist on top of everything else, pure phony.
Kaiser
Khan is a Demorat operative. Get it, Clinton media hacks?
toledofan
The entire Khan event was staged and the made into political fodder. Right or wrong Trump
took it at face value and defended his honor. The Khans should have declined but their is no
doubt they were motivated by politics as well.
Russ Neal
All the media types think "Trump going after the gold star muslim family" is hurting
him. I don't think this has any effect on voters at all. The [neo]liberal playbook is to put a
little girl in the boxing ring to throw punches, and if she's hit back they scream "how could
you hit a little girl???" It's all theater and all very old shtick. I think real voters know
this and are unaffected.
Biff Wellington
Ever notice how the truth causes [neo]liberals to go batshit crazy? It's like sunlight
to a vampire....
Cajunkingkong
FACTS: A [neo]liberals worst enemy
Rob
[Neo]Liberalism is a disease. This so-called journalist just proved it, once again.
Smackalicious
The Clinton Campaign has held up a Muslim Human Shield. You are no longer allowed to
criticize them on "refugees" or "immigration".
fastfood
The mans' parents certainly experienced the great loss of a loved one. No parent should
ever expect to have to bury their child. It's supposed to be the other way around.
But Speaking of "frankly" and "Blunt" and political so-called correctness aside; it was not
the parents who experience the "sacrifice". It was their son who selflessly made that ultimate
sacrifice. He could have chosen any one of a million other professions. Instead, he selflessly
chose to serve to protect his country, his way of life and to help other folks to achieve the
same. And as many before him, it was [he] who made the ultimate sacrifice attempting to
accomplish that noble goal.
But no. The man's parents did not make the "sacrifice". To falsely claim this soldiers sad and
ultimate "sacrifice" in the name of his Country is tantamount to claiming to have [earned] a
Medal of Honor because someone else in the family happened to have earned it. Trump may seemed
to have made light of the soldiers selfless sacrifice, but I see and hear the soldiers' Father
do at least as bad day in and day out, and day after day.
Timothy Riley
What the f does making sure we vet Syrian refugees have to do with the member of the
Muslim brotherhood's losing a son in the first Irag war have to do with anything? The fact is
the DNC dragged these poor people out there to try and smear Trump just because he wants to
make sure no terrorist get in with these refugees. I believe the Khan's son was a US citizen,
so what does this have to do with Syrian refugees, this is how the left lies time and time
again.
BLM=TERRORIST GROUP ✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ • 4 days ago
"BAUER: Yeah, facts matter, but not to you."
The last sentence says everything you need to know about [neo[liberals. Bravo to Bauer
for standing up to this ignorant [neo]liberal Troll from CNN. You can count down 3, 2,
1....until the screaming [neo]liberal goes off after hearing facts.
HAMMERBOX
The newest form of ignorance out there Knowing what the Clinton campaign is
Deliberately doing and making excuses and steering the viewers away from the reality that
comes with common sense. Trump may not be the perfect candidate but sure as the Good lord
loves me, Hillary represents Satan And everything wrong Corrupted and evil about humanity. If
you vote for that woman (and I don't care if you write in someone else) but if you vote for
that woman you are an accomplice to every evil the Democratic party now represents and that is
just plain NO BS Common Sense.
However if you are a die hard democrat whom has voted in Murderers, KKK Grand Poobah's,
Alcoholics and adulterers in the past I don't forsee you being capable of not doing the same
with Hillary because common sense is lacking. TRUTH
lars1701c • 5 days ago
I am voting for Trump but even i agree its a uphill battle against the rampant corruption
of hillary and the DNC but if Trump does win its going to be so delicious to see the
republicans come crawling back to him. Oh it'll be fun to watch obama give Trump that tour of
the WH that every outgoing president gives. I would pay real money to be a fly on that wall :D
Phil Christensen
"You're like he worked for Hillary Clinton like that somehow makes him unqualified to
speak about his son-" It simply makes everything he says suspect.
bluepeahen
I am sick of this. Trump criticized Khan, and it turned out he (Khan) is a Clinton
insider, working for a group of lawyers who did the Clinton's frickin' taxes...
menloman
When you participate in a partisan attack--as the Khan's, Pat Smith and Charles Wood
have done -- then you're opening yourself to a partisan counter-attack. Having no defense for
the deaths in Benghazi, the Hillary surrogates are reduced to claiming that the Khan's are
neutral territory. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Zero Flash
Mr. Khan is a progressive hypocrite. If he cared about the memory of his son, he would
shut the f**k up. His son didn't join the Army to support Hillary Clinton. Just another case
of a Cindy Sheehan. Hillary voted on the war, because her independent research convinced her
that regime change was necessary. Check the record. Mr. Khan is using the death of his
son to pad in bank account and he should be ashamed. Like I always say, "There is no hypocrite
like a progressive hypocrtie."
Mark Merritt
Truth and facts are by definition "smears" on the Clintons... After all these years I
have a pretty good grasp just exactly who and what they are... What I do not understand is how
nearly half of the electorate in this country continues to drink the lemonade...
Pretty clearly, the story of the Pied Piper is true... Or, perhaps, it involves lemmings...
I'm north of 75 and probably will not be around when it all crashes in... I just have great
concern for my children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren... Not in any way comfortable
with the country in which I foresee them living...
jimc
Now that telling the truth about a person is considered a "smear" the [neoliberal] left
proves its intent to sink deeper and deeper into utter depravity.
Bik Fizbyn
Funny how they want to call Trump a bigot and a Nazi yet there's this.
Letter to Lieutenant General Artur Phleps of August 6, 1943,
"I do not wish that through the folly and narrowness of mind of an isolated person, a
single one of the tens of thousands of these brave volunteers and their families should
suffer from ill humor and feel deprived of the rights which have been granted to them. …
Moreover, I forbid the jokes and facetious remarks about the Moslem volunteers which are so
much enjoyed in groups of comrades. There will no longer be the least discussion about the
special rights afforded to the Moslems in these circles." - Heinrich Himmler
Doesn't sound like Trump to me.
Proud Skeptic
We must distinguish between the son, who died in the service of this country, and the
father, who has his own life and agenda. Trump was wrong if he criticized the son. The father
is fair game.
The questionable health condition of Hillary Clinton should be a major issue of the 2016 campaign.
The latest evidence comes in the form of Clinton being helped up a set of stairs by multiple individuals
outside what appears to be a home. The photos, published by Reuters and Getty, show the 68-year-old
candidate with aides holding her arms as she ascends the stairs.
Winchester1300
Literally Unfit For the Presidency!
Can't Walk, Needs Assistance, Can't Think, Often Confused, Can't See, Has Double Vision, Wears
Long Coats to Hide Her Adult Diapers, Has Multiple Seizures On Camera, Left in Middle of Debate
For Unexplained Reason, Called Donald Trump Her Husband, Massive Coughing Fits During Speeches...
rick > Winchester1300
Is she this FEEBLE or just DRUNK AGAIN!!??
John (magnum) > rick
Results of Lyin' Crooked Cankles 'short circuit' !!
The questionable health condition of Hillary Clinton should be a major issue of the 2016
campaign," wrote American Mirror editor, Kyle Olson.
"The latest evidence comes in the form of Clinton being helped up a set of stairs by multiple
individuals outside what appears to be a home.
"The photos, published by Reuters and Getty, show the 68-year-old candidate with aides holding
her arms as she ascends the stairs."
The Trump campaign has yet to offer up any of its own evidence that Clinton is suffering from any
sort of ailment, but the gambit may have been successful nonetheless.
While trying to stay unbiased, there was a response politically by some who doubted the legitimacy
of Clinton's concussion, as she was scheduled to testify about Benghazi in the weeks following. Most,
of course, have focused on the political lean of those people, and what they may or may not stand
to gain by criticizing Clinton, but more than anything, I think their statements underline the continued
misunderstanding of TBI and how dangerous it can be, and I strangely felt parallels to my own concussion.
Because of an absence of any apparent physical ailments, many people believe concussions are non-serious
issues that you can "get over" very quickly. Beyond that, many doubt any non-tangible symptoms you
may have because there is no physical proof. Political opponents to Clinton did exactly that claiming
it was a suspiciously convenient time for Clinton to become injured. My friends and co-workers kept
telling me they thought I was playing up symptoms to get extensions on deadlines or get out of doing
things, because to the plain eye everything was fine.
Hillary's concussion does seem to be as minor as one could hope for; she suffered no brain damage
or any other complications aside from the discovery of the clot. But only Clinton and a few others
know exactly what symptoms she may be dealing with, and public skepticism to the serious nature of
TBI needs to be dealt with.
That isn't the only lesson to be learned from Clinton's concussion, however. As Doctor Ann Engelland
shows, there is more to glean from the recent headlines. While trying to recover from the concussion,
Hillary Clinton was told by doctors to work from home, and to rest. While the Secretary of State
could by no means completely neglect her duties, one of the most important factors in healing from
a concussion is "brain rest" and withdrawal from activities.
Concussions are more common than most people realize, and they aren't just an issue for athletes.
Complications, however, are rare. After being examined by a professional, there is no major need
for multiple scans unless the doctors report finding anything outside the normal.
Noting reports Mrs. Clinton had suffered a blood clot after a fall in December 2012, the New York
Post reported Rove said, "Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, she's wearing glasses
that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what's up with that."
Rove is now distancing himself from the remark, telling the
Washington Post on Tuesday, "Of course she doesn't have brain damage."
But Rove told the Washington Post it's apparent Clinton suffered "a serious health episode," adding
if she jumps in the 2016 presidential race, "she is going to have to be forthcoming" on details of
where, how and when it happened.
"She didn't feign illness," Rove said of Clinton's failure to appear at an early round of congressional
hearings on Benghazi, an absence referred to by some as "Benghazi flu."
A representative for the former first lady was quoted as saying, "Please assure Dr. Rove she's
100 percent."
Limbaugh noted, "The left is fit to be tied over what Rove said about Mrs. Clinton."
The broadcaster suggested, "If you're gonna start going down this road with Mrs. Clinton, you
gotta go back a lot farther than December of 2012. I mean, you remember how Hillary couldn't remember
where she put the Rose Law Firm billing records. She couldn't remember how she got a hold of those
900 FBI files that she and Bill had somewhere."
Listen to Rush Limbaugh's comments by clicking below:
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/hillarys-brain-damage-what-difference-does-it-make/#5I6etdg6ScTl7WKJ.99
"... Andrew Stewart is a documentary film maker and reporter who lives outside Providence. His film, AARON BRIGGS AND THE HMS GASPEE, about the historical role of Brown University in the slave trade, is available for purchase on Amazon Instant Video or on DVD. ..."
Bill Clinton, who is certainly savvy of the media as an engine of
electioneering, knew exactly what he was doing when he called Donald Trump up
in spring 2015 to tell him he might have a shot as a political candidate.
Clinton knew that the public had as much interest in his wife as a chance for
staph infection. Try as they might since 2012, they never were able to tap into
a public interest in the idea of President Hillary. The book tours were
stilted, boring affairs that would make Tolstoy complain about the length. The
pathetic attempts by David Brock and Media Matters to imitate Alexander
Cockburn's brand of media critique were the internet equivalent of an
inflatable sex toy. Sidney Blumenthal's ridiculous impersonation of Arthur
Schlesinger Jr., going on television to lecture about the implosion of the
Republicans in comparison to the collapse of the Whigs and implying, by
extension, that his candidate was akin to Lincoln, had all the sincerity of
Bugs Bunny planting a kiss on Yosemite Sam.
A lifelong union man and Vietnam vet friend of mine put it best, "It's her
election to lose and she is doing a phenomenal job of it." Hell, an ornery New
Deal-Great Society Pentagon Keynesian with a harsh Brooklyn accent and all the
style of Statler and Waldorf on
The Muppet Show
nearly wiped the floor
of the electoral stage with her upholstered behind! This was National Lampoon's
Presidential Campaign from the start.
... ... ...
Return to the propaganda model provided by Chomsky and Herman:
-How will this impact ownership?
-How will this impact our advertisers?
-How will this impact the willingness of our regular sources, such as the
White House or 10 Downing Street, to provide us with information?
-What sort of 'flak', negative reactions, will we get from our consumers
and particularly those consumers within the established power structure?
-Can the subject(s) of this story be presented in a fashion that would be
broadly described as either anti-Communist or based on notions of fear so to
preserve the credibility and unchallenged authority of the power structure?
The media has been the sole party that is responsible for both the hegemony
of neoliberalism and the rise of Trump. Both are instances of how they serve
their advertisers.
Let us consider the former for a moment. The case of the public pension
heist that was perpetrated in Rhode Island is illustrative. John Arnold, an
Enron alumnus, donated good money to PBS so to get a false-flag "pension
crisis" narrative put on the
NewsHour
broadcasts that everyone thought
were "neutral". The public pension systems in America are simply one of the
largest reserves of capital in America at a value total of $4 trillion. Arnold
then made a series of campaign donations to up-and-coming politicians like
then-Treasurer and now-Governor Gina Raimondo, who in turn "reformed" the
pension system, investing it in high-stakes high-fee hedge funds, effectively
activating a pipeline from the public pocket into Wall Street. Of course this
was not new for PBS, their support of neoliberalism dates back at least to when
they gave that quack Milton Friedman a ten-part television series. It was PBS
in the 1970's that flooded the airwaves with the grammar of seemingly-sane
neoliberalism while the advertisers took up the frontal action of extolling
"markets" and their infinite wisdom. Simultaneously the United States engaged
in a new Cold War, restarted by Carter after the detente policies of Nixon, so
to thoroughly demonize not just "Communism" (though the Soviet system was
everything but that by the end) but anything remotely akin to "central planning
in the economy" (which was called welfare state Keynesian economics when my
grandparents were birthing Baby Boomers). Here, in order to keep funding coming
through major donors, a taxpayer-supported public broadcasting system engaged
in a wholesale fraud that attempted to rob those same taxpayers of literally
multi-trillions of dollars on behalf of a swindler and con man who I have been
unable to discern ever having an actual job. We should understand this media
assault as a frontal attack by capital on our social safety net.
Return to the propaganda model provided by Chomsky and Herman:
-How will this impact ownership?
-How will this impact our advertisers?
-How will this impact the willingness of our regular sources, such as the
White House or 10 Downing Street, to provide us with information?
-What sort of 'flak', negative reactions, will we get from our consumers
and particularly those consumers within the established power structure?
-Can the subject(s) of this story be presented in a fashion that would be
broadly described as either anti-Communist or based on notions of fear so to
preserve the credibility and unchallenged authority of the power structure?
The media has been the sole party that is responsible for both the hegemony
of neoliberalism and the rise of Trump. Both are instances of how they serve
their advertisers.
Let us consider the former for a moment. The case of the public pension
heist that was perpetrated in Rhode Island is illustrative. John Arnold, an
Enron alumnus, donated good money to PBS so to get a false-flag "pension
crisis" narrative put on the
NewsHour
broadcasts that everyone thought
were "neutral". The public pension systems in America are simply one of the
largest reserves of capital in America at a value total of $4 trillion. Arnold
then made a series of campaign donations to up-and-coming politicians like
then-Treasurer and now-Governor Gina Raimondo, who in turn "reformed" the
pension system, investing it in high-stakes high-fee hedge funds, effectively
activating a pipeline from the public pocket into Wall Street. Of course this
was not new for PBS, their support of neoliberalism dates back at least to when
they gave that quack Milton Friedman a ten-part television series. It was PBS
in the 1970's that flooded the airwaves with the grammar of seemingly-sane
neoliberalism while the advertisers took up the frontal action of extolling
"markets" and their infinite wisdom. Simultaneously the United States engaged
in a new Cold War, restarted by Carter after the detente policies of Nixon, so
to thoroughly demonize not just "Communism" (though the Soviet system was
everything but that by the end) but anything remotely akin to "central planning
in the economy" (which was called welfare state Keynesian economics when my
grandparents were birthing Baby Boomers). Here, in order to keep funding coming
through major donors, a taxpayer-supported public broadcasting system engaged
in a wholesale fraud that attempted to rob those same taxpayers of literally
multi-trillions of dollars on behalf of a swindler and con man who I have been
unable to discern ever having an actual job. We should understand this media
assault as a frontal attack by capital on our social safety net.
Return to the propaganda model provided by Chomsky and Herman:
-How will this impact ownership?
-How will this impact our advertisers?
-How will this impact the willingness of our regular sources, such as the
White House or 10 Downing Street, to provide us with information?
-What sort of 'flak', negative reactions, will we get from our consumers
and particularly those consumers within the established power structure?
-Can the subject(s) of this story be presented in a fashion that would be
broadly described as either anti-Communist or based on notions of fear so to
preserve the credibility and unchallenged authority of the power structure?
The media has been the sole party that is responsible for both the hegemony
of neoliberalism and the rise of Trump. Both are instances of how they serve
their advertisers.
Let us consider the former for a moment. The case of the public pension
heist that was perpetrated in Rhode Island is illustrative. John Arnold, an
Enron alumnus, donated good money to PBS so to get a false-flag "pension
crisis" narrative put on the
NewsHour
broadcasts that everyone thought
were "neutral". The public pension systems in America are simply one of the
largest reserves of capital in America at a value total of $4 trillion. Arnold
then made a series of campaign donations to up-and-coming politicians like
then-Treasurer and now-Governor Gina Raimondo, who in turn "reformed" the
pension system, investing it in high-stakes high-fee hedge funds, effectively
activating a pipeline from the public pocket into Wall Street. Of course this
was not new for PBS, their support of neoliberalism dates back at least to when
they gave that quack Milton Friedman a ten-part television series. It was PBS
in the 1970's that flooded the airwaves with the grammar of seemingly-sane
neoliberalism while the advertisers took up the frontal action of extolling
"markets" and their infinite wisdom. Simultaneously the United States engaged
in a new Cold War, restarted by Carter after the detente policies of Nixon, so
to thoroughly demonize not just "Communism" (though the Soviet system was
everything but that by the end) but anything remotely akin to "central planning
in the economy" (which was called welfare state Keynesian economics when my
grandparents were birthing Baby Boomers). Here, in order to keep funding coming
through major donors, a taxpayer-supported public broadcasting system engaged
in a wholesale fraud that attempted to rob those same taxpayers of literally
multi-trillions of dollars on behalf of a swindler and con man who I have been
unable to discern ever having an actual job. We should understand this media
assault as a frontal attack by capital on our social safety net.
Trump is a rear-guard assault, though it seems now with Mike Pence on the
ticket Wall Street feels more comfortable. The media props him up in the way it
propped up "terrorists" to justify the militarizing of the police and the
shredding of the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus. He scares well-intentioned
but still-racist white liberals into a self-aggrandizing pity party wherein
they will say anything and everything about how we just
must
elect
Hillary Clinton. They fail to recognize and accept that Clinton has been
targeting the Social Security system for privatization for decades, best
illustrated in a fantastic essay by
Robin Blackburn
I have been re-reading and circulating on an almost daily
basis this year. The Democratic Party platform plank supporting Social Security
seems as adamantine as wet toilet paper, capital wants that public resource on
Wall Street and Obama himself has been making moves over the last eight years
to actualize that plan. Trump scares the sheep into the wolf's den while Bernie
Sanders barks at them should they go astray. And Trump is only able to do that
with the aid and support of a corporate media that throws up a farcical wall of
integrity and objectivity so to actualize it.
This is the synthesis of Trump
and Clinton in the montage Eisenstein described. Both are pro-war, anti-Social
Security, racist, misogynist, awful people. One and the same in almost every
sense.
Andrew Stewart
is a documentary film maker and reporter who lives outside
Providence. His film, AARON BRIGGS AND THE HMS GASPEE, about the historical role of Brown
University in the slave trade, is available for purchase on
Amazon
Instant Video
or on
DVD.
The subtext is that it was Clinton's carelessness with classified material which got him killed. And the probability that the
reason for his return to Tehran was that his minders had assessed it was now safe for him to go back and be Washington's ear in
Tehran.
Yeah, right! With Gary Johnson, Libertarian, nipping at his
heels, a surge in third party voting is going to help the
Donald! [NOT!] If anything, discouraging people from voting
third party is going to help Trump.
But apparently Fred C. Dobbs doesn't like the idea of
voting third party to vote your conscience and register your
disgust with the two evils...
Monessen, Pennsylvania (CNN)Donald Trump on Tuesday trashed U.S. trade policies that he
said have encouraged globalization and wiped out American manufacturing jobs in a speech in which
he promised to herald a U.S. economic resurgence.
Speaking before a colorful backdrop of crushed aluminum cans, Trump pitched himself at a factory
in Rust Belt Pennsylvania as a change agent who would bring back manufacturing jobs and end the "rigged
system," which he argued presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton represents.
Trump promised sweeping changes if elected -- including killing the Trans-Pacific Partnership
trade deal and renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement -- and urged voters to be wary
of a "campaign of fear and intimidation" aimed at swaying them away from his populist message.
"Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization -- moving our jobs, our wealth
and our factories to Mexico and overseas," he said, reading from prepared remarks and using teleprompters.
"Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy. I used
to be one of them. Hate to say it, but I used to be one of them."
Trump repeatedly slammed Clinton for supporting free trade agreements and argued that under a
Clinton presidency "nothing is going to change."
"The inner cities will remain poor. the factories will remain closed," Trump said at Alumisource,
a raw material producer for the aluminum and steel industries in Monessen, Pennsylvania, an hour
south of Pittsburgh. "The special interests will remain firmly in control."
Echoing Clinton's chief
rival for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Trump also argued that Clinton
has "voted for virtually every trade agreement" and accused her of supporting trade deals that have
hurt U.S. workers.
Trump's speech drew a swift rebuke Tuesday from opposing ends of the political spectrum.
The Chamber of Commerce, the big business lobby that traditionally backs Republicans, issued a
swift statement warning that Trump's proposed policies would herald another U.S. recession.
"Under Trump's trade plans, we would see higher prices, fewer jobs, and a weaker economy," the
group tweeted, linking to a lengthier article
warning that a recession would hit the U.S. "within the first year" of a Trump presidency.
"I'd love for him to explain how all of that fits with his talk about 'America First,'" Clinton
said in a speech last week.
Trump moved quickly on Tuesday to insulate himself from the criticism from his rival's campaign
and others opposed to his vision of radically changing U.S. economic policies.
Trump repeatedly warned Americans to gird themselves against a "campaign of fear" he argued Clinton
and others are running against him -- a notable criticism given the accusations that several of his
policies, including a ban on Muslims and a plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, have
played to voters' fears.
The de facto GOP nominee promised to instruct his treasury secretary to "label China a currency
manipulator" and to order the U.S. trade representative to bring lawsuits against China at the World
Trade Organization and in U.S. courts to combat what he characterized as unfair trade policies.
And he also warned of potentially levying tariffs on imports from China and other countries, reviving
a common theme of his campaign.
Trump has frequently argued on the stump that the U.S. is getting "killed" by other countries on
trade and threatened to raise certain tariffs on China and Mexico up to 35%.
Early on in his yearlong campaign, Trump singled out specific American companies -- notably Ford
and Nabisco -- for plans to move some of their manufacturing plants abroad.
Slamming Nabisco for building a factory in Mexico, Trump has vowed he's "not eating Oreos anymore."
A senior Trump aide told CNN earlier on Tuesday the speech would be "the most detailed economic address
he has given so far."
Trump has frequently lamented the economic slowdown working-class communities in America have faced
as a result of a drop in American manufacturing, particularly in the last decade.
"... It makes me wonder if we ought not to be discussing Clinton in the frame of "The Ego Candidate". It's tempting to characterize Trump for that label, given his boastfulness which does seem to be part of his character. But for all that, Trump comes across to me as mostly law-abiding, and someone who recognizes and observes limits. Clinton neither recognizes or observes anything of the kind, and she is limited only by what she cannot get away with. ..."
Sayyyyyy…..didn't someone here theorize, right after the news broke that
the DNC's emails had been hacked, and Hillary blamed the Russians so people
would forget what she and the rest of the coven did to Sanders, that the
actual attacker was more likely someone much closer to home?
Enter the
Disgruntled US Intelligence Worker . According to US government whistleblower
William Binney, somebody in the NSA released Hillary's and the DNC's emails,
infuriated at Teflon Hillary's non-stick escape from any accountability
for her hijinks.
The headline suggests he knows, but the body of the story suggests he
is just speculating, though. But it raises a valid point – the NSA probably
has all those emails, including the 30,000 she deleted on the grounds that
they were 'personal'.
At some point between now and November, is anyone in the media going
to put the questions about the likelihood of NSA possession of, and therefore
ease of FBI access thereto, the "missing" emails to Director Comey? Or will
TPTB just smile grimly and pray no further leaks arrive to shatter the Narnian
alternative reality world they inhabit?
What an excellent article, quite a bit more authoritative than the one I
cited although it helpfully offers the same source, and it shapes some more
pieces of the puzzle which now make more sense. The compromising of intelligence
personnels' identities was something that, to the best of my knowledge,
was never discussed in any stories on her email peccadilloes. Intelligence
agencies quite properly despise anyone who casually blows the cover of its
operatives. It makes me wonder if we ought not to be discussing Clinton
in the frame of "The Ego Candidate". It's tempting to characterize Trump
for that label, given his boastfulness which does seem to be part of his
character. But for all that, Trump comes across to me as mostly law-abiding,
and someone who recognizes and observes limits. Clinton neither recognizes
or observes anything of the kind, and she is limited only by what she cannot
get away with.
Thanks for posting that revealing corroborative piece.
From a pro-Russian blog... Applebaum is essentially a tool...
Notable quotes:
"... While Applebaum does not think that Trump has a direct relationship to Putin, the American Presidential Candidate has been using lines from Russian propaganda, which suggests that he is probably getting the information from his staff; ..."
"... I couldn't watch it; as soon as I saw Applebaum's horsey face come up on the screen I felt queasy and had to turn it off. I did stay long enough to hear her characterize Manafort's work for Viktor Yanukovych as perhaps the defining moment in his career, working for Ukrainian oligarchs. ..."
"... Apfelbaum's hatred of Trump, and that of Atlanticists, stems from the fact that Trump does not share the Atlanticists' aggressive foreign policy agenda. The founding tenet and pillar of Atlanticism – is implacable hostility to Russia. Trump deviates from that, hence the reason why Trump is so loathed and viewed as a heretic by Atlanticists. ..."
"... Well, she wrote a book about the gulags which received 'critical acclaim'. She is married to Radislaw Sikorski, onetime Polish Foreign Minister and who was once under consideration for NATO Secretary-General, and who is now a member of Petro Poroshenko's 'Foreign Advisory Council'. She hates Russia as if she were a native Pole. And that's…about it. She loved Georgie Bush enough to bear his children if he had asked, and in general she is a big fan of America kicking sand in everybody's face all around the world and making them eat dirt with its big, powerful military. As I said, she is a diehard conservative – but these are strange times, and the Republican candidate has refused to say how much he loves Israel and hates Russia, while there is by far a better chance that America will return to its ass-kicking ways under Hillary Clinton, so that's the way Annie is leaning this time around. ..."
"... Not to mention the numerous sources of information on how Israel influences US foreign policy and how often Satanyahu flies to Washington to lecture O'Bomber on what he's supposed to do. ..."
"Trump is surrounded by people close to Russia in a way that is very unusual not only
in American politics but in American business as well;"
While Applebaum does not think that Trump has a direct relationship to Putin, the American
Presidential Candidate has been using lines from Russian propaganda, which suggests that he is
probably getting the information from his staff;
Applebaum says that it is rare for another country to influence U.S. politics, and Trump's
campaign was only interested in the Ukraine platform and not much else;
DNC hack: "the use of illicitly stolen information to affect and shape politics is something
that the Kremlin has been working on for a decade."
"He is surrounded by people close to Russia in a way that is very unusual not only in American
politics but in American business as well," says Anne Applebaum, an award-winning author and Washington
Post columnist, when speaking about Donald Trump and his entourage. Paul Manafort and Carter Page
, two individuals who manage and advise Trump, both have ties to Russia.
While Applebaum does not think that Trump has a direct relationship to Putin, the American
Presidential Candidate has been using lines from Russian propaganda, which suggests that he is
probably getting the information from his staff.
"He seems to have a special interest in Russia and Ukraine. I'm guessing because of who's around
him." Applebaum says that it is rare for another country to influence U.S. politics, and Trump's
campaign was only interested in the Ukraine platform and not much else.
Applebaum also touches upon the recent DNC hacks and says that all fingers point at Russia:
"the use of illicitly stolen information to affect and shape politics is something that the Kremlin
has been working on for a decade."
Hromadske's Nataliya Gumenyuk spoke to Anne Applebaum, award-winning author and Washington
Post columnist via Skype on July 31st, 2016.
I couldn't watch it; as soon as I saw Applebaum's horsey face come up on the screen I felt queasy
and had to turn it off. I did stay long enough to hear her characterize Manafort's work for Viktor
Yanukovych as perhaps the defining moment in his career, working for Ukrainian oligarchs.
Somebody better let Tony "shirtfront" Abbott know that he might be establishing the defining
moment in his career. Because that's what he's doing; working for Ukrainian oligarchs. And Applebaum
did not seem to intend it as a compliment. Mustn't forget Tony "War Criminal" Blair, or Anders
"Fogh of War" Fogh Rasmussen.
The Democrats and their supporters – and we should remember there was a time when Annie Applebaum
would not cross the street to spit on Hillary Clinton if she burst into flames, because Annie
is as Republican as they come – have to keep up the noise about Putin hacking the DNC so that
voters do not ask, "Yeah, but is the information that was released true? And why do political
figures have a right to hide that stuff from us? Don't they work for us?"
Apfelbaum is far more restrained in this interview, than she is on her twitter feed and her Washington
Post column. Where she repeatedly insinuates that Trump is a Russian agent, plant, spy or a "Siberian
candidate".
Tony "the Geordie" Abbott, Tony "JP Morgan" Blair and Anders Fogh "cartoons" Rasmussen are
all good and noble Atlanticist, therefore one cannot equate them with Paul Manafort – a professional
influence peddler. This how Apfelbaum would rationalise the difference and draw a distinction.
Whether Apfelbaum is a Republican or Democrat, I don't know. She has worked outside the US
most of her career and adult life, her interests are foreign affairs. And when it comes to foreign
policy, the two US parties pursue exactly the same policies and objectives – that of expanding
US power and maintaining US ascendency.
Apfelbaum's hatred of Trump, and that of Atlanticists, stems from the fact that Trump does
not share the Atlanticists' aggressive foreign policy agenda. The founding tenet and pillar of
Atlanticism – is implacable hostility to Russia. Trump deviates from that, hence the reason why
Trump is so loathed and viewed as a heretic by Atlanticists.
Trump's opinions and statements on Russia, Ukraine, Crimea and NATO has made Atlanticists apoplectic
– as any US-Russia detente or rapprochement would ruin the careers of countless Atlanticist DC
policy wonks, hacks, academics, and propagandists.
Well, she wrote a book about the gulags which received 'critical acclaim'. She is married to Radislaw
Sikorski, onetime Polish Foreign Minister and who was once under consideration for NATO Secretary-General,
and who is now a member of Petro Poroshenko's 'Foreign Advisory Council'. She hates Russia as
if she were a native Pole. And that's…about it. She loved Georgie Bush enough to bear his children
if he had asked, and in general she is a big fan of America kicking sand in everybody's face all
around the world and making them eat dirt with its big, powerful military. As I said, she is a
diehard conservative – but these are strange times, and the Republican candidate has refused to
say how much he loves Israel and hates Russia, while there is by far a better chance that America
will return to its ass-kicking ways under Hillary Clinton, so that's the way Annie is leaning
this time around.
Reformed Judaism = women rabbis, gender equality, women and girls allowed to read Torah, bat mitzvah
celebrations, secular and social justice warrior values, being able to eat food prepared by non-Jews
" … Applebaum says that it is rare for another country to influence U.S. politics, and Trump's
campaign was only interested in the Ukraine platform and not much else …"
I guess Annie Apples doesn't read DailyCaller.com much, does she?
Not to mention the numerous sources of information on how Israel influences US foreign policy
and how often Satanyahu flies to Washington to lecture O'Bomber on what he's supposed to do.
"... Anyone not willing to jump to Hillary is a "Bernie Bro"-not willing to vote for anyone but Bernie. Why? Because, Trump. Forget the will of the people, the democratic process, or "voting one's conscience"-Trump trumps all hesitation. We simply cannot afford to give Trump any chance of winning. ..."
For months now, the Hillary campaign has vigorously argued that Bernie supporters have to fall in
line to support the Democratic National Committee's favorite candidate.
Anyone not willing to jump to
Hillary is a "Bernie Bro"-not willing to vote for anyone but Bernie. Why? Because, Trump. Forget the
will of the people, the democratic process, or "voting one's conscience"-Trump trumps all hesitation.
We simply cannot afford to give Trump any chance of winning.
"... But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department (though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey). ..."
"... The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on Beltway politics. ..."
Hohmann's thesis was that the "scope and scale" of Clinton's wins Tuesday night meant
mainstream Democrats could now safely return to their traditional We won, screw you posture of
"minor concessions" toward the "liberal base."
Hohmann focused on the fact that with Bernie out of the way, Hillary now had a path to victory
that would involve focusing on Trump's negatives. Such a strategy won't require much if any
acquiescence toward the huge masses of Democratic voters who just tried to derail her candidacy.
And not only is the primary scare over, but Clinton and the centrist Democrats in general are in
better shape than ever.
"Big picture," Hohmann wrote, "Clinton is running a much better and more organized campaign than
she did in 2008."
Then there was Jonathan Capehart, also of the Post, whose "This is how Bernie Sanders and Donald
Trump are the same person" piece describes Sanders as a "stubborn outsider" who "shares the same
DNA" as Donald Trump. Capeheart snootily seethes that both men will ultimately pay a karmic price
for not knowing their places.
"In the battle of the outsider egos storming the political establishment, Trump succeeded where
Sanders failed," he wrote. "But the chaos unleashed by Trump's victory could spell doom for the
GOP all over the ballot in November. Pardon me while I dab that single tear trickling down my
cheek."
If they had any brains, Beltway Dems and their clucky sycophants like Capeheart would not be
celebrating this week. They ought to be horrified to their marrow that the all-powerful
Democratic Party ended up having to dig in for a furious rally to stave off a quirky Vermont
socialist almost completely lacking big-dollar donors or institutional support.
They should be freaked out, cowed and relieved, like the Golden State Warriors would be if they
needed a big fourth quarter to pull out a win against Valdosta State.
But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year
witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party
establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department
(though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year
versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey).
The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on
Beltway politics. But the major-party leaders and the media mouthpieces they hang out with
can't see this, because of what that friend of mine talked about over a decade ago: Washington
culture is too far up its own backside to see much of anything at all.
"... Ugh. Hey, Jonathan: Voters don't want candidates who agree with them about everything. They just want one who isn't going to completely take them for granted. If that's become too much to ask, maybe there's something wrong with the Democratic Party, not people like Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... As of June 6th, Hillary Clinton had won nearly 13 million primary votes, while Trump had gotten some 11.5 million. ..."
Jonathan Chait of New York magazine
wrote a column about Ralph Nader this morning that uses some interesting language. Noting that
it's now been 16 years since Nader ran for president and garnered enough dissenting votes to help
elect George W. Bush, he wrote (emphasis mine):
Instead of a reality check for the party, it'll be smugness
redoubled
"That isenough time for Nader to confess his role in enabling
one of the most disastrous presidencies in American history, or at least to come up with a better
explanation for his decision. Instead, Nader has repeated his same litany of evasions, most recently
in an interview with
Jeremy Hobson on WBUR, where he dismissed all criticisms of his 2000 campaign as 'fact deprived.'"
It would be foolish to argue that Nader's run in 2000 didn't enable Bush's presidency. Though
there were other factors, Nader's presence on the ballot was surely a big one.
But the career Democrats of the Beltway and their buddies in the press have turned the Nader episode
into something very like the creation story of the Third Way political movement. And like many religious
myths, it's gotten very tiresome.
The Democratic Party leaders have trained their followers to perceive everything in terms of one
single end-game equation: If you don't support us, you're supporting Bush/Rove/Cheney/Palin/Insert
Evil Republican Here.
That the monster of the moment, Donald Trump, is a lot more monstrous than usual will likely make
this argument an even bigger part of the Democratic Party platform going forward.
It's a sound formula for making ballot-box decisions, but the people who push it never seem content
to just use it to win elections. They're continually trying to make an ethical argument out of it,
to prove people who defy The Equation are, whether they know it or not, morally wrong and in league
with the other side.
Beltway Democrats seem increasingly to believe that all people who fall within a certain broad
range of liberal-ish beliefs owe their votes and their loyalty to the Democratic Party.
That's why, as a socially liberal person who probably likes trees and wouldn't want to see
Roe v. Wade overturned, Nader's decision to take votes from the party-blessed candidate Gore
is viewed not as dissent, but as a kind of treason.
The problem with this line of thinking is that there's no end to it. If you think I owe you my
vote because I recycle and enjoyed To Kill a Mockingbird, you're not going to work very
hard to keep it. That's particularly true if the only standard you think you need to worry about
is not being worse than Donald Trump, which is almost the same as no standard at all.
This is why the thinking within the Democratic Party has gotten so flabby over the years. It increasingly
seems to rejoice in its voters' lack of real choices, and relies on a political formula that requires
little input from anyone outside the Beltway.
It's heavily financed by corporate money, and the overwhelming majority of its voters would never
cast a vote for the nut-bar God-and-guns version of Republicanism that's been their sole opposition
for decades.
So the party gets most of its funding without having to beg for it door to door, and it gets many
of its votes by default. Except for campaign-trail photo ops, mainstream Democrats barely need to
leave Washington to stay in business.
Still, the Democratic Leadership Council wing of the Democrats have come to believe they've earned
their status, by being the only plausible bulwark against the Republican menace.
This sounds believable because party officials and pundits like Chait keep describing critics
of the party as far-leftists and extremists, whose platform couldn't win a national election.
Dissenting voices like this year's version of Nader, Bernie Sanders, are inevitably pitched as
quixotic egotists who don't have the guts to do what it takes to win. They're described as just out
for 15 minutes of fame, and maybe a few plaudits from teenagers and hippies who'll gush over their
far-out idealism.
But that characterization isn't accurate. The primary difference between the Nader/Sanders platform
and the Gore/Clinton platform isn't rooted in ideology at all, but money.
The former camp refuses to be funded by the Goldmans and Pfizers of the world, while the latter
camp embraces those donors. That's really all this comes down to. There's nothing particularly radical
about not taking money from companies you think you might need to regulate someday. And there's nothing
particularly centrist or "realistic" about taking that same money.
When I think about the way the Democrats and their friends in the press keep telling me I owe
them my vote, situations like the following come to mind. We're in another financial crisis. The
CEOs of the ten biggest banks in America, fresh from having wrecked the economy with the latest harebrained
bubble scheme, come to the Oval Office begging for a bailout.
In that moment, to whom is my future Democratic president going to listen: those bankers or me?
It's not going to be me, that's for sure. Am I an egotist for being annoyed by that? And how exactly
should I take being told on top of that that I still owe this party my vote, and that I should keep
my mouth shut about my irritation if I don't want to be called a Republican-enabler?
The collapse of the Republican Party and its takeover by the nativist Trump wing poses all sorts
of problems, not the least of which being the high likelihood that the Democrats will now get even
lazier when it comes to responding to their voters' interests. The crazier the Republicans get, the
more reflexive will be the arguments that we can't afford any criticism of Democrats anymore, lest
we invite in the Fourth Reich.
I didn't vote for Nader in 2000, and I don't have a problem with anyone arguing this coming Election
Day that we shouldn't all do whatever we can to keep Donald Trump out of office.
What's problematic is the way Beltway media types are forever turning postmortems on the candidacies
of people like Nader or Sanders into parables about the perils of voting your conscience, when what
we're really talking about is the party's unwillingness to untether itself from easy money. This
is how Chait sums up Nader (again, emphasis mine):
"Nader goes on to defend his idiosyncratic belief that people are under no obligation to consider
real-world impacts in their voting behavior. Vote for a third-party candidate, write in a candidate,
follow your own conscience: 'I think voters in a democracy should vote for anybody
they want, including write in or even themselves. I don't believe in any kind of reprimand of voters
who stray from the two-party tyranny.'
"Why should people vote for candidates at all? Since, by definition, the person we most closely
agree with is ourselves, why not just write your own name in every time?"
Ugh. Hey, Jonathan: Voters don't want candidates who agree with them about everything. They just
want one who isn't going to completely take them for granted. If that's become too much to ask, maybe
there's something wrong with the Democratic Party, not people like Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders.
As of June 6th, Hillary Clinton had won nearly 13 million primary votes, while Trump had gotten
some 11.5 million.
After a week in which Donald Trump insulted babies and their mothers and war heroes and their
families, and threw in fire marshals for good measure, the scariest thing to come out of his team
of thugs and political mercenaries is this: the suggestion that civil unrest could follow if he's
denied the presidency.
When the Supreme Court handed George W. Bush the White House in 2000 even though he lost the
popular vote, Al Gore graciously conceded and faded away. When Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama
four years ago although his internal polls showed a Republican triumph, he congratulated the winner
and went off to rediscover his many grandchildren.
Despite party-machine manipulation and considerable voting of the dead, the American institution
that produces a peaceful transfer of power has survived.
But this year, facing a likely trouncing in November, Trump has signaled that he will try to
bring down our democracy with him. His overlooked comment - "I'm afraid the election is going
to be rigged" - is the opening move in a scheme to delegitimize the outcome.
Because Trump is consistently barbaric and such a prolific liar, it's hard to sustain outrage
over any one of his serial scandals. But his pre-emptive attack on the electoral process is very
troubling.
To understand what Trump is up to, listen to his doppelgänger, the veteran political operative
Roger Stone. He will say things that even Trump will not say, usually as a way to allow Trump
to later repeat some variant of them.
It was Stone who called a CNN commentator a "stupid Negro" and accused the Gold Star parents
of Capt. Humayun Khan of being Muslim Brotherhood agents. And it was Stone who threatened to give
out the hotel room numbers of unsupportive Republicans at the party convention, the better for
the Trumpian mob to find them.
He tastes the food for the king to make sure it's not poison. If it doesn't kill Roger Stone,
it will not kill Donald Trump.
Picking up on Trump's rigged-election meme, Stone told a right-wing news outlet that the electoral
fix was already in: "The government will be shut down if they attempt to steal this and swear
Hillary in." The outcome is fair only if Trump wins.
"If there's voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will
be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience," he said.
It would be laughable if the campaign were simply laying down the grand excuse for the label
that will follow the tyrant from Trump Tower after Nov. 8 - loser. But Trump has crossed all barriers
of precedent and civility, from waging an openly racist campaign to loose talk about nuclear weapons.
He has challenged the independence of the judiciary system, and called for a religious test for
entry into this nation. With this latest tactic, he's trying to destabilize the country itself
after he's crushed.
Let's talk about the basis for his sore loser uprising - the gaming of the system. Trump's
casinos were rigged, as are all gambling parlors, in favor of the house. Italian soccer is rigged.
But there is virtually no evidence of modern American elections being fixed.
Studying national elections from 2000 to 2014, and looking at 834 million ballots cast, Justin
Levitt of Loyola Law School found a total of 31 instances of credible voter fraud. Yes, 31. The
Bush administration, after a five-year investigation concluding in 2007, found no evidence of
any organized effort to skew federal elections. A federal judge in Wisconsin found that "virtually
no voter impersonation occurs."
Trump's evidence? "I just hear things and I just feel it." Yeah, he hears things. Like Russia
not actually taking over Crimea. Like President Obama not being an American citizen. Like the
N.F.L. writing him an imaginary letter. "The voter ID situation has turned out to be a very unfair
development," he said this week. "We may have people vote 10 times."
He's right about the unfairness of voter identification, but not in the way he means it. As
a slew of recent court rulings have shown, Republican-led efforts to deny the vote to millions
of citizens has rigged the system against the poor, the disabled, ethnic minorities. A voter-
suppression law in North Carolina targeted blacks "with almost surgical precision," an appeals
court ruled.
Nationwide rigging, though difficult to do in a system with more than 9,000 voting jurisdictions,
is more likely to come from Russian efforts at hacking voting machines, given Vladimir Putin's
apparent attempt to tip things in favor of his fellow authoritarian, the unstable Donald Trump.
With his inability to process basic information, Trump has gone down this road before. After
the 2012 contest, which Romney lost by nearly five million votes, Trump said: "This election is
a total sham and travesty. We are not a democracy." The last statement, judging by the groundwork
he's doing for this November, looks more like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
"Going forward it's like a hundred-to-one advantage, Clinton over Trump...In the current US
presidential race, there is no real contest at all in terms of support by the oligarchs - and
their support tends to be decisive."
But then there's this:
Julian Assange Special: Do Wikileaks Have the Email That'll Put Clinton in Prison?
...From 23rd July - WikiLeaks Just Revealed Mainstream Media Works Directly With Hillary, DNC http://theantimedia.org/wikileaks-media-dnc-hillary/ One of the most damning findings of the leak is the fact Clinton and the DNC have worked closely
with, manipulated, and bullied media outlets.
No doubt the Anti-Trump sentiment is rampant in the MSM and now even a good deal of alternate
media I pick up... but any cursory glance at Hilary vs Trump youtube viewing numbers would give
anyone a fair idea of the state of play. Trumps any publicity is good publicity will eventually
pay dividends.
"... Some powerful figures clearly want any winding down of this 'new' Cold War dead in its tracks. Trump's questioning of the hostilities with Russia, of the purpose of NATO, and of the costs to the US of it being a global hegemon have turned them cold. ..."
"... Especially, if those who reject it, and who opt to stay out of the globalised order, find that they can so do – and emerge empowered and with their influence enhanced? If the political 'rules-based order' does erode, what then will be the future for the inter-connected, and presently shaky, US-led, global financial order and governance?" ..."
""Some powerful figures clearly want any winding down
of this 'new' Cold War dead in its tracks. Trump's questioning of the hostilities with
Russia, of the purpose of NATO, and of the costs to the US of it being a global hegemon
have turned them cold.
Does he (Trump) not understand, (these 'ancien régime' figures seem to say,) that
rapprochement and entente with Putin now, could bring the whole structure tumbling down?
It could collapse America's entire foreign policy? Without a clear Russian 'threat' (the
'threat' being now a constant refrain in the US Beltway), what meaning has NATO? – and
without NATO, why should Europe stay "on side, and [do] the right thing". And if
Damascus, Moscow and Tehran succeed in emerging with political credit and esteem from
the Syria conflict, what price then, the US-led "rules-based" global order?
Especially,
if those who reject it, and who opt to stay out of the globalised order, find that they
can so do – and emerge empowered and with their influence enhanced? If the political
'rules-based order' does erode, what then will be the future for the inter-connected,
and presently shaky, US-led, global financial order and governance?"
"... "The rise and fall of American resistance to organized wealth and power." Simply stated, that mystery was: Why do people rebel at certain moments and acquiesce in others? ..."
"... A "silent majority" would no longer remain conveniently silent. The Tea Party howled about every kind of political establishment in bed with Wall Street, crony capitalists, cultural and sexual deviants, free-traders who scarcely blinked at the jobs they incinerated ..."
"... In the face-off between right-wing populism and neoliberalism, Tea Party legions and Trumpists now find Fortune 500 CEOs morally obnoxious and an economic threat, ..."
"... I couldn't disagree more with this parasite that is attempting to twist history, so as to continue the elitist programming of youth with more distorted understanding of their heritage! ..."
"... If you doubt me then do a little research it what the foundation of 'May Day' is all about! ..."
"... Then check and see how many modern nations all over the world celebrate it as a national holiday (over 100) and then ask why it is not celebrated in America, where it was founded on the blood and sweat of American workers! ..."
"... Yes, there was a socialist system built into this nation and that system was called a society based upon a 'Commonwealth' that translated into todays terminology could be defined as a 'Democratic Socialism'!! ..."
"... "As Chomsky says, 'neoliberalism isn't new and it isn't liberal.' (the 'liberal' refers to the markets, not the politics of its purveyors - Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were all NLs)" ..."
"... Soon, very soon, Sanders shall do what he keeps promising to do, and endorse the dangerous Warmonger of Wall Street, with whom he pretends to disagree, on so many issues. He might even be her Vice Presidential choice, in order to better neuter his supporters, and to minimize the political contortions that he'll have to go through, to convince his supporters to vote for her. Gird yourselves. ..."
"... If you keep in mind that Capitalism is a Pyramid Scheme, the whole thing makes better sense. ..."
"... The problem today is that the worship of money has taken on such proportions, that even the least among us has thoughts of riches coming their way, at any moment, even if it's the false hope of winning the "Lottery", the big one!! And as long as they have those dreams, the cognition of what is happening around them is dulled. ..."
"... I have neighbors who play the state lottery every week. Now and then I mention to them that buying lotto tickets is a fools bet. They reply like trained parrots "you can't win if you don't play", and mumble something about lotto proceeds and "education". ..."
"... "But Republicans have more than shared in this; they have, in fact, often taken the lead in implanting a market- and finance-driven economic system that has produced a few "winners" and legions of losers. Both parties heralded a deregulated marketplace, global free trade, the outsourcing of manufacturing and other industries, the privatization of public services, and the shrink-wrapping of the social safety net." ..."
"... Yes. Reagan was a neoliberal. Both Bushes too... wanna hear something really crazy? Hillary is both a neoliberal AND a neoconservative... true story. ..."
A year ago, in my book
The
Age of Acquiescence, I attempted to resolve a mystery hinted at in its subtitle: "The
rise and fall of American resistance to organized wealth and power." Simply stated, that mystery
was: Why do people rebel at certain moments and acquiesce in others?
Resisting all the hurts,
insults, threats to material well-being, exclusions, degradations, systematic inequalities, over-lordship,
indignities, and powerlessness that are the essence of everyday life for millions would seem natural
enough, even inescapable, if not inevitable. Why put up with all that?
... ... ...
A "silent majority" would no longer remain conveniently silent. The Tea Party howled about
every kind of political establishment in bed with Wall Street, crony capitalists, cultural and sexual
deviants, free-traders who scarcely blinked at the jobs they incinerated, anti-taxers who had
never met a tax shelter they didn't love, and decriers of big government who lived off state subsidies.
In a zip code far, far away, a privileged sliver of Americans who had gamed the system, who had indeed
made gaming the system into the system, looked down on the mass of the previously credulous, now
outraged, incredulously.
...it was The Donald who magically rode that
Trump Tower escalator down to the ground floor to pick up the pieces. His irreverence for
established authority worked. ...worked for millions who had grown infatuated with all the
celebrated Wall Street conquistadors of the
second Gilded Age.
... .. ..
In the face-off between right-wing populism and neoliberalism, Tea Party legions and Trumpists
now find Fortune 500 CEOs morally obnoxious and an economic threat, grow irate at Federal Reserve
bail-outs, and are fired up by the multiple crises set off by global free trade and the treaties
that go with it.
... ... ...
The Sanders campaign had made its stand against the [neo]iberalism of the Clinton elite. It has
resonated so deeply because the candidate, with all his grandfatherly charisma and integrity, repeatedly
insists that Americans should look beneath the surface of a liberal capitalism that is economically
and ethically bankrupt and running a political confidence game, even as it condescends to "the forgotten
man."
Steve Fraser's new book, "The Limousine Liberal: How an Incendiary Image United the Right and
Fractured America" is being published on May 10 by Basic Books. His other books include Every Man
a Speculator, Wall Street, and Labor Will Rule, which won the Philip Taft Award for the best book
in labor history. He also is the co-editor of The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order. His work has
appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, The Nation, The American Prospect, Raritan,
and the London Review of Books. He has written for the online site Tomdispatch.com, and his work
has appeared on the Huffington Post, Salon, Truthout, and Alternet, among others. He lives in New
York City.
R B, Jun 4, 2016
I truly believe that this author, Steve Fraser through his writings has clearly revealed his
role as that of a member of the elite class or even worse one of the blood sucking hounds that
pit the lower classes against each other!!! He defends the capitalists by indicating that for
anyone to think or speak of any form of socialism is a crime against America and that it is counter
to everything this nation has EVER stood for! I couldn't disagree more with this parasite
that is attempting to twist history, so as to continue the elitist programming of youth with more
distorted understanding of their heritage!
Our Fore Fathers wrapped this society in a specific form of government that encouraged free-enterprise,
not capitalism! Guess what Americans, they are different in goals! These Fore Fathers recognized
that a healthy society included a system of economic stimulation, but more importantly that it
has a sense of unity and equality, that left no one to beg in the streets! They achieved this
even in those early and rugged days of colonialism through a system that the capitalists and republicans
have always hated and have done everything in their power to destroy in the past century!
If you doubt me then do a little research it what the foundation of 'May Day' is all about!
Where it began and what it was based upon, who celebrated the day and how it came to be drowned
out of American society. Then check and see how many modern nations all over the world celebrate
it as a national holiday (over 100) and then ask why it is not celebrated in America, where it
was founded on the blood and sweat of American workers!
Yes, there was a socialist system built into this nation and that system was called a society
based upon a 'Commonwealth' that translated into todays terminology could be defined as a 'Democratic
Socialism'!! So Mr. Fraser, I state that you have been writing not to enlighten the general
citizenry of the reality to their world, but to the continued domination of the 'One Percent'!!!
trt3, Jun 3, 2016
@Blueflash The author does not use the term in its proper context ether. I wish people would
stop using the term at all. It does not mean new liberal as in neoconservative, neo-fascist, or
neo-nazi. History of the term can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Over the last year or so many commenters have attempted to paint HRC's economic platform as neoliberalism
as a smear because she takes donations from Wall Street.. Or, that Bill Clinton, because he had
to work with the congress of Newt Gingrich, worked to deregulate investment bankers.
If you want to see the effects of modern day neoliberalism look at Kansas and the devastation
that the Chicago school of economics brings, (as opposed to California with a more Keynesian economic
approach).
Tristero1, Jun 3, 2016
@trt3 @Blueflash From below:
"As Chomsky says, 'neoliberalism isn't new and it isn't liberal.' (the 'liberal' refers
to the markets, not the politics of its purveyors - Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were all NLs)"
If there are no more conservatives, "They're all the same" rules the day and the artists formerly
known as conservatives rule the planet.
Jayne Cullen, Jun 3, 2016
Soon, very soon, Sanders shall do what he keeps promising to do, and endorse the dangerous
Warmonger of Wall Street, with whom he pretends to disagree, on so many issues. He might even
be her Vice Presidential choice, in order to better neuter his supporters, and to minimize the
political contortions that he'll have to go through, to convince his supporters to vote for her.
Gird yourselves.
Faulkner, Jun 3, 2016
The IMF and German banks of the neoliberal international aristocracy are forcing Greece to
rescind its social safety net and assets in order to keep making interest payments - a scheme
to keep them debt slaves to the new financial imperialism, similar to what is happening to Puerto
Rico and the US.
This is neoliberalism's endgame - to create a modern day feudalism, which is why it must be
stopped.
If you keep in mind that Capitalism is a Pyramid Scheme, the whole thing makes better sense.
Just the same way your older brother or sister beat the snot outta you playing monopoly as a kid,
so are the richest among us, burying us, in debt, and in isolation. Now back in TR's day there
was a little better sense about fair play, and helping your fellow man. That was not an overwhelming
altruistic thought that swept the country, at that time, but rather it grew out of years of degrading
abuse imposed by rich Industrialists. This caused a backlash, and corrections were made.
The problem today is that the worship of money has taken on such proportions, that even
the least among us has thoughts of riches coming their way, at any moment, even if it's the false
hope of winning the "Lottery", the big one!! And as long as they have those dreams, the cognition
of what is happening around them is dulled. There will be riots, I am sure. If this persistent
process of moving money to the top, and appreciably nowhere else, the backlash will be inevitable,
and harsh. The longer it takes, the harsher it will be. And if you think not, you've been watching
too many Disney Movies.
cactusbill, Jun 3, 2016
I have neighbors who play the state lottery every week. Now and then I mention to them
that buying lotto tickets is a fools bet. They reply like trained parrots "you can't win if you
don't play", and mumble something about lotto proceeds and "education".
So when you notice the glazed eyes and fist pumping at a Drumpf rally, remember how many Americans
spend rent and food money on lotto tickets.
It's the same people.
AJS197, Jun 3, 2016
@Joel Graham As Chomsky says, 'neoliberalism isn't new and it isn't liberal.' (the 'liberal'
refers to the markets, not the politics of its purveyors - Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were all
NLs). A closer read and you will recognize he implicates both parties in the neoliberal ascent:
"But Republicans have more than shared in this; they have, in fact, often taken the
lead in implanting a market- and finance-driven economic system that has produced a few "winners"
and legions of losers. Both parties heralded a deregulated marketplace, global free trade,
the outsourcing of manufacturing and other industries, the privatization of public services,
and the shrink-wrapping of the social safety net."
AJS1972, Jun 3, 2016
Yes. Reagan was a neoliberal. Both Bushes too... wanna hear something really crazy? Hillary
is both a neoliberal AND a neoconservative... true story.
"... The NSA identified Peña's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process. ..."
"... Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account." ..."
"... At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America. ..."
"... Unlike the Defense Department's Pentagon, the headquarters of the cyberspies fills an entire secret city. Located in Fort Meade, Maryland, halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Maryland, NSA's headquarters consists of scores of heavily guarded buildings. The site even boasts its own police force and post office. ..."
"... One top-secret operation, code-named TreasureMap, is designed to have a "capability for building a near real-time interactive map of the global Internet. … Any device, anywhere, all the time." Another operation, codenamed Turbine, involves secretly placing "millions of implants" - malware - in computer systems worldwide for either spying or cyberattacks. ..."
"... Yet there can never be a useful discussion on the topic if the Obama administration continues to point fingers at other countries without admitting that Washington is engaged heavily in cyberspying and cyberwarfare. ..."
"... The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America ..."
National attention is focused on Russian eavesdroppers' possible targeting of U.S. presidential candidates
and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Yet, leaked top-secret National Security Agency
documents show that the Obama administration has long been involved in major bugging operations against
the election campaigns -- and the presidents -- of even its closest allies.
The United States is,
by far, the world's
most aggressive
nation when it comes to cyberspying and cyberwarfare. The National Security Agency has been eavesdropping
on foreign cities, politicians, elections and entire countries since it first turned on its receivers
in 1952. Just as other countries, including Russia, attempt to do to the United States. What is new
is a country leaking the intercepts back to the public of the target nation through a middleperson.
There is a strange irony in this. Russia, if it is actually involved in the hacking of the computers
of the Democratic National Committee, could be attempting to influence a U.S. election by leaking
to the American public the falsehoods of its leaders. This is a tactic Washington used against the
Soviet Union and other countries during the Cold War.
In the 1950s, for example, President Harry S Truman created the Campaign of Truth to reveal to
the Russian people the "Big Lies" of their government. Washington had often discovered these lies
through eavesdropping and other espionage.
Today, the United States has morphed from a Cold War, and in some cases a hot war, into a cyberwar,
with computer coding replacing bullets and bombs. Yet the American public manages to be "shocked,
shocked" that a foreign country would attempt to conduct cyberespionage on the United States.
NSA operations have, for example, recently delved into elections in Mexico, targeting its
last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by former NSA
contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's
leading presidential candidates, Enrique Peña Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peña won
that election and is now Mexico's president.
The NSA identified Peña's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can
filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The
technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it
as "a repeatable and efficient" process.
Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor,
President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to
President Felipe Calderon's public email account."
At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection
Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world.
It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional
eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San
Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America.
Unlike the Defense Department's Pentagon, the headquarters of the cyberspies fills an entire secret
city. Located in Fort Meade, Maryland, halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Maryland, NSA's
headquarters consists of scores of heavily guarded buildings. The site even boasts its own police
force and post office.
And it is about to grow considerably bigger, now that the NSA cyberspies have merged with the
cyberwarriors of U.S. Cyber Command, which controls its own Cyber Army, Cyber Navy, Cyber Air Force
and Cyber Marine Corps, all armed with state-of-the-art cyberweapons. In charge of it all is a four-star
admiral, Michael S. Rogers.
Now under construction inside NSA's secret city, Cyber Command's new $3.2- billion headquarters
is to include 14 buildings, 11 parking garages and an enormous cyberbrain - a 600,000-square-foot,
$896.5-million supercomputer facility that will eat up an enormous amount of power, about 60 megawatts.
This is enough electricity to power a city of more than 40,000 homes.
In 2014, for a cover story in Wired and a PBS documentary, I spent three days in Moscow
with Snowden, whose last NSA job was as a contract cyberwarrior. I was also granted rare access to
his archive of documents. "Cyber Command itself has always been branded in a sort of misleading way
from its very inception," Snowden told me. "It's an attack agency. … It's all about computer-network
attack and computer-network exploitation at Cyber Command."
The idea is to turn the Internet from a worldwide web of information into a global battlefield
for war. "The next major conflict will start in cyberspace," says one of the secret NSA documents.
One key phrase within Cyber Command documents is "Information Dominance."
The Cyber Navy, for example, calls itself the Information Dominance Corps. The Cyber Army is providing
frontline troops with the option of requesting "cyberfire support" from Cyber Command, in much the
same way it requests air and artillery support. And the Cyber Air Force is pledged to "dominate cyberspace"
just as "today we dominate air and space."
Among the tools at their disposal is one called Passionatepolka, designed to "remotely brick network
cards." "Bricking" a computer means destroying it – turning it into a brick.
One such situation took place in war-torn Syria in 2012, according to Snowden, when the NSA attempted
to remotely and secretly install an "exploit," or bug, into the computer system of a major Internet
provider. This was expected to provide access to email and other Internet traffic across much of
Syria. But something went wrong. Instead, the computers were bricked. It
took down the Internet across the country for a period of time.
While Cyber Command executes attacks, the National Security Agency seems more interested in tracking
virtually everyone connected to the Internet, according to the documents.
One top-secret operation, code-named TreasureMap, is designed to have a "capability for building
a near real-time interactive map of the global Internet. … Any device, anywhere, all the time." Another
operation, codenamed Turbine, involves secretly placing "millions of implants" - malware - in computer
systems worldwide for either spying or cyberattacks.
Yet, even as the U.S. government continues building robust eavesdropping and attack systems, it
looks like there has been far less focus on security at home. One benefit of the cyber-theft of the
Democratic National Committee emails might be that it helps open a public dialogue about the dangerous
potential of cyberwarfare. This is long overdue. The
possible security problems for the U.S. presidential election in November are already being discussed.
Yet there can never be a useful discussion on the topic if the Obama administration continues
to point fingers at other countries without admitting that Washington is engaged heavily in cyberspying
and cyberwarfare.
In fact, the United States is the only country ever to launch an actual cyberwar -- when the Obama
administration used a cyberattack to destroy thousands of centrifuges, used for nuclear enrichment,
in Iran. This was an illegal act of war, according to the Defense Department's own definition.
Given the news reports that many more DNC emails are waiting to be leaked as the presidential
election draws closer, there will likely be many more reminders of the need for a public dialogue
on cybersecurity and cyberwarfare before November.
(James Bamford is the author of The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the
Eavesdropping on America. He is a columnist for Foreign Policy magazine.)
"... The Sanders' campaign, like the Obama phenomenon before it, does not offer a program or strategic direction for addressing the current crisis and contradictions of Western capitalist societies. Instead, it is an expression of the moral and political crisis of Western radicalism. This crisis – which is reflective of the loss of direction needed to inform vision, and fashion a creative program for radical change – is even more acute in the U.S. than Western Europe. Yet, what unites both radical experiences is a tacit commitment to Eurocentrism and the assumptions of normalized white supremacy. ..."
"... I don't like Trump's shrillness, and I don't like Baraka's either. He's too fast and loose with accusations of white supremacy. ..."
"... As the author of this posts makes clear, against Trump are only his words, but against Hillary are her actions. In that sense, it is no contest: Hillary loses. ..."
"... It's Putin we need to worry about. Putin is in league with Space Aliens and they are plotting to destroy the American 21st Century. The Space Aliens have leased a Weather Control Machine to Putin and Putin has set the thermostat on high! Worse yet, it's a 100 year lease. It will last the entire century! ..."
"... Well written! I grow tired of westerners' talk about how peace loving they are, as if by just saying you are for peace makes it so. It's perfectly clear what Clinton represents and how anti-peace she is. Yet so many westerners, especially outside the USA, would choose Clinton while also believing how much they support peace in the world. Thus Trump becomes a convenient excuse to vote for more endless war. Very easy to turn him into the nuclear bomb Prez as one can then support Clinton and claim to be for peace. ..."
"... As I write this it is clearer to me what a rare gem Bernie coulda been. ..."
"... Jingoism; assertions that the 21st century will be the "American Century"; odes to "American Exceptionalism"; ..."
The Sanders' campaign, like the Obama phenomenon before it,
does not offer a program or strategic direction for addressing the
current crisis and contradictions of Western capitalist societies.
Instead, it is an expression of the moral and political crisis of
Western radicalism. This crisis – which is reflective of the loss
of direction needed to inform vision, and fashion a creative
program for radical change – is even more acute in the U.S. than
Western Europe. Yet, what unites both radical experiences is a
tacit commitment to Eurocentrism and the assumptions of normalized
white supremacy.
In their desperate attempt to defend Sanders and paint his
critics as dogmatists and purists, the Sanders supporters have not
only fallen into the ideological trap of a form of narrow "left"
nativism, but also the white supremacist ethical contradiction that
reinforces racist cynicism in which some lives are disposable for
the greater good of the West.
I don't like Trump's shrillness, and I don't like Baraka's
either. He's too fast and loose with accusations of white supremacy.
As the author of this posts makes clear, against Trump are only his
words, but against Hillary are her actions. In that sense, it is no contest:
Hillary loses.
As Obama's tenure has made abundantly clear, words mean
nothing; only actions and facts do. I think this is why the media hates
Trump so: they make their living off words and so think they matter. But
they do only if they describe actions and facts, not gossip. All the
reporting about Trump consists of repeating what he says. So what? He is a
politician. Apart from his lack of experience he's a big question mark. But
lack of experience didn't stop people from voting for Obama.
It's Putin we need to worry about. Putin is in league with Space
Aliens and they are plotting to destroy the American 21st Century. The Space
Aliens have leased a Weather Control Machine to Putin and Putin has set the
thermostat on high! Worse yet, it's a 100 year lease. It will last the
entire century!
To make matters even worse, the Space Aliens have provided Putin with
alien probiotics. This will extend Putin's life by 100 years. We will never
get regime change in Russia! At least not without nuclear intervention.
The diabolical plan is to roast the western world. This will be the end
of the American Century! The Space Aliens also developed miniaturizing
technology a millennia ago. They can fit more of their kind into space ships
that way. The economic growth plan then is to beam the miniaturizing beam at
China and India. The population will shrink to 2 inches tall, which is
pretty short even for the Chinese. They will have much less resource and
environmental impact on the Earth. But they will not devalue their
currencies, resulting in steady growth and they will become the largest and
second largest economies in the world!
I'm sure you agree this is pretty scary stuff and you, your children, and
grandchildren should be scared to death that these powerful forces are
conspiring against our American Century.
Hillary is the only one that knows how to get things done and save us!
Well written! I grow tired of westerners' talk about how peace loving
they are, as if by just saying you are for peace makes it so. It's perfectly
clear what Clinton represents and how anti-peace she is. Yet so many
westerners, especially outside the USA, would choose Clinton while also
believing how much they support peace in the world. Thus Trump becomes a
convenient excuse to vote for more endless war. Very easy to turn him into
the nuclear bomb Prez as one can then support Clinton and claim to be for
peace.
This exercise of moral shenanagans grows tiresome after 18 years. I'd
like to say we have fair weather ethical values in our Sodom and Gomorrah
society. However i don't even think we rate that highly any longer. Moral
hypocrisy is really all we are now capable of. So bring on all the peace
loving westerners to kiss the ring of the next neocon President!
I posit that there is a gresham dynamic of sorts in politics. If I remember
right, this is where bad behavior goes unpunished in an industry and that leads
to only "cheaters" in the space because all the ethical players in the space
can't compete and need to / elect to drop out.
If this is right, then it should be no surprise that outsiders to politics
(representing ethics) don't have the professional "expertise" held by the
insiders. I see it as a straight up trade between ethics and expertise, and we
have been relying on experts too long.
Said another way, I think an ethical person can learn expertise much better
than an expert person can learn ethics.
As I write this it is clearer to me what a rare gem Bernie coulda been.
Professor Wray wastes a whole lot of column inches arguing against Trump
without really offering anything other than a long list of evidence-based
reasons not to vote for Clinton, while regurgitating the tried-and-true LOTE
argument to not vote for Stein (or Johnson, who for reasons unclear to me has
been deemed to be completely untenable by every thinking critic's estimate).
In a landmark statement this week, our commander-in-chief has deemed Trump
somehow fundamentally unqualified to hold that esteemed office. Really? Those
of us with memories that extend beyond the last news cycle might recall the
exact same arguments levied against Obama eight years ago from his opponents on
the right. "He's a 'community organizer', whatever that is," they would claim
about the first term senator, "What has he ever run besides a canned food
drive?"
The right-wing who feared that somehow Obama would be sworn in on Monday and
on Tuesday take their guns away, close Guantanamo and bring all those captives
to criminal trial here on the mainland (whatever threat that entailed, I'm
still not sure), give free health care to everyone at the expense of all their
friends in the health care and pharma industries, and nationalize flagging
industries and banks like some kind of black Lenin… their list of eventually
unrealized worries went on and on.
What was the left's argument to allay these overblown fears during the 2008
campaign? Checks and balances. "Anything the president does has to go through
both houses of Congress" they would claim, and that, the government wisely laid
down by our founding fathers, would prevent this first-term senator from
turning us into a socialist state. Where are those 'checks and balances'
arguments now?
A brash demeanor isn't enough of a reason to not vote for someone, yet we
are supposed to believe that Trump is going to somehow cast off the shackles of
democracy and crown himself dictator based solely on his demagogic personality.
Claiming that Trump won't be able to conduct himself with the esteem required
for that high office, pundits have become armchair psychologists and labeled
the guy a borderline psychotic while comedians beholden to their major media
paymasters have jumped on this bandwagon to have us thinking the guy is nothing
more than an egotistical loon who, by the way, also secretly wants to screw his
daughter.
He's a racist because he wants to have a better control of the border where
thousands of illegal immigrants cross every year, often at their own peril.
He's beholden to nameless Russian oligarchs, we are led to believe without any
real evidence to support the claim. He secretly doesn't want to be president
and is doing this only to stoke that massive ego, we are told by pundits who
have not been correct in any of their other predictions. Maybe he's a secret
democratic plant, we've been told, placed there by Clinton and the DNC to
guarantee her coronation. I honestly can't believe the level of nonsense this
election has generated.
Anything to deflect attention from the fact that Trump is the only major
party candidate left who is honestly questioning aloud the validity of NATO,
criticizing the effects of globalization, asking what advantage it gives us to
antagonize Russia thirty years after the cold war supposedly ended, wondering
whether regime change is the best option on the table while Iraq, Egypt, Libya,
and Syria offer solid examples to the contrary, and whether massive trade deals
cannot be negotiated in such a way that the middle class American worker
doesn't lose in the end.
Instead we are told to look at his funny hair, marvel at his orange skin,
and to count how many times he uses the words 'huge' and 'great'. He eats KFC
with a fork and knife. He hates Muslims because he thinks all their women are
oppressed and told that it is the man's job to do the talking. The list of
deflections away from his policy plans and how they compare and contrast with
his opponent gets longer by the day.
In the end, Professor Wray adds literally nothing to this discussion–
paragraph after paragraph offer plenty of reasons to distrust and dislike
Clinton, plenty of reasons in his mind that voting for a third party is a
wasted vote, but simply nothing to counter the legitimate arguments offered by
Trump to change the direction this country has been headed for the last two
decades.
With all the fearmongering about Trump potentially having his finger on the
nuclear button, I have yet to see anyone bring up Clinton statements during the
last presidential campaign regarding Iran and 'all options being on the table'
which of course meant nukes and her willingness to use them.
Jingoism; assertions that the 21st century will be the "American
Century"; odes to "American Exceptionalism";
more than an Ode! That is a bromide direct from the Neocon
Project for the
New American Century
(PNAC) Redbook!
Neocons are Political Party agnostics, they migrate opportunistically. HRC
is just the latest Host opportunity. That is a strategic advantage they wield.
No party affiliation inertia. Changelings from the Dark Side
Question for Lambert.
I didnt ask yesterday after you stated that no qualified candidate is slated
for this POTUS general election cycle, (I happen to agree).
So tell me, who do you feel was the last qualified POTUS?
This goes to the strategy voting against perceived greater evils.
"... It's hard not to notice, during the American Presidential election drama, that despite all the debates and speeches, and multiple candidates, the terms "Neoliberalism" and "austerity" have yet to be employed, much less explained, these being the two necessary words to describe the dominant economic "regime" of the past 35 years. And this despite the fact that most observers recognize that a "populist revolt" driven by economic unhappiness is underway via the campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. With Trump, of course, we are getting much more, the uglier side of American populism: racism, xenophobia and misogyny, at least; the culture wars at a higher pitch. ..."
"... the underlying driver of his supporters' anger is economic distress, not the ugly cultural prejudices. ..."
It's hard not to notice, during the American Presidential election drama, that despite all the
debates and speeches, and multiple candidates, the terms "Neoliberalism" and "austerity" have yet
to be employed, much less explained, these being the two necessary words to describe the dominant
economic "regime" of the past 35 years. And this despite the fact that most observers recognize that
a "populist revolt" driven by economic unhappiness is underway via the campaigns of Donald Trump
and Bernie Sanders. With Trump, of course, we are getting much more, the uglier side of American
populism: racism, xenophobia and misogyny, at least; the culture wars at a higher pitch.
Yet when Trump commented on the violence which canceled his Chicago rally on the evening of March
11th, he stated that the underlying driver of his supporters' anger is economic distress, not
the ugly cultural prejudices. The diagnoses for the root cause of this anger thus lie at the
heart of the proposed solutions. For students of the Great Depression, this will sound very familiar.
That is because, despite many diversions and sub-currents, we are really arguing about a renewed
New Deal versus an ever more purified laissez-faire, the nineteenth century term for keeping government
out of markets – once those markets had been constructed. "Interventions," however, as we will see,
are still required, because no one, left or right, can live with the brutalities of the workings
of "free markets" except as they exist in the fantasyland of the American Right.
Hillary is a warmonger and is very dangerous in any high position in government (look how much damage
she managed to do while being the Secretary of State), to say nothing about being POTUS. Among other
things Hillary and just too old and too sick to be a President.
Notable quotes:
"... A vote for Stein is a vote against empire. It's a vote against the neocons and their plans to bring the entire world under our rule. ..."
"... Look who Hillary picked as her VP! Look who she hired in her campaign. She doesn't give a damn. Instead of demanding the progressive vote to avoid disaster, have her change course and deserve that vote. People have had enough already. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders sold out. Time to forget him and forget his advice, as the worst vote would be a vote for a neocon and the wars she would bring us. ..."
"... I mean if this was a contest between Hitler and Stalin there would still be people asking others to vote for Stalin so that Hitler wasn't elected and arguing that voting for another candidate is wasting your vote. If you want to vote tactically, vote tactically, and if you want to vote for what you believe, vote for what you believe, but understand what you are saying and don't act as if there was any kind of moral obligation to vote for Clinton, because there isn't. ..."
"... Independent studies and reports have proven that the primaries were rigged beyond any doubt. ..."
"... Hillary's biggest supporters spend most of their time on Wall St, in oil companies, or in corrupt foreign governments. ..."
"... There simply isn't any logic to this OMG Trump will be the worst thing ever. So one must then assume that the argument is created and perpetuated simply to manipulate and mislead. ..."
"... Trump, a detestable person, would get very little of his extreme views passed. Clinton, a detestable person, would get very much of her extreme views passed. ..."
"... Because Clinton is to the right of Obama (accurate provided you aren't a rabid partisan) she is far more likely to get every awful military action she wants. Since she's apparently the "pragmatic" one, how quickly do any of these policy proposals get watered down or gutted entirely in the name of compromise and political realities and "politics being the art of the possible"? ..."
"... True. It ends here. A vote for Hillary is a vote that supports and condones the corruption of the DNC and Clinton 's campaign. Clearly, they had handicapped Sanders from the start. Starting with an 'insurmountable 400+ superdelegates before Bernie entered the race which the MSM, who, in collusion with the DNC, pushed as "an impossible lead to overcome" skewed the primaries results in favor of Clinton. ..."
"... I won't vote for someone who has to nuance her answers when it comes to the way in which she's conducted herself during her tenure at the Department of State. This from a former Clinton supporter in 2008. ..."
"... Glad to know that they would rather have a Trump presidency instead of banding together with the Dems. ..."
"... Please see what you will be doing if Trump becomes president. He doesn't stand for ANYTHING that Bernie stands for. ..."
"... Not this election. Certainly not the next election. Or the one after that. At least Hilly is Dem. Best laugh of the day. ..."
"But I am concerned that the DNC elected Hillary in the first place. Because they [Trump and Clinton]
are either tied or she's even losing in some polls. Whereas Bernie consistently beat Trump by double
digits [in hypothetical match-up polls]. We could win the House and the Senate back with those kind
of numbers."
... ... ...
"I've read hundreds of the DNC leaked emails. I feel that our votes were stolen. I don't think
she won the primary fair and square. And if she had to cheat to do it, maybe she shouldn't become
the first woman president."
"I think by me voting for the third-party candidate, along with millions of other Bernie supporters,
it will maybe show that the third party is possible in the future." JCDavis Tom J. Davis
What has Jill Stein ever done that qualifies her to lead a large nation with international
obligations and not just those to it's own citizens?
A vote for Stein is a vote against empire. It's a vote against the neocons and their plans
to bring the entire world under our rule.
pdehaan -> Tom J. Davis
It's quite something for democrats to demand the progressive votes for Hillary and trying to
induce a guilt trip in order to avoid Trump from being elected.
Why don't you demand Hillary Clinton to earn that vote?? For example, by having her guarantee
in no uncertain means that she'll oppose TPP and associated trade deals in any form or fashion
(instead of in it's current form)? Why don't you demand Hillary Clinton to be less hawkish and
dangerous wrt foreign policy instead? Why don't you demand her to work towards a $15 minimum wage,
income equality and social protection instead? It's very easy to demand one's vote just because
the other side is even worse. This issue comes up every election and it's just maintaining the
status quo.
Look who Hillary picked as her VP! Look who she hired in her campaign. She doesn't give
a damn. Instead of demanding the progressive vote to avoid disaster, have her change course and
deserve that vote. People have had enough already.
JCDavis -> palindrom
Bernie Sanders sold out. Time to forget him and forget his advice, as the worst vote would
be a vote for a neocon and the wars she would bring us.
JCDavis -> davshev
Think of it this way--Trump may be a clown, but Hillary is a warmonger who will bring us war
with Russia. and a war with Russia will be a disaster for everyone. So if your vote for Stein
gives us Trump, that is not as bad as it could be.
cynictomato
Oh Please! If you want to vote for Clinton just vote for her but let the rest do whatever they
want. The idea that if you vote for another candidate besides the two main ones you are wasting
your vote is what has turned the USA in a two party democracy and is detrimental for the citizens
because the main parties only have to worry about presenting a better option than their rival,
not about presenting a good candidate.
I mean if this was a contest between Hitler and Stalin there would still be people asking
others to vote for Stalin so that Hitler wasn't elected and arguing that voting for another candidate
is wasting your vote. If you want to vote tactically, vote tactically, and if you want to vote
for what you believe, vote for what you believe, but understand what you are saying and don't
act as if there was any kind of moral obligation to vote for Clinton, because there isn't.
The idea that the Democratic National Committee, and the Clinton campaign, "rigged" the Democratic
primary is fairly widespread
It's not an IDEA it's a FACT.
Independent studies and reports have proven that the primaries were rigged beyond any doubt.
(Guardian please study these reports and write an in depth article on the rigged primaries)
On foreign policy, Clinton is certainly not "the much lesser threat to their ideology". She
has made it clear that aggressive stance on Syria/Ukraine will be taken, increasing the odds of
an uncontained global conflict.
NoOneYouKnowNow -> kevdflb
Hillary's biggest supporters spend most of their time on Wall St, in oil companies, or
in corrupt foreign governments.
mrmetrowest -> Iskierka
Are Nader voters more responsible for Bush than the hundreds of thousands of Democrats that
voted for him? Are they more responsible than the millions who stayed home? The 'Nader cost Gore
the election' canard is one of the least logical pieces of conventional wisdom ever.
Mrs Clinton is on record as supporting a no-fly zone in Syria - an act that will further embroil
us in the Middle East and might get us into a blow-up with Russia. If this happens, are Clinton
supporters willing to be responsible for her actions?
Vote Green, if that's what your conscience says. The anti-Trump voters' moral position is less
pure than they think; in four years they'll be voting against someone else. This goes on forever.
mrmetrowest -> Rolf Erikson
In 1964, voters were presented with a choice between LBJ and Goldwater. Goldwater was considered
to hold extreme political views which caused many to vote for LBJ, who won a landslide victory.
LBJ did great things domestically, however he massively escalated the war in Vietnam, leading
to the deaths on tens of thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese. To what extent are
those who voted for LBJ responsible for those deaths? Likewise, if Mrs Clinton gets us into a
war in Syria, or Iran, will you accept responsibility for helping put her in office?
Cue the trolls insisting that you must, must vote for their preferred candidate. If people vote
Green, that is their democratic choice and right. It is also because the Democratic Party saw fit
to foist a terrible candidate on the people.
Bernie has #DemExit and is returning to his roots as an Independent and said he will run in
2018 for the Senate as an Independent! Follow Bernie's lead and exit the corrupt, neoLiberal Democratic
Party! Do you want 4 more War Years? Peace NOW or nothing later!
Vote for peace and prosperity - Dr Jill Stein and the Green Economy!
Sawant is a complete pile-driver of a debater, a devastatingly accurate verbal machine gun,
and she utterly crushed...but, to me, Traister still won. The 'vote your heart' constituency diagnose
the situation near perfectly, and push for political action that isn't beholden to election cycles
but they then just fall short; they then turn on a dime and act like the electoral system isn't
broken, like a General Election is an 'end game' and is meaningful. Whereas L.E.V. adherents don't
close their eyes to what's on offer and it's they, not 'vote your heart' people, who see a General
Election for what it is: a broken democracy offering a "choice" between two types of terrible
but one type of terrible is always going to be less terrible. Underneath Traister's tiresome,
wilfully blind, if well written, Hillary hagiographies, I think that she knows this too.
Of course, the Hillary supporters and media cheerleaders will spin around from beseeching for
a vote against Miller/Barron/Drumpf/von Clownstick to then, if Hillary gets a solid victory, claiming
a great win, after all -"look at the votes *for* Hillary Clinton!" - when she would only win because
of votes *against* the short-fingered hysteric. They'll steal votes cast against Drumpf and disingenuously
claim them as votes *for* Hillary. So what? 'Cynical, dishonest narcissists in cynical, dishonest
narcissism' shock! "Let the baby have its bottle", as they say, and let them stew in their own
juice after progressives perhaps bolt to the formation of a new party or a re-structured Green
party after election day.
Think outside of election cycles and it's precisely *because* one should do so, and treat General
Elections as unimportant towards the big scheme of things, that one should vote for better of
two historically disliked candidates because other days will offer less sickening choices and
huge swathes of the country will gain/be better off even if you don't. It would ironically be
Clintonian to punish Clinton and the DNC for not having a sufficiently collectivist outlook by
personally selling out others and allowing the short-fingered vulgarian to snake oil his tiny-handed
way in. Women seeking to retain the right to choose
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/07/mike-pence-says-roe-v-wade-will-be-overturned.html Mexican
people, Muslim people, immigrants in general will be just some of those who'll be in your spiritual
debt if you're a swing state voter who'll bite the bullet. You don't have to support someone in
order to give them your vote.
The idea that the Democratic National Committee, and the Clinton campaign, "rigged" the
Democratic primary is fairly widespread among Sanders supporters
This is something that really annoys me. You're implying that this is not an undeniable fact clearly
backed by written evidence fact by calling it an ''idea''.
The thing about Hilary is that she is not by any stretch of imagination a good candidate. She
is deeply unpopular because of who she is as a politician. You cannot expect people to ignore
this. When the DNC willingly and knowingly rigged the election in favour of a bad candidate it
was done based on the partly flawed calculation that the fear of any Republican winning over a
Democrat would suffice to back their candidate no matter what.
And I say partly true, because a lot of the people who would vote for Democrats anyways will
do so even if they backed Bernie.
However Bernie (and to a far smaller extent Trump) energised and brought in people who might
not normally vote at all because they're fed up with the establishment. Once they found their
voice in Bernie and got fired up, they will vote but on for the thing they despise the most (aka
the establishment like Clinton). Nor should they. It was up to the Democratic Party to recognise
the candidate that would have taken advantage of this and they willingly failed in doing so. Even
when picking a VP for Clinton they failed to make even the smallest gesture to these people. So,
no there is no reason good enough for them to switch and vote for someone they despise and know
for sure represents the things they hate.
Now there is also the irony that they're attacking Trump for his fear mongering, while they
themselves are also creating fear mongering amongst voters about what a monster Trump would be.
It's all about fear even when they pretend it's not and that is sickening.
There simply isn't any logic to this OMG Trump will be the worst thing ever. So one must then
assume that the argument is created and perpetuated simply to manipulate and mislead.
Trump, a detestable person, would get very little of his extreme views passed. Clinton,
a detestable person, would get very much of her extreme views passed.
Because Clinton is to the right of Obama (accurate provided you aren't a rabid partisan)
she is far more likely to get every awful military action she wants. Since she's apparently the
"pragmatic" one, how quickly do any of these policy proposals get watered down or gutted entirely
in the name of compromise and political realities and "politics being the art of the possible"?
And of course, the useless, vapid, Democrat partisans will, for the most part, say nothing.
See: 8-years of Obama as Bush 2.0.
Get your facts straight. Those have been labeled FALSE!
However the corruption and neoLiberal war supporter that is hung on Clinton has been proven
by her actions with "regime change" in Libya and coup support in Honduras. And then there is the
corruption of weapons for charitable contributions for the Clinton Foundation!
Do we want peace and prosperity that only ill Stein can bring with her Green Economy or do
we want 4 more years of war and job loss? Simple choice.
Obama was very different to bush on almost every issue, the differences might not be massive but
they have a real impact on people. For example on climate change obama successfully pushed for
polices that will help reduce emissions while bush did literally nothing. It will be the same
for clinton.
You are correct that Obama was different from Bush, you're just wrong about the direction.
Drones/Illegal Wars: Expanded
Wall St/Corporate Corruption: Went unpunished & expanded
Domestic Spying: Expanded
Constitutional Violations: Expanded
War or Whistleblowers: Created
He has done nothing but act like climate change is important. He has not done anything meaningful
except offer more hopeful rhetoric, the only thing the Democratic candidates seem to be good at
lately.
You're being ridiculous. If Trump wins, the republicans win the Senate and the House and he will
sign dozens of Republican bills that will set the progressive movement back a decade or more.
He will also nominate a right wing judge to replace Scalia Anna the SCOTUS will be in conservative
hands for another generation.
If you don't see that, you have a severe case of denial.
You are aware that you can vote for candidates for other positions that are not in the same as
the party as the president you vote for, yes? You can not vote Clinton but still vote Team D everywhere
else.
As an institution, SCOTUS has held back progress almost as often as it has helped it. So no,
i'm not one of those easily swayed by the terrible "but think of the appointments!" argument.
Perhaps it becoming even clearer that it is an anti-democratic institution is the best way to
achieve real justice.
The old worse of two evils logic that guarantees an eternity of bad candidates.
Cliff Olney
True. It ends here. A vote for Hillary is a vote that supports and condones the corruption
of the DNC and Clinton 's campaign. Clearly, they had handicapped Sanders from the start. Starting
with an 'insurmountable 400+ superdelegates before Bernie entered the race which the MSM, who,
in collusion with the DNC, pushed as "an impossible lead to overcome" skewed the primaries results
in favor of Clinton.
What a hollow victory it must be for Hillary, but then, one must have a conscience to feel
such things, and as we can see from her support for the coup in Honduras, she lacks this empathy.
"Give them a good attorney before we deport the children back to Honduras", resonates with those
of us that have a conscience.
Not going to happen.
Sanders was honest. So is Stein. I won't vote for someone who has to nuance her answers
when it comes to the way in which she's conducted herself during her tenure at the Department
of State. This from a former Clinton supporter in 2008.
Clinton or Trump? The duopoly's choice for president is a dry heave.
BradStorch -> Mardak
How will you push Clinton to the left? What leverage will you have after you gave her a pass
on Iraq, Libya, Wall Street etc.? If she runs against Ted Cruz in 2020 you'll vote for her whether
or not she started any wars or did anything from Bernie's platform, right?
brooks303
Glad to know that they would rather have a Trump presidency instead of banding together with
the Dems. I understand the need for a three, or even four party system. We should work toward
that at the ballot box.
But not with this election. Please see what you will be doing if Trump
becomes president. He doesn't stand for ANYTHING that Bernie stands for. At least Hillary is a
Democrat.
Indie60 -> brooks303
Not this election. Certainly not the next election. Or the one after that. At least Hilly
is Dem. Best laugh of the day.
christinaak -> brooks303
We would have to amend the Constitution to have an effective multiparty system, because of
the current requirement of 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency. Under the current system
it would be all but impossible for one candidate to obtain 270 electoral votes in a truly competitive
multiparty system. If one candidate does not obtain the required number then the House of Representatives
gets
Khizr Muazzam Kahn moved from Pakistan to the United Arab Emirates prior
to emigrating into the U.S. Kahn is directly affiliated with the
advancement of Muslim immigration into the United States.
Mr. Kahn runs
a law firm in New York called KM Kahn Law Office:
Kahn's primary area of expertise -as advertised- is legal aide and
legal services for Muslim immigration assistance.
Attorney Khizr Kahn also used to work for Hogan, Hartson and Lovells
law firm within Washington DC which has direct ties to the Clinton
Foundation.
... ... ...
Hogan, Hartson, Lovells are one of the lobbying entities for Saudi
affairs in Washington DC.
[…] Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm
hired by the Saudis
, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of
Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show. Robert Kyle, a lobbyist from
the firm, has bundled $50,850 for Clinton's campaign"
"Many lawyers at Hogan Lovells remember the week in 2004 when U.S.
Army Capt. Humayun Khan lost his life to a suicide bomber. Then-Hogan &
Hartson attorneys mourned the death because the soldier's father, Khizr
Khan, a Muslim American immigrant, was among their beloved colleagues"
Mr. Khizr Kahn is not some arbitrary Muslim voice called upon randomly
to speak at the Democrat National Convention on behalf of former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Attorney Kahn is a well documented, and well compensated, conscript
and activist for the advancement of Islamic interests into the United
States. So it should come as no surprise to see the Clinton Machine use
Kahn to serve both of their interests in this political election season.
–
The Conservative Treehouse
...
But little known
is the fact that Lynch was a litigation partner for eight years at a major Washington law firm
that served the Clintons.
Lynch was with the Washington-headquartered international
law firm
Hogan & Hartson LLP from March 2002 through April 2010.
According to documents Hillary Clinton's first presidential campaign made public in
2008, Hogan & Harrison's New York-based partner Howard Topaz was the tax lawyer who filed
income tax returns for Bill and Hillary Clinton beginning in 2004. –GR
Khizr Muazzam Khan graduated in Punjab University Law College, as the New York Times
confirms. He specialized in International Trade Law in Saudi Arabia. An interest lawyer for
Islamic oil companies Khan wrote a paper, called In Defense of OPEC to defend the Organization of
the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), an intergovernmental oil company consisting of mainly
Islamic countries.
But more than this, Khan is a promoter of Islamic Sharia Law in the U.S. He was a co-founder of
the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law (Islamic Sharia). Khan's fascination with
Islamic Sharia stems from his life in Saudi Arabia. During the eighties Khan wrote a paper titled
Juristic Classification of Islamic [Sharia] Law. In it he elucidated on the system of Sharia law
expressing his reverence for "The Sunnah [the works of Muhammad] - authentic tradition of the
Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)." A snapshot of his essay can be seen here:
But Khan's fascination with Islam isn't the only issue. What is more
worrisome is that at the bottom of the intro, Khan shows his appreciation
and the source of his work and gives credit to an icon of the Muslim
Brotherhood:
"The contribution to this article of S. Ramadan's writing is
greatly acknowledged."
This alone speaks volumes. Khan used the works of
S. Ramadan to lay his foundation for his
inspiration regarding the promotion of Sharia. S.
Ramadan is Said Ramadan, head of the Islamic
Center in Geneva and a major icon of the Muslim
Brotherhood, the grandson of Hassan Al-Banna the
founder and hero of the Muslim Brotherhood which
spread terrorism throughout the world.
In
regards to his son and his sacrifice, on the
other side of the coin, many were the 'Muslim
martyrs' who joined the US military. Ali Abdul
Saoud Mohamed, for example, enlisted in the
Special Forces of the US Army; he was a double
agent for Al-Qaeda. How about Hasan K. Akbar, a
Muslim American soldier who murdered and injured
fifteen soldiers. There was Bowe Bergdahl, an
American Muslim soldier who deserted his men to
join the Taliban, a desertion which led to six
American being ambushed and killed while they
were on the search looking for him. And of course
the example of Nidal Malik Hassan, who murdered
fourteen Americans in cold blood in Fort Hood.
What about infiltration into the U.S. military
like Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, a major Muslim thinker
for the Muslim Minority Affairs, an icon of the
Abedin family (Hillary's aid Human) who, while he
served in U.S. military, called on arming Muslims
to fight the U.S? Al-Alwani is an IMMA (Institute
of Muslims Minority Affairs) favorite, Taha Jaber
al-Alwani, whom the Abedins say is the source for
their doctrine (see Abedins-Meii-Kampf) is an
ardent anti-Semite who by the way, runs the
United States Department of Defense program (out
of all places) for training Muslim military
chaplains in the U.S. military. Via:
Shoebat.com
Paul Vallely, a retired Army general turned conservative activist, defended Donald Trump's
attacks on the Muslim-American family of a slain service member yesterday, telling Newsmax host
Ed Berliner that the late soldier's father, Khizr Khan is "a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer" and
saying that the mother, Ghazala Khan, made herself a "political pawn" when she stood silently by
her husband's side "as most Muslim women do."
Vallely noted that he himself lost a son in the armed forces, saying that Khizr Khan "put himself
out there" and became a "political pawn" when he agreed to speak against Trump at the Democratic
National Convention. He accused Kahn of being "the one that initiated the attack against Trump"
and claimed that Khan is "a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer," a baseless charge that Berliner
challenged.
When Berliner asked Vallely about Trump's attacks on Ghazala Khan, who, overcome by emotion,
chose not to speak onstage at the convention, Vallely repeated Trump's charge that she had been
silenced by her religion: "Well, she did stand there, as most Muslim women do and they don't say
anything, so there again, when you put yourself up into being a political pawn like that, you've
got to take the heat."
"... I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region. ..."
"... Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. ..."
"... The warmongering neocon woman gets a little careless in the second part of her statement, forgetting "nuclear" and reverting to the 2008 declaration. Worse, she says that even if they don't have nukes quite yet, an attack on Holy Israel means it's "glow-in-the-dark" time in Iran. ..."
"... It really is a tragic thing to be talking about. That's the way the Madeleine Albright ***** – the one who has declared that any woman who doesn't vote for Hillary will go to hell – put it when speaking of 500,000 dead Iraqi kids. Darned shame, but it had to be done. ..."
"... Don't even think about a possibility why Hillary might be so devoted to Israel. When she was in the Senate the woman went to a prayer breakfast with some of the most repulsive of the Conservative Republicans. Nobody at all is talking about Hillary's religion. If she is one of the Rapture types, her access to nukes would mean an End-Timer finally has a chance to force God to get off the pot and start with the Second Coming. ..."
"... Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president. ..."
"... You are right. She is a huge danger. Not only due to her frail health, age and history of blood clots. As Huma Abedin noted in her deposition, she often is "confused". Which means that she does not have "normal" level of situational awareness. ..."
"... After the dissolution of the USSR and the "triumphal march" of neoliberalism, the US elite by-and-large lost the sense of self-preservation. ..."
"... Like sociopaths she has no self-control, no sense of self-preservation, no boundaries. ..."
Hillary 2008: "George Stephanopoulos: "Senator Clinton, would you [extend
our deterrent to Israel]?"
Hillary Clinton: "Well, in fact I think that we should be looking
to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel.
Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel
would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the
same with other countries in the region."
Massive Retaliation has always had the meaning of a 'massive' nuclear
attack.
Hillary 2016: "MR. CUOMO: Iran: some language recently. You said if Iran
were to strike Israel, there would be a massive retaliation. Scary words.
Does massive retaliation mean you'd go into Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is
that what that's supposed to suggest?
SEN. CLINTON: Well, the question was if Iran were to launch a nuclear
attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to
know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to
understand that.
Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their
society, because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear
weapons program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider
launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.
That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to
understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something
that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic."
The warmongering neocon woman gets a little careless in the second
part of her statement, forgetting "nuclear" and reverting to the 2008 declaration.
Worse, she says that even if they don't have nukes quite yet, an attack
on Holy Israel means it's "glow-in-the-dark" time in Iran.
It really is a tragic thing to be talking about. That's the way the
Madeleine Albright ***** – the one who has declared that any woman who doesn't
vote for Hillary will go to hell – put it when speaking of 500,000 dead
Iraqi kids. Darned shame, but it had to be done.
But move on – it's the insane Trump who can't be trusted with nukes.
Don't even think about a possibility why Hillary might be so devoted
to Israel. When she was in the Senate the woman went to a prayer breakfast
with some of the most repulsive of the Conservative Republicans. Nobody
at all is talking about Hillary's religion. If she is one of the Rapture
types, her access to nukes would mean an End-Timer finally has a chance
to force God to get off the pot and start with the Second Coming.
Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president.
likbez , August 5, 2016 11:29 pm
Hi Zachary,
> Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president.
You are right. She is a huge danger. Not only due to her frail health,
age and history of blood clots. As Huma Abedin noted in her deposition,
she often is "confused". Which means that she does not have "normal" level
of situational awareness.
For some specialties like airplane pilots this is a death sentence. Unfortunately,
if elected, she can take the country with her.
While the USSR existed, as bad as it was for people within its borders,
it was a blessing for the people of the USA, as it kept the elite in check
and frightful to behave in "natural, greedy and delusional "Masters of the
Universe" way".
After the dissolution of the USSR and the "triumphal march" of neoliberalism,
the US elite by-and-large lost the sense of self-preservation.
If you read what Hillary utters like "no fly zone" in Syria and other
similar staff, to me this looks like a sign of madness, plain and simple.
No reasonable politician should go of the cliff like that, if stakes are
not extremely high.
And MSM try to sell her as a more reasonable politician then Trump. In
reality she is like Kelvin absolute zero. You just can't go lower. The only
hope is that she is a puppet and it does not matter what she utters.
But if we take her statements about Syria and Russia at face value, she
is either dangerously ignorant or (more probably) is a female sociopath.
Like sociopaths she has no self-control, no sense of self-preservation,
no boundaries.
So her arrogant and reckless behavior as for "getting rich quick" and
with the private "bathroom" email server is a sign of more general and more
dangerous tendency.
Neocons are still way too powerful. They dominate MSM and essentially
dictate the agenda.
This idea of "Khan gambit" gets more and more currency...
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is just about everything everybody has said about him – excepting of course the "insane" business. That said, it remains he is not as risky a prospect as President Hillary. The reason those neocons and neoliberals are so desperate for Hillary is that they desire more wars. More stuff like the TPP treaty. ..."
"... Poking a nuclear Russia is NOT a good idea. Nor is handing our government over to Corporations. ..."
"... I continue to contend that Trump, bad as he very obviously is, would not likely be as terrible has Hillary. ..."
"... If Trump truly is a Manchurian Candidate for the Clintons, we might see much worse from him. Wikileaks probably has some awfully bad dirt on Hillary, and if the election gets close on that account, I'd expect to see Trump do whatever it takes to lose. ..."
"... HP was a disaster by all reckoning, but it's also generally true that women and minorities are more likely to become CEOs of companies that are in trouble ..."
"... Zack Smith I'm with you bro, do not give up the fight against the neocons. Meg Whitman, Michael Bloomberg and many others like them are the oligarchs in their little corporate castles that have betrayed America. HRC and now the DNC, main stream news media and large corporations have flipped and become the main mail carriers of the oligarchs billionaires club. ..."
"... Trump is the outsider now who is being demonized by the elites of the oligarchs. They do not want any change in any meaningful way and are determined to try to undermine and destroy Trump by any means… Scandal after scandal after scandal with a life time of with HRC do you think that the American people would see trough the smoke, mirrors and deception. ..."
"... The American public is very gullible and mis informed today due to the oligarchs determination to stay in control of greed, profit and power…The greatest driving force-mission of Wall St. today is profit above anything and the rule of law is dead. This is what and why they need HRC to be their next president at any cost…. ..."
"... The endorsements of Whitman, Bloomberg, neo-cons, etc. are not endorsements of Clinton but endorsements for the movement to keep Trump out of the White House. They are not pro-HRC, they are anti-Trump. In any other election year and against any other sane Republican candidate they would be opposed to Clinton. ..."
"... Even the neocon Washington Post is getting a little worried about the extent of the DUMP ON TRUMP crusade. As Robert Parry reports in his current essay "The Danger of Excessive Trump Bashing" the momentum of a successful campaign will have serious consequences. "The grave danger from this media behavior is that it will empower the neocons and liberal hawks already nesting inside Hillary Clinton's campaign to prepare for a new series of geopolitical provocations once Clinton takes office." ..."
"... Half the things attributed to Trump were spun from whole cloth and printed as fact. That Joe Sarbourough's sisters ex roomates cousin (apologies to Dark Helmet) thought she heard Trump ask about nukes doesn't impress me much . ..."
"... Of course nukes are meant to be used , otherwise we wasted a lot of money on the 20,000 ++++ that we bought during the last 70 years. ..."
"... But if we take her statements about Syria and Russia at face value she is either dangerously ignorant or (more probably) is a female sociopath. Like sociopaths she has no self-control, no sense of self-preservation, no boundaries. So her arrogant and reckless behavior as for "getting rich quick" and with the private "bathroom" email server is a sign of more general and more dangerous tendency. ..."
"…when it's become undeniable that Trump is not sane."
"Trump is publicly descending into outright madness." Trump is many ugly things, but the
proposition he is clinically insane is "a bridge too far".
"The dam is bursting, and it barely has anything to do with Clinton or whom she asks for
an endorsement." That is true. The neocons and neoliberals have decided that nothing less than
a total assault on Trump will do the job, and that's exactly what they have arranged.
Trump is just about everything everybody has said about him – excepting of course the "insane"
business. That said, it remains he is not as risky a prospect as President Hillary. The reason
those neocons and neoliberals are so desperate for Hillary is that they desire more wars. More
stuff like the TPP treaty.
Poking a nuclear Russia is NOT a good idea. Nor is handing our government over to Corporations.
Zachary Smith August 3, 2016 10:27 pm
To Noni Mausa
August 3, 2016 8:48 pm
I hope you haven't gotten the impression I like Donald Trump. Or that I'll vote for him. The
man lost me when he endorsed torture. He compounded that when he said he would outsource the Supreme
Court to the Heritage Foundation loons. But any chance of redeeming himself was lost with the
selection of Pence as VP. We've had that dingleberry as governor here in Indiana, and the thought
of Pence being one heartbeat from the Oval Office is at least as scary as President Hillary.
In 2016 I'm taking what some will consider to be the coward's way out. Like in 2012, I'm not
voting for either candidate. Yes, somebody else will select who gets to be President because both
of them are too far over the edge of pure evil for me. We're going to have a very bad time ahead
of us, no matter what happens in November. Just as in 2012, I won't be subconsciously in bed with
"my" candidate because I voted for him as a "lesser evil". Though I voted for Obama in 2008, after
I'd learned what a worthless *** he was, never again. In Indiana Jill Stein won't be on the ballot,
so I'll leave the top part of the Computer Voting Device empty, and can only hope the computer
hackers won't turn the empty spot to a vote for Hillary.
But I continue to contend that Trump, bad as he very obviously is, would not likely be
as terrible has Hillary. That's just an educated guess of mine, but that's how I see it.
If Trump truly is a Manchurian Candidate for the Clintons, we might see much worse from
him. Wikileaks probably has some awfully bad dirt on Hillary, and if the election gets close on
that account, I'd expect to see Trump do whatever it takes to lose. Like – "This last mass
gun slaughter was one too many. As President I will work to amend the Second Amendment to restrict
gun ownership." Whatever it takes.
J.Goodwin August 4, 2016 10:28 am
Meg Whitman is not the kind of person you want endorsing you if you're pretending to have
a progressive agenda. She is fundamentally on the side of business over anything like workers
rights, environmental concerns, she in favor of forms of immigration reform that are primarily
aimed at benefiting business over labor.
Like Hillary, she had a long and tight history with Goldman Sachs. She's not even known in
business for her acumen. She had some major acquisition failures particularly Skype when she was
at eBay (you can argue the company had grown beyond her capacity, this happens). HP was a
disaster by all reckoning, but it's also generally true that women and minorities are more likely
to become CEOs of companies that are in trouble (men can always go somewhere else, and decline
the worst roles).
Zack Smith I'm with you bro, do not give up the fight against the neocons. Meg Whitman,
Michael Bloomberg and many others like them are the oligarchs in their little corporate castles
that have betrayed America. HRC and now the DNC, main stream news media and large corporations
have flipped and become the main mail carriers of the oligarchs billionaires club.
Trump is the outsider now who is being demonized by the elites of the oligarchs. They do
not want any change in any meaningful way and are determined to try to undermine and destroy Trump
by any means… Scandal after scandal after scandal with a life time of with HRC do you think that
the American people would see trough the smoke, mirrors and deception.
The American public is very gullible and mis informed today due to the oligarchs determination
to stay in control of greed, profit and power…The greatest driving force-mission of Wall St. today
is profit above anything and the rule of law is dead. This is what and why they need HRC to be
their next president at any cost….
ms 57 August 4, 2016 11:13 am
The endorsements of Whitman, Bloomberg, neo-cons, etc. are not endorsements of Clinton
but endorsements for the movement to keep Trump out of the White House. They are not pro-HRC,
they are anti-Trump. In any other election year and against any other sane Republican candidate
they would be opposed to Clinton.
In this election year, with Trump running for President of the United States, the hostility
toward HRC on this page never takes into account what a Trump victory would look like. It is as
if they see Trump as some benign player "who will "change" when he gets in office. While the criticism
of HRC are right, the support for Trump as President is either wishful thinking, a delusion or
a hallucination. It's like criticizing your left hand while your right hand holds a dagger to
your throat.
Even the neocon Washington Post is getting a little worried about the extent of the DUMP
ON TRUMP crusade. As Robert Parry reports in his current essay "The Danger of Excessive Trump
Bashing" the momentum of a successful campaign will have serious consequences. "The grave danger
from this media behavior is that it will empower the neocons and liberal hawks already nesting
inside Hillary Clinton's campaign to prepare for a new series of geopolitical provocations once
Clinton takes office."
Source: Consortium News site.
Bronco, August 4, 2016 7:13 pm
MS 57 I don't know why you would think I'm a trump supporter , I voted for Sanders in the primary.
You know that thing Team Hillary rigged ? And the media has been deflecting attention from with
all its might?
Half the things attributed to Trump were spun from whole cloth and printed as fact. That
Joe Sarbourough's sisters ex roomates cousin (apologies to Dark Helmet) thought she heard Trump
ask about nukes doesn't impress me much .
Of course nukes are meant to be used , otherwise we wasted a lot of money on the 20,000
++++ that we bought during the last 70 years.
likbez , August 5, 2016 12:01 am
I find "Khan gambit" using Democratic conventions podium to be a well prepared trap.
While the fact that Trump got into in (and this is plain vanilla swift boating, so any normal
politicians would sense the danger immediately) does not characterize him well, the shame IMHO
is on neocons who created this trap.
BTW endorsement by Whitman is nothing to be proud of. She is a regular neoliberal. So what
would you expect? That's simply silly not to expect that some/most of them will not cross the
party line. Neocons like Kagan were the first, now neoliberals follow the suit. The same is even
more true about Bloomberg (with his media empire being essentially propaganda arm of GS)
I think Trump demonstrated courage by opposing well oiled with money propaganda machine of
neocons.
In their zeal to discredit Trump some MSM became pretty disingenuous and that might have the
opposite effect, if "Khan gambit" is overplayed:
While many Republicans have rebuked Donald Trump for attacking Khizr Khan and his wife - who
lost their U.S. Army captain son, Humayun, in the war in Iraq - some of Trump's allies are rallying
to his side and, in the process, attacking Khan.
Trump's longtime ally, political consultant Roger Stone, who has a long history as a controversialist,
set the pattern on Twitter Sunday night by linking to an article that accused Khan, an immigration
lawyer from Virginia, of being an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, an inflammatory and unproved
charge.
Here is what else you can expect to hear from some of Trump's backers as the controversy builds:
Hillary Clinton, they say, is not being called out adequately for contradicting Pat Smith,
another Gold Star mother, whose son Sean was one of the Americans killed in the attack in 2012
on a diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Smith blames Clinton for misrepresenting the cause
of the attack that took her son's death, and ultimately for the death itself.
Khan, they note, once worked for a law firm that represented Saudi Arabia, which has donated
to the Clinton Foundation.
They argue that because Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, she should be called to account
for the death of Humayun Khan, who died 12 years ago in a suicide bomb attack. Trump supported
the Iraq war at the time, although he now claims to have opposed it.
The Khans, some Trump supporters say, opened themselves to criticism by taking the stage
at a political event, thus politicizing their son's death.
Zachary Smith , August 5, 2016 6:55 pm
Hillary 2008: "George Stephanopoulos: "Senator Clinton, would you [extend our deterrent to
Israel]?"
Hillary Clinton: "Well, in fact … I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of
deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians
that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do
the same with other countries in the region."
Massive Retaliation has always had the meaning of a 'massive' nuclear attack.
Hillary 2016: "MR. CUOMO: Iran: some language recently. You said if Iran were to strike Israel,
there would be a massive retaliation. Scary words. Does massive retaliation mean you'd go into
Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is that what that's supposed to suggest?
SEN. CLINTON: Well, the question was if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what
would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack
Iran. And I want them to understand that.
Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because whatever
stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during
which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally
obliterate them.
That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because
that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic."
The warmongering neocon woman gets a little careless in the second part of her statement, forgetting
"nuclear" and reverting to the 2008 declaration. Worse, she says that even if they don't have
nukes quite yet, an attack on Holy Israel means it's "glow-in-the-dark" time in Iran.
It really is a tragic thing to be talking about. That's the way the Madeleine Albright *****
– the one who has declared that any woman who doesn't vote for Hillary will go to hell – put it
when speaking of 500,000 dead Iraqi kids. Darned shame, but it had to be done.
But move on – it's the insane Trump who can't be trusted with nukes.
Don't even think about a possibility why Hillary might be so devoted to Israel. When she was in
the Senate the woman went to a prayer breakfast with some of the most repulsive of the Conservative
Republicans. Nobody at all is talking about Hillary's religion. If she is one of the Rapture types,
her access to nukes would mean an End-Timer finally has a chance to force God to get off the pot
and start with the Second Coming.
Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president.
likbez , August 5, 2016 11:29 pm
Hi Zachary,
> Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president.
You are right. She is a huge danger. Not only due to her frail health, age and history of blood
clots. As Huma Abedin noted in her deposition, she often is "confused". Which means that she does
not have a "normal" level of situational awareness.
For some specialties like airplane pilots this is a death sentence. Unfortunately, if elected,
she can take the country with her.
While the USSR existed, as bad as it was for people within its borders, it was a blessing for
the people of the USA, as it kept the elite in check and frightful to behave in "natural, greedy
and delusional "Masters of the Universe" way".
After the dissolution of the USSR and the "triumphal march" of neoliberalism, the US elite
by-and-large lost the sense of self-preservation.
If you read what Hillary utters like "no fly zone" in Syria and other similar staff, to me
this looks like a sign of madness, plain and simple. No reasonable politician should go off the
cliff like that, if stakes are not extremely high.
And MSM try to sell her as a more reasonable politician then Trump. In reality she is like
Kelvin absolute zero. You just can't go lower. The only hope is that she is a puppet and it does
not matter what she utters.
But if we take her statements about Syria and Russia at face value she is either dangerously
ignorant or (more probably) is a female sociopath. Like sociopaths she has no self-control, no
sense of self-preservation, no boundaries. So her arrogant and reckless behavior as for "getting
rich quick" and with the private "bathroom" email server is a sign of more general and more dangerous
tendency.
Neocons are still way too powerful. They dominate MSM and essentially dictate the agenda. So
we can only pray to God to spare us.
Zachary Smith , August 6, 2016 10:53 am
To likbez August 5, 2016 11:29 pm:
"She is a huge danger. Not only due to her frail health, age and history of blood clots.
As Huma Abedin noted in her deposition, she often is "confused". Which means that she does
not have "normal" level of situational awareness."
At this moment I'm feeling very foolish, for I'd totally forgotten the state of Hillary's health.
As Scott Adams noted: "Clinton's campaign has such strong persuasion going right now that she is
successfully equating her actual misdeeds of the past with Trump's imaginary mental issues and
imaginary future misdeeds".
They use a Rovian strategy: Assault the enemy's strength. You've got to admire the
Chutzpah: Killing your parents, then complaining you're an orphan. The candidate who didn't raise a
voice against the Iraq War and pushed the administration in favor of war with Libya (which we're now
bombing again) paints their opponent as a lunatic warmonger.
Notable quotes:
"... it's hard not to applaud when he pisses off the stuff shirts at the Washington Post. ..."
"... the frustration with Obama's foreign policy - the continuation of wars, the expansion of drone attacks, the failure to reduce nuclear weapons - has prompted some to piece through Donald Trump's sayings in a desperate search for something, anything, that could possibly represent an alternative. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting other countries, and in many cases the countries I'm talking about are extremely rich. Then if we cannot make a deal, which I believe we will be able to, and which I would prefer being able to, but if we cannot make a deal…. I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, "Congratulations, you will be defending yourself. ..."
"... We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem. And we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel. The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is absolutely, totally unbreakable. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has traditionally adopted foreign policy positions to the right of Barack Obama. As president, she will likely tack in a more hawkish direction. ..."
"... John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
Trump's foreign policy isn't an alternative to U.S. empire. It's just a cruder rendition of
it. ;
Donald Trump may be a bigot and a bully, but it's hard not to applaud when he pisses off the
stuff shirts at the Washington Post.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has staked out a foreign policy position quite
distinct from his opponent, Hillary Clinton. It is not, however, "isolationist" (contra
Jeb Bush and many others) or "less aggressively militaristic" (economist Mark Weisbrot
in The Hill ) or "a jolt of realpolitik " (journalist Simon Jenkins
in The Guardian ).
With all due respect to these sources, they're all wrong. Ditto John Pilger's
claim that Clinton represents the greater threat to the world, John Walsh's
argument that Trump is "the relative peace candidate," and Justin Raimondo's
assertion
that if Trump wins then "the military-industrial complex is finished, along with the globalists
who dominate foreign policy circles in Washington."
...His comments on foreign policy have frequently been incoherent, inconsistent, and just plain
ignorant. He hasn't exactly rolled out a detailed blueprint of what he would do to the world if elected
(though that old David Levine
cartoon of Henry Kissinger beneath the sheets comes to mind)...
However, over the last year Trump has said enough to pull together a pretty good picture of what
he'd do if suddenly in a position of
nearly unchecked power (thanks to the expansion of executive authority under both Bush and Obama).
President Trump would offer an updated version of Teddy Roosevelt's old dictum: speak loudly and
carry the biggest stick possible.
It's not an alternative to U.S. empire - just a cruder rendition of it.
The Enemy of My Enemy
Both liberals and conservatives in the United States,
as I've written , have embraced
economic policies that have left tens of millions of working people in desperate straits. The desperation
of the "left behind" faction is so acute, in fact, that many of its members are willing to ignore
Donald Trump's obvious disqualifications - his personal wealth, his disdain for "losers," his support
of tax cuts for the rich - in order to back the Republican candidate and stick it to the elite.
A similar story prevails in the foreign policy realm. On the left, the frustration with Obama's
foreign policy - the continuation of wars, the expansion of drone attacks, the failure to reduce
nuclear weapons - has prompted some to piece through Donald Trump's sayings in a desperate search
for something, anything, that could possibly represent an alternative. ... ... ...
Examined more carefully, his positions on war and peace, alliance systems, and human rights break
no new ground. He is old white whine in a new, cracked bottle.
Trump on War
... ... ...
True, Trump has criticized the neoconservative espousal of the use of military force to promote
democracy and build states. But that doesn't mean he has backed off from the use of military force
in general. Trump has
pledged to use the military "if there's a problem going on in the world and you can solve the
problem," a rather open-ended approach to the deployment of U.S. forces. He agreed, for instance,
that the Clinton administration was right to intervene in the Balkans to prevent ethnic cleansing
in Kosovo.
In terms of current conflicts, Trump
has promised to "knock the hell out of ISIS" with airpower and
20,000-30,000 U.S. troops on the ground. He even
reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against the would-be caliphate. By suggesting to allies
and adversaries alike that he is possibly unhinged, Trump has resurrected one of the most terrifying
presidential strategies of all time, Richard Nixon's
"madman" approach to bombing North Vietnam.
This is not isolationism. It's not even discriminate deterrence. As in the business world, Trump
believes in full-spectrum dominance in global affairs. As Zack Beauchamp
points out in Vox , Trump is an ardent believer in colonial wars of conquest to seize oil fields
and pipelines.
About the only place in the world that Trump has apparently ruled out war is with Russia. Yes,
it's a good thing that he's against the new cold war that has descended on U.S.-Russian relations...
... ... ...
Trump on Alliances
Trump has made few friends in Washington with his criticisms of veterans and their families and
his "joke" encouraging Russia to release any emails from Hillary Clinton's account that it might
have acquired in its hacking. Yet it's Trump's statements about NATO that have most unsettled the
U.S. foreign policy elite.
In an interview with The New York Times , Trump said:
If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting
other countries, and in many cases the countries I'm talking about are extremely rich. Then if
we cannot make a deal, which I believe we will be able to, and which I would prefer being able
to, but if we cannot make a deal…. I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, "Congratulations,
you will be defending yourself.
... ... ...
Again, I doubt Trump actually believes in abandoning NATO. Rather, he believes that threats enhance
one's bargaining position. In the Trump worldview, there are no allies. There are only competitors
from whom one extracts concessions.
We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem.
And we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable
ally, the state of Israel. The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between
the United States and Israel is absolutely, totally unbreakable.
Ultimately President Trump would extend the same reassurances to other allies once he is briefed
on exactly how much they contribute to maintaining U.S. hegemony in the world.
Trump on Pentagon Spending
Critics like Jean Bricmont
rave about Trump's willingness to take on the U.S. military-industrial complex: "He not only
denounces the trillions of dollars spent in wars, deplores the dead and wounded American soldiers,
but also speaks of the Iraqi victims of a war launched by a Republican president."
But Donald Trump, as president, would be the military-industrial complex's best friend. He has
stated on numerous occasions
his intention to "rebuild" the U.S. military: "We're going to make our military so big, so strong
and so great, so powerful that we're never going to have to use it."
More recently, in an interview with conservative
columnist Cal Thomas , he said, "Our military has been so badly depleted. Who would think the
United States is raiding plane graveyards to pick up parts and equipment? That means they're being
held together by a shoestring. Other countries have brand-new stuff they have bought from us." That
the United States already has the most powerful military in the world by every conceivable measure
seems to have escaped Trump. And our allies never get any military hardware that U.S. forces don't
already have.
Well, perhaps Trump will somehow strengthen the U.S. military by cutting waste and investing that
money more effectively. But Trump has promised to
increase
general military spending as well as the resources devoted to fighting the Islamic State. It's
part of an overall incoherent plan that includes large tax cuts and a promise to balance the budget.
An Exceptional Ruler
Let me be clear: Hillary Clinton has traditionally adopted foreign policy positions to the
right of Barack Obama. As president, she will likely tack in a more hawkish direction.
... ... ...
John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus.
"... Clinton's campaign has such strong persuasion going right now that she is successfully equating her actual misdeeds of the past with Trump's imaginary mental issues and imaginary future misdeeds ..."
UPDATE "Clinton's campaign has such strong persuasion going right now that she is successfully
equating her actual misdeeds of the past with Trump's imaginary mental
issues and imaginary future misdeeds" [
Scott Adams ].
This is a Rovian strategy: Assault the enemy's strength. You've got to admire
the effrontery: The candidate who didn't raise a voice against the Iraq War and
tipped the administration in favor of war with Libya (which we're now bombing again) paints their
opponent as a lunatic warmonger.
It's heresy in the GOP to question the neoconservative paradigm – just ask Rand Paul. It's
assumed, as an article of faith, that America is the moral leader of the world; that we must not
only defend our values across the world, we must also use force to remake it in our image. This
is the thinking that gave us the Iraq War. It's the prism through which most of the GOP still
views international politics. Trump – and Bernie Sanders – represents a departure from this
paradigm.
Although it's unlikely to happen, a Trump-Sanders general election would have been refreshing for
at least one reason: it would have constituted a total rejection of neoconservatism.
Most Americans understand, intuitively, that the differences between the major parties are often
rhetorical, not substantive. That's not to say substantive differences don't exist – surely they
do, especially on social issues. But the policies from administration to administration overlap
more often than not, regardless of the party in charge. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Much of the stability is due to money and the structure of our system, which tends toward dynamic
equilibrium. And there are limits to what the president can do on issues like the economy and
health care.
But one area in which the president does have enormous flexibility is foreign policy. Which is
why, as Politico reported this week, the GOP's national security establishment is "bitterly
digging in against" Trump. Indeed, more than any other wing of the Republican Party, the
neoconservatives are terrified at the prospect of a Trump nomination.
"Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former Bush official with
neoconservative ties. Trump would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy."
Another neocon, Max Boot, says he'd vote for Clinton over Trump: "She would be vastly preferable
to Trump." Even Bill Kristol, the great champion of the Iraq War, a man who refuses to consider
the hypothesis that he was wrong about anything, is threatening to recruit a third party
candidate to derail Trump for similar reasons.
Just this week, moreover, a group of conservative foreign policy intellectuals, several of whom
are neocons, published an open letter stating that they're "united in our opposition to a Donald
Trump presidency." They offer a host of reasons for their objections, but the bottom line is they
don't trust Trump to continue America's current policy of policing the world on ethical grounds.
Trump isn't constrained by the same ideological conventions as other candidates, and so he
occasionally stumbles upon unpopular truths. His comments about the Iraq War are an obvious
example. But even on an issue like the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, Trump says what any
reasonable observer should: we ought to maintain neutrality and work to solve the dispute with an
eyes towards our national interest. Now, Trump couldn't explain the concept of "realism" to save
his life, but this position is perfectly consistent with that tradition. And if Republicans
weren't blinkered by religious fanaticism, they'd acknowledge it as well. The same is true of
Trump's nebulous critiques of America's soft imperialism, which again are sacrilege in Republican
politics.
Earlier this week, GOP nominee Donald Trump was quick to respond to criticism
by the parents of fallen U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan, saying that their son
wouldn't have died if he'd been commander-in-chief.
Now, ex-Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is saying the exact something
- but this time, it's in a panelist discussion on CNN, the
Daily Beast
reports.
"If Donald Trump was the president, Captain Khan would be alive today because
he never would have engaged in a war that didn't directly benefit this country.
He's been very clear about that fact and said I don't support Iraq and I don't
support Afghanistan," Lewandowski stated.
Then anchorman Chris Berman jumped in, rebutting that Trump supported the war -
he cited a 2002 interview with Howard Stern in his defense.
Instead of the Khan family being a political pawn of Hillary Clinton - who's
using their child's death for political expediency - they should be praising
Trump's anti-Islamic State group, anti-terror policies.
Clinton is an enabler
of unnecessary destruction
, whereas Trump is laser-focused on targeting and
taking out the people who will harm our society the most. The Khan's son was a
freedom fighter of the first order - it's a shame that his own parents are
standing on his grave, promoting a woman who couldn't care less about veterans or
members of the United States' military.
We must
keep America first
and always stand up to terrorism - even if it's not
politically correct.
gross negligence aspect of it, so I was very surprised at the end when he said that there was
a recommendation of no prosecution and also given the fact-based nature of this and the statement
that no reasonable prosecutor would entertain prosecution, I don't think that's the standard.
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an
intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense:
The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government
officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry
out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of
intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to
gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize
unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United
States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person
of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal
trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is
that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may
confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally
do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the
consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what
the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to
harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of
intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national
security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we've decided
she shouldn't be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think
highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was
especially unpersuaded by Director Comey's claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case
based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why
did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The
answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor
asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton's conduct caused
harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many,
if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.
Comey simply ignored - or rewrote - the plain language of § 793(f), which does not require
any showing of criminal intent. There is a reason that Congress did not require a showing of intent
in this provision of the Espionage Act: to protect against even inadvertent disclosure or risk
of disclosure of protected information where the perpetrator demonstrated gross disregard for
the national security. How Comey could conclude that "no reasonable prosecutor" could make this
case is inexplicable in light of his own words.
Even where the statutes prohibiting mishandling of classified information require intent, it
is not exclusively intent to harm the national security (though that does play into some relevant
statutes). Comey noted that his investigation looked at "a second statute, making it a misdemeanor
to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities." That
statute is 18 U.S.C. §1924(a), which provides that any federal official who "becomes possessed
of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, [and] knowingly
removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents
or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not
more than one year, or both [emphasis added]." Section 1924(a) does not require an intent to profit,
to harm the United States, or otherwise to act in a manner disloyal to the United States. It only
requires "intent to retain" classified documents at an unauthorized location, something Comey's
own comments suggest was the case here. Again, the case for prosecuting in light of these facts
was more than simply fairly debatable it was quite strong.
Diane Roark
– a former top staff member on the House Intelligence Committee – explained to Washington's
Blog why Clinton should be disqualified from serving as president:
Though nothing was found against any of us [high-level whistleblowers on mass surveillance
by the NSA] after an investigation of over four years, and [Pulitzer prize-winning] reporter Risen
even said publicly several times that he had not known any of us, our clearances were never returned.
Obviously one cannot be POTUS without clearances, so Hillary should be disqualified on
that ground alone. Though the President is the chief intel consumer, I would think agencies would
withhold particularly sensitive items given her clear subordination of security to the goal of
keeping her records private so she cannot be criticized and to enhance her political career
.
The [attorney] father of a Muslim-American soldier killed in Iraq who is caught up in a war of
words with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is an
immigration lawyer who specializes in a highly controversial program accused of letting immigrants
buy their way into the U.S. Khizr M. Khan's website notes that he works to help clients with the
E-2 and EB-5 programs that let overseas investors buy into U.S. companies and also provides green
cards for family members...
The EB-5 program has been caught up in multiple scandals and critics are
pressing Congress to kill it.
"... At one point Khan challenged Trump, "You have sacrificed nothing and no one." True. But let
us also remember the Clinton family sent no one to war. Their daughter did not serve any more than any
Trump kid. Bill and Hillary served exactly as many days as Trump and Melania. Khan should have been
more inclusive in his condemnation. ..."
"... I would also like to ask Khan how he reconciles his son's death with the fact that only a few
years later Iraq is still deep in war. ..."
"... I think it was a direct attempt to bait Trump into another racist spectacle and it looks like
it worked. ..."
"... Nailed it. Trump's biggest weakness was exposed in March when he talked about the size of his
hands, and other parts, on a national debate stage. He can't help but lash out after almost any attack,
even when there is clearly nothing to be gained by responding. ..."
"... On a side note, if it was an intentional trap anticipating this reaction, you almost have to
give props to the democrats for being sneaky and clever. ..."
"... It will not change anything at all. The staged circus of putting these parents on display for
political purposes -- is just reinforcing the cynics in all of us. ..."
"... The amusing part is 911 was a false flag operation to make Americans fear and hate Muslims
so Israel could expand The Greater Israel Project. (google it). So 911 set up a sub conscious dislike
of Muslims in the majority of Americans and Donald Trump, being the marketing genius he is, is exploiting
it. Now the MSM screams bloody murder because he brings it to people's conscious minds and they agree
with Trump. So they bash Trump for saying it while they murder Muslims all over the middle east for
Israel. Can we say hypocrites? ..."
"... Damn, I sure do feel more and more that it's a setup. Like that star wars character whose name
I don't remember from a movie I didn't watch, some kind of general (I saw the parody of it on a Family
Guy cartoon with some of the other Seth McFarlane show American Dad) but the line is "it's a trap".
..."
"... If the Kahn's had their way, their son would have deserted. (right click and open in a new
tab) ..."
Last Thursday night, speaking at the Democratic National Convention, Khizr Khan paid tribute to his
son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, who died in Iraq on June 8, 2004, after he tried to stop a suicide
bomber.
As for every parent, husband, wife, brother, sister and friend who lost someone any war, I grieve
with them. I am sorry for the Khan's loss. I am a parent and can all too easily be sent to thinking
about the loss of a child.
So go ahead and hate on me. But of the almost 7,000 American families who lost sons and daughters
in the last 15 years of American war of terror, why did the Democrats choose a single Muslim family
to highlight?
No one knows how many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of non-American Muslims were killed as
collateral damage along the way in those wars. Who spoke for them at the Convention?
I found the Democrats' message shallow. It was pandering of the most contemptible kind, but not
as some say simple pandering for Muslim votes from those alienated by Trump's rhetoric.
The Democratic pandering was to an America that wants to believe we have good Muslims (who express
their goodness by sending their kids to fight our wars) and "they" have the bad Muslims (who express
their badness by sending their kids to fight their wars.) The pandering was to the cozy narrative
that makes the majority of Americans comfortable with perpetual war in the Middle East and Africa.
MORE: At one point Khan challenged Trump, "You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
True. But let us also remember the Clinton family sent no one to war. Their daughter did not serve
any more than any Trump kid. Bill and Hillary served exactly as many days as Trump and Melania. Khan
should have been more inclusive in his condemnation.
I would also like to ask Khan how he reconciles his son's death with the fact that only a
few years later Iraq is still deep in war.
Trump is an ass and I do not support him in any way. I am particularly troubled by his hate speech
directed at Muslims, and Mexicans, and everyone else he hates.
It is not disrespectful to discuss these things. Khan choose to put himself and his son's death
on television to serve a partisan political purpose. We need to talk about what he talked about.
Nailed it. Trump's biggest weakness was exposed in March when he talked about the size of
his hands, and other parts, on a national debate stage. He can't help but lash out after almost
any attack, even when there is clearly nothing to be gained by responding. There's so much
wrong with Trump, but the Queen of Chaos is just so dangerous, and stumbles like these might just
be devastating to his chances at success.
On a side note, if it was an intentional trap anticipating this reaction, you almost have
to give props to the democrats for being sneaky and clever. Too bad they're success may endangers
all our lives. (Not that Trump would guarantee our safety, but perhaps he might increase the odds)
It will not change anything at all. The staged circus of putting these parents on display
for political purposes -- is just reinforcing the cynics in all of us.
And now everyone is jumping to trash Trump -- and guess what? In the end, he will be the winner
of this.
The stage management around Hillary, the pandering to people of all races, without ever having
done anything human for them -- is her undoing. Trump does not hate anyone, he is just committing
sin after sin against political correctness. And everyone who understands what it means, gets
it. The era of putting people into neat boxes has come to an end. The era when only black people
can talk about problems in black community, or Mexicans in their community, or only women can
criticize a woman -- are gone. Guess what? Hillary is not an inch closer to offering any solutions
to our financial bleeding wound, the "wars" of choice that make the chosen elite, very, very rich.
In fact, she will push spineless Obama into more of those during the months before election.
So, how is it bad to tell that there is an Islamic cult, or "radical Islam" that Trump is talking
about -- or is it better to fluff up the problem, so we can by implication blame all Moslems.
As we arm, finance and provide all the logistics to various fundamentalist cults in the Middle
East, we are pious here about not even mentioning the word "Moslem". Nobody would be happier then
the Moslem community if finally somebody will point out that we have Salafi centers in US, Saudi
schools preaching the Wahhabi Islam, and then, we are shocked and surprised when something like
Boston happens. Somebody needs to talk about this, why not Trump. Or that we have over 100 schools
in US that were privatized by Feds for failing standards, converted into Charter schools, and
run by no other then Gulen Foundation, the "moderate" cleric we give refugee to, and who has with
"his" money caused many a problem in Turkey. Moderate? He is a Salafi, but our wonderful lying
press calls him "Sufi cleric"? Deliberate deception, in order to mix the two. Sufi branch is known
for its peacefulness, for its poetry, twirling Dervishes. Salafis by head chopping. Gulen will
not shake hands with women.
By confusing, mixing unmixable, we are led by the nose. And the wars go on and on, and expand
as we speak. So, have mercy on Moslems of US, and identify the cults -- who is financing them,
and why are our politicians so comfy cozy with them.
Can we say something about Mexicans? Do you think that Mexicans do not know of gangs that endanger
their community in the first place? Who does not know that the descent into hell of Mexican society
is due to the drug trafficking, chiefly with the US, and illegally across the border? Who does
not know that we, the US, have given rights to El-Salvador and Guatemalan people right to apply
for refugee status, and that they are -- once caught at the border, promptly released? How is
destabilizing these two countries by our meddling, and then taking in refugees, helping us or
them?
But the real sin that Trump committed is this -- he wants to pull our forces out of the profit-making
schema that is our foreign policy, and use money to repair our crumbling infrastructure, RETURN
money to Social Security Fund from which the warmongers are borrowing, and punish the corporations
that leave US only to profit from it. Now, these are the sins against the international financial
cartels and their deals. Heavens forbid that people are going to find out how they are ripped
off, and stop the gravy train of the riches at the expense of our soldiers, their families, and
the US citizens.
Please, do not let yourself be bamboozled by the scary woman. When she talks, one gets a fright.
Trump is just human, and is not following the political correctness unwritten rules.
Scary thing is listening to Hillary talking about the hacking of Democratic election e-mails.
She lies, and believes in her lies, as if she is a God, and creates realities. Without flinching,
and against all sense, she goes on an Russia diatribe. She blames Russian hackers -- but that
is not enough for her. She then claims that these were run by the Russian government, that is
under full control of Vladimir Putin. She looked like she was going to continue how he is under
full control by the Martian federation, and they in turn are controlled by the Orion empire. Her
fanaticism is not normal, say what you want. But she would not talk of the e-mails that tell the
story of her campaign, and the questions it raises of the legitimacy of her win over Sanders.
But Sanders has proven to be not much more then her strategy to reel in some young and disaffected
democrats. And they have learned now enough about politics to know -- without a wrecking ball,
this cabal will stay in power. And there is a good sized one in Donald Trump.
Yup. I think the next step will be the Dems trotting out a Downs syndrome teen to reprimand Trump
for whatever. It's like dangling red meat in front of a tiger, he can't possibly resist. No reason
for Dems not to repeat this if it keep working.
The amusing part is 911 was a false flag operation to make Americans fear and hate Muslims
so Israel could expand The Greater Israel Project. (google it). So 911 set up a sub conscious
dislike of Muslims in the majority of Americans and Donald Trump, being the marketing genius he
is, is exploiting it. Now the MSM screams bloody murder because he brings it to people's conscious
minds and they agree with Trump. So they bash Trump for saying it while they murder Muslims all
over the middle east for Israel. Can we say hypocrites?
Damn, I sure do feel more and more that it's a setup. Like that star wars character whose
name I don't remember from a movie I didn't watch, some kind of general (I saw the parody of it
on a Family Guy cartoon with some of the other Seth McFarlane show American Dad) but the line
is "it's a trap".
But as previously overstated by moi meme sui, the Leaders and especially the bureaucrats who
infest our body politic, well, they've got a long history of engineering coups. It's the fastest
way to steal control of territory and enslave cultures, as in "any culture except White Anglo
Saxon Protestants" and some of our favorite regime change targets have consistently been Latin
America. Mostly because of proximity.
So are we suddenly faced with the crap decision of well, you know, in a setup for a coup immediately
following the election? A national state of emergency brought on by post-election brawling?
"... go to 13:30 and listen. Kahn's mom and dad are MAD about their son completing his tour of duty
and then being forced to return via a BACK DOOR DRAFT in a war Hillary voted for and Trump opposed.
..."
"... Let's see how many others have been hatchet jobbed after serving in the military and doing
what they were told to do in war. Max Cleland. The Republicans smeared him ten ways from Sunday in support
of a Plantation Aristocrat named Saxby Chambliss 111. Who was a chickenhawk. The slander against a man
who left half his body weight and three of his limbs in VietNam would be sickening, right? The Wave
The Flag crowd would of course not permit that to be unanswered. So they cheered on the punk Chambliss
and his publicists. That was their answer. Same for Ron Kovic. People who had never gotten their delicate
fingers calloused or fought any of their own battles, far less risked becoming paraplegic, loved him
like a hero until he renounced war. And said some things, wrote some things that enraged the Warmongers.
..."
"... Ploy by the democratic party and their fake patriotism after getting the USA involved in illegal
wars. Hillary Clinton voted to go to war to protect the vested interests of Wall Street and big banks
as well as the military industrial complex. ..."
Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's team invited the parents of Capt.
Humayun Khan, killed in Iraq in 2004, to speak at the convention and criticize Republican nominee
Donald Trump's policy on Muslim immigration. It was a classic trap and Trump bumbled into it.
The ensuing blow-up may have made great ratings for the media, but what is unsaid is that both
sides agreed that Khan's death was a great sacrifice for our liberties and freedoms back home in
the US. The media went along with this view. But being killed in a war started by government
and media lies does not make one a heroic sacrifice. In fact, it makes on a victim. Khan was a victim
of both Republicans and Democrats who supported the war in 2002 and he is victim again today.
Ron Paul's view in today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:
… go to 13:30 and listen. Kahn's mom and dad are MAD about their son completing his tour
of duty and then being forced to return via a BACK DOOR DRAFT in a war Hillary voted for and Trump
opposed. Notice how they terminate the interview as his dad is going off again on his son
being forced to have to go to Iraq.
His mother told him NOT to be hero. There is another side of this story the MSM is not telling
us. I suspect they're only in the USA to take what they can take without giving back. If they
had their way, their son would have deserted.
BrotherJonah
And my nephew, a top-shirt (E8) in the US Army, I wish he would desert. Who needs another killer
in the world? He's been in since just before 9-11. Killed a few folks, and none of them (just
guess the next part, ok?)
not a single one of them was involved with 9-11 or WMDs. Did you guess correctly?? Clever lad.
Forget desertion, maybe what's needed is some good old fashioned mutiny.
Let's see how many others have been hatchet jobbed after serving in the military and doing
what they were told to do in war. Max Cleland. The Republicans smeared him ten ways from Sunday
in support of a Plantation Aristocrat named Saxby Chambliss 111. Who was a chickenhawk. The slander
against a man who left half his body weight and three of his limbs in VietNam would be sickening,
right? The Wave The Flag crowd would of course not permit that to be unanswered. So they cheered
on the punk Chambliss and his publicists. That was their answer. Same for Ron Kovic. People who
had never gotten their delicate fingers calloused or fought any of their own battles, far less
risked becoming paraplegic, loved him like a hero until he renounced war. And said some things,
wrote some things that enraged the Warmongers.
So Hillary and Trump made damned sure this other young American and his family get the same
treatment.
Greg Kenny
Ploy by the democratic party and their fake patriotism after getting the USA involved in
illegal wars. Hillary Clinton voted to go to war to protect the vested interests of Wall Street
and big banks as well as the military industrial complex.
Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that the mainstream media and former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton have been using to criticize Donald J. Trump, has deep ties to the government
of Saudi Arabia-and to international Islamist investors through his own law firm. In addition to
those ties to the wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to controversial immigration programs
that wealthy foreigners can use to essentially buy their way into the United States-and has deep
ties to the "Clinton Cash" narrative through the Clinton Foundation.
Khan and his wife Ghazala Khan both appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention
to attack, on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's behalf, Donald Trump-the Republican
nominee for president. Their son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, was killed in Iraq in 2004. Khizr
Khan, in his speech to the DNC, lambasted Donald Trump for wanting to temporarily halt Islamic migration
to America from countries with a proven history of exporting terrorists.
Since then, Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos-who served as a senior adviser
to the president in Bill Clinton's White House and
is a Clinton Foundation donor as well as a host on the ABC network-pushed Trump on the matter
in an interview. Trump's comments in that interview have sparked the same mini-rebellion inside his
party, in the media and across the aisle that has happened many times before. The usual suspects
inside the GOP, from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to House Speaker
Paul Ryan to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to Ohio Gov. John Kasich, have condemned Trump
in one way or another. The media condemnation has been swift and Democrats, as well their friends
throughout media, are driving the train as fast as they can.
But until now, it looked like the Khans were just Gold Star parents who the big bad
Donald Trump attacked. It turns out, however, in addition to being Gold Star parents, the Khans are
financially and legally tied deeply to the industry of Muslim migration–and to the government of
Saudi Arabia and to the Clintons themselves.
Khan,
according to
Intelius as
also reported by Walid Shoebat, used to work at the law firm Hogan Lovells, LLP, a major D.C.
law firm that has been on retainer as the law firm representing the government of Saudi Arabia in
the United States for years. Citing federal government disclosure forms, the Washington Free Beacon
reported the connection between Saudi Arabia and Hogan Lovells a couple weeks ago.
"Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for
the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show," Joe Schoffstall of the Free Beacon
reported.
The
federal form filed
with the Department of Justice is a requirement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of
1938, which makes lobbyists and lawyers working on behalf of foreign governments and other agents
from abroad with interests in the United States register with the federal government.
The government of Saudi Arabia, of course, has donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation.
"The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has given between $10 and $25 million to the foundation
while Friends of Saudi Arabia has contributed between $1 and $5 million," Schoffstall wrote.
Trump, of course, has called on Hillary Clinton to have the Clinton Foundation return
the money.
"Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton
Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays," Trump wrote in a Facebook post back in June,
according
to Politico. "Hillary must return all money from such countries!"
"Crooked Hillary says we must call on Saudi Arabia and other countries to stop funding
hate," Trump posted in a separate Facebook posting at the time. "I am calling on her to immediately
return the $25 million plus she got from them for the Clinton Foundation!"
Of course, to this day, Hillary Clinton and her Clinton Foundation has kept the money
from the Saudi Arabian government.
Schoffstall's piece in the Washington Free Beacon also notes how Hogan Lovells lobbyist
Robert Kyle,
per Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, has bundled more than $50,000 in donations for
Clinton's campaign this year.
"Many lawyers at Hogan Lovells remember the week in 2004 when U.S. Army Capt. Humayun
Khan lost his life to a suicide bomber," Polantz wrote. "Then-Hogan & Hartson attorneys mourned the
death because the soldier's father, Khizr Khan, a Muslim American immigrant, was among their beloved
colleagues."
Polantz wrote that Khan worked at the mega-D.C. law firm for years.
"Khan spent seven years, from 2000 to 2007, in the Washington, D.C., office of then-Hogan
& Hartson," Polantz wrote. "He served as the firm's manager of litigation technology. Although he
did not practice law while at Hogan, Khan was well versed in understanding the American courts system.
On Thursday night, he described his late son dreaming of becoming a military lawyer."
But representing the Clinton Foundation backing Saudi Arabian government and having
one of its lobbyists bundle $50,000-plus for Clinton's campaign are hardly the only places where
the Khan-connected Hogan Lovells D.C. mega-firm brush elbows with Clinton Cash.
The firm also handles Hillary Clinton's taxes and is deeply connected with the email
scandal whereby when she was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton set up a home-brew email server
system that jeopardized classified information handling and was "extremely careless" according to
FBI director James Comey.
"A lawyer at Hogan & Hartson [Howard Topaz] has been Bill and Hillary Clinton's go-to
guy for tax advice since 2004, according to documents released Friday by Hillary Clinton's campaign,"
The American Lawyer's Nate Raymond
wrote in 2008, as Hillary Clinton ran for president that year. "The Clintons' tax returns for
2000-07 show combined earnings of $109 million, on which they paid $33 million in taxes. New York-based
tax partner Howard Topaz has a broad tax practice, and also regularly advises corporations on M&A
and executive compensation."
"Topaz was a partner at Hogan & Hartson, which later merged to become known as Hogan
Lovells, where Topaz continues to practice. The firm's lawyers were major donors to Hillary Clinton's
first presidential campaign," Howley wrote.
For her private email system, Clinton used a spam filtering program MX Logic.
"Hogan & Hartson handled the patent for MX Logic's email-filtering program, which McAfee
bought the small company for $140 million in 2009 in order to acquire," Howley wrote. "The MX Logic
company's application for a trademark for its SPAMTRAQ program was filed in 2004 on Hogan & Hartson
stationery and signed by a Hogan & Hartson attorney. Hogan & Hartson has been responsible for MX
Logic annual reports. The email company's Clinton links present more evidence that Clinton's political
and legal establishment was monitoring her private email use."
If that all isn't enough, that same Hogan & Hartson law firm-now Hogan Lovells-employed
Loretta Lynch, the current Attorney General of the United States. Lynch infamously just a few weeks
ago met with Bill Clinton, Hillary's husband and the former president, on her private jet in Phoenix
just before clearing Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing when it came to her illicit private email
server system.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the U.S. Senate's Judiciary Committee, has detailed
how the EB5 immigration program is "riddled with flaws and corruption."
"Maybe it is only here on Capitol Hill-on this island surrounded by reality-that we
can choose to plug our ears and refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts," Grassley
said in a statement earlier this year. "The Government Accountability Office, the media, industry
experts, members of congress, and federal agency officials, have concurred that the program is a
serious problem with serious vulnerabilities. Allow me to mention a few of the flaws."
From there, Sen. Grassley listed out several of the "flaws" with the EB5 immigration
program that Khan works in:
– Investments can be spent before business plans are approved.
– Regional Center operators can charge exorbitant fees of foreign nationals in addition
to their required investments.
– Jobs created are not "direct" or verifiable jobs but rather are "indirect" and
based on estimates and economic modeling.
– Jobs created by U.S. investors are counted by the foreign national when obtaining
a green card, even if EB-5 money is only a fraction of the total invested.
– Investment funds are not adequately vetted.
– Gifts and loans are acceptable sources of funds from foreign nationals.
– The investment level has been stagnant for nearly 25 years.
– There's no prohibition against foreign governments owning or operating regional
centers or projects.
– Regional centers can be rented or sold without government oversight or approval.
– Regional centers don't have to certify that they comply with securities laws.
– There's no oversight of promoters who work overseas for the regional centers.
– There's no set of sanctions for violations, no recourse for bad actors.
– There are no required background checks on anyone associated with a regional center.
– Regional centers draw Targeted Employment Area boundaries around poor areas in
order to come in at a lower investment level, yet the jobs created are not actually created in
those areas.
– Every Targeted Employment Area designation is rubberstamped by the agency.
– Adjudicators are pressured to get to a yes, especially for those politically connected.
– Visas are not properly scrutinized.
– Visas are pushed through despite security warnings.
– Files and applications lack basic and necessary information to monitor compliance.
– The agency does not do site visits for each and every project.
– There's no transparency on how funds are spent, who is paid, and what investors
are told about the projects they invest in.
That's not to mention the fact that, according to Sen. Grassley, there have been serious
national security violations in connection with the EB5 program that Khan works in and around already.
In fact, the program-according to Grassley-was used by Middle Eastern operatives from Iran to attempt
to illicitly enter the United States.
"There are also classified reports that detail the national security, fraud and abuse.
Our committee has received numerous briefings and classified documents to show this side of the story,"
Grassley said in the early February 2016 statement. "The enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland
Security wrote an internal memo that raises significant concerns about the program. One section of
the memo outlines concerns that it could be used by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States.
The memo identifies seven main areas of program vulnerability, including the export of sensitive
technology, economic espionage, use by foreign government agents and terrorists, investment fraud,
illicit finance and money laundering."
Maybe all of this is why–as Breitbart News has previously noted–the Democratic National
Convention made absolutely no mention of the Clinton Foundation or Clinton Global Initiative. Hillary
Clinton's coronation ceremony spent exactly zero minutes of the four nights of official DNC programming
talking about anything to do with perhaps one of the biggest parts of her biography.
Michael Rawlings -> Jeremy Stevens
No wonder Khan is so mad at Trump, Trump is threatening Khan's multi million $ corrupt EB5
immigration business.
jones -> Michael Rawlings
Right. It makes me totally forget the fact that a candidate for the presidency has the temperament
of a seven-year-old bully and can't control his mouth. Good thing we know the truth about this
random guy with a tiny bit of power and a small possibly corrupt business so that we can go ahead
and elect a madman to be the most powerful person in the world.
TechZilla -> jones
We should support the NWO warmonger HRC ....because Trump can be uncouth?
No thanks, I don't want more destabilization of the middle east, my cousin would still be
alive if Trump's foreign policy was in effect circa 2000. O but she's the one that loves vets,
not the guy who disagrees with more aggressive actions against Russia. These elitist promoted
wars are not in the public interest, and they have effected me personally.
Taylor -> jones
This is just a drop in the bucket for what Hillary's campaign is a part of. I'd rather have
someone who can speak their mind and know their crazy rather than having a liar that can't
even own up to their corruption.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is refusing to back House Speaker Paul D. Ryan
[Social Security-cutting, TPP dirt-bag #1
] in his upcoming primary election,
saying in an interview Tuesday that he is "not quite there yet" in endorsing his party's
top-ranking elected official. Trump also said he was not supporting Sen. John McCain [
scum-bag
#2
] in his primary in Arizona, and he singled out Sen. Kelly Ayotte [
fraud #3
]
as a weak and disloyal leader in New Hampshire, a state whose presidential primary Trump won
handily. With Ryan's Wisconsin primary scheduled for next Tuesday, Trump praised the House
speaker's underdog opponent, Paul Nehlen, for running "a very good campaign."
Diplomacy & respect crucial to our relationship with Russia
Q: This week we're going to see a lot of world leaders come to Manhattan. Might you have a
meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin?
TRUMP: Well, I had heard that he wanted to meet
with me. And certainly I am open to it. I don't know that it's going to take place, but I know
that people have been talking. We'll see what happens. But certainly, if he wanted to meet, I
would love to do that. You know, I've been saying relationship is so important in business, that
it's so important in deals, and so important in the country. And if President Obama got along
with Putin, that would be a fabulous thing. But they do not get along. Putin does not respect our
president. And I'm sure that our president does not like him very much.
Putin has no respect for America; I will get along with him
Q: What would you do right now if you were president, to get the Russians out of Syria?
TRUMP:
Number one, they have to respect you. He has absolutely no respect for President Obama. Zero. I
would talk to him. I would get along with him. I believe I would get along with a lot of the
world leaders that this country is not getting along with. I think I will get along with Putin,
and I will get along with others, and we will have a much more stable world.
We must deal with the maniac in North Korea with nukes
[With regards to the Iranian nuclear deal]: Nobody ever mentions North Korea where you have this
maniac sitting there and he actually has nuclear weapons and somebody better start thinking about
North Korea and perhaps a couple of other places. You have somebody right now in North Korea who
has got nuclear weapons and who is saying almost every other week, "I'm ready to use them." And
we don't even mention it.
China is our enemy; they're bilking us for billions
China is bilking us for hundreds of billions of dollars by manipulating and devaluing its
currency. Despite all the happy talk in Washington, the Chinese leaders are not our friends. I've
been criticized for calling them our enemy. But what else do you call the people who are
destroying your children's and grandchildren's future? What name would you prefer me to use for
the people who are hell bent on bankrupting our nation, stealing our jobs, who spy on us to steal
our technology, who are undermining our currency, and who are ruining our way of life? To my
mind, that's an enemy. If we're going to make America number one again, we've got to have a
president who knows how to get tough with China, how to out-negotiate the Chinese, and how to
keep them from screwing us at every turn.
When you love America, you protect it with no apologies
I love America. And when you love something, you protect it passionately--fiercely, even. We are
the greatest country the world has ever known. I make no apologies for this country, my pride in
it, or my desire to see us become strong and rich again. After all, wealth funds our freedom. But
for too long we've been pushed around, used by other countries, and ill-served by politicians in
Washington who measure their success by how rapidly they can expand the federal debt, and your
tax burden, with their favorite government programs.
American can do better. I think we deserve
the best. That's why I decided to write this book. The decisions we face are too monumental, too
consequential, to just let slide. I have answers for the problems that confront us. I know how to
make American rich again.
By 2027, tsunami as China overtakes US as largest economy
There is a lot that Obama and his globalist pals don't want you to know about China's strength.
But no one who knows the truth can sit back and ignore how dangerous this economic powerhouse
will be if our so-called leaders in Washington don't get their acts together and start standing
up for American jobs and stop outsourcing them to China. It's been predicted that by 2027, China
will overtake the United States as the world's biggest economy--much sooner if the Obama
economy's disastrous trends continue. That means in a handful of years, America will be engulfed
by the economic tsunami that is the People's Republic of China--my guess is by 2016 if we don't
act fast.
For the past thirty years, China's economy has grown an average 9 to 10 percent each
year. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, China's economy grew a robust 9.7 percent. America's
first quarter growth rate? An embarrassing and humiliating 1.9 percent. It's a national disgrace.
A lot of life is about survival of the fittest and adaption, as Darwin pointed out. It's not all
there is, but it's an indication of how the world has evolved in historical terms. We've seen
many empires come and go -- the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire -- there have always been surges
of power. Sometimes they last for centuries. Even so, some of us have never learned of them as of
today. In other words, things change. We have to keep up with the changes and move forward.
Source: Think Like a Champion, by Donald Trump, p. 23-4 , Apr 27,
2010
Criticized Buchanan's view on Hitler as appeasement
In Buchanan's book, he actually said the Western allies were wrong to stop Hitler. He
argued that we should have let Hitler take all of the territories to his east. What of the
systematic annihilation of Jews, Catholics, and Gypsies in those countries? You don't have to be
a genius to know that we were next, that once Hitler seized control of the countries to his east
he would focus on world domination.
Pat Buchanan was actually preaching the same policy of appeasement that had failed for Neville
Chamberlain at Munich. If we used Buchanan's theory on Hitler as a foreign policy strategy, we
would have appeased every world dictator with a screw loose and we'd have a brainwashed
population ready to go postal on command.
After I [wrote an article on this for] Face the Nation, Buchanan accused me of
⌠ignorance." Buchanan, who believes himself an expert, has also called Hitler ⌠a political
organizer of the first rank." Buchanan is a fan.
Post-Cold War: switch from chess player to dealmaker
In the modern world you can't very easily draw up a simple, general foreign policy. I was busy
making deals during the last decade of the cold war. Now the game has changed. The day of the
chess player is over. Foreign policy has to be put in the hands of a dealmaker.
Two dealmakers have served as president-one was Franklin Roosevelt, who got us through WWII,
and the other was Richard Nixon, who forced the Russians to the bargaining table to achieve the
first meaningful reductions in nuclear arms.
A dealmaker can keep many balls in the air, weigh the competing interests of other nations,
and above all, constantly put America's best interests first. The dealmaker knows when to be
tough and when to back off. He knows when to bluff and he knows when to threaten, understanding
that you threaten only when prepared to carry out the threat. The dealmaker is cunning,
secretive, focused, and never settles for less than he wants. It's been a long time since America
had a president like that.
I don't understand why American policymakers are always so timid in dealing with Russia on issues
that directly involve our survival. Kosovo was a perfect case in point: Russia was holding out
its hand for billions of dollars in IMF loans (to go along with billions in aid the U.S. has
given) the same week it was issuing threats and warnings regarding our conduct in the Balkans. We
need to tell Russia and other recipients that if they want our dime they had better do our dance,
at least in matters regarding our national security. These people need us much more than we need
them. We have leverage, and we are crazy not to use it to better advantage.
Few respect
weakness. Ultimately we have to deal with hostile nations in the only language they know:
unshrinking conviction and the military power to back it up if need be. There and in that order
are America's two greatest assets in foreign affairs.
China: lack of human rights prevents consumer development
Why am I concerned with political rights? I'm a good businessman and I can be amazingly
unsentimental when I need to be. I also recognize that when it comes down to it, we can't do much
to change a nation's internal policies. But I'm unwilling to shrug off the mistreatment of
China's citizens by their own government. My reason is simple: These oppressive policies make it
clear that China's current government has contempt for our way of life.
We want to trade with China because of the size of its consumer market. But if the regime
continues to repress individual freedoms, how many consumers will there really be? Isn't it
inconsistent to compromise our principles by negotiating trade with a country that may not want
and cannot afford our goods?
We have to make it absolutely clear that we're willing to trade with China, but not to trade
away our principles, and that under no circumstances will we keep our markets open to countries
that steal from us.
Our biggest long-term challenge will be China. The Chinese people still have few political rights
to speak of. Chinese government leaders, though they concede little, desperately want us to
invest in their country. Though we have the upper hand, we're way to eager to please. We see them
as a potential market and we curry favor with them at the expense of our national interests. Our
China policy under Presidents Clinton and Bush has been aimed at changing the Chinese regime by
incentives both economic and political. The intention has been good, but it's clear that the
Chinese have been getting far too easy a ride.
Despite the opportunity, I think we need to take
a much harder look at China. There are major problems that too many at the highest reaches of
business want to overlook, [primarily] the human-rights situation.
Q: Would you block Syrian refugees from entering the US?
RUBIO: The problem is we can't background check them. You can't pick up the phone and call
Syria. And that's one of the reasons why I said we won't be able to take more refugees. It's not
that we don't want to. The bottom line is that this is not just a threat coming from abroad. What
we need to open up to and realize is that we have a threat here at home, homegrown violent
extremists, individuals who perhaps have not even traveled abroad, who have been radicalized
online. This has become a multi-faceted threat. In the case of what's happening in Europe, this
is a swarm of refugees. And as I've said repeatedly over the last few months, you can have 1,000
people come in and 999 of them are just poor people fleeing oppression and violence but one of
them is an ISIS fighter.
Q: Russia has invaded Ukraine, and has put troops in Syria. You have said you will have a good
relationship with Mr. Putin. So, what does President Trump do in response to Russia's aggression?
TRUMP: As far as Syria, if Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it,
100%, and I can't understand how anybody would be against it.
Q: They're not doing that.
TRUMP: They blew up a Russian airplane. He cannot be in love with these people. He's going in,
and we can go in, and everybody should go in. As far as the Ukraine is concerned, we have a group
of people, and a group of countries, including Germany--why are we always doing the work? I'm all
for protecting Ukraine--but, we have countries that are surrounding the Ukraine that aren't doing
anything. They say, "Keep going, keep going, you dummies, keep going. Protect us." And we have to
get smart. We can't continue to be the policeman of the world.
Provide economic assistance to create a safe zone in Syria
Q: Where you are on the question of a safe zone or a no-fly zone in Syria?
TRUMP: I love a safe
zone for people. I do not like the migration. I do not like the people coming. What they should
do is, the countries should all get together, including the Gulf states, who have nothing but
money, they should all get together and they should take a big swath of land in Syria and they do
a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go back to their country,
go back to where they came from.
Q: Does the U.S. get involved in making that safe zone?
TRUMP: I would help them economically, even though we owe $19 trillion.
US should not train rebels it does not know or control
Q: The Russians are hitting Assad as well as people we've trained.
TRUMP: Where they're hitting
people, we're talking about people that we don't even know. I was talking to a general two days
ago. He said, "We have no idea who these people are. We're training people. We don't know who
they are. We're giving them billions of dollars to fight Assad." And you know what? I'm not
saying Assad's a good guy, because he's probably a bad guy. But I've watched him interviewed many
times. And you can make the case, if you look at Libya, look at what we did there-- it's a mess--
if you look at Saddam Hussein with Iraq, look what we did there-- it's a mess-- it's going be
same thing.
Q: You came across to me as if you welcomed Putin's involvement in Syria. You said you saw very
little downside. Why?
TRUMP: I want our military to be beyond anything, no contest, and
technologically, most importantly. But we are going to get bogged down in Syria. If you look at
what happened with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, that's when they went bankrupt.
Q: So, you think Putin's going to get suckered into--
TRUMP: They're going to get bogged down. Everybody that's touched the Middle East, they've
gotten bogged down. Now, Putin wants to go in and I like that Putin is bombing the hell out of
ISIS. Putin has to get rid of ISIS because Putin doesn't want ISIS coming into Russia.
Q: Why do you trust him and nobody else does?
TRUMP: I don't trust him. But the truth is, it's not a question of trust. I don't want to see
the United States get bogged down. We've spent now $2 trillion in Iraq, probably a trillion in
Afghanistan. We're destroying our country.
What does Donald Trump believe? Iran and Israel: Walk away from nuclear talks. Increase
sanctions.
Trump has said that the U.S. is mishandling current Iran negotiations and should
have walked away from the table once Tehran reportedly rejected the idea of sending enriched
uranium to Russia. He would increase sanctions on Iran. Trump has been sharply critical of the
Obama administration's handling of relations with Israel and has called for a closer alliance
with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series , Jun 16, 2015
Sargent also notes a new poll from New Hampshire showing Clinton up by 15% and Maggie Hassan
ahead of Kelly Ayotte by 10%.
And he points to a fresh poll from Pennsylvania that has Clinton up by 11%.
Ah, but Michigan. Clinton leading in the western and southwestern parts of the state? Awesome.
And btw, Bernie Sanders beat Clinton, big, in those parts of the state in the primary.
Ray LaPan-Love, August 4, 2016 7:38 pm
Terry,
I doubt if the mainstreamers know about Assange's latest bombshell yet. Ironically too,
this story may lead to an odd partnership between 'Democracy Now' and 'Fox News' while MSNBC
viewers are left in the dark. Our politics may be entering the 'Twilight Zone', hehe.
Saudi Arabia and an army of K Street lobbyists are now claiming that several Saudi government
suspects named in the newly released "28 pages" have all been "exonerated" from 9/11 involvement.
The gullible mainstream media are parroting the latest spin, but it's total bull.
Saudi lobbyists are circulating a 38-page "refutation" of the 28 pages on Capitol Hill. This
tissue of lies claims investigators for both the FBI and 9/11 Commission chased down all the
leads in the 28-page section of the earlier congressional inquiry into 9/11 and came up empty.
It maintains that three key Saudi officials implicated in the report- Omar al-Bayoumi, Fahad al-Thumairy
and Osama Basnan - were all cleared of any role in the conspiracy.
"Each of these names was investigated in detail by the 9/11 Commission, by the recent review
commission and by the FBI, and none of them found any real evidence to indicate that they were
agents of Saudi Arabia, that they acted to assist the hijackers or that they knew of the plans to
hijack the planes," the Saudi white paper states. "The time is long overdue to set aside these
speculations and conspiracy theories," it adds.
Aside from the fact that several 9/11 Commission members recently denied exonerating the Saudis,
summaries of interviews between commission investigators and these Saudi suspects concluded they
were "deceptive" and asked them to take lie-detector tests because bank and phone records, along
with the testimony of material witnesses, so wildly contradicted their testimonies. In other
words, they lied through their teeth.
It is important that those committed to peace and social justice take cognizance of this historic
civil law suit directed against a former president of the United States including senior officials
of his administration.
An Iraqi mother against alleged war criminal George W. Bush, et al.
This is a civil suit. It seeks compensation. While it does not contemplate a criminal indictment,
it nonetheless constitutes a far-reaching legal initiative by Californian human rights lawyer Inder
Comar (image right).
The political ramifications are far-reaching.
Forget the ICC and the Hague tribunals, which serve the interests of US-NATO. Within the US legal
system, e.g in California, the State of New York, Nevada, etc. a civil complaint against GWB et al,
Barack Obama and/or a war criminal of your choice (e.g. Hillary Clinton) can be launched at the State
and District level.
We call upon Global Research readers to spread the word.
We are also launching a donation drive in support of the Saleh vs. Bush legal suit. To donate
click here and tag a one time donation to "legal action against Bush"
Global Research will transfer your donation to cover the legal expenses of Sundus Shaker Saleh
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research Editor, August 2, 2016
* * * In papers filed Monday, August 1, 2016, the Department of Justice opposed the submission of the Chilcot
Report to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit in an ongoing litigation related
to the legality of the Iraq War.
The case, Saleh v. Bush, involves claims by an Iraqi single mother and refugee that six high ranking
members of the Bush Administration - George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld,
Condoleezza Rice, and Paul Wolfowitz - waged a war of aggression against Iraq in 2003, and that they
should be personally responsible for the consequences of the unlawful invasion.
The plaintiff, Sundus Shaker Saleh, alleges that high ranking Bush-Administration officials intentionally
misled the American people by making untrue claims that Iraq was in league with Al Qaida and that
Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. She also alleges that certain of the Defendants, and
in particular, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, publically supported an invasion as early as 1998
and used 9/11 as an excuse to push for an invasion of Iraq, regardless of the consequences.
Ms. Saleh is relying on the judgments made by the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal convened in 1946,
which found German leaders liable for unlawful wars of aggression against neighboring countries.
The Nuremberg judgment held that committing a war of aggression was the "supreme international crime."
The conclusions of the Chilcot Report were submitted to the Ninth Circuit as further evidence
of wrongdoing by the six defendants in the case. Ms. Saleh also provided copies of notes and letters
from former Prime Minister Tony Blair to George W. Bush included in the Chilcot Report, in which
Mr. Blair appeared to commit to the invasion with Mr. Bush as early as October 2001.
In December 2014, the Northern District of California dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that
the Defendants were immune from further proceedings under the federal Westfall Act (codified in part
at 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671, 2674, 2679).
The Westfall Act provides immunity to former government employees from civil lawsuits if a Court
determines that the employees were acting with the lawful scope of their employment.
Ms. Saleh is urging the Ninth Circuit to overturn the finding of immunity made by the District
Court and to permit her lawsuit to proceed before the District Court.
Inder Comar Esq is a distinguished human rights lawyer based in San Fransisco, Cal. He is Global
Research's Law and Justice Correspondent
* * *
We call upon Global Research readers to spread the word. We are also launching a donation drive in
support of the Saleh vs. Bush legal suit.
Liberals, beware: casting a vote for Clinton is to affirm militarism, economic inequality, and
Wall Street. It is to vote for the ecological meltdown of our planet, duplicity in government, the
control of our institutions by the rich, drone strikes, government surveillance of the people, and
perpetual war. It is to cast a ballot against the interests of the working poor, and for the interests
of Goldman Sachs and Big Pharma.
Clinton's war-mongering is a matter of public record. Just today, the New York Times published
a devastating policy analysis of Clinton's role in the overthrow of Libyan president Muammar el-Qaddafi
and the subsequent descent of Libya into chaos and civil war. "We came, we saw, he died!" Clinton
exclaimed after Qaddafi was captured, tortured, and summarily executed. Afterwards, Hillary's aides
developed a "brag sheet" to showcase her role in Qaddafi's overthrow. Then, Clinton and other Obama
officials stepped back and let the nation disintegrate.
As the Times reporters recount, "Mrs. Clinton would be mostly a bystander as the country dissolved
into chaos, leading to a civil war that would destabilize the region, fueling the refugee crisis
in Europe and allowing the Islamic State to establish a Libyan haven that the United States is now
desperately trying to contain."
Clinton is unrepentant to this day. She is a hard-core militarist and interventionist-a right-wing
wolf in liberal sheep's clothing. Though Clinton has now found it convenient to rue her vote for
the invasion of Iraq in 2003, she in fact fiercely defended Bush's Iraq war policy for years. (At
least 174,000 people died in the conflict, including over 110,000 civilians.)
But Hillary's war-mongering is not the worst thing about her. Under President Obama, the gap between
rich and poor widened to a degree unprecedented in human history. Though few liberals seem aware
of the fact, poverty increased sharply under Obama, with blacks, Latinos, and women suffering disproportionately
from the President's policies. So if Clinton continues down Obama's neoliberal path, as she vows
to, we can expect the ranks of the poor-today, 47 million Americans, with more than one in five children
living in poverty-to swell.
Because Clinton is a close friend of the big banks, big pharma, and "big" everything else that
corresponds to corporate capitalism, millions of Americans already struggling will sink even further
under the waves. Rental and housing prices, already astronomical, will rise to more heights of unaffordability.
Drug prices and health care costs, which soared under Obama, will likely increase. So will homelessness
and the national suicide rate-because those rose dramatically under Obama, too.
Meanwhile, we are plunging over an ecological precipice that is bottomless, and Clinton will do
nothing to slow the fall. Hillary is at best indifferent to the global environmental crisis. Having
thrown in her lot with the wealthiest banks and corporations, she is in no position to advocate for
the kinds of radical changes that would be necessary to avert a planetary meltdown.
On President Obama's watch, the planet's ecology further unravelled: mass species extinctions,
global warming, deforestation, vanishing fresh water, mass die-offs of pollinating insects, increasing
carbon emissions from aircraft and animal agriculture, expansion of the petroleum industry, etc.
Things will only get worse under Clinton, who has supported fracking, deep sea oil drilling, and
minimal regulation of polluting industries.
Iran deal was signed when Hillary was not the Secretary of state (her last month was Feb 2013).
Is Trump delusional or stupid ?
Notable quotes:
"... whatever the 'ransom', both Clinton and Trump are hellbent on undermining the Iranian deal. idiots. ..."
"... The more I think about it, US deserve to have Trump as president. He will screw up the US so royally that may shock American people to start thinking straight. ..."
"... Trump would certainly screw up the US, but if 8 years of Bush couldn't get them to start thinking straight, I am not sure what would. ..."
"... Hillary hates Iran more than Trump does... she's just extremely good in deceiving.. Remember when Sanders said to reach out to Iran about the Syrian conflict? Her reply was exactly this; "asking Iran for cooperation in Syria is like asking a pyromaniac to extinguish a fire" .. when president, I fear she will not only avoid cooperation but will be playing real hardball with Iran, where Trump, as someone who seems to be sympathetic to the Russian regime, might get more friendly with Iran (the friends of your friends...) ..."
"... It's a mess anyways... trump changes like how the wind blows, and Hillary is a snake (understatement of the year) ..."
"... The US has not held up to the term of the nuclear agreement! The banks are still afraid of US to deal with Iran. Congress has stopped the beoing deal, etc. The US congress is acting as bully! Actually not holding itself with the very deal the US signed is very bad! I can see Iran reluctant to negotiate any deal with a bunch of liars ..."
"... There were no bank relations between the US and Iran, so cash was the only option. It was conducted in secret because who's going to announce that a plane full of cash is in route to, well, anywhere? ..."
"... The US owed that money to Iran. The transfer was kept secret for the reason mentioned by bob. ..."
"... Ultimately, Mr. Trump's outrage over the $ (true or not) is yet another dodge avoiding the real question that he needs to be asked: "Do you want a war with Iran?" ..."
"... Course, I think everybody probably already knows the answer. It'd just be nice to have it print (or a tweet as the case may be). ..."
"... If the reports about Trump asking his foreign policy advisers about the utility of using nuclear weapons are accurate, there are probably several nations, including Iran, who'd be wise to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible to let him know why they shouldn't be used. ..."
It was Iran's money that Washington froze . Besides, if I recall, the great Republican hero
Ronnie Reagan traded weapons to Iran for hostages.
Joel Marcuson
It probably hasn't dawned on him that Hillary has not been a member of the current Gov't
for about 4 yrs now. How could she possibly be responsible for that decision, the type our
Gov't has made all along for as long as I can remember? What a screwball.
onu labu
whatever the 'ransom', both Clinton and Trump are hellbent on undermining the Iranian
deal. idiots.
trucmat
The gist of reality here is that the US confiscated a bunch of Iranian money and are
decades later starting to give it back. Scandalous!
ViktorZK
They should be attacking Clinton over the DNC resignations and a whole bunch more. But the
entire week has been taken up damping down fires Trump and his surrogates keep lighting. Even
this story (which is a non-event really) will struggle for oxygen. The biggest headline today
is GOP ELDERS PLAN INTERVENTION TO REHABILITATE FAILING CAMPAIGN. Hard to top that.
macmarco 1h
One must remember that Obama early and often said Reagan was his political hero. The same
Reagan who bought hostages freedom with a cake, a bible and a bunch of weapons.
ClearItUp
The more I think about it, US deserve to have Trump as president. He will screw up the
US so royally that may shock American people to start thinking straight.
rberger -> ClearItUp
Trump would certainly screw up the US, but if 8 years of Bush couldn't get them to
start thinking straight, I am not sure what would.
ChangeIranNow
At this point, with tens of billions of dollars in frozen assets already on their way to
Iran and a virtual Tehran gold rush in which Western firms are seeking to profit from the
collapse of sanctions going on, revisiting the way the Iran deal was sold to the nation seems
beside the point. But with Iran already signaling that it will demand even more Western
appeasement to keep complying with the terms of the nuclear pact, an examination into the
cash-for-hostages' aspect of the story is important. Let us hope our next president is willing
to harden its stance on the Iran regime and support an era of domestically-fostered peace and
stability.
doublreed legalimmigrant
DryBack, Voilà: Wikileaks recently released documents proving that Hillary Clinton took
$100,000 of cash from a company she ran (and worked for in the 80's and 90's) that also funded
ISIS in Syria. French industrial giant, Lafarge, gave money to the Islamic state to operate
their (Lafarge's) cement plant in Syria, and purchased oil from ISIS. Lafarge are also large
donators to Clinton's election and the Clinton Foundation. More is here: http://yournewswire.com/clinton-was-director-of-company-that-donated-money-to-isis/
Lafarge is a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation – the firm's up to $100,000 donation was
listed in its annual donor list for 2015.
Zepp
Who on Earth would consider Tom Cotton and the Wall Street Journal to be credible sources?
They took the (true, verified) story of the Bush administration flying pallets of $100
bills into Baghdad where they promptly vanished, filed the numbers of, and resurrected it for
this story. The WSJ is a Murdoch organ, and Cotton is a crackpot.
itsmeLucas
Hillary hates Iran more than Trump does... she's just extremely good in deceiving..
Remember when Sanders said to reach out to Iran about the Syrian conflict? Her reply was
exactly this; "asking Iran for cooperation in Syria is like asking a pyromaniac to extinguish
a fire" .. when president, I fear she will not only avoid cooperation but will be playing real
hardball with Iran, where Trump, as someone who seems to be sympathetic to the Russian regime,
might get more friendly with Iran (the friends of your friends...)
It's a mess anyways... trump changes like how the wind blows, and Hillary is a snake
(understatement of the year)
coffeeclutch
Donald Trump and Tom Cotton are the verifying sources for this information? Tom Cotton, who
claimed that Iran needed to be stopped because "[they] already control Tehran?"
The circus act of American politics is really beyond belief. I'm still in awe the Republicans
faced no consequences for issuing a warning letter to a foreign government in the midst of
diplomatic negotiations with the President and the State Department. All while running around
Obama's back and inviting Israel's Prime Minister to address them directly in suggesting how
Americans should approach their foreign policy.
WorkingEU
To shift focus to an Iranian deal seems a good line of attack. But from a historical
perspective it may be a little guileless. The Iranian Revolution was a populist revolt against
globalization, elitism, corruption, foreign treachery and all the other abundant evils.
The clergy promised the earth, and delivered heaven. I confess this is a somewhat superficial
analysis when compared to the profound depth of the Trump campaign.
coffeeclutch -> WorkingEU
If I recall correctly the religious sphere was also one of the areas of social life not
micromanaged and controlled by the Shah (secular authority at that time was rather hands-off
on its approach to the clergy), so the clergy were in a unique position to manipulate a lot of
desperate people by presenting themselves as an "open and freer" alternative to the grossly
exploitative, corrupt, and often violent rule of the secular regime.
Of course once the were able to wrest enough power to shunt aside the various leftist and
student protest groups rising up at the same time, all that concern about anti-corruption and
public welfare was immediately tossed into the bin. Pretty much a Scylla and Charybdis
situation.
jokaz
The US has not held up to the term of the nuclear agreement! The banks are still afraid
of US to deal with Iran. Congress has stopped the beoing deal, etc. The US congress is acting
as bully! Actually not holding itself with the very deal the US signed is very bad! I can see
Iran reluctant to negotiate any deal with a bunch of liars
DBakes
I would like to understand more details about the cash payment and the reason. Was it
really a secret payment? That being said I will never vote for Trump who to me is an imminent
threat to national security.
bobj1156 -> DBakes
There were no bank relations between the US and Iran, so cash was the only option. It
was conducted in secret because who's going to announce that a plane full of cash is in route
to, well, anywhere?
MtnClimber -> DBakes
The US owed that money to Iran. The transfer was kept secret for the reason mentioned
by bob.
MiltonWiltmellow
The US state department has denied this.
The WSJ quoted Tom Cotton, a Republican senator from Arkansas, as accusing the Obama
administration of ...
Does the accusation even matter?
A Murdoch rag prints an unsubstantiated political accusation made a Murdoch political
sympathizer and somehow it becomes credible enough for the Guardian to repeat the smear?
Here's what those of us who live in the Real World™ say.
Where's your fucking proof??
williamdonovan
However, although the cash payment to Iran coincided with the release of a group of Iranian
American prisoners, there is no evidence to suggest any link between the two events.
Evidence maybe not but the read could draw easily make a "inference"
Blacks Law 4th Edition
INFERENCE. In the law of evidence. A truth or proposition drawn from another which is
sup- posed or admitted to be true. A process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition
sought to be established is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state
of facts, already proved or admitted. Whitehouse v. Bolster, 95 Me. 458, 50 A. 240; Joske
v. Irvine, 91 Tex. 574, 44 S.W. 1059.
A deduction which the reason of the jury makes from the facts proved, without an express
direction of law to that effect. Puget Sound Electric Ry. v. Benson, C.C.A. Wash., 253 F.
710, 714.
A "presumption" and an "inference" are not the same thing, a presumption being a deduction
which the law requires a trier of facts to make, an inference being a deduction which the
trier may or may not make, according to his own conclusions; a presumption is mandatory, an
INFERENCE
eyeinlurk -> williamdonovan
Kind of like the Reagan arms for hostages deal with...uh...Iran. Back in the 80's.
I'm starting to miss the 80's, and I never thought I'd say that.
Ranger4 -> eyeinlurk
And they used the cash to .............fund an insurrection
williamdonovan -> eyeinlurk
I was working at the Pentagon then and found myself having inside knowledge of Iran-Contra
before it unfolded to the rest of the world. Given that the information was highly classified
Top Secret/SRA access. I had been given access to what I thought at the time was two
completely unrelated events moving of the missiles and the training and arming of the contras.
The information was compartmented meaning few people knew about either program and even far
fewer people new both programs where related (it wasn't called Iran-Contra until after much
later) Just weeks before the public new. I was given access to the complete picture. Even then
I couldn't figure how could something like this be legal. Because as we know now it was not.
You could easily draw inference between the these two events.
As I already have!
jrcdmc6670
Ultimately, Mr. Trump's outrage over the $ (true or not) is yet another dodge avoiding
the real question that he needs to be asked: "Do you want a war with Iran?"
Course, I think everybody probably already knows the answer. It'd just be nice to have it
print (or a tweet as the case may be).
jrcdmc6670
If the reports about Trump asking his foreign policy advisers about the utility of
using nuclear weapons are accurate, there are probably several nations, including Iran, who'd
be wise to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible to let him know why they shouldn't be
used.
Donald J. Trump unabashedly trumpeted his support for warmer relations with Russia
at a campaign rally here on Monday night, acidly mocking opponents who say he is too
friendly to Vladimir V. Putin, the country's
strongman president. Mr. Trump,
who has been under fire from Democrats and some conservative national security
leaders for his accommodating stance toward Mr. Putin, cast his supportive remarks as
a matter of practical necessity. By aligning itself with Russia, he said, the United
States could more easily take on the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. "If we
could get Russia to help us get rid of ISIS -- if we could actually be friendly with
Russia -- wouldn't that be a good thing?" Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential
nominee, said. Repeating the question moments later, he won loud applause
from the crowd: "If we could get along with Russia, wouldn't that be a good
thing, instead of a bad thing?"
"... The Neoconservatives and the Neoliberals have created madness and mayhem in the world today. Real change will happen only if resources are available for all in a co-operative capitalistic way that raises the standard of living for all rather than the few. We now have socialism of the rich and low productivity with the standard of living becoming more about quantity rather than quality. ..."
Liberals ,conservatives and progressives need to put ideologies behind and form a coalition to
demand change. Just exercising our right to vote will change nothing.
We will continue to get
blow back in the form of terrorism as long as we do not change the foreign policy in the Middle
East which goes back to Sykes -Picot and the aftermath of World War One.
The Neoconservatives and the Neoliberals have created madness and mayhem in the world today.
Real change will happen only if resources are available for all in a co-operative capitalistic
way that raises the standard of living for all rather than the few. We now have socialism of the
rich and low productivity with the standard of living becoming more about quantity rather than
quality.
"... President Obama has been a failed leader who along with Secretary of State Clinton created a foreign policy that has destabilized the world and made it an unsafe place. He is the one who is unfit to be President and Hillary Clinton is equally unfit. ..."
"... Obama-Clinton have single-handedly destabilized the Middle East, handed Iraq, Libya and Syria to ISIS, and allowed our personnel to be slaughtered at Benghazi. ..."
"... They have produced the worst recovery since the Great Depression. They have shipped millions of our best jobs overseas to appease their global special interests. They have betrayed our security and our workers, and Hillary Clinton has proven herself unfit to serve in any government office. ..."
"... She is reckless with her emails, reckless with regime change, and reckless with American lives. Our nation has been humiliated abroad and compromised by radical Islam brought onto our shores. We need change now. ..."
President Obama slams Republican nominee for president Donald Trump at a joint press conference with
the prime minister of Singapore at the White House Tuesday morning. Obama said Trump does not have
the judgment, temperament or understanding to occupy the Oval Office. Obama scolded Trump for his
"attack on a Gold Star family."
The president implored Republicans to un-endorse him and asked what does it say about the Republican
party that Trump is their standard bearer. This isn't an "episodic gaffe," this is daily and weekly,
Obama said. Obama called on Republicans to repudiate and condemn the party's nominee.
"There has to come a point at which you say somebody who makes those kinds of statements doesn't
have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding to occupy the most powerful position in the
world," Obama said at the event with PM Lee Hsien Loong.
"There has to be a point in which you say this is somebody I can't support for president of United
States," the president said. "There has to be a point in which you say 'enough.'"
"I recognize that they all profoundly disagree with myself or Hillary Clinton on tax policy or
on certain elements of foreign policy," Obama said of Republicans. "But you know, there have been
Republican presidents with whom I disagreed with but I didn't have a doubt that they could function
as president."
From President Obama's press conference:
OBAMA: I think the Republican nominee is unfit to serve as president. I said so last week. He
keeps on proving it. The notion that he would attack a Gold Star family, that [General] Hayden
-- had made such extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our country, the fact that he does not
appear to have basic knowledge around critical issues in Europe, the Middle East, in Asia.
It means that he is woefully unprepared. This is not just my opinion. What's been interesting
has been the repeated denunciations of his statements by leading Republicans. Including the Speaker
of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, prominent Republicans like John McCain.
The question they have to ask themselves is if you are repeatedly having to say in very strong
terms that what he has said is unacceptable, why are you still endorsing him? What does this say
about your party, that this is your standard bearer?
This isn't a situation where you have an episodic gaffe. This is daily, and weekly, where they
are distancing themselves from statements he's making. There has to be a point in which you say,
this is not somebody I can support for president of the United States. Even if he purports to
be a member of my party. And, you know, the fact that that has not yet happened makes some of
these denunciations ring hollow.
I don't doubt their sincerity. I don't doubt that they were outraged about some of the statements
that Mr. Trump and his supporters made about the Khan family. But there has to come a point at
which you say somebody who makes those kinds of statements doesn't have the judgment, the temperament,
the understanding to occupy the most powerful position in the world. Because a lot of people depend
on the White House getting stuff right. And this is different than just having policy disagreements.
I recognize that they all profoundly disagree with myself or Hillary Clinton on tax policy
or on certain elements of foreign policy. But you know, there have been Republican presidents
with whom I disagreed with but I didn't have a doubt that they could function as president...
There has to come a point in which you say, enough. And the alternative is that the entire
party, the Republican party, effectively endorses and validates the positions that are being articulated
by Mr. Trump. And as I said in my speech last week, I don't think that actually represents the
views of a whole lot of Republicans out there.
President Obama has been a failed leader who along with Secretary of State Clinton created
a foreign policy that has destabilized the world and made it an unsafe place. He is the one who
is unfit to be President and Hillary Clinton is equally unfit.
Obama-Clinton have single-handedly destabilized the Middle East, handed Iraq, Libya and
Syria to ISIS, and allowed our personnel to be slaughtered at Benghazi. Then they put Iran
on the path to nuclear weapons. Then they allowed dozens of veterans to die waiting for medical
care that never came. Hillary Clinton put the whole country at risk with her illegal email server,
deleted evidence of her crime, and lied repeatedly about her conduct which endangered us all.
They released criminal aliens into our country who killed one innocent American after another
-- like Sarah Root and Kate Steinle -- and have repeatedly admitted migrants later implicated
in terrorism. They have produced the worst recovery since the Great Depression. They have
shipped millions of our best jobs overseas to appease their global special interests. They have
betrayed our security and our workers, and Hillary Clinton has proven herself unfit to serve in
any government office.
She is reckless with her emails, reckless with regime change, and reckless with American
lives. Our nation has been humiliated abroad and compromised by radical Islam brought onto our
shores. We need change now.
... leak also revealed anti-gay slurs, mocking African
Americans and attempts to con reputable news outlets with fake Trump videos.
The computer network used by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign was
hacked as part of a broad cyber attack on Democratic political organizations, people familiar with
the matter told Reuters. The latest attack, which was disclosed to Reuters on Friday, follows reports
of two other hacks on the Democratic National Committee and the party's fundraising committee for
candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives.
The U.S. Department of Justice national security division is investigating whether cyber hacking
attacks on Democratic political organizations threatened U.S. security, sources familiar with the
matter said on Friday.
Prolific author, American Free Press writer and seasoned Clinton researcher Victor Thorn was
found at the top of a mountain near his home, the apparent victim of a gunshot wound. Family and
some close friends contend Thorn took his own life on his birthday, August 1. Thorn would have
been 54. At the peak of his writing career, the author of some 20 books and 30 chapbooks, Thorn
had reported for this newspaper for over a decade, writing thousands of articles on myriad
subjects from conspiracy to health-related topics. Best known for his investigate research on the
Clintons, Thorn wrote the Clinton trilogy--three definitive works that delved into the history of
the power couple.
The two men are not so far apart on many policies. Both are millionaires whose worldview is informed
by the realism of having built major businesses, employed scores of workers and survived government
interference. Johnson started a construction company in New Mexico right after college, which became
one of the state's most successful builders. He ultimately sold it in 1999. Trump, of course, is
a significant commercial real estate developer.
Johnson first entered politics in 1994
advocating
a "common sense business approach" and financing his first run for governor with his own money.
He ran on a platform of lower taxes, job creation and law and order. Sound familiar?
Both candidates are socially liberal and are wary of our military entanglements overseas. It's
a start.
Though Trump has embraced GOP orthodoxy opposing abortion, it is clear this is not an important
issue to him personally. Johnson's campaign website says he "believes in the sanctity of the unborn"
but recognizes that legal abortion is the law of the land.
While both men support simplifying our tax system and reducing taxes, Johnson goes further, advocating
getting rid of the IRS.
Asked about Trump's controversial questioning of our NATO commitments, Johnson does not rule out
reassessing our long-standing alliances, including NATO.
The two men are most at odds over immigration, which
Johnson embraces as positive for the economy. He insists that people entering the
country illegally are taking only the jobs that Americans do not want, and notes that the number
of undocumented people crossing the border has dropped. Despite his fiery rhetoric, Trump also endorses
immigration – but only if it is legal.
Other areas of disagreement include Johnson's support for the TPP trade pact, which Trump opposes.
Also, Johnson is on record wanting to slash military spending, while Trump has vowed to reverse recent
declines. At the same time, Johnson has taken a more aggressive posture of late in combatting ISIS,
which may require some retooling of his 2012 enthusiasm for military retrenchment.
Where Johnson and Trump are most in sync is in their dislike for Hillary Clinton. Though he once
extolled her as a "wonderful public servant," Johnson has most recently described Clinton as "beholden"
and decries her "establishment" credentials as well as her hawkish inclinations. In an interview
with the Los Angeles Times, he said that if she is elected, "Nothing's gonna really change, government's
gonna have the answer to everything, and that's gonna mean taxes are gonna go up."
Polls show Johnson now attracting an average of 7.5 percent of a four-way vote (which includes
Green Party nominee Jill Stein). More important,
he is gathering momentum in critical swing states. According to Quinnipiac, Johnson grabs
between 8 percent and 10 percent in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, a number that could determine
those contests.
In an interview with CNN on Monday, Khan called Trump "ignorant" and "arrogant" and
criticized other Republicans for not doing more to denounce their party's nominee.
"Enough is enough," he said. "Every decent Republican ... has rebuked this behavior,
yet no one has stood up and said, 'Enough, stop it. You will not be our candidate.'"
It was the second time since his convention speech that Khan has directly appealed
to GOP leadership on Capitol Hill to push back against the nominee. Over the weekend,
he singled out Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker Paul Ryan on MSNBC,
saying the "only reason they're not repudiating his behavior, his threat to our
democracy, our decency, our foundation, is just because of political consequences."
"... Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law ..."
"... The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law ..."
"... Virginia continues to provide driver's licenses to terrorists. Mohammad Khweis, a member of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), was captured by Kurdish forces in northern Iraq. Like seven of the 9/11 hijackers, Khweis carried a Virginia license. Khizr Khan's legal advice to followers of Sharia law has allowed them to game the U.S. immigration system and Virginia legal statutes. Khan has some explaining to do about his legal practice. ..."
"... Wayne Madsen is an investigative journalist who consistently exposes cover-ups from deep within the government. Want to be the first to learn the latest scandal? Go to WayneMadsenReport.com subscribe today! ..."
Khizr Khan, the Muslim immigrant lawyer from Pakistan who arrived in America by way of Dubai
and pulled at the heart strings of viewers of the Democratic National Convention by regaling the
audience with the story of the loss of his son in Iraq, Army Captain Humayun Khan, told his son's
story but skipped over his own.
Khizr Khan entered the United States in 1980 from Dubai
to attend Harvard Law School. That year saw the Central Intelligence Agency ramp up its operations
in Pakistan in support of the Afghan mujaheddin against the Soviets.
The Pakistan operation was shepherded by national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, currently
an outspoken opponent of Donald Trump and a bitter foe of Russia.
Khan received his bachelor of law degree from Punjab University Law College in Lahore, Pakistan
in 1974. After entering the United States from Dubai in 1980, Khan received a masters of law degree
from the University of Missouri in 1982.
Khan specializes in international trade law for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. As anyone familiar
with these countries knows, trade law for both countries involves the traditional Muslim bribe, the
baksheesh, which, depending on the value of the deal, can involve millions of dollars. These deals
are very familiar to Trump, who could have strengthened his argument against Khan by revealing the
"Gold Star father's" specialty in the "art of the bribe."
Khan co-founded the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law, an academic periodical
that seeks to defend the arcane Sharia law to a legal system based on Western jurisprudence. Of course,
Sharia law justifies the execution of gays, prostitutes, blasphemers, and Muslim "apostates" who
convert to other religions.
Trying to advance Sharia law in legal systems based on Roman and English Common Law is like forcing
a square peg into a round hole.
... ... ...
Khan is a firm believer that law is based on the Sunnah, the works of the prophet Mohammed.
The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law is linked to the Islamic Center of Geneva,
Switzerland, an arm of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood.
And here we run the circle back to Khan's favorite candidate, Hillary Clinton. Clinton's close
aide and reported lesbian lover, Huma Abedin, has close links to radical Wahhabist Islam through
her mother, the Pakistani-born Saleha Mahmood Abedin. Saleha Abedin resides in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
and teaches sociology at Dar Al-Hekma College in Jeddah.
Although she was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Huma lived in Jeddah from infancy to her college
years before returning to the United States. Dar Al-Hekma College is a women-only college in keeping
with Sharia and Quranic principles of segregation of the sexes.
The college, which was endowed by the Al-Ilm Foundation, is part of a network of Wahhabist colleges
and schools that extend from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, Malaysia, and southern California.
Khizr Khan practices law in New York and is a member of the New York Bar. Khan's Manhattan law
office is next door to the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, which also happens to house the residence of the
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power.
Power's husband is Cass Sunstein, President Obama's former information czar who excels in the
art of disinformation, propaganda, and cognitive dissonance. But more interesting is the fact that
Khan and his wife are residents of Charlottesville, Virginia, a home to a number of foreign Muslims,
many of whom are students at the University of Virginia who wish to change their student visa status
to permanent residency, or "green card" status.
Charlottesville is a so-called "sanctuary city" that welcomes those who either enter the United
States illegally or overstay their limited residency visas.
Khan's wife, Ghazala, is a pediatrician in Virginia Beach, which is a three-hour drive from Charlottesville.
The Khans are not attracted to Charlottesville because of a convenient distance to their places of
work.
So why do they reside in the university town? When their son died in Iraq in 2004, the Khans lived
in Bristow, Virginia, a far suburb of Washington, DC in Prince William County. The Khans had also
once lived in Silver Spring, Maryland.
The official notification of Khan's death stated:
"Captain Humayun S. M. Khan, 27, of Bristow, Virginia, died June 8, 2004, in Baquabah, Iraq, after
a vehicle packed with an improvised explosive device drove into the gate of his compound while he
was inspecting soldiers on guard duty. Khan was assigned to Headquarters, Headquarters Company, 201st
Forward Support Battalion, 1st Infantry Division, Vilseck, Germany."
Khan was actually an Army intelligence officer, fluent in Arabic, who worked with Iraqi civilians
in a program called the United States-Iraq Sponsorship Program, which was actually an operation designed
to recruit Iraqis to work as police and in other "capacities" for the Coalition Provisional Authority,
the U.S. occupation government of Iraq.
Khan's home base of Vilseck is a center for U.S. intelligence operations involving units of the
U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command. When Khan was killed, oversight of Iraq "transition"
programs, such as the U.S.-Iraq Sponsorship Program, had just come under the control of General David
Petraeus, the first commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq.
Members of the Pakistani embassy, including deputy chief of mission (DCM) Mohammad Sadiq, attended
Captain Khan's burial at Arlington National Cemetery. The DCM of large embassies are almost always
the embassy intelligence chief of station. In the case of Sadig, this would be the Inter-Services
Intelligence (ISI).
In 2008, Sadiq, who paid his respects to Captain Khan at Arlington, was defending ISI as the Pakistan
Foreign Ministry's chief spokesman. India accused the ISI of bombing its embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan.
The bombing killed four people, including two Indian diplomats.
It was not only India that blamed the ISI for the bombing in Kabul. CIA officials said that intercepts
of communications showed ISI involvement. Pakistan was so incensed by the statements from U.S. intelligence
that it summoned CIA official Stephen Kappes to Islamabad for a chewing out session.
Virginia continues to provide driver's licenses to terrorists. Mohammad Khweis, a member of the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), was captured by Kurdish forces in northern Iraq. Like
seven of the 9/11 hijackers, Khweis carried a Virginia license. Khizr Khan's legal advice to followers
of Sharia law has allowed them to game the U.S. immigration system and Virginia legal statutes. Khan
has some explaining to do about his legal practice.
Pakistan was not a member of the U.S. coalition in Iraq, which begs the question of why the Pakistani
embassy's ISI chief attended Captain Humayun Khan's funeral at Arlington? Was Khan working, through
his Saudi- and Pakistani-connected father with the ISI?
If so, was the contact "sanctioned" by the CIA? If not, was Humayun Khan freelancing and feeding
information from Iraq to the ISI, which then passed it to their close allies in the Saudi General
Intelligence Department?
Khizr Khan claims he is a "legal consultant" in Charlottesville, although he is not a member of
the Virginia Bar. Given the nature of Charlotteville's status as a sanctuary city, Khan's legal background
and his work with the Muslim community in Virginia, it is likely that Khan offers help to Muslims
who have overstayed their student visas in the university and sanctuary city to obtain permanent
residence.
It should be recalled that seven of the 9/11 hijackers obtained Virginia driver's licenses, three
of which were used as official identification to check in for flights on September 11, 2001. Perhaps
if Khizr Khan had not been so willing to help dodgy Muslim "students" overstay their visas and seek
workarounds to the law, Virginia might have been able to prevent the hijackers fraudulently obtain
driver's licenses.
And had there been no 9/11, there certainly would have been no U.S. invasion of Iraq and Humayun
Khan would have realized his dream of attending the University of Virginia law school and becoming
a military lawyer. In making it easy for Saudis, Emiratis, and others to game the U.S. immigration
system, Khizr Khan shares in some of the responsibility for his son's death.
Because it is not advisable to attack any Gold Star family, Trump should have merely replied to
Khizr Khan's attack by saying, "I understand the family's loss and although they attacked me, I will
not respond to a grieving family."
Trump could have added that Captain Khan would not have died had it not been for the U.S. invasion
and occupation of Iraq, a war for which Hillary Clinton voted as a senator. Through surrogates, Trump
could have revealed the Khan's connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia law advocates, the Saudis,
and the ISI.
Wayne Madsen is an investigative journalist who consistently exposes cover-ups
from deep within the government. Want to be the first to learn the latest scandal? Go to
WayneMadsenReport.com subscribe today!
The people will stop this, dirt-bag:
Obama predicts TPP 'trade' deal will be ratified after election | 02 Aug 2016 | President
Barack Obama
dismissed Hillary Clinton's [phony] opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement
corporate takeover Tuesday and suggested that her disapproval of the deal may be politically
motivated. [*Duh.*] "Right now, I'm president, and I'm for it," he said
at a news conference with Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong...While Obama and Lee were speaking,
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was addressing supporters at a rally in Ashburn, Virginia,
just miles from the capital. In a statement, Trump said a victory by him in November is the only
way to stop a "TPP catastrophe."
Alex Junces consider the Hillary is illegitamete candidate that stole primaries from Sanders and
she intend to steal general elections.
The Alex Jones Channel - YouTube
Former Bush adviser Karl Rove scolds Republican nominee Donald Trump for getting off message
and missing campaign opportunities. In an appearance on the FOX News Channel on Wednesday morning
Rove listed a litany of items Trump could have brought attention to rather than express his
indignation at treatment by the media and the Khan family.
"Let's take last Friday," Rove started. "Rather than engaging in a battle with the Khan family
over the death of their son. What if that day Donald Trump had taken the economic report that
showed 1% GDP growth and excoriated her for having nothing but the same policies as Barack Obama
that put us here. He could have used that Friday and Saturday and beaten her up on the economy
and displayed his expertise, his agenda, his issues and be seen with blue-collared workers and
small business people."
"What if on Sunday rather than starting to talk about how the elections were rigged because the
debates were scheduled on the same day as big NFL football games 18 months ago, incidentally, and
also excoriating the fire marshals in Colorado Springs and Columbus for enforcing the fire codes.
What if he had spent the afternoon and evening of Sunday focused in on
Hillary Clinton's interview with Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday where she lied again
about the emails and also gave him a big, fat juicy target on the economy saying my answer is
I'm going to set up an infrastructure bank, 'to seed it with taxpayer dollars' and then 'get
investors involved' in order to make money off of using taxpayer dollars for infrastructure
projects. Both of those seem to me to be a much better way to go," Rove said.
Presidential contender Donald Trump is challenging the "pussy generation" manifested by President
Obama and the religion of political correctness, film legend Clint Eastwood recently told Esquire
magazine.
In a father-son interview featured in the
September 2016 issue of the men's magazine, Eastwood explains he prefers Trump's more cut-to-the-chase,
no-nonsense approach of getting his message across.
ESQ: Your characters have become touchstones in the culture, whether it's Reagan invoking
"Make my day" or now Trump … I swear he's even practiced your scowl.
CE: Maybe. But he's onto something, because secretly everybody's getting tired
of political correctness, kissing up. That's the kiss-ass generation we're in right now. We're
really in a pussy generation. Everybody's walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people
of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren't called racist. And
then when I did Gran Torino, even my associate said, "This is a really good script, but
it's politically incorrect." And I said, "Good. Let me read it tonight." The next morning, I came
in and I threw it on his desk and I said, "We're starting this immediately."
ESQ: What is the "pussy generation"?
CE: All these people that say, "Oh, you can't do that, and you can't do this,
and you can't say that." I guess it's just the times.
ESQ: What do you think Trump is onto?
CE: What Trump is onto is he's just saying what's on his mind. And sometimes
it's not so good. And sometimes it's … I mean, I can understand where he's coming from, but I
don't always agree with it.
ESQ: So you're not endorsing him?
CE: I haven't endorsed anybody. I haven't talked to Trump. I haven't talked
to anybody. You know, he's a racist now because he's talked about this judge. And yeah, it's a
dumb thing to say. I mean, to predicate your opinion on the fact that the guy was born to Mexican
parents or something. He's said a lot of dumb things. So have all of them. Both sides. But everybody-the
press and everybody's going, "Oh, well, that's racist," and they're making a big hoodoo out of
it. Just fucking get over it. It's a sad time in history.
Speaking of his stunt at the 2012 RNC in which he spoke to an empty chair intended to represent
Obama, the 86-year-old director stated the president is pretty much the embodiment of the "pussy
generation" due to his lack of efforts to strike deals with Congress throughout his tenure.
CE: It was silly at the time, but I was standing backstage and I'm hearing
everybody say the same thing: "Oh, this guy's a great guy." Great, he's a great guy. I've got
to say something more. And so I'm listening to an old Neil Diamond thing and he's going, "And
no one heard at all / Not even the chair." And I'm thinking, That's Obama. He doesn't
go to work. He doesn't go down to Congress and make a deal. What the hell's he doing sitting in
the White House? If I were in that job, I'd get down there and make a deal. Sure, Congress are
lazy bastards, but so what? You're the top guy. You're the president of the company. It's your
responsibility to make sure everybody does well. It's the same with every company in this country,
whether it's a two-man company or a two-hundred-man company… . And that's the pussy generation-nobody
wants to work.
While Eastwood hasn't formally endorsed Trump, the Million Dollar Baby actor did admit
he would vote for the businessman over Clinton, as she is set to continue Obama's disastrous agenda.
ESQ: But if the choice is between her and Trump, what do you do?
CE: That's a tough one, isn't it? I'd have to go for Trump … you know, 'cause
she's declared that she's gonna follow in Obama's footsteps. There's been just too much funny
business on both sides of the aisle. She's made a lot of dough out of being a politician. I gave
up dough to be a politician. I'm sure that Ronald Reagan gave up dough to be a politician.
Eastwood and his son, Scott, later clarified their positions on being labeled the "anti-pussy
party."
ESQ: Politically, you're the Anti-Pussy party?
SE: That's right. No candy-asses.
CE: Yeah, I'm anti–the pussy generation. Not to be confused with pussy.
SE: All of us are pro-pussy.
Eastwood is just the latest in a growing chorus of voices speaking out against the burgeoning
system of political correctness, which threatens an Orwellian control of language and the population
at large.
If the election was already "in the bag" for Hillary Clinton, President Obama wouldn't be working
overtime to convince the GOP to dump Trump.
Instead, he'd be encouraging Trump to speak out more if his words were helping Hillary – but that's
not the case at all.
Obama is signaling that the globalists are losing and Hillary is falling too far behind for the
technocrats to rig the election in her favor.
"The president implored Republicans to un-endorse him and asked what does it say about the Republican
party that Trump is their standard bearer," Real Clear Politics reported. "Obama called on Republicans
to repudiate and condemn the party's nominee."
In other words, the president is the Wizard of Oz panicking after Trump pulled the curtain to
expose the globalists as the evil they are – and not the saviors of humanity they portray themselves
to be.
It's also revealing that Obama made his desperate declaration right after Trump warned the general
election is being rigged just like the Democratic nomination, which was rigged in favor of Hillary
Clinton – despite the majority of Democrats supporting Bernie Sanders.
"As the leaked DNC emails illustrated, the establishment pre-selected Hillary from the start and
the primary process was a complete charade to give the illusion of democratic choice," Paul Joseph
Watson & Alex Jones stated. "As the Observer's Michael Sainato writes, 'Instead of treating Sanders
as a viable candidate for the Democratic ticket, the DNC worked against him and his campaign to ensure
Clinton received the nomination.' The elite chose Hillary before any of the primary votes came in,
and vowed to select her regardless of the result."
"How in any way is this not a rigged process, as Trump rightly pointed out?"
Did Trump just let the genie out of the bottle the globalists won't be able to put back in? It
appears so.
"Government's been around for as long as history's been around and I think they've exhausted their
experimentation," Ron Paul once said. "We've had some experiments with individual liberty and one
great experiment was here and I think right now we're seeing the fruitions of how we left that experiment
in the last 100 years and it continues yet there's a spirit right now amongst the people who are
starting to realize that."
"... The whole U.S. political and media establishment is right now running a full fledged anti-Trump campaign. ..."
"... rumors or outright lies. ..."
"... Some spat over a dead soldier who the Clinton campaign (ab)used for her campaign gets way overblown. Unfounded rumors that some Republicans are going to replace Trump are just a repetition of the same nonsense that spread a month ago. It only heightens the media's lack of credibility. It is similar to the claims that "the Assad regime will fall any minute now". We have heard for the last five years and no one believes it. Unsourced claims that Trump asked why the U.S. can not use nukes are not credible. Especially when they are transported by a lowlife like MSNBC's Scarborough and immediately denied . If true at all, the issues is likely taken out of context. ..."
"... On the other side, news about Clinton actively lying is so obviously suppressed by the New York Times that even its public editor laments about it. CNN claims that Hillary meets "boisterous crowds" when no-one shows up. ..."
"... This wont work. This imbalance is not sustainable. The Clinton campaign managers who orchestrate this onslaught are shooting their wads prematurely. ..."
"... That's what they've been doing for months now in UK against Corbyn - and there the election is four years away. ..."
"... Mockery, sham, inane, insipid, and other akin words well describe the efforts by the Propaganda System to promote the most immoral candidate ever nominated for president over the second most immoral candidate ever nominated for president all while ignoring the most moral and worthy candidate for president--Dr. Jill Stein. ..."
"... Bernie(the fake candidate) Sanders was used to placate and herd in the mass of youngsters and progressives and folks who are outright sick and tired only to then softly ease them down ,possibly into the Hillary camp; also so said grouping can feel that they were close and actually had a chance and democracy is indeed real. ..."
"... 10,000 expected for Trump Rally in Daytona Beach, Florida. At 1 PM Thousands already jammed in the hallways of the Ocean Center for 3 PM Rally. Meanwhile, Hillary must bring in high school students to fill seats. ..."
"... In fact, I never seen such a politically brave guy in Americas recent history of zionist collaboration. ..."
"... Khizr Khan used to work for a law firm that has the Saudi Arabian regime and apparently the Clintons or the Clinton Foundation as clients. Khizt Khan is a lawyer and his law firm offers to arrange visa for wealthy foreigners and given his previous employment that probably means that his clients include Saudi Arabians. I just can't understand why such a man would feel strongly about a temporary ban on entry into the United States for Muslims. ..."
"... You did not mention the firm Khizr-Khan worked for did Hillary Clinton's taxes.. Khizr Khan has all sorts of financial, legal, and political connections to the Clintons through his old law firm, the mega-D.C. firm Hogan Lovells LLP. That firm did Hillary Clinton's taxes for years, starting when Khan still worked there involved in, according to his own website, matters "firm wide"-back in 2004. ..."
"... The Clinton political machine has rigged the process, against Sanders, and gone to some lengths to conceal the shame of it. At the convention in Philadelphia, they looked most odd; while the Party was showing itself be a some kind of schitzophrenic monster, gulping down the high octane fuel of unreality. They can bear no real resemblance to the Party of Franklin Roosevelt, although they come to the Convention wearing clothes made out of his skin. ..."
"... They have become republicans with a crisis of identity. ..."
"... I read that NBC piece on the plot. The word for the day.; "Irreparable consequences." ..."
"... Does it strike anyone else that the Khan story just sort of vanished all of a sudden. For several days - nothing else in the media. It seemed to drop off sharply yesterday. Normally, I see stories about Khan and his involvement with the Clintons, sharia law, immigration, the disappearing website, etc... and would attribute it to a weak attempt to deflect news coverage but I wonder... ..."
"... And Trumps counter-attack on the Khans. At first I had the knee-jerk response "he's gone too far this time". On reflection, the Democrat MO to attack opponents using some sympathetic figure with a lot of "moral authority" - could be someone who has lost a loved one, or a disabled person, ... - on the theory that the person being attacked can't fight back. In a way, I applaud Trump for having none of that (while at the same time being annoyed that he took the bait). The Khans made an free decision to be at the DNC convention and leverage their tragedy to attack Trump. While I feel for them, they can't have it both ways. ..."
"... How on earth could mainstream media even think anyone would watch their stupid propaganda, I feel sorry for Trump with all this propaganda in ALL western states. And no republicans seems to help him! What the hell!? Are they rooting for democrats? ..."
"... Ukraine renames Moscow Avenue to Bandera Avenue http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c4_1470238094 ..."
"... Pat Buchanan examines the fact that Trump's the "Peace Candidate," and notes how that's playing in Peoria, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/trump-the-peace-candidate/ ..."
"... "Behind the war guarantees America has issued to scores of nations in Europe, the Mideast and Asia since 1949, the bedrock of public support that existed during the Cold War has crumbled." ..."
"... As I've written elsewhere, myself and others's analysis of Trump vs HRC leads us to conclude that Trump's the lesser evil, and is indeed a peace candidate compared to HRC's nonstop belligerence and warmongering. The Propaganda System will do its best to paint Trump as the greater evil, but that will be a very hard task as most of the public no longer sees that System as credible. ..."
"... I stumbled upon this. Its fun to read. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/02/american-elections-weapons-of-mass-distraction/ ..."
"... Stein deserves far more serious attention and exposure then she's getting here (U.S.). ..."
"... Yesterday someone posted a link to the interview with Bashar al-Assad. (Thnx BTW). He was asked his opinion about the next president several times probably to smear him as a Trump supporter. He kept saying that their campaign talk doesn't matter and that it's their actions. But @17:40 he said this, "We always hope that the next president will be much wiser than the previous one." We hope for the same thing here in the us and we keep being disappointed. ..."
"... Hope isn't going to do the trick, it's time the American people took matters into their own hands. Start marching...against war, against unemployment, homelessness, infrastructure falling apart, prisons everywhere, swindles in the tune of Trillions etc. I could go on... ..."
"... Zioinism is just a manifestation of the problem ..."
"... Problem is, the bludgeoning tool is showing signs of cracking. Trump or Hillary, both will go out of their way to finally break it. That sad, because I love this country. ..."
"... Consider foreign policy, the focus of discussions here. Is it important what and when did Clinton know about the attack on the consulate in Benghazi? Not really. It is important that the entire policy of regime change in Libya is FUBAR. It starts from a simple observation that aging Kaddafi was sufficiently pliable to give the West all (almost all?) benefits of control without the cost. But given the chaotic situation that ensued, indeed it was better to pursue some influence than playing it "risk free" (from Empire perspective, shared by Clinton and her tormentors). ..."
"... Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Jews agree with Israel's policies. Many Jews are victims as they are preyed upon for their support and vilified for protesting/objecting. ..."
The whole U.S. political and media establishment is right now running a full fledged anti-Trump
campaign. The points this drive brings up are minor issue, rumors or outright lies.
It is premature to run such a campaign now. One can not tell the same story over and over again
for nearly a 100 days. People will either get tired of it or will endorse Trump as the poor small
boy that everyone is bullying and beating up.
Some spat over a dead soldier who the Clinton campaign (ab)used for her campaign gets way
overblown. Unfounded
rumors that some Republicans are going to replace Trump are just a repetition of the same nonsense
that spread a month ago. It only heightens the media's lack of credibility. It is similar to the
claims that "the Assad regime will fall any minute now". We have heard for the last five years and
no one believes it. Unsourced claims that Trump
asked why the U.S. can not use nukes are not credible. Especially when they are transported by
a lowlife like MSNBC's Scarborough and immediately
denied . If true at all, the issues is likely taken out of context.
On the other side, news about Clinton actively lying is so obviously suppressed by the New
York Times that even its public editor
laments about it. CNN
claims
that Hillary meets "boisterous crowds" when no-one shows up.
This wont work. This imbalance is not sustainable. The Clinton campaign managers who orchestrate
this onslaught are shooting their wads prematurely.
It does not matter that Trump
indeed has small hands or that he fibs on every details. The majority of the people hate Clinton.
This media campaign will fall back on her. She will be perceived as the bully increasing her already
strong negatives.
Posted by b on August 3, 2016 at 12:49 PM |
Permalink
Many years ago a lady, who knew from personal experience, mentioned that talumdists (some of whom
run the U.S. government, the U.S. media, the U.S. economy, U.S. academia, etc.) have no sense
of proportion and no sense of timing - except in music. She knew exactly the truth of what she
was stating.
Mockery, sham, inane, insipid, and other akin words well describe the efforts by the Propaganda
System to promote the most immoral candidate ever nominated for president over the second most
immoral candidate ever nominated for president all while ignoring the most moral and worthy candidate
for president--Dr. Jill Stein.
I don't watch mainstream media for years now, too disgusting for my appetite, but I will venture
to say this:
The election years in the U.S have been for decades now carnivals. Now that there are two official
runners, we are now entering the 'Magician Show' phase, fast forward, the 'power' behind the curtain
(Israel-firsters, AIPAC, international talmudists i.e) will/are using Trump as the sleight of
hand, while Hillary will be ushered in as the prestige. Simple as that. Its all orchestrated.
Has been for so long. Power in the U.S is very well protected.
Bernie(the fake candidate) Sanders was used to placate and herd in the mass of youngsters
and progressives and folks who are outright sick and tired only to then softly ease them down
,possibly into the Hillary camp; also so said grouping can feel that they were close and actually
had a chance and democracy is indeed real.
I cant find it anymore, but not long ago I saw a newspaper clipping of a picture on a major
U.S newspaper showing Trump's grandchildren visiting him in his office and lo and behold, among
the many portraits and pictures Trump had hanging on his wall was one that stuck out to me. It
was a portrait of King Solomon's Temple with Hebrew writing on it. The man is a full fledged Zionist
and on the take. Hillary is the same or worse, since the 'powers' have sooo much on here and her
husband she will make a good blackmail abled POTUS.
That's my take, and no, I don't have or need a tin foil hat. Mark my words.
10,000 expected for Trump Rally in Daytona Beach, Florida. At 1 PM Thousands already jammed
in the hallways of the Ocean Center for 3 PM Rally. Meanwhile, Hillary must bring in high school
students to fill seats.
4;Correctamundo; A bunch of wacko ancient anti-religious hypocrites control US, and want no part
of America First. The only nationalism permitted is zionism's.
Can b list Trumps fibs? I haven't seen any, although he has walked back some statements, but that
isn't a fib, its just re-evaluation.
In fact, I never seen such a politically brave guy in Americas recent history of zionist
collaboration.
off topic...but
To my fellow barflies, please take the time to watch this moving and special video. Its kind of
long but well worth it.
It essentially made me proud to be American again, when I see my fellow countrymen engaging
in this sort of thing, especially the Senator. Very moving indeed.
Khizr Khan used to work for a law firm that has the Saudi Arabian regime and apparently the
Clintons or the Clinton Foundation as clients. Khizt Khan is a lawyer and his law firm offers
to arrange visa for wealthy foreigners and given his previous employment that probably means that
his clients include Saudi Arabians. I just can't understand why such a man would feel strongly
about a temporary ban on entry into the United States for Muslims.
What I really can't understand is why Khizr Khan supports HRC, since she voted for the war
that killed his son. That the son might not have come to the United States and jined the military
if Trump's ban had been in place just reinforces that point. I really wonder what his pay-off
is. I really hope it's been worth the loss of a son.
It goes without saying it's nonsense, but I hope a few readers here will take the time, if
they open it for comments, to voice their opposition to his absurd, warmongering narrative.
Much or most of the organized, over the top attacks on Trump [who is, in and of himself, a
buffoon] is coming from Zionist/Neocon interests who fear he won't attack Syria and Iran for Israel,
and to some extent by the organized Jewish community per se who fear he might enforce immigration
law.
You did not mention the firm Khizr-Khan worked for did Hillary Clinton's taxes.. Khizr
Khan has all sorts of financial, legal, and political connections to the Clintons through his
old law firm, the mega-D.C. firm Hogan Lovells LLP. That firm did Hillary Clinton's taxes for
years, starting when Khan still worked there involved in, according to his own website, matters
"firm wide"-back in 2004.
It also has represented, for years, the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States. Saudi
Arabia, of course, is a Clinton Foundation donor which-along with the mega-bundlers of thousands
upon thousands in political donations to both of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaigns in 2008
and 2016-plays right into the "Clinton Cash" narrative.
The electorate in the US will blunder into the new leadership, with no help, -- and much hindrance
-- from the corporate media. Some people will know what they are doing when they cast their vote,
-- while others will feel their way along the walls of uncertainty, like sleepwalkers. As usual,
a huge percent will not vote at all.
The Clinton political machine has rigged the process, against Sanders, and gone to some
lengths to conceal the shame of it. At the convention in Philadelphia, they looked most odd; while
the Party was showing itself be a some kind of schitzophrenic monster, gulping down the high octane
fuel of unreality. They can bear no real resemblance to the Party of Franklin Roosevelt, although
they come to the Convention wearing clothes made out of his skin.
They have become republicans with a crisis of identity.
These pols are all rageaholics who worship the power that comes out of the barrel of a gun,
the broad power of coersion; and they act as if people are fooled by their honey-coated words
and painted smiles. They are vanguards of the empire, the apostles of expansion and exceptionalism.
These candidates all have fancy educations, and have always dwelt near the very top of the power
bubble. Yet their minds contain many vast intellectual deserts.
Yesterday, Pres. Obama told the Republicans they needed disavow Trump or words to that effect.
Struck me as exactly not what a sitting Dem president should say about a Repub nominee, especially
Trump since he seems quite capable of shooting himself in the foot and other areas of his anatomy
(no dirty joke implied, just that he's a loose cannon).
Obama could have made a simple comment about not picking on dead soldiers without trying to
look like he's telling the Repubs what to do.
I'm sure there must be some Repubs who have told the Dems they should not have nominated Hillary...unless
they WANT her impeached. But, if so, it's not getting much attention.
Sen. Warren Simpson was on WNYC today, warning that Obama's attack might well backfire and
hurt Hillary. Hhhmmm, maybe that's a plan?
Who can tell with this horrible choice provided to American voters.
I read that NBC piece on the plot. The word for the day.; "Irreparable consequences."
People will either get tired of it or will endorse Trump as the poor small boy that everyone
is bullying and beating up
Also, there is this being offered - "Trump is running to lose."
The establishment, disconnected from joeandjill's anger, is fighting to maintain the status
quo forgetting the old adage – Americans love and support the underdog."
= = = = = =
@ ben 3
The "electoral college" system will decide"
When that system was envisaged, there were paper ballots. Do not dismiss the popular vote and
the "winner-take-all electors" states. Electors are selected by a two part process. This is the
age of computer rigging. Loading votes to deliver key states and the required 270 votes of the
electors made easy.
Key your eye on GEMS. No, not precious stones.
If this checks out you may no longer have one person-one vote.
A fascinating read:
"US election shocker: is this how the vote will be rigged?"
by Jon Rappoport Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers
As we know, there are a number of ways to rig an election. Bev Harris, at blackboxvoting.org,
is exploring a specific "cheat sheet" that has vast implications for the Trump vs. Hillary contest.
It's a vote-counting system called GEMS.
"Our testing [of GEMS] shows that one vote can be counted 25 times, another only one one-thousandth
of a time, effectively converting some votes to zero."
"This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which
counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate
that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly,
yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute
votes.
This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room
and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing
or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds."
[..]
I agree that the timing of this onslaught seems wrong - it's too early. An attack like this,
you go for the knockout punch. If that doesn't happen - then what? There's a lot of time between
now and November. I have always thought that this campaign, more than most, will be driven by
events out of the candidates control - terrorist attacks, cop shootings, the markets, etc...
Obama's screed against Trump - what's up with that? Is he hoping to do for Trump what he's
done for gun sales? He might be better off endorsing him.
Does it strike anyone else that the Khan story just sort of vanished all of a sudden. For
several days - nothing else in the media. It seemed to drop off sharply yesterday. Normally, I
see stories about Khan and his involvement with the Clintons, sharia law, immigration, the disappearing
website, etc... and would attribute it to a weak attempt to deflect news coverage but I wonder...
And Trumps counter-attack on the Khans. At first I had the knee-jerk response "he's gone
too far this time". On reflection, the Democrat MO to attack opponents using some sympathetic
figure with a lot of "moral authority" - could be someone who has lost a loved one, or a disabled
person, ... - on the theory that the person being attacked can't fight back. In a way, I applaud
Trump for having none of that (while at the same time being annoyed that he took the bait). The
Khans made an free decision to be at the DNC convention and leverage their tragedy to attack Trump.
While I feel for them, they can't have it both ways.
So Trump saying he has sacrificed as much as someone in the military who was killed, is not insane
ludicrous BS ? Hahaha... I guess that fits in the minor issue category for B because he was still
wants to keep telling a lie the trump is a genius. Oops, at least not in his latest useless piece.
Backtracking much ?
Oh and Trump whoring himself out to the Israeli genocide lobby is a minor issue ?
What is so genius about right wing fucktards who are sick to death of the corrupt political
system and themselves being screwed screwed over by the class war, desperately waiting for a lying
not job piece of shit to say the system is corrupt and rigged, all the while Trump being guilty
of the same in his corporate life.
That really is self lying cowards among the population desperate to hear what they want to
hear and create a self lying loop of endless delusion with deliberate omissions of awfulness from
their baseless chosen cult leader.
Same can be said for the atrociously war loving fake leftists cheering for the most evil woman
on the planet Hitlery Clinton.
How on earth could mainstream media even think anyone would watch their stupid propaganda,
I feel sorry for Trump with all this propaganda in ALL western states. And no republicans seems
to help him! What the hell!? Are they rooting for democrats?
"Trump then told the New York Times that a Russian incursion into Estonia need not trigger
a U.S. military response.
"Even more shocking. By suggesting the U.S. might not honor its NATO commitment, under Article
5, to fight Russia for Estonia, our foreign policy elites declaimed, Trump has undermined the
security architecture that has kept the peace for 65 years.
"More interesting, however, was the reaction of Middle America. Or, to be more exact, the nonreaction.
Americans seem neither shocked nor horrified. What does this suggest?
"Behind the war guarantees America has issued to scores of nations in Europe, the Mideast
and Asia since 1949, the bedrock of public support that existed during the Cold War has crumbled."
As I've written elsewhere, myself and others's analysis of Trump vs HRC leads us to conclude
that Trump's the lesser evil, and is indeed a peace candidate compared to HRC's nonstop belligerence
and warmongering. The Propaganda System will do its best to paint Trump as the greater evil, but
that will be a very hard task as most of the public no longer sees that System as credible.
Another unfortunate faux pas was committed by the intelligent, calm-speaking and otherwise
logical Jill Stein in the selection of a black guy named Barak as her Veep.
The name is: Baraka. You may want to
read a bit on
his views, work history and positions. Baraka has got just about everything right that is expressed
by MoA repeatedly.
Brief discussion of Stein's meeting in Moscow with RT organized Policy experts is
here . At a dinner several days after with Putin (and others) Vlade said:
Putin noted, "What I would like to say, something really unexpected, when I was watching this
material. When I was listening to your comments, politicians from other countries, you know
what I caught myself thinking about? I agree with them, on many issues."
Stein deserves far more serious attention and exposure then she's getting here (U.S.).
I encourage people... especially U.S. voters and Bernie supporters, to now rely on media reports
about her but take a few hours and go through her website. Her positions on just about everything...
and all the BIG ones, are impressive and make more sense then anything I've heard from any candidate
since I can remember. I encourage folks to write letters demanding she be included in the debates.
Jill Stein? You got to be kidding , right? Just like Bernie, she's just another member of the
'tribe/race' that are putting on this charade that is the U.S election. These people are in the
final stages of pulling off the greatest coup in world history and the American people hardly
know it. That's horrifying. This is the Opus Magnum folks. Read the last 2000, or 1000 or 500,
or 200 years of world history and one knows where this will lead. It's going to be dark.
Americans....your children and grandchildren are going to curse at your graves if you don't
wake up.
13 & 17. You're both right. It's a shame Trump didn't go after this fact or that the DEMs/Hillary/Media
complex are playing races against each other. He should have said that yes, he has not sacrificed
a son on an "elective war" as a Pope once called it but that Hillary has not sacrificed either
while voting for and pushing for wars.
Yesterday someone posted a link to the interview with Bashar al-Assad. (Thnx BTW). He was
asked his opinion about the next president several times probably to smear him as a Trump supporter.
He kept saying that their campaign talk doesn't matter and that it's their actions. But @17:40
he said this, "We always hope that the next president will be much wiser than the previous one."
We hope for the same thing here in the us and we keep being disappointed.
Hope isn't going to do the trick, it's time the American people took matters into their
own hands. Start marching...against war, against unemployment, homelessness, infrastructure falling
apart, prisons everywhere, swindles in the tune of Trillions etc. I could go on...
The Democratic NC has turned into an advertisement for more and endless war. Complete with
hoorah's of USA!! USA!!
Less, of course. And it would also stop the insane policy of taking America and using it as
a bludgeoning tool against the Arabic, African, NovoRuss and hell, maybe even the Persian peoples.
Zioinism is just a manifestation of the problem, as Zionism is rather a new thing. Problem
is, the bludgeoning tool is showing signs of cracking. Trump or Hillary, both will go out of their
way to finally break it. That sad, because I love this country.
"The majority of the people hate Clinton. This media campaign will fall back on her. She
will be perceived as the bully increasing her already strong negatives."
This is a stretch. According to recent polls, Clinton has 54% "unfavorable" rating, and Trump
has 64%. And not surprisingly, libertarian and green tickets poll better than usual. Especially
libertarian, which marks dissatisfaction of the right side of the public.
If I were a politician, I would forbid my stuff from reading b without a red pen to underline
all statements to disagree with. Number one, that the opponent should not be attacked over unimportant
details. It defies historical record! Profound nonsense if usually difficult to explain. In particular,
it requires an explanation, so you miss the ever important sector of the public that is immune
to explanations. By the way of contrast, inconsequential details are easy to convey.
Consider foreign policy, the focus of discussions here. Is it important what and when did
Clinton know about the attack on the consulate in Benghazi? Not really. It is important that the
entire policy of regime change in Libya is FUBAR. It starts from a simple observation that aging
Kaddafi was sufficiently pliable to give the West all (almost all?) benefits of control without
the cost. But given the chaotic situation that ensued, indeed it was better to pursue some influence
than playing it "risk free" (from Empire perspective, shared by Clinton and her tormentors).
Another foreign policy example, the issue of Iran and "the deal". Trump promises even worse
approach than executed by Obama. Why? This is fully consistent with the basic plank of his philosophy,
help those that pay their dues. And Saudis and other Gulfies manifestly pay their dues. Unlike
Latvia and Ukraine. In any case, Trump is attacking here on inconsequential details, which shows
that he understands the basics of the political craft.
Finally, "Clinton risks being perceived as a bully". Trump is uniquely positioned to get scant
sympathy. Bullying somewhat frail Sanders would be risky, but Trump?
Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Jews agree with Israel's policies. Many Jews are victims
as they are preyed upon for their support and vilified for protesting/objecting.
"... If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources to get Congress to pressure the White House. ..."
"... As Glenn Greenwald points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure, their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is occurring. ..."
"... We made possible the Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use the "f"-word lightly. I've been chronicling Israel's slide toward a repulsive ethno-nationalism for years , and today – with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders – my predictions are coming true. ..."
"... The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous insults , slights, and outright sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from You Know Who: it's time to put America first. ..."
"... What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's just what they are. ..."
Washington is preparing to
increase US aid to Israel by billions of dollars, with a ten-year ironclad agreement that couldn't
be altered by President Obama's successor. But that isn't good enough for Bibi Netanyahu. He wants
more. Much more.
Unlike the case with other countries, the US engages in protracted and often difficult negotiations
with Israel over how much free stuff they're going to get come budget time. This year, the talks
are taking on a particularly urgent tone because of … you guessed it, Donald Trump. While Trump is
fervently pro-Israel, he has said that the Israelis, like our NATO allies, are going to have to
start paying for their
own defense (although with him,
you never know what his position is from
one day to the next ). This uncertainty has the two parties racing to sign an agreement before
President Obama's term is up in January. And it also has inspired the inclusion of a novel clause:
a ten-year guarantee that aid will remain at the agreed level, with no possibility that the new President
– whoever that may be – will lower it.
The Israelis
currently receive over half the foreign aid doled out by Uncle Sam annually, most of it in military
assistance with an extra added dollop for "refugee resettlement." That combined with loan guarantees
comes to roughly $3.5 billion per year – with all the money handed to them up front, in the first
weeks of the fiscal year, instead of being released over time like other countries.
So how much is this increase going to amount to? With negotiations still ongoing, the US isn't
releasing any solid figures, although Bibi, we are told, is demanding $5 billion annually. The
New York Times is
reporting the final sum could "top $40 billion." What we do know is that the administration told
Congress in a letter that they are prepared to offer Tel Aviv an aid package "that would constitute
the largest pledge of military assistance to any country in US history." In addition, it would guarantee
US aid for Israel's missile defense, taking it out of the annual appropriations song-and-dance, and
immunizing it from any cuts.
Aside from the "haggling" – as the Times put it – over the amount, there is another issue:
the Israeli exception to a rule that applies to all other recipients of American aid. Other countries
must spend their welfare check in dollars – that is, they must buy American. Not the Israelis. They're
allowed to spend up to 25% of their aid package at home: which means that US taxpayers have been
subsidizing the Israeli military-industrial complex to the tune of multi-billions since the 1980s,
when this special arrangement was legislated. However, in an era where "America First" is now a popular
political slogan – popularized by You Know Who – the Obama administration is trying to end this exception
to the rules. Naturally, the Israelis are resisting, but,
according to Ha'aretz
:
"The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth said the White House was prepared to let Israel keep
the arrangement for the first five years of the new MOU but it would be gradually phased out in the
second five years, except for joint U.S.-Israeli military projects."
If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this
concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources
to get Congress to pressure the White House.
In their letter to Congress, national security honcho Susan Rice and OMB chief Shaun Donovan evoke
the Iran deal as justification for this new and sweeter aid package. Yet this argument undermines
the administration's contention that the agreement with Iran doesn't endanger Israel – because if
it doesn't, then why do the Israelis need billions more in aid in the first place?
What the letter tiptoes around is the fact that this aid package is extortion, pure and simple.
It's a purely political attempt by the Obama White House to appease the Israelis, and mobilize the
Israel lobby behind the Democrats in a crucial election year. It's important to keep
Haim Saban happy.
As Glenn Greenwald
points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy
is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure,
their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is
occurring.
What in the heck is going on here?
We made possible the
Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its
dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has
encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use
the "f"-word lightly. I've been
chronicling Israel's slide
toward a
repulsive ethno-nationalism
for years , and today –
with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the
expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders
– my predictions are coming true.
The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off
US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous
insults
, slights, and outright
sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from
You Know Who: it's time to put America first.
What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful
apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration
Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's
just what they are.
"... The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland. ..."
"... The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States. Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee, then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat, Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it. ..."
"... Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation. ..."
"... And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed, Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media around thirty years ago. ..."
"... Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S., never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents. ..."
"... Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there are separate reports suggesting that one of her first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party. ..."
"... If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020. ..."
The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary
Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential
nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline
foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged
bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland.
The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame
Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States.
Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee,
then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat,
Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is
no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it.
Those in the media and around Hillary who were baying the loudest about how outraged they were
over the hack curiously appear to have no knowledge of the existence of the National Security Agency,
located at Fort Meade Maryland, which routinely breaks into the government computers of friends and
foes alike worldwide. Apparently what is fair game for American codebreakers is no longer seen so
positively when there is any suggestion that the tables might have been turned.
Republican nominee Donald Trump noted that if the Russians were in truth behind the hack he would
like them to search for the 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton reportedly deleted from her home server.
The comment, which to my mind was sarcastically making a point about Clinton's mendacity, brought
down the wrath of the media, with the New York Times
reporting that "foreign policy experts," also sometimes known as "carefully selected 'Trump haters,'"
were shocked by The Donald. The paper quoted one William Inboden, allegedly a University of Texas
professor who served on President George W. Bush's National Security Council. Inboden complained
that the comments were "an assault on the Constitution" and "tantamount to treason." Now I have never
heard of Inboden, which might be sheer ignorance on my part, but he really should refresh himself
on what the Constitution
actually says about
treason, tantamount or otherwise. According to Article III of the Constitution of the United States
one can only commit treason if there is a declared war going on and one is actively aiding an enemy,
which as far as I know is not currently the case as applied to the U.S. relationship with Russia.
Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow
is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald
Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be
able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's
favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American
values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers
including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able
to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and
his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation.
And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by
other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so
in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even
a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the
fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big
winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is
the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid
for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed,
Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position
it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media
around thirty years ago.
Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel
and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv
is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen
times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S.,
never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents.
No other foreign country was mentioned as often as Israel apart from Iran, which was regularly
cited as an enemy of both the U.S. and – you guessed it – Israel. Indeed, the constant thumping of
Iran is a reflection of the overweening affection for Netanyahu and his right wing government. Regarding
Iran, the GOP foreign policy
platform states "We consider the Administration's deal with Iran, to lift international sanctions
and make hundreds of billions of dollars available to the Mullahs, a personal agreement between the
President and his negotiating partners and non-binding on the next president. Without a two-thirds
endorsement by the Senate, it does not have treaty status. Because of it, the defiant and emboldened
regime in Tehran continues to sponsor terrorism across the region, develop a nuclear weapon, test-fire
ballistic missiles inscribed with 'Death to Israel,' and abuse the basic human rights of its citizens."
The final written
Republican platform for 2016 as relating to the Middle East, drawn up
with the input
of two Trump advisors Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, rather supports the suggestion that Trump
would be pro-Israel rather than the claim of impartiality. The plank entitled "Our Unequivocal Support
of Israel and Jerusalem," promises to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, praises Israel in five
different sections, eulogizing it as a "beacon of democracy and humanity" brimming over with freedom
of speech and religion while concluding that "support for Israel is an expression of Americanism."
It pledges "no daylight" between the two countries, denies that Israel is an "occupier," and slams
the peaceful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS), which it describes as anti-Semitic
and seeking to destroy Israel. It calls for legal action to "thwart" BDS. There is no mention of
a Palestinian state or of any Palestinian rights to anything at all.
The
Democratic plank on the Middle East gives lip service to a two state solution for Israel-Palestine
but is mostly notable for what it chose to address. Two Bernie Sanders supporters on the platform
drafting committee James Zogby and Cornel West wanted to remove any illegal under international
law affirmation that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel and also sought to eliminated any
condemnation of BDS. They failed on both issues and then tried to have included mild language criticizing
Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its settlement building. They were outvoted by Hillary supporters
on all the issues they considered important. Indeed, there is no language at all critical in any
way of Israel, instead asserting that "a strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because
we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance,
and pluralism." That none of that was or is true apparently bothered no one in the Hillary camp.
The Democratic platform document explicitly condemns any support for BDS. Hillary Clinton, who
has promised to take the relationship with Israel to a whole new level, has reportedly
agreed to an anti-BDS
pledge to appease her principal financial supporter Haim Saban, an Israeli-American film producer.
Clinton also directly and personally intervened through her surrogate on the committee Wendy Sherman
to make sure that the party platform would remain pro-Israel.
But many Democrats on the floor of the convention hall have, to their credit, promoted a somewhat
different perspective, displaying signs and stickers while calling for support of Palestinian
rights. One demonstrator outside the convention center burned an Israeli flag, producing a
sharp response from Hillary's spokeswoman for Jewish outreach Sarah Bard, "Hillary Clinton has
always stood against efforts to marginalize Israel and incitement, and she strongly condemns this
kind of hatred. Burning the Israeli flag is a reckless act that undermines peace and our values."
Bill meanwhile was
seen in the hall wearing a Hillary button written in Hebrew. It was a full court press pander
and one has to wonder how Hillary would have felt about someone burning a Russian flag or seeing
Bill sport a button in Cyrillic.
Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there
are separate reports suggesting that one of her
first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad
regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from
the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party.
The Democratic platform also
beats down on Iran, declaring only tepid support for the nuclear deal while focusing more on
draconian enforcement, asserting that they would "not hesitate to take military action if Iran violates
the agreement." It also cited Iran as "the leading state sponsor of terrorism" and claimed that Tehran
"has its fingerprints on almost every conflict in the Middle East." For what it's worth, neither
assertion about Iran's regional role is true and Tehran reportedly has complied completely with the
multilateral nuclear agreement. It is the U.S. government that is failing to live up to its commitments
by refusing to allow Iranian access to financial markets while the Congress has even blocked an Iranian
bid to buy Made-in-the-U.S.A. civilian jetliners.
So those of us who had hoped for at least a partial abandonment of the hitherto dominant foreign
policy consensus have to be disappointed as they in the pro-war crowd in their various guises as
liberal interventionists or global supremacy warriors continue to control much of the discourse from
left to right. Russia continues to be a popular target to vent Administration frustration over its
inept posturing overseas, though there is some hope that Donald Trump might actually reverse that
tendency. Iran serves as a useful punchline whenever a politician on the make runs out of other things
to vilify. And then there is always Israel, ever the victim, perpetually the greatest ally and friend.
And invariably needing some extra cash, a warplane or two or a little political protection in venues
like the United Nations.
If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless
task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement
of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political
class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely
to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the
Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that
the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020.
In addition, American voters don't trust Hillary Clinton. At what point will critics of Bernie Sanders
realize that American voters will never vote for a candidate they don't trust and don't like? In
October of 2015, I explained in the following
YouTube segment why Clinton
is unelectable, and in another
segment why Clinton must
always evolve on key issues.
53.8% of all American voters have an "unfavorable" view of Hillary Clinton.
67%
of American voters find Hillary Clinton "not honest and trustworthy," compared with
59%
for Donald Trump. Yes, more people trust Donald Trump.
After all, it's difficult to trust a politician who
completely fabricated a story about being fired upon by snipers. Like
POLITIFACT states, "it's hard to understand how she could err on something so significant as
whether she did or didn't dodge sniper bullets."
Most of us knew this already, but now here's proof.
Is Bernie going down fighting for his political beliefs like a real presidential
candidate would? Is he even being remotely honest with his supporters at this
point? Nope. He's keeping his mouth shut and staying on script for Hillary -
who everyone knows will be the worst kind of tyrannical dictator - saying, "I'm
proud to stand with her".
For those of us who didn't know this, Bernie was like a magical fairy unicorn.
People want so badly to believe it's real... but it just isn't... and it never
was. Feel the burn...
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance
is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright
statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal
use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Lemmy Fuque
1 day ago
For decades the Clintons have run a criminal organization of fraud, deception,
hypocrisy, conspiracy, bribes, blackmail, espionage, treason, murder, assassination,
money laundering, sex-slaves, pedophilia, etc. that would leave Capone and
Giancana in awe. Leaked DNC emails is your proof that Bernie was just another
Clinton pawn. (Add Seth Rich to the Clinton body count after leaking DNC
emails). Though Bernie attracted a lot of followers, do NOT under estimate
the stupidity of the brainwashed Libtard electorate to vote the skank criminal
cunt for POTUS. Clintons run the $100B criminal Clinton Foundation & Global
initiative and get what they want-or they will take you out. Libtards will
be the easiest and first lead to FEMA camps for NWO depopulation.
You can't blame Bernie for he is a Professional politician after all. To
survive in that game, one has to play ball with party management. Half the
trouble in this country comes from the two parties who make the decisions....Not
the people.
like jessse venture said ..politics is exactly like wrestling - In front
of the cameras they hate each other , but when it's off they eating lunch
together
Bernies reaction that night when Clinton dared to thank him said it all
,sad fact is he refuses to say they fucked him and lied and cheated because
she has offered him something or he is scared.
The Us intervention were dictate by needs of global corporation that control the US foreigh
policy. And they need to open market, press geopolitical rivals (Ukraine, Georgia) and grab
resources (Iraq, Libya). The American people are now hostages in their own country and can do
nothing against the establishement militaristic stance. They will fight and die in unnecessary wars
of neoliberal globalization.
Notable quotes:
"... With Democrats howling that Vladimir Putin hacked into and leaked those 19,000 DNC emails to help Trump, the Donald had a brainstorm: Maybe the Russians can retrieve Hillary Clinton's lost emails. Not funny, and close to "treasonous," came the shocked cry. Trump then told the New York Times that a Russian incursion into Estonia need not trigger a U.S. military response ..."
"... Behind the war guarantees America has issued to scores of nations in Europe, the Mideast and Asia since 1949, the bedrock of public support that existed during the Cold War has crumbled. We got a hint of this in 2013. Barack Obama, claiming his "red line" against any use of poison gas in Syria had been crossed, found he had no public backing for air and missile strikes on the Assad regime. The country rose up as one and told him to forget it. He did. We have been at war since 2001. And as one looks on the ruins of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and adds up the thousands dead and wounded and trillions sunk and lost, can anyone say our War Party has served us well? ..."
"... The first NATO supreme commander, General Eisenhower, said that if U.S. troops were still in Europe in 10 years, NATO would be a failure. In 1961, he urged JFK to start pulling U.S. troops out, lest Europeans become military dependencies of the United States. Was Ike not right? Even Barack Obama today riffs about the "free riders" on America's defense. Is it really so outrageous for Trump to ask how long the U.S. is to be responsible for defending rich Europeans who refuse to conscript the soldiers or pay the cost of their own defense, when Eisenhower was asking that same question 55 years ago? ..."
"... In 1997, geostrategist George Kennan warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe "would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era." He predicted a fierce nationalistic Russian response. Was Kennan not right? ..."
With Democrats howling that Vladimir Putin hacked into and leaked those 19,000 DNC emails
to help Trump, the Donald had a brainstorm: Maybe the Russians can retrieve Hillary Clinton's lost
emails. Not funny, and close to "treasonous," came the shocked cry. Trump then told the New York
Times that a Russian incursion into Estonia need not trigger a U.S. military response.
Even more shocking. By suggesting the U.S. might not honor its NATO commitment, under Article
5, to fight Russia for Estonia, our foreign policy elites declaimed, Trump has undermined the security
architecture that has kept the peace for 65 years. More interesting, however, was the reaction of
Middle America. Or, to be more exact, the nonreaction. Americans seem neither shocked nor horrified.
What does this suggest?
Behind the war guarantees America has issued to scores of nations in Europe, the Mideast and
Asia since 1949, the bedrock of public support that existed during the Cold War has crumbled. We
got a hint of this in 2013. Barack Obama, claiming his "red line" against any use of poison gas in
Syria had been crossed, found he had no public backing for air and missile strikes on the Assad regime.
The country rose up as one and told him to forget it. He did. We have been at war since 2001. And
as one looks on the ruins of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and adds up the thousands
dead and wounded and trillions sunk and lost, can anyone say our War Party has served us well?
On bringing Estonia into NATO, no Cold War president would have dreamed of issuing so insane a
war guarantee. Eisenhower refused to intervene to save the Hungarian rebels. JFK refused to halt
the building of the Berlin Wall. LBJ did nothing to impede the Warsaw Pact's crushing of the Prague
Spring. Reagan never considered moving militarily to halt the smashing of Solidarity.
Were all these presidents cringing isolationists? Rather, they were realists who recognized that,
though we prayed the captive nations would one day be free, we were not going to risk a world war,
or a nuclear war, to achieve it. Period. In 1991, President Bush told Ukrainians that any declaration
of independence from Moscow would be an act of "suicidal nationalism."
Today, Beltway hawks want to bring Ukraine into NATO. This would mean that America would go to
war with Russia, if necessary, to preserve an independence Bush I regarded as "suicidal."
Have we lost our minds?
The first NATO supreme commander, General Eisenhower, said that if U.S. troops were still
in Europe in 10 years, NATO would be a failure. In 1961, he urged JFK to start pulling U.S. troops
out, lest Europeans become military dependencies of the United States. Was Ike not right? Even Barack
Obama today riffs about the "free riders" on America's defense. Is it really so outrageous for Trump
to ask how long the U.S. is to be responsible for defending rich Europeans who refuse to conscript
the soldiers or pay the cost of their own defense, when Eisenhower was asking that same question
55 years ago?
In 1997, geostrategist George Kennan warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe "would be
the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era." He predicted a fierce nationalistic
Russian response. Was Kennan not right? NATO and Russia are today building up forces in the
eastern Baltic where no vital U.S. interests exist, and where we have never fought before - for that
very reason. There is no evidence Russia intends to march into Estonia, and no reason for her to
do so. But if she did, how would NATO expel Russian troops without air and missile strikes that would
devastate that tiny country? And if we killed Russians inside Russia, are we confident Moscow would
not resort to tactical atomic weapons to prevail? After all, Russia cannot back up any further. We
are right in her face.
On this issue Trump seems to be speaking for the silent majority and certainly raising issues
that need to be debated.
How long are we to be committed to go to war to defend the tiny Baltic republics against a
Russia that could overrun them in 72 hours?
When, if ever, does our obligation end? If it is eternal, is not a clash with a revanchist
and anti-American Russia inevitable?
Are U.S. war guarantees in the Baltic republics even credible?
If the Cold War generations of Americans were unwilling to go to war with a nuclear-armed
Soviet Union over Hungary and Czechoslovakia, are the millennials ready to fight a war with Russia
over Estonia?
Needed now is diplomacy. The trade-off: Russia ensures the independence of the Baltic republics
that she let go. And NATO gets out of Russia's face. Should Russia dishonor its commitment, economic
sanctions are the answer, not another European war.
"... Not a Trump supporter, but Trump was right when he said Democrats wrote Khizr Khan's speech. In the middle of attacking Trump for the Mexican wall and ban on Muslims, he attacked Trump for opposing free trade. (Something only Clintonista weasels would dream up.) ..."
Not a Trump supporter, but Trump was right when he said Democrats wrote Khizr Khan's
speech. In the middle of attacking Trump for the Mexican wall and ban on Muslims, he
attacked Trump for opposing free trade. (Something only Clintonista weasels would dream
up.)
It's ridiculous to suggest that a politician is not allowed to say anything in defense
of attacks leveled by "sacred" parents of slain soldiers. Their point was that they are
Muslim and American and their son died fighting for America. His point: why didn't the
speechwriters give the wife a couple of lines? Is this husband a social-conservative Muslim
who doesn't permit his wife to speak? Those are not American values.
BTW, do people think Trump's ban on Muslims is bad? The fact is, America is at war with
a number of Muslim nations and factions. FDR declared war on Japan. Then put Japanese
Americans in concentration camps. Trump has yet to get FDR on their asses!
ilsm said in reply to
Ron Waller...
I am a Vietnam era
veteran, I earned a pension, with no disability, and I think the 6000 KIA from Clinton's
Universal perpetual war vote are discredited by Clinton using a family of a KIA to rub
Trumps nose in his "screen muslims position".
Reply
Monday, August 01, 2016
at 04:31 PM
Ron Waller said in reply to ilsm...
Ha. Didn't even realize
the hypocrisy.
I did notice it in Hillary's attack on Trump for using outsourcing yet opposing free
trade. She helped put the TPP together and called it the 'gold standard' of trade deals.
(By gold standard I take it she means big on investor protection limiting the scope of
democratic government.)
This is the same as calling Warren Buffet a hypocrite calling for higher taxes on the
rich, but not willing to donate the difference to the government.
Business people operate in the business environment and the existing supply chains.
They have to play by the existing rules or lose out to their competitors. No business
person is a hypocrite calling for reforms to the system. Only government regulations can
change the system.
Trump is putting his money where his mouth is by vowing to tear up terrible trade
deals that could cut into his profits.
Hillary's position on the TPP is don't ask/don't tell. Don't ask if she'll tear up
the agreement and she won't tell she's already taken the bribe money.
Reply
Monday, August 01, 2016
at 05:32 PM
chriss1519 said...
Frankly, I find Paul Ryan
more vile than Trump. Trump says some awful things, but at least his policies come from
a place where he has some concern for the little guy. Ryan is all too happy to see the
poor ground into the dirt. Ideological consistency above all else.
Reply
Monday, August 01, 2016
at 02:30 AM
lilnev said in reply
to chriss1519...
Trump is all too happy to
screw the little guy. That's been his behavior all his life. He has found that applause
lines about the little guy are a great way to promote himself, that's all.
I do find Paul Ryan more heinous, though. The man who wouldn't even let Congress vote on
Zika funding because he knew it would pass. That's a much more calculated evil than the
filth that spews out of Trump.
Reply
Monday, August 01, 2016
at 05:39 AM
Sanjait said in reply
to chriss1519...
If you think Trump cares
about the little guy, I have a degree program from Trump University to sell you ...
But I take your point about Ryan,
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said...
"...But democracy isn't about
making a statement, it's about exercising responsibility. And indulging your feelings at a
time like this amounts to dereliction of your duty as a citizen..."
[Paul Krugman appears to
confuse the way the world actually works with how he thinks the world should work. I guess
that is how voting works in his model, but if it really worked that way in reality then there
is no way to explain the existence of either of our two mainstream political parties. You
don't get to where we are with our political system by exercising responsibility and that has
been true all my life. Politics has been entirely about triangulating demographic groups by
their susceptibility to leveraging their contradictions between their aspirations and their
fears.]
Peter K. said in reply to RC
AKA Darryl, Ron...
They tell you to choose between
Coke and Pepsi and make the responsible choice. Politics is more than that.
It's about that
almighty dollar.
As Obama said in his speech in Philly:
"So if you agree that there's too much inequality in our economy, and too much money in our
politics, we all need to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders'
supporters have been."
The New Democrats like Bill Clinton who triangulate do so in part to attract wealthy
donors. Sanders showed you don't have to with his numerous small contributions.
But when you appeal to the wishes of wealthy donors you demoralize your base and depress
the vote.
If Hillary isn't progressive enough, she'll create more Trump voters. How is that
responsible?
jjhman said in reply to RC
AKA Darryl, Ron...
In these discussions my mind
alwasy turns back to, as said above, how things actually work instead of what we would like or
the constitution may require.
The way things really work is that political elites run the
show. For government to work the elites have to give the voters rational choices that depend
on elites doing thier homework and actually having reasons for why one path or the other would
advance the needs of the society. The system only works when there is some sense of noblesse
oblige in the elites and the voters believe that the elites actually are trying to make things
better.
The success of the Trump and Sanders campaigns show that large numbers of voters don't
believe that the actors in the two parties are working to solve the country's problems. And
there is certainly evidence that the Paul Ryans and Mitch McConnells care more about their own
careers than the good of the country or even of any ideology.
EMichael said in reply
to jjhman...
I love the idea that
somehow, in 2016, there is a change in the feelings of the American people from other
elections.
The first election I paid attention to was in the 60s. Starting then, and
continuing right through today every single election has been about how bad things are
and what can make them better. And either the previous admin paid no attention to those
things or we just need to build on what the previous admin did.
Reply
Monday, August 01, 2016
at 09:45 AM
RC AKA Darryl, Ron
said in reply to jjhman...
I would agree with all of
that if you were to omit the word "rational." Elites give voters choices. It is not
rational to expect that those choices would actually be in the interest of the majority
of voters anywhere near as much in the interest of elites except in those instances that
the electorate is on the verge of rebellion and insurrection. The US Constitution was
never structured to serve a democracy in any egalitarian manner. The Constitution
provided for a system of elite privilege based on property rights and inheritance
instead of bloodline and inheritance. We have been given the means to rebel
democratically within the Constitutional provisions for elections within the republic,
but instead we cling to elites for guidance and are fated to eternally fall to
disappointment and regret. Solidarity can render the existing party system irrelevant.
Don't re-elect anyone until they all do what we want. We just lack solidarity.
Reply
Monday, August 01, 2016
at 10:45 AM
David said...
The more I think about
Trump the less I know what I could rationally think to say about him.
The Republican
party has advantages that are structured in gerrymandering and just demographics, in the
South. As a national party, they are losing these advantages, and will continue to do
so.
But one point: in my youth, the right wing was always paranoid in a weird way about
communism. The Manchurian Candidate, Dr. Strangelove. The Vietnam war. The cold war. So
I honestly thought when the cold war ended that the paranoia and hate would stop.
Then we get Bill Clinton. And the hate and paranoia increased! The point is, hate and
paranoia is right wing oxygen - without it they die, they have no raison d'etre.
But even some of the right wingers have seen hate and paranoia can be twisted,
manipulated by someone who, let's be honest, has no idea of what he's doing, no
self-control, and no understanding global politics. He's like a child who wanders into
the middle of a movIe:
But he's a dangerous child.
Observer said in reply to
David ...
Judging buy the comments here,
there is plenty of "hate and paranoia" on both sides.
ilsm said in reply to pgl...
Kissinger and Albright endorsed
Clinton!
Sanjait said in reply to
Eric377...
There is something weird about
fear of communism *taking over the United States*. It was never going to happen and it was
always obvious it was never going to happen.
It's only less ridiculous by a matter of degree
than people who fear "creeping Sharia law" in the US.
jjhman said in reply to
Sanjait...
The hysterical fear of communism
in the US goes back at least to the Red Scare era following the Russian revolution. I have
always wondered how much effort the industrial magnates of that post-gilded age had to invest
in the media to get that horse running and keep it running for the rest of the 20th century.
It seems that the fear-mongerers of today have abandoned socialism for Islamic terrorism. I
suspect that was one reason why Bernie could slip into a national election with his socialism
barely an issue.
ilsm said in reply to David
...
The bat @*&^ war mongers have
gone blue. Maybe the bat @*&^ GOPsters are going isolation.
The neocons Kagan and so forth
are backing the Clinton war wagon.
Fits with Bill breaking up Serbia, pushing the Kremlin's nose in it and reneging on keeping
NATO in the west.
I love it when the Clinton campaign kids who would never put on a uniform say: "we have to
honor alliances" that have no relation to the common defense.
I am old enough to not worry about nuclear winter, it is faster than climate disaster!
RGC said...
PK has jumped the shark.
He is now pure political hack.
He ignores what those "center-left" policies of the DLC
democrats have done, the Clinton's role in that and the resulting frustration and anger
of the people affected.
A majority of Americans now see no decent future for themselves and their children
and they are frustrated. They are doing what people do in that situation - they are
looking for someone to blame and punish.
PK and the DLC democrats point them to the republicans. The republicans point to the
democrats. But the truth is that they both created the economic malaise that now exists
on behalf of their plutocrat sponsors. The difference between them is cultural - not
economic.
Trump has the advantage of not having participated in creating that malaise. He is
also voicing some truths about US foreign policy that exposes the neocon element in both
parties. He is a terrible choice for president but when you are drowning you grab for
any piece of flotsam that floats by.
PK has played his part in getting us to this point by protecting the left flank of
economic policy from effective but "socialist" answers. But being a neoliberal isn't
enough, now he is a neocon too.
Reply
Monday, August 01, 2016
at 05:46 AM
JF said in reply to
RGC...
And I hope that the
Clinton campaign reads this.
They need to find positioning like the one Sanders had,
imo, or your characterization could end up being true at the polls.
Using PK in the positioning is using the wrong kind of person.
Reply
Monday, August 01, 2016
at 06:16 AM
Pinkybum said in reply to
RGC...
Yeah that's right Paul Krugman
is keeping the working class down in cahoots with the DLC democrats.
Sure the turn to
austerity in 2010 was an economic own-goal but it wasn't Obama who turned down a jobs bill in
2011 worth $447 billion.
RGC said in reply to
Pinkybum...
It was Obama who appointed 'deregulatin
Larry' Summers and 'tax-evading Timmy' Geithner. It was Obama who proposed cutting social
security. It was Obama who proposed austerity by saying we had to live within our means just
like any household.
Etc., etc.
Peter K. said in reply to
RGC...
It's Obama pushing the TPP.
RGC said in reply to
Tmb81...
I think Obama could have gotten
all that and more. I think he disappeared the day after the election.
I think he was bought and paid for just like Hillary is.
ilsm said in reply to RGC...
Obama reneged and acted as if he
supported AUMF from 2002 on!
ilsm said in reply to
Johannes Y O Highness...
UN needs to establish witness
protection for Russian hackers!
Obama calls off the FBI, someone has to look into Clinton
corruption.
IAW the mafia it is a crime to be a stool pigeon.
Bob said...
Just remember that the same
billionaires that employ Hillary also employ Krugman.
My advice: Beware of pollsters bearing forecasts, especially anyone trying to peek
into the future, especially those with money to bet.
Some 20 years ago, I
constructed a formula, The
Primary Model, that has predicted the winner of the popular vote in all five
presidential elections since it was introduced. It is based on elections dating to
1912. The formula was wrong only once: The 1960 election. That one hurt because
John F. Kennedy was my preferred candidate.
The Primary Model consists of two ingredients: The swing of the electoral
pendulum, and the outcomes of primaries.
You can see the pendulum work with the naked eye. After two terms in office,
the presidential party in power loses more often than not. In fact, over the past
65 years, it managed to win a third term only once. In 1988, President George H.W.
Bush extended Ronald Reagan's presidency by one more term. Reagan made this
possible by winning re-election by a bigger margin than when he first got elected.
That spells continuity, a desire for more of the same.
President Barack Obama has not left such a legacy for a Democratic successor.
He did worse in his re-election victory over Mitt Romney in 2012 than when he beat
John McCain in 2008. That spells, "It's Time for a Change!" The pendulum points to
the GOP in 2016, no matter whether the candidate was named Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco
Rubio, John Kasich or whoever.
Now add the outcomes of presidential primaries. Although some experts claim
primary votes have no bearing on general elections, the fact is that primaries
prove uncanny in forecasting the winner in November. Take the first election with
a significant number of primaries, in 1912. In November that year, Woodrow Wilson,
the winner in Democratic primaries, defeated William Howard Taft, the loser in
Republican primaries; Taft was renominated since most states then did not use
primaries. In general, the party with the stronger primary candidate wins the
general election.
This year, Trump has wound up as the stronger of the two presidential nominees.
He won many more primaries than did Clinton. In fact, this was apparent as early
as early March. Trump handily won the first two primaries, New Hampshire and South
Carolina, while Clinton badly lost New Hampshire to Sen. Bernie Sanders before
beating him in South Carolina.
The Primary Model predicts that Trump will defeat Clinton with 87 percent
certainty. He is the candidate of change. When voters demand change, they are
willing to overlook many foibles of the change candidate. At the same time, the
candidate who touts experience will get more intense scrutiny for any missteps and
suspicions of misconduct of the record of experience.
Trump may be lucky to have picked an election in which change trumps experience
and experience may prove to be a mixed blessing.
Helmut Norpoth is the director of undergraduate studies and political
science professor at Stony Brook University.
"... The EU has been jerking Turkey around forever about joining the EU. They clearly intend not to let a Muslim country join but keep pretending they might as a key NATO ally. ..."
"... Merely assuming an official posture of neutrality, as Nasser famously did, would be a big setback for the US and a big gain for Russia ..."
"... The fact that the heads of NATO and the US government, along with their "brain trusts" get so panicky about a possible warming of relations between Russia and Turkey is ridiculous. These asshats have been behaving all along as if the Soviet Union never fell and that Russia is the same thing it was while the heart of the USSR. ..."
"... NATO gets aggressive and spreads itself all over Eastern Europe with the intention of kicking the Bear and then gets its panties in a twist when the Bear, quite reasonably, reacts to their aggressive actions. ..."
"... I literally cannot think of a single thing that Russia has done since the end of the Soviet Union that in any way, shape, or form alarms me or makes me think, "These guys are planning to invade or start a war!" ..."
"... US aggression in Syria HAD to be responded to by Russia. Russia has LONG time major military bases in Syria. How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there? The initiating of chaos would be the aggressive act, NOT the US response to the chaos. The generating of massive chaos in Syria (by the US and its allies) was the aggressive act, NOT Russia's quite reasonable and understandable reaction. Same goes for Ukraine. ..."
"... The US is bound and determined to FORCE Russia to be a major foe for Cold War 2.0 whether Russia wants to be or not. The US cannot see any other way to drive its shitty economic system than to fire up the defense industries to full throttle again, ala Cold War 1.0. Instead of dumping the military economic basis to the US and Western economies to focus on truly beneficial development, they are going with the boogieman…both for the economic shot it will provide, but also in an attempt to quell unrest due to income inequality and the rape/pillage economic system of the West. Make the people afraid of being invaded or nuked into oblivion and they wont complain about no more retirement, inability to buy a decent home, or send their kids to college. ..."
"... If the first Presidents Bush and Clinton had attempted conversion and used some crumbs to mitigate the Soviet collapse, instead of unleashing the worst pack of intellectual sophists, strategists, and black market dregs, then Russia today would probably be neatly colonized into an international system, but after the violent class conflict of decolonization during the Cold War a new world order that appeared like Gore Vidal's semi-sarcastic paradigm-shattering essay in the Nation would prematurely speed up de-colonization with "white privilege" too uncamouflaged: ..."
"... Thank you. I have been wondering about the relationship between the Gulen movement and the CIA that relationship might shed light about whether the US was involved in or pushed or green lighted the coup. Of course, CIA assets have been known to go rogue as well. ..."
"... While exploring this subject, there's a good article and talk given by a career CIA case officer (undercover) who now works for a think tank of some sort. (So I assume she's still with the CIA, even if supposedly she's not.) Her book describes the extent of the Gulen network, including the criminal investigations underway for Gulen's charter schools network. (Did you know Gulen has the largest network of charter schools in the USA?!) This presentation implicitly acknowledged the dangerous / illegal aspects to the Gulen movement. ..."
"... But at a higher, strategic level, CIA seems to be obviously harboring and supporting Gulen, as Edmonds says. ..."
"... Edmonds has also done some amazing work regarding Hastert's pedophile connections–reported this formally to US law agencies in multiple years, and was interviewed for a triple-fact-checked Vanity Fair article. The FBI agents who were doing the investigating (knowing about Hastert's pedophilia 10-20 years ago) thought they were preparing for a criminal investigation. They became disillusioned when they realized after a couple of years that their FBI higher-ups had no intention of prosecuting. Apparently the issue is so widespread, and everyone knows–Edmonds describes a certain palace in Turkey where US Congress members get taken on VIP trips, where the VIP suites were being monitored / videotapes simultaneously by FBI, DIA, DoJ, criminal gangs, and foreign governments. Yet when most recently Hastert comes to public attention, all the known pedophile activities are not mentioned, just the financial money-laundering aspects. Because so many of our officials & media & prominent people have been compromised by pedophilia that no one is willing to speak out about it. ..."
"... Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has a number of insightful video interviews and papers about Turkey. She predicted the coup about 18 months ago–pointing out that the CIA was preparing to replace Erdogan, and showing the pattern with other regime changes with USA involvement. Both the recent and past interviews give a lot of insight–e.g., into Gulen's CIA-backed financial, cultural and political empire spanning Turkey, Turkik-friendly caucasus countries and deeply embedded within the USA and Congress. ..."
"... For background on Sibel Edmonds, a short 2006 documentary "Kill the Messenger" about her whistleblowing while an FBI translator is a good starting point. ..."
"... Ever wondered why Russia hasn't attempted to internally overthrow any of the Gulf States or Saudi Arabia since the Iraqi invasion? They are definitely fragile, internally vulnerable states and closely aligned with the west. Two can definitely play these color revolution games. I suspect it is due to the vulnerability of their own, Russian, populations and increased Middle east instability could produce blowback in Russia proper. However the US and allies have been playing hard this game of disrupting Middle East stability for the last 13 years. At what point, would the Russians decide, well, Middle East stability is already gone and it is time to strike back at US allies using our own tactics? Personally, I think Putin is too smart for that but what about after Putin? ..."
"... Russia's historical ties were with the Byzantine Empire, with which it shared – after the 9th century A.D. – a crucial common feature, viz. Orthodoxy. The center of Orthodoxy was of course Constantinople, with which the Russian Archbishopric and later, Patriarchate, experienced complicated relations. Upon the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the loss of Constantinople to Orthodoxy, Russia envisioned its own capital, Moscow, as taking up the mantle and succeeding Constantinople (the "Second Rome") as Christendom's "Third Rome". The title conflates the relationship between the two countries/empires in the Byzantine period with that during the Ottoman period (i.e., the [Sublime] "Porte"). ..."
"... But for non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens who live near the world's hottest geopolitical hotspot, the prospect of Victoria Nuland (of Ukraine regime change fame) as SoS is not at all a happy one. ..."
It's rather improbable to see a Russo-Turkish alliance against US and NATO. The US and the
Russians have probably already agreed on the new Middle East map which includes Kurdish state.
This explains to a great extent why Erdogan is so nervous, making sloppy and dangerous moves.
Um, given reports that the Turks
briefly closed the airbase that the US uses to conduct operations in Syria over the weekend,
Erdogan seems plenty pissed with the US for not turning over Gulen, as he has repeatedly requested.
Europe has agreed to give him only 3 billion euros to halt the refugee flow into Europe, which
is hardly adequate, and a vague promise that maybe the EU will give Turks the freedom of movement
too. The EU has been jerking Turkey around forever about joining the EU. They clearly intend
not to let a Muslim country join but keep pretending they might as a key NATO ally.
Merely assuming an official posture of neutrality, as Nasser famously did, would be a big
setback for the US and a big gain for Russia
Thanks for mentioning the Real News Network fundraiser, Yves. They have a dollar-for-dollar
matching grant going on as well, doubling the impact of every donation.
The fact that the heads of NATO and the US government, along with their "brain trusts"
get so panicky about a possible warming of relations between Russia and Turkey is ridiculous.
These asshats have been behaving all along as if the Soviet Union never fell and that Russia is
the same thing it was while the heart of the USSR.
They take it on faith that the US/West and Russia MUST be at odds, no matter what, to the point
that they create out of whole cloth conflicts where none existed before. NATO gets aggressive
and spreads itself all over Eastern Europe with the intention of kicking the Bear and then gets
its panties in a twist when the Bear, quite reasonably, reacts to their aggressive actions.
Personally, I couldn't care less if Turkey and Russia get kissy-faced with each other. Big
wup. Russia is NOT preparing to invade Western Europe (as much as NATO WISHES it were). Russia
is NOT invading countries and overthrowing their governments to install puppet regimes, that's
the USA and NATO ONLY. The West transgresses, grossly, again and again and when Russia coughs
or clears its throat in opposition, it is "RUSSIAN AGGRESSION! Yaaaa! The Russians are coming!
The Russians are coming!!!!"
I literally cannot think of a single thing that Russia has done since the end of the Soviet
Union that in any way, shape, or form alarms me or makes me think, "These guys are planning to
invade or start a war!" On the other hand, I've seen nothing BUT war starting by the West.
First NATO takes something that wasn't, in all actuality, THAT bad a situation (the breakup of
Yugoslavia) and turns it into a complete hell in Europe.
US aggression in Syria HAD to be responded to by Russia. Russia has LONG time major military
bases in Syria. How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order
to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there? The initiating of chaos would be
the aggressive act, NOT the US response to the chaos. The generating of massive chaos in Syria
(by the US and its allies) was the aggressive act, NOT Russia's quite reasonable and understandable
reaction. Same goes for Ukraine.
The US is bound and determined to FORCE Russia to be a major foe for Cold War 2.0 whether
Russia wants to be or not. The US cannot see any other way to drive its shitty economic system
than to fire up the defense industries to full throttle again, ala Cold War 1.0. Instead of dumping
the military economic basis to the US and Western economies to focus on truly beneficial development,
they are going with the boogieman…both for the economic shot it will provide, but also in an attempt
to quell unrest due to income inequality and the rape/pillage economic system of the West. Make
the people afraid of being invaded or nuked into oblivion and they wont complain about no more
retirement, inability to buy a decent home, or send their kids to college.
If the first Presidents Bush and Clinton had attempted conversion and used some crumbs
to mitigate the Soviet collapse, instead of unleashing the worst pack of intellectual sophists,
strategists, and black market dregs, then Russia today would probably be neatly colonized into
an international system, but after the violent class conflict of decolonization during the Cold
War a new world order that appeared like Gore Vidal's semi-sarcastic paradigm-shattering essay
in the Nation would prematurely speed up de-colonization with "white privilege" too uncamouflaged:
There is now only one way out. The time has come for the United States to make
common cause with the Soviet Union. The bringing together of the Soviet landmass (with all
its natural resources) and our island empire (with all its technological resources) would be
of great benefit to each society, not to mention the world. Also, to recall the wisdom of the
Four Horsemen who gave us our empire, the Soviet Union and our section of North America combined
would be a match, industrially and technologically, for the Sino-Japanese axis that will dominate
the future just as Japan dominates world trade today. But where the horsemen thought of war
as the supreme solvent, we now know that war is worse than useless. Therefore, the alliance
of the two great powers of the Northern Hemisphere will double the strength of each and give
us, working together, an opportunity to survive, economically, in a highly centralized Asiatic
world.
Rereading this it sacrifices coherence to venting. The premise is that historical contiguity
with the racial residues of empire could be confronted or not if they were more simply transparent.
The bigger point I wanted to make is the current demographic disaster may be intentional if
one looks at the recent Russian experience as an experiment. Broken Force? Then social pressure
through thwarting the traditional modes of reproduction of labor leading to a reinvigorated military
economy in 15 years.
Yeah the whole "soviet threat" issue vanished the day Stalin passed. But i fear that the US,
and thus NATO, needed it to maintain compliance within their own nations.
And thus the threat was stoked until the 90s, then it was eased back as they thought they had
the old bear chained down while Yeltsin was in office, only for their antics to cause a blowback
that is still ongoing once Putin took over.
Last week I got curious to have a better understanding of the Turkey situation than what I
was getting from MSM. I decided to see if Sibel Edmonds had spoken up–and discovered that she
predicted this coup 18 months ago.
The "BellingTheCat" website with WhatsApp translated messages of Turkish military during the
coup, which Helmers also mentions,
are here . Helmers says this website is a NATO-sponsored website and that it is not always
trustworthy, but isn't sure in this case. Edmonds doesn't mention this website being linked to
NATO.
For background on Edmonds see "
Kill the Messenger ",
a 2006 documentary about her whistleblowing within the FBI.
Thank you. I have been wondering about the relationship between the Gulen movement and
the CIA that relationship might shed light about whether the US was involved in or pushed or
green lighted the coup. Of course, CIA assets have been known to go rogue as well.
While exploring this subject, there's a good article and talk given by a career CIA case
officer (undercover) who now works for a think tank of some sort. (So I assume she's still with
the CIA, even if supposedly she's not.) Her book describes the extent of the Gulen network, including
the criminal investigations underway for Gulen's charter schools network. (Did you know Gulen
has the largest network of charter schools in the USA?!) This presentation implicitly acknowledged
the dangerous / illegal aspects to the Gulen movement.
But at a higher, strategic level, CIA seems to be obviously harboring and supporting Gulen,
as Edmonds says.
Within the CIA there are therefore different angles / understandings / strategies. The upper
echelon strategy seems to be about supporting Gulen (including helping clandestinely Gulen–or
his puppet-master(s)–to effect regime change). LIHOP is too weak an argument, given the kind of
support Gulen receives from his USA base. Probably he's just a figurehead and the real power is
out of view. (USA? Off-world?)
Edmonds has also done some amazing work regarding Hastert's pedophile connections–reported
this formally to US law agencies in multiple years, and was interviewed for a triple-fact-checked
Vanity Fair article. The FBI agents who were doing the investigating (knowing about Hastert's
pedophilia 10-20 years ago) thought they were preparing for a criminal investigation. They became
disillusioned when they realized after a couple of years that their FBI higher-ups had no intention
of prosecuting. Apparently the issue is so widespread, and everyone knows–Edmonds describes a
certain palace in Turkey where US Congress members get taken on VIP trips, where the VIP suites
were being monitored / videotapes simultaneously by FBI, DIA, DoJ, criminal gangs, and foreign
governments. Yet when most recently Hastert comes to public attention, all the known pedophile
activities are not mentioned, just the financial money-laundering aspects. Because so many of
our officials & media & prominent people have been compromised by pedophilia that no one is willing
to speak out about it.
Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has a number of insightful video interviews and papers about
Turkey. She predicted the coup about 18 months ago–pointing out that the CIA was preparing to
replace Erdogan, and showing the pattern with other regime changes with USA involvement. Both
the recent and past interviews give a lot of insight–e.g., into Gulen's CIA-backed financial,
cultural and political empire spanning Turkey, Turkik-friendly caucasus countries and deeply embedded
within the USA and Congress.
A longer post with a number of links has been sidetracked to moderation. In case it disappears
I'm posting this short comment.
For background on Sibel Edmonds, a short 2006 documentary "Kill the Messenger" about her
whistleblowing while an FBI translator is a good starting point.
How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to
try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there?
Ever wondered why Russia hasn't attempted to internally overthrow any of the Gulf States
or Saudi Arabia since the Iraqi invasion? They are definitely fragile, internally vulnerable states
and closely aligned with the west. Two can definitely play these color revolution games. I suspect
it is due to the vulnerability of their own, Russian, populations and increased Middle east instability
could produce blowback in Russia proper. However the US and allies have been playing hard this
game of disrupting Middle East stability for the last 13 years. At what point, would the Russians
decide, well, Middle East stability is already gone and it is time to strike back at US allies
using our own tactics? Personally, I think Putin is too smart for that but what about after Putin?
This thread seems to have petered out rather early on, not sure how much to add.
For those (if anyone is still out there) interested, Pat Lang's site SST has been posting regularly
on Turkey, and he has commenters from the region and who are knowledgeable about ME/NE military
and political affairs.
I had read the John Helmer piece on his blog when it was first posted, and forwarded it to
a friend who's similar in many respects to Lang (career military officer, now retired; author
of historical studies and books; keen student of the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey, Cyprus, the
Balkans) except that he's Greek.
In return he sent me a link to his own latest two pieces on a Greek blog. One discusses the
"coup" in considerable detail. Some random factoids I picked up on, in no particular order or
hierarchy:
-Russia is not interested in regime change in Turkey at the moment;
-Russia is very interested in maintaining its buffer zone (called "The Rimland" by the
late Nicholas Spykman, a geopolitics theoretician), of which Turkey forms perhaps the key part
(historically, and now);
-Russia turned the shooting down of that SU 24 into an opportunity to install S400s or
possibly, S500s, in Syria;
-The current situation in Syria is more or less a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia;
-Russia has recently become very active in the so-called "Northern Corridor" (aka, the
Arctic Circle), something most analysts forget;
-By 2020, Russia will be 100% self-sufficient in food production;
-It is likely that Russian surveillance technology picked up the news of the impending
coup and informed Erdogan of it;
-The presence of nuclear weapons at Incirlik is in violation of Article 2 of the 1975 Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
-Russia wants/needs a "southern corridor" to move LNG to the Med. Turkey is in the right
geographic location to serve this purpose.
The historical relationship between Turkey and Russia comes out a bit garbled in Helmer's (original
post) title, i.e. "The New Byzantine Alliance: The Kremlin and the Porte," etc.
Russia's historical ties were with the Byzantine Empire, with which it shared – after the
9th century A.D. – a crucial common feature, viz. Orthodoxy. The center of Orthodoxy was of course
Constantinople, with which the Russian Archbishopric and later, Patriarchate, experienced complicated
relations. Upon the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the loss of Constantinople
to Orthodoxy, Russia envisioned its own capital, Moscow, as taking up the mantle and succeeding
Constantinople (the "Second Rome") as Christendom's "Third Rome". The title conflates the relationship
between the two countries/empires in the Byzantine period with that during the Ottoman period
(i.e., the [Sublime] "Porte").
Short version: when you start messing around in somebody else's backyard, trouble ensues.
The 2016 election offers voters two rather stark choices. Another blog I read, LGM, recently
had a comment on a thread about Trump-Clinton (there are so many, one loses count) that laid out
why voters are choosing one or the other candidate very neatly. If one is in the U.S. and is relatively
or very well-off, the Democrats' championing (qualified, I would say) of identity politics looks
pretty good, or at least, not as bad as the Republicans' (I'm still aghast at how black voters
are so staunchly supportive of someone whose husband shoved TANF through in place of AFDC, but
hey). But for non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens who live near the world's hottest geopolitical
hotspot, the prospect of Victoria Nuland (of Ukraine regime change fame) as SoS is not at all
a happy one.
Bernie Sanders delegates were forcefully locked out of a DNC meeting
on Saturday as the Democratic National Committee attempted to block superdelegate
reforms.
The meeting of 187 rules committee members took place in a small room at
the Wells Fargo Center where they unceremoniously voted to reject a proposal
that would ban superdelegates in future primaries.
The DNC's Rules Committee,
which is co-chaired by former Massachusetts Congressman and outspoken
Clinton surrogate Barney Frank, is made up of representatives of both campaigns
in proportion to how many delegates each campaign won during the primary
process.
DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also appointed 25 members of the Rules
Committee who are able to vote on each proposal. The superdelegate elimination
proposal and related measures were easily the most high-profile votes of
the day.
On Saturday afternoon, the committee voted to reject a proposal eliminating
the role of superdelegates in future Democratic presidential primaries -
something that
multiple state Democratic conventions voted in favor of earlier this
year. Similar proposals to minimize or limit the power of superdelegates
were also defeated.
"... Hillary fainted while she was working in her seventh-floor office at the State Department, not at home, as Reines told the media. She was treated at the State Department's infirmary and then, at her own insistence, taken to Whitehaven to recover. ..."
"... She had a right transverse venous thrombosis, or a blood clot between her brain and skull. She had developed the clot in one of the veins that drains blood from the brain to the heart. The doctors explained that blood stagnates when you spend a lot of time on airplanes, and Hillary had clocked countless hours flying around the world. ..."
"... According to a source close to Hillary, a thorough medical examination revealed that Hillary's tendency to form clots was the least of her problems. She also suffered from a thyroid condition, which was common among women of her age, and her fainting spells indicated there was an underlying heart problem as well. A cardiac stress test indicated that her heart rhythm and heart valves were not normal. Put into layman's language, her heart valves were not pumping in a steady way. ..."
The true story of what happened to Hillary, which is being recounted in these
pages for the first time, was radically different from Reines's version.
To begin with, Hillary fainted while she was working in her seventh-floor
office at the State Department, not at home, as Reines told the media. She was
treated at the State Department's infirmary and then, at her own insistence,
taken to Whitehaven to recover. However, as soon as Bill appeared on the scene
and was able to assess Hillary's condition for himself, he ordered that she
be immediately flown to New York–Presbyterian Hospital in the Fort Washington
section of Manhattan. When Reines subsequently released a statement confirming
that Hillary was being treated at the hospital over the New Year's holiday,
it naturally intensified speculation about the seriousness of her medical condition.
While she was at the hospital, doctors diagnosed Hillary with several problems.
She had a right transverse venous thrombosis, or a blood clot between her
brain and skull. She had developed the clot in one of the veins that drains
blood from the brain to the heart. The doctors explained that blood stagnates
when you spend a lot of time on airplanes, and Hillary had clocked countless
hours flying around the world.
To make matters worse, it turned out that Hillary had an intrinsic tendency
to form clots and faint. In addition to the fainting spell she suffered in Buffalo
a few years before, she had fainted boarding her plane in Yemen, fallen and
fractured her elbow in 2009, and suffered other unspecified fainting episodes.
Several years earlier, she had developed a clot in her leg and was put on anticoagulant
therapy by her doctor. However, she had foolishly stopped taking her anticoagulant
medicine, which might have explained the most recent thrombotic event.
"The unique thing about clotting in the brain is that it could have transformed
into a stroke," said a cardiac specialist with knowledge of Hillary's condition.
Page 195
According to a source close to Hillary, a thorough medical examination revealed
that Hillary's tendency to form clots was the least of her problems. She also
suffered from a thyroid condition, which was common among women of her age,
and her fainting spells indicated there was an underlying heart problem as well.
A cardiac stress test indicated that her heart rhythm and heart valves were
not normal. Put into layman's language, her heart valves were not pumping in
a steady way.
When the author attempted to contact the Clintons' cardiologist, Dr. Allan
Schwartz, he refused to comment, which made it impossible to determine the exact
nature of Hillary's medical status or its long-term significance. However, sources
who dis- cussed Hillary's medical condition with her were told that Hillary's
doctors considered performing valve-replacement surgery. They ultimately decided
against it. Still, before they released Hillary from the hospital, they warned
Bill Clinton: "She has to be carefully monitored for the rest of her life."
the former First Lady took a long bathroom break, but now a law-enforcement source with inside
connections is alleging that Clinton was missing from the stage due to health issues stemming from
a previous brain injury.
These long-lasting symptoms stemming from a concussion and blood clot, according to a neurologist,
suggest Clinton is suffering from post-concussion syndrome, which can severely impact her cognitive
abilities.
All that said, however, Clinton's campaign maintained to Breitbart News that she is in good health
and can serve as President of the United States.
"Strong source just told me something I suspected. Hillary's debate 'bathroom break' wasn't that,
but flare up of problems from brain injury," wrote John Cardillo on
Twitter
.
Cardillo, who previously worked as an officer who provided VIP security details for the New York
Police Department (NYPD), told Breitbart News that he knows of two additional sources who have commented
about Clinton's health problems, which have even impacted her ability to walk to her car after delivering
a speech.
"I got this from both a [federal agent] … and I also got it from a New York [NYPD] guy who worked
security at a Hillary event in New York City," Cardillo told Breitbart News, adding:
These are two people that aren't just personal friends. I worked with one and then post law-enforcement
worked with another on some related things. So, these aren't anonymous people. These are good
friends. Both of them told me the same thing, that after her speeches, whether she did a talk
or a policy speech, she had to sit behind – she would come off the podium backstage – and have
to sit and rest before making it back to the car because she was so fatigued, dizzy and disoriented.
Cardillo said these two security officials don't know each other and do not live in the same state,
but "their stories were almost identical."
One of the men told him that Clinton was "very pale, kind of disoriented. He said she looked like
she was about to faint. She was very pale, almost sweaty."
Cardillo said one of the incidents occurred while she was Secretary of State. The event worked
by the NYPD official was roughly a year ago.
Veteran Republican strategist Roger Stone, who previously worked with GOP frontrunner Donald Trump,
told Breitbart News that he has also heard about Clinton's long-term health problems.
"A number of New York Democrats, very prominent, well-known, wealthy New York Democrats, told
me last year that Hillary had very significant health issues and that they were surprised that she
was running in view of her health problems and her lack of stamina," Stone told Breitbart News. "So
far, she's run a very controlled campaign,"
"I don't think she has the physical stamina to be president," he stated. "I have no doubt that
Marco Rubio won't call her on it, but Trump certainly would."
"We also know that in the emails, of course, Huma Abedin… says that she is easily confused," Stone
added, referencing Clinton's close confidant Abedin
comment in an email , "She's often confused," referring to Clinton.
Trump, Stone's former boss, certainly hasn't been shy in questioning whether Clinton has the "stamina"
to be president.
"She goes out and she sees you guys for about 10 minutes, she sees you for a little while, it's
all rehearsed and staged," Trump said in a recent interview on Fox News' Media Buzz.
"They'll pick a couple of people out of the audience that are like, you know, 100 percent. She'll
sit around a little plastic table, they'll talk to the people for a while. It's ridiculous," Trump
added. "And then she goes away for five or six days and you don't see her. She goes to sleep."
Neurologist Dr. Daniel Kassicieh, D.O., reviewed news reports of Clinton's head injury in light
of the recent information revealed from the security sources that are raising questions about her
current health status.
Kassicieh, who has run his own Sarasota, Florida, practice for 20 years, is a board-certified
neurologist and the medical director of the Florida Headache and Movement Disorder Center. He is
a doctor of osteopathic medicine, which is similar to a medical doctor but can involve at a minimum
of 100 more classroom hours of specific training. That additional training is focused on the osteopathic-or
the musculoskeletal system-aspects of medicine. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Neurology
(FAAN) and a Fellow of the American College of Neuro-psychiatrists (FACN). Kassicieh is a registered
Republican in Sarasota, but his purely medical analysis is troubling for Clinton.
"They were trying to poo-poo this off as a minor concussion, but I would just say that reading
it and trying to take all the politics out of it, and just read it purely from a medical standpoint,"
Kassicieh explained:
Considering the point of what happened with Hillary over this time period… the timeline… and
then what has happened here more recently… the break at the debate, I saw that and even the commentators
that were sitting there made a comment that, 'Gee, that seems awful long for a break.' Just looking
at it from a neurological standpoint, the risk factors for developing post-concussion syndrome,
one of them is age, and she was 65 when this happened… just from a physiologic standpoint that's
an older individual. Being female is a risk factor for post-concussion syndrome as well.
"For someone who has treated many post-concussion syndrome patients and that's what I really believe
she's suffering from based on reading these reports and reading what's happened," Kassicieh said.
"I think she has latent
post-concussion syndrome , and I can understand that as a politician they would want to be covering
that up." He stated:
I would say as a neurologist having seen many post-concussion syndrome patients that I would
not want a president who I knew had post-concussion syndrome being president because their super
high-level cognitive abilities are clearly impaired and even their routine multitasking high-stress
abilities are affected because post-concussion syndrome patients in general don't tolerate even
moderate work, stress-related environments.
Kassicieh added that if suffering from post concussion syndrome, Clinton's symptoms could appear
"well beyond a year" after her concussion.
"A transverse sinus thrombosis [blood clot] is a rare condition of a clot forming in the venous
sinus cavities surrounding the brain," Kassicieh told Breitbart News, referencing an
ABC News report from 2012 that detailed Clinton's head injury and blood clot following a fall.
He explained:
These venous sinuses drain blood out of the brain. The [injury] incidence is only about 3 per
1,000,000 adults. The transverse sinus is less commonly affected than the main sagittal venous
sinus. The cause of transverse sinus clots is not well understood although trauma and dehydration
have been described as risk factors. Mrs. Clinton suffered from both.
Dr. Nicholas C. Bambakidis also analyzed the facts for Breitbart News. He is the director of cerebrovascular
and skull base surgery, and the program director of neurological surgery at University Hospitals
Case Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, and a professor of neurosurgery and radiology at the CWRU
School of Medicine in Cleveland,
"These types of clots are usually formed spontaneously without an obvious cause," Bambakidis said
in an email:
They can be associated with dehydration, a predisposition to blood clotting disorders, are
more common in women and may be associated with oral contraceptive medication, severe head trauma,
brain surgery, or infection. If untreated, they can progress and lead to bleeding in the brain
or swelling, and a stroke or even death. The treatment is generally anticoagulation and treatment
of any underlying cause.
Bambakidis said that if treated early and quickly, there are no longstanding issues with a person's
health.
"Typically, if caught early and treated adequately (as seems to have been done in this incident)
there is a full recovery without any consequences (normal cognition, memory, etc)," he said.
Dr. Jane Orient, the executive director of the politically conservative Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons also reviewed the 2012 ABC News report about Clinton's concussion and blood
clot. She said she thought the ABC report appeared medically accurate.
"Factors predisposing to clots include air travel, dehydration, hormones, immobilization as during
surgery, blood abnormalities, cancer," Orient said. "Concussions can cause long-term damage including
cognitive problems, even when standard studies including CT or MRI look normal."
"Not saying Mrs. Clinton has any of the above–just speaking generally and hypothetically," she
clarified.
One former member of Orient's group is Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), an ophthalmologist. He was a member
of AAPS for more than 20 years before his election to the U.S. Senate. He is now also running for
president on the Republican side in 2016.
Neurologist Kassicieh agreed with Orient about the possibility of Clinton suffering from long-term
cognitive symptoms.
"Concussions in older adults can be more serious, resulting in a condition known as post-concussion
syndrome. This condition can be characterized by symptoms of persistent dizziness, complaints of
memory difficulties, forgetfulness, loss of ability to focus on complex tasks or concepts and indecisiveness,"
Kassicieh explained. He added, "Latent depression and overt anxiety are also common in this condition."
Kassicieh noted that although a Clinton spokesperson told the press that Clinton "got over this
quickly," another
ABC report quotes former President Bill Clinton saying that his wife's injury "required six months
of very serious work to get over."
"Other reports in the same article show an interesting timeline for Hillary over the next several
months, showing that she was not fully functional in her capacity as [Secretary of State]," Kassicieh
added:
As a neurologist, I would interpret these and more recent events involving Hillary as possibly
showing signs of post-concussion syndrome. This condition could have serious impact on the cognitive
and intellectual functioning of an individual, particularly a high level job as [President of
the United States].
Dr. Drew Pinsky, nationally syndicated radio talk show host heard on KABC radio "Dr. Drew Midday
Live," also spoke to Breitbart News about Clinton's health and explained that experiencing symptoms
for more than a year after a head injury is very serious.
"In my clinical experience, it's very common for them to have six months and even up to a year
of exercise intolerance, and sort of [needing] frequent rest, and can easily get overwhelmed," he
said of head injury patients. "But after a year, that's something else."
He said symptoms like Clinton's, as an elderly person in her 60s, "are very serious."
"Those are not trivial symptoms," Pinsky stressed:
If my patient came in with that, the first thing I would do is put them on a treadmill. I would
get a sleep study, make sure they don't have sleep apnea. I would do all sorts of metabolic studies
and make sure there wasn't something metabolic. I would actually do some extensive cancer screenings.
Why is this person suddenly having exercise intolerance?
Pinsky added that if Clinton is overworking herself, "I hope she has a medical team attending
to her."
Breitbart News sent a detailed set of questions regarding these questions raised by law enforcement
and medical professionals to Clinton's campaign.
The specific questions sent to Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, include:
1.) Does Secretary Clinton have difficulty with fatigue, dizziness and being disoriented? Does
she have difficulty after speeches and during debates continuing for lengthy periods of time–or
for instance walking back to her car after events?
2.) Is she suffering from latent post concussion syndrome?
3.) Is she being completely honest with the public about her health? Does she have a clean
bill of health?
4.) Is she able to conduct high level cognitive abilities on the same level she has been able
to throughout her life? Is she able to conduct routine multitasking high stress abilities on the
same level she has been able to throughout her life?
5.) Does she have or did she have a transverse sinus thrombosis, or blood clot?
6.) Is she capable of serving as President of the United States with these conditions and symptoms?
7.) Has she done tests with a doctor on a treadmill? Has she gotten a doctor-supervised sleep
study? Has she worked with a doctor on metabolic studies? Has she gotten cancer screenings?
8.) Does she have a medical team attending to her? What are the details of that?
In response, Merrill told Breitbart News that Clinton's doctors have already answered the questions
in Clinton's health statement.
"These questions are all addressed in her health statement," Merrill told Breitbart News, referring
to a letter from Clinton's doctor, Dr. Lisa Bardack-the chair of internal medicine at the Mount Kisco
Medical Group in New York.
The letter, labeled a "healthcare statement" and dated on July 28, 2015-which was released along
with Clinton's tax filings-is two full pages long and includes a complete description from Dr. Bardack
clearing Clinton as fit to serve as president.
"This letter summarizes the health history and current medical evaluation of Hillary Rodham Clinton,"
Dr. Bardack wrote. "I am an internist and the Chairman of the Department of Medicine at the Mount
Kisco Medical Group in Mount Kisco, New York. I have served as Mrs. Clinton's personal physician
since 2001, during which time I have been involved in all aspects of her healthcare."
The letter states that Clinton is a "healthy 67-year-old female whose current medical conditions
include hypothyroidism and seasonal pollen allergies."
"Her past medical history is notable for a deep vein thrombosis in 1998 and in 2009, an elbow
fracture in 2009 and a concussion in 2012," Dr. Bardack continues.
"In December of 2012, Mrs. Clinton suffered a stomach virus after traveling, became dehydrated,
fainted and sustained a concussion," the doctor wrote:
During follow-up evaluations, Mrs. Clinton was found to have a transverse sinus venous thrombosis
and began anti-coagulation therapy to dissolve the clot. As a result of the concussion, Mrs. Clinton
also experienced double vision for a period of time and benefitted from wearing glasses with a
Fresnel Prism. Her concussion symptoms, including the double vision, resolved within two months
and she discontinued the use of the prism. She had follow-up testing in 2013, which revealed complete
resolution of the effects of the concussion as well as total dissolution of the thrombosis. Mrs.
Clinton also tested negative for all clotting disorders. As a precaution however, it was decided
to continue her on daily anticoagulation.
The letter continues by detailing her current medication list, which includes Armour Thyroid-a
hormone used to treat an under-active thyroid– plus various antihistamines, Vitamin B12 and the blood-thinner
Coumadin.
"She was also advised in 1998 to take Lovenox, a short-acting blood thinner, when she took extended
flights; this medication was discontinued when she began Coumadin," Dr. Bardack continued:
Her Coumadin dose is monitored regularly and she has experienced no side effects from her medications.
She takes no other medications on a regular basis and has no known drug allergies. She does not
smoke and drinks alcohol occasionally. She does not use illicit drugs or tobacco products. She
eats a diet rich in lean protein, vegetables and fruits. She exercises regularly, including yoga,
swimming, walking and weight training.
Dr. Bardack noted that Clinton's family history also complicates matters: her father "lived into
his 80s and died after having a stroke" while her mother "lived into her 90s and passed away after
having congestive heart failure." One of her brothers-it's not clear whether it's Tony or Hugh Rodham,
according to this letter-"had premature heart disease," Dr. Bardack wrote.
"Due to her family history, she underwent a full cardiac evaluation, which was negative," the
doctor wrote. "She had a coronary calcium score of zero and a normal carotid ultrasound."
She's also had cancer screenings: "Her routine health maintenance is up to date, and has included
a normal colonoscopy, gynecologic exam, mammogram, and breast ultrasound."
She had a physical on March 21, 2015, which revealed, according to Dr. Bardack, that Clinton was
in top-notch health.
"In summary, Mrs. Clinton is a healthy female with hypothyroidism and seasonal allergies, on long-term
anticoagulation," Dr. Bardack wrote. "She participates in a healthy lifestyle and has had a full
medical evaluation, which reveals no evidence of additional medical issues or cardiovascular disease.
Her cancer screening evaluations are all negative. She is in excellent physical condition and fit
to serve as President of the United States."
Clinton's own campaign manager Robby Mook wouldn't commit during a mid-June 2015 interview on
CBS's Face The Nation to release Clinton's full health records.
"I will let Hillary decide that," Mook replied when John Dickerson asked him if Clinton would
release her full healthcare records. "But I can tell you she has been hitting the campaign trail
hard."
The letter from Clinton's doctor-not her full healthcare records, but just a mere statement-came
after that Mook interview.
Hillary Clinton's health issues are drastically worse than she has revealed publicly - and the
potential presidential candidate tried to keep her medical information private for fear that it would
damage her bid for the White House in 2016, according to a new book.
The 66-year-old former secretary of state has suffered more fainting spells than publicly known,
is prone to have blood clots, and may be at serious risk of a stroke, according to the book, "Blood
Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas," by Edward Klein.
Modal Trigger
The medical scare that forced Clinton to be rushed to New York-Presbyterian Hospital on Dec. 30,
2013, revealed how serious the situation is.
"She has to be carefully monitored for the rest of her life," doctors warned former President
Bill Clinton before Hillary was released from the hospital, according to the book.
The book claims Hillary was taken to New YorkPresbyterian after a fainting spell and concussion
that she suffered in her seventh-floor office at the State Department - not at her home, as claimed.
Hillary was initially treated at a State Department facility and was transferred to her home to
recover. Bill Clinton, however, insisted Hillary be flown to New York City and be treated by specialists
there, Klein claims.
During her visit to the Manhattan hospital, the presumed 2016 Democratic front-runner was diagnosed
with several problems, including the clots.
Hillary had a right transverse venous thrombosis, or a blood clot, between her brain and skull.
"The unique thing about clotting in the brain is that it could have transformed into a stroke,"
a cardiac specialist with knowledge of Hillary's condition says in the book.
The clots are especially a threat while flying, when blood pools while sitting, and she did a
lot of flying while at the State Department.
In addition to a 2005 fainting spell during a speech in Buffalo, Hillary also fainted while boarding
her plane in Yemen in 2009, which caused her to fall and fracture her elbow.
Meanwhile, coming after Hillary's recent comments that she was "dead broke" when she left the
White House, she played the poor card again, telling The Guardian that she is not "truly well off"
when compared to the super rich.
"We pay ordinary income tax," she told the paper, "unlike a lot of people who are truly well off,
not to name names; and we've done it through dint of hard work."
Clinton's health has long been an issue in this year's election cycle, most recently when the
candidate disappeared from the ABC Democratic presidential debate stage in December for an extended
period of time for what her campaign said was an
extended bathroom break.
Breitbart News previously
reported that a law enforcement source believed the extended break stemmed from a flare-up of
a previous brain injury, though the Clinton campaign refuted the report.
"... We write to request an investigation to determine whether Former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton committed perjury and made false statements during her testimony under oath before congressional
committees. ..."
"... While testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016,
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey stated the truthfulness of Secretary's testimony
before Congress was not within the scope of the FBI's investigation. Nor had the FBI even considered
any of Secretary Clinton's testimony. ..."
"... Director Comey further testified the Department of Justice requires a criminal referral from
Congress to initiate an investigation of Secretary Clinton's congressional testimony. We are writing
for that purpose. ..."
"... The evidence collected by the FBI during its investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a
personal email system appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony. ..."
"... In light of those contradictions, the Department should investigate and determine whether to
prosecute Secretary Clinton for violating statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements to Congress,
or any other relevant statutes. ..."
"... Thank you for your attention to this important matter. ..."
"... During FBI Director Comey's testimony before Congress, he admitted that statements made by
Clinton under oath were "not true" and that her handling of this nation's classified material was "extremely
careless." ..."
It is only one more scandal. The Congressional website which contained a call from
2 Congressmen to prosecute Hillary for perjury has mysteriously been taken down.
On July 11, Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) sent the following letter to US Attorney Phillps. I have been waiting
for action on this item.
I went to the Congressional website where I expected to see an update and the site is down
and has been down for 2 days. Does Hillary Clinton have that kind of power to erase this kind
of evidence with regard to sociopathic criminality?
Here is the letter written by Chaffetz and Goodlatte:
Dear Mr. Phillips:
We write to request an investigation to determine whether Former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton committed perjury and made false statements during her testimony
under oath before congressional committees.
While testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
on July 7, 2016, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey stated the truthfulness
of Secretary's testimony before Congress was not within the scope of the FBI's investigation.
Nor had the FBI even considered any of Secretary Clinton's testimony.
Director Comey further testified the Department of Justice requires a criminal
referral from Congress to initiate an investigation of Secretary Clinton's congressional
testimony. We are writing for that purpose. The evidence collected by the FBI during its investigation of Secretary Clinton's
use of a personal email system appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn
testimony.
In light of those contradictions, the Department should investigate and determine
whether to prosecute Secretary Clinton for violating statutes that prohibit perjury and
false statements to Congress, or any other relevant statutes.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
During FBI Director Comey's testimony before Congress, he admitted that statements
made by Clinton under oath were "not true" and that her handling of this nation's classified
material was "extremely careless."
Clinton has escaped the prosecution the Congressmen called for based upon a technicality
because she was not under oath when she was questioned. However, I have a source that said
they strongly suspect Clinton's aids in taking down this Congressional website until the Democrats
can get the above letter removed. You see, it's now to the point that even die-hard Democrats
have had it with her criminality. One more revelation could be the tipping point for many of
her supporters.
Now, the website is mysteriously down. How convenient for Hillary that this website malfunction
has taken place during the GOP convention where they could capitalize on the political fall-out
from this letter to the US Deputy Attorney.
Do want to bet that the letter from the two Congressman to the US Deputy Attorney requesting
an investigation into Clinton for perjury diappears when the website comes back up?
Here it is America, I could not make this stuff up. The following site has been down since
yesterday.
Site Under Maintenance
The site you requested is currently undergoing maintenance. Please try again later.
I'm Hillary goddamn Clinton. I'm a political prodigy, have been since I was 16. I have an insane
network of powerful friends. I'm willing to spend the next eight years catching shit on all sides,
all so I can fix this fucking country for you. And all you little bitches need to do is get off your
asses one goddamn day in November.
"Oh but what about your eeeemaaaaillls???" Shut the fuck up. Seriously, shut the fuck up and listen
for one fucking second...
But you know what? I don't fucking care. If I gave two shits about the haters I would've dropped
the game decades ago.
"... What cannot be ignored is that Hilary Clinton has supported a war machine that has resulted in the death of millions, while also supporting a neoliberal economy that has produced massive amounts of suffering and created a mass incarceration state. ..."
"... It is crucial to note that Clinton hides her crimes in the discourse of freedom and appeals to democracy ..."
What cannot be ignored is that Hilary Clinton has supported a war machine that has resulted in
the death of millions, while also supporting a neoliberal economy that has produced massive amounts
of suffering and created a mass incarceration state. Yet, all of that is forgotten as the mainstream
press focuses on stories about Clinton's emails and the details of her electoral run for the presidency.
It is crucial to note that Clinton hides her crimes in the discourse of freedom and appeals to democracy
while Trump overtly disdains such a discourse. In the end, state and domestic violence saturate American
society and the only time this fact gets noticed is when the beatings and murders of Black men are
caught on camera and spread through social media.
A very weak article, but some ideas are worth quoting. I think "Make America Great" again is
a slogan of paleoconservatives, who are organically opposed neoconservatives -- the groups most closely
related to neofascism (despite the fact that it consists mainly of Jewish intellectuals and policymakers).
So
Henry A. Giroux is wrong on this particular slogan: neofascism is first of all the wars of
[neoliberal] conquest and Noninterventionalism is not compatible with neofascism. In this sense
Hillary Clinton is truly neofascist candidate in the current race.
Notable quotes:
"... State-manufactured fear offers up new forms of domestic terrorism embodied in the rise of a surveillance state while providing a powerful platform for militarizing many aspects of society. ..."
"... Under such circumstance, the bonds of trust dissolve, while hating the other becomes normalized and lawlessness is elevated to a matter of commonsense. ..."
Across the globe, fascism and white supremacy in their diverse forms are on the rise. In Greece,
France, Poland, Austria and Germany, among other nations, right-wing extremists have used the hateful
discourse of racism, xenophobia and white nationalism to demonize immigrants and undermine democratic
modes of rule and policies. As
Chris Hedges observes, much of the right-wing, racist rhetoric coming out of these countries
mimics what Trump and his followers are saying in the United States.
One consequence is that the
public spheres that produce a critically engaged citizenry and make a democracy possible are under
siege and in rapid retreat. Economic stagnation, massive inequality, the rise of religious fundamentalism
and growing forms of ultra-nationalism now aim to put democratic nations to rest. Echoes of the right-wing
movements in Europe have come home with a vengeance.
Demagogues wrapped in xenophobia, white supremacy and the false appeal to a lost past echo a brutally
familiar fascism, with slogans similar to Donald Trump's call to "Make America Great Again" and "Make
America Safe Again." These are barely coded messages that call for forms of racial and social cleansing.
They are on the march, spewing hatred, embracing forms of anti-semitism and white supremacy, and
showing a deep-seated disdain for any form of justice on the side of democracy. As
Peter Foster points out in The Telegraph, "The toxic combination of the most prolonged period
of economic stagnation and the worst refugee crisis since the end of the Second World War has seen
the far-Right surging across the continent, from Athens to Amsterdam and many points in between."
State-manufactured lawlessness has become normalized and extends from the ongoing and often brutalizing
and murderous police violence against Black people and other vulnerable groups to a criminogenic
market-based system run by a financial elite that strips everyone but the upper 1% of a future, not
only by stealing their possessions but also by condemning them to a life in which the only available
option is to fall back on one's individual resources in order to barely survive. In addition, as
Kathy Kelly points out, at the national level, lawlessness now drives a militarized foreign policy
intent on assassinating alleged enemies rather than using traditional forms of interrogation, arrest
and conviction. The killing of people abroad based on race is paralleled by (and connected with)
the killing of Black people at home. Kelly correctly notes that the whole world has become a battlefield
driven by racial profiling, where lethal violence replaces the protocols of serve and protect.
Fear is the reigning ideology and war its operative mode of action, pitting different groups against
each other, shutting down the possibilities of shared responsibilities, and legitimating the growth
of a paramilitary police force that kills Black people with impunity. State-manufactured fear
offers up new forms of domestic terrorism embodied in the rise of a surveillance state while providing
a powerful platform for militarizing many aspects of society. One consequence is that, as Charles
Derber argues, America has become a warrior society whose "culture and institutions... program civilians
for violence at home as well as abroad." And, as Zygmunt Bauman argues in his book Liquid Fear, in
a society saturated in violence and hate, "human relations are a source of anxiety" and everyone
is viewed with mistrust. Compassion gives way to suspicion and a celebration of fear and revulsion
accorded to those others who allegedly have the potential to become monsters, criminals, or even
worse, murderous terrorists. Under such circumstance, the bonds of trust dissolve, while hating
the other becomes normalized and lawlessness is elevated to a matter of commonsense.
Politics is now a form of warfare creating and producing an expanding geography of combat zones
that hold entire cities, such as Ferguson, Missouri, hostage to forms of extortion, violence lock
downs and domestic terrorism -- something I have demonstrated in detail in my book America at War
with Itself. These are cities where most of those targeted are Black. Within these zones of racial
violence, Black people are often terrified by the presence of the police and subject to endless forms
of domestic terrorism. Hannah Arendt once wrote that terror was the essence of totalitarianism. She
was right and we are witnessing the dystopian visions of the new authoritarians who now trade in
terror, fear, hatred, demonization, violence and racism. Trump and his neo-Nazi bulldogs are no longer
on the fringe of political life and they have no interests in instilling values that will make America
great. On the contrary, they are deeply concerned with creating expanding constellations of force
and fear, while inculcating convictions that will destroy the ability to form critical capacities
and modes of civic courage that offer a glimmer of resistance and justice.
... ... ...
In short, this emerging American neo-fascism in its various forms is largely about social and
racial cleansing and its end point is the construction of prisons, detention centers, enclosures,
walls, and all the other varieties of murderous apparatus that accompany the discourse of national
greatness and racial purity. Americans have lived through 40 years of the dismantling of the welfare
state, the elimination of democratic public spheres, such as schools and libraries, and the attack
on public goods and social provisions. In their place, we have the rise of the punishing state with
its support for a range of criminogenic institutions, extending from banks and hedge funds to state
governments and militarized police departments that depend on extortion to meet their budgets.
"... Older people–and older AAs are no exception–I think just are less receptive to the Sanders message. They've been propagandized for too long and too successfully. Actually I don't just think this, the polling data fairly screams it. It might be a waste of time chasing those AA church lady grandmothers, they are right wing conservatives in almost any objective sense who minus the identity politics woo woo would be Republicans but just need a safe space to be that way without rubbing shoulders with overt white racists, and the corporate neocon-neolib DP mainstream is a perfect fit for them. ..."
"... Obama, who pretty much could be George W Bush in blackface, is the perfect identity politics totem for that role. ..."
We will have to wait for the campaign tell-alls to understand what the Sanders
campaign believed its strategy was, and whether the campaign believes
it was successful, or not. While it is true that reform efforts in the Democrat
Party have a very poor track record, it's also true that third parties have
a terrible track record. (It's worth noting that in the eight years just past,
with the capitol occupations, Occupy proper, Black Lives Matter, fracking campaigns
all on the boil, the Green Party was flatlined, seeminly unable to make an institutional
connection with any of these popular movements. It may be that 2016 is different.
It may also be that the iron law of institutions applies to the GP just as much
as it does to any other party.) Therefore, "working within the Democrat Party"
- which Sanders consistently said he would do; the label on the package
was always there - is not, a priori , a poor strategic choice, especially
if "working within" amounts to a hostile takeover followed by a management purge.
And it's hard for me to recall another "working within" approach that garnered
45% of the vote, severed the youth of the party - of all identities - from the
base of the ruling faction, and invented an entirely new and highly successful
funding model. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, which the dominant faction
in today's Democrat Party destroyed, would be the closest parallel, and the
material conditions of working people are worse today than they were in Jackson's
time, and institutions generally far less likely to be perceived as legitimate.
And if we consider the idea that one of Sander's strategic goals was not the
office but the successful propagation of the socialist idea - as a Johnny Appleseed,
rather than
a happy warrior - then the campaign was a success by any measure. (That
said, readers know my priors on this: I define victory in 2016 as the creation
of independent entities with a left voice; an "Overton Prism," as it were, three-sided,
rather than an Overton Window, two-sided. I've got some hope that this victory
is on the way, because it's bigger than any election.)
With those views as background, most of the attacks on Sanders accuse him
of bad faith. This was the case with the Green Party's successfully propagated
"sheepdog" meme; it's also the case with the various forms of post-defeat armchair
cynicism, all of which urge, that in some way Sanders succeeded by betraying
his supporters in some way. (This is, I suppose, easier to accept than the idea
that Sanders got a beating by an powerful political campaign with a ton of money
and the virtually unanimous support of the political class.)
If Sanders had defined success as betraying his supporters, I would expect
him to act and behave like a successful man. That's not the case. Here is Sanders
putting Clinton's name into nomination:
It's a sad, even awful, moment, I agree, but politics ain't beanbag. While
it would be irresponsible to speculate that Sanders looks so strained and unhappy
because he found a horse's head in his bed (
"Mrs. Clinton never asks a second favor once she's refused the first, understood?"
), his body language certainly doesn't look like he's a happy man, a man
who is happy with the deal he's made, or a man who has achieved success through
the betrayal of others; you'd have to look at the smiling faces on the Democrat
main stage for that.
I don't know the psychology of Sanders, but, how much did he really expect
to win in the early days of his campaign? Could "getting the Socialism ball
rolling" have been his definition of success in the beginning? Like Trump,
the other disruptional candidate, could his very success in the primary
season have surprised him? If so, then his pivot back to the Senate and
Socialist coalition movement building makes perfect sense.
In this sense, the anger focused on Sanders would be a displacement
of the groundswell of anger by the general public at the sheer brazenness
of the DNC's anti public policies. The DNC has shown contempt and disdain
for the very people they purport to work for. Whoever shifted the popular
anger from the DNC onto Sanders has done a masterful job of propaganda.
Saint Bernays would be proud.
I don't think he was expecting to win when he started, but at the same
time he was probably thinking it was worth a running a primary challenge
to change the conversation. His political strategy of trying to increase
turnout of working class voters was not a bad one, considering that Democrat
primary voters have lately been the demographics who support either neoliberalism
or would be racially biased against a non-Christian candidate. He was mainly
hurt by three things, two of which were largely out of his control: (1)
he lacked the polish/media saavy to not get dragged into minor issues that
distracted from his core message (like the flap about calling Clinton unqualified,
or his visit to the Vatican), (2) he literally had the entire media and
political establishment working against him, and arguably inciting voter
suppression and fraud , and (3) his non-Christianity limited his ability
to coalesce support from older African-Americans, which hurt him in the
South and hurt him from a perception standpoint.
What remains to be seen is where his supporters go now. Dissatisfaction
with the status quo will only continue to increase. Something interesting
though, is that Tulsi Gabbard seems to be setting herself to be the continuation
of the Sanders movement. I am unfamiliar with her policies, but her positioning
is in stark contrast to the rest of the Democrat Party.
Older people–and older AAs are no exception–I think just are less
receptive to the Sanders message. They've been propagandized for too long
and too successfully. Actually I don't just think this, the polling data
fairly screams it. It might be a waste of time chasing those AA church lady
grandmothers, they are right wing conservatives in almost any objective
sense who minus the identity politics woo woo would be Republicans but just
need a safe space to be that way without rubbing shoulders with overt white
racists, and the corporate neocon-neolib DP mainstream is a perfect fit
for them.
Obama, who pretty much could be George W Bush in blackface, is the
perfect identity politics totem for that role. The good news is obviously
that this demographic is dying off and young AAs don't share their elders'
pretty extreme right wing Christian viewpoint. I don't think the left needs
to fix that "problem" or even can. Time will fix it and nothing much else
can.
"... …and vote FOR the person who voted for the invasion of Iraq, supported NAFTA and the undermining of universal health coverage in support of private insurance companies/managed care, was likely the deciding factor in overthrowing the Libyan government, was instrumental in supporting multiple dictatorships in Haiti (good pieces linked to that on NC recently), was possibly instrumental in and for sure responsible for the support after the fact of the coup in Honduras, was a founder of what might go down in history as one of the largest fraudulent charities ever (with those tentacles doing the very same things the DNC is accusing Putin of doing), has a history of quid pro quo dealings with predator international investment banks and vulture capitalists (which Elizabeth Warren has identified in speeches that are available on Youtube)… one could go on and on, but basically the candidate who has never met a nation state or corrupt business dealing that she didn't want to stick herself in the middle of the dealings with… ..."
"... I would think the xenophobe might look more attractive to non-passport holders of the American empire simply based upon a cursory reading of history. But nothing should surprise me anymore. ..."
This is some irresponsible stuff. For all of Naked Capitalism's concerns
with Clinton's neocon tendencies, you neglect to understand that we are
terrified of Trump here in Europe, and as a Brazilian, I do not know a single
person from my country who would prefer him as President. 2016 Democrats
are not "neoliberals," even as they operate in a neoliberal structure. The
only thing any of this indicates is Trump has is that he has *no record*
– Hudson thinks that every last thing that happened under the Obama government
was out of the President's personal desire to make it so. If Trump had a
political career, he would be no better, if not much worse. Trump's career
in business does not support Hudson's optimism, at all.
I do agree with you. I have many friends in Europe and Australia who
are literally begging me to vote for Clinton – and they don't like her much
either.
I love NC, but I disagree with the fawning acceptance of Trump as somehow
fit to be President. He's a racist, bigoted, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist
jerk with no really good plans in place. The so-called "ideas" or "plans"
that he has do not pencil out and would bankrupt this country should they
ever be implemented. I agree that Clinton is awful and was well nigh disgusted
with the DNC convention (but expected nothing less or different).
But voting for Trump is irresponsible in my opinion. I just cannot go
there. Yet and still in this nation today, you are free to vote for who
you want.
You would rather vote against the egomaniacal, sexist, xenophobe,
who is willing to downshift international military interventions, lessen
spending on NATO, work WITH the Russians on ISIS, possibly exit trade neoliberal
trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO (while not adopting the TPP), etc…
…and vote FOR the person who voted for the invasion of Iraq, supported
NAFTA and the undermining of universal health coverage in support of private
insurance companies/managed care, was likely the deciding factor in overthrowing
the Libyan government, was instrumental in supporting multiple dictatorships
in Haiti (good pieces linked to that on NC recently), was possibly instrumental
in and for sure responsible for the support after the fact of the coup in
Honduras, was a founder of what might go down in history as one of the largest
fraudulent charities ever (with those tentacles doing the very same things
the DNC is accusing Putin of doing), has a history of quid pro quo dealings
with predator international investment banks and vulture capitalists (which
Elizabeth Warren has identified in speeches that are available on Youtube)…
one could go on and on, but basically the candidate who has never met a
nation state or corrupt business dealing that she didn't want to stick herself
in the middle of the dealings with…
I would think the xenophobe might look more attractive to non-passport
holders of the American empire simply based upon a cursory reading of history.
But nothing should surprise me anymore.
There were some newbie walk-ins at the top of the thread who were keen
on Trump, which I agree was creepy.
But aside from our relentless jgordon, no regular LIKES Trump. The ones
who say they will vote for him weigh that choice against Jill Stein. They
see themselves reluctantly voting for Trump as the "less effective evil,"
that as an outsider, hated by his own party, he won't get much done. Think
Jimmy Carter cubed. The other reasons for being willing to consider Trump
are that Hilary clearly wants a hot war with Russia, and that she will push
for the TPP, which is a dangerous and irrevocable deal.
As someone who consistently advocates here for Trump being the lesser
evil, I want to chime in behind Yves. I do not like Trump. I just consider
putting him into the Presidency to be a far safer choice than enabling Clinton
into power, and I recognize that however I choose to vote, one of those
two people will be President. I also value highly the possibility of weakening
the hold of big finance and corporations over the Democratic Party by purging
the Clintons and leaving the party too weak to be of much use to its current
owners.
Fundamentally, I am Anyone But Clinton, a handy catchphrase that captures
my perspective exactly. I will probably end up voting for a socialist third
party no one ever discusses here, because why not support the party closest
to my own values and policy desires? But if Stein OR Trump actually got
enough traction to possibly take my state, I'd add my vote to that pile,
happily. Well, "happily" in that I would feel I was making the best possible
choice with whatever tiny amount of agency my vote represents. But the next
four years are likely to be quite grim, no matter what.
As I live in CA, which is assumed to be in the bag for HRC, my vote against
her is only of import to me.
This election is akin to someone who desperately needs a tricky surgery
and their choice of surgeons is limited to two with long records of malpractice
but with good media advertising campaigns.
When I visualize a President Hillary Clinton, my only hope is that once
she has successfully climbed the Presidential mountain she has so doggedly
pursued (as her faux "namesake" Sir Edmund did his), she might realize she
should serve the people, not the elite.
But my hope in the original trademarked "Hope" candidate Obama dissipated
rather quickly.
And Hillary has a lifetime record of serving herself, her family and
her ambitions, not the people.
Look, I live in Australia and the msm Clinton bias verges on
is ridiculous. Why is Europe more terrified of Trump than Clinton?
The media? I understand Trump is problematic, but do you know Hillary's
history? Looking forward to a hot war with Russia?
As an Argentinian, I urge you to vote for Trump.
As bad as Bush was for you and for Middle East, in Latin America we enjoy
the possibility of finding our own ways to develop, as Bush did not care
about us.
Once Obama got to office, the wave changed starting from the Honduras' coup,
followed by Paraguay coup. Now, the only countries resisting are the ones
that reformed its constitution: Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.
Policies of Democrats to Latin America, from some reason that I do not comprehend,
have been particularly bad for Latin America. The only exception I remember
is the active policies of Jimmy Carter against the violation of human rights
in Argentina.
Not surprised by the European take on Trump. I've caught bits and pieces
of CBC coverage(can't stomach much of it) and they make CNN look objective!
Trump has been neatly inserted into the bad guy role and all coverage assumes
the viewers only care about one thing: stopping Trump. You'd think they
were still covering Iraq and talking about Saddam, not Donald. I can't call
the CBC's coverage of Trump juvenile because it's barely infantile in its
simplicity. Other Canadian media outlets are pretty much falling in with
the CBC narrative. After all, you think pro-neocon/pro-war Sun Media is
going to give Trump and his anti-war rhetoric any chance?
To put it simply: Canadian media is a captured entity. No surprise as
Canada has always done what it takes to have a presence in the imperial
court(even if it's a spot in the far corner). This is Canada's reason for
being: to kiss the imperial ass. First the British Empire and now the American
Empire. As a good loyal supplicant, we've now stepped forward to combat
the latest imperial threat: Donald Trump.
The irony is delightful. Part of the national narrative here is how much
better educated we are than those ignorant Americans. I'm sure Europeans
share the same conceit. Yet we are the ones swallowing all the establishment
propaganda while Americans are seeing through all the media lies, are engaged
and demanding change. I guess this makes sense. After all, Americans have
run the world, while Europeans are the "has beens" and Canadians the "never
have been at all"!
"... They tell us that Hillary is a flawed but basically progressive candidate who shouldn't be "demonized." After all, she's spent her "entire life" advocating on behalf of "women and girls." ..."
"... As Doug Henwood has pointed out , most of what Clinton did "for women and girls" as Secretary of State was to do photo-ops with women around the world wearing colorful ethnic garb. ..."
"... The candidate herself frequently talks up the sheer number of miles she traveled as if this alone added up to some sort of praiseworthy political accomplishment. The fact is that the policies she flew around the world supporting were a disaster for poor people around the world, and especially for poor women. ..."
"... During the early years of the Obama administration, the Haitian government tried to raise the minimum wage there to all of 61 cents an hour, which works out to about five dollars a day. (The minimum wage before the proposed increase was 22 cents.) Diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks in 2011 show that the sweatshops supplying Hanes and Levi-Strauss made a huge stink, and got the State Department involved to lobby the Haitian government against their plan to go to all the way up to 61 cents an hour. ..."
"... Today, after preparing to write this article by reviewing Secretary Clinton's disgusting rhetoric about welfare mothers and reviewing the facts about workfare, benefit reductions, and the uptick in extreme poverty, I know exactly what to think. Guns should be confiscated from NRA members and redistributed to single mothers who have been kicked off of benefits. Lacking money from the now-defunct Aid to Families with Dependent Children program to help them keep the lights on and buy groceries for their kids, let's give them the ability to procure groceries by other means. ..."
"... Ben Burgis is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Underwood International College, Yonsei University. ..."
I voted for
Jill Stein in 2012, and I'll do so again as a matter of course if Hillary is nominated in 2016.
I'm cautiously optimistic that a non-trivial fraction of those currently Feeling the Bern may do
the same, just as a spillover effect from Ron Paul's liberatarian-ish Presidential campaign in 2012
seems to have contributed to the unprecedented million votes received by Libertarian Party candidate
Gary Johnson in the 2012 general election. I would argue that breaking the stranglehold of the
two-party 'duopoly' on American politics is clearly in the interests of working people-not to mention
the interests of all the people in the third world who live in fear of American bombs. As OACW union
leader Tony Mazzocchi
was fond of saying, "The bosses have two parties. We need one of our own."
But let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm wrong about all of that. Let's assume, as liberal
pundits uniformly insist, that it would be dangerously irresponsible to even consider voting for
anyone but Hillary Clinton in the general election. Even granting that premise, why not vote for
her with rubber gloves and open eyes?
Instead of emulating the French, scolding liberal commentators constantly tell us that the differences
between Hillary and Bernie shouldn't be "exaggerated." They tell us that Hillary is a flawed
but basically progressive candidate who shouldn't be "demonized." After all, she's spent her "entire
life" advocating on behalf of "women and girls."
As Doug Henwood has
pointed
out, most of what Clinton did "for women and girls" as Secretary of State was to do photo-ops
with women around the world wearing colorful ethnic garb. Indeed, it's revealing that, when
you dig beyond bumper sticker slogans like "advocacy on behalf of women and girls," Clinton supporters
rarely want to discuss the particulars of her record. The candidate herself frequently talks
up the sheer number of miles she traveled as if this alone added up to some sort of praiseworthy
political accomplishment. The fact is that the policies she flew around the world supporting were
a disaster for poor people around the world, and especially for poor women.
During the early years of the Obama administration, the Haitian government tried to raise
the minimum wage there to all of 61 cents an hour, which works out to about five dollars a day. (The
minimum wage before the proposed increase was 22 cents.) Diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks
in 2011 show that the sweatshops supplying Hanes and Levi-Strauss made a huge stink, and got the
State Department involved to lobby the Haitian government
against
their plan to go to all the way up to 61 cents an hour. The U.S. State Department has a
fairly massive level of sway in the deliberations of the Haitian government, considering the United
States' long history of meddling, backing coups, and even invading the country when governments there
displease Uncle Sam. Nor is this ancient history from the Cold War. U.S. Marines removed the democratically
elected President of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, in 2004. So when the U.S. Embassy says jump,
the Haitian government tends to ask how high. In this case, they ended up cutting the proposed minimum
wage hike of 39 cents an hour all the way down to 9 cents. It might be worth thinking hard about
the fact that the girls sewing your jeans have Hillary Clinton to thank for their current salary
of 31 cents an hour next time a liberal scold tells you not to "demonize" Secretary Clinton.
Of course, Haitians are foreigners, and black foreigners at that, so maybe they don't quite count.
(After all, Hillary's liberal supporters are willing to overlook that small matter of her support
for the invasion of Iraq.) Perhaps, in evaluating her record, we should focus on her no-doubt glorious
history of domestic progressivism.
Back in the mid-1980s, the Clintons and a lot of their friends founded something called the Democratic
Leadership Council to move the Democratic Party back to "the center." Throughout that decade, Ronald
Reagan had led the Republicans in demonizing "welfare queens" allegedly ripping off vast sums from
the hard-working taxpayers. The evidence for the claim that a non-trivial amount of money was being
lost to welfare benefits being paid out to people who simply didn't want to work was always pretty
thin, but it hardly mattered. The racial subtext was powerful and it was thinly disguised, and Reagan's
skillful use of this rhetoric paid off in a big way for the GOP.
When the Democratic Leadership Council, which still claimed to be "socially progressive," talked
about moving "to the center" on economic issues, this is precisely the center they were talking about
capturing. Bill Clinton made it explicit in 1992 with his campaign promise to "end welfare as we
know it." Unlike quite a few of his other promises, he kept this one, signing away the end of federal
welfare requirements in 1996. The impact of this "reform" on millions of desperate people was predictably
grim, even for those who did manage to hold onto some kind of benefits so they could keep the heat
on and make rent.
(Google "workfare" to see what this often looked like in practice. One of the options Google helpfully
offers you when you type that word into the search engine is workfare is a form of slave labor.)
With federal requirements abolished, the paltry funds made available for welfare were sent out as
bloc grants to the states, where bloody-minded conservative state legislatures could have their way
with the programs. In the years since "welfare reform" was passed, the percentage of Americans living
in extreme poverty has greatly increased. As Ryan Cooper
puts it, "Even after the worst economic crisis in 80 years, TANF has basically ceased to exist
in much of the country. Eligibility requirements have gotten so onerous, and benefit levels so miserly,
that many poor people haven't even heard of the program, or think it was abolished."
So, where was Hillary Clinton in all this? She was an enthusiastic supporter of her husband's
initiative, both in her role as an administration advisor and in her
many public statements on the matter, including ones that she made after Bill's Presidency ended
and she was elected to the Senate. She called single mothers on benefits "deadbeats" and talked about
them over and over again in the most offensively cliched terms, as people who knew nothing but "dependency"
and had no inkling of the value of work. So, for example, using Ronald Reagan's trademark rhetorical
technique of a supposedly representative anecdote that sounds authoritative becomes it comes with
a proper name, Clinton talked about a former welfare queen named Rhonda Costa. "Rhonda Costa's daughter
came home from school and announced, 'Mommy, I'm tired of seeing you sitting around the house doing
nothing.' That's the day Rhonda decided to get off welfare…."
Because it's just that easy, right? These people are clearly on welfare because they don't want
to work, and any time they decide that they'd like a job, one will fall in their lap. It's certainly
not as if holes on resumes matter, or workfare requirements often prevent welfare recipients from
being able to go to job interviews, or "structural unemployment" is a feature of market economies.
For lifelong upper class pundits, these statements may not actually cause much feeling inside
of them. But, as someone who actually grew up in and adjacent to the class of people being described
here, I can tell you that these are really the height of anti-poor slurs. Under Clinton's estimation,
welfare beneficiaries are dignity-lacking dependent deadbeats who are such losers that even their
own kids think they are trash. We don't talk a lot about classism in the US (and frankly I don't
like the term), but that's what this is. It is the class equivalent of calling women airhead bimbos.
Nor, of course, are the class and gender dimensions of all this entirely unrelated. Not so coincidentally,
the picture of an allegedly typical welfare recipient you get from Hillary Clinton's rhetoric on
this-the "Rhonda Costa" of her anecdote-is a single mother.
As Bernie Sanders tried to keep the focus of this year's Democratic debates on economics and his
proposals to expand the welfare state, Hillary Clinton changed the subject as often as possible to
guns. This is the one issue where the Secretary thought she had an opening to outflank Bernie Sanders
on the "left," on the grounds that Senator Sanders has sometimes been insufficiently enthusiastic
about gun control.
It's a complicated issue. On the one hand, the statistics about gun accidents, never mind gun
crimes, are pretty grim. On the other hand, the fact that "stop and frisk" started as a program to
go after illegal guns should make leftists who harbor concerns about police power and the carceral
state think twice about bold new gun regulations are likely to play out. On a normal day, I'm not
entirely sure what to think.
Today, after preparing to write this article by reviewing Secretary Clinton's disgusting rhetoric
about welfare mothers and reviewing the facts about workfare, benefit reductions, and the uptick
in extreme poverty, I know exactly what to think. Guns should be confiscated from NRA members and
redistributed to single mothers who have been kicked off of benefits. Lacking money from the now-defunct
Aid to Families with Dependent Children program to help them keep the lights on and buy groceries
for their kids, let's give them the ability to procure groceries by other means.
"... Older people–and older AAs are no exception–I think just are less receptive to the Sanders message. They've been propagandized for too long and too successfully. Actually I don't just think this, the polling data fairly screams it. It might be a waste of time chasing those AA church lady grandmothers, they are right wing conservatives in almost any objective sense who minus the identity politics woo woo would be Republicans but just need a safe space to be that way without rubbing shoulders with overt white racists, and the corporate neocon-neolib DP mainstream is a perfect fit for them. ..."
"... Obama, who pretty much could be George W Bush in blackface, is the perfect identity politics totem for that role. ..."
We will have to wait for the campaign tell-alls to understand what the Sanders
campaign believed its strategy was, and whether the campaign believes
it was successful, or not. While it is true that reform efforts in the Democrat
Party have a very poor track record, it's also true that third parties have
a terrible track record. (It's worth noting that in the eight years just past,
with the capitol occupations, Occupy proper, Black Lives Matter, fracking campaigns
all on the boil, the Green Party was flatlined, seeminly unable to make an institutional
connection with any of these popular movements. It may be that 2016 is different.
It may also be that the iron law of institutions applies to the GP just as much
as it does to any other party.) Therefore, "working within the Democrat Party"
- which Sanders consistently said he would do; the label on the package
was always there - is not, a priori , a poor strategic choice, especially
if "working within" amounts to a hostile takeover followed by a management purge.
And it's hard for me to recall another "working within" approach that garnered
45% of the vote, severed the youth of the party - of all identities - from the
base of the ruling faction, and invented an entirely new and highly successful
funding model. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, which the dominant faction
in today's Democrat Party destroyed, would be the closest parallel, and the
material conditions of working people are worse today than they were in Jackson's
time, and institutions generally far less likely to be perceived as legitimate.
And if we consider the idea that one of Sander's strategic goals was not the
office but the successful propagation of the socialist idea - as a Johnny Appleseed,
rather than
a happy warrior - then the campaign was a success by any measure. (That
said, readers know my priors on this: I define victory in 2016 as the creation
of independent entities with a left voice; an "Overton Prism," as it were, three-sided,
rather than an Overton Window, two-sided. I've got some hope that this victory
is on the way, because it's bigger than any election.)
With those views as background, most of the attacks on Sanders accuse him
of bad faith. This was the case with the Green Party's successfully propagated
"sheepdog" meme; it's also the case with the various forms of post-defeat armchair
cynicism, all of which urge, that in some way Sanders succeeded by betraying
his supporters in some way. (This is, I suppose, easier to accept than the idea
that Sanders got a beating by an powerful political campaign with a ton of money
and the virtually unanimous support of the political class.)
If Sanders had defined success as betraying his supporters, I would expect
him to act and behave like a successful man. That's not the case. Here is Sanders
putting Clinton's name into nomination:
It's a sad, even awful, moment, I agree, but politics ain't beanbag. While
it would be irresponsible to speculate that Sanders looks so strained and unhappy
because he found a horse's head in his bed (
"Mrs. Clinton never asks a second favor once she's refused the first, understood?"
), his body language certainly doesn't look like he's a happy man, a man
who is happy with the deal he's made, or a man who has achieved success through
the betrayal of others; you'd have to look at the smiling faces on the Democrat
main stage for that.
I don't know the psychology of Sanders, but, how much did he really expect
to win in the early days of his campaign? Could "getting the Socialism ball
rolling" have been his definition of success in the beginning? Like Trump,
the other disruptional candidate, could his very success in the primary
season have surprised him? If so, then his pivot back to the Senate and
Socialist coalition movement building makes perfect sense.
In this sense, the anger focused on Sanders would be a displacement
of the groundswell of anger by the general public at the sheer brazenness
of the DNC's anti public policies. The DNC has shown contempt and disdain
for the very people they purport to work for. Whoever shifted the popular
anger from the DNC onto Sanders has done a masterful job of propaganda.
Saint Bernays would be proud.
I don't think he was expecting to win when he started, but at the same
time he was probably thinking it was worth a running a primary challenge
to change the conversation. His political strategy of trying to increase
turnout of working class voters was not a bad one, considering that Democrat
primary voters have lately been the demographics who support either neoliberalism
or would be racially biased against a non-Christian candidate. He was mainly
hurt by three things, two of which were largely out of his control: (1)
he lacked the polish/media saavy to not get dragged into minor issues that
distracted from his core message (like the flap about calling Clinton unqualified,
or his visit to the Vatican), (2) he literally had the entire media and
political establishment working against him, and arguably inciting voter
suppression and fraud , and (3) his non-Christianity limited his ability
to coalesce support from older African-Americans, which hurt him in the
South and hurt him from a perception standpoint.
What remains to be seen is where his supporters go now. Dissatisfaction
with the status quo will only continue to increase. Something interesting
though, is that Tulsi Gabbard seems to be setting herself to be the continuation
of the Sanders movement. I am unfamiliar with her policies, but her positioning
is in stark contrast to the rest of the Democrat Party.
Older people–and older AAs are no exception–I think just are less
receptive to the Sanders message. They've been propagandized for too long
and too successfully. Actually I don't just think this, the polling data
fairly screams it. It might be a waste of time chasing those AA church lady
grandmothers, they are right wing conservatives in almost any objective
sense who minus the identity politics woo woo would be Republicans but just
need a safe space to be that way without rubbing shoulders with overt white
racists, and the corporate neocon-neolib DP mainstream is a perfect fit
for them.
Obama, who pretty much could be George W Bush in blackface, is the
perfect identity politics totem for that role. The good news is obviously
that this demographic is dying off and young AAs don't share their elders'
pretty extreme right wing Christian viewpoint. I don't think the left needs
to fix that "problem" or even can. Time will fix it and nothing much else
can.
Not all that familiar with PJMedia and their reliability. Is this the same outfit as Pajama
media? – I may be misremembering but I seem to recall that Pajama was a bit dubious.
Anyone else heard anything about these claims? Pretty damning if true…
I wish ANY claims against the CGM (Clinton Grift Machine TM) could be considered "damning",
instead the "Trump works for Putin!" ridiculous bloviating receives the coveted "damning" label.
(Damnation requires a "damner" and a "damnee", but when the damner is the entire media and one
damnee is innoculated and the other is open season the outcome is as you'd expect).
But back to the emails: "Putin hacked the DNC!" but….um he didn't hack the server under the desk
at the home of the SoS containing highly classified material?
("It's not cognitive dissonance "dammit" because I say it's not…the Red Queen doesn't do cognitive
dissonance thank you very much").
Evidently the fact that Clinton's State Dept obstructed attempts to have Boko Haram designated
as a terrorist operation has been known for a couple years.
Never heard or read about it, I just learned it from your comment…
It fits with the push to delist the MEK as a terrorist organization.
Yeah I hadn't seen it before today either – read it earlier and lost the link so did a search
for Clinton and Boko Haram and saw a bunch of articles from May 2014 mentioning it. It was a republican
talking point at the time and this Clinton apology from Thinkprogress comes across as pretty weak
tea:
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/05/08/3435588/hillary-and-boko-haram/
Once Kerry replaced Clinton at State they were added to the list.
Like the MEK, just goes to show one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter --
And that most of the rhetoric around these issues is a bunch of BS.
"... You have succeeded in making Hillary's coronation unpleasant for her. Embarrassed her with her shady past, and demonstrated on topics on which she has a firm interest in pas$$ing (TPP). ..."
"... For those of you who believe Jill Stein is worthy of a vote, I do not believe so. If she were motivated then she would be copying Bernie's fundraising activities, and not off in her own world of irrelevance (and possibly privilege). The Iron Law of Institutions hold here, she is happier in her position and has demonstrated no incentive to change things. ..."
"... Of course Clinton does not respect my views. But the idea that Donald Trump "respects my views" is patently ludicrous. ..."
I'll be blunt. You and you beliefs will be thrown under the bus, and trampled into the dust.
Hilary has plans to attract
Republican Votes
to secure the presidency, as predicted.
You have succeeded in making Hillary's coronation unpleasant for her. Embarrassed her with
her shady past, and demonstrated on topics on which she has a firm interest in pas$$ing (TPP).
Note:
The DNC has also informed Sanders delegates that they will have their credentials taken
away for holding up anti-TPP signage as well
That is not the action of a person who respects your views in any manner at all.
For those of you who believe Jill Stein is worthy of a vote, I do not believe so. If she
were motivated then she would be copying Bernie's fundraising activities, and not off in her own
world of irrelevance (and possibly privilege). The Iron Law of Institutions hold here, she is
happier in her position and has demonstrated no incentive to change things.
So who will you vote for? That's a poor question, a better question is who will you vote against?
Why do I write that? Well, you can vote for (Jill, the Looser, Stein), a person who will damage
you (Hillary the Honest), or a person who might help you (Donald the Magnificent). – Just to be
clear, sarcasm is intended in all three instances.
Good luck with that decision, mine is made, and I made it months ago (a list of preferences,
1, 2 3), 3 was ABC – Anyone but Clinton, for I believe firmly that she will do me no good, and
probably do myself and my children and my grandchildren much harm.
What I read here is people somewhere in the stages of grief. Time to move on, at least by November.
Of course Clinton does not respect my views. But the idea that Donald Trump "respects my
views" is patently ludicrous.
And is a fallacy of false choice. I'm surprised you offer that. The fact that Trump doesn't "respect
your views" doesn't make HRC a more acceptable choice.
...Although I know other people who are convinced that Clinton is the lesser evil. Anyhow,
Lesser Evilism is only relevant in swing states. Everywhere else, people ought to vote strategically.
They should look to the future, and choose a candidate who will help create positive outcomes
in future elections. We already know that the result of the 2016 election will be a disaster.
Who cares what foreigners think about our election?
Only people with financial ties to the outcome of the election can be expected to really care.
Goldman Sach's tentacles are worldwide.
I love those old cartoons from the 1890s that show the reformers smashing the monopolists.
Envision Trump with an axe, chopping off the tentacles of the vampire squid which screams in agony
and bleeds to death.
I'm reminded of the buttinsky old woman from Austria who is always lecturing me on how we treat
our "Africa-Americans."
I respond with , "So, how do you treat the gypsies in Austria?"
" Oh, that's different!" she shrieks.
Pro-Hilary bots dominate discussion. Still there are few interesting comments
Notable quotes:
"... Meh, Hitler only ascended to power because he aligned himself with corporate interests and Germany's 1%. They did so because he stoked their fear of the other guys...who were communists. Sounds more like Hillary's playbook than Trumps ..."
"... Trump may or may not be as he is portrayed, but to hold Hilary up as a paragon of virtue isn't going to get the Democrats very far. Between Hilary and Bill there are so many skeletons that there are not enough cupboards to hold them. Whitewater and other nepharious business dealings combined with corruption , sexual double dealing , this couple (for that is what they are) cannot preach to anyone re morality , honesty and trustworthiness. In addition Hilary is a master of the dark arts of Politics ( and that's being kind) Trump, has not been found out and if there were skeletons there then be sure they would have been found by now. Trump to win and Hilary to be placed in a well deserved prison cell. ..."
Hedge fund owners and employees have so far this election cycle contributed nearly $48.5
million for Hillary Clinton, compared to about $19,000 for Donald Trump, an indication that
Wall Street is clearly backing the Democratic presidential nominee.
He didn't ask anyone to spy on us. He said if the Russians *already* had Clinton's 30,000 deleted
emails, the media would love to get them and he'd love to read them. At no point did he ask anyone
to hack anything.
Donald Trump sings from Hitler's playbook. There is a real difference, however, as an orator,
he is not quite so polished. To date, his campaign has been devoted creating a "cult of personality",
and on labeling all those who disagree un-American. A collection of slogans and sound-bites and
an itchy Twitter finger do not a coherent platform make, but they are ideally suited to turning
a crowd into a mob, one of the oldest tricks in the Hitler playbook.
Meh, Hitler only ascended to power because he aligned himself with corporate interests and
Germany's 1%. They did so because he stoked their fear of the other guys...who were communists.
Sounds more like Hillary's playbook than Trumps
The CLinton's already have that sewn up by flogging the Russkies Uranium mines a deal facilitated
through the Clinton Foundation.
'Uranium1' - check it.
Thank God for Donald Trump. He is the only person of national stature who has taken the whip to
GWB and his sorry, criminal administration. Donald Trump should be lauded for telling the truth
in front of 40,000,000 viewers about the neocon crime syndicate that created Operation Iraqi Freedom
and, of course, its members, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, erstwhile U.S. Senator who voted in
favor of going to war in Iraq and who has never seen a war she didn't like or profit from. Trump
in a single evening destroyed once and forever the myth that GWB "kept America safe". I look forward
to the taking down of the Clinton brand.
Seems blindingly obvious to me that Trump is a born entertainer and knows exactly how to manipulate
the media spotlight and get headlines..his "no more Mr Nice Guy" schtick is straight out of the
TV villain playbook, like those mullet swinging moustachioed Amercan wrestlers..the crowd love
it..he gets the attention..it generates comments and effectively shifts the low level debate back
on to his ground, after Hillary enjoyed a couple of days of glass ceiling smashing. It's old vaudeville
and pantomime and he's a master of it. Every serious reaction and outraged comment plays beautifully
into his now gloveless hands. Don't fall for it. No need to worry, until he secures the keys to
the kingdom come November.
'Nice'? Trump has never been 'nice' to Hillary or any other person, let alone another candidate
Repub or Dem. How long did it take for him to come up with this rhetoric? Be afraid, very afraid,
if he ever becomes POTUS. ��
Real people worth voting for. Who would have guessed that America had a choice?
Given a level democratic playing field, surely what a democracy is meant to be, then we would
be seeing prime time coverage of all people standing for President.
But the U.S. is not a democracy, it is an elected dictatorship.
Anyone but the Clinton family in the White House for another eight years signals a disaster for
the whole of the United States of America
Trump has never sullied the White House and never will like that dirty bugger Clinton.
What has happened to America's conscience, its democratic traditions, its sense of reason and
fair play, where is its morality - all gone apparently if the Democratic Party Convention and
nomination of HRC is anything to go by.
Herewith an interesting snippet.
''Our Gross National Product - if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and
cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks
for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our Redwoods
and the loss of our natural wonder in a chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear
war-head, and armoured cars and police to fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle
and Specks Knife, and the TV programmes which glorify violence to sell toys to our children.
GDP does not the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of
our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our
courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country;
it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.''
Who said that? Martin Luther King, Noam Chomsky, Jill Stein? Actually it was Bobby Kennedy
(Remarks at the University of Kansas, 18 March 1968 - quoted in S.Das - The Age of Stagnation
2015)
Can anyone today imagine in their wildest dreams a leading Democrat espousing views such as
this? This is how far into the night that America has come. God help us all.
Obama tried to influence our referendum by saying that if the UK voted for Brexit then the UK
would go to the back of the queue. Hilary as president will try and make sure that his word is
carried out. However.....
Trump wanted Brexit to happen. He also has a love for Scotland where he owns a golf course. He
is also likely to see eye to eye with our new Foreign Secretary who was responsible for annoying
Obama in the first place. I think both Boris and Trump are lunatics but looking at the bigger
picture Trump will be so much better for British and Scottish interests than Hilary. He will place
us at the front of the queue and Nicola Sturgeon would almost certainly be given a place at the
high table.
The people complaining about Trump being dishonest about the numbers of New Jersey Muslims celebrating
911 are themselves guilty of an even bigger falsehood in claiming that the number was zero.
""When I saw they were happy, I was pissed," said Ron Knight, 56, a Tonnele Avenue resident
who said he heard cries of "Allahu Akbar" as he shouldered his way through a crowd of 15 to 20
people on John F. Kennedy Boulevard that morning.
"Collectively, the gatherings amounted to dozens of people at the two locations, the witnesses
said. Callers also flooded the 911 system with accounts of jubilant Muslims on a rooftop at a
third location, three police officers said"
And honestly, why should this even be surprising? Living in a Western country doesn't instantly
make all Muslims loyslpatriots, as I would've thought anyone would recognise by now.
I thought that it was supposed to be Israelis celebrating in NJ because of 9/11? I guess that
I must have been fed the wrong conspiracy theory. It doesn't matter, really, because it's pure
unadulterated bullsh--, whoever you claim it about.
Lots of anti-Trump comments, fine and perfectly understandable. To clarify, the election is not
a yes/no vote on Trump as President. It is a choice between Trump and HRC. To call HRC a deeply
flawed candidate is an understatement. The important discussion is not over which one is evil,
but which one is the lesser evil.
If there is one candidate that you simply cannot go into a voting booth and vote for, then
the other one gets your vote. For some people both candidates are "unvoteable", which is a quandary.
Throwing away ones vote by not voting or going third party is not a civic option. It will be a
tough few months.
Trump may or may not be as he is portrayed, but to hold Hilary up as a paragon of virtue isn't
going to get the Democrats very far. Between Hilary and Bill there are so many skeletons that
there are not enough cupboards to hold them. Whitewater and other nepharious business dealings
combined with corruption , sexual double dealing , this couple (for that is what they are) cannot
preach to anyone re morality , honesty and trustworthiness. In addition Hilary is a master of
the dark arts of Politics ( and that's being kind) Trump, has not been found out and if there
were skeletons there then be sure they would have been found by now. Trump to win and Hilary to
be placed in a well deserved prison cell.
Clinton supporters always focus on the petty issues. Listen to Trump speak, there is a lot of
substance in those speeches relating to the common people of the US of A. Reason why this guy
is winning! And Why the Main stream media ( Including the quintessential Hillary supporters news
paper The Guardian) hates Donald Trump. Let's put it this way, if you want a fair assessment of
Donald Trump and what He is about, stay away from the main stream media.
Judging by the comments below Trump is doing just fine! They remind you of people who would go
to see stand-up comedy acts, not get the jokes, then mis-represent them and run home to mummy
in shock! Yes, Trump is a stand-up act, hes entertaining, hes mainly unscripted and he has an
audience. I think the world is divided between those with a sense of humor and those without!
No-one with such a sense of humor can be dangerous, but sure as heck the Clintons and the Sanders
are, as they take themselves very seriously now dont they!
"his false claim that Muslims celebrated September 11"
It isn't false that (some) Muslims celebrated 911. It isn't even false that some in New Jersey
celebrated it. The only dispute is over numbers: dozens, possibly hundreds (as early news reports
suggested) or thousands (as Trump asserts). It is ridiculous that the media so quick to paint
Trump as a liar on this issue are themselves pushing an even bigger lie, ie that no Muslims celebrated
at all.
Earlier in the US farce, I looked up the various candidates websites and looked for their foreign
policy. Non had foreign policy. All had war policy, or war and peace. This is the US version of
foreign policy. On this Trump has been consistent - negotiation.
Trump's an unknown, a showman. Clinton is a known - war.
In the stratosphere of US $emocracy, all we can hope for here is an independent foreign policy
rather than a foreign policy delivered direct from the US embassy.
Good lord, the Russiaphobic brainwashing on these comments is thick and terrifying. I'm sorry,
but I'd rather not have Cold War 2.0 over fucking Syria, thanks! But please go ahead and Vote
For Hillary even though she's in bed with all the MidEast Wahhabist Dictatorships, AIPAC, and
wants to demolish Damascus. Fucking nightmare. Seriously, Hillary people are either bought-off
or brainwashed. And it's all because of Big Bad Trump, a decades long Clinton-Democrat who is
now literally Hitler, right?
All this simplistic "Trump = bad / Clinton = good" reporting is getting ridiculous. Both candidates
have a lot of dubious qualities and skeletons in their cupboards, yet one is glossed over while
the other is exaggerated into caricature.
Are there any truly independent newspapers that will report both sides fairly and evenly? The
Guardian clearly won't.
Another Trump bashing article. Nice to see your journalistic objectivity is intact Guardian. The
establishment is finally being challenged - No more spin, no more smooth one liners, no more oppressive
political correctness from the liberal elites. The gloves are off - and if we don't see the establishments
bare hands this time - they will without a doubt lose. People are tired of being handled the the
establishments kit gloves.
Can we have an article on Clinton's proposed 'Syria reset' please, the one where she's proposing
ramping the war up and arming more 'moderate rebels' and imposing a 'no fly zone' on Russian airstrips
(what could possibly go wrong)..... This woman is a dangerous menace and will bring you everything
you all wanted to get away from. Lots and lots of war for her mates in the banks and MIC.
I despair if that warmongering liar gets in.
Donald Trump: "I've been Mr Nice Guy for too long. Now, I'm taking the gloves off, and I'm
going to yell and scream and swear and insult anyone and everyone who doesn't believe I'm a real
candidate, and that I really want to be president. No one understands just how serious I am. I've
been trying to be serious all my life, and I will scare the bewillies out of anyone who doesn't
believe in me now. After all, some one's go to pay."
The Guardian is quaking in their boots. The propaganda is not working thanks to the abundant info
on the internet.
People are waking up to the populist. I predict a double digit lead in 2 weeks time.
Great time to be alive!
In response to Ambrit. I do not know who is attacking Bernie. New poll shows that Jill Stein
will pull 22% of Democrats w/ a negative view of Clinton which is 67% of Democrats. May be off
w/ the 67% but the poll is recent and from WSJ/NBC
Clinton will not win. Sanders mortally wounded the DLC/Clinton machine.
"... Right now the Democratic Party is giving all of their attention to the Demexiting progressives, in an effort to try and sway them to vote for Hilary by using a narrative that suggests Demexting progressives will be the cause of a Trump presidency ..."
"... My background in marketing/psychology gives me quite a bit of perspective when it comes to narratives; and lets me know that this "not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump" narrative can be completely reversed - because those who hold attention always hold power. ..."
"... Progressives hell bent on #demexit in support of the Green Party candidate can force progressive Hilary supporters to #demexit. Current polls show that Trump is neck to neck with Hilary when it comes to securing enough votes for the Whitehouse. This alone means there's no true reason to vote for her. People leaving the Democratic Party for the Green Party can use the strength and momentum of their movement to force other progressive Democrats' hands in migrating to the Green Party this election ..."
"... It's time for the US to leave the 2 party system for one of multiple parties to slow and/or disrupt the infiltration of political parties by corporate interests. ..."
"... PLEASE ANYONE BUT CLINTON... ..."
"... The most unethical faux married couple in the modern history of this nation. BTW fu*k the corporate media.. ..."
In actuality, it's the progressives deciding not to vote for Hilary that hold the power in
this presidential election. Anyone who receives attention holds power over the interests of those
giving them attention.
Right now the Democratic Party is giving all of their attention to the Demexiting progressives,
in an effort to try and sway them to vote for Hilary by using a narrative that suggests Demexting
progressives will be the cause of a Trump presidency
"Vote for Hilary or Trump becomes President."
My background in marketing/psychology gives me quite a bit of perspective when it comes
to narratives; and lets me know that this "not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump" narrative
can be completely reversed - because those who hold attention always hold power.
Progressives hell bent on #demexit in support of the Green Party candidate can force progressive
Hilary supporters to #demexit. Current polls show that Trump is neck to neck with Hilary when
it comes to securing enough votes for the Whitehouse. This alone means there's no true reason
to vote for her. People leaving the Democratic Party for the Green Party can use the strength
and momentum of their movement to force other progressive Democrats' hands in migrating to the
Green Party this election by twisting the same fear-based argument Hilary supporters are
using into:
"There's no stopping #Demexit. Go Green or Trump becomes president."
43 million votes will help the Green Party candidate to secure the presidency in a 3 party
race. This is completely doable. A Green Party presidency is absolutely realistic; especially
with over 40% of the US population being Independent voters.
It's time for the US to leave the 2 party system for one of multiple parties to slow and/or
disrupt the infiltration of political parties by corporate interests.
A prediction... I'm pretty sure one of the tactics that will be used to try and prevent Bernie
Sanders supporters from voting for the Green Party candidate will be to encourage them to "write
in Bernie's name," which will ultimately assist in progressives part of the Demexit movement relinquishing
their voting power.
Also be mindful of the possibilities of this coming presidential election being rigged in ways
similar to the DNC primaries with a particular focus to hold back 3rd parties. Investigative actions
should probably be taken now to see what kind of corruption has and is being planned as we speak
for the Presidential Election.
Larry1961
PLEASE ANYONE BUT CLINTON...
DudeWTF
@Jim1984 Hillary is 100 times more dangerous than Trump.
xxSJWxx
@DudeWTF @Jim1984 They are BOTH EXTREMELY DANGEROUS to this country. We've got a NEOLIBERAL
CORPORATIST WARMONGER and a NEOCON FASCIST RACIST BIGOT MISOGYNIST and BOTH are SOCIOPATHS.
CorporatistNation
@Nothing Out Of The Ordinary Well... in response...
IF the votes were actually counted as cast and suppression of voters for Sanders was not permitted
then yep we would have a different nominee. Despite all the confetti last night Hillary will be
going down the tubes as Bernie supporters in large part will not follow this criminal to the voting
booth.
Watch Clinton CASH on Youtube and then decide if you think "that" is "what" you want in the
WH...
The most unethical faux married couple in the modern history of this nation. BTW fu*k the
corporate media... reporting just what they are instructed to tell us. Check the wikileaks
emails... texting and emailing the likes of Chuck Toad and Rachel ... while they are on -air...
It couls hardly be worse. 21st century FASCIST Amerika!
xxSJWxx
@Calvinus @CorporatistNation The 'kook' is you. There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence and as many
as 20+ lawsuits in the courts right now for voter fraud, ballot shredding, ballot tampering, vote
flipping, voter suppression, voter roll purging, giving out illegal provisional ballots, registration
tampering and exit poll discrepancies as much as 15-20%... anything over 2% is a RED FLAG for
FRAUD.
The FBI and investigators, statisticians, etc have been documenting the evidence since the
beginning of the election and also have proof of collusion between the DNC, MSM and Clinton campaign
MONTHS before the #DNCLeaks.
Pull your head out of your rear end and pay attention. They're all going down on RACKETEERING
charges.
@xxSJWxx @Calvinus @CorporatistNation I think that xxSJWxx misunderstood where I am at... I
AGREE 100% that Hillary should go down for racketeering etc... Watch
Clinton Cash!!! What
I said was... IF THE VOTES WERE ACTUALLY "COUNTED"... WE WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT NOMINEE... E.G.,
BERNIE SANDERS...
The Votes were NOT counted and so we have this unethical sociopath named Hillary who in my
opinion is also a Meglomaniac... who WILL start World War Three given half a chance. So lets hope
that there is a judge somewhere with courage and integrity who will indict her.
IF you want to be FULLY informed on The Clinton Foundation, The Clinton Global Initiative and
just what scoundrels Bill and Hill are... Then you MUST watch "Clinton Cash!"
I watched "Clinton Cash" TWICE last night rather than watch the "Sh*tShow!" #Vote2DefeatHER#VoteJillNOTHill
"... Forget the Hillarys and BHO's and Bushes of the world. If we want to get Liberty back and stop the Globalism we have to bring down the media, first. ..."
"... It doesn't matter who you people "vote" for, this isn't a democracy ran by us, this is a corporate oligarchy ran by the most powerful men in the world, you have no say in it. ..."
"... It's telling when people are asked to name ONE SINGLE ACCOMPLISHMENT BY HILLARY CLINTON AS SEC. of STATE and they can't give ONE! Not one!!! I don't blame Hillary. She's what she is: a lying, scamming, scheming, selfish, self-serving piece of trash. She is what she is. I blame the stupid, ignorant, uninformed, lackadaisical American electorate that only cares about smartphones, texting, and Pokeman! ..."
"... Woe to America, because with Hollywood, the evil, liberal media, and brainless Americans bowing at her feet, she's going to be the next president. I truly shutter at the thought! ..."
"... I actually want her to be the 1st female president. Cause then feminist MIGHT realise that the 1st female president was the absolute worst president in the history of mankind. But i don't think the realization is worth it ..."
"... How anybody who fabricated reports to make it seem like a 12 year old girl had a past of lying about being abducted, in order to get the guy who raped the girl successfully off the hook (who can never have children again as a result of the rape) is allowed to even breathe in the open air is beyond me. ..."
"... the clintons are proof that crime pays and pays well if you can lie like hillary and that pervert Bill all of those that follow them and cover for them are just as guilty. ..."
Feminism and Equality are obviously important, but we shouldn't let ourselves be blinded by
these claims. The historic facts, political records, and personality traits are much more
important when electing American politicians.
Vlad Tepes Dracul 2 months ago
Equality is not voting for someone just because of their gender. It is finding them
qualified for the position regardless of their gender or race.
martianshoes
Forget the Hillarys and BHO's and Bushes of the world. If we want to get Liberty back
and stop the Globalism we have to bring down the media, first.
F**K-THE-NWO
It doesn't matter who you people "vote" for, this isn't a democracy ran by us, this is
a corporate oligarchy ran by the most powerful men in the world, you have no say in it.
Jacopo Toniazzo
Modern Americans=USSR Russians. Cannot think on their own, totally guided by propaganda and
no knowledge of what is going on in the world. GG USA u fucked up big time. Of course there
always is a minority of people that have a decent IQ, luckily.
Winston Chang
It would send the wrong message for little girls across the country. Hillary did not work
her way up as a young woman. She became a First Lady first. If she became president, you are
telling little girls that they have gotta be a president's wife first, have the hubby help you
become Senator and persuade the President of the country make her Secretary Of State first.
and then run for president. She did not, again, WORK herself up the ladder. She used her
public image, made by her husband,
to get to here today.
Jeff Rhoades
It's telling when people are asked to name ONE SINGLE ACCOMPLISHMENT BY HILLARY CLINTON
AS SEC. of STATE and they can't give ONE! Not one!!! I don't blame Hillary. She's what she is:
a lying, scamming, scheming, selfish, self-serving piece of trash. She is what she is. I blame
the stupid, ignorant, uninformed, lackadaisical American electorate that only cares about
smartphones, texting, and Pokeman!
Woe to America, because with Hollywood, the evil, liberal media, and brainless
Americans bowing at her feet, she's going to be the next president. I truly shutter at the
thought!
spongefire10
I actually want her to be the 1st female president. Cause then feminist MIGHT realise
that the 1st female president was the absolute worst president in the history of mankind. But
i don't think the realization is worth it :(
Steven Van Westing
How anybody who fabricated reports to make it seem like a 12 year old girl had a past
of lying about being abducted, in order to get the guy who raped the girl successfully off the
hook (who can never have children again as a result of the rape) is allowed to even breathe in
the open air is beyond me.
You governments are run by the wicked, and the wicked is whom it serves.
Michaela Writesel
Any woman who votes for Hillary just because she is a woman is sexist. No different than a
man voting for another man because of just that, he is a man. Anyone who votes for someone
just based of gender is sexist and anyone who votes for someone based of race is racist. The
end.
Terry Pirkle
the clintons are proof that crime pays and pays well if you can lie like hillary and
that pervert Bill all of those that follow them and cover for them are just as guilty.
All speeches at Democratic convention remind me speeches at the USSR Communist Party congresses.
The same level of hypocrisy, the same level of detachment from reality. Obama definitely can server
as General Secretary of CPSU without any moral or presentation problems.
Notable quotes:
"... But back to Clinton's primary mission. The dominance of the FIRE sector at the Democrat National
Convention was overwhelming. If you think they are funding Clinton on behalf of labor, and not on their
own behalf, capital, then I have a headquarters in Brooklyn I would like to sell you; I think maybe
there's a kitchen table in one of the meeting rooms. ..."
"... First, Clinton sees her problem with labor as a public relations problem ("we haven't done
a good enough job showing"). She's airbrushing even worse than Obama, since she draws attention to the
airbrushing explicitly. See the charts; we're look at policy failure (or, depending on your level of
cyncism realism, policy success). Second, "we're going to do something about it." Well, where were you
in the hell of the last eight years? ..."
. (One ubiquitous phrase in press coverage of the convention was that Obama
"passed the baton of hope" to Clinton. Well, if the promised "change" was all that great, why
does the baton of hope need to be passed in the first place? And if we are in some kinda relay race,
then how come the finish line is constantly receding? (See above at "not yet felt.") Here she is:
[CLINTON]: I've gone around our country talking to working families. And I've heard from so
many of you who feel like the economy just isn't working.
Some of you are frustrated - even furious.
And you know what??? You're right.
It's not yet working the way it should.
Americans are willing to work - and work hard.
But right now, an awful lot of people feel there is less and less respect for the work they
do.
And less respect for them, period.
Democrats are the party of working people.
But we haven't done a good enough job showing that we get what you're going through, and that
we're going to do something about it.
So I want to tell you tonight how we will empower Americans to live better lives.
My primary mission as President will be to create more opportunity and more good jobs with
rising wages right here in the United States…
From my first day in office to my last!
I'm not going to look at the
Gish Gallop of minor policy
fixes and shopworn slogans that Clinton emits. I am, however, amazed at the effrontery these claims
by Clinton, later in the speech:
[CLINTON:] That's why we need to appoint Supreme Court justices who will get money out of politics
and expand voting rights, not restrict them. And we'll pass a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United!
First, Obama had the chance to nominate a Supreme Court justice who would do just that; last I
checked, Merrick Garland had not expressed a view on Citizens United. Second, if Democrats were serious
about voting rights, they'd have voter registration as a normal party function, 24/7/365. They would
also be setting up voters with IDs, in states that require them. They have done neither. Finally,
in order to save the Clinton candidacy from fully justified charges of corruption, Democrats have
accepted the doctrine of Citizens United, which is that the only form corruption takes is a quid
pro quo (and not, say, laundering political favors through a Foundation).
But back to Clinton's primary mission. The dominance of the FIRE sector at the Democrat National
Convention was overwhelming. If you think they are funding Clinton on behalf of labor, and not on
their own behalf, capital, then I have a headquarters in Brooklyn I would like to sell you; I think
maybe there's a kitchen table in one of the meeting rooms. But let me pull out one sentence
from Clinton's speech, exactly as I did with Obama:
[CLINTON:] But we haven't done a good enough job showing that we get what you're going through,
and that we're going to do something about it.
First, Clinton sees her problem with labor as a public relations problem ("we haven't done
a good enough job showing"). She's airbrushing even worse than Obama, since she draws attention to
the airbrushing explicitly. See the charts; we're look at policy failure (or, depending on your level
of cyncism realism, policy success). Second, "we're going to do something about it." Well,
where were you in the hell of the last eight years?
"... Shame on you Bernie. You stain yourself by endorsing crooked, lying, corrupt
and immoral Hillary. Bernie, you are part of the corrupt establishment and SOLD
OUT your supporters. ..."
"... Crooked Hillary is a criminal and should go to jail. "LOCK HER UP". How
could you let a criminal running for US president? This b**** has no morals, is
a world-class pathological liar and corrupt to the bone. Look at what the Clintons
DID not what they preached. The cancerous corruption of Democrats is so widespread
all the way to the top. Below are just some of many immoral things that the corrupt
Clintons did: ..."
"... What's dark and negative is that Hillary won't have a press conference.....is
she afraid of the questions that she'll have to answer? Ya know, like, why did you
lie to the American people about basically EVERYTHING regarding your personal, unsecured
server? ..."
"... Hillary faces hacking and heckling, and the heckling are mostly from within
the party supporters ..."
"Remember this," Trump said during a rally Friday in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
"Trump is going to be no more Mr. Nice Guy." And for the first time he encouraged
his supporters' anti-Clinton chants of "lock her up."
"I've been saying let's just beat her on Nov. 8," Trump said, "but you know
what? I'm starting to agree with you."
TT
WOW! The DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS NOMINATED CROOKED, LYING, IMMORAL AND CORRUPT
HILLARY. The Democrats' primary was totally rigged behind the scenes to
PRE-SELECT crooked Hillary as the only nominee from the beginning according
to leaked DNC emails. This is an election CRIME committed by the Democratic
Party. CROOKED HILLARY should be a DISQUALIFIED DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE from
the beginning. The Clintons are evil people and corrupt to the bone. SATAN
IS TAKING OVER THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
Shame on you Bernie. You stain yourself by endorsing crooked, lying,
corrupt and immoral Hillary. Bernie, you are part of the corrupt establishment
and SOLD OUT your supporters.
Crooked Hillary is a criminal and should go to jail. "LOCK HER UP".
How could you let a criminal running for US president? This b**** has no
morals, is a world-class pathological liar and corrupt to the bone. Look
at what the Clintons DID not what they preached. The cancerous corruption
of Democrats is so widespread all the way to the top. Below are just some
of many immoral things that the corrupt Clintons did:
HOME EMAIL SYSTEM - Crooked Clinton installed a home email system
FOR WORK while secretary of state to hide shady communications between
her and unfriendly foreign governments related to quid pro quo transactions
to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for influence on U.S. policy while
she was Secretary of State. Crooked HILLARY DELETED 33,000 emails to
avoid criminal prosecution. This crooked would not delete these emails
if they were truly personal. This b**** sold out USA and committed TREASON.
LIES AFTER LIES - Crooked Clinton's lies after lies to Congress,
FBI and Americans on Bosnia sniper fire, Benghazi attack, her home email
system, etc.
ELECTION RIGGING – Crooked Clinton colluded with DNC to rig 2016
primary according to 19,000 leaked DNC emails released by WikiLeaks.
DNC PRE-ANOINTED crooked Hillary as the only nominee from the beginning
according to leaked DNC emails.
CLINTON FOUNDATION – this is basically a front company so immoral
Clintons can pocket through implicit bribery and money laundering. While
abusing the public office, the Clintons have used the Clinton Foundation,
which is based in Canada for non-disclosure policy of charitable contributors,
to make "quid pro quo" deals with special interests and foreign governments.
The Clinton Crime Syndicate (Foundation) KEEPS 93% OF DONATIONS and
only donates 7% to the charities. They list 93% of the income taken
in as used for "Administrative Expenses".
CORRUPTION OF DEMOCRATS ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP - A FIX was in through
a SECRET meeting between immoral Bill Clinton and corrupt AG Loretta
Lynch NOT to charge Crooked Hillary on home-based emails and made her
ABOVE THE LAW. AG Loretta Lynch is the boss of FBI director James Comey.
CROOKED HILLARY IS TRULY AN IMMORAL LOW-LIFE WHITE TRASH - After
leaving the White House, crooked Hillary was forced to return an estimated
$200,000 in White House furniture, china, silverware, and artwork that
she had stolen. HOW COULD YOU VOTE FOR THIS TRASH TO BE US PRESIDENT?
QUID PRO QUO case out of many - THE CLINTON SCHOOL KICKBACKS. In
April 2015, Bill Clinton was forced to abruptly resign from his lucrative
perch as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, a for-profit college
company. The reason for Clinton's immediate departure: Clinton Cash
revealed, and Bloomberg confirmed, that Laureate funneled Bill Clinton
$16.46 million over five years while Hillary Clinton's State Department
pumped at least $55 million to a group run by Laureate's founder and
chairman, Douglas Becker, a man with strong ties to the Clinton Global
Initiative. Laureate has donated between $1 million and $5 million (donations
are reported in ranges, not exact amounts) to the Clinton Foundation.
CLINTON THEFT OF RELIEF FUNDS FOR HAITI EARTHQUAKE - Here's what
really happened. The Clinton Foundation selected Clayton Homes, a construction
company owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, to build temporary
shelters in Haiti. Buffett is an active member of the Clinton Global
Initiative who has donated generously to the Clintons as well as the
Clinton Foundation. The contract was supposed to be given through the
normal United Nations bidding process, with the deal going to the lowest
bidder who met the project's standards. UN officials said, however,
that the contract was never competitively bid for. Clayton offered to
build "hurricane-proof trailers" but what they actually delivered turned
out to be a disaster. The trailers were structurally unsafe, with high
levels of formaldehyde and insulation coming out of the walls. There
were problems with mold and fumes. The stifling heat inside made Haitians
sick and many of them abandoned the trailers because they were ill-constructed
and unusable.
The Clintons also funneled $10 million in federal loans to a firm called
InnoVida, headed by Clinton donor Claudio Osorio. Osorio had loaded its
board with Clinton cronies, including longtime Clinton ally General Wesley
Clark; Hillary's 2008 finance director Jonathan Mantz; and Democratic fundraiser
Chris Korge who has helped raise millions for the Clintons. Normally the
loan approval process takes months or even years. But in this case, a government
official wrote, "Former President Bill Clinton is personally in contact
with the company to organize its logistical and support needs. And as Secretary
of State, Hillary Clinton has made available State Department resources
to assist with logistical arrangements." InnoVida had not even provided
an independently audited financial report that is normally a requirement
for such applications. On the basis of the Clinton connection, InnoVida's
application was fast-tracked and approved in two weeks. The company defaulted
on the loan and never built any houses. An investigation revealed that Osorio
had diverted company funds to pay for his Miami Beach mansion, his Maserati,
and his Colorado ski chalet. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering
in 2013, and is currently serving a twelve-year prison term on fraud charges
related to the loan.
And these are only 2 examples of the dozens of thefts the Clintons and
their cronies did just to Haiti.
DONALD TRUMP, as the Republican presidential candidate, is truly an OUTSIDER
who goes against the corrupt PROFESSIONAL DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS who have
led USA in a wrong track of economic and military disadvantage for the last
eight years. SINCE CROOKED HILLARY BECAME SECRETARY OF STATE IN 2009 WITH
FAILED FOREIGN POLICY, USA has been unsafe and being attacked by RADICAL
ISLAMIC TERRORISTS MORE THAN EVER BEFORE. American citizens are ANGRY of
these corrupt PROFESSIONAL politicians like crooked, lying, immoral and
corrupt HILLARY. VOTE TRUMP 2016.
The West has been blinded and lured by the big Chinese market. However,
it forgot that it has been dealing with a Communist China inside its disguising
Capitalist shell. The Chinese GDP has increased from $303B in 1980 to current
around $11,000B, an increase of more than 35 times along with Intellectual
Property thefts from the West worth a few trillions of dollars and millions
and millions of job losses in the West. Only top few % in the West including
the corrupt CLINTONS were significantly benefited from the BAD trade deals
with China. The Americans are getting poorer while the Chinese are getting
MUCH richer due to BAD trades deals with the West.
That was why Donald Trump, who is NOT racist but puts USA first, said
the trade deals with China are all BAD that cost millions and millions of
domestic jobs. BOYCOTT Chinese-made products and BRING BACK JOBS FROM CHINA.
VOTE TRUMP 2016 AND TRUMP WILL RE-NEGOTIATE ALL BAD TRADE DEALS, BRING JOBS
BACK AND REBUILD US MANUFACTURING.
The liberal mainstream media is pro-Clinton. It is getting paid big from
the crooked Clinton campaign and putting out LYING POLL NUMBERS and ARTICLES
TO BASH TRUMP. A majority of people thought crooked Hillary should have
been INDICTED. People in government would be in JAIL or lose their jobs
at least if they just have done 10% of what crooked Hillary has done. This
is a tremendous US national security implication. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT
USA HAS BEEN ON A DOWN HILL BIG TIME IN TERMS OF BEING RESPECTED BY PEOPLE
AROUND THE WORLD AND FOREIGN DIPLOMACY SINCE CROOKED HILLARY BECAME SECRETARY
OF STATE IN 2009 ??? Hacking of the crooked Clinton's home, low-secured
private email system by foreign agents would have caused tremendous damage
to USA since 2009.
Russian agents along with agents from other countries like China or Iran
most likely have hacked the crooked Clinton's home, low-secured private
email system and retrieved all her emails including nationally sensitive
emails, shady communications between her and unfriendly foreign governments
related to quid pro quo transactions to the Clinton Foundation in exchange
for influence on U.S. policy while she was Secretary of State. Crooked HILLARY
DELETED 33,000 emails to avoid criminal prosecution, sold out USA and committed
TREASON.
Chitta
Did HRC say that these new jobs will be created offshore?
The 23 million jobs in Bill C's time that she brags about have long been
shipped offshore with the support of Bill and Hillary. What a hypocrite!
anonymous
Mr. Trump: the convention is over, the nominees are in place.
Take the gloves off.
Clinton has literally endless amounts of factual material you can work
with.
Stick to the documented facts:
• No hyperbole
• No exaggeration
• No undocumented assumptions
• Vet everything first
Then, unload on her with all barrels.
Relentlessly.
Maggie
She should be facing jail time with all the money she and Bill were given
for favors to big business, foreign countries and personal friends. Remember
in 1978 when she turned $1,000 into $100,000 in one year playing the commodities
market? Pretty good for someone who never played the market before. Maybe
if we all had some insider info, we'd be "lucky," too.
Tomahawk
Hillary is horribly amazing. She wants to con her sheep into believing
Trump cannot be trusted with the nuclear codes when she can't even be trusted
with emails.....lol
Stathis
What's dark and negative is that Hillary won't have a press conference.....is
she afraid of the questions that she'll have to answer? Ya know, like, why
did you lie to the American people about basically EVERYTHING regarding
your personal, unsecured server?
AAR
Correction
Hillary faces hacking and heckling, and the heckling are mostly from
within the party supporters
"... If she wins in November, my one hoped-for consolation – again, assuming she doesn't end up setting off WW3 – is that I lay better than even odds of another global-economic meltdown in the next 4 years. Much better for it to land in her well-deserving-of-it lap than Trump's. In the meantime I continue to derive hearty and almost-daily enjoyment from The Donald's gift for sending the corrupt establishment – in both major parties as well as the loathsome MSM – into conniptions. I mean, seeing the likes of drone-boy Leon Panetta yesterday blustering about "beyond the pale", "treason" and "inviting a foreign government to meddle in our electoral process" (not like the CIA et al. ever meddled in any other nation's electoral process, right?) after Trump called for Russia (or anyone else) who might be in possession of the disappeared SoS e-mails to release them … priceless. ..."
"... Trump made his quip about Russia in what actually was an eloquent and funny press conference.[1] The media took this out of context to depict him as urging the Russians to hack into our e-mails. What he actually said was that if Russia – or China, or somebody "sitting in his bed" – did indeed read Hillary's State Department and Clinton Foundation dealings, they should do the world a favor and release them to reveal her self-dealing. ..."
"... the German court's unambiguous, landmark finding ..."
"... We have truly reached a new low in this country with the nomination by a major party of an unindicted felon. I don't see how anyone with a scrap of moral conscience could vote for Hillary. The political revolution truly begins when we kick this "vulgar and terminally unethical" couple (thank you Bob Herbert) out of D.C. for good. ..."
"... The aha moment came when Sanders said. "Let me say something that may not be great politics. The Secretary is right. The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!" ..."
"... That was the warning to me that Sanders was not interested in taking down her majesty. I knew right then without a doubt he was not fully in it to win it. This was the revelation much like when your spouse gets a call late at night and the conversation is in hushed tones or your child comes home for the first time with a glazed look in their eye or you hear that a relative has just been hospitalized but not to worry because it's nothing serious. ..."
The response across the Democratic neocon spectrum, from Anne Applebaum at
the
Washington Post
to red-baiting Paul Krugman and the Sunday talk
shows it was suggested that behind the Wikileaks to release DNC e-mails was
a Russian plot to help elect Trump as their agent. Former US ambassador to
Russia Michael McFaul lent his tattered reputation to claim that Putin must
have sponsored the hackers who exposed the DNC dirty tricks against Bernie.
The attack on Trump was of course aimed at Sanders. At first it didn't take
off. Enough delegates threatened to boo DNC head (and payday-loan lobbyist)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz off stage if she showed her face at the podium to
gavel the convention to order. The down-note would have threatened the
"United Together" theme, so she was forced to resign. But Hillary rewarded
her loyalty by naming her honorary chairman of her own presidential
campaign! If you're loyal, you get a pay-off. The DNC was doing what it was
supposed to do. No reform seems likely.
... ... ...
VP Kaine as Hillary's Stand-in if She's Indicted or Seems Unelectable
The potential "Hillary Republicans" who are turning away from Trump – whose
ranks include Mike Bloomberg, the neocon Kagan family (Robert and Victoria
Nuland) and William Kristol – far outnumber the Sanders supporters who may
stay home or vote for Jill Stein on the Green Party ticket. Hillary sees
more votes (and certainly more campaign contributions and future "speaking
fees") from the Koch Brothers, George Soros, Wall Street, Saudi Arabia and
the corporatist Chamber of Commerce.
Kaine recently has fought to "free" small and medium-sized banks from being subject to the
Consumer Financial Protection Agency. He has long supported the TPP, deregulation of Wall Street,
and most everything that Sanders opposes. Appointed as DNC head by President Obama in 2008, he
dismantled Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, not bothering to fight Republicans in the South and
other solid Republican states. His move let them elect governors who gerrymandered their voting
districts after the 2010 census.
... ... ...
Bernie's campaign targeted Wall Street and corporate deregulation (the
essence of TTP and TTIP) as the key to the One Percent's monopolization of
income and wealth since Obama's post-2008 sacrifice of the economy on the
altar of rescuing banks and their bondholders. That is why the Wall Street's
Donor Class that controls the Democratic Party machine want to discourage
new voter enrollment and turnout. The last thing they want is an influx of
new voters advocating real reform. Millennial newcomers are more
progressive, born into a generation that has no opportunity to obtain jobs
and housing as easily as their parents. So it's best to keep out
independents in favor of the old-time voters with brand loyalty to
Democrats.
Demonizing Trump for Saying what Bernie Sanders Has Been
Saying
Trump made his quip about Russia in what actually was an eloquent and
funny press conference.
[1]
The media took this out of context to depict him as urging the Russians to
hack into our e-mails. What he actually said was that if Russia – or China,
or somebody "sitting in his bed" – did indeed read Hillary's State
Department and Clinton Foundation dealings, they should do the world a favor
and release them to reveal her self-dealing.
Trump is right in saying that there has not really been a recovery for
the Rust Belt or for the 99 Percent. Hillary brazens it out by claiming that
Obama's neoliberal economics have helped wage-earners, despite the debt
deflation blocking recovery. She promises to continue his policies (backed
by his same campaign funders).
That would seem to be a losing strategy for this year's election – unless
the Democrats gain control of the electronic voting machines, especially in
Ohio. But the Republicans may decide to throw the election to Hillary, who
is fortunate to have Donald Trump as her opponent. Demonized as Putin's
"Siberian candidate," he has become the Democrats' unifying force: "Hillary
isn't Trump."
That's what voting for the "lesser evil" means. Hillary's message is:
"Even though we support TPP and a New Cold War, at least you'll have a woman
at the helm. Anyway, you have nowhere else to go, because the other side is
even
more
evil!" Her logic is that (1) if you criticize Hillary,
you're supporting Trump; (2) Trump is the Siberian candidate; hence (3)
Criticism of Hillary, NATO's New Cold War escalation or the TPP's anti-labor
treaty and financial deregulation is pro-Russian and hence anti-American.
All that strategists for the One Percent need to do is fund an even worse
party platform to the right of the Democrats. So the choice will be between
Evil A (economic evil with ethnic and sexual tolerance) and Evil B (without
such tolerance).
It doesn't have to be this way. But Sanders gave up, not feeling up to
the task. Having mocked him as a socialist, Hillary is acting as the Joe
McCarthy of the 2010s, mobilizing a wave of commie bashing against her
Republican opponent.
On Monday leading up to the convention, the Democratic Party's cable
channel MSNBC kept juxtaposing pictures of Trump and Putin. Criticizing
Hillary's neocon stance supporting Ukraine's military coup is depicted as
support of Russia – while other commentators followed President Obama
claiming that criticism of TPP means making China the new leader of Asia.
The message is that criticizing NATO's adventurism risks being called a
Soviet – I mean, Russian – puppet.
... ... ...
The problem facing Hillary's rivals is that she has wrapped herself in the legacy of President
Obama. Having shied from criticizing the president, Sanders and his supporters are facilitating
what may be a Lame Duck session sellout after the November election. My fear is that Obama will
try to "save his legacy" by joining with the Republicans to drive through the TPP, and also may
escalate the New Cold War with Russia and China so as to make it easier for Hillary to sign onto
these moves.
Selecting Tim Kaine as her running mate means neoliberal, pro-TPP business as usual. Hillary
didn't oppose TPP. She just said she would put in rhetoric saying that its "purpose" was to raise
wages – whereas most voters have shown themselves to be smart enough to realize that the effect
will be just the opposite.
Yet Sanders endorsed her. Evidently he hopes to keep his position within the Party chairing
the Senate Minority Budget Committee, while simultaneously trying to promote a revolution outside
the Democrats. I was reminded of a Chinese proverb: When there is a fork in the road, a man who
tries to take two roads at once gets a broken hip joint.
... ... ...
Bernie's supporters who walked out on Tuesday have been duly radicalized.
But he himself seems akin to be an American Alex Tsipras. Tsipras thought
withdrawal from the eurozone was even worse than capitulating to austerity,
while Sanders believes that withdrawing from the Democrats and backing a
political realignment – perhaps electing Trump in the interim is even worse
than Hillary's pro-Wall street Obama-like agenda.
Matters were not
improved when Bill Clinton gave a hagiographic biography of Hillary
emphasizing her legal aid work to protect children, without mentioning how
the 1994 welfare "reform" drastically cut back aid to dependent children.
Madeline Albright said that Hillary would keep America safe, without
mentioning Hillary's promotion of destabilizing Libya and backing Al Quaeda
against Syria's government, driving millions of refugees to Europe and
wherever they might be safer.
The many anti-TPP signs waved by Sanders delegates on Wednesday saw
Hillary say that she would oppose TPP "as currently written." This suggests
that a modest sop thrown to labor – a rhetorical paste-on saying that the
TPP's aim was to raise living standards. This simply showed once again her
sophist trickery at lawyering, giving her an out that she and long-time TPP
supporter Tim Kaine were sure to take.
Obama's brilliant demagogy left many eyes glazed over in admiration.
Nobody is better at false sincerity while misrepresenting reality so
shamelessly. Probably few caught the threatening hint he dropped about
Hillary's plan for corporations to share their profits with their workers.
This sounds to me like the Pinochet plan to privatize Social Security by
turning it into exploitative ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Programs). The
idea is that wage withholding would be steered to buy into the company's
stock – bidding it up in the process. Employees then would end up holding an
empty bag, as occurred recently with the Chicago
Tribune
. That
seems to be the great "reform" to "save" Social Security that her Wall
Street patrons are thinking up.
One might think that the Democrats would see the Obama administration as
an albatross around their neck, much as Gore had Bill Clinton around his
neck in 2000. Gore didn't want him showing his face in the campaign. Yet
Hillary presents herself as continuing the Obama policies with "business as
usual," as if she will act as his third term.
Voters know that Obama bailed out the banks, not the economy, and that
Hillary's campaign backers are on Wall Street. So this year would seem to
have been a propitious time to start a real alternative. Hillary is
mistrusted, and that mistrust is spreading to the Democratic Party machine –
especially as the Koch Brothers and kindred backers of failed Republican
candidates find neoliberal religion with Hillary. A third party
Green/Socialist run might indeed have taken off – with Sanders stealing
Trump's thunder by pre-empting his critique of TPP, free trade and NATO,
adding Wall Street and Citizens United campaign financing.
This Fall's Presidential Debates
Hillary and even Bernie assured the Democratic convention again and again
how much President Obama has revived the economy from the "mess" that Bush
left. While Trump centers his disdain on the TPP (much as he knocked Jeb
Bush out by saying that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake), he can reply,
"What recovery? Have you voters
really
recovered from 2008?"
Hillary and other speechmakers at the Democratic convention criticized
Trump for saying that "things are bad." But according to the July 13 NBC/WSJ
poll, 73% of voters believe that the country is going "off on the wrong
track." If Trump shifts his epithet from simply "Crooked Hillary" to the
more nuanced "Crooked Wall Street and their candidate, Crooked Hillary,"
he'll score a ratings spurt.
Debt deflation and shrinking markets over the next two years do not
provide much hope for increasing the minimum wage – which wouldn't help much
if one can't find a job in the first place! By 2018 the continued stagnation
of the 99 Percent may lead to a midterm wipeout of Democrats (assuming that
Hillary wins this year against Trump), catalyzing an alternative party
(assuming that she does not blow up the world in her neocon military
escalation on the borders of Russia and China).
The problem with Trump is not mistrust; it is that nobody knows what
policies he will back. The media are giving him the same silent treatment
they did with Bernie, while accusing him of being in Putin's pocket. He did
admit selling some real estate to Russian nationals. Perhaps some of these
gains fueled his presidential campaign …
The solution is not to save the Democratic Party, but to replace it. The
debate reminds me of that about the Soviet Union in the 1950s: Is it a
degenerated workers' state, or a Stalinist bureaucratic mutation going the
opposite direction from real socialism?
I wonder how many years it will take for Hillary to end up booed so
loudly that she has to leave hotels and other speaking venues via their back
alleys, much as Lyndon Johnson had to sneak out to avoid the anti-war booers
leading leading up to the 1968 election.
ewmayer
,
July 29, 2016 at 5:39 am
...
"I wonder how many years it will take for Hillary to end up booed
so loudly that she has to leave hotels and other speaking venues via
their back alleys, much as Lyndon Johnson had to sneak out to avoid the
anti-war booers"
That kind of well-deserved non-ignorable odium still hasn't driven the
likes of Henry Kissinger and Alan Greenspan from the public eye, so I am
sorry to say I harbor scant hope of it ever happening to Hillary. Please let
me be proven wrong on this point!
If she wins in November, my one hoped-for consolation – again,
assuming she doesn't end up setting off WW3 – is that I lay better than even
odds of another global-economic meltdown in the next 4 years. Much better
for it to land in her well-deserving-of-it lap than Trump's. In the meantime
I continue to derive hearty and almost-daily enjoyment from The Donald's
gift for sending the corrupt establishment – in both major parties as well
as the loathsome MSM – into conniptions. I mean, seeing the likes of
drone-boy Leon Panetta yesterday blustering about "beyond the pale",
"treason" and "inviting a foreign government to meddle in our electoral
process" (not like the CIA et al. ever meddled in any other nation's
electoral process, right?) after Trump called for Russia (or anyone else)
who might be in possession of the disappeared SoS e-mails to release them …
priceless.
Excellent piece. I confess this is the first place I read what is
apparently Trump's full comment re the DNC leaks and Russia:
Trump made his quip about Russia in what actually was an eloquent and
funny press conference.[1] The media took this out of context to depict him
as urging the Russians to hack into our e-mails. What he actually said was
that if Russia – or China, or somebody "sitting in his bed" – did indeed
read Hillary's State Department and Clinton Foundation dealings, they should
do the world a favor and release them to reveal her self-dealing.
A far cry from the "treasonous" call reported
ad nauseum
in the
MSM and at the convention.
And yes, those are typical Clinton weasel words regarding the TPP ("as
currently written"). Vote for Hillary! - more drones, more wars, concessions
to Wall Street, and TPP… Obama's third term indeed.
I became interested in Donald Trump after Scott Adams (The creator of
Dilbert) described Trump as "The master persuader". So I started watching
Trumps speeches and press conferences out of curiosity. I really liked what
he was saying and how he was saying it (with humor and genuine (authentic)
good will and common sense. I don't agree with everything he said, but you
never do. However, everytime I google searched Trump; the blogs, the
editorials and the reports, were either virulently negative (he is a fascist
etc) ranging all the way to halfhearted (he is the lesser of two evils etc).
No mainstream commentators were unashamedly Pro-Trump. How can this be?Watch
his press conferences. He answers all the questions, he is charming, he
doesn't pull his punches (he says what he thinks, not what he is supposed to
think). He is this legendary American Character (like Davy Crockett, Joe
Hill or Paul Henry IMO) and yet, the chattering press despise him??? They
all love Hillary or Bernie?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGHWou0h1kk
This is what I think
Scott Adams said
"Some of you watched with amusement as I endorsed Hillary Clinton for my
personal safety. What you might not know is that I was completely serious. I
was getting a lot of direct and indirect death threats for writing about
Trump's powers of persuasion, and I made all of that go away by endorsing
Clinton".,,,,,, Writing about Trump ended my speaking career, and has
already reduced my income by about 40%".
The people (managers), one step down from the Ruling Class, are not
allowed to be pro- Trump, at the risk of their salaried employment, or
demotion, or of being shamed or of getting death threats (Scott adams said
he got death threats).
However, and Thank God, The People are welling up, are rising up………… I
think that Trump will win by a landslide.
It has happened before. It is the subject of thousands of years of
His-Story and Her-Story.
I started watching Trump for same reason and in many ways he makes
more sense than Hill-Bill. Yes at times hard to take him serious, but his
is very funny. I would vote for him for 4 years of disruption.
I have a friend that works in government and last election begged
everyone to vote for Mitt. This person was hired under Bush & said under
Obama everyone is expected to spy on each other.
Where is crazy US going?
"According to Travis, the line from the chorus, "another day older and
deeper in debt", was a phrase often used by his father, a coal miner
himself. This and the line, "I owe my soul to the company store", is a
reference to the truck system and to debt bondage. Under this scrip
system, workers were not paid cash; rather they were paid with
non-transferable credit vouchers which could be exchanged only for goods
sold at the company store. This made it impossible for workers to store
up cash savings. Workers also usually lived in company-owned dormitories
or houses, the rent for which was automatically deducted from their pay.
In the United States the truck system and associated debt bondage
persisted until the strikes of the newly formed United Mine Workers and
affiliated unions forced an end to such practices."
I predict Trump will win also. If it's obvious that the dems win by
rigging the voting machines in certain battleground states, Trump won't lay
down and take it quietly, like John Kerry did. Although I'm not sure there
is anything he could do about that. We're at the point where even a
respected professorial type like Hudson is assuming that rigging the vote
count by controlling the voting machines is likely. Yet I don't know if
there is a viable appeal process is you are defrauded by computer.
. . . Paul Lehto, a U.S. election attorney and Constitutional rights
expert, summarized
the German court's unambiguous, landmark finding
:
"No 'specialized technical knowledge' can be required of citizens to vote
or to monitor vote counts."
There is a "constitutional requirement of a publicly observed count."
"[T]he government substitution of its own check or what we'd probably
call an 'audit' is no substitute at all for public observation."
"A paper trail simply does not suffice to meet the above standards.
"As a result of these principles, . . . 'all independent observers'
conclude that
'electronic voting machines are totally banned in
Germany'
because no conceivable computerized voting system can
cast and count votes that meet the twin requirements of being both
'observable' and also not requiring specialized technical knowledge.
I work in Washington D.C. and live in the adjacent Maryland suburbs.
One thing I have noticed, the number of cars with "Bernie" bumper
stickers has been off the chart. The number of cars with bumper stickers
for Hillary, however, are still few. (Many fewer than the Obama stickers
from a few years ago). I haven't heard 10 people say they support her (in
a government town). My prediction: Its going to be a landslide for Trump.
Who voted for her in D.C., Maryland and Virginia, then?
I'm being serious. I've felt the same thing everywhere I've gone
and I keep "hearing" that there is this vast underground,
conspicuously invisible, yet deep support for her. Yet I never see it
or hear it IN PERSON, ANYWHERE. In fact most of it seems to be online,
which some of it is parroted talking points from David Brock and that
ilk or in the corporate media.
The few people I've ever even seen that are pro-Hillary are like
the audience of the DNC–very fiery, but usually veiled in an identity
politics aura devoid of nearly any nuance on real issues.
If the media and political class has been overstating (and faking
things - maybe ballot stuffing, matching exit polls to vote totals)
the support of her and downplaying (and whiting out ballots/throwing
out ballots/rigging voting machine tallies) the support of
Bernie…don't you wonder what the REAL numbers are out there?
If Obama starts a war or signs TPP he is ensuring people vote Trump.
There are more people that hate trade agreements & more people ruined by
false wars of Iraq/Afghanistan. No one trusts big media or big gov from
either party.
The TPP will not be pushed by Obama until AFTER the elections in
the lame duck session.
So I believe the TPP will pass in the lame duck session, with
overwhelming Republican and Blue Dog Democrat support (especially
retiring Blue Dogs viewing the revolving door).
It is Obama's parting shot showing he determined that
bi-partisanship means giving the wealthy and the Republicans exactly
what they want.
HRC can assume the presidency, crocodile tear up about the harmful
TPP that was passed before she was elected, while stating it can't be
undone..
My only hope is one of the other nations throws a wrench in the TPP
works.
For a hint of the actions of the future imperial presidency of
"well-connected mediocrity" Hillary Clinton consider these two events:
1. Sleazy, corrupt DWS resigns, only to be rescued by a new job by
a grateful HRC
2. The non-binding Democratic platform did not get a zero-cost to
Clinton anti-TPP platform plank,
True hippie punching, as HRC stays on message for the TPP.
The Democrats really threw their low dollar supporters/foot
soldiers under the bus with this ticket. If HRC is impeached/becomes
incapacitated then Tim Kaine is installed to pursue the Neolib agenda.
I don't believe the Democratic party can be reformed.
"The potential "Hillary Republicans" who are turning away from Trump …
far outnumber the Sanders supporters who …"
It was striking throughout the convention that the speakers from Clinton
on down focused their criticism almost exclusively on Trump, not on
Republicans in general. The fact that the GOP as a whole has gone bat-sh*t
crazy over the last 15 years, fueled by Radio Rwanda in the form of Fox News
and right-wing radio, went unmentioned. Presumably because the campaign will
spend all of its energy and resources going after the `moderate
Republicans', who will turn out to be as numerous, and as reliable, as the
`moderate opposition' in Syria.
One last thing: I was running errands last night and caught Gen. Allen's
chant-fest on the car radio. It was as if I were trapped in an episode of
the Twilight Zone, having gotten into the car and entered an alternate
universe where the Dems of 2016 had become the GOP of 2004. All that was
missing were the Purple Heart bandaids. God help us all.
On a purely anecdotal basis, I think many even moderate Republicans
have a visceral hatred of the Clintons that goes beyond their politics. I
strongly suspect that many who would be persuaded to vote a blue dog
would find themselves just unable to vote for HC, even if they hate
Trump. I do wonder if the campaign has built this into their strategy.
I've a feeling that many of the type of old style Republican voter the
Clinton campaign is relying on will simply not vote or vote Libertarian
instead.
During the Gen Allen war rant, I felt like Alice through the Looking
Glass, esp when all the hideous "USA! USA! USA!" chanting went on,
replete with Allen chanting alongside. I later heard that the chant was
planned and choreographed in advance to drone out the Sanders delegation
who apparently were chanting either "No More War" and/or "No More
Drones."
Sad to say that several purportedly "left wing" blogs today were
resoundingly spanking the protestors and hecklers.
Egad. That was one big old slick slick slick show filled with hype
spin lies and bullshit. Hard to take. And freakin' hard to accept that
THIS is the so-called "Democratic" party, which has literally co-opted
just about every rightwing GOP talking point out there: shining city on
the hill (BARFARAMA), exceptionalism, blah de blah.
And all the so-called "lefty" blogs are in paroxisms of delight over
this development.
Well Said !! No kidding RUKidding. Watching the news praising and
slanting the news in favor of the neoliberal neocons makes me feel
like I'm existing in some sort of parallel universe! What the heck is
going on. It's getting so I can't stand to watch the news anymore,
it's so perversely slanted to one extreme view or the other, as if an
in-between never existed.
The value of the Trump smear leads me to question its impact on Google
and Facebook's recent strong quarterly results. If there are payoffs for
skewing search does that count as ad revenue?
"
Probably few caught the threatening hint
[Obama]
dropped about
Hillary's plan for corporations to share their profits with their workers.
This sounds to me like the Pinochet plan to privatize Social Security by
turning it into exploitative ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Programs).
"
We have truly reached a new low in this country with the nomination
by a major party of an unindicted felon. I don't see how anyone with a scrap
of moral conscience could vote for Hillary. The political revolution truly
begins when we kick this "vulgar and terminally unethical" couple (thank you
Bob Herbert) out of D.C. for good.
Hudson nailed when he said that Sanders gave up. And that happened well
before his Clinton endorsement.
I could see signs of it during the debates. He seemed like he was
deferring to Hillary.
Likewise, during his rallies. I went to three of them.
First two, he was on fire. Third was so low energy. I could not believe
that I was hearing Bernie Sanders. And I was so disappointed that I left
early.
I'd wondered about that. He's not young and he isn't a particularly
fit and healthy man for his age. A lot of younger, fitter people would
wilt under the stress of a campaign. I wonder if he simply ran out of
steam physically and mentally.
The aha moment came when Sanders said. "Let me say something that
may not be great politics. The Secretary is right. The American people
are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!"
That was the warning to me that Sanders was not interested in
taking down her majesty. I knew right then without a doubt he was not
fully in it to win it. This was the revelation much like when your spouse
gets a call late at night and the conversation is in hushed tones or your
child comes home for the first time with a glazed look in their eye or
you hear that a relative has just been hospitalized but not to worry
because it's nothing serious.
You know something ain't just right and that things are probaly going
get worse real soon!
The issue with the private server when Hillary was Sec.of State
is that:
:"WASHINGTON - The State Department's inspector general on
Wednesday sharply criticized Hillary Clinton's exclusive use of a
private email server while she was secretary of state, saying that
she had not sought permission to use it and would not have received
it if she had.
…"The inspector general found that Mrs. Clinton "had an
obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct
official business" with department officials but that, contrary to
her claims that the department "allowed" the arrangement, there was
"no evidence" she had requested or received approval for it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=0
and
"Although Hillary Clinton and her allies may be claiming that her
private e-mail system is no big deal, Hillary's State Department
actually forced the 2012 resignation of the U.S. ambassador to
Kenya in part for setting up an unsanctioned private e-mail system.
According to a 2012 report from the State Department's inspector
general, former U.S. ambassador to Kenya Scott Gration set up a
private e-mail system for his office in 2011…."
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/05/hillarys-state-dept-forced-the-resignation-of-an-ambassador-for-using-private-e-mail/
and this:
" The policy, detailed in a manual for agency employees, adds
clarity to an issue at the center of a growing controversy over
Clinton's reliance on a private email account. Aides to Clinton, as
well as State Department officials, have suggested that she did
nothing inappropriate because of fuzzy guidelines and lack of
specific rules on when and how official documents had to be
preserved during her years as secretary.
"But the 2005 policy was described as one of several "clear cut"
directives the agency's own inspector general relied on to
criticize the conduct of a U.S. ambassador who in 2012 was faulted
for using email outside of the department's official system.
"'It is the Department's general policy that normal day-to-day
operations be conducted on an authorized [Automated Information
System], which has the proper level of security control to provide
nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure
confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident
information," the Department's Foreign Affairs Manual states. '"
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804
The point is that Hillary surreptitiously violated her own
dept's security rules without permission. Violated policies that
others were dismissed for violating. Warned subordinate State Dept
employees against using private email servers for their govt
communications. Had State Dept techs temporarily disable State's
email server security measures to find a glitch in her private
email system. The point is that Hillary violated policy and
security measures. That is an order of magnitude different than the
blythe disclaimer that "all servers get hacked, so what's the
problem."
Did it ever occur to you that Hillary used her private e-mail server
to circumvent FOIA? BTW, the so called sysadmin who set up her server
charge only $5,000. She got what she paid for. If you like Hillary so
much I can suggest Huffington Post or many other shill sites for you. NC
is the best site for the truth unless you don't want to know the truth or
can't handle it. Good bye!
If HRC stalls out on the debates, the Orange One would be well advised
to go ahead and debate the Green and Libertarian candidates. It would get
yuge ratings, make HRC look like a coward, and finally expose third party
ideas to the mainstream. The MSM would be in a pickle: do they go ahead
and broadcast a non-HRC debate and anger the Queen of Chaos, or do they
pass up the yuge dollars such debates would earn?
"... The difference between Trump and Hillary is that enough is known from Hillary's past actions to leave little doubt about her mendacity. ..."
"... I perceive Trump as a representative of the local big money and power centers, the people who run the show in state houses and county freeholders - people rooted to specific locales. ..."
"... I perceive Hillary as a representative of jet-set big money and international corporate interests with a willingness to support all their most destructive activities including wars ..."
"... There is no "we" here. After the mess in Ukraine, Syria and Libya we now know that a continuation of Obama's policies will basically destroy Europe. ..."
"... The odds are that our leadership will simply go along with less US stupidity when it's coming from Trump, while they will certainly follow Hillary to whatever end. ..."
"... The reality of the Democrats consists of a party with significant constituencies that increasingly support a militarized foreign policy as well as economic/cultural policy that is anti-growth, anti-working class and pro-ethnic/race identity– in essence–more and more classically reactionary. ..."
"... Modern Democrats have also increasingly merged with and identify primarily with upper-middle class professional/managerial/bureaucratic power centers as well as with key sectors of Big capital and Big Finance. ..."
"... This party now stand completely against that average citizens interest in rising living standards, equality of opportunity and the strengthening of democracy. ..."
I don't see what optimism Hudson manifests about Donald Trump in his essay. Mildly put he shows
a lack of optimism about Hillary as well as disgust at Sanders capitulation.
Here's my penny's worth of a two cents - how I see our choices in the upcoming election:
Trump has some very skivy friends and associates. The Bill Moyers website posted a review of Donald
Trump's business associates and friends
http://billmoyers.com/story/donald-trump-story-youre-not-hearing/
[not sure if this has already been referenced in the past - if so sorry]. Trump is in a business
very close to the "legitimate" side of organized crime - casinos and large scale real-estate development.
Trump makes outrageous statements I've seen described as explicit statements of the coded statements
the Republican party rolled out to draw the South into their party. Trump also makes a lot of statements
with a ring of truth seeming to "talk truth to power." Several people I've discussed politics with
favor Trump just because the people who run our show have displayed such plain distaste for him.
Hillary Clinton's email server fiasco would land most ordinary holders of government clearance
in prison or at very least put them back on the streets with a large blackball next to their name.
But I consider the email server affair a minor breach compared to her ties with big money and big
Corporations, her actions as Secretary of State and her efforts on her Healthcare plan during Bill's
reign.
Trump says a lot of the right stuff - but so did Obama - and Hillary tries to say the right stuff.
The difference between Trump and Hillary is that enough is known from Hillary's past actions
to leave little doubt about her mendacity. Trump's business associations and his handling of
his businesses only suggest he too just mouths the right words.
I perceive Trump as a representative of the local big money and power centers, the people
who run the show in state houses and county freeholders - people rooted to specific locales.
I view organized crime as relatively respectful of eachother's turfs. Trump is the friend to people
who build highways to nowhere and use eminent domain to take over beach areas for their developments
in places like Atlantic City.
I perceive Hillary as a representative of jet-set big money and international corporate interests
with a willingness to support all their most destructive activities including wars .
I can't offer any specifics or solid reasons for why I have these feelings and perceptions about
the candidates.
We have no good choices here. I am terrified of Donald Trump and of Hillary Clinton. I could never
vote for either one of them and I don't regard Jill Stein or the Greens as viable alternatives. I
plan to renew my passport and lie low someplace away from large urban areas if possible. I can salve
any concerns that not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump with the forlorn hope that should Trump
win he will at least tend to keep the destruction within our borders. fajensen
,
July 29, 2016 at 2:39 pm
There is no "we" here. After the mess in Ukraine, Syria and Libya we now know that a continuation
of Obama's policies will basically destroy Europe.
The odds are that our leadership will simply go along with less US stupidity when it's
coming from Trump, while they will certainly follow Hillary to whatever end.
You make an interesting point here. Even if Trump has an only marginally effective presidency
(take this to mean whatever you would like, lol) and the constituencies that vote for him feel
that he is better than Hillary would've been or the other Republican clown show that he beat in
2016, it pretty much means Ted Cruz's political career is history as Trump (or a hand-picked successor)
will be running as a Republican again in 2020.
Trump going down this year means we are going to see and hear 4 years of Cruz campaigning.
And with the $hill as president there will be A LOT to campaign against. Yuck.
The reality of the Democrats consists of a party with significant constituencies that increasingly
support a militarized foreign policy as well as economic/cultural policy that is anti-growth,
anti-working class and pro-ethnic/race identity– in essence–more and more classically reactionary.
Modern Democrats have also increasingly merged with and identify primarily with upper-middle
class professional/managerial/bureaucratic power centers as well as with key sectors of Big capital
and Big Finance.
This party now stand completely against that average citizens interest in rising living
standards, equality of opportunity and the strengthening of democracy.
What was once progressive has become terminally reactionary–what was once considered left has
become terminally right.
I write from Lyon, France. I will be voting for Jill Stein, but rooting for Trump. The anti-Trump
bias in the American media is beyond belief, matched only by its hatred for Putin. No one has
mentioned how a Trump victory would undermine the two-party duopoly, a huge gain for America.
"... If I'm not mistaken I believe that it's already been debunked that Trump supporters are ignorant as it is. The corporate media will always quote the crazies when it suits them and ignore any inconvenient truths, statements or memes ..."
If I'm not mistaken I believe that it's already been debunked that Trump supporters are ignorant
as it is. The corporate media will always quote the crazies when it suits them and ignore any
inconvenient truths, statements or memes. (An older NC link had even noted that Trump supporters
had the highest average income, not that I'm saying that's important, but it may be from a managerial
class perspective).
That would be hard to believe anyway after seeing the true believers in the audience of the
DNC last week.
"... Really? Do I trust Trump to give the keys to 6970 nukes, 10 carrier strike groups, and a $1Trillion/yr military-industrial complex to a bigoted, sociopathic liar. NOT. I still do remember what it was like the first time I gave my car keys to my 16-year old son. Give the nuclear keys to Trump – ABSOLUTELY. NEVER. ..."
"... Why can't the choice be that noone should have the keys to the nukes? That's assuming anyone does single handedly which is almost certainly false anyway. You think senile old Reagan did? Really you really truly believe that do you? ..."
"... "Should the president decide to order the launch of nuclear weapons, they would be taken aside by the "carrier" of the nuclear football and the briefcase opened. Once opened, the president would decide which "Attack Options", specific orders for attacks on specific targets, to use. The Attack Options are preset war plans developed under OPLAN 8010, and include Major Attack Options (MAOs), Selected Attack Options (SAOs), and Limited Attack Options (LAOs). The chosen attack option and the Gold Codes would then be transmitted to the NMCC via a special, secure channel. As commander-in-chief, the president is the only individual with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons;however, the two-man rule still applies. ..."
Really? Do I trust Trump to give the keys to 6970 nukes, 10 carrier strike groups, and a $1Trillion/yr
military-industrial complex to a bigoted, sociopathic liar. NOT. I still do remember what it was
like the first time I gave my car keys to my 16-year old son. Give the nuclear keys to Trump –
ABSOLUTELY. NEVER.
Which is not to say that I am totally thrilled with neocon hawk Hillary. Number 1 on my list
of the 9 reasons why I voted for Bernie rather than her in our Primary is that she voted for Bush's
Iraq War and my son did six tours.
"The solution is not to save the Democratic Party, but to replace it."
True enough, but that will not happen between now and 08 November.
We have a binary choice on 08 Nov – I do not think a replay Nader in FL in 2000 is a particularly
smart option.
Why can't the choice be that noone should have the keys to the nukes? That's assuming anyone
does single handedly which is almost certainly false anyway. You think senile old Reagan did?
Really you really truly believe that do you?
"Should the president decide to order the launch of nuclear weapons, they would be taken aside
by the "carrier" of the nuclear football and the briefcase opened. Once opened, the president
would decide which "Attack Options", specific orders for attacks on specific targets, to use.
The Attack Options are preset war plans developed under OPLAN 8010, and include Major Attack Options
(MAOs), Selected Attack Options (SAOs), and Limited Attack Options (LAOs). The chosen attack option
and the Gold Codes would then be transmitted to the NMCC via a special, secure channel. As commander-in-chief,
the president is the only individual with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons;however,
the two-man rule still applies.
The National Command Authority comprising the president and Secretary
of Defense must jointly authenticate the order to use nuclear weapons to the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. The order would then be transmitted over a tan-yellow phone, the Joint Chiefs
of Staff Alerting Network, otherwise known as the "Gold Phone", that directly links the NMCC with
United States Strategic Command Headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska."
So there are some checks to prevent Donald Trump or HRC launching a nuclear strike in a fit
of temper..
Trying to steal back workers from Trump will probably not work -- Hillary is too distrusted to
make the message convincing.
But a
nice try... Nailing Hillary
on issues is like trying to pin jelly to a wall
Notable quotes:
"... She devoted a fair amount of time addressing Trump voters, white working-class folks whose wages and position in the country have been gradually squeezed. She promised good jobs for everyone, to punish Wall Street, to reject bad trade deals, to protect steel and auto workers, to stand up to China. This was essentially an effort to steal the Trump platform and adopt part of Trump's message, and these words would never have been uttered by Goldman Sachs' favorite speaker if the GOP had nominated Jeb Bush or if Trump weren't actually leading in some national polls. This is new territory for Hillary, a concession to Trump she didn't make to Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... Probably, somewhere in the back of her mind, Hillary knows that there is a fundamental contradiction between good-paying jobs and open borders, but denying that inescapable economic fact of supply and demand is now part of her party's message. ..."
"... On foreign policy, she remains a liberal hawk, giving a warning that we are prepared to go war over Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, while giving a one-sentence endorsement of the centerpiece of Obama's diplomatic legacy, the Iran deal. Again, this is a kind of rhetorical box-checking that doesn't predict much about her future orientation: clearly either the neocons or Obama supporters will be roundly disappointed in a Hillary foreign policy. We just don't know which it will be. ..."
Nevertheless, the speech Hillary did give revealed much about where the race is.
She
devoted a fair amount of time addressing Trump voters, white working-class folks whose
wages and position in the country have been gradually squeezed. She promised good jobs
for everyone, to punish Wall Street, to reject bad trade deals, to protect steel and
auto workers, to stand up to China. This was essentially an effort to steal the Trump
platform and adopt part of Trump's message, and these words would never have been
uttered by Goldman Sachs' favorite speaker if the GOP had nominated Jeb Bush or if Trump
weren't actually leading in some national polls. This is new territory for Hillary, a
concession to Trump she didn't make to Bernie Sanders. Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe's
blurting out that Hillary didn't really mean it (her opposition to the TPP in
particular) is probably a reliable assertion that she doesn't. But the fact that she had
to proclaim that she heard the complaints of working-class voters and would seek to
address them is a kind of tribute to the Trump and Sanders movements.
In Hillary's
world, America's diversity is its strength, and she probably does believe this. We will
not build a wall, she said, but build an economy where "everyone who wants a good paying
job" can have one. In years past, a presidential candidate might have said, more or less
unconsciously, "every American" instead of "everyone," but Hillary has already embraced
a comprehensive immigration reform with amnesty as its centerpiece, and the Democratic
Party is increasingly aligned to that part (now vanquished) of the GOP that prefers
relatively open borders. If any kind of future border enforcement is part of that
comprehensive package, Hillary certainly didn't mention it. Left-wing activists now tout
a "right to immigrate," and this may implicitly have become part of the Democratic
platform. Probably, somewhere in the back of her mind, Hillary knows that there is a
fundamental contradiction between good-paying jobs and open borders, but denying that
inescapable economic fact of supply and demand is now part of her party's message.
... ... ...
On foreign policy, she remains a liberal hawk, giving a warning that we are prepared
to go war over Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, while giving a one-sentence endorsement
of the centerpiece of Obama's diplomatic legacy, the Iran deal. Again, this is a kind of
rhetorical box-checking that doesn't predict much about her future orientation: clearly
either the neocons or Obama supporters will be roundly disappointed in a Hillary foreign
policy. We just don't know which it will be.
"... her vote for the Iraq War made me promise her that I would never vote for her again ..."
"... Our biggest problem here isn't Trump – it's Hillary. She is hugely unpopular - nearly 70% of all voters think she is untrustworthy and dishonest. She represents the old way of politics, not really believing in anything other than what can get you elected. ..."
Quite a few aren't. I think most aren't, Moore thinks most are, but numbers, at this point,
aren't important, that could change. What is important, is the passion and the arguments:
I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I gave it to you straight last summer when I told
you that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee for president. And now I have even more
awful, depressing news for you: Donald J. Trump is going to win in November… Here are the 5 reasons
Trump is going to win:
Midwest Math, or Welcome to Our Rust Belt Brexit. I believe Trump is going to focus much of
his attention on the four blue states in the rustbelt of the upper Great Lakes – Michigan, Ohio,
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin… it's because he's said (correctly) that the Clintons' support of NAFTA
helped to destroy the industrial states of the Upper Midwest. Trump is going to hammer Clinton
on this and her support of TPP and other trade policies that have royally screwed the people of
these four states. When Trump stood in the shadow of a Ford Motor factory during the Michigan
primary, he threatened the corporation that if they did indeed go ahead with their planned closure
of that factory and move it to Mexico, he would slap a 35% tariff on any Mexican-built cars shipped
back to the United States. It was sweet, sweet music to the ears of the working class of Michigan,
and when he tossed in his threat to Apple that he would force them to stop making their iPhones
in China and build them here in America, well, hearts swooned and Trump walked away with a big
victory that should have gone to the governor next-door, John Kasich…
The Last Stand of the Angry White Man… There is a sense that the power has slipped out of their
hands, that their way of doing things is no longer how things are done. This monster, the "Feminazi,"the
thing that as Trump says, "bleeds through her eyes or wherever she bleeds," has conquered us -
and now, after having had to endure eight years of a black man telling us what to do, we're supposed
to just sit back and take eight years of a woman bossing us around…
Can we speak honestly, just among ourselves? And before we do, let me state, I actually like
Hillary – a lot – and I think she has been given a bad rap she doesn't deserve. But her vote for
the Iraq War made me promise her that I would never vote for her again… Our biggest problem here
isn't Trump – it's Hillary. She is hugely unpopular - nearly 70% of all voters think she is untrustworthy
and dishonest. She represents the old way of politics, not really believing in anything other
than what can get you elected. That's why she fights against gays getting married one moment,
and the next she's officiating a gay marriage… no independent is waking up on November 8th excited
to run out and vote for Hillary the way they did the day Obama became president or when Bernie
was on the primary ballot. The enthusiasm just isn't there. And because this election is going
to come down to just one thing - who drags the most people out of the house and gets them to the
polls - Trump right now is in the catbird seat…
The fire alarm that should be going off is that while the average Bernie backer will drag him/herself
to the polls that day to somewhat reluctantly vote for Hillary, it will be what's called a "depressed
vote" – meaning the voter doesn't bring five people to vote with her. He doesn't volunteer 10
hours in the month leading up to the election. She never talks in an excited voice when asked
why she's voting for Hillary. A depressed voter. Because, when you're young, you have zero tolerance
for phonies and BS. Returning to the Clinton/Bush era for them is like suddenly having to pay
for music, or using MySpace or carrying around one of those big-ass portable phones. They're not
going to vote for Trump; some will vote third party, but many will just stay home…
the anger that so many have toward a broken political system, millions are going to vote for
Trump not because they agree with him, not because they like his bigotry or ego, but just because
they can. Just because it will upset the apple cart and make mommy and daddy mad. And in the same
way like when you're standing on the edge of Niagara Falls and your mind wonders for a moment
what would that feel like to go over that thing, a lot of people are going to love being in the
position of puppetmaster and plunking down for Trump just to see what that might look like. Remember
back in the '90s when the people of Minnesota elected a professional wrestler as their governor?
They didn't do this because they're stupid or thought that Jesse Ventura was some sort of statesman
or political intellectual. They did so just because they could. Minnesota is one of the smartest
states in the country. It is also filled with people who have a dark sense of humor - and voting
for Ventura was their version of a good practical joke on a sick political system. This is going
to happen again with Trump.
We should not believe any reporting of MSM. Even 'Guccifer 2.0' can be just
a smoke screen designed to protect a disgruntled insider, who leaked this information
to Wikileaks. Moreover intelligence agencies understand the NSA intercept all the
communication and store at least "envelope" for a long time. Large download is instantly
noticeable. I am not sure the Putin does not want to see Clinton as the president.
She is compromised enough to face impeachment, and that might prevent her from unleashing
new wars. In any case with republican congress she needs to fight for her life.
They really want her in jail.
Notable quotes:
"... 'The true identity of the hacker that sent the cat among the Democratic
party pigeons, at the most damaging moment for Hillary Clinton, remains the subject
of conjecture for lack of firm proof. The leading suspects may well be one or more
of her party opponents.' ..."
"... The evidence presented so far that the hack is by the Russian government
reminds me of the Iraq WMD evidence. Very dodgy. But, the media did its job. Russia
has been convicted. My twitter feed is fully convinced since the "experts" have
said so. ..."
With a situation which is changing so rapidly as the present, assessments
of Russian 'intentions' are very difficult.
However, before making conjectures about what the Russian authorities
might do in the future, it is prudent to start by trying to make as accurate
assessment as we can of what they have, and have not, done up until now.
If indeed the GRU are responsible for supplying WikiLeaks with the DNC
materials, that would represent a very major 'escalation' in 'political
warfare'.
At the moment, however, while it is perfectly possible that either they,
or the SVR or FSB – whose 'patch' this would more normally be – are responsible,
the available evidence is a mess.
In relation to 'Debka File', the Colonel's injunction to assess source
and content separately applies in spades.
So without simply accepting it, one should also not simply dismiss claims
made in a recent piece on their site entitled 'The DNC e-mails were not
hacked by Russian GRU.'
'The true identity of the hacker that sent the cat among the Democratic
party pigeons, at the most damaging moment for Hillary Clinton, remains
the subject of conjecture for lack of firm proof. The leading suspects may
well be one or more of her party opponents.'
What 'DebkaFile' point to is a central tension in the claims by 'CrowdStrike'
and others.
On one hand, according to the conventional wisdom – recycled on SST by
'herb' – the hacks into the DNC networks are likely to have required much
more than the capabilities of a solitary hacker, but were the product of
the kind of sophisticated operation which points to a state agency.
On the other, apparently this very sophisticated operation could be cracked
by 'CrowdStrike' in two hours – and had left obvious signatures.
A more general claim is made in the 'DebkaFile' piece on which people
better informed than myself may have a view:
'Russia's cyber warfare system is still mostly a "black hole" for the
West. Although it is highly effective, very little is known about its methods
of operation, organizational structures, scale of cooperation with counterparts
in other countries, and the tools and resources at its disposal.
"Had any branch of Russian intelligence been responsible for the hacking
the Democratic party's servers, no obvious signatures, such as the terms
'Fancy Bear, and 'Cozy Bear' that were discovered, would have been left
behind for investigators to find."
In exchanges in response to the analysis by 'TTG', who clearly has an
extensive familiarity with this whole field, 'herb' linked to a widely-quoted
analysis by Professor Thomas Rits of King's College, London. A cybersecurity
expert to whom I linked, Jeffrey Carr, has now produced a detailed critique
of Rits, under the title 'Can Facts Slow the DNC Breach Runaway Train?'
At the end of the piece are links to his two earlier articles, 'Faith-Based
Attribution' and 'The DNC Breach and the Hijacking of Common Sense', which
I would most strongly recommend to anyone interested in the problems of
attributing responsibility for the hack.
The three pieces by Carr produce, in my view, highly cogent support for
the scepticism expressed by 'DebkaFile' about the notion that 'CrowdStrike'
had actually established that either the GRU, or the FSB/SVR, had hacked
the DNC servers.
Of course, this does not mean that one can discount the possibility that
Russian state authorities had hacked into them. It would seem to me extremely
probable that some of them had.
However, the 'CrowdStrike' report is smelling to me more and more of
an 'information operation' aimed at 'damage limitation'.
A key reason for this is that the report, and discussion of this, obfuscates
an absolutely central problem. Even if the company had, within two hours,
identified penetration operations by the GRU and the FSB/SVR, this would
quite clearly not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the only possible
suspect in relation to the handing over of the materials to WikiLeaks was
either or both of these agencies.
One could only assert this with confidence, if CrowdStrike could guarantee
1. that they were able to identify all possible successful hackings into
the system over the relevant period, and 2. that they could rule out the
possibility that successful hacks had been made by people who could have
obtained the relevant materials and handed them over to WikiLeaks.
The question of whether they were said anything to the DNC about how
they had ruled out these possibilities has barely been discussed in the
MSM coverage.
But this also brings us to the question of what 'Guccifer 2.0' is attempting
to hide. That at the minimum he is not quite what he portrays himself as
being is evident.
That said, any one of a multitude of plausible hypotheses about his role
– including, incidentally, the possibility that he is actually acting on
behalf of Americans who want to see Hillary Clinton exposed – suggests he
would be to a greater or lesser extent 'making smoke'.
What the observations of 'TTG' and Sam Peralta suggested was that the
self-portrait by 'Guccifer 2.0' of himself as a particularly brilliant hacker
obscures the actual situation.
When I put their observations to a software engineer acquaintance who
is well versed in the technicalities, he strongly agreed, and elaborated
on some of the technical issues.
A key problem seems to be that, for a range of reasons, crucial networks
go on using old software. Keeping old software secure, in the face of constantly
evolving threats, requires relevant expertise and hard work. Commonly it
doesn't get it – and it seems that the DNC servers were a pretty easy target.
But in relation to hacking into such systems, what counts is not sheer
brilliance. It is a combination of thorough technical knowledge and sheer
persistence and hard graft.
Now it may well be the case that the claims by 'Guccifer 2.0' about his
own brilliance are simply a case of vainglory. However, it may also be possible
that both 'CrowdStrike' and he have a disguised common interest in obscuring
the fact that the range of people who had the technical competence to hack
into the DNC servers was great.
By the same token, the range of people who had a motive to hack into
these servers and were in a position to employ people with the relevant
technical competence may also have been very considerable.
This has all kinds of implications. For one thing, if the suggestion
that the hacking required the capabilities of a state organisation is false,
then the obvious way for a state organisation to preserve 'deniability'
would be to get hold of competent individuals, using systems and approaches
which had not been used in previous hacks.
What is not obvious is why such any competent intelligence organisation
should leave the kind of easily accessible 'metadata' on documents which
are supposed to establish that 'Guccifer 2.0' is a front for the GRU. It
is not clear to me whether the documents in question have been subjected
to critical examination by competent – and independent – analysts.
However, if the 'metadata' really can be shown to exist, I think the
comment by Carr about the use of the name of Dzerzhinsky is to the point:
"OK. Raise your hand if you think that a GRU or FSB officer would add
Iron Felix's name to the metadata of a stolen document before he released
it to the world while pretending to be a Romanian hacker. Someone clearly
had a wicked sense of humor."
In his most recent piece, Carr links to remarks from a 1968 paper by
Sherman Kent, founder of the analytical tradition in the CIA, entitled 'Estimates
and Influence.'
In it, Kent used the metaphor of 'pyramid'. Good intelligence assessment
starts off with a 'base' of reliably ascertainable fact – on the basis of
which it may be possible to construct a structure which ends up with a definite
'apex', but may not.
The reverse method is to start with a desired 'apex' and then attempt
to construct a 'pyramid' which will support it. As Kent puts it:
"There it floats, a simple assertion screaming for a rationale. This,
then, is worked out from the top down. The difficulty of the maneuver comes
to a climax when the last stage in the perverse downward deduction must
be joined up smoothly and naturally with the reality of the base. This operation
requires a very considerable skill, particularly where there is a rich supply
of factual base-material. Without an artfully contrived joint, the whole
structure can be made to proclaim its bastardy, to the chagrin of its progenitor."
Of course, one can simply fabricate large elements of the 'base'.
As the release of 'hacked' material seems likely to continue, establishing
a reliable 'base' on which we can begin to build a structure leading to
a credible 'apex' seems a matter of some moment.
A key part of it, obviously, is working out what kinds of people might
have had a motive.
In relation to Putin, I think one needs to keep in mind both that he
may very much want to avoid seeing a new Clinton Presidency – for reasons
with which I have every sympathy. Equally, however, there are strong 'downsides'
in using this kind of means to prevent it, and if they are involved, it
will have been through means preserving 'deniability.'
The 'metadata' claims, however, make me think that the suggestion by
'DebkaFile' that people should be looking closer to home should be taken
seriously.
The evidence presented so far that the hack is by the Russian government
reminds me of the Iraq WMD evidence. Very dodgy. But, the media did its
job. Russia has been convicted. My twitter feed is fully convinced since
the "experts" have said so.
"... According to this woman from Los Angeles the DNC sought to exclude Bernie delegates from the convention last night by filling the hall with hired actors and excluding Sanders delegates. ..."
"... Fucking sickening. These people need to lose their ass in November badly. ..."
According to this woman from Los Angeles the DNC sought to exclude Bernie delegates from the
convention last night by filling the hall with hired actors and excluding Sanders delegates.
Fucking sickening. These people need to lose their ass in November badly.
micatoung35 1h
Will not vote for another democrat for as long as I live. After seeing the corruption this
party is involved in, there's no way I can give them my support. People really need to open their
eyes to Hillary Clinton. She's a thieving, lying bitch. She's stolen millions from Haitians. After
her husband's term they both stole thousands of dollars of merchandise from the white house. She
let Americans die in Benghazi. She's for big corporations, not Americans. She'll run this country
into the ground and smile while doing it. And, Sanders gave her his support after losing. Wtf?!?
Sorry, but voting Trump#2016.
He's the only one brave enough to stop the corruption of our government.
He's the only one that cares more about Americans than illegal immigrants. He's the only one that'll
expose the Federal Reserve Bank and audit them. He's the only one that can be somewhat trusted.
I know when the whole democrat and Republican parties are attacking ONE PERSON, I have the right
man for the job. Stop the corruption and #voteTrump2016!
American_Guero 1d
Facebook is repeatedly deleting this as I share it. Again and again. They are right on top
of things. This is democracy.
kooshy
Colonel, DNC and Clintons at any price are cheating their own suppose to be supporters , that's
how sick this is. according to now available DNC emails hey cheated the democratic voters in the
primaries and with the support of the MSM they were able to twist the subject, and blame Putin
for cheating their own party' voters. What more voters need to look for to decide how to vote?
I watched most of her speech on CNN while waiting for a plane in Ft. Lauderdale. I noticed
a few Jill Stein supporters in the audience and thought whoever was controlling the scenes of
the crowd must be nuts. Every time they started showing the crowd, besides the VIP sections, they
were cutting to a new scene every 4-5 seconds. Did anyone else notice that or was it only CNN?
"... According to this woman from Los Angeles the DNC sought to exclude Bernie delegates from the convention last night by filling the hall with hired actors and excluding Sanders delegates. ..."
"... Fucking sickening. These people need to lose their ass in November badly. ..."
According to this woman from Los Angeles the DNC sought to exclude Bernie delegates from the
convention last night by filling the hall with hired actors and excluding Sanders delegates.
Fucking sickening. These people need to lose their ass in November badly.
micatoung35 1h
Will not vote for another democrat for as long as I live. After seeing the corruption this
party is involved in, there's no way I can give them my support. People really need to open their
eyes to Hillary Clinton. She's a thieving, lying bitch. She's stolen millions from Haitians. After
her husband's term they both stole thousands of dollars of merchandise from the white house. She
let Americans die in Benghazi. She's for big corporations, not Americans. She'll run this country
into the ground and smile while doing it. And, Sanders gave her his support after losing. Wtf?!?
Sorry, but voting Trump#2016.
He's the only one brave enough to stop the corruption of our government.
He's the only one that cares more about Americans than illegal immigrants. He's the only one that'll
expose the Federal Reserve Bank and audit them. He's the only one that can be somewhat trusted.
I know when the whole democrat and Republican parties are attacking ONE PERSON, I have the right
man for the job. Stop the corruption and #voteTrump2016!
American_Guero 1d
Facebook is repeatedly deleting this as I share it. Again and again. They are right on top
of things. This is democracy.
kooshy
Colonel, DNC and Clintons at any price are cheating their own suppose to be supporters , that's
how sick this is. according to now available DNC emails hey cheated the democratic voters in the
primaries and with the support of the MSM they were able to twist the subject, and blame Putin
for cheating their own party' voters. What more voters need to look for to decide how to vote?
I watched most of her speech on CNN while waiting for a plane in Ft. Lauderdale. I noticed
a few Jill Stein supporters in the audience and thought whoever was controlling the scenes of
the crowd must be nuts. Every time they started showing the crowd, besides the VIP sections, they
were cutting to a new scene every 4-5 seconds. Did anyone else notice that or was it only CNN?
Donald Trump Calls Comments About Russia and Clinton Emails 'Sarcastic' | 28 July 2016
| Facing a torrent of criticism over his comments seeming to condone the hacking of Hillary Clinton's
emails by Russian intelligence services, Donald J. Trump and his allies on Thursday sought to tamp
down his remarks, with Mr. Trump saying he was simply being "sarcastic." In public interviews and
private conversations on Thursday, Mr. Trump; his running mate, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana; and campaign
staff members contended that Mr. Trump was being facetious when, during a news conference on Wednesday,
he said he hoped Russia would be able to find Mrs. Clinton's missing emails. "Of course I'm being
sarcastic," Mr. Trump told "Fox and Friends" Thursday morning as his aides accused the news media
of misconstruing his remarks.
brucebennett
•
an hour ago
"Continuity we can believe in". Well, Barry, you can stick that comment where the Sun
don't shine. To me, that translates as - more of the same old shit with an even more
aggressive foreign policy. Like England we had the chance to actually start making
changes to our country that would begin a reform that could benefit the 99%. And like
England, our political process is so corrupt that the two party system will be
retained to do its bidding for the 1% while providing window dressing that
masquerades as progress for the rest of us.
England now has a PM who in some ways is worse than Cameron and we have the choice
between one egomaniac and reckless a-hole and a ruthless power hungry neoliberal who
will have Kissinger as her "mentor".
Man, go to
Salon.com
now and see all of
the insulting posts against Jill Stein in the rah-rah Clinton piece.. The New
Democrats are really circling the wagons around Shillary. Stein is "crazy", an "egpmaniac"
and a "narcissist".
It is part of our political mania that we just love to join the group around the
presumed "winner" while most of us will lose when they actually take power.
capnanarcho
•
3 hours ago
War you can believe in....
Loss of individual rights you can believe in...
Debt slavery you can believe in...
Unaffordable healthcare you can believe in...
Outsourced jobs you can believe in...
Failed education systems you can believe in...
A prison industrial complex you can believe in...
Summary executions by cops you can believe in..
Civil asset forfeiture you can believe in...
A fundamentally broken justice system you can believe in...
Rich people walking away from slam dunk cases of murder you can believe in...
Whistle-blowers of horrific crimes locked up and exiled you can believe in..
Poisoned city drinking water you can believe in..
Regime change in Ukraine you can believe in so Biden Hunter can run that nations
energy sector...
Regime change in Libya you can believe in to stop them from selling oil in something
other than dollars then sending the nations weapons to ISIS in Syria...
Regime change in Syria you can.. Oh, wait.. Still working on that...
So much to
believe in...
Stand now or kneel forever.
leftofabbie
capnanarcho
•
42 minutes ago
That was a painful litany to read. I've just been deleting the msgs in my inbox
asking whether I think Obama has been a good President. His treatment of
whistleblowers alone is enough to condemn him.
Dante Miles
•
3 hours ago
While in Vietnam we called the o's, b's, and c's ChickenHawks. So long as they could
send someone to do their killing, they were Hawks! The minute they or one of theirs
was put in harm's way... they reverted to chickens, gutless cowards. Someone please
pass the drones.
Bobbylon
•
3 hours ago
Barack Obama 2008: hillary clinton will say anything and do nothing
JohnR654
•
4 hours ago
"Continuity We Can Believe In." Count me in O, I'm with you all the way I
believe in our beloved POTUS and the continuity he is talking about --
absolutely do -- And that being more of the same from (HRC) the corporate war
monger wall street lovin' mama wh**re candidate (if selected as our leader we
will continue with more -war, inequality, environmental destruction, austerity
for us peons, spying, torturing, etc.) Hey, we are patriotic citizens and
blindly love this country and all that we imagine it stands for and we refuse
to acknowledge reality and that thing they stick even further up our collective
arse every day. I don't feel a thing. /S
Ben Bache
•
4 hours ago
All of the leaders mock you. They all work together to make sure the sheep don't
revolt. Vote for me and change will come. Spare change at a street light, maybe. But
even there, you never see someone in an expensive car give a beggar money. The people
in old cars and trucks give most of the money to the beggars, because they know not
much separates them.
ARIC
•
4 hours ago
Thus Dionne in the guise of the Democrats, offers the quintessential Democratic Party
excuse:
"We just underestimated Republican evil. Sorry. Too bad you're f*cked."
In reality, the Republicans have served as foils to the Democrats. It's a feature
of the system that it drifts ever farther to the right with false Democratic
"incompetence". Meant entirely to benefit the venality of Washington politicians at
the expense of everyone else.
basarov
•
4 hours ago
Incredible: in america the difference between macdonalds and burger king is
"profound"....
as with obama, clinton is a liar---the perfect leader for a "nation of liars"
(Prof Kiese Laymon) who believe they are free because they have 5 brands of
burgers and shopping malls.
Peter Quinn
•
5 hours ago
"Hillary is the ultimate change agent..!" Bill Clinton Tuesday night.
"Hillary is continuity we can believe in..!" Barack Obama Wednesday night.
donnasaggia
•
5 hours ago
The only "change" under Obama was from bad to worse, and it will stay in that
direction under Clinton. Obama is a failure on so many levels. From day one he
brought neoliberals and neocons into his administration. He escalated illegal
and unnecessary wars throughout the Middle East -- allowed Clinton to talk him
into invading Libya; illegally interfered in Syria; and escalated the tensions
with Russia by his reckless NATO war games.
No minority has done better under
Obama, and African-Americans have done significantly worse. He refused to
support the teachers' strike in Wisconsin and has not kept his promises to
labor regarding their right to organize. He sabotaged the Copenhagen
environmental conference and is pushing the TPP, which would further erode the
environment, and he negotiated it in secret. He has prosecuted more whistle
blowers and deported more Central American immigrants than any other president,
and he boasted that his administration completed the 650-mile anti-immigrant
wall on the US-Mexico border.
But most egregious of all, he failed to prosecute the people responsible for
lying us into the Iraq war, thus setting a dangerous precedent for all future
presidents. This precedent has served him well, for he now gets away with
killing civilians on his "kill list" without benefit (or bother) of a trial.
The president is now judge, jury and executioner -- in violation of the US
Constitution. Between 2008 and 2016, Obama has squandered the enormous amount
of hope and trust the people had placed in him.
John
•
5 hours ago
Fool me once, shame on you.... I will not be fooled again. Vote Jill Stein.
More wars, more socialism for the wealthy, more inequality, more
Surveillance State, more Obamacare.
With Clinton the continuity is certain. She may even significantly up the
ante in some respects.
Reading past the headline would be a waste of time in my experience with
Dionne. But he got the headline right. It's terrifying.
Michael Valentine
•
5 hours ago
Do we really want the continuity of unending wars Mr. Obama. You sick rekcuf.
friendnotfoe
•
5 hours ago
Do people actually believe this shit? Do they convince themselves that they
are doing so much better now? High unemployment still, high student loan
debt still, High cost of health care still. More wars ahead they have been
preparing for that right along more then just a little obvious due to the
high increase in horrible attacks. It is all madness yet they make themselves
believe it's not at all bad and they themselves are doing good things for
the people of this country. Stealing their hard earned money through the
Wall St. crash in 2008 no need to bring any justice for that. The rich
are bent on taking more and yet we are to believe that isn't so. Really???
Cloudchopper
Brad Benson
•
5 hours ago
The other day many Sanders supporters actually cried when he endorsed Hillary and
told people to vote for her to defeat Trump. I have no tears about Sanders selling
out since the writing was on the wall from the beginning.
But most people in this
country should be crying about the horrible situations for at least 80% of the
people. I do not like to use the 1% and 99% comparison alone, it is not quite
realistic but it got the message across by OWS which was dismantled and gotten rid of
by the Obama Administration via the FBI and the police forces around the country.
Chris Henn
Cloudchopper
•
4 hours ago
I think you're spot on with the 80%. There's a theory - I think it's called
the pareto principle - that of any group, the top 20% reap 80% of the
benefits. And of course the top 20% of the top 20% are even more removed
from the rest of us. I think it's much more interesting to look at the top
4% than the top 1%.
Russ
•
6 hours ago
Bullshit we can believe in.
You will never see another marginally progressive policy enacted by the USG, but
please, keep on believing the bullshit while we finish destroying your future!
John T
•
6 hours ago
The difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? Simple, E.J. It's the
difference between a bought and paid for politician who went along with the
Pentagon's endless hunger for war and confrontation as the price to be paid for
occupying the office he lusted after and a bought and paid for politician who cackles
with glee as she leads the charge towards Armagedon.
Brad Benson
John T
•
5 hours ago
"We came. We saw. He died!"
John T
Cloudchopper
•
3 hours ago
If I were pushing for Trump's election, I would make this clip the centerpiece of
every campaign commercial between now and Nov. 8. It is the most appalling
performance that I have ever seen by a major American political figure. Why ANYONE
who pretends to be a liberal would accept this person is beyond my understanding.
WhiteRoses
John T
•
an hour ago
That clip is like the Howard Dean "scream" x 10,000. I agree, it is the most
appalling thing I've seen a major American political figure say and do. She shows her
(considerable) psychopathic side.
John T
Brad Benson
•
5 hours ago
Exactly what I was thinking of. Any human being who would react in this manner is
carrying some very heavy and dangerous psychological baggage with himself or herself.
If I knew nothing at all about HRC, this episode by itself would cause me to oppose
her ever being given a position of power of any sort. A sick and vicious person.
Midnight
•
6 hours ago
More hope and change BS pandering to a room of the deluded by a corporate owned, Wall
St. servant...
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen
referred congressional charges of corrupt Clinton Foundation "pay-to-play" activities to his
tax agency's exempt operations office for investigation, The Daily Caller News Foundation
has learned.
The request to investigate the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation on charges of "public
corruption" was made in a
July 15 letter by 64 House Republicans to the IRS, FBI and Federal Trade Commission (FTC). They
charged the foundation is "lawless."
The initiative is being led by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican
who serves as the vice chairwoman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which oversees FTC.
The FTC regulates public charities alongside the IRS.
The lawmakers charged the Clinton Foundation is a "lawless 'pay-to-play' enterprise
that has been operating under a cloak of philanthropy for years and should be investigated."
Koskinen's July 22 reply came only a week after the House Republicans contacted the tax agency.
It arrived to their offices Monday, the first opening day of the Democratic National Convention in
Philadelphia.
"We have forwarded the information you have submitted to our Exempt Organizations
Program in Dallas," Koskinen told the Republicans.
The Exempt Organization Program is the division of the IRS that regulates the operations of public
foundations and charities. It's the same division that was led by former IRS official Lois
Lerner when hundreds of conservative, evangelical and tea party non-profit applicants were
illegally targeted and harassed by tax officials.
Blackburn told TheDCNF she believes the IRS has a double standard because, "they
would go after conservative groups and religious groups and organizations, but they wouldn't be looking
at the Clinton Foundation for years. It was as if they choose who they are going to audit and question.
It's not right."
Blackburn said she and her colleagues will "continue to push" for answers on the Clinton Foundation's
governing policies, including its insular board of directors. She said they also will examine
conflicts of interest and "follow the money trail."
"In my opinion, there's a lack of good governance, there is the appearance of conflicts
of interest, and there are continued questions about the financial dealings," she told
TheDCNF.
House Republicans singled out
Laureate Education and Uranium One as two companies that seemed to have paid lavish sums to the
Clintons and later received official government benefits.
Laureate hired former President Bill Clinton as "honorary chancellor," paying him $16.5 million
over five years. The Baltimore-based company, which operates for-profit universities in 28 countries,
also donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to the foundation's
web site.
While Bill was collecting a paycheck from the company and his wife was secretary of state, the
International Finance Corporation (IFC), an arm of the World Bank, invested $150 million in Laureate.
It was the largest-ever single IFC investment to an educational company. The United States government
is the largest contributor to the IFC. During that same period, the Department of State's U.S. Agency
for International Development awarded $55 million to the International Youth Foundation. Laureate
CEO Douglas Becker is on the foundation's board of directors. International Youth Foundation, the
Clinton Foundation and Laureate jointly participated in foundation programs.
A Laureate spokesman denied the quid pro quo charges: "Allegations of any quid pro
quo between Laureate, the International Youth Foundation and the Clintons are completely false,"
she told TheDCNF, adding, "the IFC's decision to invest in Laureate had no connection to and was
not influenced in any way whatsoever by Hillary Clinton."
The IFC also awarded $150 million to another company owned by Frank Giustra, a close friend of
Bill Clinton. Giustra donated $100 million to create the "Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership"
within the Clinton Foundation. The funds went to Pacific Infrastructure, a company in which Giustra
had a significant financial stake. The company was to build a port and oil pipeline in Colombia that
was strenuously opposed by environmental and human rights groups because the pipeline sliced through
five indigenous villages and forcibly displaced the tribes.
Giustra also was an owner in Uranium One, a uranium mining company with operations in Kazakhstan
and in the western United States. Giustra wanted to sell a share of the uranium business to Russia's
atomic energy agency, which required U.S. approval, including that of Secretary Clinton. The Russian
investment was approved.
Blackburn added that it appeared the Clinton Foundation - which was tax-exempt only to construct
and manage Clinton's presidential library - never got IRS approval to become a tax-exempt global
organization with operations in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Pacific and the Caribbean.
"In the Clinton Foundation we have a charity that has never filed the appropriate
paperwork," Blackburn charged.
Charles Ortel, a Wall Street analyst who has been investigating the Clinton Foundation, told TheDCNF
that the expansion of the foundation into a global giant was not legally approved by the IRS.
"It's crystal clear in a review of their application that their purposes were narrowly
limited, as they should have been, to a presidential archive in Little Rock, Arkansas,"
he said to TheDCNF. "End of discussion."
Blackburn also questions the makeup of the Clinton Foundation's board of directors, which IRS
rules require include independent, arm's-length board members. The Clinton Foundation board mainly
consists of close friends, business colleagues and big donors to the Clintons, as
reported by TheDCNF.
"All charities need to guard against incestuous relationships which limit their ability
to be objective," the congresswoman said. "In the Clinton Foundation, we see a lack
of diversity within their board."
Uranium One did not respond to TheDCNF's request for comment. The Clinton Foundation also did
not respond to TheDCNF's request for comment.
"... The policy differences between Bernie and Hillary are a chasm from military interventions for regime change, to break up the banks that created the worst recession in the US, to the support of the TPP by HRC, until she thought of political expediency. ..."
"... The Democratic Party is already in disarray and their operatives are carefully shielding this fact with the help of the media that is supportive of HRC. This article will provide what all insiders of the Democratic Party are discussing. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-debbie-wasserman-schultz-226352 ..."
"... The record of the last 8 years is of a president with an almost divine oratory eloquence, but whose words of "Hope, change and the Dreams of My Father" clearly were nothing more than a "sales job" on small donors who were duped in to believing the promised land was on the way. ..."
"... He had 2 years with a complete majority in both houses of congress, but chose to dither rather than promote much needed progressive legislation, for all Americans, but especially those folks in white Appalachia and black urban areas who most needed "Hope". ..."
"... He staffed his cabinet with the very same people who had staffed the banks who gleefully robbed Americans of their pace to live. Bernie, Geitner and others running the Treasury is about as from "Change You Can Believe In" as Chicago is from Mars. ..."
"... His legacy is exclusively "Obamacare", legislation which forces folks to buy from a monopoly of private insurance companies, whose coffers have soared since the regime was implemented. ..."
"... Nice man I do believe, but a shill of the first order and a master stroke by the establishment in producing the right actor at a time when ordinary people seemed ready to storm the castle. ..."
"... Don't get duped by Hillary because she's a female candidate like the black folks did in 2008. ..."
"... Unlike you, there is no "Glass Ceiling" for people like Hillary and Obama. It is as tall and limitless as the elites promise them in return for their obedience and servitude. ..."
"... Sen. Elizabeth Warren in her book "A Fighting Chance" gives one example of Hillary Clinton's lack of any principles. HRC promised Mrs. Warren that she will oppose the Bankruptcy Bill that was lobbied by Big Banks and, as previously existed gave a chance to those who were financially strapped from starting all over. Most who filed for bankruptcy earlier was driven to do so because of medical bills. However, when the Bill came to the vote Hillary Clinton voted with the banks. That's Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... How can you vote for someone who basically destroyed the African American male population w/ the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994? An apology for millions of lives ruined after cheering on her husbands murder of Ricky Ray Rector. ..."
"... "pockets of resistance" ... keep dreaming (and lying) in the hope that your fiction will come true ... the resistance to a HRC presidency (even amongst Democratic convention delegates) is substantial, vibrant and growing ... soon you will see that your misrepresentations are of no effect ..."
"... my guess is that on election day 30-35% of Bernie voters and supporters are either voting for a third party or . . .voting for Trump. ..."
"... The last time something like this happened was 1968. Hundreds of thousands of anti-war young people refused to vote for Hubert Humphrey and that was more or less the margin of his defeat. ..."
"... Don't be naive. The first thing Clinton will do upon entering office is install a shredder next to her personal email server so she can shred the DNC platform away from prying eyes. She has never had any use for progressives and now holds a personal animus toward them for marring her coronation. ..."
We've been played folks - again. We fought for our candidate and lost - we can accept that. What
is hard to swallow is the utter corruption in the DNC and the US election process. We are no longer
the greatest democracy in the world - we're not even a democracy.
We need a third party as an alternative to the corporate controlled parties. This election provides
voters with the best opportunity.
If HRC wins in November it will be the end of the movement that Sanders started, and if the
Democrats lose, it will not only be the end Democratic Party controlled by the corporatists, it
will also be the end of the Republican Party as we know it. We know who will be in charge. Therefore,
defeating the Democratic Party will certainly provide the optimum openings for the Sanders movement,
with or without him, to become stronger, and most probably without him.
Bernie Sanders will live to regret his endorsement of HRC because he caved in to the Democratic
Party establishment that wanted a coronation of Hillary Clinton and not an election. Make no mistake
that the DNC not only undermined Sen. Sanders's democratic campaign, it undermined the the very
democratic process.
The policy differences between Bernie and Hillary are a chasm from military interventions
for regime change, to break up the banks that created the worst recession in the US, to the support
of the TPP by HRC, until she thought of political expediency.
The Democratic Party is already in disarray and their operatives are carefully shielding
this fact with the help of the media that is supportive of HRC. This article will provide what
all insiders of the Democratic Party are discussing.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-debbie-wasserman-schultz-226352
I say this as someone who is married to an African American woman and mean no disrespect to those
who differ.
I was in Grant Park in Chicago the night Obama got elected in 2008. The atmosphere was electric
with expectation and as we waded through the crowds, I watched in delight as black folks young,
old and for the most parts of the city rejoiced and exalted in the historic breaking of the color
line by the first African American president. "Not healthy to expect one man to achieve all things
in just 4 or 8 years...cut him a little slack" I dead panned, at which point I was roundly put
down as being "Canadian, and just not getting it".
Well I did "get it" and take no pleasure in having proved my in laws wrong.
The record of the last 8 years is of a president with an almost divine oratory eloquence,
but whose words of "Hope, change and the Dreams of My Father" clearly were nothing more than a
"sales job" on small donors who were duped in to believing the promised land was on the way.
He had 2 years with a complete majority in both houses of congress, but chose to dither
rather than promote much needed progressive legislation, for all Americans, but especially those
folks in white Appalachia and black urban areas who most needed "Hope".
He staffed his cabinet with the very same people who had staffed the banks who gleefully
robbed Americans of their pace to live. Bernie, Geitner and others running the Treasury is about
as from "Change You Can Believe In" as Chicago is from Mars.
His legacy is exclusively "Obamacare", legislation which forces folks to buy from a monopoly
of private insurance companies, whose coffers have soared since the regime was implemented.
Nice man I do believe, but a shill of the first order and a master stroke by the establishment
in producing the right actor at a time when ordinary people seemed ready to storm the castle.
So what's the point of this tabling post? Simply this:
There is no more "Left & Right" in western politics. The equation is much simpler. It's You
And your neighbours' interests vs. those of the establishment.
It would have done a lot more for the interests of urban to have gotten a non-black president
in 2008 who actively championed policies and laws to help all poor Americans.
Point is, it doesn't matter a fig if the candidate is he's owned by corrupt interests that
are
And it will matter even less for women, when the candidate is female but has an agenda which
is as far from feminist as New York is from Mercury. Unnecessary wars, a refusal to back a $15
minimum wage and a demonstrated wilful intent to impose the TPP on American workers, and an acceptance
of spousal a issue as a norm make Hillary a bizarre choice for anyone who holds women in high
esteem.
If people tell you the only other choice is Trump, don't believe them and you can't bring yourself
to vote for him then don't . A real feminist is running as candidate for the Greens and even the
Libertarians appear to ha e a more women friendly candidate. What's more, Elizabeth Warren has
a great shot at it in 2020, and she would make an exemplary first female president.
Don't get duped by Hillary because she's a female candidate like the black folks did in 2008.
Unlike you, there is no "Glass Ceiling" for people like Hillary and Obama. It is as tall and
limitless as the elites promise them in return for their obedience and servitude.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren in her book "A Fighting Chance" gives one example of Hillary Clinton's lack
of any principles. HRC promised Mrs. Warren that she will oppose the Bankruptcy Bill that was
lobbied by Big Banks and, as previously existed gave a chance to those who were financially strapped
from starting all over. Most who filed for bankruptcy earlier was driven to do so because of medical
bills. However, when the Bill came to the vote Hillary Clinton voted with the banks. That's Hillary
Clinton.
the African Americans who support her nomination have made a grave mistake letting her be the
nominee. How can you vote for someone who basically destroyed the African American male population
w/ the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994? An apology for millions of lives
ruined after cheering on her husbands murder of Ricky Ray Rector. It makes no sense. We would
be better off voting for Trump. At least we know the racist acts will be to our face as opposed
to in our backs.
"pockets of resistance" ... keep dreaming (and lying) in the hope that your fiction will come
true ... the resistance to a HRC presidency (even amongst Democratic convention delegates) is
substantial, vibrant and growing ... soon you will see that your misrepresentations are of no
effect
Anti-Hillary sentiments may be waning across the country, but it depends how you look at it. I'm
a Bernie voter who won't vote for Hillary. Most of the people I know are capitulating to her candidacy
but not all by a long shot. And then there are the white union voters in the Midwest, who voted
for Bernie. Many are going to vote for Trump. Like with Brexit in the UK, I'm not sure the polling
is sophisticated enough to pick up the unusual nature of anti-Hillary Democratic vote, but my
guess is that on election day 30-35% of Bernie voters and supporters are either voting for a third
party or . . .voting for Trump.
The last time something like this happened was 1968. Hundreds of thousands of anti-war young
people refused to vote for Hubert Humphrey and that was more or less the margin of his defeat.
What another terrible article!! The disunity is not quiet, you're just not willing to tell the
story, instead you post another biased condescending article.
46% of the people who voted in the primaries voted for Bernie many more would if they hadn't been
purged or otherwise had their desire to vote for him sabotaged. That is a lot of people to alienate
for someone who wants to be elected. But the establishment has clearly demonstrated their tin
ear by electing the most establishment team ever in a year when the establishment is held in contempt
by most voters.
For the hypocrite politicians we are IDIOTS! They ignore us, they do not listen or support us.
They think that with empty , fake promises they will convince us to vote them, as we did ALWAYS!
NOW WE SAY NOOOO! We will not vote Clinton, we are not sheep, we will punish them to learn to
listen and respect us.
For many left wing liberals changing our U.S. corrupted political system is a must goal, even
if fascist Trump does it. We know that Clinton wants to maintain it. At this point the far right
conservatives & the far left liberals want to change it democratically by the vote. If it can't
be done democratically the hatred for the system will eventually explode into sheer violence (we
are a violent culture). Trump & Sanders both saw the urgent need for change. Sanders back down
from creating a third party was a huge delay for having a greater democracy. Fascist Trump wants
to change it democratically (making it probable that the RP may split into two parties.). Sander's
great fear of a Trump presidency blinded him from seeing the potential of "after Trump" increasing
the democracy of our nation. (Students take this to the classroom)
Don't be naive. The first thing Clinton will do upon entering office is install a shredder
next to her personal email server so she can shred the DNC platform away from prying eyes. She
has never had any use for progressives and now holds a personal animus toward them for marring
her coronation.
We all knew how serious the DNC was when Kaine was announced - the guy is pro TPP. Hillary doesn't
give a honk about the liberal side of the DP. She would run for either party if it got her in
power to perpetuate her pay-for-play business.
I recognize voting for Jill Stein might hand the presidency to Trump, but people would realize
that you can't let the Clintons run the DNC like happened this time. I hate Trump, but I can't
vote for Hillary.
"... The DNC is an arm of the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. Hillary is a neo-liberal on economics, and a neo-con on foreign policy. She and her crowd are masters of spin and the management of popular perception. I think Frank and Scheer are being far too kind. The politicians and bankers know exactly what they are doing. They are not deluded, or simply mistaken; they simply do not care. ..."
"The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself. What makes it so plausible
to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover
of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with
the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core."
Hannah
Arendt
"Those who are able to climb up the ladder will find ways to pull it up after them, or selectively
lower it down to allow their friends, allies, and kin to scramble up. In other words: 'who says
meritocracy says oligarchy.'"
Chris Hayes
The DNC is an arm of the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. Hillary is a neo-liberal on economics,
and a neo-con on foreign policy. She and her crowd are masters of spin and the management of popular
perception. I think Frank and Scheer are being far too kind. The politicians and bankers know
exactly what they are doing. They are not deluded, or simply mistaken; they simply do not care.
July 26th, 2016 |
LawNewz
A high profile law firm is now caught up in the DNC WikiLeaks mess. A group of
Bernie Sanders
supporters filed a class action lawsuit against the Democratic
National Committee, and the now-former chairwoman,
Debbie Wasserman-Shultz
.
In a letter sent Monday
, they are demanding that attorneys from Perkins Coie LLP be
removed from the case due to a conflict of interest. New emails discovered through the
WikiLeaks dump show that attorneys from the law firm have given strategy advice to hurt
Sanders, well before he dropped out. To add fuel to their claim, they've now discovered
that attorneys from Perkins Coie are representing both the Democratic National Committee
and Clinton's campaign.
The
lawsuit
, which was actually filed before the leaks, claims that the DNC "actively
concealed its bias" from its donors and supporters backing
Bernie Sanders
. The
plaintiffs say the recent emails only give them more evidence that the Democratic
National Committee was on board with
Hillary Clinton
from the start.
My suggestion is that the DNC put out a statement saying that the
accusations the Sanders campaign are not true. The fact that CNN notes
that you aren't getting between the two campaigns is the problem. Here,
Sanders is attacking the DNC and its current practice, its past practice
with the POTUS and with Sec Kerry. Just as the RNC pushes back directly
on Trump over "rigged system",
the DNC should push back DIRECTLY
at Sanders
and say that what he is saying is false and harmful
the Democratic party. [emphasis added]
"What we have here is evidence from the Wikileaks
database that the same attorneys that are appearing in our case and representing the DNC
in the Southern District of Florida were previously attorneys for the Clinton campaign
or they were providing advice to the DNC that was adverse to Bernie Sanders," attorney
Jared Beck
said in a video posted on line.
While it might "smell" funny, the fact that Elias gave "advice" to the DNC is not
illegal, according to the Campaign Legal Center.
"This email exchange pertains to a perfectly legal joint fundraising committee that
includes the Clinton campaign, the DNC and a bunch of state Democratic Party committees.
The coordination laws/rules don't restrict this type of interaction,"
Paul Ryan,
the Campaign Legal Center's deputy executive director told
LawNewz.com
.
However, attorneys for Bernie Sanders supporters contend that the federal court rules
bar Perkins Coie lawyers from representing the DNC as defense counsel in the case. They
say that the Perkins Coie attorneys may become "potential material witnesses" or
"defendants" in the case and should be disqualified. They plan to file an official
motion in court.
Beck's firm
is
representing about 150 supporters of Bernie Sanders in the proposed class action
lawsuit.
"My email account shows that I've been getting 10 emails per minute from people
around the country that want to join the lawsuit," Beck said. The DNC is attempting
to get the lawsuit dismissed on procedural grounds, they contend that it was never
properly served. Several emails sent to Clinton's lawyer Marc Elias have not been
returned. (He is also listed as the attorney for the DNC on the class action
lawsuit). If we hear back from him, we will update this article accordingly.
Political advocacy group Freedom Watch filed a racketeering lawsuit Wednesday against the
Clintons and their foundation for failing to produce documents under the Freedom of Information
Act.
The civil suit accuses the former secretary of state of conducting a corrupt enterprise for
more than 10 years by using her private emails to, quote, "arrange donations to ... The Clinton
Foundation and large speaking fees ... in return for official government actions, policies,
statements, and/or access to and from State, the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives or
other parts of the U.S. Government, and arranging other political benefits using the leverage of
her official position."
Freedom Watch's founder Larry Klayman said in a statement:
"This is the first and only hard-hitting case to address the growing email scandal. What
Hillary Clinton, her husband, and their foundation have done is nothing new. It is simply part
of a criminal enterprise which dates back at least 10 years, all designed to enrich themselves
personally at the expense of the American people and our nation. It's time, however, that they
finally be held legally accountable."
Clinton, who is expected to announce a presidential bid in the coming weeks, is also dealing
with conservative group Citizens United over the recent email scandal. The group has filed two
lawsuits demanding photos, videos and hotel bills of Clinton's travels.
Clinton gave more than 55,000 pages of emails from her private account to the State Department
in December, which she has insisted cover any and all official business she conducted via the
private email account while in office. The State Department said it plans to release the 300
emails under FOIA rules once it is done processing them - which is expected to take several
months.
Millions of Bernie Sanders' donors may now have legal recourse against the Democratic
primaries they saw as rigged.
Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers, a civil litigation firm based in Miami, Florida, is announcing the
filing of a class action lawsuit against the DNC early next week, alleging fraud and collusion
with the Hillary Clinton campaign. While roughly one hundred people have officially signed on as
plaintiffs, partner Jared Beck told US Uncut that thousands of requests for legal paperwork have
come in within the last 48 hours.
"Signed agreements are coming in steadily and we continue to get new requests by the minute,"
Beck said.
Anyone who donated to the DNC after Bernie Sanders entered the race for the Democratic
nomination, either directly or indirectly through third-party payment platforms like ActBlue, is
eligible to join the lawsuit, along with anyone who donated to Bernie Sanders' campaign
throughout the course of the primaries and caucuses.
"We think that the DNC has been running absolutely out of control and completely disregarding
their responsibilities, rights, and duties to the public," attorney Elizabeth Beck told US Uncut.
PHILADELPHIA - Scores of Bernie Sanders supporters felt burned Tuesday evening
when Hillary Clinton clinched the Democratic nomination in Philadelphia,
expressing their disappointment by walking out of the Wells Fargo Arena.
With at
least 2,382 delegates pledged to her, Clinton became the first woman to be
nominated to a major U.S. party ticket after a tough primary fight against
Sanders.
Sanders spoke at the end of the roll call asking for unity within the
Democratic party and throwing his support behind the former first lady and
secretary of state, saying he "move[s] that Hillary Clinton be selected as the
nominee of the Democratic Party for president of the United States."
Within minutes of Sanders speaking, a throng of his supporters walked out of
the convention center, waving "Bernie or Bust" signs in the air.
Why those unknown forces (probably a disgruntled insider) leaked this bombshell so late. At this
point it does not affect Sanders chances to beat Hillary.
Notable quotes:
"... "The same people on the Clinton team who made enormous efforts to claim her private email server-which operated unencrypted over the Internet for three months, including during trips to China and Russia, and which contained top-secret national-security data-was not hacked by the Russians now are certain that the DNC server was hacked by the Russians" http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unpacking-the-dnc-emails/ ..."
"... The British government has learned that Vladimir Putin recently sought significant quantities of malware from Africa. ..."
"... Well, golly, if you're going to create a bright, shiny object to distract people from the actual content of the e-mails, why not blame little green men from Mars? I mean, seriously, isn't what this is all about – deflecting away from what the DNC was up to, so as to keep as much of it as possible from further tarnishing the already-clouded view of both the process and the major candidate whom it benefited? ..."
"... And in addition to this little bit of obviousness, how can it possible have escaped anyone with a functioning brain that this escalating hysteria about the DNC hack was noticeably absent with respect to Clinton's own email operation? ..."
"... I also find it deeply and almost-hilariously ironic that we're all supposed to be livid at the idea of some foreign government trying to manipulate the US elections when not only is the Democratic Party's flagship organization flagrantly engaged in trying to manipulate the outcome, but the AMERICAN MEDIA wouldn't know what to do with itself if it wasn't constantly fking around with the entire process. ..."
"... Looks like another false flag propaganda ploy. The Obama Admin flares up with phony indignation and immediately swears there will be more sanctions. The FBI wants to prosecute ( or is it persecute) the messenger instead of investigating the real crimes. The e-mails and their contents are real. The noise is to cover up this fact! ..."
"... The CNN poll in yesterday's Links shows Trump beats Hillary by huge margins (12 points) on the economy and terrorism. She beats him on foreign policy (and nothing else). Dragging in Russian hackers and foreign intelligence services plays to her strength. ..."
"... In reality, politically motivated attacks like this are almost always domestic in origin. To go to Wikileaks specifically I expect an inside whistleblower is responsible. The same thing happened to Sony and the Swiss banks. Elites simply don't understand how many people they work with are disgusted by their policies. To them this is a perfectly believable thing. ..."
"... It reminds me very much of the French Fries to Freedom Fries movement. If you have a critical mass of people in on the fun, it can work, at least for a time. But what happens when most people don't care about being excommunicated from the DNC Serious People List? ..."
"... Obvious clues pointing back at a known adversary…strategically-timed leaks from anonymous intelligence sources…vague statements on the record from the President and other high-level officials…stories fed to sympathetic media outlets…yep, sounds a lot like the playbook used by the Bush White House for the run-up to the Iraq War. Except there's no way that the Democrats would ever ..."
"... No matter who is responsible for the hack, I'm just glad that the information about the DNC corruption is out in the open. I'm disappointed that this didn't happen before June 7, when California, New Jersey, and several other states had their primaries. Better late than never, I guess. ..."
"... why hadn't our press revealed this? ..."
"... It's now so routine to spin-doctor aggressively that the elites have lost any sense of whether what they are saying is credible or not. ..."
"... I thought Trump's comments today about wanting the Russians to find Hillary's emails were genius. He fans the flames of this whole Russia-Putin thing on day 3 of the Dem convention and what are the media outlets talking about? Plus, Hillary's campaign, in it's rebuttal to Trump, is indirectly reminding everyone that her homebrew server was putting national security at risk. ..."
Washington's Blog asked the highest-level NSA whistleblower in history, William Binney – the NSA
executive who created the agency's mass surveillance program for digital information, who served
as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year
NSA veteran widely regarded as a "legend" within the agency and the NSA's best-ever analyst and code-breaker,
who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted
Soviet invasions before they happened ("in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union's command system,
which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and
Russian atomic weapons") – what he thinks of such claims:
Edward Snowden says the NSA could easily determine who hacked Hillary Clinton's emails:
Evidence that could publicly attribute responsibility for the DNC hack certainly exists
at #NSA , but DNI traditionally
objects to sharing.
The mainstream media is also trumpeting the meme that Russia was behind the hack, because it
wants to help Trump get elected. In other words, the media is trying to deflect how damaging the
email leaks are to Clinton's character by trying to somehow associate Trump with Putin. See e.g.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/kremlin-donald-trump-vladimir-putin.html
Who's right?
Binney responded:
Snowden is right and the MSM is clueless. Here's what I said to Ray McGovern and VIPS with
a little humor at the end. [McGovern is a 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence
Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George
H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other
senior government officials. McGovern is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity ("VIPS" for short).]
Ray, I am suspicious that they may have looked for known hacking code (used by Russians). And,
I'm sure they were one probably of many to hack her stuff. But, does that mean that they checked
to see if others also hacked in?
Further, do they have evidence that the Russians downloaded and later forwarded those emails
to wikileaks? Seems to me that they need to answer those questions to be sure that their assertion
is correct. Otherwise, HRC and her political activities are and I am sure have been prime targets
for the Russians (as well as many others) but without intent of course.
I would add that we proposed to do a program that would monitor all activity on the world-wide
NSA network back in 1991/92. We called it "Wellgrounded." NSA did not want anyone (especially
congress) to know what was going on inside NSA and therefore rejected that proposal. I have not
read what Ed has said, but, I do know that every line of code that goes across the network is
logged in the network log. This is where a little software could scan, analyze and find the intruders
initially and then compile all the code sent by them to determine the type of attack. This is
what we wanted to do back in 1991/92.
The newest allegation tying the Clinton email hack to Russia seems to be
all innuendo .
Binney explained to us:
My problem is that they have not listed intruders or attempted intrusions to the DNC site.
I suspect that's because they did a quick and dirty look for known attacks.
Of course, this brings up another question; if it's a know attack, why did the DNC not have
software to stop it? You can tell from the network log who is going into a site. I used that on
networks that I had. I looked to see who came into my LAN, where they went, how long they stayed
and what they did while in my network.
Further, if you needed to, you could trace back approaches through other servers etc. Trace
Route and Trace Watch are good examples of monitoring software that help do these things. Others
of course exist … probably the best are in NSA/GCHQ and the other Five Eyes countries. But, these
countries have no monopoly on smart people that could do similar detection software.
Question is do they want to fix the problems with existing protection software. If the DNC
and OPM are examples, then obviously, they don't care to fix weakness probably because the want
to use these weaknesses to their own advantage.
Why is this newsworthy?
Well, the mainstream narrative alleges that the Clinton emails are not important … and that it's
a conspiracy between Putin and Trump to make sure Trump – and not Clinton – is elected.
But there are other issues, as well …
For example, an allegation of hacking could
literally lead to
war .
So we should be skeptical of such serious and potentially far-reaching allegations – which may
be true or may be false – unless and until they are proven .
Yup, as a former server admin it is patently absurd to attribute a hack to anyone in particular
until a substantial amount of forensic work has been done. (read, poring over multiple internal
log files…gathering yet more log files of yet more internal devices, poring over them, then –
once the request hops out of your org – requesting logfiles from remote entities, poring over
*those* log files, requesting further log files from yet more upstream entities, wash rinse repeat
ad infinitum)
For example, at its simplest, I would expect a middling-competency hacker to find an open wifi
hub across town to connect to, then VPN to server in, say, Tonga, then VPN from there to another
box in Sweden, then connect to a PC previously compromised in Iowa, then VPN to yet another anonymous
cloud server in Latvia, and (assuming the mountain dew is running low, gotta get cracking) then
RDP to the target server and grab as many docs as possible. RAR those up and encrypt them, FTP
them to a compromised media server in South Korea, email them from there to someones gmail account
previously hacked, xfer them to a P2P file sharing app, and then finally access them later from
a completely different set of servers.
In many cases where I did this sort of analysis I still ended up with a complete dead end:
some sysadmins at remote companies or orgs would be sympathetic and give me actual related log
files. Others would be sympathetic but would not give files, and instead do their own analysis
to give me tips. Many never responded, and most IPs ended up at unknown (compromised) personal
PCs, or devices where the owner could not be found anyway.
If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence you might get lucky
– but that demographic mostly points back to script kiddies and/or criminal dweebs – i.e., rather
then just surreptitiously exfiltrating the goods they instead left messages or altered things
that seemed to indicate their own backgrounds or prejudices, or left a message that was more easily
'traced'. If, of course, you took that evidence at face value and it was not itself an attempt
at obfuscation.
Short of a state actor such as an NSA who captures it ALL anyway, and/or can access any log
files at any public or private network at its own whim – its completely silly to attribute a hack
to anyone at this point.
So, I guess I am reduced to LOL OMG WTF its fer the LULZ!!!!!
hah, well I had a nice long answer but cloudflare blocked me. heh…apparently it doesnt like
certain words one uses when describing this stuff. Understandable!
I guess try looking up 'phishing' and 'privilege elevation' on wikipedia. Former is easiest,
latter gives you street cred.
Just to clarify on the "…If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence…"
– this is basically what I have seen reported as 'evidence' pointing to Russia: the Cyrillic keyboard
signature, the 'appeared to cease work on Russian holidays' stuff, and the association with 'known
Russian hacking groups'.
Thats great and all, but in past work I am sure my own 'research' could easily have gotten
me 'associated' with known hacking groups. Presumably various 'sophisticated' methods and tools
get you closer to possible suspects…but that kind of stuff is cycled and recycled throughout the
community worldwide – as soon as anything like that is known and published, any reasonably competent
hacker (or org of hackers) is learning how to do the same thing and incorporating such things
into their own methods. (imitation being the sincerest form of flattery)
I guess I have a lot more respect for the kinds of people I expect to be getting a paycheck
from foreign Intelligence agencies then to believe that they would leave such obvious clues behind
'accidentally'. But if we are going to be starting wars over this stuff w/Russia, or China, I
guess I would hope the adults in the room don't go all apesh*t and start chanting COMMIES, THE
RUSSIANS ARE COMING!, etc. before the ink is dry on the 'crime'.
Even then, I fail to see why this person (foreign, domestic, professional, amateur, state-sponsored,
or otherwise) hasn't done us a great service by exposing the DNC corruption in the first place.
Hell, I would love to give them the Medal of Freedom for this and (hopefully) the next boot to
drop! :)
There is a problem with those who argue that these are sophisticated Nation State attackers
and then point to the most basic circumstantial evidence to support their case. I'd bet that,
among others, the Israelis have hacked some Russian servers to launch attacks from and have some
of their workers on a Russian holiday schedule. Those things have been written about in attack
analysis so much over the last 15-20 years that they'd be stupid not to.
Now, I'm not saying the Israelis did it. I'm saying that the evidence provided so far by those
arguing it is Russia is so flaky as to prove that the Russia accusers are blinded
or corrupted by their own political agenda.
Oh, "they" just use the system management features baked right into the embedded computers
either the ones inside the "secure server" itself or (much more convenient and easy to do), they
attack the cheap-ish COTS lapdog that the support techie will be using to access the "secure server"
with:
– if there's a non-NSA evidence the attacks originated from Russia, then someone wanted the
world to know it was from Russia (or was just a private snoop).
– even if there was a technical evidence that the attack originated from Russia, unless it
could be tied very specifically to an institution (as opposed to a "PC in Russia"), it does not
prove that it was Russia. All it proves that someone using a computer in Russia initiated it.
Well phooey. My theory now goes up in smoke: Here we can clearly see an attempt at disinformation
from a Russian Operative, likely FSB – possibly from Putin's inner circle.
We know this through 2 things:
A.) The name, 'Vlad' – inequivocally a Russian given name, and not a common one at that.
B.) Note the slightly wrong grammar: "…a non-NSA evidence…" & "..was a technical evidence".
Clearly not a native English speaker.
See how easy that was? Yves, no need for log files to track IP here…case closed. In Soviet
Russia, crow eats me.
Anyone gots some nuke launch codes handy? 00000000 doesn't work for me anymore…
The recently murdered DNC Date Director Seth Rich being the leaker, or at least knowing who
the leaker was, as was hinted at recently by Julian Assange himself, makes a far more interesting
conspiracy theory.
Ten days after the murder of promising Democratic staffer Seth Rich, the Washington D.C.
slaying remains unsolved and police say they have no suspects in the crime.
Rich, a Jewish data analyst for the Democratic National Committee who worked on polling
station expansion, was shot and killed as he walked home on Sunday, July 10.
Police told Rich's parents that they believed his death was the result of a botched robbery.
Though Rich's killer did not take his wallet or phone, D.C. Police Commander William Fitzgerald
said that "there is no other reason (other than robbery) for an altercation at 4:30 in the
morning" at a community meeting on Monday.
The meeting was meant to address the recent uptick in robberies in the Bloomingdale neighborhood
near Howard University. Police reports say robberies in the area are down 20%, but an investigation
by the Washington Post found that armed robberies are actually up over 20% compared
with July 2015.
Of course there is absolutely no proof of Seth Rich's involvement, but I suppose it is a reasonable
surmise, as George Will recently said about the Russia allegations! In any case a possible crypto-BernieBro
tech-guy mole from within the DNC, as the source of the DNCLeaks, would make a much better made-for-TV
movie than the Russian theory. And if it was an internal mole, what better way to cover their
tracks than to leave some "traces" of a Russian hack.
Its one thing for Republicans to resort to the old chestnut of red scare mongering, but for
the Democrats to use the same ammo they once had lobed at them is surreal….
"The same people on the Clinton team who made enormous efforts to claim her private email
server-which operated unencrypted over the Internet for three months, including during trips to
China and Russia, and which contained top-secret national-security data-was not hacked by the
Russians now are certain that the DNC server was hacked by the Russians"
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unpacking-the-dnc-emails/
Well, golly, if you're going to create a bright, shiny object to distract people from the
actual content of the e-mails, why not blame little green men from Mars? I mean, seriously, isn't
what this is all about – deflecting away from what the DNC was up to, so as to keep as much of
it as possible from further tarnishing the already-clouded view of both the process and the major
candidate whom it benefited?
And in addition to this little bit of obviousness, how can it possible have escaped
anyone with a functioning brain that this escalating hysteria about the DNC hack was noticeably
absent with respect to Clinton's own email operation?
I also find it deeply and almost-hilariously ironic that we're all supposed to be livid
at the idea of some foreign government trying to manipulate the US elections when not only is
the Democratic Party's flagship organization flagrantly engaged in trying to manipulate the outcome,
but the AMERICAN MEDIA wouldn't know what to do with itself if it wasn't constantly fking around
with the entire process.
I'm not sure we're ever coming out of this rabbit-hole-to-hell.
Looks like another false flag propaganda ploy. The Obama Admin flares up with phony indignation
and immediately swears there will be more sanctions. The FBI wants to prosecute ( or is it persecute)
the messenger instead of investigating the real crimes. The e-mails and their contents are real.
The noise is to cover up this fact!
"Why play the Russian/Putin/Trump card with the DNC email hack?" – An excellent question for
which you have provided a logical potential answer. Beyond that, this generally seems like an
act of desperation. I am nowhere near an expert on the details of hacking like the two who have
commented above, but what I see is a desperate attempt to capture the "stupid" vote. The whole
Democrat dog and pony show being put on now only serves to make those who will vote for Hillary
no matter what, feel self satisfied that they are right minded. What matters though is how they
connect with those not inclined to vote for her. In their logic it follows that the HIllary crowd
basically believes that anyone who would consider voting for Trump is very stupid, and this is
a desperate attempt to convince the "stupid's" to vote for Hillary. I have no idea how Trump will
act if he is elected President, but the critical factor for me is that there is now overwhelming
evidence that the entire Democrat establishment is just like Hillary (as made clear by Mr. Comey):
They are either grossly negligent and incompetent, or criminals who are not being prosecuted.
Anyone but her and her merry band of thieves will leave us all better off after November.
The association the Dems want to create is "scary foreign people support Trump".
The CNN poll in yesterday's Links shows Trump beats Hillary by huge margins (12 points)
on the economy and terrorism. She beats him on foreign policy (and nothing else). Dragging in
Russian hackers and foreign intelligence services plays to her strength.
In reality, politically motivated attacks like this are almost always domestic in origin.
To go to Wikileaks specifically I expect an inside whistleblower is responsible. The same thing
happened to Sony and the Swiss banks. Elites simply don't understand how many people they work
with are disgusted by their policies. To them this is a perfectly believable thing.
I also wonder whether there are significant numbers of Poles and Eastern Europeans generally
in the industrial precincts in some swing states; a vote against Russia in the form of a vote
against Trump might appeal to them.
I doubt it's that strategic–looks more like classic red-baiting (minus any communism but saying
"Russia" still evokes the same emotional response for people of a certain age) of the sort a former
Goldwater girl like Hillary would understand all too well.
Linking the hack and delivery of DNC emails to WIkiLeaks by Putin as a way of helping Trump
may strategically backfire.
Agreed. There are so many moving parts at this point the blowback looks to happen more rapidly
than they can manage perception, especially with things online. They spent so much time segmenting
and dismissing the various developments as disparate conspiracy theories, and now in one fell
swoop they've both legitimized critiques and connected them together (they run the risk that even
criticism that isn't true will still stick more than it otherwise would have). I'm not sure they
fully realize what they've done yet. It's a simple equation to them: Wikileaks = Bad. Russia =
Bad. Wikileaks + Russia = DoubleBad.
It reminds me very much of the French Fries to Freedom Fries movement. If you have a critical
mass of people in on the fun, it can work, at least for a time. But what happens when most people
don't care about being excommunicated from the DNC Serious People List?
Obvious clues pointing back at a known adversary…strategically-timed leaks from anonymous
intelligence sources…vague statements on the record from the President and other high-level officials…stories
fed to sympathetic media outlets…yep, sounds a lot like the playbook used by the Bush White House
for the run-up to the Iraq War. Except there's no way that the Democrats would ever do
something so shady.
Admin feeds story to crony media –> media report story as if independently sourced –> admin
then uses those reports to corroborate its own claims
It's not like they can reasonably deny anymore that they do this. The DNC leak provides hard
evidence. So plant your stories now, before there's a run!
Hey why fix our cybersecurity problems when we can just bomb Russia instead? To a hammer with
bombs everything looks like a nail.
Perhaps the biggest tell regarding our clueless, and mostly geriatric, establishment is their
superstitious misunderstanding of modern technology. Every toddler these days probably knows that
you don't put controversial material in emails or on cellphones unless you are willing to take
the kind of precautions Snowden talks about. The notion of ginning up an international conflict
over hacking is like Hollywood's idea of five years in jail for stealing one of Meryl Streep's
movies. The punishment doesn't fit the crime.
Plus of course there's the immense irony of the US, home of the NSA, getting huffy about other
countries doing the same thing. As always with out elites it's "do as we say, not as we do."
No matter who is responsible for the hack, I'm just glad that the information about the
DNC corruption is out in the open. I'm disappointed that this didn't happen before June 7, when
California, New Jersey, and several other states had their primaries. Better late than never,
I guess.
1. Before the evidence comes out: "The DNC is secretly sabotaging Sanders? Laughable conspiracy
theory!"
2. After the evidence comes out: "There's nothing new here, everyone knew this was happening,
it made no difference anyway! Sore loser."
Was flipping through 'convention' last night and happened upon Bernie's face as they try to
thank/bury him. It was the look of resignation to corruption, like Mr. Smith's just before Claude
Rains goes extra-Hollywood, tries to off himself, then says 'Arrest me', etc.
Bernie, you should have just run against both of them, damn the torpedoes.
It doesn't matter if Russia hacked it or someone else. The really important issue this brings
up is why hadn't our press revealed this? Why do we need to here about this from outsiders? And
why, now that it has been released, do they spend the bulk of their time speculating on the source
and not the content? Me thinks it's because our corporate main stream media, that merely masquerades
as a press entity, was complicit.
I think the leaked emails establish that the DNC was working closely with the 'press'. Anyone
who watched CNN during the primary season would not be surprised at the revelation that the 'press'
was complicit in the coronation of Hillary.
The DNCLeaks showed that the DNC (aka the Clinton Machine) was heavily influencing,
if not totally controlling, much of the mass media, using it to smear HRC's rivals and to
whitewash her crimes.
This fascist totalitarian control of the mass media by the DNC/Clinton campaign
has been exposed but that doesn't mean it has stopped! It hasn't. Ergo, one
will see minimal to no coverage, or whitewashing or diversionary coverage.
Why isn't it just as grave a concern that the primary contest of one of the 2 major political
parties was rigged to favor one candidate? Heck, people worried more about deflategate.
an aside: "A separate story pointed out that Trump's primary banking relationships are with
mid-sized players, and that makes sense too. He's be a third-tier account at a too-big-to-fail
banks (see here on how a much richer billionaire was abused by JP Morgan). Trump would get much
better service at a smaller institution. "
From what I've read at NC I think everyone would get much better service at a smaller
bank than at a TBTF.
"I joked early on that in the Obama administration that its solution to every problem was
better propaganda. What is troubling is how so many other players have emulated that strategy.
It's now so routine to spin-doctor aggressively that the elites have lost any sense of
whether what they are saying is credible or not. And as a skeptical consumer of media,
I find it uncomfortable to be living in an informational hall of mirrors."
It's no coincidence that trust in institutions is at an all-time low.
Eroded public trust translates to crappy, Banana Republic economies - and politics so venal that
it requires constant deceit to (mal)function.
On the upside, the dwindling credibility of institutions is providing opportunities for outlets
like The Young Turks (via YouTube), which take a lot of time unpacking propaganda and looking
for alternative perspectives. Ditto 'The Real News Network' (RNN). And ditto NC.
When I hear the "reporters" and "newscasters" on our American MSM speak, it reminds me of something
Wolfgang Leonhard taught: "Pravda lies in such a a way that not even the opposite of what they
say is true."
Huh. It is clear and irrefutable that the NSA (ie, the USA) has hacked Germany, France, Britain,
Japan, etc, etc, etc, etc. So…since hacking is an "act of war" we are now at war with our allies.
Yes?
Or does a war-worthy hack HAVE to originate in Russia (or China) to be an "act of war"? If
the USA is doing it it's an act of peacylove?
If the issue is the hack itself and its perpetrator(s), as opposed to the content of the hack,
I remain curious about the inattention to this fact: One of the documents in the DNC cache released
by Wikileaks was an excel spreadsheet of Trump donors. I haven't heard
anyone question the origin of a document that would itself appear to be the product of a hack
by the DNC (the only other possibility that comes to mind is a mole inside the Trump campaign).
I certainly haven't seen a request by the Trump campaign or anybody else for an FBI investigation
of what would seem to be prima facie evidence of a hack by the DNC of Trump computers in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
But, then, there's been relative silence, generally, by the DNC with regard to leaks of donor
information. At least I haven't seen any PR-ly apology by the DNC, or Trump's organization for
that matter, for the insecure storing of donor information and a promise that steps have been
taken to make sure it doesn't happen again. Maybe I just missed that public apology. But I also
wonder if there isn't a reluctance to draw any attention whatsoever to that now public information.
Trump's affection for Putin and all things Russian has been known for years. In Russia, however,
Trump is considered to be clownish. Putin's affection for Trump might best be characterized as
condescending. Trump is the preference of the Putin crowd. And why not? Russian oligarch money
has been flowing into Trump's coffers for at least a decade. Why? Well, after four bankruptcies,
where else is Trump going to borrow money? There is solid evidence of financial ties between Trump
advisors and Putin's circle. Try the website Ballotpedia and look up "Carter Page," Trump's advisor
on all things Russian. Other examples are out there.
That said, I would not absolutely eliminate Putin and his operatives of conspiring with hackers
to obtain and then release documents that would denigrate the Democratic party and HRC.
I find it interesting that Trump telegraphed to the world a skeptical view of NATO allies,
especially the Putin-coveted Baltics, and signaled that he might not come to their defense if
attacked. Those views were expressed in an interview with the New York Times on Thursday, July
21. These comments, predictably, set off alarms all across Europe, and had Republicans scrambling
to backpedal. And then the next day, come the DNC leaks.
And now rumors of Scalia's assassination are being floated again! Distraction after distraction!
KKR, Blackstone, Apollo, etc al, have bankrupted HUNDREDS of companies each. Yet they not only
do they have no trouble borrowing money, they are eagerly pursued by Wall Street.
Trump has never gone bankrupt personally. He had four companies go bankrupt. Trump has started
and operated hundreds of corporate entities. That makes his ratio of bankruptcies way lower than
average and thus means he's a good credit, and much better than private equity. I'm not about
to waste time tracking it down, but the media has already reported on who Trump's regular lender
is, and it's a domestic financial institution, but not one of the TBTF banks.
In addition, I had a major NYC real estate developer/syndicator, a billionaire, in the late
1980s. The early 1990s recession hit NYC real estate very hard and every developer was in serious
trouble. My former client and Trump were the only big NYC developers not to have to give up major
NY properties to the banks.
And as far as your NATO remarks are concerned, you've clearly not been paying attention. Trump
has been critical of the US role in NATO for months, and has already gotten plenty of heat for
that.
Finally, as even the New York Times was forced to concede, the timing of the hacks was all
wrong to be intended to help Trump. It started long before he was a factor on the Republican side.
The DNC hired Crowdstrike to get 2 major Russian hacks off the DNC network prior to this guccifer2.0
nonsense.
You write: "Binney explained to us:
My problem is that they have not listed intruders or attempted intrusions to the DNC site. I suspect
that's because they did a quick and dirty look for known attacks."
But they have listed the initial intruders, see links below.
Binny keeps describing how he would check his LAN back in 1991. His experience is that of a
dinosaur. This article is a mess, conflating the Hrc email scandal with the DNC scandal. What
is at issue, as stated in the FAIR link, is whether the leak to gawker and wiki etc was perpetrated
by a lone Romanian hacker or by the Russian government, not whether the DNC was spied upon by
the Russian; it was.
I am not arguing the the Clinton campaign did not figure out how to use this to their advantage,
guccifer 2.0 and crowd strike stuff both came out in June but was not the subject of much crowing
until now…
> not whether the DNC was spied upon by the Russian; it was.
Based on what evidence? So many blanket statements we're supposed to accept as fact. No.
Guccifer 1.0, who is Romanian, hacked Sidney Blumenthal's email. Generally speaking, Romanians
like many Eastern Europeans hate Russia. Guccifer 1.0 was extradited to the US and made various
statements to the press about Clinton's private email server. I'm not aware of anything he said
about the DNC.
Guccifer 2.0 released DNC documents to the public and apparently to WikiLeaks. There is no
evidence he is Russian or connected to the Russians.
The mainstream media is also trumpeting the meme that Russia was behind the hack, because it
wants to help Trump get elected. In other words, the media is trying to deflect how damaging the
email leaks are to Clinton's character by trying to somehow associate Trump with Putin. See e.g.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/kremlin-donald-trump-vladimir-putin.html "
don't you mean MSM wants to get Clinton elected, not Trump?
think the sentence was trying to express the idea that "Russia" "wants to help Trump get elected–the
"it" referring to "Russia" and not to "mainstream media"–as that idea is the predicate of a meme
that the mainstream media is trumpeting.
Always better to repeat the noun you are referring to, rather than use a pronoun, where use
of a pronoun could create ambiguity, as "it" (or should I have said, " such use" ?) did here.
Did any one see the recent docu ' Zero days' re STUXNET worm (invented by combined efforts
of US _NSA,CIA + Israeli intelligent +?UK) introduced into the NET to take down the Nulc program
in IRAN!
There is fascinating discussion and the threat of cyber terrorism from any one from any where
to the infra structures – Energy grid, transportation ++
It has lot of bearing on this Hillary E-mail gate scandal
Did you bother reading the comments earlier in this thread by JacobiteInTraining and Hacker,
who confirm that the claims don't stand up to scrutiny?
And you appear not to have been following this at all. Right after the story broke, a hacker
who called himself Guccifer 2.0 posted two sets of DNC docs and said more were coming, which was
presumed even then to be a Wikileaks releases (Assange had separately said lots of material on
Clinton was coming).
Because Hillary's campaign has insisted that national security was not compromised with her
use of a homebrew email server. Which would be the higher value target to a foreign intelligence
service – email she used as sec state, or the DNC server? Which would probably have better security
– the homebrew server, or the DNC server? If you buy into the idea that the Russians hacked the
DNC server, you have to admit there is a _strong_ probability they hacked her personal server
as well. I find it kindof amusing that her campaign, in it's response to Trump today, is basically
making the same point (even though it hasn't sunk in yet).
That's why it's relevant.
I can't speak to what security Hillary had in place. But I can say with 100% certainty that
it is I direly easier to secure a small network for one or two people over a large network that
has 100s or 1000s.
I have been working in network security for 20 years. I guarantee that I could build a small
network that would be close to impossible to break into regardless of the ability of the attacker.
So I reject the premise that we should presume that Hillary was hacked
I suggest you get up to speed on this story before making assumptions and assertions based
on them. It has been widely reported that Hillary's tech had no experience in network security
whatsoever, so the issue re the size of the network is irrelevant.
Bryan Pagliano's
resume , which the State Department recently turned over to Judicial Watch, shows he had
neither experience nor certification in protecting email systems against cyber security threats
His main qualification seems to be that he had been an IT director for the Clinton campaign
in 2006. CNN points out he was hired at State as a "political appointee":
Again, irrelevant to my point. The fact that the DNC mail servers were hacked does NOT mean
that Clinton's mail servers were hacked. Clinton's mail servers may have been hacked and Assange
is claiming that he has documents that prove it was. But, to date, no evidence has been provided
to show that her mail servers were hacked.
What we DO know is that the State Department mail servers were hacked, at least twice and at
least once by the Russians.
Regardless, none of this has anything to do with whether the Russians hacked the DNC mail servers
and whether they gave that information to Wikileaks.
Crowdstrike ,
Fiedlis Cybersecurity , and Mandiant all independently corroborated that it was the Russians.
The German government corroborated that an SSL cert found on the DNC servers was the same cert
that was used to infiltrate the German Parliament.
guccifer 2.0 is some guy that made a claim that made a claim the day AFTER Crowdstrike released
their report. He/She offered no evidence to support their claim.
So perhaps 3 different professional IT security companies are incompetent, despite all evidence
to the contrary, or Guccifer 2.0 is just some guy trying to take credit for something they didn't
do or it is a Russian agent trying to actively distract people from the actual culprits.
It is possible that the Russians weren't the ones to give the docs to wikileaks. But they almost
certainly were the ones who perpetrated an attack into the DNC mail servers. That in itself is
a huge problem.
I'm curious, is your background on the computer side or the policy side? You're making some
leaps where I think I follow your meaning, but the actual logic/evidence/warrant isn't there,
so I'm not sure exactly what you're claiming.
Aside from questions of whether elements of the Russian government attacked the DNC,
for example, you imply that the Russians were the only people attacking the DNC. Do you
have any technical reason to conclude that? Or is it just sloppy sentence construction, and you
didn't mean to imply that? Because at a policy level, it seems a reasonably solid understanding
of the world we inhabit that elements of many foreign governments attack US computer
systems, both for active penetration of documents and for more passive denial of service by legitimate
users. For goodness sakes, elements of the USFG itself attack US computer systems.
Anyone who can stand up straight for 5 minutes without falling over backwards and has half
a brain and an ounce of institutional memory knows it wasn't the Russkies who dropped the email
dime on the DNC shenanigans…
I thought Trump's comments today about wanting the Russians to find Hillary's emails were
genius. He fans the flames of this whole Russia-Putin thing on day 3 of the Dem convention and
what are the media outlets talking about? Plus, Hillary's campaign, in it's rebuttal to Trump,
is indirectly reminding everyone that her homebrew server was putting national security at risk.
This whole Russia-Putin connection thing won't work – it really isn't that believable in the
first place, the timing is suspect, and a lot of people in this country really don't care that
deeply about Putin one way or the other.
"... If he just avoids a major world war, that will be enough for me. Because I believe the American elite would be quite happy for that to happen – it badly wants Russia taken off the board, and China too if they will not cooperate and learn their place, and such a war would be fought in Europe – again – while America is insulated by distance. Of course Russia would ensure America paid a price, but in the plan, their missiles would not reach their targets owing to the USA's brilliant missile defense. ..."
"... If this is not America's plan, then the last 5 years' amped-up hatred and deliberate alienation of Russia from the United States, for a generation at least, looks awfully stupid. ..."
"... For the moment, at least, Trump has pulled into the lead . It remains to be seen if Sanders democrats will forgive Clinton for her unconscionable maneuvering, self-promotion and subordination of the DNC to her cause alone, not to mention what must now be complete disillusionment with the latter organization. The democrats, amazingly, are making the republicans look clean by comparison. ..."
"... Don't underestimate how stupid they can be. They trashed Afghanistan and Iraq, and were then surprised that Iran became the dominating power in the region (after destroying Iran's two most formidable foes). ..."
"... The US government can do stupidity, I don't think they plan so well. ..."
If you should happen to like to see our Fern's excellent comment on here turned into a 'Letter
to the Editor', look no further than here: http://www.ukipdaily.com/letters-editor-26th-july-2016/
Hers is the second of three – the last one by an American friend about the Hillary convention
is a hoot!
It looks even more visionary in a newspaper format. And the third comment is indeed a cracker.
I don't understand why there is not a general revolt in the United States – are Americans seriously
going to put up with this complete and brazen hijacking of what was not even a democratic process
to begin with? And what next? Will Hillary simply rewrite the Presidential term in office to 'forever'?
I don't think Hilary is going to get in.
In the first place, the now nearly daily muslim terrorist acts in Europe add another 5% each to
Trump's vote.
In the second place, more and more dirt will come out on Hilary and Bill, and more and more people
are aware of the underhand dealings in vote counting. It was one thing to keep quiet four years
ago when most people couldn't give a toss about Romney, so squeals of voting fraud were not widely
reported.
Now they know, now they are aware, and now, unlike Romney, there's one candidate who's not afraid
of saying what most people think.
I belive Trump will do it.
What happens after he's in – well, it's gotta be better than Hilary.
If he just avoids a major world war, that will be enough for me. Because I believe the American
elite would be quite happy for that to happen – it badly wants Russia taken off the board, and
China too if they will not cooperate and learn their place, and such a war would be fought in
Europe – again – while America is insulated by distance. Of course Russia would ensure America
paid a price, but in the plan, their missiles would not reach their targets owing to the USA's
brilliant missile defense.
If this is not America's plan, then the last 5 years' amped-up hatred and deliberate alienation
of Russia from the United States, for a generation at least, looks awfully stupid.
For the moment, at least,
Trump has pulled into the lead . It remains to be seen if Sanders democrats will forgive Clinton
for her unconscionable maneuvering, self-promotion and subordination of the DNC to her cause alone,
not to mention what must now be complete disillusionment with the latter organization. The democrats,
amazingly, are making the republicans look clean by comparison.
"Of course Russia would ensure America paid a price, but in the plan, their missiles would not
reach their targets owing to the USA's brilliant missile defense."
Don't underestimate how stupid they can be. They trashed Afghanistan and Iraq, and were then surprised
that Iran became the dominating power in the region (after destroying Iran's two most formidable
foes).
The US government can do stupidity, I don't think they plan so well.
After Flame and Stixnet worms as well as Snowden revelations, the US now is on receiving end its
own sophisticated method of attacks which make finding the origin almost impossible.
Notable quotes:
"... Mook's "Russians under the bed" gaslighting is useful on a number of fronts: Ginning up war fever for an October surprise ; setting up a later McCarthy-ite purge of Trump supporters, Clinton skeptics, or even those prematurely anti-Trump ; and if we're truly blessed, a real shooting war ; some damned thing in the Baltic or the Black Sea, or wherever the Kagan clan points to on the map in the war room. And it's always useful to be able to convert one's opponents to enemies by accusing them of treason, especially in an election year. ..."
"... Yup, as a former server admin it is patently absurd to attribute a hack to anyone in particular until a substantial amount of forensic work has been done. (read, poring over multiple internal log files…gathering yet more log files of yet more internal devices, poring over them, then – once the request hops out of your org – requesting logfiles from remote entities, poring over *those* log files, requesting further log files from yet more upstream entities, wash rinse repeat ad infinitum). ..."
"... For example, at its simplest, I would expect a middling-competency hacker to find an open wifi hub across town to connect to, then VPN to server in, say, Tonga, then VPN from there to another box in Sweden, then connect to a PC previously compromised in Iowa, then VPN to yet another anonymous cloud server in Latvia, and (assuming the mountain dew is running low, gotta get cracking) then RDP to the target server and grab as many docs as possible. RAR those up and encrypt them, FTP them to a compromised media server in South Korea, email them from there to someones gmail account previously hacked, xfer them to a P2P file sharing app, and then finally access them later from a completely different set of servers. ..."
"... most IPs ended up at unknown (compromised) personal PCs, or devices where the owner could not be found anyway. ..."
"... If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence you might get lucky – but that demographic mostly points back to script kiddies and/or criminal dweebs – i.e., rather then just surreptitiously exfiltrating the goods they instead left messages or altered things that seemed to indicate their own backgrounds or prejudices, or left a message that was more easily 'traced'. If, of course, you took that evidence at face value and it was not itself an attempt at obfuscation. ..."
"... Short of a state actor such as an NSA who captures it ALL anyway, and/or can access any log files at any public or private network at its own whim – its completely silly to attribute a hack to anyone at this point ..."
"... That's great and all, but in past work I am sure my own 'research' could easily have gotten me 'associated' with known hacking groups. Presumably various 'sophisticated' methods and tools get you closer to possible suspects…but that kind of stuff is cycled and recycled throughout the community worldwide – as soon as anything like that is known and published, any reasonably competent hacker (or org of hackers) is learning how to do the same thing and incorporating such things into their own methods. (imitation being the sincerest form of flattery) ..."
"... There is a problem with those who argue that these are sophisticated Nation State attackers and then point to the most basic circumstantial evidence to support their case. I'd bet that, among others, the Israelis have hacked some Russian servers to launch attacks from and have some of their workers on a Russian holiday schedule. Those things have been written about in attack analysis so much over the last 15-20 years that they'd be stupid not to. ..."
"... Now, I'm not saying the Israelis did it. I'm saying that the evidence provided so far by those arguing it is Russia is so flaky as to prove that the Russia accusers are blinded or corrupted by their own political agenda. ..."
"... Problem #1: The IP address 176.31.112[.]10 used in the Bundestag breach as a Command and Control server has never been connected to the Russian intelligence services. In fact, Claudio Guarnieri , a highly regarded security researcher, whose technical analysis was referenced by Rid, stated that "no evidence allows to tie the attacks to governments of any particular country." ..."
"... This post is not about today's ..."
"... Carr makes the point that even supposed clues about Russian involvement ("the default language is Cyrillic!") are meaningless as all these could be spoofed by another party. ..."
"... Separately it just shows again Team Clinton's (and DNC's) political deviousness and expertise how they –with the full support of the MSM of course –have managed to deflect the discussion to Trump and Russia from how the DNC subverted US democracy. ..."
"... Absent any other evidence to work with, I can accept it as credible that a clumsy Russian or Baltic user posted viewed and saved docs instead of the originals; par for the course in public and private bureaucracies the world over. It would have been useful to see the original Properties metadata; instead we get crapped up copies. That only tells me the poster is something of a lightweight, and it at least somewhat suggests that these docs passed through multiple hands ..."
"... Absolutely agree. Breed the stupid, use the stupid. how long can an idiocratic system last. I need to emigrate. ..."
"... "If the electorate doesn't meet your standards, lower them." ..."
"... One guy on Twitter, even with 10 million followers, can't overcome the Mighty Wurlitzer of the media all blasting the "Looke, over there! Baddie Rooskies!" tout ensemble ..."
"... The thing that most bothers me is that this is supportive of the Kagans and Hillary's push to foment a shooting war with Russia. The so-called metadata that they point to is all something that could very easily be created by an amateur who was actually given access to the DNC's server(s). The "investigator" who issued the conclusion has no record of integrity. ..."
"... Yes, the logical endgame of a 'Trump is a Russian stooge' strategy is that the stronger Trump is in the polls, the greater the incentive to stage an October Surprise with Russia. Something tells me that this lot would quite happily risk a nuclear war if it gave them a better chance of winning an election. ..."
"... … all of which does indeed show a smoking gun, but not the same smoking gun as is being reported. What is shown is that, in addition to the fact that a technical investigation being made by reasonably competent people, a PR team has also been brought in to design the messaging, disseminate the message to the public and create the "right" optics for the story. Such PR / media management teams are fully-paid up members of the Credentialed Class. As such, they want to be seen to earn their money and prove they should get more of it from their elite benefactors in the future. This has an almost inevitable consequence that they will seize on what was probably a suggestive-but-not-conclusive piece of evidence from an investigating team and embellish it with a conclusion which isn't proven or even supported by the actual evidence. Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" (which, of course, didn't exist) is perhaps the best-known example of this phenomena. ..."
"... When you set up a new computer, one of the things a setup routine gets the user to answer is the location of the PC and the input language. This, amongst many other things, sets the code pages used for backwards compatibility in text files which don't support Unicode. It is so easy to forget this has ever been set by a hacker who then merrily goes on to write their hack completely oblivious to the fact they've given - if they are not very careful - the location of their home country away. Or, at least, their native language. If I get chance I'll send a screen shot of a typical application and how a user might be completely unaware of how they are disclosing their location / language if I can hook up to an anonymous hosting service) which might make it a bit clearer for readers. ..."
"... As I've described above, it is a trivial task to "spoof" a PC into looking like it was being used by a Russian, Korean, Chinese, whatever, based person or group. You either do it during the PC setup process or else you can with a few clicks change the default locale on any PC or other operating system. Hey-presto. You can now produce what looks like "Russian" (or any other language) flavoured text and cunningly have these tell-tale code pages appear in your malicious code or similar. ..."
"... In other words, the Cyrillic attribute indicates that the posted docs are not originals ..."
"... Which is telling. The DNC never disavowed the e-mails. They just simply said "See, it's those damn Russians up to their old tricks again". It's like watching an episode of "Maury" when someone gets caught cheating, then try to 1) blame someone/something else for the cheating 2) then apologize for said cheating (ONLY because they got caught) and say "c'mon, baby, let's move on from this"… ..."
"... I wonder if it would be overly technodeterminist to argue one of the primary reasons for displacement of journalists and other human knowledge interpreters by machines and algorithms was the NSA's secret need to make sense of their massive telemetry and data as the Cold War ended and the Information Age and Comparative Advantage became ossified neoclassical economic theory and practice. ..."
"... The Russians are trying to rig the elections by exposing how we tried to rig the elections! THIS MEANS WAR! ..."
"... The childish, credulous, transparently Machevellian propagandizing by the DNC here, especially the deflection in place of serious scientific analysis, is beyond contemptible: it's staggering. But it works because over a quarter century after PCs started showing up on desks the vast majority of the public still don't know as much about how these machines work as most of those living in the 1930's groked about their automobiles (which were in far shorter supply). The world is becoming more complex by the minute, and unless folks start to knuckle down and start learning how it really works they're going to be doomed to be mere passengers on a runaway train. ..."
"... Even if there was a way to determine exactly when and were the malicious code was made, wouldn't there be a good chance it could have been used by someone else. I would imagine everyone in that "industry" would find bits of the others work and incorporate it into their own. What better way to throw people off the trail than to incorporate pieces from different groups for just that purpose. Especially if you know a forensic examination would be looking for those clues. Also how about a "script kiddie" or non-sophisticated actor getting ahold of it and using it like any other tool. ..."
"... Hacker's link to the ars technica article below is the most detailed explanation I have seen relating these intruders to previous attacks, and Yves link to the Carr article is handy for readers because he includes a chart to cross reference the various names that each of the known russian intruders. ..."
"... "Symbol manipulators - like those in the Democrat-leaning creative class - often believe that real economy systems are as easy to manipulate as symbol systems are." ..."
"... "One cannot stress enough the point about APTs being, first and foremost, a new attack doctrine built to circumvent the existing perimeter and endpoint defenses. It's a little similar to stealth air fighters: for decades you've based your air defense on radar technology, but now you have those sneaky stealth fighters built with odd angles and strange composite materials. You can try building bigger and better radars, or, as someone I talked to said, you can try staring more closely at your existing radars in hope of catching some faint signs of something flying by, but this isn't going to turn the tide on stealthy attackers. Instead you have to think of a new defense doctrine." ..."
"... Really the DNC and Hill-bots are looking foolish on this. I have some very well-educated friends going full "red scare" on Facebook. Too easy to troll them by agreeing and exaggerating just a little too much! ..."
"... Besides wasn't Hillary the one against xenophobia? Wasn't she all about building bridges and not (fire!) walls? Now it seems it's OK to blame shiit on foreigners! So it becomes a question of WHICH foreigners we should blame. Trump says Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and China while Clinton says Russia. Let the voters decide! ..."
"... But while the comparisons to McCarthyism write themselves, another uncanny historic parallel is the run-up to the Iraq War. First we have these damn Hackers of Mass Disruption (HMD) trying to manipulate a US election (by showing the DNC actually did manipulate an election!). Next we will have our intelligence services and perhaps "trusted sources" like Curveball informing us Putin did it. Will Theresa May quickly crank out a dossier and some posh-sounding Brits confirm the HWD allegations? Obama will have to hurry to get the war going in time but Colin Powell will be called out of retirement to present the hacking evidence to the UN. Putin will be given a deadline for surrendering ALL his HMD. UN inspectors will sent in but not find any traces of HMD. Debka and the New York Times will insist Putin is hiding his HMD in the Moscow metro or perhaps he has sent them all to a third-party nation for safekeeping? The Washington Post will remind us of how the Kurds were brutalized by HMD cracking into the PKK's main servers. The tension will build to an unbearable crescendo. ..."
"... One of the e mails said the price of a private dinner with Hill is $200,000. Wow. In my case, I wouldn't give two cents for this. In fact, she would have to pay me at least a few grand, and I would split the scene as soon as possible. ..."
"... That article also goes into stated Russian doctrine about intent to use whatever means necessary to, in my words, protect themselves. As it is pretty obvious to me that America is the global bully these days. ..."
"... I'm not sure where this Jeffrey Carr guy came from but his company previously indicated the Russians were behind the Sony hack. And his argument was based on linguistic comparisons of the errors made in the English statements issued by the fake group claiming the hack. Not based on code at all. Seems like he's a character that shows up to muddy the waters. Don't assume he's an ally just because his arguments support your thesis. ..."
"... Clinton is trying to market herself as the Serious/Safe candidate, and instead her campaign is acting all CT hysterical. This whole Putin-hack thing is sabotaging her own brand. ..."
"... Hillary's brand was always just branding. In 2007, she ran as the candidate ready to take that 3 am phone call because of her experience. What experience? Selecting White House China for state functions? Raising money for the White House restoration? I liked the Christmas decorations Hillary had. Her followers believed her brand would win the day, and they simply ignored Obama largely won because of Hillary's poor foreign policy record. ..."
"... So she went out and bargained herself into State to get the foreign policy experience and now has a record on it that should have every sane person saying keep her away from sharp objects and things that go boom. Instead we once again have her running on taking that 3 am phone call while her team is acting like the twelve year old whose parents told her there are monsters home alone for the first time thinking that the refrigerator is a monster because she never heard it cycle on before. ..."
"... After the hackers were "shocked, shocked" when they saw the true operation of the DNC, then they decided to leak the information. This could suggest the leak may have been done, not to harm USA democracy, but to improve it by getting the DNC to behave in a fair and ethical manner in the future. ..."
"... The Democratic Party establishment is selling a used car knowing there's no way of getting a verifiable title history for the vehicle. To weave the narrative here, a few basic statements are made which may (perhaps) be technically true, as a foundation, but perhaps grossly misleadingly so. ..."
"... Perhaps at least one Russian at some point hacked the DNC. It is implied that _only_ this/these Russians hacked the DNC. It is implied that the WikiLeaks doc-dump came from this same set of people. "An IP address was found" is a very passive statement then used similarly. It's possible a templatized kit had a default address (maybe even commented out) and was used in more than one place. Kits like this may be used by a single player or entity (in the case of a state actor, perhaps, though it seems potentially sloppy) or may be used by someone who purchased them or stole them from someone else. Only a few leading statements, eliding particular details, are necessary to promulgate a crafted narrative, when injected into the echo chamber and laundered through friendly or credulous security firms for expert confirmation. ..."
"... Some U.S. intelligence officials suspect that Russian hackers who broke into Democratic Party computers may have deliberately left digital fingerprints to show Moscow is a "cyberpower" that Washington should respect. ..."
"... If one watches ' ZERO DAYS' docu on how STUXNET/worm/olypic game was invented/manufactured by the combined efforts of US – cyber command @NSA, +CIA and Isralei intelligence +UK?) and planted into the NET in bringing down the Iran's Nucl program, most of us are way, way behind in understanding cyber terrorism! They were clueless and firing their Nucl experts for incompetence! ..."
Hillary Clinton's campaign manager is alleging that Russian hackers are leaking Democratic
National Committee emails critical of Bernie Sanders in an effort to help Donald Trump win the
election in November.
It comes on the heels of "changes to the Republican platform to make it more pro-Russian,"
Robby Mook told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" Sunday.
"I don't think it's coincidental that these emails were released on the eve of our convention
here, and I think that's disturbing," he said.
Mook's "Russians under the bed"
gaslighting is useful on a number of fronts: Ginning up war fever for
an October surprise
; setting up a later McCarthy-ite
purge of Trump supporters, Clinton skeptics, or even those
prematurely anti-Trump
; and
if
we're truly blessed, a real shooting war ; some damned thing in the Baltic or the Black Sea,
or wherever
the
Kagan clan points to on the map in the war room. And it's always useful to be able to convert
one's opponents to enemies by accusing them of treason, especially in an election year.
However, in this short post I want to focus on a much narrower question: Can we ever know who
hacked the DNC email? Because if we can't, then clearly we can't know the Russians did. And so I
want to hoist
this by alert reader JacobiteInTraining from comments :
Yup, as a former server admin it is patently absurd to attribute a hack to anyone in particular
until a substantial amount of forensic work has been done. (read, poring over multiple internal
log files…gathering yet more log files of yet more internal devices, poring over them, then –
once the request hops out of your org – requesting logfiles from remote entities, poring over
*those* log files, requesting further log files from yet more upstream entities, wash rinse repeat
ad infinitum).
For example, at its simplest, I would expect a middling-competency hacker to find an open wifi
hub across town to connect to, then VPN to server in, say, Tonga, then VPN from there to another
box in Sweden, then connect to a PC previously compromised in Iowa, then VPN to yet another anonymous
cloud server in Latvia, and (assuming the mountain dew is running low, gotta get cracking) then
RDP to the target server and grab as many docs as possible. RAR those up and encrypt them, FTP
them to a compromised media server in South Korea, email them from there to someones gmail account
previously hacked, xfer them to a P2P file sharing app, and then finally access them later from
a completely different set of servers.
In many cases where I did this sort of analysis I still ended up with a complete dead end:
some sysadmins at remote companies or orgs would be sympathetic and give me actual related log
files. Others would be sympathetic but would not give files, and instead do their own analysis
to give me tips. Many never responded, and most IPs ended up at unknown (compromised) personal
PCs, or devices where the owner could not be found anyway.
If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence you might get lucky
– but that demographic mostly points back to script kiddies and/or criminal dweebs – i.e., rather
then just surreptitiously exfiltrating the goods they instead left messages or altered things
that seemed to indicate their own backgrounds or prejudices, or left a message that was more easily
'traced'. If, of course, you took that evidence at face value and it was not itself an attempt
at obfuscation.
Short of a state actor such as an NSA who captures it ALL anyway, and/or can access any log
files at any public or private network at its own whim – its completely silly to attribute a hack
to anyone at this point.
So, I guess I am reduced to LOL OMG WTF its fer the LULZ!!!!!
Just to clarify on the "…If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence…"
– this is basically what I have seen reported as 'evidence' pointing to Russia: the Cyrillic keyboard
signature, the 'appeared to cease work on Russian holidays' stuff, and the association with 'known
Russian hacking groups'.
That's great and all, but in past work I am sure my own 'research' could easily have gotten
me 'associated' with known hacking groups. Presumably various 'sophisticated' methods and tools
get you closer to possible suspects…but that kind of stuff is cycled and recycled throughout the
community worldwide – as soon as anything like that is known and published, any reasonably competent
hacker (or org of hackers) is learning how to do the same thing and incorporating such things
into their own methods. (imitation being the sincerest form of flattery)
I guess I have a lot more respect for the kinds of people I expect to be getting a paycheck
from foreign Intelligence agencies then to believe that they would leave such obvious clues behind
'accidentally'. But if we are going to be starting wars over this stuff w/Russia, or China, I
guess I would hope the adults in the room don't go all apesh*t and start chanting COMMIES, THE
RUSSIANS ARE COMING!, etc. before the ink is dry on the 'crime'.
The whole episode reminds me of
the Sony hack , for which Obama
also blamed a demonized foreign power. Interestingly - to beg the question here - the blaming
was also based on a foreign character set in the data (though Hangul, not Korean). Look! A clue!
JacobiteInTraining's methodology also reminds me of NC's coverage of Grexit. Symbol manipulators
- like those in the Democrat-leaning creative class - often believe that real economy systems are
as easy to manipulate as symbol systems are. In Greece, for example, it really was a difficult technical
challenge for Greece to reintroduce the drachma, especially given the time-frame, as contributor
Clive remorselessly showed. Similarly, it's really not credible to hire a consultant and get a hacking
report with a turnaround time of less than a week, even leaving aside the idea that the DNC just
might have hired a consultant that would give them the result they wanted (because who among
us, etc.) What JacobiteInTraining shows us is that computer forensics is laborious, takes time, and
is very unlikely to yield results suitable for framing in the narratives proffered by the political
class. Of course, that does confirm all my priors!
There is a problem with those who argue that these are sophisticated Nation State attackers
and then point to the most basic circumstantial evidence to support their case. I'd bet that,
among others, the Israelis have hacked some Russian servers to launch attacks from and have some
of their workers on a Russian holiday schedule. Those things have been written about in attack
analysis so much over the last 15-20 years that they'd be stupid not to.
Now, I'm not saying the Israelis did it. I'm saying that the evidence provided so far by those
arguing it is Russia is so flaky as to prove that the Russia accusers are blinded
or corrupted by their own political agenda.
Update [Yves, courtesy Richard Smith] 7:45 AM. Another Medium piece by Jeffrey
Carr,
Can Facts Slow The DNC Breach Runaway Train? who has been fact-checking this story and comes
away Not Happy. For instance:
Thomas Rid wrote:
One of the strongest pieces of evidence linking GRU to the DNC hack is the equivalent of
identical fingerprints found in two burglarized buildings: a reused command-and-control address - 176.31.112[.]10 - that
was hard coded
in a piece of malware found both in the German parliament as well as on the DNC's servers.
Russian military intelligence was identified by the German domestic security agency BfV as
the actor responsible for the Bundestag breach. The infrastructure behind the fake MIS Department
domain was also linked to the Berlin intrusion through at least one other element, a
shared SSL
certificate.
This paragraph sounds quite damning if you take it at face value, but if you invest a little
time into checking the source material, its carefully constructed narrative falls apart.
Problem #1: The IP address 176.31.112[.]10 used in the Bundestag breach as a Command and Control
server has never been connected to the Russian intelligence services. In fact,
Claudio Guarnieri , a highly regarded security researcher,
whose technical analysis was
referenced by
Rid, stated that "no evidence allows to tie the attacks to governments of any particular country."
Mind you, he has two additional problems with that claim alone.
This piece is a must read if you want to dig further into this topic.
NOTES
[1] More than a talking point but, really, less than a narrative. It's like we need a new word
for these bite-sized, meme-ready, disposable, "throw 'em against the wall and see if they stick"
stories; mini-narrative, or narrativelette, perhaps. "All the crunch of a real narrative, but none
of the nutrition!"
[2] This post is not about today's Trump moral panic, where the political class is frothing
and stamping about The Donald's humorous (or ballbusting, take your pick) statement that he
"hoped" the Russians had hacked the 30,000 emails that Clinton supposedly deleted from the email
server she privatized in her public capacity as Secretary of State before handing the whole flaming
and steaming mess over to investigators. First, who cares? Those emails are all about yoga lessons
and Chelsea's wedding. Right? Second, Clinton didn't secure the server for three months. What did
she expect? Third, Trump's suggestion is just dumb; the NSA has to have that data, so just ask them?
Finally, to be fair, Trump shouldn't have uttered the word "Russia." He should have said "Liechtenstein,"
or "Tonga," because it's hard to believe that there's a country too small to hack as fat a target
as Clinton presented; Trump was being inflammatory. Points off. Bad show.
For those interested, the excellent interviewer Scott Horton just spoke with Jeffrey Carr,
an IT security expert about all this. It's about 30 mins:
Jeffrey Carr, a cyber intelligence expert and CEO of Taia Global, Inc., discusses his fact-checking
of Josh Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo article that claims a close alliance between Trump and
Putin; and why the individuals blaming Russia for the DNC email hack are more motivated by
politics than solid evidence.
Carr makes the point that even supposed clues about Russian involvement ("the default language
is Cyrillic!") are meaningless as all these could be spoofed by another party.
Separately it just shows again Team Clinton's (and DNC's) political deviousness and expertise
how they –with the full support of the MSM of course –have managed to deflect the discussion to
Trump and Russia from how the DNC subverted US democracy.
and again, we see the cavalier attitude about national security from the clinton camp, aggravating
the already tense relationship with russia over this bullshit, all to avoid some political disadvantage.
clinton doesn't care if russia gets the nuclear launch codes seemingly, but impact her chances
to win the race and it's all guns firing.
Well yeah, and I could be a bot, how do you know I'm not?
Absent any other evidence to work with, I can accept it as credible that a clumsy Russian or
Baltic user posted viewed and saved docs instead of the originals; par for the course in public
and private bureaucracies the world over. It would have been useful to see the original Properties
metadata; instead we get crapped up copies. That only tells me the poster is something of a lightweight,
and it at least somewhat suggests that these docs passed through multiple hands.
But that doesn't mean A) the original penetration occurred under state control (or even in
Russia proper), much less B) that Putin Himself ordered the hack attempts, which is the searing
retinal afterimage that the the media name-dropping and photo-illustrating conflation produces.
Unspoofed, the Cyrillic fingerprints still do not closely constrain conclusion to A, and even
less to B.
Yes, I made the same point below in terms of the intrusion ("hack") on the DNC itself too.
The running away with a conclusion based on easily-created evidence says a lot about the people
saying it.
"The running away with a conclusion based on easily-created evidence says a lot about the people
saying it." Clive, I don't think that this can be emphasized enough. These are the people representing
to be competent to run our country. I made the point yesterday: Trump voters are mostly stupid;
this kind of argument will attract those stupid people to Hillary; let's run with it. God help
us.
1. Who cares if the Russians did it?
2. Why were they able to?
3. Are the releases real? Are these actual emails from the DNC? Appears so given their response.
4. Trump once again bungled a prime opportunity. I'm pretty concerned that if a political strategy
cannot be summed up in 140 characters, it's beyond his ability to cope.
It's getting harder and harder to place limits on the catastrophe that either of these "choices"
will be.
One guy on Twitter, even with 10 million followers, can't overcome the Mighty Wurlitzer of
the media all blasting the "Looke, over there! Baddie Rooskies!" tout ensemble to divert
attention from the content of the DNC e-mails. And the Dems were hitting that theme regularly
in the convention speeches, which meant the MSM could replay it that way too.
The thing that most bothers me is that this is supportive of the Kagans and Hillary's push
to foment a shooting war with Russia. The so-called metadata that they point to is all something
that could very easily be created by an amateur who was actually given access to the DNC's server(s).
The "investigator" who issued the conclusion has no record of integrity.
Yes, the logical endgame of a 'Trump is a Russian stooge' strategy is that the stronger Trump
is in the polls, the greater the incentive to stage an October Surprise with Russia. Something
tells me that this lot would quite happily risk a nuclear war if it gave them a better chance
of winning an election.
The comment I wanted to make was around the "Cyrillic keyboard". This is interesting because
it has all the characteristics of:
a) an investigation into an intrusion incident being undertaken by someone who is pretty
skilled and knows a reasonable amount about how to start their analysis and what to look for,
where to look for it and so on
b) the investigator or investigators finding something interesting - in this case the "Cyrillic
keyboard"
c) non-technical people being told of the investigator's findings but not getting the technicalities
of it or some PR type saying "yeah, but can you tell me what this means in simple terms" and
ending up missing an important subtlety and then telling equally ignorant reporters the mis-information
who repeat it verbatim
d) the story or stories, as published, then being wrong in a way that the media outlets
telling the stories don't realise makes them embarrassingly inept to people who really understand
the technical side of things
… all of which does indeed show a smoking gun, but not the same smoking gun as is being reported.
What is shown is that, in addition to the fact that a technical investigation being made by reasonably
competent people, a PR team has also been brought in to design the messaging, disseminate the
message to the public and create the "right" optics for the story. Such PR / media management
teams are fully-paid up members of the Credentialed Class. As such, they want to be seen to earn
their money and prove they should get more of it from their elite benefactors in the future. This
has an almost inevitable consequence that they will seize on what was probably a suggestive-but-not-conclusive
piece of evidence from an investigating team and embellish it with a conclusion which isn't proven
or even supported by the actual evidence.
Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" (which, of course, didn't exist) is perhaps
the best-known example of this phenomena.
To try to set the record straight, what I think was discovered in the DNC email hack was a
file or files (or code in a malicious payload) - the specifics depend on the hack itself and what
attack vector it used - which had a Cyrillic code page set.
This goes back to the mechanics of how you actually write a hack / virus / malicious web page
/ whatever. You have to, at its most basic, write the code. You don't do this using a word processor.
You do it using a text editor (albeit often a very fancy one in an Integrated Development Environment
- a special piece of software to help you write code). But regardless, the code itself is in "plain
text".
But "plain text" isn't actually that plain. Non Latin languages use different code pages for
8-bit plain text (I'll have to skim over the lower level complexity here for the sake of brevity).
But this means that a subtle footprint can get left behind on certain types of files which may
be used as the payload for an intrusion into a computer system or even end up being compiled into
code which delivered into the target system.
When you set up a new computer, one of the things a setup routine gets the user to answer is
the location of the PC and the input language. This, amongst many other things, sets the code
pages used for backwards compatibility in text files which don't support Unicode. It is so easy
to forget this has ever been set by a hacker who then merrily goes on to write their hack completely
oblivious to the fact they've given - if they are not very careful - the location of their home
country away. Or, at least, their native language. If I get chance I'll send a screen shot of
a typical application and how a user might be completely unaware of how they are disclosing their
location / language if I can hook up to an anonymous hosting service) which might make it a bit
clearer for readers.
(and this can so easily catch out the unwary; I recall one horrid incident I gave Yves when,
in trying to submit an article for her to run on Naked Capitalism, I tried to make life easier
by submitting it in "plain text" so that WordPress wouldn't find it so difficult to handle the
formatting. Big mistake! I didn't realise until much grief had been caused that because I'd set
my PC up with a Japanese locale, my supposedly nice, simple "plain text" files I was sending had
Japanese encoding. WordPress, expecting US English encoding, was completely befuddled and Yves
had to try to manually correct dozens of spurious / misplaced characters).
This is not, though, a "keyboard". It does affect the "keyboard" setup. But no reasonably sophisticated
technical person would ever describe this as a "keyboard". Hence my conclusion that, following
an explanation which I've just given readers above (and I'll happily concede it is a rather tortuous
subject to get ones head around if you're not an IT expert), some fairly inept media manager ran
away with the idea this was something to do with a Russian PC being used, because of the "Cyrillic
keyboard".
So it was the pesky Russians then ?
Erm, no, not necessarily. As I've described above, it is a trivial task to "spoof" a PC into
looking like it was being used by a Russian, Korean, Chinese, whatever, based person or group.
You either do it during the PC setup process or else you can with a few clicks change the default
locale on any PC or other operating system. Hey-presto. You can now produce what looks like "Russian"
(or any other language) flavoured text and cunningly have these tell-tale code pages appear in
your malicious code or similar.
But as the comment in the above article makes clear, this is really dumb and not at all the
sort of thing a sophisticated state-backed actor would end up doing. It is however precisely the
sort of thing that a sophisticated state-backed actor would do if they wanted to make it *appear*
as if the Russians were responsible.
It makes me cry to see clicking on "Properties" equated with "pretty skilled".
Also, the docs were last saved through an older version of MSWord, one that the DNC is almost
certainly not running in-house (because of licensing and Microsoft Office Update, although it
can probably be found on the odd State or County level Party desktop).
In other words, the Cyrillic attribute indicates that the posted docs are not originals
. The DNC could have disavowed the docs as partially or completely fabricated, on that basis
alone.
The DNC could have disavowed the docs as partially or completely fabricated, on that
basis alone.
Which is telling.
The DNC never disavowed the e-mails. They just simply said "See, it's those damn Russians up
to their old tricks again". It's like watching an episode of "Maury" when someone gets caught
cheating, then try to 1) blame someone/something else for the cheating 2) then apologize for said
cheating (ONLY because they got caught) and say "c'mon, baby, let's move on from this"…
Ha, great minds, my friend… this is what I edited out of that post:
And in the larger context, it's like my neighbor peering across their driveway seeing me
in bed with somebody else's spouse, and when they tell the not-my-spouse's spouse about it
I respond with "You're not supposed to be looking in my window!" and calling the cops to arrest
my neighbor for snooping (without a FISA permit, egads).
It's a deflection. It discredits my neighbor's story to the not-my-spouse's spouse.
And snooping is wrong! Not supposed to do it! Somebody mention this to the NSA as well! Although,
granted, so far the NSA seem to be a lot better at keeping everybody's secrets (assuming they
can even sort meaning out of their data, which I question).
In other words, it's okay when the NSA does it, because they don't tell what they know, the
way those awful awful Russians do.
the NSA seem to be a lot better at keeping everybody's secrets (assuming they can even sort
meaning out of their data, which I question).
Between 1984 and 1987 I was stationed at Offutt AFB as a satellite operator. Because my off
base roommate worked for Electronic Security Command(ESC) as a cryptologic linguist flying around
in unpressurized planes with earphones on, my military social circle consisted largely of airmen(all
men) who worked for NSA and some of them would go to Ft. Meade on TDY. They were an elite, heterogeneous,
cosmopolitan bunch who shared a common belief that their jobs weren't directly evil because it
was impossible to find the man hours to analyze it: "last night the best thing I picked up in
Nicaragua was an abuela giving tips for mole."
I wonder if it would be overly technodeterminist to argue one of the primary reasons for displacement
of journalists and other human knowledge interpreters by machines and algorithms was the NSA's
secret need to make sense of their massive telemetry and data as the Cold War ended and the Information
Age and Comparative Advantage became ossified neoclassical economic theory and practice.
Aren't these whiners (Weiners? See, selfie dicks on display) the same set of people who tell
us the Security State is just fine, because, "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing
to hide, and no reason to be afraid!"?
Combining two comments as I worry about our country, our democracy: Where have we gone wrong?
"It makes me cry" as "It's getting harder and harder to place limits on the catastrophe that either
of these "choices" will be."
Absolutely accurate. I fell into the simplification trap myself with my own 'Cyrillic keyboard'
reference in comment, but your explanation is perfect.
Admittedly I am getting a little older (and don't do much work anymore with International OSes)
but my own first introduction to a variant of this issue was with older IIS web server ISAPI extensions
and other widgets where using something as prosaic as notepad.exe (which you normally don't expect
to do anything nefarious) causing prod web servers at a large corporation to all go 'boom' and
fall over, dead.
Turns out that when you modified a previously-working plain-text extension config file originally
in (as I recall) ANSI, update it, then accidentally saved it as UNICODE things like quotation
marks et al become…different…even, threatening… ;)
Long since patched of course. Perhaps I need to patch myself too – perhaps with some fine Scotch!
Used wordpad for that, eh. Could have been worse. I've seen HR guys in the UK running a localized
version of Office copy and paste "text" from an Excel sheet originally composed on in a Scandanavian
locale completely wreck the rendering of their data. For awhile I tried getting people to use
Sublime or Notepad++ set to UTF-8 for that sort of exercise, but the ubiquity of text mangling
tools out there is overwhelming.
The childish, credulous, transparently Machevellian propagandizing by the DNC here, especially
the deflection in place of serious scientific analysis, is beyond contemptible: it's staggering.
But it works because over a quarter century after PCs started showing up on desks the vast majority
of the public still don't know as much about how these machines work as most of those living in
the 1930's groked about their automobiles (which were in far shorter supply). The world is becoming
more complex by the minute, and unless folks start to knuckle down and start learning how it really
works they're going to be doomed to be mere passengers on a runaway train.
And, it's not that hard. But I think people's mental bandwidths are overloaded with:
a) work (not pay, just work),
b) "entertainment",
c) media deluge (info+fiction=media!),
d) magical thinking / myths (only geeks can understand it!),
e) ever smaller devices with little tiny screens!!!
Well, that sort of thing makes life interesting eh? Clive's horror story of Japanese locale
mucking up an article submission made me cringe in sympathy.
GEDIT OR BUST!!!
or wait – did gedit go ahead and withdraw, thus endorsing Hillery? In which case I guess its
back to the typewriter… :p
This is a good point. They are shamelessly preying on naive peoples' lack of understanding
of computers. They are also shamelessly preying on naive peoples' trust in experts, which has
serious downstream effects when these "experts" are debunked.
Even if there was a way to determine exactly when and were the malicious code was made, wouldn't
there be a good chance it could have been used by someone else. I would imagine
everyone in that "industry" would find bits of the others work and incorporate it into their own.
What better way to throw people off the trail than to incorporate pieces from different groups
for just that purpose. Especially if you know a forensic examination would be looking for those
clues. Also how about a "script kiddie" or non-sophisticated actor getting ahold of it and using
it like any other tool.
Clive: Also, there are varieties of Cyrillic, depending on the language. Bulgarian has a few
more characters, as does Ukrainian. So would "Russian" even be identifiable from the settings?
Maybe it all went through Montenegro and we are seeing ghosts of Montenengrin.
To extend the question: If the computer has as its setting the Roman alphabet, I'm assuming
that language isn't identified, because language on a computer is aseparate setting (for the user)
from alphabet. So are we in a situation where someone is seeing a Roman letter and then announces
that the document was originally in Hungarian?
(yep, Clive's cut-out-and-keep guide to pretending you're a nefarious Russian sneakypants trying
to besmirch the good name of the DNC. Or Trump. Or whoever:
1) Set up your PC as being located in Russia and having a language of Russian (Cyrillic).
2) Open notepad (in windows, similar for other O/S'es)
3) Create your incriminating text (e.g. "I think Bernie is really stinky and we really should
make sure Hillary wins because she is a woman and so on, all those other really good reasons…
signed Debbie Wasserman Schultz").
4) Click "Save"
5) Change the encoding to something not Unicode-ey e.g.
ANSI
6) Get out your Rolodex and hit the phones of your favourite friendly media outlets
Clive, I'm interested in what you think about the apt28 and apt29 intrusions on the DNC servers.
Hacker's link to the ars technica article below is the most detailed explanation I have seen
relating these intruders to previous attacks, and Yves link to the Carr article is handy for readers
because he includes a chart to cross reference the various names that each of the known russian
intruders.
For your convenience, here is the link I am referring to:
"Symbol manipulators - like those in the Democrat-leaning creative class - often believe
that real economy systems are as easy to manipulate as symbol systems are."
What a great observation! This speaks to so much of what ails modern western society.
"Symbol manipulators" reflects the way lawyers and most policy wonks are trained to believe
that the social construction of reality is all that matters.
"One cannot stress enough the point about APTs being, first and foremost, a new attack doctrine
built to circumvent the existing perimeter and endpoint defenses. It's a little similar to stealth
air fighters: for decades you've based your air defense on radar technology, but now you have
those sneaky stealth fighters built with odd angles and strange composite materials. You can try
building bigger and better radars, or, as someone I talked to said, you can try staring more closely
at your existing radars in hope of catching some faint signs of something flying by, but this
isn't going to turn the tide on stealthy attackers. Instead you have to think of a new defense
doctrine."
Really the DNC and Hill-bots are looking foolish on this. I have some very well-educated friends
going full "red scare" on Facebook. Too easy to troll them by agreeing and exaggerating just a
little too much!
Besides wasn't Hillary the one against xenophobia? Wasn't she all about building bridges and
not (fire!) walls? Now it seems it's OK to blame shiit on foreigners! So it becomes a question
of WHICH foreigners we should blame. Trump says Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and China while Clinton
says Russia. Let the voters decide!
But while the comparisons to McCarthyism write themselves, another uncanny historic parallel
is the run-up to the Iraq War. First we have these damn Hackers of Mass Disruption (HMD) trying
to manipulate a US election (by showing the DNC actually did manipulate an election!). Next we
will have our intelligence services and perhaps "trusted sources" like Curveball informing us
Putin did it. Will Theresa May quickly crank out a dossier and some posh-sounding Brits confirm
the HWD allegations? Obama will have to hurry to get the war going in time but Colin Powell will
be called out of retirement to present the hacking evidence to the UN. Putin will be given a deadline
for surrendering ALL his HMD. UN inspectors will sent in but not find any traces of HMD. Debka
and the New York Times will insist Putin is hiding his HMD in the Moscow metro or perhaps he has
sent them all to a third-party nation for safekeeping? The Washington Post will remind us of how
the Kurds were brutalized by HMD cracking into the PKK's main servers. The tension will build
to an unbearable crescendo.
Finally, and regretfully, in October, Operation Data Security will be launched. After a very
brief but exceedingly violent confrontation, In the end no HMD will be found in Russia. On the
other hand since most of the tens of millions of US soldiers who died were drafted from working
class families, the war will be declared a victory anyway since now Trump does not have hardly
any angry working class whites left to vote for him!
There's much more to it than that. If you don't kneejerk it away, it asks you to consider that
the government can't be relied upon to thoroughly pursue the charges against her. It also builds
on what has been, to me, the surprising acceptance that the Wikileaks DNC emails are valid, not
fabricated. It then dissolves the honorific constraints indignantly invoked by the Times re "investigating
a former secretary of state," exposing those invocations as rationalizing a coverup. In short,
it treats her as a perp for whom we need reliable informants to help bring down, and we need to
rely on the Russians/Wikileaks, not the Times, or the Post, or the AG.
I think we're looking at a 5-star legitimation crisis accelerator.
If Russia has Clinton's emails … I do want them to release them.
If Chuck Norris has them I want Chuck to release them.
The very idea that our Government has them (read NSA) and will not release them because they
would damage Clinton scares me a whole lot more than the idea that espionage today includes hacking
unsecured servers.
So … please … pretty please … whoever has them … release them.
One of the e mails said the price of a private dinner with Hill is $200,000. Wow. In my case,
I wouldn't give two cents for this. In fact, she would have to pay me at least a few grand, and
I would split the scene as soon as possible.
1. Donald Trump is a fascist demagogue
2. Donald Trump is Hitler, Super Hitler, a Devil
3. Donald Trump is being aided by Russia and loves Putin
4. Donald Trump is guilt of treason, is a Russian agent
5. Bill Clinton mostly likely gave Trump advice and/or encouragement to run in the 2016 race
I apologize for not being able to dig into this as much as I'd like. Yesterday, the loggers
at my remote doomstead dropped some trees on one of the garden plots and the day job as an Information
Security manager hasn't been much easier.
There is a decent, but still biased thus not linked, article on ArsTechnica "How DNC, Clinton
campaign attacks fit into Russia's cyber-war strategy" that provides better evidence that the
DNC was targeted by the Russians. That alone doesn't link the Russians to the release and I haven't
had the time to dig deeply into the evidence to fully understand it.
That article also goes into stated Russian doctrine about intent to use whatever means necessary
to, in my words, protect themselves. As it is pretty obvious to me that America is the global
bully these days.
So we've got a DNC using whatever underhanded tactics it can draw upon to corrupt democracy.
Yet both Hillary at the State and then the DNC for the primaries do practically nothing to protect
themselves from state actors who have declared an intention to do the same? That sounds like a
foreign policy blindspot that should be a disqualifier.
Not really. Carr is putting down a British professor's sloppy claims that apt28 and apt29 are
related to the GRU. But the agencies analysing the breach never pointed to the GRU. Crowd strike
suggests FSB or SVR, and fidelis agrees on the involvement of apt28 and apt29 but does not attribute
a source. Carr is saying the hack is Russian but could be non governmental.
I'm not sure where this Jeffrey Carr guy came from but his company previously indicated the
Russians were behind the Sony hack. And his argument was based on linguistic comparisons of the
errors made in the English statements issued by the fake group claiming the hack. Not based on
code at all. Seems like he's a character that shows up to muddy the waters. Don't assume he's
an ally just because his arguments support your thesis.
The most interesting thing I ran into when looking up the Sony hack was that Sony told everyone
to shut up about it in December and threatened to sue the media it they persisted with the story.
Kinda makes you go hmmmm.
I suspect the author meant that the encoding used in the files represented the standard Hangul
character set (used in South Korea), and not the variant of the Hangul character set used in North
Korea (which differs in the number and ordering of characters, and hence is encoded differently).
Anyway, CJK character sets and encodings are just hell. I absolutely see Clive's file encoded
in EUC-JP or Shift_JIS royally screwing up the CMS editor of NakedCapitalism.
Clinton is trying to market herself as the Serious/Safe candidate, and instead her campaign
is acting all CT hysterical. This whole Putin-hack thing is sabotaging her own brand.
Today, while reading Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables , I unexpectedly came
across a passage which fittingly describes the DNC:
They are practiced politicians, every man of them, and skilled to adjust those preliminary
measures which steal from the people, without its knowledge, the power of choosing its own rulers…This
little knot of subtle schemers will control the convention, and, through it, dictate to the party.
Maybe Will Rogers was off the beam, then, given current events and past performance, with his
comment that "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat!"
At least as to the people close to the center of the beast, the ones who use the parties as
just a set of tools to keep the mopes in check…
Hillary's brand was always just branding. In 2007, she ran as the candidate ready to take that
3 am phone call because of her experience. What experience? Selecting White House China for state
functions? Raising money for the White House restoration? I liked the Christmas decorations Hillary
had. Her followers believed her brand would win the day, and they simply ignored Obama largely won
because of Hillary's poor foreign policy record.
So she went out and bargained herself into State to get the foreign policy experience and now
has a record on it that should have every sane person saying keep her away from sharp objects
and things that go boom. Instead we once again have her running on taking that 3 am phone call
while her team is acting like the twelve year old whose parents told her there are monsters home
alone for the first time thinking that the refrigerator is a monster because she never heard it
cycle on before.
I have no respect for her average supporter. And even less respect for the press. The contempt
the people who really pull the strings in her camp show they obviously have little regard for
the intelligence of either group.
After all the "democracy" promotion the USA has done around the world, perhaps the entire DNC
hack should be re-cast as an attempt to determine exactly how the USA democracy functions by a
curious group.
This is somewhat akin to an interested grad student, as the hackers may have thought "Why not
find how a professional democratic organization, the Democratic National Committee, works?"
After the hackers were "shocked, shocked" when they saw the true operation of the DNC, then
they decided to leak the information. This could suggest the leak may have been done, not to harm USA democracy, but to improve it
by getting the DNC to behave in a fair and ethical manner in the future.
Instead, we've watched the DNC, while not denying their documented behavior, argue that their
behavior should not have been exposed by an alleged "wrong" group.
Perhaps more damaging blackmail information is being saved to use against HRC if she is elected?
The Democratic Party establishment is selling a used car knowing there's no way of getting
a verifiable title history for the vehicle. To weave the narrative here, a few basic statements
are made which may (perhaps) be technically true, as a foundation, but perhaps grossly misleadingly
so.
Perhaps at least one Russian at some point hacked the DNC. It is implied that _only_ this/these
Russians hacked the DNC. It is implied that the WikiLeaks doc-dump came from this same set of
people. "An IP address was found" is a very passive statement then used similarly. It's possible
a templatized kit had a default address (maybe even commented out) and was used in more than one
place. Kits like this may be used by a single player or entity (in the case of a state actor,
perhaps, though it seems potentially sloppy) or may be used by someone who purchased them or stole
them from someone else. Only a few leading statements, eliding particular details, are necessary
to promulgate a crafted narrative, when injected into the echo chamber and laundered through friendly
or credulous security firms for expert confirmation.
I would be curious to know when the Russian hack was supposed to have happened. I would also
be curious what other hacks of the DNC are believed to have or known to have happened. It might
even be interesting to know whether particular individuals' accounts or machines were compromised
on the way in, as the incestuous relationships between Democratic Party organizations make it
quite possible such a compromise might cross to another organization and increase the likelihood
of compromise there. I'm imagining a future Clinton Foundation document dump, perhaps.
I haven't read any comments that highlight the smell of extreme desperation coming from the
Clinton camp?
Sanders efforts had already gotten the DNC droogs soiling their pants, add Trumps momentum
and likely trajectory to the mix, and this is what you get, panic, and poor judgement.
I expect internal leaks and dissertions from the campaign soon.
While attribution of malware attacks is rarely simple or conclusive, during the course of
this investigation I uncovered evidence that suggests the attacker might be affiliated with
the state-sponsored group known as Sofacy Group (also known as APT28 or Operation Pawn Storm).
Although we are unable to provide details in support of such attribution, previous work by
security vendor FireEye suggests the group might be of Russian origin, however no evidence
allows to tie the attacks to governments of any particular country.
Sofacy, aka Fancy Bear, is a well known Advanced Persistent Threat. APTs are generally regarded
government backed given their abilities and resources but it is not always verifiable. Sofacy
generally focuses on NATO aligned government and military sites and has also focused on Ukrainian
targets in recent years.
So it cannot be 100% confirmed that the Russian government is involved, it is the most likely
backer of the hacking group.
Which does not mean that Trump had any knowledge or involvement in the attack or that the Russians
are necessarily backing Trump.
Some U.S. intelligence officials suspect that Russian hackers who broke into Democratic
Party computers may have deliberately left digital fingerprints to show Moscow is a "cyberpower"
that Washington should respect.
Three officials, all speaking on condition of anonymity, said the breaches of the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) were less sophisticated than other cyber intrusions that have been
traced to Russian intelligence agencies or criminals.
NO has no clue re DNC e-mail leak! how or who did it. Just narration of speculations!
If one watches ' ZERO DAYS' docu on how STUXNET/worm/olypic game was invented/manufactured
by the combined efforts of US – cyber command @NSA, +CIA and Isralei intelligence +UK?) and planted
into the NET in bringing down the Iran's Nucl program, most of us are way, way behind in understanding
cyber terrorism! They were clueless and firing their Nucl experts for incompetence!
There is extensive discussion of that subject by various NET security Cos incl Symantec, Kaparnisky
(russia), Israeli cyber terrorism expert, even officials/non officials from NSA, cyber command, CIA,
all over the World
It is NOT THAT EASY to trace the hacker's foot prints! This was about 6-8 years ago! WE all
are just groping in the dark, like 7 blind men describing the 'elephant'!
"... This propaganda is for retards. They make it sound like hacking is trivial.
Maybe if the idiot administrators of the DNC computers left them without passwords.
I have overseen web attached computer systems at a university for over 20 years
and have never had them hacked. Disable all the vulnerable daemons and block most
ports. Run a firewall and regulate SSH access. They have tried but they never succeeded.
..."
"... Then we have the obvious one: if the hackers are from Russia, then so what?
Does Putin tell every Russian hacker what to do. Perhaps Putin personally hacked
these servers. Those system logs have exactly zero to say about who are the hackers.
Only Hollywood fiction does the cyber realm extend into the physical realm. Then
the issue is why is incriminating evidence of Democratic Party wrongdoing Russia's
problem? Seriously, why is the screeching about Russian hacking and not Russian
"fraud" or something else? What happened to transparency? These alleged Russian
hackers did not release personal information. They released information of wrong
doing in a public organization. ..."
"... Same-same likee FireEye, which said almost word-for-word the same tired
old shit back in 2014, when the Russians supposedly hacked some other U.S. system.
Coded during working hours in Moscow, just as if (1) hackers keep normal working
hours like accountants and grocery clerks, and (2) Moscow is the only place in the
world at Moscow's latitude. There's only an hour's difference between Moscow and
Jerusalem, for example. And although the coding of the malware was brilliant, causing
seasoned professionals to shake their heads in admiration…once again, the Russians
slipped up, and coded on Cyrillic keyboards. Sure they did. But I'll let you read
the article. ..."
"... When Captain Dickhead says "I'm sure beyond a reasonable doubt", what he
means is, "Nobody can prove I'm not sure, because nobody knows". And everyone in
the west will believe poor Hillary is the victim of the dastardly Russians, no problem,
although the screwing Bernie Sanders got is likely to be much more on their minds
come voting time, and not where the information came from. Is somebody else interested
in the outcome of the U.S. election besides Russia? You decide. ..."
This propaganda is for retards. They make it sound like hacking is trivial.
Maybe if the idiot administrators of the DNC computers left them without
passwords. I have overseen web attached computer systems at a university
for over 20 years and have never had them hacked. Disable all the vulnerable
daemons and block most ports. Run a firewall and regulate SSH access. They
have tried but they never succeeded.
If the DNC computers are configured like Hillary's personal email server
then this is deliberate. They claim that the hackers are from Russia but
they have zero evidence. Some IP logs can be faked without any effort. It's
not like there is some bank level security over system logs.
Then we have the obvious one: if the hackers are from Russia, then
so what? Does Putin tell every Russian hacker what to do. Perhaps Putin
personally hacked these servers. Those system logs have exactly zero to
say about who are the hackers. Only Hollywood fiction does the cyber realm
extend into the physical realm. Then the issue is why is incriminating evidence
of Democratic Party wrongdoing Russia's problem? Seriously, why is the screeching
about Russian hacking and not Russian "fraud" or something else? What happened
to transparency? These alleged Russian hackers did not release personal
information. They released information of wrong doing in a public organization.
Remind you of anything? Same-same likee FireEye, which
said almost word-for-word the same tired old shit back in 2014, when
the Russians supposedly hacked some other U.S. system. Coded during working
hours in Moscow, just as if (1) hackers keep normal working hours like accountants
and grocery clerks, and (2) Moscow is the only place in the world at Moscow's
latitude. There's only an hour's difference between Moscow and Jerusalem,
for example. And although the coding of the malware was brilliant, causing
seasoned professionals to shake their heads in admiration…once again, the
Russians slipped up, and coded on Cyrillic keyboards. Sure they did. But
I'll let you read the article.
When Captain Dickhead says "I'm sure beyond a reasonable doubt",
what he means is, "Nobody can prove I'm not sure, because nobody knows".
And everyone in the west will believe poor Hillary is the victim of the
dastardly Russians, no problem, although the screwing Bernie Sanders got
is likely to be much more on their minds come voting time, and not where
the information came from.
Is somebody else interested in the outcome of the U.S. election besides
Russia? You decide.
M of A - Clinton Asserts Putin Influence On Trump - After Taking Russian Bribes
Off topic but still within context of the West's "lets bash Russia/Putin at every chance we
get"..
Seems the BBC and their assorted groupies just got eggs all over their collective faces after
the IOC ruled that Russian athletes can compete in the olympics. The British press are crying
foul - dunno if they're afraid of losing to Russian athlete or something.
This whole doping thing stunk from day one.. All the accusers pretends they never dope before.
But then, anything to humiliate Russia and Putin will do. How many American athletes have been
caught doping - yet nobody called for a blanket ban on the American Olympic team. The hypocrisy
is just beyond stupid!!!
Watch this space, won't be long before we see a campaign to oust the current OIC chief..lol
Clinton/Kaine certainly confident that the MSM will not report.
For all the money given to the Clinton's it didn't prevent the Ukraine disasters. Of course,
Ukraine may not have been a concern among the particular oligarchs who made these bribes.
For those who have a Twitter account, checkout #dncleak or #dncleaks on the latest over the Wikileaks
release of the DNC emails.
Here's one -"Hillary Clinton is now blaming the Russians for leaking the emails. Like that
makes it any better that you rigged the primary."
Sanders to Chuck Todd on the leaks -
Todd: "So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't given you any pause about
your support for Hillary Clinton?"
Sanders: "No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can to protect working families
in this country. And again, Chuc, I know media is not necessarily focused on these things. But
what a campaign is about is not Hillary Clinton, it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of this
country, blah blah blah..."
"[...] And I'm going to go around the country discussing them [issues] and making sure Hillary
Clinton is elected president."
So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized
by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed
intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party
is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety
of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders
remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and
their chosen candidate that screwed him and them.
UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE!
His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers.
He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest.
I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal sacrifices being
made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker of achieving my goals, only to learn
within weeks after capitulating, that my entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning
by the very apparatus I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain
neutral.
Think about his response to Todd. Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his
workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than
48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged
by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are.
If I were a Bernie supporter I'd be starting a campaign to convince that man to take some serious
time off. Go fishing. Go for hikes whatever. Just get away from the bubble and clear your head
and soul.
Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources
behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss
me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter. And why on earth would
any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would
ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for!
PERIES: So let's take a look at this article by Paul Krugman. Where is he going with this analysis
about the Siberian candidate?
HUDSON: Well, Krugman has joined the ranks of the neocons, as well as the neoliberals, and
they're terrified that they're losing control of the Republican Party. For the last half-century
the Republican Party has been pro-Cold War, corporatist. And Trump has actually, is reversing
that. Reversing the whole traditional platform. And that really worries the neocons.
Until his speech, the whole Republican Convention, every speaker had avoided dealing with economic
policy issues. No one referred to the party platform, which isn't very good. And it was mostly
an attack on Hillary. Chants of "lock her up." And Trump children, aimed to try to humanize him
and make him look like a loving man.
But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's
making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two
major policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional
right-wing stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's
not destroying the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational
interest that otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders.
So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear,
roll back military spending. We can spend it on infrastructure, we can spend it on employing American
labor. And in the speech, he said, look, we don't need foreign military bases and foreign spending
to defend our allies. We can defend them from the United States, because in today's world, the
only kind of war we're going to have is atomic war. Nobody's going to invade another country.
We're not going to send American troops to invade Russia, if it were to attack. So nobody's even
talking about that. So let's be realistic.
Well, being realistic has driven other people crazy.
The same used to be true of Iran. This reminds me of a spoof I read years ago where Jesus General
writes a letter to Iran requesting that they fix a pothole in his street.
From Bloomberg - "If the Democrats can show the hidden hand of Russian intelligence agencies, they
believe that voter outrage will probably outweigh any embarrassing revelations, a person familiar
with the party's thinking said'
Ha! Fat chance. I'm thinking the American voter is going to start sending Thank You notes to the
Kremlin! As usual, their heads are stuck so far up the arse of their donkey they incapable of gauging
Main Street sentiment.
"During his recent visit to Moscow, US Secretary of State John Kerry voiced several preconditions
for US-Russia cooperation in Syria.
According to Lavrov, Kerry called for the immediate resignation of Syrian President Assad without
giving any explanation of his position.
"They say that we could join our efforts in the fight against terrorism […] but first we need
to agree that we remove Assad from power," Lavrov said, speaking at a national youth educational
forum."
Funny though, Schultz takes her orders from Obama, as the Chairman of the Party, the DNC Board
of Directors and team Hillary. Period. If any blame should go around it should splash onto all individuals
NOT just Schultz.
She is buy a symptom of the DNC disease. And yes, she'll take the fall for the team, but make
no mistake, the cancer remains and will continue to metastasize.
Apologies for misspells - 'over' not 'ovee'; Putin, not Puting. Gee whiz. But obviously, that is
the problem with US policy - they don't have that blankety-blank reset button any longer. Please
give it back!
@19 yeah, and that should give said supporters great pause. I've seen suggestions made that he was
running to gain the youth vote so as to deliver them in Nov to Hillary. I'm not convinced by that
suggestion BUT if he was a set up, and Wikileak emails can show it, well, all bets are off.
And why Sanders is only singling out Schultz is disingenuous. Any who have engaged in electoral
politics in this country learn quickly the party's hierarchy. It starts with Obama, the DNC's Board
of Directors and then Wasserman Schultz in that order. Sanders knows this. Schultz didn't run a rogue
party.
His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome.
You are assuming that Sanders is a victim instead of a conspirator.
Why would anyone give any politician in our corrupt system the benefit of the doubt? Even one
that seems to be against 'the system'?
Why didn't Bernie release more than one year of tax returns? Especially since Hillary cited this as a reason not to release the transcripts of her speaches
to Goldman Sachs.
Why didn't Bernie use the emails against Hillary after the State Department Inspector General
released their report? This official report clearly demonstrated that Hillary had consistently misled the nation about
her emails.
Why didn't Bernie attack Obama's record on Black/Minority affairs?
Obama's support is part of the reason that Blacks/Minorities were voting for Hillary. Obama never
went to Feruson or New York or Baltimore. Obama's weak economic stimulous and austerity policies
have been very bad for blacks/minorities. Obama bailed out banks that targeted minorities for
toxic loans. Etc.
Why does Bernie, at 74-years old, care more about Hillary (which he calls a friend of 25
years) and the Democratic Party than his principles?
AFAICT he got very little for his support (will he get a cabinet position for himself?). He didn't
have to endorse Hillary. He doesn't have to speak at the Convention (but he will tonight).
Putin is god--it is well-known scientific fact. He actually controls the weather and even Earth's
rotation speed. Russians always knew it, now, with the advancement of information technologies (also
controlled by Putin--ah yes, he, not Al Gore, invented the internet) decadent West can witness his
powers and omnipresence. Remember Katrina? Putin! Remember the water main break in NYT--also Putin.
I had a constipation last week--damn Putin. Got rid of constipation and back to normal BMs--Putin's
hand was definitely in it. If you look attentively at HRC for 20+ minutes you will see Putin's image
surfacing on her face.
In an interview Andrew Bacevich spoke about what he saw at various insitute, academic, etc. conferences
he attended as an academic which I believe has effected his later known books. He noted among other
things, that there was an inability for empathic thinking. He did not mean sympathy, but rather the
act of trying to understand the actions of other people. I think the phrase is to treat people as
rational actors. As horrific as Hitler was, historians dug into his motivations for example, for
his invasion of the Soviet Union.
So we get with Putin not a rational understanding of what he does and why, but rather cartoon
psychological and religious explanations which cannot be argued against as they defy rationality.
How can one argue against people calling Putin evil as that person has not invoked a rational argument.
The propaganda demonization of Putin and the Russians is part of the same playbook republicans
and the neocons used to fertilize the field of popular belief for the justification of war and invasion
of Iraq to the American people (but now followed by democrats). Every one of those articles is a
bit of propaganda manure which will eventually sprout the seeds of conflict and war.
What I find alarming about all of this Putin bashing and Hillary using it in her campaign is that
I am seeing many of my acquaintances who identify as liberal/progressive Democrats are becoming more
and more anti-Russian. By the time she becomes president there will be a majority of Democrats clamoring
for war against Russia. This is something to worry about. Recall that liberal Democrat Truman got
us involved in the Korean war and it was liber LBJ that led us to war in Vietnam. I recall very clearly
how the liberal press in the US was advocating for and supporting war in Vietnam between 1964 and
1968. The liberalists of all liberal Democrats Hubert Humphrey was leading that charge.
Democratic Party partisans are losing their common sense in this effort to back Clinton. A year
ago I could carry on rational discussion with those I know about how unwise our Ukraine policy is
-- today when I try to defend Russia I am accused of backing Trump.
@60 He really is versatile. No sooner had he finished rigging the Brexit vote than he was off to
France in a truck. Then he was spotted in Kabul. This week he has been busy making trouble in Germany
and he still finds time to fake HRC's emails. The man must be stopped!
Yes, yes, it's all true; Vladimir Putin, master of the universe; the Whirlwind; omnipotent; everywhere
and nowhere all at the same time.
I'm so glad people are waking up to reality. :-)
Indeed. Democrats have become hysterical and unhinged in all things regarding Clinton. I have
been reading a few Democrat partisan sites. With the DNC blaming Putin/Russians for the release of
the DNC emails, the partisans are demanding what amounts to McCarthy era witch hunts, and some strong
immediate NATO action against the Russians for the evil act. One supporter had a posting showing
how the Russians plan to invade the Baltics with graphics showing the invasion route--good grief.
It is curious to see that those not buying the propaganda are drawing comparisons to the witch hunts
of the 1950s'.
When I post or talk to partisan Dems I don't get accused of supporting Trump but called a Putin
lackey/stooge.
@ Relis 44
Thanks for quote-will use it . You did something readers of anti-Russian/Putin propaganda don't
do. Actually listen to or read what Putin says. I am still puzzled even though I shouldn't be when
I read descriptions of Putin in the Western media, and then read what he actually said or acted on:
two people from two different planets. I was listening to Stephen Cohen, and he said the same thing.
Nobody bothers to read what Putin says, forget his actions.
Putin should hire an agent and get a role on the TV series SHIELD as the new head of HYDRA. And
then attend comic-cons giving out autographs.
Now that the NYC Mob has secured the Goldman-Trump-Clinton hat trick in November, after which
a 5th Chosen Supreme Court Justice for Life assures a tie-winning Tribal 55% majority of Torahia
law in the USA, with not a single Protestant Justice on the bench, and knowing now it's in the bag,
fahged abahd et, now the NYC Mob has already begun the takedown of non-Tribal banks like HSBC and
1MDB, following a lull of eight years since the Lehman takedown, after which They precipitated the
greatest financial piracy in human history: the wholesale transfer of adulterated synthetic CDO gambling
debts, by the private Fed Bank, onto the public US Treasury, ...during which not a single Tribal
member was ever indicted, ... but now the arrests are happening fast and furious among their foreign
banking competition, as S&P's credit rating arm is holding a gun to Brexit.
"I can't tell you where all the money went!" Benhamin
Once the NYC Mob has Trump-Clinton in the WH and the Tribe owns the Executive, then swings the
Judicial to 55% Tribal sovereignty, so that the Tribe owns Justice too, then our poor Congress-critters
will have to stand and clap for Bibi until the blood literally runs down their arms, and yet still
not one of them will dare to stop clapping first, because it would be career and financial suicide
to 'vote your conscience' against the Trotskyim.
You know this will all come to pass in just six months from now, after which Trump-Clinton of
The Chosen, Mr. Law-and-Order-Shekinah and Ms We-Came-We-Saw-He-Died-Haw-Haw-Haw, will launch their
all-out attack on Russia, over the roads and bridges of Eastern Ukraine, which even now the World
Bank is rapidly upgrading to combat capacity for missile launchers, troop carriers and heavy tanks.
Right now. Because that's what Tribal juntas do! Look closely at the junta in Kiev that Congress
in 2015 grifted $50,000M of your last life savings to, Kiev, traditional home of Ashkenazim who spawned
1998, 2001, 2008 and 2011. They're warlords.
But the Sheeple are so conditioned to live in fear, and never speak about Those Who Cannot Be
Named, that the Sheeple will remain willfully ignorant while the mortgage credit-debt ring is bound
through their nose, the school-debt tag punched in their ear, and 'Six-Kinds-of-Stupid' tattoed on
their forearms, and their children sent off to fight in foreign wars.
Tribal historians will completely rewrite the US annals, claiming The West Was Tamed by the Chosen,
that the Chosen raised up the American Heathen and taught them to Read and Write and to Pokemon Go,
and that there never was an 'American Dream', ...that Xtian Kulaks were just illegal Dreamers in
what was always Greater New Zion, the same as Bolshevik Chosen slaved 60,000,000 Christian Russians
to death, and destroyed 20,000 churches, then wiped out 1,000 years of Russian history.
Today there is only the Now, the Dharma of the Chosen:
"We won, you lost. It's just business, get over it. Now get off my land." שלוש מאות
Putin had nothing to do with it. He was just another oligarch in Their crosshairs.
Fort-Russ has the video of '
Putin's
full speech ' at St. Petersburg International Economic Forum - 2016 with subtitles, I
transcribed
the subtitles , if any one else is interested in reading what he actually said on the subject of
the US auto-missile defense in Romania and Poland.
Thanks for the links. I distrust almost all media; so, I listen to unedited complete speeches
by Pres. Putin whenever possible. His (Putin's) talk at Valdi in 2014 was great; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXh6HgJIPHo
"... Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing. ..."
"... Hold on there, Clintonites - Both I and the World remember seeing Madame
Clinton herself hand over to Putin that gigantic red Reset button. ..."
"... So now, of course - he's resetting EVERYTHING! And you, dear lady, you
gave it to him! I rest my case. ..."
"... Putin is god--it is well-known scientific fact. He actually controls the
weather and even Earth's rotation speed. Russians always knew it, now, with the
advancement of information technologies (also controlled by Putin--ah yes, he, not
Al Gore, invented the internet) decadent West can witness his powers and omnipresence.
Remember Katrina? Putin! Remember the water main break in NYT--also Putin. I had
a constipation last week--damn Putin. Got rid of constipation and back to normal
BMs--Putin's hand was definitely in it. If you look attentively at HRC for 20+ minutes
you will see Putin's image surfacing on her face. ..."
"... In an interview Andrew Bacevich spoke about what he saw at various institutes,
academic, etc. conferences he attended as an academic which I believe has effected
his later known books. He noted among other things, that there was an inability
for empathic thinking. He did not mean sympathy, but rather the act of trying to
understand the actions of other people. I think the phrase is to treat people as
rational actors. As horrific as Hitler was, historians dug into his motivations
for example, for his invasion of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The propaganda demonization of Putin and the Russians is part of the same
playbook republicans and the neocons used to fertilize the field of popular belief
for the justification of war and invasion of Iraq to the American people (but now
followed by democrats). Every one of those articles is a bit of propaganda manure
which will eventually sprout the seeds of conflict and war. ..."
"... What I find alarming about all of this Putin bashing and Hillary using
it in her campaign is that I am seeing many of my acquaintances who identify as
liberal/progressive Democrats are becoming more and more anti-Russian. ..."
"... I like a good meme as much as the next guy, but there wasn't any putin-did-it
in that Reuters article about the ferry accident in NY. ..."
"... 'But Russia is secretly plotting even more nefarious schemes. Putin is
infiltrating Europe. And not only Europe.' US regime would never infiltrate europe...its
already there! ..."
"... All I can say here is ... this is Sheer Comedy Gold. Hollywood couldn't
make this stuff up. ..."
"... PS - anyone know what Putin does on the seventh day? ..."
"... @60 He really is versatile. No sooner had he finished rigging the Brexit
vote than he was off to France in a truck. Then he was spotted in Kabul. This week
he has been busy making trouble in Germany and he still finds time to fake HRC's
emails. The man must be stopped! ..."
"... Indeed. Democrats have become hysterical and unhinged in all things regarding
Clinton. I have been reading a few Democrat partisan sites. With the DNC blaming
Putin/Russians for the release of the DNC emails, the partisans are demanding what
amounts to McCarthy era witch hunts, and some strong immediate NATO action against
the Russians for the evil act. One supporter had a posting showing how the Russians
plan to invade the Baltics with graphics showing the invasion route -- good grief.
It is curious to see that those not buying the propaganda are drawing comparisons
to the witch hunts of the 1950s'. ..."
"... When I post or talk to partisan Dems I don't get accused of supporting
Trump but called a Putin lackey/stooge. ..."
"... Thanks for quote-will use it . You did something readers of anti-Russian/Putin
propaganda don't do. Actually listen to or read what Putin says. I am still puzzled
even though I shouldn't be when I read descriptions of Putin in the Western media,
and then read what he actually said or acted on: two people from two different planets.
I was listening to Stephen Cohen, and he said the same thing. Nobody bothers to
read what Putin says, forget his actions. ..."
M of A - Clinton Asserts Putin Influence On Trump - After Taking Russian
Bribes
Off topic but still within context of the West's "lets bash Russia/Putin
at every chance we get"..
Seems the BBC and their assorted groupies just got eggs all over their
collective faces after the IOC ruled that Russian athletes can compete in
the olympics. The British press are crying foul - dunno if they're afraid
of losing to Russian athlete or something.
This whole doping thing stunk from day one.. All the accusers pretends
they never dope before. But then, anything to humiliate Russia and Putin
will do. How many American athletes have been caught doping - yet nobody
called for a blanket ban on the American Olympic team. The hypocrisy is
just beyond stupid!!!
Watch this space, won't be long before we see a campaign to oust the
current OIC chief..lol
Clinton/Kaine certainly confident that the MSM will not report. For all
the money given to the Clinton's it didn't prevent the Ukraine disasters.
Of course, Ukraine may not have been a concern among the particular oligarchs
who made these bribes.
Putin is god--it is well-known scientific fact. He actually controls
the weather and even Earth's rotation speed. Russians always knew it, now,
with the advancement of information technologies (also controlled by Putin--ah
yes, he, not Al Gore, invented the internet) decadent West can witness his
powers and omnipresence. Remember Katrina? Putin! Remember the water main
break in NYT--also Putin. I had a constipation last week--damn Putin. Got
rid of constipation and back to normal BMs--Putin's hand was definitely
in it. If you look attentively at HRC for 20+ minutes you will see Putin's
image surfacing on her face.
In an interview Andrew Bacevich spoke about what he saw at various institutes,
academic, etc. conferences he attended as an academic which I believe has
effected his later known books. He noted among other things, that there
was an inability for empathic thinking. He did not mean sympathy, but rather
the act of trying to understand the actions of other people. I think the
phrase is to treat people as rational actors. As horrific as Hitler was,
historians dug into his motivations for example, for his invasion of the
Soviet Union.
So we get with Putin not a rational understanding of what he does and
why, but rather cartoon psychological and religious explanations which cannot
be argued against as they defy rationality. How can one argue against people
calling Putin evil as that person has not invoked a rational argument.
The propaganda demonization of Putin and the Russians is part of
the same playbook republicans and the neocons used to fertilize the field
of popular belief for the justification of war and invasion of Iraq to the
American people (but now followed by democrats). Every one of those articles
is a bit of propaganda manure which will eventually sprout the seeds of
conflict and war.
What I find alarming about all of this Putin bashing and Hillary using
it in her campaign is that I am seeing many of my acquaintances who identify
as liberal/progressive Democrats are becoming more and more anti-Russian.
By the time she becomes president there will be a majority of Democrats
clamoring for war against Russia. This is something to worry about. Recall
that liberal Democrat Truman got us involved in the Korean war and it was
liber LBJ that led us to war in Vietnam. I recall very clearly how the liberal
press in the US was advocating for and supporting war in Vietnam between
1964 and 1968. The liberalists of all liberal Democrats Hubert Humphrey
was leading that charge.
Democratic Party partisans are losing their common sense in this effort
to back Clinton. A year ago I could carry on rational discussion with those
I know about how unwise our Ukraine policy is -- today when I try to defend
Russia I am accused of backing Trump.
'But Russia is secretly plotting even more nefarious schemes. Putin
is infiltrating Europe. And not only Europe.' US regime would never infiltrate
europe...its already there!
@60 He really is versatile. No sooner had he finished rigging the Brexit
vote than he was off to France in a truck. Then he was spotted in Kabul.
This week he has been busy making trouble in Germany and he still finds
time to fake HRC's emails. The man must be stopped!
Yes, yes, it's all true; Vladimir Putin, master of the universe; the
Whirlwind; omnipotent; everywhere and nowhere all at the same time.
I'm so glad people are waking up to reality. :-)
Indeed. Democrats have become hysterical and unhinged in all things
regarding Clinton. I have been reading a few Democrat partisan sites. With
the DNC blaming Putin/Russians for the release of the DNC emails, the partisans
are demanding what amounts to McCarthy era witch hunts, and some strong
immediate NATO action against the Russians for the evil act. One supporter
had a posting showing how the Russians plan to invade the Baltics with graphics
showing the invasion route -- good grief. It is curious to see that those
not buying the propaganda are drawing comparisons to the witch hunts of
the 1950s'.
When I post or talk to partisan Dems I don't get accused of supporting
Trump but called a Putin lackey/stooge.
@ Relis 44
Thanks for quote-will use it . You did something readers of anti-Russian/Putin
propaganda don't do. Actually listen to or read what Putin says. I am still
puzzled even though I shouldn't be when I read descriptions of Putin in
the Western media, and then read what he actually said or acted on: two
people from two different planets. I was listening to Stephen Cohen, and
he said the same thing. Nobody bothers to read what Putin says, forget his
actions.
Putin should hire an agent and get a role on the TV series SHIELD as
the new head of HYDRA. And then attend comic-cons giving out autographs.
Fort-Russ has the video of '
Putin's full speech ' at St. Petersburg International Economic Forum
- 2016 with subtitles, I
transcribed the subtitles , if any one else is interested in reading
what he actually said on the subject of the US auto-missile defense in Romania
and Poland.
"... Oh, there was a whole series of screechy hysterical articles on what a dangerous loose cannon Trump is. They're preaching to the choir here, but they do not seem to realize that arguing against any sort of change in American policy is arguing for more sameness, which is plainly failing. Maybe the American government loves the Kiev government so much because the American government is so much like ..."
"The Republican nominee for president, Donald J. Trump, has chosen this week to unmask himself
as a de facto agent of Russian President Vladimir Putin, a KGB-trained dictator who seeks to
rebuild the Soviet empire by undermining the free nations of Europe, marginalizing NATO, and
ending America's reign as the world's sole superpower."
And Goldberg says that like it's
a bad thing – hee hee!
Oh, there was a whole series of screechy hysterical articles on what a dangerous loose cannon
Trump is. They're preaching to the choir here, but they do not seem to realize that arguing
against any sort of change in American policy is arguing for more sameness, which is plainly
failing. Maybe the American government loves the Kiev government so much because the American
government is so much
like
the Kiev government.
"... That's geopolitical consequence number one. Geopolitical consequence number two is that if we are serious about tackling Islamic terrorism, it means we have to stop using such groups to achieve geopolitical goals. Western elites condemn the ideology that has led to deaths throughout Europe but cheer on (and materially aid) groups with the self-same ideology bringing the self-same carnage to Syria as long as those groups aim to depose Assad. Most Western countries but especially the US and the UK, have long and dishonourable histories of using the most aggressive, most blood-thirsty, most socially regressive Islamic groups to achieve foreign policy objectives. ..."
"... This, I think, touches on something TPTB and the MSM are also reluctant to confront: the relationships between different ethnic groups as opposed to the relationships of those groups to – for want of a better expression – mainstream society. I see this all the time in London where there are often very significant tensions between the many immigrant communities who've settled here. Anyone who observes that these maybe don't bode well for the future, is dismissed as a xenophobe or racist. ..."
"... The debacle that is the Democratic Convention is hilarity on crack. My favorite part is where Hillary's campaign manager, a testosterone-free simulacrum by the name of Robbie Mooks, gravely warns us that 'experts' have told them the Russians hacked their emails and are releasing them to help Trump. Cue loud laughter! Let's just ignore their comrade in socialism, Bernie, and point to the billionaire capitalist … Of course, nobody knows who did it, so they might as well make it up. Also, if you're still using 'Robbie' after your 12th birthday, you aren't allowed to hunt with the big dogs, get back under the porch. ..."
"... Make no mistake. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Chair of the Democratic Party) is an appalling human being, period, full stop. But she did exactly what she was hired to do – get Hillary the nomination. ..."
"... She was fighting the inevitable so Obama made the phone call to 'thank her for her service' and Hillary gave her a nothing burger job title. ..."
"... The real story, the stench of corruption, isn't coming from there, thouth. It's coming from the emails that show the collusion between the media and the Dems. Also nothing we didn't know, but nobody in the media will lose their position. You know why? Because that crowd thinks it's a trophy to be in cahoots with these politicians. They think they're helping pull the levers of power, and influencing which levers get pulled. The Debbie Wasserman Schultzs of the world are a dime a dozen, but these people need to become intimately acquainted with lamp posts and strong hemp rope. ..."
Following three letters are of general as well as particular interest. The first is from our contributor
Reece Haynes:
Sir,
Time and again, the Daily Mail's Comment page laments the decline of the Labour Party because
"The Daily Mail has never been a Labour-supporting paper but we recognise the vital importance
of a strong opposition to hold the government to account" – or words to that effect. The above
is from Friday 22nd July's edition, but a similar message has been written there on several previous
occasions.
My bone of contention is: why don't they seem to consider the idea that UKIP could supplant
Labour as that "strong opposition"?
And what an opposition UKIP would be, instead of those misguided Labourites we have chatting
about such important issues like whether this or that organisation is 'diverse enough' to reflect
'multicultural Britain'.
On a more serious note, I believe the reason for this is that the Daily Mail have a vested
interest in keeping the Establishment in government and in opposition because that would keep
the status quo, thus allowing the paper to please its mainly anti-Establishment audience with
diatribes against our foul immigration policies and other political scandals.
Also of note is the fact that its owner, Lord Rothermere, is one of those infamous 'non-doms',
meaning non-domiciled individuals who don't pay UK tax on foreign incomes. This means keeping
the Tories in power with their generous taxation policies is to his advantage. But nevertheless,
seeing the same comments about the necessity of the Conservative/Labour duopoly is incessantly
frustrating.
Best regards,
Reece Haynes
The next letter, from a reader, raises points which we really ought to debate, and which we've
overlooked for too long:
Sir,
I think you're right to point out how TPTB are reluctant to acknowledge the very problematic
nature of certain interpretations of Islam. I'd attribute this, however, to slightly different
causes.
If we are serious about tackling the extremism that has resulted in these mass killings, then
we have to seriously tackle the underlying ideology – Wahabism and its offshoots – and that means
seriously tackling friend and ally, Saudi Arabia. It means recognising that Saudi is not a 'friend'
of the West, that its funding of the spread of extremist ideology underpins movements like Islamic
State. It means recognising that effective measures have to be taken against Saudi Arabia, and
that means accepting we're going to lose the Kingdom as the major customer of Western arms industries.
That's geopolitical consequence number one. Geopolitical consequence number two is that if
we are serious about tackling Islamic terrorism, it means we have to stop using such groups to
achieve geopolitical goals. Western elites condemn the ideology that has led to deaths throughout
Europe but cheer on (and materially aid) groups with the self-same ideology bringing the self-same
carnage to Syria as long as those groups aim to depose Assad. Most Western countries but especially
the US and the UK, have long and dishonourable histories of using the most aggressive, most blood-thirsty,
most socially regressive Islamic groups to achieve foreign policy objectives.
Geopolitical consequence number three is that if we are serious about tackling terrorism, we'd
need to stand with Russia. I've personally never felt more ashamed of the UK than when witnessing
the MSM response to atrocities like the Moscow theatre siege, Beslan and the recent downing of
the Russian airliner over Sinai. The West has rushed to give safe passage and shelter to those
who've carried out acts of terror in Russia – Amnesty International even campaigned on behalf
of the guy who later masterminded the Istanbul airport bombing to prevent his extradition to Russia
to answer terror charges.
What are the odds of anything changing?
One further point I intended to make: in relation to the specifics of the most recent attack
in Munich, it seems to me to resemble a US-style school shooting rather than what is understood
as a terror attack. The gunman was allegedly the victim of at least two assaults, claimed to have
been bullied for 7 years and seemed to have a particular beef with Turks.
This, I think, touches on something TPTB and the MSM are also reluctant to confront: the relationships
between different ethnic groups as opposed to the relationships of those groups to – for want
of a better expression – mainstream society. I see this all the time in London where there are
often very significant tensions between the many immigrant communities who've settled here. Anyone
who observes that these maybe don't bode well for the future, is dismissed as a xenophobe or racist.
Best regards,
Fern
And finally, a brief communication from our contributor in the USA, on the occasion of the Democratic
Party Convention which has now started:
Sir,
The debacle that is the Democratic Convention is hilarity on crack. My favorite part is where
Hillary's campaign manager, a testosterone-free simulacrum by the name of Robbie Mooks, gravely
warns us that 'experts' have told them the Russians hacked their emails and are releasing them
to help Trump. Cue loud laughter! Let's just ignore their comrade in socialism, Bernie, and point
to the billionaire capitalist … Of course, nobody knows who did it, so they might as well make
it up. Also, if you're still using 'Robbie' after your 12th birthday, you aren't allowed to hunt
with the big dogs, get back under the porch.
Make no mistake. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Chair of the Democratic Party) is an appalling human
being, period, full stop. But she did exactly what she was hired to do – get Hillary the nomination.
Everybody knew what was going on from the day boxes of uncounted ballots got shoved in the trunk
of a car and driven away by a Democratic operative during the Iowa caucuses. Debbie's problem
is that she got caught in such a way that implicated the entire process and everybody in it, so
she's the sacrificial goat. To be absolutely clear, one person gets to remove her. The President.
And he did. She was fighting the inevitable so Obama made the phone call to 'thank her for her
service' and Hillary gave her a nothing burger job title.
The real story, the stench of corruption, isn't coming from there, thouth. It's coming from the
emails that show the collusion between the media and the Dems. Also nothing we didn't know, but
nobody in the media will lose their position. You know why? Because that crowd thinks it's a trophy
to be in cahoots with these politicians. They think they're helping pull the levers of power,
and influencing which levers get pulled. The Debbie Wasserman Schultzs of the world are a dime
a dozen, but these people need to become intimately acquainted with lamp posts
and strong hemp rope.
Facebook has once again been accused of censoring news, this time having to do with the
Democratic National Committee email leak just hours before the party launches its convention in
Philadelphia.
WikiLeaks released the nearly 20,000 emails on Friday, revealing everything from DNC staffers
seemingly working against Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders to staffers using
phrases such as "
no homo
"
and "
taco bowl
engagement
."
"... Clinton and the Democrats have far more to worry about from Wikileaks than they do disaffected Sanders supporters. ..."
"... The game is rigged and the house always win. You should know that by now. ..."
"... the neoconservatives do not support or trust Trump or anyone who makes nice with Putin. Hillary is a dependable hawk. Victoria Nuland worked in her State Dept. The empire will continue with Hillary in the White House. ..."
"... The other reason she is vulnerable to Trump is because she is almost as loathed as he is but unlike Trump she doesn't generate the adulation to counter it. ..."
"... I think the election could be compared to the EU referendum because just like the EU it's very hard to feel much enthusiasm for Clinton, wheras just like the Brexit campaign, Trump generates strong support with a bunch of easy answers and cheap soundbites ..."
"... Even Bill Clinton chose someone other than Hillary ... shouldn't we? ..."
"... If Trump is elected. who knows what will happen, but we know what will happen if the Clintons are elected. I will vote for Trump and watch the events and hope that the DNC fragments and then watch as a revolution and a rebuilding of our political system begins. I do not anymore wars. With the Clintons, there will be a continuation and new wars, perhaps a conflict with Russia and mankind will vanish. ..."
"... Obama didn't equal huge positive change, so why do we think Trump can create huge negative change ??? ..."
"... There won't be a video, Goldman Sachs own her. And with either Clinton or Trump, we will still be living under the dictate of Wall Street. ..."
"... Once again this election is proof positive that you BUY elections. The masters of the DNC ordained that Clinton represent them and they were so insulated in their rich little world that they failed to recognize that she is unelectable; the republican turnout will be higher than it has ever been in history, so polarizing is she. People like me, poor people who crave change, will NOT vote for banks so, by default, Trump wins. ..."
If Bernie won the nomination, and Clinton gave him 'belated and tepid support', he would still
win the election by a large margin. Which is testament to Clinton's ineptitude as a politician
I had hoped Obama would deliver genuine economic change – but that didn't happen. Before
becoming a journalist, I even moved to Pennsylvania for a couple of months to volunteer for
Barack Obama's campaign. I was enamored by his intelligence and the beautiful ways he wrote
and spoke about race. But I was also thrilled (naively) that Obama seemed to get his money
from small donors, and that he might break Wall Street's stranglehold on the Democrats.
The game is rigged and the house always win. You should know that by now.
George won the vote in Florida because Cubans in Dade and Broward counties voted for him 4-1 over
Gore. Why do you think she went to Miami last week and her V.P. is fluent in Spanish?
Latinos and women will vote in the tens of millions for Hillary. Plus, the neoconservatives
do not support or trust Trump or anyone who makes nice with Putin. Hillary is a dependable hawk.
Victoria Nuland worked in her State Dept. The empire will continue with Hillary in the White House.
Sanders would never have lost to Trump.
Hillary is incredibly vulnerable to Trump.
The Media and the DNC's obsession with making sure that Hillary won may go down as one of the
greatest mistakes in American history.
Obviously she can win. But Sanders looks infinitely more capable of beating Trump in the states
where it's going to be dog fight. Whereas Hillary represents everything Trump has specialised
in opposing with such great success.
Sanders would have brushed Trump off like a fly and peeled off large parts of his blue collar
support. And Rep leaders would blush and giggle when discussing his integrity and honesty. But
instead we get Hillary and her baggage train. Lousy.
Whereas Hillary represents everything Trump has specialised in opposing with such great
success.
Very good point.
The other reason she is vulnerable to Trump is because she is almost as loathed as he is
but unlike Trump she doesn't generate the adulation to counter it.
I think the election could be compared to the EU referendum because just like the EU it's
very hard to feel much enthusiasm for Clinton, wheras just like the Brexit campaign, Trump generates
strong support with a bunch of easy answers and cheap soundbites.
If the Democrats are to bring about a different outcome they need to recognise just how bad
their candidate is and really concentrate on running an anti-Trump campaign. As I see it it's
the only they can win.
If Trump is elected. who knows what will happen, but we know what will happen if the Clintons
are elected. I will vote for Trump and watch the events and hope that the DNC fragments and then
watch as a revolution and a rebuilding of our political system begins. I do not anymore wars.
With the Clintons, there will be a continuation and new wars, perhaps a conflict with Russia and
mankind will vanish.
Poor whites in the U.S. are not voting for the "Left" because they have been dismissed, if not
vilified, by the cosmopolitan luvvies of the Democratic Party who are in thrall to every trendy
identity politics of the moment.
The elections are the X-Factor theatre for us lot every 4/5 years.
The shadow government (Wall Street/global corporations/war machine) always remains the same
throughout the decades, regardless of the rolling red/blue figurehead.
You can't get anywhere near the top job without being in the pocket of the kingmakers.
If only you could take the money out of politics. Maybe in a parallel universe we'll have grown
up sufficiently to understand that it's absolutely this that kills any hope of democracy.
Would a Trump presidency be a disaster? Yes. Would it cause all manner of economic, legal,
political and moral crises? Definitely. Yup. Would a good chunk of Trump voters – even angry
white Trump voters – grow to regret their votes? No doubt.
Would poor people and people of color – especially immigrants, those assumed to be immigrants
and Muslims – pay the highest price?
Why would it be a disaster ?
Would it cause all manner of economic, legal, political and moral crises?
Would poor people and people of color – especially immigrants, those assumed to be immigrants
and Muslims – pay the highest price?
I don't think you can categorically say it would be a disaster, any policy would still need
to be voted through, and congress isn't suddenly going to change based on the President.
You thought Obama was going to change everything for the better, but he couldn't due to the
restrictions of power on a president, so why do people think Trump is suddenly going to have unlimited
power.
Obama didn't equal huge positive change, so why do we think Trump can create huge negative
change ???
Bernie actually brought in the young crowd who frankly sees Clinton as an establishment dragging
the sack candidate and would have never voted for her. Ron Paul did the same for Republicans.
He did actually start a conversation about what it means to be a socialist and have all the
great ideas and no way to pay for them, except raise taxes.
Neither Bernie or Hillary have a response to get people employed. Their answer is to send people
to school till they actually want to drop out of the perpetual education carousel and try and
get a job.
I wouldn't consider the same old steal (tax) the working stiffs money from them under a different
acronym (slush fund) a viable plan.
At last some rational commentary coming from the Guardian. The democratic party nominated Hillary
Clinton last night and elected Donald Trump.. Blame Clinton, Wasserman and the rest of the crooked
DNC cabal for what may well be the disintegration for the Democratic Party...
If Hillary Clinton hadn't been married to Bill Clinton she would have come nowhere, she wouldn't
have been a senator, the same principal as the Bush legacy, where would GWBush have got in the
selection process if his father hadn't have been pulling strings. The US needs a president on
merit, not who they are related to or married to. It is like a monarchy, just what the American
revolution was carried out to escape from.
There really is only one party at the Federal level and that is the $ party. The rest is just
a carnival con game with the banners and shouting. The truth is that all of us but the very rich,
have been abandoned by what is supposed to be representative govt. Sanders supporters have learned
a hard lesson, that you can't reform this level of corruption from inside the system.
Another interesting aspect will be the Wall Street speeches that no one has mentioned for a while.
Clinton still refuses to disclose anything about those but now, she's up against the very people
to whom those speeches were delivered. They not only have transcripts, they doubtless have VIDEO and that video will probably surface at the least-convenient time for Clinton.
> the Democrats seem bent on putting up people and policies that
> will redistribute money to Wall Street and ignore the 99% when their
> base been screaming at them to stop this.
> Americans might not regret casting a vote for Trump until it's too late.
>
One of the policies that Trump advocates is less of a seeming oneness with Wall Street. If Obama
couldn't divorce himself of that sort of thing, why do you think that Hillary Big Banks Pay Me
Big Bucks For Speeches Clinton would?
Once again this election is proof positive that you BUY elections. The masters of the DNC
ordained that Clinton represent them and they were so insulated in their rich little world that
they failed to recognize that she is unelectable; the republican turnout will be higher than it
has ever been in history, so polarizing is she. People like me, poor people who crave change,
will NOT vote for banks so, by default, Trump wins.
The 4 Most Damaging Emails From the DNC WikiLeaks Dump"
Well, NO --- those might be the most damaging emails concerning Sanders,
but they are HARDLY the most damaging emails, considering all the emails
confirming corruption of the media, faking sex-ads concerning Trump, engaging
in what Bernie supporters called "money laundering," a clear plan to reward
large donors with high-level positions in government, and MANY more very
important issues.
Google the article titled, "HERE IT IS=> Detailed List of Findings in
Wikileaks DNC Document Dump," at the Gateway Pundit.
There you will find
an impressive list of misconduct culled by both Bernie supporters and Trump
supporters from the released DNC documents.
You must understand, ABC is part of the DNC propaganda wing, they and all
the other MSM are going to try and reshape this mess to reduce the amount
of damage.
Yeah --- that's why I've been trying to make a point of posting factual
information that the MSM won't report on, instead of doing what most others
are doing, which is just use forums like this to rave on about what a crook
Hillary is --- you know the kind of thing --- posting feel-good opinions
when they SHOULD be posting FACTS that substantiate those opinions.
"... As life exceeds satire, one can imagine that within a week Wikileaks will
produce those "missing e-mails". And later Hillary's Wall Street speeches, following
the next appeal from Trump. ..."
"... PB @ 4, confirming some earlier analysis that trump is playing the media
for suckers over HRC's hysteria. "Trump calls on Kremlin to commit acts of espionage
against Hillary Clinton." omg. ..."
"... they cannot afford to have the truth about ISIS revealed. They need the
next president to continue their lies. It is terrifying. ..."
"... Even if Russia did the hack and leaked that information (no evidence) --
so what? We have done and do the same all the time in other countries. Just doesn't
feel as good when you are at the receiving end. ..."
"... It's like 9/11. What do you desperately want to believe? What are you desperately
afraid to admit? ..."
"... No amount of 'debunking' of the DNC's assertions will affect the beliefs
of those who want to believe, who are afraid to admit that they are going to vote
for the corporate whore who mocks them with her pathetic ruses. The corporate media
have suffered irreparable damage to their credibility over the past decade, at least.
..."
"... What is scary about this campaign is that the anti-Russian hysteria is
being incorporated by Hillary supporters. By the time she is elected there will
be many millions of Democrats crying for war against Russia. The last time a Democrat
ran to the right of the Republican in a presidential election was the Kennedy-Nixon
race. That resulted in Kennedy entering office and believing his own bs. He then
very quickly carried out the Bay of Pigs fiasco but much worse the near start of
WWIII during the Cuban missile crisis. ..."
"... Hillary is definitely stupid enough to listen to her neocon advisers and,
fueled with self righteous Russian hatred, get us involved in some shooting war
with them in Syria, Ukraine or the Baltic region. Very dangerous times ahead I fear.
This why I am moving closer and closer to voting for Trump rather than a third party.
..."
"... Great observation. Cuts to the chase, to bedrock reality. We are the Evil
Empire that Ronald Reagan ranted about. Have been since the Dulles Boys' coup. ..."
"... Trump is beginning to look like the lessor of two evils. And we Americans
are proven suckers for that line of 'reasoning'. The champion poll forecaster now
'shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton with a shocking 15 percentage point-greater
chance of winning if the general election were held today.'. ..."
Usually, the only thing that stops mass- and self-delusion (and the attending
propaganda) on this scale is the massive intervention of reality. I worry
that many casualties will ensue.
Trump apparently said in his press conference that the US should
cooperate to with Russia to destroy ISIS. The panic created in DC by this
man must be incredible.
ELECTION 2016
Trump Calls for Russia's Help to Expose Emails Clinton Deleted
By ASHLEY PARKER 11:44 AM ET (NYT)
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails
that are missing," Donald J. Trump said, referring to messages deemed personal
by Hillary Clinton and deleted from her private email server.
===
As life exceeds satire, one can imagine that within a week Wikileaks
will produce those "missing e-mails". And later Hillary's Wall Street speeches,
following the next appeal from Trump.
PB @ 4, confirming some earlier analysis that trump is playing the media
for suckers over HRC's hysteria. "Trump calls on Kremlin to commit acts
of espionage against Hillary Clinton." omg.
There is just not enough of Orville Redenbacher's popcorn to last to the
end of this crazy 2016 . I think if Putin came out personally and said that
he did it the world would cheer . yet for some reason Russia needs to be
vilified ...Thanks for the work you do b ...
What cracks me up about the idea that the Russians were behind the DNC hack
is that Putin has little to fear from the accusation. It would probably
help him politically at home and seriously, what are we going to do about
it? Go to war? More sanctions? Denounce Russia in the UN? He's probably
having a good laugh over the whole thing.
Here are a couple of links to techie stories about the issue. They each
have links and educational comments. How deep down the rabbit hole do you
want to go?
Assange Timed WikiLeaks Release of Democratic Emails to Harm Hillary
Clinton
The New York Times
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
5 hrs ago
WASHINGTON - Six weeks before the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks
published an archive of hacked Democratic National Committee emails ahead
of the Democratic convention, the organization's founder, Julian Assange,
foreshadowed the release - and made it clear that he hoped to harm Hillary
Clinton's chances of winning the presidency.
Mr. Assange's remarks in a June 12 interview underscored that for all
the drama of the...
Essentially: "Even if Russia did the hack and leaked that information
(no evidence) -- so what? We have done and do the same all the time in other
countries. Just doesn't feel as good when you are at the receiving end."
Thanks, b - a very acute analysis. It reminds me of the warning of false
narrative the "Merlin" sponsors were peddling which Control warned George
Smiley about in Le Carre's "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy":
"They're buying their way in with false money, George."
It's like 9/11. What do you desperately want to believe? What are you
desperately afraid to admit?
Trump made light of the charges with 'hope the Russians find the 30,000
missing emails' crack, but his vp immediately made a show of taking the
claim seriously ... he looks to be the mole set up by the RNC to take down
Trump.
No amount of 'debunking' of the DNC's assertions will affect the
beliefs of those who want to believe, who are afraid to admit that they
are going to vote for the corporate whore who mocks them with her pathetic
ruses. The corporate media have suffered irreparable damage to their credibility
over the past decade, at least.
The D-N-Cee,
the men-a-ger-ie,
they're not for you,
and they're not for me!
They're runnin' in circles,
around the tree.
When they turn to butter, let's make pancakes. I'm so hungry I could
eat one hundred and sixty-nine! Breakfast for us indigenes.
What is scary about this campaign is that the anti-Russian hysteria
is being incorporated by Hillary supporters. By the time she is elected
there will be many millions of Democrats crying for war against Russia.
The last time a Democrat ran to the right of the Republican in a presidential
election was the Kennedy-Nixon race. That resulted in Kennedy entering office
and believing his own bs. He then very quickly carried out the Bay of Pigs
fiasco but much worse the near start of WWIII during the Cuban missile crisis.
Hillary is definitely stupid enough to listen to her neocon advisers
and, fueled with self righteous Russian hatred, get us involved in some
shooting war with them in Syria, Ukraine or the Baltic region. Very dangerous
times ahead I fear. This why I am moving closer and closer to voting for
Trump rather than a third party.
Credit to Julian Assange for having guts. If Clinton should win it's foreseeable
that a major effort to regime-change Ecuador will ensue so they can get
him booted from the London embassy straight into a CIA jet.
Putin knows the zionists hate him, and Trump. I don't believe he would release
this stuff. just because of the anti Russian BS the MSD would stir, which
wo proof, they are anyway.
I read it was Guccifer?somewhere,a Russian? blogger.
This will all backfire,as the American people have been had too many
times by the serial liars.
What if this came from GB,say?What would be the reaction then?
And why is Russia,who has never done a thing to US,in history,an enemy,when
the Zionists spy,bribe and control our whole nation,nakedly,shamelessly,but
there is the ol'crickets only, chirping in the weeds?
Yahoo to Putin; Hey, you are cutting in on our action.
WaPo comment sections are full of people who seem to be true believers in
the ideology of the new Cold War. Or maybe they only say that because they're
being paid to do so. Hard to believe so many people could be so stupid.
I was thinking the other day that Putin should send a squad of angry babushkas
after the sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits running the DNC. Evidently
this is already in the works.
#UKRAINE-UA police released warning that the "#HolyCross Procession
includes violent grandmas who provoke Ukrainian youth to beat them up."
Great observation. Cuts to the chase, to bedrock reality. We are
the Evil Empire that Ronald Reagan ranted about. Have been since the Dulles
Boys' coup.
Still I agree with yours and with Toivo S' point just above. Trump
is beginning to look like the lessor of two evils. And we Americans are
proven suckers for that line of 'reasoning'. The
champion poll forecaster now 'shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton
with a shocking 15 percentage point-greater chance of winning if the general
election were held today.'.
Before the Dulles Boy's coup there was the changing of the motto in the
1950's from E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one) to In Gawd We Trust.
Before that in 1913 the Fed was created with the 12 regional banks owned
privately.
Has the City of London and that empire ever died?
Has the City of Rome corner of the global financial system ever been
made clear?
The basic tenets of the Western way are private ownership of property
enhanced by rampant inheritance at the top and private finance owned and
operated by historical families and others unknown. It is sad to me when
commenter here and other places rail on about bankers and corporations and
not the global cabal that own them all.
Why can't humanity evolve beyond private finance to totally sovereign
finance and, at a minimum, neuter inheritance laws globally so that none
can accumulate enough to control social policy? Private finance is a cancer
humanity can no loner afford.
(Washington, DC 7/25) As I was idly wondering what Vladimir Putin would say about the DNC
email scandals, I received a call from Vladimir Putin himself. He said he wanted to talk about
the Wikileaks release of DNC emails. When I asked why he picked me to contact, he said "I
probably strarted at the wrong end of the list" and laughed heartily.
MC:
President Putin, did the Russian government hack the DNC email server and then
publically release those emails through Wikileaks the day before the Democratic convention?
Putin:
Yes.
MC:
Yes! Are you serious?
Putin:
I'm quite serious.
MC:
How can you justify this open meddling in United States politics?
Putin:
Your question should be what took Russia so long. The US oligarchs and their minions
surround us with military bases and nuclear missiles, damage our trade to Europe, and seek to
destabilize our domestic politics. These emails are nothing in the big picture. But they're
sort of funny, don't you agree?
MC:
I'm not sure that funny is the right word. What do you mean by that?
Putin:
You've got Hillary Clinton running as a strong and independent woman. Of course,
nobody would know who she is had she not married Bill Clinton. She's not independent. Quite
the contrary. She had to marry a philandering redneck to get to where she is. When it comes to
strength, I can say only this. How strong can you be if you have to cheat and create a rigged
game to win the nomination?
MC:
Anything else about your leak to cheer us up?
Putin:
This situation is the epitome of ironic humor. After the emails were released, the
focus was all on DNC Chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. That's fine for now but
what happens when people start asking why Wasserman-Schultz had the DNC screw Sanders and
boost Hillary? Did she just wake up one day and decide this on her own?. Not likely. She was
and remains Hillary's agent. It will take people a while to arrive that answer. When enough
people hear about Wasserman-Schultz's key role in the Clinton campaign, everything will be
clear. It's adios Hillary. That inevitable conclusion, by the way, is the reason the DNC
made such a big deal about Russia hacking the DNC. That was diversion one right out of the
gate.
MC:
Is Russia an equal opportunity hacker? What about the Trump campaign?
Putin: Why not? I hear there are some very rather graphic home movies and videos of Mr.
Trump with some interesting playmates. But that can wait. Enjoy Hillary's hypocrisy to the
fullest. When it comes to either candidate, my only advice is
let the buyer beware
.
That was it for my time with the man. I'd like to think it was Putin. Even if it wasn't,
this is what I suspect Putin would say.
In a
New York Times article earlier this month detailing Saudi Arabia's hyper-controlling
Islamic theocracy, journalist Ben Hubbard profiled Ahmed Qassim al-Ghamdi - a former "morals
enforcer" for the national government.
For the majority of his adult life, Ghamdi was a devoted employee of Saudi Arabia's Commission
for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, often referred to abroad as the
"religious police."
In this December 2012 photo, some 200 Muslim clerics visit Saudi Labor Ministry demanding a ban
on women's employment in lingerie shops. (Photo credit: aleqt.com via Al Arabiya)
In this December 2012 photo, some 200 Muslim clerics visit Saudi Labor Ministry demanding a ban
on women's employment in lingerie shops. (Photo credit: aleqt.com via Al Arabiya)
As Hubbard describes it, the objective of the government organization is to shield the "Islamic
kingdom from Westernization, secularism and anything but the most conservative Islamic
practices." That could include normal law enforcement operations like cracking down on illegal
drug dealers and bootleggers, but he said the bulk of what "the Commission" does involves
enforcing the "puritanical public norms that set Saudi Arabia apart not only from the West, but
from most of the Muslim world."
After years of working for the Commission, Ghamdi was tasked with monitoring the Islamic holy
city of Mecca. It was there that the moral enforcer began to question the rules and restrictions
of the Saudi government.
He turned to the Koran and the Hadith, Muslim holy texts, in search of answers, and made a
shocking discovery: Many first generation Muslims, including the founding prophet Muhammad, did
not observe many of the restrictions Ghamdi had been enforcing for years. For example, there had
been plenty of ikhtilat, or "unauthorized mixing" of men and women, something Saudi clerics have
long taught leads to fornication, adultery and "full-blown societal collapse."
He was compelled to speak out in favor of what he found to be "true Islam," something vastly more
liberal than Wahhabism, the ultra-strict brand of Islam founded in the 18th century and
maintained by most modern Saudi Muslims.
Ghamdi wrote articles and appeared on television to discuss his findings and noted the difference
between Islam as a religion and the Arabian cultural practices that many Saudis have mistaken for
faith.
From the Times:
There was no need to close shops for prayer, he said, nor to bar women from driving, as Saudi
Arabia does. At the time of the Prophet, women rode around on camels, which he said was far more
provocative than veiled women piloting S.U.V.s.
He even said that while women should conceal their bodies, they needed to cover their faces only
if they chose to do so. And to demonstrate the depth of his own conviction, Mr. Ghamdi went on
television with his wife, Jawahir, who smiled to the camera, her face bare and adorned with a
dusting of makeup.
Hubbard compared Ghamdi's outspokenness to "a bomb inside the kingdom's religious establishment,"
threatening the social structure that secured the virtually unlimited moral authority of the
sheikhs, or Islamic religious scholars.
"He threatened their control," Hubbard wrote.
Muslim worshippers gather at the Prophet Mohammed mosque for morning Eid al-Fitr prayers on July
6, 2016 marking the end of the holy month of Ramadan. (Stringer/AFP/Getty Images)
Muslim worshippers gather at the Prophet Mohammed mosque for morning Eid al-Fitr prayers on July
6, 2016 marking the end of the holy month of Ramadan. (Stringer/AFP/Getty Images)
As a result of his efforts, Ghamdi was shunned by his colleagues. He received angry phone calls
and anonymous death threats on Twitter. High-profile sheikhs denounced him in the media as "an
ignorant upstart who should be punished, tried - and even tortured."
"Many attacked his religious credentials, saying he was not really a sheikh - a dubious
accusation since there is no standard qualification to be one," Hubbard continued.
"There is no doubt that this man is bad," Sheikh Saleh al-Luheidan, a member of the top clerical
body reportedly said of Ghamdi. "It is necessary for the state to assign someone to summon and
torture him."
"The first irony of Mr. Ghamdi's situation is that many Saudis, including members of the royal
family and even important clerics, agree with him, although mostly in private," Hubbard noted.
"And public mixing of the sexes in some places - hospitals, conferences and in Mecca during the
pilgrimage - is common. In some Saudi cities it is not uncommon to see women's faces, or even
their hair."
But the firmly implanted religious establishment is not ready to loosen its grip. So for now,
someone like Ghamdi is forced out of the picture.
"These days, he keeps a low profile because he still gets insults when he appears in public,"
Hubbard wrote of Ghamdi. "He has no job, but publishes regular newspaper columns, mostly abroad."
"... A vote for Mrs Clinton will mean a repeat of what we've experienced during these past twenty-four years, and that is not acceptable. ..."
"... Bern lost the nomination last October when he declined to make Hillary's emails, wall street capitulations and warmongering an issue and DID NOT FIGHT TO WIN! ..."
"... yes, I will vote Trump to keep the Clintons from a 3rd and 4th term. ..."
"... The mass media is just as responsible as the DNC for tilting the scale toward Clinton. Did you you hear the fawning by the CNN presenters? Remember how they dissed O'Malley and Lincoln Chaffee. Bernie was intended to be like the "other team" and Clinton the Harlem Globe Trotters, only Bernie kept untying her shoes and shooting baskets. ..."
"... Only a very few Bernie supporters I know, and I know and have informally polled HUNDREDS, is going to vote for Hillary, especially after these latest revelations (which only scratch the surface), and the DNC's "apology", which apologized for language, but not for proven bias and rigging. ..."
"... Hillary is a lying, corrupt neocon. ..."
"... The dem party in America is now fully in the hands of the globalists. At least the repubs had the integrity to not cheat THEIR insurgent candidate. ..."
"... If not for an independent socialist by the name of Bernie Sanders who's upstart campaign is subject to derision and sabotage at a mainstream media and the DNC itself, there would be not a primary, but a coronation (which is in effect what we've been given). ..."
"... Please friends, join me in NOT supporting this sham of an election process and the anointment of Queen Hillary. The stakes for our democracy are just too high to let them get away with it - much worse than 4 years of just about anyone ..."
"... I agree with Trump on few things but he was right when he said the election was rigged. ..."
"... The news blogs have Hillary supporters trashing Bernie and referring to him as undemocratic and just a carpet bagger. During the primaries Hillary stumpers were offering misinformation or false information on Bernie and continue to trash him now. The assumption that Bernie supporters are FOR SALE or Hillary's by a nod from Sanders is not a given. ..."
"... The fact that Hillary's base is still bashing Bernie hardliners is a sign of how little respect they have for his huge voting block. Independents were nervous before the infighting. ..."
"... Trump is a one-term feather-brain and will end up, if president, as somebody's tool. And who or what would use that tool? Fossil fuel companies and other corporations. The same as Hillary, whose foundation receives donations from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Chevron, and many more oil producing corps and States. The difference is between the devil we know and the devil we don't. Hillary- the devil we know ..."
"... She loves wars: ask people in Libya, Iraq and other oil States. She loves Saudi money. Of course she'll go for the TPP no matter what she says. ..."
"... Trump's going to win. Clinton's staggeringly self-destructive combination of corruption and stupidity guarantees it; by making Debbie Wassermann Schultz her campaign manager, Hillary's saying "Fuck you" to millions of people whose votes she desperately needs, not to mention telling everyone "Yes, it's true. My loyalty to Debbie, whose dishonesty and corruption has just become a matter of public record, shows exactly why people don't like me and don't trust me." There's only one way the Democrats can win: drop Hillary for vote-rigging, and put up a /bernie_sanders.Warren ticket. It's the only thing between us and Trumpocalypse. ..."
"... Trade deals were supposed to improve and lift wages and job conditions. As it turns out the only trading being done is lowering wages and and less decent jobs. Government buy-up and controlling interest in some major companies is needed to bring the system back to public influence. ..."
A vote for Mrs Clinton will mean a repeat of what we've experienced during these past
twenty-four years, and that is not acceptable. A Senator Sander's vote would be the
opposite, but the Democratic Party doesn't want that, even though a majority of
Democrats does. I won't stand for that, and will vote Green Party with Dr. Stein.
Bern lost the nomination last October when he declined to make Hillary's emails, wall street capitulations
and warmongering an issue and DID NOT FIGHT TO WIN!
I remember being so frustrated during the debates, knowing that he could have torn her a new
one.... LIKE TRUMP WILL when he debuts her.
I just came out of the closet.
My first was Bernie, my second and third choice won't even be allowed on the debate stage, but
I have an open mind if the polls indicate a chance slightly better than a snowballs. . . Sans
that, yes, I will vote Trump to keep the Clintons from a 3rd and 4th term.
Great debate on why to/not vote for Hillary but Jill Stein. After watching that, if I had my ballot,
I'd would have mailed it in for Jill Stein. Another debate on the site with Chris Hedges and Robert
Reich.
The mass media is just as responsible as the DNC for tilting the scale toward Clinton. Did
you you hear the fawning by the CNN presenters? Remember how they dissed O'Malley and Lincoln
Chaffee. Bernie was intended to be like the "other team" and Clinton the Harlem Globe Trotters,
only Bernie kept untying her shoes and shooting baskets.
More promises and bargains at least. And i think that it should be published and re-iterated
that the media declared Hillary the winner, before voting had even happened, California exit polls
and research by Stanford students - say that Bernie won California.
Myself and a friend separately
experienced questionable stuff at the voting booth polls, etc. and Democratic big-wig, now fallen;
Wassermann cannot be ignored.
I understood that Bernie was going to raise the California debacle
at this Convention [ perhaps he had ]. There is a way he could not say that Hillary would be "
an outstanding President" and just say vote for her to defeat Trump and be honest about our situation.
Up until know he has been consistently brave, clear, etc. And the Green Party alternative stuff
is good and Bernie could say " i would join the Greens but i am too worried about Trump".
As an example of brave, please goggle Ted Cruz,in which he also demonstrated courage for his convictions
in his NON-endorsement of Trump, unlike Bernie, who accepted corruption as part of the democratic
ticket, very sad.
Don't get me wrong, I do not agree with Cruz on anything at all, but I do recognize courage
when I see it. Apparently, that attribute is absent among democrats.
Only a very few Bernie supporters I know, and I know and have informally polled HUNDREDS, is going
to vote for Hillary, especially after these latest revelations (which only scratch the surface),
and the DNC's "apology", which apologized for language, but not for proven bias and rigging.
We're
all either voting for Stein or, holding our noses, Trump. It's time to crash this plane with no
survivors.
Hillary is a lying, corrupt neocon. Politics as usual are over, and it's amazing to
me that the crazy cat-lady boomer dems will fall in line for smugly authoritarian DNC corruption
that makes Trump look like an amateur (and he is, compared to sHillary), whereas, if the obvious
lies of the Hillary camp were coming from repubs, the banshee howls would be heard from Marin
County to Martha's Vineyard. DEMS- YA DUN GOOFED. You'll never get us back. You can't spit in
our faces, call us crazy for accusing you of what it has now been proven you did, and then spit
in our faces again with your bogus apology.
The dem party in America is now fully in the hands
of the globalists. At least the repubs had the integrity to not cheat THEIR insurgent candidate.
I never thought I'd live to see this travesty. (BTW, I was born in 66 and a lifelong Dem). NEVER
AGAIN.
Just imagine if those "super-delegates" weren't decided until the convention where this election
would be now. Thanks Debbie Bark Bark Wassermen-Shultz not only do we have a manipulated nominee
but one which may loose.
Let me see if I understand this: The democratic party in the year 2016 puts forward a SINGLE candidate
for it's primary. Out of a population of 330 million, this party could come up with only a SINGLE
candidate, ignoring entirely that we live in a Democracy, and giving the voter but a single choice
in the election, effectively shutting out any other option or any hope of a substantive dialogue
on the issues. If not for an independent socialist by the name of Bernie Sanders who's upstart
campaign is subject to derision and sabotage at a mainstream media and the DNC itself, there
would be not a primary, but a coronation (which is in effect what we've been given).
Now, I'm told, ignoring the fact that this candidate, an individual with dubious ethics and
questionable competence that I MUST vote for this person, and that if I decide that I won't be
play along in the most undemocratic primary possibly in the history of the United States, and
I decide to vote my conscience either by voting a 3rd party or abstaining, that it will be MY
FAULT when things go badly, as I'm promised they will if they other guy wins. I am in effect being
told by the establishment that I'm beholden to their single-choice candidate, a person who in
my view stinks to high heavens of corruption and incompetence, or else.
IS THAT what I'm being told ? Because that sounds like the kind of sham elections they have
in the 3rd world and far, far beneath the standard of electoral decision making we should have
in this country. Now, I think that's what I'm hearing, and I'm telling you that I don't play that
sh*t. I'm not selling my conscience to play along with this sham - especially not to elect this
LOUSY candidate. And, frankly, it's a disgrace that anyone would imply that I should - worse even
- that people are so complicit in the utter destruction of their own political system and don't
see how utterly foul the stink of corruption is.
Please friends, join me in NOT supporting this sham of an election process and the anointment
of Queen Hillary. The stakes for our democracy are just too high to let them get away with it
- much worse than 4 years of just about anyone
The news blogs have Hillary supporters trashing Bernie and referring to him as undemocratic and
just a carpet bagger. During the primaries Hillary stumpers were offering misinformation or false
information on Bernie and continue to trash him now. The assumption that Bernie supporters are
FOR SALE or Hillary's by a nod from Sanders is not a given.
Supporting Bernie, then voting the
party ticket because Bernie has caved in to a rigged system, won't guarantee his base. The
fact that Hillary's base is still bashing Bernie hardliners is a sign of how little respect they
have for his huge voting block. Independents were nervous before the infighting.
Trump is a one-term feather-brain and will end up, if president, as somebody's tool. And who or
what would use that tool? Fossil fuel companies and other corporations. The same as Hillary, whose
foundation receives donations from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Chevron, and many more oil producing
corps and States. The difference is between the devil we know and the devil we don't. Hillary-
the devil we know because we can read her record and see what she's done, loves fracking in the
US and has exported it to the rest of the world. She loves wars: ask people in Libya, Iraq and
other oil States. She loves Saudi money. Of course she'll go for the TPP no matter what she says.
Donald is the devil we don't know, his one virtue is that he'll probably one-term unless he becomes
a very effective corporate tool indeed. Then he'll be just another fossil fuel puppet like Clinton.
There is really only one over-riding issue: and that is climate change. If we can't manage to
survive as a species then all other problems are moot. Scientists are in despair because political
wrangling and greed are dooming all life on earth to extinction- and it's happening very quickly.
So- what that means is that we have two candidates and neither will do squat to keep fossil fuels
in the ground. Hillary will probably pretend to do something about it which will of course fall
pathetically short of what we'll need to have any chance of survival. And, of course, she'll have
two terms- she knows the ropes and will pay off her corporate donors well.
So which one of these two candidates, both of whom will doom my children and grandchildren to
death, and yours too, should I vote for?
Trump's going to win. Clinton's staggeringly self-destructive combination of corruption and stupidity
guarantees it; by making Debbie Wassermann Schultz her campaign manager, Hillary's saying "Fuck
you" to millions of people whose votes she desperately needs, not to mention telling everyone
"Yes, it's true. My loyalty to Debbie, whose dishonesty and corruption has just become a matter
of public record, shows exactly why people don't like me and don't trust me." There's only one
way the Democrats can win: drop Hillary for vote-rigging, and put up a /bernie_sanders.Warren ticket.
It's the only thing between us and Trumpocalypse.
Trade deals were supposed to improve and lift wages and job conditions. As it turns out the only
trading being done is lowering wages and and less decent jobs.
Government buy-up and controlling interest in some major companies is needed to bring the system
back to public influence.
"... We all know Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) was the co-chair of Hillary's 2008 presidential run, where she lost the nomination to Obama. So, in order to lock down the nomination for 2016, Hillary was able to get DWS in charge of the DNC and manipulate it from within ..."
We all know Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) was the co-chair of Hillary's 2008 presidential
run, where she lost the nomination to Obama. So, in order to lock down the nomination for 2016,
Hillary was able to get DWS in charge of the DNC and manipulate it from within. That's the
theory anyway, except....
In order for this to work, they would first have to, not only get the DNC chair to step down,
but also get them to recommend DWS for the position. The Clinton's would have to promise something
to that person, something more prestigious than being head of the Democratic party. So who was
that person and what did they get in return?
It would appear that Donna Brazile was in-line
to get the position, but she was only the interim chair after the previous chair left, served
only one month. According to this, http://rulers.org/usgovt.html#parties
, the previous chair of the DNC prior to DWS was Tim Kaine.
"... The selection has already been made. Trump isn't supporting Labor, his 'Make America Work Again' schtick was immediately removed. ..."
"... The dissassociation is everyone is conditioned to Old School Party Politics Kennedy versus Nixon. That was fifty years ago! We're in a GOOG-FB hyper-focus-group mind-manipulation fractal world! Everything you see, that seems to be real, is illusory repetitive mirrors off one core equation: ..."
The whole selection is a carefully-staged WWE Smackdown publicity event, not an election at
all.
The selection has already been made. Trump isn't supporting Labor, his 'Make America Work Again'
schtick was immediately removed. The Takers grow queasy at the word 'work'. They have plenty of
people in SEAsia who work for them. Right now, I can get India(n) engineers for $12 an hour that
I can list as $125 an hour, and bill out after O&P at $275 an hour. India(n) engineers with Burj
Dubai experience on ultra high rise! The Takers have no intent of restoring the American Dream.
Trump isn't supporting any roll-back of NATO or reduction in P2A-R2P-PNAC. His main plank is
to Make America Secure Again. Make America Strong. Kick Some Muzzie Ass. Let's Roll. And the reason
he's pledging that, is the same reason Sanders carved out the Left, ...so that Hillary can EXPAND
her Centrist-Right capture even further to the Right. Trump is placing a pick for her 3-pointer!
Bernie took the Left, so Hillary didn't have to appear weak to her base group. And Trump will
move further Right to give her more room to pick up delegates. Then BB-D and Milo-the-Gay will
explode the Rabbinicals / Evangelists with repeated cognitive-dissonant LGBTF references. Watch.
"Milo-The-Gay calls for 'refugee' status for world's Islamic gays." Ka-boom! the John Birchers!
The dissassociation is everyone is conditioned to Old School Party Politics Kennedy versus
Nixon. That was fifty years ago! We're in a GOOG-FB hyper-focus-group mind-manipulation fractal
world! Everything you see, that seems to be real, is illusory repetitive mirrors off one core
equation:
Zn = (Zn-1)^2 + C, where (Zn-1)^2 are Trump-Clinton Janus faces of the same ZioQEnBankim, +
C, and where C is The Chosen's massive Corruption of the US political, judicial and financial
process, begun under Bush-Cheney and capped with Citizens United and Clinton Cash 501(c)3 Grand
Larceny.
"... by making Debbie Wassermann Schultz her campaign manager, Hillary's saying "Fuck you" to millions of people whose votes she desperately needs ..."
"... DWS was Hillary Boo Clinton's campaign manager last time around. DWS then ran the crooked DNC and lied to America 24x7 about its lack of neutrality. ..."
"... And as a reward for her bias Hillary Boo Clinton just rehired DWS as honorary campaign chair. ..."
Trump's going to win. Clinton's staggeringly self-destructive combination of corruption
and stupidity guarantees it; by making Debbie Wassermann Schultz her campaign manager, Hillary's saying
"Fuck you" to millions of people whose votes she desperately needs, not to mention telling everyone
"Yes, it's true. My loyalty to Debbie, whose dishonesty and corruption has just become a matter of public
record, shows exactly why people don't like me and don't trust me."
There's only one way the Democrats
can win: drop Hillary for vote-rigging, and put up a /bernie_sanders.Warren ticket. It's the only thing between
us and Trumpocalypse.
Mike5000 -> HurtTurtle
Please do some research before *you* vent.
DWS was Hillary Boo Clinton's campaign manager last time around. DWS then ran the
crooked DNC and lied to America 24x7 about its lack of neutrality.
And as a reward for her bias Hillary Boo Clinton just rehired DWS as honorary campaign
chair.
Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver spoke to The Hill,
telling Sanders supporters to stop repeating the chant and channel their energy more productively.
"I would encourage them to continue the political revolution by advancing the cause of progressive
change," he said.
The convention has had a chaotic starting day thus far, as Sanders' supporters
have consistently voiced their outrage over accusations of corruption involving the Clinton campaign
and the Democratic party.
The chant was first heard the night before during a speech by Retired Lt.
General Mike Flynn said: "We do not need a reckless president who believes she
is above the law."
"Lock her up, that's right," Flynn said. "Lock her up."
"... These "indictments" don't carry the force of law, of course, but they do carry a worrying rhetorical weight. Around the world, it's not uncommon for rulers who have just come to power to prosecute, imprison, and even execute their rivals or predecessors; historically, it's probably the norm. ..."
"... Would a President Trump be inclined to engage in this kind of score-settling? It's impossible to tell. ..."
For many Republicans, it's not enough that Hillary Clinton be defeated at
the polls in November. They want to see her imprisoned
... ... ...
The attitude that Clinton must be jailed or even executed is by no means
universal. Some delegates seem as disgusted by the saber-rattling as they are
by their nominee and the fights over rules at the convention-more signs of a
party veering into populism and barbarity. Clinton is also an unusual figure
in that she is
plagued by some real legal problems, so it's not just partisan animosity.
But the Justice Department's decision not to bring charges against Clinton over
the use of her private email server inspired a harsh backlash. For months, Republican
leaders suggested that Clinton would be indicted, despite legal experts' consensus
view that a prosecution was unlikely. When FBI Director James Comey dashed those
hopes by recommending against charges, people who had gotten their hopes up
were furious. Since the Justice Department won't bring charges, people like
Smith, Baldasaro, and Folk are making their own citizens' indictments.
These "indictments" don't carry the force of law, of course, but they
do carry a worrying rhetorical weight. Around the world, it's not uncommon for
rulers who have just come to power to prosecute, imprison, and even execute
their rivals or predecessors; historically, it's probably the norm. The
United States has been an international outlier-it has been
exceptional, even-in its long pattern of peaceful and non-recriminative
transfers of power. Even Richard Nixon, who likely could have been convicted
of crimes, was pardoned by Gerald Ford. In announcing that decision, which was
deeply unpopular, Ford cited the necessity of preserving American norms. It
would take too long for Nixon to be tried, Ford said. "During this long period
of delay and potential litigation, ugly passions would again be aroused, our
people would again be polarized in their opinions, and the credibility of our
free institutions of government would again be challenged at home and abroad,"
he said.
Would a President Trump be inclined to engage in this kind of score-settling?
It's impossible to tell.
"I know emotions are running high right now, but I think people really have to consider the
implications of what a [Donald] Trump presidency would mean for those of us who support the kind
of agenda that Bernie Sanders has laid out for the country," Weaver, who served as campaign
manager for Sanders's presidential bid, told The Hill in a brief interview at the Wells Fargo
Center.
"It's of utmost importance you explain this to your delegations," Sanders
wrote in a separate text message to delegates.
But the message was lost on many of his supporters in the audience, who repeatedly
shouted "Bernie" over those speaking in favor of Clinton, while "booing" Clinton.
Some even chanted, "lock her up," a familiar message used by Republicans who
believe Clinton should go to prison for using a private email server while secretary
of state.
The Democratic divide was inflamed over the weekend following leaked emails
that highlighted an effort by the DNC to tilt the primary in favor of Clinton.
The party is expected to remain neutral during the nominating process.
Wasserman Schultz resigned in the aftermath. On Monday, the DNC announced that
she would not preside over the convention this week, after she was heckled at
the Florida delegation breakfast, with some yelling "Shame!"
Her ousting served as a monumental and symbolic moment for Sanders supporters
who have lamented for months about unfair treatment.
The divide from the Democratic convention resembled unrest seen by Republicans
last week at their convention. Colorado Republicans overwhelmingly declined
to support Trump, instead backing Ted Cruz, while attempting a coup against
Trump. Cruz refused to endorse Trump.
"... Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) adopted a slogan from the Republican National Convention in their protests against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Sunday: "Lock her up!" ..."
Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) adopted a slogan from the Republican
National Convention in their protests against presumptive Democratic presidential
nominee Hillary Clinton on Sunday: "Lock her up!"
At a lively Sunday march in support of former Democratic presidential
candidate Bernie Sanders, chants of "lock her up," "Hillary for Prison"
signs and t-shirts and calls for indictment were common among the most ardent
supporters of Mr. Sanders, who arrived in Philadelphia to make their voices
heard to the delegates attending the Democratic National Convention.
"... when one political party characterizes the candidate of the other as not just wrong but corrupt and criminal, the toxic effects are likely to linger long after Inauguration Day. ..."
...Monday's speech by retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who said the nation didn't
need a president "who believes she is above the law," a reference to Clinton's
use of a private email server as secretary of state. Fair enough, even though
Flynn failed to add that the FBI and the Justice Department decided not to file
criminal charges against Clinton. But then, responding to delegates' shouts
of "Lock her up," Flynn shot back: "Yeah, that's right, lock her up."
...
Patricia Smith, whose son Sean was one of four Americans killed in the Benghazi
attack. Responding to a sign in the audience, Smith extemporized: "That's right,
'Hillary for Prison.' She deserves to be in stripes."
On Tuesday New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, introducing himself as a former
federal prosecutor, conducted a call-and-response session in which delegates
- whom he described as "a jury of her peers" - pronounced "Guilty!" as he reeled
off a litany of supposed Clinton offenses.
... ... ...
Donald Trump has encouraged this unhinged rhetoric by calling Clinton "crooked
Hillary" and saying that she "has to go to jail."
... ... ...
It's not out of bounds to question a candidate's character, and Clinton's
clearly is an issue in this campaign. But when one political party characterizes
the candidate of the other as not just wrong but corrupt and criminal, the toxic
effects are likely to linger long after Inauguration Day.
Some at MOA predicted early on that Sanders was a sheepherder from the start. His latest remarks
provide additional evidence that this is the case. No question about it.
Notable quotes:
"... They are invested in the status quo, are smart enough to realize that their investment is fast becoming worthless, have fallen for the siren song of salvation through warfare, that old FDR tune. No more reasoning. ..."
"... What's particularly confusing to me is that Clinton just gave Wasserman a top job right after she was dismissed from the DNC without a care to the optics. Is she just that stupid, or are the elections just that rigged? ..."
@48 Toivo S 'Democratic Party partisans are losing their common sense in this effort to back Clinton.'
They are invested in the status quo, are smart enough to realize that their investment
is fast becoming worthless, have fallen for the siren song of salvation through warfare, that
old FDR tune. No more reasoning. They only ever rationalized instead anyway, and have now
come to the end of their collective rope. Hope to hang the other guy. Think 'we' can fight the
war 'over there' again, just as we 'always have'. The Germans, marvelous to relate, seem willing
to comply. 'Cause we're both on the same side this time? Japan too, against China. Obama/Clinton
and the All-Stars.
We must do all we can to prevent the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
What's particularly confusing to me is that Clinton just gave Wasserman a top job right after
she was dismissed from the DNC without a care to the optics. Is she just that stupid, or are the
elections just that rigged?
"What's particularly confusing to me is that Clinton just gave Wasserman a top job right
after she was dismissed from the DNC without a care to the optics."
Michael, please un-confuse.
DWS was HRC's campaign chief while sitting in the DNC chair ---working for Hillary to be the
standard-bearer of the status quo.
Notice DWS' new job title? Honorary Chair of the HRC's Campaign.
What has changed? Not the job description; just the physical chairs - brown or grey leather
in a new corner office.
"... Sorry, we're not just another Stockholm Syndrome-suffering constituency for the DNC to ignore or abuse, and still be supportive of our captors out of an artificial fear of something claimed to be worse. Neither the DP nor the GOP represents us, and there's no rational reason for us to vote for either, especially when we have an alternative (the GP). ..."
"... All of this "unpleasantness" could have been avoided had the DNC honored its charter mandate to be an impartial and neutral actor in the primary process instead of openly colluding with the Clinton campaign to stack the deck and grease the skids (and launder the money) for Clinton. The M$M could have honored its Fourth Estate responsibility to be the public's watch-dog, instead of the Clinton's lap dog. ..."
"... When total spending (exclusive of the M$M's 'free advertising', of which Clinton got 2-3 times more of than Sanders) is included, it's far more likely that Clinton outspent Sanders by a four-to-one margin. And still nearly lost. ..."
"... Once again, it's not about Sanders. It's not about the man. It's a movement about creating a viable future for Americans and all the world that is not ravaged by corporate dominance and exploitation. ..."
"... Once again, the record is clear: Hillary is antithetical to the principles I have just mentioned. Her support for the TPP, interventionist wars, domestic surveillance, her collusion with the corrupt DNC to make sure those superdelegates who did not endorse her early would not be funded, and her constant fearmongering (against Trump, now against the Russians) have made it impossible for me to vote for her. ..."
"... No, but you can walk away and vote for a different candidate, one who didn't directly screw you. ..."
If the Sanders people want to show their collective anger, then don't vote in November. Don't
support the political machine that screwed him over. Send a message that you are free thinking
individuals who don't want to just follow the crowd because you are told it's the right thing.
At the moment, in state-by-state polls, Johnson is getting 5-13% of the vote (and, statistically
speaking, none of it from Sanders' supporters), and Trump is still pulling away from Clinton.
Not even Sanders can save Clinton from her own tone-deaf/brain-dead campaign, because the core
problem is the candidate herself.
Sorry, we're not just another Stockholm Syndrome-suffering constituency for the DNC to ignore
or abuse, and still be supportive of our captors out of an artificial fear of something claimed
to be worse. Neither the DP nor the GOP represents us, and there's no rational reason for us to
vote for either, especially when we have an alternative (the GP).
All of this "unpleasantness" could have been avoided had the DNC honored its charter mandate
to be an impartial and neutral actor in the primary process instead of openly colluding with the
Clinton campaign to stack the deck and grease the skids (and launder the money) for Clinton. The
M$M could have honored its Fourth Estate responsibility to be the public's watch-dog, instead
of the Clinton's lap dog. And Clinton could have run an issue-oriented campaign, instead
of hiding behind carefully stage photo-ops and giving David Brock (her long-time character assassin-for-hire)
tens of millions to practice the politics of personal destruction against Sanders, his Bro's and
his Ho's.
Had the establishment parties to the DP nominating process behaved ethically and responsibly,
there would no Bernie or Bust, no Demexit, no #Neverhillary , and peace and harmony would
have prevailed. Of course, had that happened, Sanders would be putting the finishing touches on
his acceptance speech instead of Clinton--and that's why, in a nutshell, none of the playing-by-the-rules
(on the part of the DNC, M$M and Clinton campaign) ever occurred.
And underlying the schism is a point neither the M$M, the DNC nor the Clinton campaign has
yet to acknowledge: for us, this election isn't about personalities, identity politics or tribalized
partisanship. It 's about policies--a democratic-socialist alternative to the DP-GOP bipartisan
consensus on neo-liberal (economic) and neo-con (foreign) policies, that is equitable, environmentally
responsible and humane. We're not getting any of that from Clinton or Trump, and neither are they
getting our votes.
Uh, the horse bolted that barn over a year ago. Clinton--through her David Brock-run "Concocting
the Record" Super PAC--has been waging an eight-figure, scorched earth campaign against Sanders
even before he announced his candidacy. And between the infamous #milliondollartrolls on-line,
and the treatment of Sanders delegates and staff on the Convention floor, the war against the
progressive left will be waged even more fiercely than the one against Trump, right to election
day on Nov. 8th, and then (win or lose) beyond.
If nothing else, the DP primary process revealed just how much the DNC has become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Clinton family, that can't even maintain the pretense of neutrality or impartiality--as
the DNC's charter requires. And it's also exposed just how much the Fourth Estate has abandoned
even the pretense of being the public's watch-dogs for the role of being the Clinton's lap-dogs,
and the encyclopedic definition of the "courtier press".
Link, please? Obviously you're just counting Campaign account spending; but Clinton raised and
spent hundreds of millions through Super PAC's, like the $150M+ funneled through David Brock's
"Concocting the Record" PAC alone, and even more in dark-money PACs that don't have to report
contributors or amounts; and the (probably illegal) massive money-laundering between scores of
PACs, most of which ended up in the DNC and spent directly on Clinton's campaign.
Sanders never had any Super PACs, or even held a single, formal fund-raising event, but relied
on millions of small-sum donors (with virtually no overhead); unlike Clinton and her high-end,
big-check ($350K and up) fund-raisers that disappeared into her mega-laundromat money-washing
operation.
When total spending (exclusive of the M$M's 'free advertising', of which Clinton got 2-3
times more of than Sanders) is included, it's far more likely that Clinton outspent Sanders by
a four-to-one margin. And still nearly lost.
Once again, it's not about Sanders. It's not about the man. It's a movement about creating
a viable future for Americans and all the world that is not ravaged by corporate dominance and
exploitation. The election has never been about him; it's been about working toward mitigating
Global Climate Destabilization; it's been about bringing responsive democracy back to federal
government in the US; it's been about ratcheting down the violence which comes from the failure
of the Social Contract.
Once again, the record is clear: Hillary is antithetical to the principles I have just
mentioned. Her support for the TPP, interventionist wars, domestic surveillance, her collusion
with the corrupt DNC to make sure those superdelegates who did not endorse her early would not
be funded, and her constant fearmongering (against Trump, now against the Russians) have made
it impossible for me to vote for her.
I do not live in a swing state, and it is genuinely beyond me why any Progressive who lives
in a solidly Red or Blue state would possibly vote for her, given her proven record. Yes, the
is the most experienced at voting for wars, bombing civilians, supporting dictators, bailing outbanks,
spreading neo-liberalism, promoting fossil fuels and fracking the heck out of the planet. Sure
if you fear Trump AND live in a swing state, or if you are actually a Conservative Democrat AND
live in a swing state, fine - give in to your fear or conservatism. But if you are not in a swing
state and you are not driven by fear or a conservative, why on earth you would vote for her now
or in November?
Perhaps this is a call for you to question your own values, or the labels you use to describe
yourself if you consider yourself a "Progressive" - or this is a call for you to educate yourself
on her past record. Her actual record. Not the Benghazi charade Faux News promotes, but her active
intervention in bombing Libya to hell (for access for oil corporations). Look at her deceitful
hiding behind the "faulty information" argument she uses to defend her vote for Iraq (she did
not call for the UN Weapons Inspectors to see what better information there was). Look at how
she, as Secretary of State promoted the blight of fracking world wide (despite plenty of scientists
calls for better capping and methane leak prevention and the diminution or cessation of groundwater
contamination). There are plenty of people who see benefits in having her elected which helps
their own privilege, but they support her at the peril and loss of the global community as well
as the degradation of many Americans.
Now, more than Ever,
Hillary Never!
1iJack -> TheMonitor
When you lose you don't get to dictate terms of surrender.
No, but you can walk away and vote for a different candidate, one who didn't directly screw
you.
Clinton mafia and corrupt MSM like Guardian cannot deny the reality of what they wrote, so
they focus on how the information came out. "But voters don't care where the info came from. What voters
care about (for a change) is what the democrats actually wrote to each other, thinking their words were
"safe" (i.e., their hubris and arrogance is coming back to bite them in the ass). And the DNC are completely
guilty, based on their own words." "So, the media is lockstep quiet about their outting as
utterly disingenuous manipulators and distorters of the political process. And they are crying
foul at full volume at the Russians for allegedly daring to affect the political process by introducing
the truth of the situation. Apparently, some folk never learn, can never be taught a lesson.
So what's the solution?"
Notable quotes:
"... The first report by the Guardian's own correspondent, Alan Yuhas, and the one in today's newspaper, includes responses both from the Clinton team and from Sanders. But the Clinton response does not just get a mention, it dictates the entire theme of the Guardian story: that the leaks themselves are of little consequence. The real story, apparently, is an unproven and deflectionary claim by the Clinton camp that Russia is behind the leak. The headline says it all: "Hillary Clinton campaign blames leaked DNC emails about Sanders on Russia". ..."
"... The story itself does not tell us anything about the leaks until the sixth ..."
The pattern is unmistakable in both the UK and US – and I apologise for sounding like a stuck record.
Liberal mainstream media prove over and over again their aversion to telling us the news straight.
They conspire – I can think of no fairer word – with the political elites in Washington and London
to spin and subvert stories damaging to their mutual interests, even when the facts are driving real
events in an entirely different direction.
A perfect illustration is the story of the Democratic
party's leaked emails, which reveal that the national leadership was actively seeking to swing the
primaries battle in Hillary Clinton's favour by harming Bernie Sanders. One leaked email (there are
more to come, apparently) shows officials trying to highlight Sanders' "faith" – it is unclear whether
the goal was to play up his Jewishness or his supposed atheism, or both.
As Sanders says, this is "outrageous" activity by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), even
if it is hardly surprising. He, and we, knew it was happening during the primaries, even if it wasn't
being reported, just as we know the British parliamentary Labour party has been trying to undermine
its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, since he was elected last summer, even if everyone denies it. The difference
with the Democratic party scandal is we now have the proof.
It is worth examining the Guardian's coverage of this affair. It's like a masterclass in
Pravda-style journalism – and entirely illustrative of how the Guardian is not reporting news
but framing debates to protect its political interests: they have been rock solid behind the status-quo
candidacy of Clinton rather than Sanders ("let's focus on the fact she's woman rather than that she's
the spokeswoman for the military-industrial complex"), just as they seem ready to back anyone for
British PM as long as it's not Jeremy Corbyn, including Theresa May.
The DNC email leak story broke badly for the Guardian, with the first reports arriving
Sunday UK time, when the paper does not publish. A bland Associated Press
report appears to be the first time the story runs on its website, too early for responses from
the main actors.
The
first report by the Guardian's own correspondent, Alan Yuhas, and the one in today's newspaper,
includes responses both from the Clinton team and from Sanders. But the Clinton response does not
just get a mention, it dictates the entire theme of the Guardian story: that the leaks themselves
are of little consequence. The real story, apparently, is an unproven and deflectionary claim by
the Clinton camp that Russia is behind the leak. The headline says it all: "Hillary Clinton campaign
blames leaked DNC emails about Sanders on Russia".
This is exactly what the Clinton team wanted: for the media to focus on her phony outrage
rather than our justified outrage that the party system is rigged to make sure ordinary voters
cast their ballots the way the Democrat leadership want them cast.
The story itself does not tell us anything about the leaks until the sixth paragraph.
Before that we have lots of Clinton camp indignation about Russia interfering in US domestic politics
– as though this story is primarily yet another chance to knock Vladimir Putin and his supposed best
pal, Donald Trump, Clinton's chief rival for the presidency. Even when we finally reach mention of
the leaks, they are glossed over, with it unclear what the substance of these emails was and why
they are significant.
This is stenographic journalism that has become entirely the norm in the Guardian (if you
don't believe me, just scroll back through my blog posts to see more examples).
The real angle – the one that should have the been the focus of the story, at least based on news
value – is buried near its end: Sanders' demand that DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, should
resign. That angle as the lead would have highlighted its true news interest: evidence of corrupt
practices at the DNC. It would have allowed the Guardian to focus on the nature of the leaked
emails rather get sidetracked into Clinton's anti-Russia spiel.
Proof that this was the real news story is confirmed by the fact that, soon after the Guardian
published its report, Wasserman Schultz did, in fact, resign. The real scandal, rather than the Washington
spin, finally cornered the Guardian very belatedly to
run the story online in a more realistic fashion.
The fact that it took more than 24 hours and three attempts before the story was reported in a
way any first-year journalism student would understand it had to be covered is not to the Guardian's
credit. It is to its shame. This was a desperate damage limitation operation by the Clinton camp
that was (yet again) actively supported and assisted by the Guardian.
Social media is changing many things. But one of the clearest examples is in the way it is bypassing
mainstream media gatekeepers like the Guardian and allowing the facts to speak for themselves.
NYT is afraid to open comments on this as they will swamped with denunciation
of Hillary. Sanders lied to his supporters that Trump represents bigger danger then
Killary. nobody represent bigger danger then Killary. Bernie Sanders, hypocrite,
or canny operator? Is this another hostage situation and with what Clinton criminal
cartel threatened him ? "This campaign is not really about Hillary Clinton,
or Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, or any other candidate who sought the presidency,"
Sanders told a New Hampshire crowd Tuesday in a speech endorsing Hillary Clinton.
"This campaign is about the needs of the American people and addressing the
very serious crisis that we face." Posting under the hashtag #SandersSellsOut,
sanders supporters drew parallels with a previous uncomfortable endorsement of a
presidential candidate, labeling it "another hostage situation." Most view his endorsement
on Monday, as the infidelity in a relationship and a bad break up.
On the opening day of the Democratic National Convention, the ragtag coalition
of liberals that Mr. Sanders is supposed to deliver to Hillary Clinton heckled
from the convention floor. They marched in the streets. They protested outside
the arena.
They refused to go quietly.
"I'm booing now, and I'm going to boo for four more days," said Jody Feldman,
a
... ... ...
Liz Maratea, 31, a delegate from New Jersey, said she refuses to lay down
arms and accept Mrs. Clinton as the nominee. "She has the moral depth of a thimble,"
Ms. Maratea said. "Are we supposed to take this, or are we supposed to rise
up?"
Here in Philadelphia, it was the Sanders-inspired activists who seized the
message and the megaphone of his self-proclaimed rebellion against money and
power - and who decided that the man who had inspired their cause, and who adorned
their T-shirts, was no longer their movement's unchallenged leader.
"As beloved as Bernie is," said Norman Solomon, a Sanders delegate from California,
"he's not running the show."
... ... ...
The rejection of Mrs. Clinton inside the Wells Fargo Center was scattered
but persistent. Those loyal to Mr. Sanders waved fists with thumbs turned down.
They screamed "No" and "Nay." They wore pins, stickers, shirts and hats bearing
Mr. Sanders's face. And they defaced Clinton signs that once read "Stronger
Together," transforming them into a different message: "Stop Her."
In a way, the angry remnants of Mr. Sanders's presidential campaign are not
really about him anymore: They have become a stew of simmering grievances from
the primaries about rules, process, money, fairness and democracy - and were
reignited by leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee revealing
the bias of some party officials in favor of Mrs. Clinton.
... ... ...
Their distrust of Mrs. Clinton runs deep. Even if she wins, they already
expect to be disappointed by her presidency. Rosario Dawson, an actress and
a Sanders supporter, admonished fellow Democrats to watch a Clinton White House
carefully for signs of betrayal on signature liberal issues like universal health
care and a $15 federal minimum wage.
If not, she warned, "then civil disobedience will follow, because we are
serious."
... ... ...
As tensions mounted, verbal skirmishes occasionally broke out on the floor.
Inside the Wisconsin delegation, a Sanders supporter stood up with a piece of
paper taped over her mouth. "Silenced," read a message on the tape.
How can anyone continue to run for office when your record is such, that
even your own party is chanting "lock her up, lock her up". I think the
Democrats are making a big mistake as she is clearly very devisive and as
such appears to be Trump's only chance of winning.
Folks the media will not inform you but there are 4 candidates running for
president. Jill Stein on the Green Party ticket and Gary Johnson ( former
governor of New Mexico) on the Libertarian ticket. Check them out. Both
are very capable people. I plan to vote for one of them. If we all do one
of them will win. The media are in bed with the military-industrial complex.
So continuing wars with both Clinton and Trump!
True! However, Hillary is in bed with the Neocons who started the whole
charade about Iraq. Check out the great journalist, Robert Parry (broke
the Iran-Contra story), on her ties to the Kagans, etc. Also her recent
speach at AIPAC. Clinton will get us into a nuclear confrontation with Russia.
Trump is no better. Please reconsider.
So the email leaks prove the DNC was working against Sanders all along and
trying to get Hillary in there. So basically, the democratic candidate race
wasn't fair. Why should voters support a party that doesn't take their votes
seriously?
If we keep letting them get away with this shit because "the other guy
might get in!", they'll just keep doing it and keep pushing the envelope
to erode democracy.
People seem to hilariously think Trump can unilaterally make good on
all his ridiculous promises. Sorry guys, that's not how the presidency works.
His ideas will be shot down at the other levels of government pretty fast.
As far as starting wars goes, Hillary is just as hawkish and actually has
a far worse history of voting for wars.
What a state of affairs -- Bernie Sanders supporting a presidential candidate
who charged $10,000 per minute for a chat with the oligarchs who had bought
her and got her surrogates to undermine the democratic process.
Hillary did not win the primaries, it was offered to her as an entitlement.
An average worker would have been arrested for what Clinton did. I am not
saying that is right, but it is clear that punishment is different for people
based on their economic and political influence. And that is not right.
What you said is true. The CNN newscasters commented that the Attorney General
and the FBI Director knew that their jobs are in danger ...if they tried
to prosecute
a powerful person such as Clinton.
So we can put the following as official:
The punishment of a crime is inversely proportional to the economic and
political influence of of the criminal.
I think jenniferintls comment is based on the factual evidence that the
Clintons are greedy corrupt immoral people. Nothing to do with a legal education
The Clintons, as "public servants," have amassed $200 million in wealth
and yet nobody can point to anything either one of them solved or accomplished.
The Clintons are masters at using politics to create wealth. But, their
party is over. America won't elect Hillary, she's a weasel.
"Matt Schmidheiser, an 18-year-old student from Cherry Hill, New Jersey,
was similarly emphatic.
'I think she does need to be locked up her along with the DNC chairwoman
who just stepped down. Because they both just horribly mislead the American
public and they spit lie after lie and nobody seems to care.'
Schmidheiser was carrying a homemade poster that catalogued Clinton's
alleged misdeeds. He had been a little late arriving at city hall and missed
the chant.
'I wasn't there for it but I would love to have been a part of it and
I would love to start another,' he said.
'I think it's accurate and I think she needs to be in prison for the
rest of her life.' "
Oh really, so here's someone who wants to imprison someone for lying.
Authoritarians come in all stripes. And he couldn't be bothered to get his
sorry butt to the demonstration so he could chant "get a rope" errrrr "lock
her up".
Don't be condescending. Hillary Clinton represents everything Bernie is
against. She is only slightly less toxic than Trump. On top of that the
entire primary season was rigged against Sanders. The apex of that was having
the major networks "call" the entire nomination the night before California
(and 4 other states) got to vote. I can't imagine how that happened (nor
why). The two-party system is dead. They are both wholly owned by corporate
and military industrial complex interests. Millions of Americans have had
enough and no Hillary cheerleaders are going to change that...
What did you expect? The DNC, a supposedly neutral party in the nomination
race, blatantly sided with one candidate to help them win against the other,
in a close race, and were kind enough to document all the evidence in long
email chains. In the year 2016, a time when everyone should know that no
one has any privacy anymore. Not you, not me, not even them. They should
of realised the emails would eventually be leaked. Now their actions are
known to all, and half of the democrat base feel utterly betrayed.
It's a good day to be Trump. He must be thanking his lucky stars.
"... See, I believe progressive people are sick of collecting the little scraps they're thrown after the real corporate agenda has been set in stone. If there was ever a time to not go along with this, stand firm and say ''No more'', this is it. ..."
"... This movement is bigger than Bernie Sanders. If Hillary loses to Trump, it won't be the fault of Sanders supporters, but the slimy lies and corruption of her and the DNC. It has been said that the Democratic party is the place where social movements die. Good to know that "Berners" still want to fight for the greater good, something establishment politics doesn't provide. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton = Jeb! + Gun Control ..."
"... Sanders supporters will get more for their vote with Trump than with Hillary. ..."
"... If Bernie truly believes that Hillary would "make an outstanding president" why did he stand against her in the first place? ..."
"... Hillary is an imperialist. If there's actually a "lesser evil" out of these two, I don't see it. ..."
"... A vote for Clinton is condemning Middle Eastern people to their deaths with the obvious invasions that she'll likely cook up. ..."
"... Trump wants to make jobs, better the education system and raise salaries. Voting for Trump will bring Sanders supporters more of what they want and less is they vote for Clinton. ..."
"... I cancelled my visit to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia when I realised it was going to be Hilary Clinton. She is a female version of Tony Blair, even, more dishonest and unscrupulous. Had the blacks and latinos voted for Sanders in numbers, this result could have been avoided. But we have to live with it. The hope is that Bernie has started a movement that will survive and perhaps one day we will have a social democratic president in the USA. ..."
"... Make Sanders VP and then Assange plus the FBI will take care of the details. Simple. ..."
"... I may have voted Hillary, but then "DWS". Tomorrow I become a independent. F@ck the DNC 30 years a Dem now a disappointed. ..."
"... It's Billary who intends to pursue a more 'muscular' foreign policy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-middle-east_us_56f06ab2e4b09bf44a9e3177 ..."
"... Crooked Clinton and her crooked backers are laughing their asses off at Bernie. The old fool is being used. ..."
"... She's dishonest, She has no clear principles, and She has a long history of questionable judgement/ethics. The first two issues are ones of degree: just about all of us are guilty of the occasional fib, and people often alter their views to what is fashionable. Politicians tend to be especially bad in both regards. But even by the low standards of politicians, Clinton stands out. Clinton's "flexible reality" is really something to behold. ..."
"... Or take the Trans Pacific Partnership, which Clinton stewarded during her tenure as Secretary of State. Caught in a close fight with far-left candidate Bernie Sanders, Clinton was quick to jettison the TPP and distance herself from it, even though her husband and she have decades of unequivocal support for free trade. The list could go on and on. There are plenty of politicians who equivocate on important issues, and whose views "evolve" to magically fit what voters want. But Clinton is special in her ability to (a) voice strong views on various issues and then (b) act as though those who remember her prior views are crazy. The problem that most people have with Clinton is that if free trade returned to being en vogue in 2018, or there was a successful movement to amend the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, there's a pretty good chance that Clinton would be at the forefront, claiming that those were "always" her views, and that prior statements to the contrary were taken out of context/the work of the "vast, right-wing conspiracy." ..."
"... Oh, and another thing, which I'll never get tired of repeating: if the past few years proved anything, is that a President can only do so much against a hostile House. ..."
"... While it's obvious why the Clinton camp would want to convince people a Trump presidency would bring forth the Armageddon, the true battle is not for the president: it's for the two houses. It will be the two houses that determine who the next SCOTUS is, it will be the two houses that pass legislation, it will be the two houses that approve or reject the next President's war plans. A red house will make a Clinton presidency irrelevant, and a blue house will make a Trump presidency harmless. ..."
"... Clinton on the other hand, is a chicken hawk psychopath establishment lackey who believes the rule of Law simply doesn't apply to her and also has a husband who deregulated all the financial sector, removed welfare, deregulated healthcare to the benefit of big business, has links to Iran Contra, is sexually dysfunctional and if you believe multiple credible authors (including Christopher Hitchens) is probably a rapist. She too would be a terrible President. ..."
"... I can't believe you're seriously suggesting that voting for a member of the Clinton Crime family is so much better and the only option but then again, you believe in the 2 party system and talk about Democrats and Republicans in a ridiculously tribal and childish way. It's time for you to wake up and smell the coffee. Trump is almost certainly a narcissistic, uneducated, racist, self-obsessed sociopath whose sole obsession in life is the acquisition of material wealth. He would undoubtedly be a terrible President. Clinton on the other hand, is a chicken hawk psychopath establishment lackey who believes the rule of Law simply doesn't apply to her and also has a husband who deregulated all the financial sector with disastrous results, removed welfare, deregulated healthcare to the benefit of big business, has links to Iran Contra, is sexually dysfunctional and if you believe multiple credible authors (including Christopher Hitchens) is probably a rapist. Clinton too would be a terrible President. ..."
"... The Clinton team have been busy insulting progressives for the past year and they did not give us much in the massaged platform. The choice of VP was another slap in the face along with Debbie's new job. ..."
"... The Clintonites are nothing but bullies, gutless wonders willing to grovel before power. In supporting her they betray every good thing this nation ever stood for. They are willing to accept corruption, lies, and incompetence for reasons I don't comprehend, ignoring clear lawbreaking in order to install their false idol. ..."
"... Leave it and join the Greens, join the Libertarians, join anything but the party of the corrupt, the party of betrayal, the party of the oligarchs. ..."
"... The Guardian comment on the leaked emails: 'this seems to mark a new development in the constant struggle of propaganda and disinformation' ... could easily be said about its own approach. Oh the irony. ..."
"... If you haven't seen this amazing rant by a Bernie delegate, your life is missing something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydIbIgg7djI ..."
"... This was never about Sanders. The Clinton folks spent so much time portraying us as blind followers that they started to believe their own hype. It was always about progressive policies and values and if Sanders endorses a candidate who doesn't share those valued, a candidate who will take to us war it's time to say: thanks you Sanders for all you've done but I can't join you on the path you are walking on now. ..."
"... Clinton and cronies will say or do anything to bring over the Bernie fans. When she no longer needs them she will throw them away along with their ideas. The important decisions were made long before anyone showed up in Phila. The fact DWS was given a job on HC's staff after getting fired says it all. Now Bernie sells out. Don't you feel just a little used? ..."
"... With the exception of one super delegate, the majority of the DNC super delegates had already endorsed Hilary before the first primary, and none changed his/her vote when Bernie got traction. Even his closest ally, in ideology, Liz Warren, did not endorse Bernie. That is how corrupt & controlling the DNC leadership has become: in this election they clearly are the king makers, while the GOP produced 18 well-known candidates that tore each other to pieces. That tells you how planned this whole thing was with the Democrats. Both parties are corrupt; but while the GOP suffers from internal Chaos & cannibalism, the DNC acted with a script that fits more the way Russians have been picking their presidents. ..."
"... Well, perhaps a Trump victory can finally help DNC internalize the message of America's Progressives. So, I have a better analogy for not voting & possibly seeing Trump win; sometimes you lose an arm in order to save the body. ..."
"... Chicken hawk psychopath with innumerable foreign policy disasters on her watch including Libya; ..."
"... Bought and paid for by the usual suspects - Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan etc; ..."
"... A security risk to the US i.e. used an unencrypted private server which was contrary to the rules, was routinely hacked by foreign powers, contained information about covert US black sites and was also obviously designed to hide Clinton Foundation business dealings/shenanigans. This had nothing to do with convenience; - Subverted the democratic process with regards to her nomination. ..."
"... Do I really need to go on? ..."
"... Reagan started deregulation, but Billy Boy and Robert Rubin continued with devastating abandon. Just one piece of legislation: Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - largely the cause of the 2007/2008 subprime derivatives crisis. ..."
Sanders is being just being a political realist. He knows that Hillary is a lying sociopath, but
she will still be easier to deal with than Trump who is also stupid and erratic.
The best way to push Hillary to the left is to vote for her and then keep up the pressure through
every political means available. Contribute to truly progressive organizations (not the DNC),
volunteer, demonstrate, etc.
I think the problem here is that while it is only rational for Americans to vote Hillary to big
up the anti-Trump vote and stop him getting in, there is a double bind in the sense that if Hillary
takes power with her traditional Democrat big business/small time social reform politics, then
it may make people complacent. I think this what the Bernie radical edge is concerned about; the
last few decades have shown that people are really, really easy to pacify if they are able to
just cruise on the mediocrity of self-interested neoliberal governments that throw a few crumbs
from the table.
I don't necessarily think the argument is a good enough excuse if it means handing Trump the
presidency. After all, he might not be able to do everything he says going to do with congress
in the way, but he could still do an awful lot of damage whereever he can get support,
and it's irresponsible to let him get away with it when you could have helped try to stop him.
The most important thing is that people do not forget that their job is to go above and beyond
the supporting of any particular leader, and maintain pressure on whoever is in power to turn
things around dramatically and irreversibly.
Sanders's supporters are correct not to trust Hillary. Throughout their careers in politics, both
Clintons have repeatedly demonstrated that when they are caught up in personal scandals they react
by making enormous concessions to conservatives, completely undermining the liberals who elected
them.
This might not be a problem if the Clintons' scandals were rare, but Bill is a serial abuser
of lower-status women and Hillary will do anything for money. They just can't control themselves.
They are always involved in unsavory activities which is why they are so paranoid and secretive.
You would think that liberals would have realized that these two can't be trusted but many
liberals are hopelessly naïve and they focus on rhetoric and not past behavior when choosing a
candidate.
Here are the 6 steps I recommend US progressives take in the coming months to get the best outcome
from the November elections and beyond:
1) Support progressive Democratic candidates wherever they are running.
2) In the presidential race: in states that are solidly Democratic or Republican, vote for Jill
Stein
3) In swing states, vote for Hillary Clinton to ensure Trump is defeated
4) Keep the pressure on Clinton to ensure she abides by the policy commitments she made to Bernie
Sanders
5) Raise awareness among progressives, moderates and all minority groups about the need to change
the voting system to proportional representation, and lobby Democratic politicians to support
this change also
6) Keep building the political movement that Bernie has inspired, and be willing to transform
ideals into action by becoming involved in politics and effective activism in a long-term way.
The DNC is a corrupt organisation. There is no doubt.
So is the Republican party.
The choice people are faced with is unpalatable to say the least. It's one of the starkest
examples of a lesser of two evils decision as I've ever seen.
Clinton is a right leaning democrat, heavily enmeshed in the Washington machine. She's 100%
a part of the establishment. She's a hawk.
She's everything wrong with the political system in the US.
You would only vote for her if you were faced with something worse...
The elephant in the room in the whole Hillary vs Bernie vs Trump debate is the US voting system.
The current US electoral system is a variation of 'first past the post', which is the worst type
of voting system it is possible to have in a democracy. Not only does it promote the dominance
of one or two massive corporatised parties, but it punishes those who vote for smaller parties
and independents by effectively denying their vote any value in determining the candidate who
will be elected. The preferential system (used in Australia) is better, but still tends to result
in a 2 party state.
If progressive activists want to create a more conducive environment for electing progressive
leaders in the future, they need to start campaigning for a move to proportional representation,
as favoured by the vast majority of democracies, including virtually all European states, New
Zealand, Israel, South Africa and most developing nations. This system allows for greater representation
for all voices in the political process, and does not disenfranchise those who vote for smaller
parties.
This change is unlikely to happen in a hurry, but it does need to happen at some stage, unless
progressives want to continually be forced into choosing between voting for an undesirable centre-right
candidate such as Clinton, or voting for a stronger candidate, such as Bernie Sanders or Jill
Stein, and potentially losing the value of their vote.
This does all beg the question as to why the Democrats couldn't find a better 'mainstream' candidate
than Clinton if she's that unpopular. The answer I suspect is 'money'.
the Vermont senator was "bending reality in favour of what he feels is the most responsible
course".
See, I believe progressive people are sick of collecting the little scraps they're thrown
after the real corporate agenda has been set in stone. If there was ever a time to not go along
with this, stand firm and say ''No more'', this is it.
It's about punishing the corrupt system that always gets away with murder and making it pay
the price. Because the people WILL pay the price if either Trump or Hilary gets elected. And the
blame for this won't lie with those that don't vote for a corrupt politician like Hilary, the
blame will lie with those that rigged the system and those who did vote for her.
I am astonished that The Secretary of State would go on record and be filmed personally insulting
Putin, when this is such a sensitive time, or at ANY time.
Most of this sounds pretty reasonable to me- vote Clinton if a swing state, otherwise Stein; put
pressure on Clinton to deliver concrete policy proposals (eg on TPP); recognition that progressive
politics doesn't begin and end with Sanders (important because it means this isn't just populism
focused on a single leader).
But...does anyone ever raise the possibility of voting reform in the US? Because the way the
landscape is now cannot be comfortably accommodated by two parties. It should be no surprise that
many Sanders supporters can't abide Clinton, (nor that trad republicans despair at Trump). In
most Western democracies Clinton and Sanders would naturally belong in different parties.
Q: HRC meetings with Goldman and others?
I dunno. But I did public speaking. Its fun
Q: What do you think she is giving away in those meetings?
She doesn't want the people knowing about her relationships on Wall Street She wants to achieve
consistency and the best way to do that is to keep the people ignorant
The naivete of some people who still fall for the politics of "lesser evils" is staggering. There
is no good outcome of this election. On one hand you have a fascist with little clue of what he's
doing and has made a campaign of empty soundbites. The other is an imperialist war hawk for whom
bombing people in the Middle East is a hobby and said Iraq brought good business opportunities.
Fascism at home and imperialism abroad are two sides of the same coin and if you actually dispute
that, I feel sorry for you.
This movement is bigger than Bernie Sanders. If Hillary loses to Trump, it won't be the
fault of Sanders supporters, but the slimy lies and corruption of her and the DNC. It has been
said that the Democratic party is the place where social movements die. Good to know that "Berners"
still want to fight for the greater good, something establishment politics doesn't provide.
The Bush and Clinton crime families stand for the same thing.
They are the same thing.
Wish Jeb! had won the GOP nomination? Vote for Hillary, you'll get the same thing (except you'll
also lose the 2nd Amendment - that's the only difference).
Spoken like a true partisan hack.
Trump is a fascist, Hillary is an imperialist. If there's actually a "lesser evil" out of
these two, I don't see it.
A vote for Trump is throwing America into the deep end, emboldening of the far right and likely
to end in economic disaster. A vote for Clinton is condemning Middle Eastern people to their
deaths with the obvious invasions that she'll likely cook up.
Anyone who calls themselves socialist after Bernie's campaign should realise that socialism
is about resisting hatred at home and abroad
Trump wants to make jobs, better the education system and raise salaries. Voting for Trump
will bring Sanders supporters more of what they want and less is they vote for Clinton.
I cancelled my visit to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia when I realised it was going
to be Hilary Clinton. She is a female version of Tony Blair, even, more dishonest and unscrupulous.
Had the blacks and latinos voted for Sanders in numbers, this result could have been avoided.
But we have to live with it. The hope is that Bernie has started a movement that will survive
and perhaps one day we will have a social democratic president in the USA.
I may have voted Hillary, but then "DWS". Tomorrow I become a independent. F@ck the DNC 30
years a Dem now a disappointed.
OH no The orange man will destroy the world, who cares about Fracking, NATO, Monsanto, Health
care and Pharmaceuticals... Not HIllary and her bestie's Debbie Wassermann Schultz, Barbara Boxer,
Roberta Lange etc... Let it burn I seriously don't give a sh#t Whats the Donalds gonna do... Push
through religious agendas?
OH that already happened while Obama was POTUS. Export jobs? that happened with NAFTA ( Bill
Clinton ), close down woman's health clinics, take away women's rights to choose and right to
preferred birth control? that happened. Triple the cost of Health Insurance? Pharmaceuticals?
Back Monsanto? TPP? I guess either way we are just screwed... HILLARY+DONALD = Equally Toxic!
Piss on the Press... vote in a new congress, house, state and local.
This fascinates me. I draw very close similarities with J. Corbyn over here. In short, in the
Anglo-Saxon world the 'left' has split into a centre (your Clinton, T. Blair in the past) and
a 'purer' left. Now, for us (Latins for instance) away from strict binary systems, it makes more
sense if at least four parties were to represent most population's views: a 'harder' left, a centre-left-right,
and a 'harder' right. I am aware of the potential pitfalls, such as unstable governments etc.
but two parties cannot cover, or even attempt to cover, the political ideas spectrum of whole
nations. And it can causes odd outcomes, such as Trump (!?!) as a representative for a whole electorate
who doesn't want to vote Clinton. Could you have three-four candidates system?
Crooked Clinton and her crooked backers are laughing their asses off at Bernie. The old fool
is being used.
I have a problem with Clinton for three main reasons:
She's dishonest, She has no clear principles, and She has a long history of questionable
judgement/ethics.
The first two issues are ones of degree: just about all of us are guilty of the occasional fib,
and people often alter their views to what is fashionable. Politicians tend to be especially bad
in both regards. But even by the low standards of politicians, Clinton stands out. Clinton's "flexible
reality" is really something to behold.
Let's use a recent example of gay rights. Personally, I suspect that Hillary Clinton has always
been a proponent of gay rights, and doesn't have a homophobic bone in her body. But in 2004, when
gay marriage was a hot issue and many states were amending their constitutions to define marriage
as being between a man and a woman, Clinton gave a speech on the Senate floor in defence of traditional
marriage that could have been written by Jesse Helms. In other words, she didn't just bite her
tongue or give lukewarm support to one side or the other; she went "all in" in her opposition
to legalizing gay marriage, because that was a winning approach in 2004. Now that gay marriage
is legal in all 50 states and the LGBT community is an important Democrat voting bloc, Clinton
wants to pretend that she's always been at the vanguard on gay rights, as though her vocal opposition
to gay marriage just a decade earlier somehow never happened. Indeed, Clinton has thrown out trial
balloons suggesting that her opposition to gay marriage was somehow designed to defend gay rights
from even more extreme elements in Congress!
Or take the Trans Pacific Partnership, which Clinton stewarded during her tenure as Secretary
of State. Caught in a close fight with far-left candidate Bernie Sanders, Clinton was quick to
jettison the TPP and distance herself from it, even though her husband and she have decades of
unequivocal support for free trade. The list could go on and on. There are plenty of politicians
who equivocate on important issues, and whose views "evolve" to magically fit what voters want.
But Clinton is special in her ability to (a) voice strong views on various issues and then (b)
act as though those who remember her prior views are crazy. The problem that most people have
with Clinton is that if free trade returned to being en vogue in 2018, or there was a successful
movement to amend the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, there's a pretty good chance that
Clinton would be at the forefront, claiming that those were "always" her views, and that prior
statements to the contrary were taken out of context/the work of the "vast, right-wing conspiracy."
And as for crossing the line, there are too many examples to mention. The Clintons are not
wrong to accuse Republicans of being out to get them, and too often, Republicans have played into
the Clintons' hands by attempting to make mountains out of molehills. But the Clintons perpetually
find themselves in hot water because they can't resist bending the rules and associating with
questionable people. Does anyone really believe that Hillary Clinton legitimately made a small
fortune trading cattle futures? Does anyone honestly believe that Clinton's use of a private email
server while Secretary of State was due to a lack of technological sophistication and not a desire
to subvert public record-keeping law? Does anyone accept that taking in millions of dollars in
speaking fees/charitable donations from questionable sources has no impact on her ability to govern
impartially? If you answered yes to any of those questions, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell
you. The fact that Clinton hasn't gone to prison doesn't mean that she's conducted herself in
a manner befitting the leader of the US.
Oh, and another thing, which I'll never get tired of repeating: if the past few years proved
anything, is that a President can only do so much against a hostile House.
While it's obvious why the Clinton camp would want to convince people a Trump presidency
would bring forth the Armageddon, the true battle is not for the president: it's for the two houses.
It will be the two houses that determine who the next SCOTUS is, it will be the two houses that
pass legislation, it will be the two houses that approve or reject the next President's war plans.
A red house will make a Clinton presidency irrelevant, and a blue house will make a Trump presidency
harmless.
To recap, vote blue for the Congress, vote blue for the Senate (that applies for Republicans
as well: if you're secretly scared of what Trump might do, keep him in check by electing a democrat
house), but vote for whomever you want (Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Stein, Sanders, Claire Underwood
or Tyrion Lannister. It really makes no difference) for President.
It's hard not to lose all respect for Americans when they suggest with a straight face that voting
for a member of the Clinton Crime family is so much better and the only option.
Trump is almost certainly a narcissistic, uneducated, racist, self-obsessed sociopath whose
sole obsession in life is the acquisition of material wealth. He would undoubtedly be a terrible
President.
Clinton on the other hand, is a chicken hawk psychopath establishment lackey who believes
the rule of Law simply doesn't apply to her and also has a husband who deregulated all the financial
sector, removed welfare, deregulated healthcare to the benefit of big business, has links to Iran
Contra, is sexually dysfunctional and if you believe multiple credible authors (including Christopher
Hitchens) is probably a rapist. She too would be a terrible President.
You Americans, have the political system you deserve by continuously voting for a rigged,
failed two party state that has been completely corrupted by Corporate lobbying. Someone once
said "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different
results." Yet, the US still do this every election cycle.
Anyone who continues to vote for the lesser evil is still voting evil so they're just as ridiculous
as those voting Trump.
Either way, the US are in for a bumpy ride in the next 4 years especially when there's another
financial crash - which is just around the corner.
I can't believe you're seriously suggesting that voting for a member of the Clinton Crime
family is so much better and the only option but then again, you believe in the 2 party system
and talk about Democrats and Republicans in a ridiculously tribal and childish way. It's time
for you to wake up and smell the coffee.
Trump is almost certainly a narcissistic, uneducated, racist, self-obsessed sociopath whose
sole obsession in life is the acquisition of material wealth. He would undoubtedly be a terrible
President.
Clinton on the other hand, is a chicken hawk psychopath establishment lackey who believes the
rule of Law simply doesn't apply to her and also has a husband who deregulated all the financial
sector with disastrous results, removed welfare, deregulated healthcare to the benefit of big
business, has links to Iran Contra, is sexually dysfunctional and if you believe multiple credible
authors (including Christopher Hitchens) is probably a rapist. Clinton too would be a terrible
President.
You Americans, have the political system you deserve by continuously voting for a rigged, failed
two party state that has been completely corrupted by Corporate lobbying. Someone once said "the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."
Yet, you and many others in the US still do this every election cycle.
The Democrats and Republicans are 2 cheeks of the same arse both funded by and told what to
do by the financial sector, the military industrial complex, oil and big business. You'll eventually
realise this if you ever wake up.
Anyone who continues to vote for the lesser evil is still voting evil so they're just as ridiculous
as those voting Trump.
Either way, the US are in for a bumpy ride in the next 4 years especially when there's another
financial crash - which is just around the corner.
The Clinton team have been busy insulting progressives for the past year and they did not
give us much in the massaged platform. The choice of VP was another slap in the face along with
Debbie's new job. I am so glad the Sanders supporters are protesting the very questionable
elections. If the DNC Were behaving like rational adults, they would have given us more at the
platform and chosen a more Left VP and stopped the insults. We have not been treated with respect
that our election numbers merit.
Time for Clintonites to show some moral strength and some semblance of ethical behavior, and stop
supporting corruption, stop blaming those who DO have some sense of ethics and what's best for
this nation for voting their conscience.
The Clintonites are nothing but bullies, gutless wonders willing to grovel before power.
In supporting her they betray every good thing this nation ever stood for. They are willing to
accept corruption, lies, and incompetence for reasons I don't comprehend, ignoring clear lawbreaking
in order to install their false idol.
The contemptuousness with which they attack those who desire some modicum of honesty, empathy
, and ethical behavior in a candidate is utterly shameful.
They, like all bullies, seem to think that insults, threats, and contempt will force the results
they want.
Little do they realize that they are only making enemies of those who wanted to be friends,creating
an anger that won't fade for years.
Never vote for Democrats again, that party has entirely lost what little credibility it had
left.
Leave it and join the Greens, join the Libertarians, join anything but the party of the
corrupt, the party of betrayal, the party of the oligarchs.
They've had more than enough chances to prove their worth, and have failed miserably.
The Guardian comment on the leaked emails: 'this seems to mark a new development in the constant
struggle of propaganda and disinformation' ... could easily be said about its own approach. Oh
the irony.
This was never about Sanders. The Clinton folks spent so much time portraying us as blind
followers that they started to believe their own hype. It was always about progressive policies
and values and if Sanders endorses a candidate who doesn't share those valued, a candidate who
will take to us war it's time to say: thanks you Sanders for all you've done but I can't join
you on the path you are walking on now.
Clinton and cronies will say or do anything to bring over the Bernie fans. When she no longer
needs them she will throw them away along with their ideas. The important decisions were made
long before anyone showed up in Phila. The fact DWS was given a job on HC's staff after getting
fired says it all. Now Bernie sells out. Don't you feel just a little used?
The mistake of establishment - Thinking people will obey Bernie's orders, nope they will get convinced
only Hillary changes some policies. 15$ and free education was a good start and that showed good
poll results for her but after this Dncleak she needs to do more than this.
The mistakes of the establishment, in this case the DNC, were numerous. The DNC thought they knew
better than anyone else who should be the party's nominee. Form the time HRC lost to Obama, they
planned for Hilary to run essentially unchallenged by any other Democrat in 2016. Her campaign
manager was made the DNC chairwoman who as we now know did her best to diminish Bernie's chances;
Hilary was offered the position of SOS to boost her credentials. She knew she could quit being
SOS in 2012 to prepare to run in 2016; and she lied for the next three years about whether or
not she would run for President because she could, as a private citizen, continue to cash in on
her speeches to the business elite and set up a network of political and business elite who could
then support her.
I have no explanation why Kerry or Biden did not run for President except that they knew better
than to challenge what was already decided. The only person willing to go for it was the most
discounted Senate member, an Independent, who for two decades had made no attempt to build a support
system within the political establishment.
With the exception of one super delegate, the majority of the DNC super delegates had already
endorsed Hilary before the first primary, and none changed his/her vote when Bernie got traction.
Even his closest ally, in ideology, Liz Warren, did not endorse Bernie. That is how corrupt &
controlling the DNC leadership has become: in this election they clearly are the king makers,
while the GOP produced 18 well-known candidates that tore each other to pieces. That tells you
how planned this whole thing was with the Democrats. Both parties are corrupt; but while the GOP
suffers from internal Chaos & cannibalism, the DNC acted with a script that fits more the way
Russians have been picking their presidents.
Despite the huge surprise success of Bernie's campaign, the passion he aroused, the young he
managed to draw in, and the millions of $27 contributions he raised, the DNC continued to weigh
more on HRC's side and, as we now know, tried to work against him behind the scenes.
The DNC's biggest mistake, however, is that they are out of touch with the young Progressives
that are their future voters, despite the fact that they can see how a sense of betrayal and disappointment
has caused the virtual demise of the GOP political elite. HRC shares the arrogance of the DNC
in thinking she can collect millions of dollars from special interests in speaking fees and then
tell us she is for Bernie's reforms. She thinks she can regurgitate much of what Bernie says,
then choose the most centrist Democratic politician to be her running mate, and still count on
the majority of Bernie's supporters to vote for her because … well, Trump is a monster. She is
wrong; the DNC is also wrong; real progressive do not cast their vote because they are afraid
of Trump; they vote for what they believe in. Voting for HRC from fear of Trump is a vote for
status quo; it does not help me if I am against status quo. The DNC has no sense of what Bernie
Sanders evoked in the young Progressive because like their GOP counterparts they too are political
automatons out of touch with real humans.
I have been told that by not voting in November, I am cutting off my nose to spite my face,
because Trump may win. Well, perhaps a Trump victory can finally help DNC internalize the
message of America's Progressives. So, I have a better analogy for not voting & possibly seeing
Trump win; sometimes you lose an arm in order to save the body.
I don't judge Hillary just on the actions of her husband. There's plenty to get my teeth into:
- Chicken hawk psychopath with innumerable foreign policy disasters on her watch including
Libya;
- Bought and paid for by the usual suspects - Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan etc;
- A security risk to the US i.e. used an unencrypted private server which was contrary to
the rules, was routinely hacked by foreign powers, contained information about covert US black
sites and was also obviously designed to hide Clinton Foundation business dealings/shenanigans.
This had nothing to do with convenience;
- Subverted the democratic process with regards to her nomination.
Reagan started deregulation, but Billy Boy and Robert Rubin continued with devastating abandon.
Just one piece of legislation: Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - largely the cause
of the 2007/2008 subprime derivatives crisis.
Jill Stein will probably siphon off Bernie supporters who would have otherwise voted for
Shillary.
As Republican nominee Donald Trump twitted Sanders "sold out to Crooked Hillary Clinton." He was
right. Actually Sanders supporter "were more than eager to list the reasons that Mrs. Clinton
deserved to be incarcerated," and were quite capable of doing so. "Lock her up" slogan became quite
popular.
June 24, 2016 was the day Bernie became a BOUGHT-AND-PAID-FOR-SHILLARY-FOR-HILLARY. Or wait,
is that what happened?
Is Bernie selling his soul to the greatest criminal mastermind in
American history, who emailed four dead Americans to Benghazi while Whitewatering Vince Foster
with LIES, LIES, SO MANY LIES? Or is that just something your Republican dad believes? (Dear
old dad, awwwwww.)
The Trump campaign also issued a
press release
saying that Sanders has now joined forces with a "rigged system," providing the
list of elitist policies he now supports by endorsing Hillary:
The candidate who ran against special interests is endorsing
the candidate who embodies special interests.
The candidate who ran against TPP is endorsing the candidate
who helped draft the TPP.
The candidate who ran in opposition to globalization is running
against the candidate who has led the push for globalization.
The candidate who warned that open borders destroy the working
class is endorsing the candidate with the most open borders policy in our history.
The candidate who wants to reform H1-B visas is endorsing the
candidate who supported lifting the caps on H1-B visas.
The candidate who wants less war is endorsing the candidate who
launched wars in Iraq and Libya and would lead us to a new war in Syria.
The candidate who wants to get money out of politics is voting
for the candidate who has made a career out of making money from politics.
"... Johnson goes in for the kill. "If you're still feeling the Bern, and feeling burned because the Clinton machine rolled over your ideals, there is another option. The Libertarian party nominee will be on the ballot on all 50 states. ..."
Due to the explosion of uncovered intrigue and foul play from within the DNC, chaos as erupted
within the Democratic party. Long story short, the DNC conspired to screw over Bernie Sanders in
favor of Hillary Clinton.
Sanders could have taken the ball and run with it, but instead punted. Regardless of all the foul
play, Sanders has told his supporters that they need to vote for Hillary. This resulted in
Sanders' own supporters turning on him, and with such intensity, that he couldn't reign them back
in.
So now we seem to have Democrat apostates, much like those seen in the Republican party who
wouldn't tolerate Trump. And like those wayward Republicans, these Democrats are likely looking
for a new home.
Enter Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, who is wasting no time in
reaching out to these former Bernie supporters with a video on Facebook.
"You
think Hillary Clinton is going to stand up for your civil rights?" said
Johnson, going on to talk about how the ACLU gave him the highest score in
Presidential politics, higher than Obama and Ron Paul.
Johnson then went on to remind the viewers about Clinton's pro-war past, and
how she regularly boasts about her decision to bomb Libya. He even puts the
expansion of ISIS's power at her feet.
"Is anything going to change if Hillary Clinton is elected President?" he
asks. "Unlike Hillary Clinton, I never supporting bombing Libya. I never
supported the Iraq War."
He even attacked her back and forth history with bad decisions regarding
criminal justice. "I've always stood up for drug policy, and criminal justice
reform."
Then Johnson goes in for the kill. "If you're still feeling the Bern,
and feeling burned because the Clinton machine rolled over your ideals, there
is another option. The Libertarian party nominee will be on the ballot on all
50 states."
Various polls have Johnson at different states of
approval, from 13% to 9%, but one thing is for sure. Johnson's support is growing daily, and with
these new developments coming out of the DNC, the Libertarian candidate may see a surge.
"... So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and them. ..."
"... His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest. ..."
"... Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are. ..."
"... Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter. ..."
"... And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for! ..."
For those who have a Twitter account, checkout #dncleak or #dncleaks on the
latest over the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails.
Here's one -"Hillary Clinton is now blaming the Russians for leaking the
emails. Like that makes it any better that you rigged the primary."
Sanders to Chuck Todd on the leaks -
Todd: "So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't given
you any pause about your support for Hillary Clinton?"
Sanders: "No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can to protect
working families in this country. And again, Chuc, I know media is not necessarily
focused on these things. But what a campaign is about is not Hillary Clinton,
it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of this country, blah blah blah..."
"[...] And I'm going to go around the country discussing them [issues] and
making sure Hillary Clinton is elected president."
So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally
marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most
importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership
of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints
the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the
DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters.
Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him
if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and
them.
UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE!
His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely
bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued,
and should seriously consider some rest.
I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal
sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker
of achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my
entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus
I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain
neutral.
Think about his response to Todd. Think about all that man has put himself,
his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were
ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how
his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes
onto say it's not important, the issues are.
If I were a Bernie supporter I'd be starting a campaign to convince that
man to take some serious time off. Go fishing. Go for hikes whatever. Just get
away from the bubble and clear your head and soul.
Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC
put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their
Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm
not even a Sanders supporter.
And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same
party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues
he's fighting for!
his does not look like a common seizure, unless seizures are so common to her that she already
knows how to control it. It is strange, but the lady behind her is even more strange, she keeps looking
at the journalists, she glances at Hillary but shows no surprise at all, nor try to help. It is almost
as if she is part of it.
The expression of one reporter seems to be pure fear:
Very fine piece of media analysis, B. The Clintonistas can only go negative, because they have
nothing meaningful to offer the electorate in a positive sense.
Just watched 'Clinton Cash' over at Breitbart and highly recommend for any interested in learning
a bit more about The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation's 'Pay to Play' scheme to enrich
their personal purse while selling out our laws aka U.S. citizens.
It's airing again tomorrow at 2pm ET and 8 pm ET Sunday, July 24 @breitbart.com
"... Well that isn't surprising. Hillary Clinton is a loser and a weak candidate ..."
"... I think Trump will win because the e-mail scandal has destroyed whatever credibility Hillary Clinton had. Sanders would beat Trump by a landslide, Elizabeth Warren would too. But Hillary is doomed. ..."
"... Polls are nonsense; particularly this far out in an unconventional election. The pollsters themselves are scratching their heads as to how to properly frame the poll questions and establish the correct survey demographics. It's all new territory for them ..."
"... Three of the four latest polls that showed Trump ahead of Clinton were conducted via telephone. So, maybe the latest polling boost for Trump isn't about increasing popularity but about emboldened supporters ..."
"... "also a few Scalias". There are worse things than Scalias. Like Hillarys. ..."
"... I think Hillary is far more dangerous. She wants war with Russia, Syria, etc ..."
"... Hilary is a poor candidate and Obama shifted the world in a significantly amoral direction. ..."
"... Nate predicts a trump win now, and for good reason. Clinton's numbers will only continue to drop with each new email leak, State Department report, Clinton Foundation pay to play allegation, and lie from her own mouth reinforcing to the majority of the electorate why they distrust and dislike her. ..."
"... Sorry liberal apologists, this is not an ordinary "post convention bump". The polls indicate that 3/4 of Americans do not believe that their country is headed in the right direction. Trump is a protest vote. ..."
"... As repugnant as some of you may find Trump's brash personality and idiotic rhetoric to be, many view him as refreshing. Most American are tired of the "establishment" and would prefer anybody to another corrupt / dishonest / smug Bush or Clinton in the White House. They have also grown tired of a neutered society and a political correctness that has quashed individuality and freedom of speech. ..."
"... Trump has built an empire and employed people. By contrast, Clinton policies have (i) caused the subprime housing crisis, (ii) exported jobs to Mexico via NAFTA, (iv) destroyed the US educational system with no child left behind, and (iv) have caused numerous foreign policy blunders. Ms. Clinton has systematically failed at everthing that she has done. More would have been accomplished by doing the opposite. ..."
"... Hillary is toast. ..."
"... Since Cruz dropped out of the primaries, the mainstream media has been engaged in a non-stop assault on Trump, fought with the kind of raw brutality last seen in the battle of Stalingrad. The Washington Post runs at least four anti-Trump opinion pieces every day. (Yes, almost 30 per week.) Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. Hillary has spent big money on advertising in the last month, and Trump has spent nothing. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. The Republican poobahs refused to attend the convention. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. Ted Cruz detonated a suicide bomb at the convention. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. ..."
"... Also, as crazy as Trump is, he didn't alienate his base with his VP pick. Instead, he sought to appease the far right of his party with Mike Pence. Meanwhile, Hillary has sought to move the Green Party's polling numbers into the double digits by picking a running mate who is opposed to abortion, presided over executions, supported a coal-fired power plant, and supports the TPP. The arrogance displayed by Hillary in picking Kaine makes Trump look humble. ..."
"... DinoMight, Leftist here again. Kain is far right on what matters - Money. Pro TPP and wants to let banks be less regulated. Also, Trump is being pounded negatively by the MSM nearly as much as Sanders was denigrated or ignored. MSM, owned by Murdock and other large corporations want Clinton. She's the money man. Trump may pull this off due to low demo turn out and objection to Clinton big $$$$$. ..."
"... As was seen with Brexit....and the death of Bruce Lee ..the Guardian is about to learn a harsh lesson it will refuse to believe is real. ..."
"... Trump will win in November because of the simple reason of whom his opponent is. ..."
I think elections reinforce discontent narratives against incumbents, and politicians wont contradict
wide spread sentiments that they don't agree with, but they instead look for some way to neutralise
them.
Hillary has two problems, as a democrat linked to Obama she is effectively the incumbent here.
Obama ran on hope and change, but provided very little change in peoples lives. Without the change
part, second time around its difficult to inspire hope.
This was the lesson of Brexit, the incumbents (Remain) were unable to offer any real change,
but their opposition (Leave) where offering real change, and therefore Hope!
So you have Clinton effectively offering people who are crying out for change, no change, and
therefore little control of their lives, and therefore little hope.
And you've got Trump offering much change, an opportunity to take back control, and therefore
much hope!
The extent to which Trumps message will resonate with voters will determine who wins. How many
people get left behind by Globalisation?...In the West look at Britain, look at Europe, look at
America....I'd say most, mainly because one size doesn't fit all.
These polls are completely skewed. CNN's poll included NO ONE UNDER 35 years old.
Last week's sample by Reuters was 78% white. The electorate in 2012 was 72% white and given
demographic changes, the electorate will be even less white this time around, while Trump's share
of non-white vote will be even smaller than Romney's was.
Meh. Clinton is actually more of a hawk that Trump. He is actually an isolationist. Clinton has
voted for more war and is for more aggressive use of the military than Trump would be.
I fear Trump would be a problem on other fronts but as far as involving us in more war and
negotiating bad trade agreements Hillary is to be feared more than Trump.
Smug limousine liberals and money printing rent seekers with no clothes swanning about. La dee
da aren't you so pretty. As John Stewart said we're not allowed to have a country. So it's yours?
Whose is it? I think it's a question that needs answering.
Trumps going to win! Sanders people will not vote. Young will not vote.
Trump 52-48
Clinton is branded crooked and e mails , no matter what just shows many this.
Predictable response? Hillary Clinton is objectively the weaker Democratic candidate this year
who always lost against nearly all Republican nominees except for Trump who even then, she is
starting to lose now.
I think Trump will win because the e-mail scandal has destroyed whatever credibility Hillary
Clinton had. Sanders would beat Trump by a landslide, Elizabeth Warren would too. But Hillary
is doomed.
Hillary might win if the non-whites come out to vote in unprecedented numbers but that is unlikely.
Trump's supporters are more motivated. The white working class will swing to Trump because Hillary
predicatably played cowardly and refused her chance to nominate Sanders or Warren for the VP slot,
choosing instead a boring fellow who is big on free trade.
The only consolation is that Trump is no Hitler and the US president will be arrested and jailed
the moment he breaks the law. May even be executed. The Americans are very very very tough on
issues like that.
Polls are nonsense; particularly this far out in an unconventional election. The pollsters
themselves are scratching their heads as to how to properly frame the poll questions and establish
the correct survey demographics. It's all new territory for them
The headline to this story is very certain reading "Why Trump's bump in the polls IS
more significant than ever" (meant to catch your eye) but in the very next sentence the words
start backpeddling to "his rise in the polls COULD be different".
So which is it Guardian ?
It is also stated in the article " Three of the four latest polls that showed Trump ahead
of Clinton were conducted via telephone. So, maybe the latest polling boost for Trump isn't about
increasing popularity but about emboldened supporters ".......could it be that these calls
went to land lines, which are skewed very much towards older voters? Young folks are more cell
phone / smart phone oriented. In that case it's capturing the older white Fox News crowd with
a heavy implicit bias...doubling down on nonsense at this point.
In the last presidential lection the polls by Nate Silver got the result exactly. This year
in Canada Nanos Polls got the general lection result accurate to 0,5 percent.
In Uk elections, typically the polls prove accurate enough.
"In Uk elections, typically the polls prove accurate enough".
Actually in the last two polls, the general election and the referendum, the polls have been
hopelessly wrong as wrong therefore as you calling woodyTX an "illiterate doit", whatever a doit
is.
Trump better have a person at every voting precinct watching those Deibold machines. Clinton got
quite good at stealing, misdirecting, shredding and generally restricting votes in a handful of
key states. When there was a paper trail, Sanders won 53% - 49%. When no paper trail, Clinton
65% to Sanders' 35%. These elections are quite rigged.
I believe that in usa is going to happen something similar with the Brexit. All the polls show
a victory of Clinton, and at the end we finish with a triumph of Trump.
The pollsters are doing and are done a very bad work in the last polls.
I ask myself, who pay them...
Its clear Trump will win.We can handle a reality TV star
We cannot handle the corrupt Clinton Machine, nor a corrupt Democratic party.
They overplayed their hand.
1. Trump is an idiot and an embarrassment.
2. Hillary is a liar.
3. The "up-side" to a Trump presidency is 4 years of entertainment. He does after all have multiple
years of the Apprentice on his resume.
4. There is no "up-side" to a Clinton presidency.
5. The "down-side" to a Trump presidency is chaos at the top levels of government.
6. The "down-side" to a Clinton presidency is another Arab-Israeli war and likely US troops committed
and dying somewhere in order to make Clinton "look" tough and gritty.
So we'll take the entertainment. Will be four years of a Rodney Dangerfield show played out
live with an unwitting lead actor.
I don't believe polls when there's a vested interest, like the Brexit ones. Yet I believe Trump
will be the next president of the US. Hilary is a poor candidate and Obama shifted the world in a significantly amoral direction.
Many will dismiss this, but a huge chunk of voters feel it is important. I'm one such.
The media has pretty much discredited itself over the years by seldom doing the complex research
necessary to report current events and hiring journalists with the education, intelligence, and
ethics to communicate realities to the readers.
The result is that even with the internet version of the newspapers, few really take their
reporting and recommendations seriously.
The public just decides for itself knowing that whether it is spin on felonious Clinton, Distracted
Sanders ("We are sick of your e-mails"), Benito Trump, or Gift-Accepting Little Don Kaine the
media will not represent anything fairly and inaccurately.
Even heaven doesn't know who is going to win the presidency this year, which is compelling
in its own way.
These polls are very bad news for those who want to believe that Hillary Clinton has already won
the election. The size of the bump is far less important then the fact that there was one. Much
of the media believes that the Republican's convention performance drastically diminished their
chances in November. It is likely that everyone will have to wait until the votes are counted
in November to know how this election plays out. But, these polls are very bad news for those
who dream of establishing the idea that Donald Trump is outside the political mainstream and that
there is something wrong with anyone who votes for him.
Obamas presidency is ending in a disaster. Foreign policy failure and a divided and violent domestic
society. All the while he seems to revel in playing the joker and appearing like the cool uncle
at a wedding.
"Three of the four latest polls that showed Trump ahead of Clinton were conducted via telephone."
Who the hell responds to a phone survey? People with a brain just hang up on them.
Instead of cherry-picked polls to justify this "story" how about the facts that matter?
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
Has Trump gained? Yes.
Is he leading "the polls?" No. Unless you leave out the polls that show Clinton leading.
Why did Hillary have the DNC sabotage Bernie? She didn't need to. She's her own worst enemy. Now
many Bernie backers won't vote for her.
I'll never vote for Trump. Usually I vote for a candidate who promises to stop the war on drugs
because such a stance entails other views I find congenial
You are right about the US, but it's hard to share your optimism. Rich enclaves like La Jolla
and Carmel and Santa Barbara are full of educated bigots, fearful people who take their instructions
from the likes of Rush Limbaugh. (One rich idiot told me that Obama was going to raise property
taxes.) And the DNC emails - plus the tone-deaf response - make it harder for Clinton than it
was already.
Trump or Brexit will never happen in an undemocratic country. A democracy controlled by a "progressive"
and "compassionate" elite through PC triple speak is not a democracy. The fears and insecurities
of people need to be addressed and not dismissed or scoffed at. Trump will win in Nov. because
he is addressing them while Hillary is not. Hillary's issues are all very old like wealth redistribution,
various rights, gun control, etc. etc. the same as those of Fidel Castro and as old too.
Superdelegates have moments left to spare the world a trump presidency by nominating Sanders instead
of Clinton.
Nate predicts a trump win now, and for good reason. Clinton's numbers will only continue
to drop with each new email leak, State Department report, Clinton Foundation pay to play allegation,
and lie from her own mouth reinforcing to the majority of the electorate why they distrust and
dislike her.
Nominate Clinton and head over the cliff to a trump presidency.
Nominate Sanders and save the white house for the Democrats with the influx of Independent and
disenfranchised Democratic voters who will never vote for Clinton.
Not necessarily true. Double edged sword. Trump and the GOP will attack Bernie "Socialist" Sanders
relentlessly. Even disenfranchised Democrats and Independents will not sacrifice the country to
the likes of Trump. There's too much as stake. The Dems have four months to turn this around and
show the American people that Trump is full of sh*t...his tax plan would make himself even reach
and save his estate billions by doing away with inheritance tax. He's not fit be be president
per his own party even Governor Chris Christie said this. Trump and the GOP will do everything
to distract the people away from the real issues...their policies and ideology is corrupt and
bankrupt. Trump like the Leave Campaign in the UK has no game plan. Just hollow words and GOP
tax policies that have time and time again been proven wrong. What George H.W. Bush called voodoo
economics. The GOP have controlled both Houses of Congress for 4 years now...and DONE absolutely
nothing to move the country forward.
Sorry liberal apologists, this is not an ordinary "post convention bump". The polls indicate
that 3/4 of Americans do not believe that their country is headed in the right direction. Trump
is a protest vote.
As repugnant as some of you may find Trump's brash personality and idiotic rhetoric to
be, many view him as refreshing. Most American are tired of the "establishment" and would prefer
anybody to another corrupt / dishonest / smug Bush or Clinton in the White House. They have also
grown tired of a neutered society and a political correctness that has quashed individuality and
freedom of speech.
Trump has built an empire and employed people. By contrast, Clinton policies have (i) caused
the subprime housing crisis, (ii) exported jobs to Mexico via NAFTA, (iv) destroyed the US educational
system with no child left behind, and (iv) have caused numerous foreign policy blunders. Ms. Clinton
has systematically failed at everthing that she has done. More would have been accomplished by
doing the opposite.
The "back-and-forthing" involved in these polls is grimly hilarious. I don't put a lot of stock
in anything taken before Labor Day, but all the same, just try to imagine the picture of the average
voter conjured up by time-lapsed poll results: "I think I'll vote for Hillary .... well, maybe
I'll vote for Trump ... no, make that Hillary .... dang it all, I'm a-goin' for Trump! ... uh,
maybe not ............" Do people just decide who to vote for based on whose face they last saw
on their television screen? What the hell is up with that? Or is there a better way to construe
the see-sawing results than my rather unflattering construction? If there is, I would be interested
in hearing it because I don't like sounding so ungenerous towards my fellow Americans.
In any case, I'll continue to hope for the best -- i.e. that the majority of us reject the
fake populism of Donald Trump.
Since Cruz dropped out of the primaries, the mainstream media has been engaged in a non-stop
assault on Trump, fought with the kind of raw brutality last seen in the battle of Stalingrad.
The Washington Post runs at least four anti-Trump opinion pieces every day. (Yes, almost 30 per
week.) Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. Hillary has spent big money on advertising
in the last month, and Trump has spent nothing. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve.
The Republican poobahs refused to attend the convention. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to
improve. Ted Cruz detonated a suicide bomb at the convention. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue
to improve.
Also, as crazy as Trump is, he didn't alienate his base with his VP pick. Instead, he sought
to appease the far right of his party with Mike Pence. Meanwhile, Hillary has sought to move the
Green Party's polling numbers into the double digits by picking a running mate who is opposed
to abortion, presided over executions, supported a coal-fired power plant, and supports the TPP.
The arrogance displayed by Hillary in picking Kaine makes Trump look humble.
Trump's handling of the media is interesting. I consider it to be one of his greatest talents.
It is undeniable that the majority of pundits (on both the left and the right) dislike Trump.
He's getting attacked from all sides whether it is the traditional pro-democrat pundits to even
a lot of the traditional republican ones (especially ones who support things like free trade and
what not, traditional republican platforms)
However, Trump himself gets a ton of air time, deservedly so I might add. When he shows up
on TV, ratings go up. People want to see him on TV, people want to see his interviews. He doesn't
need to pay for ads when there are tons and tons of reporters who want to interview him! He is
earning his own air time!
DinoMight, Leftist here again. Kain is far right on what matters - Money. Pro TPP and wants
to let banks be less regulated. Also, Trump is being pounded negatively by the MSM nearly as much
as Sanders was denigrated or ignored. MSM, owned by Murdock and other large corporations want
Clinton. She's the money man. Trump may pull this off due to low demo turn out and objection to
Clinton big $$$$$.
I've heard some people recently commenting that they are going to vote for Trump not because they
particularly like Trump but rather because they actively dislike Hillary. As in the case of president
Obama there are many who cannot get their heads around that someone other than a white man could
be president. Sanders was a breath of fresh air but the political machine that is the Democratic
party had already chosen Hillary. Sadly, it's a contest that will be about which candidate is
the lessor of two weevils.
Well, to base an article on a speculation that Trump's post-convention bump will be like no other
is a bit silly. Best to wait until the end of the Democratic Party's convention before jumping
to any conclusions.
"... Sanders was always just the shiny carrot used to attract the naive youth and rope them in to Clinton's campaign. It's all a charade as it's always been. ..."
"... Well Clinton is a neoliberal. They believe in destroying someone's whole life for making a mistake once. So perhaps she is getting a taste of her own medicine. ..."
"... bernie is a accomplice sell out….sanders sold out to the criminal psychopath clinton…what a disappointment he turned out to be... ..."
"... In different manner, Mr Trump has shaken the Republican Party to its foundations. He too has been subject to a devious counter-campaign. Thus, this is a unique moment for the USA: each of the two dominant political parties is reeling and given the right push shall either reform or fall. ..."
"... Victoria Nuland and Hunter Biden as instrumental supporters of a fascist coup in the Ukraine...fascist coup. Support for Nazis. "We came, we saw; he died", said Hilary Rodham Clinton following the bloody Benghazi incident. There you have two excellent examples of Fascism and Authoritarianism, M.C.. Words and acts. ..."
"... Sanders is trying to hold back the tide for change , and he will be found out. He is an utter hypocrite, who is reneging on everything that he said so recently. The Democrats are a party for the 1% ---whoever is the leader. A new, mass party of socialism is urgently needed. ..."
"... Trump is a Bully, Hillary is a War Criminal. If Bernie won't lead a REVOLT--then We, the People will. ..."
"... Loons. Hillary Clinton is just Dick Cheney without the long, ah, nose... ..."
"... Hillary is indisputably a Neoliberal and Necon (warmonger), she's a threat to humanity. ..."
"... Actually Hillary Clinton is perched quite a bit to the right of the Party. ..."
"... Let me correct the record: it is nuts to support a candidate that is trusted by only 28% of the population! Nate Silver came out with a new projection that shows Hillary will lose to Trump. In a poll with a three way race Hillary, Trump, and with Johnson opposing Trump, Hillary STILL loses to Trump even though Johnson got a nice little chunk of the right leaning voters... ..."
"... How is somebody not going to jail? And, why isn't there talk of holding a fair and Democratic primary? ..."
"... HRCand DWS brought it on themselves. I am a registered democrat. I wanted a relatively clean establishment democrat without looming scandals to run. That didn't happen because Hillary ran. ..."
"... She gives me the heebie jeebies. Julian Assange has apparently got something on her which will deliver the coup de grace. I am loving Wikileaks at the moment. ..."
"... I hope Clinton will become less and less popular in the run up to the election, what would be fantastic is if we see Bernie running as an independent, America needs to have real democracy for once. ..."
"... People say lock her up ..."
"... No, she's above the law. As ex-Guardian columnist states so eloquently, there are 2 sets of laws in America---1 for elites like the Clintons, and another for everybody else. ..."
Sanders was always just the shiny carrot used to attract the naive youth and rope them in to Clinton's
campaign. It's all a charade as it's always been.
Well Clinton is a neoliberal. They believe in destroying someone's whole life for making a
mistake once. So perhaps she is getting a taste of her own medicine.
Mr Sanders is wrong to continue support for Clinton.
Not only has Clinton admitted wilful breach of sensible electronic communication security arrangements
but also her associates, likely with her tacit blessing, have done all in their power to undermine
Mr Sanders. Allegations of vote rigging (e.g. excluding people entitled to vote, closing polling
stations in locations where support for Clinton is thin, and strong presumptive statistical evidence
that voting machines have been tampered with) give little credence to Clinton being fit for the
presidency.
Even Mr Trump has condemned this behaviour and I don't believe that wholly to be through political
opportunism.
There is an open offer for Mr Sanders to jump ship and front the Green Party. Else, he could
stand as an independent democrat. What Mr Sanders must not do is lie down and accept having been
shafted. He has pledged support to Clinton. He did this without full knowledge of the facts of
Clinton's duplicity. Thus he is no longer honour bound to stick to his word. Indeed, by accepting
the manipulated would-be status quo he becomes tainted by Clinton's malodorous persona.
Mr Sanders is of an age when it soon shall be increasingly difficult to meet the physical demands
of running for high office. This is his one and only chance for the presidency. Regardless of
whether he succeeds, his stab at the presidency will give heart to a huge number of disenchanted
US voters and bring about major changes to the Democratic Party establishment, to its electoral
procedures and to its longer term policy platform; an alternative being collapse of that party
and replacement by an entity better suited to the 21st century.
In different manner, Mr Trump has shaken the Republican Party to its foundations. He too has
been subject to a devious counter-campaign. Thus, this is a unique moment for the USA: each of
the two dominant political parties is reeling and given the right push shall either reform or
fall.
Victoria Nuland and Hunter Biden as instrumental supporters of a fascist coup in the Ukraine...fascist
coup. Support for Nazis. "We came, we saw; he died", said Hilary Rodham Clinton following the
bloody Benghazi incident. There you have two excellent examples of Fascism and Authoritarianism,
M.C.. Words and acts.
Remember how Team Clinton kept pushing the lie about Bernie supporters throwing chairs at the
Nevada convention? I think I saw that mentioned in articles here more than once as well.
Who needs to look at facts would be you and the other willfully blind Hillary supporters.
Notably, the FBI DID NOT investigate this law...why didn't the Hillary loyalist, Loretta Lynch,
include this one as part of their investigation? Hmmm. I wonder...
Hillary Clinton broke this law.
http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1663-protection-government-property-protection-public-records-and
Subsection (b) of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 contains a similar prohibition specifically directed at custodians
of public records. Any custodian of a public record who "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes,
mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys (any record) shall be fined not more than $2,000
or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified
from holding any office under the United States." While the range of acts proscribed by this subsection
is somewhat narrower than subsection (a), it does provide the additional penalty of forfeiture
of position with the United States.
Sanders is trying to hold back the tide for change , and he will be found out. He is an utter hypocrite,
who is reneging on everything that he said so recently. The Democrats are a party for the 1% ---whoever
is the leader. A new, mass party of socialism is urgently needed.
Let me correct the record: it is nuts to support a candidate that is trusted by only 28% of the
population! Nate Silver came out with a new projection that shows Hillary will lose to Trump.
In a poll with a three way race Hillary, Trump, and with Johnson opposing Trump, Hillary STILL
loses to Trump even though Johnson got a nice little chunk of the right leaning voters...
Who is nuts, now, dude?
HRCand DWS brought it on themselves. I am a registered democrat. I wanted a relatively clean establishment
democrat without looming scandals to run. That didn't happen because Hillary ran.
I wanted a clean looking election with few glaring conflicts of interests. That didn't happen
because DWS didn't step down and high level party members couldn't keep their mouths shut over
email.
Now, we're expected to smile, nod, look the other way, and vote for Hillary. I will do that
this time, but, if Hillary loses, I will never support her again.
She gives me the heebie jeebies. Julian Assange has apparently got something on her which will deliver the coup de grace. I am loving Wikileaks at the moment.
I hope Clinton will become less and less popular in the run up to the election, what would be
fantastic is if we see Bernie running as an independent, America needs to have real democracy
for once.
No, she's above the law. As ex-Guardian columnist states so eloquently, there are 2 sets of laws
in America---1 for elites like the Clintons, and another for everybody else.
There is no Debbie Wasserman. There has never been any Debbie Wasserman. The Party is unified.
The Party has always been unified. The Great Leader, Hillary...
Bernie Sanders Gets Booed When He Asks Delegates to Elect Hillary Clinton | 25 July 2016 |The
crowd of delegates in the convention center ballroom didn't come for unity: They came for Bernie
Sanders. Sanders, the Vermont senator whose bid to beat back Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination
fell short, took the stage this afternoon to speak to his delegates before he'll take a bigger stage
in a few hours-at the Democratic National Convention on its opening night, in a bid to promote unity
in the party as it gears up to face Republican Donald Trump in the fall. The packed ballroom cheered
and chanted as Sanders recounted the successes of his campaign...But when he finally got around to
speaking about the woman who will actually be the Democratic nominee, the crowd soured on their hero.
During a California delegation breakfast at the opening of the DNC Monday, House Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues were practically booed off the stage by enraged members of
their state's delegation.
Roll Call reports:
Members of the delegation repeatedly disrupted the lineup of speakers, including House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, with protestations against Clinton and cheers for her erstwhile
primary rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
But whenever a speaker talked about uniting to elect Clinton in November, the crowd balked.
They booed Rep. Michael M. Honda. And chanted, "Bernie, Bernie, Bernie!" during Rep. Barbara
Lee's address.
Pelosi tried to unify the room by emphasizing the commonalities in the room rather than the
divisions. "The differences that we have are not so great compared to the chasm between us and
Republicans," she said.
But the crowd wasn't having it. When a "Bernie" sign was thrust in Pelosi's face on stage,
she remained calm, saying, "I don't consider it a discourtesy even if it is intended as one."
[...]
With one final call for unity, and rallying calls to take back the House and the Senate,
Pelosi walked off stage to more "Bernie" chants.
Perhaps in their arrogance establishment Democrats actually expected delegates to swallow
whole the lies they have been selling all this time.
Fifty-five people have been issued citations for disorderly conduct for trying to climb over
police barricades at the edge of the security zone surrounding the convention, law enforcements
said, according to AP.
Protests have descended on City Hall and FDR Park, which are downtown right behind the
Democratic Convention security zone. Local police have been bracing for the up to 50,000
protesters that are expected daily.
Protesters have been chanting "Hell no DNC, we won't vote for Hillary" as
anti-Clinton banners flood the streets outside the Wells Fargo Center.
... ... ...
Some of the banners read "Hillary for Prison," while others had pictures of
Republican nominee Donald Trump and Clinton united under the slogan "Either Way, Wall Street
Wins."
"... The "dark speech" theme was obviously a canned response by the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... independent media ..."
"... You know that's a common problem with the 1% oriented inner party and their outer party wannabes. They 'have nothing meaningful to offer the electorate in a positive sense'. ..."
"... The Don has benefitted not only from his worldwide brand prior to entering the race, but also from what came before him. A pretty large Paulite mobilisation in 2008, followed by an at times clinical insurgency into the party rank and file in 2012 created an atmosphere just perfect for Trump to follow in behind. ..."
"... The Paulite insurgency which in great detail engineered massive primary caucus delegate victories (see Minnesota) against the popular vote were so effective that the RNC changed the voting rules. And so, the 2016 primary delegates would be bound to the popular vote. ..."
"... I am not sure that this revolution is what Good Dr Ron had in mind, but as an outsider looking in it's not hard to tell that The Don has aimed a couple of clever soundbites in regards to foreign policy squarely at the Paulites...even though you don't need to be too anti-war entice votes from Hilary. ..."
"... The RNC imploded. Because of Paul they lost a switch and lever crucial to event rigged - whenever Trump tweets 'RIGGED' that a war chant aimed at all conscious human beings. ..."
"... Trump raises much less money than Clinton. He simply does not need as much as she does. He can spend more time on real campaigning than Clinton who must hurry from one fund raiser to the next one. Meanwhile Clinton's negative campaigning against Trump reinforces his message. ..."
"... Good one - yes, the mass corporate press really is scripted, and really they all read from the same script. ..."
"... I look at politics through what is called "Deep Politics" which to me means politics viewed as it is rather than through the lens of American Exceptionalism." The oligarchs have fallen out among themselves at the very time that they achieved absolute control over our society. Part of all the differences are about "personal" rivalries among the aristocracy, another and part is about ethnic and social rivalries, and finally there are several different ideologies at work here. This explains the drift we have seen during the Obama years. ..."
"... In the current system American politicians are power brokers who arrange deals and they tend to have very little personal power. Thus Obama's FP seems to be utterly rudderless and full of constant zig-zags. ..."
"... Trump, in my view, saw that the disaffected factions had nowhere to go and were more nationalist and not as global in their views and believed he could Marshall those then inchoate forces into a movement. Trump was also, unlike most oligarchs, in touch with the yeoman class who do the heavy lifting in our society and are and have been ignored by the major factions as being irrelevant. Now Trump is heading the first genuine populist movement since FDR ..."
"... I have it from a source I trust that Trump is fully aware of some of the skullduggery of the back ops cadre which explains his alliance with Alex Jones and his posse. ..."
Clinton's negative campaign against Trump, and the media leashed to her messages, are doing Trump
a huge favor. Unless they can break away from their limited framework, stop their unintended advertising
for Trump's campaign, they will propel him to victory.
The three networks on Thursday night immediately derided Donald Trump's "dark speech" as one coming
from a "vengeful" "demagogue."
The "dark speech" theme was obviously a canned response by the Clinton campaign. Her
independent media (not) dutifully repeated it over and over. But that negative "dark speech"
theme, supposed to condemn Trump, only makes his point.
@4, Colin 'The Clintonistas can only go negative, because they have nothing meaningful to offer
the electorate in a positive sense.'
You know that's a common problem with the 1% oriented inner party and their outer party
wannabes. They 'have nothing meaningful to offer the electorate in a positive sense'. That's
exactly the 'problem' here in Thailand. The Democrat Party here, which is in about the same position
as there, adopted the 'strategy' of boycotting elections. Not even running. They knew they had
not a snowball's chance in South Thailand of winning.
The 'solution' to their problem here was ... military coup and dictatorship. Turn back the
clock to the middle ages and see how that works out. The thing about dictatorships is that they
make 'society' stupid and cowardly. All the state functionaries identify with the dictator and
in every situation ask themselves 'what would the dictator do?' and then they do it. They are
at once even more irrational and brutal than the dictator himself ... or than the dictator himself
after his advisors have cajoled and pleaded or the plutocrats have threatened him ... because
they are deathly afraid of incurring the dictator's wrath for being 'lax'.
And at the same time they'd like to stand out as dictatoresque men of action themselves ...
just like the d-man himself. Maybe they can be d-men someday. Society is degenerating, and the
pace has picked up in the past couple of months on the way to the dictator's referendum on his
waaaay over the top charter, aka constitution, for Thailand. They arrested and charged two 8 year-old
girls the other day who appropriated some important papers they'd hung up, because they put there
orders on pink paper and the girls thought the paper was beautiful.
Anyway, Trump is analogous to Thaksin, not to put too fine a point on it, at least he's talkin'
the talk. The Democrats have nothing to offer ordinary
@7 ms, 'It is the time for nationalists and globalists to have a political war'
I think its time for corporatists and humanists to have a war. I know that hard-right - libertarians
- conceive of the government as the arch, evil corporation, but in fact that is because it is
run by the arch. evil transnational corporations. The TTP / TTIP embody that corporate manifest.
They want to take decision-making out of the hands of human beings and put it in the hands of
the TNCs, because as slave 'owners' or 'managers' of corporations their livelihoods are completely
dependent on the 'well-being', bottom line anyway, of those TNCs.
The real problem with government
is that it is absentee-owned, we the people have taken a permanent vacation, and the corporations
have usurped our place. So the battle is to seize control of our governments and to geld the TNCs.
There is much more overlap in our immediate goals than in our conception of how the world works,
but the key word there is immediate. We have enough common ground there to form a coherent, goal
directed, expeditionary-force, to battle the corporatists from the left and the globalists from
the right, though we retire to separate tents with our fellows to plan the struggles of tomorrow,
once the immediate battle has been closed and won.
@jfl 5
No, he cant lose vs Hilary. Impossible... as the outside observer (so more tuned to receive US
foreign policy banter)
The Don has benefitted not only from his worldwide brand prior to entering
the race, but also from what came before him. A pretty large Paulite mobilisation in 2008, followed
by an at times clinical insurgency into the party rank and file in 2012 created an atmosphere
just perfect for Trump to follow in behind.
For how fortunate the republican climate was/is for The Don, it was equally balanced by how
unforgiving it was to Cruz. The RNC shot stooge Cruz in the back 4 years ago.
The Paulite insurgency which in great detail engineered massive primary caucus delegate
victories (see Minnesota) against the popular vote were so effective that the RNC changed the
voting rules. And so, the 2016 primary delegates would be bound to the popular vote.
An unfathomable lack of foresight right there, but also gives you an idea of how shitscared
Stooge Romney was of the Paul faithful, whose leader had been subject to media blackout by much
of the MSM and passed off as a cuck wherever else he was mentioned. Romney couldn't have him hijacking
the 2012 RNC.
Delegates now bound by popular vote instead of the caucus based system which encourages grass
roots involvement is a perfect platform for...well..a populist.
I am not sure that this revolution is what Good Dr Ron had in mind, but as an outsider
looking in it's not hard to tell that The Don has aimed a couple of clever soundbites in regards
to foreign policy squarely at the Paulites...even though you don't need to be too anti-war entice
votes from Hilary.
The Dems will have their reformation in 2020 - but I don't think they'll be feeling The Bern
as much as the RNC is feeling Dr Ron's Pay-It-Forward Prescription.
The RNC imploded. Because of Paul they lost a switch and lever crucial to event rigged
- whenever Trump tweets 'RIGGED' that a war chant aimed at all conscious human beings.
At least with Emperor Trump libertarians also get their wish of minimal government. Something
to smile about I guess.
For all of Hillary's weaknesses and venality it is going to be next to impossible for Trump to
beat her as long as he labors under a
gender gap of historic proportions . After Hillary is elected, expect even more and larger
U.S. wars. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Doomsday Clock will likely tick
two minutes to midnight, something it hasn't done since 1953 at the height of the Cold War.
Excellent run-down on the way Visionless Twerps emphasize their lack of vision by resorting to
one-word slogans as a substitute for POLICIES, b.
This observation sums up Hillary's dilemna with superb and delicious clarity:
Trump raises much less money than Clinton. He simply does not need as much as she does.
He can spend more time on real campaigning than Clinton who must hurry from one fund raiser
to the next one. Meanwhile Clinton's negative campaigning against Trump reinforces his message.
If she keeps believing her own bullshit (fingers crossed), and she slides in the polls, it's
not hard to imagine that she'll have to put the Putin excuse on the back-burner and swing a wrecking
ball through Team Clinton in retribution for her own dumbfuckery.
With Right-wing Cranks it's ALWAYS somebody else's fault when a half-baked scheme goes belly-up.
Good one - yes, the mass corporate press really is scripted, and really they all read from
the same script.
I guess they decided that 'racist' and 'fascist' were starting to lose their shock value due
to overuse, and they decided to try 'dark' for a while.
If I was a talented hacker I would love to intercept the marching orders that the media get
and replace the official cuss-word of the day with something like 'ontological', and see how many
media outlets blindly use the word even though it makes no sense at all…
"Donald Trump's speech darkly ontological" - NYT
"The specter of ontology haunting the Trump campaign" - The Guardian
"Putin and Trump: ontological partners?" - Time magazine
I can dream...
I think perhaps the worst thing that Bill Clinton did to this country - worse than NAFTA, worse
than repealing Glass-Steagall, or bailing out the big banks that made bad loans to Mexico etc.etc.,
was allowing the media to consolidate.
I think the biggest priority for anyone who wants his country to stop going down the drain,
would be to break up the big media monopolies, prevent news organizations from owning or being
owned by any other business, and blocking foreign nationals from controlling US media outlets.
IMHO.
Bravo b. But you've been too kind with your description:
"The New York Times journalist tweeted" [..] The journos' shallow-brained reaction is a
main ingredient of it"
Imho, "journalist" joined the Dodos decades ago. What we now have are Stenos., Cut and Pasters
at corporate media.
May I use your apt descriptor "shallow-brained"? Yes, shallow-brain Stenos. No exercise of
brain cells required.
"Oh my, we need to separate the adverts, do you have a ready piece you'd like us to print? Send
it over."
On Election day, the turnout to vote may be as low as 30%.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
@ Mike Maloney 15
For all of Hillary's weakness and venality it is going to be next to impossible for Trump
to beat her…[..]"
btw, I .do. not. have. a. vote.
but
May I suggest
You underestimate the utter public disgust for the Clinton dynasty. Take any segment - from the
low-informed to independents- they are tired and wish to see the backs of Clintons.
Michael Moore sees even progressives will stay at home. A low turnout favours Trump.
And do you not think the emails, ones from the DNC and HRC private servers, will keep on giving?
At the link, do scroll up to "Wow" read the DNCLeak email. Donna Brazile says there are more
coming….
Democrats in Disarray UPDATE 10:25 P.M. ET
Hillary Clinton, in an interview with 60 Minutes, says: "I don't know anything about these emails.
I haven't followed it. But I'm very proud of the campaign I ran. And I'm very proud of the campaign
that Sen. Sanders ran."
When asked by 60 minutes if it would have been "improper" for anyone inside the DNC to favor one
candidate over another, Hillary Clinton responds: "Again, I don't have any information about this.
So I can't answer specifically. We ran our campaign. We ran hard. We worked to have as many successes
as possible. We're very proud we got{.}
~ ~ ~
as always HRC admits to " knowing nothing about it " and "is sometimes confused."
HRC, the next president with Bill the first spouse?
I look at politics through what is called "Deep Politics" which to me means politics viewed
as it is rather than through the lens of American Exceptionalism." The oligarchs have fallen out
among themselves at the very time that they achieved absolute control over our society. Part of
all the differences are about "personal" rivalries among the aristocracy, another and part is
about ethnic and social rivalries, and finally there are several different ideologies at work
here. This explains the drift we have seen during the Obama years.
In the current system American politicians are power brokers who arrange deals and they
tend to have very little personal power. Thus Obama's FP seems to be utterly rudderless and full
of constant zig-zags.
The main faction which includes Soros and his gang have the advantage of controlling the major
propaganda organs and they support the Clintons. Trump, in my view, saw that the disaffected
factions had nowhere to go and were more nationalist and not as global in their views and believed
he could Marshall those then inchoate forces into a movement. Trump was also, unlike most oligarchs,
in touch with the yeoman class who do the heavy lifting in our society and are and have been ignored
by the major factions as being irrelevant. Now Trump is heading the first genuine populist movement
since FDR though he is much closer to Mussolini in style and substance except for the imperial
ambitions.
Even if Trump wins that does not mean the dominant faction is dead because as long as the muscle
part of the faction, mainly the black op faction remains in the globalist corner, they will still
be able to assert themselves. Trump, if he wants to have free rein must purge some of these people
and make some deals with the rest of we will see major instability. I have it from a source
I trust that Trump is fully aware of some of the skullduggery of the back ops cadre which explains
his alliance with Alex Jones and his posse.
The "issues" here are irrelevant. This is about a struggle for power and if it is a close election
the race will come down to who can control the ballot. American elections are noonger honest so
who controls the count controls the election.
One little caveat here. During the 00 ballot counting period in Florida while I was working
on a top secret project one of the senior people on the project who was ex-military told me his
sources in the military told him that if Gore won there would be a military coup. I believe the
Supreme Court was aware of this and threw the election to Bush. I think we are seeing the most
important election of our lifetime and no matter who wins we will see even more unraveling of
the USA.
This is exactly the analysis that Scott Adams, the Dilbert comic strip creator, has been following
for over a year. Understanding Trump as a 'Master Persuader' and relying on his training as a
hypnotist, he was one of the first to say Trump was on his way to a landslide win, not just the
Republican nomination. Check out his twitter feed "@ScottAdamsSays" for his latest thoughts.
Donald
Trump bounces into the lead | 25 July 2016 | The bounce is back. Donald Trump comes
out of his convention ahead of Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House, topping her 44% to
39% in a four-way matchup including Gary Johnson (9%) and Jill Stein (3%) and by three points in
a two-way head-to-head, 48% to 45%. That latter finding represents a 6-point convention bounce for
Trump, which are traditionally measured in two-way matchups. There hasn't been a significant post-convention
bounce in CNN's polling since 2000.
"... More than 1,000 people from as far as Seattle and Florida participated in the first of what are expected to be many Sanders rallies during the convention, which formally begins Monday. ..."
"... anger at Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment was not cooled ..."
"... At the front of the parade was a flag with the Democratic donkey flying upside down. Further animating the protest was the release by WikiLeaks of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee showing party efforts to undermine Mr. Sanders's candidacy, reinforcing a widespread view among marchers that party leaders had stacked the deck against him. ..."
"... "It's not just young people who are furious. There are people who have been Democrats for decades and are completely angry," said Kimberly Cooper, 59, of Florida. "Now with the WikiLeaks thing, I am finished supporting her." ..."
"... Numerous marchers said they would support Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. They rejected the argument that not voting for Mrs. Clinton would help Mr. Trump. ..."
More than 1,000 people from as far as Seattle and Florida participated in the first of what are
expected to be many Sanders rallies during the convention, which formally begins Monday. The march,
led by a banner proclaiming "Help End Establishment Politics, Vote No on Hillary," was far larger
than any of the protest marches last week in Cleveland at the Republican National Convention.
... ... ...
But the unreconstructed anger at Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment was not cooled,
despite Mr. Sanders's endorsement of Mrs. Clinton two weeks ago.
At the front of the parade was a flag with the Democratic donkey flying upside down. Further animating
the protest was the release by WikiLeaks of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee
showing party efforts to undermine Mr. Sanders's candidacy, reinforcing a widespread view among marchers
that party leaders had stacked the deck against him.
"It's not just young people who are furious. There are people who have been Democrats for
decades and are completely angry," said Kimberly Cooper, 59, of Florida. "Now with the WikiLeaks
thing, I am finished supporting her."
Brandon Gorcheff, of Youngstown, Ohio, who held a handmade sign reading "Move Left" that spoofed
the Clinton campaign's arrow logo, said nothing could get him to support Mrs. Clinton. Michelle
Cyr, who flew to Philadelphia from Bath, Me., said, "The Democratic Party is so out of touch with
its constituents."
Joshua Brown, an alternate delegate from North Carolina who supports Mr. Sanders, a Vermont senator,
said he was concerned that people would desert the party in the fall, either abstaining or voting
for a third-party candidate and bolstering Mr. Trump's chances.
... ... ...
Numerous marchers said they would support Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. They rejected
the argument that not voting for Mrs. Clinton would help Mr. Trump.
It is interesting how quickly the elite lost control. Revolutionary situation indeed.
Notable quotes:
"... Every time Clinton's name was mentioned thereafter, the crowd erupted into chaos: Sanders supporters shouting against Clinton supporters. ..."
"... As Cummings talked about how proud his late father would be of the people in the room, Sanders' supporters shouted, "No TPP, No TPP," in reference to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. ..."
When Rev. Cynthia Hale mentioned Hillary Clinton for the first time during the invocation, the
floor erupted into boos.
Clinton supporters began chanting, "Hil-la-ry, Hil-la-ry," but they were quickly drowned out
by chants of "Bernie, Bernie!"
Bernie Sanders supporter and organizer Billy Taylor held a coffin painted with donkeys during a
march Sunday in Philadelphia. He told NPR he applied for protest permits to "stop any Hillary
supporters from obtaining permits."
Every time Clinton's name was mentioned thereafter, the crowd erupted into chaos: Sanders
supporters shouting against Clinton supporters.
... ... ...
A Democratic Party official tells Tamara that the Sanders and Clinton campaigns have tried to
work together to present a united front. Early into the convention, it was clear those talks and
the message from Sanders had not swayed the delegations.
Rep. Marcia Fudge, from Ohio, was shouted down many times as she tried to get through some
procedural motions.
"I intend to be fair," she said as the crowd booed. "I am going to be respectful of you and I
want you to be respectful of me. We are all Democrats and we need to act like it."
The same thing happened as Rep. Elijah Cummings delivered a speech centering on social
justice.
As Cummings talked about how proud his late father would be of the people in the room,
Sanders' supporters shouted, "No TPP, No TPP," in reference to the Trans-Pacific Partnership
agreement.
Late-night host Stephen Colbert "took the gloves off" and went into a nearly three-minute long
skit this week on Hillary
Clinton's integrity.
"F*** it, I gotta take the gloves off," the comedian told his audience Monday night. "The Late
Show" host then began a series of pop-culture analogies to demonstrate the former secretary of
state's alleged dishonesty.
"Secretary Clinton, you
are so untrustworthy that Beyoncé is working on a concept about you," Mr. Colbert said. "Come on.
Come on, Hillary. You knew
that people think you're untrustworthy, and then you did something untrustworthy. That's like
Richard Gere going to the pet store and hovering around the gerbil aisle. You look so shady right
now that FIFA wants to hire you. […] I wouldn't trust you with Secret deodorant."
The comedian then said that
Mrs. Clinton might want to check her email server for fortune cookies because "I'm guessing
there's been a lot of Chinese take-out."
FBI Director James B. Comey recently said
Mrs. Clinton was "extremely
careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," during her tenure
as President Obama's top diplomat.
"Seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access
Program level when they were sent and received," Mr. Comey
said during a nationally televised press conference on July 5. "These chains involved
Secretary Clinton both
sending emails about those matters and receiving
"... So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally
marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly,
his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic
Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we
all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly
and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal
and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and
their chosen candidate that screwed him and them. ..."
"... His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded
with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and
should seriously consider some rest. ..."
"... I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal
sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker of
achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my entire
life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus I aligned
with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain neutral. ..."
"... Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his
voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than
48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately,
with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues
are. ..."
"... Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC
put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their
Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not
even a Sanders supporter. ..."
"... And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same
party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues
he's fighting for! ..."
"... AFAICT he got very little for his support (will he get a cabinet position
for himself?). He didn't have to endorse Hillary. He doesn't have to speak at the
Convention (but he will tonight). ..."
For those who have a Twitter account, checkout #dncleak or #dncleaks on the
latest over the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails.
Here's one -"Hillary Clinton is now blaming the Russians for leaking the
emails. Like that makes it any better that you rigged the primary."
Sanders to Chuck Todd on the leaks -
Todd: "So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't
given you any pause about your support for Hillary Clinton?"
Sanders: "No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can
to protect working families in this country. And again, Chuc, I know media
is not necessarily focused on these things. But what a campaign is about
is not Hillary Clinton, it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of this
country, blah blah blah..."
"[...] And I'm going to go around the country discussing them [issues] and
making sure Hillary Clinton is elected president."
So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally
marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most
importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership
of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints
the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the
DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters.
Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him
if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and
them.
UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE!
His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely
bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued,
and should seriously consider some rest.
I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal
sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker
of achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my
entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus
I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain
neutral.
Think about his response to Todd. Think about all that man has put himself,
his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were
ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how
his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes
onto say it's not important, the issues are.
If I were a Bernie supporter I'd be starting a campaign to convince that
man to take some serious time off. Go fishing. Go for hikes whatever. Just get
away from the bubble and clear your head and soul.
Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC
put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their
Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm
not even a Sanders supporter.
And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same
party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues
he's fighting for!
His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome.
You are assuming that Sanders is a victim instead of a conspirator.
Why
would anyone give any politician in our corrupt system the benefit of the
doubt? Even one that seems to be against 'the system'?
Why didn't Bernie release more than one year of tax returns?
Especially since Hillary cited this as a reason not to release
the transcripts of her speaches to Goldman Sachs.
Why didn't Bernie use the emails against Hillary after the State
Department Inspector General released their report?
This official report clearly demonstrated that Hillary
had consistently misled the nation about her emails.
Why didn't Bernie attack Obama's record on Black/Minority affairs?
Obama's support is part of the reason that Blacks/Minorities
were voting for Hillary. Obama never went to Feruson or New York
or Baltimore. Obama's weak economic stimulous and austerity policies
have been very bad for blacks/minorities. Obama bailed out banks
that targeted minorities for toxic loans. Etc.
Why does Bernie, at 74-years old, care more about Hillary (which
he calls a friend of 25 years) and the Democratic Party than his principles?
AFAICT he got very little for his support (will he get a
cabinet position for himself?). He didn't have to endorse Hillary.
He doesn't have to speak at the Convention (but he will tonight).
"... Trump, unlike most politicians, isn't a pitiful, cowardly liar who'd sell his soul, his mother and his best friend for a fistful of cash. You're probably confusing him with Tony Bliar, Bush II and 'Mr Magoo without the good intentions' - John W Howard, a creepy sell-out with no presence, personality or moral compass. ..."
But don't expect anything much in the way of 'keeping promises' post-election. "What, those
were promises? I was just putting on a show, and you _loved_ it." Posted by: fairleft | Jul 25, 2016 12:28:47 PM | 42
You wish...
Trump, unlike most politicians, isn't a pitiful, cowardly liar who'd sell his soul, his mother and
his best friend for a fistful of cash. You're probably confusing him with Tony Bliar, Bush II and
'Mr Magoo without the good intentions' - John W Howard, a creepy sell-out with no presence, personality
or moral compass.
After one of his early promise-laden election victories, he had the gall to dismiss a press query
about several of his broken promises thus:
"Uhh, they were non-core promises."
Trump's too smart and proud to box himself in with false promises. If he's flogging a vague idea
it'll be vague BEFORE the election, not afterwards.
Remember Obama railed against "stupid wars". I assumed that he was referring to the destruction
of Iraq. Since then, Obama has engaged the USA in more stupid wars than any president in history.
Now we have Trump - America First. Also opposed to stupid wars. But his favorite Foreign Policy guy is Zionist for Yinon Plan for Greater Israel John Bolton.
That can't be good.
BUT Trump is not saber rattling straight out of the box like the Hell Bitch is doing.
"... If you want to understand the Trump campaign team and Paul Manafort then read Franklin Foer's outstanding article in Slate magazine (28 April 2016) entitled "The Quiet American" . It'll blow your socks off. Manafort is selling Trump to the American people as a clean skin product, a break from insider corruption. It's a lie but it's enough to defeat Hillary. ..."
Trump is an egotist but I don't think he's that smart. I think his media successes are due to
his curent campaign director Paul Manafort, who takes over from Roger Stone, a long time Trump ally
and Republican Party trickster. Previously Manafort ran a PR firm that catered to every dictator
imaginable (it was joked about in Washington as 'The Torturers' Lobby').
Manafort and Stone formed a company in 1980 that ran the election campaigns for a generation of
Republicans and held cartel-like control over the Republican primaries. As one consultant put it:
"They managed all of the major campaigns. Atwater took Bush; Black ran Dole; Stone handled Jack Kemp.
A congressional staffer joked to a reporter from Time, 'Why have primaries for the nomination? Why
not have the candidates go over to Black, Manafort and Stone and argue it out?'"
If you want to understand the Trump campaign team and Paul Manafort then read Franklin Foer's
outstanding article in Slate magazine (28 April 2016) entitled
"The Quiet American". It'll blow your socks off. Manafort is selling Trump to the American people
as a clean skin product, a break from insider corruption. It's a lie but it's enough to defeat Hillary.
Manafort says the Trump campaign is about
law and order and that dark themes, absurdly, only elevate Trump as the peace bringer.
"... Barack Obama = CIA creation to be a rubber stamp. He was never a leader. Early on, he'd
clearly indicated that the job of the President is not to lead, but to pass or veto bills from
Congress. This narrow interpretation allowed him to screw us good. He and his dupes explained that
we got screwed because of meany republicans and especially b/c "his hands were tied". ..."
Barack Obama = CIA creation to be a rubber stamp. He was never a leader. Early on,
he'd clearly indicated that the job of the President is not to lead, but to pass or veto bills
from Congress. This narrow interpretation allowed him to screw us good. He and his dupes
explained that we got screwed because of meany republicans and especially b/c "his hands were
tied".
So many lies. One of my favorites: "The government cannot create jobs."
Trump, OTOH, is a natural leader. He is a boor, but he is a natural leader. When Congress sets
about to screw the commons, the remedy is "The Bully Pulpit".
Explain on TV the nature of the situation to the people. Watch Congress capitulate when you call
the bastards out individually.
"... Trump is favored mostly because he is an anti-establishment figure (and part of his mutterings about Mexicans and Muslims are there just to get him that cred, though other readings are possible..), because he is the first to run on American decline and reversing it, because of the discourse about jobs, NAFTA, other countries not paying their way, China and trade, a certain isolationism, etc. and because he sneers at the instituted estates (incl. the media.) ..."
"... Many ppl will ignore it of course in their new-leader enthusiasm (see Sanders!) but others not. It also signals an alarming precedent for any future nominations (were he to become Prez.) Trump's interest - as he must know - is in sharpening divisions and not 'normalizing' himself. ..."
"... I listened to Trump's convention speech. It sounded like it sprung from analysis of focus groups where you chew over data blah blah and go on to create 'sceintific' opinion clusters and focus on the things ppl agree on. Not the best. ..."
Trump is favored mostly because he is an anti-establishment figure (and part of his
mutterings about Mexicans and Muslims are there just to get him that cred, though other
readings are possible..), because he is the first to run on American decline and reversing it,
because of the discourse about jobs, NAFTA, other countries not paying their way, China and
trade, a certain isolationism, etc. and because he sneers at the instituted estates (incl. the
media.)
According to the standard copy-book, he should have picked another anti-est. (or only
marginally connected) person, even someone unknown or utterly outrageous. Or done something
nutty, such as run a contest for the spot on the intertubes, after saying he contacted Bernie
and the Bern refused so now what? ;)
The Pence choice looks like it is an outcome of the usual slice/n/dice calculations (Pence
will bring in his home state, Cruz voters will like Pence, or whatever..), imposed by the
Repubs. to 'normalize' Trump, bring his candidacy 'into the fold.' It looks like a deal was
made, and Trump had not the mojo to resist. Pence and Trump are not natural allies, and imho
will soon be at odds. OK one can argue that there is only one figure here, Maestro Trump, and
all the sattelites around are not important. Yet, this move imho puts his candidacy into
question.
Many ppl will ignore it of course in their new-leader enthusiasm (see Sanders!) but
others not. It also signals an alarming precedent for any future nominations (were he to
become Prez.) Trump's interest - as he must know - is in sharpening divisions and not
'normalizing' himself.
I listened to Trump's convention speech. It sounded like it sprung from analysis of
focus groups where you chew over data blah blah and go on to create 'sceintific' opinion
clusters and focus on the things ppl agree on. Not the best.
He can maybe still win, on the numbers, imho. Facing one of the most hated pols ever…
Depends on vote-rigging etc. as, for now, it looks like a close? race. Presumably Trump will
now bring out major guns against Killary.
"... According to recent figures, the BASF PAC has distributed $399,000 in donations. The lion's share of this money, a good 72 percent, flowed to the Republicans. This is not surprising, writes Die Welt. In previous election years, BASF, Allianz and Bayer had supported the Republicans. ..."
In a guest editorial reprinted from the Los Angeles Times, the FAZ writes of a possible
military coup in the oldest democracy in the world. Under the headline, "If Trump wins, a coup
isn't impossible here in the US," journalist James Kirchick develops a scenario in which
President Trump gives the military an illegal command, which it refuses to carry it out.
The article ends with the following: "Trump is not only patently unfit to be president, but a
danger to America and the world. Voters must stop him before the military has to."
German corporations with operations in the US reacted somewhat differently. As Die Welt
reports, notable large concerns from Germany gave more than two-thirds of their election
donations to the Republicans, and thus to Trump; above all BASF, Allianz, Siemens and Deutsche
Bank.
Since US law prevents American or foreign companies from making direct donations to
candidates, campaign funding takes place via so-called Political Action Committees (PACs). This
is a legal construct allowing the circumvention of both the strict limit on donations as well as
the ban on corporate donations. Via so-called super PACs, hundreds of millions of dollars flow
into campaign advertising.
According to recent figures, the BASF PAC has distributed $399,000 in donations. The
lion's share of this money, a good 72 percent, flowed to the Republicans. This is not surprising,
writes Die Welt. In previous election years, BASF, Allianz and Bayer had supported the
Republicans.
According to Die Welt, in this election campaign the chemical and pharmaceutical
group Bayer sent 80 percent of its donations to benefit the Republicans. At financial services
company Allianz it was 72 percent.
Deutsche Bank, on the other hand, changed political camps. The paper writes: "While Deutsche
Bank donated comparatively little, only $37,000, it is remarkable that 86 percent of this money
was distributed to the Republican camp." Such a clear tendency could not be seen in any other
German company.
That Deutsche Bank sympathies with the Republicans is new. In 2006 and 2008, the bank had
clearly tended toward the Democrats. The change of side was not surprising, "since Deutsche Bank
is the largest lender to Donald Trump." For the renovation of a hotel in Washington, Trump
borrowed $170 million from Deutsche Bank.
@37 jfl If you think Trump is a liar, then everything he says is bullshit. But I see his remarks over a long time are consistent.
And in sequel on #32 William Engdahl has to explain a lot. In his "A Century of War" he describes how the US industry was crippled in the 50's and 60's. And how the protestors were demonised.
p. 119 Riots were deliberately incited in industrial cities like Newark, Boston, Oakland and Philadelphia
by government-backed 'insurgents', such as Tom Hayden. The goal of this operation was to break the
power of established industrial trade unions in the northern cities by labeling them racist.
p. 120 The newly created U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity weakened the political voice of traditional
American labor and the influential urban constituency machines. The targeted white blue-collar industrial
operatives, only a decade earlier hailed as the lifeblood of American industry, were suddenly labeled
'reactionary' and 'racist' by the powerful liberal media. These workers were mostly fearful and confused
as they saw their entire social fabric collapsing in the wake of the disinvestment policy of the
powerful banks.
Hey William, did you read about Trump's ideas to bring back jobs to the USA? (and do you recognize something?)
And William, did you understand his remarks about that Mexican Wall (on American Soil). (preventing illegal immigration, ALSO because he wants higher minimum wages (impossible with illegal
immigrants))
"... If anyone remembers anything about Kaine, it is that he is a slimy backstabbing, beltway politician - a Democrat version of Ted Cruz. In other words, Kaine is a lot like Hillary. ..."
"... It's Mega Corps, The MIC, TPP and Yinon Plan for Greater Israel all the way. ..."
"... What's funny is that warmongering - glass the ME - knuckleheads are for Trump and not the Hell Bitch. They don't seem to know that Obama has been doing a bang up job for them. ..."
If anyone remembers anything about Kaine, it is that he is a slimy backstabbing, beltway politician
- a Democrat version of Ted Cruz. In other words, Kaine is a lot like Hillary.
Pence is also cut from the same cloth, but he looks good and he was obviously a compromise choice
negotiated by the Party and the Trump. Trump surely accepted Pence on the condition that he keep
his mouth shut and stay in the background. Trump can run his crazy train by himself. Another strong
personality type would clash.
Hillary, OTOH, needed someone who could fake a genuine, friendly demeanor and to also throw a
bone to self-identified progressives. In Kreepy Kaine of the TPP she failed miserably. No question
remains as to the nature of this beast.
It's Mega Corps, The MIC, TPP and Yinon Plan for Greater Israel all the way.
What's funny is that warmongering - glass the ME - knuckleheads are for Trump and not the Hell
Bitch. They don't seem to know that Obama has been doing a bang up job for them.
"... Accusations of Russian involvement with the DNC email leak is important for one very big reason; It suggests to me that the US elites fear the exact sort of color revolution and destabilization campaign that they have set loose on so many other victims. It means they know the public hates them and that they are now facing a serious adversary now and some unfortunate 3rd world country without the means to defend itself. ..."
"So all of Hitlery's Russophobia is actually her way of showing love and
support for Russia. "
Putin is god -- it is well-known scientific fact. He actually controls the weather
and even Earth's rotation speed. Russians always knew it, now, with the advancement
of information technologies (also controlled by Putin--ah yes, he, not Al Gore,
invented the internet) decadent West can witness his powers and omnipresence.
Remember Katrina? Putin! Remember the water main break in NYT--also Putin.
I had a constipation last week--damn Putin. Got rid of constipation and back to
normal BMs--Putin's hand was definitely in it. If you look attentively at HRC for 20+
minutes you will see Putin's image surfacing on her face.
So all of Hitlery's Russophobia is actually her way of showing love and support for
Russia. Just when I thought I had American politics pretty much figured out, you had to
drop this bomb on me, Bernhard...
The opinion of William Blum (Author of "Rogue State"):
And Mr. Trump? Much more a
critic of US foreign policy than Hillary or Bernie. He speaks of Russia and Vladimir
Putin as positive forces and allies, and would be much less likely to go to war against
Moscow than Clinton would. He declares that he would be "evenhanded" when it comes to
resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as opposed to Clinton's boundless support of
Israel). He's opposed to calling Senator John McCain a "hero", because he was captured.
(What other politician would dare say a thing like that?)
He calls Iraq "a complete disaster", condemning not only George W. Bush but the
neocons who surrounded him. "They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction
and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass
destruction." He even questions the idea that "Bush kept us safe", and adds that
"Whether you like Saddam or not, he used to kill terrorists."
Yes, he's personally obnoxious. I'd have a very hard time being his friend. Who
cares?
Posted by: From The Hague | Jul 24, 2016 2:58:28 PM |
30
@27 Putin is unbeatable. All those cartoons and late-night TV jokes wasted. Even the
shirtless photos didn't get the anticipated feminist reaction. Kerry is getting nowhere
with threats and blandishments.
Accusations of Russian involvement with the DNC email leak is important for one very
big reason; It suggests to me that the US elites fear the exact sort of color revolution
and destabilization campaign that they have set loose on so many other victims. It means
they know the public hates them and that they are now facing a serious adversary now and
some unfortunate 3rd world country without the means to defend itself.
In an interview Andrew Bacevich spoke about what he saw at various insitute, academic,
etc. conferences he attended as an academic which I believe has effected his later known
books. He noted among other things, that there was an inability for empathic thinking.
He did not mean sympathy, but rather the act of trying to understand the actions of
other people. I think the phrase is to treat people as rational actors. As horrific as
Hitler was, historians dug into his motivations for example, for his invasion of the
Soviet Union.
So we get with Putin not a rational understanding of what he does and why, but rather
cartoon psychological and religious explanations which cannot be argued against as they
defy rationality. How can one argue against people calling Putin evil as that person has
not invoked a rational argument.
The propaganda demonization of Putin and the Russians is part of the same playbook
republicans and the neocons used to fertilize the field of popular belief for the
justification of war and invasion of Iraq to the American people (but now followed by
democrats). Every one of those articles is a bit of propaganda manure which will
eventually sprout the seeds of conflict and war.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, speaking to her Florida delegation, was loudly booed this
morning. At least per tape of the meeting used on WNYC pubic radio broadcast this morning. An NBC
video had microphones which captured DWS's speaking, but barely caught the crowd noise.
In a YouTube video about the lawsuit, Jason Beck said there were six claims to the case. The
first is fraud against the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, stating that they broke legally
binding agreements by strategizing for Clinton.
The second is negligent misrepresentation.
The third is deceptive conduct by claiming they were remaining neutral when they were not. The
fourth is is retribution for monetary donations to Sanders' campaign.
The fifth is that the DNC broke its fiduciary duties during the primaries by not holding a
fair process. And the sixth is for negligence, claiming that the DNC did not protect donor
information from hackers.
"... What matters is what the emails said . They said, let's sink a decent candidate by telling the Stupid Classes that Bernie's an atheist Jew . ..."
"... So instead of addressing the urgent concerns of working Americans, let's manipulate Mr. and Mrs. Paycheck by playing to their antisemitism. ..."
"... We'll pretend working people matter, but we'll just be using them to make ourselves richer and more powerful! ..."
"... Let's not let HRC and the rest of the Democratic leadership change the subject to" the Russians did it". Let us, instead, stay focused on the content of those emails. That the DNC under Schultz did, in fact, rig the game. ..."
"... The rigging of the 2016 election has clarified to all of these people why they were weary about going to the polls...the system is rigged and they already knew it. Bernie Sanders got everyone unified and no other politician has that ability. It infuriates me to think that the Democratic party is angry at Bernie for revolutionizing a nation! ..."
"... I supported Bernie to the max even though I live on a smallish pension. I could never support HC. I sort of understand that Bernie had to endorse HC but I wish he would not be at all enthusiastic about it. She is still the candidate he criticized so strongly. The Clintons always make everyone who comes into contact with them look sleazy. They themselves are very clever at getting away with murder (figuratively speaking). ..."
"... Sort of like the Soviet Union - the Party is everything. The people unimportant. ..."
"... Russian involvement is a straw man. The importance is in the accuracy of the reports and so far there seems to have been no evidence produced to show that the emails were tampered with. If I had not already been dead set against supporting the corrupt and dishonest Hillary the Horrible this would certainly clinch the deal! Those being willing to swallow the "lesser of evils" deserve what they get. But then, despite the talk, is she really less evil? ..."
"... Other experts are now saying that the current Democratic Party is just as fascist as the Republicans and that we should vote our conscience. Vote Green. ..."
"... These #DNCleaks are another great example of the corruption and collusion in journalism. No ethics whatsoever. ..."
"... They also swindle the millions of Americans who donated $27 to Bernie's campaign on the basis that it was a fair contest... ..."
"... This convert may also have noticed the corruption at the DNC. The strange requests to create narratives to discredit Sanders ands then feed them to the media. This is how whistleblowers are made. ..."
"... We shouldn't get roped into discussing spurious allegations about who leaked the emails. That's what she wants the conversation to be about. The fact is these emails show the DNC fixed the nomination for Hillary. And Hillary has just appointed the chief culprit to chair her presidential campaign. Politics doesn't get much more dirty and shameless than that. ..."
"... DWS is just the tip of the iceberg. The entire DNC leadership needs to go, and to be replaced with people who will go back to Dean's 50 state strategy. But it is too late for this election. ..."
"... Jesus wept. How did we sleepwalk into this strange world where all the politicians are lying, thieving, murderous idiots? Before there were at least some of them who were impressive human beings able to inspire great progress, this bunch sounds like all of them were created by a wizard whose favourite material is a boy cow excrement. ..."
"... These people have no shame. Vote Trump! ..."
"... If you can't pull yourself to vote for Trump, please vote for Jill stein in protest, but Hilary can't win. ..."
"... This has been so downplayed by the mainstream media as it shows them in their true light. Compare this to the coverage Melania Trump's plagiarized speech got. ..."
"... Like clockwork, we have Clinton supporters, paid or otherwise, demonstrating in this comment board their utter contempt for logic, integrity, and any ideology other than team ..."
"... Billy Kristol - the neo-con skank and the likes already declared they will vote for the fellow warmonger. ..."
"... Hank Paulson - Ex Goldman chief and treasury secretary responsible for TARP under shrub junior also switching sides for the dems. ..."
"... Yep that's what our current foreign policy does, we topple governments. We need a common enemy to unite the EA and Nato, Russia makes a good scape goat! Who armed Osama Bin Laden against Russia in the 1980's? Then Arab Spring? Any country that practices Sharia Law can not allow Free Speech or democracy. Women will never be equal or have the vote in these countries we arm with weapons. Our arms dealers make money! We destabilize countries and keep the world in fear, united for causes we create. ..."
"... Clinton has dragged the party into the sewer with her. They should have told her to step down months ago. This is a shameful Dem convention ..."
"... "His son, Donald Trump Jr, appeared on CNN's State of the Union. "They should be ashamed of themselves," he said of the Clinton campaign. "If we did that … if my father did that, they'd have people calling for the electric chair." ..."
Oh, you mean our emails are not secure ?
Maybe the DNC honchos didn't see all those stories about Snowden, the NSA and ole 'Gentleman'
Jimmy Clapper. Maybe the Russians were involved. Maybe the NSA and all the other spook agencies are too honest
to tap the DNC's emails and use them for political advantage.
What matters is what the emails said .
They said, let's sink a decent candidate by telling the Stupid Classes that Bernie's an atheist
Jew .
So instead of addressing the urgent concerns of working Americans, let's manipulate
Mr. and Mrs. Paycheck by playing to their antisemitism.
We'll pretend working people matter, but we'll just be using them to make ourselves
richer and more powerful!
Let's not let HRC and the rest of the Democratic leadership change the subject to" the Russians
did it". Let us, instead, stay focused on the content of those emails. That the DNC under Schultz
did, in fact, rig the game. HRC needs to cut Schultz loose and repudiate this conduct if the party
is to have any hope of true unification. Let us hope that HRC appoints Sen. Warren as DNC chair.
She is a person with real integrity.
Rigged, rigged, rigged...took 'em 8 years to perfect it, but they (Dem. underground) sure got
it all nailed down didn't they? They put Sen. Sanders in a chokehold and he had to make a choice,
bless his heart. What will go down in history regarding the 2016 election, is what it did to ALL
the disenfranchised and young voters who were moved by Bernie Sanders and become lit up and excited
about politics.
The rigging of the 2016 election has clarified to all of these people why they
were weary about going to the polls...the system is rigged and they already knew it. Bernie Sanders
got everyone unified and no other politician has that ability. It infuriates me to think that
the Democratic party is angry at Bernie for revolutionizing a nation!
How right you are. This is the very reason that I can't get my 28 year old son to register to
vote. His constant mantra every time I try is that his vote doesn't matter because the game is
rigged. How terribly sad that he is proven right.
Ever decreasing circles..
Of the meaningless kind ..
Security?:)
Just trust the Democrats.
The bastions of oxymorons, eulogising hyperbolic denialistic gaga.
Who has contributed more to global security of the private kind..
Snowden or HRC ??
What not to do!
Really, she always Knew....
Is there anything the Russian government is not responsible for??
Yes, Democratic email systems of security, that are quite clearly insecure, untrustworthy, unreliable
& incompetent , just like their sponsors Goldman Sachs.. Surely the US people don't wish to bail
them out again to the tune of $814 Billion??
What a farcical circus, calling themselves politicians, oxymoronic.
How can Trump lose?
The system is bankrupt both morally & financially: Shrillary, our living proof! Gawd, just her
voice..
It is being found out that is the bad thing - according to HC.
I supported Bernie to the max even though I live on a smallish pension. I could never support
HC. I sort of understand that Bernie had to endorse HC but I wish he would not be at all enthusiastic
about it. She is still the candidate he criticized so strongly. The Clintons always make everyone
who comes into contact with them look sleazy. They themselves are very clever at getting away
with murder (figuratively speaking).
Not sure why the religion thing is singled out as most shocking by the press. Not that it was
acceptable, but how about calling MSNBC in the middle of a program and ordering them to stop a
coverage? How about all the other slimy tricks they pulled? And DWS was not just a bystander on
some of them . . . she initiated them. The arrogance of that machine in assuming that kind of
power is astonishing, but Sanders supporters have known about it for months.
Try running a race uphill with someone who's being carried like a queen?
Where was Yuhas 2 days ago on this scandal Oh that's right, he was flacking for the Clinton campaign
by focusing on the evil Putin. it was Putin's fault the DNC screwed its base over.
So Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the US both actively using all party mechanisms to fix
the decision of their own members about who leads them.
Have these people the slightest clue what democracy means? At least in Labour's case, the result
is still out.
I think the candidates' relative positions on enabling corporate rule may have been a bigger factor
in the DNC's antics than any principles about how long they'd been big D Democrats.
Russian involvement is a straw man. The importance is in the accuracy of the reports and so far
there seems to have been no evidence produced to show that the emails were tampered with. If I
had not already been dead set against supporting the corrupt and dishonest Hillary the Horrible
this would certainly clinch the deal! Those being willing to swallow the "lesser of evils" deserve
what they get. But then, despite the talk, is she really less evil?
Experts are telling us that the Democrats are only embarrassed they got caught rigging the primary
process before the convention. Other experts are now saying that the current Democratic Party
is just as fascist as the Republicans and that we should vote our conscience. Vote Green.
These #DNCleaks are another great example of the corruption and collusion in journalism. No ethics
whatsoever. They swindled Bernie Sanders of the chance to run for President. CNN comes out of
this looking pretty bad. And there is MORE to come. Panic stations for dodgy journalists, and
all those journalists who claim "impartiality", but are in collusion to push narratives. Just
as GamerGaters exposed.
have to disagree with Bernie, DWS didn't do the right thing - she just got caught, the right thing
would have been to put a stop to planted stories with no attribution and ensure a level playing
field. Anyone US side want to tell me if the thing about Bill Clinton meeting Epstein on numerous
occasions is actually true?
At some point they are going to have to provide some evidence, until then I reserve the right
to assume she's lying based on everything she has said over the last 30 years.
If not the Russians then Who? Maybe a DNC worker, who, over time got to respect Sanders, he
listened to a few speeches and thought "Hey, this guy gets it!". This happened to millions of
Americans over the last year so it's not too hard to believe that some DNC staffer, even if he
was originally vetted for 'being with her' he could change his mind once he saw the better option
that was available.
This convert may also have noticed the corruption at the DNC. The strange requests to create
narratives to discredit Sanders ands then feed them to the media. This is how whistleblowers are
made.
Gucifer 1 was Romanian and he hacked Clinton's private server and apparently gave it to the
Russians. Gucifer 2, is responsible for the DNC leak and we've no idea who they are. Could it
be another Putin supported hacker? Sure, but it's even more likely that it was a DNC staffer who
didn't like what he saw.
I say this because if Putin's task was to destroy Hillary he could have release the 30,000
emails (about yoga and wedding planning - lol). Everyone knows what these contain, the evidence
that the Clinton foundation was engaged in cash for favours schemes that were mainly used by human
rights abusing petro-monarchies.
We shouldn't get roped into discussing spurious allegations about who leaked the emails. That's
what she wants the conversation to be about. The fact is these emails show the DNC fixed the nomination
for Hillary. And Hillary has just appointed the chief culprit to chair her presidential campaign.
Politics doesn't get much more dirty and shameless than that.
....."I think I read he is an atheist," the DNC chief financial officer, Brad Marshall, wrote
in one email. "This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps
would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.".....
Sigh!.....Oh Alfred Dreyfus, Henri Bergson, Benjamin Disraeli and so on and so on....
(Do not tell the Southern Baptists and the fundamentalist nutters that TRUTH is another name
for GOD-want a reference? Here you go: El Emet - The God Of Truth: (Psalm 31:6)- they will not
know whether to s**t or wind their watch".
DWS is just the tip of the iceberg. The entire DNC leadership needs to go, and to be replaced
with people who will go back to Dean's 50 state strategy. But it is too late for this election.
If Trump wins, God help us all, but it won't be the fault of the Sanders supporters. HRC was
chosen by the DNC in advance of any of the primaries, with the expectation that any other contenders
would drop out early in the process. That did not happen, and that is why the DNC took increasingly
desperate measures to insure her victory.
What this election has proven is just how far the Democratic establishment will go to crush
any opposition within the party, and how unhappy the members of both parties are with the status
quo. They have no one to blame but themselves for ignoring the needs of the American people. After
this election, for the first time in over 100 years, I think that new political parties have a
chance to succeed.
So, instead of addressing this shocking corruption openly and honestly, DNC is blaming....Russia?
Jesus wept. How did we sleepwalk into this strange world where all the politicians are lying,
thieving, murderous idiots? Before there were at least some of them who were impressive human
beings able to inspire great progress, this bunch sounds like all of them were created by a wizard
whose favourite material is a boy cow excrement.
One resignation is not enough. The party is still corrupt, they still cheated Bernie and by proxy
his supporters yet they want our unity against Trump. Screw that. Its time to show the party that
they can not treat their constituents with a complete lack of respect. If you can't pull yourself
to vote for Trump, please vote for Jill stein in protest, but Hilary can't win.
This has been so downplayed by the mainstream media as it shows them in their true light.
Compare this to the coverage Melania Trump's plagiarized speech got.
There is no Debbie Wasserman. There has never been any Debbie Wasserman. The Party is unified.
The Party has always been unified. The Great Leader, Hillary...
Indeed. That woman behind the curtain, who's just been appointed chair of Hillary's campaign,
just coincidentally happens to have the same name as DWS, and look exactly like her. But do not
look at her. You will not remember having seen her.
Like clockwork, we have Clinton supporters, paid or otherwise, demonstrating in this comment board
their utter contempt for logic, integrity, and any ideology other than team.
I'm guessing a scan of their brain activity would show such kinship with Trump supporters that
it would shock them -- assuming fact had any sway, which, of course, it doesn't.
So they don't think anything is wrong with kneecapping a democratic candidate! They don't think
anything is wrong with subverting US politics. NO they are disgusted that someone revealed the
TRUTH!
WOW anyone who votes for the DNC OR GOP deserves everything that is coming! If ever there was
a time where a 3rd party candidate is needed this is it! Just look at the crap Clinton gives to
other countries not having free and fair elections! HOW DARE THE US LECTURE OTHER COUNTRIES!
Clinton supporters are a DISGRACE worse than Trump - at least trump fans don't PRETEND to be
something they aren't!
There is so much talk about the DNC e-mail about promoting Bernie as atheist so that they could
get church going low information people in the South to vote for Hillary. But, then they said
they didn't do anything about it. Wait a second in South Carolina, no one knew who Bernie Sanders
was, but apparently they all knew he was a "communist Jew". I personally heard this in South Carolina,
and it was a whisper campaign initiated by Hillary crowds. Now it is proven the whole DNC was
behind it.
I don't for a minute believe Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or Hillary Clinton are anti-Semites.
But these Clinton mafia goes to any length, employ any dirty trickery to win. The corrupt warmonger
Hillary should quit and take Debbie Wasserman-Schultz with her. I am sure Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
won't get through her primary, why? Because most of her constituents are just like Bernie, and
they won't appreciate what she has become.
"On Sunday, the Trump campaign rejected Mook's allegations, ... telling... they were "absurd"
and "pure obfuscation on the part of the Clinton campaign".
"What those emails show is that it was a clearly rigged system, and that Bernie Sanders
never had a chance..."
Even Trump campaign is more truthful about this. It is horrifying to think someone like Clinton
could become the president.
According to the NYT, Michael Bloomberg, who bypassed his own run for the presidency this election
cycle, will back Hillary Clinton in a speech at the Democratic convention. The news was unexpected
from Mr. Bloomberg, who has not been a member of the Democratic Party since 2000.
I wonder who else they are going to drag out to endorse their lying ways.
I wonder who else they are going to drag out to endorse their lying ways?
Billy Kristol - the neo-con skank and the likes already declared they will vote for the fellow
warmonger. Hank Paulson - Ex Goldman chief and treasury secretary responsible for TARP under shrub junior
also switching sides for the dems.
These two are the major red flag for any progressive voter.
1. Blame your own private server for leaks Hillary.
2. Blame Wasserman Schulz for rigging primaries
3. Blame yourself for not being trustworthy
4. Blame US foreign policy for making it a norm meddling in other countries elections.
Yep that's what our current foreign policy does, we topple governments. We need a common enemy
to unite the EA and Nato, Russia makes a good scape goat! Who armed Osama Bin Laden against Russia
in the 1980's? Then Arab Spring? Any country that practices Sharia Law can not allow Free Speech
or democracy. Women will never be equal or have the vote in these countries we arm with weapons.
Our arms dealers make money! We destabilize countries and keep the world in fear, united for causes
we create.
Russia like us has a migration issue of Muslims, 11.7% now. The USA backs Muslim regimes
and usually the more radical. Syria is in the middle of a civil war, Assad is Aliwee and they
are only 20%, they allow Christians and various Muslims faiths. If we arm the rebels, the educated
Aliwee closer to the coast will be exterminated in favor of the more extreme.
Assad is not a good
guy, but if Russia had armed the South in our civil war, how would we feel? In 2001 Bush Senior
headed up the Carlyle Group which sold weapons, 29 weapon companies, with investors like the Bin
Laden Construction Company is Saudi Arabia, Bin Ladens brother. Both sides have profited from
a destabilized middle east. They don't tell on each other, because both sides do it.
In the Soviet times, they used to blame all their short comings on US. Sounds like the Clinton
campaign has alot in common with Soviet Union. This is just an obfuscation. They aren't questioning
the validity of the e-mails but blaming their mafia control over DNC on Russia. If Russia or whoever
disclosed the e-mails, more power to them. The Clinton mafia in the Democratic party needs to
get purged. Hillary cheated to get nominated, she will hand the presidency to Drumpf. She is an
awful candidate besides being a corrupt war monger.
Clinton, who received 3.1m from Wall Street for speeches last year, and who was "extremely careless"
with national security and who clearly lied under oath to Congress had the entire system rigged
in her favour and millions of mostly younger people who supported Sanders have received a slap
in the face by a corrupt Dem Party.
Clinton has dragged the party into the sewer with her. They should have told her to step down
months ago. This is a shameful Dem convention
Typical tactic to divert attention away from the real issue which is the corruption exposed by
the Democratic party..There are rumours of another leak to come..hopefully the contents of Clintons
personal and the Clinton Foundation emails.. Sunlight is a wonderful disinfectant..
well this is what we've been talking about. Mainstream media, including the Guardian, the one
source of information I could trust , are also complicit in their unwavering support of the Hillary
machine and the stars quo for the 1%.
Just waiting for the promised emails from Hilary's server that wiki leaks has promised.
Citizens have the right to know.
saying its hackers stole Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails and released them to
foment disunity in the party and aid Donald Trump.
It's so pathetic, it's sad really. No introspection whatsoever. No, like a little snotty kid
that refuse to take any responsibility whatsoever for their own fuck-ups.
Come on, Hillary. You used dirty tactics to get rid of Sanders. I'm sure you've got more tricks
up your sleeve. We all know Bush Jr. wasn't suppose to be the President of the US. But he became
one anyway. That's how the Plutocrats play the game and you've been in the pipeline for a long
time now. Don't worry. We know where you've been.
The issue is not whether they were leaked by Russia, but that they were written and sent in the
first place. Clear collusion and vote-rigging between DNC and Clinton campaign to obstruct, disparage
and hinder Sanders.
This is how the Clinton machine works and why people don't like/trust her. 70% negative ratings
should tell the myopic DNC something. They are just as bent as she is.
You spin it right round, baby round round like a record, baby right round round round.
Unfortunately (for her), Americans have their bullshit metre *ON* let alone they don't believe
a word said any longer. Americans are eagerly waiting for the decision about the email server
thingy where lies and more lies were delivered.
You spin it right round, baby round round like a record, baby right round round round. :)
That's it from the Clinton cabal? "Look over there! It's the shiny Russian's fault!"
How about denouncing the HORRIBLE behavior of individuals and CLEAR bias by the DNC?...crickets....
The email the press is not mentioning shows the DNC had materials for HILLARY as the nominee
prepared before the primary was over! How is that just individuals showing their personal opinions
inappropriately? That was work that was PAID FOR, TIME that APPROVED and USED!
And the go-Hillary weenie Chuck Todd had a phone conversation with DWS about an entirely different
show...Mika on Morning Joe ticked her off and she wanted Chuck to handle it for her...
I am done with this party of corruption and Hillary cronies unless some pink slips start flying
and Bernie gets the Superdelegates.
He's the Cowardly Lion, sad to say. But what he tapped shall not be bought off. I say it again,
a mass walkout by the Sanders delegates would send a clear signal to Hillary, the DNC, and the
nation.
Guardian is still not getting the significance of this story. The DNC chair cannot preside over
the DNC convention. She can't even show her face. This is huge and it completely vindicates Bernies
mistrust of her. This isn't about the nationality of the hackers. It's about a crooked DNC rigging
the system.
Never mind the real issue is the content of the e-mails not who leaked them, but who are those
"experts" who tell us those were Russians? Are those the same "experts" who found weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq?
Ironic that Sanders would sit with Jake Tapper on the C orrupt C linton N
etwork for an interview...Tapper was named in the Wikileaks DNC emails as being in collusion with
the DNC for Hillary.
We know there were at least two leakers. The first, Guccifer, real name Marcel Lazăr Lehel,
is Romanian. He is now supposedly safely in federal prison incommunicado, so he won't be telling
anyone anything he knows any time soon, if he is even still alive that is.
There is circumstantial reason to believe that Guccifer II is Romanian or Moldovan also.
The Russians probably have all this and a lot more, but the chances of them leaking it are
essentially zero.
Clinton is desperate to lurk voters by anything, then let it be those Russians that hacked her
mail. A Russian proverb to the point - "A bad dancer always blames his balls that hamper him".
"His son, Donald Trump Jr, appeared on CNN's State of the Union. "They should be
ashamed of themselves," he said of the Clinton campaign. "If we did that … if my father did
that, they'd have people calling for the electric chair."
"... Like Clinton, Kaine has also supported the creation of a no-fly zone in Syria, an action that would quickly provoke a confrontation with Russia. ..."
"... Earlier this month, in the lead-up to the NATO summit in Warsaw, Poland, Kaine co-authored an open letter to President Barack Obama urging him to "carry a message to world leaders…[that] success in Ukraine and resistance to Russian aggression, including through the rotational deployment of NATO troops to Eastern Europe, are in the best interest of all member countries." ..."
"... In other words, the Clinton-Kaine campaign boasts that, in contrast to the "unreliable" Trump, they are more willing to "keep America safe" by pursuing a confrontational policy whose logic leads inexorably to a nuclear exchange. ..."
In selecting Kaine, Clinton is making clear that she plans on running a right-wing, pro-war campaign
targeted at winning over the military and sections of the Republican Party dissatisfied with Trump,
and particularly with the Republican candidate's attitude toward Russia. Clinton also wanted to repudiate
any association with the issues of social inequality that motivated the widespread support for her
main rival in the primaries, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
Kaine is among the most hawkish figures among Senate Democrats. As governor of Virginia from 2006
to 2010, Kaine oversaw billions of dollars in cuts to the state budget. The state of Virginia is
a major center for the military and defense industry, and is home to the Pentagon and the headquarters
of the CIA
Between 2009 and 2011, Kaine served as the head of the Democratic National Committee, the leadership
body of the Democratic Party. He is close to Wall Street, having recently backed measures to deregulate
banks.
As a Senator since 2013, Kaine has regularly called for increased US involvement in Iraq, Syria
and Afghanistan. He has consistently supported the Obama administration's reckless brinkmanship against
Russia and China, two nuclear-armed powers. He has repeatedly pushed for a Congressional resolution
officially declaring war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in order to clear the
way for stepped-up US intervention.
Like Clinton, Kaine has also supported the creation of a no-fly zone in Syria, an action that
would quickly provoke a confrontation with Russia.
Earlier this month, in the lead-up to the NATO summit in Warsaw, Poland, Kaine co-authored an
open letter to President Barack Obama urging him to "carry a message to world leaders…[that] success
in Ukraine and resistance to Russian aggression, including through the rotational deployment of NATO
troops to Eastern Europe, are in the best interest of all member countries."
In the past few days the Clinton camp has focused, in particular, on comments Trump made to the New
York Times, in which he raised the possibility that, as president, he would not necessarily start
a war against Russia in the case of a Russian "attack" on one of the Baltic states that are members
of NATO.
"Ronald Reagan would be ashamed. Harry Truman would be ashamed," Clinton senior policy advisor
Jake Sullivan responded Thursday morning. "Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who helped build
NATO into the most successful military alliance in history would all come to the same conclusion:
Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit and fundamentally ill-prepared to be our commander-in-chief."
"When you say to an ally-who you have a treaty obligation to defend-'We're not sure we will,'
that is a very, very dangerous thing," Kaine told reporters on Thursday. "We have American men and
women spread throughout those countries right now in service who are there and are at risk."
In other words, the Clinton-Kaine campaign boasts that, in contrast to the "unreliable" Trump,
they are more willing to "keep America safe" by pursuing a confrontational policy whose logic leads
inexorably to a nuclear exchange.
"... So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and them. ..."
"... His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest. ..."
"... Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are. ..."
"... Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter. ..."
"... And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for! ..."
For those who have a Twitter account, checkout #dncleak or #dncleaks on the
latest over the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails.
Here's one -"Hillary Clinton is now blaming the Russians for leaking the
emails. Like that makes it any better that you rigged the primary."
Sanders to Chuck Todd on the leaks -
Todd: "So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't given
you any pause about your support for Hillary Clinton?"
Sanders: "No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can to protect
working families in this country. And again, Chuc, I know media is not necessarily
focused on these things. But what a campaign is about is not Hillary Clinton,
it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of this country, blah blah blah..."
"[...] And I'm going to go around the country discussing them [issues] and
making sure Hillary Clinton is elected president."
So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally
marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most
importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership
of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints
the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the
DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters.
Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him
if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and
them.
UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE!
His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely
bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued,
and should seriously consider some rest.
I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal
sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker
of achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my
entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus
I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain
neutral.
Think about his response to Todd. Think about all that man has put himself,
his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were
ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how
his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes
onto say it's not important, the issues are.
If I were a Bernie supporter I'd be starting a campaign to convince that
man to take some serious time off. Go fishing. Go for hikes whatever. Just get
away from the bubble and clear your head and soul.
Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC
put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their
Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm
not even a Sanders supporter.
And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same
party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues
he's fighting for!
"... But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's not destroying the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear, roll back military spending. We can spend it on infrastructure, we can spend it on employing American labor. And in the speech, he said, look, we don't need foreign military bases and foreign spending to defend our allies. We can defend them from the United States, because in today's world, the only kind of war we're going to have is atomic war. Nobody's going to invade another country. We're not going to send American troops to invade Russia, if it were to attack. So nobody's even talking about that. So let's be realistic. ..."
PERIES: So let's take a look at this article by Paul Krugman. Where is he going with this analysis
about the Siberian candidate?
HUDSON: Well, Krugman has joined the ranks of the neocons, as well as the neoliberals, and they're
terrified that they're losing control of the Republican Party. For the last half-century the Republican
Party has been pro-Cold War, corporatist. And Trump has actually, is reversing that. Reversing the
whole traditional platform. And that really worries the neocons.
Until his speech, the whole Republican Convention, every speaker had avoided dealing with economic
policy issues. No one referred to the party platform, which isn't very good. And it was mostly an
attack on Hillary. Chants of "lock her up." And Trump children, aimed to try to humanize him and
make him look like a loving man.
But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's
making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major
policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing
stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's not destroying
the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that
otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders.
So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear,
roll back military spending. We can spend it on infrastructure, we can spend it on employing American
labor. And in the speech, he said, look, we don't need foreign military bases and foreign spending
to defend our allies. We can defend them from the United States, because in today's world, the only
kind of war we're going to have is atomic war. Nobody's going to invade another country. We're not
going to send American troops to invade Russia, if it were to attack. So nobody's even talking about
that. So let's be realistic.
Well, being realistic has driven other people crazy.
Seems the Clinton and her assorted groupies just need a scapegoat :-). Seems Putin controls Trump
and Clinton! The man is amazing.
Notable quotes:
"... From Bloomberg - "If the Democrats can show the hidden hand of Russian intelligence agencies, they believe that voter outrage will probably outweigh any embarrassing revelations, a person familiar with the party's thinking said' ..."
"... Ha! Fat chance. I'm thinking the American voter is going to start sending Thank You notes to the Kremlin! As usual, their heads are stuck so far up the arse of their donkey they incapable of gauging Main Street sentiment. ..."
"... She is just a symptom of the DNC disease. And yes, she'll take the fall for the team, but make no mistake, the cancer remains and will continue to metastasize. ..."
Russia is weaponizing everything : Word files, federalism, finance and Jedi mind tricks - everything
is transformed into a weapon if Russia or its president Putin is imagined to come near it.
Putin, the President of the Russian Federation, is influencing, manipulating and controlling many
"western" politicians, parties and movements - in Europe AND in the United States.
Here are,
thanks
to Mark Sleboda , a partial list
of political entities and issue Putin secretly manipulates and controls:
Putin is
in cahoots with the Republican presidential candidate Trump -
claims the Clinton
campaign . Putin is behind, it asserts, the leak of the DNC emails which prove that the Democratic
National Committee
has been working against Sanders to promote Hillary Clinton. The leak of the DNC emails, says
the Clinton campaign, is ..:
.. further evidence the Russian government is trying to influence the outcome of the election.
The Clinton campaign has not looked thoroughly enough into Putin's schemes. Reveal we can that
Putin has penetrated U.S. politics even deeper than thought - right down into the Clinton Foundation
and the
Clinton family itself:
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009
to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium
One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million.
That money, surely, had no influence on then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's decisions? And
what about her husband?
Mr. Clinton received $500,000 ... from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin
These undisputed facts demonstrate that Putin is indeed waging influence by bribing U.S. politicians.
But the Clinton campaign is be a bit more hesitant in pointing these out.
Clinton/Kaine certainly confident that the MSM will not report.
For all the money given to the Clinton's it didn't prevent the Ukraine disasters. Of course,
Ukraine may not have been a concern among the particular oligarchs who made these bribes.
HOw could this anti-russian hysteria/bashing go on, I mean the level of paranoia and disinformation
against Russia and Putin is plain crazy.
From Bloomberg - "If the Democrats can show the hidden hand of Russian intelligence agencies,
they believe that voter outrage will probably outweigh any embarrassing revelations, a person
familiar with the party's thinking said'
Ha! Fat chance. I'm thinking the American voter is going to start sending Thank You notes
to the Kremlin! As usual, their heads are stuck so far up the arse of their donkey they incapable
of gauging Main Street sentiment.
Funny though, Schultz takes her orders from Obama, as the Chairman of the Party, the DNC Board
of Directors and team Hillary. Period. If any blame should go around it should splash onto all
individuals NOT just Schultz.
She is just a symptom of the DNC disease. And yes, she'll take the fall for the team, but
make no mistake, the cancer remains and will continue to metastasize.
Grateful for what? For sinking Sanders? Look Obama, the Clintons are criminals, and their affiliate
entities, including the DNC, could be considered criminal enterprises or co-conspirators at this point.
Notable quotes:
"... Obama issued a statement, saying, "For the last eight years, Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has had my back. This afternoon, I called her to let her know that I am grateful." ..."
Obama issued a statement, saying, "For the last eight years, Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz
has had my back. This afternoon, I called her to let her know that I am grateful."
"... "And I'm talking about the establishment Democrats and the establishment Republicans who are much more interested in holding on to power and their positions than they are about their party or about their country." "This is really very sad, and I hope that more people will wake up and see what's happening," Carson said. ..."
"I knew that there was corruption, but the level of corruption throughout the political system
is overwhelming," Carson said Sunday on Fox News. "And I'm talking about the
establishment
Democrats and the establishment Republicans who are much more interested in holding on to power
and their positions than they are about their party or about their country." "This is
really very sad, and I hope that more people will wake up and see what's happening," Carson said.
"... Transcript of Trump's acceptance speech as delivered [ Vox ]. I watched for deviations; there were few, and generally they improved the text. ..."
"... and Vox doesn't engage with the footnotes ..."
"... Key omissions: No assault on big banks, nothing on the minimum wage, nothing on Social Security. In other words, Trump is appealing the local oligarchs in his off-Beltway coalition, and not appealing to the (white) working class on economic grounds; neoliberalism wins with the Republicans, as with Democrats. ..."
"... I'm old enough to remember the Bush administration, when many of today's young liberal wonks were just coming up, and the blogosphere developed a very detailed critique of the Bush administration's fascist tendencies, based on his expansion of executive power under the doctrine of the unitary executive, and his destruction of the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law generally through his program of warrantless surveillance ( "sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception" ). ..."
"... As soon as Obama was elected, those same liberal wonks dropped the critique of fascist powers in the executive like the hot potato it was, even as Obama proceeded to rationalize and consolidate everything Bush did (and had signaled his intent to do so, in July ..."
Headlines on the newspaper rack when I went to get coffee this morning, both above the fold and
spanning the page: "'I am your voice.' - Trump" (USA Today) and "'I will fight for you' - Trump"
(Bangor Daily News). Smart speechwriting; 15 and 20 characters respectively, so the quotes are made
for huuuge headline type. And call me crazy - I'll get to the details below - but is it possible
that there are voters who feel they have no voice, and that nobody's fighting for them? I can't think
why, but the morning paper dropped outside every hotel room door in America seems to think so. As
does my local paper.
Transcript of Trump's acceptance speech as delivered [
Vox ]. I watched for deviations; there were few, and generally they improved the text. For
example, Clinton's legacy of (a) "death, destruction and weakness" in the written speech became (b)
"death, destruction, terrorism, and weakness" as delivered. (Modulo "weakness," since Clinton can't
really be held accountable for a process of imperial collapse,
I hate it when Trump's right ). It's funny to watch the quotes propagate through the press, since
anybody using variant (a) is writing off the written transcript, and anybody using variant (b) is
reporting in something closer to real time. Perhaps the variants are introduced for that purpose?
Transcript of Trump's acceptance speech as written [
Donald J. Trump
]. Cheekily, there are 282 footnotes. This is actually both clever by the Trump campaign, and
important as a yardstick for the allegiances of the political class. Why? Fact-checking. Here's Vox:
"Trump says: 'Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this administration's
rollback of criminal enforcement.' In fact:… Ruling: Baseless" [Vox staff,
Vox ]. The wee problem here is that Trump backs up that claim with material at footnotes 19,
20, 21 and 22, and Vox doesn't engage with the footnotes . So, despite the faux
judiciousness of "Ruling," the article doesn't engage with Trump's material at all. As one might
expect,
given this useful post by Corey Robin , the wonks at Vox are ritually enacting the forms of scholarship,
whiile emptying them of content. (Troll prophylactic: I'm not saying Trump's claim is correct; I'm
saying that Vox makes its tendentiousness really obvious when it fails to engage with it.) I don't
have time to look at all the other fact checking out there - and I don't expect anything either presumptive
candidate says to survive a fact-checking process anyhow - but I would bet they, too, fail to engage
with Trump's footnotes.
"Trump's speech was a significant moment for an impulsive entertainer and savvy media manipulator
now striving to look presidential to a wide audience. He cleared the bar handily Thursday, showing
the political force he could become when he reins in his most bombastic rhetoric and sticks to his
populist-infused message" [
US News ].
Anyhow, I watched the speech. Key omissions: No assault on big banks, nothing on the minimum
wage, nothing on Social Security. In other words, Trump is appealing the local oligarchs in his off-Beltway
coalition, and not appealing to the (white) working class on economic grounds; neoliberalism wins
with the Republicans, as with Democrats.
(That is, liberals are correct to point to the dogwhistles, but evil to airbrush the policies
they pursued, together with the Republicans, which present the working class with a Sophie's Choice
between rejecting "law and order" dogwhistles while also rejecting some minimal gestures
toward their economic interests.) Here are some random - really random - screen shots, with commentary
under this:
This is the stage, all Trumped up. Cult of personality in full swing, along with Gilded Age decor
complete with digital gilding (I don't think that's physical signage). Sure, the burnished logo looks
like something you'd see on the Las Vegas strip, but then an America run by the FIRE sector is
a casino .
And so the 2016 election brings another moment of bracing clarity.
This is the balloon drop, which was excellent - lots and lots of balloons, like bubbles in a really
frothy glass of champers - proof that the Trump staff can actual deliver competent advance work,
though whether the campaign can scale up to the full campaign trail is an open question. There were
also fireworks outside. I would like to know who chose the closing music: "All Right Now" (Free
Bad Company ) followed by "You Can't Always Get What
You Want" (Rolling Stones). But you get what you need?
And this is a shot of Barron Trump not, apparently, getting what he needs. I'm including it because
there wasn't a moment he was on the stage when he didn't look downcast, even when looking up at the
balloons. A rarely human moment, contrasted with Melania Trump's
weaponized
graciousness . Sad.
"In his most important speech ever, Trump echoes Richard Nixon" [Dan Balz,
WaPo ]. "In Nixon's time, it was a call for the 'Silent Majority' to rise up and take back the
country. Trump spoke to the "forgotten men and women" who he said no longer have a voice in a rigged
political system run by 'censors' and 'cynics."
* * *
UPDATE Lambert here: I rarely mention the F-word, if only because I don't want to start a trash
fire. That said - [throwing a flag at my own Godwin's Law violation] - I'm going to go there. Here's
why I'm suspicious of liberal goodthinker claims that Trump is a fascist: I'm old enough to remember
the Bush administration, when many of today's young liberal wonks were just coming up, and the blogosphere
developed a very detailed critique of the Bush administration's fascist tendencies, based on his
expansion of executive power under the doctrine of the unitary executive, and his destruction of
the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law generally through his program of warrantless surveillance
( "sovereign is he who decides
on the state of exception" ).
Well… As soon as Obama was elected, those same liberal wonks dropped the critique of fascist
powers in the executive like the hot potato it was, even as Obama proceeded to rationalize and consolidate
everything Bush did (and had signaled his intent to do so, in July 2008, by voting to give
corporations retroactive immunity for Bush's program of warrantless surveillance). These same wonks
might also be usefully asked what sort of State adopts a "disposition matrix" and uses it to assassinate
its own citizens, and what sort of State orchestrates a 17-city paramilitary crackdown on non-violent
direct actions. Or what sort of State sets up Homan Center (for example).
Now, I know this reasoning exhibits the genetic fallacy, and the grim moral of "The Boy Who Cried
Wolf" is that sometimes the wolf is a wolf , but if there's any serious analysis on this
topic, I'd love to see it, because I trust the young and youngish wonks in the political class about
as far as I can throw a piano. A concert grand piano.
Take for example youngish James Fallows (
from April ), on the unsavory history of "America First":
But the term "America First" has a specific and nasty history, mainly because of the America
First movement that essentially advocated accommodating Nazi interests on the eve of World War
II. There's a list of terms you're wiser to avoid, no matter how deserving the underlying idea
might be. "Separate but equal," in the United States. "Cultural Revolution" or "Great Leap Forward"
if you're in China. "Final solution," anywhere. In the realm of foreign policy, America First
is one of these. You can make the point without using the phrase.
To begin with, never mind that Democrat Dick Gephardt - thanks for destroying Howard Dean in Iowa
2004, Dick! -
ran for office in the 1980s using the same phrase ; apparently, in Fallows mind, that's not inoculation
enough. The real issue -
as once again Corey Robin points out - that Fallows is rather like a cargo cult historian: Invoking
the form, while lacking the substance. That's because - follow me closely here - this is not the
1940s. If fascism is
"the merger of state and corporate power" , have not both Democrats and Repblicans already arrived
at that point? Further, on what grounds are we to make the Sophie's Choice between the merger of
state and corporation at the national level, a la Trump ("Make America great
again) and the surrender of national sovereignty to corporations at the international level,
a la Clinton and Tim Kaine's
"gold standard" TPP and its ISDS system? This is 2016, not 1940.
I'd welcome reader thoughts and meditations on this topic. But I'm gonna be ruthless on drive-bys
and me-toos.
"... Camille Paglia made the best argument against Hillary: she's incompetent. She couldn't even stave off an FBI investigation into her emails; she's lucky that AG Lynch was in the bag. ..."
"... Trump simply does not care, in the least, if he gets 90% covered in excrement, so long as his detractors get covered 95+%. If he is slightly, barely less-caked-in-filth at the finish line, he wins, and that is the only thing that matters to him. It is simply never a "mistake" for Trump to make speech choices that cake him in yet more filth, so long as he causes even more filth to adhere to his only real opponent … especially if his "mistakes" cause cultural elites like you to give him even-more-mountains of free publicity poring over those "mistakes". ..."
"... I liked that he called HC out on her ineptitude and transgressions and hope that he continues to do so to keep her on the defensive. If you happen to think Trump's screaming delivery was bad (I did but as a fellow native NYer, I get it) just wait until we are subjected to the screeching, robotic monotone of Broom Hilda next week. ..."
"... The key point is, Trump held fast to all the points on which he disagrees with the previous GOP consensus–and got the audience to cheer along with his "heresies." ..."
"... He is running as an anti-free trade, anti-immigration, anti-foreign intervention, non-social-issue-conservative–and getting the Pence-style conservatives to go along with it. Movement conservatism is dead–Ted Cruz is "rotting-flesh Reaganism" in Rusty Reno's hideously accurate phrase. If it wasn't for the fact that Trump is the messenger, this would be a very good message. ..."
"... Regarding the vile Hillary Clinton's ethics and "temperament": https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4u367e/wikileaks_release_19252_from_the_dnc_start/d5mflj8 ..."
George Will once wrote that Thomas Paine had written the single most effective political pamphlet
in history. 'Nuff said on that point.
Hillary Clinton does live in her own kind of bubble, but she is not incompetent. She is razor
sharp competent, at doing the wrong things. The best argument I've heard for supporting Trump
is that he's not competent to do as much damage as she is.
Rod, the fact that he yelled a lot in a well-written speech does not tell us much about
how his mind works. It just tells us that his speaking style differs from your preferences…
Nope, it tells us a lot about how his mind works. He can't stay on point, he can't stay any
course because he can't pick one in the first place, he can't focus, he can't adhere to any consistent
set of principles. He blabs different things every day because he thinks different things every
day. His mind is a mess, and for that matter, so is his business record.
In the same type of poll from last time around, 79% of people liked Mitt Romney's acceptance
speech in 2012. Shockingly, outside of political junkies, the people watching political conventions
mostly already like the candidate.
"Jesse this election is probably going to be settled by people ion the rust belt and Florida.
It doesn't matter if people in places like Oregon and Delaware think things are going just great."
Let's see here – let's go to the average, all from Pollster.com. I've just given Clinton Illinois
and Trump Indiana.
Wisconsin – +9 Clinton average
Iowa – +3 Clinton average
Michigan – +7 Clinton average
Ohio – +4 Clinton average
Florida – +2 Clinton average
And in all those states, Trump barely gets above 40. Hillary Clinton just had her worst week
+ Trump just had his rollout at the RNC and he still can't get above 40.
I don't think Clinton has this thing locked, but I do think that on Election Day, a lot of
Trump supporters will be feeling like Pauline Kael, in that there is a Silent Majority in America,
but it's not Nixon's Silent Majority, but a new Silent Majority of white collar secular social
liberals + minorities.
Love it. Having helped turn the country into a moral cesspool, an economic basketcase, and a frothing-at-the-mouth
interventionist Goliath fighting and killing in multiple countries for over a decade now, the
New York Times has the nerve to chide Trump for his "dark vision"!!!!
We're not supposed to know that things are so screwed up, you see. The Emperor is fully clothed
and all's right in this, the best of all possible worlds.
If the NYT people and other elites didn't want to be treated with contempt they shouldn't have
behaved contemptibly. If they feel revulsion at Trump's "dark vision", they shouldn't have so
darkened the world.
[NFR: No Trump fan here, as you know, but boy, do you ever have a point here. When I read
the Times site most days, and see the things they consider signs of progress, I feel us sinking
further into the mire. - RD]
The polls said 56% were more likely to vote for him and 75% liked the speech.
This is the second article that shows even AmConMag's authors are out of touch with the base.
We aren't looking for elites, or their high-church criticism. What you heard only maybe 5%
would see and agree with.
Do you also similarly rate the problem with the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader cheers that they
might not be perfect grammar or might not be properly making the point?
Who wins political debates is not a matter of the Oxford style. It is a question of who advances
his candidacy.
The question of the quality of Trump's speech is not a question of whether you think it went
on too long, wasn't as crisp as the written version, or that he yelled. It is a question of whether
it advanced his candidacy.
From the numbers I have seen that seems to be the case. Rhetoric is, brutally, a function of
accomplishing aims.
Edward Hamilton writes: "But if Trump has even a few percent of such voters hidden from current
polling, and the current polls are otherwise accurate, I think that we might witness a unprecedented
alliance of low-attention rural and young voters who combine to push Trump over the top."
A couple rejoinders. By all accounts, Trump has no ground game or GoTV organization. So one
would have to count on these disaffected youths finding the willpower to register and show up
when they're needed without any help. A tall order. Trump's support so far has been non-first
time voters, i.e. Republicans and some Democrats - his voters skew older.
Then they need to show up in OH, VA, FL, and NV or NH. The national percentage points really
don't matter in this case. They have to show up in these states like a tsunami (maybe WI and IA
too, depending on how you do the swing-state math). The Democrats have viable machines in OH,
VA, and FL. Another tall order, when Clinton's GoTV is swinging into action. What's the old saying?
"In war, logistics is everything." The easier path for Trump at this stage is to try and convince
registered Democrats to vote for him.
But your description of this potential voting demographic is spot on, imho. This who they are.
If history is any guide, Mrs. Clinton's "worst week" is always before her. She can't help it,
and those around her can't fix it, because it's who she is.
Pity poor Kaine, who seemed like a nice enough guy, soon to bear the Clinton taint – and already
a source of anger and division as Clinton consolidates her stranglehold on the party by smashing
the youthful, hopeful Sanders people.
"They want their buttons pushed and he did that very very well."
Absolutely. And the talking heads saying "things aren't that bad", "crime is down", "the economy
is recovering" just don't get it. Those things may even be true in a national sense, but they
are not felt on a local level.
FWIW in evangelical country, Trump isn't the first choice of most. But faced with the known
entity that is Hillary, and her toxic identity politics, I think a lot of them are prepared to
take a flier with Trump.
Camille Paglia made the best argument against Hillary: she's incompetent. She couldn't
even stave off an FBI investigation into her emails; she's lucky that AG Lynch was in the bag.
In reading (and rereading) the comments above, I think i've begun to understand Karl Rove's point
back in 2004 when he famously claimed that Republicans have no need for reality; they create their
own reality and the world must adjust to it. This election underscores his point and makes the
further point that Democrats are no less wedded to their reality.
That one is more in sync with "real reality" – whatever that means in an age when half the
population dismisses scientific evidence, scorns the lessons history teaches (if they are even
aware of history's lessons) and fervently thinks the lack of will alone is the cause of the ruin
they see – will probably determine how effective the administration that takes office in January
will become. I never thought Trump would get this far, and though I have always had low expectations
of my fellow voters, I have become increasingly discouraged by their proud lack of information,
let alone knowledge, and their attraction to the "strong man" form of leadership, a form of leadership
that has caused ruin for Germany and Italy in the last century, not to mention South American
dictatorships of the right and left then and now.
Trump's speech was ideal in tone and perfect in the amount of impromptu additions he made on the
spot, which enlivened the speech and made it a living, breathing, passionate presentation instead
of merely a typically stilted prepared speech that never digresses at all but sticks slavishly
to a text. The speech cohered extremely well–for those able to follow Trump's train of thought,
which is unusually Mercurial and thus requires more mental vitality, flexibility and integrated
thinking than Mr. Dreher is accustomed to practicing.
"And yet, Trump is getting 0% (yes 0) of the black vote."
Not to say Trump is the answer, but for some reason blacks keep voting near 100 percent for
politicians who have a vested interest in their failure.
I think the window is open for Trump to make the hardest play a Republican has made for black
votes in a long time. No establishment candidate can make a serious or remotely compelling case
to have any interest in Black America at this point. His school choice idea is very compelling
to black Americans whose children are generally stuck in failing schools. He seems to be the only
candidate who recognizes the astronomical murder rates in urban centers.
As I said, the trick is doing this while being the "law and order" candidate. How does one
do that given what "law and order" means to so many blacks. He might be able to temper that by
taking a libertarian page out of Rand Paul's book and talking about silly laws and discriminatory
sentencing. He could weigh in on cases like Eric Garner (stupid law led to his death)…find ways
to be legitimately critical of how the system is anti-black in its practical results. Most whites,
even conservative whites, would be receptive to this if its not wrapped up in the brainwash PC
lingo of "anti-discrimination" and BLM. Let's be honest, those are political organizations which
(their leadership) LOVE to see a black man get killed by a white man, because it serves their
cause.
Does Trump care about black kids in urban areas? Can he communicate it? Does he have the courage
to communicate it? If so he has an opportunity. The footage of black mothers whose children didn't
get selected at the charter school lotteries are POWERFUL and HEART RENDING. Can Trump deliver
the message of tragedy affecting black youth with the passion of Chief Flynn? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7MAO7McNKE
(go to about 1:15)
Trump should HAMMER on this point until November. It should be his primary issue. It would
go a long way toward breaking the accusation that he is running an identity politics campaign
and I think he could make a meaningful dent in the black vote.
I watched the speech with my college-age grand-daughter. She was so enthused at times that she
jumped up and clapped. She said, "He talks to ordinary people with respect."
I thought the speech was effective, but too long. His shouting didn't bother me. It shows that
he is not a politician. The speech was tailored to his style- short declarative sentences. I think
it helped him.
The Washington Post posted the speech as given, with Trump's ad-libs in bold. There weren't that
many of them. The speech he gave was probably 90% identical to the speech as written. Many of
the ad-libs were just adding things like "really" to the end of a sentence. He did add a whole
paragraph about NATO.
[NFR: I wonder if Trump's inability to deliver a speech with any kind of rhythm and cadence
and direction made it seem far more scattered than it appeared on paper. - RD]
Although it may be a sad commentary on the US population if patriotism and primary loyalty
to one's countrymen is now considered a white thing.
That "primary loyalty to one's countrymen" is the sin described as nativism , which
anti-white SJW types have determined to be one of the particular evils of white people. In that
sense, the SJW's and white identitarians such as Elrond are in agreement that it is indeed a "white
thing." Except that Elrond - and perhaps you and others - don't consider it evil.
after last night, watching him screw up the most important speech of his life with his inability
to stay focused, I am much less confident in his ability to make the sale to the American people
You sincerely asked, in another thread, how someone could possibly call you a "cultural liberal"
even if you were a theological conservative and a social conservative.
Re-read the italicized sentence above, because that is how someone can call you a painfully-unself-aware
"cultural liberal".
You (incorrectly) assume, even after Trump has thoroughly annihilated all of your prior expectations,
that you just obviously know "what makes a good political speech" better than Trump does. Thus,
you blithely assert the Self-Evident Truth that Trump clearly screwed his speech up.
No, you don't know better.
Trump did not screw his speech up.
Trump getting your hackles to rise and your knee to jerk and your mouth to open to reflexively
slam him for "doing it wrong" is part of the point
You are (once again) doing Trump's bidding by giving him yet more free publicity to (incorrectly)
lecture the world on how he "obviously did it wrong". He simply could not pay you to write more
effective press for him.
You reflexively write "cultural elite" prose against Trump for free, but not only does Trump
not care about your critique … he privately basks and gloriously wallows in it. Just as much as
Trump revelled in National Review's self-immolating condemnation of his campaign in February,
he invites any and all merely-procedural sneering about his convention today.
Trump simply does not care, in the least, if he gets 90% covered in excrement, so long as
his detractors get covered 95+%. If he is slightly, barely less-caked-in-filth at the finish line,
he wins, and that is the only thing that matters to him. It is simply never a "mistake"
for Trump to make speech choices that cake him in yet more filth, so long as he causes even more
filth to adhere to his only real opponent … especially if his "mistakes" cause cultural elites
like you to give him even-more-mountains of free publicity poring over those "mistakes".
Once again: "Why doubt that Trump can make a Mexico that loathes Trump pay for Trump's wall?
Every week, Trump makes a media that loathes Trump pay for Trump's campaign."
[NFR: Um, what? If expecting rhetorical coherence makes one a cultural liberal, then there's
no difference between Alan Alda and William F. Buckley. - RD]
I find myself wondering if we are in the shallows before the Trump Tsunami crashes ashore. I just
returned from visiting my sister and brother-in-law, who live in a red Southern state. They are
fairly affluent, and both work hard for it. They are incredibly generous with their resources,
not merely when it comes to their three children (all in their twenties now), in whom they have
tried to instill a traditional work ethic and Christian virtue, but with all manner of friends
and acquaintances. They open their home to friends and travelers, take meals to cancer strugglers,
and have a strong sense of goodness. And they are silent supporters of Donald J. Trump. Not too
silent, as I found out while we watched and talked about the RNC this past week! Although they
certainly know who they can and can not discuss him in front of. Not worth the static and trauma
of bringing Trump's name up in front of their liberal friends. They are decidedly not from Appalachia,
they are the "silent majority," and I think the RNC this past week, and the many speeches, especially
Trump's, have "sealed the deal." I suspect there are many like them.
Although I hate this word, I can't think of a better one to use here: Trump gave this speech with
a good dose of "swagger", as if he was riding on a wave of realization that, "Holy sh!t, I can
win this!" Admittedly, I'm still on the fence as to whether or not I can vote for him.
I liked that he called HC out on her ineptitude and transgressions and hope that he continues
to do so to keep her on the defensive. If you happen to think Trump's screaming delivery was bad
(I did but as a fellow native NYer, I get it) just wait until we are subjected to the screeching,
robotic monotone of Broom Hilda next week.
I'm also surprised that no one has mentioned Matthew Sheffield's very sharp analysis elsewhere
on TAC. The key point is, Trump held fast to all the points on which he disagrees with the
previous GOP consensus–and got the audience to cheer along with his "heresies."
He is running
as an anti-free trade, anti-immigration, anti-foreign intervention, non-social-issue-conservative–and
getting the Pence-style conservatives to go along with it. Movement conservatism is dead–Ted Cruz
is "rotting-flesh Reaganism" in Rusty Reno's hideously accurate phrase. If it wasn't for the fact
that Trump is the messenger, this would be a very good message.
"... When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don't think we are a very good messenger. ..."
"... Trump is just saying true things that we are not supposed to say outloud, like no one takes the American gov. talk on human rights seriously anymore, and no one, no one is going to start a nuclear war over Latvia. That's why people are only denying what trump said in the most general terms, rather than saying directly that we'd go to war with Russia over Lativa, because we're not going to. ..."
"... "We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons - including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas. … His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons-including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox." (presentation to Congress) ..."
"... The point being, as irresponsible foreign policy statements go, this (one hopes) will be the standard by which political actors -actual or aspirational- will be judged for quite sometime. ..."
"... Reagan and Thatcher's warmongering was so terrifying for much of the world it reinvented the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament which had once been seen to be decisively defeated by the Labour right. They held unprecedented rallies and even had the organising power to great the Glastonbury Festival as we know it. ..."
"... Reagan's belligerence could have easily triggered a nuclear war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident ..."
"... Whenever I hear this kind of stuff-with all the faux-seriousness and operatic gnashing of teeth, the pompous heavy breathing, the weird identification with America's global mission (as Tim Barker mused on Twitter, does Bouie seriously think the "end of US hegemony would be more dangerous than nuking a small post colonial state?")-I wonder, whom are they performing for? Each other? Themselves? Political elites? ..."
"... It's about time we recognize the triumph of liberalism/neoliberalism in America, past hegemony into dominance. ..."
"... liberal imperialism is gonna kill a lot of people. Again. ..."
"... Bob @33 yep. enter Hillary http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/democrats-will-learn-all-the-wrong-lessons-from-brush-with-bernie-20160609 ..."
"... So none of this is about NATO or about whether Trump really said something scary. Asteele is right, of course, and no one is going to start a nuclear war over Latvia, but Trump being Trump I'd say that he told the truth in this case by accident. But if Trump gains in the polls and starts to win, all of these pundits will reverse themselves. By the end of the campaign, they'll be saying how great it is to have a straight talker in the White House. The truth, much less historical comparisons about the truth, is irrelevant. ..."
"... Voila: the Donald wins, the US imperialism defeated, the world saved. I'll give it a 40% chance… Otherwise, we're all dead within the next 4 years… ..."
"... By what possible criteria could he be considered worse than the psychos, narcissists, nutjobs, crooks and lunatics that the Americans have been in the habit of voting in as their President since about 1960? Look at JFK (subsequently canonised) and his wild and reckless decision to literally bring the world close to nuclear Armageddon because of his unilateral decree that the sovereign state of Cuba was not to be allowed nuclear weapons (imagine how we would feel about Castro if he unilaterally decreed that the United States was 'not to be allowed' nuclear weapons, had invaded the United States to overthrow its legal government, and then blockaded the US for over 50 years to protest against the US' many human rights violations, as well as attempting to assassinate all of its leaders. But when the US does the same to Cuba, we all think its perfectly reasonable). ..."
"... The TV series 'Altered Statesmen', which is worth checking out, posited that Kennedy was a drug addict (amphetamines) and that this contributed to his reckless behaviour over Cuba. ..."
"... Then we have Barack Obama, and it has to be said, compared to the others, he looks good. He is, as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, a perfectly competent and sane imperial administrator. His policies in no way deviate from the main contours of American foreign policy as they have existed since about 1949 and in no way from American domestic foreign policy since 1981. He is no better, morally, than his predecessors, but he is less nuts. But he is unequivocally the best (except maybe Lyndon Johnson in terms only of his domestic policy), and he ain't that great. ..."
"... There are good reasons to loathe Trump. But the liberal commentariat go out of their way to find bad reasons. The objective fact is we heard harder and more aggressive arguments against the invasion of Iraq in the Republican debates than we heard in the Democrats' debates (and that includes Sanders). In his last speech, Trump went out of his way to condemn Hilary/Obama's annihilation of Libya. It is not clear what Trump would do vis a vis Syria, but he is right to point out that Syria is now a disaster area and that Obama/Clinton share some of the blame. Trump condemned TPP: will Hilary? ..."
"... Those who argue that they can see Trump causing world war 3 are right, but surely one can also imagine Hilary Clinton causing it? She is a hawk: indeed, far more of a hawk than Obama. ..."
"... Trump attacks Nato (an organization which, as has been said, exists to solve the problems caused by its own existence). Good. So what's the big deal? It is hard not to see a connection between this hysteria over Trump, and the concurrent hysteria the liberal commentariate are having in the UK over Corbyn. And in both cases, denial of the obvious: the neo-liberal consensus as we have known it since 1979 (1981 in the US) is breaking down. What replaces it might be worse. But it is definitely breaking down, and Clinton's attempts to piece it together again will not work. ..."
"... "The rally was because of the recent economic crisis that struck Latvia in 2009 and made more than almost 70% of the Latvian population either poor or unemployed." ..."
"... Trump is only saying what Patrick Buchanan has been saying for years. And the latter was a Presidential candidate, though not a real contender. ..."
"... The real effect will be further down the line, in 10 years. Now that someone has put the Buchananite end-the-Empire stuff into the mainstream, it will be taken up and brought forward by serious people. ..."
"... 30 years ago nobody thought the UK's membership of the EEC (as was) was ever going to be put in question again. Nobody really thought that 20 years ago either. But 10 years ago it was a distant possibility, and then it all slides away in the final few years and months. ..."
"... Those people believed we could win a nuclear war. I think there are people in the State Department today who believe that we can fight a war with Russia without having it quickly turn into a nuclear war. ..."
"... I am scared because I think Hillary believes the (a) Russia will not resist an invasion by NATO land forces AND that they will not launch their missiles before they are overwhelmed. This really, really scares me. Honest to Dog, they were thinking in terms of a dozen of our cities being obliterated, maybe eight or ten million casualties, heck, just a flesh wound. I don't have the references to the Field Manuals, but it was official, settled doctrine in the Department of Defense that is was possible to fight and win a nuclear war, and the people who claimed the Russian General Staff were lunatics for thinking so were fringe elements at best. ..."
"... Truman – nuclear weapons and invasion of Korea 1950. Kennedy – Bay of Pigs – numerous assassinations/support for dictators across the globe. Johnson – massive escalation of US troops in Viet Nam. Staunch cold warrior. ..."
"... The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction provided the 'stability' during the cold war. Is there a crazier notion than 'we can win' a full-scale nuclear conflagration? That's what passed for normal from 1945 to 1992, more or less. Both the US and Russia deserve credit for stepping back from that brink. ..."
"... The fiction that Democrats are somehow more humane and caring than the rest of the planet is very much open to question. Indeed, the historical record offers plenty of evidence to the contrary, at least as damning as HRC's giddy recollections of killing Libyans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y ..."
"... I don't expect HRC to attack Russia for the same reason that I don't expect Russia to attack Europe: MAD is still in effect. I don't think that people are really that crazy. That said, NATO pledging full defense of small countries on Russia's border is inherently destabilizing and leads to stances like Daragh's at @85, in which we have to make crystal clear that we are promising to do something that it would be insane to do, and the crystal clearness of this insane promise is the best guarantee of stability. ..."
"... Indeed, I was referring to Clinton's foreign and military policies. By the standards of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, which seem reasonable to me, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war crime, and those who supported it in a significant way, such as being in the U.S. Senate and voting for it, being accomplices, are war criminals. Clinton's excuse is that she was fed bad intelligence, but I don't believe she is that stupid or incompetent. Absent a war-crimes trial, we must guess, but my guess is that she calculated that if the war turned out badly, it would be Bush's war, and if it turned out well (politically, I mean) she would have been in on it. That is, she voted for the violent or deaths or other serious harm of several hundred thousand innocent people in order to secure a political advantage. In my view this makes her a war criminal and I won't vote for or otherwise support such a person. Her subsequent career seems to confirm my guess. Insofar as she shows emotion about slaughter, she seems to enjoy it, as witness her crowing about Qaddafi. ..."
"... In regard to Ukraine, my take on what happened there was that the existing situation, in which Ukraine was a more or less neutral state, tolerated by its neighbors, was unsatisfactory to some important people in the US. As long as Ukraine followed more or less democratic forms, the large Russian population there would tend to keep it neutral, so a violent coup against the elected government was fomented, obviating that problem. I'd guess the targets of the exercise were the Russian naval base at Sevastopol, and the chance of putting NATO forces and weapons next to southern Russia. Putin's response was to play black: he took just what he needed, to wit, a couple of eastern provinces and Crimea, and left the rest. A gangster, no doubt, but a rational one. I don't see this sequence of events as relating strongly to the Baltic states. I suppose if NATO built huge bases there it might make the Russians nervous, but to my knowledge that isn't planned. God knows, though - people could be that stupid, I suppose, considering the pair the major parties have presented us with. ..."
"... The thing is, there's absolutely nothing terrifying about Trump. In fact, he's a quintessential American hero; and not just that: he's a quintessential non-violent American hero, unlike, say, Bonnie and Clyde. Has always been, for as long as I remember. In fact, stating that Trump is terrifying is outright unAmerican and treasonous. ..."
"... What nonsense. There is no 'Russian expansionism'. South Ossetia is begging to be accepted – the RF won't take it. Similar story with Donetsk and Lugansk, whom Putin personally asked in 2014 NOT to hold the referendum for independence. And these are regions that really-really want to join the RF; what the hell would they do with the Baltic republics, where most people don't even want it? This is simply a whole 100% imaginary issue; you people are completely brainwashed… ..."
"... The neocon in a dress who supported the Iraq debacle and enjoyed it so much that she played a key role in American regime change in Libya, and still wants kill more brown people through more violent regime change in Syria is far and away the safer, saner candidate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y ..."
Last night, Donald Trump shocked the world, or at least the pundit class, when the
New York Times published a wide-ranging
interview Trump had given the paper on the subject of foreign policy.
... ... ...
But he also said some things that were true. Like this:
When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I
don't think we are a very good messenger.
And while the article makes a muchness of Trump's refusal to pressure Turkey over its response to
the failed coup, the fact is that Obama hasn't done anything concrete on that score either (as the
article acknowledges). Nor did Obama do much about the coup in Egypt or Honduras. To the contrary,
in fact.
But that wasn't the focus of last night's chatter on Twitter. Instead, the pundits and
experts were keen to establish the absolutely unprecedented nature of Trump's irresponsibility: his
recklessness when it came to NATO , his adventurism, his sheer reveling in being the Bad Boy of US
Foreign Policy: this, it was agreed, was new.
In a tweet that got passed around by a lot of journalists, Peter Singer, senior fellow at the
New America Foundation (who's written a lot of books on US foreign policy), had this to say:
It is the most irresponsible foreign policy statement by a presidential nominee of any party
in my lifetime. https://t.co/V3C6nbp5wu
It's been a weird couple of months. Not so long ago, this rising generation of pundits were
in agreement that there was a dinosaur foreign policy blob in fancy buildings between Dupont Circle
and K Street whose first instinct was to drag the USA into unwinnable wars. Yet the Blob and the
New Pundits are in complete agreement that (1) the main problem in Turkey is Mt Erdogan and (2)
Trump is unprecedented. Just one among many examples: this tweet, which relies on unnamed NATO
foreign minister using apocalyptic language that this same group would ridicule in other contexts.
From all Trump's awfulness, is his reticence about a Baltic war the worst thing?
Asteele 07.21.16 at 8:28 pm
Trump is just saying true things that we are not supposed to say outloud, like no one takes
the American gov. talk on human rights seriously anymore, and no one, no one is going to start
a nuclear war over Latvia. That's why people are only denying what trump said in the most general
terms, rather than saying directly that we'd go to war with Russia over Lativa, because we're
not going to.
b9n10nt 07.21.16 at 8:44 pm
09/18/2002, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense (before Congress)
"We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed
large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons - including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard
gas. … His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons-including anthrax
and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox." (presentation to Congress)
The point being, as irresponsible foreign policy statements go, this (one hopes) will be
the standard by which political actors -actual or aspirational- will be judged for quite sometime.
Placeholder 07.21.16 at 9:28 pm
Reagan and Thatcher's warmongering was so terrifying for much of the world it reinvented
the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament which had once been seen to be decisively defeated by the
Labour right. They held unprecedented rallies and even had the organising power to great the Glastonbury
Festival as we know it.
The New Zealand Labour party swept back to power in the 1980s when they promised that its territory
will never be used for production, storage and transmission of nuclear material. When the US just
wouldn't tell them if their subs had nukes on them they simply banned them. To this day the policy
has made New Zealand a nuclear-free territory.
Really though Trump is just saying what Europeans, the craven complicity of the warmongering
media bosses aside, actually believe so…. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33072093
PS Turkey is suspending its membership of the ECHR, or as I phrase it OUTRAGE AS MIDDLE EASTERN
DICTATOR DOES THING THERESA MAY HAS ALWAYS SAID SHE'LL DO
Yes, it's Wikipedia, but I've read similar things elsewhere. I didn't realize there were people
who would still defend the rhetoric of fighting and winning a nuclear war.
max 07.21.16 at 11:47 pm
I'll admit that I find it hard to take this ahistorical high dudgeon of the pundit class seriously.
ZOMG yes!
Whenever I hear this kind of stuff-with all the faux-seriousness and operatic gnashing
of teeth, the pompous heavy breathing, the weird identification with America's global mission
(as Tim Barker mused on Twitter, does Bouie seriously think the "end of US hegemony would be more
dangerous than nuking a small post colonial state?")-I wonder, whom are they performing for? Each
other? Themselves? Political elites?
Quite. Also endorse entire post. I would also point out that Kevin Drum kicked off some of
the hyperventilating and he ought to know better. (But then he's from Orange county, center of
some seriously intense Cold War hatred of the Russians.)
heckblazer 07.21.16 at 11:56 pm
If Trump is right when he said "When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start
talking about civil liberties, I don't think we are a very good messenger," it's by complete accident
given his reasoning. What he said right before that in the interview was:
"We have tremendous problems when we have policemen being shot in the streets, when you have
riots, when you have Ferguson. When you have Baltimore. When you have all of the things that are
happening in this country – we have other problems and I think we have to focus on those problems."
He doesn't think police shootings delegitimize American criticisms of Edrogan, he thinks protests
against police shootings delegitimize American criticisms of Edrogan.
Anarcissie 07.21.16 at 11:59 pm
In regard to the 'Which one is worse?' conversation, which I've been seeing a lot of lately,
some have pointed out that Trump hasn't actually gotten anyone killed - yet - either as a principal
actor or as an accomplice.
I was unaware, as implied in #1, that Russia had been bothering the Baltic States. The only
thing I have seen about them in the news in the last few years was that the US was 'bolstering'
its military presence there, absent any mentioned provocation. This seemed to comprise the addition
of a few thousand troops, hardly much of a counterweight to the Russian army. I figured, after
having failed with Georgia/Abkhazia/Ossetia, Ukraine/Crimea, and Syria, the US had to do something
to show Putin a thing or two. What's up?
bob mcmanus 07.22.16 at 12:21 am
It's about time we recognize the triumph of liberalism/neoliberalism in America, past hegemony
into dominance. And ahistorical moralism, with a side order of apocalyptic and missionary
imperialism, is what the petty bourgeois do, and Vox, Bouie, and the feminists at Slate and Jezebel
are just parts of the latest iteration. It shouldn't be that hard to recognize Comstock and Carrie
Nation and John Harvey Kellogg under the bicycle helmets and tattoos.
Trump's gonna get smashed. Same relevance and interest as maybe WJ Bryan or Henry Wallace.
End of an era. But this is not good news, cause liberal imperialism is gonna kill a lot of
people. Again.
I seriously take issue with this post. I don't think the attitude of the press has anything
to do with amnesia or lack of historical knowledge. It's just that it's cool right now for them
to be against Trump. If it were cool to be for Trump, they'd reverse positions in a dime.
Let's look at the microcosm of CT threads for an example. When Trump started getting popular,
some people here wrote the same kinds of things in reference to his statements about protestors
- had any Presidential candidate asked so barbarously towards protest? So I thought for less than
a minute and came up with a couple of examples from both the Bush and Obama administrations of
protestors being arrested for wearing the wrong T-shirt, of laws being made to make it even easier
to arrest people, of cops brutalizing protesters much more severely than (to my knowledge) any
anti-Trump protestor has been brutalized without any official reaction, and so on. People didn't
have amnesia about all of this: it happened within the last decade.
And they didn't care, because they weren't really interested in historical comparisons, much
less an abstract right to protest. It was all about whether it was being done by their side or
the other side. I got treated to a long explanation of why Obama needed to crack down on protestors
because someone somewhere was scary.
So none of this is about NATO or about whether Trump really said something scary. Asteele is
right, of course, and no one is going to start a nuclear war over Latvia, but Trump being Trump
I'd say that he told the truth in this case by accident. But if Trump gains in the polls and starts
to win, all of these pundits will reverse themselves. By the end of the campaign, they'll be saying
how great it is to have a straight talker in the White House. The truth, much less historical
comparisons about the truth, is irrelevant.
Donald Johnson 07.22.16 at 4:28 am
I thought it was sort of a truism that politics attracts sociopaths. You can google it and
find articles like this–
Trump seems like an exceptionally inept sociopath– what is horrifying about him is that millions
find his openly and unashamedly narcisstic personality attractive. Politicians usually try to
fake humility, but Trump can't be bothered and for whatever reason this seems to be working for
him.
Ze K 07.22.16 at 6:27 am
"Trump's gonna get smashed."
Well, here's my hopeful scenario, two parts:
no one bothers coming to vote for Hillary, because no one likes her. This much is obvious,
but also:
no one bothers coming to vote against Trump, because he can't win anyway.
Voila: the Donald wins, the US imperialism defeated, the world saved. I'll give it a 40% chance…
Otherwise, we're all dead within the next 4 years…
Hidari 07.22.16 at 6:44 am
Looking at it from outside, I simply don't understand all this horror and hatred of Trump. Perhaps
we should create (or adapt) a new phrase for it. 'Trump-Derangement-Syndrome' a mental disease
(like so many other similar mental illnesses) disproportionately suffered by white middle class
males who have well-paid positions in the corporate media.
Now: don't get me wrong: Trump is awful. He is probably (morally) a bad person, although I've
never met him so what would I know. It is possible that he is a 'sociopath' although that phrase
tends to have a somewhat elastic meaning in 'liberal' political discourse.
But there are a number of points to be made here.
1: By what possible criteria could he be considered worse than the psychos, narcissists, nutjobs,
crooks and lunatics that the Americans have been in the habit of voting in as their President
since about 1960? Look at JFK (subsequently canonised) and his wild and reckless decision to literally
bring the world close to nuclear Armageddon because of his unilateral decree that the sovereign
state of Cuba was not to be allowed nuclear weapons (imagine how we would feel about Castro if
he unilaterally decreed that the United States was 'not to be allowed' nuclear weapons, had invaded
the United States to overthrow its legal government, and then blockaded the US for over 50 years
to protest against the US' many human rights violations, as well as attempting to assassinate
all of its leaders. But when the US does the same to Cuba, we all think its perfectly reasonable).
The TV series 'Altered Statesmen', which is worth checking out, posited that Kennedy was a
drug addict (amphetamines) and that this contributed to his reckless behaviour over Cuba.
Then we had Lyndon Johnson, who, although his domestic policies were good (better than Kennedy's),
invaded Vietnam, and was relatively keen to start a nuclear war over Vietnamese resistance to
his belligerence.
Then we had Nixon. 'Nuff said.
Then we had Carter, like all of them, a believer in a sky God who doesn't exist, who brought
religious fundamentalism to the White House (thanks Jimmy!) and who was also a a believer in UFOs.
Then Ronald Reagan. Where to start? A man who (apparently) had Alzheimer's Disease for much
of his second term (although the liberal commentariat helped to deceive the American public about
this). The times of whose meetings were planned (apparently) by an astrologer. A man who openly
hoped for an alien invasion to unite the 'peoples of Earth'.
Then we had Slick Willie, who, although nominally sane, has at least the same aura of sleaze
about him as Trump does.
Then George Bush, the first real, 'hardcore' religious fundamentalist in the White House, a
religious extremist who apparently invaded Iraq (amongst other reasons) because of the Biblical
prophecies of Gog and Magog.
Then we have Barack Obama, and it has to be said, compared to the others, he looks good. He
is, as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, a perfectly competent and sane imperial administrator.
His policies in no way deviate from the main contours of American foreign policy as they have
existed since about 1949 and in no way from American domestic foreign policy since 1981. He is
no better, morally, than his predecessors, but he is less nuts. But he is unequivocally the best (except maybe Lyndon Johnson in terms only of his domestic
policy), and he ain't that great.
2; By what possible criteria is Trump worse than the other Republican candidates?
3: There are good reasons to loathe Trump. But the liberal commentariat go out of their way
to find bad reasons. The objective fact is we heard harder and more aggressive arguments against
the invasion of Iraq in the Republican debates than we heard in the Democrats' debates (and that
includes Sanders). In his last speech, Trump went out of his way to condemn Hilary/Obama's annihilation
of Libya. It is not clear what Trump would do vis a vis Syria, but he is right to point out that
Syria is now a disaster area and that Obama/Clinton share some of the blame. Trump condemned TPP:
will Hilary?
Those who argue that they can see Trump causing world war 3 are right, but surely one can also
imagine Hilary Clinton causing it? She is a hawk: indeed, far more of a hawk than Obama.
Trump attacks Nato (an organization which, as has been said, exists to solve the problems caused
by its own existence). Good. So what's the big deal? It is hard not to see a connection between this hysteria over Trump,
and the concurrent hysteria the liberal commentariate are having in the UK over Corbyn. And in
both cases, denial of the obvious: the neo-liberal consensus as we have known it since 1979 (1981
in the US) is breaking down. What replaces it might be worse. But it is definitely breaking down,
and Clinton's attempts to piece it together again will not work.
"Gosh, do you think that people in other countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union (and
didn't like it) might be a little nervous?"
Yes, most people in the Baltic republics definitely are a little nervous:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Riga_riot
"The rally was because of the recent economic crisis that struck Latvia in 2009 and made more
than almost 70% of the Latvian population either poor or unemployed."
Should, next time, large majorities there demand quitting the EU and NATO, and integrating
(or, god forbid, joining) with the Russian Federation, German troops being deployed there will
certainly come handy: they know the terrain…
If they are well-read in history and good at querying JStor, why are they ignorant of relevant
facts from the recent US past? Perhaps it takes too much time and effort to check broad assertions
such as "it has never happened before" even if one has access to all the research databases in
the world? If it's true, and the columnist does not have the background in history to come up
with instant counterexamples, "ask an expert" seems to be the only sensible approach left unless
the writer is willing to compromise his integrity to make his dubious point.
Trump's suggestion that US protection for NATO members be conditioned on those members' fulfilling
unspecified obligations towards "us" (the US?) did sound like something completely new coming
from a US presidential candidate. That NATO members are free-riding on the American military buildup
and should be made to pay up is an old hobby horse of Trump's. But suggesting the US should or
might renege on its treaty obligations is a novelty.
No, I don't think Putin is going to invade Latvia – he has learned his lesson in Eastern Ukraine.
However, Russia might still be able to pull Latvia to its side in the big game. If Trump's view
prevailed in DC, Latvian voters would start asking themselves, "Why do we need NATO if they won't
protect us? Why do we need the EU if they're out to flood us with refugees?"
On the other hand, Trump's unpredictability might give him an advantage against Putin.
The thing is, the U.S. shouldn't be offering security guarantees to countries on Russia's doorstep.
The U.S. is overextended and some scheme of multilateral arrangements, suitable to a multipolar
world ought to be on the agenda.
There is an out-of-the-mouth-of-babes quality lurking in Trump's stream of consciousness, as
the OP points out. Of course you can always question the context (and in his disjointed ramblings
that can be hard to pin down) and everything he says is quickly contradicted, but he isn't the
one trapped by conventional nonsense. He has his own nonsense.
Ze K 07.22.16 at 7:42 am
…
Should, next time, large majorities there demand quitting the EU and NATO, and integrating
(or, god forbid, joining) with the Russian Federation, German troops being deployed there will
certainly come handy: they know the terrain…
If large majorities in Latvia (or any of the Baltic states) demand quitting the EU and NATO
and integrating or joining with the Russian Federation, pinch yourself and wake up.
Trump is only saying what Patrick Buchanan has been saying for years. And the latter was a Presidential
candidate, though not a real contender.
The real effect will be further down the line, in 10 years. Now that someone has put the Buchananite
end-the-Empire stuff into the mainstream, it will be taken up and brought forward by serious people.
30 years ago nobody thought the UK's membership of the EEC (as was) was ever going to be put
in question again. Nobody really thought that 20 years ago either. But 10 years ago it was a distant
possibility, and then it all slides away in the final few years and months.
Why, because some anglophone commenter from down-under can't believe it's possible? Tsk. Oh
well, thanks for your suggestion, and rest assured that it'll get all the attention it deserves…
casmilus 07.22.16 at 11:45 am
@68
The First Czechoslovak Republic had lots of treaties and allies, until it needed them.
Procopius 07.22.16 at 1:12 pm
Reading the comments, I find myself wondering when these people were born. I especially was baffled
by Daragh at #1. You are wrong. The official, and widely publicised, policy of the United States
government and its Department of Defense was that it was perfectly possible to win a nuclear war.
True, we might take as many as 80 million immediate casualties, with many more to die from radiation
and fallout later, but we could survive. You betcha. Do you know who Curtis Le May was? I served
in the Air Force from 1955 – 1959, and then in the Army from 1965 – 1982. I remember.
Those people
believed we could win a nuclear war. I think there are people in the State Department today
who believe that we can fight a war with Russia without having it quickly turn into a nuclear
war.
I am scared because I think Hillary believes the (a) Russia will not resist an invasion
by NATO land forces AND that they will not launch their missiles before they are overwhelmed.
This really, really scares me. Honest to Dog, they were thinking in terms of a dozen of our cities
being obliterated, maybe eight or ten million casualties, heck, just a flesh wound. I don't have
the references to the Field Manuals, but it was official, settled doctrine in the Department of
Defense that is was possible to fight and win a nuclear war, and the people who claimed the Russian
General Staff were lunatics for thinking so were fringe elements at best.
kidneystones 07.22.16 at 1:53 pm
FDR allows 527 heavy bombers of the US Eighth Air Force to drop 1, 247 tons of high explosives
on Dresden on January 14 and 15 of 1945 'fierce winds fueled the resulting fire-storm'. (Six Months
in 1945, p. 97) That's after the Brits had already firebombed the civilian target on the
night of February 13.
FDR allows Curtis Le May to deploy new 'miracle' weapon' napalm against Japanese civilian targets
in 60 Japanese cities. The March raid on Tokyo killed 100,000. FDR 'raised no objections when
informed of incendiary attacks on Japan (Targeting Civilians in War, p. 132)
Truman – nuclear weapons and invasion of Korea 1950.
Kennedy – Bay of Pigs – numerous assassinations/support for dictators across the globe.
Johnson – massive escalation of US troops in Viet Nam. Staunch cold warrior.
A number of us served during the cold war. Procopius @ 78 is right.
The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction provided the 'stability' during the cold war. Is
there a crazier notion than 'we can win' a full-scale nuclear conflagration? That's what passed
for normal from 1945 to 1992, more or less. Both the US and Russia deserve credit for stepping
back from that brink.
Partisan blinders prevent some from recognizing that war/torture/state terror/and meddling
in the affairs of allies and enemies alike has long been part of the policies not just of both
parties in the US, but of many governments around the globe, including that of the UK.
The fiction that Democrats are somehow more humane and caring than the rest of the planet is
very much open to question. Indeed, the historical record offers plenty of evidence to the contrary,
at least as damning as HRC's giddy recollections of killing Libyans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
I don't expect HRC to attack Russia for the same reason that I don't expect Russia to attack Europe:
MAD is still in effect. I don't think that people are really that crazy. That said, NATO pledging
full defense of small countries on Russia's border is inherently destabilizing and leads to stances
like Daragh's at @85, in which we have to make crystal clear that we are promising to do something
that it would be insane to do, and the crystal clearness of this insane promise is the best guarantee
of stability.
Ze K 07.22.16 at 2:20 pm
"The fiction that Democrats are somehow more humane and caring than the rest of the planet is
very much open to question. Indeed, the historical record offers plenty of evidence to the contrary…"
Well, Democrats and Republicans are, of course the same thing, and the attraction of Trump
is that he appears to be neither.
But yes, it is true, although it's probably a mere coincidence, that the administrations led
by Democratic presidents appear to be more dangerous, in terms of provoking a nuclear war. The
Kennedy admin is, obviously, beyond the pale. The Clinton admin bombed Serbia, Russia's close
ally, from high altitudes with no military purpose, killing thousands of people and hitting the
Chinese embassy in Belgrade. The Pristina incident almost resulted in a direct armed confrontation.
Obama's admin is responsible for the coup in Ukraine and its consequences, as well as the incredibly
aggressive propaganda campaign, and all the recent escalations, all well-known. Compare this with
Bush II admin's careful handling of the '08 crisis in Georgia and '01 incident with Chinese plane
collision…
'I have no idea what you're saying here. You've been seeing a lot of people asking whether
Trump or Clinton is worse? Truly, is there no limit to the stupidity of the intellectual left?
Most of my conversational parters, in Real Life or online, are not what I would call 'intellectuals'
and many of them are not leftists in the bourgeois intellectual leftist sense. I read CT as I
used to read the New York Review of Books, to find out what the bourgeoisie are up to. I hope
my terms will be understood, but if not, it doesn't matter; I'm sure you get the general idea.
Indeed, I was referring to Clinton's foreign and military policies. By the standards of the
Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, which seem reasonable to me, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war
crime, and those who supported it in a significant way, such as being in the U.S. Senate and voting
for it, being accomplices, are war criminals. Clinton's excuse is that she was fed bad intelligence,
but I don't believe she is that stupid or incompetent. Absent a war-crimes trial, we must guess,
but my guess is that she calculated that if the war turned out badly, it would be Bush's war,
and if it turned out well (politically, I mean) she would have been in on it. That is, she voted
for the violent or deaths or other serious harm of several hundred thousand innocent people in
order to secure a political advantage. In my view this makes her a war criminal and I won't vote
for or otherwise support such a person. Her subsequent career seems to confirm my guess. Insofar
as she shows emotion about slaughter, she seems to enjoy it, as witness her crowing about Qaddafi.
'It's easy not to get anyone killed if you never spend any time in international politics.
Very hard otherwise, either by commission or by omission.'
Or, as Stalin is said to have said, 'If you kill one man, it's murder. If you kill a million
men, it's a statistic.' I see that kind of thinking as a problem as well as a joke, and I'm not
going to go along with it. How do you deal with it? Don't you find it somewhat problematical?
In regard to Ukraine, my take on what happened there was that the existing situation, in which
Ukraine was a more or less neutral state, tolerated by its neighbors, was unsatisfactory to some
important people in the US. As long as Ukraine followed more or less democratic forms, the large
Russian population there would tend to keep it neutral, so a violent coup against the elected
government was fomented, obviating that problem. I'd guess the targets of the exercise were the
Russian naval base at Sevastopol, and the chance of putting NATO forces and weapons next to southern
Russia. Putin's response was to play black: he took just what he needed, to wit, a couple of eastern
provinces and Crimea, and left the rest. A gangster, no doubt, but a rational one. I don't see
this sequence of events as relating strongly to the Baltic states. I suppose if NATO built huge
bases there it might make the Russians nervous, but to my knowledge that isn't planned. God knows,
though - people could be that stupid, I suppose, considering the pair the major parties have presented
us with.
"I'm sorry you can't accept that the Ukrainians are a separate nation from the Russians"
What's this all about? Are you replying to voices inside your head? In that case, you don't
need to type your replies…
Ze K 07.22.16 at 3:00 pm
The thing is, there's absolutely nothing terrifying about Trump. In fact, he's a quintessential
American hero; and not just that: he's a quintessential non-violent American hero, unlike,
say, Bonnie and Clyde. Has always been, for as long as I remember. In fact, stating that Trump
is terrifying is outright unAmerican and treasonous. Yessiree Bob!
Daragh 07.22.16 at 2:52 pm @ 108 -
I know only what I read in the media, so I don't really, really know what happened in Ukraine,
but I do know there was a violent coup against an elected government, apparently supported by
the US - no one seems to disagree with that part - and the rest seems to organize itself around
that event pretty well. I was also impressed by the torrent of propaganda that promptly issued
forth at that time, which always makes me suspect advanced preparation. If you are in contact
with any of those people, I suggest that in the view of us outerworld cranks their work in this
area has not been up to the best standards of the art. Agreed, it's a tough case.
The strategic difference between having major NATO installations in Turkey and having them
in the north and east of Ukraine ought to be obvious.
Ze K 07.22.16 at 5:07 pm
"If ever something was going to green light Russian expansionism, that would certainly do it,
I'd imagine."
What nonsense. There is no 'Russian expansionism'. South Ossetia is begging to be accepted
– the RF won't take it. Similar story with Donetsk and Lugansk, whom Putin personally asked in
2014 NOT to hold the referendum for independence. And these are regions that really-really want
to join the RF; what the hell would they do with the Baltic republics, where most people don't
even want it? This is simply a whole 100% imaginary issue; you people are completely brainwashed…
kidneystones 07.22.16 at 12:55 pm
@ 73 I agree!
The neocon in a dress who supported the Iraq debacle and enjoyed it so much that she played
a key role in American regime change in Libya, and still wants kill more brown people through
more violent regime change in Syria is far and away the safer, saner candidate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
"... The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents, is that our plan will put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians who will not put America First, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America with respect. This will all change in 2017. ..."
"... The American People will come first once again. My plan will begin with safety at home – which means safe neighborhoods, secure borders, and protection from terrorism. There can be no prosperity without law and order. On the economy, I will outline reforms to add millions of new jobs and trillions in new wealth that can be used to rebuild America. ..."
"... Big business, elite media and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of my opponent because they know she will keep our rigged system in place. They are throwing money at her because they have total control over everything she does. She is their puppet, and they pull the strings. ..."
"... That is why Hillary Clinton's message is that things will never change. My message is that things have to change – and they have to change right now. Every day I wake up determined to deliver for the people I have met all across this nation that have been neglected, ignored, and abandoned. ..."
"... I have visited the laid-off factory workers, and the communities crushed by our horrible and unfair trade deals. These are the forgotten men and women of our country. People who work hard but no longer have a voice. ..."
"... I have embraced crying mothers who have lost their children because our politicians put their personal agendas before the national good. I have no patience for injustice, no tolerance for government incompetence, no sympathy for leaders who fail their citizens. ..."
"... And when a Secretary of State illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000 of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every different form and faces no consequence – I know that corruption has reached a level like never before. ..."
"... When the FBI Director says that the Secretary of State was "extremely careless" and "negligent," in handling our classified secrets, I also know that these terms are minor compared to what she actually did. They were just used to save her from facing justice for her terrible crimes. ..."
"... In fact, her single greatest accomplishment may be committing such an egregious crime and getting away with it – especially when others have paid so dearly. When that same Secretary of State rakes in millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers I know the time for action has come. ..."
"... We must have the best intelligence gathering operation in the world. We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. Instead, we must work with all of our allies who share our goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terror. ..."
"... We are going to build a great border wall to stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the violence, and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities. I have been honored to receive the endorsement of America's Border Patrol Agents, and will work directly with them to protect the integrity of our lawful immigration system. ..."
"... On January 21st of 2017, the day after I take the oath of office, Americans will finally wake up in a country where the laws of the United States are enforced. We are going to be considerate and compassionate to everyone. ..."
"... But my greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens. My plan is the exact opposite of the radical and dangerous immigration policy of Hillary Clinton. Americans want relief from uncontrolled immigration. Communities want relief. ..."
"... Remember, it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, one of the worst economic deals ever made by our country. ..."
"... My opponent, on the other hand, has supported virtually every trade agreement that has been destroying our middle class. She supported NAFTA, and she supported China's entrance into the World Trade Organization – another one of her husband's colossal mistakes. ..."
"... She supported the job killing trade deal with South Korea. She has supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP will not only destroy our manufacturing, but it will make America subject to the rulings of foreign governments. I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers, or that diminishes our freedom and independence. Instead, I will make individual deals with individual countries. ..."
"... My opponent would rather protect education bureaucrats than serve American children. We will repeal and replace disastrous Obamacare. You will be able to choose your own doctor again. And we will fix TSA at the airports! We will completely rebuild our depleted military, and the countries that we protect, at a massive loss, will be asked to pay their fair share. We will take care of our great Veterans like they have never been taken care of before. My opponent dismissed the VA scandal as being not widespread – one more sign of how out of touch she really is. We are going to ask every Department Head in government to provide a list of wasteful spending projects that we can eliminate in my first 100 days. The politicians have talked about it, I'm going to do it. We are also going to appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court who will uphold our laws and our Constitution. ..."
Not only have our citizens endured domestic disaster, but they have lived through one international
humiliation after another. We all remember the images of our sailors being forced to their knees
by their Iranian captors at gunpoint.
This was just prior to the signing of the Iran deal, which gave back to Iran $150 billion and
gave us nothing – it will go down in history as one of the worst deals ever made. Another humiliation
came when president Obama drew a red line in Syria – and the whole world knew it meant nothing.
In Libya, our consulate – the symbol of American prestige around the globe – was brought down
in flames. America is far less safe – and the world is far less stable – than when Obama made the
decision to put Hillary Clinton in charge of America's foreign policy.
I am certain it is a decision he truly regrets. Her bad instincts and her bad judgment – something
pointed out by Bernie Sanders – are what caused the disasters unfolding today. Let's review the record.
In 2009, pre-Hillary, ISIS was not even on the map.
Libya was cooperating. Egypt was peaceful. Iraq was seeing a reduction in violence. Iran was being
choked by sanctions. Syria was under control. After four years of Hillary Clinton, what do we have?
ISIS has spread across the region, and the world. Libya is in ruins, and our Ambassador and his staff
were left helpless to die at the hands of savage killers. Egypt was turned over to the radical Muslim
brotherhood, forcing the military to retake control. Iraq is in chaos.
Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons. Syria is engulfed in a civil war and a refugee crisis
that now threatens the West. After fifteen years of wars in the Middle East, after trillions of dollars
spent and thousands of lives lost, the situation is worse than it has ever been before.
This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness.
But Hillary Clinton's legacy does not have to be America's legacy. The problems we face now –
poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad – will last only as long as we continue
relying on the same politicians who created them. A change in leadership is required to change these
outcomes. Tonight, I will share with you my plan of action for America.
The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents, is that our plan will
put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians
who will not put America First, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America
with respect. This will all change in 2017.
The American People will come first once again. My plan will begin with safety at home – which
means safe neighborhoods, secure borders, and protection from terrorism. There can be no prosperity
without law and order. On the economy, I will outline reforms to add millions of new jobs and trillions
in new wealth that can be used to rebuild America.
A number of these reforms that I will outline tonight will be opposed by some of our nation's
most powerful special interests. That is because these interests have rigged our political and economic
system for their exclusive benefit.
Big business, elite media and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of my opponent because
they know she will keep our rigged system in place. They are throwing money at her because they have
total control over everything she does. She is their puppet, and they pull the strings.
That is why Hillary Clinton's message is that things will never change. My message is that things
have to change – and they have to change right now. Every day I wake up determined to deliver for
the people I have met all across this nation that have been neglected, ignored, and abandoned.
I have visited the laid-off factory workers, and the communities crushed by our horrible and unfair
trade deals. These are the forgotten men and women of our country. People who work hard but no longer
have a voice.
I AM YOUR VOICE.
I have embraced crying mothers who have lost their children because our politicians put their
personal agendas before the national good. I have no patience for injustice, no tolerance for government
incompetence, no sympathy for leaders who fail their citizens.
When innocent people suffer, because our political system lacks the will, or the courage, or the
basic decency to enforce our laws – or worse still, has sold out to some corporate lobbyist for cash
– I am not able to look the other way.
And when a Secretary of State illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000
of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every
different form and faces no consequence – I know that corruption has reached a level like never before.
When the FBI Director says that the Secretary of State was "extremely careless" and "negligent,"
in handling our classified secrets, I also know that these terms are minor compared to what she actually
did. They were just used to save her from facing justice for her terrible crimes.
In fact, her single greatest accomplishment may be committing such an egregious crime and getting
away with it – especially when others have paid so dearly. When that same Secretary of State rakes
in millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers I know the
time for action has come.
I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people that cannot
defend themselves. Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. I have
seen firsthand how the system is rigged against our citizens, just like it was rigged against Bernie
Sanders – he never had a chance.
But his supporters will join our movement, because we will fix his biggest issue: trade. Millions
of Democrats will join our movement because we are going to fix the system so it works for all Americans.
In this cause, I am proud to have at my side the next Vice President of the United States: Governor
Mike Pence of Indiana.
We will bring the same economic success to America that Mike brought to Indiana. He is a man of
character and accomplishment. He is the right man for the job. The first task for our new Administration
will be to liberate our citizens from the crime and terrorism and lawlessness that threatens their
communities.
... ... ...
We must have the best intelligence gathering operation in the world. We must abandon the failed
policy of nation building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and
Syria. Instead, we must work with all of our allies who share our goal of destroying ISIS and stamping
out Islamic terror.
This includes working with our greatest ally in the region, the State of Israel. Lastly, we must
immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such
time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.
My opponent has called for a radical 550% increase in Syrian refugees on top of existing massive
refugee flows coming into our country under President Obama. She proposes this despite the fact that
there's no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from.
I only want to admit individuals into our country who will support our values and love our people.
Anyone who endorses violence, hatred or oppression is not welcome in our country and never will
be.
Decades of record immigration have produced lower wages and higher unemployment for our citizens,
especially for African-American and Latino workers. We are going to have an immigration system that
works, but one that works for the American people.
On Monday, we heard from three parents whose children were killed by illegal immigrants Mary Ann
Mendoza, Sabine Durden, and Jamiel Shaw. They are just three brave representatives of many thousands.
Of all my travels in this country, nothing has affected me more deeply than the time I have spent
with the mothers and fathers who have lost their children to violence spilling across our border.
These families have no special interests to represent them. There are no demonstrators to protest
on their behalf. My opponent will never meet with them, or share in their pain. Instead, my opponent
wants Sanctuary Cities. But where was sanctuary for Kate Steinle? Where was Sanctuary for the children
of Mary Ann, Sabine and Jamiel? Where was sanctuary for all the other Americans who have been so
brutally murdered, and who have suffered so horribly?
These wounded American families have been alone. But they are alone no longer. Tonight, this candidate
and this whole nation stand in their corner to support them, to send them our love, and to pledge
in their honor that we will save countless more families from suffering the same awful fate.
We are going to build a great border wall to stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the
violence, and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities. I have been honored to receive
the endorsement of America's Border Patrol Agents, and will work directly with them to protect the
integrity of our lawful immigration system.
By ending catch-and-release on the border, we will stop the cycle of human smuggling and violence.
Illegal border crossings will go down. Peace will be restored. By enforcing the rules for the millions
who overstay their visas, our laws will finally receive the respect they deserve.
Tonight, I want every American whose demands for immigration security have been denied – and every
politician who has denied them – to listen very closely to the words I am about to say.
On January 21st of 2017, the day after I take the oath of office, Americans will finally wake
up in a country where the laws of the United States are enforced. We are going to be considerate
and compassionate to everyone.
But my greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens. My plan is the exact opposite
of the radical and dangerous immigration policy of Hillary Clinton. Americans want relief from uncontrolled
immigration. Communities want relief.
Yet Hillary Clinton is proposing mass amnesty, mass immigration, and mass lawlessness. Her plan
will overwhelm your schools and hospitals, further reduce your jobs and wages, and make it harder
for recent immigrants to escape from poverty.
I have a different vision for our workers. It begins with a new, fair trade policy that protects
our jobs and stands up to countries that cheat. It's been a signature message of my campaign from
day one, and it will be a signature feature of my presidency from the moment I take the oath of office.
I have made billions of dollars in business making deals – now I'm going to make our country rich
again. I am going to turn our bad trade agreements into great ones. America has lost nearly-one third
of its manufacturing jobs since 1997, following the enactment of disastrous trade deals supported
by Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Remember, it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, one of the worst economic deals ever made by our
country.
Never again.
I am going to bring our jobs back to Ohio and to America – and I am not going to let companies
move to other countries, firing their employees along the way, without consequences.
My opponent, on the other hand, has supported virtually every trade agreement that has been destroying
our middle class. She supported NAFTA, and she supported China's entrance into the World Trade Organization
– another one of her husband's colossal mistakes.
She supported the job killing trade deal with South Korea. She has supported the Trans-Pacific
Partnership. The TPP will not only destroy our manufacturing, but it will make America subject to
the rulings of foreign governments. I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers,
or that diminishes our freedom and independence. Instead, I will make individual deals with individual
countries.
No longer will we enter into these massive deals, with many countries, that are thousands of pages
long – and which no one from our country even reads or understands. We are going to enforce all trade
violations, including through the use of taxes and tariffs, against any country that cheats.
This includes stopping China's outrageous theft of intellectual property, along with their illegal
product dumping, and their devastating currency manipulation. Our horrible trade agreements with
China and many others, will be totally renegotiated. That includes renegotiating NAFTA to get a much
better deal for America – and we'll walk away if we don't get the deal that we want. We are going
to start building and making things again.
Next comes the reform of our tax laws, regulations and energy rules. While Hillary Clinton plans
a massive tax increase, I have proposed the largest tax reduction of any candidate who has declared
for the presidential race this year – Democrat or Republican. Middle-income Americans will experience
profound relief, and taxes will be simplified for everyone.
America is one of the highest-taxed nations in the world. Reducing taxes will cause new companies
and new jobs to come roaring back into our country. Then we are going to deal with the issue of regulation,
one of the greatest job-killers of them all. Excessive regulation is costing our country as much
as $2 trillion a year, and we will end it. We are going to lift the restrictions on the production
of American energy. This will produce more than $20 trillion in job creating economic activity over
the next four decades.
My opponent, on the other hand, wants to put the great miners and steel workers of our country
out of work – that will never happen when I am President. With these new economic policies, trillions
of dollars will start flowing into our country.
This new wealth will improve the quality of life for all Americans – We will build the roads,
highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, and the railways of tomorrow. This, in turn, will create millions
more jobs. We will rescue kids from failing schools by helping their parents send them to a safe
school of their choice.
My opponent would rather protect education bureaucrats than serve American children. We will repeal
and replace disastrous Obamacare. You will be able to choose your own doctor again. And we will fix
TSA at the airports! We will completely rebuild our depleted military, and the countries that we
protect, at a massive loss, will be asked to pay their fair share.
We will take care of our great Veterans like they have never been taken care of before. My opponent
dismissed the VA scandal as being not widespread – one more sign of how out of touch she really is.
We are going to ask every Department Head in government to provide a list of wasteful spending projects
that we can eliminate in my first 100 days. The politicians have talked about it, I'm going to do
it. We are also going to appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court who will uphold our
laws and our Constitution.
The replacement for Justice Scalia will be a person of similar views and principles. This will
be one of the most important issues decided by this election. My opponent wants to essentially abolish
the 2nd amendment. I, on the other hand, received the early and strong endorsement of the National
Rifle Association and will protect the right of all Americans to keep their families safe.
He is correct. People hate Hillary. She just turned off every progressive left - her last
reserve - and does not have the positive support that is needed to get out the vote.
The dems might lose. The other reasons Moore list are also sound.
Notable quotes:
"... When Trump stood in the shadow of a Ford Motor factory during the Michigan primary, he threatened the corporation that if they did indeed go ahead with their planned closure of that factory and move it to Mexico, he would slap a 35% tariff on any Mexican-built cars shipped back to the United States. It was sweet, sweet music to the ears of the working class of Michigan, and when he tossed in his threat to Apple that he would force them to stop making their iPhones in China and build them here in America, well, hearts swooned and Trump walked away with a big victory that should have gone to the governor next-door, John Kasich. ..."
...if you believe Hillary Clinton is going to beat Trump with facts and smarts and logic, then
you obviously missed the past year of 56 primaries and caucuses where 16 Republican candidates
tried that and every kitchen sink they could throw at Trump and nothing could stop his
juggernaut. As of today, as things stand now, I believe this is going to happen – and in order to
deal with it, I need you first to acknowledge it, and then maybe, just maybe, we can find a way
out of the mess we're in.
Here are the 5 reasons Trump is going to win:
Midwest Math, or Welcome to Our Rust Belt Brexit. I believe Trump is
going to focus much of his attention on the four blue states in the rustbelt of the upper
Great Lakes – Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Four traditionally Democratic states
– but each of them have elected a Republican governor since 2010 (only Pennsylvania has
now finally elected a Democrat). In the Michigan primary in March, more Michiganders came out
to vote for the Republicans (1.32 million) that the Democrats (1.19 million). Trump is ahead
of Hillary in the latest polls in Pennsylvania and tied with her in Ohio. Tied? How can
the race be this close after everything Trump has said and done? Well maybe it's because he's
said (correctly) that the Clintons' support of NAFTA helped to destroy the industrial states
of the Upper Midwest. Trump is going to hammer Clinton on this and her support of TPP and
other trade policies that have royally screwed the people of these four states. When Trump
stood in the shadow of a Ford Motor factory during the Michigan primary, he threatened the
corporation that if they did indeed go ahead with their planned closure of that factory and
move it to Mexico, he would slap a 35% tariff on any Mexican-built cars shipped back to the
United States. It was sweet, sweet music to the ears of the working class of Michigan, and
when he tossed in his threat to Apple that he would force them to stop making their iPhones in
China and build them here in America, well, hearts swooned and Trump walked away with a big
victory that should have gone to the governor next-door, John Kasich.
From Green Bay to Pittsburgh, this, my friends, is the middle of England – broken,
depressed, struggling, the smokestacks strewn across the countryside with the carcass of what
we use to call the Middle Class. Angry, embittered working (and nonworking) people who were
lied to by the trickle-down of Reagan and abandoned by Democrats who still try to talk a good
line but are really just looking forward to rub one out with a lobbyist from Goldman Sachs
who'll write them nice big check before leaving the room. What happened in the UK with Brexit
is going to happen here. Elmer Gantry shows up looking like Boris Johnson and just says
whatever shit he can make up to convince the masses that this is their chance! To stick to
ALL of them, all who wrecked their American Dream! And now The Outsider, Donald Trump, has
arrived to clean house! You don't have to agree with him! You don't even have to like him! He
is your personal Molotov cocktail to throw right into the center of the bastards who did this
to you! SEND A MESSAGE! TRUMP IS YOUR MESSENGER!
And this is where the math comes in. In 2012, Mitt Romney lost by 64 electoral votes. Add
up the electoral votes cast by Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It's 64. All Trump
needs to do to win is to carry, as he's expected to do, the swath of traditional red states
from Idaho to Georgia (states that'll never vote for Hillary Clinton), and then he just
needs these four rust belt states. He doesn't need Florida. He doesn't need Colorado or
Virginia. Just Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And that will put him over the top.
This is how it will happen in November.
The Last Stand of the Angry White Man. Our male-dominated, 240-year run
of the USA is coming to an end. A woman is about to take over! How did this happen?! On
our watch! There were warning signs, but we ignored them. Nixon, the gender
traitor, imposing Title IX on us, the rule that said girls in school should get an equal
chance at playing sports. Then they let them fly commercial jets. Before we knew it, Beyoncé
stormed on the field at this year's Super Bowl (our game!) with an army of Black Women, fists
raised, declaring that our domination was hereby terminated! Oh, the humanity!
That's a small peek into the mind of the Endangered White Male. There is a sense that the
power has slipped out of their hands, that their way of doing things is no longer how things
are done. This monster, the "Feminazi,"the thing that as Trump says, "bleeds through her eyes
or wherever she bleeds," has conquered us - and now, after having had to endure eight years of
a black man telling us what to do, we're supposed to just sit back and take eight years of a
woman bossing us around? After that it'll be eight years of the gays in the White House! Then
the transgenders! You can see where this is going. By then animals will have been granted
human rights and a fuckin' hamster is going to be running the country. This has to stop!
The Hillary Problem. Can we speak honestly, just among ourselves? And
before we do, let me state, I actually like Hillary – a lot – and I think she has been given a
bad rap she doesn't deserve. But her vote for the Iraq War made me promise her that I would
never vote for her again. To date, I haven't broken that promise. For the sake of preventing a
proto-fascist from becoming our commander-in-chief, I'm breaking that promise. I sadly believe
Clinton will find a way to get us in some kind of military action. She's a hawk, to the right
of Obama. But Trump's psycho finger will be on The Button, and that is that. Done and done.
Let's face it: Our biggest problem here isn't Trump – it's Hillary. She is hugely unpopular
- nearly 70% of all voters think she is untrustworthy and dishonest. She represents the old
way of politics, not really believing in anything other than what can get you elected. That's
why she fights against gays getting married one moment, and the next she's officiating a gay
marriage. Young women are among her biggest detractors, which has to hurt considering it's the
sacrifices and the battles that Hillary and other women of her generation endured so that this
younger generation would never have to be told by the Barbara Bushes of the world that they
should just shut up and go bake some cookies. But the kids don't like her, and not a day goes
by that a millennial doesn't tell me they aren't voting for her. No Democrat, and certainly no
independent, is waking up on November 8th excited to run out and vote for Hillary
the way they did the day Obama became president or when Bernie was on the primary ballot. The
enthusiasm just isn't there. And because this election is going to come down to just one thing
- who drags the most people out of the house and gets them to the polls - Trump right now is
in the catbird seat.
The Depressed Sanders Vote. ...They're not going to vote for Trump; some
will vote third party, but many will just stay home. Hillary Clinton is going to have to do
something to give them a reason to support her - and picking a moderate, bland-o, middle of
the road old white guy as her running mate is not the kind of edgy move that tells millenials
that their vote is important to Hillary. Having two women on the ticket – that was an exciting
idea. But then Hillary got scared and has decided to play it safe. This is just one example of
how she is killing the youth vote.
The Jesse Ventura Effect. Finally, do not discount the electorate's
ability to be mischievous or underestimate how any millions fancy themselves as closet
anarchists once they draw the curtain and are all alone in the voting booth. It's one of the
few places left in society where there are no security cameras, no listening devices, no
spouses, no kids, no boss, no cops, there's not even a friggin' time limit. You can take as
long as you need in there and no one can make you do anything. You can push the button and
vote a straight party line, or you can write in Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. There are no
rules. And because of that, and the anger that so many have toward a broken political system,
millions are going to vote for Trump not because they agree with him, not
because they like his bigotry or ego, but just because they can. Just because it will
upset the apple cart and make mommy and daddy mad. And in the same way like when you're
standing on the edge of Niagara Falls and your mind wonders for a moment what would that feel
like to go over that thing, a lot of people are going to love being in the position of
puppetmaster and plunking down for Trump just to see what that might look like. Remember back
in the '90s when the people of Minnesota elected a professional wrestler as their governor?
They didn't do this because they're stupid or thought that Jesse Ventura was some sort of
statesman or political intellectual. They did so just because they could. Minnesota is one of
the smartest states in the country. It is also filled with people who have a dark sense of
humor - and voting for Ventura was their version of a good practical joke on a sick political
system. This is going to happen again with Trump.
Coming back to the hotel after appearing on Bill Maher's Republican Convention special this
week on HBO, a man stopped me. "Mike," he said, "we have to vote for Trump. We HAVE to
shake things up." That was it...
Nothing seems to rattle Hillary Clinton quite so much as pointed questions about
her personal finances. How much she's made. How she made it. Where it all came
from. From her miraculous adventures in the cattle futures market to the
Whitewater real estate scam, many of the most venal Clinton scandals down the
decades have involved Hillary's financial entanglements and the serpentine
measures she has taken to conceal them from public scrutiny.
Hillary is both
driven to acquire money and emits a faint whiff of guilt about having hoarded so
much of it. One might be tempted to ascribe her squeamishness about wealth to her
rigid Methodism, but her friends say that Hillary's covetousness derives from a
deep obsession with feeling secure, which makes a kind of sense given Bill's
free-wheeling proclivities. She's not, after all, a child of the Depression, but a
baby boomer. Hillary was raised in comfortable circumstances in the Chicago
suburbs and, unlike her husband, has never in her life felt the sting of want.
"... If turnout in the primaries has been any indicator, Trump has energized not only the base but attracted independents and Democrats, while the Dem turnout has been dismal. With Obama gone, it's anyone's guess if African-Americans and Hispanics will vote in large numbers. ..."
"... The truth is that Trump supporters cut across all socioeconomic and racial demographics. The media is just angry they are losing their ability to tell everyone who to vote for. ..."
"... Someone who has gamed the system is a good bet for being able to change the system. That is Trump's appeal. ..."
A lot of Trump bashing because of the Media and worried Democrats. However: Donald Trump
did not steal your money.
Donald Trump did not raise your taxes.
Donald Trump did not raise the price of food.
Trump is not stirring a race war.
Trump did not leave any US soldiers in Benghazi to be slaughtered and desecrated by Muslims.
Trump did not send the US Navy to fight for Syrian Al-Qaeda.
Trump did not arm ISIS and systematically exterminate Christians throughout the Middle East.
Trump did not betray Israel.
Trump did not provide financing and technology to Iran's nuclear weapons program.
Trump did not give our military secrets to China.
Trump did not remove our nuclear missile shield in Poland at the behest of Russia.
Trump did not shrivel our military, and betray our veterans.
Under Obama, a large percentage of us are on public welfare programs like food stamps, section
8 housing, and SSI, because of low wages.
Health insurance is unaffordable (mine is $450/month… contrast this to my $24/month auto
insurance from Insurance Panda… or my $11/month life insurance).
Two thirds of young adults have student loans to which they cannot pay back due to lack of
good jobs in the community.
Trump didn't do that.
Trump did not cripple our economy.
Trump did not increase our debt to 20 trillion dollars.
Trump did not ruin our credit, twice.
Trump did not double African American unemployment.
Trump did not increase welfare to a record level for eight years.
Trump did not sign a law making it legal to execute, and imprison Americans.
Trump did not set free all of the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.
Trump did not steal your rights, violate US Constitutional law, or commit treason, hundreds of
times.
Trump is being ripped apart in the news, non-stop. Whereas, Barrack Hussein, Hillary Clinton
and the criminals occupying our government, are not being touched. The media is the Democratic
Party.
Save your culture. Stop listening to them.
Tex9260,
3/26/2016 6:47 AM EDT [Edited]
Trump will get 75% of the Bernie Supporters. They have in a lot of ways the same
message....The game is rigged by special interest. Americans are tired of all the
quid-pro-quo. I can't wait for the FBI to recommend a criminal indictment recommendation for
Hillary, and watch the Justice Department ignore it. Taking money from countries with horrific
human rights violations, especially while she was Secretary of State. Of the $500 million the
Clinton Foundation raised last year, only .10 of every dollar actually goes to charities. The
rest is administrative costs for the foundation. Leaving Americans to die in Libya, and lying
to the nation in front of flag draped coffins of the Ambassador and the others, to
facilitating the sell of most of our Uranium to Russia, to line her pockets. 500 million $$ to
Solindra (Solar company that went belly up in 2 years). That was Nancy Pelosis' brother in
law. I'm looking forward to the parade of women that will speak out on Bill, and how the
lengths Hillary went to destroy them (Let's not forget-Jeffery Epstein and orgy island and
those underage girls). Hillary has said she wanted open boarders, and all the cost's:
processing, increased education expense, healthcare costs, Welfare, increased crime and it's
costs, lower wages, etc., all being paid for by John -Q taxpayer, when that money should be
spent on America and it's citizens in one form or another. Hillary has no accomplishments
other than making us less safe. She only made things more perilous while SOS. No
accomplishments, and used her positions to enrich herself with America's money, and is a
pathelogical liar. No Thanks. At least Trump speaks what to many of the things the country
already thinks and wish would happen, if the government actually had it's citizens in their
best interests.
Brent E, 3/21/2016 3:40 PM EDT
Clinton the chronic liar calling others' language ugly, what a laugh. Perhaps Hillary
forgot how ugly lies are when she came under sniper fire...
pmk123, 3/21/2016 3:24 PM EDT
If turnout in the primaries has been any indicator, Trump has energized not only the
base but attracted independents and Democrats, while the Dem turnout has been dismal. With
Obama gone, it's anyone's guess if African-Americans and Hispanics will vote in large numbers.
If they are dispirited because of a flawed candidate who is a screaming robot, this group
could very well sit out the general election. So, the Dems better not get too cocky.
joesopinion,
3/21/2016 5:58 AM EDT
Tired of reporters racist comments about Trump supporters being white and uneducated. It is
becoming as abrasive as the N word. Why don't you just call us White Trash.
The truth is that Trump supporters cut across all socioeconomic and racial
demographics. The media is just angry they are losing their ability to tell everyone who to
vote for.
lolly52,
3/21/2016 6:25 AM EDT
I went thru the login procedure just to post to you! I agree. The media and the donor class
need to wake up. We are not buying their lies any more.
lolly52,
3/21/2016 7:58 AM EDT
Someone who has gamed the system is a good bet for being able to change the system.
That is Trump's appeal.
Clinton is owned by the system.
Kasich believes in the Republican Establishment's view of the system. He has spent his life
playing by those rules.
Cruz's wife worked for the CFR. No single entity hates America more than the CFR.
I like Bernie's anti-establishment stance, but his position on illegal immigration does not
appeal to me.
Snowbird101,
3/20/2016 10:16 PM EDT
"There's no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave
of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border"
-Barack Obama IN 2006
"The Audacity of Hope"
"The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in
this country for over a century"
-Barack Obama IN 2006
"The Audacity of Hope
"If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy... It
also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans."
-Barack Obama IN 2006
"The Audacity of Hope"
The above is what Trump has been saying and is being called Racist. Doesn't make sense.
The path to victory may seem obvious. Hammer her on trust: Benghazi, emails, Goldman Sachs
speeches and Wall Street donations. Twist the knife by dredging up charges of Bill Clinton's
sexual harassment and abuse, and accuse Hillary of enabling. Pick up disgruntled Bernie Sanders
supporters and white working-class voters by rejecting big corporate donors, highlighting your
opposition to unfair trade deals and assuring you know how to bring back jobs.
"... Krugman has joined the ranks of the neocons, as well as the neoliberals, and they're terrified that they're losing control of the Republican Party. For the last half-century the Republican Party has been pro-Cold War, corporatist. And Trump has actually, is reversing that. Reversing the whole traditional platform. And that really worries the neocons. ..."
"... But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's not destroying the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear, roll back military spending. ..."
"... Well, being realistic has driven other people crazy. Not only did Krugman say that Trump would, quote, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy at the expense of America's allies, and he's referring to the Ukraine, basically, and it's at–he's become a lobbyist for the military-industrial complex. But also, at the Washington Post you had Anne Applebaum call him explicitly the Manchurian candidate, referring to the 1962 movie, and rejecting the neocon craziness. This has just driven them nutty because they're worried of losing the Republican Party under Trump. ..."
"... In economic policy, Trump also opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the TTIP trade and corporate power grab [inaud.] with Europe to block public regulation. And this was also a major plank of Bernie Sanders' campaign against Hillary, which Trump knows. ..."
"... And this may be for show, simply to brand Hillary as Wall Street's candidate. But it also seems to actually be an attack on Wall Street. And Trump's genius was to turn around all the attacks on him as being a shady businessman. He said, look, nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. Now, what that means, basically, as a businessman, he knows the fine print by which they've been screwing the people. So only someone like him knows how to fight against Wall Street. After all, he's been screwing the Wall Street banks for years [inaud.]. And he can now fight for the population fighting against Wall Street, just as he's been able to stiff the banks. ..."
"... When it comes–he also in that sense appealed to, as you said, the Bernie Sanders people when he talked about the trade deals. You know, he's been talking about NAFTA, TTIP, TTP, and these are areas that really is traditionally been the left of the left issues. And now there's this, that he's anti-these trade deals, and he's going to bring jobs home. What does that mean? ..."
"... I think that the most, the biggest contradiction, was you can look at how the convention began with Governor Christie. Accusing Hillary of being pro-Russian when she's actually threatening war, and criticizing her for not helping the Ukrainians when it was she who brought Victorian Nuland in to push the coup d'etat with the neo-nazis, and gave them $5 billion. And Trump reversed the whole thing and said no, no, no. I'm not anti-Russian, I'm pro-Russian. I'm not going to defend Ukrainians. Just the opposite. ..."
"... All of that–you've had the Koch brothers say we're not going to give money to Trump, the Republicans, now. We're backing Hillary. You've got the Chamber of Commerce saying because Trump isn't for the corporate takeover of foreign trade, we're now supporting the Democrats, not the Reepublicans. ..."
"... So this is really the class war. And it's the class war of Wall Street and the corporate sector of the Democratic side against Trump on the populist side. And who knows whether he really means what he says when he says he's for the workers and he wants to rebuild the cities, put labor back to work. And when he says he's for the blacks and Hispanics have to get jobs just like white people, maybe he's telling the truth, because that certainly is the way that the country can be rebuilt in a positive way. ..."
Trump's divergence from the conventional Republican platform is generating indignant punditry
from neocons and neoliberals alike
SHARMINI PERIES, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, TRNN: It's the Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries coming
to you from Baltimore.
On Friday, just after the Republican National Congress wrapped up with its presidential candidate,
Donald Trump, Paul Krugman of the New York Times penned an article titled "Donald Trump: The Siberian
Candidate." He said in it, if elected, would Donald Trump be Vladimir Putin's man in the White House?
Krugman himself is worried as ludicrous and outrageous as the question sounds, the Trump campaign's
recent behavior has quite a few foreign policy experts wondering, he says, just what kind of hold
Mr. Putin has over the Republican nominee, and whether that influence will continue if he wins.
Well, let's unravel that statement with Michael Hudson. He's joining us from New York. Michael
is a distinguished research professor of economics at the University of Missouri Kansas City. His
latest book is Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroyed the Global Economy.
Thank you so much for joining us, Michael.
MICHAEL HUDSON:
It's good to be here, Sharmini. It's been an exciting week.
PERIES:
So let's take a look at this article by Paul Krugman. Where is he going with this analysis
about the Siberian candidate?
HUDSON:
Well,
Krugman has joined the ranks of the neocons, as well as the neoliberals, and
they're terrified that they're losing control of the Republican Party. For the last half-century
the Republican Party has been pro-Cold War, corporatist. And Trump has actually, is reversing that.
Reversing the whole traditional platform. And that really worries the neocons.
Until his speech, the whole Republican Convention, every speaker had avoided dealing with economic
policy issues. No one referred to the party platform, which isn't very good. And it was mostly an
attack on Hillary. Chants of "lock her up." And Trump children, aimed to try to humanize him and
make him look like a loving man.
But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's
making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major
policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing
stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's not destroying
the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that
otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders.
So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear,
roll back military spending.
We can spend it on infrastructure, we can spend it on employing
American labor. And in the speech, he said, look, we don't need foreign military bases and foreign
spending to defend our allies. We can defend them from the United States, because in today's world,
the only kind of war we're going to have is atomic war. Nobody's going to invade another country.
We're not going to send American troops to invade Russia, if it were to attack. So nobody's even
talking about that. So let's be realistic.
Well, being realistic has driven other people crazy. Not only did Krugman say that Trump would,
quote, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy at the expense of America's allies, and he's referring
to the Ukraine, basically, and it's at–he's become a lobbyist for the military-industrial complex.
But also, at the Washington Post you had Anne Applebaum call him explicitly the Manchurian candidate,
referring to the 1962 movie, and rejecting the neocon craziness. This has just driven them nutty
because they're worried of losing the Republican Party under Trump.
In economic policy, Trump also opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the TTIP trade and
corporate power grab [inaud.] with Europe to block public regulation. And this was also a major plank
of Bernie Sanders' campaign against Hillary, which Trump knows.
The corporatist wings of both
the Republican and the Democratic Parties fear that Trump's opposition to NAFTA and TPP will lead
the Republicans not to push through in the lame duck session after November. The whole plan has been
that once the election's over, Obama will then get all the Republicans together and will pass the
Republican platform that he's been pushing for the last eight years. The Trans-Pacific Partnership
trade agreement with Europe, and the other neoliberal policies.
And now that Trump is trying to rebuild the Republican Party, all of that is threatened. And so
on the Republican side of the New York Times page you had David Brooks writing "The death of the
Republican Party." So what Trump calls the rebirth of the Republican Party, it means the death of
the reactionary, conservative, corporatist, anti-labor Republican Party.
And when he wrote this, quote, Trump is decimating the things Republicans stood for: NATO, entitlement
reform, in other words winding back Social Security, and support of the corporatist Trans-Pacific
Partnership. So it's almost hilarious to see what happens. And Trump also has reversed the traditional
Republican fiscal responsibility austerity policy, that not a word about balanced budgets anymore.
And he said he was going to run at policy to employ American labor and put it back to work on infrastructure.
Again, he's made a left runaround Hillary. He says he wants to reinstate Glass-Steagall, whereas
the Clintons were the people that got rid of it.
And this may be for show, simply to brand Hillary as Wall Street's candidate. But it also seems
to actually be an attack on Wall Street. And Trump's genius was to turn around all the attacks on
him as being a shady businessman. He said, look, nobody knows the system better than me, which is
why I alone can fix it. Now, what that means, basically, as a businessman, he knows the fine print
by which they've been screwing the people. So only someone like him knows how to fight against Wall
Street. After all, he's been screwing the Wall Street banks for years [inaud.]. And he can now fight
for the population fighting against Wall Street, just as he's been able to stiff the banks.
So it's sort of hilarious. On the one hand, leading up to him you had Republicans saying throw
Hillary in jail. And Hillary saying throw Trump in the [inaud.]. And so you have the whole election
coming up with-.
PERIES:
Maybe we should take the lead and lock them all up. Michael, what is becoming very clear
is that there's a great deal of inconsistencies on the part of the Republican Party. Various people
are talking different things, like if you hear Mike Pence, the vice presidential candidate, speak,
and then you heard Donald Trump, and then you heard Ivanka Trump speak yesterday, they're all saying
different things. It's like different strokes for different folks. And I guess in marketing and marketeering,
which Trump is the master of, that makes perfect sense. Just tap on everybody's shoulder so they
feel like they're the ones being represented as spoken about, and they're going to have their issues
addressed in some way.
When it comes–he also in that sense appealed to, as you said, the Bernie Sanders people when he
talked about the trade deals. You know, he's been talking about NAFTA, TTIP, TTP, and these are areas
that really is traditionally been the left of the left issues. And now there's this, that he's anti-these
trade deals, and he's going to bring jobs home. What does that mean?
HUDSON:
Well, you're right when you say there's a policy confusion within the Republican Party.
And I guess if this were marketing, it's the idea that everybody hears what they want to hear. And
if they can hear right-wing gay bashing from the Indiana governor, and they can hear Trump talking
about hte LGBTQ, everybody will sort of be on the side.
But I listened to what Governor Pence said about defending Trump's views on NATO. And he's so
smooth. So slick, that he translated what Trump said in a way that no Republican conservative could
really disagree with it. I think he was a very good pick for vice president, because he can, obviously
he's agreed to follow what Trump's saying, and he's so smooth, being a lawyer, that he can make it
all appear much more reasonable than it would.
I think that the most, the biggest contradiction, was you can look at how the convention began
with Governor Christie. Accusing Hillary of being pro-Russian when she's actually threatening war,
and criticizing her for not helping the Ukrainians when it was she who brought Victorian Nuland in
to push the coup d'etat with the neo-nazis, and gave them $5 billion. And Trump reversed the whole
thing and said no, no, no. I'm not anti-Russian, I'm pro-Russian. I'm not going to defend Ukrainians.
Just the opposite.
And it's obvious that the Republicans have fallen into line behind them. And no wonder the Democrats
want them to lose.
All of that–you've had the Koch brothers say we're not going to give money to
Trump, the Republicans, now. We're backing Hillary. You've got the Chamber of Commerce saying because
Trump isn't for the corporate takeover of foreign trade, we're now supporting the Democrats, not
the Reepublicans.
So this is really the class war. And it's the class war of Wall Street and the corporate sector
of the Democratic side against Trump on the populist side. And who knows whether he really means
what he says when he says he's for the workers and he wants to rebuild the cities, put labor back
to work. And when he says he's for the blacks and Hispanics have to get jobs just like white people,
maybe he's telling the truth, because that certainly is the way that the country can be rebuilt in
a positive way.
And the interesting thing is that all he gets from the Democrats is denunciations. So I can't
wait to see how Bernie Sanders is going to handle all this at the Democratic Convention next week.
"... "On the one hand he says something that sounds good to non-interventionists…On the other hand he says something like 'Obama went in there and bombed Libya and just walked away.'" ..."
Following Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump's exploratory foreign policy
speech on Wednesday, political analyst Daniel McAdams speaks with Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear to
discuss what, exactly, the candidate's worldview encompasses.
"It is clear that in Washington he has aligned himself with foreign policy advisors that are not
the usual neocons. So that's good news, to a degree. That's why you have so much gnashing of the
teeth in Washington," McAdams, of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, tells
Loud & Clear,
referring to billionaire Donald Trump.
"On the other hand, the people that he does have around him are realists, to a degree, but that
is not super satisfying to a non-interventionist and an anti-war person because realists…lack the
philosophy…of avoiding war and avoiding entangling alliance."
"…The specific plans that he outlined a) were not very well hashed out, and b) they don't make
a lot of sense," says McAdams.
While Trump does recognize the failure of Washington's insistence on pursuing a Cold War-era strategy,
the candidate does not see American imperialism as part of the problem.
One example is his opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement.
"This groveling to Israel, this blind condemnation of the Iran nuclear deal…I don't get his beef
and I don't think he gets his beef. It just makes him sound good, it makes him sound tough."
On the issue of the Iraq and Syria, the Republican frontrunner seemed to offer contradictory positions.
"This is where I think he's either very clever or fairly goofy," McAdams says.
"On the one hand he says something that sounds good to non-interventionists…On the other hand
he says something like 'Obama went in there and bombed Libya and just walked away.'"
"That's the whole point," states McAdams. "Not walking away means staying in and doing nation
building. So he doesn't understand what caused the problem. He also promises to use military force
to contain radical Islam, and he talks about 'Why are we not bombing Libya right now?'"
Trump also spoke of restoring the military superiority of America, the country with the largest
military budget in the world, shortly after stating that he would pursue peace.
"Rebuild our military from what? We spend more than most of the rest of the world combined. We
have an enormous military, we're involved in over 120 countries," McAdams says.
"What he means by 'rebuild' the military is keep Washington and its environs extraordinarily rich,"
he adds, describing the military-industrial complex, which Trump appears to support.
He did, however, offer a surprisingly insightful take on US-Russia relations.
"Here's what he said exactly. 'We should seek common ground based on shared interest with Russia.'
He said he'd, 'Make a deal that's good for us and good for Russia.' That sounds terrific. If he follows
through with that I think we should be very optimistic."
"... Trump has done much to trigger the scorn of neocon pundits. He denounced the Iraq War as a mistake based on Bush administration lies, just prior to scoring a sizable victory in the South Carolina GOP primary. In last week's contentious GOP presidential debate, he defended the concept of neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is utterly taboo on the neocon right. ..."
"... "It serves no purpose to say you have a good guy and a bad guy," he said , pledging to take a neutral position in negotiating peace. ..."
"... This set off his rival Marco Rubio, who replied, "The position you've taken is an anti-Israel position. … Because you cannot be an honest broker in a dispute between two sides in which one of the sides is constantly acting in bad faith." The Jerusalem Post suggested that Rubio's assault on Trump's views on the Middle East was designed to win Florida . If that's the case, it's apparently not working - in the Real Clear Politics ..."
"... In his quest to take up George W. Bush's mantle, Rubio has arrayed a fleet of neoconservative funders, ranging from pro-Israel billionaire Paul Singer to Norman Braman , a billionaire auto dealer who funds Israeli settlements in the West Bank. His list of advisers is like a rolodex of Iraq War backers, ranging from Bush administration alumni Elliot Abrams and Stephen Hadley, to Kagan and serial war propagandist Bill Kristol. ..."
"... Kristol also sits on the board of the Emergency Committee for Israel - a dark money group that assails candidates it perceives as insufficiently pro-Israel. The group started airing an ad this weekend against Trump portraying him as an ally to despots like Bashar Assad, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Qaddafi - mostly because he argued that military invasions of Libya and Iraq left those countries worse off. ..."
"... The guy who accelerated the process of reducing the middle east to chaos ran on a platform of a 'humbler' foreign policy, condemning nation-building. How'd that work out for us? ..."
"... The pain and anguish of the neo cons is highly entertaining, and so damn warranted, but let's not get taken in. ..."
"... isn't robert kagan the husband of state diplomat and cheney/h.clinton appointee victoria nuland? hillary is already as neocon as it gets. ..."
"... If Trump can survive the nomination process, in spite of what the MSN can muster-up against him, it will represent first time in the past 60 years that the Establishment did not choose and own the candidates of both parties. ..."
"... TRUMP's opponents offer nothing but their arrogant condescending attitudes towards the voting population. Their use of scare tactics on voters will no longer work. These cookie-cutter politicians and their obsolete powerful old-boy establishment handlers are wrong for today's challenges and tomorrows solutions. Stop wasting voter's time and energy trying to make this election about personalities, gender, race, minorities, religion, fear and hatred. TRUMP has faith and trust in the voters; TRUMP is the only candidate who doesn't insult, scare or lie to voters; TRUMP offers voters hope and a future ALL Americans can believe in and deserve. ..."
"... All of Trump's establishment opponents are begging for just one more chance. These opponent candidates squandered thousands of opportunities, for the past fifty years, at the expense of All Americans in America and abroad. Powerful corrupt insiders', of every party affiliation, who discredit TRUMP, or any candidate, are also discrediting American voters', the American voting process and the freedoms of democracies and republics everywhere. These discrediting efforts, to take down any candidate, will fail because this is America and in America the peoples' choice for their next president must and will always prevail. American voters' rights and choices must always be protected, respected and never ignored. Because America is not a dictatorship voters' choices' still count. We are lucky to live in a country where we can agree to disagree. This is the essence of freedom. Every American and every candidate should be upset when this kind of corruption goes on. Thank you, Donald Trump, and every candidate, for running for President and offering informed voters an opportunity out of this nightmare and a path to a better America for ALL Americans! ..."
"... The debates heading into Super Tuesday continues to show voters TRUMP's presidential qualities. Eminent Domain didn't stick to TRUMP, neither will groundless tax allegations nor outrageous innuendos. TRUMPS opponents are doing themselves a disservice attacking TRUMP. TRUMP offers voters hope and a future ALL Americans can believe in. TRUMP will own Super Tuesday. ..."
"... This explains the virulent dislike of Trump by the lamestream media. Hillary, an unindicted war criminal based on her central role in instituting the Khaddafi overthrow and her role in starting the Syrian war, is without a doubt the greater evil in comparison with Trump. Since Trump in the fall campaign won't hesitate to highlight the fact that the jihadis in Libya put in as largely as a result of Hillary's initiative liquidated tens or hundreds of thousands of black Africans who had settled in Khaddafi's Libya as hostile to Jihadi elements, this will likely dampen Afro-American ardour for Hillary's campaign. Hopefully this will be a torpedo which sinks her campaign. ..."
"... Truth is the enemy of the Zionist serial liars. ..."
"... I've been saying for awhile that Trump is probably the least bad of the Republican candidates. He's definitely not as bad as Rubio or Cruz would be. For one thing, he's opposed to the TPP and similar crap. Now this. ..."
"... Make no mistake, the only candidate left who wouldn't continue the same awfulness would be Sanders, who doesn't stand a chance (for those who don't understand how the 15% super delegates rigs the election for Clinton and other establishment candidates, do the math, not to even mention the money and power behind Clinton). ..."
"... Bernie and Donald are simply two-fisted middle fingers enthusiastically directed at the paid enforcers of the oligarchy's desired status quo, the Republican and Democrat political machines. ..."
"... And who did HRC appoint as SecState? Marc Grossman, Bush inner circle guy and Bush family relative; Victoria Nuland, former defense policy advisor to Dick Cheney, and her husband, Robert Kagan. This has to be a WTF moment for anyone with a brain? ..."
"... I believe the neoconservatives may have had some self-esteem issues and perhaps tended to overcompensate by splurging on vanity wars. Trump will return the Republican party to its conservative roots of fiscal responsibility and insist on getting good value for his wars. A Trump campaign will completely dispense with 'shock and awe'. Instead, he'll cut straight to the chase: "Where are the oilfields and how long will it take to pump them dry?" The neoconservatives could benefit from that sort of discipline. ..."
"... It be fitting for the neocons who were originally leftist followers of Trotsky to go back home to the Democratic party. Maybe then the old non-interventionist anti-war right can rise again in amongst the Republicans. ..."
"... Perhaps worth noting that the Neocons originally found influence with interventionist Democrats like Dan Moynihan, they went on to develop alliances with fiercely nationalistic Reaganites (like Cheney and Rumsfeld), but only truly came to the fore as policy-makers within the GW Bush presidency. ..."
"... The Neocons are like parasites that jump from host to host. When they've killed one host they move on to the next. I'm reminded of the old Sci-Fi movie, "The Hidden". ..."
"... … just in case y'all are not aware, the view from outside the walls of Empire U$A, when we see the audience holding up placards declaring "MAKE AMERICA'S MILITARY GREAT AGAIN" we're all thinking – 'you guys are truly the most manipulated, compromised and fucked up people on the planet'. ..."
"... "And what about Russia? Washington's talking like the west bank of the Dnieper is our east coast.", Surrounding and dismantling Russia has been the goal since the collapse of the USSR. And Killary and the neocons (including the large contingent she and Obama installed at State) are definitely crazy enough to push it. ..."
"... In the short tem it means replacing Putin by another Eltsin-like stooge. In the middle term, it meant dismantling the USSR. In the long term it means defending Capital against the threat of Socialism. ..."
"... The chaos Trump will bring to the neocon's imperialist project is probably the only good thing that might come out of a Trump presidency. ..."
"... You mean US "corporate" interest and Israel's interest don't you? For the past 30 years, both parties have pursued policies that are in direct conflict with the interest of the American people. ..."
"... Neoconservative historian Robert Kagan - one of the prime intellectual backers of the Iraq war and an advocate for Syrian intervention - announced in the Washington Post last week that if Trump secures the nomination "the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.", Truly, this tells you all you need to know about Hillary Clinton… ..."
"... Fascinating that Trump has the warmongers nervous. Heading Hillary's way where they know their rearrangement of the middle east (PNAC, JINSA) no matter how many thousands are killed or refugees are displace is safe with Hillary. She has demonstrated her commitment to the death and destruction in the middle east. ..."
"... Good to see that all those neoconservative prayer breakfasts Sen. Hillary Clinton attended at the Geo. W. Bush White House aren't going to waste. Of course, the neocons embrace "Wall Street Hillary" as they always have, regardless of all the silly political theater to the contrary. ..."
"... It's good to see that Hillary is finally being openly welcomed into the fold of neo-conservatives. Also, pardon my lack of modesty for a certain pride in having been proven right about her. She is not a progressive, not liberal, but rather a fascist in the true sense of representing the corporatists. ..."
"... Good call on the timing of the NYT series, Jeff. And kudos on having recognized her early on for the fascist she has always been. ..."
"... Kagan was hand picked to be on Hillary Clinton's defense policy board while at the State Dept and for those who don't know who Kagan is, he's the husband of the assistant secretary of state for eurasian affairs, Victoria Nuland. ..."
Donald Trump's runaway success in the GOP primaries so far is setting off alarm bells among neoconservatives
who are worried he will not pursue the same bellicose foreign policy that has dominated Republican
thinking for decades.
Max Boot, an
unrepentant supporter of the Iraq War, wrote
in
the Weekly Standard that a "Trump presidency would represent the death knell of America
as a great power," citing, among other things, Trump's objection to a large American troop presence
in South Korea.
Trump has done much to trigger the scorn of neocon pundits. He
denounced the
Iraq War as a mistake based on Bush administration lies, just prior to scoring a
sizable victory in the South Carolina GOP primary. In last week's contentious GOP presidential
debate, he defended the concept of neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is utterly
taboo on the neocon right.
"It serves no purpose to say you have a good guy and a bad guy,"
he said, pledging to take a neutral position in negotiating peace.
This set off his rival Marco Rubio, who replied, "The position you've taken is an anti-Israel
position. … Because you cannot be an honest broker in a dispute between two sides in which one of
the sides is constantly acting in bad faith." The Jerusalem Post suggested that Rubio's assault
on Trump's views on the Middle East was
designed to win Florida. If that's the case, it's apparently not working - in the Real Clear
Politics averaging of GOP primary polls in the state, Trump is
polling higher than he ever has.
In his quest to take up George W. Bush's mantle, Rubio has arrayed a fleet of neoconservative
funders, ranging from
pro-Israel billionaire
Paul Singer to
Norman Braman, a billionaire auto dealer who funds Israeli settlements in the West Bank. His
list of advisers
is like a rolodex of Iraq War backers, ranging from Bush administration alumni Elliot Abrams and
Stephen Hadley, to Kagan and serial war propagandist Bill Kristol.
Kristol also sits on the board of the Emergency Committee for Israel - a dark money group
that assails candidates it perceives as insufficiently pro-Israel. The group started airing an ad
this weekend against Trump portraying him as an ally to despots like Bashar Assad, Saddam Hussein,
and Muammar Qaddafi - mostly because he argued that military invasions of Libya and Iraq left those
countries worse off.
John D, Mar. 3 2016, 6:31 a.m.
I love what Trump's saying from time to time and don't believe it for a second. How short are
our memories? The guy who accelerated the process of reducing the middle east to chaos ran
on a platform of a 'humbler' foreign policy, condemning nation-building. How'd that work out for
us? Trump is a demagogue, and this is what they do: say whatever gets them support, just
like other politicians, but on steroids. Huey Long is an example of this, and he also took some
positions that we would all have supported over that of the two major parties of the time.
The pain and anguish of the neo cons is highly entertaining, and so damn warranted, but
let's not get taken in. The man's a monster, and the only good that might come of his election
would be his impeachment. I know, that leaves us with horrible choices, and what else is new.
But don't be suckered by Trump. The degree really is worthless.
vidimi, Mar. 2 2016, 8:55 a.m.
isn't robert kagan the husband of state diplomat and cheney/h.clinton appointee victoria
nuland? hillary is already as neocon as it gets.
M Hobbs -> vidimi, Mar. 3 2016, 2:25 p.m.
Robert Kagan told the NYT last June that he "feels comfortable" with Hillary on foreign policy–and
that she's a neocon. "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," he added, "it's
something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call
it that; they are going to call it something else."
The people behind this ad don't get it- this video could easily have been issued and approved
by the Trump campaign. To a lot of people, what this video accuses Trump of saying is the absolute,
utter truth. The world would be a far, far better place, Iraq would be better off, Libya would
be better off, and the United States would have a lot more money, and a lot less dead soldiers,
if Saddam and Khadaffi were still alive.
They should have focus grouped this. Because it likely increases Trump's numbers.
Joe F -> Duglarri, Mar. 1 2016, 1:53 p.m.
If Khadaffi were still alive Ambassdor Stevens and several more Americans would still be alive
also. But then the press would have one less thing to whinge about and the MIC would have one
less hotzone to expliot.
Carroll Price, Mar. 1 2016, 11:10 a.m.
If Trump can survive the nomination process, in spite of what the MSN can muster-up against
him, it will represent first time in the past 60 years that the Establishment did not choose and
own the candidates of both parties.
Which leads me to believe that if history serves as a guide, and I think it does, the Establishment
will have him assassinated, while the resources are still available and in place to cover it up
and have it white-washed by an official inquiry similar to the fake 9/11 Commission & Warren Commission
Report.
Clark, Mar. 1 2016, 10:28 a.m.
Trump worries/offends the neo-cons in his perversity, but the neo-cons know they can rely on
Hillary Clinton.
M Hobbs -> Clark, Mar. 3 2016, 2:30 p.m.
So if HRC gets the nomination, all the neocon Rs will vote for her and lots of the lefty Ds
and independents will vote for Trump. This is getting confusing.
Gene Poole -> M Hobbs, Mar. 4 2016, 4:32 a.m.
Yep. And ain't it sweet!?
SeniorsForTrump, Mar. 1 2016, 9:57 a.m.
TRUMP's opponents offer nothing but their arrogant condescending attitudes towards the
voting population. Their use of scare tactics on voters will no longer work. These cookie-cutter
politicians and their obsolete powerful old-boy establishment handlers are wrong for today's challenges
and tomorrows solutions. Stop wasting voter's time and energy trying to make this election about
personalities, gender, race, minorities, religion, fear and hatred. TRUMP has faith and trust
in the voters; TRUMP is the only candidate who doesn't insult, scare or lie to voters; TRUMP offers
voters hope and a future ALL Americans can believe in and deserve.
All of Trump's establishment opponents are begging for just one more chance. These opponent
candidates squandered thousands of opportunities, for the past fifty years, at the expense of
All Americans in America and abroad. Powerful corrupt insiders', of every party affiliation, who
discredit TRUMP, or any candidate, are also discrediting American voters', the American voting
process and the freedoms of democracies and republics everywhere. These discrediting efforts,
to take down any candidate, will fail because this is America and in America the peoples' choice
for their next president must and will always prevail. American voters' rights and choices must
always be protected, respected and never ignored. Because America is not a dictatorship voters'
choices' still count. We are lucky to live in a country where we can agree to disagree. This is
the essence of freedom. Every American and every candidate should be upset when this kind of corruption
goes on. Thank you, Donald Trump, and every candidate, for running for President and offering
informed voters an opportunity out of this nightmare and a path to a better America for ALL Americans!
The debates heading into Super Tuesday continues to show voters TRUMP's presidential qualities.
Eminent Domain didn't stick to TRUMP, neither will groundless tax allegations nor outrageous innuendos.
TRUMPS opponents are doing themselves a disservice attacking TRUMP. TRUMP offers voters hope and
a future ALL Americans can believe in. TRUMP will own Super Tuesday.
Carroll Price -> SeniorsForTrump, Mar. 1 2016, 11:15 a.m.
Very well stated. I agree whole-heartedly.
john p. Teschke, Mar. 1 2016, 2:28 a.m.
This explains the virulent dislike of Trump by the lamestream media. Hillary, an unindicted
war criminal based on her central role in instituting the Khaddafi overthrow and her role in starting
the Syrian war, is without a doubt the greater evil in comparison with Trump. Since Trump in the
fall campaign won't hesitate to highlight the fact that the jihadis in Libya put in as largely
as a result of Hillary's initiative liquidated tens or hundreds of thousands of black Africans
who had settled in Khaddafi's Libya as hostile to Jihadi elements, this will likely dampen Afro-American
ardour for Hillary's campaign. Hopefully this will be a torpedo which sinks her campaign.
dahoit -> john p. Teschke, Mar. 1 2016, 8:22 a.m.
Truth is the enemy of the Zionist serial liars.
Jeff, Mar. 1 2016, 2:05 a.m.
I've been saying for awhile that Trump is probably the least bad of the Republican candidates.
He's definitely not as bad as Rubio or Cruz would be. For one thing, he's opposed to the TPP and
similar crap. Now this.
Make no mistake, the only candidate left who wouldn't continue the same awfulness would
be Sanders, who doesn't stand a chance (for those who don't understand how the 15% super delegates
rigs the election for Clinton and other establishment candidates, do the math, not to even mention
the money and power behind Clinton). I don't support Trump in any way, but I also find it
laughable how some so-called progressives are wetting their pants over him. Yes he's racist, but
so are the Republicans in general. At least Trump has a few good positions, making him about the
same as Clinton.
Winston, Feb 29, 2016, 7:48 p.m.
Bernie and Donald are simply two-fisted middle fingers enthusiastically directed at the paid
enforcers of the oligarchy's desired status quo, the Republican and Democrat political machines.
Donald, unlike poor Bernie, has the advantage of being able to avoid the oligarchy's mega-cash-fueled
vetting process intended to weed out true boat rockers by funding his own campaign.
When Reps threaten to vote for Dems and I see headlines like "Democratic National Committee
Vice Chair Tulsi Gabbard resigned from her post on Sunday to endorse Democratic presidential candidate
Bernie Sanders, following months of rising tensions within the group," I have hope that both party
machines will, deservedly, become increasingly irrelevant. The facade has come off and we finally
see the truth, which is there is no loyalty within the establishment of either political party
to anything but the continued power of the oligarchy they BOTH defend.
Election 2016 is turning out to be a rare popcorn worthy event because voters are now TOTALLY
fed up with THIS:, From the 2014 Princeton University study:, Testing Theories of American Politics:
Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, Excerpts:, A great deal of empirical research speaks
to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible
to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical
model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the
key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business
interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens
and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial
support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not
for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule-at least not in the
causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with
economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong
status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans
favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
…the preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of "affluent"
citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average
citizens do. To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly
often get the policies they favor, but only because those policies happen also to be preferred
by the economically-elite citizens who wield the actual influence.
-–, From "Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-America Century" by Dmitry Orlov, someone who experienced
the collapse of the Soviet Union and the various effects of that collapse on life there:, People
in the United States have a broadly similar attitude toward politics with people of the Soviet
Union. In the U.S. this is often referred to as "voter apathy", but it might be more accurately
described as non-voter indifference. The Soviet Union had a single, entrenched, systemically corrupt
political party, which held a monopoly on power. The U.S. has two entrenched, systemically corrupt
political parties, whose positions are often indistinguishable, and which together hold a monopoly
on power. In either case, there is, or was, a single governing elite, but in the United States
it organized itself into opposing teams to make its stranglehold on power seem more sportsmanlike.
Although people often bemoan political apathy as if it were a grave social ill, it seems to
me that this is just as it should be. Why should essentially powerless people want to engage in
a humiliating farce designed to demonstrate the legitimacy of those who wield the power? In Soviet-era
Russia, intelligent people did their best to ignore the Communists: paying attention to them,
whether through criticism or praise, would only serve to give them comfort and encouragement,
making them feel as if they mattered. Why should Americans want to act any differently with regard
to the Republicans and the Democrats? For love of donkeys and elephants?, -–, "Now [the United
States is] just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the
nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and
U.S. senators and congress members. So now we've just seen a complete subversion of our political
system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves
after the election's over. … The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited
money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody's who's already in Congress has a lot more to
sell to an avid contributor than somebody who's just a challenger. – - Jimmy Carter, former president,
in 2015.
sgt_doom, Feb 29, 2016, 6:58 p.m.
So one of the principal founding members of PNAC, or the Project for a New American Century (and
Victoria Nuland's husband), R. Kagan, says vote for Hillary?
And this just weeks after Hillary is bragging about receiving complements from Henry Kissinger,
mass murderer?
Are there still fools in America who believe HRC is some kind of liberal?
And who did HRC appoint as SecState? Marc Grossman, Bush inner circle guy and Bush family
relative; Victoria Nuland, former defense policy advisor to Dick Cheney, and her husband, Robert
Kagan. This has to be a WTF moment for anyone with a brain?
Benito Mussolini, Feb 29, 2016, 6:46 p.m.
I don't think the neoconservatives should purchase a one way ticket into the Hillary camp. Trump
could be quite amenable to the 'Ledeen Doctrine' that: "Every ten years or so, the United States
needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show
the world we mean business". My understanding is that Trump has no objections in principle, but
as a prudent businessman, questions whether it's worth shelling out 1 trillion dollars just to
show you mean business.
I believe the neoconservatives may have had some self-esteem issues and perhaps tended
to overcompensate by splurging on vanity wars. Trump will return the Republican party to its conservative
roots of fiscal responsibility and insist on getting good value for his wars. A Trump campaign
will completely dispense with 'shock and awe'. Instead, he'll cut straight to the chase: "Where
are the oilfields and how long will it take to pump them dry?" The neoconservatives could benefit
from that sort of discipline.
However, if the neoconservatives decide to return to the party they abandoned in the 1960s,
then I wish them well. They had a good run with the Republicans and certainly left their mark
on foreign policy. Sometimes a change of scenery is good; it may be all they need to rekindle
their enthusiasm for the third (or is the fourth?) Iraq war.
Lawrence, Feb 29, 2016, 6:05 p.m.
It be fitting for the neocons who were originally leftist followers of Trotsky to go back
home to the Democratic party. Maybe then the old non-interventionist anti-war right can rise again
in amongst the Republicans.
eddie-g, Feb 29, 2016, 5:21 p.m.
Perhaps worth noting that the Neocons originally found influence with interventionist Democrats
like Dan Moynihan, they went on to develop alliances with fiercely nationalistic Reaganites (like
Cheney and Rumsfeld), but only truly came to the fore as policy-makers within the GW Bush presidency.
So they've never exactly had a set ideological compass, they're happy to back anyone who'll
do their bidding on Israel and the Middle East. With Trump, I can't imagine they (or anyone else)
knows what they're getting; Hillary meanwhile is a known quantity, and hawkish enough for their
tastes.
craigsummers -> eddie-g, Feb 29, 2016, 6:47 p.m.
"……..Perhaps worth noting that the Neocons originally found influence with interventionist Democrats
like Dan Moynihan, they went on to develop alliances with fiercely nationalistic Reaganites (like
Cheney and Rumsfeld), but only truly came to the fore as policy-makers within the GW Bush presidency….."
True, but they lost favor in the Bush White House after the invasion of Iraq turned south.
dahoit -> craigsummers, Mar. 1 2016, 8:38 a.m.
Somewhat true, but how does that explain the demoncrats embracing them in Obombas administration?
Craigsummers -> dahoit, Mar. 1 2016, 7:21 p.m.
I don't believe that Obama has embraced the neocons.. Obama has alienated our allies in the ME
including Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. His large disagreements with Netanyahu flag Obama as
anything but a neocon.
Duglarri -> eddie-g, Mar. 1 2016, 11:37 a.m.
The Neocons are like parasites that jump from host to host. When they've killed one host they
move on to the next. I'm reminded of the old Sci-Fi movie, "The Hidden".
owen, Feb 29, 2016, 4:53 p.m.
… just in case y'all are not aware, the view from outside the walls of Empire U$A, when we
see the audience holding up placards declaring "MAKE AMERICA'S MILITARY GREAT AGAIN" we're all
thinking – 'you guys are truly the most manipulated, compromised and fucked up people on the planet'.
Dave Fisher, Feb 29, 2016, 4:38 p.m.
"Neoconservative historian Robert Kagan announced that if Trump secures the nomination "the only
choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.", i hope Sanders runs with that, uses it in his ads,
cites that quote during the debates, makes the electorate aware of the fox (weasel?) in the chicken
coop…
Balthazar, Feb 29, 2016, 3:58 p.m.
The US has become the laughing stock of the world. Oh wait, we've been that for decades.
star, Feb 29, 2016, 3:52 p.m.
"worried he will not pursue the same bellicose foreign policy"
No, he will pursue a different
bellicose foreign policy relying on banning Muslims from the US, torture, filling up Guantanamo,
threatening Mexico and 'hitting' the families of 'terrorists'. The Intercept is actually starting
to scare me.
Robert -> star, Feb 29, 2016, 6:01 p.m.
So drone warfare killing thousand+ innocent people isn't "starting to scare" you? Overthrowing
governments in Iraq, Libya, and Syria isn't "starting to scare" you? ISIS forming out of those
overthrows isn't "starting to scare" you?
dahoit -> star, Mar. 1 2016, 8:42 a.m.
Wow, the only guy to critique the Iraq war, Libya, trade steals, getting along with Russia and
stop being the policeman of the world gets critiqued by alleged liberals as the bad choice in
a world of crazy Ziomonsters.
Hang it up children, you've lost your minds.
nfjtakfa -> Roy David, Feb 29, 2016, 5:49 p.m.
Um, I think Vivek Jain's assertion is the destruction of Iraq and destabalization of the region
was 100% intentional, i.e. "wasn't a mistake."
Roy David -> nfjtakfa, Mar. 1 2016, 5:25 p.m.
Thanks nfjtakfa. Sometimes the written word can be misinterpreted.
Christopher -> Vivek Jain, Feb 29, 2016, 5:47 p.m.
Remind me just where and when we found the nukes Iraq was supposed to have, then. Or the mobile
bioweapons labs. Or Hussein's al-Qaeda collaborators.
coram nobis -> Christopher, Feb 29, 2016, 6:13 p.m.
As you see, the Iraq war wasn't a mistake, but a deliberate fake.
reflections, Feb 29, 2016, 3:40 p.m.
They created Donald Trump and thanks to the Supreme Court any rich ass-- can run for office they
don't need to fund a particular political republican bigot.
Bob, Feb 29, 2016, 3:25 p.m.
Trump is a professional actor as are all the cons but he is better at it. Read his book, TAoTD
and you may change your mind a lot on him as POTUS. He certainly is no conbot and IMHO would make
a much better POTUS than any of the dwarf wall st. sucking varlets competing against him. I'm
still hoping Senator Bernie Sanders will take the gloves off and start attacking the war mongering,
wall st. courtier Clinton before it's too late but, if my choice was Clinton vs. Trump I would
hold my nose and vote Trump. Rubio is so hollow he is unqualified for his present job. Good luck
USA.
coram nobis, Feb 29, 2016, 2:31 p.m.
It's an interesting shift of perspective in this crazy year, although the question with the Donald
is (1) whether he has a coherent ideology from one speech to the next and (2) whether the GOP
would become more dovish (or less neocon) under a Trump administration, or whether the GOP would
simply abandon him.
As for Hillary, sir, your coda begs another article: " … and Clinton moving the Democrats towards
greater support for war.", With whom?, Okay, Iran is a definite possibility, given her pro-Israel
stance. But what about China? That situation in the South China Sea is ratcheting up. And what
about Russia? Washington's talking like the west bank of the Dnieper is our east coast.
Doug Salzmann -> coram nobis, Feb 29, 2016, 3:19 p.m.
"And what about Russia? Washington's talking like the west bank of the Dnieper is our east
coast.", Surrounding and dismantling Russia has been the goal since the collapse of the USSR.
And Killary and the neocons (including the large contingent she and Obama installed at State)
are definitely crazy enough to push it.
On the list of Big Dumb Mistakes, this would be very close to the top.
Dave Fisher -> Doug Salzmann, Feb 29, 2016, 4:26 p.m.
"dismantling Russia", what exactly does that mean?
Si1ver1ock -> Dave Fisher, Feb 29, 2016, 5:26 p.m.
Ask the Syrians or the the Libyans, or the Iraqis or the Sundanese, or the Yemenis or … or ….
Doug Salzmann -> Dave Fisher, Feb 29, 2016, 8:18 p.m.
"dismantling Russia", what exactly does that mean?, It means exactly what I said, Dave. Surrounding,
weakening and (ultimately, hopefully) dismantling and absorbing the pieces of the Russian Federation
has been at the core of American foreign policy aims since the collapse of the USSR.
See, for instance, the pre-revised version of the 2/18/1992 Wolfowitz (and Scooter Libby) Memo:
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory
of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly
by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy
and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources
would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.
And then, refer to Zbigniew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard:
Given the enormous size and diversity of the country, a decentralized political system, based
on the free market, would be more likely to unleash the creative potential of both the Russian
people and the country's vast natural resources. In turn, such a more decentralized Russia
would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization.
. . . and . . .
A loosely confederated Russia-composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far
Eastern Republic-would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with Europe,
with the new states of Central Asia, and with the Orient, which would thereby accelerate Russia's
own development. Each of the three confederated entities would also be more able to tap local
creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow's heavy bureaucratic hand.
Hope this helps. ;^)
Gene Poole -> Dave Fisher, Mar. 4 2016, 5:13 a.m.
In the short tem it means replacing Putin by another Eltsin-like stooge. In the middle term,
it meant dismantling the USSR. In the long term it means defending Capital against the threat
of Socialism.
Patricia Baeten, Feb 29, 2016, 2:30 p.m.
Great article. I wrote something similar in my blog post last week titled, NATO, Turkey and Saudi
Arabia's Worst Nightmare President Donald Trump.
Excerpt:, The beneficiaries of Bush and Obama's Evil American Empire invading and destroying
nations throughout the world have been Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Along with their NATO allies,
America has spent trillions of dollars on the military industrial complex while our roads and
bridges fail and jobs have been shipped to third world countries.
The unparalleled destruction of Syria as well as all of the Middle East, Eurasia and Africa
will come to an end under President Donald Trump and the world is taking note.
My greatest fear is that a full hot war against Russia and China will commence before the election.
Love your writing, thanks.
Patricia
Bob -> Patricia Baeten, Feb 29, 2016, 3:29 p.m.
I hope you meant NOT commence. I really don't want to die and these things have a habit of escalating.
dahoit -> Bob, Mar. 1 2016, 9:00 a.m.
She is intimating the Zionists will start war with Russia before Trump takes office, a quite possible
scenario when dealing with the insane Zionists.
Jose -> Patricia Baeten, Feb 29, 2016, 3:32 p.m.
The chaos Trump will bring to the neocon's imperialist project is probably the only good thing
that might come out of a Trump presidency.
The Shame Chamber -> Patricia Baeten, Feb 29, 2016, 7:19 p.m.
Trump said he would declassify the 28 pages on foreign government ties to 9/11. Why hasn't that
happened yet?, http://28pages.org/
dahoit -> The Shame Chamber, Mar. 1 2016, 9:02 a.m.
Uh, he's not in government? sheesh.
dahoit -> Patricia Baeten, Mar. 1 2016, 8:58 a.m.
Good comment, don't mind the idiots stuck in their false narrative.
craigsummers, Feb 29, 2016, 2:22 p.m.
Mr. Jilani, "……Neoconservative historian Robert Kagan - one of the prime intellectual backers
of the Iraq war and an advocate for Syrian intervention - announced in the Washington Post last
week that if Trump secures the nomination "the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton."…..",
The Intercept is clearly confused on quite a few issues. First, the Republican Party generally
supports a strong leadership role for the US in foreign policy (as do the Democrats). Both parties
will ensure that the US pursues our geopolitical interests. Of course, this is not limited just
to the Neocons. Second, the entire Republican establishment opposes Trump for obvious reasons.
Again, this is not limited to the Neocons, and it is not too surprising that Republicans may cross
party lines to vote for Hillary who more closely mirrors some of their foreign policies. She is
a hawk. Third, the Republican and Democratic Parties are strong supporters of Israel – not just
the Neocons. In general, Republicans support Israel even to a greater degree than the Democrats
– and again, this is not limited to the Neoconservatives.
Finally, how important is the Israel-Palestinian conflict to the Intercept? Obviously very
important since the Intercept seems willing to forget that Trump has been called a xenophobe and
an anti-Muslim bigot by many on the left. Have you ever heard the saying: the enemy of my enemy
is my friend?
sgt_doom -> craigsummers, Feb 29, 2016, 4:20 p.m.
I fully agree with Jilani and this Summers is an obvious neocon sycophant of Wall Street.
craigsummers -> sgt_doom, Feb 29, 2016, 5:03 p.m.
sgt_doom, What is extraordinary to me is that Jilani seems to value the Israel-neutral stance
of Trump over Hillary (and her obvious support for Israel) despite Trump (initially) not even
being able to disavow support from the KKK. Maybe that is not so remarkable considering that Jilani
tweeted the term "Israel firsters".
Christopher -> craigsummers, Feb 29, 2016, 5:50 p.m.
"Both parties will ensure that the US pursues our geopolitical interests.", Jesus. Have you been
in a coma since 2003? Or I guess maybe since the 1980's, cough Iran-Contra cough cough.
craigsummers -> Christopher, Feb 29, 2016, 6:44 p.m.
I'm not saying there aren't differences, but generally speaking both the Democrats and the Republicans
have maintained strong policies which favor US interests. Obama had some confusing policies which
alienated long term allies like Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt.
Carroll Price -> craigsummers, Mar. 1 2016, 8:30 p.m.
You mean US "corporate" interest and Israel's interest don't you? For the past 30 years, both
parties have pursued policies that are in direct conflict with the interest of the American people.
Gene Poole -> Carroll Price, Mar. 4 2016, 5:31 a.m.
Bravo. I was going to reply to his first post, in which he said " Both parties will ensure that
the US pursues our geopolitical interests", and ask just who "we" are.
Boaz Bismuth: Mr. Trump, yesterday, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio tried to question your support
for Israel. How is his commitment to Israel stronger than yours?, Donald Trump: "My friendship
with Israel is stronger than any other candidate's. I want to make one thing clear: I want
to strike a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. It is what I aspire to
do. Peace is possible, even if it is the most difficult agreement to achieve. As far as
I understand, Israel is also interested in a peace deal. I'm not saying I'll succeed, or
even that an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is within reach, but I want to
try. But in order for an agreement to happen, the Palestinians need to show interest. It's
a little difficult to reach an agreement when the other side doesn't really want to talk
to you.
"Don't get confused there in Israel: I am currently your biggest friend. My daughter
is married to a Jew who is an enthusiastic Israel supporter, and I have taken part in many
Israel Day Parades. My friendship with Israel is very strong."
Yes, an especially bitter sop to those who harbor the manufactured illusion that trump is concerned
with the sovereign rights of the individual.
avelna2001, Feb 29, 2016, 1:45 p.m.
Neoconservative historian Robert Kagan - one of the prime intellectual backers of the Iraq
war and an advocate for Syrian intervention - announced in the Washington Post last week that
if Trump secures the nomination "the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.", Truly,
this tells you all you need to know about Hillary Clinton…
Doug Salzmann -> avelna2001, Feb 29, 2016, 3:24 p.m.
"Truly, this tells you all you need to know about Hillary Clinton…", Well, that and the fact that
Killary and Obama named Kagan's wife, Victoria Jane "Cookie" Nuland to the post of Assistant Secretary
of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, where she led the sponsorship and underwriting of
a coup against the elected leadership of Ukraine.
avelna2001 -> Doug Salzmann, Feb 29, 2016, 3:51 p.m.
Well yeah, true enough.
Kathleen, Feb 29, 2016, 1:43 p.m.
Fascinating that Trump has the warmongers nervous. Heading Hillary's way where they know their
rearrangement of the middle east (PNAC, JINSA) no matter how many thousands are killed or refugees
are displace is safe with Hillary. She has demonstrated her commitment to the death and destruction
in the middle east.
This is no bs…know some multi millionaire Republicans here in Colorado who are going with
Hillary if Trump gets nomination. They know their capital gains are safe with her. Yes indeed...
sgt_doom, Feb 29, 2016, 1:33 p.m.
Good to see that all those neoconservative prayer breakfasts Sen. Hillary Clinton attended
at the Geo. W. Bush White House aren't going to waste. Of course, the neocons embrace "Wall Street
Hillary" as they always have, regardless of all the silly political theater to the contrary.
BTW, isn't Robert Kagan the hubby of Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs appointed by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton?, I believe so
. . .
Of course, we haven't had a legitimate government in the USA since the Coup of 1963 (the JFK
assassination, reinforced by the murders of Rev. King and Bobby Kennedy), so evidently Trump represents
the first break in a long line of illegitimate administrations.
Trump really appears to be giving the nervous willies to the oligarchs – – – glad to see those
swine who gave us - and profited from - the global economic meltdown being shaken up for a change!,
With Hillary they have nothing to fear, she's the perfect Wall Street running dog lackey, but
with Trump they could end up in jail - or worse . . . .
24b4Jeff, Feb 29, 2016, 1:20 p.m.
It's good to see that Hillary is finally being openly welcomed into the fold of neo-conservatives.
Also, pardon my lack of modesty for a certain pride in having been proven right about her. She
is not a progressive, not liberal, but rather a fascist in the true sense of representing the
corporatists.
Does anyone else find it ironic that the New York Times has chosen now to start a series on
her role in the overthrow of Qaddafi and the subsequent conversion of Libya into a failed state?
Had the articles started appearing a couple of weeks ago, it might have helped Sanders in Iowa
and Nevada. No, it would not have helped Sanders in South Carolina, and he is foredoomed in the
rest of the deep south as well, not only because of his being a social democrat (on domestic issues)
but also because he is a Jew.
Doug Salzmann -> 24b4Jeff, Feb 29, 2016, 4:15 p.m.
Good call on the timing of the NYT series, Jeff. And kudos on having recognized her early
on for the fascist she has always been. I've not caught up with the Times series; does each
installment open with this video clip?
ghostyghost, Feb 29, 2016, 1:16 p.m.
"With Trump's ascendancy, it's possible that the parties will re-orient their views on war and
peace, with Trump moving the GOP to a more dovish direction and Clinton moving the Democrats towards
greater support for war."
Right because "bomb the shit out of them" is a well known rallying
cry of pacifists.
coram nobis -> ghostyghost, Feb 29, 2016, 2:37 p.m.
You've got a point; the Donald isn't exactly another Gandhi. The diff between him and Hillary
is that she would act according to longstanding neocon policy, concerted war. The Donald would
attack impulsively. Picture him as the Groucho Marx character in "Duck Soup" and there's a possible
simile, but not funny.
ghostyghost -> coram nobis, Feb 29, 2016, 2:49 p.m.
What scares me the most about President Trump is him taking a look at the nuclear arsenal and
thinking "we have these awesome weapons and they are just sitting here collecting dust. Well lets
show everyone that a real leader isn't afraid to use his best tools!" and then wiping Mosul and
and Raqqa off the map.
coram nobis -> ghostyghost, Feb 29, 2016, 4:36 p.m.
Glad Robert Kagan's neoconservative re-branding attempts have started to garner headlines.
Kagan was hand picked to be on Hillary Clinton's defense policy board while at the State
Dept and for those who don't know who Kagan is, he's the husband of the assistant secretary of
state for eurasian affairs, Victoria Nuland.
Or, Victoria "let's spend $5 billion to overthrow the democratically elected administration in
the Urkaine" Nuland.
Lin Ming, Feb 29, 2016, 1:13 p.m.
These people will do anything to further their cause – just as they always have – up to and including
eliminating an opponent in the most forceful permanent manner…
"... Leaping from this incident to the Iranian nuclear agreement that has essentially decreased the likelihood of Iran ever building nuclear weapons, Trump continued his litany of lies by portraying the agreement as virtual surrender to unnamed dark forces. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's campaign promises more of the same corporatist politics in the service of the Goldman-Sachs of the nation. The primary difference may be found in her social stances, which are more liberal and tolerant than those expressed by Trump's ticket. ..."
"... In short, we are witnessing a serious split in the US ruling class. Both elements recognize capitalism is in crisis and has been for decades. The two main solutions to this crisis as represented by the campaigns will not solve this crisis, because it is essentially unsolvable. ..."
"... Militarily, there is also a split between the rulers. Neither Trump's combination of fear-ridden America First bluster nor the corporate world order represented by Clinton's campaign will prevent war or terrorism. Both will guarantee the continued waste of monies that the permanent war economy is. Both will also guarantee the continued domination of the US economy by the war industry. Donald Trump knows this and so does Hilary Clinton. ..."
More importantly, however, was his take on history, which went no further back
then 2008, at best. By pretending that history began when Barack Obama was
elected president, all the decades of jobs being sent overseas because
corporations want cheap labor became the fault of more recent free trade
agreements. While these agreements certainly expedited the desire/need of the
capitalist overlords to go for the cheap labor, this process was taking place
before such agreements were passed. Furthermore, Trump and his businesses
benefited from them and he did nothing to oppose them then. In short, it is how
monopoly capitalism works: capital goes to where it can accumulate greater
profits, utilizing the military and "free" trade to cajole and force its will
on nations and peoples around the world.
Continuing his litany of America
wronged, Trump referred to the Iran nuclear agreement. He related the FoxNews
version of some US sailors being held by Iranian military after their ship
sailed into Iranian waters. According to this version, the sailors were
humiliated hostages who were wrongly held. In actuality, the sailors were
treated well and were in the wrong. Their captain surely knew this when he
sailed where he sailed. Leaping from this incident to the Iranian nuclear
agreement that has essentially decreased the likelihood of Iran ever building
nuclear weapons, Trump continued his litany of lies by portraying the agreement
as virtual surrender to unnamed dark forces.
Of course, the presence of "dark" forces and the threat they represent to
Trump and his followers are essential to understanding his appeal. Indeed, the
local Gannett broadsheet here in Vermont, introduced Trump's acceptance speech
in the next day's paper with this quote from the speech "safety will be
restored." I first noted this emphasis on safety while listening to an argument
between a young anti-Trump protester and an even younger Trump supporter at the
end of a Vermont anti-Trump action. Besides the obvious fact that his proposed
policies based on fear, hate, and US triumphalism are no more likely to restore
safety than Clinton's policies of brinksmanship and subterfuge, this statement
begs the question about whose safety Mr. Trump is referring to.
... ... ...
While Trump pretends that his millennialist rhetoric will bring the US back to a time my
father grew up in-when father knew best and was whiter than Ivory Snow soap, Hillary
Clinton's campaign promises more of the same corporatist politics in the service of the
Goldman-Sachs of the nation. The primary difference may be found in her social stances, which are
more liberal and tolerant than those expressed by Trump's ticket.
In short, we are witnessing a serious split in the US ruling class. Both elements recognize
capitalism is in crisis and has been for decades. The two main solutions to this crisis as
represented by the campaigns will not solve this crisis, because it is essentially unsolvable.
Trump's approach hopes to move the capitalist economy back to a time before World War One,
when production of goods was almost as important as the financial manipulation of monies for
profit and national economies were the primary and dominant macro economy. Clinton's approach
would continue the trend of the last few decades that has seen capital move beyond national
boundaries to create what Lenin called "the formation of international monopolist capitalist
associations which share the world among themselves." This latter phenomenon is what the
so-called free trade agreements are about. Trump's belief that he can buck this trend runs
counter to history, although he seems to think that he is beyond history, except for that which
he makes.
Militarily, there is also a split between the rulers. Neither Trump's combination of
fear-ridden America First bluster nor the corporate world order represented by Clinton's campaign
will prevent war or terrorism. Both will guarantee the continued waste of monies that the
permanent war economy is. Both will also guarantee the continued domination of the US economy by
the war industry. Donald Trump knows this and so does Hilary Clinton.
"... I think this is about the dumbest thing a politician has done since her husband nominated Lloyd Bentson secretary of the Treasury (OK the stuff he did with Lewinsky wasn't too smart either but this Clinton wasn't as tempted this time). ..."
I was fairly certain that if Clinton were elected president and the Democrats were to
win a majority in the Senate, that they would lose that majority in 2018.
I think that Hillary Clinton may have proven me wrong and found
the only way to prevent that - by causing the Democrats to lose the majority in 2017.
I think this is about the dumbest thing a politician has done since her husband nominated
Lloyd Bentson secretary of the Treasury (OK the stuff he did with Lewinsky wasn't too smart either
but this Clinton wasn't as tempted this time).
"... Chris Hedges, Ralph Nader, and even Noam Chomsky have long understood that the term "socialist"is a misnomer when applied to Sanders; the terms "liberal democrat" and "Roosevelt democrat" are far more accurate in describing the bulk of his ideas. ..."
"... Anyone who has labored to sit through the string of debates between the two could not help but conclude that Sander's has consistently refrained from attacking Clinton in a way that would irreparably harm her candidacy in a general election. Consider Sander's defense of Clinton's illegal use of an Email server in her residence and the chronic mishandling of classified information while she was secretary of State and then ask yourself why it is that Sanders believes that Clinton should be held to a standard any different from those who have been indicted, and in some cases maliciously prosecuted, for the leaking and/or mishandling of classified information. ..."
"... A major Clinton Foundation donor, a commodity trader and Hillary's campaign bundler, Mr. Rajiv Fernando, was appointed at State Department International Security Advisory Board . Fernando is also one of the superdelegates! ..."
"... Also he would shrink NATO and curtail US bases overseas, very needed actions. NATO should be dissolved and it's functions rolled into a new UN, with Russia and China included–all countries. Clinton being the blood thirsty neocon hawk she is, could leave us into dangerous wars, as she has already, that could culminate in a nuclear one. ..."
"... Generally speaking the American political system is not parliamentary in nature, so third parties are really unable to affect government policy. ..."
"... I have written to the Sanders campaign encouraging them to NOT go to the convention, because the Dem elite are convinced that they have successfully rigged the primary, and I think they may be correct in that assessment. Regardless, the Democratic Party is far too gone, too bought and too corrupt to reform. ..."
"... Once the Democrat elite unleashes one of the most brutal police forces in the country on demonstrators at a Philadelphia convention, to break heads and bones, and pepper spray to near asphyxiation, it will not have been worth it; not one demonstrator, young or old, should suffer an injury for the rotten Dems. Better to have a political Woodstock in Burlington, start a new party, and never vote Democrat again. I'm done with them, up ticket and down. ..."
"... Very well said. I can't believe how much the shills are clinging to that "unity" argument. "We need the party to all pull together. That's why we're stacking the deck in every conceivable way against the popular candidate who represents the vast majority's viewpoint on almost every domestic issue, who's virtually guaranteed to trounce the other side come election day, and urging everyone instead to get in line behind an irredeemably corrupt enemy of everything they want, the only candidate weak enough to possibly lose." ..."
"... Bullshit. If Hill was serious about party unity, she'd have dropped out by now. ..."
"... They cling to the "unite" myth because they cling to the myths, distortions, diversions and outright lies of the whole Clinton myth. There are not able to objectively reason, intelligently discern, or give up their lust (and hers) for power, positions and perks. Corruption laid bare. ..."
"... I detest Hillary Clinton, and did so well before I even knew more than that Bernie Sanders was this Independent senator from Vermont. What his campaign did do, so fantastically, is highlight for many (especially youngs) all the justified reasons to renounce almost everything Hillary Clinton stands for as well as the neoliberal, Democratic Party establishment she helped bring about and which she now leads. ..."
"... So if you think her being the nominee is going to "change things" in terms of Greenwald becoming all deferential and respectful toward Hillary fucking Clinton, well, I think you get the message now, right? ..."
Last night, the Associated Press - on a day when nobody voted -
surprised everyone by
abruptly declaring the
Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before
the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close race, was
based on the media organization's survey of "superdelegates": the Democratic Party's 720
insiders, corporate donors, and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the same
as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced
their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her
over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.
This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The
nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret
discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media
organization - incredibly - conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself
anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices
that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate
interests, it's only fitting that its nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward,
and undemocratic sputter.
Gator90, June 12 2016, 6:31 p.m.
Clinton: "To the LGBT community: please know that you have millions of allies
across our country…."
Trump: "What happened in Orlando is only the beginning…. I called it and asked for the ban [on
Muslim immigrants]."
Nope. No difference at all.
Muhib ↪ Gator90, June 13 2016, 3:55 a.m.
Clinton: 200,000 Muslims dead
Trump: 0
oh wait a minute there is a difference after all… Ill be damned
Karl, June 12 2016, 4:10 p.m.
Candace doesn't realize that quite a few supporters of Bernie Sanders are that rare thing
in US presidential politics: positively enthusiastic about their candidate's policies and
character!
Chris Hedges, Ralph Nader, and even Noam Chomsky have long understood that the term
"socialist"is a misnomer when applied to Sanders; the terms "liberal democrat" and "Roosevelt
democrat" are far more accurate in describing the bulk of his ideas. Likewise, the notion
that Sanders would operate in open defiance of the Democratic party and withhold his support
of Hillary Clinton in the general election is ludicrous. Anyone who has labored to sit
through the string of debates between the two could not help but conclude that Sander's has
consistently refrained from attacking Clinton in a way that would irreparably harm her
candidacy in a general election. Consider Sander's defense of Clinton's illegal use of an
Email server in her residence and the chronic mishandling of classified information while she
was secretary of State and then ask yourself why it is that Sanders believes that Clinton
should be held to a standard any different from those who have been indicted, and in some
cases maliciously prosecuted, for the leaking and/or mishandling of classified information.
All of this wringing of ones hands and gnashing of ones teeth by progressives over a Warren or
Sander's endorsement of Hillary Clinton is a mere reflection of their inability to acknowledge
their own unfailing propensity for gullibility.
Melissa Shutta, June 11 2016, 8:27 p.m.
Hillary won where independents could not vote, also I looked at the exit polls and they
were all adjusted to fit the results.
Thomas McGaffey, June 11 2016, 10:11 a.m.
HRC got more votes only because of the undemocratic weighted voting system.
The Democratic Party got what it deserved…we, the people, didn't!
Akech, June 11 2016, 10:09 a.m.
A major Clinton Foundation donor, a commodity trader and Hillary's campaign bundler,
Mr. Rajiv Fernando, was appointed at State Department International Security Advisory Board .
Fernando is also one of the superdelegates!
Am I just a jealous person in thinking there is something wrong here? We cast our votes and
they laugh their ways to the banks!
This is the face of the Clintons controlled Democratic establishment!
Bochos, June 11 2016, 7:50 a.m.
She is completely bought and paid for. It is a sad state of affairs when all America can
offer
are these two candidates for president. The leaders of the democratic party just do not get
it. They take care of themselves and forget about the people. I am afraid that Bernie was the
last
chance. The working men and women of this country will take it in the shorts for the next four
years.
Super Delegate Resolution adopted by the State of Colorado Democratic Convention
SUPER DELEGATE RESOLUTION
We the Democratic Party of Colorado believe that the selection of delegates to the Democratic
National Convention should be representative of the votes cast for Presidential candidates in
Democratic Party caucuses and primary elections, consistent with each state's Affirmative
Action Plan and principles of inclusivity and diversity.
We do not believe that the current Super-Delegate system of delegate selection is reflective
of these principles or the ideals of the Democratic Party.
It is therefore RESOLVED THAT the Democratic Party of Colorado hereby requests and urges the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) to review and change the Presidential delegate selection
process for future elections in a manner consistent with this resolution and our determination
that the current Super-Delegate system does not achieve our principles and ideals.
Mass Independent -> Pedinska, June 9 2016, 12:45 p.m.
Yes, I too love how all these people can predict the future. Gore picked the vicious neocon
Israeli Congressional voice Joe LIEberman as his VP. If Gore had died if office or been
removed, LIEberman would have joined in a war on Iraq, AND IRAN, in 2 seconds. But they
conveniently like to whine about Nader, who I proudly voted for twice, for 16 years now. Same
thing with Trump now, they all think they know what he would do, and use it to frighten weak
minded sheeple accordingly.
Now, I will not vote for Trump and do think he is really bad on many things. But on a few very
important things, I think he could be very beneficial. He has said he is willing to talk to
Russia, and North Korea, which shows that he is not a brain washed NATO stooge. Russia used
decades of oil revenue to rebuild their armaments and munitions, missiles and jets, and the
results showed in Syria (always helps to have smaller wars to test the toys in, US has been
doing that since Korea) and Outin is not to be toyed with. Yet NATO keeps pushing hard up to
the Russian borders, FOR NO GOOD REASON, and threatening Russia. Even Kerry complimented them
on how they were so effective against ISIS in Syria, quite an admission.
Also he would shrink NATO and curtail US bases overseas, very needed actions. NATO
should be dissolved and it's functions rolled into a new UN, with Russia and China
included–all countries. Clinton being the blood thirsty neocon hawk she is, could leave us
into dangerous wars, as she has already, that could culminate in a nuclear one. For me,
that is enough reason NOT to vote for Clinton. She has much blood on her hands, and while she
now claims Iraq vote was a mistake, she has no apologized for it. Not at all. Simply put, she
is a sociopath. And I will not vote for a sociopath.
I agree that Trump could be a disaster in many ways, but maybe not. I am not against slowing
Muslim immigration to do better background checking. It will be harder on them, but will not
cost us much more and possibly reduce some lone wolf internal terrorism, which is the driving
force for the fascist police/security state we are becoming. I fear Clinton's drive against
BDS and the 1st, 4th, 5th (ironic as she may end up over using it) and 8th Amendments more
than I fear terrorism. I'll risk Trump over Clinton. It's a strange world when we are forced
to pick a horrible Democrat because the Republicans picked a horrible candidate too. Vote Jill
Stein! A woman!
J. C. Martin, June 9 2016, 11:47 a.m.
This election signifies the ending of the Democratic Party for me. Obama was a wimp as a
president after we thought that he was going to be a Lincoln or an FDR. Hillary and Bill
Clinton are opportunists who have used the political system to enrich themselves. Bernie
Sanders is the greatest politician of my lifetime.
photosymbiosis -> Wortmanberg, June 9 2016, 11:26 a.m.
Generally speaking the American political system is not parliamentary in nature, so
third parties are really unable to affect government policy. In countries where third
(and fourth and fifth) parties are effective, it's because of the need of the majority parties
to form coalitions with these outsiders in order to gain a governing majority. But in
Congress, consider how the majority system works – even if it was 46% Republican, 45%
Democrat, and 9% Green, Republicans would still be the majority, right?
Correct me if I'm wrong – but in parliamentary systems, one of the two parties would have to
form a coalition with the Green party in that case to get majority status; so the Democrats
would be forced to give Green members important committee positions, etc., to surpass the
Republicans.
However, there's the other option – look at how successful Black Lives Matter has been. I was
pretty skeptical of them at first, but its undeniable that they've forced many racist police
chiefs and corrupt city mayors out of office by their direct action techniques – so perhaps
Sanders supporters should form a "Middle Class Lives Matter" movement, affiliated with no
party (as with BLM), but focused on pressuring both Republican and Democratic politicians at
the local, state and federal level over their issues.
After all, the issues that will protect the middle class from further destruction – student
loan forgiveness and expanded public education, revoking trade deals that ship manufacturing
jobs overseas, domestic infrastructure repair, ending foreign regime change games, raising the
minimum wage, getting off fossil fuels, lowering health care costs, regulating the crooked
home loan financial industry, etc. – are all far more important than any what any individual
political figure does.
I mean, any political figure will have flaws; for example while Bernie Sanders did a great
job, coming from nowhere, I think he flubbed the foreign policy issues entirely; not pushing
back against Clinton on supporting the Honduras coup, going along with the drone strike
program instead of pointing out that terrorists could be captured and tried in U.S. courts (as
was done with the 1993 WTC bombing), not getting a good foreign policy team on board that
could have exposed Clinton's disasters in Libya and Syria, not pushing back against expanding
NATO funding – really, without cutting the foreign military budget, how was Sanders going to
pay for his domestic programs? Recall how Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' was sacrificed to
finance the Vietnam War?
No politician is going to be perfect; you still need independent people to push issues,
playing follow-the-leader never works out in the long run (which is why we have term limits,
right?)
As Bob Dylan said: "Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters."
Mass Independent, June 9 2016, 9:44 a.m.
Lots of comments today! NY Whore Times asked for comments on how readers "view this moment"
of Clinton trying to "unite" Sanders supporters with her corrupt, criminal primary "win". Here
is my comment:
How I view this moment. The hoopla and media bias will convince the weak minded and ignorant
Dem inclined American people, much of them with a 10-second attention span, that this most
compromised, entitled and possibly criminal candidate Clinton won fairly. Those who have been
paying close attention, who know her record, and witnessed the corruption and multi-state vote
fraud of the primary process will see it differently.
I have written to the Sanders campaign encouraging them to NOT go to the convention,
because the Dem elite are convinced that they have successfully rigged the primary, and I
think they may be correct in that assessment. Regardless, the Democratic Party is far too
gone, too bought and too corrupt to reform.
I would encourage Senator Sanders to run as an Independent Democratic Socialist, invite Jill
Stein and other Independents and a few Democrats of integrity to join him, and hold a
convention in Burlington, Vt. A joyous convention, a new party, a new start, a "new birth of
freedom" as Abe would say.
Once the Democrat elite unleashes one of the most brutal police forces in the country on
demonstrators at a Philadelphia convention, to break heads and bones, and pepper spray to near
asphyxiation, it will not have been worth it; not one demonstrator, young or old, should
suffer an injury for the rotten Dems. Better to have a political Woodstock in Burlington,
start a new party, and never vote Democrat again. I'm done with them, up ticket and down.
Phil -> Mass Independent, June 9 2016, 9:52 a.m.
Very well said. I can't believe how much the shills are clinging to that "unity"
argument. "We need the party to all pull together. That's why we're stacking the deck in every
conceivable way against the popular candidate who represents the vast majority's viewpoint on
almost every domestic issue, who's virtually guaranteed to trounce the other side come
election day, and urging everyone instead to get in line behind an irredeemably corrupt enemy
of everything they want, the only candidate weak enough to possibly lose."
Bullshit. If Hill was serious about party unity, she'd have dropped out by now.
Mass Independent -> Phil, June 9 2016, 12:24 p.m.
They cling to the "unite" myth because they cling to the myths, distortions, diversions
and outright lies of the whole Clinton myth. There are not able to objectively reason,
intelligently discern, or give up their lust (and hers) for power, positions and perks.
Corruption laid bare.
They also think that since their party primary rigging appears to be succeeding, that they can
rig the general. They'll try if it is close. I doubt they will succeed, as they don't run the
SCOTUS yet. I'll be voting Green, and then I can whine at THEM for 16 years when they lose
SCOTUS to Trump because of their flawed, corrupt candidate.
Phil, June 9 2016, 9:05 a.m.
Here's an interesting read with more on the CA primary: reports of truckloads of ballots
gone missing, statistical anomalies and what looks almost like sabotage of the voting process
through incompetence.
The problem with our screwed up governing process is the effects of factionalism of the 1%.
A small faction of our country plots and carries out its schemes to the detriment of the
majority. Creditor interests have more influence in legislation that debtor's interests.
Madison says it best in Federalist #10: "There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of
faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects."
Madison later concludes that 'controlling the effects' are the only means available to cure
the problem of factionalism.
Madison states: "The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot
be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects."
He believed a large enough republic was the solution. However, since money influences
everyone, we are susceptible to its effects, especially career politicians and the election
cycle.
Therefore, the solution is to reduce the effects of money….yes, easier said than done.
Legislating money doesn't work as we have seen with the Citizen's United ruling. The 1% always
find a way around it. Therefore, prevention of career politicians might be a solution.
Proposed 28th Amendment
1. All current members of Congress are hereby dismissed and removed from office for a period
of 10 years. (select a future date out 2 years to implement)
2. Each State will randomly selects it representatives to serve a 2 year term from a voluntary
list of candidates who meet the qualification of being at least 35 years of age and have an
accredited degree from a post high school institution.
3. The term for a Junior senator is hereby extended to a 10 year term
4. The term for a Senior senator is hereby extended to a 20 year term
5. The department of Justice and the appointment of the Attorney General is hereby removed
from the office of the Executive and resides with the Senate
6. The term of office of the Attorney General is 4 years
By removing the election cycle from the House members, you remove the effects of career
politicians and the effects of monies being sent to them. The debtors (which are a majority of
the country) now have control of the House, and a sizeable interest in making legislation.
Influence peddlers can certainly try to bribe legislation and have it presented, but it will
most likely fail because Party has been removed as well as all the Paid-For Politicians.
The 1% is still invested in government as the Senate still holds elections, but the influence
of the 1% is reduced over the longer time of the new extended term.
Removing the Justice department from the Executive removes many (but not all) of the follies
of the Executive branch with their memos, etc.
It's our government. We can change it if we really want to.
Bluestate 1, June 8 2016, 9:31 p.m.
I'm surprised that Mr. Greenwald didn't also mention that in 2008, Hilary Clinton also won
the popular vote, but the DNC awarded the nomination to Obama based on Superdelegate votes
(and delegate votes that he did not earn, given that the DNC provided him with delegates from
both Michigan and Florida, places where he was not even on the ballot).
Joshua88, June 8 2016, 6:07 p.m.
Captured my sentiment well, Mr Greenwald. While MSNBC was the only cable network to
broadcast the news, instead of looking like they led the coverage, I thought it made them look
mean and petty.
I read something last week that MSNBC intended to announce HRC as the winner early. I think
they just assumed the eastern delegate counts would put her over the top. Nice that they went
after this story so vigorously while ignoring so many other important stories and issues.
Not turning on the television until late, I missed the real AP story. I went up and down the
"dial" and since nobody else was reporting this, I formed my opinion early. I hadn't heard
about the unnamed sources until now. Whoa…
Watching RT last night, the crawl mentioned that the Clintons are friends with Google (yes,
humans and a corporation). I cannot assume that it is Mr Schmidt, the face at all kinds of
Obama events. Noticeable to the point that Thomas Frank wondered about the omnipresent Mr
Schmidt in Listen, Liberal. Mr Schmidt ties the two politicians together in several
narratives. With that RT crawl, it makes you wonder how magical it is having (a) Google during
a primary and then presidential contest. (It makes me wonder.)
Mass Independent -> Joshua88, June 9 2016, 11:42 a.m.
Mr Schmidt loves Mr. Kissinger, and was one of a gang that went to that estate in England
when Assange was there under house arrest to talk to him. I think Schmidt is a real danger to
Democracy, the one behind the curtain of Big Brother-1984 style.
craigsummers, June 8 2016, 1:02 p.m.
Mr. Greenwald
This is certainly one of your classic, bitter anti-American articles.
"…….And just as was true in 2008 with Obama's nomination……..Clinton's nomination is an
important and positive milestone. Americans, being Americans, will almost certainly overstate
its world significance and wallow in excessive self-congratulations: Many countries on the
planet have elected women as their leaders, including many whose close family member had not
previously served as president……"
This is very similar in tone to your article written after Bin Laden was assassinated (Salon;
"Killing of bin Laden: What are the consequences?" May 2, 2011)
"……The killing of Osama bin Laden is one of those events which, especially in the immediate
aftermath, is not susceptible to reasoned discussion………all Good Americans chant "USA! USA!" in
a celebration of this proof of our national greatness and Goodness (and that of our
President)…… And then there's the notion that America has once again proved its greatness and
preeminence by killing bin Laden. Americans are marching in the street celebrating with a
sense of national pride…….It seems telling that hunting someone down and killing them is one
of the few things that still produce these feelings of nationalistic unity. I……..had actually
intended to make this point with regard to our killing of Gadaffi's son in Libya - a mere 25
years after President Reagan bombed Libya and killed Gadaffi's infant daughter. That is
something the U.S. has always done well and is one of the few things it still does well………."
I love your last line – and it is a very telling (about your view of Americans): "One of the
few things left that Americans still do well".
Priceless Mr. Greenwald.
photosymbiosis -> craigsummers, June 8 2016, 1:44 p.m.
Bitter Anti-Americanism? Come on, don't you know that those who refuse to honestly examine
their own flaws will never be able to overcome them?
There is nothing quite as ridiculous as some jackass like Donald Rumsfeld running around, high
on his own PR, believing he's a genius when in reality he's a clueless idiot.
Just look at history, the endless line of leaders who surrounded themselves with sycophants
and flatterers: "Oh yes, my Lord, you are so wise, your decisions are perfect!"
Do you really believe that kind of empty-headed 'patriotism' is anything other than a
justification for continuation of the disastrous status quo?
Yes, America used to be the world leader in manufacturing; but the idiots in Washington rigged
trade deals that let corporations ship almost everything except weapons manufacturing abroad;
now we're way behind other countries in manufacturing.
Yes, America used to be a world leader in research and development, but funds for public
education were cut and now we have high school students entering colleges in need of remedial
math; China and Japan and Germany don't have that problem, do they?
Empty-headed cheerleading won't change those realities, you bubblehead. Only a major shift in
policies, like Sanders has proposed, will do that.
craigsummers -> photosymbiosis, June 8 2016, 8:12 p.m.
"……Bitter Anti-Americanism? Come on, don't you know that those who refuse to honestly
examine their own flaws will never be able to overcome them?….."
Of course, there is nothing wrong with self examination, but you can hardly ignore the obvious
loathing of Americans by Greenwald:
"……..Americans, being Americans, will almost certainly overstate its world significance and
wallow in excessive self-congratulations….."
At the Guardian, he wrote an article criticizing "American exceptionalism". This is just
follow-up work by Greenwald ("Americans, being American").
"……There is nothing quite as ridiculous as some jackass like Donald Rumsfeld running around,
high on his own PR, believing he's a genius when in reality he's a clueless idiot….."
You are kidding I hope. Rumsfeldt came up with one of my favorite sayings of all time:
"……..There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown
unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know……"
Rumsfeld is no idiot, photo. Jesus.
"……Do you really believe that kind of empty-headed 'patriotism' is anything other than a
justification for continuation of the disastrous status quo?……"
Status quo in what areas? All areas? Economy? Foreign policy? This all depends on what you
believe America's place in the world is today. For example, Hillary might give us more "status
quo" in the Middle East than Obama did to counter Russia, Syria and Iran. Just depends on what
you believe is the right course of action to achieve stability and peace in the world.
"…….Yes, America used to be the world leader in manufacturing; but the idiots in Washington
rigged trade deals that let corporations ship almost everything except weapons manufacturing
abroad; now we're way behind other countries in manufacturing……"
The trade deals were good for lifting millions of people in the developing world out of
poverty. Additionally, US corporations had to compete on a global level which was nearly
impossible with the cheap labor and lax environmental and safety standards overseas. Our high
standard of living versus the low standard of living in the third world could not be
maintained in my opinion. Those trade deals will never be reversed.
"……..Empty-headed cheerleading won't change those realities, you bubblehead. Only a major
shift in policies, like Sanders has proposed, will do that……"
I don't think I said anything about cheerleading in my post. I just took exception to
Greenwald's bitter remarks about Americans. He has a history of such mindless criticism of the
American population.
Thanks photo
barabbas -> craigsummers, June 8 2016, 9:28 p.m.
didnt anyone warn you about getting high on your own supply?
photosymbiosis -> craigsummers, June 8 2016, 9:44 p.m.
Here craig, I found something just for you – it's a test devised by U.S. scientists during
World War II, a personality test aimed at indentifying authoritarian fascist tendencies:
"As the war raged overseas, Daniel Levinson, Nevitt Sanford, and Else Frenkel-Brunswik decided
to use the greatest power at their disposal – scientific rationality – to stop fascism from
ever rising again. They did it by inventing a personality test eventually named the F-scale,
which they believed could identify potential authoritarians. This wasn't some plot to weed out
bad guys. The researchers wanted to understand why some people are seduced by political
figures like Adolf Hitler, and they had a very idealistic plan to improve education so that
young people would become more skeptical of Hitler's us-or-them politics."
Time for a little self-examination . . .?
Particularly for someone who believes that "Rumsfeld is no idiot."
dahoit, June 8 2016, 12:48 p.m.
If this pos had done one heroic thing in the last 20 years in the corridors of power, one
might have a little sympathy for her, but on every goddamn occasion she has only capitulated
to Americas enemies and fomented disaster after disaster with wrongheaded decisions, lies and
obfuscation of reality.
Not once has she tried any attempt at bucking convention and the absolute terrible legacy
of neolibconism.
Mona, June 8 2016, 10:45 a.m.
Candace beclowns herself:
You know, I thought Sanders candidacy was supposed to encourage a discussion.
No. The Sanders campaign was, among other things, meant to put him in the Oval Office.
I thought that discussion was going to be arguing the merits of his ideas, what he stands for.
I waited and I waited and I waited but it seems the only discussion that his candidacy has
been allowed to encourage is hate for Hillary.
Sure you did, sweetheart. You "waited" your little heart out.
I detest Hillary Clinton, and did so well before I even knew more than that Bernie Sanders
was this Independent senator from Vermont. What his campaign did do, so fantastically, is
highlight for many (especially youngs) all the justified reasons to renounce almost everything
Hillary Clinton stands for as well as the neoliberal, Democratic Party establishment she
helped bring about and which she now leads.
Now, here is where our gal Candace especially amuses:
As far as the article here goes, we shall see if there is any incentive to actually
change things after the election or if it is only brought up to claim that Hillary is an
illegitimate choice.
Candace, Candace, Candace. Glenn Greenwlad has been justly pointing out the vile actions
and words of Hillary Clinton for many years now. Well, well before this campaign season. I
promise you, if there's one thing a President Hillary will do, it is to provide heaping mounds
of excellent fodder for his (properly) scathing critiques of this vile woman.
So if you think her being the nominee is going to "change things" in terms of Greenwald
becoming all deferential and respectful toward Hillary fucking Clinton, well, I think you get
the message now, right?
Christie Mayo, June 8 2016, 10:36 a.m.
The Empire strikes back
"it should not be forgotten that a Clinton presidency, in addition to being historic in one
respect, would also be a continuation-as opposed to a ground-breaking shift-of a march down
the path of neoliberal folly bought and paid for by Wall Street and the military-industrial
complex."
Oooh… the defender of lobbyists is now weaving a fantasy tale of projection.
Sorry, but it is Hillary and her defenders doing all the things you are projecting onto the
left.
No passion.
No facts.
No integrity.
No intelligence.
Sweeping the issues under the rug…
… and all from right wing paid "perception management loonies" who try to present themselves
as taking the high road, while denigrating and insulting those they claim they want to engage.
The tactic is well known, and you're not very good at it.
24b4Jeff -> exiled off mainstreet, June 8 2016, 8:45 a.m.
Hegel said that the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
In 1968 the democrat party turned against the progressives who wanted to end the war, even to
the extent of setting the police on peaceful demonstrators in Chicago (the so-called Police
Riot). As a result those of us who supported the progressive cause withheld our votes from
Hubert Humpfrey, the one-time liberal who refused to repudiate Johnson's war policies.
We as citizens need to learn that a vote for Hillary, cast solely to prevent Trump from
becoming president, is not worth the effort, because despite her many pronouncements to the
contrary she is no better. Just as voting against a woman on account of her gender is a sexist
act, so is voting for one on account of her gender. Besides, if you want to vote for a woman,
there's one running: Jill Stein, of the Greens. While Jill admittedly lacks the credentials
endowed by the political establishment, she does posses one attribute lacking in the two Party
candidates: a soul.
Many of Clinton's leading critics, among them two dozen former CIA agents, have presented a myth
that Hillary's main offence is her 'carelessness in handling official documents and her deliberate
deceptions and lies to the government.
These critics have trivialized, personalized and moralized
what is really deliberate, highly politicized state behavior. Mme. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
was not 'careless in managing an insecure mail server'. If Clinton was engaged in political liaison
with foreign officials she deliberately used a private email server to avoid political detection
by security elements within the US government. She lied to the US government on the use and destruction
of official state documents because the documents were political exchanges between a traitor and
its host
The 22 top secret reports on 'Special Access Programs' which Clinton handled via her private computer
provided foreign governments with the names and dates of US operatives and proxies; allowed for counterresponses
inflicting losses of billions of dollars in program damages and possibly lost lives.
The Inspector General Report (IGP) deals only with the surface misdeeds. The Federal Bureau of
Investigations (FBI) has gone a step further in identifying the political linkages, but faces enormous
obstacles from Hilary's domestic allies in pursuing a criminal investigation. The FBI, whose director
is a political appointee, has suffered a series of defeats in its attempts to investigate and prosecute
spying to Israel, including the AIPAC espionage case of Rosen and Weismann and in their long held
opposition to the release of the notorious US-Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard. The power of the Zionists
within the government halted their investigation of a dozen Israeli spies captured in the US right
after the attacks of September 11,
2001.
Clinton's choice of conducting secret private communications, despite several years of State Department
warnings to abide by their strict security regulations, is an indication of her Zionist power base,
and not a mere reflection of her personal hubris or individual arrogance.
Clinton has circulated more vital top-secret documents and classified material than Jonathan Pollard.
"... While many neocons and fellow travelers may be anxious to demonstrate their power and influence, it would seem, based on Trump's
electoral performance, that the Republican Party electorate is not very interested in what they have to offer. ..."
"... The neocons best bet to have a seat at the table in 2017 is Hillary Clinton. ..."
2016It is now official: the neoconservatives are united against Donald Trump. A new open letter organized by Project for the New
American Century (PNAC) co-founder Eliot Cohen states the signatories
oppose
a Trump presidency and have committed to "working energetically" to see that he is not elected.
PNAC was, notoriously, the neoconservative
group that called for increased US imperialism in the Middle East, especially Iraq. Many of those who signed PNAC's statement of
principles and various letters went on to serve in the Bush Administration.
The letter comes after Trump's ferocious attacks on neocon policies and narratives, such as the Iraq War and the idea
that President George W. Bush kept the country safe despite being in office on 9/11. Those attacks were most pronounced just prior
to the South Carolina primary when former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the Bush Administration was the focus of Trump's fire.
Trumps' foreign policy has long been in the neocon cross-hairs. It already appeared as though
many of the neocons were
against Trump; now it's impossible to deny.
Journalist Josh Rogin, after talking to Trump advisors,
lamented that "The practical
application of that doctrine plays out in several ways. Trump's narrow definition of 'national interest' does not include things
like democracy promotion, humanitarian intervention, the responsibility to protect people from atrocities or the advocacy of human
rights abroad. Trump believes that economic engagement will lead to political opening in the long run. He doesn't think the U.S.
government should spend blood or treasure on trying to change other countries' systems."
The other co-founder of PNAC, Robert Kagan,
went even further, comparing Trump to a monster and
claiming that, "For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The
party cannot be saved, but the country still can be."
Military historian Max Boot, also a signatory to the letter, has denounced Trump,
saying, "A Trump presidency threatens
the post-World War II liberal international order that American presidents of both parties have so laboriously built up." He claimed
that "A Trump presidency would represent the death knell of America as a great power."
Many of those who signed the latest letter were also among those that signed PNAC communications including; Kagan, Boot, Cohen,
Robert Zoellick, Daniel Blumenthal, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Thomas Donnelly, Aaron Friedberg, Randy Scheunemann, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary
Schmitt, and Dov Zakheim.
While many neocons and fellow travelers may be anxious to demonstrate their power and influence, it would seem, based on Trump's
electoral performance, that the Republican Party electorate is not very interested in what they have to offer.
The neocons best bet to have a seat at the table in 2017
is Hillary Clinton.
"... Other neoconservatives say Trump's foreign policy stances, such as his opposition to the Iraq war and the U.S. intervention in Libya, are inconsistent and represent "completely mindless" boasting. "It's not, 'Oh I really feel that the neoconservatism has come to a bad end and we need to hearken back to the realism of the Nixon administration,' " said Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute. ..."
"... Despite the opposition he faces in some corners of the GOP, polls indicate that Trump's message is in line with the public mood. ..."
"... Experts say the isolationist sentiment is prevalent in the Democratic Party as well. ..."
"... "The [Bernie] Sanders supporters charge Hillary Clinton Hillary with never seeing a quagmire she did not wish to enter, and basically with not just complicity, but a leading role in contriving some of the worst disasters of American foreign policy in this century," said Amb. Chas Freeman, a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, and a former Nixon and George H.W. Bush official. ..."
"... Some experts say neoconservatives are fighting hard because they have the most to lose. "They're losing influence inside the foreign policy establishment in general, and they have definitely lost influence inside the Republican party, which was their home base," Mearsheimer said. ..."
"... Some neoconservatives are even throwing in their lot with likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, most prominently Kagan and Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. ..."
"... Julian Hattem contributed to this story. ..."
The rise of
Donald Trump
is threatening the power of neoconservatives, who find themselves at risk of being marginalized
in the Republican Party. Neoconservatism was at its height during the presidency of George W. Bush, helping to shape
the rationale for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But now the ideology is under attack, with Trump systematically rejecting each of its core
principles. Whereas neoconservatism advocates spreading American ideals through the use of military force,
Trump has made the case for nationalism and a smaller U.S. military footprint. In what Trump calls an "America First" approach, he proposes rejecting alliances that don't
work, trade deals that don't deliver, and military interventionism that costs too much. He has said he would get along with Russian President Vladimir Putin and sit down with North
Korean dictator Kim Jong Un - a throwback to the "realist" foreign policy of President Nixon.
As if to underscore that point, the presumptive GOP nominee met with Nixon's Secretary of
State and National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger, earlier this week, and delivered his first
major foreign policy speech at an event last month hosted by the Center for National Interest,
which Nixon founded.
Leading neoconservative figures like Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan have assailed Trump's
foreign policy views. Kagan even called Trump a "fascist" in a recent Washington Post
op-ed. "This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have
been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a
textbook egomaniac 'tapping into' popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire
national political party - out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear -
falling into line behind him," wrote Kagan, who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Other neoconservatives say Trump's foreign policy stances, such as his opposition to the Iraq
war and the U.S. intervention in Libya, are inconsistent and represent "completely mindless"
boasting. "It's not, 'Oh I really feel that the neoconservatism has come to a bad end and we need to
hearken back to the realism of the Nixon administration,' " said Danielle Pletka, senior vice
president for foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute.
... ... ...
"[Neoconservatives] are concerned for good reason," said O'Hanlon, a Democratic defense hawk
"These people don't think that Trump is prepared intellectually to be president." "It's not just that their stance of foreign policy would be losing .. .all foreign policy
schools would be losing influence under Trump with very unpredictable consequences," he added.
Despite the opposition he faces in some corners of the GOP, polls indicate that Trump's
message is in line with the public mood. A
recent Pew poll found that nearly six in 10 Americans said the U.S. should "deal with its own
problems and let other countries deal with their own problems as best they can," a more
isolationist approach at odds with neoconservative thought.
John Mearsheimer, a preeminent scholar in realist theory, says there's a parallel in history
to the way America turned inward after the Vietnam War. "There's no question that Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger went a considerable ways to pursue
a less ambitious foreign policy, and they talked about allies doing more to help themselves, and
they began to pursue detente with the Soviet Union." "And this was all a reaction to Vietnam. Vietnam of course was a colossal failure. The body
politic here in the United States was deeply disenchanted with American foreign policy,
especially in its most ambitious forms and the end result is we ended up backing off for awhile,"
he said. "We have a similar situation here."
Experts say the isolationist sentiment is prevalent in the Democratic Party as well.
"The [Bernie] Sanders supporters charge
Hillary ClintonHillary with
never seeing a quagmire she did not wish to enter, and basically with not just complicity, but a
leading role in contriving some of the worst disasters of American foreign policy in this
century," said Amb. Chas Freeman, a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute for
International and Public Affairs, and a former Nixon and George H.W. Bush official.
"This is the principle reason that Hillary Clinton is having so much trouble putting
Bernie Sanders away," said Mearsheimer, who supports the Vermont senator. "Sanders is
capitalizing on all that disenchantment in the public, and Hillary Clinton represents the old
order."
But the ideological battle over foreign policy is playing out more forcefully in the GOP. While some members of the Republican foreign policy establishment are coming to terms with
Trump becoming their party's nominee, including lawmakers like Sens.
John McCain (R-Ariz.) and
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), neoconservatives remain staunch holdouts.
Some experts say neoconservatives are fighting hard because they have the most to
lose. "They're losing influence inside the foreign policy establishment in general, and they have
definitely lost influence inside the Republican party, which was their home base," Mearsheimer
said.
Some neoconservatives are even throwing in their lot with likely Democratic nominee
Hillary Clinton, most
prominently Kagan and Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
With Republican foreign policy figures split, influential Republican donors such as
Charles and David Koch are trying to shape the GOP's new direction.
The Charles Koch Institute recently launched a daylong conference that featured Mearsheimer
and another prominent realist Stephen Walt that questioned U.S. foreign policy since the end of
the Cold War.
"This has meant the frequent use of force, a military budget the size of the next seven to
eight countries combined, and an active policy of spreading American power and values," said
William Ruger, vice president of research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute.
"After a quarter century of this approach, it's time to ask: Has our foreign policy been
working? Is it making America safe? Should we continue on this path? And if not, what do
alternative approaches look like?"
"... Theodore Roosevelt, whom Max and his neocon buddies love, issued a whopping 1,006 executive orders (when his immediate predecessors had issued a handful) and treated Congress contemptuously. He said that he, after all, was the unique representative of the American people, so it was his job to implement their will, regardless of what any other body had to say about it. ..."
"... We can only imagine their response if Trump had said such a thing. In fact, Trump says that executive orders are terrible and that the president should govern by consensus. ..."
"... Trump is boorish. Oh, sure. Too bad we can't have more refined candidates like John McCain, who sing, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." ..."
"... Trump betrays conservative values. This supposedly disqualifies him. To the contrary, hasn't it been the role of the GOP nominee to betray conservative values? In 1996, Bill Kristol - who's just so overcome with concern about the betrayal of conservative values, remember - enthusiastically endorsed Colin Powell for president. ..."
"... And by the way, just what are these "conservative values"? The leftist project of bringing democracy to faraway lands - the exact opposite of what Edmund Burke (who knew a little something about conservatism) would have recommended? Creating Medicare Part D? No Child Left Behind? Auto bailouts? Bank bailouts? Keynesian stimulus? ..."
"... Had George W. Bush been eligible for a third term, would the same people who demand Trump debase himself in sackcloth and ashes for his betrayals of conservatism have done anything remotely similar to Bush? ..."
"... The alleged reasons for disliking Trump do not match the neocons' actions. Therefore, they are not the real reasons. ..."
"... They don't trust him on foreign policy. He makes fun of their interventions and says the world would be much better off, and we'd be a lot richer if none of it had been done. ..."
"... They can't control him. He isn't owned by anyone. He can't be bought. The neocons, along with the GOP establishment they pretend to oppose, are control freaks. They can't deal with someone who may be independent of them. ..."
"... If you want to oppose Trump, knock yourself out. But at least, be honest about it. The neocons have repeatedly endorsed candidates whose deviations from orthodoxy are much more severe than Trump's. So they're lying. ..."
Now before I tell you how I figured that out - apart from the fact that their
lips are moving - I need to begin by parrying any manifestations of Trump
Derangement Syndrome.
I do not support or endorse Donald Trump, who is not a libertarian and who
appears to have no clear philosophy of any kind. He would no doubt do countless
things that I would deplore.
Just like all the other candidates, in other words.
My point is not to cheer for him. My point is that the neocons' stated reasons
for opposing him so hysterically don't add up.
(1) Max Boot worries that Trump will rule like a "strongman." Right - quite
unlike the restrained, humble executors of the law whom Max has endorsed over the
years. In fact, Max has spent his career calling for a strong executive. Now he's
worried about a "strongman." I'd say that horse has already left the stable, Max.
You might want to look in the mirror to figure out how that happened.
Theodore Roosevelt, whom Max and his neocon buddies love, issued a whopping
1,006 executive orders (when his immediate predecessors had issued a handful) and
treated Congress contemptuously. He said that he, after all, was the unique
representative of the American people, so it was his job to implement their will,
regardless of what any other body had to say about it.
We can only imagine their response if Trump had said such a thing. In fact,
Trump says that executive orders are terrible and that the president should govern
by consensus.
Now maybe he doesn't mean that, and maybe he'd use executive orders
anyway. But what if he'd said what their hero Teddy said?
Remember the last time Max, or any neocon, or anyone in the GOP establishment,
warned us that Teddy wasn't a good role model?
Me neither.
(2) Trump is boorish. Oh, sure. Too bad we can't have more refined
candidates like John McCain, who sing, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
(3) Trump betrays conservative values. This supposedly disqualifies him. To
the contrary, hasn't it been the role of the GOP nominee to betray conservative
values? In 1996, Bill Kristol - who's just so overcome with concern about the
betrayal of conservative values, remember - enthusiastically endorsed Colin Powell
for president.
(4) And by the way, just what are these "conservative values"? The leftist
project of bringing democracy to faraway lands - the exact opposite of what Edmund
Burke (who knew a little something about conservatism) would have recommended?
Creating Medicare Part D? No Child Left Behind? Auto bailouts? Bank bailouts?
Keynesian stimulus?
Had George W. Bush been eligible for a third term, would the same people
who demand Trump debase himself in sackcloth and ashes for his betrayals of
conservatism have done anything remotely similar to Bush?
Sure, we'd get the wringing of hands and the occasional anguished newspaper
column, but then we'd get the stern lecture that if we don't vote for Bush,
civilization comes to an end.
See what I mean? Something is fishy here. The alleged reasons for disliking
Trump do not match the neocons' actions. Therefore, they are not the real reasons.
Know what I think the real reasons are?
(a) They don't trust him on foreign policy. He makes fun of their
interventions and says the world would be much better off, and we'd be a lot
richer if none of it had been done.
Now it's true, here as elsewhere, that Trump is not consistent. He's now
calling for ground troops against ISIS, for instance. But his primary message is:
we have too many problems at home to be traipsing around the world destroying
countries. This is not music to a neocon ear.
(b) They can't control him. He isn't owned by anyone. He can't be bought.
The neocons, along with the GOP establishment they pretend to oppose, are control
freaks. They can't deal with someone who may be independent of them.
If you want to oppose Trump, knock yourself out. But at least, be honest
about it. The neocons have repeatedly endorsed candidates whose deviations from
orthodoxy are much more severe than Trump's. So they're lying.
As usual.
Tom Woods, Jr. [send him mail; visit his website], hosts the Tom Woods Show, a libertarian
podcast, Monday through Friday, and co-hosts Contra Krugman every week. He is the New York Times
bestselling author of 12 books, a course creator for the Ron Paul homeschool curriculum, and
founder of Liberty Classroom, a libertarian education site for adult enrichment.
"... The fact however remains that Trump has challenged the ideological foundations upon which US foreign policy is built whilst offering an alternative that has elicited a powerful response from the US public. ..."
"... The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik. ..."
Donald Trump's recent speech on foreign policy
has been roundly condemned by the US foreign establishment.
It has also been ridiculed as confusing and contradictory.
This is a
misrepresentation. Whilst Trump did not provide a detailed programme - to have done so in the
middle of
an election would have been unwise - his underlying message is clear enough.
Instead of a foreign policy based on an ideology centered on US world hegemony, "exceptionalism"
and "democracy promotion" Trump promises a foreign policy straightforwardly based on the pursuit
of US national interests.
To understand what that would mean in practice consider the contrast between what the US public
wants and what the US has actually done under successive US administrations.
Whereas the US public since 9/11 has been overwhelmingly focused on jihadi terrorism as the greatest
threat to the US, the US foreign policy establishment is only minimally interested in that question.
Its priority is to secure US world hegemony by reshaping the world geopolitical map.
First and foremost that has meant confronting the two great powers -
Russia and China - the US sees as the primary obstacle to its hegemony. It has also meant
a series of geopolitical adventures in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, a protracted
confrontation with Iran, and head on collisions with Russia and China in Ukraine and the South China
Sea. The US public for its part has shown little or no enthusiasm for any of these projects. By contrast
the US foreign policy establishment has show little enthusiasm for confronting the Islamic State/Daesh.
The military campaign it is purporting to wage against the Islamic State is essentially a "going
through the motions" public relations exercise. The real fight against the Islamic State is being
fought by Iran and Russia. Elsewhere - in Chechnya, Libya and Syria - the US has willingly collaborated
with jihadi terrorists to achieve its geopolitical goals.
Trump threatens to turn all this on its head. In place of confrontation with Russia and China
he says he wants to cut deals with them calculating - rightly - that they are no threat to the US.
In place of collaboration with jihadi terrorism he promises a single-minded focus on its destruction.
Other pillars of current US foreign policy are also challenged.
Whereas the ideologues
currently in charge of US foreign policy treat US allies as ideological soulmates in a quest to spread
"Western values" (ie. US hegemony), Trump sees the US's relationship with its allies as transactional:
the US will help them if they help themselves, with no sense of this being part of some ideological
common cause.
Having dumped the ideology and the foreign policy that goes with it Trump,
promises to focus on sorting out the US's internal problems, which is where the US public's priorities
also lie. Trump expresses himself in often crude language eg. threatening to "carpet
bomb" the Islamic State. He is not coherent. He continues to talk of Iran as an enemy - ignoring the fact that it is as
much a potential partner of the US as Russia and China are. Some of the things Trump says - for example his talk of embracing torture
- are frankly disturbing. It remains to be seen whether a President
Trump if elected would be either willing or able - as he promises - to change the entire foreign
policy direction of the US.
The fact however remains that Trump has challenged the ideological foundations upon which US foreign
policy is built whilst offering an alternative that has elicited a powerful response from the US
public.
That is why the US political establishment is so alarmed by him.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect
the official position of Sputnik.
Trump seems less willing than his opponent to engage in adventurous missions abroad under
neoconservative "world domination" banner
Notable quotes:
"... As Donald Trump is splitting off blue-collar Democrats on issues like America's broken borders and Bill Clinton's trade debacles like NAFTA, Hillary Clinton is trying to peel off independents and Republicans by painting Trump as "temperamentally unfit" to be commander in chief. ..."
"... In portraying Trump as an intolerable alternative, Clinton will find echoes in the GOP establishment and among the Kristol-Kagan neocons, many of whom have already signed an open letter rejecting Trump. ..."
"Clinton to Paint Trump as a Risk to World Order." Thus did page one of Thursday's New
York Times tee up Hillary Clinton's big San Diego speech on foreign policy.
Inside the Times, the headline was edited to underline the point: "Clinton to Portray Trump as
Risk to the World." The Times promoted the speech as "scorching," a "sweeping and fearsome
portrayal of Mr. Trump, one that the Clinton campaign will deliver like a drumbeat to voters in
the coming months."
What is happening here?
As Donald Trump is splitting off blue-collar Democrats on issues like America's broken
borders and Bill Clinton's trade debacles like NAFTA, Hillary Clinton is trying to peel off
independents and Republicans by painting Trump as "temperamentally unfit" to be commander in
chief.
Clinton contends that a Trump presidency would be a national embarrassment, that his ideas are
outside the bipartisan mainstream of U.S. foreign policy, and that he is as contemptuous of our
democratic allies as he is solicitous of our antidemocratic adversaries.
In portraying Trump as an intolerable alternative, Clinton will find echoes in the GOP
establishment and among the Kristol-Kagan neocons, many of whom have already signed an open
letter rejecting Trump.
William Kristol has recruited one David French to run on a National Review-Weekly Standard line
to siphon off just enough votes from the GOP nominee to tip a couple of swing states to Clinton.
Robert Kagan contributed an op-ed to a welcoming Washington Post saying the Trump campaign is
"how fascism comes to America."
Yet, if Clinton means to engage on foreign policy, this is not a battle Trump should avoid.
For the lady has an abysmal record on foreign policy and a report card replete with failures. As
senator, Clinton voted to authorize President Bush to attack and invade a nation, Iraq, that had
not attacked us and did not want war with us. Clinton calls it her biggest mistake, another
way of saying that the most important vote she ever cast proved disastrous for her country,
costing 4,500 U.S. dead and a trillion dollars.
That invasion was the worst blunder in U.S. history and a contributing factor to the deepening
disaster of the Middle East, from which, it appears, we will not soon be able to extricate
ourselves.
As secretary of state, Clinton supported the unprovoked U.S.-NATO attack on Libya and joked of
the lynching of Moammar Gadhafi, "We came. We saw. He died." Yet, even Barack Obama now agrees
the Libyan war was started without advance planning for what would happen when Gadhafi fell. And
that lack of planning, that failure in which Clinton was directly involved, Obama now calls the
worst mistake of his presidency.
Is Clinton's role in pushing for two wars, both of which resulted in disasters for her country
and the entire Middle East, something to commend her for the presidency of the United States? Is
the slogan to be, "Let Hillary clean up the mess she helped to make?"
Whether or not Clinton was complicit in the debacle in Benghazi, can anyone defend her
deceiving the families of the fallen by talking about finding the evildoer who supposedly made
the videotape that caused it all? Even then, she knew better. How many other secretaries of state
have been condemned by their own inspector general for violating the rules for handling state
secrets, for deceiving investigators, and for engaging, along with that cabal she brought into
her secretary's office, in a systematic stonewall to keep the department from learning the truth?
Where in all of this is there the slightest qualification, other than a honed instinct for
political survival, for Clinton to lead America out of the morass into which she, and the failed
foreign policy elite nesting around her, plunged the United States?
If Trump will stay true to his message, he can win the foreign policy debate, and the election,
because what he is arguing for is what Americans want.
They do not want any more Middle East wars. They do not want to fight Russians in the Baltic or
Ukraine, or the Chinese over some rocks in the South China Sea.
They understand that, as Truman had to deal with Stalin, and Ike with Khrushchev, and Nixon with
Brezhnev, and Reagan with Gorbachev, a U.S. president should sit down with a Vladimir Putin to
avoid a clash neither country wants, and from which neither country would benefit.
The coming Clinton-neocon nuptials have long been predicted in this space. They have so much in
common. They belong with each other.
But this country will not survive as the last superpower if we do not shed this self-anointed
role as the "indispensable nation" that makes and enforces the rules for the "rules-based world
order," and that acts as first responder in every major firefight on earth. What Trump has
hit upon, what the country wants, is a foreign policy designed to protect the vital interests of
the United States, and a president who will - ever and always - put America first.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon
Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority." To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read
features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com.
This is one of the few articles when you can see anger at neocons from rank-and-file
republicans. Especially in comments.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump's steadfast support from paleoconservative icon and Kristol arch-nemesis Pat Buchanan clearly terrified the neoconservative wing of the party, which still remembers how Buchanan drummed up three million votes against George Bush in the 1992 Republican primary by blasting globalist trade policy. ..."
"... The people are speaking and Hillary will not win. Every single tactic employed to derail Trump has backfired and only made him more popular. ..."
"... The Neo-Cons like Kristol are addicted to power and donor skims. He is why we are now on the verge of rebellion. Vote Trump. ..."
"... CIA Operation Mockingbird....to infiltrate and control all news reporting, see.... "New Think Progress and the Ozzard of Wiz".... Multilevel Information Racketeering.... ..."
"... The establishment media is showing their RINO-ness. They are being exposed in the light. ..."
"... The National Review and Weekly Standard have become bird-cage liner as a result of Messrs. Kristol, Wills, etc. ..."
"... Bill Kristol ... GO AWAY ... Republicans have REJECTED you ... ..."
"... "Let me hasten to admit: I underestimated your skills as a demagogue and the credulity of some of the American public." Let me translate: "Hey, America, you're too stupid to vote. I'm an elite and know better than you!" ..."
"... Donald --- deny his access and take his room card. I imagine he'll be more pissed about that then selling out. Fat slob. He reminds me of the corrupt Monks under the Medici, stuffing gold under their tunics while the poor died in the streets. ..."
"... Latter Day Republicans.. LOL ..."
"... fine use of words... as in latter day saints, Glenn Beck, Romney etc. ..."
"... Neocons have always been Trotskyites and are conservative in name only. It is because of this that I believe that we the people should hold state conventions to enact several amendments to curtail the donor class, removing of political parties, enacting Vigilance Committees, and enforcing Article I Section XI Clause VIII of the Constitution of the United States. ..."
"... Campaign donations and raising money for PACs is unconstitutional and is treason as defined by the Constitution. An emolument is a fee or payment for services rendered. By removing the donor class and the lobbyists we can return the government back to the people. ..."
"... One can only conclude that the neocons want to splinter the vote, and they want the Democrats to win. No other conclusion seems possible. This is a betrayal that should be taken quite seriously. ..."
Kristol recently met with #NeverTrump champion
Mitt Romney to discuss a third-party campaign, but Kristol has hinted that Romney will not be
the independent "White Knight." Kristol
tweeted Saturday,
"If Mitt decides he can't, someone will step forward to run" then quoted William Gladstone to declare,
"The resources of civilization are not yet exhausted."
This is not the first time Trump and Kristol
have sparred on Twitter. When Trump asked last week why networks continue to employ Kristol's punditry
services, Kristol admitted that he had been wrong to have underestimated Trump's political appeal:
Kristol's neoconservative inner circle has reason to fear the threat posed by a populist outsider,
especially one who could gain anti-Establishment traction by attacking the legacy of the Kristol-supported
Iraq War. Kristol's "Weekly Standard" magazine and his son-in-law Matt Continetti's blog "Free Beacon"
hammered Trump throughout the Republican primaries to little avail. The "Beacon" blog's writers and
editors flogged the "small hands" insult that infamously made it into Marco Rubio's campaign stump
speech in Rubio's desperate final days.
Trump's
steadfast support from paleoconservative icon and Kristol arch-nemesis Pat Buchanan clearly terrified
the neoconservative wing of the party, which still remembers how Buchanan drummed up three million
votes against George Bush in the 1992 Republican primary by blasting globalist trade policy.
Tryle N Error
It's time for an intervention. Get him into rehab and off the Kristol Meth, or whatever
that deluded lunatic is injecting.
dtom2 > Tryle N Error
Kristol has become unhinged faced with the reality that he has lost what little influence
he had on the republic electorate. His all out promotion of Jeb Bush failed and this is
nothing more than sour grapes. So, instead of conceding defeat, he launches all out war on our
nominee. My question is this... if he wants Hillary instead of Trump, which will be the
eventual outcome if he follows through with his plan, why not just come out of the closet and
support her. La Raza and the Chamber of Commerce both get their wish, more hordes of criminal
illegals to undermine American workers, and an increased democrat parasitic voter
base...see...so much simpler than a third candidate launch...same outcome. America slides
closer to the third world cesspool of their dreams. Trump 2016!
Ann > dtom2
The people are speaking and Hillary will not win. Every single tactic employed to
derail Trump has backfired and only made him more popular.
bucketnutz > Tryle N Error
The Neo-Cons like Kristol are addicted to power and donor skims. He is why we are now
on the verge of rebellion. Vote Trump.
FauxScienceSlayer
CIA Operation Mockingbird....to infiltrate and control all news reporting, see.... "New
Think Progress and the Ozzard of Wiz".... Multilevel Information Racketeering....
Be Still
The establishment media is showing their RINO-ness. They are being exposed in the
light.
Bill the Cat > Robert Tulloch
The National Review and Weekly Standard have become bird-cage liner as a result of
Messrs. Kristol, Wills, etc. Their next stop is the HuffPo and motherjones.
Patriot
Kristol needs to be brought down from his perch. He thinks he is smarter than the voters.
If he pushes this nonsense and the GOP does not censor him, it will be the time for the
millions of sane Americans to join the GOP and then destroy it from within. It is time for
average Americans to control their destiny as opposed to the elites.
darwin
Kristol is an anti-American traitor. He's actively engaged in fighting the will of the
people to keep himself and the people he works for in power and wealth.
Archimedes
Bill Kristol is destroying the Republican party ... he is a globalist who believes in
spending trillions while deploying AMERICANs in the Middle East ... he believes in open
borders ... he believes in unfettered "free trade" ...
Bill Kristol ... GO AWAY ... Republicans have REJECTED you ...
#NeverHillary
ljm4
Billy, work on your Cruise ship offerings. As you are failing in journalism are you also
trying to take down the GOP party yourself?
Doctor Evil
"Let me hasten to admit: I underestimated your skills as a demagogue and the credulity
of some of the American public." Let me translate: "Hey, America, you're too stupid to vote.
I'm an elite and know better than you!"
Lee Ashton > Doctor Evil
On the other hand...
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -
George Carlin US comedian and actor (1937 - 2008)
Douglas Rowland > Lee Ashton
Those would be the ones voting for Hillary.
WaylonII
Splitting the Republican vote would be a sure way to get Hillary elected. What is wrong with these people?
Avatar
timdb > WaylonII
Maybe Kristol expects President Hillary Clinton will appoint him as ambassador to Israel.
Lee Ashton > TheLastPlainsman
Neocon - deficit spending via the warfare state
Leftist - deficit spending via the welfare state.
The right and left wings of the same vulture.
MrnPol725
... Donald --- deny his access and take his room card. I imagine he'll be more pissed about that then selling out. Fat slob. He reminds me of the corrupt Monks under the Medici, stuffing gold under their tunics while the poor died in the streets.
SPQR_US
Another turd exposed...Kristol Meth...time to arrest and jail the neocons...
Pitbulls LiL Brother
Kristol has been wrong so many times for so many years how does he get a voice in the
process?
Amberteka > Pitbulls LiL Brother
MONEY. His relatives Own USA Media.
Roadchaser
Latter Day Republicans.. LOL
James > Roadchaser
fine use of words... as in latter day saints, Glenn Beck, Romney etc.
gladzkravtz
The founding publisher of the Weekly Standard is News Corp!! Just found it on wiki! I
didn't know that and now it makes sense that Kristol gets to mug on FNC so much. I have stock
in News Corp, bought it back long before there was a Megyn Kelly, but now it's time to go
ahead, sell and take the loss.
Those creeps.
PreacherPatriot1776
Neocons have always been Trotskyites and are conservative in name only. It is because
of this that I believe that we the people should hold state conventions to enact several
amendments to curtail the donor class, removing of political parties, enacting Vigilance
Committees, and enforcing Article I Section XI Clause VIII of the Constitution of the United
States.
That clause states, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person
holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress,
accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King,
Prince, or foreign State."
Campaign donations and raising money for PACs is unconstitutional and is treason as
defined by the Constitution. An emolument is a fee or payment for services rendered. By
removing the donor class and the lobbyists we can return the government back to the people.
Since the government is not self-policing itself like it should then it's time for the Fourth
Branch of the government to step up and exercise their power to hold these individuals
accountable. A Vigilance Committee would be comprised of citizens of a single state and
oversee everything their elected/appointed representatives adhere to their oaths of office.
Failure to adhere to the oath would be an automatic charge of treason and a trial of said
individual for violating their oath. Once enough of these traitors are executed the rest of
them will behave and follow their oaths plus the Constitution of the United States.
Another amendment could be the requirement that every child must learn the Declaration of
Independence, Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, and their state
constitutions. This way we as a people can stop dangerous ideologies that are antithetical to
liberty, like Marxism and communism, can never be used in the United States.
jackschil
Its about time the real conservative Republicans took a stand. They could start by ignoring
the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party and start paying attention to the
Goldwater/Reagan wing. The Chamber of Commerce, the Wall Street Journal, Bill Kristol, Carl
Rove, George Will, and Charles Krauthammer do not represent conservative values, but pretend
establishment values. They would be better served joining with the Democrats. Trump has these
establishment jackals, along with the K Street lobbyists, scared to death. For the first time
since 1984, the people aren't stuck voting for a Republicrat candidate.
SpeedMaster
The Globalists have been exposed for what they really are. Thank You Mr. Trump.
Ohiolad
One can only conclude that the neocons want to splinter the vote, and they want the
Democrats to win. No other conclusion seems possible. This is a betrayal that should be taken
quite seriously.
Gene Schwimmer
If Kristol does, indeed, produce an independent candidate and if "President Hillary" is a
real problem for Trumpists, we of #NeverTrump invite them to abandon Trump and join us in
supporting the independent candidate. If you choose not to, blame yourselves if Trump loses. #NeverTrump
warned you well before you voted for Trump that we would never vote for him and it's still not
too late to nominate someone else at the convention. Not our problem if you thought you could
win without us and nominated Trump, anyway.
PrinceLH > Gene Schwimmer
Are you for real? Why would we turn our backs on the candidate that has garnered the most
votes, in Republican Primary history? You people don't get it! It's not the Republicans vs the
Democrats. It's the people vs the Establishment. We don't want any more of your ruling class
garbage. We don't want any more of stagnant wages and job loses to other countries, so you can
expand your Globalist agenda. You people need to be stopped. Bill Kristol, George Will, Glenn
Beck, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, George Soros, the Bush family, the Koch Brothers and
the list goes on, are our enemies.
You will be soundly defeated, this fall, and you can hand in your membership to the Human
Race, on the way out the door to your European Liberal Utopia.
Zolt
No more THIRD-WORLD IMMIGRATION
No more GLOBAL TRADE
No more ENDLESS WARS FOR ISRAEL AND THE NWO
God bless ASSAD, protector of Syrian Christians!
Get on board with the #PALEOCONS!
billsv
You just don't get it. Middle class jobs have been given to foreigners through H2B
programs, globalist policies, etc. why is this conservatism? Why do illegal aliens get more
benefits than US citizens? Is this conservatism? We just don't like Bill Kristol's view of
conservatism that de stories the Middle Class, let' s those in the bottom percentiles languish
and caves to the wishes of the Chamber of Commerce.
Please back off and give what many if
Americans want. We have suffered enough.
"... If anything, the whole plagiarism scandal reflects somewhat poorly on Michelle Obama. One reason Obama's words were able to play so well at the RNC was that in the lifted passages, Obama was speaking using the conservative language of "bootstrapping." Obama's sentence, that "the only limit" to one's achievements is the height of one's goal and the "willingness to work" toward it, is the Republican story about America. It's the story of personal responsibility, in which the U.S. is overflowing with opportunity, and anyone who fails to succeed in such a land of abundance must simply not be trying hard enough. ..."
"... People on the left are supposed to know that it is a cruel lie to tell people that all they need to do is work hard. There are plenty of people with dreams who work very hard indeed but get nothing, because the American economy is fundamentally skewed and unfair. This rhetoric, about "hard work" being the only thing needed for the pursuit of prosperity, is an insult to every tomato-picker and hotel cleaner in the country. It's a fact that those who work the hardest in this country, those come home from work exhausted and who break their backs to feed their families, are almost always rewarded the least. ..."
"... This is, of course, the myth of "meritocracy" that Thomas Frank has exposed with scalpel-like precision in his latest book Listen, Liberal . It's clear that the Democratic Party, at its core, believes with Michelle (and Barack) Obama the comfortable and self-serving lie that no individual has anyone to blame but herself if she fails to achieve high goals. She should just have reached higher; she should just have worked harder. ..."
"... It's not only a lie, it's a "cruel lie," as Nimni says. So why is she, Michelle Obama, telling it? Clearly it serves her interests, her husband's interests, her party's interests, to tell the "rich person's lie," that his or her achievement came from his or her own efforts. To call most people's success a product of luck (right color, right gender, right country, right neighborhood, right schools, right set of un-birth-damaged brain cells) or worse, inheritance (right parents), identifies the fundamental unfairness of our supposed "meritocratic" system of allocating wealth and undercuts the "goodness," if you look at it writ large, of predatory capitalism. By that measure, neither the very wealthy themselves (Charles Koch, Jamie Dimon) nor those who serve them (Barack Obama et al ) are "good" in any moral sense. ..."
Consider for a second the bare statement -
"the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness
to work for them" (Obama's version). Is this true? Is it true that if you dream big enough and work
hard enough, the "limit to the height of your achievements" disappears?
Obviously not. As a young high school graduate, working summers in a General Motors assembly plant
to earn college money, I saw hundreds of men and women, many the lowest of the low, the sweepers,
for example, whose lives mark "lie" to that statement. The next time you stay in a hotel, look at
the woman who cleans your room and ask if she's where she is because she won't work hard. Most people
like these are trapped, the way billions are trapped around the world, working in powerless service
to others for the scraps those others allow them?
Oren Nimni: Obama's statement "is an insult to every tomato-picker and hotel cleaner in the
country"
The fact that Michelle Obama's statement is blatantly false (and that a woman of color in the
United States said it) is revealing. Current Affairs writer Oren Nimni
on that (emphasis in original):
If anything, the whole plagiarism scandal reflects somewhat poorly on Michelle Obama. One
reason Obama's words were able to play so well at the RNC was that in the lifted passages, Obama
was speaking using the conservative language of "bootstrapping." Obama's sentence, that "the only
limit" to one's achievements is the height of one's goal and the "willingness to work" toward
it, is the Republican story about America. It's the story of personal responsibility,
in which the U.S. is overflowing with opportunity, and anyone who fails to succeed in such a land
of abundance must simply not be trying hard enough.
People on the left are supposed to know that it is a cruel lie to tell people that
all they need to do is work hard. There are plenty of people with dreams who work very hard
indeed but get nothing, because the American economy is fundamentally skewed and unfair. This
rhetoric, about "hard work" being the only thing needed for the pursuit of prosperity, is an insult
to every tomato-picker and hotel cleaner in the country. It's a fact that those who work the hardest
in this country, those come home from work exhausted and who break their backs to feed their families,
are almost always rewarded the least.
Far from embarrassing Melania Trump and the GOP, then, it should be deeply humiliating for
Democrats that their rhetoric is so bloodless and hollow that it can easily be spoken word-for-word
in front of a gang of crazed racists. Instead of asking "why is Melania Trump using Michelle Obama's
words?" we might think to ask "why is Michelle Obama using the right-wing rhetoric of self-reliance?"
This is, of course, the
myth of
"meritocracy" that Thomas Frank has exposed with scalpel-like precision in his latest book
Listen, Liberal. It's clear that the Democratic Party, at its core, believes with Michelle (and
Barack) Obama the comfortable and self-serving lie that no individual has anyone to blame but herself
if she fails to achieve high goals. She should just have reached higher; she should just have worked
harder.
It's not only a lie, it's a "cruel lie," as Nimni says. So why is she, Michelle Obama, telling
it? Clearly it serves her interests, her husband's interests, her party's interests, to tell the
"rich person's lie," that his or her achievement came from his or her own efforts. To call most people's
success a product of luck (right color, right gender, right country, right neighborhood, right schools,
right set of un-birth-damaged brain cells) or worse, inheritance (right parents), identifies the
fundamental unfairness of our supposed "meritocratic" system of allocating wealth and undercuts the
"goodness," if you look at it writ large, of predatory capitalism. By that measure, neither the very
wealthy themselves (Charles Koch, Jamie Dimon) nor those who serve them (Barack Obama et al)
are "good" in any moral sense.
(The idea of the supposed "goodness" of the successful capitalist, by the way, his supposed "greater
morality," goes all the way back to the 18th Century attempt of the wealthy to counter the 17th Century
bleakness of Protestant predestination. How could people, especially the very rich, know whether
they are among the "elect" or the damned?
God
gives them wealth as a sign of his plans for them, just as God gives them morally deficient poverty-wage
workers to take advantage of.)
Completely toothless, baseless article and very weak comments. Trump, at least in part, is paleoconservatives
and he signify change of the course: less interventionalist wars, less color revolutions, rejection
of Neoconservatism with some checks of dual citizenship holders in Washington like Kagan, less globalization,
more nationalism. Very few commenters mention Neoconservatism and globalization which is the key problem
that put Trump in the game.
Here are some realistic comments: "Do all the Trumplings really believe he will rethink or change
the NATO mafia, close down any of the 1,100 military bases and outposts 'Mericuh has all around the
world, restore the Glass-Seagull act, interfere with all the CIA middlings in the Ukraine, Latin 'Mericuh,
Turkey, Iran, ect., change or end NAFTA? lmao "
And " Trump's candidacy is about so much more than personality. Once the media are forced to
report Trump's positions, instead of his persona, even more Americans will see that Trump is the sole
Republican who rejects a "free trade" that gives away the keys to the store and opposed the ill-fated
Iraq war. He is the type of candidate Americans always wanted but the party establishments are too afraid
to provide."
Notable quotes:
"... What is amusing that Guardian gaged all comments on all articles about Hillary but opened flood
gates for those on Trump. Can't wait this political paparazzi return to b*tching about Murdoch and Fox.
Or tear jerking about free press in Russia. ..."
"... Consequently -- and after outspending Donald 15-to-1 in millions of dollars of tv and radio
advertisements (LA Times) -- Hillary leads him by 3 points (HuffPost). ..."
"... Thats the USA, two potential presidents nobody wants. ..."
"... Let's face it, you need billions to get elected. That's not democracy by anybody's standards.
..."
"... You are confusing money with elitism. They are not interchangeable. For example, even before
he had any money, Obama was an elite. ..."
"... If you look at Bill Clinton's record he really wasn't that much of a Democrate...more like
a moderate Republican. One reason I never could understand the GOPs almost pathological hatred of the
Clintons..and I'm not just talking about the far far far right Republicans either. ..."
"... Trump is a better alternative because he is likely to get us into unnecessary conflicts around
the world. I think it's great that he is ending the politically correct culture that we have in the
United States. ..."
"... Trump's appeal to the disenfranchised workers of the USA is a strong one, whereas Clinton thinks
Democrats, many of whom have deep reservations about her, will simply fall into line as if she's the
matron of the WH. ..."
"... The fact that she's a corrupt grifter won't help. ..."
"... Whatever anyone thinks of him, you cannot deny this is history being made. The last was Roosevelt
almost 100 years ago. Independent politicians are popping up around the world. ..."
"... Just wondering : Which paradise do you come from? ..."
"... "Trump is a better alternative because he is likely to get us into unnecessary conflicts around
the world. I think it's great that he is ending the politically correct culture that we have in the
United States." ..."
"... So i get that Democrats were hoping that the RNC convention would be an utter disaster but
it hasnt turned out to be so. Apart from some shamefully contrived nonsense about plagiarism to attack
a woman who appears to be a decent woman ( by the way I thought Democrats were all about women, hypocrites)
and Ted Cruz deciding to end his political career, the RNC convention has gone rather well. ..."
"... His comments on Neo-Liberal globalization and the creation of the nationless aristocracy at
the expense of common folk labour all over the world is bang on . ..."
"... I am happy to see that this disastrous , extraordinarily exploitive phenomenon has finally
be brought out into the light of day ..... where it will stay long after this election is over . ..."
"... When your a colony you obey the emperor whoever he or she is. If President Trump exposes NATO
as just another Mafia by making threats and demanding money of all the 'allies' ,as the US's European
quislings call themselves, they will pay up. ..."
"... Do all the Trumplings really believe he will rethink or change the NATO mafia, close down any
of the 1,100 military bases and outposts 'Mericuh has all around the world, restore the Glass-Seagull
act, interfere with all the CIA middlings in the Ukraine, Latin 'Mericuh, Turkey, Iran, ect., change
or end NAFTA? lmao ..."
"... Quickest way to a bullet if he does try!! ..."
"... Both the Republican and Democratic Parties are disasters in being, neither has shown the slightest
interest in doing anything for the country, both are vastly more concerned about fighting each other,
and fighting within, all to accumulate yet more wealth and power for themselves. ..."
"... "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses
is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed,
our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of..
…In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social
conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand
the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control
the public mind." – Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928) ..."
"... Trump is a breath of fresh air. I don't understand all the vitriol against him. ..."
"... US politics needs an earthquake to re orientate the electorate's priorities. Trump is a populist
and a populist is what America needs. ..."
"... The liberal media's constant Trump hit pieces have no effect and the clowns are getting desperate
as the realization sets in. Trump 2016! ..."
"... The Guardian along with it's U.S. counterparts, have become one big opinion piece. This is
cementing voters views that the media is elitist, and terriblly out of touch with ordinary Americans.
It looks like you are actively trying to tear him down, this has backfired since day one, and attracted
more right wing voters to come out for a protest vote. Trump is a sensationalist, and you have played
into his reality show hands. ..."
"... Trump comes along as an anti establishment choice for people who have been left behind by globalisation/capatalism.
People who have felt ignored and disenfranchised. ..."
"... Not unlike the make-up of the brexit voters in the UK. It's an odd grouping. ..."
"... I would like to hear, in clear terms that reflect precise policies, why Trump is preferable
to Clinton. Let's assume for a start that both candidates are in different ways dishonest, that they
are both elitist, and that they both are opportunist (adapting their rhetoric to suit their goals).
..."
"... Actually, dugandben's comment was spot on. Hillary is the bigger fascist considering the way
the media (like the Guardian) shills for her, and how she is by far, the corporate-approved candidate.
..."
"... Another Hilbot being paid to distort the truth, eh, Arundel? That's what good little fascists
do. Inverted Totalitarianism . ..."
Nazly De La Hoya, 26, a delegate from El Paso, Texas, initially backed Kentucky senator Rand Paul.
"He [Trump] was not my first choice; however, I'm very against the corruption and lies that Hillary's
been involved with," she said during a rally in Cleveland's Public Square. "Trump is a better alternative
because he is likely to get us into unnecessary conflicts around the world. I think it's great that
he is ending the politically correct culture that we have in the United States."
The US currently pays 75% of the cost of European defence! How can that be good?
After Brexit, a European army may emerge . Many politicians in Germany and especially France
have desired this idea of an EU force for a long time , with the Brits as the main obstacle.
What is amusing that Guardian gaged all comments on all articles about Hillary but opened
flood gates for those on Trump. Can't wait this political paparazzi return to b*tching about Murdoch
and Fox. Or tear jerking about free press in Russia.
"He's a disaster. He's a wild card. You don't know what he's going to do. He has no principles.
He's a playboy entertainer and it's shocking that the American people would choose him."
Consequently -- and after outspending Donald 15-to-1 in millions of dollars of tv and radio
advertisements (LA Times) -- Hillary leads him by 3 points (HuffPost).
If you look at Bill Clinton's record he really wasn't that much of a Democrate...more like
a moderate Republican. One reason I never could understand the GOPs almost pathological hatred
of the Clintons..and I'm not just talking about the far far far right Republicans either.
."Trump is a better alternative because he is likely to get us into unnecessary conflicts
around the world. I think it's great that he is ending the politically correct culture that
we have in the United States."
I do hope that the word "not" was missing from that sentence.
Michael Moore has said he thinks Trump will win - and that's a distinct possibility. it's complacency
that will put Trump in the White House and that may as well be Hillary's middle name. Trump's
appeal to the disenfranchised workers of the USA is a strong one, whereas Clinton thinks Democrats,
many of whom have deep reservations about her, will simply fall into line as if she's the matron
of the WH. After watching the brexit campaign, people should be worried that weak campaigning
from Clinton wont pull enough of the undecided voters and her soft opposition to her side.
Whatever anyone thinks of him, you cannot deny this is history being made. The last was Roosevelt
almost 100 years ago. Independent politicians are popping up around the world.
If it's true that in a democracy you get the government you deserve it's hard to imagine a more
perfect candidate for the job. Crass, crooked, mendacious, irresponsible bully, exactly like the
country he seeks to lead.
"Trump is a better alternative because he is likely to get us into unnecessary conflicts around
the world. I think it's great that he is ending the politically correct culture that we have in
the United States."
Jesus, why are these people so obsessed with political correctness? In light of all the other
issues plaguing America - out of control health care costs, crumbling infrastructure, stagnant
wages, terrorism, overpriced education, race wars, etc. - these people are going to pick the next
POTUS based primarily on his/her disdain for political correctness? Really?
So i get that Democrats were hoping that the RNC convention would be an utter disaster but
it hasnt turned out to be so. Apart from some shamefully contrived nonsense about plagiarism to
attack a woman who appears to be a decent woman ( by the way I thought Democrats were all about
women, hypocrites) and Ted Cruz deciding to end his political career, the RNC convention has gone
rather well.
Now over to you Democrats. Lets see how many people can keep a straight face
while extolling the virtues of a criminal for the highest office. If we are lucky we might see
some self shame as person after person shows up to demonstrate their sold out souls.
...His comments on Neo-Liberal globalization and the creation of the nationless aristocracy
at the expense of common folk labour all over the world is bang on .
I am happy to see that this disastrous , extraordinarily exploitive phenomenon has finally
be brought out into the light of day ..... where it will stay long after this election is over
.
When your a colony you obey the emperor whoever he or she is. If President Trump exposes NATO
as just another Mafia by making threats and demanding money of all the 'allies' ,as the US's European
quislings call themselves, they will pay up.
Do all the Trumplings really believe he will rethink or change the NATO mafia, close down
any of the 1,100 military bases and outposts 'Mericuh has all around the world, restore the Glass-Seagull
act, interfere with all the CIA middlings in the Ukraine, Latin 'Mericuh, Turkey, Iran, ect.,
change or end NAFTA? lmao
Trump is a better alternative because he is likely to get us into unnecessary conflicts
around the world. Probably a slip or a typo, but keeping the US military-industrial complex ticking
never did any harm - to stakeholders in it, at least.
Everybody, and I mean everybody, fails to comprehend (capiche) how pressing is the global MIC.
These vermin, aside from the otherwise good and decent enlistees and career soildiers, are guided
ONLY by MORE WAR, MORE stupidly profitable revenues. $700 hammers, etc.
Poor guy--his latest screw up is that he said he might not want to go to a nuke, end the world,
war to save Estonia from the Russians--not that Russians have any real desire to do so at this
point. Maybe he is the only sane man in politics.......
But he's just reflective of and the result of the ongoing disaster that American politics and
political parties have been for the last few decades.
Both the Republican and Democratic Parties are disasters in being, neither has shown the
slightest interest in doing anything for the country, both are vastly more concerned about fighting
each other, and fighting within, all to accumulate yet more wealth and power for themselves.
Neither party really gives a rat's ass about the country or the people. To both, the people
are annoyances to be manipulated and then ignored.
Some Democrats smugly view the catastrophic disarray of the Republicans with glee, thinking
that it shows how superior they are, but they are merely partisan nitwits who look no further
than "Yay, we win!", completely failing to examine what that might mean in practicality. In point
of fact, the Democratic Party is little better.
Neither party has either the chops or the inclination to actually do anything about the mess
the country is in other than to profit personally from it.
Both parties need to be swept from office, but that is unlikely to happen. Neither is fit to
govern.
It makes me more sympathetic to a button I saw the other day:
"If God meant for us to vote, He would have given us candidates."
At this point, the rot is so deep I despair of finding an alternative way to fix it other than
the time-honored solution: Off with their heads!
The system told Clinton she would be President next time around when Obama was elected.
They have set up a contest with the only person in the US she could beat & she is struggling with
that.
She may have to resort to tactics used in the past, which wouldnt be good for Trumps health.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses
is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed,
our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard
of.. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in
our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of
persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who
pull the wires which control the public mind." – Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928)
Trump is a breath of fresh air. I don't understand all the vitriol against him. Cruz
is way to the right of Trump, an absolute toady to the Republican right. Hillary is as bad - 100%
owned by Wall Street. Bill Clinton was 8 years of drift and disaster and Hillary will be at least
another four years of the same. US politics needs an earthquake to re orientate the electorate's
priorities. Trump is a populist and a populist is what America needs.
First off, Trump is a horrific candidate. But, I can't help thinking The Guardian along with
it's U.S. counterparts, have become one big opinion piece. This is cementing voters views that
the media is elitist, and terriblly out of touch with ordinary Americans. It looks like you are
actively trying to tear him down, this has backfired since day one, and attracted more right wing
voters to come out for a protest vote. Trump is a sensationalist, and you have played into his
reality show hands.
Trump comes along as an anti establishment choice for people who have been left behind by
globalisation/capatalism. People who have felt ignored and disenfranchised. He also appeals
to the racist right wing and the conservatives who are sick of career politicians. Not unlike
the make-up of the brexit voters in the UK. It's an odd grouping.
It might have to run its course - I can see him getting in despite Clinton war chest Trump
is offering the change that people think they want. (Even though of course he cannot and wouldn't
if he ever could deliver it)
I would like to hear, in clear terms that reflect precise policies, why Trump is preferable
to Clinton. Let's assume for a start that both candidates are in different ways dishonest, that
they are both elitist, and that they both are opportunist (adapting their rhetoric to suit their
goals).
Actually, dugandben's comment was spot on. Hillary is the bigger fascist considering the way
the media (like the Guardian) shills for her, and how she is by far, the corporate-approved candidate.
"... A year ago, Trump was a joke. A media circus. A novelty. We assumed – I assumed – he was in it for the giggles. I thought he'd drop out like he'd down twice before. I thought his total lack of experience, his profanity and his recklessness would count against him in a primary among conservatives. But the very nature of conservatism has changed. ..."
"... Trump didn't just defy the establishment. He defied what we thought for years were the outsiders: the ideological conservatives who hitherto cast themselves as the rebels. By beating Ted Cruz, Trump actually ran an insurgency against the insurgent. He demonstrated that what people wanted wasn't something more ideologically pure – as Cruz assumed – but something that was totally different. ..."
"... That is one big positive we can take from this campaign. If Trump can win when challenging the Republican position on trade and war, maybe someone in the future can win while challenging their positions on other things. ..."
"... Donald Trump did, in fact, beat the hell out of the GOP Establishment. But let's also note here that the GOP Establishment beat itself. If you haven't yet, check out conservative writer Matthew Sheffield's evisceration of the Republican Industrial Complex. It was e-mailed to me by a Republican friend who until fairly recently was part of that world, and knows about it intimately. ..."
"... Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you'd have to consider it wasted. ..."
"... Pretty embarrassing. And yet they're not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents "an existential threat to conservatism." ..."
"... It turns out the GOP wasn't simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who its voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that most Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign policy. That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism (he savaged the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded for it, but that was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing otherwise. The only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too. ..."
"... On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators like Ted Cruz didn't appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it's hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don't go to public school. You don't take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It's all good. ..."
"... Trump hasn't said anything especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals - these are the ravings of a Nazi? ..."
"... This year, and this week, in Republican Party politics and in American conservatism has been about nothing but moral, intellectual, and institutional decadence. It did not happen because of Donald Trump. Donald Trump emerged because the institutions were rotten. It is an almost Shakespearean twist that Roger Ailes is being defenestrated from atop the Fox News empire even as Trump receives his crown in Cleveland. ..."
It's mostly how I feel, though the one consolation I take from this debacle is that genuine creativity
may emerge out of Trump's destruction of the old GOP. It's a small bit of comfort, but I'll take
what I can. If Marco Rubio or any other of the GOP bunch were being nominated now, I would not be
excited at all, or even interested. I prefer that to being freaked out by the prospect of a Trump
presidency, but I would prefer to have someone to vote for , instead of against.
But then, I've wanted that for years.
Because I'm feeling contrarian, I want to give Donald Trump his due in this, his hour of triumph.
He pulled off something that nobody imagined he would do. I remember watching him give a political
speech for the first time - my first time watching him, I mean. He was addressing a big crowd in
Mobile. I watched the thing nearly gape-mouthed. I could not believe the crudeness, the chaos, and
the idiocy of the speech. This won't go anywhere, I thought, but it's going to be fun
watching him implode.
I laughed a lot at Donald Trump back then. Who's laughing now?
A year ago, Trump was a joke. A media circus. A novelty. We assumed – I assumed – he was in
it for the giggles. I thought he'd drop out like he'd down twice before. I thought his total lack
of experience, his profanity and his recklessness would count against him in a primary among conservatives.
But the very nature of conservatism has changed.
It was likely the rise of Sarah Palin in 2008 that made this possible – a candidate who suggested
there was a choice to be made between intellectualism and common sense, and who inspired deep
devotion among those who identified with her. Folks don't identify with Trump in the same, personal
way as they did with the hockey mom from Alaska. How can they? He flies everywhere in a private
jet and has a model as a wife. But his issues did strike a chord. The Wall cut through.
Trump didn't just defy the establishment. He defied what we thought for years were the outsiders:
the ideological conservatives who hitherto cast themselves as the rebels. By beating Ted Cruz,
Trump actually ran an insurgency against the insurgent. He demonstrated that what people wanted
wasn't something more ideologically pure – as Cruz assumed – but something that was totally different.
That is one big positive we can take from this campaign. If Trump can win when challenging
the Republican position on trade and war, maybe someone in the future can win while challenging
their positions on other things.
American presidential elections usually amount to a series of overcorrections: Clinton begat
Bush, who produced Obama, whose lax border policies fueled the rise of Trump. In the case of Trump,
though, the GOP shares the blame, and not just because his fellow Republicans misdirected their
ad buys or waited so long to criticize him. Trump is in part a reaction to the intellectual corruption
of the Republican Party. That ought to be obvious to his critics, yet somehow it isn't.
Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center
adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks
and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy
should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that
same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement
funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico,
more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you'd have to consider
it wasted.
Pretty embarrassing. And yet they're not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming
tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics
have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents "an existential threat to conservatism."
Let that sink in. Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider
conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding?
They're the ones who've been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose
populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while
implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic
change. Now they're telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don't, they're liberal.
It turns out the GOP wasn't simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who
its voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that
most Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign
policy. That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism
(he savaged the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded
for it, but that was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing
otherwise. The only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too.
On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators
like Ted Cruz didn't appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If
you live in an affluent ZIP code, it's hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your
kids don't go to public school. You don't take the bus or use the emergency room for health care.
No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy
lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to
feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job
on Nantucket. It's all good.
Apart from his line about Mexican rapists early in the campaign, Trump hasn't said anything
especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit
violent criminals - these are the ravings of a Nazi? This is the "ghost of George Wallace" that
a Politico piece described last August? A lot of Republican leaders think so. No wonder their
voters are rebelling.
Read the whole thing. Let it sink in that Carlson wrote this before a single vote had been cast
in the GOP primaries.
This year, and this week, in Republican Party politics and in American conservatism has been about
nothing but moral, intellectual, and institutional decadence. It did not happen because of Donald
Trump. Donald Trump emerged because the institutions were rotten. It is an almost Shakespearean twist
that Roger Ailes is being defenestrated from atop the Fox News empire even as Trump receives his
crown in Cleveland.
Trump didn't steal the Republican Party. It was his for the taking, because the people who run
it and the institutions surrounding it failed.
When Trump loses in November, maybe, just maybe, some new blood and new ideas will rebuild the
party.
And if he wins? We will have far bigger things to worry about than the fate of the Republican
Party. We will be forced to contemplate the fate of the Republic itself.
"... Shell-shocked, his foes, unwilling to admit their politically correct system has tanked, failed to understand that political incorrectness is to Trump what spinach is to Popeye. ..."
"... "So many 'politically correct' fools in our country," Trump tweeted. "We have to all get back to work and stop wasting time and energy on nonsense!" ..."
"... Trump's candidacy is about so much more than personality. Once the media are forced to report Trump's positions, instead of his persona, even more Americans will see that Trump is the sole Republican who rejects a "free trade" that gives away the keys to the store and opposed the ill-fated Iraq war. He is the type of candidate Americans always wanted but the party establishments are too afraid to provide. ..."
"... The last time America saw a strong paleo-conservative was Pat Buchanan in 1996. An early win in Louisiana caused Buchanan to place second in Iowa and first in New Hampshire. Lacking money, Buchanan was steamrolled by the establishment in Arizona and, in terms of paleo-conservatism, many thought he was the Last of the Mohicans. Trump's campaign is Buchananesque with one difference: Trump has money, and loads of it. He can fend off any attack and self-finance his campaign. He is establishment kryptonite. ..."
"... This reality is what makes him the new face of paleo-conservativism. It might also make him president. ..."
Political incorrectness is to Trump what spinach is to Popeye: Columnist. When the term paleo-conservative
is floated in conversation, most folks imagine a creature out of Jurassic World. But paleo-conservatism
- a near extinct brand of conservatism that heralds limited government, nonintervention, economic
nationalism and Western traditions - is finding a comeback in an unlikely spokesperson.
The history-making campaign of
Donald Trump is turning the clock of U.S. politics back to a time when hubris was heroic and
the truth, no matter how blunt, was king. It is resurrecting a political thought that does not play
by the rules of modern politics.
And as the nation saw the top-tier
GOP candidates take the stage for the first time, they saw Trump, unapologetic and confident,
alongside eight candidates clueless on how to contain him and a tongue-lashed Rand Paul.
The debate itself highlighted the fear a Trump candidacy is creating throughout the political
establishment. The very first question asked the candidates to pledge unconditional support to the
eventual GOP nominee and refrain from a third-party run. Trump refused.
Those in the Beltway resumed drafting Trump's political obituary. But while they were busy scribbling,
post-debate polls showed Trump jumped in the polls. Republicans are ignoring their orders from headquarters
and deflecting to the Donald.
Shell-shocked, his foes, unwilling to admit their politically correct system has tanked, failed
to understand that political incorrectness is to Trump what spinach is to Popeye.
"So many 'politically correct' fools in our country," Trump tweeted. "We have to all get back
to work and stop wasting time and energy on nonsense!"
Is he not correct? Days before the nation started debating Kelly's metaphorical blood, an unauthorized
immigrant in New Jersey pleaded guilty to actually spilling the blood of 30-year-old Sviatlana Dranko
and setting her body on fire. In the media, Dranko's blood is second fiddle. This contrast is not
lost on the silent majority flocking to Trump.
Trump's candidacy is about so much more than personality. Once the media are forced to report
Trump's positions, instead of his persona, even more Americans will see that Trump is the sole Republican
who rejects a "free trade" that gives away the keys to the store and opposed the ill-fated Iraq war.
He is the type of candidate Americans always wanted but the party establishments are too afraid to
provide.
The last time America saw a strong paleo-conservative was
Pat Buchanan in 1996. An early win in Louisiana caused Buchanan to place second in Iowa and first
in New Hampshire. Lacking money, Buchanan was steamrolled by the establishment in Arizona and, in
terms of paleo-conservatism, many thought he was the Last of the Mohicans. Trump's campaign is Buchananesque
with one difference: Trump has money, and loads of it. He can fend off any attack and self-finance
his campaign. He is establishment kryptonite.
This reality is what makes him the new face of paleo-conservativism. It might also make him
president.
Joseph R. Murray II is a civil-rights attorney, a conservative commentator and a former official
with Pat Buchanan's 2000 campaign.
"... "[W]hat is most astonishing is the rising level of rage among Trump's political enemies from inside the Republican establishment," said Scarborough . "Many of my conservative friends are sounding as arrogant and unmoored as left-wing pundits let loose on MSNBC during the Bush years." ..."
"... Trump, who does hold some positions at odds with traditional conservatism, such as strengthening entitlement programs, has fought back against that criticism, calling commentators like Will "eggheads." ..."
MSNBC "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough is hitting back at some conservatives in the media who
he says are taking an elitist attitude toward Donald Trump and his supporters.
In a Sunday column for the Washington Post, Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, said
that some conservative commentators "are sounding as cocooned from their own political party as any
liberal writing social commentary for the New Yorker or providing political analysis for ABC News."
"[W]hat is most astonishing is the rising level of rage among Trump's political enemies from
inside the Republican establishment,"
said Scarborough. "Many of my conservative friends are sounding as arrogant and unmoored as left-wing
pundits let loose on MSNBC during the Bush years."
Scarborough took criticism earlier this year from some of the same commentators, and many others,
for what critics
call
his
fawning
treatment of Trump in interviews.
Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation's capital and beyond with curated News
Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.
Some venerable
right-leaning publications and commentators, like National Review and George Will of the Washington
Post, have
denounced Trump for, they say, his insufficient conservatism and his apparent lack of knowledge
about conservative thinking and policy.
Trump, who does hold some positions at odds with traditional conservatism, such as strengthening
entitlement programs, has fought back against that criticism, calling commentators like Will
"eggheads."
"... Donald Trump has raised three issues of real concern to paleoconservatives and traditional conservatives like myself." ..."
"... These three stances that Trump hits on to Buchanan's contentment are border security, economic nationalism, and being "skeptical of these endless wars and interventions." ..."
"... "I think many folks who agree with me have welcomed Trump into the race," Buchanan said. He added while laughing, "the very fact that the neocons seem so disconsolate is the icing on the cake." ..."
"... "Neocons offer nothing more than more wars," he said, before adding that their support for free trade is "almost a religious belief." ..."
"... The person who will lead America to its end is Hillary Clinton. I don't know how to say it any clearer - Bill and Hillary are pure evil. All the stories about them while in Arkansas are true - murders, cocaine smuggling, money laundering and they continued their evil activities when Bill got into the White House. ..."
"... They continue today with their Foundation which is nothing but a front for money laundering. It is not right wing conspiracies which Hillary continues to imply and the people whose deaths are connected to the Clinton's will never have justice. ..."
Buchanan ran in 1992 for the Republican party nomination on a platform opposing globalization,
unfettered immigration, and the move away from social conservatism. He has been harping on these
views ever since.
"What we've gotten is proof that we were right," Buchanan told The Daily Caller Tuesday. While
he said, "I would not say that Donald Trump is a paleoconservative," and, "I don't think [Trump's]
a social conservative."
Buchanan told TheDC, "I was just astonished to see him raise the precise issues on which we ran
in the 1990s… Donald Trump has raised three issues of real concern to paleoconservatives and
traditional conservatives like myself."
These three stances that Trump hits on to Buchanan's contentment are border security, economic
nationalism, and being "skeptical of these endless wars and interventions."
"I think many folks who agree with me have welcomed Trump into the race," Buchanan said. He
added while laughing, "the very fact that the neocons seem so disconsolate is the icing on the cake."
Buchanan is not only opposed to immigration and trade, he is also a staunch social conservative.
Trump has had two divorces and has previously held pro-choice views, making it tough for some to
support him. Buchanan though said, "I think Trump respects the position of the social conservatives."
"I do think he would appoint the type of justices that would unite the Republican Party," he said.
The conservative commentator continued on to say, "I think the great emperor Constantine converted
to Christianity but he may have killed one of his sons as well."
Buchanan told TheDC, "we don't have any perfect candidates," but the other options besides Trump
are more frightening.
"Neocons offer nothing more than more wars," he said, before adding that their support for
free trade is "almost a religious belief."
Richard
The person who will lead America to its end is Hillary Clinton. I don't know how to say
it any clearer - Bill and Hillary are pure evil. All the stories about them while in Arkansas
are true - murders, cocaine smuggling, money laundering and they continued their evil activities
when Bill got into the White House.
They continue today with their Foundation which is nothing but a front for money laundering.
It is not right wing conspiracies which Hillary continues to imply and the people whose deaths
are connected to the Clinton's will never have justice.
Why is it that every time a Grand Jury was to be convened and people were subpoenaed to testify
against the Clinton's, it never happened and some of those people ended up in prison, dead or
disappeared. Anyone who has ever had files implicating the Clinton's of illegal activities either
commits suicide or was murdered, and the files have disappeared. People if your voting for or
have voted for Hillary - do your homework and learn about who you vote for?
"... Though he has been a hugely successful builder-businessman, far more successful than, say, Carly Fiorina, who has been received respectfully, our resident elites resolutely refuse to take Trump seriously. ..."
"... Trump's success comes from the issues he has seized upon - illegal immigration and trade deals that deindustrialized America - and brazen defiance of Republican elites and a media establishment. ..."
"... The reaction of Trump's Republican rivals has been even more instructive. Initially, it was muted. But when major media began to demand that GOP candidates either denounce Trump or come under suspicion or racism themselves, the panic and pile-on began. ..."
"... What Trump has done, and [Ted] Cruz sees it, is to have elevated the illegal immigration issue, taken a tough line, and is now attacking GOP rivals who have dithered or done nothing to deal with it. ..."
"... Trump intends to exploit the illegal immigration issue, and the trade issue, where majorities of middle-class Americans oppose the elites. And he is going to ride them as far as he can in the Republican primaries. ..."
Since Trump's presidential
announcement last month including controversial comments about illegal immigrants from Mexico,
Buchanan has written two editorials on his website lauding Trump's efforts.
Though he has been a hugely successful builder-businessman, far more successful than, say,
Carly Fiorina, who has been received respectfully, our resident elites resolutely refuse to take
Trump seriously.
They should. Not because he will be nominated, but because the Trump constituency will represent
a vote of no confidence in the Beltway ruling class of politicians and press.
Votes for Trump will be votes to repudiate that class, whole and entire, and dump it onto the
ash heap of history.
Votes for Trump will be votes to reject a regime run by Bushes and Clintons that plunged us
into unnecessary wars, cannot secure our borders, and negotiates trade deals that produced the
largest trade deficits known to man and gutted a manufacturing base that was once "the great arsenal
of democracy" and envy of mankind.
A vote for Trump is a vote to say that both parties have failed America and none of the current
crop of candidates offers real hope of a better future.
Trump's success comes from the issues he has seized upon - illegal immigration and trade
deals that deindustrialized America - and brazen defiance of Republican elites and a media establishment.
By now the whole world has heard Trump's declaration:
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. … They're sending people that
have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to us. They're bringing drugs. They're
bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
Politically incorrect? You betcha.
Yet, is Trump not raising a valid issue? Is there not truth in what he said? Is not illegal
immigration, and criminals crossing our Southern border, an issue of national import, indeed,
of national security?
. . .
The reaction to Trump's comments has been instructive. NBC and Univision dropped his Miss USA
and Miss Universe contests.
Macy's has dropped the Trump clothing line. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is talking of terminating
city contracts with Trump.
The reaction of Trump's Republican rivals has been even more instructive. Initially, it
was muted. But when major media began to demand that GOP candidates either denounce Trump or come
under suspicion or racism themselves, the panic and pile-on began.
. . .
What Trump has done, and [Ted] Cruz sees it, is to have elevated the illegal immigration
issue, taken a tough line, and is now attacking GOP rivals who have dithered or done nothing to
deal with it.
Trump intends to exploit the illegal immigration issue, and the trade issue, where majorities
of middle-class Americans oppose the elites. And he is going to ride them as far as he can in
the Republican primaries.
In the coming debates, look for Trump to take the populist and popular side of them both. And
for Cruz to stand by him on illegal immigration.
Americans are fed up with words; they want action. Trump is moving in the polls because, whatever
else he may be, he is a man of action.
Trump later
retweeted
and thanked a follower who cited to Buchanan's labeling of Trump as "a man of action."
"... From a Paleo-Conservative perspective what is there to lose with Trump as POTUS? In the absence of a Trumpian paradigm shift in American politics, the status quo will indeed change, quite dramatically, but not in the direction favorable to the principles of 1776 and 1861. At least with a President Trump there is a chance, possible but not necessarily probable, for change in the right direction. As the presidential campaigning heats up, Middle America is bound to rise up. The collective wisdom of Middle America seems to understand that Trump is not the perfect candidate, but they also seem to realize (to paraphrase M. E. Bradford) "that all of us who will not take half a loaf will get a stone." ..."
There are several attributes of Donald Trump's bid for the U.S. Presidency that this Paleo-Conservative
finds to be interesting. To follow is an adumbration of the more salient.
His campaign style is refreshing. The absence of teleprompters, which results in spontaneity,
which in turn reveals the unvarnished candidate in contradistinction to the coached, stale, and
unconvincing political hacks, is refreshing. Trump's campaign speeches and debate performance
have actually juiced up political discourse, making politics interesting not simply for the political
class but also for Middle American.
The engagement of Middle American into this presidential election cycle have the political
class spooked. It is this same political class responsible for the removal of all things Confederate
from the public square, not Middle American. It is Middle America that has catapulted Trump into
the lead. In other words, Middle America may actually have some meaningful input into the election
of the next POTUS.
The spooking of the political class has exposed what it thinks of Middle America. Its
charge against Trump is that the bulk of his support rests upon the inherent racism, national
jingoism and stupidity of average Americans. Some have even claimed that Trump is a closet fascist
and that his supporters are inherently supportive of fascism. This is nonsense. Middle America's
detestation of ruling elites is not fascist, but it is an acknowledgment that it will take a strongman,
statesman if you prefer, to knock out the ruling elites.
Trump's detractors may be his best campaign weapon. Without knowing much about Trump's
policy positions, immigration notwithstanding, there is logic in supporting Trump based upon knowing
who his political enemies are. This may be the best voting cue Middle America has. The enemy (Trump)
of my enemy (the ruling class) is my friend. In other words, the more Trump agitates the ruling
class the more he endears himself to Middle America.
Trump appears to be more the pragmatist than ideologue, and that's a good thing. The
American federative republic's original blueprint is nomocratic (a Southern characteristic), but
has been replaced with a teleocratic (New England Puritanism) one. It is the latter that has resulted
in the unitary US of A, nation-building abroad and the welfare state domestically.
For any Southern patriot the status quo in American politics is totally unacceptable.
One thing is fairly certain; if Trump were to be the next POTUS, the status quo would be in for
quite a shock. At this point it matters little how the status quo might be changed. Middle America
wants change and it wants it now. Moreover, if Trump were to succeed in his bid to be the next
POTUS, he would be much more likely to expose the fraud and corruption inside the beltway than
any of his presidential campaign competitors. Unlike the latter, he would not be held captive
to the interests that funnel money and votes to sustain the status quo, but to the average American
voter, i.e., Middle America.
The disruptions, if not chaos, Trump might affect in Washington may result in preoccupying
the ruling class to the extent that the focus on things Southern, e.g., the Battle Flag, may dissipate.
This might just provide Southern patriots with the space to regroup and be better prepared for
the next assault on their culture.
Trump's campaign slogan is Make America Great Again. As an intelligent man he must know that to
achieve that goal he must remove the government shackles, e.g., taxation, regulations, and centralization,
holding Americans and America down, both domestically and internationally.
From a Paleo-Conservative perspective what is there to lose with Trump as POTUS? In the absence
of a Trumpian paradigm shift in American politics, the status quo will indeed change, quite dramatically,
but not in the direction favorable to the principles of 1776 and 1861. At least with a President
Trump there is a chance, possible but not necessarily probable, for change in the right direction.
As the presidential campaigning heats up, Middle America is bound to rise up. The collective wisdom
of Middle America seems to understand that Trump is not the perfect candidate, but they also seem
to realize (to paraphrase M. E. Bradford) "that all of us who will not take half a loaf will get
a stone."
Marshall DeRosa received his Ph.D. and M.A. from the University of Houston and his B. A. from
West Virginia University, Magna Cum Laude. He has taught at Davis and Elkins College (1985-1988),
Louisiana State University (1988-1990), and Florida Atlantic University (1990-Present). He is a Salvatori
Fellow with the Heritage Foundation and full professor in the Department of Political Science. He
has published articles and reviews in professional journals, book chapters, and three books. He resides
in Wellington, FL, with his wife and four children. More from Marshall DeRosa
"... Build the wall to block the gangsters and their heroin shipments. "We have situations right now where we have the migration. And we're accepting people in. And we're accepting them in by the thousands ..."
"... Trump wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a private system with more options and no state-specific boundaries, lower deductibles, take on the drug companies and install competitive bidding for medicine, and save enough money to take care of the poor. ..."
"... He wants to strengthen the armed forces but cut waste out of the budget and re-focus it. "We're buying equipment and we're buying things that our generals don't even want. We're buying planes they don't want instead of other ones because that company has better lobbyists… ..."
"... This is the politics of putting America First. It echoes the politics of Ross Perot's Reform Party, which once almost became Trump's party and which once housed Trump friend and paleoconservative firebrand Pat Buchanan. ..."
Trump has turned the Republican primary into a reality show. It's an effective tactic, one that
resonates with a country weaned on the TV genre that he helped to create. The sweating, bumbling
politicians have all become boardroom wannabes or castaways on an island where their flaws are exposed,
picked apart, and analyzed. And they all come off dishonest compared to him. This is the politics
of Richard Pryor as Montgomery Brewster and Peter Sellers as Chance the Gardener. This was never
supposed to happen. But it did.
And scarier still for the suits trying so hard to shut it down: Trump has substance.
On the border:Build the wall to block the gangsters and their heroin
shipments. "We have situations right now where we have the migration. And we're accepting people
in. And we're accepting them in by the thousands…Look at New Hampshire, the problems you
have with the drugs. We are letting people into this country and we have absolutely no idea who
they are, where they come from, are they ISIS? Maybe, maybe not."
On health care:Trump wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a
private system with more options and no state-specific boundaries, lower deductibles, take on
the drug companies and install competitive bidding for medicine, and save enough money to take
care of the poor. And he brushed off those who say it's not the Republican Way. "There's
a small group of people on the bottom who are not going to be able to be taken care of [under
Obamacare]. And I say, as Republicans, is there anybody who doesn't want to take care of them?
We are not going to have people dying on the streets. We're going to get them into a hospital
to take care of them…Let me tell you, the Republican way is, People CAN take care of themselves.
We have to help them. We're not going to let them die."
On the military:He wants to strengthen the armed forces but cut waste
out of the budget and re-focus it. "We're buying equipment and we're buying things that our generals
don't even want. We're buying planes they don't want instead of other ones because that company
has better lobbyists…We're going to get them the equipment they want. We're going to save
a lot of money." He wants to build a military so strong we'll never have to use it. After we take
care of ISIS, that is. And no more nation-building experiments that de-stabilize the Middle East
and embolden Iran. "Nobody, I'm telling you, nobody, is going to want to play with us."
This is the politics of putting America First. It echoes the politics of Ross Perot's Reform
Party, which once almost became Trump's party and which once housed Trump friend and paleoconservative
firebrand Pat Buchanan.
When Trump explains his views, it all sounds self-evident. It sounds like common sense. It wouldn't
sound so controversial if we didn't live in a media climate controlled by globalist corporate interests.
It's the kind of politics - tough, protectionist, and nationally self-interested - that Trump has
been thinking about for a very long time.
And now, like the last American tycoon, he's the only one fighting for it.
"... "In many countries today, moral and ethical norms are being reconsidered." ..."
"... "They're now requiring not only the proper acknowledgment of freedom of conscience, political views and private life, but also the mandatory acknowledgment of the equality of good and evil." ..."
"... President Reagan once called the old Soviet Empire "the focus of evil in the modern world." President Putin is implying that Barack Obama's America may deserve the title in the 21st century. ..."
"... Nor is he without an argument when we reflect on America's embrace of abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, pornography, promiscuity, and the whole panoply of Hollywood values. ..."
"... Unelected justices declared abortion and homosexual acts to be constitutionally protected rights. Judges have been the driving force behind the imposition of same-sex marriage. Attorney General Eric Holder refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. ..."
"... America was de-Christianized in the second half of the 20th century by court orders, over the vehement objections of a huge majority of a country that was overwhelmingly Christian. ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of " Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? " Copyright 2013 Creators.com . ..."
Is Vladimir Putin a paleoconservative? In the culture war for mankind's future, is he one of us?
While such a question may be blasphemous in Western circles, consider the content of the Russian
president's state of the nation address.
With America clearly in mind, Putin declared, "In
many countries today, moral and ethical norms are being reconsidered."
"They're now requiring not only the proper acknowledgment of freedom of conscience, political
views and private life, but also the mandatory acknowledgment of the equality of good and evil."
Translation: While privacy and freedom of thought, religion and speech are cherished rights, to
equate traditional marriage and same-sex marriage is to equate good with evil.
No moral confusion here, this is moral clarity, agree or disagree.
President Reagan once called the old Soviet Empire "the focus of evil in the modern world."
President Putin is implying that Barack Obama's America may deserve the title in the 21st century.
Nor is he without an argument when we reflect on America's embrace of abortion on demand,
homosexual marriage, pornography, promiscuity, and the whole panoply of Hollywood values.
Our grandparents would not recognize the America in which we live.
Moreover, Putin asserts, the new immorality has been imposed undemocratically.
The "destruction of traditional values" in these countries, he said, comes "from the top" and
is "inherently undemocratic because it is based on abstract ideas and runs counter to the will of
the majority of people."
Does he not have a point?
Unelected justices declared abortion and homosexual acts to be constitutionally protected
rights. Judges have been the driving force behind the imposition of same-sex marriage. Attorney General
Eric Holder refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.
America was de-Christianized in the second half of the 20th century by court orders, over
the vehement objections of a huge majority of a country that was overwhelmingly Christian.
And same-sex marriage is indeed an "abstract" idea unrooted in the history or tradition of the
West. Where did it come from?
Peoples all over the world, claims Putin, are supporting Russia's "defense of traditional values"
against a "so-called tolerance" that is "genderless and infertile."
While his stance as a defender of traditional values has drawn the mockery of Western media and
cultural elites, Putin is not wrong in saying that he can speak for much of mankind.
Same-sex marriage is supported by America's young, but most states still resist it, with black
pastors visible in the vanguard of the counterrevolution. In France, a million people took to the
streets of Paris to denounce the Socialists' imposition of homosexual marriage.
Only 15 nations out of more than 190 have recognized it.
In India, the world's largest democracy, the Supreme Court has struck down a lower court ruling
that made same-sex marriage a right. And the parliament in this socially conservative nation of more
than a billion people is unlikely soon to reverse the high court.
In the four dozen nations that are predominantly Muslim, which make up a fourth of the U.N. General
Assembly and a fifth of mankind, same-sex marriage is not even on the table. And Pope Francis has
reaffirmed Catholic doctrine on the issue for over a billion Catholics.
While much of American and Western media dismiss him as an authoritarian and reactionary, a throwback,
Putin may be seeing the future with more clarity than Americans still caught up in a Cold War paradigm.
As the decisive struggle in the second half of the 20th century was vertical, East vs. West, the
21st century struggle may be horizontal, with conservatives and traditionalists in every country
arrayed against the militant secularism of a multicultural and transnational elite.
And though America's elite may be found at the epicenter of anti-conservatism and anti-traditionalism,
the American people have never been more alienated or more divided culturally, socially and morally.
We are two countries now.
Putin says his mother had him secretly baptized as a baby and professes to be a Christian. And
what he is talking about here is ambitious, even audacious.
He is seeking to redefine the "Us vs. Them" world conflict of the future as one in which conservatives,
traditionalists, and nationalists of all continents and countries stand up against the cultural and
ideological imperialism of what he sees as a decadent west.
"We do not infringe on anyone's interests," said Putin, "or try to teach anyone how to live."
The adversary he has identified is not the America we grew up in, but the America we live in, which
Putin sees as pagan and wildly progressive.
Without naming any country, Putin attacked "attempts to enforce more progressive development models"
on other nations, which have led to "decline, barbarity, and big blood," a straight shot at the U.S.
interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Egypt.
In his speech, Putin cited Russian philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev whom Solzhenitsyn had hailed
for his courage in defying his Bolshevik inquisitors. Though no household word, Berdyaev is favorably
known at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal.
Which raises this question: Who is writing Putin's stuff?
"... "The U.S., as paleos have claimed for decades, was only meant to be a constitutional republic, not an empire-as Buchanan's 1999 foreign policy tome A Republic, Not an Empire nostalgically states," Scotchie explains. "Republics mind their own business. Their governments have very limited powers, and their people are too busy practicing self-government to worry about problems in other countries. Empires not only bully smaller, defenseless nations, they also can't leave their own, hapless subjects alone…. Empires and the tenth amendment aren't friends…. Empires and small government aren't compatible, either." ..."
"... If anti-interventionism and a commitment to the Old Republic defined by strict-construction constitutionalism and highly localized and independent social and political institutions defined one major dimension of paleoconservatism, its antipathy to the mass immigration that began to flood the country in the 1980s defined another. Indeed, it was ostensibly and mainly Chronicles' declaration of opposition to immigration that incited the neoconservative attack on Rockford and its subsequent defunding. Scotchie devotes a special but short chapter to paleoconservative thought on immigration and makes clear that to paleos, America was an extension of Western civilization. It was intended by the Founding Fathers to be an Anglo-Saxon-Celtic nation also influenced by Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem. Large-scale immigration from non-Western nations would, as Fleming (and most other paleos) maintained, forever spoil a distinct American civilization. ..."
"... The implication of this passage is that paleoconservatives, unlike libertarians, most neoconservatives, and many contemporary mainstream conservatives, do not consider America to be an "idea," a "proposition," or a "creed." It is instead a concrete and particular culture, rooted in a particular historical experience, a set of particular institutions as well as particular beliefs and values, and a particular ethnic-racial identity, and, cut off from those roots, it cannot survive. Indeed, it is not surviving now, for all the glint and glitter of empire. ..."
Joseph Scotchie's Revolt from the Heartland is not, as some readers might guess from the title,
about the terrorism of right-wing militias in the Midwestern United States, although some readers
might also say that guess was close enough. In fact, Revolt from the Heartland deals with the emergence
of "paleoconservatism," a species of conservative thought that despite its name ("paleo" is a Greek
prefix meaning "old") is a fairly recent twist in the cunningly knotted mind of the American Right.
While paleos sometimes like to characterize their beliefs as merely the continuation of the conservative
thought of the 1950s and '60s, and while in fact many of them do have their personal and intellectual
roots in the conservatism of that era, the truth is that what is now called paleoconservatism is
at least as new as the neoconservatism at which many paleos like to sniff as a newcomer.
Paleoconservatism is largely the invention of a single magazine, the Rockford Institute's Chronicles,
as it has been edited since the mid-1980s by Thomas Fleming, and Scotchie's book is essentially an
account of what Fleming and his major colleagues at Chronicles mainly, historian Paul Gottfried,
book review editor Chilton Williamson Jr., professor Clyde Wilson, and I believe, and what the differences
are between our brand of conservatism and others.
Scotchie's first three chapters are a survey of the history of American conservatism up until
the advent of Chronicles, including an account of the "Old Right" of the pre-World-War-II, pre-Depression
eras (for once, an account not confined to the libertarian "isolationists" but encompassing also
the Southern Agrarians), as well as the emergence of the "Cold War conservatism" of National Review
and the neoconservatism of the Reagan era and after. Scotchie's overview of these different shades
of the Right is useful in itself and necessary to clarify the differences between these colorations
and the paleos who constitute his main subject, though he may underestimate the differentiation between
the current, paleo "Old Right" and earlier "Old Rights."
Although Scotchie does not put it quite this way, contemporary paleoconservatism developed as
a reaction against three trends in the American Right during the Reagan administration. First, it
reacted against the bid for dominance by the neoconservatives, former liberals who insisted not only
that their version of conservative ideology and rhetoric prevail over those of older conservatives,
but also that their team should get the rewards of office and patronage and that the other team of
the older Right receive virtually nothing.
... ... ...
Paleos and those who soon identified with them almost spontaneously rejected U.S. military intervention
against Iraq. It was a moment, falling only a year after the neoconservative onslaught on the Rockford
Institute, that solidified the paleoconservative identity.
"The U.S., as paleos have claimed for decades, was only meant to be a constitutional republic,
not an empire-as Buchanan's 1999 foreign policy tome A Republic, Not an Empire nostalgically states,"
Scotchie explains. "Republics mind their own business. Their governments have very limited powers,
and their people are too busy practicing self-government to worry about problems in other countries.
Empires not only bully smaller, defenseless nations, they also can't leave their own, hapless subjects
alone…. Empires and the tenth amendment aren't friends…. Empires and small government aren't compatible,
either."
If anti-interventionism and a commitment to the Old Republic defined by strict-construction
constitutionalism and highly localized and independent social and political institutions defined
one major dimension of paleoconservatism, its antipathy to the mass immigration that began to flood
the country in the 1980s defined another. Indeed, it was ostensibly and mainly Chronicles' declaration
of opposition to immigration that incited the neoconservative attack on Rockford and its subsequent
defunding. Scotchie devotes a special but short chapter to paleoconservative thought on immigration
and makes clear that to paleos, America was an extension of Western civilization. It was intended
by the Founding Fathers to be an Anglo-Saxon-Celtic nation also influenced by Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem.
Large-scale immigration from non-Western nations would, as Fleming (and most other paleos) maintained,
forever spoil a distinct American civilization.
The implication of this passage is that paleoconservatives, unlike libertarians, most neoconservatives,
and many contemporary mainstream conservatives, do not consider America to be an "idea," a "proposition,"
or a "creed." It is instead a concrete and particular culture, rooted in a particular historical
experience, a set of particular institutions as well as particular beliefs and values, and a particular
ethnic-racial identity, and, cut off from those roots, it cannot survive. Indeed, it is not surviving
now, for all the glint and glitter of empire.
Trump is essentially a paleoconservative and as such is hostile to neocons that dominate
Washington establishment. That's' why they hate him so much and blackmail him so much.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is millions of Republican voters' judgment against a party that failed them, and the fact that Trump is thoroughly unqualified for the office he seeks makes that judgment all the more damning. ..."
Trump officially
secured the Republican nomination last night:
Mr. Trump tallied 1,725 delegates, easily surpassing the 1,237 delegate threshold needed to
clinch the nomination. The delegate tally from his home state of New York, announced by Mr. Trump's
son Donald Jr., put him over the top.
Like
Rod Dreher, I see Trump's success as proof that "the people who run [the GOP] and the institutions
surrounding it failed." They not only failed in their immediate task of preventing the nomination
of a candidate that party leaders loathed, but failed repeatedly over at least the last fifteen years
to govern well or even to represent the interests and concerns of most Republican voters.
Had the Bush administration not presided over multiple disasters, most of them of their own making,
there would have been no opening or occasion for the repudiation of the party's leaders that we have
seen this year. Had the party served the interests of most of its voters instead of catering to the
preferences of their donors and corporations, there would have been much less support for someone
like Trump. Party leaders spent decades conning Republican voters with promises they knew they wouldn't
or couldn't fulfill, and then were shocked when most of those voters turned against them.
Trump is millions of Republican voters' judgment against a party that failed them, and the
fact that Trump is thoroughly unqualified for the office he seeks makes that judgment all the more
damning.
"... the best explanation of Trump's surprising success is that the constituency he has mobilized has existed for decades but the right champion never came along. ..."
"... Trump's platform combines positions that are shared by many populists but are anathema to movement conservatives-a defense of Social Security, a guarantee of universal health care, economic nationalist trade policies. "We have expanded the Republican Party," Trump claimed the night of his Super Tuesday victories. ..."
"... Buchanan, in a recent interview , characterized Trump as his populist heir. "What Trump has today is conclusive evidence to prove that what some of us warned about in the 1990s has come to pass," he said. But the evidence is that Trump doesn't see it that way. Trump even competed briefly with Buchanan for the presidential nomination. T he year was 2000 , and Trump, encouraged by his friend Jesse Ventura, then governor of Minnesota, was considering a run for the presidential nomination of Perot's Reform Party, on the grounds that the Republican Party of George W. Bush and Karl Rove had "moved too far toward the extreme far right." Trump and Ventura hoped to rescue the Reform Party from the conservative allies of Buchanan, of whom Trump said: "He's a Hitler lover; I guess he's an anti-Semite. He doesn't like the blacks, he doesn't like the gays." Trump floated the idea of Oprah Winfrey as his running mate . In his 2000 manifesto The America We Deserve , Trump proposed a platform that included universal employer- based health insurance, gays in the military and a one-time 14.5 percent tax on the rich that would reduce the federal deficit and help eliminate the shortfall in Social Security. ..."
"... Compared to Trump, Buchanan was a flawed vehicle for the Jacksonian populism of the ex-Democratic white working class. So was another Pat, the Reverend Pat Robertson, television evangelist, founder of the Christian Coalition, and, like Buchanan, a failed candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. But while the mainstream conservative movement marginalized Buchanan, it embraced Robertson and other evangelical Protestant leaders like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson of Focus on the Family. ..."
"... On social issues like abortion and gay rights, Buchanan shared the agenda of the religious right. But his advocacy of tariffs to protect American industry and immigration restriction threatened the mainstream right's consensus in favor of free trade and increased legal immigration. And his neo-isolationism threatened the post-Cold War American right's support of high military spending and an assertive global foreign policy. ..."
"... Many of the rank-and-file members of the religious right shared the traditional populist suspicion of bankers and big business ..."
"... But even before the unexpected success of Trump in the Republican primary race beginning in 2015, there were signs that this generation-old bargain was coming undone. Hostility to both illegal immigration and high levels of legal immigration, a position which free-market conservatives had fought to marginalize, has moved very quickly from heresy to orthodoxy in the GOP. ..."
"... There were other signs of populist discontent with establishment conservative orthodoxy, for those who paid attention. No project is dearer to the hearts of mainstream movement conservatives than the goal of privatizing Social Security, a hated symbol of the dependency-inducing "statism" of the allegedly tyrannical Franklin D. Roosevelt. But George W. Bush's plan to partly privatize Social Security was so unpopular, even among Republican voters, that a Republican-controlled Congress did not even bother to vote on it in 2005. ..."
Trump, in fact, has more appeal to the center than the conservative populists of the last half century.
Before Trump's rise in this year's Republican primary elections, the best-known populist presidential
candidates were Alabama Governor Wallace and tycoon Ross Perot, along with Buchanan. Yet none of
these past figures had broad enough appeal to hope to win the White House. Despite his folksy demeanor,
Perot was more of a technocrat than a populist and did poorly in traditionally populist areas of
the South and Midwest, where Trump is doing well. Wallace was an outspoken white supremacist, while
Trump tends to speak in a kind of code, starting with his "birther" campaign against President Obama,
and his criticism of illegal immigrants and proposed ban on Muslims may appeal to fringe white nationalists
even if it has offended many if not most Latinos. Nor has Trump alienated large sections of the electorate
by casting his lot with Old Right isolationism, as Buchanan did, or by adopting the religious right
social agenda of Robertson.
Indeed, the best explanation of Trump's surprising success is that the constituency he has
mobilized has existed for decades but the right champion never came along. What conservative
apparatchiks hate about Trump-his insufficient conservatism-may be his greatest strength in the general
election. His populism cuts across party lines like few others before him. Like his fans, Trump is
indifferent to the issues of sexual orientation that animate the declining religious right, even
to the point of defending Planned Parenthood. Trump's platform combines positions that are shared
by many populists but are anathema to movement conservatives-a defense of Social Security, a guarantee
of universal health care, economic nationalist trade policies. "We have expanded the Republican Party,"
Trump claimed the night of his Super Tuesday victories.
He may well be right, though it's not clear what that Republican Party will look like in the end.
... ... ...
Buchanan, a former Nixon aide and conservative journalist, ran unsuccessfully for
the Republican presidential nomination in 1992 and was awarded with a prime-time speech at the Republican
National Convention that nominated George Herbert Walker Bush for a second term in the White House.
Buchanan's speech focused almost entirely on the "religious war" and "culture war" to save America
from feminism, legal abortion, gay rights, and "the raw sewage of pornography."
In his 1996 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, and in his 2000 campaign as the
Reform Party nominee, Buchanan emphasized populist themes of economic nationalism and immigration
restriction. But he was too much of a member of the Old Right that despised FDR and sought a return
to the isolationism of Robert Taft and Charles Lindbergh to have much appeal to former New Deal Democrats.
Buchanan's history of borderline anti-Semitic remarks led William F. Buckley Jr. to criticize him
in "In Search of Anti-Semitism," (1992) and some of his associates like Samuel Francis were overt
white racial nationalists.
For Reagan Democrats and their children and grandchildren, World War II showed America at its
best. But Buchanan concluded a long career of eccentric World War II revisionism in 2009 with "Churchill,
Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost its Empire and the West Lost the World," arguing
that Hitler should have been appeased by Britain and the U.S.
Buchanan,
in a recent interview, characterized Trump as his populist heir. "What Trump has today is conclusive
evidence to prove that what some of us warned about in the 1990s has come to pass," he said. But
the evidence is that Trump doesn't see it that way. Trump even competed briefly with Buchanan for
the presidential nomination. The
year was 2000, and Trump, encouraged by his friend Jesse Ventura, then governor of Minnesota,
was considering a run for the presidential nomination of Perot's Reform Party, on the grounds that
the Republican Party of George W. Bush and Karl Rove had "moved too far toward the extreme far right."
Trump and Ventura hoped to rescue the Reform Party from the conservative allies of Buchanan, of whom
Trump said: "He's a Hitler lover; I guess he's an anti-Semite. He doesn't like the blacks, he doesn't
like the gays." Trump floated the idea of Oprah Winfrey as his running mate . In his 2000 manifesto
The America We Deserve, Trump proposed a platform that included universal employer- based
health insurance, gays in the military and a one-time 14.5 percent
tax on the rich
that would reduce the federal deficit and help eliminate the shortfall in Social Security.
In his press release announcing
his withdrawal from the race for the presidential nomination of the Reform Party, Trump wrote: "Now
I understand that David Duke has decided to join the Reform Party to support the candidacy of Pat
Buchanan. So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman-Mr. Duke, a Neo-Nazi-Mr. Buchanan, and a Communist-Ms.
[Lenora] Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep."
Compared to Trump, Buchanan was a flawed vehicle for the Jacksonian populism of the ex-Democratic
white working class. So was another Pat, the Reverend Pat Robertson, television evangelist, founder
of the Christian Coalition, and, like Buchanan, a failed candidate for the Republican presidential
nomination. But while the mainstream conservative movement marginalized Buchanan, it embraced Robertson
and other evangelical Protestant leaders like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson of Focus on the Family.
On social issues like abortion and gay rights, Buchanan shared the agenda of the religious
right. But his advocacy of tariffs to protect American industry and immigration restriction threatened
the mainstream right's consensus in favor of free trade and increased legal immigration. And his
neo-isolationism threatened the post-Cold War American right's support of high military spending
and an assertive global foreign policy.
Unlike Buchanan, Robertson and other religious right leaders did not deviate from the Republican
Party line on trade, immigration, or tax cuts for the rich. Many of the rank-and-file members
of the religious right shared the traditional populist suspicion of bankers and big business.
But in the 1990s there was a tacit understanding that religious right activists would focus on issues
of sex and reproduction and school prayer, leaving economics to free-marketers. In foreign policy,
the Christian Zionism of many Protestant evangelicals made them reliable allies of neoconservatives
with close ties to Israel and supportive of the Iraq War and other U.S. interventions in the Middle
East.
From the 1980s until this decade, the religious right was the toothless, domesticated "designated
populist" wing of the Republican coalition, and mainstream conservative politicians took it for granted
that as long as they said they opposed abortion and gay marriage, evangelical voters would support
free-market conservative economics and interventionist neoconservative foreign policy.
But even before the unexpected success of Trump in the Republican primary race beginning in
2015, there were signs that this generation-old bargain was coming undone. Hostility to both illegal
immigration and high levels of legal immigration, a position which free-market conservatives had
fought to marginalize, has moved very quickly from heresy to orthodoxy in the GOP. The opposition
of populist conservatives killed comprehensive immigration reform under George W. Bush in 2007 and
also killed the Gang of Eight immigration reform effort led in part by Senator Marco Rubio in 2013.
The defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the 2014 Republican primary for the 7th District
of Virginia by an unknown conservative academic, David Brat, was attributed largely to Cantor's support
for the immigration reform effort.
There were other signs of populist discontent with establishment conservative orthodoxy, for
those who paid attention. No project is dearer to the hearts of mainstream movement conservatives
than the goal of privatizing Social Security, a hated symbol of the dependency-inducing "statism"
of the allegedly tyrannical Franklin D. Roosevelt. But George W. Bush's plan to partly privatize
Social Security was so unpopular, even among Republican voters, that a Republican-controlled Congress
did not even bother to vote on it in 2005. And a Republican-controlled Congress passed Medicare
Part D in 2003-the biggest expansion of a universal middle-class entitlement between the creation
of Medicare in 1965 and the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Blue collar Republican voters
applauded, as libertarian think-tankers raged.
Conservative populists cannot be accused of inconsistency. Like New Deal Democrats before them,
they tend to favor universal benefits for which the middle class is eligible like Social Security,
Medicare and Medicare Part D, and to oppose welfare programs like Medicaid and the ACA which feature
means tests that make the working class and middle class ineligible. The true inconsistency is on
the part of the mainstream conservative movement, which has yoked together left-inspired crusades
for global democratic revolution abroad with minimal-state libertarianism at home.
It remains to be seen whether Trump can win the Republican nomination, much less the White House.
But whatever becomes of his candidacy, it seems likely that his campaign will prove to be just one
of many episodes in the gradual replacement of Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan conservatism by something
more like European national populist movements, such as the National Front in France and the United
Kingdom Independence Party in Britain. Unlike Goldwater, who spearheaded an already-existing alliance
consisting of National Review, Modern Age, and Young Americans for Freedom, Trump has followers but
no supportive structure of policy experts and journalists. But it seems likely that some Republican
experts and editors, seeking to appeal to his voters in the future, will promote a Trump-like national
populist synthesis of middle-class social insurance plus immigration restriction and foreign policy
realpolitik,through conventional policy papers and op-eds rather than blustering speeches and tweets.
That's looking ahead. Glancing backward, it is unclear that there has ever been any significant
number of voters who share the worldview of the policy elites in conservative think tanks and journals.
In hindsight, the various right-wing movements-the fusionist conservatism of Buckley, Goldwater and
Reagan, neoconservatism, libertarianism, the religious right-appear to have been so many barnacles
hitching free rides on the whale of the Jacksonian populist electorate. The whale is awakening beneath
them, and now the barnacles don't know what to do.
"... Trump advances core paleoconservative positions laid out in "The Next Conservatism" - rebuilding infrastructure, protective tariffs, securing borders and stopping immigration, neutralizing designated internal enemies and isolationism. ..."
"... I don't like what I see happening to America. The infrastructure of our country is a laughingstock all over the world. Our airports, our bridges, our roadways - it's falling apart. It's terrible thing to see. Our politicians are all talk, no action. Millions of people are flowing across our Southern border. We've got to build a real wall… Let's make America great again. ..."
"... He says Republicans (along with Democrats) have aided the deindustrialization of America and the dispossession of the middle class, wasted the national treasure on idiotic wars (such as in Iraq) and enabled the dramatic expansion of repressive federal power. ..."
"... As far as Trump's campaign platform goes, he appears to be capitalizing on the ideas of some of America's most astute right-wing thinkers, Weyrich and Lind, who have crafted a new breed of conservatism with far broader populist appeal than the increasingly discredited trickle-down economics, big government, interventionist, corporate capitalism-beholden style of conservatism that's become dominant in the years since Reagan. Think of the power of the platform. Prior to the election, it was taken for granted that funding from plutocratic billionaires - the Kochs, Adelson, and so on - would shape the GOP primary outcome. Now, Trump has unique talents that set him apart, sure - but without the paleocon program, Trump would be just another Republican in the pack. ..."
The corporate media haven't been able to make much sense of Donald Trump. One thing they've said
is that he's non-ideological, or at least at odds with "true conservatives." But you've pointed he
has strong affinities for paleoconservative ideas, particularly as laid out in the 2009 book, "The
Next Conservatism" by Paul Weyrich and William Lind - a copy of which Lind recently gave to
Trump. You wrote, "Trump could have derived most of his 2016 primary positions from a two-hour session
with Lind's and Weyrich's book." Could you elaborate?
Trump advances core paleoconservative
positions laid out in "The Next Conservatism" - rebuilding infrastructure, protective tariffs, securing
borders and stopping immigration, neutralizing designated internal enemies and isolationism.
For example, an eleven-minute pro-Trump infomercial from August 2015, "'On
Point' With Sarah Palin and Donald Trump" - which now has over 3,800,000 views - begins with
a mini-Trump speech that could have been ghostwritten by William Lind:
I don't like what I see happening to America. The infrastructure of our country is a laughingstock
all over the world. Our airports, our bridges, our roadways - it's falling apart. It's terrible
thing to see. Our politicians are all talk, no action. Millions of people are flowing across our
Southern border. We've got to build a real wall… Let's make America great again.
... ... ...
Lind says they're intellectually vacuous, and that the current conservatism is "rubbish" and filled
with "'I've got mine' smugness." He says Republicans (along with Democrats) have aided the deindustrialization
of America and the dispossession of the middle class, wasted the national treasure on idiotic wars
(such as in Iraq) and enabled the dramatic expansion of repressive federal power.
... ... ...
As far as Trump's campaign platform goes, he appears to be capitalizing on the ideas of some
of America's most astute right-wing thinkers, Weyrich and Lind, who have crafted a new breed of conservatism
with far broader populist appeal than the increasingly discredited trickle-down economics, big government,
interventionist, corporate capitalism-beholden style of conservatism that's become dominant in the
years since Reagan. Think of the power of the platform. Prior to the election, it was taken for granted
that funding from plutocratic billionaires - the Kochs, Adelson, and so on - would shape the GOP
primary outcome. Now, Trump has unique talents that set him apart, sure - but without the paleocon
program, Trump would be just another Republican in the pack.
Paul Rosenberg is a California-based writer/activist, senior editor for Random Lengths News,
and a columnist for Al Jazeera English. Follow him on Twitter at @PaulHRosenberg.
"... The term "paleoconservatism" is a retronym coined in the 1980s to characterize a brand of conservatism that was by then going extinct, a brand exemplified by Robert Taft, the Ohio senator and legendary isolationist who lost the 1952 Republican nomination to Dwight Eisenhower. In its day it was often referred to as the "Old Right." ..."
"... Republican isolationists prevented the US from participating in the League of Nations, led a largely non-interventionist foreign policy in the '20s, and were skeptical of the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine in the early years of the Cold War. ..."
"... The increasing interest of American business in trade abroad made the anti-internationalism of the Old Right increasingly unviable in the party of capital. ..."
"... The losses kept coming. In the 1980s, the rise of neoconservatism both threatened the anti-internationalist, America-first mentality of the paleocons and enraged them due to the prominence of Jewish writers in the neoconservative movement. ..."
"... They nearly universally opposed the war in Iraq and war on terror more broadly, and were deeply skeptical of Bill Clinton's humanitarian interventions in the Balkans. ..."
"... "We are getting out of the nation-building business, and instead focusing on creating stability in the world," he declares. "Our moments of greatest strength came when politics ended at the water's edge." That's pure paleocon. ..."
"... Whether the establishment likes it or not, and it evidently does not, there is a revolution going on in America. The old order in this capital city is on the way out, America is crossing a great divide, and there is no going back. Donald Trump's triumphant march to the nomination in Cleveland, virtually assured by his five-state sweep Tuesday, confirms it, as does his foreign policy address of Wednesday. ..."
"... Donald Trump has raised three issues of real concern to paleoconservatives and traditional conservatives like myself." ..."
"... Trump is an imperfect paleocon. He's unrefined, a recent convert, and not as socially conservative as they may like. But on the important stuff, the term fits him better than any other. ..."
One of the strangest allegations leveled against Donald Trump by his Republican critics is that
he's not a conservative - or even, in the most extreme version of this critique, that he's actually
a liberal.
"People can support Donald Trump, but they cannot support him on conservative grounds," former
George W. Bush aide
Peter Wehner writes at Commentary. "The case for constitutional limited government is the case
against Donald Trump," declares Federalist founder
Ben Domenech. "Instead of converting voters to conservatism, Trump is succeeding at converting
conservatives to statism on everything from health care and entitlements to trade," complained
National Review's Jonah Goldberg.
Insofar as these commentators are criticizing the recency of Trump's conservative convictions,
well, fair enough. In an earlier life he was indeed a big fan of
universal
health care,
wealth taxation,
and legal
abortion - and if his general election
pivoting on taxes and the minimum wage is any indication, conservative fears that he would return
to his more liberal roots in the general election may yet be vindicated.
But the ideological vision Trump put forward during the Republican primary campaign was deeply
conservative, and, more specifically, deeply paleoconservative.
The paleoconservatives were a major voice in the Republican Party for many years, with Pat Buchanan
as their most recent leader, and pushed a line that is very reminiscent of Trump_vs_deep_state.
They adhere to the normal conservative triad of nationalism, free markets, and moral traditionalism,
but they put greater weight on the nationalist leg of the stool - leading to a more strident form
of anti-immigrant politics that often veers into racism, an isolationist foreign policy rather than
a hawkish or dovish one, and a deep skepticism of economic globalization that puts them at odds with
an important element of the business agenda.
Trump is an odd standard-bearer for paleocons, many of whom are conservative Catholics and whose
passionate social conservatism doesn't jibe well with Trump's philandering. His foreign policy ideas
are also more interventionist than those of most paleocons. But the ideas that have made him such
a controversial candidate aren't ones he got from liberals. They have a serious conservative pedigree.
A brief history of paleoconservatism
The term "paleoconservatism" is a retronym coined in the 1980s to characterize a brand of
conservatism that was by then going extinct, a brand exemplified by Robert Taft, the Ohio senator
and legendary isolationist who lost the 1952 Republican nomination to Dwight Eisenhower. In its day
it was often referred to as the "Old Right."
There was a time when these positions were normal for the Republican party. Leaders like William
McKinley supported tariffs as a way of supporting domestic industries and raising revenue outside
of an income tax. Smoot and Hawley, of the infamous Great Depression tariff, were both Republicans.
Republican isolationists prevented the US from participating in the League of Nations, led a largely
non-interventionist foreign policy in the '20s, and were skeptical of the Marshall Plan and the Truman
Doctrine in the early years of the Cold War.
But starting in the first decade of the 1900s and continuing gradually through the '50s, this
balance began to be upset, especially on trade but also on issues of war and peace. Progressives
within the Republican Party began to challenge support for trade protection and argue for a more
hawkish approach to foreign affairs. The increasing interest of American business in trade abroad
made the anti-internationalism of the Old Right increasingly unviable in the party of capital.
The two defining moments that led to paleocon decline were Taft's defeat and the suppressing of
the John Birch Society by William F. Buckley and National Review in the early 1960s. The Birch Society
differed strongly from the most isolationist of paleocons on foreign affairs; it was named after
an American missionary killed by Chinese communists in 1945, whom the group claimed as the first
casualty of the Cold War.
The organization advocated an aggressive, paranoid approach to the Soviet Union. But on other
issues they were right in sync: extremely anti-immigration, hostile to foreign trade, supportive
of limited government (except where trade, immigration, and anti-communism are concerned).
Buckley, along with Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) and others, issued a series of attacks on the
society, which were successful in marginalizing it, and establishing Buckley and National Review's
brand of conservatism as the ideology's public face in America. "The attack established them as the
'responsible Right,'" according to
Buckley biographer John Judis, "and moved them out of the crackpot far Right and toward the great
center of American politics." It was a key victory for the New Right, and a key loss for the Old
Right.
The losses kept coming. In the 1980s, the rise of neoconservatism both threatened the anti-internationalist,
America-first mentality of the paleocons and enraged them due to the prominence of Jewish writers
in the neoconservative movement. While not everyone in the paleoconservative movement was an
anti-Semite, it certainly had an anti-Semitism problem, which its attacks on the neocons revealed
frequently.
From the Sobran purge to Pat Buchanan
The saga of Joseph Sobran is a case in point. A longtime columnist at National Review, he was
fired by William F. Buckley in 1993 following years of open clashes about his attitude toward Israel
and Jewish people in general. In 1991, Buckley had dedicated an entire issue of the magazine to a
40,000-word essay he wrote,
"In Search of Anti-Semitism," in which he condemned Buchanan (then challenging President George
H.W. Bush in the GOP primaries) and his employee Sobran for anti-Jewish prejudice.
Buckley had a point. Sobran really was a world-class anti-Semite, writing in one National Review
column, "If Christians were sometimes hostile to Jews, that worked two ways. Some rabbinical authorities
held that it was permissible to cheat and even kill Gentiles."
After leaving NR, Sobran's writing, in the words of fellow paleocon and
American Conservative editor Scott McConnell, "deteriorated into the indefensible." He started
speaking at conferences organized by famed Holocaust denier David Irving and the denial group
Institute for Historical Review,
asking at the latter, "Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard
numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was
not, in fact, intent on racial extermination?"
While Sobran was purged, Buchanan continued his rise. His ability to distinguish himself from
the non-paleoconservatives was enhanced by the end of the Cold War. Many paleocons made an exception
to their isolationism for the unique evil of the Soviet Union. With that boogeyman gone, they retreated
to a stricter non-interventionism. They nearly universally opposed the war in Iraq and war on
terror more broadly, and were deeply skeptical of Bill Clinton's humanitarian interventions in the
Balkans.
The '90s anti-immigrant panic, and the era's high-profile trade deals, made Buchanan and the paleocons'
views on those issues appealing to base Republicans tired of pro-trade, pro-migration GOPers.
... ... ...
Paleocons love Trump
Trump fits into this tradition quite well. He's less stridently anti–welfare state, and less socially
conservative than most paleoconservatives. But he is a great exemplar of the movement's core belief:
America should come first, and trade and migration from abroad are direct threats to its way of life.
"We are getting out of the nation-building business, and instead focusing on creating stability
in the world," he declares. "Our moments of greatest strength came when politics ended at the water's
edge." That's pure paleocon.
Whether the establishment likes it or not, and it evidently does not, there is a revolution
going on in America. The old order in this capital city is on the way out, America is crossing
a great divide, and there is no going back. Donald Trump's triumphant march to the nomination
in Cleveland, virtually assured by his five-state sweep Tuesday, confirms it, as does his foreign
policy address of Wednesday.
…Whether the issue is trade, immigration or foreign policy, says Trump, "we are putting the
American people first again." U.S. policy will be dictated by U.S. national interests.
"I would not say that Donald Trump is a paleoconservative. … I don't think [Trump's] a social
conservative,"
he elaborated in an interview with the Daily Caller. But he added, "I was just astonished to
see him raise the precise issues on which we ran in the 1990s. … Donald Trump has raised three
issues of real concern to paleoconservatives and traditional conservatives like myself."
It's not just Buchanan, either.
Derbyshire
has said that Trump is "doing the Lord's work shaking up the GOP side of the 2016 campaign," and
in another column
volunteered
his services as a speechwriter.
Virgil Goode, a former Congress member who was the paleocon Constitution Party's 2012 nominee,
has endorsed Trump as the only candidate serious about immigration. Taki has featured reams of pro-Trump
coverage, like
this piece praising his economic nationalism.
Trump is an imperfect paleocon. He's unrefined, a recent convert, and not as socially conservative
as they may like. But on the important stuff, the term fits him better than any other.
"... Trump is a paleoconservative who preaches the reduction of the U.S. presence and engagement throughout the world. His precursors were active in the America First movement, which wanted American neutrality during World War II. He can identify with Robert Taft, a Republican senator who was against NATO and the expedition to North Korea at the beginning of the Cold War. He also shares Pat Buchanan's nationalism, who was a candidate before him. ..."
"... Although Trump's political philosophy is not entirely insubstantial, his campaign stances do not have the same ideological coherence. He accuses President Bush of having lied to invade Iraq, but wants to confiscate Iranian oil to compensate the war's American victims. He has expressed his admiration for Vladimir Putin, but wants to build a wall at the Mexican border and close military bases in ally countries. He intends to ally with Russia to bomb the Islamic State group, but is contemplating a tariff war against China to protect jobs. He adheres to the Iran deal and dismisses a change of regime in Syria, but is suggesting killing North Korea's leader and the families of terrorist leaders. ..."
Published in Le Devoir (Canada) on 14 March 2016 by Charles Benjamin
[link to original]
After having shaken up the American establishment, Donald Trump's unexpected success is sowing
panic in the neoconservative camp. Known for the failed crusade they led against Iraq, the neoconservatives
are looking for a new icon to bring their ideals back to life. The announced defeat of their favorite,
Marco Rubio, has not convinced them to join forces with the lead candidate, whose populism goes against
their political convictions.
The controversial candidate's nomination could thus lead to a neoconservative exodus to the Hillary
Clinton clan, who is embodying their ideological stance more and more. This break-off would reveal
the cleavage that separates the presidential candidates. Besides the personalities, the primary elections
are the setting for a showdown between the deeply engrained political traditions of American history.
Marco Rubio: The Neoconservative Hope
Neoconservatives stem from former Democrats who were opposed to the nomination of George McGovern,
who advocated détente with the Soviet Union during the 1972 primary election. They were seduced by
the ideological zeal with which Ronald Reagan was fighting "the evil empire." The Sept. 11 attacks
sealed their grip on George W. Bush's presidency. Taken over by the missionary spirit bequeathed
by Woodrow Wilson, they wanted to free the Middle East at gunpoint and export democracy there as
a remedy to terrorism. They had a nearly blind faith in the moral superiority and military capabilities
of their country. Iraq was like a laboratory for them, where they played wizards-in-training without
accepting defeat.
In a hurry to undo Barack Obama's legacy, neoconservatives are advising Marco Rubio in regaining
the White House. They are thrilled with the belligerent speech by the candidate, who is reminiscent
of Reagan. Settled on re-affirming the dominance of the U.S., Rubio has committed to increasing the
defense budget, toughening the sanctions against Moscow, providing weapons to Ukraine, and expanding
NATO to the Russian border. He intends to increase troops to fight the Islamic State group, revive
the alliance with Israel, and end the nuclear disarmament deal with Iran. The son of Cuban immigrants,
he also promises to end all dialogue with the Castro regime and to tighten the embargo against the
island.
Donald Trump: The Paleoconservative
Donald Trump's detractors describe him as an impostor who has a serious lack of understanding
of international affairs. Yet, he has set himself apart by cultivating a noninterventionist tradition
that goes back to the interwar period. Trump is a paleoconservative who preaches the reduction
of the U.S. presence and engagement throughout the world. His precursors were active in the America
First movement, which wanted American neutrality during World War II. He can identify with Robert
Taft, a Republican senator who was against NATO and the expedition to North Korea at the beginning
of the Cold War. He also shares Pat Buchanan's nationalism, who was a candidate before him.
Although Trump's political philosophy is not entirely insubstantial, his campaign stances
do not have the same ideological coherence. He accuses President Bush of having lied to invade Iraq,
but wants to confiscate Iranian oil to compensate the war's American victims. He has expressed his
admiration for Vladimir Putin, but wants to build a wall at the Mexican border and close military
bases in ally countries. He intends to ally with Russia to bomb the Islamic State group, but is contemplating
a tariff war against China to protect jobs. He adheres to the Iran deal and dismisses a change of
regime in Syria, but is suggesting killing North Korea's leader and the families of terrorist leaders.
Hillary Clinton: The Democratic Hawk
Will Donald Trump's noninterventionist temptation and unpredictable character lead the neoconservatives
to make up with their former political group? Two figures of the movement have already repudiated
the Republican lead and announced their future support of Hillary Clinton.
The Democratic candidate boasts a much more robust and interventionist position than Obama. Annoyed
with her boss's caution while she was secretary of state, Clinton was pleading early on to send massive
reinforcements in Afghanistan. She believes in U.S. humanitarian imperialism and persuaded the president
to use force against Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Her call to help Syrian rebels at the dawn of the
Arab Spring was ignored. Now, she is giving faint support to the agreement negotiated with Iran and
supports the creation of a military exclusion zone over Syria. Her platform offers a new base for
neoconservatives, who will have to decide if they will stay loyal to their ideals or to their party.
"... Trump has been a vocal opponent of bad trade deals, while Cruz is a supporter of "free trade," even vocally backing Trade Promotion Authority for months before opportunistically voting against it when it no longer mattered ..."
"... Trump is opposed to raising the retirement age for Social Security while Cruz supports it ..."
"... Trump has famously promised he'd get along with Vladimir Putin, praised Putin's actions in Syria and has received compliments from the Russian leader; Cruz sticks to the usual anti-Russian rhetoric of the conservative movement calling Putin a "KGB thug" and saying America should undertake more intervention in the Middle East to confront Russia ..."
"... Ted Cruz notoriously called a group of Middle Eastern Christians "consumed with hate" for being insufficiently pro-Israeli while Trump has defended Middle Eastern Christians as a group that is "under assault" from Islamic terrorism ..."
But Donald Trump has changed everything. He has created the potential for a different movement
altogether. Not only is immigration at the center of his campaign, it's part of a larger agenda
that is genuinely different from the "movement conservatism" of Ted Cruz:
Trade.Trump has been a vocal opponent of bad trade deals, while Cruz is a supporter
of "free trade," even vocally backing Trade Promotion Authority for months before opportunistically
voting against it when it no longer mattered [Cruz reverses support for TPA trade bill,
blasts GOP leaders, by Manu Raju, Politico, June 23, 2015]
Safety Net. Trump is opposed to raising the retirement age for Social Security
while Cruz supports it [Where the presidential candidates stand on Social Security, by
Steve Vernon, MoneyWatch, November 23, 2015] Trump is also placing the protection of Medicare
at the center of his campaign, defying conservative movement dogma [Debate over Medicare, Social
Security, other federal benefits divides GOP, by Robert Costa and Ed O'Keefe,Washington Post,
November 4, 2015]
Russia.Trump has famously promised he'd get along with Vladimir Putin, praised
Putin's actions in Syria and has received compliments from the Russian leader; Cruz sticks
to the usual anti-Russian rhetoric of the conservative movement calling Putin a "KGB thug"
and saying America should undertake more intervention in the Middle East to confront Russia
[Ted Cruz: Russia-US tensions increasing over weak foreign policy, by Sandy Fitzgerald,Newsmax,
October 7, 2015]
Christianity. Ted Cruz notoriously called a group of Middle Eastern Christians
"consumed with hate" for being insufficiently pro-Israeli while Trump has defended Middle Eastern
Christians as a group that is "under assault" from Islamic terrorism [Trump: Absolutely
An Assault on Christianity, by Joe Kovacs, WND, August 25, 2015]. At the same time, while Trump
has been quick to defend American Christians from cultural assaults, he is also probably the
Republican "most friendly" to gay rights, as homosexual columnist Mark Stern has mischievously
noted [Of course Donald Trump is the Most Pro-Gay Republican Presidential Candidate, Slate,
December 18, 2015]
http://www.unz.com/article/whither-the-american-right/
Military coup sounds awfully good to me right about now!
xxx
Christianity. Ted Cruz notoriously called a group of Middle Eastern Christians "consumed with
hate" for being insufficiently pro-Israeli while Trump has defended Middle Eastern Christians
as a group that is "under assault" from Islamic terrorism
Maybe, I'm misunderstanding something; maybe I'm just not sure what "insufficiently pro-Israeli"
means, but Ted Cruz didn't condemn the group of Middle Eastern Christians for being "pro-Israel".
He condemned them for being anti-Israel, and said he wouldn't stand with them if they didn't stand
with Israel.
Neoliberalism is self-defeating social system, which creates the mechanism of redistribution of
wealth up, that takes that whole system down.
Notable quotes:
"... The Republicans weren't interested in inequality-but inequality was interested in them. The
conservative elite told us that we were a center-right country, that we didn't do class warfare, that
envy was un-American. But the voters, invertebrates that they are, disagreed. In fact, they thought
Obama was on to something when he said that secretaries shouldn't have to pay a higher tax rate than
their billionaire bosses. ..."
In Kennedy's day, Republicans worried more about budget deficits than economic growth and therefore
opposed his tax cuts. When the legislation came up for a final vote in the House of Representatives,
only 48 Republicans supported it and 126 voted against it, and it passed only because 223 liberal
Democrats voted for it. Remember, we are talking about a top marginal rate of 91 percent, which the
bill reduced to a still very high 65 percent.
... Trump, while he is not the poster child of inclusiveness when it comes to immigrants, has
nonetheless revived the old Reagan coalition by bringing formerly Democratic voters to the voting
booths to support him. They have left a Democratic Party whose leaders think them ignorant rednecks
who cling to their guns and religion, and they're not made to feel especially welcome when Cruz supporters
call them invertebrates and bigots: that's a good way to win an election, said no one ever.
... ... ...
What Obama had spoken to were the classically liberal themes of equality and mobility, of the
promise of a better future. The Republicans weren't interested in inequality-but inequality was
interested in them. The conservative elite told us that we were a center-right country, that we didn't
do class warfare, that envy was un-American. But the voters, invertebrates that they are, disagreed.
In fact, they thought Obama was on to something when he said that secretaries shouldn't have to pay
a higher tax rate than their billionaire bosses.
... ... ...
Our mobility problem results from departures from and not our adherence to capitalism. Rising
inequality in America has been blamed on the "1 percent," the people in the top income centile making
more than $400,000 a year. They alone don't explain American income immobility, however. Rather,
it's the risk-averse New Class-the 1, 2, or 3 percent, the professionals, academics, opinion leaders,
and politically connected executives who float above the storm and constitute an American aristocracy.
They oppose reforms that would make America mobile and have become the enemies of promise.
The New Class is apt to think it has earned its privileges through its merits, that America is
still the kind of meritocracy that it was in Ragged Dick's day, where anyone could rise from the
very bottom through his talents and efforts. Today's meritocracy is very different, however. Meritocratic
parents raise meritocratic children in a highly immobile country, and the Ragged Dicks are going
to stay where they are. We are meritocratic in name only. What we've become is Legacy Nation, a society
of inherited privilege and frozen classes, and in The Way Back I explain how we got here and what
we can do about it.
"... On Monday night, aides for the former secretary of state held a private conference call with members of the Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee and laid out how the campaign would like those members to vote at an upcoming rules meeting in Philadelphia. The purpose of the conference call was to answer any questions and ensure that the Rules Committee members, picked by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and by Clinton, remained in lockstep with the presumptive Democratic nominee. ..."
"... The stars will ultimately align and the convention will go smoothly and without a hitch. Bernie and Liddy Warren will continue their unabashed endorsement of Her, the party will be united, and the good of the American people will be top priority on the go forward. Curtain. Exit stage left. Thank you for attending another Clinton Theater production. ..."
Looks like there's a slightly different dynamic in the Clinton camp:
On Monday night, aides for the former secretary of state held a private conference call
with members of the Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee and laid out how the campaign
would like those members to vote at an upcoming rules meeting in Philadelphia. The purpose
of the conference call was to answer any questions and ensure that the Rules Committee members,
picked by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and by Clinton, remained in lockstep with
the presumptive Democratic nominee.
The roughly 30-minute call was a glimpse into how Clinton officials have sought to shape
the party platform and party rules with minimal public drama. Campaign officials have corresponded
with members via text messages to direct them how to vote and counseled them to bring concerns
directly to the campaign, rather than follow a process laid out by the DNC for submitting amendments
and resolutions. …
The plea to keep any policy disputes in-house, and off-camera, underscores the campaign's
determination to present a united front at the convention, and stave off any conflict between
the Clinton-aligned committee members and Sanders members during the drafting process. A few
months ago, Sanders was vowing to take his policy sticking points all the way to the convention
floor.
This is nothing more than a ploy to get Sanders supporters to watch the convention coverage,
so we can become acquainted with the "new" Hillary Clinton, and thus vote for Her in November.
"Let's all tune in; maybe the Bernie delegates will turn the party upside down". Expect to
be disappointed.
The stars will ultimately align and the convention will go smoothly and without a hitch. Bernie
and Liddy Warren will continue their unabashed endorsement of Her, the party will be united, and
the good of the American people will be top priority on the go forward. Curtain. Exit stage left.
Thank you for attending another Clinton Theater production.
Oh, and none of the speeches will result in legislation that actually benefits the American
people, but at least they won't be plagiarized!
There are two tiny fragments, that were amplified in a video to enormous proportion.
Reminds me the trick played with Donald Dean... BTW Michelle speech proved to be all
lie. Barack proved to be king of "bait and switch" who want to join private equity industry
after his term expires.
Here's the transcript of Michelle Obama's speech at the
Democratic National Convention in Denver eight years ago:
"As you might imagine, for Barack,
running for president is nothing compared to that first game of basketball with my brother,
Craig. I can't tell you how much it means to have Craig and my mom here tonight. Like Craig, I
can feel my dad looking down on us, just as I've felt his presence in every grace-filled moment
of my life. At 6 foot 6, I've often felt like Craig was looking down on me too. Literally. But
the truth is, both when we were kids and today, Craig wasn't looking down on me - he was watching
over me. And he's been there for me every step of the way since that clear day in Feb. 19 months
ago, when - with little more than our faith in each other and a hunger for change - we joined my
husband, Barack Obama, on the improbable journey that's led us to this moment.
But each of us also comes here tonight by way of our own improbable
journey. I come here tonight as a sister, blessed with a brother who is my mentor, my protector
and my lifelong friend. I come here as a wife who loves my husband and believes he will be an
extraordinary president. And I come here as a mom whose girls are the heart of my heart and the
center of my world. They're the first things I think about when I wake up in the morning and the
last thing I think about when I go to bed at night. Their future - and all our children's future
- is my stake in this election. And I come here as a daughter - raised on the South Side of
Chicago by a father who was a blue collar city worker and a mother who stayed at home with my
brother and me. My mother's love has always been a sustaining force for our family, and one of my
greatest joys is seeing her integrity, her compassion and her intelligence reflected in my
daughters. My dad was our rock. Although he was diagnosed with
multiple sclerosis in his early 30s, he was our provider, our champion, our hero. As he got
sicker, it got harder for him to walk. It took him longer to get dressed in the morning. But if
he was in pain, he never let on. He never stopped smiling and laughing - even while struggling to
button his shirt, even while using two canes to get himself across the room to give my mom a
kiss. He just woke up a little earlier and worked a little harder. He and my mom poured
everything they had into me and Craig. It was the greatest gift a child could receive: never
doubting for a single minute that you're loved and cherished and have a place in this world. And
thanks to their faith and their hard work, we both were able to go on to college.
So I know firsthand from their lives - and mine - that the American
dream endures. And you know, what struck me when I first met Barack was that even though he had
this funny name, even though he'd grown up all the way across the continent in Hawaii, his family
was so much like mine. He was raised by grandparents who were working class folks just like my
parents and by a single mother who struggled to pay the bills just like we did. Like my family,
they scrimped and saved so that he could have opportunities that they never had themselves. And
Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values - like you work hard for what you want
in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say you're going to do, that you treat
people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them and even if you don't agree with
them. And Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values and to pass them on to the
next generation. Because we want our children - and all children in this nation - to know that
the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your
willingness to work hard for them.
And as our friendship grew and I learned more about Barack, he
introduced me to the work he'd done when he first moved to Chicago after college. You see,
instead of heading to Wall Street, Barack went to work in neighborhoods that had been devastated.
Steel plants shut down, and jobs dried up. And he'd been invited back to speak to people from
those neighborhoods about how to rebuild their community. The people gathered together that day
were ordinary folks doing the best they could to build a good life. They were parents living
paycheck to paycheck, grandparents trying to get it together on a fixed income, men frustrated
that they couldn't support their families after their jobs disappeared. Those folks weren't
asking for a handout or a shortcut. They were ready to work. They wanted to contribute. They
believed - like you and I believe - that America should be a place where you can make it if you
try. Barack stood up that day and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked
about the world as it is and the world as it should be. And he said that all too often, we accept
the distance between the two and settle for the world as it is - even when it doesn't reflect our
values and aspirations. But he reminded us that we know what our world should look like. We know
what fairness and justice and opportunity look like. And he urged us to believe in ourselves - to
find the strength within ourselves to strive for the world as it should be.
And isn't that the great American story? It's the story of men and
women gathered in churches and union halls, in high school gyms - people who stood up and marched
and risked everything they had - refusing to settle, determined to mold our future into the shape
of our ideals. It is because of their will and determination that this week, we celebrate two
anniversaries: the 88th anniversary of women winning the right to vote and the 45th anniversary
of that hot summer day when Dr. King lifted our sights and our hearts with his dream for our
nation. And I stand here today at the crosscurrents of that history - knowing that my piece of
the American dream is a blessing hard won by those who came before me. All of them driven by the
same conviction that drove my dad to get up an hour early each day to painstakingly dress himself
for work. The same conviction that drives the men and women I've met all across this country.
People who work the day shift, kiss their kids goodnight and head out for the night shift -
without disappointment, without regret - that goodnight kiss a reminder of everything they're
working for. The military families who say grace each night with an empty seat at the table. The
servicemen and -women who love this country so much, they leave those they love most to defend
it. The young people across America serving our communities - teaching children, cleaning up
neighborhoods, caring for the least among us each and every day. People like Hillary Clinton, who
put those 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling, so that our daughters - and sons - can dream a
little bigger and aim a little higher. People like Joe Biden, who's never forgotten where he came
from and never stopped fighting for folks who work long hours and face long odds and need someone
on their side again. All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do -
that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be. That is the thread that
connects our hearts. That is the thread that runs through my journey and Barack's journey and so
many other improbable journeys that have brought us here tonight, where the current of history
meets this new tide of hope. And you see, that is why I love this country.
[Jul 20, 2016] And in my own life, in my own small way, I've tried to
give back to this country that has given me so much. See, that's why I left a job at a law firm
for a career in public service, working to empower young people to volunteer in their
communities. Because I believe that each of us - no matter what our age or background or walk of
life - each of us has something to contribute to the life of this nation. And it's a belief
Barack shares - a belief at the heart of his life's work. It's what he did all those years ago,
on the streets of Chicago, setting up job training to get people back to work and after-school
programs to keep kids safe - working block by block to help people lift up their families. It's
what he did in the Illinois Senate, moving people from welfare to jobs, passing tax cuts for
hardworking families and making sure women get equal pay for equal work. It's what he's done in
the United States Senate, fighting to ensure that the men and women who serve this country are
welcomed home not just with medals and parades but with good jobs and benefits and health care,
including mental health care.
See, that's why he's running - to end the war in Iraq responsibly, to
build an economy that lifts every family, to make health care available for every American and to
make sure every child in this nation gets a world class education all the way from preschool to
college. That's what Barack Obama will do as president of the United States of America. He'll
achieve these goals the same way he always has - by bringing us together and reminding us how
much we share and how alike we really are. You see, Barack doesn't care where you're from or what
your background is or what party - if any - you belong to. That's not how he sees the world. He
knows that thread that connects us - our belief in America's promise, our commitment to our
children's future - he knows that that thread is strong enough to hold us together as one nation
even when we disagree. It was strong enough to bring hope to those neighborhoods in Chicago. It
was strong enough to bring hope to the mother he met worried about her child in Iraq, hope to the
man who's unemployed but can't afford gas to find a job, hope to the student working nights to
pay for her sister's health care, sleeping just a few hours a day. And it was strong enough to
bring hope to people who came out on a cold Iowa night and became the first voices in this chorus
for change that's been echoed by millions of Americans from every corner of this nation. Millions
of Americans who know that Barack understands their dreams, millions who know that Barack will
fight for people like them and that Barack will finally bring the change we need.
And in the end, after all that's happened these past 19 months, the
Barack Obama I know today is the same man I fell in love with 19 years ago. He's the same man who
drove me and our new baby daughter home from the hospital 10 years ago this summer, inching along
at a snail's pace, peering anxiously at us in the rearview mirror, feeling the whole weight of
her future in his hands, determined to give her everything he'd struggled so hard for himself,
determined to give her what he never had: the affirming embrace of a father's love. And as I tuck
that little girl and her little sister into bed at night, you see, I think about how one day,
they'll have families of their own. And how one day, they - and your sons and daughters - will
tell their own children about what we did together in this election. They'll tell them how this
time, we listened to our hopes instead of our fears. How this time, we decided to stop doubting
and to start dreaming. How this time, in this great country - where a girl from the South Side of
Chicago can go to college and law school and the son of a single mother from Hawaii can go all
the way to the White House - we committed ourselves to building the world as it should be. So
tonight, in honor of my father's memory and my daughters' future - out of gratitude to those
whose triumphs we mark this week and those whose everyday sacrifices have brought us to this
moment - let us devote ourselves to finishing their work. Let us work together to fulfill their
hopes. And let's stand together to elect Barack Obama president of the United States of America.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America."
And here's the transcript of the speech that Melania Trump read
at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland Monday night:
"Thank you very much. Thank you. You have all been very kind to Donald
and me, to our young son, Barron, and to our whole family. It's a very nice welcome, and we're
excited to be with you at this historic convention. I am so proud of your choice for president of
the United States, my husband, Donald J. Trump. And I can assure you, he is moved by this great
honor. The 2016 Republican primaries were fierce and started with many candidates, 17 to be
exact, and I know that Donald agrees with me when I mention how talented all of them are. They
deserve respect and gratitude from all of us. However, when it comes to my husband, I will say
that I am definitely biased, and for good reason.
I have been with Donald for 18 years and I have been aware of his love
for this country since we first met. He never had a hidden agenda when it comes to his
patriotism, because, like me, he loves this country so much. I was born in Slovenia, a small,
beautiful and then communist country in Central Europe. My sister Ines, who is an incredible
woman and a friend, and I were raised by my wonderful parents. My elegant and hardworking mother
Amalia introduced me to fashion and beauty. My father Viktor instilled in me a passion for
business and travel. Their integrity, compassion and intelligence reflect to this day on me and
for my love of family and America. From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that
you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and
keep your promise, that you treat people with respect. They taught and showed me values and
morals in their daily life. That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son, and we
need to pass those lessons on to the many generation to follow. I traveled the world while
working hard in the incredible arena of fashion.
After living and working in Milan and Paris, I arrived in New York City
20 years ago, and I saw both the joys and the hardships of daily life. On July 28, 2006, I was
very proud to become a citizen of the United States - the greatest privilege on planet Earth. I
cannot or will not take the freedoms this country offers for granted. But these freedoms have
come with a price so many times. The sacrifices made by our veterans are reminders to us of this.
I would like to take this moment to recognize an amazing veteran, the great Sen. Bob Dole. And
let us thank all of our veterans in the arena today and those across our great country. We are
all truly blessed to be here. That will never change.
I can tell you with certainty that my husband has been concerned about
our country for as long as I have known him. With all of my heart, I know that he will make a
great and lasting difference. Donald has a deep and unbounding determination and a never-give-up
attitude. I have seen him fight for years to get a project done - or even started - and he does
not give up. If you want someone to fight for you and your country, I can assure you, he is the
guy. He will never, ever, give up. And, most importantly, he will never, ever, let you down.
Donald is and always has been an amazing leader. Now he will go to work for you. His achievements
speak for themselves, and his performance throughout the primary campaign proved that he knows
how to win. He also knows how to remain focused on improving our country - on keeping it safe and
secure. He is tough when he has to be, but he is also kind and fair and caring. This kindness is
not always noted, but it is there for all to see. That is one reason I fell in love with him to
begin with. Donald is intensely loyal. To family, friends, employees, country. He has the utmost
respect for his parents, Mary and Fred; to his sisters, Maryanne and Elizabeth; to his brother
Robert; and to the memory of his late brother, Fred. His children have been cared for and
mentored to the extent that even his adversaries admit they are an amazing testament to who he is
as a man and a father. There is a great deal of love in the Trump family. That is our bond, and
that is our strength.
Yes, Donald thinks big, which is especially important when considering
the presidency of the United States. No room for small thinking. No room for small results.
Donald gets things done. Our country is underperforming and needs new leadership. Leadership is
also what the world needs. Donald wants our country to move forward in the most positive of ways.
Everyone wants change. Donald is the only one that can deliver it. We should not be satisfied
with stagnation. Donald wants prosperity for all Americans. We need new programs to help the poor
and opportunities to challenge the young. There has to be a plan for growth. Only then will
fairness result. My husband's experience exemplifies growth and the successful passage of
opportunity to the next generation. His success indicates inclusion rather than division. My
husband offers a new direction, welcoming change, prosperity and greater cooperation among
peoples and nations. Donald intends to represent all the people, not just some of the people.
That includes Christians and Jews and Muslims. It includes Hispanics and African-Americans and
Asians and the poor and the middle class. Throughout his career, Donald has successfully worked
with people of many faiths and with many nations.
Like no one else, I have seen the talent, the energy, the tenacity, the
resourceful mind and the simple goodness of heart that God gave Donald Trump. Now is the time to
use those gifts as never before, for purposes far greater than ever before. And he will do this
better than anyone else can, and it won't even be close. Everything depends on it, for our cause
and for our country. People are counting on him - all the millions of you who have touched us so
much with your kindness and your confidence. You have turned this unlikely campaign into a
movement that is still gaining in strength and number. The primary season - and its toughness -
is behind us.
Let's all come together in a national campaign like no other. The race
will be hard-fought, all the way to November. There will be good times and hard times and
unexpected turns - it would not be a Trump contest without excitement and drama. But through it
all, my husband will remain focused on only one thing: this beautiful country that he loves so
much. If I am honored to serve as first lady, I will use that wonderful privilege to try to help
people in our country who need it the most. One of the many causes dear to my heart is helping
children and women. You judge a society by how it treats its citizens. We must do our best to
ensure that every child can live in comfort and security, with the best possible education. As
citizens of this great nation, it is kindness, love and compassion for each other that will bring
us together - and keep us together. These are the values Donald and I will bring to the White
House. My husband is ready to lead this great nation. He is ready to fight, every day, to give
our children the better future they deserve. Ladies and gentlemen, Donald J. Trump is ready to
serve and lead this country as the next president of the United States.
The problem with this paragraph lifted in not so much that Melania is plagiarizing (she does)
but that Michele is blatantly lying. What she said is a blatant, obvious lie: "Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard
for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you're going to do;
that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them, and even if you don't
agree with them." Barack for example is a king of "bait and switch", one of the most
dishonest Presidents the USA ever has (and the USA has many -- think about Clinton and Bush II).
He betrayed all his votes and not once but trice. Throwing them under the bus, with a broad smile
and nice words. Michele herself was skating using "affirmative action" bandwagon. It one read her
Princeton thesis one would understand that she did not got much out of this privileged university
and probably unfairly was awarded her diploma for her gender and the color of her skin, not so much
for her academic achievements.
The way MSM launched this attack suggest that they were preparing for something like that. what
a neoliberal bastards ;-) Actually I do no know about Michelle (whose Princeton graduation thesis
is really extremely weak nonsense -- no signs of work on it at all) , but plagiarism or not, for Melania
herself this statement is more or less true (abstracting from republican "meritocracy" memo) -- "From
a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life; that
your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise; that you treat people with respect." She managed to get to top level of model business on her own, and also proved to be a
rather talented jewelry
designer on her own right (and this talent was demonstrated by her at young age -- her high school
friends report that she never wear jewelry not made by herself). .
Notable quotes:
"... "From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise; that you treat people with respect. ..."
"... The borrowed phrases are trite and generic ..."
"... It's also true, as my colleague David Lauter points out, that the controversy has been a distraction for the Trump campaign. ..."
"... But Democrats (including Michelle Obama) would be wise to play it cool. Even if the mockery is directed at the Trump campaign, Melania Trump will suffer collateral damage - and sympathy for her could redound to her husband's benefit. ..."
Outrages abound at this week's Republican National Convention, so there is plenty for Democrats
and other Trumpophobes to get exercised about. Melania Trump's alleged plagiarism of a Michelle Obama
speech isn't one of them.
Granted, it looks as if the potential first lady (or her speechwriters) lifted some passages from
the current first lady's speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Viewed synoptically,
as New Testament scholars would say, the parallels are striking.
Michelle Obama: "Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard
for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you're going to do;
that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them, and even if you don't
agree with them."
Melania Trump:"From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard
for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise;
that you treat people with respect."
Case seemingly closed. But so what?
Melania Trump (unlike Donald Trump's adult children) is apparently not a campaign adviser.
Her speech would have been fluff even if it had been 100% original.
The borrowed phrases are trite and generic. (Michelle Obama is no Neil Kinnock, the
lyrical Welsh politician famously ripped off by Joe Biden.)
Even a sophisticated political campaign might make this mistake, and the Trump campaign is
far from sophisticated.
The similarity between the two speeches is embarrassing, and so is the insistence by one campaign
official that there was "no cribbing." A Republican National Committee strategist ramped up the ridicule
by noting that other passages in the speech mirrored language used by a character in "My Little Pony."
It's also true, as my colleague David Lauter points out, that the controversy has been a distraction
for the Trump campaign.
But Democrats (including Michelle Obama) would be wise to play it cool. Even if the mockery
is directed at the Trump campaign, Melania Trump will suffer collateral damage - and sympathy for
her could redound to her husband's benefit.
"... Admitting that the Iraq war was a grievous, horrible error is necessary but not sufficient to reform Republican foreign policy. ..."
"... The trouble with the rest of the 2016 field wasn't just that many of the candidates were Iraq war dead-enders, but that they were so obsessed with the idea of American "leadership" that almost all of them thought that the U.S. needed to be involved in multiple conflicts in different parts of the world in one way or another. ..."
"... Almost none of the declared 2016 candidates opposed the Libyan war at the time, and very few concluded that the problem with intervening in Libya was the intervention itself. The standard hawkish line on Libya for years has been that the U.S. should have committed itself to another open-ended exercise in stabilizing a country we helped to destabilize. ..."
"... Until Republican politicians and their advisers start to understand that reflexive support for "action" (and some kind of military action at that) is normally the wrong response, we can't expect much to change. Most Republican foreign policy professionals seem to hold the same shoddy assumptions that led them to endorse all of the interventions of the last 15 years without exception, and nothing that has happened during that time has caused most of them to reexamine those assumptions. ..."
"... Until they stop fetishizing American "leadership" and invoking "American exceptionalism" as an excuse to meddle in every new crisis, Republicans will end up in the same cul-de-sac of self-defeating belligerence. ..."
"... Opposition to the deal reflects so many of the flaws in current Republican foreign policy views: automatic opposition to any diplomatic compromise that might actually work, grossly exaggerating the potential threat from another state, conflating U.S. interests with those of unreliable client states, continually moving goalposts to judge a negotiated deal by unreasonable standards, insisting on maximalist concessions from the other side while refusing to agree to minimal concessions from ours, and making spurious and unfounded allegations of "appeasement" at every turn to score points against political adversaries at home. ..."
It would be a good start if all future presidential candidates could acknowledge the disastrous
and costly folly of the Iraq war, but it would only be a start. Admitting that the Iraq war was a
grievous, horrible error is necessary but not sufficient to reform Republican foreign policy.
The
trouble with the rest of the 2016 field wasn't just that many of the candidates were Iraq war dead-enders,
but that they were so obsessed with the idea of American "leadership" that almost all of them thought
that the U.S. needed to be involved in multiple conflicts in different parts of the world in one
way or another.
Almost none of the declared 2016 candidates opposed the Libyan war at the time, and
very few concluded that the problem with intervening in Libya was the intervention itself. The standard
hawkish line on Libya for years has been that the U.S. should have committed itself to another open-ended
exercise in stabilizing a country we helped to destabilize. Most Republican politicians are so wedded
to a belief in the efficacy of using hard power that they refuse to admit that there are many problems
that the U.S. can't and shouldn't try to solve with it.
Until Republican politicians and their advisers start to understand that reflexive support
for "action" (and some kind of military action at that) is normally the wrong response, we can't
expect much to change. Most Republican foreign policy professionals seem to hold the same shoddy
assumptions that led them to endorse all of the interventions of the last 15 years without exception,
and nothing that has happened during that time has caused most of them to reexamine those assumptions.
Until they stop fetishizing American "leadership" and invoking "American exceptionalism" as
an excuse to meddle in every new crisis, Republicans will end up in the same cul-de-sac of self-defeating
belligerence. Unless Republicans adopt a much less expansive definition of "vital interests,"
they will routinely end up on the wrong side of most major foreign policy debates.
Finally, unless most Republican politicians and their advisers overcome their aversion to diplomatic
engagement they will end up supporting costlier, less effective, and more destructive policies for
lack of practical alternatives. The virtually unanimous opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran
is a good example of the sort of thing that a reformed Republican Party wouldn't do.
Opposition to
the deal reflects so many of the flaws in current Republican foreign policy views: automatic opposition
to any diplomatic compromise that might actually work, grossly exaggerating the potential threat
from another state, conflating U.S. interests with those of unreliable client states, continually
moving goalposts to judge a negotiated deal by unreasonable standards, insisting on maximalist concessions
from the other side while refusing to agree to minimal concessions from ours, and making spurious
and unfounded allegations of "appeasement" at every turn to score points against political adversaries
at home.
Obviously these are habits cultivated over decades and are not going to be fixed quickly
or easily, but if the next Republican administration (whenever that may be) doesn't want to conduct
foreign policy as disastrously as the last one did they are habits that need to be broken.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been
published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Orthodox Life, Front Porch
Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and is a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in
history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Dallas. Follow him on Twitter.
I doubt many public figures were happier than Bernie Sanders to see the seemingly endless presidential
election carnival overtaken by other news last week. Beneath the headlines on race and criminal justice,
the nominal socialist "revolution" advocate Sanders got to make his official endorsement of the right-wing
corporatist and war hawk Hillary Clinton with the public's eyes focused on different and more immediately
hideous matters.
Anyone on the left who was surprised or disappointed by Bernie's long-promised Cowardly Lion endorsement
of Mrs. Clinton one week ago hadn't paid serious attention to his campaign and career. Sanders' "democratic
socialism" has always been a leaky cloak for a mildly social-democratic liberalism that is fiscally
and morally negated by his commitment to the nation's giant Pentagon System.
More
If Trump is the price we have to pay to defeat Clintonian neoliberalism – so be it.
-- Mumia Abu-Jamal
With these words the revolutionary journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal offers a bold challenge to those
who circulate the fear of a Trump presidency to drum up a mandate for voting for Clinton.
Mumia's words were shared with me just a month ago in a prison visit with him. They are a timely
challenge to Bernie Sanders' endorsement this week of Hillary Clinton's drive for the presidency.
Sanders mantra is anchored in the fear of Trump: "I will do everything possible to help defeat Trump."
But it is not just a Trump presidency that needs defeating. It is just as important to defeat
the very "Clintonian neoliberalism" whose party Sanders now joins.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie blasted Hillary Clinton, conducting a mock trial and asking the
audience to "render [a] verdict" on her record as secretary of state. He was on target about Libya and Algeria, off the mark as for
Syria and Iran (that does not means that Hillary is not guilty of instigating civil war in the country).
He is completely lunatic on Russia.
Days after being passed over as Donald Trump's running mate, Chris Christie took the podium at
the GOP convention to make the case for the party's presidential nominee.
But his focus, as has been the case for many of the convention speakers, was focused more on
Hillary Clinton than Trump.
"This election is not just about Donald Trump. It is also about his Democratic opponent, Hillary
Rodham Clinton," he said at the beginning of his remarks.
"... Manafort mentioned the return of Glass-Steagall specifically as a counterpoint against Hillary Clinton, arguing it was Democrats that were the ones actually beholden to big banks. "We believe the Obama-Clinton years have passed legislation that has been favorable to the big banks, which is why you see all the Wall Street money going to her," he said. "We are supporting the small banks and Main Street." ..."
"... Good! Screw the Clintons and crony capitalism. ..."
"... Bob Rubin already cashed the checks....Mission Accomplished. ..."
"... Laugh Track Deafening) ..."
"... How different would it be now if everyone in that photo had died simultaneously BEFORE Clinton signed it? ..."
"... Panic attacks and violent pangs on Wall Street tomorrow? Or will they just pour billions more into the Clinton corruption campaign? ..."
"... Hang the Clintons, Bushes, and all the damned banksters with them. Then your reforms might mean something ..."
While we know better than to trust politician promises, we were surprised to read that today the
GOP joined the Democrats in calling for a repeal of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the Financial Services Modernization
Act of 1999 pushed through by none other than Bill Clinton, and will seek a return to Glass-Steagall,
the banking law launched in 1933 in the aftermath of the Great Depression meant to prohibit commercial
banks from engaging in the investment business, and which according to many was one of the catalysts
that led to the Global Financial Crisis.
According to
The Hill, Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's campaign manager, told reporters gathered in Cleveland
Monday that the GOP platform would include language advocating for a return of that law, which was
repealed under President Bill Clinton, husband of, well you know...
"We also call for a reintroduction of Glass-Steagall, which created barriers between what big
banks can do," he said.
Including that language in the GOP platform comes shortly after Democrats agreed to similar language
in their own, calling for an "updated and modernized version" of the law.
However before anyone gets their hopes up, recall that a party platform is not binding but is thought
to reflect the values of the party.... until the values change as a result of Wall Street "incentives"
because if there is one thing US "commercial banks" can not afford it is a separation of their depository
and investment activities.
The GOP platform has not yet been officially released, although the convention is expected to
approve it later Monday. Nonetheless, the embrace of Glass-Steagall by both parties is a telling
indication of how unpopular Wall Street remains with the public, years after the financial crisis.
Manafort mentioned the return of Glass-Steagall specifically as a counterpoint against Hillary Clinton,
arguing it was Democrats that were the ones actually beholden to big banks. "We believe the Obama-Clinton
years have passed legislation that has been favorable to the big banks, which is why you see all
the Wall Street money going to her," he said. "We are supporting the small banks and Main Street."
I think we're a step further than that. The majority still accept it as a De- facto,
impossible to change reality which they are to lazy to try and change. The excuse of
''its all too late and impossible to change'' peddled to them by all the branches of
the system and in particular the corrupt establishment mainstream media. But that era
is coming to an end....next election will be far more momentous...this one may be the
last time BAU politicians prevail
Report
I think we're a step further than that. The majority
still accept it as a De- facto, impossible to change reality which they are to lazy to try
and change. The excuse of ''its all too late and impossible to change'' peddled to them by
all the branches of the system and in particular the corrupt establishment mainstream
media."
Strangely enough, this isn't so different from Russian politics. Two different sides of
the same, or similar, coin. Eery stuff.
We need to flush congress. All the attention is on president/presidential election,
and many don't vote for a congressman while there. Oust the incumbents.
Report
2-3 elections with all incumbents being voted out with the exception of always voting
against the candidate with the most dark money always being voted against and the
candidates will get the message to start listening to the voters instead of the
donors.
Report
I'd be in favor of electing congressmen for 4 years rather than 2. Most of them will get
reelected anyway and at least then they may have a year of two where they might actually
consider wise legislation rather than never getting off the money treadmill.
Between the hag and the buffoon, I'm sorry to say that we're all fcuked for another 8
years. Million more white collar jobs will have left the US at that time, middle class
wealth completely shredded and the top 1 or 2% richer than ever before (or probably
buying up Mars real estate).
The people we elect work for the economies of China and
India. Our tax dollars are creating jobs in Shanghai. Let's all sit down and cry. Or
take to FB and post selfies. Duck face.
Report
No reason to demonize China and India. They produce many quality products at low
prices Americans want.
US corps are outsourcing these jobs. And we are buying more than we need or use.
Complain to government, tax corps, close tax havens and stop buying foreign produced
goods by paying an extra 20 to 40%.
Report
Revoking Citizens United is Bernie's issue. Once in a while Hillary quietly mouths a platitude
about campaign reform, but her hand is in the till bigtime. Her Supreme Ct issue is abortion;
she won't touch Citizens United. After all, the status quo is her cause.
I see more of this articles very frequently nowadays as Hillary already clinched the
nomination. These things are not out of the blue issues, Sanders started his campaign
talking about these yet the Guardian dint a give shit then. Now all they care is their
readers. Pff,give me break.
Report
Thank you. It was so blatant that is was shocking. The Guardian turned its back on
the first Green President - and yet asks me to join their campaigns?!
Interesting the near obsession about Citizens United. Nothing about Bill Clinton driving
a Mack truck through campaign finance laws. Nothing about the legal graft of Goldman
Sachs passing $675,000 to Hillary for speeches nobody would pay a quid to hear, and
nothing about the last campaign reform effort, where McCain-Feingold inserted an
incumbent protection clause in what was supposed to keep dirty money out of politics.
Report
She will not release the transcripts because she knows they are damning. It's obvious. When
she says "I'll release them when everyone else does." Does that sound like a LEADER? no way. A
leader would own up to that shit. SHe is a tool, not a leader.
There is a bright side to all this. Obama, the Guardian, and many liberals are
propounding the benefits of a stronger and even more centralized government. Given the
gains that the Republicans made in the Congress and various states, it seems even Obama
never really sold the public on this. Should Clinton win, which seems probable though
it's a weird year, her primary focus will clearly be on propelling the family into the
ranks of billionaires. I think, or am at least hopeful, that four years from now much of
the public will be so sick of these people that they'll realize that we really don't get
all that much from them.
Report
Whence Hillary's obsession with lucre? When she was first lady of Arkansas she bitched to her
friends about her lack of money. She was the pipeline for Tyson's bribery concerning the phony
cattle futures. Before she took the oath of office as a Senator she posted a wish list for
people who wanted to buy favors. There's something weird about someone who never lacked for
creature comforts her entire life devoting her life to collecting funds, even if by crook.
From this side of the pond, from a 60's kid, America is dead. Maybe All those American
states would do better as independent countries. The America today is a disgrace to its'
peoples.
Report
You know, from this side of the pond (US) we are seriously thinking of asking Texas to
go back to Mexico. That would be a good start, after all Texas thinks it a good idea for
its citizens to walk around their city streets carrying "assault style weapons" and not
only that, now they want students in their Universities to carry concealed weapons also.
Would any of you on your side of the pond like to have Texas, we will be willing to let
them go real cheap. C'mon now, make us an offer we can't refuse.
Report
From this (US) side of the pond, it's clear that people reading the MSM think that the whole
of the US is like a wild west movie shootout. If I were to believe the MSM, I might be
forgiven that thinking that Godzilla is crashing through the Houses of Parliament as I write.
Try a bit of perspective will you? And put your tinfoil hat back on. It wasn't that long ago
that a crazed UK citizen shot and killed an MP was it?
Our system was founded on the presumption that an informed electorate will make the best
choice. Obviously we have missed that mark. Having the average voter be better informed is
always a good thing. Can we lay some blame at the feet of our incompetent public schools? How
many recent public school graduates can recite the declaration of Independence? Who is
responsible for our current state of ignorance? Is half the story a lie? Our founding fathers
intended a free press to inform the masses. The Guardian is one of several media outlets that
have gone from informative to outright advocacy. The opinion pieces here that are passed off
as fact are nonstop. The progressive revision of history and willful ignorance of facts is
disheartening. Sure big money can distort results, but putting a government agency in charge
of policing who gets to donate is a whole new mess.
We were blessed with an enduring document in our constitution. To ignore it is foolish. More
government is not always better government. The current rise of outsiders reflects our angst
here in flyover country. We have had enough of Washington insiders doing the bait and switch.
We are not under taxed, we are not under regulated, we need you media outlets to tell the
truth about the corruption and deceit rampant in Washington even on the left
"Our system was founded on the presumption that an informed electorate will make the best
choice."
Depends on who is doing the informing, and what information pablum they feed to the masses.
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental
principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them
over and over."
― Joseph Goebbels
Goebbels had a thorough understanding of how to manipulate the minds of the masses, and
current politicians have studied him well. All it takes is money to put the spin on. The media
love it, because that's where all that money goes to produce the spin. Why do you think they
left Sanders in such a void? Because his platform is to get all that money out of politics.
The only hope the US has is for 34 states on a local level,to call for a convention to
amend the constitution,with the repeal citizens united being the amendement proposed.
The beautiful part the US founding fathers left for the people is the ability to change
the law if enough states want it. So when the judicial,executive,legislative as well as
the press fail the people,they can change the law themselves. Its the only hope the US
has at this point.
Report
Citizens United doesn't just let Walmart fund PACs to run ads against unions. It allows unions
to fund PACs to run ads against trade agreements. It allows the Sierra Club to fund PACs to
run ads about environmental policy. It allows NARAL to fund PACs to support abortion rights.
Do you really want create an environment where only individuals can engage in political speech
and where people can't organize groups to speak collectively? Limiting political speech is not
something we should take lightly. Citizens United didn't cause the partisanship problems we
have today and it's not the reason our representatives are content to do nothing. The way we
elect people is the real problem, not how we fund our elections, that's a side effect of the
former.
Guardian presstitutes are ready to defend even indefensible Hillary Clinton behaviour.
Notable quotes:
"... I think that the moment she mixed personal and work related or classified information, she loses the right to claim that any of the emails were personal. Hence, all emails become connected to her work as SOS, and none of the emails can be deleted. None of her emails can be treated as personal anymore, they have now become government property. She had no right to delete anything. ..."
"... In Hillary's case, I suspect "personal emails" is a euphemism for ANY correspondence she does not want exposed in official governmental records, including that which could be used against her politically in the future, i.e. backroom deals, dubious policies, nefarious schemes, etc. ..."
This is disheartening and outrageous, with State and Justice skirting around the issues,
and as one commenter said, covering for Hillary in a partisan way.
The departments have
been largely silent on rules and legalities, and now they've evolved to tiptoeing.
Pathetic.
The comparison of government server deletions versus private server deletions
and
wipes
is inapt. Government employees and service members -- the millions who aren't as
special as Hillary with private off-site servers for their work -- surely can delete any
emails they choose, work or personal. But backup records are controlled by government IT
departments, who ideally are following records-keeping regulations.
Not so with the queen's server and email setup. She's deplorable, as is this State and
Justice mockery.
If the President continues to stand for this, I have no interest in voting. I haven't
pulled him into my disgust with this topic until now ... Justice is full of crap.
1. The media covers it but not in a
comprehensive or responsible way. The NY Times barely touches it. Same with The Economist.
The Post pushes it to those vacuous bloggers, DM and CC. The New Yorker is hiding under a
rock.
2. You would expect all to write "Calls to Action" of some kind.
3. Some kind of legal clarifications is order--several, actually. All the Title 18 items
need to be clarified for the public. Do they apply?
4. Damage analysis. What possible damage could have been done?
5. Role of the administration? How did this situation last for four years?
6. Are the deleted e-mails going to surface?
7. Cost. Why should public pay for the legal and administrative chaos of a rogue SoS?
All these issues lead to more questions. In this case, who authorized the use? Who knew?
Who responded to the existence of this rogue communications network? Who maintained? Which
if any clearances did they have? Did they share any of what they knew with others? And this
is just the most basic of this whole tsunami of needless problems. Just this avenue leads
to millions of dollars of investigative hours. Many millions...
The Guardian is being quite irresponsible here. You need to quote/date your sources and
supply links to the full documents. Which case? When? Who? It looks to me as though you are
just grabbing an article by a disreputable Metro DC publication that I am not going to
dignify by naming.
Also, assuming that something like this story is accurate, why would
DOJ do this?
Am not sure why you add a click-bait article to this complex topic--you should just
stick with the tabloid, sports, Hollywood junk articles that fill your virtual space these
days.
She simply used a classified government email system, or more likely, approved
hardcopy classified draft messages for a member of her staff to send with her
approval.
No, she didn't use a government email system (classified or not). She
used a private email system, completely outside the government.
And no, she didn't set up her own server for the purpose of having hard copies of
message drafts. So far, she has suggested a range of different reasons:
- To have just one device for both her official and personal
communications....which is a lie: she had two devices.
- She was "not thinking very much about it"... which is a lie: she had a private
server installed in her house, a domain registered under a former aide's name, and
key staffers conducting official government business on that server. And she paid
$5000 to a former IT aide to set up the system.
Report
In short, she wrongly used a private server and
personal email address for the majority of her official work, which of course is not
permissible for classified information, and questionable at best for unclassified content.
And she has wrongly lied to the American public in response to related questions.
But just because she used her private account does not mean she did not have a largely
inactive .gov address. And she also likely had a government address on a classified
government system, which she or her staff likely used when receiving or sending
marked
classified information.
Of course she had the right to delete to personal emails - keep in mind that had she used a
gov't-provided account like almost all other State Department employees she would have had
to follow the rules governing personal use of tax payer-provided equipment and services.
Ms Clinton certainly did not have the right to process classified information on a
personal computer system. That's illegal. You'd think the top executive would know such
things.
I think that the moment she mixed personal and work related or classified information,
she loses the right to claim that any of the emails were personal. Hence, all emails become
connected to her work as SOS, and none of the emails can be deleted. None of her emails can
be treated as personal anymore, they have now become government property. She had no right
to delete anything.
In Hillary's case, I suspect "personal emails" is a euphemism for ANY correspondence
she does not want exposed in official governmental records, including that which could be
used against her politically in the future, i.e. backroom deals, dubious policies,
nefarious schemes, etc.
How very cynical of you! If ever there was an opening for a 'Mr. Clean' named Joe Biden,
this is it. Hillary is plummeting in the polls. Biden is not in the race, yet he polls 20%.
After his appearance on Colbert on Thursday evening, I think that if he were to declare,
his support would double, at least. At 40%, he would be ahead of Hillary. In addition to
being thoroughly unethical, Hillary is not liked even by those who work with her.
For many, Hillary's very existence is a crime, so no amount of exoneration by the
Justice Dept... or indeed anyone else.... will change anything. The relentless
attacks will continue, and many of us will continue to see them as a clear indication
of how vulnerable the Republicans feel about their own Presidential prospects, with a
campaign that's in complete disarray, and a front runner who seems determined to
systematically alienate every single one of the demographic groups that the GOP had
hoped to court this time around. Frankly, I'd be worried too if I were a Republican!
Report
The Justice Department run by a political democratic appointee says Hillary has "rights" I
wonder.....Fast and Furious, NSA spying, Waco, refusal to disseminate information after
numerous court orders as directed under freedom of information act etc etc.. So you say we
we should stand behind whatever the justice department says....LOL. Seems they are even
more guilt of lying and cover ups then she is.
For almost all of us when using the company's equipment our emails become the property of
the company. All mail on a company server is backed up for a period of time and it is the
responsibility of the user to insure critical Emails are saved or archived properly to
prevent them from being deleted thru periodic routine house keeping by the IT department.
Being that all emails become company property and subject to review at any time by the
company it seems quite obvious this was unacceptable to the Clinton's and could lead to
problems similar to the Nixon fiasco on which Hillary cut her teeth just out of school. She
as arrogant as she is decided she could ignore the the rules and keep all her
communications to herself. She thinks if she says she did no wrong long enough people will
give up. They usually do. While that still won't make her right it certainly makes her
someone not to be trusted.
Here is the deal folks.... This person wants to be president and have the responsibilities
that go along with the office. If she can't even be competent with the little data she was
entrusted why should she be given more responsibility? Because she is a woman?
Why are we rewarding incompetence? Obama was re-elected despite the incredibly low labor
usage, declining wage growth, and skyrocketing health care costs. He made it his mission to
provide "affordable" care with the ACA, yet my rates doubled up to $500/month (compare this
with my ever decreasing car insurance rates… only $25/month from Insurance Panda now). Yet
we voted him in for 8 years? And we want to elect Hillary?
I am sorry but when you do a poor job at any job they don't promote you unless they just
want to go out of business. Also what this woman did was a crime. Nixon was impeached for
less, Edward Snowden did the same thing and is in hiding in Russia and the Government won't
let him come home, and General Petraeus was forced to resign from his position in the CIA
yet this woman is not facing any charges so far and is running for the highest office in
the land. What is wrong with this picture?
Read the entire section under 5 FAM 443.5. Nothing in the system is considered "personal"
and there is no expectation of privacy expected or granted. Cherry picking or rephrasing a
rule that anybody can read in two minutes is also no way to go about your day.
Every email has a sender and a receiver. Usually multiple servers are involved. Every email
in the system is recorded at numerous points, even if deleted at the source or destination.
A day or two with a talented engineer and a high speed search engine would recover just
about all of it. No warrant would be required for anything with a government connection. --
only the will to do it or an order from the appropriate judge.
a corrupt woman with such poor judgment and a Tory attitude toward the working class should
not be president. No wonder Sanders is rising in the polls.
To Clinton's supporters ... here's a nice summary of everything she's done wrong on this
subject, most of it intentional with no respect for most anyone.
She has purposely circumvented maintaining public records, dragged her feet in providing
records as required, and botched public attempts to claim her actions have been aboveboard
... because they haven't been.
However legal or illegal, unbelievable gullibility is
needed to assert she's done nothing wrong.
She's trying to play us, people of all political beliefs. And despite notable executive
and media support, she's largely failing, as both public responses and her reactions have
demonstrated.
Another biased article that fails to include the context of the allegations (that Clinton
had the right to delete emails) and consequently it provides a misleading impression.
This is NO vindication for Hillary Clinton - it is a defence filing in a case where the
Judge Emmet Sullivan has already decided at an earlier hearing that Clinton has violated
Government Policy with regard to the handling of emails.
As a result of his decision he ordered the State Department to tell the FBI to go
through all the emails (that are recovered - assuming they can be recovered), both business
and personal, on her home brew server to see if Hillary deleted any emails she should have
handed over to him as part of the FOI case.
Now Clinton's people are up in arms - Why? Is it because she deleted embarrassing emails
regarding Benghazi? Is it because the FBI (having been instructed by a Federal Judge) might
end up reading emails relating to dodgy dealings at the Clinton Foundation?
In the deeply Politicised US Civil Service both the State Department and the Justice
Department are objecting to the Judge's decision and are attempting to limit the inquiry.
For those that naively (or perhaps because they support Hillary) believe this is simply
a political attack by GOP opponents - It is worth remembering the FBI investigation was
launch by the Inspector General and decision to have ALL emails examined was made by a
member of the Judiciary (appointed ironically by Bill Clinton).
Both parties cited above are independent of the GOP.
Also for the record Hillary did NOT delete the emails at the time - She deleted them
some 18 months after leaving office (according to her lawyer some time after October last
year) and AFTER several investigations had been launched.
If Hillary Clinton deleted info relating to matters under investigation after an
investigation was launched (destroying evidence) then that is a felony offence.
Hillary understood the seriousness of the question when asked did she wipe the server -
That is why she replied along these lines: With a cloth or something.
Again this is no vindication of Clinton - Instead it is a lame defence to a serious
charge to a Federal Judge who has already decided in the matter.
What do you Brits know about the "Fast and Furious" scandal in the Dept. of Justice ?
; to have a perspective of how outrageous this was , consider this hypothetical
situation.
In Manhattan , a narcotics squad interdicts a gang of drug dealers , a
"shoot-out" erupts, and one of the squad members is murdered. The firearm that was
used to commit the murder is seized , and an investigation reveals the "Source" of
the murder weapon was-- the Office of the District Attorney on New York County!! (
Manhattan)
The D- A's Office was supplying drug criminals with firearms?; would never happen
you might say. But that's EXACTLY what happened in the "Fast and Furious" scandal
when Eric Holder was Attorney-General; the ATF division of the U. S. Dept. of Justice
was selling firearms to members of Mexican drug cartels , and a Border Agent was
murdered by a weapon supplied by the ATF division of the Justice Dept.
So much for the Dept. of Justice under the current President. The present A-G ,
Loretta Lynch , is loyal to the President and the Democratic Party , but not loyal to
"Justice".
Report
"I believe in an open, transparent government that is
accountable to the people. Excessive government secrecy harms democratic governance and can
weaken our system of checks and balances by shielding officials from oversight and inviting
misconduct or error. ... To me, openness and accountability are not platitudes _ they are
essential elements of our democracy."
-- Hillary Clinton, May 2008 in response to Sunshine Week survey of presidential
candidates.
Hillary just needs to lie the U.S. into a very costly war in terms of American and
indigenous deaths, trillions of dollars and significant more destabilization in the
Mideast.
The State Department guidelines for emails had prohibited use of a private server since
2005.
Yet she still keeps saying that what she did was allowed.
Hillary's State Department fired U.S. Ambassador Scott Gration (Kenya) in part for using
private emails to evade agency rules.
Hillary said the emails she deleted included private ones between her and her husband.
Her husband's spokesman, within days, announced surprise at that, since Bill Clinton has
only sent two emails in his entire life...and not to Hillary.
She is a liar. And a felon in violation of the Espionage Act.
"... Melania also made her own jewelry. "Melania never wore anything from the store," recalls one friend. ..."
"... Like her sister, Ines, her goal was to become a designer, and she applied to the school of architecture at the local university, successfully passing the notoriously difficult entrance exams ..."
"... She didn't drink, didn't party, didn't smoke. ..."
"... "She kept to herself, she was a loner. After a shoot or a catwalk, she went home, not out. She didn't want to waste time partying," Jerko remembers. ..."
When she was getting her jewelry plans off the ground, Melania sketched the designs for the collection
herself, relying on a talent for drawing that her childhood friends tell me she flashed as a girl.
"It's not free; it's precise," Petra Sedej, one of Melania's high school classmates, says of her
art. "She has a really good feeling for this."
... ... ...
"She was always very fancy." Amalija spent evenings after work sewing clothing for herself and
her two daughters, Ines and Melania. Once she learned to draw, Melania sketched her own designs,
and her mother or sister sewed them. Melania also made her own jewelry. "Melania never wore anything
from the store," recalls one friend.
... ... ...
While working for the car company in Ljubljana, Viktor had an apartment there, in one of the city's
first residential high-rises. It was a prestigious address and provided the girls a place to stay
in the capital so that they could attend design school-another luxury.
... ... ...
In those days, Melania wasn't thinking about a career as a model. Like her sister, Ines, her
goal was to become a designer, and she applied to the school of architecture at the local university,
successfully passing the notoriously difficult entrance exams. In those years in Ljubljana,
she was focused on school. She didn't drink, didn't party, didn't smoke. Even after she
met Jerko and began dabbling in modeling, she preferred to go home after work, to be with her equally
quiet and reserved sister. "She kept to herself, she was a loner. After a shoot or a catwalk,
she went home, not out. She didn't want to waste time partying," Jerko remembers.
... ... ...
Melania decamped to Milan after her first year of college, effectively dropping out
... ... ...
In New York, Melania lived a quiet, homebound life, taking assiduous care of her body: walks with
ankle weights, seven pieces of fruit every day, diligently moisturizing her skin. She rarely partied,
never brought anyone back to the apartment, and was always home early. "She didn't go out to dance
clubs; she'd go to Cipriani for dinner at ten and be home by one," Atanian recalls.
Ms. Trump, born in 1970, grew up in this hilly town of 4,500 best known around Slovenia, at least
until Mr. Trump entered the presidential race, for its medieval castle and annual salami
festival. Then, Slovenia was the northern region of Yugoslavia, ruled by Josip Broz Tito, a
Communist dictator who kept his distance from the Soviet Union and allowed more freedoms than did
other Eastern bloc leaders.
... ... ...
Mr. Trump, in an interview last month, said he had never discussed the topic with his
father-in-law. "But he was pretty successful over there," he said. "It's a different kind of
success than you have here. But he was successful."
In 1972, the Knavses moved into a larger apartment in a new housing block for workers of the
government-owned textile factory, including Melania's mother, Amalija, nicknamed Malci. She drew
patterns for children's clothes and later designed them, crossing the bridge to the factory every
day in heels.
Mr. Knavs, a traveling car salesman, spent a lot of time on the road. But when he was home, he
was noticed. Friends say he had a jocular personality and a fondness for his Mercedes sedans and
his coveted Maserati. Ms. Trump's childhood friends recalled him incessantly washing the cars,
but also carrying himself in a self-assured way that now reminded them of Mr. Trump.
...
Friends say that she enjoyed geography lessons in a room adorned with maps of the world, and that
she adored art class. The future creator of the QVC collection "Melania Timepieces & Jewelry" made
bracelets there...
In 1985, Melania left Sevnica, traveling on the narrow roads along the slow-moving Sava River,
green from the reflection of the wooded hills, and through coal mining towns on the way to
Ljubljana. There she attended the Secondary School of Design and Photography, housed in an
arcaded Renaissance monastery.
She lived in an apartment that her father, who had opened a bicycle and car parts shop in
Ljubljana, had bought a few years earlier on the outskirts of the city.
... ... ...
Melania and her older sister, Ines, also stood out, for their looks, their wardrobe and the
makeup they put on whenever they left the apartment. At school, Melania kept her distance from
peers listening to the Cure or Metallica, Mr. Kracina said, and gravitated toward a clique of pop
music fans who hung out at the Horse's Tail bar by the Triple Bridge in Ljubljana.
It was there that Peter Butoln, who prided himself on having Ljubljana's only metallic blue Vespa,
noticed Melania one night among the regulars dressed in bleached jeans and Benetton shirts,
drinking Mish Mash (Fanta and wine) and chatting each other up. Now 17, Melania was abstemious
and more wholesome than the other girls, he said, and they started dating. He would pick her up
on weekends and drive her around on his Vespa, and they would dance badly to Wham in "a nice
discothèque" by the cathedral.
... ... ..
Melania had also begun a process that would carry her away from Slovenia. In January 1987, the
photographer Stane Jerko spotted her and asked if she would be interested in modeling.
...Melania's entire family sensed potential in her modeling. After high school, she concentrated on
her career, dropping out of architecture school. (She still claims on her website to have
graduated.) On one occasion, Mr. Kravs drove his Mercedes to the shop of the seamstress Silva
Njegac, hours from Ljubljana, to order leather dresses for Melania that his wife had designed.
... ... ...
A second-place finish in Jana magazine's Slovenian Face of the Year contest in 1992 expanded
Melania's ambitions. In a fashion video for a Slovenian label, she wore a skirt suit, exited a
plane shadowed by bodyguards and signed papers at the national library.
...
She would soon Germanize her name to Melania Knauss and become an international model.
1. Sanders: Clinton has backed "virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers
of this country millions of jobs"
2. Sanders: Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street
3. Sanders: Hillary Clinton = D.C. Establishment
4. Sanders: Democrat Establishment immigration policies would drive down Americans' wages,
create open borders
5. Sanders: Clinton supports nation-building in Middle East through war and invasion
Sanders: "And now, I support her 100%."
DurbanPoisonWillBurn
Anyone who believes Hillary is progressive deserves the horrible outcome a Hillary
presidency will bring. How ANYONE can still support Hillary is beyond me. The woman has
accomplished NOTHING except chaos & failure. Wake up folks. Hillary does NOT care about you.
She cares about power, money, and making deals that benefit HER. Vote Jill Stein
Yesterday, the House of Representatives formally
referred Hillary Clinton's testimony to the FBI for investigation into
perjury/false statements under oath.
Hillary Clinton, as you well know, made no less than three false
statements under oath during her previous Congressional testimony.
She declared she never sent any emails with information marked
classified.
She did
.
She asserted that she handed over all of her work-related emails.
She didn't
.
And she claimed that her attorneys went through all of her emails
before deciding what to turn over and what to delete.
They didn't
.
The FBI will now investigate and submit a recommendation to Loretta
Lynch.
But after yesterday's joke of a hearing, does anyone really think that
Lynch would prosecute Hillary Clinton? Lynch refused to answer at least
74 questions pertaining to the Clinton email scandal.
She was asked point-blank to explain her reasoning in declining to
indict Hillary Clinton and each time, she just refused to answer.
Unfortunately, after yesterday's performance, it is clear that even if
the FBI does find evidence that Hillary Clinton committed perjury or made
false statements under oath – which is absolutely obvious – Lynch will
protect the Clintons once again.
But there is a way to take Loretta Lynch out of the equation entirely.
There is a way to ensure that a Grand Jury is impaneled and that both the
FBI and DOJ would be powerless to stop it.
When the House refers a matter to the FBI, there is no guarantee that
anything will come of it. Technically, the FBI doesn't even need to
accept the referral.
Even when there are so many clear lies and false statements, the Obama
administration can still derail such an investigation at every level.
The same is not true for
Contempt of Congress
charges.
When Congress charges someone with Contempt, the law is actually
written to take the DOJ and FBI pretty much out of the equation.
According to the law, the Attorney General has a "duty" to impanel a
Grand Jury for action on a Congressional Contempt charge. The law does
not allow the DOJ or FBI to insert themselves into the case if they don't
agree with the findings. It the House votes to charge someone with
Contempt of Congress, the Sergeant at Arms is instructed to have that
individual arrested and, if necessary, is given the power to imprison
someone in the Capitol Jail pending the Grand Jury's decision.
In 1983, the House of Representatives held Rita Lavelle, an EPA
administrator, in Contempt of Congress for lying under oath. The Attorney
General impaneled a Grand Jury, as the law requires, and Rita Lavelle was
convicted and ultimately served three months of her six month sentence.
This isn't some obscure function that hasn't been used since the
1800s. This is a legitimate method for Congress to hold administration
officials accountable without having to deal with corruption in the
Executive Branch.
One floor vote. That's all it takes. One House of Representatives
vote.
It takes 218 "yes" votes and then the House can force the Attorney
General to impanel a Grand Jury. Just to put it in perspective,
twenty-nine RINOs could vote with the Democrats and there would still be
enough votes to hold Hillary in Contempt.
No more political interference… no more re-interpreting the law to get
Hillary off the hook…
"... The classified status of her emails was not her only lie under oath. She also testified that she had submitted all her work related emails to the FBI. Now it is apparent that was also a complete fabrication, as the FBI reports thousands of other work related emails retrieved from the recipient's servers. ..."
"... The biggest example of her intentional deception is that she testified that she only had one server and Comey said she had several. Since those are physical objects she had to know that she had more than one. To claim ignorance not only asserts that she didn't know simple math, but that as a former senator who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee that she didn't understand what classified information meant, the same Hillary Clinton who earned her law degree from Yale. ..."
Cary
Aguillard, Opinions are like a**holes; everybody's got one and nobody wants to hear yours!
237 Views
She unquestionably lied under oath at the Benghazi hearings about the sending of classified
emails through her personal server. Mrs. Clinton clearly stated that she sent no classified information
through her emails. Period. Now we know this is a big, fat lie. Under sworn oath.
The classified status of her emails was not her only lie under oath. She also testified that
she had submitted all her work related emails to the FBI. Now it is apparent that was also a complete
fabrication, as the FBI reports thousands of other work related emails retrieved from the recipient's
servers.
Multiple lies under oath. Perjury. If you or I distorted the truth to that extent under oath,
they would lock us up and destroy the key. The time for perversion of justice in
favor of this habitual criminal offender is over. If charges of perjury are not brought then our
entire justice system will be proven corrupt in the eyes of America and the world. End this embarrassment,
and let justice be served!
"All of my work related emails, yes." All that weren't erased and all the hard copies that
were put into burn bags don't count by her reasoning. If she had nothing to hide why did her staff
take the 5th so frequently? Of course she committed perjury.
Drew McCormick , No,
Hillary did not lie about Benghazi 91 Views
No. She instructed her lawyers to release all work related emails and they, based on the headings,
separated out all of those that seemed to be work related. They then told her that they had released
all her work related emails.
Apparently the Lawyers did the job competently but not thoroughly, as the FBI did identify
a few emails that should have been released.
Since Hillary believed her Lawyers and their statements, she did not lie. She may have
been mistaken, but it does not meet minimal standards for perjury.
A couple of points for those who didn't pay attention the last time a Clinton was baselessly
charged: Lying is not perjury. It has to be material to the investigation in order to be perjury.
Obviously this didn't meet that standard since none of her emails were informative to the case.
The second is that being mistaken is not a lie. If a New York Times reader believed that there
were extant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they would be mistaken, but their statements
would not knowingly be false. When the British politicians stated that, however, they were lying.
I believe she did. She certainly made false statements under oath, and I think there is sufficient
evidence to show that she knowingly and intentionally made false statements. The continuous references
to "marked" emails as a qualifier is used by her supporters as a safety net that is irrelevant
since classified information is classified whether or not it is marked. Moreover, since so many
emails were kept on her private servers they could not have been passed on to officials whose
job it was to make markings.
The biggest example of her intentional deception is that she testified that she only had one
server and Comey said she had several. Since those are physical objects she had to know that she
had more than one. To claim ignorance not only asserts that she didn't know simple math, but that
as a former senator who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee that she didn't understand what
classified information meant, the same Hillary Clinton who earned her law degree from Yale.
Does this mean that she will be recommended for an indictment, prosecution or any penalty?
Probably not. She could probably order a hit squad and leaders of her party would protect her
as her supporters would cheer her on.
Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton
Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity's projects that may have required approval
from the federal government during Hillary Clinton's term as secretary of state, according to people
familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.
The subpoena also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide who for six
months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton's personal
office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.
The full scope and status of the inquiry, conducted by the State Department's inspector general,
were not clear from the material correspondence reviewed by The Washington Post.
[Democratic debate: Clinton receives key endorsement, but faces new questions]
A foundation representative, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing inquiry,
said the initial document request had been narrowed by investigators and that the foundation is not
the focus of the probe.
joeshuren, 2/24/2016 1:02 PM EST
Washington Free Beacon Staff
March 20, 2015 8:27 am
Haitian activists protested outside of the Clinton Foundation in New York over the loss of
"billions of dollars" that was meant to help rebuild after the devastating 2010 earthquake.....
"We are telling the world of the crimes that Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for in Haiti,"
said Dhoud Andre of the Committee Against Dictatorship in Haiti. "And we are telling the American
people that the over 32,000 emails that Hillary Clinton said she deleted have evidence of the
crimes they have committed."
Five years, later a majority of Haiti is still in disrepair. The capital's main hospital has
yet to be finished, and there is a major rise of cholera.
_____
HR 3509, To direct the Secretary of State to submit to Congress a report on the status of post-earthquake
recovery and development efforts in Haiti, failed to pass the Senate in 2013. Where is the accounting?
ZZ44, 2/17/2016 12:28 PM EST
Best news I've heard in a long time... And I'm a Democrat! They should also investigate the
CGI and State Dept. (under Hilary) links with Aidmatrix and solicitation of funds after the Haiti
earthquake. That will be an eye-opener for sure.
Mistery Mahn, 2/16/2016 2:48 PM EST [Edited]
The Clintons represent everything that is wrong with American politics with their countless,
criminal wrong doings. Yet by pandering to a sea of uneducated fools to blindly prop them up,
here we are with someone who should be behind bars running for POTUS. If Hillary is elected, I
have little hope for what is left of this once great country.
TEL AVIV – Did former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commit perjury when she claimed in a
Senate hearing that she did not know whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or
transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries?
The goal of the alleged weapons shipments was to arm the rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad's regime.
Any training or arming of the Syrian rebels would be considered highly controversial. A major
issue is the inclusion of jihadists, including al-Qaida, among the ranks of the Free Syrian Army
and other Syrian opposition groups
During the recent hearings over the Obama administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack
on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Clinton was directly asked about alleged U.S. weapons shipments
out of Libya.
Clinton claimed she did not know whether the U.S. was aiding Turkey and other Arab countries in
procuring weapons.
The exchange took place with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
Paul asked Clinton: "Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons,
buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?"
"To Turkey?" Clinton asked. "I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever
raised that with me."
Continued Paul: "It's been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may
have weapons, and what I'd like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with
procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to
other countries, any countries, Turkey included?"
Clinton replied, "Well, Senator, you'll have to direct that question to the agency that ran
the annex. I will see what information is available."
"You're saying you don't know?" asked Paul.
"I do not know," Clinton said. "I don't have any information on that."
Clinton's claims seem to now be unraveling.
Confirming WND's exclusive reporting for over a year, the New York Times earlier this week
reported that since early 2012, the CIA has been aiding Arab governments and Turkey in obtaining
and shipping weapons to the Syrian rebels.
Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND have said U.S.-aided weapons shipments go back
more than a year, escalating before the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. facilities in
Benghazi.
In fact, the Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND since last year describe the U.S.
mission in Benghazi and nearby CIA annex attacked last September as an intelligence and planning
center for U.S. aid to the rebels in the Middle East, particularly those fighting Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad's regime.
The aid, the sources stated, included weapons shipments and was being coordinated with Turkey,
Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The specifics of the New York Times reporting, meanwhile, open major holes in Clinton's sworn
claims to be in the dark about the alleged weapons shipments.
U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity told the Times that American intelligence
officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons and then helped to vet rebel
commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive.
The plan mirrors one the Times reported last month in a separate article that was proposed by
Clinton herself. The Times described Clinton as one of the driving forces advocating for arming
the Syrian rebels.
Last month, the New York Times reported Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus had
concocted a plan calling for vetting rebels and arming Syrian fighters with the assistance of
Arab countries.
The Times report from earlier this week of U.S. arms shipments and vetting seems to be the
Clinton-Petraeus plan put in action.
It may be difficult for most to believe the secretary of state was not aware that her alleged
plan was being implemented, especially when arming the Syrian rebels is a serious policy with
obvious major repercussions internationally.
Clinton is not the only one in hot water.
As WND reported yesterday, the New York Times report threatens the longstanding White House
narrative that claims the Obama administration has only supplied nonlethal aid to the rebels.
The White House has repeatedly denied directly arming the rebels.
Recruiting jihadists
Days after the Benghazi attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, WND broke the
story that Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad's regime
in Syria, according to Egyptian and other Middle Eastern security officials.
Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of
Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to
attack Assad's forces, said the security officials.
The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits
to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous
attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the
Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.
The latest New York Times report has bolstered WND's reporting, citing air traffic data,
interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders describing
how the CIA has been working with Arab governments and Turkey to sharply increase arms shipments
to Syrian rebels in recent months.
The Times reported that the weapons airlifts began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued
intermittently through last fall, expanding into a steady and much heavier flow late last year,
the data shows.
The Times further revealed that from offices at "secret locations," American intelligence
officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from
Croatia. They have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons
as they arrive.
The CIA declined to comment to the Times on the shipments or its role in them.
The Times quoted a former American official as saying that David H. Petraeus, the CIA director
until November, had been instrumental in helping set up an aviation network to fly in the
weapons. The paper said Petraeus had prodded various countries to work together on the plan.
Petraeus did not return multiple emails from the Times asking for comment.
Both WND's reporting, which first revealed the U.S.-coordinated arms shipments, and the Times
reporting starkly contrast with statements from top U.S. officials who have denied aiding the
supply of weapons to the rebels.
Rebel training
It's not the first time WND's original investigative reporting on U.S. support for the Syrian
rebels was later confirmed by reporting in major media outlets. Other WND reporting indicates
support for the Syrian rebels that goes beyond supplying arms, painting a larger picture of U.S.
involvement in the Middle East revolutions.
A story by the German weekly Der Spiegel earlier this month reporting the U.S. is training Syrian
rebels in Jordan was exclusively exposed by WND 13 months ago.
Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not
clear whether the Americans worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine
said some organizers wore uniforms.
The training in Jordan reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.
The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months
amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the
south and the east of Jordan.
Britain's Guardian newspaper also reported U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan
along with British and French instructors.
Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on the
Der Spiegel report. The French foreign ministry and Britain's foreign and defense ministries also
would not comment to Reuters.
While Der Spiegel quoted sources discussing training of the rebels in Jordan over the last three
months, WND was first to report the training as far back as February 2012.
At the time, WND quoted knowledgeable Egyptian and Arab security officials claimed the U.S.,
Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of
Safawi in the country's northern desert region.
Editor's note: Additional research by Joshua Klein
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/did-hillary-commit-perjury/#GD9uo2OOii2wJdpE.99
Bernie on Monday to his supporters : Thanks for comin', see ya!
Notable quotes:
"... Donations to Jill Stine skyrocket after Sander's endorsement. https://www.rt.com/usa/351129-jill-stein-bernie-donations/ ..."
"... And, let me guess: Sanders' much-vaunted e-mailing list has a pesky shrinkage problem. Which started on Tuesday. ..."
"... Bernie denouement is the best thing that could have happened to Stein and the Greens. ..."
"... The Stein campaign seems unprepared. They simply don't have any staff to deal with volunteers. There is a well trained group out there now, so they need gear, packets, flyers, talking points. ..."
"... Sanders will attempt to maintain his supporters by focusing their time, skills and money on his new institute. Should serve to keep a good number from paying attention to Stein. ..."
Bernie denouement is the best thing that could have happened to Stein and the Greens. If Bernie
and West had started with the Greens, they would have gotten zero traction. Another noble cause
no one's ever heard of. Instead, Bernie started something that came close to blowing up the Democrats
the way Trump blew up the Republicans.
Now a lot of the Bernie sisses and bros are looking for somewhere to go. Stein is well placed
to pick up the pieces if she knows what to do with them.
The Stein campaign seems unprepared. They simply don't have any staff to deal with volunteers.
There is a well trained group out there now, so they need gear, packets, flyers, talking points.
Sanders will attempt to maintain his supporters by focusing their time, skills and money on
his new institute. Should serve to keep a good number from paying attention to Stein.
Donald Trump comments on the end of what he called the "FBI Primary," saying that Bernie
Sanders has so far refused to drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination in hopes that
Clinton might be indicted. He says that the FBI's recommendation not to indict proves Sanders was
right when he said the Democratic primary was "rigged."
Today is the best evidence ever that we have seen that our system is totally, absolutely
rigged," Trump said at a rally in North Carolina.
"It's rigged," Trump said. "And I used that term nationally when I was running in the Republican
primaries, and I was the first to use it, and then all of a sudden it became a hot term and
everyone was using the word rigged, rigged, rigged. But if you remember, I won Louisiana. And I
didn't get enough delegate, what happened? Places like Colorado, which was so good to me, but all
of a sudden we find out that they don't have the vote... I'll be honest, if I didn't win in
landslides, I wouldn't be standing here. You would be watching some politician who will lose to
Hillary.
"I learned about the rigged system really fast. All of a sudden, Bernie started using it and now
everyone talks about the system being rigged," he said.
"I'm going to keep using it because I was the one that brought it up."
"I asked a couple of political pros," he said. "Think of Bernie Sanders. I think the one with the
most to be angry about. The one with the most to lose is Bernie Sanders, because honestly, he was
waiting for the FBI primary, and guess what? He just lost today the FBI primary!"
"He lost the FBI primary! Bernie, my poor Bernie, oh, Bernie! I feel so badly for Bernie, but you
know what? A lot of Bernie Sanders supporters are going to be voting for Trump, because Bernie
Sanders was right! Bernie Sanders was right about a couple of things. He's right about the system
being rigged, but he's also right about trade. Our trade deals are a disaster. They're killing
our jobs. They're killing our families. They're killing our incomes."
Bernie Sanders is this election's Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic
party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat running for
re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of the
establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders,
and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic
fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home
or trying to build something outside the two party box.
"... my interview with him earlier we played a little clip from, he said if she doesn't confront the oligarchs, his supporters are not likely to want to support her. That's a far cry from what was said today. ..."
"... I think a great many of the activists who made up the volunteer and donor core of the Sanders campaign will be difficult to bring on board. Many will go in other directions. I don't have any doubt about that. ..."
PARK: Well, I did expect him to endorse at some point. I didn't know when he would do it, but
I was mentally, emotionally prepared for the day. And so I can't say I was disappointed.
I do feel like we have to be very respectful of Bernie Sanders, very grateful to him, because I
believe he performed a political miracle in America with his campaign. But at the same time, I
feel like we have to be independent of Bernie Sanders and do what we feel is right for our
country. For some of us that means that there won't be protests, and for some it will be a
rejection of the endorsement. So the protests come in different forms, but there will be
protests, to be sure.
...But
my interview with him earlier we played a little clip from, he said if she doesn't
confront the oligarchs, his supporters are not likely to want to support her. That's a far cry
from what was said today.
CURRY: Well, and I think that that was a prediction he made that Annabel's remarks just
confirmed.
I think a great many of the activists who made up the volunteer and donor core of
the Sanders campaign will be difficult to bring on board. Many will go in other directions. I
don't have any doubt about that.
... ... ...
If I can just make an observation, right now in the Labour Party in Britain, which is
controlled at its elites by a kind of neoliberal economic world order group that is very much
like the group that still is running the Democratic Party here in United States, they've begun to
chase him out, Corbyn out, over the Brexit vote, saying that he didn't speak full-throatedly
against it. But if you followed that thing over in England at all--and lots of us have--he really
couldn't. His constituency wasn't going to listen to an unadorned, full-throated, 100 percent
endorsement of staying in the E.U. That's not what they felt. And, in fact, I think he spoke to
them quite reasonably.
... ... ...
CURRY: You know what, actually I didn't hear it that way. And again I would invite you to sort
of go over the text of that speech. I thought this was a very nuanced argument that Bernie made
today. Again, it was an unconditional endorsement, but he was very careful about not overstating
the areas of agreement. If you parse those sentences, he was very careful, I thought, to say only
as much as they agreed on and no more. It's why he couldn't mention national security or foreign
affairs in any way, because there is no agreement.
... ... ...
CURRY: I don't think they have anything to give him. There was a very callow piece in The New
York Times speculating--two of their young political reporters speculating as to whether Bernie
had earned a primetime speaking slot at the convention. And the fact of the matter is they need
him to give a primetime speech at the convention. If they didn't give him a speaking slot, he
could just go outside--all of his delegates would go with him--and give the speech on his own,
and the convention would simply have to shut down. There's still a complete denial in the bubble
of the elites in terms of how much the country's changing.
In terms of the progress he's gotten, the first draft of this platform was, I thought, a
borderline disgrace. This last draft from Sunday is better. I'm still absorbing it. There are
things here. Hillary Clinton never came out for expanding Social Security until the last six
weeks. She's 68 years old. Her entire adult life, both presidents Obama and Clinton have put
proposals to cut Social Security on the table many times. That's over now. It took Clinton years
to decide that she could even put a number on an increase to the minimum wage. President Obama
refused to introduce a minimum wage hike in 2009 when he had the votes in both houses to pass it.
The commitment is there.
This isn't about a negotiation with the power elite. At most they're going to give him a
chairmanship. It doesn't matter as much as the movement we have to build.
"... Bernie supporters are crowing about his great success at influencing the Democratic Party platform. How exciting is that? Is there anything less useful than the platform of a political party? Screen doors in a submarine come to mind. A political party platform has all of the significance and impact of a good healthy a fart in the midst of a hurricane. ..."
"... bernie sanders, when it comes right down to it, is either a liar, or is willing to support hillary in spite of who and what she stands for.. trumps comments on this are indeed bang on. ..."
"... The Sanders move is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook of the last 100 years, as so many predicted. The Democrats have co-opted every grass-roots movement that has arisen in the US, co-opted and quashed it. ..."
"... The party primaries in the USA are not intended to be representative, democratic elections: they simply serve as a sort of consumer survey to see which of their candidates would be most popular in the general election. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders claims some concessions were achieved in the platform committee document. But one issue of greatest importance, on trade issues,--specifically the rejection of TPP, is a lost cause. Bernie threw in the towel. The phony sideshow of reconstituted New Deal hoopla is merely the same tired fantasy narrative that the Democrats predictably trot out for every presidential election. ..."
"... The dear old man who started this campaign with this gem of rhetoric: "What we need is a revolution in the streets", is ending his monkeyshines with a ringing endosement of one of the most politically corrupt figures in our history. ..."
"... Jill Stein, who ran for president on the Green Party platform, says that Bernie's endorsement of Hillary is the "last nail in the coffin" which turns Sanders' revolution over to a counter-revolutionary party. ..."
"... Trump would do well to attract Bernie Voters now, by exploiting areas of agreement. The TPP is one example. ..."
"... He led people to believe that he had principles - that he really was against Wall St. and SuperPACs and all that Hillary stands for. He also (late in the race) began talking about 'revolution' to play to the discontented and young idealists. ..."
"... Its all just bullshit when he ultimately supports Hillary. But those who support Hillary (like rufus does) try hard to finesse Sanders failing because they value the "service" that Sanders performed for the Obama-Hillary "Third Way" Democratic Party. ..."
"... What chance do we have with Hillary?--a back-stabbing, forked-tongue, daughter of Goldman Sachs, whose speeches to the industrialists and bankers are practically a state secret? Yes, Hillary!--who is coated from head to toe with a patina of blood, and smells of corpses? ..."
"... US corporations aren't stupid. They know bad, expensive education, decaying infrastructure and violence in the street are bad for business. They might even realize that corruption is bad for them. And that worker representation makes life easier all around. ..."
"... In fact, Sanders pulled several key punches in the race ..."
"... he failed to call Hillary out on her emails after the State Inspector General report was release and it was CLEAR that she had lied about her emails; ..."
"... he is close/friendly with all of the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him to win his Senate seat; Schumer endorses him; he calls Hillary a 'friend' of 25 years. ..."
"... Except in style, Hillary is no different than Obama, Bush II, or her husband. Whereas earlier presidents felt the need to put on a show of decency -- well, okay, Bush II let it drop now and then -- H. Clinton will be a bitch Cheney, going out of her way to rub everyone's face in it and bragging there's nothing they can do about it. ..."
"... There's a bright side however. She's dumb and knows no bounds. Think Louis XVI. That, along with her arrogance, may finally bring a tipping point of sorts. With things coming apart everywhere, a smooth-talking fraud like Reagan or Obama might be able to somehow hold it together a little longer. Hillary's nastiness could actually bring real change. God in his infinite irony. ..."
"... To say there is a deep state controlling Clinton may be an over simplification. More likely their are lots of competing and conflicting forces working in the dark, none with any clear idea or plan (or inkling of what other powers are doing) each pushing for immediate gains without a thought for the future. ..."
"... In the struggle for power everyone. including H. Clinton, is a useful fool and a potential patsy. Those hidden powers have a history of eating their own. ..."
"... Sanders has been a great disappointment. In order to prevent Trump from getting the votes, he is embracing and selling his soul and his supporters to a demon! In fact Sanders has more in common with Trump that he has with Hillary. ..."
"... "Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs" ..."
"... His followers were fools. I think some of them know that now. ..."
"... I for one, hoped for more than "sheepdog" from Sanders, but, alas, those who said so, were totally correct ..."
"... in American politics, none of these people are for dismantling the biggest budgetary fraud & boondoggle in human history: the pentagon. anybody saying they are for "small gov't" who doesn't immediately propose to slash the military/para-military budget (not the VA, not now) by 50% every year for the next 500 years is lying. ..."
"... Hillary represents a continuation of the last 8 years, or even perhaps the last 16 or 24+ years. There is absolutely no doubt about that. ..."
"... People taken in by Sanders learned no lessons from gushing over Obama. They hurt themselves again and are sociopathically indifferent to the far greater harm they have done to those who were not gullible. ..."
"... Even if she had given any "significant concession", it would have been meaningless noise with not an iota of intention to implement such concessions. She is a POS who will say anything at all to get elected. The only thing we really know is she relishes confrontation on the foreign policy scene. Otherwise nobody can rely on her to act in their interests in the domestic realm, except big corporate entities. ..."
"... It is stupid for B to keep linking to Trumps quotes exclusively. Why does b not link to Jill Stein criticism. Sure Trumps criticism of evil Hillarys corruption will gather important support, but exclusively giving torture loving warmongering Trump ammunition, strangles other better candidates in their political birth in the alternative to status quo attention. In the same way that the Sanders, Chomsky, and other shortsighted cowards react by strangle politically strangling a desperate new movement. ..."
"... Congrats to those who labeled the 'Sheepdog' so early. Such an apt description. Good call. ..."
"... Sanders released only one year of tax returns (2015). His campaign manager claimed his taxes held no surprises. Well they didn't for 2015. But why didn't Sanders release earlier years? Any serious Presidential candidate would expect to release at least 3 years of tax returns. ..."
"... Given the 'service' that he performed, it might be especially interesting to have seen his taxes for 2014, the year before he entered the race. The lack of transparency and Sanders' 'sheepdogging' raises questions of whether he received any inducements to enter the race. ..."
"... The Plan was always from the start for Bernie to hold down the Left, so Hillary could capture Center-Right, and Donald could lead the Far Right into Smackdown. Then Bernie would deliver the Left to Hillary. And so it has come to pass. ..."
"... Strange bedfellows? Not at all. The Israelis and the GCC countries, the USG and EU, are all soul brothers : tiny 'elite' minorities attempting to rule their respective roosts by technological means encompassing everything from drones to the media to their ubiquitous taps. ..."
"... in loco parentis ..."
"... In 1963 there was a coup in America. Since then the military-industrial complex has run the country. It has been most apparent in its foreign policy, which has been the conquest of natural resources (especially oil and gas) worldwide. America's resentment with the USSR/Russia has to do with their living on top of resources. ..."
"... But in order to continue the illusion of democracy in the US, it was necessary to maintain some differences between the two parties so that Americans would think that they have a choice. Meanwhile, the party that is supposed to represent the working class has been sliding into the arms of the corporatists. Essentially, in order to give Americans a "choice" Trump has been pushed as the demonic clown versus H. Clinton. Unfortunately, for good reasons as well as because of endless propaganda from the right, most Americans distrust Clinton, as well they should. Her casual announcement about enforcing a "no-fly zone" over Syria is essentially a declaration of war against Russia. ..."
"... Going back to the coup in 1963, in order to maintain control of the population it was necessary for the ruling class to continue to generate candidates each election cycle to pretend to care about the working class. I have long suspected that early on in their careers both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were recruited by US intelligence. During his time in Britain Bill's classmates assumed that he was CIA ..."
"... I suspect it was the beginning of her career in US power politics. Shortly after she wrote a pro-Vietnam speech for Melvin Laird in 1968, she was involved with the various Black Panther trials around the US. ..."
"... It's hard to believe that the Hillary who stands before us now was ever a political ally of the Panthers. Rather, I suspect she was observing for an intelligence agency, the FBI or CIA She sat through a Panther trial in New Haven, Connecticut, and then spent a summer in Oakland working for the law firm that was representing the Panthers in the Bay Area. Essentially, she was in the right place at the right time to glean information for COINTELPRO, the massive spying program directed against anti-war and black movements. A few years later she worked on the Democrats' legal team for Watergate, another good place for a government informant to be. Bill, during his time at Oxford, would have functioned like the thousands of informants who sat in on peace group meetings across American campuses. ..."
"... Later, when the CIA was dumping cocaine at Mena, Arkansas, Bill Clinton was in position to make sure state police left the operation alone. It's not surprising that George W. Bush's first head of the DEA was Asa Hutchinson, who'd been the incurious federal prosecutor over that part of Arkansas when the drugs came in. ..."
"... The Clintons were prominent in the Democratic Leadership Council, which was an organization within the Democratic Party pushing it to the right. In 1992 Bill pushed trade agreements that would destroy the American middle class. Since then the party has been hopelessly corrupted by Wall Street money. ..."
"... I cannot think of another president in memory who is more wed to military adventurism than Hillary. ..."
"... But if she polls badly enough, Democratic establishment may see the light and go for Sanders. ..."
Jun 13, 2016 |
Bernie Sanders folded. This without gaining any significant concession from Hillary Clinton on
programmatic or personal grounds. (At least as far as we know.) He endorsed Clinton as presidential
candidate even as she gave no ground for his voters' opinions. This disenfranchises the people who
supported him.
... ... ...
I expect the "Not Hillary" protest vote to be very strong in the November election. There is still
more significant dirt to be dug up about her and her family foundation. Trumps current lows in the
polls will recover when the media return to the "close race" mantra that makes them money. He still
has a decent chance to win.
It is long, long past the time to see the world we really live in; the realities of our western
faux democracies. Until and unless we recognise the facts, as they are, nothing can be changed.
The problem/s must be identified for it/them to be solved.
It doesn't take a critical mass of
people; but it takes more than a few; far more than evidenced this election cycle...
Bernie supporters are crowing about his great success at influencing the Democratic Party
platform. How exciting is that? Is there anything less useful than the platform of a political
party? Screen doors in a submarine come to mind. A political party platform has all of the significance
and impact of a good healthy a fart in the midst of a hurricane.
thanks b, for highlighting these sad realities. bernie sanders, when it comes right down to
it, is either a liar, or is willing to support hillary in spite of who and what she stands for..
trumps comments on this are indeed bang on.
the labour. party is run by a gang of thugs.. i hope the people who want corbyn are able to
overcome the mostroisity the labour party has become.
i echo @1 v. arnolds comments..
@2 bill..bernie spporters better not show how stupid they are by also voting for hillary..
The Sanders move is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook of the last 100 years, as
so many predicted. The Democrats have co-opted every grass-roots movement that has arisen in the
US, co-opted and quashed it.
Even as deliberately unplugged as I've been from this race, it's been easy to see at a glance
that Sanders magnetized the next wave of concerned citizens - of course the young people rallied
to his banner - and will now leave them broken and in disarray, or delivered to the Democrats.
He was an independent. He so simply could have turned the Green Party into a ten-percent force
in the US, making it hugely important, and advancing in one leap the cause of multi-party governance.
The party primaries in the USA are not intended to be representative, democratic elections:
they simply serve as a sort of consumer survey to see which of their candidates would be most
popular in the general election.
Registering for a party does not mean that you are a member of a particular party or even support
it, you are simply choosing to vote in their primary elections (if you live in a state with closed
primaries). That is something a lot of Bernie supporters found out much too late. But that is
not a "rigged system", those rules were in place long before Sanders decided to run as a Democrat.
And rules differ from state to state: some places allot delegates proportionally, in others
it is winner-take-all. Some states hold a general election, other hold a caucus:you have to travel
to a certain place at a certain time to cast your vote, which means you have to have the time
and money in order to participate.
I have never seen a similar system in place anywhere else. Usually it is only card-carrying,
dues-paying party members who are allowed to select their candidates.
Seventh is the real possibility Bernie has inspired of a third party – if the Democratic Party
doesn't respond to the necessity of getting big money out of politics and reversing widening
inequality, if it doesn't begin to advocate for a single-payer healthcare system, or push hard
for higher taxes on the wealthy - including a wealth tax - to pay for better education and
better opportunities for everyone else, if it doesn't expand Social Security and lift the cap
on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax, if it doesn't bust up the biggest banks
and strengthen antitrust laws, and expand voting rights.
If it doesn't act on these critical issues. the Democratic Party will become irrelevant
to the future of America, and a third party will emerge to address them.
From the first I hoped that the revolutionary left would be able to capitalize on the issues
raised by Sanders' insurgency. You will win support by winning concrete gains for real people.
Not by shrill denunciations of the masses ignorance or gullibility.
Very good observations from b. Bernie Sanders claims some concessions were achieved in the
platform committee document. But one issue of greatest importance, on trade issues,--specifically
the rejection of TPP, is a lost cause. Bernie threw in the towel. The phony sideshow of reconstituted
New Deal hoopla is merely the same tired fantasy narrative that the Democrats predictably trot
out for every presidential election.
The dear old man who started this campaign with this gem of rhetoric: "What we need is
a revolution in the streets", is ending his monkeyshines with a ringing endosement of one of the
most politically corrupt figures in our history. And once again, every 1930s, New Deal trope
and hurrah, is to be trotted out, even though the former Clinton administration drove a stake
into the heart of most of FDR's work.
Get in line sheep. Mutton will be served.
Jill Stein, who ran for president on the Green Party platform, says that Bernie's endorsement
of Hillary is the "last nail in the coffin" which turns Sanders' revolution over to a counter-revolutionary
party.
Trump would do well to attract Bernie Voters now, by exploiting areas of agreement. The TPP
is one example.
Owned by Goldman Bilderberg and the CFR, the Den of Lying Thieves and Whores - aka the Democratic
Party - now has sneakily moved forward to tee up the TPP for passage by Crooked Hillary if not
Oilbomber.
Note: The Republican Party is also a Den of Lying Thieves and Whores.
rufus: Sanders did what he said he would from the start ...
He led people to believe that he had principles - that he really was against Wall St. and
SuperPACs and all that Hillary stands for. He also (late in the race) began talking about 'revolution'
to play to the discontented and young idealists.
Its all just bullshit when he ultimately supports Hillary. But those who support Hillary
(like rufus does) try hard to finesse Sanders failing because they value the "service" that Sanders
performed for the Obama-Hillary "Third Way" Democratic Party.
Those who said that Sanders was a sheepdog from the start were right: the Democratic
Party led by "Third Way" sellouts is hopeless. Long past time to move on.
Now now Jackrabbit, go easy on rufus. You have to remember that cognitive dissonance is infinitely
extensible across a mind that is captured by delusion.
Yes Virginia, they are all hucksters -- Surely the microscopic communist party, or its
pale American likeness, of which rufus is a mustache twirling member, is less of a political fantasy,
than the Green Party!
What chance do we have with Hillary?--a back-stabbing, forked-tongue, daughter of Goldman
Sachs, whose speeches to the industrialists and bankers are practically a state secret? Yes, Hillary!--who
is coated from head to toe with a patina of blood, and smells of corpses?
So it is basically the British Trade Unions making sure their members dominate in the leadership
election?
The US democratic party is a huge income generating corporation with some worker representation.
Sanders is correct to stay inside if he wants to change politics. If Sandernistas continue the
fight (they will, it is generational, same as the Clintons were generational) seat for seat they
will change the party. They will get changed themselves in the process for sure.
It seems the Libertarian party succeeds in splitting Republicans. For Sanders to split Democrats
would be voting for Trump. He would have to live with this fame outside of the Democratic Party
with no one to team up in the Senate.
US corporations aren't stupid. They know bad, expensive education, decaying infrastructure
and violence in the street are bad for business. They might even realize that corruption is bad
for them. And that worker representation makes life easier all around.
Jill goes easy on Sanders in her statement because she wants to attract his supporters.
In fact, Sanders pulled several key punches in the race:
> he was late in calling out Hillary-DNC collusion - campaign financing got the headlines but
what about the DNC's silence about: a) media bias toward Hillary and b) voter irregularities:
AP called the race for Hillary the day before California voted based on secret polling of
Super-delegates! ;
> he failed to attack Obama's record on black/minority affairs - despite Sanders having
conducted a fake filibuster over the Fiscal Cliff/Sequester - Hillary walked away with
the black vote;
> he failed to call Hillary out on her emails after the State Inspector General report was
release and it was CLEAR that she had lied about her emails;
And Sanders is not an "independent" as any ordinary person would interpret that term:
> he has caucused with the Democrats for a very long time (nearly 20 years?);
> he runs in the Vermont Democratic Primary when running for House/Senate with the understanding
that he will not run in general election as a Democrat (this effectively blocks opposition
from a Democratic candidate);
> he is close/friendly with all of the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him to win
his Senate seat; Schumer endorses him; he calls Hillary a 'friend' of 25 years.
The strategy of lesser evilism has been an utter disaster for the 99%. Effectively unchallenged
by the left, the Democratic Party helped the Republican Party to push the agenda steadily to
the right over the past decades. As Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has aptly
put it, "the politics of fear has delivered everything we were afraid of."
... Bernie's endorsement will be used in an attempt to prop up that same rotten establishment
... [that makes] Sanders endorsement of Clinton is [sic] a fundamental failure of leadership.
...
We can't afford to follow Bernie's error. It is time for us to move on. ... That is why I'm
endorsing Green Party candidate Jill Stein. ... There can be no doubt that Jill's campaign
is the clear continuation of our political revolution, and deserves the broadest possible support
from Sandernistas.
Mark Stoval @ 16 -- We've had a fascist economic system (since the 30s)...
Even before. At least since 1913 with the establishment of the Federal Reserve, which transferred
the holdings of the U.S. treasury to international bankers.
b, me too. For the first time I think Clinton may actually be president. Sanders never had
a chance for the simple reason -- never stated -- that he is too old. When he took office he would
have been only a few years short of the age Reagan was when he left.
(For some reason age has never come up with this elderly bunch. Both Bill Clinton (as co-president)
and Trump will be older than Reagan was on election day, and Hillary will be only a few months
younger. You'd think we'd be seeing clips of Hillary chopping logs and Trump free climbing the
face of cliffs -- the sort of stuff they put poor old Ron through.)
A scary thought is that age has never come up because the powers that pick presidents don't
intend for them to be in office long.
Except in style, Hillary is no different than Obama, Bush II, or her husband. Whereas earlier
presidents felt the need to put on a show of decency -- well, okay, Bush II let it drop now and
then -- H. Clinton will be a bitch Cheney, going out of her way to rub everyone's face in it and
bragging there's nothing they can do about it.
Her style's different, but the same game will go on.
There's a bright side however. She's dumb and knows no bounds. Think Louis XVI. That, along
with her arrogance, may finally bring a tipping point of sorts. With things coming apart everywhere,
a smooth-talking fraud like Reagan or Obama might be able to somehow hold it together a little
longer. Hillary's nastiness could actually bring real change. God in his infinite irony.
To riff off a comment by Banger a few posts back. To say there is a deep state controlling
Clinton may be an over simplification. More likely their are lots of competing and conflicting
forces working in the dark, none with any clear idea or plan (or inkling of what other powers
are doing) each pushing for immediate gains without a thought for the future.
It's often said here that the plan is chaos. Maybe, or it could be that there is such confusion
and turmoil and chaos is so prevalent, that it looks like it must be a plan. Or taking a longer
view, it could be what we're seeing everywhere is the inevitable collapse of a vast culture that
has grown too complex.
In the struggle for power everyone. including H. Clinton, is a useful fool and a potential
patsy. Those hidden powers have a history of eating their own.
Sanders has been a great disappointment. In order to prevent Trump from getting the votes,
he is embracing and selling his soul and his supporters to a demon! In fact Sanders has more in
common with Trump that he has with Hillary.
One hopes that disenchanted Sanders supporters will either abstain or vote for Trump.
Having the choice only of two candidates is an absurdity.
"Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman
Sachs" is not a valid statement.
Sanders is a long time member of The Party and Congress. One cannot be a member of those clubs
for so long -- particularly during the years spanning the turn of the last century -- and not
be rotten to the core.
His followers were fools. I think some of them know that now.
Like million and millions of Americans you have been fooled not once but repeatedly and still
believe in democracy and Democratic party. Get real, Sanders probably a better lair than most
liars but not as good as Obomo and Hillary. Understands million and millions still believe these
two liars (dun believes me look at the most recent poll).
Do the smart things vote the opposite what the masses or MSM tells you. Better still vote Trump
and end the drip, drip and drips. Buy yourself a good cheap pitchfork, snows shovel or whatever
in yr local Craigslist or yard sales. Get ready for the final solution.
I for one, hoped for more than "sheepdog" from Sanders, but, alas, those who said so, were
totally correct. Trump and HRC are 2 sides of the same coin. It matters not who wins. With
either one, workers of the world are fucked. The corporate global takeover rolls on.
jules @ 46: in American politics, none of these people are for dismantling the biggest budgetary
fraud & boondoggle in human history: the pentagon. anybody saying they are for "small gov't" who
doesn't immediately propose to slash the military/para-military budget (not the VA, not now) by
50% every year for the next 500 years is lying.
PS-I guess, to distill the question, one might say.. Should corporations serve the people, or
should people serve the corporations? As of now, "the powers that are", believe in the latter.
People taken in by Sanders learned no lessons from gushing over Obama. They hurt themselves
again and are sociopathically indifferent to the far greater harm they have done to those who
were not gullible.
"Bernie Sanders folded. This without gaining any significant concession from Hillary Clinton on
programmatic or personal grounds. (At least as far as we know.) He endorsed Clinton as presidential
candidate even as she gave no ground for his voters' opinions. This disenfranchises the people
who supported him."
Even if she had given any "significant concession", it would have been meaningless noise
with not an iota of intention to implement such concessions.
She is a POS who will say anything at all to get elected. The only thing we really know is she
relishes confrontation on the foreign policy scene. Otherwise nobody can rely on her to act in
their interests in the domestic realm, except big corporate entities.
Syriza...oops, Sanders, was always more loyal to the Democratic party then his ideology. ALWAYS.
I don't know why his supporters are surprised. Did they actually think he was lying when he said
he would support Hillary Clinton.
And not only that, he out right lied saying that the Democrats have the most progressive platform
in Democrat history !!! A fucking ludicrous lie to protect evil Hillary. Disgraceful.
Most of The left are so pathetic it's embarrassing, it's a great invitation to be dominated
by the right wing.
I believe every threat that the despicable right wing will bring, I do not believe the ideology
commitment the vast majority of the left wing in power. Miserable lying cowards.
It is stupid for B to keep linking to Trumps quotes exclusively. Why does b not link to Jill
Stein criticism. Sure Trumps criticism of evil Hillarys corruption will gather important support,
but exclusively giving torture loving warmongering Trump ammunition, strangles other better candidates
in their political birth in the alternative to status quo attention. In the same way that the
Sanders, Chomsky, and other shortsighted cowards react by strangle politically strangling a desperate
new movement.
Congrats to those who labeled the 'Sheepdog' so early. Such an apt description. Good call.
Yesterday I had two emails from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, giddy with joy
over Sanders endorsement of Clinton. Today I had another, which made me giddy with joy:
After Bernie's call for unity yesterday, we just figured Democrats would...well...unify.
But instead, everything is falling apart.
FIRST: We heard barely a peep from grassroots Democrats.
THEN: A Quinnipiac poll showed Trump and Clinton tied in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.
NOW: We're questioning whether the Democratic Party can unify at all.
Great to hear that they're falling on their faces. The DCCC recruits ex-Republicans, Republicans-Lite,
and conservative Democrats to run for Congress, and actively oppose liberal candidates. Long may
they fail. Support worthy individual candidates.
Don't know if anyone's mentioned this book: "The Clinton's war on Women." There's a good long
review posted here, http://thesaker.is/the-clintons-war-on-women/
Lots of potential mud for Trump to sling that will stick.
Sanders released only one year of tax returns (2015). His campaign manager claimed his taxes
held no surprises. Well they didn't for 2015. But why didn't Sanders release earlier years? Any
serious Presidential candidate would expect to release at least 3 years of tax returns.
Given the 'service' that he performed, it might be especially interesting to have seen
his taxes for 2014, the year before he entered the race. The lack of transparency and Sanders'
'sheepdogging' raises questions of whether he received any inducements to enter the race.
Donald Trump is even worse. He hasn't released any tax info. He claims that the IRS
is auditing him (and that they have for many years) . But why not release estimates and/or
earlier tax returns?
We have gone through the looking glass. This evening on Public Broadcasting Service television
news hour Dr. Assad was interviewed by Judy Woodruff, a talking head teleprompter reading hand
puppet. Dr. Assad was asked if Donald Trump was elected President would his lack of foreign relations
diplomacy chops hinder his administrations abilities to achieve their goals. The question was
of no import. Nor was the answer. THE FACT THAT DR. ASSAD WAS TREATED AS AN EQUAL and not "Assad
must go" is a very significant event. VERY SIGNIFICANT!
He's a democratic socialist, so such affiliations and tactics are not unusual. The Democratic
Socialists of America, for example, a Socialist International section, is wholly within the Democratic
Party.
The Plan was always from the start for Bernie to hold down the Left, so Hillary could capture
Center-Right, and Donald could lead the Far Right into Smackdown. Then Bernie would deliver the
Left to Hillary. And so it has come to pass.
I thought everyone knew Bernie, Hillary and Donald are all bought and sold by Goldman? Hillary
and Donald sold their progeny to The Tribe, and Bernie is a woo-woo already. The traitor Chosen
sold US into slavery with Gramm-Leich-Bliley, and fawning sycophant Al-Clintonim signed that bill
into 'law' (sic), in return for her US Senate seat from NY.
Badda-boom, badda-bing!
These are the Vampire Squid, the Takers, Mafia Elites 'who settled the Western Frontier' and
now are the 'Disruptors' of the Public Space into a privatized Fivrr-Uber hell. They own you.
You are owned by the Private Central Bankim. Even a small child will tell you that your only real
'free choice' is to write-in "HELL NO!" in November, then flee to the 3W.
Sanders didn't release his other tax returns even when it became an issue in the campaign
.
Hillary said that she wouldn't release the transcripts of her Goldman speeches until Sanders
had released more tax returns. Her reasoning: she had complied with what was expected of a Presidential
candidate while the other had not yet done so.
Why wouldn't he immediately release those returns - which his campaign had claimed contained
no surprises - so as to force Hillary to release the transcripts?
Not only are staffers subjected to this,
volunteers are as well. "The tight control of volunteers stands in stark contrast to not only
American political-campaign norms but also Trump's reputation for speaking his mind."
Combine that with his statement that he'd like to
change libel laws to make it easier for himself to sue news organizations that down fawn all
over him. Does he seem like the sort to encourage whistle-blowers like Manning or Snowden? Will
he be logging all his email traffic for future FOIA requests? Or maybe he'll kill that off, too.
News Flash: Israel wins U.S. election; Iran to be nuked during inauguration
Trump just picked Mike Pence as running mate. And from (((
Forward ))):
"...Pence has said his support of Israel is deeply rooted in his Christian faith, as well as
in his strong relationship with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Pence was introduced
to AIPAC members in 2009 by then-board member Marshall Cooper at an AIPAC policy conference.
"Let me say emphatically, like the overwhelming majority of my constituents, my Christian
faith compels me to cherish the state of Israel," then-Rep. Pence said.
Cooper described Pence to the audience as "Israel's good friend."..."
So whether Hillary or Trump gets the job (or Obama declares a national emergency an remains)
Israel will be the de-facto new commander-in-chief of the U.S., henceforth to be know as Palestine
West.
The new Falcon Eye surveillance system-sold to the UAE by an Israeli defense contractor-"links
thousands of cameras spread across the city, as well as thousands of other cameras installed
at facilities and buildings in the emirate," the Abu Dhabi Monitoring and Control Center said
in an official statement. The Falcon Eye will "help control roads by monitoring traffic violations
while also monitoring significant behaviors in (Abu Dhabi) such as public hygiene and human
assemblies in non-dedicated areas."
Strange bedfellows? Not at all. The Israelis and the GCC countries, the USG and EU, are all soul
brothers : tiny 'elite' minorities attempting to rule their respective roosts by technological
means encompassing everything from drones to the media to their ubiquitous taps.
Totalitarianism is alive and well in the Middle East ... and in North America, the UK, Europe
... the last thing to be tolerated, the first things to be crushed, are 'human assemblies in non-dedicated
areas' over which their corporate selves would rule.
The Powers That Are are thicker than thieves. Among mere thieves competition remains. The PTA
are acting in loco parentis ... taking 'care' of us all for their own good.
Mike Gravel used to describe our present political situation as 'adolescent': mature enough
to understand the fix we're in, too immature to do anything but complain to 'those in charge'.
We're in charge. We've just been asleep at the wheel. Time to wake up, finally? Before our
whole world become Nice?
I agree that if Sanders had gone on to the Green Party he could have gotten significant support,
enough to guarantee Clinton's loss. But that's not what he wanted to do, whatever his reasons
for running. Folks overseas who think that Trump is anything more than a loudmouth, racist who
would be controlled by the same forces as Clinton is controlled by are fooling themselves. If
Sanders ran as a "pied piper" it wasn't successful. If anything, he presented a contrast to what
the Democratic Party has become.
In 1963 there was a coup in America. Since then the military-industrial complex has run the
country. It has been most apparent in its foreign policy, which has been the conquest of natural
resources (especially oil and gas) worldwide. America's resentment with the USSR/Russia has to
do with their living on top of resources.
But in order to continue the illusion of democracy in the US, it was necessary to maintain
some differences between the two parties so that Americans would think that they have a choice.
Meanwhile, the party that is supposed to represent the working class has been sliding into the
arms of the corporatists. Essentially, in order to give Americans a "choice" Trump has been pushed
as the demonic clown versus H. Clinton. Unfortunately, for good reasons as well as because of
endless propaganda from the right, most Americans distrust Clinton, as well they should. Her casual
announcement about enforcing a "no-fly zone" over Syria is essentially a declaration of war against
Russia.
Going back to the coup in 1963, in order to maintain control of the population it was necessary
for the ruling class to continue to generate candidates each election cycle to pretend to care
about the working class. I have long suspected that early on in their careers both Bill Clinton
and Hillary Clinton were recruited by US intelligence. During his time in Britain Bill's classmates
assumed that he was CIA At about this time Hillary, who'd been raised a rabid Republican, went
to both the Republican and Democratic national conventions in 1968. Not only was it a rather expensive
thing to do for a college student, but most people who are interested in one party aren't interested
in the other. I suspect it was the beginning of her career in US power politics. Shortly after
she wrote a pro-Vietnam speech for Melvin Laird in 1968, she was involved with the various Black
Panther trials around the US.
It's hard to believe that the Hillary who stands before us now was ever a political
ally of the Panthers. Rather, I suspect she was observing for an intelligence agency, the FBI
or CIA She sat through a Panther trial in New Haven, Connecticut, and then spent a summer in
Oakland working for the law firm that was representing the Panthers in the Bay Area. Essentially,
she was in the right place at the right time to glean information for COINTELPRO, the massive
spying program directed against anti-war and black movements. A few years later she worked on
the Democrats' legal team for Watergate, another good place for a government informant to be.
Bill, during his time at Oxford, would have functioned like the thousands of informants who sat
in on peace group meetings across American campuses.
Later, when the CIA was dumping cocaine at Mena, Arkansas, Bill Clinton was in position
to make sure state police left the operation alone. It's not surprising that George W. Bush's
first head of the DEA was Asa Hutchinson, who'd been the incurious federal prosecutor over that
part of Arkansas when the drugs came in.
The Clintons were prominent in the Democratic Leadership Council, which was an organization
within the Democratic Party pushing it to the right. In 1992 Bill pushed trade agreements that
would destroy the American middle class. Since then the party has been hopelessly corrupted by
Wall Street money.
It's now Hillary's turn. If you've always wanted to take a vacation somewhere or wanted to
do something before you die, I suggest you make time for it this year. I cannot think of another
president in memory who is more wed to military adventurism than Hillary.
Proportional representation etc. is not a panaceum. I think that party solidarity, even if the
party is only partially satisfactory is a good tool. What is happening is that Sanders who represents
"turn left" for Democrats is now more electable than Clinton. This has a potential for a big change,
much bigger than ephemeral "relative success" of the Greens, who are fated to collect less votes
than Libertarians (they may have their best year in a long, long time).
Of course, the "right wing of the left" discards party solidarity with ease. They more or less
rejected McGovern and Carter. Hillary's health care reform had the same fate. But they have very
hard time copying with change. Hillary basically promised good old times, and this is not good
enough. I suspect that her game plan is to unload full blast of "Trump's corruption" ads closer
to elections and keep the "positive tone" for now, and that may even work.
But if she polls badly enough, Democratic establishment may see the light and go for Sanders.
"Advisers and family members stressed to Mr. Trump that he was selecting a running mate to unite
the party, not a new best friend, according to people briefed on the process."
Mr. Pence, Indiana's governor, is a former congressman and radio host.
Notable quotes:
"... Reports that Mike Pence is set to be announced as Donald Trump's VP pick tomorrow have set off alarm bells amongst many Trump supporters because of the Governor of Indiana's pro-amnesty, pro-TPP advocacy. ..."
"... While Trump has campaigned against job-killing foreign trade deals, Pence vehemently supports NAFTA, CAFTA, and the TPP. ..."
"... As recently as December, Pence tweeted, "Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional." This completely contradicts Trump's policy of a temporary halt on Muslim immigration ..."
"... Pence voted for the Iraq war and opposed a withdrawal date even after it became apparent that U.S. involvement in the country was a disastrous policy. ..."
"... Pence is not a woman. Picking a female would have completely neutralized Hillary Clinton's sole campaign platform, one bolstered by the media, which is the fact that Hillary has a vagina. ..."
"... The overwhelmingly negative reaction from many of Trump's hardcore supporters should serve as a big wake up call and hopefully lead to the announcement of someone other than Pence to be Trump's running mate. ..."
Reports that Mike Pence is set to be announced as Donald Trump's VP pick tomorrow have set
off alarm bells amongst many Trump supporters because of the Governor of Indiana's pro-amnesty, pro-TPP
advocacy.
Here are more reasons why picking Pence doesn't make sense;
– While Trump has promised to build a wall, Pence has been savaged by respected conservatives
like Pat Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly for advocating "stealth amnesty" in the form of a guest worker
program.
– While Trump has campaigned against job-killing foreign trade deals, Pence vehemently supports
NAFTA, CAFTA, and the TPP.
– As recently as December, Pence tweeted, "Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are
offensive and unconstitutional." This completely contradicts Trump's policy of a temporary halt on
Muslim immigration
– Pence voted for the Iraq war and opposed a withdrawal date even after it became apparent
that U.S. involvement in the country was a disastrous policy.
– Pence once advocated "conversion therapy" for homosexuals. This will be exploited by the left
to portray Pence as intolerant and bigoted, turning off many Bernie Sanders supporters who might
have voted for Trump, as well as gays who were thinking about voting for Trump in the aftermath of
the Orlando massacre.
– Pence is not a woman. Picking a female would have completely neutralized Hillary Clinton's
sole campaign platform, one bolstered by the media, which is the fact that Hillary has a vagina.
Hopefully, the Pence leak is just the Trump campaign testing the waters before a final call is
made.
Trump's campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said that "a decision has not been made," and the Indianapolis
Star did not provide a source for its Pence leak.
The overwhelmingly negative reaction from many of Trump's hardcore supporters should serve
as a big wake up call and hopefully lead to the announcement of someone other than Pence to be Trump's
running mate.
NYT: "Advisers and family members stressed to Mr. Trump that he was selecting a running mate to
unite the party, not a new best friend, according to people briefed on the process."
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is best known to voters as a man who wants to build a wall on the Mexican border, and Pence is no different – he previously voted to put a wall on the same border. Additionally, he has moved to end birthright citizenship to "anchor babies" and wanted to require that hospitals report undocumented patients to immigration officials. ..."
"... Pence's small government, slash taxes and budgets approach to legislating has made him a favorite among Tea Party members. The Washington Post deemed him a "tea party Republican before there was a tea party." ..."
"... When asked to describe himself, Pence says he is "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." In other words, he puts his faith first, which is probably why he can't get behind any socially liberal ideas. ..."
Trump is best known to voters as a man who wants to build a wall on the Mexican border, and
Pence is no different – he previously voted to put a wall on the same border. Additionally, he has
moved to end birthright citizenship to "anchor babies" and wanted to require that hospitals report
undocumented patients to immigration officials.
Back in 2006 when the House and Senate were having a difficult time agreeing on immigration reform,
Pence offered up a "compromise" bill that offered no amnesty to immigrants currently living in the
country. That's hardly a compromise – that's a tougher stance than most conservatives take, actually.
... ... ...
6. He's Buddies With the Koch Brothers
"I've met David Koch on several occasions," Pence said. "I'm grateful to have enjoyed his support."
In particular, he thanked the Koch brothers and their organization Americans for Prosperity for their
"activism" in helping to reduce the income tax in Indiana and (supposedly) limiting the role of government.
7. He's Frighteningly Anti-Choice
While it may be too much to expect a pro-choice VP nominee from Trump, did he have to choose a
man with such clear contempt for a woman's autonomy over her body? Indiana has some of the most restrictive
abortion laws in the country, thanks in large part to Pence's leadership on this issue.
In addition to turning the defunding of Planned Parenthood into his personal hobby, Pence promoted
laws designed to humiliate women and make abortion procedures less safe. Some of his own Republican
colleagues disagreed with his ideas, worried that his emphasis was on punishing women rather than
actually saving fetuses.
8. He's a Tea Party "Hero"
Pence's small government, slash taxes and budgets approach to legislating has made him a favorite
among Tea Party members. The Washington Post deemed him a "tea party Republican before there was
a tea party."
... ... ...
11. He's Extremely Religious
Pence was actually raised in a Catholic, apolitical household , but later became a born-again
Christian after meeting his wife.
When asked to describe himself, Pence says he is "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican,
in that order." In other words, he puts his faith first, which is probably why he can't get behind
any socially liberal ideas.
Pence is expected to be a big hit with evangelical voters who might be unconvinced of Trump's
self-professed strong Christian faith.
Now when Obama swiped "emailgate" under the carpet, hopefully "Clinton Cash" scandal will come
on the forefront and sink her candidacy. There was not president in US history of electing
criminally negligent and simultaneously criminally greedy character to such a high position.
Notable quotes:
"... Senator Bernie Sanders made it a useful attack against her in early 2016, suggesting that by speaking to banks like Goldman Sachs, she was compromised. There have been calls for Clinton to release the transcripts of her speeches, which she was declined to do, saying if every other candidate does, she will too. ..."
"... Where did Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton speak? How did they decide how much to charge? What did they say? How did they decide which speeches would be given on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, with fees going to the charity, and which would be treated as personal income? ..."
"... Are there cases of conflicts of interest or quid pro quos-for example, speaking gigs for Bill Clinton on behalf of clients who had business before the State Department? ..."
"... How did their speeches intersect with Hillary Clinton's work at the State Department? Were there quid-pro-quos involving U.S. policy? Did the foundation steer money improperly to for-profit companies owned by friends? The second, connected question is about disclosure. When Clinton became secretary, she agreed that the foundation would make certain disclosures, which it's now clear it didn't always do. And the looming questions about Clinton's State Department emails make it harder to answer those questions. ..."
"... Since the Clintons have a long history of controversies, there are any number of past scandals that continue to float around, especially in conservative media: Whitewater. Troopergate. Paula Jones. Monica Lewinsky. Travelgate. Vince Foster's suicide. Juanita Broaddrick. ..."
"... January 2016 resurfacing of Juanita Broaddrick's rape allegations offers a test case to see whether the conventional wisdom is truly wise-or just conventional. On May 23, Donald Trump released a video prominently highlighting Broaddrick's accusation . ..."
"... Her tenure as SoS was one of all failures. She also failed at managing her own department (Benghazi) as confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Report on Benghazi. More importantly she is as corrupt a politician as there is. Look elsewhere because she will not be your nominee in the end. ..."
"... It's really not whether she was lied to or not. Any Senator who voted yes opened us up to decades more of violence and war. ..."
"... The leader of a soverign nation Libya was murdered under Hillary's order and she even laughed about it, on national news. Now consider hundreds of thousands are dead across the middle east and we have the greatest refugee crisis since WWII thanks to Hillary and her tenure as Sec. Of State. ..."
"... To be fair to Democrats this policy of intervention and destabilization of mid eastern countries was birthed by the Bush administration and began in Iraq. Obama and Clinton have simply carried the baton and moved the plan into a new phase with the actions being more covert and backdoor than the way Bush did it. ..."
"... Considering Trump is tied or beating Hillary in most polls one can reasonably conclude from empirical evidence that he must be solidy ahead knowing the samples are bias being weighted with extra Democrats at this point in the game. ..."
"... "Party loyalty and greed will trump ( pardon the pun) the welfare of the country." This statement is equally true for Clinton. ..."
"... The one and only time Hillary has been in a leadership position that means personal responsibility (Sec. of State) and it resulted in bigger than Bush weapons deals in the Middle East, the destabilization of Libya and the region, Honduran coups, the suppression of a wage increase in Haiti, a reversal of gender neutral language policies in the State Dept, and none of that even touches on the things the Repubs are harping about. ..."
"... Hmm, the Dem party is not corrupt? They are awash in big business donations and lobbyists. Republican party is no better, sure, but it's stretch to say the Dem party is not corrupt. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton simply reminds me too much of Nixon, paranoia, secrecy, and all. Start from Filegate and work your way to the present. Feel free to cast aside the conspiracy theories and Republican's hypocritical attacks. The Clintons are a horrible part of Washington and Wall Street, and there isn't a stone's throw of distance between them and the Republicans that love them in private, and hate them in public. ..."
"... Also isn't it hypocritical of you not to insist that Bernie and Hillary disavow support from the racist BLM crowd? I said that race relations are at a low for the past 60 years. For your information, segregation was outlawed more than 60 years ago. How can you possibly argue that America is great with all of the problems which I have listed plus the many more that exist? By the way, these are facts, not "complaints". Get real. ..."
"... Back up to Clinton administration. Important stuff happened. Glass-Steagall Act (Banking Act of 1933) was abandoned and replaced, allowing big banks to "gamble." Glass-Steagall had protected us for three generations. Also remember NAFTA which shipped jobs out of the country. Remember the landmark trade agreement with China that shipped more jobs out of the country (and got me a new China made version of a name brand cordless drill that I had trusted before, and the Chinese version was a potential fire hazard with a battery charger that could burn a house down). The important changes came under Clinton and grew and exploded under Bush who was focused on 9/11 and invading Iraq. ..."
What? Since Bill Clinton left the White House in 2001, both Clintons have made millions
of dollars for giving speeches.
When? 2001-present
Who? Hillary Clinton; Bill Clinton; Chelsea Clinton
How serious is it? Intermittently dangerous. It has a tendency to flare up, then die down.
Senator Bernie Sanders made it a useful attack against her in early 2016, suggesting that by speaking
to banks like Goldman Sachs, she was compromised. There have been calls for Clinton to release the
transcripts of her speeches, which she was declined to do, saying if every other candidate does,
she will too.
For the Clintons, who left the White House up to their ears in legal debt, lucrative speeches-mostly
by the former president-proved to be an effective way of rebuilding wealth. They have also been an
effective magnet for prying questions. Where did Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton speak? How did
they decide how much to charge? What did they say? How did they decide which speeches would be given
on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, with fees going to the charity, and which would be treated as
personal income?
Are there cases of conflicts of interest or quid pro quos-for example, speaking gigs for Bill
Clinton on behalf of clients who had business before the State Department?
The Clinton Foundation
What? Bill Clinton's foundation was actually established in 1997, but after leaving the
White House it became his primary vehicle for … well, everything. With projects ranging from public
health to elephant-poaching protection and small-business assistance to child development, the foundation
is a huge global player with several prominent offshoots. In 2013, following Hillary Clinton's departure
as secretary of State, it was renamed the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
When? 1997-present
Who? Bill Clinton; Hillary Clinton; Chelsea Clinton, etc.
How serious is it? If the Clinton Foundation's strength is President Clinton's endless intellectual
omnivorousness, its weakness is the distractibility and lack of interest in detail that sometimes
come with it. On a philanthropic level, the foundation gets decent ratings from outside review groups,
though critics charge that it's too diffuse to do much good, that the money has not always achieved
what it was intended to, and that in some cases the money doesn't seem to have achieved its intended
purpose. The foundation made errors in its tax returns it has to correct. Overall, however, the essential
questions about the Clinton Foundation come down to two, related issues. The first is the seemingly
unavoidable conflicts of interest: How did the Clintons' charitable work intersect with their for-profit
speeches? How did their speeches intersect with Hillary Clinton's work at the State Department? Were there quid-pro-quos involving U.S. policy? Did the foundation steer money improperly to
for-profit companies owned by friends? The second, connected question is about disclosure. When Clinton
became secretary, she agreed that the foundation would make certain disclosures, which it's now clear
it didn't always do. And the looming questions about Clinton's State Department emails make it harder
to answer those questions.
The Bad Old Days
What is it?Since the Clintons have a long history of controversies, there are any number
of past scandals that continue to float around, especially in conservative media: Whitewater. Troopergate.
Paula Jones. Monica Lewinsky. Travelgate. Vince Foster's suicide. Juanita Broaddrick.
When? 1975-2001
Who? Bill Clinton; Hillary Clinton; a brigade of supporting characters
How serious is it? The conventional wisdom is that they're not terribly dangerous. Some are
wholly spurious (Foster). Others (Lewinsky, Whitewater) have been so exhaustively investigated it's
hard to imagine them doing much further damage to Hillary Clinton's standing. In fact, the Lewinsky
scandal famously boosted her public approval ratings. But the January 2016 resurfacing of Juanita
Broaddrick's rape allegations offers a test case to see whether the conventional wisdom is truly
wise-or just conventional. On May 23, Donald Trump
released a video prominently highlighting Broaddrick's accusation.
BuckRogers -> lost in the stars
Why do you support his awful candidate?
KlugerRD -> lost in the stars
Her tenure as SoS was one of all failures. She also failed at managing her own department
(Benghazi) as confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Report on Benghazi. More importantly she is
as corrupt a politician as there is. Look elsewhere because she will not be your nominee in the
end.
ladychurchillusa -> SSDD
Hillary's economic philosophy is "make money for Hillary" it begins and ends there. She is
an extortionist plain and simple.
Erik Kilpatrick -> BulldogNYCrC
Bill Clinton received a nice 16mil a year job at a FOR PROFIT College...but had to resign after
it came out the Hillary, Then our SOS funneled 55min of taxpayers money into one of the Board
member's side business..http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/...
Disappointed -> William Erik Kilpatrick
I find it incredible that this woman is even allowed to run for the highest office in the land,
(which is now controlled by corporations). Be that as it may, how are you American people possibly
allowing this to happen? I thought that, when Bernie announced his intention to run for office,
the country was saved from ever having another 'Clinton' in office. Then I sat back and watched
as the DNC Chairperson DWS and HRC and the Democratic party, with the help of the media, (controlled
by corporations that gave money to Hillary's campaign), just pushed Bernie Sanders into the dirt
even though he had more supporters than Hillary.
Special Delegates, corrupt delegates, etc. made sure that through corruption at every turn,
Hillary would come out on top. If I was you, the population of America, I'd write in Bernie Sanders
at any voting chance that's offered. If you stick with Hillary, America and maybe the world is
lost. If you go with Trump that would be better but still very dangerous. Take your country back
into the hands of the people. Outlaw; Super Delegates, Computer voting machines, electoral college,
and just have the popular paper vote of the people. Corporations aren't people no matter what
the Supreme Court says. Time to reverse the madness and do it now. Make sure Bernie Sanders is
your next president, anyway possible!
ldness -> uberengineer
They are both scum. Fortunately, there is a path for Johnson when the election reaches the
House in Dec.
Rosa1984 -> uberengineer
HIllary has Demonstrated she's Not Presidential.
Allan Nichols -> Jim_Satterfield
Jim Barack Obama was a failure on all levels, he promised to unite us ending the politically
divisive language of the Bush Admin. What did he do? He took the politically divisive 100% partisan
language of the Bush admin and gave us his own rendition. Only Obama made it far worse injecting
racially divisive language creating a cocktail of hate that caused whole blocks to be burnt to
the ground and riots. As if that were not enough he has exploited thr already strained relationship
between the police and citizens in our most crime ridden neighborhoods. Instead of attacking the
drug dealers and gang members who make these neighborhoods hell holes, president Obama used his
bully pulpit to repeatedly blame the police.
Mist importantly in my eyes and many other peoples, Obama never went after any of the criminals
in the Bush admin, nor did he put a single wall st scumbag in jail. He promised to fix healthcare,
to make it cheaper and go after the drug companies and insurance companies holding them accountable
and what
intheivy longtail
It's far worse than that; Hillary actually laughed about the torture and death of a person.
Granted, said person was a dictator, but what kind of a human laughs about torture and death?
Hillary has said that she will be far tougher on foreign nations than Obama has been.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
ntheivy Mr. Fusion
It's here––
"We came, we saw, he died [laughter]" –Hillary Clinton, on the torture and death of Qaddafi
Hillary fooled?? But I thought she was/is super diligent and smart. It was clear as day that
the Iraq war was fabricated by Cheney & Co. Have you forgotten the bogus yellow cake?
Funny how when it's convenient Hillary is fooled and all other times Hillary is smart as a
whip.
Helen Weatherall -> William Reynish
Hillary is ALL about Hillary. She has no apparent morals. Hillary is as opportunist as any
of the best before her.
Christopher Clusen -> longtail
It's really not whether she was lied to or not. Any Senator who voted yes opened us up
to decades more of violence and war. Even if Saddam had actually cooperated with AQ, there
is stil no excuse for what happened. I feel the same about the Afghan conflict. No more war!
Christopher Clusen -> longtail
What lives will be saved? HRC is very clear about her interventionist foreign policies. I dislike
Trump very much, but st the end of the day I trust him more to stay out of the ME.
Allan Nichols longtail
NEWSFLASH The leader of a soverign nation Libya was murdered under Hillary's order and
she even laughed about it, on national news. Now consider hundreds of thousands are dead across
the middle east and we have the greatest refugee crisis since WWII thanks to Hillary and her tenure
as Sec. Of State.
To be fair to Democrats this policy of intervention and destabilization of mid eastern countries
was birthed by the Bush administration and began in Iraq. Obama and Clinton have simply carried
the baton and moved the plan into a new phase with the actions being more covert and backdoor
than the way Bush did it.
aesop55 -> MamaMaggie
I'm less afraid of Trump than I am of the Clintons. Bill and Hillary will insure that the TPP
is implemented. Hillary is already talking about re-instating the draft. We know how much she
hates Iran (even tried to sabotage the Iranian nuclear deal) and how much she loves Henry Kissinger
and BiBi. She has said that Iran poses the greatest threat to Israel and so we can all look forward
to WWIII in the Middle East with Hillary at the helm and our kids/grandkids used as front line
fodder for her war games. She has been noted as saying that Iraq war was good for business - tell
that to the Vets, parents, wives, husbands, children who lost loved ones or whose son, daughter,
wife, husband came back with irreparable damage due to her "mistakes".
No thanks. I remain #BernieOrBust and if you get a Trump because the DNC and HRC have rigged
this whole primary process with election fraud, campaign fraud, etc., you have yourself to blame.
You want to coronate the most fatally flawed candidate in US history? Go ahead. The rest of us
hope that the FBI and the AG will put the rule of law above stoking the narcissistic hopes and
dreams of Hillary Clinton and once and for all bring this crime family to heel. Prison is too
good for them.
Betty Pringle -> aesop55
Love your post as you are telling it like it is. I've read many, many books about the Clinton's
and my God, what they have gotten away with is just outrageous. Hillary was the one who hired
the detectives to go after Bill's many women to harass and terrorize them into silence. She didn't
care what Bill didwith women she just didn't want what he did to hinder her chances of becoming
President. They have all the angles covered in any situation. Now they've got Terry McAuliffe
their friend, who is Gov. of Virginia who recently allowed 200,000 felons to vote and right there
he had the Democratic Committee ready to sign them up as Democrats. The Clinton's did the same
thing when Hillary was running for Senator of New York.
Bill Clinton pardoned a bunch of fellas from a certain district in New York City and when it
came election time that district voted for Hillary and they had never voted for a Democrat before.
The Clinton's always seem to have all the angles covered in any situation.
In the Book CLINTON INC. it states the Clinton Machine operates like the MAFIA. Very, Very,
Very SCARY. 5/7/16
Allan Nichols -> MamaMaggie
If he pulls off the nomination lol. NEWSFLASH...... Republicans historically run well behind
Democrats in presidential polls entering June and up till about a month before the election when
we start to see the real numbers because no one wants to be wrong.
Considering Trump is tied or beating Hillary in most polls one can reasonably conclude
from empirical evidence that he must be solidy ahead knowing the samples are bias being weighted
with extra Democrats at this point in the game.
Helen Weatherall -> MamaMaggie
#BernieOrBust !! #HillaryCheats #NeverHillary
Marion Emory -> Terri Geer
One reason people might vote for Trump is to facilitate the reform of the Republican and Democratic
Party.
Marion Emory -> lena mcfarland
Well, Trump is not Hitler, and you have no insight into the thinking or motivations of Germany,
but don't let that stop you from pretending.
Nevertheless, if you would like a break down, here it is...
If Trump is the Republican nominee, and then goes on to 'win' in the General Election, the GOP
will undoubtedly split (maybe even before then), and the DNC will be signaled to avoid corrupt
candidates like Hillary Clinton. Neither party will work with Trump or pass any legislation he
pushes for, and nothing, nothing, nothing, will make it through Congress that Republicans and
Democrats don't already agree on. Both parties would be forced to reform, and in the next election,
both parties would emerge with a new platform and Trump's lameduck term would come to an end.
lena mcfarland -> Marion Emory
Wishful drinking.
There's no reason to suppose that an all republican congress wouldn't do as Trump asked. Or vice
versa. So what policies are they voting for? Caps on trade and immigration. Restrictions on women's
right to abortion. Worse, president Trump sends the American military out to defend his ego if
he gets into a Rosie O'Donnell type tiff with another head of state.
I wouldn't mind seeing a reform of both parties. But voting a mad man into office has NEVER been
a good idea, and it's not a good idea now. Trump's racial contempt for other groups, his sexism,
make me worry about my bodily safety if he were president. And yours.
My Hitler comparison is not made lightly. We've never elected someone before who openly attacks
a reporter for being disabled.
Your premise that Trump would be unable to act on his worst ideas is naive. A president has the
power to take lives in his hands. That power cannot be placed in the hands of an unpredictable
bigot simply to express your frustration with the political parties. Your cure is more deadly
than the disease.
If Trump wins the Republican nomination I see no indication the a Republican House Or Senate
wouldn't cooperate with him completely. Even his former campaign rivals have dutifully stood behind
him hoping for scraps from the table. Party loyalty and greed will trump ( pardon the pun) the
welfare of the country.
intheivy -> longtail
"Party loyalty and greed will trump ( pardon the pun) the welfare of the country." This
statement is equally true for Clinton.
intheivy -> southvalley
Plans for $300,000 UCLA visit give rare glimpse into Hillary Clinton's paid speaking career
UCLA asked for a "public school" special rate – was told that $300K was the public school special
rate. http://wpo.st/CUpW1
Haze -> intheivy
Donald Trump took $200,000 from the students of university at buffalo in 2004. He answered
10 prescreened questions from students. Please remember to also bring up Trump's speaking fees
when you mention the above!
Tdab T_Cantu
Beautiful comment! I am intrigued with the psychology angle you proffer when looking at Hillary
and Trump, which further solidifies my Bernie or bust conviction!
DidiM -> Abbie Correa
"Godwin has stated that he introduced Godwin's law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics.[2]
Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to
reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as
if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical:
I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about
the Holocaust", Godwin has written.[12] In December 2015, Godwin commented on the Nazi and fascist
comparisons being made by several articles on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump,
saying that "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and
refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician."[13]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Marion Emory -> longtail
Hillary and the DNC are absolutely corrupted by corporate influence, which is evident in the
main source of their campaign financing, and rule changes they made to reverse Obama's campaign
financing rules. The Republicans are in the toilet, but Hillary and the Democrats are standing
on the rim, eager to jump in.
Marion Emory -> DidiM
How's this for "cut and paste?"
The one and only time Hillary has been in a leadership position that means personal responsibility
(Sec. of State) and it resulted in bigger than Bush weapons deals in the Middle East, the destabilization
of Libya and the region, Honduran coups, the suppression of a wage increase in Haiti, a reversal
of gender neutral language policies in the State Dept, and none of that even touches on the things
the Repubs are harping about.
William Reynish -> longtail
Hmm, the Dem party is not corrupt? They are awash in big business donations and lobbyists.
Republican party is no better, sure, but it's stretch to say the Dem party is not corrupt.
Marion Emory -> DidiM
Hillary Clinton simply reminds me too much of Nixon, paranoia, secrecy, and all. Start
from Filegate and work your way to the present. Feel free to cast aside the conspiracy theories
and Republican's hypocritical attacks. The Clintons are a horrible part of Washington and Wall
Street, and there isn't a stone's throw of distance between them and the Republicans that love
them in private, and hate them in public.
Robert Grant -> lena mcfarland
How can you claim that America in it's current state is great? Nearly 50 million are using
EBT cards. We are drowning in debt. The national debt has doubled since Obama came into office.
The mid-east, indeed the entire world is a chaotic mess due to poor foreign policy decisions.
Our military is the weakest in years. Our veterans are dying from lack of proper medical care.
Over 90 million working age Americans are not working. Median family incomes have declined since
Obama took office, with many people underemployed or working part time. We have suffered the slowest
recovery from recession in history. Obamacare has been a disaster with billions squandered on
the launch, rising premiums, huge deductibles, young people not enrolling, to say nothing of people
not being able to keep their insurance or their doctors despite Obama's promises. We have allowed
tens of millions of illegal "immigrants", questionable "refuges" and people with expired visas
to remain in our country and place a great burden on our welfare and educational systems as well
as compete with native Americans and legal immigrants for scarce jobs. Race relations are at a
low point in the past 60 years. Ferguson, Baltimore and other cities are seething cesspools of
lawlessness. The black lives matter crowd and other radical groups openly call for the murder
of our law enforcement officers. Colleges are being taken over by radical student groups. University
degrees have been degraded as to be nearly worthless and the cost of higher education has exploded
exponentially. Our enemies no longer fear us and our friends no longer trust us.
Robert Grant -> lena mcfarland
It is so easy to label someone as being a racist these days with little or no basis in fact.
"Welcome KKK to rallies"? Not excluding them is very different than welcoming them. If you try
to exclude every objectionable group to all people, wouldn't that be an exercise. Trump did disavow
KKK support, but you don't acknowledge that do you? Also isn't it hypocritical of you not
to insist that Bernie and Hillary disavow support from the racist BLM crowd? I said that race
relations are at a low for the past 60 years. For your information, segregation was outlawed more
than 60 years ago. How can you possibly argue that America is great with all of the problems which
I have listed plus the many more that exist? By the way, these are facts, not "complaints". Get
real.
Robert Grant -> manderso
You appear to be either a juvenile or mentally handicapped so let me go over the facts again
for your benefit. This is the slowest recovery from recession in the history of our country. The
economy is improving at a snail's pace. The median net worth of the middle class is lower than
eight years ago. Seniors especially are hard hit with interest rates lower than the inflation
rates. Interest rates can not be raised because the economy is too fragile. Over 90 million of
our fellow citizens who are of working age are not working. Over 50 million on food stamps. The
unemployment rate for young people, especially minorities, is in the 20 plus per cent range. The
GDP growth rate is anemic. Businesses are reluctant to invest due to the current economic climate,
Obamacare and left wing Democratic economic policies which are anti-business to the extreme.
shadow013 -> Floridatexan
Back up to Clinton administration. Important stuff happened. Glass-Steagall Act (Banking
Act of 1933) was abandoned and replaced, allowing big banks to "gamble." Glass-Steagall had protected
us for three generations. Also remember NAFTA which shipped jobs out of the country. Remember
the landmark trade agreement with China that shipped more jobs out of the country (and got me
a new China made version of a name brand cordless drill that I had trusted before, and the Chinese
version was a potential fire hazard with a battery charger that could burn a house down). The
important changes came under Clinton and grew and exploded under Bush who was focused on 9/11
and invading Iraq.
"... The mainstream US news media have never liked the brash billionaire Trump. He makes good circulation figures for sure, but the large coverage the Republican contender has received from the outset is preponderantly negative. ..."
"... Trump's campaign has instead been buoyed by the popular vote, not by endorsement from the elite establishment, including the Republican Party leadership and the corporate media. Now that the race for the presidency is turning into a two-horse contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Trump, the media's antipathy towards Trump is moving to an all-out barrage of attacks. Attacks, it has to be said, that are bordering on hysteria and which only a corporate machine could convey. ..."
"... Trump vehemently rebuffed the claims. He said it was simply a star, like the ones that US Marshals use. When his campaign team reacted to the initial media furor by replacing the red star with a circle it only served to fuel accusations against Trump because he was seen to be acting defensively. However, he later defiantly rebuked his campaign team and said they should have stuck with the star image and let him defend that choice of image as simply an innocuous star shape. For what it's worth, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, subsequently rallied to the tycoon's defense and said he was not racist nor anti-Semitic and that the controversy was a media-contrived storm in a teacup. ..."
"... Trump makes a valid point that Clinton's abuse of state secrecy – whether intentional or negligent – has in fact posed a national security threat. Yet the media focus is decidedly not on his Democrat rival. It is rather centered on overblown concerns about the wealthy real estate developer. ..."
"... Trump is right. The political system in the US is rigged . Not just in terms of double standards of the justice system, but in the bigger context of how candidates are screened and vetted – in this case through undue vilification. ..."
"... Trump's reactionary views on immigration, race relations and international politics are certainly questionable. His credibility as the next president of the US may be dubious. But is his credibility any less than that of Hillary Clinton? Her melding of official capacity with private gain from Wall Street banks and foreign governments acting as donors to her family's fund-raising Clinton Foundation has the pungent whiff of selling federal policy for profit. Her penchant for criminal regime change operations in Honduras, Libya, Syria and Ukraine speak of a political mafia don. ..."
"... American politics has long been derided as a "dog and pony show" ..."
"... But what we are witnessing is a brazen display of how the powers-that-be (Wall Street, media, Pentagon, Washington, etc) are audaciously intervening in this electoral cycle to disenfranchise the voting population. ..."
Presidential hopeful Donald Trump is right: the 'system is 'rigged'. The media barrage against
the billionaire demonstrates irrefutably how the power establishment, not the people, decides who
sits in the White House.
Trump is increasingly assailed in the US media with alleged character flaws. The latest blast
paints Trump as a total loose cannon who would launch World War III. In short, a "nuke nut".
In the Pentagon-aligned Defense One journal, the property magnate is described as someone who
cannot be trusted with his finger on the nuclear button. Trump would order nuclear strikes equivalent
to 20,000 Hiroshima bombings as "easy as ordering a pizza", claimed the opinion piece.
If that's not an example of "project fear" then what is?
The mainstream US news media have never liked the brash billionaire Trump. He makes good circulation
figures for sure, but the large coverage the Republican contender has received from the outset is
preponderantly negative.
Trump's campaign has instead been buoyed by the popular vote, not by endorsement from the elite
establishment, including the Republican Party leadership and the corporate media. Now that the race
for the presidency is turning into a two-horse contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Trump,
the media's antipathy towards Trump is moving to an all-out barrage of attacks. Attacks, it has to
be said, that are bordering on hysteria and which only a corporate machine could convey.
Like a giant screening process, the Trump candidacy and his supporters are being systematically
disenfranchised. At this rate of attrition, by the time the election takes place in November the
result will already have been all but formally decided – by the powers-that-be, not the popular will.
The past week provides a snapshot of the intensifying media barrage facing Trump. Major US media
outlets have run prominent claims that Trump is a fan of the former brutal Iraqi dictator Saddam
Hussein. Those claims were based on a loose interpretation of what Trump said at a rally when he
referred to Saddam's strong-arm suppression of terrorism. He didn't say he liked Saddam. In fact,
called him a "bad guy". But Trump said that the Iraqi dictator efficiently eliminated terrorists.
A second media meme to emerge was "Trump the anti-Semite". This referred to an image his campaign
team tweeted of Hillary Clinton as "the most corrupt candidate ever". The words were emblazoned on
a red, six-pointed star. Again, the mainstream media gave copious coverage to claims that the image
was anti-Semitic because, allegedly, it was a Jewish 'Star of David'.
Trump vehemently rebuffed the claims. He said it was simply a star, like the ones that US Marshals
use. When his campaign team reacted to the initial media furor by replacing the red star with a circle
it only served to fuel accusations against Trump because he was seen to be acting defensively. However,
he later defiantly rebuked his campaign team and said they should have stuck with the star image
and let him defend that choice of image as simply an innocuous star shape.
For what it's worth, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, subsequently rallied to
the tycoon's defense and said he was not racist nor anti-Semitic and that the controversy was a media-contrived
storm in a teacup.
Not only that but the Trump-risks-Armageddon article also refers to him being in the same company
as Russian leader Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jung Un who, we are told, "also have their
finger on the nuclear button".
Under the headline, 'How to slow Donald Trump from pushing the nuclear button', a photograph shows
the presidential contender with a raised thump in a downward motion. The answer being begged is:
Don't vote for this guy – unless you want to incinerate the planet!
This is scare-tactics to the extreme thrown in for good measure along with slander and demonization.
And all pumped up to maximum volume by the US corporate media, all owned by just six conglomerates.
Trump is having to now spend more of his time explaining what he is alleged to have said or did
not say, instead of being allowed to level criticisms at his Democrat rival or to advance whatever
political program he intends to deliver as president.
The accusation that Trump is a threat to US national security is all the more ironic given that
this week Hillary Clinton was labelled as "extremely careless" by the head of the FBI over her dissemination
of state secrets through her insecure private email account.
Many legal experts and former US government officials maintain that Clinton's breach of classified
information is deserving of criminal prosecution – an outcome that would debar her from contesting
the presidential election.
Why the FBI should have determined that there is no case for prosecution even though more than
100 classified documents were circulated by Clinton when she was Secretary of State (2009-2013) has
raised public heckles of "double standards".
The controversy has been compounded by the US Attorney General Loretta Lynch also declaring that
no charges will be pressed and the case is closed – a week after she met with Hillary's husband,
Bill, on board her plane for a hush-hush chat.
Trump
makes a valid point that Clinton's abuse of state secrecy – whether intentional or negligent
– has in fact posed a national security threat. Yet the media focus is decidedly not on his Democrat
rival. It is rather centered on overblown concerns about the wealthy real estate developer.
Trump is right. The political system in the US is
rigged. Not just in terms of double standards of the justice system, but in the bigger context
of how candidates are screened and vetted – in this case through undue vilification.
Trump's reactionary views on immigration, race relations and international politics are certainly
questionable. His credibility as the next president of the US may be dubious. But is his credibility
any less than that of Hillary Clinton? Her melding of official capacity with private gain from Wall
Street banks and foreign governments acting as donors to her family's fund-raising Clinton Foundation
has the pungent whiff of selling federal policy for profit. Her penchant for criminal regime change
operations in Honduras, Libya, Syria and Ukraine speak of a political mafia don.
American politics has long been derided as a "dog and pony show", whereby powerful lobbies
buy the pageant outcome. Trump's own participation in the election is only possible because he is
a multi-billionaire who is able to fund a political campaign. That said, however, the New York businessman has garnered a sizable popular following from his
maverick attacks on the rotten Washington establishment.
But what we are witnessing is a brazen display of how the powers-that-be (Wall Street, media,
Pentagon, Washington, etc) are audaciously intervening in this electoral cycle to disenfranchise
the voting population.
Clinton has emerged as the candidate-of-choice for the establishment, and the race to the White
House is being nobbled – like never before.
It is difficult to imagine how the Trump rank and file and the party's corporate
"establishment" will paper over their irreconcilable differences, rooted in the party's failure
to preserve skin privilege and good jobs in a White Man's Country.
Just as brazenly, Trump, the rabble rousing billionaire, has violated the most sacred ruling
class taboos by rejecting the
national security rationale for the hyper-aggressive, ever-expanding, global U.S. military
presence. If Trump fails to convincingly recant such heresies, the rulers will deal with him with
extreme prejudice.
Dear dear … not one single serious issue in that article … just
divisiveness. Nothing about the economy, excessive corporate power,
international trade treaties, widespread (illegal) surveillance,
potential for war … nothing.
Well, there was some stuff. It seems to me that Trump needs an
ambassador to what we might call the Parliamentary Republican Party
- same wankers the Trump campaign went through like the Blitzkreig
through the French in 1939 - but who still control levers of party
power; I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they were trying to
McGovern Trump by denying him a VP candidate at all, until
Manafort whipped them like the curs they are.
Dunno about the Kochs; from their quote yesterday ("Trump is a
nice fellow") I doubt it. However, Ivanka has clevely gotten other
donors dubious about Trump to contribute to other aspects of the
campaign, so the Kochs might end up doing that.
I used to love bilious pieces like that, and wrote plenty of
them, too. It gets tiring, after awhile, getting all whipped up. I
like more signal, less noise.
EndOfTheWorld
Trump picking Pence was a concession to the repug establishment so they
will finally give up their idea of revolting against The Donald. Also he
will always be there reminding Trump that many repugs would be very happy if
Trump were assassinated, so The Donald will be careful.
MyLessThanPrimeBeef
They'd be wrong to think about assassinating him.
And they'd be equally wrong to think about doing that to Sanders, or
anyone else.
Why only Trump is mentioned though? Is he most dangerous to them?
No, I'm saying if Trump is prez with Pence as veep, he will have to
be nice to the repug establishment, or else. Because Pence is
preferable to them. But he had to do this, apparently, just to get
past the convention in Cleveland. This is my opinion, only--I'm not
saying I have inside info. A prez feels safer with a really dumb veep,
like the first Bush with Quayle, since the establishment is not going
to off the prez only to get an even worse one ascending from the
veepship. Trump would have preferred Joni Ernst, probably, but she
"declined." Yeah, right-she was ordered to decline, to make way for
giving Trump a choice between Gingrich or Pence, so he chose the
lesser of two evils. Trump is appeasing the repugs, playing ball,
making deals.
JTMcPhee
The joke with Bush the First was that the Secret Svc had
standing orders that if anyone shot the Bush, they were to turn and
shoot some Quayle. Had this from a guy who used to work there.
different clue
Really? As dimm and dumm and sometimes nasty as Pence is? I
would think Pence is anti-assassination insurance. " You kill the
Donald, you get some Pence. You really want that?"
EndOfTheWorld
Maybe he is dumb-not that familiar with his brains or lack
thereof. I know damn well nobody in his right mind would want
Newt Gingrich sitting behind him in the veep slot, so The Donald
made the right move in squelching that notion.
Seems to me Pence may be dumb but very MALLEABLE and LOYAL to
TPTB. He could be easily controlled, which is what the powers
behind the throne love. Trump, not so much.
EndOfTheWorld
Pence may be a little dumb, but seems to be well under the
thumb of the big shots in the repugs. Would go along with the
program, unlike The Donald, who may or may not play ball at any
given moment;
"... The biggest difference between the Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence when it comes to foreign policy is their respective stances on the Iraq war. Mr. Pence supported it, while Mr. Trump claims that he was against it from the beginning. ..."
"... While Mr. Pence has expressed support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, Mr. Trump regularly rails against it. Mr. Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs on imports from foreign countries to protect American jobs. ..."
Mr. Pence's foreign policy views mesh well with Mr. Trump's "America First" framework, which is built
around the idea of a robust American military. The Indiana governor called for big increases in military
spending during a speech in 2015 and he has criticized Democrats who do not use the phrase "Islamic
extremism" when discussing jihadists. As a member of Congress, where he was on the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, Mr. Pence was a strong supporter of Israel and a proponent of tough interrogation measures
for prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. Mr. Pence voted to authorize military action in Iraq in 2002 and opposed
proposals to set a date to withdraw troops from Iraq.
Where they differ The biggest difference between the Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence when it comes to foreign
policy is their respective stances on the Iraq war. Mr. Pence supported it, while Mr. Trump claims that
he was against it from the beginning.
... ... ...
Trade
Mr. Pence has said he supports free trade, but he has also
raised
concern over the enforcement of trade agreements with China. Specifically, he asked the federal government
to investigate allegations that Chinese steel companies were dodging tariffs in deals with American
businesses. As governor, Mr. Pence
visited nations like Japan and Germany on trade missions meant to stoke Indiana's trade relationships
with international businesses.
Where they differWhile Mr. Pence has expressed support for the Trans-Pacific
Partnership trade deal, Mr. Trump regularly rails against it. Mr. Trump has also threatened to impose
tariffs on imports from foreign countries to protect American jobs.
"... Just as George W. Bush was "wholly ill-suited" so is Mrs. Clinton. It was her policy which is mostly responsible for the refugee flood into Europe from both Libya and Syria. She treats foreign policy like it's a board game. She gets ideologically convinced that overthrowing Assad or Quadifi is a grand idea and starts the process. Neither she nor her advisers ever ask, basic questions about the mechanics of the "process." For example, as part of this "process" the population of Allepo (just Allepo without respect to all the other towns, villages and hamlets) will be reduced from a population of 1.1 million to less than 100,000 with the difference being refugees conscripts or dead. What do we plan to do with the 750,000 plus refugees? Talk about "wholly ill-suited." ..."
"... I don't want to see Trump as President, however, the Dems have picked the one candidate who might actually lose to him. Clinton is not only demonstrably inept and widely recognized as dishonest, she has also contributed a great deal to the mess in the Middle East. ..."
"... The only people currently doing the heavy lifting with cogent and perceptive commentary on serious issues and the systemic inability of political and economic institutions to embrace reality are professional comedians. John Oliver, Jim Jeffries et al are continuing the George Carlin tradition of pointing out the abject lunacy of our "leaders", whose words are reported by the mainstream media (corporate media that is, let's not forget to "follow the money") as if they were something other than delusional drivel. ..."
George W Bush showed himself wholly ill-suited to the presidency within nine months of his
inauguration. Those of us who covered his campaign should have seen that moment coming, even if
we had no idea about Osama bin Laden's plotting.
On board his campaign plane, all Candidate Bush wanted to talk about was baseball statistics. If
he talked about the world, it revolved around his vacations. Perhaps we should have realized he
would find it hard to distinguish Afghanistan from Iraq, and Sunni from Shia.
A charming cut-up as Texas governor, Bush's superficial grasp of policy didn't matter nearly as
much as the fact that he seemed more entertaining than that earnest, wonkish Al Gore. At least
that was the tenor of much of what passed for news analysis of the 2000 campaign.
Bush projected the notion that he understood leadership; that his guts were greater than the
facts. As Tony Blair discovered within a year of 9/11, Bush's leadership was reckless playacting,
and the facts on the ground in Iraq were far more formidable than his gut instincts.
FugitiveColors
Another,be afraid of Donald Trump article. Lets settle this crap right here. Donald trump
is a horrible SOB, even his supporters agree.
Which matters not one iota. Much of America wants crap to change, even if it means using a
wrecking ball.
Bogdanich
Just as George W. Bush was "wholly ill-suited" so is Mrs. Clinton. It was her policy
which is mostly responsible for the refugee flood into Europe from both Libya and Syria. She
treats foreign policy like it's a board game. She gets ideologically convinced that
overthrowing Assad or Quadifi is a grand idea and starts the process. Neither she nor her
advisers ever ask, basic questions about the mechanics of the "process." For example, as part
of this "process" the population of Allepo (just Allepo without respect to all the other
towns, villages and hamlets) will be reduced from a population of 1.1 million to less than
100,000 with the difference being refugees conscripts or dead. What do we plan to do with the
750,000 plus refugees? Talk about "wholly ill-suited."
legalimmigrant
Message to Richard Wolffe - you may enjoy sounding off in your echo chamber but that's all
you're doing. The elites have had their day. The people demand something "different" and if
that "different" is orange colored with a strange folicular arrangement then so be it. You can
get back to frenziedly typing about what a devil DJT is now.
Benjohn6379 -> legalimmigrant
"People in this country have had enough of experts" - Brexit campaigner/propagandist and
huge liar Michael Gove
The anti-establishment movement is real and healthy and global. I can totally understand, as
I'm also sick and tired of being lied to and told that the status quo is the only way. But
don't kid yourself, Trump is one of these elites.
He may seem "different" as you say, but that's only because he's a piece of shit openly as
opposed to trying to hide it, like Hillary.
Neither candidate has any desire to help the middle class.
Confess -> Benjohn6379
Open is good. Americans are sick and tired of being lied and having facts hidden from us.
How can we progress when everything is covered up? Just give us the facts or a real god damn
opinion. All the double talk and cover ups are tearing the country apart. Soon BLM will have
the same amount of power as Muslims, no one can say anything bad about them, even when it's
true. That is what's dangerous.
Obelisk1
I don't want to see Trump as President, however, the Dems have picked the one candidate
who might actually lose to him. Clinton is not only demonstrably inept and widely recognized
as dishonest, she has also contributed a great deal to the mess in the Middle East.
Moreover, her refusal to speak about the ideological basis for so many of the terrorist
atrocities in recent years should be enough to bar her from office.
The US, and the world, is in danger as a result of the failures of both parties to pick
reasonable candidates.
Benjohn6379 -> ohyesHedid
The "war-hawk" meme
It's not a meme, it's reality. Her neo-conservative record speaks for itself. There is a
very real fear that she will take us to war in Syria, as a no fly zone would require tens of
thousands of ground troops in direct opposition to Russia, Assad and numerous terrorist cells.
ISIS has to be stopped, absolutely, but war in Syria will be just another tragic foreign
policy mistake.
I think all this "Hillary hate" is disproportional, possibly sexist.
Some of the "Hillary hate" is sexist, sure, but don't use this excuse as a blanket
statement that covers people that have intelligent and well thought out criticisms of her
policies and voting record.
There are legitimate concerns with both candidates, come at it rationally and intelligently.
Tom Jones
Not a Trump fan. But he called out Bush in the debates.
He wouldn't have invaded Iraq or Libya. War has caused most of these problems. The real scary
part is that he is less of a war monger then Clinton!
Gaurdian applogist pieces are almost as vile as the bigotry from Trump. In fact the bias in th
MSM has led to a Trump.
gunnison 5h ago
Perhaps the voters are confused about how to rate these candidates because there is
almost no coverage of national security and foreign policy. Nobody – except for rarities
like NBC's Andrea Mitchell – wants to produce a block of TV on something that sounds as
complicated as how to fight Isis in Syria.
The only people currently doing the heavy lifting with cogent and perceptive commentary
on serious issues and the systemic inability of political and economic institutions to embrace
reality are professional comedians. John Oliver, Jim Jeffries et al are continuing the George
Carlin tradition of pointing out the abject lunacy of our "leaders", whose words are reported
by the mainstream media (corporate media that is, let's not forget to "follow the money") as
if they were something other than delusional drivel.
Our much-vaunted "free press" has degenerated into becoming a transcription service for power
and privilege, with "journalists" now blatantly finessing the truth for fear of losing the
"access" without which they would be consigned to the outer reaches of internet blogworld.
Hell, if one sifts through the comment threads here or on other "reputable" news sites to
eliminate the usual dross, there's one hell of a lot more accurate and thoughtful commentary
happening down here in the cheap seats than in most of the articles to which those thread are
appended.
Trump is a showman and a conman and a buffoon, and Mike Pence is a rabid ideologue driven by
religious zealotry and a profound misogyny and sexual squeamishness. Neither is the sort of
person who should ever be placed in a position of authority. (None of this should be taken as
covert support for Hillary Clinton. My comment history here exculpates me from any accusations
of being a Clinton shill.)
That's the reality. Presenting the evidence for that, and there is mountains of it, is the
true function of a media which serves the public interest.
Benjohn6379 -> gunnison
Hell, if one sifts through the comment threads here or on other "reputable" news sites to
eliminate the usual dross, there's one hell of a lot more accurate and thoughtful commentary
happening down here in the cheap seats than in most of the articles to which those thread are
appended.
Your whole comment being a prime example of this, very well said.
John Wilson
And so what are you saying here Wolfe. That the alternative is Clinton? She'll be even
faster to push the red button.
Does not this guy make Trump a clone of Hillary in foreign relations: voting for Iraq war, pro-Israel
stance, all war hawk attributes. In other words younger version of Senator McCain: "Pence chaired
the
House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and was a prominent supporter of George W.
Bush's Iraq War
troop surge of 2007. At the time, Pence stated that "the surge is working" and defended the initial
decision to invade in 2003"
Pence ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 1988 and 1990, losing to longtime
Democratic incumbent
Phil Sharp.[18]
He later wrote an essay apologizing for running negative ads against Sharp.[14]
In November 2000, Pence was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in Indiana's 2nd Congressional
District after six-year incumbent
David M. McIntosh (1995–2001)
opted to run for governor
of Indiana. The district (renumbered as the 6th District beginning in 2002) comprises all or
portions of 19 counties in eastern Indiana. Pence was re-elected four more times by comfortable margins.
In the
2006 House elections, he defeated
DemocratBarry Welsh. In 2008, he
was listed as one of the top ten legislators by Esquire magazine.[19]
Pence defeated Reverend Barry
Welsh in the
2008 House election. In January 2009, Pence was elected by his GOP colleagues to become the
Republican Conference Chairman, the third-highest-ranking Republican leadership position. He
ran unopposed and was elected unanimously. He was the first representative from Indiana to hold a
House leadership position since 1981.[2]
In 2010, Pence was encouraged
to run against incumbent Democratic Senator
Evan Bayh.[23][24][25]
According to Rasmussen polling done on January 21 and 24, 2010, Pence led Bayh by a three point margin.[26]
On January 26, 2010, in an open letter to friends and supporters through his Facebook page, Pence
announced his decision not to run for the Senate; he cited his role in the Republican leadership
and the belief that Republicans would win back the House in 2010 as his reasons for staying in the
House of Representatives.[citation
needed]
After the November 2010 election, Pence announced that he would not run for re-election as the
Republican Conference Chairman.[27]
On May 5, 2011, Pence announced that he would seek the Republican nomination for
Governor
of Indiana in 2012.[28][29]
During the Iraq War, Pence
opposed setting a public withdrawal date from
Iraq. During an April 2007 visit
to Baghdad, Pence and
John McCain visited
Shorja market, the site of a deadly
attack in February 2007, that claimed the lives of 61 people. Pence and McCain described the visit
as evidence that the security situation in Iraqi markets has improved.[46]
The visit to the market took place under large security including helicopters overhead, and the
New York Times reported that the visit gave a false indication of how secure the area was
due to the extremely heavy security forces protecting McCain.[47]
Pence has opposed closing the
Guantanamo
Bay detention camp and trying the suspected terrorists in the U.S.[48]
Pence believes that "the Obama administration must overturn this wrongheaded decision".[48]
As an alternative, Pence has said that the "enemy combatants" should be tried in a military tribunal.[48]
Pence has stated his support of Israel and its right to attack facilities in Iran to prevent them
from developing nuclear weapons, has defended the actions of Israel in its use of deadly force in
enforcing the blockade of Gaza, and has referred to Israel as "America's most cherished ally".[49]
He visited Israel in 2014 to express his support, and in 2016 signed into law a bill which would
ban Indiana from having any commercial dealings with a company that boycotts Israel.[50]
"... I think that dissent will continue as long as the United States continues. We don't know exactly what forms it will take, or what causes dissenters will take up. But we do have a pretty good idea from history that dissenters will always push for more freedom, more liberty, more economic equality, and that there will be counter-dissenters who will seek to deprive them of these goals. There always seems to be that for every two steps forward, there's one step back. ..."
What do you foresee as far as the future of dissent is concerned in the United States?
I think that dissent will continue as long as the United States continues. We don't know exactly
what forms it will take, or what causes dissenters will take up. But we do have a pretty good idea
from history that dissenters will always push for more freedom, more liberty, more economic equality,
and that there will be counter-dissenters who will seek to deprive them of these goals. There always
seems to be that for every two steps forward, there's one step back.
What is gained for leftist movements today by anchoring themselves a positive account of the
nation's founding (accounts that suggest that this nation has leftist impulses at its core)?
I think that leftist movements today have a deep, abiding faith in "democracy." And in that way,
they are the true heirs of the American Revolution. Even if most of the "founding fathers" like [George]
Washington and [Alexander] Hamilton and [Thomas] Jefferson were elites who distrusted the masses,
they did give lip service to liberty and equality, and they did formulate fundamental arguments promoting
the idea of a government of the people. Today, their ideas are more broadly conceived than they themselves
conceived them. Because leftists today believe in the value of democracy, what they are in essence
doing is holding America's feet to the fire. They are demanding that the United States live up to
those ideals ensconced in our founding documents. "Be true to what you said on paper," as Martin
Luther King Jr. expressed it in his last speech on April 3, 1968, in Memphis.
What is inevitably lost or papered over when one embraces a positive founding narrative about
a nation-state?
What is papered over is that the majority of the "founding fathers" were slave owners. And the
institution of slavery gave them the leisure time to devote to thinking and writing about such high-fallutin'
and precious concepts as democracy, liberty and republican forms of government. Historian Edmund
S. Morgan, in his book American Slavery, American Freedom, makes a compelling argument that the notions
we have of freedom, that the basis for American freedom is slavery. If it weren't for slavery, we
would never have developed as we have. So it is rather presumptuous of us, even for the left, to
feel that we've embraced freedom and believe in equality for all. Still, despite that, it doesn't
mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. What it does mean is that we should aspire
to those ideals, even if the "founding fathers" didn't fully believe in them themselves, even if
they were disingenuous hypocrites who framed a constitution solely to benefit and protect the property
rights and aristocratic status of their class.
Today, we need to take those ideals seriously and work toward making the reality of American society
more closely resemble the ideals they espoused in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
"... "We have been offering Bernie Sanders, basically to sit down and talk and to explore how we might be collaborate, because I can't give away the nomination," ..."
"... "could certainly work with him for all sorts of possibilities, including leading the ticket." ..."
"... "truly saw the light," ..."
"... "the green light, that we do need independent politics." ..."
"... "the revolution is now being stuffed back into a counter-revolutionary party," ..."
"... "leading the charge for Wall Street, for wars and for the Walmart economy." ..."
"... "Bernie said let's forget the past, but I don't think people can forget this movement that they've worked so hard to build," ..."
"... "there were a lot of people who were watching this endorsement in complete and utter disbelief." ..."
"... "I think there are a lot of broken hearts out there among the Bernie campaign. A lot of people who are feeling burned by the Democratic Party, who are not going to simply resign themselves to an election that offers them either a billionaire, one hand, or a cheerleader for the billionaires," she added. ..."
Following Sanders officially dropping out of the race, Stein reminded RT viewers
of her proposal to step aside in order to offer him the nomination in her Green
Party.
"We have been offering Bernie Sanders, basically to sit down and
talk and to explore how we might be collaborate, because I can't give away the
nomination," Stein told RT, stressing that even though she cannot take
the delegates' role of assigning nominations, she "could certainly work
with him for all sorts of possibilities, including leading the ticket."
This could be possible, she said, if Sanders "truly saw the light,"
meaning "the green light, that we do need independent politics."
In Stein's view, "the revolution is now being stuffed back into a counter-revolutionary
party," whose standard bearer, Clinton, she scorns for "leading the
charge for Wall Street, for wars and for the Walmart economy."
"Bernie said let's forget the past, but I don't think people can forget
this movement that they've worked so hard to build," Stein said, adding
that on Tuesday "there were a lot of people who were watching this endorsement
in complete and utter disbelief."
.... ... ...
Sanders supporters have taken to social media in a stern backlash against
the former Democratic presidential candidate.
"They also can't forget Hillary Clinton's record, which is very much the
opposite of what they have been working for the past year," Stein says.
"I think there are a lot of broken hearts out there among the Bernie
campaign. A lot of people who are feeling burned by the Democratic Party,
who are not going to simply resign themselves to an election that offers
them either a billionaire, one hand, or a cheerleader for the billionaires,"
she added.
She says that after primaries in California where "it became clear that the
Democratic Party was really shutting [Sanders] out," her Green Party began to
see people's interest surge.
"We are seeing that now, in the last 24 to 36 hours as well, as people realize
that the game is over," Stein said.
@MajorCallowayLeader
Well, now it's Stein or Trump - time will tell.
Sanders is the worst kind of turncoat.
How can he possibly support the Laughing Butcher of Libya? He must have
been a lost soul to begin with, or sold it long ago.
"... In late April I was among the 25 Vermonters who occupied Congressman Bernie Sanders' Burlington office to protest his support of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war against Iraq. Calling ourselves the "Instant Antiwar Action Group," we decided to bring our outrage at Bernie's escalating hypocrisy directly to his office, an action that resulted in 15 of us being arrested for trespass. ..."
"... Dissident Voices ..."
"... Despite his own claims, Sanders has not been an antiwar leader. . . . His hawkish [stance] drove one of his key advisers, Jeremy Brecher, to resign from his staff. Brecher wrote in his resignation letter, "Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support?" ..."
"... Dissident Voices ..."
"... Under the Bush regime, Sanders' militarism has only grown worse. While he called for alternative approaches to the war on Afghanistan, he failed to join the sole Democrat, Barbara Lee, to vote against Congress' resolution that gave George Bush a blank check to launch war on any country he deemed connected to the September 11 attacks. ..."
"... After thousands of people are killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon, President George Bush and Congress declared war on Afghanistan. Sanders joined the bandwagon and voted to adopt the joint resolution that authorized the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors these individuals. ..."
"... While Sanders voted against the original authorization to use military force against Iraq, he followed that vote with several subsequent votes authorizing funding of that war and the debacle in Afghanistan. ..."
What also stands out in the above criticism is that Sanders, seeking the
Democratic nomination as a Tea Party of the Left outlier, has a long-standing
history of supporting presidential military forays: anathema to aggressive
progressives.
In 1999, Congressman Sanders signed onto President Bill Clinton's military
interventions into Kosovo. Peace activists crashed his Burlington, VT Congressional
Office. One of the protesters commented on
the Liberty Union Party website :
In late April I was among the 25 Vermonters who occupied Congressman
Bernie Sanders' Burlington office to protest his support of the NATO bombing
of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war against Iraq. Calling ourselves the "Instant
Antiwar Action Group," we decided to bring our outrage at Bernie's escalating
hypocrisy directly to his office, an action that resulted in 15 of us being
arrested for trespass.
Dissident Voices blasted Sanders not just for cozying up with
the Democratic Party, but war authorizations throughout his tenure in the
House of Representatives.
Despite his own claims, Sanders has not been an antiwar leader. .
. . His hawkish [stance] drove one of his key advisers, Jeremy Brecher,
to resign from his staff. Brecher wrote in his resignation letter, "Is there
a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in
or support?"
Under the Bush regime, Sanders' militarism has only grown worse.
While he called for alternative approaches to the war on Afghanistan, he
failed to join the sole Democrat, Barbara Lee, to vote against Congress'
resolution that gave George Bush a blank check to launch war on any country
he deemed connected to the September 11 attacks.
Indeed,
Barbara
Lee (D-CA) was the lone vote against granting this extended power to
President Bush. Sanders joined with both parties on this issue. Of course.
While Presidential candidate Sanders
has
relaunched his speech on the House floor opposing the War on Iraq in
2002,
Counterpunch has already exposed Sanders' connections with
Bush 43's military ventures:
After thousands of people are killed in the World Trade Center and
Pentagon, President George Bush and Congress declared war on Afghanistan.
Sanders joined the bandwagon and voted to adopt the joint resolution that
authorized the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone
involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors
these individuals.
And then:
While Sanders voted against the original authorization to use military
force against Iraq, he followed that vote with several subsequent votes
authorizing funding of that war and the debacle in Afghanistan.
Sanders has followed a pattern of voting against initial efforts to expand
government resources into the War on Terror, then voted for funding them
afterwards.
The Democratic Party's 2016 Presidential bench is a clown-car of political
dysphoria. From Hillary Clinton's early yearning for Republican Barry Goldwater,
to Lincoln Chafee's former GOP US Senator status, and Jim Webb's service
in the Reagan Administration, now left-wing partisans can argue that "Weekend
at Bernie" Sanders
is right-wing warmonger .
Sanders has spent a lot of time and energy convincing voters that Clinton had
no place in the Oval Office.
The following are just a few examples.
1 – "Are you qualified to be President of the United States when
you're raising millions of dollars from Wall Street whose greed, recklessness
and illegal behavior helped to destroy our economy?" – Philadelphia rally,
April 2016.
However, Sanders may be singing a different tune when he is back in Philadelphia
for the Democratic National Convention. His change of heart Tuesday included
telling the audience: "I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to
why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president."
2 – "I proudly stood with the workers. Secretary Clinton stood
with the big money interests" – Youngstown, Ohio March 14
Sanders has frequently attacked Clinton's use of Super PACs and potential
interest from elite banks. While the former secretary of state has been endorsed
by many unions, such as the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees,
Sanders' speech swapped that rhetoric for something a little more flattering.
In his endorsement speech, he said: "Hillary Clinton understands that we
must fix an economy in America that is rigged and that sends almost all new
wealth and income to the top one percent."
3 – "Do I have a problem, when a sitting Secretary of State and
a Foundation ran by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign
governments, governments which are dictatorship… um yeah, do I have a problem
with that? Yeah I do."
Sanders passionately attacked the Clinton Foundation in June, calling its
reception of money from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia a "conflict
of interest." However, on Tuesday he told the audience that Clinton "knows that
it is absurd that middle-class Americans are paying an effective tax rate higher
than hedge fund millionaires, and that there are corporations in this country
making billions in profit while they pay no federal income taxes in a given
year because of loopholes their lobbyists created."
4 – "She was very reluctant to come out in opposition. She is running
for president. She concluded it was a good idea to oppose the TPP, and she did."
Clinton's slow opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) raised the
ire of both Sanders and his supporters. Perhaps through intense negotiations
to make Clinton's campaign more progressive, he is now willing to focus more
on Clinton's interior economy, saying, "She wants to create millions of new
jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure – our roads, bridges, water
systems and wastewater plants."
5 – "Well, I don't think Hillary Clinton can lead a political revolution"
Commenting on Clinton's potential to carry the torch for the political revolution
he claimed he was spearheading, Sanders lacked faith in her ability to make
the changes he deemed necessary back in June, when he was on CBS's "Face the
Nation."
However, perhaps through negotiating the terms of his endorsement, Clinton's
platform sounds more and more like Sanders' when he talks about it. Describing
new platforms such as lowering student debt and making free education attainable
without accruing massive amounts of debt, along with expanding the use of generic
medicine and expanding community health centers all sound like shades of Sanders.
6 – "When you support and continue to support fracking, despite
the crisis that we have in terms of clean water… the American people do not
believe that that is the kind of president that we need to make the changes
in America to protect the working families of this country."
Back in an April debate, many voters were frustrated when Clinton gave a
lengthy, difficult explanation about her stance on fracking. Sanders, a longtime
opponent of hydraulic fracturing.
However, since the CNN Democratic Debate, Sanders and Clinton may have both
shifted their positions on the matter that was once clear cut for the senator
from Vermont.
According to Sanders, "Hillary Clinton is listening to the scientists who
tell us that if we do not act boldly in the very near future there will be more
drought, more floods, more acidification of the oceans, more rising sea levels."
7 – "When this campaign began, I said that we got to end the starvation
minimum wage of $7.25, raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let's raise it
to $12 ... To suddenly announce now that you're for $15, I don't think is quite
accurate."
At the same CNN debate in Brooklyn, Sanders hammered on Clinton's inconsistent
stance on raising the minimum wage. While her opinion has shifted from debate
to debate, it seems that Sanders' has as well.
"She believes that we should raise the minimum wage to a living wage," Sanders
said, without specifying what the minimum wage would be increased to under her
more progressive campaign.
8– "Almost all of the polls that… have come out suggest that I
am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton."
Sanders might be eating crow for this one. His entire endorsement speech
often focused on the party's need to defeat presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump.
Throughout the speech, Sanders contrasted the new and improved Clinton strategy
that includes more of Sanders' talking points with those from Trump.
Sanders went as far as to place the importance of the election on keeping
Trump away from the Supreme Court, saying, "If you don't believe this election
is important, take a moment to think about the Supreme Court justices that Donald
Trump will nominate, and what that means to civil liberties, equal rights and
the future of our country."
9 – "[Super predators] was a racist term and everybody knew it
was a racist term."
Clinton's involvement with the criminal justice reform of the 1990s that
contributed to the mass incarceration has frequently been a contentious point
in this election. In 1996, she went on to warn the public about the existence
of "super predators," or children with "no conscience, no empathy, we can talk
about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel."
However, both Clinton and Sanders have a track record of working with the
civil rights movements, and now Sanders may not be so quick to put Clinton and
racist in the same sentence.
"Hillary Clinton understands that our diversity is one of our greatest strengths,"
he said Tuesday.
"... In late April I was among the 25 Vermonters who occupied Congressman Bernie Sanders' Burlington office to protest his support of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war against Iraq. Calling ourselves the "Instant Antiwar Action Group," we decided to bring our outrage at Bernie's escalating hypocrisy directly to his office, an action that resulted in 15 of us being arrested for trespass. ..."
"... Dissident Voices ..."
"... Despite his own claims, Sanders has not been an antiwar leader. . . . His hawkish [stance] drove one of his key advisers, Jeremy Brecher, to resign from his staff. Brecher wrote in his resignation letter, "Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support?" ..."
"... Dissident Voices ..."
"... Under the Bush regime, Sanders' militarism has only grown worse. While he called for alternative approaches to the war on Afghanistan, he failed to join the sole Democrat, Barbara Lee, to vote against Congress' resolution that gave George Bush a blank check to launch war on any country he deemed connected to the September 11 attacks. ..."
"... After thousands of people are killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon, President George Bush and Congress declared war on Afghanistan. Sanders joined the bandwagon and voted to adopt the joint resolution that authorized the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors these individuals. ..."
"... While Sanders voted against the original authorization to use military force against Iraq, he followed that vote with several subsequent votes authorizing funding of that war and the debacle in Afghanistan. ..."
What also stands out in the above criticism is that Sanders, seeking the
Democratic nomination as a Tea Party of the Left outlier, has a long-standing
history of supporting presidential military forays: anathema to aggressive
progressives.
In 1999, Congressman Sanders signed onto President Bill Clinton's military
interventions into Kosovo. Peace activists crashed his Burlington, VT Congressional
Office. One of the protesters commented on
the Liberty Union Party website :
In late April I was among the 25 Vermonters who occupied Congressman
Bernie Sanders' Burlington office to protest his support of the NATO bombing
of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war against Iraq. Calling ourselves the "Instant
Antiwar Action Group," we decided to bring our outrage at Bernie's escalating
hypocrisy directly to his office, an action that resulted in 15 of us being
arrested for trespass.
Dissident Voices blasted Sanders not just for cozying up with
the Democratic Party, but war authorizations throughout his tenure in the
House of Representatives.
Despite his own claims, Sanders has not been an antiwar leader. .
. . His hawkish [stance] drove one of his key advisers, Jeremy Brecher,
to resign from his staff. Brecher wrote in his resignation letter, "Is there
a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in
or support?"
Under the Bush regime, Sanders' militarism has only grown worse.
While he called for alternative approaches to the war on Afghanistan, he
failed to join the sole Democrat, Barbara Lee, to vote against Congress'
resolution that gave George Bush a blank check to launch war on any country
he deemed connected to the September 11 attacks.
Indeed,
Barbara
Lee (D-CA) was the lone vote against granting this extended power to
President Bush. Sanders joined with both parties on this issue. Of course.
While Presidential candidate Sanders
has
relaunched his speech on the House floor opposing the War on Iraq in
2002,
Counterpunch has already exposed Sanders' connections with
Bush 43's military ventures:
After thousands of people are killed in the World Trade Center and
Pentagon, President George Bush and Congress declared war on Afghanistan.
Sanders joined the bandwagon and voted to adopt the joint resolution that
authorized the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone
involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors
these individuals.
And then:
While Sanders voted against the original authorization to use military
force against Iraq, he followed that vote with several subsequent votes
authorizing funding of that war and the debacle in Afghanistan.
Sanders has followed a pattern of voting against initial efforts to expand
government resources into the War on Terror, then voted for funding them
afterwards.
The Democratic Party's 2016 Presidential bench is a clown-car of political
dysphoria. From Hillary Clinton's early yearning for Republican Barry Goldwater,
to Lincoln Chafee's former GOP US Senator status, and Jim Webb's service
in the Reagan Administration, now left-wing partisans can argue that "Weekend
at Bernie" Sanders
is right-wing warmonger .
* This is the
topper, on the whole email
server issue
-
Interesting (and inconvenient) fact:
Hillary (while Sec. of State) forced the
resignation, in June of 2012, of
US Ambassador
to Kenya J. Scott Gration
, (get this) after
the Inspector General found that he
was using an
unauthorized (personal) email account to conduct
official government business
… sound familiar?!?
I guess the '
Queen
' is exempt.
Source: Washington Post (hardly a conservative
newspaper) June 29, 2012
viablanca
@GP Russell well yeah,
even her dumbest, I mean most loyal followers know she is a
living double standard
mryummie
65% of americans (across the board) dont trust hillary........lmao
"... These three groups comprise much, but certainly not all, of what many of us refer to as the "status quo." These crony capitalists, corrupt legislators and their media gatekeepers have been absolutely instrumental in creating the wretched, lawless and disintegrating socio-economic fabric that anyone with an open mind can clearly see around us. As such, it comes as no surprise to me that Trump has now taken the lead in two swing states, and is tied in a third. Actually, that's not entirely true, I am pretty surprised about Florida. ..."
"... All indications are that both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will be on the ballot in a majority of states, so what does this mean for the general election? I'll let you come to your own conclusions. ..."
"... The American public is far more pissed off than even you'd like to admit. Part of the reason you refuse to admit it is that this reality is truly terrifying. You'd have to acknowledge that people are so upset, they so want to blow up the status quo, that they'd even vote for the buffoon Trump to do it. While I'm not 100% sure we're there yet, we're much closer than most people care to ad ..."
"... To many, Trump is no Buffoon, but right on target in so many ways. And that includes showing no respect for the Politically Correct world we're supposed to bow to. Trump is the Titty Twister MSM and Status Quo truly deserve. ..."
We are living in an era of justified general disgust. While this disgust manifests itself in all
sorts of unproductive ways, the root cause is completely and entirely justified. People see so-called
"elites" as the cause of their suffering and they are correct in that assessment. When I say elites,
I refer to people who are in charge of crafting our public policy (politicians), those who bribe
them (oligarchs) and the pundits who defend them (the mainstream media).
These three groups comprise much, but certainly not all, of what many of us refer to as the
"status quo." These crony capitalists, corrupt legislators and their media gatekeepers have been
absolutely instrumental in creating the wretched, lawless and disintegrating socio-economic fabric
that anyone with an open mind can clearly see around us. As such, it comes as no surprise to me that
Trump has now taken the lead in two swing states, and is tied in a third. Actually, that's not entirely
true, I am pretty surprised about Florida.
...
All indications are that both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will be on the ballot in a majority
of states, so what does this mean for the general election? I'll let you come to your own conclusions.
What really surprised me today is the continued cluelessness of even the somewhat enlightened,
celebrated thinkers out there. In this case, I'm referring to Robert Reich, who I applaud
for having done some very good work which I have specifically highlighted on these pages. As such,
I was stunned to see the following tweet from him earlier today (my response included).
How is it possible? Are we watching the same race?
Hillary Clinton is the nominee. That's how it's possible. https://t.co/7gfZdnnU22
Robert Reich gets it more than most, yet still harbors an enormous blindspot.
How is that? First, I think that most of his conversations in everyday life are with people from
deep within the "status quo." As such, he's having discussions within an echo chamber of incompetent
and corrupt people. The ones who aren't incompetent or corrupt are simply in a state of complete
denial as to the reality around them.
Here's the thing Robert. The American public is far more pissed off than even you'd like to
admit. Part of the reason you refuse to admit it is that this reality is truly terrifying. You'd
have to acknowledge that people are so upset, they so want to blow up the status quo, that they'd
even vote for the buffoon Trump to do it. While I'm not 100% sure we're there yet, we're much closer
than most people care to ad
Supernova Born •Jul 13, 2016 5:45 PM
If you're crooked and corrupt and a crony capitalist, Hillary is your pick.
The MSM is all of the above.
Supernova Born -> d eforce •Jul 13, 2016 5:53 PM
Goldman Sachs loves Hillary.
Comcast/NBC loves Hillary (they did the polls in question).
Looney -> Supernova Born •Jul 13, 2016 5:56 PM
Here's a "What if?" scenario…
1. Hillary is nominated
2. Her poll numbers drop to single-digits
3. The DNC starts panicking and…
4. She goes to Dallas to mow a… strike that… THE green knoll.
I betcha, the demented Joey Biden's paradrop is still an option for the Libs. I think? ;-)
Bumpo
Sounds like the writer doesn't "get it" either. To many, Trump is no Buffoon, but right
on target in so many ways. And that includes showing no respect for the Politically Correct
world we're supposed to bow to. Trump is the Titty Twister MSM and Status Quo truly deserve.
mofio -> macholatte •Jul 13, 2016 7:20 PM
Whether we like it or not, we're about to get our first female POTUS. http://bit.ly/1p1jKnr
MalteseFalcon -> jcaz •Jul 13, 2016 9:00 PM
The MSM has two missions:
1. keep Hitlery in the game.
2. keep you watching the MSM.
So the election will be nip and tuck right up to the landslide for Trump announced on election
night.
The story for the day after the election?
How did our models get this so wrong?
drendebe10 -> mofio •Jul 13, 2016 8:27 PM
Wutta complete and total fukjob that the first black and the eventual first woman
presidents are two of the most despicable humans on the face of the earth.
"I am the democrat party's worst nightmare. A thinking black man." Charles Ramsey in his book
Dead Give Away. Evidently he may be only one of a handful.
Malvern Joe
There is no media anymore. The Washington Post is run by Amazon. Comcast is run by GE. CNN
is the NWO. And Fox is Fox.
jeff montanye -> Malvern Joe •Jul 13, 2016 10:36 PM
comcast and ge once owned nbc jointly however comcast bought out ge in 2013.
but your point is well taken. abc is walt disney, cbs is viacom, and all of the big six but
fox have zionist jews as ceo's. fox's rupert murdoch is a zionist but, apparently, not a jew.
from wiki:
The Big Six[76] Media Outlets Revenues (2014)[77]
Comcast NBCUniversal (a joint venture with General Electric from 2011 to 2013), NBC and
Telemundo, Universal Pictures, Focus Features, 26 television stations in the United States
and cable networks USA Network, Bravo, CNBC, The Weather Channel, MSNBC, Syfy, NBCSN, Golf
Channel, Esquire Network, E!, Cloo, Chiller, Universal HD and the Comcast SportsNet
regional system. Comcast also owns the Philadelphia Flyers through a separate subsidiary.
$69 billion
The Walt Disney Company Holdings include: ABC Television Network, cable networks ESPN,
the Disney Channel, A&E and Lifetime, approximately 30 radio stations, music, video game,
and book publishing companies, production companies Touchstone, Marvel Entertainment,
Lucasfilm, Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios, the cellular service Disney
Mobile, Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media, and theme parks in several
countries. Also has a longstanding partnership with Hearst Corporation, which owns
additional TV stations, newspapers, magazines, and stakes in several Disney television
ventures. $48.8 billion
News Corporation* Holdings include: the Fox Broadcasting Company; cable networks Fox
News Channel, Fox Business Network, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, National Geographic, Nat
Geo Wild, FX, FXX, FX Movie Channel, and the regional Fox Sports Networks; print
publications including the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post; the magazines
Barron's and SmartMoney; book publisher HarperCollins; film production companies 20th
Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures and Blue Sky Studios. As of July 2013, News
Corporation was split into two separate companies, with publishing assets and Australian
media assets going to News Corp, and broadcasting and media assets going to 21st Century
Fox.[78] $40.5 billion ($8.6 billion News Corp and $31.9 billion 21st Century Fox)
Time Warner Formerly the largest media conglomerate in the world, with holdings
including: CNN, the CW (a joint venture with CBS), HBO, Cinemax, Cartoon Network/Adult
Swim, HLN, NBA TV, TBS, TNT, truTV, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Bros., Castle Rock, DC
Comics, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, and New Line Cinema. $22.8 billion
Viacom Holdings include: MTV, Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite, VH1, BET, Comedy Central,
Paramount Pictures, and Paramount Home Entertainment. $13.7 billion
CBS Corporation Holdings include: CBS Television Network and the CW (a joint venture
with Time Warner), cable networks CBS Sports Network, Showtime, TVGN; 30 television
stations; CBS Radio, Inc., which has 130 stations; CBS Television Studios; book publisher
Simon & Schuster. $13.8 billion
Seek_Truth -> macholatte •Jul 13, 2016 9:35 PM
I live in Pennsylvania.
I do business in PA, MD, DE, VA and DC.
Out of hundreds of contacts that I do business with, NOT ONE is voting for Hellary.
All Trump.
That's my experience.
Spigot -> European American •Jul 13, 2016 7:42 PM
Oh, I'm with you on that sentiment.
The reason they are flooding the media with fake polls and fake news showing The Beast ahead
of Trump all the time is to provide cover for the intense voter fraud campaign they will be
mounting. I believe they will continue AND increase the reporting of fraudulent
disinformation, and saturate the media with this effluent as a means to legitamize their voter
fraud results if it does swing the election to The Beast.
Personally, I believe there is so much dirt to be revealed on The Beast that those who can't
stomach voting for Trump will simply not go to the polls.
Dabooda -> NoDebt •Jul 13, 2016 7:05 PM
As long as we vote using programmable voting machines, the election will go to the most
connected and corrupt. The courts that judge fair play or foul -- likewise. Quotes from Stalin
and Mark Twain are apropos:
Joseph Stalin - 'Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.'
Mark Twain - 'If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.'
Quick -> NoDebt •Jul 13, 2016 9:10 PM
This is posturing by the oligarchy. Since there is only one candidate to tow the oligarchy
line, Hitlery, they have to pull all the stops and skew poll results wildly to make the 'Fixed
Diebold machines' look reasonable in the coming fixed election.
You really think BarryO won the vote in 2012. Even duchbag mittens would have won in an
unfixed election.
Yeah, brexit taught me loads about polls, and to a degree you are right in that they are
propaganda not polls. That said tey are in my view effective, floaters want to associate with
the winning team.
In the whole lead up to brexit I and many were perplexed by the "polls", whenever there was
on of those online instant polls in the press (telegraph/Guardian) asking whether to stay or
go, it always resulted in a 70% plus for Brexit, yet the official polls were neck and neck.
Whenever I couched opinion at work or pub or street, I hardly ever met anyone with any real
fervor to remain, most expressed either a mild or very strong wish to leave. If that MP had
not been murdered, and billions had not been spent by the Government and the EU, I just wonder
what the true result would have been (60/40 minimum), and I think deep down the pollies and
Theresa May now know that.
Beware the polls, they will help in a close run thing, and the Hilderbeasts team know it.
cowdiddly -> August •Jul 13, 2016 8:51 PM
Dude nailed it years ago. The New British FM Boris Johnson once compared Hillary Clinton to
"a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital"
Perimetr -> Looney •Jul 13, 2016 6:41 PM
Rigged polls are necessary
in order to make sense of the rigged vote
sharonsj -> auricle •Jul 13, 2016 7:27 PM
"Diebold is a democrat." That's pretty funny--and pretty stupid--considering the former
owner was responsible for stealing the election for George Bush.
And from Truth-out.org: "See the eye-opening
statistical analysis of vote results from 2008 to 2012 compiled by citizen watchdog team
Francois Choquette and James Johnson. Results showed a highly suspect, so far inexplicable
gain of votes, only in larger precincts, only for Republicans (and in the primaries, only for
Mitt Romney), and only when votes are counted by computers."
You have a computer, use it to learn something.
samsara •Jul 13, 2016 7:22 PM
"...may be seen as injecting additional bias into the results."
Ya think?
They probably got the particular area codes or phone numbers to sample that Facebook execs
said were democrats or pro Bernie or Hillary.
They just want to keep the impression that it's a too close to call race so their Diebold
programmers could work under the radar.
"... The New York Times/CBS survey released on Thursday found that 67 percent of voters believe Clinton is not honest or trustworthy – up from 62 percent last month. The new figure represents the highest percentage in this election cycle. ..."
"... Only 28 percent of voters said they view the Democratic candidate as honest and the number of people saying she is prepared for the job of president dropped from last month. However, half of those polled still believe she's qualified. ..."
The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's email scandal has damaged the Democratic candidate's
approval ratings, according to a new poll. The survey found that a majority of voters believe she
cannot be trusted.
The New York Times/CBS
survey released on Thursday found that 67 percent of voters believe Clinton is not honest or
trustworthy – up from 62 percent last month. The new figure represents the highest percentage in
this election cycle.
Only 28 percent of voters said they view the Democratic candidate
as honest and the number of people saying she is prepared for the job of president dropped from last
month. However, half of those polled still believe she's qualified.
Most voters said they believe Clinton did something wrong when she set up a personal server and
email address for work when she served as secretary of state. Forty-six percent believe the move
was illegal, up from 41 percent last month.
Unsurprisingly, most of those critical of Clinton's email practices are associated with the GOP.
Some 78 percent of Republicans believe what she did was illegal, while half of independents expressed
the same sentiment.
Note the NYT was afraid to open comment section for this article :-)
Notable quotes:
"... "Intelligent Bernie supporters will NEVER support her because she stands for everything were fighting against," he said. "Just because Bernie has left our movement does not mean it is over." ..."
"... Despite Hillary's penchant for flip-flopping rhetoric, she's spent decades serving the causes of the Wall Street, war, & Walmart economy. ..."
Daniel Whitfield, of Discovery Bay, Calif., insisted that the political revolution Mr. Sanders
had championed did not have to end just because the senator had given up. However, he said that
voting for Mrs. Clinton was not an option.
"Intelligent Bernie supporters will NEVER support her because she stands for everything were
fighting against," he said. "Just because Bernie has left our movement does not mean it is over."
... ... ...
Some of the lesser-known candidates running for president sought to capitalize on the moment.
Jill Stein, the Green Party's presidential nominee, sent out a barrage of Twitter posts as Mr.
Sanders made his endorsement arguing that Mrs. Clinton's policies were antithetical to a liberal
progressive agenda.
Dr. Jill Stein
✔ @DrJillStein
Despite Hillary's penchant for flip-flopping rhetoric, she's spent decades serving the causes
of the Wall Street, war, & Walmart economy.
Gov. Gary Johnson
✔ @GovGaryJohnson
If joining Sen. Sanders in the Clinton Establishment isn't a good fit, there IS another
option... #afterthebern
For those who believed that Mr. Sanders still had a chance to snatch the nomination at the
convention in Philadelphia, it was too soon after his endorsement to consider alternatives. It
would take time for the mix of anger and disbelief to subside.
"You chose her over us," Jessica Watrous Boyer, of Westerly, R.I., wrote on Mr. Sanders's
Facebook page, lamenting that he had broken his promise to take the fight to the convention.
"Truly shocked and saddened by this."
Some of Bernie Sanders' most loyal backers have turned into his biggest bashers on the heels
of his Hillary Clinton endorsement.
The Vermont senator, who slammed Clinton repeatedly during the presidential primary campaign,
offered his unwavering support to the presumptive Democratic nominee at a rally in New Hampshire
Tuesday.
"Hillary Clinton will make a great president and I am proud to stand with her today," he said.
What followed was an avalanche of angry tweets, blogs and other social media posts from those who
had been feeling the 'Bern' -- and now just feel burned.
In New York, Monroe County Sanders activist Kevin Sweeney told the Democrat & Chronicle he's
shifting his donations to Green Party candidate Jill Stein. "A lot of Bernie supporters are
making $27 donations to Jill Stein's campaign today," he said.
Others were more direct, as the hashtag #SelloutSanders and others took off on Twitter....
... ... ...
Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, jumped in on the action.
He tweeted, "Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street
endorsing Goldman Sachs. "
brendajc
Bernie supporters.......trump welcomes you
1. We are and have been socialist since FDR....welfare...unemployment ...medicare....social
security. ...,studebt loans....these a3 socialist programs.
nobody wants these socialist programs gone
We just don't want communism
And we want fiscal responsibility.
Come join us.
are122
I sometimes think Bernie was nothing more then a setup or a patsy encouraged to run by the
DNC. With all the "superdelegates" supporting HC, the Bern had to know he virtually had no
chance to win but put on a show anyway. He's suddenly very nice to all those that basically
shafted him in advance.
hotdogsdownhallways
Cannot wait until we find out how much the Clinton Foundation gave him.
From Twitter: Bernie Sanders, We didn't donate $230M to vote for a warmonger with 4 superPACs,
scam charity and $150M speeches who sabotaged your campaign
Notable quotes:
"... Today, you decided to officially express your support for Hillary Clinton in the race for president of the United States. Unlike many, I will not label you a "sellout." Though I'm disappointed in your decision, I would also like to thank you for your contribution to American politics. ..."
"... But I reject the political hive-mind's notion that you had to endorse Hillary. You did not. You've been an independent for decades, refusing to officially associate yourself with a party that you didn't fully believe in. ..."
Today, you decided to officially express your support for Hillary Clinton in the race for
president of the United States. Unlike many, I will not label you a "sellout." Though I'm
disappointed in your decision, I would also like to thank you for your contribution to American
politics.
... ... ...
Like me and many other conservatives, your supporters now stand without a candidate to believe
in. And, like me, they are disappointed in your decision to bow to the pressure exerted by the
political muscle that the Clintons have been flexing for decades. I understand that your arm has
been twisted by every establishment Democrat from the top down...
But I reject the political hive-mind's notion that you had to endorse Hillary. You did
not. You've been an independent for decades, refusing to officially associate yourself with a
party that you didn't fully believe in. Throughout the campaign, you highlighted all of the
problems with your opponent, and even went so far as to declare her "unfit" for the office of the
presidency. You told America that you were starting a political revolution. By its very nature,
though, a revolution refuses to be cowed by the protectors of the status quo. It can concede
temporary defeat in certain battles, sure, but it can't survive if betrayed by its leaders. It is
disingenuous for you to pretend that you will continue your revolution despite your endorsement -
or even worse, imply that Hillary will. I thought you were better than that.
...During your endorsement speech, once more you called out the Wall Street billionaires for
whom you've so often expressed unqualified loathing over the last 14 months. But this time,
something was wrong: There stood, bobbing her head next to you, someone who has made a career out
of selling favors to those very same billionaires. I thought you were someone who put principles
before politics, and that you would never hesitate to stick to your guns, regardless of the
pressure. I guess not. Despite feeling disappointed and deflated, I want to thank you for helping
to rekindle my faith and interest in politics.
... ... ...
Sincerely, Andrew - Andrew Badinelli is an intern at National Review.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437758/bernie-sanders-wrong-beliefs-ideologically-principled
"That empowerment must be both economic and political. Workers deserve
to be compensated fairly for their work, and have generous social support
programs to rely upon when economic changes that are out of their control
throw them out of work or force them to accept lower paying jobs.
We should not hesitate to ask those who have gained so much from
globalization and technological change to give something back to those
who have paid the costs of their success."
All this would have been especially great, say, forty or even thirty
years ago.
Of course Bernie Sanders appears to have sold out emerging from a White
House meeting with President Barack Obama vowing to work together with Hillary
Clinton to defeat Donald Trump in November. Bernie would rather endorse
a traitor who has sold her influence as Secretary of State just to save
the Democratic Party. Obama assured Bernie, no doubt, that he would not
allow Hillary to be indicted. And to further rig the game, the State Department
refuses to release her emails until
AFTER the election. But the actual date they gave was
November 31st, 2016, which does not exist since November has only 30 days.
Once she is president, no doubt they will vanish altogether.
It appears that Bernie is betraying all those who supported him. Hillary
will raise $1 billion to buy the White House. That kind of money does not
come from bankers without strings. Wall Street supports Hillary – not Trump.
That says it all. How Bernie can just give up is amazing. What happened
to his "revolution" will never be discussed.
"Text of Bernie Sanders' speech endorsing Hillary Clinton" [MarketWatch].
Lambert here: Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. The moment had to come,
and now it has come. Will Sanders, in practice, have proven to be a sheepdog?
Will Sanders' endorsement decapitate his movement? To me, the open question
is what actions Sanders voters will take, going forward, beyond the ballot
box, and as organizers. I'm not really sanguine about that, because the
Chicago conference didn't give me confidence the left could unsilo itself,
and distinguish itself, as a single institutional force ready to take power,
from the (neoliberal) liberals (mostly Democrats) and the (neoliberal) conservatives
(some Democrats, mostly Republicans). That said, the Sanders campaign did
more than the left could have expected in its wildest dreams. To the text:
[SANDERS:] I have come here today not to talk about the past but
to focus on the future. That future will be shaped more by what happens
on November 8 in voting booths across our nation than by any other event
in the world. I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to
why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next
president.
During the last year I had the extraordinary opportunity to speak
to more than 1.4 million Americans at rallies in almost every state
in this country. I was also able to meet with many thousands of other
people at smaller gatherings. And the profound lesson that I have learned
from all of that is that this campaign is not really about Hillary Clinton,
or Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, or any other candidate who sought
the presidency. This campaign is about the needs of the American people
and addressing the very serious crises that we face. And there is no
doubt in my mind that, as we head into November, Hillary Clinton is
far and away the best candidate to do that.
I'd prefer the position that Clinton hasn't won the nomination until
there's a vote on the convention floor, which I had understood to be the
position of the Sanders campaign.
[SANDERS:] Hillary Clinton understands that we must fix an economy
in America that is rigged and that sends almost all new wealth and income
to the top one percent.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
[SANDERS:] This election is about the grotesque level of income and
wealth inequality that currently exists, the worst it has been since
1928. Hillary Clinton knows that something is very wrong when the very
rich become richer while many others are working longer hours for lower
wages.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
[SANDERS:] I am happy to tell you that at the Democratic Platform
Committee which ended Sunday night in Orlando, there was a significant
coming together between the two campaigns and we produced, by far, the
most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party. Our
job now is to see that platform implemented by a Democratic Senate,
a Democratic House and a Hillary Clinton president - and I am going
to do everything I can to make that happen.
Platform as a highly inadequate baseline and a method to hold Clinton's
feet to the fire? Yes. Not negligible, but not much. And
Clinton immediately showed - before the rally! - that she didn't
take it seriously.
[SANDERS:] Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and
I am proud to stand with her here today.
I don't see how the institutionalized corruption of both legacy parties
generally and the Clinton Dynasty in particular make any of this possible.
One door closes, another opens…
"'I can't help but say how much more enjoyable this election is going
to be when we are on the same side,' [Clinton] said. "You know what? We
are stronger together!'" [CNN].
Whichever Clinton operative decided to deploy the "stronger together" slogan
shouldn't be expected to have known that it's also a slogan developed by
the military junta in Thailand. But whatever.
"Tuesday's rally drew supporters of Clinton and Sanders, some of whom
chanted 'Bernie' while others chanted 'unity.' Some Sanders supporters left
their seats when Sanders endorsed Clinton. Earlier, when New Hampshire Sen.
Jeanne Shaheen said 'we need to elect Hillary,' she was interrupted by shouts
of 'No!' and chants of "Bernie, Bernie' [USA
Today]. "But there were deafening cheers as Sanders said Clinton would
'make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today.'"
"The most ringing portion of the endorsement came at the end, with Sanders
bringing up some of the personal reasons why he had chosen to support Clinton.
But even this portion felt a bit lifeless, with Sanders citing Clinton's
intellect and passion on children's issues, and failing to address her integrity,
which he directly challenged during the campaign and which will continue
to be an issue the Republicans attack in the wake of the conclusion of the
FBI's investigation into her email scandal" [Slate].
And what happened here?
Do we have any readers who were on that conference call?
"[I]n a nod to Sanders's successful fundraising efforts that brought
in millions of dollars from small donors, with at one time an average donation
of $27, Clinton's campaign has made $27 an option on its online donor page"
[CNN].
"About 85 percent of Democrats who backed Mr. Sanders in the primary
contests said they planned to vote for her in the general election, according
to a Pew poll released last week. Yet she has struggled to appeal to the
independents and liberals who rallied behind the senator's call for a 'political
revolution' to topple establishment politicians, Mrs. Clinton included"
[New
York Times]. 85% of declared Democrats. Not such a good number from
a third of the electorate.
"I am not voting for Hillary Clinton, regardless of her endorsement by
Bernie Sanders. My decision isn't because of the scandal around her emails
or because of some concern over her character. My reasons are pretty straightforward.
I don't agree with her ideologically" [Eddie S. Glaude,
Time].
The Trail
"The final amendment to the Democratic Party platform was meant to sprinkle
Hillary Clinton's name throughout the document, putting a contentious and
drawn-out primary process to rest in favor of a unified party. It never
came up for a vote" [Bloomberg].
"Despite having the support of both the Clinton and Bernie Sanders campaign
staffs, the amendment hadn't been run by committee members or Sanders supporters
in the audience, some of whom angrily shouted down the language because,
they argued, Clinton isn't the official nominee yet. The moment highlighted
the state of the party after a long weekend of intense debates in Orlando,
Florida, that left some tempers frayed, and extensive back-room policy negotiations
between the two campaigns…."
"On Tuesday, the [Trump and Indiana Governor Mike Pence] will put their
compatibility to the test when they appear together at a rally near Indianapolis,
the latest in a string of public auditions for the running mate role" [RealClearPolitics].
""Hillary Clinton's campaign is vetting James G. Stavridis, a retired
four-star Navy admiral who served as the 16th supreme allied commander at
NATO, as a possible running mate" [New
York Times].
From the Wikipedia entry, which seems to have been written by a Clinton
operative: "Stavridis has long advocated the use of "Smart Power," which
he defines as the balance of hard and soft power taken together. In numerous
articles[17] and speeches, he has advocated creating security in the 21st
century by building bridges, not walls." I mean, come on.
jo6pac
Those that sent money to Bernie please let Lambert and us know if dddc
or dnc ask for $$$$$$. Then may be it will just be a letter from the foundation
asking for $$$$$$$$$$$$.
Roger Smith
I will update should I receive anything. I am curious about the list
as well.
Arizona Slim
I just unsubscribed from Bernie's e-mailing list.
Rick
As did I. I will keep the poster I bought from his campaign as a reminder
of a now passed moment of hope.
cwaltz
The moment hasn't passed unless you were expecting Bernie Sanders to
do all the heavy lifting.
The reality is that each and every person disappointed today should make
a concerted effort to let the DNC know in no uncertain terms did their lying,
cheating and outright rigging of this primary mean that they'll be getting
a vote this November. It also means that each and every person find their
spine and support someone other than the Democratic nominee. Expect to hunker
down for 4 years no matter what because if Clinton or Trump are the nominees
then you can pretty much expect there won't be many benefits for average
Americans.
"... "A Sanders endorsement of Clinton would be the ultimate betrayal of his supporters, especially those of us that poured money into his campaign." ..."
"... "Bernie, if you endorse Hillary Clinton, after is NOW A PROVEN FACT she lied to the American people, then you sir are a FRAUD." ..."
"... "Bernie, endorsing Clinton destroys every point you made and everything you stood for in the race. You are letting the people who supported you down. You made a promise to fight in the end, but instead you are conceding. You are not the elected leader you lead us to believe in. Shame on you." ..."
"Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand
with her here today," Sanders said at the end of the rally.
This proclamation is a far cry from how his stance was a couple months
ago, when he claimed that Clinton wasn't qualified for the presidency.
"I don't believe that she is qualified," Sanders said in a Philadelphia
rally back in April, as reported by thinkprogress.org. "[I]f she is, through
her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds.
I don't think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street
through your super PAC."
Trump was one of the first to call Sanders a sell-out on Twitter, comparing
his endorsement of "Crooked Hillary Clinton" to Occupy Wall Street endorsing
Goldman Sachs.
"I am somewhat surprised that Bernie Sanders was not true to himself
and his supporters," Trump tweeted. "They are not happy that he is selling
out!"
While some Democrats are happy that the party has seemed to have finally
united, like the Communications Workers of America who have now changed
their endorsement from Sanders to Clinton, other supporters share Trumps
sentiments, feeling outraged and disappointed at Bernie's sudden change
of heart.
"A Sanders endorsement of Clinton would be the ultimate betrayal
of his supporters, especially those of us that poured money into his campaign."
"Bernie, if you endorse Hillary Clinton, after is NOW A PROVEN FACT
she lied to the American people, then you sir are a FRAUD."
"Bernie, endorsing Clinton destroys every point you made and everything
you stood for in the race. You are letting the people who supported you
down. You made a promise to fight in the end, but instead you are conceding.
You are not the elected leader you lead us to believe in. Shame on you."
These are just some of the comments people have been leaving on Sander's
Facebook page, as reported on the Forward Progressives website.
Other supporters have asked him to wait for the Democrats Party convention,
to run in a third-party or to join Jill Stein in the Green Party ticket.
Now that Sanders has endorsed Clinton, Clinton's campaign will most likely
focus on convincing his supporters to join them in their fight for the presidency.
Bernie is anti war, anti Wall St., anti TPP. If that is not a betrayal of his
supporters and his principles what is it then. Endorsing Clinton is like taking
a job at Goldman-Sachs.
So why exactly he endorses her? We still don't know.
The Democrats has good political operatives. There is Barack, the "change-no-change"
"black not for blacks" candidate, and Bernie, The Revolutionary who stands
staunchly behind Goldman Sachs and everything it presents.
Of course the real governing task is delegated to Hillary Clinton and
the "experts" from the banks.
Hey guys. Good job. Just remember: ultimately there is that cliff you're
marching towards.
Why is he not doing as he promised and taking his message and challenge
all the way to the convention? The super delegates are still an play and
I doubt they've even finished counting California...This is very disheartening...
Prepare for eternal war.
I'd like to formally thank Bernie Sanders for endorsing my wife Hillary
today. I know how tough it was for Bernie to stump for her today. Especially
considering Hillary is even more crooked than my 4-inch yogurt slinger.
As many of my young interns know, that's really crooked!
I'd also like to formally apologize to Bernie for all the death threats
and that severed horse's head my guys left in his bed. lol whoops! Ok, gotta
go make another phone call to my good friend Trump now.....
You could just crawl back into your socialist hole and not say anything
Bernie, but no, you're just another fool brought by Clinton because she
needs your votes like she needs air. Congratulations on becoming another
member of the Clinton foundations bankroll
The problem isnt her most recent rhetoric, it is her person, and trusting
to do the things she says (as she has held every side of every position).
The endorsement doesn't fix the problem that we still don't want her...
I think many of us will be looking for at the third party alternatives.
If we give into this lesser of two evils every election cycle, we'll soon
find candidates worse than Trump.
1. Party platforms are consolation bullshit. They mean nothing, especially
when the big money funding the campaign is against the platform. This is
just a political fact.
2. Therefore, Bernie's campaign has not started a revolution, but rather
has dead-ended with a big bowl of nothing.
3. Parties are the vehicles through which policies get pushed and accomplished.
Since it was re-engineered by the Clinton's in the 1990's, the Democratic
Party is like a vehicle with its steering welded to turn right.
4. Therefore the only way to achieve a successful and peaceful political
revolution is to re-engineer the vehicle; and this requires breaking it
down and putting it back together.
In other words, for the sake of progress, the D.N.C. as presently constituted
and managed had to be destroyed.
5. The only way to destroy the D.N.C. would have been to hand Hillary
a defeat on a platter. This would have driven home, in the only way politicians
understand, that progressive Americans will not be played and fooled.
6. The willingness to do this requires strategic fortitude -- a willingness
to think in long term objectives and to endure immediate and temporary inconveniences.
Four years of Trump will not be the "sky-is-falling" disaster the Hillary
Hens are clucking over. Eight years of Hillary will only solidify the grip
corporations, banks and neo-con militarists, have on the country.
7. Bernie should have run as an independent, precisely in order to defeat
Hillary. Only then could a four year hiatus be used to clean out the D.N.C.,
and revitalize it with real progressive blood. Then and only then will progressives
get the "platform" they want. Is four years of Clown Trump worth it? You
bet.
I disagree. Chris Hedges believes that Sanders intended to mislead voters
and intentionally funnel them back to Hillary Clinton under the belief that
they would uncritically support her. That seems to be completely false,
and even if it were true, it's seems he made a terrible sheepdog as many
of us will not support Hillary. The problem was that although he saw no
chance for an independent to win, the Democratic Party is a dead end for
real change as well. I guess we all know that now.
When it comes to intention I guess that I believed that he was genuine
in his attempt to win and bring about change (except on the nation that
cannot be criticised and on foreign policy) but the endorsement of HRC is
another blow for the massive desire to remove these two corporatist parties.
With the DNC having decided to support fracking, settlements etc the
American people (and the world) are in for more of the same, war, privatisation,
alienation of the poor, secret trade deals that give more power to corporations
and environmental destruction etc. etc. etc
"He's lending credibility to a party that is completely corporatized.
He has agreed that he will endorse the candidate, which, unless there
is some miracle, will probably be Hillary Clinton."
You bottled it in the end. Sad. I never liked him much, but in running
as an independent or siding with the Greens he could have showed that he
stands for something. Endorsing Clinton is like taking a job at Goldman-Sachs.
Oh, so he admitted it'd be better to support a lesser evil? How should you
support an evil anyway? How about quietly withdrawing from the race and
not saying anything that violates his own principles? I don't see what that's
difficult to understand myself!
There was never a doubt that Democrats would eventually unite behind whoever
ended up being the nominee. The problem is that all those NON-Democrats
who so passionately supported Bernie will not. He was the real deal, and
our best hope of actually engaging them, expanding our party, and having
the wave election we need to actually get progress done.
I have been actively trying to recruit folks like this into our ranks
for many years now, so trust me when I tell you that we are in very serious
trouble this year. No matter what Bernie says or does, these non-Dems will
not feel the bern for her. We are heading to a low voter turnout election
with two major candidates that have record low net favorability ratings,
and Republicans usually do best in situations like that since they have
the most reliable voting base.
In my book, when you've run against somebody, you must think that guy would
be a bad choice. When you think a person is a bad choice, how come you endorse
that person? Bernie lost my respect (even though he doesn't care)!
F*** this lesser-of-two-evils rubbish. We paid for his campaign, to resist
this criminal and what she represents with every fibre of his body and he's
sold us out. Jill Stein offered him something that could have brought real
change and he sold us out. He is there because of the money and faith we
put in him.
What a turncoat bastard. I am disgusted.
For a vast library of information detailing the many crimes of the ghastly
Clinton crime syndicate, please see the following link.
http://www.arkancide.com
Super delegates have yet to vote, Hillary has not made it past the threshold,
so if Sanders torpedos her, he gets booted out as a Dem nominee by party
rules. So in order to stay to the convention he is doing what he has to.
Has he conceded? No! If Bernie showed and asked me to vote for Hillary
I would tell him no.
At this point, Bernie's endorsement of Hillary does not matter at all. The
genie of his movement is already out of the bottle, and it cannot be put
back in.
The movement never belonged to him, he belongs to the movement, and Bernie
knows it. He knows it even as he pronounces the endorsement. He has played
his enormously important part in that movement through his candidacy and
now he will go back to fighting for the progressive cause from inside the
Democratic party, because that is what he has been doing for twenty years
and before he launched that candidacy. But the forces that he has unleashed
will keep growing and gathering strength on their own.
Same old shit then. The Plutocrats won again and can freely go on
selling 'war for profit' as 'fighting for freedoms.'
With the useful benefit that La Clinton can now swan about on stage draped
in a coat made from the hide of an old leftie.
"We came, we saw we skinned it." And oh how the laughter rang out the entire
length of Wall Street.
So the warmongers and wall street win again. For the moment at least. The
struggle continues. A new front opens under the banner of the Greens. In
the UK the Grassoots on the left now have the whole power of the elite arrayed
against them, with dirty tricks and media lies. The right wing blairites
are using every trick in the book to split our Labouur Movement and remove
our democratically elected Leader Corbyn. We are hanging in. Wish us luck,
American friends! Looks like we are going to need it. No surrender!
There was never any doubt, in any election ever fought in the USA, that
the military-industrial-financial complex would be the winner. They always
are.
The left in the UK are tearing themselves apart Life of Brian
style (how prescient that film was!). It will be generations before they
every wield power in this country, if ever. I'll probably see out my days
under a vicious Tory administration.
It's a shame it has come to this but kind of expected.
Bernie wants to stop Trump now, and he believes that his is the way to
do it. I don't personally this will have the desired effect enough people
despise Clinton, but we will see.
If I was a US citizen and had a vote, I would have thrown my full support
behind Bernie, but this endorsement certainly would not make me vote for
Hillary either (I certainly wouldn't support Trump, I'm not totally insane),
I'd prefer to abstain completely.
Strategic voting is an expression of support for the rigid, corrupt and
self-serving political system that led to self-serving cretins like Trump
and Clinton being among the elite ruling class in the first place.
All it does is prolong the death rattles of the lower orders of society.
Fellow Americans: Our country was demolished by Clinton, and Obama has been
running a kill list for extra judicial killins, and he is the sitting president
under wich a police force appears to be on a rampage to coloured people.
The first black president leading a nation of multiple racist killings.
Do
Not
Ever
Vote
Democrats
Again
The word lie doesnt cover it. The word lying says it doesnt want anything
to do with Democrats. Trump, or any other republican, is a far better bet.
bring back George Bush jr for all I care. Anyone but a Demorcratic president.
Dont do it.
To endorse Hillary Clinton is to be in alliance with a cynical and utterly
corrupt liar who is willing to say anything to get elected. By endorsing
Hillary you, Bernie, have become a part of everything you have been complaining
about. Never mind. It never was about you and your endorsement isn't worth
shit.
After the progressive cause was successively sold out to Goldman Sachs by
Paul Krugman, Gloria Steinem, John Lewis and the Congressional black caucus,
Lena Dunham, Beyonce, George Clooney and Elizabeth Warren (Did I forget
any of the earlier hate figures here?) it was inevitable that Bernie would
ultimately also be revealed as a neoliberal sellout.
Has to be viewed in the context of the global threat of Donald Trump
though
yeah imagine anyone daring to public oppose further neo-conservative
onslaught.
Obviously the man's unhinged and has to be stopped pronto.
fortunately bill kristol, victoria nuland, robert kagan et al are hot on
the case and 100% on board with hillary (& bill) on this
Sanders and Warren are now subsumed into the maw of the Empire of the Exceptionals
and are pledging their loyalty to it. Just like Obama all hopie changie
during campaigns but when the chips are down they show their true colors
as Neoliberal sycophants and support every policy the claimed to oppose.
I for one will never support a now proven corrupt and dishonest career politician.
Sorry Bernie, but the political revolution can never take place within a
party as establishment focused as the Democratic Party. A sad and depressing
time for all real progressives.
Trump is a man whose uncompromising attitude means he'll get even less
done than Obama. He'd be remembered as an ineffective washout of a president,
unable to get anything done and sorely disappointing a lot of voters.
Hillary is a smooth political operator who's in it for her own gain and
will get an awful lot done - just not the things you want her to do. She'll
be hawkish against Russia, interventionist against the Middle East, she'll
throw her full weight behind the establishment in both America and Europe,
and she'll make sure her paymasters at Goldman Sachs aren't disappointed
in her.
I suppose voting for Hillary to stop Trump might be an unavoidable course
of action. But few people realize the danger Hillary represents to the United
States... not because of what she will do, but because of what she won't
do.
Across the Western world, the centre is rapidly crumbling. Without a
significant course correction, it will soon fall and what replaces it is
hard to predict – but I doubt it will be pretty. Austria almost elected
a far right president, the UK voted for Brexit, the GOP nominated Trump.
You're a fool if you think this is the anti-establishment backlash... it's
only the beginning, and these events are just canaries in the mine. The
real backlash is yet to come.
With 4-8 years of a Clinton-led status quo government, resentment will
grow, inequality and hopelessness will increase... and eventually a right
wing demagogue who is much smarter than Trump will see an opportunity and
pounce. I suspect it'll happen right after the next market crash, which
Clinton will do nothing to prevent.
Historically illiterate people are constantly looking out for the "next
Hitler" and so point their finger at the likes of Trump. But that's the
wrong question. Anyone who understands the events that led to Nazism realizes
the true question is who is the next Von Hindenburg . Clinton looks
like a pretty good candidate in that respect.
At least 50% of supporters of the Vermont senator insist they won't vote for neocon warmonger
Clinton, no matter what. Many view the former secretary of state with her deep ties to the Democratic
establishment as the polar opposite of Sanders and his rallying cry of political revolution
Notable quotes:
"... I am somewhat surprised that Bernie Sanders was not true to himself and his supporters. They are not happy that he is selling out! ..."
Of course Bernie Sanders appears to have sold out emerging from a White
House meeting with President Barack Obama vowing to work together with Hillary
Clinton to defeat Donald Trump in November. Bernie would rather endorse
a traitor who has sold her influence as Secretary of State just to save
the Democratic Party. Obama assured Bernie, no doubt, that he would not
allow Hillary to be indicted. And to further rig the game, the State Department
refuses to release her emails until
AFTER the election. But the actual date they gave was
November 31st, 2016, which does not exist since November has only 30 days.
Once she is president, no doubt they will vanish altogether.
It appears that Bernie is betraying all those who supported him. Hillary
will raise $1 billion to buy the White House. That kind of money does not
come from bankers without strings. Wall Street supports Hillary – not Trump.
That says it all. How Bernie can just give up is amazing. What happened
to his "revolution" will never be discussed.
"Text of Bernie Sanders' speech endorsing Hillary Clinton" [MarketWatch].
Lambert here: Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. The moment had to come,
and now it has come. Will Sanders, in practice, have proven to be a sheepdog?
Will Sanders' endorsement decapitate his movement? To me, the open question
is what actions Sanders voters will take, going forward, beyond the ballot
box, and as organizers. I'm not really sanguine about that, because the
Chicago conference didn't give me confidence the left could unsilo itself,
and distinguish itself, as a single institutional force ready to take power,
from the (neoliberal) liberals (mostly Democrats) and the (neoliberal) conservatives
(some Democrats, mostly Republicans). That said, the Sanders campaign did
more than the left could have expected in its wildest dreams. To the text:
[SANDERS:] I have come here today not to talk about the past but
to focus on the future. That future will be shaped more by what happens
on November 8 in voting booths across our nation than by any other event
in the world. I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to
why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next
president.
During the last year I had the extraordinary opportunity to speak
to more than 1.4 million Americans at rallies in almost every state
in this country. I was also able to meet with many thousands of other
people at smaller gatherings. And the profound lesson that I have learned
from all of that is that this campaign is not really about Hillary Clinton,
or Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, or any other candidate who sought
the presidency. This campaign is about the needs of the American people
and addressing the very serious crises that we face. And there is no
doubt in my mind that, as we head into November, Hillary Clinton is
far and away the best candidate to do that.
I'd prefer the position that Clinton hasn't won the nomination until
there's a vote on the convention floor, which I had understood to be the
position of the Sanders campaign.
[SANDERS:] Hillary Clinton understands that we must fix an economy
in America that is rigged and that sends almost all new wealth and income
to the top one percent.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
[SANDERS:] This election is about the grotesque level of income and
wealth inequality that currently exists, the worst it has been since
1928. Hillary Clinton knows that something is very wrong when the very
rich become richer while many others are working longer hours for lower
wages.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
[SANDERS:] I am happy to tell you that at the Democratic Platform
Committee which ended Sunday night in Orlando, there was a significant
coming together between the two campaigns and we produced, by far, the
most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party. Our
job now is to see that platform implemented by a Democratic Senate,
a Democratic House and a Hillary Clinton president - and I am going
to do everything I can to make that happen.
Platform as a highly inadequate baseline and a method to hold Clinton's
feet to the fire? Yes. Not negligible, but not much. And
Clinton immediately showed - before the rally! - that she didn't
take it seriously.
[SANDERS:] Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and
I am proud to stand with her here today.
I don't see how the institutionalized corruption of both legacy parties
generally and the Clinton Dynasty in particular make any of this possible.
One door closes, another opens…
"'I can't help but say how much more enjoyable this election is going
to be when we are on the same side,' [Clinton] said. "You know what? We
are stronger together!'" [CNN].
Whichever Clinton operative decided to deploy the "stronger together" slogan
shouldn't be expected to have known that it's also a slogan developed by
the military junta in Thailand. But whatever.
"Tuesday's rally drew supporters of Clinton and Sanders, some of whom
chanted 'Bernie' while others chanted 'unity.' Some Sanders supporters left
their seats when Sanders endorsed Clinton. Earlier, when New Hampshire Sen.
Jeanne Shaheen said 'we need to elect Hillary,' she was interrupted by shouts
of 'No!' and chants of "Bernie, Bernie' [USA
Today]. "But there were deafening cheers as Sanders said Clinton would
'make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today.'"
"The most ringing portion of the endorsement came at the end, with Sanders
bringing up some of the personal reasons why he had chosen to support Clinton.
But even this portion felt a bit lifeless, with Sanders citing Clinton's
intellect and passion on children's issues, and failing to address her integrity,
which he directly challenged during the campaign and which will continue
to be an issue the Republicans attack in the wake of the conclusion of the
FBI's investigation into her email scandal" [Slate].
And what happened here?
Do we have any readers who were on that conference call?
"[I]n a nod to Sanders's successful fundraising efforts that brought
in millions of dollars from small donors, with at one time an average donation
of $27, Clinton's campaign has made $27 an option on its online donor page"
[CNN].
"About 85 percent of Democrats who backed Mr. Sanders in the primary
contests said they planned to vote for her in the general election, according
to a Pew poll released last week. Yet she has struggled to appeal to the
independents and liberals who rallied behind the senator's call for a 'political
revolution' to topple establishment politicians, Mrs. Clinton included"
[New
York Times]. 85% of declared Democrats. Not such a good number from
a third of the electorate.
"I am not voting for Hillary Clinton, regardless of her endorsement by
Bernie Sanders. My decision isn't because of the scandal around her emails
or because of some concern over her character. My reasons are pretty straightforward.
I don't agree with her ideologically" [Eddie S. Glaude,
Time].
The Trail
"The final amendment to the Democratic Party platform was meant to sprinkle
Hillary Clinton's name throughout the document, putting a contentious and
drawn-out primary process to rest in favor of a unified party. It never
came up for a vote" [Bloomberg].
"Despite having the support of both the Clinton and Bernie Sanders campaign
staffs, the amendment hadn't been run by committee members or Sanders supporters
in the audience, some of whom angrily shouted down the language because,
they argued, Clinton isn't the official nominee yet. The moment highlighted
the state of the party after a long weekend of intense debates in Orlando,
Florida, that left some tempers frayed, and extensive back-room policy negotiations
between the two campaigns…."
"On Tuesday, the [Trump and Indiana Governor Mike Pence] will put their
compatibility to the test when they appear together at a rally near Indianapolis,
the latest in a string of public auditions for the running mate role" [RealClearPolitics].
""Hillary Clinton's campaign is vetting James G. Stavridis, a retired
four-star Navy admiral who served as the 16th supreme allied commander at
NATO, as a possible running mate" [New
York Times].
From the Wikipedia entry, which seems to have been written by a Clinton
operative: "Stavridis has long advocated the use of "Smart Power," which
he defines as the balance of hard and soft power taken together. In numerous
articles[17] and speeches, he has advocated creating security in the 21st
century by building bridges, not walls." I mean, come on.
jo6pac
Those that sent money to Bernie please let Lambert and us know if dddc
or dnc ask for $$$$$$. Then may be it will just be a letter from the foundation
asking for $$$$$$$$$$$$.
Roger Smith
I will update should I receive anything. I am curious about the list
as well.
Arizona Slim
I just unsubscribed from Bernie's e-mailing list.
Rick
As did I. I will keep the poster I bought from his campaign as a reminder
of a now passed moment of hope.
cwaltz
The moment hasn't passed unless you were expecting Bernie Sanders to
do all the heavy lifting.
The reality is that each and every person disappointed today should make
a concerted effort to let the DNC know in no uncertain terms did their lying,
cheating and outright rigging of this primary mean that they'll be getting
a vote this November. It also means that each and every person find their
spine and support someone other than the Democratic nominee. Expect to hunker
down for 4 years no matter what because if Clinton or Trump are the nominees
then you can pretty much expect there won't be many benefits for average
Americans.
"... "A Sanders endorsement of Clinton would be the ultimate betrayal of his supporters, especially those of us that poured money into his campaign." ..."
"... "Bernie, if you endorse Hillary Clinton, after is NOW A PROVEN FACT she lied to the American people, then you sir are a FRAUD." ..."
"... "Bernie, endorsing Clinton destroys every point you made and everything you stood for in the race. You are letting the people who supported you down. You made a promise to fight in the end, but instead you are conceding. You are not the elected leader you lead us to believe in. Shame on you." ..."
"Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand
with her here today," Sanders said at the end of the rally.
This proclamation is a far cry from how his stance was a couple months
ago, when he claimed that Clinton wasn't qualified for the presidency.
"I don't believe that she is qualified," Sanders said in a Philadelphia
rally back in April, as reported by thinkprogress.org. "[I]f she is, through
her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds.
I don't think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street
through your super PAC."
Trump was one of the first to call Sanders a sell-out on Twitter, comparing
his endorsement of "Crooked Hillary Clinton" to Occupy Wall Street endorsing
Goldman Sachs.
"I am somewhat surprised that Bernie Sanders was not true to himself
and his supporters," Trump tweeted. "They are not happy that he is selling
out!"
While some Democrats are happy that the party has seemed to have finally
united, like the Communications Workers of America who have now changed
their endorsement from Sanders to Clinton, other supporters share Trumps
sentiments, feeling outraged and disappointed at Bernie's sudden change
of heart.
"A Sanders endorsement of Clinton would be the ultimate betrayal
of his supporters, especially those of us that poured money into his campaign."
"Bernie, if you endorse Hillary Clinton, after is NOW A PROVEN FACT
she lied to the American people, then you sir are a FRAUD."
"Bernie, endorsing Clinton destroys every point you made and everything
you stood for in the race. You are letting the people who supported you
down. You made a promise to fight in the end, but instead you are conceding.
You are not the elected leader you lead us to believe in. Shame on you."
These are just some of the comments people have been leaving on Sander's
Facebook page, as reported on the Forward Progressives website.
Other supporters have asked him to wait for the Democrats Party convention,
to run in a third-party or to join Jill Stein in the Green Party ticket.
Now that Sanders has endorsed Clinton, Clinton's campaign will most likely
focus on convincing his supporters to join them in their fight for the presidency.
Bernie is anti war, anti Wall St., anti TPP. If that is not a betrayal of his
supporters and his principles what is it then. Endorsing Clinton is like taking
a job at Goldman-Sachs.
So why exactly he endorses her? We still don't know.
The Democrats has good political operatives. There is Barack, the "change-no-change"
"black not for blacks" candidate, and Bernie, The Revolutionary who stands
staunchly behind Goldman Sachs and everything it presents.
Of course the real governing task is delegated to Hillary Clinton and
the "experts" from the banks.
Hey guys. Good job. Just remember: ultimately there is that cliff you're
marching towards.
Why is he not doing as he promised and taking his message and challenge
all the way to the convention? The super delegates are still an play and
I doubt they've even finished counting California...This is very disheartening...
Prepare for eternal war.
I'd like to formally thank Bernie Sanders for endorsing my wife Hillary
today. I know how tough it was for Bernie to stump for her today. Especially
considering Hillary is even more crooked than my 4-inch yogurt slinger.
As many of my young interns know, that's really crooked!
I'd also like to formally apologize to Bernie for all the death threats
and that severed horse's head my guys left in his bed. lol whoops! Ok, gotta
go make another phone call to my good friend Trump now.....
You could just crawl back into your socialist hole and not say anything
Bernie, but no, you're just another fool brought by Clinton because she
needs your votes like she needs air. Congratulations on becoming another
member of the Clinton foundations bankroll
The problem isnt her most recent rhetoric, it is her person, and trusting
to do the things she says (as she has held every side of every position).
The endorsement doesn't fix the problem that we still don't want her...
I think many of us will be looking for at the third party alternatives.
If we give into this lesser of two evils every election cycle, we'll soon
find candidates worse than Trump.
1. Party platforms are consolation bullshit. They mean nothing, especially
when the big money funding the campaign is against the platform. This is
just a political fact.
2. Therefore, Bernie's campaign has not started a revolution, but rather
has dead-ended with a big bowl of nothing.
3. Parties are the vehicles through which policies get pushed and accomplished.
Since it was re-engineered by the Clinton's in the 1990's, the Democratic
Party is like a vehicle with its steering welded to turn right.
4. Therefore the only way to achieve a successful and peaceful political
revolution is to re-engineer the vehicle; and this requires breaking it
down and putting it back together.
In other words, for the sake of progress, the D.N.C. as presently constituted
and managed had to be destroyed.
5. The only way to destroy the D.N.C. would have been to hand Hillary
a defeat on a platter. This would have driven home, in the only way politicians
understand, that progressive Americans will not be played and fooled.
6. The willingness to do this requires strategic fortitude -- a willingness
to think in long term objectives and to endure immediate and temporary inconveniences.
Four years of Trump will not be the "sky-is-falling" disaster the Hillary
Hens are clucking over. Eight years of Hillary will only solidify the grip
corporations, banks and neo-con militarists, have on the country.
7. Bernie should have run as an independent, precisely in order to defeat
Hillary. Only then could a four year hiatus be used to clean out the D.N.C.,
and revitalize it with real progressive blood. Then and only then will progressives
get the "platform" they want. Is four years of Clown Trump worth it? You
bet.
I disagree. Chris Hedges believes that Sanders intended to mislead voters
and intentionally funnel them back to Hillary Clinton under the belief that
they would uncritically support her. That seems to be completely false,
and even if it were true, it's seems he made a terrible sheepdog as many
of us will not support Hillary. The problem was that although he saw no
chance for an independent to win, the Democratic Party is a dead end for
real change as well. I guess we all know that now.
When it comes to intention I guess that I believed that he was genuine
in his attempt to win and bring about change (except on the nation that
cannot be criticised and on foreign policy) but the endorsement of HRC is
another blow for the massive desire to remove these two corporatist parties.
With the DNC having decided to support fracking, settlements etc the
American people (and the world) are in for more of the same, war, privatisation,
alienation of the poor, secret trade deals that give more power to corporations
and environmental destruction etc. etc. etc
"He's lending credibility to a party that is completely corporatized.
He has agreed that he will endorse the candidate, which, unless there
is some miracle, will probably be Hillary Clinton."
You bottled it in the end. Sad. I never liked him much, but in running
as an independent or siding with the Greens he could have showed that he
stands for something. Endorsing Clinton is like taking a job at Goldman-Sachs.
Oh, so he admitted it'd be better to support a lesser evil? How should you
support an evil anyway? How about quietly withdrawing from the race and
not saying anything that violates his own principles? I don't see what that's
difficult to understand myself!
There was never a doubt that Democrats would eventually unite behind whoever
ended up being the nominee. The problem is that all those NON-Democrats
who so passionately supported Bernie will not. He was the real deal, and
our best hope of actually engaging them, expanding our party, and having
the wave election we need to actually get progress done.
I have been actively trying to recruit folks like this into our ranks
for many years now, so trust me when I tell you that we are in very serious
trouble this year. No matter what Bernie says or does, these non-Dems will
not feel the bern for her. We are heading to a low voter turnout election
with two major candidates that have record low net favorability ratings,
and Republicans usually do best in situations like that since they have
the most reliable voting base.
In my book, when you've run against somebody, you must think that guy would
be a bad choice. When you think a person is a bad choice, how come you endorse
that person? Bernie lost my respect (even though he doesn't care)!
F*** this lesser-of-two-evils rubbish. We paid for his campaign, to resist
this criminal and what she represents with every fibre of his body and he's
sold us out. Jill Stein offered him something that could have brought real
change and he sold us out. He is there because of the money and faith we
put in him.
What a turncoat bastard. I am disgusted.
For a vast library of information detailing the many crimes of the ghastly
Clinton crime syndicate, please see the following link.
http://www.arkancide.com
Super delegates have yet to vote, Hillary has not made it past the threshold,
so if Sanders torpedos her, he gets booted out as a Dem nominee by party
rules. So in order to stay to the convention he is doing what he has to.
Has he conceded? No! If Bernie showed and asked me to vote for Hillary
I would tell him no.
At this point, Bernie's endorsement of Hillary does not matter at all. The
genie of his movement is already out of the bottle, and it cannot be put
back in.
The movement never belonged to him, he belongs to the movement, and Bernie
knows it. He knows it even as he pronounces the endorsement. He has played
his enormously important part in that movement through his candidacy and
now he will go back to fighting for the progressive cause from inside the
Democratic party, because that is what he has been doing for twenty years
and before he launched that candidacy. But the forces that he has unleashed
will keep growing and gathering strength on their own.
Same old shit then. The Plutocrats won again and can freely go on
selling 'war for profit' as 'fighting for freedoms.'
With the useful benefit that La Clinton can now swan about on stage draped
in a coat made from the hide of an old leftie.
"We came, we saw we skinned it." And oh how the laughter rang out the entire
length of Wall Street.
So the warmongers and wall street win again. For the moment at least. The
struggle continues. A new front opens under the banner of the Greens. In
the UK the Grassoots on the left now have the whole power of the elite arrayed
against them, with dirty tricks and media lies. The right wing blairites
are using every trick in the book to split our Labouur Movement and remove
our democratically elected Leader Corbyn. We are hanging in. Wish us luck,
American friends! Looks like we are going to need it. No surrender!
There was never any doubt, in any election ever fought in the USA, that
the military-industrial-financial complex would be the winner. They always
are.
The left in the UK are tearing themselves apart Life of Brian
style (how prescient that film was!). It will be generations before they
every wield power in this country, if ever. I'll probably see out my days
under a vicious Tory administration.
It's a shame it has come to this but kind of expected.
Bernie wants to stop Trump now, and he believes that his is the way to
do it. I don't personally this will have the desired effect enough people
despise Clinton, but we will see.
If I was a US citizen and had a vote, I would have thrown my full support
behind Bernie, but this endorsement certainly would not make me vote for
Hillary either (I certainly wouldn't support Trump, I'm not totally insane),
I'd prefer to abstain completely.
Strategic voting is an expression of support for the rigid, corrupt and
self-serving political system that led to self-serving cretins like Trump
and Clinton being among the elite ruling class in the first place.
All it does is prolong the death rattles of the lower orders of society.
Fellow Americans: Our country was demolished by Clinton, and Obama has been
running a kill list for extra judicial killins, and he is the sitting president
under wich a police force appears to be on a rampage to coloured people.
The first black president leading a nation of multiple racist killings.
Do
Not
Ever
Vote
Democrats
Again
The word lie doesnt cover it. The word lying says it doesnt want anything
to do with Democrats. Trump, or any other republican, is a far better bet.
bring back George Bush jr for all I care. Anyone but a Demorcratic president.
Dont do it.
To endorse Hillary Clinton is to be in alliance with a cynical and utterly
corrupt liar who is willing to say anything to get elected. By endorsing
Hillary you, Bernie, have become a part of everything you have been complaining
about. Never mind. It never was about you and your endorsement isn't worth
shit.
After the progressive cause was successively sold out to Goldman Sachs by
Paul Krugman, Gloria Steinem, John Lewis and the Congressional black caucus,
Lena Dunham, Beyonce, George Clooney and Elizabeth Warren (Did I forget
any of the earlier hate figures here?) it was inevitable that Bernie would
ultimately also be revealed as a neoliberal sellout.
Has to be viewed in the context of the global threat of Donald Trump
though
yeah imagine anyone daring to public oppose further neo-conservative
onslaught.
Obviously the man's unhinged and has to be stopped pronto.
fortunately bill kristol, victoria nuland, robert kagan et al are hot on
the case and 100% on board with hillary (& bill) on this
Sanders and Warren are now subsumed into the maw of the Empire of the Exceptionals
and are pledging their loyalty to it. Just like Obama all hopie changie
during campaigns but when the chips are down they show their true colors
as Neoliberal sycophants and support every policy the claimed to oppose.
I for one will never support a now proven corrupt and dishonest career politician.
Sorry Bernie, but the political revolution can never take place within a
party as establishment focused as the Democratic Party. A sad and depressing
time for all real progressives.
Trump is a man whose uncompromising attitude means he'll get even less
done than Obama. He'd be remembered as an ineffective washout of a president,
unable to get anything done and sorely disappointing a lot of voters.
Hillary is a smooth political operator who's in it for her own gain and
will get an awful lot done - just not the things you want her to do. She'll
be hawkish against Russia, interventionist against the Middle East, she'll
throw her full weight behind the establishment in both America and Europe,
and she'll make sure her paymasters at Goldman Sachs aren't disappointed
in her.
I suppose voting for Hillary to stop Trump might be an unavoidable course
of action. But few people realize the danger Hillary represents to the United
States... not because of what she will do, but because of what she won't
do.
Across the Western world, the centre is rapidly crumbling. Without a
significant course correction, it will soon fall and what replaces it is
hard to predict – but I doubt it will be pretty. Austria almost elected
a far right president, the UK voted for Brexit, the GOP nominated Trump.
You're a fool if you think this is the anti-establishment backlash... it's
only the beginning, and these events are just canaries in the mine. The
real backlash is yet to come.
With 4-8 years of a Clinton-led status quo government, resentment will
grow, inequality and hopelessness will increase... and eventually a right
wing demagogue who is much smarter than Trump will see an opportunity and
pounce. I suspect it'll happen right after the next market crash, which
Clinton will do nothing to prevent.
Historically illiterate people are constantly looking out for the "next
Hitler" and so point their finger at the likes of Trump. But that's the
wrong question. Anyone who understands the events that led to Nazism realizes
the true question is who is the next Von Hindenburg . Clinton looks
like a pretty good candidate in that respect.
An architect of the federal healthcare law said last year that a "lack
of transparency" and the "stupidity of the American voter" helped Congress approve
ObamaCare.
He suggested that many lawmakers and voters didn't know what was in
the law or how its financing worked, and that this helped it win approval.
In case you're wondering whether or not Hillary Clinton's advisers harbor similar
contempt for the American public, let the following
Facebook post
from
Robert Reich dispel any confusion:
An acquaintance from my days in the Clinton administration, who has been
advising Hillary, phoned this morning.
ACQUAINTANCE: "Don't you think your blog post from last night was a bit
harsh?"
ME: "Not at all. The Democratic Party is shooting itself in the foot
by not officially opposing the Trans Pacific Partnership."
ACQ: "But you know why. The Party can't take a stand opposite the President's.
He's the leader of the Party, for chrissake. And he wants the TPP."
ME: "Yeah, because he sees the TPP as a way to limit China's economic
influence. So he made a Faustian bargain with big global corporations who want more
protection for their foreign investments. But he's wrong. The TPP won't crimp China.
Global corporations will give China whatever it wants to gain access to the Chinese
market. The TPP …."
ACQ: "Look, it doesn't matter what you or I think. The President wants the
TPP, and the Party isn't going to oppose him."
ME: "You mean Hillary won't oppose him."
ACQ: "Hillary won't, and Debbie [Wasserman Schultz] won't, and neither
will Nancy [Pelosi] or Harry [Reid] or Dick [Durbin] or Chuck [Schumer].
ME: "But it's terrible policy. And it's awful politics. It gives Trump a
battering ram. Obama won't be president in six months. Why risk it?"
Now here's how extraordinarily dismissive and contemptuous of the American public
Hillary Clinton's people really are.
ACQ: "They don't see much of a risk. Most Americans don't know or care
about the TPP."
ME: "But they know big corporations are running economic policy.
They think the whole system is
corrupt. Believe me, Trump will use this against Hillary.
"
ACQ: "He can't. She's inoculated. She's come out against the TPP."
ME: "But it's her delegates who voted not to oppose it in the Democratic
platform. Her fingerprints are all over this thing."
ACQ: "I think you're being too cynical."
ME: "Actually, the real cynic is you."
Just in case you remain confused, let's not forget what we learned in the following
posts:
Hillary Clinton is and always has been in favor of the TPP, despite what
she's saying to get elected. If you don't get that, you're as dumb as her advisors think
you are.
So is the rest of the Democratic Party, by the way. As the
New York Times
reported:
Amid boos from the sidelines, allies
of Hillary Clinton and President Obamaon Saturday beat back an effort by the Bernie
Sanders campaign to have the Democratic Party officially oppose a congressional vote
on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.
At a sometimes-raucous meeting in
Orlando, Fla., of the party's platform committee, which is drawing up policy goals
for the Democratic National Convention this month, lieutenants of Mr. Sanders argued
that the trade deal would lead to a loss of jobs and competitive wages and that it
would ultimately harm American workers and labor unions.
But given Mrs. Clinton's need to unite
the party, and Mr. Sanders's desire to defeat the presumptive Republican nominee,
Donald J. Trump, Mr. Sanders may ultimately choose not to mount a distracting and
divisive war on the convention floor over trade.
What's the big deal. Just another
agreement to further annihilate the U.S. middle class. "Unity" is more important.
Washington DC is a toilet and she is but
one of many turds that need to be flushed.
Trump might consider adding "You're
flushed!" to his "You're fired" repertoire to add a little extra
panache for those particularly egregious POS's in DC.
makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part.
You can't even passively take part!
And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon
the wheels,
upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to
make it stop!
And you've got to indicate to the people who run it,
to the people who own it - that unless you're free,
the machine will be prevented from working at all!"
Tarzan
The best Sun
Jul 12, 2016 11:17 AM
Obama support for TPP has nothing to do with China, he's
an adherent to the
Cloward–Piven
strategy which seeks to overwhelm the welfare system,
while at the same time destroying our middle class, the
engine of our economy.
Wake up, they're not stupid,
they're EVIL!
flaminratzazz
VinceFostersGhost
Jul 12, 2016 10:41 AM
The tpp is just another nail of many in the coffin of the nations
people. we were screwed by nafta, ndaa, pnac, patriot act, obama care,
militarized police, multiple false flags, ppt, the fed,insane foreign
policy, the mic, non stop creeping gun control, and an all around
disdain of the proles.. no the tpp is just another fvk you of
thousands.
DuneCreature
flaminratzazz
Jul 12, 2016 10:43 AM
Want the bitch witch Killary hogtied and stuffed in a jail cell?
Print out the briefs and reports as he posts them.
Take them to yours states Attorney General's office
and ask them to check and see if the Clinton Foundation collects or
disperses funds in your state. .... Tell them if they do you would like
the charity investigated and prosecuted for anything shady (This crap
ain't shady it's pitch black) and that you are monitoring the their
shitshow performance.
Pass this along. .. The more eyes on it the better.
You might be saving Charles Ortel from and
Arkansiding fate along with monkey wrenching the Killary machine.
Corporate Dems - Clinton and Wasserman Shultz appointees - just killed an
amendment to the Democratic Party platform that would have blocked public
officials from going to work in the industries they regulate.
"
a Faustian bargain
with big global corporations who want more protection for their foreign
investments
"
on the
expenses
of the sovereign... hosts. that's the real problem
of those treaties. they are win/lose proposals
a
win
for megacorps. a
win
for "
The
Dough That Roams The World
" and a
loss
for those who
happen to live in those "markets", pardon me, host countries
Kina
Jul 12, 2016 10:37 AM
This is where Trump needs to break through against Clinton.
The majority of
the public know that she is crooked and dishonest to the core, but many still
support her, why??
BECAUSE
they assume
, even though she is crooked and
dishonest, she wouldn't do anything to hurt the American people, she cares
about Americans.
This is why she can be totally dishonest, the public cant imagine that she
would ever actually betray THEM.
TRUMP needs to enhance his Crooked Hillary message - to get the public to
also believe and understand that her dishonesty goes as far as betraying them
for her own gain.
FireBrander
Kina
Jul 12, 2016 10:44 AM
Blind support of Hillary, or Trump, comes from a lifetime of political
conditioning which is really set in cement.
That is why 40% vote R and 40%
vote D no matter the candidate. It's the 20% that have broken free of the
R/D saviour mindset that really matter.
These polls of "likely voters" are horseshit; I want to see the polls of
"not affiliated" or "Registered Independent" voters...they are the ones that
will decide this election.
Not My Real Name
FireBrander
Jul 12, 2016 12:40 PM
In case you haven't noticed, Trump is not really an R. Yes, he has an "R"
after his name -- but the establishment is doing everything in its power
to remove it.
HRC, on the other hand, is a dyed-in-the-wool D.
Grimaldus
Kina
Jul 12, 2016 4:51 PM
Trump actually has already broken through. He has 60% of the vote and
Hillary has about 35% and dropping like a stone. The only ones supporting
her are reduced to blathering micro-encephalitic name calling juveniles. The
progressive stupid getting desperate.
Now she wants to be in charge of everything. .... Will she
sell off the White House drapes and carpeting too? Rumor had it she tried to
cart off a truckload of furnishings after her last visit to the joint. .....
The shifty bitch has got sticky fingers
She may even enter the slave trade if we let her.
Yard sale snake lady needs to take a break from her little
global influence peddling spree. ...... Maybe in a slightly cramped 'time out'
8 x 12 foot room for saaaay,... till hell freezes over, thaws out and then
freezes over again would be my vote.
Live Hard, Don't Buy The Snake Oil Or Stolen Guns, Die
Free
Assuming Hillary shows up to any of the debates, all the questions will be
curve balls for Trump and light handed bunts for Hillary.
They wont ask her any hard hitting questions, and they will just bury Trump
in a sea of race cards.
Trump is just going to have to completely talk over the questions and
control the debates by interjecting real issues there or they will trample him
with pre-scripted bullshit.
"... There goes Trump's narrative that Hillary is a bad negotiator. She got everything from Sanders and paid with non binding promises. I think I have some of those lying around, maybe Sanders would like to give me his house in exchange for them. ..."
"... It matters little that Sanders "thinks" he has pushed the Dems to the left with policy. Without a mechanism to ensure that party policy hammered out at a convention or in a closed-door session becomes legislation to be voted upon...it's totally worthless. ..."
"... Who cares? If he endorses Hillary - and forget about her so-called platform concessions - he'll be endorsing a thug, one who breaks any rule that gets in her way. And then Bernie will be a partner in her chicanery...But he will able to hang on to his war chest - and a nice "take" it is for a few months work. ..."
"... Crooked Hillary. And now, Sellout Sanders. I'm done being a Democrat in America. ..."
"... "This party is done," wrote actor and Sanders surrogate Susan Sarandon after Clinton supporters blocked the proposed amendment. "[It has] warped into the party of the rich. No longer represents working people." ..."
"... Well I guess this was bound to happen. Sanders is just another politician ready to tow the line for the Democratic corporate establishment. Sad. ..."
"... Chris Hedges was right, Bernie is a traitor. He misled a lot of people into believing he was going to stand up for something different, now he is promoting the status quo, I'm pissed. ..."
"... I see Hillary as part of the problem not the solution. Sanders disappoints me. I didn't see him as part of the problem, but guess what he is now. ..."
"... Bernie was a joke from the moment he said " nobody cares about your damn emails." ..."
"... I did not think Sanders was so gullible to believe that Clinton will take action on anything in the democratic platform. From a mass movement demanding change to accepting a few non-binding policies at a democratic convention. I think Bernie lost his opportunity to make a difference when he refused to stand as an independent. Now people are stuck with Trump or Clinton which is not exactly a great choice. ..."
"... The Party Platform is meaningless and Sanders should know that. $hillary will do what ever she wants after the convention if she is nominated. The allegiance $hillary has is to Wall Street and a NEO-CON foreign policy. ..."
"... As much as I want to vote for HRC, the stench of neocon corporatism is too much, the thin layer of accumulated grime from years of ethical expediency too toxic, the opaque lack of transparency too dangerous, and the shifting sands of her amorphous policy too treacherous. ..."
"... As Jill Stein has said, "What We Fear from Donald Trump, We Have Already Seen from Hillary Clinton." ..."
"... I understand only about half of sanders supporters are willing to switch to clinton http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/bernie-or-bust-clinton/488276 / ..."
"... I'm afraid Bernie's endorsement of Clinton will not stop Trump. There is no room for a neo-liberal status quo candidate like Clinton in this race. The American economy is going to hell in a hand cart. 50 million Americans use food banks millions more are facing bankruptcy, joblessness and homelessness. They need a radical socialist candidate. Voting for more of the same for them is utterly pointless. Trump will beat Clinton. America needed Bernie if Trump was to be beaten. ..."
"... Pulling the party to the left is meaningless if the nominee is a neocon. It's just window dressing.(And Bernie, of course, definitely knows that.) ..."
Bernie was able to influence the Democratic Party platform, and his endorsement is part of the
trade. I get it. I think its smart to close the deal on some gains.
Hillary Clinton said she was opposed to passage of the TPP trade agreement but 2 days ago her
supporters made it part of her campaign platform. Hillary Clinton told Sanders some lies which
it appears, unfortunately, that he believed. She is and will be forever a lying, corrupt, Wall
Street-toadying warmonger.
It is so funny to see so many people that once swore Bernie was the messiah now calling him a
sellout. Hilarious. So much for a revolution. Usually during a revolution people dont give up
so quickly.
Absolutely right. Every revolution has its roadblocks. However, Bernie supporters should realize
that if Trump is elected the SC will move back to the right for 20+ years. This will kill their
revolution for a long time to come. Bernie is doing the smart thing here and it is becoming really
easy to see why Bernie lost. His supporters are not capable of seeing what the smart thing is.
"people who got involved in the political process"
I first read that last phrase as "political princess" and had to go back to read what Bernie
said. But either reading seems suitable.
I have a hard time picturing Bernie actually believes platforms mean anything. Maybe he's giving
Hillary enough rope, as the saying goes? I'm sure he's conferred with his advisors. Hillary's
leftward move is entirely illusory and temporary; once she quickly falls back into the neolib
agenda, he'll have cause to bail, and there still might be time to take up Jill Stein on her ticket
offer.
Bernie is supposed to meet with Hillary tomorrow in Portsmouth, NH. I would like to be there,
in front of the venue, cutting my Bernie campaign sign into little bitty bits....
Bernie's efforts will be for NOTHING once he endorses Hillary. Nothing.
Wall Street's Warmongering Madame is the perfect foil for Donald Trump's huckster-populism: a
pseudo-progressive stooge whose contempt for the average person and their intelligence is palpable.
She's an arch-environmentalist who has worked tirelessly to spread fracking globally.
She supports fortifying Social Security but won't commit to raising the cap on taxes to do
so.
She's a humanitarian who has supported every imperial slaughter the US has waged in the past
25 years.
She cares deeply about the plight of the Palestinians but supported the starvation blockade
and blitzkrieg of Gaza and couldn't bother to mention them but in passing in a recent speech before
AIPAC.
She's a stalwart civil libertarian, but voted for Patriot Acts 1 and 2 and believes Edward
Snowden should be sent to federal prison for decades.
She stands with the working class but has supported virtually every international pact granting
increased mobility and power to the corporate sector at its expense in the past 25 years.
She cares with all her heart about African-Americans but supports the objectively-racist death
penalty and the private prison industry.
She will go to bat for the poor but supported gutting welfare in the '90s, making them easier
prey to exploiters, many of whom supported her husband and her financially.
She worries about the conditions of the poor globally, but while Sec. of State actively campaigned
against raising the minimum wage in Haiti to 60 cents an hour, thinking 31 cents an hour sounded
better for the investor class whose interests are paramount to her.
She's not a bought-and-paid-for hack, oh no, no, no, but she won't ever release the Wall Street
speeches for which she was paid so handsomely.
She's a true-blue progressive, just ask her most zealous supporters, who aren't.
There goes Trump's narrative that Hillary is a bad negotiator. She got everything from Sanders
and paid with non binding promises. I think I have some of those lying around, maybe Sanders would
like to give me his house in exchange for them.
"Sanders promised from the start to support whoever the DP nominated. He is keeping his promise,
and it would be extremely dangerous for him to do otherwise."
No it wouldn't. He could simply say that he's reconsidered and apologize for the confusion.
it is a sure way to destroy your reputation associating with these people. To suggest that a candidate
that needs "keeping the pressure" on them well it is good for a laugh.
It matters little that Sanders "thinks" he has pushed the Dems to the left with policy. Without
a mechanism to ensure that party policy hammered out at a convention or in a closed-door session
becomes legislation to be voted upon...it's totally worthless. We have the same situation
here in Canada with the NDP. It's why Mulcair came in 3rd. Who needs 2 liberal parties?
60% of people disagree with FBI's recommendation not to charge Clinton according to Washington
post and ABC poll. No mention of that in corporate guardian
Who cares? If he endorses Hillary - and forget about her so-called platform concessions -
he'll be endorsing a thug, one who breaks any rule that gets in her way. And then Bernie will
be a partner in her chicanery...But he will able to hang on to his war chest - and a nice "take"
it is for a few months work.
You must be joking! While aiming at Bernie, Hillary even accused his Vermont for arming criminals
in New York.
It must be that you remember that, it was not a long time ago.
According to Washington Post, the republican party has strong anti TPP language in their party
platform, the very same thing the democratic party voted down.
Oh, the irony. People who are against TPP find it in the republican party yet Bernie is about
to endorse Clinton
The spittle-flecked Clinton surrogate Barney Frank just the other day declared contemptuously
that party platforms are "irrelevant."
You know, party platforms--like the Democratic Party platform that's being larded with Sanders-friendly
"policy goals" that Wall Street's Warmongering Madame will feel no obligation to fulfill if she's
elected president.
With his coming endorsement, Sanders makes himself not simply useless to the fight against
the capitalist status quo; no, he has become a direct impediment to it.
Whenever people on the left side of the political spectrum, whatever their reasoning, vote
for servants of Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus, the political
center of gravity moves another notch decisively to the right.
We're constantly told that if we don't vote for the latest pseudo-progressive stooge the Dems
put forward that we're effectively voting for the Republicans.
In other words, if we don't vote for stooges who in many respects are indistinguishable
from Republicans, that systematically cede the political initiative to Republicans,
that it is we who might as well be Republicans!
Meanwhile, these same "progressives" are nowhere to be seen when a fight kicks off in the streets
against imperial war or austerity or police brutality or lay-offs. No, of course not: they're
too busy doing nothing waiting for the next opportunity to vote for another crop of corporate
liberals who'll save us from the Republicans.
It's fair to ask what all this voting for corporate liberals has gotten us over the past 25
years. Here's a list of signature policies supported and/or enacted by the last two Democratic
Party presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama:
--Deregulation of investment banks and telecommunications
--The Omnibus Crime Bill (mass incarceration)
--The destruction of welfare (which caused extreme poverty to double in the 15 years after its
passage)
--The sanctions regime against Iraq (which killed 500,000 Iraqi children)
--NAFTA
--CAFTA
--TPP
--Fracking
--The objectively-racist death penalty
--The Defense of Marriage Act
--Historic levels of repression against whistle-blowers
--Preservation of Bush-era tax cuts on the rich
--Patriots Acts 1 and 2
--Massive expansion of NSA spying
--Years of foot-dragging on climate change
--Support for Israeli atrocities
--Support for the right-wing coup in Honduras
--Support for fraudulent election in Haiti
--Support for the Saudi dictatorship
--Support for a 31 cents/hour minimum wage in Haiti and against attempts to raise it
--Oil drilling on the Atlantic seaboard, Gulf of Mexico, and the Arctic
--A $1 trillion 20-year "modernization" of the US's nuclear weapons arsenal
--Historically high numbers of deportations
--Drone missile strikes that have killed large numbers of civilians and inflamed anti-US hatred
--Health care reform that has fortified the power of the insurance cartel not weakened or obliterated
it
--Industry-approved bankruptcy "reform"
--The bail-out of Wall Street
This is comprehensive list of what the Democrats are, and what Hillary Clinton is. I thought you
were going to leave out drones, and Clinton's support for the military coup in Honduras over a
democratically-elected president (partly due to President Zalaya's attempts to raise the Honduran
minimum wage!), which resulted in five years (so far) of Honduras being the 'murder capital of
the world', and its children the highest numbers of attempts to immigrate to the United States.
This one fact alone -- her support for this coup, Zalaya kidnapped in his pajamas and taken to
a U.S. military base, her and Bill's friend a high-priced consultant to the coup -- is one reason
I know Clinton is not a democrat, not a believer in democracy.
I just posted my congratulations on getting the Democratic platform to a much better point
than it would have been if Bernie Sanders had not hung in and appointed great people to the platform
committee while holding them hostage while doing it. (While shaming the Clintonians for leaving
out crucial anti-TPP, pro-minimum wage of $15, and no fracking stances on the platform.)
BUT I forgot until reading this post and being reminded, that each time I picture going to
the polls and voting for Clinton I feel nauseated. I think I will vote for Jill Stein (who graciously
and strategically offered to move out of her place on the Green ticket in favor of Sanders. I
believe Bernie Sanders would have an equal chance to Clinton if he took her up on the offer. My
sense of history and my self-respect makes me want to risk Trump.
I'm going repost one paragraph of my initial comment that I think is its most important paragraph
and which I believe is the best way in a few words to explain to "progressives" why they shouldn't
vote for her.
Whenever people on the left side of the political spectrum, whatever their reasoning,
vote for servants of Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus, the political
center of gravity moves another notch decisively to the right.
"We have made enormous strides," said Sanders in a statement issued after a meeting in Orlando
that swung the party in his direction on the minimum wage, climate change and marijuana
though failed to make headway on fracking and trade.
So Bernie's political revolution will end up with the legalization of ganja?
OK, I get it! Bernie is in fact a "Rastafarian Socialist", and not a Democratic Socialist as it
was thought until now.:-)))
People liked Sanders because on many matters he was unsparing in his condemnation of Wall Street's
Warmongering Madame and the system she services.
It's hard to reconcile that with his namby-pamby "we can just get along" bullshit statement
and pitch for the victims of the policies she supports to support Clinton Corp.
Bernie Sanders set to endorse Clinton after Democratic platform negotiations
Yeah, as you can see here
, everything is already prepared for their joint performance at tomorrow's rally in New Hampshire.
Interestingly, the UK rock band Status Quo had scheduled a concert in the same place for tomorrow,
but at the last minute they canceled their performance with the message, "There is no need for
us to come, Hillary and Bernie together are better 'Status Quo' than we are."
"When they served together in the US Senate, Sanders and Clinton voted the same way 93% of the
time."
Oh, not that "they're 93% alike" bullshit again.
That misleading factoid was put forward by Nate Silver (whose pro-Clinton bias is transparent)
and picked up on and spread by Clinton supporters ad nauseaum.
It's based only on the two years in which Sanders and Clinton were in the Senate together and
therefore doesn't, for example, take into account their opposing stances on the destruction
of welfare, NAFTA, the Iraq War, the Libyan bombing campaign, TPP (which she now weakly claims
to support), fracking, the Patriot Act, or TARP.
The 93% likeness is, in any case, an unscientific way of gleaning political similarity as many
votes are basically formalities and not all are of equal significance.
That said, it's interesting to note that Clinton Corp. and her gullible liberal supporters
like smalltownboy expend so much energy dishonestly claiming that she and Sanders are so much
alike. Why is that? Could it be that tens of millions don't much like what Clinton actually stands
for?
Once challenged from the left by Sanders, Clinton claimed to oppose TPP, but there's
reason to believe her opposition is weak and if elected president she'll accept some superficial
fix and proclaim her support for it. Pro-Clinton members of the platform committee have tipped
her hand by voting down a plank opposing the TPP (a trade agreement that grants massive new powers
to the capitalist class, the opposition to which smalltownboy dishonestly depicts as being about
"nuances of free trade agreements).
Smalltownboy is a smart guy who isn't interested in engaging in an honest debate.
So with Sanders falling into line we have a choice between tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber. Nothing
progressive about that and it goes to show just how sleazy and corrupted the political system
has become.
". . .'though failed to make headway on fracking and trade."
***Vote for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. THEIR platform eviscerates both: fracking AND
trade deals that only enrich the duopoly elites.
". . .particularly over trade, where the Sanders camp failed to insert outright opposition
to Barack Obama's controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership deal.
"This party is done," wrote actor and Sanders surrogate Susan Sarandon after Clinton supporters
blocked the proposed amendment. "[It has] warped into the party of the rich. No longer represents
working people."
I can't vote for Hillary if she is pro-TPP.
This is what can happen under this trade pact. Foreign companies can sue the U.S. government outside
of the U.S. courts.
This actually happened to Australia because of a law passed to reduce smoking.
In 20ll, the Aussies passed a plain packaging law banning tobacco packaging branding.
Two tobacco companies sued Australia. Then when the tobacco company lost, Phillip Morris, under
a 1993 trade agreement, sued in international court.
Then Ukraine sued Australia, which does not sell tobacco to Australia. Tobacco companies covering
legal costs.
A legal challenge against Uruguay followed, which didn't have the money to pay court costs.
Also against Togo, one of the poorest countries on earth.
Canada is suing the U.S. taxpayers for billions because the U.S. did not go through with the keystone
pipeline.
Chris Hedges was right, Bernie is a traitor. He misled a lot of people into believing he was
going to stand up for something different, now he is promoting the status quo, I'm pissed.
Supporters of Hillary Clinton successfully voted down amendments supporting a single payer healthcare
system, a nationwide ban on fracking, as well as an amendment objecting to Israel's occupation
of the West Bank and characterizing the settlements as illegal.
Sanders focused on the substantive issues to a literal fault, and it's going to cost him one way
or another.
Though I feel disapointed if he endorses Hillary, I really believe Sanders believes he's acting
on behalf of the issues that affect regular people. Whether the platform planks actually benefit
the people in reality is another story.
Even if Sanders endorses Hillary, it doesn't mean you're bound to do the same. You are a free
agent, Sanders unfortunately is not when he signed onto the Democratic platform.
I know through disapointment it will be hard to feel respect towards Sanders. We should strive
to see his potential endorsement as a means to an end for this election cycle, working within
the constraints of being the loser. But we should also strive to see that this election cycle
isn't the end to Bernie Sanders all together nor his message.
I would have liked to see Bernie go all the way to the convention. A lot of people signed up
and crowd funded to join him in Philly. It may be that the pressure just got to be too overwhelming
and he was crossing into territory that would actually destroy him going forward. Sometimes you
lose the battle to win the war.
He already materially lost the battle. However, It is a contested convention by definition going
in. Hillary niether lost or won anything until November.
It is way too early for Sanders to concede until the convention. This would not represent the
best interests of those he has fought for his whole career.
The guy has no spine. The platform means nothing. In the end he caved and became a good little
soldier. And with him goes my one chance to vote for a Democrat. I guess I will go with Trump.
Trump says some stupid things and the Media flays him for it. Could he be as bad as he appears?
Seems unlikely.
On the other hand, Hillary is a true politician. I listened to an interview she gave to Wolf
Blitzer. She answered like a politician, she didn't say a single thing that could be used against
her. That is problem with professional politicians they never really tell you what they really
think. Who knows what she really plans to try to do if she gets there. Can we say that Obama has
brought the hope and change that he claimed? The world seems more dangerous than ever. Hillary
had a part in that. I can't say the same about Trump. He didn't get a vote in the Senate when
they voted to authorized action in Iraq. Hillary did. Trump didn't run the State Department for
four years as the world became a more dangerous place. Hillary did. Trump didn't leaked classified
government secrets recklessly. Hillary did.
I see Hillary as part of the problem not the solution. Sanders disappoints me. I didn't
see him as part of the problem, but guess what he is now.
So, what is to be said about Hillary Clinton's personality? In an essay by Audrey Immelman,
published in 2001 by the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics of St. Johns University
in Minnesota, a discussion of Clinton's dominant traits is taken up. Here are some of the conclusions:
Hillary Clinton is an aggressive and controlling personality; when she makes up her mind about
something, she loses interest in other people's points of view; she is often impatient; she
lacks empathy and can act harshly to those seen as standing in her way; she has boundary problems
due to her excessive level of self-confidence – that is, when she "knows" she is right, she
doesn't like the idea that there are limits that she has to abide by.
Bernie Sanders has cleared the way for an endorsement of Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, and
declared a successful end to his campaign to pull their party to the left during weekend negotiations
over the Democratic policy platform.
"We have made enormous strides," said Sanders in a statement issued after a meeting in Orlando
that swung the party in his direction on the minimum wage, climate change and marijuana though
failed to make headway on fracking and trade.
This "platform" they all stand up on during election years is just a stage to perform on for
the crowd. Once the elections are over, the curtain comes down and they will be meeting their
buddies from the business world to make the real legislation.
Anybody who believes this show is real is a fool.
Deeply disappointed in Sanders for using Revolution as a sales tactic and then supporting
this public fraud. If he believes they will maintain their convictions for his ideals after an
election, then he was a fool who didn't deserve the office.
I'm a Republican reluctantly supporting Donald Trump. Had the Democrats nominated Senator Sanders
I would have switch my allegiance. However, my disdain for Secretary Clinton means I'll vote for
someone I don't like because I view the alternative as worse. How very sad.
Dogs, Bernie did not say shit about the Disguised Global Capitalist Empire that is eating our
environment, our children, our grand children, and our entire fragile little planet alive so that
it can loot trillions via negative externality cost dumping.
It was said in the 19th century that "it took half the world to support the British Empire"
--- but now it would take a dozen worlds to support this God damned Disguised Global Capitalist
Empire only nominally HQed in, and merely 'posing' as, our former country.
"The U.S. state is a key point of condensation for pressures from dominant groups around the
world to resolve problems of global capitalism and to
secure the legitimacy of the system overall. In this regard, "U.S." imperialism refers to the
use by transnational elites of the U.S. state apparatus to continue to attempt to expand, defend,
and stabilize the global capitalist system. We are witness less to a "U.S." imperialism per se
than to a global capitalist imperialism. We face an EMPIRE OF GLOBAL CAPITAL, headquartered, for
evident historical reasons, in Washington."
Robinson, William. 2014 "Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity". Cambridge University
Press.
Good point. I wondered why he timidly refrained from attacking her, too. Cost him the nomination
- and the Presidency - in my view. Thing is, he's a genuinely decent man who unfortunately forgot
he was in the fight of his life. Worse, he acted like there were Marquis of Queensberry Rules
for politics. Worse, in forgetting the old saw about 'nice guys finish last' he let down what
he lived his entire life for. And now, in endorsing her he brings the futility of his life full
circle. Is what it is. Heavy sigh.
Okay all you Sanders supporters, especially the ones who INSISTED that he was somehow different
from other Democratic Party candidates. Will you persist in this nonsense now that you see your
man endorse more Clintonism?
You remember Clintonism, right? What you've been decrying for so long? Your man is going to
give it his blessing. That's how U.S. politics works. You get pulled in by yet another patsy,
and then you get TRASHED if you refuse to support the inevitable "centrist" (read: vetted by capital)
nominee.
Still liking it? No? Then why participate in the first place when you already know the outcome?
And besides, Sanders is a capitalist. Sure, he'd be a better capitalist leader than the others,
since he'd try to mitigate some of the worst aspects of same. But come on, you know better than
to believe he would make structural changes.
Withdraw your consent to this horror. Get real. Stop imagining that people who have been in
government for decades, voting for militarism and other vile policies, will change anything. Sanders
is another apologist for capital. Period.
One might think that after being hoodwinked by the Peace Prize-winning charlatan
Drone Ranger , twice, that an iota of skepticism might have penetrated the leftist fog wafting
about between their ears, but alas, one would be wrong.
And so there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, until the next silver-tongued mountebank
appears, promising them all more free shit courtesy of their fellow citizens.
Wall Street's Warmongering Madame is the perfect foil for Donald Trump's huckster-populism:
a pseudo-progressive stooge whose contempt for the average person and their intelligence is palpable.
She's an arch-environmentalist who has worked tirelessly to spread fracking globally.
She supports fortifying Social Security but won't commit to raising the cap on taxes to do
so.
She's a humanitarian who has supported every imperial slaughter the US has waged in the past
25 years.
She cares deeply about the plight of the Palestinians but supported the starvation blockade
and blitzkrieg of Gaza and couldn't bother to mention them but in passing in a recent speech before
AIPAC.
She's a stalwart civil libertarian, but voted for Patriot Acts 1 and 2 and believes Edward
Snowden should be sent to federal prison for decades.
She stands with the working class but has supported virtually every international pact granting
increased mobility and power to the corporate sector at its expense in the past 25 years.
She cares with all her heart about African-Americans but supports the objectively-racist death
penalty and the private prison industry.
She will go to bat for the poor but supported gutting welfare in the '90s, making them easier
prey to exploiters, many of whom supported her husband and her financially.
She worries about the conditions of the poor globally, but while Sec. of State actively campaigned
against raising the minimum wage in Haiti to 60 cents an hour, thinking 31 cents an hour sounded
better for the investor class whose interests are paramount to her.
She's not a bought-and-paid-for hack, oh no, no, no, but she won't ever release the Wall Street
speeches for which she was paid so handsomely.
She's a true-blue progressive, just ask her most zealous supporters, who aren't.
But don't you realise that all these supposed defects make her an ideal President? It's the idealists
who are the real threat to global stability and the survival of mankind.
For myself, Clinton will never get my vote, nor Trump for that matter. And no, the argument that
this is in effect a vote for Trump does not hold water. I am responsible ONLY for my vote, and
can not be held responsible if there are enough idiots in the US elsewhere to be found to vote
for either Clinton or Trump.
Some Sanders supporters appear to believe that Hillary Clinton is such a poor candidate that allowing
Trump to be elected would be a palatable alternative.
Voring for any candidate involves a degree of compromise. It is effectively a deal between the
subjective and the objective.
I have recently read a fair amount of biographical detail of Secretary Clinton, and also of Mr
Trump. I see in Mrs Clinton a woman who has been driven by a notion of public service since an
early age. She isn't beyond reproach and isn't a messiah. And yes, she accepted well-paid speaking
engagements as well. I guess she likes having financial security.
In Mr Trump I see someone who inherited great wealth, who has textbook narcissistic personality
disorder, who in unprincipled, who swindled the vulnerable out of their savings with a fraudulent
"University" scheme, who takes terrible risks with the money of others, making skilful use of
bankruptcy laws and junk bonds, who is a braggart, who flirts with white supremacists, who can
take no consistent position. Trump has a thing for dictators and tyrants. He mocks the disabled.
A draft-dodger himself, he seeks to ridicule a man who was captured (with three broken limbs)
as insufficiently heroic for him.
Are you really prepared to assist this man to the Presidency, just to spite Hillary Clinton?
"I see in Mrs Clinton a woman who has been driven by a notion of public service since an early
age."
You're referring back to when she supported the presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater, who
ran on a platform explicitly opposed to the Civil Rights Movement? That's an interesting definition
of public service.
"She isn't beyond reproach and isn't a messiah."
Wow, what a concession to reality.
"And yes, she accepted well-paid speaking engagements as well. I guess she likes having financial
security."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!
You Clinton supporters are sooooo terrible at defending her!
Yes, as expected, Bernie Sanders, the great "liberal" hope is not "liberal" at all. The entrenched
power of Neoliberalism subsumes all in its view. There are no "liberals" or progressives in US
politics. Elizabeth Warren is no different, when the chips are down and it is time to stand up
for anything that might be mildly progressive they surrender - each and every one kneels before
their masters and support warmongering and sycophantism to Wall Street.
People should understand from the Obama - every day war and every day more hungry children
- presidency that hope is a vanishing commodity and those who offer it in the US are in fact worse
than the ones who don't bother.
Frankly don't see what Sanders gets out of this . Putting aside the fear-mongering by the Clinton
loyalists, Sanders points on :
- TPP
- unions and decline of middle class
- education
- money in politics
- minimum wage 15 usd
- fair and transparent elections
- end of trickle down pseudo economics by the baby boomers
-climate change-fracking
All these have been left unaddressed or with so much wiggle room for Clinton , that you know
that she will pivot to the right just after the convention and stay there for the rest of her
administration.
And he doesn't even know who the VP will be.
Clinton and her crowd will throw his/our ideas away like a used condom as soon as convenient.
Just like they are doing with Liz Warren .
Pity but we always new that Bernie was too principled to win this event.
At the moment, he is an a catch-22 situation.
If he endorses Clinton, be to honor the promise he made before getting access to the Dem primaries..because
to honor your promises is the honourable thing to do...he disappoints those who say the issues
at stake are too important to be sacrificed on that particular altar.
If he does not endorse Hillary, but goes for the proffered Green ticket, the Hillary camp will
be shouting "see, you can't trust him!..or "he is so self-serving" ( I know that is ironic since
Hillary is the epitome of the "Queen of self-serve"). We his followers are not bound by such restrictions
though. We did not promise anything and are free to follow our consciences.
First, Guardian readers should know that quarrels about the Democratic Party's platform are typically
instigated by the candidate who loses the nomination, if his or her ego requires such a palliative
to compensate for the loss. Sanders' ego is a good example. Platforms mean next to nothing in
any meaningful political sense. They bind no one, least of all the president or members of Congress.
Clinton gave Sanders a bit of space to argue that he had "won" something. She allowed him to insert
aspirational goals ($15 an hr minimum wage), but not opposition to trade deals, which might cause
some difficulty once she approves trade deals.
Next, the statement that Clinton "narrowly escaped prosecution" is a blatant falsehood. The
FBI's investigation found no grounds to charge that she violated any applicable federal law. I
suppose if one thinks a person is guilty until proven innocent (which is the usual attitude of
the media, apparently including the Guardian, toward Clinton), then the FBI Director's opinion
that she had violated no law might be considered a narrow escape. His statement that she had received/sent
several classified emails, which was one of the major justifications for saying that she and hundreds
of State Dept. officials were "extremely careless" in handling classified info, was itself false,
which the FBI Director was forced to acknowledge less than 24 hrs after his reckless charge! Amazing.
He also claimed that Clinton's use of a Blackberry "might have been hacked" -- there is no proof
that it was. He said she should have used the Dept's secure server/communications system. That
would be a salient criticism, except for the fact that throughout Clinton's four years as Secretary
of State, the Dept's "secure" communications system was hacked by the Russians, the Chinese and
for all we know, you Brits too. Puts Clinton's use of her Blackberry in a somewhat different light,
wouldn't you agree? No?
Finally, you may not know that the FBI Director's making a public statement in the way he did
was entirely unprecedented in our history. He effectively made the prosecutorial decision himself,
when the legal responsibility is and always has been with his superiors. He also went on to make
clearly false statements about Clinton, which he had to retract. Worse he, a Republican, made
these seemingly damning statements about one of the two candidates for president in an election
year. Talk about extreme carelessness! In other times he would be fired.
Can't the Guardian entrust writing such a report to someone who actually understands American
politics?
I have paid very close attention. It seems you are not. He refers to classified emails NOT
owned by Clinton, she has no right to change classification on data she receives or forwards.
The fact is that some of these emails were obviously copy pasted from a SAP system into her email
system.
What you are confused about is actual marking in some of the emails.
When you take for example a CIA or NSA email off their system and run it via a private email
account, Microsoft Outlook is not the type of system to allow the assignment of classification
headers. there were some emails that retained in the text section header, this is just a side
show issue, it does not change that she received and sent high classified emails. The OIG later
pointed out his staff had to get special clearances just to read the emails she had on her system.
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail
chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time
they were sent or received . Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret
at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained
Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about
2,000 additional e-mails were "up-classified" to make them Confidential; the information in those
had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
What I don't understand is the absence of an automatic knee jerk rejection of Clinton. The US
fought the Revolutionary War (1775) by rejecting royalty and primogeniture. Run forwards two hundred
and forty years and what do they vote? Kennedy I, almost Kennedy II, Bush I, Bush II, Clinton
I, now Clinton II? The US is not there yet, but it certainly looks like they're reverting to type.
It's almost as if they hunger for Bill, but can't have him so will settle for Hillary instead.
In any case Elizabeth Warren was by far the most able, the most intelligent, and less divisive
Democratic candidate.
It would be a very difficult choice to pick a 'most depressing headline' award at the moment but
this one for me would be a clear winner.
I find it truly astonishing that the career criminal and soul for hire Clinton has got this
far without the past, or the present, catching up with her. Nothing could give further indication
of how hopelessly brainwashed we are that out of a population of 300 million people they are left
with a 'choice' of these two grotesque, vacuous and narcissistic wall street prostitutes.
These political parties are different tentacles of the same monster and if you haven't worked
that out by now or If you are under the impression that Hillary would be a positive vote for females
then I would recommend you pulling your head out of the sand and do some thinking for yourself
instead of being force fed your 'news' through the mainstream.
Please feel free to peruse the following website for an exhaustive library of information documenting
the many crimes of the criminally insane and corrupt Clintons.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders". -
George Carlin
I did not think Sanders was so gullible to believe that Clinton will take action on anything
in the democratic platform. From a mass movement demanding change to accepting a few non-binding
policies at a democratic convention. I think Bernie lost his opportunity to make a difference
when he refused to stand as an independent. Now people are stuck with Trump or Clinton which is
not exactly a great choice.
You really have no idea about the character or deeds of Hillary Clinton and her husband and
what lays in story but heres a sample
Imprisoning of black people en mass
Private prison system - largest increase in the nations history
Wall mart
Against 15$ minimum wage until this year
Destroyed Libya
Massive scandals with Clinton foundation
Ardent supporters of settlements
Biggest arms sales in US history while Clinton was Secretary of state.
Biggest health reform flop
Mysterious deaths when people close to Clintons were investigated.
Belligerent policy towards Russia - That is the biggest danger of all.
Syria - arming of rebels
Bernie, endorsing Clinton is unworthy of him. Go green and have a fat lady singing on stage when
you do please. It will show the Democratic Party, the party that has become Republican Lite, that
life as they know it is OVER.
Thank Obama for hiring Paulson from Wall Street and Tim Geitner, from the Fed, which together
assured that Wall Street CEOs could keep their millions, and their jobs, after forcing taxpayers
to bail their ass out. SHAME on the White Collar Criminals and the WALL STREET WHITEHOUSE they
Own. They have destroyed the planet with their greed.
The revolution continues. March on Main Street formerly for Bernie Sunday July 24, 2016. Feel
The Burn vote for Trump he is the poison pill that will hit them where they live and decimate
the Republican Party.
The Party Platform is meaningless and Sanders should know that. $hillary will do what ever
she wants after the convention if she is nominated. The allegiance $hillary has is to Wall Street
and a NEO-CON foreign policy.
Sanders can endorse $hillary if he wants, but I voted for Sanders because of his platform.
I did not vote for Sanders so he could endorse Clinton. I will be voting for a Third Party Candidate,
if it is Clinton vs Trump. Oh and do not give me the Ralph Nader Guilt Trip. The Gorebot lost
to Bush the Younger on his own. The Gorebot could not carry his own state.
It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want
and get it.
- Eugene Victor Debs.
Debs polled over a million votes while doing some hard time in a federal prison for sedition:
he dared oppose american entry in World War One. That man stood up for what he believed in, and
was willing to pay any price. Bernie -- who reportedly has a portrait of Debs hanging over his
desk -- should hang his head in shame for his cowardice in selling out so cheaply
Debs also said > The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic
party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the
capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles.
Bernie must know that a "plank" in the platform is nothing more than a sop. It is not binding.
Even the sops he got are chicken feed. The $15.00 minimum wage should have been a non negotiable
default, not some trumpeted victory. The minimum wage in 1962 was worth $22.00 in today's dollars.
The vague "committment" on saving the environment would be laughable were its consequences
not so tragic.
Trade Agreements (aka secret global corporate rule)? Zip
Single Payer Health Care? Zip
Free Higher Education? Zip
Expanded Social Security? Zip
Restraining Israel? Zip
De-militarization of police? Zip
Resumption of nuclear & arms control negotiations with Russia? Zip
Return to detente with Russia? Zip
The list of platform failures is about as long as the list of Hillary's corporate donors.
There were those (certainly not in the embedded press) who said from the start that Bernie
was a stalking horse for Hillary -- an exercise in bait and switch.
If he was, he deserves an Oscar.
Hey! But we got weed!! Oh wow. Bong Hits. Yaaaaaay!!!!
As much as I want to vote for HRC, the stench of neocon corporatism is too much, the thin
layer of accumulated grime from years of ethical expediency too toxic, the opaque lack of transparency
too dangerous, and the shifting sands of her amorphous policy too treacherous.
A vote for HRC is: a vote for Palestinian kids growing up without a future; a vote for American
kids subject to the Common Core; a vote for water polluted by fracking precipitates; a vote for
drone strikes; a vote for kids locked up for a joint, a vote for lives ruined by corporate prisons,
and a vote for bankers first, the people second.
Can't do it. Jill Stein. Let the chips fall where they do.
Is the lawsuit against Clinton still happening? Not for the deletion of 30,000 personal emails
between herself and her husband, but for the campaign fraud and election fraud in Arizona? Or
are we still pretending that America is a democracy and not the most corrupt and aggressive asylum
in the history of mankind?
This detailed legal dissection of last week's Comey hearing indicates there's plenty still to
mine there, if Mr. Chump isn't merely shilling
5 Reasons The Comey Hearing Was The Worst Education In Criminal Justice The American Public
Has Ever Had
What America Saw on July 7th in No Way Resembles Our Justice System
the fact remains that the non-indictment of Hillary Clinton is as much a stain on the
fair and equal administration of justice as is the disparate treatment of poor black males
at all stages of the criminal justice system. I witnessed the latter injustice close up, nearly
every day, during my seven years working as a public defender; now America has seen the same
thing, albeit on a very different stage, involving a defendant of a very different class and
hue.
Sanders just became irrelevant for the rest of his life. Not accepting Stein's offer was a chance
to change American politics and make three parties viable instaed of just two.
Big mistake.
Endorsing Clinton by claiming Trump must be defeated ONLY holds up IF Sanders supporters are
needed to defeat him. That certainly isn't the case. Hillary will easily defeat Trump with or
without them.
0-50 in November.
Bernie missed his chance. His whole campaign was a wasted effort. His supporters must feel
like fools.
The main problem is that she puts things now in the agenda to pretend she's bridging the gap between
her and progressives, but once she starts ''negotiating'' with Republicans, she'll drop practically
everything she added because of Bernie and claim she had to do it to achieve a compromise.
So actually Progressives once again will get nothing, especially on economics....might get some
scraps off the table on social issues, but that's it. They'll all do the usual song and dance
about these ''huge achievements'' and sing along...
Same story....no real change....might get a war though cause she's gagging for one
this charade will probably continue only until she has Bernie's endorsement fully and irrevocably
in the bag - and not a second longer. While she paid lip service momentarily to opposing TPP,
her operatives have ensured that in no way will the party platform oppose it.
see robert reich's facebook posting from earlier today:
So Bernie wins for the potheads. Is that supposed to be a triumph for the progressives... He is
about to endorse the queen of Wall Street and give her a free pass on TPP, the two pillars of
his candidacy. This talk about pulling Clinton to the left is crap.
As Jill Stein has said, "What We Fear from Donald Trump, We Have Already Seen from Hillary
Clinton."
So rant away about how voting Green will allow Trump in...it's the failed Democratic Party
and Hillary Clinton that are really to blame for the rise of the reprehensible Donald Trump.
If they were worth anything, they would have the support of everyone.
If EVERYONE voted their conscience, the Greens would win by a landslide.
So you are the one who is deluded thinking that rewarding the unethical status quo with
your vote will be good for the planet...the wars and environmental destruction will go on and
on thanks to you and others like you .
Right? Right.
CahootsConspiracy
14h ago
9 10
Not sure what the goal of his endorsement would be at this point. Many if not most of his supporters
already know whether or not they'll vote for Clinton in November, and it seems unlikely that him
urging his supporters to vote for her will pick up many new converts.
I'm afraid Bernie's endorsement of Clinton will not stop Trump. There is no room for a
neo-liberal status quo candidate like Clinton in this race. The American economy is going to hell
in a hand cart. 50 million Americans use food banks millions more are facing bankruptcy, joblessness
and homelessness. They need a radical socialist candidate. Voting for more of the same for them
is utterly pointless. Trump will beat Clinton. America needed Bernie if Trump was to be beaten.
Americans want the short lived rush of another Obama moment with the first woman President.But
look at Obamas America,anything changed? Black protest riots across the Country as we speak.
They used to say when 'Billy' was running and Hillary was by his side, that we were getting 'two
for the price of one, This time around, the bargain is two outdated, technologically incompetent,
out-of-touch, power-hungry, money-grubbing globalists who have consistently lied to the American
people. They have sold out the American people in their self-serving, addictive grasp for more
power and more money.
the Sanders camp failed to insert outright opposition to Barack Obama's controversial Trans
Pacific Partnership deal. [...] Clinton supporters blocked the proposed amendment
Hardly a surprise that Clinton is a slave of corporate interests. That's been the crowd she
has surrounded herself with for decades.
A "sophisticated" person would understand the importance of handling very sensitive information.
Clinton signed documents from the FBI, which acknowledged the importance of appropriately handling
classified information, how then as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could possibly have thought
having an unsecured private server was appropriate?
"I don't think that our investigation established she was actually particularly sophisticated
with respect to classified information and the levels and treatment."
If Sanders endorses Clinton then he has wasted his efforts entirely -- Killary is a war mongering
Wall St stooge, who cannot be trustd one bit -- His progressive agenda should have joined hands with
The Greens and stood for a new socialist agenda -- A v sad day --
I wonder if conspiracy theorists also stated clinton perjured herself many times over the last year?
Tut tut
By the way...
"A second Stanford study comparing voting machines to pre-election polls shows extreme discrepancies
in many states where electronic voting machines were utilized."
Even if Sanders endorses her, I -- a lifelong Democrat -- will not vote for her. She claims she opposes
TPP and yesterday her delegates made passage of TPP part of her campaign platform. She's a lying,
hypocritical, corrupt, Wall Street-toadying warmonger. No thank you. Sayonara Democratic Party. Prospect
of Bill Clinton back in White House makes her candidacy doubly nauseous.
The Republican request, five days after the
department closed a yearlong investigation into Mrs. Clinton's handling of classified information in the emails, threatens to shadow
her through the campaign and perhaps even into the White House if she is elected.
In a letter Monday evening, House Republicans
asked the Justice Department to determine whether Mrs. Clinton had "committed perjury and made false statements" during her appearance
in October before a special House panel on the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
The letter was signed by Representatives Jason
Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, who leads the Oversight Committee, and Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia, who leads the Judiciary
Committee.
The Justice Department declined to comment
on the request. In a Twitter post, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, called the Republican request "another futile,
partisan attempt to keep this issue alive now that the Justice Dept has declared it resolved."
Mrs. Clinton has said
she regrets the decision to use a private email server for official communications as secretary of state, but she has defended the
truthfulness of her public remarks.
Legal analysts said that while it appeared
unlikely the F.B.I. would ultimately find enough evidence to prosecute Mrs. Clinton on charges of lying to Congress, there might
be enough to warrant opening an investigation. That alone could prove damaging to her campaign.
"... The real wild card that's yet to be played is the investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Jim Comey at the FBI seems to have given up a little too easily on Mrs. Clinton - perhaps because he knows something more damning is coming? ..."
According to the Associated Press, the internal investigation will not result in
criminal charges. Many of Ms Clinton's top aides could have their security clearances revoked,
which would all but dissolve their chances of being a part of the national security team should
the former Secretary of State win the presidency.
... The probe by the department will focus on 22 emails found on Ms Clinton's emails that were
considered to be "top secret".
... Mr Kirby would not identify the top aides under investigation, but the AP said the ones
most likely to face scrutiny are Jake Sullivan, Cheryl Mills, and Huma Abedin.
Marine
I quit being a dem after 45 yrs., when Bill Clinton stabbed workers in the back. I know I
was not the only one to do so & change . politicians don't represent voters anymore, money has
corrupt the whole system of government we have now. The TRADE BILLS signed benefited Wall
Street & the 1%. It is them that that regulate the two party system when they should be
regulating Wall Street & a brand new set of Campaign laws.
It is the 1% who tell us who to vote for, they choose the candidates offering large sums of
money to both party's campaign funds. If only more voters could see the real evil in our
system of government instead of just feeling it. The country is in decline like never before &
worse then the 1928 crash.
Earthnotmoving2me
The insanity has reached epic proportions and it's all caused by our own government... The
American people are being held hostage by psychopaths ... A large portion of the population
can't seem to make the connection our government has turned into one of the most violent
corrupt destructive evil forces working against humanity on earth...
wanderingone56
Awkward for Mrs. Clinton, I know, but State won't really do much more than provide a few
awkward moments. (After all, would you really want to be the Statie who p!$$ed off your future
boss?)
The real wild card that's yet to be played is the investigation into the Clinton
Foundation. Jim Comey at the FBI seems to have given up a little too easily on Mrs. Clinton -
perhaps because he knows something more damning is coming?
Sal20111
Sounds a bit off. Hilary can become President, despite the carelessness that was basically
hers, but her aides can't get sensitive cabinet positions - are the cabinet positions more
sensitive than President? Reeks like a trade-off: no criminal charges but some punishment in
terms of restricting your aides. Is Hilary already compromised before becoming President?
Enso
We already know George W Bush set up a private email server WHILE he was president and
there were 88 accounts on the server. Karl Rove had one and did a range of things with it.
Just after Valerie Plame was outted by an anonymous source as a CIA field agent, just after
her husband said something the administratin didn't like - that was when Karl Rove destroyed
22 MILLION emails.
mokopoloko
why wouldn t they be looking to pursue criminal charges if she is found guilty of
wrongdoing.this woman is a liar and a criminal as was her slimeball of a husband.they are not
fit to run as smalltown mayors nevermind the supposed leader of the free world.
anti-morons
But as we all know, America is no "free world" - it is a dump of corruption, bible-belt
hate-mongering and fear-mongering, and the world's greatest threat to security and peace.
America is nothing other than a terrorist, rogue State.
SpinResistant
Michel Gove pulled exactly the same dodge with private emails as Hillary when he was
Secrtary of State for Education, and he went on to become one of the most trusted politicians
in the Conservative Party.
anti-morons
Trusted by whom precisely ?
Neither UK nor USA can be trusted - both are warmongering nations and responsible for the
destabilisation of the whole of the Middle Eastern region, which has ultimately led to
non-stop war, the murder of millions, and a continuing influx of millions of displaced persons
into Europe.
Time to say NO to England's and America's murder machine !
It's not something the least but new or unique.
Muffin
Oh Hillary the wagons are circling. Who and why? I think we can guess.....
sinbad
Clinton has been chosen by the Wall St Gods to be the Queen of the World.
Nothing can change that, she has been chosen.
Tom North London
Correct. The world will be changed as necessary to make it compatible with Her.
ComberBryan
No charges for Hillary, so time to scapegoat some of the little people.
... as Trump prepared to address a rival rally 170 miles away in Raleigh, it was clear that
the Democrats were going to have to do more than this if they really expected the email scandal
to go away for good.
"As FBI Director James Comey let Clinton off the hook for her 'extremely careless' actions, the
fix was final," blasted Trump in a statement. "The Obama administration's anointed successor has
had an indictment removed from her path, and will now be able to glide to the rigged Democrat
nomination. As we move toward November, the question now becomes, 'what is Hillary hiding?'"
When the dust from the FBI investigation settles, the former secretary of state is likely to have
to give a fuller account of her actions, now that the world knows just how agents assessed them.
"... Much of this has to do with Peronism's founder, and his ability to bring in broad sectors of Argentine society into his political program, broadly against imperialism and for nationalist workers rights and political sovereignty. ..."
"... It is an idea founded on Christian social values that has three basic principles: social justice, political sovereignty and economic independence. ..."
"... It was under Peron that a version of nationalized state capitalism, and an elimination of foreign investors was initiated in Argentina. He used nationalism, unlike his European counterparts, as a weapon of anti-imperialism. Peronism under Peron was Bonapartist in its manipulation of the social classes on behalf of industrializing an underdeveloped country and challenging dominant American imperialism. His style of leadership was one of a leader who took power in a power vacuum when no single class is in the position do so, and using reformist measures to win the radical support of the more populous class. ..."
"... Peron and Peronism also has to be viewed as a stage in the battle of Latin America for economic independence which is still yet to be achieved with at home the oligarchical structures still intact, and foreign manipulation in the country. ..."
Juan Peron is the most important political figure in Argentina, with reams of paper dedicated to
himself and his followers, but surprising little ink has been spilled over his, and the movement
named after him, Peronism's ideology. Perhaps because of its near undefinable nature, that it neither
sits comfortably on the left, right nor center or because of the number of ideological disperse groups
and politicians that call themselves Peronist.
Much of this has to do with Peronism's founder, and his ability to bring in broad sectors
of Argentine society into his political program, broadly against imperialism and for nationalist
workers rights and political sovereignty.
However there are a few key points behind the ideology of Peron himself and Argentina's most political
movement Peronism that can be gleaned.
Peron called his movement "Justicialism", a blending of the Spanish words for social justice and
this is also the name of the party of Argentina's current president Cristina Fernandez.
It is an idea founded on Christian social values that has three basic principles: social justice,
political sovereignty and economic independence. To do this Peron said his movement was in a
"third position" which counterposed itself equally to capitalism and communism. He also aimed to
create a social model of an organized community with direct state intervention to mediate between
labor and capital. Although not the same as a traditional Scandinavian welfare state, the model has
similarities in its mixed economy and a central role for Unions.
In a speech in the Congress in 1948, Peron himself said, "Peronism is humanism in action; Peronism
is a new political doctrine, which rejects all the ills of the politics of previous times; in the
social sphere it is a theory which establishes a little equality among men… capitalist exploitation
should be replaced by a doctrine of social economy under which the distribution of our wealth, which
we force the earth to yield up to us and which furthermore we are elaborating, may be shared out
fairly among all those who have contributed by their efforts to amass it."
The populist program of higher wages and better working conditions, which was actually developed
by the Public Works minister Juan Pistarini could well be the classic ideological core of Peronism,
but it was always dependent on the structural circumstance of Argentina. For example, in the late
1940s, Peronism was more concerned with the women's vote and the export market, and in the 1990s
attempting to rebuild Argentina under a neo-liberal pro market guide.
Indeed, over time it has been an odd mix of socialism, liberalism and populism Peron himself,
and therefore the movement became a symbol of and a champion of what he called the "shirtless ones,"
(descamisados) appealing to the dispossessed, labor, youth and the poor.
Peronism accepts that the state should coordinate society for the common good and that it can
do this without serving class interests.
Peron, and Peronism is hostile to many of the tenets of classic liberalism, although at times
concedes such as considering that democratic and republican institutions are the only ones that can
guarantee freedom and happiness for the people, and a political opposition is admitted as necessary.
But Peron was also hostile to Marxism, thinking that "forced collectivism" robs individuals of
their personality, even though he garnered many supporters from the communist left during the seventies
thinking that he, and his ideology would be the only way for Argentina to implement a communist state.
Yet Peron thought that class conflict could be transcended by a social collaboration mediated by
the state.
It was mostly through this ideological and structural blend that Peron was able to split every
party and political formation from the extreme Catholic Right to the Communist Left and line up the
dissidents behind his banner. As Carleton Beals wrote, his leading opponents had nothing to offer
except to complain of the lack of civil liberties. Their cry for freedom was somewhat suspect, however,
as they had never respected it when in office.
It was under Peron that a version of nationalized state capitalism, and an elimination of
foreign investors was initiated in Argentina. He used nationalism, unlike his European counterparts,
as a weapon of anti-imperialism. Peronism under Peron was Bonapartist in its manipulation of the
social classes on behalf of industrializing an underdeveloped country and challenging dominant American
imperialism. His style of leadership was one of a leader who took power in a power vacuum when no
single class is in the position do so, and using reformist measures to win the radical support of
the more populous class.
Peron and Peronism also has to be viewed as a stage in the battle of Latin America for economic
independence which is still yet to be achieved with at home the oligarchical structures still intact,
and foreign manipulation in the country.
"... The new regime sought to implement a change in the country's social and economic structures, based on strong State intervention, where the long-term goals of the workers coincided with the nation's need for economic development. Perón's work from the Labour Secretariat helped organise the workers' movement (until then divided into Communist, Socialist, and Revolutionary factions) into strong, centralised unions that cooperated with the government in solving labour disputes and establishing collective bargaining agreements, and whose leadership was under government influence. ..."
"... It was during this time that Perón would establish a strong alliance with the unions, who would later become the backbone of peronism. Workers started seeing that many of their historic demands were finally being attended to, including severance pay, retirement benefits, and regulation for rural labour. ..."
"... This new economic paradigm was based around the development of labour-intensive, light industry to create jobs and produce domestic goods for the internal market. The State played an important role in channelling income from agricultural exports to industry, raising import tariffs, and nationalising foreign-owned companies such as the railways, gas, phone and electricity. ..."
"... The political model that accompanied these economic changes was based on a class alliance between the workers, industrial employers, the Armed Forces and the Catholic Church. However, this alliance excluded the old landowners -"the oligarchy" -- who would become the number one enemy of the new government. ..."
"... In political terms, the heterogeneous support base of peronism started to disintegrate. Without Evita, the more combative unionists and political leaders were ousted by the conservative, bureaucratic sectors of the movement. ..."
The coup d'etat that brought the so-called "Década Infame" to an end in 1943, was headed by a
group of Army officials known as GOU (Grupo de Oficiales Unidos). General Pedro Ramírez became president
after the coup, but was removed in 1944 and replaced by General Edelmiro Farrell. During Farrell's
presidency, Colonel Juan Domingo Perón -- who was a member of the GOU -- became vicepresident, Minister
for War and Labour Secretary (simultaneously).
The new regime sought to implement a change in the country's social and economic structures, based
on strong State intervention, where the long-term goals of the workers coincided with the nation's
need for economic development. Perón's work from the Labour Secretariat helped organise the workers'
movement (until then divided into Communist, Socialist, and Revolutionary factions) into strong,
centralised unions that cooperated with the government in solving labour disputes and establishing
collective bargaining agreements, and whose leadership was under government influence.
It was during this time that Perón would establish a strong alliance with the unions, who would
later become the backbone of peronism. Workers started seeing that many of their historic demands
were finally being attended to, including severance pay, retirement benefits, and regulation for
rural labour.
These measures earned him the loyalty and support of the working masses, but strong opposition
from the local bourgeoisie and existing political parties, whose core voters were largely middle
class. The political opposition organised itself around the figure of US Ambassador Spruille Braden
and found enough support from dissident groups within the Armed Forces to pressure Farrell into removing
Perón. Eventually, Perón lost Farrell's support, resigned from all his positions on the 9th October
1945 and was jailed at the Martín García Island, then famous for hosting deposed politicians.
The Federal Workers Confederation (CGT) had called for a strike for the 18th October to support
Perón. However hundreds of thousands of workers spontaneously decided to gather at Plaza de Mayo
a day earlier. On a symbolic level, the images of the workers taking over the heart and soul of Argentine
political life -Plaza de Mayo-, making it their own, washing their feet in the fountains, became
the expression of a new era in the country's social and political history. The relegated masses had
made a triumphal entry into Argentina's political life, leaving behind decades of political isolation.
The images of 17th October 1945 continue to depict the deeper historical meaning of peronism:
the inclusion of the working class in the country's social, political and economic life.
Due to popular pressure, Perón was released that same day and addressed the people from the balconies
of the Casa Rosada in the evening, launching his presidential candidacy for the forthcoming elections.
Perón's First Government (1946-1951)
Perón was elected president in February 1946, winning 56% of the vote. He had the support of the
Labour Party (which was formed by the unions after the 17th October) and a faction of the Radical
party called UCR Junta Renovadora (Perón's eventual vicepresident, Hortensio Quijano, was from this
breakaway). He'd run the presidential campaign around the slogan "Braden or Perón" -where Braden
and the opposition parties centred around the Unión Democrática represented imperialism, while Perón
maintained a nationalist stance.
The period 1946-1955 marked a turning point in the economic development of the country. Up until
that point, the economy had been characterised by a model based around agricultural exports, dominated
by large landowners and a strong intervention of foreign companies-British, and increasingly from
the US. This model had started to weaken during the 1930's, but it was not until the mid-1940s that
it was replaced by what became known as "import substitution industrialisation" (ISI).
This new economic paradigm was based around the development of labour-intensive, light industry
to create jobs and produce domestic goods for the internal market. The State played an important
role in channelling income from agricultural exports to industry, raising import tariffs, and nationalising
foreign-owned companies such as the railways, gas, phone and electricity.
The political model that accompanied these economic changes was based on a class alliance between
the workers, industrial employers, the Armed Forces and the Catholic Church. However, this alliance
excluded the old landowners -"the oligarchy" -- who would become the number one enemy of the new government.
During this period, Perón's charismatic wife, Eva Perón (or "Evita" as her followers called her)
played a prominent role, and it is widely acknowledged that she was the main link between the president
and the workers' movement. Evita also had an active role in the development of womens' rights, such
as the right to vote (1947) and the equality of men and women in marriage and in the care of children
-- even fighting internal opposition to achieve these goals. The Eva Perón Foundation channelled the
social policies of the government, emphasising the concept of social justice as opposed to charity.
Evita was loved and admired by the people as much as she was derided by the opposition and by the
more conservative factions within the peronist movement, whose power and influence in government
were being diminished by her growing profile.
The new role of the State and the rights acquired during this period were articulated in a new
Constitution, adopted in 1949, which put social justice and the "general interest" at the centre
of all political and economic activities. The new constitutional text included a range of "social
rights" (the so-called second generation rights), related to workers, families, the elderly, education
and culture.
Perón's Second Government (1951-1955)
Perón was re-elected in 1951, obtaining a massive 62% of the vote (which, for the first time,
included the female voters). His second term, however, proved to be much more complicated than the
first. The day he took office, 4th June 1952, was the last public appearance of Evita, who died of
cancer the following month. The economic situation worsened, with a drop in the international price
of agricultural products and severe droughts between 1949 and 1952 affecting domestic production.
This prompted Perón to embrace austerity measures, putting the brakes on consumption and wealth
redistribution, and improving the relationship with foreign companies -- such as the Standard Oil,
which was awarded new contracts. All these measures contradicted the model that Perón himself had
implemented, and divided opinion among his followers.
In political terms, the heterogeneous support base of peronism started to disintegrate. Without
Evita, the more combative unionists and political leaders were ousted by the conservative, bureaucratic
sectors of the movement. At the same time, the relationship with the Church became increasingly frosty,
before turning into an open conflict in 1954. In addition, some members of the industrial bourgeoisie,
less favoured by the new economic reality, also started to abandon this alliance and join the ranks
of the opposition, which now included some hardline sectors in the military. All these groups united
against what was perceived as the increasingly authoritarian tendencies of the government, which
had by this point closed down several media outlets and utilised public radio, television and print
media for its own propaganda.
On the 16th June 1955, the political opposition (conservative, radicals and socialists) together
with the Navy and with the support of the Church, carried out a botched coup d'etat against Perón.
Navy planes bombed Plaza de Mayo, where a rally was taking place, killing more than 300 people. Perón's
attempt to appease the crowd failed and that very same night groups of peronist activists took to
the streets of Buenos Aires and burnt several churches.
After the failed coup, Perón tried to keep the situation under control and called for a truce
with the opposition. However on 31st August, after talks with the opposition failed, the president
hardened his position when, during a public speech, he pronounced the now famous phrase: "for each
one of us who fall, five of them will follow". Seventeen days later, on the 16th September, a new
military uprising -- led again by the Navy -- succeeded in deposing Perón, who asked for political refuge
in Paraguay and left the country on the 20th of September. It would be 17 years until he stepped
on Argentine soil again.
Contradictions and Resistance: Peronism Without Perón (1955 – 1960's)
By this time, the peronist movement was made up of a mixture of factions from different backgrounds:
socialists, catholic nationalists, anarchists, yrigoyenist radicals, and conservatives, among others.
From the beginning they co-existed in constant tension -a tension that could only be overcome by
the dominant and unifying figure of Perón.
With Perón in exile, the contradictions between all these factions bubbled to the surface. In
a country now deeply divided by the peronism/anti-peronism dichotomy, new divisions started to emerge
within the peronist side. These would not only mark the evolution of the peronist movement, but would
also play a major role in Argentina's political life to this day. Perón's legendary pragmatism and
political ability became very evident during these years, as even in exile he managed to mantain
an important level of control over the situation, playing the different factions to his advantage.
Two months after the coup, the liberal faction of the self-proclaimed "Liberating Revolution"
took over the government and started a process of "de-peronisation". This involved dissolving the
peronist party and banning any of its members from running for public office, banning the display
of all the peronist symbols and any mention of the names of Perón or Evita, intervening in the CGT,
and proscribing the unions' old leadership. The persecution of the CGT leaders and the weakening
of the peronist unions left many workers once again unprotected and exposed to the abuses of some
employers.
It was in this context that the Peronist Resistance was born-an inorganic protest movement that
carried out clandestine actions of sabotage (ranging from breaking machinery at the workplace to
placing home-made bombs). The Resistance was an expression of the grassroots of the peronism: the
workers who wanted their leader back and were fighting to protect the legacy of his government.
One of the main organisers of the Resistance was John William Cooke, a left-wing peronist deputy
who had been named by Perón as his personal representative whilst in exile. In 1956, peronist General
Juan José Valle led an unsuccessful uprising against the government, which ended up with 30 people
-- many of them civilians -- executed. The violent suppression of the uprising caused Perón and the Resistance
to abandon the idea of armed struggle and focus on reorganising the unions.
If Trump secures the Republican nomination, now an increasingly imaginable prospect, the party
is likely to implode. Whatever rump organization survives will have forfeited any remaining claim
to represent principled conservatism.
None of this will matter to Trump, however. He is no conservative and Trump_vs_deep_state requires no party.
Even if some new institutional alternative to conventional liberalism eventually emerges, the two-party
system that has long defined the landscape of American politics will be gone for good.
Should Trump or a Trump mini-me ultimately succeed in capturing the presidency, a possibility
that can no longer be dismissed out of hand, the effects will be even more profound. In all but name,
the United States will cease to be a constitutional republic. Once President Trump inevitably declares
that he alone expresses the popular will, Americans will find that they have traded the rule of law
for a version of caudillismo. Trump's Washington could come to resemble Buenos Aires in
the days of Juan Perón, with Melania a suitably glamorous stand-in for Evita, and plebiscites suitably
glamorous stand-ins for elections.
That a considerable number of Americans appear to welcome this prospect may seem inexplicable.
Yet reason enough exists for their disenchantment. American democracy has been decaying for decades.
The people know that they are no longer truly sovereign. They know that the apparatus of power, both
public and private, does not promote the common good, itself a concept that has become obsolete.
They have had their fill of irresponsibility, lack of accountability, incompetence, and the bad times
that increasingly seem to go with them.
So in disturbingly large numbers they have turned to Trump to strip bare the body politic, willing
to take a chance that he will come up with something that, if not better, will at least be more entertaining.
As Argentines and others who have trusted their fate to demagogues have discovered, such expectations
are doomed to disappointment.
In the meantime, just imagine how the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library, no doubt taller than
all the others put together, might one day glitter and glisten -- perhaps with casino attached.
"... "I can't legitimately vote for either presidential candidate," he said. "I don't trust Hillary Clinton. Trump is refreshing, but only so far as he's throwing a wrench into the political system. But I'm not going to cast a vote just in protest." ..."
"... But this cycle, dissatisfaction with both major-party options - what Comedy Central's Trevor Noah called "Sophie's choice if Sophie hated both of her kids" - has redefined "undecided." ..."
"... Undecided voters like these tend to break for lesser-known candidates, says Doug Schwartz, Quinnipiac University's polling director. That's fueling a modest bump in the polls for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, who's polling at about 8 percent nationally. ..."
"... Sometimes the people who call themselves "undecided" are actually leaning toward Mr. Trump, and maybe feeling uneasy about admitting it. ..."
Take John Sinsley, a telecommunications consultant in Raleigh, N.C., capital of a battleground
state. Mr. Sinsley, 47, who says Bill Clinton was our last good president, is the type of independent
voter Hillary Clinton is courting in this tossup state.
"I can't legitimately vote for either presidential candidate," he said. "I don't trust Hillary Clinton.
Trump is refreshing, but only so far as he's throwing a wrench into the political system. But I'm
not going to cast a vote just in protest."
Every presidential year, the "undecideds" exasperate pollsters and partisans until November, when
most of them wind up voting for a major party candidate, or not at all.
But this cycle,
dissatisfaction with both major-party options - what Comedy Central's Trevor Noah
called "Sophie's choice if Sophie hated both of her kids" - has redefined "undecided." About
four in 10 voters say they're having trouble choosing between the two candidates because neither
would make a good president, according to a
new Pew Research Center study. That's as high as at any point since 2000. Very few - 11 percent
- find the choice difficult because both candidates would make a good president, the lowest
proportion in the same time period.
Related, but separate, is that the share of voters calling themselves "independent" this year is
at a
75-year high,
according to the Pew Center. At 39 percent, they're a plurality of the electorate.
Undecided
voters might be sitting on the fence, but they're paying attention. Fully 80 percent of registered
voters say they have given "quite a lot" of thought to the election, the highest share at this point
in any campaign since 1992, according to Pew.
Buzz Merchant,
a construction company owner from Wendell, N.C., told me that Bernie Sanders's loss leaves him in
a quandary. "If it were life or death, I'd pick Trump," he said.
Shamone Moise,
Mr. Merchant's girlfriend, disagreed. "If Trump gets in we're done - I'm thinking bombs, war, boom,"
she told me. "But I don't believe a word Clinton says."
"I may have
to find another button, but I will vote," she said.
Undecided voters like these tend to break for lesser-known candidates, says Doug Schwartz,
Quinnipiac University's polling director. That's fueling a modest bump in the polls for Gary
Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, who's polling at about 8 percent nationally.
"Things could shift dramatically because there's so many people still up for grabs who don't have
the anchor of party ID," Mr. Schwartz said.
Sometimes the people who call themselves "undecided" are actually leaning toward Mr. Trump,
and maybe feeling uneasy about admitting it.
"... Both Clintons are corporatists driven by personal ambition for power and $$$. Of course HRC is no "worse' than all the other corrupted politicians in our neoliberal universe. But we have reached a point in our late-stage capitalist development where "no worse than" is no longer good enough. Expect to see the rise of third parties moving forward as the morally bankrupt Democrats and Republicans self-destruct. ..."
"... The Clintons do fine and have managed to become multimillionaires from their political careers, regardless of mistakes and scandals. It's the people around the Clintons -- and with Hillary as president, that's all of us -- who end up with problems. ..."
"... The idea that Ms. Clinton is the most qualified candidate for president in the history of the country, what President Obama called, "the truth," is a load of hogwash. ..."
"... Just off the top of my head, Thomas Jefferson was ALSO Secretary of State, had been an ambassador (at a time when they were important, not rewards for poitical supporters), and had actually written much of the constitution. ..."
"... Heck, on resume, you could argue for Richard Nixon over Hillary: Member of the House, Senator and Vice President. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are indeed survivors, but they are more like escape artists. They survive and prosper, but for those who have witnessed their act there's a suspicion that something just isn't authentic. The repeated trickery needed to survive decades of raised eyebrows suggest a contempt for the truth that is damning. ..."
"... We progressives can be more thoughtful this November by rejecting both of these candidates and voting Jill Stein of the Green Party. http://www.jill2016.com/plan ..."
"... Clintons ability to survive hinges on two things. First, her regular supporters will mindlessly support her just as her regular detractors will mindlessly attack her. When it comes to the public, the vast majority chose sides more than 20 years ago and will not change not matter what information develops. ..."
"... Second, the press, including this op-ed will continue to call her things like "obviously qualified" in reference to Clinton. She is obviously an experienced politician but I don't understand the "qualified" part. Her actions with the emails is the kind of thing that would get 95% of us fired. This means we would be "disqualified" from our jobs. ..."
"... The Clintons are "survivors" because they are privileged members of the power elite. You're just sugar-coating their reprehensible qualities. They've just received reinforcement that the rules don't apply to them, and that lying is just one of those things you do as you climb the ladder. ..."
"... This is in no way an absolution of Hillary's action, or of whatever the Clintons may or may not have done, but whatever scandals they've been involved in are no worse than what has been going on in every single Republican White House after Ike. Literally. Every. Single. One. ..."
"... 'Oh, she used a private e-mail server?' How about deleting 5 million(!) White House administration emails many of which certainly contained the real truth behind the reasoning for Bush's disastrous debacle in Iraq. 'Oh, the president has consensual sex with an intern?' How about selling arms to one of our sworn enemies to get money to secretly finance a nasty little civil war involving thousands of dead civilians, and breaking a bunch of laws in the process. ..."
"... In the current case, Director Comey has confirmed that Secretary Clinton has acted "extremely carelessly" and, when her public statements on her email issues are taken into consideration, lied. Has our collective social morality dipped to a level so low as to not recognize lying openly and consistently to the public as a disqualifying action by a candidate? ..."
"... It is not enough for Hillary to say, "I am sorry that I was "extremely careless" and "grossly negligent" with my sloppy and reckless, behavior while committing actions with my e-mail activities that harmed the USA (maybe some of our foreign citizen informers and US government employees died horrible deaths because of my slack security protocol with my personal computer that I installed for my personal convenience), but I promise not to do that again if I am elected POTUS." ..."
"... We may need more than an expert, hyper-political survivor in the next 4 years. My worry is that Hillary is more in tune with what's politically advantageous than what is the right thing to do. Survive, yes; lead and thrive, not so much. Her skill is spinning mistakes rather that creating positive outcomes ..."
"... I want to vote for someone I respect for President, not a survivor or someone who is extremely careless. ..."
"... Why do the elite "DONOR CLASS" and PAC (foreign and domestic) campaign contributors contribute so much money to Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan and other people seeking elective offices that control and pass out government taxpayer money from the US Treasury, control of US foreign policy, and make laws that affect their business profits, instead of Bernie Sanders and/or Donald Trump? ..."
"... Hillary's PAC (foreign and domestic) club members in the form of "PAY TO PLAY" no-bid Military Industrial Complex contracts, CGI Federal "NO BID" contracts at many times the price that open bidding would cost, and Solyndra loan guarantee contracts with US taxpayer money given from the US Treasury to these elite "DONOR CLASS" and PAC (foreign and domestic) campaign contributors at much greater price that if these contracts were competitively bid, farm subsidies, NO-BID military equipment manufacturing contracts, etc. ..."
"... The "DONOR CLASS" and PAC (foreign and domestic) club members also pay these crooked politicians to get laws created to make their businesses exempt from existing US laws against monopolies, off shore banking, repeal of Glass-Steagall, license for the export of "TOP SECRET" Hughes Aircraft Missile Guidance Military Technology to Communist China (Chinagate), Free Foreign Trade Agreements, Foreign Aid, etc. ..."
Both Clintons are corporatists driven by personal ambition for power and $$$. Of course
HRC is no "worse' than all the other corrupted politicians in our neoliberal universe. But we
have reached a point in our late-stage capitalist development where "no worse than" is no
longer good enough. Expect to see the rise of third parties moving forward as the morally
bankrupt Democrats and Republicans self-destruct.
Steve C, Boise, ID July 7, 2016
Just because the Clintons themselves survive their thoughtless mistakes and indiscretions
doesn't mean that the people around them do.
The Monica scandal hurt Gore's chances in 2000 and the vilification of Monica by the public
and the Clintons doomed a young woman's life to unwanted notoriety. Per today's NYT, Hillary's
close advisors may have a hard time retaining or gaining high security clearances.
The Clintons do fine and have managed to become multimillionaires from their political
careers, regardless of mistakes and scandals. It's the people around the Clintons -- and with
Hillary as president, that's all of us -- who end up with problems.
Paul, Bellerose Terrace July 7, 2016
The idea that Ms. Clinton is the most qualified candidate for president in the history
of the country, what President Obama called, "the truth," is a load of hogwash.
Just off the top of my head, Thomas Jefferson was ALSO Secretary of State, had been an
ambassador (at a time when they were important, not rewards for poitical supporters), and had
actually written much of the constitution.
If Hillary was more qualified than TJ was, I've got a bridge for sale. Only 133 years old,
landmarked, reasonable terms.
If you want to go by resume, George HW Bush has her beaten, too: Congressman, Director of
CIA, Vice President, and unquestioned WWII war hero. But he was not a successful president,
which only goes to show that the resume doesn't define qualification.
Heck, on resume, you could argue for Richard Nixon over Hillary: Member of the House,
Senator and Vice President. Do we hope Hillary will live up to Nixon? (Shudder)
Liberty Apples, Providence July 7, 2016
Please tell me Mr. Blow didn't just equate Hillary Clinton with Wonder Woman?
Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are indeed survivors, but they are more like escape
artists. They survive and prosper, but for those who have witnessed their act there's a
suspicion that something just isn't authentic. The repeated trickery needed to survive decades
of raised eyebrows suggest a contempt for the truth that is damning.
Hillary Clinton is likely the next president, as she should be considering the certifiable
opponent offered by the hapless GOP. But I do not expect the nation will view the next
occupant of the Oval Office as Wonder Woman. No, the nation will probably regard the next
occupant of the Oval Office as someone who should be watched very carefully. Like someone who
don't really trust.
Scott K, Atlanta July 7, 2016
The fact that we have ended up with these two lousy candidates says a lot about us as a
society, as a people - that includes Democrats and Republicans. Ultimately, you and I are to
blame for this mess, and we must be more thoughtful about our choices in the future.
Steve C, Boise, ID July 7, 2016
We progressives can be more thoughtful this November by rejecting both of these
candidates and voting Jill Stein of the Green Party.
http://www.jill2016.com/plan
SomeGuy, Ohio July 7, 2016
Hillary Clinton and her subordinates were careless in their handling of e-mail, and should
have done a better job.
But how is this missing the point--that the security of the nation, when faced with the
sometimes conflicting priorities of secure communications and the urgency of communications
over available networks and devices, or utilizing the means of communication of choice for the
other party, even when that party is an adversary, is better served by the timely exchange of
crucial communications by imperfect and insecure means rather than delay such communications
while seeking a secure system that may not even exist, or, in the case of the State
Department, wasn't even funded?
The MEDIUM is not the message. The MESSAGE is the message.
In the Grenada invasion, when the secure systems didn't work and were unavailable, the Navy
Seals used a Grenada commercial insecure line--certainly tapped by Cuban and Soviet
intelligence--to call in an urgently needed air strike that saved American lives. In the Cuban
missile crisis, John Scali of ABC had lunch with a known KGB agent who relayed the Kremlin's
desire for a peaceful solution when the world was on the brink of nuclear war.
Should we now prosecute those SEALs? And if Mr. Scali was picked up by the FBI for consorting
with the KGB, how many "red states" would still be uninhabitable from the radiation left over
from nuclear devastation?
John Townsend, Mexico July 7, 2016
There are two things about this so called email "scandal" that are troubling. First off the
FBI investigation was an administrative investigation of the State Department's email systems,
prompted by a GOP request that appears to have been a deliberate effort to perpetuate the
email issue that emerged from the Benghazi investigation (a GOP witch hunt, price tag $7
million). Second, the FBI director James Comey some 20 years ago was the Deputy Special
Counsel who carried out the senate's investigation of the so called Whitewater "scandal" (yet
another GOP witch hunt into the Clintons, price tag $2 million), clearly a 'conflict of
interest' situation from which Comey should have recused himself.
For years the GOP and their legions of shrill extreme right wing pundits have been waging a
veritable war of attrition on the Clintons ... their legacy and their character. These two
investigations are the skulduggery hallmarks of one of the most ugly persistent prolonged
smear campaigns in US political history.
SJG, NY, NY July 7, 2016
Clintons ability to survive hinges on two things. First, her regular supporters will
mindlessly support her just as her regular detractors will mindlessly attack her. When it
comes to the public, the vast majority chose sides more than 20 years ago and will not change
not matter what information develops.
Second, the press, including this op-ed will continue to call her things like
"obviously qualified" in reference to Clinton. She is obviously an experienced politician but
I don't understand the "qualified" part. Her actions with the emails is the kind of thing that
would get 95% of us fired. This means we would be "disqualified" from our jobs. Yet
somehow, we fail to to let real evidence of incompetence, lying, connection to scandal, lack
of actual accomplishments, etc. from tarnishing her qualifications in favor of vague ones like
years of "experience" or "service."
Diego, Los Angeles July 7, 2016
Our nation is addicted to drama, unequipped see government as a necessary function composed
mostly of unexciting exercises in bureaucracy. We have been conditioned to insist that public
events follow the cadences of Survivor, A Michael Bay movie, and NFL game.
Politics is no longer (if it ever was) a contest between ideas. It's lion wrestling in the
Coliseum, with James Bond sneaking around in the catacombs and aliens storming the walls. I
guess with all that going on, you can't ask people to stick around for a procedural vote on a
fractional adjustment to the graduated redundant-income lower phalanges tax rate.
So the rate goes unadjusted, and the rich get richer.
Mark Thomason, a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich July 7, 2016
Hillary supporters are now taunting the FBI. They say it ought not to have criticized her
if it was not going to indict her.
This taunting is cause for a reasonable prosecutor to re-visit the decision not to indict.
The taunting displays disrespect for the law, and a sense of entitlement which undermines the
law.
The taunting offsets the concern not to influence an election. If the election becomes open
disrespect of law and law enforcement, then it is necessary to influence it.
If Hillary says one word along these lines herself, even one, she should be indicted the very
next day.
John, Oregon July 7, 2016
I do not have to accept this "swirl of madness" and "political mastery" should be gauged
not by how one navigates the results of said madness but rather the results of legislative
history and policy judgments. To this end, Clinton has fared poor on both accounts. I
certainly will not be casting a vote for Trump, but I can in no good conscience cast one for
Clinton either. Trump's ludicrous policies will fall flat and never see the light of day.
Hillary though will have the full force of the Clinton money machine to continue business as
usual. I will be voting independent for the office of President and leave those who supported
this mockery of an election to justify the end. If those two are the best we have to offer our
nation and the world, we should be sorely ashamed.
Fourteen, Boston July 7, 2016
Although you have no reason to vote for Clinton, you do have reason to vote against the
Trumpster.
After she gets elected, we can impeach her and re-do the election in four years.
Michele, Seattle July 7, 2016
Something makes me uneasy about this column and I will put my finger on it. When you say as
a journalist that something makes you uneasy about the Clintons, I expect, as the reader, to
have this vague impression followed up with some concrete examples. I am a Hillary supporter
and am frustrated by the lack of specificity with which the media both talks about her
successes and failures. If you are arguing that Republicsns have overplayed their hand, give
several concrete examples of fair charges that they could have made against Hillary. If you
are uneasy about her, tell why. If you can't, then don't do a hit-and-run on the reader with
your uneasy emotions. Are you uneasy because there is something about Hillary that we should
really take into account and factor into our decision making process, or are you uneasy
because powerful women make us uneasy? In your journalistic role, help us to tell the
difference. If you aren't ready to articulate the specific source of your unease, leave it
out.
StephenKoffler, New York July 7, 2016
The Clintons are "survivors" because they are privileged members of the power elite.
You're just sugar-coating their reprehensible qualities. They've just received reinforcement
that the rules don't apply to them, and that lying is just one of those things you do as you
climb the ladder. Apologetics of this nature is exactly what I would expect from the New
York Times, the official party publication of the Clinton machine.
PeterE, Oakland,Ca July 7, 2016
In light of the Clintons' history to date, is there any reason to think that they will stop
being reckless? A Trump presidency would be a disaster but surely it's likely that a Clinton
presidency will be one mishap after another and include a few unnecessary and costly military
adventures.
drspock, New York July 7, 2016
Just another note on the Clinton case. It is a felony to posses unauthorized, classified
government material. It's also a felony to download them to unauthorized devices as well as to
retain classified material after your government assignment that permitted you to posses them
concluded. Clinton obviously had top clearance when she was Secretary, but I assume that ended
with her resignation.
I haven't read the full FBI report, but I'm not sure how they decided that no prosecutor would
pursue such a case, especially when under Obama the Justice Department has prosecuted people
for precisely those offenses.
John Wildermann, North Carolina July 7, 2016
My biggest issue with Hillary comes down to her judgment. After all, you survived the
Clinton years, the endless attacks and investigations. You're main goal in life seems to be
returning to the White House, this time as the President, not the first lady. So why wouldn't
you make sure that you don't do anything that would seem even remotely wrong.
Why would you bother with the paid speeches to Wall Street, why not just use the government
server for your emails?
bbrennan, Novato, Ca. July 7, 2016
If Hillary Clinton is elected the hatred for her will not abate. She is a much more
divisive figure than Barack Obama or even George Bush. With a Libertarian and Green candidate
on the ballot the best Clinton could ever hope for is a plurality that carries no mandate.
I've already tuned the whole thing out.
Gary, New York, NY July 7, 2016
Hillary made a careless mistake, but then our government was also careless in NOT
thoroughly scrutinizing her use of a private email server for classified communications. She's
only partly to blame. It's important to look at intention. She did this for convenience and
for non-classified communications. And then over time, she allowed the lines to blur. She
probably didn't realize the gravity of her actions, because it was a technical matter. Hillary
is of an older generation that uses email and cellular technology without being fully aware of
the technical complexities. So it is understandable. But the US government failed its job of
policing its own people.
Anetliner Netliner, is a trusted commenter Washington, DC area July 7, 2016
Technical matter? Older generation? I think it's more likely that Clinton, having spent 8
years in the White House and 6 as a Senator, was unused to organizational constraints. The
email matter speaks more to hubris than to technical competence.
JQuincyA, Houston July 7, 2016
Liberals cheer for someone who puts her own self interests before our national security. "
Extremely careless" I believe was the phrase Comey used. Can someone explain the difference
between that and gross negligence? Mr. Blow can you explain why you think not bringing charges
against Clinton is the "right call" other than you're going to vote for her? The rule of law
is ignored and once again liberals are ecstatic.
Vincenzo, Albuquerque, NM, USA July 7, 2016
Overlook, for a few minutes, the opposition (Trump). Irrespective of "the contest" in
November, the salient point is made right upfront by Mr. Blow. Recklessness is not a desirable
trait in one who should be depended upon to carefully adjudicate all opinions and is expected
to productively interact with international leaders to effect a stabilization and ultimately
productive actions regarding planetary challenges, beginning of course, with climate change.
Forget Trump --- ask yourself if the US will likely really benefit from such a personality in
the Oval Office. Is it any wonder that the Sanders campaign pushes onward, given that Senator
Sanders has consistently manifested careful consideration of his votes in Congress and the
Senate and in that sense is the antidote to Mrs. Clinton's impulsive behavior, a hallmark of
her political life. I'm apprehensive in the extreme.
Mike W., Brooklyn July 7, 2016
This is in no way an absolution of Hillary's action, or of whatever the Clintons may or
may not have done, but whatever scandals they've been involved in are no worse than what has
been going on in every single Republican White House after Ike. Literally. Every. Single. One.
'Oh, she used a private e-mail server?' How about deleting 5 million(!) White House
administration emails many of which certainly contained the real truth behind the reasoning
for Bush's disastrous debacle in Iraq. 'Oh, the president has consensual sex with an intern?'
How about selling arms to one of our sworn enemies to get money to secretly finance a nasty
little civil war involving thousands of dead civilians, and breaking a bunch of laws in the
process.
Scandals involving character flaws vs. scandals that involve how our country is actually
governed? That should be no contest.
Patrick Moynihan, RI July 7, 2016
I am concerned that the Clintons' spectacular history of escape clouds the seriousness and
vast array of the actions for which they have been questioned.
In the current case, Director Comey has confirmed that Secretary Clinton has acted
"extremely carelessly" and, when her public statements on her email issues are taken into
consideration, lied. Has our collective social morality dipped to a level so low as to not
recognize lying openly and consistently to the public as a disqualifying action by a
candidate?
Gerald, Houston, TX July 7, 2016
It is not enough for Hillary to say, "I am sorry that I was "extremely careless" and
"grossly negligent" with my sloppy and reckless, behavior while committing actions with my
e-mail activities that harmed the USA (maybe some of our foreign citizen informers and US
government employees died horrible deaths because of my slack security protocol with my
personal computer that I installed for my personal convenience), but I promise not to do that
again if I am elected POTUS."
Will Hillary promise to be more careful and follow US government regulations and laws with
control of the US Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction if she is elected POTUS?
The FBI has elected to not prosecute Hillary, because they did not believe that Hillary had
any intent to pass this information to our enemies (She was just stupid and careless).
Any other government employee committing these types of actions would have been prosecuted and
hopefully sent to prison.
PE, Seattle, WA July 7, 2016
We may need more than an expert, hyper-political survivor in the next 4 years. My worry
is that Hillary is more in tune with what's politically advantageous than what is the right
thing to do. Survive, yes; lead and thrive, not so much. Her skill is spinning mistakes rather
that creating positive outcomes. And I have a feeling she will not untie Congress, which
is what we desperately need. I hope she beats Trump, but I do not want her to shed her
survivor, spin-mode skin and evolve into progressive, courageous leader, willing to stand up
for core beliefs, even when the political polls temp her to settle.
Far from home, Yangon, Myanmar July 7, 2016
Really? You have in this corner a candidate who barely survived a major investigation by
the FBI. And in that corner, a candidate who is "embroiled in two class action lawsuits...as
well as a lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman."
Recently, after many months of being a contender for a teaching fellowship from the US State
Department, I was rejected. Phew! Part of the job was being an ambassador for the US
government. How would I have pulled that off?
Regis, Greenville July 7, 2016
The massive story looming is the Clinton Foundation, which is the reason for the personal
server being set up. Anything and everything has a price to the Clinton's. It was all funneled
through "the foundation".
Chriva, Atlanta July 7, 2016
I don't think anyone would find fault with describing Clinton as a battle tested survivor.
Her ability to endure the 11 hour Benghazi hearing in which she was shown to be a bald faced
liar repeatedly was impressive. Still most of her troubles are completely of her own making,
she's corrupt as they come, and in the pocket of the evil Saudis and Wall Street. I'm only
voting for her because Trump is worse. I don't there are many Americans that will be proud
when she and Pocahontas, the first VP of color, are crowned but more than a few may breathe a
small sigh of relief.
citizen vox, San Francisco July 7, 2016
It isn't just recklessness; Hillary takes great liberties for the singular goal of gaining
ever more power/money. In contrast, Bill's liberties are more purely reckless e.g. Monika and
degrading of the Presidency e.g. under the Presidential desk activities.
It's one thing for Hillary to risk her political life/reputation to disaster, but as
President, she will be ensnaring our nation's welfare into her area of danger. I don't find
that acceptable. How do I vote for that?
Timshel, New York July 7, 2016
I want to vote for someone I respect for President, not a survivor or someone who is
extremely careless. Suffering does not make you a good person. In fact many so-called
criminals were people who suffered and used that to be unjust.
Trump is the worst candidate in American history after that phony Reagan. We need a Democratic
candidate who is careful, really competent, honest and trustworthy. That person is certainly
not Hillary Clinton. It is Bernie Sanders. It is not too late!
Solomon Grundy, The American South July 7, 2016
The Clintons are Wall Street's dream. The Clinton's sell the Lincoln Bedroom, radioactive
materials, and other public property.
Pay to Play.
Clinton's election as president will finally expose the progressive complaint about 1%ers,
corporate greed, corruption, and human rights as the sham it is.
Let's be adults about this. Progressives love the direct thoroughfare from Washington to Wall
Street.
Gerald, Houston, TX July 7, 2016
Solomon Grundy,
Why do the elite "DONOR CLASS" and PAC (foreign and domestic) campaign contributors
contribute so much money to Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan and other people seeking
elective offices that control and pass out government taxpayer money from the US Treasury,
control of US foreign policy, and make laws that affect their business profits, instead of
Bernie Sanders and/or Donald Trump?
Hillary's PAC (foreign and domestic) club members in the form of "PAY TO PLAY" no-bid
Military Industrial Complex contracts, CGI Federal "NO BID" contracts at many times the price
that open bidding would cost, and Solyndra loan guarantee contracts with US taxpayer money
given from the US Treasury to these elite "DONOR CLASS" and PAC (foreign and domestic)
campaign contributors at much greater price that if these contracts were competitively bid,
farm subsidies, NO-BID military equipment manufacturing contracts, etc.
The "DONOR CLASS" and PAC (foreign and domestic) club members also pay these crooked
politicians to get laws created to make their businesses exempt from existing US laws against
monopolies, off shore banking, repeal of Glass-Steagall, license for the export of "TOP
SECRET" Hughes Aircraft Missile Guidance Military Technology to Communist China (Chinagate),
Free Foreign Trade Agreements, Foreign Aid, etc.
Of the dozens of intelligence memos that Sidney Blumenthal sent to Hillary Clinton while she
served as secretary of state, 23 contained information classified as
"Confidential" or "Secret," a Daily Caller analysis shows.
Sending nearly two
dozen sensitive emails makes Blumenthal, a former journalist and aide in the Bill
Clinton White House, one of Clinton's most prolific sharers of classified
information. The Democratic presidential candidate herself sent 104 emails
containing classified information, The Washington Post
found
.
Some of Clinton's State Department aides, such as chief of staff Cheryl Mills and deputy chief of
staff Huma Abedin, sent dozens of emails which contain now-classified information. Jake Sullivan,
Clinton's top foreign policy adviser, sent 215 now-classified messages.
But the Blumenthal memos are especially intriguing because the longtime Clinton ally did not work
for the government. Instead, during the period that he sent Clinton memos, he was working for the
Clinton Foundation as well as for several non-profit organizations with close ties to the Clintons.
He also worked during some of that period as an editor for The Daily Beast.
Here is a complete list of Blumenthal's classified memos and emails:
2009
June 23 email
- Blumenthal forwarded Clinton a nearly entirely redacted email with subject
line "N. Ireland/Shaun," an apparent reference to Shaun Woodward, who then served as Northern
Ireland's secretary of state.
July 15 memo
- Blumenthal refers to information from William Drozdiak, who at the time was
the president of the American Council on Germany. The non-redacted portion of the email refers to
the "disastrous nature" of an Obama diplomatic trip.
Sept. 23 email
- Entitled "URGENT FOR NORTHERN IRELAND MEETINGS TOMORROW," the Blumenthal
memo refers to a Clinton Global Initiative event held days before to discuss ways to increase
foreign investment in Northern Ireland.
Oct. 8 memo
- Blumenthal provided an update on developments in Northern Ireland.
Oct. 11 memo
- Blumenthal advised Clinton ahead of a speech she was set to give at Stormont
Castle in Belfast in support of devolution, or the shifting of power from the U.K. parliament to
the Northern Ireland national assembly.
Oct. 20 memo
- Blumenthal shared an email from Northern Ireland's Sec. of State Shaun
Woodward. Clinton was set to meet with UK Shadow Foreign Minister
US to send
Ukraine small drones and armoured Humvees
William Hague. "This makes your meeting with Hague
unexpectedly pressing," Blumenthal wrote of Woodward's email.
Nov. 28 memo
- Blumenthal sent yet another update about negotiations in Northern Ireland.
April 8 memo
- Blumenthal forwarded Clinton an email from a source discussing internal
politics in Kyrgyzstan, which was then in the midst of a revolution.
April 23 "Secret" memo
- Blumenthal updated Clinton on the situation in Kyrgyzstan. The
portion of the memo redacted for "secret" classified information discussed a criminal
investigation.
2011
March 5 memo
- Blumenthal forwarded Clinton an email from his longtime associate Cody
Shearer, who has worked on behalf of the Clintons over the years. The memo, sent in the early
days of the Libyan revolt, discussed the formation of the National Transitional Council, which
replaced Muammar Gaddafi's dictatorship.
March 18 memo
- Blumenthal discussed Gaddafi's response to the UN's decision to authorize the
use of force in Libya.
June 20 memo
- Blumenthal's memo, with the subject line "Bahrain, Iranian intelligence," is
completely redacted.
Oct. 12 memo
- A memo entitled "Saudi Arabia/Iran/Turkey" relied on Blumenthal's "Sources
with access to the highest levels of the Government of Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, as well as
regional and Western Intelligence services."
2012
May 30 memo
- Blumenthal sent Clinton two memos containing information on German policy on
the Eurozone crisis, which had reached full steam at that point. The information in the memos was
passed to Blumenthal by sources who had conversations with German Finance Minister Wolfgang
Schauble.
In the memo, Blumenthal cautioned Clinton that the information came from "an extremely
sensitive source" and "should be handled with care." He also insisted that the information must
not be shared "with anyone associated with the German government.
June 27 memo
- A memo entitled "Internal pressures and potential schisms in German government
over Euro-zone" is entirely redacted.
July 14 memo
- Blumenthal's memo entitled "Egypt internal politics" came from "sources with
access to the highest levels of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, The Supreme Council of the Armed
Forces, and Western Intelligence and security services."
Blumenthal characterized the sources as "extremely sensitive" and cautioned that the
information should be "handled with care."
Aug. 3 memo
- Blumenthal passed along a memo discussing European Central Bank president Mario
Draghi and negotitions with Germany to resolve the Eurozone debt crisis. The memo is entirely
redacted as classified and is b ased on "sources with access to the highest levels of the
Governments and institutions."
Sept. 4 memo
- Blumenthal passed along another now-entirely redacted memo based on
"high-level sources." The subject matter of the memo is not clear.
You can look at the source documents yourself. This is not opinion, conjecture, or rumor. Hillary Clinton transmitted the names
of American intelligence officials via her unclassified email.
From a series of Clinton emails, numerous names were redacted in the State Department releases with the classification code "B3
CIA PERS/ORG," a highly specialized classification that means the information, if released, would violate the Central Intelligence
Act of 1949 by exposing the names of CIA officials.
How FOIA Works
The Freedom of information Act (FOIA) requires the government to release all, or all parts of a document, that do not fall under
a specific set of allowed exemptions. If information cannot be excluded, it must be released. If some part of a document can be redacted
to allow the rest of the document to be released, then that is what must be done. Each redaction must be justified by citing a specific
reason for exclusion.
But don't believe me. Instead, look at page two of this
State Department document
which lists the exemptions.
Note specifically the different types of "(b)(3)" redactions, including "CIA PERS/ORG." As common sense would dictate, the government
will not release the names of CIA employees via the FOIA process. It would - literally - be against the law. What law? Depending
on the nature of the individual's job at CIA, National Security Act of 1947, the CIA Act of 1949, various laws that govern undercover/clandestine
CIA officers and, potentially, the Espionage Act of 1917.
Names of CIA, NSA Officials Mentioned, Now Redacted
Yet Hillary's emails contain at least three separate, specific instances where she mentioned in an unclassified email transmitted
across the open Internet and wirelessly to her Blackberry the names of CIA personnel. Here they are. Look for the term "(b)(3) CIA
PERS/ORG" Click on the links and see for yourself:
There are also numerous instances of exposure of the names and/or email addresses of NSA employees ("B3 NSA"); see page 23 inside
this longer PDF document.
Why It Matters
These redactions point directly to violations of specific laws. It is not a "mistake" or minor rule breaking.
These redactions strongly suggest that the Espionage Act's standard of mishandling national defense information through "gross
negligence" may have been met by Clinton.
There is no ambiguity in this information, no possible claims to faux-retroactive classification, not knowing, information
not being labeled, etc. Clinton and her staff know that one cannot mention CIA names in open communications. It is one of the
most basic tenets taught and exercised inside the government. One protects one's colleagues.
Exposing these names can directly endanger the lives of the officials. It can endanger the lives of the foreigners they interacted
with after a foreign government learns one of their citizens was talking with the CIA It can blow covers and ruin sensitive clandestine
operations. It can reveal to anyone listening in on this unclassified communication sources and methods. Here is a
specific example
of how Clinton likely compromised security.
These redactions show complete contempt on Clinton's part for the security process.
BONUS: There is clear precedent for others going to jail for exposing CIA names. Read the
story of John Kiriakou .
A Personal Aside: I just remain incredulous about these revelations seeming to mean nothing to the world. They're
treated in the media as almost gossip.
Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during Iraqi reconstruction in his first book,
We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose
the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People . His latest book is Ghosts of Tom Joad:
A Story of the #99 Percent . Reprinted from the his blog with permission.
tom •
a month ago
So if Hillary is elected and she takes the USA into WW3 by continuing to harass Russia and supporting terrorists, and
the USA is finally attacked like the USA attacks other nations, are not the people who supported Clinton, and the Clintons themselves,
fair game for some sort of retribution? When are these obvious war crimes going to be met with some sort of justice? There is a story
well-known by now of how a group f German soldiers tried to assassinate Hitler and failed. Well, the FBI and DOJ have every opportunity
to stop another Hitler before she acquires more leverage to reign down death and destruction on America's "enemies". Will they do
their job or will we in 10 tens be wondering what could have been?
While and at the same time doing much business with Russia, and China, and all of the newly conquered (but not very conquered)
puppet dictatorships like Iraq and Libya. The first real indication we'll get is if the Halliburton operatives get pulled out.
I haven't seen a mass exodus of pipeline workers coming back to the states. My lowly position as an ex-Halliburton worker (they
literally broke me and then abandoned me. I can't walk two blocks without extreme pain for an uncompensated on-the-job injury
23 years ago) gives me a unique vantage no CIA spook can ever get. Unless you were to talk some Harvard Princesses to get up on
a damned ladder or roughneck on an oil rig or pipeline. On our level we get a larger view of what's going on. Like for instance,
Sudan was invaded by Halliburton years before the Libyan coup. How does that matter? The nation is landlocked and the only direction
they can point a pipe to the Med is through Libya. Shell and Exxon want to export the extorted oil so they had to take down Libya.
Roll the dice. Also by publishing the names of the agents who were previously outed, we'd be doing the exact same thing. Prove
that those agents were endangered and wham bam thank you ma'am they'll be even more endangered. The alternative would be a secret
trial. Which happens.
It seems that HRC may become POTUS, thanks to the actions of DNC, DWS and the MSM and the inaction of the FBI and DOJ - much to
the relief of the MIC, CIA and NSA and the satisfaction of the TBTF banks and the RDA*.
The rest of us are FUCD.
* I made this one up; it stands for "Revolving Door Apparatchiks".
The media has been bought and paid for. There is no longer news reporting, only propaganda recitation. Statistically, most people
are followers. Let's hope there are a few principled public servants at the FBI to help save our country.
An external IT audit is necessary in this case, if it hasn't already been ordered. Who gave the approval to set this thing up?
Where is the documentation requesting access to the State's servers? Who signed off on that? Who verified that approval? Who processed
the request and what verification did the approvals undergo?
An IT auditor would rip State several new orifices with which to excrete solid waste matter.
"... If you get drunk and run over someone's kid it doesn't matter that you didn't mean to do it, you still committed a crime. Not to mention that Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State and she used to be a lawyer. You would have to be stupid to think that she didn't know that what she was doing was illegal. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is the lap dog of Wall Street. And for the big mutual funds it is always important so early as they can to know, what the american goverment will do. This can be essential to earn billion of Dollars or to avoid the loss of billion of dollars. ..."
"... That would be treason. Wall Street or not. Capitalism is like a rose bush - it must be pruned every now and then, otherwise he wears barely flowers, but only thorns. And capitalism in the United States has never been pruned. ..."
"... Paul Ryan is already openly working on getting her security clearance denied. How is that any less disabling of her presidency than an indictment? ..."
"... It sounds less dramatic, but how does it change Bernie's case to the superdelegates, especially considering how likely immediate impeachment on her inauguration day seem now? ..."
"FBI director James Comey pretty much laid it all out. He flat out said that she broke the
law and then in the same breath said that they weren't going to pursue charges. His statement
that they weren't going to recommend indictment because she didn't mean to break the law is
laughable. Not intending to break the law is not a defense.
If you get drunk and run over someone's kid it doesn't matter that you didn't mean to
do it, you still committed a crime. Not to mention that Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of
State and she used to be a lawyer. You would have to be stupid to think that she didn't know
that what she was doing was illegal.
The only explanation of why the FBI is not recommending indictment is that James Comey was
paid off by the Clinton's. He was probably offered a cushy position after Clinton takes the
white house..."
Leo Moran
Ultimately, a vote for Hillary is going to be a vote for whomever she has as her nominated
Vice President, because a GOP Congress is going to impeach her on Day 1 of her presidency.
The NWO will likely switch out Trump or Hillary for another puppet they control and then
give them the election. Either that or just make Hillary win anyway or buy off Trump or kill
him. It's all rigged. They got a plan A B C D and E. In the end NWO will do what ever it takes
to win and the clintons are one of them. You will get a Bush or Clinton lackey in the white
house soon enough.
griffphilm
Cenk: I've been a fan of your extensively rationale support for Bernie. The Young Turks are
now dropping him, and his truth, and our truth as a result of an obviously skewed, and
partisan FBI anointment of a pathologically corrupt candidate? I don't believe one can support
"the revolution" and in any way support H for Hawk Clinton. Have you been threatened?
Chefchaot
No one discuss the following issue:
Hillary Clinton is the lap dog of Wall Street. And for the big mutual funds it is always
important so early as they can to know, what the american goverment will do. This can be
essential to earn billion of Dollars or to avoid the loss of billion of dollars.
So, if a friend of Hillary Clinton has her password and for this favour he pays a few dollars
to a bank account in Panama or somewhere else, nobody knows.
Look at the development of Goldman-Sachs after the bank crisis.
Chefchaot
That would be treason. Wall Street or not. Capitalism is like a rose bush - it must be
pruned every now and then, otherwise he wears barely flowers, but only thorns. And capitalism
in the United States has never been pruned.
Daniel Roig
Looks like I'm voting Trump and make it a revenge vote against Hillary. By voting Trump it
will be a double whammy against the DNC and Hillary.
Daniel Roig
You might be underestimating the number of fellow idiots that Trump has. Trump is dangerous
in different ways, but Hillary and her cohorts are at least as dangerous and totally corrupt.
What's more dangerous than openly stealing an election against the will of the people?
Matt Davis
+Daniel Roig: hillary not being prosecuted for perjury or miss handling of top secret
materials or stealing a nomination against the will of the people. and still somehow
becoming the most powerful person in the US. Thats about as dangerous as it gets.
partisanliberal
So Comey based his lack of indictment on no "intent".
So Clinton didn't "intend" to hire computer personnel to implement server hardware at her
home, didn't "intend" to secure a domain name, didn't "intend" to register a mail server on
the internet, didn't "intend" to have high speed connection infrastructure installed at her
home to facilitate data traffic, didn't intend to make all her email accounts point to her
secret server, didn't "intend" to delete thousands of emails (that SHE claims were personal
;), didn't "intend" to do all this when facilities were made available and required by rule
for her electronic communications while SoS. Based on Comey's logic it was apparently an
accident, forced on Clinton without her consent or she just flat didn't understand. This is
the same Clinton who spent 8 years in the White House where security measures are everywhere,
who underwent numerous security protocol briefings as first lady, who had to take (and affirm
by signature) security classes as a senator and the same Clinton that as SS was fully briefed
and required to acknowledge/affirm dept. of State security protocols that specifically
prohibited her activities.
It boils down to four letters: "FOIA" - I am above the common man (whom I constantly claim to
relate to), the rules don't apply to me, it's none of their business and I figured a way to
get around the Freedom Of Information Act (as I claim to be the "most transparent"). WOW!
Apparently the 'aw shucks' I didn't know it was wrong and "everyone else did it too" are now
valid defenses; kind of like what the definition of "is, is". Next time you're stopped for
speeding, tell the cop you "didn't INTEND" to and you'll get a pass.
Does anyone wonder why, on the day BEFORE she is questioned by the FBI, Bill has a meeting
with the AG on the tarmac of an airport? The same AG that now says she wont pursue the matter.
Anyone wonder why the man who appointed Comey and Lynch now flies Clinton around on Air Force
One (at a cost of $220,000/hr to the taxpayer) selling her as his successor? It's time for
real change.
David Delgado
(Original Compositions)
FBI Comey said she did not have "intent" to mishandle classified documents. Actual emails
showed the letter for classified (C) typed before the classified paragraph and at the end of
the classified paragraph, clearly proving intent......Crooked Hillary should be in prison.
Gerald Stacy
They knew the suggestion would be no indictment, but didn't know if Lorreta Lynch would
accept the bullshit reason for not suggesting one. I think Bill met her specifically to force
her to recuse herself somehow.
Gerald Stacy
+wshgtnry Yep! ya did it! facts are that the Clinton's have been found out to be crooked.
They won't be charged or convicted of any of it. But the proof is out there. So while this
particular idea has no specific factual basis, aside from that Bill Clinton specifically went
out of his way to meet with somebody who he should have stayed far far away from, There is
plenty of proof to suggest that the Clinton Family is manipulating events to their advantage.
Eggshit Bowl Gate
Paul Ryan is already openly working on getting her security clearance denied. How is
that any less disabling of her presidency than an indictment?
It sounds less dramatic, but how does it change Bernie's case to the superdelegates,
especially considering how likely immediate impeachment on her inauguration day seem now?
HillBilly Deluxe
What about the fact that Hillary is now blackmailable, due to her emails possibly being put
in the hands of foreign operatives? Could it be that there are way more than just 7 TOP Secret
emails that have been compromised? Is the USA (all of us) and the US government now
blackmailable?
Who knows what they now have on us!
The other point is: how can Hillary apply for the highest security clearance in the nation
with recless handling of classified documents on her record? The job of President requires it!
No government employee would ever get high level access with that on their record. Even if she
wins the election, she no longer qualifies for the position. Have we ever had a president
without top level security clearance? Think about it!
capri cious
The only revolution I expect is the spinning heads of the punditry, Left and Right. I think
your estimate of the DNC Nominee is correct. I voted for Bernie in the Primary. I live in a
state that has been Red since Reagan (May He burn in pieces, Were there a Hell). I think Sen.
Sanders was the only hope we had of any "revolution" in the country. I think He has
demonstrated that He could not have pulled it off. His failure to defend himself, Speaks of
what he would have likely been able to have accomplished.
JL
There is NO "Revolution" with Hillary, Cenk! I'd rather vote for pondscum than to vote for
that conniving sniveling Hillary! She is responsible for ousting Bernie Sanders with the
corrupt media in her back pocket and you want to endorse that trash?
"... She put those secrets at risk by using a private email server kept in her basement, against security protocol. ..."
"... She failed, miserably, in protecting the secrets of her nation. So for all this she should be rewarded and promoted and handed the near absolute power of an imperial presidency? ..."
"... And, she lied to the American people. That much is clear. She lied about what she did and how and why. There are tapes of it floating all about on the internet, lies to reporters, lies in those rare public appearances where she actually takes questions. ..."
"... Election to and retention of public office breeds prevarication-- or at least punishes brutal honesty. I dare YOU to prove otherwise. ..."
"... Virtually no person who rises to that level in our political system is completely squeaky-clean and is still effective. High-level politics is a bare knuckle sport, and one at which Hillary has shown an aptitude. ..."
Hllary Clinton has disqualified herself from the presidency.
No matter what your tribal politics may be, after FBI Director James Comey's withering testimony
before Congress on Thursday over her email scandal, there really is no way around it, is there?
... ... ...
Mrs. Clinton, former secretary of state, has already proved she can't be trusted with national
secrets. She put those secrets at risk by using a private email server kept in her basement,
against security protocol.
That server was likely hacked by foreign intelligence. She failed, miserably, in
protecting the secrets of her nation. So for all this she should be rewarded and promoted and
handed the near absolute power of an imperial presidency?
And, she lied to the American people. That much is clear. She lied about what she did and
how and why. There are tapes of it floating all about on the internet, lies to reporters, lies in
those rare public appearances where she actually takes questions.
Chi Town Gal
Kass, do your homework. Republicans (Bush, Powell, Rice's staff) did similar things, but no
investigations or public commendations against their own. Their own investigative committee
(which took 2 years to release) could not find her guilty of anything, and two Republicans
admitted that the whole Benghazi / email scandal was to bring down Hillary's approval rating.
...
Therightway...
@Chi Town Gal No (Bush, Powell, Rice's staff) did not use personal servers.
wiu1986
Great column . HC , like her husband are jerks. Good friends of mine from her HS school
days knew her as a jerk. She is a lying, conniving piece of work. But knowing ,insightful
individuals such as yourself and some of your readers, will have zero impact on her
electability. The lessons of the Roman Empire have come to the US. We are a country of
minorities and special interests. The citizens descended from 3,4,5 generations of American
citizens are the new minorities. The democratic party, I refuse to capitalize democratic, know
the demographics. Bottom line---this nation is screwed.
DaveB9
@wiu1986: You should capitalize Democratic in that usage. Small-d democracy means
government of the people, by the people, for the people. Big-D Democratic means government of
the people, by a small cadre of connected elites, for the benefit of those elites and their
hangers-on. Big-D Democrats aren't small-d democratic. Capitalization matters; it can change
the whole meaning of a word.
billyboy55
The slime trail that follows behind Hilly, and her disbarred lawyer husband, is never
ending! Please, voters, put an end to it.
mligue
John , the lemmings will get in line , vote for her, hang onto to her lies with a glitter
in their eyes, pronounce her to be the queen to Obama's kingdom. She , along with her husband
has always been corrupt and above the law. I too, feel bad for Jim Comey a man that I always
believed would be true to the law and constitution. But politics puts a heavy load onto just
men , Comey just simply did not want to be labeled the man that would stop the first woman
president. I pray that the American voter finally will se through this travesty, we call
Hillary Clinton.
considerthis9
@Doc McGee I cannot claim that Hillary has never lied, nor would I try. And I cannot think
of another politician from either party who could pass your test of purity (except possibly
George "I cannot tell a lie" Washington, with his cherry tree). Election to and retention
of public office breeds prevarication-- or at least punishes brutal honesty. I dare YOU to
prove otherwise.
Likewise, show me your proof that Hillary has been a "money-grubbing grifter," as you put it.
First, define your terms -- which are inherently subjective and hyperbolic -- then provide
proven facts in support. I'll bet you can't do it without resort to sources that rely upon
opinion and speculation.
Money for political favors? Again, show me your proof. Did Hillary get paid to speak to big
banks? Sure. Where is the quid pro quo? She hasn't been in the Senate for some time, and as a
member of the State Department, was in no position to enact law or policy that favored anyone.
You may believe Bernie Sanders-style "where there's smoke, there must be a fire SOMEWHERE"
speculation, but--like Bernie --I suspect you also have no smoking gun to tie it up.
The so-called "issues" on which you demand exonerating facts are principally informed by
partisan political stone-throwing, name-calling and fact-spinning. Hillary is not
squeaky-clean. Virtually no person who rises to that level in our political system is
completely squeaky-clean and is still effective. High-level politics is a bare knuckle sport,
and one at which Hillary has shown an aptitude. Many criticized President Obama for his
history of political horse-trading in the Illinois Senate, yet he was twice elected. Most
importantly, Hillary is far better informed and more accomplished on policy, communication and
diplomacy than Trump.
TheBunch
I was at Maine South High School at the same time as Hillary. She -- and some of her
friends who were headed off to elite Eastern colleges -- believed they were the "elite" at
that time and made no bones about it. And 50 years later nothing has changed, other than the
scope.
R. Allan
Clinton lies? Until Cheney and Bush are brought to justice for their lies, which resulted
in thousands of American soldiers' deaths and millions of other casualties, which continue to
this day, forget about lies about some emails.
"... the committee approved an amendment backed by organized labor that called for tough restrictions on trade deals, but did not explicitly oppose the trade pact with a dozen Pacific Rim nations that liberals say would hurt workers. ..."
"... Sanders will now have to decide whether he wants to use a parliamentary mechanism to push the issue to a fight on the floor of the Democratic National Convention later this month in Philadelphia. ..."
"... ...the Obama administration supports it. Establishment Democrats, including organized labor, sought to avoid embarrassing the president by allowing language in the party platform that would directly oppose the deal. ..."
In a major defeat during an otherwise fruitful process for him, Bernie Sanders failed to get
strong language opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership inserted in the draft Democratic platform
at a party meeting here Saturday.
Instead, the committee approved an amendment backed by organized labor that called for
tough restrictions on trade deals, but did not explicitly oppose the trade pact with a dozen
Pacific Rim nations that liberals say would hurt workers.
Sanders will now have to decide whether he wants to use a parliamentary mechanism to push the
issue to a fight on the floor of the Democratic National Convention later this month in
Philadelphia.
Sanders will now have to decide whether he wants to use a parliamentary mechanism to push the
issue to a fight on the floor of the Democratic National Convention later this month in
Philadelphia.
"We are very disappointed," said Sanders top policy adviser Warren Gunnells. "The good news is
that virtually everyone who spoke during the debate on trade made it clear that they opposed this
unfettered free trade agreement."
...the Obama administration supports it. Establishment Democrats, including organized
labor, sought to avoid embarrassing the president by allowing language in the party platform that
would directly oppose the deal.
Wright noted that while the State Department's information technology budget trails many other departments, Clinton's arrangement
was likely still more vulnerable because it was administered by many people without a cybersecurity background.
"When you take a bad situation and put something else bad on top of it you've made it far worse," he told POLITICO.
And the countries interested in going after Clinton's emails all possess advanced cyber capabilities, experts said. The federal
government has determined that Chinese hackers have been snooping on personal email accounts of top U.S. officials for years and
just last year Secretary of State John Kerry said it is "likely" that Russian and Chinese hackers are reading his emails.
As for Israel, hackers would have targeted Clinton's emails to glean her positions on Middle East issues, according to Wright.
"They're friendly … but even friendlies can get aggressive on spying on each other," he said.
Clinton also accessed her private email "extensively" while traveling, Comey said, "including sending and receiving work-related
emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries."
This practice considerably heightened the risk of compromise, particularly if Clinton used unencrypted pathways to access her
email while abroad, said Jason Straight, chief privacy officer of UnitedLex, which advises corporations on cybersecurity practices.
Comey also said FBI investigators determined that hackers had infiltrated the private commercial email accounts of people that
regularly emailed Clinton's personal account, opening up another potential entry point for digital snoops.
The FBI chief didn't name these outside contacts, leading some, including Wright, to wonder if there would be further investigation
into the emails of top aides, like Cheryl Mills or Huma Abedin.
But while there are considerable factors pointing to a likely intrusion, there may never be a smoking gun, according to specialists.
"The bottom line is that we will likely never know for certain whether her server was compromised or not," said Straight.
Elizabeth Warren tweeted about holding public officials accountable. Nobody is above the law, not even public officials, she tweeted.
She is the leading candidate to be Hilary Clinton's VP, a public official who is above the law.
FBI Director James Comey announced there would be no charges for Hillary relating to her reckless use of a private email server
while Secretary of State.
During the same exchange, Chaffetz inquired as to whether the FBI investigated Clinton's statements
to the Benghazi committee, including her declaration that there was "nothing marked classified on
my emails, either sent or received."
"Not to my knowledge. I don't think there's been a referral from Congress," Comey responded, noting
that such a probe would usually require a referral from Congress.
Chaffetz responded with a chuckle, "You'll have one. You'll have one in the next few hours."
"... But in a potentially destabilising move for the Democratic party, and an exciting one for Sanders' supporters, the Green party candidate said she was willing to stand aside for Sanders. ..."
"... If he continues to declare his full faith in the Democratic party, it will leave many of his supporters very disappointed," she said. "That political movement is going to go on – it isn't going to bury itself in the graveyard alongside Hillary Clinton ..."
"... Stein said the Democratic establishment had conducted "psychological warfare" against Sanders and "sabotaged" his attempts to gain the party's presidential nomination. Many of his young, progressive supporters are now moving over to the Green party rather than fall in behind Clinton ..."
"... a less interventionist approach to foreign affairs than Clinton, the Greens have also pitched at voters who have been dubbed as being "Bernie or bust". ..."
Bernie Sanders has been invited to continue his underdog bid for the White House by the Green
party's probable presidential candidate, who has offered to step aside to let him run. Jill Stein,
who is expected to be endorsed at the party's August convention in Houston, told Guardian US that
"overwhelming" numbers of Sanders supporters are flocking to the Greens rather than Hillary Clinton.
Stein insisted that her presidential bid has a viable "near term goal" of reaching 15% in national
polling, which would enable her to stand alongside presumptive nominees Clinton and Donald Trump
in televised election debates.
But in a potentially destabilising move for the Democratic party, and an exciting one for
Sanders' supporters, the Green party candidate said she was willing to stand aside for Sanders.
"I've invited Bernie to sit down explore collaboration – everything is on the table," she said.
"If he saw that you can't have a revolutionary campaign in a counter-revolutionary party, he'd be
welcomed to the Green party. He could lead the ticket and build a political movement," she said.
Stein said she had made her offer directly to Sanders in an email at the end of the primary season,
although she had not received a response. Her surprise intervention comes amid speculation that Sanders
will finally draw a line under a bruising Democratic contest by endorsing Clinton's presidential
bid next week.
"If he continues to declare his full faith in the Democratic party, it will leave many of his
supporters very disappointed," she said. "That political movement is going to go on – it isn't going
to bury itself in the graveyard alongside Hillary Clinton."
Stein said the Democratic establishment had conducted "psychological warfare" against Sanders and
"sabotaged" his attempts to gain the party's presidential nomination. Many of his young, progressive
supporters are now moving over to the Green party rather than fall in behind Clinton, Stein added.
"I'm not holding my breath but I'm not ruling it out that we can bring out 43 million young people
into this election," she said. "It's been a wild election; every rule in the playbook has been tossed
out. Unfortunately, that has mainly been used to lift up hateful demagogues like Donald Trump, but
it can also be done in a way that actually answers people's needs."
Stein, a former Massachusetts doctor turned environmental activist, is attempting to woo young voters
with a promise to make college free and, beyond what Sanders has pledged, to cancel all existing
student debt through quantitive easing.
With a more ambitious climate change policy (Stein favors getting to 100% renewable-powered electricity
by the middle of the century) and a less interventionist approach to foreign affairs than Clinton,
the Greens have also pitched at voters who have been dubbed as being "Bernie or bust".
In this first of a multi-video
series examining the corporate influence of potential Vice
Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton may choose, TYT
Politics Intern Emma Vigeland (@EmmaVigeland) reported on
Virginia Senator Tim Kaine.
Kaine is a deeply "moderate," establishment Democrat from
Virginia who has deep corporate ties.
From comments: "Just last year:
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military ... /30862027/ Granted that was two a year probation plus
forever not being allowed a security clearance but there is no substantial difference between between
their violations. In fact her violations were several magnitudes worse. "
Notable quotes:
"... Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?"-meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of State. "Yes, she was," Comey replied. "Good grief," exclaimed Mulvaney. ..."
"... Under further questioning from Chaffetz, Comey said that the FBI did not look at civil issues, such as violations of the Freedom of Information Act and federal records law, nor did they look at whether Clinton had committed perjury before Congress in sworn testimony wherein she said that she had neither sent nor received classified information via her e-mail. ..."
"... Comey also said that Clinton's mail server was "less secure" than Gmail. "Individual accounts might be less secure, but Google does regular security checks and updates," he explained. Clinton's mail server, set up by people working for former President Bill Clinton's foundation, sat in a basement of the Clinton home in Chappaqua, New York. ..."
"... He's calling her incompetent, stupid, careless, reckless even...but just saying he doesn't believe they can charge her based on the evidence they reviewed. He even said that prior to this investigation he would have thought that any reasonable person would have known this, but now he is not so sure. ..."
"... "Break classification rules for the public's benefit, and you could be exiled. Do it for personal benefit, and you could be President." -- Edward Snowden ..."
"... Between a rock and hard place... On one hand he needs to show us peasants that the law applies to everyone, and on the other, he does not want to take on arguably the most powerful woman in the world and possibly the next president. For someone who wanted software backdoors so much - it couldn't happen to a more deserving person. ..."
"... This seems like a situation where an independent attorney should have been brought on. Why the fuck would the FBI have a role in determining whether or not to prosecute? Isn't that the DOJ's role? A role best delegated to an independent attorney in cases like this? ..."
"... Proving criminal intent was never necessary considering the standard here should be gross negligence, and even though actual harm was done when her server according to experts was almost certainly hacked, her not being indicted is about what anybody who has been paying attention to the bishops of the democratic party circling her and anointing her while chanting "All really do like her. None have any issues with trusting her... ..."
"... In his testimony, in response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification." Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-South Carolina) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?", meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of Stat. ..."
"... People with security clearances are not generally prosecuted for unintentionally mishandling classified documents. If it is a significant level of negligence, they lose their security clearance and therefore their job and the ability to hold a similar job. ..."
"... Clinton's intentional use of her own email server takes negligence to new heights. While I don't think she had any justifiable reason to set up her own mail server and we have good reason to suspect that it was done to avoid oversight, it doesn't seem to have been done with the intention of mishandling classified docs. With Clinton we once again have evidence that she is trying to hide her actions, but no clear evidence of criminal intent. Ideally she would lose her ability to handle classified material and be banned from any position requiring access to classified information. However, negligence in handling the nation's secrets isn't spelled out in the Constitution as disqualifying someone for the office of President. You might think that no one would vote for someone who's been proved untrustworthy and negligent on this scale, but that simply isn't the case. ..."
"... Other people who negligently handle classified information also do face serious consequences. They lose their security clearance. That means they lose their job and can't get another one like it. In some cases that is pretty much career ending. ..."
"The FBI's recommendation is surprising and confusing," Chaffetz said in a statement announcing
the hearing. "The fact pattern presented by Director Comey makes clear Secretary Clinton violated
the law. Individuals who intentionally skirt the law must be held accountable. Congress and the American
people have a right to understand the depth and breadth of the FBI's investigation. I thank Director
Comey for accepting the invitation to publicly answer these important questions."
Update, 11:30 am: Eight e-mail threads of the more than 30,000 messages stored on
Clinton's server included conversations containing what was determined by State Department and Intelligence
Community review to be of the highest level of classification (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented
Information). But that information wasn't marked as such-and much of it was sent to Clinton by her
staff from the State Department's unclassified e-mail system. Both Clinton and State Department staff
sent messages stored on Clinton's server and on the State Department's unclassified e-mail system
that included classified, secret, and Top Secret/SCI information, including names of intelligence
community personnel.
In response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware that she was sending highly
classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think our investigation established
she was that sophisticated about classification." (Later in his testimony, Comey elaborated that
the lack of sophistication was more technical than understanding the importance of protecting classified
data.)
Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?"-meaning
that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary
of State. "Yes, she was," Comey replied. "Good grief," exclaimed Mulvaney.
"Based on your answers, and what we know, it seems to me that she is stunningly incompetent
in handling e-mail and classified information," said Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL), acknowledging Comey's
honesty. "For a Secretary of State, that level of carelessness is shocking."
Chaffetz concluded the hearing with a battery of questions over the people who had access to Clinton's
e-mails, including the administrators and lawyers. "She's not the head of Fish and Wildlife," Chaffetz
shouted.
Comey responded that it wasn't unreasonable for Clinton to assume that administrators would not
be reading her e-mail. And in other testimony, Comey said that because of the lack of security markings
on the vast majority of the content, it was reasonable to assume Clinton believed the contents to
be unclassified.
Under further questioning from Chaffetz, Comey said that the FBI did not look at civil issues,
such as violations of the Freedom of Information Act and federal records law, nor did they look at
whether Clinton had committed perjury before Congress in sworn testimony wherein she said that she
had neither sent nor received classified information via her e-mail.
Update, 1:00 pm: While a statute passed by Congress in 1917 allowed for prosecution
based on "gross negligence," Comey said that there were questions about the constitutionality of
that statute, and a later statute for misdemeanor offenses based on negligence. He said the decision
not to recommend prosecution "fits within a framework of fairness and what the Justice Department
has prosecuted over the last 50 years. I don't see cases that were prosecuted on facts like these,"
continued Comey. "There was one time it was charged in an espionage case, and the defendant pled
guilty on another charge so it was never adjudicated."
The general tone of Comey's testimony was that while Clinton was careless with classified information,
virtually none of the information that was sensitive was marked as such. Three e-mail threads included
"content markers" at the beginning of paragraphs within the body of messages indicating that the
paragraphs included classified information (using a letter "C" in parentheses). In response to a
question from Rep. Thomas Massie, Comey said, "Someone down in the chain put a portion marking in
the paragraph."
However, as noted by Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, the State Department had said that the content
classification markings were in error-that they were preliminary marks from a "call sheet" for Clinton,
and should not have been left in the document when it was forwarded to Clinton.
Comey also said that Clinton's mail server was "less secure" than Gmail. "Individual accounts
might be less secure, but Google does regular security checks and updates," he explained. Clinton's
mail server, set up by people working for former President Bill Clinton's foundation, sat in a basement
of the Clinton home in Chappaqua, New York.
As for Clinton's comments when asked if she had "wiped" her server: "Do you mean with a cloth?"
Comey quipped. "I would assume it was a facetious comment about a cloth, but I wouldn't know that."
In his testimony, in response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware
that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think
our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification."
Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-South Carolina) responded, "Isn't she an original classification
source?", meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information
as Secretary of Stat.
"Yes, she was," Comey replied.
This says volumes about Comey's bias and political aspirations. Shame! Shame!
I didn't read it like that. I think Comey is honestly trying to say that Hillary is just not
sophisticated about it, even after decades of being read in to the program.
He's calling her incompetent, stupid, careless, reckless even...but just saying he doesn't
believe they can charge her based on the evidence they reviewed. He even said that prior to this
investigation he would have thought that any reasonable person would have known this, but now
he is not so sure.
TechTuner777Wise ,
"Break classification rules for the public's benefit, and you could be exiled. Do it for
personal benefit, and you could be President." -- Edward Snowden
iPirateEverything
Between a rock and hard place... On one hand he needs to show us peasants that the law
applies to everyone, and on the other, he does not want to take on arguably the most powerful
woman in the world and possibly the next president. For someone who wanted software backdoors
so much - it couldn't happen to a more deserving person.
arkielArs
This seems like a situation where an independent attorney should have been brought on.
Why the fuck would the FBI have a role in determining whether or not to prosecute? Isn't that
the DOJ's role? A role best delegated to an independent attorney in cases like this?
Is an FBI recommendation a prerequisite to prosecution now? The fact that they found "extremely
careless" sounds like factual information upon which charges could be brought (but then again,
I don't know the letter of this law).
The last two cases could easily have been hand waived in the same was as being "extremely careless".
MeaildaArs
Marid wrote:
The decision not to prosecute was expected by anyone neutral to the politics. Proving
criminal intent is a very high bar to meet. And without actual harm done the case became even
more difficult who understands the politics.
Sub this for the strike: Proving criminal intent was never necessary considering the standard
here should be gross negligence, and even though actual harm was done when her server according
to experts was almost certainly hacked, her not being indicted is about what anybody who has been
paying attention to the bishops of the democratic party circling her and anointing her while chanting
"All really do like her. None have any issues with trusting her...
Read them yourselves. Look at the actual PDFs and see all the redacted info. Read the emails
and see how there is conversation that directly discusses information that was sent via secure
channels.
crustytheclown
In his testimony, in response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware
that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think
our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification." Congressman
Mick Mulvaney (R-South Carolina) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?", meaning
that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary
of Stat.
"Yes, she was," Comey replied.
This says volumes about Comey's bias and political aspirations. Shame! Shame!
I did a quick bit of research. The only instance of 18 U.S.C. 793(f) being used to prosecute
anyone was U.S. v. Dedeyan, 584 F.2d 36 (4th Cir., 1978) (which was referenced by Dir. Comey in
his press conference and at the House hearing).
In that case, a civilian mathematician took some classified documents home to proofread. His
cousin, who was a Soviet agent, was staying with him and took pictures of the classified work
he brought home with him. The cousin later told him he copied the classified materials and gave
him $1000 to keep quiet, which he did.
In that case, the DOJ brought charges under 18 U.S.C. 793(f) because he didn't report that
the classified material was copied after he learned about it, and for taking the bribe to remain
silent.
There has never been an instance of the DOJ bringing a 18 U.S.C. 793(f) case against anyone
for mere gross negligence alone.
I have lost all faith in the democracy the US politicians spout. Sounds good but its rotten
to the core with secret bullshit behind closed doors actually calling the shots. There is not
much point on expecting anything meaningful to come from this circus, its just pretending to look
busy and the outcome was already decided long before it even started.
Last edited by
AlexisR200X on Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:34 am
On one hand he needs to show us peasants that the law applies to everyone,
and on the other, he does not want to take on arguably the most powerful woman in the world and
possibly the next president.
For someone who wanted software backdoors so much - it couldn't happen to a more deserving
person.
People with security clearances are not generally prosecuted for unintentionally mishandling
classified documents. If it is a significant level of negligence, they lose their security clearance
and therefore their job and the ability to hold a similar job.
Clinton's intentional use of her own email server takes negligence to new heights. While
I don't think she had any justifiable reason to set up her own mail server and we have good reason
to suspect that it was done to avoid oversight, it doesn't seem to have been done with the intention
of mishandling classified docs. With Clinton we once again have evidence that she is trying to
hide her actions, but no clear evidence of criminal intent. Ideally she would lose her ability
to handle classified material and be banned from any position requiring access to classified information.
However, negligence in handling the nation's secrets isn't spelled out in the Constitution as
disqualifying someone for the office of President. You might think that no one would vote for
someone who's been proved untrustworthy and negligent on this scale, but that simply isn't the
case.
Prosecuting Hillary would be justified. However, an argument can also be made that without
evidence of clear criminal intent, that the voters should not be denied the opportunity to elect
their candidate of choice. Even if it's a really bad choice in my opinion.
The decision not to prosecute can be justified and if the people want to elect someone as President
who as Secretary of State put covering her ass and obscuring her actions over the security of
the United States, then we will have one more example of how democracy is an imperfect system.
I don't think there is a better system overall, but I of course have my own ideas on how our system
could be tweaked to make it a bit better.
Marid wrote: The decision not to prosecute was expected by anyone neutral to the politics.
Proving criminal intent is a very high bar to meet. And without actual harm done the case became
even more difficult.
Yep. Criminal intent is core to a good persecution.. Simple possession of classified information
can be trouble, but these people in state all have clearances. Just from personal job experience,
a staggering number of government employees have top secret clearances. It's not like stuff on
a private email server was more or less safe than going through official routing. In fact, it's
probably a bigger target.
If this is about how big a liar Hilary Clinton is, I would push people to look over some of
the very first presidential campaigns the USA has had to see all sorts of whoppers flying at candidates.
This is business as usual. Complete with the totally uninformed public spouting expert technological
opinions about things they know nothing about.
You all know this is a witch hunt. FBI Comey is doing the right thing in trying to be transparent
so as to let voters decide. Still going to vote Hillary and not Trump.
But this has nothing to do with voting for Hillary or Trump. I don't plan on voting for
either one, but that doesn't change what Hillary did, and the fact that her actions received
zero consequences, when anyone else would have received life in prison.
The FBI director has been very clear that no one else has EVER received prison for something
like this. In fact, this is a direct quote from him from this hearing: "You know what would
be a double standard? If Clinton actually were prosecuted for gross negligence"
Well there is a significant difference in both the level of negligence and the level of authority
of the person involved. Other people who negligently handle classified information also do
face serious consequences. They lose their security clearance. That means they lose their job
and can't get another one like it. In some cases that is pretty much career ending.
As long as Clinton can get elected to public office that requires access to classified data,
she can't be denied access simply based on mishandling such data in the past. The voters can elect
the representatives they want and have every right to make stupid choices. So basically Clinton
violated the law and is avoiding all consequences because she seeks to be an elected official,
not a government employee.
If Clinton manages to escape any consequences it will be because of voters. If she was criminally
prosecuted, maybe more voters would realize who they would be voting for, however there seems
to be lots of evidence that Hillary supporters just don't care that she is untrustworthy and puts
her own ambitions ahead of the country. It's not likely they haven't been presented with enough
evidence of that before now.
I think a big take-away here from watching this unfold is that the FBI director is correct in
his assertion that Clinton did not lie to the FBI. BUT because she was in charge she bears the
responsibility of information handled improperly.
From the questioning it was brought up that no actual documents classified or greater classification
were actually transmitted to/from her email server, BUT transcribed conversations (conversations
that happened in person between two or more individuals) that contained classified information
was. These message threads all originated from a person lower on the chain and then forwarded
around (not just to Clinton's server) through non-classified systems. Sometimes (like in many
forwarded emails) only portions of the original messages were maintained (this is common with
any forwarded and or quoted email in long chains) and a paragraph for instance would have a [C.]
marking at the beginning of the thread, but as it got forwarded around that message was quoted
and modified and the marking was removed by another individual (accidentally or on purpose, this
is unknown).
Comey stated that they are not actively investigated the origination of the email chains as
that was not part of their original investigation (this is somewhat interesting, but makes sense
as it was not in their original investigative scope)
Quote: When another officer who received the email raised the alarm about sending the
document over a nonsecure network, Brezler reported himself to his superiors and cooperated with
a Naval Criminal Investigative Service probe into the classified material spillage. The probe
turned up another folder with some 106 documents marked secret. Brezler said he inadvertently
brought them back with him following his 2010 deployment to Now Zad, Afghanistan, where limited
resources sometimes meant Marines worked on their personal computers and thumb drives.
Quote: But a Marine prosecutor said this week that the case was about more than that
one communication with Marines in Afghanistan. Brezler knowingly kept classified documents to
inform a book he was writing about his Now Zad experiences, said Maj. Chip Hodge, showing that
Brezler had copied and pasted a paragraph from the Sarwar Jan document into his manuscript, "Rebirth
of Apocalypse Now Zad."
That's a classic case of pro-Clinton propaganda. Existing cases contradict CBS attempt to brainwash
the public. Even mishandling of a single document can lead to prosecution and often were.
Notable quotes:
"... There is a lower standard that the FBI director mentioned, however, which is that of gross negligence. ..."
"... He was referring to part of the Espionage Act, section (f), says Melendres. ..."
"... Clinton repeated lied to the FBI. ..."
"... During the '08 Campaign, Obama himself stated: "She (Clinton) will say anything to get elected" ..."
"... The Washington Post even called her a liar. ..."
"... Obama's White House is "disgusted with the fact Hillary Clinton violated their rules on donations" ..."
"... the law alone is a felony to remove email from its intended domain. The clinton net worth went [up] of tens of millions of dollars while hillary was at the state dept. You're a fool to think the usa can afford this carelessness of usa intel. ..."
"... through gross negligence permits the same to be REMOVED FROM ITS PROPER PLACE OF CUSTODY or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust ..."
"... you cannot remove email from its intended domain. it is a felony to do so. ..."
"... Thousands of Americans working for the Government and Military lost their security clearances or denied clearances for less than what Mrs Bill Clinton did. ..."
"... @Infantryman1968_1 Because she's the Queen, you silly peasant. ..."
"... " He was referring to part of the Espionage Act, section (f), says Melendres. To meet that standard, according to Lenzner, prosecutors would have had to see instances of large-scale transmission of classified documents, for instance. The classified emails would have to have been delivered to improper entities like foreign government actors, members of the media, or, say, your biographer, Lenzner said, referring to the Petraeus case. "Just sending between Clinton and her staff might not meet the standard," he added." So here is section f. It says nothing about large scale. It says if data is removed from its proper place of custody OR given to an entity you are guilty. Also, it you know it is not in its proper place of custody and don't report it you are guilty. So where does this "expert's" information come from. And how does one reach the conclusion that Hillary has not violated this??? "(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer- Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." ..."
"... Since congress is having another hearing, why not start an investigation, similar to the Brits, as to the real reasons Bush took us to war in Iraq and killed thousands of Americans and 100,000s of thousands of Iraq's? Maybe charges would result and the war criminal Bush could go to prison. ..."
"... Mrs. Bill Clinton and Joe Biden Authorized the Iraq War. Trump and Sanders did not. ..."
"... Oh wow look at CBS dug up one prosecutor to say the FBI was right. How about 100's of other prosecutors who are saying they got it wrong. where's the articles interviewing them. ..."
"... Even if she isn't indicted does anyone think any other person would still have security clearance after the extreme "Carlessness" Clinton showed with understanding and handling classified information? ..."
"... The GOP is being stupid. They could take everything that Comey said about how careless Hillary was with classified information, about how Hillary lied about the email, about how she lied about what the investigation was and play those quotes over and over to their benefit. But no. They are going to whine about not getting an indictment. ..."
"... Comey has sold the integrity, trust and honesty of the FBI. Events such as that can only be done once. Another trusted institution bites the dust in the Obama administration. ..."
"... Plain and simple, Comey totally disregarded the Gross Negligence section of the law. ..."
In Clinton's case, on the question of whether there was intentional misconduct, indications of
disloyalty to the U.S. or obstruct justice, Comey concluded, "We do not see those things here."
There is a lower standard that the FBI director mentioned, however, which is that of gross
negligence. "Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was
improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making
it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way,"
Comey said Tuesday.
He was referring to part of the Espionage Act, section (f), says Melendres. To meet that
standard, according to Lenzner, prosecutors could be looking for instances of large-scale transmission
of classified documents, for instance. The classified emails might have been delivered to improper
entities like foreign government actors, members of the media, or, say, your biographer, Lenzner
said, referring to the Petraeus case. "Just sending between Clinton and her staff might not meet
the standard," he added.
Theoretically, a felony prosecution could be based on this, but it's not likely, Melendres said.
"It is exceedingly rare for the department or FBI to base a felony prosecution on that lower standard.
I have no knowledge of it being used before."
Neither Melendrez nor Lenzner seemed surprised by the brief time that elapsed between
Clinton's FBI interview Saturday and Comey's announcement Tuesday. When the interview comes at
the end of the investigation, that "formal interview is unlikely to be the thing that the case turns
on," said Lenzner. The case, he said, would have been made on objective, independent evidence like
the emails. If the FBI has gone through all of that evidence over the past year -- as Comey indicated
they had -- "the interview with her is not going to be as crucial." Typically, investigators would
be leaning in one direction or the other before that interview began, Lenzner added.
That interview with Clinton, rather, was likely the time to answer questions that had been deferred
to her by other people who were interviewed -- to confirm facts and to be comprehensive, suggested
Lenzner. If evidence had led them to believe she had committed a crime, Clinton would have been interviewed
earlier in the investigation.
2016: Obama calls Hillary "Best prepared candidate in history" This is the worst comment in
Obama's entire presidency and there have been some real doosies
Cowdogpete
Clinton repeated lied to the FBI.
During the '08 Campaign, Obama himself stated: "She (Clinton) will say anything to get
elected"
The Washington Post even called her a liar.
National Journal Senior Political Columnist and Editorial Director, , Ron Fournier on MSNBC,
reported Obama's White House is "disgusted with the fact Hillary Clinton violated their rules
on donations"
2016: Obama calls Hillary "Best prepared candidate in history"
Guess his stance hasn't changed all that much.
datay55
@bobo212 No, there wasn't intent to do wrong. What was her actual motivation for this server
decision? Unknown. But there wasn't intent to do wrong, just an intent to do stupid and careless.
Defend her all you want Bobo but Hillary is not a stellar candidate when you have to constantly
offer rationalization for her actions. Face reality. We have two lousy choices this year in November.
Cowdogpete
@datay55 @bobo212 "I didn't mean to speed officer. I really didn't know I was going 70mph in
a school zone."
Trober
@bobo212
the law alone is a felony to remove email from its intended domain. The clinton net worth
went [up] of tens of millions of dollars while hillary was at the state dept. You're a fool to
think the usa can afford this carelessness of usa intel.
djlcbs
@Lone_Star_Ranger "through gross negligence permits the same to be REMOVED FROM ITS PROPER
PLACE OF CUSTODY or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust,"
Trober
@Lone_Star_Ranger IT MOST CERTAINLY IS A CRIME. MULTIPLE CRIMES
READ THE @%(*&@(*%& law.
- you cannot remove email from its intended domain. it is a felony to do so.
- you cannot destroy the email. it is a felony to do so.
- hillary committed perjury by lying to the fbi.
- she committed another felony obstructing justice by deleting the email.
Infantryman1968_1
LOL
Thousands of Americans working for the Government and Military lost their security clearances
or denied clearances for less than what Mrs Bill Clinton did.
coachg61
@Infantryman1968_1 Because she's the Queen, you silly peasant.
djlcbs
" He was referring to part of the Espionage Act, section (f), says Melendres. To meet that
standard, according to Lenzner, prosecutors would have had to see instances of large-scale transmission
of classified documents, for instance. The classified emails would have to have been delivered
to improper entities like foreign government actors, members of the media, or, say, your biographer,
Lenzner said, referring to the Petraeus case. "Just sending between Clinton and her staff might
not meet the standard," he added."
So here is section f. It says nothing about large scale. It says if data is removed from its
proper place of custody OR given to an entity you are guilty. Also, it you know it is not in its
proper place of custody and don't report it you are guilty. So where does this "expert's" information
come from. And how does one reach the conclusion that Hillary has not violated this???
"(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing,
code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross
negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone
in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge
that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone
in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt
report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer-
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
just my thoughts 99
Since congress is having another hearing, why not start an investigation, similar to the
Brits, as to the real reasons Bush took us to war in Iraq and killed thousands of Americans and
100,000s of thousands of Iraq's? Maybe charges would result and the war criminal Bush could go
to prison.
Infantryman1968_1
@just my thoughts 99
LOL
Mrs. Bill Clinton and Joe Biden Authorized the Iraq War. Trump and Sanders did not.
Nonsense_In_Politics
Oh wow look at CBS dug up one prosecutor to say the FBI was right. How about 100's of other
prosecutors who are saying they got it wrong. where's the articles interviewing them.
Even if she isn't indicted does anyone think any other person would still have security
clearance after the extreme "Carlessness" Clinton showed with understanding and handling classified
information?
I guess this is just another case of "Influenza". It is not about what you did, it is about
who you are and who you know.
datay55
The GOP is being stupid. They could take everything that Comey said about how careless
Hillary was with classified information, about how Hillary lied about the email, about how she
lied about what the investigation was and play those quotes over and over to their benefit. But
no. They are going to whine about not getting an indictment.
They could play Lynch coming out just days ago saying she would follow the FBI recommendations
as very suspect to being collusion that she knew the what Comey would do. They could play the
negative way Comey spoke of Clinton with the hesitation and reluctance in his voice as his being
forced to make the recommendation he made.
This could all easily play to the GOP favor. But no. They are going to go with hearings and
whining about what didn't happen happen. They are going to take their lemons and instead of getting
lemonade they're just going to get rotten lemons.
Willkx
Comey has sold the integrity, trust and honesty of the FBI. Events such as that can only
be done once. Another trusted institution bites the dust in the Obama administration.
Independent909
Comey didn't recommend indictment but he sure laid out the list of Hillary's email lies, and
reckless carelessness in her email handling.
wakeuplibs
@Independent909
Plain and simple, Comey totally disregarded the Gross Negligence section of the law.
As a former Justice Department official, I
have, of late, been asked by both Democratic and Republican friends
whether Hillary Clinton could be indicted for her email related actions.
The simple answer is yes - she, and perhaps some of her senior staff,
could be indicted for violating a number of federal criminal statutes.
But for reasons that will be discussed later, it is unlikely that she
will be.
Nevertheless, it is well worth discussing the various criminal
provisions of federal law that she and others may have been violated
based on mainstream news reports. Remember that news reporting can be
incorrect or incomplete - and that Hillary Clinton, and anyone else
involved, deserves every presumption of innocence. Also keep in mind that
an indictment is not a conviction but rather the informed opinion of a
grand jury that probable cause exists to believe one or more violations
of federal criminal statutes have transpired.
This intellectual and legal research
exercise should commence with a brief review of the basics of criminal
jurisprudence: There are two elements of a criminal offense: the
prohibited conduct as defined in statute; and the
mens rea
or mental intent of the individual or individuals engaging in the
prohibited conduct. Thus, to gain a conviction on a criminal count in an
indictment, a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1)
the prohibited conduct occurred, (2) the prohibited conduct was
undertaken by the defendant, and (3) the defendant had the requisite
mens rea
or intent at the time.
1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense
information
18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information
A federal prosecutor would naturally
focus first on the most serious allegations: willfully transmitting or
willfully retaining Top Secret and Compartmented (TS/SCI) material using
a private server system. The individual who transmits and the individual
who receives and retains TS/SCI information on a private server jointly
share the culpability for risking the compromise and exploitation of the
information by hostile intelligence services. The prosecutor's charging
document would likely include felony counts under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and
under 18 U.S. Code § 798 against each transmitting individual as well as
separate counts against each receiving and retaining individual.
Violation of either provision of the U.S. Code cited above is a felony
with a maximum prison term of ten years.
The prohibited conduct is the insecure
transmission of highly classified information, as well as the receipt and
retention of highly classified information in an unapproved manner. The
requisite
mens rea
is the willful commission of the
prohibited conduct and the knowledge that compromised information could
result in prejudice or injury to the United States or advantage to any
foreign nation. Proof of intent to disclose the classified information is
not required.
During Clinton's news conference
last month, she was asked if she was aware of the security implications of using her own email. Clinton
answered this way:
"I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.
So I'm certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."
What's remarkable about that answer is that she wasn't asked in the preceding question specifically
about classified emails, but offered that answer anyway. There's a reason for that. It would be illegal
for anyone to store classified information in an unauthorized way, like, say, on an unauthorized
personal email server.
The day after Clinton's news conference, the
New York Times
reported, quoting a former State Department official, that it "seemed unlikely"
that Clinton didn't email at least
something
classified.
"A former senior State Department official who served before the Obama administration said that
although it was hard to be certain, it seemed unlikely that classified information could be kept
out of the more than 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton's staff identified as involving government
business.
" 'I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with
was classified,' said the former official, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity
because he did not want to seem ungracious to Mrs. Clinton. 'Was every single email of the secretary
of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it's hard to imagine.' "
The bottom line is this: No one will likely ever know what was deleted from Clinton's server.
Barring one of the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department being deemed "classified,"
it's also unlikely she will ever be found to have violated the letter of the law.
"... "'By using a private email system, Secretary Clinton violated the Federal Records Act and the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual regarding records management, and worse, could have left classified and top secret documents vulnerable to cyber attack,' Cause of Action Executive Director Dan Epstein said in an email to reporters. ..."
"... 'This is an egregious violation of the law, and if it were anyone else, they could be facing fines and criminal prosecution.'" ..."
"... "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system." ..."
"... "Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agency's record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clinton's case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record. ..."
"... In response to a State Department request, Mrs. Clinton's advisers, late last year, reviewed her account and decided which emails to turn over to the State Department." ..."
"... "'At this point in time, I think we're the only ones that specifically asked for both her personal and government email and phone logs,' Arends said of his group's Benghazi-related request." ..."
"... "'Hillary Clinton's system was designed to defy Freedom of Information Act requests, which is designed to defy the law.'" ..."
"'By using a private email system, Secretary Clinton violated the Federal
Records Act and the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual regarding records management,
and worse, could have left classified and top secret documents vulnerable to cyber
attack,' Cause of Action Executive Director Dan Epstein said in an email to reporters.
'This is an egregious violation of the law, and if it were anyone else, they
could be facing fines and criminal prosecution.'"
Harper goes on to point out that multiple violations of this law have been enforced recently,
including in 1999, when former CIA Director John M. Deutch's security clearance was suspended for
using his personal email to send classified information.
Additionally, this past week, Gen. David Patraeus
pleaded guilty for mishandling classified information by using a Gmail account instead of his
official government email.
Violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act
Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements
states that:
"Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail
messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or
received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system."
According to the original story on Clinton's emails
published in The New York Times:
"Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as
part of an agency's record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clinton's case, her emails were kept on her
personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State
Department record.
In response to a State Department request, Mrs. Clinton's advisers, late last
year, reviewed her account and decided which emails to turn over to the State Department."
The fact that the State Department combs through the
55,000 pages of emails sent on Clinton's private email account seems to verify that at least
some of the emails Clinton sent contained classified information.
Violation of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)
Veterans for a Strong America has filed a lawsuit against the State Department over potential
violations of FOIA. Joel Arends, chairman of the non-profit group, explained to the
Washington Examiner that their FOIA request over the Benghazi affair specifically asked for
any personal email accounts Secretary Clinton may have used:
"'At this point in time, I think we're the only ones that specifically asked
for both her personal and government email and phone logs,' Arends said of his group's
Benghazi-related request."
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell believes that the use of a personal emails server appears to be a
preemptive move, specifically designed to circumvent FOIA:
"'Hillary Clinton's system was designed to defy Freedom of Information Act
requests, which is designed to defy the law.'"
These are just three of the
potential violations that Clinton may have committed by using a personal email account to
conduct official State business. More information will be provided as this story continues to
develop.
On Tuesday, multiple Republicans said they expected to hear from Comey, as
Independent Journal Review
reported. That was followed Tuesday evening by
House Speaker Paul Ryan,
who told Megyn Kelly
he would be calling Comey to the Hill to explain his
decision:
"Comey should give us all the publicly available information to see how and
why they reached these conclusions … Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of the Oversight
Committee, is going to be calling up James Comey to ask questions. He didn't
answer any questions with the press. And our judiciary committee has sent a
number of questions. There are a lot of unanswered questions here, Megyn."
Now, we've got a concrete development. Just a day after the FBI announced its
decision on Hillary's emails, the House Oversight Committee will be holding a
hearing where Comey will testify on his decision.
That's right. Comey will be on Capitol Hill on Thursday, just two days after
his statement.
In a statement from the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Jason
Chaffetz (R-UT) said:
"The FBI's recommendation is surprising and confusing. The fact pattern
presented by Director Comey makes clear Secretary Clinton violated the law.
Individuals who intentionally skirt the law must be held accountable. Congress
and the American people have a right to understand the depth and breadth of the
FBI's investigation."
Republicans will have plenty of "questions" for Comey, as Chaffetz has said in
the past. Now that Comey has nailed down numerous Clinton lies on the emails, it
will be very intriguing to see how he'll explain his decision not to indict.
We'll find out on Thursday.
Sigmund Kramer · On-Air Personality at Salem Media Group
This will serve no real purpose, not even much of a political one. But Comey needs to be put
in the hot seat over his dereliction of duty. It's all a game, though. And that's the worst part
of all of this corrupted mess.
"... But a numeric analysis of the emails that have been made public, focusing on conspicuous lapses
in email activity, raises troubling concerns that Clinton or her team might have deleted a number of
work-related emails. ..."
But, when it comes to Clinton's correspondence, the most basic and troubling questions still remain
unanswered: Why are there gaps in Clinton's email history? Did she or her team delete emails that
she should have made public?
Story Continued Below
The State Department has released what is said to represent all of the work-related, or "official,"
emails Clinton sent during her tenure as secretary-a number totaling about 30,000. According to Clinton
and her campaign, when they were choosing what correspondence to turn over to State for public release,
they deleted 31,830 other emails
deemed "personal and private."But a numeric analysis of the emails that have been
made public, focusing on conspicuous lapses in email activity, raises troubling concerns that Clinton
or her team might have deleted a number of work-related emails.
We already know that the trove of Clinton's work-related emails is incomplete. In his comments
on Tuesday, Comey
declared, "The FBI … discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group
of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014." We also already know that some
of those work-related emails could be permanently deleted. Indeed, according to Comey, "It is also
likely that there are other work-related e-mails that [Clinton and her team] did not produce to State
and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did
not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete
forensic recovery."
Why does this matter? Because Clinton
signed documents declaring she had turned over all of her work-related emails. We now know that
is not true. But even more importantly, the absence of emails raises troubling questions about the
nature of the correspondence that might have been deleted.
Peter Schweizer is president of the Government Accountability Institute, senior editor at large
at Breitbart News and the author of
Clinton Cash.
WikiLeaks
Published Over 1,200 of Hillary Clinton's Iraq War Emails | 05 July 2016 | On Monday,
whistleblowing website WikiLeaks tweeted a link to 1,258 emails that it claims were sent and received
by the former Secretary of State pertaining to the war in Iraq. The emails were part of a trove of
30,322 emails made available by the U.S. State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information
Act request, according to WikiLeaks.
While the emails were available since February of this year, the tweet was timed to Wednesday's release
of the so-called
Chilcot report,
which will outline the U.K.'s involvement in the Iraq war.
"... Given her "extremely careless" handling of classified material, how can she be given the required
security clearance that the President of the United States must bear? ..."
Was Clinton properly trained by WH IT advisers and the FBI?
I worked as a contractor employee for DoD for 43 years until retirement end of 2007.
I recall that my company had specific requirements from DoD Security with respect to the technical
considerations required to be implemented to protect classified information (physical building
'shielding', computer devices and use thereof having to be closed systems within the secure domain
used for the classified program, etc).
Both the FBI and DoD personnel performed the clearance investigations required for all employees.
So the FBI was very much aware of the risks associated with communications devices.
But since task performance did require some communication beyond the firewall, the primary
line of defense was simply to prohibit verbal and written communication of classified aspects
of the project. And any classified information 'captured' on hard copy or electronically had to
be managed on a 'need to know', ...even if the audience had a clearance compatible with or exceeding
the declared classified level of the information annotated with security labeling appropriate
to hard copy and electronic 'copy'.
In other words if information which you had access was classified, the DD-254 Security document
peculiar to the project clarified made it very clear which information was classified and to what
security level (Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, etc).
The FBI was responsible for making sure personnel (including management and company executives)
were cognizant with respect to all aspects of classified information and material handling, ..and
.even thought despite appropriate levels of clearance, ...some project personnel might not have
access because they did not have a need to know with respect to their tasks on the program.
My point is that the FBI along with DoD security had a responsibility to prevent inappropriate
handling of classified information, ...and after making it clear what was expected, ...to then
address abuses which were contrary to FBI and DoD requirements which had been clearly communicated
as part of the clearance process.
So how is it that the FBI did not tell State what the rules were? If State makes up the rules
for security on the fly, ...then why is the FBI asked to enforce rules which they did not establish
with respect to the operation?
Are we saying the FBI is not enforcing a lack of rules which they failed to implement with
State employees?
I am just saying that this whole "email' issure seems incredibly disjointed with respect to
common sense security protocol required by DoD, ....so I would expect the FBI should be establishing
security procotol for State in a manner just like, ...or at least similar too, ...the requirements
for process required for Defense Department contractors?
I cannot believe that security protocol considerations of 50 years ago would not be engaged
today? The FBI knew how to protect information, so why did they not do it, ...and now be passing
judgement on the character of a political candidate even though the FBI cannot show any wrongdoing????
Looks like a political hack job instead of an FBI investigation.
Larry
And no mention of the biggest crime she committed: the cover up and deletion of evidence when
she deleted select emails that she knew could be used as criminal evidence against her. She did
that KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY WITH CRIMINAL INTENT. She's a damn lawyer she fully knew the consequences
of her actions.
Why have we sunk to such lows as a free society to allow something like this to happen without
public protest? Why is Hillary Clinton even being considered as a possible candidate for president?
Have we lost all our personal pride as a free and just society?
Larry
"Intent" is the word as to why she got off. The report clearly shows that she lied to the public,
and must of given a very different story to the FBI, State Department, and Justice Department,
or she would have been prosecuted for lying to investigators. This means she and her campaign
knew they were purposely lying to us. It is also clear she did not follow the freedom of information
act. I never thought they would be able to show intent, but the way she handled classified material
should have already been investigated by the DIS (Defense Investigative Service), and most likely
would take away her security clearance. How can you be president without a clearance?
Kitt
The Bilderberg-CFR-controlled press are relentless. There is an adage that comes to mind that
befits what they're trying to do. "Don't pee on my leg and then tell me it's raining."
;..
Not since the complicity of the FBI and the Justice Department in the Kennedy Assassination and
the 9/11 False Flag Ruse have they been so complicit in being dutiful servants to the Bilderberg
Round Table Usury-Oil-War Enslaver Hierarchy.
With a billion people around the world scratching their heads, wondering how such a miscarriage
of justice could happen - we all wonder how Comey, Lynch and Obama can live with themselves. Shrillary
and Bill (the Anti-Christ couple) have no problems living with their evil selves. But, Comey,
Lynch and Obama - even though you're all members of the Council on Foreign Relations (one the
evil subgroups of the Bilderberg Round Table), we had some hope that you would be honest brokers
and help Americans come to the conclusion that no one is above the law. We have certainly learned
on July 5, 2016, that's nowhere close to being true.
Non-Politicus
The most corrupt person ever to run for president and she is about to be our commander in chief.
For the record, during my military career I placed on report several service members for security
violations [they lost their security clearances and were FIRED] which were insignificant when
compared to what this candidate did. American voters do have a very serious decision to make before
the general election: elect the crooked one, elect the trash talking one, or elect the boring
one.
Michael
Hillary used a personal email server for 100% of her government work for one reason and one
reason only: Secrecy. Se knew exactly what she was doing. She didn't need any government watchdog
groups drawing conclusions between her position as Sec. of State & the Clinton Foundation & Bill's
speaking gigs.
Bill
Interesting, I work for a government agency where people have been charged, convicted and sent
to prison for far less.
Bart
"no reasonable prosecutor" would file criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for using a
private email system as secretary of state.
Say what? FOR USING A PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER? Is that all she did? Who writes this idiocy?
opiegreensboro
One issue not being discussed is that she fired an ambassador for doing the same thing she
did, on a much smaller scale. If it was important enough to fire that person, why isn't she being
held accountable? Oh, because the current Attorney General was co-opted in a clear conflict of
interest meeting which is also not being reported. Must be great to be a Clinton. Laws matter
people.
Tom
Ok, maybe if I squint just right and make a generous interpretation of laws regarding intent
versus gross negligence, I could see some argument for this recommendation by the FBI...but let's
not pretend avoiding prison time is compelling evidence that she should be promoted to leader
of the free world.
John
The FBI director should have referred this matter to a grand jury. This was he job. His job
was NOT to unilaterally decide whether ''a reasonable prosecutor'' would file criminal charges.
This is just another example of the total corruptness of Washington, D.C. Hillary Clinton is only
qualified to clean latrines since she and ''Bubba Bill'' crawled out of one! They are both POS.
Blair
Intent. Well a good percentage of prisoners in jails across the country can be let out now
and the legal system completely revamped as the FBI has established new Harvard Law policies.
All hit and runs, manslaughter, and anyone that can lie should be freed. Clinton and their arrogance
put my military brothers and our country in peril. Screw her send her packing.
Try A Hammer
Given her "extremely careless" handling of classified material, how can she be given the
required security clearance that the President of the United States must bear? Will she be
careless with nuclear launch codes as well, effectively fumbling the "Nuclear football" in her
"extremely careless" hands? This alone disqualifies her for the presidency.
alex
The guy spent 15 minutes outlining, point after point, Clinton's level of incompetence and
dishonesty. The, when it was time for action, he rolled over and played dead like every other
government hack.
Coward.
"... it could hardly have gone any worse for Hillary. Many people proclaimed that she was the safe
pair of hands but she's now been stamped with "extremely careless" with regards to national security.
..."
"... If the FBI (at the time) did not know that Hillary Clinton was using a personal email address
and a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State, then I have lost all confidence in our
nation's security apparatus. ..."
"... I think it was good for the FBI to let Hillary Clinton off even though she violated the law
(no intent is no excuse). It actually takes the curtain down and the voters realize the special DC people
have different rules than the common people! ..."
"... Nope. Dems did this. None of this stuff today is new info, Dems nominated and voted for her
despite this investigation. Plus it was Clinton's fault, no one forced her to have a private email server
or an unsecured phone. I don't often agree with Trump, but this is one thing he's right about, and it's
all on the Dems this time. ..."
"... Didn't the FBI director say most people would face consequences for this kind of thing? Then
let's Hillary off the hook.... Rather careless of him. ..."
"... Seems about right. The Wall St bankers, credit ratings agencies, and government regulators
didn't intentionally destroy the world economy. They were simply "extremely careless", too. ..."
"... Hillary's arrogance, not "Republican operatives," put her in this hole. The question is why
she ignored her own agency's regulations, and for so long. ..."
"... No one really believes that Hilary thinks any of the rules apply to her, so this is all about
nothing. She was able to dispose of about half of her e-mails before there destruction could be the
subject of obstruction of justice charges, so she skates there too. ..."
"... Christopher Hitchen's wrote a great deal on the Clinton's when they were last in the White
House. He was scathing about them and their corrupt dealings. Christopher Hitchens' Case Against Ever
Voting For Hillary Clinton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyDQxfDeWRc ..."
"... I've never seen the DNC struggle so hard to support a disaster. Shady smoke around donations
to the Clinton Foundation and arms deals certainly haven't made her any more trustworthy to many Americans.
She not a disaster waiting to happen...she's a disaster happening. ..."
"... If the FBI were to charge Clinton for using her private e-mail for government work they the
FBI would have to charge Bush and several hundred of his employee's. Not only did they use a private
e-mail server but it was run by the National Republican Committee. They not only used it but they illegally
deleted at least 5 million government E-mails that by law had to be saved. Bush and Cheney and the Republican
Nation Committee did this to cover up multiple crimes related to hundreds of Billions of American Taxpayer
dollars as well as activities into 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. ..."
"... She DELIBERATELY set up the home server to try and keep her emails out of the reach of Freedom
of Information Act requests. ... Calculated felony. ..."
"... That is absolutely ****ing outrageous, as is the fact Hillary has apparently promised Lynch
she'll be re-appointed AG in the event she is elected come November. ..."
"... The reason why Clinton is viewed as liar is not because she is a woman, or because of partisan
smears or because of the fact that she has had a long political career. The reason she is viewed as
a liar is because she is one. ..."
"......but Clinton's enemies will say yes. And that means the political witch hunts will begin
anew......".
This is no witch hunt. Aside from the fact that she wasn't indicted, it could hardly have
gone any worse for Hillary. Many people proclaimed that she was the safe pair of hands but she's
now been stamped with "extremely careless" with regards to national security. She's also,
yet again, been confirmed as a shameless liar. Her proclamation - in that tired, "bored teenager"
voice that she affects when she's boxed in to a corner - at that event: "I never sent any classified
information.....I never received any classified information" has been proven as a lie. The standard
that she was held to was that intent meant that she was a spy. The standard of intent that you
or I would have been held to would have been a heck of a lot lower.
Also, the law says that 'gross negligence' is enough to either fine someone or put them in
jail for not more than ten years or both: how is Hillary's 'extreme carelessness' is any way different
from 'gross negligence'? Everything that people suspected of Hillary Clinton has been borne out,
if not more (yesterday was the first I'd heard of *multiple* servers: how is that not intent to
circumvent the Freedom of Information Act?) but - yay! - the bar for presidential candidates is
now so staggeringly low that champagne corks are being popped because she avoided jail.
*Clap..........clap.............clap...........clap...........clap.........clap.......*
Raskente
If the FBI (at the time) did not know that Hillary Clinton was using a personal email address
and a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State, then I have lost all confidence
in our nation's security apparatus.
Iron Mike
I think it was good for the FBI to let Hillary Clinton off even though she violated the
law (no intent is no excuse). It actually takes the curtain down and the voters realize the special
DC people have different rules than the common people!
There is no telling what Bill told Loretta but it worked. I know they didn't discuss grand
kids for 30 minutes.
HungerArtist
In that way, Republican operatives have already accomplished their mission
Nope. Dems did this. None of this stuff today is new info, Dems nominated and voted for
her despite this investigation. Plus it was Clinton's fault, no one forced her to have a private
email server or an unsecured phone. I don't often agree with Trump, but this is one thing he's
right about, and it's all on the Dems this time.
erik_ny
Didn't the FBI director say most people would face consequences for this kind of thing?
Then let's Hillary off the hook.... Rather careless of him.
ga gamba
Seems about right. The Wall St bankers, credit ratings agencies, and government regulators
didn't intentionally destroy the world economy. They were simply "extremely careless", too.
One can be graduated from one of the world's finest law schools and still plausibly state that
she didn't intend to break the law. Seems law school trains people how to treat the law cavalierly.
Sure, she was informed she was flouting the rules, and she disregarded this each time, but this
is meaningless because the FBI is unable to read her mind. Ignore the actions because they suggest
nothing of a person's intent.
That's the privilege of power. You're never accountable.
Tom Cuddy
Once again with feeling. We know Sec Clinton won her delegates. She has achieved the numerical
feat of having enough delegates to be our nominee. And I see the tree coming closer and the brakes
are not working. This is why Sander's is not enthusiastically joining the Clinton effort as yet.
The party can stop from making a terrible mistake. I like Sec Clinton and believe she would make
a good Prime Minister. She is also exactly the kind of politician Trump eats for breakfast. We
are not unrealistic, we are not anti woman and we are not "Bros'. We just see Sanders as giving
Trump a serious campaign and Hillary just being , not quite.... The question; do Americans fear
Clinton or Trump more. The great unpopulated states ( y'know, the Red one's) are terrified of
Clinton. DEmocrats ( and a few Republicans) are terrified of trump. This truly shows Plato's point
about Democracy
Shotcricket -> Tom Cuddy
Sanders is what the US need but are told they don't, not unlike the UK in its portrayal of
Parties & their leaders etc.
Robert Rudolph
Hillary's arrogance, not "Republican operatives," put her in this hole. The question is
why she ignored her own agency's regulations, and for so long.
Did Hillary want to evade normal channels because she was using her official position to lever
money out of people? Follow the money, people....
Dee Smith
I wish to humbly apologize in advance to the other nations that inhabit this earth on what
the US is about to unleash on our collective space. Mrs. Clinton has demonstrated she is a money
and power grasping disingenuous liar, complicit in the murder of US citizens, and not bearing
the sense that the good Lord gave a woodchuck in handling information that ought to be more protected
than storing it on an unsecured server in a basement. Conversely, we have Mr. Trump, whom, while
opening up a very necessary dialog for myself and my American brethren, demonstrates all the sensitivity
of rampaging water buffalo at a wallow.
Dear God, help us.
SteveofCaley -> Dee Smith
Don't fret. They already suspected, I think. Another day, another drone.
devanand54
The FBI did a lot more than rebuke her for being "extremely careless." It was a scathing report,
the conclusion of which was not consistent with what was actually in the report. It also proved
Clinton to - once again - be lying.
Dale Roberts
No one really believes that Hilary thinks any of the rules apply to her, so this is all
about nothing. She was able to dispose of about half of her e-mails before there destruction could
be the subject of obstruction of justice charges, so she skates there too. I recall a couple
of military officers who were brought up on charges for failing to lock their safe containing
classified material in a secure building. The nightly security sweep found the safe closed but
combination lock had not been engaged. Eventually no one was prosecuted but the matter was handled
administratively so neither was likely to ever see another promotion. Being a politician may save
Hilary from this fate too.
DebraBrown
Oh, enough of the balony that we don't trust Hillary because of her gender. We don't trust
her because she LIES, again and again, demonstrably and proveably, beyond any shadow of doubt.
Both the IG Report and Comey confirm her lies about the email server.
Comey's decision is purely practical, given America's two-tiered justice system. The wealthy
class are virtually un-indictable, they can get away with any crime because they hire armies of
lawyers. It is sickening.
After being a loyal party member for 35 years, I am leaving the Democratic Party because Hillary
Clinton is a bridge too far. God save America... from the Clintons.
eminijunkie
Odd. No mention of the fact that like Bill, who got nailed for lying under oath, albeit he
only lost his lawyer's license and gained some fame for having said 'it all depends on the meaning
of the word is,' Hillary is now shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to have committed perjury. As
far as I know though, that's only something Congress can deal with at this point.
We should hear soon if they are going to do anything about it.
Balmaclellan
The case ultimately comes down to a matter of intent, something famously difficult to
prove. Did Clinton intentionally send out or receive any sensitive information?
The Guardian seriously expects people to pay for this 'jourrnalism'? Seriously?
Clinton was the Secretary of State. How could she fail to "intentionally send out or receive sensitive
information"? What the case actually comes down to is whether she intentionally placed the sensitive
information she was sending out and receiving on a private server in order to conceal it from
scrutiny and specifically to evade the provisions of Freedom of Information.
And no, I won't be subscribing.
Balmaclellan
Some of it may be attributable to poor optics... attributable to gender... partisan-fueled
attacks...
Alternatively, it could simply be that she's a pathological liar. You know, the sort of person
who tells stupid, pointless lies for the purpose of self-aggrandisement, and then bone-headedly
continues to insist that they're true even when they've been incontrovertibly proven to be lies.
"Yah, the plane zig-zagged as it landed under sniper fire... I ran across the tarmac dodging
bullets..."
BigPhil1959 -> Balmaclellan
Her husband was accused of rape and had sexual relations with an intern. She trashed the reputations
of these women to protect her husband. I doubt neither May nor Leadsom have ever played the woman's
card as Hilary Clinton has. The Clinton's are awful people and should be banned from public office.
badfinger
Flox Newts asks the tough questions:
1. What is the Statute of Limitations?
2. What about the Clinton Foundation?
Watch for a bogus "investigation" of the Foundation soon.
Brought to you by the GOP at taxpayers expense.
Filipe Barroso -> badfinger
A bogus investigation on a Foundation that would make the Mafia embarrassed? No way, they are
too compromised for that and the Clinton's would be able to bought their way off anyway.
BigPhil1959 -> badfinger
Christopher Hitchen's wrote a great deal on the Clinton's when they were last in the White
House. He was scathing about them and their corrupt dealings.
Christopher Hitchens' Case Against Ever Voting For Hillary Clinton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyDQxfDeWRc
Sadly no longer with us, but a proper journalist.
Alpheus Williams
"Careless" with classified material...certainly careless with the facts...careless with promoting
the bombing of M.E. countries. Her record on Iraq, Syria and Libya don't instil confidence....Europe
is overwhelmed with refugees from war and chaos from our making and Clinton's judgement certainly
hasn't helped. She has not only managed to spot the Nation but there own political party.
I've never seen the DNC struggle so hard to support a disaster. Shady smoke around donations to
the Clinton Foundation and arms deals certainly haven't made her any more trustworthy to many
Americans. She not a disaster waiting to happen...she's a disaster happening.
WMDMIA
If the FBI were to charge Clinton for using her private e-mail for government work they
the FBI would have to charge Bush and several hundred of his employee's. Not only did they use
a private e-mail server but it was run by the National Republican Committee. They not only used
it but they illegally deleted at least 5 million government E-mails that by law had to be saved.
Bush and Cheney and the Republican Nation Committee did this to cover up multiple crimes related
to hundreds of Billions of American Taxpayer dollars as well as activities into 9/11 and the invasion
of Iraq.
Beside these government protected account are hacked far more often than private servers, so
the information she passed on was safer where she had it.
simonsaysletsgroove -> jsayles
From what I read elsewhere, it wasn't an 'accidentally leaving files on a bus' scenario...
She DELIBERATELY set up the home server to try and keep her emails out of the reach of Freedom
of Information Act requests. ... Calculated felony.
kaltnadel
If Hillary had any integrity, she would step down in the face of being deemed "extremely careless"
by the director of the FBI. Clearly she is unsuitable for a position of responsibility.
Being better than Trump is not good enough.
"Witch hunt" is a totally inappropriate phrase. HC has been close to felons over and over again
for decades. She lies as she breathes; she speaks in vapidities; she laughs without a glimmer
of what good humor is. She is not only bad, she is dangerous. If she has avoided out and out criminality
herself, she has her Yale law degree to thank for that, not her moral compass. And she has not
a grain of political ambition that isn't personal to herself.
Someone should help her to realize that she ought to step down, and it clearly isn't going
to be Obama.
Metreemewall
Never mind her husband, her carelessness, her snipe's fire dodging skills, her gender.
She's a warmonger - "We came , we saw, he died"a - was her giggling reaction to the news of
Gaddaff being sodomised and murdered. And she is an AIPAC tool. And she's partly responsible for
the immoral profitable prisons' scheme. And she does not believe in universal healthcare. And
she's putting her "Glass-Steagall" poster child of a husband in charge of the economy.
And the list goes on, and on, and on...
elliot2511
"Bill Clinton bumbled his way into the eye of a political storm last week when a private meeting
he arranged with Lynch"
That is absolutely ****ing outrageous, as is the fact Hillary has apparently promised Lynch
she'll be re-appointed AG in the event she is elected come November.
If this sort of thing had occurred in, say, Bolivia or Kazakhstan, everyone would know what
was going on and be able able to see this behaviour for what it is. The contemptible idiocy and
demagoguery of Trump doesn't change that.
keeptakingthetablets
The reason why Clinton is viewed as liar is not because she is a woman, or because of partisan
smears or because of the fact that she has had a long political career. The reason she is viewed
as a liar is because she is one.
Just to take this particular issue as an example, she lied when she said she would fully cooperate
"anytime, anywhere' with the respective inquiries and she lied when she said she had permission
to use a private email server.
Slammy01
I don't see the matter of intent as a particularly relevant factor here. She has an obligation
to protect classified information as part of being granted access. James Comey said she and her
aids were "extremely careless" with how they handled information which any reasonable person in
that situation would recognize was classified. Any other person would already have been indited....
calderonparalapaz
compared the case to that of retired general David Petraeus, former director of the CIA, who
was sentenced to twoyears' probation after he shared classified information with his biographer,
with whom he was having an affair. . "The system is rigged. General Petraeus got in trouble for
far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment."
"... "Only a very small number of the emails here containing classified information bore markings that indicated the presence of classified information," Comey explained. "But even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it." ..."
"... Comey explained that in the course of its investigation, the FBI was able to recover "several thousand" work-related emails that were not among the 30,000 that Clinton and her staff produced to the State department in 2014, three of which contained information that was classified at the time they were sent. Comey said it is "highly likely" that additional work-related emails were deleted by Clinton's lawyers but not subsequently recovered by the FBI. ..."
"... "In my opinion there is a 100% chance that all emails sent and received by her, including all the electronic correspondence stored on her server in her Chappaqua residence, were targeted and collected by the Russian equivalent of NSA," a former CIA case officer told the Associated Press last summer. ..."
"... The FBI found that Clinton's use of a private domain was widely known and that hackers had accessed the private email accounts of people with whom Clinton regularly communicated using her private email account. ..."
"... "She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside of the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries," Comey said. "Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account." ..."
Comey's statement contradicted Clinton's claim in no uncertain terms: "From the group of
30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been
determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or
received. Eight of those chains contained information that was 'top secret' at the time they were
sent. Thirty-six of those chains contained 'secret' information at the time, and eight contained
'confidential' information at the time."
Note that Clinton's statement refers to information "marked" classified, while Comey's does
not. As
Politifact pointed out recently, Clinton's phrasing was revealing because, under scrutiny, it
left open the possibility that Clinton's emails might have included information that was
classified but inappropriately left unmarked. This appears to have been the case with the
majority of the 110 classified emails Comey referenced.
"Only a very small number of the emails here containing classified
information bore markings that indicated the presence of classified information," Comey
explained. "But even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know,
or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."
Comey did not elaborate on the "very small number" of Clinton's emails that bore classified
markings (as opposed to emails that contained classified information not marked as such), but his
statement indicates that at least some of the emails on Clinton's private server contained
information marked classified at the time they were sent or received. If this is the case, it
renders Clinton's claim false even by a legalistic standard.
2. The FBI isn't really sure how much Clinton didn't hand over from her
private server
Before Clinton handed over 30,000 work-related emails from her private server to the State
Department in 2014, her lawyers deleted roughly 30,000 other emails containing
information they deemed personal in nature. After this process was complete, Comey explained,
Clinton's lawyers "then cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic
recovery."
"I have provided all of my work-related emails,"
Clinton told ABC News in May. The FBI's investigation revealed that, knowingly or not, a
significant number of Clinton's work-related emails were not actually handed over by her staff.
Comey explained that in the course of its investigation, the FBI was able to recover
"several thousand" work-related emails that were not among the 30,000 that Clinton and her staff
produced to the State department in 2014, three of which contained information that was
classified at the time they were sent. Comey said it is "highly likely" that additional
work-related emails were deleted by Clinton's lawyers but not subsequently recovered by the FBI.
Though Comey said that the FBI has "no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails
were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them in some way," his remarks revealed that
the FBI's investigation lacked "complete visibility" because it relied so heavily on the sorting
process employed by Clinton's lawyers. That is to say, the FBI acknowledges the existence of what
Donald Rumsfeld might refer to as "known
unknowns" in its investigation.
3. The FBI doesn't know if Clinton's personal server was hacked
Critics have long claimed that the Clinton's use of a private email server unprotected
by government security standards put classified information at risk of being accessed by foreign
states or actors.
"In my opinion there is a 100% chance that all emails sent and received by her, including
all the electronic correspondence stored on her server in her Chappaqua residence, were targeted
and collected by the Russian equivalent of NSA," a former CIA case officer told the
Associated Press last summer.
Comey said that while the FBI "did not find direct evidence" that hostile actors had
successfully hacked Clinton's email, the bureau would be unlikely to find such evidence even if a
breach had occurred.
The FBI found that Clinton's use of a private domain was widely known and that hackers had
accessed the private email accounts of people with whom Clinton regularly communicated using her
private email account.
"She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside of the United States,
including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory
of sophisticated adversaries," Comey said. "Given that combination of factors, we assess it is
possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."
"... "For Jim Comey to come out and make that kind of public statement about someone whom the government is not going to charge is completely inappropriate and arguably violates DOJ and FBI rules." ..."
"... "I think that type of statement is why the FBI director is not supposed to hold press conferences like the one he held today. If you're not going to bring charges you shouldn't insert yourself in the middle of a political campaign the way he did," ..."
"... "If there is to be a judgment that her behavior was careless or inappropriate, that's a judgment for the State Department and Inspector General to make. The FBI's job is to determine whether laws were violated and charges can be brought in court. His determination was that there were no laws violated and he wouldn't recommend charges." ..."
"... "Beyond that, it's really inappropriate for him to be talking about this case any further." ..."
"... "And I can't remember a time in history when the FBI director or when an Attorney General has reviewed a case, decided that the evidence does not support bringing charges, and still make really reckless statements about an underlying individual's behavior. It's really just not appropriate unless he's ready to back them up in court which obviously as he said today he doesn't believe is appropriate." ..."
Mrs. Greenspan began by asking Matt Miller,
ex-spokesman for the Department of Justice how he
could "justify the fact that she was this careless
with her emails?"
Oh, the vapors. You could almost
see them on the screen.
Miller shot back, "For Jim Comey to come out
and make that kind of public statement about someone
whom the government is not going to charge is
completely inappropriate and arguably violates DOJ
and FBI rules."
Mrs. Greenspan was having none of it, so she
dragged out
Paul Ryan's statement where he did everything
but call Clinton Satan.
Miller had a comeback for that, too, and it was
not kind to Director Comey.
"I think that type of statement is why the
FBI director is not supposed to hold press
conferences like the one he held today. If you're
not going to bring charges you shouldn't insert
yourself in the middle of a political campaign the
way he did," Miller asserted.
He went on to repeat, "If there is to be a
judgment that her behavior was careless or
inappropriate, that's a judgment for the State
Department and Inspector General to make. The FBI's
job is to determine whether laws were violated and
charges can be brought in court. His determination
was that there were no laws violated and he wouldn't
recommend charges."
"Beyond that, it's really inappropriate for
him to be talking about this case any further."
... ... ...
He continued, "And I can't remember a time in history when the FBI director or
when an Attorney General has reviewed a case, decided that the evidence does not support bringing
charges, and still make really reckless statements about an underlying individual's behavior.
It's really just not appropriate unless he's ready to back them up in court which obviously as he
said today he doesn't believe is appropriate."
"... We have all been riveted by news Tuesday that FBI Director James Comey concluded that although then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had mishandled more than 100 classified documents, had destroyed evidence, and had acted in an "extremely careless" way at the helm of the US Department of State, he could not recommend that any charges be filed against her. ..."
"... But let's not just pick on Hillary. What about then-SACEUR (NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe), USAF General Philip Breedlove, whose hacked e-mails reveal that he considered civilian control of the military an inconvenient joke? Breedlove, while in uniform, actively conspired with other former military officers and with think tanks and PR firms to undermine President Obama's cautious policy toward the 2014 conflict in Ukraine. He presented false information to suggest that Russia had invaded Ukraine and he misrepresented the Ukraine situation to Congress -- at the same time he was working behind the scenes to fully arm Ukrainian extremists who wanted war with Russia. NATO claims its role is to keep us safe -- but we learn from Breedlove's secret, Strangelovian maneuvers, that those in charge will do anything to make us believe they are still relevant, including provoke a nuclear war. Move over, Hillary. Breedlove deserves a turn on the dock. ..."
"... Congress refusing to act on eight solid years of President Obama's illegal wars is every bit as destructive to the rule of law as Hillary Clinton's email homebrew. ..."
"... That is why we are taking our case to Washington this September, to make a pitch for a new foreign policy that resists to the face the deep state's secret manipulations, the Clintons' maneuverings, and Congress's dereliction of duty. ..."
We have all been riveted by news Tuesday that FBI Director James Comey concluded that
although then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had mishandled more than 100 classified
documents, had destroyed evidence, and had acted in an "extremely careless" way at the helm of
the US Department of State, he could not recommend that any charges be filed against her.
Former State Department official and good friend of the Ron Paul Institute, Peter Van Buren,
reminded us of the grotesque double standards that on the one hand govern whistleblowers like
Chelsea Manning and Ed Snowden, and on the other hand excuse the behavior of the privileged elite
like Hillary Clinton. Van Buren tweeted this quote from Comey's statement today: "This is not to
suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no
consequences." Pretty clearly, then, there are one set of rules for the Hillary Clintons of the
world and a very different set of rules for the Snowdens or the John Kiriakous of the world. And
most of the rest of us are in the second category. Van Buren used sarcasm to point out that in
the old days when he (and I) signed a non-disclosure agreement with the US government it was
expected that violation of that agreement would be evenly applied regardless of one's placement
on the food-chain.
Alas this is not the case.
But let's not just pick on Hillary. What about then-SACEUR (NATO's Supreme Allied Commander,
Europe), USAF General Philip Breedlove, whose hacked e-mails reveal that he considered civilian
control of the military an inconvenient joke? Breedlove, while in uniform, actively conspired
with other former military officers and with think tanks and PR firms to undermine President
Obama's cautious policy toward the 2014 conflict in Ukraine. He presented false information to
suggest that Russia had invaded Ukraine and he misrepresented the Ukraine situation to Congress
-- at the same time he was working behind the scenes to fully arm Ukrainian extremists who wanted
war with Russia. NATO claims its role is to keep us safe -- but we learn from Breedlove's secret,
Strangelovian maneuvers, that those in charge will do anything to make us believe they are still
relevant, including provoke a nuclear war. Move over, Hillary. Breedlove deserves a turn on the
dock.
And if we want to further discuss how the rule of law has been flushed to oblivion in the US of
2016, we need look no further than Congress, which actively facilitates lawlessness through its
continued inaction and fecklessness in areas of its Constitutional responsibility. Congress
refusing to act on eight solid years of President Obama's illegal wars is every bit as
destructive to the rule of law as Hillary Clinton's email homebrew.
Yes, there is plenty of lawlessness to go around, and in both parties. That is why we are
taking our case to Washington this September, to make a pitch for a new foreign policy that
resists to the face the deep state's secret manipulations, the Clintons' maneuverings, and
Congress's dereliction of duty. The old system is breaking apart and we will make the case
for peace, prosperity, and non-intervention.
"... Comey laid out a 100% air-tight case for a life-sentence felony conviction, and then said "no reasonable prosecutor would bring an indictment". ..."
"... She is as good as convicted. You could say it was a pardon. ..."
"... Anybody besides me wonder how a "Loyal Bushie" became Obama's FBI Director? ..."
"... So we watch this guy spend 20 minutes telling us how many Federal Criminal Laws / NATIONAL SECURITY she and her staff has broken. Then you tell us that it's impossible to prove intent. That is absurd, pathetic, cowardly and obscene. (Maybe reread the OATH you took to the Constitution and God). ..."
"... I would think the choice of vice president for a Hillary administration is EXTREMELY important. The Corporatists now supporting Hillary will demand a Corporatist VP. Many of the Sanders supporters will not vote for her if she chooses a Corporatist VP. ..."
"... There is one way that Trump is the lessor of two evils: she already has the blood of millions dripping from her hands before the election. What we don't know is if Trump will follow in the footsteps of the previous three fools in the WH and after his election rack up his own million deaths. Killing millions is now another trophy of being president. ..."
"... It's not "lesser of two evils." It's "different of two evils." ..."
"... The remarkable events also serve as a clear reminder that while the Clintons enriched themselves over the years, they were helping to bankrupt the public trust in its government and institutions. And they won't stop until they're stopped. ..."
"... Giuliani: "This is an extremely hard conclusion to justify. People have been charged under these statues for far less than this but... when one is Hillary Clinton, the laws don't exactly apply like they do for ordinary people. . ..."
"... Trump has been handed a lot of firepower. Oh for the debates. Perhaps Hillary's cough may deflect. ..."
"... My personal opinion is that women in Power are expeditive persons whose only concern is" Can I get away with it?" Hillary loves to find ways to break the law. Re her stint as counselor to certain congressional entities in her first job. ..."
"... "Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned", and even Obama should remember it, without counting countless others who stepped on her toes or so she deemed. ..."
"... Surely for all his bravado, Trump is a lesser evil. But I doubt he can win counter to the whims of the Establishment. ..."
"... The Empire's choice not charged? Well, I'm really shocked......NOT! ..."
"... Wikileaks appears to have a substantial amount of information on Clinton, having already released a large archive of Clinton's emails earlier in the year. Breitbart has previously reported on Julian Assange's claims that Google is complicit in the managing of Clintons online media campaign. ..."
"... Released only a week after Bill Clinton's meeting with Attorney General, Loretta Lynch and a day after Huma Abedins admission that Hillary Clinton had burned daily schedules, the contents of Hillary's released emails, containing multiple interactions between Clinton and multiple white house officials, could be extremely damaging to Clinton's current presidential campaign. ..."
"... For those who bellow about her candidacy just being an extension of Obama's (sorry, Obomber) presidency, just bear in mind if he were running again he'd be a shoe-in. ..."
"... Think Jill before Hill hashtag will get some momentum? ..."
"... I completely understand them. Because the most horrible and obscene things Clinton did were not illegal (As far as US law is concerned.) So if destroying Libya and laughing like a hyena at Qadhafi's murder doesn't make you hate here, poor handling of national security documents won't do it either. ..."
"... The global plutocrats that own private finance should be tried for war crimes and their political psychopaths removed from control but since they own rule of law I expect they have legalized all their theft as they go.....history is written by the winners. ..."
Pasting what a fellow posted on the CD comment board on the article related to this event,
""Precedent" (DEJA VU) then BUSH acting AG / Deputy AG Jim Comey's March 16, 2004 Draft Resignation
Letter: (Anybody besides me wonder how a "Loyal Bushie" became Obama's FBI Director?)
"I was asked what I would do if I concluded that a course of action was fundamentally wrong
and I could not convince my superiors of that fact....Over the last two weeks I have encountered
just such an apocalyptic situation, where I and the Department of Justice have been asked to be
part of something that is fundamentally wrong. As we have struggled over these last few days to
do the right thing, I have never been prouder of the Department of Justice or of the Attorney
General. Sadly, although I believe this has been one of the institution's finest hours, we have
been unable to right that wrong...I would give much not to be in this position. But, as I told
you during our private meeting last week, here I stand; I can do no other. Therefore, with a heavy
heart and undiminished love of my country and my Department, I resign as Deputy Attorney General
of the United States, effective immediately.
Sincerely yours, James B. Comey."
The next day he / they (FBI) had a meeting with W. Bush and they all had their minds changed.
/
So, a tainted Hillary is elected president. After she is sworn in, and there is a Repub majority
in the House, impeachment time!
I would think the choice of vice president for a Hillary administration is EXTREMELY important.
The Corporatists now supporting Hillary will demand a Corporatist VP. Many of the Sanders supporters
will not vote for her if she chooses a Corporatist VP.
Is a dilemma. For the voters, not for the Corporatist Dems.
There is one way that Trump is the lessor of two evils: she already has the blood of millions
dripping from her hands before the election. What we don't know is if Trump will follow in the
footsteps of the previous three fools in the WH and after his election rack up his own million
deaths. Killing millions is now another trophy of being president.
The "lesser evil" problem is the "either-or" fallacy. Either one of them is worse or the other
is. They both are. It's not "lesser of two evils." It's "different of two evils." Some
say the world will end in fire, some in ice. Trump is the roaring fire, Clinton is the suffocating
ice. Both end us up the same place, just different ways at different speeds. Freddy Krueger or
Hannibal Lecter.
Dismemberment by chain saw or scalpel. A gaping chest wound or gangrene. Going off that high
mountain cliff at 500 mph or 400 mph. Either choice is just projecting one's personal fears, not
dealing with reality, which is that our grandchildren will look at their conditions when adults
and at this election of either Trump or Clinton with hatred and contempt for our stupidity at
allowing things to evolve to this point and for relying on "lesser of two evils" arguments to
perpetuate them.
[.] The explosive result shows the Clintons haven't lost their touch for leaving destruction
and chaos in their wake. The remarkable events also serve as a clear reminder that while the
Clintons enriched themselves over the years, they were helping to bankrupt the public trust in
its government and institutions. And they won't stop until they're stopped.
And
Rudy Giuliani: "Today Hillary Clinton Was Put Way Above The Law"
Giuliani: "This is an extremely hard conclusion to justify. People have been charged under
these statues for far less than this but... when one is Hillary Clinton, the laws don't exactly
apply like they do for ordinary people. .
~ ~ ~
Trump has been handed a lot of firepower. Oh for the debates. Perhaps Hillary's cough may
deflect.
Sad day indeed and vexing hours to come, on all fronts, once HRC is elected and sworn in as POTUS.
My personal opinion is that women in Power are expeditive persons whose only concern is"
Can I get away with it?"
Hillary loves to find ways to break the law. Re her stint as counselor to certain congressional
entities in her first job.
She will spin her ways through the miseries of mankind wrought by her very ministrations. And
as sower of wars galore
she will probably receive a Nobel Peace Prize for good measure.
"Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned", and even Obama should remember it, without counting
countless others who stepped on her toes or so she deemed.
Surely for all his bravado, Trump is a lesser evil. But I doubt he can win counter to the
whims of the Establishment.
Re: "Additionally a judge ruled today that Clinton's "private" emails will be open to FOIA requests.
Some dirt will be found in them."
Look at the history of FOIA requests for Clinton emails.
The cases may be won, but the timeline for actually releasing the information in all cases so
far is AFTER the November election--in one case 75 years from now according to the Unanimous Dissent
podcast on Sputnik.
The Link to Director Comey's statement got mixed up apparently. There is a
press release online, and I think it's worth reading in full. I loved the subtlety…
What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and
what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.
[…]
So, first, what we have done:
[…]
That's what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
[…]
So that's what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of
Justice:
[…]
I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there
was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation
was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind
was brought to bear.
I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation-including
people in government-but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were
all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right
way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional
way.
I couldn't be prouder to be part of this organization.
Wikileaks appears to have a substantial amount of information on Clinton, having already released
a large archive of Clinton's emails earlier in the year. Breitbart has previously reported on
Julian Assange's claims that Google is complicit in the managing of Clintons online media campaign.
Released only a week after Bill Clinton's meeting with Attorney General, Loretta Lynch
and a day after Huma Abedins admission that Hillary Clinton had burned daily schedules, the contents
of Hillary's released emails, containing multiple interactions between Clinton and multiple white
house officials, could be extremely damaging to Clinton's current presidential campaign.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously stated that he has multiple leaks in store
for Clinton and, as a free speech fundamentalist, believes that a Clinton presidency could be
damaging.
The American people aren't surprised that HRC isn't going to be prosecuted, neither are they highly
outraged. It just wasn't that big a deal for them in the first place. They are aware of her shortcomings
and Bill's aura has taken a significant hit over the last while.
For those who bellow about her candidacy just being an extension of Obama's (sorry, Obomber)
presidency, just bear in mind if he were running again he'd be a shoe-in.
Trump has pissed off some major voting blocks in the US, Hispanics and women to name but two.
The Blacks are usually Democratic voters and there's no reason to think that's about to change.
His message mostly resonates with angry young whites and they simply don't have the numbers. That
being said, there's a chance that Trump could conceivably find enough dirt on hHillary to make
a difference, but he's already called her everything but a white woman.
The Yanks still see themselves as inclusive and a nation of immigrants even if the reality
is somewhat different. There's something about Trump's denigration of Mexicans and his walked-back
ban of all Muslims that doesn't fit with their view of themselves.
The Yanks couldn't give a fiddler's fuck about Brexit and its implications. They don't share
this thread's widely held view that now is the time for revolution. Some do, of course, but they're
mostly regarded as a fringe.
It's true that Hillary is more of a warmonger than the Donald but that's not too important
in this election. Then again Trump's worldview could change in a heartbeat if he were elected
and saw an opportunity to cash in on some of that MIC money.
I completely understand them. Because the most horrible and obscene things Clinton did
were not illegal (As far as US law is concerned.) So if destroying Libya and laughing like a hyena
at Qadhafi's murder doesn't make you hate here, poor handling of national security documents won't
do it either.
I am now thinking that we are entering a high cognitive dissonance phase of empire decline with
rule of law being the center piece and Clinton II's teflon application of it being one example.
I encourage folks to read the Warren piece and ask yourselves how someone who believes what
she exposes can be associated in any way with Clinton II politics.....but the rumor is that she
may be VP pick.....another Dem sheepdog?
The global plutocrats that own private finance should be tried for war crimes and their
political psychopaths removed from control but since they own rule of law I expect they have legalized
all their theft as they go.....history is written by the winners.
"... Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton's conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case. ..."
"... I did not believe that official Washington would indict Hillary Clinton, not in a presidential election year, and not when she's the only thing standing between Donald Trump and the White House. ..."
"... The thought of four more years of those people, the Clintons, in the White House, with all their sleaziness, their drama, their sense of entitlement - it's sick-making. What a country. What a year. ..."
Clinton won't be indicted for breaking any laws, but Comey's statement is
nonetheless an indictment of her poor judgment, negligence, and recklessness. This
should be very damaging for Clinton, and maybe it still could be, but it can hardly
come as a surprise to anyone that remembers how the Clintons have operated over the
years. The sloppiness, sense of entitlement, and disregard for consequences are all
only too familiar. We can expect several more years of this sort of behavior from a
future Clinton administration.
Andrew McCarthy is stunned. He says the FBI director has refused to indict her on a
premise that is not required for an indictment to be issued. And:
I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey's claim that no reasonable
prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind,
a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling
of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to
prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the
statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton's conduct caused
harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I
believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the
case.
It is somehow comforting to find that one's pitch-black cynicism is vindicated. I
did not believe that official Washington would indict Hillary Clinton, not in a
presidential election year, and not when she's the only thing standing between Donald
Trump and the White House.
The thought of four more years of those people, the Clintons, in the White House,
with all their sleaziness, their drama, their sense of entitlement - it's sick-making.
What a country. What a year.
Looks like the Democratic establishment decided that they wants Clinton in November no matter what.
But the price of this decition si that she will now compete as officially named "reckless and stupid"
candidate.
An interesting side affect might be that there will be attempts to impeach her from day one.
Notable quotes:
"... How is having your own private server for Secretary of State business not any of these things? What is the purpose of having your own email server if not for intentional misconduct? I imagine it costs a fair amount to set up and then run, did she just set it up for the lulz? ..."
"... "Had someone who was obscure and unimportant and powerless done what Hillary Clinton did – recklessly and secretly install a shoddy home server and worked on Top Secret information on it, then outright lied to the public about it when they were caught – they would have been criminally charged long ago, with little fuss or objection." ..."
"... After the FBI qualifying Hillary as extremely careless - precisely while acting as SoS - it sounds silly to hear Obama saying she was a great Secretary of State. ..."
"... Well, Comey just secured his job in a Clinton administration. ..."
"... Hitlery is just another establishment bankster cartel stooge/puppet. Expect more wars and genocides if this woman is elected. ..."
"... The NYTimes, 2 days ago: ..."
"... But, can we now at least admit that she lied, repeatedly and comprehensively, about her email server. This is now proven. ..."
"... She said there was no classified info on her email. This was a lie. ..."
"... She said everything was allowed per State Dept rules. This was a lie. ..."
"... She said the server was never hacked and remained secure. This was a lie. ..."
"... She said that she turned over all her emails. This was a lie. ..."
"... "110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information AT THE TIME they were sent or received. EIGHT of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET AT THE TIME they were sent; 36 chains contained SECRET information AT THE TIME;" ..."
"... I think they got that backwards, An Indictment would destroy Clinton's election hopes, and opened the door for Bernie Sanders to become president. ..."
"... Obama himself issued an executive order in 2009, "Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information," that deals at length with the handling of various levels of classified/top secret data by top officials and others they designate. An executive order has the force of law, and Obama specified various sanctions and penalties that violations can occur. ..."
"... The order even includes sanctions for "reckless" handling of classified data, and Comey used the term "reckless." Why those sanctions were not applied here is baffling. ..."
"... This woman is a dangerous sociopathic liar. I say that as a feminist and registered Democrat for 35 years who voted for her husband in the 1990's. Yes, I'm afraid of what Trump might do as president. But I am MORE afraid of what Hillary will do. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... "Extremely Careless" - that's a great defense for a potential president of the USA. That's what we all welcome - an extremely careless president. ..."
"... Now, to be really, really clear: 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.' ~~ George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945). ..."
"... First, the FBI decides whether to indict, not whether to prosecute. It is not part of its proper remit to decide not to indict on the supposition that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute. That is end-running the legal system of a nation ruled by law. ..."
"... Second, whether or not Hillary Clinton could mount a defense of carelessness is not a concern of the FBI, though they act as if they know the mind of Hillary Clinton. I realize they interviewed her yesterday or something. I would hazard she knew every question beforehand and they knew every answer beforehand. But, anyways. ..."
"... They all lie even Comey. He was there and with straight face saying what Clinton did didn't rise to the level of prosecution. Nonsense, for even smaller infractions the FBI refers prosecution to the DOJ. DOJ in these cases depending on mostly resources, decides if to prosecute or not, or seek a plea bargain. ..."
"... Everything he said pronounced her guilt, you'd think he was about to announce charges, then no charges. He even described her actions as gross negligence using other words, which is enough to indict. But no... ..."
"... She was careless with the fate of Libya and she was careless with national security. Yet, according to President Obama, it is hard to think of any person better qualified for the presidency than she. ..."
"... the State Dept contradicts her assertion that she was authorised to use an unguarded private server. No she was not. She neither had the approval, nor had she even requested it. Pure lies! ..."
"... Sorry but carelessness is when you are distracted like going to take a coffee and forget to lock the screen. She deliberately setup an email server at home ans she knew that is illegal and a huge breach of security. ..."
"... Is the FBI also suggesting that she is suffering from Affluenza, you know when rich people think they are above the law. ..."
In violation of the Espionage Act. The relevant part of the law, 18 USC 793, says that anyone
who handles important national security documents with "gross negligence," so that they are "delivered
to anyone," or "lost," or "stolen," is guilty of a felony.
The guilty party "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or
both."
18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, "entrusted with or having lawful possession
or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper
place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper
place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Comey called her "extremely careless." But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent
with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign
powers. But that's not what the statute requires.
18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who "knowingly removes
[classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents
or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not
more than one year, or both." Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.
18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who "uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety
or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Hillary transmitted classified information in a
manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.
18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and "willfully
and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years." Clearly, Hillary meant to
remove classified materials from government control.
Wall Street's Warmongering Madame is the perfect foil for Donald Trump's huckster-populism:
a pseudo-progressive stooge whose contempt for the average person and their intelligence is palpable.
She's an arch-environmentalist who has worked tirelessly to spread fracking globally.
She supports fortifying Social Security but won't commit to raising the cap on taxes to
do so.
She's a humanitarian who has supported every imperial slaughter the US has waged in the
past 25 years.
She cares deeply about the plight of the Palestinians but supported the starvation blockade
and blitzkrieg of Gaza and couldn't bother to mention them but in passing in a recent speech
before AIPAC.
She's a stalwart civil libertarian, but voted for Patriot Acts 1 and 2 and believes Edward
Snowden should be sent to federal prison for decades.
She stands with the working class but has supported virtually every international pact
granting increased mobility and power to the corporate sector at its expense in the past 25
years.
She cares with all her heart about African-Americans but supports the objectively-racist
death penalty and the private prison industry.
She will go to bat for the poor but supported gutting welfare in the '90s, making them
easier prey to exploiters, many of whom supported her husband and her financially.
She worries about the conditions of the poor globally, but while Sec. of State actively
campaigned against raising the minimum wage in Haiti to 60 cents an hour, thinking 31 cents
an hour sounded better for the investor class whose interests are paramount to her.
She's not a bought-and-paid-for hack, oh no, no, no, but she won't ever release the Wall
Street speeches for which she was paid so handsomely.
She's a true-blue progressive, just ask her most zealous supporters, who aren't.
"Even if information is not marked classified in an e-mail, participants who know, or should know,
that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it," Mr. Comey said, suggesting
that Mrs. Clinton and her aides were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive,
highly classified information."
Mr. Comey said the emails included eight chains of emails and replies, some written by her,
that contained information classified as "top secret: special access programs." That classification
is the highest level, reserved for the nation's most highly guarded intelligence operations or
sources.
SEE A PATTERN HERE ?
"no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" (FBI/CNN). that's a lie. anyone in a working
situation who lie so many times, and in so many different ways would be terminated. for Clinton
to become the next US President is an absolute moral disaster - which will haunt not only America,
but generations of young people watching this moral deception unfold.
Bernie did not lose. He was run over by the corrupt establishment of the Dem. Party. He didn/t
take their money, & condemned them for their undemocratic manipulations.
BlooperMario
She is a symbol of American hegemony and globalisation.
The East is rebelling and so is Europe.
Shamerica has been exposed as liars and cheats.
Poverty in Asia was promoted in order for USA to rule.
Regime change in Europe and Middle East created to support Lockheed-Martin , Boeing, and military
financial machinery.
Time for Europe to disconnect from Washington; link with Asia where the future will come very
soon.
Stop Uncle Sam's Navy and Air Force provoking China and Russia.
Hilary needs to go to Laos and Vietnam to clear minefields and unexploded bombs that US is responsible
for.
Chirographer
Comey offers his opinion that "no reasonable prosecutor" would press charges, but the dividing
line is between a finding that Clinton did wrong and was "extremely careless" is that she was
not "grossly negligent."
That's a judgment call to be made by the 'reasonable prosecutors" in the DOJ. It's not for
the FBI to prejudge that for them.
In a case like this the decision would normally be made by the AG. But, she had already announced
she would not be able to do her job in the circumstances- her chit chat with Bill tainted her
impartiality - and the decision whether or not to prosecute would be made by senior level career
prosecutors. Apparently the FBI wasn't interested in what the people charged with the responsibility
to make the decision would think.
Finally, for some unexplained reason, the FBI Director felt he had to make his statement today
without the DOJ's knowledge. Doesn't the FBI operate under the DOJ?
What a mess.
ExKStand
I think this shows you how scared the establishment in the U.S. is of Trump taking up power.
Save them from organising a black operation against him. No way should Hiliary be exonerated in
this way. In a democracy this should be for a court to decide, not the FBI. Hard to see how a
fair court could find her not guilty of at least incompetence.
kiwijams
Are their Clinton supporters who can read through this entire saga and still think she has
a high degree of integrity and honesty? By all means vote for her because she isn't Trump, but
surely you can't think this woman is all that trustworthy?
GrandmasterFlasher
Hillary is too big to fail, and too big to jail. There are too many vested interests invested
in the megalomaniac for charges to be laid.
funnynought
Hillary Clinton has repeatedly lied that none of her emails were classified at the time of
sending/receiving. This stinks.
Bill Clinton didn't have a "chance meeting" with Loretta Lynch, but walked across the tarmac
and boarded her plane to talk. Hillary Clinton has misleadingly characterized numerous times how
the two met, even with Lynch's own account out in the press. This stinks.
Lynch had the option of refusing to talk with Bill Clinton for the sake of avoiding conflict
of interest. She didn't. This stinks.
Just days after her husband met Lynch, Hillary Clinton was called into the FBI for a meeting,
on the quietest news weekend of the year till Thanksgiving. This stinks.
Somehow, after a mere 3 days of deliberating--over a holiday weekend--the FBI came to a recommendation.
This stinks.
The recommendation was no charges. This stinks.
The recommendation lays heavy emphasis on her intention, not on her negligence with classified
information. This stinks.
If elected president, Hillary Clinton is "considering" retaining Lynch as Attorney General.
Quid pro quo. This stinks.
President Hillary Clinton: "I didn't really mean to leak the nuclear codes to ISIS in Libya.
My bad. I didn't have bad intentions, though." This stinks.
"The buck stops here." -Democratic President Harry Truman. This doesn't stink.
Shardz
Meanwhile, feel free to leak any government documents you might have and see how lenient the
FBI will be with your case. I guarantee you will be in federal prison before dusk. Hillary was
not authorized to set up an external mail server no matter what the status was with those documents.
More Liberal ridiculousness.
Britaining
So Hillary carelessly voted for Iraqi war, carelessly pushed the Libya/Syria civil wars, carelessly
paved the way for Benghazi attack and refugee crisis in EU.......but liberal idiots won't care.
Anyway, she made a special contribution to Brexit, just like theGuardian's smarty pants.
Michronics42
This decision is deeply disappointing but not surprising as the late Carl Sagan observed:
" One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend
to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth.
The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that
we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."
The FBI's partial exoneration of Hillary comes with this proviso: "Although we did not find
clear evidence that the Secretary or colleagues intended to violate laws, [of course has been
clearly documented that Clinton knew exactly what she was doing
1)by lying that she received government permission to set up her private servers and
2)knowing full well that she would evade FOIA requests by destroying thousands of these emails]there
is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of highly classified information,
said Comey."
For those Clinton, Inc supporters who continue to support this "congenital liar," and longtime
"charlatan," this just the latest 'careless' episode in the deeply troubling career of a sociopath
who craves power way more than she cares about the nation she may one day govern.
I'll always Feel the Bern and I'll always support those who will continue the fight for reform.
jimmy coleman
Praise the mosquitoes in a Louisiana swamp, Ms. Hillary is innocent. She didn't know what she
was doing!! On several levels I can believe that. We can now all sleep better just knowing the
Clinton's once again dodged a close one, like the time Ms. Hillary and Chelsea dodged gunfire
in Bosnia. We are told to believe that no reasonable prosecutor, from Maine to Texas, from Alaska
to Florida, from the moon to Pluto would dare try the fair lady.
Ms. Hillary may not know what she twas doing after she signed the pledge not to do such a thing,
she may have misspoken like she did when traveling in Bosnia or talking about the Benghazi video
to the victim's families. She may have used bad judgment, ad infinitum, slept through the burning
of the midnight oil as Rome burned and been a lousy administrator of the nation's secrets but
add, according to the latest legalese, Ms. Hillary ain't guilty of deliberately knowing what she
was doing!! She can do more harm in ignorance than a smart person can do on purpose!
For those of you working in the computer security field, your job has just become easier, for
now nothing, absolutely nothing one can do with classified or even Top Secret information can
be considered criminal. If the prospective Democratic nominee, perhaps our next Great Leader of
the 'free' world, can do what the FBI Director himself said she did, then none of the underlings
should have a fear to face or a hefty price to pay for emulating the shenanigans of Ms. Hillary.
Ain't this country great. If you got money and power - where you can send your disbarred, impeached
hubby to visit secretly for half an hour with the chief law enforcement official, all the while
the FBI G-men shoo away pesky reporters with cameras rolling - and then two days later those same
G-men interview the prez-in-waiting, - with just a one day interval in-between the FBI Director
can say to the country, with a straight face, that 'no reasonable prosecutor in the whole wide
country would convict Ms. Hillary.... And if that don't beat all, while the FBI is talking to
the nation, Ms. Hillary and the other guy,...... oh yes, Mr. Obama, who promised us to run the
most transparent and honest government in the nation's history, strap themselves in Air Force
One to go campaigning together. And if that wasn't enough poop through a goose, a big chunk of
the unwashed masses swallowed what was said and done, hook, line and stinker!!
I wouldn't rule Bernie out quite yet! The superdelegates don't like liars!
TheRealCopy
"Several thousand work related emails were not among those returned to the government and appeared
to have been deleted"!
How does the FBI know what was in the e-mails apparently missing if they were deleted?
It appears to be a political decision not to charge her for security breached and they won't
charge her because she's who she is and in the middle of a campaign as POTUS nominee for the Democratic
Party!
To put the matter into perspective, Remember what happened to General Petreaus! A top notch
war commander completely destroyed over breaching information security on a much smaller scale!
ericsony
Talk about friends in high places....Watch the Clinton chronicles on you tube.. what these
people get away with is amazing...If it was made into a film you would think it was a bit too
far fetched!!
CaliforniaLilly -> ericsony
Time to watch a classic movie: The Manchurian Candidate. Love the original one with Angela
Lansbury. But, good time to see it. Trust me.
"Extremely careless" just the kind of person you need with the finger on the button.
ID8020624
The 15 minute press interview w/ the FBI, however, was vey revealing, but not duplicated here.
She was shown to be the careless arrogant system-girl that she is. W-leaks just published 1000
of her emails for all to see,...go see for yourselves.
Bot candidates have highest unfavorable ratings ever recorded in US history. This is not right:
over 60% of voters neither support nor Trump!
The Oligarchic rule is stripped naked for all to see. US people are not that dumb not to see
a couple crooks running to rule over them,...
Vote Green! Vote Stein!
Unfortunately Bernie is busy trimming party platform that has never been followed by any Dem
president.
Robb1324
All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful
mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way
as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United
States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
How is having your own private server for Secretary of State business not any of these
things? What is the purpose of having your own email server if not for intentional misconduct?
I imagine it costs a fair amount to set up and then run, did she just set it up for the lulz?
Is there a benefit to having your own email server to conduct department business on other
than skirting FOIA requests and internal oversight?
"Had someone who was obscure and unimportant and powerless done what Hillary Clinton did
– recklessly and secretly install a shoddy home server and worked on Top Secret information on
it, then outright lied to the public about it when they were caught – they would have been criminally
charged long ago, with little fuss or objection."
time2plyBsides -> Nelson Ricardo
I worked in IT for the U.S. gov't. Everybody has to take the trainings for IT and data protocol.
The lowliest cleaning staff who merely dust a laptop. The highest ranked general. They are VERY
serious about it.
There are specific rules for which communications go over which networks. If Hilary wants to
log on to her gov't computer, the system must register that she took the training or she will
be locked out. Let me be clear: THERE IS NO WAY THE SEC. OF STATE DID NOT KNOW ALL DoS BUSINESS
ALWAYS MUST STAY ON SECURE GOV. NETWORK. She would have had that drilled into her head by then.
She is a lawyer. She knows all Sec. of State emails are archived to protect the People from
malfeasance. She intentionally side-stepped protocol. There is no other reasonable explanation
IMO.
eminijunkie
""I am confident I never sent nor received any information that was classified AT THE TIME
it was sent and received,..."
Same sentence parsed properly: " I know i sent and received classified information, so I can't
say I didn't, but I need to make it sound like I didn't know what I was doing in an nice, innocent
way, so I'll say I was 'confident that I didn't because I think that's the safest thing I can
say to seem to deny the possibility of doing what i know I did."
Goias Goias -> CriticAtLarge
After the FBI qualifying Hillary as extremely careless - precisely while acting as SoS
- it sounds silly to hear Obama saying she was a great Secretary of State.
Bo1964
A decade ago CIA claimed Iraq of WMD, now FBI recommends 'no charges' against Hillary. All
collusions to please the bosses!
Brockenhexe
Well, Comey just secured his job in a Clinton administration.
Brendan Groves
Hillary has been careless with her emails, careless with her votes for the Iraq war, and very
careless with her husband. all of this carelessness does not bode well for a future President.
shaftedpig
Hitlery is just another establishment bankster cartel stooge/puppet. Expect more wars and
genocides if this woman is elected.
johhnybgood
Proof if any is needed, that the US Administration, together with its Judiciary and its law
enforcement agencies, are criminally negligent. The elites are above the law, just like the banks.
This may well be the tipping point that sends Trump and Sanders supporters over the edge.
rochestervandriver -> MtnClimber
"The head of the FBI is a Republican, btw."
This is what he is (below) so no wonder people think the fix is in. Obama appointed him , republican
or not. He's a "Business as usual" man. I guess he hopes that Trump doesn't get elected as I'm
sure this story will not end here.
Anyway, this will cost Hilary on the campaign trail . Trump will rip chunks out of her with
this.
In December 2003, as Deputy Attorney General, Comey appointed the U.S. Attorney in Chicago,
close friend and former colleague Patrick Fitzgerald, as Special Counsel to head the CIA leak
grand jury investigation after Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself. In August 2005,
Comey left the DOJ and he became General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin.
In 2010, he became General Counsel at Bridgewater Associates. In early 2013, he left Bridgewater
to become Senior Research Scholar and Hertog Fellow on National Security Law at Columbia Law School.
He also joined the London-based board of directors of HSBC Holdings. In 2013, Comey was appointed
as the director of the FBI by President Barack Obama.
Whether it's putting the Bush/Cheney crime family in prison for an illegal war and thousands
of innocent deaths, or HRC in prison for Bengazi and releasing sensitive documents, y'all are
starting to see what's wrong in this nation. It's a nation of crooked professional politicians,
family dynasties run by the 1% and the banksters... Welcome to the land of the free. Free for
the wolves to eat our souls.
Clinton is not above the law. If the GOP really thinks they have a legitimate case then Speaker
Ryan and the other members can impeach her if she wins. The reality is it is game over since it
is only GOP partisans who are interested in pursuing this. I think it would be a repeat of the
last time with the Senate laughing at the House for their stupidity. Everyone knows that neither
Clinton nor Trump are honest. The Democrats don't see it as a real issue. Bernie Sanders said
he does not care about "her damn emails".
Both the GOP and the Democrats are more intent on partisanship than in talking about ideas
on how to improve the government and society. Sanders was different and I think a lot of his supporters
felt that it wasn't just about him. Both Trump and Clinton do not have strong morals and it is
a bit sad.
Leviathan212
I'm glad Hillary is not being indicted, and I'm happy that we still have a viable candidate
against Donald Trump.
But, can we now at least admit that she lied, repeatedly and comprehensively, about her
email server. This is now proven.
- She said there was no classified info on her email. This was a lie.
- She said everything was allowed per State Dept rules. This was a lie.
- She said the server was never hacked and remained secure. This was a lie.
- She said that she turned over all her emails. This was a lie.
People are so blinded by their worship of a candidate that they are willing to ignore blatant
wrong-doing. This is how moral and ethical corruption happens. Try admitting the truth to yourself
- it's okay to say, "Yes, I support Hillary Clinton, but I can also see how she lied in these
instances".
RealWavelengths
if an average worker at, say, a bank would have been caught using a private email account to
conduct bank business, and some of those emails contained unsecured, confidential bank customer
info that could have been at risk for interception by identity theft crime rings, that worker
would have been in violation of several laws. And if subsequently it turns out that employee deleted
some of those emails and claimed they did not contain customer data but were personal, it is doubtful,
given other evidence, the employee would have gotten away with just scolding words from the FBI.
At least a fine would be levied, and perhaps a prohibition from working with confidential financial
data again. Here, Clinton just got scolded, and that's it. Clearly, this is a problem with high
ranking elected and appointed officials, and yet many of us somehow keep letting these people
get into office. We should indeed let our voices be heard online in various ways that enough is
more than enough. Time to get rid of the revolving door of past corrupt officials getting back
into office with the same corrupt ethics. Both parties are trash. There's a better way…
Georwell
"...is Ian Bremmer who said that "it's very clear that in trying to make it go away actually
lied, repeatedly, about whether or not these materials were classified at the time. And it's the
cover up frequently that gets people in trouble, it's not the actual misdeed. This was very badly
mishandled by Hillary all the way through."
But then she got some much needed help from the FBI to complete the cover up.
In retrospect, perhaps former Attorney General Eric Holder said it best when he justified with
the US DOJ simply refuses to bring up criminal cases against those it deems "too big to prosecute":
if you do bring a criminal charge it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps
world economy
And just like that, Hillary is "systemically important", if mostly for her countless Wall Street
donors. "
Welcome foreign countries. You will soon be able to know everything you need to know about
thrUS if Hillary becomes President. Will need a larger bedroom or basement for her server which
of course the White House has. The head of the FBI says although statutes may have been broken,
it is no big deal. We don't need them anyway. Good to know, so if anyone wants to break statutes
in the future, they just need to ask the FBI for the Hillary deal. Poor people of Washington D.C.
Just when we thought it couldn't get any worse then the poisoned water in Flint, or the Green
Algae in Southern Florida, the toxic smell of whitewashing covers D.C. Stay indoors, take precautions,
donate to the Clinton Foundation, because this could last for years.
Leviathan212
So, Bill Clinton meets with Loretta Lynch and four days later the FBI recommends no charges?
I'm not saying that there was any corruption - mainly because I have a high enough opinion
of Loretta Lynch's integrity (and not of Bill Clinton's). But the optics are not good. It further
fuels the idea that the Clintons play fast and loose with the rules and are morally and ethically
compromised.
virginiacynic -> boscovee
No one should ever, ever talk to the FBI without a lawyer (preferably two lawyers) and a Tape
Recorder.
The FBI will not record it and instead write up a summary of what was said and ask the person
to sign the summary. If the person subsequently says something contrary to the FBI summary then
that person can be charged with lying to the FBI.
It was not overkill when the FBI had eight people. It was good sense and good lawyering by Clinton's
Counsel once it had been decided to talk with them. If she were not running for President then
any sane lawyer would have said to take the fifth, just as the guy who set up the server system
did.
greg2644
For all of you guys who are up in arms about this decision, let's pretend for a second that
serious classified information did get out from her server. Even if that were true, involuntary
treason is not a crime. Intent matters in a court of law. All of the things Hillary is being accused
of are only crimes if she intended for information to get out. There's no proof that she did,
so they can't charge her with anything. This decision shouldn't surprise anyone. Politicians are
untouchable unless they're caught with blood on their hands... and even then...
Vladimir Makarenko -> greg2644
It's called "criminal negligence". The stress is on the word "criminal". If she couldn't have
understood after had been told many times the rules of separation of private from government emails
how she can be trusted with Red Button?
As minimum JD must withdraw her clearance. She can apply for a job at her "foundation".
Georwell
so Hitlary declare she never sent any classifieds documents
""I am confident I never sent nor received any information that was classified AT THE TIME it
was sent and received,..." (Hitlary )
BUT next we get this from FBI :
"110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified
information AT THE TIME they were sent or received. EIGHT of those chains contained information
that was TOP SECRET AT THE TIME they were sent; 36 chains contained SECRET information AT THE
TIME;"
Its this incompetence or just THE MOST corrupt system ever ?
ghostintheshell29
"An indictment could have wrecked Clinton's election hopes and perhaps opened the door for
Donald Trump to become president."
I think they got that backwards, An Indictment would destroy Clinton's election hopes,
and opened the door for Bernie Sanders to become president.
Its a lot easier for Trump to beat Hillary then Bernie. People actually like him.. Huge advantage
over both other opponents.
RealWavelengths -> Joe Smith
Actually, laws were broken. Comey just chose not to prosecute because, in his and his staff's
opinion, no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the matter, which is in the discretion of the prosecutor
to do. But Obama himself issued an executive order in 2009, "Executive Order 13526- Classified
National Security Information," that deals at length with the handling of various levels of classified/top
secret data by top officials and others they designate. An executive order has the force of law,
and Obama specified various sanctions and penalties that violations can occur.
As Secretary of State, Hillary was considered an "Original classification authority," which
is a top ranking official that not only handles such data, but classifies and declassifies it.
The order even includes sanctions for "reckless" handling of classified data, and Comey used
the term "reckless." Why those sanctions were not applied here is baffling.
America's two-tiered justice system strikes again. One rule of law for the masses, a very different
set of rules for the elite.
However one may feel regarding whether or not Hillary committed crimes, one thing is absolutely
clear -- she lied.
Comey listed a number of points which prove beyond doubt that she lied. For instance, she said
she never sent or rec'd anything marked classified at the time. Per Comey, there were seven (known)
email strings that were clearly marked classified at the time.
The Inspector General's report also made it clear beyond doubt that Hillary lied about her
use of the email server, point by point by point refuting everything she said about its use. And
yet, after the IG report came out, Hillary went on air to say how happy she was that the IG report
validated everything she'd been saying (though the opposite is true).
This woman is a dangerous sociopathic liar. I say that as a feminist and registered Democrat
for 35 years who voted for her husband in the 1990's. Yes, I'm afraid of what Trump might do as
president. But I am MORE afraid of what Hillary will do. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.
gvs951
"Extremely Careless" - that's a great defense for a potential president of the USA. That's
what we all welcome - an extremely careless president.
Sarah7
FBI Director James Comey stated the following, which makes it clear that the investigation
of Hillary Clinton and her top aides is a very 'special case' that would not pass the standard
statutory criteria:
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged
in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject
to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. (Emphasis
added)
Now, to be really, really clear: 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal
than others.' ~~ George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945).
theguardianread
Forgot to say that mishandling US Official communications is a crime-- there is NO WAY TO KNOW
IF AN INCOMING COMMUNICATION IS CLASSIFIED OR NOT, ESP AT THAT LEVEL, EVERYTHING IS CLASSIFIED
BY THE "LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS" RULE. No matter how unimportant it may seem to you, it is part
of the bigger picture of responsibility...
Goias Goias
I am listening to Hillary giving a speech and she hasn't mentioned a word about the FBI declarations.
Can she really think her bulshit is above answering for being called extremely careless by the
FBI?
KlaatuVerataNiktu -> Goias Goias
Being high-ranking in the establishment means never having to say you're sorry.
Goias Goias Goias Goias
Even Obama is looking ridiculous building up Hillary after the FBI wiped the floor with her
credibility.
MARK Corrales
So by this rational it is okay to break the law and violate national security protocols as
long as its unintentional. WOW! The political elite do not have to worry about any kind of accountability
for there actions.
Jessica Roth -> Stu Wragg
It's not so much her wealth, but how she got it. When you're in the pay of the Saudis/MIC/Wall
Street, the US government looks out for you.
Seriously, she swears under oath that she's turned over all her emails, it eventuates that
there are thousands more emails, but the FBI goes "no big, don't worry"? I didn't know that the
federal perjury statutes had been wiped off of the books. Perhaps Hillary sent me an email, but
I missed it?
Snowden gets exiled, Manning gets tortured…Clinton gets a coronation. Yes, very fair.
I urge everyone to vote for Jill Stein. Nothing can be done about this election (Trump, despite
his manifest flaws, is the more honest candidate and the peace candidate, but he has very little
chance of winning), but by getting Stein/the Greens to 5%, there is an opportunity for the left
to be properly heard next time, rather than the same corrupt dance between the two halves of the
Money Party. It's the only way to deny Clinton the second term she's already planning.
Yuri Esev -> zepov
Quote: ...love people who think that because Comey is a Republican, that this means that he
tried everything he could to reach an indictment. He's TELLING YOU that he's choosing not to.
Some people refuse to acknowledge this simple reality:
If there is one thing that democrats and republicans *always* agree on, it's helping big business
to buy our politicians wholesale so that they can continue to redirect money away from the most
electorate, and towards big business and the existing political establishment. In this case, it
means putting the first lady of Goldman Sachs in the White House Unquote
Carpasia
First, the FBI decides whether to indict, not whether to prosecute. It is not part of its
proper remit to decide not to indict on the supposition that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute.
That is end-running the legal system of a nation ruled by law.
Second, whether or not Hillary Clinton could mount a defense of carelessness is not a concern
of the FBI, though they act as if they know the mind of Hillary Clinton. I realize they interviewed
her yesterday or something. I would hazard she knew every question beforehand and they knew every
answer beforehand. But, anyways.
I believe Hillary Clinton fully intended to break the law, that law being the Freedom of Information
Act under which her emails were capable of being publicized upon request after vetting for, among
other things, how classified they were. Only a fool would think otherwise given the information
she had and the use of a private server in the face of that information.
I do not think she intended to break laws concerning effectively risking the loss and publication
of classified security materials by using an unsecured private server for her email.
Thus, what she did resulted in the risk of loss of classified materials that would never have
been lost if she had stayed within the government system, which laws she broke, one intentionally
and one carelessly, so journalists could not read her other unclassified emails, for they would
never have seen the classified ones.
At best, she was ignorant of the law on classified materials while intending to break the law
on access to information.
This bodes well if she is elected a President of the United States, for it will put paid to
the vaunted myth the Americans ceaselessly tell the rest of the world, that it is a nation in
which no one is above the law. This is the truth. Hillary and Barack having a laugh at The Donald.
Its great to see this investigation come to an end so quickly after such a long process.
June 27th Bill speaks with Lynch
July 2nd FBI interviews Hillary
July 5th FBI clears Hillary
ClearItUp
They all lie even Comey. He was there and with straight face saying what Clinton did didn't
rise to the level of prosecution. Nonsense, for even smaller infractions the FBI refers prosecution
to the DOJ. DOJ in these cases depending on mostly resources, decides if to prosecute or not,
or seek a plea bargain.
For what she did, at a minimum she would have been charged with something to cause her to agree
to a plea bargain, the terms of which would have been at a minimum not being able to receive classified
information, i.e. losing her security clearance. If she were not running for president, I have
no doubt she would have plea bargained to that level and admitted she broke the law.
But in the infinite wisdom of the FBI, they decided not to pursue her because just charging
her with anything would have ended her campaign for presidency. The punishment would have been
greater than the crime, again in their mind. So they didn't charge her. They would have even charged
Hillary Clinton if she wasn't running for president. This was a political decision no matter how
you look at it.
dongerdo
Critically, the FBI said that other similar cases in which a prosecution had been sought
involved evidence of "willful or intentional" breaches of the rules, "vast quantities" of data
or "indications of disloyalty or efforts to obstruct justice". "We do not see that here," he
said.
Interesting. Considering all those things are actually applicable, it was intentional, it involved
a lot of mails concerning Libya, she made an effort to keep it secret and tried to delete rather
large quantities and therefore has been obstructing justice I am curious if they would still 'Do
not see that here' if the opponent would not be called Trump....
Adoniran
"Nonetheless the detail of the FBI's investigation is likely to hit Clinton politically. Comey
revealed that of the 30,000 emails returned to the state department, 110 emails in 52 chains were
determined to contain classified information at the time they were sent."
Just add it to the list of lies that she told about this.
From the FBI:
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended
to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they
were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
So I guess we have different standards of intent for her than we do for the rest of us. That
intent to commit an action that is felonious would be enough for anyone else. For Clinton though,
it seems she needed to intend to break the law knowingly, otherwise she's immune. But wait, even
if we use that lofty, specialized standard, more from the FBI:
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's
position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding
about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
..........So why, again, are we not indicting?
ClearItUp
If a government agent takes a folder of classified (not even talking about highly classified)
information and leaves them on a counter in a public restroom, then after say a few hours remembers
and goes and retrieves it, he will be charged with neglect or mishandling classified information.
Depending on what the information and intent was, they could be charged anywhere from a misdemeanor
to a felony with possible years in jail. If this act occurs multiple time by the same individual
not being charged with something is unusual, even in cases of unintentional confidential information.
The usual outcome for such unintentional negligence, if they are minor is plea bargain in which
the subject gives up his/her security clearance for a period of time or permanently.
Hillary Clinton by Comey's own admission violated the law, but they decided no to pursue prosecution.
Because, the penalty would have been too strong in her case, i.e. dropping out of nomination.
This is the real story. It was a political judgement, no two ways about it.
venkatt
The Farce of a Presidential nomination cycle is now complete. The billionaire Donor class has
officially INSTALLED its "Chosen One" on the American Masses...
Lester Smithson
The Clinton propensity for ethical shortcuts, special treatment, statute dodging (they are
both Yale-educated lawyers), and supreme entitlement are eclipsed by the last GOP president ($7T
war, and wrecking the economy) and the prospect of Trump, whose potential for destruction in near
infinite.
Clinton dodged this one. She'll destroy Trump and the next ethically challenged foot in the
dung is just around the corner. It's the Clinton way.
Jill Stein 2016
skatterbrayn
Everything he said pronounced her guilt, you'd think he was about to announce charges,
then no charges. He even described her actions as gross negligence using other words, which is
enough to indict. But no...
Another win for the oligarchy and queen of the weapons industry. I fear for families in the
Middle East if she is POTUS. Get ready to go play in the desert again troops.
A sad day for justice in America. The Guardian must be thrilled though. Congratulations. I'm
sure Lucia will write a a great nyah nyah piece about this. Pat yourselves on the back, your queen
of global intervention skated on something others have been destroyed for.
callingallcars
People are attracted to Trump because he is not a member of the political establishment, viewed
by many as incorrigibly corrupt and discredited. Ironically, the decision not to prosecute Clinton
will enhance the prospect of Trump's being elected, because it reinforces widespread views in
the public that political elites like Clinton can act with impunity and are immune from the laws
that apply to the rest of us. If Trump is elected, Clinton only has her own bad judgment to blame.
Using a private server for email and effectively stealing the public record is conduct that one
only does if one actually feels immune to the rules that the rest of us must follow. Her arrogance
may well lead to her own downfall and the foisting of Trump on the rest of us. (That is not to
suggest that Clinton would serve the American public well.)
There's an old Roman saying -- 'Res ipsa loquitur' -- 'The thing speaks for itself'. Basic
to our tort law; you don't need to prove intent.
For 28 minutes, Comey precisely described the 'thing'. Then, in his last two minutes, he ran
away from the law, and then out of the room as fast as he could go.
Is there a different law for the Clintons than for the rest of us? Yes. From Whitewater until
today, obviously. In the corridors of power, from the leaders of both parties, the fix is in.
As a Democrat, does this mean that I should vote for Trump, and put up with four years of babbling
idiocy, rather than going with Hillary and furthering the assault on our democracy and on our
law?
Maybe.
steveky
So She was not knowingly Criminal.
She only had an unsecured server and put national security at rick so she could have her own Blackberry.....
Or she had the server to circumvent freedom of information act laws, which Comey did not even
address.
This is not over folks....
Stupid or Criminal... If she is to be president I almost hope Criminal....
Curt Chaffee
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that
no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," said Comey."
The poodle speaks.
Copper65 -> Curt Chaffee
..no reasonable prosecutor who wanted to keep his job (or maybe his life).
dddxxx -> Wolfclan
Winston Churchill once said when criticized, "Any fool can see what is wrong---Can you see
what is right?"
BillFromBoston
I'm sure that many of you Europeans speak Spanish and,therefore,know what "plato o plomo" means.However,I'll
wager that few of you know much about the Mexican drug cartels that literally control Mexico today.And
they control Mexico through "plato o plomo".This utterance is very,*very* effective when directed
at the police,judges,prosecutors and elected officials.
Although it's possible that Mr Comey and/or his subordinates were promised "silver" that seems
unlikely.Much more likely is that they were promised jobs...promotions...lucrative consulting
gigs.Remember,Europe...there are many,many,*many* people who make very,*very* comfortable livings
while connected to folks "inside the Beltway" (meaning Washington).
It's also possible,but highly unlikely,that anyone involved was threatened with "lead".Much
more likely is that threats to careers...threats to reveal the existence of a mistress...and other
less extreme,but *very* persuasive,threats were communicated.
"Plato o plomo"..."I'll make him an offer he can't refuse"...take your pick.
nerospizza -> ID1773222
It means silver or lead- as in you can take a bribe or a bullet..
Arbuzov
I possessed a Top Secret Special Intelligence Compartmented Access security clearance for 34
years before my retirement, and I handled uncountable classified documents in my time. And I can
assure you that 90 percent of them (at a minimum) were either overclassified, or never should
have been classified in the first place.
Joelbanks
She was careless with the fate of Libya and she was careless with national security. Yet,
according to President Obama, it is hard to think of any person better qualified for the presidency
than she.
What is grievously wrong with this picture?
ilipe Barroso -> alan101
Then, explain this rubbish: https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials
There was no intent but a lot of recklessness. How different is from this case? I'll help you:
he was a nobody.
makaio -> alan101
Lying - Her ongoing lie about the server's purpose, and her past b.s. about it being approved
and fully above board.
Reckless - See this article, and take into account her support for toppling Muammar Gaddafi,
among others.
Obstinate - Twelve years to admit toppling Saddam Hussein -- with millions suffering as a result
to this very day -- was a bad call. She's still lying about her server a year after its discovery
and, to the detriment of her supporters who always have to avoid this topic, she obviously doesn't
care.
Secretive - Her server was implemented to evade public and official records requests, with
a degree of success.
Warring - Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Honduras leader ousters or attempts, all without follow-on
plans, all increasing suffering and terrorism, all indirectly or directly supported by Hillary.
Her traits are right before us, and they're only "Rubbish!" for those who cower, deny, and
stick their heads in sand.
And they don't bode well for our future.
guicho
So she lied when she said no classified information was sent on the private server, the FBI
just admitted that there was information of the highest security classification on the server.
Whether intentional or not, failing to keep top secret information safe from intrusion and access
to persons without the proper security clearances is a crime. Yet the FBI won't recommend charges.
I can't believe this is going to be swept under the rug and "news" media will continue to champion
Hillary for president. If any of us breached security protocol at work we would be fired, prosecuted
and prevented from finding work in the future. Just another example of how the law discriminates
based on who you are and how much money and influence you have.
bill9651
Emailgate looks like it is just the tip of the iceberg!
Clinton has been outed as a serial lair to the nation:
.
the State Dept contradicts her assertion that she was authorised to use an unguarded private
server. No she was not. She neither had the approval, nor had she even requested it. Pure lies!
Now the FBI contradicts her statements that none of the material she sent was marked as top
secret or as classified.
The FBI found: 110 emails in 52 chains were determined to contain classified information at the
time they were sent.
Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time, 36 chains contained
secret information at the time, and eight contained confidential information.
So is the FBI part of the right wing conspiracy? And if so, why no indictments. She broke rules
in order to keep the public from knowing anything about her using her post to boost the corrupt
Clinton Foundation. By doing so, she played fast and loose with govt secrets, even top secrets.
And then she repeatedly lied to the nation about it.
Not my findings, not that of Republicans, but of Democrat appointed FBI directors and State
Dept investigators.
Her corruption is becoming public knowlege at last.
Battlehenkie
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is
that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case"
Because doing so would make for a weak case that a prosecutor is unlikely to win, or because
it would be career suicide for the prosecutor due to upsetting vested interests?
wjpietrzak
Now we'll never know if the contents of the compromised Secret files led to any harm to the
US, its citizens, Servents and allies. No prosecution, no need to reveal the facts.
Sorry but carelessness is when you are distracted like going to take a coffee and forget
to lock the screen. She deliberately setup an email server at home ans she knew that is illegal
and a huge breach of security.
Doug Wenzel
When my dad was a lt. jg on Kwajalein 50+ years ago, he was an entry level Communications Officer.
The whole island was one big Nay base. One day, he got distracted, and forgot to deliver a minor,
routine encrypted message. It was found in his pants at the base laundry.
Needless to say, that was the end of his career in communications. he was reassigned as a radar
operator in the belly of a single-engined SkyRaider like this one, which meant sure drowning if
the plane had to ditch.
When Hillary Clinton opted to have her own server she assumed strict liability for everything
involved with it. Plus she signed an acknowledgement when assuming work at the State Department.
Clearing her is an disgrace, and an insult to those in the intelligence community and with foreign
allies whose lives were put at risk, as well as to all those who have had their careers drawn
and quartered for breaches far less significant than these.
Jack Dornan
Careless = little or no regard to the consequences.
Top Secret = disclosure consequences would be damaging to the nation or place US lives in danger
No prosecution = no unauthorized disclosure occurred
Conclusion = Lucky Lady
stratplaya
No classified info: lie
Allowed by State: lie
Turned over all work emails: lie
Wanted a single device: lie
Never breached: lie
Laws are for the peasants, not our rulers.
Reason336 -> stratplaya
ahhh when has it EVER been different than that in human history???
You expected different now?
Kommentator
On the premise she did nothing wrong (snigger....) she is reckless, careless, a proven lair,
Wall St. bought & paid for, a known warmonger, a recipient of funds from dubious nation states
and apparently a war hero from dodging snipers bullets........and yet......and yet you still she
is the best option, you could not make this up.
Urgelt
This is very disturbing to me.
The FBI doesn't mention the legality, or lack of legality, of Clinton's avoidance of compliance
with federal records statutes and the FOIA. She purged official correspondence from her e-mail
server - a fact turned up by discovery of that correspondence on the senders' servers. Did they
even ask her if her intent was to avoid compliance with federal records statutes and the FOIA?
We can see no evidence that the FBI even brought it up.
So the Obama Administration hands to Clinton a mild spanking on classified document handling,
but ignores the elephant in the room: why she refused to use an official government server for
her official correspondence. If her intent was to avoid compliance with federal statutes, then
she broke the law.
Adrian Newton
Is the FBI also suggesting that she is suffering from Affluenza, you know when rich people
think they are above the law.
God bless exceptional America. Lady Justice will not be back anytime soon.
callingallcars
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that
no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," said Comey.
Evidence of potential violations of criminal statutes is typically called "probable cause"
that would get every American in the country other than its elite and untouchable political classes
indicted and brought to trial. Or at least all of the black ones, i.e., the superpredators that
must be brought to heel.
"... The Republican senator and former presidential candidate took to Twitter to express his outrage over what he called "a loss for the rule of law" that "further degrades Americans' faith in the justice system." ..."
"... "While I respect the law enforcement professionals at the FBI, this announcement defies explanation. No one should be above the law. But based upon the director's own statement, it appears damage is being done to the rule of law. Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent. The findings of this investigation also make clear that Secretary Clinton misled the American people when she was confronted with her criminal actions. ..."
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday blasted the FBI's recommendation not to prosecute Hillary
Clinton over her use of a private email server as secretary of State.
The Republican senator and former presidential candidate took to Twitter to express his
outrage over what he called "a loss for the rule of law" that "further degrades Americans' faith
in the justice system."
Paul also criticized the controversial private meeting between the former president Bill
Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch that took place just days before the FBI's
announcement regarding possible charges for Clinton.
WASHINGTON-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) issued the following statement regarding the
recommendation from FBI Director James Comey that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not
be prosecuted for her "extremely careless" mishandling of classified information:
"While I respect the law enforcement professionals at the FBI, this announcement defies
explanation. No one should be above the law. But based upon the director's own statement, it
appears damage is being done to the rule of law. Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for
recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible
precedent. The findings of this investigation also make clear that Secretary Clinton misled the
American people when she was confronted with her criminal actions.
While we need more information about how the Bureau came to this recommendation, the American
people will reject this troubling pattern of dishonesty and poor judgment."
Fred Lang,
Just underscores that there are 2 justice systems in America today: One for us peons and
another for the rich, powerful and politically connected.
From comments: "Judging by the vast majority of comments, NO ONE has been fooled by the decision.
The massive awakening is in full swing. The people are just waking up and won't be stopped now.
Throughout history once the people opened their eyes to the fraud, the powers that should NOT be was
removed, destroyed or both."
Now, to be really, really clear: 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than
others.' ~~ George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945).
Notable quotes:
"... I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. ..."
"... Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities. ..."
"... Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal email server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors. ..."
"... Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the state department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send email on that personal domain ..."
"... when one of Secretary Clinton's original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the email software was removed. ..."
"... 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was 'top secret' at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained 'secret' information at the time; and eight contained 'confidential' information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional emails were "up-classified" to make them 'confidential'; the information in those had not been classified at the time the emails were sent. ..."
"... The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. ..."
"... I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many email users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted emails or emails were purged from the system when devices were changed. ..."
"... The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her emails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related emails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total emails remaining on Secretary Clinton's personal system in 2014. ..."
"... there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. ..."
"... we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the US Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the later "up-classified" emails). ..."
"... None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at departments and agencies of the US government – or even with a commercial service like Gmail. ..."
"... Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked "classified" in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. ..."
"... With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal email domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. ..."
"... Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person's actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. ..."
"... To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. ..."
"... As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case. ..."
Good morning. I'm here to give you an update on the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's use
of a personal email system during her time as secretary of state.
After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the
FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a
prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we
found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.
This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more
detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those
details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement
in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what
I am about to say.
I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have
a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their
efforts.
So, first, what we have done:
The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection
with Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email server during her time as secretary of state. The
referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.
Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored
or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle
classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making
it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine
whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal email server by any
foreign power, or other hostile actors.
I have so far used the singular term, "email server", in describing the referral that began our
investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several
different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the state department,
and used numerous mobile devices to view and send email on that personal domain. As new servers and
equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various
ways. Piecing all of that back together – to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways
in which personal email was used for government work – has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring
thousands of hours of effort.
For example, when one of Secretary Clinton's original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013,
the email software was removed. Doing that didn't remove the email content, but it was like removing
the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was
that millions of email fragments end up unsorted in the server's unused-or "slack"-space. We searched
through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.
FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 emails provided by Secretary
Clinton to the state department in December 2014. Where an email was assessed as possibly containing
classified information, the FBI referred the email to any US government agency that was a likely
"owner" of information in the email, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the
email contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was
reason to classify the email now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent
(that is the process sometimes referred to as "up-classifying").
From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the state department, 110 emails in 52 email chains
have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were
sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was 'top secret' at the time they
were sent; 36 chains contained 'secret' information at the time; and eight contained 'confidential'
information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional
emails were "up-classified" to make them 'confidential'; the information in those had not been classified
at the time the emails were sent.
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not in the group of 30,000
that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional emails in a variety
of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported
or were connected to the private email domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government
email accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton,
including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a secretary of state might naturally
correspond.
This helped us recover work-related emails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still
others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of email fragments dumped into the
slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.
With respect to the thousands of emails we found that were not among those produced to State,
agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received,
one at the Secret level and two at the 'confidential' level. There were no additional 'top secret'
emails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been "up-classified".
I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were
intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many email users,
Secretary Clinton periodically deleted emails or emails were purged from the system when devices
were changed. Because she was not using a government account – or even a commercial account like
Gmail – there was no archiving at all of her emails, so it is not surprising that we discovered emails
that were not on Secretary Clinton's system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 emails to the state
department.
It could also be that some of the additional work-related emails we recovered were among those
deleted as "personal" by Secretary Clinton's lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her emails for
production in 2014.
The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content
of all of her emails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information
and used search terms to try to find all work-related emails among the reportedly more than 60,000
total emails remaining on Secretary Clinton's personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their
search terms missed some work-related emails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes
of other officials or in the slack space of a server.
It is also likely that there are other work-related emails that they did not produce to State
and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did
not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete
forensic recovery.
We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that
sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not
able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has
been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection
with that sorting effort.
And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved
in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton's personal server, to staff
members with whom she corresponded on email, to those involved in the email production to State,
and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.
Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise
by hostile actors in connection with the personal email operation.
That's what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate
laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely
careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special
Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both
sending emails about those matters and receiving emails from others about the same matters. There
is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or
in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters,
should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to
this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret
by the US Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the later
"up-classified" emails).
None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is
especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not
even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at departments and agencies of the US
government – or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only
a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the
presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked "classified" in an email,
participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to
protect it.
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture
of the state department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified email systems in particular,
was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence
that Secretary Clinton's personal email domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully
hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that
we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access
to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact
from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain
was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email
extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails
in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is
possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account.
So that's what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:
In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based
on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don't normally make public our recommendations
to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with
prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the
importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified
information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily
weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength
of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of
a person's actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we
cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted
involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information;
or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct;
or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see
those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this
activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security
or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we
are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout
this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently,
honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.
I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation – including
people in government – but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all
uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only
facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn't
be prouder to be part of this organization.
"... That assumption, he says, may stem from the sense of status that comes from being in academe. The idea that "if you're in this room, you're an elite - so you're not going to respond to things like trade policy and illegal immigration because these things largely don't affect you." ..."
"... The academics who support Mr. Trump acknowledge that many of his ideas are dangerous. Outweighing that concern is the conviction that something has to change, and that there's no better alternative than a Trump presidency. ..."
"... Compounding their support for the billionaire is a lack of other options. Mr. Van Horn says he would be open to voting for a Democrat, but he thinks the proposals of the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders are unrealistic. As for Hillary Clinton, he neither likes her nor trusts her. (When confronted with the fact that he also says he neither likes nor trusts Mr. Trump, Mr. Van Horn says the former secretary of state is more likely to be beholden to a "very narrow set of society.") ..."
"... But two and a half years into the program, he has found that some academics can be even more closed-minded than people he grew up with. "I was this very liberal person where I was from, and then I come out here and they're all very, very liberal, and they're all very, very rigid." ..."
"... And in political science, where this year's election is particularly relevant, the popular treatment of the Trump candidacy as a joke has made Mr. Van Horn wonder about the costs to scholarship: "How can you do objective scholarly research? You don't even treat American voters as people who are qualified to cast a ballot." ..."
"... Mr. Van Horn still loves studying political science, and he still wants to be a professor. But he watches what he says, and he's more cynical about higher education. "It's a very closed community," he says. "It's like the smallest town in the world." ..."
Conventional wisdom says poorly educated voters have fueled Mr. Trump's improbable rise. "I love
the poorly educated,"
he proclaimed after winning Nevada's primary last month (though he also boasted of winning the
votes of the well educated). "The single best predictor of Trump support in the GOP primary is the
absence of a college degree,"
wrote Derek Thompson in
The Atlantic this month.
In academe - where professionals can have three, four, five degrees - Trump supporters may be
hard to find. But they're out there.
Like many people, Joseph Van Horn first treated Mr. Trump's candidacy as a joke. But as more-traditional
candidates failed to outpace the billionaire, Mr. Van Horn, a Ph.D. student in political science
at the University of California at Los Angeles, listened more closely.
What he heard excited him - among other things, that Mr. Trump was willing to talk about narrow
policy proposals rather than harp on conservative social issues. That willingness, coupled with his
lack of attachment to the political establishment, made Mr. Van Horn think, "When's the last time
I heard a candidate and thought, 'That could really happen'?"
Mr. Van Horn doesn't like Donald Trump personally. And he doesn't find him all that trustworthy.
"I wouldn't give him the key to my apartment," he says. But he's excited about the Trump movement,
particularly how it has spurred higher turnout and more engagement with the election.
When he brings up that sense of excitement in an academic setting, however, he gets shut down,
he says. "I was kind of shocked at how staunchly anti-Trump people are," he says. Many of his peers
are willing to issue a blanket condemnation of Mr. Trump's candidacy as racist and nativist, Mr.
Van Horn says, but "shouting 'racists' and 'bigots' and 'he's Hitler' is just not productive."
"The reaction of everyone in the audience was, you know, chuckling, the implication being that no
one in this room could possibly take Trump seriously."
It's not as if those terms are not warranted at times. Mr. Trump has been shocking and crass,
suggesting, for example, that Mexican immigrants are responsible for widespread rape. "He's certainly
playing to people's prejudices," Mr. Van Horn says, adding that he doesn't share those prejudices.
He hates the proposal to bar Muslims from entering the country ("I think it's really shameful that
we have Muslims in the armed forces that have to listen to this stuff") but thinks such extreme proposals
are unlikely to become policy.
Sharp rhetoric aside, he says, shouldn't a political-science department be willing to take seriously
the merits of a formidable political movement? Mr. Van Horn says the popular dismissal of the Trump
campaign has been disheartening and reflective of a broader bias against right-leaning ideas.
Linda Grochowalski, a Trump supporter who teaches English part time at Assumption College and
Quinsigamond Community College, in Worcester, Mass., encountered that bias once upon moving into
a new office. A previous occupant's poster still hung on the back of the door.
"It essentially said, You have to be pretty stupid to vote for a Republican," she says. "I guess
the writing's on the wall, or the door."
That bias manifests itself in large groups, too. Mr. Calautti recalls attending a colloquium on
civility in public discourse at which the speaker used as an example of uncivil discourse - surprise!
- Mr. Trump's performance in the Republican debates. "The reaction of everyone in the audience was,
you know, chuckling," he says, "the implication being that no one in this room could possibly take
Trump seriously."
That assumption, he says, may stem from the sense of status that comes from being in academe.
The idea that "if you're in this room, you're an elite - so you're not going to respond to things
like trade policy and illegal immigration because these things largely don't affect you."
Gina Marcello, an assistant professor of communication at Georgian Court University, in New Jersey,
says she hasn't often heard the election come up as a topic of conversation on her campus. "If it
does come up," she says, "it's dismissive of Donald Trump." The subtext, which helps prevent her
from talking politics with her colleagues, comes through loud and clear: "You'd have to be out of
your mind to support a Trump candidacy."
Why Trump?
The academics who support Mr. Trump acknowledge that many of his ideas are dangerous. Outweighing
that concern is the conviction that something has to change, and that there's no better alternative
than a Trump presidency.
Ms. Grochowalski says eight years of the Obama administration left her with $8,000 in medical
bills. The Affordable Care Act, she says, forced her and her husband off their preferred health-insurance
plan. And she's been disturbed by President Obama's use of executive orders to bypass Congress.
Ms. Grochowalski, who worked as a marketing and communications director in the private sector,
acknowledges that Mr. Trump lacks experience in public office. But she trusts that he would surround
himself with smart people because of his business experience.
His lack of political experience could be an asset, Ms. Marcello says, enabling him to appoint
the "very best people" to advise him instead of bestowing political patronage.
Compounding their support for the billionaire is a lack of other options. Mr. Van Horn says he
would be open to voting for a Democrat, but he thinks the proposals of the Vermont senator Bernie
Sanders are unrealistic. As for Hillary Clinton, he neither likes her nor trusts her. (When confronted
with the fact that he also says he neither likes nor trusts Mr. Trump, Mr. Van Horn says the former
secretary of state is more likely to be beholden to a "very narrow set of society.")
As for those of Mr. Trump's ideas that Ms. Grochowalski calls "pretty outrageous," legal and constitutional
checks are there to stymie any truly devastating plans, she says. "He probably can't do 30 percent
of them, even if he wanted to."
'The Smallest Town'
For Mr. Van Horn, academe's reaction to the Trump candidacy has been a particularly disappointing
sign of a larger problem. The 29-year-old grew up in Louisville, Ky., which he calls a "small city in the South." He enrolled
in the University of Kentucky when he was 18, but struggled and dropped out after two years. He then became an electrician, but after a few years of doing that, he wasn't satisfied. "You
can always make a lot of money as an electrician, but learning about the world is something different,"
he says.
"I was this very liberal person where I was from, and then I come out here and they're all very,
very liberal, and they're all very, very rigid."
So he returned to school, finishing his undergraduate education at Indiana University-Southeast.
He then applied to the political-science program at UCLA. He was over the moon about getting to follow
his passion for a living - and to broaden his horizons beyond what his upbringing had restricted
him to.
But two and a half years into the program, he has found that some academics can be even more closed-minded
than people he grew up with. "I was this very liberal person where I was from, and then I come out
here and they're all very, very liberal, and they're all very, very rigid."
And in political science, where this year's election is particularly relevant, the popular treatment
of the Trump candidacy as a joke has made Mr. Van Horn wonder about the costs to scholarship: "How
can you do objective scholarly research? You don't even treat American voters as people who are qualified
to cast a ballot."
Mr. Van Horn still loves studying political science, and he still wants to be a professor. But
he watches what he says, and he's more cynical about higher education. "It's a very closed community," he says. "It's like the smallest town in the world."
"... The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate, ..."
"... To the extent that Mr. Trump found inspiration in the classroom, Ms. Blair continues, it was in those courses with the clearest connections to building and real estate. "He said the only thing he was interested in was geometry," Ms. Blair says. "It had something to do with buildings, it had something to do with spaces. That interested him." ..."
"... "Perhaps the most important thing I learned at Wharton was not to be overly impressed by academic credentials," Mr. Trump wrote in The Art of the Deal. ..."
"... On their first day of classes together, when a professor asked the students why they had come to Wharton, Mr. Calomaris recalls Mr. Trump saying, "I'm going to be the next Bill Zeckendorf," referencing a prominent New York City developer, "but I'm going to be better." ..."
"... From the beginning, it was clear to Mr. Trump's classmates that Mr. Trump's relationship with Penn would be a transactional one; he would learn what he thought he needed to learn, and skim the rest. ..."
"... Mr. Trump "never prepared for study group," says Mr. Calomaris, a restaurant owner and consultant, who says he is considering a vote for Mr. Trump. "He was not an intellectual, and you see that now. He doesn't prepare for speeches. He doesn't prepare himself. He doesn't have a battle plan. But he certainly knows what he wants to do. He wanted to win the nomination and now the presidency." ..."
"... "He was a real-estate expert; he really was," recalls Mr. Sachs, who has worked in finance and consulting. "He would talk about major developers around the country. He knew the history and properties where I was from, which was Chicago. I was very amazed with his command of the subject and his interest in it. He knew the history of high-rise developers like a textbook." ..."
"... "because he didn't care a whit about the technicalities of the real-estate business, just as today he doesn't care about the technicalities of virtually anything. He's a big-picture person." ..."
By Donald J. Trump's own account, he saw higher education as a means to an end. Fordham University
and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, where Mr. Trump transferred to complete
a bachelor's degree in economics, were essentially credential factories. To become the real-estate
mogul he envisioned, he needed these institutions - but in the same dispassionate way that a mechanic,
say, needs a socket wrench.
"In my opinion, that degree doesn't prove very much, but a lot of people I do business with take
it very seriously, and it's considered very prestigious," Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential
nominee, wrote in his book The Art of the Deal. "So all things considered, I'm glad I went to Wharton."
... ... ...
In her book, The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate,
Ms. Blair stops short of saying that Donald Trump owed his Penn admission to family connections.
But she reports that, before Mr. Trump's transfer, he interviewed with a "friendly Wharton admissions
officer" who was a high-school classmate of Mr. Trump's older brother, Freddy.
"He acknowledged he wasn't much of a student," Ms. Blair, an adjunct professor in Columbia University's
Graduate School of Journalism, said in a recent interview. "He wasn't interested in school. Let me
be clear: He never said he was a poor student. He never said he was poor at anything."
To the extent that Mr. Trump found inspiration in the classroom, Ms. Blair continues, it was
in those courses with the clearest connections to building and real estate. "He said the only thing
he was interested in was geometry," Ms. Blair says. "It had something to do with buildings, it had
something to do with spaces. That interested him."
Mr. Trump, who did not respond to interview requests, has said he was unfazed by the supposedly
elite crowd he found at Penn.
"Perhaps the most important thing I learned at Wharton was not to be overly impressed by academic
credentials," Mr. Trump wrote in The Art of the Deal. "It didn't take me long to realize
that there was nothing particularly awesome or exceptional about my classmates, and that I could
compete with them just fine."
One of those classmates was Louis J. Calomaris, who was among about a half-dozen students, along
with Mr. Trump, in the real-estate concentration of Wharton's business program. Mr. Calomaris remembers
well the first time he laid eyes on Mr. Trump, who had a "big blond mop of hair" and an ego to match.
On their first day of classes together, when a professor asked the students why they had come
to Wharton, Mr. Calomaris recalls Mr. Trump saying, "I'm going to be the next Bill Zeckendorf," referencing
a prominent New York City developer, "but I'm going to be better."
The professor peered over his horn-rimmed glasses and asked for the name of this cocksure young
man. "And that was our introduction to Donald Trump," Mr. Calomaris says.
From the beginning, it was clear to Mr. Trump's classmates that Mr. Trump's relationship with
Penn would be a transactional one; he would learn what he thought he needed to learn, and skim the
rest.
Wharton's small group of real-estate majors met regularly for a study group, Mr. Calomaris says,
often at the home of Joseph M. Cohen, a future television-sports impresario who lived in Society
Hill Towers, a high-rise condominium.
"That degree doesn't prove very much, but ... it's considered very prestigious."
Mr. Trump "never prepared for study group," says Mr. Calomaris, a restaurant owner and consultant,
who says he is considering a vote for Mr. Trump. "He was not an intellectual, and you see that now.
He doesn't prepare for speeches. He doesn't prepare himself. He doesn't have a battle plan. But he
certainly knows what he wants to do. He wanted to win the nomination and now the presidency."
Another of Mr. Trump's classmates, Edward M. Sachs Jr., recalls the future candidate for his uncommon
knowledge of developers across the nation.
"He was a real-estate expert; he really was," recalls Mr. Sachs, who has worked in finance
and consulting. "He would talk about major developers around the country. He knew the history and
properties where I was from, which was Chicago. I was very amazed with his command of the subject
and his interest in it. He knew the history of high-rise developers like a textbook."
Mr. Sachs was unaware that Mr. Trump's father was a wealthy real-estate developer. The former
classmate remembers Mr. Trump as a low-key guy, who liked to break away on Fridays for fried-oyster
sandwiches at Howard Johnson's.
"Even though he was from New York, you could have sold him in some small town in Indiana," Mr.
Sachs says. "He had a common touch at that time."
... .. ...
There was much in college that did not seem to interest Mr. Trump, but he did latch
on to a favorite lecture of one of Wharton's professors, who argued that the essence
of good business was to understand the desires and even the psychologies of those on
the other side of the negotiating table. Are they young and aggressive? Are they
conservative and more interested in steady, predictable returns? This, the professor
argued, was often more important than statistical analysis or actuarial appraisal.
"Trump certainly took that to heart," Mr. Calomaris says, "because he didn't care a
whit about the technicalities of the real-estate business, just as today he doesn't
care about the technicalities of virtually anything. He's a big-picture person."
On the campaign trail, Mr. Calomaris continues, "you're seeing an extension of
what was there when he was 19 or 20 years old. It's a very accurate picture. It's
Trump."
"... "Sanders is not just a 'lesser evil'. His proposals and policies are good In addition, Sanders seeks to change the current electoral process based on money coming from corporations, political action committees and wealthy individuals. Changing this system is the first step...." ..."
"... The November election will be a referendum on the neolibcon establishment in the U.S. as much as the Brexit vote was for the EU. The Brexit vote showed that people are so fed up that they aren't listening to establishment fear-mongering. ..."
"... No matter how Democratic Party loyalists try to spin it, the blame for a Trump win will fall on the corrupt Democratic Party establishment. It is no accident that the vast majority of Super-delegates have steadfastly stood by Hillary, warts and all. ..."
"... Bernie the sheepdog has failed his movement but the Greens and true progressives will continue. ..."
"... It says a great deal about both Warren and the Democratic Party, in which she is the most high-profile "left" politician, that she never endorsed Bernie and has now enthusiastically endorsed Hillary. It would not be a stretch to say that had Warren endorsed and campaigned for Sanders, it could well have been the difference needed to defeat Clinton in the primary. But she did not. ..."
"... Because of course the problem is much larger than just Warren, Clinton, or Debbie Wasserman Schultz. At the heart of the matter is a political party that is thoroughly undemocratic and corrupt to its very core – one that answers to Wall Street, not working people. It's the second most pro-capitalist party in the world, after the Republican Party. ..."
"... Yes it is the Washington Post, but the point stands: it is a strange place for a 'revolutionary' to deliver his message. Unless that message is one of capitulation (it is) . ..."
Seems you mean the Washington Post, not the WSJ.
Alternet seems to like it.
"What do we want? We want to end the rapid movement that we are currently experiencing toward
oligarchic control of our economic and political life," Sanders concluded. "As Lincoln put it
at Gettysburg, we want a government of the people, by the people and for the people. That is what
we want, and that is what we will continue fighting for."
rufus magister | Jun 24, 2016 8:02:34 AM |
86 rufus magister | Jun 25, 2016 9:11:21 AM |
94
This post at
Countepunch takes on the "dog" analogy, arguing that "Sanders is not just a 'lesser evil'.
His proposals and policies are good In addition, Sanders seeks to change the current electoral
process based on money coming from corporations, political action committees and wealthy individuals.
Changing this system is the first step...."
There are any number of arguments that Sanders has changed and will continue to change the
political dyanmics. More and in a different direction might be nice. But after decades of neo-liberal
assaults on the working class, let's not have the best be the enemy of the good.
Sanders' meteoric rise is evidence that unabashed progressive politics is an effective antidote
to the far-right xenophobia on the rise across the developed world. "Every time we have a spasm
of capitalism, whether this is the 1930s or now, the seeds of vulgar ultra-right-wingness sprout
into a very ugly tree," Varoufakis said....
"I am very impressed by his capacity to rise from almost complete marginality to the center
of the debate," Varoufakis continued. "And if you look at the discussion he has invigorated,
or reinvigorated, in the Democratic Party, that just goes to show that it is perfectly possible
to excite young people....
Yeah, he botched with Syriza in Greece. But he was principled enough to resign and move on
politically. I don't know with what sort of success his proposed organization met.
Alternet offers a handy list of things Sanders has already changed about American politics.
I particulary note points 5 and 6, on princples and issues, but the author notes he has brought
progressives together, shown popularly-funded campaigns to be viable, and made socialism respectable.
"Not too shabby."
Politics isn't for the meek, but it doesn't have to be all mud all the time like the GOP's
nominating contest, and Sanders has shown that in state after state....
The passion and public purpose of his campaign has struck deep and wide notes precisely
because of that. More than anything, Sanders has reminded vast swaths of the country that his
democratic socialist agenda is exactly what they want America to be-a fairer and more dignified,
tolerant, responsible and conscientious country.
I have previously noted, the consensus amongst the pundit class is that Sanders is a principled
politician. The conduct of his campaign reflects these principles. I do not agree with them, but
I respect that he has been consistent in their application throughout his political career.
Ah, but "what is to be done" with all of the passion aroused? Sanders clearly intends to keep
the pressure on within the Democratic Party. Though doubtless, it will not all remain there.
I keep hearing that "things" are different, post-Occupy, etc., and that some sort of Green/Libertarian/Trump
miracle is possible. It is also possible, and historically conditioned, that these pressures will
in fact push the Democrats to the left.
This would be good, in and for the short-term. Revolutionary change takes patient work,
especially in early stages. We're quite a "Long March" away, and these are useful baby-steps.
So this whole notion that but the hopes of the masses and left wing of the Democratic Party,
we'd have our Utopia by now, us a cheap alibi as to why the divided left
(as "b" very accurately describes) can't make any headway, even after the economy nearly repeated
the Great Depression.
The nerve of those damn proles, hoping for short-term improvement! What about the intersectionality?
You know, I don't think "Suck it up and butch it out 'til after The Revolution, you ignorant,
evil, unenlightened over-privileged sell-outs" is really that attractive as politics. Maybe that
overstates this argument, but probably not too much. "The Greens know that someone is in the
buff but the Sanders gang has yet to catch on that their emperor has no clothes" does strike a
rather condescending tone, sure to win friends and influence people.
Somewhat at odds with the next paragraph, though. But is topic is the "Green Machine."
Second, and more importantly, Marsh has left out a key point in his analysis. The Greens just
passed a major benchmark to gain federal funding.
Your dismissing of 'collusion' for lack of a smoking gun ignores much circumstantial evidence:
> Sanders has been a Democrat for many years in all but name;
- he has an arrangement with the Democratic Party whereby he runs in Vermont Democratic
Primaries but will not accept the Democratic nomination and the Democratic Party will not
fund candidates that oppose him;
- Obama campaigned for him, Schumer and Reid endorsed him, he calls Hillary "a friend",
etc.
> He pulled punches in his campaign - refusing to attack Hillary or Obama on issues that
could've made a big difference for his campaign, like:
- when Hillary defended taking money by pointing to Obama who has clearly been pro-Wall
Street;
- Obama's record on the economy and black issues (Obama's support has helped Hillary
to win over blacks) ;
- his slowness to criticize Hillary-DNC collusion;
- on Hillary's emails after the State Dept IG report;
- he all but endorsed Hillary from the start.
The November election will be a referendum on the neolibcon establishment in the U.S. as much
as the Brexit vote was for the EU. The Brexit vote showed that people are so fed up that they
aren't listening to establishment fear-mongering.
No matter how Democratic Party loyalists try to spin it, the blame for a Trump win will
fall on the corrupt Democratic Party establishment. It is no accident that the vast majority of
Super-delegates have steadfastly stood by Hillary, warts and all.
If Bernie refuses to break from the Democratic Party, our movement should back Jill Stein
as the strongest left alternative in the presidential election ... Stein deserves the strongest
possible support from Sandernistas .... With Bernie stepping out of the race, and likely
endorsing Clinton, it will be up to us to continue the political revolution and to stand up
against both Clintonism and Trump_vs_deep_state.
And drives home the point with:
It says a great deal about both Warren and the Democratic Party, in which she is the most
high-profile "left" politician, that she never endorsed Bernie and has now enthusiastically
endorsed Hillary. It would not be a stretch to say that had Warren endorsed and campaigned
for Sanders, it could well have been the difference needed to defeat Clinton in the primary.
But she did not.
It says a great deal about the whole of the Democratic Party leadership – which claims that
its key priority is to defeat Trump – that it has fiercely backed Clinton in spite of the fact
that the polls have shown Sanders to be the far stronger candidate in every matchup.
Because of course the problem is much larger than just Warren, Clinton, or Debbie Wasserman
Schultz. At the heart of the matter is a political party that is thoroughly undemocratic and
corrupt to its very core – one that answers to Wall Street, not working people. It's the second
most pro-capitalist party in the world, after the Republican Party.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
@86 Yes it is the Washington Post, but the point stands: it is a strange place for a 'revolutionary'
to deliver his message. Unless that message is one of capitulation (it is) .
"... Newly revealed emails, released via a court order in relation to a public records lawsuit filed by the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, cast yet more doubts on Hillary Clinton's claim that she used a private email server while serving as secretary of state merely " for convenience ." ..."
"... You can't have it both ways, Madame Secretary. Either you didn't know the rules or you thought you were above the rules. ..."
"... Yesterday the Washington Post 's Chris Cillizza wrote that Clinton's exchange with Abedin "reads to me as though Clinton is both far more aware of the email setup and far more engaged in how it should look than she generally lets on publicly," which he describes as "deeply problematic" for a candidate so widely distrusted ( ..."
Newly revealed emails, released via a court order in relation to a
public records lawsuit filed by the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, cast yet
more doubts on Hillary Clinton's claim that she used a private email server while serving as secretary
of state merely "for
convenience."
Among the 165 pages of emails released Monday, the Associated Press notes one particularly telling exchange from March 2009 between Clinton
(who had been in office barely two months) and aide Huma Abedin:
"I have just realized I have no idea how my papers are treated at State," Clinton wrote to
Abedin and a second aide. "Who manages both my personal and official files? ... I think we need
to get on this asap to be sure we know and design the system we want."
You can't have it both ways, Madame Secretary. Either you didn't know the rules or you thought
you were above the rules.
The AP adds, "In a blistering audit released last month, the State Department's inspector
general concluded Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup violated
federal records-keeping standards and could have left sensitive material vulnerable to hackers."
Reason's Peter Suderman
wrote after the report's release, "It makes clear that [Clinton] refused to play by the rules
while acting as Secretary of State-ignoring them as a point of personal privilege, and creating both
security vulnerabilities and transparency and accountability problems in the process."
Yesterday the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza wrote that Clinton's exchange with Abedin "reads to me as
though Clinton is both far more aware of the email setup and far more engaged in how it should
look than she generally lets on publicly," which he describes as "deeply problematic" for a candidate
so widely distrusted (but not by former
New York Times editor Jill Abramson,
who inexplicably declared Clinton "fundamentally honest" in a recent
Guardian column).
"... But opposing the right's sexist slurs against Clinton or any other wealthy or powerful woman and concluding that her presidency would be good for the majority of women -- or the majority of working people -- are entirely different things. ..."
"... Another myth is that Clinton's is an "outsider" campaign, which she has also claimed. On the contrary, a Clinton presidency represents the continuation of the status quo in Washington -- above all, the disappointing presidency of Barack Obama. ..."
"... Instead, as the limitation of the U.S.'s two-party electoral system dictates, the only option for people who don't support the Republican is to support the Democrat, even if she stands for policies that you oppose. The dominant logic is to vote for the lesser of two evils. ..."
The Republican right has regularly lobbed sexist attacks at Clinton, and Trump is no exception
to that rule. "I think the only card she has is the women's card -- she's got nothing else
going," Trump raved in April. "And frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don't think she'd
get 5 percent of the vote."
But opposing the right's sexist slurs against Clinton or any other wealthy or powerful woman
and concluding that her presidency would be good for the majority of women -- or the majority of
working people -- are entirely different things.
Her record shows a Hillary Clinton presidency would mean the opposite. She has proven her
allegiance to corporate power, sitting on the board of Walmart, no less. And she has supported
policies that specifically target poor and working-class people, backing Bill Clinton's crime
bill and the shredding of welfare programs. As secretary of state, she imposed U.S. power abroad,
supporting secret drone warfare in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia and the deadly troops surge in
Afghanistan.
Another myth is that Clinton's is an "outsider" campaign, which she has also claimed. On the
contrary, a Clinton presidency represents the continuation of the status quo in Washington --
above all, the disappointing presidency of Barack Obama.
The Bernie Sanders campaign provided a glimpse into what it might look like for a U.S. election
to take up issues that affect working-class people, like single-payer health care, a $15 an hour
minimum wage and taxing the rich. But now that the Democratic Party establishment's candidate is
in place, there's no room for that debate.
Instead, as the limitation of the U.S.'s two-party electoral system dictates, the only option
for people who don't support the Republican is to support the Democrat, even if she stands for
policies that you oppose. The dominant logic is to vote for the lesser of two evils.
... ... ...
Elizabeth Schulte is a journalist and reviews editor for the Socialist Worker, writing
frequently on low-wage workers, the Democratic Party and women's liberation
While Trump's proposed blanket ban on Muslim travelers is both constitutionally and ethically
wrongheaded and, in my opinion, potentially damaging to broader U.S. interests, his related
demand to temporarily stop travel or immigration from some core countries that have serious
problems with militancy is actually quite sensible. This is because the United States has only a
limited ability to vet people from those countries. The Obama administration claims it is
rigorously screening travelers and immigrants-but it has provided little to no evidence that its
procedures are effective.
The first step in travel limitation is to define the problem. While it is popular in Congress and
the media to focus on countries like Iran, nationals of such countries do not constitute a
serious threat. Shi'a Muslims, the majority of Iranians, have characteristically not staged
suicide attacks, nor do they as a group directly threaten American or Western interests. The
Salafist organizations with international appeal and global reach are all Sunni Muslim. In fact,
al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, and al-Nusra all self-define as Sunni Muslim and regard Shi'as as
heretics. Most of the foot soldiers who do the fighting and dying for the terrorist groups and
their affiliates are Sunnis who come from Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and
Somalia, and even the homegrown Europeans and Americans who join their ranks are Sunni.
It is no coincidence that the handful of Muslim countries that harbor active insurgencies have
also been on the receiving end of U.S. military interventions, which generate demands for revenge
against the West and the U.S. in particular. They would be the countries to monitor most closely
for militants seeking to travel. All of them represent launching pads for potential attacks, and
it should be assumed that groups like ISIS would be delighted to infiltrate refugee and immigrant
groups.
U.S. embassies and consulates overseas are the choke points for those potential terrorists.
Having myself worked the visa lines in consulates overseas, I understand just how difficult it is
to be fair to honest travelers while weeding out those whose intentions are less honorable. At
the consulate, an initial screening based on name and birth date determines whether an applicant
is on any no-fly or terrorism-associate lists. Anyone coming up is automatically denied, but the
lists include a great deal of inaccurate information, so they probably "catch" more innocent
people than they do actual would-be terrorists. Individuals who have traveled to Iran, Iraq,
Sudan, or Syria since 2011, or who are citizens of those countries, are also selected out for
additional review.
For visitors who pass the initial screening and who do not come from one of the 38 "visa waiver"
countries, mostly in Europe, the next step is the visitor's visa, called a B-2. At that point,
the consulate's objective is to determine whether the potential traveler has a good reason to
visit the U.S., has the resources to pay for the trip, and is likely to return home before the
visa expires. The process seeks to establish that the applicant has sufficient equity in his or
her home country to guarantee returning to it, a recognition of the fact that most visa fraud
relates to overstaying one's visit to disappear into the unregistered labor market in the U.S.
The process is document-driven, with the applicants presenting evidence of bank accounts,
employment, family ties, and equity like homeownership. Sometimes letters of recommendation from
local business leaders or politicians might also become elements in the decision.
"... I didn't just mean Walmart and the like, I explained. I also meant the monopolistic powers that aren't obvious to the general public. Such as wholesale suppliers and shippers. And such as Visa and Mastercard, which impacts very substantially the profitability of small retailers and franchisers. ..."
"... Which brought me then, and brings me again, to one of my favorite examples of how the Dems forfeit the political advantage on government regulation by never actually discussing government regulation, in this instance, what's known as the Durbin Amendment. It limits the amount that Visa and Mastercard-clearly critical players in commerce now-can charge businesses for processing their customers' credit card and ATM card transactions. ..."
"... Talk to any owner of a small retail business-a gas station franchise owner, an independent fast food business owner, an independent discount store, for example-about this issue, as I did back when the Durbin Amendment was being debated in Congress. See what they say. ..."
"... The Durbin Amendment was one of the (very) precious few legislative restrictions on monopolies, on anticompetitive business practices, to manage to become law despite intense lobbying of the finance industry or whatever monopolistic industry would be hurt by its enactment. To my knowledge, though, it was never mentioned in congressional races in 2010 or 2014, or in the presidential or congressional races in 2012. Antitrust issues have been considered too complicated for discussion among the populace. ..."
"... And also presumably, it's why the news media ignored Elizabeth Warren's speech on Wednesday entirely about the decisive, dramatic effects of the federal government's aggressive reversal over the last four decades of antirust regulation and the concerted failures of one after another White House administration (including the current one) to enforce the regulation that remains. ..."
"... Washington Monthly ..."
"... What amazed me yesterday was how Warren synthesized the main points of virtually everything we've published into a single speech that, while long and wonky, was Bill Clintonesque in its vernacular exposition. You can imagine average Americans all over the country listening, nodding, understanding . ..."
"... Though many in the press didn't notice the speech, you can best believe Hillary Clinton's campaign operatives were paying attention (Trump's too, I'll bet). That's why I think the speech has the possibility of changing the course of the campaign. The candidate who can successfully incorporate the consolidation message into their campaign rhetoric will an huge, perhaps decisive advantage. Hillary has already signaled, in an op-ed she published last fall, that she gets the larger argument. Yesterday, Elizabeth Warren showed her how to run on it. You can read the full prepared text below. ..."
"... I'm thrilled. Except for that parenthetical that says "even the "populist" candidates running president have shied away from it, which is inaccurate regarding Bernie Sanders. The link is to an article by Glastris in the November/December 2015 edition of Washington Monthly titled " America's Forgotten Formula for Economic Equality ," which regarding Sanders concludes based upon an answer to a question by Anderson Cooper at a then-recent televised debate in which Sanders asked the question about how he expected to win the presidency as a democratic socialist failed to mention the issue of antitrust, that Sanders did not campaign on the issue of the demise of antitrust law and enforcement. ..."
"... We already know from the DNC's public description of the latest draft of the platform that it includes things such as a general commitment to the idea of a $15-per-hour minimum wage; to expanding Social Security; to making universal health care available as a right through expanding Medicare or a public option; and to breaking up too-big-to-fail institutions. ..."
"... Eliminating conflict of interest at the Federal Reserve by making sure that executives at financial institutions cannot serve on the board of regional Federal Reserve banks or handpick their members. ..."
"... Banning golden parachutes for taking government jobs and cracking down on the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington. ..."
"... Prohibiting Wall Street from picking and choosing which credit agency will rate their product. ..."
"... Empowering the Postal Service to offer basic banking services, which makes such services available to more people throughout the country, including low-income people who lack access to checking accounts. ..."
"... Ending the loophole that allows large profitable corporations to defer taxes on income stashed in offshore tax havens to avoid paying less taxes. ..."
"... Using the revenue from ending that deferral loophole to rebuild infrastructure and create jobs. ..."
"... Okay, folks. While being credited to Sanders, this far more likely is a blunt-force impact of Warren, since every one of these points concerns Warren's particular area of interest: financial industry regulation. ..."
"... In other words, Warren is the intermediary between the Clinton and Sanders campaigns. And in exchange for her unbridled campaigning for and with Clinton has combined her own top priorities-precise legislative ones that Warren has the deep expertise to demand and to draft, e.g., items 1 and 3-with one very specific one of Sanders and with more generic ones of his as well, e.g., items 2 and 5. ..."
Is the window closing on Bernie Sanders's moment? A number of folks,
your humble blogger included , have suggested as much. We've argued that with Democrats seeming
to unite behind Hillary Clinton, it's possible that the longer Sanders withholds his endorsement
for her in the quest to make the party platform more progressive, the less leverage he'll
end up having.
But a
new battleground state poll from Dem pollster Stan Greenberg's Democracy Corps suggests Sanders'
endorsement could, in fact, still have a real impact, meaning he may still have some genuine leverage
to try to win more concessions designed to continue pushing the party's agenda in a more progressive
direction.
– A Sanders endorsement of Clinton could still make a big difference , Greg Sargent,
The Plum Line, Washington Post, yesterday at 3:24 p.m.
– Greg Sargent, The Plum Line, Washington Post, yesterday at 6:21 p.m.
Just about exactly a year ago-early last summer-as Clinton was picking up the pace of her campaign
appearances and formulating her substantive arguments, she said something that the news media caught
onto immediately as really strange. In an attempt to woo aspiring and current small-business owners,
she did her default thing: She adopted a Republican slogan and cliché, this one that government regulation
and bureaucracy are the main impediments to starting and expanding small businesses, and are, well,
just making the lives of small business owners miserable.
Federal regulations and bureaucracy, see.
It shouldn't take longer to start a business in America than it does to start one in France, she
said, correctly. And it shouldn't take longer for a small-business owner to fill out the business's
federal tax forms than it takes Fortune 500 corporations to do so. Also, correctly. And as president
she will … something.
There were, the news media quickly noted, though, a few problems with this tack. One was that
regulations that apply varyingly to other than a few types of small businesses-those that sell firearms
and ammunition, for example-small-business regulations are entirely state and local ones and are
not of the sort that the federal government even could address.
Another was that Clinton was relying upon a survey report that provided average times to obtain
business licenses in various cities around the world, for companies that would employ a certain number
of employees within a numerical, midsize range (or some such), and that cited Paris as the only French
cities; showed that the differences in the time it took on average to obtain a business license there
and in several American cities was a matter of two or three days, and that only Los Angeles (if I
remember correctly) among the American cities had a longer average time than did Paris; and that
the all the cities listed had an average of less than two weeks.
Some folks (including me, here at AB) also noted that the actual time it takes to open a small
business depends mostly on the type of business, often the ease of obtaining a business loan, purchasing
equipment such as that needed to open a restaurant, leasing space, obtaining insurance, and ensuring
compliance with, say, local health department and fire ordinances.
And one folk (me, here at AB) pointed out that the relative times it takes to fill out a federal
tax form for a business depends far more on whether your business retains Price Waterhouse Coopers
to do that, or has in-house CPAs using the latest software for taxes and accounting, or relies upon
the sole proprietor to perform that task.
But here's what I also said: Far, far more important to the ease of starting a business
and making a profit in it than regulatory bureaucracy-state and local, much less and federal ones-is
overcoming monopolistic practices of, well, monopolies.*
I didn't just mean Walmart and the like, I explained. I also meant the monopolistic powers
that aren't obvious to the general public. Such as wholesale suppliers and shippers. And such as
Visa and Mastercard, which impacts very substantially the profitability of small retailers and franchisers.
Which brought me then, and brings me again, to one of my favorite examples of how the Dems
forfeit the political advantage on government regulation by never actually discussing government
regulation, in this instance, what's known as the Durbin Amendment. It limits the amount that Visa
and Mastercard-clearly critical players in commerce now-can charge businesses for processing their
customers' credit card and ATM card transactions.
Talk to any owner of a small retail business-a gas station franchise owner, an independent
fast food business owner, an independent discount store, for example-about this issue, as I did back
when the Durbin Amendment was being debated in Congress. See what they say.
The Durbin Amendment was one of the (very) precious few legislative restrictions on monopolies,
on anticompetitive business practices, to manage to become law despite intense lobbying of the finance
industry or whatever monopolistic industry would be hurt by its enactment. To my knowledge, though,
it was never mentioned in congressional races in 2010 or 2014, or in the presidential or congressional
races in 2012. Antitrust issues have been considered too complicated for discussion among the populace.
Which presumably is why the news media never focused on the fact that Bernie Sanders discussed
it regularly in his campaign. And that it resonated with millennials.
And also presumably, it's why the news media ignored Elizabeth Warren's speech on Wednesday
entirely about the decisive, dramatic effects of the federal government's aggressive reversal over
the last four decades of antirust regulation and the concerted failures of one after another White
House administration (including the current one) to enforce the regulation that remains.
Yesterday, straight off her high-profile campaign appearance Monday with Hillary Clinton, Sen.
Elizabeth Warren gave a keynote address about industry consolidation in the American economy at
a conference at the Capitol put on by New America's
Open Markets program. Though the speech has so far gotten only a
modicum of attention-the press being more interested in litigating Donald Trump's Pocahontas
taunts-it has the potential to change the course of the presidential contest. Her speech begins
at minute 56:45 in the video below.
Warren is, of course, famous for her attacks on too-big-to-fail banks. But in her address yesterday,
entitled "Reigniting Competition in the American Economy," she extended her critique to the entire
economy, noting that, as a result of three decades of weakened federal antitrust regulation, virtually
every industrial sector today-from airlines to telecom to agriculture to retail to social media-is
under the control of a handful of oligopolistic corporations. This widespread consolidation is
"hiding in plain sight all across the American economy," she said, and "threatens our markets,
threatens our economy, and threatens our democracy."
As our readers know, economic consolidation is a subject the Washington Monthly has
long been obsessed with-see
here ,
here ,
here
,
here ,
here ,
here ,
here ,
here ,
here , and
here
. In our current
cover story , Barry Lynn (impresario of yesterday's event) and Phil Longman argue that antitrust
was the true legacy of the original American Populists and a vital, under-appreciated reason for
the mass prosperity of mid-20 th Century America. But this legacy, and the new Gilded
Age economy that has resulted from its abandonment, is not a narrative most Americans have been
told (one reason why even the "populist" candidates running president have
shied away from it).
What amazed me yesterday was how Warren synthesized the main points of virtually everything
we've published into a single speech that, while long and wonky, was Bill Clintonesque in its
vernacular exposition. You can imagine average Americans all over the country listening, nodding,
understanding .
Though many in the press didn't notice the speech, you can best believe Hillary Clinton's
campaign operatives were paying attention (Trump's too, I'll bet). That's why I think the speech
has the possibility of changing the course of the campaign. The candidate who can successfully
incorporate the consolidation message into their campaign rhetoric will an huge, perhaps decisive
advantage. Hillary has already signaled, in an op-ed she
published last fall, that she gets the larger argument. Yesterday, Elizabeth Warren showed
her how to run on it. You can read the full prepared text below.
I'm thrilled. Except for that parenthetical that says "even the "populist" candidates running
president have
shied away from it, which is inaccurate regarding Bernie Sanders. The link is to an article by
Glastris in the November/December 2015 edition of Washington Monthly titled "
America's Forgotten Formula for Economic Equality ," which regarding Sanders concludes based
upon an answer to a question by Anderson Cooper at a then-recent televised debate in which Sanders
asked the question about how he expected to win the presidency as a democratic socialist failed to
mention the issue of antitrust, that Sanders did not campaign on the issue of the demise of antitrust
law and enforcement.
But as it happens, I knew that was incorrect. One of my fondest memories of the Sanders campaign
dates back to a detailed first-person report by a journalist covering the Sanders campaign in Iowa
last summer, who attended a rally not as journalist but instead from the cheap seats in the midst
of the attendees. I can't remember the journalist or the publication, and was unable to find it just
now in a search. But I remember this: He sat next to a young woman, blond, cheerleadery-looking,
who whenever Sanders said a word or phrase referencing one of his favorite topics, would stand up,
thrust her arm up in a punch-the-air motion, and shout the word or phrase. Cheerleader-like, the
reporter said.
One of the words? Antitrust. Or, as the young woman said it, "ANTITRUSSSTTT!"
In searching for that article, which as I said I couldn't find, I did find a slew of references
by Sanders to antitrust-the economic and political power of unchecked and ever-growing monopolies-in
reports about his rallies. One, about a rally in Iowa, for example, quoted Sanders as saying that
Agribusiness monopoly has reduced the prices human farmers receive for their products well below
their market value in a competitive economy.
Other statements made clear the critical reason that Sanders has so focused on the call to break
up the big banks: their huge economic and political power. Including the resultant demise of community
banks of the sort that made America great when America was great-for obtaining small-business loans
and mortgages, anyway.
So here's my point: If you click on the link to that Democracy Corps poll, you'll see what so
many people whose heads are buried in the sands of the pre-2015 political era (including the ones
who constantly trash me in the comments threads to my posts like
my last one ) don't recognize. All that the Democrats need do in order to win a White House and
down-ballot landslide is to campaign on genuinely progressive issues, and genuinely explain them.
Which is why Warren is so valuable to the Dems up and down the ballot. And why Sanders is, too.
Warren endorsed Clinton last week, and on Tuesday campaigned with her in a speech introducing
her, singing her praises, and trashing Donald Trump. Headline-making stuff. But not the stuff that
will matter most. When she goes on the road and repeats her Wednesday speech, not her Tuesday one,
and then asks that people vote Democratic for the White House on down, it will matter far more.
And that is true also for Sanders. But I don't expect many politicos over the age of 40 to recognize
that.
Surprisingly, apparently in response to the release of the Democracy Corp poll yesterday, hours
after suggesting that Clinton was about to begin campaigning as a triangulator because Sanders was
refusing to endorse her, and anyway that's what some Clinton partisans have been urging, someone
in the Clinton campaign
rescinded that , indirectly. Presumably, it was someone under the age of 40.
The latest draft of the Democratic Party platform, which is set to be released as early as
this afternoon, will show that Bernie Sanders won far more victories on his signature issues than
has been previously thought, according to details provided by a senior Sanders adviser.
The latest version of the platform, which was signed off on recently by a committee made up
of representatives for the Sanders and Clinton campaigns and the DNC, has been
generally summarized by the DNC and characterized in news reports. Sanders has hailed some
of the compromises reached in it, but he has vowed to continue to fight for more of what he wants
when the current draft goes to a larger Democratic convention platform committee in Orlando coming
weeks, and when it goes to the floor of the convention in Philadelphia in late July.
But the actual language of the latest draft has not yet been released, and it will be released
as early as today. It will show a number of new provisions on Wall Street reform, infrastructure
spending, and job creation that go beyond the victories that Sanders has already talked about.
They suggest Sanders did far better out of this process thus far than has been previously thought.
Many of these new provisions are things that Sanders has been fighting for for years.
We already know from
the DNC's public description of the latest draft of the platform that it includes things such
as a general commitment to the idea of a $15-per-hour minimum wage; to expanding Social Security;
to making universal health care available as a right through expanding Medicare or a public option;
and to breaking up too-big-to-fail institutions.
Warren Gunnels, the chief policy adviser to the Sanders campaign, is Sargent's source. Gunnels
listed six additions to the platform draft:
Eliminating conflict of interest at the Federal Reserve by making sure that executives
at financial institutions cannot serve on the board of regional Federal Reserve banks or handpick
their members.
Banning golden parachutes for taking government jobs and cracking down on the revolving
door between Wall Street and Washington.
Prohibiting Wall Street from picking and choosing which credit agency will rate
their product.
Empowering the Postal Service to offer basic banking services, which makes such services
available to more people throughout the country, including low-income people who lack access
to checking accounts.
Ending the
loophole that allows large profitable corporations to defer taxes on income stashed in
offshore tax havens to avoid paying less taxes.
Using the revenue from ending that deferral loophole to rebuild infrastructure and
create jobs.
Okay, folks. While being credited to Sanders, this far more likely is a blunt-force impact
of Warren, since every one of these points concerns Warren's particular area of interest: financial
industry regulation.
But there are, I believe, clear Sanders hallmarks in there, too: particularly item 4, empowering
the Postal Service to offer basic banking services, which makes such services available to more people
throughout the country, including low-income people who lack access to checking accounts.
In other words, Warren is the intermediary between the Clinton and Sanders campaigns. And
in exchange for her unbridled campaigning for and with Clinton has combined her own top priorities-precise
legislative ones that Warren has the deep expertise to demand and to draft, e.g., items 1 and 3-with
one very specific one of Sanders and with more generic ones of his as well, e.g., items 2 and 5.
This will be an unbeatable platform and team. During the campaign, and in the four years that
follow.
"... "It's either you stick with the establishment or you go for change. People want change. A guy like Donald Trump, he's pushing for change." ..."
"... The blue-collar counties of western Pennsylvania have largely swung Republican as unions have grown weaker and evangelical churches stronger. Despite overwhelmingly endorsing Hillary Clinton, labor unions face a big challenge with frustrated workers like Mr. Haines. That many white male union members are embracing Mr. Trump doesn't necessarily mean overall union membership is moving right, however. In recent years, as unions have organized more government employees and low-wage workers, the percentage of union members who are black, Hispanic or female has risen - and those groups are solidly anti-Trump. ..."
"... The A.F.L.-C.I.O. has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, calling her "an unstoppable champion for working families" while dismissing Mr. Trump as "an unstable charlatan who made his fortune scamming them." ..."
"... On Tuesday, Mr. Trump spoke to applauding workers at a scrap-metal plant in Westmoreland County. He denounced "failed trade policies," saying he would renegotiate Nafta and scrap the proposed Trans-Pacific trade deal. He also borrowed Mr. Sanders's arguments to attack Mrs. Clinton from the left, saying she "voted for virtually every trade agreement." He added that she has betrayed American workers in favor of "Wall Street throughout her career." ..."
"... Mike Podhorzer, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s political director, estimated that around one-third of union members back Mr. Trump. ..."
"... ...some voters are reluctantly backing Mr. Trump simply out of frustration with the status quo. "We need someone who will say things are wrong and will push hard to fix them," said Paul Myers, a 50-year-old steelworker. "Trump might be lying about bringing jobs back, but at least he'll try to." ..."
Greensburg, Pa. - THIS faded mining town east of Pittsburgh seems right out of "The Deer
Hunter," one of many blue-collar, gun-loving communities that dot western Pennsylvania. For
Donald J. Trump, such largely white, working-class towns are crucial to his hopes in the
presidential campaign - and that's one reason he campaigned in this region on Tuesday. By rolling
up large enough margins in former industrial strongholds like Greensburg - not just in
Pennsylvania, but also in Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin - he might offset expected losses in
cities like Philadelphia, Detroit and Cleveland, enabling him to capture those pivotal states.
Mr. Trump's "Make America Great Again" message resonates with many of this region's workers,
whose wages - and hopes - have been tugged downward by the abandoned steel mills and coal mines.
Take Dennis Haines, 57, thrown out of work in January when the printing plant where he worked for
30 years closed. Mr. Haines, a member of the machinists union, said: "It's either you stick
with the establishment or you go for change. People want change. A guy like Donald Trump, he's
pushing for change."
... ... ...
The blue-collar counties of western Pennsylvania have largely swung Republican as unions
have grown weaker and evangelical churches stronger. Despite overwhelmingly endorsing Hillary
Clinton, labor unions face a big challenge with frustrated workers like Mr. Haines.
That many white male union members are embracing Mr. Trump doesn't necessarily mean overall union
membership is moving right, however. In recent years, as unions have organized more government
employees and low-wage workers, the percentage of union members who are black, Hispanic or female
has risen - and those groups are solidly anti-Trump.
... ... ...
The A.F.L.-C.I.O. has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, calling her "an unstoppable champion for
working families" while dismissing Mr. Trump as "an unstable charlatan who made his fortune
scamming them."
... ... ...
On Tuesday, Mr. Trump spoke to applauding workers at a scrap-metal plant in Westmoreland
County. He denounced "failed trade policies," saying he would renegotiate Nafta and scrap the
proposed Trans-Pacific trade deal. He also borrowed Mr. Sanders's arguments to attack Mrs.
Clinton from the left, saying she "voted for virtually every trade agreement." He added that she
has betrayed American workers in favor of "Wall Street throughout her career."
Late this
summer, unions will mobilize a nationwide campaign to knock on doors, mail out pro-Clinton
literature and speak to members at their workplaces.
Tim
Waters, the political director of the United Steelworkers, said his Pittsburgh-based union will
warn its members that Mr. Trump isn't pro-worker: "He's a wolf in sheep's clothing."
Unions
have compiled a long list of objections to Mr. Trump. In one debate, he said wages were too high.
Many workers have sued his companies for cheating them on wages. His Las Vegas hotel is battling
unionization.
"Every
opportunity he's had to help American workers or American jobs, he did the opposite," Mr. Waters
said. "He has had Trump-brand suits, shirts and ties made in Bangladesh, China and Honduras,
everywhere but the U.S. He has imported workers to work at his facilities in Florida."
Mike
Podhorzer, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s political director, estimated that around one-third of union
members back Mr. Trump.
...
... ...
...some voters are reluctantly backing Mr. Trump simply out of frustration with the status quo.
"We need someone who will say things are wrong and will push hard to fix them," said Paul Myers,
a 50-year-old steelworker. "Trump might be lying about bringing jobs back, but at least he'll try
to."
"... So Warren left the GOP because they were becoming too much for banking and wall street. And now she joins with Clinton who takes tens of millions a year from big banks and Wall Street. Go figure. ..."
"... The writer I think is trying to imply Clinton is not a neoliberal. This is dog whistle media politics of implying something else about Clinton who comprehensively not what this person is writing as if. So once she is elected courtesy I must say of Trump she will immediately act behind the scenes to effect neoliberal goals and policies. ..."
"... Warren the converted republican is just another neoliberal pretender to progressive stances. ..."
"... sHillary should fess up to her corruption and crimes, face criminal charges, and acknowledge that we need Bernie. The young people would happy indeed. ..."
"... This is a beautiful metaphor for after brexit: "This is really a battle between the pimps of Wall Street and the whores of Wall Street." Redistribution of wealth again to rich again. ..."
"... This is completely unfair..... Clinton listens to the young. The young bankers, the young hedge funders, the young trust funders, all are welcome as long as they pay. ..."
"... Lots of older people are specifically rejecting the dog-eat-dog globalization game, even as 30-something tech industrialists fight for ever fewer barriers to capital flight, cheaper immigrant workers and disruptive technologies. ..."
"... When nearly half of federal tax money is spent on death destruction and endless war and when the only thing our leaders can agree on is spending for more of the same all to the benefit of Central Banking and the MIC you think the young voting for Killary will put things right? Dream on, good luck and good night. Get off your ass. ..."
"... So, regardless of what the media call it, the question is how long the system will resist the torrent of protests of the people angered due to miserable socio-economic situation in which they find themselves without a big fault of their own. ..."
"... What is more interesting, Bernie Sanders who was unjustly called "a radical" is actually very careful in its demands, addressing at the same time dissatisfied people and the state establishment as well, and trying to find a point of an agreement between the first and the later. ..."
"... So, in my opinion, there are only two options here. The establishment can accept this alleviated form of socialism promoted by Bernie, or by Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, all together with the vocabulary of "socialist euphemisms" that they are using now. ..."
"... Hillary has no interest in "winning" Bernie supporters. She simply expects us to come to heel, and Donald Trump is the rolled-up newspaper we are threatened to be smacked with, unless we obey. ..."
"... Warren-Clinton would be a respectable ticket. Clinton-Warren is significantly less so, and both seem highly unlikely to me ..."
"... The problem Bernie supporters have with Hillary is more about policy than it is about genitalia. If you don't figure that out before November, you'll be quite surprised when a large number of reputedly misogynist "young Bernie men" end up voting for Jill Stein. ..."
"... Wrong answer. Hillary should pay no attention to the young. Hillary listens only to those who pay her, like Wall Street. Hillary pays the Clinton foundation money only to those guaranteed to vote in blocs, and she monitors them. Ethnic and single-issue groups can be counted on to vote as paid. ..."
"... It's her's, Obama's and the rest of the party leadership on both the left and the right that have created a vacuum on issues such as immigration. They refuse to acknowledge real problems associated with large scale and unrestricted immigration. ..."
"... Clinton's campaign/DNC supporters are already going showing their non-progressive stances, they have just voted down progressive amendments, including minimum wage, fracking and TPP. ..."
"... Lawless illegal immigration has nothing to do with diversity. It's basically preferred cheap labor over our own citizens. If only Hillary and the DNC fought that hard for the 46 million Americans living in poverty. They put their party's interests before our country. ..."
"... One more article that only if $hillary can triangulate, with some meaningless platitudes she will win over the Bernie Voters. I am a Boomer and I voted for Bernie in the Primary in my state and donated to his campaign. I still have the Bernie yard sign in my from yard and Bernie Bumper Sticker. I will not be triangulated by $hillary. If Bernie is not on the ballot for President I will vote for Jill Stein. ..."
"... I guess it is a case of $hillary's Oligarchs are better than the Koch Bros. ..."
"... You must be new to Mrs. Clinton. She listens to her handlers who work up carefully scripted and rehearsed sound bites that can trick people into believing that she is authentic and cares about the problems of the 99%. For everything else, the communication is transmit-only. Now curtsy, close your trap, and move along - she doesn't have time for your drivel! ..."
"... Clinton is all talk and Trump is all nonsense. As soon as she gets her tiara, she'll be right back to doing whatever she feels like doing. The two of them are off-the-charts narcissists who simply want power and the ability to use that power. Everything either of their supporters project onto them is just nonsensical wishful thinking. ..."
"... The basic problem is that New Democrats like Bill Clinton threw the traditional Democratic constituencies under the bus. I gather that something similar happened in the UK, and that New Labour under Tony Blair did likewise. ..."
Hillary is not a progressive she is a neoliberal. The business community has done what it does
to cut costs - globalization is not much more than a scheme to cut labor costs. It is the job
of our political leaders to see to it that our trade policies promote prosperity for all Americans.
It is impossible to expect politicians who depend on money from financial interests - including
Hillary - to fulfill that mandate to the American public.
The young should see Hillary for what she is, a corrupt part of the old guard of politicians
serving the business community and should vote for candidates who serve social justice. Which
of course why the young liberals supported Bernie Sanders.
So Warren left the GOP because they were becoming too much for banking and wall street. And
now she joins with Clinton who takes tens of millions a year from big banks and Wall Street. Go
figure.
The writer I think is trying to imply Clinton is not a neoliberal. This is dog whistle media
politics of implying something else about Clinton who comprehensively not what this person is
writing as if. So once she is elected courtesy I must say of Trump she will immediately act behind
the scenes to effect neoliberal goals and policies.
There is not the slightest chance that Clinton will do anything progressive. The current painting
of Elizabeth Warren as the great progressive banner holder is part of this nonsense. Warren
the converted republican is just another neoliberal pretender to progressive stances. Being
for bankruptcy is not a meaningful progressive position to take. Their pretense hides their deep
ties to Wall Street, and the election of Clinton and her promoting neoliberalism will be just
the sort of thing the young need to see that betrays their trust so that change can happen over
these "politically bankrupt" polls.
That's actually a great idea... sHillary should fess up to her corruption and crimes, face
criminal charges, and acknowledge that we need Bernie. The young people would happy indeed.
This is a beautiful metaphor for after brexit: "This is really a battle between the pimps
of Wall Street and the whores of Wall Street." Redistribution of wealth again to rich again.
This is completely unfair..... Clinton listens to the young. The young bankers, the young
hedge funders, the young trust funders, all are welcome as long as they pay.
This is really a battle between the pimps of Wall Street and the whores of Wall Street. No
one else really has any skin in the game.
"Young people are rejecting dog-eat-dog economics and welcoming diversity, while large chunks
of our older and supposedly wiser compatriots do the exact opposite. "
Is that what you think your older compatriots' think? How ageist.
Lots of older people are specifically rejecting the dog-eat-dog globalization game, even
as 30-something tech industrialists fight for ever fewer barriers to capital flight, cheaper immigrant
workers and disruptive technologies.
That Abbott Labs just forced their fired IT staff to train their H1-B visa replacements and
sign contracts to remain silent, doesn't mean they're against immigration or diversity. Just,
against insidious ways corporations seek to replace domestic workers with uncomplaining indentured
servants from India.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-abbott-layoffs-durbin-0302-biz-20160301-story.html
No age group is a monolith. How about older and younger people try to work together for a country
we'd all like to live in.
Spot on: "The great test of whether Clinton understands the generational opportunity will be her
selection of a running mate. If she plays it safe with a conservative white male in the hopes
of not offending furious older voters, she'll risk leaving young Americans disgusted by Trump
but uninspired by her. On the other hand, selecting a vice presidential nominee with a clear track
record of progressive policies, such as an Elizabeth Warren, would send a clear signal that Clinton
hears the voice of a generation demanding more from the future than a slightly kinder neoliberalism."
Actually, the same thing happened with Obama. He chose Biden (and Rahm Emanuel as his chief
of staff) making huge mistakes on both men. They helped kill real change.
Hillary Clinton needs to chose Warren or the Sanders backers will simply not support her. They
will either abstain from voting or vote for Jill Stein.
When nearly half of federal tax money is spent on death destruction and endless war and when
the only thing our leaders can agree on is spending for more of the same all to the benefit of
Central Banking and the MIC you think the young voting for Killary will put things right? Dream
on, good luck and good night. Get off your ass.
Hillary supporters do not frequent the internet and where they do not in places they are likely
to find valuable information. There is a search tool. you can research all of Hillary's history
and it is not pretty. Like this it is not some grand conspiracy. she really was at the gmo Association.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1AkrQaWwMc
At least as it was told to us, socialism as a state project has failed some 25 years ago. Then,
some eight years ago capitalism has also come to a major crisis, the biggest since the Great Depression
of the 30s. And this has led to a revival of socialist ideas exactly where it was least expected,
that is, in the capitalist West. From Greece, through Spain, Great Britain ... and all the way
to the United States, the people cheered again essentially socialist ideas, and the election campaigns
takes the form of popular movements, which are commonly called by the media as a "populism" .
So, regardless of what the media call it, the question is how long the system will resist
the torrent of protests of the people angered due to miserable socio-economic situation in which
they find themselves without a big fault of their own.
What is more interesting, Bernie Sanders who was unjustly called "a radical" is actually
very careful in its demands, addressing at the same time dissatisfied people and the state establishment
as well, and trying to find a point of an agreement between the first and the later.
To make sure that this is true, it is sufficient to note that Sanders' statements are
full of euphemisms. He is a "democratic socialist," and not just "socialist," and his "revolution"
is just a "political revolution". Then, Bernie talks about "rigged economy" that is rigged in
favor of the richest 1%, or even worse, one-tenth of one percent. But if you'd asked, "Since when
the economy is rigged this way?", every true socialists including Bernie would probably replied,"Ever
since the capitalism was created!" :-)))
So, in my opinion, there are only two options here. The establishment can accept this alleviated
form of socialism promoted by Bernie, or by Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, all together with the vocabulary
of "socialist euphemisms" that they are using now.
And the other option is that the establishment will soon be faced with another kind
of Socialists, who will openly propagate the pure socialism without any euphemisms or any excuses.
With this kind of guys it would be difficult to make any compromise, because they are fighting
because "they have nothing to lose". And if the establishment would say to them that their ideas
are disaster for the country, they would then reply: "So what? If we are already perishing, let
perish together!"
Hillary has no interest in "winning" Bernie supporters. She simply expects us to come to heel,
and Donald Trump is the rolled-up newspaper we are threatened to be smacked with, unless we obey.
I've voted blue-no-matter-who too many times in the 35 years since I first registered
Democratic. No more. Never Hillary, Never Trump -- Political Revolution NOW
Warren-Clinton would be a respectable ticket. Clinton-Warren is significantly less so, and
both seem highly unlikely to me. The first because Clinton doesn't seem the type that would
want to play second fiddle in a figurehead role, and the second because Warren as VP would be
a waste of her talents, and she's come as close as she can to refusing it outright without actually
ruling it out. No thinking person should want to waste Warren in the VP role.
The problem Bernie supporters have with Hillary is more about policy than it is about genitalia.
If you don't figure that out before November, you'll be quite surprised when a large number of
reputedly misogynist "young Bernie men" end up voting for Jill Stein.
Wrong answer. Hillary should pay no attention to the young. Hillary listens only to those
who pay her, like Wall Street. Hillary pays the Clinton foundation money only to those guaranteed
to vote in blocs, and she monitors them. Ethnic and single-issue groups can be counted on to vote
as paid.
Youth constitutes no bloc vote. They are all over the place and they are not herdable.
Also far too many youth are hampered by principles and ideals.
That's strange, I'd have suggested the very opposite to Clinton. It's her's, Obama's and the
rest of the party leadership on both the left and the right that have created a vacuum on issues
such as immigration. They refuse to acknowledge real problems associated with large scale and
unrestricted immigration.
Not only have they refused to acknowledge those problems, but they accuse anyone who's views
differ, of racism and bigotry. in doing so, they've allowed Trump to fill that populist void.
Clinton would be wise to not give a populist full control of such topics and moderate her stance.
Not doing so, as Britain has demonstrated, only further divides a citizenry.
Clinton's campaign/DNC supporters are already going showing their non-progressive stances,
they have just voted down progressive amendments, including minimum wage, fracking and TPP.
I'm a Boomer. And I fully support the political revolution led by Bernie Sanders. I will not vote
for Hillary Clinton for any reason. Big Media and the DNC colluded with Hillary from the very
start. If the DNC really cared for the working class, it would have promoted fairness. Look at
the actions; do they match the words? No.
The Chinese economy stopped being Communist long ago. You could make a case that it's fascist
since one definition of fascism is a free market economy in tight cahoots with an autocratic government.
But whatever you call it, Chinese Millenials have a more positive attitude toward their futures
than western ones do.
Lawless illegal immigration has nothing to do with diversity. It's basically preferred cheap
labor over our own citizens. If only Hillary and the DNC fought that hard for the 46 million Americans
living in poverty. They put their party's interests before our country.
One more article that only if $hillary can triangulate, with some meaningless platitudes she
will win over the Bernie Voters. I am a Boomer and I voted for Bernie in the Primary in my state
and donated to his campaign. I still have the Bernie yard sign in my from yard and Bernie Bumper
Sticker. I will not be triangulated by $hillary. If Bernie is not on the ballot for President
I will vote for Jill Stein.
When the party establishments only offer garbage, why does anyone bother to vote? The choices
all lead to no improvement at all, so I find it hard to blame anyone for not coming out. I vote
every time, but I am finding myself writing people in for positions as a protest because too many
candidates don't deserve the office they seek.
Oh Horseshit. Young people know next to Goddamn nothing. All of us older folks know that because
, believe it or not, we were once young people ourselves.
Free college tuition is a give away to the white middle class. College tuition would fall into
a reasonable range tomorrow if we reinstated a Federal student Loan Program with a max amount
allowed a year. Tuituion at public universities would be within a $1,000 bucks of that in short
order.
The current problem had its start when Bush Junior created a private banking program for student
loans. Kids starting borrowing massive amounts and schools started raising tuition like it was
going out of style. Tuition has more than doubled at penn State and Pitt in the last 10 years,
for no reason apparent to anybody.
Free college tuition is a give away to the white middle class.
If everyone is taxed to pay for tuition, how can it possibly be considered a "giveaway" specifically
to the middle class? Why is the middle class the only group that should pay for college (it's
nothing to the rich to afford and the poor get grants)?
You must be new to Mrs. Clinton. She listens to her handlers who work up carefully scripted
and rehearsed sound bites that can trick people into believing that she is authentic and cares
about the problems of the 99%. For everything else, the communication is transmit-only. Now curtsy,
close your trap, and move along - she doesn't have time for your drivel!
Saying Clinton is the better choice over Trump is like saying Mussolini is a better choice over
Stalin.
And just the same, want nothing to do with these scumbags.
Clinton is all talk and Trump is all nonsense. As soon as she gets her tiara, she'll be
right back to doing whatever she feels like doing. The two of them are off-the-charts narcissists
who simply want power and the ability to use that power. Everything either of their supporters
project onto them is just nonsensical wishful thinking.
The best and only answer with such a galling selection is to follow the path that gets
either of them out of office as fast as possible.
Hillary is too busy warmongering to listen. She's too busy threatening Snowden to listen. She
has too much Wall Street money stuffed in her ears to listen.
The basic problem is that New Democrats like Bill Clinton threw the traditional Democratic
constituencies under the bus. I gather that something similar happened in the UK, and that New
Labour under Tony Blair did likewise.
From what I can see here, it's hardly Jeremy Corbyn's fault that those traditional Labour constituencies
refused to do as they were told. Instead, they chose to make a stand against immigration, globalization,
and free trade. Of course, they get called racists for all that. It's the customary rejoinder
these days.
What needs to happen here and there is the re-empowerment of those people. They need the means
to stand up to globalization and free trade. The ideology that holds that these are some kind
of inevitable natural process, rather than the results of political decisions that hurt most people,
needs to go. This means tariffs and trade barriers on foreign manufactured goods, to bring the
factories back and revive organized labor.
"... This article is a thinly disguised anti-Sanders spiel. The first quote is from a Dem elite Hillary supporter Barney Frank, who turns logic its head by declaring the Sanders supporters are well-off white people who won't be hurt much by a GOP presidency compared to Hillary's working class rainbow coalition. ..."
"... The fact that race has become a talking point for her surrogates reinforces my belief that this is all a swift boat campaign. Clinton's record on race is actually bad compared to Sanders: ..."
"... The Democratic base constantly votes against it's own interest in primaries due to unsubstantiated beliefs about electability , which explains Talking Points Memo. ..."
"... Electability was used by Clinton in 2007. It may have been a dog whistle for Obama, but Hillary and her cronies are repeating the same attacks they used then. It may have been in play early, but New Hampshire is basically white Alabama. ..."
Talking Points Memo reader survey: Readers support Sanders (44.8% to 36.6%) but think Clinton
will win (78% to 16.5%) [Talking
Points Memo]. Not a representative sample, but influencers.
"Sanders' supporters, who number among the most intense partisans in the primary, have not
helped close the gap" [WaPo].
The S.S. Clinton
Clinton suggests the minimum wage is a local issue [Truth
Digest]. Eesh. "Leave it up to the states"?
Quinnipiac poll: "Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is behind or on the wrong side
of a too-close-to-call result in matchups with" Rubio, Bush, and Walker [Quinnipiac].
The election is 474 days away; I don't think these top-line numbers mean much, especially in state
polls. It's Clinton's persistently poor
trust numbers that might be more concerning to her campaign. But despite them, people seem
willing to vote for her anyhow. Lowered expectations?
"A day after proposing higher capital gains taxes on short-term investors, Clinton raised at
least $450,000 last night at the Chicago home of Raj Fernando, a longtime donor. His firm, Chopper
Trading, specializes in high-frequency transactions and was recently purchased by Chicago-based
competitor DRW" [Crains
Chicago Business]. "Clinton's summertime fundraising circuit highlights a central tension
of her campaign: how to encourage financial executives to open their wallets for her presidential
effort even as she comes out with plans aimed at reining in multimillion-dollar paychecks."
This article is a thinly disguised anti-Sanders spiel. The first quote is from a Dem elite
Hillary supporter Barney Frank, who turns logic its head by declaring the Sanders supporters are
well-off white people who won't be hurt much by a GOP presidency compared to Hillary's working
class rainbow coalition.
This is WaPo after all, and they have been quite obvious in their preference of a Bush/Clinton
election.
Ditto, July 22, 2015 at 2:27 pm
The fact that race has become a talking point for her surrogates reinforces my belief that
this is all a swift boat campaign. Clinton's record on race is actually bad compared to Sanders:
Several are policies created by her husband and iothers are policies she supports
Brindle, July 22, 2015 at 3:07 pm
Yea, I noticed some weeks ago that Hillary insider Joan Walsh was re-tweeting various "Sanders
doesn't connect w/ Black voters" lines. It's probably been in the works for awhile.
different clue, July 22, 2015 at 3:29 pm
I hope the Sanders group can spare some money/time/people to do "mortal combat" quality opposition
research on the black "protesters" for use against them if they are deployed again against Sanders
at future Sanders events. I hope the Sanders group also does very careful psychological studies
and psy-ops war-gaming to advise Sanders on how to look better than the "protesters" the next
time the Clintonites send them. And Sanders should figure out how to look totally innocent of
any oppo knowledge or psy-war skills throughout the whole thing.
Llewelyn Moss, July 22, 2015 at 2:37 pm
Also no mention in Wapo that article of that Bernie drew 11,000 people to the rally in Phoenix.
Sounds more like pervasive voter disgust and anger with the status quo and not just a bunch of "intense
partisans". Dem voters just haven't yet realized that Hillery IS THE STATUS QUO.
Arizona Slim, July 22, 2015 at 4:36 pm
I was at that rally. More than 11,000 of us in a convention center exhibit hall that could
have held three times as many people.
And, for some STRANGE reason, there is very little media mention of this event.
different clue, July 22, 2015 at 6:28 pm
The media can only drop a Cone Of Silence over the Sanders events. They can't stop people from
attending and they can't stop attendees from socially mediacasting the true extent of Sanders's
visible support.
And there are still land lines, index cards, and other physical tools and technologies left
over from an earlier analog era which political campaign organizers could use to propel Sanders
just as an earlier generation of such organizers/workers used them to propel McGovern into the
Nomination.
Ditto, July 22, 2015 at 2:22 pm
The Democratic base constantly votes against it's own interest in primaries due to unsubstantiated
beliefs about electability , which explains Talking Points Memo. It's a habit that the base
devekoord from the 70s -90s but I question whether it still makes sense. Is the base really any
good at picking candidates based on electability ?
NotTimothyGeithner, July 22, 2015 at 2:53 pm
Electability was used by Clinton in 2007. It may have been a dog whistle for Obama, but
Hillary and her cronies are repeating the same attacks they used then. It may have been in play
early, but New Hampshire is basically white Alabama.
And as far as Hillary's surrogates or any surrogates opining about electability, no one cares.
After all, conservative darling endorsed Mittens, and Trump's current supporters voted for Santorum.
There are a few exceptions. I can't think of a living American who could make a difference.
My guess is Liz Warren supporters and anti-Hillary types cover a similar field. Who knows or
cares who Barney Frank is? This is a country where people cant find Iran on a map. As long as
Hillary only fields elite surrogates and cant draw crowds, the electability issue wont enter the
general discussion.
Hillary will have a real problem with her declining numbers over the last two years. She is
already a lower despite every advantage. Frauds like Rubio are outperforming her.
OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL, July 22, 2015 at 4:55 pm
Won't matter, demographics and the Electoral College means it's just a zombie-walk to Hilary's
coronation:
Oh, goody, expanded corporo-fascism and "Change We Can Believe In", only this time with a dissociated
old woman who will need to "prove her manhood" with lots of shiny new wars.
MT, July 22, 2015 at 7:34 pm
I don't buy the argument that demographics will lead to Democratic inevitability. It is an
argument that is popular with the front page writers of DailyKos, and I believe it is popular
because it fits within the racial/social framing that allows the party to ignore economic matters
and continue with their kayfabe. In fact, some of the more interesting side-stories of the 2014
midterm elections were the elections of Republicans from minority communities that were nearly
indistinguishable in economic or social policy from current Democrats.
I think the demographics argument is wrong for other reasons as well. A growing number of Hispanics
are conservative: No one would mistake Jeb Bush's children (who are Hispanic) for Democratic Party
supporters. Furthermore, the different demographic groups that are currently Democratic supporters
are facing increasingly diverging interests. One example is affirmative action for college admissions,
which the Asian-American community is opposing with more focus. (As an aside, the SCOTUS blog
has had an interesting series of postings about the long-term prospects of affirmative action
for admissions.)
ifthethunderdontgetya, July 22, 2015 at 6:36 pm
It's also a product of "Thanks Ralphing."
Blame Ralph Nader for G.W. Bush, don't dare question your right-wing, less-evil-by-as-little-as-they-can-get
away-with Dems.
(This in spite of the fact that Nader was well down the list of reasons that G.W. Bush was
installed in 2001…it's the narrative that counts.)
Aljazeera America - March 30, 2016 - Reporter: David Shuster
More info: http://reason.com/archives/2016/03/31...
http://www.mediaite.com/online/ajams-...
"... Remember that piece by Democratic operative Dan Metcalfe about how Hillary Clinton was clearly in deep trouble with this criminal investigation and that the Dems had to come up with a Plan B for when she was indicted and would have to be replaced? ..."
"... It may be a fantasy, but it fits the Loretta/Billy/FBI facts known so far: Before the convention, Hill suddenly takes "ill" (she has a spot on her soul, er, lungs), and just can't continue campaigning. Joe Biden steps in, and is crowned as the next Prez at the convention. If Obomba has to pardon her, she will become his Marc Rich. Better to get rid of her before that need to happen. It would be the best thing he's done in eight years. ..."
"... In 2008, when Barach Obama was elected President, I cried with joy and relief. This beautiful, eloquent, principled, fearless, peace loving, family-man would stop the relentless fascist conquest of Earth (All Government owned by a small number of Super Business') . ..."
"... Eight years later and the Powerful Super Business', in their fearsome glory, are arrayed against the tiny, weak, relatively poor, comical figure of Donald Trump. History pushes forward the most unlikely heroes, in times of great need. ..."
"... I am beginning to think that Bill Clinton doesn't really want his wife to be president; maybe part of it is that her presidency would – at a minimum – put the sweet Foundation deals in jeopardy, and at a maximum, completely take the lid off that swamp of incestuous mutual enrichment, leading to who knows what? ..."
"... ""The GOP's War on Voting Is Working" [The Nation]. What a steaming load. If the Democrat Party were serious about voter registration, it would be running voter registration drives as a normal, year-round, 24/7 part of normal party function, certainly since Florida 2000. They aren't, so they don't. They would also be setting up programs to get voters IDs in states were Republicans insist on that. This talking point is classic "mean Republican" whinging, issued by a flaccid party apparatus, flat on its back, making no effort to rise.'" ..."
"... Today Hillary Clinton gets 'interviewed' by the FBI. Yesterday her best friend had a chitchat with the AG Loretta Lynch. What a coincidence. I wonder to which circle of Hell Dante would have assigned the Clintons. ..."
This takes me back to something I've been wondering about for a while. Remember that piece
by Democratic operative Dan Metcalfe about how Hillary Clinton was clearly in deep trouble with
this criminal investigation and that the Dems had to come up with a Plan B for when she was indicted
and would have to be replaced? At the time, observers pointed to the piece as a signal to establishment Dems that they had to seriously start thinking about an establishment backup to Hillary.
But I've been thinking now that maybe it was more than that. Maybe the signal was to the FBI
and the Justice Department. The gist of Metcalfe's plan was that because the nominee couldn't
be Sanders (?!), Democratic Party "leaders" would have to choose a nominee. Was this a way of
telling law enforcement and prosecutors, please, just let us get through the convention, after
which the Sanders rabble will be safely out of the way and the "responsible" people who pull the
strings in the party can decide who the nominee will be? Meaning an indictment very soon after
the convention.
The timing of when an indictment might be filed – or even Clinton being called in for an interview
where she would be forced to take the Fifth which would trigger the same effects – certainly won't
be accidental, strictly by the book, or done in a political vacuum. There's far, far, far too
much riding on it.
It may be a fantasy, but it fits the Loretta/Billy/FBI facts known so far: Before the convention, Hill suddenly takes "ill" (she has a spot on her soul, er, lungs), and
just can't continue campaigning. Joe Biden steps in, and is crowned as the next Prez at the convention. If Obomba has to pardon her, she will become his Marc Rich. Better to get rid of her before
that need to happen. It would be the best thing he's done in eight years.
In 2008, when Barach Obama was elected President, I cried with joy and relief. This beautiful,
eloquent, principled, fearless, peace loving, family-man would stop the relentless fascist conquest
of Earth (All Government owned by a small number of Super Business') .
Eight years later and the Powerful Super Business', in their fearsome glory, are arrayed against
the tiny, weak, relatively poor, comical figure of Donald Trump. History pushes forward the most unlikely heroes, in times of great need.
You all know the story/joke of the man who cried out to God to save him from the rising flood
waters.
"Upon arriving in heaven, the man marched straight over to God. "Heavenly Father," he said,
"I had faith in you, I prayed to you to save me, and yet you did nothing. Why?" God gave him a
puzzled look, and replied "I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more did you expect?""
Maybe, Donald Trump is the man in the rowboat sent to rescue us from the rising waters?
I am beginning to think that Bill Clinton doesn't really want his wife to be president; maybe
part of it is that her presidency would – at a minimum – put the sweet Foundation deals in jeopardy,
and at a maximum, completely take the lid off that swamp of incestuous mutual enrichment, leading
to who knows what?
What I am pretty sure of, though, is that something is really rotten here; it's a smorgasbord
of corruption and likely criminal acts and Hillary ascending to the presidency is very, very threatening.
And Loretta Lynch either isn't as smart as we thought she was, or she's willing to take this
hit because she knows crimes have been committed and the foot-dragging and slow-walking are leaving
her with only rumor and innuendo – and a media and Trump willing to take that bait – to cast enough
doubt on Hillary's fitness for office that she has no choice but to step down.
""The GOP's War on Voting Is Working" [The Nation]. What a steaming load. If the Democrat Party
were serious about voter registration, it would be running voter registration drives as a normal,
year-round, 24/7 part of normal party function, certainly since Florida 2000. They aren't, so
they don't. They would also be setting up programs to get voters IDs in states were Republicans
insist on that. This talking point is classic "mean Republican" whinging, issued by a flaccid
party apparatus, flat on its back, making no effort to rise.'"
And they wouldn't have pushed ACORN over a cliff. I particularly remember Barbara Boxer giving
a shove.
And do not forget one of my favorite legislative options, the continued use of unrelated amendments
in important bills. You want to make sure people can get what they need to vote, require by federal
law that states that require ID to vote not only pay for said ID but must provide services to
help voters acquire the documentation they need for that ID AND pay for that as well. Up to but
not limited to, hiring genealogists to search records to find evidence in local and church records
when no birth certificate was created.
Today Hillary Clinton gets 'interviewed' by the FBI. Yesterday her best friend had a chitchat
with the AG Loretta Lynch. What a coincidence. I wonder to which circle of Hell Dante would have
assigned the Clintons.
"... Unless both Lynch and Clinton thought it would be a shh, secret, ..."
"... Obama pays homage to the most qualified candidate evah, whom he and Michele love like one of their own, only to find he's powerless, just powerless, because of a subordinate's foolish PR blunder, to help Hillary with that pesky investigation his AG can't go heavy on. ..."
"... What would be a good name for the American version of Kremlinologists? Beltwayologists? Wallstreetologists? Plutocratologists? ..."
But surely that "shadow" would have been obvious in advance to lawyer Lynch and (disbarred)
lawyer Clinton. So WTF?
Getting so you can't tell who's grifting whom. Unless both Lynch and Clinton thought it would
be a shh, secret, it's blazingly obvious their private-jet meetup is public relations
poison. Must've been pur-ty important, then. Makes ya wonder how treacherous Lynch and the shadowy
figures pulling her strings could be.
Obama pays homage to the most qualified candidate evah,
whom he and Michele love like one of their own, only to find he's powerless, just powerless, because
of a subordinate's foolish PR blunder, to help Hillary with that pesky investigation his AG can't
go heavy on.
Hillary Clinton was questioned on Saturday as part of the FBI's inquiry into her use of a
private e-mail server while U.S. secretary of state, a practice that's dogged her presidential
run, fueled Republican charges that she's unfit for office, and caused Clinton herself to say she
wishes she could take it back.
The roughly three-and-a-half hour meeting at FBI headquarters in Washington was confirmed by
Clinton's campaign. It threatens more turbulence for the presumptive Democratic presidential
nominee days after Attorney General Loretta Lynch was criticized for meeting former President
Bill Clinton privately on an aircraft in Phoenix.
In her first comments on the interview, Clinton said on MSNBC on Saturday that she "was happy I
got the opportunity to assist the department and bring this to a conclusion." The Democrat told
NBC's Chuck Todd, though, that she had "no knowledge of any timeline" for the investigation to
conclude. "I'm not going to comment on the process," she said. "I'm not going to go into any more
detail then I already have in public many times."
Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, said in an earlier e-mailed statement that Clinton's
appearance had been "voluntary."
Once it finishes its investigation, the FBI will make a recommendation to Lynch about whether to
pursue a prosecution of Clinton or her aides, guidance the attorney general said Friday that she
expects to accept. And while the holiday-weekend interview doesn't imply that the former first
lady and senator from New York faces indictment, the idea of Clinton having met with law
enforcement officers will have political consequences.
Hillary Clinton could be interviewed by the FBI in the coming days as part of an investigation
into the former secretary of state and her staff's use of private email to conduct official U.S.
State Department business, according to a source familiar with the U.S. Department of Justice's
investigation.
The Justice Department's goal is to complete the investigation and make recommendations on
whether charges should be filed before the two major party conventions take place toward the
latter half of July, the source said.
"... The question never obviously arose in the Guardian whether Obama should be endorsing a candidate under investigation -- forgetting for the moment that he previously declared her innocent. ..."
The US attorney general,
Loretta Lynch
, intends to accept whatever recommendation career prosecutors and federal
agents make in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, a justice
department official said on Friday.
"The attorney general expects to receive and accept the determinations and findings of the
department's career prosecutors and investigators, as well as the FBI director," the official
said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the
ongoing investigation
.
Lynch was expected to discuss the matter further at a summit on Friday in Aspen, Colorado.
This revelation comes amid a controversy surrounding an impromptu private discussion that
Lynch had aboard her plane on the tarmac at a Phoenix airport on Monday with Clinton's husband,
former president Bill Clinton. That get-together has been criticized as inappropriate by
Republicans and some Democrats at a time when the justice department has been investigating
whether classified information was mishandled through Clinton's exclusive use of a private email
server while she was secretary of state.
Lynch was expected to discuss the matter further at a summit on Friday in Aspen, Colorado.
This revelation comes amid a controversy surrounding an impromptu private discussion that
Lynch had aboard her plane on the tarmac at a Phoenix airport on Monday with Clinton's husband,
former president Bill Clinton. That get-together has been criticized as inappropriate by
Republicans and some Democrats at a time when the justice department has been investigating
whether classified information was mishandled through Clinton's exclusive use of a private email
server while she was secretary of state.
Lynch told reporters that she and Bill Clinton did not discuss the email investigation during
the encounter.
Did Chickenshit Cheney recuse himself from oil policies after he had secret meetings
with oil companies during the administration of his puppet the Texas Moron? No!
Do conspiracy mongers have any proof or evidence that Ms. Lynch discussed email
matters with president Clinton? Of course not! just plain b.s.
The question never obviously arose in the Guardian whether Obama should be endorsing a
candidate under investigation -- forgetting for the moment that he previously declared her
innocent.
Now we know why both Hillary and her patron President Obama have been so complacent about
the outcome of the FBI investigation. Loretta Lynch, who made clear her political edge
during her confirmation hearing, would decide to indict or ignore or minimise. And the
decision would be in line with Obama's nod.
In Loretta Lynch's own words, her private conversation with Bill Clinton, the Foundation
man, had 2 dimensions. She has described the primary dimension; she has been silent about
the secondary one.
What was secondary to Lynch might have been primary to Clinton.
I just read the NY Times article of the same title and they have airbrushed her "primarily
social" comment by Lynch concerning her meeting (why the qualification?)", leaving intact
her claim they talked about grandkids and travel (thereby giving the impression that she
said that was all they talked about). Interestingly, the FBI, at the airport went around
strongarming journalists not to take any pictures of the meeting.
Do you have a link for this "strong arming" that allegedly took place? Was it Clinton's
security detail? Yesterday, I read that Clinton knew Lynch's schedule and maneuvered his
schedule so that he was on the tarmac at the same time as Lynch so he could force a
meeting. Arizona is friendly territory for the Clintons.
The one point every one is "Glossing Over" is that if the Clinton Server and E-mail
account was the "Official" Secretary of States E-mail... That makes all E-mail on
that Account subject to the "Freedom of Information Act" Hillary has No Right to Pick
and Choose"...
The Court Needs to decide what is irrelevant not Hillary....
except her private email which was supposedly deleted and lost will be difficult to make
public.. Hopefully Assange, Guccifer 2.0 or others will do so. Ask yourself why Clinton
would have deleted those emails and not made a backup..just makes no sense.
"I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation
conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI-not just in this case but in
any case," President Obama said in an
interview with Fox News this past April. Despite his repeated claims of not
influencing the Department of Justice and FBI investigation into
Hillary Clinton's private email server scandal, Obama has helped shield her
throughout the fiasco.
The White House has protected Clinton's emails with the most potential to
incriminate or impugn Clinton's self-portrayed public image. In October 2015,
the Obama Administration
blocked the release of emails between Clinton (while she served as
secretary of state) and the president, citing the need to keep
such communications confidential. Recently, the Obama Administration also blocked
the State Department's release of emails from Clinton regarding the
controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership after it had promised to fulfill a
Freedom of Information Act Request to IBTimes earlier this year. The request
will now allegedly not be completed until after the general election in late
November.
"The delay was issued in the same week the Obama administration filed a court
motion to try to kill a lawsuit aimed at forcing the federal government to
more quickly comply with open records requests for Clinton-era State Department
documents,"
reported David Sirota of IBTimes.
Hillary Clinton's involvement with the Trans-Pacific Partnership is riddled
with hypocrisy. As secretary of state, Clinton
helped move TPP negotiations along. However, she avoided taking a position
on TPP for the first few months of her 2016 presidential campaign-until Bernie
Sanders' staunch opposition to
the deal forced Clinton to risk losing highly coveted
endorsements from labor unions who strongly oppose it. Politifact
rated Clinton's switch as a full flip-flop.
Despite holding back an endorsement during the Democratic primaries, Obama
hasn't made much effort to
hide where his favoritism lies. The Clinton campaign recently
claimedObama
will be releasing an endorsement for
Hillary
Clinton very soon. This came shortly after Obama reaffirmed
his endorsement of DNC chair
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who faces growing calls for resignation from
Sanders supporters and a strong Democratic primary opponent in
Tim Canova.
In January 2016, Obama condescendingly referred to
Sanders and his unexpected challenge to Clinton's coronation as a "bright,
shiny object," in an
interview with Politico.
"If Bernie Sanders' campaign has proven anything, it is that there are
millions of citizens who are engaged, invested and closely scrutinizing the
policy positions of all of the candidates in the electoral field,"
countered Harry Jaffe for The Guardian. "If Sanders can bring new
voters to the polls with his message of authenticity and empowerment-as he
seems to be doing-that's a testament to the power of his words rather than
their shiny quality."
If
Bernie Sanders was under investigation by the FBI and Department of
Justice, it is doubtful Obama would be jumping to his defense as he has
repeatedly done for
Hillary
Clinton. "She would never intentionally put America in any kind of
jeopardy," he
told Fox News in April 2016, while simultaneously guaranteeing he wouldn't
interfere with the investigation. But by making a judgment at all on Clinton's
private server use, he is intervening-especially by affirming Clinton
had no
intent, which is vital to determine criminal liability in this case.
Obama, like many of his Democratic colleagues who overwhelmingly support
Clinton, were downplaying the
private
email server investigation as frivolous, until the recent
report from the State Department Inspector General illuminated the blatant
lies
Clinton has been telling the public for over a year. She never received
authorization for using a private
email server and broke federal record laws by not preserving and turning
over her records to the State Department when she left office. Shortly after
the report was released, Obama dodged
a question at a press conference in Japan, refusing to provide an answer at
all, instead telling reporters such questions should be directed to the
Clinton and Sanders campaigns-which is what he should have been doing all
along.
Just as
Hillary Clinton has depended on Obama whenever she was cornered in a debate
and needed help diverting an issue, she is now depending on him to get through
the FBI and Department of Justice
investigation long enough to get to become president-at which point there
will be no chance of serving the indictment her actions certainly warrant.
"What we already know about her
security infractions should disqualify her for any government position that
deals in information critical to mission success, domestic or foreign," wrote
Philip Jennings in an
op-ed for USA Today. "But beyond that, her responses to being
found out-dismissing
its importance, claiming
ignorance,
blaming others-indict her beyond anything the investigation can reveal.
Those elements reveal her character. And the saddest thing is so many Americans
seem not to care."
Dropped charges against a uniformed
Black Panter carrying a billy club at a
voting place. The case was all but done.
ObamaCo came in and dropped all charges.
Like
·
Reply
·
145
·
Jun 7, 2016 12:21pm
Walter Riley
·
Grand Island, New York
The President
is inexorably tied to the Clinton
private server, and now working behind
the scenes to force Bernie from the race
before the Democratic convention. The
strategy? Should word leak that Hillary
is recommended for indictment, the
establishment will be able to install
its own establishment choice (not
Bernie). Really sleazy!
Hillary is evil enough to have set the
President up by sending and receiving
from him information that is potentially
damaging to the country's security. This
is a tactic used by common criminals to
lure unsuspecting persons into a trap of
having committed a crime and suddenly
begins to suffer the 'in-to-deep', and
the 'let's overlook it for now'
syndrome, and the consequences will
somehow simply be forgotten and go away.
Bottom line, the President of the United
States is being blackmailed by the
Secretary of state and her husband Bill
Clinton.
If the POTUS had classified e-mail
exchanges with the SOS, he (the POTUS)
has been naively sucked in, and Hillary
is constantly free to imply everyone
knew (inferring the POTUS as well) and,
hence she gets a free ride. The FBI
should give special attention to this
likely possibility. Bill and Hillary has
been at this game forever, and there is
no reason to calculate otherwise.
HOW ELSE CAN SHE SAY WITH SUCH
CONVICTION, "IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN'!
Our POTUS has his ass in a bind. The FBI
cannot help but conclude that, many in
the White House (and perhaps the
President himself) knew this e-mail
address was not secure!
Where the President had been too
compliant, he now finds himself too
complicit.
It's no wonder how the broadest spectrum
of Social Media is 5 to 1 in support of
Bernie, and the ballot box ends up a
vote or two in favor of Hillary? BERNIE
OR BUST!
Richard Davidson
·
The University of Michigan
Impeachment requires
only a majority of the House, but
removal requires a two thirds vote of
the Senate. It failed to happen the last
two times a president was impeached, and
it certainly would fail again against
Hillary.
BTW, impeachment is not a criminal or
civil matter, but a political one.
Theresa M Brown
·
Works at
Freelance new build/home renovation
designer
Walter Riley - at
some point, if Bernie doesn't, Trump
will force the hand of the crooks up in
Washington - when that happens -
Americans will probably have their one
chance to uninfest this country of the
new world order
Joe Clark ·
Works at
Retired
I think many millions of Americans do
care about Hillary's past indiscretions but feel helpless
to stop her progress given the influence of the political
elite who throw millions of dollars her way knowing they
all will eventually be rewarded for their support. Hillary
Clinton is as corrupt as any politician I have ever seen
in my lifetime; even more dangerous than Richard Nixon.
America will pay dearly if see is somehow elected
president.
Anita Katleen Ruggles-Zigmont
·
Haddon Heights High School
Obama can claim all he wants that
there has been no political influence used by him or the
DOJ. It's like all the other lies he tells and of course
while keeping a straight face. Like I have said many times
now, if some poor GI had mishanlded classified material or
put it on a private server, he would have been tried,
convicted and still sitting in some Federal Prison, before
you could say Obama! Wake up people, she put the safety of
the USA on the line, with her blantant disregard for
established rules on handling classified materials! How
can she be trusted in the White House?
Charles DeJoseph
·
Sr. Airframe Mech at Sikorsky Aircraft.
at
Where do you work
This President and his administration
are the worst obstuctionists in our history. The only
reason he wasn't impeached was because of the fear
Congress had of the riots in the streets that would have
ensued, from the minorities and possible bloodshed from
the victims of the riots who would finally arm them selves
cause they've had enough of their buisnesses being burned
down and their families threatened.
Frank Ciurca ·
University of Maryland, College Park
She has broken so many Federal Laws
it's ridiculous. Then Obama's henchmen went after General
Petraeus for arguably much less. Now this corrupt
Administration, the worse since Nixon, is protecting
Clinton. Patraeus as an honorable person admitted to his
wrong doing. Clinton has no problem lying, after all she's
related to another liar.
Steve Taylor
Obama is complicit in the Clinton
corruption and lies. He should be impeached, imprisoned
and deported if he is ever released. If he is found guilty
of treason he should be publicly executed by firing squad.
Perry Rondou ·
UW Whitewater
Is this the as advertised 'Most
transparent Administration'? Hah, the bunch of lib
hypocrites. The republicans have a much better candidate
than the convict and the socialist. The left is intent on
giving illegals everything in exchange for their votes,
and turning us into Greece or Venezuela. Hell, obama and
the hollywood left love Ortega.
Richard McDonald
·
Jacksonville, Florida
The "most transparent
administration", yeah, right! We can see right through
Obama, what his agenda is and was from Day one when he was
"ready to rule" as Ms. Jarrett so specifically put it. He
has not been a "President of the people", he's been many
things while in office, but, clearly, not a President.
His entire administration was built on lies and deceit,
with divisiveness thrown in for good measure. Everything
he has touched, from Solyndra to shovel ready, to the
automobile companies to our healthcare has turned to a
pile of dog feces and he's been behind it all, and more.
He chose the most inept people to run critical cabinet
departments.
Hillary was, perhaps, the worst of all. She claims abject
failures as "accomplishments" and is too stupid to
understand the difference. From her meddling in Lybia to
the Egyptian "spring" debacle. She cannot account for $ 6
Billion in cash that went missing on her watch that was in
Iraq and Afghan safes that were under the watchful eye of
the CIA and others. As long as she got her cut, doesn't
care.
Barack Hussein Obama, the one man wrecking crew of a
nation.
Alice Gaunt ·
Phoenix Union High School, Phoenix, AZ
Wake up people!!!!!! She lied directly
to the families of the Benghazi victims along with all the
other lies she's told!!!!! She blamed the women that Bill
sexually abused and yet she says shes all for women's
rights?!?!?!?! This woman is as corrupt if not moreso as
the Obama administration and the only reaon he's covering
for her as he knows he can control her if she's
elected!!!!!! He'll be calling in all these "favors" hes
giving her now sooner or later. We really don't want nor
need another ace liar in the WH!!!!!! God help us if this
corrupt bit*ch gets electd!!!!!!
Lee Abbamondi ·
Goldenwest, Huntington Beach, California
She has condemned herself...She
obstucted this investigation. We know she destroyed
documents conerning Top Secret e-mails sent over her
server. She sent her computer to a company in Texas to
have it cleaned. Check U.S. Code Title 18 Section 2017. If
she destroyed any government documents she cannot hold any
government office--EVER. She gets 3-yuears in prison and I
want to see her and billy-boy in those orange jumpsuits
for the fraud of the Clinton Foundation. Based on her
record as Secretary of State---what did she accomplish
other than have Russia buy our uranium for a $50M donation
to the Foundation through Canada along with the
Arab Countries give hundred of millions----she was working
for herself and not the country. And as far as her doing
things for women----name one. Words. Words. Words. Every
time she opens her mouth, you can smell what she has been
eating. Wait to see how much more the muslim in the White
House will do to save her arse. And she has had her face
lifted so many times she has hair on her chest. One more
time and she'll have a mustache or that could be something
she has been diving.
Thomas Schanher
·
Works at
Retired
When are all you people going to
realize that this is all part of Barry's plan. He'll save
Billary & Butthead from embarassment & prison, fix the
November elections for that witch like he did for himself,
all in exchange for her nominating Barry to the Supreme
Court. Ever wonder why Barry says he's not leaving
Washington DC? It's all part of his ongoing masterplan to
ruin America, something he's done a good job of doing for
the past 7 1/2 years. Without a Trump election in
November, we're all in trouble!!
Charles Smith ·
The
Ohio State University
Benghazi got burried in the shredder.
Fast & Furious did not get investigated. Hillary's Emails
what was left of them have not been gone through by Lynch.
The Black Panthers refusing to let White voters in
Philliadelpha vote in 2008. That was filmed voice and all
Holder refused to prosecute. The federal Government
brought a huge injustice to a MR Finican in Oregon. They
killed MR Finican in Col Blooded Murder and for a topper
shot him in the head after they knew he was dead. The
umjust department of unjust bussed Blacks from Orlando to
get the Police chief fired. Then tried to influence a jury
to convict an innocent Zimmerman for killing Martin.
Matthew Graff ·
Various
So Trump may be a buffoon, but what
does that say about Hillary and Obama - liars to the core.
Sorry, can't vote democrat, they're basicaly unamerican in
every way shape and form.
Joe Butler ·
Las Vegas, Nevada
It would be hard to explain why Obama
did nothing to inform Clinton not to use a private server
when she corresponded with him via email. Both are
culpable. Covering her butt is Obama just covering
himself.
Shirley Allan ·
Administrative Assistant at
Dr. Perry Mueller
She talkes of honesty, doing the right
thing for the people etc., etc. - she needs to be held
responsible NOW before this election stuff goes further -
whether others have done anything similar doesn't matter -
it is NOW AND NOW - you can't simply do wrong and then
expect the average person to respect and vote for her - I
don't trust any of the candidates running, but what
choices do we have really? Our earth will end soon just
watch the weather changes - people are in panic mode -
people lie to get our attention. I feel each candidate
should live in our WORLD and walk in our SHOES for few
months just to get an idea of what we the average person
goes through and the conflicts and hardships we all go
through and then maybe we can get on track - The President
needs to do the correct thing !!
Woody Nelson
Obama has become appalling. I hate to
make this observation but blacks just don't recognize
criminal activity. Obama has supported the thugs Trayvon
Marting and Michael Brown while throwing our police
departments under the bus. Eric Holder with Obama's nod
illegally sold guns to gang members, etc. Now he doesn't
recognize the criminality of Hillary Clinton. I worked for
DoD for over 20 years and retired and while I was employed
we had annual mandatory training about handling classified
materials and the legal repercussions of violating any of
these U.S. codes and laws governing classified material.
We also had very strict guidelines governing telework. At
no time were we allowed to do government business on
personal or home accounts. All business was conducted
through a government firewall. Hillary without a doubt
violated some of the codes and laws and should be held
accountable in the same manner I would have been held
accountable had I violated any of these.
Lee Allen
·
Riverside, California
If you would have
seen the Documentary that came out,
wayback when AKA BARRY SOTORO decided to
run for PREZ. It was entitled, Obama's
America 2016.Denesh Desousa producted
it. Everything that was said in th film,
has come true. An,he is getting ready to
release one on the Clintons, soon.
Roger Rocky Scobey
Obama has lied about everything. He
promised to have the most transparent administration ever
but he lied. He promised to close Guantanamo, but lied. He
lied that the IRS was not targeting conservatives groups.
He lied about selling guns to the Mexican drug cartels, he
lied about Obamacare not being a tax. He lied about the
Iran Nuclear deal. He lied about blaming a youtube video
for the killing of our Ambasador in Benghazi. Etc., etc..
His lies are too many to list.
Jason Hadley ·
Louisiana Tech University
The President should be charged with
"obstruction of justice". Any common place citizan would
be. this country has become so caulis that they dont even
see or care that our goverment has become so corrupt and
dagerously strong that eventually we will lose all our
freedoms and we will cease to be The United States of
America.
Terry Foster
The headline needs to be corrected .
Obama's Latest Attempt to "OBSTRUCT" JUSTICE "and Save
Clinton From Indictment !!! That illegitimate ,low life
,lawless fool crackhead obama has been the mos corrupt ,incompetent,most
destructive,most divisive and up till now ,the most
unqualified fraud ever installed in our White House !!!
Joseph Kaminski
No one in governmnet has the courage,
or desire to charge obama with his crimes, or clinton with
hers. NONE, because they are all as corrupt as him and
her. they are all criminals. Instead they attempt to tell
Americans lies that even a child would not believe. The
entire world is looking on in shock and disbelief , and
when it wears off they will themselves decide to expand
their own corrupt crimess and be like the USA, since
Julie Hardaway
·
Aiken, South Carolina
The writer is mistaken in this
statemtn: "But by making a judgment at all on Clinton's
private server use, he is intervening-especially by
affirming Clinton had no intent, which is vital to
determine criminal liability in this case." In fact, the
Espionage law does NOT require intent for guilt. Gross
negligence is quite sufficient. Not that it matters, since
we now see that the Clinton-Obama Democrats--not the
Sanders Dems--don't give a damn about "equal justice under
(snicker) law." THe law, as Hillary's alter-ego Leona
Helmsley so colorfully put it, "is for little people."
That means you and me.
Gail Newman
America always gets the
president we deserve. Why do we deserve Clinton? It's not
our fault. Public schooling was intentionally designed to
shut off critical thinking and independent thought. It's
all documented. It was NEVER meant to educate, though
Johann Ficht's documents say that SOME education is
inevitable, but that's not the purpose of schooling. It
said that history should never teach facts, but should
teach patriotic themes. That's how so many American don't
have a clue that the Supreme Court conducted a coup d'etat
in 1819 and it threw out the Constitution and our
Constitutional Republic - replacing it with a common law
government (the 1st 2 reasons given in the Dec. of
Independence for breakinig with England). Until we get the
real truth about our own history into public knowledge, we
are doomed. OUr economic paradigm is directly responsible
for every social/political/ecological problem we have, but
that isn't taught in schools either. The end of human life
on earth is much closer to us than most dare imagine. And
that indoctrination / programmiing given us in public
schools is why we have a Clinton and a Trump today.
America must join in a Learn-In .
Thomas Bryan · Medellín, Colombia
Obama will always have a go-between so he never is directly held reponsible for his actions,
remember all the statements....I didn't know anything until I saw it on the news. He's 100% lying
traitor to the American People. Who else has the authority to hender evidence in a Federal
Investigation, Duh
Clifford Fargason
Failure to safeguard classified information is illegal regardless of intent. For example, Gen
Petraus, Eric Snowden, and PFC Manning were all convicted for mishandling classified information.
In Gen Petraus's case he shared information with an individual who had the appropriate clearance
level but not "need to know."
Cheryl Gumulauski
·
Coupeville, Washington
Wow, Nixon tried this with is tapes
and lost. Time to file a suit for them and have the courts
order Obama hand them over. They are not his, but belong
to the government unless classified and a special judge
has to sign off on that. Political embarrassment is not
justification for classification, as the case for the
Pentegon papaers proved.
Randy Vandegrift
In mishandling classified materials,
hillary is either stupid, incompetent or hiding something,
and I would postulate that she is guilty of all 3. She is
stupid because we now know that some hacker, and Putin,
have her emails; incompetent because she did not protect
classified materials placing people and operations at
risk, going so far as to direct someone to remove the
classification markings and fax some classified materials
over an unsecured fax line; and hiding something because,
as we now know, she did not want them subject to FOIA
(maybe selling her influence as Sec'y of State for
donations to a Clinton Foundation; colluding on the
elections; or post your own thoughts). As a former federal
contractor, I know that had I or any of my colleagues done
what she did, we would have been fired immediately and
facing serious federal charges including signficant prison
time.
Mark Foster ·
Escambia High School
If you believe that then I want to
sell you some land in FL, come see it at low tide:)
Let your vote be counted, let's make America rich and
great again, because now that Obama is almost out of
office and running up the national debt from 10 Trillion
to 20 Trillion maybe a real business man can accomplish
something great for America?
Fran Ferreira
I would love to see the "dirt" the
Clinton's have on Obama. We all know Obama hates the
Clintons and for him to continue covering her butt it must
be good. Oh, to be a fly on the wall when those two get
together.
Alan Jones ·
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
First of all, if Obama has to stand
there and say "I guarantee that there is no political
influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice
Department" chances are political influence has already
been exercised. That's just like Slick Willy saying "I
never had sex with that woman".
Like ·
Reply ·
Jun 7, 2016 1:55pm
Ed Ernst ·
DePaul University
I truly believe that this entire
administration is re-writing the old hand book "lying for
Dummies"!! Every department is so full of crap, from the
Administration, to the IRS, to the EPA, to the Justice
Dept., and the Veterans Administration that they no longer
would know the truth if it bit them in the arse!!! This is
why that lyin', scumbag, schemin', PHONY of a human being
hil-airous cling-on can't be elected president.
Like ·
Reply ·
Jun 8, 2016 4:23am
Eric Park
How can we collectively get the
message to James Comey, Director of the FBI....Sir, if you
have or have not discovered sufficient evidence to
justifyt indictment of ex-Sec of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton, we the American voters believe you have an
obligation to us to reach your conclusion and publicly
recommend or not recommend indictment by the Dept of
Justice. Please, sir, let us go into this critical
Presidential election fully informed. Should the evidence
support indictment (be it violation of FOIA and record
keeping, ala private servers, or selling govt access via
the Clinton Foundatio ... See
More
Like ·
Reply ·
1
·
Jun 7, 2016 1:19pm
Jenny Racine York Lloyd
Obama and both Clintons should
probably all be in jail but the truth will never be
believed or acted upon. Power-mongers and greed-filled.
They will answer to a much high power some day.
Thomas Topmiller
·
Works at
Retired
The democrats don't seem to care about
Hillary's moral character, only Trump's. Hillary will have
Obama intervening for her and Obama will tell the justice
dept. not to prosecute her. I can only hope that the fbi
will blow the whistle when Obama interfers. There was s no
doubt that Obama will interfere, it's just a matter of
when. Everybody knows the clintons and obama's are in bed
together.
Joseph Stretanski
·
Stamford, Connecticut
Hope and Change
Eight years ago we were sold a bill of goods called "Hope
and Change".
Eight years ago we were a nation of laws.
In fact, Obama took an oath of office to abide by the laws
of this land and the constitution.
Today, we are re-writing laws after they are passed (Obamacare).
Today, the President is implementing laws he likes and
ignoring those he doesn't.
Today , the President is making laws and ignoring the will
of the people who made the House and the Senate Republican
to prevent the President from continuing his assault on
the laws and the constitution of this nation.
Today, judges are ruling against the President for his
immigration executive orders.
Today, the Presidents economic policies and the use of
excessive regulations and the Govt. agencies, such as the
EPA, has resulted in anemic growth and the lowest labor
participation rate in 30 years.
However, if you exist in Obamaland, none of this is true.
Granted the "Change" part is true. However, today 62% of
the public thinks it is in the wrong direction. A fact
that the President, and also, his close associates ignore.
I would say it is time to reverse the current direction.
Andrew Martinson
Barack "the pathological and
sociopathic liar" Obama; the same liar who has been proven
to have known he was lying when he told us over and over
and over again ad nauseam "if you like your doctor, you
can keep your doctor" ... and "if you like your insurance
plan, you can keep your insurance plan" ... and "the
average American family will save $2500 on their health
insurance" ... and not to be forgotten;
"there's not even a smidgeon of corruptness in the I R S".
More and more and more lies by the Barack "the
pathological and sociopathic liar" Obama. THAT will be his
legacy.
"... But former US attorney Joseph DiGenova is blunt: "I don't think there's any question Mrs Clinton and her staff broke the law. She maintained a server in her private home in Chappaqua, New York, and conducted government business. This clearly was beyond gross negligence. ..."
"... "When she set up the server, the intent was to avoid accountability. There is no other intent required. The notion this is not a violation of the law is ludicrous. If she and her staff get a pass, there will be hell to pay in the intelligence community." ..."
"... Innocent until proven guilty, she would not be legally barred from running for president. Handy draws parallels with Sheldon Silver , the former speaker of the New York assembly who last month was jailed for 12 years for corruption. ..."
"... The political, media and public pressure on Clinton might be overwhelming, however, making her candidacy untenable and prompting a sensational, unprecedented and humiliating withdrawal. ..."
"... Cox adds: "If charges came down before the convention, it would raise questions over whether the Democratic party really wanted to proceed with a nominee facing criminal charges but, again, I think it is very unlikely that is going to happen." ..."
As an FBI investigation continues, expert opinion is divided. Some offer a view reminiscent of
Bill Clinton's famous remark that he experimented with marijuana but "didn't inhale".
... ... ...
State department and intelligence officials have identified 2,093 email chains from Clinton's
server as containing classified information. Twenty-two were deemed so highly classified that
they were withheld from release to the public. Clinton contends that none of the messages was
marked classified at the time.
But former US attorney Joseph DiGenova is blunt: "I don't think there's any question Mrs
Clinton and her staff broke the law. She maintained a server in her private home in Chappaqua,
New York, and conducted government business. This clearly was beyond gross negligence.
"When she set up the server, the intent was to avoid accountability. There is no other
intent required. The notion this is not a violation of the law is ludicrous. If she and her staff
get a pass, there will be hell to pay in the intelligence community."
... ... ...
If Clinton is indicted, what would happen?
Innocent until proven guilty, she would not be legally barred from running for president.
Handy draws parallels with
Sheldon Silver, the former speaker of the New York assembly who last month was jailed for 12
years for corruption.
"I would hope that she would step down but even given Shelly Silvers' indictment, it took
tremendous pressure to get him to step down as speaker. Even if there were an indictment, I don't
know if she would step aside. I would hope someone indicted would say, 'For the good of the
party, for the good of the nation.' But her supporters would probably say, 'She deserves her day
in court'."
While she would not be arrested, experts say, she would normally be expected to appear in
court. The optics would be disastrous for a would be commander-in-chief but she could apply to
have the charges dismissed or plead to a minor dismeanour in the hope that it would not
necessarily disqualify her.
The political, media and public pressure on Clinton might be overwhelming, however, making
her candidacy untenable and prompting a sensational, unprecedented and humiliating withdrawal.
Stewart says: "I don't know how you couldn't pull out, especially for something like this
involving national security."
Cox adds: "If charges came down before the convention, it would raise questions over
whether the Democratic party really wanted to proceed with a nominee facing criminal charges but,
again, I think it is very unlikely that is going to happen."
But what if she is forced to pull out?
The Democratic party's charter and bylaws state that responsibility for finding a replacement
nominee would fall to the Democratic National Committee, but the rules do not specify exactly how
this would be done.
Sanders would presumably claim that he should inherit the mantle of nominee after pushing
Clinton close in the primaries and earning the right to face Donald Trump. Indeed, it has been
speculated that the
Vermont senator has clung on so long in case the FBI investigation proves a cataclysmic event
for the former first lady and a gamechanger for him.
This just one case of Clinton's family corruption and probably not the most outrageous one. It is
now more clear why she deleted so many emails. Clinton faces many questions about whether she helped
her family foundation collect millions of dollars from questionable people, countries and organizations
when she was secretary of state.
Notable quotes:
"... A major Democratic donor personally lobbied then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office for a seat on a sensitive government intelligence board, telling one of her closest aides that if appointed he would make Clinton "look good." ..."
"... The emails shed new light on how Fernando got a spot on the International Security Advisory Board . He resigned in 2011, days after his appointment and after his selection was questioned. ..."
"... In recent weeks, emails obtained by Citizens United show the appointment perplexed the State Department's professional staff, according to ABC News , and that dozens of State Department officials worked overtime to quickly obtain Fernando's security clearance, according to Fox News . ..."
"... Reines appeared to mock the appointment by responding to Samuelson: "Not the most compelling response I've ever seen since it's such a dense topic the board resolves around. Couldn't he have landed a spot on the President's Physical Fitness Council?" ..."
Rajiv Fernando lobbied top Clinton aide for a seat on sensitive intelligence board. He had
little experience in the field and resigned after appointment was scrutinized. The Chicago businessman
donated to Clinton, Obama and the Clinton Foundation.
A major Democratic donor personally lobbied then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office
for a seat on a sensitive government intelligence board, telling one of her closest aides that if
appointed he would make Clinton "look good."
Rajiv Fernando acknowledged that he may not have
the experience to sit on a board that would allow him the highest levels of top-secret access, but
he assured deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin in newly released 2009 emails that he was talking to
two professors who were "getting me up to speed on the academics behind the field."
Fernando, who contributed to Clinton, her
family's foundation and Barack Obama,
described himself as one of "Hillary's people" and mentioned that he recently had sent an ailing
Clinton flowers to wish her a speedy recovery.
The emails shed new light on how Fernando got a spot on the
International Security Advisory Board.
He resigned in 2011, days after his appointment and after his selection was questioned.
... ... ...
In recent weeks, emails obtained by Citizens United show the appointment perplexed the State
Department's professional staff, according to
ABC News, and that dozens of State Department officials worked overtime to quickly obtain Fernando's
security clearance, according to
Fox News.
Reines
appeared to mock the appointment by responding to Samuelson: "Not the most compelling response
I've ever seen since it's such a dense topic the board resolves around. Couldn't he have landed a
spot on the President's Physical Fitness Council?"
Fernando founded Chopper Trading, a high-frequency trading firm that was acquired by the Chicago
firm DRW Trading Group in 2015. In an economic speech last year, Clinton criticized high-frequency
traders. Providence, Rhode Island, sued Chopper Trading and other financial companies, charging they'd
defrauded the city, which managed funds for its employees.
"... is the use of public office for private gain ..."
"... as a troll prophylactic, let me say that this post is not an endorsement of any candidate ..."
"... There's a lot of truth on each front, and Trump builds his case using simple, effective language. Of course, there's a million dollar SuperPAC with the billable hours to refute these charges by funding trolls - you can go online and meet them! - but to me, they're pounding the table because they're losing on the facts and (maybe) the law. On corruption, it's common sense that taking huge sums of money from Wall Street influences you, just as much as an effing coffee mug ..."
"... Many have commented that both the Democrat and Republican candidates have unfavorables that are, historically, uniquely high . At 55%, Trump's unfavorables are, amazingly, 20 points higher than Clinton's also amazing unfavorables, at 35%. Short of running into a burning building to save a small child, it's doubtful that Trump can reduce his unfavorables. What he can do is drive up Clinton's unfavorables so that they are at his level. The series of speeches that we've looked at are, I think, a coordinated effort to do that, and there's good reason to think they'll succeed. To what extent, we don't know. Again, anybody who thinks that Clinton will get a free ride to the Oval Office is delusional. ..."
With that, I'll look at four themes that should carry Trump through to November, as exemplified
by excerpts from the speech
Rigged System Corruption TPP Email
The speech is long, and there's a rather a lot of oppo, including a narrative of Benghazi that
is, at long last, at least coherent - red meat for the base! - but these the themes that I think
are in NC's wheelhouse, and will resonate most with NC readers. (
I've demoted Clinton's warmongering to a footnote, since in my view that's so obvious as not to need
discussion .) You can decide for yourselves whether the truth lies closer to Beutler's interpretation,
or to People's .
I'm going to take selected portions of Trump's speech, and annotate them, with two streams of
notes: The first, numbered ("[1"), will cover the substance of Trump's speeech. The second, lettered
("[A]"), will cover the rhetoric. (At some point, I should get out the Magic Markers™and look at
Trump's rhetoric exclusively, but this post is not that post.) First, the rigged system.
1. Rigged System: "Her phony landing in Bosnia"
[TRUMP:} [I]it's not just the political system that's rigged, it's the whole economy.
(APPLAUSE)
It's rigged[A] by big donors who want to keep wages down[1]. It's
rigged by big businesses who want to leave our country, fire our workers and sell their products
back into the United States with absolutely no consequences for them .[2]
It's rigged by bureaucrats who are trapping kids in failing schools[3]. It's rigged against
you, the American people. Hillary Clinton, and as you know she - most people know she's a world-class
liar. Just look at her pathetic e-mail server statements[4] or her phony landing…
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: … or her phony landing in Bosnia[5], where she said she was under attack, and the attack
turned out to be young girls handing her flowers[6], a total and - look, this was - this was one
of the beauts[B], a total and self-serving lie. Brian Williams' career was destroyed for saying
less, remember that[7].
[3] "Bureaucrats": Trump probably means unions. Of course,
the Obama administration's charter-friendly policies ,
backed by scab temp agency Teach
for America , are also an assault on unions, using the classic neoliberal strategy of starving
public services budgets and then introducing a privatized, rent-seeking alternative. Conservatives
(Trump) and liberals (Clinton) can't say that, although the left can.
[4] "Pathetic email statements." There are many, such that only long-form posts can cope with
the volume and shifting detail. See
here ,
here , and
here
.
[A] "It's rigged… It's rigged… It's rigged…." a fine example of
anaphora , especially
because the repeated word, "rigged," is so charged.
[B] "[O]ne of the beauts": This descent to
a low style is
very characteristic of Trump. It's
a figure of pathos
, designed to provoke an emotional response, or even a function of the emotional state of the
speaker, but I can't find a precise term for it! (The technique is like bathos,
which also a descent in style, but an anti-climatic lapse .
Aschematiston is
a vice, not a virtue.) Because Trump is disconnecting from his audience in one style, and reconnecting
with them by addressing them in a second style, I'm going to use
apostrophe as a placeholder
in this post.
2. Corruption: "They totally own her and that will never ever change "
[TRUMP:] Then when she left, she made $21.6 million giving speeches to Wall Street banks and
other special interests[1] and in less than two years[A], secret speeches that she does not want
to reveal under any circumstances to the public[2]. I wonder why?[B]
Together, she and Bill made $153 million giving speeches to lobbyists, CEOs and foreign governments
in the years since 2001[3]. They totally own her[4] and that will never ever change, including
if she ever became president, God help us[C].
[4] "Own her:" A pardonable exaggeration;
for a typology of corruption in American political life, see at NC here . This is really not
hard: Up here in the Great State of Maine, when the managers of the (privatized) landfill
give "the community" a tour, they always make sure to serve free food? Why? Out of the goodness
of their hearts? Of course not! They want to influence people to feel good about the landfill and
its owners, duh!
Doctors can
be influenced in their prescriptions by promotional items as small as a coffee mug . Are we really
to believe, then, that Clinton won't be influenced by $21.6 million dollars? If your answer is "No",
or "Hell no," then understand the definition of corruption: It's not only leaving an envelope
on the dresser with cash in it; corruption is the use of public office for private gain
. And in allowing Wall Street to purchase options on her future, public actions, based on her past,
public actions as FLOTUS and SoS, that is exactly what Clinton is doing. (Note that when Clinton
advocates demand proof of a quid pro quo , they're accepting the majority doctrine of Citizens
United, which in essence sets "money in an envelope in exchange for services rendered" as the standard.
That's not the case with my landfill example, it's not the case with the doctors, and it's not the
case with Clinton, either.
All these relations are still corrupt using Teachout's approach , which is grounded in how the
writers of the Federalist papers understood corruption, and not Antonin Scalia.
* * *
[A] "and in less than two years":
anastrophe , changing
word order for emphasis. Putting this phrase at the end of the sentence (rather than following "millions")
emphasizes the rapidity with which Clinton made this money, suggesting greed. Anastrophe is another
important feature of Trump's style.
3. TPP: "If she is elected president, she will adopt the Trans-Pacific Partnership"
[TRUMP:] This is the latest Clinton cover-up and it doesn't change anything. If she is elected
president, she will adopt the Trans-Pacific Partnership[1] and we will lose millions of jobs and
our economic independence for good[2]. She'll do this, and just as she has betrayed the American
worker on trade at every single stage of her career[3], and it will be even worse than the Clinton's
NAFTA deal, and I never thought it could get worse than that.[A]
We will lose jobs, we will lose employment, we will lose taxes, we will lose[B] everything.
We will lose our country[4]. I want trade deals, but they have to be great for the United States
and for our workers.
[1] "She will adopt": Likely true. The Democratic National Convention drafting committee
defeated a proposal from Rep. Keith Ellison that would have rejected the pact. If you believe
that the Clinton campaign has the DNC wired, then you believe Clinton supports the TPP.
[2] "millions of jobs and our economic independence for good": partly true. On "jobs,"
some estimates say 450K , not "millions." If we go by NAFTA, "millions" would be correct, but
the Rust Belt has already been hollowed out; we can't do that twice. On "economic independence,"
that's true if losing our "independence" means "surrendering our national sovereignty to the ISDS
system."
[4] Again, I'm surprised Trump doesn't mention ISDS; loss of "sovereignty" would certainly be
red meat for his audience. He should talk to Jeff Sessions, who has actually taken a principled stand
on the issue.
* * *
[A] "worse than that": Anastrophe.
[B] "we will lose": Anaphora
4. Email: "Her server was easily hacked by foreign governments"
[TRUMP:] To cover up her corrupt feelings [sic], Hillary illegally[1] stashed[A] her State
Department e-mails on a private server[2]. She's under investigation, but it seems like nothing
is going to happen[3]. Even though other people who have done similar things, but much - at a
much lower level, their lives have been destroyed[4].
It's a rigged system, folks. It's a rigged system.[B] Her server was easily hacked by foreign
governments[4], perhaps even by her financial backers in communist China.[5] Sure they have it.[C]
Putting all of America and our citizens in danger, great danger.[D]
Then there are the 33,000 e-mails she deleted. Well, we may not know what's in those deleted
e-mails, our enemies probably know every single one of them. So they probably now have a blackmail
file over someone who wants to be the president of the United States.[6]
This fact alone disqualifies her from the presidency. We can't hand over our government to
someone who's deepest, darkest secrets[E] may be in the hands of our enemies. Can't do it.[F]
[1] "illegally": Not yet determined by a court. Again, see
here ,
here , and
here
, all of which make the case that Clinton committed crimes.
[2] "e-mails on a private server": Plausible. If you believe that the half of her email Clinton
(believed she) destroyed was about Chelsea's wedding and yoga lessons, then you reject Trump's thesis.
[4] "lives have been destroyed": true.
David Petraeus , who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for mishandling classified documents, or
any number of victim's of the administration's campaign against whisteblowers, which are often based
on the misuse of confidential information (for example,
William Binney ).
[4] "easily hacked by foreign governments": True.
AP : "In a blistering audit released last month, the State Department's inspector general concluded
that Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup broke federal standards
and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers. Her aides twice brushed aside concerns,
in one case telling technical staff 'the matter was not to be discussed further,' the report said."
[5] "communist China": unproven, although note the lawyerly "perhaps"!s
[6] Plausible, especially if you consider an unsecured email server as a
phishing equilibrium .
* * *
[A] "Stashed." Ouch!
[B] "rigged system":
conduplicatio ,
repetition of words in adjacent phrases or clauses, a third key Trump technique.
[C] "Sure they have it": Anastrophe.
[D] "danger": conduplicatio.
[E] " d eepest, d arkest secrets":
alliteration , most
often repeated initial consonants.
[F]. "Can't do it": Anastrophe.
Conclusion
Again as a troll prophylactic, let me say that this post is not an endorsement of any candidate.
However, as we know too well with the Clintons. just because it's oppo doesn't mean it isn't true!
In this speech, Trump opens up four lines of attack:
Rigged System Corruption TPP Email
There's a lot of truth on each front, and Trump builds his case using simple, effective language.
Of course,
there's a million dollar SuperPAC with the billable hours to refute these charges by funding trolls
- you can go online and meet them! - but to me, they're pounding the table because they're losing
on the facts and (maybe) the law. On corruption, it's common sense that taking huge sums of money
from Wall Street influences you, just as much as an effing coffee mug can influence your
doctor when he's prescribing that. If you agree with that, then you agree that Clinton has used her
past public service and prospects for future public service for private gain; there's no way around
the influence peddling. Corruption is important, because it means that the calculus for the actual
policies that Clinton will deliver - as opposed to those she says she'll deliver now - isn't transparent
to voters, although we already know enough to know it will be skewed to donor interests.
Many have commented that both the Democrat and Republican candidates have
unfavorables that are, historically, uniquely high . At 55%, Trump's unfavorables are, amazingly,
20 points higher than Clinton's also amazing unfavorables, at 35%. Short of running into a burning
building to save a small child, it's doubtful that Trump can reduce his unfavorables. What he can
do is drive up Clinton's unfavorables so that they are at his level. The series of speeches that
we've looked at are, I think, a coordinated effort to do that, and there's good reason to think they'll
succeed. To what extent, we don't know. Again, anybody who thinks that Clinton will get a free ride
to the Oval Office is delusional.
"... Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. ..."
"... The weapons shipped from Libya to Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea - 125mm and 200ea - 1[55 mm]. ..."
WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT. NOT FINALLY EVALUATED
INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED SECRET//NOFORN .
TEXT: 1. ( S//NF ) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Weapons from the former Libya
military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to
the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons
shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm
and 155mm howitzers missiles.
2.( S//NF }During Ihe immediate altermath of, and following the
uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in
October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the
former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were
shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and
the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to
the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The
ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to
hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo. (NFI)
3. ( S//NF ) The weapons shipped from Libya to Syria during late-August
2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers
missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500
Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and
approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea - 125mm and 200ea - 1[55
mm].
(b)(1) Sec. 1. 4(c).(b)(3): 10§USC 424,(b)(3):50§USC 3024(i)
REDACTED
CLASSIFIED
Finally, there is official confirmation of what has been rumored for years: President
Obama, his White House, and Hillary Clinton and her State Department knew that
weapons were being shipped from Benghazi to rebel troops in Syria. Those "rebels"
were largely al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood extremist factions, according to
corroborating documents.
Below is a gem of an intelligence cable we unearthed from the Defense Intelligence
Agency dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, courtesy of
Judicial Watch's stacks of ongoing FOIA litigation. Absent wholesale redaction, this
could prove to be a smoking gun finally exhibiting what the United States was doing
in Benghazi prior to the Jihadists attacks on the U.S. consulate and then-secret CIA
annex just miles away.
Top Democratic donors in the financial industry are threatening revolt after
news broke that top Wall Street critic and progressive darling Sen.
Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is one of the leading candidates for vice
president under Hillary Clinton.
An in-depth
report
published by
Politico
on Monday cites a dozen interviews
with Clinton's Wall Street backers-of which there are
many
-warning that the coffers will dry up if Warren is chosen.
"If Clinton picked Warren, her whole base on Wall Street would leave
her," one top Democratic donor told
Politico
reporter Ben White.
"They would literally just say, 'We have no qualms with you moving left,
we understand all the things you've had to do because of Bernie Sanders, but
if you are going there with Warren, we just can't trust you, you've killed
it,'" added the anonymous bundler, who has reportedly helped raise millions
for Clinton.
"... Hillary Clinton's official calendar from her time as Secretary of State is missing details of dozens of meetings with political donors and Clinton Foundation contributors, according to a review of the calendar and related records by AP. ..."
Hillary Clinton's official calendar from her time as Secretary of State is missing details of
dozens of meetings with political donors and Clinton Foundation contributors, according to a review
of the calendar and related records by AP.
The calendar was among files turned over to
AP by the State Department after the news outlet
filed a lawsuit to access Clinton's records from her tenure as Secretary of State.
However, the official record did not match up with detailed staff reports of her meetings, AP
reports. Some were left entirely out of the calendar while other entries omitted the names of those
involved.
The incomplete calendar further highlights the likely Democratic presidential nominee's issues
around the handling of government records at a time when she is under investigation by the FBI for
improper use of a private email server.
The FBI's case against a BlackBerry-obsessed Hillary Clinton could be strengthened following a
bombshell report
she ignored State Department and spy community warnings her outdated phone
and private email server posed national security risks
, former federal prosecutors and
officials told the Herald.
"... "What? Like with a cloth or something?" she asked, then laughed. "I don't know how it works
digitally at all." ..."
"... She made the quip during an exchange with Fox News' Ed Henry . ..."
"... The Intelligence Community's inspector general had notified senior members of Congress that
two emails randomly sampled from Clinton's server contained sensitive information that was later given
a "Top Secret" classification, while two others contained classified information at the time they were
sent. ..."
"... The emails with information subsequently classified as "Top Secret" were forwarded to Clinton,
according to the State Department. ..."
Hillary
Clinton joked to reporters Tuesday in Las Vegas about whether she "wiped" her email server clean
before giving it to the
FBI.
"What? Like with a cloth or something?" she asked, then laughed. "I
don't know how it works digitally at all."
Clinton maintained that she has turned over the server to investigators
and gave them "every single thing" that was work-related. Federal investigators are looking into
the security of the server and whether there was classified information in the emails from the private
account she used while serving as secretary of state.
She made the quip during an exchange with Fox News'
Ed Henry.
This isn't the first time Clinton has joked about her emails: the former
Secretary of State also quipped about why she liked Snapchat at the Wing Ding Dinner in Iowa.
"You may have seen that I recently launched a Snapchat account," she said.
"I love it. Those messages disappear all by themselves."
Clinton turned over more than 30,000 personal messages from her email server
to the State
Department, which is being released in batches. And earlier this month, Clinton turned over her
private email server to the
Department
of Justice.
The Intelligence Community's inspector general had notified senior
members of Congress that two emails randomly sampled from Clinton's server contained sensitive information
that was later given a "Top Secret" classification, while two others contained classified information
at the time they were sent.
The emails with information subsequently classified as "Top Secret"
were forwarded to Clinton, according to the State Department.
Just this week, Intelligence community officials involved in the review
of Clinton's emails flagged 305 messages for further inspection, new court documents released Monday
said.
Clinton has maintained that she never used her private email to handle
classified information. Her spokesman, Nick Merrill, said it was "not surprising" that several hundred
messages were flagged for further inspection "given the sheer volume of intelligence community lawyers
now involved in the review of these emails."
"We expect there will continue to be competing assessments among the various
agencies about what should and shouldn't be redacted," Merrill said in a statement to ABC News.
A more responsible accounting of another scandal that has dogged Hillary Clinton came this week
from the State Department's inspector general, who was tasked with looking into the propriety of
Clinton's use of a personal e-mail account while she was Secretary of State.
The I.G.'s
eighty-three page report, "Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and
Cybersecurity Requirements," is one of the more comprehensive examinations the government has ever
issued on proper document-retention habits in the federal bureaucracy. Skip to page forty-two if
you want the scintillating conclusion:
Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed
within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State.
OIG recognizes that technology and Department policy have evolved considerably since Secretary
Albright's tenure began in 1997. Nevertheless, the Department generally and the Office of the
Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements
and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those
risks pertain to its most senior leadership. OIG expects that its recommendations will move the
Department steps closer to meaningfully addressing these risks.
...The fact that Clinton did not fully cooperate with the I.G. investigation (she declined to
be interviewed, for example) does not inspire confidence that her Administration would be a model
of transparency
...The fact that Clinton did not fully cooperate with the I.G. investigation (she declined to
be interviewed, for example) does not inspire confidence that her Administration would be a model
of transparency
"... One other State Department official evidently violated this policy: Her Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin. Ms. Abedin's emails are of particular interest insofar as Huma has extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. That's the Islamist organization whose self-declared mission is "destroying Western civilization from within." ..."
Hillary Clinton's Emailgate scandal is becoming more problematic by the day. Turns out she
exclusively used a private email account while personally prohibiting other State Department
employees from doing the same.
One other State Department official evidently violated this policy: Her Deputy Chief of
Staff, Huma Abedin. Ms. Abedin's emails are of particular interest insofar as Huma has extensive
ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. That's the Islamist organization whose self-declared mission is
"destroying Western civilization from within."
The indispensable investigative group, Judicial Watch, has filed suit in federal court for
access to these emails. It remains to be seen if they are provided and, if so, what they reveal
about these ladies' contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood – and their damage-control concerning
revelations about Huma's connection to it.
"... The secretary of state's information technology office "believes that Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin were each issued BlackBerry devices," State Executive Secretary Joseph Macmanus wrote in a declaration submitted to a federal court in Washington (and posted here). The office, referred to as S/ES-IRM in agency parlance, "has not located any such device at the department" and "standard procedure upon return of such devices is to perform a factory reset (which removes any user settings or configurations) and then to reissue the device to another employee, to destroy it, or to excess it," he added. ..."
"... The official also said former Secretary of State Clinton appeared never to have had a BlackBerry from her agency or any other official gadget. "S/ES-IRM does not believe that any personal computing device was issued by the Department to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and has not located any such device at the Department," Macmanus wrote. ..."
"... Earlier this month, Sullivan ordered the State Department to ask Clinton, Mills and Abedin to preserve all official records they had responsive to Judicial Watch's request and to execute a declaration under penalty of perjury about their use of private email or devices to store such records. ..."
BlackBerry devices the State Department issued to former Hillary Clinton aides Cheryl Mills
and Huma Abedin have likely been destroyed or sold off as surplus, a State official said in a
court filing Wednesday.
The secretary of state's information technology office "believes that Ms. Mills and Ms.
Abedin were each issued BlackBerry devices," State Executive Secretary Joseph Macmanus wrote in a
declaration submitted to a federal court in Washington (and posted here). The office, referred to
as S/ES-IRM in agency parlance, "has not located any such device at the department" and "standard
procedure upon return of such devices is to perform a factory reset (which removes any user
settings or configurations) and then to reissue the device to another employee, to destroy it, or
to excess it," he added.
"Because the devices issued to Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin would have been outdated models, in
accordance with standard operating procedures those devices would have been destroyed or excessed.
As stated above, the state.gov email accounts themselves are generally housed on the Department's
servers," Macmanus said.
The official also said former Secretary of State Clinton appeared never to have had a
BlackBerry from her agency or any other official gadget. "S/ES-IRM does not believe that any
personal computing device was issued by the Department to former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, and has not located any such device at the Department," Macmanus wrote.
The filing came in a lawsuit where the conservative group Judicial Watch is seeking records
relating to Abedin's employment arrangements, including a period after she left a full-time post
as deputy chief of staff and took a part-time position while also working for a New York-based
firm run by a former aide to President Bill Clinton.
In recent weeks, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan has expressed increasing concern that the
State Department was not making an adequate effort to recover all records about the matter,
including emails Clinton or the other aides may have had on private accounts or took with them
when they left the department.
Earlier this month, Sullivan ordered the State Department to ask Clinton, Mills and Abedin to
preserve all official records they had responsive to Judicial Watch's request and to execute a
declaration under penalty of perjury about their use of private email or devices to store such
records. Clinton submitted such a declaration. Abedin and Mills did not submit personal
declarations, but lawyers for the aides said they had returned or were in the process of
returning any official records to State and would preserve any such records in their possession.
Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
against the State Department seeking any and all communications – including emails – from
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Chief of Staff Huma Abedin with Nagla Mahmoud,
wife of ousted Egyptian president Mohammad
Morsi, from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013 (Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00321)). This latest lawsuit will
require the State Department to answer questions about and conduct thorough searches of Hillary
Clinton's newly discovered hidden email accounts. Judicial Watch also has nearly a dozen other
active FOIA lawsuits that may require the State Department to search these email accounts. Huma
Abedin is also alleged to have a secret account as well.
Judicial Watch submitted its original FOIA request on August 27, 2014. The State Department
was required by law to respond by September 26, 2014 at the latest to Judicial Watch's request
for:
Any and all records of communication between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Nagla
Mahmoud, wife of ousted Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi, from January 21, 2009 to January
31, 2013; and
Any and all records of communication between former State Department Deputy Chief of Staff
Huma Abedin and Nagla Mahmoud from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013.
To date, the State Department has not responded.
Ms. Mahmoud threatened Mrs. Clinton after Morsi was ousted. According to JihadWatch.org:
In the words of El-Mogaz News,
Morsi's wife "is threatening to expose the special relationship between her husband and
Hillary Clinton, after the latter attacked the ousted [president], calling him a simpleton who
was unfit for the presidency. Sources close to Nagla confirmed that she has threatened to
publish the letters exchanged between Morsi and Hillary."
The report continues by saying that Nagla accuses Hillary of denouncing her former close
ally, the Brotherhood's Morsi, in an effort to foster better relations with his successor,
Egypt's current president, Sisi-even though, as Nagla laments, "he [Morsi] was faithful to the
American administration."
"Now we know why the State Department didn't want to respond to our specific request for
Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's communications," stated Tom Fitton. "The State Department
violated FOIA law rather than admit that it couldn't and wouldn't search the secret accounts that
the agency has known about for years. This lawsuit shows how the latest Obama administration
cover-up isn't just about domestic politics but has significant foreign policy implications."
"... Piling on more embarrassment for Hillary Clinton amid a row about her emails, U.S. officials revealed Thursday that during her time as secretary of state she had declined a government-issued cellphone. ..."
Piling on more embarrassment for Hillary Clinton amid a row about her emails, U.S.
officials revealed Thursday that during her time as secretary of state she had declined a
government-issued cellphone.
Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Clinton was "not issued a State Department BlackBerry, and that
wasn't a requirement - no one is required to be issued a State Department BlackBerry."
Since he became president, Barack Obama has carried a special "secure" BlackBerry, altered by
the NSA to make it as difficult as possible for hackers to turn it into a remote spying device.
Now it's been revealed in emails obtained by the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch
that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked in 2009 for one of those uncrackable BlackBerries,
too, and the NSA denied her request for unknown reasons. Conservative pundits have used the news
to argue that Clinton knew her BlackBerry was insecure and yet still used it for sensitive
emails.
"... Clinton liked to use her BlackBerry rather than a desktop or laptop to stay on top of her emails at all times, but this was a problem at the secure office space at the State Department's headquarters, where wireless devices were banned, according to the documents. To overcome this, she requested the same modified 8830 World Edition used by the president, which would allow her to check her email constantly, something she had become accustomed to during the 2008 presidential campaign. ..."
"... The NSA refused, saying that it had phased out the waivers that allowed her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, to use a BlackBerry as they had been "expanded to an unmanageable number of users from a security perspective." ..."
President Barack Obama wasn't the only administration official enamored of the BlackBerry
phone.
When she was serving as the US secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, Hillary Clinton repeatedly
tried to get her hands on "BlackBerry-like communications," but was denied by the National
Security Agency out of concerns for security and cost, according to a report Wednesday by
conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.
Emails obtained by the organization under a Freedom of Information Act request show that Clinton
demanded access to the same type of secure BlackBerry device used by President Obama, and the
NSA's subsequent rebuffs often led to heated exchanges between the two camps.
"Each time we asked the question 'What was the solution for POTUS?' we were politely told to shut
up and color," or to mind their own business, according to one email sent in 2009 by Donald Reid,
the State Department's coordinator for security infrastructure.
Once the de rigueur instrument of business communications, BlackBerry dominated the cell phone
industry before losing its crown to Apple's iPhone and to Google's Android software. Corporate
and government types loved using BlackBerrys because they offered a level of data encryption that
prevented everyone, including BlackBerry itself, from snooping into the phone's contents. Clinton
has come under fire over the past few months for using her personal email on the BlackBerry she
used while she was secretary of state.
Clinton liked to use her BlackBerry rather than a desktop or laptop to stay on top of her
emails at all times, but this was a problem at the secure office space at the State Department's
headquarters, where wireless devices were banned, according to the documents. To overcome this,
she requested the same modified 8830 World Edition used by the president, which would allow her
to check her email constantly, something she had become accustomed to during the 2008
presidential campaign.
The NSA refused, saying that it had phased out the waivers that allowed her predecessor,
Condoleezza Rice, to use a BlackBerry as they had been "expanded to an unmanageable number of
users from a security perspective."
Clinton, now the front-runner in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, carried on using her
personal BlackBerry for state business after her request for a customized secure device was
rejected by the NSA. She has since apologized and claimed that she never used the BlackBerry to
send classified information.
ADVERTISING
The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Chuck Grassley,
Republican of Iowa, raised questions about Abedin's work as a State Department employee,
concerning the fact that she held four jobs[20]
from June 2012 to February 2013.[14][21][22][23]
These included serving as a part-time aide to Clinton at the State Department, while also working
as a consultant to private clients for the consulting firm
Teneo Holdings,[21][22]
a consulting firm run by
Douglas Band, a longtime aide to former president Bill Clinton.[24]
At the time, she was also being paid a salary for work at the
Clinton
Foundation, and working as Hillary Clinton's personal assistant.[20]
The State Department and Abedin both responded, with the State Department indicating that it uses
special government employees routinely "to provide services and expertise that executive agencies
require", and Abedin stating that she did not provide any government information or inside
information gained from her State Department job to her private employers.
... ... ...
Employment records and emails
In October 2015, a federal court in Washington heard arguments on a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by
Judicial Watch
for records related to Abedin. Judicial Watch asked to make Ms. Abedin's emails and employment
records public, asking for details of the arrangement under which Abedin was designated a
"special government employee," allowing her to do outside consulting work while also on the
federal payroll.[26][27]
On October 6, the State Department said it would be able to hand over 69 pages of emails in
response to the FOIA request.[28]
In 2015, emails by Abedin became part of the FBI investigation and the controversy concerning
Hillary Clinton's private email account while Secretary of State,[29][30]
resulting in various allegations by Republicans of violations of State Department regulations.[31]
Some officials within the intelligence community have stated that potentially-classified
information was contained in e-mails from Abedin relating to the 2012 Benghazi attack and its
aftermath which had been sent through Clinton's private, non-government server.[29][32][33]
So far, 1818 emails contain classified information on the private server, with 22 being
classified as Top Secret. "They were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but they
did contain classified information when they were originally sent and received." Her aides also
sent and received classified information.[34]
House Benghazi Committee
testimony
On October 16, 2015, Abedin testified in closed session before the
House Select Committee on Benghazi, in a session that was expected to focus on the
2012
Benghazi attack during which Ambassador
J.
Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed.[35]
The committee had previously heard closed-door testimony from two other Clinton aides,
Cheryl Mills and
Jake Sullivan, in
September 2015,[35]
and former Secretary Clinton appeared before the panel in a public hearing on October 22.[36]
The Republican-led committee's top Democrat Representative,
Elijah Cummings
of Maryland, questioned the panel's decision to hear testimony from Abedin, arguing that her
knowledge of details at the time of the attacks was minimal.[35]
Republican Representative
Mike Pompeo of Kansas, defended the decision to interview Abedin, saying: "Ms. Abedin was a
senior official at the State Department at all of the relevant times. Every witness has a
different set of knowledge."[37]
Although there were political tensions surrounding Abedin's appearance, the proceedings were
friendly, and after her almost eight hours of testimony, Abedin said: "I came here today to be as
helpful as I could be to the committee."[37]
Allegations by some Republican members of Congress
In a letter dated June 13, 2012, to the
State Department Inspector General, five Republican members of Congress-Michele
Bachmann of Minnesota,
Trent Franks of
Arizona, Louie
Gohmert of Texas,
Thomas J. Rooney of Florida, and
Lynn
Westmoreland of Georgia-claimed that Abedin "has three family members – her late father, her
mother and her brother – connected to
Muslim
Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations."[38][39][40]
The five members of Congress alleged that Abedin had "immediate family connections to foreign
extremist organizations" which they said were "potentially disqualifying conditions for obtaining
a security
clearance" and questioned why Abedin had not been "disqualified for a security clearance."[39]
The claims in the letter were generally rejected, and were labeled by some as
conspiracy
theories.[38][41]The
Washington Post editorial board called the allegations "paranoid," a "baseless attack,"
and a "smear."[38]
The letter was also criticized by, among others, House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi and
Representative Keith
Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, the first Muslim member of Congress, who called the
allegation "reprehensible."[42]
Senator John McCain,
Republican of Arizona, also rejected the allegations, saying "The letter and the report offer not
one instance of an action, a decision or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State
Department that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti-American activities
within our government....These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis and no merit."[42]
Bachmann's former campaign manager
Ed Rollins said the
allegations were "extreme and dishonest" and called for Bachmann to apologize to Abedin.[43]
The
Anti-Defamation League condemned the letter, calling upon the Representatives involved to
"stop trafficking in anti-Muslim conspiracy theories."[44]
"... Judicial Watch , a conservative public interest law firm that uses open-records laws to pry information loose, had filed a request to get a look at Ms. Abedin 's emails during her four years at the State Department . News outlets have reported that Ms. Abedin also used the private email server Mrs. Clinton set up to handle government business, but the status of her messages is unclear. ..."
"... The State Department said it wouldn't comment now that Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit - though it had struggled to explain its procedures even before the lawsuit was filed, and the status is of Ms. Abedin 's emails remains unclear. ..."
"... The law at the time Mrs. Clinton was in office urged federal employees doing government business to use their official accounts, but said those who used personal accounts were required to forward all government-related messages to their official accounts for storage. Mrs. Clinton rejected using an official account and did not forward her messages, but after Mr. Gowdy's inquiries the State Department asked her to belatedly turn her emails over. ..."
"... Ms. Abedin , who is married to former Rep. Anthony Weiner, has come under scrutiny for her time at the State Department . Mrs. Clinton designated her a special government employee, allowing her to collect a federal salary even as she also worked for an outside consulting company. ..."
"... The department's inspector general is looking into whether that arrangement was legal, since the designation is supposed to be used to lure workers with special skills into government service. Ms. Abedin was already a government employee when she was given the designation, and the State Department has yet to explain what skills she brought to earn the special status. ..."
May 5, 2015 | The Washington Times
The emails of Huma Abedin,
the top personal aide to former Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
are now facing a disclosure lawsuit after the
State Department failed
to turn them over in response to an open-records request.
Judicial Watch, a
conservative public interest law firm that uses open-records laws to pry information loose, had
filed a request to get a look at Ms.
Abedin's emails during her four years at the
State Department. News
outlets have reported that Ms.
Abedin also used the private email server
Mrs. Clinton set up
to handle government business, but the status of her messages is unclear.
It's one of a number of open-records requests
Judicial Watch filed after
the email scandal broke, and Tom Fitton, president of the organization, said they've been
stonewalled on all of them, so now they're turning to the courts.
"We're churning through these," he said. "The scandal at the
State Department is more
than about Hillary Clinton. There are others involved."
The State Department
said it wouldn't comment now that
Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit - though it had struggled to explain its procedures even
before the lawsuit was filed, and the status is of
Ms. Abedin's emails remains
unclear.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican who exposed the private emails as part of his
investigation into the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, has urged
Mrs. Clinton to turn
the server over to a neutral third party while questions get sorted out, but
Mrs. Clinton has
refused, saying she believes she has now complied with the law by finally going through and
turning emails over.
The law at the time
Mrs. Clinton was in
office urged federal employees doing government business to use their official accounts, but said
those who used personal accounts were required to forward all government-related messages to
their official accounts for storage.
Mrs. Clinton rejected
using an official account and did not forward her messages, but after Mr. Gowdy's inquiries the
State Department asked
her to belatedly turn her emails over.
The State Department
has turned about 300 emails over to the Benghazi probe, but has refused to release the other tens
of thousands of messages, saying it wants to process and clear them all at the same time, which
will take months.
But the department has admitted in court that it was remiss in not searching the emails
earlier, and has agreed to reopen some previous open-records requests from
Judicial Watch that had
sought Clinton
emails.
Ms. Abedin, who is
married to former Rep. Anthony Weiner, has come under scrutiny for her time at the
State Department.
Mrs. Clinton
designated her a special government employee, allowing her to collect a federal salary even as
she also worked for an outside consulting company.
The department's inspector general is looking into whether that arrangement was legal,
since the designation is supposed to be used to lure workers with special skills into government
service. Ms. Abedin was already
a government employee when she was given the designation, and the
State Department has yet
to explain what skills she brought to earn the special status.
"... The 2016 Democratic front-runner on Monday told a federal judge that Abedin - long considered her boss's keeper and even dubbed her "shadow" - had her own email account on Clinton's now infamous home-brewed server, "which was used at times for government business," Clinton acknowledged. That's an unusual arrangement, even for top brass at the State Department. ..."
"... Abedin had been granted "special government employee" (SGE) status, allowing her to work both for Clinton and the private sector - and it's unclear if she continued using the server that appears to have held classified information following her departure from her full-time State gig. ..."
"... But Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' project on government secrecy, said any former employee's potential access to secret materials could be problematic after they leave the government. ..."
"... "What happens if [a former government employee] still retains access through a prior server, to information that was justified by a previous position? That's not supposed to happen - and that's one of the anomalies that are created by the private server," Aftergood said. ..."
Clinton's top aide is likely to face more questions, not least from congressional
investigators, about her access to Clinton's system.
Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's most trusted confidante, is increasingly becoming a central figure
in the email scandal that's haunting her boss on the campaign trail, as Republicans and federal judges
seek information about Clinton's communications while she was running the State Department.
The 2016 Democratic front-runner on Monday told a federal judge that Abedin - long considered
her boss's keeper and even dubbed her "shadow" - had her own email account on Clinton's now infamous
home-brewed server, "which was used at times for government business," Clinton acknowledged. That's
an unusual arrangement, even for top brass at the State Department.
... ... ...
After an inspector general found that Clinton had at least two "top secret" emails stored
on her unsecured computer network, Abedin is likely to face more questions from congressional investigators,
and perhaps others, about her access to Clinton's system.
Abedin had been granted "special government employee" (SGE) status, allowing her to work both
for Clinton and the private sector - and it's unclear if she continued using the server that appears
to have held classified information following her departure from her full-time State gig.
... ... ...
"It's election season, and congressional Republicans are running the same series of plays,
just on a different field," Merrill said in an email, later adding that Abedin maintained her security
clearance while she worked as a State contractor.
Merrill said SGEs often have clearance and there's nothing unusual about her having such access.
He also said that many government workers take on such contractor status, adding that Abedin had
a green-light from State's legal and human resources departments to do so.
But Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' project on government
secrecy, said any former employee's potential access to secret materials could be problematic after
they leave the government.
"What happens if [a former government employee] still retains access through a prior server,
to information that was justified by a previous position? That's not supposed to happen - and that's
one of the anomalies that are created by the private server," Aftergood said.
Classified materials with national security implications are supposed to be stored in a place where
no one can gain access to them unless they have special clearance.
"... Donald Trump moved Wednesday to make the race for the White House a referendum on Hillary Clinton, saying his Democratic rival has padded her pockets at the expense of Americans and the security of the nation, as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee looked to get his campaign back on track after a trying stretch. ..."
"... Mr. Trump launched a searing assault on Mrs. Clinton , calling her a "world-class liar," accusing her of destabilizing the Middle East and charging that she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton , have profited off the misery of Americans. ..."
"... "She gets rich making you poor," ..."
"... He later charged that "Hillary Clinton may be the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency." ..."
Donald Trump moved
Wednesday to make the race for the White House a referendum on Hillary Clinton, saying his
Democratic rival has padded her pockets at the expense of Americans and the security of the
nation, as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee looked to get his campaign back on
track after a trying stretch.
Seeking to shift the discussion from his paltry fundraising, campaign shake-up and shaky poll
numbers, Mr. Trump
launched a searing assault on Mrs.
Clinton, calling her a "world-class liar," accusing her of destabilizing the Middle East and
charging that she and her husband, former President
Bill Clinton, have profited off
the misery of Americans.
He later charged that "Hillary Clinton may be the most corrupt person ever to seek the
presidency."
The speech marked Mr. Trump's
first address since he fired campaign manager Corey Lewandowski this week and replaced him with
Paul Manafort, a veteran Republican political operative who had served as Mr.
Trump's campaign
"... "Qualified security people are very rare," she says. And that's one of the problems with this setup for Clinton. ..."
"... As a result, Moussouris assumes whoever set up Clinton's private email server was a staffer, unless they were very well paid. And if that's the case, the best way to email like Hillary Clinton is to spend a lot of money. ..."
But most people aren't trying to protect sensitive State Department data. Instead, one reason
people run their own email services is so they can use their own domain name in their email address.
If this was a reason for Clinton, it was a foolhardy one, argues Moussouris. If being a high-value
target for hackers is a reason for using an (allegedly) more secure private email service, choosing
an domain name like clintonemail.com, as Clinton did, only gave her a higher profile.
"Such an obvious name would make it an interesting target for a hacker," says Moussouris. "People
with that high of a profile, whether it's a politician, celebrity, or high-level executive, they
should already be operating with that in mind."
Besides, consumer-based services not only allow users to use their own domain name while hosting
their emails in the cloud, they also provide end-to-end encryption, ensuring that their messages
stay safe while traveling through the web.
But if you still want to email like Hillary Clinton, Moussouris recommends relying on an expert
- if you can find one. "Qualified security people are very rare," she says. And that's one of
the problems with this setup for Clinton.
"I couldn't imagine a top-notch security person going to work for anyone in Washington, let alone
an individual in, essentially, a non-technical function," Moussouris says. "We have a scarcity of
talent in the security industry, and we see this when we try to hire good people all the time."
As a result, Moussouris assumes whoever set up Clinton's private email server was a staffer, unless
they were very well paid. And if that's the case, the best way to email like Hillary Clinton is to
spend a lot of money.
"... It may not be obvious to the political and media elites living in their hallowed, protected homes in privileged areas. ..."
"... ut travel to the north of England, or to the middle of America, and you will find very real fury with government and very real concern over the impact of perceived immigration control failures. ..."
They've also focused with laser-like, ruthless precision on hot button issues which they know
many of those people are genuinely worried about, notably immigration and terrorism.
At his presser in Scotland this morning, Trump said: 'People are angry all over the world. They're
angry over borders, they're angry over people coming into the country and taking over and nobody
even knows who they are. They're angry about many, many things in the UK. It's essentially the same
thing that's happening in the United States.'
Regardless of what you think of Trump's inflammatory rhetoric, and his uncompromising talk of
walls and bans, does anybody really doubt after this shock Brexit result that he's right about the
levels of anger?
It may not be obvious to the political and media elites living in their hallowed, protected homes
in privileged areas.
But travel to the north of England, or to the middle of America, and you will find very real fury
with government and very real concern over the impact of perceived immigration control failures.
There's an increasing large gulf between the politically correct 'cool' and 'establishment' crowd
who view any publicly stated concern about border controls as 'racism', and those who have to live
at the sharp end of it.
The clear message from this sensational day for any politician or world leader is this: ignore
the concerns of the people at your peril.
Donald Trump's
speech
(transcript) on the stakes of the election made good points on globalization
and trade. It was also full of lies and obfuscations. But that will, as the primaries
have shown, not diminish his central message nor hurt him within his potential
electorate. He hits the right buttons with a lot of people:
Our country lost its way when we stopped putting the American people first.
We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism – focusing on what's
good for America's middle class – to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make
money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign
countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy.
We reward companies for offshoring, and we punish companies for doing business in
America and keeping our workers employed.
This is not a rising tide that lifts all boats.
This is a wave of globalization that wipes out our middle class and our jobs.
Those words will ring with many people.
Trump now needs money for the general election. He sold out to hard-line Zionist
donors. Within an otherwise isolationist foreign policy view he claimed that "Thanks to
Hillary Clinton, Iran is now [...] on the road to nuclear weapons." Neither was Clinton
much involved in the nuclear agreement with Iran, nor is Iran on such a road. But Trump
will rake in millions from Adelson and other arch-Zionists for making these claims.
His anti-globalization shtick will sell well in fly-over country and with
marginalized workers. My hunch is that the media, overwhelmingly in Clinton's favor,
will underestimate his pull until the day he wins the election.
harrylaw | Jun 23, 2016 5:41:07 AM |
3
Trump.. "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she
touched," Mr Trump said, accusing Mrs Clinton of being a "world-class liar". And
"Hillary Clinton may be the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency of the
United States," he said, accusing her of having run the State Department "like her
own personal hedge fund".
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-23/trump-accuses-clinton-of-corruption-attacks-policy-record/7535288
Who could disagree with any of that, Clinton has so many faults to attack it is hard
to see her winning.
/a>
b, 'If one wants to play the populist card one needs to take up popular issue.'
A
measure of just how out of touch with Americans democrats are ... They got where they
are
because they switched from a policy of Americanism – focusing on what's good for
America's middle class – to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money
for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries
all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy.'
If you like Tom Clancy, here's the real deal. A former Air
Force intelligence officer turned manufacturing engineer,
pilot, and independent business man is recruited by the CIA
(Oliver North) to assist in the training of Contra pilots in
Mena, Arkansas. His name is Terry Reed, and does he have an
incredible story to tell! This American patriot reveals
everything after the CIA tried to screw him after
Iran-contra. Plenty of very interesting information about
Clinton, Bush, the Arkansas elite, covert CIA operations, CIA
super-agent Barry Seal, money laundering, international
narcotics trafficking, and CIA influence in the US political
system.
/span>
By
[email protected]
on April 19, 1999
Format: Hardcover
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
ANSWERED ABOUT OUR CORRUPT GOVERNMENT!
I found this book to answer the mystery of the
Iran-Contra/Mena, Arkansas drug smuggling operation. Having
read "Under Fire" by Oliver North and this book I find it
quite obvious who's lying. Terry Reed, a CIA operative, who
thought he was serving an honest government, is compelled to
expose the corruption that he himself encountered. Whereas,
Oliver North in his book COVERS it all up. We should be
thankful for Terry Reed's courage to bring this information
out. This book corroborates the documentary, "Mena Cover-up".
A man who follows his conscience should never be bound to
secrecy when that secrecy only hides corruption. May more
COURAGEOUS men and women who have vowed "to secrecy" STAND
up!
Deep Politics in the
Flesh
By
Herbert L Calhoun
on March 2, 2008
Format: Hardcover
This book underscores and confirms Peter Dale Scott's
paradigmatic expansion (appearing in his book Deep Politics
and the Death of JFK), of the parameters of American politics
to the cesspool of secrecy just beneath the waterline of
normal everyday political maneuverings.
Here, Air Force Colonel Terry Reed tells the story of being
assigned, as an "Operations Officer" in charge of a CIA-run
transshipment drop-off-point, disguised as a parking meter
manufacturing plant, somewhere out in the boondocks on the
periphery of the small Hamlet of Mena, Arkansas.
According to Reed, while operating under various "deep
covers" and "cut-outs," he later discovered, that he was in
fact working for Oliver North's Nicaragua-Contra
"drugs-for-gun" project. Quite by accident he had discovered
that his small operation in Mena was a link in a much larger
and longer chain of activities that led from Ronald Reagan's
NSC, to the Medellin cocaine fields. Apparently, as Reed
surmised, cocaine was being picked up and transshipped
through Mena, enroute to being laundered for guns (pick up at
the Pentagon, paid for out of cocaine proceeds), and sent on
to the Nicaraguan "contras."
All of cargo that arrived in Mena was of course carefully
concealed in the typical large steel locked-down transport
containers. According to Reed (whose job it was to make sure
such containers were securely locked and un-tampered with),
he, somehow was able to see inside that they were packed full
of "one-kilo sized bricks" of cocaine -- one of which he
wriggled out to keep as evidence to later either "blow the
whistle" on the whole operation, or at the very least, to be
used as a hedge against being called a "conspiracy kook and
liar" once his revelations were made public. That is the
essence of Reed's story.
Well, that theft by the "good old colonel" was a big mistake:
For the rest of book is about what happened to him and his
family as he was forced to "go on the lam," to avoid being
"terminated with extreme prejudice" by his U.S. government
handlers and overseers. According to Reed, he and his family
are still being pursued all across the U.S., Canada and
Mexico in a harrowing odyssey with enough twists and turns in
it to make a move that would rival "The Bourne Identity," of
Matt Damon fame.
At the time this book went to print, Reed's story seemed like
so much "out there" conspiracy theory by the kooks, who were
again weaving their familiar and always un-substantiated
tales about the "goings-on" of people in power. However, the
revelations since the book was published all seem to have
produced nothing but a constant stream of cross-confirmation
and convergence with Reed's facts. And here I mean the arrest
of Eugene Hasenfus shot down in Nicaragua on October 5, 1986;
the incredible well-written and revealing book by Gary Webb
called "Dark Alliance;" the ultimate expose on the Clintons
written by the renown British journalist Ambrose
Evans-Pritchard called "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton, and
the roller-coaster ride down the dark side of American
history by Daniel Hopsicker called "Barry & `the boys," about
the life and times of the Soldier of Fortune and known CIA
agent Barry Seal.
According to Hopsicker, it was none other than the infamous
Barry Seal who was piloting the plane that crashed in
Nicaragua and who flew all of the other planes on regularly
missions both into Colombia for the pick-up and back to Mena
for the drop off, and on to Nicaragua with guns for the
Contras. Seal in fact even had his own private "financial
interests" invested in the whole Mena operation.
And as is by now well known, from Gary Webb's Dark Alliance,
it was "Contra cocaine money" that was sold in America's
black ghettoes that led to the "crack explosion" and that
financed the whole "Reagan Contra" Operation (At the same
time that Nancy Reagan was preaching "Just Say No!"). But it
is Evans-Prichard's book that tied all these various loose
strains together: from Mena, directly to the backdoor of the
Clinton White House: Once the then Governor of Arkansas, Bill
Clinton, got wind that a big CIA drug smuggling operation was
taking place on his back porch, in Mena, Arkansas, he wanted
"in on the deal" and "wanted his cut." Apparently he got both
with a flourish, by utilizing the likes of Dan Lasater
(Chapter 19), who became the Arkansas "Cocaine Kingpen,"
laundering most of his money through the Arkansas Development
Finance Corporation (ADFC), which in a very short time became
the largest bonding company in the world. The ADFC was such
an improbable place for such spike in bonding activity that
this activity alone actually triggered the IRS investigation
that eventually led to Lasater and others arrest. [There is
another whole story of how that investigation was eventually
stifled and then completely snuffed out.]
As one of many postscripts to Reed's expose. Barry Seal was
released to a halfway house in Baton Rouge, La, with a
bulls-eye painted on his back, and the predictable happened:
He was gunned-down in a hail of bullets from a Uzi,
presumably by Colombian hit men. The May 23, 1992 (?)
Washington Post entitled "Iran-Contra Figure Shot Down Again
(by Guy Guliotta) relates how a Congressional Bill to award
Eugene Hasenfus $805,209 for his injuries, was shelved: Bill
Clinton had written Hasenfus' lawyers in Arkansas, saying
that "he would not look favorably on the bill." In the mean
time, Oliver North, who lied to Congress, almost won a Senate
seat in Va., and then went on to lucrative book deal and an
additional lucrative deal as a Rightwing Talk Show Host.
Elliot Abrams, who also lied to Congress, did 100 hours of
community service and wrote a book about how the Democrats
had scape-goated him.
If this does not confirm Peter Dale Scott's theories, I don't
what will. Five stars.
Following The Money
By
Acute Observer
on July 25, 2003
Format: Hardcover
Terry Kent Reed joined the Air Force while in college. He
soon learned that "the government and the military had to
deceive the American public to accomplish its national
security objectives" (p.18)! The CIA relied extensively upon
Air America to conduct their unstated objectives (p.20). What
happened to our MIAs? POW camps were bombed by the Air Force
(p.22)! The newspapers and government lied about Southeast
Asia (p.23). After leaving the Air Force TKR got a commercial
pilot's license and worked as a salesman in the machine
industry. TKR became an asset for the FBI, then the CIA, on
international sales. In 1983 he began to work for the CIA
"Insurance losses" would be used to raise untraceable funds
(p.43). What happened to those old traditional values (p.14)?
A NJ arms company was bought and shipped to Arkansas to build
receiver housings that converted a civilian AR-15 to a
military M-16, and had no tracable serial number. The Rose
Law Firm's specialty was brokering deals (p.55). Governor
Bill Clinton was disliked because of his attempts to attract
out-of-state businesses, and for trying to improve the state
educational system (p.56). Page 86 explains how stolen
aircraft are laundered if you have Government connections.
Mena airport specialized in illegal modifications to
aircraft. Barry Seal was used by the Reagan Administration,
then thrown away (pp.97-98). Payoffs were made to Arkansas
state officials (p.125). The CIA is above the law (p.133).
Pages 212-4 tell how the Arkansas governor's friends and
relatives were dirtied-up. Does the CIA decide who will
become President (pp.231-6)? The BCCI and First American Bank
were used by Arkansas banking (p.245). When dirty money is
deposited in the Netherlands Antilles, it can be laundered
and taxes avoided (p.249). Things went well for TKR until a
C-123 was shot down (pp.289-90).
The Mexican Enterprise began Phase 2. The elite of Mexico,
like in Arkansas, opposed any change unless they personally
benefited. They suppressed any attempt to empower a middle
class(p.330). Then TKR discovered his business was being used
to ship pure cocaine to the States; the US Govt. was the
biggest cocaine smuggler (p.343)! What powerful men owed
their fortune to CIA drug traffic (p.346)? Was the crew on
that downed C-123 killed before the crash (p.356)? Page 390
tells how a false crime can be created to destroy the
credibility of a witness. The Reeds went underground with
hidden identities, and traveled the country.
After the case went to trial, the judge declared Terry Reed
not guilty due to a lack of evidence (p.459). This kept the
story of drug trafficking hidden from the public. The Reeds
tried to sue for their false prosecution, but no lawyer would
take their case after the judgment against the Christic
Institute (p.470). A famous legal expert took their case on
contingency. Page 502 tells of the smear story created by
'TIME' magazine. Iran-Contra was not an issue in the 1992
election because both Bush and Clinton were involved! Terry
Reed discovered the CIA counsel was now Attorney-General!
The Epilogue claims the Dept of Justice perverted itself
under Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. I think Bush picked Clinton
as an opponent because Clinton would not prosecute Bush for
drug trafficking; then Bush Jr to continue the cover-up.
Congress failed to expose Iran-Contra (p.545) because of a
pay-off. (Like the Senate failure to impeach Clinton?) The
book ends by asking why Barry Seal was bumped off. Did he
threaten very powerful people with exposure? Page 240 tells
how dirty drug money ended up in Attorney-General Meese's
personal bank account. Do these 'Black Operation' flights
still continue? [The book has too many pages.]
"... Just a month before the email issue arose, in November 2010, Abedin and Clinton discussed that department employees were not receiving emails sent by then-secretary, the newly-released emails indicate. ..."
"... "We should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam," Abedin wrote to Clinton on November 13, 2010. ..."
"... Another email shows that John Bentel, then the technical support director, warned Clinton that if she opted to use the official email box, "any email would go through the Department's infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches." ..."
"... After Abedin reported the technical problem, the State Department technical staff suggested that "turning off the anti-spam filter" would resolve the problem. ..."
"... As shutting down the security software didn't appear to be helpful, one email recommended turning off two of the three anti-phishing filters that protect personal data from identity thieves and cybercriminals "in order to eliminate the categorizer." ..."
Hillary Clinton's private server was temporarily unprotected by security features in December
2010, when the then-secretary of state had technical problems with her email. In 2011, Clinton's
server was hacked multiple times, newly-disclosed papers show.
On Wednesday, the legal advocacy group Judicial Watch published a batch of back-and-forth emails
between high-level State Department technical support and Clinton staffers as they tried to fix a
serious problem with the secretary's private home email server.
"There are many messages and responses not received," one of the officials, Cindy Almodovar,
wrote to S/ES-IRM staff, delivering Huma's complaint.
Just a month before the email issue arose, in November 2010, Abedin and Clinton discussed
that department employees were not receiving emails sent by then-secretary, the newly-released
emails indicate.
"We should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the
department so you are not going to spam," Abedin wrote to Clinton on November 13, 2010.
In response, the secretary wrote: "Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk
of the personal being accessible."
Another email shows that John Bentel, then the technical support director, warned Clinton
that if she opted to use the official email box, "any email would go through the Department's
infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches."
After Abedin reported the technical problem, the State Department technical staff suggested
that "turning off the anti-spam filter" would resolve the problem.
However, after the Trend Micro Inc. security software installed on Clinton's server was turned
off, a senior State Department official, Thomas W. Lawrence, wrote: "We view this as a Band-Aid
and fear it's not 100 percent fully effective. We are eager for TrendMicro to fully resolve,
quickly."
A screenshot of TrendMicro's 'ScanMail for Exchange' in one of the emails showed the anti-spam
disabled.
As shutting down the security software didn't appear to be helpful, one email recommended
turning off two of the three anti-phishing filters that protect personal data from identity
thieves and cybercriminals "in order to eliminate the categorizer."
However, in his response, Lawrence did not support the idea, saying that both "content-filtering
and anti-virus checking… has blocked malicious content in the recent past."
Another set of emails from January 2011, just mere weeks after attempts to fix Clinton's email
server, reveal that someone tried to compromise it.
"Someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have
the chance to," the non-departmental advisor to President Bill Clinton, who provided technical
support, told the State Department's deputy chief of staff for operations on January 9, 2011.
"We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min," he wrote later that day.
The next day, Abedin instructed Clinton's chief of staff and deputy chief of staff for planning
not to email the secretary "anything sensitive" and stated that she could "explain more in
person."
Clinton, now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has repeatedly denied that her
private email server was ever breached.
In late May, the State Department's Office of the Inspector General released a scathing report
largely concerning Clinton's email use, saying that unsecured communications at such a high level
created "significant security risks."
This most recent release of Clinton-linked records by Judicial Watch referred to that report. The
group requested the emails and was granted the right to obtain the records under a June 14, 2016
court order by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
Clinton's use of a private email server has been a major headache for her presidential campaign.
"... Aside from the hypocrisy and duplicity of the Clintons who are portrayed as congenital liars, corrupt, mean, and manipulative, the bias of the mainstream media and the effect they have on the political landscape is frightening, and the main thrust of the book. ..."
"... This woman is not qualified or fit to be President. She made "politics of personal destruction " an art form. ..."
"... This book shines a light on the fawning and incompetent cockroaches in the mainstream media. How her and her husband keep getting a free pass is beyond reasonable comprehension. I was a registered Democrat for 45 years and believe every word of it. It's on the money! ..."
Compelling Read
Brent Bozell has painted a very accurate picture of the
Clinton modus of operation and the documented bias of the
mainstream media. He names names, dates, and places and
has obviously done his homework.
Aside from the hypocrisy and duplicity of the
Clintons who are portrayed as congenital liars, corrupt,
mean, and manipulative, the bias of the mainstream media
and the effect they have on the political landscape is
frightening, and the main thrust of the book.
I'm a recovering liberal (their Socialist and partisan
agenda lost me) who voted for Bill C. twice( we all make
mistakes) and feel hoodwinked by the media. A subtle
manipulation that the average or casual viewer or reader
may not pick up on--they are duplicitous. This is a book
for middle of the roaders and Independents. If you're far
left, you won't buy it or believe it. If you're far right,
it's preaching to the choir. But before the next election
I would hope those that depend on the nightly news and the
mainstream print media for truth in reporting read this.
This woman is not qualified or fit to be President.
She made "politics of personal destruction " an art form.
The "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"" (A book by Jeffrey
Toobin that I also read) exists only in her mind and is
right out of the Clinton playbook. When cornered , play
the "poor me" victim card, obfuscate, blame "they" and
lie. The media will enable and help.
The left wing conspiracy poses far more danger to all
of us. You will know that there are far more Dan Rathers
and Katie Courics than there are Rush Limbaughs.
This book shines a light on the fawning and
incompetent cockroaches in the mainstream media. How her
and her husband keep getting a free pass is beyond
reasonable comprehension. I was a registered Democrat for
45 years and believe every word of it. It's on the money!
Thank you Brent Bozell and Tim Graham
Bloomberg presstitutes definitely displays strong pro-Clinton bias. The article looks like
written by Clinton campaign staffer. It's not accidental the Goldman
Sachs pay Hillary that much money. How high information voter can vote for Hillary is unclear
to me. As Jill Stein said ""Terrible things we expect from Donald Trump, we've actually already seen
from Hillary Clinton"
Notable quotes:
"... "He speaks my language," said one participant in the more than two-hour discussion expertly guided by Hart. ..."
"... On the whole, the group gave the impression of citizens at sea, troubled by the economy, frustrated by politics and unclear exactly what powers are shaping their world and to what end. ..."
Swing voters tend to be low-information voters. But when veteran pollster Peter Hart convened a group
of 11 "blue-collar and economically struggling" voters from suburban Pittsburgh on Tuesday, in research
for the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, it seemed that Donald Trump's
campaign messages had pierced the fog.
"He speaks my language," said one participant in the more
than two-hour discussion expertly guided by Hart.
A majority of the group favored a temporary ban on immigration by Muslims, though one participant
did point out that there is no way to discern who is, and is not, a Muslim. A slightly slimmer majority
supported building a wall on the Mexican border, and plenty of hands also went up to support deporting
11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., though a barrage of qualifications soon followed,
suggesting few were eager to see the theory of deportation rendered into reality.
On the whole, the group gave the impression of citizens at sea, troubled by the economy, frustrated
by politics and unclear exactly what powers are shaping their world and to what end.
Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House and the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee, is not
an obscure political figure. But upon hearing his name, none could identify him.
,,,Another volunteered that Trump "doesn't come off as a liar,"
...Speaking of Hillary
Clinton's ambitions, one woman said, "I don't think women and men are equal." She doubted that
Clinton, on that count, was up to the masculine demands of the presidency. Others chimed in with
their own concerns about Clinton's womanhood, citing "emotions" in one case, and the challenges
of the "male arena" of politics in another.
"... He blamed Clinton for destabilizing the Middle East and spreading "death, destruction and terrorism" as secretary of state. He also accused her and Bill Clinton of helping strengthen the Chinese economy through their support of "disastrous" trade deals that he said helped triggered an exodus of America's "best jobs" abroad. ..."
"... In return, Hillary Clinton got rich … She gets rich making you poor ..."
"... He continued to hammer home the point that Clinton, if elected, would cater to special interests at the expense of the American people. ..."
"... Clinton is very much so, a corrupted politician that should have been examined closer during her tenure as Secretary of State ..."
"... In six states, primary exit polls had a discrepancy of 5 to 33 per cent from vote counts, and Clinton won all six. Hmmm. If any direct suppression orchestrated by the DNC and/or Clinton campaign is uncovered, all the worse. You'd think the Dem machine could foresee these kinds of ugly revelations bubbling up, but no. ..."
"... Trumpster finally got one right. Hillary charges $225K for a 30 minute speech, demands to be flown in a private jet, a presidential suite with 3 adjoining rooms for her staff, 1st class flights for her pre-event planners and on and on. Hill & Bill have made over $180 million off of their holding of public office. Corruption at its finest. ..."
"... The Guardian, which long ago lost itself in pro-Clinton zeal, has missed the point that despite all of Trump's blunders over the last month and Clinton's supposed bounce for winning the nomination he's only 4 -5 % points behind her in the latest CNN national poll. That's a serious problem for her. I saw David Gergen making that very point this a.m. on CNN. ..."
"... For Mrs Clinton, any attack leveled against her, even a factual one, is a lie or a conspiracy theory. Unfortunately for her, that is another lie. Mr. Trump, as any entrepreneur, is not lilly-white, but he's not even comparable to Mrs Clinton in volumes and amounts. ..."
"... Clinton is corrupt. Read this one account: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html ..."
"... The problem is that him being a con man does not change the fact that Hillary is still, probably ( like he said ) the most corrupt person to ever seek the presidency. Him being bad in no way makes her good -- ..."
"... "We're asking Bernie Sanders voters to join our movement so together we can fix the system for all Americans. It's not just the political system that's rigged. It's the whole economy." ..."
"... Huh, this plea to Sanders supporters is better than any from Democratic Party or Hillary Clinton ..."
"... Yep. Trump sure does employ a lot of people. He pays most of the the absolute minimum and provides no benefits in most cases. Yep. He's as good for American jobs as Walmart. ..."
"... What are Hillary's policies that have been put forth. Stating that you are going to concentrate on Cyber Security when you had an unsecure server in a bathroom storing national classified information? Stating that she has done so much for women? what has she done? ..."
"... It doesn't matter who wins the White House, The Donald or the sociopath Hillary, the American people lose. ..."
"... Loved Albright's idiotic comment: There's a special place in hell for women who don't support Hillary. In actuality, the opposite is true. There is a special place in hell for those who vote for her because she is a woman. ..."
"The choice in this election is a choice between taking our government back from the special interests,
or surrendering our last scrap of independence to their total and complete control," Trump said in
a speech delivered from the chandelier ballroom of the Trump Soho hotel in New York.
In his 45-minute address, Trump reprised many of the same concerns conservatives and other detractors
have long expressed about Clinton, over her trustworthiness and personal ethics. He blamed Clinton
for destabilizing the Middle East and spreading "death, destruction and terrorism" as secretary of
state. He also accused her and Bill Clinton of helping strengthen the Chinese economy through their
support of "disastrous" trade deals that he said helped triggered an exodus of America's "best jobs"
abroad.
"In return, Hillary Clinton got rich … She gets rich making you poor," Trump said, echoing
an attack Clinton made against him on Tuesday. He continued to hammer home the point that Clinton,
if elected, would cater to special interests at the expense of the American people.
relgin
Clinton is very much so, a corrupted politician that should have been examined closer during
her tenure as Secretary of State:
The Democrats are running the first-ever major candidate to be under FBI investigation. You
just know the Republicans will repeat that info over and over and over. Even if Clinton isn't
indicted, the Republicans will spin the word "indictment" anyway. They're so good at doing that.
You'd think the Dem machine would've learned this by now, but no.
Wait till the investigative press pieces together enough evidence that millions of "provisional"
ballots that voted for Sanders weren't counted... sometime by the middle of the campaign. The
Republicans will eat that up.
In six states, primary exit polls had a discrepancy of 5 to 33 per cent from vote counts,
and Clinton won all six. Hmmm. If any direct suppression orchestrated by the DNC and/or Clinton
campaign is uncovered, all the worse. You'd think the Dem machine could foresee these kinds of
ugly revelations bubbling up, but no.
MemphisTigerFan89
Trumpster finally got one right. Hillary charges $225K for a 30 minute speech, demands
to be flown in a private jet, a presidential suite with 3 adjoining rooms for her staff, 1st class
flights for her pre-event planners and on and on. Hill & Bill have made over $180 million off
of their holding of public office. Corruption at its finest.
Round-trip transportation on a chartered private jet "e.g., a Gulfstream 450 or larger
jet," plus round-trip business class travel for two advance staffers who will arrive up to
three days in advance
Hotel accommodations selected by Clinton's staff and including "a presidential suite for
Secretary Clinton and up to three (3) adjoining or contiguous single rooms for her travel aides
and up to two (2) additional single rooms for the advance staff"
She doesn't travel alone, relying on an entourage of a couple of "travel aides," and a
couple of advance staffers who check out her speech site in the days leading up to her appearance
Hillary will remain at the event no longer than 90 minutes; will pose for no more than
50 photos with no more than 100 people
"It is agreed that Speaker will be the only person on the stage during her remarks"
There will be no press coverage or video- or audio-taping of her speech
The only record allowed will be made by a stenographer whose transcription will be given
only to Clinton
The foundation, meanwhile, is prohibited from advertising the event on radio, TV or billboards
Clinton staffers must approve in writing any promotional material.
Trump has a talent for summarizing his opponent's weaknesses. It's not reported here, but he
said Clinton's ideas were "old and tired". That's an impression she'll have a lot of difficulty
shedding.
The Guardian, which long ago lost itself in pro-Clinton zeal, has missed the point that
despite all of Trump's blunders over the last month and Clinton's supposed bounce for winning
the nomination he's only 4 -5 % points behind her in the latest CNN national poll. That's a serious
problem for her. I saw David Gergen making that very point this a.m. on CNN.
Clinton supporters : don't underestimate Trump's abilities. He is very capable of winning the
election and is a very dangerous opponent.
hipocampelofantocame
For Mrs Clinton, any attack leveled against her, even a factual one, is a lie or a conspiracy
theory. Unfortunately for her, that is another lie. Mr. Trump, as any entrepreneur, is not lilly-white,
but he's not even comparable to Mrs Clinton in volumes and amounts.
The man that schemes to pay no taxes, has declared to have made no profit, but filed foralmost
a million in tax write-offs, worked with the Philly Mob to build his casinos.
Corrupt is right. Trump is a con man. He's great at it (taxes are for the little people), but
he's still a con man.
Oboy1963 -> MtnClimber
Absolutely correct.
The problem is that him being a con man does not change the fact that Hillary is still,
probably ( like he said ) the most corrupt person to ever seek the presidency. Him being bad in
no way makes her good !
Darby Kathleen
"We're asking Bernie Sanders voters to join our movement so together we can fix the
system for all Americans. It's not just the political system that's rigged. It's the whole
economy."
Huh, this plea to Sanders supporters is better than any from Democratic Party or Hillary
Clinton.
Not saying it will work but its more effective than 'you'll be responsible for Trump', 'I'm
Not-Trump', 'its time for us to unite to fight Trump', 'He lost, I'm the nominee, time to fall
in line' (Paraphrasing of course).
I hate to say it but he sounds more genuine & authentic than she ever has. The Democrats have
made it clear they don't want Sanders policies only his votes. 22% are going to Trump vs 55% to
Hillary. 23% undecided or to 3rd parties. She better hope today wasn't a turnpoint for him.
GeorgiaTeacher -> Social36
What Trump has done is worse than Hillary selling favors while in the Secretary of State position?
Come on you can be serious? Maybe you have researched it?
Some govts were allowed to not pay debt to the USA and just so happen to give to the foundation.
Name when something like that has ever occurred. Either party.
Dan Willis
As an American the comments posted by some below are not true. Trump has created many jobs
in the United States. In NY and NJ alone he employs nearly 1400 general workers, many may in fact
be imported workers under legal agreements. The Trump empire employs many people and pays wages
to them supporting many families who contribute taxes to the government. You can easily travel
the United States and see that Trump creates jobs. What can be said of Hillary Clinton? who employs
very few and most of them are paid by the government, probably no more than 5-10 total. She has
never created anything like a company unless selling access and shaping of policy to collect revenue
within her foundation could be considered a company. Hillary has been disbarred, fired, removed
from her position of shaping health care under her husbands presidency, the worst Secretary of
State, and as stated by Trump probably the greatest liars ever.
MtnClimber -> Dan Willis
Yep. Trump sure does employ a lot of people. He pays most of the the absolute minimum and
provides no benefits in most cases. Yep. He's as good for American jobs as Walmart.
Dan Willis -> Mint51HenryJ
What are Hillary's policies that have been put forth. Stating that you are going to concentrate
on Cyber Security when you had an unsecure server in a bathroom storing national classified information?
Stating that she has done so much for women? what has she done? Of the two, Trump may not
be the greatest but she is a farce and a liar.
66Degreesnorth
Hillary campaigned against OBAMA saying she was capable of handling "The 3:00am Phone Call"
when she got that call ,she did little but call Obama,,,Obama DID NOT ATTEND the Situation Room
that night , his whereabouts has never really been explained as to why or why he didn't walkover
to see real time drone footage of the destruction of the US Embassy in Benghazi. US Staff were
quoted as saying "they were waiting for the Cavalry to arrive " ,,,they never came US Ambassador
J. Christopher Stevens and Sean Smith; CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty ALL DIED
,,,, No Retaliation was taken . This coupled with Obama welcoming ARAB SPRING created in part
,,,the violence and terrorism in the mid east and now in Europe and beyond ,North America . PEASE
go to YOUTUBE to view Brilliant British journalist Christopher Hitchens scathing critical attacks
on Bill and Hillary Clinton . I believe America are tired of the Clintons and will VOTE TRUMP
, to make AMERICA STRONG & GREAT AGAIN !!
prairie
It doesn't matter who wins the White House, The Donald or the sociopath Hillary, the American
people lose.
Celt23 -> prairie
I don't believe you understand the meaning of sociopath - but do feel free to bandy these words
about - if she were a man you'd be praising her for her grit and strength.
bcarey -> Celt23
if she were a man you'd be praising her for her grit and strength.
If she was a man, I would be criticizing her for her corruption, just as Jeb! was. She is very
much like Jeb, you know.
This isn't about the fact that she is a woman, except for those who want to pander to women for
her vote.
Loved Albright's idiotic comment: There's a special place in hell for women who don't support
Hillary. In actuality, the opposite is true. There is a special place in hell for those who vote
for her because she is a woman.
Dan Willis -> Celt23
Interesting. Obama is a man and I do not praise his grit and strength. I agree that the term
sociopath may not totally apply but what term does? Hillary has no strength of her own. If you
are honest to yourself look at her history. She has relied on Bill for everything, her first job,
her positions within the government. You can say she ran for Senator but what of that? she moved
from her real home state to NY to run for a "shoe in" position. She was a terrible Senator who
lost jobs in her home district. Utilize google and research all of this as it is true. She was
fired as an assistant DA in the justice department and her boss called her a "liar". One would
have to be intellectually dishonest with themselves to believe that she has ever done anything
on her own. She is propped up with money by very important people "Soros" who will utilize her
for their gain.
He fielded questions from the audience and also the moderator neocon Kori Schake, mostly about
Donald Trump.
At one point, he named a list of non-mainstream Republican candidates that had their moment in
the sun and then faded away.
This included Ron and Rand Paul. "We beat back Ron Paul and Rand Paul," he said. Implying that
they were nothing but a footnote in Republican history.
Kristol said the current election resembled one coming out of a third world country. He also
admitted that he underestimated "Trump's seeing what the people are upset about."
He said the current move by some delegates to open up the upcoming Republican national convention
by "voting conscience" to deny Trump the nomination has about a 15% chance of succeeding. He said
only last week he would have said it only had a 5% chance.
He said he could not rule out a Trump victory in November.
He said he sent out this tweet to "energize" Reince Priebus:<
"... Prior to Hillary's being approved as Secretary of State, a detailed agreement was worked out requiring public notification of gifts from foreign entities and businessmen, as well as prior approval for donations from foreign government-owned businesses. Unfortunately, this agreement was almost immediately violated. ..."
"... There, when the government needed to help a Clinton supporter/cause was, naturally, a despot, Bill Clinton would even praise that person for his 'enlightened rule.' Another damning observation - 'In his first eight years on the global lecture circuit, Bill had never been paid to speak in Nigeria. But once Hillary was appointed secretary of state, he booked two of his top three highest-paid speeches ever by traveling to Nigeria, pulling in a whopping $700,000 each.' ..."
"... Read the book for yourself and not allow the Clinton Attack Machine to divert your attention from the important questions raised ..."
"... Mind you, Hillary was the one claiming poverty when trying to get mortgages (plural) for their homes (also plural). They were part of the political wing that vilified Romney for his wealth without ever blushing at their being in the same ball park as him. Romney at least made his money in the private sector. The Clintons seem to have made theirs by trading on the political connections and power while dancing on a razor's edge away from the legal definition of illegality. ..."
Tens of millions of dollars have gone
to the Clinton Foundation, and tens of millions more to the ex-president in the form of speaking
fees from around the world. Both fundings have primarily come from foreign governments and businessmen,
and quite often are temporally associated with deals involving U.S. actions that benefit the donors
and required approvals from our government.
It has long been illegal for foreigners to contribute to U.S. political campaigns. Yet, that
hasn't deterred the Clintons from this parallel practice. Further, the amounts of these donations,
per Schweizer, are often far larger than allowable campaign contributions. Thus, the Clintons
have become quite wealthy - Bill Clinton receiving $105 million in speaking fees through 2012..(Also
donations to the Clinton library, the Democratic Party, etc.) This pattern of major donations
followed by major beneficial U.S. government acts (eg. dropping proposed regulations, DOJ investigations,
and the Marc Rich pardon) began in 1999 while Clinton was still president.
An obvious question - Why haven't these foreign donors (eg. in India) given money directly
to local charities instead of to the Clinton Foundation? Another - Doesn't this make Hillary's
deleting innumerable official emails while Secretary of State especially suspicious?
Prior to Hillary's being approved as Secretary of State, a detailed agreement was worked
out requiring public notification of gifts from foreign entities and businessmen, as well as prior
approval for donations from foreign government-owned businesses. Unfortunately, this agreement
was almost immediately violated.
The bulk of Schweizer's excellent report consists of detailing various donations and possibly
associated U.S. government actions. The most glaring - selling control of a major US uranium resource
to Russia, while we don't even have enough of that invaluable fuel for our own current power needs.
He also points out that the Clinton's most 'profitable' responses don't occur in nations where
business and politics are separated by rules (eg. Germany, G.B.), but 'in despotic areas of the
world where the rules are very different.'
There, when the government needed to help a Clinton supporter/cause was, naturally, a despot,
Bill Clinton would even praise that person for his 'enlightened rule.' Another damning observation
- 'In his first eight years on the global lecture circuit, Bill had never been paid to speak in
Nigeria. But once Hillary was appointed secretary of state, he booked two of his top three highest-paid
speeches ever by traveling to Nigeria, pulling in a whopping $700,000 each.'
D. Buxman TOP 500 REVIEWERVINE VOICE on May 5, 2015
Hillary's Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds
I purchased this book understanding the flaws that permeate the modern American Political System
on both sides of the aisle. At this point in my life, it is hard to be shocked by the moral depravity
of our leaders. Bill and Hillary Clinton, however, have crafted a legal structure through the
Clinton Foundation that brings to bear the worst aspects of public fraud and influence peddling
imaginable.
As Hillary says, the Clinton's started this century, "Dead Broke," and yet today, having engaged
in no productive business activity beyond public speaking engagements and poorly received books,
they have accumulated untold personal wealth and control billions through a "charitable" foundation.
Along the way, they have accepted millions of dollars from foreign donors who just happen to have
business interests that could be advanced through Hillary's activities as a Senator or Secretary
of State and Bill's lobbying efforts as an ex-President. To see one instance where a donation
was followed by a favorable outcome might be a coincidence, but Schweizer provides dozens, in
what could only be described as a concerted scheme of bribery and influence peddling.
To rail against the Republican War on Women, while accepting millions in "donations," from
despotic foreign regimes that stone women for adultery is the height of hypocrisy. In a world
of equal justice, Bill and Hillary would be headed to prison, not on the campaign trail. This
book is extensively researched and footnoted. It is a well-written and cogent depiction of facts
that the Clinton Spin Machine seems unable to rationally dispute, from an author who has a history
of justifiably attacking both Democrats and Republicans.
Craig Matteson HALL OF FAMETOP 500 REVIEWER on May 5, 2015
Read the book for yourself and not allow the Clinton Attack Machine to divert your attention
from the important questions raised
No matter what I write about this book someone will take offense, dismiss and attack what I
write without reading a word of it. So, when you look at the votes and read the comments, take
it all with a box of Morton Salt. This is a book that was written to draw lightning. Some of the
writers who defend the Clintons, such as Newsweek, review this book as a hatchet job. Others will
dismiss any examination of the author's motives as unfair and irrelevant. I say, let the facts
speak and judge the author on whether he is asking serious questions, presenting honest evidence,
and drawing reasonable conclusions. In my view, he is. He is not making claims beyond what the
evidence supports, but he does ask why there are always a preposterous number of coincidences
around Bill and Hillary and everything they do. And how something that enriches this couple so
fabulously can also somehow be characterized as both public service and charity.
Mind you, Hillary was the one claiming poverty when trying to get mortgages (plural) for
their homes (also plural). They were part of the political wing that vilified Romney for his wealth
without ever blushing at their being in the same ball park as him. Romney at least made his money
in the private sector. The Clintons seem to have made theirs by trading on the political connections
and power while dancing on a razor's edge away from the legal definition of illegality. And
somehow, for the Clintons and their acolytes, if they aren't on videotape actually admitting to
taking cash for delivering political favors it somehow never happened. As you read the evidence
around the transactions reported in this book, I think you have to have some pretty thick rose
colored lenses to not see some difficulty in the connections, arrangements, deals, payments, and
reporting of the transactions as required by law. But we can each judge for ourselves. The Clintons
hope you will reject the book. Hillary's opponents hope you will either embrace it, or at least
begin asking some probing questions of your own and go digging for more evidence.
The Clintons have a well-practiced and effective Method of dealing with an immediate crisis
caused when yet another scandal arises, and they always do with these two. It works like this:
The scandal breaks and Team Clinton immediately sends out people like Begala and Carville to attack
the reporters, whistleblowers, or regular folks who dare tell the world what is going on. Another
group of somewhat more removed Clintonistas hit the air, cable, and print media to deny the scandal
outright. The Clintons avoid speaking for as long as possible. The idea is to consume as many
of the information cycles as possible with their own accusations and denials to overwhelm the
scandal outright. If they can't do that and they must speak, they know it doesn't matter what
they say. It can be directly in conflict with the evidence because they have put so much by way
of denial in the media that the "fair" media will quote the denials as if they were legitimate
bits of evidence, too. Eventually, another event comes along and bumps this scandal from the headlines
and then it will either go away or, if it does come back into view, they just refuse to discuss
it as old news and declare that the public knows it was politically motivated and that there is
nothing to it. Really. This is their method. And it works for them. Absurdly; it works.
You can see a similar method used by those on the Left here on Amazon and right here with this
book. They will latch on to a book they hate and provide a vast number of one-star "reviews" of
a sentence or two that say nothing at all except claiming the book is all lies, or old and outdated
claims that have been disproven, or that the author is in thrall to the Koch brothers or some
other Conservative paymaster. They often use fake names so you can't even tell if the same person
is posting multiple attacks using multiple accounts. It is always the same. The idea is to overwhelm
the book with so many reviews that the real reviews get hidden in the clutter and people just
stop looking and reading. Do you see this pattern? Of course you do. It is right in front of your
eyes.
The Clintons have raked in billions for their foundation (The Family Business) by using another
well-oiled and smoothly running operation that works something like this. You can see a version
of it in every deal cited in this book.
A super rich person the Clintons want as a donor and who needs or wants a piece of influence
peddled for them by the Clinton Machine for their nation, oil venture, uranium deals, their for
profit university, their "non-profit" charity, telemarketing business, or whatever, walks into
the shadow of the great Sun of the Clinton Sphere of Influence. Checks are written to the Clinton
Foundations, fabulously rich speaking fees are paid, and lavish travel and accommodations are
provided to Bill and/or Hillary. While on scene giving the speech, photo opportunities and favorable
stories are provided on camera to great fanfare and wide media coverage for the charitable work
being publicized. Once the lights, cameras, and recorders are turned off and in the quiet after
the reporters go off to wherever it is reporters go when not flacking for the Clintons, deals
are worked out in quiet rooms without anything being done directly that breaks the law or at least
not recorded and becoming evidence for breaking the law. Remember, this is all about access to
the Clinton world. They provide connections to a vast entourage of connected influencers. The
price of admission are the big donations to the Clinton Foundation and the fees to Bill and Hillary.
But unseemly is not illegal and seems to be something the Clintons are very comfortable with
as they "do good" in the world for their Foundation. More money flows to the Foundation in seven
figures and more. Mere millions are minor donations according to Lanny Davis on Fox News Sunday
with Chris Wallace. Somehow, despite assurances of transparency by Bill and Hillary, these donations
are generally not reported until they are caught not reporting them. Even when they are caught
in a compromising position, the media barely talks about it because the Clintons declare them
an oversight and promise to fix them right away. And because the public is never told to care
it doesn't pay attention to the absurdity of this level of corruption by someone running for President;
essentially for a third and fourth term of the Clinton Machine.
The issues raised by Schweitzer in this book are serious and the Clintons need to answer for
the vast ocean of money raised. We have already seen them admit to more than $30 million raised
from more than a thousand donors that they never reported to authorities as was required by law
and their own promises of transparency. That seems far too systematic and large-scale to be the
mere mistake they want us to believe. Will the press hold them accountable? We shall see. I hope
so, but won't hold my breath. What I honestly don't get is how Progressives who honestly believe
in their agenda can stomach this kind of naked profiteering, money grubbing, influence peddling,
and corruption so enthusiastically. Over the years we have seen that there is no shame from the
Clintons; ever. But from the entire Democrat party? From all the Progressive Media? I mean the
way the Clintons behave would make a Tammany Hall blush and Huey Long stare at their operations
in admiration at the audacity of it all.
Those of us who remember the scandals from the first and second Clinton Administrations do
not want to go through them again. But their fans will forgive them anything. Anything. And the
Clintons have more than $2 billion raised by their vast machine to ensure they regain the Whitehouse.
Will we let them have it?
I hope not.
This book will never persuade anyone who is already worshipping at the altar of Hillary. Not
because it fails to present convincing evidence and powerful arguments, but because those who
already believe in Our Hillary - Right Or Wrong are not looking for evidence or weighing arguments.
While the book is interesting to those of us who could never be persuaded to vote for her under
any circumstance whatsoever, the more interesting question is whether this book can get the traction
with the public to start raising questions in the minds of those who might be leaning towards
Hillary but have concerns or are leaning away from her and need a little more to move further
away. I hope it does. In any case, I hope you get the book, read it with an open mind and think
about the ridiculous number of coincidences the Clintons want you to believe don't provide evidence
of corrupt dealing.
If Clinton were to choose Warren, and put her so very close to a position of significant
influence, the finance industry would likely make the Democrats pay, up and down the ticket. In
effect, Wall Street has veto power over decisions like this. In other words Clinton in reality
is a puppet.
As Democrats aim to "unite the party" in the aftermath of the primary, speculation about Sen.
Elizabeth Warren as Hillary Clinton's choice for vice president has dominated the electoral news
cycle.
Powerful Democratic politicians have been discussing this possibility, including Senate Minority
Leader Harry Reid, who said he "wants Warren for VP." The Senate's number two Democrat, Dick
Durbin, said Warren would be an "excellent choice." The Boston Globe has reported that Reid has
been assessing contingency plans for Warren's Senate seat, should she be selected as Clinton's
running mate. This, according to the Globe, is an "indication of the seriousness" with which the
Democrats are considering this possibility. This speculation is occurring soon after Warren
endorsed Clinton and had a high-profile meeting with her in front of television cameras.
... ... ...
Progressives, however, should take note: Warren, sadly, will probably not be named as
Clinton's running mate. The reason? The Democrats, and Clinton in particular, depend on the
financial support of Wall Street. And they have been receiving it in droves.
"Hillary Clinton is consolidating her support among Wall Street donors and other businesses
ahead of a general-election battle with Donald Trump, winning more campaign contributions from
financial-services executives in the most recent fundraising period than all other candidates
combined," reported The Wall Street Journal.
This is not a new phenomenon. In 2008, Obama got more money from the finance sector than any
candidate in history. Wall Street may generally prefer GOP policies, but they also like to be on
the side of the winner. In 2008, when regulatory changes were inevitable and Obama was favored to
win the White House, the finance industry wanted to have a friendly relationship with the
soon-to-be President. This support continued in 2012. "Mr. Obama's record in drawing money from
Wall Street tracks his political evolution. No longer an insurgent challenger, he is now an
incumbent president soaking up support from well-heeled interests," reported the Wall Street
Journal during the 2012 campaign. Moreover, the industry's donations are highly coveted in
down-ticket races for Congress.
Warren, however, is different from most Democrats in one significant way. According to the
Center for Responsive Politics, Warren (like Sanders) gets no money from Big Finance. In this
they are basically alone among their peers in the Senate. Even Sherrod Brown, whom many view as
the third most liberal Senator, gets some money from the industry. If Clinton and the Democrats
choose someone like Warren -- someone who owes the banks nothing and has devoted her career to
fighting against their greed -- the finance industry will probably take its money elsewhere, most
likely to the Republicans. The GOP has already been benefiting from the industry's donations
going increasingly to GOP candidates, at the expense of the Democrats. Despite this trend, Wall
Street seems far more comfortable with Clinton than with Trump. But adding Warren to the ticket
could change that calculus.
Wall Street has already made threats over such matters. When Warren made harsh critiques of
the big banks in 2015, they responded with the threat of cutting of the flow of money to the
party. "Big Wall Street banks are so upset with U.S. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren's call
for them to be broken up that some have discussed withholding campaign donations to Senate
Democrats in symbolic protest," reported Reuters at the time. Citigroup decided to withhold
donations to the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, "over concerns that Senate Democrats
could give Warren and lawmakers who share her views more power." A 2015 Bloomberg article
reported that Warren, and her advocacy of breaking up the big banks, "makes Wall Street tremble."
Wow, Zero Hedge just has a post on "Guccifer 2.0" who hacked the DNC servers and just posted a bunch
of documents on his own website. Some pretty embarrassing stuff including lists of the main HRC donors
and campaign strategy docs. Apparently G 2.0 is sending it all to Wikileaks, which thus may be the source
of the Assange statements re Hillary. Things are heating up :)
One of the bigger news items to hit yesterday was that the Democratic National Committee accused
Russian government hackers of penetrating the DNC's computer network and gaining access to the entire
database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump. The DNC further said
that no financial, donor or personal information appears to have been accessed or taken, suggesting
that the breach was traditional espionage, not the work of criminal hackers.
It appears that was not entirely true, because barely 24 hours later, the alleged "Russian" hackers
has emerged under the Guccifer2 handle, and instead of a group of government operatives and/or spies
appears to be a "lone" hacker who incidentally adds, "DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said
no financial documents were compromised. Nonsense! Just look through the Democratic Party lists of
donors!"
He also denounces the claim that no secret docs were stolen: "They say there were no secret docs!
Lies again! Here is a secret document from Hillary's PC she worked with as the Secretary of State."
He concludes by saying that "the main part of the papers, thousands of files and mails, I gave
to Wikileaks. They will publish them soon."
Which in turn may explain why on Monday "Julian Assange Warns WikiLeaks Will Publish "Enough Evidence"
To Indict Hillary Clinton"
Curiously, "Guccifer2" he has chosen the WordPress platform as the website where to post
his initial disclosure. As such we urge those readers who are interested in the hacked files to download
any files locally as this server will be taken down in a matter of moments.
Amazing stuff, thx! Contains strategic blueprints for the election, the transition,
the first 100 days, all the new positions to be created to ratchet up internal
surveillance, names and amounts for donors, whew!
This is my favorite part so far, in the paper on the GOP candidates and
the DNC's tactics. Under "Reporter Outreach" you can see that the press has
played their part perfectly:
Tactics
Working with the DNC and allied groups, we will use several different
methods to land these attacks, including:
• Reporter Outreach: Working through the DNC and others, we should use
background briefings, prep with reporters for interviews with GOP
candidates, off-the-record conversations and oppo pitches to help pitch
stories with no fingerprints and utilize reporters to drive a message.
• Releases and Social Media: Where appropriate these attacks can be
leveraged for more public release, particularly the attacks around
specific issues where a public release can point out that Republicans are
outside of the mainstream.
• Bracketing Events: Both the DNC and outside groups are looking to do
events and press surrounding Republican events to insert our messaging
into their press and to force them to answer questions around key issues.
To: The Democratic National Committee
Re: 2016 GOP presidential candidates
Date: May 26, 2015
From
whom is not clear.
But the really interesting thing is that the doc very much conflates
the DNC with HRC. The fix was already in:
Our goals in the coming months will be to frame the Republican
field and the eventual nominee early and to provide a contrast between
the GOP field and HRC.
And one can only assume that the same "Reporter Outreach" tactic was
employed against Sanders by the DNC. Though in the case of Sanders a kind
of press blackout on behalf of the DNC/HRC was sufficient.
I did the only thing I could think of that made sense to me in terms
of determining authenticity. I emailed the Wikileaks address for press
and other media inquiries and asked if someone there could confirm the
claims of "Guccifer2." I'm sure they're getting a lot of such inquiries
and maybe the inquiries will prompt a public response soon.
Hacker News seems pretty skeptical that it is actually top-secret DNC
docs based on the quality of the strategic stuff within. Then again, based
on the results they get, it wouldn't surprise me to learn their internal
stuff is all idiotic. Guess I'll wait for the full leak.
Because coverage for Trump, as with Sanders, has been vile piece of
jobbery by our Acela-rising
press
scorps, I'm going to quote great slabs from Trump's remarks. I'll briefly compare
and contrast what the press said to what Trump's words were. I may add brief commentary
of my own. I'm not going to quote the whole speech. Instead, I'm going to quote
three topic areas[2] from his
prepared remarks. (The transcript of the speech
as delivered, sadly in ALL CAPS,
is here). The topics:
Diversity and Multiculturalism
Blowback
War and Peace
So let's look at what Trump has to say;
1. Diversity and Multiculturalism
After calling for a moment of silence, Trump says[3] this:
TRUMP: Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's
LGBT Community.
This is a very dark moment in America's history.
A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub not only because he wanted
to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens because
of their sexual orientation.
It is a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation.
It is an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love
who they want and express their identity.
It is an attack on the right of every single American to live in peace and
safety in their own country.
We need to respond to this attack on America as one united people – with
force, purpose and determination.
Let's put aside the question of sincerity: that would require us to treat whatever
Manafort and Stone have cooked up, versus whatever Clinton's focus groups have
emitted, as commensurate; but that's not possible. Let's focus on the fact that
Trump, remarkably for a Conservative Republican, puts "solidarity" (!!!) with "the
members of Orlando's LGBT Community" up front, and treats the ability of people
to "love who they want" at "the heart and soul of who we are as a nation." That's
what we used to call, back in the day at Kos,
performative speech; it changes who the Republicans are as a party by virtue
of having been said.[4] Now, politically I'd guess that Trump won't be winning
a lot of votes in the LGBT community over this any time soon, let alone turning
around
his unfavorables. I'd also guess there will be real, and more subtle, effects:
Trump is disempowering certain Republican factions (especially the "Christian"
right, proven losers), and empowering his own base not to act hatefully
toward gays (and if you believe that Trump voters are authoritarian followers,
that's important)[5].
That said, it's quite remarkable to hear the presumptive nominee of the Republican
Party say that he "stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's
LGBT Community." I'd even go so far as to say it's newsworthy.
WaPo did;
Bloomberg did; the conservative hive mind managed to emit
a "viral" pro-Trump letter by an anonymous gay person; but Times stenographers
Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns, in an Op-Ed somehow misfiled as reporting,
omit to mention this portion of the speech altogether. Sad!
More seriously,
Dylann Matthews of Vox does real reporting, connecting Trump ideologically
to the European right, starting with the Netherlands' Pim Fortuyn, gay himself,
who combined support for LGBT rights with a blanket ban on Muslim immigration,
and moving on through Marine LePen, concluding that Trump's support is "a smokescreen
through which to advocate anti-Muslim policies."
But Fortuyn was open about his support of gay rights; and open about banning
Muslim immigration, so isn't "smokescreen" itself a smokescreen, begging the question?
What Matthews really seems to mean is that Fortuyn's support for LGBT
rights is incompatible with Fortuyn's support for banning Muslim immigration. Empirically,
that doesn't seem to be the case; Matthews certainly doesn't document any decrease
in LGBT rights after Fortuyn's rise. So where is the incompatibility? At this point,
we note that Trump shares, with Clinton's liberals, and apparently with Fortuyn,
although not with the left, the idea that to "express identity" is the essence
of a "free people." Speculating freely, we might imagine that Matthews believes
that Muslims, like LGBT people, must also to be free to express their
identities, and that to prevent them from doing so is "Islamophobia," along the
lines of homophobia.
Here identity politics founders on its own contradictions, as identities clash
on both values and interests; identities cannot all be silo-ed in their own "safe
spaces." For example, immigration, like globalization, creates public goods but
has economic costs that some classes disportionately bear, and economic benefits
that some classes disproportionately accrue, as blue collar workers know but professional
economists are only belatedly discovering. Does the expression of identity trump
those costs? Why? And whose identity? One does not sense, for example, that liberals
are fired with concern for heartlanders who identify as Christians (unless Christians
serve a geopolitical purpose in faraway Syria), or with men who identify as gunowners.
So if what liberals (and conservatives) mean by identity politics is really just
power politics and the upward distribution of wealth, straight up, that's fine
and clarifying, but wasn't the alpha and omega supposed to be justice? Even love?
Of course, by now we are far afield from Trump; but as far as accepting LGBT
people as fully human, can't liberals take yes for an answer?
2. Blowback
Trump says:
America must do more – much more – to protect its citizens, especially people
who are potential victims of crimes based on their backgrounds or sexual orientations.
It also means we must change our foreign policy.
The decision to overthrow the regime in Libya, then pushing for the overthrow
of the regime in Syria, among other things, without plans for the day after,
have created space for ISIS to expand and grow.
These actions, along with our disastrous Iran deal, have also reduced our
ability to work in partnership with our Muslim allies in the region.
For instance, the last major NATO mission was Hillary Clinton's war in Libya.
That mission helped unleash ISIS on a new continent.
(I think the Iran deal is one of the few good things that Obama has done.) Trump
is describing what
Chalmers Johnson called "blowback." Isn't it remarkable the Trump is the only
candidate - including, AFAIK, Sanders - who's even mentioning it? (See here for
Clinton's pivotal role in promoting the LIbya debacle in the Obama administration.)
And if you want a good view into the heart of the foreign policy establishment,
try the Foreign Policy podcast.
They think Obama was weak because
he didn't put "boots on the ground" in Syria; they love Clinton because they think
she'll be "muscular"; and they hate Trump, and think hes's a lunatic. Well, what's
more lunatic then setting the Mediterranean littoral on fire, and provoking a refugee
crisis in the European Union? Moar blowback, anyone?
3. War and Peace
With respect to a military response to "radical Islamism," the difference between
Trump and Clinton can be summed up most effectively in the form of a table. (I've
taken
Clinton's words from this transcript.)
Figure 1: Recommended Military Action Against "Radical Islam"
Trump
Clinton
The attack in Orlando makes it even more clear: we cannot contain
this threat – we must defeat it.
The good news is that the coalition
effort in Syria and Iraq has made real gains in recent months.
So we should keep the pressure on ramping up the air campaign,
accelerating support for
our friends fighting to take and hold ground, and pushing our partners
in the region to do even more.
(Clinton's speech was
delivered at a Cleveland company that makes military helmets. Military Keynesianism,
anyone?)
AP [***cough***] labels Trump's speech as "aggressive," by contrast to Clinton's,
without mentioning (a) that Trump is conscious of blowback and (b) only Clinton
recommends airstrikes and an "accelerated" ground war; ditto
Politico; ditto
The Economist.
WaPo, omitting the same two points, labels Clinton as "sober." I guess a couple
three more
Friedman Units should do it…
Conclusion
Just as a troll prophylactic, let me say that this post is not an endorsement
of any candidate (not even
Sanders, who snagged an F-35 base for Vermont). I'm not sure how to balance
charges of racism, fascism, and corruption in the context of identity politics,
when clearly all three are systemic, interact with each other, and must be owned
by all (both) candidates. (Do the bodies of people of color char differently because
they are far away? Doesn't a
"disposition matrix" sound like something
Adolf Eichmann might devise?)
Rather, this post is a plea for citizens to "do their own research"[6] and listen
to what the candidates actually say, put that in context, and try to understand.
The press, with a few honorable exceptions, seems to be gripped by the same "madness
of crowds" that gripped them in 2008 (except for Obama, against Clinton) or in
2002-2003 (for WMDs, and for the Iraq War). Only in that way can we hope to hold
candidates accountable.
APPENDIX I
Some brief remarks on Trump's advance work:
1) Trump still needs practice with his teleprompter;
2) The mike was picking up Trump's breathing;
3) The staging looks like Dukakis (that is, provincial). It should look like
Reagan (national);
4) Trump's website is simple and easy to use and looks like it was designed
for a normal person, not a laid-off
site developer. However, it looks low budget. Hmm.
APPENDIX II
Here's why I skipped Trump on guns and the NRA. To frame this in partisan terms:
From Democrats, what I consider to be a rational policy on guns -
taxing gun owners for the externalities of gun ownership combined with Darwin
Awards over time, and ridicule - is not on offer, so it's foolish to waste time
with whatever ineffective palliative they propose, especially while they continue
to take money from private equity firms that own gun manufacturers, and arrange
overseas contracts for those same manufacturers. As for Republicans, it's impossible
to see how the country could be more awash in guns than it already is. So if you
want to argue about guns, don't do it here. There's plenty of opportunity in both
Links and Water Cooler.
[2] Except for Section 3, "War and Peace," I'm not going to compare Clinton's
foreign policy speech today to this speech by Trump, because I've analyzed several
Clinton speeches already, and presumably NC readers already know how to parse her.
[3] I'm not going to analyze Trump's rhetoric in in this post, but note the
anaphora: "It is… It is.. It is…." Notice also
the simple, declarative sentences, which Trump uses very effectively as hammer
blows; the most complicated sentence we get in this passage is the parallel construction
of "not only because… not because." And note the sound patterning from the sentence
containing that phrase, gutturals like gunfire: "A radical Islamic
terrorist targeted the nightclub not only because
he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute
gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation."
Whoever Trump hired to write his speeches, they're doing an excellent, and unobtrusive,
job.
[4] That's not to give the parties, let alone Trump, credit; they follow and
don't lead. LGBT people led, in particular the now almost erased ACT-UP, with its
non-violent direct action.
[5] And if you're extremely cynical, you might see Trump as posthumously rehabilitating
Roy Cohn. But today is my day to be kind.
[6] See
PBS,
CBS, and *** cough ***
AP on fact-checking. Sometimes, of course, facts are "facts"; more importantly:
WANTED: CEO
Must be detail oriented
Said no search firm ever.
Which is better: The candidate who gets the big picture right, and details wrong,
or the candidate who's great with detail, and bounces from one clstrfck to another?
You tell me.
This Democratic Party Politburo is approaching in power to the Politburo of
the CPSU making primaries redundant -- candidate supported by Politburo is
the candidate that will be installed as the candidate from the Party in
Presidential election independently of the level rank-and-file voters support.
This is especially true is competition is close.
Notable quotes:
"... Even if Clinton were to lose California to Bernie Sanders, she would be well ahead in the number of delegates awarded based on the outcome of primaries, though still shy of the 2,383 threshold -- a majority at the party's nominating convention in July. ..."
"... AP based its findings on a survey of the superdelegates -- the party's high-level officials, officeholders and operatives who get a vote at the convention just for being Very Important. Clinton has been piling up superdelegate support since long before the first primary. The 571st to promise to vote for Clinton at the convention put her over the top, according to AP. ..."
"... In fact, the media were merely ratifying what Hillary Clinton's supporters have been preaching for months -- more and more frantically when their candidate kept losing to Sanders, who was harangued endlessly about the need to shut up so Democrats could "unify." ..."
"... "It's time to stand behind our presumptive candidate," Michael Brown, a superdelegate from Washington, D.C., who came forward in the past week to back Clinton before the District's June 14 primary, told the AP . "We shouldn't be acting like we are undecided when the people of America have spoken." ..."
"... Except that quite a few "people of America" didn't speak. As The Intercept commented , it was a fitting end to a race where party leaders and prominent liberals relied on their control of the party and media apparatus to steer the nomination to their choice: "Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media." ..."
"... Suddenly, Clinton -- a fixture of the Democratic Party establishment since before her husband occupied the White House and the presumptive nominee in 2016 since just after Barack Obama won re-election in 2012 -- had a fight on her hands against a candidate who connected with the disgust with the status quo felt by millions. ..."
"... As secretary of state , Clinton supported the coup-makers in Honduras who overthrew democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya; the deadly 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan; and the Obama administration's escalation of drone warfare. She used her position to travel the world convincing governments to start fracking for natural gas and oil, among other priorities of Corporate America. ..."
"... The message to the Democratic Party's more liberal voting base is already clear: Sure, you may have some criticisms of Hillary Clinton, and you may have liked what Bernie Sanders had to say -- but it's time to get real and start helping ensure the victory of the "lesser evil" in order to stop the "greater evil." But everything about Clinton's political career is further evidence that voting for the "lesser evil" leads to of evils of both kinds. ..."
"... Clinton will take the support of liberals and progressives for granted, and start concocting strategies to win over moderate and conservative "swing voters." So get ready for more speeches like her foreign policy address where it's hard to see what distinguishes her from a more mainstream Republican than Trump. ..."
"... This exposes the gap between what the Democrats are offering and what the people who are expected to vote for them want. Supporting Hillary Clinton won't close that gap. We need to start organizing for an alternative -- in politics and in all the protest movements throughout society -- that can. ..."
Hillary Clinton did well in the final major day of the Democratic presidential
primaries, winning all but one state, though the outcome in California, the
biggest contest of the whole season, was still in doubt as this article was
published.
Even if Clinton were to lose California to Bernie Sanders, she would
be well ahead in the number of delegates awarded based on the outcome of primaries,
though still shy of the 2,383 threshold -- a majority at the party's nominating
convention in July.
Sanders, whose left-wing campaign surpassed all expectations and inspired
huge numbers of people, has promised to continue his campaign, possibly through
the convention. But on election night, there were signs -- including reports
of a Thursday meeting between Sanders and Barack Obama, scheduled at Sanders'
request -- that he might relent and concede.
Either way, though, the Associated Press (AP) wasn't waiting around.
On Monday night -- with hours to go before polling places opened on the day
with the second-largest number of Democratic delegates at stake -- the news
service announced that Clinton had enough pledged delegates plus "superdelegates"
supporting her to have a lock on the nomination.
AP based its findings on a survey of the superdelegates -- the party's
high-level officials, officeholders and operatives who get a vote at the convention
just for being Very Important. Clinton has been piling up superdelegate support
since long before the first primary. The 571st to promise to vote for Clinton
at the convention put her over the top, according to AP.
In California,
Long Beach resident Arie Gonzalez told the Los Angeles Times, "It's like,
why vote?...I can't believe Democrats have all these superdelegates and that
we vote consistently always with Iowa first and California has no voice by the
time it comes down to it. We're a tenth of the population. It's ridiculous."
In fact, the media were merely ratifying what Hillary Clinton's supporters
have been preaching for months -- more and more frantically when their candidate
kept losing to Sanders, who was harangued endlessly about the need to shut up
so Democrats could "unify."
"It's time to stand behind our presumptive candidate," Michael Brown,
a superdelegate from Washington, D.C., who came forward in the past week to
back Clinton before the District's June 14 primary,
told the AP. "We shouldn't be acting like we are undecided when the people
of America have spoken."
Except that quite a few "people of America" didn't speak.
As The Intercept commented, it was a fitting end to a race where party leaders
and prominent liberals relied on their control of the party and media apparatus
to steer the nomination to their choice: "Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner
Through Media."
***
The preempting of the actual vote by superdelegate math overshadowed coverage
of the wave of enthusiasm that Sanders rode going into the final big primaries.
In California, a campaign event in Oakland drew 20,000 people, and another in
LA turned out 13,500, despite being moved to a different venue at the last minute.
This has been the story since the start of the campaign. From the moment
he said he would run for the Democratic nomination, Sanders, the self-declared
socialist, drew crowds eager to hear a candidate who talked about taking on
corporate greed, challenging the corruption of the US political system and putting
working people ahead of Wall Street profits.
Suddenly, Clinton -- a fixture of the Democratic Party establishment
since before her husband occupied the White House and the presumptive nominee
in 2016 since just after Barack Obama won re-election in 2012 --
had a fight on her hands against a candidate who connected with the disgust
with the status quo felt by millions.
... ... ...
As secretary of state, Clinton supported the coup-makers in Honduras
who overthrew democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya; the deadly 2009
troop surge in Afghanistan; and the Obama administration's escalation of drone
warfare. She used her position to travel the world convincing governments to
start fracking for natural gas and oil, among other priorities of Corporate
America.
Clinton says she's ready to stand up to Trump and his agenda, but when ordinary
people do just that with actions, not just words, she's on the other side.
... ... ..
***
The message to the Democratic Party's more liberal voting base is already
clear: Sure, you may have some criticisms of Hillary Clinton, and you may have
liked what Bernie Sanders had to say -- but it's time to get real and start
helping ensure the victory of the "lesser evil" in order to stop the "greater
evil." But everything about Clinton's political career is further evidence that
voting for the "lesser evil" leads to of evils of both kinds.
... ... ...
Clinton, meanwhile, will make the Democratic presidential nominee's time-honored
"move to the center" -- though after a primary where she turned into the "No
we can't" candidate on health care, college tuition and more, she doesn't have
far to go.
Clinton will take the support of liberals and progressives for granted,
and start concocting strategies to win over moderate and conservative "swing
voters." So get ready for more speeches like her foreign policy address where
it's hard to see what distinguishes her from a more mainstream Republican than
Trump.
A recent poll by the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research illustrates
growing dissatisfaction with the political process and the two political parties.
The May study of registered voters, Republicans and Democrats, showed that 90
percent lack confidence in the US political system. Some 40 percent said it
was "seriously broken."
"The views of ordinary voters are not considered by either party, according
to most Americans," the study stated. "Fourteen percent say the Democratic Party
is responsive to the views of the rank-and-file; 8 percent report that about
the Republican Party."
But
as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting pointed out, the corporate media didn't
report on this poll. They were too busy conducting a survey of anonymous superdelegates
so they could tell primary voters that Clinton was already the winner, so they
don't need to bother.
This exposes the gap between what the Democrats are offering and what
the people who are expected to vote for them want. Supporting Hillary Clinton
won't close that gap. We need to start organizing for an alternative -- in politics
and in all the protest movements throughout society -- that can.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It
may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Elizabeth Schulte is a journalist and reviews editor for the Socialist Worker,
writing frequently on low-wage workers, the Democratic Party and women's liberation.
"... And if you consider Hillary's centre-right politics "liberal," there would indeed be a "liberal renaissance." But unfortunately, Democrats are now neoliberal "New Democrats" in the service of upper-middle-class professionals. They talk a good line about strengthening the (now practically nonexistent) middle class and addressing the concerns of working families, but don't hold your breath. ..."
"... "We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism" - DJ Trump ..."
"... and SHILLary would say something like this : " Oh yes Dr Kissenger yes we will get rid of the 2nd amendment and mud up the population of the US, don't worry we will bring in lots of illegals to bankrupt the US and push us forward (er backward)..' ..."
"... Trump was never the issue. The issue is the DNC & their unfair, undemocratic system. it begins with big money, super pacs and super delegates. The DNC has left the utmost basic principle of democracy somewhere in neverneverland, namely 1 woman/man = 1 vote. instead the DNC, over the decades, has instituted a system of undeclared monies, undeclared contributors, perhaps accepting money from foreign countries (for an American election) ... who really knows. ..."
"... Well said !! Clinton is part of the elitist establishment who are the ones who truly govern the US. Crooked ..."
"... She's liberal in the same way that Richard Nixon was liberal. And he really was, y'know, in some small and superficial ways. But he was also Richard Nixon. ..."
"... So many guardian articles presenting Clinton as some kind of progressive hero who would be less (a) less conservative and (b) less awful than Trump, but I'm still waiting for anyone to give any kind of reason why we should ignore all the available evidence suggesting she is just as bad. ..."
"... ha and how many people would vote Obama again? Only those living off the government teat by choice, that's who or the very uneducated! ..."
"... I am basing my statement on HRC's militarily aggressive rhetoric and actual record in cabinets that used military intervention; converesely Trump's rhetoric has been conciliatory to Russia and Syria. ..."
"... Remember Vietnam? The US intervention was by Executive Order, and Congress financed it because by not doing so it would have endangered even more the lives of US military personnel. ..."
"... The USA hasn't fought a "war" since WW2 - all other conflicts have been fought under "presidential orders". Even Vietnam, in US history all Govt references are always to the Vietnam "conflict" precisely because legally war was never actually declared. HRC's record is far more aggressive that Trump's policies, she is far more likely to go to war than DT. ..."
"... Root causes. Saudi Arabia is the largest global funder of fundamentalism. As long as they are allowed to continue, all the rest is just ongoing effects and details of a monstrous strategy, that clinton happily ignores. ..."
"... Clintons message yesterday : "To the LGBT community: please know that you have millions of allies across our country. I am one of them." On a platform funded by Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is punishable by death. You're dreaming if you think Hillary will bring about a liberal renaissance. She's not about values, she's about her getting rich & powerful. ..."
"... That slightly over looks the fact that America is an extremely violent country when compared to any of the worlds other developed economies, (granted compared to Mexico and Iraq things don't look so bad). The homicide rate in the US, down to firearms is off the scale. ..."
"... Well, the answer is simple. Young people do not see any possibility that policy can improve something in their lives, because in the end it all comes down to the same and the preservation of the status quo. And, by losing faith that they can change something with political means, they are turning to violence and destruction. Some resort to violence against themselves, such as drug addicts, some resort to violence against others, as criminals, and some do both at the same time as this young man who committed mass murder in Orlando. ..."
"... Notice how the G4S gunman who ran amok chose a gun free zone. There he was, licensed by the State of Florida to carry firearms on the job and employed by the British G4S security company for almost 9 years and when he had a bad couple of days he selected a nightclub for his target. No guns there except for the off duty cop outside whose fire forced him back in the club when he was trying to run away after his first kills. Cops always choosing the worst possible time to open fire. He should have waited until the guy was a few more feet away from the door. ..."
"... Tanya, I wrote a message about campaigning Humanism instead of gay rights, because every human life is valuable. So, this is what happens when this liberal progressive group tries to sensationalize their campaign of new world order/one world government. ..."
"... This article is nothing but an exercise in wishful thinking. Hillary is a very weak, heavily compromised candidate. And she still has the FBI investigation hanging over his head. ..."
"... Trump is just the symptom of a sick, elitist system. As is Sanders to a less alarming extent. ..."
"... American values were already down the toilet before any influence of muslims. Sold to the highest bidder. The creation of a working poor class, reduction of access to health care and education to only those who can afford it, rule of the gun replacing rule of law - and special" rules"/treatment under law for rich ..."
"... You know why Trump will win the general election? JOBS- that's the number one issue in the United States. ..."
"... If Hillary is promising more of the same with the TPP and TTIP crap (Her husband already screwed over the US with NAFTA and China's accession to the WTO) then she will lose. (38,000 jobs created in the last quarter suggests that Obama's legacy on the economy is going to be shit). ..."
"... She doesn't lie - I love your qualification - "as much" ..."
"... Yes the Clinton's brought in NAFTA and the laws that have led to the explosion of the prison system in the US. She destroyed Libya, supported the Coup D'etat in Honduras (and then edited it out of the second volume of her autobiography). Trump is a terrible option but the way the US has been run for the past 30 years is also terrible and the world is paying and will pay a terrible price for this. You say Clinton. Others say Trump. I say neither. ..."
"... You apply to Trump attributes that could equally fit Hillary Clinton ..."
"... What has the US been doing towards Russia and China in this period of Democratic governance? Have they continued to knock off countries that don't follow their dictates? Do they sell weapons to those who give them to ISIS or those who bomb and murder civilians (Saudi Arabia - Israel etc) ..."
"... Liberal Renaissance! Gee, how come Hillary did not thought to adopt this as its election slogan? Anyway, what was the election slogan of Hillary Clinton? I don't remember that she had any.:-) ..."
"... The author isn't impartial. He has an agenda. A cursory reading of his twitter account confirms his politics and his bias. And this explains why he has misrepresented Trump's attack on Judge Curiel's - It is for political purposes. Trump accused the Judge of being racist. I don't know if that was wise or fair but that was what Trump did - He didn't make a racist attack on the judge instead he accused the Judge of being racist. ..."
"... Certainly you are not looking to Hillary to lead a liberal renaissance. Hillary is not a liberal is the a leading neoliberal. Neoliberalism believes that markets are self-sufficient unto themselves, that they do not need regulation, and that they are the best guarantors of human welfare. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has been the most perfect embodiment of neoliberalism among all the candidates, she is almost its all-time ideal avatar, and I believe this explains, even if not articulated this way, the widespread discomfort among the populace toward her ascendancy. Hillary Clinton is one of the founders of neoliberal globalization, one of its central historical figures (having accelerated the warehousing of the poor, the attack on trade unions, and the end of welfare and of regulatory prowess), while Trump is an authoritarian figure whose conceptions of the state and of human beings within the state are inconsistent with the surface frictionlessness neoliberalism desires ..."
"... Neocon/neoliberal...is there a difference? Both lead to the same place. However, neocon is more precisely what Clinton is since she's always been far more of a conservative than liberal. ..."
Yeah, there are people who think that Hillary Clinton is a lesser evil than Trump. And there
are some other people who think that Hillary Clinton is just evil. As this one, for example:
Hillary Clinton is Evil!
(REMIX) by placeboing
And I think that the latter are at least more creative, don't you think? :-)
ID8667623 12 Jun 2016 19:34
All true. And if you consider Hillary's centre-right politics "liberal," there would indeed
be a "liberal renaissance." But unfortunately, Democrats are now neoliberal "New Democrats" in
the service of upper-middle-class professionals. They talk a good line about strengthening the
(now practically nonexistent) middle class and addressing the concerns of working families, but
don't hold your breath.
Ezra Pound jamietintin 12 Jun 2016 19:49
He isn't perfect but here ya go
"We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism"
- DJ Trump
and SHILLary would say something like this : " Oh yes Dr Kissenger yes we will get rid
of the 2nd amendment and mud up the population of the US, don't worry we will bring in lots of
illegals to bankrupt the US and push us forward (er backward)..'
hadeze242 12 Jun 2016 19:36
Trump was never the issue. The issue is the DNC & their unfair, undemocratic system. it
begins with big money, super pacs and super delegates. The DNC has left the utmost basic principle
of democracy somewhere in neverneverland, namely 1 woman/man = 1 vote. instead the DNC, over the
decades, has instituted a system of undeclared monies, undeclared contributors, perhaps accepting
money from foreign countries (for an American election) ... who really knows. Voters (independents)
are denied access to a vote, registration takes place the year before a Primary, voting poles
close early ... if this is "progressive" or democratic, then my name is Rumpelstilzchen.
Joe Thruter -> GoodbyeEurope 13 Jun 2016 08:24
Well said !! Clinton is part of the elitist establishment who are the ones who truly govern
the US. Crooked Hillary or Trump for that matter will follow the script given to them by
their "Masters" !!
Drewv D Flynn 13 Jun 2016 04:46
She's liberal in the same way that Richard Nixon was liberal. And he really was, y'know,
in some small and superficial ways. But he was also Richard Nixon.
MrRico1 13 Jun 2016 05:19
So many guardian articles presenting Clinton as some kind of progressive hero who would
be less (a) less conservative and (b) less awful than Trump, but I'm still waiting for anyone
to give any kind of reason why we should ignore all the available evidence suggesting she is just
as bad.
Ezra Pound -> bolshevik96 12 Jun 2016 20:24
ha and how many people would vote Obama again? Only those living off the government teat
by choice, that's who or the very uneducated!
BrunoForestier -> Defiini 13 Jun 2016 00:19
I am basing my statement on HRC's militarily aggressive rhetoric and actual record in cabinets
that used military intervention; converesely Trump's rhetoric has been conciliatory to Russia
and Syria. Trump has seen the light on the Middle East and wants America to disengage and
be free of the region's constant trouble.
The best the West can do is to become oil independent of the ME and just leave the people there
to keep killing each other without exporting the problems our way.
AngryExpat -> Defiini 13 Jun 2016 00:10
Remember Vietnam? The US intervention was by Executive Order, and Congress financed it
because by not doing so it would have endangered even more the lives of US military personnel.
BrunoForestier -> AngryExpat 13 Jun 2016 00:02
The USA hasn't fought a "war" since WW2 - all other conflicts have been fought under "presidential
orders". Even Vietnam, in US history all Govt references are always to the Vietnam "conflict"
precisely because legally war was never actually declared. HRC's record is far more aggressive
that Trump's policies, she is far more likely to go to war than DT.
Kevin P Brown GoodbyeEurope 13 Jun 2016 07:06
Root causes. Saudi Arabia is the largest global funder of fundamentalism. As long as they
are allowed to continue, all the rest is just ongoing effects and details of a monstrous strategy,
that clinton happily ignores.
GoodbyeEurope 13 Jun 2016 06:36
Clintons message yesterday : "To the LGBT community: please know that you have millions
of allies across our country. I am one of them." On a platform funded by Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality
is punishable by death. You're dreaming if you think Hillary will bring about a liberal renaissance.
She's not about values, she's about her getting rich & powerful.
nnedjo -> jamie_qwerty 13 Jun 2016 09:07
You're welcome!
I'd just like to add something. Hillary's statement, "We came, we saw, he died," is in fact
a paraphrase of the statement of the famous Roman emperor Julius Caesar, who once said, "I came,
I saw, I conquered." Thus, in the twisted mind of Hillary Clinton, there is nothing wrong with
the fact that America is now starting military campaigns, not to conquer, but only to kill the
leader of another country. Well, I would say that nevertheless there was more honor in Caesar's
wars to conquer than in this Clinton-Obama war in Libya for the sole purpose of killing.
Andy Mills -> GlennHughes2016 13 Jun 2016 06:07
That slightly over looks the fact that America is an extremely violent country when compared
to any of the worlds other developed economies, (granted compared to Mexico and Iraq things don't
look so bad). The homicide rate in the US, down to firearms is off the scale. But heah, why
should we care, if you want to go on butchering each other by the tens of thousands, year in ,
year out why should the rest of the world give a damn Just don't export your stupid obsession
with firearms to the rest of the world thank you very much.
nnedjo -> philipsiron 12 Jun 2016 20:00
What's the motive behind Orlando shooting?
I think you need to watch some videos of the Bernie Sanders rallies, to understand the "motives"
behind Orlando shooting.
So, Bernie was talking all the time about it; Young people do not see their place in politics,
and they flee from politics in flocks.
And why is that?
Well, the answer is simple. Young people do not see any possibility that policy can improve
something in their lives, because in the end it all comes down to the same and the preservation
of the status quo. And, by losing faith that they can change something with political means, they
are turning to violence and destruction.
Some resort to violence against themselves, such as drug addicts, some resort to violence against
others, as criminals, and some do both at the same time as this young man who committed mass murder
in Orlando.
You can understand that I am right, if you notice that he was a registered voter of the Democratic
Party and was employed by renowned security company, which means that he was trained to defend
unarmed people, and not to kill them. So, one could say that he was on the right track to make
something positive of his life. But then, what could turn him from the right track?
Well, I think I've already answered that question up above, and you consider for yourself.
AlfredHerring -> Ezra Pound 12 Jun 2016 18:30
Seriously. Notice how the G4S gunman who ran amok chose a gun free zone. There he was,
licensed by the State of Florida to carry firearms on the job and employed by the British G4S
security company for almost 9 years and when he had a bad couple of days he selected a nightclub
for his target. No guns there except for the off duty cop outside whose fire forced him back in
the club when he was trying to run away after his first kills. Cops always choosing the worst
possible time to open fire. He should have waited until the guy was a few more feet away from
the door.
philipsiron -> tanya44 12 Jun 2016 19:23
Tanya, I wrote a message about campaigning Humanism instead of gay rights, because every
human life is valuable. So, this is what happens when this liberal progressive group tries to
sensationalize their campaign of new world order/one world government.
peter nelson 13 Jun 2016 13:16
This article is nothing but an exercise in wishful thinking. Hillary is a very weak, heavily
compromised candidate. And she still has the FBI investigation hanging over his head.
Meanwhile Trump's racism and bigotry pays well to an American audience, and events like the
one in Orlando only gain him adherents. The author is making the same mistake contest other pundits
did throughout the election, of underestimating him. What's amazing is that unlike those other
pundits, this one has the benefit of hindsight and still makes it.
Angelaaaa -> hadeze242 12 Jun 2016 19:56
The GOP are no strangers to big money and super pacs either. Undeclared monies, undeclared
contributors, the influence of foreign countries (Papa Saud, anyone?), voters denied access to
a vote ... these are the hallmarks of both sides of politics.
The issue is the evolution of politics away from a fair, democratic system.
Trump is just the symptom of a sick, elitist system. As is Sanders to a less alarming extent.
swmbo2 -> tanya44 12 Jun 2016 19:46
American values were already down the toilet before any influence of muslims. Sold to the
highest bidder. The creation of a working poor class, reduction of access to health care and education
to only those who can afford it, rule of the gun replacing rule of law - and special" rules"/treatment
under law for rich and preferably male, white people. Oh don't forget a multiple times bankrupt
running for President - who along with his supporters also takes great pleasure in the cold blooded
murder of 50 precious lives. American values down the toilet because of muslims - don't think
so. To resort to biblical references - let those without sin cast the first stone…….
And finally, in case your bigotted mind didn't know, islam is very much anti-gay - which aligns
nicely with what appear to be your values.
ShaneFromMelbourne -> phillyred 13 Jun 2016 12:30
You know why Trump will win the general election? JOBS- that's the number one issue in
the United States. Forget all the other bullshit, at the end of the day it is all about feeding
yourself and keeping a roof over your head.
If Hillary is promising more of the same with the TPP and TTIP crap (Her husband already
screwed over the US with NAFTA and China's accession to the WTO) then she will lose. (38,000 jobs
created in the last quarter suggests that Obama's legacy on the economy is going to be shit).
If Trump can convince the voter that he will create more jobs by imposing tariffs then he will
win. (It doesn't have to economically true, just plausible)
Diniz Ramos -> De Deus John Kennedy 13 Jun 2016 13:01
She doesn't lie - I love your qualification - "as much" but only about
Her racist laws
Her emails
She has experience
Yes the Clinton's brought in NAFTA and the laws that have led to the explosion of the prison
system in the US. She destroyed Libya, supported the Coup D'etat in Honduras (and then edited
it out of the second volume of her autobiography). Trump is a terrible option but the way the
US has been run for the past 30 years is also terrible and the world is paying and will pay a
terrible price for this. You say Clinton. Others say Trump. I say neither.
John Kennedy 13 Jun 2016 12:23
It could be, it is about 50/50 either way. Just remember one thing, Trump supporters are reliable
voters. Hillary will only win if she can drive turn out.
RollTide16 -> Milney 13 Jun 2016 12:54
Yes. Like voting for the disastrous Obama twice.
DanielWebster1 -> daveinbalmain 13 Jun 2016 11:33
Read the Art of the Deal. Ask for the extreme and then negotiate down to something manageable
and more reasonable. Then everybody feels like they won something and walk away happy.
mikehowleydcu -> GCBN 13 Jun 2016 12:47
Natural Society "abismal"
Chris Hedges a conspiracy theorist (Now you are showing your ignorance)
William Engdahl a conspiracy theorist (Throwing the label conspiracy theorist is a cheap shot
that avoids having to actually have to answer anything relevant)
Vandana Shiva
One of the most deluded and comprehensively debunked manipulative and greedy know-nothing
The organisation that you refer me to: The Genetic Literacy project is funded by ... .none
other than MONSANTO! (how unfortunate)
Out of all of the points I made to you you choose to reply to only one... Monsanto suing farmers.
You ignored:
Clinton's role in the destruction of Libya,
Her support for war in the ME
Her callousness towards Palestinians
Glycosphate found in newborn babies,
the reality of the so called health insurance in the US where many can still loose their
shirt when illness strikes,
the patenting of seeds and of course the suing of farmers who harvest Monsantso seeds (even
though that is what farmers have done since the farming began on this planet),
the nature of roundup ready crops who's selling point is that they can survive pesticides
- therefore the consumers eat this "poison" (i.e it's in newborn babies throughout the US)
supporting the military industrial and spying complex, representing companies that
destroy nature
conveniently ignored
Your perspective on Monsanto as
a fairly dull seed company that helps improve yields and feed more people.
is completely illogical and deluded as is your view that
To try to ban it is to condemn people to unnecessary deaths and to do unnecessary environmental
damage due to the lower yields from non-GMO crops and the consequentially greater amount
of land needed.
Do you truly understand the nature of weeds and how they grow resistant to pesticides and ever
greater quantities are needed over time thus poisoning the land, water and population more and
more over time. Not to mention that these Biotech companies want to prevent their products being
labelled. I wonder why?
You mock even those not quoted in order to give your argument (singular) legitimacy and even
bring in David Icke. Ignore 90%, focus on something you think you can win. Mock, ridicule, sneer,
discredit, include others not mentioned and presume that you are replying to my posts while in
truth as I have said you missed most of the points made.
You apply to Trump attributes that could equally fit Hillary Clinton
Trump represents incipient fascism in a large, hugely-armed country with the potential
to end human life on earth. And no, that is not hyperbole. If he does half of what he is threatening
this world will become massively more dangerous and frightening even than it already is.
What has the US been doing towards Russia and China in this period of Democratic governance?
Have they continued to knock off countries that don't follow their dictates? Do they sell weapons
to those who give them to ISIS or those who bomb and murder civilians (Saudi Arabia - Israel etc)
Nah... just focus on Monsanto.. .that rather dull seed company!
1. Under Florida statutory law, when the Florida Supreme Court finds that a challenge
to the certified result of an election is justified, it has the power to "provide any relief
appropriate under the circumstances" (§ 102.168(8) of the Florida Election Code). On Friday,
December 8, the Florida court, so finding, ordered a manual recount (authorized under § 102.166(4)(c)
of the Florida Election Code) of all disputed ballots (around 60,000) throughout the entire
state. As a New York Times editorial reported, "The manual recount was progressing smoothly
and swiftly Saturday…with new votes being recorded for both Vice President Al Gore and Governor
George W. Bush…serving the core democratic principle that every legal vote should be counted"
when, in midafternoon, the US Supreme Court "did a disservice to the nation's tradition of
fair elections by calling a halt" to the recount. The stay (requested by Bush), the Times said,
appeared "highly political."4
Under Supreme Court rules, a stay is supposed to be granted to an applicant (here, Bush)
only if he makes a substantial showing that in the absence of a stay, there is a likelihood
of "irreparable harm" to him. With the haste of a criminal, Justice Scalia, in trying to justify
the Court's shutting down of the vote counting, wrote, unbelievably, that counting these votes
would "threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [Bush]…by casting a cloud upon what he claims
to be the legitimacy of his election." [Emphasis added.] In other words, although the election
had not yet been decided, the absolutely incredible Scalia was presupposing that Bush had won
the election–indeed, had a right to win it–and any recount that showed Gore got more votes
in Florida than Bush could "cloud" Bush's presidency. Only a criminal on the run, rushed for
time and acting in desperation, could possibly write the embarrassing words Scalia did, language
showing that he knew he had no legal basis for what he was doing, but that getting something
down in writing, even as intellectually flabby and fatuous as it was, was better than nothing
at all. (Rehnquist, Thomas, O'Connor and Kennedy, naturally, joined Scalia in the stay order.)
The New York Times observed that the Court gave the appearance by the stay of "racing to
beat the clock before an unwelcome truth would come out." Terrance Sandalow, former dean of
the University of Michigan Law School and a judicial conservative who opposed Roe v. Wade and
supported the nomination to the Court of right-wing icon Robert Bork, said that "the balance
of harms so unmistakably were on the side of Gore" that the granting of the stay was "incomprehensible,"
going on to call the stay "an unmistakably partisan decision without any foundation in law."
The fact is the only genuine answer to 'who won' would have been the results of the State Supreme
Court-ordered recount, which the USSC stopped 154 votes short of Bush losing (from the 1,500+
he started with), with tens of thousands of ballots left uncounted. Other news organizations conducted
their own recounts and came up with radically different conclusions. If you have have complaints
or counter-arguments to make, take them up with Bugliosi; i have nothing more to add to his deconstruction
of the decision and its motives.
RogTheDodge 13 Jun 2016 13:57
Recent polls show that Hillary Clinton scores higher than Trump among women voters by more
than 20 points.
Yes, but this is not because Trump is bad or Clinton good. Any woman against any man would
attract a huge girl-power vote, so only a 20% bump is pretty poor. Any other woman would probably
be 30-40%
marshwren -> BostonCeltics 13 Jun 2016 13:35
Actually, it was FL Democrats--300,000+ of them--who voted for Bush that "lost" the state for
Gore. Democrats still blame Nader (94K votes statewide) for that because it's easier to kick a
scapegoat around for decades than to spend five minutes in honest contemplation.
Mindilu -> Heath Morley 12 Jun 2016 19:10
No nation has 100% voter participation - except North Korea. It's true that the US does have
low voter participation compared with other nations, but I don't think that's why they ended up
with a choice between Trump and Clinton. More than any other nation, politics is about money in
the United States.
The Scandinavia countries and New Zealand have impressively high voter participation - higher
than 'compulsory voting' Australia & Belgium. Even the politically cynical United Kingdom generally
has a higher voter participation than the United States. It would be interesting to see how these
nations encourage voter interest.
Trump won't win. In fact, the US could be on the brink of a liberal renaissance
Liberal Renaissance! Gee, how come Hillary did not thought to adopt this as its election
slogan? Anyway, what was the election slogan of Hillary Clinton? I don't remember that she had
any.:-)
Woodenarrow123 12 Jun 2016 18:27
The author isn't impartial. He has an agenda. A cursory reading of his twitter account
confirms his politics and his bias. And this explains why he has misrepresented Trump's attack
on Judge Curiel's - It is for political purposes. Trump accused the Judge of being racist. I don't
know if that was wise or fair but that was what Trump did - He didn't make a racist attack on
the judge instead he accused the Judge of being racist.
Again Trump's opponents call him a racist but as soon as he alleges that someone is engaged
in racism against him, uproar ensues.
His political opponents are hypocritical and operate in an irony free zone.
Ezra Pound -> bobbejaan19 12 Jun 2016 17:12
It means more debauchery, a normalization of transgendered people, pedophilia, less "whiteness"
and more BS wars, and massive debt. No way the US survives a second clinton
BIll signed NAFTA and glass-stegall , both disasters for the US. A national approach is good
TRUMP!
outfitter 12 Jun 2016 16:23
Certainly you are not looking to Hillary to lead a liberal renaissance. Hillary is not
a liberal is the a leading neoliberal. Neoliberalism believes that markets are self-sufficient
unto themselves, that they do not need regulation, and that they are the best guarantors of human
welfare. Everything that promotes the market, i.e., privatization, deregulation, mobility
of finance and capital, abandonment of government provided social welfare, and the reconception
of human beings as human capital, needs to be encouraged, while everything that supposedly diminishes
the market, i.e., government services, regulation, restrictions on finance and capital, and conceptualization
of human beings in transcendent terms, is to be discouraged.
Hillary Clinton has been the most perfect embodiment of neoliberalism among all the candidates,
she is almost its all-time ideal avatar, and I believe this explains, even if not articulated
this way, the widespread discomfort among the populace toward her ascendancy. Hillary Clinton
is one of the founders of neoliberal globalization, one of its central historical figures (having
accelerated the warehousing of the poor, the attack on trade unions, and the end of welfare and
of regulatory prowess), while Trump is an authoritarian figure whose conceptions of the state
and of human beings within the state are inconsistent with the surface frictionlessness neoliberalism
desires
The danger for neoliberalism -- as is clear from the support of millions of displaced human
beings for Trump -- is that with each crisis neoliberalism sheds more workers, makes individuals
and firms more "disciplined," narrows the scope of opportunity even further.
apacheman -> Uillecc MacUillecc Dubh 12 Jun 2016 16:21
Neocon/neoliberal...is there a difference? Both lead to the same place. However, neocon
is more precisely what Clinton is since she's always been far more of a conservative than liberal.
It isn't a purity issue, but a pragmatic one. Baby steps to the left don't counter massive slides
to the right, as we've sen these last forty years..
"... Imagine living under Stalin and never using the communist framework but focusing only on personality clashes between his lieutenants ..."
"... But this curious silence, this looking away from ideology, is exactly what has been happening for a quarter century, since neoliberalism, already under way since the early 1970s, got turbocharged by the Democratic party under the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and Bill Clinton . We live under an ideology that has not been widely named or defined! ..."
"... Absent the neoliberal framework, we simply cannot grasp what is good or bad for citizens under Cruz versus Trump, or Clinton versus Sanders, or Clinton versus Trump, away from the distraction of personalities. To what extent does each of them agree or disagree with neoliberalism? Are there important differences? How much is Sanders a deviation? Can we still rely on conventional distinctions like liberal versus conservative, or Democrat versus Republican, to understand what is going on? How do we grasp movements like the Tea Party, Occupy, and now the Trump and Sanders insurgencies? ..."
"... Neoliberalism presumes a strong state, working only for the benefit of the wealthy, and as such it has little pretence to neutrality and universality, unlike the classical liberal state. ..."
"... It's an interesting question if it was the stagflation of the 1970s, following the unhitching of the United States from the gold standard and the arrival of the oil embargo, that brought on the neoliberal revolution, with Milton Friedman discrediting fiscal policy and advocating a by-the-numbers monetarist policy, or if it was neoliberalism itself, in the form of Friedmanite ideas that the Nixon administration was already pursuing, that made stagflation and the end of Keynesianism inevitable. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is excused for the crises it repeatedly brings on -- one can think of a regular cycle of debt and speculation-fueled emergencies in the last forty years, such as the developing country debt overhang of the 1970s , the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s , the Asian currency crisis of the 1990s , and the subprime mortgage crisis of the 2000s -- better than any ideology I know of. This is partly because its very existence as ruling ideology is not even noted by the population at large, which continues to derive some residual benefits from the welfare state inaugurated by Keynesianism but has been led to believe by neoliberal ideologues to think of their reliance on government as worthy of provoking guilt, shame, and melancholy, rather than something to which they have legitimate claim. ..."
"... Neoliberalism loves chaos, that has been its modus operandi since the early 1970s, but only the kind of chaos it can direct and control. ..."
"... When Hillary Clinton frequently retorts -- in response to demands for reregulation of finance, for instance -- that we have to abide by "the rule of law," this reflects a particular understanding of the law, the law as embodying the sense of the market, the law after it has undergone a revolution of reinterpretation in purely economic terms. In this revolution of the law persons have no status compared to corporations, nation-states are on their way out, and everything in turn dissolves before the abstraction called the market. ..."
"... One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything -- everything -- is to be made over in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings. Democracy becomes reinterpreted as the market, and politics succumbs to neoliberal economic theory, so we are speaking of the end of democratic politics as we have known it for two and a half centuries. As the market becomes an abstraction, so does democracy, but the real playing field is somewhere else, in the realm of actual economic exchange -- which is not, however, the market. We may say that all exchange takes place on the neoliberal surface. ..."
"... The neoliberal state -- actually, to utter the word state seems insufficient here, I would claim that a new entity is being created, which is not the state as we have known it, but an existence that incorporates potentially all the states in the world and is something that exceeds their sum -- is all-powerful, it seeks to leave no space for individual self-conception in the way that classical liberalism, and even communism and fascism to some degree, were willing to allow. There are competing understandings of neoliberal globalization, when it comes to the question of whether the state is strong or weak compared to the primary agent of globalization, i.e., the corporation, but I am taking this logic further, I am suggesting that the issue is not how strong the state is in the service of neoliberalism, but whether there is anything left over beyond the new definition of the state. Another way to say it is that the state has become the market, the market has become the state, and therefore both have ceased to exist in the form we have classically understood them. ..."
"... The project of neoliberalism -- i.e., the redefinition of the state, the institutions of society, and the self -- has come so far along that neoliberalism is almost beyond the need of individual entities to make or break its case. Its penetration has gone too deep, and none of the democratic figureheads that come forward can fundamentally question its efficacy. ..."
"... I said almost. The reason why Bernie Sanders, self-declared democratic socialist, is so threatening to neoliberalism is that he has articulated a conception of the state, civil society, and the self that is not founded in the efficacy and rationality of the market. ..."
"... The Trump supporters, I believe, are no longer driven by shame, as was true of the Tea Party, and as has been true of the various dissenting movements within the Republican party, evangelical or otherwise, in the recent past. Rather, they have taken the shackles off and are ready for a no-holds barred "politically incorrect" fight with all others: they want to be "winners," even at the cost of exterminating others, and that is not the neoliberal way, which doesn't acknowledge that there can be winners and losers in the neoliberal hyperspace. ..."
"... Neoliberalism, unlike classical liberalism, does not permit a fluidity of self-expression as an occasional participant in the market, and posits prison as the only available alternative for anyone not willing to conceive of themselves as being present fully and always in the market. ..."
"... I believe that the generation of people -- in their forties or older -- supporting Hillary have already internalized neoliberal subjectivity, which they like to frame as realism or pragmatism, refusing for instance to accept that free college or health care are even theoretical possibilities. After all, they have maintained a measure of success in the past three or four decades after conceptualizing themselves as marketplace agents. Just as the Tea Party supporters found it intolerable that government should help irresponsible homeowners by bailing them out of unsustainable debt, the Clinton supporters hold essentially the same set of beliefs toward those who dare to think of themselves outside the discipline of the market. ..."
"... Neoliberalism likes to focus on public debt -- in the Clinton years debt reduction became a mania, though George W. Bush promptly spent all the accumulated surpluses on tax cuts for the wealthy and on wars of choice -- rather than inequality, because the only way to address inequality is through a different understanding of public debt; inequality can only be addressed through higher taxation, which has by now been excluded from the realm of acceptable discourse -- except when Sanders, Trump, or Jeremy Corbyn in England go off script. ..."
"... Neoliberalism expects -- and education at every level has been redesigned to promote this -- that economic decision-making will be applied to all areas of life (parenthood, intimacy, sexuality, and identity in any of its forms), and that those who do not do so will be subject to discipline. Everyone must invest in their own future, and not pose a burden to the state or anyone else, otherwise they will be refused recognition as human beings. ..."
"... The danger for neoliberalism -- as is clear from the support of millions of displaced human beings for Trump -- is that with each crisis neoliberalism sheds more workers, makes individuals and firms more "disciplined," narrows the scope of opportunity even further. At times, the disciplining of the non-neoliberal other -- as with the killing of Michael Brown or Eric Garner -- explodes to surface consciousness in an unsavory way, so an expert manager like Clinton or Obama is required to tamp down the emotions of such unruly entities as Black Lives Matter which arise in response. If climate change, according to Clinton and her cohort, can and should have market solutions, then surely racial disparity, or police violence, should also have market solutions and no others; it is here that neoliberal multiculturalism, operating in the academy, is so insidious, because at the elite level it functions to validate market discourse, it does not step outside it. ..."
"... Unlike the interregnum between 1945-1973, the rising tide -- no matter the befuddlements Arthur Laffer and his fellow Reaganite ideologues proffered -- does not lift all boats today, it is outside the logic of neoliberalism that it do so, so the idea of reforming neoliberalism, or what is often called "globalization with a human face," is a rhetorical distraction. All of the policy innovations -- interpreted as "socialism" by the Tea Partiers -- offered by Barack Obama fall within the purview of neoliberalism, above all the Affordable Care Act, whose genesis was hatched in neoliberal think tanks decades ago . ..."
"... It is important to note that neoliberal economic restructuring necessarily means social restructuring, i.e., a movement toward disciplinarity and away from liberalism; the disciplinarity can take a Bushian, Clintonian, or Trumpian form, but these are manifestations of the same tendency. ..."
"... As Sanders has consistently noted , economic inequality leads to political inequality, which means that democracy, after a certain point, becomes only theoretical (viz. Citizens United and the electoral influence of such powerful entities as the Koch brothers). Both processes -- economic inequality and political inequality -- have accelerated after each downturn in the forty-five-year history of neoliberalism, therefore a downturn is always exciting, and even preordained, for a Bush, a Trump, or a Clinton. Again, economic inequality and political polarity (polarity is simply a manifestation of democracy having become dysfunctional) strongly correlate, and both have come to a head in this election. Neoliberalism's task, from this point on, is to mask and manage the increasing inequalities that are likely to befall humanity, especially as the planet reaches a crisis point in its health . In a way, George W. Bush threw a wrench -- he was a perverted Keynesian in a way, believing in war to prime the pump, or inflating unsustainable bubbles, or spending exorbitantly on grandiose gestures -- into the process of neoliberal globalization that was going very smoothly indeed under Bill Clinton and would likely have flourished under Al Gore as well. With Hillary Clinton, the movement will be toward further privatization of social welfare, "reforming" it along market principles, as has been true of every neoliberal avatar, whether it was Bill Clinton's incentives to work in the performance management makeover of welfare, George Bush's proposed private social security accounts, Mitt Romney's proposed private health care accounts, or the school vouchers that tempt all of them from time to time. ..."
"... What, indeed, does happen beyond Sanders, because as we have seen Hillary Clinton is one of the founders of neoliberal globalization, one of its central historical figures (having accelerated the warehousing of the poor, the attack on trade unions, and the end of welfare and of regulatory prowess), while Trump is an authoritarian figure whose conceptions of the state and of human beings within the state are inconsistent with the surface frictionlessness neoliberalism desires? To go back to Hillary Clinton's opening campaign commercial, to what extent will Americans continue to believe that the self must be entrepreneurially leveraged toward maximum market gains, molded into mobile human capital ever ready to serve the highest bidder? ..."
"... I would suggest that it is not that globalization causes or has caused neoliberalism, but that neoliberalism has pushed a certain form of globalization that suits its interests. This is a crucial distinction, on which everything else hinges. The neoliberal market doesn't actually exist; at the moment it is pure abstraction; what is actually filling up economic and political space can only be discussed when we step away from this abstraction, as Sanders has so ably done, and as the Occupy and Black Lives Matter movements tentatively set in motion. ..."
Over the last fifteen years, editors often asked me not to mention the word "neoliberalism," because
I was told readers wouldn't comprehend the "jargon." This has begun to change recently, as the terminology
has come into wider usage, though it remains shrouded in great mystery.
People throw the term around
loosely, as they do with "fascism," with the same confounding results. Imagine living under fascism
or communism, or earlier, classical liberalism, and not being allowed to acknowledge that particular
frame of reference to understand economic and social issues. Imagine living under Stalin and
never using the communist framework but focusing only on personality clashes between his lieutenants,
or likewise for Hitler or Mussolini or Mao or Franco and their ideological systems! But this
curious silence, this looking away from ideology, is exactly what has been happening for a quarter
century, since neoliberalism, already under way since the early 1970s, got turbocharged by the Democratic
party under
the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and Bill Clinton. We live under an ideology that has
not been widely named or defined!
Absent the neoliberal framework, we simply cannot grasp what is good or bad for citizens under
Cruz versus Trump, or Clinton versus Sanders, or Clinton versus Trump, away from the distraction
of personalities. To what extent does each of them agree or disagree with neoliberalism? Are there
important differences? How much is Sanders a deviation? Can we still rely on conventional distinctions
like liberal versus conservative, or Democrat versus Republican, to understand what is going on?
How do we grasp movements like the Tea Party, Occupy, and now the Trump and Sanders insurgencies?
Neoliberalism has been more successful than most past ideologies in redefining subjectivity, in
making people alter their sense of themselves, their personhood, their identities, their hopes and
expectations and dreams and idealizations. Classical liberalism was successful too, for two and a
half centuries, in people's self-definition, although communism and fascism succeeded less well in
realizing the "new man."
It cannot be emphasized enough that neoliberalism is not classical liberalism, or a return to
a purer version of it, as is commonly misunderstood; it is a new thing, because the market, for one
thing, is not at all free and untethered and dynamic in the sense that classical liberalism idealized
it. Neoliberalism presumes a strong state, working only for the benefit of the wealthy, and as
such it has little pretence to neutrality and universality, unlike the classical liberal state.
I would go so far as to say that neoliberalism is the final completion of capitalism's long-nascent
project, in that the desire to transform everything -- every object, every living thing, every fact
on the planet -- in its image had not been realized to the same extent by any preceding ideology.
Neoliberalism happens to be the ideology -- unlike the three major forerunners in the last 250 years
-- that has the fortune of coinciding with technological change on a scale that makes its complete
penetration into every realm of being a possibility for the first time in human history.
From the early 1930s, when the Great Depression threatened the classical liberal consensus (the
idea that markets were self-regulating, and the state should play no more than a night-watchman role),
until the early 1970s, when global instability including currency chaos unraveled it,
the
democratic world lived under the Keynesian paradigm: markets were understood to be inherently
unstable, and the interventionist hand of government, in the form of countercyclical policy, was
necessary to make capitalism work, otherwise the economy had a tendency to get out of whack and crash.
It's an interesting question if it was the stagflation of the 1970s, following the unhitching
of the United States from the gold standard and the arrival of the oil embargo, that brought on the
neoliberal revolution, with
Milton Friedman discrediting fiscal policy and advocating a by-the-numbers monetarist policy,
or if it was neoliberalism itself, in the form of Friedmanite ideas that the Nixon administration
was already pursuing, that made stagflation and the end of Keynesianism inevitable.
It should be said that neoliberalism thrives on prompting crisis after crisis, and has proven
more adept than previous ideologies at exploiting these crises to its benefit, which then makes the
situation worse, so that each succeeding crisis only erodes the power of the working class and makes
the wealthy wealthier. There is a certain self-fulfilling aura to neoliberalism, couched in the jargon
of economic orthodoxy, that has remained immune from political criticism, because of the dogma that
was perpetuated -- by Margaret Thatcher and her acolytes --
that There Is No Alternative (TINA).
Neoliberalism is excused for the crises it repeatedly brings on -- one can think of a regular
cycle of debt and speculation-fueled emergencies in the last forty years, such as the developing
country
debt overhang of the 1970s,
the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s,
the Asian currency crisis of the 1990s, and the subprime mortgage crisis of the 2000s -- better
than any ideology I know of. This is partly because its very existence as ruling ideology is not
even noted by the population at large, which continues to derive some residual benefits from the
welfare state inaugurated by Keynesianism but has been led to believe by neoliberal ideologues to
think of their reliance on government as worthy of provoking guilt, shame, and melancholy, rather
than something to which they have legitimate claim.
It is not surprising to find neoliberal multiculturalists --
comfortably established
in the academy -- likewise demonizing, or othering, not Muslims, Mexicans, or African Americans,
but working-class whites (the quintessential Trump proletariat) who have a difficult time accepting
the fluidity of self-definition that goes well with neoliberalism, something that we might call the
market capitalization of the self.
George W. Bush's useful function was to introduce necessary crisis into a system that had grown
too stable for its own good; he injected desirable panic, which served as fuel to the fire of the
neoliberal revolution. Trump is an apostate -- at least until now -- in desiring chaos on terms that
do not sound neoliberal, which is unacceptable; hence Jeb Bush's
characterization of him as
the "candidate of chaos."Neoliberalism loves chaos, that has been its modus operandi since
the early 1970s, but only the kind of chaos it can direct and control.
To go back to origins, the Great Depression only ended conclusively with the onset of the second
world war, after which Keynesianism had the upper hand for thirty-five years. But just as the global
institutions of Keynesianism, specifically the IMF and the World Bank, were being founded at the
New Hampshire resort of Bretton Woods in 1944, the founders of the neoliberal revolution, namely
Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and others
were forming the Mount Pelerin Society (MPS) at the eponymous Swiss resort in 1947, creating
the ideology which eventually defeated Keynesianism and gained the upper hand during the 1970s.
So what exactly is neoliberalism, and how is it different from classical liberalism, whose final
manifestation came under Keynesianism?
Neoliberalism believes that markets are self-sufficient unto themselves, that they do not need
regulation, and that they are the best guarantors of human welfare. Everything that promotes the
market, i.e., privatization, deregulation, mobility of finance and capital, abandonment of government-provided
social welfare, and the reconception of human beings as human capital, needs to be encouraged, while
everything that supposedly diminishes the market, i.e., government services, regulation, restrictions
on finance and capital, and conceptualization of human beings in transcendent terms, is to be discouraged.
When Hillary Clinton frequently retorts -- in response to demands for reregulation of finance,
for instance -- that we have to abide by "the rule of law," this reflects a particular understanding
of the law, the law as embodying the sense of the market, the law after it has undergone a revolution
of reinterpretation in purely economic terms. In this revolution of the law persons have no status
compared to corporations, nation-states are on their way out, and everything in turn dissolves before
the abstraction called the market.
One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything -- everything -- is to be made over
in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings. Democracy
becomes reinterpreted as the market, and politics succumbs to neoliberal economic theory, so we are
speaking of the end of democratic politics as we have known it for two and a half centuries. As the
market becomes an abstraction, so does democracy, but the real playing field is somewhere else, in
the realm of actual economic exchange -- which is not, however, the market. We may say that all exchange
takes place on the neoliberal surface.
Neoliberalism is often described -- and this creates a lot of confusion -- as "market fundamentalism,"
and while this may be true for neoliberal's self-promotion and self-presentation, i.e., the market
as the ultimate and only myth, as were the gods of the past, I would argue that in neoliberalism
there is no such thing as the market as we have understood it from previous ideologies.
The neoliberal state -- actually, to utter the word state seems insufficient here, I would
claim that a new entity is being created, which is not the state as we have known it, but an existence
that incorporates potentially all the states in the world and is something that exceeds their sum
-- is all-powerful, it seeks to leave no space for individual self-conception in the way that classical
liberalism, and even communism and fascism to some degree, were willing to allow.
There are competing understandings of neoliberal globalization, when it comes to the question
of whether the state is strong or weak compared to the primary agent of globalization, i.e., the
corporation, but I am taking this logic further, I am suggesting that the issue is not how strong
the state is in the service of neoliberalism, but whether there is anything left over beyond the
new definition of the state. Another way to say it is that the state has become the market, the market
has become the state, and therefore both have ceased to exist in the form we have classically understood
them.
Of course the word hasn't gotten around to the people yet, hence all the confusion about whether
Hillary Clinton is more neoliberal than Barack Obama, or whether Donald Trump will be less neoliberal
than Hillary Clinton. The project of neoliberalism -- i.e., the redefinition of the state, the
institutions of society, and the self -- has come so far along that neoliberalism is almost beyond
the need of individual entities to make or break its case. Its penetration has gone too deep, and
none of the democratic figureheads that come forward can fundamentally question its efficacy.
I said almost. The reason why Bernie Sanders, self-declared democratic socialist, is so threatening
to neoliberalism is that he has articulated a conception of the state, civil society, and the self
that is not founded in the efficacy and rationality of the market. He does not believe -- unlike
Hillary Clinton -- that the market can tackle climate change or income inequality or unfair health
and education outcomes or racial injustice, all of which Clinton propagates. Clinton's impending
"victory" (whatever machinations were involved in engineering it) will only strengthen neoliberalism,
as the force that couldn't be defeated even when the movement was as large and transcendent as Sanders's.
Although Sanders doesn't specify "neoliberalism" as the antagonist, his entire discourse presumes
it.
Likewise, while Trump supporters want to take their rebellion in a fascist direction, their discomfort
with the logic of the market is as pervasive as the Sanders camp, and is an advance, I believe, over
the debt and unemployment melancholy of the Tea Party, the shame that was associated with that movement's
loss of identity as bourgeois capitalists in an age of neoliberal globalization. The Trump supporters,
I believe, are no longer driven by shame, as was true of the Tea Party, and as has been true of the
various dissenting movements within the Republican party, evangelical or otherwise, in the recent
past. Rather, they have taken the shackles off and are ready for a no-holds barred "politically incorrect"
fight with all others: they want to be "winners," even at the cost of exterminating others, and that
is not the neoliberal way, which doesn't acknowledge that there can be winners and losers in the
neoliberal hyperspace.
In the current election campaign, Hillary Clinton has been the most perfect embodiment of neoliberalism
among all the candidates, she is almost its all-time ideal avatar, and I believe this explains, even
if not articulated this way, the widespread discomfort among the populace toward her ascendancy.
People can perceive that her ideology is founded on a conception of human beings striving relentlessly
to become human capital (as her
opening campaign commercial
so overtly depicted), which means that those who fail to come within the purview of neoliberalism
should be rigorously ostracized, punished, and excluded.
This is the dark side of neoliberalism's ideological arm (a multiculturalism founded on human
beings as capital), which is why this project has become increasingly associated with suppression
of free speech and intolerance of those who refuse to go along with the kind of identity politics
neoliberalism promotes.
And this explains why the 1990s saw the simultaneous and absolutely parallel rise, under the Clintons,
of both neoliberal globalization and various regimes of neoliberal disciplining, such as the shaming
and exclusion of former welfare recipients (every able-bodied person should be able to find work,
therefore under TANF welfare was converted to a performance management system designed to enroll
everyone in the workforce,
even if it meant below-subsistence wages or the loss of parental responsibilities, all of it
couched in the jargon of marketplace incentives).
The actual cost to the state of the AFDC program was minimal, but its symbolism was incalculable.
The end of welfare went hand in hand with the disciplinary "crime bill" pushed by the Clintons, leading
to an epidemic of mass incarceration. Neoliberalism, unlike classical liberalism, does not permit
a fluidity of self-expression as an occasional participant in the market, and posits prison as the
only available alternative for anyone not willing to conceive of themselves as being present fully
and always in the market.
I believe that the generation of people -- in their forties or older -- supporting Hillary
have already internalized neoliberal subjectivity, which they like to frame as realism or pragmatism,
refusing for instance to accept that free college or health care are even theoretical possibilities.
After all, they have maintained a measure of success in the past three or four decades after conceptualizing
themselves as marketplace agents. Just as the Tea Party supporters found it intolerable that government
should help irresponsible homeowners by bailing them out of unsustainable debt, the Clinton supporters
hold essentially the same set of beliefs toward those who dare to think of themselves outside the
discipline of the market.
I spoke of the myth of the market, as something that has no existence in reality, because none
of the elements that would have to exist for a market to work are actually in place; this is even
more true for neoliberalism than it was for the self-conscious annihilation of the market by communism,
because at least in that system the market, surreptitiously, as in various Eastern European countries,
kept making an appearance. But when the market takes neoliberal shape, i.e., the classical conceptions
of the buyer and seller as free agents are gone, then radical inequality is the natural outcome.
And inequality in the last four decades, as statistics for the US and everywhere
neoliberalism has made inroads prove beyond a doubt, has exploded, thereby invalidating neoliberalism's
greatest claim to legitimacy, that it brings about a general increase in welfare. So neoliberalism,
to the extent that the inequality discourse has made itself manifest recently, must insist all the
more vocally on forms of social recognition, what Clinton, for example, likes to call the "fall of
barriers."
Neoliberalism likes to focus on public debt -- in the Clinton years debt reduction became
a mania, though George W. Bush promptly spent all the accumulated surpluses on tax cuts for the wealthy
and on wars of choice -- rather than inequality, because the only way to address inequality is through
a different understanding of public debt; inequality can only be addressed through higher taxation,
which has by now been excluded from the realm of acceptable discourse -- except when Sanders, Trump,
or Jeremy Corbyn in England go off script.
So to recapitulate neoliberalism's comprehensive success, let us note that we have gone from a
liberal, Keynesian, welfare state to a neoliberal, market-compliant, disciplinary state.
Neoliberalism expects -- and education at every level has been redesigned to promote this
-- that economic decision-making will be applied to all areas of life (parenthood, intimacy, sexuality,
and identity in any of its forms), and that those who do not do so will be subject to discipline.
Everyone must invest in their own future, and not pose a burden to the state or anyone else, otherwise
they will be refused recognition as human beings.
This supposed economic "rationality" (though it is the greatest form of irrationality) applies
to civil society as much as the state, so that none of the ideals of classical liberalism, or previous
ideologies rooted in humanism, are valid any longer, the only value is the iteration of the market
(as myth, not reality); in other words, neoliberalism, unlike the elevation of the individual in
classical liberalism or the state in fascism or the collectivity in communism, has erected something,
the market, that has no real existence, as the only god to serve! And it is just like a god, with
an ethereal, unchallengeable, irrefutable, ubiquitous presence. Whatever in state policy does not
serve market-conformity is to be banned and banished from memory (the secular scriptures are to be
rewritten), which explains neoliberalism's radical narrowing of public discourse, including the severance
of identity politics from any class foundation.
Neoliberalism will continue to perpetuate reduced opportunity, because one of its characteristics
-- as in any system that wants to thrive on the world stage -- is to constantly refine the field
upon which the human subject can operate.
As such, those displaced workers who have suffered the most from the erosion of the old industries
in the former manufacturing centers of the world are not even factors to contend with, they are invisible
and cannot be part of the policy equation. To the extent that their actual presence is reckoned with,
the economy can be said to have crashed; but the problem doesn't arise because of the management
of unemployment or underemployment statistics, unlike a housing crash which is palpable and cannot
escape statistical definition.
The danger for neoliberalism -- as is clear from the support of millions of displaced human
beings for Trump -- is that with each crisis neoliberalism sheds more workers, makes individuals
and firms more "disciplined," narrows the scope of opportunity even further. At times, the disciplining
of the non-neoliberal other -- as with the killing of Michael Brown or Eric Garner -- explodes to
surface consciousness in an unsavory way, so an expert manager like Clinton or Obama is required
to tamp down the emotions of such unruly entities as Black Lives Matter which arise in response.
If climate change, according to Clinton and her cohort, can and should have market solutions, then
surely racial disparity, or police violence, should also have market solutions and no others; it
is here that neoliberal multiculturalism, operating in the academy, is so insidious, because at the
elite level it functions to validate market discourse, it does not step outside it.
The present breakdown of both major political parties can be explained by the frustration that
has built up in the body politic over the past decade, because after the crash there was no sustained
intellectual movement to question the myth of the market. The substitution of economic justice with
identity politics is something Ralph Nader, Howard Dean, and now Bernie Sanders have contested in
a humane manner, while the same process is at work, admittedly in an inhumane way, in the Trump phenomenon.
Thus, also,
Hillary Clinton's animus against
free college education; that form of expansion of opportunity, which was a reality from the 1950s
to the 1980s, cannot be allowed to return, human beings are supposed to invest in their own future
earnings potential, they are not entitled to a transcendent experience without barriers manifesting
in discipline and self-correction. Education, like everything else, including one's own health, becomes
an expensive consumer good, not a right, no longer an experience that might lead to a consciousness
beyond the market but something that should be fully encapsulated by the market. If one is a capable
market player, education as we have classically understood it becomes redundant.
Unlike the interregnum between 1945-1973, the rising tide --
no matter the befuddlements Arthur Laffer and his fellow Reaganite ideologues proffered -- does
not lift all boats today, it is outside the logic of neoliberalism that it do so, so the idea of
reforming neoliberalism, or what is often called "globalization with a human face," is a rhetorical
distraction. All of the policy innovations -- interpreted as "socialism" by the Tea Partiers -- offered
by Barack Obama fall within the purview of neoliberalism, above all the Affordable Care Act,
whose genesis was hatched in neoliberal think tanks decades ago.
It is important to note that neoliberal economic restructuring necessarily means social restructuring,
i.e., a movement toward disciplinarity and away from liberalism; the disciplinarity can take a Bushian,
Clintonian, or Trumpian form, but these are manifestations of the same tendency.
When wage growth is decoupled
from economic growth (as it has been since Friedman and others inaugurated the revolution in
the early 1970s), this means that the human subject is ripe for discipline. Furthermore, wage fairness
cannot be rationally discussed (hence the obfuscation surrounding the $15 minimum wage orchestrated
by Clinton and others) because the concept of the market has been disembedded from society; the market
as abstraction, not a concrete reality, makes any notion of reform or restructuring impossible. Like
the minimum wage, something like free child care also remains outside the bounds of discourse, because
public policy cannot accommodate discussions that do not take the self-regulating market as unassailable
myth.
What neoliberalism can accommodate is relentless tax cuts (Trump has already offered his huge
tax cut plan, as Bush did as his first order of business), which only exacerbate the problem, leading
to increasing concentrations of wealth. It has to be said, though, that Ted Cruz more comfortably
fit the neoliberal paradigm, with his familiar calls for lower taxes along with reduced regulation
and further limits on social welfare, whereas Trump shows, for now, some elements of apostasy. If
neoliberalism were to get a Cruz, it would have no problem working with him, or rather, Cruz would
have had no problem executing neoliberalism, beyond the surface dissimilarities from Hillary Clinton.
As Sanders has consistently
noted, economic inequality leads to political inequality, which means that democracy, after a
certain point, becomes only theoretical (viz. Citizens United and the electoral influence of such
powerful entities as the Koch brothers). Both processes -- economic inequality and political inequality
-- have accelerated after each downturn in the forty-five-year history of neoliberalism, therefore
a downturn is always exciting, and even preordained, for a Bush, a Trump, or a Clinton. Again, economic
inequality and political polarity (polarity is simply a manifestation of democracy having become
dysfunctional) strongly correlate, and both have come to a head in this election.
Neoliberalism's task, from this point on, is to mask and manage the increasing inequalities that
are likely to befall humanity,
especially as the planet reaches
a crisis point in its health. In a way, George W. Bush threw a wrench -- he was a perverted Keynesian
in a way, believing in war to prime the pump, or inflating unsustainable bubbles, or spending exorbitantly
on grandiose gestures -- into the process of neoliberal globalization that was going very smoothly
indeed under Bill Clinton and would likely have flourished under Al Gore as well. With Hillary Clinton,
the movement will be toward further privatization of social welfare, "reforming" it along market
principles, as has been true of every neoliberal avatar, whether it was Bill Clinton's incentives
to work in the performance management makeover of welfare, George Bush's proposed private social
security accounts, Mitt Romney's proposed private health care accounts, or the school vouchers that
tempt all of them from time to time.
What remains to be seen is the extent to which the millennial generation might be capable of thinking
outside the neoliberal paradigm, i.e., they don't just want more of what neoliberal promises to give
them yet fails to deliver, but want things that neoliberalism does not or cannot promise. On this
rests the near-term future of the neoliberal project.
Beyond Sanders himself, the key question is the ability of the millennial generation to conceive
of themselves outside the neoliberal subjectivity they have been pushed to internalize. They have
been encouraged to think of themselves as capital producers, turning their intellectuality into social
media popularity for the benefit of capital, in the service of the same abstract market that has
no place, no role, no definition beyond the fallen liberal calculus. Does the millennial generation
believe, even about its most intimate core, that everything has been privatized?
I am not necessarily making a pessimistic prediction. I am merely outlining the strength of an
opponent that has refused to be named for forty-five years, although it has been the ruling ideology
that long! In defining neoliberalism, I have sought to distance myself from the distraction of personalities,
and tried to expose the dark side of our politics which we can only see when we name and understand
the ideology as such. We are up against a system that is so strong that it has survived, for the
most part, the last crash, as citizens couldn't get their heads around the idea of nationalizing
banks or health care.
It is existentially imperative to ponder what happens beyond Sanders, because neoliberalism has
its end-game in sight, letting inequality continue to escalate past the crash point (meaning the
point where the economy works for most people), past any tolerable degradation of the planet (which
is being reconceptualized in the shape of the market).
What, indeed, does happen beyond Sanders, because as we have seen Hillary Clinton is one of
the founders of neoliberal globalization, one of its central historical figures (having accelerated
the warehousing of the poor, the attack on trade unions, and the end of welfare and of regulatory
prowess), while Trump is an authoritarian figure whose conceptions of the state and of human beings
within the state are inconsistent with the surface frictionlessness neoliberalism desires? To go
back to Hillary Clinton's opening campaign commercial, to what extent will Americans continue to
believe that the self must be entrepreneurially leveraged toward maximum market gains, molded into
mobile human capital ever ready to serve the highest bidder?
As to whether a non-neoliberal globalization is possible and what that might look like on the
international stage after a quarter-century of Clinton, Bush, and Obama -- which is essentially the
frustration Trump is tapping into -- I'll take that up in a follow-up essay, which will further clarify
the differences between Sanders versus Clinton, and Trump versus Clinton.
I would suggest that it is not that globalization causes or has caused neoliberalism, but
that neoliberalism has pushed a certain form of globalization that suits its interests. This is a
crucial distinction, on which everything else hinges. The neoliberal market doesn't actually exist;
at the moment it is pure abstraction; what is actually filling up economic and political space can
only be discussed when we step away from this abstraction, as Sanders has so ably done, and as the
Occupy and Black Lives Matter movements tentatively set in motion.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in
any form without permission or license from the source.
Anis Shivani's recently finished novel is A History of the Cat in Nine Chapters or Less. Forthcoming
books include Karachi Raj: A Novel (2014) and Soraya: Sonnets (2015). Novels in progress include
Abruzzi, 1936 and An Idiot's Guide to America.
This Democratic Party Politburo is approaching in power to the Politburo of
the CPSU making primaries redundant -- candidate supported by Politburo is
the candidate that will be installed as the candidate from the Party in
Presidential election independently of the level rank-and-file voters support.
This is especially true is competition is close.
Notable quotes:
"... Even if Clinton were to lose California to Bernie Sanders, she would be well ahead in the number of delegates awarded based on the outcome of primaries, though still shy of the 2,383 threshold -- a majority at the party's nominating convention in July. ..."
"... AP based its findings on a survey of the superdelegates -- the party's high-level officials, officeholders and operatives who get a vote at the convention just for being Very Important. Clinton has been piling up superdelegate support since long before the first primary. The 571st to promise to vote for Clinton at the convention put her over the top, according to AP. ..."
"... In fact, the media were merely ratifying what Hillary Clinton's supporters have been preaching for months -- more and more frantically when their candidate kept losing to Sanders, who was harangued endlessly about the need to shut up so Democrats could "unify." ..."
"... "It's time to stand behind our presumptive candidate," Michael Brown, a superdelegate from Washington, D.C., who came forward in the past week to back Clinton before the District's June 14 primary, told the AP . "We shouldn't be acting like we are undecided when the people of America have spoken." ..."
"... Except that quite a few "people of America" didn't speak. As The Intercept commented , it was a fitting end to a race where party leaders and prominent liberals relied on their control of the party and media apparatus to steer the nomination to their choice: "Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media." ..."
"... Suddenly, Clinton -- a fixture of the Democratic Party establishment since before her husband occupied the White House and the presumptive nominee in 2016 since just after Barack Obama won re-election in 2012 -- had a fight on her hands against a candidate who connected with the disgust with the status quo felt by millions. ..."
"... As secretary of state , Clinton supported the coup-makers in Honduras who overthrew democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya; the deadly 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan; and the Obama administration's escalation of drone warfare. She used her position to travel the world convincing governments to start fracking for natural gas and oil, among other priorities of Corporate America. ..."
"... The message to the Democratic Party's more liberal voting base is already clear: Sure, you may have some criticisms of Hillary Clinton, and you may have liked what Bernie Sanders had to say -- but it's time to get real and start helping ensure the victory of the "lesser evil" in order to stop the "greater evil." But everything about Clinton's political career is further evidence that voting for the "lesser evil" leads to of evils of both kinds. ..."
"... Clinton will take the support of liberals and progressives for granted, and start concocting strategies to win over moderate and conservative "swing voters." So get ready for more speeches like her foreign policy address where it's hard to see what distinguishes her from a more mainstream Republican than Trump. ..."
"... This exposes the gap between what the Democrats are offering and what the people who are expected to vote for them want. Supporting Hillary Clinton won't close that gap. We need to start organizing for an alternative -- in politics and in all the protest movements throughout society -- that can. ..."
Hillary Clinton did well in the final major day of the Democratic presidential
primaries, winning all but one state, though the outcome in California, the
biggest contest of the whole season, was still in doubt as this article was
published.
Even if Clinton were to lose California to Bernie Sanders, she would
be well ahead in the number of delegates awarded based on the outcome of primaries,
though still shy of the 2,383 threshold -- a majority at the party's nominating
convention in July.
Sanders, whose left-wing campaign surpassed all expectations and inspired
huge numbers of people, has promised to continue his campaign, possibly through
the convention. But on election night, there were signs -- including reports
of a Thursday meeting between Sanders and Barack Obama, scheduled at Sanders'
request -- that he might relent and concede.
Either way, though, the Associated Press (AP) wasn't waiting around.
On Monday night -- with hours to go before polling places opened on the day
with the second-largest number of Democratic delegates at stake -- the news
service announced that Clinton had enough pledged delegates plus "superdelegates"
supporting her to have a lock on the nomination.
AP based its findings on a survey of the superdelegates -- the party's
high-level officials, officeholders and operatives who get a vote at the convention
just for being Very Important. Clinton has been piling up superdelegate support
since long before the first primary. The 571st to promise to vote for Clinton
at the convention put her over the top, according to AP.
In California,
Long Beach resident Arie Gonzalez told the Los Angeles Times, "It's like,
why vote?...I can't believe Democrats have all these superdelegates and that
we vote consistently always with Iowa first and California has no voice by the
time it comes down to it. We're a tenth of the population. It's ridiculous."
In fact, the media were merely ratifying what Hillary Clinton's supporters
have been preaching for months -- more and more frantically when their candidate
kept losing to Sanders, who was harangued endlessly about the need to shut up
so Democrats could "unify."
"It's time to stand behind our presumptive candidate," Michael Brown,
a superdelegate from Washington, D.C., who came forward in the past week to
back Clinton before the District's June 14 primary,
told the AP. "We shouldn't be acting like we are undecided when the people
of America have spoken."
Except that quite a few "people of America" didn't speak.
As The Intercept commented, it was a fitting end to a race where party leaders
and prominent liberals relied on their control of the party and media apparatus
to steer the nomination to their choice: "Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner
Through Media."
***
The preempting of the actual vote by superdelegate math overshadowed coverage
of the wave of enthusiasm that Sanders rode going into the final big primaries.
In California, a campaign event in Oakland drew 20,000 people, and another in
LA turned out 13,500, despite being moved to a different venue at the last minute.
This has been the story since the start of the campaign. From the moment
he said he would run for the Democratic nomination, Sanders, the self-declared
socialist, drew crowds eager to hear a candidate who talked about taking on
corporate greed, challenging the corruption of the US political system and putting
working people ahead of Wall Street profits.
Suddenly, Clinton -- a fixture of the Democratic Party establishment
since before her husband occupied the White House and the presumptive nominee
in 2016 since just after Barack Obama won re-election in 2012 --
had a fight on her hands against a candidate who connected with the disgust
with the status quo felt by millions.
... ... ...
As secretary of state, Clinton supported the coup-makers in Honduras
who overthrew democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya; the deadly 2009
troop surge in Afghanistan; and the Obama administration's escalation of drone
warfare. She used her position to travel the world convincing governments to
start fracking for natural gas and oil, among other priorities of Corporate
America.
Clinton says she's ready to stand up to Trump and his agenda, but when ordinary
people do just that with actions, not just words, she's on the other side.
... ... ..
***
The message to the Democratic Party's more liberal voting base is already
clear: Sure, you may have some criticisms of Hillary Clinton, and you may have
liked what Bernie Sanders had to say -- but it's time to get real and start
helping ensure the victory of the "lesser evil" in order to stop the "greater
evil." But everything about Clinton's political career is further evidence that
voting for the "lesser evil" leads to of evils of both kinds.
... ... ...
Clinton, meanwhile, will make the Democratic presidential nominee's time-honored
"move to the center" -- though after a primary where she turned into the "No
we can't" candidate on health care, college tuition and more, she doesn't have
far to go.
Clinton will take the support of liberals and progressives for granted,
and start concocting strategies to win over moderate and conservative "swing
voters." So get ready for more speeches like her foreign policy address where
it's hard to see what distinguishes her from a more mainstream Republican than
Trump.
A recent poll by the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research illustrates
growing dissatisfaction with the political process and the two political parties.
The May study of registered voters, Republicans and Democrats, showed that 90
percent lack confidence in the US political system. Some 40 percent said it
was "seriously broken."
"The views of ordinary voters are not considered by either party, according
to most Americans," the study stated. "Fourteen percent say the Democratic Party
is responsive to the views of the rank-and-file; 8 percent report that about
the Republican Party."
But
as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting pointed out, the corporate media didn't
report on this poll. They were too busy conducting a survey of anonymous superdelegates
so they could tell primary voters that Clinton was already the winner, so they
don't need to bother.
This exposes the gap between what the Democrats are offering and what
the people who are expected to vote for them want. Supporting Hillary Clinton
won't close that gap. We need to start organizing for an alternative -- in politics
and in all the protest movements throughout society -- that can.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It
may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Elizabeth Schulte is a journalist and reviews editor for the Socialist Worker,
writing frequently on low-wage workers, the Democratic Party and women's liberation.
"... You know that taking away welfare, as she and her husband did in the 1990s, was never meant to take us to some enhanced welfare system, it was just a destructive end goal, and nothing good followed it. You know that when she talks about tinkering with loans for college or tinkering with the Affordable Care Act, she is only legitimizing the privatization of services that ought to be provided for free by government in any decent democracy, as your bête noire Bernie likes to remind you. ..."
...In that last debate, his forthright opinions were a stark rebuke to the obfuscation Hillary
offered on every issue. She wouldn't give a straight answer to a single question, as she never
has in her entire political life. This is not some personality flaw. It is a clever tactic
designed to accomplish in office, by incremental measures, what the right-wing ultimately wants.
Make no mistake, you deliberately spurned the clear progressive choice-who offered a clarity we
haven't had in my lifetime!-for the one who acts like a macho warrior in female clothing.
...The way she always resorts to talking about doing something "incremental"-whether it's on
climate change or a living wage or college tuition or health care or mass incarceration-as a way
of promoting and legitimizing precisely the kinds of policies that represent a step backward on
each of these issues? You can see clearly what her trick is, you know what she's up to and which
side she stands with, but you, small property-owners to the core, voted for her anyway.
You know that taking away welfare, as she and her husband did in the 1990s, was never meant to
take us to some enhanced welfare system, it was just a destructive end goal, and nothing good
followed it. You know that when she talks about tinkering with loans for college or tinkering
with the Affordable Care Act, she is only legitimizing the privatization of services that ought
to be provided for free by government in any decent democracy, as your bête noire Bernie likes to
remind you.
... .. ..
You know that taking away welfare, as she and her husband did in the 1990s, was never
meant to take us to some enhanced welfare system, it was just a destructive end goal, and nothing
good followed it. You know that when she talks about tinkering with loans for college or
tinkering with the Affordable Care Act, she is only legitimizing the privatization of services
that ought to be provided for free by government in any decent democracy, as your bête noire
Bernie likes to remind you.
It wasn't long ago that college was indeed more or less free. Heck, I went to college in the
late eighties and early nineties, and it was mostly free then. Community college was mostly free.
Great public institutions of learning were more or less free. The Ivy League gave you substantial
aid, regardless of your means, so you weren't saddled with debt. We are not talking about some
pie-in-the-sky scheme, we are talking about reality as it existed less than a generation ago, not
to mention earlier when higher education didn't cost much in this country. And single-payer
health care, as the rest of the civilized world provides it, is that too much of a stretch for
you Hillarybots?
And minorities in New York, you fell for this whole shtick of Bill was the first black
president, or the black community just loves the Clintons! These are the folks who gave you the
enhanced war on drugs, harsher criminal penalties, letting loose cops in your communities with
increased powers, painting one and all who's poor-black, white, or brown-as responsible for their
own misery and weaning them away from expecting help from government. This Hillary, the natural
antithesis of everything that should matter to you, you voted for her and rejected the guy who
wants to make your life easier, give you free health care and higher education, give you a
breather, for heaven's sake, it's not like he's promising to turn us overnight into Scandinavia.
Just a little breather, for a change, you didn't even want that, Hillarybots?
Definition of a Hillarybot, Encyclopedia of Politics, Entry #2,383
A person of apparently civilized demeanor, often older than fifty, with a healthy pension
fund and a decent college education, who has a nice job and either has or aspires to have
grandchildren, who drives a safe Japanese vehicle, and regularly tunes into NPR to affirm
liberal credentials. Unusually impervious to logic and rationality, turning every discussion,
from buying a house to where to vacation, into what is practical and what is not. Mocks
idealists, dreamers, and utopians under the age of thirty who dream of a better world. Keeps
up a social media drumbeat about how anyone who says anything against her idol is a misogynist
who will be called out! Justifies her idol's every sell-out by repeating the same litany of
sophisms, i.e., "Hillary knows how to get things done, Hillary is practical and will work with
the other side, nothing can be had for free and those who promise it are delusional, Hillary
has been there and done that, we cannot ask for more." Sees herself (she's typically an older
female) as having come by every little scrap she's earned through her own efforts alone,
nobody gave her anything for free, and goshdarnit, she's not going to stand for a candidate
who promises stuff for free, she's with the "realist" candidate who says we can only do a
little bit more, perhaps, it's best to preserve what we've already got (with the right Supreme
Court justices in place we get to keep Planned Parenthood, yay!). Keeps herself at a slight
distance from the scruffier youthful types, who, to be honest, scare her a bit with all the
talk of the 1% and the 99%, she was not raised to grow up in an America defined by class
warfare, what's next, revolution? What happens to the grandkids in a revolution? No, it has to
be a firm, steady hand at the wheel, to keep things going as they are, we're still the
greatest country on earth, right? And she's a woman, for god's sake, she's had to fight for
every little privilege that's come her way, she's even had to put up with that philanderer
Bill for a lifetime, and this wrinkly old socialist guy from Brooklyn thinks he's going to
step in, grab hold of a party he doesn't even belong to, and just take it away from her?
...We know that by voting for Hillary you compromised the health of planet earth by who knows
what magnitude, because there is not a destructive policy she will not pursue in the name of
capitalism. But in the end the small-minded ideology you represent will cease to exist, like your
forerunners in either party who were enraged by the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s.
The next Bernie Sanders will even look young and handsome like Justin Trudeau (your worst
nightmare, right?), because either the earth as we know it ends, or we move into a more humane
arrangement than you Hillarybots can abide. Both cannot be true. So goodbye Paul Krugman, goodbye
New York poets and writers, goodbye all of you Hillarybots who showed us your true colors and
made us see where not to look for allies.
And yes, your mockery, Hillarybots, of Bush and Palin and Mitt and Trump and Cruz has no
meaning at all now. You are the problem, you've always been the problem, you in the Democratic
party who've long supported the candidates of war and misery and debt.
"... Hillary is that rare combination, even in our grotesque political landscape, of a smooth-talking neoliberal with the worst tendencies of a warrior-neoconservative. ..."
"... Karachi Raj: A Novel ..."
"... Whatever Speaks on Behalf of Hashish: Poems ..."
"... Soraya: Sonnets ..."
"... A History of the Cat in Nine Chapters or Less ..."
"I strongly argued that we had to change the [welfare] system...I didn't think it was fair that
one single mother improvised to find child care and got up early every day to get to work while another
stayed home and relied on welfare...The third bill passed by Congress cut off most benefits to legal
immigrants, imposed a five-year lifetime limit on federal welfare benefits, and maintained the status
quo on monthly benefit limits, leaving the states free to set benefit limits...I agreed that he [Bill]
should sign it and worked hard to round up votes for its passage...Weeks after Bill signed the law,
Peter Edelman and Mary Jo Bane, another friend and Assistant Secretary at HHS who had worked on welfare
reform, resigned in protest." - Hillary Clinton in her 2003 memoir Hard Choices.
Not liking Hillary has nothing to do with her being a woman. It has everything to do with the
hypermasculine values she espouses.
Hillary is that rare combination, even in our grotesque political landscape, of a smooth-talking
neoliberal with the worst tendencies of a warrior-neoconservative. You couldn't say that about
Bill to the same extent, but there isn't a regime change opportunity, a chemical or conventional
arms deal, an escalated aerial (or lately drone) war, or an authoritarian friend in need, that Hillary
hasn't liked. If we get her, we will only be setting back feminism by decades, because her policies-like
welfare "reform"-have
always come packaged under the false rubric of caring for women and children. It's like George
W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism," the rhetorical cover she needs to enact policies, time after
time, that erode women's and children's standing even as she claims to be their steadfast advocate.
It has been disheartening for me to read some female intellectuals, particularly in the New York
literary world, rage against any criticism of Hillary. We are told it's only sexism that makes us
speak. We'd better check our feminist credentials. Are we, who criticize Hillary, misogynists? Then
why do we have kind words for, say, Elizabeth Warren?
We've had similar criticisms of Condoleezza Rice, Sarah Palin, and Carly Fiorina. Fiorina, for
me, was the scariest person running for president this cycle; you felt that poor autistic Ben Carson,
if you begged and pleaded with him for your life, just might spare you, but not Carly! Carly even
made a virtue of dragging Hewlett Packard down into the pits, which is not much different than Hillary's
indifference to the erosion that occurred in foreign policy during her tenure as Secretary of State,
as she failed to move into a more liberal paradigm, insisting on sanctions and other punitive regimes,
in countries like Iran, that disproportionately hurt women. John Kerry, once he took over, quickly
picked up the dropped ball and achieved diplomatic success on a range of fronts, including climate
change, where Hillary had failed.
There is a palpable deficit of feminist values in this country's politics, after sixteen dark
years of war, surveillance, vigilantism, police controls, economic servitude, and debt. To the extent
that we can generalize about feminine and masculine values, the country desperately desires-well,
two-thirds of it anyway, those besides Trump and Cruz fans-a reinjection of feminine values. That
means compassion, acceptance, and understanding for those left behind by misguided economic policies.
That means valuing, once again, as this nation has done for the periods it has shone brightest, imagination,
beauty, soft-spokenness, and unexpected generosity.
In the early 1990s Hillary did represent, to some limited symbolic level, a change for the better
in terms of feminist values-though this certainly didn't translate into actual policy improvements
for women or children or minorities, rather the opposite occurred in policies engineered by the Clintons.
Furthermore, one could argue that it was George H. W. Bush who prompted the relative humanization
of the 1990s, after the harsh Reagan-era rhetoric, promising a kindler, gentler nation, and aspiring
to be the "education president" and "the environmental president." The elder Bush's policies were
to the left of either Clinton, when it came to immigration, civil liberties, clean air, disability,
and many other issues.
The Clintons went out of their way to pursue-often gratuitously-policies that hurt women and children.
The reelection seemed safely in their pockets, yet they went ahead anyway with harmful laws on crime,
welfare, telecommunications, immigration, and surveillance, legitimizing right-wing discourse that
was to bear full fruit in the following decade. It was the Clintons who set the stage for the massive
harm that was to befall women, immigrants, the poor, the elderly, and children once they provided
liberal cover to social darwinist ideas that had been swirling around in maniacal think tanks but
had not been able to make it through congress.
The Clintons have somehow managed to convince half the sane world that they should be the natural
recipients of African-American votes, despite everything they have done, when in power, to erode
the economic security of African Americans and other minorities; the false hope raised during the
1990s was that the economic boom, itself a mirage as it turned out, would eventually lead to significant
wage gains, but that never happened.
Poor and minority women and children were drastically hurt by the welfare bill the Clintons so
enthusiastically pushed through congress, and likewise all the policies, from trade to student aid,
they pursued in the name of fiscal responsibility, cutting the deficit and the debt, and playing
by Wall Street's tune. On neoliberal disciplinary virtues (which in Hillary's mouth are twisted in
a rhetoric of "empowerment"),
she's little different than
Milton Friedman, the greatest post-war popularizer of the "free market" mythos. "Personal responsibility,"
separating the virtuous from those deserving of sanctions, is as much a credo for her as it was for
Reagan, as it was for Barry Goldwater.
The global IMF and World Bank consensus, the regime of structural adjustment to make developing
countries fall in line with the dictat of bankers in the developed world, reached the peak of its
authority during the 1990s (even Reagan hadn't been as effective at legitimizing the paradigm in
the developing world). The so-called "Washington consensus" was, and remains,
a nihilistic retort to any type of redistributive policies poorer countries might wish to pursue
to uplift their people. Is cutting education and health care and utility subsidies, in the name
of balancing budgets to the satisfaction of the global banking elite, a feminist value? Yet no one
is more responsible than the Clintons for making the withdrawal of government from public services
worldwide gospel-at least until some Latin American countries finally started breaking away from
the imposition in the 2000s.
Though she still likes to present herself as a fighter for women's and children's rights, let's
keep our sights on Hillary's actual record.
When Central American refugee children started streaming over the southern border a couple of
years ago, Hillary was quick on the mark to condemn these poor souls to death and oppression.
In a 2014 discussion with Christiane
Amanpour, she refused to say that she would allow unaccompanied minors fleeing violence to stay
in the country, insisting instead on the "message" of deterrence that had to be sent to prevent others
from thinking of seeking refuge in the U.S.
She has always been late to the scene, and adopts a placating rhetorical stance, on any cutting-edge
progressive issue, from gay rights to drug legalization to doing something about mass incarceration,
even if her policies (such as the "defense of marriage") have explicitly promoted the regressive
attitudes in the first place. She likes to show up, once someone else has done the job, to pick the
credit, as she did when she eagerly stood with New York governor Andrew Cuomo for passage of the
$15 minimum wage,
something she was opposed to in principle at the national level; in any case, incrementally lifting
the minimum wage to $15 in different states, in three to five to seven years, is already too little
too late.
The huge affection shown for Barack Obama in the first six months of 2008 was because he came
across-rather disingenuously as it turned out-as embodying feminist values. He enunciated an ethics
of compassion we had sorely missed during the macho Bush years. All that changed as soon as his nomination
was secured, and after June 2008 he had no further interest in holding anyone accountable for the
vicious hypermasculine deeds of the preceding eight years.
Hillary has always undercut feminism by selectively appropriating hyperfeminine tropes when it
suits her politically, undermining the ideal of the equality of men and women, including emotional
equality. She calls up the tears when necessary, for example in the 2008 New Hampshire primary, to
get sympathy. The entire subtext of her sixteen-year-long positioning for the presidency seems to
be, I've paid my dues, especially in terms of the emotional costs, so I must have my turn. This is
not a particularly empowering feminist message. Likewise, to keep repeating the one million miles
she traveled and the 112 countries she visited as Secretary of State seems a throwback to the prefeminist
notion of backbreaking work for its own sake. She was there, she may not have a record to point to,
but she sure showed up and worked her butt off to be physically present everywhere!
I desperately wish to see a female president. It happened long ago in many other nations, some
of which are not even "developed" countries by our reckoning. Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh,
and many others did it a while ago. Yes, it would be wonderful to have a female president, but it
turns out that this time it's Bernie Sanders who comes closest to representing the feminist values
of caring, trust, understanding, compassion, peace, and yes-love.
If only, for a single moment in this campaign, Hillary had showed some humanity, a momentary break
from her constant triangulating and having it both ways, thinking she's obligated to always give
a confusing double-edged answer to every question! She didn't do it on her 2014 book tour either,
which told me she had learned nothing from the way her 2008 campaign failed to resonate with voters
looking for feminist values.
She is a severely compromised candidate, because the way she articulates her policies jars so
badly with what we expect of an ethics of caring. It is jarring in the same way that Condi or Carly
were, and it is a particular contrast to Bernie's soft side on full display at rallies and in debates,
and to Obama's softer side (at least until the summer of 2008). I don't believe the country will
only accept a female president if she's dressed up in patriarchal regalia; this is yet another way
Hillary has long been undermining feminism, by making us believe that actual feminist values are
simply not palatable for public discourse at the national level.
Eileen Myles (a poet whom I like a lot, and who in fact
wrote in praise of my first poetry
book), recently wrote a defense of Hillary, because "wouldn't you want...[a vagina] sitting on
the chair in the Oval Office?" Indeed, Eileen, I couldn't agree more, and I respect you for your
lifelong commitment to equality, but may we please get a vagina that doesn't have a patriarchal mind
attached to it?
We who support Sanders are not BernieBros. Please don't demean us by calling us that. It is not
about hating Hillary's gender. It is about our own desperate desire for feminist values.
"... "We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," ..."
"... Assange said the leaked emails revealed that she overrode the Pentagon's reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that "they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country." ..."
"... Sworn testimony from officials working in the department revealed that Clinton did not "know how to use a computer to do e-mail," instead using her Blackberry for official communications. ..."
Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange warns more information will be published about Hillary
Clinton, enough to indict her if the US government is courageous enough to do so, in what he
predicts will be "a very big year" for the whistleblowing website.
... ... ...
"We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending
publication," Assange told
Peston on Sunday when asked if more of her leaked electronic
communications would be published.
About 32,000 emails from her
private server have been leaked by Wikileaks so far, but Assange would
not confirm the number of emails or when they are expected to be
published.
Speaking via video link from the Ecuadorian Embassy in
London, Assange said that there was enough information in the emails to indict Clinton, but that
was unlikely to happen under the current Attorney General, Obama appointee Loretta Lynch.
He
does think "the FBI can push for concessions from the new Clinton government in exchange for its
lack of indictment."
The former secretary of state pushed for the prosecution of Wikileaks,
rather than the global criminals they exposed, and the organization described her as a "war
hawk."
Assange said the leaked emails revealed that she overrode the Pentagon's reluctance to
overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that "they predicted the post-war
outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country."
The email scandal
could become a headache as the race to the White House heats up and the FBI continues to
investigate her.
Sworn testimony from officials working in the department revealed that Clinton did not "know
how to use a computer to do e-mail," instead using her Blackberry for official communications.
Clinton's office was a designated Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF),
where the use of wireless devices was not permitted, leading to Clinton leaving her office in
order to access emails.
The third-party nominee Gary Johnson believes former Republican candidates for president, Jeb
Bush and Lindsey Graham among them, will defect at the polls this November rather than vote for
Donald Trump. He expects they'll vote Libertarian instead.
"When it's all said and done, they'll pull the Johnson-Weld lever because it's a real choice,"
the former governor of New Mexico told the Guardian in a wide-ranging interview this week.
Johnson said he founded his prediction "on instinct", but that he was confident that he had
high-profile Republican votes – "whether they say so or not is another story".
Johnson may already have at least one Republican leader knocking on his door. Mitt Romney, the
party's 2012 nominee, told CNN on Friday that he was considering casting his lot with the
Libertarians.
"If Bill Weld were at the top of the ticket, it would be very easy for me to vote for Bill Weld
for president," he said. Weld is Johnson's running mate and preceded Romney as governor of
Massachusetts.
Johnson, who is at 12% in a recent national poll, hopes that by winning voters disaffected by
Trump and Hillary Clinton, he can establish his party as a political force to be reckoned with.
In particular, Johnson insisted that he is a fit for supporters of a Democrat – the Vermont
senator Bernie Sanders – who may be less than enthused about Clinton's nomination for the party.
He cited an online quiz in which he sided with the Vermont senator 73% of the time, adding:
"We're on the same page when it comes to people and their choices."
"Legalizing marijuana, military intervention and that crony capitalism is alive and well," he
said, rattling off issues of concern that he and the progressive Sanders share. "People with
money are able to pay for privilege, and they buy it."
"... "JUST DOING THE MATH" "Electoral Fraud In The 2016 Democratic Primaries": http://www.democracyintegrity.org/ElectoralFraud/just-doing-the-math.html
..."
"... The most profitable cliches ever coined are 'perceived threat', 'defense initiative', 'drug
war' and 'globalization'. These recent advents require a strong military and are developing police states
with the cyclical pattern of a willingness to take advantage of the weaker populace, both criminally
and financially. Corporations yanking the rug from under American business and government selling the
very country under our feet may eventually be recognized as predatory acts, yet are capitalism at its
best! Soon, a planned default on payment of our national debt will forever flush our American dream
down the toilet. (Thank Obama's midnight deal to recharter the federal reserve 'absent negotiation'
of our debt for this perpetual rim job. ..."
"... The US State Department investigates election fraud in countries holding democratic elections
if the exit polls are off by even 2%...in our own country, we've had 11 states with exit polls off by
anywhere from 5% to 33% and ALL in favor of Clinton, and all we hear from pundits is: "there is a perfectly
reasonable explanation for this..." ..."
"... Hillary is a self-indulging, power-hungry, war-mongering, law-breaking, seemingly above-the-law
Republican. How could any SANE person vote for her? ..."
"... I speak for thousands when I say as a former lifelong Democrat that Bernie Sanders is the only
candidate with a shred of integrity in this contest and who oddly enough resembles a Democrat instead
of the Neocon Conservative who is winning the primary campaign. ..."
"... A vote for anyone-but-Hillary will do the job. Trump has some important features in common
with Sanders; Libertarian Johnson could be considered ..."
"... Are we witnessing a dishonest election? Our first analysis showed that states wherein the voting
outcomes are difficult to verify show far greater support for Secretary Clinton. Second, our examination
of exit polling suggested large differences between the respondents that took the exit polls and the
claimed voters in the final tally. ..."
"... Your campaign --- I mean you, Guardian ---- & the Hillary supporters both professional and
amateur --- was THE first presidential campaign I have ever seen that targeted the supporters more than
the candidate. Months of slander and mischaracterization of people you don't even know. ..."
"... Your appeal now is that of the abuser who wants the relationship to continue, now that the
beating is over. Sanders supporters would have to be gullible idiots to come back Hillary under current
circumstances. ..."
"... The "Berniebro" smear promulgated by the asshole David Brock is just one of the reasons I'll
never vote for Clinton. I have plenty more, but the cynicism of that was really over the top. It matches
Clinton's scorched earth playing of the racism card in the 2008 campaign, when she was pitching herself
as the champion of "hard working white Americans," putting out pics of Obama in "African/Muslim" garb,
bringing up Reverend Wright (again), and originating the "birther" meme. They are a truly despicable
bunch and deserve to lose. ..."
"... She goes on, Trump says very scary things, deporting immigrants, massive militarism, and ignoring
the climate, well Hillary has a track record for doing all of those things!!! We are rushing towards
war with Hillary Clinton! The terrible things we might expect from Donald Trump we've already seen from
Hillary Clinton! ..."
"... Don't be a victim of this propaganda campaign – which is being waged by people who have selective
amnesia ..."
"... Yes, she is the female version of Trump. "Terrible things we expect from Donald Trump, we've
actually already seen from Hillary Clinton," Jill Stein warns ..."
"Sanders' famously loyal supporters could be forgiven for feeling distraught after investing
so much hope in the grassroots movement."
Then please forgive me;
If you ask someone in this government if governance itself should be considered socialistic,
they'll say 'no' because in actual socialism the population has expectation of a return. This
incorporated government (business) takes from most like any socialist government, but is simply
parasitic when only compelled to perform to its own benefit. The ingrained iconoclast of unbridled
capitalism are firmly rooted in the principle that they deserve what others don't and are overwhelmingly
entitled by birth. A new fast track authority with TPP will put the icing on their cake because
when the potus can make business deals, we've skipped any burden of socialism to effectively become
communistic (oops...wha...tpp top secret stuff? No wonder!). There is little greater evidence
that we suffer a neocon control set than when 'our' corrupt duopoly points the 'pinko' finger
at anyone suggesting a social agenda while existing social programs have a 10 to 1 cost/effect
ratio. This merely demonstrates the willful disconnect of money from purpose in the 'non-socialist'
government. The next step, privatize with a for-profit corporation to supposedly save money? Never
got that one...but somebody sure will!
We are largely poor people in the worlds richest country. A couple of hundred thousand folks
(including family members) proudly espouse paying over 70% of all tax while paying an effective
tax rate of less than 10%. Many pay no tax by using tax shelters, shell corps and offshore banking,
while lower socioeconomic groups pay half of their meager income in realized and hidden tax/fees.
Clearly, when you consider that over three hundred million people live on economic fumes and
social programs, those in our government are beholden to the few accruing trillions annually in
this top 10% wealth bracket. When average Americans know they are not being heard and money is
considered speech, then we see more clearly that being heard comes only with affluence. The resources
of this new country are more than enough to sustain every American, but are sold to the highest
bidder for profits that sustain this top 10%, and those with the deafened ears to whom we have
relinquished control.
The most profitable cliches ever coined are 'perceived threat', 'defense initiative', 'drug
war' and 'globalization'. These recent advents require a strong military and are developing police
states with the cyclical pattern of a willingness to take advantage of the weaker populace, both
criminally and financially. Corporations yanking the rug from under American business and government
selling the very country under our feet may eventually be recognized as predatory acts, yet are
capitalism at its best! Soon, a planned default on payment of our national debt will forever flush
our American dream down the toilet. (Thank Obama's midnight deal to recharter the federal reserve
'absent negotiation' of our debt for this perpetual rim job.
This directive is obviously how an unknown made it to the spotlight while repubs show their
willingness to ram it home in default for their owner$. They are one and the same ultimately,
as we will be reminded that it really was our fault to vote for them...but, by whom and through
what means? Hil and Jeb know!)
Chase Elliott
The US State Department investigates election fraud in countries holding democratic elections
if the exit polls are off by even 2%...in our own country, we've had 11 states with exit polls
off by anywhere from 5% to 33% and ALL in favor of Clinton, and all we hear from pundits is: "there
is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this..."
Yeah, they cheated.
NoSerf -> Chase Elliott
Rocky de la Fuente, Dem. presidential candidate, has the explanation: The DNC goes in within
1 min after final count and delimit Bernie's percentage win from 100%, 90%, whatever it actually
is in a particular county, to whatever the DNC determines (KY: 52%). He has proof on his website.
imothy Everton -> MrsMud
Hillary is a self-indulging, power-hungry, war-mongering, law-breaking, seemingly above-the-law
Republican. How could any SANE person vote for her? But our name is Mud; that I can understand.
Rchrd Hrrcks
It's very interesting to note that, when someone declares that 'voting for the lesser of two
evils leaves us with evil', no Hilary supporters retort with 'but Hilary isn't evil'. I never
see those words. It's an important point. Look out for it.
Ligaya Barlow
If Bernie wants his movement to succeed with revolutionary promise, he should have his name
placed in nomination at the convention then give a rousing speech on national television. Then
he should continue his candidacy as a Green or independent. Sanders-Stein. To be sure he would
get the 15% necessary to take part in the debates. This scenario has the following possible outcomes:
1. He could win the general election.
2. He could throw the election to Trump, culminating in a presidential disaster that would end
the Republican Party as a national party, and open the way to a multiparty system.
3. He could amass enough electoral votes to throw the issue into the House, whose Republican majority
would be put in a position where, if they reject Trump and therefore their own party's electorate,
the party is destroyed; if they elect him, the party is destroyed. This will be the first step
toward abolishing the electoral college, a progressive victory.
4. Clinton wins, but narrowly and at a price: no mandate or consensus, the likely outcome anyway.
If Bernie wants to avoid the dustbin of history, this is what he must do.
His revolutionary movement must include (a.) The abolishment of the electoral college and (b.)
The end of the two party system. Now us the time.
austinpratt -> GreatLizard
We will talk about honor when Hillary Clinton releases the texts of her speeches to donors
and explains why her husband has been on billionaire child-pimping Jeffrey Epstein's private aircraft
26 times, or she explains in detail why she thought killing thousands of people in the Islamic
world and wasting trillions of dollars was a good idea, and why she is sadistically torturing
us with one platitude after another.
I speak for thousands when I say as a former lifelong Democrat that Bernie Sanders is the
only candidate with a shred of integrity in this contest and who oddly enough resembles a Democrat
instead of the Neocon Conservative who is winning the primary campaign.
Longleveler
Greg Palast (who has also written for the Guardian) is a good source for news about the rigged
democratic primaries of 2016: http://www.gregpalast.com
nnedjo cameracoach
Joseph Stalin would be proud...
You mean, Joseph Stalin would be proud of Hillary. Because he has always loved people who know
how to "get things done".:-)
Diniz Ramos De Deus -> Patty Smith
The dems though are a private corporation. They can rig elections in their private company.
it is not a matter of the government what they do in their private company but it is be good reason
to not consider their candidates in the presidential election which is government election.
Kjell Beilman
My question is, what are we gong to do about this? Clearly the majority of people are sick
and tired of both sides, but in the end it's the citizens that need to come out and lobby or government
to change.
IMHO, I fear we have become too complacent with letting the oligarchy rule us. If this recent
election cycle doesn't show that the American people don't get real choices I don't know what
will. We literally have the two most disliked options being presented to us as a choice, give
me a break. I never thought we'd have worse choices then bush v gore, but man the oligarchy really
dug deep on this one!
Que twilight zone music.
cameracoach -> timshan
Since the election was a victim of fraud, the actual number of votes may never be known. Just
as we'll never know who actually won the Iowa caucus because - before the votes were counted -
the state (Hillary supporting) Dem committee announced Hillary won it. Then dumped the evidence.
California is rife with election fraud, Puerto Rico was blatant .. exit polls were eliminated
because after 10 states had different results from exit polls and voting machines .. the networks
decided they didn't want to look so foolish. There was an independent exit polling in CA and their
numbers are just beginning to show up .. showing Bernie winning in areas that the machines show
Hillary winning.
Lost votes, rejected votes and more .. there is no verifiable accurate counting of votes.
nnedjo
So, at first the DNC conceived plan like this. Former Madam Secretary should replace the first
black US president, whose only legacy is that he was the first black US president (although this
is only half true, because Obama is half white).
This is necessary first of all in order to corporate money continued to flow into the funds
of the DNC, and sometimes also directly on accounts of its members in the form of "speaking fees"
or something like that.
For this purpose, in addition to Hillary Clinton, they have chosen a few other candidates whose
name is "no matter what their name is."
Then someone said, "Wait, we can not do it like this! We have to create at least the illusion
of democratic elections, so that Madame Secretary has a "real challenger", someone who will bring
more vibrancy into elections."
And then the choice fell on the old Bernie Sanders, who is actually not a real Democrat, but
even better, because none of the real democrats really wanted to play the role of "mechanical
rabbit" in the race of Madam Secretary for the Democratic nomination.
And then they screwed up, because it turned out that the old Bernie has brought much more vibrancy
in the democratic primary elections than they needed.
How much their plan had been wrong one can conclude from the fact that for a certain period
of time even threatened the danger that Bernie could beat Madam Secretary and so bring into question
the very goals of the plan.
And now the DNC does not know what to do with the old Bernie and his thirty years or more younger
supporters. Meanwhile, Bernie and his supporters wonder why the DNC does not seem to be happy
about this "unexpected gift"? :-)))
Rachman Cantrell
So six people are going to vote for Hillary and one for Trump? This 'poll' is nonsense. Real
polls of Bernie supporters have over 80% saying they will never vote for Hillary! I am one of
them. If Bernie does not get the Dem nomination I am hoping he takes the top slot in the Green
party for the win!
Most independents will vote for Bernie and they make up 43% of the total voting group. Dems
and Repubs are only in the latter twenties and half of them will go with Bernie. He has a real
shot as a third party candidate.
If the Democrat party wants to keep any semblance of power they should get behind Bernie at
the convention because I and many others will be leaving if he is not the nominee! This is not
a threat. It is simply what will happen. Hillary supporters and establishment politicians have
no idea how strongly we feel about this.
panpipes -> Rachman Cantrell
Cite one of those "real polls".
Bernie is the most successful socialist in US history precisely because he is steadfast to
his ideals while knowing how to maneuver through the system that is stacked against him and his
values. Your all or nothing at all stance is not going to do anything good - just like Occupy,
you will burn out while the Bern will keep on with what he has been doing for decades.
inquisitor16 -> Rachman Cantrell
I hope you're right, and think you are.
A vote for anyone-but-Hillary will do the job. Trump has some important features in common
with Sanders; Libertarian Johnson could be considered, though I suggest it's unlikely either
he or the Greens will "win," and one strategy you didn't mention was just to write-in Bernie.
Anyone can easily do that, and it would ensure both that the presumptive nominee never enters
the Oval Office, and that Sanders supporters are identified clearly.
All the above presumes, however, that Clinton is insuperable. If only Bernie will give her
backers an ultimatum ("indict her now for high crimes, or I will endorse Trump") it seems to me
that that assumption can be readily reversed.
xtreemneo
Bernie Sanders' supporters vow the revolution will not be silenced.
Implying Bernie himself will concede to neoliberal dingbats? The man has been at it for 4 decades.
He knows a thing or two about intra-generational equity.
monoitiare
I love these comments, and note these folks read "The Intercept" which I am positive is completely
foreign to HRC supporters....who probably also think Glenn Greenwald is an agent of the underworld,
or something.
"Are we witnessing a dishonest election? Our first analysis showed that states wherein
the voting outcomes are difficult to verify show far greater support for Secretary Clinton.
Second, our examination of exit polling suggested large differences between the respondents
that took the exit polls and the claimed voters in the final tally. Beyond these points,
these irregular patterns of results did not exist in 2008. As such, as a whole, these data
suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary
election. This fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator
Sanders."
If you're a supporter of honest elections, I hope you spread this info far and wide.
RUwithmeDrWu
Your campaign --- I mean you, Guardian ---- & the Hillary supporters both professional
and amateur --- was THE first presidential campaign I have ever seen that targeted the supporters
more than the candidate. Months of slander and mischaracterization of people you don't even know.
Your appeal now is that of the abuser who wants the relationship to continue, now that the
beating is over. Sanders supporters would have to be gullible idiots to come back Hillary under
current circumstances.
malcolmjackson -> RUwithmeDrWu
Or under any circumstances. She represents everything we're campaigning against.
The "Berniebro" smear promulgated by the asshole David Brock is just one of the reasons
I'll never vote for Clinton. I have plenty more, but the cynicism of that was really over the
top. It matches Clinton's scorched earth playing of the racism card in the 2008 campaign, when
she was pitching herself as the champion of "hard working white Americans," putting out pics of
Obama in "African/Muslim" garb, bringing up Reverend Wright (again), and originating the "birther"
meme. They are a truly despicable bunch and deserve to lose.
Jennifer Marie
Two and a half million votes uncounted and the oligarchy media declares Hillary the winner
the night before? We are NOT giving or giving in .No to corrupt DNC puppet Hillary Clinton, NO
to corrupt GOP Trump, Bernie or bust.
MistMist
Congratulation Paul Lewis and Adithya Sambamurthy for filing an article and video that fails
on multiple levels to accurately portray the current climate and status of the Democratic Primary
election.
Where does it report that California still has close to 2.5 million ballots to count, with
a large portion of these being 'provisional'?
Where does it report that these ballots are likely to be Bernie votes?
Where does it bring to question why California was called at all with these facts being revealed?
Where does it question the role of the Associated Press in falsely claiming Hillary Clinton as
the 'Presumptive' nominee the night before the most important Primary in election history?
Where does it state that neither candidate, Hillary nor Bernie will have the needed 2383 votes
prior to the convention?
Where does is state that the DNC DOES NOT count superdelegates until the convention when they
vote?
Where does it state that the convention will therefore be a contested one?
Where does it reiterate the fact that Hillary Clinton is still under FBI investigation and the
possibility of indictment still looms?
Where does it explore the role of an indictment in determining the strongest candidate against
Donald Trump?
Where does it explore the current polling of Sanders V Trump compared to Clinton V Trump?
I'm no journalist, but I'd imagine these are all rather important points that deserve to be
recognised and reported on. You know, like it's news.
Georgine Henry
Watch Jill Stein, Green Party in an uplifting interview from Democracy Now! She points out
that voting for the lesser evil has no upside/only a downside because it has given us exactly
what we have now!
She goes on, Trump says very scary things, deporting immigrants, massive militarism, and
ignoring the climate, well Hillary has a track record for doing all of those things!!! We are
rushing towards war with Hillary Clinton! The terrible things we might expect from Donald Trump
we've already seen from Hillary Clinton!
Don't be a victim of this propaganda campaign – which is being waged by people who have
selective amnesia – very quick to tell you about the terrible things the Republicans did,
but very quick to forget the equally terrible things that have happened under a Democratic White
House with two Democratic houses of Congress. It's important to move ahead and take back the America
and the world that works for all of us, based on putting people, planet and peace over profit.
Isn't this often the case, someone (Stein) explains something and immediately you recognize
it makes sense – why doing what you've always done, voting for the lesser evil, in this case Trump
or Hillary depending on your perspective, will continue hurtling us down the same destructive
path! As Stein urges us, stand up and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it,
because they do! Finally I'm clear, no more dilemma, no voting for Trump or Hillary – I'm excited
to watch and see what Stein and Bernie do!
Yes, she is the female version of Trump. "Terrible things we expect from Donald Trump,
we've actually already seen from Hillary Clinton," Jill Stein warns
Alluding to the ongoing FBI investigation into the private server Clinton used for official
business at the State Department, Trump remarked that Clinton's decision to call it by that name
as a calculated move.
"He's protecting her from going to jail, so she's not going to use it," Trump said. "But I bet
you that … she would love to use to those words, because almost everybody agrees that those words
should be used."
"... Clinton framed it in military terms, assuring listeners she would use military force if the deal was violated: "Now we must enforce that deal vigorously. And as I've said many times before, our approach must be 'distrust and verify.' The world must understand that the United States will act decisively if necessary, including with military action, to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon." ..."
"... Even when Clinton is deliberately downplaying her hawkishness, she can't avoid threatening to use force to ensure something that is already being achieved without it. She was trying to define herself as much more of a supporter of diplomatic engagement than she really is, but she remains too much of a reflexive hawk to make that credible. I agree with Cohen that "reasonable discussion of foreign policy free of martial rhetoric is not something to be sneezed at," but after Clinton has spent decades indulging in that martial rhetoric in most major foreign policy debates it is hard to take seriously that she isn't the reliable hawk that we all know her to be. ..."
"... She's given every indication of being more likely, as president, to use large-scale military force than Obama. ..."
That said, it was not remotely a dovish speech. As Jeet Heer
observed
yesterday, even when Clinton endorsed a diplomatic solution she framed it in confrontational terms:
Even when taking pride in the diplomatic success of the nuclear deal with Iran, Clinton framed
it in military terms, assuring listeners she would use military force if the deal was violated:
"Now we must enforce that deal vigorously. And as I've said many times before, our approach must
be 'distrust and verify.' The world must understand that the United States will act decisively
if necessary, including with military action, to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."
Even when Clinton is deliberately downplaying her hawkishness, she can't avoid threatening
to use force to ensure something that is already being achieved without it. She was trying to define
herself as much more of a supporter of diplomatic engagement than she really is, but she remains
too much of a reflexive hawk to make that credible. I agree with Cohen that "reasonable discussion
of foreign policy free of martial rhetoric is not something to be sneezed at," but after Clinton
has spent decades indulging in that martial rhetoric in most major foreign policy debates it is hard
to take seriously that she isn't the reliable hawk that we all know her to be.
Heer went on to say this:
The Clinton of the San Diego speech hasn't internalized any of the lessons of the Iraq War.
She's given every indication of being more likely, as president, to use large-scale military force
than Obama.
Note the word "appease" that Guardian neoliberal presstitutes use about possibility of appointment
of Warren as VP
Notable quotes:
"... Conscious of this continuing trust gap among young progressives, the Clinton campaign flirted with perhaps the ultimate response this week by meeting with Elizabeth Warren, the popular Massachusetts senator, for what many assumed were talks about making her a possible running mate. ..."
"... Another argument is that because Warren made a point of resisting endorsing Hillary during the campaign that, de facto, was an endorsement of Sanders in effect. Warren also wrote a couple of op-eds during the race which were like big smoke signals saying: "Vote Bernie! Vote Bernie!". ..."
"... They promise things on the campaign trail and actually deliver maybe 10% of it. The remaining 90% goes to corporate welfare. ..."
"... No, Clinton isn't going to get a lot of Sanders' supporters, but she might get a lot of Republican votes, since she's much closer to them than to progressives. I'd wager most Sanders supporters will vote Green, which is more their natural home than the Democratic Party. Those who won't vote Green will likely not vote at all. ..."
"... Clinton is disingenuous and Sanders supporters realize that. ..."
"... Employing Super delegates to sway the nomination against a popular vote for the nominee shows just how corrupt and contemptible the party is. ..."
"... I don't believe many Sanders supporters could endorse either party's nominee under the circumstances and are therefore going unrepresented in this election. Speaking for myself, I cannot support Clinton due to her commitments to the big money donors to her campaign. She can't be candid about her policy since those donors interests are incongruent with the interests of average Americans. Clinton cannot serve two masters. ..."
"... Both Trump and Sanders are waiting on the results of the FBI investigation. WaPo says that, unlike Holder, Lynch doesn't play political games and won't bow to pressure from Obama to not indict Hillary when the report comes out. ..."
"... Oh, Guardian, Guardian, you've sunk even below your own depths of meretriciousness. ..."
"... Not: "New release likely to show how corrupt, if not outright criminal Clinton is." Just "being found out as a perjurer and a crook is going to present a PR problem." The ethics of a flea. And I'm not just talking about Hillary. ..."
"... American politics is so sleazy and corrupt that neither party is capable of fielding an "honorable candidate". ..."
"... BTW, Wikileaks is about to publish more of Hillary's emails - stay tuned! ..."
"... HRC has a record (no pun intended). If you have examined that record on your own (rather than through the eyes of a biased media) and can see death is so much better than Armageddon, I'll respect your point of view. ..."
"... Trump may have the savvy not to screw with Putin in the git, but once the fire is set, he could be insane enough to pour gasoline on the fire. HRC is going to continue screwing with Putin, the middle class and anybody else who gets in her way. Can you live with that? ..."
"I am going to write in Bernie. Whether or not he's on the ticket, he's getting my vote," said
Chelsea Denman, a 27-year-old who works in the legal profession in Washington. "He's gotten a movement
going that's not dying down anytime soon. He needs to continue on to the convention. He needs to
keep himself out there and talk about the issues."
Asked why she was so opposed to Clinton, Denman replied as many do: "I don't think she's genuine.
I think she says what she thinks she needs to be said to get elected. I don't trust her. I think
it's unfortunate that as a woman I can't trust potentially the first woman president."
Conscious of this continuing trust gap among young progressives, the Clinton campaign flirted
with perhaps the ultimate response this week by meeting with Elizabeth Warren, the popular Massachusetts
senator, for what many assumed were talks about making her a possible running mate.
In contrast to pairings with other rumoured candidates, such as the Virginia senator Tim Kaine or
the New Jersey senator Cory Booker, sharing a ticket with Warren was once considered an unthinkable
lurch to the left by Clinton that is likely to appease many Sanders loyalists.
... ... ...
If Warren were the vice-presidential candidate, it could also alienate many moderate Republicans,
who regard the anti-Wall Street firebrand as a distinctly acquired taste.
"Elizabeth Warren could almost persuade me to re-think my opposition to Trump. She's insufferable,"
wrote one former adviser to John McCain this week.
For others on the left, the more important question is whether Clinton commits to the policies of
Sanders and Warren.
"Elizabeth Warren bolstered the case that the right way to achieve Democratic unity is to show voters
that Clinton, Sanders, and the Democratic party stand united behind big, bold, progressive ideas,"
said Adam Green, founder of the Progressive Change Campaign committee. His list of ideas included
"expanding social security benefits instead of cutting them, debt-free college, breaking up too-big-to-fail
banks, and jailing Wall Street bankers who break the law".
Haigin88 -> mbidding 12 Jun 2016 15:30
I'll argue that the system itself is set up to make almost anyone into a bullshitter or shill.
How can someone run against someone for months, then lose, then say that they endorse them after
all? One might ask: "Are you lying now or were you lying then, during the campaign?". I'm a European,
looking on, and there's much to vex an onlooker, believe me.
That's part of the reason why Bernie's in a tight spot. If he turned around and started saying
how great Hillary is, he'd be almost disavowing his own wonderful campaign but, at the same time,
he doesn't want the short-fingered scoundrel to win and Hillary's the only weapon to hand, so
that's why he had to step carefully after his Obama meeting. Falling in behind Hillary could splinter
his support in all directions. People have to understand that he's boxed in. He made a decision
not to run as a Green and went all in but now he's got to be very careful.
Everyone's a Monday morning quarterback but one argument is that Warren miscalculated; that
the Clintons respect power and that she'd actually have more weight if she *had* swung in behind
Sanders at the start and then come to Hillary after she won. That would have shown strength of
conviction and Warren's post-Sanders endorsement might have carried weight with the public at
large and the Clintons: Warren would have won either way.
Another argument is that because Warren made a point of resisting endorsing Hillary during
the campaign that, de facto, was an endorsement of Sanders in effect. Warren also wrote a couple
of op-eds during the race which were like big smoke signals saying: "Vote Bernie! Vote Bernie!".
Matthew Hartman -> SenseCir 12 Jun 2016 15:30
No, what she'll likely do is pander to both the left and right like her master did. This is
what centrists or "New Democrats" as coined by her husband in the 90's do.
They promise things on the campaign trail and actually deliver maybe 10% of it. The remaining
90% goes to corporate welfare.
So come next Tuesday Sander's is going to meet with her and demand she adopt's Bernie's policies
and she's going to say yes so Bernie will throw his endorsement behind her. She thinks this will
secure Bernie's supporters. Then she's going to turn around and run to the left to grab those
disenfranchised Republicans that are'nt sure about Trump.
Then when she's finally POTUS she's going to do whatever the hell she wants to do.
This woman doesn't want positive change for the American people. She wants to be president.
apacheman 12 Jun 2016 15:17
No, Clinton isn't going to get a lot of Sanders' supporters, but she might get a lot of
Republican votes, since she's much closer to them than to progressives. I'd wager most Sanders
supporters will vote Green, which is more their natural home than the Democratic Party. Those
who won't vote Green will likely not vote at all.
The Democrats are fond of gloating that voters have no choice but to vote for them, but the
reality is they have several choices other than voting for blatant corruption.
Michael Imanual Christos -> simpledino 12 Jun 2016 15:13
Sanders makes sense and in many ways Clinton has parroted Sanders to draw from his support
pool, but Clinton is disingenuous and Sanders supporters realize that.
The party Super delegates are the stich within. The Democrats employed an unethical bias into
its nomination process that completely undermines the integrity of US elections.
Employing Super delegates to sway the nomination against a popular vote for the nominee
shows just how corrupt and contemptible the party is.
We the people must not let this type of party singularity continue.
Michael Imanual Christos 12 Jun 2016 13:44
I don't believe many Sanders supporters could endorse either party's nominee under the
circumstances and are therefore going unrepresented in this election. Speaking for myself, I cannot
support Clinton due to her commitments to the big money donors to her campaign. She can't be candid
about her policy since those donors interests are incongruent with the interests of average Americans.
Clinton cannot serve two masters.
And Donald Trump is a film flam man. He has no clue (even if he thinks he does) how to run
this country or about how the country runs.
When a man criticizes trade deals past with rhetoric of Mr. Sanders solid position and without
characterizing the faults but (again without characterizing specifics) suggests he can make "fantastic"
trade agreements, it shows his lack of knowledge and is just lip service.
Mr. Trump, please tell us specifically what you believe the current trade deals have adversely
effecting the US, and what deals you'll renegotiate to bring balance to the US economy?
I will vote but not for either party in this election.
Without Sanders at the helm, I hold to little hope for my grand babies future.
peter nelson -> JackGC 12 Jun 2016 12:45
Both Trump and Sanders are waiting on the results of the FBI investigation. WaPo says that,
unlike Holder, Lynch doesn't play political games and won't bow to pressure from Obama to not
indict Hillary when the report comes out.
daWOID 12 Jun 2016 12:36
Oh, Guardian, Guardian, you've sunk even below your own depths of meretriciousness.
Here's another headline of yours:
WikiLeaks to publish more Hillary Clinton emails - Julian Assange
New release likely to fan controversy and provide further ammunition for Republican presidential
rival Donald Trump.
Not: "New release likely to show how corrupt, if not outright criminal Clinton is." Just
"being found out as a perjurer and a crook is going to present a PR problem." The ethics of a
flea. And I'm not just talking about Hillary.
peter nelson -> Suga 12 Jun 2016 12:34
Why do you think it's just the Republicans? You think Hillary is an "honorable" candidate?
American politics is so sleazy and corrupt that neither party is capable of fielding an "honorable
candidate".
BTW, Wikileaks is about to publish more of Hillary's emails - stay tuned!
curiouswes -> OurPlanet 12 Jun 2016 12:25
If he was a man true to his word ,why is he not running( Ross Perot) on an Independent ticket.
In case you haven't noticed, the deck is stacked against 3rd party candidates. Why do you think
Bernie ran as a democrat? Why did Ron Paul run as a republican? Perot was a disaster for the Dems
and Reps because he showed that both sides are bought. We don't have a choice between being sold
out and not being sold out. Our choice is between being sold out by whom
curiouswes -> Zepp 12 Jun 2016 12:10
Please don't mistake me for a Hillary supporter. I think she's a very poor choice. But
Trump is a lunatic.
So your point seems to be that we'd be better off with a sane, methodical opportunistic shyster
than we would be with an insane reckless opportunistic shyster. I think that is a fair point but
it is debatable in that we cannot trust what comes out of Trump's mouth so what you perceive as
lunacy could just be the sort of empty rhetoric that HRC continues to fill the heads of her supporters
with.
HRC has a record (no pun intended). If you have examined that record on your own (rather
than through the eyes of a biased media) and can see death is so much better than Armageddon,
I'll respect your point of view. I'm no Obama fan but I will admit that after he screwed
with Putin, he had the sanity to back down in order to avoid nuclear holocaust.
Trump may have the savvy not to screw with Putin in the git, but once the fire is set,
he could be insane enough to pour gasoline on the fire. HRC is going to continue screwing with
Putin, the middle class and anybody else who gets in her way. Can you live with that?
Ligaya Barlow 12 Jun 2016 11:44
If Bernie wants his movement to succeed with revolutionary promise, he should have his name
placed in nomination at the convention then give a rousing speech on national television. Then
he should continue his candidacy as a Green or independent. Sanders-Stein. To be sure he would
get the 15% necessary to take part in the debates. This scenario has the following possible outcomes:
1. He could win the general election.
2. He could throw the election to Trump, culminating in a presidential disaster that would
end the Republican Party as a national party, and open the way to a multiparty system.
3. He could amass enough electoral votes to throw the issue into the House, whose Republican
majority would be put in a position where, if they reject Trump and therefore their own party's
electorate, the party is destroyed; if they elect him, the party is destroyed.This will be the
first step toward abolishing the electoral college, a progressive victory.
4. Clinton wins, but narrowly and at a price: no mandate or consensus, the likely outcome anyway.
If Bernie wants to avoid the dustbin of history, this is what he must do.
His revolutionary movement must include (a.) The abolishment of the electoral college and (b.)
The end of the two party system. Now us the time.
"... Trump isn't even far right, he's just a populist. He's nationalist, but not national socialist. He's for diplomacy, not for invading every country the MIC identifies as "terrorist" (the new, politically-correct n-word for people we can kill with impunity). ..."
"... Trump just represents people who want their jobs and their country back, and for you to malign these followers as far right is nothing short of elitism. ..."
"... Trump will do an 'Alexander' on the US's Gordian knot of a political system. At least that's the hope of the many frustrated and disillusioned. And like Obama, Day-2 in the White House will business-as-usual according to the MIC-Wall St script. ..."
"... Unfortunately, lesser of evils at voting time has not resulted in lesser of evils Presidents. Every time I keep thinking that the new guy can't possibly be as bad as the last, he proves that he can be. ..."
"... Trump appears to be an outsider until you meet his foreign policy team or his economic advisers or watch his virtual oath of fealty to AIPAC to etc. Loose cannons can backfire. The only Never-Hillary alternative beyond Trump is Sanders. ..."
"... Unemployment & underemployment are destroying the lives of US Citizens. Life expectancy of US Citizens is going down. Trump's plan to decrease the number of non-citizens in the US is highly popular among US Citizen voters. ..."
"... Today I read an example. Millions of Americans are scrapping by and rely on so-called payday loans. The Administration tightened regulations on those loans, Republicans oppose, Hillary promises to defend them. Bernie proposed a postal bank as exists in most countries which would eliminate most cases where such loans could start. Sanders plan is realistic, simple to understand and much more effective, and would hurt so called "pay day loan industry" much more, and this is too much for "bleeding liver liberals". ..."
"... Although the legal issues are complicated, what we know for sure is that Clinton played fast and loose with National Security because she deemed that it was more important to secure HER OWN communications. This was NOT a 'judgment call' on a policy issue but a deliberate choice to ignore some of the most grave obligations of her office so as to advantage herself. ..."
"... To any reasonable person, this simple fact is further evidence of Hillary's corrupt elitism and unquestionably disqualifies her for the Presidency. ..."
"... This misconception is still alive and kicking. Killary wasnt the mastermind behind Libya's invasion, she was just a frontwoman for "color revolution" plans which were well under way before she come into power, and will continue when she fades into obscurity. ..."
"... Another misconception is Obama's "peace-loving" nature, its just an illusion he and his PR people are pushing. "Obama is good, its these others who want war", and people still fall for that? :)) The only difference between Bush jr and Obama is that one likes to fight wars directly (US cant afford that anymore), and another through proxy terrorists and drones, its cheaper this way, and even more destructive. ..."
"... As far as I can see, Trump's the only person calling for diplomacy & a de-escalation of tensions with the Chinese & the Russians. His obsession with capitalism, making money & deal-making may paradoxically prove to be his best feature; if you blow up the world, no more deals! ..."
"... Taking formerly unified & regionally powerful countries resistant to USA domination & turning them into defenseless mini-statelets is "strategically pointless"? It amazes me how progressives can look the strategy straight in the eye... and then deny it. ..."
"... Iraq was hostile to Iran before the invasion and Saddam was easy to deal with. Syria used to be stable and sell oil. Now Iraq is aligned with Iran and Syria is a disaster and has given Russia an opportunity to demonstrate loyalty to allies and the effectiveness of the Russian military and weapons. ..."
"... About Obama being an organizer. He seems to have frontend for the FIRE sector: ..."
"... Breaking States is essential and specifically mentioned in the Oded Yinon Plan for Greater Israel. The PNAC Plan for Full Spectrum Dominance with the Global War on Terror further reinforces and justifies the Yinon Plan. ..."
"... Don't miss the event ... all signs are pointing towards the inevitable! ..."
"... "Hillary's experience is one of failure." ..."
"... HRC is a shill politician supporting Israel in the Middle East . Her vote for the Iraq war, her run as senator for NY with the backing of Rupert Murdoch and her abominable policy as Secretary of State versus Libya and Syria. She used the worst of advisors at State to run her affairs. The buck stop at Obama's desk, he is ultimately responsible for the decisions made. ..."
"... Early take on Hillary's foreign policy speech: pot shots at Trump (easy), interspersed with scare-mongering, chest-thumping and neocon talking points like: "we never ever stop trying to make our country a better place" (how exceptional!). ..."
"... Seems Neocons loved HRC's Trump bashing speech as this recap details, https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/hillary-clinton-anti-trump-speech/ ..."
"... I have to agree with @1 that it is not at all clear that Trump is "far right". He's a populist, sure, he is. Maybe he even fits the definition of a demagogue. But that doesn't place him on the "far right", it just places him "outside the system". ..."
"... Trump appears to be all in favour of replacing a foreign policy that relies upon a robust military with one that is based upon active diplomacy i.e. that jaw-jaw is better than war-war. ..."
"... Actually, for Germany, Sanders is very much "middle". Hillary would be "right wing" minus the classism and racism. Trump is close to classical National Socialism with a very special US American "businessman" flavor (there is a traditional disdain for business in Germany) ..."
"... So, I guess you could sum up the conclusion to all these comments that there is absolutely no one worth voting for because the electoral system is irrevocably broken due to psychopathic or ponerological "infection". You can thrash out the debate as to who is the greater or lesser of evils chosen for the parade this time around but it's a waste of energy since the foundations upon which elections are built have long been rotten to the core. ..."
"... So, voting for such theatre is surely perpetuating the scenario. The president is already chosen. Period. ..."
"... What must be understood and highlighted is who the political class works for- the savage capitalists. The US government is merely the front for the ruling class. It merely carries out the policies of the over-civilized, well-manicured capitalist thugs. ..."
"... Voting is a ritual that reinforces obedience to state authority. It creates the illusion that "the people" control the state, thereby masking elite rule. That illusion makes rebellion against the state less likely because it is seen as a legitimate institution and as an instrument of popular rule rather than the oligarchy it really is. Embedded within all electoral campaigns is the myth that "the people" control the state through voting. ..."
"... "Who wins the election in the capitalist system makes no difference because all politicians in this system must do what the ruling class want. Elections are a scam whose function is to neutralize resistance movements and dupe ordinary citizens into thinking they have a say in matters of the state." ..."
Yves Smith of the Naked Capitalism
explains why many of her progressive acquaintances will either not vote, or vote for Trump in
the upcoming U.S. election. I recommend to read
this in full.
For starters two excerpts:
Hillary's experience is one of failure. And she did not learn from it.
Hillary has a résumé of glittering titles with disasters or at best thin accomplishments under
each. Her vaunted co-presidency with Bill? After her first major project, health care reform,
turned into such a debacle that it was impossible to broach the topic for a generation, she retreated
into a more traditional first lady role. As New York senator, she accomplished less with a bigger
name and from a more powerful state than Sanders did. As secretary of state, she participated
and encouraged strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria. She bureaucratically
outmaneuvered Obama, leading to U.S. intervention in Libya, which he has called the worst decision
of his administration. And her plan to fob her domestic economic duties off on Bill comes off
as an admission that she can't handle being president on her own.
And the conclusion:
The Sanders voters in Naked Capitalism 's active commentariat also explicitly reject
lesser-evilism, the cudgel that has previously kept true lefties somewhat in line. They are willing
to gamble, given that outsider presidents like Jimmy Carter and celebrity governors like Arnold
Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura didn't get much done, that a Trump presidency represents an acceptable
cost of inflicting punishment on the Democratic Party for 20 years of selling out ordinary Americans.
The Clintons, like the Bourbons before the French Revolution, have ensconced themselves in
such a bubble of operative and media sycophancy that they've mistakenly viewed escalating distress
and legitimate demands from citizens as mere noise.
...
If my readers are representative, Clinton and the Democratic Party are about to have a long-overdue
day of reckoning.
To vote for the far right because the former center (left) has lost its bearing is a somewhat
dangerous gamble. The U.S. has a relative stable, inertial system with lots of checks and balances
that make this move less risky than similar moves underway in Poland, Germany or France. But unless
the center left/right politicians recognize that they have lost their former majority there is no
chance they will shun the neoliberal globalization nonsense they impose on their constituency.
Voting for a stronger movement towards a genuine left is be a better strategy than voting for
the far right. But notorious lack of unity within the left, center-right control over the media and
the absence of a successful current archetype will keep a majority away from taking that step.
I agree that the day of reckoning is a long-overdue day. But it may not bring the reckoning we
want.
Trump isn't even far right, he's just a populist. He's nationalist, but not national socialist.
He's for diplomacy, not for invading every country the MIC identifies as "terrorist" (the new,
politically-correct n-word for people we can kill with impunity).
Trump just represents people who want their jobs and their country back, and for you to
malign these followers as far right is nothing short of elitism.
Trump will do an 'Alexander' on the US's Gordian knot of a political system. At least that's
the hope of the many frustrated and disillusioned. And like Obama, Day-2 in the White House will
business-as-usual according to the MIC-Wall St script.
The way to refute the argument that third party votes are wasted votes is for more and more people
to vote third party. If Hillary is nominated, I intend to vote for Jill Stein (whom there seems
to be a media conspiracy to ignore -- even when they're discussing what Sanders supporters might
do, they never mention her).
"nation-breaking." I'll have to remember that. That is a very descriptive term for US middle-east
policy in recent decades. Brzezinski and Kissinger may not admit as much but it's true; look at
the results.
Unfortunately, lesser of evils at voting time has not resulted in lesser of evils Presidents.
Every time I keep thinking that the new guy can't possibly be as bad as the last, he proves that
he can be.
Trump appears to be an outsider until you meet his foreign policy team or his economic
advisers or watch his virtual oath of fealty to AIPAC to etc. Loose cannons can backfire. The
only Never-Hillary alternative beyond Trump is Sanders. Would Sanders truly reign in the
mid-east wars or continue R2P destruction? Can he stand up to Wall Street? I don't know.
Do you realise just what you're asking? To even click on that site I'd rather 'do' dishes;
doing the "Black Plague" is preferable to doing dishes and root canal is just above that.
The only way to regain control of this political system is: Never vote Republican AND Never
vote incumBENT Democrat. Why no one realises 95+ % of the problem comes from having 95+ % incumBENTs
returned election after election. Stop that and the problem soon becomes manageable. Throwing
your vote after unelectables just throws your vote away - to no discernible effect and is downright
foolishness.
Unemployment & underemployment are destroying the lives of US Citizens. Life expectancy of
US Citizens is going down. Trump's plan to decrease the number of non-citizens in the US is highly
popular among US Citizen voters.
Voting for Goldman Sachs' sock puppet Hillary Clinton is a vote for immediate self destruction.
I do not think that Clinton's chief problem is with people who would rather vote for Jill Stein.
Her problem is in the "middle", who are often "culturally" sympathetic to GOP but responding to
a concrete populist message.
Today I read an example. Millions of Americans are scrapping by and rely on so-called payday
loans. The Administration tightened regulations on those loans, Republicans oppose, Hillary promises
to defend them. Bernie proposed a postal bank as exists in most countries which would eliminate
most cases where such loans could start. Sanders plan is realistic, simple to understand and much
more effective, and would hurt so called "pay day loan industry" much more, and this is too much
for "bleeding liver liberals".
Trump has a realistic chance of winning in Ohio and Florida against Hillary, and thus becoming
a president, and this is not because of wide awareness of how wrong Hillary was on Libya (her
failed work on health care reform is known more widely, I presume). Actually, both cases are an
indictment not of Hillary but of the liberal establishment in general. On Libya, Hillary basically
followed the herd (from liberal think tanks). On health care reform, the methodology was liberal:
improve the lot of the consumer without affecting the "industries" too much and concocting a "child
that only mother could love", plus the particular child mothered by Hillary was torned to pieces
by fellow liberals (certain Moynihan comes to my mind). "Single payer", like it or not, is something
that somewhat clueless "centrist voters" can understand, and again, it works even as close to
USA as Canada.
As I have written, There Are No Safe
Choices and arguing over greater or lesser evils is an exercise in futility at best. The question
is, how do we build our own forces of resistance? To vote for Hillary is to commit an act of unilateral
disarmament. A massive write-in for Sanders would not be wasted, although the votes would not
even be counted until weeks after the election.
A vote for Stein will immediately register. I am not a great fan of the Green Party, but a
Stein vote gives us a tactic to organize our own resistance while we dig in and build something
new.
Yves is lobbying Super-delegates on behalf of Sanders. That's why she doesn't mention Jill Stein
or the Green Party.
The problem with Sanders is that he choose Party over principle. That's why he doesn't attack
Hillary on her emails or Obama wrt black issues (Hillary gets the black vote largely because
Obama supports her) .
Although the legal issues are complicated, what we know for sure is that Clinton played
fast and loose with National Security because she deemed that it was more important to secure
HER OWN communications. This was NOT a 'judgment call' on a policy issue but a deliberate choice
to ignore some of the most grave obligations of her office so as to advantage herself.
To any reasonable person, this simple fact is further evidence of Hillary's corrupt elitism
and unquestionably disqualifies her for the Presidency.
But Sanders remains quiet about the emails DESPITE THE STATE DEPT INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT
which showed that she has been dishonest and deceptive about her email server.
Is it sufficient for Bernie to sit back and let Trump attack Hillary on the emails? Does it
help him to 'unify the party' later? On both counts I would argue: NO!!!
1) The Democratic Party establishment is anti-Sanders. They like things the way they are. If
Hillary is disqualified, they will find someone else to take her place. There are already serious
rumors about Biden (Biden-Warren ticket?).
What the establishment really cares about is that Hillary beats Sanders in delegates and votes
cast so that Hillary can be a King-maker if she can't be a candidate.
2) Bernie's silence:
> contributes to the view that the email server is just a partisan football;
> contributes to the view that it is just a question of judgement;
> undermines his 'man of principle' positioning;
> undermines his argument that Clinton is a flawed candidate;
> undermines his claim to have better judgement than Hillary (as explained above - her decision
to operate a private email server is disqualifying);
Bernie's silence doesn't help him to win or to win over the Party. By pulling punches (once
again!) Bernie is choosing Party over Principle. This seems to confirm that he is indeed just
a sheepdog for the DNC as described by
Black
Agenda Report and
Talking
Points Memo .
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
One can only hope that this election season Progressives will finally WAKE UP and understand
that the Democratic Party establishment is too corrupt and too entrenched for reform.
Bernie supporters and left-leaning independents should join/vote GREEN PARTY.
I recommend voting third party...any third party. In most states, the outcome is already known,
because most states are reliably either Democratic or Republican.
In all but a handful of battleground states, voters are free to vote their conscience. Only
in battleground states need they consider voting for the lesser of the evils.
Voting third party is important--it conveys a message of disgust with the establishment duopoly.
OTOH NOT voting only conveys complacence and apathy, which the duopoly is totally OK with.
She bureaucratically outmaneuvered Obama, leading to U.S. intervention in Libya, which he
has called the worst decision of his administration.
This misconception is still alive and kicking. Killary wasnt the mastermind behind Libya's
invasion, she was just a frontwoman for "color revolution" plans which were well under way before
she come into power, and will continue when she fades into obscurity.
Another misconception is Obama's "peace-loving" nature, its just an illusion he and his
PR people are pushing. "Obama is good, its these others who want war", and people still
fall for that? :)) The only difference between Bush jr and Obama is that one likes to fight wars
directly (US cant afford that anymore), and another through proxy terrorists and drones, its cheaper
this way, and even more destructive.
The assumption of Obama's progressivism has been found to be misguided time and time again.
It is a con. It is a lubricant.
Black?
He is ethnically half-white and culturally about 90% white.
Community organizer?
Wall Street bailouts and faux mortgage relief. 11-dimensional chess excuses for inaction
(he had majorities in both houses of Congress when he was elected)
Bush tax cuts made permanent - poor get austerity.
Solution for inequality? More low-paying jobs.
Constitutional lawyer?
War on Whistle-blowers; assault on civil liberties; IRS scandal; etc.
Awarded for simply being NOT-Bush. Approved everything the neocons wanted and asserted the
neocon mantra of American exceptionalism.
The faux conflict between Netanyahu and Obama over Iran is just for show. Sanctions weren't
working and the Syrian conflict has dragged out longer than expected (they are not yet ready
to take on Iran).
Note: The above list only scratches the surface of the deceitfulness.
dahoit | Jun 2, 2016 11:10:22 AM | 16
Trump far right? That's Obomba, Clinton, the shrub and HRC, the worst rightists in American
history.
Trump is left-right and in the middle, a non ideologue, who will bring back American prosperity,
get US out of this wacko world domination idiocy and protect our borders,all nationalist endeavors
,and as right as rain. The moron bubblehead says Trumps foreign policy aims will upset the
world order. My God,shes a retard. Never in the history of this planet has such an empty
vessel ever sought such a high office.
Trump is far-right? It seems obvious that when it comes to foreign policy he's to the left of
everyone; Clinton has already promised to "totally obliterate" Iran, lusts after confrontation
with Russia & is clearly willing to hit the button. For his part, Sanders says "The Saudis (ISIS)
should play a bigger role in the Middle East," and says the military option is on the table vis
a vis Russia (which of course means nuclear weapons, since USA could obviously never win a conventional
war with Russia - it can't even defeat a few thousand lightly armed Taliban). As far as I
can see, Trump's the only person calling for diplomacy & a de-escalation of tensions with the
Chinese & the Russians. His obsession with capitalism, making money & deal-making may paradoxically
prove to be his best feature; if you blow up the world, no more deals!
strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria
Taking formerly unified & regionally powerful countries resistant to USA domination & turning
them into defenseless mini-statelets is "strategically pointless"? It amazes me how progressives
can look the strategy straight in the eye... and then deny it.
Naked C. Article is 'factual' within the US landscape from a certain pov..
Always said that:
1) Killary cannot win. Already a one time loser, not enough 'base', her and hubby's
past, corruption etc. etc.
2) that the PTB (deep state, military ind. complex, big corps, Finance..) could accomodate
to a Sanders presidency but not a Trump one.
What Dem alternatives remain? If Killary is indicted for the homey-cellar-e-mail boondoggle,
plus the fact she could not win (say, most likely, as article hints at) against Trump, the Dems
need to put forward another candidate, Biden? Ensuring that the Dems lose the election but the
overall system is maintained. (Keeping the lid on Sanders supporters, switching from Bernie to
X (other candidate) will be a disaster.)
On the Repub. side the picture is the same. They can't support Killary openly and to prevent
Trump from triumphing they need to launch a candidate that splits Repubs. + conservatives votes,
some X 'respectable' candidate getting some 6 better 9-10 or .. % of the vote, enough to throw
the election to the Dem candidate. So that the Repubs. lose the election but the system is maintained
(bis).
The prez. race has turned into vaudeville where different parties are fighting to lose
while conserving their advantages within the status quo.
:) :)
All wll be done to keep the 2-party system alive and put a lid on ALL opposition.
strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria
I have found that the US "Left" is generally anti-Empire and simply see any discussion of foreign
affairs as mere details. They easily fall for the 'chaos' simplification/cloaking.
I have made the case that oligarchs and fundamentalism are global problems and that they reinforce
each other across national and social divides. It's a complex dance that is destructive and anti-human.
The details matter because opening people eyes requires examples.
Iraq was hostile to Iran before the invasion and Saddam was easy to deal with. Syria used
to be stable and sell oil. Now Iraq is aligned with Iran and Syria is a disaster and has given
Russia an opportunity to demonstrate loyalty to allies and the effectiveness of the Russian military
and weapons.
Mark 16 "strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria"
Taking formerly unified & regionally powerful countries resistant to USA domination &
turning them into defenseless mini-statelets is "strategically pointless"? It amazes me how
progressives can look the strategy straight in the eye... and then deny it.
Not strategically pointless by any measure! Complete Bullshit. Breaking States is essential
and specifically mentioned in the Oded Yinon Plan for Greater Israel. The PNAC Plan for Full Spectrum
Dominance with the Global War on Terror further reinforces and justifies the Yinon Plan.
NATO and The US acting as Aggressor (pre-emptive war & war for regime change) is illegal and
Criminal - War Crimes as spelled out clearly in NATO Manifesto.
Part of the problem is that what you refer to as centrist is actually extreme conservatism bordering
on fundamentalism in exactly the same vein as Wahhabism, only in the name of Christ.
I'm one who would certainly vote for Trump over Clinton explicitly to punish the faux left
for perpetrating and perpetuating Obama's treasonous betrayal of every last vestige of progressive
idealism.
As one of the many, many people who don't self identify with political terms like left, right,
democrat and republican, it's not a matter of which camp wins, it's a matter of establishing a
pattern of public policy that over the long term balances out the needs of varying constituencies
in a manner that results in the greatest long-term benefit to the common weal.
Sanders clearly represents a needed swing back to sound investment in infrastructure and establishing
necessary limits on a global oligarchy with no nationalist interests.
Unless a miracle happens and he gets past the concerted effort to defeat him, then Trump represents
the best opportunity to diminish the effectiveness of the current cabal. There should be no illusions
that Trump won't fall into line immediately though.
The reaction against Clinton is purely punitive. We don't need more status quo. Either way,
there will be massive amounts of pain for all as we go through the death of the current paradigm
- and it's coming regardless of who desecrates democracy and the Office of the President.
This statement is very true ... HRC is a shill politician
supporting Israel
in the Middle East . Her vote for the Iraq war, her run as senator for NY with the backing
of Rupert Murdoch and her abominable policy as Secretary of State versus Libya and Syria. She
used the worst of advisors at State to run her affairs. The buck stop at Obama's desk, he is ultimately
responsible for the decisions made.
Iraq was hostile to Iran before the invasion and Saddam was easy to deal with. Syria used to
be stable and sell oil. Now Iraq is aligned with Iran and Syria is a disaster and has given
Russia an opportunity to demonstrate loyalty to allies and the effectiveness of the Russian
military and weapons.
I agree with your first point - a strengthened Iran was certainly one of the few *truly* unintended
consequences of the invasion/destruction of Iraq - which Bush recognized/sought to address in
his 2006 "redirection" plan - but I don't know to what extent the current govt in Iraq is "aligned
with Iran." My understanding (admittedly limited) is that al-Abadi is mostly powerless to resist
US dictates; for instance, after Russia intervened in Syria, he made some fuss about potentially
requesting RU assistance against ISIS, but then ultimately backed down. The destabilization of
Syria has enabled NATO to simply steal the country's oil via ISIS - a major win for USA.
My sincere apology learned fren, dun mean to sound mean. To me the endless killing must end,
Israel continue to mass killing including Palestinians teenagers and if the US cannot, unable
or unwilling to do it.
It's the voters faults continue to votes for the Democratic party and Repug.
Early take on Hillary's foreign policy speech: pot shots at Trump (easy), interspersed with
scare-mongering, chest-thumping and neocon talking points like: "we never ever stop trying to
make our country a better place" (how exceptional!).
C'est posible that Bernie has been the intended candidate all along. Could all the vote-stealing
from Bernie, balanced by the threat of a Clinton indictment have been a distraction? With no interference
and an accurate vote-count Bernie would have long-since emerged as the candidate. In which case--
the microscope would have been on policy & the policies that we WANT. There might even have been
a little attention left over to witness the continued subjugation of South America.
As it is, the US presidential campaign has been greatly side-tracked towards personality, and
the illusion of a horse race. I daresay Bernie's controllable and he's it.
Hillary can go right on coveting Presidential power (of which there is precious little).
Breaking down the 2 party system is tricky, but long term possible. States with initative processes
need to enact preference voting (aka instant runoff) so that somewhat similar candidates do not
wind up splitting the vote as they do with the first-past-the-post system.
After 4-6 parties regularly elect officials at the state and local level, there be enough infrastructure
to flow up to the national level.
Top down pushes will collapse back to 2 parties. Hopefully, the TRUMP run will push all the
'gag' neocon/neolibs into the Democratic party of multicultural globalism. Lindsey Graham and
John McCain would make wonderful Democrats. This would buy America some time, but is not a stable
end state.
... The Tweedle brothers never contradict each other, even when one of them, according to the
rhyme, "agrees to have a battle". Rather, they complement each other's words. ...
Write-in the
name of someone you'd actually want to be President/Senator/Congressional representative on November
8. The stakes are too high for you to stay home.
Let 2016 be the beginning. First time, everytime, write-in your candidate, work with your neighbors
toward convergence. 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028 ... if we'd set out in 2004 we'd
be home by now.
Some Internet gossip that should not be readily dismissed, many facts do check out:
...an elite team of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assassins controlled by President Obama
have gunned down the husband of a US prosecutor who was preparing to charge former President
William (Bill) Clinton with crimes relating to his having had sex with an underage girl child
kept as a sex slave by his close personal billionaire friend Jeffery Epstein...
In the "exact/near similar" location this CIA "hit squad" had been operating in ... and
shortly after their departure from the Atlanta region, local police officers were called and
discovered the body of Shahriar Zolfaghari who was the husband of Georgia's statewide prosecutor
for human trafficking Camila Wright-and whom Atlanta Police Major Adam Lee III reported had
been shot twice in the chest at close range and said: "It's a mystery as to why someone would
harm him"...
the "possible/supposed" reason for Zolfaghari's killing was a "death message" to his wife
Camila to stop her from charging former President Clinton with child sex crimes and to cease
her sex trafficking investigation all together.
As to Prosecutor Wright's exact criminal case against President Clinton, ... it involves
the "contracting/deal making" with a number of underage female girls living in the Atlanta
region by New York-British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen and Nada Marcinkova-all
three of whom were tasked by convicted pedophile, and billionaire, Jeffery Epstein to procure
underage sex slaves for his private Caribbean island compound known as "Pedophile Island" that
catered to the world's rich and famous, including President Clinton and Prince Andrew.
Ghislaine Maxwell, who has been labeled as "Epstein's pimp mama", ... was the main "dealmaker/contractor"
for the underage Atlanta female sex slaves preferred by her close friend President Clinton
during his visits to "Pedophile Island"-and which recently discovered flight log reports have
shown him visiting numerous times, and many without his Secret Service detail.
to whom President Putin ordered this single Hillary Clinton email released to, it doesn't appear
to be that hard to figure out as one hour later the international, non-profit, journalistic
organization Wikileaks, that publishes secret information, news leak and classified media from
anonymous sources, sent out a Twitter message containing this email under the headline
Is
this email the FBI's star exhibit against Hillary Clinton ("H")?
?
The grave implications to Hillary Clinton in regards to this email... is that it provides
conclusive proof that she personally ordered top secret and other type classifications to be
stripped from emails sent to her private unsecured computer server in violation of US law-and,
also, directly contradicts what it says on her presidential campaign website: "Clinton only
used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified
at the time she sent or received them."
... another Hillary Clinton statement on her campaign website that says: "Was it allowed?
Yes. The laws, regulations, and State Department policy in place during her tenure permitted
her to use a non-government email for work", has, likewise, been exposed as being untrue by
the US State Department's Inspector General who last week said that not only wasn't this allowed,
he detailed how Jonathan Scott Gration, the former US Ambassador to Kenya, who ignored instructions
in July 2011 not to use commercial email for government businesses, was forced to resign, in
mid-2012, when then Secretary Clinton herself initiated disciplinary action against him, while
at the same time she was doing the exact same thing, but keeping it secret.
...many US media news sites ... agreeing that the most serious US laws violated by her were
Executive Order 13526-Classified National Security Information and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f)-Gathering,
Transmitting or Losing Defense Information of the federal code that make it unlawful to send
or store classified information on personal email.
Yet Trump, clearly a puppet of some powerful faction of the global deep state (most probably
involving Rocefellers who are e.g. abandoning oil and want to legalize drug business, basically
come out of this current war with clean hands on the victorious side), has been sending many confusing
signals. Could it be that the goal of masters is too fool not the regular, 'good' people, but
the enemies of the humanity (CIA, MI6, Rothshilde, Clinton, Bush, Petreaus, Romney, Koch, Adelson,
Erdogan, Saudi, Netanyahoo, Kolomoiski cabal centered in the City of London living off the illegal
drug trade since the opium wars)?
Mind you that we've already seen the "bifurcation" in the USG action in the Me, most recently
when the Pentagon/Obama rebels been fighting the CIA "rebels".
Unfair hitting below the belt. What makes you think, getting rid of politicians shedding so
much bloods here, Libya, Syria, Afghan... and blames others "so eager to spill other humans' blood
on the street?"
You believe protecting motherfuckers (excuse me Hmmmm..) Liars, murderers, warmongers so no
more blood on the streets? Understands, Enuff, is Enuff, the killing, lying, fake videos must
end. This is not my view, majority Americans feel the same both sides of the fences, Dem or Repug.
We are not the minority but the majority. The differences how to get rid these motherfuckers!!
To be clear, I'm a passive pacifist, believe in the rule of laws.
Asked many Blacks, you know what going on in Ukraine, Crimea, Syria or Greece? Most were clueless.
Never heard of Ukraine etc. Otherwise - Its Putin Faults, Assad the regime must go, Its Repug
faults, Congress faults but Never Obomo! More than 80% voted for Obama twice base on racial line.
Now don't call me a racist. A Cop almost shot me after questioning him in public.....
" buy a pitchfork and hit the streets. Anything less is a cop-out and playing the game."
Dunno if you followed Kazzura, Anna News, Liveleak before and after Feb 2014 Maiden uprising
they awakened the Separatists. Igor Strelkov, the shooter was fighting Kiev Regime, forced to
leave Sloviansk with a handful fighter moved to Donbass. Farmers, doctors, mother, lawyers, grandfather
and children with pitchforks and antique weapons guarding building, road blocks and checkpoints
with burning tires tried to stopped advancing Kiev troops in Donetsk and Lugansk Obasts.
However, in Odessa, well-dress school children, women and men sitting calmly on the sidewalks,
filling Molotov cocktails to massacre separatist holed up in the Union bldg.
Ask Neoliberal, the lesser of evils and apologists who were the blood thirsty killers?
@63 "BTW what happened to the Repubs wanting to STOP Trump from being nominated AT ALL COST theme?
That was so last week. Ryan just endorsed Trump... "I feel confident he would help us turn
the ideas in this agenda into laws to help improve people's lives. That's why I'll be voting for
him this fall," Ryan wrote.
At politico.com
Pro-Hillary commenters have been harshly critical. Many say that potential Trump voters are NOT
progressive and/or are comfortable elites that won't lose anything.
At nakedcapitalism.com
A large number of commenters have said that instead of Trump, they would support the GREEN PARTY!
At MoA
There has been concerns raised about 1) Sanders reluctance to attack Hillary and 2) the naivete
of Yves': "strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria" .
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Note: Yves has explained that she initially tried to make the article into one that describes
Sanders supporters anti-Hillary feelings. She says that editor(s) at politico guided the story
to Sanders supporters that would vote Trump as it seemed to be a more dramatic story.
Holy cow, no one will believe me - Bernie advertises in RT!! First time ever, sneaking
pass Ghostly blocker - reaching out to RT viewers.
The message... College should be free, tax Walls street pay for college education. Bernie you
lying shit!! I'll never vote for you even if force to eat cat food.
This what John Pliger wrote in SOTT, 27 May of Bernie...
Stunning silence in America as it prepares to vote for one side of the same coin
"Sanders, the hope of many young Americans, is not very different from Clinton in his proprietorial
view of the world beyond the United States. He backed Bill Clinton's illegal bombing of Serbia.
He supports Obama's terrorism by drone, the provocation of Russia and the return of special forces
(death squads) to Iraq. He has nothing to say on the drumbeat of threats to China and the accelerating
risk of nuclear war. He agrees that Edward Snowden should stand trial and he calls Hugo Chavez
- like him, a social democrat - "a dead communist dictator". He promises to support Clinton if
she is nominated...."
""I didn't come here tonight to pander to you about Israel. That's what politicians do:
all talk, no action… My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran…
We have rewarded the world's leading state sponsor of terror with $150 billion and we received
absolutely nothing in return… Iran is a problem in Iraq, a problem in Syria, a problem in Lebanon,
a problem in Yemen, and will be a very major problem for Saudi Arabia. Literally every day,
Iran provides more and better weapons to their puppet states… We will totally dismantle Iran's
global terror network. Iran has seeded terror groups all over the world. During the last five
years, Iran has perpetrated terror attacks in 25 different countries on five continents. They've
got terror cells everywhere, including in the western hemisphere very close to home. Iran is
the biggest sponsor of terrorism around the world and we will work to dismantle that reach.
. . . When I become President, the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will
end on Day One."
I have to agree with @1 that it is not at all clear that Trump is "far right". He's a populist,
sure, he is. Maybe he even fits the definition of a demagogue. But that doesn't place him on the
"far right", it just places him "outside the system".
Trump appears to be all in favour of replacing a foreign policy that relies upon a robust
military with one that is based upon active diplomacy i.e. that jaw-jaw is better than war-war.
Which certainly places him way, way to the left of many Democrats (certainly to the left of
Hillary) and almost all Republicans.
He also appears to be all in favour of weighing up Trade Deals based upon what effect they
have on the working and middle class of American society, rather than how much those deals enrich
the 1%.
Again, that places him way, way, way to the left of most mainstream politicians in either party.
Sure, his "immigration" policies appear to be racist, and he doesn't appear to have thought
thru many of his *ahem* policies.
But it is very clear to me that the major reason why he blew away a far-right crowd that contained
repulsive Neanderthals as Rubio and Cruz is because he made a deliberate decision to run to the
left of them. And I have no doubt that he'll seek to win the Presidency by running to the left
of Hillary.
Not that it would be hard for anyone to run to the left of Hillary, but, still......
Oh, nuts! I just realized. I didn't follow the Egypt plane crash at all. Are they going to frame
LIBYA & use it as a pretext to attack? I'm only just starting to look at it. Is this possible?
@56, so Commentary Magazine, the cooking magazine for the neocon set, think HRC's Trump bashing
speech was the cat's meow.
Colonel Lang asked this question on his site tonight:
Am I correct in saying that HC's speech in San Diego was not made to some existing group
but rather was an event arranged by her campaign staff in a hired venue with an audience created
by them from her supporters in the area? pl
Someone in the comments said it was closed to the public, and another said it was attended by
200 donors.
What do you think of Gary Johnson as an alternative to the Repubicrat choices? He is antiwar
and supports many of the same social issues that Jill Stein supports. He is also a proven manager,
having served as a popular two time governor of New Mexico.
I share your opinion of the Green Party after what they did to Ralph Nader. There is also the
fact that Green Parties in Europe are filled warmongers, especially in Germany.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 2, 2016 9:12:38 AM | 9
The "middle" has been decimated enonomically. That's why traditional politics don't work anymore.
Actually, for Germany, Sanders is very much "middle". Hillary would be "right wing" minus
the classism and racism. Trump is close to classical National Socialism with a very special US
American "businessman" flavor (there is a traditional disdain for business in Germany).
How he could prevail with US demography, economy/business interests, and mentality, apart from
winning an election where everyone stays home out of disgust, I just can't see. But a large part
of German Jews (and Social Democrats and Trade Unionists - they said let it blow over it will
pass) did not see it coming in 1933.
So if I was "left" in the US - or just a normal citizen - I would vote Hillary and organize
for my interests to prevail in Congress, in the Senate and finally in 2020 plus refuse to be separated
on lifestyle choice. My impression is that the Sandernistas will be doing just that.
So, I guess you could sum up the conclusion to all these comments that there is absolutely
no one worth voting for because the electoral system is irrevocably broken due to psychopathic
or ponerological "infection". You can thrash out the debate as to who is the greater or lesser
of evils chosen for the parade this time around but it's a waste of energy since the foundations
upon which elections are built have long been rotten to the core.
So, voting for such
theatre is surely perpetuating the scenario. The president is already chosen. Period. Maybe
there's a bit of infighting between Establishment factions but I think it's a done deal. Similarly,
any attempt to grow something truly creative and which actually lasts inside the toxicity of Western
culture will inevitably fail for the same reason: psychopathy and lesser forms of pathology define
our social systems at this stage and it's on an interminable loop that needs to be reset. (And
I suspect Mother nature will have a hand in that fairly soon). Time to start building community
outside of the state and realise just how much creative power we have away from authoritarian
rule in all its guises.
Some folks would make exactly your argument against the rise of Hillary.
@80 MKS
Agree completely. Culture is larger than the politics, politics is part of culture and, as
you point out, culture is a sum over all its parts. It's from beneath the larger, cultural arch
that we can simply takeover politics, from the outside. My suggestion is
write-in voting,
a de facto implementation of
open elections
. There's much too much harm being done now by the broken political machine, we need to get
it under control.
yes, presumably among our inalienable rights is the right not to vote, as the electoral process,
in its present manifestation, can only impede our collective creativity.
What must be understood and highlighted is who the political class works for- the savage capitalists.
The US government is merely the front for the ruling class. It merely carries out the policies
of the over-civilized, well-manicured capitalist thugs.
Anyone who thinks that simply "voting the bums out" (no matter how much Bern they been feeling
lately) is a viable action in such a profoundly corrupt system is in deep denial as to the scope
of our problems.
The system is not broken- it is working exactly as designed- by and for those who designed
it.
In a bourgeoisie democracy the power of the electorate is a legal fiction.
Wasting energy on electoral kabuki Sanders-Style falls into that category belonging to all
strategies based on "trying to push the Dems to the left." It can never happen. The Dems are officially
sanctioned precisely because the business plutocracy is 100% confident that the Party can't be
"pushed to the Left," even if the proverbial Apocalypse threatens. The Dem Party's essential political
function is pretending to sound sympathetic to ordinary citizens, while actually doing the bidding
of the financial elite.
In America, the ovens will not be disguised as showers; they will be marked "Voting Booth".
Reagan was a failed Governor and fake WW2 fighter pilot who embraced the early PNAC after his
first term Super Recession, then got elected by a landslide. Same with Bush2. So policy failures
or weak leadership has nothing whatsoever with electability, and you can vote red, blue or purple,
the Clinton Cash Machine will still dominate the Selections in November.
Wringing hands because there is "no democracy" or the duopoly candidates are so bad is a cop-out.
You have choices.
Personally, I would vote third-party instead of staying at home or write-in.
Also consider:
1) there are grass-roots organizations that are very effective - join one!
2) Hillary was supposed to be coronated. Her downfall (via email scandal) shows that things
are not as hopeless/inevitable as some claim - don't lose heart!
3) A door has been opened. People see and talk about the 'rigged' political and economic
system like never before.
4) You have to be a smart voter. TPTB rely on voter apathy and ignorance. Educate those
around you! (carefully! a 'know it all' attitude or partisanship is counterproductive)
In USA only half of eligible voters actually vote. If everyone that gave up on voting were
to vote third-party we would have a viable alternative.
Notably, the only Party that supports preference voting (which makes third-parties viable and
greatly diminishes 'lesser-evil' voting) is the GREEN PARTY.
72;Ah Iran.Yes,Trump for some reason(Neocon votes?)has it in for Iran, but Iran is not central
to American prosperity, far away and being a Muslim nation makes it a little inviting for American
pol bashing, but hey, hopefully he'll stop this on election.
And yeah, he is trying to get the monsters on his side, or at least to stop the daily demonization
campaign against him, which anyone can see, if they are honest.
He will win based on the economy(66,000 jobs in May,the worst in 6 years btw) and the feelings
of patriotic Americans sick of being Zio boy toys,and sick of furriners coming here and rioting
against American citizens.That got him a few more million votes.
America first, a winning hand, but anathema to the Zionists, our mortal enemy.
>> given that outsider presidents like Jimmy Carter
>> and celebrity governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger
>> and Jesse Ventura didn't get much done,
Says who? They got us through 4+ years without heaping a ton of sh** on us. Reagan, Clinton,
Obama, and Bush did a lot of damage, such that we wish they would've done less.
77; I read that her speech was before the US Pacific Fleet, a bunch of military morons. She is
going full bore dominatrix. She said Trump coddles dictators;Sheesh,you mean like Mubarak,Sissi,Saudis,Bahrain,Dubai
and all points east and west thugs of Clinton favor? A moron, with hypocrisy enough to name a
wing of a museum of political liars after her evil self.
Penelope; Yes, if Trump turns out to be a liar re his plans, the pushback will be the next
election cycle, with an actual clone of Hitler as candidate. We've had enough of these monsters,
who use US and abuse US daily.
....there is absolutely no one worth voting for because the electoral system is irrevocably
broken due to psychopathic or ponerological "infection". You can thrash out the debate as to who
is the greater or lesser of evils....
Ahaaa, Not so, you have another choices. Votes for the MOST ABHORRENT CANDIDATE POSSIBLE,
Erdogan or Avigdor Lieberman if they are in the running or Hillary or Thump.
Better to place this action in an institutional context. The forces placed on the elected person
by the state machinery and pressures from big business dictate the outcome. In the current system
your vote is meaningless. You can argue all you want that "We need to keep up the pressure to
demand Politician______ needs to listen to ordinary citizens, not to business" and you will rot
on the vine as your words disappear into the indifferent air.
There is a difference between the state and government. The state is the permanent collection
of institutions that have entrenched power structures and interests. The government is made up
of various politicians. It is the institutions that have power in the state due to their permanence,
not the representatives who come and go. We cannot expect different politicians to act in different
ways to the same pressures. However, this is all ignored by the voting political consumer who
wishes Politician______ was more a socialist, green, populist etc. and could ignore the demands
of the dominant class in society while in charge of one part of its protector and creature, the
state.
Who wins the election in the capitalist system makes no difference because all politicians
in this system must do what the ruling class want. Elections are a scam whose function is to neutralize
resistance movements and dupe ordinary citizens into thinking they have a say in matters of the
state.
Elections in the capitalist system do not secure popular control over the state, they do help
secure state control over the populace. Voting is a ritual that reinforces obedience to state
authority. It creates the illusion that "the people" control the state, thereby masking elite
rule. That illusion makes rebellion against the state less likely because it is seen as a legitimate
institution and as an instrument of popular rule rather than the oligarchy it really is. Embedded
within all electoral campaigns is the myth that "the people" control the state through voting.
>> Had Sanders run as an independent he would be getting literally no coverage and likely achieving
very little success. ... If he ran as an independent this wouldn't be the case.
Not crazy. But, I disagree.
Implicit in your reasoning is this assumption: In an alternate timeline in which Clinton was
*not* primaried, DNC primary voters would've been unaware of or overlooked her horrible record.
But, that assumption is undermined by the record in the current timeline:
- We know Bernie has been pulling punches -- not making a big deal about her horrible record.
- Therefore, current-timeline Bernie supporters know about Clinton's record because they've
been following it and been appalled by it independently of whatever Bernie has to say.
- These people would've abandoned the DNC as soon as "Clinton" became the presumptive nominee
a year ago.
"Who wins the election in the capitalist system makes no difference because all politicians
in this system must do what the ruling class want. Elections are a scam whose function is to neutralize
resistance movements and dupe ordinary citizens into thinking they have a say in matters of the
state."
"... The Associated Press yesterday declared Hillary Clinton to be the "presumptive" Democratic nominee for the presidential election based on alleged pledges of anonymous super-delegates. This was a quite unprecedented interference in still ongoing and upcoming primaries on a day when no new public vote count was available. ..."
"... The FBI is under Obama's control and there no doubt that he wants Clinton as candidate to continue his right-leaning policies. But the FBI tends to be leaking quite a bit and someone with access to the case may want to speak to some enterprising reporters. ..."
"... Sanders requested a meeting with Obama which will happen on Thursday. Obama will offer him a bad deal which would be akin to a total capitulation. Sanders will look for a way to sneak at least some of his preferred policies into the party agenda. He will demand some significant price for endorsing Clinton and will probably wait to do so up to the last minute. ..."
"... Thanks for the posting b. I was also struck by the AP announcement just prior to the CA vote. I think Bernie knows some dirt and is going to confront Obama about it on Thursday. ..."
"... War criminal and class war media are trying to create a mindset of resignation - no point voting or ever supporting Sanders, they are selling. Now that it's over and Hitlery has won, WW3 took 3 steps closer. ..."
"... Right on! How deep can the most dangerous nation with nuclear weapons sink! ..."
"... A dysfunctional U.S. Congress doesn't represent "We the People." Just state propaganda with media bought by corporate power. And US generals using NATO as its war party across the globe. The UN has become a lame organization abiding by world powers with right to veto with some nations under full protection to abuse human rights with impunity .... Israel and recently the House of Saud in Yemen . Welcome to the 21th century ... ..."
"... Sad, give or takes 30% Bernie supporters will NOT vote for Hillary, what a joke! Time to change my voting preference again for the next show. ..."
"... Many complain that Trump will herald a fascist US. Like, the US isn't already fascist? If the choice is Killery or Trump, and if Trump would get the US out of the many damned foreign wars then a fascist US is a small price to pay. At least the US wouldn't be killing millions overseas. But I somehow doubt that Trump will be any different than Killery. ..."
"... one gets a clear sense of the frustration in the air.. the us election is more proof of it.. ..."
"... I know how bad Hillary Clinton is. I can only presume that the Donald is about the same. I can see no reason to believe he's any worse. ..."
"... The news of the meeting comes as Obama thanked Sanders for "energizing millions" through his campaign ... ... Obama throws the sheepdog a bone. ..."
"... So it happened again. This time with a blatant suppression of votes (that calls for criminal investigation into violation of election law) by a corporate behemoth such as AP doing its dreadful Orwellian deed of straight lie for oligarchic class. ..."
"... Those few who genuinely support Hillary must understand that by supporting the very fascist establishment candidate ..."
"... ems primary elections farce already have been rigged and stolen months ago starting from Iowa and N.H., and a stooge of the establishment is about to be anointed according to the will of those few opulent who paid her off. Not you, even if you voted for her. Your vote don't count at all.Oligarchs won. Are you happy? ..."
"... Sanders campaign was a failed attempt to save democrats' party from oblivion so was successful so far Trump candidacy aiming to save GOP from complete irrelevancy. ..."
"... What's ironic that this time as well, millions of irrational, desperate and helpless Democrat electoral zombies, under a spell of exciting political masquerade and their serf's duties, instead of choosing reason and self preservation are aligning themselves with an anointed by establishment "winner" of a popularity/beauty contest who in fact will inevitably drive utter destruction of the Democratic party itself while a "socialist" Sanders wants really to transform it, to redirect Dems from worshiping of heartless greedy Wall Street oligarchy toward ordinary people to, in a word, save it while Clinton mafia is continuing to authorize Jonestown-like suicide mission of the democrat party into political oblivion. ..."
"... "The individual loses his substance by voluntarily bowing to an overpowering and distant oligarchy, while simultaneously "participating" in sham democracy." C. Wright Mills,"The Power Elite" (1956) ..."
"... AP did not help Clinton, they hurt her by discouraging her voters from turning up and may have put California back into play which would give Sanders enough of a moral boost to keep in the nomination battle. So scratch the oligarch secret collusion manifestos. The party was stronger than the insurgency, that's it. ..."
"... Trump perfect? Nah, he says stupid stuff sometimes, but his pledge of America First is the most needed US dictate since the US Constitution, which of course the Zionists hate, as a level playing field is not to their advantage. ..."
The Associated Press yesterday declared Hillary Clinton to be the "presumptive" Democratic nominee
for the presidential election based on alleged pledges of anonymous super-delegates. This was a quite unprecedented interference in still ongoing and upcoming primaries on a day when
no new public vote count was available.
Bernie Sanders said he will continue to campaign up to the convention. His hope is that either
the FBI will indict Hillary Clinton for using an unsecured private email server for classified state
business, or that some other Clinton scandal will make it most likely that she would lose a vote
against Trump. In both cases some super-delegates may change their vote and the convention might
vote for Sanders as nominee.
The FBI is under Obama's control and there no doubt that he wants Clinton as candidate to continue
his right-leaning policies. But the FBI tends to be leaking quite a bit and someone with access to
the case may want to speak to some enterprising reporters.
Sanders
requested a meeting with Obama which will happen on Thursday. Obama will offer him a bad deal
which would be akin to a total capitulation. Sanders will look for a way to sneak at least some of
his preferred policies into the party agenda. He will demand some significant price for endorsing
Clinton and will probably wait to do so up to the last minute.
People around the world will wonder what democracy is all about when a race for a presidency ends
up as a contest between the two most disliked people in the field who are both proxies for the more
or less same small social segment.
The "Not Hillary"
voices will not die down. A seemingly racist Trump with otherwise unpredictable policies may
be less damaging to the world than an
unreconstructed neolibcon Clinton. ab initio | Jun 8, 2016 2:11:37 AM |
2
This is gonna be battle royale.
The entire political establishment (left, right & center) along with the big money interests
and corporate media are aligned to crown Hillary as the next president. They will use all their
resources to scare the American people that Trump is dangerous. They will stoke fear and anger
and even violence. They will use false flag attacks to pin the violence on Trump supporters to
reinforce their relentless message that Trump is Hitler. The danger not only for America but for
the rest of the world will be the Clintons back in the White House. Now, fully experienced, totally
corrupt, with the tentacles of the ziocons deeply enmeshed, they will wreak vengeance on their
perceived enemies and will be the most arrogant and haughty team to take reins of the destructive
power of the US state. Their unmatched ego and greed and lust for power will try to steamroll
their opposition and leave destruction in their wake.
The election as usual will come down to a handful of states in the midwest and south-east -
Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, North Carolina. Whoever, wins these states will
be the next US president. Let's hope the working class men and women in these states stay true
to their conscience and keep the Clintons from achieving their ultimate ambition to come back
with vengeance in their heart.
Thanks for the posting b. I was also struck by the AP announcement just prior to the CA vote.
I think Bernie knows some dirt and is going to confront Obama about it on Thursday.
I want this coming election to be between Sanders and Trump so we can get a measure on what
this country stands for better than the past annointments. It may be all talk on both sides but
there are values expressed by the talk and i will take Sanders values over Trump's every day of
the week.
War criminal and class war media are trying to create a mindset of resignation - no point voting
or ever supporting Sanders, they are selling.
Now that it's over and Hitlery has won, WW3 took 3 steps closer.
Right on! How deep can the most dangerous nation with nuclear weapons sink! Of course the U.S.
has long ago ceased to be a democracy conform its true definition. Lately by interference of the
Supreme Court in 2000 "election" and by declaring corporations are people too. A
dysfunctional
U.S. Congress doesn't represent "We the People." Just state propaganda with media bought by corporate
power. And US generals using NATO as its war party across the globe. The UN has become a lame
organization abiding by world powers with right to veto with some nations under full protection
to abuse human rights with impunity .... Israel and recently the
House of Saud in Yemen . Welcome to the 21th century ...
b, its over betcha Bernie wanna VP job? Goodbye President Bernie Sanders, welcome VP Bernie Sanders.
Together invincible duds? Obomo could easily release Hillary's emails. It may happen in Oct?
Sad, give or takes 30% Bernie supporters will NOT vote for Hillary, what a joke!
Time to change my voting preference again for the next show.
Many complain that Trump will herald a fascist US. Like, the US isn't already fascist?
If the choice is Killery or Trump, and if Trump would get the US out of the many damned foreign
wars then a fascist US is a small price to pay. At least the US wouldn't be killing millions overseas. But I somehow doubt that Trump will be any different than Killery.
The Clinton clan won't offer the VP slot to Bernie Sanders ... no way! That's not how HRC operates
and was one of Obama's many mistakes to offer HRC the State Dep't.
I know how bad Hillary Clinton is. I can only presume that the Donald is about the same. I can
see no reason to believe he's any worse. I won't be voting for any of the three 'leading' choices
but I think a lot of people will be voting for the Donald, for one reason or another. It would
be very satisfying to see the Demoblican Party self-destruct, shoving a despised, losing candidate
down the throats of the electorate for no known reason other than pure cronyism, only to be beaten
at the polls.
Of course the fix in November might be on the Demoblican Party side this time, "it's their
turn". That's the reason for pushing the female Clinton, right, it's "her turn"?
So it happened again. This time with a blatant suppression of votes (that calls for criminal investigation
into violation of election law) by a corporate behemoth such as AP doing its dreadful Orwellian
deed of straight lie for oligarchic class.
Make no mistake, tonight, Dems party mafia and disgusting Wall Street oligarchs have spoken
loudly while people have been largely gagged and defrauded, purged, and betrayed in this already
year long farcical spectacle of rich, constipated and ought to be indicted lowlifes, called US
elections. Oh yes she made a history of having more political balls than flaccid Trump.
Those few who genuinely support Hillary must understand that by supporting the very fascist
establishment candidate in the end they support American fascism whether Hillarism or Trump_vs_deep_state,
no difference, and that they will soon be sacrificed and consumed by its flames no matter what
lies they are being told.
Dems primary elections farce already have been rigged and stolen months ago starting from Iowa
and N.H., and a stooge of the establishment is about to be anointed according to the will of those
few opulent who paid her off. Not you, even if you voted for her. Your vote don't count at all.Oligarchs
won. Are you happy?
On the other hand Sanders supporters must be confronted with harsh reality of undeniably and
fatally flawed Sander candidacy, mostly not due to his personal failings but due to a deeply unfair
and outrageously undemocratic electoral system he chose to accept and vowed to uphold. Why?
It is as clear as it gets that Sanders was a flawed candidate to hopelessly flawed, deeply
undemocratic electoral system that is specifically designed to prevent ruling elite from heeding
cry of suffering population, not to mention their willingness of doing something about.
But that's not even democracy. In democracy people rule and do not ask power to heed their
grievances, that's feudalism.
Having said that, Sanders campaign was not off mainstream or radical in any way but of a conservative
centrist type aimed to stop political madness. He was a solemn voice of sanity in this crazy campaign
spectacle; he advocated a moderate, even modest call for return to simple rule of law destroyed
by oligarchic class like Clintons, Trumps and their masters.
Sanders campaign was a failed attempt to save democrats' party from oblivion so was successful
so far Trump candidacy aiming to save GOP from complete irrelevancy. Sanders asked politely Dems'
establishment not to believe their own utter lies and they sadly but not unexpectedly refused
clinching to Wall Street pockets begging for a change.
Make no mistake, Hillary and Trump are both excretions of the same abhorrent regime, equally
hostile to humanity and both deserve utter condemnation from majority of Americans not as a political
or ideological act but as an act of self-preservation and self-defense.
Besides Trumps tasteless reality show passed in MSM as campaign, it was Hillary campaign that
was nothing but ridiculous, shameless influence peddling for oligarchs via lies and innuendoes
for money she got paid for, an intellectual embarrassment for otherwise witty Clinton, who stooped
into utter nonsense and retarded incoherence punctuated by her vicious ad hominem aggression,
outbursts liken to lowlife blog troll against decent man epitomizing civility missing from a screen
play of this electoral farce, complete opposite to her conniving husband she praises and wants
him in W.H. position.
What does tell about her character and basic morality?
Still, in fact Sanders would be right if he calls for Hillary to resign if her criminal investigation
is not dropped, and her bought speeches and taxes since 2008 not released before convention.
It is critical that Sanders understands that those millions of votes people cast for him already
are not his votes; these are people's votes that must be respected and democratically counted.
His responsibility is to guard people's votes and protect them by whatever means available, legal
or political or revolutionary.
What's ironic that this time as well, millions of irrational, desperate and helpless Democrat
electoral zombies, under a spell of exciting political masquerade and their serf's duties, instead
of choosing reason and self preservation are aligning themselves with an anointed by establishment
"winner" of a popularity/beauty contest who in fact will inevitably drive utter destruction of
the Democratic party itself while a "socialist" Sanders wants really to transform it, to redirect
Dems from worshiping of heartless greedy Wall Street oligarchy toward ordinary people to, in a
word, save it while Clinton mafia is continuing to authorize Jonestown-like suicide mission of
the democrat party into political oblivion.
Now it is the last moment to start protests of this fatally deeply undemocratic system that
will never bring any change unless people force it, by taking it over. In this election, it is
the system stupid.
Decision time is now whether Sanders continues as independent and respect millions of his voters
or he ultimately reveals himself as a sheepherder for the establishment and endorses Clinton as
I and many others suspected already 10 months ago.
Political stooges, those farcical clowns of this abhorrent regime will soon understand that
there is no silent majority but only temporarily "silenced majority" and when they hear their
roar it will be the last thing they ever hear.
"The individual loses his substance by voluntarily bowing to an
overpowering and distant oligarchy, while simultaneously
"participating" in sham democracy."
C. Wright Mills,"The Power Elite" (1956)
This is not about Bernie or bust. This is about Bernie or revolution
or precisely about: A Revolution with Bernie or without him.
AP did not help Clinton, they hurt her by discouraging her voters from turning up and may have
put California back into play which would give Sanders enough of a moral boost to keep in the
nomination battle. So scratch the oligarch secret collusion manifestos. The party was stronger
than the insurgency, that's it.
In the GOP the party was weaker than the insurgency, which means
instability on the right will be the new norm. GWs Presidency can now be properly interpreted
as a Party shattering presidency, in a way that Obamas has not been. I too am very concerned about
Hillary's FP thinking. But here is what I don't get.
Do people really not understand how Iraq2
destroyed GW and the GOP?
Does Hillary not get that aggressive FP action risks sinking her Presidency
and Party like a stone? She is a political animal right? How can she ignore the obvious danger?
Maybe the money really is too good to ignore. /a>
Racist Trump? No more than the hell bitch, who uses minorities as a venue to power and then turns
on them for the Zionists.
b has no idea of what is really happening here in America. Our society is being destroyed from
within by dual citizen traitors who know their power rests on American's divisions. HRC is their
babe.
Trump perfect? Nah, he says stupid stuff sometimes, but his pledge of America First is the most needed
US dictate since the US Constitution, which of course the Zionists hate, as a level playing field
is not to their advantage.
Posted by: Northern Observer | Jun 8, 2016 7:59:47 AM | 14
Doubt that, Sanders California win was thought feasable on huge spontaneous turnout - early vote
was done by reliable Democrat voters - ie more in favour of Clinton.
You cannot expect a party that has been dominated by a certain type of politics - for how many
years - plus formed by the self fulfilling expectation that elections can only be won by triangualtion
to suddenly get a different perspective. Sanders got where he got by the Democrat party allowing
independents to vote.
Sanders presumably stays in to send as many social democrat delegates to the Convention and get
as as much leverage as he can. Plus - not to disappear from the news.
If the US are lucky he succeeded in changing the political business model.
"... Would be more meaningful if she weren't an entrenched politician ..."
"... She's seen as just another politician – the same kind of politician who gives politicians bad
names. She's corrupt, she's under FBI investigation, she's enriched herself and her family through public
service and she's belittled women who accused her husband of rape while claiming to stand with accusers.
..."
"... She's too big to jail. She's Hillary Clinton and it's going to take an extreme act of courage
on the part of the federal government to actually hold her accountable for what she's done. ..."
"... A new book from a former secret service officer claims Ms. Clinton had a "Jekyll and Hyde"
personality and that Bill and White House staff were afraid of her. ..."
"... Maybe they're both lying, but Ms. Clinton has done plenty of provably bad things to make one
believe it could be true. ..."
"... Ms. Clinton may be the first female nominated for the presidency by a major political party,
but she is not the female politician one should hope for ..."
Would be more meaningful if she weren't an entrenched politician
... ... ..
She's seen as just another politician – the same kind of politician who gives politicians
bad names. She's corrupt, she's under FBI investigation, she's enriched herself and her family through
public service and she's belittled women who accused her husband of rape while claiming to stand
with accusers.
She hasn't been in the private sector since she was made a partner at the Rose Law Firm, conveniently
after her husband became governor of Arkansas. Also convenient, the firm began bringing in big-name
clients after she was brought on board.
She's too big to jail. She's Hillary Clinton and it's going to take an extreme act of courage
on the part of the federal government to actually hold her accountable for what she's done.
Her current email scandal and FBI investigation make her unfit to be president, it's very possible
that state secrets fell into the hands of hostile nations because she wanted "convenience." If a
non-hacker who simply guessed her password was able to get into her emails, an advanced hacker would
have had no problems. And this doesn't seem to bother her at all, aside from the toll it may take
on her campaign.
The Clinton Foundation, which she and her family continue to use to enjoy fabulously wealthy lifestyles,
accepted millions from foreign governments while Ms. Clinton was Secretary of State. She used her
connections to get husband Bill lucrative speaking gigs in other countries as well. You can't tell
me she's qualified for the presidency when she's so blatantly bought-and-paid-for But she won't be
indicted for her emails, of course not. She's too big to jail. She's Hillary Clinton and it's going
to take an extreme act of courage on the part of the federal government to actually hold her accountable
for what she's done. I'll believe it when I see it.
Leading the charge of the "Who cares?" coalition are millennials, who don't see Ms. Clinton as
the feminist hero the most ardent modern outrage feminists claim she is. She rode her husband's coattails
to get where she was (we millennials were old enough to remember learning about her through President
Bill Clinton, though I personally lived in Arkansas briefly while he was the governor), and doesn't
have much more to her name than the titles she has been given due to her marriage.
She bought a house in New York (well, a wealthy family friend paid the mortgage on a house in
New York) so she could run for Senate after her family left the White House. Her name and husband's
influence helped win her the election. She ran for president in 2008 because of her name, lost, and
was given the position of Secretary of State as a consolation prize, which she's now using as experience
to run for president again.
Beyond all of this, she's just not a likeable candidate. People talk about presumptive Republican
presidential nominee Donald Trump's "temperament" for president, but we're banned from talking about
Ms. Clinton's for fear of being called a sexist. A new book from a former secret service officer
claims Ms. Clinton had a "Jekyll and Hyde" personality and that Bill and White House staff were afraid
of her.
Her campaign says the officer is just trying to cash in, but it's not the first time a former
secret service officer described her as volatile. Maybe they're both lying, but Ms. Clinton has
done plenty of provably bad things to make one believe it could be true.
Things like, calling her own supporters sexist, or getting testy with the press during her extremely
rare press conferences.
Ms. Clinton may be the first female nominated for the presidency by a major political party,
but she is not the female politician one should hope for .
Hannity said Obama's video backing of Clinton looked "like a hostage video." Looks like she's
too big to jail. Her current email scandal and FBI investigation make her unfit to be president,
it's very possible that state secrets fell into the hands of hostile nations because she wanted
"convenience."
Notable quotes:
"... Even if Bernie Sanders ultimately endorses Hillary Clinton for president, many of his supporters, I believe, won't follow suit. ..."
"... Unlike Clinton supporters, they support Bernie because of his principled policies and his message. Clinton, on the other hand, is a candidate who changes her positions based on the political climate-blowing left for now-rather than her convictions. President Barack Obama's recent endorsement is the latest propaganda ploy by the Democratic Party establishment to anoint Clinton as the Democratic Presidential nominee. ..."
"... Throughout the Democratic Primaries, Clinton and her surrogates have repeatedly used similar meaningless rhetoric without properly describing exactly what those qualifications actually are. The president's endorsement also contradicts his claims in April that he guaranteed politics would not influence the FBI/DOJ criminal investigation of Clinton's private email server used during her service as secretary of state. ..."
"... On the same day as the president's endorsement, Sen. Elizabeth Warren gave Clinton her stamp of approval. After remaining silent throughout the Democratic primaries, she announced her support for Clinton, claiming she was ready to help defeat Donald Trump. But if Sen. Warren was truly determined to defeat Trump, she would have long ago endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders, who polls much better against the bombastic billionaire than Clinton. ..."
"... Sen. Warren's endorsement allows everything she once stood for to fall by the wayside. The Wall Street crusader endorsed a candidate who still has not released transcripts of speeches Clinton delivered for big money to Goldman Sachs, a candidate who has received millions of dollars from the financial industry throughout her political career, while generally supporting of financial deregulation. For Bernie's supporters, Sen. Warren's endorsement is a harrowing sign of how deep corruption and hypocrisy has infiltrated the Democratic Party. ..."
Even if Bernie Sanders ultimately endorses Hillary Clinton for president, many of his supporters,
I believe, won't follow suit.
Unlike Clinton supporters, they support Bernie because of his principled policies and his message.
Clinton, on the other hand, is a candidate who changes her positions based on the political climate-blowing
left for now-rather than her convictions. President Barack Obama's recent endorsement is the latest
propaganda ploy by the Democratic Party establishment to anoint Clinton as the Democratic Presidential
nominee.
"I don't think there has ever been someone so qualified to hold this office," President Obama
said in his formal endorsement video for his former secretary of state-released on June 9.
Throughout the Democratic Primaries, Clinton and her surrogates have repeatedly used similar meaningless
rhetoric without properly describing exactly what those qualifications actually are. The president's
endorsement also contradicts his claims in April that he guaranteed politics would not influence
the FBI/DOJ criminal investigation of Clinton's private email server used during her service as secretary
of state.
On the same day as the president's endorsement, Sen. Elizabeth Warren gave Clinton her stamp of
approval. After remaining silent throughout the Democratic primaries, she announced her support for
Clinton, claiming she was ready to help defeat Donald Trump. But if Sen. Warren was truly determined
to defeat Trump, she would have long ago endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders, who polls much better against
the bombastic billionaire than Clinton.
In 2014, the IBTimes reported Hillary Clinton's allies were attempting to portray the former first
lady as similar to the populist Sen. Warren in anticipation that Clinton's strong ties to Wall Street
would make her vulnerable to a primary challenge from Sen. Warren. But IBTimes reporter David Sirota
noted several differences between Sen. Warren and Hillary Clinton.
In Sen. Warren's 2004 book, Two Income Trap, she criticized Clinton for flip-flopping when she
opposed a controversial bankruptcy bill as first lady but voted for the same exact bill as senator.
"As New York's newest senator, however, it seems that Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled
position," Sirota wrote. "The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not."
The two also differ in their records on trade deals: Clinton favored NAFTA and helped negotiate the
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement; Sen. Warren has vehemently opposed both. The two also differed
on the Iraq War and welfare reform in the 1990s.
In the Senate, Sen. Sanders has often worked in tandem with Sen. Warren to fight for progressive
reforms-often without the help of other Democrats. For Sanders supporters, her silence during the
primary battle was a betrayal of the progressive ideals she long championed. Her recent endorsement
of Hillary Clinton, just days after claiming she did not believe in superdelegates, seems like away
to coax Clinton to pick her as a running mate.
Several weeks ago, Sen. Warren tested out how well her attacks on presumptive Republican nominee
Donald Trump would play with supporters, and the attacks have often trended on social media as a
result, likely currying favor with the Clinton camp.
Sen. Warren's endorsement allows everything she once stood for to fall by the wayside. The Wall
Street crusader endorsed a candidate who still has not released transcripts of speeches Clinton delivered
for big money to Goldman Sachs, a candidate who has received millions of dollars from the financial
industry throughout her political career, while generally supporting of financial deregulation. For
Bernie's supporters, Sen. Warren's endorsement is a harrowing sign of how deep corruption and hypocrisy
has infiltrated the Democratic Party.
Blakeman says the FBI has deliberately waited to interview Hillary Clinton until after the primaries
because the bureau did not want to interfere with the nominating process. He thinks the FBI is "likely"
to recommend to the Department of Justice whether or not she should be indicted for violating what
she says are agency rules and what others call the law between now and the Democratic National Convention
in Philadelphia, which begins July 25.
If she is indicted before the convention, Blakeman says, it will give the party an opportunity
to make changes in the rules that could result in an alternate nominee.
"... Hillary's emails contain at least three separate, specific instances where she mentioned in an unclassified email transmitted across the open Internet and wirelessly to her Blackberry the names of CIA personnel. ..."
"... These redactions point directly to violations of specific laws. It is not a "mistake" or minor rule breaking. ..."
"... These redactions strongly suggest that the Espionage Act's standard of mishandling national defense information through "gross negligence" may have been met by Clinton. ..."
"... There is no ambiguity in this information, no possible claims to faux-retroactive classification, not knowing, information not being labeled, etc. Clinton and her staff know that one cannot mention CIA names in open communications. ..."
"... Exposing these names can directly endanger the lives of the officials. It can endanger the lives of the foreigners they interacted with after a foreign government learns one of their citizens was talking with the CIA It can blow covers and ruin sensitive clandestine operations. It can reveal to anyone listening in on this unclassified communication sources and methods. Here is a specific example of how Clinton likely compromised security. ..."
"... These redactions show complete contempt on Clinton's part for the security process. ..."
"... A Personal Aside: I just remain incredulous about these revelations seeming to mean nothing to the world. They're treated in the media as almost gossip. ..."
"... It seems that HRC may become POTUS, thanks to the actions of DNC, DWS and the MSM and the inaction of the FBI and DOJ - much to the relief of the MIC, CIA and NSA and the satisfaction of the TBTF banks and the RDA (* I made this one up; it stands for "Revolving Door Apparatchiks".) ..."
"... An external IT audit is necessary in this case, if it hasn't already been ordered. Who gave the approval to set this thing up? Where is the documentation requesting access to the State's servers? Who signed off on that? Who verified that approval? Who processed the request and what verification did the approvals undergo? ..."
"... An IT auditor would rip State several new orifices with which to excrete solid waste matter. ..."
You can look at the source documents yourself. This is not opinion, conjecture, or rumor. Hillary
Clinton transmitted the names of American intelligence officials via her unclassified email.
From a series of Clinton emails, numerous names were redacted in the State Department releases
with the classification code "B3 CIA PERS/ORG," a highly specialized classification that means the
information, if released, would violate the Central Intelligence Act of 1949 by exposing the names
of CIA officials.
How FOIA Works
The Freedom of information Act (FOIA) requires the government to release all, or all parts of
a document, that do not fall under a specific set of allowed exemptions. If information cannot be
excluded, it must be released. If some part of a document can be redacted to allow the rest of the
document to be released, then that is what must be done. Each redaction must be justified by citing
a specific reason for exclusion.
But don't believe me. Instead, look at page two of this
State Department document which lists the exemptions.
Note specifically the different types of "(b)(3)" redactions, including "CIA PERS/ORG." As common
sense would dictate, the government will not release the names of CIA employees via the FOIA process.
It would - literally - be against the law. What law? Depending on the nature of the individual's
job at CIA, National Security Act of 1947, the CIA Act of 1949, various laws that govern undercover/clandestine
CIA officers and, potentially, the Espionage Act of 1917.
Names of CIA, NSA Officials Mentioned, Now Redacted
Yet Hillary's emails contain at least three separate, specific instances where she mentioned
in an unclassified email transmitted across the open Internet and wirelessly to her Blackberry the
names of CIA personnel. Here they are. Look for the term "(b)(3) CIA PERS/ORG" Click on the
links and see for yourself:
There are also numerous instances of exposure of the names and/or email addresses of NSA employees
("B3 NSA"); see page 23 inside this longer
PDF document.
Why It Matters
These redactions point directly to violations of specific laws. It is not a "mistake"
or minor rule breaking.
These redactions strongly suggest that the Espionage Act's standard of mishandling national
defense information through "gross negligence" may have been met by Clinton.
There is no ambiguity in this information, no possible claims to faux-retroactive classification,
not knowing, information not being labeled, etc. Clinton and her staff know that one cannot mention
CIA names in open communications. It is one of the most basic tenets taught and exercised
inside the government. One protects one's colleagues.
Exposing these names can directly endanger the lives of the officials. It can endanger
the lives of the foreigners they interacted with after a foreign government learns one of their
citizens was talking with the CIA It can blow covers and ruin sensitive clandestine operations.
It can reveal to anyone listening in on this unclassified communication sources and methods. Here
is a
specific example of how Clinton likely compromised security.
These redactions show complete contempt on Clinton's part for the security process.
BONUS: There is clear precedent for others going to jail for exposing CIA names.
Read the story of John Kiriakou
.
A Personal Aside: I just remain incredulous about these revelations seeming
to mean nothing to the world. They're treated in the media as almost gossip.
It seems that HRC may become POTUS, thanks to the actions of DNC, DWS and the MSM and the
inaction of the FBI and DOJ - much to the relief of the MIC, CIA and NSA and the satisfaction
of the TBTF banks and the RDA (* I made this one up; it stands for "Revolving Door Apparatchiks".)
The rest of us are FUCD.
Tired_of_poor_healthcare
The media has been bought and paid for. There is no longer news reporting, only propaganda
recitation. Statistically, most people are followers. Let's hope there are a few principled public
servants at the FBI to help save our country.
liveload
An external IT audit is necessary in this case, if it hasn't already been ordered. Who
gave the approval to set this thing up? Where is the documentation requesting access to the State's
servers? Who signed off on that? Who verified that approval? Who processed the request and what
verification did the approvals undergo?
An IT auditor would rip State several new orifices with which to excrete solid waste matter.
Stephen Colbert has made
no attempt on to hide the fact that he isn't a big fan of
Donald Trump. Jokes are frequently
made at the Republican Presidential candidate's expense on
The Late
Show With Stephen Colbert. However in last night's monologue, Colbert's jokes about Trump
were downright scathing.
Colbert - refreshed from a recent 10 day hiatus - started the monologue off in earnest with some
jibes about Burger King's new Whopperrito. But then he tore into Trump with jokes that ripped his
intelligence and racism, calling the mogul's own recent statements to the press, "Proof Donald Trump
doesn't like Mexico and can't name another country."
However, the most scathing parts came with Colbert alluded to Trump' record of offending just
about every major demographic - except for white supremacists and the KKK. He cheekily checked off
all the groups Trump has offended and offered a solution that wound up being quite an indictment:
"Trump's point is he cannot be judged by a member of any group he has offended. So that means no
Mexican judges, no Muslim judges, no Asian judges, no women judges - unless she's a 'ten.' Trump's
insulted the Pope, so no Catholic judges. He called everyone in Iowa 'stupid,' so no judges that
eat corn. You know what? Maybe Trump might be more comfortable if he couldn't tell the judge's race
or gender. Maybe cover the judge up in an unbiased robe. Make it a white robe - maybe with a matching
hood. That seems about right. Don't know who it is!"
Then, Colbert doubled down on Trump's
racism by comparing his recent controversial comments about "my African-American" at a rally with
Thomas Jefferson's history of slave-owning.
Colbert said, "Trump did say he was going to start acting 'presidential,' and 'Look at my African-American'
does sound like something Thomas Jefferson might have said."
If these are the salvos the late night host is lobbing against Trump in June, then it looks like
we're in for quite the election year.
"... The position Trump is now taking on Libya is not that different from the one that liberal hawks took when the Iraq war started to go badly. They wanted "credit" for supporting regime change and war, but also wanted to be able to second-guess how Bush managed the war. So once things started going wrong, they said they favored invading but disagreed with the way Bush had gone about it. Ritual paeans to the importance of multilateralism usually followed. That put them in the rather absurd spot of attacking Bush for mishandling the illegal, unnecessary war that he started, as if it would have been all right if it had just been managed more competently. ..."
"... This sort of criticism, like Trump's complaint about Libya, takes for granted that there was nothing inherently destabilizing and dangerous in overthrowing a foreign government that better management couldn't have fixed. That misses the crucial point that forcible regime change and its consequences can't be "managed" successfully because so many of its effects are out of the control of the intervening government(s) and some can't be anticipated in advance. ..."
comments on Trump's latest position on the Libyan war:
I'm sure the Libya hawks in the Hillary camp would also prefer a timeline
where their war went off without any bad bits. But if Trump has any ideas
about how the Pentagon could have "take[n] out Qaddafi and his group" without
creating a situation where Libya is "not even a country anymore," he didn't
share them. Instead he's basically saying I'm for a Libya war that worked
out better, without Benghazi and all that. Which is a bit like saying The
Iraq war was a great idea, except for the insurgency or Going into Vietnam
was wise, as long as we could've had a quick victory.
The position Trump is now taking on Libya is not that different from the
one that liberal hawks took when the Iraq war started to go badly. They wanted
"credit" for supporting regime change and war, but also wanted to be able to
second-guess how Bush managed the war. So once things started going wrong, they
said they favored invading but disagreed with the way Bush had gone about it.
Ritual paeans to the importance of multilateralism usually followed. That put
them in the rather absurd spot of attacking Bush for mishandling the illegal,
unnecessary war that he started, as if it would have been all right if it had
just been managed more competently.
This sort of criticism, like Trump's complaint about Libya, takes for granted
that there was nothing inherently destabilizing and dangerous in overthrowing
a foreign government that better management couldn't have fixed. That misses
the crucial point that forcible regime change and its consequences can't be
"managed" successfully because so many of its effects are out of the control
of the intervening government(s) and some can't be anticipated in advance. If
Trump was fine with removing Gaddafi from power by force, and he admits that
he was, he
can't credibly complain about the chaos that followed when the U.S. did
exactly that. Trump has the same problem on Libya that Romney and all other
hawkish candidates have had, which is that he cannot challenge Clinton on the
decision to intervene because he ultimately agreed with that decision and supported
joining the conflict at the time.
"... Among Democratic voters, 71% believe Clinton should keep running even under indictment. Nearly half say it will have no impact on their vote. It is unclear that, in theory, that any of those surveyed understand a candidate indicted in the fall of 2016 could face trial/impeachment while in office in 2017. ..."
"... In what I hope is a statistical anomaly, eight percent say indictment makes them more likely to vote for the former first lady. ..."
"... Just to make this as clear as possible, Hillary Clinton is the only presidential candidate in the history of the United States to be running while under an FBI investigation for national security crimes that could reach as high as the Espionage Act. About 65% of American voters already believe she broke laws, ahead of the FBI results and when asked before the State Department Inspector General's report was released. ..."
In a statement I never expected to see in print, half of voters said in a survey a presidential candidate
should continue to run for America's highest office even if she is indicted for national security
crimes.
For those who want historical markers to look back on, charting decline in civilization
and deviations from reality, well, there's a good one.
The latest Rasmussen Reports
survey, taken in late May, finds most voters (65%) believe Hillary Clinton is a lawbreaker, but half
of all voters also say a felony indictment shouldn't stop her campaign for the presidency.
Among Democratic voters, 71% believe Clinton should keep running even under indictment. Nearly
half say it will have no impact on their vote. It is unclear that, in theory, that any of those surveyed
understand a candidate indicted in the fall of 2016 could face trial/impeachment while in office
in 2017.
Those surveyed are saying that even if the FBI releases a report saying their lengthy investigation
shows there is enough evidence to bring Clinton before a grand jury, that does not matter to them.
In what I hope is a statistical anomaly, eight percent say indictment makes them more likely
to vote for the former first lady.
Just to make this as clear as possible, Hillary Clinton is the only presidential candidate
in the history of the United States to be running while under an FBI investigation for national security
crimes that could reach as high as the Espionage Act. About 65% of American voters already believe
she broke laws, ahead of the FBI results and when asked before the State Department Inspector General's
report was released.
But they'll vote for her anyway. I am rarely at a loss for words, but this time I just don't know
what to say anymore.
"... Releasing transcripts of her paid speeches to Wall Street would signal her commitment to reversing these perceptions. ..."
"... Donald Trump is correctly pointing out that Mrs. Clinton has gone many months without answering questions at a news conference. It is past time for her to hold a forthright session with reporters. ..."
"... His intention appears to be to turn the general election into a referendum on Mrs. Clinton's character. ..."
"... A candidate who has taken, along with her husband, over $150 million from every special interest in this Country. A candidate this paper calls a "war hawk," and who the neocons (including Cheney) and Kissinger support. A candidate whose policies are in line with the neoliberals. A candidate who said this Country will "never, ever" have Medicare for All. ..."
"... Criticizing Hillary does not mean a person supports Trump. It means we are really concerned Hillary is too flawed to beat Trump and we will end up with him as President. Check out the facts. We have real reasons to not want Hillary as the Democratic nominee. ..."
"... She is a republican of my youth. On foreign policy this paper labeled her a "war hawk." Neocons (including Cheney) and Kissinger love her foreign policy. She professes neoliberal policies. Supports free trade agreements until politically she needs to retreat. ..."
"... Nope. She is a republican of old. So sad how our Country has drifted so far right that Hillary look like some to be "center left". ..."
"... That was until they took over $150 Million in speaking fees from special interests and sold out their Foundation to every special interest, including foreign governments. And the lobbyists are lining up to fund her campaign. Do you even care? ..."
"... Please name a single policy Hillary has led on that helps the majority of Americans who have been hurt by Hillary's neoliberal policies. Tell me why I should support a candidate who this paper labeled a "war hawk." A candidate who the neocons and Kissinger love. ..."
"... The candidate who said "never, ever" to healthcare for every American, including millions of women, is not the People's candidate. She is the candidate of those who have bought and paid for her. The power elite who will benefit if she is elected. ..."
Beyond these policy-related efforts lie opportunities for Mrs. Clinton to demonstrate her
commitment to running an accountable White House, should she win the presidency. This will
require greater openness and directness from a candidate who has had a tendency to dodge
uncomfortable questions.
Releasing transcripts of her paid speeches to Wall Street would signal her commitment to
reversing these perceptions. So, too, would clearly acknowledging what the State Department
inspector general has said: that using a private email server for official business was not
allowed or encouraged, but she did it anyway, in a misguided effort to protect her privacy.
Donald Trump is correctly pointing out that Mrs. Clinton has gone many months without
answering questions at a news conference. It is past time for her to hold a forthright session
with reporters.
Since declaring his candidacy a year ago, Mr. Trump has revealed almost no policy knowledge or
workable proposals. His intention appears to be to turn the general election into a
referendum on Mrs. Clinton's character.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 55 minutes ago
So excited about the presumptive Democratic nominee.
A candidate who has taken, along with her husband, over $150 million from every special
interest in this Country. A candidate this paper calls a "war hawk," and who the neocons
(including Cheney) and Kissinger support. A candidate whose policies are in line with the
neoliberals. A candidate who said this Country will "never, ever" have Medicare for All.
it is an exciting day indeed. Can't wait for November.
njglea, is a trusted commenter Seattle 47 minutes ago
It's hard to understand your level of angst, ScottW. Vote for DT - that should make you
feel better.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 43 minutes ago
@njglea: The angst is people like you saying "vote for Trump" when of course you mean
nothing of the sort. The angst is a flawed candidate like Hillary running against the evil
Donald. No. Criticizing Hillary does not mean a person supports Trump. It means we are
really concerned Hillary is too flawed to beat Trump and we will end up with him as President.
Check out the facts. We have real reasons to not want Hillary as the Democratic nominee.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 1 hour ago
Give me a break--Hillary occupies the "center left." She is a republican of my youth.
On foreign policy this paper labeled her a "war hawk." Neocons (including Cheney) and
Kissinger love her foreign policy. She professes neoliberal policies. Supports free trade
agreements until politically she needs to retreat.
Nope. She is a republican of old. So sad how our Country has drifted so far right that
Hillary look like some to be "center left".
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 1 hour ago
You are wrong. Take it from this 59 year old who used to think Bill & Hillary were Golden.
That was until they took over $150 Million in speaking fees from special interests and
sold out their Foundation to every special interest, including foreign governments. And the
lobbyists are lining up to fund her campaign. Do you even care?
Please name a single policy Hillary has led on that helps the majority of Americans who
have been hurt by Hillary's neoliberal policies. Tell me why I should support a candidate who
this paper labeled a "war hawk." A candidate who the neocons and Kissinger love.
The candidate who said "never, ever" to healthcare for every American, including millions
of women, is not the People's candidate. She is the candidate of those who have bought and
paid for her. The power elite who will benefit if she is elected.
Sorry--the truth hurts. Of course those who have benefited off the status quo have no interest
in changing it.
Primary just proved that the Democratic Party is completely corrupt and can no longer be
distinguished from the Republican Party (at the elite level).
Notable quotes:
"... But especially voting today, after that announcement, it sends a really strong message that we're not going to accept it. ..."
"... The worst joke of this century is to see Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump fighting it out for President of the Free World and the possibility that Ms corporate establishment profiteer Clinton could be first female president or alternatively that an overly inflated reality tv host could be in charge of the worlds biggest war machine! ..."
"... Yes, its voter suppression by the "bandwagon effect". They've been doing this for decades to right wing populist candidates. Next will come the marginalizing and name calling. Its very refreshing to see the oligarch's media playing all the same trick on young leftists that they've played on us all these years. ..."
"... The enemy is the Guardian, and the media. This is your enemy. Never let them fool you again. ..."
"... Astute comment. The Clinton victories in the south, which as you point out were a major factor in her primary success, was won on the backs of unsophisticated blacks who once more voted for their own oppression by supporting the wife of the charming sax playing conman who they love although he devastated their families with his support for the war on drugs, welfare elimination called "welfare reform," and other neo-eugenic policies. ..."
"... i think the US can survive trump. i do not think the US can survive dynastic coronations. that way leads to the republic's last breath and the legitimisation of hereditary rulers. it's already that way now--and a mechanism is in place to crush it. that mechanism is electing an outsider. any outsider at all. ..."
"... the problem with the clintonistas is that they desperately need to vilify the progressive opposition and the use of the imaginary bernie bro is a prime example. it shows the underlying character of the corporate shill they feel will most benefit them personally despite how much harm it would bring to those less fortunate. it's an expression of just how bottomlessly empty their rhetoric is and how they are strangers to genuineness, compassion and perspicacity. ..."
"... Exactly. It's the apathy of the electorate that has had a very big impact on the current situation. I'm not in the USA but I have several friends in Cali who are all, meh, politics. They can't be bothered even registering to vote. ..."
"... You've helped nominate the least trusted, most disliked Democratic nominee ever. Since records began. She's going to lose badly of she's not indicted first.. ..."
"... This election has been a huge wake-up call for many of us. I now understand that the Democratic Party is completely corrupt and can no longer be distinguished from the Republican Party (at the elite level). ..."
"... " I'm pretty sure, as no nation can withstand the blatant rigging of an election for its highest office combined with the two choices being among the most loathed people in the country, if the elites insist on Clinton as their candidate." ..."
"... You have to remember Americans forgot about the rigged Bush/Gore election of 2000 the moment they turned on their cable news and they were told ...nothing to see here. The flagrant abuse of democracy is accepted because people feel powerless to do anything about it.. Perhaps this time around Sanders supporters will be the exception and take their democracy back. ..."
"... Even Hillary's cat knows she is corrupt. Corruption is what the Clintons DO. Just ask Trump, he's paid them plenty over the years. Or ask Democratic pollster Pat Caddell, President Carter's advisor. He called the Clintons "the greediest white trash I've ever seen." ..."
"... How women like me would have loved a female presidential candidate to be proud of. Nothing but disgust for this lying, cheating, corrupt-to-the-core, war-mongering Oligarch. Hope the FBI arrests her before late July. ..."
"... Bernie is not going away. He is in it until everyone has a chance to vote and he has said he is in it through the National Convention. The delegates vote on July 25. ..."
"... Hasn't had unscripted press event in 180+ days. Her and her entire staff have lawyered up and taken the 5th. Two separate FBI Criminal investigations in progress. People who support her call this a "nothing burger". ..."
"... With Clinton, the Democrats offer nothing but more of the same stagnant mess we've endured for the last two decades; no vision, no hope, no change. No thanks, I'll pass. The Republicans offer nothing but a three-card monte of a candidate. Neither is fit to lead the nation, and either one is more likely than not to lead to disaster, just disasters of different sorts. ..."
"... Throughout history the privileged elites have proven utterly incompetent to run nations the vast majority of the time, always mistaking the arrogance and ruthlessness required to amass great wealth for wisdom and political competence. ..."
The Associated Press declared late on Monday that the former secretary of state had won the
support of the 2,383 delegates needed to clinch the nomination, an unexpected twist on the eve of
voting on Tuesday in California plus New Jersey, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and New
Mexico.
The Sanders campaign called the announcement a "rush to judgment" which ignored the Democratic
National Committee's rule to count superdelegate votes only at the convention, not before.
... ... ...
Egbuonu, the physical therapist, said the specter of Trump, the Republican presumptive
nominee, would steel her to back Clinton. "The lesser of two evils." But she hoped Sanders would
continue to fight until the convention. "It's important for him to take it as far as he can. For
him to drop out now would leave people feeling voiceless."
... ... ...
Turner Willman, 26 and a community media activist, was dispirited on the train in San
Francisco on Tuesday morning.
"I feel like my vote has been disregarded. It doesn't feel democratic. It feels like a media
stunt to discourage people from actually voting ... But especially voting today, after that
announcement, it sends a really strong message that we're not going to accept it."
BradKB 8 Jun 2016 00:01
So the status quo continues and America misses a golden opportunity.
Aileronica 7 Jun 2016 23:55
The worst joke of this century is to see Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump fighting it
out for President of the Free World and the possibility that Ms corporate establishment
profiteer Clinton could be first female president or alternatively that an overly inflated
reality tv host could be in charge of the worlds biggest war machine!
I want to wake up from this nightmare, I think I've slipped into an alternate universe and I
don't like it one little bit.
alalos 7 Jun 2016 23:50
The real fault that should be leveled at the Democratic machine is the closed primaries and
then you have the stories of voter roll malfeasance. But even the former, sadly, was a well
known mechanism in place far in advance.
SpiritOf1775 7 Jun 2016 23:39
Yes, its voter suppression by the "bandwagon effect". They've been doing this for
decades to right wing populist candidates. Next will come the marginalizing and name calling.
Its very refreshing to see the oligarch's media playing all the same trick on young leftists
that they've played on us all these years.
Maybe it will wake some people up. Those people you've been taught to hate, the supposed
"right wing" were just humans like you, trying to vote for freedom, for self-determination,
and all your assumptions about them are based on name-calling and media bias. Now when it gets
turned on you, when they start calling you some names, putting pressure on Bernie, lying about
your positions, I hope you wake up.
The enemy is the Guardian, and the media. This is your enemy. Never let them fool you
again.
alalos -> Rationaliste 7 Jun 2016 23:39
Yes, this would be my followup question. However unpalatable it may sound, it should be
asked.
How do pundits feel about the notion that (more conservative/pragmatic) black and latino
communities in the South may have been instrumental in holding back a progressive, liberal
North? If it was white rednecks holding back progress, the finger would be pointed amply.
Aseoria -> thankgodimanatheist 7 Jun 2016 23:38
"megalomaniac fraudster narcissist" pretty much describes both Trump and HRC. The Clintons
are among the most accomplished grifters on the planet.
Rationaliste -> alalos 7 Jun 2016 23:21
Astute comment. The Clinton victories in the south, which as you point out were a major
factor in her primary success, was won on the backs of unsophisticated blacks who once more
voted for their own oppression by supporting the wife of the charming sax playing conman who
they love although he devastated their families with his support for the war on drugs, welfare
elimination called "welfare reform," and other neo-eugenic policies.
Philly_Slim 7 Jun 2016 23:11
Bernie may have beaten Trump. Hillary won't.
That AP report about super-delegates was a confected scam to keep Bernie voters away in Cali.
If Bern still manages to win that State despite the 'black-ops' of the Clinton camp it will be
a stinging rebuke.
panopticon7 YoWayYo 7 Jun 2016 23:06
actually, no--no one who supports sanders needs to ever compromise themselves and vote for
a criminal like clinton. there is no obligation, moral or otherwise, that makes supporting
clinton either inevitable or even advisable. we know for sure what she will do. more war, more
inequality, more student debt, more children with insecure nutrition, more prisons, more
prisoners, more pay day loans, more assassinations, more suppression of whistleblowers, more
everyday corruption. trump is a genuine unknown. what is certain is that if trump wins, there
will never be a clinton dynasty.
i think the US can survive trump. i do not think the US can survive dynastic
coronations. that way leads to the republic's last breath and the legitimisation of hereditary
rulers. it's already that way now--and a mechanism is in place to crush it. that mechanism is
electing an outsider. any outsider at all.
riesling 7 Jun 2016 23:04
Bernie Sanders supporters are voting for the Democratic candidate in California in
contrasting moods of resignation, defiance and hope in the wake of reports that Hillary
Clinton has amassed enough delegates to clinch the party's presidential nomination.
That's anger, dear. Anger at complicit "journalists" who run with the Clinton campaign's
illegitimate claim to superdelegate votes, anger at the very existence of superdelegates,
anger at - oh, forget journalists - newspaper writers who characterize Sanders voters as
dejected losers, the better to solidify Clinton's claim to the nomination. Clinton's rigidity
and apparent belief that the only way to win is through dirty politics is going to lose her a
lot of Sanders voters. She doesn't think she needs them, but she thinks wrong.
nataliesutler -> hadeze242 7 Jun 2016 22:56
Of course they refuse to release the emails prior to the election. The WH after all,wants
Clinton elected. Did you need an announcement to know this would be the case? Perhaps you
might be a tad naive if that's the case.
panopticon7 -> MasonInNY 7 Jun 2016 22:56
the problem with the clintonistas is that they desperately need to vilify the
progressive opposition and the use of the imaginary bernie bro is a prime example. it shows
the underlying character of the corporate shill they feel will most benefit them personally
despite how much harm it would bring to those less fortunate. it's an expression of just how
bottomlessly empty their rhetoric is and how they are strangers to genuineness, compassion and
perspicacity.
Exactly. It's the apathy of the electorate that has had a very big impact on the
current situation. I'm not in the USA but I have several friends in Cali who are all, meh,
politics. They can't be bothered even registering to vote.
As someone who comes from a country with compulsory voting I am always appalled at this
attitude, but I understand there are those appalled at the concept of compulsory voting. We
need to clear away the apathy and get the electorate engaged and excited and wanting to get
involved in a process that can end up with much more rewarding results than the past.
Alpheus Williams 7 Jun 2016 22:12
Congratulations to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC for their ardent push, bias and
elitism and successfully stacking the deck against the rank and file of Democrat Voters...I
predict that you have lost at least 50% of them forever. You've certainly lost me. If anyone
has ensured the election of Donald Trump it has been them...
FeatherWood 7 Jun 2016 22:09
Just one final slap in the face from the corporate media to the supporters of Bernie
Sanders.
I've waited for months for the opportunity to vote for Bernie; of course I went out and voted
for him today.
Now, I'm done.
I refuse to watch the Hillary-Trump Reality TV Show, directed by Bill Clinton.
What we are seeing is Reality TV, directed by Bill Clinton, who talked with Donald Trump prior
to Trump's entering the race and reportedly encouraged him to get into it. Bill and Donny are
working together to elect Hillary.
It looks like we really do have a Trump-Clinton race, so I'm going to try to ignore the whole
thing. I hate reality TV, and I'm convinced that's all a Clinton-Trump race is -- a reality TV
show that ends with Hillary in the White House.
The more outrageous Trump is, the more he pushes people, who 2 years ago would have said they
would NEVER vote for Hillary, into voting for her in the fall. It's the only way she can
plausibly win, so that's the theater show Bill and Donald are producing.
I'm also convinced that the powers that rig the voting machines will do so on Hillary's
behalf. She's the Establishment choice, by far. She's the one who will keep the Military
Industrial Complex and Wall Street rolling along as usual, lining the pockets of the rich and
powerful. The outcome is not in doubt.
I'm so certain of my cynical views that if Hillary wins the FBI primary and actually becomes
the nominee, it won't be worth paying attention anymore. I'll show up to vote for Jill Stein
in the fall.
helpmejebus -> MrsMud 7 Jun 2016 21:55
Lol... She lied to your face repeatly, says the OIG. She's seen no errors, in fact she
refused to do anything but send surrogates out to try and trash the OIG.
A simple example is claiming that there was no chance her server was hacked. She said that on
numerous occasions. Privately she was emailing her staff telling them her server had been
hacked. She also had an obligation to report that to State, because there was humint on the
server - actual people's lives at stake... But instead she pretended it never happened.
She also told you and the world that she cooperated with every investigation. In fact she
never once answered questions from the OIG.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It doesn't even touch the NUMEROUS shady weapons
deals, including selling WMDs to Mubarak "a close family friend" who used them to massacre
protesters.
Or the fact that she hired the owner of Saudi Arabia's DC lobbying firm as her campaign
chairman. She called approving the sale of billions of dollars in Boeing weapons to Saudi
Arabia a "top priority" of hers at State. Oh and btw her Campaign Chairman's lobbying firm...
They also represent Boeing. And Boeing paid Bill 250k for a few Q&A sessions around the same
time.
Youre helping a horribly corrupt person.
DracoFerret -> helpmejebus 7 Jun 2016 21:52
given a choice between the sleazycrookedhillary or the grumptrump, I would choose the Trump
over a career criminal Hillary--even in her Arkansas mafia days.
BradStorch 7 Jun 2016 21:47
If somebody who supported the Iraq war, Libya war, arming jihadists in Syria for Israel's
benefit, the Patriot Act, TARP, surveillance, etc is the Democratic nominee, then I must not
be a Democrat. I owe you gullible sellouts nothing.
aeausa -> basben 7 Jun 2016 21:41
I dunno. She's been an attack dog on Trump for the last several weeks. Just really lets
rip. Been reported non-stop in our daily papers.
She may bury whatever hatchet she has with Hillary long enough to make sure Trump loses. She's
much more a Bernie type, but she'll sign on to stop Trump.
Local news story yesterday was that she says she doesn't believe in super-delegates--and she's
one of them by virtue of her office. She's between a rock snd a hard spot: not at all a
natural Hillary ally, but bound and determined to see Trump defeated. She turns people off
with her fairly bitchy remarks about him, but if you know her history vis-a-vis big banks and
their rampant consumer fraud, you can see where she's coming from. He's anathema to her.
helpmejebus -> MrsMud 7 Jun 2016 21:39
You've helped nominate the least trusted, most disliked Democratic nominee ever. Since
records began. She's going to lose badly of she's not indicted first..
Seems like a great reason for dancing in the streets.
DebraBrown -> Ramus 7 Jun 2016 21:13
This election has been a huge wake-up call for many of us. I now understand that the
Democratic Party is completely corrupt and can no longer be distinguished from the Republican
Party (at the elite level).
The elites on both sides control the process and distract the 99% from their puppet-mastering
by pitting people against each other based on social issues which the elites don't care about,
because they don't impact their profits.
PotholeKid apacheman 7 Jun 2016 21:03
" I'm pretty sure, as no nation can withstand the blatant rigging of an election for
its highest office combined with the two choices being among the most loathed people in the
country, if the elites insist on Clinton as their candidate."
You have to remember Americans forgot about the rigged Bush/Gore election of 2000 the
moment they turned on their cable news and they were told ...nothing to see here. The flagrant
abuse of democracy is accepted because people feel powerless to do anything about it.. Perhaps
this time around Sanders supporters will be the exception and take their democracy back.
Zendjan -> ElvisK 7 Jun 2016 21:02
Are you serious? Even Hillary's cat knows she is corrupt. Corruption is what the
Clintons DO. Just ask Trump, he's paid them plenty over the years. Or ask Democratic pollster
Pat Caddell, President Carter's advisor. He called the Clintons "the greediest white trash
I've ever seen." Just because you've drunk their Kool-Aid, don't expect the rest of us to
quaff.
Jane Manning 7 Jun 2016 20:59
How women like me would have loved a female presidential candidate to be proud of.
Nothing but disgust for this lying, cheating, corrupt-to-the-core, war-mongering Oligarch.
Hope the FBI arrests her before late July.
Ezajur -> brancusi 7 Jun 2016 20:57
Along the way she made a hundred million dollars with Bill, voted for Iraq and encouraged
the devastation of Gaza, made millions from Wall St., was a lousy Secretary of State,
encouraged deregulation until after the great crash, got record unfavourability ratings,
accepted money from dictators for her foundation, lied about others having made paid speeches
to Wall St ., parachuted into NY bypassing other local Democrats, lost to a black man with a
muslim name (fortunately) and now lost 40% plus of the base to an unknown 74 year old - who is
as much a proponent of women's rights as Hillary.
Kneeling before Aipac, weaker on public education and student debt, weaker on global warming
and climate change, weaker on prison reform and criminal justice reform, weaker on...
Lousy candidate. Bernie or bust.
QuetzalLove1 -> blacklyche 7 Jun 2016 20:45
Yes, HC is the least popular candidate and the most hated -- so how about she moves over.
I'm not voting for going backward, for Wall Street, for more wars, for Bill's disgusting
economic plan -- NAFTA -- CAFTA, more -- along with her backing of Iraq and the deregulation
of banking into the deepest of recessions for the middle class and the greatest number of
incarcerations in the world per capita for people of color, and so much more. I will throw up
if I have to see Chelsea's children on TV with her hedge fund husband, formerly of Goldman,
still a hedge fund trader with a father in jail for screwing over vulnerable people for
decades and a mother in law who mismanaged funds while serving in Congress. If she says again
"I got out of the hedge fund business because I realized money wasn't important to me" --- her
quote, I will want to throw a soft boiled egg a the TV screen. Easier to disclose her parents
who have given us so much to dislike.
Ramus 7 Jun 2016 20:44
Bernie is not going away. He is in it until everyone has a chance to vote and he has
said he is in it through the National Convention. The delegates vote on July 25. Then he
drops out or not..and not before. There is, I think, a possibility that the Republicans, in
their Convention which is before the Democratic Convention, may figure out a way to nominate
someone other than Crazy Donald. That will make a difference in the Democratic Convention
because anybody BUT Trump might well beat Clinton. She is not beloved.
Colrom 7 Jun 2016 20:43
It may not matter whether Bernie can win the nomination. The media has exposed itself as a
paid propaganda/marketing outlet for the powerful and privileged rather than objective
reporter of events.
That stain is permanent.
All4114All -> blacklyche 7 Jun 2016 20:36
The DNC establishment, Hillary and DWS are the disasters in the making. Just watch how they
lose to that moron Trump. That's how much Hillary is despised!
OkavO -> kropotkinsf 7 Jun 2016 20:28
that the hillary campaign tweet showing their shock at the suprise call by the AP was
timestamped 4.6.16 and called "secret win" smells just as bad
Hasn't had unscripted press event in 180+ days. Her and her entire staff have lawyered
up and taken the 5th. Two separate FBI Criminal investigations in progress. People who support
her call this a "nothing burger".
The "US reurning to a manufacturing economy?" You must be joking. Do you know anything
about the way the globalized world operates today? Go back to the 19th century in a time
machine and you'll be happy.
The CEO of General Electric just spoke to a university here in the states last week, and get
this, his message: Localization!
His view is that the global economy is the most unstable he has seen in his lifetime, and
combined with the uprise of nationalism around the world, he thinks businesses are going to be
safest investing their capital in their primary markets, and any gains made in reduced labor
and real estate cost could be simply wiped out when a country "nationalizes" a factory, or a
prime trading partner puts up a tariff.
Which means, in his view, new U.S. factories for GE!
He is the first CEO I've heard say "this isn't about Trump, this is about a war on
globalization and I won't risk my company defending it."
apacheman -> shotandgoal4 7 Jun 2016 19:54
I imagine the dissolution of the USSR was grand theater, too.
This primary season marks the beginning of the dissolution of the US of A, I'm pretty sure, as
no nation can withstand the blatant rigging of an election for its highest office combined
with the two choices being among the most loathed people in the country, if the elites insist
on Clinton as their candidate.
With Clinton, the Democrats offer nothing but more of the same stagnant mess we've endured
for the last two decades; no vision, no hope, no change. No thanks, I'll pass. The Republicans
offer nothing but a three-card monte of a candidate. Neither is fit to lead the nation, and
either one is more likely than not to lead to disaster, just disasters of different sorts.
Throughout history the privileged elites have proven utterly incompetent to run nations
the vast majority of the time, always mistaking the arrogance and ruthlessness required to
amass great wealth for wisdom and political competence.
It's depressing to watch the same shit keep playing out over and over again.
We have a chance to avoid repeating history here, slim, yes, but still a chance, and we must
fight as hard as we can to seize it and avoid the end which has been the fate of so many other
empires.
"... she appears to have endangered national security secrets including the identity of covert CIA officers and done so for selfish reasons (personal convenience or keeping her documents out of reach of transparency laws). ..."
"... The facts of the case would seem to merit criminal charges against her, since Clinton's situation is analogous to problems faced by other senior officials, including former CIA directors John Deutch and David Petraeus who were accused of mishandling classified information, Deutch by having secret material on his home computer and Petraeus for giving notebooks with highly sensitive information to his lover/biographer. ..."
"... Beyond Clinton's legal predicament over secrets, there is also the question of how she manipulates information on small matters as well as big. There's a pertinent Bible quotation: "If you are faithful in little things, you will be faithful in large ones. But if you are dishonest in little things, you won't be honest with greater responsibilities." (Luke 16:10) ..."
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in a legal pickle over her careless email practices
– in that she appears to have endangered national security secrets
including the identity of covert CIA officers and done so for selfish reasons (personal convenience
or keeping her documents out of reach of transparency laws).
The facts of the case would seem to merit criminal charges against her, since Clinton's situation
is analogous to problems faced by other senior officials, including former CIA directors John Deutch
and David Petraeus who were accused of mishandling classified information, Deutch by having secret
material on his home computer and Petraeus for giving notebooks with highly sensitive information
to his lover/biographer.
Deutch agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor but was preemptively pardoned by President Bill
Clinton; Petraeus pled guilty to a misdemeanor in a plea deal that spared him from jail time and
was widely criticized as excessively lenient, especially since the Obama administration had jailed
lower-level officials, such as former CIA officer John Kiriakou, for similar violations.
In 2012, faced with a multiple count indictment, Kiriakou agreed to plead guilty to one count
of violating the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act for giving a reporter the phone number
of a former CIA officer whose work for the spy agency was still classified. Though the reporter did
not publish the ex-officer's name, Kiriakou was sentenced to 30 months in prison.
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act was also a factor in the "Plame-gate affair" in 2003
when officials of George W. Bush's administration disclosed the CIA identity of Valerie Plame as
part of a campaign to discredit her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had challenged
Bush's claims about Iraq seeking yellowcake uranium for a nuclear program, one of the falsehoods
that was used to justify invading Iraq.
Right-wing columnist Robert Novak blew Plame's undercover identity but a special prosecutor chose
not to indict anyone, including Bush's aides, under the 1982 law. He did, however, convict Vice President
Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, of obstructing justice. However, Bush commuted Libby's
sentence so he avoided jail time.
The recent State Department Inspector General report makes clear that Clinton blithely disregarded
safeguards designed to protect the most highly classified national security information and that
she included on her unprotected email server the names of US intelligence agents under cover.
In other words, there is legal precedent for Hillary Clinton to be charged in connection with
her decision to handle her State Department emails through a personal server in her home in Chappaqua,
New York, rather than through official government servers. But there's political precedent as well
for the well-connected to be either slapped on the wrist or let off the hook.
A Biblical Warning
Beyond Clinton's legal predicament over secrets, there is also the question of how she manipulates
information on small matters as well as big. There's a pertinent Bible quotation: "If you are faithful
in little things, you will be faithful in large ones. But if you are dishonest in little things,
you won't be honest with greater responsibilities." (Luke 16:10)
And I happen to have personal experience with how Clinton has been dishonest in the little matter
of my brutal arrest on Feb. 15, 2011, after I stood with my back turned toward her while she delivered
a speech at George Washington University about the importance of respecting dissent (in other countries,
that is).
I have looked closely at her relevant email exchanges from late February 2011 after Secretary
Clinton didn't miss a syllable as I was roughly dragged away by security personnel right in front
of her. From my review of those emails, I had two takeaways: (1) Secretary Clinton is not truthful
about the smallest of things; and (2) she had a much more important issue to worry about at the time;
namely, rallying support for a "no-fly zone" as a gateway to a "regime change" war on Libya.
Could that be why she never took up her confidant Sidney Blumenthal's suggestion that an apology
to me might be in order? Since the emails speak so eloquently to both issues, I will cite them below:
On my standing silently at George Washington U. on Feb. 15, 2011:
From: sbwhoeop [Sidney Blumenthal] To: H (Hillary Clinton) Sent: Fri Feb 18, 09:27:25, 2011 Subject: H: FYI, an unfortunate incident. Sid
"Don't know if you are aware of this unfortunate incident described below on Larry Johnson's website.
Ray McGovern, a former CIA officer who gave the daily brief for President George H.W. Bush, is pretty
well known in the intelligence community. He's become a Christian antiwar leftist who goes around
bearing witness. Whatever his views, he's harmless. Something bad happened at your speech at GW.
And it's become a minor cause celebre on the Internet among lefties. You might have someone check
this out and also have someone apologize to Ray McGovern. Sid"
From Sidney Blumenthal (continued)
"Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the US Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently
in 1989 to the US Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation
security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office
of Counterterrorism. He left government … in October 1993 … and is an expert in the fields of terrorism,
aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is
the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence
and politics.)"
Blumenthal then quoted from a blog piece that Johnson wrote after hearing what happened during
Secretary Clinton's speech at GWU on Feb. 15:
"During a speech by Hillary earlier this week at George Washington University retired CIA analyst,
Ray McGovern, was physically accosted and arrested for disorderly conduct for the simple act of standing
up and turning his back to Hillary. Ray ended his career at the CIA as one of the senior officers
who provided George H.W. Bush his daily intelligence brief. Since then Ray has emerged as an antiwar
activist. Ray is a fearless but he also is a kind, gentle soul. …
"Unfortunately Hillary is getting blamed for what happened to Ray, but it is not her fault. Hillary
is not in charge of her security detail. … He had every right to stand and silently protest. He posed
no threat to Hillary and made no threatening move. The security folks grossly overreacted.… Since
the folks inside the auditorium had gone thru a metal detector there was no reason to assume that
Ray represented a threat to do harm. It is the ultimate irony that the Obama Administration is calling
on foreign leaders to tolerate protest and dissent but when it comes to an old man standing silently
there was no tolerance at all."
[end of shortened text of email from Larry Johnson, quoted by Sidney Blumenthal]
Clever Wording
Secretary Clinton then replied:
To: Sidney Blumenthal Subject: "H: FYI, AN UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT. SID" From: H [email protected] [one of two email accounts that Clinton used] To: sbwhoeop Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:14 AM [replying to Blumenthal less than an hour later] Subject: Re: "H: FYI, an unfortunate incident."
"Sid I appreciate your sending thgis (sic) to me. Neither State nor my staff had anything to do
w this. The man stood up just as I was starting and GW–which claims their quick actions were part
of their standard operating procedures to remove anyone who stands up and starts speaking while an
invited guest is talking–moved to remove him. GW claims he was not in any way injured. We have no
other info but I will see what else can be done."
In this brief email, Secretary Clinton takes two misleading tacks. Though she had firsthand knowledge
that I had not been "speaking" - since she was there - she suggests otherwise while not actually
saying so. She just strongly implies that I was "speaking."
Not only was she an eyewitness, numerous videos on the Internet in the days prior showed that
I did not say a word until the security people had me in a headlock and almost out the door and into
the street. Lawyers like Hillary Clinton apparently parse words – even on minor matters, and even
in emails that they hope will never see the light of day. (And what, by the way, is the meaning of
"is?")
Similarly, Secretary Clinton attributes to GWU the claim that I "was not in any way injured."
Case closed. … except for the photos sent around on the Web a few days earlier.
So, as you might guess, there was no apology from the Secretary of State or a statement that perhaps
the "unfortunate incident" with McGovern had unfortunately stepped on her passionate and surely heartfelt
denunciation of Iran for not respecting the right of dissidents to protest their government's policies.
Targeting Gaddafi
But the incident with me was minor compared to what Secretary Clinton was then cooking up for
Libya, where she was outraged that Col. Muammar Gaddafi was citing the need to root out Islamic terrorists
operating around Benghazi. Dismissing Gaddafi's claims, Clinton and her State Department preferred
to denounce Gaddafi's domestic "war on terror" as a "genocidal" attack on innocent dissenters in
eastern Libya.
Again, Clinton was
communicating with her outside adviser Blumenthal about how to rile the world up enough
against Gaddafi to push a "no-fly zone" through the United Nations Security Council.
Secretary Clinton's private emails also contradict her testimony before the House Benghazi Committee
that Blumenthal "was not at all my adviser on Libya," although I guess it depends on what your definition
of "adviser" is. The emails show that she actually took immediate proactive steps to follow up on
his advice, as can be seen in the following:
From: sbwhoeop [Sidney Blumenthal]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 10:32 PM
To: H Subject: H: Option: no-fly zone over Libya. David Owen proposes. S
"UK former Foreign Secretary David Owen has called for a no-fly zone over Libya, imposed by the
United Nations and/or Nato … US might consider advancing tomorrow. Libyan helicopters and planes
are raining terror on cities."
[Article from Aljazeera as quoted by Blumenthal]: "In the wake of reported aiattacks (sic) on
civilian crowds by the Libyan airforce, former Foreign Secretary Lord David Owen has called on the
UN Security Council to immediately meet in emergency session and authorize a `No Fly Zone' over Libya.
Speaking on al Jazeera, Lord Owen called for a UN Charter Chapter 7 intervention (meaning the authorization
of both military and nonmilitary means to 'restore international peace and security') to be enforced
by NATO air forces with Egyptian military support to demonstrate regional backing."
From: H <[email protected]> [the other Clinton email, using her maiden name initials, Hillary
Diane Rodham]
To: Sullivan, Jacob 3 [deputy chief of staff]
Sent: Mon Feb 21 22:42:21 2011
Subject: Fw: "H: Option: no-fly zone over Libya. David Owen proposes. Sid"
"What do you think of this idea?"
From: Sullivan, Jacob J [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 04:59 AM [early the next morning]
To: H
Subject: Re: "H: Option: no-fly zone over Libya. David Owen proposes. Sid"
"Several have proposed it but honestly, we actually don't know what is happening from the air
right now. As we gain more facts, we can consider."
From: H [email protected] [back to the other email address]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6:09 AM
To: sbwhoeop
Subject: Re: "H: Option: no-fly zone over Libya. David Owen proposes."
"Sid, We are looking at that for Security Council, which remains reluctant to 'interfere' in the
internal affairs of a country. Stay tuned!"
From: H <[email protected]>
To: Sullivan, Jacob J
Sent: Tue Feb 22 06:34:15 2011
Subject: Re: "H: Option: no-fly zone over Libya. David Owen proposes. Sid"
"I've heard contradictory reports as to whether or not there are planes flying and firing on crowds.
What is the evidence that they are?"
From: Sullivan, Jacob J <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 7:21 AM
To: H
Subject: Re: "H: Option: no-fly zone over Libya. David Owen proposes. Sid"
"Not much – unconfirmed reports. Though helos firing seems more plausible."
On to War
It took three more weeks, but on March 17, 2011, Secretary Clinton got her wish for a "no-fly
zone" approved by the UN Security Council, acting under the military authority of Chapter Seven of
the UN Charter. The vote was ten in favor, zero against, and five abstentions.
The five abstentions were: Brazil, Russia, India, China and Germany; Russian and China, which
as permanent members could have vetoed the motion, complained later that they were deceived as to
the real purpose of the "no-fly zone," not realizing that it was a pretext for another "regime change,"
which involved slaughtering much of the Libyan army before driving Gaddafi from power.
When Gaddafi was captured in his home town of Sirte on Oct. 20, 2011, he was tortured with a knife,
which was used to sodomize him. Then he was murdered. When Clinton was notified of Gaddafi's demise,
she declared, "we came,
we saw, he died" - and clapped her hands in undisguised glee.
It turned out, however, that Gaddafi was right that many of his adversaries in the east were radical
jihadists and terrorists, a truth that Clinton learned when US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and
three other US personnel were slain by attackers in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.
Clinton's deception around the Libyan "no-fly zone" – as a gateway to yet another brutal U.S.-backed
"regime change" – also helped poison US relations with Russia and China, which balked at similar
US demands for a "safe zone" inside Syria, an idea that Clinton has advocated both as Secretary of
State and as a presidential candidate.
In other words, Clinton is no more honest about big things than small, just as the Bible passage
foretold, except now the fate of the world may hang in the balance.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour
in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder
of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods
in all four of CIA's main directorates.
Mr. Sanders, however, insists that the convention will be contested because he is still lobbying
superdelegates - party officials and state leaders who cast their final votes at the convention -
to withdraw support from Mrs. Clinton and back him instead. He plans to make the case that he is
a stronger candidate against Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee. A number of polls,
he said, show he can beat Mr. Trump by larger margins than Mrs. Clinton can.
On Sunday, Mr. Sanders opened a new line of attack against Mrs. Clinton, criticizing donations
made by foreign governments while she was secretary of state to the Clinton Foundation, the organization
founded by former President Bill Clinton.
When Mr. Sanders, who greeted fans in West Hollywood, was asked by reporters if he remained committed
to pushing for a contested convention, he said he "absolutely" was.
"Clinton is a lightening rod for the right, which makes it hard for her to attract independents
in the general election. And her politics are right, which means progressives have no reason to be enthusiastic
supporters. "
"During one of the primary debates in the 2008 presidential campaign, the candidates were asked
what they would do about Social Security. Obama gave us the answer I wanted to hear: he said the best
solution would be to raise the cap on the payroll tax. Hillary, on the other hand, said she didn't want
to answer the question at that time And what did I get? Hillary! He called it a grand bargain."
Notable quotes:
"... pluck is all she's got. Which, admittedly, can get you pretty far in the beltway. ..."
"... Obama could have done a LOT at the time. He chose not to. He outsourced the ACA to Congressional
Democrats, who dithered all year. He didn't even attempt a jobs program. He bailed out the bankers.
..."
"... Dumb opportunism. She thought the Iraq War vote was the safe vote. But she was wrong, and it
cost her. Point 3 in my piece is about that. Frankly, anyone who thought Iraq would turn out well was
dumb...at the time. Millions knew better. ..."
"... HRC is all about HRC. She's all about political opportunism, because everything's about her
and her career, and nothing else. ..."
"... When I was a resident of NY, I voted for her, thinking maybe she'd shine as a progressive in
her own political career. Boy was I wrong. Ted's description of her carpetbagging and the simultaneous
cravenness and idiocy of the Iraq vote is right on. ..."
"... yes, Obama's administration has been much too much of and for Wall Street and corporations
for my comfort. ..."
"... Clinton hasn't accomplished anything of historic import. That her Iraq War vote was, not just
immoral and repugnant, but revelatory as the vote of someone incapable of political prognostication.
..."
"... It doesn't matter when she married bill. She inherited her political capital from HIS presidency
just like George w. bush inherited his from his father. W was his father's son before his dad became
president too. She's not equivalent to a self-made woman like Margaret Thatcher, Elizabeth Warren or
even Sarah Palin. ..."
"... I disagree that she's dumb. She's very smart. Smart enough to know the best way for a woman
of her era to advance was to attach herself to a brilliant ambitious charismatic man. ..."
Here, in an easy clip-and-take-to-the-primaries nutshell, is the non-vast-rightie-conspiracy case
against Hillary:
1.Zero record of accomplishment.
Since 2009 we've seen what happens when we elect a president with charisma but minus a resume:
weakness, waffling, national decline. Obama's signature/single accomplishment, the Affordable Care
Act, embodies design-by-committee conception and autopilot execution.
Hillary's admirers have conflated her impressive list of jobs with actually having gotten things
done. When you scratch the surface, however, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the woman has
done little more than warm a series of comfy leather desk chairs. How has this career politician
changed Americans' lives? Not in the least.
No doubt, Hillary knows her way around the corridors of power: First Lady, Senator from New York,
presidential candidate, Secretary of State. Nice resume, but what did she do with all her jobs? Not
much.
First Lady Ladybird Johnson led a
highway beautification campaign that literally changed America's landscape for the better. Betty
Ford courageously
exposed herself as an alcoholic, serving as a role model by publicly seeking treatment. In terms
of achievement, Hillary Clinton's political life peaked in 1993 with "HillaryCare," a botched attempt
at healthcare reform that failed because no one, including liberals, agreed with the core mission
of what liberal Democratic Senator Robert Byrd
called "a very complex, very expensive, very little understood piece of legislation": federal
subsidies for wildly profitable private insurance corporations (sound familiar?).
After sleazing her way into the Capitol as an out-of-state
carpetbagger
- New Yorkers still remember - Senator Clinton wiled away the early 2000s as a slacker Senator. This,
remember, was while Bush was pushing through his radical right agenda: the Patriot Act, wars, coups,
drones, torture, renditions and so on.
While Bush was running roughshod, Hillary was meek and acquiescent.
Clinton's legislative proposals were trivial and few. Her bargaining skills were so lousy that
she couldn't find cosponsors for her tiny-bore bills - even fellow Democrats snubbed the former First
Lady on stuff like increasing bennies for members of the Coast Guard. "Senator Clinton is right when
she claims to be the experienced candidate," Adam Hamft wrote for
HuffPo during the 2008 primaries, "although it's not the experience she would like us to believe.
It's a track record of legislative failure and futility."
Hillary cheerleaders brag that she logged nearly a million miles of air travel as Secretary of
State. "She reminded the world that Woody Allen was right even when it comes to diplomacy:
80 percent of success really
is simply showing up," Megan Garber
cheered in The Atlantic (what is it about that rag and Hillary?).
What success?
The best case I could find for Hillary as kickass StateSec comes courtesy of
PolicyMic, which I hope is on her payroll given how much they suck up to her. An article titled
"5 Top Highlights in Hillary Clinton's Secretary of State Tenure" cites "People-to-People Diplomacy"
(all that travel), "The Importance of Economics" ("helping U.S. companies win business overseas"),
"Restoring American Credibility" ("outreach to [the military junta in] Burma," "brokering a ceasefire
between Hamas and Israel," and "coordination with Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi will likely give
the U.S. greater
leverage to pursue a robust peace process in 2013" - but "likely" didn't pan out…why doesn't
Mo return my calls anymore?).
"Rock star diplomat," as The New York Times Magazine called her? Hardly.
As Stephen M. Walt notes in
Foreign Policy, "she's hardly racked up any major achievements…She played little role in
extricating us from Iraq, and it is hard to see her fingerprints on the U.S. approach to Afghanistan.
She has done her best to smooth the troubled relationship with Pakistan, but anti-Americanism remains
endemic in that country and it hardly looks like a success story at this point...She certainly helped
get tougher sanctions on Iran, but the danger of war still looms and there's been no breakthrough
there either…Needless to say, she has done nothing to advance the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace
or even to halt Israel's increasingly naked land grab there." (Talks with Iran began after Clinton
quit.)
Yeah, she's been busy. But she has little to show for her time in office - she works dumb, not
smart. At least with Obama, 2008 voters saw potential. Hillary has had 20 years to shine. If she
hasn't gotten anything accomplished in all that time, with all that power, why should we think she'll
make a great president?
... ... ...
3.She's kind of dumb.
In 2003, Senator Clinton cast the most important vote of her life, in favor of invading Iraq.
Not only was it morally unconscionable - Bush ginned up the war from thin air, Iraq had nothing to
do with 9/11 and there was neither evidence nor proof that Saddam had WMDs - her war authorization
vote was politically idiotic.
Hillary lost the 2008 Democratic nomination to Obama (who, though voting six times for war funding,
and not in the Senate in 2003, had criticized that "dumb war")
due to that vote.
Though Clinton has never
apologized for pandering to post-9/11 yellow-ribbons-all-over-the-car militarism (which is also
stupid), her lame excuses in 2008 (she
claimed she "thought it was a vote to put inspectors back in" even though it was called the "Authorization
for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002") indicate that she knew she'd blown it.
Also, the fact that she thought anyone would buy such ridiculous lies further indicates less than
awesome intelligence.
Let's give Hillary the benefit of the doubt: we'll assume she wasn't so breathtakingly stupid
as to think invading Iraq was moral or legal. Even so, her pandering betrays poor political calculus.
It should have been obvious - it was to
me - that the U.S. would lose in Iraq. Given Clinton's options at the time (run for president
a year later in 2004, reelection in 2006, or 2008), she was an idiot to think that her vote to authorize
what would soon turn into an unpopular war wouldn't decimate her support among the Democratic party's
liberal antiwar base.
Having a cynical political operator as president is bad. But I'll take a smart cynic over a dumb
panderer.
(Ted Rall's website is tedrall.com.
Go there to join the Ted Rall Subscription Service and receive all of Ted's cartoons and columns
by email.)
COPYRIGHT 2013 TED RALL
Azazello
Whadya' mean "Zero Record of Accomplishment" ? She was on the board of Wal-Mart.
Seneca Doane -> karmsy, Nov 15 · 03:47:01 AM
We really hide-rate tip jars now for this sort of thing? And it's considered OK? Wow.
My opinion of Hillary is less harsh than Rall's, so I'll address that first.
His first point is a fair challenge -- but it should also be an answerable one. If people want
to rebut the idea that Hillary was a failure as First Lady, U.S. Senator from New York, and SecState,
they should be able to do it by now in their sleep. So -- do it. Show how it's done.
I find the second point the weakest. "Married into power" is not really bad role model material,
for example, when you met your husband at Yale Law School and was the main breadwinner for years.
But for Rall to still be pissed off at her 2003 vote to attack Iraq -- what's wrong with that?
(I would not have called her dumb. She was a bit craven -- but at a time when being craven seemed
to many to be the only path to victory.) It sure made things harder on us critics of the war,
though.
I'm surprised that Rall glosses over the thing that gives me the most pause about Hillary --
the Clinton Claque. She has some terrible retrograde friends who are slavering for a return to
power -- the ones who aren't already running the Obama Administration, I mean -- and I don't want
to see the likes of Mark Penn and Lanny Davis pulling Democratic levers of power again. Ever.
None of that -- none of it -- warrants hide-rating. For shame.
Ted Rall -> WB Reeves Nov 13 · 04:24:09 PM
That was a tossed-off aside. Which I stand by. I was speculating. People do that.
Ted Rall -> corvo, Nov 13 · 12:27:11 PM
No one denies her pluck
That part, I'll definitely give her.
quill -> Ted Rall, Nov 13 · 01:08:28 PM
pluck is all she's got. Which, admittedly, can get you pretty far in the beltway.
corvo -> quill, Nov 13 · 02:25:32 PM
that, and the entire machinery of one of the two political parties . . .
Ted Rall -> polecat Nov 13 · 12:28:56 PM
Remember Jan. 20, 2009
Control of Congress. Stratospheric approval ratings. A public terrified by a collapsing economy.
A compliant media.
Obama could have done a LOT at the time. He chose not to. He outsourced the ACA to Congressional
Democrats, who dithered all year. He didn't even attempt a jobs program. He bailed out the bankers.
Remember?
No one denies that GOP obstructionism is a problem now. But what about then?
James Hepburn -> tytalus Nov 13 · 11:45:05 PM
I made it through the first three on that list and upon realizing all three were lies, quit
reading.
• Passing the "largest" economic stimulus bill in American history.
Obama didn't pass anything. Congress passed it and Obama signed it. The only contribution Obama
made to the stimulus bill was to make it suck with a bunch of Republican tax cuts we didn't need
and reduced infrastructure spending which we did.
Real Democrats in Congrees passed the Stimulus bill. Not the White House.
The willingness of people to just rewrite history here and lie in defense of Obama is really
astonishing.
• Ordering the closing of Guantanamo Bay military detention facility and abolishing
"enhanced interrogation techniques."
This one must be a joke. If he had seriously ordered Guantanamo closed, it would be. He alone
has that authority. No, what Obama did was announce his intention, then asked Republicans for
permission. When they balked, he, as usual, caved. But go ahead, make excuses. Oh, and meanwhile,
secret renditions have continued under Obama.
• Setting a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq.
And this one. Dude should be HR'd for repeating this lie. Seriously. How many times do people
have to be corrected before it becomes a bannable offense to keep repeating the same lies over
and over again. Obama tried to postpone the timetable for withdrawal - a timetable that was established
before Obama even took office.
I'm approaching 10 years at this site and I just can't believe the shit I see here now. We
used to have standards. You couldn't just make shit up. People would call you on it.
Ted Rall -> pistolSO Nov 13 · 12:30:53 PM
Dumb opportunism. She thought the Iraq War vote was the safe vote. But she was wrong, and
it cost her. Point 3 in my piece is about that. Frankly, anyone who thought Iraq would turn out
well was dumb...at the time. Millions knew better.
Hillary's healthcare creds leave much to be desired. Why no public option in 1993?
quill -> pistolSO, Nov 13 · 01:31:10 PM
HRC is all about HRC. She's all about political opportunism, because everything's about
her and her career, and nothing else.
When I was a resident of NY, I voted for her, thinking maybe she'd shine as a progressive
in her own political career. Boy was I wrong. Ted's description of her carpetbagging and the simultaneous
cravenness and idiocy of the Iraq vote is right on. That one vote, and the immediate and
subsequent inept excuses, defined her as just another lying centrist, as would be expected from
the Clinton dynasty.
Ted Rall -> raptavio, Nov 13 · 12:33:35 PM
Automatically if a man criticizes a woman, it's sexism. Just like automatically if a white
person criticizes a black person, it's racism.
The problem with the application of this theory is that I've called lots of Ivy-league educated
white men idiots...like Bush.
CentralMass -> CenPhx Nov 13 · 07:40:54 PM
Woud you consider our current President a corporatist?
CenPhx -> CentralMass, Nov 14 · 12:07:36 AM
Funny you should ask
My comment initially read "another corporatist president" but I took that out because I didn't
want to start a fight on a whole separate issue and lose track of the point I wanted to make about
HRC.
But yes, Obama's administration has been much too much of and for Wall Street and corporations
for my comfort.
Interesting that, all these posts in, no one has countered my points: That Clinton hasn't
accomplished anything of historic import. That her Iraq War vote was, not just immoral and repugnant,
but revelatory as the vote of someone incapable of political prognostication. That it would
be nice for the first woman president to be not a former First Lady.
Lots of distraction. Which sets off my "they don't have a point" radar. Too bad. I love a good
argument, but those require two sides.
calculator -> raptavio Nov 14 · 09:38:39 AM
You're missing the point It doesn't matter when she married bill. She inherited her political capital from HIS presidency
just like George w. bush inherited his from his father. W was his father's son before his dad
became president too. She's not equivalent to a self-made woman like Margaret Thatcher, Elizabeth
Warren or even Sarah Palin.
I disagree that she's dumb. She's very smart. Smart enough to know the best way for a woman
of her era to advance was to attach herself to a brilliant ambitious charismatic man.
"... "How Clinton can own her email scandal" [ The Hill ]. Essentially, Clinton should be saying not ..."
"... Colin Powell did it ..."
"... there's no security to be had anywhere, because look at all the hacking! ..."
"... UPDATE "A top aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declined last week to answer questions from private lawyers about the setup of her email server, citing her subsequent role as Mrs. Clinton's attorney" [ Wall Street Journal , "Clinton Aide Declines To Answer Questions About Email Server Setup"]. Cheryl Mills. Not a good look. ..."
"... (1) In a way, the outcome of the Clinton Email Hairball, whatever it may be, will be an instance of "The Party Decides." For example: There are some forms of cancer that cannot be removed without killing the patient. The Clinton network may have metastatized too much for treatment. In which case, "eat, drink, and be merry." For Clinton to be removed: ..."
"... (3) No matter what Obama does: (a) the FBI leadership and Judicial Watch are independent power sources, and (b) the worker bees at State and FBI are really fed up and ticked off with Clinton (and for good reason). ..."
"... I think one useful thing to consider when gaming this all out (and it all will happen over the next few months!) is to not think so much about who the DNC/delegates (Obama having final say) will pick to replace Clinton at the top of the ticket but to imagine what could be said to make the selection legitimate and credible in the eyes of voters. ..."
"... My sense is in the current environment that complex message will be nearly impossible to pull off. Whoever they pick will not have campaigned at all during the primaries! Then this person is going to go on television and tell the public that the (super)delegates have chosen him/her and the public is supposed to believe that the selection is legitimate! ..."
"... Externally, it would just be portrayed as 'shit happens'. Since the majority of the population only really start paying attention from September onwards, I don't see how it would really matter by November how the person was nominated. ..."
"... The Democrats as always are completely deaf to the reality of the average voter and ate already in hot water. If they pull this it will blow up right in their clueless faces. It will be a year where a third party candidate gets 15-20% of the vote. ..."
"... Fearmongering of Republicans is the tool of choice they use to separate a fool from his money*. ..."
"... secret ballot ..."
"... also they are pretty pissed off at warren for not endorsing sanders. ..."
"... I always want to say to people who want to be rich and famous: 'try being rich first'. See if that doesn't cover most of it. There's not much downside to being rich, other than paying taxes and having your relatives ask you for money. But when you become famous, you end up with a 24-hour job. ..."
"... But why on earth would he waste his time with some of the nitwits in Congress? ..."
"... Perhaps Clinton could introduce the custom of the Roman emperors, who sometimes adopted (literally) their successors. All in the family! ..."
"... Why go to such trouble? Just choose Chelsea. They'd still get the "first female president" *and* keep it in the family. A twofer! ..."
"... Robert Kagan with Victoria Nuland as VP ..."
"... Seriously? If she has to step down because she has committed crimes her entire 'program' and 'ideas' are suspect. A criminal is and has never been a proponent of greatness for anything or anyone, except maybe for themselves ( any maybe thei philandering spouses ..). ..."
"How Clinton can own her email scandal" [
The Hill ]. Essentially, Clinton should be saying not that Colin Powell did it
- "those explanations have always been wack" - but that there's no security to be had anywhere,
because look at all the hacking! "If anything, she opens up a new, fairly noble front and a
way for average people to start seriously talking about cybersecurity - which is something we should
be doing, anyway." Well, maybe. (I like the use of "The Beltway Adverb" in "fairly noble.")
"Bernie Sanders keeps repeating his biggest mistake of the campaign" [Chris Cilizza,
WaPo ]. "For the bajillionth time in this campaign, Bernie Sanders was asked over the weekend
about the ongoing FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's decision to exclusively use a private
email server during her time as secretary of state. And, for the bajillionth time, Sanders took a
hard pass on the question." Stirring the pot!
'Hillary's fibs or lack of candor are all about bad judgments she made on issues that will not
impact the future of either my family or my country. Private email servers? Cattle futures? Goldman
Sachs lectures? All really stupid, but my kids will not be harmed by those poor calls. Debate where
she came out on Iraq and Libya, if you will, but those were considered judgment calls, and if you
disagree don't vote for her" [The Moustache of Understanding,
New York Times ]. You tell 'em, Tommy! Who cares about corruption?
Corruption
had nothing to do with Iraq!
UPDATE "A top aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declined last week to answer
questions from private lawyers about the setup of her email server, citing her subsequent role as
Mrs. Clinton's attorney" [
Wall Street Journal , "Clinton Aide Declines To Answer Questions About Email Server Setup"].
Cheryl Mills. Not a good look.
"Where is President Obama in all this? So far he has largely stayed out of the campaign, other
than to say that he doesn't believe Mrs. Clinton compromised national security with her home-brew
email server. But with her poll numbers dropping, her legal headaches increasing, the Sanders candidacy
showing renewed vigor, and Donald Trump looming as a wrecking ball for the president's legacy, Mr.
Obama and adviser Valerie Jarrett might begin sending signals to the Democratic National Committee
and to the vice president that a Biden rescue operation wouldn't displease the White House" [
Wall Street Journal , "Clinton Might Not Be the Nominee"]. But "Valerie Jarrett might begin sending
signals" jibes well with today's
"The White House Is Terrified the Clinton Campaign "Is in Freefall.'"
Prolegomena to gaming things out:
(1) In a way, the outcome of the Clinton Email Hairball, whatever it may be, will be an instance
of "The Party Decides." For example: There are some forms of cancer that cannot be removed without
killing the patient. The Clinton network may have metastatized too much for treatment. In which case,
"eat, drink, and be merry." For Clinton to be removed:
(2)(b) The White House would have to send a strong enough signal, through Valerie Jarrett. (Remember
that Obama's inner circle is very small.) (2)(b)(i) Although Obama is a lame duck, he retains power
over Loretta Lynch, even though Lynch is a long-time loyalist (
see page 44 ). He also retains the power to pardon. He also retains the affection and loyalty
of a large part of the Democrat base. And he has his library to think of.
(3) No matter what Obama does: (a) the FBI leadership and Judicial Watch are independent power
sources, and (b) the worker bees at State and FBI are really fed up and ticked off with Clinton (and
for good reason).
(4) No matter what Clinton does: She will retain the affection and loyalty of a large part of
her own base. (I remember vividly, though possibly not correctly, WaPo's coverage of the Iowa 2008
caucus, which Clinton unexpectedly lost to Obama, where the young punk reporter mocked
some older women sitting sadly in an empty high school auditorium, mourning their loss, and thinking
"something's not right, here.")
(5) "You can't beat something with nothing." If Clinton is to be removed, there has to be a candidate
willing to replace her at the top of the ticket; #NeverTrump was a fiasco because nobody (credible)
could be found. I think if the party decides on Biden, they will be in a lot more trouble than they
bargained for. And Kerry's a loser. So who?
(6) The formal way for the party to decide is for Clinton delegates, pledged and unpledged, to
vote against her. Who's going to be the first delegate* to do that?
(7) Nobody normal pays attention to the election before Labor Day. So the Democrat Party still
has time to change course. But not a lot, especially if they go with a dark horse (like, say Sherrod
Brown) and have to introduce them to voters.
(8) The obvious face-saving maneuver for everyone is for Clinton to "discover" a previously unknown
medical condition, and decide to spend more time with her family. There's probably more to be said…
This is an overly dynamic situation! (Oh, and: (9) Sanders had better not go up in any small planes.
I cannot imagine the party deciding in his favor.)
I think one useful thing to consider when gaming this all out (and it all will happen over
the next few months!) is to not think so much about who the DNC/delegates (Obama having final
say) will pick to replace Clinton at the top of the ticket but to imagine what could be said to
make the selection legitimate and credible in the eyes of voters.
My sense is in the current environment that complex message will be nearly impossible to
pull off. Whoever they pick will not have campaigned at all during the primaries! Then this person
is going to go on television and tell the public that the (super)delegates have chosen him/her
and the public is supposed to believe that the selection is legitimate!
I mean you have one (if not two - including Bill) of the three most powerful politicians in
the Democratic party dropping out of the election for which every effort was made for this to
be a coronation. I just do not think whoever the replacement is (except for perhaps Elizabeth
Warren) has even a smidgen of a chance at unifying the party.
I'm actually really curious…what could this person say in the event they are shuttled into
a position up to this point they never expressed interest in holding?
Legitimate? With Trump being what he is, the Democrats will be effectively cancelling the 2016
presidential election. The reason the Dems are having such a hard time with the appearance of
legitimacy is because it is not possible.
They will be trying to say that whatever Sanders was doing for the last year, he wasn't running
for President.
They will be trying to say that the $200+ million Sanders supporters dropped on his bid was
what? Oops, sorry about that? Sorry about your hard-earned money.
And what about that? Are they planning to refund that money? Because they said Sanders was
running, and now they're saying he wasn't. ISN'T THAT FRAUD? How about we drop a $200 million
class action on the Democratic Party, and let's see what a GOP-appointed judiciary has to say
about that.
I'm not so sure it would be a difficult message to pull off, so long as they chose someone
with a suitably high profile (which is basically one of half a dozen obvious contenders at most).
The message would be:
1. Hillary has a medical condition and has decided to put her health and family before ambition
*cough*.
2. Sanders did well, but hey, he didn't get the majority, so thats all a bit sad.
3. *** has nobly decided to step in and represent us.
To prevent an internal melt down the person would either have to be fairly acceptable to the
left of the party, or would have a VP pick such as Warren.
Externally, it would just be portrayed as 'shit happens'. Since the majority of the population
only really start paying attention from September onwards, I don't see how it would really matter
by November how the person was nominated.
The media would eat it for breakfast. They'd love the intrigue, the winking and nodding, the
daring-do aspect of it, and the fact that it would cancel out the will of the silly masses who
are not privy to the inside game and not "in the know."
That might have flown in 1968, but people have been shat on for far to long at this point.
The Democrats as always are completely deaf to the reality of the average voter and ate already
in hot water. If they pull this it will blow up right in their clueless faces. It will be a year
where a third party candidate gets 15-20% of the vote.
Team D can deal with any contingency other than a Sanders win.
A shellacking in the general just means that they will still be the main opposition party,
and there's always the 2018 congressional elections and the fundraising opportunities that a Trump
presidency affords.
"the fundraising opportunities that a Trump presidency affords"
This, one thousand times, this. Have you ever got onto a D Party spam email list? Fearmongering
of Republicans is the tool of choice they use to separate a fool from his money*. And a Trump
is a class A bogeyman that will bring the suckers to the tent and turn their pockets inside out.
*with the D Party I don't think it's even about the money from small contributors, they'd rather
work the large donors, but they want to make people feel important and like they belong–invested,
you know–and what better way than to take their pissant money?
Better solution, convention rules committee says that super-delegates will vote by secret
ballot . Problem solved, especially since scandal centric HRC campaign will continue its
swirl down the drain and will be completely flushed by the time the vote is taken. The Dems cannot
risk the loss of the Bernistas.
You ask "So who? " would replace Clinton. Let me say straight out that Al Gore is the obviously
best candidate, one of totally good repute (compromised only by an eight-year association with
Clintons), with worldwide stature and respect, recipient of the highest awards, deeply experienced
in both public and private realms, foremost authority among political figures on the most pressing
issue of our times, and who, to boot, would receive really enthusiastic support from Sanders and
his supporters. A man who would win in a true landslide, especially with Elizabeth Warren as Vice-presidential
candidate.
Politely disagree – the elites are so compromising themselves, Gore would have a good hand
to play. Even with the Saudi's, and who woulda thunk back in 2000?
the sanders supporters love turner. also they may be a pretty good litmus test for a candidate's
integrity. also they are pretty pissed off at warren for not endorsing sanders.
I like Nina Turner a lot, but (like Grayson) I'm not sure she's seasoned enough. I like what
I see though; she's got the stones to go up against the Black Misleadership Class!
Alan Grayson's optics are questionable. I can't furnish a link from my cell phone, but he married
the doctor who is running for his former congressional seat yesterday, as reported on both Fox
News and the Daily Mail.
Maybe it is just my feminism showing. Like she can't win the election on her own without his
sponsorship? It looks to me like he has his thumb on the scale so to speak.
They are in the same district, so I just assumed she was the girl next door and that's how
Alan met her. Then they found out they had similar interests and finally fell in love and got
married. Along the way Alan said, "I'm getting tired of this politics crap. I need a break." She
replied in a joking tone, "Well, I'm not old and jaded yet. I wouldn't mind giving it a shot."
So Alan replied, "Why don't you run for my seat? We won't have move. Besides, the neighbors will
vote for you."
But I'm a guy, so I'm insensitive to feminist things sometimes.
Grayson has at times evinced a mean streak that seems almost altogether absent from Sanders.
He'd probably make a good 'bad cop' to Bernie's 'good cop' if he got his teeth into the role.
Al Gore didn't seem to be particularly interested in becoming president when he actually ran.
I wouldn't assume he'd get the "enthusiastic support" of Sanders supporters, either, at least
not those of us who remember how readily he fell in line with the Clinton agenda as VP. His climate
change work is not enough (especially since he doesn't seem to do a great job of walking the walk).
At this point, I don't think anybody the DNC would be willing to run is anyone I'd be willing
to vote for.
In retrospect I think Gore was the kat backing up from the hairball at the end. He just wanted
to disappear w/ his ample rolodex.
Gore lives an affluent life of relative anonymity, without everyone and his brother up his
ass. In reality, for me at least, what a horrible existence it would be as POTUS/frmr POTUS..
It's a ride you can never get off.
Not a fan of Colin Powell but he got it when he said basically he doesn't what to go through the
rest of his life with some guy in a suit w/ a curly wire to an earphone standing next to him at
the urinal.
Bill Murray once advised along the lines of: I always want to say to people who want to
be rich and famous: 'try being rich first'. See if that doesn't cover most of it. There's not
much downside to being rich, other than paying taxes and having your relatives ask you for money.
But when you become famous, you end up with a 24-hour job.
These comments are baffling.
Do you not realize that Gore has:
(1) served on the board of Apple, the biggest market cap in the world IIRC
(2) been involved in venture capital, i.e., actually help new ideas come to fruition
(3) made a few hundred billion by developing, then selling CurrentTV
The question is, would the presidency bore a man who has had his hand in so many innovative,
world-changing technologies? Would he really be willing to suffer hours with Mitch McConnell?
He might, out of sense of duty.
But why on earth would he waste his time with some of the nitwits in Congress?
The Gore smearing strikes me as more than a tad ill-informed.
I'm not sure global warming is a vote-getter, it seems that when confronted with the hugest
and most painful issues (GW, the end of debt-based money, 9/11 truth) people are much happier
just burying their heads in the sand.
But why on earth would he waste his time with some of the nitwits in Congress?
He was immersed in that sht his whole childhood and youth.. Hell, he was born in DC and grew
up in the equivalent of an extended stay hotel!( Personally I think his wife Tipper who was a
PIA pushed him around)
Then he discovered, hey you'll pay me to sit around a couple hours a month? WTF why would I
want to be under the ultimate political microscope for the rest of my life??
Although he was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and mathematical theories,[18]
he did not do well in science classes in college and avoided taking math.[17] His grades during
his first two years put him in the lower one-fifth of the class. During his sophomore year, he
reportedly spent much of his time watching television, shooting pool, and occasionally smoking
marijuana.[17][18]
yeahhh.. algore for president
Also, even leaving aside Gore's cheerful assent to Clinton administration warmongering, welfare-wrecking,
prison-gilding etc., why would Sanders supporters rally to any candidate installed in an anti-Sanders
coup, which is what it would be if Hillary were thrown overboard and replaced by someone other
than Sanders?
(That's a genuine question from a long and probably clueless distance: please correct me on the
loyalties of Sanders voters. The antipathy to Gore expressed above is non-negotiable, though.)
Agree. What possible reason could TPTB use to explain to Sanders supporters why they are bypassing
Bernie in favor of someone more acceptable to the establishment? (Even someone somewhat plausibly
progressive (?) like Warren?) Would they say they were concerned Bernie couldn't take out Trump?
No polling comes close to supporting that line of bull. I don't see how Bernie supporters could
view bypassing Bernie as anything other than an "in your face" FU that the establishment imposes
"because we can." That doesn't seem to lend itself to effectively rallying Bernie's troops to
the cause.
I think people are thinking inside the box. This is the Campaign 2016 Reality Show so it could
be ANYBODY. HOPEFULLY, someone high profile with little baggage. Someone with name recognition.
How about Al Franken? GOSH darn it people like him. And her could the full two terms.
I think Her Slyness had put him on her VEEP shortlist. I am not for him but it would have a
certain savor faire eh?
Wait a minute. Am I really hearing this? Are we really playing "Who Should We Replace Sanders
With If the DNC Won't Let Us Have Sanders?" Because that's crazy.
Sorry, if they won't let us have Sanders after a legitimate Sanders win, then I want my money
back. And you all should be insisting on the same thing.
That goes without saying, but we can still "game out" the possibilities when it's looking like
the DNC is hell bent on shoving shit_on_a_stick down our throats.
Agreed!!
I was reading down the comments and getting more horrifyingly outraged with each one. As far as
I am concerned Senator Sanders is the ONLY choice for the Democratic Party to choose. Period.
If he is not on the ballot in November I am voting for Jill Stein and will re-register as an Independent.
I will never cast a vote for ANY Democratic Party candidate again. I have had it with this shit
show.
If Bernie is unable to get the nomination, I will vote Stein as well. After listening to a
number of speeches and interviews, she is an excellent candidate, and way to the left of Bernie.
I was particularly impressed with her argument as to why a vote for the GP is not a wasted vote.
I think those Bernie supporters who detest what HC stands for, should at least give Stein a hearing.
I voted for her in 2012; if Bernie isn't on the ballot in November, she will definitely have
my vote again. (If Bernie hadn't run, Stein would have been my choice to begin with. There was
never any question of voting for Clinton.)
This exactly. It is frightening how many seem to be warming up to this replacement scenario.
If they pull this, retribution is called for. No taking this lying down. Absolutely no none
else is acceptable, they didn't even run! Why are we are abandoning our fight and wmbrac
Replace Hillary Clinton with Al Gore, former president of the Democratic Leadership Council,
a hawkish neoliberal technocrat with close ties to big business? Yeah, sounds about right.
Gore would probably focus more voters' attention on climate change, though, which could be
positive.
I hate to cite Bill Maher, but I believe his line about Gore went something like, "Gore is
a guy who spent his entire life discussing the environment except one, 2000."
Gore put his hobby away and served his DLC interests first. Of course, Tipper won't be around,
so he might not be terrible.
Seriously? If she has to step down because she has committed crimes her entire 'program'
and 'ideas' are suspect. A criminal is and has never been a proponent of greatness for anything
or anyone, except maybe for themselves ( any maybe thei philandering spouses ..).
"... Finally, there is the stench of corruption, dating back to Hillary's impossible-by any legitimate means-trick of parlaying $1,000 into $100,000 in a series of commodities trades in 1978. The Clintons and their backers seriously expect the rubes to believe that large financial firms happily forked over their hefty speaking fees purely out of interest in what they had to say, or that Middle Eastern and Taiwanese moneybags gave big bucks to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was secretary of state out of their deep belief in the foundation's lofty goals. Why has Hillary refused to release the transcripts of her Goldman speeches, wiped her server and foot-dragged on releasing allegedly personal emails? ..."
"... If my readers are representative, Clinton and the Democratic Party are about to have a long-overdue day of reckoning. ..."
hy do progressives reject Hillary Clinton? The highly educated, high-income, finance-literate readers
of my website, Naked Capitalism , don't just overwhelmingly favor Bernie Sanders. They also say "Hell no!" to Hillary Clinton
to the degree that many say they would even vote for Donald Trump over her.
And they don't come by these views casually. Their conclusions are the result of careful study
of her record and her policy proposals. They believe the country can no longer endure the status
quo that Clinton represents-one of crushing inequality, and an economy that is
literally killing
off the less fortunate-and any change will be better.
One reader writes
:
Story Continued Below
"If Clinton is the nominee 9 out of 10 friends I polled will [do one of three things]:
A. Not vote for president in November. B. Vote for Trump. C. Write in Bernie as a protest vote.
"We are all fifty-somethings with money and college educations. Oh, and we are all registered
Democrats."
"I don't want to vote for Trump. I want to vote for Bernie. But I have reached the point where
I feel like voting for Trump against Clinton would be doing my patriotic duty. … If the only way
to escape a trap is to gnaw off my leg, I'd like to think I'd have the guts to do it."
To be sure, not all of my Sanders-supporting readers would vote for Trump. But only a minority
would ever vote for Clinton, and I'd guess that a lot of them would just stay home if she were the
nominee. Many of my readers tend to be very progressive, and they have been driven even further in
that direction by their sophisticated understanding of the inequities of Wall Street, especially
in the run-up to and the aftermath of the financial crisis, when no senior executives went to jail,
the biggest banks got bigger, and Hillary paid homage to Goldman Sachs. True progressives, as opposed
to the Vichy Left, recognize that the Clintons only helped these inequities along. They recognize
that, both in the 1990s and now, the Clintons do not and have never represented them. They believe
the most powerful move they can take to foster change is to withhold their support.
Some of them also have very reasoned arguments for Trump. Hillary is a known evil. Trump is unknown.
They'd rather bet on the unknown, since it will also send a big message to Team Dem that they can
no longer abuse progressives. I personally know women in the demographic that is viewed as being
solidly behind Hillary-older, professional women who live in major cities-who regard Trump as an
acceptable cost of getting rid of the Clintons.
Who does Naked Capitalism represent? The site, which I describe as "fearless commentary
on finance, economics, politics and power," receives 1.3 million to 1.5 million page views a month
and has amassed approximately 80 million readers since its launch in 2006. Its readership is disproportionately
graduate school-educated, older, male and high income. Despite the overall predominance of male readers,
many of the fiercest critics of Clinton in the commentariat are women, with handles like HotFlash,
Katniss Everdeen, Martha r, Portia, Bev and Pat.
What they also object to is that the larger bloc of Sanders voters has been treated with abuse
and contempt by the Clinton camp, despite the fact that their positions-such as strengthening Social
Security and Medicare, stronger educational funding and higher minimum wages-have for decades polled
by solid majorities or, at worst, ample pluralities in the electorate at large.
By contrast, the Democratic Party in the Clinton and Obama administrations has consistently embraced
and implemented policies that strip workers of economic and legal rights to benefit investors and
the elite professionals that serve them. Over time, the "neoliberal" economic order-which sees only
good, never bad, in the relentless untrammeling of capital and the deregulation of markets-has created
an unacceptable level of economic insecurity and distress for those outside the 1 percent and the
elite professionals who serve them.
The result is that the U.S. economy is becoming lethal to the less fortunate, according to the
New York Times , which
reported this week
that U.S. death rates have risen for the first time in a decade. The increase
in death rates among less educated whites since 2001 is roughly the size of the AIDS epidemic. One
cause, the opioid epidemic, resulted from Purdue Pharma
overselling the effectiveness
of reformulated OxyContin, then recommending higher dosages when
it failed to work properly, which experts deemed a prescription for creating addicts, according to
a number of lawsuits. This was permitted by the U.S. government, leading to thousands of unnecessary
deaths. Despite President Barack Obama's Panglossian claim that the economy is doing well,
the spike in suicides to levels over those during the financial crisis belies that
.
Yet the Clinton campaign is in such denial about this that it has become vitriolic in its verbal
and tactical attacks on Sanders and his supporters-rather than recognizing that the stunning success
of his campaign is proof of their abject policy failures. The message is clear: The Clintons believe,
as Bill himself put it, that the true progressives have nowhere to go.
But in fact, they've been leaving. The Clinton and Obama administrations presided over the worst
losses in congressional and state races in modern history in 1994, 2010 and 2012. And voter preferences
were clear. Under Obama, it was the Blue Dog, Third Way Democrats who were turfed out, while candidates
with strong stances on economic justice kept their seats. Similarly, as political scientist Tom Ferguson
pointed out in a
Roosevelt Institute paper
, Obama's loss of a Senate majority when Republican Scott Brown won
in Massachusetts was the result of his focus on bailing out banks rather than aiding distressed homeowners
(or forcing mortgage services to give modifications to borrowers who still had adequate income, as
banks had done historically). The level of votes for Brown was strongly correlated with the amount
of foreclosures in those particular districts.
True progressives know that the Clinton and Obama presidencies have brought inequality to Gilded
Era, banana-republic levels. They know that Obama's policies, which the Clintons embrace, have had
all of the post-crisis income gains
accrue to the top 1 percent
. In addition, corporate profits have risen to nearly double the
ratio to GDP that Warren Buffett deemed unsustainably high in the early 2000s. Unlike China, they've
also ushered in an era of high unemployment and underemployment, as reflected in unheard-of low levels
of labor force participation and unemployment among the young in a nominal expansion.
The Clintons' dismal record, which Hillary cannot run away from, speaks for itself. And this is
what makes many progressives I know unable to support her, even if she wins the nomination. Consider
the reasons why they feel this way:
Social Security . Bill Clinton
made a deal with Newt Gingrich to privatize Social Security, but Monica Lewinsky derailed his plans
. Sanders has promised to strengthen Social Security. By contrast, Clinton wants to "preserve"
it, which includes means-testing. That would put Social Security on a path to being a welfare program,
not a universal safety net, making it vulnerable in the long run. Bill Clinton's ending of welfare
is an illustration of the regular pattern, dating back to England's Poor Law of 1834, of gutting
safety nets for the poor.
Climate change . Sanders calls for a full-bore, Marshall-Plan level commitment to reducing
carbon output. Hillary talks about climate change but pushed for fracking in Europe while secretary
of state. The Clintons remain firmly committed to fracking, which ruins water supplies and releases
large amounts of methane.
Minimum wage. Inflation-adjusted minimum wage increases under Clinton were negligible-virtually
identical to those under George H.W. Bush. Obama promised a minimum wage increase to $9.50 an hour
and failed to act in the first four years of his presidency. Sanders wants to raise minimum wages
to $15 an hour, while Clinton stands pat with the administration plan to increase wages to $12 an
hour by 2020.
Trade deals . Bill Clinton ushered in NAFTA, which was touted as positive for growth and
employment, and is now widely acknowledged to have cost nearly a million jobs. Even one of its chief
promoters, former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, now deems it to have been a failure for American
workers. Hillary consistently backed the Trans-Pacific Partnership until Sanders made an issue of
it, and she's recently returned to supporting it. The potential growth and income gains from this
agreement and its European sister, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, are only marginally
positive, while the loss of national sovereignty would be enormous. These agreements would enable
foreign investors to challenge laws for labor, environmental and consumer protection, for threatening
future profits.
Health care . Sanders wants single-payer, government-provided health care. Around the world,
single payer has uncontestably demonstrated that it delivers better results overall at vastly lower
cost. Obamacare took single payer off the table, instead rearranging the current costly, clumsy system
while guaranteeing profits for health insurers and Big Pharma. Clinton at most has offered patches,
but the pressure from Sanders has compelled her to suggest an early buy-in for Medicare.
That's before we get to the Clintons' loyalty to the Robert Rubin and neoliberal fetish of balanced
budgets, which most economists say are not necessary. The recent European experience with austerity
shows how disastrous that approach is, particularly in the wake of a financial crisis. Hillary's
hawkishness means an even greater commitment to military spending, so voters are assured to get more
guns and less butter were she to become president.
The Sanders supporters I interact with also reject Hillary's trickle-down feminism as a substitute
for economic and social justice. Clinton is correct when she points out that there is a glass-ceiling
issue for women. There are fewer female CEOs, billionaires and senators. Women in the elite don't
have it as good as men. But pray tell, what is having more women, or Hispanics or blacks, in top
roles going to do for nurses and hospital orderlies, or the minority group members disproportionately
represented in low-wage jobs like part-time fast food workers? Class mobility has become close to
nonexistent in America. If you are born in one of the lower-income cohorts, you are almost certain
to stay there.
As a woman who broke through an important glass ceiling on Wall Street-Christina Mohr, the first
woman to become partner in mergers and acquisitions at Lazard-told a shocked group at Radcliffe seeking
better career opportunities for women many years ago: "Nothing will change until women own the means
of production." And that sort of change comes from the bottom up.
Then there are questions of competence. Hillary has a résumé of glittering titles with disasters
or at best thin accomplishments under each. Her vaunted co-presidency with Bill? After her first
major project, health care reform, turned into such a debacle that it was impossible to broach the
topic for a generation, she retreated into a more traditional first lady role. As New York senator,
she accomplished less with a bigger name and from a more powerful state
than Sanders did
. As secretary of state, she participated and encouraged strategically pointless
nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria. She bureaucratically outmaneuvered Obama, leading to U.S. intervention
in Libya, which he has called the worst decision of his administration. And her plan to fob her domestic
economic duties off on Bill comes off as an admission that she can't handle being president on her
own.
Mind you, these issues are all topics in the current debates. But what is as important, but not
as obvious, is the way that most citizens have been stripped of legal and economic protections. As
economist Michael Hudson put it, "Most inequality does not reflect differing levels of productivity,
but distortions resulting from property rights or other special privileges." The Clinton era brought
in weaker anti-trust enforcement, which allowed companies to accumulate more market share and with
it, more ability to extract rents. Binding arbitration, which strips employees and consumers of their
right to a day in court, has become widespread. Pensions, which used to be sacrosanct (and still
are if you are a CEO), are regularly renegotiated. Banks got away with predatory servicing and wrongful
foreclosures. Not only was the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement a "get out of liability almost free"
card so large that it was tantamount to a second bailout, but banks were not required to fix their
faulty servicing platforms, assuring that they'd revert to foreclosure abuses again when delinquencies
rise. And let us not forget that senior bankers are a protected class, exempt from prosecution.
Finally, there is the stench of corruption, dating back to Hillary's impossible-by any legitimate
means-trick of parlaying $1,000 into $100,000 in a series of commodities trades in 1978. The Clintons
and their backers seriously expect the rubes to believe that large financial firms happily forked
over their hefty speaking fees purely out of interest in what they had to say, or that Middle Eastern
and Taiwanese moneybags gave big bucks to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was secretary of state out of their deep belief in the foundation's lofty goals. Why has Hillary refused
to release the transcripts of her Goldman speeches, wiped her server and foot-dragged on releasing
allegedly personal emails?
The Sanders voters in Naked Capitalism 's active commentariat also explicitly reject lesser-evilism,
the cudgel that has previously kept true lefties somewhat in line. They are willing to gamble, given
that outsider presidents like Jimmy Carter and celebrity governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger and
Jesse Ventura didn't get much done, that a Trump presidency represents an acceptable cost of inflicting
punishment on the Democratic Party for 20 years of selling out ordinary Americans.
The Clintons, like the Bourbons before the French Revolution, have ensconced themselves in such
a bubble of operative and media sycophancy that they've mistakenly viewed escalating distress and
legitimate demands from citizens as mere noise. Sanders voters are taking their cue from Talleyrand,
the statesman who navigated the Revolution and the turbulent 50 years that followed with remarkable
success: "I have never abandoned a party before it abandoned itself."
If my readers are representative, Clinton and the Democratic Party are about to have a long-overdue
day of reckoning.
"... The party has relied, successfully, on the idea, made explicit by Bill Clinton, that progressives have no where to go. ..."
"... Third party voting is not a meaningful option in a Presidential election. And the Greens are not even a national party. I agree many NC readers like the idea of voting for Stein, but to stress that in a Politico piece would register as "political naifs who don't know the score" while saying "some progressives actually will vote for Trump if denied Sanders" would get their attention. ..."
"... And as indicated, I did not write the piece originally with that focus. It was about "many Sanders voters will never vote for Clinton" but the editor moved it in the direction of "so what do they do?" ..."
"... Electing Trump also looks like the most effective method to deliver what is a long-overdue message to the Dims that business as usual is not in any way an acceptable outcome, in fact most of us believe that business as usual is actually criminal behavior. ..."
"... The best thing that Bernie had going for him was a lifetime of eschewing the less-evil party. ..."
"... The answer is: no confidence. A look at the superdelegates who signed up for Hillary before the first votes in the primary elections should give you an idea of how many members of Congress would be willing to challenge her agenda. ..."
"... The media and Democrats in Congress did a decent job of opposing GWB's various atrocities in his second term. Pelosi famously took impeachment "off the table" but the dialogue was much healthier than it is today under Obama. You would think the last 8 years had vanished into a black hole for all Progressives talk about Obama's record of failure and his billion dollar presidential library. ..."
"... I'm another 50-something white life-long liberal who has come to the conclusion that voting for Trump is the lesser of some great evils. I'm somewhat relieved to know that I'm not the only one–it feels like it goes against everything I stand for, but I just can't vote for Clinton, nor will I refuse to vote in protest. ..."
"... A-yup. Trump at least says (or said on at least one occasion) that we should get out of the Middle East. Which makes him better than Hillary. And he has not *to date* committed any war crimes (I have standards, and one of them is that I will not vote for a war criminal). ..."
"... White working class, almost college educated here. Reading almost exclusively Yves for eight years. I feel I owe Yves, Lambert and the regular posters here a giant thank you for giving me a viable perspective from which to judge the actions of politicians, and the complicit media in destroying democracy completely. ..."
"... "The pathological party allegiance of both Democrats and Republicans is terrifying." – ..."
"... Obama fooled me in 2008, so I voted Green in 2012. I will not let either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump fool me in 2016, and although I still hope that somehow Bernie Sanders will be the Democratic nominee, I expect to vote Green again in 2016. ..."
"... The extremity of the responses is an indication of aggressive defense of cognitive dissonance ..."
"... Democrats are the love[d] ones addicted to painkillers that progressives have become codependent with. ..."
"... Extrajudicial killings, targeted assignations, shredding the constitution, corruption, indifference to suffering. We don't need Trump for any of those things. We've got Obama for that now. ..."
"... This is why I support the Clintons, they fucking care about people ..."
"... By AMY CHOZICK In a speech today, Hillary Clinton plans to suggest that a Trump presidency would weaken U.S. alliances and embolden enemies. ..."
"... In 2008 I was very naive, I voted for Obama thinking he was the next FDR, I was wrong. I know some folks have objections to MMT, but with Bernie having Stephanie Kelton and Bill Black on his team, I have the hope he understands, and even though he hasn't communicated in the MMT vocabulary, he gives me great hope that he realizes that there are so many things that can be done, so many problems that we can work to make better. ..."
"... Bill bombed a pharma factory in Sudan to distract the masses, and Team Barry O' Hill-Billy destabilized Libya , Syria, and the Ukraine - yet the She-devil wants to sell Trump as being less safe with the atomic football. What would she do to avoid being impeached? Even the unthinkable becomes possible with her. ..."
Mind you, the piece morphed a bit during the editing process. It had started out focusing on the
large policy differences between what Sanders voters want and what Clinton is offering. It made the
point that some, and potentially many, were sick and tired of the "lesser evilism" that the Democratic
party had used to keep the left in line. The party has relied, successfully, on the idea, made
explicit by Bill Clinton, that progressives have no where to go.
I read the piece on Politico, which as far as I can tell from constantly reading all the site's
comments for years, leans right and stupid as well. Yves, you are correct. I am a 50-year registered
Democrat, educated, well read (but financially poor). For me it is Bernie or no one.
I've pretty much decided that America and democracy is toast and the answer is to become a
prepper; live on a cheap rural piece of land, buy local produce or grow your own, and hunker down.
It just isn't going to get any better for the 99%.
I'm bothered by the failure to consider third-party voting as an option. It almost comes across
as an admission that the establishment is right and progressives have nowhere else to go. In fact,
whether you take the Green Party seriously or not, it would be the most progressive option if
you can't have Bernie in the general election. Particularly in a state like mine, where a write-in
vote does not count unless the candidate has registered as a write-in candidate (a weird consequence
of too many Mickey Mouse write-ins in the seventies), voting for a third party may be the strongest
statement a frustrated voter can make that we have somewhere else to go and are going.
3rd party voting is more visible too, as it's easy to count and see the increase from last
time.
Just because it isn't mentioned in the article doesn't mean it's not a viable alternative.
Third party voting is not a meaningful option in a Presidential election. And the Greens
are not even a national party. I agree many NC readers like the idea of voting for Stein, but
to stress that in a Politico piece would register as "political naifs who don't know the score"
while saying "some progressives actually will vote for Trump if denied Sanders" would get their
attention.
And as indicated, I did not write the piece originally with that focus. It was about "many
Sanders voters will never vote for Clinton" but the editor moved it in the direction of "so what
do they do?"
The Greens should be concentrating their efforts on getting a few Senate seats. They'd have
real power that way.
Couldn't agree more. A few weeks back I was planning to vote for Trump if Bernie was not an
option. I heard a couple of interviews with Jill Stein and thought 'how can I not vote for this
women?' I agree with Stein and people like Bruce Dixon who argue that this could be an extremely
important year in US politics. Both the Republican and Democrats are minority parties in terms
of total registration. Voting for Bernie, or Jill Stein is a chance to weaken the hold of the
duopoly that currently has a stranglehold on American politics. Time to throw off the politics
of fear and vote our principles. Of course, I still totally understand why someone might take
a chance on Trump.
From where I sit, it is very hard to see how the grid-lock that might/will result from electing
Trump could possibly be worse than the gridlock that might/will result from electing Clinton.
Electing Trump also looks like the most effective method to deliver what is a long-overdue
message to the Dims that business as usual is not in any way an acceptable outcome, in fact most
of us believe that business as usual is actually criminal behavior.
I'm hoping that in the fullness of time, Hillary will look back on this election season and
be happy just to have stayed out of jail.
The best thing that Bernie had going for him was a lifetime of eschewing the less-evil
party. Do the Democrats suddenly turn evil if Hillary succeeds Barack? If Bernie ends up
endorsing HRC, so much the worse for him!
I have never registered as a Democrat. Hey, I am not condemning anyone who did; we all make
mistakes. I never regretted voting for Nader. But why would I ever even consider Trump? Because
he is a "serious" candidate and Stein is not? Can anyone even make that claim with a straight
face?
It sounds like my perspective is at odds with almost everyone Yves is in contact with. Their
view seems to be that because Bernie joined the (Democratic) fold, he is now worthy of consideration.
As I already stated, I think they have it backwards. He might already be too compromised by throwing
his lot in with them. Where is the incisive critique of Guantánamo, Snowden, and the lack of prison
sentences for criminal banksters.
If you are going to vote based on a cost-benefit analysis, it never makes sense to vote. Why
waste the time and effort when your vote isn't going to make a difference? The people Yves hangs
with seem to base their behavior on the premise that a vote for an "alternative" party, like the
Greens, is a "wasted" vote. So, therefore they are going to support a racist in order to teach
Hillary a lesson?
I am to the left of HRC so I will vote to the left of her, not to the right.
At the same time, what confidence could I have that the Congress under President HRC would
or could hold the line on what I expect will be her effort to "get things done" that are also
bad?
The answer is: no confidence. A look at the superdelegates who signed up for Hillary before
the first votes in the primary elections should give you an idea of how many members of Congress
would be willing to challenge her agenda. On the other hand, one of the least known aspects
of Bernie's time in Congress is how many friendly colleagues he has among Repubs. The Repubs respect
Bernie because they know where he's coming from, not because they always agree with him. Even
John McCain was courteous enough to give Bernie all the credit on the veterans welfare bill they
both co-sponsored. There's a reason Bernie is the "amendment king." Bernie isn't tribal.
The media and Democrats in Congress did a decent job of opposing GWB's various atrocities
in his second term. Pelosi famously took impeachment "off the table" but the dialogue was much
healthier than it is today under Obama. You would think the last 8 years had vanished into a black
hole for all Progressives talk about Obama's record of failure and his billion dollar presidential
library.
I'll vote Green for president as I did in 2008 and 2012 and direct my campaign donations where
Sanders tells me to.
Sitting still for corporate malfeasance is exactly the "bad faith" by which people are rejecting
the Establishment candidates. I'd suggest taking account of the bad faith of the Democratic National
Committee and other Party organs in dealing with him, no more than a token of satisfice, and going
his own way to defeat Trump without providing aid or comfort to Hillary.
The only way that gridlock will end is with Sanders in the White House, at least one branch
of Congress in Democratic hands, and members of the other house sufficiently scared of voters
that they try to represent the interests of the 99%–in other words, a revolution. I don't know
how that happens with the media so complicit in the "Hillary is the nominee" narrative, but I
can hope.
I'm another 50-something white life-long liberal who has come to the conclusion that voting
for Trump is the lesser of some great evils. I'm somewhat relieved to know that I'm not the only
one–it feels like it goes against everything I stand for, but I just can't vote for Clinton, nor
will I refuse to vote in protest.
Gridlock is also preferable to Democrat control of the Senate and the Presidency: You know
we'd get TPP (if Obama doesn't manage to push it through), Grand Bargain, and maybe even a new
war in the first 100 days…
A-yup. Trump at least says (or said on at least one occasion) that we should get out of
the Middle East. Which makes him better than Hillary. And he has not *to date* committed any war
crimes (I have standards, and one of them is that I will not vote for a war criminal).
But I still don't understand why it has to come down to Trump or Hillary. Can't we just have
Bernie?
I just read the comments over there at Politico. Now I need a shower. The pathological party
allegiance of both Democrats and Republicans is terrifying.
Did the same. Wow! Yves, they are killing you. And I bet many of them never, ever visited this
website. Agree with Noonan about the party allegiances. Yikes! And may I add that they seem the
type that, presented with evidence, they still won't believe it.
File under "my opinions are as good as your facts"…
There's actually considerable pushback, although the weight of numbers is on the flying monkey's
side. (Incidentally, I wouldn't put it past Brock to fund both "Republican" and "Democrat" trolls,
depending on the talking points in view….
White working class, almost college educated here. Reading almost exclusively Yves for
eight years. I feel I owe Yves, Lambert and the regular posters here a giant thank you for giving
me a viable perspective from which to judge the actions of politicians, and the complicit media
in destroying democracy completely. I inhabit the bubble of truth that you folks create,
and I am greatly disturbed by the comments at politico. I understand generalized stupidity, and
laziness, but the complete disconnect from reality I encounter whenever I venture from my truth
bubble still amazes me. People have forgotten how to read, and how to think. I like Bernie. I
will vote Trump over Biden in November. Elizabeth would never sell us all that far down the river.
Shes kind of like team blues Paul Ryan that way. What the hell, maybe Michelle should run.
As a white working class progressive inhabiting a bubble of truth I discovered investigating
M.E.R.S, I want you all to understand that I actually support Bernie on his character alone. I
couldn't care less about my chances at upward mobility. Single payer healthcare is great in my
book, provided it means I don't have to run through a rat maze of bullsh*t everytime one of my
children gets sick or breaks a limb. What I really want isn't a shot at what ever the middle class
is supposed to represent. What I want is an end to generalized stupidity and propaganda. I want
the masses to inhabit the truth bubble. I dont know what demographic this makes me. I want to
investigate Stein to perhaps not be a white working class trump voter in the end, but 2 votes
against Biden might be better than one for Stein. Also, I cant really vote green untill the wasteful
stupidity I witness everytime I drive through a toll booth is adressed and rectified. Millions
of barrels of oil per year .
Seconded, one of the reasons. I've always scoffed at the "we're going downhill" or general
end times mentality, favoring instead that it was just moving laterally and depressingly, but
this season and the environment this site provides has helped me see the frailty of this society.
It is fragile, we are approaching a point of no return, and people still won't read the damn signs.
"The pathological party allegiance of both Democrats and Republicans is terrifying."
–
I wouldn't say terrifying, but it certainly shows how we got to where we are today. Party allegiance
and zealotry has usurped not only the needs of The People, but their will as well. Then
both sides wonder why things no longer works.
That sucking sound isn't just people's imagination…
One of the reasons con games are successful beyond the greed of humans is that people do not
like to admit they have been fooled/taken in/played. Denial is deeply ingrained in humans.
My own personal observation is that the most zealous of supporters are either the newest converts
or the ones desperately trying to avoid their growing realization that they have been a patsy.
I really do believe we are seeing a whole lot of the latter among the reactions to ideas like
this article or questions like 'where is your evidence that Trump is more evil than Clinton? I
can list the following things that are actual actions by Clinton along with HER ever shifting
rhetoric, you can list what?'
Obama fooled me in 2008, so I voted Green in 2012. I will not let either Hillary Clinton
or Donald Trump fool me in 2016, and although I still hope that somehow Bernie Sanders will be
the Democratic nominee, I expect to vote Green again in 2016.
Our stories sound similar. I had wanted Edwards, and frankly still think he was the best of
the bad lot, but fell in line and voted for Obama. And then watched with horror. He was no lesser
evil. 2012 was a vote for the Green Party.
I might have gone with burn it down, since I cannot honestly say who is the lesser evil between
Trump and Clinton, and Trump is in reality unknown. But I rolled the device with the unknown Obama
and learned my lesson – evil is evil.
Same here – I voted for Obama in 2008 and was disillusioned by 2012 so I voted for Stein. Looks
like I may vote Green again in 2016.
I hope Bernie can prevail, but the Democratic party doesn't want him – or his supporters. They
will parachute in Joe Biden or perhaps Al Gore (if they can convince him) if Clinton implodes.
They will just ride that train over the cliff; they can simply "blame Bernie" for Clinton's failures.
I didn't read the comments, but you may want to consider that a good portion of them may very
well be from paid commenters. I think that Yves and Lambert look dimly on such practices.
I think that Yves also made a superb point in her essay - those of us who have been reading
NC have developed a far more sophisticated (I would even say 'principled') opposition to the kind
of neoliberal incrementalism that Clinton personifies.
Hence, the Politico commenters don't grasp the economic fraud and bogus theories that are driving
a lot of public policy disasters. On the upside, even my electrician and manufacturing relatives
have started asking some very probing questions about economics in the US.
Just direct your worker bee relatives to N.C, and let the truth educate them. Also, don't shortchange
your electrician friend. He has an education that is every bit as rigorous and oftentimes more
so than 90% of the bachelor programs available today.
It is terrifying, but not all that surprising. No one wants to think they have spent most of
their lives dedicated to a group that have misled them. Then they might be responsible for their
own problems. Its a lot easier to blame someone else and children start picking "sides" in grade-school.
What they rarely get taught is that you can't change other people (absent Gitmo tactics, or working
with them over their entire lives). You can change yourself to adapt to your situation, or change
your situation, but trying to change someone else into who you want them to be hardly ever works.
Democrats are the love ones addicted to painkillers that progressives have become codependent
with. They will lie and use without remorse and deep down we know the only way to help them is
to leave them to their own devices. Sanders is a last chance to go "cold turkey" for a party that
departed their platform a long time ago.
You'll never convince Republicans to your way of thinking. Our only options left are to convince
Democrats (the party hacks that call the shots and take none of the downsides) that it really
can get worse. Both parties have abandoned responsibility in favor of tribalism and personal success
for a fortunate few. Its high time they remember that actions have consequences for the 99%. They've
been preaching tough love for a generation, its time they experience it.
Democrats are the love[d] ones addicted to painkillers that progressives have become
codependent with.
I could never leave the Democrats because where would I go? Besides deep down the Democrats
really love me, even though they sometimes are abusive to me. But that's just because it's my
fault for not being supportive enough and doing things like watching Nader speeches on YouTube.
Plus if I leave them, they'll never get any better, especially with Trump on the horizon when
they need me the most.
Well to be fair as for "most of their lives", the Democratic party wasn't as bad when some
of the older voting block first started voting (boomers and so on). But they do need to wake up
and see the present reality, but many may have become too comfortable at this point to do so.
I'm talking voters, talking heads and so on are mostly paid to say what they do.
As I said to Clive (who did wade into the mire of the Politico comments section), if any of
you can stand to fire up your FB accounts and lob in a comment or two debunking the garbage, it
would be very much appreciated. Not that it will persuade any of them, but to show to third parties
that one side is screeching and the other side has some actual arguments.
I did the same and it reminded me how lucky we are to have such a strong comment section here
(not that we are immune to that kind of thing, but intellectual honesty is at least more strictly
enforced). Tribalism and ad hominem attacks everywhere you look. Some well-reasoned arguments
but they tended to drown in the noise.
As I see it, there's no real difference here. Sure on executive orders Trump could do some
nonsense, but maybe Trump + Executive Orders would be enough to end that practice finally in court.
Overall, either way they're both garbage, but at least if Hillary goes down in flames the Democrats
might be forced to wake up.
The CTR trolls in the comments are so hopping mad you'd think they just found a beehive in
their outhouse the hard way. It scares them to death to see a logical framework for shunning their
candidate. Great work, Yves.
Mr HotFlash pointed this post out to me and I have to admit that I am seriously, *seriously*
swollen-headed at the moment. I will have to do some gardening to get myself back to earth.
Oh, and I have been considering designating myself as a BernieBra? what do you think?
In california and other mountainous places, "bro" has exchanged a phoneme and morphed into
the word "brah" essentially sounding the same as bra. so to many it still sounds male. maybe berniebabe?
or just "an intelligent woman who advocates for bernie?"
i saw a good takedown piece that dissected how team clinton started that disparaging berniebro
nonsense to start with. let me see if i can find the link. started by an attack on team clinton
by a tea party person posing as a fake senator….oh greenwald, i might have gotten that link here
on nc, if not, here it is again for anyone who might have missed it
Speaking of female commenters at NC (and ever-so-slightly off topic), has anyone heard from
"Susan the other" lately? When I saw Yves' list and she wasn't on it, I realized I hadn't seen
her handle in quite some time. I hope she's okay.
Oh, that's a relief. I worry a little about posters who suddenly disappear. Even those who
manage to run themselves off, like Beardo and that deep-state-harping fellow, and the Mexico one,
I wonder how they're doing. I don't post much, because y'all are WAY outa my league in terms of
both knowledge and analytical skills, but I've learned so much since about 2008. Thank you Ms
"Yves", Lambert, and everyone.
Sometimes I wonder if we can ever be effective as a group behind all these handles, where a
"handle" can be gone for weeks before anyone notices, and no one actually knows who that was behind
it, or anything about their lives, their plans, or anything. I take solace that we're all getting
an education. Not just we who frequent this site, but even a good deal of the general public.
Maybe the broader knowledge disemination that this venue encourages has had positive effect, as
in Sanders' amazing, so far, run.
That "sophisticated understanding" actually came from the editor! In retrospect, a word other
than "sophisticated" might have been preferable. Sounds a tad self congratulatory.
And a little over-the-top. However, after what I've seen today, I'd guess the editors at Politico
are weary of their commentariat. Yours looks like a Mensa convention by comparison. Every last
one of us a genius! Genius!
Trump is the worst candidate in the field, period. I'm no fan of Clinton, proudly voted Bernie,
and may vote Jill Stein in the general. An affirmative Trump is just a yes to all the crony, know-nothing,
misogynistic, racist, billionaire twats that want to continue robbing the public. Trump sucks.
From the look of the comments, you've hit a nerve and david brock got the 3 a. m. phone call.
With substance nowhere to be found, ad hominem appears to be the "strategy" for defending the
indefensible. And I, for one, have no problem being called "stupid" by commenters who type "your"
when they mean "you're" on facebook.
but see obama and clinton and (insert dino of your choice) will nominate moderate
republicans! if the republicans get in they will nominate less moderate republicans! and npr will
become upset.
Yeah Obama pretty much laid the once potent "but… the Supreme Court ZMOG!!!" argument to rest
for good when he nominated a Republican. I mean what's even the point of voting Democrat at this
juncture? They hate their base, and swoon over billionaires and Republicans. I'd probably be cheering
on the Republican to humiliate Clinton on if it weren't Trump, and even as much as I despise Trump
I hardly care whether he or Hillary wins. That's how horrible the Democrats are now.
Oh my goodness me, those comments. I will now have to take a lie down in a darkened room in
the hope that it might all fade from memory like a bad dream. I fired up my Facebook account,
having to then throw Holy Water on my PC afterwards (okay, I wiped the dust of the screen, the
gesture meant the same), to chip in some replies, but it was like I was drowning in a warm bath
of gloopy stupidity by the time I got to the end.
I'm going to read the Daily Mail now, or watch Fox News, just to get exposed to something marginally
less corrosive.
And yes, we all make spelling and grammatical mistakes now and again. But at least we demonstrate
a basic grasp of how capital letters work and can construct complete sentences with a subject
and a verb.
I had to bail. Since I don't do the Facebook BS at all I had to suffer "script error!" navel
gazing out the wazoo. To the extent of a restart. Politico sucks as bad as ZH in that regard.
Meh. Buncha dingleberries, imho. Nevertheless, congrats to Yves for the increased visibility.
In fact, WTH: Yves and Lambert 2020. Smith and Strether* has a real ring…jus' sayin'. Yves'd get
this economy going and give the banksters the what for! And Lambert has a fine 12 pt plan…
* First P/VP with internet aliases!
Ok. Yeah. No. No sane person wants to be P or VP. Sigh.
I was struck by how thoroughly the commenters at Politico missed what I thought was one of
the main points of the article: to disabuse Hillary-supporters of their rabid but delusional belief
that Sanders voters will troop obediently to the voting booth and mark an X next to Clinton's
name.
The commenters seem insanely focused on WHY [in their view] not voting for Hillary would be
terrible. Yves' point, I thought, was to try to give them advanced warning of what's going to
happen - to help them understand where some other folks are coming from. But as usual with "the
smartest people in the room" [as the commenters clearly regard themselves], they don't LISTEN;
they only interrupt, lecture and condemn. They've got no interest in anyone's POV but their own.
I was honored to be quoted, although I realize you probably did that because it's such an extreme
metaphor. But, that was the point of using it to begin with.
I was sorely, sorely tempted to respond in the Politico comments section to say, I am that
person being quoted and I am a middle-aged Harvard graduate, but thanks for calling me an idiot
kid. And yes, like the overall demographic Yves was discussing, I'm a white female. Used to work
in the financial services sector, even.
But they weren't hearing it from Yves, so why would it sink in from me?
"Then there are questions of competence. Hillary has a résumé of glittering titles with disasters
or at best thin accomplishments under each. Her vaunted co-presidency with Bill? After her first
major project, health care reform, turned into such a debacle that it was impossible to broach
the topic for a generation, she retreated into a more traditional first lady role. As New York
senator, she accomplished less with a bigger name and from a more powerful state than Sanders
did. As secretary of state, she participated and encouraged strategically pointless nation-breaking
in Iraq and Syria. She bureaucratically outmaneuvered Obama, leading to U.S. intervention in Libya,
which he has called the worst decision of his administration. And her plan to fob her domestic
economic duties off on Bill comes off as an admission that she can't handle being president on
her own."
======================================
I had pretty much cut and pasted the whole column in my comment, and than I realized I can't do
that :( Having to choose a snippet, when I think every word is insightful and brilliant, is heartbreaking.
I pretty much agree with "Watt4Bob" except that the gridlock would only be in things that would
help the 99% – when it comes to doing things for the 1% the parties seem able to work together
just fine (TPP).
Trump MIGHT bollix things up enough to annoy the 1% – I KNOW Clinton will be effective in serving
wall street.
Is merely farting in the general direction of wall street enough? When its the only weapon you
got, you use what is available…
Me too, sadly, as I'd like to vote for Sanders. But, I'm in a state where my vote doesn't matter.
Were I in a state where my vote mattered, I'd reluctantly vote for Clinton, only because her
opponent is Trump. He has a great deal of executive authority to deport people and would be worse
than Obama on this score, which is terribly destructive, as is the overt racism and authoritarianism.
Your vote will matter, although maybe not by helping to elect someone in 2016. If Bernie's
not on the ballot, please vote Green or another third party. If a third party Presidential candidate
gets 5% of the vote, that candidate (or the candidate's party) is eligible for grant money from
the U.S. government.
Since no third-party candidate received 5% of the vote in the 2008 presidential election,
only the Republican and Democratic parties were eligible for 2012 convention grants, and only
their nominees were eligible to receive grants for the general election once they were nominated.
Third-party candidates could qualify for public funds retroactively if they received 5% or
more of the vote in the general election.
++++++++
It is rather amazing that we allow ourselves to be put in such a position by maintaining SUCH
a duopoly. Geez, don't we have decades of evidence now how crappy the dempulicans/republicrats
are???
I agree. This is what "false equivalence" and "normalization looks like. The article was long
on hurt feeling in defense of Sanders and very short on the sh*tstorm that Trump will bring down
on the US if elected.
Those who think think Trump is a "lesser evil", have fallen for the media presentation of him
being equivalent to Hillary in qualifications, relevant knowledge and political experience. He
is CLEARLY not. How anyone considers a random billionaire reality TV show personality capable
of leading the country is baffling.
Rightly or wrongly, Clinton has been the de facto candidate for at least 4 years. It's really
too far late in the game to be pouting about a better candidate being nominated.
There's too much at stake to use your vote in protest of a Democratic party whose only positive
attribute is that they're not worse than the Republican party.
*Sigh*. This is a problem with headlines. They really influence how a piece is interpreted.
The point of the article was not to say "vote Trump". That is your straw man. Nor is it "long
on hurt feelings". It was set forth the substantial policy differences between Clinton and Sanders,
how the Sanders positions represent long-standing views of a majority or plurality of US voters,
and how the Democrats have ignored them out of the view that voters, as Bill himself said, have
"nowhere to go".
The only way to break this dynamic is to go somewhere else, to inflict costs. Refusing to vote
for Clinton is one way. Voting for Trump is a more radical way.
de facto candidate? huh? you have to get elected not just run. The media portrays trump as
a crazy person, and show me an example of trumps qualifications being touted as equal to clintons.
The main argument against clinton is indeed her"qualifications"…she's for TPP and I'm not, trump
is apparently against TPP as is sanders, who if you're truly concerned about trump you should
back sanders, hillary won't stop medicaid clawbacks, hillary will cut social security in some
form of privatization sop to the finance sector, she'll continue her abhorrent foriegn policy
missions that cause death and destruction all over the world to advance the interests of the worst
people in the world. This is just a short form list. Without referencing any other candidate,
tell me one reason I should vote FOR hillary?
In the Senate she voted for the invasion of Iraq; she voted for the destructive bankruptcy
"reform" bill in 2001; she voted for the Patriot Act; she voted to bail out the giant banks at
great public expense. Oh. . . you're asking about a reason to vote FOR her. Well then, never mind.
What? If anything, we in Texas know that deporting immigrants will only hurt businesses who
hire them. Just ask the 1% who live in the state. There are plenty of Texans who will teach Trump
all he needs to know. Don't think all the promises of a candidate will come true. They would rather
hire immigrants that the locals. Trump has already said this himself. He is a bundle of contradictions.
Yves, please accept my thanks, not only for this article, but for leading us to this point.
I agree with you 100%. I don't know how you got Politico to include your article but very happy
the word is getting out. We are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.
Well done Yves. You've ruffled the feathers of more than a few Hill-trolls. I enjoyed some
of the fact-free comments like this:
"If you don't give a crap about women's rights, minority rights, the environment, gun violence,
immigration reform, religious freedom, labor rights, etc, what exactly is it that makes you a
liberal?"
Obama and the Clintons have done so little on all of these items that it's shocking that someone
could actually write this without irony. The only progress that has been made on things like the
environment and immigration reform was under consistent pressure from organized groups like the
Keystone XL example, and the immigration policy changes that Obama made. Obama's recent change
to overtime rules (though very much a welcome step in the right direction) looks cynically timed
to shore up the wayward left flank of the Democratic Party.
Personally, I'm not voting for Trump, because he's an idiot. I will NEVER vote for a Clinton.
They cause too much destruction! And they get really rich while causing it.
You hit a nerve at Politico.
W/M, early 60's, Real Estate Broker in California and a regular reader here for a decade…I'll
be at the Sanders rally in Cloverdale tomorrow.
Typical NC follower.
I will not vote for HRC under any circumstances and if it's Trump VS Clinton I may well vote for
Trump ( Puking in my mouth as I vote) because he is the lesser evil.
My bet is that HRC takes the Nomination and then steps aside for "Health Reasons" allowing the
power brokers to ease Sanders aside and choose someone like Brown or Biden.
Sander will have a voice in who is chosen (Especially for VP) and that may be enough for him.
Trump is dangerous under any microscope, & THAT is a professional opinion. HRC is a nuclear
device waiting to implode. Sanders has been a principled, consistent politician protecting the
interest of the general citizenry somewhat behind the scenes. I think his current 'revolutionary'
stance is much like mine & a lot of 'our' contemporaries: totally fed up with the lies & path
the Democratic Party insiders chose to go, feeling totally betrayed. We fought for civil rights,
against the Vietnam War, subsequent unnecessary military involvements only to see misspent human
and monetary treasure costs of unconscionable enormity. We see Senator Sanders as the ONLY one
who speaks and cares about America and its citizens in the only proper view, we deserve the human
rights we have worked hard to achieve only to see them disappearing into the pockets of those
who worship the Golden Bull (of Wall Street). The young people (our children & grandchildren)
are wise to this, perhaps many were listening to us when we least expected!
For myself I'll just say I will vote for Mr. Sanders as a delegate and as an American. This country
deserves better, its people deserve "a more perfect union, Justice, domestic Tranquility, common
defense, promotion of the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity", not just the 1% of us, all of us, no exceptions! It is what Senator Sanders
has been trying to do most of his life. I believe he is the Real Deal. I believe this is the time
we need to think in the larger perspective. What is best for America and all of the people living
here? How do we return to the ideal of the 'golden city on a hill'? Senator Sanders guiding us
as President is a first step. Wash your hands and roll up your sleeves, we've got a lot of work
to do!
We fought for civil rights, against the Vietnam War, subsequent unnecessary military involvements
only to see misspent human and monetary treasure costs of unconscionable enormity. We see Senator
Sanders as the ONLY one who speaks and cares about America and its citizens in the only proper
view, we deserve the human rights we have worked hard to achieve only to see them disappearing
into the pockets of those who worship the Golden Bull (of Wall Street).
TS, be prepared to arrive at the Sanders rally early. His rally in Santa Barbara required ALL
attendees to pass through a slow moving security check (which took hours). The rally in SB was
massive (much larger than an Obama rally in 2008), and while the "gates" opened at 7 am, Sanders
didn't speak until 11 am.
I spoke with some of the Sanders folks a day before the event and was amazed at their dedication
to detail. These people are not amateurs!
Ditto on the preparedness. I attended the first Michigan rally. I got drug along to Obama in
Detroit in 2007 and even though I didn't necessarily care, I was severely upset that not everyone
could actually see the person they came there for (we were literally just on some adjacent packed
street). In light of that I arrived at 7, first one in line and waited until we got in around
2. Front row though! Be prepared for a long haul!
There's so much more that could be included in that column, but I'm guessing there were space
considerations. Still, I think that it would be worthwhile to step back from Clinton, Sanders,
and Trump, and discuss what they represent. It seems clear to me that the political system in
this country is breaking down, something which a good chunk of the political and media elite refuse
to acknowledge, or are constitutionally unable to comprehend. What do they really think will happen
if Trump or Clinton wins? As tough as they claim it would be for a President Sanders, what could
those other two possibly accomplish that Sanders couldn't? Do they think that it will be any better
in 2020, especially if another financial crisis hits?
I tuned out yesterday after I heard that 5 people are now serious (in someone's mind) candidates
for the president. They added a republican named French and old Uncle Joe Biden. These are to
replace the current party favorites because they ermm will lose favor, be replaced, indicted,
arrested, whatever.
Baggage is being delivered right to the door of the convention that will put the charmed fruit
in hot water and spoil their taste and appearance.
I am glad to see the 1% get their freak on and guarantee a win for Bernie. It looks like it is
going to be a write in vote for the winner.
By the way, is it legal to get a rubber stamp made that says "Bernie Sanders" so no one can claim
poor penmanship? Is that legal? I'd like to buy one.
Interesting article. I'd suggest you're missing the "F**k you!" to the political class that
Trump represents. The Italians elected a prostitute ("La Ciccolina") to their parliament for similar
reasons. It may be impotent, but I'm sure it feels good.
Meanwhile, if Hillary gets the nomination, I suggest those in reliably blue or red states vote
Jill Stein, Greens. It empowers, and perhaps gets revenue sharing for Greens, and registers a
protest without SCOTUS impact.
I can, out of experience, attest to the fact that F-U votes do indeed make one feel good.
Waking up the day after election day to find that Minnesotans had elected Jessie Ventura governor,
was a pure delight.
Our legislature, the two legacy parties, joined hands, circled the wagons and put their collective
fingers in their ears and sang NA-NA-Na-Na, ignored his every effort at change, but in the end,
I'd say the experience gave a brief respite from the endless kayfabe.
What I'm saying is that I fear electing Hillary much more than Trump.
Re Italian electoral choices, I'd have to offer that both houses of the US imperial legislature,
much of the court system, and of course the Imperial Executive and military, are stuffed full
of prostitutes. Bunch of corporate filles et types de joie… As I recall, La Cicciolina had some
very good positions, on the issues too… the Wiki article is dry fun:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilona_Staller
I'm disappointed not to see more focus on down-ticket races.
Look at what the Republicans have done to blockade any of the few good things Obama has managed
to try. Dems could play this role in a Trump presidency, blocking horrid and/or crazy stuff. [And
they'll be needed in this role in a Clinton presidency as well.]
I really think Bernie ought to begin hammering at this. In an awful lot of states, your vote
on the line for president doesn't really matter: your state is already "red" or "blue." The only
thing your vote there does is show that you refuse to vote for Hillary, or add to the total votes
for a Green or Libertarian candidate in the hopes of enabling them to be on future ballots.
But your vote for Senate or House members DOES can make a difference. That's why folks shouldn't
stay home. Don't let the disaster that's the presidential "choice" keep you away from your opportunity
to make a difference elsewhere.
Kokukanani, ding ding ding ding ding! Yes, downticket is the key. Ask any Teapartier ; ). If
Bernie loses the nom (most probable in the current sitch) and Hillary or her replacement loses
the Prez (assuming, with reason, that the we-all won't just come out to vote for her and/or the
Dem's second team Q-back won't just *wipe the field!* wait - Joe Biden? John Kerry? umm, not likely…),
we will have Prez Trump. And the establishment, both D & R, will work v hard to make sure he does
nothing much. Ergo, that will be our time to consolidate.
Find, vet and support more
Bernie-style candidates in down-ticket matches. Take the House in 2019, take state and local
offices whenever they present, build solidarity and a network of elected who are in league with
us. If they betray us, we get them trounced and replaced by Good People. Lather, rinse, repeat.
We have seen even pretty good guys/gals corrupted by the Washington "reality" - keep an eye on
them, keep their feets to fire and exchange them as needed.
Thirty, twenty years ago many, many good people couldn't run for office b/c of perceived 'skeletons'
in their closets. This one was divorced, that one was gay, this one had smoked dope, that one
was an atheist - but people, who cares about that stuff anymore?
Enthusiastically seconding
rezlez , put my money where Bernie says. There are tons of good folks who can be elected,
starting but not ending with his endorsements. That is how we will win The War, even if we lose
the 2016 Nom and Prez battles.
Also recall that 2020 will be particularly important: census year + redistricting.
In 2010, narcissistic Obama and the lazyy DNC couldn't be bothered to deal with an "off-year"
election. As a result, Republicans took over governorships and state legislatures , which then
gerrymandered districts, cementing and increasing the advantages they already had. This was in
addition to gaining House and Senate seats.
Let's not make this mistake again. 2016 is the beginning of the race for 2020.
You are of course right. But I have nearly 30 would be Senators on my ballot, most of whom
can't even write a paragraph in coherent English OR hire an editor to do so for them. It really
is that bad. It's an indictment of both the political and the education system at this point.
So it's not easy to keep the focus …
I too am a highly educated, middle aged, female NC regular who has every intention of voting
for Trump over Clinton as the lesser evil. (I also relish the thought of her gnashed teeth if
she loses!)
I am still hoping that Bernie can pull off the nomination but I comfort myself with the awareness
that he has inspired a generation of activists to run for local office and eventually percolate
up to positions of real power. Change isn't quick but it is coming.
Great piece, but if you're really a progressive and Clinton is the nominee, why not vote for
Jill Stein instead? She's even more progressive than Bernie and will show up on the ballot in
November (at least as far as I know).
The reason is because if 10 people vote for Clinton in a given state, 9 vote for Trump, and
8 vote for Stein, while 1 million stay home, Clinton wins the state. Once she gets to 270, she's
President. It's the percentages of the cast votes that matter.
If you are in a state that is absolutely guaranteed to sweep for Clinton or Trump, then by
all means, vote third party. But bear in mind that polling is both being manipulated AND is inaccurate
this year because the electorate is not the typical one.
This isn't just about "who would I prefer as president". In that regard, no one vote matters
at all. This is about stopping a vast network of militaristic and corporate corruption, purging
the Clintons and corporatists from the party, and thereby making it undesirable for Goldman, Exxon,
Boeing et al. to fund Democratic campaigns and Democratic lobbyists. Weakening that hold is crucial
to either taking the Democratic party back, or building a competitive progressive party that can
beat it nationally.
This is the best description of this move I have seen. The potential message it sends to donors
for Dems is not even something I considered in this play, nice.
One possible reason for the 'pukey' quality of the Politico Commentariat could well be the
requirement that one needs a Facebook account to sign in to comment. One of NC's strengths is
that it does not require a potential commenter to join a 'special club' to participate. I sense
that moderation is a major headache for the NC site admins, but I do not see where Facebook, Disqus,
or others of their ilk provide any quality filtering at all.
I liked one Politico comment that asked if Distort the Record paying by the comment accounted
for the high turnout of HillTrolls. We here at NC get that the HillTroll population is not paid,
but recompensed with "Purity Points," the knowledge that True Believers sacrifice for the 'Greater
Good,' however that is defined. The run of the mill reader might not get that dynamic, so the
idea that the HillTrolls are paid would not only 'fly,' but somehow reduce the effectiveness of
such comments through the subtle corrosive action of the 'pay to play' meme.
Finally, I get the feeling that the Politico crowd likes to see themselves as "thought leaders"
for the "masses." By playing up the "quality" of the NC commentariat in your piece, and their
disdain for H Clinton, you have stuck a very salutary finger in the Politico nomenklaturas collective
eye. Well done!
I know from personal experience with many of FDL alums that when it required commenters to
register via Disquis, many of us opted out of commenting…and reading…and contributing.
I realize that FDL had been under consistent, sustained DDOS attacks on multiple occasions
and Disquis may have been a response, but it still had a discouraging effect, and probably did
much more harm that good.
As for FB, I'm on it primarily for two reasons: to stay in touch with some far-flung old friends
and classmates, and I have an author's page for my book, Public Enemies. I often comment on others'
posts and send the occasional Personal Message, but post original material, at most, 3-4 times
a year. Not really giving Zuck any meaningful personal data for his mining efforts.
It's interesting given that the conventional wisdom is that by removing anonymity on comments
(e.g. by requiring a Facebook account to post) you eliminate the worst behavior. Comparing the
quality of NC comments (totally anonymous) and Politico (FB identified) suggests that that's an
overly simplistic view.
It does make it a bit easier to spot sock puppets though.
I read the Politico piece. I mostly agree with everything Yves Smith says about Mrs. Clinton.
But I cannot believe that anyone could contemplate the accession of Donald Trump to the Presidency
with anything other than terror. There is also the probability that if Trump gains that ephemeral
thing "momentum," he could ruin our chances to put people like Tim Canova, Tammy Duckworth, etc.,
etc. into the Senate (and get people like Debbie Wasserman Schulz out ).
Trump's total ignorance of and contempt for preventing global warming make it a possibility
that Yves and I might not get to vote in the next election, 2020, because our polling places would
be under water. Texas is under water at the moment, South Florida is going under, Virginia Beach
is going under.
Republicans have a very simple outlook, and a very simple solution: if you look at (ugh) television,
you frequently hear Republicans say, "If Hillary Clinton gets in, there goes the Supreme Court
for 100 years." Contrariwise, if Donald Trump gets in, there goes the Supreme Court for 100 years,
assuming we stay above water and below 150 degrees for that long.
My son used to describe himself as a Bolshevik, and we agreed that I was a gradualist. I still
am. I still believe that there is such a thing as the "lesser of two evils," especially when the
greater evil is a completely deranged, destructive, rudderless, persimmon-colored narcissist,
whose main policy position appears to be an unfulfillable desire to build a wall along the Mexican
border and write 'TRUMP WALL" on it in flashing letters.
I do not wish to be insulting, patronizing, or demeaning to the author or to readers of this
blog, which I have gratefully read since 2007 and supported with a (tiny) subscription for a long
time. But when I read that some other readers believe that voting for Trump will "send a big message,"
I am absolutely appalled by the lack of foresight implied. Send a message to whom? To ourselves?
Shall we all move to Canada, or Mars, to get out of the way before the "message" arrives?
I believe that Conservatives are defined by a total ignorance of cause and effect, and a love
of destruction for its own sake. I do not believe that Naked Capitalism should adopt a stance
of, "Let's smash up the republic and see what happens."
Nicely measured comment, withholding the typical insults thrown at Sanders supporters who show
hesitation at voting for Hillary no matter she does or says. It is easy succumbing to the temptation
of supporting Hillary because the prospects of Trump are so horrific. But if I vote for Hillary,
how do I then seriously maintain that I object to the following realities:
1. Her enthusiastic support for the Iraq war before changing course when it became a political
liability.
2. The neocon and Kissinger crowd endorsement of her foreign policy which included bombing Libya
into a stateless terrorist sanction, supporting pro-terrorist rebels invading Syria, advocating
for a greater troop surge in Afghanistan than Obama or the military wanted (40K v. 30K), unbridled
support for Israel, supporting the Honduran coup, approving over a hundred in billion in arms
sales to the most unsavory of Middle East Despots, etc. She is a war monger and advocate of never
ending war.
3. Money controlling politics. Personally she and Bill have received hundreds of millions in special
interest money through speaking fees and the foundation. Her campaign is awash in special interest
money. Money is a corrupting influence in politics until it comes to Hillary?
4. A complete lack of transparency in giving speeches to special interests and in her public actions
as Secretary of State. What is she trying to hide?
5. Neo-liberal economic policies leading to the conclusion we will "never, ever" have single payer
and likely will experience cuts in Social Security. The ultimate privatization of everything.
6. The failure to lead on important social, environmental and trade issues. She was against gay
marriage, supported fracking and free trade until campaigning in the opposite direction. How to
you conclude she is not just pandering for votes?
If I vote for Hillary I am part of the mandate for all that I object to. That is how Bush framed
it when he won. If voting for the lesser of two evils did not lead to more evil, it might be a
viable alternative. But anyone arguing the extension and further establishment of the status quo
is sustainable is living in a fantasy land.
As a final thought, I note Hillary supporters rarely argue her policies are superior to Bernie's.
They fall back on resigned acceptance wrapped in pragmaticism. My guess is all of these people
have (or had) decent paying jobs with benefits, access to healthcare, debt free higher education,
good housing, etc. In other words, holding on to the status quo is the preferred option.
If your big concern for future generations is a wall between the US and Mexico then you should
definitely vote for Hillary Clinton. Who better than the Clinton's to prevent any barriers to
middle class jobs leaving the country?
The message is actually to you and anyone else who could stomach a vote for Clinton after everything
they have done. If you don't want Trump, you have a way out. His name is Bernie Sanders. If you
are willing to risk a Trump Presidency then by all means be appalled and trepidatious. We'll both
suffer together just like we have for the last 30 years. The big difference is that I won't have
to compromise my principles and then be fooled yet again while the serious, reasonable among us
berate me for not cheering loud enough at my own funeral. All politicians lie you'll say, except
I'm supposed to believe Trump will do everything he promises. The Democratic party, the only one
"hope for the masses" is by far the biggest threat to our republic. Far more than a single man
like Trump. Extrajudicial killings, targeted assignations, shredding the constitution, corruption,
indifference to suffering. We don't need Trump for any of those things. We've got Obama for that
now. We're supposed to care which of the elite gets to wear some silly robes while doing the same
thing they have always done?
The message is pretty simple:
Rome's burning (again), grab a bucket if you want to put it out, wasting time discussing why your
flower vase is far prettier than my old bucket isn't going to help. I'll have one of two things
in hand this time, my bucket or marshmallows, you decide.
Extrajudicial killings, targeted assignations, shredding the constitution, corruption,
indifference to suffering. We don't need Trump for any of those things. We've got Obama for that
now.
And Hillary has committed or supported all of those.
I tend to agree, but can't vote for Clinton. I have been critical of what I see as a nihilistic
bent in the "who cares if après Trump le deluge" BECAUSE HILLARY attitude that gets thrown around
from time to time. But I also have to admit that a lot of smart people around here have come to
the conclusion that nothing can be salvaged from the system as a system (bits and pieces of the
culture and ideology of America, perhaps, but the system is kaput). I haven't reached that conclusion,
yet. It may be coming. But what I'd like people to spend more time and energy on is not repeating
ad nauseam how rotten Clinton is, but what we are going to do if either Clinton or Trump grab
the brass ring. That's what is most likely to happen, and that's what we've got to prepare for.
Where to begin? How about with
Tammy Duckworth ? OMG!! "Wounded veteran" parachuted into Illinois 6 in 2005 by DCCC against
local and *real* progressive
Christine Cegelis . More on that at Shadowproof's FDL
wayback machine
.
BTW, I live in Canada, and you know, the healthCARE (as contradistinct from government-mandated
private insurance) is pretty good here. Could be better, we are working on it. Ditto pensions,
education, city services, parks, etc. If you want to live like Canadians, though, you certainly
can - just fix up your own country.
if we don't vote for clinton we lose our chance to get moderate republicans on the supreme
ct. this is crucial. we know a republican won't nominate moderate republicans.
Deloss: speaking as an ardent supporter/contributor of Samders and longtime opponent of both
Clintons, I want to thank you and associate myself with your remarks.
I hope people voicing their justified anger and disgust will reconsider their position before
fall. We have been taken for granted for years and betrayed by Obama. Left to her preference and
instincts, she'll be no better (and in some or many ways worse) than we've had.
That's still light years better than a Trump administration but it doesn't have to be either/or.
We could more easily accept a Clinton presidency by working hard to elect progressive congressional
candidates that will defy and restrain her hawkish policies on deficits and militarism and curtailing
civil liberties. I'd include Russ Feingold and zephyr Teachout and many other candidates in adddition
to those Deloss mentioned, together with the growing ranks of incumbents–none of whom will have
any influence on a Trump administration.
Substantially increasing the number of congressional progressives would give progressives a
louder voice in the legislative and executive branches. Abandoning the party would reinforce the
neoliberal narrative. And what if she wins anyway?
Hopefully your article will start to get the super-delegates to rethink their position. Unfortunately
the signs don't seem to point in that direction. With all the polls showing Trump catching up
tp to Clinton the establishment response is shown in a new story in The Hill "
Doubts creep into Trump-Clinton polls ".
From the story:
Questions about whether the polls can be believed were raised by many on the left after
recent surveys showed Trump running more strongly against Clinton than Beltway pundits expected.
The DNC doesn't want facts to get in the way of a Clinton anointment.
And an ability to totally ignore recent history. How many times did we hear that Trump was
toast during the Republican primary? But then Bernie was only supposed to do well in Vermont and
New Hampshire…
It's perpetually amazing to me how these parties, each representing barely a fourth of the
electorate currently registered to vote, maintain their voting base. Every election year we see
the same "you're wasting your vote" messaging. They're terrified that the independents won't vote
for them.
If I think back to the history lessons I got in school, there was one particular voting event
that really captured my imagination: Bleeding Kansas. People back then were driven to physical
violence over a question that would decide the future of the country…
The parties maintain their voting base (in my opinion) because: (a) mainstream media coverage
of campaigns and issues is so poor, (b) most voters can't or don't want to make the effort to
get and stay educated on candidates and the issues when mainstream media coverage is so poor (or
aren't even aware of the information gap), (c) the public seems much more likely not to vote at
all when the choices from the two main parties are both unattractive, and (d) the parties' funding
stays intact because they both cater to the 1%.
I think "b" is huge. My mom is in her 60's and has a master's degree. She reads a ton, has
a daily newspaper subscription, and watches the news on pbs. I have an advanced degree and read
a ton too, but it's primarily online and sites like naked capitalism.
We have similar political perspectives, but we both get frustrated when talking politics. She
thinks the authors online aren't reputable. I think she's just parroting propaganda.
It's not just a matter of caring or spending the time to become informed. It took a long time
of fairly random wandering before I found quality news sources. How many people have the time,
resources, or skills to do that?
Even parasites need a healthy host and hopefully the dem establishment understands that by
convention time.
I predict they accept the inevitable, give it to Sanders. He makes Warren his VP. Only serves
once and she serves twice. That gets us to 2028.
Wishful thinking, but hope springs eternal.
Long time middle aged male reader of NC and probably fits the demo Yves mentioned. Thank you
for capturing my thoughts regarding this issue. I'll add my 44 year old female life partner feels
the same and is considering a Trump vote just to spite HRC. We caucused for Bernie in Maine after
registering as democrats specifically to do this. As others have mentioned, I had to abandon reading
the willfully misinformed comment section.
This precisely demonstrates why I consistently follow NC. For months now, I have made no secret
of the three options you outlined in the Politico article, Robert Reich's pleas for "party unity"
notwithstanding.
A. Not vote for president in November.
B. Vote for Trump.
C. Write in Bernie as a protest vote.
It pains me greatly to have it come to this. But, fercryinoutloud, I will be 72 at the next
presidential election in 2020, and I really don't want to look back over the four years between
now and then (as I am currently doing with the 8 years since Obama took office), and find myself
bemoaning the disaster that my country has become.
Bernie Sanders is the first candidate in my lifetime that has demonstrated unimpeachable integrity
and has the courage to walk his talk at every step. Is he perfect? Far from it. Is he our mythical
savior? Highly doubtful. If he is elected, will he be taken into the back room to meet with the
PTB just like every other newly elected president and calmly informed that "we know where your
family lives?" You bet. The Deep State isn't going down without a fight.
"Gnawing off my own leg" by voting for Trump would be casting my vote for someone that would
very likely bring our fragile house of cards crashing down. Maybe, just possibly, that's what's
needed, although there would certainly be a lot of suffering, weeping, and gnashing of teeth in
the process.
Once again, thanks for your wisdom. It can be really lonely out here.
I'm a lesser evil voter– Trump is too big a risk. And by emphasizing the demographics of your
readership, you gave ammunition to the people who claim that only privileged people could risk
the possible hardships created by a Trump presidency. As Chomsky has said in the past, small differences
between parties can still translate into large amounts of suffering for the very poor.
That said, I agreed with virtually every criticism you made of Clinton and I am sick of the
hypocrisy we go through every election year, when some awful candidate is the front runner and
we are all supposed to unite in singing his or her praises and lie about their records. At another
website I frequent there are Clinton supporters arguing that she isn't a hawk or barely more of
a hawk than Sanders. At the NYT both the pundits and the Clinton supporters openly attack single
payer as too expensive– when someone pointed out in Friedman's comment thread that it is much
cheaper than our system the reply was a complete non sequitur, something about how high the taxes
are in those countries.
I've been trying to think of a bumper sticker that captures my feelings– something like "Clinton–
better the thug you know". Basically I know how bad Clinton is, but Trump is a complete wild card
and we can't be sure he will be ineffective in whatever insanity he chooses to engage in.
Based on what I have seen since Nader, very few of the Clinton supporters will do what I did
in this post and acknowledge the validity of your points. They will probably focus on the points
I made in my first paragraph and go for the ad hominem and they will look for some factual point
somewhere in your critique that they can dispute, because the overall reality is too painful to
face.
i can't see that the very poor would be any better off under a clinton administration. i can
see where we are going with lesser evilism. it doesn't work, the country keeps moving in the wrong
direction.
I understand your position. I was there as late as 2008. I've just learned that when someone
thinks you have no where else to go they do not hesitate to abuse you if it benefits them in some
manner. They aren't going to take your wishes into consideration until they think you can and
WILL walk. And for the record my relatively comfortable and privileged middle class life has been
a memory for just under a decade although I'm still luckier than a whole lot of Americans.
I'm with the reluctant "Hillary is a lesser evil" crowd at this point. For one reason: I'm
deeply, deeply scared by just how bad I think a Trump presidency could get.
Not "I don't like his politics" scared. Not "he'll make a broken and corrupt system worse"
scared. Full on, "this guy is completely detached from reality and is a completely amoral bully,
and is probably going to be massively incompetent, too" terrified . Trump is like the
car crash you can see coming: the only question is how bad it will be.
Clinton is a type of ongoing failure we know. Maybe things will finally fall apart
on her watch, or pass some invisible point of no return that we'll look back on later. But Trump
is pointlessly (because there is no real upside) rolling the dice on multiple versions of the
apocalypse: total financial collapse, totalitarianism, civil war, nuclear war. You name it, and
Trump is stupid and arrogant enough to give it a real chance of happening. At his best, he'll
be as bad as Clinton. At his worst… we're looking at nightmares.
If I wasn't in a likely swing state, I'd just vote Green with a clear conscience (unless Bernie
or some other decent candidate somehow ends up with the nomination). But I am in a swing
state, and I don't think I could live with myself if I could have prevented President Trump and
didn't. (Although Clinton is certainly making it difficult to back her as a "lesser" evil.)
I feel like the last several elections have been an education in different forms of mental
illness. And while it is an endlessly fascinating exercise to ponder which crazy candidate will
be worse, (or, cynically, funnier), often, we just don't know. But Trump really scares me. I see
someone who does not put self -preservation above the craziness, and that is a Caligula-level
scary flaw. Of course, we are not down to that choice yet, and maybe we won't be.
i think trump puts self preservation above everything, and so does clinton. they give us a
choice between 2 unprincipled panderers in pursuit of their own interests, they just play whatever
role is required.
You might have missed her speech this afternoon. One of her foreign policy planks Is a no lyrics
zone in Syria which means war with Russia. It actually doesn't get worse.
I hear that concern, but I'd say it serves an important function: Sanders' core support has
come from younger voters, who as a group are often dismissed by TPTB as naive, impractical, lazy,
etc. So being transparent about a demographic that is older and wiser, "high skilled", well-informed,
generally "successful" people in the status quo framing of the word, hits some of those pundits
and naysayers where it hurts. You can't blow Yves off as some punk kid who doesn't understand
the real world. The optics on that can be pretty powerful.
Come, now. America has the greatest propaganda system in the world. How would we be perceived
as a nation if our pundits couldn't find ways to blow Yves off? Very sadly, watching people with
probity and intelligence being dragged through the mud has become more popular than MMA.
Yves, thanks for the oasis.
It's good to read a reasonable LOE post. The one thing that this position can not answer, in
my nsho, is the charge that voting for the lessor of two evils perpetuates the evil by giving
the politician in question the power to always ignore them. This includes the sub charge that
politicians have learned to play this strategy like a well tuned instrument. They purposefully
stack the deck to make the most effective evil look like the lesser one.
A curious flaw that has developed in this rigged system is they are starting to run out of
believable monsters since they feel -for whatever reason, perhaps because it's like capitalism,
always more – that at each iteration they have to up the monster ante which is why we
have arrived at Trump who is even more scary than the VP who can see Russia from her window.
Ignoring the bogeymen aspect for a moment, the net policy result of this ratchet effect over
time has been our moving so far to the right and more importantly so far in the direction of monopolistic
capitalism and oligarchy that we are starting to actually collapse as a nation. We are also fast
reaching the point where the process becomes irreversible. From the point of view of climate change,
for instance, going a little bit more slowly by choosing LOE is like the difference between extinction
in 80 years instead of 87. What many have come to believe is that voting for the lessor evil will
neither stop nor significantly slow down this process.
While I don't agree with the LOE point of view, I do believe in respecting people who believe
it is the best way forward and particularly appreciate when they return the civility though I
also know that I have gotten caught up in the heat of an argument more than once where I later
regretted my harshness.
I've been doing the lesser evil most of my life. And even when I didn't know I was doing it,
since I didn't have the internet for alternative media and NC to know the real truth. This year,
exactly who the lesser evil is, is not clear to me. I have always thought that I should vote for
the least corrupt, irregardless of party affiliation. I will support Bernie as long as he is running.
Still hoping.
I'm voting in SC so who cares about my Presidential preference.
But, assuming that by November Sanders has not become a plausible winner in the election, with
Clinton in WH it would be the devil you know, a predictable fight.
The alternative, attempting to transact government with an executive constantly in the chaotic
throes of working for an unthrottled 2-year-old … someone needs to explain to me how that would
be better.
Excellent article. Trump won't sign new trade agreements and won't destroy our national sovereignty
by outsourcing jobs. In fact his campaign banner is America first and buy American. What a relief
to hear that! Congress is now trying to pass the Dark Act where country of origin labels will
be removed and GMO's will have only a bar code to tell you if they are or not genetically modified,
because the COOL's violates a past trade agreement with the WTO.
Hillary represents more endless war, more gutting of citizens protections like SS, more gutting
of the middle class with trade agreements with no relief for those left behind and all the things
mentioned in that article. If the DNC forces HRC on us when we don't want her and she obviously
can't beat Trump when Bernie can, then what's left to do?
I take issue with your first two claims: I have no idea what Trump will sign once he's sealed
the deal in his own favor and gotten the Oval Office, and he isn't going to dismantle the capitalist
system in order to prevent the outsourcing of jobs (most of the type you are referring to being
gone already). Since Nixon's Secret Plan to end the Vietnam War it's hard to accept anything anyone
running for office has to say. Trump has said that he's going to balance the budget, maintain
the world's strongest military forces, surrender the national debt, build his Great Wall, and
spend a whole lot of money on infrastructure (the wrong kind, of course, but infrastructure).
How is that remotely possible? How can those claims be reconciled?
Vote against Clinton as you see fit, but please, don't make such powerful assertions by cherry-picking
the statements of a real estate speculator and media whore who has shown time and again he will
say anything to get what he wants.
Hi James : Actually, I'm spot on, HRC got us into Libya all on her own. She's a known war monger
that gets a kick out of dead monarchs – ie.. her laugh when she said we came, we saw, he died.The
known evil – Hillary is more a threat to democracy to me than 4 years of the unknown evil Trump
at this point. And I won't vote for anyone that supports the TPP and other trade agreements. So,
let's see how it plays out.
It's not liberals he was going for of course, I doubt he likes liberals much, and the worldview
is not liberal and frankly the worldview of the majority of his supporters is probably not liberal
either, there's probably a pretty deep cultural divide.
It was those who feel they have lost jobs due to outsourcing which isn't just liberals.
Talking about how we have to build a wall between us and Mexico to keep out the Mexican Rapists
isn't appealing to liberals. People on the Left may agree that neoliberalism has been utterly
destructive of the American working class (I certainly think so) but Trump wasn't interested in
me, he was interested in Republican voters who had had it with the neoliberalism and corporate
molly coddling of the Republican establishment. And he hit it out of the ballpark with those people,
whom I think, as Obama used those fed up with Bushco and his illegal, immoral administration,
are being sold a bill of goods. You can say "we'll see", but what in the last 50 years would incline
me to think such a thing, especially from a man like Mr. Trump Casino, Trump Steaks, and Trump
University?
Are we prepared to get happy feet for Joe Biden if Clinton drops out?
I like Sanders, but do you think the (corporate) media will ever allow a fair and balanced
presentation of socialist economic ideas into their programming?
Culturally Marxist programming? Sure, we've been seeing that for decades. And how has that
turned out?
But a strong economic counter-narrative? I don't see it. Haven't seen it. I can't imagine I
will see it.
But if Sanders gets a shot, I say: Trump will tie him to Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot and then throw
him down the well.
Imagine the effect on people if, only for a few weeks in September, Auschwitz is displaced
in the minds of Americans by the Holodomor, the Great Leap Forward, Tuol Sleng.
Think that can't happen?
Progressive folks are already beginning to rationalize a Trump victory. I've seen it in these
forums. This is madness. For some reason it reminds me of the "Nader Traders" in 2000.
i think we can't vote according to what will placate the corporate media. the only thing they
want is a continuation of the policies that are gutting the nation. so it doesn't matter, at all,
whether they will oppose sanders. what matters is that we start opposing them .
what culturally marxist program have we been seeing again?
Start with Roger Kimball's "The Long March." Kimball's tone is often snotty, and I don't like
his politics, but start there and then fan out. A lot of that 60s idealism (thank you Baby Boomers)
turns out not to have been so harmless after all.
"We" are not getting happy feet for anyone but Bernie Sanders. This is quite different. Independents
are telling you they will vote for Bernie far and above what Nader dreamt of. That's your option,
present the rest of us, those not tied to party uber all, with Bernie in the general election..
or not. Clinton can't beat Trump anyway, that ship has sailed. It didn't work against the Republicans
fear mongering and its not working against Independents. Look at the polls. You're only challenge
needs to be making sure Bernie gets that primary spot. Unless you prefer Trump. That's
your option. If there are any traitors in the 2016 election it will be the selfish Clintionistas
who gave Trump POTUS because they didn't want to miss out on the bribes from Wall Street.
If Trump declares all out war on the TPP, and pisses off Paul Ryan and the GOP establishment,
which he must do to have any chance at all – Hillary gets caught with her hands all over the top
secret TPP "gold standard" negotiation process, but Bernie's hands are clean. Who then holds the
winning hand?
Yves you really did it this time! Just amazing all around. Im having all my friends read the
piece even if I have to print it out and nail it to their foreheads ;).
Excellent summary in the article as to why true "progressives" (I put this in quotes because
I think the term has too often been hijacked by assorted spokespeople) reject Clinton. My only
quibble might be with the description of the general readership here.
My impression is that the readership represents a broad spectrum of financial well-being or
not-so-well-being. The defining common denominator seems to me to be the level of economic and
political awareness relative to the general populace. This is a highly educated group–both formally
educated and self-educated.
If I were to guess, I imagine that your general description of the readership in the article
was a deliberate slap in the face to Dem strategists, who, as Thomas Frank has pointed out, are
only interested in the "professional class" anymore, as opposed to blue collar, pink collar, or
temporary labor, not to mention retirees.
"If my readers are representative, Clinton and the Democratic Party are about to have a long-overdue
day of reckoning."
Spot on. I won't vote for Hillary IF she is the nominee. I will write in Bernie.
The Democratic Party is in the party loyalty candidate mode that, in the past, the Republicans
frequently and reflexively practiced. He/she is the next in line…. And the result is a stodgy
party hack with obvious and perhaps insurmountable flaws. All things evolve and time is catching
up to the current Democratic Party.
If many Americans continue to believe that things are not fine, and the system is corrupt,
can we imagine pitchforks and guillotines?
Spot on. I won't vote for Hillary IF she is the nominee. I will write in Bernie.
Write in votes for President are meaningless, since we don't vote for Presidential candidates,
but for electors in the Electoral College. Please see my reply to Spring Texan at 11:51 AM for
something meaningful that a voter can do instead.
Sanders dismissed Gov. Jerry Brown's endorsement [of Clinton] as yet another establishment
politician lining up behind Clinton. The comment provoked a scolding from California Sen. Barbara
Boxer.
"For Bernie to say that Jerry Brown is establishment is kind of the biggest joke of the
day," she said on MSNBC. "You can't just dis everybody who supports Hillary Clinton. It doesn't
work."
IIRC, and I mean this is the anthropological sense, not tabloid gossip sense, Boxer's daughter
married Hillary's brother. If they had children, that would make Boxer's grandkid Hillary's niece/nephew.
(Marriage confirmed on Tony Rodham's Wikipedia page; unsure about offspring of that marriage.)
I recall that odd tidbit about the Boxer-Rodham marriage b/c it is so similar to the dynastic
marriages in ancient Rome that my old Roman History Prof used to point out among the Julian, Flavian,
and other wealthy clans ;-)
Good thing Barbara Boxer is Bernie's 'friend'; one would hate to see how she treats 'frenemies'.
Pat Brown was governor of California. Kathleen Brown was State Treasurer. Jerry has been governor
twice, Secretary of State (California), mayor of Oakland, and AG. How can anyone claim he is not
part of the political establishment? He was born into it.
This article is exactly why the American left is irrelevant. You try to give yourself credibility
by praising your class, your highly read high income who will weather the Trump storm in your
bubble of wealth and privilege and you declare everyone else stupid. This is why I support the
Clintons, they fucking care about people whereas you all care about your little intellectual bubble
of purity and intellectual pontificating.
Wow, this is classic Team Clinton projection. It is Team Clinton that regularly calls Sanders
supporters "stupid" and lives in an income stratum where they aren't just insulated from the impact
of the Clinton/Obama economic policies (all brought to you by the Robert Rubin Hamilton Project)
but in fact have benefitted from them handsomely.
Please tell me exactly in the piece where it depicts anyone as intellectually challenged. It's
not there. That's your straw man.
Moreover, the point of stating that NC readers skew high income and highly educated (with a
lot of variation around that norm) is that they are refusing to vote what most would perceive
to be their economic interest by supporting Sanders. The usual bashing of Sanders supporters is
based on class and age assumptions, that they are kids that need to grow up and get some assets
and then they'll understand the wisdom of supporting Team Dem.
Well, they certainly care about themselves , and they are people…so technically
that's true…unless you believe the people who think they're all shape-shifting lizard creatures…
Then again, some days I think most of our ruling class (Clinton and Trump included)
are probably P-zombies. (I think I see more flashes of real humanity, however potentially corrupt
or selfish, from Clinton than I do from Trump. I really do think the latter is, at minimum, a
psychopath.)
Something you might want to keep in mind as you do follow-up pieces.
The LGBT movement didn't make a whole lot of headway with their political agenda for quite
some time. And this is even coming off the HIV issue and groups like Act Up.
Crap like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should have let the movement know where they stood with the
Clintons.
Not being inside the social circle, I'm not sure on the timing of this, but they key political
fundraisers in Hollywood with an interest in LGBT issues finally realized that the reason they
were getting no traction with their efforts was that they were being taken for granted. So they
stood back, and held up the fundraising efforts until they saw actual policy changes rather than
empty promises. Once they got traction, the cashflow started back up.
Too many groups inside the Big Tent of the Democratic Party are similarly taken for granted.
It's like watching the speech in The Candidate: "Can't any longer play off black against old –
young against poor. This country cannot house its houseless – feed its foodless."
The whips are running around trying to keep the groups in line, regardless of how they're being
sold out. Blacks showed up for Clinton in the primaries, regardless of BLM, or the history of
legislation decimating them by the Clinton Administration. Hispanics are being deported, when
they're not being warehoused for private profit, and they're being counted on as a deciding demographic.
Senior citizens are viewed as so many "sitting ducks" for their retirement funds and benefits,
that "locked-up capital," that they should be worried about the Clinton agenda for Social Security
privatization.
Only by sitting out, only by holding back resources, only by requiring tit-for-tat achievements
rather than empty promises… only then will these groups return to political relevance.
Supporting Sanders, while not perfect as a candidate, moves the political focus back to a domestic
agenda that, if nothing else, will do less harm. It's the last chance to settle these matters
peacefully before it turns into an American Spring.
Trump has a marginally less probability of marching us all off to war within a short span,
compared to the near-certainty Clinton will torch off a slew of wars.
But remember, if we're marching peacefully in the streets, both Clinton AND Trump are likely
to call out the police, the National Guard, or whatever else they might find necessary, to impose
"law and order" back on us. Also known as, be a happy little serf, do as you're told, consume,
and don't think too much about the future, or even next week, because that won't put a roof over
your head or a meal on the table. In fact, it will get you an arrest record, an internal injury
from a police pacification technique, a lovely opportunity to network inside jail or prison, and
a future of being marked so the conventional, straight economy knows to keep an eye on you, and
never, ever provide material support.
I am just heading off to read what I'm sure is an excellent piece. Two brief thoughts:
1. The NY Times had a main headline this morning:
Clinton to Paint Trump as a Risk to World Order By AMY CHOZICK
In a speech today, Hillary Clinton plans to suggest that a Trump presidency would weaken U.S.
alliances and embolden enemies.
I thought, well, that's a bit rich coming from a woman who supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
and had a direct role in starting wars in Libya and Syria, not to mention stirring up trouble
in the Ukraine and enabling hard-line Israelis to commit war crimes in Palestine. But who's counting?
2) I listening online to Diane Rehm because she had Jonathan Turley (very precise and legalistic
in the best sense as always) discuss the email tarbaby. The guests including Turley were:
Brian Fallon spokesman for the Clinton campaign
Eric Lichtblau reporter, The New York Times
Jonathan Turley professor of public interest law, The George Washington University Law School
Hilary Rosen Democratic strategist; managing director, SKDKnickerbocker, a political consulting
and PR firm; and a CNN contributor
Fallon and Rosen were completely deflective and disingenuous and claimed (incredibly) that
HRC has been consistent all along, did nothing wrong, and MOST IMPORTANTLY Colin Powell yada yada
yada. Turley did a great job of rebutting and Lichtblau also was quite clear and accurate as to
the real impact of the IG report.
What shocked me was the quality of the comments - I have seen many Daily Kos threads disintegrate
rapidly into name calling and insults, but the comments here were of 2nd grade level.
I do recommend a listen - I'm not a Diane Rehm fan but Turley's analysis is worth hearing:
Re 1) Weaken alliances? You mean the ones with the governments of Mexico and Colombia who are
thoroughly infested with armed narco gangs that murder truckloads of people on a regular basis?
I'd love to see those alliances weakened!
How about with the EU and Japan and the rest of the Pacific Rim nations trying to sign TPP/TTIP/TISA?
PLEASE WEAKEN THOSE ALLIANCES!!!
2) The guest list says it all. NPR has been godawful on the election coverage. They barely
acknowledge Sanders exists, and when they do, they pepper with Clintonite talking points like
"he can't win" and "too idealistic".
Thanks for and congratulations on getting this published! As a regular reader, the terrain
is quite familiar to me, and I'm impressed at how much filtering you had to do to condense it
down even in what would generally be considered a longish piece. I'm definitely sending it to
at least a few folks I know…
FWIW, I'm a non-partisan CA voter, voting Bernie in the primary next week, and probably Jill
Stein (again) in the fall.
That is a formidable piece. Major props for putting it out there like that. Bonne chance.
I don't know if I'm alone on this, or if there's any way to share this in aggregate without
revealing anyone in particular, but I personally would be rather curious what sort of feedback
you receive privately from people in the know.
One other thought I had is that voting third party may be something people consider in larger
numbers this year than the past handful of elections. If you're not in a swing state, you have
little influence on the electoral college, but trying to get, say, the Greens or Libertarians
beyond 5% may be a consideration some people make in states where they are on the ballot.
The highly educated, high-income, finance-literate readers of my website, Naked Capitalism
Oh really? I'm missing the High Income part. Therefore I do not qualify. I shall have to hang
my head in shame, and hang out at the Fox Blog, when I can find it.
The average for the site is high. That is partly a function of a lot of readers living in NYC,
where incomes are inflated so as to cover the costs of living here.
The reason for stressing that is that one way the Clinton supporters diss Sanders voters is
to depict them as kids who don't have a stake in the system. That is one step away from, "They
can afford to make reckless decisions and burn everything down". So rhetorically, it was important
to stress, "NC readers are demographically a lot like what is supposed to be the core Clinton
base, and they want nothing to do with her."
I'm a California mid-octogenarian who goes to his grave by voting my conscience the past 3-4
elections and go with a clearer conscience than one that has voted, "….for the lesser of two evils".
I too as one stated above will request Dem ballot, vote Bernie and if HC is the crowned one, vote
for Jill Stein in the general.
Clear conscience.
By and large it's probably true, even though plenty of us don't qualify. I think you're taking
it too personally. Yves is pointing out a fact that serves to undercut the usual criticisms of
Bernie supporters. And anyway, if you consider all of humanity, and not just those of us in the
"West," then we are definitely (very nearly) all "high-income."
Two out of three ain't bad! If you are going to have to go over to the FOX Blog, I can only
begin to dread where I am going to end up…. I wish Yves had said something about a full head of
hair….
synoia, i know from comments i've seen over the years that there are plenty of us here at nc
who are just managing to "stay afloat", which does mean different actual income numbers to different
people.
i am some years on medicaid, and i expect to spend my aging years, when i can no longer work,
in low-cost housing for the elderly and disabled–if any spaces are still available, say, 20 years
from now. what i've read on nc has actually helped me cope better with my declining economic situation,
sometimes in very practical ways.
i for one am glad you are here. we're in good company. don't hang your head, and please keep
hanging out here, with the rest of us in the peanut gallery.
Thanks, Yves, for giving me at long last ONE good reason to click on Politico. But the arguments
for sitting out the election if Bernie isn't nominated (or actively voting for Trump if Hillary
is) are so far from thinkable (in my universe anyway) that I thought as a longtime NC lurker I'd
just throw my concerns out here.
Many, if not most, of the arguments I'm seeing along these lines are fairly big-picture, focusing
on larger questions of peace/war, or the truly offensive and depressing prospect of the DNC neoliberal
establishment holding sway, yet again, when a real Bernie sweep (of people and policy) is so sorely
needed by the entire country.
My concerns are a little more granular, in terms of the simple ability of government to get
things done for the American people. My folks worked for the government for years. With each party
change in the White House, we got used to seeing the binge/purge that goes on throughout the government,
not just with Cabinet-level appointive positions but (because those appointees bring in their
own people) throughout the ranks of the federal bureaucracy in Washington. This pertains to appointed
judges and Justice Department prosecutors as well as cabinet and sub-cabinet positions. At every
level, these people influence the tone and function of the entire government–just by their presence
they can insure that government "help" is inadequate, wrong-headed, miserly, ineffective, or (by
deciding how scant resources are used/not used) nonexistent. (During the Bush administration,
the Smithsonian Institution–the national museum of ALL the American people–very nearly had a permanent,
and very right-wing, "Hall of American Patriots" foisted on it as a condition of providing sorely
needed funding to fix water damage from leaks in the roof. Go ahead–picture life-size statues
of Phyllis Schlafly and Dick Cheney in their own special hall in our national museum.) Obama was
rightly criticized for being slow to fill numerous crucial, but less visible, government positions
with new appointees when he came into office, thereby leaving recalcitrant and malicious Bushies
in ideal positions to obstruct or delay good policy initiatives, at their whim; the next Republican
president and his cohorts will make no such mistake with Obama's appointees.
There are millions of acres of federal land that can be either preserved, or mined, drilled,
and clear-cut (and thus destroyed). There is a notion of working for the common good that is (still,
somehow after the Reagan and Bush years) baked into the functioning and mission of the government.
Our National Parks, our wilderness areas–in fact, EVERYTHING that is currently held in trust for
the American people by the federal government–becomes fair game with a Trump presidency. He'll
sweep into office with him legions of termites dedicated to destroying the government and making
themselves piles of dough at the same time. Few of them will be as limited and incompetent as
Trump is; rather, they'll be bankrolled and supported strategically by the brightest and most
brilliantly sociopathic minds in the country.
I don't think this is alarmist talk, I think it's simple fact. I simply can't take four years
of watching the country being turned into Kansas. My position isn't exactly 'lesser of two evils,'
it's more like 'who'll keep our slide into hell's handbasket from accelerating out of control,'
and while Bernie is my vast preference, Hillary will do for that. I do not relish seeing highway
signs that say "Donald Trump Presents the TD Bank Grand Canyon, sponsored in part by Budweiser,
Next Right".
What's more (and I'll shut up now), once these resources are gone, under a Trump presidency,
they're gone for good. Once privatized, entities are never returned to 'we the people.' Political
parties don't "learn a lesson." Millions of innocent people suffer. So yeah, I'll take Hillary.
Degrees of pillage and misery matter to me. Her = less, Trump = unthinkable.
This is the best argument for holding my nose and voting Hillary that I've yet read in any
blog or media comments page. Everything you've said is likely to come to pass in a Trump administration.
President Trump would usher in wholesale land giveaways and Kansas-style gutting of fee revenue
and the commons – not because he affirmatively intended to – but because he'll put a slew of ultra-rightists
in offices throughout the Executive branch. His many 'Undersecretaries of This n' That' would
make it happen while he struts around in public, making yuge promises.
Trump is on record for wanting to open up federal land to the fossil fuel industry etc., he's
campaigning on it now. But yea in many other ways he's also a babe in the woods, and smarter people
with more experience with the political system than him will have the upper hand, but smarter
people in the Republican establishment (including the donors) are up to no good.
The current President, a Democrat, is the one beginning the privatization of national lands
by leasing out advertising. Clinton, who pushed fracking and worships at the public/private partnership
alter, will do the same. I clearly remember her right-wing 'leave it to the states' comment.
There is an apparent trend of projecting what Rs might do when Ds are actually doing it.
+a lot especially for the last sentence. which we also see in the context of the supreme ct.
i think either way we get moderate republicans on the ct that are acceptable to TPTB.
i suppose the main difference i have with voting for the lesser evil (assuming clinton is one)
is that i think the slide has already accelerated out of control, and we need to take drastic
action. she's going to work on privatizing social security, starting more wars in the middle east,
and pushing trade treaties that will hamstring our attempts to deal with global warming. i don't
think obama leaving bush appointees in place was a mistake, i think it was a plan, and clinton
shares his neoliberal values and will listen to the same people. robert kagan indeed.
This. Aside from the identity politics, hotbuttons and dog whistles the two sides are working
for the same bosses: the 0.01% and thus for substantially the same set of perverse ends. That
isn't democracy and I won't be gamed like that and assuming Bernie doesn't find a way, we got
to remember that we came sofa king close to getting it done with an unlikely and little known
candidate with almost no established national base who wore his socialist third rail on his sleeve.
We're so close, and getting closer with every funeral (age strongly correlating with political
outlook presently), the trendlines and dynamics are pretty analogous to the gay marriage thing.
We just need to hold our ground, not support candidates that owe favors to billionaires as a pass/fail
standard and you know what? We'll outnumber them in a few years if we stay authentic and true
to our principles we'll get Bernie's political revolution done. And with the numbers, the only
way we lose momentum and fail is by not adhering to our principles. I'd personally–and everyone
has their own unique ethos–not be adhering to my own principles by voting for Clinton. Once you've
bought into the narrative that your only hope is to support people sneeringly taking bribes from
Wall St. fraudsters, "defense" pork contractors, fossil energy ecocriminals, drug companies holding
people's lives hostage for an incrementally higher profit, etc. etc… once you've decided you're–reluctantly–OK
with supporting that, at that point there you have probably done about the only thing that could
prevent your principles from being realized. That's the real tragedy–and great hope!–that we are
so close to getting there and yet are in huge danger that we won't out of partisan fear selling.
Steady on and hold your ground and have courage, we can win this one by a simple act of collective
will.
This is a good argument. My problem with it is that for over 20 years I've heard some variation
on "vote for the establisment Dem because they will save some remnant of what we're trying to
preserve." It's never an argument that they'll increase what we want to see or improve anything,
only that they'll preserve some remnant of what we once had. And the problem with that argument
is that the neolib Dems instead of preserving any remnants simply trade them away in a slightly
slower fashion, while claiming the GOP made them do it. Having some remnant to trade is the whole
of the neolib Dem's power.
I am tired of voting to preserve scraps when experience shows that the neolib Dem establishment
will throw those scraps under the bus as soon as the optics are right.
I will not vote for another neoliberal Dem whose function seems to be to demoralize the Dems who
will actively work for better conditions.
You express what I think most Democrats generally and Sanders supporters in particular feel.
There does not appear to be any mass movement of Sanders voters to actively work against Clinton.
For at least three years now, this has been Clinton's election to lose. With Trump the GOP nominee,
it is even more likely she wins.
However, what I think is interesting is the trend. The lesser of two evils thinking (and that
is what you are describing, it's all about how uniquely horrible Trump would be) is a little bit
less effective each time the Democratic party goes back to that well. Some Democrats become former
Democrats, while other Democrats keep their party ID but waver due to the particular candidate.
The effect may be imperceptible at first, but with the cumulative weight of decades of this kind
of approach, eventually you build up enough mass to be noticeable. And then enough to really cause
unpredictable things to happen. I don't read Yves as predicting an epic collapse of the Clinton
campaign, but rather, pointing out why the pundit class is so out of touch with the underlying
sea change in our society. If Clinton does lose, it wouldn't be an inexplicable shock. All the
warning signs of turbulence are there, warning signs that the establishment is mocking (or ignoring)
rather than addressing. It is absolutely incredible that Bernie Sanders was able to amass over
40% of the pledged delegates in the Democratic party's nominating process. That's nuts; few had
even heard of the guy a couple years ago, and he did this in the face of the biggest political
machine in the Democratic party. Clinton basically hasn't convinced anyone in the entire campaign.
Her support in the party is about where it was three years ago.
You say sitting out is unthinkable in your universe. Well, the majority of Americans already
do not vote, some because they are prevented from participating, and others because they choose
not to participate. President Obama won convincing electoral college victories in 2008 and 2012,
yet scarcely more than 20% of the American population voted for him. If, at the margins, a few
percent of the electorate in a few places like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania don't bother voting
this fall, that starts to make things look pretty dicey, even if the bulk of the party faithful
show up determined to stop Trump.
Or to say it differently:
…bankrolled and supported strategically by the brightest and most brilliantly sociopathic
minds in the country…
At this juncture, to which of our three recent baby boomer presidential administrations does
that description not apply?
The very fact that the Executive Branch bureaucracy has so much discretion and control over
life in the US is itself part of the systemic failure of our system. The scope of federal power
is simply too vast for comprehension, nevermind managing credibly.
I have been relating the DNC power dynamic with its voter base to an abusive relationship the
past few months as well. It is nuts to view in this perspective. Beat the snot out of them… they
love you even more!
I agree with Donald, among others here. The intense malice exhibited by Clinton supporters
in comments and op-eds throughout the media reveals their fear and shame. They know what she is,
what Bill was before her, and what most of the Dem nomenklatura is. They know "their" leaders
are no better than Republicans on the critical money and power issues; they vote for them in the
despairing hope that they'll at least be kinder on a few social matters. They hope for buttery
crumbs from the elite table.
The Clinton camp believes she can win with these coopted dead-enders + nonwhite voters, who
have a great deal to lose if Trump wins, and who see her Highness as a burden they can bear. Clinton's
people are likely right on this; she will be Obama's third term. Things may be different in 2020.
Thanks for the article. I will be forwarding it to people I know, moreso to dissuade them from
voting HRC. I also read the comments, and I am surprised by the people who say they will write
in Bernie in the GE. Write ins aren't tallied in my jurisdiction unless it's an official write
in candidate. It's a serious waste of time. No one is going to count the votes for 'Mickey Mouse'
or 'Ken Griffey Jr.' or 'Bernie Sanders'.
Bravo!
I too think that Trump is much more preferable as President than Clinton. That's because I don't
know how much more status quo I - or this country - can take.
So if four years of a carnival-like travesty of a Trump Presidency in necessary as an overdue
shock treatment to the system, then so be it. But I have a hunch the Republic can survive four
years of Trump just fine. Clinton, I'm not so sure.
Thank you Ms Yves Smith for presenting reality - Clinton is a supremely flawed candidate -
to the powers that be so clearly. To give a shout out to some of our eloquent female commentors
(I think at least one of them is an Orange County, NY resident) is nice recognition.
Unfortunately in my neighborhood, Hillary Clinton's supporters if shown that article will propably
pile on the polemics in "Politico's" comment section.
Here are samples of my conversations with neighbors:
Me: "You have to admire how Senator Sanders is funding his campaign."
Retort1: "He's taking money from a Nurses PAC!"
Retort2: "I'd be pissed if he spent my donation to travel to the Vatican!"
Me: "Should not health care be a right?"
Retorts ad Infinitum: "How do we pay for it?"
Me: "A good part of my family is Canadian, who by their guile and whit seem to have coped with
the onerous taxes for single payer health care. And the difference in living standards between
Canada and the US, despite Canada getting gutted by NAFTQ too are diverging rapidly. So great
is that divergence, my wife and I cannot afford to move back."
Reaction in general: Disbelief.
Still your article is helpful! If only to state the case that HRC is incompetent, corrupt and
probably unelectable. I think in time some will find it persuasive rather than offensive.
Personally, I'm not sure why anyone would vote for Trump or Clinton. Count me as another regular
reader who will vote their values and vote for Stein, over either of the right-authoritarian candidates
in the race.
Thanks for getting this article out to the MSM. It is unfortunate that our neoliberal thought
collective has brought us to the practical choice between the lesser of two merchants.
Personally, I am helping to get Jill Stein on the ballot in Illinois fully aware of the financial
weakness of the Green Party and the structural impediments of first-past-the-post/winner-take-all
voting system in the US. That being said, I am hoping for the collective wisdom of the voters
to perpetuate gridlock by not giving one party control over the Executive and Legislative branches
until the egalitarians can unite under a single party.
f Trump declares all out war on the TPP, and pisses off Paul Ryan and the GOP establishment,
which he must do to have any chance at all – Hillary gets caught with her hands all over the top
secret TPP "gold standard" negotiation process, Bernie is left with the winning hand.
Ryan just announced that he will vote Trump. The deal has been made. Look at the Donald's official
site, look at the people he says he respects, look at the people he surrounds himself with. He
has obviously assured the "Conservatives" that he will indeed do as they do. I am willing to bet
there will be no great shakeup or tearing down of anything, just more of the same. Voting for
a Clinton is not a choice I can make in good conscience. Some think voting for a third party is
"throwing away your vote". I think voting for someone, or something you despise, is the true wasting
of your vote. Perhaps each of us should just write in our own name! Strike a blow for government
"of and by the people"!
Excellent summation. Brava!
The screeching in the Politico article's comments section sounds like people protecting their
rice bowls and/or living in a bubble. The screeching proves your point.
Thanks for this post and article.
the comments are amusing. they seem to be mostly plants, as they are mostly quite similar in
tone and slightly "off" to my ear–they do read like stuff written by paid hacks. i doubt they
will persuade anyone to switch his/her vote to clinton. deliberately offensive but not genuinely
offensive. canned outrage! no substantive criticism of sanders or support of hrc. rage on, flunkies…
enjoy the gravy train while it lasts.
Thomas Franks argues that the Dems became the party of the professionals and meritocrats, basically
people who have succeeded at playing the game set up by the neoliberals of both parties. In doing
so, they learned to ignore the pain their policies inflicted on the working people, and whatever's
left of the middle class. HRC and the dems assumed that this class would support her, that it
would be her base.
What Yves says is that it just ain't so. And here's a reason. Once you succeed, if you are
honest with yourself, you realize that it was largely a matter of luck. You partnered well, you
and your family didn't get sick, you didn't get laid off in a downsizing, you didn't fall for
the stupid investments offered by your broker, and, of course, you won the gene lottery. You know
you worked hard, you played by the rules, but if life is a game, you didn't pull the Go Directly
To Jail, Do Not Pass Go card. Once you see that, the rest of the game becomes obvious and you
see the total unfairness that some have to lose if some are going to win huge.
HRC and the Clintons and the DC pundits, none of them see that. They believe that everyone
gets their just reward, because that's how this country works. So do the Trumps and the rest of
the Republicans. Voting for them just cements their view of themselves as better than everyone.
Maybe this reason won't penetrate the bubble surrounding the Dem Power Elites, but maybe the
fear of alienating this crucial constituency will.
To not vote for Hillary or to vote for a third-party candidate or to not vote at all is fine.
But to vote for Trump is imbecilic. The idea that a Trump administration would be no worse than
a Clinton administration is delusional. There is at least one and possibly three Supreme Court
justices up for grabs. Does anybody seriously think Trumps picks for SC will be "as bad" as Clinton's??
So-called scary Supreme Court nominations doesn't cut it for me anymore–not since Obama nominated
Merrick Garland, and probably even before then. While I don't intend to vote for Trump, I also
don't think that if he is elected he will have an easy time pushing through any SC nominees. I
can only think of one time when Hillary took a political action I approved of so, no, I don't
think her nominees will be sufficiently liberal for me. Congress can override the SC anytime it
wants to, even if it hasn't wanted to in recent years. I'm more concerned about a totally corrupt
political system than I am about the SC in particular.
Oh, please go mess with them a bit, particularly ones that have only ad hominem attacks. They
need to be told that's a tell they can't argue a case on its merits.
Please give your reasoning as to why you think Trump presidency would somehow taint an already
tainted Supreme Court? Im seriously asking. Because Hillary will undoubtedly pick the most pro-bank,
pro-elite, neoliberal candidate there is.
There's this idea that somehow, a smarter and more subtle sociopath is worse than a narcissistic
possibly racist idiot. Hillary knows how to subvert American politics to her own gain and runs
a large charity fraud the like of which, had it been part of the Nixon reign, would have possibly
landed her in prison. Trump doesn't know shit. Therefore, do you want the assured neoliberal,
pro-elitist, TTIP outcome or the wildcard? We have had the first for 8 years now and just look
at the state of America:
1). Longest running war of all time
2). Healthcare costs at all time high
3). Lowest rate of employment
4). Lowest rate of business creation
5). Consolidation across all industries (Media, Pharma, Military, Manufacturing, Healthcare)
6). Constant harassment of whistleblowers and journalists
7). Diminishing freedoms
8). Highest incarceration rate with no sign of stopping
9). Police militarization
10). A return to pre-Housing Bubble subprime debt
11). ZERO prosecutions on Wall Street (Obama's biggest crime, imho)
etc etc
I mean ffs, how is Trump going to do anything worse than what's already being done? He will
never build the wall, obviously, that was said to get anti-immigration votes. He will obviously
do as little for the minorities as Obama did (which was, once again, nothing). At least, like
Ive written before, Trump symbolizes a large middle finger to the DC crowd, a crowd which has
a smaller moral compass than anybody on the planet.
You keep buying into the People's magazine view of the world: that Trump is some crazy idiot
racist and therefore should never be allowed into the oval office. The irony is that Bill Clinton
is a serial rapist sociopathic liar, and Hillary is a corrupt sociopathic liar, but because they've
been in politics for years, you think that just being a politician somehow sheds legitimacy. It
DOESNT AT ALL. In fact, you could make the case that the fact the Clinton's are career politicians
is actually why they should absolutely not be allowed to become President. Has the last 3 career
politician presidents taught you nothing?
Bernie has to go all the way. He needs to be the next President of the USA. He can't stop at
the convention. There is no alternative. It truly is Bernie or Bust at this point. Neither Trump
or Hillary provide any hope for a better future whatsoever.
Yves: I posted this in "Comments" on your previous June 2 entry but it seems to have gotten
lost between moderation and appearance. I am not looking for double entry; it seems relevant to
both, however, with a last sentence tacked on for the present entry.
--------
I am almost 70 years old, born and raised in New York City, still living in a near suburb.
Somehow, somewhere along the road to my 70th year I feel as if I have been gradually transported
to an almost entirely different country than the land of my younger years. I live painfully now
in an alien land, a place whose habits and sensibilities I sometimes hardly recognize, while unable
to escape from memories of a place that no longer exists. There are days I feel as I imagine a
Russian pensioner must feel, lost in an unrecognizable alien land of unimagined wealth, power,
privilege, and hyper-glitz in the middle of a country slipping further and further into hopelessness,
alienation, and despair.
I am not particularly nostalgic. Nor am I confusing recollection with sentimental yearnings
for a youth that is no more. But if I were a contemporary Rip Van Winkle, having just awakened
after, say, 30-40 years, I would not recognize my beloved New York City. It would be not just
the disappearance of the old buildings, Penn Station, of course, Madison Square Garden and its
incandescent bulb marquee on 50th and 8th announcing NYU vs. St. John's, and the WTC, although
I always thought of the latter as "new" until it went down. Nor would it be the disappearance
of all the factories, foundries, and manufacturing plants, the iconic Domino Sugar on the East
River, the Wonder Bread factory with its huge neon sign, the Swingline Staples building in Long
Island City that marked passage to and from the East River tunnel on the railroad, and my beloved
Schaeffer Beer plant in Williamsburg, that along with Rheingold, Knickerbocker, and a score of
others, made beer from New York taste a little bit different.
It wouldn't be the ubiquitous new buildings either, the Third Avenue ghostly glass erected
in the 70's and 80's replacing what once was the most concentrated collection of Irish gin mills
anywhere. Or the fortress-like castles built more recently, with elaborate high-ceilinged lobbies
decorated like a kind of gross, filthy-wealthy Versailles, an aesthetically repulsive style that
shrieks "power" in a way the neo-classical edifices of our Roman-loving founders never did. Nor
would it even be the 100-story residential sticks, those narrow ground-to-clouds skyscraper condominiums
proclaiming the triumph of globalized capitalism with prices as high as their penthouses, driven
ever upward by the foreign billionaires and their obsession with burying their wealth in Manhattan
real estate.
It is not just the presence of new buildings and the absence of the old ones that have this
contemporary Van Winkle feeling dyslexic and light-headed. The old neighborhoods have disintegrated
along with the factories, replaced by income segregated swatches of homogenous "real estate" that
have consumed space, air, and sunlight while sucking the distinctiveness out of the City. What
once was the multi-generational home turf for Jewish, Afro-American, Puerto Rican, Italian, Polish
and Czech families is now treated as simply another kind of investment, stocks and bonds in steel
and concrete. Mom's Sunday dinners, clothes lines hanging with newly bleached sheets after Monday
morning wash, stickball games played among parked cars, and evenings of sitting on the stoop with
friends and a transistor radio listening to Mel Allen call Mantle's home runs or Alan Freed and
Murray the K on WINS 1010 playing Elvis, Buddy Holly, and The Drifters, all gone like last night's
dreams.
Do you desire to see the new New York? Look no further than gentrifying Harlem for an almost
perfect microcosm of the city's metamorphosis, full of multi-million condos, luxury apartment
renovations, and Maclaren strollers pushed by white yuppie wife stay-at-homes in Marcus Garvey
Park. Or consider the "new" Lower East Side, once the refuge of those with little material means,
artists, musicians, bums, drug addicts, losers and the physically and spiritually broken - my
kind of people. Now its tenements are "retrofitted" and remodeled into $4000 a month apartments
and the new residents are Sunday brunching where we used to score some Mary Jane.
There is the "Brooklyn brand", synonymous with "hip", and old Brooklyn neighborhoods like Red
Hook and South Brooklyn (now absorbed into so desirable Park Slope), and Bushwick, another former
outpost of the poor and the last place I ever imagined would be gentrified, full of artists and
hipsters driving up the price of everything. Even large sections of my own Queens and the Bronx
are affected (infected?). Check out Astoria, for example, neighborhood of my father's family,
with more of the old ways than most but with rents beginning to skyrocket and starting to drive
out the remaining working class to who knows where.
Gone is almost every mom and pop store, candy stores with their egg creams and bubble gum cards
and the Woolworth's and McCrory's with their wooden floors and aisles containing ordinary blue
collar urgencies like thread and yarn, ironing boards and liquid bleach, stainless steel utensils
of every size and shape. Where are the locally owned toy and hobby stores like Jason's in Woodhaven
under the el, with Santa's surprises available for lay-away beginning in October? No more luncheonettes,
cheap eats like Nedicks with hot dogs and paper cones of orange drink, real Kosher delis with
vats of warm pastrami and corned beef cut by hand, and the sacred neighborhood "bar and grill",
that alas has been replaced by what the kids who don't know better call "dive bars", the detestable
simulacra of the real thing, slick rooms of long slick polished mahogany, a half-dozen wide screen
TV's blaring mindless sports contests from all over the world, over-priced micro-brews, and not
a single old rummy in sight?
Old Rip searches for these and many more remembered haunts, what Ray Oldenburg called the "great
good places" of his sleepy past, only to find store windows full of branded, high-priced, got-to-have
luxury-necessities (necessary if he/she is to be certified cool, hip, and successful), ridiculously
overpriced "food emporia", high and higher-end restaurants, and apparel boutiques featuring hardened
smiles and obsequious service reserved for those recognized by celebrity or status.
Rip notices too that the visible demographic has shifted, and walking the streets of Manhattan
and large parts of Brooklyn, he feels like what walking in Boston Back Bay always felt like, a
journey among an undifferentiated mass of privilege, preppy or 'metro-sexed' 20 and 30-somethings
jogging or riding bicycles like lean, buff gods and goddesses on expense accounts supplemented
by investments enriched by yearly holiday bonuses worth more than Rip earned in a lifetime.
Sitting alone on a park bench by the river, Rip reflects that more than all of these individual
things, however, he despairs of a city that seems to have been reimagined as a disneyfied playground
of the privileged, offering endless ways to self-gratify and philistinize in a clean, safe (safest
big city in U.S., he heard someone say), slick, smiley, center-of-the-world urban paradise, protected
by the new centurions (is it just his paranoia or do battle-ready police seem to be everywhere?).
Old ethnic neighborhoods are filled with apartment buildings that seem more like post-college
"dorms", tiny studios and junior twos packed with three or four "singles" roommates pooling their
entry level resources in order to pay for the right to live in "The City". Meanwhile the newer
immigrants find what place they can in Kingsbridge, Corona, Jamaica, and Cambria Heights, far
from the city center, even there paying far too much to the landlord for what they receive.
New York has become an unrecognizable place to Rip, who can't understand why the accent-less
youngsters keep asking him to repeat something in order to hear his quaint "Brooklyn" accent,
something like the King's English still spoken on remote Smith Island in the Chesapeake, he guesses
.
Rip suspects that this "great transformation" (apologies to Polanyi) has coincided, and is somehow
causally related, to the transformation of New York from a real living city into, as the former
Mayor proclaimed, the "World Capital" of financialized commerce and all that goes with it.
"Financialization", he thinks, is not the expression of an old man's disapproval but a way
of naming a transformed economic and social world. Rip is not an economist. He reads voraciously
but, as an erstwhile philosopher trained to think about the meaning of things, he often can't
get his head around the mathematical model-making explanations of the economists that seem to
dominate the more erudite political and social analyses these days. He has learned, however, that
the phenomenon of "capitalism" has changed along with his city and his life.
Money, it seems to him, has somehow changed its role. It has "increased" (is that possible,
he asks?) while at the same time it has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It appears
to seek to become an autonomous and dominating sector of economic life, functionally separated
from production of real things, almost all of which seem to come from faraway places. "Real" actually
begins to change its meaning, another topic more interesting still. This devotion to the world
of money-making-money seems to have obsessed the lives of many of the most "important" Americans.
Entire TV networks are devoted to it. They talk about esoteric financial instruments that to the
ordinary citizen look more like exotically placed bets-on-credit in the casino than genuine ways
to grow real-world business, jobs, wages, and family income. The few who are in position to master
the game live material lives that were beyond what almost any formerly "wealthy" man or woman
in Rip's prior life could even imagine
.
Above all else is the astronomical rise in wealth and income inequality. Rip recalls that growing
up in the 1950's, the kids on his block included, along with firemen, cops, and insurance men
dads (these were virtually all one-parent income households), someone had a dad who worked as
a stock broker. Yea, living on the same block was a "Wall Streeter". Amazingly democratic, no?
Imagine, people of today, a finance guy drinking at the same corner bar with the sanitation guy.
Rip recalls that Aristotle had some wise and cautionary words in his Politics concerning the stability
of oligarchic regimes.
Last year I drove across America on blue highways mostly. I stayed in small towns and cities,
Zanesville, St. Charles, Wichita, Pratt, Dalhart, Clayton, El Paso, Abilene, Clarksdale, and many
more. I dined for the most part in local taverns, sitting at the bar so as to talk with the local
bartender and patrons who are almost always friendly and talkative in these spaces. Always and
everywhere I heard similar stories as my story of my home town. Not so much the specifics (there
are no "disneyfied" Lubbocks or Galaxes out there, although Oxford, MS comes close) but in the
sadness of men and women roughly my age as they recounted a place and time – a way of life – taken
out from under them, so that now their years are filled with decayed and dead downtowns, children
gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy or the
virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness.
I am not a trained economist. My graduate degrees were in philosophy. My old friends call me
an "Eric Hoffer", who back in the day was known as the "longshoreman philosopher". I have been
trying for a long time now to understand the silent revolution that has been pulled off right
under my nose, without any "consent of the governed", no debate, no explanations, no excuses for
the replacement of a world that certainly had its flaws (how could I forget the civil rights struggle
and the crime of Viet Nam; I was a part of these things) but was, let us say, different. Among
you or your informed readers, is there anyone who can suggest a book or books or author(s) who
can help me understand how all of this came about, with no public debate, no argument, no protest,
no nothing? I would be very much appreciative.
P.S. If Bernie doesn't run, I'll sit this one out. The hell with the rest of them. I am sick
and tired of frauds.
Heaven forbid (no sarcasm intended) and apologies to Yves hereby submitted. But just so that
you understand the system here (I have posted numerous times before although not within the last
year), the comment was submitted at 10:06. It was actually posted around 3 pm, about 10 minutes
after I resubmitted it here at this entry. Honestly, I kind of forgot how long a "mediation" can
take for a new or (in my case) old out-of-date commenter. If there was a way of pulling it I would
have done so. I have had some recent computer issues and thought it might have been somehow "eaten"
before getting to the right place.
you got a fair number of responses you should go read them..I replied at 2. As to moderation
I think closing your browser and then opening it again keeps your computer from throwing up a
cached version so if you see "comment in moderation", after your edit time expires close the window
and open it again and your post will show up within a couple of hours at most
yesterday it took about 5 hours but that was the first time it took more than a few minutes.
since the post was pretty inoffensive i figured it was some kind of glitch.
Hi Al
I have the same feelings about the changes to my city, Philadelphia. There are and have been a
lot of social scientists, not economists who have been tracking the changes.
Here is one of them with his bi-monthly comments, which I think is a great synchronicity with
Yves hoisted comments. Most people feel we have crossed a Bright White Line, it's different now,
too much so. Some are very clear about the changes others feel its consequences and respond accordingly.
In art, especially popular music, there are chronicles of the changes and for me and my slice
of the generations, Bruce Springsteen has written more clearly about it than anyone else. His
double album, THE RIVER is a snapshot of the decay of industrial America and its workers and their
families. In song after song, the economy comes up, jobs leaving that are never coming back, and
people who have given up once America gave up on them. As he says in the song ATLANTIC CITY: "
I've got debts no honest man can pay".
Here is Immanuel Wallerstein's June 1 comment: The Increasingly Unstable United States.
He is known for his World System Analysis. In this view, the world has core areas, semi-periphery
areas and peripheral areas. The US, The European Union, China, Japan would be inside of the core
areas of the global system. The semi-periphery would be nations such as S Korea and the periphery
would be The Philippines, N Africa, and others that are exporting their wealth to the core of
the system with little of value in return to help them develop.
What is important to realize is that even within core areas, such as the USA, are peripheral
areas, such rural Appalachia or urban poverty districts. The problem for the USA and why we are
seeing a Bright White Line that has been crossed, is that the terrible conditions once permanently
relegated, contained to the peripheral areas of impoverishment in the USA are expanding outward
into the formerly carefree communities. The kind of places where after there is a brutal murder
or rape or mass shooting is called a quiet place where this kind of thing never happens.
The big winners in cities are places where educated, socially homogeneous groups are massing
to replicate the former stability that was spreading outward up until the 1970s. The War on Poverty
has been replaced by a War On Drugs and now that is starting to be unwound. The New Deal is being
erased by the Art of The Deal and The Great Society is being decommissioned so America Can Be
Great Again. That and too much to comment about without writing a book.
Be patient with the site, it has been through the wringer with technical woes due to the 3rd
party providers and Word Press and a lot of other dot com details that I really don't know enough
about other than to say our daily use of the site tends to overwhelm it.
I will either vote for Bernie if he wins the nomination or a third party candidate. I think
Clinton is doomed by the email scandal.
I more or less meet the description of NC commenters in the Politico article but to attribute
that description to all NC readers would probably require a survey.
Concerning Trump's election bid, it reminds me of the ascension of Newt Gingrich to the House
speakership in the 1990's. At the time there were complaints about his uncivil style. I think
corruption became worse while Gingrich was speaker. Of course, Gingrich was a Washington insider
and Trump is not, but perhaps they are similar men. The big question with Trump, I believe, is
the extent to which he would be controlled by the deep state, as Obama seems to be.
I read the Politico piece, but the "Show comments" link no longer works on the story. I wonder
if they pulled the whole comments section? Every time I clicked it, it just took me too the menu
at the bottom of the page.
Too bad, I wanted to get a sense of the craziness I knew would ensue.
Depends on the browser you are using. I can't pull up Comments with Opera, but I can with Firefox.
Also, you have to wait a few seconds for Comments to appear.
just saw hrc's headline at huffpo and can't help but see it as a reaction to blur NC's politico
post.
i'll probably go libertarian unless the greens get on the ballot in enough states. think what
a Sanders MENTION of the Johhson/Weld ticket would do at the Dem convention-
I guess it's possible a number of Sanders supporters get syphoned off by the Libertarian, but
I suspect the Venn diagram of Sanders => Green => Libertarian lines up better for Jill Stein.
That'll be my vote.
Who are "you"? You have everywhere to go once you have dismissed the status quo order of society
as a stipulation. Indeed, the best days of bourgeois liberalism (for the greater good) are behind
it.
Thanks for writing such a great piece. You said it all. Personally, "the lesser of two evils"
argument expired for me when Obama started campaigning for TTP and TTIP, not to mention not going
after the Wall Street criminals. Most Americans, with their backs pressed against the wall, are
realizing that the two political parties in power now do not give a damn about us. Hence, Bernie
and Trump and these crazy primaries. If the leadership in the two parties think they can continue
on creating and promoting an agenda that only benefits the 1% and the people that support them,
they will find that the public will consign both parties to the dustbins of history. That day
cannot come quickly enough for me.
I'm both appalled and astounded by the many suggestions here to vote for Jill Stein and the
Green Party. The Green Party does not want your votes. Neither does Jill Stein. If they did, they
would act like a real, functioning party. (Which they are not, being instead a plaything for dilettantes,
who would rather see it in a permanent vegetative state than lose their titles and insider status.
See: Institutions, Iron Law of.)
I am what the political pros call a "high propensity voter". I vote in every election, from
presidential down to local municipal offices and school board. Never - NEVER, not once ever -
have I:
– Had a Green Party candidate for any office, or a canvasser working on their behalf, knock
on my door;
– Received any election materials from the GP or one of its candidates in my mailbox or on
my doorknob.
– Seen a lawn sign for any of their candidates.
By contrast, I have participated in nine local ballot measure campaigns and at least three
campaigns for local office. I know from experience how we raised money (almost all in small contributions),
mobilized to collect petition signatures, canvassed door-to-door during the election, and managed
to do at least a few mailings in every campaign. It can be done.
You want to be treated like a party, act like one.
I live in outer suburban Philadelphia ( western Montgomery county) . Previously I lived in
the Ahwatukee foothills area in Phoenix AZ. I have had Green Party candidates and surrogates at
my door and on the phone( live not recorded) many many many times for many many years! They work
their tails off trying to meet people on the grass roots level. Perhaps it is just where you live…
They seem serious as a heart attack to me-
Green Party behavior varies widely from state to state, even more so that Dem State Parties.
There is a critical mass of seats in State legislatures that is necessary for a smaller/"3rd"
party to achieve critical mass in that legislative context, and the push into the Federal Congressional
level. Before that, absent a reliable voice on the Congressional side, a Green presidential candidate
has little real potential to deliver political positives for the nation; and voters collectively
don't have to be particularly sophisticated to recognise this.
One of the strengths of the Tea Party has been an early willingness to engage at the local
political levels (municipal, state admin). They also had the benefit of being able to operate
within the context of the established Republican network. For decades the Greens (and various
Libertarian incarnations) have tried to leap higher than their growth at local levels would allow,
and attempted to stand on ideological distinction/purity relative to established Dem(/Rep) institutions.
I hope the Sanders movement can recognize the strategic benefits of remaining, at least nominally,
within the Dem identity.
Actually, I was canvassed by a Green. Happened as I was heading home from work yesterday.
Guy was trying to get on our local election ballot, and I couldn't understand why he was canvassing
at the spot where he was standing. Not what you'd call a high-traffic area. And, get this, there's
a high-traffic area just two blocks away. Easy-peasy to walk there.
Well, wouldn't you know it. Today's FB post from him was short and sad. Saying that he didn't
collect enough signatures to get on the ballot.
So, Jess, I'm going to echo what you just said. If you want to be treated like a party, act
like one.
Whether you regarded him as a spoiler or not, Ralph Nader's 2000 campaign and its aftermath
put a big downer on the Green Party. I live in an especially liberal neck of the woods and I remember
just how annoying I found all the Nader supporters in the run up to 2000. The brand, such as it
was, suffered after that election. And I expect they've had a really difficult time attracting
talented and resourceful politicians to their cause.
The Green party should be looking at this as an opportunity to recruit progressives and move
the Greens into the mainstream. It would mean convincing young progressives to run as Green candidate
rather than as Democrats. Standing on the right street corners now that they have a rare window
of opportunity.
I would see my vote for Jill Stein as a way to send a message that there are people who support
what the Greens stand for and that there is an alternative to supporting a corrupt Democratic
party that only pays lip service to the issues that matter most to progressives.
Here's another way I've been thinking about it, just as only Nixon can go to China, what is
that only Hillary can do? Cut social security, sign another free trade agreement, start another
war, roll back financial regulations?
Conversely, what is I that only Trump can do? Raise the deficit, increase government spending
on infrastructure, end some wars, go after free riding plutocrats and corporations?
Somebody mentioned Kucinich. Funny how caving in on Ocare ended his career. Imagine if he'd
held out, maintained his previous position. He would either be where Bernie is today, or maybe
Bernie's for-sure VP pick. Instead he sold out, chickened out, and is, deservedly, no longer visible,
much less relevant.
Ocare had nothing to do with his political demise. Rep. Nancy Pelosi changed his district to
one that guaranteed his defeat as punishment for not kowtowing to Israel. Rep. Cynthia McKinney
and other Democratic members of congress, mostly black, have met a similar fate for similar reasons.
Correctamundo. Seems to me another white knight fell off his horse in that joust. Advocate
of single payer? Septuagenarian from Vermont? The name'll come to me …
Long out front, outspoken, and practically alone, then a single vote, and off with his head.
Harsh.
The virtuous are punished and the wicked rewarded. Who knows, if the media had done their job
and covered all presidential candidates equally the Kucinich and Nader campaigns might have actually
got somewhere.
Yet another college educated, middle-upper income professional here who refuses to support
Hillary. Been voting Green or Dem my adult life (40s). I see Jill Stein is on the ballot in Michigan.
Perhaps, I'll vote for her again (as I did in '12). I voted for Obama in '08 and came to regret
it the very next month when he picked his transition team. It became clear he was a world-class
confidence man at that point. I have no doubt Clinton will pick a similar or worse team for her
inner circle.
My town, Marquette, went solidly for Bernie March 1st. The few R's are mostly Trump supporters.
Living in a working class neighborhood makes it easy to keep in touch with reality. Lots of people
are struggling here just like everywhere.
I really don't think it will ever get "back to normal". I think in 20 years we wake up and
find we're Mexico (and it could be worse). The good news is, we are headed backwards in time whether
we like it or not to a simpler life!
Yves' piece could have us all–not just the Beltway Dems–questioning assumptions this election.
There's plenty of 'freaking out' [warranted] happening, but that's not a frame of mind conducive
to sound judgment–something to remember when voting. HRC's record is proof that a smart person
can make extremely poor choices. Her consistency in that regard is one reason she doesn't deserve
the Sanders vote.
The field isn't limited to Clinton or Trump now, nor will it be in November. I don't see good
reasons to support either of them, including sending a message to the Democrats. Raising a finger
via a Trump vote is akin to cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Remaining tethered to these failed parties, with their failed ideologies, while the world burns,
is the trap.
God Bless Bernie, but c'mon, let's be real-he knew what he was up against, and he didn't hire
top-tier talent to run his campaign (a comic book store manager-seriously?!?)
Our great experiment has failed miserbaly-it's time for a Constitutional Convention that has
but one goal-blow up the current election system and institute a Parlimenterian System like the
rest of civilized society has. When our neighbors to the north were bitterly complaining about
how long their last election was (a whole six months!), we need to burn our political process
to the ground with fire and salt it.
what miserable failure are you referring to? there is more energy and more recognition of the
actual political realities than i've seen since the 60's.
I honestly don't know what "deserve" has to do with it. People make voting out to be a far
more personal and moral act than it actually is. It's not a means of expression either. It's a
pragmatic act that in some small way brings about a particular outcome from a small set of possible
outcomes.
I voted for Bernie in the MA primary, and he is my preferred choice by far of any candidate
in this election, but I think "Bernie or Bust" is silly and even a bit immature.
Voting is any number of things, depending the voter and the historical circumstances. Voting
is an act whose influence on the voter and on history is not limited to a particular outcome.
Just read your Politico piece… Thanks! And – You go girl!
From another 60-something, highly educated, well-paid, white collar schmoo feminist who will
vote for Trump if the alternative option is any Clinton "Democrat".
This was a good piece- I think the comfortable need a few truth bricks thrown through the windows
of their glassy towers on occasion. Voting for the most ideologically correct third party might
be the moral option, but the volatility option of threatening their jugular with a Trump vote
is the tempting one here.
I might not have the depth of experience or breadth of knowledge of many here- I'm just a broke
kid in Ohio- but I've been reading this for years and I've learned more from the news and commentary
here than I did in an entire political 'science' degree.
From speaking to my coworkers, I can tell you that Yves hits it on the head. "Feel the Bern
or burn the field" isn't just the whine of some college bros- I hear it from the middle aged dads
I work with, older women with kids my age.
The rest started with Sanders- and seem to be leaning Trump in the absence of the option. Volatility,
it is. They like and trust Sanders.
Come to think of it, the only people I know who actually strongly like Hillary are my fiancee's
parents… nearly retired professional degree holders on a nice state pension. I love them to death,
but they're definitely fans of some Democratic party that I cannot relate to. I'd say it's a generation
gap, but I know they aren't the ones pulling the ladder up behind them. The people they support,
however….
I mostly agree with you, Yves. But maybe, Gov. Wald is right. With Trump in power, it might
be like Anne Frank in the attic. I think there's a certain internal momentum to the Trump campaign;
he will probably start to build his wall and also start a campaign to deport illegal aliens. Obama
deported at the border. Trump would probably start a massive initiative to deport people who have
settled into the country. Also, the cops could become even more repressive, believing it's Trump
time.
Trump to use the old Marxist phrase " might heighten the contradictions." He could at the same
time crush any resistance movement.
On the other hand, Hillary is basically a crackpot realist and might start WWIII.
A beautifully written article. I can't tell if it was so clear to me because of the way it
was written or because I read NC articles so frequently but I'm pretty sure either way it was
beautifully written.
Add me to the list of people that is on the Death to Neoliberalism platform. As an anarchist
I have done nothing but write in gag votes for years, but for the first time since the age of
18 I'm contemplating casting an actual vote, because the unknown evil looks more appealing than
Cold Warrior Killary.
And that's my biggest problem with a new Clinton regime. She's promising, incredibly, more
war in the Middle East and across the arc of crisis and steamrolling to a new Cold War with the
Russians. This will make lost of northeastern and west coast billionaires even richer, but do
nothing for the working classes (aside from employing their kids when they turn 18 and shipping
them off to die in some hellhole). Preventing the permanent militarist state is the most important
issue facing the US at the moment. It's driving the destruction.
wow. I never even heard of Politico. I guess it must be a web site about politics or something.
Why would anybody post comments at a nowhere website about politics? That doesn't make any
sense to me at all. It seems like an absurd waste of time. Unless they get paid for it. Wow. That's
even more incredible. To get paid for ranting your nonsense on a nowhere website about politics.
How bored can you be to do that to waste time? haven't they ever heard of YouTube?
What's the point of arguing about this stuff anyway? That's a rhetorical question because there
isn't one.
It's all so obvious! what's there to argue about? The only hope is divine intervention that
raises the consciousness of the hacks out there who think being professional and snotty is an
achievement and a virtue. Arguing won't do it. You need to send thoughts into the nooushphere.
put your hands on the sides of your head like two radio telescopes and look at the sky and shoot
some mind missles up there, into the nousphere. That's better than wasting time debating. Just
be sure to go outside or you'll hit the ceiling and it won't go anywhere
The only real question worth debating is who will be Bernie's VP when he's president. He'd
need somebody. Maybe that Hawaiian senator, Tulsi Gabbard or something like that, I can't remember
exactly. There's a woman for you. There must be a few hundred people who could be Bernie's VP
and be better than almost any party hack on television ranting their yada into the camera with
that fake smile they have. That smile makes me think "liar". I don't know why but always do, and
so I stopped watching TV talk shows entirely, even on Sunday. I felt like I was having my mind
abused by a spectacle whose sordidness was so unbecoming to human dignity that watching was itself
a form of participation. All right, that's being 'too sensitive" but I don't frankly care. Also
there's YouTube, where you can watch music videos instead - if you want to waste time like you
would if you watched the talk shows
Maybe they should just cancel the election and everybody go home and think hard about their
own soul. then come back in two years and start over. Lots of hacks would have nervous breakdowns
and wouldn't be able to vote due to emotional issues & Bernie would be elected in a landslide.
Even without a VP. There's a point where it doesn't even matter when everybody has a soul. You
don't even need politicians then because everything is above that, at that point and people act
naturally in ways that don't require illusions and conceits.
There was a piece on Brain Pickings this week on How to compose a successful critical
commentary , which I think you've embodied quite well in your article . It's part of
what differentiates a fast, automatic, emotional and reflexive attack of an argument from a slower,
more skillful refutation using logic, analysis and evidence grounded in a solid understanding
of the issues. Daniel Kahneman also comes to mind for his writing on what he labeled 'System 1'
and 'System 2' thinking in his bestseller, Thinking, Fast and Slow.
"the best antidote [for the] tendency to caricature one's opponent"
How to compose a successful critical commentary:
________________________________________
1. You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly
that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way.
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general
or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
- a distillation of Daniel Dennett, "Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking"
Perusing the comments, it looks like a very shallow commentariat gene pool over at Brand X.
You and Lambert are wise to cultivate civilized diversity of opinion. When it comes to a blog
w/open comments, not sure what could be more boring than a superficial and ignorant opinion monoculture
I've been reading Naked Capitalism for 7 years now, it's an absolute great site and community,
I've learned so much. In 2008 I was very naive, I voted for Obama thinking he was the next
FDR, I was wrong. I know some folks have objections to MMT, but with Bernie having Stephanie Kelton
and Bill Black on his team, I have the hope he understands, and even though he hasn't communicated
in the MMT vocabulary, he gives me great hope that he realizes that there are so many things that
can be done, so many problems that we can work to make better.
I guess that's why I have no reason to vote for Hillary Clinton, there's no dreams, no hopes,
no understanding of what can be done, it's all blame the Republicans, we can't do anything, there's
nothing we can do. I get no sense that she understands MMT, she has no vision or understanding.
She can't see.
Loyal NC reader/commentator since 2008, fit your reader profile pretty well, except I take
down tower cranes for a living instead of pushing a pencil. I've always been vocal here in the
combox about my preferences: Sanders>Trump>Clinton-except I'm not holding my nose as I pull the
lever for the Donald. I'm looking forward to it, and confusion to all Politico hacks, DC insiders
and Clinton operatives. May their beards fall out.
line space is limited or many modern readers give up, but I wish there could have been at least
a line on her threat to our youth, even our existence. Bill bombed a pharma factory in Sudan
to distract the masses, and Team Barry O' Hill-Billy destabilized Libya , Syria, and the Ukraine
- yet the She-devil wants to sell Trump as being less safe with the atomic football. What would
she do to avoid being impeached? Even the unthinkable becomes possible with her.
"... But the panic is also a clear indication, and perhaps as important, another message, not just to Clinton but to Team Dem, that the Administration can't, or won't but is making it seem like can't, do what it takes to save Hillary's bacon. ..."
"... The fact that there is an independent effort, completely outside the Administration's control, pursuing the server mess, also makes it riskier for the DoJ to do nothing if Judicial Watch exposes damning documents. ..."
"... The Democrats don't have any dirt on Trump the Republicans didn't have. Trump is a referendum on the establishment. The establishment can't attack him, and any attacks too similar to the very publicized establishment attacks will be dismissed. ..."
"... Maybe not Mittens and Bill Kristol at this point, the GOP elites will show loyalty because anything less will risk their own position. The base will remove GOP elites over certain sins. The Teabaggers cleaned the GOP caucus of TARP voters. ..."
"... "Trump is a referendum on the establishment." ..."
"... That's the best one-sentence explanation for his success that I've seen. ..."
"... That is certainly the narrative Trump wants. What I find the height of black, despairing comedy is that anyone believes it. In addition to being completely untrustworthy and self-centered, Trump has little to gain by overthrowing the status quo, and has given many signs that he will continue business as usual, only with a slightly different crew of low-rent elites in charge at the top. ..."
"... No matter what he says, Trump is not leading some sort of revolution to abolish the Empire and replace it with something else, much less something better. He just wants a shortcut to being Emperor. ..."
"... I'm under the impression that if not for the Benghazi investigation, the home server would not have been discovered. However, maybe someone else can confirm that I'm correct. Which, if you think about it, does not actually make sense. The NSA should have known all along. Why on earth she supposed that she could get around the NSA is simply… words fail me. ..."
"... My tin foil hat has always told me Clintonistas may not have worked overly hard for Kerry in 2004, even offering bad advice. Every Winner and Loser column from after the election listed on clear winner, the front runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton. Clinton Inc was operating out of crummy digs in Harlem because they couldn't raise money, but the money poured in after the Kerry loss. ..."
"... My only fear re: how Clinton could win in November would be if she and Bill had the juice to help throw 2000 and 2004 to keep the path clear for her. Unless she can steal in the General, she isn't going to be President. That would also explain Obama's focus on caucuses in 2008 - he went after her soft, less stealable underbelly. (I realize there are also less CT explanations for this.) ..."
"... "Maintaining a homebrew server could be written off as a policy violation, rather than a criminal matter. " ..."
"... Given the last 15 years of brutal, if selective, prosecutions for mishandling materials less sensitive than some of the material on Clinton's servers, I don't think many people will buy that. ..."
"... The elephant in the room is not the private server per se, but the use of it to circumvent any exposure to FOIA requests. The pay-for-play activities of the Secretary with regard to the Foundation can certainly be inferred, and if proven are grounds for an indictment leading to prosecution for treason, and the incarceration (if not the death penalty) for the entire Clinton family. The tons of circumstantial evidence regarding the timing of payments and the goodies granted, would be sufficient for a Grand Jury indictment; the "smell' test is overwhelming. ..."
"... People seem to forget that Clinton served on the Committee on Armed Services from 2003 to 2009 and on the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities … you know, the Subcommittee that has jurisdiction over Department of Defense policies and programs to counter emerging threats, information warfare and special operations programs. ..."
"... I too would want to keep my PRIVATE and PERSONAL emails and other communications private … if she'd been above board and simply had a private email for non-official communications and kept the official State Dept stuff on the official account, there would be nothing here. ..."
"... Sanders will lose his clout and things go back to normal. ..."
"... private server ..."
"... a personal email account was allowed ..."
"... It seems that Mills claimed that HRC's use of the private email was not kept secret and lots of Admin officials knew about it. (Note that people had to make a special request to be able to use her email.) But Obama claimed he only learned of it "like the rest of you, in the news reports". So Obama and Hillary never emailed each other while she was SoS? ..."
"... They never were chummy esp. after all the heat of the campaign: "You're likeable enough, Hillary". ..."
"... It was reported last January that there were eighteen emails between Clinton and Obama that State was not going to release for security reasons. So yes, they did email each other. It would be interesting to know what security instructions Obama received regarding using his email. Did anyone ever caution him to check the sender's email address as a caution against phishing? Her email address was clintonemail dot com. Even a technical neophyte has to know that means either she or some other entity was hosting the site; and, if a separate entity, did that entity have security clearance for handling those emails? Obama knew darn well that she was using an unsecure system. He is equally guilty of enabling her risk-taking. ..."
"... Now that Elizabeth Warren is being a good girl and playing footsie with Schumer, I can see them thinking putting her in as VP would work well enough. I don't think so (in my neck of the progressive woods, there seems to be a general understanding that she sold out), but more importantly, I can't imagine Hillary stepping away only to see Liz moved in. ..."
"... Their smartest real play would be to let Bernie have the nom and bide their time, hoping they can work in the background with Republicans to taint and undermine him. But I suspect that they're exactly smart enough to know that probably wouldn't work. ..."
"... my rich friends (lifetime republicans included) will vote for hillary, my poor friends won't. ..."
"... Clinton voters are the small amount type. She has only "won," even in the states she did did "win," by massively suppressing the vote. She hasn't even held onto her own voters from 2008, even in conservative states. Her "big wins" in the South were with much smaller numbers of votes cast. There are people who genuinely want to vote for her. They were not enough to win the Democratic primary without massive suppression AND theft. ..."
"... The problem for Hillary is there is no indication the email scandal narrative will ever improve to the point of improving her untrustworthy numbers. The best she can hope for is the FBI stating it will not recommend an indictment which will merely confirm the public's correct perception that the power elite are treated better than the rank and file. Hillary cannot unring the Inspector General's conclusion she circumvented FOIA and federal record keeping laws. She cannot undue the fact she maintained thousands of classified records, along with 22 top secret documents on the private server. She cannot change the fact she hid her use of the private server from the public and only disclosed it when caught by the Senate Committee investigating Benghazi. Everyone who pays attention to the facts is disgusted by her misconduct in this matter. ..."
"... I think her problem is that, in routing official traffic through a private mail server, she's tried to avoid records of her work (as a public official!) ever becoming available to the public. It looks, at the very least, like she's trying to hide something and it's a demonstration of breathtaking contempt for the very people whose votes she's now asking for. ..."
"... If he shagged under the legal age limit girls, traveled on a jet which was used in slave trade of underage girls, etc; then it isn't just his business, it's a criminal matter. If Mrs. Clinton enabled, and/or aided and abetted, then she could be facing criminal charges. ..."
"... The interesting thing is Jeffery Epstein has hidden cameras on both his plane and all over the US Virgin Island private pedophile reserve he ran for politicians and high level government officials. The overseas press is reporting he blackmailed his way out of Federal Charges. Was Bill part of that blackmail? ..."
"... Bill is a sexual predator. His affair with Jennifer Flower was consensual. But starting from when he was Governor, there is a long list of credible allegations of him engaging in sexual harassment (extremely aggressive come-ons with women he had just met, often women who were state employees or Dem consultatnts), including a rape allegation by Juanita Brodderick. We've even had a reader in comments say that when Bill Clinton visited a friend, he asked their college aged daughter when he was alone with her if she wanted to ride in his car and give him a blow job. DC contacts confirm the city is rife with stories like that. ..."
"... If there were an equal ..."
"... As strange a thing as this is to say, I find myself wishing that more journalists had experience in IT security. I do have such experience, and from what I can see most people really don't appreciate just how totally, ludicrously irresponsible it is for that server to exist. Talk of it having been "secured" by some lone IT contractor is ridiculous on its face. I wouldn't run a homebrew email server, and I am basically not worth hacking – very much unlike the US Secretary of State. ..."
"... Seriously, think about it. The Secretary of State had a private email server which seems to have been widely known about within the State Department and other people in government who had dealings with Hillary Clinton. There's really no question as to if that thing was hacked – you can absolutely bet your ass ..."
"... That's what's really galling to me – even by Hillary's own stated standards, what she did with her email is orders of magnitude worse than what Snowden did. But it's Hillary Clinton, so it gets handwaved by the Democrats' long practice at assuming a Clinton scandal is overblown nonsense. ..."
"... That's why people like Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake, Jeffrey Sterling, John Kiriakou, Joe Wilson, and so forth are persecuted by the government while people like Clinton (and Petraeus, Novack, Libby, Bush, Cheney, Obama, Biden, etc.) are protected. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of events. Just as one example, here's the 'ole Gray Lady serving as dutiful stenographer for Nancy Pelosi herself, the Democratic Speaker from San Francisco, supposedly one of the most liberal parts of the entire country, explaining that the law doesn't apply to people in power. ..."
"... I've worked in IT and software development for years and agree that her provision of that server doesn't meet the most basic requirements for security. Also, I work for a rather large company with a sizable federal contract and, if you haven't contracted with the government, you can only imagine the levels of security they impose upon their vendors. Two-factor authentication, encryption at rest, kernel hardening and on and on. Not only do you HAVE to do these things if you want to do business with the government, they bring in teams of their IT people to audit you. And it is not perfunctory in any way. They take InfoSec very, very seriously. ..."
"... Yesterday in the WSJ was this op-ed which made many of the same points that were made here, as well as discusses the fallout if Clinton loses the California primary. I also think that the Dems are not only just worried about the nomination now. The IG's report clears a path for hearings by the Republicans against Clinton after the election. ..."
"... I agree. Sanders has nothing to gain and a lot to lose by "making nice" with the Dem establishment. Why make nice with them? They are the problem, not the solution. That's a mainstay of Sanders' campaign. ..."
"... The Clinton fanaticism isn't about Sanders. They believe they need Clinton. An active DoJ might be a threat. A few have backwards ideas about politics. Some simply did the believe Sanders when he said Hillary was weak, but with a Gabbard in play, many Democrats can kiss their ambitions good bye if Sanders wins. ..."
"... I've said it elsewhere: Sanders is unacceptable to the DNC because a Sanders win would render the DNC networks, influence and fundraising abilities irrelevant overnight. The DNC would no longer be gatekeepers. You can win without them. Thus, Team D does not fear a Sanders defeat, and they can live with President Trump. In fact, that would represent an unprecedented fundraising opportunity. But from the Team D perspective, a Sanders victory must be prevented at all costs. ..."
"... How the hell could Sanders "make friends" with members of the Democratic Party elite? He is blowing up their revolving-door-greasing funding model. Running as effectively as he has with almost no lobbyist money? No major corporate donors to speak of? What can he offer them, except unpleasant changes that negatively impact their careers? ..."
"... "The implications of all of this are that Hillary Clinton did not want her emails subjected to the Freedom of Information Act or subpoenas from Congress. And that's why she set up a home-brew server" ..."
"... But this is definitely putting a lot of spin on the ball, because the other half of the story is the reason WHY she wanted to avoid FOIA and Congressional scrutiny. The answer is: so that between her and Bill she could sell her office to the highest bidders, which the FBI is quite prepared to prove, or if denied that chance, to "leak like crazy" ..."
"... Caution: this course of action carries a high risk of nominating Bernie ..."
"... And that bring up another point for all you "feminist" Clintonistas. Wasn't the whole point of the "first woman in the White House" thing to show that women can do it alone? That they don't need men carrying them around all the time to be successful? Well what's up with your candidate? I have never (in my 65 years) ever seen anyone (woman or man) need more help from other people (mostly men) to gain the success they seek. At every single turn in this campaign we have Ms. Clinton needing someone else, someone MORE, falling on their sword for her. Because left on her own, against a freaking socialist, for Christ's sakes, all she has been able to do is F@ck up. A FIFTY POINT LEAD, gone. Wasted. Nothing to show. And this is what you want as feminism's representative in the White House? Shame on you. ..."
"... Most of the DLC establishment could find it easy enough to "live" with a Trump Presidency. Just like Lil Marco Rubio, they'll easily bend their knees to kiss Trump's heiney and make deals with him. What's it to them, after all? ..."
"... In that scenario Hillary wins the nomination and loses the election, Obama pardons her to head off (in his telling) partisan persecution and looks noble (to the credulous) standing up for her, clearing the way to elbow in on the Clinton network for the-haven't you heard?-Obama Foundation. And the grift goes on. ..."
"... stopped ..."
"... Because the email thing, and the speeches thing, and the neo-liberalism thing, whatever. Bernstein's "leaking" makes clear that as far back as February Obama's guys in the trenches said – hey, we just saw the Bear funds blow up, and this thing is going to end badly one way or the other. We don't know exactly how bad, but bad. Which is bad for us… ..."
"... Yves – Time hss proved you wise. Japanafication is exactly what has been unfolding. And according to Forbes and the Fed, 48% of the population having less than a grand in savings means the US is near third world. One can buy Pop Tarts in third world countries also. ..."
"... The real danger is geopolitics. And this bitch that thinks she is queen has no issues literally seeing 1/3 of the global population dying to escape her crimes. Think of what a rapist does to a rape victim many times. Strangle that woman so she doesnt indict you. Yeah, it is that bad. But there are some form of tech that will end any world war quickly. Stuff of science fiction. America's competitors should think twice, or such may dissapear. Literally. ..."
"... However – and this must have been Clinton's worst nightmare x 10 - unbeknownest to CESC and Platte River, the backup server accidentally synced with another off-site server belonging to Datto for two years before anyone realized it. ..."
"... wasn't ..."
"... to the cloud was taking place ..."
"... So one Democratically connected organization signed onto this separate justice system for the politically connected. Possibly the concern Obama has for his unfunded $1Billion Presidential Library will force him to burnish his legacy by NOT rescuing HRC with some dubious legal maneuver. It is somewhat ironic that Nixon was brought down by a private electronic system (his tape recording system) while Clinton may be brought down by her own private electronic email system. ..."
"... Regardless my experience with talking to Hillary supporters is that no amount of scandal of outright criminal lawbreaking affects their views about Hillary. They revert to "she's been scrutinized and tested for decades by her enemies and she's survived." They are people on the margins who will be affected. How many are the Dem establishment? It's going to take a whopper to get them to tank Hillary IMO. ..."
"... There is a detail that is being universally missed both in the MSM and alternative press: it is a virtual certainty that the NSA has a copy of every email sent or received by that server. ..."
"... Don't forget the mayhem when the FSB (who else) posted Nuland's little chat with Pyatt over an insecure line. Let no one forget that HRC is strongly connected to the neocon project to undermine Russia's return to strength. ..."
"... Just ask yourself: What would Vladimir Putin do? ..."
"... $1 Billion Library ..."
"... I too think bernie will pull it out, the other choices are terrible. I'm looking for aspirational latinos to flock to bernie in california and it'll be a rout that can't be ignored. I hope that's what happens. ..."
"... Clintonsomething – "The Campaign Years" ..."
"... I'm not sure the media's current focus on Hillary's email server is warranted. There are definitely indications that she violated email policies, but there don't seem to be specifics about what these actions were trying to hide. I think her very questionable family ties to corporate money are a more meaningful topic in determining her suitability for the U.S. presidency ..."
"... The Clinton Machine (in other words the political operation of the Bill and Hillary, and potentially Chelsea) has always operated on the basis the money and connections will fix everything. It has, after all, gotten them this far. However, as a core operational mode, it also accumulates cynicism and tends to value loyalty over performance, leading to degradation over time. ..."
"... Seems to me that except in a relatively few corners and local settings, and now very frankly via our mostly collective embrace of the Neo geist, "America" has always and only been about "screwing the other guy." ..."
"... I don't believe "foaming one more runway" (read: having your DOJ, FBI appear helpless) wouldn't bother this administration. A Loyalist are those unengaged (or too engaged) whom choose willingly to believe the disastrous economic and political experiment, that attempted to organize human behavior around the dictates of the global marketplace, has been a splendid success…or worse, blindly, my tribal leader is in accordance with all that is good. ..."
"... Haiti. Look at film of the Clintons in Haiti to see how they work. & Haiti is one place where also the elites own the deeds. Haiti Is America, only sooner. ..."
"... For what it's worth, Jonathan Turley suggests Hillary still has friends in high places in his discussion of former Clinton IT advisor, Bryan Pagliano, who is taking the fifth amendment in deposition on email scandal, ..."
"... Those e-mails don't alarm me anywhere near as much as the $200,000 plus speaking fees from Wall St. NO speech by anyone is worth anywhere near such an amount. These were clearly bribes, there's simply no other way of looking at it. I have no interest in seeing the transcripts of those speeches because the money counts far more than the content, and speaks for itself. No way would I vote for someone so clearly in the pocket of the oligarchy. ..."
But the panic is also a clear indication, and perhaps as important, another message, not just
to Clinton but to Team Dem, that the Administration can't, or won't but is making it seem like can't,
do what it takes to save Hillary's bacon.
And I suspect it really is "can't". The FBI has enough autonomy that if they find real dirt on
the Clintons, they will leak like crazy if the DoJ does not pursue the case in a serious way. That
would make the Administration complicit, and Obama does not want his final months in office tainted
by his Administration touching the Clinton tar baby any more than it has to. In addition, the Judicial
Watch cases are proceeding, and the judge, having had the Clinton side deal with him repeatedly in
bad faith, is not going to cut it any slack. The fact that there is an independent effort, completely
outside the Administration's control, pursuing the server mess, also makes it riskier for the DoJ
to do nothing if Judicial Watch exposes damning documents.
By Gaius Publius
, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor
to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius ,
Tumblr and
Facebook . Originally published
at
at Down With Tyranny . GP article here.
The last time I featured former Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein on these pages, it was to showcase
his
delivery of messages he received from the White House , to the effect that the "White House"
thought Clinton was blowing it with her Wall Street speeches stance, and because of that, the "White
House" was freaking out (to put it colloquially) - at least as Bernstein tells it.
Here's part of what Bernstein - a Clinton supporter - said last February (my transcript and emphasis;
video at the link):
Bernstein: There is a huge story going on. I've spent part of this weekend talking
to people in the White House. They are horrified at how Hillary Clinton is blowing up her own
campaign .
And they're worried that the Democrats could blow - they are horrified that the whole business
of the transcripts, accepting the money - that she could blow the Democrats' chance for White
House. They want her to win. Obama wants her to win.
But Sanders has shown how vulnerable she is. These ethical lapses have tied the White House
up in knots. They don't know what to do. They're beside themselves. And now, you've got a situation
with these transcripts a little like Richard Nixon and his tapes that he stonewalled on and didn't
release.
... ... ...
In that context , listen to the current "White House" message about the Clinton campaign
via Bernstein and video at the top (my
italics):
Bernstein: The implications of all of this [the email server issue] are that Hillary
Clinton did not want her emails subjected to the Freedom of Information Act or subpoenas from
Congress. And that's why she set up a home-brew server.
I think we all know that. People around her will tell you that in private if you really get
them behind a closed door.
I was in Washington this week, I spoke to a number of top Democratic officials and they're
terrified, including people at the White House, that her campaign is in free fall because of this
distrust factor. Indeed, Trump has a similar problem, but she's the one whose numbers are going
south.
And the great hope in the White House, as well as the Democratic leadership and people who
support her, is that she can just get to this convention, get the nomination - which they're
no longer 100% sure of - and get President Obama out there to help her, he's got a lot of
credibility, it's an election that's partly about his legacy .
But she needs all the help she can get because right now her campaign is in huge trouble…
... ... ...
Two takeaways - one is that top Democrats know how precarious Clinton's position is . They're
not fooled any more than you are. That's worth noticing. And second, the White House and Bernstein
are not blaming Sanders . Whoever crafted this message for us is blaming the Clinton campaign
only, and by extension, Clinton herself.
Hmm. Does make one wonder.
If "they" are so worried about Hillary flubbing her "inevitable" nomination as presidential candidate,
and "they" are apparently not so worried about Hillary loosing to Trump in the run for president
later, one does wonder about the possibility of "they" having some good quality dirt on Trump
(or a backdoor to the voting machines).
Really Good Quality Dirt!
It is a *big* issue to mishandle classified information – normal people will be prosecuted
and may go to jail even by coincidence; like a selfie in front of equipment they didn't know was
classified and which was not labelled as such. Then on top of that comes the sleaze-factor with
avoiding the FOIA requirements, destruction of evidence (which means that certainly Hillary was
up to *something* crooked, because why else bother with all the work? it's very *easy* to hand
over a verified duplicate of a hard disk compared to everything Hillary tried to not do this!)
and of course the blatant incompetence + arrogance shown by Hillary by running a private business,
a crooked one at that, from work?!
A street level dope dealer can manage to compartmentalize their real business from the one
they report to the IRS. But not Hillary.
The Democrats don't have any dirt on Trump the Republicans didn't have. Trump is a referendum
on the establishment. The establishment can't attack him, and any attacks too similar to the very
publicized establishment attacks will be dismissed.
The simple problem is Republican voters selected him over the GOP establishment. All the Republicans
will line up because Trump is now their rightful leader. Maybe not Mittens and Bill Kristol
at this point, the GOP elites will show loyalty because anything less will risk their own position.
The base will remove GOP elites over certain sins. The Teabaggers cleaned the GOP caucus of TARP
voters.
The secret weapon is to be a generic tax and spend Democrat, uninterested in colonialism.
Yes, the intelligence establishment has dirt the two leading candidates (Trump and Clinton).
This can be used in what ever way is expedient, but most of all to maintain the status quo. Like
the mafia, you have committed a crime so you have to promote our crimes or you will be exposed/deposed.
Which is why the race to the bottom of the hogs wallow is being actively promoted. Likely, no
dirt on Sanders, which is why the MSM and even some parts of social media are enlisted to create
the appearance of dirt because blackmail/graymail of Sanders will be difficult or impossible.
That is certainly the narrative Trump wants. What I find the height of black, despairing
comedy is that anyone believes it. In addition to being completely untrustworthy and self-centered,
Trump has little to gain by overthrowing the status quo, and has given many signs that he will
continue business as usual, only with a slightly different crew of low-rent elites in charge at
the top.
No matter what he says, Trump is not leading some sort of revolution to
abolish the Empire and replace it with something else, much less something better. He just wants
a shortcut to being Emperor.
That he may end up being so bad at the job the entire edifice burns down is not, IMHO, any
sort of positive. I don't like where we are or where we are headed, but neither do I want my family
trying to survive in some sort of post-apocalyptic wasteland.
I'll repeat the tin-foil hat level thought that keeps crossing my mind with Trump: his job
is to discredit any sort of opposition to the establishment from the right for a generation
or more.
I think you're underestimating Trump. As you note, he does want to maintain current establishment,
and he could be successful at this for awhile (e.g. ramping up spending and not worrying about
deficits).
The establishment (Clinton types not aggressively calling out Republicans and proposing credible
alternatives) has brought us to this point.
Then on top of that comes the sleaze-factor with avoiding the FOIA requirements …
That's it, right there. She purposefully conducted the business of the State in such a manner
to avoid scrutiny by the citizenry. That is a breach of the public trust that cannot be countenanced,
cannot go unpunished. She's gotta go, and if "everybody's doing it," then they all gotta go too.
I'm under the impression that if not for the Benghazi investigation, the home server would
not have been discovered. However, maybe someone else can confirm that I'm correct. Which, if
you think about it, does not actually make sense. The NSA should have known all along. Why on
earth she supposed that she could get around the NSA is simply… words fail me.
Morning Joe is saying that Trump is polling as 'more trustworthy' than Clinton.
If the White House isn't in a panic at this point, they're somnambulant.
I thought it was strictly due to Benghazi-related FOIA requests from Congress that brought
her server to light, but
this article indicates it was discovered as a matter of routine housekeeping when John Kerry
became SoS, and they finally filled the position of Inspector General at State.
Something Clinton didn't get around to doing . . .
My tin foil hat has always told me Clintonistas may not have worked overly hard for Kerry
in 2004, even offering bad advice. Every Winner and Loser column from after the election listed
on clear winner, the front runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton. Clinton
Inc was operating out of crummy digs in Harlem because they couldn't raise money, but the money
poured in after the Kerry loss.
If this election was about whether the country wanted a fourth term of the Kerry Edwards Cantwell?
(She makes the most sense for a Vice President to Edwards 2012 running mate) teams, where would
Clinton Inc be?
My only fear re: how Clinton could win in November would be if she and Bill had the juice
to help throw 2000 and 2004 to keep the path clear for her. Unless she can steal in the General,
she isn't going to be President. That would also explain Obama's focus on caucuses in 2008 - he
went after her soft, less stealable underbelly. (I realize there are also less CT explanations
for this.)
But watching the primary play out suggests to me that there are limits to election theft capability.
I don't think there's anyway she wanted to drag this out this long. The theft in Kentucky was
pretty obvious and clumsy, too. That plus the Republican Party doing its thing rallying around
its nominee gives me hope that at least we won't get President Clinton.
It feels a bit like clinging to a ice floe in the North Atlantic, though.
But there's another point here too which is out in the open and yet no one is talking about
it much except to note that her emails were not part of the National Archives. She had a private
server for that very Orwellian reason-she planned to control the historical record by having a
whole parcel of it hidden and not available until she decided to release it, if ever. I see the
reference to Orwell as particularly apt . Remember in 1984 our besotted hero, (depressed
with the horror of what he was doing), spent the livelong day erasing or changing the archival
records related to key events that Big Brother needed changing. His needs, like Hilary's, kept
changing from day to day so the censorship was endless.
Clinton has always been in charge of a Ministry of Truth-yesterday she stood for practice 'A'
but now today opposes practice 'A'. The private server is just another facet of MiniTrue.
The domain name was clintonemail.com, so the email addresses would be
[email protected]etc. etc. Anyone receiving
these emails *could* see that if they looked, but if the sender is in your address book it may
just come in as that person's name or nickname as you have it in own your machine.
While it may be that most recipients wouldn't bother to drill down to the actual originating
address, there are offices and agencies that would definitely be tuned to this sort of thing.
For instance, State's in-house IT security people seem to have twigged, not that it helped.
What I wonder is, aren't there 16 some-odd agencies who scan and analyze email traffic? In
this case, the metadata alone would have told much (as it so often does).
suddenly, i'm feeling optimistic again. obama might be many things, but he is a very good politician,
and he protects his legacy like an enraged bear protects cubs. throwing clinton under the bus
to do that? no problem, if doing so results in less damage to his image, and i trust him to be
able to judge that well.
I don't think he gives even one f**k about his image or legacy. He cares about being wealthy
and having high status. He's only cutting Clinton loose if his owners that previously told him
he had to help her now tell him to toss her over.
I still have my doubts that any indictments are forthcoming. Maintaining a homebrew server
could be written off as a policy violation, rather than a criminal matter. The punishments for
that are administrative (loss of job, loss of security clearance), which don't really touch her.
Having classified information in those emails, unless it's really egregious, probably won't result
in any criminal charges, either. I wouldn't be surprised if that is rather common among senior
government officials. If they go after Clinton for that, a lot of other people could be put under
greater scrutiny. My guess is that there is institutional pressure in the government to not charge
one of their own for that.
If any charges are filed, it will probably be for something else that they've stumbled upon,
possibly related to the Clinton Foundation. That's why I find it interesting that the news about
Terry McAuliffe broke when it did. If they are pursuing something, there will be pressure to resolve
it before the election. At the same time, they won't want to rush it, because they're only going
to get one shot at this – you don't want to take a swing at the Clintons, and miss.
"Maintaining a homebrew server could be written off as a policy violation, rather than a criminal
matter. "
Given the last 15 years of brutal, if selective, prosecutions for mishandling materials less
sensitive than some of the material on Clinton's servers, I don't think many people will buy that.
They may not buy it, but that feeds directly into my other point – senior government officials
are rarely held accountable for those types of actions, unless they're really egregious. People
much lower on the food chain are held to a higher standard. Because of that, I think that there
will be resistance to prosecution from other senior officials, simply because they don't want
to be put in jeopardy as well.
The elephant in the room is not the private server per se, but the use of it to circumvent
any exposure to FOIA requests. The pay-for-play activities of the Secretary with regard to the
Foundation can certainly be inferred, and if proven are grounds for an indictment leading to prosecution
for treason, and the incarceration (if not the death penalty) for the entire Clinton family. The
tons of circumstantial evidence regarding the timing of payments and the goodies granted, would
be sufficient for a Grand Jury indictment; the "smell' test is overwhelming.
All well and true, but when do citizens say enough is enough. Creating and maintaining a two
tiered justice system is not the foundation on which democracy is built. How egregious does lawbreaking
have to become before support is withdrawn from these people?
IMVHO, that is exactly what we are seeing play out.
And trying to equate what Hillary did with Colin Powell's early use of email is simply beyond
the pale: I've seen no credible evidence that Powell ever set out to evade the NSA or the FBI.
For Hillary to conflate the two is flagrantly dishonest, and it pisses me off.
We may be at a 'tipping point' of the public finally fed up with a two tier system. Add in
income inequality, and things tip even more.
That's for the FBI to show – hard evidence of intention evasion…a memo or a witness, while
Clinton, on the other side, will argue computer/internet illiteracy.
Clinton has already been planting seeds of computer illiteracy, through her subordinates, who
claim Clinton "didn't even know how to access email on a desktop!" My lands, what's a pretty little
thing to do? Why, a lady such as Hillary must rely on the kindness of strangers, or gentleman
such as Bryan "Nowhere Man" Magliano, her IT Manager, to convey her electronic missives to others
in a timely manner.
People seem to forget that Clinton served on the Committee on Armed Services from 2003 to 2009
and on the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities … you know, the Subcommittee that
has jurisdiction over Department of Defense policies and programs to counter emerging threats,
information warfare and special operations programs.
If it were possible, I'd go back through the Sub committees minutes or transcripts to see how
involved ole' Hillary got when the subject was attempts by foreign governments or agents to hack
into U.S. government employees' emails.
It's possible that some of the information was only accessible by computer. She couldn't have
had any aides helping her 'cause they probably were not cleared to read such
info.
But if you've ever watched one of these hearings, you know that perhaps 20 percent of the
committee members have even a layperson's knowledge of monetary policy. The rest waste their
5-minute question time delivering set-piece partisan rants.
Probably more display of illiteracy. Or, no unlike some college teachers – no practice experience, thought they sound impressive
in theory.
LS: Little rides on the fact that Mrs Clinton may be guilty of
stupidity, ignorance, or evil intent. The primary fact is that
Mrs Clinton is, was, and probably has been guilty of duplicitous
conduct for the majority of her life. She's no beginner or social
climber, but a real mountaineer.
well…support IS being withdrawn , from them, in real time !!! That's why people, increasingly,
will vote scorched earth …. for Trump, if Sanders gets cheated out of the nom. They've had it
with the two-tired JUST US system, and the corrupt pols and corporate slugs who've benefited by
it !!
Agree. It's hard to know how many, but a significant number of people certainly are sensing
the depth of this morass, even if the particulars remain vague, and are reacting as best they
can given the choices. Since reasonable choices have been crushed to an amazing degree, as Matthews
– under orders no doubt – made clear, and this is part of what people sense is wrong, scorched
earth is what remains.
Hell, if Bonnie Prince Snowden were to land on the US equivalent of Eriskay…I would like as
not put on fatigues and go to join him, along with whatever other ragtag band of 'jacobites' rallied
to the cause.
Yes, it would likely end as miserably as 'The Forty Five' did, but I am long past believing
that ANYONE in a position of power in the Federal Government – any branch – really 'gets it' that
We, The People, are sick and damned tired of the crap they are up to, and the lengths they are
willing to go to pander and enrich their fellow power mongers.
The 'Just Us' system, indeed.
Maybe a little whiff of grapeshot might wake them up.
I know its either that, or someday the guillotines will be set up by a starving rabble with
far less of a sense of humor about these things then I.
What is interesting to me is the quality of what happens next as an exemplar: either Obama
doubles down on the Patraus treatment for the elite and everyone who's ever had a security clearance
is formally notified that the rules only apply to little people, or D O Justice acts on this in
the same spirit they have acted on Assange, Manning, Snowden, Stirling etc.
For those implicated at the heart of the security establishment, either decision will have
crystal clear implications. If it is the latter, the National Security State lumbers on in its
more or less current form which isn't exactly great and embroils our "presumptive" nominee
in a criminal investigation. If the former, things could get very interesting as those feeling
betrayed will be uniquely positioned to do something about it, particularly in the prospect of
spooks foreign or domestic having dirt with which to blackmail a sitting President.
Another great example of a status quo that, however you support it, sucks.
"Maintaining a homebrew server could be written off as a policy violation, rather than a criminal
matter. The punishments for that are administrative (loss of job, loss of security clearance),
which don't really touch her."
Could she be denied top security clearance were she to be elected president? Or, is it given
no matter what to whomever is elected?
Also, it seems from the article that there are many people now privy to just how badly she
managed her email situation (others things as well? And are there actual hard copies? More tapes?)
and that could make her independence as president, well, simply no there there. Sounds like the
PTBs and/or their minions have her by the short hairs. And if she had any tendencies whatsoever
to not serve the Corporatists fully, that is no longer an issue: She would be totally controlled.
So, Hillary would now more than ever be the Corporatists very best bet to consolidate their
control, in the US and globally. Trump, second but could possibly be "uncooperative." Bernie?
Never allowed to be voted on as the Dem nominee.
Oooh … Dear! Good Point: Hillary being so terribly bad that she's absolutely perfect for everyone
who needs to buy influence.
The excitement is seeing the market value of "The House of Clinton's Services" dropping from
hard currency to small favors and protection and now this once-in-a-century opportunity to get
in at the bottom may go away!
Have you read this? from march and linked on 5/29 in the cooler. they've stumbled on a few
things…
https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/
and as pointed out here the administration can't bury judicial watch in the same way they let
the banksters off by telling DOJ to let 'em go. And fajensen points out above, classification
violations get little people in big trouble, and letting clinton off, which they can't seem to
do, will upset a lot of gov employees…but maybe it's just more eleventy dimensional chess
Lurking in the background is the likelihood that the Russians scooped up everything on Hillary's
server, and the certainty that the NSA knows what they know.
This will not sit well with a lot of people.
Hillary will soon be down to her paid hangers-on and diehard loyalists. Even the bankers will
have to start recalculating.
It seems clear that being hacked by the Russians rated pretty low on the Clinton totem pole
of priorities. What concerned her more was the optics of whatever emails she was sending and how
the American public would react to seeing them. All her actions point to that. The Secretary of
State would rather have Russians read her emails than comply with the FOIA and other laws and
risk American citizens see the business she conducted on our behalf and at our expense.
I mean, for all I know senior gov't officials just blanket assume other countries have full
access to everything done on a computer, what do they care what the Russians know, the Russians
are corrupt too. But when it comes to a bad headline? Panic button time.
I don't blame just Hillary. I blame the Clintons in their entirety. Bill was just as squirmy
with the truth (what's YOUR definition of the word "is"? Then there's his whole, "I did not have
asexual relations with that woman"). Their slimy slipperyness is genetic. They can't help but
lie, obfuscate, prevaricate. Bill is Hillary, Hillary is Bill.
As to wanting to avoid FOIA and subpoenas on her emails, I am sympathetic in broad strokes.
I too would want to keep my PRIVATE and PERSONAL emails and other communications private. I believe
strongly in the right to privacy and that is why I vehemently oppose NSA spying and corporate
spying via metadata. Our private lives BELONG TO US ALONE. The difference between Hillary and
I is in the nature of private communications. Unlike the Clintons, I am not a money grubbing greedy
bastard who will lie, cheat, steal my way to wealthy. I have NO sympathy for anyone seeking to
keep that crap secret and private. That said, if she'd been above board and simply had a private
email for non-official communications and kept the official State Dept stuff on the official account,
there would be nothing here. I served 20 years in the military. We kept official and confidential
communication strictly on the official network and via the official email accounts. Personal use
of the official email was discouraged and limited. You NEVER used your personal civilian email
for official communications. Never never never. I can't give her a pass on that because we in
the military wouldn't get a pass. We'd get an investigation and likely lose our security clearance
(career ending that is).
I too would want to keep my PRIVATE and PERSONAL emails and other communications private
…
if she'd been above board and simply had a private email for non-official communications and kept
the official State Dept stuff on the official account, there would be nothing here.
Exactly. How hard can it be?
The work mail belongs to the workplace, we can basically expect that the PHB or the PFY in
tech support will read through it and it will be stored forever. Same with web-traffic. "Work"
may read, store and analyze it – so we visit naughty pages at home, strictly on our own time.
That is some of the reasons why we peons always use a private domain for private mail and the
work email for work email. Another one is to limit the ownership of work and ideas to those that
"work" actually does pay for.
I'm sympathetic to most of your argument, including your characterization of the Clinton's
obsession with personal gain. The Clinton Foundation is a money-making machine fueled by graft,
pure and simple.
But it's ironic that you criticize Bill for lying about personal affairs in one paragraph,
which only happened because Ken Starr actively sought to violate his personal privacy, and state
later that "our private lives belong to us alone." The only reason I have a shred of sympathy
for Bill is because Starr and his ilk trampled on his right to privacy. That judgment is shared
by most Americans, as reflected in public polls.
And as for "we in the military wouldn't get a pass" consider the by-the-book punishment of
David Petraeus – which never happened. The military doesn't have any special claim to legal fidelity
or consequences. As always, the enforcement of laws in this country varies according to the power
of the accused. That's why Hillary isn't and never will be in prison.
While generally sympathetic to LootersParadise's argument, I would point out that when Bill
Clinton was Commander-in-Chief, young military drill sergeants were being court martialed and
sentenced to lengthy prison terms for consensual sex with female trainees. The legal premise was
that the disparity in their rank and authority made any sexual relations "tantamount to rape".
Clinton's behavior with a young intern was worse than bad judgement, it was predatory, and no
military commander or drill sergeant would have been excused from such conduct with the argument
it was merely a "personal affair".
You keep your private business private by using separate equipment. 2 smartphones. 2 laptops.
Tons of people in DC do this, starting with Congressional staffers and assistants to people in
Federal agencies. This isn't rocket science. She just wasn't willing to bother.
Isn't it also possible, though, that since her State business really was private business,
in that she and Bill were working together to sell influence at State to enrich the "Foundation,"
this wasn't merely entitled laziness? Maybe they made the decision that the best way to limit
the paper trail was to just send all State Department correspondence through the server and thus
directly to Bill, making it harder to track and prove when they were explicitly collaborating.
I can totally see them thinking this was quite clever.
Entitled also works, of course. I do think a big reason for the Blackberry is that she refused
to allow the guy who "ought to be carrying her bags" to have a goody she didn't have.
The case can be made that the known hacking was of someone she had a correspondence with (troubling
as that was) not of her server. While I don't believe her server was secure, and I'm pretty damn
sure the IG and the FBI don't think it either, the public can still be spun on this. That is not
the problem.
No, what has become crystal clear is that she didn't have permission to set up her email this
way, that the NSA and State did not sign off on it, that she was told that and because she didn't
want any public oversight of her actions she blew off federal regulations regarding FOIA and the
collection of records for the State Department both in setting up the server itself AND in not
supplying any documents not in government possession upon leaving office (not two years later).
Because she did handle classified material on that email server, she did put herself in jeopardy
legally – regardless of her intent and whether the material was hacked or not. And people who
do have to follow Security guidelines or face dismissal, fines or worse are pissed as hell about
it and are not going to let it go. So it can't just be played off as a right wing conspiracy –
no matter how much they try. These guys aren't Judicial Watch, and their credentials are better
than Podesta's.
On the public level, except for the Clinton sycophants and tribal Dems who desperately want
to believe this really is a nothing burger, what this means is that Clinton had no intention of
allowing public oversight into her actions if she can avoid it by any means whatsoever, regulations
and the law be damned. And that she does not consider herself a public employee even if she is
one and being a public employee is where her power lies. Now those of us who distrust her and
her husband and child just outright assume that this is because her real business is selling access
to government and its monies or services to those with the funds to afford the Clintons. But most
people are reacting to the sheer arrogance of the "law doesn't apply to me" attitude and the lies
about it so far. But the longer this stays around the more it will become 'what DID she have to
hide'.
So this tells me something different. It isn't really about how big a threat Clinton is to
the 'Obama legacy' and how terrified they are she is blowing this. Or rather has blown this since
it stems from actions from seven years ago, although later choices have compounded it. No, this
is about how much bigger a threat Sanders is to that legacy and how close her blowing this gets
HIM to the nomination. Otherwise why is this about her getting the nomination. Her getting the
nomination and then Obama getting out on the road and saving her butt only works if the threats
from the investigation disappear BEFORE she gets the nomination officially. It really blows up
while he is campaigning for her and his legacy is also blown.
Of course, this presupposes that he WILL get out there and campaign for her beyond a few cursory
appearances. If the President is suddenly too busy to campaign, I will admit to being wrong and
it is all about Clinton's threat to him, even if I think a better strategic choice would be to
find a way to torpedo her outright if that is the concern.
this may be one of the initial signs of the torpedo. "captain, it looks like something is moving
toward us underwater". he wasn't required to broadcast his concerns like this. you make some excellent
points. meanwhile, i'm successfully controlling my impulse to attempt to do a cartwheel. so far.
Pat - excellent analysis, thank you.
And Yves, great post. As you point out, the use of Bernstein as White House messenger - if true
- makes that a pretty explosive little interview.
I note the lawyer twisting himself into knots trying to say that Hillary didn't "lie" about
the server.
– And that she does not consider herself a public employee even if she is one and being a public
employee is where her power lies.
That may be the right twist that puts the optics in focus. Arrogance and petulance are tolerated
in politics ('he's got a Blackberry, I want one!') But the Clintons are cunning enough to not
risk the appearance without reason. They need to be smarter than their customers, and just one
bad email from a dunderhead could prove a quid pro quo link from the Clinton Foundation to the
State Department.
Obama knows better than anyone her tendency to collapse. His campaign was 'Change,' and that
she does not do.
"Getting her to the nomination" allows the D establishment, after she is forced to step down,
to replace her with Biden/Warren or some other "anyone but Sanders" ticket with less trouble (party
disunity, bad optics, turnout suppression) than if she implodes before the convention and the
HRC delegates + superdelegates outright steal the nomination from Sanders.
IMO, it's utterly impossible in this climate for anyone other than Sanders (or whoever Sanders
signs off on, like Warren) to become nominee if HRC implodes.
I agree. The optics would be off the charts terrible for the party. They are in a rock and
a hard place. I think their best non-Sanders bet (if they continue their double downs and selfish
folly) is to stay with Clinton. If she implodes, so be it, have her impeached (if she wins) and
be done with it. Pass as much of the responsibility off on her and what she did wrong. "The party
did not know! We are victims!"
actually, the back-door candidate could be Warren. She endorsed neither, has clearly anti-WS
policies, but is not as "radical" as Sanders. She would likely be acceptable to a number of Sanders
people (incomparably much more so than HC), she's woman (so still a first woman president message)
etc.
She's better debater than Sanders I believe (and incomparably better than HC), and could (assuming
there are no bombs in her backyard) deal with Trump pretty well.
So, if the plan in Dem circles is to get past primaries and then shoot HC and fend off Sanders,
I'd say Warren is about their only reasonable choice.
Warren is a threat to the courtesan class as much as Sanders. Saturday design and Warren threaten
every Democrat who has ever said "the dopes would vote for for If they just understood how smart
we were and had better messaging," just by existing.
Warren is a very specific threat to WS. She's a less of a generic threat than Sanders is –
say look at her education proposals. If it looks to Dems like a choice between HC enabling Trump,
Sanders changing the party entirely, or Warren as a compromise, they only reasonably safe bet
is Warren. HC getting nomination and then losing to Trump kills the Dem party (as we know it)
as well as Sanders would if he won. The difference is that one (Sanders) is a certainty, while
the other (HC losing to Trump) is still just a probability. But one raising every day so far.
Coming up with somoene like Warren, even HC can look statesmanlike in pulling it off (say blaming
it on bad health, but giving a chance to another woman), in exchange for a deal that Warren focuses
on WS. Chances of Warren winning against Trump are very high, possibly higher that Sanders.
But the question of the day is – are they smart enough to know this? All the chatter I hear
from the beltway is that they don't. That once the nomination is "decided", Sanders will lose
his clout and things go back to normal.
Whole thing hinges on Sanders' concern for his reputation among the elite, and how much he
buys the "Trump-means-the-end-of-civilization" garbage. His only leverage is his base, and frankly
if he tries to make nice with the Dem establishment after she is nominated, he loses a lot of
his cred with that base.
He's going to get very little from them – at most, Warren as VP, which isn't much. No way she
gets to be Treasury Secretary, for instance. And why would they give Sanders anything? At bottom,
the DNC types believe the left will have nowhere to go come November. Thus Sanders has one job:
GIVE HIS BASE SOMEWHERE TO GO. Doesn't matter if he only wins 8%, either as a Green or (far less
likely) an independent. He's got the invitation from Jill Stein sitting out there. Earn matching
funds, raise tens of millions a year, and run candidates across the country in two years. In four
years, mount strong outsider candidates for major offices including president.
But I don't think Sanders has it in him. Too "constructive," as Chuck Schumer called him.
Sanders will lose his clout and things go back to normal.
He won't lose his list, and he now has more followers than any politician in America. He can
run his project sitting in the Senate, using that list and his follower base to influence policy.
The Internet will save Bernie just like it was envisioned by DARPA in the dawn of the Nixonan
Age, built to survive thermo-nuclear annihilation like the ClinTrumpocalypse.
I don't think she'll win (the presidency) even if she DOESN'T implode. She has no message.
She's banking on identity politics. That won't work in a change election.
It's just a question of degree. If she does get indicted, the Dems lose BIG under every possible
scenario except Sanders. If she doesn't, she still probably loses, but at least it won't be a
wipeout downballot.
Downballot the Democrats have already been wiped out, for 22 years running.
Republicans hold 31 governorships to the Democrats' 18. Republicans hold 56% of all statehouse
seats (Democrats 43%), and they control the lower house of 33 state legislatures (compared to
16 for the Democrats). It's difficult to even view the Democrats as a party, but if they are,
they certainly have no depth of talent.
Add a highly disliked business-as-usual politician to the top of the ticket in a "change" election?
Democrats won't have a prayer in the fall.
As one who believes Clinton ought to withdraw before inflicting or sustaining any more damage
in the certain knowledge that her candidacy has been hopelessly compromised, I would argue that
Sanders is the one candidate now able to pull other contests along with is own. Sanders could
swing it from a Republican Congress literally impaled by a lethal lack of talent to a Dem Congress
with new faces and new marching orders for long-entrenched types. He really could go all the way
in my opinion.
The voice of reason, which is why the choice you suggest will be the very last one ever taken
– we won't see it. This isn't merry 'ol England, ok UK, where they still goof by letting votes
get counted sometimes (Jeremy Corbyn).
The Democratic Party's working priority list apparently putting control over the Party above
winning elections, I imagine they are very interested in doing the "impossible", if the benefits
to the collaborative nexus of interest (i.e. the Party) of blocking Sanders - neoliberal "purity
pledges" with other countries, State selling more Americans' labor abroad like cheap cord wood,
inducing despair among the left (a favorite of the Israeli wing of the Party, who sees leftists
like unto Hamas) - to the Party outweigh the loss of one election or even the ballot line. With
a post-Citizens United machine and its "non-coordinated" universe of nomenklatura, ready to pick
right back up where it left off with a New (Improved) Democrat Party (Same Great Taste!) or somesuch,
constituted specifically to exclude popular participation, it's relatively cheap.
And obviously the reason for the all out push by the media and the Clinton campaign to have
Sanders throw in the towel before the convention which, of course, reached fever pitch the same
week the IG's report came out.
This string of comments looks on target. I think this is the unstated reason why the primaries
are STILL important.
If Bernie were to get swept on 6/7, he might fold. Every time he looks like he's losing steam,
he gets a string of rallies with 10s of thousands of people and realizes that he CANNOT stop.
There's too many people counting on him to save us from a Clinton/Trump nightmare.
If Bernie sweeps her on 6/7, the writing is on the wall at that point and she'll look like
she's toast. FBI will get the green light and Dem elite will have to bite their tongues and deal
with him.
My guess is that he wins 4/6 primaries on 6/7 and NM and NJ are losses, but somewhat closer
than anticipated. Clinton will continue to act like it's over and the FBI will continue to dither
and the convention floor ends up being a fight (prob won by Clinton).
A key question is, "When do the rank and file FBI agents lose patience and start leaking bad
details to the media?"
Or do FBI agents start resigning in protest at the dithering of their superiors.
Obama/Clinton may have the top brass at FBI and DOJ on board, but if the rank and file decide
to mutiny, then they can't save this sinking ship that is the SS Clinton!
You have to have tremendous admiration for Sanders to stick it out with what is obviously a
physically and mentally grueling ordeal at the age of 74. I'm 65.
Of course both Trump and Hillary aren't much behind him in age, but Sanders is doing it imho
out of principle and ideals, as well as respect for the public that has backed him. He must think
back to himself as a young man in the 60s, and realize that this is a chance he could only have
dreamt of 50 yrs. ago, and just can't turn his back on that.
"Getting her to the nomination" allows the D establishment, after she is forced to step
down, to replace her with Biden/Warren or some other "anyone but Sanders" ticket with less
trouble (party disunity, bad optics, turnout suppression) than if she implodes before the convention
and the HRC delegates + superdelegates outright steal the nomination from Sanders.
If they do this, the Dems will lose in November. And badly. They won't get more than a handful
of Sanders voters after this kind of a backstab, and the party will be (rightfully) perceived
as a bunch of clueless clowns who thought a potential criminal would make a suitable nominee.
Independents will strongly swing to Trump.
The question is, do the Democrats care? I can easily see the Dem establishment taking one for
the bipartisan consensus beltway team in order to keep Sanders out of the White House. They never
did much to support Gore and Kerry in the wake of their questionable defeats - and both of them
were much more harmless to the establishment than Sanders.
What would the e-mail address of a private server look like? Would it be apparent to anybody
who encountered it to be something – say – non standard? But keep your mouth shut.
Well, her official email address as SecState would have ended in @state.gov. The address she
actually used was @clintonemail.com. It was obvious to everyone what she was doing. If you work
in the State Dept, do you question your boss over something like that? Maybe not, you might assume
it was cleared somehow. It looks like IT and Security people were appalled.
The IG report found no evidence she had permission from anyone to use her own email server
nor any record of her even asking for permission. Which contradicts statements she made elsewhere.
Has Clinton ever actually said that the State Department allowed her to have a private
server at home and that everyone knew about it? What I've heard her say, and what I took
away from the little bit of the Mills deposition that I've read so far, is that the State Department
knew she had her own email account ; that use of a personal email account was allowed
, and that others before her also did it, most notably Colin Powell.
Anyone can buy a domain using their last name plus "email.com," or whatever variation thereof
is available. However, most people (presumably) use a hosting service. It seems obvious to me
that there's a huge difference between having a personal email account and storing said email
on a server in your basement, but Clinton appears to have succeeded in conflating the two in the
public's mind. Her supporters certainly seem satisfied, particularly since she has apologized
and openly admitted to a lapse in judgment. I'm not a techie, so maybe I'm meowing up the wrong
telephone pole. Tech people here, what's your take?
If I'm right about the distinction and what they've actually said, Clinton and Mills could
well be telling the truth that many people at DOS knew she was using private email, and that it
was allowed, even for official government business. It's unlikely that her clintonemail.com address
raised many eyebrows, even among those who noticed – and many might not have, because once her
address was in their contact list, the extension probably wasn't displayed. The big exception
was at the very beginning, when her clintonemail address was getting stuck in DOS spam filters
and had to be put on a safe sender list, or something to that effect.
Of those who noticed she wasn't using a .gov address, how many would have thought about the
server she was using, and how many of those would have imagined that her office hadn't gone through
proper security procedures? It's quite plausible that the only people knowledgeable enough to
be concerned were the IT security people, and when a couple of them eventually did raise questions,
they were told to keep quiet about it.
At some point, some of the substance of what was hidden will be revealed – it is terribly hard
to believe that it will be that she donated a kidney to a Syrian refugee….(Oh look, she looks
sickly because she is SOOOOO Noble!!!)
The problem is that the "Clinton sycophants and tribal Dems" are a large part of the Democrat
base and an even larger part of the Democrat establishment.
I don't see how they get talked off the ledge (absent Clinton "discovering" new medical problems
(or even Bill, maybe)).
Not mentioned in this item, but relevant to Obama's legacy, is that he left the State Dept
IG post unfilled by a permanent appointment throughout HRC's tenure as Secy State. The acting
IG was a career State Dept official, and did not rock HRC's boat. Obama is implicated in HRC's
misdeeds in the sense that he left the barn door open for her. There's a sense in which the HRC
email scandal may become part of Obama's legacy, whatever he does now. As Yves sometimes puts
it, this has been an unnecessary "own goal".
No. The IG's of major agencies are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Here is an interesting article which hints that using acting-IG's makes them less independent
and is being done intentionally by the Obama Administration. They have the longest vacancies of
any recent President.
thanks for that, here's a tidbit, I notice the ex-im bank and international development are
(not likely there's any double dealing going on there, no, nothing to see here as long as you
don't look) unmanned, among others
"Currently, said Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department IG who chairs the Council of the
Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, IG slots are vacant at seven major agencies: Interior,
the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Veterans
Affairs Department, the General Services Administration, the Export-Import Bank and the CIA All
but the CIA's have been empty a year or more, he said, and the Obama administration has submitted
nominations for only three."
and also this
"{"When IG positions remain unfilled, their offices are run by acting IGs who, no matter how qualified
or well-intentioned, are not granted the same protections afforded to Senate-confirmed IGs," said
Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis. "They are not truly independent, as they can be removed by the agency
at any time; they are only temporary and do not drive office policy; and they are at greater risk
of compromising their work to appease the agency or the president."}"
I browsed through the Cheryl Mills deposition yesterday (which was mainly the lawyers arguing
about the scope of the discussion it seemed) and some of the coverage today. It seems that Mills
claimed that HRC's use of the private email was not kept secret and lots of Admin officials knew
about it. (Note that people had to make a special request to be able to use her email.) But Obama
claimed he only learned of it "like the rest of you, in the news reports". So Obama and Hillary
never emailed each other while she was SoS?
I don't find it surprising that they did not communicate directly. Plausible deniability. What
we have is a career civil servant intent on influence peddling and a figurehead interested only
in legacy burnishing. They are a perfect fit … as long as they stay out of each others way.
To your last comment: I suspect not. They never were chummy esp. after all the heat of the
campaign: "You're likeable enough, Hillary". Obama has plenty of staff to wrangle correspondence
for that, and his aides being middle-persons (and likely being of a generation that put a lot
more trust in technology at the time) likely didn't think that hard about it…
It was reported last January that there were eighteen emails between Clinton and Obama that
State was not going to release for security reasons. So yes, they did email each other. It would
be interesting to know what security instructions Obama received regarding using his email. Did
anyone ever caution him to check the sender's email address as a caution against phishing? Her
email address was clintonemail dot com. Even a technical neophyte has to know that means either
she or some other entity was hosting the site; and, if a separate entity, did that entity have
security clearance for handling those emails? Obama knew darn well that she was using an unsecure
system. He is equally guilty of enabling her risk-taking.
Maybe the FBI can investigate just how many people have mishandled classified information.
10,000 government workers?
100,000?
If one can be in trouble for taking a selfie before a classified equipment, that one wasn't
aware so (as fajensen wrote above), can one be in trouble for opening a letter, a disk or a laptop
(mistakenly delivered or left behind) containing classified information?
Within the perimeter of a secure environment, you bet you can!
Any paper, CD, computer, phone, …. left alone in the open is already a violation. At the place
I consulted at, there are prominent red+white background with the 3-digit number to call for security
in *all* cases. Everything has to be locked away, even if one is going for coffee or toilet, one
must leave all electronics at the gate. "No mistakes are possible, only conspiracies" the thinking
goes.
If one picks any abandoned device / media up, well, it's kind of the same situation as when
you find a gun on a park bench: Pick it up "for safety", but now your finger-prints are all over
it. And now the police shows up because someone reported the gun …
The very minimum price is a really tedious debriefing by security and punitive training from
HR in the handling of classified material. Maybe some Gender Diversity or Cultural Awareness on
top because you cursed at the debriefing.
Maximum … about 30 years.
Outside the classified zone, it's easier.
If you find an unsecured laptop or briefcase that – per long-standing British security tradition
– was left on the London Tube, you are probably not in trouble, you can even hand it over to The
Daily Mail or whatever for a "reward" since the HMG doesn't pay any. Don't sell it on eBay though.
China and Russia may buy and then … it's espionage.
"because her real business is selling access to government and its monies or services to those
with the funds to afford the Clintons. But most people are reacting to the sheer arrogance of
the "law doesn't apply to me" attitude and the lies about it so far. But the longer this stays
around the more it will become 'what DID she have to hide'."
Good point. Proceedeing to conduct the public's business in private is the smoke. Many suspect
the donations to the Clinton foundation by various entities with business beefier the state dept,
could be the fire…
They (DOJ) don't have to charge/indict her with anything to Hindenburg her campaign. RICO the
Foundation and it's over.
I'll bet that's why the FBI is taking so long- the email investigation has spread to the Foundation.
The media isn't going there and the FBI had already leaked that they are looking into it.
The "real business" of the Corporatist Dems is –ta dah!– creating more wealth for the Big Whatevers
and making sure they donate enough of their wealth to get the right Corporatist Dems elected.
And, of course, making sure that those who serve the Big Corporations and Big Whatevers well are
granted true wealth once out of office.
And with more wealth comes even more power
it is stunning how very wealthy (as far as we know) the Clintons have become in such a short
time. But it somewhat stunning how very wealthy Corporatist Dems in general become….
The public doesn't do nuance; it requires in-your-face visuals: "little girl + the daisy, Willie
Horton, blue dress."
I wonder what the reaction would be to a montage, with the caption, "I would never
let campaign contributions influence my decisions."
First, Hillary collecting $675,000+ for a couple of Goldman speeches…….."They offered it"………cackle.
Then, Bill, with a photo of the "Lolita Express" flying overhead (poetic license:)
Repeatedly requesting permission from State to travel to Africa to meet with Joseph Kabila,
the murderous Dictator of the poorest country on earth, the Republic of Congo. The butcher had
offered Clinton $650,000 to give a short talk, and have his picture taken with the Ex-President.
The request was so outrageous it was, of course, summarily turned down. Not to be deterred so
easily, the Big Dog persisted, telling an aide to try again, this time making sure the decision
maker at State knew it was B.C. personally making the request. Turned down again, Willie shifted
gears, "what if the fee was paid to the Foundation (or, GCI, not sure,) and not directly to me?"
We should be thankful intermediaries had the good sense to , diplomatically, tell Bill to,
basically, get-the-F- outta here with this request. But, naturally, it's the optic of this Ex-President
even requesting such an inappropriate meeting that, so perfectly, illustrates how far down the
sleaze ladder the Clintons have descended.
Oh, you can toss in that, "we came, we saw, he died"……….. extended cackle video for good measure.
Considering that Obama sees Clinton as part of his legacy, I think there will be some limit
to how far he (his people) will go to protect her. A thoroughly tainted Hillary doesn't serve
his interest. I read the Bernstein statements as first step away from HRC, and not a tiny one
either. "… no longer 100% sure of …" implies "we don't guarantee it".
And the Obama and Clinton teams never warmed to each other, even during her tenure at SoS.
(Team) Obama is certainly upset about the prospect of a Clinton failure, but they're not shedding
any tears.
What I don't really get is the motivation for allowing stories like this to leak out, if its
not to undermine Clinton?
The way I see it, if Obama was truly, deeply invested in Clinton winning (and I'd be surprised
at that, given that we know he doesn't really like her), he would be working hard behind the scenes
to shore her up. Get her over the finishing line of the convention, and then deal with things
after that as they arise. This sort of leak can only weaken her significantly and maybe even encourage
a few superdelegates to start thinking Sanders is a safer option.
The only motivation I can think is to lay the groundwork for a coup against her (and, by definition,
Sanders). I'm no expert on internal Dem rules and what is possible legally, but it always seemed
to me that the logical and route for Obama to preserve his legacy and ensure a Dem win is to make
private calls to senior Dems and say 'trust me, I've seen the legal documents, Clinton is finished,
I know she can't get out of this', and then parlay a face saving climbdown (glass of whiskey,
gun, private room, medical cert) for Clinton in order to put forward a 'safe' ticket at the convention
(Kerry/Biden?). Is it possible for her to transfer her elected delegates to AN Other?
well, that would likely tear the party apart. i think they would rather trump win than sanders,
but imposing biden/kerry or some such is a risky strategy in the present environment. i think
the natural impulse of these people is to be risk averse, and in their bubble they might not be
able to gauge the risk.
I don't think it would tear the party apart, it would just upset the Dem consultants and vendors.
Sanders reliance on small donations completely upsets their economic model, which is based on
a revenue stream from big donors. Big donors aren't interested in supporting populist goals, ergo
populist goals are not money-makers.
On the other hand, a Sanders general candidacy would expose all the Hillary supporters currently
making the "party loyalty" and "not another Nader" arguments to be completely specious if they
didn't pitch in. Some might have the stomach for that, but most are herd followers to begin with.
And the threat of Trump is completely real, regardless (unless the Reps manage to pull a fast
one at their convention… which would completely sever that last leg Clinton is standing on).
Exactly this. Like vampires, the DNC must find a way to cannibalize the energy of Sanders'
supporters in order to re-invogorate a moribund Party, while not losing influence over it.
But the two fundraising models cannot live comfortably in one party for long, certainly not
if the corp/elite funding continues to determine the Party's direction.
Sanders is risking a historic misstep in staying within the Party too long. He's right to stay
so long as Clinton is capable of imploding, but the moment he's pressured to go full sheepdog
in support of Clinton, he has to step away and use the funding structure to build a truly left/populist
party.
I doubt he will. He wants her to win instead of Trump, and the DNC types will outmaneuver him
because of this. I fear all of the concessions he wins in exchange for his cherished email list
will be for nothing once the real game begins.
Is it really a risk of tearing the party apart? If managed right, it could be sold as a 'unifying'
move to heal the wounds of the nomination process, etc., etc. Especially if a genuine left winger
was added as vice prez. The leadership is risk averse, but they can also be ruthless, and they
may see the risk of a catastrophic Clinton meltdown as a greater risk.
DNC is desperately hoping for a knockout blow on 6/7. Wins in states like CA for Sanders would
only rile up his supporters even more.
If they dare to push a Biden/Kerry ticket, it's going to been seen as a "coup". Tensions are
already visibly raised after the NV debacle. DNC tried playing hardball and smearing him and his
supporters and he didn't fold. It seems like the Dem elite might be backing off on these tactics.
A Biden/Kerry ticket would really escalate things and probably make Sanders bolt to the Green
Party for the general election. Under those circumstances, he'd bring a TON of voters with him.
He'd even bring Clinton sympathizers that don't like the DNC's bait-and-switch tactics.
They need Sanders to fade away and fall in line. Every state he wins, every rally with 10s
of thousands showing up make it harder and harder to make that happen.
Given that the mood of the electorate both left and rightwing is "anti-establishment", I don't
see why on earth the Dems would choose Biden/Kerry… how much more establishment could one get?
At least offer Warren (and get the "first female president" too boot) and throw Sanders a bone
- he's too old for VP but could have a cabinet post. Or Senate Majority Leader? (That is probably
too critical a post for the Schumer/Feinstein axis though.)
There is no genuine left winger to put on as VP. Or rather, they would NEVER put a real left
winger in, given Clinton's possible impeachment or death.
Now that Elizabeth Warren is being a good girl and playing footsie with Schumer, I can see
them thinking putting her in as VP would work well enough. I don't think so (in my neck of the
progressive woods, there seems to be a general understanding that she sold out), but more importantly,
I can't imagine Hillary stepping away only to see Liz moved in.
Their smartest real play would be to let Bernie have the nom and bide their time, hoping they
can work in the background with Republicans to taint and undermine him. But I suspect that they're
exactly smart enough to know that probably wouldn't work.
Exactly right! In their bubble, in their world where they manufacture their own reality, can
they gauge risk? I highly doubt it. The establishment needs an establishment candidate. That's
why Sanders will never get the nomination. Given the freak out on the republican side just over
speculating stealing the nomination from Trump, I think it comical anyone could believe the democrats
could airlift Biden in and get away with it. Such an act would simply be establishment desperation
– the only Plan B they could come up with.
Given the vote rigging Sanders supporters believe has been going on, I doubt any will vote
for Clinton. How many would vote Trump and how many would sit out is open for speculation. However
give the nomination to Biden and i think you're guaranteeing a landslide of Sanders supporters
pinching their noses and voting Trump. They'd be just angry enough.
Clinton or Biden? it doesn't matter as Trump wins in a rout. Sanders would be a close call
but he'll never get the nomination. The establishment must have skin in the game until they finally
get what they deserve in November.
I'll also add that i'm not holding my breath that Trump is the instant panacea to save America.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see him cutting deals like crazy with the establishment behind
the scenes or after elected. He won't need the unwashed masses after November. Doesn't mean he
does that and even if he cuts some deals he'll still do more good than any establishment candidate.
More and more American voters see him as the only non-establishment option. It's never really
been about Trump. It's about American voters lashing out at the elites. Trump was simply clever
enough to present himself as the great non-professional politician for people to turn to.
People keep saying this about Sanders voters but I know five (three in my family) who will
without fail vote for Clinton over Trump because they hate Trump, see him as a bigot and a fool,
and expect Clinton to be Obama's third term, which they can live with.
I don't agree with them, but this endlessly repeated meme that Sanders voters will NEVER vote
for Clinton is, I think, wishful thinking.
Guilty as charged! Wishful thinking indeed. Guess I can't condemn those for thinking an Obama
like 3rd term would be a better result. I suppose any kind of thinking falls flat when confronted
with the people who live in a highly materialistic and superficial society. Trump optics are very
unPresidential and that counts for a great deal in a society(not just the US) that has been conditioned
to rever the president of the USA.
Won't even touch on the Left and the Culture War because I've made that point previously.
my rich friends (lifetime republicans included) will vote for hillary, my poor friends won't.
The PTB have created more poor people tha they have wealthy so the numbers won't work for hillary
unless a lot of republicans vote for her, which is not a stretch because she is a republican.
But since we talk about nader costing gore (really it was dinos for bush) by taking 500 odd votes
the sanders deserters (including me, i will not vote for hillary under any circumstances, and
not because I think trump is good in any way, hillary is worse IMO) will exact their revenge even
as their more comfortable peers who have and continue to benefit from the rigged game go for hillary.
We really have no idea how this will pan out. So yes, some sanders supporters will be badgered
into clinton, but I think that's a small percentage, people inclined to support hillary already
support her, most of sanders voters are the castaways. Sorry, can't go along with the endless
drone strikes of the 5th term of GWB. Hillary is not the peace candidate.
Clinton voters – those not in the establishment, that is – seem to be the silent type.
You don't see them here or hear them on radio often (just yesterday, on the local public radio,
almost all the callers were for Sanders – it made me wonder if Hillary would lose 0 to 100 in
the upcoming California primary).
Clinton voters are the small amount type. She has only "won," even in the states she did did "win," by massively suppressing the vote.
She hasn't even held onto her own voters from 2008, even in conservative states. Her "big wins"
in the South were with much smaller numbers of votes cast. There are people who genuinely want to vote for her. They were not enough to win the Democratic
primary without massive suppression AND theft.
Some will, some won't. How many is to be decided. If Sanders gives his list to the Democrats, I will certainly vote for Trump. I would rather
have Götterdämmerung immediately, then have it play out.
The problem for Hillary is there is no indication the email scandal narrative will ever
improve to the point of improving her untrustworthy numbers. The best she can hope for is the
FBI stating it will not recommend an indictment which will merely confirm the public's correct
perception that the power elite are treated better than the rank and file. Hillary cannot unring
the Inspector General's conclusion she circumvented FOIA and federal record keeping laws. She
cannot undue the fact she maintained thousands of classified records, along with 22 top secret
documents on the private server. She cannot change the fact she hid her use of the private server
from the public and only disclosed it when caught by the Senate Committee investigating Benghazi.
Everyone who pays attention to the facts is disgusted by her misconduct in this matter.
Loyal Hillary supporters are the only ones willing to buy into the unbelievable rationales
floated the past year. For the rest of us, everything we learn merely confirms what we previously
thought. That Hillary cannot be trusted, wants to avoid public scrutiny and believes she is above
the law. Everything we learn about the email scandal is much worse than initially portrayed by
Hillary.
As the article states–this is all on Hillary who for over 1,200 days intentionally used a private
email basement server despite being told not to do so. She had numerous opportunities to right
her wrongs, but insisted on doing what she wanted to do because that is always how the Clintons
operate. There is no way Hillary, Bill and her team of misfits should be allowed within a hundred
miles of the oval office. Sadly, Donald will win if Hillary remains the Democrats candidate of
choice.
I believe we can plainly chart the "decay path" (lovely phrase BTW), of Hillary Clinton's failed
attempts to secure the highest office of the land just by looking at pictures of Monica Lewinsky
from 1998 until today.
The true decay path would have been the trajectory Bill Clinton's baggage would have taken,
from the White House to the South Lawn, had Hillary Clinton thrown the bum out in 1998.
I have always been confused by which woman Bill Clinton was lying straight faced about when
the then President of the United States declared before the whole world: "I did not have sex with
that woman."
At the time of the scandal, Hillary Clinton was First Lady of the United States of America,
the most powerful women in the free world. Imagine what her standing-up for women everywhere would
have had, let alone upon the current states of "family values" (so-called)? Imagine the affect
her standing up for herself would have had upon the women of the world?
Instead she used her power to play the "little woman," when she could have assured herself
two (2) terms as President of the United States, even guaranteed herself the title of being the
first Empress of the United States of America if she had wanted.
As it stands, Bill Clinton's legacy is not how he ruined one woman, but two (2).
Who Mr Clinton shags is his business and his wife's*. Hillary came out smelling like roses.
She got sympathy as devoted wife whose hubby screwed around and, in my view, damn near universal
understanding for her decision to honour her marriage by staying with her hubby.
I think her problem is that, in routing official traffic through a private mail server,
she's tried to avoid records of her work (as a public official!) ever becoming available to the
public. It looks, at the very least, like she's trying to hide something and it's a demonstration
of breathtaking contempt for the very people whose votes she's now asking for.
That the Democrat brains trust knew all this and still decided to try and coronate her
leads me to suspect that they've become completely divorced from reality. Any halfway credible
candidate would trample over whoever the R's pick.
* How classy, not to mention politically astute, would it have been if the R's could have kept
their frothing to themselves and made a single public statement along those lines and got on with
the business of serving their constituents.
If he shagged under the legal age limit girls, traveled on a jet which was used in slave
trade of underage girls, etc; then it isn't just his business, it's a criminal matter. If Mrs.
Clinton enabled, and/or aided and abetted, then she could be facing criminal charges.
Bill is a sexual predator. His affair with Jennifer Flower was consensual. But starting
from when he was Governor, there is a long list of credible allegations of him engaging in sexual
harassment (extremely aggressive come-ons with women he had just met, often women who were state
employees or Dem consultatnts), including a rape allegation by Juanita Brodderick. We've even
had a reader in comments say that when Bill Clinton visited a friend, he asked their college aged
daughter when he was alone with her if she wanted to ride in his car and give him a blow job.
DC contacts confirm the city is rife with stories like that.
> Hillary Clinton was First Lady of the United States of America, the most powerful women in
the free world
Most powerful woman in the world? Somebody's wife? Lord I hope not. Surely there was a female
head of state or a Supreme Court Justice or something with better claim.
Clinton's… poster children for Flexians… Disheveled Marsupial… at least the loon pond and wing
nutters are open about their insanity… something about the inelasticity of beliefs…
If there were an equal rule of law in this country, we would not even be discussing
this issue as Clinton would have already been indicted by now. The recent Wikileaks release shows
exactly how complicit Clinton is, was, and will always be, a truly evil human being.
As strange a thing as this is to say, I find myself wishing that more journalists had experience
in IT security. I do have such experience, and from what I can see most people really don't appreciate
just how totally, ludicrously irresponsible it is for that server to exist. Talk of it having
been "secured" by some lone IT contractor is ridiculous on its face. I wouldn't run a homebrew
email server, and I am basically not worth hacking – very much unlike the US Secretary of State.
Seriously, think about it. The Secretary of State had a private email server which seems
to have been widely known about within the State Department and other people in government who
had dealings with Hillary Clinton. There's really no question as to if that thing was hacked –
you can absolutely bet your ass that multiple foreign intelligence services have been
in and out of that thing.
That's what's really galling to me – even by Hillary's own stated standards, what she did
with her email is orders of magnitude worse than what Snowden did. But it's Hillary Clinton, so
it gets handwaved by the Democrats' long practice at assuming a Clinton scandal is overblown nonsense.
To be fair, a large number of Clinton scandals have been overblown nonsense…I think Democrats
have gotten so used to fighting off those attacks, that they just assume the same when something
real pops up.
As for the irresponsibility of maintaining that homebrew server, I've tried to explain on other
forums how it was actually worse than getting it through a commercial provider, or even what Powell
did. The responses were usually along the lines of "it wasn't hacked." Sigh.
Agreed. But that's the thing. These events aren't about the substantive IT issues. They're
just part of concentration of wealth and power; the authoritarians in both major parties are control
freaks who work together in bipartisan cooperation. Laws are for the little people. The ruling
class is above the law. The role of the media is to enforce this system, not challenge it.
That's why people like Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake, Jeffrey Sterling,
John Kiriakou, Joe Wilson, and so forth are persecuted by the government while people like Clinton
(and Petraeus, Novack, Libby, Bush, Cheney, Obama, Biden, etc.) are protected. It has nothing
whatsoever to do with the merits of events.
Just as one example, here's the 'ole Gray Lady serving as
dutiful stenographer
for Nancy Pelosi herself, the Democratic Speaker from San Francisco, supposedly one of the
most liberal parts of the entire country, explaining that the law doesn't apply to people in power.
Agreed. I've worked in IT and software development for years and agree that her provision
of that server doesn't meet the most basic requirements for security. Also, I work for a rather
large company with a sizable federal contract and, if you haven't contracted with the government,
you can only imagine the levels of security they impose upon their vendors. Two-factor authentication,
encryption at rest, kernel hardening and on and on. Not only do you HAVE to do these things if
you want to do business with the government, they bring in teams of their IT people to audit you.
And it is not perfunctory in any way. They take InfoSec very, very seriously.
Rule no 1 of security: a system is only as secure as its weakest link. Imagine how anyone who
abides by the strict security requirements necessary to work in or for government feels when learning
about Clinton's cavalier disregard for the law? Her arrogant refusal to play by the same rules
as the people she is supposed to lead? In fact, her behavior put the entire system and people's
lives at risk.
She fails the most basic test of genuine leadership. Yet another important example of why she
is unfit to be president.
Good article. The IG's report was the crack in the dam and I believe soon the whole sordid
mess that Clinton has created for herself will come flooding through. I think Bernstein's messaging
was to the Democratic party as a whole that its time to pursue other avenues. And there are other
rumblings as well. Yesterday in the
WSJ was this op-ed which made many of the same points that were made here, as well as discusses
the fallout if Clinton loses the California primary. I also think that the Dems are not only just
worried about the nomination now. The IG's report clears a path for hearings by the Republicans
against Clinton after the election.
What pisses me off to no end is the fact that the party and media are unwilling to pivot to
Sanders. He could win the general, perhaps more easily that HRC. But Sanders is also to blame
on this for being so completely inflexible that he can't make the right friends.
That is a positive for him generally though. These people don't want "friends" they want others
who are willing to play ball. Sanders says GTFO, enough is enough.
The truth was never going to sit well with these selfish fools and their sycophants.
I agree. Sanders has nothing to gain and a lot to lose by "making nice" with the Dem establishment.
Why make nice with them? They are the problem, not the solution. That's a mainstay of Sanders'
campaign.
Sanders is the ranking member on the budget committee and has been the chair of the veterans
affairs committee. Those are plum jobs which demonstrates the Democratic Party is not a political
party by any normal standard because you don't give the best jobs to people outside the party
unless you need to.
The Clinton fanaticism isn't about Sanders. They believe they need Clinton. An active DoJ
might be a threat. A few have backwards ideas about politics. Some simply did the believe Sanders
when he said Hillary was weak, but with a Gabbard in play, many Democrats can kiss their ambitions
good bye if Sanders wins.
I've said it elsewhere: Sanders is unacceptable to the DNC because a Sanders win would render
the DNC networks, influence and fundraising abilities irrelevant overnight. The DNC would no longer
be gatekeepers. You can win without them. Thus, Team D does not fear a Sanders defeat, and they can live with President Trump. In fact,
that would represent an unprecedented fundraising opportunity. But from the Team D perspective, a Sanders victory must be prevented at all costs.
How the hell could Sanders "make friends" with members of the Democratic Party elite? He is
blowing up their revolving-door-greasing funding model. Running as effectively as he has with
almost no lobbyist money? No major corporate donors to speak of? What can he offer them, except
unpleasant changes that negatively impact their careers?
Depends on whom one includes in the elite, and what one means by negatively. Are the super
delegates who aspire to be on the ticket in November running for their own amusement? If so, I
suppose they don't care whether they ride on Sanders coat tails or sail off the cliff on whomever
the elite deem the nominee should be. Would you rather be the Senate minority leader, or the Senate
majority leader. House minority leader, or speaker of the house? I have no idea where the power
lies here, but I admit that am curious about Pelosi's non stance, and Reid's pivot, with almost
unseemly hast, from saying Sanders needed to get in line, to that he would be more powerful when
he returned to the senate, to saying: "hands off." And sandwiched in between saying no way in
hell would he tolerate a senate vp coming from a state with a Republican governor. Assuming he
has any actual say in the matter, that would torpedo the preferred sop to the Sandernistas: Warren.
Reid is of course gone either way, but Schumer is next in line is he not? What do I know, but
it's entertaining to speculate.
When Carl Bernstein opens with, "The implications of all of this are that Hillary Clinton
did not want her emails subjected to the Freedom of Information Act or subpoenas from Congress.
And that's why she set up a home-brew server" he is only telling half the truth, and is framing
the conversation around her supposedly innocent desire for a little privacy. Pretty good lying,
Carl.
But this is definitely putting a lot of spin on the ball, because the other half of the
story is the reason WHY she wanted to avoid FOIA and Congressional scrutiny. The answer is: so
that between her and Bill she could sell her office to the highest bidders, which the FBI is quite
prepared to prove, or if denied that chance, to "leak like crazy" to the media. Good
Lord, the FBI is even considering treating the Clinton Foundation as a Racketeering Influenced
Criminal Organization. There's no chance this is going to just go away.
Given this likelihood of the full story going public in any case, given the completely independent
Judicial Watch investigation, and given that the Russian media actually printed Clinton emails
in their newspapers back in 2013 - and claim to have 20,000 of her emails in hand that they can
release at any time - there's no practical path for the White House or DNC to stonewall or to
clamp a lid on this affair, and roll Hillary across the finish line to the nomination on a hospital
gurney if that's what it takes.
The same problem exists with pardoning her prior to prosecution - it won't silence FBI leaks,
or the Russians, or Judicial Watch, or whomever else wishes to leak the full truth to the morning
papers. The public will be fed a steady discovery of exactly what Obama's unconditional pardon
actually covered. It will be a magical expanding pardon - starting out as a balloon but growing
within months to the size of the Hindenburg before burning to the ground along with Obama's legacy.
As to what the White House knows that they aren't leaking - that would be the devastating damage
Hillary's loss of state secrets has done, none of which can ever be shared with the public. If
covert CIA operations have been ruined, if agents have been exposed, arrested or killed, if someone's
name has gone up on that wall of heroes in the CIA lobby because of Hillary Clinton, the CIA will
not forgive, ever. Nor will they tolerate letting her gain the Oval Office, where she can hire,
fire and otherwise direct them. The NSA is known to be well aware of her public corruption of
the SoS office, and of the wholesale money-laundering of the Clinton Foundation, which Charles
Ortel is now meticulously publishing in the form of PDF files covering every separate arena of
corruption ongoing over there. They don't want her as their boss, either. Steps can be taken to
prevent that from happening, with no risk of exposure.
Hillary's got no way out of her legal troubles other than suddenly checking into a hospital
and being declared terminal. Everyone will hold off, at that point. Until she fails to pass away
by the weekend, at which point her legal nightmare resumes its course. So no, she's got no way
out of what's coming, and no actual path to the White House.
All of which leaves the Democratic Party with only two options:
a) get her nominated at the Convention even if it's by just one vote, but hand pick her VP
for her so that person can be the real candidate when she drops out well before November. Problem:
Hillary has spent several years scorching the earth for other Dem candidates. Nobody has any organization
or resume to suddenly step into her shoes and expect anyone to vote for them in November. If Kerry
is their only choice, please don't bother.
b) induce Hillary to drop out before the Convention, and let the Convention be brokered. Don't
elect Bernie Sanders on the first round, and after that you're home free - keep voting, round
after round, until delegates finally accept your Hillary replacement which isn't Bernie Sanders.
Oh, it will be a raucous, riotous event, but it's all above board, and by the rules. Caution:
this course of action carries a high risk of nominating Bernie Sanders.
Just speculation, but by keeping quiet the NSA/CIA/FBI could be "investing" in blackmail futures.
The ghost of J. Edgar may still be lurking somewhere in D.C.
The Clinton Foundation, which controls billions in an opaque labrynth structure and funded
by war profiteers, crass political operatives and those with corrupt cynical motives, functions
like the treasury for a supra national shadow regime.
When this story finally unravels, and it will, it will make WaterGate, IranGate look like a
kiddy party.
I am inclined to agree. Even the mere mention of RICO might mean the FBI is stalking bigger
game – the Clinton Foundation? The Democratic Party itself?
The Libya correspondence between Blumenthal, a Clinton Foundation employee who also representes
a security firm evidently poised to be contracted there and HC is an example.
Given all these wheeling and dealing interscections between SOS Hillary and the Clinton Foundation's
unwholesome donors
and the extraordinary lenghts to privatize correspondence (and not fully turn over Blumenthal's
hacked emails to her) there is no other way to reasonably explain the stunning depths.
Especially given HC's interventions have resulted in lawless no man's lands…… hugely profitable
for donor defense contractors or those poised to acquire resources, weaponry (Lybia).
Cheney et al. got away with the no-bid ultra-corrupt Haliburton contracts in Iraq, so there
is a precedent for this kind of naked thieving going unpunished.
The many examples of gross corrupt war profiteering facilitated by high office holders going
unpunished or rewarded must be emboldening.
But in my view, setting up a foundation with opaque accounting and trotting around the world
soliciting huge donations while SOS with a private server outside government channels and FOIA
is a new level of organized criminal archetecture.
Rewarded or unpunished war profiteering facilitated by high office holders must be emboldening.
But in my view, setting up a foundation with opaque accounting then soliciting huge donations
from donors specializing in political upheaval and military conflict while globe trotting as SOS
using a private server outside of government channels to circumvent FOIA is a new level of criminal
and is essentially a Clinton Foundation serving as treasury at the helm, with presumed HC POTUS
subversively enforcing a shadow supra national archetecture.
To Code Name D – One can watch a program on Netflix about Hayden and the CIA realizing it has
gone too far. What may you ask? Well well has the country done since JFK? Selling out to
the bankers affects intelligence too. It just takes awhile for our species to wake up.
And despite the self admitted overeach directed by corrupt politicians I do not find wasting
(literally as in the slang term of the word) funny. This is an issue I have with bombadier Kissinger.
Energy policies and struggles matter. But Clinton always would say "well that policy is ten years
away" regarding energy policy. So when the Russians play a hot card (but overplayed its hand)
because the West in its corruption didnt move faster, lets blame Russia.
These are the kinds of things that kill and cause increased casualties in intelligence. Think
nobody woud notice?
As always, increase competitors in energy, alternative and others. Then Russia can fuck off
as it tries to raise prices. But that requires the rule of law and not selling the country down
the river. Just getting down to some brass tacks here. I get real pissed beause not only can this
get my countrymen killed, along with me but the other reason is some of us have had to do the
job that government is paid do to. I wont expand.
Ah, I am starting to see the "RICO mention" starting to go mainstream on you-tube. I am starting
to think this was a preemptive leak to try and discredit the real charges should they come out
later. We have yet to see any evidence that would support this and it doesn't fit with the current
noise.
One has to wonder just how many red flags have to be waved in their faces for it to dawn on
them that, hey, maybe Hillary Clinton isn't – and never was – the right person to pass the baton
to.
Seems to me that if there was some kind of bargain struck in 2008 (you concede and enthusiastically
endorse me, and I'll reward you with a plum job from which you can launch a presidential campaign,
and I'll throw in the full support of the DNC and the superdelegates), there were multiple points
along the way where it was clear Clinton was putting all of that in jeopardy. She made some terrible
decisions, and instead of pulling back, she doubled down.
Are we to believe that no one from "the White House" ever took her aside or suggested that
while she may be living a life of entitlement, there was that little thing known as an election
that was going to depend on public perception of her actions and decisions, and she might want
to consider that, promises notwithstanding, she was playing a fool's game if she bought into her
own invincibility and inevitability?
But maybe "the White House" bought into it, too. How else to explain why, in spite of every
kind of assistance it's possible to get, some of it of questionable legality, the anointed candidate
has done nothing but drop in the polls. A little-known, 74-year old Democratic Socialist from
a teeny-tiny state enters the race polling within the margin of error, and a year and hundreds
of millions of small-dollar donations later, is in a position to deny Clinton a pledged-delegate
nomination.
How large does the writing on the wall have to be over there at "the White House?" How myopic
are these people, anyway? Did their eyes all of a sudden just pop open and they can only just
now see what has been obvious for some time?
I'd like to feel bad for them, but the phrase that comes to mind instead is "hoist on their
own petard."
This whole thing is such a massive exercise in selfish indulgence the only emotion these people
deserve is our anger, which we should put to use by denying them the offices and power they seek.
What I don't get here is, if the White House knows she's such a terrible candidate, why do
they want to put her in a real cat fight with Trump? Are they so sure (as Bernstein suggests)
that Obama will be able to carry her across the finish line in November?
And that bring up another point for all you "feminist" Clintonistas. Wasn't the whole point
of the "first woman in the White House" thing to show that women can do it alone? That they don't
need men carrying them around all the time to be successful? Well what's up with your candidate?
I have never (in my 65 years) ever seen anyone (woman or man) need more help from other people
(mostly men) to gain the success they seek. At every single turn in this campaign we have Ms.
Clinton needing someone else, someone MORE, falling on their sword for her. Because left on her
own, against a freaking socialist, for Christ's sakes, all she has been able to do is F@ck up.
A FIFTY POINT LEAD, gone. Wasted. Nothing to show. And this is what you want as feminism's representative
in the White House? Shame on you.
As others have pointed out, all that is required of Hillary at this point is to secure the
nomination. Nothing else really matters. Once Sanders is removed from the picture, her job is
done. A President Trump would be a minor setback from a partisan perspective and a Democratic
Party in opposition to a bogeyman like Trump would experience an amped up version of the unifying
effect it enjoyed in opposition to GWB. It really could serve to paper over the seismic ideological
rifts widening within the current party. Four years in opposition would be a very small price
to pay for averting what would be the existential threat to the party's core that a President
Sanders would represent.
I would think the prospect of a President Trump wouldn't bother the party's insiders much if
at all. The prospect of a President Sanders on the other hand would or could be a crushing and
final defeat for nearly everything the current Democratic Party stands for: a giant and hugely
lucrative influence peddling racket making everyone near its center into extremely wealthy individuals
with patronage jobs waiting for them and their families within the concerns of the people who
are bribing them. President Trump by comparison would be a godsend.
Most of the DLC establishment could find it easy enough to "live" with a Trump Presidency.
Just like Lil Marco Rubio, they'll easily bend their knees to kiss Trump's heiney and make deals
with him. What's it to them, after all?
Sanders? That's a horse of a different feather. Sanders isn't interested in them bending their
knees and kissing his heiney. And THAT's a huge problem for the 1%.
I agree with your assessment. Trump would play the game differently, but he could be counted
on to place the game.
Sanders shows that he knows and respects some of the rules of the game, but more of the rulebook
would be up for grabs and the outcomes perhaps less predictable for TPTB.
There are also wildcards–impeachments, assassinations, health issues, pardons, etc.
In that scenario Hillary wins the nomination and loses the election, Obama pardons her
to head off (in his telling) partisan persecution and looks noble (to the credulous) standing
up for her, clearing the way to elbow in on the Clinton network for the-haven't you heard?-Obama
Foundation. And the grift goes on.
Could be. We'll never know, because we're not at those tables. But could be.
1. Somewhat tangentially. I don't know how the 2007-2008 crisis looked to people on the "outside",
but to many of the guys in the trenches the world "blew up" on or about July 18, 2007, when the
two Bear-affiliated subprime funds hit a wall and the credit bubble literally stopped
the next day. Within a month, the SIVs got obliterated and it was downhill from
there.
Yes, it took a while to get to Lehman/AIG. There was the Bear thing, the commodities super-spike
in the summer of 2008, a few other notable items. But again, by the time Lehman came around the
view in the trenches was that the world had already been blowing up for over a year, and now "main
street" finally took notice. Really the one surprise was that the Fed let Lehman go (presumably
as a live experiment, or perhaps simply out of stupidity), and then the CDS markets went haywire
for awhile (hence AIG).
Not 20%-30% probability of "something bad happening". Rather, 100% probability of "something
bad" having already happened and now we're just watching the explosion in slo-mo.
2. Incidentally, this is pretty much what we're seeing with the Clinton campaign. You've already
seen the campaign "blow up", in a way, because Sanders didn't go away in February, or March, or
April, etc. Part of that was Sanders, part of that was general discontent – but part of that is
also Hillary not being able to put away an opponent that is so way out of the Democratic party
mainstream. Because the email thing, and the speeches thing, and the neo-liberalism thing,
whatever. Bernstein's "leaking" makes clear that as far back as February Obama's guys in the trenches
said – hey, we just saw the Bear funds blow up, and this thing is going to end badly one way or
the other. We don't know exactly how bad, but bad. Which is bad for us…
3. I actually think that this signalling is not about a specific thing. It's a more of a general
– you're not doing what you're supposed to do, and your messing up makes us look bad type of thing.
Today it's the emails, tomorrow it's whatever else – there are so many issues with the campaign
(and the candidate) that you could have Bernstein deliver a new speech weekly if not daily. The
overall message seems to be, "you're blowing up, do something, right now", and I would bet they've
been hitting that theme for months in private (the current leak to Bernstein being a sort of a
– you don't want to listen to us in private, here's something in public, now pay attention).
4. Honestly, I would be shocked – shocked! – if the FBI or the DoJ did anything to Hillary
Clinton on this email front. For one, let's dispense with any talk of "autonomy". Whom does the
FBI director report to? Have there been any instances in the past when the White House "influenced"
the direction of the FBI investigation? And what has this administration specifically demonstrated
time and again vis-a-vis leakers (from the standpoint of intimidation)? Or compartmentalizing
information to prevent such? I'm not saying they'll necessarily get away with it, but certainly
they can think that to themselves, at least through November.
The basic idea is that Obama and his people have put their chips on Clinton. For whatever reason
– political, personal, does not matter. They probably did so with a heavy heart (or some such),
but they did it. Now they're freaking out, justifiably, because they literally cannot, cannot
afford to have the Clinton campaign blow up right at this point (after November, sure, why not).
You think these people won't shut the FBI down if they feel they have to? Of course they
will. It will look dirty, of course, but it's – in their minds – probably better than the alternatives,
unless they want to go out with a real bang blowing up both Clinton and the DNC and ending up
as semi-pariahs among a good portion of the DNC donor base for the rest of their lives…which I
doubt.
Eh. The train wreck continues to unfold in slow motion, except that I think this time she actually
has a more than slim chance of making it to November and making it in November (after
which point, let the scandals lottery commence, to the endless delight of Fox News and the like).
Tend to agree. Clinton will likely win in November. Trump's potential voter base is less in
number than Clinton's. She has a built-in demographic that, unless she botches the debates totally,
should ensure Trump's defeat. BTW I despise the Clinton's and everything they stand for.
The 2008 Financial Crisis narrative I tend to follow is that Bear and Lehman had the most enemies
and so were the most convenient scapegoats/sacrifices to hand to an angry public. The reality
of these big crises is that the banking system fails absent absent government intervention and
so the saving of the others was a CHOICE.
Likewise, at some point the professional Democrats and the affiliated parts of the organism,
including its funders, might at some point view cutting the umbilical cord to the Clintons as
necessary for their own survival. I'd keep an eye out for that!
FWIW, on the outside, it seemed like things were very bad, so bad that it felt like
the political system was going out of its way to try to cover things up and tell people not to
worry their pretty little heads and other almost comically defensive approaches. And not just
in finance specifically, but all over our system, secrecy and ignoring reality seemed to permeate
our public leadership. A willful blindness at a systemic level – because after all, most highly
paid professionals depend upon the system; nobody wants to rock that officialdom boat much.
I have also been interested by some of the revisionist history that starts the GFC in 2008
with Lehman, rather than Bear Stearns in 2007, and more generally with the notion that the 2007-2009
crisis was a unique, isolated event rather than part of a multi-decade long process, that slow
motion train wreck, as if the kind of inequality that leads to systemic crashes magically appeared
out of nowhere in 2006.
To Washunate – I really appreciate the wise commentary, all of the time. The primary issue
is who controls the currency. A private bank like the Fed who is the ultimate lobbyist or the
the public, basically treasury. Our founders new both can and will fall prey to corruption but
out of the two choices public currency (a form of energy of all our labor) is best.
Central banking model is a form of conquest. As an empire it succeeded globally. Now such have
to own the empire and its fallacies. Including buying politicians. The rule of law must be restored
and the currency restored to public domain (despite its flaws).
Thanks for the kind words. One of the things I really like about what Yves has done at NC is
create a space for those inside and outside as panda put it to share directly with each other,
without the filter of technocrats and pundits in the middle who portray an air of expertise, of
rigorous intellectual curiosity about and understanding of the system, yet seem to possess neither
detailed knowledge about things 'in the trenches' nor about the perception of those things by
the general public on 'the outside' of the bubbles of affluence and power in our society.
The general public has known for some time to be leary of everything from bankster pronouncements
to econ PhD jibberish to warmongering buffoons. But the Serious People of our system act like
every problem is a big surprise. Because of course they are protecting the looting – or at least
enabling it through various kinds of navel gazing triviality – rather than doing anything meaningful
about it.
I heartily agree that rule of law isn't some quaint notion, purity test, or luxury. It is the
foundational element of a society that aspires for what are broadly held values (outside DC) like
freedom, justice, mercy, and equality.
1. Economy: "Not 20%-30% probability of "something bad happening". Rather, 100% probability
of "something bad" having already happened and now we're just watching the explosion in slo-mo.
"
Absolutely everyone I know who has established credibility with me in a wide range of spheres
agrees with the 100% figure. Timing: late 2016, early 2017 at the latest. With more far-reaching
impact than "usual" in a Great Depression or GFC.
Did you see by "something bad" I meant a Japan-level unraveling? I wasn't talking about recession
or a bear market. I was talking about a financial crisis, but a slower-moving one than we had.
And if you look at my posts from the time, I was very clear in chronicling the four acute phases
of the crisis: July-Aug 2007, December 2007, Bear and Lehman, as Very Big Deals. I was particularly
critical of the "Mission Accomplished" mode the officialdom went into in Feb-March 2008 and April-July
2008.
Yves – Time hss proved you wise. Japanafication is exactly what has been unfolding. And
according to Forbes and the Fed, 48% of the population having less than a grand in savings means
the US is near third world. One can buy Pop Tarts in third world countries also.
But there are wealth holders still spending (albeit less than two years ago) based on the stock
market or real estate rentals. Both are subject to harsh correction and that will have some knock-on
effects in labor. Not as bad as some may think but some.
The real danger is geopolitics. And this bitch that thinks she is queen has no issues literally
seeing 1/3 of the global population dying to escape her crimes. Think of what a rapist does to
a rape victim many times. Strangle that woman so she doesnt indict you. Yeah, it is that bad.
But there are some form of tech that will end any world war quickly. Stuff of science fiction.
America's competitors should think twice, or such may dissapear. Literally.
But as Americans we do know the corruption stinks to high heaven and we are doing something
about it. So pray, war does not escalate. Mankind is literally at the end of our evolution and
defeating classic death. We need (some is happening and is great) more.of that focus and marketing
of it and less global police, empire crap.
Regarding the Clinton Hairball (or, Dead Woman Walking)
Just read the Cheryl Mills
transcripts and two things jumped out at me. First, on pages 104-106, the Judicial Watch lawyers
asked her about Platte River Networks and Datto, Inc. This
McClatchy article gives a long version, but the short version of what the big deal is this:
Clinton Executive Service Corp. (CESC) had Hillary Clinton's private email server physically
moved to Platte River Networks after she left office in 2013. Platte River is an IT services company.
They are headquartered in Colorado but also have a location in New Jersey, which is where Clinton's
server ended up. Platte River bought a backup device from another IT services company called Datto,
Inc, specifically to back up Clinton's server. CESC requested that Platte River do the backup
on site, and Platte River thought that's how they set up the Datto device. However – and this
must have been Clinton's worst nightmare x 10 - unbeknownest to CESC and Platte River, the backup
server accidentally synced with another off-site server belonging to Datto for two years before
anyone realized it. And here's the kicker: this off-site Datto server had all of Clinton's
30,000 or so work-related and 30,000 or so personal emails.
And the FBI found out about it and seized that Datto server and hit the jackpot of all time!
Now, in the Mills transcript, Judicial Watch dropped the questions to Mills about Platte River
and Datto pretty quick, which suggests to me that they already have some other juicy witnesses
to question and they merely tried a few quicky questions to Mills to see if they got lucky. But
to me this is the nuclear bomb that has already gone off – the shock wave just hasn't reached
us yet. I would imagine that Hillary's personal emails may be a treasure-trove relating to Clinton
Foundation Activities and all the related shenanigans
Ortel is investigating, as mentioned several
times on Naked Capitalism.
On page 138, another item of interest in the transcript appears. Mills is asked about a July
26, 2011 email chain where Clinton jokes with a staffer named Nora Toiv that it was weird Clinton
no longer had Toiv's Gmail account and Clinton wondered, "so how did that happen. Must be the
Chinese!" Here's the
email on Wikileaks.
Keep in mind, this is just a month or so after several warnings from the DS cybersecurity about
private email accounts, including this June 28, 2011 cable, in Clinton's name, warning of specific
threats to Gmail accounts of U.S. Government employees. From page 34 of the
OIG Report :
On June 28, 2011, the Department, in a cable entitled "Securing Personal E-mail Accounts"
that was approved by the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security and sent over Secretary
Clinton's name to all diplomatic and consular posts, encouraged Department users "to check
the security settings and change passwords of their home e-mail accounts because of recent
targeting of personal email accounts by online adversaries."141 The cable further elaborated
that "recently, Google asserted that online adversaries are targeting the personal
Gmail accounts of U.S. government employees. (my emphasis) Although the company believes
it has taken appropriate steps to remediate identified activity, users should exercise caution
and follow best practices in order to protect personal e-mail and prevent the compromise of
government and personal information." It then recommended best practices for Department users
and their family members to follow, including "avoid conducting official Department business
from your personal e-mail accounts."142
Granted, Clinton could have been just having a laugh in the email exchange with Toiv, but it
doesn't help her case. Especially since we know of at least 15 cyberattacks on Clinton's email
server just from publically available information, including attacks from IP address in China,
Republic of Korea and Germany (and possibly Russia, if you believe the Guccifer story).
Sorry for being so long-winded.
TLDR: Clinton is a dead woman walking. And Abedin, Sullivan and others have yet to testify!
– the backup server accidentally synced with another off-site server belonging to Datto for
two years before anyone realized it. And here's the kicker: this off-site Datto server had all
of Clinton's 30,000 or so work-related and 30,000 or so personal emails. And the FBI found out
about it and seized that Datto server and hit the jackpot of all time!
I know. And as an aside, another fact that has been glossed over repeatedly is that Hillary's
personal email server apparently wasn't new when she had it installed in her basement. Oh no,
the server had already been in use as President Bill Clinton's personal server before that. God
only knows what kind of incriminating stuff is on there belonging to him. No wonder he suddenly
looks like he's aged about 30 years!
Probably because it is the Yellow Brick Road winding its way through years of Clinton relationships
with the richest, most powerful and influential people in the world. And we will probably never,
ever catch more than a fleeting glimpse of whatever is behind the curtain.
Just reading that thousands of subpoenaed e-mails went missing from Bill Clinton's server in
year 2000 – personal emails from Monica Lewinsky – that kind of thing. Supposedly.
Searching 'Pagliano' in the trove of emails at Wikileaks only brings up one response for October
26, 2012. It's a Happy Birthday wish. Shouldn't there be more emails either to or from Pagliano
and at an earlier date than 2012, at minimum one test email to make sure the server was working
when it was first set up?
Still surprised that if her server was hacked, those emails have not be given to Wikileaks.
That same story says he has an immunity deal and was cooperating with the FBI. I guess it's
possible he only got limited immunity and is concerned about something else but…
I've heard reports that an attempt was made in late 2012. Not the incident in Israel, but on
a secret trip to Iran to meet with Ahmedinejad. What I heard (not on the internet–other channels)
is that one of her SEALS on the small plane with her had a vision of what she would do as president,
and took it into his own hands to stop it. He shot her (the cause for her much-reported-on hospital
stay–with her recovery in question in early days) and he was killed by the rest of the SEAL team.
His death was then said to have occurred in Afghanistan. There's supporting tangential info about
this event that's findable.
Whether or not this story is accurate, I believe there's more to her hospital stay than the
official story. I do not think it was a routine medical event.
Tom
June 1, 2016 at 9:40 am
Thank you very, very much for that elucidating synopsis – its hard to read EVERYTHING so getting
just a slice of the prime cut keeps me up to date on an onslaught of info!
I sure hope you do more of these!!!
Thank you very much. After writing that, I have even more respect for how much work Yves, Lambert
and others put into this site each and every day. Same for the contributions of the many informed
commenters. Naked Capitalism is truly an exceptional resource.
Agee. Nice work Tom and to all who are restoring the Republic. Make sure you go have a drink
and some fun now and then too. A phase of this has passed for me but now another one is looming
in a different way than educating.
I had seen references to the Datto server and the online backups but there hasn't been much
discussion of them or the FBI's getting ahold of them. If they did, it truly is a nightmare for
HRC.
There is a new poll saying 48% of the public think her server was "illegal" and another 24%
or so thought it was "unethical". She and her staff are stonewalling and doubling down on their
excuses. I guess she is just hoping to make it through the convention but it all depends on the
FBI report at this stage.
If the Datto server debacle checks out - and it sure looks like it does - I have read in several
places that it pretty much is a no-brainer violation of 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting
or losing defense information, specifically Section (f):
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing,
code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through
gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered
to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2)
having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody
or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,
and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior
officer-
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
If you have classified info on your server and all that data is being sent to another server
for two years, without your knowledge, that's pretty much the definition of "gross negligence,"
I would imagine.
And keep in mind, before we even get to the Datto debacle, I'm already giving Clinton two giant
free hall passes:
1. That it didn't constitute gross negligence to have the server in her basement in the first
place, and
2. That it wasn't gross negligence to move the server to Platte River Networks. (From what I gather,
even if this was an approved server, the U.S. government would have questions like: Who physically
picked up the server, put it on a truck or in a car, who transported the server, who had access
to it before, during and after the move?" Also, questions like, "Who owns Platte River Networks?
What is their security set-up? Who vetted the employees at Platte River? Who had access to the
server while it was there?")
So wait. You're telling me that the half of the email Clinton retained as "personal" wasn't
all about Clinton's yoga sessions and Chelsea's wedding?
On " Platte River bought a backup device from another IT services company called Datto, Inc,
specifically to back up Clinton's server," I don't think that's quite right. First, the issue
is not a device, but backup to the cloud from a device. Second, the Platte River didn't know the
backup to the cloud was taking place . From the McClatchy story:
Unbeknownst to Clinton, IT firm had emails stored on cloud; now in FBI's hands
Datto and Platte River seemed at odds, however, over how Clinton's emails wound up on Datto's
cloud storage, which may have resulted from a misunderstanding.
Platte River spokesman Andy Boian said the firm bought a device from Datto that constantly
snaps images of a server's contents and connected it to the Clinton server at a New Jersey
data storage facility. Platte River never asked Datto to beam the images to an off-site cloud
storage node and never was billed for that service, he said. Company officials were bewildered
when they learned of the cloud storage, he said.
"We said, 'You have a cloud? You were told not to have a cloud.' We never received an invoice
for any cloud for the Clintons.'"
The source familiar with Datto's account, however, said Platte River was billed for "private
cloud" storage, which requires a cloud storage node. Because Platte River lacks one, the source
said, the data bounced to Datto's off-site cloud storage. The source said that senior Platte
River officials may not have realized it, but company technicians "were managing the off-site
storage throughout."
Datto did not know it was backing up Clintons' email server until mid August, the source
said.
As to whether the FBI might recover Clinton's personal emails from Datto's storage, the
source said: "People don't Datto's service for getting rid of data."
What a mess, but no more messy than IT generally.
I like the overall picture, though, that the bomb has already exploded, but the shock waves
have yet to reach the public. Regarding FBI director Comey, this from William Gibson: "I would
say that our Mr. Swain has recently come into possession of a very high-grade source of intelligence
and is busy converting it into power."
Yes, you've clarified some points that I mangled in trying to sum up the story. Thank you.
There are many more tangents to just this Platte River/Datto story that are worth following up,
but it takes so much time to try to piece together even a seemingly small story like this. I can't
even imagine the complexity and confusion facing the FBI investigators as they try to make sense
of all the fallout from Bill and Hillary Clinton's public/private activities through the years.
One can hope that Obama handles Clinton the same way Nixon handled his vice-president, Spiro
Agnew. Spiro Agnew was the corrupt politician of the hoi polloi, as he was known as "The only
politician you could bribe with a bag of groceries.".
The Clinton Foundation and the Clintons sure put the Agnew efforts to shame as they raised
the price of buying politicians and access by many orders of magnitude.
Nixon, busy with his own scandals may have been distracted, but his justice department let
Agnew plead "nolo contendere" (no contest) to the charges of corruption.
One can wonder if Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon installed this dual USA justice system that
we have seen in effect since his time.
So one Democratically connected organization signed onto this separate justice system for
the politically connected. Possibly the concern Obama has for his unfunded $1Billion Presidential
Library will force him to burnish his legacy by NOT rescuing HRC with some dubious legal maneuver.
It is somewhat ironic that Nixon was brought down by a private electronic system (his tape recording
system) while Clinton may be brought down by her own private electronic email system.
The also share a common advisor, Henry Kissinger, and both have/had phlebitis.
She probably won't borrow Nixon's "I am not a crook." line..
I get the tone of alarm and concern of scandal coming from Team Obama shown in this article
– I'm just not seeing it in Hillary supporters. Maybe Obama's ego is a bit too fragile. Regardless
my experience with talking to Hillary supporters is that no amount of scandal of outright criminal
lawbreaking affects their views about Hillary. They revert to "she's been scrutinized and tested
for decades by her enemies and she's survived." They are people on the margins who will be affected.
How many are the Dem establishment? It's going to take a whopper to get them to tank Hillary IMO.
That's what I see from Clinton supporters on the Twitter. Some of them good people I've known
for years. "Nothingburger" was the favorite phrase, at least for awhile.
Reminds me of the defenders of Elizabeth Holmes at the WSJ, who kept insisting that all the
attacks were from journalists who were jealous of the success of a brilliant young woman and only
knew how to tear down not build.
Their ranks became thinner over time as their view was increasingly less plausible.
Timbers – You know, a close friend since grade school loves the Clintons. He even buyed the
Bill Clinton collector doll. He stole close to $60,000 from his employer Midas, has mistresses
and has done a of very unsavory things. And I am not a saint but these people know but do not
care. Probably 1 of 3 people are sociopaths.
There is a detail that is being universally missed both in the MSM and alternative press:
it is a virtual certainty that the NSA has a copy of every email sent or received
by that server. Does anyone who has read what has been published about Snowden's revelations
doubt that? Therefore the Whitehouse knows precisely what the dirt is. Furthermore, what do you
suppose the chances are that the FSB didn't hack her jury-rigged server? This potential leak path
is also well known to the white house. Don't forget the mayhem when the FSB (who else) posted
Nuland's little chat with Pyatt over an insecure line. Let no one forget that HRC is strongly
connected to the neocon project to undermine Russia's return to strength.
Putin would do a deal. A "small favor" done in return for something else. Any mobster can understand
that.
Trouble is that Hillary represents the US so very well. Any offer would be perceived as a sign
of weakness, therefore, righteous bullying and threats from the US will be the only possible response.
Obama will likely have plenty of drama before he slinks out of the White House to his $1
Billion Library . Future historians will sift through the detritus of his hollow reign and
might eventually find out how he got pwned. Maybe Bernstein could have a journalistic draft underway
about that to put in his two cents?
if you read it keep in mind the reason it was written–specifically to avert a major disaster
involving a nuclear reactor explosion in the US in 2012, to enable a major electronic financial
heist. He had to reveal enough of what he knew to stop the button from being pushed. This was
successful. Only the preliminary "earthquake" at Santa Ana nuclear reactor occurred, as the charges
had already been set, but after the book came out (initially distributed on Amazon for free, so
it could be tracked to who downloaded it) then the full plan could not be carried out.
Read the book before judging it. It will be obvious why names cannot be given. And consider
my comment above about why the book was written. It was not written to be a best seller,
it was written to prevent a major catastrophe. The author has given a number of extended interviews
dealing with the events described and confirming his first-hand participation. (He was offered,
twice, to join the 12 shareholders in the purchase of the 2008 presidency, without a financial
contribution because of his unique big data algorithms. He declined and experienced some very
disagreeable effects–but he's not someone who can be bought or intimidated.)
TheCatSaid – Interesting book recommendation. Mitigation of casualties is an important goal.
It is not set in stone mass casualties will occur because of sociopathic behavior. Some can play
a role to minimize the damage. Yves does this directly regarding lawlessness. Others play some
different roles.
Now at the end of human evolution, there is nothing more important and realistic to end classic
death. But far too few have gotten the memo yet. But that is changing. For what good is it to
gain the whole world when you get old, shit your pants, lose your memory when now that is no longer
necessary? But absolutley, the wolves must be pushed back and the Republic restored to accelerate
such a lofy but now doable goal.
That was my counter-suggestible thought: The White House panicked once, and the Clinton campaign
shrugged it off, successfully.
I don't think the two cases are comparable, though. The Wall Street transcripts are a Sanders
campaign thing, and to every right-thinking member of the political class that spells "not serious."
But this terror is from the heart of the establishment; "serious people."
At some point the White House and the Democratic party "leadership" are going to realize that
if they have to work this hard to get Clinton the nomination, they are going to have worse troubles
winning the election with her at the head of the ticket. They are going to have to choose the
lesser of two evils – 1. Let the Republicans take this election, or 2 – Let the Sanders wing of
the Democratic Party take this election.
From the point of view of the Democratic Party establishment, Trump and the Republicans are
clearly the lesser evil. Despite his apparent appeal as an outsider, Trump is very much an insider.
As a billionaire, he is one of the very small number of people who own the United States. He'll
ruffle the feathers of some of his fellow plutocrats, but the "right people" will remain in charge,
and he will continue most of the billionaire friendly policies of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama
administrations.
if nothing else they must have realized that Sanders and his millions of supporters have effectively
blocked off their – parachute drop Biden – escape route from the Clinton disaster. I think this
is the key to why "they're freaking out". They never really had any planB 'cos those Dems and
their trained MSM toadies who "create their own reality" never for a moment thought they'd ever
need one.
There was Biden speculation early on for a reason, but I think people in New Hampshire (I've
never been to Iowa) take the primary seriously and force the candidates to answer tough questions.
Hillary and Obama had a celebrity following and were protected, but any other Democrat would have
to have a point. Private prison, charter school, and war supporters would be weeded put early.
Biden might be the VP, but he has been at this for years and achieved nothing except to not be
as egregious as Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine. No one will go out to see Biden unless he had a point.
The modern Democratic elite can face their voters directly. They need a celebrity wall to protect
them. Many of these thugs hid behind Obama a day expected Hillary to do the same, but who else
is a celebrity and can hide behind Katie Perry or Oprah? They might be protected by the sycophants
in their own district, but the sycophants outside the district have their own objects of devotion.
They simply can't go to Iowa and New Hampshire and be taken seriously.
Several weeks ago my daughter had a dream.
She witnessed Bernie Sanders accepting the democratic primary nomination
because Hillary Clinton was disqualified by a technicality.
Three years ago during a lengthy Vipassana meditation retreat I experienced
myself sitting on a divan in a long lanai. People were milling around a
banquet table set with fruits salads flowers. There were birds flying in and out
up above us and I became aware that I could understand them and that they were excited and had
decided to have a race. Quickly the race began and was over. The winner was a little brown bird…like
a sparrow. The other birds were incredulous. How could this happen? A green parrot kept flying
up to the little brown bird asking how did you do that? But the little brown bird kept laughing
and flying away so fast the parrot could not stay with him.
The next day, continuing the practice in my room with the curtains drawn, I heard
tapping at the window. I acknowledged the sound and continued practicing but
the tap tap pause continued. Finally I had to see. I got up pushed aside the curtain and there
was a little brown bird.
When I saw the little bird land on the podium while Bernie Sanders spoke I thought of the little
brown bird I'd experienced. And when Bernie in the moments said wistfully something to the effect…it
could have been a dove
representing peace. I thought oh no, that little bird is a metaphor for the people
who want and claim their humanity and the natural world resonates with that.
I too think bernie will pull it out, the other choices are terrible. I'm looking for aspirational
latinos to flock to bernie in california and it'll be a rout that can't be ignored. I hope that's
what happens.
Once Clinton regrettfully announces her decision to suspend her campaign for presidency (due
to mounting health concerns and after consulting with her doctors and family) and returns to private
life, she can always count on giving a speech now and again to "replenish the old coffers," right?
Cut to the kitchen in Clinton's residence:
"What do you mean Blankfein isn't returning my calls? Someone find my BlackBerry so I can call
him myself!!"
From Yves:
"…..
As of late 2007, I was assessing the odds of a really bad outcome (which I did not see as a massive
financial blowup, but a Japan-style bumping downhill over a period of years) as 20-30%, which
I regarded as uncomfortably high. I told Lambert I thought the Clinton train wreck odds were in
that range. He thought it was more like 30% than 20%.
This post indicates the odds are even higher than that. I see two implications in the Bernstein
official messaging beyond those that Gaius describes. One is that the Obama Administration has
been blindsided by how bad the underlying fact set is, and they recognize that even worse is likely
to be exposed. Someone as image-conscious as Obama would be particularly put off by that.
But the panic is also a clear indication, and perhaps as important, another message, not just
to Clinton but to Team Dem, that the Administration can't, or won't but is making it seem like
can't, do what it takes to save Hillary's bacon.
And I suspect it really is "can't". The FBI has enough autonomy that if they find real dirt
on the Clintons, they will leak like crazy if the DoJ does not pursue the case in a serious way.
That would make the Administration complicit, and Obama does not want his final months in office
tainted by his Administration touching the Clinton tar baby any more than it has to…."
============================================
I am really thinking this is the most serious issue about whether this country operates within
the confines of equality before the law since Watergate. I think the financial crisis revealed
a level of corruption that is eye opening, but that was mere pecuniary corruption.
If Hillary goes unprosecuted, we decide to let the facade collapse and no longer put the effort
into pretending that there is any relationship whatsoever between the law, justice, and the running
of the state.
In this imagined history, the Clinton's see their return to the WH thwarted by an upstart junior
senator. As things start to crash around them, in 2008, a light bulb goes off. The junior senator
is still pretty nervous about the Clinton's and Clinton has leverage to make a deal with him.
She can through establishment support behind Obama. Obama takes the deal. Then, with a Clinton
at State and a future presidency on the horizon they will be able to enrich themselves and their
foundation for millions upon millions.
The future value of a Clinton presidency will sell itself. Money will pour in from everyone
in the world who needs a regulatory break or weapons a deal. So, they cut the deal to go in on
an Obama presidency.
What they get is eight years of uninterrupted money making, because a Clinton will be president
again, and you might as well get in on the ground floor. In this imagined scenario, the Clinton's
must get the presidency, because they have essentially promised weapons buyers and regulation
skirters that they will get their return on investment coming in 2017.
Yes, most likely, at least in part. A lot of influence peddling went on, and that's for sure.
It's something that eludes most Clinton supporters that I know personally. They see Hillary as
this shining beacon of something something and something else. They have excuses for everything,
and somehow don't see influence peddling, selling arms and the like as all that bad. IOW: IOKIYAD.
I don't agree with that, myself, but many do.
Note its not just the CIA who would be (or is already) furious that some of their agents may
have been compromised/arrested/executed. The FBI also has agents working abroad undercover. What
if the FBI found info in the backed up emails showed one of their own had been blown ? The vengeance
would be frightening and there's nothing Comey or anyone else could do that would stop it.
I'm not sure the media's current focus on Hillary's email server is warranted. There are
definitely indications that she violated email policies, but there don't seem to be specifics
about what these actions were trying to hide. I think her very questionable family ties to corporate
money are a more meaningful topic in determining her suitability for the U.S. presidency
:
There's been some recent focus on 2013-2015 speeches given by Bill Clinton, and donations to
the Clinton family foundation over this time period. What about speeches and payments during the
earlier time period when Hillary was Secretary of Sate (January 2009 – January 2013)?
Jeez Louise. The focus on her email server is, in major part, driven by the issue of the deleted
emails and HRC trying to keep her communications secret and unobtainable through FOIA. One obvious
reason is to hide the connection between Bill's speeches and Clinton Foundation activities with
Hillary's decisions as SoS. Email and corporate money is all one big hairball.
Gee, the internet told me just this morning that Obama is champing a the bit to hit the 2016
campaign trail for Hillary (or maybe just against Trump?)
After reading this post and comments, I'm further disabused of the Clintons, and think more
and more that Saunders is hanging in there just waiting for the dam to break.
The Clinton Machine (in other words the political operation of the Bill and Hillary, and
potentially Chelsea) has always operated on the basis the money and connections will fix everything.
It has, after all, gotten them this far. However, as a core operational mode, it also accumulates
cynicism and tends to value loyalty over performance, leading to degradation over time.
The Clinton primary 1992 campaign broke new ground (at the time) by putting the (two-way) sharing
of fundraising lists on the table when soliciting endorsements from office holders. This was already
commonplace among Republicans, who were already being consolidated by ideologically or business
focussed fundraising organizations (long before PACs became an common acronym, but already organized
under 501(c)(4) or 501(c)(6)) and often shared these donors. But the Democrats, at the time, were
more driven by fundraising lists, which were often closely guarded assets.
But by offering to share (as in, swap) donor lists with endorsers, the Clintons, without actually
breaking any laws (although improper development and use of these lists could violate FEC regulation),
were putting financial power squarely on the table, and up front (the list share offer was frequently
mentioned on the initial approach to the potential endorser, I have first and second hand knowledge
of this).
And the swap would involve the endorser sharing their list, as well as receiving one,
which would be more than a public endorsement; it would be an endorsement to donors. Reaction
in 1992 was mixed. But with Bill political success and popularity as a president (among moneyed
Dems), the Clinton Machine became a major player in Dem politics, cultivating a "deep" door list.
And what do donors pay for? Consultants, and media and data products. The Machine accumulated
a network of loyal consultants and vendors across the country; loyal, because they were certain
of getting paid (not always a sure thing in politics), and because of the large and diverse (and
at least nominally vetted) network of Machine operatives and vendors. This network also shares
strategic methodologies and technologies; essential commodities, but ones whose shelf life (effective
expiration of value) can be hard to gauge (especially by lazy/uncommitted people who feel little
pressure to actually win anything, as long as they can put on a good show and maintain their stature
by… feeding the Machine). And of course, associated (and implicitly grateful/beholden) elected
office holders (at State and local levels, not just Federal) are collected along the way.
The reliance on this Machine is one of the reasons the Clinton campaigns have displayed such
frequent tone-deafness. Not only is there a sizeable echo chamber of like-minded advisers only
to glad to support the current (but often calcified) rationals, but the approach to voter opinion
is "they'll forget if we divert them" (and also "poor people don't vote, so their opinions are
strategically irrelevant"). The Clintons were relying on a combination of news-cycle turnover
and the chorus of their social and MSM channels (repeat-until-true, repeat-until-true, etc). Both
of these tools are at least somewhat outdated in the social media age, where articles/posts/images/memes
can circulate and resurface independently of MSM news cycles, and where multiple groups can pool
opinion and effort as soon as they notice coincidence/convergence.
One can say what one will about Team Obama, but they have always been aware that they rode
to power on a populist idea (Black President) and the social media arena that amplified its force.
All political groups tend towards tone deafness, but Obama's people have newer ears. They may
not feel very beholden to anyone operating in the social media, but they disinclined to completely
ignore the potential impacts of opinions in circulation.
BTW, the donor-list swap message has changed over the years. Now the intro message for endorsement
solicitations is more like: "We'll mention you to our donors". Which is a double-edged sword;
that mention may also be "such-and-such did not endorse, just so you know". Again, leading with
this message exerts (by implication, not by direct statement) a powerful financial consideration
on the potential (And often acquiescing) endorser. Beyond that common element, solicitations are
likely to say whatever might appeal to the particular target.
Dk – Very interesting point about the data. I am in that space in a nutshell. By referral,
did some work with both Jeb Bush and Dean. I was hired for market intelligence for fundraising.
I remember the Time mag about Dean the Money Machine. Social media was a big deal for donors.
Webbies dont make the best door to door activists however.
Anyways, I like Jeb Bush. Dean is an asshole of a human being. So as I was managing Bush constituent
list for a time I called his office to suggest them doing market intelligence for donors.
The attorney for Jeb called me back. He told me that if I sent over a plan to not expect to get
paid for it. I thought to myself it was no wonder the Clintons could easily win – They paid people.
Jeb did look at an idea for a political social media platform I suggested to connect voters
to politicians, a debate platform. He said to call Pete Peterson for funding. Pete wouldn't give
me a meeting, his secretary said I wasnt in the club.
So for Jeb he has learned the hard way it is the company you keep. But his other issue was
hiring his own Mexican friends his wife and continued amnesty. His campign staff like any tribe,
only wanted fo hire Mexicans. Of course, it is the immigration issue where Trump ate his lunch.
In the end he wasn't ready to be POTUS. But innovation wise and on monopoly issues he was a Teddy
Roosevelt.
Thanks for letting me share my thoughts tonight Yves. You know, I appoached you as a different
user at one time and asked to consider joining in the political social media platform I was building.
But even if it was a right idea, I came across too strong. I apologize. Wish I hadnt done that
your message would been amplified a lot more by now. You are a personal hero of mine. Keep at
it, please, the we are clearing a hump in ways but much work left to do.
Cackling at the demise of intelligence assets is not a joking matter. Neither is it a joke,
right or deposing dictators and joking about it. Fortunately, the rule of law is being restored.
But there is a lot of domestic and geopolitical clean up. With Russia, they are about energy sales.
Yes, they got uppity with monopoly but it has gone to far.
You never want to make Putin a Geronimo with the bomb. The Chinese were made promises never
to be kept. They know a good customer when they see one so they will get over it.
The only job of government is a security racket. An unfortunate, necessary evil. When the Clintons
are well lets call it what it IS – treason. Enough is enough.
Trump is a Democrat. He is for single payer. Not so sure why some are so freaked about his
nationalist campaign rhetoric. Either him or Bernie will make a good president but Bernie has
the experience and Trump does not. It matters.
Trump's main ideas for a replacement [of Obamacare] are to allow health insurance to be
sold across state lines and permit people to make tax-free contributions to Health Savings
Accounts (HSAs). HSAs are paired with a high deductible health insurance plan and are intended
to make people more conscious of how they spend
Mary – Competition is part of Trumps plan for private insurers. A lot of countries have single
payer government but also private insurers. It tends to work althogh I wish it all could remain
private, free market what have you. Health is like money, it is so important you have to have
the awful taint of government one way or the other.
But when pressed Trump has responded he will not let anyone die in the streets. Not arguing
to vote for the man just suggesting reading beween the lines. He is a Democrat in drag, what I
would call a moderate in policy except immigration. He is duplicating the Eisenhower playbook,
on immigration, bond holder haircuts and telling certain bankers to play ball or ELSE. This does
work. But as I mentioned Bernie has more a lot of real experience. So dealmaking as Trump claims
indeed has a lot of human psychology involved but experience is a major plus.
It woudnt surprise me if so much of this is all political theatre. Trump is the friends of
Clinton after all. Could even be with Berniw But that said, rather even if such speculation true
better than false flags to right the country. Besides, it has been fun theatre… Besides, the momentum
on policy is turning in the right direction.
Countries that provide universal healthcare using private insurance (the Bismarck model) do
so with highly regulated, not-for-profit insurance providing legally defined coverage. Competition
and profit-taking are at the margins for elements not included in the defined coverage, such as
cosmetic surgery or a private hospital room. Trump's published healthcare plan is the same gibberish
Republicans have always offered.
There are too many comments to read through right now but is almost 250 comments a record?
Has anyone mentioned this might be a trial balloon for Biden to step in?
It's interesting to ponder the various possibilities. What I don't get is why Obama's IT security
people didn't notice that Clinton digitally engaged and communicated with the *White House* in
a way that could have compromised both parties, and beyond.
fwiw, I think we are all at least *somewhat* impacted by confirmation bais re: the competency
of persons we are mostly in agreement with, even in areas outside their domain. When it comes
to senior executives and IT security (unless they are IT experts), we see these mistakes over
and over again in political and business domains. One can look to any number of well-known political,
scientific, or cultural figures who made stupid gaffs within their sphere of influence in this
way. We always seem surprised by this, but it's really not a surprise.
Most well-known political persons (I have known a few) are so busy and so immersed in what
they are trying to accomplish that their over-trust in operational personnel – and/or belief that
they can maneuver out of or overcome almost any problem – creates scenarios like Clinton's.
Bernie is my guy; I would love to see him take on Trump, but the powers that be appear to want
something else. I can't stand Trump, but when looking for other perspectives I will put on my
long-buried blue collar roots persona; then, I hear a guy (Trump) who "talks the talk" in a way
that is almost mesmerizing. I hate to admit that, but it's true – and when I connect with old
buds from way back, they reinforce this impression.
When you get enough people (in this case, Americans) scared and worried, they are no different
than any other group of human beings; they want to be "saved"; they want to "blame"; they want
to throw out the "chief"; they want to "follow a new leader"; they are not concerned (in this
case) with whether Trump can "walk the walk"; they are susceptible to someone who is very adept
at "talking the talk" (a demagogue) in a way that allays their fear and desperation – leading
them to grab onto the nearest piece of flotsam (screw the other guy!) that will keep them from
drowning. I'm beginning to worry.
Seems to me that except in a relatively few corners and local settings, and now very frankly
via our mostly collective embrace of the Neo geist, "America" has always and only been about "screwing
the other guy." And Tocqueville noted how happy we are to be boiled frogs, or to find ourselves
in deep water and only too happy to stand on the other guy's shoulders, by guile or force, to
try to gain a little buoyancy to keep our own noses above water, even knowing somewhere in our
guts that we ought to cooperate to find the valve and turn off the water, or to go after the pirates
that threw us off the ship…
I don't believe "foaming one more runway" (read: having your DOJ, FBI appear helpless)
wouldn't bother this administration. A Loyalist are those unengaged (or too engaged) whom choose
willingly to believe the disastrous economic and political experiment, that attempted to organize
human behavior around the dictates of the global marketplace, has been a splendid success…or worse,
blindly, my tribal leader is in accordance with all that is good.
Haiti. Look at film of the Clintons in Haiti to see how they work. & Haiti is one place
where also the elites own the deeds. Haiti Is America, only sooner.
Wilmington Coup. C.S.A. methods used again, and again.
Giving the people of the US, the reinsurers of the reinsurer the USPO Service banking they paid
for and pay for is the concrete thing that can be done to "Change the Conversation" as Mad Men's
guy Hamm? no, his character would say.
Opening there.
The silence of Pagliano and the
reported lapse of memory of other top aides is likely good news for the Clinton team in
pre-November damage control. If top aides will claim faulty memories or invoke their right
to remain silent, the only disclosures before the election would have to come from the FBI
or Congress. Yet, the FBI would turn over any proposed indictments to the Justice Department
and, if the Justice Department scuttles any indictment, there would not normally be a public
report.
I kept the link in the above paragraph active as it is interesting reading.
For those curious as to why Pagliano would take the fifth (rather than go straight for a quart
:-)) when he already has immunity, one of the comments to Turley's post explains (from Tin
at 1:42 am):
They are completely different matters. The FBI gave him immunity from possible criminal
prosecution. The deposition mentioned n this post involves a civil lawsuit, "Judicial Watch
v. U.S. Department of State." It is a civil suit brought under the Freedom of Information Act
to get more documents out of the State Dept.. Pagliano is not a party to the suit, but they
want to depose him as a non-party deponent and his lawyers sought a protective order. He plans
to take the 5th and his lawyers don't want it videotaped.
Those e-mails don't alarm me anywhere near as much as the $200,000 plus speaking fees from
Wall St. NO speech by anyone is worth anywhere near such an amount. These were clearly bribes,
there's simply no other way of looking at it. I have no interest in seeing the transcripts of
those speeches because the money counts far more than the content, and speaks for itself. No way
would I vote for someone so clearly in the pocket of the oligarchy.
Lack of empathy is the primary characteristic of a sociopath.
Notable quotes:
"... More like MEGATHATCHER -- ..."
"... Hillary "I remember landing under sniper fire" Clinton. ..."
"... The problem isn't Sanders; the problem is that Clinton is a weak candidate, and her surrogates have focused on trying to bully Sanders supporters into falling in line, rather than making a more convincing argument for their support. ..."
"... And yes the "temporary rules" changed on the floor of the Nevada state convention. There has been plenty of DNC party shenanigans all designed to benefit Hillary. ..."
"... Fair enough, she lacks empathy. ..."
"... A bigger problem is trust. People simply find it hard to trust her. ..."
"... There is a widely held suspicion that, at the same time as she was saying she'd get tough on Wall Street, she was busy promising them business as usual. Hillary could put a stop to all the speculation today and regain a lot of trust, by releasing the transcripts in full. If the speeches are what she says they are, why won't she release them? I just don't understand. ..."
"... She took Goldman's money in 2013. Why? She was already richer than 99.99 percent of her countrymen. She didn't need it. How could such an accomplished "professional" politician make such an incredibly dunderheaded move? The "Vampire Squid" of Wall St.!! What an outstandingly professional decision on her part. ..."
"... Nailed it again! Voters aren't like jurors. We don't have to decide that she's corrupt based on a set of facts that a judge lets us look at, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. No, we get to decide on any damn reason we want -- emotion, looks, whether we wanna have a beer with her, etc. And on the issue of Clinton's corruption, WE DO NOT NEED A QUID PRO QUO to know, deeply and irretrievably know, that she's corrupt. We get to decide. We get to choose. ..."
"... Oh yeah, she's one amazing politician with a real sense of where her electorate is. That's why she went down to Wall Street in 2013 and took what Goldman Sachs offered, three times, for a total of $675,000 direct to her personal pocket. ..."
"... Good riddance. She is deeply unqualified to be president and she richly deserves to lose this election. ..."
"... I like Bernie for several reasons. One of them is that Bernie's popularity proves that not all Americans are dumb. ..."
At the heart of Clinton's troubles with Sanders are questions
about her empathy, authenticity and honesty.
The one weak measure that she has a shot of overcoming relates
to empathy. When asked 'Which candidate understands people like you?' in the YouGov poll, Clinton
trails Sanders by 44 to 56 points.
Chilblainmthafka -> 5anderson 31 May 2016 19:49
More like MEGATHATCHER --
Chilblainmthafka presstheredbutton 31 May 2016 19:47
Hillary "I remember landing under sniper fire" Clinton.
I've never studied medicine, and only have a casual interest in the subject, therefore my
opinion is more "objective" than someone with a more detailed understanding of the subject.
Same logic, same problems.
There are several problems with your analysis.
1. Clinton has more votes in the context of a party nominating process. Party contests don't
have uniform rules governing registration deadlines, so an apples-to-apples comparison based
on "popular" vote is going to be sloppy. Some contests don't allow independent voters to vote,
others do. Some won't allow people to participate unless they have registered months before a
contest, some allow same day registration. Some contests are caucuses others are primaries;
some of the primaries are open, some are closed, some are semi-closed. The process will tell
you who the most popular choice is with older Democrats, it will not necessarily tell you who
the strongest candidate is.
2. Sanders appeal isn't based on his personal charisma. His argument is based on the way he is
financing his election, his platform, and other issues. The large difference between the
candidates is driving his support. His personal integrity also carries equal weight in an
electoral contest where the other two major candidates have none.
3. Clinton ran a much more negative campaign in 2008, and went until the last votes were cast
in 2008. She then spent two weeks deciding on whether she wanted to push to the convention or
not. In the end, Obama did well. He made use of the long primary to build volunteer networks
that were useful in November. The problem isn't Sanders; the problem is that Clinton is a
weak candidate, and her surrogates have focused on trying to bully Sanders supporters into
falling in line, rather than making a more convincing argument for their support.
4. Sanders long commitment to the issues he is championing gives his message credibility.
His message is resonating in a way that it didn't before the financial crisis. But his long
history is important, because it shows a level of commitment to the policies he is advocating
for. Credibility and trust matter with political leaders.
MacWisconsin -> Calvert 31 May 2016 19:38
They did get together and in February 2016 suspended the "Obama" rules against DNC taking
federal and other PAC money for campaigns and then funneled all those 250,000 donations
through the states and directly into Clinton's fund. The states got 1% of those "down ticket"
funds. https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/02/12/dnc-rolls-back-ban-contributions-from-lobbyists-pacs/UBQmn9xkGyyq0gmxEHwKqM/story.html
And yes the "temporary rules" changed on the floor of the Nevada state convention. There
has been plenty of DNC party shenanigans all designed to benefit Hillary.
CorporalClegg 31 May 2016 19:23
Fair enough, she lacks empathy. But so does Trump. It's a rich person problem and
It comes from having no connection with the lives of normal people.
A bigger problem is trust. People simply find it hard to trust her.
There is a widely held suspicion that, at the same time as she was saying she'd get tough
on Wall Street, she was busy promising them business as usual. Hillary could put a stop to all
the speculation today and regain a lot of trust, by releasing the transcripts in full. If the
speeches are what she says they are, why won't she release them? I just don't understand.
NottaBot -> MysticRevelation 31 May 2016 19:20
She took Goldman's money in 2013. Why? She was already richer than 99.99 percent of her
countrymen. She didn't need it. How could such an accomplished "professional" politician make
such an incredibly dunderheaded move? The "Vampire Squid" of Wall St.!! What an
outstandingly professional decision on her part.
NottaBot -> DebraBrown 31 May 2016 19:12
Nailed it again! Voters aren't like jurors. We don't have to decide that she's
corrupt based on a set of facts that a judge lets us look at, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.
No, we get to decide on any damn reason we want -- emotion, looks, whether we wanna have a
beer with her, etc. And on the issue of Clinton's corruption, WE DO NOT NEED A QUID PRO QUO to
know, deeply and irretrievably know, that she's corrupt. We get to decide. We get to choose.
NottaBot -> Raaaabert 31 May 2016 19:06
Oh yeah, she's one amazing politician with a real sense of where her electorate is.
That's why she went down to Wall Street in 2013 and took what Goldman Sachs offered, three
times, for a total of $675,000 direct to her personal pocket.
Did she "need" it? Not a chance, she and Bill were millionaires many times over. Did she
"want" it? I guess, but that just points to her obscene greed, on a level with that of the
horrible Trump, just maybe not as effective at in-gathering wealth.
Should she have recognized the danger to which she was going to be putting her planned run for
president? Yes, abso-effing-lutely. People like me took to the streets, camped in parks, got
arrested with the Occupy movement two years previously and put the agenda of inequality and
"get money out of politics" front and center. Obama used Occupy messaging in order to defeat
Obama in 2012 -- portraying him as a rich bastid former hedge fund manager out of touch with
ordinary people.
She should have known. But she was literally CLUELESS and stumbled into a completely
SELF-INFLICTED wound, having nothing to do with some imagined right-wing attack machine, but
entirely to do with Hillary Rodham Clinton's character weaknesses.
Good riddance. She is deeply unqualified to be president and she richly deserves to lose
this election.
politicaltoo 31 May 2016 18:58
I like Bernie for several reasons. One of them is that Bernie's popularity proves that
not all Americans are dumb.
Wrapped in the flag neocon bottom feeders like Hillary (and quite possibly Trump, although
this article is from Guardian which is a fiercely pro-Clinton rag) might eventually destroy
this nice country.
Notable quotes:
"... the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing. ..."
"... Maybe they get away with it because we the people who keep voting them into office don't know anything about war ourselves. ..."
"... As long as we're cocooned in our comfortable homeland fantasy of war, one can safely predict a long and successful run for the Era of the Chickenhawk ..."
"... The author, like most Americans, is in denial about America's role in the world. The reason the US spends more on defense than the next 12 countries has nothing to do with self-defense. America wants to maintain its global military dominance. Both parties agree on this. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the war's purpose was to demonstrate American military power. Bill Kristol takes this a stage further and wants America to play the role of global hegemon and be in a state of constant war. This is a stupid idea. ..."
"... It is a simple an obvious fact that the people most eager to see the US go to war, in every generation, are not the people who will suffer and die in those wars. Today is our Memorial Day. This is an article suggesting we, as Americans, stop and think about the people who were wounded and those who died in service to our country. Set aside your partisan rage and consider those people and their deaths, before you listen to words from any politician calling for more of those deaths. ..."
"... And the hypocrisy of all this is how Hillary Clinton doesn't have a problem with war. She participated in toppling Libya and she was doing the same to Syria. So how is it all about Trump and what a war monger he is? ..."
"... The corporations that sell war materiel actively push their products, ensure the support of the government through political contributions, and engage in blackmail by spreading out manufacturing over many locations. In this manner, the only way to profit is by selling weapons, killing more people. What state or city will want to lose employment by letting a manufacturer close? It is incredibly difficult to close an un-needed military base for the same reason, whether here or abroad. War is a great racket, the US has it down pat. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has started more wars, caused more death than Donald Trump....and yet....you don't mention that do you "We came, He died, We Laughed" ..."
"... Unfortunately we're in a position where the United States is a debtor nation, and the easiest way to keep the house of cards from falling is to maintain "full spectrum dominance" in the words of the Pentagon. There's no easy way to unwind this situation. It is, however, absolutely crucial to keep a known psychopath like Clinton out of the command chair. ..."
"... When congress votes to fund wars then [they need to] add 75% more for after care. As a combat veteran it pisses me off that [instead] charities are used to care for us. Most are run by want a be military, Senease, types. No charities, it's up to American people to pay every penny for our care, they voted for the war mongers so, so pay up people. Citizens need to know true costs, tax raises, cuts in SS , welfare, cuts in schools. Biggest thing, all elected officials and families and those work for them must use VA hospitals, let's see how that works out. ..."
"... we insulate ourselves in a nice, warm cocoon of "Support Our Veterans" slogans and flag waving. ..."
"... "Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict " How about Hillary and the fantasy of war, PERIOD. There hasn't been a war she didn't like. Did you listen to her AIPAC speech? No 2 State solution there. ..."
"... So easy to be the hero in your wet dreams, your shooter games, your securely located war rooms stocked with emergency rations and the external defibrillator. This sort of unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people – old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class – across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing. ..."
"... It is actually NOT Donald Trump who is advocating the endless global conflict and confrontation with Russia, China, India, Iran, Europe and North Korea. The candidate secretly advocating a never-ending war with the rest of the world is -- Madame Secretary, Hillary Clinton, in person. Aided and abetted - publicly - by her right-hand woman, another Madame Secretary, Madeleine Albright and yet another Madame Undersecretary, Samantha Power. All chicken hawks, all neoconservatives, all pseudo-democrats, all on Wall Street payroll, all white, and all women who will never see a second of combat for the rest of their lives. ..."
"... So, the very major premise of the article is flawed and unsustainable. Which, of course, then makes the entire article collapse as false and misleading. ..."
"... John Mearsheimer who is a history professor at the University of Chicago wrote a great book about American foreign policy. Mearsheimer explains how American foreign policy has developed over the centuries. He argues that it firs objective was to dominate the Western Hemisphere before extending its reach to Asia and Europe. The War of 1812 and the Monroe Doctrine was part of a plan to dominate the Americas. The U.S. stopped Japan and Germany dominating Asia and Europe in the 20th century. The U.S. continued to view the British Empire as its greatest threat and Roosevelt set about dismantling it during WW2. Once WW2 was won, the Soviet Union became America's new adversary and it maintained forces in Europe to check Soviet expansion. ..."
"... Mearsheimer argues that the U.S. is often in denial about its behavior and Americans are taught that the U.S. is altruistic and a force for good in the world. Measheimer states that "idealist rhetoric provided a proper mask for the brutal policies that underpinned the tremendous growth of American power." In 1991 the U.S. became the world's only super-power and according to Mearsheimer its main foreign policy objective was to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. ..."
"... Mearsheimer claims that America's foreign policy elite is still largely made up of people who want to keep America on top, but these days they usually prefer to keep their views under wraps. ..."
"... Trump is the only candidate I've ever heard question the cost of war, it's part of the reason he said we should flush NATO and we can't police the world for free any longer. ..."
"... I have no problem with destroying ISIS. I have a problem with fighting Russia over every former Soviet state on their doorstep ala Madam Secretary. The best way to remember the war dead is to work to ensure that their ranks do not swell. ..."
As America marks Memorial Day, politicians should spare us the saber-rattling and reserve
some space for silence
... ... ...
The times are such that fantasy war-mongering is solidly mainstream. We've seen candidates call
for a new campaign of "shock and awe" (Kasich), for carpet-bombing and making the desert glow (Cruz),
for "bomb[ing] the shit out of them" (Trump), for waterboarding "and a hell of a lot worse" (Trump
again), and for pre-emptive strikes and massive troop deployments (Jeb). One candidate purchased
a handgun as "the last line of defense between Isis and my family" (Rubio), and the likely Democratic
nominee includes
"the nail-eaters – McChrystal, Petraeus, Keane" among her preferred military advisers, and supports
"intensification and acceleration" of US military efforts in Iraq and Syria. Yes, America has many
enemies who heartily hate our guts and would do us every harm they're able to inflict, but the failures
of hard power over the past 15 years seem utterly lost on our political class. After the Paris attacks
last December, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard suggested that a force of 50,000 US troops deployed
to Syria, supported by air power, would crush Isis in short order, leading to the liberation of Fallujah,
Mosul, and other Isis strongholds.
"I don't think there's much in the way of unanticipated side-effects that are going to be bad there,"
opined Kristol – funny guy! – who back in 2002 said that removing Saddam Hussein "could start
a chain reaction in the Arab world that would be very healthy".
... ... ...
"A night of waking," as Bierce tersely described it years later. The sheer volume and accuracy
of ordnance made this a new kind of war, a machine for pulping acres of human flesh. Regardless of
who was winning or losing, shock-and-awe was the common experience of both sides; Confederate and
Union soldiers alike could hardly believe the things they were doing and having done to them, and
when Bierce turned to the writer's trade after the war, some fundamental rigor or just plain contrariness
wouldn't let him portray his war in conventionally heroic terms. In his hands, sentimentality and
melodrama became foils for twisted jokes. Glory was ambiguous at best, a stale notion that barely
hinted at the suicidal nature of valor in this kind of war. A wicked gift for honesty served up the
eternal clash between duty and the survival instinct, as when, early in the war, Bierce and his fellow
rookies come across a group of Union dead:
How repulsive they looked with their blood-smears, their blank, staring eyes, their teeth uncovered
by contraction of the lips! The frost had begun already to whiten their deranged clothing. We
were as patriotic as ever, but we did not wish to be that way.
... ... ...
Black humor sits alongside mordantly cool accounts of battles, wounds, horrors, absurd and tragic
turns of luck. There are lots of ghosts in Bierce's work, a menagerie of spirits and bugaboos as
well as hauntings of the more prosaic sort, people detached in one way or another from themselves
– amnesiacs, hallucinators, somnambulists, time trippers. People missing some part of their souls.
Often Bierce writes of the fatal, or nearly so, shock, the twist that flips conventional wisdom on
its back and shows reality to be much darker and crueler than we want to believe. It's hard not to
read the war into much of Bierce's writing, even when the subject is ostensibly otherwise. He was
the first American writer of note to experience modern warfare, war as mass-produced death, and the
first to try for words that would be true to the experience. He charted this new terrain, and it's
in Bierce that we find the original experience that all subsequent American war writers would grapple
with. Hemingway and Dos Passos in the first world war; Mailer, Heller, Jones and Vonnegut in the
second world war; O'Brien, Herr and Marlantes in Vietnam: they're all heritors of Bierce.
It's not decorative, what these writers were going for. They weren't trying to write fancy, or
entertain, or preach a sermon; they weren't writing to serve a political cause, at least not in any
immediate sense. One suspects that on some level they didn't have a choice, as if they realized they
would never know any peace in themselves unless they found a way of writing that, if it couldn't
make sense of their war, at least respected it. Words that represented the experience for what it
was, without illusion or fantasy. Words that would resist the eternal American genius for cheapening
and dumbing down.
.... ... ...
...unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people
– old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their
youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class
– across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the
grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless
War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic
experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing.
Maybe they get away with it because we the people who keep voting them into office don't know
anything about war ourselves. We know the fantasy version, the movie version, but only that
1% of the nation – and their families – who have fought the wars truly know the hardship involved.
For the rest of us, no sacrifice has been called for: none. No draft. No war tax (but huge deficits),
and here it bears noting that the top tax rate during the second world war was 90%. No rationing,
the very mention of which is good for a laugh. Rationing? That was never part of the discussion.
But those years when US soldiers were piling sandbags into their thin-skinned Humvees and welding
scrap metal on to the sides also happened to coincide with the heyday of the Hummer here at home.
Where I live in Dallas, you couldn't drive a couple of blocks without passing one of those beasts,
8,600 hulking pounds of chrome and steel. Or for a really good laugh, how about this: gas rationing.
If it's really about the oil, we could support the troops by driving less, walking more. Or suppose
it's not about the oil at all, but about our freedoms, our values, our very way of life – that it's
truly "a clash of civilizations", in the words of Senator Rubio. If that's the case, if this is what
we truly believe, then our politicians should call for, and we should accept no less than, full-scale
mobilization: a draft, confiscatory tax rates, rationing.
Some 3.5 million Americans fought in the civil war, out of a population of 31 million. For years
the number killed in action was estimated at 620,000, though recent scholarship suggests a significantly
higher figure, from a low of 650,000 to a high of 850,000. In any case, it's clear that the vast
majority of American families had, as we say these days, skin in the game. The war was real; having
loved ones at risk made it real. Many saw battles being fought in their literal backyards. Lincoln
himself watched the fighting from the DC ramparts, saw men shot and killed. The lived reality of
the thing was so brutally direct that it would be more than 50 years before the US embarked on another
major war. To be sure, there was the brief Spanish-American war in 1898, and a three-year native
insurgency in the Philippines, and various forays around the Caribbean and Central America, but the
trauma of the civil war cut so deep and raw that the generation that fought it was largely cured
of war. Our own generation's appetite seems steadily robust even as we approach the 15th anniversary
of the AUMF, which, given the circumstances, makes sense. As long as we're cocooned in our comfortable
homeland fantasy of war, one can safely predict a long and successful run for the Era of the Chickenhawk
Bierce survived his own war, barely. Two weeks after writing to a friend "my turn will come",
and one day before his 22nd birthday, he was shot in the head near Kennesaw Mountain, Georgia. The
sniper's ball broke his skull "like a walnut", penetrating the left temple, fracturing the temporal
lobe and doglegging down and around behind his left ear, where it stayed. Head shots in that era
were almost always fatal, but Bierce survived not only the initial wound, but an awful two-day train
ride on an open flatcar to an army hospital in Chattanooga.
He recovered, more or less. Not the easiest personality to begin with, Bierce showed no appreciable
mellowing from his war experience. His life is an ugly litany of feuds, ruptures, lawsuits, friends
betrayed or abandoned, epic temper tantrums and equally epic funks. He was a lousy husband – cold,
critical, philandering – and essentially abandoned his wife after 17 years of marriage. His older
son shot himself dead at age 16, and the younger drank himself to death in his 20s; for his own part,
Bierce maintained a lifelong obsession with suicide. In October 1913, after a distinguished, contentious
50-year career that had made him one of the most famous and hated men in America, Bierce left Washington
DC and headed for Mexico, intending to join, or report on – it was never quite clear – Pancho Villa's
revolutionary army. En route, dressing every day entirely in black, he paid final visits to the battlefields
of his youth, hiking for miles in the Indian summer heat around Orchard Knob, Missionary Ridge, Hell's
Half-Acre. For one whole day at Shiloh he sat by himself in the blazing sun. In November he crossed
from Laredo into Mexico, and was never heard from again, an exit dramatic enough to inspire a bestselling
novel by Carlos Fuentes, The Old Gringo, and a movie adaptation of the same name starring Gregory
Peck.
Late in life, Bierce described his military service in these terms:
It was once my fortune to command a company of soldiers – real soldiers. Not professional life-long
fighters, the product of European militarism – just plain, ordinary American volunteer soldiers,
who loved their country and fought for it with never a thought of grabbing it for themselves;
that is a trick which the survivors were taught later by gentlemen desiring their votes.
About those gentlemen – and women – desiring votes: since when did it become not just acceptable
but required for politicians to hold forth on Memorial Day? Who gave them permission to speak for
the violently dead? Come Monday we'll be up to our ears in some of the emptiest, most self-serving
dreck ever to ripple the atmosphere, the standard war-fantasy talk of American politics along with
televangelist-style purlings about heroes, freedoms, the supreme sacrifice. Trump will tell us how
much he loves the veterans, and how much they love him back. Down-ticket pols will re-terrorize and
titillate voters with tough talk about Isis. Hemingway, for one, had no use for this kind of guff,
as shown in a famous passage from A Farewell to Arms:
There were many words that you could not stand to hear and finally only the names of the places
had dignity. Certain numbers were the same way and certain dates and these with the names of the
places were all you could say and have them mean anything. Abstract words such as glory, honor,
courage, or hallow were obscene beside the concrete names of villages, the numbers of roads, the
names of rivers, the numbers of regiments and the dates.
The author, like most Americans, is in denial about America's role in the world. The reason the
US spends more on defense than the next 12 countries has nothing to do with self-defense. America
wants to maintain its global military dominance. Both parties agree on this. Iraq had nothing
to do with 9/11, the war's purpose was to demonstrate American military power. Bill Kristol takes
this a stage further and wants America to play the role of global hegemon and be in a state of
constant war. This is a stupid idea.
Even if Saddam had WMDs, he still had nothing to do with 9/11. The politicians are very good
at finding new scapegoats and switching the blame. A bunch of Saudis attacked the US on 9/11 so
invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden moves to Pakistan so pretend you don't know where he is.
Some European terrorists kill other Europeans so Hillary wants to invade Syria. The assumption
seems to be that all Muslims are the same, it does not matter where you kill them.
Fantastic writing...shame Murika won't listen to any of it.
charlieblue
Reading the comments and conversations below, I found myself sickened and saddened by how
many of my fellow Americans can read a considered and well written article like this and
imagine it is a partisan screed.
It is a simple an obvious fact that the people most eager to see the US go to war, in
every generation, are not the people who will suffer and die in those wars. Today is our
Memorial Day. This is an article suggesting we, as Americans, stop and think about the people
who were wounded and those who died in service to our country. Set aside your partisan rage
and consider those people and their deaths, before you listen to words from any politician
calling for more of those deaths.
"Endless war," but it's not only attacks against other nations, it's a war against civil
liberties thus leading to a state in which, whistle blowers, folks who poke holes in the
government's 911 theory or complain about military operations in the China Sea may be
considered unpatriotic, maybe worse.
Dubikau
A friend recently asked, "What's the big deal about wars? I'v seen them on TV lots of times. They have nothing to do with me." Alas, a generation or two after a devastating conflict, it seems people forget. The lessons of history are unknown or irrelevant to the ignorant, the horror beyond imagination. That the clown, Trump, has made it this far is a living horror movie. As Emerson said about someone:
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."
He's a liar and a joke. Neither friends nor enemies can take him seriously and he is unpredictable.
Bellanova Nova
Excellent article.
We must start talking seriously about Trump's pathology guarantees conflict and chaos, and should he get elected, an escalation of an endless war. The ramifications of his incurable and uncontrollable character defect in a political leader are dire and people should be educated about them before it's too late: https://medium.com/@Elamika/the-unbearable-lightness-of-being-a-narcissist-251ec901dae7#.xywh6cceu
Philip Lundt
As a veteran I have to ask you Ben: who gave you "permission to speak for the violently dead?"
A lot of people love Donald Trump. It's not because they are racists warmongers, ignorant, misinformed or stupid. Veterans overwhelmingly support Donald trump. Go ahead call us racists and warmongers too.
And the hypocrisy of all this is how Hillary Clinton doesn't have a problem with war. She participated in toppling Libya and she was doing the same to Syria. So how is it all about Trump and what a war monger he is?
villas1
Bravo. War is a racket.
olman132 -> villas1
As practiced in the US, certainly. The corporations that sell war materiel actively push their products, ensure the support of the government through political contributions, and engage in blackmail by spreading out manufacturing over many locations. In this manner, the only way to profit is by selling weapons, killing more people. What state or city will want to lose employment by letting a manufacturer close? It is incredibly difficult to close an un-needed military base for the same reason, whether here or abroad. War is a great racket, the US has it down pat.
Jim Given
When your'e putting your life at risk in a war zone wondering if you're going to make it back home, there's damned little discussion about politics. Whatever your reasons might have been for signing on the dotted line, all that matters then is the sailor, soldier, marine or airman standing beside you. It's discouraging, although painfully predictable, to read so few comments about veterans and so many comments about divisive politics.
Mshand
Hillary Clinton has started more wars, caused more death than Donald Trump....and yet....you don't mention that do you "We came, He died, We Laughed"
USApatriot12
Unfortunately we're in a position where the United States is a debtor nation, and the easiest way to keep the house of cards from falling is to maintain "full spectrum dominance" in the words of the Pentagon. There's no easy way to unwind this situation. It is, however, absolutely crucial to keep a known psychopath like Clinton out of the command chair.
talenttruth
For over 30 years, Americans have been carefully "programmed" 24/7, by deliberate Fear / Fear /
Fear propaganda, so we would believe that the entire world is full of evil, maniacal enemies out to
"get us."
Of course there always ARE insane haters out there, who are either jealous of America's wealth, or
who (more sophisticated than that) resent America's attempt to colonize-by-marketing, the entire
world for its unchecked capitalism. Two sides of the same American "coin." Those who are
conscripting jobless, hopeless young men overseas to be part of an equally mad "fundamentalist" army
against America ~ benefit hugely FROM our militarism, which "proves their point," from their warped
perspective.
Thus do the (tiny minority) of crazy America-haters out there (who we help create WITH our
militarism), serve as ongoing Perfectly Plausible Proof for Paranoia ~ the fuel for 24/7
fear/fear/fear propaganda. And who benefits from that propaganda? Oh wait, let us all think on that.
For five seconds.
In 1959, Republican war hero and President Dwight David Eisenhower warned us against combining the
incentives of capitalism with the un-audited profitability of wars: the "military industrial
complex." But in we Americans' orgy of personal materialism since the 1960's, we all forgot his
warning and have let that "complex" take over the nation, the world, all our pocketbooks (53% or
more of our treasury now goes to "defense" ~ what a lying word THAT is).
Answer? It it the 1-percent, crazily Wealth Hoarder super-rich who (a) profit insanely from Eternal
War and who now own (b) America's so-called "free press" (ha ha), the latter of which now slants all
news towards Threat, Fear, and War, again, 24/7. And now that "their" Nazi Supreme Court has ruled
that "money" = free speech, that same of sociopathic criminal class ALSO is coming to own politics.
Welcome to fully blooming Corporate Fascism, folks.
bullypulpit
In his book "1984" George Orwell wrote, "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is
strength." Have we fallen so far that we are living that nightmare without question? When we hear
the voices of politicians, with those on the political right being the most egregious offenders,
clamoring for war, we must not forget the cost. Not just in terms of treasure, but especially of the
blood spilled by our men and women in uniform. Ask, "Are the causes they are being asked to
fight...and die...for, worthy of the sacrifice?"
Jim Given -> bullypulpit
I'm afraid that yes, we actually have fallen that far. The Patriot Act is the quintessential
example. Who could possibly oppose something called The Patriot Act?
Jim Given -> bullypulpit
The War on Terror, another fine example. What, you oppose fighting terrorists? The language
stifles (reasoned) dissent. It's brilliant, really.
Tom Farkas
Every year I get an uncomfortable sensation around Memorial Day. I know why now thanks to
this article. I didn't serve in the armed forces. Not for want. I was a post Vietnam teenager.
The armed forces were a joke during the Carter years and the US was in the middle of detante
with the USSR. Nothing to fight about and the word terrorist was still a few years away from
being reinvented. My Dad was a decorated veteran of the police action in Korea. He lost his
best friend there. He rarely talked about it. He and I sat on the couch watching the fall of
Saigon on TV. He silently cried. It was all for not. All those lives, all that misery, all for
nothing but power and glory. He knew it and I've known it since but just couldn't put a finger
on it. Thanks for this article.
talenttruth -> Tom Farkas
Tom, what a beautiful post. My husband and I (recently married after we were finally
"allowed" to, just like "real people"), are both Vietnam veterans (we had to "hide" in order
to serve). And I had majored in college in "U.S. Constitutional History," then worked worked
(ironically!) in the advertising "industry" (the Lie Factory) for enough years to see how
America, business and our society actually works, INSTEAD of "constitutionally."
My self-preoccupied generation sleepwalked from the 1960's until now, foolishly allowing the
super-rich to gradually make nearly every giant corporation dependent on military contracts.
Example? The European Union has openly subsidized its aircraft manufacturer, Airbus. But here,
in the USA ~ that would be "socialism," and so Boeing was forced instead (in order to compete)
to rely on military contracts ("military welfare.") They're both "government subsidization,"
but ours is crooked.
So what do we get when all corporations "must have" ongoing Business, in order to keep their
insatiable profits rolling in? Eternal War. And its "unfortunate side effects" - maimed
veterans, dead soldiers, sailors and airmen, and the revolting hypocrisy of "Memorial Day."
On that day, we pay "respect" to those who died serving the Military Marketing Department for
America's totally out of control, unchecked capitalism, which only serves the overlords at the
top.
Sorry to sound so grim, but I did not serve my country, to have it thus stolen.
Barclay Reynolds
When congress votes to fund wars then [they need to] add 75% more for after care. As a
combat veteran it pisses me off that [instead] charities are used to care for us. Most are run
by want a be military, Senease, types. No charities, it's up to American people to pay every
penny for our care, they voted for the war mongers so, so pay up people. Citizens need to know
true costs, tax raises, cuts in SS , welfare, cuts in schools. Biggest thing, all elected
officials and families and those work for them must use VA hospitals, let's see how that works
out.
Jim Given -> Barclay Reynolds
Failure to care for our veterans is a national disgrace. Thanks for your service brother.
SusanPrice58 -> Barclay Reynolds
I agree. While I'm sure that most of these charities try to do well, it always makes me
angry to think about why the need for charities to care for veterans exists. If we are
determined to fight these wars - then every citizen should have to have deep involvement of
some sort. Raise taxes, ration oil, watch footage of battles, restore the draft - whatever.
Instead, we insulate ourselves in a nice, warm cocoon of "Support Our Veterans" slogans
and flag waving.
Tom Wessel
"Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict "
How about Hillary and the fantasy of war, PERIOD. There hasn't been a war she didn't like. Did
you listen to her AIPAC speech? No 2 State solution there.
gwpriester
The obscene amount of money the US pays just on the interest on the trillions "borrowed" for the Afghanistan and Iraq adventures would fix most that is wrong with the world. Bush & Cheney discovered if you don't raise taxes, require financial sacrifices, and do not have a draft, that you can wage bogus wars of choice for over a decade without so much as a peep of protest from the public. It is sickening how much good that money could do instead of all the death and destruction it bought.
AllenPitt
"So easy to be the hero in your wet dreams, your shooter games, your securely located war rooms stocked with emergency rations and the external defibrillator. This sort of unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people – old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class – across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing."
EXACTLY!
OZGODRK
It is actually NOT Donald Trump who is advocating the endless global conflict and
confrontation with Russia, China, India, Iran, Europe and North Korea. The candidate secretly
advocating a never-ending war with the rest of the world is -- Madame Secretary, Hillary
Clinton, in person. Aided and abetted - publicly - by her right-hand woman, another Madame
Secretary, Madeleine Albright and yet another Madame Undersecretary, Samantha Power. All
chicken hawks, all neoconservatives, all pseudo-democrats, all on Wall Street payroll, all
white, and all women who will never see a second of combat for the rest of their lives.
So, the very major premise of the article is flawed and unsustainable. Which, of course,
then makes the entire article collapse as false and misleading.
MOZGODRK -> arrggh
But you are missing the entire point. Trump is NOT advocating the conflict; he is
advocating that we TALK to our enemies, so his lack of combat experience is a moot point.
On the other hand, the Clintons, the Alzhe...er, Albright, and the Samantha Power-Tripp are
all totally kosher with sending millions to die, knowing that they themselves will not
experience a nanosecond of hot cognitive experience.
caravanserai
John Mearsheimer who is a history professor at the University of Chicago wrote a great
book about American foreign policy. Mearsheimer explains how American foreign policy has
developed over the centuries. He argues that it firs objective was to dominate the Western
Hemisphere before extending its reach to Asia and Europe. The War of 1812 and the Monroe
Doctrine was part of a plan to dominate the Americas. The U.S. stopped Japan and Germany
dominating Asia and Europe in the 20th century. The U.S. continued to view the British Empire
as its greatest threat and Roosevelt set about dismantling it during WW2. Once WW2 was won,
the Soviet Union became America's new adversary and it maintained forces in Europe to check
Soviet expansion.
Mearsheimer argues that the U.S. is often in denial about its behavior and Americans are
taught that the U.S. is altruistic and a force for good in the world. Measheimer states that
"idealist rhetoric provided a proper mask for the brutal policies that underpinned the
tremendous growth of American power." In 1991 the U.S. became the world's only super-power and
according to Mearsheimer its main foreign policy objective was to prevent the re-emergence of
a new rival. Following the difficult wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the U.S. is less
certain of its global role. Mearsheimer claims that America's foreign policy elite is
still largely made up of people who want to keep America on top, but these days they usually
prefer to keep their views under wraps. Trump seems to be proposing something completely
different.
Rescue caravanserai
Trump is not proposing anything different. His foreign policy is the same as the establishment. He is not anti-war, nor more hawkish than Obama or Clinton.
Trumps FP is unilateral i.e. The US will go it alone without the UN or anyone else, attack any country he feels is threatning, without paying attention to intl. law, or "political correctness" as he calls it, i.e. the US will kill and torture as many ppl as it feels like to feel safe, and pay no attention to the Geneva Conventions. Other statements about his intended FP, that the msm calls shocking, has already been done, i.e. bomb the crap out of people, kill families of terrorists, waterboarding and much worse. These have been common policies since 9/11 & before. Another policy is to steal Iraq's oil. This has been de facto US FP in the Middle East since Eisenhower. The difference is that Trump says it outright. He makes subtext into the text.
Falanx
I agree with the overall point of this article... but focusing on the GOP and Trump, detracts from its otherwise valid points. What about Wilson, Truman, Johnson, Clinton, Obama and Hillary? Especially Hillary ("We came, We saw, He died") who evidently considers herself a latter day Caesar. The plain fact is that the US was conceived as a warmongering nation. Everyone else in the world understands this.
DanInTheDesert
Wow. What a fantastic article . This is what we need in the era of twitter journalism -- a long think piece. Thank you.[*]
Having said that I have disagree with the conclusion -- we have just a little over a week to avoid a forced choice between two hawks. The chances are slim but not impossible -- be active this weekend. Phonebank for Sanders. Convince a Californian to show up and vote.
PrinceVlad
Trump is the only candidate I've ever heard question the cost of war, it's part of the
reason he said we should flush NATO and we can't police the world for free any longer.
Kenarmy -> PrinceVlad
"Donald Trump would deploy up to 30,000 American soldiers in the Middle East to defeat the
Islamic State, he said at Thursday night's debate."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-iraq-syria-220608#ixzz49yJWQras
I have no problem with destroying ISIS. I have a problem with fighting Russia over
every former Soviet state on their doorstep ala Madam Secretary.
The best way to remember the war dead is to work to ensure that their ranks do not swell.
[*] and if anyone is reading who deals with such things -- y'all need to accept paypal or bitcoin so I can subscribe. Who uses their credit card online anymore?
"... the DoS requires workers to print out each email sent or received, and file it in a box, which is preserved. In general, these printouts, when done at all, are "filed" in printout order, making them difficult to search (which may be the intent, given the historic hostility to FOIA requests). ..."
"... Also, wasn't mail.presidentclinton.com used for the emails of the Clinton Foundation aides? Doesn't this mean the FBI likely now has very precise timing of both Hillary's SoS travel communications and Bill Clinton's speaking fee arrangement and Clinton Foundation donation emails, due to the emails likely having timestamps from a common clock? ..."
"... Assuming the ISP has decent security.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGmDBo-00mY ..."
"... That is a GREAT Youtube video. I've only gotten through the first 10 and a half minutes of it so far, and I had to stop watching it for a bit, because I was laughing my ass off so hard that tears were rolling down my cheeks. ..."
"... So let me get this straight, she COULD have been sending stuff involved with Black ops over an unencrypted link, and POTENTIALLY those files could have been printed off ANYWHERE in the world, and people are STILL defending her actions! Did it happen – IRRELEVANT! The very notion that she made it POSSIBLE means she breached national security! ..."
"... if I was an attacker, with or without the backing of a foreign government, I'd have been poking at THE PRINTER in the first instance, because (a) its security is likely to be weaker and also (b) its entirely less likely that there would be any logs produced or kept of my poking around. ..."
"... Now you're saying that not only was a printer available on this subdomain, and there was no firewall and no encrypted transport, but it was actually one of a particular series of HP LaserJet printers that allowed for a firmware upgrade upon receiving a new print job? ..."
"... 24.187.234.188 sounds very much like it was from the optimum online network block, and a quick whois shows that currently it does belong to them. ..."
"... he is not an engineer. Just a Manager that worked for a year 'managing' remote connectivity for foreign Embassies…. he did not go to school for CS or engineering and he has no training either. He was given immunity by the Justice Dept and was then fired by the State Dept so obviously he did something wrong. If you read Brian's post on FB - all of this is explained in the comments below his post with citations/links. ..."
"... The AP and Wired news stories about this whole issue (of the security of the server) catalog an entire boat load of security screw ups. They don't exactly inspire confidence in the competence of the people who set this stuff up. ..."
"... Interesting footnote: On tonight's NBC Evening Nudes, they mentioned that the FBI had seized Clinton's server, and also a USB thumb drive in August of last year. No mention of any PRINTERS being seized. (Typical incompetent FBI, still operating in the Louis Freeh era. The man didn't even know how to use a computer, and didn't want to.) ..."
"... like most hackers, hes a pathological liar. Its in their nature. He came out real quick to brag and prove how he hacked a clinton aid. But didn't want to tell anybody until he went to jail and she runing for president that that he hacked clintons emails? I call total BS. ..."
"... Did the sysadmin(s) who set up the mail and printer systems have security clearance(s) to read all the Mrs. Clinton's mail and print jobs? ..."
"... Because she certainly gave the sysadmin(s) the ability to read her mail and print jobs. archive the data, and transport the data anywhere. If that was not all done by State Department IT employee(s). how is this not a punishable offense? ..."
"... My understanding is that the same person who set up Bill Clinton's website and email after he left office set up Secretary Clinton's; hence, the shared IP addresses for similarly worded domains. Also, wasn't the same server used for both? ..."
"... I say follow the money. Look at the links between Clinton Foundation and classified information. ..."
"... She setup a private email server knowingly to exempt her from compliance. Now, the after the fact doesn't really matter. And she knows that… A .gov address would have full rights to all corispondance as the information belongs the the government and can be requested by ant civilian… ..."
It has, I think, been shown by Venafi that there was for some time in 2012 and 2013 a VPN running
on the clintonemail.com domain. However, that certificate expired. Running a directly Internet
connected printer seems more a security threat than simply a chance of sniffing printer queues
as modern printers sometimes have their own vulnerabilities.
Venafi's posts (first story has information about VPN):
I don't see why she requires a publicly routable IP address for a mail server, print server
and VPN server. It can easily be NATed behind a router on a single public IP.
On a show last week, Rachel Maddow did a segment on the Department of State's official archive
policy.
According to Maddow, the DoS requires workers to print out each email sent or received,
and file it in a box, which is preserved. In general, these printouts, when done at all, are "filed"
in printout order, making them difficult to search (which may be the intent, given the historic
hostility to FOIA requests).
This reminded me that the DoS was dismayed at not finding Brian Pagliano's .pst file, indicating
they did not expect to find his emails on any server-side backup. Presumably, no server-side DoS
email backup capability exists.
Also, wasn't mail.presidentclinton.com used for the emails of the Clinton Foundation aides?
Doesn't this mean the FBI likely now has very precise timing of both Hillary's SoS travel communications
and Bill Clinton's speaking fee arrangement and Clinton Foundation donation emails, due to the
emails likely having timestamps from a common clock?
Well, there are many printers have more than one port and protocols in use which means many different
ways of establishing a connection to that printer and not just layer 2.
Loved all the arguments, but, show me in the laws where it was illegal, for Hillery, to have
a second E-mail address? And that it was illegal to use it on government time. Or to have a printer
hooked to that account? But, I will tell you what was illegal. The employees using that address
to send classified information too. You shouldn't worry about Hillery, but the useful idiots.
There are some registrars that setup DNS by way of a template and assign A record subdomains
by default to make it easier….such as MX, www, etc. Not excusing it as you need to be way more
careful when you are the state department…but this is hardly the worst thing Clinton has done.
I'm not surprised since people don't realize how much of a security risk a printer can be -
and how to protect themselves and their network. Great white paper about printer and network security
written by a third party here: bit.ly/1sq1kyG
I also just read a story about printers and security on Computerworld.
The printer queue to a pimple faced hacker wouldn't be of interest but for a state intelligence
agency it would be a jackpot. Some of the greatest intelligence is gathered from the trash still
today. Don't think that the printer queue would not be interesting to a knowledgeable party.
So… You want me to believe that Hillary's personal email server sat behind MILLIONS of dollars
of security infrastructure to keep it protected? And that it employed D.O.D. grade 2 factor authentication,
disk encryption, and had a team of the worlds best security professionals monitoring all traffic
to/from the server and the network itself?
Secure, nonsecure, whatever. If she had used State's email server, then 1) copies would have
been on their server when she left office, 2) the Benghazi Commitee would have been able to wrap
up its investigation 2 years ago, 3) if State's computers were hacked, that wouldn't be her responsibility,
and 4) due to her choices, she's on the hot seat insisting she didn't do anything wrong. She made
her bed and now has to sleep in it.
The C-SPAN interview with former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Joseph diGenova
I linked to above was a real eye opener for me to how HUGE this scandal actually is.
Once one is aware of the details, one can easily see through all of the many intentional red
herrings and half truths thrown out on this by Clinton and her campaign. What is absolutely, positively
amazing to me is how they have been able to get away with it since it really doesn't take much
investigative effort at all to expose their spin job for what it is.
Some of the lame excuses now coming from the State Department are a hint that officials there
are also vulnerable to the very major repercussions that SHOULD come from this.
Every one of the 127 to 150 (depending upon who you listen to) FBI agents investigating this
and every person in the intel community knows darn well that if any one of them had done even
the tiniest fraction of what has been done by Clinton and her crew, their security clearance would
have been immediately revoked, they would have been indicted and, most likely, imprisoned.
That is why, as revealed in the C-SPAN interview with Joseph diGenova who has a current Top
Secret clearance himself and has his ear to the conversation within the retired DOJ and intel
community in DC, there would likely be a revolt within the FBI and intel community if there are
no indictments on this. Why?
Well, first, there is that "Think of what would have happened to ME if I'd done even a tiny
fraction of this." Second, the failure to indict and prosecute would set a dangerous precedent
that would make the successful prosecution of anyone guilty of the mishandling of classified materials
and avoidance of public record FOIA inquiries difficult if not impossible.
@notme and other defending Hillary Fanbois: There is tons of evidence it was not way more secure
than a DOD platform and she didn't use a qualified individual to set up the email server.
It was an out of the box config with little or no effort to obfuscate the domain / service.
I highly doubt the server or IIS had been harden and I'd have to profile it was out of ignorance.
No doubt all default vulnerabilities where unaddressed and patches weren't in effect if a reboot
was necessary
How do we know this??? Just a little recon. As you know whatever you post may never go away…
Same goes for domains. Enter one of my favorite Internet recon tools The Way Back Machine. If
you don't know it, search for it and do a little research.
When the default IIS page comes up for the mail domain and the auth login page shows up for
at the default OWA address, we can comfortably conclude this was a lame chatty effort. At least
ssl was being used (by default no doubt): https://mail.clintonemail.com/owa/auth/logon.aspx
Had someone intended to provide a layer of security by hiding her email, it never EVER would've
been via that silly domain. An obfuscated domain would've been irrelevant and distasteful i.e.
openmalwarehere.com
That is a GREAT Youtube video. I've only gotten through the first 10 and a half minutes
of it so far, and I had to stop watching it for a bit, because I was laughing my ass off so hard
that tears were rolling down my cheeks.
Looking forward to the additional amazing absurdities revealed in the NEXT 40 minutes of this
video.
Could also DNS poison. They are not connecting to the printer via IP probably if they are setting
up A records for it. Also don't underestimate how many routers on the web are hacked, and I am
talking up stream core routers.
But why are we even talking about eavesdropping a connection? You can usually trivially compromise
a printer (likely default admin creds) and just capture each print job that is sent to the printer
using the printer itself. Copy each job onto the filesystem memory on the device and FTP it out.
Most all HP and other network capable printers support it or just upload your own firmware.
So let me get this straight, she COULD have been sending stuff involved with Black ops
over an unencrypted link, and POTENTIALLY those files could have been printed off ANYWHERE in
the world, and people are STILL defending her actions! Did it happen – IRRELEVANT! The very notion
that she made it POSSIBLE means she breached national security!
Would anyone else who did this be allowed in public yet alone to run for POTUS!?
The intercepting of data is also somewhat unlikely. Without knowing how they got internet access
you can't say infallibly if it was sniffable. Over a fiber circuit she likely had a CIDR block
and there wouldn't have been anyone else to sniff it. Over DOCSIS they would need to break BPI+,
and be on the local RF segment. Both create extraordinarily unlikely scenarios for sniffing.
Also you sent me on a confusing wild IP goose chase… You have both 24.187.234.188 and 24.197.234.188
listed in the story.
"In one demonstration, Cui printed a tax return on an infected printer, which in turn sent
the tax form to a second computer playing the part of a hacker's machine. The latter computer
then scanned the document for critical information such as Social Security numbers, and when it
found one, automatically published it on a Twitter feed…"
So, um, leaving aside the narrow possibility of printer traffic sniffing, I believe that it
might be accurate to say that most printers these days have memory… lots of it… and thus, it would
seem to be not entirely beyond the realm of the possible to imagine a scenario in which a less-than-perfectly-secured
printer which happened to also have a PUBLIC internet address, might perhaps be induced to give
up its secrets to some remote attacker, e.g. the last five or ten documents that were printed.
The media and the Republicats are all gaga about the security of THE SERVER, but if I was
an attacker, with or without the backing of a foreign government, I'd have been poking at THE
PRINTER in the first instance, because (a) its security is likely to be weaker and also (b) its
entirely less likely that there would be any logs produced or kept of my poking around.
Now you're saying that not only was a printer available on this subdomain, and there was
no firewall and no encrypted transport, but it was actually one of a particular series of HP LaserJet
printers that allowed for a firmware upgrade upon receiving a new print job?
After a few ifs, I agree this could look bad. But, Ron, you're piling on the if after if after
if and stating factually that this was bad. Again, what we have is a subdomain with printer as
the name. There's a ton of things in between that what you're trying to have poor Brian conclude.
Directly connecting a computer to the internet without any firewall or hardening, bad idea.
Directly connecting a printer to the internet without any firewall or hardening, yes, this too
is a bad idea. Too bad we're playing hopscotch because of a subdomain name. Not like this:
http://210.125.31.xxx/hp/device/this.LCDispatcher?nav=hp.EventLog
This brings up another interesting thing I just learned about the clintonemail.com domain.
The FSI passive DNS data bases knows of about 10,000 subdomains of that domain. I was flaberghasted
by this at first, but then I realised the real reason for this. (No, that domain DOES NOT actually
have anywhere near that many REAL subdomains):
The simple answer is that NetworkSolutions points your parked domains at their advertising.
(That's not actually remarkable at all. That's just what pretty much every company that does domain
parking does.)
The more interesting thing is that in the cases of your live/active/non-parked domains for
which NetSol provides DNS, they wildcard these domains, so that any time anybody punches in a
misspelled subdomain name, they end up at NetSol's advertising partner, DoubleClick.
This is arguably an underhanded thing for NetSol to be doing, but hey! It's (apparently) in
the contract, so it _is_ explicit to the customer, and NetSol isn't in business for its health.
It's a commecial enterprise, so they can't be blamed for trying to make a buck, here and there.
But all this info about the DNS really brings up some other issues. Let's say, just for the
sake of argument, that Hillary's server was, in actual fact, as tight as a snare drum with respect
to security. There's still the question of her login credentials for her NetSol account. If those
had gone walkaround… well… you can imagine the scenarios.
The Wayback links I provided are NOT for subdomains or parked domains. They are for the clintonemail.com
domain, for the time period in question that a breach may have occurred. The URL strings captured
show (at least) questionable adware running on this box, and I'm really surprised no one is looking
at that. The &poru= string is tied to some very dubious adware, for example.
So no evidence except wild speculation based on a sub domain name? I used to have a few sub
domains such as router.mydomain voip.mydomain admin.mydomain netgear.mydomain setup as a honeypots.
My plan was to script any ips buzzing them had all their future traffic dropped for several days.
But alas I never got around to completing it.
Gosh! I had no idea, up until this moment, that Hillary was so sophisticated that she was even
running her own honeypots!
Returning to this planet for the moment, I'd just like to emphasize that, as I told Brian,
there are really two core points here:
1) Assigning a *public* IPv4 address to a printer opened up at least the theoretical possibilities
that either (a) printer traffic could be sniffed or (b) that the printer itself could be compromised.
We can debate all day the actual pragmatic level of risk associated with each of these two possibilities,
but I think that it is non-zero in both cases, and in any case, perhaps this all misses the point.
2) Perhaps even MORE importantly, the assignment of a static public IP address to the printer
speaks to the general level of network security competence (or lack thereof) of whoever was setting
up and maintaining this equipment for the Clintons. And what it says is not good at all. I don't
think that many either would or could disagree with that. And this is the more troubling aspect
of the whole story. If the Clinton's sysadmin messed up even this simple and obvious thing, then
what ELSE did he or she mess up, security-wise?
"Putting anything on the internet opens up the theoretical possibility that's its traffic could
be sniffed. So, unless that's the threshold, in which case she's as secure as anything else on
the internet, what's the point of the outrage?"
Actually, yea, you've made a good point. But let's dissect it a bit.
In theory, at least, server-to-server e-mail transmission can be protected from prying eyes
via TLS encryption. I personally don't know how well deployed that (TLS) is at the present moment,
but let's just say for the sake of argument that it's 50/50, i.e. half the time Hillary's inbound
and outbound messages, e.g. to various world potentates, were protected in transit from sniffing
and/or MITM attacks, and the other times they weren't.
More to the point, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that she at least understood the
possibilities of her e-mails being spied upon… which, in the post-Snowden era, at least, she certainly
should have understood… and as a result, she was at least smart enough not to send out e-mails
like "Yea, let's drop those bombs now Bibi!" as some clever wag here said.
Contrast this with her probable level of caution when it came to simply *printing* some draft
document… which could be equally or perhaps even more revealing and/or inflamatory… to the printer
sitting right there next to her desk in her home office.
(As someone suggested, it is at least theoretically possible that data transport to the printer
might be encrypted, but in practice, probably not.)
So Hillary is sitting there, and she prints a draft of a document she's working on called "State
Department Post-Invasion Plan for Crimea". She doesn't worry about the security implications of
"sending" that document out over the Internet, because, as far as she knows, it is actually just
going from the screen on the physical desk right in front of her just over to the printer which
is sitting right at her elbow. As far as her (possibly technically naive) perceptions go, the
document is just being printed, and isn't ever even leaving the room she is sitting in. So her
_perception_ is that printing the document is utterly safe and secure.
But this is the whole point here. Maybe that document could be sniffed. Even if that's not
a realistic possibility, the printer itself could be directly compromised, and made to give up
its secrets.
The apparent high probability that (a) she had a home printer and that (b) this printer had
a public Ipv4 address… which was ridiculously easy to find, by the way… and that (c) she probably
was NOT just using that printer as a paperweight or a doorstop and (d) the undeniable possibility
that said printer could perhaps have been "hacked"… perhaps even via something as simple as remote
login using admin/admin… all adds up to what, in my book at least, seems to be a "Holy s**t!"
type of scenario.
The fact that the FBI apparently didn't bother to impound her printer when it impounded the
rest of her gear is perhaps even more troubling.
For all we know, as we speak, that printer may be sitting exposed in some landfill somewhere
in the hills of Westchester County, just waiting for some dumpster diver with an eye for valuable
e-waste to come along, fish it out, plug it in, login with admin/admin, and then print out copies
of the last 20 documents.
I think that it is safe to say that such a scenario probably would not be fully conformant
with State Department rules & regulations with respect to the security of electronic documents.
Subdomain names mean little to nothing. Someone could guess what an IP address served based
upon the subdomain name, or the domain name itself, but that is silly.
What exactly is an "internet based printer"? I'm not sure if there's a technical person trying
to sound not technical and using random jargon or if it's a non-technical person trying to sound
technical. Let's try and define some terms maybe?
24.187.234.188 sounds very much like it was from the optimum online network block, and
a quick whois shows that currently it does belong to them. That sounds about right because
they provide services around the area Hillary Clinton called home. Optonline does provide static
IP addresses. But I have to wonder, are these terminated in the house? Do we know if the email
server everyone is so hip to talk about was actually located at Clinton's house or was it in a
DC (rack, not washington)? If it was in her house what was the connection? Did this IP reside
on a cable modem? Was it a DSL line? Fiber? That area wasn't know for it's way updated and trendy
transport. Did the carrier provide the equipment? Did Clinton hire a complete idiot to put the
email server directly connected to the internet or was there a firewall in front of it?
How likely is it that there was a firewall of sorts in front of the mail server and any printers
that were likely there? Pretty damn likely. She didn't buy services from Stooges r Us. And even
if she did, they would probably set up a firewall. That's all saying that the vendor supplied
equipment didn't perform some firewalling technology. Anyone in the IT field would see this as
not very likely outside of pre mid 90s.
For the printer subdomain name, we think that the printer actually had IPP or something? LPD?
Are you suggesting, but not saying, that Clinton set up a printing device directly on the internet
so that while she was traveling around wherever she was when not at home and printing to that
printer? That doesn't even make sense. Or are you suggesting, but not saying, she decided this
fancy new printer she saw at Office Depot would look nice with a subdomain sitting next to her
email server? And, now she could actually print stuff while she was outside in the yard or upstairs
in the bedroom? Oh, it was connected to the internet? Really? "I didn't know it was on the internet
even though I somehow called and registered a subdomain so I could get an external IP address
for it. And I just plugged this big old CAT5(e)/6 cable into my printer directly from the wall???"
Factually we can say the following: 4 subdomains pointed to 2 IPs. 2 subdomains use the English
word "mail" and 2 subdomains use the English word "printer".
Do we know that some mail transfer agent was listening on the mail domain? I assume someone
knows this, but I've not seen any documentation on this, haven't looked, barely care. Do we have
any open ports on this other IP? Did anyone do some research? Why don't you contact Robert Graham
and ask him if masscan hit those IPs and what ports were open. Maybe he doesn't like reporters,
but you can ask nicely. Tell him some guy on the internet told you about masscan and that Rob
probably had some port information about those IPs.
"Do we know if the email server everyone is so hip to talk about was actually located at Clinton's
house or was it in a DC (rack, not washington)? If it was in her house what was the connection?
Did this IP reside on a cable modem? Was it a DSL line? Fiber? That area wasn't know for it's
way updated and trendy transport. Did the carrier provide the equipment? Did Clinton hire a complete
idiot to put the email server directly connected to the internet or was there a firewall in front
of it?"
These are all GREAT questions, many of which the FBI, in its usual half-assed manner, is probably
not even thinking about, let alone actually asking. Do you have any of the answers to any of the
questions that you yourself have raised? I mean DEFINITIVE answers, rather than just your personal
speculations?
"How likely is it that there was a firewall of sorts in front of the mail server and any printers
that were likely there? Pretty damn likely."
And you are basing that opinion/supposition on what, exactly?
She used a SUPER USER from State to set it up for her… he is not an engineer. Just a Manager
that worked for a year 'managing' remote connectivity for foreign Embassies…. he did not go to
school for CS or engineering and he has no training either. He was given immunity by the Justice
Dept and was then fired by the State Dept so obviously he did something wrong. If you read Brian's
post on FB - all of this is explained in the comments below his post with citations/links.
The CIDR block 24.187.234.184/29 was allocated to Clinton's home. If the network was configured
following standard practices, traffic between systems inside that CIDR block would not have left
Clinton's LAN, and most definitely would not have been "sent out over the Internet". Guilmette's
comments about vulnerabilities and wasting toner assume incompetence and a total absence of firewalls.
What evidence we have is that the people who setup Clinton's home LAN knew enough to configure
a router, a firewall, a VPN, and some basic CIDR netmasks.
NAT is not a security fix-all, not using NAT is not a sign of vulnerability or incompetence.
"If the network was configured following standard practices, traffic between systems inside
that CIDR block would not have left Clinton's LAN…"
And if perchance it WASN'T configured following standard practices, what then?
Does the FBI know what how the network was actually configured? Does anybody?
"Guilmette's comments about vulnerabilities and wasting toner assume incompetence and a total
absence of firewalls."
Absolutely. Is there any publically known reason to grant the sysadmin(s) who set this stuff
up any more generous assumptions vis a vis their competence? The AP and Wired news stories
about this whole issue (of the security of the server) catalog an entire boat load of security
screw ups. They don't exactly inspire confidence in the competence of the people who set this
stuff up.
"What evidence we have is that the people who setup Clinton's home LAN knew enough to configure
a router, a firewall, a VPN, and some basic CIDR netmasks."
I can teach an 8th grader of average intelligence how to do all that stuff in 1/2 hour. Teaching
him/her how to do it SECURELY takes a bit longer.
The good news is that people with no more intelligence that a bag of hammers can nowadays wander
down to the local BestBuy, purchase a network printer and a router, take them both home, plug
them in, and they just seem to work. The bad news is that people with no more intelligence than
a bag of hammers can nowadays wander down to their local BestBuy, purchase a network printer and
a router, take them both home, plug them in, and they just SEEM to work.
The mere existance of this network isn't proof that it was secure in any sense. It isn't even
evidence of that.
Agreed. The information in this article is largely speculation based on one piece of information
meta data (a DNS record).
Whether a printer existed is speculation; Whether said printer was connected to the internet
is speculation (having an IP does not equal internet connectivity); If said printer existed, and
if said printer was internet connected, any vulnerabilities in the printer itself or in the communications
path are also speculation.
It gets better. Do a dig mx clintonemail.com. You'll see that the machine's incoming email
was filtered by mxlogic.net, a spam filtering service that works by received all your emails,
filtering out the spam, and forwarding you the rest.
This is because the hosting provider, Platte River Network, sold a package along with the hosting.
The package included spam filtering and full-disk off-site backup (since then seized by the FBI).
So every email received by Clinton was going through many unsecured places, including a spam
filtering queue, a backup appliance and an off-site backup server. Which has already been documented.
"It gets better. Do a dig mx clintonemail.com. You'll see that the machine's incoming email
was filtered by mxlogic.net, a spam filtering service that works by received all your emails,
filtering out the spam, and forwarding you the rest."
That arrangement appears to have only been in effect since circa June, 2013. We should think
also about the time BOTH before and after that.
;; bailiwick: clintonemail.com.
;; count: 5454
;; first seen: 2013-06-24 21:27:43 -0000
;; last seen: 2016-05-26 12:57:43 -0000
clintonemail.com. IN MX 10 clintonemail.com.inbound10.mxlogic.net.
clintonemail.com. IN MX 10 clintonemail.com.inbound10.mxlogicmx.net.
"This is because the hosting provider, Platte River Network, sold a package along with the
hosting. The package included spam filtering and full-disk off-site backup (since then seized
by the FBI)."
Was that all in the report? I guess I'll have to go and read that whole thing now.
Interesting footnote: On tonight's NBC Evening Nudes, they mentioned that the FBI had seized
Clinton's server, and also a USB thumb drive in August of last year. No mention of any PRINTERS
being seized. (Typical incompetent FBI, still operating in the Louis Freeh era. The man didn't
even know how to use a computer, and didn't want to.)
"So every email received by Clinton was going through many unsecured places, including a spam
filtering queue, a backup appliance and an off-site backup server. Which has already been documented."
Um, yep. You're right. Arguably, the security of Clinton's e-mails were even WORSE after the
switch in June, 2013, than it had been before that.
And let's not forget that the Stored Communications Act makes it perfectly legal for any service
provider who happens to have YOUR e-mails on THEIR hard drives to peek at those e-mails, pretty
much as they see fit, as long as doing so is ostensibly or arguably for "technical" reasons having
to do with the management of the service they are providing.
(Google goes further and has software that looks at everything, for marketing/advertising purposes.
All 100% legal, based on their end luser contracts, I'm sure.)
So this is basically like when some NSA people got caught peeking at the NSA's records on their
love interests. When they get caught, they just shrug, promise never to do it again, and nobody
goes to jail.
How many sysadmins at MXLogic had access to Clinton's emails? If the one lone guy who pulled
the graveyard shift poked around into those e-mails, at say 3AM, would anybody even know that
had happened? (Even the NSA didn't know what Snowden had looked at until he was already long gone,
and even then, they weren't entirely sure.)
Ah, Brian, it appears that both the Chinese and the Russians had complete access to Hillary's
rogue mail server going back to 2013. I'm not sure there's any point in talking about the printer.
A Romanian cab driver, known as Guccifer and now sitting in a U.S. jail, claimed to have found
her mail server and gotten complete access to it in 2013, up to two years before Farsight discovered
it in March 2015.
But there is a subsequent story that claimed that Guccifer tried to hack into Russian systems
which the Russians discovered. They, in turn, planted malware on Guccifer's computer that allowed
them to see everything that he was able to hack into. It's likely that the Russians have every
piece of email that went through Hillary's server. If there are any missing, we should ask them
about it.
like most hackers, hes a pathological liar. Its in their nature. He came out real quick
to brag and prove how he hacked a clinton aid. But didn't want to tell anybody until he went to
jail and she runing for president that that he hacked clintons emails? I call total BS.
Nobody with any brains believes the recent headline-grabbing pronouncements from this criminal
Guccifer. He's pretty obviously just failing around and hoping that he can come up with some topical
story that will get him in the newspapers and maybe… if they are really dumb… entice his prosecutors
into cutting him some sort of a deal if he "talks" about his alleged break-in to the Clinton server.
But so far, he hasn't produced a single shred of credible evidence to back up his wild claims,
and as someone pointed out, it is really rather absurd, even or especially for someone in his
position, to VOLUNTARILY cop to yet another federal felony.
The smart money says that if anyone ever did compromise any part of Clinton's network, that
party will be smart enough to NEVER talk about that, except to his paymasters, or to whoever is
willing and able to purchase the exflitrated data, with utmost confidentiality and discretion,
obviously.
I assume that when China, Russia, Israel, Germany, Britian, India, Pakistan, etc… reconnoitered
Secretary Clinton's web presence and discovered her use of a private email server and printer,
they would have devoted the required time and resources to compromise them, one way or the other.
That's what state-sponsored intelligence services do. If I were either Clinton, I would assume
my email was compromised and assume my nation-state adversaries have everything … just the same
as if I used the State Department's email system.
Ironically, she would have been better off using the State Dept. email system: she would have
known from the start that eventually every message would be in the hands of our adversaries.
1. DOCSIS – LOL. While her cable company's DOCSIS 3.1 does have encrypted features to prevent
someone on the copper from doing the equivalent of ARP poisoning to pretend to be her gateway,
I have not yet – anywhere in New England or the Mid Atlantic – found those encryption features
enabled. They are left off intentionally by every provider I have tested probably for bandwidth
profit reasons. Her packets were sniffable. Period.
2. FOX level hypocrisy detected.
Let's not forget that Rove and Cheney ran the US government for years during a time of war
using an Exchange 2003 RNC server. When called on it, suddenly (Oopsy, TeeHee!) all the millions
of those email messages – and their backups – got 'accidentally' deleted rather than letting the
world + dog see what those two chimps were trusting Microsoft security to keep safe. Any talk
of Orange suits needs to put those two at the front of the line.
As far as I'm concerned with Hillary, I'd like to see her precedent more widely adopted – hardened
personal mail stores to restore privacy. Screw the folks who think snooping everyone's email is
their personal right under some secret law.
"More importantly, any emails or other documents that the Clintons decided to print would be
sent out over the Internet - however briefly - before going back to the printer. And that data
may have been sniffable by other customers of the same ISP, Guilmette said."
How/why would this be the case?
I can see if we make the assumption of all machines using internal IPs so packets headed to
24.187.234.188 would route out then bounce back in … but if it was local net, or if it was defined
in hosts or the router (also assumptions) then it would never have to bounce out except for a
a lookup.
or am I missing something here ..?
Did the sysadmin(s) who set up the mail and printer systems have security clearance(s)
to read all the Mrs. Clinton's mail and print jobs?
Because she certainly gave the sysadmin(s) the ability to read her mail and print jobs.
archive the data, and transport the data anywhere. If that was not all done by State Department
IT employee(s). how is this not a punishable offense?
It boggles my mind to think that anyone could defend Mrs. Clinton for this blatant breach of
national security.
My understanding is that the same person who set up Bill Clinton's website and email after
he left office set up Secretary Clinton's; hence, the shared IP addresses for similarly worded
domains. Also, wasn't the same server used for both?
I think this person was granted immunity.
Worrying about whether an indictment is in the future is like wondering what verdicts a jury
is going to return. That is something that I learned from a veteran attorney.
So I am in the printer industry, and this story is interesting for a couple of reasons.
1) Most IP based printers (read connected via ethernet card rather than USB "local" connection)
allow for users and administrators to log in to the printer via the IP address and adjust settings,
install new firmware, and so forth. For a state hacker, this could be gold – and the default "service"
logins and passwords can typically be found in service manuals readily available on the web.
2) On that issue, one of the things that a lot of multi function devices ("all in one") allow
for is "multi plexing". "Multi plexing" is performing multiple functions with a single job submission.
For example, there are machines that can receive an incoming fax, print that fax out, forward
the fax using SMB to an archive (typically, but not always on the same subnet), forward that fax
via email to a recipient, forward that fax to another fax machine using telephony, forward that
fax to a fax server using LAN faxing, and so on. You can see how tempting a multifunction machine
would be to a a state intelligence service.
3) All the components in a machine are commercially available, from limited manufacturers –
there are only so many manufacturers for memory, motherboards, etc. For a state intelligence service
with a lot of money – setting up a clone in a lab to use as a template to re-engineer would be
relatively cheap.
4) Many PostScript enabled printers allow for firmware upgrades as a PostScript print submission
– so the printer could be reprogrammed with new firmware (essentially re engineered) remotely
by anyone with access to the IP. Essentially, the multi plexing could be reprogrammed to sent
print submissions out to a server controlled by a foreign intelligence service. Now, this isn't
something that a pimply faced hacker could do. Too expensive, and too time consuming. But if you
had an organization that could figure out how to reprogram centrifuges…
5) Many printers by default "assign themselves" ports with known weaknesses (I'm looking at
you, Port 8xxx), and open those ports up to allow communication over a network – for example,
the "flag" that pops up on your computer to let you know the printer is out of paper. Depending
on how a printer is set up for internet printing, this may or may not apply. Experienced IP administrators
will go back, and change the port settings – if they think of it. But in many cases it is not
something that they are thinking about.
I say follow the money. Look at the links between Clinton Foundation and classified information.
She setup a private email server knowingly to exempt her from compliance. Now, the after
the fact doesn't really matter. And she knows that… A .gov address would have full rights to all
corispondance as the information belongs the the government and can be requested by ant civilian…
Is Hillary Clinton arrogant as a typical sociopath, thinking that everything was allowed for her?
Because "emailgate" is not so much a direct question about her IQ, but about breach of security
(which is undisputable) for the whole Department of State. What bothers me the most is the arrogant
denial of facts that's interwoven throughout Hillary statements and positions on this matter...
Notable quotes:
"... Despite guidelines to the contrary, Clinton used mobile devices to conduct official business on her personal email account and private server. ..."
"... The IG report found that on 9 January 2011, a technical adviser retained by former president Bill Clinton said he had shut down the server because he thought there was "someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to". ..."
"... The IG report states that on 13 May 2011, "two of Secretary Clinton's immediate staff discussed via email the Secretary's concern that someone was 'hacking into her email' after she received an email with a suspicious link". It added: "However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department." ..."
Although the report is potentially less damaging than a separate investigation by the FBI into
whether she broke federal laws, it poses a significant challenge to the Clinton campaign, which has
recently slipped behind Donald Trump in opinion polling .
... ... ...
...the full report, a copy of which was obtained by the Associated Press (AP), cites "longstanding,
systemic weaknesses" related to the agency's communications. These started before Clinton's appointment
as secretary of state, but her failures were singled out as more serious and were said to disregard
various state department guidelines for avoiding cybersecurity risks.
... OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary
Clinton's personal system."
Despite guidelines to the contrary, Clinton used mobile devices to conduct official business
on her personal email account and private server. She never sought approval from senior information
officers, who would have refused the request because of security risks, the audit said.
... ... ...
Clinton's private email server appears to have been a target for hackers. The IG report found
that on 9 January 2011, a technical adviser retained by former president Bill Clinton said he had
shut down the server because he thought there was "someone was trying to hack us and while they did
not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to". There was another suspected attack
later the same day. On 10 January, Clinton's aide Huma Abedin told officials not to send her "anything
sensitive" and said she could "explain more in person".
The IG report states that on 13 May 2011, "two of Secretary Clinton's immediate staff discussed
via email the Secretary's concern that someone was 'hacking into her email' after she received an
email with a suspicious link". It added: "However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her
staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department."
Published on 17 Apr 2016
Digging deep into Hillary's connections to Wall Street, Abby Martin reveals how the Clinton's
multi-million-dollar political machine operates.
This episode chronicles the Clinton's rise to power in the 90s on a right-wing agenda, the
Clinton Foundation's revolving door with Gulf state monarchies, corporations and the world's biggest
financial institutions, and the establishment of the hyper-aggressive "Hillary Doctrine" while
Secretary of State. Learn the essential facts about the great danger she poses, and why she's
the US Empire's choice for its next CEO.
http://multimedia.telesurtv.net/v/the…
"... With help from Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC, Clinton, having w/ her husband had more than two decades to build-up a political patronage system within the southern Democratic Party, was able to tap her contacts and bring-out the vote in very large numbers before few had even heard of Sanders. ..."
"... Good on you, Bernie. As they say in Florida, "It's tough to clean up the swamp when you're up to your ass in alligators." Alligator Debbie going down. ..."
"... A female president would be a great thing. But not Hillary. We can do better. Maybe Jill Stein or Elizabeth Warren. ..."
"... Obama's and Clinton's policies are criticized precisely because they're a continuation of Bush policy, while Bill's policies led the economic meltdown of 2008. ..."
"... And deregulation! Before I watched the video of that Hillary Clinton campaign event, I had never heard someone denounce deregulation and hail the economic achievements of Bill Clinton in the same speech. That kind of mental combination, I've always assumed, puts you in danger of spontaneous combustion or something. After all, Bill Clinton is America's all-time champion deregulator. He deregulated banks. He deregulated telecoms. He appointed arch deregulators Robert Rubin and Larry Summers to high office, and he re-upped Ronald Reagan's pet Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan. He took some time out to dynamite the federal welfare system, then he came back and deregulated banks some more. And derivative securities, too. ..."
"... Wasserman Schultz will follow her mentor's lead and play the victim. ..."
"... Clinton will swoop in and support her with money and the "woman card" nonsense. ..."
"... Even those facts understate the problem as many of these corporate owned Dems are voting the Historical Republican policies favoring the wealthy power brokers. B. Clinton was known as Republican Lite. ..."
"... 'Yes there is incessant complaining about the party, "corporate democratic whores."' ..."
"... Elect The Warmonger Killary And You Will Have Victoria Nuland As Secretary Of State Says David Stockman And The Result Will Be World War III Says PCR ..."
"... "And that brings us to the deplorable Kagan clan-–Washington's leading resident family of war-mongering neo-cons. The odds are that, if elected President, Hillary would likely choose one of them--her protégé during her stint in the Obama administration, Victoria Nuland-– as Secretary of State. Yet that would be lights out for any hope of caging Washington's imperial ambitions and reducing the massive and utterly unnecessary burden of current defense spending. The truth is, there are fewer greater menaces in the Imperial City today than Victoria Nuland. ..."
"... He is not competitive because the DNC is controlled by the Reagan Neo-cons, Hillary the chief marionette among them. To understand, just reflect on Hillary's relationship with Neo-con Victoria Nuland, Assistant Sec. of State under Hillary who previously worked for Dick Cheney. Two party system is a shill and anachronism; ..."
"... The Neo-con AIPAC agenda is world hegemony; New World Order and Hillary is the pre-annointed. Trump may not be a surprise but Sanders certainly is independent and thankfully a chance for Americans to voice their frustrations at the loss of their civil rights and democracy. ..."
"... The whole electoral system is corrupt, Democrats and Republicans work for the oligarchs they betray the people. ..."
"... BTW: No one knew before Sanders entered that the DNC would call for "Temporary Rules" changes and votes on the floor of state conventions, which is precisely what happened in Nevada. ..."
"... This woman voted FOR a bill that supports rip-off pay day lenders rather than poor working class people. Pay day lenders charge astronomical rates to lend people small amounts of money to pay for a car repair or a dentist visit that they can't cover because they are trying to survive on 7 or 8 dollars an hour, working two or three jobs to get by ..."
"... DWS has done terrible damage to Hillary's chances against Trump. Her blatant rigging of the process against Sanders will be a barrier to their ever supporting Clinton. If it was believed that she one a fair fight, I think most would accept the outcome. But only the most credulous can now believe that it was a fair fight. ..."
"... Sanders has been remiss in confronting Hillary with the evil she has wrought, genocide on Iraq, Syria, and most obviously in turning top standard of living Libya into a failed state. ..."
"... Sanders ha failed to give Hillary the downbraiding she deserves as a budding NWO fascist and apologist for Wall St. and Netanyahu, etc. Despicable woman, much like Margret Thatcher and Madeline Albright. Destroyers; bad at diplomacy and quick on murderous war. Demagogue Hillary will escalate US hegemony and bring on Armageddon for the Christian Zionists; WWIII. Why did Sanders not play his trump card at the beginning of the campaign? ..."
"... Maybe it isn't fair, but if Bernie wanted to change it he should have started a lot earlier. ..."
"... Clinton only leads by 274 pledged delegates. ..."
"... It is a sad and sorry day that you can't recognize a democrat any more. Yes, he's not a "party faithful". Apparently you haven't noticed that "the party" has become about "the party". ..."
"... The problem with Bernie Sanders is he makes Hillary look like the elite disconnected republican that she is. ..."
"... It's so like the current crowd of jerks running the Democratic party to see them start pointing fingers at Bernie for what they can see is their coming defeat in November. They had the chance to back Bernie. They can still do it, but they are all too invested in their own interests to care about anything but their own interests, and so they won't pick up on the best chance to have a Democratic landslide since 1964. ..."
"... Debbie Wasserman Schultz represents the continued failure of the Democratic Party and as such should be replaced. ..."
"... The Democratic Party began to die during Bill Clinton's regime. Bill Clinton in his own way conducted a regime change of the Democratic Party from Main Street and Unions to Wall Street. The results have not been good: ..."
"... The State Parties are ALSO CONTROLLED by the DNC. The kick back monies insure that the DNC is in control of WHO they select rather then open elections. You can lie to yourself however, WE know the truth of how this corrupt system works. WRITE IN Bernie in Nov. I am! ..."
"... Very few outside the Democratic Party establishment seem to like these superdelegates. Abolish them and pledged delegates too while you're at it. ..."
"... Gore did win Florida-- exit polling, which was uncannily accurate, showed that, but it was the Supreme Court that stopped the recount. (OTOH, some post-election analyses, including by the Washington Post, concluded Gore lost.) ..."
"... Debbie Wasserman Shultz, champion of the PAYDAY LOAN SHARKS. DWS helped defeat the Sen. Warren legislation to limit the interest rates to 30% FROM 3000%. DWS and the Clintons take campaign funds and support the loan sharks bleeding economically challenged communities across the U.S. Write IN Bernie in Nov. I am! ..."
"... Bill Moyers has been one of the most respected journalists. Please read what he says about DWS: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36991-democrats-cant-unite-unless-wasserman-schultz-goes ..."
"... The chairperson of the DNC is bound to remain impartial, as is clearly stated in the party rules. There is now ample evidence that Ms Schultz has repeatedly broken that rule throughout the campaign cycle and is therefore unfit to remain chairperson of the DNC. If she is not replaced by an impartial chairperson for the convention it will undermine the legitimacy of the nomination process. ..."
"... There's some debate about the world's oldest democracy, but it ain't the United States (which, btw, is a republic). ..."
"... Iceland has had a parliament since the year 930 and the oldest continuous parliament since 979 is on the Isle of Man. Universal adult suffrage was established in New Zealand in 1893, although NZ doesn't elect its Head of State. ..."
"... He sure does know what is best for the party, and it isn't endless war, Wall St. and Wall Mart. ..."
"... You sound as bright as the half-wit who told me last summer that Sanders couldn't win Vermont's primary. ..."
"... It is a sad commentary on our economy when people are so hard up for money that they will troll for a woman who is a Neocon warmonger for money. ..."
"... Senator Sanders is serving this country well by bringing out years of anger and frustration about all the money going to the too 1%, serfdom for working families for the past 30 years, serfdom for those who dare to incur debt to go to college and the endless expensive wars. He is a hero. ..."
"... Despite her promises to be tough on Wall Street, a new report has found that groups supporting Hillary Clinton have received $25 million from the financial industry using so-called shadow banks. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has received a new waffle iron for opening a savings account. ..."
"... Were you one of the medical "professionals" at Guantanamo Bay by any chance? I hear they strongly support Clinton as well. ..."
Clinton supporters, most of whom don't even try to put forward a persuasive case for her candidacy,
often point to the fact that Clinton has received a few million more votes than Sanders, but they
rarely want to account for those votes, most of which can be attributed to massive landslide victories
in the early days of the primary season in the South.
With help from Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC, Clinton, having w/ her husband had more than
two decades to build-up a political patronage system within the southern Democratic Party, was
able to tap her contacts and bring-out the vote in very large numbers before few had even heard
of Sanders.
And you can be sure that when she spoke before black church congregations, affecting a southern
drawl, she didn't tout her support for the death penalty or the private prison industry or the
destruction of welfare or deregulation of the investment banks or the Iraq War or NAFTA and TPP
or the bail-out of Wall Street.
No, no, no-of course she didn't draw attention to her actual record. She wanted their votes,
after all.
Bernie is a good man, maybe a great man to some, he 'sold out' throughout his career and advocated
lesser evilism to support Democrats over Independents.
Thanks, but I've read every issue since the first one almost thirty years ago.
Obama's and Clinton's policies are criticized precisely because they're a continuation
of Bush policy, while Bill's policies led the economic meltdown of 2008.
The level of your reading comprehension is lacking.
Here's Thomas Frank's most recent piece on the Clinton's, right here on The Guardian
.
Take her apparent belief that balancing the federal budget is a good way to "revitalize"
an economy stuck in persistent hard times. Nostalgia might indeed suggest such a course, because
that's what Bill Clinton did in the golden 90s, and those were happy days. But more recent
events have taught us a different lesson. Europe's turn toward budget-balancing austerity after
the financial crisis is what made their recession so much worse than ours. President Obama's
own quest for a budget-balancing "grand bargain" is what destroyed his presidency's transformative
potential. There is no plainer lesson from the events of recent years than the folly of austerity
and the non-urgency of budget-balancing.
And deregulation! Before I watched the video of that Hillary Clinton campaign event,
I had never heard someone denounce deregulation and hail the economic achievements of Bill
Clinton in the same speech. That kind of mental combination, I've always assumed, puts you
in danger of spontaneous combustion or something. After all, Bill Clinton is America's all-time
champion deregulator. He deregulated banks. He deregulated telecoms. He appointed arch deregulators
Robert Rubin and Larry Summers to high office, and he re-upped Ronald Reagan's pet Fed chairman,
Alan Greenspan. He took some time out to dynamite the federal welfare system, then he came
back and deregulated banks some more. And derivative securities, too.
Oh, look! Nurse Ratchet Troll is getting desperate for attention and she's resorting to tired
old lies.
Bernie Sanders EARNED the goodwill of Howard Dean and the Democratic Party by voting with the
Party more often than the average Democrat (95% vs 80%) and supporting many of its candidates.
That is why the Democratic Party has awarded Bernie Sanders subcommittee leadership roles while
in the House and the Senate, even promoting him over their own members. And it is why, in 2006,
Vermont Democratic Party leaders "
spearhead[ed] efforts to gather signatures to put Sanders on the ballot as a Democrat ," even
though Sanders informed them that he would turn down the nomination if he won the Democratic primary.
The Democratic Party persisted, however, because Bernie was too popular in Vermont for a Democrat
to beat him, and they did not wish to split the vote and end up with a Republican in the Senate.
"Bernie Sanders has by far the best chance of winning, and would work closely with and would
respect Democratic leadership in Washington," Ian Carleton, the chairman of the Vermont Democratic
Party, said. "Anyone who takes a practical look at Vermont politics will say that this is the
best thing to do for the greater good here."
Bernie Sanders did, indeed, win the Democratic primary, and true to his word and as expected,
he declined its nomination.
Did this work to the Democratic Party's detriment or its benefit? Well, I would assume that
it was the latter, since the Vermont Democratic Party made the SAME EXACT ARRANGEMENT when Sanders
ran for reelection to the Senate in 2012.
So Howard Dean and the Democratic Party thought they could use Bernie Sanders' popularity to
further their own agenda and only their own agenda. But Bernie's loyalty is to the People first.
Too bad the Democratic Party's isn't as well, because then they would have supported the Democratic
candidate who isn't distrusted and despised by the majority of American voters.
Wow. So every candidate, athletic club, and army that is not predicted to succeed should just
lay down their fight and not even try? In Europe a football club with 500-1 odds won the tournament.
Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team. The English scoffed at the Americans
attempt at revolution.
I would say those who can't accept a challenge to their beliefs are losers. You fail because
you will never become better. In roulette, you have stopped spinning, the ball has landed in its
numbered slot where it will remain for eternity unless you challenge yourself to move once again.
1) Wasserman Schultz will follow her mentor's lead and play the victim.
2) She will then use it to fundraise ("Angry white men out to get me! Send money!).
3) Clinton will swoop in and support her with money and the "woman card" nonsense.
4) Panicked rich white people, DWS's Florida constituency, will rush to her aid and easily defeat
the far more qualified Canova.
5) Business as usual.
I think it has always been this way, elections are manipulated. It is a part of every democracy.
At what point does it become exposed and at what point after its exposure do people have the courage
to admit, like you have, that the U.S. election system is already rigged and is being continually
adjusted to rig results in the future.
A few years ago at a discussion I attended the blow hard filmmaker Michael Moore said he thought
the two party system was in Americas DNA and there was no way around that. I realized then how
ignorant he was. This election cycle we are clearly seeing the two party system is not in our
DNA, but is a construction of the ruling class to keep opposing voices out of the mainstream.
Yeah, it is disturbing, but it's sadly nothing new. The oligarchics aren't going anywhere either.
Even those facts understate the problem as many of these corporate owned Dems are voting the
Historical Republican policies favoring the wealthy power brokers. B. Clinton was known as Republican
Lite.
'Yes there is incessant complaining about the party, "corporate democratic whores."'
Not by me. I don't like DWS.
"If the party represents everything that is reprehensible, why are you here? "
Here is a newspaper website. Not the Democrat party forum pages.
"Go green, go Jill. "
Why? I've been a Democrat for 16 years. why would I change that and offer a vote towards Trump?
"Bernie has taken money from the party the money that he maligns."
Yes, it's called constructive criticism. It has a mandate of several million registered Democrat
members throughout the primaries. Should they all leave and vote Green? How's that electoral college
majority looking now? I seem to remember the same was said to Ralph Nader in 2000. Great job Donna
Brazille. President Gore thanks you for your service.
Elect The Warmonger Killary And You Will Have Victoria Nuland As Secretary Of State Says David
Stockman And The Result Will Be World War III Says PCR
"And that brings us to the deplorable Kagan clan-–Washington's leading resident family
of war-mongering neo-cons. The odds are that, if elected President, Hillary would likely choose
one of them--her protégé during her stint in the Obama administration, Victoria Nuland-– as Secretary
of State. Yet that would be lights out for any hope of caging Washington's imperial ambitions
and reducing the massive and utterly unnecessary burden of current defense spending. The truth
is, there are fewer greater menaces in the Imperial City today than Victoria Nuland.
Not only does she happen to be married to Bob Kagen, the leading neocon guru of global interventionism
and regime change, but she earned her spurs as a key aid to Dick Cheney.
No matter. When the American public naively thought it elected the "peace" candidate in 2008,
Nuland just changed her Jersey, joined Hillary's team at State, and by 2013 was assistance secretary
for European Affairs.
And that's when Nuland's rampage of everlasting shame began. She was the main architect of
the coup in Kiev in February 2014 that overthrow the constitutionally elected government of the
Ukraine, thereby commencing the whole sequence of confrontations with Russia and the full-throated
demonization of Vladimir Putin that has followed."
And keep reminding me that Clinton Democrats-and their supporters-are nothing more than thinly-disguised
Republicans. And like dinosaurs, your days are numbered.
He is not competitive because the DNC is controlled by the Reagan Neo-cons, Hillary the chief
marionette among them. To understand, just reflect on Hillary's relationship with Neo-con Victoria
Nuland, Assistant Sec. of State under Hillary who previously worked for Dick Cheney. Two party
system is a shill and anachronism; a Punch and Judy Show.
The Neo-con AIPAC agenda is world hegemony; New World Order and Hillary is the pre-annointed.
Trump may not be a surprise but Sanders certainly is independent and thankfully a chance for Americans
to voice their frustrations at the loss of their civil rights and democracy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Agenda of New World Order cofounded by Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland
Biography of Nuland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=435x0dQ5Lzg
What this wrap-up doesn't show is the Chair refusing to allow the Minority Report to be read
after 58 Sanders delegates were not allowed to show their credentials. That report was eventually
read when another delegate ceded his time.
The reporter--Jon Ralston--who reported the chairs being thrown incident has admitted he wasn't
there when that incident didn't happen. No violence. No arrests--despite the calls for that when
calls came for revotes. And this got repeated without being fact checked. Pretty embarrassing
for the media who repeated it ad nauseam. Whole "violence" issued debunked---but you keep repeating
it. Even Jon Ralston who relied another another reporter's statement, couldn't find one clip of
violence. Plenty of foul language, but no violence. Please….post a clip.
Anyone here old enough to remember the results when Teddy Kennedy contested the 1980 convention?
Anyone here old enough to remember 1968? Anyone here old enough to remember all the years of Republican
presidents pushing America to the right?
Anyone here ever studied history or lived through it?
Clinton will not win the general election. Her trustworthiness polls at 36%, tied with Trump.
Sanders, on the other hand, has increased his trustworthiness up to 84% as people have been introduced
to him despite the virtual media blackout.
We don't see the media talking about that, do we?
Nor do we see the media quoting John Boehner's comment that Sanders is the most honest person
in Washington.
We also do not see the Clinton Media Cabal discussing her legal issues, which are quite serious
and real, unless they find some "unnamed source" to downplay the investigations into her multiple
crimes. They ignore the other "unnamed sources" who claim people in the FBI will go rogue with
details if there is a failure to indict by Loretta Lynch, who is a Clinton Supporter, by the way...
The whole electoral system is corrupt, Democrats and Republicans work for the oligarchs they
betray the people. We The People believe that in a democracy, the people are sovereign and
the people are the ultimate source of authority. We believe that truth transforms lives. That
self-scrutiny is not treason, self-examination is not disloyalty. Truth and knowledge diffused
among the people are necessary for the reclamation and preservation of our Democracy, freedom,
liberties and rights. Now is the time to expose this system of corruption. We must work in solidarity
to promote and protect the natural rights of the people and the following: Public Health, Education,
Housing, food and water safety, Jobs and income, cultural heritage and public safety.
We accomplish that by advocating for strengthening the rights of the people and laws and regulations
designed to protect the natural rights of the American people, ensuring the Constitutional rights
of the people and the enforcement of existing laws that protect these rights, also alerting the
people to impending threats and mobilizing the public to address these issues.
We must take peaceable nonviolent actions to address issues of concern to Americans and permanent
residents of our country; we believe that to serve that purpose, we as individuals have both a
right and a duty to preserve our own lives and our human dignity.
Completely over-the-top and destructive nonsense ...
Clinton does not resemble Thatcher in the least, and only an unhinged person would imagine
so. Nor is she personally to blame for intractable problems in the Middle East.
In reality (a place some Sanders followers should visit more often ...) she closely resembles
other mainstream Democrats such as Bill Clinton (her husband) and Obama (her former boss). Why,
of course.
If the self-proclaimed "radical left" keeps pretending that the Moderate Left is really the
same as the Far Right, then it will only help Trump. And needless to say, that's as anti-Progressive
as it gets ...
And Trump is now being coddled by Repub leaders without examining their own failed candidates
and their completely devastating policies that put Party Power over The People.
Corrupt systems need to end---the "it's always been wrong" argument doesn't serve any longer.
BTW: No one knew before Sanders entered that the DNC would call for "Temporary Rules" changes
and votes on the floor of state conventions, which is precisely what happened in Nevada.
This woman voted FOR a bill that supports rip-off pay day lenders rather than poor working
class people. Pay day lenders charge astronomical rates to lend people small amounts of money
to pay for a car repair or a dentist visit that they can't cover because they are trying to survive
on 7 or 8 dollars an hour, working two or three jobs to get by.
Ann Dash, you correct, Bernie Sanders and those who support his platform are issued based, not
"party faithful". When you put party over country you loose. You've also chosen a candidate to
support who has two active FBI investigations--one into violations of the Espionage Act and one
into corruption of the Clinton Foundation during Clinton's tenure as SOS. There are former Clinton
aides being deposed now in two separate FOIA lawsuits as well. When your "party" aligns itself
with such open corruption, it and its preferred candidate deserve the animus both have created
through their own actions.
By Juan Reynoso. Political activist – www.represent.us
We must defend our U.S. Constitution and our God given rights "Natural rights" https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/constitution
[email protected]
The 2016 U.S. Elections is a war to protect our country's future, the economic and welfare of
the American youth and our future generations. Liberalism, Government corruption, the U.S predatory
corporate system of monopoly, crony capitalism, the corrupt U.S. Financial system and the greedy
super rich are like termites that are destroying the core and the foundation of our country's
moral values; by bribery and deception they have transform our country into a plutocracy system
of government and place money and power before the will of the people and the future of the American
people.
The war has begun and we may lose this battle; but we will win the war, knowledge and solidarity
in America society will prompt the American youth to fight for their future and the future of
America. The collapse of the empire is imminent, God always give the fighters for social justice
the wisdom and courage to destroy the evil enslavers of humanity, history will be repeated again.
So don't be overwhelmed if we lose this battle. We have learned from the battle and will take
that new-found knowledge into the next battle. But we will never consider the possibility of defeat
and we will join the glorious ranks of those who have gone before us – those who won wars against
oppression and tyranny.
Let's place the people's human rights, freedom and dignity before money and power. Fear is
our worst enemy. A most insidious form of fear is that which masquerades as common sense or even
wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless, insignificant or futile the small, daily acts of courage
which help to preserve man's self-respect, freedom and their God given human rights and dignity.
It is not easy for people conditioned to fear by the main stream news media the propaganda machinery
of this corrupt system of government, that might is possible for people to free themselves from
the enervating oppressive of fear, that under the most crushing police state machinery, our courage
will rises up again and again, because fear is not the natural state of civilized man.
Join the fight for America's future and economic freedom. Solidarity for social justice will
win this war against tyranny and economic slavery.
Requiem for the American Dream, the truth about the demise of our freedom and the making of
our economic slavery. Every American must see this film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWD8Wksx_zI
DWS has done terrible damage to Hillary's chances against Trump. Her blatant rigging of the
process against Sanders will be a barrier to their ever supporting Clinton. If it was believed
that she one a fair fight, I think most would accept the outcome. But only the most credulous
can now believe that it was a fair fight.
It seems Ross Perot did have an impact on the Presidency. After him they began changing the rules
of election participation. Ralph Nader then didn't meet the requirements to be heard. The RNC
and DNC thought they had formed eternal victories for establishment candidates. When Obama beat
Clinton they changed the rules even more. Now outsiders Sanders and Trump taking victories despite
the changes. What's up there sleeves for the next election? No more voting? Litmus tests? Only
candidates with 7 letters in their first and last names? In 2000, "hanging chads" were used to
determine the outcome. Does anyone else agree that the election process has become a little disturbing?
By Juan Reynoso – WTP- activist. www.represent.us
[email protected]
The fact is that most Americans are being brainwash and indoctrinate into believing that Capitalism
and the neo liberalism economic system is better than Democrat socialism.
The Neo-Liberalist, place money and power before the people, they believe that the private sector
"Corporations, the Banking system and all services including the communication system should be
privatized to benefit the investors and owners and not the general public; they believe that every
man is responsible for their economic and welfare and that they do not have any responsibility
toward the community and the citizens of this country, they do not want any government controls
so they can exploit the community to enrich themselves. The result of this ill system was the
economic catastrophe of 2008 and the continuation of this ill system will be the down fall of
the Dollar and the world economic, in 2016 - 2017.
Now Democrat socialism is placing the people before money and power for the few oligarchs and
corporate elite. This economic system is essential to stop the concentration of wealth and benefit
the whole country by promoting education, good quality of life, and health and minimize poverty.
The Neo-liberalism was implemented by Ronald Reagan and followed by all presidents, this economic
system give control of the country to the oligarchs and the elite multinational corporations to
enrich themselves, making millions of Americans economic slaves by controlling labor the income
of the American working class and the market place. Neo-Liberalism opens the gate for the greedy
corporations to monopolized, control commerce and destroys small business to eradicate competition.
America today is a conglomerate of elite business monopoly that controls our economic and destroyed
the dream of millions of Americans that today live in poverty and extreme poverty. The choice
is ours; to continue on this path of self-destruction and continue promoting this Neo-Liberalist
system of greed and destruction or change to a Democrat more social economic system that will
be beneficial to all Americans and not the few oligarchs that control our country.
Democrat socialism.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-nordic-countries/473385/#article-comments
We can learn a lot about public policy from the Nordic nations
http://theconversation.com/we-can-learn-a-lot-about-public-policy-from-the-nordic-nations-32204
Better education for all
https://dianeravitch.net/2016/03/22/what-we-can-learn-from-nordic-nations /
U.S. Politicians from both right and left could learn from the Nordic countries
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136-politicians-both-right-and-left-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel
The Nordic countries could teach us about teamwork in education
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/oct/05/education-policy-nordic-countries
Nader never ran as in one of the major parties. Bernie has 45% of a primary vote. There are many,
millions of Americans who only vote in general elections.
Ann Dash, the "winning" the popular vote argument leaves out some important figures. 7.2 million
people live in Washington state. Sanders won Washington by 71% and yet none of those votes have
been counted in the popular vote. Sanders won Alaska by 81%--none of those votes are figured into
the "3 million" votes either. 3 million Independents weren't allowed to vote in NY alone. Clinton,
"won" Kentucky by 1923 votes---less than 1/2 of One percent. When you add actual caucus votes
and those who will vote in November, Clinton doesn't fare very well. The popular vote argument
holds no water.
This is the way the system has worked. Maybe it isn't fair, but if Bernie wanted to change it
he should have started a lot earlier. If he were winning now I'll bet he wouldn't be so unhappy
with it.
Bernie is evokes a lot of passion in his followers. They want him to win so badly they will disrupt
the Democratic convention. All this is going to to is fracture the Democratic party and let Trump
get the presidency. The Democrats are like people in a canoe arguing about who gets to paddle
just as they are about to go over the falls.
Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll
Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points - resulting
in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according
to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.
Sanders is the strongest candidate against Trump. Vote Sanders!
Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll
Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points - resulting
in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according
to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.
Sanders has been remiss in confronting Hillary with the evil she has wrought, genocide on
Iraq, Syria, and most obviously in turning top standard of living Libya into a failed state.
Obama apologized about it but not the queens of destabilization, Victoria Nuland and her
puppet, Hillary Clinton.
Sanders ha failed to give Hillary the downbraiding she deserves as a budding NWO fascist
and apologist for Wall St. and Netanyahu, etc. Despicable woman, much like Margret Thatcher and
Madeline Albright. Destroyers; bad at diplomacy and quick on murderous war. Demagogue Hillary
will escalate US hegemony and bring on Armageddon for the Christian Zionists; WWIII. Why did Sanders
not play his trump card at the beginning of the campaign?
However it was well known Florida would be close and be decisive. Nader voters were thought
to be more closely aligned with Gore. They had a choice, they chose.
Yup. I remember there were even several (heavily frequented)
websites dedicated to "voter trade" -- supporters of Nader in battle ground states would "trade"
their votes with Democrats from safe states to enable Nader to reach his goal of 5% of the popular
vote and still allow Gore to carry Florida and others. Definitely not quite legal, but goes to
show that everybody knew what was at stake.
Of course it's silly to blame W exclusively on Nader -- obviously, it's the Bush voters who
are to blame first and foremost, and his brother and the SCOTUS who stole the election for him,
and Gore for running a listless and inept campaign (the kiss! oh, the kiss!). But even if Nader's
share of the responsibility is no greater than his tally of the vote, it's rather baffling, given
the experience of 2000, how many seem to be willing to repeat it.
This stuff about 'not being able to win his home state' is completely weird. Especially given
how eager Bernie fans were on this board to point out that New York is Sanders ' home state,
not Clinton's...
Clinton only leads by 274 pledged delegates. The false picture of the huge lead that results from
super delegates is being presented so people will just give up and not vote for Sanders. Fortunately,
those of us who support Sanders recognize the media bias and the DNC favoritism, and we will not
be fooled.
In the long run, the Democratic Party, the super delegates, and the media that is fully participating
in this attempted coronation are hurting themselves. I, and many many others, not only will not
vote for Hillary, we will no longer support the party or Democrats involved in this travesty,
nor will we support the media and businesses who have joined in.
Bernie or Bust! I voted for the honest guy... NOT with her: NOT EVER!
Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll
Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points - resulting
in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according
to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.
Ann Dash, the "winning" the popular vote argument leaves out some important figures. 7.2 million
people live in Washington state. Sanders won Washington by 71% and yet none of those votes have
been counted in the popular vote. Sanders won Alaska by 81%--none of those votes are figured into
the "3 million" votes either. 3 million Independents weren't allowed to vote in NY alone. Clinton,
"won" Kentucky by 1923 votes---less than 1/2 of One percent. When you add actual caucus votes
and those who will vote in November, Clinton doesn't fare very well. The popular vote argument
holds no water.
This is the way the system has worked. Maybe it isn't fair, but if Bernie wanted to change
it he should have started a lot earlier. If he were winning now I'll bet he wouldn't be so
unhappy with it.
Bernie is evokes a lot of passion in his followers. They want him to win so badly they will
disrupt the Democratic convention. All this is going to to is fracture the Democratic party and
let Trump get the presidency. The Democrats are like people in a canoe arguing about who gets
to paddle just as they are about to go over the falls.
Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll
Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points - resulting
in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according
to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.
Sanders is the strongest candidate against Trump. Vote Sanders!
Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll
Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points - resulting
in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according
to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.
Sanders has been remiss in confronting Hillary with the evil she has wrought, genocide on Iraq,
Syria, and most obviously in turning top standard of living Libya into a failed state. Obama apologized
about it but not the queens of destabilization, Victoria Nuland and her puppet, Hillary Clinton.
Sanders ha failed to give Hillary the downbraiding she deserves as a budding NWO fascist and apologist
for Wall St. and Netanyahu, etc. Despicable woman, much like Margret Thatcher and Madeline Albright.
Destroyers; bad at diplomacy and quick on murderous war. Demagogue Hillary will escalate US hegemony
and bring on Armageddon for the Christian Zionists; WWIII. Why did Sanders not play his trump
card at the beginning of the campaign?
However it was well known Florida would be close and be decisive. Nader voters were thought
to be more closely aligned with Gore. They had a choice, they chose.
Yup. I remember there were even several (heavily frequented)
websites dedicated to "voter trade" -- supporters of Nader in battle ground states would "trade"
their votes with Democrats from safe states to enable Nader to reach his goal of 5% of the popular
vote and still allow Gore to carry Florida and others. Definitely not quite legal, but goes to
show that everybody knew what was at stake.
Of course it's silly to blame W exclusively on Nader -- obviously, it's the Bush voters who
are to blame first and foremost, and his brother and the SCOTUS who stole the election for him,
and Gore for running a listless and inept campaign (the kiss! oh, the kiss!). But even if Nader's
share of the responsibility is no greater than his tally of the vote, it's rather baffling, given
the experience of 2000, how many seem to be willing to repeat it.
This stuff about 'not being able to win his home state' is completely weird. Especially given
how eager Bernie fans were on this board to point out that New York is Sanders ' home state,
not Clinton's...
Clinton only leads by 274 pledged delegates. The false picture of the huge lead that
results from super delegates is being presented so people will just give up and not vote for Sanders.
Fortunately, those of us who support Sanders recognize the media bias and the DNC favoritism,
and we will not be fooled.
In the long run, the Democratic Party, the super delegates, and the media that is fully participating
in this attempted coronation are hurting themselves. I, and many many others, not only will not
vote for Hillary, we will no longer support the party or Democrats involved in this travesty,
nor will we support the media and businesses who have joined in.
Bernie or Bust! I voted for the honest guy... NOT with her: NOT EVER!
Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll
Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points - resulting
in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according
to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.
It is a sad and sorry day that you can't recognize a democrat any more. Yes, he's not a "party
faithful". Apparently you haven't noticed that "the party" has become about "the party".
Are you seriously siding with payday lenders? They are big time vulture capitalists, ripping off
the most vulnerable.
By the way, do you just happen to be a payday lender? Or, do you profit from the industry somehow?
Or, perhaps it may be the dots that accurately and historically connected the dots to Bill Clinton's
'Mother of all Deregulations,' the partial repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, annoys you.
Whatever or whoever informs your thoughts, your reasoning is seriously flawed.
He isn't winning because the media has ignored him, he threatens big business and wall street
(who have thrown their $ support to Hillary) and because he speaks the truth. This has been a
rigged election from the start. Funny thing is Bernie can easily dump trump and Hillary cannot,
she is in trouble. As far as DWS she is in the pockets of big money just like her boss Hillary.
I take it you are neither poor, Hispanic, African American, Muslim, nor a woman then? Not interested
in free speech, the Geneva Convention or basic human decency?
You're right, then, there may not be much to be afraid of for you. Depending, of course,
on how much Trump is willing to escalate that trade war with China that you seem so keen on.
Bernie can win easily win enough of the remaining votes to force the super delegates into the
position of having to choose who should be the nominee. Are they really all that invested in Hillary
still? Can they really not see the difference between the crowds that come to see Bernie versus
the ones that come to see Hillary? Will they neglect all the recent polls?
Or will they pick Bernie? If Bernie gets those votes, which he easily can so long as they aren't
all in rigged caucus meetings, then will have that chance.
One of the current issues (and only one of the issues with the DNC/DWS) is the superdelegates
being lined up PRE-primary voting in order to give the edge to Clinton right from the start.
They don't count until the convention this summer, **neither do their votes** -- not until
the convention, AFTER every citizen who wants to vote has voted.
And their vote isn't written in stone before then, they can and have switched their votes prior
to the convention, re: Obama's election.
When Clinton brings in 400 to hear a speech and Sanders routinely brings in 15,000 or more,
when exit polls don't match the voting booth yet they get rid of the exit polls rather than fix
the voting 'inaccuracies,' something is very fishy in the land of Oz....
One of the current issues (and only one of the issues with the DNC/DWS) is the superdelegates
being lined up PRE-primary voting in order to give the edge to Clinton right from the start.
They don't count until the convention this summer, **neither do their votes** -- not until the
convention, AFTER every citizen who wants to vote has voted. And their vote isn't written in stone
before then, they can and have switched their votes prior to the convention, re: Obama's election.
When Clinton brings in 400 to hear a speech and Sanders routinely brings in 15,000 or more,
when exit polls don't match the voting booth yet they get rid of the exit polls rather than fix
the voting 'inaccuracies,' something is very fishy in the land of Oz....
There is such a massive entitlement in the kind of Democrats who believe that Green party supporters
owed Democrats their votes. Democracy doesn't work like that. You have to earn the votes, and
Gore's campaign was terrible. If he'd run a good campaign, he would have won handily. Blaming
your opponents for your won failure is pathetic.
Who's the one doing the character assassination here? Good grief do people ever look in the mirror?
DWS has worked with Clinton for years and has been blatantly impartial from the beginning. If
independents were allowed to vote in the closed primaries Mr. Sanders would be tied if not clearly
in the lead. How can you be a "Democrat" in favor of "Democracy" and then manipulate the rules
to allow a particular individual to get elected? You may want to think long-term. The people will
not follow a false leader. People will revolt. People vote with their feet... Which direction
do you see them walking? I see them walking away from Clinton.
The vast majority of Americans don't care whether or not Sanders is a loyal Democrat. They assess
him on the basis of his seeming authenticity, honesty, values, and policy positions--and based
on the evaluative system he does well among Democrats and very well among Independents.
You, JohnEgan, are part of a very small minority that gives a rat's ass whether Sanders is
a loyal Democrat.
We will have nothing to blame for Trump but Clinton herself. We have nothing to blame in 2000
for Bush except Gore himself. We have nobody to blame for the Mideast but Bush himself
It is not impossible but involves way too much government involvement for many Americans and it
is seen as "Socialist" (which is not a compliment here btw).
It's so like the current crowd of jerks running the Democratic party to see them start pointing
fingers at Bernie for what they can see is their coming defeat in November. They had the chance
to back Bernie. They can still do it, but they are all too invested in their own interests to
care about anything but their own interests, and so they won't pick up on the best chance to have
a Democratic landslide since 1964.
You had your chance too, and you picked the loser over the winner, so no more of this finger
pointing at Bernie. Accept responsibility for your own bad decisions and live with it, as you
will have no other alternatives in the end.
Nice comments--both! Rich with detail and information -- and thought provoking.
I agree with you about Gore, Nader, and the election. At the same time, we can't use what happened
in 2000 to justify Sanders people voting Green in swing states or sitting it out at home and then
claim that a President Trump is simply Hillary's fault-- or the DNC's.
It would be both-- Hillary's as well as Sanders' supporters not voting to stop Trump. Hillary
is a corporate shill in all too many ways and she has been a lackluster, throwback, self-centered,
and entitled candidate-- although she's beginning to fight and the Clintons, unlike Sanders, have
several decades of knowing how to street fight-- and can better respond to Trump's wild fusillades.
Yet, even if she doesn't represent all, or even most, of what progressives want, the differences
are clear-- it would be so much better to have a corporate centrist in there with some liberal
values who will tweak things at the margins to make them better for more people than a right wing
zealot who is hellbent on destroying everything he encounters, and doing so all on a whim.
Exactly. He chose to hijack the Democratic Party to give himself the best chance of being nominated
as the candidate for that party. He can't now start throwing tantrums because the rules (that
he knew about) aren't working in his favor. Great President he'd make on the international stage.
Perhaps Trump will pick him for Veep then we can have two tantrum-throwing "outsiders" on the
GOP ticket. What fun.
TimCanova.com, send a donation I did. Tim is now very close to raising enough money to defeat
the evil PayDay loan Queen DWS. It's time the corruption at the DNC end. WRITE IN Bernie in Nov.
I am. TimCanova.com and defeat DWS the loan shark.
"Sanders is something one scrapes off the bottom of their shoe before entering the house."
As someone who will vote for Sanders (even though I don't believe he's nearly radical enough)
but will NEVER vote for Wall Street's Warmongering Madame, I truly hope you continue to
say these types of things about Sanders, as it makes it considerably less likely that my fellow
Sanders' supporters will vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination.
You are making my "job" easier, and for that I thank you!
Debbie Wasserman Schultz represents the continued failure of the Democratic Party and as such
should be replaced.
The Democratic Party began to die during Bill Clinton's regime. Bill Clinton in his own
way conducted a regime change of the Democratic Party from Main Street and Unions to Wall Street.
The results have not been good:
In 1992 in the Senate there were 57 Democratic Senators and 43 Republicans.
In 2002 in the Senate there were 48 Democratic Senators and 51 Republicans. One Independent.
In 2012 in the Senate the Democrats had 45 Seats vs 53 Republicans, with two Independents.
In 2014 in the Senate there are 44 Democratic Senators and 54 Republicans with two Independents.
The House:
In 1992 The Democrats had 258 Seats to the Republicans 176, with one Independent.
In 2002 The Democrats had 205 Seats, to the Republicans 229 Seats and one Independent
In 2012 The Democrats 201 Seats vs 234 Republicans.
In 2014 The Democrats have 188 Seats vs the Republicans 247.
A similar decline has happened in the Governor's races.
1992 30 Democrat Governors and 18 Republican
2014 31 Republicans and 18 Democrats
Political Power for the Clinton Family has translated into wealth, and for the Clinton's lining
their own pockets is all that counts.
The State Parties are ALSO CONTROLLED by the DNC. The kick back monies insure that the DNC
is in control of WHO they select rather then open elections. You can lie to yourself however,
WE know the truth of how this corrupt system works. WRITE IN Bernie in Nov. I am!
Very few outside the Democratic Party establishment seem to like these superdelegates. Abolish
them and pledged delegates too while you're at it.
A lot simpler would be whichever candidate gets the majority of states wins the nomination.
In this case, it is (as of this writing) Hillary Clinton - and I'm a Sanders supporter.
Better yet, abolish the primary system which gives voters in small states like Iowa, New Hampshire,
Nevada and South Carolina inflated powers of choosing eventual nominees.
Allow each candidate to spend 8-10 weeks campaigning across the 10 most populous states spending
a maximum set amount of $ leading up to this "super primary" held on one day. And there's your
candidate.
If this is deemed too draconian with regards to disenfranchisement in the remaining 40 states,
let "super primary" narrow the field to the top two candidates. The remaining 40 states can hold
a "final primary" 4 weeks later on the same day. Whichever candidate has the most votes in the
"super primary" + "final primary" is the candidate.
The General Election would follow 8 weeks later. No electoral college, just simple majority
of votes across 50 states wins.
Super Pacs, donations over $X would be abolished. No closed primaries.
Most importantly, any candidate found to be campaigning 10 weeks before the initial "super
primary" would be disqualified. America's multi-year Presidential Election cycle would be limited
to several months.
The media which relies on campaign advertising spending for much of its profits and campaign
scandal/gossip/speculation to fill airtime and column inches would hate this. As would lobby groups/firms,
special interests, the Koch Brothers, etc.
It's very Trump-ish of Bernie to join a party to which he admits he had no ideological affiliation,
just to get on the ballot. Then he complains about how the party runs itself and how the rules
should be changed because he's not winning. I used to think he was an OK guy but he's behaving
like a toddler; just like Trump.
"Sanders is operating his entire campaign based on their model - seek, debase, uglify, insult,
destroy your opponent by character assassination...."
If that's the case, why as he chosen to say not one word about the "email scandal" and the
fact that Clinton is under FBI investigation? Why is it that if he's such a horrible character
assassin? Please explain, it doesn't make ANY sense.
Your description of Sanders is partisan in the worst sense of the word--completely devoid of
fairness and fact-based analysis. You fail to address the many ways in which Wasserman-Schultz
and the DNC have attempted to marginalize and hobble Sanders' campaign--from the scheduling of
debates to the vote count in Iowa to the smears against Sanders in the aftermath of the shady
goings-on of party elites in Nevada and Sanders' supporters response to them.
There's no wonder why Clinton supporters at all levels resort to this sort of bullshit. After
all it's easier than defending the record of someone (Clinton herself) who over the years has
supported the Iraq War, Patriot Acts 1 and 2, the starvation blockade and blitzkrieg of Gaza,
the bombing of Libya, the right-wing coup in Honduras, a 31 cent/hour minimum wage in Haiti (and
against attempts to raise it), the Saudi dictatorship, drone missile strikes in multiple impoverished
countries, NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, fracking, anti-labor policies while on the board of Wal-Mart, the
objectively-racist death penalty, the destruction of welfare, the private prison industry, deregulation
of investment banks (and against reinstatement of Glass-Steagall), giveaways to the credit card
industry, and the bail-out of Wall Street.
Doing the math, if even 1,000 Nadar supporters had hosted for Bush instead, Bush would have won
Florida by 1,537 votes. If Gore had won the state he served as Senator, Tennessee, he wouldn't
have needed Florida to become President. The election was his to win or lose.
He lost. It was sixteen years ago. Get over it.
Your comments are why We will NEVER vote for the Clintons. Your hate inspires us to write in Bernie.
Thank you for the inspiration we will work even harder now on a national campaign to WRITE IN
Bernie in Nov. The NAFTA, TPP, Crime Bill war morgering Clintons will NOT get our Progressive
votes. So thank you for acknowledging the Clintons DON'T NEED our votes in Nov. Write IN Bernie
in Nov. I am!
Gore did win Florida-- exit polling, which was uncannily accurate, showed that, but it was
the Supreme Court that stopped the recount. (OTOH, some post-election analyses, including by the
Washington Post, concluded Gore lost.)
People make fun of "hanging chads" but it was an amazing thing to see local people from both
parties attempting to do the right thing by voters.
Yes, just by numbers, had most of those Nader votes gone to Gore, he would have become president.
However, it's also true that had Gore campaigned more effectively, unleashed Bill, worried more
about connecting to people than with his wardrobe consultants, and been more like himself as shown
in later years, he would have won decisively-- Nader or not. Remember that Gore did NOT even win
his own state!
So, hard though it may be for people to accept, it will be BOTH Hillary's and Bernie's supporters'
fault, if they stay home or vote Green in swing states, and Trump gets elected.
The stakes are enormous... Hillary's a corporate centrist, for sure, but has many socially
liberal values, while Trump is a right-wing, unhinged, uninformed, neofascist whose racism and
misogyny are abhorrent and is a real threat to democracy. Believing that the election doesn't
matter, or that the two candidates are equally as bad, ignores reality as well as history. Just
consider who the two would put on the Supreme Court.
We'd much prefer it be Bernie, but we definitely do not want it to be Trump!
Debbie Wasserman Shultz, champion of the PAYDAY LOAN SHARKS. DWS helped defeat the Sen. Warren
legislation to limit the interest rates to 30% FROM 3000%. DWS and the Clintons take campaign
funds and support the loan sharks bleeding economically challenged communities across the U.S.
Write IN Bernie in Nov. I am!
The chairperson of the DNC is bound to remain impartial, as is clearly stated in the party
rules. There is now ample evidence that Ms Schultz has repeatedly broken that rule throughout
the campaign cycle and is therefore unfit to remain chairperson of the DNC. If she is not replaced
by an impartial chairperson for the convention it will undermine the legitimacy of the nomination
process.
In light of the formal complaints and petitions submitted by Democratic Party members regarding
Ms Schultz breaking Democratic Party rules, Mrs Clinton and Senator Sanders will need to agree
on a temporary replacement chairperson for the convention until the next permanent chairperson
is appointed.
What spellchecker ? Atlga is clearly a person paid pennies by the Hillary campaign. I did not
realize they are outsourcing the respondents to some remote villages in the world.
You don't seem to understand the difference between primaries and the general election. Compare
the polls for Sanders vs Trump and Clinton vs Trump in the general--
Stop with the misleading inclusion of the super delegate totals in the counts. Or, at least,
emphasize the difference-- elected vs. appointed or, rather, party-automatic supers.
Glad, though, for coverage of the biased Debbie! If anyone' seen her on TV, she is a sorry
excuse for a party leader anyway-- semi-articulate, breathless, and ill-mannered. (And, yes, I
would make the same criticisms of male politicians, too.). Adding in her blatant biases-- even
the Sanders folks have said that they have little or no problem with the rest of the DNC leadership
team, it's clear that she's got to go!
There's some debate about the world's oldest democracy, but it ain't the United States (which,
btw, is a republic).
Iceland has had a parliament since the year 930 and the oldest continuous parliament since
979 is on the Isle of Man. Universal adult suffrage was established in New Zealand in 1893, although
NZ doesn't elect its Head of State.
Senator Sanders is serving this country well by bringing out years of anger and frustration
about all the money going to the too 1%, serfdom for working families for the past 30 years, serfdom
for those who dare to incur debt to go to college and the endless expensive wars. He is a hero.
Despite her promises to be tough on Wall Street, a new report has found that groups supporting
Hillary Clinton have received $25 million from the financial industry using so-called shadow banks.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has received a new waffle iron for opening a savings account.
Bernie isn't "apart from the Democrats"--in fact, he exemplifies Democratic principles, the ones
the party held for a half century before the corporate centrists took it over. If you want to
get rid of confusion and conflict, take the people who oppose a liveable minimum wage, or universal
health care, or trust-busting against the banks and big corps, and put them in the GOP where they
belong.
Atlant
21 May 2016 07:36
1
2
Democrats used to argue Bernie Sanders couldn't win anything. Then he started winning essentially
all of the open or semi-open contests.
So Democrats argued he couldn't win closed contests
among just Democrats. And now he tied in Kentucky and won overwhelmingly in Oregon.
So now Democrats are arguing he's got to drop out because he'll never get enough delegates.
And they say this even as poll after poll shows Senator Sanders strongly winning the General
Election while Clinton just squeaks by or even loses.
Note that these FACTS will NOT be covered
by the large "news" typist corporations. The
1st Amendment (press) has been completely
trashed. The press are part of the Central
Planning political party/movement now.
"Must have been a very
busy day for Hillary
having to give 3 speeches
in two different cities.
Poor woman must have been
exhausted."
I don't believe
she even gave most of
these speeches. Its just
a clever way to slide her
some money. Where are
the transcripts?? Where
are the videos?? Someone
should check her travel
itineraries and figure
out if she was even
anywhere close to where
she was "allegedly"
giving a speech. They
just gave her the money
with a wink and a nod,
and called it a speech.
I call it BULLSHIT.
Someday soon hopefully the Ponzi scheme
meme will be rightly replaced by the Clinton
scheme. It only seems logical given the epic
scale of the deception they are pulling off
globally.
Fifty years of empirical research in personality psychology have resulted in a scientific
consensus regarding the most basic dimensions of human variability. There are countless ways to differentiate
one person from the next, but psychological scientists have settled on a relatively simple taxonomy,
known widely as the Big Five:
Extroversion: gregariousness, social dominance, enthusiasm, reward-seeking behavior
Agreeableness: warmth, care for others, altruism, compassion, modesty
Openness: curiosity, unconventionality, imagination, receptivity to new ideas
Most people score near the middle on any given dimension, but some score toward one pole or the
other. Research decisively shows that higher scores on extroversion are associated with greater happiness
and broader social connections, higher scores on conscientiousness predict greater success in school
and at work, and higher scores on agreeableness are associated with deeper relationships. By contrast,
higher scores on neuroticism are always bad, having proved to be a risk factor for unhappiness, dysfunctional
relationships, and mental-health problems. From adolescence through midlife, many people tend to
become more conscientious and agreeable, and less neurotic, but these changes are typically slight:
The Big Five personality traits are pretty stable across a person's lifetime.
... ... ...
Research suggests that extroverts tend to take high-stakes risks and that people with low
levels of openness rarely question their deepest convictions. Entering office with high levels of
extroversion and very low openness, Bush was predisposed to make bold decisions aimed at achieving
big rewards, and to make them with the assurance that he could not be wrong. As I argued in my psychological
biography of Bush, the game-changing decision to invade Iraq was the kind of decision he was
likely to make. As world events transpired to open up an opportunity for the invasion, Bush found
additional psychological affirmation both in his lifelong desire-pursued again and again before he
ever became president-to defend his beloved father from enemies (think: Saddam Hussein) and in his
own life story, wherein the hero liberates himself from oppressive forces (think: sin, alcohol) to
restore peace and freedom.
Like Bush, a President Trump might try to swing for the fences in an effort to deliver big payoffs-to
make America great again, as his campaign slogan says. As a real-estate developer, he has certainly
taken big risks, although he has become a more conservative businessman following setbacks in the
1990s. As a result of the risks he has taken, Trump can (and does) point to luxurious urban towers,
lavish golf courses, and a personal fortune that is, by some estimates, in the billions, all of which
clearly bring him big psychic rewards. Risky decisions have also resulted in four Chapter 11 business
bankruptcies involving some of his casinos and resorts. Because he is not burdened with Bush's low
level of openness (psychologists have rated Bush at the bottom of the list on this trait), Trump
may be a more flexible and pragmatic decision maker, more like Bill Clinton than Bush: He may look
longer and harder than Bush did before he leaps. And because he is viewed as markedly less ideological
than most presidential candidates (political observers note that on some issues he seems conservative,
on others liberal, and on still others nonclassifiable), Trump may be able to switch positions easily,
leaving room to maneuver in negotiations with Congress and foreign leaders. But on balance, he's
unlikely to shy away from risky decisions that, should they work out, could burnish his legacy and
provide him an emotional payoff.
The real psychological wild card, however, is Trump's agreeableness-or lack thereof. There has
probably never been a U.S. president as consistently and overtly disagreeable on the public stage
as Donald Trump is. If Nixon comes closest, we might predict that Trump's style of decision making
would look like the hard-nosed realpolitik that Nixon and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger,
displayed in international affairs during the early 1970s, along with its bare-knuckled domestic
analog. That may not be all bad, depending on one's perspective. Not readily swayed by warm sentiments
or humanitarian impulses, decision makers who, like Nixon, are dispositionally low on agreeableness
might hold certain advantages when it comes to balancing competing interests or bargaining with adversaries,
such as China in Nixon's time. In international affairs, Nixon was tough, pragmatic, and coolly rational.
Trump seems capable of a similar toughness and strategic pragmatism, although the cool rationality
does not always seem to fit, probably because Trump's disagreeableness appears so strongly motivated
by anger.
In domestic politics, Nixon was widely recognized to be cunning, callous, cynical, and Machiavellian,
even by the standards of American politicians. Empathy was not his strong suit. This sounds a lot
like Donald Trump, too-except you have to add the ebullient extroversion, the relentless showmanship,
and the larger-than-life celebrity. Nixon could never fill a room the way Trump can.
... ... ...
During and after World War II, psychologists conceived of the authoritarian personality as a pattern
of attitudes and values revolving around adherence to society's traditional norms, submission to
authorities who personify or reinforce those norms, and antipathy-to the point of hatred and aggression-toward
those who either challenge in-group norms or lie outside their orbit. Among white Americans, high
scores on measures of authoritarianism today tend to be associated with prejudice against a wide
range of "out-groups," including homosexuals, African Americans, immigrants, and Muslims. Authoritarianism
is also associated with suspiciousness of the humanities and the arts, and with cognitive rigidity,
militaristic sentiments, and Christian fundamentalism.
When individuals with authoritarian proclivities fear that their way of life is being threatened,
they may turn to strong leaders who promise to keep them safe-leaders like Donald Trump. In a national
poll conducted recently by the political scientist Matthew MacWilliams, high levels of authoritarianism
emerged as the single strongest predictor of expressing political support for Donald Trump. Trump's
promise to build a wall on the Mexican border to keep illegal immigrants out and his railing against
Muslims and other outsiders have presumably fed that dynamic.
As the social psychologist Jesse Graham has noted, Trump appeals to an ancient fear of contagion,
which analogizes out-groups to parasites, poisons, and other impurities. In this regard, it is perhaps
no psychological accident that Trump displays a phobia of germs, and seems repulsed by bodily fluids,
especially women's. He famously remarked that Megyn Kelly of Fox News had "blood coming out of her
wherever," and he repeatedly characterized Hillary Clinton's bathroom break during a Democratic debate
as "disgusting." Disgust is a primal response to impurity. On a daily basis, Trump seems to experience
more disgust, or at least to say he does, than most people do.
The authoritarian mandate is to ensure the security, purity, and goodness of the in-group-to keep
the good stuff in and the bad stuff out. In the 1820s, white settlers in Georgia and other frontier
areas lived in constant fear of American Indian tribes. They resented the federal government for
not keeping them safe from what they perceived to be a mortal threat and a corrupting contagion.
Responding to these fears, President Jackson pushed hard for the passage of the Indian Removal Act,
which eventually led to the forced relocation of 45,000 American Indians. At least 4,000 Cherokees
died on the Trail of Tears, which ran from Georgia to the Oklahoma territory.
An American strand of authoritarianism may help explain why the thrice-married, foul-mouthed Donald
Trump should prove to be so attractive to white Christian evangelicals. As Jerry Falwell Jr. told
The New York Times in February, "All the social issues-traditional family values, abortion-are
moot if isis blows up some of our cities or if the borders are not fortified." Rank-and-file evangelicals
"are trying to save the country," Falwell said. Being "saved" has a special resonance among
evangelicals-saved from sin and damnation, of course, but also saved from the threats and impurities
of a corrupt and dangerous world.
Trump appeals to an ancient fear of contagion, which analogizes out-groups to parasites and poisons.
When my research associates and I once asked politically conservative Christians scoring high on
authoritarianism to imagine what their life (and their world) might have been like had they never
found religious faith, many described utter chaos-families torn apart, rampant infidelity and hate,
cities on fire, the inner rings of hell. By contrast, equally devout politically liberal Christians
who scored low on authoritarianism described a barren world depleted of all resources, joyless and
bleak, like the arid surface of the moon. For authoritarian Christians, a strong faith-like a strong
leader-saves them from chaos and tamps down fears and conflicts. Donald Trump is a savior, even if
he preens and swears, and waffles on the issue of abortion.
In December, on the campaign trail in Raleigh, North Carolina, Trump stoked fears in his audience
by repeatedly saying that "something bad is happening" and "something really dangerous is going on."
He was asked by a 12-year-old girl from Virginia, "I'm scared-what are you going to do to protect
this country?"
Trump responded: "You know what, darling? You're not going to be scared anymore. They're
going to be scared."
... ... ...
In the negotiations for the Menie Estate in Scotland, Trump wore Tom Griffin down by making one
outlandish demand after another and bargaining hard on even the most trivial issues of disagreement.
He never quit fighting. "Sometimes, part of making a deal is denigrating your competition," Trump
writes. When local residents refused to sell properties that Trump needed in order to finish the
golf resort, he ridiculed them on the Late Show With David Letterman and in newspapers, describing
the locals as rubes who lived in "disgusting" ramshackle hovels. As D'Antonio recounts in Never
Enough, Trump's attacks incurred the enmity of millions in the British Isles, inspired an award-winning
documentary highly critical of Trump (You've Been Trumped), and transformed a local farmer
and part-time fisherman named Michael Forbes into a national hero. After painting the words no golf
course on his barn and telling Trump he could "take his money and shove it up his arse," Forbes received
the 2012 Top Scot honor at the Glenfiddich Spirit of Scotland Awards. (That same year, Trump's golf
course was completed nonetheless. He promised that its construction would create 1,200 permanent
jobs in the Aberdeen area, but to date, only about 200 have been documented.)
Trump's recommendations for successful deal making include less antagonistic strategies: "protect
the downside" (anticipate what can go wrong), "maximize your options," "know your market," "get the
word out," and "have fun." As president, Trump would negotiate better trade deals with China, he
says, guarantee a better health-care system by making deals with pharmaceutical companies and hospitals,
and force Mexico to agree to a deal whereby it would pay for a border wall. On the campaign trail,
he has often said that he would simply pick up the phone and call people-say, a CEO wishing to move
his company to Mexico-in order to make propitious deals for the American people.
Trump's focus on personal relationships and one-on-one negotiating pays respect to a venerable
political tradition. For example, a contributor to Lyndon B. Johnson's success in pushing through
civil-rights legislation and other social programs in the 1960s was his unparalleled expertise in
cajoling lawmakers. Obama, by contrast, has been accused of failing to put in the personal effort
needed to forge close and productive relationships with individual members of Congress.
... ... ...
For psychologists, it is almost impossible to talk about Donald Trump without using the word
narcissism. Asked to sum up Trump's personality for an article in Vanity Fair, Howard
Gardner, a psychologist at Harvard, responded, "Remarkably narcissistic." George Simon, a clinical
psychologist who conducts seminars on manipulative behavior, says Trump is "so classic that I'm archiving
video clips of him to use in workshops because there's no better example" of narcissism. "Otherwise
I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He's like a dream come true."
When I walk north on Michigan Avenue in Chicago, where I live, I often stop to admire the sleek
tower that Trump built on the Chicago River. But why did he have to stencil his name in 20‑foot letters
across the front? As nearly everybody knows, Trump has attached his name to pretty much everything
he has ever touched-from casinos to steaks to a so-called university that promised to teach students
how to become rich. Self-references pervade Trump's speeches and conversations, too. When, in the
summer of 1999, he stood up to offer remarks at his father's funeral, Trump spoke mainly about himself.
It was the toughest day of his own life, Trump began. He went on to talk about Fred Trump's
greatest achievement: raising a brilliant and renowned son. As Gwenda Blair writes in her three-generation
biography of the Trump family, The Trumps, "the first-person singular pronouns, the I and
me and my, eclipsed the he and his. Where others spoke of their memories of Fred Trump, [Donald]
spoke of Fred Trump's endorsement."
... Highly narcissistic people are always trying to draw attention to themselves. Repeated and
inordinate self-reference is a distinguishing feature of their personality.
Narcissism in presidents is a double-edged sword. It is associated with historians' ratings of "greatness"-but
also with impeachment resolutions.
To consider the role of narcissism in Donald Trump's life is
to go beyond the dispositional traits of the social actor-beyond the high extroversion and low agreeableness,
beyond his personal schemata for decision making-to try to figure out what motivates the man.
What does Donald Trump really want? What are his most valued life goals?
Narcissus wanted, more than anything else, to love himself. People with strong narcissistic needs
want to love themselves, and they desperately want others to love them too-or at least admire them,
see them as brilliant and powerful and beautiful, even just see them, period. The fundamental life
goal is to promote the greatness of the self, for all to see. "I'm the king of Palm Beach," Trump
told the journalist Timothy O'Brien for his 2005 book, TrumpNation. Celebrities and rich people
"all come over" to Mar-a-Lago, Trump's exclusive Palm Beach estate. "They all eat, they all love
me, they all kiss my ass. And then they all leave and say, 'Isn't he horrible.' But I'm the king."
The renowned psychoanalytic theorist Heinz Kohut argued that narcissism stems from a deficiency
in early-life mirroring: The parents fail to lovingly reflect back the young boy's (or girl's) own
budding grandiosity, leaving the child in desperate need of affirmation from others. Accordingly,
some experts insist that narcissistic motivations cover up an underlying insecurity. But others argue
that there is nothing necessarily compensatory, or even immature, about certain forms of narcissism.
Consistent with this view, I can find no evidence in the biographical record to suggest that Donald
Trump experienced anything but a loving relationship with his mother and father. Narcissistic people
like Trump may seek glorification over and over, but not necessarily because they suffered from negative
family dynamics as children. Rather, they simply cannot get enough. The parental praise and strong
encouragement that might reinforce a sense of security for most boys and young men may instead have
added rocket fuel to Donald Trump's hot ambitions.
Ever since grade school, Trump has wanted to be No. 1. Attending New York Military Academy for
high school, he was relatively popular among his peers and with the faculty, but he did not have
any close confidants. As both a coach and an admiring classmate recall in The Trumps, Donald
stood out for being the most competitive young man in a very competitive environment. His need to
excel-to be the best athlete in school, for example, and to chart out the most ambitious future career-may
have crowded out intense friendships by making it impossible for him to show the kind of weakness
and vulnerability that true intimacy typically requires.
Whereas you might think that narcissism would be part of the job description for anybody aspiring
to become the chief executive of the United States, American presidents appear to have varied widely
on this psychological construct. In a 2013 Psychological Science research article, behavioral
scientists ranked U.S. presidents on characteristics of what the authors called "grandiose narcissism."
Lyndon Johnson scored the highest, followed closely by Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson. Franklin
D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Nixon, and Clinton were next. Millard Fillmore ranked the lowest.
Correlating these ranks with objective indices of presidential performance, the researchers found
that narcissism in presidents is something of a double-edged sword. On the positive side, grandiose
narcissism is associated with initiating legislation, public persuasiveness, agenda setting, and
historians' ratings of "greatness." On the negative side, it is also associated with unethical behavior
and congressional impeachment resolutions.
In business, government, sports, and many other arenas, people will put up with a great deal of
self-serving and obnoxious behavior on the part of narcissists as long as the narcissists continually
perform at high levels. Steve Jobs was, in my opinion, every bit Trump's equal when it comes to grandiose
narcissism. He heaped abuse on colleagues, subordinates, and friends; cried, at age 27, when he learned
that Time magazine had not chosen him to be Man of the Year; and got upset when he received
a congratulatory phone call, following the iPad's introduction in 2010, from President Obama's chief
of staff, Rahm Emanuel, rather than the president himself. Unlike Trump, he basically ignored his
kids, to the point of refusing to acknowledge for some time that one of them was his.
Psychological
research demonstrates that many narcissists come across as charming, witty, and charismatic upon
initial acquaintance. They can attain high levels of popularity and esteem in the short term.
As long as they prove to be successful and brilliant-like Steve Jobs-they may be able to weather
criticism and retain their exalted status. But more often than not, narcissists wear out their welcome.
Over time, people become annoyed, if not infuriated, by their self-centeredness. When narcissists
begin to disappoint those whom they once dazzled, their descent can be especially precipitous. There
is still truth today in the ancient proverb: Pride goeth before the fall.
... ... ...
In middle age, George W. Bush formulated a life story that traced the transformation of a drunken
ne'er-do-well into a self-regulated man of God. Key events in the story were his decision to marry
a steady librarian at age 31, his conversion to evangelical Christianity in his late 30s, and his
giving up alcohol forever the day after his 40th birthday party. By atoning for his sins and breaking
his addiction, Bush was able to recover the feeling of control and freedom that he had enjoyed as
a young boy growing up in Midland, Texas. Extending his narrative to the story of his country, Bush
believed that American society could recapture the wholesome family values and small-town decency
of yesteryear, by embracing a brand of compassionate conservatism.
... ... ...
Donald Trump grew up in a wealthy 1950s family with a mother who was devoted to the children and
a father who was devoted to work. Parked in front of their mansion in Jamaica Estates, Queens, was
a Cadillac for him and a Rolls-Royce for her. All five Trump children-Donald was the fourth-enjoyed
a family environment in which their parents loved them and loved each other. And yet the first chapter
in Donald Trump's story, as he tells it today, expresses nothing like Bush's gentle nostalgia or
Obama's curiosity. Instead, it is saturated with a sense of danger and a need for toughness: The
world cannot be trusted.
Fred Trump made a fortune building, owning, and managing apartment complexes in Queens and Brooklyn.
On weekends, he would occasionally take one or two of his children along to inspect buildings. "He
would drag me around with him while he collected small rents in tough sections of Brooklyn," Donald
recalls in Crippled America. "It's not fun being a landlord. You have to be tough." On one
such trip, Donald asked Fred why he always stood to the side of the tenant's door after ringing the
bell. "Because sometimes they shoot right through the door," his father replied. While Fred's response
may have been an exaggeration, it reflected his worldview. He trained his sons to be tough competitors,
because his own experience taught him that if you were not vigilant and fierce, you would never survive
in business. His lessons in toughness dovetailed with Donald's inborn aggressive temperament. "Growing
up in Queens, I was a pretty tough kid," Trump writes. "I wanted to be the toughest kid in the neighborhood."
Fred applauded Donald's toughness and encouraged him to be a "killer," but he was not too keen
about the prospects of juvenile delinquency. His decision to send his 13-year-old son off to military
school, so as to alloy aggression with discipline, followed Donald's trip on the subway into Manhattan,
with a friend, to purchase switchblades. As Trump tells it decades later, New York Military Academy
was "a tough, tough place. There were ex–drill sergeants all over the place." The instructors "used
to beat the shit out of you; those guys were rough."
Military school reinforced the strong work ethic and sense of discipline Trump had learned from
his father. And it taught him how to deal with aggressive men, like his intimidating baseball coach,
Theodore Dobias:
What I did, basically, was to convey that I respected his authority, but that he didn't intimidate
me. It was a delicate balance. Like so many strong guys, Dobias had a tendency to go for the jugular
if he smelled weakness. On the other hand, if he sensed strength but you didn't try to undermine
him, he treated you like a man.
... ... ...
In Trump's own words from a 1981 People interview, the fundamental backdrop for his life
narrative is this: "Man is the most vicious of all animals, and life is a series of battles ending
in victory or defeat." The protagonist of this story is akin to what the great 20th-century scholar
and psychoanalyst Carl Jung identified in myth and folklore as the archetypal warrior. According
to Jung, the warrior's greatest gifts are courage, discipline, and skill; his central life task is
to fight for what matters; his typical response to a problem is to slay it or otherwise defeat it;
his greatest fear is weakness or impotence. The greatest risk for the warrior is that he incites
gratuitous violence in others, and brings it upon himself.
Trump loves boxing and football, and once owned a professional football team. In the opening segment
of The Apprentice, he welcomes the television audience to a brutal Darwinian world:
New York. My city. Where the wheels of the global economy never stop turning. A concrete metropolis
of unparalleled strength and purpose that drives the business world. Manhattan is a tough place.
This island is the real jungle. If you're not careful, it can chew you up and spit you
out. But if you work hard, you can really hit it big, and I mean really big.
The story here is not so much about making money. As Trump has written, "money was never a big
motivation for me, except as a way to keep score." The story instead is about coming out on top.
As president, Donald Trump promises, he would make America great again. In Crippled America,
he says that a first step toward victory is building up the armed forces: "Everything begins with
a strong military. Everything." The enemies facing the United States are more terrifying than those
the hero has confronted in Queens and Manhattan. "There has never been a more dangerous time," Trump
says. Members of isis "are medieval barbarians" who must be pursued "relentlessly wherever they are,
without stopping, until every one of them is dead." Less frightening but no less belligerent are
our economic competitors, like the Chinese. They keep beating us. We have to beat them.
Andrew Jackson displayed many of the same psychological qualities that we see in Trump.
Economic
victory is one thing; starting and winning real wars is quite another. In some ways, Trump appears
to be less prone to military action than certain other candidates. He has strongly criticized George
W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003, and has cautioned against sending American troops to Syria.
That said, I believe there is good reason to fear Trump's incendiary language regarding America's
enemies. David Winter, a psychologist at the University of Michigan, analyzed U.S. presidential inaugural
addresses and found that those presidents who laced their speeches with power-oriented, aggressive
imagery were more likely than those who didn't to lead the country into war. The rhetoric that
Trump uses to characterize both his own life story and his attitudes toward America's foes is certainly
aggressive. And, as noted, his extroversion and narcissism suggest a willingness to take big risks-actions
that history will remember. Tough talk can sometimes prevent armed conflict, as when a potential
adversary steps down in fear. But belligerent language may also incite nationalistic anger..., and
provoke the rival nations at whom Trump takes aim.
... ... ...
Nearly two centuries ago, President Andrew Jackson displayed many of the same psychological characteristics
we see in Donald Trump-the extroversion and social dominance, the volatile temper, the shades of
narcissism, the populist authoritarian appeal. Jackson was, and remains, a controversial figure in
American history. Nonetheless, it appears that Thomas Jefferson had it wrong when he characterized
Jackson as completely unfit to be president, a dangerous man who choked on his own rage. In fact,
Jackson's considerable success in dramatically expanding the power of the presidency lay partly in
his ability to regulate his anger and use it strategically to promote his agenda.
What's more, Jackson personified a narrative that inspired large parts of America and informed
his presidential agenda. His life story appealed to the common man because Jackson himself was a
common man-one who rose from abject poverty and privation to the most exalted political position
in the land. Amid the early rumblings of Southern secession, Jackson mobilized Americans to believe
in and work hard for the Union. The populism that his detractors feared would lead to mob rule instead
connected common Americans to a higher calling-a sovereign unity of states committed to democracy.
The Frenchman Michel Chevalier, a witness to American life in the 1830s, wrote that the throngs of
everyday people who admired Jackson and found sustenance and substance for their own life story in
his "belong to history, they partake of the grand; they are the episodes of a wondrous epic which
will bequeath a lasting memory to posterity, that of the coming of democracy."
Who, really, is Donald Trump? What's behind the actor's mask? I can discern little more than narcissistic
motivations and a complementary personal narrative about winning at any cost. It is as if Trump has
invested so much of himself in developing and refining his socially dominant role that he has nothing
left over to create a meaningful story for his life, or for the nation. It is always Donald Trump
playing Donald Trump, fighting to win, but never knowing why.
"... Ford werke built trucks for the Germans up until the end of the war. And Prescott Bush (father and grandfather to POTUS 41 & 43) had his assets frozen and seized for trading with the enemy. ..."
"... Nearly all German corporations/large companies (they funded the parties rise) were complicit with the Nazi war and Holocaust machine and received the benefits of free (to them) slave Labor (reminds me of the US prison Labor system) and the seizure of capital assets in conquered countries. ..."
"... Being and oligarch or a faceless Corporation certainly has it's benefits, especially if there are any "scary" communists (or terrorists) around. ..."
I G Farben isn't alone in Holocaust related evilness. Check out IBMs' part, through their German
subsidiary, in making the efficiency of the "Final Solution" feasible. Figures for the liquidation
of "undesirables" were available to the New York headquarters of IBM in nearly real time.
As the
war wound down, special units attached to the U.S.Army secured and protected IBM 'assets' in Germany,
mainly the hardware and specialists who ran things.
Ford werke built trucks for the Germans up until the end of the war. And Prescott Bush (father
and grandfather to POTUS 41 & 43) had his assets frozen and seized for trading with the enemy.
But what do I know, I'm just a little prole with no Ivy league credentials. I should just trust
my betters.
By all means, go ahead, coronate another .01%er Oligarch to be President. Worked great so far.
Nearly all German corporations/large companies (they funded the parties rise) were complicit
with the Nazi war and Holocaust machine and received the benefits of free (to them) slave Labor
(reminds me of the US prison Labor system) and the seizure of capital assets in conquered countries.
What happened to them and their leaders. Not much, some were broken up (IG farben) some leaders
spent a short stint in prison (alfried Krupp) but nearly all of the largest were allowed to immediately
or eventually (Krupp) go on their merry way, so we could "stop communism".
So the very people that funded and were integral to the Nazi party having the funds and ability
to rise and benefited most, were slightly scolded at most.
Being and oligarch or a faceless Corporation certainly has it's benefits, especially if there
are any "scary" communists (or terrorists) around.
Goldwater girl was virtually on a par with John Kasich among big Republican donors
Notable quotes:
"... The thing about the Clintons is that they are, as politicians, honest. When bought, they stay bought. Hence their popularity with businesses. Trump is far too much of a wheeler dealer to stay bought, this is what seems to worry the oligarchy. ..."
"... Later, I developed an alternate theory for why Obama and Clinton were pushed front. As President, either could be trusted to betray their base and lose badly, divide their base (and give them no motive to energize them) setting the stage for zombie resurrection of the Republicans in 2010 - and also, continue the Republican militaristic anti-civll-liberties, shadow-bank friendly, torture-friendly Bush policies. I have no idea if either theory was correct. ..."
"... 2016: A year ago, we had the media pushing Clinton hard, as this implacable juggernaut, with opponents portrayed as annoying gnats at her heels. Sanders came up and got coverage, perhaps because of his major fundraising, perhaps because he was another candidate they could trust. Other candidates got minimal coverage. ..."
"... So: are they being set up for the Fall again? Or is Clinton being engineered as our next President? ..."
"... Does anyone *really* believe that Clinton will break up the huge shadow banking system? Prosecute the fraudclosers, prosecute the banksters, prosecute the torturers, stop the "humanitarian bombing" and so forth? ..."
"... Does anyone *really* believe that Clinton will break up the huge shadow banking system? Prosecute the fraudclosers, prosecute the banksters, prosecute the torturers, stop the "humanitarian bombing" and so forth? ..."
"... The only people who believe that are the people who also believe that is what Obama will do. ..."
Politico reported in early May, when Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee,
that the Clinton campaign started calling major Republican donors almost immediately , pitching
her as the natural candidate for them. Many of the recipients were cool to the appear, reasoning
that Clinton would probably prevail regardless. But that was before the polls showed that Trump becoming
the virtually official Republican nominee meant he quickly moved in national polls to score a mere
few points behind Clinton, when the widespread assumption had been that he would top out at a much
lower level.
And it's not as if Clinton didn't already have real pull among big Republican givers.
This chart from Time Magazine shows as of late 2015 where 2012 Romney donors were sending their
Presidential bucks in this cycle. You can see that Clinton was virtually on a par with John Kasich
The Financial Times surveyed major US business groups and found
they greatly prefer Clinton . Mind you, "greatly prefer" translates as "loathes Trump, deems
her to be less obviously terrible." Clinton is a status quo candidate, and as much as she would probably
shake her finger at businessmen more than they'd like, she won't break any big rice bowls.
From the Financial Times :
In the most comprehensive survey to date of business views on the US election, half of the
trade groups who responded to the FT said they would break from the traditional party of business
to back Mrs Clinton - despite reservations about the Democratic front-runner's candidacy.
Only a quarter of respondents preferred Mr Trump, who has run a caustic campaign marked by
populist attacks on business. But support for Mrs Clinton was often lukewarm, sparked more by
alarm over the presumptive Republican nominee than enthusiasm for her..
The FT polled 53 Washington-based trade associations and received responses from 16 of them
that lobby for nearly 100,000 businesses with combined annual revenues of more than $3.5tn. A
quarter of respondents said they could not decide which candidate would be best for business because
it was too early to judge their policy platforms, or replied "none of the above".
Several trade groups expressed dismay that for the first time in living memory they faced a
presidential race without a clear pro-business candidate, dashing their hopes of a new dawn after
nearly eight years of what they see as over-regulation by the Obama administration.
Mr [Bill] Reinsch, speaking shortly before retiring from his trade group [companies ranging
from Cisco to General Electric to Procter & Gamble ] this month, added: "The other thing [companies]
want is predictability, which is the antithesis of Trump, who brags about being unpredictable."…
The business groups that said they would prefer Mrs Clinton tended to represent more internationally-minded
members in fast-moving or technology-dependent sectors. The smaller core of Trump support came
from more domestic-oriented sectors and those hurt by the Democratic causes of environmentalism
and trade unions.
The thing about the Clintons is that they are, as politicians, honest. When bought, they stay
bought. Hence their popularity with businesses. Trump is far too much of a wheeler dealer to stay
bought, this is what seems to worry the oligarchy.
I've been wondering… What will really happen in the Fall? All I know is that things will be
interesting, as in cursed. Past history, as I remember: In 2000, the media was quite nice to Candidate
Bush - someone they could sit down and have a beer with. He was the front-runner before a single
primary or caucus was held. Contrast with the serial lying about Candidate Gore, accompanied by
serious coverage of third-party Candidate Nader's campaign.
2008: on the Democratic side, Obama and Clinton were front-runners before a single primary
or caucus was held. My idea back then was that whoever would win would be set up for the Fall
(note the pun). Clinton was subject to the Clinton Rules. Obama had the worst post-9/11 name possible
for a Presidential candidate, not to mention being black.
Of course, economic reality intervened. Later, I developed an alternate theory for why
Obama and Clinton were pushed front. As President, either could be trusted to betray their base
and lose badly, divide their base (and give them no motive to energize them) setting the stage
for zombie resurrection of the Republicans in 2010 - and also, continue the Republican militaristic
anti-civll-liberties, shadow-bank friendly, torture-friendly Bush policies. I have no idea if
either theory was correct.
In 2012, we had minimal coverage of primarying Obama, or of third-party candidates.
2016: A year ago, we had the media pushing Clinton hard, as this implacable juggernaut,
with opponents portrayed as annoying gnats at her heels. Sanders came up and got coverage, perhaps
because of his major fundraising, perhaps because he was another candidate they could trust. Other
candidates got minimal coverage.
So: are they being set up for the Fall again? Or is Clinton being engineered as our next
President?
Does anyone *really* believe that Clinton will break up the huge shadow banking system?
Prosecute the fraudclosers, prosecute the banksters, prosecute the torturers, stop the "humanitarian
bombing" and so forth?
Does anyone *really* believe that Clinton will break up the huge shadow banking system?
Prosecute the fraudclosers, prosecute the banksters, prosecute the torturers, stop the "humanitarian
bombing" and so forth?
The only people who believe that are the people who also believe that is what Obama will do.
Adam Sinclair
·
Charlton, Massachusetts
Hillary Clinton simply doesn't
have enough delegates or votes to win the Democratic
Primary. She is mathematically incapable of winning at
this juncture and therefore must rely on her paid
Superdelegaters to award her the nomination.
If the Superdelegate are truly interested in defeating
Donald Trump and NOT alienating the largest block of
generational voters in the country...they will select
Sanders as the nonminee. If they do not select Sanders not
only with the Democratic Party lose to Trump but they will
cease to be a viable political party in future elections.
Without the MASSIVE
...
See
More
Like
·
Reply
·
3
·
4 hrs
李淼然
Barack Obama
needed around 300-400 superdelegates to
push him over the line. Pretty much
every Democratic nominee (outside of
incumbent presidents) had to use
superdelegates to get past the
threshold. As far as I can remember,
since the modern application of the
delegate system in the Democratic
nomination system, every single
non-incumbent candidate had to use
superdelegates.
So, my question is - why are you holding
Clinton to a higher standard to win the
Democratic nomination? She doesn't have
to get the majority of the pledged
delegates, she just has to get the
majority of the delegates (s
...
See
More
Like
·
Reply
·
7
·
4 hrs
·
Edited
Adam Sinclair
·
Charlton, Massachusetts
李淼然 Clinton will not
win the Primary. She doesn't have the
delegates. Voters are totally irrelevant
in the Superdelegate Primary system.
If Superdelegates exist to prevent idiot
voters from nominating an obvious
general election loser...then clearly
they should support Bernie Sanders
right?
Like
·
Reply
·
3 hrs
Adam Sinclair
·
Charlton, Massachusetts
Yes. Hillary
tied/won the popular vote but the
Establishment wanted Obama so they gave
all of Michigan's "undecided" votes to
Obama even though he wasn't on the
ballot there. The superdelegates went
with him bc, lets face it, Obama is a
WAY more amiable human being than
Hillary.
The establishment has been forcing
candidates on us for a long time. Obama
promptly sold out to Wall Street after
being elected. No prosecutions. Not one.
Cheryl Onstad
Adam Sinclair Obama
also won the popular vote by a slim
margin. Supers went with Obama because
he won the pledged delegates. You are
making things up.
"... Everybody over the age of six knows that Obama was "grateful" for Clinton's support in 2008, and he expressed his support in very tangible ways ..."
"... Even if Sanders is offered a deal he is willing to take (and I think that's a fairly big "if") his supporters are not likely to fall in line just because he tells them to. Most of the people I see online who claim to be Bernie supporters but say they will vote for Clint0n if she is the nominee use language or tactics suggestive of trolls, not of actual Sanders voters. The "typical" Sanders voter (to the extent there is one) does not react well to the "shut up and do as you're told" approach. They are issues voters, not party voters (many only joined the Democratic party-if they ever joined at all- in order to be able to vote in the primaries), and appeals to "party unity" will not sway them. Nor will the "lesser evil" argument, since Clinton has demonstrated a tremendous capacity for evil in her decades in the public eye. Comparisons between 2008 and 2016 simply aren't valid. ..."
"... "issues voters, not party voters" ..."
"... Didn't Obama also give Hillary some help paying off her campaign debt from 2008? ..."
"... Did some Japanese science/tech corp. build a life-like robot in the image of H. Clinton, adding a kind of hybrid Dem/Repub speachifying algorithm, ……to try to pull the faux wool over the realists eyes?? ..."
"... Now Clinton's in the catbird seat, and she conveniently forgets her PUMA pals, all of whom are busily out there dissing the so-called dismissively name "BernieBros" for not "getting in line NOW." ..."
"... Every fiber of my being tells me that any supposed death threats were generated by the Clinton camp or DWS (same thing) to make Bernie's followers look bad, just like the "reports" of chairs being thrown. ..."
"... I believe it all to be more (blatant) hogwash in continuing attempts to knock Bernie off the campaign trail. I think it only proves the Clinton camp (which includes DWS) is growing more concerned by Bernie's support & going even further below the belt in their attempts to coronate the queen. The way DWS went on & on about it convinces me, even more, that's true. ..."
"... HRC is SO hated, however, that I can very well see Trump winning if she gets the nomination. Those who back Clinton are so blinded (by the sun gleaming off their bars of gold?), that they refuse to acknowledge the obvious. We the citizens are not happy. ..."
"... It wasn't all that long ago (hey, I'm a "senior" now), that JFK said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ..."
"... As to the prospect of uniting with Sanders versus going for the moderate Republicans I would say that they have already committed to the latter path. Clinton has been actively raising money from moderate Rs for some time now and has publicly spurned everything Sanders has proposed. The only demonstrable point at which she committed to anything he has pushed for was when she grudgingly and entirely unhappily claimed not to hate the idea of a raise in the minimum wage if, that is, someone else did all the work to get it past the house. ..."
"... They slammed the door on Sanders supporters a long time ago on the assumption that triangulation would work. Unless Trump melts down and actually eats a Mexican between now and election day they will find that a tough sell. My prediction is some tentative back door feelers that will fall because they can't bring themselves to give a damn thing followed by a desperate grab at the end. ..."
"... Jeff Merkley is the Senator supporting Bernie, not Ron "Mr. Nike" Wyden. Merkley opposes the TPP. Wyden is one of the fast trackers. ..."
"... "to see that the wage-worker, the small producer, the ordinary consumer, shall get their fair share of the benefit of business prosperity." ..."
"... "because of his hold upon the less intelligent voters and the discontented." The social justice that Roosevelt sought involved, in Taft's opinion, "a forced division of property, and that means socialism." ..."
"... One should take a look at the "substance" of the TPP-TTIP proposed carve-outs for "excluding publice services from" the corporate takeover. First, I don't find any substantive language, just a couple of ideas about "what's wrong" and little sets of what might be excluded. And anyone who has ever played with lawyers, particularly where stakes are really high, and believes that if the "regime" of TTIP-TTP gets "legitimized" by getting the bought-and-paid-for legislatures and executives of what used to be called "nations" to sign on the dotted line, that somehow a few particles of language that attempt to make exclusions from the general corporate coup for ANYTHING that could "turn a profit," is just off the beam. ..."
"... Mish and his buddies have a knee-jerk Calvinist belief in the power of suffering to turn the economy around. Note that the only kind of suffering that works is that of the middle/working class. Rich people paying their own way or parting with some fraction of their loot, in Mish's view, would immediately crater the economy. ..."
"... He lists "Four Likely Consequences" of the overtime rule change, none of which is "More Pay". According to Mish there can be absolutely no positive effect from expanding overtime eligibility. More pay for workers is actually less pay, somehow. So say the Austrian scriptures he quotes from daily. ..."
"... He further quotes his own tweet: "It seems to me, wages would keep up with inflation. if there was no inflation". I thought the lesson of the last 16 years was that wages don't keep up with inflation. They have in fact decreased. If there were no inflation, wages would simply deflate even more. They would not magically stay the same. Yet this is presented as some sort of self-evident wisdom, instead of a moronic tautology contradicted by the facts. ..."
"... I would find it amusing were someone to duck their head into his comment board and yell out the word "Government!" and watch the denizens scramble for their favorite right wing buzzwords ..."
"... Sanders voters being undercounted: Thousands of presidential primary votes already cast are not being officially counted ..."
"... Thanks for the links. The second one is particularly important since it shows that all the voters in the caucus states (won by Bernie, primarily) aren't being individually counted in these phony numbers Hillary keeps referring to as her lead in total votes. ..."
"... Shorter liberal press: 'we were willing to go slumming and report on the Sanders' campaign for jollies and liberal cred, but now that it looks like his platform represents the views of a large number of voters, views which are *not* our "liberal™ " views, (gawd forbid we miss a meal), we are now obliged by the machine to take Sanders down.' ..."
"... The goldwater conspiracy: …what if she never stopped being a republican…she loves dr strangelove from her days trying to get nelson rock the nomination in 1968 against nixon (who actually ended up losing the voter count to ronnie raygun in the primaries)… ..."
I can't find a transcript, so relying on CNN's paraphrase:
Clinton wouldn't say whether Sanders was being considered for her running mate and said
the Vermont senator needs to "do his part" to unify the party going into November.
She highlighted her role in unifying Democrats - including the 40% of Clinton supporters who
had said they wouldn't support Barack Obama if he won the party's nomination - in 2008, the
last close Democratic nominating contest.
"That's why the lesson of 2008 - which was a hard-fought primary, if you remember - is so pertinent
here. Because I did my part, but so did (then-)Sen. Obama," she said. "We went to Unity, New
Hampshire, together, appeared together, spoke together, and made it absolutely obvious that
I was supporting him, that he was grateful for that support."
Everybody over the age of six knows that Obama was "grateful" for Clinton's support in
2008, and he expressed his support in very tangible ways : The offer to Clinton of the
Secretary of State position, and supporting Clinton in 2016. (Note that the policy differences
between Obama and Clinton were not insignificant, but were marginal. The policy differences between
Clinton and Sanders are much greater, making a deal harder to reach.)
In other words, there was a deal. What deal is Clinton offering Sanders?
Sanders supporters are also not like Clinton supporters. She may have been willing to take
the "deal", and her supporters may have been willing to fall in line because they like being told
what to do, and hey, he was still another corporate Democrat anyway, so no bigs, but that's not
the situation this time.
Even if Sanders is offered a deal he is willing to take (and I think that's a fairly big
"if") his supporters are not likely to fall in line just because he tells them to. Most of the
people I see online who claim to be Bernie supporters but say they will vote for Clint0n if she
is the nominee use language or tactics suggestive of trolls, not of actual Sanders voters. The
"typical" Sanders voter (to the extent there is one) does not react well to the "shut up and do
as you're told" approach. They are issues voters, not party voters (many only joined the Democratic
party-if they ever joined at all- in order to be able to vote in the primaries), and appeals to
"party unity" will not sway them. Nor will the "lesser evil" argument, since Clinton has demonstrated
a tremendous capacity for evil in her decades in the public eye. Comparisons between 2008 and
2016 simply aren't valid.
CUOMO: So, you get into the general election, if you're the nominee, for your party.
CLINTON: I will be the nominee for my party, Chris. That is already done in effect.
There is no way that I won't be.
CUOMO: There is a Senator from Vermont who has a different take on that…
CLINTON: … well…
CUOMO: He says he's going to fight until the end. And, there seems to be a change here as
Donald Trump is trying to galvanize his party. The Democratic party seems to be going the other
way. His supporters have become more aggressive, feeling that the system is rigged against
the Senator.
We saw what happened in Nevada. When you saw that did you believe that Sanders responded
the right way to that situation?
CLINTON: Well, I was very disturbed by what went on there, but I am confident…
CUOMO: With him, or with the supporters?
CLINTON: … well, what we saw, what we saw there…
CUOMO: … the supporters?
CLINTON: What we saw was disturbing. I have every confidence we're going to be unified.
I understand…
CUOMO: … where does that confidence come from?
CLINTON: Well, in part from my own experience, you know? I went all the way to the end against
then Senator Obama. I won nine out of the last 12 contests. Back in 2008 I won Indiana, Kentucky,
West Virginia, so I know the intense feelings that arise, particularly among your supporters
as you go toward the end. But, we both were following the same rules, just as both Senator
Sanders and I are following the same rules.
I'm three million votes ahead of him, and I have an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates,
and I am confident that just as I did with Senator Obama, where I said, you know what? It was
really close - much closer than it is between me and Senator Sanders right.
CUOMO: Votes-wise?
CLINTON: Yes, vote-wise and delegate-wise. I said, you know, in fact, it depends on how
you evaluated it, I had more popular vote but I had fewer delegates, and the name of the game
is how many delegates you have, right? So, when I came out and withdrew and endorsed Senator
Obama, about 40% according to polls, about 40% of my supporters said they would never support
him.
I worked really hard to make the case, as I'm sure Senator Sanders will, that whatever differences
we might have, they pale in comparison to the presumptive nominee of the Republican party.
Name an issue you care about, domestic or international, and clearly we are much closer - Senator
Sanders supporters and mine, than either of us is with Donald Trump.
CUOMO: Why don't you reach out directly to Senator Sanders and do the work of reunification
, of unification of the party, however you want to see it.
I ask this because Senator Sanders has said to me in the past, and to many others, it's
not my job to get my supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton has to make the
case to these supporters, and given what you're saying with this increase in hostility and
antagonism towards the process within the process of the primaries on the Democratic side,
should you reach out to Bernie Sanders and say let's start doing this the right way? Let me
start talking to the supporters, from your perspective? Have you done that? Have you thought
about doing that…
CLINTON: Well, I certainly said many times what I've just said to everyone, including his
supporters, and I am absolutely committed to doing my part, more than my part. But, Senator
Sanders has to do his part. That's why the lesson of 2008, which was a hard fought primary,
as you remember, is so pertinent here because I did my part. But, so did Senator Obama.
He made it clear. He welcomed people who had supported me. He made it very clear. We went
to Unity, New Hampshire together. Appeared together. Spoke together, and made it absolutely
obvious that I was supporting him, he was grateful for that support.
I was reaching out to my supporters, he was telling his…
CUOMO: … You nominated him Senator Obama at the convention…
CLINTON: … I did.
CUOMO: Bernie Sanders is saying he's going to fight all the way through the convention,
it's different…
CLINTON: … Well, he has to do his part to unify. He said the other day that he
will do everything possible to defeat Donald Trump. He said he'd work seven days a week. I
take him at his word. I think the threat that Donald Trump poses is so dramatic to our country,
to our democracy, and our economy, that I certainly Sanders to do what he said he would.
CUOMO: Any thought to your making the first move, and reaching out to make that process
happen now as opposed to months from now?
CLINTON: Well, we've had lots of conversations between people who know me well, and
support…
CUOMO: … But, not directly?
CLINTON: He know exactly what I'm saying. He hears it all the time because I have said
the same thing. I respect him, I understand the very passionate advocacy he feels for
the issues he's been really pounding away at for years…
CUOMO: You Know what would bring you together very quickly?
If Bernie Sanders became your Vice President. Is there any chance of that?
CLINTON: Well, I'm not going to get into that. That's something down the road…
CUOMO: Where better? We're in your hometown, make some news, make it a historic place…
CLINTON: … I think what brings us together is Donald Trump. I think that's what brings
us together.
So, no voice for Sanders and Sanders supporters. Loyalty or exit.
Later in the interview, Clinton reiterated that Sanders "has to do his part to unify. He
said the other day that he'll do everything possible to defeat Donald Trump. He said he'd work
seven days a day week. I take him at his word."
Message sent. Now we wait to see how Sanders and his loyal supporters react. My guess? Not
well.
In my experience, "I take him at his word" is
irony ; I don't think
Clinton takes Sanders at his word at all.
It would be fun if Sanders worked to defeat Trump by helping down-ticket Democrats - harmed
by Clinton's Victory Fund - and especially down-ticket Democrats the DCCC and DSCC are trying
to destroy.
Did some Japanese science/tech corp. build a life-like robot in the image of H. Clinton,
adding a kind of hybrid Dem/Repub speachifying algorithm, ……to try to pull the faux wool over
the realists eyes??
"Get over it – it's over – get in line" is apparently the new talking point; it is not one
that signals a willingness to acknowledge the platform of her opponent, much less offer him a
prominent role of any kind in the campaign or any future administration. The last thing she –
and her Dem establishment cronies – wants is to crack open the door to the kingdom and let any
of the great unwashed in to ruin the ambiance.
What's sad is that the planning that seems to be going into the political equivalent of pest
control seems to be at the expense of grasping just how poorly Clinton's fortunes are beginning
to look in a Clinton v. Trump contest. They still seem to believe that winning the nomination
makes winning the WH a slam dunk – and it's far from being so.
The current Democratic power structure seems genetically unable to see the forest for the trees,
but then their hold on power is under threat and that just will not stand. They really do not
believe Clinton can or will lose, so cannot and will not game plan for any scenario that even
acknowledges that's a possibility, even it it would work to head off a loss.
It would be nice if the only consequences of losing would inure to the detriment of Clinton
and her establishment cabal, but we all know that those people will land on their expensively-clad
feet; most of us would survive a Trump presidency, but there are so many people who are just barely
hanging on who are going to tumble into the abyss – and that's the part that just frosts my cupcakes.
Many Hillary supporters in Washington are terrified for this reason. If Hillary can't win,
what good is a Clinton acolyte? Bill and Hill won't go broke, but what is a Marcotte going to
do? Or everyone who bought a house they can't afford for appearances expecting to work forever.
If Hillary loses again, the Clinton brain trust won't look too good. Corporate board jobs don't
go to losers.
The Clinton Global Slush Fund won't get another cent going forward.
Sanders and Trump have demonstrated that the underling class of the political structure has
no real value, especially going forward.
That's exactly the point, there is nothing to offer Sen. Sanders, less some ridiculous token
of appreciation, but she owes so much at this point given the support she's been able to acquire,
there is nothing of subsatnce to share – in a policy sense – that would be equitable in trade
for Sen. Sanders lending his endorsement.
I keep thinking about those Hilbot PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass), some of whom vowed they didn't
vote for Obama. Sure Barry Zero made an offer to Hilbot that she couldn't refuse, and Clinton
did pull many of her fans over to vote for Obama. Those voters probably would've voted for Obama
anyway.
Now Clinton's in the catbird seat, and she conveniently forgets her PUMA pals, all of whom
are busily out there dissing the so-called dismissively name "BernieBros" for not "getting in
line NOW."
Hypocrite much?
The past few days I've made what I felt to be some pretty low key comments that highlighted
some issues around the tactics of dissing Sanders. Frankly, I'm not totally sure whom I'm voting
for. But I've been barraged with name calling posts back (not here; elsewhere). I've been told
to stop thinking I'm a "special snowflake," to "grow up," and similar. And someone pretty much
digitally shouted at me for "supporting violence."
Nice. Those kinds of comments really make me feel all warm and cozy about voting for Clinton.
Seems more like what we associate with Trump voters. I keep thinking along the lines of: the fish
is rotten from the head down.
I believe the threats were via Twitter but not sure. Supposedly they were "traced" back to
Sanders supporters. It's unclear to me how accurate that is. But that's the rumor mill, and some
Clintonistas are running with it.
Every fiber of my being tells me that any supposed death threats were generated by the
Clinton camp or DWS (same thing) to make Bernie's followers look bad, just like the "reports"
of chairs being thrown.
Show me the proof of the flying chairs or indisputable evidence of any threats being traced
back to Bernie supporters. There obviously is none or it would have been exposed in a second by
DWS.
I believe it all to be more (blatant) hogwash in continuing attempts to knock Bernie off
the campaign trail. I think it only proves the Clinton camp (which includes DWS) is growing more
concerned by Bernie's support & going even further below the belt in their attempts to coronate
the queen. The way DWS went on & on about it convinces me, even more, that's true.
HRC is SO hated, however, that I can very well see Trump winning if she gets the nomination.
Those who back Clinton are so blinded (by the sun gleaming off their bars of gold?), that they
refuse to acknowledge the obvious. We the citizens are not happy.
It wasn't all that long ago (hey, I'm a "senior" now), that JFK said, "Those who make peaceful
revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
As much as DWS wants us to believe otherwise, it has yet to come to that & I hope it doesn't.
But with the obvious crap going on this election year anything could happen (like a "President
Trump". Aackkkkk!).
And the DNC would have no one to blame but themselves, by expecting us to all fall in line behind
them & HRC.
Bernie needs to be cloned & brought back at every election until they "get it". It would help
keep the new-found awareness alive.
"It could be that most voters have no problem with people yelling at politicians at all,
and wish there were more of it."
Important point! I overheard some people the other day who were all jazzed up by the video
they had seen– of people contemptuously throwing dollar bills at the HRC limo, en-route to the
Clooney fundraiser.
We need more (non-violent of course!) open mockery, jeering, and taunting of our failed elites–
and not just those running for office.
"A senior Democratic aide said that thinking reflects an acknowledgement among the senators
that Reid is the one member of the caucus who "has an actual relationship with him.'" Which
would be how Sanders passed all those amendments. The herd closing up…
I find it telling that these stories do not mention Wyden who actually endorsed Sanders as
a figure. One would think that if they were serious about reaching out to him they would use someone
who has a relationship that is actually publicly acknowledged rather than someone who sat it out,
supported his opponent, and then backed the "reject your extremists!" meme.
If, that is, they were actually serious.
As to the prospect of uniting with Sanders versus going for the moderate Republicans I
would say that they have already committed to the latter path. Clinton has been actively raising
money from moderate Rs for some time now and has publicly spurned everything Sanders has proposed.
The only demonstrable point at which she committed to anything he has pushed for was when she
grudgingly and entirely unhappily claimed not to hate the idea of a raise in the minimum wage
if, that is, someone else did all the work to get it past the house.
They slammed the door on Sanders supporters a long time ago on the assumption that triangulation
would work. Unless Trump melts down and actually eats a Mexican between now and election day they
will find that a tough sell. My prediction is some tentative back door feelers that will fall
because they can't bring themselves to give a damn thing followed by a desperate grab at the end.
As in Harry Reid, the guy who is only in the Senate because the GOP pretty much revolted against
Sharon Angle after she called for the return to a barter economy. 2010 featured candidates as
John Runyan. Sharon Angle was the Ollie North and Harry Reid was the Chuck Robb of that election.
The GOP in wave years managed to lose against the weakest candidates.
The Smithsonian article makes for amazing reading. To just quote two paragraphs:
Tensions deepened in 1912, when Roosevelt began advocating the recall of judicial decisions
through popular vote. With the courts tamed as an enemy to reform, Roosevelt then would press
forward "to see that the wage-worker, the small producer, the ordinary consumer, shall
get their fair share of the benefit of business prosperity." To enact his program, Roosevelt
signaled that he would accept another term as president and seek the nomination of the Republican
Party.
These ambitions revealed, Taft and his fellow conservatives deemed Roosevelt a dangerous
radical. Once in power for a third term, they said, Roosevelt would be a perpetual chief executive.
Roosevelt had become the most dangerous man in American history, said Taft, "because of
his hold upon the less intelligent voters and the discontented." The social justice that Roosevelt
sought involved, in Taft's opinion, "a forced division of property, and that means socialism."
I could see Bernie Sanders repeating Roosevelt's words with relish. And I cannot imagine either
Hillary Clinton or many of her surrogates such as Paul Krugman agreeing with Taft's. Indeed Krugman
said much the same thing in his last few blog posts.
One should take a look at the "substance" of the TPP-TTIP proposed carve-outs for "excluding
publice services from" the corporate takeover. First, I don't find any substantive language, just
a couple of ideas about "what's wrong" and little sets of what might be excluded. And anyone who
has ever played with lawyers, particularly where stakes are really high, and believes that if
the "regime" of TTIP-TTP gets "legitimized" by getting the bought-and-paid-for legislatures and
executives of what used to be called "nations" to sign on the dotted line, that somehow a few
particles of language that attempt to make exclusions from the general corporate coup for ANYTHING
that could "turn a profit," is just off the beam.
Who will interpret and apply those "exclusions?" What "sovereignty" will stand up and fight,
in what forum, to repel the large and small assaults that the corporatists will mount on any resistance
to their "full-spectrum dominance?" The imposition of the new regime will be complete, and there
is no way to "exclude" any of the stuff that the nice Powerpoints say can somehow be protected.
It may not be possible to avoid a complete corporate takeover of all governmental functions,
patently or covertly. It's largely accomplished already, by people a little more subtle than the
Titans of Industry that tried to pull a coup on Roosevelt in 1934. The powers that be are persistent
and patient… The rest of us are soft targets, taken as individuals or small groups.
"public." Does that scan better for you? I've looked again, and do not find any language that
would serve to insulate all those sovereign government functions from the predations of our corporate
overlords…
I wish someone would tell us where the figure of 308,000 Florida Democrats comes from. It's
plausible, and I'm not arguing against it, but it really appears as though Tim Wise made it up
here:
Or consider Democrats, thirteen percent of whom voted for Bush. In all, Gore lost 308,000
voters from his own party to W., while losing 24,000 Dems to Nader.
What's the evidence for that? What am I missing?
Later, Jim Hightower also published an article about the 308,000, and he gave credit to Tim
Wise. But where did Time Wise get the number?
The short version of the story is that Gore was leading then someone uploaded a duplicate memory
card with results from an completed precinct that gave gore -16,022 votes as well as apportioning
several thousand votes to Bush all from a single precinct with at most a thousand voters. This
card passed all security sweeps and was uploaded in a secure area only accessible to select staff.
The results were then "fixed" later back to their original totals but only after Gore had dropped
out.
The sequence of events described, and backed up in the Diebold memos are ludicrously unlikely
on their own suggesting that figures out of Florida should all be treated as suspect.
That said I also agree that the Democrats also did a lot to lose that election having chosen
to run Al Gore and then to focus group him into a lightweight while declining to take Bush (or
rather Rove) seriously.
I was going to sit this one out before the Vegas convention. Now I'm going to vote for Trump
and actively participate in the effort to destroy the Democratic Party. Bernie is weak as hell
and this isn't about him anymore.
More late-term legacy burnishing by Obama … Mish, predictably,
hates the idea . Because out-of-control salaries for the bottom 50% are what is killing America!
Mish and his buddies have a knee-jerk Calvinist belief in the power of suffering to turn
the economy around. Note that the only kind of suffering that works is that of the middle/working
class. Rich people paying their own way or parting with some fraction of their loot, in Mish's
view, would immediately crater the economy.
He lists "Four Likely Consequences" of the overtime rule change, none of which is "More
Pay". According to Mish there can be absolutely no positive effect from expanding overtime eligibility.
More pay for workers is actually less pay, somehow. So say the Austrian scriptures he quotes from
daily.
He further quotes his own tweet: "It seems to me, wages would keep up with inflation. if
there was no inflation". I thought the lesson of the last 16 years was that wages don't keep up
with inflation. They have in fact decreased. If there were no inflation, wages would simply deflate
even more. They would not magically stay the same. Yet this is presented as some sort of self-evident
wisdom, instead of a moronic tautology contradicted by the facts.
I would find it amusing were someone to duck their head into his comment board and yell
out the word "Government!" and watch the denizens scramble for their favorite right wing buzzwords
Thanks for the links. The second one is particularly important since it shows that all
the voters in the caucus states (won by Bernie, primarily) aren't being individually counted in
these phony numbers Hillary keeps referring to as her lead in total votes.
If the election were held now, 47 percent of registered voters would support Mrs. Clinton,
versus 41 percent for Mr. Trump…In a more hypothetical matchup, Mr. Sanders leads Mr. Trump,
51 percent to 38 percent.
Primaries. Primaries are paid for by state tax dollars. (Caucuses aren't paid for by state
tax dollars.) How do you have a primary paid for by tax dollars and exclude independents?
re: our famously free press.
" My favorite includes the phrase "the full sense of moral leadership." "
That's the modern version of a stuffed shirt.
Shorter liberal press: 'we were willing to go slumming and report on the Sanders' campaign
for jollies and liberal cred, but now that it looks like his platform represents the views of
a large number of voters, views which are *not* our "liberal™ " views, (gawd forbid we miss a
meal), we are now obliged by the machine to take Sanders down.'
The goldwater conspiracy: …what if she never stopped being a republican…she loves dr strangelove
from her days trying to get nelson rock the nomination in 1968 against nixon (who actually ended
up losing the voter count to ronnie raygun in the primaries)…
has she ever worked on any hardcore democratic issues…
there are probably c.r.e.e.p. Alumns who might argue her work on watergate eventually opened
the door for nelson to become vp…
it is my turn is not a reason to let her take the mantel…if she keeps this up she will lose
to el donaldo and the democratic party may end up breaking up…
If sanders edges her out on actual voter delegates by california he should fight in philly…if
he doesnt…
He should hold his own event and call it…
bernie 2018…the counter coup…
do as $hillary complains about…find ten senatorial seats and 25 house districts and gather
a million hippies…old and new…maybe get cute and do it at old yasgurs farm…or somewhere in white
lake or bethel…plenty of land around woodstock or across the river on the east side of the hudson
to allow train access…
Too many things can go wrong in philly to expose the bernie or bust yunginz to the stalinist
diktats of the current democratic party plutonomists…
If you dont pass her ex superdelegates, take your toys from the sandbox bernie and focus on
2018…
"Hillary hurt many women, the women that he abused," Trump said. "She's married to a man who
got impeached for lying. He was impeached, and he had to go through a whole big process and he
was impeached for lying about what happened with a woman. And she's gonna take ads about little
Donald Trump? I don't know. I don't think so. And Hillary was an enabler, and she treated these
women horribly."
The Clinton campaign fired back at Trump's latest attack.
"Trump is doing what he does best, attacking when he feels wounded and dragging the American
people through the mud for his own gain," spokesman Nick Merrill said. "If that's the kind of
campaign he wants to run that's his choice. Hillary Clinton is running a campaign to be president
for all of America. It's not surprising that after a week of still refusing to release his taxes
and likening Oakland and Ferguson to the dangers in Iraq, of course he wants to change the
subject. So while he licks his wounds, we'll continue to focus on improving the lives of the
American people."
Bill Clinton did not immediately respond to a request for comment - both Clintons have said in
the past that they do not plan on engaging with Trump in personal attacks.
Bill Clinton was once again asked to justify the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 on Friday at an event for Hillary
Clinton's campaign in Paterson, New Jersey. An audience member
questioned Clinton about the efficacy of the bill.
"
Why did you put more people in prison?
" an audience member
asked the former president.
The ex-president tried to highlight the
benefits of the bill. The bill is frequently blamed for a spike in
incarceration rates which opened a Pandora's Box of other problems
such as prison overcrowding, broken communities and incentivizing
states to build prisons and increase sentences.
It was written and signed by Clinton and endorsed by the vast majority of Congress – including
Hillary Clinton's primary rival, Bernie Sanders.
Clinton pointed out a few things about the bill. The first is that it included a provision that
exempted first time drug offenders from certain mandatory minimum sentencing. Mandatory minimum
sentencing is controversial in the US, and the federal government has begun encouraging the
repeal of stringent sentencing laws and has granted clemency to non-violent offenders.
In 1995, Clinton signed a bill that made the sentencing for dealing crack cocaine much longer
than for dealing powdered cocaine. The "100 to 1" method of sentencing crack cocaine dealers as
opposed to powder cocaine dealers made dealing a single gram of crack cocaine equal to dealing
100 grams of powdered cocaine under Clinton's law.
At the time, Clinton
defended
the measure saying, "
trafficking in crack, and the violence it fosters has a
devastating impact on communities across America, especially inner-city communities.
"
... ... ...
In July 2015, at a NAACP convention, Clinton said, "
I signed a
bill that made the problem worse. And I want to admit it.
"
When
Clinton left office in 2001, the nation had the highest incarceration
rate in the world, Salon reported.
Clinton defended himself on Friday by arguing that the 1994 bill
led to the lowest crime rate in 25 years, a 33 year low in murder
rates and a 46 year low in illegal gun deaths. However, FactCheck.org
has
accused
Bill Clinton of exaggerating the effects of the bill,
saying, "
Independent analyses have found that the bill had a
modest effect on crime rates.
"
However, Clinton also defended the higher sentencing by claiming
that "
we could not pass that bill without the higher sentencing.
"
Politico
reported
that the person who asked the question was escorted out
of the event, to which Clinton said, "
he went off mad because I
told him the truth. That's not good for any of us. Nobody's right all
the time. Nobody
."
"... There are really two prongs to this investigation: the sensitive handling or mishandling of classified information in the form of emails. But there is also another aspect of this and that is the significant monies that came to the coffers of the Clinton Foundation while Mrs. Clinton held a high cabinet-level political position. And it is a violation of the law for political officials to accept money. This is somewhat of a grey area. But there are indications that part of the investigation is not only looking at the handling or mishandling of classified information… but, on the second hand, is an individual in an official capacity accepting money or favors on behalf of their position with the US government. ..."
"... When I was an FBI agent and I worked overseas, I was not able to accept anything that had a value over 25 dollars… So, there is a big question about not only the handling of information, but also the accepting of gifts. There has been anecdotal information that upwards of $57 million went into the coffers of the Clinton Foundation while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State. So, that is something that the investigation will look at. ..."
"... Could that be an obstruction of justice? Interesting to see. Were emails destroyed? That is a violation of the law in terms of destruction of evidence ..."
"... I think there is a gross negligence of the handling of classified information that protects our national security. ..."
"... They take their orders from the owners of government just like all federal employees. Military included! Oaths mean NOTHING to US government employees. You swear to uphold the constitution and when or if you do you end up like snowden or manning. You collect your pay and your benefits and do as your told otherwise your dealt with like they deal with any citizen that disobeys, they destroy your life one way or another. ..."
"... The handling of Hillary's email is the least of her crimes. She was essentially running a regime change for profit using the US military during her tenure as secretary of state. ..."
"... I had not heard the regime-change-for-profit angle. Fascinating. Hideous. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton taking advantage of her power in such a blatant way setting up a home server for a top US office is beyond poor judgement. That says she believes she is above the law. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both narcissistic without forethought. They both do what they want and either get out of the way or suffer the cc consequences. They both believe they can do anything. The sad part is the other political powers are either an ally or afraid of them. The media, politicians, corporate executives are either afraid of them or part of corruption. ..."
"... We'll see if the FBI has any balls or just talk. ..."
"... ...and yet, Donald Trump did not set-up a private server system just to get around the rules of being Secretary of State. Why find a roundabout way to have Trump share blame with Clinton for her dishonest behavior and poor choices? He wasn't the one who made them: She did. ..."
"... Their shady deals were made behind closed doors with the only witnesses being those who would, themselves, be implicated if word got out. I'm currently reading "Clinton Cash" and it just blows my mind. Those two are the absolute epitome of corruption. ..."
"... i dont know about this if she has jeopadised national security then she is no different to bradley manning the fbi plays no favourites although bradley manning did everyone a favour by what he did but hillary did it to put herself into the white house ..."
Clinton faces questioning over her handling of classified information in emails, as well as funds
received by the Clinton Foundation while she was in high office, James Conway former FBI agent and
Managing Director of Global Intel Strategies told RT.
CBS News reported that Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton will be interviewed by the
FBI in the near future regarding messages sent and received on her private email server.
RT: What kind of steps may we expect to see taken by the FBI with regards to Hillary Clinton
and her email controversy? Will she receive some sort of special privilege due to her high-ranking
position?
James Conway: I do know the protocols and standards the FBI follows when it comes to serious
violations of the law. First of all, the FBI is an apolitical organization that has nothing to do
with politics. Agents of the FBI and support employees of the FBI take an oath to uphold the law.
And that's regardless of who may have committed violations of the law.
It is immaterial whether it is the First Lady, or it is the lady down the street, or it is the
mayor of a city - it doesn't matter. The FBI has a long history of enforcing the law. And sometimes
people who are subjects to those investigations happen to be high-level political officials. So,
it has happened a number of times. Just two years ago David Petraeus was charged, former general
and former Director of the CIA was charged with violations of the law as it pertains to the protection
or the passage of sensitive, classified information which is somewhat the subject of this ongoing
investigation or the allegations that have been brought forward against the former First Lady and
current candidate for the president of the US.
RT: Does the investigation pose a threat to Clinton's presidential aspirations?
JC: Political commentators have said this. The FBI has said nothing. The FBI's investigation
is extremely complex. They are looking at years of activity; they are looking at thousands and thousands
of transactions in cyberspace. There are really two prongs to this investigation: the sensitive
handling or mishandling of classified information in the form of emails. But there is also another
aspect of this and that is the significant monies that came to the coffers of the Clinton Foundation
while Mrs. Clinton held a high cabinet-level political position. And it is a violation of the law
for political officials to accept money. This is somewhat of a grey area. But there are indications
that part of the investigation is not only looking at the handling or mishandling of classified information…
but, on the second hand, is an individual in an official capacity accepting money or favors on behalf
of their position with the US government.
When I was an FBI agent and I worked overseas, I was not able to accept anything that had a value
over 25 dollars… So, there is a big question about not only the handling of information, but also
the accepting of gifts. There has been anecdotal information that upwards of $57 million went into
the coffers of the Clinton Foundation while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State. So, that is something
that the investigation will look at.
RT: How serious are the charges that Hillary Clinton faces?
JC: Personally, I know that the handling of classified information is extremely sensitive. And
it is viewed by the courts and by national security folks […] as extremely valuable and important.
And those who violate those laws and rules are subject to severe penalties. And sometimes, in the
case of David Petraeus, he passed some sensitive information, not official documents, but in the
forms of notes to Paula Broadwell who was writing a book about him […]. In this particular case that
everybody is talking about in America, because it is within the context of the ongoing presidential
campaign here, Hillary Clinton didn't use a State Department closed email system […] Mrs. Clinton
had her own public server and that is how she was communicating with her associates and others within
the government. To me, that's a clear problem. She has been asked to provide all of that traffic
and there have been instances during the course of the investigation that maybe she didn't hand over
all those documents, all of that email traffic. Could that be an obstruction of justice? Interesting
to see. Were emails destroyed? That is a violation of the law in terms of destruction of evidence.
So, there are a lot of problems here. I think there is a gross negligence of the handling of
classified information that protects our national security.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
@PeteSanger, ·8 May
"Agents of the FBI and support employees of the FBI take an oath to uphold the law."
If that were the case then they would have reopened the investigation of the so called terrorist
attacks on 9/11.
They take their orders from the owners of government just like all federal employees. Military
included! Oaths mean NOTHING to US government employees. You swear to uphold the constitution
and when or if you do you end up like snowden or manning. You collect your pay and your benefits
and do as your told otherwise your dealt with like they deal with any citizen that disobeys, they
destroy your life one way or another.
@Emmett647, 8 May
The handling of Hillary's email is the least of her crimes. She was essentially running
a regime change for profit using the US military during her tenure as secretary of state.
@LouCoatney -> @Emmett647, ·8 May
I had not heard the regime-change-for-profit angle. Fascinating. Hideous.
@CarolOrcutt, 8 May
Hillary Clinton taking advantage of her power in such a blatant way setting up a home server
for a top US office is beyond poor judgement. That says she believes she is above the law.
There is a pattern of her apologizing after she makes thoughtless decisions and many when
she was Secretary of State and first lady. Her holding these positions does not make her a better
candidate. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both narcissistic without forethought. They
both do what they want and either get out of the way or suffer the cc consequences. They both
believe they can do anything. The sad part is the other political powers are either an ally or
afraid of them. The media, politicians, corporate executives are either afraid of them or part
of corruption.
We'll see if the FBI has any balls or just talk.
@MidnightAndLulu -> @CarolOrcutt, 9 May
...and yet, Donald Trump did not set-up a private server system just to get around the
rules of being Secretary of State. Why find a roundabout way to have Trump share blame with Clinton
for her dishonest behavior and poor choices? He wasn't the one who made them: She did.
@Andy007, ·8 May
On RT German I read an article (inspired by Seymour Hersh), that Hillary Clinton supported
an secret CIA operation in Libya in 2012, to let steal sarin gas stocks from Gaddafi Regime, to
bring it to Syria, and gave it to islamist rebels, who use it to kill thousands of Syrian people.
In the world's press Asssad was the mass murderer, the offender. I'm not sure if there are some
evidence. But is it clever to support Hillary Clinton, when there are so sensible allegations
against her? Perhaps it is gossip perhaps not. For the Democrats it could be painful, if Hillary
get president and someday in future she must resign, when she get an indictment and must go into
prison. For the Democrats is now the time to clear if it's true or not. Sure I like Bernie Sanders
more than Hillary Clinton, he is a good man. But this is not the point. If Mrs. Clinton was part
of a criminal mission the Democrats must clear it, or bear up the consequences in future.
@ChristinaJones, 9 May
Unfortunately I doubt anything will come of this. They (both Bill and Hillary) have been able
to successfully skirt the law for a very long time now. They have amassed power and wealth by
exploiting their positions and connections and have committed their offenses and done their dirty
deeds right under everyone's noses. It disgusts me. I'm sure there are those in law enforcement
who would love to take them down, are fully aware of their crimes, but, alas, our legal system
requires definitive proof of any wrongdoings regardless of how obvious they are. There would have
to be a recording of a conversation or an email (perhaps among 30,000 deleted?) That proves, without
a doubt, that promises were made and delivered on in exchange for "contributions". The Clintons
aren't stupid, especially Hillary.
Their shady deals were made behind closed doors with the only witnesses being those who
would, themselves, be implicated if word got out. I'm currently reading "Clinton Cash" and it
just blows my mind. Those two are the absolute epitome of corruption. Maybe, just maybe,
this whole email situation is the break many have been looking for. If there is any justice at
all in America the Clintons will be exposed for all they truly are and brought up on charges,
convicted. I have my doubts though. I think what's most sickening is how they (Hillary) has exploited
Americans gullibility by playing the victim in this tiresome "that evil GOP is always out to get
me!" narrative. Wake up, people! The proof is there, all you have to do is look. I'm not anywhere
close to a Republican and I see it. That's because I bothered to look.
@WayneJohnson -> @ChristinaJones, 9 May
i dont know about this if she has jeopadised national security then she is no different
to bradley manning the fbi plays no favourites although bradley manning did everyone a favour
by what he did but hillary did it to put herself into the white house
@Venom88, 8 May
The wicked witch of the west. Check how's she walks it's so odd...
"... There is a constant whining from the Clinton side about Fox news smears etc. One would believe that with all her supposed experience, she lacked the imagination to see the consequences of her actions with the email. Myself, this is just one indicator among many that she has learned nothing, her experience is flawed as her judgement is time and time again flawed. ..."
"... The Kochs helped finance the Democratic Leadership Committee with Bill, Hill, McAuliffe, Tony Coelho (remember him?) and the rest of the "Third Way" Democrats who whored themselves to the first wave of christian-jihadist-wacko GOP congressmen swept into power in 1994, and it was all downhill from there, with the Republicans writing draconian legislation, the Dems rolling over, and Dirty Little Billy claiming it as a Great Leap Forward. ..."
"... Much as I despise Drumpf it worked for him, he openly railed against the GOP establishment which fought him to the bitter end with their last champions pulling out of the race. The people had spoken (most of it crazy talk), but the Democrats can't ignore the anti-Clinton sentiment. Bernie was a nobody at the beginning because all the focus was on Clinton, but more coverage was given to Bernie and people got to know what he stood for things have changed. ..."
"... For example, what about the deregulation of Wall Street by President Clinton and the economic crisis eight years later, that after the next eight years Hillary Clinton took over half a million dollars from Goldman Sachs for three speeches? - Unintended consequence! ..."
"... What about voting for the Iraq war at a time when Hillary Clinton was the leader of the Democrats in the US Congress and the loss of people and money that followed after that, not to mention the rise of terrorism as a consequence? - Unintended consequences, too! ..."
"... What about turning Libya into a failed state, and exclamation, "We came, we saw, he [Gaddafi] died!", after which four US embassy staff, including Ambassador Stevens died, and after which Clinton lied to the American public about events that led to their deaths? - Unintended consequences! ..."
"... And, last but not least, what about NAFTA and other international trade agreements, all of them supported by Clinton to this day, although deprived and still depriving millions of American workers from their jobs? - Unintended consequence! ..."
"... I agree, Hillary is worse, and scarier than Trump. Hillary will justify her interventionist wars and terrible trade deals with slick, plastic, professional language which will fool some people into thinking she knows what she is doing. ..."
"... A Shillary in denial... Do you need the NYT or Guardian to report it to make it true? Many of the biggest companies in the US-the biggest polluters, the biggest pharmaceutical companies, the biggest insurance companies, the biggest financial companies-gave to the Clinton foundation while she was Secretary of State and then they lobbied Secretary Clinton and the state department for "favors." Even foreign governments have given to the foundation, including that stalwart of democratic principles Saudi Arabia, who gave at least $10 million… Then magically they had a $26 billion plane deal with Boeing. ..."
"... Alleged pragmatist, but more likely Hillary will actually be a pushover on social and economic issues and a hawk on foreign policy. She is more of a Republican than Trump. ..."
"... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
Ammunition : considerations that can be used to support one's
case in debate
There is a constant whining from the Clinton side about Fox news
smears etc. One would believe that with all her supposed experience, she
lacked the imagination to see the consequences of her actions with the email.
Myself, this is just one indicator among many that she has learned nothing,
her experience is flawed as her judgement is time and time again flawed.
She has handed the FBI and Trump AMMUNITION. Not me, not you. She created
this mess. Her supporters have 100% certainty that this particular issue
is not an issue. They hand wave away the FBI. They shut down any discussion
as just another smear manufactured out of thin air.
Probity : the quality of having strong moral principles; honesty
and decency
We all get to decide each candidates probity. That I find her lacking
is based on her actions alone, not on some lens provided by Fox news. If
she were honest, she would admit that there is a risk. She states there
is no risk. If her chickens come home to roost, we get Trump. Can I get
odds from a bookie on the outcome of the FBI investigation? A genuine question
as so many here revel in quoting the odds quoted by bookies.
So lets gamble. Let's get to the race track and study form and history
and see if the bookies have fully transparent info on all the factors leading
to a win or loss. How have we come to be here? That we are is a sign of
the dysfunction we live in politically. Clinton is now immune to all present
and future critical thinking because ...... because she was smeared in the
pass. Free pass. Sometimes ..... sometimes the King is actually naked and
no one cares to call attention to that reality.
The Kochs helped finance the Democratic Leadership Committee with
Bill, Hill, McAuliffe, Tony Coelho (remember him?) and the rest of the "Third
Way" Democrats who whored themselves to the first wave of christian-jihadist-wacko
GOP congressmen swept into power in 1994, and it was all downhill from there,
with the Republicans writing draconian legislation, the Dems rolling over,
and Dirty Little Billy claiming it as a Great Leap Forward.
"Shock victory" is another example of lazy, factually incorrect mass media
journalism. Bernie ran an on the ground campaign in Indiana for 2 moths
prior to yesterday's primary win. I should know, as our family did volunteer
door-to-door canvasing for the first time over a couple weekends. We also
attended the rally on Monday and it was great!
Don't give up Bernie supporters, as we have momentum! Bernie's an honest
man with fair and just principles. Our country needs such a leader and not
another paid-off crony or deranged man-child.
Again as always a deflection from the real point, documented over and
over as to the long tanking DLC led strategy of leading with Southern States.
Nothing to do with blacks, everything to do with Southern Conservatives.
But yes, as always intellectually "honest". Innuendo. You choose to ignore
the systems and structures put in place for reasons. I choose to see them.
People like you choose to ignore the DLC history and the entanglement
with the Koch Brothers who were so so happy Bill Clinton pushed the DNC
into Republican territory, while we are all supposed to pretend that because
the GOP is so bad bad bad, it gives a free pass to the DNC for the right
wards ever rightwards shifting and the bandying of progressiveness on social
issues that cost nothing, and the true position of the modern DLC as a money
machine, with a purpose of existing to garner power.
All you "progressives" love to talk about angry white man yet have zero
answer to :
""In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900,
compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000. Blacks are nearly twice
as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared
to 18.6 percent."
The fact that the above enrages me matters not to you, as you have your
BernieBro Angry White man meme to deflect from real discussion about solutions.
The real solution starts with getting the politicians beholden to the voters
alone, not to corporate interests. That is Job One. Once that blockade is
removed, then we can move on to poverty and violence as immutable links
and solving them. 85% ...... 85% of the American people agree with this
action. is it difficult? Yes. Wont happen however if we demand on smug entitled
people throwing deflections and memes all over the place. "I am all right
Jack, fuck you" should be the bumper-sticker of the Clinton supporters.
Much as I despise Drumpf it worked for him, he openly railed against
the GOP establishment which fought him to the bitter end with their last
champions pulling out of the race. The people had spoken (most of it crazy
talk), but the Democrats can't ignore the anti-Clinton sentiment. Bernie
was a nobody at the beginning because all the focus was on Clinton, but
more coverage was given to Bernie and people got to know what he stood for
things have changed.
The question for the Democrats is who is more likely to win the General
against Drumpf? Who is more likely to win over the swing votes of those
not affiliated to a party?
The message is load and clear there is a lot of anti-establishment sentiment
out there and Clinton is firmly seen as part of it.
Drumpf having won his first leg of the race will no doubt moderate his rhetoric
to appeal to a broader audience and look to grab a larger portion of the
swing votes.
In the bigger picture, Sanders is more likely to succeed against Drumof
than the institutional Clinton.
If you ask, what is the purpose of the election, the answer is, elections
should be used for two things:
First, that some politicians will be rewarded by the voters, who
will entrust the government to them.
And second, but no less important, that some politicians will be
punished by the voters for their past mistakes, in a way that will refuse
to give them their votes. So, this second function of the elections
is perhaps even more important because it ensures that politicians are
held accountable for their previous actions.
Now, if you look at these elections, you will notice that this is totally
turned upside down in the case of Hillary Clinton.
Her husband has created mass incarceration, and she, as the first lady,
was the main promoter of it. And now she says, "Oops, that was an 'unintended
consequence'! That is to say, over two million people in prison, many of
which serve a sentence for minor offenses is an 'unintended consequence'''
OK, fine, but what about the fact that she has got the money from the
prison lobby?
If the first was an 'unintended consequence', the latter is certainly
not. So these are the things for which in every country on earth some politician
would lose any chance to enter the next government. Provided that the politicians
are held accountable for their previous actions, which is obviously not
the case in the US.
And, this is just one of the things for which Clinton can be held accountable.
For example, what about the deregulation of Wall Street by President
Clinton and the economic crisis eight years later, that after the next
eight years Hillary Clinton took over half a million dollars from Goldman
Sachs for three speeches? - Unintended consequence!
What about voting for the Iraq war at a time when Hillary Clinton
was the leader of the Democrats in the US Congress and the loss of people
and money that followed after that, not to mention the rise of terrorism
as a consequence? - Unintended consequences, too!
What about turning Libya into a failed state, and exclamation,
"We came, we saw, he [Gaddafi] died!", after which four US embassy staff,
including Ambassador Stevens died, and after which Clinton lied to the
American public about events that led to their deaths? - Unintended
consequences!
And, last but not least, what about NAFTA and other international
trade agreements, all of them supported by Clinton to this day, although
deprived and still depriving millions of American workers from their
jobs? - Unintended consequence!
So, as you can see, this is quite a long list, but probably there's more
of it that is not listed here, yet. And it will be even more of such "unintended
consequences" if Hillary Clinton will be elected for the US president.
Hence why I said 'some form of revolt' instead of 'burn the party down rawr'.
The party establishment firmly put themselves behind Clinton early on. This
is indisputable. 40+ percent of primary voters went against this in some
form. Some will still welcome Clinton, some will tolerate her, some will
walk, but the act of voting against establishment preference is already
some form of revolt.
You:"his acolytes will just come up with another dumb ass
reason "
You: "Why didn't you just give it directly to Trump? "
You: "Bernie, when all's said and done, is a fraud."
You: "I never did trust politicians who hold mass rallies." ( Nice Nazi
smear)
You: " are already starting to misquote Bernie, and talk about how it's
all the fault of "Jewish bankers" Smearing Sanders for your relatives jewish
Smears
You: "She doesn't pretend she's a damn rock star" Smear
You: " I take it you are a Trump supporter now" Personal smear to me.
You: "nihilistic" over and over again
You: deleted reference ot Pope as child molester
You: "His trip to kiss the Pope's ass was disgusting pandering" So their
shared stance on global warming is irrelevant?
You: "the ass of the world's most powerful homophobe"
You: "But Bernie has always been a fraud" ( multiple repetitions of this)
On and on....How self righteous are you?
"personal insults from you"
Really? What insults? Intellectually lazy? That is my assessment of you.
Not intended as an insult but an assessment of who you are and how you think.
Based on reading all of your posts. I pay attention. I find it interesting
to figure out motivations.
I agree, Hillary is worse, and scarier than Trump. Hillary will justify
her interventionist wars and terrible trade deals with slick, plastic, professional
language which will fool some people into thinking she knows what she is
doing.
Hillary would be 8 more years of the Corporate Oligarchy cementing its
hold on our process. Trump might last 4 years... then we can elect a real
progressive.
SoS is more extrapolation, based off the weakness of her credentials heading
into the position. It should be remembered that her lack of experience in
foreign policy was one of Obama's attack points in 2008, so to have him
suddenly turn around and name her SoS is a bit odd. Specifically:
The choice of Mrs. Clinton pleased many in the Democratic establishment
who admire her strength and skills, and they praised Mr. Obama for putting
the rancor of the campaign behind him. "Senator Clinton is a naturally gifted
diplomat and would be an inspired choice if she is chosen by President-elect
Obama as secretary of state," said Warren Christopher, who held that job
under her husband.
But it could also disappoint many of Mr. Obama's supporters, who worked
hard to have him elected instead of Mrs. Clinton and saw him as a vehicle
for changing Washington. Mr. Obama argued during the primaries that it was
time to move beyond the Clinton era and in particular belittled her claims
to foreign policy experience as a first lady who circled the globe."
What -is- clear is that she got $17.5 million in personal cash out of
the deal (Obama agreed to cover campaign debts, she lent her campaign 17.5
million).
Don't be lulled into a false "horse race" depiction of an especially HISTORICALLY
IMPORTANT, planetary-civilization-survival moment. A predominantly, establishment,
bankster-owned media, are pushing this epic election of "Main Street vrs
wall street", as just another election. Wrong! A fictiion! Lies!
Over 60% of us didn't vote last election, BECAUSE, only liars and apologists
for "empire" oligarchs were running. Today, we see Bernie and perhaps Dr.
Stein of the Greens. Only "The Bern" gets media minimal coverage, because
he is running as an "Democrat". Indiana and other "open" primaries show,
time and time again, the rigged nature of a duopoly electoral fraud. The
establishment, wall street banksters and their allies DO NOT, WILL NOT let
Bernie win. Do the math and ONLY BERNIE CAN BEAT TRUMP! SO QUIT THE HORSE
RACE BS and see the BERN! And jut maybe we will have an inhabitable planet
for our grandchildren that is fun to live upon.
Putting it another way... Bernie has made them all look like chumps. They
say they cannot get elected without big corporate dollars. Bernie did not
sell out, and he raised money easily. He makes the rest of the lousy corrupt
bunch look like fools.
Hillary did not concede in 2008 until after ALL the states had voted. Even
then, she waited 4 days. What happened between the last primary and 4 days
later, when she finally conceded? NEGOTIATIONS. She laid down the terms
under which she would support Obama -- all goodies for Hillary, because
Hillary Is For Hillary, period.
Bernie will use the clout we give him to negotiate on behalf of THE PEOPLE
at the Democratic Convention. That's the difference between him and self-serving
Hillary.
Looking forward to voting for Bernie in California on June 7. Meanwhile,
praying for the FBI to indict Hillary.
Yet for all her long name recognition, her second national presidential
campaign, the superdelegates lined up before Sanders announced, with the
cunning long term strategy of the DNC "southern firewall" designed to favour
conservative candidates, despite all the power players endorsements, despite
all the Superpac's, she still is not going to arrive at the convention with
the required delegate count for victory. What does that tell us? I know
what it tells me. It tells me that there are a lot of people who want more
of a continuation of Obama Change. They want real change.
So sure, she is "winning" a battle in a longer running war of ideas.
Let's see how this plays out over the next 8 years.
Kicking his ass by the way would have been if she reached the required
pledged delegates months ago. She could not. Complacency is not a great
stance in these times.
Like Hillary has done since 2008? Helping the same old hack politicians,
using her cash and her name and yet the people refused to come out and reverse
the largest loss of Democratic seats in modern history? Yeah, blame the
voters, you have them all pegged. it's never the fault of the politicians
is it, it is the lazy voters. Well there is another theory that explains
Trump and Sanders: They are sick of the same bullshit put out by the DNC
and the GOP. Taking Ted Kennedys seat as an example the safest DNC seat
in the nation, decades it sat with the DNC and as soon as he dies, the DNC
selects one of your hack ersatz progressives, throws Bill Clinton and Hillary
and bags of cash and STILL loses the seat. Was there a message there worth
listening to? Not to you, you blame the voters. No no no never blame the
DNC. Blame the voters.
The voters perhaps is tired of what is presented to them as a voting
solution. So in the end, your way of doing things has led to voter frustration
and here we have Trump. There is a lesson there. Listen or dot listen, but
the people are venting there frustration. Trump is a populist disaster,
but he is a symptom of a dysfunctional system that needs revision and revision
now. But nah! Lets just throw cash into a cesspit of dysfunction.
Also you sit smugly ignoring the FACTS of Clinton laundering State contributions
back into her campaign, leaving little or nothing for State DNC budgets.
Ah, you say, this is a smear from Fox news. Um. No. Do you think we are
idiots? You must. I assure you we are not idiots. Good luck in November.
You will need it.
Bernie hasn't attacked Hillary directly since New York, and he had every
right to go after her then, because she was on full offense against Bernie
at that time, too, so enough with the innocent victim garbage.
Bernie always does better in open primaries because of the Independent voters.
They are more likely to vote Trump in the general election in my opinion.
He is going to start hammering Clinton now he is the nominee.
Bernie should stay in right 'til the end in case anything ever happens with
one of the two Clinton investigations. I don't see anything happening now
though as the private server investigation appears to have stalled.
Regarding the second (the Clinton Foundation) the Supreme Court is about
to legalise political corruption with the McDonnell case. If that happens
democracy is effectively suspended anyway and this is a pointless reality
show farce. Policies will be decided by the highest bidder. How can she
have broken any laws if there aren't any?
Good news for women's rights under Clinton though - whilst her Syria
no-fly-zone might start WW3, women will probably get to be drafted as well
as men...
'Lawyer Hillary who is trained in well being a lawyer she even was a
defense lawyer helping someone she believed was guilty of rapeing a 13 year
old girl who has said Hillary "put her thru hell"."
"someone she believed was guilty of rapeing a 13 year old girl"
Interesting. Clinton discussed what she was thinking at the time with
you?
Or are you suggesting that some accused people should not get legal representation?
I'm intrigued by the "put her through hell" portion of it. Especially
as the case was plea bargained out and never went to trial.
It is effortless to identify the ardent obtuse "Hillary Clinton and Donald
Trump Supporters". Their verbiage and responses are always predicated on
emotion and fiction versus an intellectual discourse based on factual information
– Quite Like the Superficial Candidates that they blindly support. The 1%
Billionaire Oligarchy Ruling Classes Owned Mass Media Outlets is intentionally
protecting the Outed Racists Donald Trump and his female Clone Hillary Clinton
from Public Scrutiny. They are salivating Like Pavlov's Dog for their "Ultimate
Political Reality Show – The Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Presidential
Race" waiting to cash-in and profit as they stage and promote their "False
Democracy".
Knowledge = Power = Real Freedom..!
1. This is why "Anonymous" Noble, Righteous, True American Heroes and Freedom
Fighters are stepping in to fill the Fourth Estate void abdicated by America's
Billionaire Owned Media to provide the 99% the Truth.
Anonymous – Message to Hillary Clinton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTMaIX_JPE4
Anonymous – Message to Donald Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ciavyc6bE7A
2. CBS CEO and Chief Leslie Moonves: Comments he made at an investor conference
last month when he said, "The money is rolling in, and this is fun." Added
Moonves: "They're not even talking about issues; they're throwing bombs
at each other, and I think the advertising (revenue $) reflects that. This
is going to be a very good year for us (CBS). Sorry, it's a terrible thing
to say, but bring it on, Donald."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/daily-show-host-trevor-noah-877273
3. Why isn't the Media asking Hillary Clinton about the Podesta group in
the Panama papers working with the corrupt, Kremlin-run Sberbank, and the
two shell companies setup by Bill Clinton (WJC, LLC) and Hillary Clinton
(ZFS Holdings, LLC) at a Delaware address (1209 North Orange Street Wilmington,
Delaware) that are the same address as 285,000 other companies, many of
which were in the Panama papers and linked to laundering and tax avoidance
schemes?.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/25/delaware-tax-loophole-1209-north-orange-trump-clinton?CMP=share_btn_fb
4. Why isn't the Media asking Hillary Clinton to Release the Transcripts
from her numerous $275,000.00 Speeches to Goldman Sachs and the Other Wall
Street Banks? https://youtu.be/3UkfsEeHUcg
5. Why don't they ask Hillary Clinton if she would Prosecute her and her
husband Bill Clinton's former "Trusted Deputy" Rahm Emanuel the current
Mayor of Chicago for establishing a "Gulag" on American soil which allowed
the Chicago police to covertly detain and torture more than 7000 people
at the Secret Interrogation Center that completely ignored the American
"Constitution" and the Bill of Rights at Homan Square?
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/02/behind-the-disappeared-of-chicagos-homan-square/385964
/
6. Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight- Hillary, the inevitable
liar: https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI
7. Hillary Clinton: A Career Criminal: https://youtu.be/kypl1MYuKDY
8. Secretary Clinton Comments on the Passing of Robert Byrd her friend and
mentor who is a documented Racist and KKK member: https://youtu.be/ryweuBVJMEA
9. Bill Clinton ATTEMPTS to Justify Robert Byrd's KKK Membership: https://youtu.be/8Fg3XNTMzNo
10. Hillary Clinton & NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio Make Awkward RACIST Joke
About CP TIME Colored People Time https://youtu.be/pP3syBu4ZDM
11. Black Lives Matter protesters repeatedly interrupt Bill Clinton in Philadelphia:
https://youtu.be/xRrVI5gHVyo
Can You Say Hypocrisy?
The only Authentic and Honest Candidate is Bernie Sanders who wants to return
America back into a Transparent Citizen Accountable Democracy for the 100%.
This is why the Bernie Sanders Army of Noble and Righteous Citizens-the
99% will never Vote or Support either of the Illegitimate 1% Billionaire
Anointed Candidates Like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Who Represent
the Retention of a False Oligarchy Democracy and Everything That the Decent
Noble and Righteous Citizens Despise, Compulsive Pathological Lying, Narcissism,
and Insatiable Greed.
"So your plan is for Bernie's opponent to get arrested? "
Not my plan. Each citizen in this country has a set of was that rule
what they can and cannot do. Even Clinton. I have spent a long time explaining
my logic of why I believe she has broken various laws. I as a citizen appreciate
the FOIA. If you cannot handle the facts of her actions, then what can I
say? To me it does not bode well how Clinton comports herself. To you it
is not an issue. You choose to ignore the reality of a real and extended
FBI investigation. Obama rules the DoJ and the FBI. If it were indeed only
a political smear, then he has the power to force Comey to resign. It is
not a function of me, it is a function of laws. The investigation not some
fevered Fox News plot as much as you with it to be. I understand completely
what she has done. I understand why she did what she did.
Regarding the bolstering the party, it seems it does not bother you the
games her suprpac has done with bending the rules just up to the breaking
point.
Frankly, sanders on the back of this, and his supporters need to build
an organisation that can put up true progressives. Your opinion is team
based, you accept year after year the shift of the DNC orphaning in to centrist
republicans. Your choice. I choose not to support this. So that he refused
to fund more the same old hack politicians is fine by me. He has over his
career supported the DNC with vote after vote after vote. He had the courage
to offer "democrats" a real choice in the primaries.
You again ignore with your blather about mid term motivations the fact
that the people would not support the DNC in 2010, 2012, and 2014. People
are not stupid, and they see that the change Obama promised is never coming.
We can distill into a simple slogan then rich are getting richer even as
the American worker gets more and more productive, yet their share of the
capitalist pie shrinks and shrinks. The common man sees that Obama care
still is not the solution for him and his family when the average deductions
are over 5000 a year on top of his premiums and the average coverage is
60% of costs when he gets sat the deductible. He is told about Gold Standard
trade agreement negotiated in absolute secrecy, and that cause him discomfort.
Some black families see : ""In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for
black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000.
Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net
worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."" and understand for all of
Clinton's triangulation there is nothing palpable to change that. He sees
she is great at trotting up mothers of dead people and Black people as props
to gain votes, and he see that perhaps Sanders Class based solutions will
help him more, as maybe he is tired of racial divides and knows intuitively
Clinton has no real solution to gun crime, spurred on by poverty, nor solutions
to poverty itself.
So get all huffy about the FBI investigation. I lived though the turmoil
of Nixon and before his reelection I predicted that he would suffer, as
my gut feeling led me to believe he was involved, that he had dirty hands.
Continue to believe that genuine logical conclusions and issues are only
a rehash of Fix news when they are not. Cheap and nasty way to deflect any
and all valid criticism. Is Sanders perfect? far from it, but I believe
I know what he stands for and how he thinks.
"Bernie, when all's said and done, is a fraud."
Funny but I have concluded that Clinton is a fraud. But you are welcome
to vote as you wish. In the end, your fear of Trump? The risk is real and
palpable that she will cause disarray to the party if the FBI fins what
I believe is obvious, and the risk is her handing the election to Trump.
To you? You don't care. You cannot and will not see the risk, preferring
to hide like a gormless child behind tortured smear theories rather than
standing up as an adult and properly assessing the real risks to the Democratic.
All the pieces of what she did are there if you care to look. But nah!
You are lazy intellectually and it is easier to blame Fox news than to actually
look and ponder and conclude the evidence. As are most of the vociferous
Clinton fans here. Intellectually lazy.
Hillary wins closed primaries, where only the tribalized party faithful
participate (and voter suppression and other shenanigans run rampant). Bernie
wins open primaries and brings in millions of new voters. Democrats like
me, Independents, even Republicans vote for Bernie.
She loses on the Big 3 Issues, war, Trade & "corruption" to Trumps words
and Bernie's life walk. Dems are falling into dreamlala math- Hillary will
get women (50%), Blacks (10%) & Hispanics "another 10%). How can she lose.
Start with GOP women at the end will not vote her way. That BLack and
Hispanic percentages are already baked in, and Trump will cater to men,
not just white, on the basis avg men have been getting shafted for 40 years
now.
If there is a terror attack, Trump wins big. If the economy goes down
he wins too.
The tea leaves and tarot readers have been all wrong this election.
& Hill is likely to lose most of the last primaries. Embarassing
"Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected, and nothing will change."
Barack Obama, 2008
Is that HRC new slogan, "Hillary is shit, but at least she's not as shitty
as Trump"
Actually I think she's worse. The DNC turns a blind eye every time she breaks
the law, and tries to change the rules for her, but both the RNC and DNC
will keep Trump on a short lease.
The Guardian's anti-Bernie agenda is really quite off-putting. Even the
article summary is patronising :
"Despite trailing behind Hillary Clinton in polls, Sanders once again
proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters by pulling off his 18th
victory of 2016"
The translation is that the Bernie Sanders constituency is backwards
and centred around white males who have lost blue collar jobs to globalisation;
in other words he appeals to people who want to turn back time. The inference
is that Clinton's group is far broader, more cultured and more progressive.
This is patently false. Sanders is popular with young people and with people
who are passionate about politics. Clinton's constituency tends to be older
and more conservative. Clinton is the establishment candidate Sanders is
the beacon of hope.
No surprise there. As is it no surprise that ABC is a "subsidiary" of The
Walt Disney Company, which has been to the right of Attila-the-Hun since
"sweet grandfatherly Walt" himself, who was practically a neo-Nazi politically.
Need proof? Walt's cheerful cooperation with McCarthy's House Un American
Activities persecution of anyone not sharing Adolph Hitler's political persuasion).
Disney's movies have always exhibited that nauseating, fake, treacle
"sweetness" which all fascists use as "cover" for their actual addiction
to fear, hatred, tribalism and Orwellian manipulation.
So we can hardly be "shocked, shocked, shocked" by ABC's gross "news"
bias.
How about NBC? It's been a corporate "investment football," recently
boosted by Comcast from former owner General Electric. You KNOW they're
both dedicated to impartial news reporting, right? HA HA HA
How about CBS? Oh it's owned by Viacom, an "entertainment conglomerate,"
of course dedicated never to sensationalism or deliberate distraction of
the public, but rather, to honest news reporting. Right.
MSNBC? GE + Microsoft. That of course equals total devotion to unbiased
and complete news reporting, even if the news WERE "bad for the Shareholders."
Uh huh. (See the pigs flying by).
CNN? Oh its "daddy" is Time Warner, another paragon of public-spirited
democracy.
Even PBS has fallen. Think that's a "radical statement?" The super right
did a twofer on PBS: (1) cut its government funding so as to make it terrified
and desperate and then (2) gradually brainwashed PBS into actually being
another Corporate PR outlet.
Non-commercial? PBS? IT LIVES ON CORPORATE ADS. And under those deliberately
created survival pressures, even PBS news has collapsed into reporting all
news like it's a trivial sports event - Never Delving Deeper, because its
Corporate Overlords wouldn't like that.
So, welcome to the reality of well-entrenched corporate fascism. For
that, in part, we can thank Ronnie Puppet Reagan's reversal of a former
50-year policy which did not allow non-media corporations to "buy" the news.
May that SOB continue to roast, whereever.
Bernie Sanders would be all of these Corporate Overlord's worst nightmare.
They would have to work "even harder" (yawn, pass the caviar), to blacklist,
cover up, lie about the truth he would tell through his bully pulpit. Thus
all of THEIR media outlets have worked like little beavers to Cancel the
Cancer of Bernie, before he could cause real damage to The Entitled Domain.
Ugh.
The Democrats, just as blind and foolish in their own way as the GOP, will
make a tremendous mistake in nominating HRC. Anyone with an ounce of political
insight can see the coming election is going to be about the revolt of the
middle class against the Establishment and megacorporations that have been
exploiting that class for at least two score years. The politically dimwitted
and somnolent American middle class has finally come to realize how they
have been used and abused and they aren't taking it anymore. They don't
give a damn about foreign policy, single payer or anything else. They are
furious at having been used and hoodwinked and they are in full revolt.
The stupidity of the Democrats, in not seeing this and running an Avatar
of the Establishment, HRC, will make the election very close with a good
chance she will lose. Sanders can out Trump Trump on the anti-Establishment
issue as polls clearly show, but the Dems are going to shoot themselves
in the foot by coronating HRC. With Sanders they could probably sweep Congress
also, but with HRC they will at best keep the White House and possibly a
very narrow majority in the Senate. HRC is a poor campaigner with an unlikable
personality, unlike Elizabeth Warren, and Trump will really mangle Hillary.
With Sanders he will not be able to do that because Sanders easily can out
anti-establishment Trump for, obviously, Trump too is of the 1% like HRC.
There is the slim hope, forlorn as it may be, that the Democrat super-delegates,
most of whom are political pros and thus focused on winning, will see the
light and nominate Sanders. But the Democrats are usually reliably stupid
so look forward to a cliff-hanger in November and very possibly a President
Trump.
Hillary did not concede in 2008 until after the last state finished voting.
The counting was done, and Obama had more delegates. Even then, she waited
4 days before conceding. What went on during those 4 days? Negotiations.
No way a super-predator politician like Hillary Clinton was just
going to give in, without getting something for herself.
Here's what Hillary got out of the deal: a cabinet post,
Obama's promise of support for her next bid in 2016, and Obama's help paying
off her 2008 campaign debt.
The difference with Bernie is that he is not in this for himself. Bernie
stepped up to the plate because America deserves better than another Corporate
Tool Politician. When Bernie goes to the convention, he will not be negotiating
for himself. He will be fighting for ALL OF US. Bernie fights for The People.
This is why we need to give him as many delegates as possible. I look
forward to voting for Bernie in California on June 7. Furthermore, speaking
as a middle aged feminist who has been a registered Dem for 35 years --
I will NEVER vote for Hillary.
A Shillary in denial... Do you need the NYT or Guardian to report it
to make it true? Many of the biggest companies in the US-the biggest polluters,
the biggest pharmaceutical companies, the biggest insurance companies, the
biggest financial companies-gave to the Clinton foundation while she was
Secretary of State and then they lobbied Secretary Clinton and the state
department for "favors." Even foreign governments have given to the foundation,
including that stalwart of democratic principles Saudi Arabia, who gave
at least $10 million… Then magically they had a $26 billion plane deal with
Boeing.
Is that what you're voting for? Does that sound like someone with integrity?
hate to break it to you that this information isn't found only on right
wing websites. Inform yourself. Can't you see why she'd play games with
email? It's all right there, in your face.
Alleged pragmatist, but more likely Hillary will actually be a pushover
on social and economic issues and a hawk on foreign policy. She is more
of a Republican than Trump.
Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!
The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump.
She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her,
thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting
why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents.
It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of
support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless,
we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about
it.
While there are plenty of differences (too many for a single column), I am more than happy to
share a few nuggets of wisdom I learned post-election with the Gentleman from Texas to help him readjust
to life off-the-trail.
Consider a hobby, but choose carefully
Not cards. Maybe you'll be invited to play cards with some of the boys. But I would caution you
that now is not the right time. Donald Trump "played the woman card" before you, and it isn't turning
out so well for him. And he's already doing better than you are.
Not travel (at least not to New York City). You may be tempted to get away with Heidi and the
kids to see a Broadway show (I hear Hamilton is amazing). But given that "New York values" comment
you made, you may not be welcome there.
Not reading the same old thing. You can really only read Green Eggs and Ham on the Senate floor
once before it becomes cliché. I've got a well-worn copy of The Feminine Mystique I can lend you.
Maybe Twitter? I know it helped to propel Mr Trump to his ultimate victory in the Republican primary.
Rest assured – you'll find kindred spirits online (we call yours "trolls", but that is neither here
nor there). In fact, I've made incredible friends on Twitter; @FullFrontalSamB and I were
talking about
you there just the other day actually! And I've had insightful and amusing conversations with
amazing change-makers like Ellen Page, Kerry Washington, Cecile Richards and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.
I am sure that @AnnCoulter can't wait to dive deep into a high-minded and compelling Twitter discourse
with you.
Enjoy time with your friends
Following my loss, I found solace and comfort with my daughters and friends. I know Heidi and
the kids can't wait to have you home. Don't fret – Heidi will get over
that elbow to her face after your campaign suspension speech the other night. Plus, now you can
call up Carly – unless her friendship only lasts as long as her tenure as VP candidate, in which
case you may be getting sent to her voicemail about as fast as you'll be sent to Paul Ryan's.
Speaking of which, I'm sure your Senate colleagues will be thrilled to see you. Lindsay Graham
said as much: "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate,
nobody would convict you." Oh, wait. Surely he just meant, "If Ted Cruz killed it on the floor of
the Senate…"
Get back to work
Your work friends are the perfect segue into my last bit of advice: embrace your job and work
hard upon your return. I am sure that, like me, you embrace the calling to public service. While
I had to resign from the Texas State Senate to run for governor, you didn't have to leave the US
Senate to run for president. That's great! It means you can jump right back into the critical work
of legislating. With all the work that the Senate is doing right now – meeting with appointees to
the US supreme court and holding hearings to confirm a new Secretary of the Army, passing budgets
– wait, none of that is getting done. Well, you will fit right back in nonetheless given your penchant
for shutting down the government when you don't get your way.
Perhaps 2017 will be better; think of how busy you'll be battling all those gender equity initiatives
that Hillary Clinton will launch as president, advancing the revolutionary ideas of equal pay, reproductive
autonomy and family leave policies!
As for me, I've been hard at work since my own run to build
Deeds Not Words, a community of millennial
women passionate about creating positive change (hopefully one of them will one day maneuver to take
your job). In the meantime, though, think how fortunate you'll be to tell your grandchildren one
day that you had the honor of serving under your nation's first woman president.
What is important that Hillary past provides so many powerful and easy
avenues of attack on her (and she in not a Democrat; she is a neocon, warmonger neoliberal, hell bent
on US world domination) that it is easy to be distracted by this excessive menu :-)
Notable quotes:
"... Then there's that Sanders factor. The Vermont senator has presented an unexpected challenge to Mrs Clinton. His attacks on her past support for trade deals and her ties to the current political establishment have drawn blood. ..."
"... It seems the Republican was already testing lines of attack in his victory speech on Tuesday night. He brought up Mrs Clinton's support for coal regulations that have caused unemployment in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio. He mentioned that Bill Clinton backed the North America Trade Agreement, which he called "the single worst trade deal". ..."
"... If Mr Trump can put the Midwest in play, that previously mentioned electoral tilt may not be so imposing after all. ..."
"... Facing off against Mr Trump is going to take a nimble, creative campaign and candidate. That hasn't always been a strength for the instinctively controlled and cautious Mrs Clinton. ..."
Mr Trump is going to present an unpredictable adversary for the former secretary of state. As
the Republican primary has shown, no topic is off the table for him and no possible line of attack
out of bounds.
"Her past is really the thing, rather than what she plans to do in the future," Mr Trump told the
Washington Post on Tuesday. "Her past has a lot of problems, to put it bluntly."
The day before making those comments, Mr Trump had lunch with Edward Klein, a journalist who has
made a career of writing inflammatory books about the Clintons and their sometimes chequered history.
Chances are, Mr Trump was taking notes.
That Bernie Sanders factor
Then there's that Sanders factor. The Vermont senator has presented an unexpected challenge to
Mrs Clinton. His attacks on her past support for trade deals and her ties to the current political
establishment have drawn blood.
Could some of his true loyalists stay home or vote for a third party? Could some of his working-class
supporters in the industrial mid-west cross over to Mr Trump?
It seems the Republican was already testing lines of attack in his victory speech on Tuesday
night. He brought up Mrs Clinton's support for coal regulations that have caused unemployment in
places like Pennsylvania and Ohio. He mentioned that Bill Clinton backed the North America Trade
Agreement, which he called "the single worst trade deal".
If Mr Trump can put the Midwest in play, that previously mentioned electoral tilt may not be
so imposing after all.
There's no playbook for how a Democrat can run against a Republican like Mr Trump. In some places,
such as immigration, he will be well to her right. In other areas, like foreign policy and trade,
he could come at her from the left.
Can abortion or the social safety net be wedge issues? Probably not against a man who defended Planned
Parenthood and Social Security on a Republican debate stage.
Facing off against Mr Trump is going to take a nimble, creative campaign and candidate. That
hasn't always been a strength for the instinctively controlled and cautious Mrs Clinton.
You know you've come to the end of a fireworks show when the shells start bursting all at once.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference
to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive
view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party
generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest
passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less
stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest
rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural
to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities,
is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.
The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and
repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing
faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes
of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely
out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make
it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It
agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of
one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign
influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the
channels of party passions.
Priority A in this letter is cyber and jihad strategy? Puh-lease. WTAF, another clueless ideologue.
Here's my list:
1. End American Empire. We have 800 bases in 140 countries. Close them and send the personnel
back to the US, give them shovels and backhoes and make them start rebuilding our Third World
infrastructure.
2. Prosecute financial crime. No more "fines", we need perp walks by senior executives. That's
the only thing that will work.
3. Close the DHS. We already have the FBI and CIA Roll back the Patriot Act spying provisions.
4. Audit the Fed. Full transparency of what they own, what their market activities are, who
owns them. Fed chair to be appointed by the Executive branch, not just selected from a list of
"approved" candidates submitted by the Fed.
5. Remove capital gains taxation on physical gold and silver bullion. Americans need to build
more wealth, not more paper.
6. Remove corporate tax exemption for issuing dividends.
7. Tax all unearned income at the same rate as earned income.
8. Fire the entire staff of the FASB and start over. Plain vanilla GAAP accounting including
mark-to-market.
9. End pre-crime drone assasination policy effective immediately.
10. New Marshall Plan for the MidEast. Take 1/2 of the budget we spend blowing the place up
and put it in a fund for development of ME countries. Announce the end of the drone/invasion/occupation
policy and the new investment fund with huge fanfare. We get peace and prosperity and great new
markets full of people who like us again.
11. Putin, Xi and US pres to hold tri-lateral peace talks. End Cold War II. Invite the Eurozone
lapdogs if you must (but no Frenchmen
The pitiful part of that is, we created the jihad is, we support them, arm them, feed them.
They're our mercenaries. So we create a BOOGIEMAN, tell the country that we must do everything
possible to defend against them, send them into other nations to do our dirty work for us, thereby
increasing the fear and terror back home, as they follow orders and chop off heads on television?
Talk about "wagging the dog"? Then they say in order to protect the "HOMELANDS" from these monsters,
we'll, you'll have to sacrifice some rights? You'll have to sacrifice some security? You'll have
to accept some invasion of your privacy. You'll have to allow the government to spend hundreds
of billions of dollars on spying, making war, building killing machines, and you the American
public will have to accept austerity, so we can get through this together? BULLSHIT!
" The very nature of government - monopoly power - makes it the number 1 destination of the
psychosociopaths. "
Only in 'Murika, the government doesn't hold the monopoly power, private corporations do. They
have even bought your governement lock, stock and barrel. Obama is no more than a mouthpiece for
private companies. See how he is travelling salesman for the TTIP, NAFTA and such treaties that
are bad for the USA's population and all other countries' populations too.
Which means you don't have a government at all . You are ruled by a transnational private sector
through political puppets, banana republic style.
"...4. Our problems are huge right now, but one of the most obvious is that we've not passed
along the meaning of America to the next generation..."
Yes you did, Senator Sasse. America, American government and American politics means systemic
psychopathy. Sick, power-seeking and power-hoarding individuals. What you failed to pass on was
your fantasy of what you would like America to be. The next generation can't ignore the reality
of what they see and believe in your fantasy - if anything, they're realists. The meaning of America
to them is a tax-farming organization run for the benefit of the MIC, big ag,
big pharma, big oil, etc. They recognize that they are cattle, not snowflakes.
"...If we don't get them to re-engage..."
Holy crap... seriously? You sound like the MSM trying to figure out some marketing trick to
sell themselves to 'the next generation' - a generation that has already thrown the MSM on the
scrap-heap of history as a useless tool of the rich and powerful. The next generation has ABANDONED
dreams of your fantasy America. They just want to minimize the oppression and pain America causes
them. They want to be left the fuck alone and don't want to fix YOUR mess - it's unfixable to
them. They're not buying the bullshit of 'fixability' any more - that was your generation's weakness.
"...-- thinking about how we defend a free society in the face of global jihadis,.."
Jihadis the CIA created for their latest Middle East clownfuckery? The jihadi 'threat' as manufactured
by the FBI or MSM? Hey, guess what Senator: that's your fucking problem, not theirs. They're afraid
of cops and gangs of immigrants, not fake jihadis .
"...or how we balance our budgets after baby boomers have dishonestly over-promised for decades,..."
Why would they give a fuck? They know they are already 100% screwed - things will never be
as good for them as it was for their parents. They are going to suffer the consequences of shitty
fiscal policy for the next fifty years, and you expect them to somehow be interested in making
the government behave NOW? Fuck that... are you stupid or something? They didn't break it - YOU
did.
"...or how we protect First Amendment values in the face of the safe-space movement..."
Er... their First Amendment rights have already been whored out by your employer, Senator:
the U.S. Congress. And typical of your employer, you 'see' a problem were none exists: a few hundred,
maybe thousand whiney college students DOES NOT equate to a Constitutional problem for the other
five million or so members of that generation. If you want to debate safe spaces while Rome burns,
go ahead. They're not interested.
"...– then all will indeed have been lost..."
Yes, I agree. Congress and the rest of the U.S. government have been throwing away the American
dream for thirty-plus years. Yes, it's lost. That's what happens when you throw something away.
Don't expect them to go on a scavenger hunt for its decayed corpse now. It's worth saving to YOU,
not THEM. You fucked it up so bad that they have no illusions about 'finding' anything useable
again. They're not looking and not interested in being convinced to look, Senator. It's not there
for them any more.
"...One of the bright spots with the rising generation, though, is that they really would like
to rethink the often knee-jerk partisanship of their parents and grandparents. We should encourage
this rethinking..."
No, they are simply rejecting the failed mechanism of a usurped voting process and a failed
constitutional republic. That doesn't mean they're looking for replacement parts to fix that one
thing, because the rest of the republic is completely fucked up . They're not interested in band-aids
on a stinking, rotting corpse. They don't want to have anything to do with it.
A member of Congress trying to 'market' America to the next generation is exactly like the
MSM trying to market themselves to the next generation: it's pathetic and futile. 'America' is
just the name of their current prison and owner. They simply tolerate it. When it becomes intolerable,
they'll leave (if they're allowed to).
I know that's the meme being pushed, but I don't see it in reality. The two parties, supposedly
so polarized, offer minute differences in actual policy. The differences over which they'd claim
to take us to Civil War really boil down to which constituent and contributor group gets greased.
In dictionary definitions, every politician in America is a liberal. In terms of their dedication
to unifying corporate and State power, they're all Fascists. Some are smilier Fascists than others,
but they're all Fascists.
Wrong. America is not a Liberal nation. In a Liberal nation working class would have a say.
As inequality grows, their taxes would go up. Education and healthcare would be free. Labor wouldn't
be taxed.
Corporativism is to the right and not left. Its labor is to the left.
The excerpt below should help clarify the confusion between Democrats and Republicans:
….(Bakunin) predicted that there would be two forms of modern intellectuals, what he called
the 'Red Bureaucracy', who would use popular struggles to try to take control of state power and
institute the most vicious and ruthless dictatorships in history, and the other group, who would
see that there isn't going to be an access to power that way and would therefore become the servants
of private power and the state capitalist democracy, where they would, as Bakunin put it, 'beat
the people with the people's stick,' talk about democracy but beat the people with it. That's
actually one of the few predictions in the social sciences that's come true, to my knowledge,
and a pretty perceptive one." Chomsky On Democracy and Education, page 248.
One of the most entertaining bit players in the 2016 campaign has been Craig Mazin, Ted Cruz's college
roommate. Mazin, a screenwriter who co-wrote two of the Hangover films, openly despises Cruz
on both a political and personal level, and talks trash about him at just about every opportunity.
And Mazin is very good at trash talk. These
17 hilarious Craig Mazin tweets about Ted Cruz go a long way to explaining why the Texas senator
is almost not the most beloved guy in Washington.
Scriptnotes. Here's how Mazin put it, and I'm going to quote it in full because it is one
of my favorite things that anybody has ever said about anyone else:
And, you know, I want to be clear, because Ted Cruz is a nightmare of a human being. I have plenty
of problems with his politics, but truthfully, his personality is so awful that 99 percent of
why I hate him is just his personality. If he agreed with me on every issue, I would hate him
only 1 percent less.
That's more than a sufficient diss, but Mazin didn't stop there. He writes a lot about Cruz on
Twitter, and pulls absolutely no punches while doing so. He fired the opening shot in 2013, when
Cruz was about to win election to the Senate.
"... Those comments, her first public ones on the scandal, are now revealed as a lie. What a way to start a presidential campaign! ..."
"... Oh, wait - it's the Clinton way. Always was, always will be. Now what? Does she expect us to assume she'll tell the truth from this moment? Maybe she should wink twice with her right eye and raise her left hand to signal when a lie is coming. ..."
"... Not that we needed any reminding, but the Clinton way is indistinguishable from plain dishonesty. That's how it was when she and Bubba were in the White House for eight years. And it's how it was when she lost the Democratic race in 2008 and opted for the State job in President Obama's cabinet. ..."
"... She could have put two accounts, one personal, one private, on one device connected to a government server. She didn't because she wanted to keep everything secret from everybody - and she's still doing it. Equally preposterous is her insistence that she could make her own rules, while also claiming she followed the letter and spirit of government rules. She did it her way because she thought the rules, like the truth, are flexible and that if she got caught, she'd get away with it. ..."
"... In a sly reference to Watergate, he said in a letter to Clinton's lawyer that his panel wants to know "what the Secretary did, when she did it and why she did it." ..."
"... Of course, that assumes she's even capable of telling the truth. ..."
She can't help herself. Hillary Clinton is addicted to deception.
The news that she used an iPad as well as a BlackBerry demolishes her already ridiculous claim
that she set up a private email server so she would only need to carry one gadget as secretary of
state. At a March 10 press conference, Clinton put it this way: "I thought using one device would
be simpler, and, obviously, it hasn't worked out that way. Looking back, it would have been probably
. . . smarter to have used two devices."
Those comments, her first public ones on the scandal, are now revealed as a lie. What a way
to start a presidential campaign!
Oh, wait - it's the Clinton way. Always was, always will be. Now what? Does she expect us
to assume she'll tell the truth from this moment? Maybe she should wink twice with her right eye
and raise her left hand to signal when a lie is coming.
Not that we needed any reminding, but the Clinton way is indistinguishable from plain dishonesty.
That's how it was when she and Bubba were in the White House for eight years. And it's how it was
when she lost the Democratic race in 2008 and opted for the State job in President Obama's cabinet.
Six years later, she's back in the political ring again, yet nothing's changed. She still won't
tell the truth.
From dodging sniper fire to being dead broke, she says what's most convenient for her in the moment,
and lets her flunkies clean up the mess later.
Her word is not her bond. In contrast to the dictum of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
she believes she's entitled to her own facts as well as her own opinion.
The revelation by the AP that she used at least two electronic devices, neither of them connected
to a government email account, means she will have to come up a with a new reason why she was entitled
to do emails her way.
Whatever she comes up with, it won't wash. It's obvious that her aim was to avoid having Congress
and the White House know what she didn't want them to know.
She could have put two accounts, one personal, one private, on one device connected to a government
server. She didn't because she wanted to keep everything secret from everybody - and she's still
doing it. Equally preposterous is her insistence that she could make her own rules, while also claiming
she followed the letter and spirit of government rules. She did it her way because she thought the
rules, like the truth, are flexible and that if she got caught, she'd get away with it.
Well, she's been caught, and now the question is whether she gets away with it. That's the challenge
before the White House and Congress.
So far, the Obamas are straddling the fence. They've carefully avoided giving full approval to
what she did, with State Department aides saying they didn't know she was using a private server
until after she left office.
The department had requested all official emails be preserved, but accepted her claim that she
deleted 30,000 personal ones before turning over printed versions of about 30,000 others. She and
her lawyer say everybody will have to take her word for what was in those that were deleted.
She also says the server "will remain private" and the lawyer says that all the emails were permanently
deleted and that the server is now "clean."
That puts the final burden on the Republican Congress, and Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House
Select Committee on Benghazi, is meeting it head-on. After Clinton rebuffed his request to give the
server to an independent examiner, Gowdy on Tuesday offered her a private interview, presumably under
oath, as well as a later, public one.
In a sly reference to Watergate, he said in a letter to Clinton's lawyer that his panel wants
to know "what the Secretary did, when she did it and why she did it."
Clinton will say no as long as she can get away with it. But if the media stays on the story and
public pressure forces her to agree to swear to tell the truth, we may finally get somewhere.
Of course, that assumes she's even capable of telling the truth.
"... Talk about an unpopularity contest! Add the presumptive nominees together and you get just over a tenth of eligible voters choosing the next president. ..."
"... Full Disclosure: the one she ran against was the 74 year-old democratic socialist calling for revolution, who got 4.7% of the eligible voters in those primaries, which took place mostly in conservative states that a few years ago would have been more likely to jail a socialist than vote for one. Until this year, the idea that almost 5% of southern eligible would go for the "Brooklyn Jewish Pinko Socialist" would have been earth-shatteringly newsworthy. ..."
"... Still I found it curious that he neglected to highlight the Clinton role in what he identified as true problems: "financialization and making profits by convincing investors to bear risks they should not; on health-care administration and making profits by passing off to others the hot potato of actually paying for care and treatment for the sick; on making profits by getting paid for locking up two percent of our young men for terms so excessive as to be cruel albeit not, alas, unusual"-all of which have Hillary's hands all over them, especially the incarceration part but one should not forget that she supports financialization of healthcare through mandating private insurance over actually providing healthcare through universal coverage. ..."
"... So here's the question: can a progressive let a friend vote for a Neocon? This has become all the more relevant as it looks more likely that come November many will choose between Hillary or The Donald. ..."
"... (from the abstract) Here we demonstrate that a nonhuman primate, the brown capuchin monkey (Cebus apella), responds negatively to unequal reward distribution in exchanges with a human experimenter. Monkeys refused to participate if they witnessed a conspecific obtain a more attractive reward for equal effort, an effect amplified if the partner received such a reward without any effort at all. These reactions support an early evolutionary origin of inequity aversion. ..."
"... Sanders supporters who think that there's any place for them in the Democrat Party for this point forward are deluding themselves. ..."
But is this supposed to bring Bernie's supporters over to the Hillary camp? Remember, voters came
out by the millions to vote for a candidate who proudly claimed to be a democratic socialist, and
his voters proudly cheered every time he said it. Not only that, they gave their hard-earned savings
to him so that he could run.
By contrast, the establishment candidates relied on Wall Street funding, donations by fat cats
with much to gain by retaining control over Washington. And even with all the support that the establishment
could muster, Bernie is still in the race-much to Hillary's consternation. I think the McCarthy-ite
scare tactics will fail this time.
While Hillary is slightly ahead in the votes, she's viewed with far more suspicion by Americans.
To put it as plainly as possible, they do not like her, and the more they learn, the less they like
her. The more they learn about her surrogates, the less they'll like them, and her.
Yes, she's way ahead in the delegates. She was awarded a quarter of all the delegates before the
campaign even started. All she needed was to get one more quarter, plus one, of the remainder in
order to "win". She only needed to earn 26% of those up for grabs, while Bernie would have to actually
win 51% to come out ahead in delegates. You call that democracy? And, true, Bernie is running behind
that pace. But that was by plan-with all the Democratic establishment calling the race on day one,
only the stubborn would refuse to vote for the putatively inevitable "winner". After every primary,
win or lose, Bernie was declared the underdog with no chance of catching up.
I noted with some amusement that Brad DeLong, a Clinton supporter who worked for her husband's
administration, has dissed Trump by running some numbers: "Donald Trump collects only 40% or so of
the vote from the 15% or so of the adult population that votes in Republican Party primaries, and
polls tell us he is massively unpopular with the bulk of American adults."
OK, true. As of March 25, The Donald had
received just 5.7% of the vote among eligible voters in the primaries that had been run up to
that point. What DeLong failed to note is that Hillary had received 6.6%.
Talk about an unpopularity contest! Add the presumptive nominees together
and you get just over a tenth of eligible voters choosing the next president.
The Donald was running against some dozens of candidates (to tell the truth, I could not tell
who was not running in the Republican primaries-I think there might have been more candidates
than voters), while Hillary was running against just one (well, if there were others, they dropped
out quickly and no one remembers them).
Full Disclosure: the one she ran against was the 74 year-old democratic socialist calling for
revolution, who got 4.7% of the eligible voters in those primaries, which took place mostly in conservative
states that a few years ago would have been more likely to jail a socialist than vote for one. Until
this year, the idea that almost 5% of southern eligible would go for the "Brooklyn Jewish Pinko Socialist"
would have been earth-shatteringly newsworthy.
And with the Democratic primary season as rigged as it could possibly be to stop someone like
Bernie, she's pulling a percent more of the eligible votes than a reality TV star and less than 2%
more than a self-professed socialist. In the conservative states. In states where independents are
denied the right to vote. All front-loaded in the primary season to give a southern conservative
former Goldwater Republican an insurmountable lead.
With 26 primaries already completed by March 25, Hillary had garnered votes from just 10.9% of
the registered voters-in the primaries that lean right-versus Trump's 9.4%.
A mandate for Hillary this ain't.
(By contrast, "none of the above" is winning in a landslide. 34% of those who registered did not
vote, and 39% of the eligible chose not to register. That is no vote of confidence for our two party
system that tries to restrict our choices to party-sanctioned unpalatable candidates. While The Donald
has brought in voters, Hillary has repelled them. If it were not for Bernie, voting by the Dems would
be way down.)
I was also amused by DeLong's "take-down" of those who "pander to populists"-by promising that
which he claims cannot be delivered. And he argues the populists point their fingers at imagined
damage done to them by the mainstream Democrats: deregulating Wall Street and shipping jobs abroad
through NAFTA and by ignoring Chinese currency manipulation.
Now, the first of these happened, and it has played a huge role in producing the boom-bust cycle
followed by stagnation that we now find ourselves in. It was a Clinton deal. Bill and Bob and Larry.
All of them presumed advisors to a presumptive Hillary administration.
And while I side with DeLong in criticizing the second two claims, I don't know many Bernie supporters
who make them. NAFTA had little to do with loss of America's jobs (but a lot to do with destruction
of Mexican agriculture-that pushed migration to the US), and the accusations against China amount
to little more than "red-baiting".
Still I found it curious that he neglected to highlight the Clinton role in what he identified
as true problems: "financialization and making profits by convincing investors to bear risks they
should not; on health-care administration and making profits by passing off to others the hot potato
of actually paying for care and treatment for the sick; on making profits by getting paid for locking
up two percent of our young men for terms so excessive as to be cruel albeit not, alas, unusual"-all
of which have Hillary's hands all over them, especially the incarceration part but one should not
forget that she supports financialization of healthcare through mandating private insurance over
actually providing healthcare through universal coverage.
So here's the question: can a progressive let a friend vote for a Neocon? This has become all
the more relevant as it looks more likely that come November many will choose between Hillary or
The Donald.
On social issues, I must admit that Hillary looks better. But who wouldn't? The Donald, for reasons
only known to himself, has decided to alienate some 85% of the population on social issues. I don't
get it. So his maximum vote take will be 15% of eligible. Hillary might be able to beat that.
On economics and dealings with the rest of the world, it is a toss-up. The Donald will Wall us
in for protection (it is somewhat ironic that a China-basher would choose a Great Wall?), while Hillary
will bomb and drone her "enemies" for regime change. I would prefer the Donald if he'd stop talking
about deportation and religious litmus tests for immigrants. But he won't. He prefers to be repulsive.
On economics, Hillary will continue to promote Wall Street's depravities (after all, her husband
delivered Wall Street to the Democrats, or, more accurately, the Democrats to Wall Street), while
The Donald will make America Grand Again. Apparently by building more casinos and hotels for people
with money to blow. Neither plan is appealing-but legal and supervised gambling in casinos is better
than illegal and unsupervised gambling by Hillary's Wall Street.
Who do you choose? How about neither.
As is well-known, Hillary was a Goldwater Republican. Not just a supporter, but an activist. She
attributes that to youthful exuberance. As she matured, she became a Kissinger-Albright Neocon. In
other words, she moved from isolationism to Neocon regime change.
And, with no small help from her husband's presidency, the Democratic party moved so far right
that a Goldwater Republican can fit nicely within its folds.
A progressive should not let a friend vote Neocon.
I know, I know. If you do not vote for the Neocon, you get the Donald. Well, maybe. That's November.
There's still a lot of water to run under that bridge before we reach November.
But in any case, I don't buy the argument. I don't vote for the lesser of two evils. I don't vote
for evil, period. Yes, my candidates almost always lose. I've voted for exactly one winner in my
life. I don't regret any of my votes, even though that one winning candidate turned out to be a huge
disappointment. All the winning candidates that I did not vote for were even worse disappointments
(and my expectations were understandably low). I would not have felt any better had I voted for winners
Obama 2012, Clinton (twice), Carter, or LBJ, nor if I had voted for losers Kerry, Gore, Dukakis,
Mondale, or Humphrey.
Yes, I voted for McGovern. I'm precisely the type of voter that the party establishment has tried
to disenfranchise-to ensure that the party never again makes the "mistake" of running someone who
leans toward peace and progressive policy. I'm not a "loyalist". I cannot be trusted to vote the
party line.
I do not accept the argument that progressives have no choice but to vote for Neocons. If you
settle for the lesser of evils, all you will get is evils.
I do have a choice. And so do you. As the great philosopher said, "It ain't over, until it's over".
BillC ,
May 2, 2016 at 10:17 am
Are you suggesting that it is never right to allow things to get worse so that enough
outrage accumulates to make them better? Did marching in itself bring civil rights? Or was it
the outrages of bloody faces, broken bones, and lost lives that pushed it over the goal line?
From what she has done, never mind what she says while campaigning - we know that Hil
and her acolytes (actually, her masters) will "foam the runway" for anything the TBTF banks want,
will amplify the failed US military madness in the middle east, and will dilute nations' sovereign
powers to no more than picking the colors of their flag thanks to "trade" deals that put every
nation in an economic straitjacket.
With the Donald we don't know what we'll get. But he talks more sense on foreign policy, military
adventurism, and economic policy than Hil, so there's a chance he might be better in these crucial
areas. And if it turns out to be all talk, his administration will probably preside over the next
Greater Recession, which is likely to be the final nail in neoliberalism's coffin - if Hil's not
in the White House doing everything she can to shield the 0.01% of Americans who are its greatest
beneficiaries from the pitchforks they so richly deserve.
Huh? This "transformative" Left you go on about is a figment of your imagination. The real
Left wants to essentially neuter Capitalism. What you are evidently conjuring up as the Left is
some denatured version of Franklin Roosevelt Centrism. Given that, the status quo you so evidently
want to defend has reached so low that a significant percentage of the populace wants to end said
status quo entirely. Foot dragging by yourself and fellow travelers will only hasten disruption.
Be careful what you wish for.
No. We want something akin to Norway. A VERY successful CAPITALISTIC nation with nice, tight
controls on capitalism to prevent it from running amok. It doesn't suffer massive income inequality,
has universal healthcare, free university, the happiest people on earth, much healthier than Americans
too. Call it Responsible Capitalism. Capitalism reigned in to serve society rather than the other
way around (the American way of capitalism).
Please. If the dems were truly worried about a Trump presidency, Sanders would get the nomination.
You drage Hillary across the finish line, then blackmail the voter?
This morning in the Drudge Report: "Trump Highest Number of Republican Voters in History."
Who do the Republicans want to get rid of? Trump.
On the same page, a poll reports Trump tied with Hillary nationally. Who do the Republicans
want to get rid of? Guess.
It's wonderful. The GOP is looking for someone that Hillary can beat. She would squash Kasich
or Cruz like stepping on bugs. Trump might actually win. This the Republicans strive to avoid.
What could make more sense?
But it does make sense. The Republicans try desperately to ditch the only Republican candidate
who could win the Presidency because… Hillary is one of them.
Because, as every sentient being has by now noticed, the Republicans and Democrats are members
of the same corrupt club of blood-sucking parasites, the action arm of the corporations, Wall
Street, the Israeli lobby, and those who want the US to control the world at any cost - except,
of course, to them. They are panicked at the rise of someone who might put first the interests
of America. Better Hillary, a fellow parasite, than Trump, who isn't.
People in other countries will die by the thousands (perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands)
if Clinton becomes president. Take your lesser of two evils BS elsewhere. It will find no purchase
here.
"[…] And it will be important to do so then because overpromising leads to bad policy decisions,
and overpromising is bad long-run politics as well. But that day is not now."
It's difficult not to choke when I read this during morning coffee. It really sounds like something
I would expect to hear in the Trump camp, but I guess the groupthink brainworm gets the best of
everybody from time-to-time.
I've been reading an old article from Nature about radical Capuchinistas fomenting open rebellion
by invoking social morality and fairness.
Monkeys reject unequal pay (Brosnan & de Waal)
___________________________________________ (from the abstract) Here we demonstrate that a nonhuman primate, the brown capuchin monkey
(Cebus apella), responds negatively to unequal reward distribution in exchanges with a human experimenter.
Monkeys refused to participate if they witnessed a conspecific obtain a more attractive reward
for equal effort, an effect amplified if the partner received such a reward without any effort
at all. These reactions support an early evolutionary origin of inequity aversion.
The day will come when it will be time to gleefully and comprehensively trash people to
be named later for Guevarista fantasies about what their policies are likely to do. The day
will come when it will be time to gleefully and comprehensively trash people to be named later
for advocating Cominternscale lying to voters about what our policies are like to do.
Wow. It's laughably appalling the way the extreme center summons up Cold War Hate to define
both its target and itself. I've been reading Ernst Bloch's "Heritage of Our Times," which contains
some fantastic passages that read like a reflective dreaming, a seance in the midst of social
intoxication, trying to detect the ingredients in the ideological stewpot of late-1920s Germany.
We need him now.
I was amazed to find out that quote came from DeLong.* DeLong is intellectually honest enough
to admit error, so one can only hope he does so in this case.
But honestly, advocating Medicare for All is "Cominternscale lying to voters"? How can those
vile Canadians live with themselves?
NOTE * It's also important that DeLong lets the cat out of the bag with "gleeefully." If
he feels that way, then that's how every other Democrat loyalist feels. Ergo, Sanders
supporters who think that there's any place for them in the Democrat Party from this point forward
are deluding themselves. Not even voluntary pleas before the show trials begin will help them.
(This should also make Sanders think twice about the security of his position on the Budget Committee.
Watch it magically end up in the paws of the bluest of Blue Dogs.)
Sanders supporters who think that there's any place for them in the Democrat Party for
this point forward are deluding themselves.
I still think it makes sense to distinguish the party apparatus from the party. The party itself,
as a vote-getting institution, is a coalition of individuals, associations, business interests,
etc. The issue is who controls the apparatus. I agree that Sanders' supporters are not welcome
in challenging for control of the apparatus but that hardly means we should not try to do so.
And I would argue Sanders should absolutely grab whatever levers of power are made available
to him. Obviously, if the quid pro quo is unacceptable, then no. But we need to learn from rightwing
activists that just because those in control of the party are hacks doesn't mean we forego any
opportunity to use levers of power they make available to us.
DeLong!? Years ago he used to hang out at the Left Business Observer website before options
to email discussions proliferated. He'd debate, not head hunt. It seems that now, with serious
talk of reviving socialism as a policy and political orientation, he's moving into purge mode.
Minorities, minorities, minorities. I am totaly for Bernie.I thought his economic message would
resonate. Where I work (for the USG) racial discrimination certainly has to exist but it is a
minimal sideshow because there is economic equality. Interracial marriage where I work is common
because stability and income trump skin color more often than not. So it really is economics and
Bernie has failed to bring that message to us. He has failed to explain that without economic
parity racial equality is not going to happen. Tht needs to be part of his stump speech. Minorities
think their skin color is what is holding them back…..but there are thousands of experiments every
day that prove that is not the case……from Tiger Woods to Obama himself as his father was at the
top of Kenyan society and not poor. Unfortunately it may be too late for Bernie…….who certainly
understands it but has not really carried the message to minority voters. The establishment loves
to divide by race…..and Hillary has done this masterfully……which you would expect from a Yale
attorney advised by the best PR people money can buy.!
>Furthermore, the Pew report found that Trump's and Sanders's supporters were the most likely
on their respective sides of the ideological divide to be angry at the government; believe that
the economic system unfairly favors powerful interests; and are more isolationist, believing that
America's involvement in global problems makes those problems worse.<
This a winning coalition. We have the votes. Let's do it. Upset the apple-cart. Rock and roll.
Yup. If we can stop sneering at them and calling them racist for five seconds (many are but
we're not exactly unstained ourselves, and it's hardly a binary question – I know more than one
black Trump voter who's creepily anti-Arab) then pickup-driving blue collar conservatives and
actual liberals have more in common than ever before.
Anecdote time: I met a bunch of Tea Partiers at a bar once in about 2009 and tried this argument
on them, saying that they had "more in common with a 20 year old commie-leaning college kid than
with literally anyone you see on TV." They were surprisingly open to the idea of joining forces.
With patience and time I bet they'd start listening to the BLM argument as well – right now
it's just not being aimed towards them. My public defense clients often fit the typical white
conservative working class profile and while they aren't being shot by the cops, they are being
repeatedly arrested, jailed, and fined for minor misdemeanors on scanty evidence in a way that's
making them quite sympathetic towards the idea of a police state.
""Those who "fantasized" about Bernie's "overpromising"""
Not that these are Bernies's proposals but in this vein..
I like the idea of a JG (job guarantee program) paying a living wage (around twice the current
minimum wage) with medical and pension benefits. This would set a standard for private employment.
I like the idea of a BIG associated with this (around the current minimum wage) so that labor
isn't treated as a commodity.
If a person was working a JG and collecting a BIG this would put him/her at the about the standard
of a typical Costco employee.
"... By Russ Baker, editor of WhoWhatWhy.com and author of "Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years." Originally published at WhoWhatWhy ..."
"... The Washington Post, Politico, CNN, ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... WhoWhatWhy' ..."
"... Corrupt and "most" pro war – it's a two-fer. (When do we get to put "most" in front of corrupt?). ..."
"... Fuck. DO we really want another fucking Neo-Con in the White House? ..."
"... I think it's interesting to consider that Trump is ostensibly already to the left of Clinton on many issues. ..."
"... I say it is time to leave the Democratic Party in droves. I know, I know. The Supreme Court nominees of a future president loom large. We have to force the hand. Rather than creep to fascism and the earth's destruction, we have to realize the destination is the same as long as we keep our eggs in the basket of the Democratic Party. Time to cut and run, time to build something new, time to vote the Green Party, purge it of its new agey image and begin building it into a democratically functioning party that holds its candidates to its platform. Sure, it will take time. But putting money, time, and energy into the other half of a duopoly that supports empire and neoliberalism is all wasted on the fool's game, which Sander's inadvertently, I think, has exposed as the endgame. Progressives have to realize it will not and cannot be changed. It's core supports those two branches of its world-view, and no matter how they manipulate its adherents by throwing table scraps to them in the form of "social" issues, it will never be something other than what it is. I know, I am done with it. ..."
"... Clinton will not appoint a Supreme Court Justice that is beneficial to the planet. Her appointees will be pro-corporate whores that will play nice on identity issues. Trump will never get a judge through that will overturn Roe v Wade. The Republicans have shown that you can effectively limit the debate of a SCJ and have held appointments up while not in the majority. ..."
"... The article by Mark Landler was brilliant and will keep me from voting for Clinton. I am tired of America being continually and fruitlessly at war. ..."
"... Clinton is pushing for war with Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. How can anyone honestly discuss that Clinton is more sane (in foreign policy) than any person running for office? ..."
"... Trump does not want war with Russia. Clinton wants to go to war with Russia. There is no other way to read her desire for a no fly zone. The only way to implement that policy is through a war with Russia. Clinton is not naive. She knows that any attempt to create a no fly zone will result in a conflict with Russia. ..."
"... Yes, it is a topsy turvy system where the State Department, which one expects to be full of people seeking diplomatic solutions, is led by a warmonger, while many military leaders come off as more cautious. The later often have a better understanding of the futility of the situations they are thrown into and the true costs. ..."
Posted on
April 29, 2016 by
Yves Smith Yves here. It was hard not to notice the awfully convenient timing of the publication
of the New York Times story,
Top Gun: How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk . If you have not read it, you need to, ASAP. It makes
painfully clear how much Hillary believes that the US should continue to act as if it were the worlds'
sole superpower, when those days are past, is deeply enamored of aggressive military men, and is
in synch with neocons. A sobering article.
By Russ Baker, editor of WhoWhatWhy.com and author of "Family of Secrets: The Bush
Dynasty, America's Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years." Originally
published at
WhoWhatWhy
Following a rough night in five East coast primaries, Bernie Sanders's path to the Democratic
nomination is now more narrow and steep than it has ever been. But are these votes truly a referendum
on who voters think the best candidate is - or are they merely a reflection of what the corporate
media wants Democrats to think?
In our critique of the media, we tend to focus on The New York Times , because
it purports to be the gold standard for journalism, and because others look to the paper for coverage
guidance. But the same critique could be applied to The Washington Post, Politico, CNN,
and most other leading outfits.
We
also noted how it seemed that every little thing the Clinton camp did right was billboarded,
while significant victories against great odds by Sanders were
minimized .
These are truly the kinds of decisions that determine the "conventional wisdom," which in turn
so often determines outcomes.
But there is more - and it is even more disturbing. Clinton's principal reason to claim she is
so qualified to be president - aside from being First Lady and senator - is her four years as Secretary
of State.
What kind of a legacy did she leave? Perhaps her principal role was to push for military engagement
- more soldiers in existing conflicts, and new wars altogether. WhoWhatWhy has written about
these wars and their
dubious
basis .
Wars are good business for Wall Street, for corporations in general, and for others who have been
friendly to her and her campaign.
Why was this never a bigger issue? Why was this not front and center with New York voters, a traditionally
liberal group with a strong antipathy toward war and militarism? Certainly Sanders tried to bring
up this issue, and doesn't seem to have succeeded. But mostly, this was a failure of the media, whose
job it is to shine a strong spotlight.
And why did The New York Times wait until two days after the New York primary
to publish its biggest piece on this, when it could no longer influence that key contest? (It appeared
first on its website and later in its Sunday magazine.)
In fact, with the media declaring this probably now a Clinton-Trump race, highlighting her hawkishness
turns it from a handicap to a strength.
How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk was the digital equivalent of a huge front-page story.
What the article makes clear - shockingly clear - is that Hillary Clinton is the most militaristic
of any of the presidential candidates, even more than Ted Cruz.
Was this delay in publication just a case of poor scheduling? Was it to ensure that the paper
could not to be accused of influencing the primary outcome?
The Times's editorials had already gotten behind her candidacy (without mentioning her
refusal to release transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches, or her opposition to a paltry $15 an
hour minimum wage). Would running Mark Landler's critical piece when it mattered have seemed like
an implicit rebuke of the paper's own editorial board or interfered with its influence?
How ironic it is that "liberal" Hillary Clinton has never met a war she did not like, and has
never been held responsible for the chaos they caused and the policies she advocated - yet it is
Bernie Sanders whose policies are being described as "unrealistic" by the same people who are shielding
Clinton from criticism.
What is the purpose of journalism if not to introduce material when it is relevant - and can have
an impact? And one that is good for humanity - as opposed to the arms industry.
The Times , Judith Miller et al, have certainly had an impact. Go
here for one of WhoWhatWhy' s stories of some of the goriest details.
Corrupt and "most" pro war – it's a two-fer. (When do we get to put "most" in front of corrupt?).
Yet I can visualize all my "enlightened" Boston "liberal" friends so fashionably and smugly rallying
behind her w/o even one second thought of dissent because Republicans. Any criticism will be met
with "delete" on FB friendship.
Yes, but at the end of the day, if you listen to Trump's garbled "message," he's really just
about as NeoCon as Hillary. At least, that's what I'm getting from his very few "policy" speeches.
He wants to "strengthen" our Military, which allegedly has been "weakened" by Obama. Of course,
Trump conveniently ignores the fact the US Military budget is larger than ever, but what I take
from that is that Trump wants to provide them with even more money.
Trump talks about forcing our "allies" to pay us tributes to protect them, which will somehow
enrich us back home. Good luck with that.
Well I could go on, but Trump wants to blast ISIS into glass sand and all the rest of it. I
don't see him as any much less NeoCon that Hillary or anyone else in the GOP. It's just that Trump
dances around things
Not a fan of Clinton. Never have been. Just saying re Trump…. not much different from what
I can parse out.
I have no problem asking other countries to pay for our cost of defense. Yes it is tribute
but if they do not pay then we do not assist. Secondly, Trump in his latest speech basically through
the Wolfowitz Doctrine under the bus. I say more power to that. Trump has said get out of NATO,
I have no problem with that. Lastly, Trump has indicated that he would stop sticking the US's
finger into Putin's eye. I am all for that. What has Hitlary said with regard to any of this.
Trump seems far more pragmatic and he has to show strong defense because that is one of the
key issues of the GOP. On the other hand all of the above issues would be good for the US and
might start taking apart the military-industrial complex.
Yes it is tribute but if they do not pay then we do not assist.
And the hollowness of America's protection "guarantees" gets exposed there and then rather
than a bit further down the road of imperial decline. I rather like your idea…
I do not know where you get hollowness. Most of these countries are running a trade surplus
with the US so why would we defend them for free. The US has never done this in the past (France
and the UK were suppose to pay for their armaments and no one yelled that was hollow). I would
rather we stayed out of the whole freaking thing but asking them to pay is a good start.
These security guarantees are hollow because there is no wayin hell the US can actually defend
a Baltic pipsqueak if Russia is truly determined to spank it for any multitude of transgressions.
That's why these guarantees are hollow.
Also too, the Euros are fast getting wise to the fact that US empire building is actually extracting
high costs from them, your BS about the poor wittle used and abused US notwithstanding. When the
US tries to actually extort cash as well the imperial jig will be well and truly up. Euro nationalism
is on the rise, and in many places it does contain a fairly pronounced dislike for the trigger
happy greedy vulgarians across the pond. And the migrant crisis is not helping US image at all.
Vet – I believe under NATO the other NATO nations are also suppose to contribute to their defense
and only 4 of the 28 countries are meeting their obligations. NATO was not set up for the US to
do all of the heavy lifting.
Personally, I say if Europe wants to go their own way more power to it. As far as Europeans
having a dislike for Americans, maybe. It is my experience having lived on four continents (and
several places in Europe) that many people disliked us before because we did things they could
not. Now we have given then other reasons to dislike us because of our neo-con socialist leanings.
But in total you miss my point which I find that Trump speaks a far more honest foreign affairs
approach than Hitlary or any president since before Bill Clinton. If you disagree then make your
point instead of just ranting.
I think it's interesting to consider that Trump is ostensibly already to the left of Clinton
on many issues. Typically, Democrats trying for presidential nomination have pandered to the party's
Left, and then run to the right for the general election. However, if Clinton wants to run to
the right, she'll be deep in Republican territory, while the proggies are certain to wander off
her home-front plantation. Except maybe for abortion, it appears that she has no home turf. It's
a curious predicament for a Democrat to be in.
Well it makes sense if you just consider that her husband was the best Republican President
the Democrats ever elected. She's a DINO in all serious matters and a "liberal" in the kind of
superficial stuff the MSM uses to differentiate and divide the people from themselves.
Several weeks ago, there was a very pro-Birdie piece on the NYTime's front page. People saw
it on line. Within several hours it was heavily edited and read more negative than positive. The
part about John McCain praising Bernie was removed, ditto other parts.
Huh? Judith Miller and the post election 2004 warrantless wiretapping story beg to differ.
They sat on a story in fear of influencing the election. They had the plagarist from Falwell U.
The NYT has been trash for as long as the Patriots have run the AFC East.
One can remember that Edward Snowden decided not to approach the Times with his story BECAUSE
the Times sat on the warrantless wiretapping story.
I still pay my $15 every 4 weeks for the NTTimes digital, but justify that partially because
I can do archive searches.
The Times Mea Culpa, spearheaded by Bill Keller, after the Judith Miller Iraq war reporting,
was particularly good. The TImes had their Iraq war cake and then got to apologize for eating
it.
The digital edition frequently has thoughtful readers comments that effectively counter the
latest Friedman, Kristof, Krugman, Brooks, Dowd, and Douthat received wisdom.
There must be more than few print readers who yell at their copy of the print NY Times, "Tom/Nick/David/Paul,
you are so #&*$% wrong".
Sadly the print readers can't access the readers' comment section, AKA Times Editorial antidote,
that accompanies the digital edition.
I say it is time to leave the Democratic Party in droves. I know, I know. The Supreme Court
nominees of a future president loom large. We have to force the hand. Rather than creep to fascism
and the earth's destruction, we have to realize the destination is the same as long as we keep
our eggs in the basket of the Democratic Party. Time to cut and run, time to build something new,
time to vote the Green Party, purge it of its new agey image and begin building it into a democratically
functioning party that holds its candidates to its platform. Sure, it will take time. But putting
money, time, and energy into the other half of a duopoly that supports empire and neoliberalism
is all wasted on the fool's game, which Sander's inadvertently, I think, has exposed as the endgame.
Progressives have to realize it will not and cannot be changed. It's core supports those two branches
of its world-view, and no matter how they manipulate its adherents by throwing table scraps to
them in the form of "social" issues, it will never be something other than what it is. I know,
I am done with it.
Doesn't the Supreme Court argument go out the window when the potential President is a lunatic?
Of course, Maryanne Trump was appointed by Bill Clinton.
Clinton will not appoint a Supreme Court Justice that is beneficial to the planet. Her appointees
will be pro-corporate whores that will play nice on identity issues.
Trump will never get a judge through that will overturn Roe v Wade. The Republicans have shown
that you can effectively limit the debate of a SCJ and have held appointments up while not in
the majority.
The abortion issue is a non issue. There is no way that justice would get on the court.
The Republicans will use that issue to get an even more corporate judge onto the court. A similar
deal is going on in NC today. The state will eventually cave and get ride of the bathroom provision
but the anti-worker sections will remain.
I cancelled my subscription to the NYT because of its more than biased reporting of the Democratic
primaries. I tried to make sure the editorial staff knew my reasons.
As a Veteran who deployed to The Middle East the first time , and with children entering
their teens, while I won't be able to control their decisions when they come of age, I have done
everything I possibly can to dissuade them from joining the military.
Sadly, I believe that whether it's Clinton or Trump, they will have zero reservations of sending
my children of to die in a war that will not end.
I agree. I don't see much difference between Trump and Clinton in this regard. Both are itching
to go to War. It's slightly possible – slightly! – that Clinton would be somewhat more sane (insofar
as one can be sane about war) than Trump. That's about the best I can say in this YET AGAIN choice
between the Evil of Two Lessers.
Arguing about the relative sanity of the insane is futile. Lybia and Hillminator's cackle upon
being informed of Khadafy's being sodomized with a knife is proof positive that having her as
prez is a recipe for even more of the same.
Clinton is pushing for war with Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. How can anyone honestly discuss
that Clinton is more sane (in foreign policy) than any person running for office?
Trump does not want war with Russia. Clinton wants to go to war with Russia. There is no other
way to read her desire for a no fly zone. The only way to implement that policy is through a war
with Russia. Clinton is not naive. She knows that any attempt to create a no fly zone will result
in a conflict with Russia.
Yes, it is a topsy turvy system where the State Department, which one expects to be full of
people seeking diplomatic solutions, is led by a warmonger, while many military leaders come off
as more cautious. The later often have a better understanding of the futility of the situations
they are thrown into and the true costs.
The pro-Hillary Times' piece provides compelling, irrefutable evidence of Hillary's neocon
credentials. The neocons adore her–Cheney commented Hillary was Obama's best cabinet appointment.
Add to that the chilling mutual admiration between Hillary and Kissinger and we have a tangibly
scary candidate.
Her supporters reaction? They either dismiss the idea she is loved by the neocons, or refuse
to understand the facts. Similar to rationalizing that money in politics is not a corrupting influence.
If Hillary is elected, she will have bipartisan support for a neocon foreign policy, as well
as money playing a major role in politics and one's personal life (speaking fees/foundation donations).
Citizens United will become a quaint memory.
It is getting impossible to argue the two parties are anything but the same side of the coin.
Getting?
Bill was first elected 24 years ago. Let's say a quarter century… I think Bernie made his tweedle
dum tweedle Dee comment about 20 years ago. The rest of us have been slower to notice.
well, Clinton is a woman and a Democrat. the more perfect evil. just Obama, the Vichy Democrats
do more evil than the Republicans, far more efficiently/effectively than any Republican could
or has. Hearing David/Charles Koch recently say Hillary "could" be better than any of the Republican
candidates, is proof. we are so Fkked!
yet my siblings will vote for Hillary cause of the Supreme Court due to the fact Hillary has
a D by her name. and i gather so many women will vote for Hillary cause she is a "woman." lol
Branding works. Stupidity, American style. if I vote, it will be for Trump, the lesser of two
evils, lol.
But that fails to count all the younger voters, saddled with debt and facing an economy where
business rules always favor capital over labor, who will find alternatives to Hillary that fit
with their moral sensibilities.
Meanwhile, the DNC is committing organizational suicide by becoming enforcers for Hillary,
restricting voting, and failing to sue states like Arizona for election fraud.
Older women will vote for Hillary. The divide between race and gender is primarily age. Older
black women are voting for her at 80% clips in nearly every election. Bernie can not win the 40
and under vote in every election while winning 30 and under at 80% with out winning across those
demographics.
Clinton kills him with older voters and has done so through out the cycle. It is why the DNC's
efforts to suppress the vote have worked so well for Clinton.
The NYT is simply a propaganda machine designed to fool people who can read at a slightly higher
grade level. If the 'newspaper of record' is compromised, how many mainstream outlets have any
real coverage of politics? After reading a large sampl;e,The number is close to zero. Occasionally,
the masses are thrown a bone.
Anyone who thinks there is a difference between the two nominal parties have to be kidding
themselves. The two party system is a facade that lures you into believing you live in a democracy
or republic. You are ruled. Your votes don't matter. Any real threat to power in the US is either
co-opted or neutralized.
We had a pedophile for speaker of the house. TPTB had to know it and used that info to keep
him under control. He was probably selected based on his past. Along with Hillary, Paul Ryan is
clearly a fascist. Look at their actions and their policies.
even the times piece was puffery. all the generals impressed by her wonkish hard work. and
it left out the most damning fact. hillary was the deciding voice in what obama called the worst
decision of his presidency, the invasion of libya and killing of quadaffi. nearly a decade after
iraq, in a nearly equivilant situation, with all the information she claimed not to have the first
time around, she chose the same stupid, destructive approach and sent another nation and region
reeling in choas.
this. I had thought it was because as a gen 1 feminist, she feels she has to out-macho the
boys, but it's both deeper and more pernicious with her. Fucking neocons. Bombing while the world
is burning.
What about the big four?
1 her emails anyone else would be gone for 99 years
2. her speeches? Yea sure. She has the only copy in her (contract)
3. her deals as SOState I'll get you arms (Saudi's) if you give me $1 million for foundation
Plus many more of these.
4. Her health passing out a few time, breaking an elbow, and others ailments.
Not a word on any. As for the NYT. It is as bad a you can get.
There is a great quote from Albert Camus a editor for "Combat" during the war.
"We have a right to think that truth with a capital letter is relative. But facts are facts. And
whoever says the sky is blue when it is grey is prostituting words and preparing the way for tyranny.
Nice comment.
#5 is the discrepancies in the exit poll data. Only the Democrats are having trouble with exit
polls this cycle. Each Republican election has been with in the exit polls but many of the Democratic
primaries are falling outside of the margin of error for exit polls and always siding with Clinton.
I pay $8 a month buying the weekend edition because I like the crossword (based in KL). The
rest of the NYT is crap, been downhill for years. The IHT was okay until it was merged out of
existence.
Otherwise, people who can't see Hillary's vicious streak are blind or stupid. She is the candidate
most likely to engage Russia. Lawrence Wilkerson had a great interview on her.
"… this was a failure of the media, whose job it is to shine a strong spotlight." When are
Americans going to learn that this is not true. The job of the media is to sell advertising to
the people who have the money to buy it. It's easier to do that if they don't tell people too
much about what's happening in the world. Tell them about the Kardashians or what people are saying
about Beyonce's latest video. Baseball games are OK. Good looking blonde announcers help. The
movie "Front Page" was fiction. Also, there's no Tooth Fairy.
With unprecedented access to insiders and whisteblowers, the New York Times is set to publish
a scathing indictment of the horse barn industry on the massive damage caused by closing the barn
doors after the horses have left.
"... So, if you're either a Sanders supporter, sympathetic to the Sanders campaign, or a Hillary voter desperately hoping she'll do something to bring into the Democratic fold the 40 percent of Sanders voters who say they won't vote for Hillary in the fall - all but ensuring a Trump presidency - here's some news for you: the signals are now being sent that Sanders and his people will, by calculated design, get absolutely nothing. ..."
"... What lies behind this "strategy" for the fall election - if we can call it that - is the same hubris that permitted Secretary Clinton never to reveal her Wall Street transcripts, to condescend to millennials at every turn, to refuse to apologize for bad judgment in the whole email-server affair, to refuse to apologize for her 1994 crime bill vote, to try to get away with (during the Michigan debate) the lie that Sanders had opposed the auto bailout, and so on. ..."
"... The Clinton campaign has no interest in Sanders' policies, nor in moving left to win over his supporters, which Clinton desperately needs, if nominated. Her campaign displays nothing but disdain for the left and, honestly, the feeling is mutual. Neither side must move in substance, the differences are irreconcilable. So be it, time to divorce. If Clinton gets the nomination, the best outcome is that Libs mess up the Republican field and defecting Lefties upend Clinton. It's a guess as to how that would shake out, but the substance of the candidates won't be the determining factor. ..."
"... Neocon is not left wing. Wash your mouth out. Obama has governed center right on everything save some social issues. He's only thrown the occasional bone to the left to maintain a brand distinction from the business wing of the Republican party. As the New York Times recounted last week, Hillary is a full bore hawk and even outflanked Obama via bureaucratic infighting (as in got a bunch of current and ex military leaders of the bloodhthirsty persuasion to box him in when his preference was to be more moderate). ..."
"... No doubt we can all pull up anecdotal evidence to one side or the other. My experience has been both in reallife and social media that there isn't a single Clinton supporter who is willing to speak with anyone who supports Sanders without pointing out they're the equivalents of Quislings who are allowing Trump to get the presidency, thus allowing the glorious, free, open, truthful and peaceful US of Obama to slide into the demonic realms. As arguments go, it isn't exactly convincing, given Clinton's positions and comments on a wide variety of issues, and as for tone, it isn't especially conciliatory, much less inviting, when your speaking companion calls you a moron, traitor, and fool. ..."
"... I myself think a better long-term outcome would be for the New Deal Reactionaries to reconquer the Democratic Party from within over the next few decades . . . if we can . . . and purge, burn and exterminate every trace of Clintonite Obamacrat filth from the leadership. And let their Clintonite Obamacrat garbage and trash followers go where-ever the Leadership Filth decide to go. ..."
"... More centrally, with hindsight, we can see that there was one sea change in the organizational capacity of the Democratic electorate in 2008: It could be mobilized, and came to understand it could be mobilized. That is the lesson of 2008, and it would have enabled a continuing war of maneuver had not the Democratic establishment sought instantly to unlearn it (and Obama, personally, to betray it). It may be that we are to learn the same lesson, again, with the Sanders campaign, but this time with victory as a goal, and defined. If so, the sense of wonder in "America" may well prove to be prophetic. ..."
"... Military Misfortunes ..."
"... I tend to consider the Sanders' campaign as the next evolutionary step in the "neo progressive" political trend that started with Occupy Wall Street: one that recognized the decoupling of civil rights from class issues and chose to focus on the latter without fear of being labeled socialist ( the former has been successfully captured by the duopolic "moderates"). Unlike its predecessor, the Sander's movement has a funding mechanism, broader appeal, and an organizational strategy that I think will enable long-term sustainability. I personally am considering how to distribute my next round of donation dollars. Give all 30 to Bernie or do a 3-way split between him, Teachout, and Grayson. I give Grayson points for asking his email subscribers whether to commit his delegate vote to Sanders or Clinton and then chose Sanders in spite of the fact that he is running for Senate in Clinton-friendly Florida. ..."
"... The best result (assuming Sanders does not get the nomination) is for Sanders voters to go anywhere but Clinton, and for Clinton to lose as a result. Those too worried about who might win in this case are trying to accomplish too many goals. ..."
"... I agree with this wholeheartedly. In a very different context, following the 2010 mid-term elections, Ian Welsh said "The left must be seen to repudiate Obama, and they must be seen to take him down." Here Sanders supporters must be seen to repudiate Clinton and must be seen to take her down. That the GOP fears its base while the Democratic party despises its base is, I think, in no small part because the GOP base will walk away from the party (or is perceived as being willing to do that) while the Democratic base will not. ..."
"... The immense problem facing the Dem party and congress followers is that the FBI has form in having the goods on presidents. They know how to wield the power. ..."
"... The idea that the question of whether Clinton will be indicted will be decided by apolitical public servants on the merits of the case if supremely naive. Given Hillary Clinton's stature that decision is inherently political, and would be even if corruption wasn't endemic in contemporary Washington. ..."
"... It's hard to imagine that a President Hillary won't be permanently in the crosshairs of the wacko-fringe-that-is-more-than-a-fringe of the congressional Republicans. To the extent one may find that comforting, you can count on the Tea Partiers (or whatever they'll be called) to keep up a steady drumbeat demanding action on the tapes, with much of the MSM dancing to their tunes. ..."
"... If you put yourself in the shoes of a Clinton strategist, and if you assume a straight Clinton-Trump fight, there are two obvious strategies to follow: A populist 'big tent' campaign, focusing on economics, to try to undermine Trumps appeal to the working classes and bring in the majority of Sanders supporters, and hope that enough 'moderate' Republican supporters stay home to ensure a comfortable victory. a 'centrist moderate' (i.e. right wing) campaign, which would go all out to attract votes from moderate Republicans in northern and western States, along with a scare campaign to ensure that any Dems even slightly to the left of mainstream will feel they have no choice but to hold their nose and vote for Hilary. ..."
"... I think a more important question though is which campaign Trumps strategists would prefer to be facing. I think we've already seen the answer in the manner Trump has gone all out to attack Clinton and her 'women should vote for me' line. I think Trump would much prefer Clinton to take option 2. This allows him to do what he loves – attack his opponents apparent strength. He will go all out to portray her as a puppet of the elites, a flip flopping old style womens libber, and so on. He will bring up Bills indiscretions every single time she tries to appeal to Republican women, and repeatedly attack her supposed foreign policy expertise (and boy will he have a lot of ammunition). He will particularly focus on her health. It will be nasty, but he will do enormous damage. ..."
"... I've thought for a long time that Clinton and the Democrat Establishment as a whole affirmatively want moderate Republican votes and don't care whether they get Sanders votes or not. Hence, I choose Door #2. ..."
"... I think it's key for Trump to focus on 1) corruption and 2) incompetence more than any gender identity stuff (which we all know is what Dems do best) ..."
"... These are two things that turn someone from "inevitable" into "toxic". If Trump spends more time hammering her on the Foundation for things like pay-to-play weapons deals and on her destructive term as Sec. of State, then I think he drives her negatives sky high, the Sanders' supporters won't be able to hold their noses and the moderate Republicans will sit this one out. ..."
"... It's perfect for Trump because it's exactly how he demolished Jebbie. He already knows what to do. ..."
"... Many polls are primarily propaganda. Humans are herd animals; they like to 'go with a winner' and if a poll can show someone in 'the lead' that translates to (often weak) support. ..."
"... Polls are sometimes done primarily to 'steer the herd'. Don't be fooled. ..."
"... I am not sure Clinton will get women. I work with women and work with everyday people, people are very excited about Trump, whereas they hate the Clintons. I am also shocked by the number of people that watch Fox news and they aren't elderly. The Kochs may prefer Clinton but the average tea-partery they cultivated with Americans for Prosperity never will. ..."
"... If Sanders people want to take over a state party they can accomplish it in less that 4 years. Most democratic parties are very old and are essentially a network for lawyers. ..."
"... I don't think Bernie is seriously trying to pull Hillary towards his positions. He is trying to encourage voters to base their position on issues rather than personalities, and convince them that they have power if they do. One of the consequences of that is being willing to vote for another candidate if they (credibly) adopt your positions, which is why he has to make the offer. But I'm sure he is under no illusions as to how it will be received. ..."
"... Homeland Security and Fusion Centers all across the country crushed Occupy. It never mattered how organized, or structured, they were, or not. And it won't matter the next time our mayors, militarized police forces, H.S. and the FBI conspire to crush a movement, either. ..."
"... This is why Sanders wants to influence the party's official platform, because I think the way it's supposed to work is that the nominee runs on that platform. Sadly, it appears Debbie has engineered things so that I think the platform, in the end, is going to straight-up rubber-stamp Clinton's positions. I mean, what's the point of a coronation if the Queen can't dictate the terms, right? ..."
"... I guess what really ticks me off is that Clinton's never going to do what's best for the country, she's always going to do what's best for her; that kind of hubris does not deserve our votes. ..."
"... Hillary says a lot of things (and even posts pdfs to her website!). But what she actually fights for and achieves is always and only what the most powerful interests in our country and world want. And on top of that she's incredibly corrupt (weapons deals for Clinton Foundation donations, and skirting campaign finance laws using 32 state parties to create a massive slush fund being only the two latest egregiously corrupt maneuvers), and quite incompetent (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, her ridiculously insecure email server). If all that's not apparent to you by now you're willfully deceiving yourself. ..."
"... whenever it suits them, I notice that party hacks bash the Independents. ..."
"... Obviously neither of you understand the obstacles created by both parties to keep a third party from gaining power. It requires an enormous amount of money and manpower to get on the ballot in 50 states. Also, there is no primary for an Independent party either, which is why some states allow for crossovers and Independents to vote. The resulting chaos would be crazy. ..."
"... A political hack is a negative term ascribed to a person who is part of the political party apparatus, but whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction. ..."
"... an untalented professional ..."
"... not caring for anything good that may come out of organized politics ..."
"... [Hillary] can't start proposing "Drill, Baby, Drill" instead of solar power and not look like anything less than a oil industry bimbo. ..."
"... Why not? That's exactly what Obama did. He mocked McCain-Palin's all of the above ..."
"... all of the above ..."
"... Obama was liked and coming off of 43. Also, he was an obvious empty suit despite the hyperbole tossed around. ..."
"... The bulk of voters are likely tired and not willing to just embrace a random Senator who is never on the 630 news, still the number one media outlet, and annoyed by broken promises about Healthcare and the economy. The Republicans nominated a robber baron in 2012, and Obama and his supporters made all kinds of promises about how he would be different in a economy term. People with budget concerns aren't answering polls and have cut land lines. ..."
"... Hillary isn't holding mass rallies because she can't. ..."
"... If the Democratic Party is good for nothing, what is Bernie doing running as a dem for the nomination of the party's presidential candidate. ..."
"... 3. It turns out that neither Hillary nor her staff ever had any respect for Sanders, his supporters, or the causes he (and they) have championed. ..."
"... How do we know? Well, a campaign's press secretary is - by definition and responsibility - its mouthpiece. So when Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's mouthpiece, said publicly after the New York primary that Bernie Sanders and his campaign had been destructive to the Democratic Party and the nation , you know that's exactly what Clinton thinks, too. Had Clinton fired Palmieri or publicly admonished her, one might think differently. ..."
"... Instead, silence - which, in politics, is assent. ..."
"... "It has the potential to personalize it, it has the potential to be a dangerous moment. Not just for Wall Street not just for the people who are particularly targeted but for anybody who is a little bit out of line, " Blankfein said. "It's a liability to say I'm going to compromise I'm going to get one millimeter off the extreme position I have and if you do you have to back track and swear to people that you'll never compromise. It's just incredible. It's a moment in history." ..."
"... Blankfein avoided saying whether he supported former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, though both Clintons have long ties to Blankfein and to Goldman Sachs, which has been a heavy donor to Bill Clinton's charity work. ..."
Yves here. NC regulars are unlikely to be surprised at Gaius' conclusion, but it's useful to
have ifactsndependent confirmation and additional facts.
By Gaius Publius
, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor
to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius ,
Tumblr and
Facebook . Originally published
at
at Down With Tyranny
. GP article here.
Clinton to Sanders: "No, you come to me." Can you read that headline any other way?
Something to keep your eye on in the lead-up to post-East Coast voting, and something that could
well affect the voting after that. Will Clinton move toward Sanders' positions, as an appeal for
his supporters, or will she, as I've said elsewhere, insist the mountain (of his voters) come to
Mohammad?
Seems the latter.
First, Clinton operative Peter Daou, in the headline above, makes the position clear:
"If Bernie Wants Real Progress He'll Align His Message With Hers"
No link, but the google will find the piece for you if want to read it.
5. There will be no attempt whatsoever to bring Sanders supporters back into the Democratic
fold.
Sanders supporters knew Clinton was angry at them for voting for Bernie - they could tell by
her comment saying that she "feels sorry for" young voters too misinformed to vote for her; or
by Bill Clinton saying that Sanders voters are so unsophisticated that they just want to "shoot
every third banker on Wall Street"; or by David Plouffe (a Clinton ally) saying that every person
who donates money to Sanders is being taken in by an obvious "fraud"; or by the unnamed Clinton
staffer so certain she or he was speaking in a tone and manner consistent with the view of the
Clinton campaign that she or he told Politico that the Clinton campaign "kicked Bernie's ass"
in New York and that Sanders can "go fuck himself."
And so on.
But who knew that, with almost twenty primaries and caucuses left, and more than 1,400 delegates
left to be awarded, Clinton would start vetting potential Vice Presidential picks in full view
of an electorate she says she's still working hard to win over? And who knew that not only would
Sanders not be considered for a unity ticket, but - apparently - her top picks for VP, Cory Booker
and Julian Castro, are reliable Clintonites with no ties whatsoever to the Sanders campaign or
the movement he heads? And who knew Elizabeth Warren would almost certainly be frozen out of the
VP conversation due to her decision to stay neutral in the primary race rather than endorse Clinton?
Well, everyone.
Everyone who knows the Clintons, that is.
So, if you're either a Sanders supporter, sympathetic to the Sanders campaign, or a Hillary
voter desperately hoping she'll do something to bring into the Democratic fold the 40 percent
of Sanders voters who say they won't vote for Hillary in the fall - all but ensuring a Trump presidency
- here's some news for you: the signals are now being sent that Sanders and his people will, by
calculated design, get absolutely nothing.
Hillary lost in 2008 and received the second-most powerful position in the world [note
the assertion of a trade for SoS]. Sanders will be ignored and shunned.
What lies behind this "strategy" for the fall election - if we can call it that - is the same
hubris that permitted Secretary Clinton never to reveal her Wall Street transcripts, to condescend
to millennials at every turn, to refuse to apologize for bad judgment in the whole email-server
affair, to refuse to apologize for her 1994 crime bill vote, to try to get away with (during the
Michigan debate) the lie that Sanders had opposed the auto bailout, and so on.
In other words, America is already seeing the Hillary Clinton they'll get during the fall election
campaign - and also, should Clinton somehow manage to squeak by Donald Trump in November, the
sort of Nixonian White House we can expect in consequence.
And it isn't pretty.
Is Abramson right? He could well be. Everything through the second large paragraph is true. Will
his conclusion prove true as well?
I've heard from a reliable source that Karl Rove is getting behind Hillary. And that would
mean his considerable resources and expertise with vote-rigging. I guess she thinks she can tell
all those Bernie supporters to eff off.
I suspect that this is that Rove is pitching Hillary, since Cruz is going down and I doubt
he'd work for Manafort/Stone as a de factor subcontractor even if they'd have him. And I don't
see what he brings to the party. Rove is a has been.
The WSJ (the reporting side, which is pretty good, not the lunatic op ed section) had several
articles after the last Prez campaign that made clear that Rove had taken a lot of money, fee
wise and ad budget wise, and had failed to produce. The stories, which I am too lazy to track
down, were really damning. He is apparently at sea in the world of new media and fragmented audiences.
His old narrowcasting was very specifically targeted mailings (ZIP code based, there is a lot
of traditional marketing segmentation on that) but mail is now effective with a relatively small
group of voters.
'Mail is now effective with a relatively small group of voters.'
It reaches Hillary's scrum of African-American grandmothers. :-)
Works the same way as with my late grandma, who used to receive endless letters from Senator
Jesse Helms, and felt obliged to help the poor man save America.
Interesting timing. Just yesterday I received, via the old, analog mail, a Presidential Campaign
Steering Survey from Pelosi, et al.
Full disclosure; I am neither African – American, a grandmother, nor, to my knowledge, scrum.
I'm not a Democrat (I registered as one ahead of the primary to cast a vote for Sanders, justifying
my nose – holding because he's an Independent). In any case, I had a devilishly good time giving
honest answers to all the pertinent questions the survey failed to ask. After completing the survey,
I had to fold it like origami to place it in the envelope, which was too small for the questionnaire,
but appropriately sized for a donation (hilarious, but NO!). I sealed the return envelope with
a nice "Get Well" sticker, though.
The Clinton campaign has no interest in Sanders' policies, nor in moving left to win over his
supporters, which Clinton desperately needs, if nominated. Her campaign displays nothing but disdain
for the left and, honestly, the feeling is mutual. Neither side must move in substance, the differences
are irreconcilable. So be it, time to divorce. If Clinton gets the nomination, the best outcome
is that Libs mess up the Republican field and defecting Lefties upend Clinton. It's a guess as
to how that would shake out, but the substance of the candidates won't be the determining factor.
sanders identifies as a peacenik, yet supports drone killings, boots on the ground in Syria
and the f-35 program.
publius identifies as a reporter, yet fails to recognize bogus elections (coin tosses, results
released before totals were tallied, hundreds of thousands of falsified voter affiliations)
can we please have a real discussion instead of pretending that we're watching democracy in
action?
If there was anything positive to take away from eight years of Obama, it was the wealth of
evidence he provided that one should judge people by what they do, rather than what they say.
Clinton: owned by Wall St, and with Obama tore apart Libya and Syria with their superpower pretenses.
Bernie: at least he has taken actions I consider positive on domestic policy, but no one now thinks
he will be nominated. If I don't vote for Jill, I will for Trump.
1) examine the evidence which strongly suggests that the solution (restoring electoral representation)
will not be found in a voting booth. (clinton's rampant cheating as mentioned above/diebold/hanging
chads)
2) confirm that 80% of us agree on 80% of the issues. (we want our kids to have clean water,
healthy food, proper education, and genuine opportunity. the outrage over social issues like gay
marriage, abortion or immigration is largely manufactured and then amplified by the msm to get
people angry enough to head to their polling stations and vote against the other guy.)
3) apply fiorina's plan to all the major agencies rather than just the v.a. fire the top 400
administrators at the s.e.c./f.d.a./e.p.a./h.u.d./v.a./n.r.c./d.o.d./d.o.j./etc. (this is not
meant in any way to endorse fiorina, she's just hit upon the method required to remove the cancer.)
Is that what Fiorina did at Hewlett-Compackard? Considering that she destroyed half of Hewlett-Compackard's
basic value, why would any method of hers be considered good for anything anywhere else?
About F-35, I had more thought that Sanders was saying the F-35 is too entrenched to ever cancel,
therefore we should resign ourselves to it. A President Trump might feel brave enough to try getting
Congress to cancel the F-35 if he believes it should be cancelled. I don't know what he believes
about F-35.
You are absolutely right. Compared to Bernie, Donald Trump is an angel of peace. What does
it say about Democrats that they've gone so to the right that even their "leftist" "socialist"
candidate is far to the right on foreign policy than the Republican nominee?
"We really have no choice, we have to knock out ISIS," Trump said. "I would listen to the
generals, but I'm hearing numbers of 20,000-30,000."
Trump typically rails against American military involvement around the world, but he was
not alone in calling for ground troops in Iraq and Syria at the debate
He has explitly said that he wants friendly relations with China and Russia. He has also said
that he has no problem with letting Russia take out ISIS. As far as making sense goes, no other
candidate comes close.
Nothing says leftwing foreign policy like hunt down innocent women and children for being related
to terrorists. How on earth is Trump an angel of peace. The delusion is strong with this one.
Neocon is not left wing. Wash your mouth out. Obama has governed center right on everything
save some social issues. He's only thrown the occasional bone to the left to maintain a brand
distinction from the business wing of the Republican party. As the New York Times recounted last
week, Hillary is a full bore hawk and even outflanked Obama via bureaucratic infighting (as in
got a bunch of current and ex military leaders of the bloodhthirsty persuasion to box him in when
his preference was to be more moderate).
The bigger problem is no one in either party appears to believe in civilian control of the
military. That is the cost of having presidents who never served in the armed forces. If they
had, they'd know they were pretty screwed up and would not be intimidated by generals and admirals.
PLUS, there is no civilian "pressure" to end war, as there was during Vietnam, when most soldiers
were draftees. We will have endless discretionary war till all Americans are once again affected
by it directly by having sons and daughters DRAFTED to fight.
He does not support placing troops in Syria but he is not a peacenik and has not campaigned
as a peace candidate. Yes the fix is in and I have not seen articles posted no NK that suggest what the exit polls indicate.
I have not gone through each day of news though so please correct me if I'm wrong.
HAYES: One more question - the announcement today that the U.S. is going to send 250 Special
Forces operators on the ground in Syria. Do you agree with that? Do you think that's permissible,
given the fact that there has not been an authorization?
SANDERS: I think the - look. Here's the bottom line. ISIS has got to be destroyed, and the
way that ISIS must be destroyed is not through American troops fighting on the ground. ISIS
must be destroyed and King Abdullah of Jordan has made this clear, that the war is for the
soul of Islam and it must be won by the Muslim nations themselves.
I think what the President is talking about is having American troops training Muslim troops,
helping to supply the military equipment they need, and I do support that effort.
if the answer is 'no', then sanders should clearly state so. what i hear is standard beltway
waffling. ie: vote against the war this one time, but then vote to fund it five times in a row.
Syria has not attacked the u.s. sending u.s. troops into syria is indisputably illegal and
will likely to lead to ww3.
ps: isn't it time to admit that 'elite american troops' 'training' 'moderate' 'radicals' to
fight 'despotic dictators' bears no resemblance to reality? how would you rate our ten+ years
spent 'training' iraqi 'moderates'?
successful?
or did we just hand over vast stores of munitions to isis and provide them with
billion$ in oil revenue via turkey/erdogan?
sanders argues, as do most neocons, that we can somehow identify and train 'moderates' when
most of our people can't even speak the language. is this ignorance? insanity? the most glorious
ineptitude ever witnessed by mankind?
My understanding is that the American special forces in Syria are in Syrian Kurdistan training
and assisting Kurdish militias which are fighting ISIS. Am I wrong about that?
For the moment , fighting ISIS is not the same thing as fighting the Syrian Arab Republc. If
the Kurds win their fight with ISIS in their own little Kurdish region, then these Kurds always
"could" join the alphabet-jihadi fight against the Syrian Arab Republc. I hope the Kurds don't
do that. I hope they satisfy themselves with an autonomous Syrian Kurdistan federally associated
with the Syrian Arab Republic. This would allow the SAR and the R + 6 to focus forces against
the various alphabet jihadis.
The way to achieve peace in Syria is to achieve the comprehensive extermination of every trace
of any ability to mount any armed opposition against the legitimate government of Syria.
Jihadists are cancer cells. They clump together to form cancers. The only proper approach to
jihadis is total and overwhelming chemotherapy. Exterminate them all in detail, down to the very
last jihadi. And in practice, that means letting the R + 6 get on with the chemotherapy treatments,
and not obstructing or harrassing the R + 6 in any way.
No doubt we can all pull up anecdotal evidence to one side or the other. My experience has
been both in reallife and social media that there isn't a single Clinton supporter who is willing
to speak with anyone who supports Sanders without pointing out they're the equivalents of Quislings
who are allowing Trump to get the presidency, thus allowing the glorious, free, open, truthful
and peaceful US of Obama to slide into the demonic realms. As arguments go, it isn't exactly convincing,
given Clinton's positions and comments on a wide variety of issues, and as for tone, it isn't
especially conciliatory, much less inviting, when your speaking companion calls you a moron, traitor,
and fool.
Frankly, I'm hoping it all continues. I see this as the best chance yet for genuine progressives–you
know, the people who used to be the the center and left of the Democratic Party – to realize that
they're now regarded as vermin whose votes don't even count and whose opinions are totally despised.
Clinton's courting the Republicans who don't want Trump, and counting on the lockstep Dems to
fill out the rest. Best result? The real left finally leaves the Dem Party for good; Clinton loses;
and the party heads begin to question whether the radical shift towards powerful lobbies in Bill
Clinton's administration was really a good idea in the long term, after all. More likely? Third
parties gain, Trump wins, Clinton and the Dems blame Sanders and continue kidney-punching everything
from the unions and the left to their latest enemies, the millennials, as well as bad messaging.
Nothing is learned, and they sink like the Whigs in the 1850s.
Even if not Teachout, I hope someone much younger and scrappier than Sanders picks up the mantle.
Younger, because then they'll be a thorn in the New Dem side for many years to come, and scrappier,
because Sanders' polite, gentlemanly campaign style meant someone who was under active investigation
by the FBI likely will win the nomination.
However, in the background: seas are rising, global warming continues to alter water sources,
agriculture, fisheries, etc. Meanwhile, the EU is under severe economic stress, as are China and
Russia. And that's just for starters, without mentioning the fact that each day tax havens continue
to suck the life out of what could otherwise be functioning economies in socially equitable cultures.
However, ignoring the background problems that are biological and exponential, Clinton offers
incrementalist, legalistic, half-measures.
It's amazing to watch the DNC commit suicide, I'll say that much for this election season.
All those nice, fat paychecks at the beck and call of vindictive, incrementalist machinations.
Sad.
We're 5th Generation Republicans, who's Whig ancestors helped suggest and make the new third
party (Republican) a success (and still hold the record for the most brothers serving simultaneously
in congress). That said we left are old party in 1996 when it was taken over by so completely
by "propertarians" that put contract law and property rights so extremely far ahead of human rights
(reminding us of when some considered owning humans as property, perfectly fine with them, as
long as no one could "own" them).
They were able to start a new party in those relatively simpler times, but we have not done
well in dividing efforts through, I think something like 92 different parties throughout our history.
Few but the top 2 get much traction, then they use it to concentrate and corrupt it down to where
too few imply the consent of too many.
A suggestion: A Universal Open Primary Ballot
List every qualified candidate that has enough signatures to meet the threshold of percentage
of previous voters in the previous off year or 4 year election, list the party they want to run
under and how many signatures the gathered by an early enough deadline, on a voter information
pamphlet distributed before the actual voting (as we do in California). Leave no one out, list
all but let the parties decide if they want to accept any or all of those votes from the UOPB
in addition to their party only ballots (and some who accept non-party preference voters).
The parties can keep their own ballots (as I'm sure Republicans and Democrats would, to restrict
who can be heard in their selection process. I'd add the UOPB as an alternate choice for each
individual voter like those of us who would be more likely to choose different people from other
parties for some offices. We think you could select a mix of the best candidates to keep the separation
of powers more realistic, and the parties could better see where the wants of the people are,
and adjust their candidate lists and platforms accordingly.
We'd expect to see those that best reflect the will of the people to grow stronger, and the
others to form new, and better alliances, perhaps new, more effective parties, too.
I myself think a better long-term outcome would be for the New Deal Reactionaries to reconquer
the Democratic Party from within over the next few decades . . . if we can . . . and purge, burn
and exterminate every trace of Clintonite Obamacrat filth from the leadership. And let their Clintonite
Obamacrat garbage and trash followers go where-ever the Leadership Filth decide to go.
Or maybe we could move to a 3 Party system. Democratic Fascist on the Right, Democratic Socialist
on the Left, and Depublicrat in the Vital Center, where the Clintonites and the Obamacrats and
Pelosi and Alan From and Reid and all those wonderful people can be one big happy family there
in the Vital Center.
The whole game is in how you define victory.* Re,
OFA
:
More centrally, with hindsight, we can see that there was one sea change in the organizational
capacity of the Democratic electorate in 2008: It could be mobilized, and came to understand
it could be mobilized. That is the lesson of 2008, and it would have enabled a continuing war
of maneuver had not the Democratic establishment sought instantly to unlearn it (and Obama,
personally, to betray it). It may be that we are to learn the same lesson, again, with the
Sanders campaign, but this time with victory as a goal, and defined. If so, the sense of wonder
in "America" may well prove to be prophetic.
I'd define a 50-state Sanders-platform policy-focused permanent organization as victory. Maybe
people smarter than I am have considered and dismissed this possibility. But. That's where "the
list" could live, and it could be a dues-paying organization. Now, maybe Sanders, at 74, wants
to go back to the institutional fug of the Senate. On the other hand, maybe Sanders, at 74, gives
zero f*cks and would like to create an institution that might really outlive him. (Notice that
the platform focus would, or at least ought, to make the ideological sectarian battles the left
is so prone to go away. It would be like the Nicene Creed.) And over time and with persistence,
the non -comprador to the 80% would begin to dissolve the identity politics pushed by
the 20%. Concrete material benefits are the universal solvent.
Like I said, I hope smarter people than me have thoughts like this in their minds.
* Here I'm reminded of a wonderful book called Military Misfortunes , and Sadat's
subtle strategic objectives in the Yom Kippur war; among other things victory consisted in "inflicting
heavy losses" on the Israelis in a war that lasted over a week. (There's probably a parallel to
the hubris of the Isreali elites in the Clinton campaign, too.)
I tend to consider the Sanders' campaign as the next evolutionary step in the "neo progressive"
political trend that started with Occupy Wall Street: one that recognized the decoupling of civil
rights from class issues and chose to focus on the latter without fear of being labeled socialist
( the former has been successfully captured by the duopolic "moderates"). Unlike its predecessor,
the Sander's movement has a funding mechanism, broader appeal, and an organizational strategy
that I think will enable long-term sustainability. I personally am considering how to distribute
my next round of donation dollars. Give all 30 to Bernie or do a 3-way split between him, Teachout,
and Grayson. I give Grayson points for asking his email subscribers whether to commit his delegate
vote to Sanders or Clinton and then chose Sanders in spite of the fact that he is running for
Senate in Clinton-friendly Florida.
We expect to follow his lead if he is denied the nomination. So far all money we can donate
is going to Bernie's campaign. Future donations will be redirected to the strongest like minded
down ticket Democrats (and/or others), we imagine as Bernie would.
Already done. It's a 535 strategy. Send money. Truly, it's new535, newcongress or something.
I didn't save the link. Strategy to hand pick 400 or so never rans/community activists and support
them at one time. It's the official start of the Sanders supporters tapping into the energy and
funds.
It's another plug by ActBlue that has generated over 1 billion in donations. And you want me
to believe you need money for travel? You talk a good game but I don't see any clothing on you.
I skipped the donation page. Couldn't give money to the group without more information and history.
But I don't mind being on their list to see what they come up with.
Yes, that's the one I saw, that's Sanders people. No platform and looks like a D recruiting
outfit to me. I'd prefer an independent party and an actual platform (12 point platform/reforms
works for me). I am aware of people using their credit cards to fund Sanders, there is no way
the money train can continue. Might have good intentions but when the first push is for money,
I smell grift.
There is still the old fashioned method of sending a check directly to the campaign. That way
ActBlue does't collect approximately two percent processing fee and, even better, will not contact
you asking for a donation to the party.
50 state organization would be a good start. I suggest you think more broadly outside the electoral
box. An issue based electoral organization could be an important component of a movement based
in the street/community and job site struggles. All parts would inform, influence, and shape each
other. The politics/issues would flow upward from the struggles manifested elsewhere. One obvious
problem: elite domination at all levels of of the movement. The structure would have to ensure
democratic involvement very broadly defined.
In order to maintain perspective and to build true grassroots power we will need to have "one
foot in and one foot out" of the electoral political realm. The "out" is organizing for power
on the job, in the marketplace, in our neighborhoods and municipalities. The dynamic between the
inside and out can build the framework for change of both: pushing out political corruption, and
dispelling the idea that electoral politics trumps (no pun meant) all.
A 10 state strategy…a 3rd party only has to wedge in about 15% to be able to play the democrats
against the republicans to have winning legislation that can lead to prosperous futures…gridlock
can be played…if people are playing to win…50 states from day one will lead to too many chickens
and not enough roosters….
The best result (assuming Sanders does not get the nomination) is for Sanders voters to go
anywhere but Clinton, and for Clinton to lose as a result. Those too worried about who might win
in this case are trying to accomplish too many goals. The Clinton/DLC cadre has ruined the Democratic
Party (or at least turned the US into a one-party state), leaving anything to their left without
national political representation. THEY MUST BE REMOVED before any other progress can occur.
Now, will this single loss accomplish this? Perhaps not, and in this case, this turning of
the Left's back on the party will have to be repeated until it does. Regardless of what is happening
on the other side of the aisle while this is happening. Because the fact is, in a two-party system
such as the US is, not having a party is political death. The Left has to get the Democratic Party
back, and the only way to do that is to make that party useless to those who now control it.
+ 1. As disgusting as it may feel, look at what the tea baggers have done. Over time, they
organized and put their people on local councils and school boards and elections boards by running
against the establishment GOPers to kick them out. Then they took that strategy to state government
by threatening and successfully removing any GOPer who didn't accept their platform. And then
to congressional and Senate races, where they've scared the daylights out of every establishment
GOPer. If we can accept that the working through the Democratic Party is the only reasonable solution
- and that creating a new third party is unreasonable - then this (with a 50-state platform) is
what must be done. It can be done because the Dem establishment has ignored state and local bodies
for a couple decades now. You'd need a stable of progressives lined up to primary every Dem establishment
candidate, from senator down to dog catcher.
The best result (assuming Sanders does not get the nomination) is for Sanders voters to
go anywhere but Clinton, and for Clinton to lose as a result. Those too worried about who might
win in this case are trying to accomplish too many goals.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. In a very different context, following the 2010 mid-term
elections, Ian Welsh
said
"The left must be seen to repudiate Obama, and they must be seen to take him down." Here Sanders
supporters must be seen to repudiate Clinton and must be seen to take her down. That the GOP fears
its base while the Democratic party despises its base is, I think, in no small part because the
GOP base will walk away from the party (or is perceived as being willing to do that) while the
Democratic base will not.
That does not -and I say emphatically, not -mean people who do that "want"
Trump, even if actions like those play a part in having Trump elected. (I'll leave aside the idea
that Trump might not be what he
appears
or is
being made out
to be.) It means that they are not voting with respect to that.
Having a major party that fields candidates whom those on the left might actually want to vote
for -not to mention who support policies that vast majorities of people in the US want
-is, over the long run, better than constantly playing defense in every election and
keeping out the putatively "greater [though perhaps less effective] evil" (if that scenario is
not entirelly kayfabe). We've seen, rather dramatically, how that strategy has played
out over more than 30 years.
There are a number of black swans circling, and a long time until July. The Clinton
campaign has inspired some fierce loyalty among the deluded and the intimidated, but that sort
of cultish devotion can turn quickly. The convention could sure be interesting, as it is
virtually certain to be contested . If I were Comey, my window for releasing any
indictment would land after Hillary had lost the primary, or failing that, perhaps after the
elections were complete. Waiting until after the nomination, if Clinton were the nominee would
be more difficult, and if she beats Drumpf or Ryan or whoever, then he has to wait 4-8 years.
Named head of the Clinton Foundation after it's put into a blind trust following her
election. Nah, j/k. I don't think she'd go that far . . . . . . . . .
'Named head of the Clinton Foundation after it's put into a blind trust following
her election.'
This is big … really big. For sure, the Clintons would have to put their personal assets
in a blind trust if they weasel their way back into the White House.
But the giant money-laundering operation called the Clinton Foundation is not a personal asset.
Bill could carry on globetrotting, raising money for its purported "charitable" activities.
We can depend on the MSM not to pose hard questions like this. But feed it to Trump, and he'll
say anything.
Comey is a dead duck if Clinton is elected and might get a quiet retirement offshore. On the
other hand he has nothing to lose by doing his job and the merest move to further the investigation
by formally questioning her will ultimately terminate Clinton's run.
The immense problem facing the Dem party and congress followers is that the FBI has form in
having the goods on presidents. They know how to wield the power.
From tidbits gathered online I was under the impression that interviews with Hillary were on
the table for the past couple of months. You're right. News of anything like that seems to have
disappeared.
On the plus side, it may also indicate that there are ongoing interviews of the lower level
folks while they work their way up the food chain. Whether it's yay or nay on a Hillary prosecution,
I suspect the FBI will want to have everything nailed down, or at least pretend to be thorough
for public consumption purposes.
The immense problem facing the Dem party and congress followers is that the FBI has form
in having the goods on presidents. They know how to wield the power.
Funny thing, so do Bill and Hillary. And after the careers they have had and the money they
have amassed they have a lot of it. Half of Washington owes them a favour.
The idea that the question of whether Clinton will be indicted will be decided by apolitical
public servants on the merits of the case if supremely naive. Given Hillary Clinton's stature
that decision is inherently political, and would be even if corruption wasn't endemic in contemporary
Washington.
The real question for Clinton's would be prosecutors is whether they really want to throw down
and go ten rounds in a no holds barred, winner takes all cage match against the Clinton Machine.
In Washington when people confront such questions they don't ask "what abstract principles of
pure justice pertain to the case and how can they applied to realize the optimal public good?"
Rather they ask "what are the potential risks and benefits of declaring war on the Clinton Machine,
versus quietly burying the case and collecting a no doubt substantial reward after Hillary wins
the presidency?"
I'm still wondering if Obama will throw her under the bus. After all, all it would take for
her server to be legal is for Obama to say "I authorized it". That hasn't happened.
The server was not secured and they transferred secure information to non-secure servers. Transfers
of secure data to non-secure computers is a crime. Nothing Obama says can change that fact. The
server COULD HAVE BEEN authorized to handled non-secure data but no one would have ever allowed
her to run a off site server for secure data.
It's hard to imagine that a President Hillary won't be permanently in the crosshairs of the
wacko-fringe-that-is-more-than-a-fringe of the congressional Republicans. To the extent one may
find that comforting, you can count on the Tea Partiers (or whatever they'll be called) to keep
up a steady drumbeat demanding action on the tapes, with much of the MSM dancing to their tunes.
Ditto. That is a great article, plus there's a follow-up "Part 2" article
here responding to the main issues people raised following the first article.
If you put yourself in the shoes of a Clinton strategist, and if you assume a straight Clinton-Trump
fight, there are two obvious strategies to follow:
A populist 'big tent' campaign, focusing on economics, to try to undermine Trumps appeal
to the working classes and bring in the majority of Sanders supporters, and hope that enough 'moderate'
Republican supporters stay home to ensure a comfortable victory.
a 'centrist moderate' (i.e. right wing) campaign, which would go all out to attract votes
from moderate Republicans in northern and western States, along with a scare campaign to ensure
that any Dems even slightly to the left of mainstream will feel they have no choice but to hold
their nose and vote for Hilary.
In many ways, no. 2 is the more 'honest' campaign as we all know Clinton's real views are well
to the right of most Dem supporters. It also makes a certain amount of sense for the number crunchers.
And, as Gaius argues, it will viscerally feel more attractive to the Clintons and their hangers
on.
I think a more important question though is which campaign Trumps strategists would prefer
to be facing. I think we've already seen the answer in the manner Trump has gone all out to attack
Clinton and her 'women should vote for me' line. I think Trump would much prefer Clinton to take
option 2. This allows him to do what he loves – attack his opponents apparent strength. He will
go all out to portray her as a puppet of the elites, a flip flopping old style womens libber,
and so on. He will bring up Bills indiscretions every single time she tries to appeal to Republican
women, and repeatedly attack her supposed foreign policy expertise (and boy will he have a lot
of ammunition). He will particularly focus on her health. It will be nasty, but he will do enormous
damage.
I've thought for a long time that Clinton and the Democrat Establishment as a whole affirmatively
want moderate Republican votes and don't care whether they get Sanders votes or not. Hence, I
choose Door #2.
As for Trump, it depends on how well Clinton plays the victim card, and whether moderate Republican
women respond to it. It seems to me that Trump has already begun that assault with "enabler."
I do wonder if it is wise for Clinton to even attempt to play any sort of 'victim card'. Yes,
there is a vote out there, especially among women, who feel empathy for her various trials in
the past, but Trump will keep banging on the 'you are only where you are because of your husband'
line, along with focusing on her privileged upbringing – I suspect she will lose as many votes
as she wins if she even attempts it. I can only bring up anecdote, but I've a few female 'moderate
Republicans' in my extended family, and they really, really, hate Hilary in a way they don't hate
other Dems. They see her as a fraud.
I think it's key for Trump to focus on 1) corruption and 2) incompetence more than any gender
identity stuff (which we all know is what Dems do best)
These are two things that turn someone from "inevitable" into "toxic". If Trump spends more
time hammering her on the Foundation for things like pay-to-play weapons deals and on her destructive
term as Sec. of State, then I think he drives her negatives sky high, the Sanders' supporters
won't be able to hold their noses and the moderate Republicans will sit this one out.
It's perfect for Trump because it's exactly how he demolished Jebbie. He already knows what
to do.
Yes, it'll be similar to Jebbie, but I think a key to Trumps thinking is that he loves to go
for his opponents supposed 'strengths'. He won't back down over being seen as a sexist, he will
instead go full on and attack her standing by Bill. He knows that people aren't looking for a
nice guy as president, they are looking for a winner. He will do everything he can to make her
look weak.
Bernie is squeaky clean on trade. Hillary is filthy dirty on trade. Longstanding bipartisan
trade policy disasters is the primary driver behind Trump's popularity as well as Bernie's.
If The Donald is dead serious about attacking the GOP establishment "free trade" orthodoxy (also
the New Dem orthodoxy) he will pull no punches going after Hillary's touting of the "Gold Standard"
TPP while the text was top secret. Trump however does not have the discipline to stay clear of
identity politics (neither does Hillary) and stick to real economics.
Many polls are primarily propaganda.
Humans are herd animals; they like to 'go with a winner' and if a poll can show someone in 'the
lead' that translates to (often weak) support.
I was at two caucuses in my state this year (precinct, legislative). I talked with my fellow
citizens and a few of us who still have land lines got called on those, but as far as I'm aware,
one is not supposed to be 'solicited' on a cell phone. That has **completely screwed** many poll
results, as many Millenials have only a cell phone, and no land line.
This year, the better indicators are probably size of turnouts for speeches, energy-enthusiasm,
and small donor contributions.
Polls are sometimes done primarily to 'steer the herd'.
Don't be fooled.
re: Option 1. Trying to convince voters that Trump is the elitist whereas she is an everyday,
hardworking, blue collar girl, just like them won't work. People know about the Clinton Foundation
net worth and how it was "earned". (Giving speeches is hard work. /s)
I am not sure Clinton will get women. I work with women and work with everyday people, people
are very excited about Trump, whereas they hate the Clintons. I am also shocked by the number
of people that watch Fox news and they aren't elderly. The Kochs may prefer Clinton but the average
tea-partery they cultivated with Americans for Prosperity never will.
I desperately want Sanders to win, but I think there's a silver lining to Clinton winning:
the global economy will probably crash again within a year or three (obviously hard to pin down
exactly, but that seems to be the opinion of economists like Weisbrot/Baker) and if Sanders happens
to eek out a victory, it goes without saying that the blame will fall upon him, provided that
it doesn't happen before he is elected and takes office.
The 2008 crash brought us Occupy and that would probably have become even stronger as a movement
(at the time) had it already had a structured organization behind it with at least a semi-solid
platform of alternatives that people were familiar with so as to know what to ask for when the
reporters put a camera and mic in their face condescendingly asking what the alternatives are.
Well, Occupy and other leftist movements have made serious headway since then in terms of globally
organized movements with actual platforms, and if Sanders manages to structure his following after
a potential loss, then not only will they be able to pressure Clinton to address these matters
(and it's important that they do this publicly and force her to publicly say something Clintonian
in response i.e. something about how that won't work in reality), but when the economy does shatter
(there also seems to be a consensus that the impending economic collapse will be worse than the
last one), then these movements will be ready to offer a serious and viable alternative. Ready
to pounce, if you will.
It is already happening. There was a meeting today of approx forty people at our county Bernie
campaign headquarters to look at strategies and starting to organize for taking this new found
base past the election and Bernie. Most will stay within Democratic party and start to run for
party committee positions and some local offices. As one election law attorney said today " I
am seventy one and Bernie is seventy four so we aren't going to be carrying this". It will be
about bringing younger people in and look/plan ahead ten years. Strategic thinking instead of
knee jerk tactical thought.
Not a word was said about not carrying a Sanders candidacy into the convention. It's not over.
Taking over the committee positions will be easy. I won my position with out even running.
People who knew me at the polls wrote me in. I won with 15 or 20 votes. I did not last long. I
also did not live in the state at the time so I was kicked out after they found out that I was
still in the process of moving back to the area.
If Sanders people want to take over a state party they can accomplish it in less that 4 years.
Most democratic parties are very old and are essentially a network for lawyers. If the rank and
file come in they can sweep the old guard out quickly. This is true in the Pa especially and was
true of NJ, Delaware and NY but that was a about 12 years ago so my info is of course dated.
I regret not fighting for the seat now. I could have been of some use to the Sanders campaign
in Pa. He was blown out in my area.
1. If the economy crashes when HRC is on watch, and the response is, as it will be, underwhelming,
the main winners will be Repubs. It is then possible 2020 could be a total R blowout at all levels
– pres, congress, states – which would put them in good stead for the next decade, New Occupy
TM or not.
2. I think HRC thinks she has already given the Sanders' people as much as they are going to
get, with her policy moves in his direction during the primary. As every serious person knows,
when you win the primary, you then "pivot" to the general, which for a Dem means saying "just
kidding" about all that populist stuff you said during the primaries. If Sanders thinks he is
going to continue to pull HRC toward his policy positions, that is just more evidence to support
the notion that he doesn't understand how the game is played (which is basically what Barney Frank
says every time he is on MSNBC).
3. I'm with Lambert in that this election is about real policy differences, not personalities.
But that doesn't mean that HRC won't be the beneficiary of a huge number of LOTE votes. Most people
believe there really are only 2 parties.
I don't think Bernie is seriously trying to pull Hillary towards his positions. He is trying
to encourage voters to base their position on issues rather than personalities, and convince them
that they have power if they do. One of the consequences of that is being willing to vote for
another candidate if they (credibly) adopt your positions, which is why he has to make the offer.
But I'm sure he is under no illusions as to how it will be received.
Homeland Security and Fusion Centers all across the country crushed Occupy. It never mattered
how organized, or structured, they were, or not. And it won't matter the next time our mayors,
militarized police forces, H.S. and the FBI conspire to crush a movement, either.
Just as a general point to Left in Wisconson and Carla: cynicism is a very dangerous condition.
It means that you truly do believe that the power is in their hands and not yours, and that no
matter what you try to do, they will inevitably just crush your attempts. That may be true on
an individual basis, but not when 7+ million supporters (or however many Bernie has) form a structured
movement to counteract those forces.
One of the reasons that the 1% and the right in general are better at getting things done is
that they simply know that organization is the key to doing so (hence ALEC and all of the chambers
of commerce, etc). Yes, they (the states on behalf of business interests) may try to stop the
left, but they simply can't just crush organized movements using brute force anymore (at least
not in the US) because of smartphone cameras, among other things.
Get informed, get involved, get organized. They sure are.
Please stop the name calling. Many of us here won't vote for Hillary Clinton and not because
we are partisan hacks. You said in your longer post above
because Bernie and her are already in agreement on most policy issues.
Not so: (BS / HC) 1. minimum wage: $15/ $12 2. Abortion: Yes/ Certain exceptions
3. TPP : No / yes x 45 then no 4. SS: Increase (payroll tax )/ "protect it" (whatever that means)
5. Reinstate Glass/Steagell ; yes / no 6. Break up banks: yes / no 7. Free college: yes/ no
8. Fracking; no/ yes 9. Single payer health care: yes / wants private insurance 10. Death penalty; Opposes/ supports
Yeah, I think you are right. There is real content to the issue of which faction within the
Dems wins. The HRC faction sees no corruption of institutions. I do. If you won't do something
radical about Wall Street you will be surprised about how little change you will achieve. And
regardless of what pdf you have on global warming, taking big bucks from oil companies tells me
that that is just her negotiating position. If the carbon lobby pays get enough she will accommodate
them.
I think single payer is a big poker tell for me. Policy-wise, it's obviously the best option.
If you don't think that, it's cos you have other factors affecting you view. Like insurance company
profits.
But most of all, I think any politician who was involved in government decisions over the 2008
financial crisis, the ME wars, the opiate crisis, and the collapse of the middle class is disqualified.
If you vote for business as usual, you are voting for the end of the Republic.
This is why Sanders wants to influence the party's official platform, because I think the way
it's supposed to work is that the nominee runs on that platform. Sadly, it appears Debbie has
engineered things so that I think the platform, in the end, is going to straight-up rubber-stamp
Clinton's positions. I mean, what's the point of a coronation if the Queen can't dictate the terms,
right?
I guess what really ticks me off is that Clinton's never going to do what's best for the country,
she's always going to do what's best for her; that kind of hubris does not deserve our votes.
"The Democratic Party has policies that have shut down 200 coal fired power plants" Really?
The fact that those plants were old and falling apart in combination with the low cost of generation
by natural gas had nothing to do with that, I suppose? This is just like listening to Democrats insist that people vote for them to protect LGBT rights,
when the fact is that those rights have been advanced and protected due to direct action and court
decisions. Statements such as yours might be given some weight on other sites, but I think you are wasting
your time here.
Aside from the vast differences between Hillary's platform and Bernie's, the difference between
bombing Iran and half a million solar panels is that the first has the backing of Wall Street
and the MIC, while the latter has the support of… no large industry with massive amounts of power.
Hillary says a lot of things (and even posts pdfs to her website!). But what she actually fights
for and achieves is always and only what the most powerful interests in our country and world
want. And on top of that she's incredibly corrupt (weapons deals for Clinton Foundation donations,
and skirting campaign finance laws using 32 state parties to create a massive slush fund being
only the two latest egregiously corrupt maneuvers), and quite incompetent (Iraq, Libya, Syria,
Ukraine, her ridiculously insecure email server). If all that's not apparent to you by now you're
willfully deceiving yourself.
When Hillary was up for re-election as Senator in NY, and the Patriot Act was up for renewal,
I wrote her specifically about her vote regarding the Patriot Act. She wrote back telling me she
was not happy with it and would not vote for it as it was written at that time.
That was my biggest concern then (not including jobs and Upstate NY – equivalent to oil and
water then and now), so I voted for her. Then she voted for the Patriot Act as it was written
at that time.
A small, maybe insignificant, example but what good reason would I have to ever believe what
she says again regarding anything? My experience shows me that she says what people want to hear
and then continues her support of the neo-liberal economists and neo-conservative war mongers.
As a side note, Paul, regarding your statement above, how do the 43% registered Independents
in this country fit into your definition of partisan hack?
Obviously neither of you understand the obstacles created by both parties to keep a third party
from gaining power. It requires an enormous amount of money and manpower to get on the ballot
in 50 states. Also, there is no primary for an Independent party either, which is why some states
allow for crossovers and Independents to vote. The resulting chaos would be crazy.
Actually I believe we are agreeing with you. Sanders is running as a Dem precisely for the
reasons you state. As an independent he would have had to fight for ballot access and publicity.
I'm well aware of how much time and effort both major parties will expend to keep 3rd parties
off the ballot.
In Maine when Tom Allen ran for Senate a few years ago the Dems fought harder to keep a lefty
3rd party candidate (who would have been lucky to crack 5% in the general) off the ballot than
they did fighting against Allen's republican opponent. Allen had his ass handed to him anyway.
we aren't talking about a personal stance. we are talking about collective action to either
change or bring down the corrupt democratic party, as well as the corrupt republican party. collective
action doesn't have to mean supporting war, massive inequality, trade treaties which make mitigating
climate change vastly more difficult, torture, and drone assassinations.
we can collectively act to make our lives better, and those of our children.
Interesting reply. Of course, I have some quibbles :) First, though, thanks for leaving me
out of your definition of hack.
Second, definitions are always important in a discussion (particularly political discussions)
and I've always accepted this definition of political hack:
A political hack is a negative term ascribed to a person who is part of the political party
apparatus, but whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction. (or
another common slang definition – an untalented professional )
Based on this definition, I don't see how any registered Independent could be any sort of hack,
let alone a political hack.
I am registered Independent, and not because of smug condescension. I registered to vote as
an Independent when I was 18, 47 years ago. I was naive, to say the least. When it came to National
Politics, although I did understand to a small degree the birth of our two-party system, rather
than possibly registering with a Party that I knew little about, not to mention I had one parent
registered as a Dem and one registered as a Repub, I chose to go Independent until I learned more,
quite the opposite of smug condescension. I suspect I'm not alone.
As for insights into either Party, why would a registered Independent have less insight into
either the Dem or Repub Party than any of his neighbors registered in one or the other? Anyone
involved in National US Politics, if he or she is paying attention, has insight into both parties
to some degree. And deep insight is relatively rare among the majority of either Party. I think
we all agree a lot of it is just rooting for the Team, and an awful lot of that rooting is based
on what the Parties say they represent and not necessarily on what they actually represent, and
do. The National Democratic Party is a prime example of that when it comes to Unions and the working
class, as is the National Republican Party when it comes to supporting Small Businesses.
A clear example of this is both Parties' strong support for NAFTA and other Trade Agreements
designed to, among other things, flatten wages as much as possible across the Trade Partners'
domains, hurting both wage workers and small businesses at the expense of large Corps that have
the wherewithal to take advantage of these agreements.
As for not caring for anything good that may come out of organized politics , I don't
believe that is true of most Independents, at least not the ones I know. The ones I know care
a great deal and support many specific individual politicians in both parties, depending, of course,
on the issues they feel are most important to them and their community.
But understanding that a lot of bad things come out of organized Political Parties is also
possible, particularly possible by the vast majority of those registered in either the Dem and
Repub Parties that have little to no influence on those National Parties, mainly due to the fact
that they don't have the monetary power to influence them. We have all seen many studies that
have shown this to be true and we all can cite lots of examples like the one above, so I won't
bore anyone with more of that.
I don't see why my, or many others, remaining Independent is an example of smug condescension.
Donating time and/or money and/or votes to Democrats or Republicans I believe in has happened.
I just have a hard time supporting the overall platforms of either, not based on what they say
the platforms are, but based on their past votes (and by votes I mean actions) towards general
policies I do not agree with. And no matter which Party I would potentially register with, my
feelings would probably remain the same… unless I decided to become a political hack, of course.
That read like someone who did not live through the last Clinton Administration, or Obama's
for that matter. They really don't care about the "sanctimonious purist" vote once it is in the
bag. It is all propaganda, all the time with them.
They will ultimately do what they want to do and find someone to blame when it turns out to
be as unpopular as predicted. Whether it is a vast right wing conspiracy or the "professional
left" there is never any lack of people to blame, and they are never responsible for the results
of their own actions.
[Hillary] can't start proposing "Drill, Baby, Drill" instead of solar power and not look
like anything less than a oil industry bimbo.
Why not? That's exactly what Obama did. He mocked McCain-Palin's all of the above
energy policy and then explicitly adopted it when elected, with barely a wimper
of complaint from anyone. And all of the above really meant drill-baby-drill, with fracking
replacing coal. Why? Because that is what the confluence of Wall Street and Big Oil money wanted.
I have no doubt Clinton will do just the same. In fact, one might posit that Obama was just warming
the seat for the Clintons and conditioning the Democratic Party into believing it is better off
without the Left. Which, as Lambert has repeatedly and presciently predicted, and GP's current
article illustrates, appears to be precisely how Clinton intends to run. And, with Trump as her
opponent, this strategy probably makes political sense for Clinton. But make no mistake: there
is no longer a place for Progressives in the Democratic Party. Do what you will in response to
that fact but a fact it is. Obama demonstrated it. And the Clintons intend to prove it.
Obama was liked and coming off of 43. Also, he was an obvious empty suit despite the hyperbole
tossed around. Admitting this is difficult. Clinton's real problem is the primary universe is
a fraction of the necessary Democratic total to win in November. Hillary 2008 for all her campaign
faults would be clobbering Hillary 2016. If Sanders and Clinton weren't that apart, the rally
around the flag and token candidacy of Hillary would have ended the election ages ago.
The bulk of voters are likely tired and not willing to just embrace a random Senator who is
never on the 630 news, still the number one media outlet, and annoyed by broken promises about
Healthcare and the economy. The Republicans nominated a robber baron in 2012, and Obama and his
supporters made all kinds of promises about how he would be different in a economy term. People
with budget concerns aren't answering polls and have cut land lines.
Hillary isn't holding mass rallies because she can't. She's expected to be the next President.
People will turn out to see the President or next President. The Democrats have been running on
fear for some time. They might conclude Sanders supporters are the problem, but the real problem
is why isn't Hillary doing better or producing crowds to rival Sanders or even Trump.
If she wins it will be stumbling barely across the finish line. Once she gets there she might
not like what she finds either. The GOP Congress is going to perform a 4 year rectal exam on all
things Clinton. Issues like the Foundation, the email server, the money trail aren't going away.
Heck, the electorate may even think the carnival barker that the GOP is offering up is a more
honest broker despite the differences between what he says and what he's done.
But don't you think the classic HRC bait and switch needs to be punished or they will keep
doing it? Are you sure there is more harm in voting Trump than in voting business as usual? Cos
I'm not sure at all!
If the Democratic Party is good for nothing, what is Bernie doing running as a dem for
the nomination of the party's presidential candidate.
What a straw man argument to Carla's point about the Democratic party! Bernie ran as a Democrat
because there was NO CHOICE. A run as a Green Party candidate or other such would have been a
non run. And Sanders has been perfectly clear the party IS dying; it changes top to bottom, inside
and out or it is indeed good for nothing. What is there about "revolution" you don't get?
And what's this business of using Yves as an implicit club for your POV and your assumed right
to be a bully?
I take offense at you falsely claiming I support your point of view.
Hillary will never, never, never adopt Sanders' positions save at most as a bait and switch,
and even then she'd be loath to because it would offend her funders. I don't know what you are
smoking. She is a high end grifter. The fact that she's taken huge amounts of money from foreign
donors via the Clinton Foundation while Secretary State on its face should be criminal.
She is loyal to her big money backers. She identifies with them. She doesn't care at all about
the peasants. Any gestures she makes are that only. The fact that women are suckers enough to
think she's on their side is remarkable. The only women she is serious about helping are her fellow
elite travelers who want to break through the glass ceiling. For ordinary women, her position
is that abortions should be "cheap, safe and rare." Even now with the right trying to restrict
abortions, they are not rare, and her saying they should be rare is really damning. Similarly,
she didn't support gay marriage until 2013, when she really couldn't not support it. And this
is on social identity issues, where it's safer for her to pander to her base than on economic
issues.
Yves Why do you even bother posting the writing about Clinton bringing Bernie's voters in the democratic
fold? Did you want to have a discussion about this or not? Did you think anyone who happened across
the article would not try to look at it as a legit question? If you are predisposed to think her
and her campaign as never giving the time of day to Bernie and the "peasants" he represents, what
was I supposed to talk about? If you take offense at the mildest of analysis, that the policies
of Bernie, but not Bernie himself or his supporters from the Progressive caucus or Warren, may
be included in the platform and acted upon in a first term and if not, she will face a real primary
challenge just what am I suppose to think?
That is a reasonable presentation of the probable candidate for the dems and probable elected
president and not some screaming political pep rally for Hillary and denouncing of Bernie. You
are solely cited for your editorial choice in presenting Gaius's discussion, which I only assume
you see some merit in having. I don't assume to hide behind your skirts as cover. I don't think
I can be any clearer.
My biggest domestic and global issue is support for solar power transitioning away from fossil
fuels. She and Bernie are 100% on board with that. It is simply a fact that is one of their policy
common ground issues. The democrats don't care at all about oil or coal or gas being promoted
any further. What ever small attention they pay to it is summed up by the fact that virtually
all of the money from the oil energy industry goes to republicans, except for a few hundred thousands
dollars recently to Hillary, over 97% of all dollars goes to the republicans. They hate solar.
It is these areas of common ground I base my discussion on, since the topic was published by
you to begin with. I'm not sorry I answered the question, I'm just sorry that it seems so hard
to listen to a few facts that may lead to hopeful outcomes, simply because I have to actually
talk about Hillary and her policies when the question is posed about her and Bernie coming together
in some unified front at the dem political convention.
The first chart on this site shows the top 20 energy firms contributions of almost $30mil with
less than $400k going to Hillary, the sole dem on the receipt list for 2015-2016. She gets less
than 2% of the political donations. There is very little compelling evidence to show that she
or the dems in general will do a whole lot for oil or gas. Coal seems to be near death. Obama
has been coming out against off shore drilling, federal land drilling for oil or gas and new coal
mining leases. On the way out the door, he can throw road blocks on the fossil fuel industry and
promote the solar and wind industry. Bernie and Hillary are going to continue in that manner and
the money donated solely to the republicans will ensure it. That is a reasonable conclusion to
make. I hope I'm right for the sake of mitigating the emerging climate disaster starting to brew
right now.
We are not all binary thinkers. NC's biggest appeal to me is that the commentariate are definitely
not binary thinkers. The "my party, right or wrong" line seems binary to me.
You've now broken two house rules: an as homimem attack on a fellow commentor (cwaltz) and
not reading a post yet commenting on it.
Clinton is NOT trying to bring Sanders voters in in any serious way. She thinks she deserves
their votes as a matter of right if/when she knocks Sanders out.
Gaius makes it very clear that Clinton is only going to make empty overtures to Sanders voters.
But he does so deductively and you couldn't be bothered to read at all/that far.
Just to clarify: I don't despise individual Democrats. I despise the Democratic Party.
And while I certainly do not despise you, I do find it difficult to respect the position you
stated: "I'll pull the lever for the Democrat candidate no matter who he/she is or what he/she
stands for."
I wonder if you even read the Andrew Levine article I cited.
"I'll pull the lever for the Democrat candidate no matter who he/she is or what he/she stands
for."
So, if the Democrat actually has the same or worse policies than the Republican, you will vote
Democrat because… Because what? Because youre one of those 'party hacks' you claim to hate so
much? I don't get it.
":…she can't back away from raising the minimum wage…"
Really!?!?! Do you remember all the talk about the Employee Free Choice Act that the Dems promised
they would promote if only they got Congress back? They dropped that like a hot rock right after
the elections were over. Closing Gitmo? Didn't happen, didn't even try.
The Dems can and do back away from any number of nice sounding campaign promises and the rubes
never seem to catch on. They do it not because of the nasty mean old Republicans but because they
want to. In fact sHillary's minions even came out publicly months ago in one of the MSM papers
saying she would have to pretend to go left during the primary to fend off Bernie but she didn't
really mean it. Can't put my finger on it but I believe the article was linked to here.
Please show me where Clinton has said she wants to expand Social Security. As in links with
exact statements.
I don't buy that at all.
She has been signaling that she wants to "protect" Social Security. That means not make it
pay as you go (which it actually effectively is despite the trust fund), which means either tax
increases or benefit cuts.
Yellen, Clinton appointee to the CEA, has long been pushing for "chained CPI," which would
cut SS by having it lag inflation (as in change inflation measurements so that the inflation increases
are lower than now). Bill wanted to privatize Social Security, and it was the Monica Lewinsky
scandal that derailed that.
Hillary is a neoliberal economically and a neocon. She's going to spend even more on war. That
means less for domestic social programs. She's made remarks consistent with means testing Social
Security, which turns it from a universal safety net to a welfare program. And Bill also showed
what has happened to welfare programs over time. They get cut since why do the poor deserve anything?
Here she says how to get more money into the the trust fund. Not just protect it. Expansion
and extension. Not privatization or cat food actuarial tweeking.
I just spent 4.5 minutes of listening to the equivalent of fingers on a chalkboard so others
don't have to.
Did you watch the whole video? Clinton claims to want to raise the cap to increase funding
and gives a nice little stump speech. Then the moderator mentions that Sanders wants to raise
the cap and that Clinton was opposed to doing so in 2008 and asks point blank if she's in favor
of raising it above $120K now at which point Clinton starts in with the equivocation. Again. You
can see her become much more nervous when confronted with the fact that her position has suddenly
changed with the advent of Sanders campaign. Sanders has been consistent in his positions for
decades while Clinton continues to have her finger in the wind.
Got anything from before Sanders started scaring the pantsuit off her? Otherwise I'm going
to assume she's lying. Again.
Thinking about your gridlock comment elsewhere, Is Trump actively the answer? I don't see that
stuff happening as swiftly under him. I could be totally wrong…..
In point #3 from Seth Abramson's piece, you get a great view of Clinton's shadow.
3. It turns out that neither Hillary nor her staff ever had any respect for Sanders, his
supporters, or the causes he (and they) have championed.
How do we know? Well, a campaign's press secretary is - by definition and responsibility -
its mouthpiece. So when Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's mouthpiece, said publicly after the New York
primary that Bernie Sanders and his campaign had been destructive to the Democratic Party
and the nation , you know that's exactly what Clinton thinks, too.
Had Clinton fired Palmieri or publicly admonished her, one might think differently.
Instead, silence - which, in politics, is assent.
This is almost an echo verbatim of Lloyd Blankfein.
"It has the potential to personalize it, it has the potential to be a dangerous
moment. Not just for Wall Street not just for the people who are particularly targeted but for
anybody who is a little bit out of line, " Blankfein said. "It's a liability to say I'm
going to compromise I'm going to get one millimeter off the extreme position I have and if you
do you have to back track and swear to people that you'll never compromise. It's just incredible.
It's a moment in history."
Blankfein avoided saying whether he supported former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
though both Clintons have long ties to Blankfein and to Goldman Sachs, which has been a heavy
donor to Bill Clinton's charity work.
She won't release the speeches. -–>She's with Them.-–>
Might as well say "Lord Blankfein," since in the view of many millions, his slightly invisible
House of lords pulls the puppet strings on the new money house of Commons and its nominees such
as HRC, and people are increasingly explicit in their sense of opposition to the feudal monarchy
thrust upon them.
The peasants remind each other how
HRC blamed homeowners
(in addition to banksters) for the mortgage fraud GFC.
What would be incredibly funny is if the Judge presiding over the contested NY primary threw
out the results on Monday on the grounds that the primary was unconstitutional.
Obama should have lost re-election based on his economy and treatment of the Dem base, but
I think blacks saved him. Who can blame them for turning out in record numbers to vote for one
their own?
But Hillary won't have blacks to save her if things go the same as they did for Obama come
re-electioin. Blacks will vote for her in good margin as they are now, but likely won't turnout
for her like they did for Obama.
Actually it was Romney being a billionaire plus being caught out with his derisive remarks
about the 47% who don't pay taxes (when they all do, sales taxes, RE taxes even if they rent,
embedded in their rent, gas taxes). Oh, and putting his dog on top of his car for a long trip
(cross country?) lost him more voters than you would think. It was the Republicans' election to
lose and they managed to do that.
All Sander's supporters should burn down the house. In a swing state or a state looking close?
Vote the hairpiece. In a state that won't contest one way or the other? Pick a third party of
choice, or write in the Bern.
Don't give this woman your vote, she doesn't deserve it. If Bernie ends up playing the sheepdog
I am going to be quite disappointed.
I am amazed, as Shakespeare says, at posters on here who seriously advocate voting for Trump,
or for a "third party."
I have little or no ability (or desire) to refute the contentions made about Hillary. Bernie
wants to change things; Hillary wants to be President.
But Trump! To treat him as a possible alternative! And then to discuss his "policy positions"
in a serious way! He doesn't have policy positions, he has twitches, like the wall (which he's
stuck with) and he has itches (like that for Megyn Kelly, which, to his rage, he cannot scratch).
He doesn't have enough brains to have an idée fixe, so his mouthings change with his
audience (except for the wall, which he's already mentioned so many times that he's stuck with
it).
The arguments that Hillary's defeat "will change the Democratic Party" or "end the corrupt
Democratic Party" or "teach them a lesson" seem to me to ignore the fact that we are running out
of time. South Florida and Virginia Beach are going under water. And when they both do go under
water, will this change Republican positions? No, indeed. Donald Duck will say, after much hard
thought, "I think probably it's a bad thing." Ted Cruz will say it is God's punishment for letting
people use the wrong bathroom.
Yes, we have many other pressing problems. I picked one as an example that won't go away unless
something serious is done to oppose it, and we do not have four or eight years to twiddle our
thumbs and say, "Oh, dear."
I am the hack that Paul Tioxin wrote about (and I think he has his tongue firmly in his cheek).
I will continue to send Bernie and Zephyr money, and also to Paul Canova (who is Debbie Wasserman
Schulz' primary opponent, if you didn't already know). But on election day, I will color in all
the Democratic circles on our brand new NYC computer-read ballot. I don't presume I can change
anybody else's mind. If you really think we'd be better off with a lunatic Donald Duck as Prez
than with Hillary, go ahead. No offense intended. It's a democracy (so far). But if you stay home
and don't vote, not only will you get Donald Duck, you may, down the ballot, get more Trey Gowdys
and even a Sharron Angle. You're not forgetting them, are you?
This life long Dem is headed out the door (from the DNC, not NC). I have no interest in associating for people who,
whatever platitudes they temporarily spout to get your vote, are secretly thinking `f*cking ret*arded sanctimonious purist'.
My strategy for the Fall will be looking to see which `centrist' Dems are doing worst in the
polls and then contributing to their GOP opponents. Fewer and better Democrats.
right behind you. people are talking about a coordinated effort when 10s of thousands of us
leave the party the same day. dunno… just tossing it out there.
The Dept of Elections actually have the data. They have detail on how long individuals have
been registered, as what and which elections people have voted in.
I am planning to change my registration the day after the Indiana primary May 3. Find out how
your state handles this and then do it. Send a message to the DNC!
Don't change party until after the convention in July, just to be on the safe side.
If you do that, and it turns out Bernie needs delegate bodies, you won't be able to offer to be
one of them.
What about all of us who did this years ago? But when we did it, there were no 10s of thousands
to keep us company. All I can say to the multitudes is Welcome to Ex-Dem-land !!!
Yes. Now I know why the Dem party is always courting the next wave of the "youth vote" – and
freaking out (see B. Clinton's millenial comments) when that goes wrong.
Shorter DNC: "We went to fancy colleges and our working class voters are easy to fool with
cheap political tricks because they're dumb, dumb, dumbity dumb."
Please don't bail out! You are playing right into the hands of the establishment Dems. Aren't
we seeing how difficult it is for anyone (Bernie, in this case) to run against the establishment
Democratic candidate? What's one reason why this is the case? Closed primaries. Only registered
Dems can vote in the primaries. If you leave, then it's even easier for the establishment candidate
to win delegates and ultimately, the nomination.
Fight back by staying in the Democratic Party! All of Bernie's supporters should register as
Democrats. Not to elect Hillary, but to take back the Democratic Party. Like it or not, we are
stuck with this two-party system for the time-being. The establishment Dems will be happy to stick
with their neo-liberal, neo-con agenda without a "yuge" wave of registered Democrats throwing
them out of power.
The independent ranks are getting larger and larger. As it is, the Democratic Party has been
crowing THIS cycle that only Democratic loyalists should have a say in the candidacy or that only
Democratic loyalists should have been allowed to run.
That's fine. However, they don't get to whine in 2016 when none of those independent voters
don't vote for their candidate and they lose. Live by the party, die by the party. The party is
going to deserve it's march to being irrelevant. They should listen to the Independent candidate
that's trying to help them- it's change or die time for the Democratick Party.
"The party is going to deserve it's march to being irrelevant."
Yup. An animal generally has the intuition and fortitude to gnaw off its own appendage to free
itself, should it become ensared. The Party has its Achilles heel stuck in a bear trap. It's gonna
die there.
I left the Dems years ago. Reregistered this year to vote for Bernie. Now I'll rereg. as an
independent/unaffilitated. Yes, the primary/caucuses are important. The DNC/RNC doesn't own that
game, although they think they do. Registering and reregistering as needs be lets independents
vote where they think best without being captured by ether machine. Some states have a looong
lead time on registration to try and block this. See NY for example. But it can be done. Without
too much hassle, as it turns out, if you know the cutoff dates.
Of course, if the machinery decides to purge your registration, or mysteriously switch your
party affiliation at the primary, or shut down voting stations for "financial reasons", the machine
won't change those tricks change because people remaining loyally registered to the party.
Oh, the long game. The item that's gets tossed out right after Supreme Court. If you would
only try a little harder, donate a little more, ask a little nicer, the next great candidate is
just around the corner.
Fool me for 25 years, shame on you, fool me for 35, shame on me.
Um, when you have the Presidency, the House AND 59 or 60 votes in the Senate and still can
only manage to pass a health care bill that is not the same plan put forth by Republicans over
twenty years previously BUT updated by lobbyists from the Insurance, Big Pharma, and the private
medical industry to provide even less service for higher costs you have already proved that the
long game and electing more Democrats is a boondoggle. And lets talk about that Supreme Court
canard…
But why let facts get in the way of conning the public.
+1000. I cannot believe how many Democrats sincerely believe that Obama and the Democrat Congress
were Powerless in 2009 against the stubborn Republicans.
In reality, the Dems could have passed anything Obama wanted. I still want to know what happened
between Obama and Kucinich on that plane. It takes nerve to stand against a president from your
own party.
And our president didn't want health care for everyone. That's obvious.
For those who don't want to click off site, my attempt at a precis:
Many people misunderstand what primaries are all about. Getting involved in party politics
means showing up repeatedly, not just once to vote. If you show up repeatedly, you can influence
not only the candidates who are offered in the general election, but also the state party platform
and, perhaps eventually, the national platform as well. It's a lot of work, but real change is
certainly possible… it just doesn't happen at the ballot box.
Greg Laden? Oh good grief. People have been members of the D branch of the money party for
decades, gotten effed over repeatedly and the party is fully right, not just center right.
An example is the statement on this page that 'everyone knows' boots on the ground aren't boots
on the ground, because lines have to be moved to demonstrate that the Ds aren't very much the
warmongers Rs are.
I'm put in mind of bank switchers: I'd banked at the same place over 20 years. I always assumed,
death, bank fees, and taxes were just an inexorable part of life. Then 2008 happened, and I started
reading about banking, finance, and was shocked and appalled to realize what trivial social or
economic value TBTF banks actually created, to say nothing of how much they spent lobbying.
But I still kept all my accounts in a TBTF bank for several years. I was frustrated, but not enough to take action.
And then, one day, yet another small, seemingly tiny aggravation occurred in one of my accounts.
I walked in and closed every single account. But I would not have predicted that I would actually take that action.
And I think that a similar kind of 'switching' or 'departing' is happening today with respect
to political parties and voting. People can take just so much.
They don't tend to torch a place, as much as they just want to find a simpler, affordable alternative
that fulfills 90% of what they need and seems to have integrity. People are looking for reasonable
alternatives, whether for banking or political outlets.
The people at the DNC, and in the Clinton campaign, who think that those of us who: - saw years of savings go up in smoke,
- have watched as superstorms increase intensity and destructiveness, while Hillary took money
from Big Oil - have been taxed to underwrite TBTF ownership of houses in Sprawlville that should *never* have
been built in the first place, - have watched as people at the tippy-top got wealthier by the year,
- have waited politely for Hillary to release the Goldman-Sachs transcripts, to no avail
- have realized that our taxes subsidize Wal-Mart and other employers' refusal to pay decent wages
to their employees - have asked, "Where in hell did all those arms that ended up in Syria originate?!" (answer: Libya)
- have paid higher premiums post-'Obamacare' because we're still underwriting health insurance
behemoths, - have watched The Fed pay out helicopter money that has pumped up the stock market but cost savers
dearly
This of us who gave Obama the benefit of the doubt in 2012 (rather than Mr Hedgefund), are
not going to march off the cliff and vote Hillary. Not this time. We've had enough bait and switch, thanks all the same.
Anyone at the DNC and the Clinton campaign who thinks that those of us watching what has played
out deserve contempt are simply delusional, and I know the type - and I'm sick to death of their
parasitic insolence. I'm sure there are plenty of political science majors and law degrees in
the bunch: been there, done that. (There, but for the grace of God, go I.)
I have the sense that many people are, like myself, kind of surprised to find ourselves '
over the Dems' or ' over the GOP'. It's like some vast, quiet national divorce;
we're done fighting, let's just move on. It's a strange parting of ways, and in my own case, both with banking and with Hillary, I didn't
actually see it coming.
Thank God for Bernie and credit unions and those super-smart other Bernie supporters that I've
met this spring. They're funny, and they're energetic, and they are raging against bullshit.
They give me hope.
Yup. For some reason, the general wake up (perhaps incomplete) is occurring. In the US & Europe,
in every identifiable area, whether war, finance, migration, geopolitics, or corruption, people
are getting disgusted with the elites' blatant incompetence. You don't even have to pick a specific
issue.
Hillary is doomed. The FBI can now legally hack any computer and they have Hillary's email
server + they have her IT manager with indemnity agreed, + they have Guccifer the hacker in custody
plus they have likely restored those 30,000 deleted emails. Now whether the FBI proceeds or not
they have Hillary Clinton (Madam President?) in their hands.
I am sure Hillary Clinton's party and Congressional colleagues comprehend the enormity of that
situation!
A reckless lack of judgement by Hillary has entirely compromised her standing as a feasible
US President. Get with sanity, feel the Bern.
Agreed. Hillary supporters have their heads stuck deep in the sand on the email server. She
committed a litany of serious crimes there focused around breaking confidentiality laws. Not to
mention all the Clinton Foundation emails she deleted that they most likely have access to now
either from her server itself or from Guccifer that will show large Foundation donations from
both sides of the arms deals she fixed as Secy of State. Sooner or later she's going down for
this garbage. It appears Clinton hubris finally went too far.
I suspect the FBI feels it can get more out of this episode by letting HIllary win the Presidency
than by doing what the law requires and indicting her now. Pretty much all our institutions have
been deeply compromised and the FBI, even ignoring it's colorful if rather slimy history in that
direction, is no exception. Think of the absolute control the FBI would have over the Presidency!
I would love to be wrong. It would be a true deus ex machina for Sanders who would go on to
win Trump in a heart beat, which is why I don't think I'm wrong – how many times has that happened
in our history?
Nah, that is a flawed plan. Between control of the AG's office and the ability to pardon people
after they take the fall for her, the President would be able to make that go away in a hot minute.
And while it would add fodder to the Congressional investigations, that still doesn't give the
FBI control.
Nope, the question is 'who do they want to be President' and how best do they achieve that?
Trump, they start the indictments in October. Sanders, we start seeing movement in the next two
weeks. Biden, the indictments start happening in the two weeks before the Convention. (And yes,
I do believe the leadership would throw the first ballot and move to Biden on the second.)
But I don't see the blackmail thing really working for them.
The laws regarding diplomatic security all center on "unauthorized use". If the President authorized
the use of the server the whole investigation is moot. Flames are causing the smoke.
If there is a case, they will cross all the t's and dot the eyes and and lower case j's. Taking
down a President is a huge deal especially Hillary. If they trip up, Hillary will come after them.
Hillary isn't a random, disaffected Muslim 20 year old being entrapped. Normal thugs don't
take on a Hillary type without a certain sense of safety. The thugs in the FBI are too busy arresting
"terrorists."
I'm always amazed at the Hillary amnesiac followers ignoring the Clintons investigation years.
Independent counsel Star investigations (1994) headlined the Clintons' Whitewater (investigations
started in 1992- prior to the presidency) and Bill's what is "is?" perjured blue stained dress
for 5 years. Were taxpayer dollars wasted? Sure. But that's not the point. The point is the media
will headline the email-server scandal immediately with all the repubs soundbite target missiles
aimed at the Clinton shock and awe scandals.
Frankly, a Clinton II presidency would follow their same hubris pattern beginning with the
email-server scandal. The republican majority congress with the Koch brothers backing guarantees
a repeat with Hillary as the focus and of course, Bill has his bag of tricks to add to the anticipated
investigations
While this is going on Hillary will be working with Repug Congress in promoting GMO, fracking.
She'll show leadership by flag waving looting social security and sending Americans into danger
to do what Netanyahoo demands.
What has been termed as A reckless lack of judgement by the upper echelon lands lower
level people with Security Clearances jobless, much smaller bank accounts, and possible short
jail terms. Democrats included.
As someone who is familiar with what it takes to get and hold a clearance, including multiple,
required yearly , hour-long seminars on the subject, I can confidently say that this
has left a very bad taste in the mouth of clearance holders, including registered Democrat clearance
holders.
Perhaps for the ones who understand the importance of security clearances even if its over
protective. Hillary did quite well in Maryland and Virginia. Of course, those are pork ridden
states. Any sane government would begin redistributing federal spending, moving whole departments.
Those over priced bed room communities are at risk along with the mortgages.
If the government undertakes sane spending practices and understands Keynesian multipliers,
no one would willing live in Nova outside of old Towne Alexandria. Realistically, why can't cabinet
department X be in City Y given modern communications? The Washington metro area is a transportation
nightmare.
A person expecting to sell to pay off a mortgage and move to a lower cost of living city in
Virginia or Maryland or where ever home is does that care about security clearances. Other than
government spending, Northern Virginia is a swamp with a few nice places such as Mount Vernon.
Upon election Hillary will increase the FBI budget 3000% and order them to take the lead on
terrorism, especially the terrorism of domestic non-conformist thinking. Case Closed! Successful!
Trump is the Lesser Evil. At least you know what you're getting with him. As some guy interviewed
by the Wall Street Journal a week or so ago put it, "Trump speaks before he thinks while Clinton
takes a moment to think up new lies before she opens her mouth." With Hillary you're getting a
war criminal, a compulsive liar, a hypocrite,, a Zionist war monger, a capitalist tool. With Trump
you're getting a racist and misogynist but at least he's no war criminal (yet). Damn them both
but especially damn Clinton.
About Trump's racism… I think the problem with Trump isn't that he's racist, it's that he's
obnoxious/rude about it. Dems are perfectly happy to pass policies that they are aware will be
racially applied to the detriment of poc. The Clinton's policies are the perfect example, and
to make matters worse, it is repeatedly pointed out to them how racist their policies are and
they double down.
Yes, Trump fired his US workers and brought in visa workers. The Clinton's crime bill, militarized
police, private prisons, corrupt financial policies and trade deals have destroyed more lives
than Trump could ever dream of.
I am a 35 year old woman who remembers voting for Bill – Dad took little preteen me into the
voting booth with him to teach me to take pride in our democracy. Our family were extremely loyal
Democrats: Mom has a picture of her with Carter in a place of pride on her mantel; they taught
me the Dems were the party of the people who fought against the Republicans, who represented the
power of unrestrained wealth and capital.
Years of neoliberal policies later, I consider all of it to have been a lie cruelly perpetrated
on my parents. As a favor to my aging mother I voted for Obama in 2008 even though I told her
his open admiration for Reagan meant his promises were likely to be empty air. I left the party
for what I thought was for good after I was proven right.
I came back to the Dems this year, only to vote for Bernie. I'm leaving again if he's not the
nominee, and I'll never, ever be back for any reason. I look within myself and find my hatred
for and anger at the Clintons and all they represent to be so fierce it's honestly a little frightening.
I wonder how many of me there are out there?
There are a lot of us. The Clintons destroyed our party. Sure they had help, but they made
it happen and made it stick. We will not forget as we slowly and painfully build something new
out of the ashes and spend the first half of the 21st century, at least, rebuilding what we once
had. People forget how many fought and died to make the New Deal and the union movement happen,
only to watch their sacrifices die at the hands of a smiling con artist and his Republican wife
from Arkansas. None of it was necessary. None of it was inevitable. We were sold out.
I hope so. I'd even consider voting for Trump out of spite at this point (well, that and a
gridlocked government is a government that's not moving even further towards the cliff) and the
thing is I am personally doing very, very well in the Clinton economy. We can't afford to buy
a house (because we live in Boston) but my spouse and I are debt free and making what years ago
I would have considered crazy amounts of money. Of course everything is more expensive now, but
still.
The point of saying this is not to brag – but that if yuppie little me is this upset, the working
class must be about 5 minutes from violent revolt.
I had a crazy conversation the other day with a bunch of legal aid lawyers – the heroin epidemic
is so bad in towns outside of Boston (Fall River, etc. – all the old industrial towns) that fully
50% of my age group from those places are now dead. I said "oh god, it's the CIA's crack epidemic
all over again! We don't want to give them jobs or welfare so we're just going to flood them with
cheap heroin and hope they die off." There was a long silence. I thought they thought I was a
crazy conspiracy theorist so I said "That was a joke." Another long silence. Oh shit.
Its not a joke, as we know. The current heroin epidemic is the result of an expansion in prescribing
of pain meds over at least the past 10 years, largely due to the lobbying and urging of Big Pharma.
Especially Purdue, the makers of Oxycontin. People got hooked by prescription and with the black
market price of a single 80mg oxy at $50-80 many switched over to the much cheaper heroin.
But was heroin always this cheap and plentiful? That's not coming from the pharma companies.
…I wonder if this is somehow tied into our Imperial adventures in Afghanistan.
Of course it is. Production had exploded with the northern alliance now protected by the us,
and the US military is a very efficient route into the country like all militaries always are.
When the Russians were fighting in Afghanistan, the soldiers smuggled the heroin in via the
zinc coffins they transported the dead back home in.
I'm old enough to have actually voted for Clinton. I can honestly say that I have only mistakenly
voted for both Clintons and Obama once each. In 2008, I did think the contrast between McCain/Palin
and Obama was enough to justify throwing the dice. by 2012 I realized that the only thing that
could be said as a difference for Obama was he was likely more effectively evil than Romney. I
do have to say that I was probably wrong on that, largely because John Kerry has been such an
improvement at State from the last three Secretaries. Even though we are about to fuck up the
Iran deal, that still was something better. As this is a closed primary state I won't be changing my voter registration, but I will never
be a sure bet voter for the Democrats ever again. I no longer believe in the LOTE is automatically
the Democrat. No I will not vote for Clinton or to return the neoliberal Senator. I can only hope
this is the beginning of a real revolution where people don't stay home, but can no longer be
considered 'reliable' by the Democratic Party leadership. It is long past time to demolish their
idea that 'where else are they going to go' has any basis in reality.
I voted for Obama to vote against Palin. McCain was old and what, a 3 or 4X cancer survivor?
Not sure he would hold up under the stress of office. Needless to say, I am not happy with that
vote, but I rationalize that it was in New York and didn't affect the outcome.
I did the same, and voted for Obama again in 2012 in order to vote against Romney. In retrospect,
it was a mistake to bother the second time 'round. The distinction between the 2 men was small.
The only advantage to having Obama in office again was that his presence in the Oval Office assured
gridlock. The Republican Congress would not act in concert with him - not even to pass acts they
favored.
Looking back on the 'do nothing' Congress of the past 4-6 years makes me question the intensity
of their surprise in the face of their base's turn to Trump. They have known for years that their
voters are bored by "conservative" legislation, and motivated by thwarting the Others
(all those young, brown and black people who live side-by-side with professionals in
the coastal cities). They've acted in awareness of this fact for years………. yet they've been stumped
by Trump.
Very well stated…and quite similar to my own evolution since my first vote for Clinton in '92.
For me it's a more visceral realization. Either (1) they punch me in the face, steal my purse
and toss me in the river (2) take me out to dinner and roofie my drink. I'm tired of waking up
the next morning wondering what the hell happened last night. At least with beau #1 I know what
to expect. Sorry I was watching "Nights of Cabiria" last night.
+100 Although never really a devotee of party politics I was pretty sure that the Democrats
were the best– until this election season. The craven manner in which the Dem Party has pushed
Hilary on us all and the disrespect shown Sanders is reprehensible. Even apart from Clinton's
negative record as SS she is s truly awful candidate. I doubt she has a chance in h*** against
Trump.
Shorter Hillary: be a good sheepdog and wag your tail. I suspect one reason Sanders has hardened
his line as the campaign progressed is that he came to realize there's no staying on the good
side of these people when it comes to disputing their power. HRC is a true heir to Nixon's paranoid
style of American politics and like Obama she will be Nixon without the liberalism or without
Nixon's undoubted intelligence (for all the evil). Which is to say there may indeed have been
a vast rightwing conspiracy but whining about it is not the response of a good politician. With
Hillary as president it will be payback time all around. She'll show Sanders who's boss and Putin
too.
There is bad blood between both of them now and that is definitely part of it. Hillary is nothing
if not arrogant and giving in to anything even remotely Bernie like is simply not a dish she wants
served up in any manner.
Second, gaining Sander's voters would be a tough uphill battle because most of us know how
fake she really is and her strategists likely believe she has a clearer shot without even attempting
it.
That said, it would be a mistake to underestimate Hillary's disipline. If anything changes
with that dynamic going forward, she will react accordingly (it should go without saying that
any sudden embrace of Sander's ideas, no matter how diluted, will be Hillary in her purest form
of lying).
The unspoken judgement being made (to Clinton and to "insiders") is that disgruntled independents
don't vote, so they don't matter. And going by turnout trends, this is true; "independents" turn
out in presidential general elections at around 40% compared to 60%+ for Dems (and even higher
for Reps). In non-presidential elections, indy turnout has been much lower.
So to become a political force, job one for Sanders people is to vote every chance they get.
This will put them on the map statistically, and campaigns and "policy makers" will literally
"see" them, and take them seriously in strategy considerations. Without a consistent presence
at the polls, a movement's policy ideas are all but irrelevant (and are even discredited).
Job two is to hoist, support and elect Federal, State and Municipal level candidates to promotes
one's legislative and administrative goals.
Demonstrations and social media presence are all fine and well, (and letter campaigns actually
work, on a one-off basis), but until one can prove that one can elect one's candidates, one is
essential invisible in the political sense.
I hope it goes without saying that this is how the Tea Party reshaped State legislatures and
Congress. So there is no question that the strategy can work. Again; in this game, the actual
quality of political/policy goals is secondary (or even irrelevant) to the performance at the
polls.
As far as the Presidential votes go, one can vote Green or leave the category blank. But casting
a ballot, and voting in down-ticket races, is absolutely necessary.
My personal experience with the Greens as an organization is mixed, and voting Green makes
the Green party a player in a way that I don't think they have earned (yet), so I'll be considering
the leave-it-blank option.
The turnout in the 2014 midterms was a bloodbath. In some states, they hadn't had turnout numbers
that low since the early 1800s (no typo). Turnout in the Dem primaries for 2016 is ~25% below
2008 levels. Given that the 2012 and 2014 elections were the worst for the Democrats up and down
the line in their history, save 1996, I would not bet on Dems turning out at prior levels, particularly
given that Hillary has disapproval ratings of 55% now and only rise with more exposure.
Brand New Congress…I just sent them a small donation and my 3rd one to Bernie…don't leave the
Democrat party, go kick the f*cking door down, chase the grifters out and make it democratic again.
Lazy liberalism allowed the Clintons to take over and follow their worst impulses just by not
minding the store. Brand New Congress…ex Bernie staffers taking up Howard Dean's 50 state strategy…no election uncontested
from the left.
Actually Brand New Congress intends to use both sides of the aisle and independants as well(so
absolutely no reason to stay with the Democrats.) I'm not sure how that will pan out for them
but I do admire them for at least trying to change the landscape instead of just rolling over
because the DNC wants them to.
Having been lectured by professional/managerial hillary supporters, I'm somewhat amused by
tioxin's take, a lot of words, kind of touchy feely stuff, but only one policy, a 9 page pdf on
solar. Now let's get real here for a second. In the event that hillary imposes a solar plan on
the nation it will go like this. The gov't will buy the solar panels, they'll build the factories
to make the panels with gov't money, then they will hand the working operation to the private
sector who along with goldman sachs will profit massively. This is getting in front of a riot.
People are putting panels on their roofs and threatening the uninterrupted gusher of cash to utilities,
a popular source of money for banksters. I know utility executives who consider this a giant problem.
Is the gov going to hire solar installers to put rooftop solar on peoples houses or make a solar
field with a meter on it. Hillary is about the money, and so is the professional class that supports
her. And that's the only thing they've got. A two paragraph preachy condescending comment with
one lame ass justification for voting for more of the same. Clinton supporters fail to see how
what are now legacy democrat policies have harmed the people they so condescendingly insist must
continue to support their classist policies (o care, bank bailouts, QE to infinity and beyond,
privatisation schemes, protectionist trade deals, lets call them what they are free ain't it,
surveillance state, I could go on and on and on…..)but all you've got is solar panels, bernies
not for solar panels? If you truly care about the democrat party you should ditch hillary, she'a
republican and if you agree with her policies, whatever they are, (I still see zero content from
her campaign) then you're a republican too and should switch parties along with all the rest of
us and leave the democrat party in the hovel they built for themselves.
Hillary Clinton is now a known international war criminal, like her dear Henry Kissinger. She
supervised the destruction of the bombing of all of Libya's water infrastructure. This is a war
crime, to bomb civilian infrastructure…not to mention there was no war. They not only bombed the
pipelines, the irrigation systems, but also the factories that make the pipes, leaving the Libyans
to starve to death, and now NATO and the US are blockading Libya to keep people from escaping.
BHO has said Libya was his worst mistake. Hillary says it is a work in progress. Yes, murdering
those people is in progress. Aside from that the Repugs are going to swift boat her…see the movie
trailer ClintonCash for a taste of what's coming. Trump is quite a piece of work, but he has none
of the substantive crimes in his background that Clinton does. It's going to be quite a show.
Yeah, cuz saying "I was an idiot for believing the jerk I had to install as Secretary of State
had a clue about the best action. Logically if you want to be President you don't want a bloody
disaster hanging around your neck and so you avoid falling into the trap of satisfying the ridiculous
need to swing an imaginary dick to appeal to people who are never going to vote for you. My bad,
I should never have given her that much credit." just wasn't an option he could take.
Clinton supporters argue the former secretary of State has already been forced to the left
by Sanders, and can't risk moving further ahead of a general election.
"I don't know what's left to extract," Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), a Clinton supporter,
said in an interview with The Hill.
He said the Democratic primary moved the discussion "farther to the left than most moderate
Democrats would like to see.
"Some would say it even endangers a victory in November because the further you go to the
left or right, the further you frustrate independents," Cleaver said. …
Another ally bluntly said it will not be possible for Clinton to compromise with Sanders
on some policy demands.
"We can't do it," the ally said. "But there's going to be a place for him to weigh in on
the campaign and at the convention and he should have the satisfaction that he raised some
issues that have been a part of the conversation."
Where `part of the conversation' is Clintonista for `talk to the hand'. Definitely a formula for success.
What will Bernie do? How committed to a political revolution is he? If this is any indication,
we may be disappointed again: From Howie Klein at Down With Tyranny:
Can The Corrupt Democratic Establishment Buy Off Bernie's Movement?
"This has been made painfully more complicated because Schumer has explicitly threatened Bernie
with loss of the Budget Committee chairmanship if he interferes with Schumer's corrupt conservative
candidates in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. The Schumercrat in Ohio has already beaten the progressive
and Tuesday will either find Schumer without a candidate or having to accept that Pennsylvanians
don't take orders from a sleazy and despised New York ward healer. Florida's primary, pitting
Bernie endorser Alan Grayson against Wall Street's (and therefore Schumer's) top choice of the
cycle, Patrick Murphy, isn't until the very end of August. It will be interesting to see if Bernie
even pays lip service to assisting the grotesque candidates who espouse the essence– the way Murphy
does– of everything he has built his movement to oppose."
As we know now, Bernie did not "interfere" with those races and Schumer corporocrats won.
If people are disappointed, it's because they are ignoring Sanders words and actions. He's
always been a D in everything but name. His revolution has always been through the D party. He
is very clear he is not running third party or independent.
I do think Sanders is necessary to a third party or org. I have never believed he would participate.
His supporters are trying to get a new group going and while I believe you need expertise, they
strike me as establishment. If it is establishment groups, I always watch for the grift.
Since surveys often tell us more about the person or group asking the question than the person
asked, I got this a couple of days ago and wanted to share a bit:
Official 2016 Democratic Party Survey [excerpt questions]
Section II: Policy Priorities 2) Please rate the following … in order of importance. (1 = most important)
__Make it possible for more American workers to earn sick days and family leave __End gender discrimination in pay and ensure women receive equal pay
__Close tax loopholes and simplify the tax code so that corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay
their fair shares
[That's it! 3 choices!]
Section IV: Democratic Party Priorities 1) Please rate the following Democratic Party goals in order of importance. (1= most important)
__Protecting progress achieved by President Obama __Pushing President Obama's new initiatives through GOP opposition
__Keeping a Democrat in the White House __Winning back control of Congress __Electing more Democrats to state and local governments
__All of the above are equally important
[Paradox: so if "all of the above" is #1, just how does one go about numbering the rest, exactly?]
Granted this is a 'lead-by-the-nose' questionnaire to raise money for the DNC, most
of the questions are yes/no/not sure or check 'all that apply' questions, but note these options
all assume that DNC has been on the right track all along, nothing could possibly be wrong
. While I would suspect the GOP also uses the same tactics, I don't have their "Give us your
money" for comparison.
Well, it's my opinion that the survey is meaningless; I don't think they really want to know
what's important to us, they just want our money so they can go about doing whatever it is they've
decided needs doing. So…I've taken to making confetti out of the survey, the letter and the original
envelope it came in, and mailing all of it back to them in the handy-dandy postage-paid envelope
provided.
I don't want that trash in my house, and even my recycling bin is too good for this stuff.
I work too hard for my money to waste it on an organization that doesn't give a flying fig
what I think.
wow, that tirade is awesome. frighteningly educational about how some people think. to see
such an attack on those whom i think are in the majority here is… what can i say? Clinton is evil
personified in today's world. at least to people like me. the Greater Evil is Clinton,while Trump
is.? i have no clue. so i would have to choose the lesser of evils if i were to vote. and i hate
Republicans and the Quisling/Vichy Democrats who enabled the transformation of American society
into a Lord of the Flies world. frightening to be able to see such "fear" and disgust inside of
me. lashing out is so easy.
Partisan Hack. i probably need to get a T shirt that says that along with the DFH label. being
"right" usually requires age to incur the educational/learning about how stupid or ignorant i
was before, learning from my mistakes, if i am lucky. like voting for Obama or Clinton. proof
of my naiveté, lol. as the Who said in one of their songs, "Won't Get Fooled Again." well, at
least i'll do my best not to get fooled again. in America with their Manufacturing Consent paradigm,
that is a difficult talk.
The Green party doesn't exist down here, Louisiana, and doesn't stand a chance in hell of ever
being "allowed" to for that matter. so i read all this pro Green stuff as extremely regional and
wonder what country these people live in. not the same one i do, unfortunately. The South is a
country in and of itself.
Wow. wanting "leaders" to lead and not to screw me over is being a partisan hack. i never knew!!!
learned something new today. thanks!
I teach building trade classes to a group of young adults. 90% of them are adamant Sanders
supporters and will so vote in the California primary. One supports Hillary. The rest like Trump
and will vote for him in the primary.
If Clinton is anointed? Most of the Sanders supporters say that they will vote for Trump in
the general election. These are pragmatic working class kids who know that their future has been
shafted and they are angry.They are in no mood to perpetuate the fraud that has befallen them
and their parents.
A simple question to ask Hillary supporters is: What has the Democratic Party done for Working
Class people in the last thirty years? Well, there's raising the minimum wage and the Family Leave
Act and then….?? Nafta and the de-industrialization of America, led by the Center Democrats and
Republicans has more than negated those alleged gains.
Adapting a classic film script to present day circumstances, I present a dialog between a young
person who supports Bernie and an older person who knows the score:
Quinlan (young person): Come on, read my future for me.
No you won't. He got us out of Vietnam, she would have doubled down. He proposed universal health care( not good enough for the dems.
He said "we're all Keynesianism now", she's not. He would never cut SS.
I've said for about four years that it was pretty devastating to have a Democratic President
make me nostalgic for Richard Nixon. I'm now terrified to find out who I would find a relief by
two years into the Clinton 2 administration.
The best scenario that I can imagine will be that Obama (fearing a tarnish on his legacy for
quashing a high-profile FBI investigation) will treat Hillary as a "made-man" like General Petraeus
by instructing Justice to administer a slap on the wrist with a misdemeanor charge and fine.
Hillary can then claim that it was simply a process error and that she has atoned through her
bravery and humility by accepting responsibility for her totally innocent mistake. After all,
Petraeus was retained as a white house consultant after his 'speeding ticket' for mishandling
classified information.
This is the kind of thing that makes me want to vote for Trump (if Bernie doesn't get the nom)
even though I recently stated that I would never vote for him because of racism. EFF HRC!
It doesn't matter what Clintoris attempts to do. She's never getting my vote. I'm old enough
to have voted for Reagan in his first term, and I will tell you that the Clintons are the best
thing that ever happened to the neo-cons/neo-libs. Either the party knuckles
under to Bernie, or they become irrelevant.
I can see the Rs become irrelevant and the Ds claim the big money constituency, which has been
the goal of each since Wild Bill Clinton induced both parties to race to the right.
So I'd like to ask who took down my comment from the early morning hours of April 30, 2016,
and why? Since when do humourous jabs at Trump get scrubbed AFTER appearing on-line as posted?
You are out of line. No one scrubbed your comment. You put it on the wrong post. I don't take
well to false accusations. And since you made me waste my time, I'm not telling you where you
did put it.
Some 25-30 percent of Sanders backers, according to pollsters, have made it clear that they
will not support Clinton no matter what - including if Sanders were to endorse her.
(Nobody asked me but yeah – NO!) And if negotiations break down, how about the Skunk Party?
Apparently even Dr. Jill Stein, a past presidential candidate of the Green Party and its likely
candidate this year, as well as Kshama Sawant, … are writing a letter to Sanders inviting him
- urging him - to enter into discussions with the Green Party about running as its presidential
candidate.
"negotiation" may be overstating the case but I do like the idea of this "fantasy". I'm thinking
of voting Green one way or the other anyhow.
Perhaps the real question is whether a third party would solve anything, at least in the long
run. TPTB probably have enough money and influence to buy 3 (or 10) parties if any alternatives
to the duopoly succeed. Maybe the best we can hope for is a breath of fresh air every once in
a while. I remember a line from the PBS series on the Roosevelts (in this case, Teddy): "We bought
him but he wouldn't stay bought."
A third party would solve a great deal. It requires not just a platform, but getting knowledge
of the candidates. Sanders got the knowledge, support, money, moved up in votes and delegates
and is walking away. He never had any intention of running third party. If he was serious about
the issues he discussed he would, but his supporters are more serious about the need for drastic
changes than he is and it's painful to watch them try to get him over the finish line while he,
for the most part, refuses to support other candidates nor attack the Ds and Clinton's specific
corruption.
With the vote rigged from start to finish, Clinton doesn't need Sanders' endorsement. This
is simply the kind of ritual abasement Bush put Colin Powell through: torch your cred for me.
Demonstrate your fealty by making a fool of yourself. Pretend to fear that poor little bottled-up
spider Saddam Hussein.
Same here. Hillary is forcing Sanders to bend the knee and discredit himself in front of his
supporters as a tool. Sanders is being punished for opposing the CIA's choice.
Sanders is at the WHCD. Obama joked about Sanders fresh new face and his $27 donations. I've
always loved the WHCD… where the plutocrats get together for a little self indulgence and mock
their crimes. I wonder if Sanders got a photo op of him and Jane going for a stroll into the dinner,
it has been found to be such a down home example of how they are such humble people.
Please respond the multiple frantic requests for donations before the end of the day. They
have a deadline to meet. ka-ching.
You are getting more and more shrill and desperate in your efforts to demonize Sanders, and
all it does is prove how weak your arguments are
So the fact that Sanders goes to the White House Correspondents' dinner is, according to you,
proof that Sanders is sucking up to plutocrats? If he wanted to sell out, trust me, he knows the
price is higher than a rubber chicken dinner and speeches he'd probably rather not have to hear.
And you have the temerity to mock Sanders' success at raising money from small donors, when your
heroine Jill Sanders has no popular following, and for good reason. She's not remotely qualified,
never held an elected office, never wrote legislation, and never even managed anything as complicated
as a dog pound.
If anyone here is a chump, buddy, it's you, not Sanders backers.
You are purposely misreading commenters. It is not shrill and desperate to point out that Sanders
is a moderate Dem. He is/was the best chance to get some desperately needed shift on critical
issues. It is not shrill and desperate to be disgusted when the plutocrats and their courtiers
get together to mock their crimes. It's rubbing it in the public's face. It's sickening.
What the he@@? 'I' am not mocking Sanders donations. The plutocrats are mocking Sanders donations!
And yes, it sickens me that a candidate is participating in such a revolting spectacle. Clinton
is rightly criticized when she is at an event with the 99% and then goes off to a fundraiser,
but Sanders can't be criticized for being with union members and then going to THAT garbage fest?
Voters are always going to hold candidates feet to the fire in theory but never in actuality and
it's disallowed to criticize a friggin' campaign? Are you kidding me?
My heroine Jill Stein? ha!ha!ha! Geez, I find her to be opportunistic and thin skinned. She
was actually mocking Sanders supporters and now is trying to have open arms. The greens platform
is fluff. I'm in CA, my vote doesn't matter but I still try to come up with a presidential strategy.
The green party is non-existent/irrelevant fluff but I MAY mark a box for Stein. Still, you can't
get over when I wrote to link to her twitter, IT WAS A JOKE!
I need to get some errands done because our Labor Temple is having it's caucus today and I
met a couple of people that are Sanders only and want an independent org outside of the Ds to
carry on with I want to vote for. Gee, look at that…. individuals can be critical of a candidate
and keep carrying on.
Again, I donate to Sanders, have registered voters for him, run around in gear, have it on
my belongings, bring up voting frequently, will participate as support in canvassing. I will debate
the candidate I support. I will discuss the policies, positions, campaign, who they choose to
surround themselves with, and their chances to win that I agree with and will likewise criticize
the same.
Truth be told Henry David, you have sounded a bit sanctimonious in your condemnation of Bernie's
tactics. I feel your pain but it's his campaign to run and only he (and perhaps Jane) knows who
he is inside and what he hopes to achieve in this election cycle. One thing is certain as it pertains
to his ardent supporters and everyone else who is paying any attention at all to what he is saying.
The system is truly rigged in favor of the wealthy and powerful and has been for a long time.
This isn't news to me or you but it really is to millions of desperate citizens, both young and
old. Let's see how this all plays out but in the meantime, let's keep supporting each other in
wanting something better for all citizens. As I've said in other comment threads, I would be satisfied
if both legacy political parties would self-destruct. Then we could start to rebuild locally and
form new national alliances from there.
Political moderate here, with occasional strong leftist leanings. Clinton had better be careful.
There is a lot of anger, frustration, and angst among the majority of working and non-working
Americans. Expectations were high after Obama's inauguration, but one-by-one, most Americans –
even those that voted for Obama – have had to enter the world of extreme confirmation bias to
keep supporting him – even in spite of the fact that the GOP has been an anchor around Obama's
neck
I read somewhere (can't find the cite), several months ago, that 80% of *new* jobs in this
so-called recovery paid between roughly $7.50-$13.00 per hour. If the minimum wage had simply
kept pace with income growth in the US, it would be just over $21.00, today. http://inequality.org/minimum-wage/
And we're arguing about a measly $15.00 an hour? It's a travesty.
I really worry that if the GOP gives Trump the nod that he could win, in spite of all the polling
that currently shows him losing badly to either Democrat. There is something about Trump that
stimulates the darker side of what Freud labeled the"Id".
If Clinton insists on defending the status quo, my instincts tell me that she is going to slide
vs. Trump. I don't know if that slide would be steep enough to give Trump a win. but I get an
eerie feeling when I think about it.
I was sure that America would never elect an "actor" (Ronald Reagan; I was sure that California
would never elect Schwarzenegger;I was absolutely sure that an ex-drunk faux-cowboy (Bush) would
never even get close to the White House, no less get elected to a second term.
When I look back on those events, I realize that in every case I had the same feeling that
I do now, about Clinton. She doesn't connect. Reagan connected; Schwarzenegger connected; Bush
connected (the "good old boy" routine). What those experiences taught me, and what my own conformation
bias made was loathe to let me admit, was that I could "Feel" that connection from Reagan, Schwarzenegger,
and Bush – I almost liked them – even though I was extremely opposed to what they stood for and
voted against them in POTUS elections.
When I talk with old friends and their progeny – all middle class folk, many of them moderate,
who lean slightly left, I get that same eerie feeling I had when Reagan, Schwarzenegger, and Bush
were running.
Bernie Sanders stands for something that is unique in American politics, today. Bernie has
his finger on the pulse. His policy details are somewhat wanting, but he hasn't had the luxury
of years and years to refine them in a way that leads to one white paper after another. Nevertheless,
Sanders is someone I "feel" I could trust to carry out – at the very least – the *gist* of his
promises; and, courageous enough to call out the GOP and members of his own (newly found) party
if they tried to frustrate his agenda.
Polls show Sanders winning by larger margins than Clinton, against all three remaining GOP
candidates (with Clinton losing to Kasich).
Looking at those polls, and reflecting on some of what I wrote, above, Clinton NEEDS to find
a way to either move publicly and strongly toward several of Sanders' positions AND select either
Sanders or a Sanders-like surrogate as VP (who can *connect*; who exudes *trustworthiness*) to
bring Sanders' supporters to her side. If she doesn't do this, even though it looks like a lock
for Clinton against Trump at this point in time, I am very worried that Clinton could falter.
Ignoring what is certainly the most inspired *down-to-earth* campaign in memory, and what that
campaign means to those who were given hope, may be a tragic mistake that Clinton lives to regret.
Either way, I hope that doesn't happen. Reagan, Schwarzenegger, and Bush were, in a way, the "Trumps"
of their day – sure losers to the cognoscenti and insider crowd. It could happen again.
Thoughtful, thank you. It's all Versailles. It's clear Sanders is the reluctant candidate who
really would rather not run but feels he has a moral and social obligation to be of public service.
He's not after profit which a lot of people really seem to have a hard time grasping (see: Kevin
Drum)
Yes, you "feel the Bern", as do I and millions of others. Bernie Sanders really does want the
average citizen to have a fair shake. Policy details will follow the logical course of things
once we achieve a consensus to pursue the common good for all citizens. That is what the revolution
is all about, imho.
I just can't bring myself to vote for Clinton knowing what I know about her to date. It's just
a non-starter. She's just not going to change who she is and how she operates.
Sanders hasn't changed in 40 years. Rock solid, you know how he rolls.
Trump is a bit of a magician. Says one thing, does another. Pretends to be mysoginist, but
hires his daughter and former wife, who both ran significant and successful chunks of his business.
He pretends he's some sort of ordinary working class guy who just made it big. Um, no. Started
off with a nice nest egg to invest with. Plays big successful developer, but declares bankruptcy
to get out of paying anyone, and yet, everyone just lines up for another round.
I try to judge on people's actions instead of their words. (Obama lost me the moment he embraced
indefinite detention) Trump is much harder to get a grasp of. If Sanders isn't on the Novemebr
ballot and Trump is, I can't completely rule out voting for him, at least not yet.
"... Perhaps nothing illustrates this point more clearly than the results of multiple studies on Hillary Clinton's online following which reveal that the majority of her Twitter fans, and indeed her social media following in general, are completely fake. Consider the implications of these findings from StatusPeople.com, and well-respected analytical tool TwitterAudit, which both found that no more than 44 percent of Clinton's followers were actually real, active users of Twitter. ..."
"... "I will absolutely admit that Secretary Clinton… has the entire establishment or almost the entire establishment behind her. That's a fact. I don't deny it. I'm pretty proud that we have over a million people who have contributed to our campaign averaging 27 bucks a piece." ..."
"... So too did the State Department under Hillary Clinton, which spent at least $630,000 to buy Facebook likes, essentially manufacturing a public following for itself. ..."
"... "… the U.S. government contracted HBGary Federal for the development of software which could create multiple fake social media profiles to manipulate and sway public opinion on controversial issues by promoting propaganda. It could also be used as surveillance to find public opinions with points of view the powers-that-be didn't like. It could then potentially have their "fake" people run smear campaigns against those "real" people." ..."
"... In this election season alone there have been massive failures in multiple states that have left countless thousands of Americans without the right to vote for their candidates of choice, or victims of outright fraud. Even Arizona's Secretary of State recently admitted that fraud had taken place on a large scale in her state. The hacktivist collective Anonymous has provided detailed analysis pointing to the fact that state databases were likely hacked and manipulated . ..."
"... This finding only further substantiates the claims made by many experts that the hacking of voting machines and election databases is all but assured, not just in the US but internationally. ..."
"... "Any desired algorithm can be used to determine which votes to steal and to which candidate or candidates to transfer the stolen votes." ..."
"... "There is no way to verify the official tally on the electronic machines on which the majority of Americans will vote this fall. Nearly all the machines are a decade old, most are controlled by a single company (ES&S, owned by Warren Buffett) and the courts have ruled that the software is proprietary, making the vote counts beyond public scrutiny." ..."
As New Yorkers go to the polls in Democratic and Republican primaries this week, it is critical to
once again highlight the myriad ways that democracy in the United States is, like most other things,
a commodity to be bought and sold. From corporate control of the infrastructure of elections, to
the creation of mass bases of support out of whole cloth, the candidates, as well as the system itself,
cannot be trusted to be genuine.
Perhaps nothing illustrates this point more clearly than the
results of multiple studies on Hillary Clinton's online following which reveal that the majority
of her Twitter fans, and indeed her social media following in general, are completely fake. Consider
the implications of these findings from StatusPeople.com, and well-respected analytical tool TwitterAudit,
which both found that no more than 44 percent of Clinton's followers were actually real, active users
of Twitter.
This may seem something trivial, but in fact it cuts to the very heart of the notion of democracy,
and the legitimacy of a candidate who is perhaps the most obvious
embodiment of the political and financial establishment in the US. Indeed, Bernie Sanders, among
many others, has correctly noted that Clinton is in many ways the epitome of the ruling elite.
In a blistering commentary on Clinton during a nationally televised debate, Sanders
proclaimed, "I will absolutely admit that Secretary Clinton… has the entire establishment
or almost the entire establishment behind her. That's a fact. I don't deny it. I'm pretty proud that
we have over a million people who have contributed to our campaign averaging 27 bucks a piece."
Sanders highlighted the fact that the political and financial elites back Hillary, and in so doing
noted that his campaign is backed by millions of ordinary Americans.
But Sanders was equally, though perhaps inadvertently, illustrating the fact that the Clinton
campaign is, in effect, being manufactured; that she has no real support except for a near consensus
of establishment policy-makers and powerful individuals. And yet, here's Hillary marching into yet
another major primary with a double-digit
lead. How much of that is based on a perception shaped – at least in part – by social media?
This phenomenon is not relegated only to Clinton's campaign, however; this is true of most of
America's leading political figures. In 2013, it was
revealed President Obama's Twitter following was made up of a majority (53 percent) fake accounts.
The Daily Mail at the time noted that Vice President Joe Biden, First Lady Michelle Obama, and the
White House communications shop all had online followings consisting of mainly non-existent people.
So too did the State Department under Hillary Clinton, which
spent at least $630,000 to buy Facebook
likes, essentially manufacturing a public following for itself.
But who cares, right? What does it matter if Twitter accounts and Facebook likes are fraudulent?
How does that impact anything other than social media image?
How social media manipulation serves the Establishment agenda
Twitter, Facebook, and other social media have become very potent tools in the arsenal of the
US Government as it wages a relentless information war in the service of the military-industrial
complex and the agenda of the elite. In fact, social media goes far beyond just an image. Today,
it has been made into an effective tool for the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation
that conveniently buttresses whatever narrative the establishment wants.
Take for example the lead-up to the criminal war on Libya. In early 2011, with the narrative of
the 'Arab Spring' ubiquitous in western social media, the US-NATO machine set its sights on regime
change in Libya, with social media as one of the critical tools used to achieve it. Close followers
of that conflict will recall that dozens
of Twitter accounts, purportedly from anti-Gaddafi Libyans, mysteriously emerged in the lead-up to
the war that toppled the Libyan government, providing much of the "intelligence" relayed
on western media including CNN, NBC, the New York Times, et al.
At that time (February 2011), PC World published a little publicized
article entitled "Army of Fake Social Media Friends to Promote Propaganda" which noted that:
"… the U.S. government contracted HBGary Federal for the development of software which could
create multiple fake social media profiles to manipulate and sway public opinion on controversial
issues by promoting propaganda. It could also be used as surveillance to find public opinions with
points of view the powers-that-be didn't like. It could then potentially have their "fake" people
run smear campaigns against those "real" people."
Clearly the US Government and intelligence community have known from the beginning the power of
social media, and its ability to influence public opinion and lay the groundwork for policies, as
well as its potential as a weapon.
In fact, the CIA has taken its social media arsenal much further in recent years. There are literally
dozens of companies that have
received seed money from the CIA's investment arm, known as In-Q-Tel, in order to provide the
intelligence and security establishment the ability to do everything – from real-time surveillance
of social media users to data mining and more. In effect then, social media has become the playground
of the elite, the terrain upon which their manipulation and social engineering takes root.
Is This Democracy?
OK, so social media followings are meaningless as they can be manufactured, as we see currently
with Hillary Clinton. But surely the actual mechanisms of voting in the US are clean? Well, not exactly.
In this election season alone there have been massive failures in multiple states that have left
countless thousands of Americans without the right to vote for their candidates of choice, or victims
of outright fraud. Even Arizona's Secretary of State recently
admitted that fraud had
taken place on a large scale in her state. The hacktivist collective Anonymous has provided detailed
analysis pointing to the fact that state databases were likely
hacked and manipulated.
And then of course there's the issue of the voting machines themselves. Recently the Brennan Center
for Justice at NYU School of Law
issued a comprehensive
report entitled America's Voting Machines at Risk which found that the voting machines currently
in use are outdated, running the risk of catastrophic failures. The report highlighted many shocking
examples that should give anyone pause when considering the validity of election results. The authors
of the report noted that "Virginia recently decertified a voting system used in 24 percent of
precincts after finding that an external party could access the machine's wireless features to record
voting data or inject malicious data."
This finding only further substantiates the claims made by many experts that the hacking of voting
machines and election databases is all but assured, not just in the US but internationally.
A case in point is Andrés Sepulveda, a Colombian hacker who literally
stole the Mexican presidential
election for the current president Enrique Peña Nieto. Sepulveda, who is linked with Miami-based
political power broker Juan José Rendón (the right wing king-maker widely seen as the engineer of
numerous fraudulent elections in Latin America), has laid bare the utterly fraudulent machinations
just behind the artifice of so-called democracy. Does anyone really believe that US elections are
not equally suspect?
Finally, were the problem just the age of the voting machines and the ability of outside hackers
to manipulate them, the machines could simply be replaced with more advanced, high-security equipment,
and the elections could be deemed legitimate, right? Not so fast.
The fact is that nearly all electronic voting machines are designed and manufactured by companies
such as ES&S (owned by Warren Buffett), Dominion (previously Diebold), Smartmatic, and Hart Intercivic,
all of which are connected to very powerful interests within the ruling elite circles. In fact, researchers
at the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University demonstrated that in under
60 seconds, anyone could bypass the lock and replace the memory card with another. As the researchers
in the video
explain,
"Any desired algorithm can be used to determine which votes to steal and to which candidate or
candidates to transfer the stolen votes."
Put simply, there is little reason to trust the results of any election in the US. As Harvey Wasserman
and Bob Fitrakis succinctly
wrote: "There is no way to verify the official tally on the electronic machines on which
the majority of Americans will vote this fall. Nearly all the machines are a decade old, most are
controlled by a single company (ES&S, owned by Warren Buffett) and the courts have ruled that the
software is proprietary, making the vote counts beyond public scrutiny."
Given these inescapable facts, there is little reason to wonder why Hillary Clinton, the darling
of the establishment, is always smiling. She knows the game is rigged in her favor.
Despite the momentum Sanders has generated with his grassroots support, the Clinton machine is
alive and well thanks to a fake support base, dodgy election infrastructure, and elite-controlled
nomination process; in other words, corporate control of the election circus.
Think of these things the next time you hear President Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or anyone else
spouting off about America's democracy and its "exceptional" place in the world.
"... "So it sounds like the party, though, you feel like's been fair to you?" Todd asked Sanders. "No," Sanders responded. "I think we have- look, we're taking on the establishment. That's pretty clear." ..."
"... Pointing to the Democratic debate schedule, of which three of the first four took place on weekend nights, Sanders said they were "scheduled - pretty clearly, to my mind, at a time when there would be minimal viewing audience- et cetera, et cetera." "But you know, that's the way it is. We knew we were taking on the establishment," he said. "And here we are. So [I'm] not complaining." ..."
"... "Yeah, we took advantage of the opportunities in front of us. We are in this race. We are not writing our obituary," Sanders said. "We're in this race to California, and we're proud of the campaign we ran." ..."
'We knew we were taking on the establishment,' the Vermont senator says.
Bernie Sanders says the Democratic Party hasn't been fair to him - but he has mixed feelings on
the nominating process overall.
"Do you think this process has been fair to you? The Democratic nomination process?" moderator
Chuck Todd asked the Vermont senator in an interview filmed Saturday in Baltimore and aired Sunday
on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"Yes and no," Sanders said, going on to criticize the role of the media for neglecting to focus
on "real issues facing America." The media, he said, emphasizes "political gossip" rather than "issues
that affect working people."
"So it sounds like the party, though, you feel like's been fair to you?" Todd asked Sanders.
"No," Sanders responded. "I think we have- look, we're taking on the establishment. That's pretty
clear."
Pointing to the Democratic debate schedule, of which three of the first four took place on
weekend nights, Sanders said they were "scheduled - pretty clearly, to my mind, at a time when there
would be minimal viewing audience- et cetera, et cetera." "But you know, that's the way it is. We
knew we were taking on the establishment," he said. "And here we are. So [I'm] not complaining."
Todd then asked Sanders if he felt he was "given a fair shot" at the Democratic nomination.
"Yeah, we took advantage of the opportunities in front of us. We are in this race. We are
not writing our obituary," Sanders said. "We're in this race to California, and we're proud of the
campaign we ran."
Billionaire businessman Charles Koch said Sunday that "it's possible" another
Clinton in the White House could be better than having a Republican president.
Koch, the CEO of Koch Industries, made the comment to ABC News' Jonathan
Karl during
an interview that aired on ABC's "This Week."
"... The following is a preview of a chapter by Claudia von Werlhof in "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century." (2009) ..."
"... To read more, order the book online. Help us spread the word: "like" the book on Facebook and share with your friends -- ..."
No one asks these questions because they seem absurd. Yet, no one can escape
them either. Until the onslaught of the global economic crisis, the motto of
so-called "neoliberalism" was TINA: "There Is No Alternative!"
No alternative to "neoliberal globalization"?
No alternative to the unfettered "free market" economy?
What Is "Neoliberal Globalization"?
Let us first clarify what globalization and neoliberalism are, where they
come from, who they are directed by, what they claim, what they do, why their
effects are so fatal, why they will fail and why people nonetheless cling to
them. Then, let us look at the responses of those who are not – or will not
– be able to live with the consequences they cause.
This is where the difficulties begin. For a good twenty years now we have
been told that there is no alternative to neoliberal globalization, and that,
in fact, no such alternative is needed either. Over and over again, we have
been confronted with the TINA-concept: "There Is No Alternative!" The "iron
lady", Margaret Thatcher, was one of those who reiterated this belief without
end.
The TINA-concept prohibits all thought. It follows the rationale that there
is no point in analyzing and discussing neoliberalism and so-called globalization
because they are inevitable. Whether we condone what is happening or not does
not matter, it is happening anyway. There is no point in trying to understand.
Hence: Go with it! Kill or be killed!
Some go as far as suggesting that globalization – meaning, an economic system
which developed under specific social and historical conditions – is nothing
less but a law of nature. In turn, "human nature" is supposedly reflected by
the character of the system's economic subjects: egotistical, ruthless, greedy
and cold. This, we are told, works towards everyone's benefit.
The question remains: why has Adam Smith's "invisible hand" become a "visible
fist"? While a tiny minority reaps enormous benefits from today's neoliberalism
(none of which will remain, of course), the vast majority of the earth's population
suffers hardship to the extent that their very survival is at stake. The damage
done seems irreversible.
All over the world media outlets – especially television stations – avoid
addressing the problem. A common excuse is that it cannot be explained.[1] The
true reason is, of course, the media's corporate control.
What Is Neoliberalism?
Neoliberalism as an economic policy agenda which began in Chile in 1973.
Its inauguration consisted of a U.S.-organized coup against a democratically
elected socialist president and the installment of a bloody military dictatorship
notorious for systematic torture. This was the only way to turn the neoliberal
model of the so-called "Chicago Boys" under the leadership of Milton Friedman
– a student of Friedrich von Hayek – into reality.
The predecessor of the neoliberal model is the economic liberalism of the
18th and 19th centuries and its notion of "free trade". Goethe's assessment
at the time was: "Free trade, piracy, war – an inseparable three!"[2]
At the center of both old and new economic liberalism lies:
Self-interest and individualism; segregation of ethical principles and economic
affairs, in other words: a process of 'de-bedding' economy from society; economic
rationality as a mere cost-benefit calculation and profit maximization; competition
as the essential driving force for growth and progress; specialization and the
replacement of a subsistence economy with profit-oriented foreign trade ('comparative
cost advantage'); and the proscription of public (state) interference with market
forces.[3]
Where the new economic liberalism outdoes the old is in its global claim.
Today's economic liberalism functions as a model for each and everyone: all
parts of the economy, all sectors of society, of life/nature itself. As a consequence,
the once "de-bedded" economy now claims to "im-bed" everything, including political
power. Furthermore, a new twisted "economic ethics" (and with it a certain idea
of "human nature") emerges that mocks everything from so-called do-gooders to
altruism to selfless help to care for others to a notion of responsibility.[4]
This goes as far as claiming that the common good depends entirely on the
uncontrolled egoism of the individual and, especially, on the prosperity of
transnational corporations. The allegedly necessary "freedom" of the economy
– which, paradoxically, only means the freedom of corporations – hence consists
of a freedom from responsibility and commitment to society.
The maximization of profit itself must occur within the shortest possible
time; this means, preferably, through speculation and "shareholder value". It
must meet as few obstacles as possible. Today, global economic interests outweigh
not only extra-economic concerns but also national economic considerations since
corporations today see themselves beyond both community and nation.[5] A "level
playing field" is created that offers the global players the best possible conditions.
This playing field knows of no legal, social, ecological, cultural or national
"barriers".[6] As a result, economic competition plays out on a market that
is free of all non-market, extra-economic or protectionist influences – unless
they serve the interests of the big players (the corporations), of course. The
corporations' interests – their maximal growth and progress – take on complete
priority. This is rationalized by alleging that their well-being means the well-being
of small enterprises and workshops as well.
The difference between the new and the old economic liberalism can first
be articulated in quantitative terms: after capitalism went through a series
of ruptures and challenges – caused by the "competing economic system", the
crisis of capitalism, post-war "Keynesianism" with its social and welfare state
tendencies, internal mass consumer demand (so-called Fordism), and the objective
of full employment in the North. The liberal economic goals of the past are
now not only euphorically resurrected but they are also "globalized". The main
reason is indeed that the competition between alternative economic systems is
gone. However, to conclude that this confirms the victory of capitalism and
the "golden West" over "dark socialism" is only one possible interpretation.
Another – opposing – interpretation is to see the "modern world system" (which
contains both capitalism and socialism) as having hit a general crisis which
causes total and merciless competition over global resources while leveling
the way for investment opportunities, i.e. the valorization of capital.[7]
The ongoing globalization of neoliberalism demonstrates which interpretation
is right. Not least, because the differences between the old and the new economic
liberalism can not only be articulated in quantitative terms but in qualitative
ones too. What we are witnessing are completely new phenomena: instead of a
democratic "complete competition" between many small enterprises enjoying the
freedom of the market, only the big corporations win. In turn, they create new
market oligopolies and monopolies of previously unknown dimensions. The market
hence only remains free for them, while it is rendered unfree for all others
who are condemned to an existence of dependency (as enforced producers, workers
and consumers) or excluded from the market altogether (if they have neither
anything to sell or buy). About fifty percent of the world's population fall
into this group today, and the percentage is rising.[8]
Anti-trust laws have lost all power since the transnational corporations
set the norms. It is the corporations – not "the market" as an anonymous mechanism
or "invisible hand" – that determine today's rules of trade, for example prices
and legal regulations. This happens outside any political control. Speculation
with an average twenty percent profit margin edges out honest producers who
become "unprofitable".[9] Money becomes too precious for comparatively non-profitable,
long-term projects,
or projects that only – how audacious! – serve a good life. Money instead
"travels upwards" and disappears. Financial capital determines more and more
what the markets are and do.[10] By delinking the dollar from the price of gold,
money creation no longer bears a direct relationship to production".[11] Moreover,
these days most of us are – exactly like all governments – in debt. It is financial
capital that has all the money – we have none.[12]
Small, medium, even some bigger enterprises are pushed out of the market,
forced to fold or swallowed by transnational corporations because their performances
are below average in comparison to speculation – rather: spookulation – wins.
The public sector, which has historically been defined as a sector of not-for-profit
economy and administration, is "slimmed" and its "profitable" parts ("gems")
handed to corporations (privatized). As a consequence, social services that
are necessary for our existence disappear. Small and medium private businesses
– which, until recently, employed eighty percent of the workforce and provided
normal working conditions – are affected by these developments as well. The
alleged correlation between economic growth and secure employment is false.
When economic growth is accompanied by the mergers of businesses, jobs are lost.[13]
If there are any new jobs, most are precarious, meaning that they are only
available temporarily and badly paid. One job is usually not enough to make
a living.[14] This means that the working conditions in the North become akin
to those in the South, and the working conditions of men akin to those of women
– a trend diametrically opposed to what we have always been told. Corporations
now leave for the South (or East) to use cheap – and particularly female – labor
without union affiliation. This has already been happening since the 1970s in
the "Export Processing Zones" (EPZs, "world market factories" or "maquiladoras"),
where most of the world's computer chips, sneakers, clothes and electronic goods
are produced.[15] The EPZs lie in areas where century-old colonial-capitalist
and authoritarian-patriarchal conditions guarantee the availability of cheap
labor.[16] The recent shift of business opportunities from consumer goods to
armaments is a particularly troubling development.[17]
It is not only commodity production that is "outsourced" and located in the
EPZs, but service industries as well. This is a result of the so-called Third
Industrial Revolution, meaning the development of new information and communication
technologies. Many jobs have disappeared entirely due to computerization, also
in administrative fields.[18] The combination of the principles of "high tech"
and "low wage"/"no wage" (always denied by "progress" enthusiasts) guarantees
a "comparative cost advantage" in foreign trade. This will eventually lead to
"Chinese wages" in the West. A potential loss of Western consumers is not seen
as a threat. A corporate economy does not care whether consumers are European,
Chinese or Indian.
The means of production become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, especially
since finance capital – rendered precarious itself – controls asset values ever
more aggressively. New forms of private property are created, not least through
the "clearance" of public property and the transformation of formerly public
and small-scale private services and industries to a corporate business sector.
This concerns primarily fields that have long been (at least partly) excluded
from the logic of profit – e.g. education, health, energy or water supply/disposal.
New forms of so-called enclosures emerge from today's total commercialization
of formerly small-scale private or public industries and services, of the "commons",
and of natural resources like oceans, rain forests, regions of genetic diversity
or geopolitical interest (e.g. potential pipeline routes), etc.[19] As far as
the new virtual spaces and communication networks go, we are witnessing frantic
efforts to bring these under private control as well.[20]
All these new forms of private property are essentially created by (more
or less) predatory forms of appropriation. In this sense, they are a continuation
of the history of so-called original accumulation which has expanded globally,
in accordance with to the motto: "Growth through expropriation!"[21]
Most people have less and less access to the means of production, and so
the dependence on scarce and underpaid work increases. The destruction of the
welfare state also destroys the notion that individuals can rely on the community
to provide for them in times of need. Our existence relies exclusively on private,
i.e. expensive, services that are often of much worse quality and much less
reliable than public services. (It is a myth that the private always outdoes
the public.) What we are experiencing is undersupply formerly only known by
the colonial South. The old claim that the South will eventually develop into
the North is proven wrong. It is the North that increasingly develops into the
South. We are witnessing the latest form of "development", namely, a world system
of underdevelopment.[22] Development and underdevelopment go hand in hand.[23]
This might even dawn on "development aid" workers soon.
It is usually women who are called upon to counterbalance underdevelopment
through increased work ("service provisions") in the household. As a result,
the workload and underpay of women takes on horrendous dimensions: they do unpaid
work inside their homes and poorly paid "housewifized" work outside.[24] Yet,
commercialization does not stop in front of the home's doors either. Even housework
becomes commercially co-opted ("new maid question"), with hardly any financial
benefits for the women who do the work.[25]
Not least because of this, women are increasingly coerced into prostitution,
one of today's biggest global industries.[26] This illustrates two things: a)
how little the "emancipation" of women actually leads to "equal terms" with
men; and b) that "capitalist development" does not imply increased "freedom"
in wage labor relations, as the Left has claimed for a long time.[27] If the
latter were the case, then neoliberalism would mean the voluntary end of capitalism
once it reaches its furthest extension. This, however, does not appear likely.
Today, hundreds of millions of quasi-slaves, more than ever before, exist
in the "world system."[28] The authoritarian model of the "Export Processing
Zones" is conquering the East and threatening the North. The redistribution
of wealth runs ever more – and with ever accelerated speed – from the bottom
to the top. The gap between the rich and the poor has never been wider. The
middle classes disappear. This is the situation we are facing.
It becomes obvious that neoliberalism marks not the end of colonialism but,
to the contrary, the colonization of the North. This new "colonization of the
world"[29] points back to the beginnings of the "modern world system" in the
"long 16th century", when the conquering of the Americas, their exploitation
and colonial transformation allowed for the rise and "development" of Europe.[30]
The so-called "children's diseases" of modernity keep on haunting it, even in
old age. They are, in fact, the main feature of modernity's latest stage. They
are expanding instead of disappearing.
Where there is no South, there is no North; where there is no periphery,
there is no center; where there is no colony, there is no – in any case no "Western"
– civilization.[31]
Austria is part of the world system too. It is increasingly becoming a corporate
colony (particularly of German corporations). This, however, does not keep it
from being an active colonizer itself, especially in the East.[32]
Social, cultural, traditional and ecological considerations are abandoned
and give way to a mentality of plundering. All global resources that we still
have – natural resources, forests, water, genetic pools – have turned into objects
of utilization. Rapid ecological destruction through depletion is the consequence.
If one makes more profit by cutting down trees than by planting them, then there
is no reason not to cut them.[33] Neither the public nor the state interferes,
despite global warming and the obvious fact that the clearing of the few remaining
rain forests will irreversibly destroy the earth's climate – not to mention
the many other negative effects of such actions.[34] Climate, animal, plants,
human and general ecological rights are worth nothing compared to the interests
of the corporations – no matter that the rain forest is not a renewable resource
and that the entire earth's ecosystem depends on it. If greed, and the rationalism
with which it is economically enforced, really was an inherent anthropological
trait, we would have never even reached this day.
The commander of the Space Shuttle that circled the earth in 2005 remarked
that "the center of Africa was burning". She meant the Congo, in which the last
great rain forest of the continent is located. Without it there will be no more
rain clouds above the sources of the Nile. However, it needs to disappear in
order for corporations to gain free access to the Congo's natural resources
that are the reason for the wars that plague the region today. After all, one
needs diamonds and coltan for mobile phones.
Today, everything on earth is turned into commodities, i.e. everything becomes
an object of "trade" and commercialization (which truly means liquidation, the
transformation of all into liquid money). In its neoliberal stage it is not
enough for capitalism to globally pursue less cost-intensive and preferably
"wageless" commodity production. The objective is to transform everyone and
everything into commodities, including life itself.[35] We are racing blindly
towards the violent and absolute conclusion of this "mode of production", namely
total capitalization/liquidation by "monetarization".[36]
We are not only witnessing perpetual praise of the market – we are witnessing
what can be described as "market fundamentalism". People believe in the market
as if it was a god. There seems to be a sense that nothing could ever happen
without it. Total global maximized accumulation of money/capital as abstract
wealth becomes the sole purpose of economic activity. A "free" world market
for everything has to be established – a world market that functions according
to the interests of the corporations and capitalist money. The installment of
such a market proceeds with dazzling speed. It creates new profit possibilities
where they have not existed before, e.g. in Iraq, Eastern Europe or China.
One thing remains generally overlooked: the abstract wealth created for accumulation
implies the destruction of nature as concrete wealth. The result is a "hole
in the ground" and next to it a garbage dump with used commodities, outdated
machinery and money without value.[37] However, once all concrete wealth (which
today consists mainly of the last natural resources) will be gone, abstract
wealth will disappear as well. It will, in Marx's words, "evaporate". The fact
that abstract wealth is not real wealth will become obvious, and so will the
answer to the question of which wealth modern economic activity has really created.
In the end it is nothing but monetary wealth (and even this mainly exists virtually
or on accounts) that constitutes a monoculture controlled by a tiny minority.
Diversity is suffocated and millions of people are left wondering how to survive.
And really: how do you survive with neither resources nor means of production
nor money?
The nihilism of our economic system is evident. The whole world will be transformed
into money – and then it will disappear. After all, money cannot be eaten. What
no one seems to consider is the fact that it is impossible to re-transform commodities,
money, capital and machinery into nature or concrete wealth. It seems that underlying
all "economic development" is the assumption that "resources", the "sources
of wealth",[38] are renewable and everlasting – just like the "growth" they
create.[39]
The notion that capitalism and democracy are one is proven a myth by neoliberalism
and its "monetary totalitarianism".[40]
The primacy of politics over economy has been lost. Politicians of all parties
have abandoned it. It is the corporations that dictate politics. Where corporate
interests are concerned, there is no place for democratic convention or community
control. Public space disappears. The res publica turns into a res privata,
or – as we could say today – a res privata transnationale (in its original Latin
meaning, privare means "to deprive"). Only those in power still have rights.
They give themselves the licenses they need, from the "license to plunder" to
the "license to kill".[41] Those who get in their way or challenge their "rights"
are vilified, criminalized and to an increasing degree defined as "terrorists"
or, in the case of defiant governments, as "rogue states" – a label that usually
implies threatened or actual military attack, as we can see in the cases of
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and maybe Syria and Iran in the near future.
U.S. President Bush had even spoken of the possibility of "preemptive" nuclear
strikes should the U.S. feel endangered by weapons of mass destruction.[42]
The European Union did not object.[43]
Neoliberalism and war are two sides of the same coin.[44] Free trade, piracy
and war are still "an inseparable three" – today maybe more so than ever. War
is not only "good for the economy" but is indeed its driving force and can be
understood as the "continuation of economy with other means".[45] War and economy
have become almost indistinguishable.[46] Wars about resources – especially
oil and water – have already begun.[47] The Gulf Wars are the most obvious examples.
Militarism once again appears as the "executor of capital accumulation" – potentially
everywhere and enduringly.[48]
Human rights and rights of sovereignty have been transferred from people,
communities and governments to corporations.[49] The notion of the people as
a sovereign body has practically been abolished. We have witnessed a coup of
sorts. The political systems of the West and the nation state as guarantees
for and expression of the international division of labor in the modern world
system are increasingly dissolving.[50] Nation states are developing into "periphery
states" according to the inferior role they play in the proto-despotic "New
World Order".[51] Democracy appears outdated. After all, it "hinders business".[52]
The "New World Order" implies a new division of labor that does no longer
distinguish between North and South, East and West – today, everywhere is South.
An according International Law is established which effectively functions from
top to bottom ("top-down") and eliminates all local and regional communal rights.
And not only that: many such rights are rendered invalid both retroactively
and for the future.[53]
The logic of neoliberalism as a sort of totalitarian neo-mercantilism is
that all resources, all markets, all money, all profits, all means of production,
all "investment opportunities", all rights and all power belong to the corporations
only. To paraphrase Richard Sennett: "Everything to the Corporations!"[54] One
might add: "Now!"
The corporations are free to do whatever they please with what they get.
Nobody is allowed to interfere. Ironically, we are expected to rely on them
to find a way out of the crisis we are in. This puts the entire globe at risk
since responsibility is something the corporations do not have or know. The
times of social contracts are gone.[55] In fact, pointing out the crisis alone
has become a crime and all critique will soon be defined as "terror" and persecuted
as such.[56]
IMF Economic Medicine
Since the 1980s, it is mainly the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of
the World Bank and the IMF that act as the enforcers of neoliberalism. These
programs are levied against the countries of the South which can be extorted
due to their debts. Meanwhile, numerous military interventions and wars help
to take possession of the assets that still remain, secure resources, install
neoliberalism as the global economic politics, crush resistance movements (which
are cynically labeled as "IMF uprisings"), and facilitate the lucrative business
of reconstruction.[57]
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher introduced neoliberalism
in Anglo-America. In 1989, the so-called "Washington Consensus" was formulated.
It claimed to lead to global freedom, prosperity and economic growth through
"deregulation, liberalization and privatization". This has become the credo
and promise of all neoliberals. Today we know that the promise has come true
for the corporations only – not for anybody else.
In the Middle East, the Western support for Saddam Hussein in the war between
Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, and the Gulf War of the early 1990s, announced the
permanent U.S. presence in the world's most contested oil region.
In continental Europe, neoliberalism began with the crisis in Yugoslavia
caused by the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the World Bank and the
IMF. The country was heavily exploited, fell apart and finally beset by a civil
war over its last remaining resources.[58] Since the NATO war in 1999, the Balkans
are fragmented, occupied and geopolitically under neoliberal control.[59] The
region is of main strategic interest for future oil and gas transport from the
Caucasus to the West (for example the "Nabucco" gas pipeline that is supposed
to start operating from the Caspian Sea through Turkey and the Balkans by 2011.[60]
The reconstruction of the Balkans is exclusively in the hands of Western corporations.
All governments, whether left, right, liberal or green, accept this. There
is no analysis of the connection between the politics of neoliberalism, its
history, its background and its effects on Europe and other parts of the world.
Likewise, there is no analysis of its connection to the new militarism.
NOTES
[1] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 23, 36.
[2] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust: Part Two, New York, Oxford University
Press, 1999.
[3] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen. Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln,
PapyRossa, 2005, p. 34.
[4] Arno Gruen, Der Verlust des Mitgefühls. Über die Politik der Gleichgültigkeit,
München, 1997, dtv.
[5] Sassen Saskia, "Wohin führt die Globalisierung?," Machtbeben, 2000, Stuttgart-München,
DVA.
[6] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 24.
[7] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, 1979, Suhrkamp;
Immanuel Wallerstein (Hg), The Modern World-System in the Longue Durée, Boulder/
London; Paradigm Publishers, 2004.
[8] Susan George, im Vortrag, Treffen von Gegnern und Befürwortern der Globalisierung
im Rahmen der Tagung des WEF (World Economic Forum), Salzburg, 2001.
[9] Elmar Altvater, Das Ende des Kapitalismus, wie wir ihn kennen, Münster,
Westfälisches Dampfboot, 2005.
[10] Elmar Altvater and Birgit Mahnkopf, Grenzen der Globalisierung. Ökonomie,
Ökologie und Politik in der Weltgesellschaft, Münster, Westfälisches Dampfboot,
1996.
[11] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview mit Sarah
van Gelder, 2006,
www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer 0497.html; Margrit Kennedy,
Geld ohne Zinsen und Inflation, Steyerberg, Permakultur, 1990.
[12] Helmut Creutz, Das Geldsyndrom. Wege zur krisenfreien Marktwirtschaft,
Frankfurt, Ullstein, 1995.
[13] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 7.
[14] Barbara Ehrenreich, Arbeit poor. Unterwegs in der Dienstleistungsgesellschaft,
München, Kunstmann, 2001.
[15] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue internationale
Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den Industrieländern und die
Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer, Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.
[16] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof, Women,
The Last Colony, London/ New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.
[17] Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization. The Truth Behind September
11th, Oro, Ontario, Global Outlook, 2003.
[18] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue internationale
Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den Industrieländern und die
Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer, Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.
[19] Ana Isla, The Tragedy of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective
on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ., Sociology
Dpt., St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada, 2005.
[20] John Hepburn, Die Rückeroberung von Allmenden – von alten und von neuen,
übers. Vortrag bei, Other Worlds Conference; Univ. of Pennsylvania; 28./29.4,
2005.
[21] Claudia von Werlhof, Was haben die Hühner mit dem Dollar zu tun? Frauen
und Ökonomie, München, Frauenoffensive, 1991; Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly:
Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 148-192.
[22] Andre Gunder Frank, Die Entwicklung der Unterentwicklung, in ders. u.a.,
Kritik des bürgerlichen Antiimperialismus, Berlin, Wagenbach, 1969.
[23] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln,
PapyRossa, 2005.
[24] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof, Women,
the Last Colony, London/New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.
[25] Claudia von Werlhof, Frauen und Ökonomie. Reden, Vorträge 2002-2004,
Themen GATS, Globalisierung, Mechernich, Gerda-Weiler-Stiftung, 2004.
[26] Ana Isla, "Women and Biodiversity as Capital Accumulation: An Eco-Feminist
View," Socialist Bulletin, Vol. 69, Winter, 2003, p. 21-34; Ana Isla, The Tragedy
of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution
in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ., Sociology Department, St. Catherines, Ontario,
Canada, 2005.
[27] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.
[28] Kevin Bales, Die neue Sklaverei, München, Kunstmann, 2001.
[29] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln,
PapyRossa, 2005.
[30] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979;
Andre Gunder Frank, Orientierung im Weltsystem, Von der Neuen Welt zum Reich
der Mitte, Wien, Promedia, 2005; Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on
a World Scale, Women in the International Division of Labour, London, Zed Books,
1986.
[31] Claudia von Werlhof, "Questions to Ramona," in Corinne Kumar (Ed.),
Asking, We Walk. The South as New Political Imaginary, Vol. 2, Bangalore, Streelekha,
2007, p. 214-268
[32] Hannes Hofbauer, Osterweiterung. Vom Drang nach Osten zur peripheren
EU-Integration, Wien, Promedia, 2003; Andrea Salzburger, Zurück in die Zukunft
des Kapitalismus, Kommerz und Verelendung in Polen, Frankfurt – New York, Peter
Lang Verlag, 2006.
[34] August Raggam, Klimawandel, Biomasse als Chance gegen Klimakollaps und
globale Erwärmung, Graz, Gerhard Erker, 2004.
[35] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.
[36] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung
der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.
[37] Johan Galtung, Eurotopia, Die Zukunft eines Kontinents, Wien, Promedia,
1993.
[38] Karl Marx, Capital, New York, Vintage, 1976.
[39] Claudia von Werlhof, Loosing Faith in Progress: Capitalist Patriarchy
as an "Alchemical System," in Bennholdt-Thomsen et.al.(Eds.), There is an Alternative,
2001, p. 15-40.
[40] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung
der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.
[41] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 7; Maria Mies, Krieg
ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.
[42] Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism," Montreal, Global
Research, 2005.
[43] Michel Chossudovsky, "Nuclear War Against Iran," Global Research, Center
for Research on Globalization, Ottawa 13.1, 2006.
[44] Altvater, Chossudovsky, Roy, Serfati, Globalisierung und Krieg, Sand
im Getriebe 17, Internationaler deutschsprachiger Rundbrief der ATTAC – Bewegung,
Sonderausgabe zu den Anti-Kriegs-Demonstrationen am 15.2., 2003; Maria Mies,
Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.
[45] Hazel Hendersen, Building a Win-Win World. Life Beyond Global Economic
Warfare, San Francisco, 1996.
[46] Claudia von Werlhof, Vom Wirtschaftskrieg zur Kriegswirtschaft. Die
Waffen der, Neuen-Welt-Ordnung, in Mies 2005, p. 40-48.
[47] Michael T. Klare, Resource Wars. The New Landscape of Global Conflict,
New York, Henry Holt and Company, 2001.
[48] Rosa Luxemburg, Die Akkumulation des Kapitals, Frankfurt, 1970.
[49] Tony Clarke, Der Angriff auf demokratische Rechte und Freiheiten, in
Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 80-94.
[50] Sassen Saskia, Machtbeben. Wohin führt die Globalisierung?, Stuttgart-München,
DVA, 2000.
[51] Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press,
2001; Noam Chomsky, Hybris. Die endgültige Sicherstellung der globalen –Vormachtstellung
der USA, Hamburg-Wien, Europaverlag, 2003.
[52] Claudia von Werlhof, Speed Kills!, in Dimmel/Schmee, 2005, p. 284-292
[53] See the "roll back" and "stand still" clauses in the WTO agreements
in Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003.
[54] Richard Sennett, zit. "In Einladung zu den Wiener Vorlesungen," 21.11.2005:
Alternativen zur neoliberalen Globalisierung, 2005.
[55] Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly: Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof,
2003, p. 148-192.
[56] Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism," Montreal, Global
Research, 2005.
[57] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die
Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen.
Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005; Bennholdt-Thomsen/Faraclas/Werlhof
2001.
[58] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die
Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002.
[59] Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die Wahrheit
über den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer Buchverlag,
2000; Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die deutsche
Verantwortung für den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer
Buchverlag, 2000.
"... Nevertheless, the election of Sanders or Trump is important, because it demonstrates that American citizens are emerging from The Matrix and have no confidence in the two corrupt political parties that betrayed them. The message would go out to the world as well that the American people have no confidence in the Washington Establishment. These messages are very important and can only have beneficial effects. ..."
"... So why is the progressive left helping the One Percent keep the lid on the rest of us? Has the progressive left sold out or is the progressive left putting its emotional needs above the general welfare? ..."
"Have you noticed that it is not only the presstitute media and the two establishment political
parties that are beating up on Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump but also the progressive left? Sometimes
the messages overlap so much that the progressive left sounds like the One Percent. But mainly the
progressive left is down on Sanders because he is "not pure," and they don't like Trump because he
hurts people's feelings and doesn't apologize.
This is astounding. Here we are faced with the corrupt media and the corrupt party establishments
determined to put in the Oval Office a tried and proven agent of the One Percent, and the progressive
left is beating up on the only two alternatives!
I doubt that Sanders or Trump would be able to achieve much for the American people except to
reduce the flow of official lies that the presstitutes turn into truths by constant repetition. The
Oligarchy is too strong. It was more than a half century ago that President Eisenhower warned us
of the threat to American democracy from the military-security complex. That complex is much stronger
today, and, in addition, we have Wall Street and the mega-banks that control the US Treasury and
Federal Reserve, the Israel Lobby that has the US Congress wrapped around its little finger, the
extractive industries (energy, mining, timber) that prevails over the environment and preservation,
and agribusiness that poisons our food, exterminates honey bees and butterflies and produces chemical
fertilizer runoff into waters that result in massive fish kills from algea. None of these powerful
interests will permit the welfare of the American people to get in the way of their agendas and profits.
Nevertheless, the election of Sanders or Trump is important, because it demonstrates that
American citizens are emerging from The Matrix and have no confidence in the two corrupt political
parties that betrayed them. The message would go out to the world as well that the American people
have no confidence in the Washington Establishment. These messages are very important and can only
have beneficial effects.
So why is the progressive left helping the One Percent keep the lid on the rest of us? Has
the progressive left sold out or is the progressive left putting its emotional needs above the general
welfare?
"... She was a hawk & to the Right of Obama during her entire tenure. ..."
"... Clinton is always going back and forth, tying herself tightly to Obama when she thinks it suits her, and then throwing him under the bus anytime she's called on her nonsense. ..."
"... We've seen Hillary's judgment when it comes to foreign policy. She is as experienced as they come, but every situation she has touched has come out the worse ..."
"... Bernie Sanders will listen to both sides and find the best peaceful option on the table. Under Hillary Clinton, the United States will become involved with at least one more Middle Eastern country, and I am personally terrified of how much she will antagonize Iran. ..."
"... When Ms. Clinton debates or gives a speech, she comes across as smug, haughty, condescending and contemptible. ..."
She was Secretary of State. If she was a true leader, she would have
resigned her post and spoken out against the policies.
Terry Underwood
It was Hillary and the American Ambassador to the UN that pushed
Obama into Libya.
Simon Magus · Oakland, California
She was only offered Sec State by Obama in a deal so that she would
support him and heal the rift in the party after a nasty nomination
process. What, you think she had loads of foreign policy experience
before that? She was a hawk & to the Right of Obama during her
entire tenure.
Simon Magus · Oakland, California
deceptive in what way? Clinton is always going back and forth,
tying herself tightly to Obama when she thinks it suits her, and then
throwing him under the bus anytime she's called on her nonsense.
Kingsley Oji
Bruce Hill Nah we know how government works. The problem is that she
conveniently and deftly passes on responsibility when it suits her.
Wasn't she in the television interview filled with elation that "we
came, we saw, he died!" Did she ever offer any intelligent recourse for
solving the problems in Libya without ousting Assad, publicly or
privately? No. This is a clever misdirection. Notice how when Bernie
calls her out on her Syria policy, she claims to have advised the
President to train and fund opposition. But why are we acting in Syria
anyway? Do you know? Why are we acting in Libya?? Do you know? Those are
the real issues which haven't been adressed.
Tom Planamento · Binghamton, New York
We've seen Hillary's judgment when it comes to foreign policy.
She is as experienced as they come, but every situation she has touched
has come out the worse. The Arab Spring under her tenure of SoS was
a once in a lifetime chance to reform moderate Islam, and under
Clinton's strong support, the United States managed to piss off nearly
every country by selling billions of dollars worth of bombs to both
sides, resulting in chaos over much of the Middle East and North Africa.
It's time for new ideas, and by that I do not mean Donald Trump.
Bernie Sanders will listen to both sides and find the best peaceful
option on the table. Under Hillary Clinton, the United States will
become involved with at least one more Middle Eastern country, and I am
personally terrified of how much she will antagonize Iran.
David Trott
When Ms. Clinton debates or gives a speech, she comes across as
smug, haughty, condescending and contemptible. The "B" word comes
to mind...on steroids. It's no wonder that she has high unfavorability
ratings. After 30 years of her shrillness and self-imposed scandals,
there's nothing that would make Ms. Clinton more likable. Nothing!
However, maybe a house arrest and electronic ankle bracelet would take
the edge off her arrogance.
The status on-going federal investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use
of a personal email server has begun to bubble up again, less than 10 days before the critical
New York primary.
The issue removed the veneer of inevitability from Clinton's bid to be the 2016 Democratic
presidential nominee last summer and gave rise to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Clinton's email
scandal had largely fallen off the public radar in recent months as conservative watchdog groups
fought to get more emails from Clinton and her top aides released. The Justice Department had
assigned more than 50 agents to the investigation to try to recover the server's data, even
though Clinton claimed the device has been "wiped clean."
Related: Facing Democratic Fury, Sanders Walks Back His Attack on Clinton
The topic was spiraling toward becoming an "Inside the Beltway" story before it came roaring back
Sunday when President Obama said his former top diplomat has displayed "carelessness" in
arranging the homebrew set-up, and vowed that Justice and FBI will not protect the Democratic
frontrunner.
"I can guarantee that," the president said in interview with Fox News Sunday, his first with the
show since entering the Oval Office in 2009. "I can guarantee that, not because I give Attorney
General Lynch a directive, that is institutionally how we have always operated. I do not talk to
the Attorney General about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending
investigations."
"I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice
Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case," Obama added. "Full stop.
Period."
The president's full-throated defense of neutrality is likely to backfire, though. Many
Republicans already believe that even if Clinton is found to have broken the law, Obama's Justice
Department would not prosecute her and that's why the GOP must win the White House this November.
Related: Here's the Big Risk Sanders and Clinton Are Taking as They Trade Insults
Several Republican contenders pledged to continue the investigation into Clinton's email server
and pursue charges against her.
"Absolutely, yes," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said last month during an interview with Fox News' "Hannity."
On Sunday, Obama repeated his belief that Clinton's personal email use "has not jeopardized
America's national security," even though they contained classified information.
"Now, what I've also said is that - and she has acknowledged - that there's a carelessness, in
terms of managing e-mails, that she has owned, and she recognizes," he added.
TheLastPlainsman
Guest
•
2 months ago
Actually, out here in Colorado we have an entire,
deserted, semi-modern prison that isn't in use.
(there is no particular reason to put them there other
than our folk in the northern part of the state have yet
to feel the Obama love economics)
bjbrtn
TheLastPlainsman
•
2 months ago
Actually, if the truth were known about much of the
0bama administrations conduct and corruption, we could
probably fill both. Would like to see all the "big"
ones go to Gitmo first though.
Wallmantx
Guest
•
2 months ago
We can give it back to Cuba after they have arrived. make
them stay there forever with no way of being repatriated.
But first take away all their cash. You don't want them to
live a life of luxury when they should be living a life of
misery.
VetMike
andreabeth7
•
2 months ago
No, real prison with Bubba and his/her friends. If they think
they will jut go to some camp then the crimes will continue.
We need to stop having special prisons for the nobility.
Ken Shaffin
Silence
Is Foo ✓
•
2 months ago
Yes but to remain on the subject of the report, the reader is
left to wonder who Sidney Blumenthal is most similar to as a
political hack with the ear of the ruler: is he a Machiavelli or
a Rasputin or the Alfred Rosenberg of the Clinton dynasty? Since
the article also notes Blumenthal's emphasis on favoring the
famous Clinton "economic philosophy, referred to as the "third
way," which called for business and government to join hands as
partners," being as described very much the eco-political
essence of socialist Fascism, and Blumenthal having no
allegiance to anyone but himself and his master, I'll go with
his similarity to Hitler's favorite self-loathing
Judeo-Christian turned neo-pagan and reliable adviser Rosenberg.
M Wayne
Ken
Shaffin
•
2 months ago
I actually wanted to put his corpse on display In NYC with a
sign on it saying this is what happens to terrorists that
attack the US. That would have been a much better use. But I
also wanted to put the twin towers back where they were, each
a foot taller; or maybe three towers in a form that resembled
the middle finger facing eastward. So maybe you shouldn't
listen to me.
On the subject at hand though, I think Obama
did a pretty thorough job spiking the football all on his
own. I lost count on the number of "I's" and "me's" in his
speech after they killed him. I guess that wasn't enough for
Blumenthal.
Matty Q
M
Wayne
•
2 months ago
The Twin Tower Middle Finger idea is the most brilliant
thing I have heard all year!! Maybe you should run for
Pres. LOL Seriously though, that was hilarious...and
awesome!!
M Wayne
Matty Q
•
2 months ago
Love to take credit for it but the idea wasn't mine. I
did want to put two towers back though, and taller,
just for defiance.
Matty Q
M Wayne
•
2 months ago
At least you're honest! Most people would've just
taken the credit. General Wayne would be proud! Ha!
Btw, I agree with building the Towers back, only
taller. That would've have made quite the statement.
Jeffrey D. Sachs @JeffDSachs It's incredible that a silly rant like this passes for commentary
at the New York Times
Notable quotes:
"... I like the fact that Krugman is showing his true colors: the Conscience of the Status Quo ..."
"... Conscience of a Neoliberal. ..."
"... The Paul K Smear Patrol: Krugman can be ferocious going after the Right, but he also has a thing for the Left, as I recall from his trade purism of the 90s. Right now, he's on an anti-Bernie, pro-Hillary jag and pulling no punches... ..."
"... He is too partisan to recognize that the Clinton machine-the Foundation, the campaign-are accommodative toward big pools of money. My speculation is that PK thinks the Left is a bunch of amateurs who have no business being anywhere near power, and that the citadels of expertise (which includes economists who are affiliated or will affiliate with Clinton) need to be defended against the barbarians. If it isn't that, something is causing this guy to lose his analytical balance." ..."
"... That was actually embarrassing for Barney because he has trouble dealing with counterargument and tends to just rant and denigrate whoever he is speaking "at." He had a similar episode about a week ago, also on Hayes, where he doesn't seem to have any ability to demonstrate grace or due respect - which I've often enjoyed when he is countering some crazy Republican, but I'm starting to recognize as a personality flaw. He's got an inflated opinion of himself. ..."
"... "A democratic polity does not elect a technocrat-in-chief, but politicians whose role is to define priorities that must later be translated into well-crafted policy details.... The problems of our polity do not arise because one faction or another is too stupid to do high quality science.... Being smart is great. You may be proud of your GRE scores, your PhD, your Nobel Prize even. And deservedly! But raw intellect is not scarce, and no faction holds anywhere near a monopoly. ..."
"... The thing is, Hillary Clinton is also not a policy wonk. Sanders led out of the gate last year with a 12-point policy agenda while Clinton was still struggling to articulate broad themes. ..."
"... Later, Clinton came out with a detailed financial plan, which is fine. That plan consists in various places of calls for "more regulation" of various functions and sectors. Does anybody think Hillary Clinton actually has a lot of specific ideas about what these regulations will actually look like after the wonks write them up? Of course she doesn't. And well she shouldn't! She's running for President, not the project manager of the policy engineering department. CEOs have to set the vision and mission, keep the team on track, and then make dozens of important decisions every day. They don't wallow in that kind of detail (until they have to go out in public to sell it.) ..."
"... Sanders is popular because he's an authentic dude. He hasn't changed his message for 30 years. People have come around to his view. He's not your normal politician. ..."
"... He's smart enough to know that the corporate media is out to get him and often says so to their faces. ..."
"... Yeah - he forgot that "air quotes" don't translate into print, so he fell for the Clinton campaign's carefully laid "bait." His comments were totally in context of the Clinton campaign's "disqualify" strategy and her slick "I'm taking it to the edge so you can't hang it on me" comments to Morning Joke. Hillary and her strategists are slick and disingenuous, Bernie is blunt and brusque. ..."
"... Sort of like the difference in their relationships to dangerous critters like Lloyd Blankfein. Bernie tells them to go to hell. Hillary takes their money and claims it means nothing that she has their support. ..."
"... Clinton sycophants are incredibly dedicated, no matter what is done or said by the Clintons. ..."
"... The idea that Krugman, an ivory tower careerists who spends most of his time trying to impress the High Church poobahs who run and advise the world's oppressive establishment power structures, should lecture a man whose entire career has been dedicated to defending the poor, weak and vulnerable on "ethical moorings" is flabbergasting. ..."
"... Krugman's politics haven't changed much since he first made his name 35 years ago, whether he is "liberal" or "centrist" is mostly a reflection of where the current center is. His Bernie blasts remind me of the potshots he used to take at John Kenneth Galbraith. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton the last of the angry old white entitled one percenter Rockfeller Republicans cloaked in feminism ready to lead the Neodemocratic party. ..."
"... "It is reported that ..." Exactly. And that means exactly what? The media is owned by people who have exactly zero interest in the American people being informed about who stealing all the bacon and how. ..."
"... It's truly sad to watch Paul Krugman (PK) turn into a political stooge for the wealthy liberal elite that currently runs the Democratic party. ..."
"... What better proof could there possibly be, that it's time to kick Hillary and her cronies to the curb. ..."
"... "Bernie is the only candidate that refuse to play identity politics (pitting minorities and whites against each other). Hillary, and surrogates try to label Bernie as a "defender of white privilege". When, in fact, Bernie is the only one that truly looks beyond race and privilege, with policies that include all Americans, regardless of race or position in society." -Rune Lagman ..."
"... The laziness of "all we need to do is vote for Bernie" is sad. We don't need to build a movement! Just one vote, and centuries of injustice are effortlessly overturned! Don't bother coming again, or paying attention to how resumes with black-sounding names are downplayed! You've done your part and it will all work out in the end! ..."
"... Hopefully we have the fortitude to stand up to the fear-mongering and siren-song of the Democratic establishment. A vote for Hillary won't change anything, but a vote for Bernie will definitely start the changes that are necessary. ..."
"... A vote for Bernie is a vote for a movement and IT IS the kind of movement that Martin Luther King had wanted all along. Doctor King did not want apologies or even reparations. Doctor King wanted fair and equal pay, decent educations, good jobs, and equality in all rights, privileges, and opportunities for his people. Martin Luther King was a black man decent enough for a white man to follow and I did. Bernie Sanders is a white man decent enough for a black man to follow. ..."
"... I just hate the way Hillary campaigns. She said Sanders should apologize for Sandy Hook? Why isn't he media all over her for that? Because they have double standards. She lies about Sanders record as if it's expected just as taking a lot of money from rich donors and corporations is expected. ..."
"... Here is Konczal on Bernie's "disastrous" interview at the NYDN. http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/ As you can see, Konczal does not buy into Krugman's and the MSM overblown reactions. Sanders gave pretty straight forward and normal answers. For those who don't know, Konczal is a financial reform expert who Krugman respects and often cites. ..."
"... The same applies to Sanders not knowing the specific statute for prosecuting banks for their actions in the housing bubble. Knowingly passing off fraudulent mortgages in a mortgage backed security is fraud. Could the Justice Department prove this case against high level bank executives? Who knows, but they obviously didn't try. ..."
I guess Paul forgot about JPMorgan, Wells, Goldman, et al mainlining cruddy MBS into the global
economy. Unless he wouldn't locate that near the "heart" of the financial crisis--more like the
arteries. Weak sauce, Krugman.
Comments on Krugman's contribution to the Clinton Campaign closed as I was writing this, so I'll
post it here:
What we are now hearing from PK and the doddering Barney Frank (if his near-meltdown on Chris
Hayes, debating - or shouting at - Robert Reich is any indication), is that Too Big To Fail doesn't
exist. It's only about capital requirements. Capital requirements are critical, but it's crackpot
to dismiss the notion that players in the financial system that are clearly "too big to fail"
can't find ways to threaten the economic system in the future, in their quest for profits. If
Frank believes that his very modest, watered-down-by-lobbyists bill, dependent as much on the
integrity of regulators as the SEC et al for "teeth", erases the risk of "too big to fail" I've
got a bridge to sell Barney. Smart Guys like Krugman and Frank didn't see the meltdown coming.
They won't see the next one if these behemoths have their way. Glass Steagall isn't enough, but
it served the country well for decades and was destroyed by the Clinton administration, in tandem
with the vulture Phil Gramm. When Lloyd Blankfein is no longer comfortable supporting Hillary
Clinton I'll believe that she has cut ties to Wall Street. "Robert Rubin Democrats" aren't Democrats
IMHO - they are stealth Republicans and Bernie is the only candidate who we could trust to drive
these money-changers from the political "temple", as opposed to letting them influence the administration
as Clinton inevitably will.
Qualifications are based on criterion
Bernie's criterion
You are NOT a corporate liberal
Experience is not a valuable criterion
If you served the corporate whales
ilsm -> PPaine ...
experience gained from voting Bush
a blank check with poor kids bodies,
and then taking out Qaddafi for the French
ain't so good!
anyone who gets paid to blither to bankster
has thw rong experience
for a librul.
JohnH -> RGC...
Krugman just went over the edge...along with his reputation as an impartial political observer
and economists. The man has an agenda.
econospeak notes:
"The Paul K Smear Patrol: Krugman can be ferocious going after the Right, but he also
has a thing for the Left, as I recall from his trade purism of the 90s. Right now, he's on
an anti-Bernie, pro-Hillary jag and pulling no punches...
He reads an informative news article through a rather restrictive lens.
He is too partisan to recognize that the Clinton machine-the Foundation, the campaign-are
accommodative toward big pools of money. My speculation is that PK thinks the Left is a bunch
of amateurs who have no business being anywhere near power, and that the citadels of expertise
(which includes economists who are affiliated or will affiliate with Clinton) need to be defended
against the barbarians. If it isn't that, something is causing this guy to lose his analytical
balance."
"My speculation is that PK thinks the Left is a bunch of amateurs who have no business being
anywhere near power, and that the citadels of expertise (which includes economists who are
affiliated or will affiliate with Clinton) need to be defended against the barbarians."
I think that's pretty much spot on. Krugman believes that only policy wonks should run for
office. The possibility that providing visionary leadership and formulating detailed policy proposals
might be two different jobs seems not to have occurred to him.
I watched Frank (who I think is a good and smart guy), a Clinton supporter, debate Reich (who
I think is both, plus his heart is in the right place), a Sanders supporter, about the banks.
Same disconnect: Frank was going on about the details of Dodd-Frank, demanding that Reich provide
more detail about Bernie's proposals, and missing the essential point:
That was actually embarrassing for Barney because he has trouble dealing with counterargument
and tends to just rant and denigrate whoever he is speaking "at." He had a similar episode about
a week ago, also on Hayes, where he doesn't seem to have any ability to demonstrate grace or due
respect - which I've often enjoyed when he is countering some crazy Republican, but I'm starting
to recognize as a personality flaw. He's got an inflated opinion of himself.
Krugman seems like he has a tendency to "go there" as well. Reminiscent of when he called Obama
supporters "a cult" when the Prez took on Hillary. Did that numerous times, just like he can't
stop himself from using "Bernie Bros."
> Krugman believes that only policy wonks should run for office. The possibility that providing
visionary leadership and formulating detailed policy proposals might be two different jobs seems
not to have occurred to him.
Steve Randy Waldman had a good post on this subject a couple months back, Your Theory of Politics
is Wrong. An excerpt:
"A democratic polity does not elect a technocrat-in-chief, but politicians whose role
is to define priorities that must later be translated into well-crafted policy details....
The problems of our polity do not arise because one faction or another is too stupid to do
high quality science.... Being smart is great. You may be proud of your GRE scores, your PhD,
your Nobel Prize even. And deservedly! But raw intellect is not scarce, and no faction holds
anywhere near a monopoly.
In a democratic polity, wonks are the help. The role of the democratic process is to adjudicate
interests and values. Wonks get a vote just like everyone else, but expertise on technocratic
matters ought not translate to any deference on interests and values.
If your theory of democracy is that informed citizens ought to cast votes based on the best
social science, you have no theory of democracy at all."
The thing is, Hillary Clinton is also not a policy wonk. Sanders led out of the gate last
year with a 12-point policy agenda while Clinton was still struggling to articulate broad themes.
Later, Clinton came out with a detailed financial plan, which is fine. That plan consists
in various places of calls for "more regulation" of various functions and sectors. Does anybody
think Hillary Clinton actually has a lot of specific ideas about what these regulations will actually
look like after the wonks write them up? Of course she doesn't. And well she shouldn't! She's
running for President, not the project manager of the policy engineering department. CEOs have
to set the vision and mission, keep the team on track, and then make dozens of important decisions
every day. They don't wallow in that kind of detail (until they have to go out in public to sell
it.)
Clinton's strength is politics, network building and balancing the competing interests and
red lines of top elite stakeholders. The policy stuff comes from other people. Podesta, Brad DeLong
and others built her a whole new fancy policy kitchen over at that Center for Equitable Growth
for those purposes.
You can't reduce a campaign contest to a menu of policies. In an campaign pinch, Clinton can
always text Podesta and tell him to cook up some new policy on Subject X that sounds like Bernie
Sanders. But the world is constantly changing and new challenges are constantly arising, and the
values and general orientation of the leader are more important than what this week's menu looks
like. Clearly Sanders's default outlook is something like: "The plutocrats are always up to no
good. They are robbing, cheating and screwing us at every turn as a result of their bottomless
greed, and so we need to watch them like hawks and take them on politically." Clinton's outlook
seems to be that the elites are mainly good and sensible folks who have matters well in hand,
and getting things done consists mainly in maintaining a consensus among them.
On "Late Night with Seth Meyers," when the studio fills with smoke it's a signal - it's time
for "Ya Burnt," a roasting segment. On Thursday night, audiences were instead treated to "Ya Bernt."
Yes, Bernie Sanders was on "Late Night."
Taking over the segment, Sanders talked about his feelings over some of his most burning issues
- the one percent, big banks, and late-night hosts who make jokes about his hair.
"One percent, what do you need all that money for? If I didn't know any better, I'd think you
were trying to compensate for something," said Sanders. "How is it possible that some of you are
paying a lower tax rate than your secretaries? That makes less sense than the plot of Batman vs.
Superman. One percent, ya burnt."
But when Sanders sat down to interview, the jokes quickly paused and turned to more serious
topics as Meyers pointed out Sanders' remarks about Clinton earlier this week.
"You made a comment about Hillary being unqualified for the office of president," Meyers said.
"Is that something you regret saying?"
"It was said after she and her campaign said that I was unqualified," Sanders said.
Meyers cleared up the matter slightly, suggesting to Sanders that Clinton had never said he
was unqualified.
"I heard her fail to say you were qualified, but she didn't say 'unqualified,' " Meyers said.
...
Sanders is popular because he's an authentic dude. He hasn't changed his message for 30 years.
People have come around to his view. He's not your normal politician.
He's smart enough to know that the corporate media is out to get him and often says so
to their faces.
I think Hillary's suggestion that he apologize for the Sandy Hook shootings genuinely made
him angry. So he responded in kind.
If the corporate media was fair and objective they would have reported that Hillary was going
negative and dragging the primary into the gutter.
But of course the media likes a food fight and the Post fanned the flames. If Sanders didn't
fight back, they would have faulted him for that. No win.
Originally I supported Sanders's objective to run a positive campaign. Given how the Clinton
campaign has behaved, now I think Sanders should have gone negative - fairly - from the start.
There are legitimate questions about the Clinton Foundation, etc.
Krugman etc would have screamed bloody murder that he's helping the Republican but so what.
The Republicans are going to say all of that and worse anyway.
If it is going to be Hillary versus Trump or Cruz, it will be the ugliest campaign in history.
Yeah - he forgot that "air quotes" don't translate into print, so he fell for the Clinton
campaign's carefully laid "bait." His comments were totally in context of the Clinton campaign's
"disqualify" strategy and her slick "I'm taking it to the edge so you can't hang it on me" comments
to Morning Joke. Hillary and her strategists are slick and disingenuous, Bernie is blunt and brusque.
What else is new. Sort of like the difference in their relationships to dangerous critters
like Lloyd Blankfein. Bernie tells them to go to hell. Hillary takes their money and claims it
means nothing that she has their support.
Clinton sycophants are incredibly dedicated, no matter what is done or said by the Clintons.
An interesting political phenomena.
Go Bernie, go Bernie.
Dan Kervick :
The idea that Krugman, an ivory tower careerists who spends most of his time trying to impress
the High Church poobahs who run and advise the world's oppressive establishment power structures,
should lecture a man whose entire career has been dedicated to defending the poor, weak and vulnerable
on "ethical moorings" is flabbergasting.
Where were the ethical moorings of the economic establishment over the past 35 years as they
helped preside over the creation of the most unequal society on Earth? For shame.
JohnH -> Dan Kervick...
Yes, Krugman is loath to criticize trade deals, trickle down monetary policies, and many other
engines of the investor class' wealth and power...he is a liberal face of the power structure's
media machine, as evidenced by his position at the New York Times.
William :
Never thought this would happen, PK became a "Very Serious Person."
BigBozat -> William...
That should have been apparent for quite some time now. The completion of his metastasis should
have been obvious to even casual observers by the time he penned his 'Varieties of Voodoo' screed
attacking Friedman/Bernie with arguments from authority.
BigBozat -> Kerry...
"It seems that you could write similar critiques of Hillary but Paul always choses to make the
critique of Bernie. I am not sure why."
The answer to your question is embedded in your preceding sentence.
Krugtron's definition of 'Liberal' seems curiously circumscribed. Apparently, Progressives,
Social Democrats, Heterodox Economists - among others - are not part of the community.
Dan Kervick -> BigBozat...
I watched a video the other day where a younger Krugman in 1992 was defending basic, established
liberal policies against people like Herbert Stein from AEI. I think reflecting on that discussion
helps get some perspective on Krugman's current limits.
Krugman came of age in an era when economic policy and the elite consensus was turning in a
decisively more conservative, pro-market, anti-regulation, laissez faire direction. In such an
environment, liberals had their hands full just keeping the conservatives from completely dismantling
the social safety net. They also had to work overtime to defend basic fiscal policy responses
which had been considered uncontroversial common sense in the previous era.
The problem is, Krugman still thinks he lives in that world. He thinks the radical conservatives
are still winning, and that being a liberal now mainly consists in being a conservative defender
of existing liberal institutions. I think the Krugman mindset has afflicted a whole generation,
for whom, no matter how many opportunities they are presented with, respond by circling the wagons
and playing defense. They have been playing defense so long they don't realize how conservative
they have become.
But the radical conservatives actually aren't winning. The Republican Party is in total disarray.
2/3rds of the American public say they want "radical change":
Well observed. I think for many Democrats, it's always 2000. I think it's that "siege mentality"
that is causing pundits like Krugman to be extra-critical of Sanders, as if Bernie might hand
the election over to the GOP.
Both Dean Baker and Mike Konczal have written good defenses of Sanders' NYDN statements about
the banks. Perhaps Krugman might look at them before trying to make Sanders look foolish. Very
disappointing run of columns from Krugman.
shows Clinton with 1298
Sanders with 1079, through April 5
'State totals are pledged delegates based on election results.
The Times estimated Washington State's 67 district-level
delegates by using county vote totals and estimating each
district's share based on the county's voting-age population.'
Primaries & caucuses from April 9 through June 14.
Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...
The NYT data that appears in the Delegate Counter appear to match more closely with the data that
appears in The Green Papers than it does with the Delegate Calculator.
am -> Fred C. Dobbs...
Agreed. The counter reporting the lead of 219 seems more accurate also. Sanders won heavily in
Washington and the counter more accurately reflects this.
Peter :
Krugman leaves out a lot of context in his column. Perhaps he believes the ends justify the means
during an election.
What happened is that some polls have Sanders leading Clinton nationally. (will this kind of
thing matter to the superdelegates?)
From Chris G in todays links comments:
"Sanders had the support of 47 percent of Democratic or Democratic-leaning voters while Clinton
had 46 percent-a narrow gap that fell within the poll's 2.5 percent margin of error. The national
survey was conducted in the days before the Vermont senator handily defeated the former secretary
of state in the Wisconsin primary, and it tracks other polls in the last week that found Sanders
erasing Clinton's edge across the country. In a poll that PRRI conducted in January, Clinton had
a 20-point lead."
So the Clinton campaign decided to unleash the flying monkeys. The campaign and their surrogates
in the media went on the attacks.
Clinton said Sanders should apologize for Sandy Hook. The media played up the NY Dailey News
interview which they said showed Sanders to be unprepared or unqualified. The Washington Post
ran a headline which said Clinton said Sanders was unqualified. Maddow and others played up the
angle that Clinton was raising money for the DNC while Sanders was not. Clinton asked if Sanders
was a real Democratic. etc.
This is not surprising for anyone who has followed a political campaign.
And when Sanders predictably hit back, the Clinton campaign and the media complained he's being
negative and dragging the primary into the gutter.
Sanders supporters will no longer consider Krugman fair and objective, if they ever did.
He's fine when he sticks to Keynes. I'm guessing he'll walk back his comfort with Dodd Frank as
"not too hot, not too cold, but just right" once he's no longer freaking out about Hillary's remarkably
flawed candidacy (again.)
Krugman's politics haven't changed much since he first made his name 35 years ago, whether
he is "liberal" or "centrist" is mostly a reflection of where the current center is. His Bernie
blasts remind me of the potshots he used to take at John Kenneth Galbraith.
likbez -> MIB...
they're not running around imposing some socialist purity test
Hillary is running around imposing a neocon purity test on the US foreign policy agenda.
rune lagman -> DeDude...
That's absolutely correct. Bernie on top of the Democratic ticket has good chance of capturing
congress, something hillary can't.
Besides Hillary doesn't believe in $15 minimum wage, and won't fight for it. Bernie will.
likbez -> MIB...
Bernie's remark that Hillary is unqualified to be president is immature and sexist.
If we are talking about foreign policy, she is definitely unqualified. Her tenure at State
Department was a disaster. No diplomatic skills, whatsoever. She was trying to imitate Madeleine
Albright not noticing that the times changed.
Her appointment of Dick Cheney close associate Victoria Nuland first as State Department Spokesperson
and then Assistant Secretary of State was an act of betrayal of everything Democratic Party should
stand for. It was actually return to Bush II/Cheney (or should be Cheney/Bush II) foreign policy.
In case she is elected, she will be a real threat to world peace. It is just unclear what country
she will decide to invade next. But she will definitely invade.
dd :
Hillary Clinton the last of the angry old white entitled one percenter Rockfeller Republicans
cloaked in feminism ready to lead the Neodemocratic party.
dd -> MIB...
Hillary is no FDR although a comparison to JFK's father's wall street shenanigans is probably
apt. I particularly admire the tax-free donations to a tax-free entity with of course wall street
as a major donor. I'm sure under her leadership we will begin to explore even more innovative
tax avoidance to help the needy.
am :
It is reported that sanders is walking back the statement that Clinton is unqualified to be president.
"It is reported that ..." Exactly. And that means exactly what? The media is owned by people
who have exactly zero interest in the American people being informed about who stealing all the
bacon and how.
Peter -> am...
You could easily Google it.
Again I don't understand why Hillary doesn't have to walk it back. She started it. What she
said differed very little from Sanders said.
It's truly sad to watch Paul Krugman (PK) turn into a political stooge for the wealthy liberal
elite that currently runs the Democratic party.
What better proof could there possibly be, that it's time to kick Hillary and her cronies
to the curb.
If PK were the numbers guy, that he claims, he'd be all in for Bernie. With Bernie as the Democratic
nominee, it's a very strong possibility that the Democrats retake, not only the presidency and
the senate, but also the house. Hillary might win the presidency, but her upside (beyond the presidency)
is limited.
Bernie has also proven that medicare-for-all is a politically possible, all we need to do (if
we want medicare-for-all) is vote for Bernie.
Likewise for tuition-free college, $15 minimum wage, and a job-market that would make Bill
Clinton's late 90's look puny; even Hillary's economists agree on the over-heated job-market (if
Bernie implemented all his proposals). All we need to do, is, ignore the barrage from the establishment,
and vote for Bernie. It's that simple folks.
Likewise for a 21st century green economy. With Bernie in the white house and friendly house
and senate, we can start building the 21st-century green economy. All we need to do is vote for
Bernie.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for status quo, nothing will really change. The Democratic establishment
will still blame the republican majority in the house for the lack of progress.
Bernie is the only candidate that refuse to play identity politics (pitting minorities and
whites against each other). Hillary, and surrogates try to label Bernie as a "defender of white
privilege". When, in fact, Bernie is the only one that truly looks beyond race and privilege,
with policies that include all Americans, regardless of race or position in society.
If we want a post-racial society, all we need to do is vote for Bernie. The question is, do
we dare to stand up for ourselves against a powerful establishment?
William -> Rune Lagman...
"Bernie is the only candidate that refuse to play identity politics (pitting minorities and
whites against each other). Hillary, and surrogates try to label Bernie as a "defender of white
privilege". When, in fact, Bernie is the only one that truly looks beyond race and privilege,
with policies that include all Americans, regardless of race or position in society." -Rune Lagman
[Bernie is and remains the only candidate to firmly, and unequivocally state "Black Lives Matter"]
jh -> Rune Lagman...
The laziness of "all we need to do is vote for Bernie" is sad. We don't need to build a movement!
Just one vote, and centuries of injustice are effortlessly overturned! Don't bother coming again,
or paying attention to how resumes with black-sounding names are downplayed! You've done your
part and it will all work out in the end!
It won't work out like that, and I dearly hope that nobody is thinking that way.
Rune Lagman -> jh...
This is the kind of defeatism (and lies), that the Democratic establishment is using to preserve
the status quo.
Hopefully we have the fortitude to stand up to the fear-mongering and siren-song of the
Democratic establishment. A vote for Hillary won't change anything, but a vote for Bernie will
definitely start the changes that are necessary.
This is the reason Bernie talks about a political revolution. A vote for Bernie is just the
beginning.
Rune Lagman -> sherparick...
Excellent example of the identity-politics that pit Americans against each other. In this case
women vs men. As a matter of fact Bernie in the white house is better for women than Hillary.
Bernie is much stronger, than Hillary, among independents. Bernie's strength among independents
will make the republican gerrymandering backfire. It only takes a few %-points swing among lower
educated whites. In addition, Bernie brings a whole new cadre of voters, that normally would stay
home, to the polls.
Another perfect example of establishment fear-mongering and misinformation.
jh -> Rune Lagman...
Except you didn't say that it's "just the beginning." You said it's "all we need to do."
The frustration among "establishment" people is that you are promoting the idea that it is
so easy. And you do, until called on it, at which point you pivot.
Rune Lagman -> jh...
Because it is "easy".
As long as we "see through" the fear-mongering and siren-song of the establishment, all we
need to do is show up at the polls; again and again and again ...
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> jh...
A vote for Bernie is a vote for a movement and IT IS the kind of movement that Martin Luther
King had wanted all along. Doctor King did not want apologies or even reparations. Doctor King
wanted fair and equal pay, decent educations, good jobs, and equality in all rights, privileges,
and opportunities for his people. Martin Luther King was a black man decent enough for a white
man to follow and I did. Bernie Sanders is a white man decent enough for a black man to follow.
I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters
of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign
seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality....
Compared with the Times editorial page. People don't seem to know this, but they, not me, were
the first to worry about an Obama cult of personality. * And today's editorial ** is quite something.
Mr. Krugman, a consistent critic of Barack Obama, did not produce a shred of evidence for his
categorical statement that the "venom" being displayed in the Democratic campaign comes from Obama
supporters, "who want their hero or nobody." And it seems to perpetuate the same bizarre bitterness
that he derides in his column.
Even worse is his assertion that "the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a
cult of personality." I am surprised and saddened that a thoughtful public intellectual like Mr.
Krugman would write such a careless and unfair statement at a moment of critical potential in
national politics.
Barack Obama is changing the way we think about race in America. His inclusive message is so
refreshing that, in addition to strong backing from blacks, he is drawing unprecedented nationwide
support from white voters. It is so upsetting that this remarkable and historic feat is belittled
as a "cult of personality."
William Julius Wilson
Cambridge, Mass., Feb. 11, 2008
The writer is a professor of sociology and social policy at Harvard University.
Excellent link. The letters to the editor are very worthwhile reading; they provide an eerie echo
of the discussion we're having today.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> sherparick...
"if you dissent from the Bernie movement you... can only do so if you are a tool of the 1%"
[Perhaps you are right.
I see both sides. The liberal establishment is safe and there are no surprises once you get
used to being perpetually disappointed. I will be 67 years old in a couple weeks. That is a long
time to be perpetually disappointed. I only have so many more years left to live. Viet Nam taught
me to get over my fears and do what needed to be done. I lack both the time and the fear to follow
the liberal establishment as long as there is a progressive alternative available.]
Peter -> sherparick...
I remember 2008 very well and Krugman was blowing things out of proportion about Obama's supporters
just as he is doing now about Sanders supporters.
"Ironically, many of the people blasting him then for criticizing Obama in hte 2008 primary
season in turn started blasting Obama in the summer of 2009 as the Affordable Care Act sausage
was being made and PK was then defending Obama"
Simply not true. The people on the left who hated the ACA didn't support Obama for president.
The said he was too centrist.
Peter -> Rumpole...
I just hate the way Hillary campaigns. She said Sanders should apologize for Sandy Hook? Why
isn't he media all over her for that? Because they have double standards. She lies about Sanders
record as if it's expected just as taking a lot of money from rich donors and corporations is
expected.
I can understand why she might be peeved at constant accusations of corruption because of her
campaign finances, because why is she being singled out, she must be wondering. Everyone does
it. But that's part of Sanders's point, so he's not really being that personal about her.
Peter -> Peter...
And she and her supporters have double standards. Her policy proposals are just as vague and broad-stroked
as Sanders's proposal and yet she has the gall to accuse Sanders of not doing his homework. He's
been thinking about this stuff for decades.
I wonder what Paul has to say about Hillary's racist co-campaigner and husband?
There's a lot of nasty stuff in this campaign, and everyone knows where it's coming from. A
few, like Paul, are playing defense, but they are not fooling anyone. The Clintons are very poor
losers, and at times like these, this secret becomes impossible to keep inside the Washington
beltway.
Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president
By Juliet Eilperin and Anne Gearan
11:14 AM - 8 Apr 2016
eudaimonia :
Here is Konczal on Bernie's "disastrous" interview at the NYDN.
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/
As you can see, Konczal does not buy into Krugman's and the MSM overblown reactions. Sanders
gave pretty straight forward and normal answers. For those who don't know, Konczal is a financial reform expert who Krugman respects and often
cites.
Reporters Who Haven't Noticed That Paul Ryan Has Called for Eliminating Most of Federal Government
Go Nuts Over Bernie Sanders' Lack of Specifics
Published: 05 April 2016
The Washington press corps has gone into one of its great feeding frenzies over Bernie Sanders'
interview with New York Daily News. Sanders avoided specific answers to many of the questions
posed, which the D.C. gang are convinced shows a lack of the knowledge necessary to be president.
Among the frenzied were the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, The Atlantic's David Graham,
and Vanity Fair's Tina Nguyen, and CNN's Dylan Byers telling about it all. Having read the transcript
of the interview I would say that I certainly would have liked to see more specificity in Sanders'
answers, but I'm an economist. And some of the complaints are just silly.
When asked how he would break up the big banks Sanders said he would leave that up to the banks.
That's exactly the right answer. The government doesn't know the most efficient way to break up
JP Morgan, JP Morgan does. If the point is to downsize the banks, the way to do it is to give
them a size cap and let them figure out the best way to reconfigure themselves to get under it.
The same applies to Sanders not knowing the specific statute for prosecuting banks for their
actions in the housing bubble. Knowingly passing off fraudulent mortgages in a mortgage backed
security is fraud. Could the Justice Department prove this case against high level bank executives?
Who knows, but they obviously didn't try.
And the fact that Sanders didn't know the specific statute, who cares? How many people know
the specific statute for someone who puts a bullet in someone's head? That's murder, and if a
candidate for office doesn't know the exact title and specific's of her state murder statute,
it hardly seems like a big issue.
There is a very interesting contrast in media coverage of House Speaker Paul Ryan. In Washington
policy circles Ryan is treated as a serious budget wonk. How many reporters have written about
the fact this serious budget wonk has repeatedly proposed eliminating most of the federal government.
This was not an offhand gaffe that Ryan made when caught in a bad moment, this was in his budgets
that he pushed through as chair of the House Budget Committee.
This fact can be found in the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis of Ryan's budget
(page 16, Table 2). The analysis shows Ryan's budget shrinking everything other than Social Security
and Medicare and other health care programs to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2050. This is roughly the
current size of the military budget, which Ryan has indicated he wants to increase. That leaves
zero for everything else.
Included in everything else is the Justice Department, the National Park System, the State
Department, the Department of Education, the Food and Drug Administration, Food Stamps, the National
Institutes of Health, and just about everything else that the government does. Just to be clear,
CBO did this analysis under Ryan's supervision. He never indicated any displeasure with its assessment.
In fact he boasted about the fact that CBO showed his budget paying off the national debt.
So there you have it. The D.C. press corps that goes nuts because Bernie Sanders doesn't know
the name of the statute under which he would prosecute bank fraud thinks a guy who calls for eliminating
most of the federal government is a great budget wonk.
"... It's truly sad to watch Paul Krugman (PK) turn into a political stooge for the wealthy liberal elite that currently runs the Democratic party. What better proof could there possibly be, that it's time to kick Hillary and her cronies to the curb. ..."
"... A vote for Hillary is a vote for status quo, nothing will really change. The Democratic establishment will still blame the republican majority in the house for the lack of progress. ..."
"... Bernie is the only candidate that refuse to play identity politics (pitting minorities and whites against each other). Hillary, and surrogates try to label Bernie as a "defender of white privilege". When, in fact, Bernie is the only one that truly looks beyond race and privilege, with policies that include all Americans, regardless of race or position in society. ..."
It's truly sad to watch Paul Krugman (PK) turn into a political stooge for the wealthy liberal
elite that currently runs the Democratic party. What better proof could there possibly be, that it's time to kick Hillary and her cronies to
the curb.
If PK were the numbers guy, that he claims, he'd be all in for Bernie. With Bernie as the Democratic
nominee, it's a very strong possibility that the Democrats retake, not only the presidency and
the senate, but also the house. Hillary might win the presidency, but her upside (beyond the presidency)
is limited.
Bernie has also proven that medicare-for-all is a politically possible, all we need to do (if
we want medicare-for-all) is vote for Bernie.
Likewise for tuition-free college, $15 minimum wage, and a job-market that would make Bill
Clinton's late 90's look puny; even Hillary's economists agree on the over-heated job-market (if
Bernie implemented all his proposals). All we need to do, is, ignore the barrage from the establishment,
and vote for Bernie. It's that simple folks.
Likewise for a 21st century green economy. With Bernie in the white house and friendly house
and senate, we can start building the 21st-century green economy. All we need to do is vote for
Bernie.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for status quo, nothing will really change. The Democratic establishment
will still blame the republican majority in the house for the lack of progress.
Bernie is the only candidate that refuse to play identity politics (pitting minorities and
whites against each other). Hillary, and surrogates try to label Bernie as a "defender of white
privilege". When, in fact, Bernie is the only one that truly looks beyond race and privilege,
with policies that include all Americans, regardless of race or position in society.
If we want a post-racial society, all we need to do is vote for Bernie. The question is, do
we dare to stand up for ourselves against a powerful establishment?
"... If we are talking about foreign policy, she is definitely unqualified. Her tenure at State
Department was a disaster. No diplomatic skills, whatsoever. She was trying to imitate Madeleine Albright
not noticing that times changed. ..."
"... In case she is elected, she will be a real threat to world peace. It is just unclear what country
she will decide to invade next. But she will definitely invade. ..."
"... Hillary is running around imposing a neocon purity test on the US foreign policy agenda. ..."
"... A vote for Hillary is a vote for mediocrity; especially in the mid-terms. ..."
"... Its a long campaign. They are not suppose to be friends. Stuff gets said, gets misreported
..."
"... Hillary went negative and dragged the primary into the gutter. She said Sanders should apologize
for Sandy Hook. I don't really blame Sanders for getting angry. ..."
Bernie's remark that Hillary is unqualified to be president is immature and sexist.
If we are talking about foreign policy, she is definitely unqualified. Her tenure at State
Department was a disaster. No diplomatic skills, whatsoever. She was trying to imitate Madeleine
Albright not noticing that times changed.
Her appointment of Dick Cheney close associate Victoria Nuland first as State Department Spokesperson
and then Assistant Secretary of State was an act of betrayal of everything Democratic Party should
stand for. It was actually return to Bush II/Cheney (or should it be Cheney/Bush II) foreign policy.
In case she is elected, she will be a real threat to world peace. It is just unclear what
country she will decide to invade next. But she will definitely invade.
likbez said in reply to MIB...
they're not running around imposing some socialist purity test
Hillary is running around imposing a neocon purity test on the US foreign policy agenda.
Rune Lagman said in reply to MIB...
Without Bernie's revolution the mid-terms is just going to be even more dismal. The Democratic
establishment fail in the mid-terms because they don't run on a national program. They believe
it's about the competency of the individual candidate.
Elections should be about issues that voters care about; the Democratic establishment still
don't get that concept.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for mediocrity; especially in the mid-terms.
dd said in reply to MIB...
Hillary is no FDR although a comparison to JFK's father's wall street shenanigans is probably
apt. I particularly admire the tax-free donations to a tax-free entity with of course wall street
as a major donor. I'm sure under her leadership we will begin to explore even more innovative
tax avoidance to help the needy.
sherparick said in reply to jh...
Its a long campaign. They are not suppose to be friends. Stuff gets said, gets misreported
(in this case a WaPo headline that said something that Clinton did not say. The WaPo by the way
has been far more vicious about Bernie then Clinton and her surrogates on her worse day.)
Sanders is a remarkable politician and always has been. I am not in the end voting for him,
I still admire his campaign as one of the great achievements of the American Left in my lifetime.
Actually, Bernie and Jeff Weaver did Clinton a favor by taking the troll bait. She is at her
best counter-punching and fighting from the underdog position. You can say a lot of things about
Hillary, (I worry about her judgement and group think tendencies), but she is tough and courageous
and seems to actually enjoy a good knock down drag out political fight.
Peter said in reply to sherparick...
Hillary went negative and dragged the primary into the gutter. She said Sanders should
apologize for Sandy Hook. I don't really blame Sanders for getting angry.
Obama was much better at staying focused and on message. But then he made some policy mistakes
as President which I don't believe Sanders would have done.
Whether Trump wins the nomination or it is stolen from him, a
destructive breakup of the holier-than-thou, war-mongering, neocon pseudo-conservative hypocrites
running the Republican party is potentially at hand. For that we can all thank Trump, whether you
like the guy or not. It's time to rebuild the Republican party, and this is a good start. If the
nomination is stolen from Trump, he can finish the job with a third-party candidacy.
"... Albert Camus, talking about the doomed Spanish Civil War in the 1930s wrote, "Men of my generation have had Spain in our hearts. It was there that they learned … that one can be right and yet be beaten, that force can vanquish spirit, and that there are times when courage is not rewarded." It's true the light was extinguished for generations in Spain. America was sleeping, but it finally did the right thing and went to war against Fascism. I believe Fascism is still our greatest enemy and its face is everywhere in our so-called "democracies." It was always about the moneyed interests that had the power. That is what Fascism is and that is the danger we are in now. Sanders talks about money, listen to him. He talks cogently about money and its power to distort. He's the only one who has raised his voice against the corruption in our politics. Clinton has embraced this corruption. ..."
"... The truth about the conflict with Russia >> https://goo.gl/nKJndT ..."
"... In some strange way at times I think that perhaps I'd like to see the vile psychopathic bitch win. This entire corrupt shithouse run by the banksters can not be reformed, it has to collapse. No better way to collapse it than some thermonuclear fireworks lighting up over Wall St. and Washingtton DC. ..."
"... war has always been the best automatic "go to" solution to deflect attention away from elite politician's gross malfeasance. ..."
"... Hillary and Bill were dirty with all the goings on at Mena, way before Bill was president. They were downright scary ..."
"... All wars are bankers wars. Its all fiat magic. You cant outbid a banker. ..."
"... The woman is a bonafide Warmonger... No-Fly Zone Over Syria, eh, wanna pick a fight with The Vlad, do ya? Oh, the hubris and the hegemony. There will be a price to pay. I hope it's not RS26's with the hypersonic MIRVs. ..."
"... I am not buying Bernie after what Ron Paul said he did with his Fed bill, he "gave the banks what they wanted". If Ron says that Bernie screwed us, then Bernie screwed us. Ron is the only one of these bastards that has any credibility over any significant period of time and obviously we don't have a significant Fed audit, thanks to Bernie's boot licking. The people desperately needed that bill based in it's original form and so Bernie can go suck a dick and continue to be a fraud sellout. ..."
"... Well sorry buddy but it's far worse than that. Wall Street funded both ends of that debacle too and our politicians were not blind to the coup that was taking place in our nation. It's good that people are waking up to corruption but as people finally admit that something is wrong, they underestimate it. ..."
"... well of course USA is going to war, USA has reached the end of its debt cycle, the ONLY way out is a war since there is no one left to exploit. Russia cannot be allowed to become stronger because according to Nexus Circle of Power theory, Russia will be the next superpower after China. ..."
When fear becomes collective, when anger becomes collective, it's extremely dangerous.
It is overwhelming… The mass media and the military-industrial complex create a prison for us,
so we continue to think, see, and act in the same way… We need the courage to express ourselves
even when the majority is going in the opposite direction… because a change of direction can happen
only when there is a collective awakening… Therefore, it is very important to say, 'I am here!'
to those who share the same kind of insight.
- Thich Nhat Hanh, Buddhist Monk, The Art of Power
Oliver Stone has penned a powerful and emotional takedown of Hillary Clinton, focusing on her
insane neocon foreign policy chops in a piece published in the Huffington Post titled,
Why I'm for Bernie Sanders .
What follows are just a few paragraphs, I suggest reading the entire thing:
We're going to war - either hybrid in nature to break the Russian state back to its
1990s subordination, or a hot war (which will destroy our country). Our citizens should know this,
but they don't because our media is dumbed down in its "Pravda"-like support for our "respectable,"
highly aggressive government. We are being led, as C. Wright Mills said in the 1950s,
by a government full of "crackpot realists: in the name of realism they've constructed a paranoid
reality all their own." Our media has credited Hillary Clinton with wonderful foreign policy experience,
unlike Trump, without really noting the results of her power-mongering. She's comparable to Bill
Clinton's choice of Cold War crackpot Madeleine Albright as one of the worst Secretary of States
we've had since … Condi Rice? Albright boasted, "If we have to use force it is because we are
America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries
into the future."
Hillary's record includes supporting the barbaric "contras" against the Nicaraguan people in
the 1980s, supporting the NATO bombing of the former Yugoslavia, supporting the ongoing Bush-Iraq
War, the ongoing Afghan mess, and as Secretary of State the destruction of the secular state of
Libya, the military coup in Honduras, and the present attempt at "regime change" in Syria.
Every one of these situations has resulted in more extremism, more chaos in the world,
and more danger to our country. Next will be the borders of Russia, China, and Iran.
Look at the viciousness of her recent AIPAC speech (don't say you haven't been warned). Can we
really bear to watch as Clinton "takes our alliance [with Israel] to the next level"? Where is
our sense of proportion? Cannot the media, at the least, call her out on this extremism? The problem,
I think, is this political miasma of "correctness" that dominates American thinking (i.e. Trump
is extreme, therefore Hillary is not).
This is why I'm praying still for Bernie Sanders, because he's the only one willing, at least
in the name of fiscal sanity, to cut back on our foreign interventions, bring the troops home,
and with these trillions of dollars no longer wasted on malice, try to protect the "homeland"
by actually rebuilding it and putting money into its people, schools, and infrastructure.
Albert Camus, talking about the doomed Spanish Civil War in the 1930s wrote, "Men of my
generation have had Spain in our hearts. It was there that they learned … that one can be right
and yet be beaten, that force can vanquish spirit, and that there are times when courage is not
rewarded." It's true the light was extinguished for generations in Spain. America was sleeping,
but it finally did the right thing and went to war against Fascism. I believe Fascism is still
our greatest enemy and its face is everywhere in our so-called "democracies." It was always about
the moneyed interests that had the power. That is what Fascism is and that is the danger we are
in now. Sanders talks about money, listen to him. He talks cogently about money and its power
to distort. He's the only one who has raised his voice against the corruption in our politics.
Clinton has embraced this corruption.
Of course, Google told us all we needed to know several months ago:
For more on Hillary and her neocon foreign policy agenda, see:
In some strange way at times I think that perhaps I'd like to see the vile psychopathic
bitch win. This entire corrupt shithouse run by the banksters can not be reformed, it has to collapse.
No better way to collapse it than some thermonuclear fireworks lighting up over Wall St. and Washingtton
DC.
I'll take my chances in a mad max world rather than hoping some politician will some day truly
deliver change and hope.
You can't just clear a cookie. Google builds a permanent profile on you and stores it at their
end. They use a variety of means to do this, such as taking your MAC address and every other bit
transmitted on the internet and linking it to a database they have built that records your popular
searches and clicks.
This is how people get filter bubbled and steered; dirty internet searches. A clean search
would see actual societal interests and trends instead of the contrived ones pushed by the State
narrative. It's also part of the meta- and direct data that goes into secret profiles in the "intelligence
community".
They think they can use this trendy (yet largely mythical) Big Data to create a precrime division.
It's also nice to have dirt on the whole country in case anyone gets out of line and challenges
the aristocracy.
The woman is a bonafide Warmonger... No-Fly Zone Over Syria, eh, wanna pick a fight with
The Vlad, do ya? Oh, the hubris and the hegemony. There will be a price to pay. I hope it's not
RS26's with the hypersonic MIRVs.
I am not buying Bernie after what Ron Paul said he did with his Fed bill, he "gave the
banks what they wanted". If Ron says that Bernie screwed us, then Bernie screwed us. Ron is the
only one of these bastards that has any credibility over any significant period of time and obviously
we don't have a significant Fed audit, thanks to Bernie's boot licking. The people desperately
needed that bill based in it's original form and so Bernie can go suck a dick and continue to
be a fraud sellout.
Then this Camus guy says: " America was sleeping, but it finally did the right thing and went
to war against Fascism."
Well sorry buddy but it's far worse than that. Wall Street funded both ends of that debacle
too and our politicians were not blind to the coup that was taking place in our nation. It's good
that people are waking up to corruption but as people finally admit that something is wrong, they
underestimate it.
The system it toast, your votes do not matter, we have known this for some time. Welcome to
reality.
Waiting for a candidate to be voted in by Diebold to save the day is not only stupid but possibly
insane. Nice try fuckers, we know better. There is big trouble in little China coming and voting
isn't going to fix it. Bernie fans do not have to cry if he doesn't win Diebolds election. Bernie
will be back down the road if/when they are ready to institute full-on banker ball sucking communism.
And if you don't know that banks and communism get along just fine... well fuck you too.
well of course USA is going to war, USA has reached the end of its debt cycle, the ONLY
way out is a war since there is no one left to exploit. Russia cannot be allowed to become stronger
because according to Nexus Circle of Power theory, Russia will be the next superpower after China.
Hillary's not a neocon. She's married to one. Even though she was a senator and a Secretary
of State, she relies on her husband for all her political and foreign policy positions.
Bill was president during the anti-Russia, rape of the Balkans.
I do not watch TV, stopped listening to fake Mocking bird radio propaganda (limbaugh and the
rest) a few years ago and avoid most web sites.
The only people I pay attention to anymore is Russia, Putin, Novo Russians (East Ukraine) and
the Syria on sites like Syrian Perspective.
Syria is about 18% Christian but was relatively peaceful with other religions. Damascus and
other areas have Christmas lights and trees everywhere. The country is the cradle of Christianity.
Why Syria? Becaus ethey had the guts to stand up and fight and die against the ZWO/NWO/See
Eye Aye/State Dept/ Nudelman/NeoCons/McCain/Saudis/Turkey and the rest of the evil evil scum like
the Dems and GOP-e.
The Syrians and the Syrian military at leats have their honor. They never gave up and fortunately
they were helped by Russia, Hezbollah, Kurds and a few others.
Meanwhile in America, we have idiots in texas armed to the teeth but they say nothing about
2 Waco massacres, keep voting for scum like LBJ, Bushes and the Bushes Canadian boy Ted Cruz.
Texans are happy watching their Trayvon ballplayers as Mexicans and other illegals flood in. They
talk big about Liberty but it is all talk.
I respect Syrians who stood up and fought against the NWO/ZWO and NovoRussians. I respect those
in Europe trying to fight back especially the Hungarians.
I do not respect Americans. We are cowards. Seeing idiots vote for a Cubao Canadian dial shitizen
Bush puppet. Pathetic.
"We're going to war - either hybrid in nature to break the Russian state back to its
1990s subordination, or a hot war (which will destroy our country). Our citizens should know this,
but they don't because our media is dumbed down in its "Pravda"-like support for our "respectable,"
highly aggressive government."
This statement is very likely the truth. Basically we are as bad off a Saudi Arabia or Turkey,
the only problem is that we are armed to the teeth making us one if not the most dangerous population
on the planet. Otherwise we would be dying at the same rate and in the same ways that they are.
Basically, the second ammendment has allowed for dumb bitches is Seattle and San Fran to be snowflakes.
Anybody with anything left of their flouride and GMO addled brain, saw this building for years
if not their entire life. The polls are completely fabricated as are most likely every government
figure. Some numbers have been proven to be outright lies and distortions, so all numbers are
suspect.
Some will continue to look at all of what is happening with our food supply (everything Monsanto
has ever created was a killer, it started with aspartame for gawd sakes), the medical system,
prison system, monetary system, interest rates, terrorism, ISIS, the borders, shit being sprayed
on us, importing of supposed "Ebola victims", asset forteiture, "bungled" wars etcetera as some
type of incompetence.
How in the hell do people like that survive? Seriously? I think they are scared shitless to
look at the truth. Some of the others are trying to fit in and stay part of mainstream for safety.
These people are likely going to crack up as the shit hits the fan because denial is going to
be bitch slapped to the ground before too long. And yet, we have allowed them to control the conversation.
They have been wrong and wrong some more. After this next election, whoever hasn't figured it
out yet needs to be declared brain dead.
If anyone thinks the President actually runs the Country, you're sadly mistaken. It's run by
people you can't vote for, don't know or even recognize. The President is only there to ensure
their dream comes alive. More the half the previous presidents have been Satanist, Devil Worshippers,
Zionists, Members of the Occult or Members of Secret Societies. Hillary is the perfect choice
because she will do what ever they tell her to, where as Trump probably won't the Majority of
the time.
If Trump finds a Memo in the Hidden compartment of Office Desk about 911 then hell will be
unleashed. If hillary Finds it, it just gets shredded.
American exceptionalism will be perverted further to American women's exceptionalism. The chosen,
the exceptional, the master race, fourth wave feminism or other glorifications deceive their believers
with their righteousness and invincibility. Stupid American males will die for stupidier American
feminists.
Don't worry it's not going to make it that far. Most likely what you are feeling is a building
of a far right wing brown shirt movement that is developing. These same interests funded and created
Hitler. Think about that for a minute. Germany was primed for it by being treated like a beaten
dog. Maybe that's what they are trying to do to you too.
It's understandable that you feel that way but in the end they are trying to channel your anger
in the direction of their choosing. You could go after feminists, Muslims and street thugs all
day long but in the end they will still be there and they will kill you last.
They will make a move on us at some point. The fact that they haven't already may just be that
they realize that taking out the ME, Europe and Russia at the same time is crazy enough. If you
add the US population now you might have bit off more than you can chew. Maybe they will save
us for last and maybe not. We will know shortly if what is going on in Europe comes here. ISIS
wont be enough but if they created a Neo-fascist group in this environment that would probably
work quite well for them. Just like it did in the Ukraine and just like it always has everywhere
else.
One would hope that they wouldn't choose the timing but in reality the American people are
not as violent as we are portrayed. When it starts it almost certainly be them.
I think they would have to kill somewhere between 2-15 million in the US to make it happen.
Good times. The Bulshevik work camps were set up as extermination camps though work and starvation.
Never go to a "work camp". People went because they thought they would just be enslaved and
that they would have a chance. The reality was that they didn't want nor expect them to live long,
they just kept the trains coming to replace the dead. Since nobody was coming back nobody knew
that everybody was dying, they assumed they were still working.
The numbers will never be known as they were buried all over Siberia and everywhere else. They
are literally built into the infrastructure that they were enslaved to build. After reading about
the Bulshevik camps I just equate "work camp" with extermination camp. Twenty to thirty million
is one damn big pile of bodies. Fuqin banks and scum. Bottom line, if mass arrests start, you
do not go.
You must be from somewhere else. We have a choice. They can take a black bag but they wont
be torturing us and then throwing our bodies in a ditch with two million other defenseless saps.
Unfortunately, for many of our counterparts they will have to get rather creative with frying
pans and baseball bats. You can try begging if you think that will work.
Yes we are. Look at our politics: on all fours, Cruz foaming at the mouth and Hitlery's death
list. When shit goes down, we throw down. Sadly Skinner was not wrong. Happily Leary was right,
we can program ourselves to succeed. Alas we are all in the territory of 2 wolfpacks - the Msms
and the Telecomms.
OS is a Msm. Msms and Telecomms are all selling us that we have to go back to war in Iraq to
clean up that Vietnam repeat pathetic exit. OS is just warming you up to the idea of the mass
rape of your kin to come.
US exit from Germany: slew all the Nazis who would have regrouped a la ISIS, and parked bases.
US exit from Korea: SK rocks. Why is NK still there? Why are we?
US exit from South Vietnam: Dig up LBJ and chuck him in the east med.
US exit from Iraq: ISIS or whatever the shitshifters want to call it.
US exit from Afghanistan: Well, at least I have 1 cool muslim neighbor... and two who would
jihad my ass if they were ordered to by their gas station attendant mole handlers.
Mike Krieger on Oliver Stone in the Huff Post on Hillary on Camus on Bernie Sanders on Mike
Krieger .... a linear presentation of a leftist circle jerk?
I saw a TV thing once (maybe 60 minutes); Hillary was preparing for her role as SOS and explained
very clearly that she let herself guide by Albright. When the first Coke bottling plant was opened
in Myanmar after democracy broke out there, Albright was right there. In 1998 or 1999 I saw Albright
on TV saying 'this ensures another American century'. Her prediction was quite wrong as we now
call it the Asian century.
What arrogance, born to rule? She and Hillary are mindset twins of Erdogan, who sounds like
wanting to re-establish the Ottman rule. Hillary was very callous after Gaddafi was killed in
Libya - now look at Libya - what a spendid result!
Operation successful, patient dead. But it doesn't matter to the exceptionalists how much other
people suffer. Just bomb them into obedience. The Mongols and the Ottomans also demanded obedience
and used violence when it wasn't forthcoming. People are born free - ALL people.
The tragectory is always somewhat like this. It's like being forced to watch someone rob your
home or worse.
They have us carved up that's the purpose of all the candidates, massive polarization.
Can't be for this one or that because they cut you off at the pass there is no one you can
really rally around that can rally everyone and that is by design.
The logical move to make from here is to split off and create a third party pulling enough
from each side to win a three way race. I think it's the only move we have in the political realm
after that we will be cut down one at a time and it will descend into madness.
That plan, to me, seems similar to George W. Bush's plan to defeat the Taliban which
was to defeat the Taliban. Or maybe more like Nixon's plan to defeat drugs which had
nothing to do with drugs but was actually a plan
to criminalize blacks and
antiwar hippies
.
The real motive behind the above Clinton nonsense may be the interest of the
powers-that-are to keep the war on ISIS going forever. Obama already did his best to
establish ISIS. He refrained from fighting it
in its infancy
in 2012,
refrained from holding it back
in Iraq to
"regime change" Prime Minister Maliki
and kept its revenues flowing until Putin
shamed him
into
finally bombing its oil infrastructure.
Clinton's
plan
, which declares only aims without any steps to reach them,
would mean endless wars in this or that Middle East country and/or in Africa or Asia. It
means further suppression of any privacy and opposition at home.
It is not a plan but a threat. Will she win votes with such nonsense?
Donald Trump toured Washington yesterday for backroom meetings with Republican party bigwigs,
for pandering to the Israel lobby and for an examination by the neoconned Washington Post editors.
The Republican party has given up its resistance to Trump. See for example the Republican functionary
John Feehery who
opined on February 29 that Trump is an authoritarian, and:
We beat the Nazis and the Japanese in the World War II and protected freedom and democracy by
beating the Soviet Union in the Cold War. It would be a damn shame if we lost it all by
giving in to the authoritarian impulse in this election .
Republican voters can support the nominee picked by a majority of the voters, they can sit this
election out, or they can start a third party. The last two choices give the White House to the
Clinton machine.
I am not happy that Donald Trump could be our nominee, but I am learning to live with
that distinct possibility .
That, in short, is the revised position of the Republican party. It has given up on fighting Trump
and will now propel him into the White House. What will happen thereafter? Who knows?
Trump is pure marketing. A salesperson throughout.
This video
explains how his linguistics works - words with only very few syllables, strong buzzword at the
end of the sentences. It is fourth grade reading level language. Exactly the level needed to sell
his product to the U.S. public and the Republican party. He is an expert in doing this.
But what product does Trump sell? Does he know it? Does he know how that product functions? Is
he serious in what he claims that product to be. I have my doubts.
So has Par Lang. He
remarks on yesterday's Trump appearance at the U.S. Zionists beauty contests:
Trump's pander was so extreme that one ponders the possibility that he was mocking the audience.
Trump probably does not even care what political product he sells. For now he is selling the salesman
himself. Buy Trump and all problems will be solved. He does this convincingly. Most of what he said
so far is just nonsense and solely for marketing purpose. There are only few consistent political
lines that did not (yet) change over time. These are the lines that
rile the Washington Post editors:
Donald Trump endorsed an unabashedly noninterventionist approach to world affairs Monday during
a day-long tour of Washington, casting doubt on the need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
and expressing skepticism about a muscular U.S. military presence in Asia.
...
"At what point do you say, 'Hey, we have to take care of ourselves?' " Trump said in the editorial
board meeting. "I know the outer world exists, and I'll be very cognizant of that. But at the
same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially the inner cities."
Trump said U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years,
breaking with nearly seven decades of consensus in Washington. "We certainly can't afford to do
this anymore," he said, adding later, "NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we're protecting
Europe with NATO, but we're spending a lot of money."
Unfortunately, the visit provided no reassurance regarding Mr. Trump's fitness for the presidency.
"I'm not a radical person," he told us as he was leaving. But his answers left little doubt how
radical a risk the nation would be taking in entrusting the White House to him.
But who are the real radicals, the real radical risk? The salesperson Trump or the neoconned Washington
Post publisher and editors? You may judged that from this excerpt at the end of the talk's
transcript :
[FREDERICK RYAN JR., WASHINGTON POST PUBLISHER]: You [MUFFLED] mentioned a few minutes earlier
here that you would knock ISIS. You've mentioned it many times. You've also mentioned the risk
of putting American troop in a danger area. If you could substantially reduce the risk of harm
to ground troops, would you use a battlefield nuclear weapon to take out ISIS
?
TRUMP: I don't want to use, I don't want to start the process of nuclear. Remember the one
thing that everybody has said, I'm a counterpuncher. Rubio hit me. Bush hit me. When I said low
energy, he's a low-energy individual, he hit me first. I spent, by the way he spent 18 million
dollars' worth of negative ads on me. That's putting [MUFFLED]…
RYAN: This is about ISIS. You would not use a tactical nuclear weapon against ISIS?
[CROSSTALK] ...
The salesperson stopped there. Instead of answering that question Trump asked for personal introduction
to the people taking part in the event. To nuke some lunatics in Toyota technicals is not Trumps
idea of his product. He would not sell that. Not even for gaining the support of the WaPo neocons.
Buying Trump is buying a pig in a poke. One does not know what one might get. But I find it unlikely
that he would pursue an interventionist policy. Then again - George W. Bush also pretended to be
a non-interventionist - until that changed.
But Trumps current non-interventionist position is a big contrast to Hillary Clinton. She unashamedly
offers her well known toxic brew of neo-liberal and neo-conservative orthodoxy. She will wage war,
Trump may. As a foreigner that is the decisive difference to me.
But if I were a voter in the U.S. my position would be based on economic policies. There Bernie
Sanders is surely preferable to Trump and very much preferable to Clinton.
So, I guess what all this means is that the Repubs have accepted Trump as less evil than Hillary?
But, what if the nominee of the Democ side isn't Hillary? What if it is the Bern? Not that it
makes a dimes worth of difference. Did anyone read Dimitri Orlovs post for today? I have to say
that his take is pretty close to where we are headed ... if not soon, eventually.
I have no idea who really originated the bit about interesting times ... but I suspect it may
be what we are living through. That is, if this is living ...
"Trump is pure marketing. A salesperson throughout. This video explains how his linguistics works
- words with only very few syllables, strong buzzword at the end of the sentences. It is fourth
grade reading level language. Exactly the level needed to sell his product to the U.S. public
and the Republican party. He is an expert in doing this."
Gee, did you miss the whole Obama campaign? Does CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN/HOPE? ring a bell?
Trump, an quintessential oligarchs himself, famous for marrying supermodels and losing half of
his Dad's fortune. The MSM long before elections virtually created Trump as Flaccid Clown TV persona.
This Flaccid Clown made himself a mirror of a fascist American society that through him can
bask in its ugliness, ignorance and narcissism of exceptional mediocrity of Trump_vs_deep_state.
Trump salesman has qualities of a self-invented cult leader, characterized by extreme bullying,
intimidation, threats and/or violence and disregard to humanity reaching fair beyond any acceptable
human conduct. He is a phony opportunist, a sewage excretion of his personal puny psychopathic
insecurities for profit and fame with no other program, idea or thought behind it.
He did not appear on the political stage accidentally, he has his role to play and he is playing
it well so far, whatever establishment wants him to play. These are political puppets, stooges,
chicken hawks, and front-men of the establishment who are scared, afraid that their services will
no longer be needed by true ruling elite who run this abhorrent regime for about 240 years..
This Flaccid Clown is an artificial phenomenon. He is a media phenomenon "hired by a establishment
", to tell establishment "You are fired" in a group psychotic episode of surrealistic transference
of a cartoon character of reality show into empty desperate lives of those rejected by ruling
elite, unable to effectively serve it or submit to power and hence forcefully alienated from delusions
of American Serf Dream. He is uploaded by his oligarchic handlers, with misconceived populist
utterances passes for ideas that he has no interest in, no understanding of or any intention or
intellectual capability to follow. This is all about the show, and he is the entertainer of the
moment.
The establishment has all the bullets, criminal, political, economic, tax evasion, socio-sexual,
financial to kill Trump candidacy in a week, even to indict him. Few front pages with this Flaccid
Clown portrayed as a pariah, Russian spy, a commie, baby killer, thief, Antichrist, terrorist
supporter, with no facts but innuendos would unravel his shallow support among desperate, scared,
confused, blind, revenge seeking mob who now supports and idolizes him regardless what nonsense
he is uttering. All bullets are ready to fire unless he submits and betrays his following and
that's what he did just recently with bending over to AIPAC and refusing to run as independent
if not nominated, another betrayal of his mindless, raging hormones followers. After all he does
what he is hired to do.
What he is actually used for by the Oligarchic establishment that supports him so far (Christie
[and others, establishment bullies], is first one to admit it) is to galvanize desperate public,
who finds his ignorance appealing and refreshing on such a calcified political stage of puppetry
as well as moves those who see in him a danger of fascist narcissistic megalomaniac taking power.
All the political commotion is aimed to insidiously entice Americans all to rush to voting
booths thinking that they could make any slightest difference in their own lives and life of the
nation by supporting or denouncing a puppet of the ruling elite.
Unfortunately, this time as well, millions of irrational, desperate and helpless in their daily
lives electoral zombies, under a spell of exciting political masquerade, are aligning themselves
with an anointed winner of a popularity/beauty contest, in a delusional feat of transference of
a fraction of elite's power to themselves just for a second of a thrill of power. And they will
continue to authorize their own suicide mission, since even baseless, continually disproved hope
of any chance of influencing of the political realm via means of begging is the last thing that
dies.
What's really shocking but beyond the political sensitivity level of Americans is a fact he
is yet to formulate any coherent policy he would like to implement and that's the plan, so he,
if anointed by the establishment will be able to backpedal, deny or ignore his utterances, leaving
gullible crowd betrayed yet again.And people he "listens" to are all hopeless neocons or wall
street hacks, symbols of status quo.
Most of Americans, not unlike a cargo cult, are impatient, nervous, excited and scared sitting
and waiting before an impregnable curtain of political manipulation of the ruling elite, turning
to magic, superstition, appeasement or begging for mercy or praying for a caprice of good will
to save them, while blatantly abandoning their unalienable rights to self-determination and democratic
system of people's rule, based on equality in the law, and one voter one vote principle.
May be the elites will conclude that if mob wants this Flaccid Clown, they will get a them
this Flaccid Clown as a puppet figure sitting in oval office replica in Hollywood following and
watching himself.
It is old principle of rulers: "Vox Populi Vox Dei" that was originally applied in the totalitarian
Roman Imperial regime during imperial games at Circus Maximum and Coliseum as a pressure valve
release for unruly, enraged of cronyism, and fixed, unfair rules of aristocracy, roman proletariat
i.e. people with no power, to pacify them cheaply and prevent costly riots and killing expenses.
What we have here is:
Vox Animali, Vox Inferi.
Trump loves two things, himself and $. He'll follow the $ if elected, by doing what his owners tell
him to do. The sensible utterances by Trump are an act, designed to siphon support from other candidates.
After Change We Can Bereave In and Mr. 9/11 GW Bush, I don't know what to believe. Trump's populist
rhetoric sounds good to the ears of working proles and it amuses me that Chosenites on both the Left
and Right side of the aisle as well as the media seem to be worried about him.
This was supposed to be the end of the white male rule not only in Amerikkka, but also in formerly
homogeneous Western Europe, ushered in by economic migrants, refugees often escaping from non-war
zones, large explosions and heavily armed Wahabbs killing people in the train stations, bus stops,
highways and by ways of these countries!
What went wrong??
What's the problem with the haters here. trump wants to keep NATO out of Russia's hair. WHY slam
him for that. even if he doesn't mean it, he can't suffer an electoral defeat now without making
it radio active for another candidate to see her talk that way. what part of that do you not
understand? It doesn't matter if he's just a puppet if the elites see yet another anti
interventionist electoral phenomenon.
"But if I were a voter in the U.S. my position would be based on economic policies. There Bernie
Sanders is surely preferable to Trump and very much preferable to Clinton."
Becoming another apologist Mr. b? Your previous "Strategist" votes bring about another Neoliberal
warmonger in Canada?
This is where we stand apart and will remain respectful to you and readers.
Between Killary, Bernie and whoever, I will vote Trump for now , he's no different for
any politicians - liars and warmonger . Trump may likely destroy the two party systems and
brought change we need so badly.
What if he (Trump) starts another endless war? Do you really believe Killary and Bernie any different?
The answers, better the devil who will start another war than the one who lies? My opinion, Bernie
is far more dangerous than Obomo another Trojan horse.
I maybe a minority here, but in the real world the numbers are growing - as I came across anyone
I met regardless parties affiliation.
Economic..?. blah! You believe in Fiat money, Wall Street or Banksters?
Trump is nasty, mean, corrupt, a bully and a nut, but he is the only candidate who offers a chance
(however slim) of breaking the stinking rotten corrupt status quo in any way.
I am sorry that he coddled the rotten, murderous Israel. But we are too far down the rabbit hole
- these days all of Congress must express their devotion to Israel. This is craziness, but it is
a sickening fact. They're all Xtians, too. This is also nuts and disgusting pandering.
It's going to take a nasty Republican like Trump to break (or to make a valiant effort to crack)
the nasty machine.
Obama has shown himself and the corrupt D Party to have been a comprehensive, dismal failure for
the common people. The D Party offers no hope and no change.
Perhaps it won't be necessary for Trump to malign and attack the BDS movement as the slavering
Hillary is doing. It's running off her fangs and down the front of her blood- soaked shirt.
Trumps non-interventionist line ( not his policy, because making it up as you go along is not policy.
) is BS. That freak would be a gleeful war criminal by bombing a dozen countries if it got him more
popularity, or he needed a boost from the polls, or he invested in the arms industry. All the non-interventionist
BS, is just a PR counter to his establishment rivals. He doesn't mean any of of it.
The Sanders campaign is a sick joke. Sacrificing genocide against people across the world so Americans
can have a bit better health care is disgusting.
Sanders has been so weak in taking on the evil US Empire and the US capitalist establishment,
then how can he do anything as president where there will be much more pressure as president then
there is now. Sanders would be the lamest sheep political history, and not because of the resistance
by the elite, but because Sanders has no resistance. That way lies childish delusions.
Sanders exists to give motivational speeches in some areas of social politics and that's all he is
good for.
" The Sanders campaign is a sick joke. Sacrificing genocide against people across the world
so Americans can have a bit better health care is disgusting.
Behind Bernie is MoveON, Soros "invested" over a billion to keep Israel the endless slaughter
of Palestinians civilians.
If anyone represents the ruling Establishment, it is the Washington Post. They did force Richard
Nixon out for no better reason than his withdrawal of the troops from Vietnam. Hardly the
criminal acts that are ignored today. The editors' words are clear; endless war including the use
of nuclear weapons. Damn the consequences.
in a world where packaging/appearance is everything and content means nothing - trump is the
ticket.. the usa and the world by extension get what the marketers/propagandists have to offer...
forget about anything to do with content..
Trump's vaunted "independence" would prove a problem to him as president because the ruling elite
could attack his sources of income (the trump biz) and destroy his independence. If elected, he
will be subjected to every nasty attack to sway him to do the bidding of the foreign policy
establishment. He might want to call Putin for tips on how to deal with the nastiness.
b, thank you. I agree entirely. Bernie would be better than a pig in a poke, and a b* in a poke would
be worse.
However, the point is moot because votecounting in the primaries has the overwhelming probability
of having been fraudulent. And I would be shocked if the actual election votes were honestly counted.
Here's what I heard in the Trump voice on the radio first thing, "My first priority is to get
rid of that Iran agreement. That's a bad deal. For our safety. For Israel's safety. That deal needs
to come down. That was a bad deal, and we gave them $--.--!" (He was talking about the part of their
own money which we returned to them years after we "froze" their money.
If I vote this election, it will be for Jill Stein. Foreign policy is #1 to me, and no other
candidate comes close. I don't play the LOTE game or any variation. Besides, the majority of the
voting population are so dependent on what their TV, radio or whatever tells them, there's no
room for sanity.
Trump is simply stripping the "politically correct" packaging off of decades-long fascist rhetoric:
"welfare queens" against the poor, "criminal environments" against the black, clash of civilization
against the Muslims, "axis of evil" against any opponent of Us suprematism, etc
so now he comes along and draws conclusions ... except for the "infinite war" meme, which is a
purely imperialistic effort that seemingly doesn't resonate anymore with the people's frustration
and anger
I think Trump's fans after a few more months of the same speech where money is prominent will be
fed up.
The trouble is that it would be too late and Trump would have offered the presidency to Hillary on
a silver plate.
We'll have to get used to the idea of seeing that witch often on the TV when she will be
president.
perhaps all this will be rendered moot, we'll have an 'event,' Obama will initiate the
Continuity of Operations
(COOP) executive directive...
whatever, it matters little...
in the words of the late, great American composer and statesman, Mr. Frank Zappa:
The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion.
At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery,
they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will
see the brick wall at the back of the theater
It seems to me that Trump appeals to a large group of people who have been screwed. He is a true
populist that says things that shake up the establishment like calling politicians "puppets".
He's vague about where he stands on many issues to allow for moving toward the center after the
nomination. Along those lines, he sometimes pays lip service to the establishment so as to reduce
friction.
Sander's position are much much more detailed and people-friendly. But Sanders doesn't seem to
be willing to do what it takes to win. What does it take? Attacking Hillary's character. Demanding
media time.
And Sanders hasn't created a Movement. He is too wedded to the Democratic Party to do that. A
real progressive movement might switch allegiance to the Greens if Sanders isn't the Democratic nominee.
Sanders wants to deliver his voters to the Democratic nominee (likely to be Hillary).
Each of us has to decide for themselves: can we trust a demagogue (Trump)? Can we trust a career
politician someone that doesn't fight to win (Sanders)? Can we trust ANYONE that comes through the
duopoly?
#2-not anti-latino but illegals latino smart head !!!!
The point I had been mulling over is whether Trump is aware of the forces that rule the world and
whether he would take them on. Would he open up the can of worms behind 9/11, lies to go into Iraq,
Benghazi etc. Well my answer to that is he will if he has to (strike that) if the puppeteers decide
that they want to.
I think that he will be the next president, the Hegelian Dialectic that is being set up is that
the "Government" has been taken over by bad elements and Trump will lead the charge against them
as a "non-bought" free American and maybe the Clinton's take the fall. This of course directs anger
away from the real perps. I base this on F William Engdahl in a wide ranging interview promoting
his latest book on the Genesis
of ISIS opening up a glimpse of the lifestyles of the wealthy at a place called "studio 54".
I think that the next US president will be the one who "collapses" the dollar (the puppetmasters
decide when this will happen, their puppet will be the one that deals with the resulting upheaval,
and the pieces to deal with this are being put on the chessboard right now (Expect ISIS activity
in the US).
BTW, Engdahl makes a prediction in the video that "something big" will draw American boots on
the ground into Syria.
There is Hiltery Clinton: "What difference does it make." Out damn spot from my
hands. Her victims are many, but who is counting.
... when we left the WH, we were broke. Hmmm. In 2008, a $35 million campaign debt was magically
paid by anon donor. Her history is documentable, too many links. In the Whitewater saga, Hillary
could not recall what work she did at the Rose Law firm for client Madison Guarantee Savings and
Loan bank and, when subpoenaed by Prosecutors said she could not find the billing records.
A circus? If only the consequences were not so serious.
You think the USA society will remain intact at the end of 2016?
On Voting: HRC is right. What difference does it make? All bought and paid for. You cannot become
President unless selected by the guys and gals managing the Deep State.
Forget the elephants and donkeys. A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step -
write-in elections
. I'm all ears as regards a better plan. We need to stop complaining/chasing our tails and instead
to plan, organize, and to seize power to effect real change.
If we'd begun in 2004 we'd be very nearly home by now. So let's begin in 2016. Just as 2016 has
succeeded 2004, whether we choose to continue to suck our thumbs or to act, the leaves will fall
off our calendars and the year 2028 will arrive, one way or another ... I'd prefer another.
A lot of Americans have developed such a low opinion of politicians and politics as usual that
they believe that an outsider with no experience as an elected official can come in and improve
the situation.
Yes, well said. We don't really know what Trump will do - but we DO know what Hillary Clinton, Kasich,
Rubio etc. will do and it's terrifying. We can at least HOPE that Trump will be somewhat less horrible
than Hillary Vlad-the-Impaler Clinton.
They say that 'hope is not a plan.' Actually hope is a plan - just not a very good one. But still
better than cutting your own throat.
I do disagree with you about Sanders. Yes, I mostly like him on foreign policy too, but economics?
Sorry, his open-borders immigration policy WILL crush the average American into third-world poverty
no matter what else he does. Because nobody but nobody beats the law of supply and demand. "People
are the ultimate resource" is the slogan of India where over a half a billion people are chronically
malnourished and the standard of living is inferior to late Medieval England...
Funny that not that long ago Sanders admitted that open-borders immigration was something dreamed
up by the Koch brothers to ensure a supply of cheap labor, but now he's gone full Wall Street on
the issue and he's lost me.
P @ 22: Thanks for the link. And the veil is lifted a bit further.
Trump's cloying tribute to AIPAC made him look like a penitent buffoon in search of redemption as
he desperately scanned the crowd anxiously anticipating and appearing relieved at the sound of applause
after each sentence he uttered.
When it comes to Hillary, however, she has the record of past actions (and even more machinations)
to prove her swooning fealty to The Lobby. Had her groveling not earned her enough kudos with AIPAC,
Hillary could have read to the convention the contents of her recently disclosed email in which she
explained how putting Syria neck under the butcher's knife was salutary for Israel.
Trump has been clear about his economic policies. He has criticized the TPP, H1B visas, lopsided
trade deals, offshoring US jobs and stated repeatedly he wants to place a tariff on companies that
move to low wage countries.
On the other hand, Sanders is completely inconsistent by calling for open borders while claiming
to be for higher wages. How is flooding the market with cheap labor going to raise wages?
On foreign policy Trump has questioned the logic of eliminating secular dictators who kill terrorists.
If is was a mistake to remove Saddam & Gaddafi, then how can we do the same to Assad? Also Trump
has said countries receiving US Military protection will start paying for it's cost and that money
will be used to rebuild US infrastructure.
Regarding ISIS Trump has called for neighboring countries to send their troops backed by US airpower.
He also thinks Gulf countries should pay for refugees' safe zones.
On the other hand, Sanders says the US should be "tough but not stupid" in destroying ISIS. Now
that sounds like a "pig in a poke" foreign policy if I ever heard one.
Thank you Ben @ 18. Stealing the election is really the most important issue, I agree. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/
is the site of a statistician who studies election/primary fraud for us.
Elsewhere on the site he indicates that the public chose Bernie, not Hillary in MA, MO, MI & IL.
Also the exact method by which Richard knows this. Did you know that once the results are in they
ADJUST the exit polls to agree?
It's fantastic the amt of info he has; he even knows how many votes on which type of machines where
two types are available.
So it's really a tragedy. If Bernie had been allowed to do better at the beginning he might have
created a bandwagon effect. In those 4 states people didn't vote for that horrible woman.
Everything I'm reading at conservative/activist news blogs is Trump is being sold as an 'insurgency'
candidate. Conservatives have been working to kick the RINO/neocons out of the leadership of the
national R Party for years. They see Trump as the guy who can crack the ceiling so to speak and they
are pulling out all of the stops to get him to the General. Period.
Their coalition that is growing enormously, daily, which includes moderate Evangelicals (if there
is such a thing), conservatives, some Tea Party types and more conservatives.
Many here may dismiss Trump, but I'd suggest that would not be wise. Like it or not, he is a keen
strategist, he's extremely well connected which means his peers are intensely intimidated, he's a
deal maker and breaker, he's been working the conservative side of the aisle for at least a decade
now, he uses people to his advantage yet their is a shady loyalty that goes with it...shady as in
shadows.
As for Hillary, her base just isn't fired up. BUT, and this is a big BUT, when she gets cornered
she comes out fighting, and when chooses to 'turn it on' she acts/behaves like a fighter and she
becomes unstoppable.
Bernie, well, he's Bernie...his policy proposals are worth looking at. He's not offensive. He's
not a Neanderthal. And he's decent. The likelihood of Hillary being indicted is nil, IMHO, thus,
his challenge lies with how he out 'fight's' her and I'm not convinced he has the MOJO to succeed.
As for Jill Stein. When she ran the last time, I tried to do a basic background check on her.
I'm an A2 girl, that is I wanted to learn if she met the three qualifications laid out in the Constitution,
which is Article II, Section 5. I ran a very novice check on her, I admit, but I found it difficult
to learn anything about her upbringing, local schools she's attended, her mom and dad, grandma and
grandpa, brothers and sisters. Dead ends everywhere.
All of the above search info is readily found on just about any of us, which makes me suspect,
that is, she doesn't meet the U.S. Contitution's Presidential qualifications. She may. But I couldn't
confirm it. Which in my mind, should be relatively easy. There is something 'amiss' about her. Just
instinct. Can't place my finger on it.
And Cruz? Ha. Ppppffffttttt....very dishonest IMO. And doesn't have a credible shot at the General.
Donald's meeting with Sheldon was a fait ac·com·pli. He's there man as evidenced by his AIPAC
debut...
Engdahl says no hop in Trump. Trump is a Mafia Don with a pompadour. Direct Mafia Ties via casinos,
attorneys, dad's construction biz. Likes Hillary even less.
Engdahl talks a good game and backs it up, but no mention of Israel's role in the balkanization
of MENA states and the remapping of MENA in accordance w/ Yinon/PNAC Plans.
AN @ 42: Do you REALLY believe the "Donald" will be able to live up to his progressive rhetoric?
If so, I applaud your faith. I, on the other hand, do not. We could well find out in the future.
...
I maybe a minority here, but in the real world the numbers are growing - as I came across anyone
I met regardless parties affiliation.
Economic..?. blah! You believe in Fiat money, Wall Street or Banksters?
Posted by: Jack Smith | Mar 22, 2016 3:33:59 PM | 11
I suspect that you've zeroed in on the Trump 'difference'.
All he needs to get into the White House is to keep dangling the insinuation that he'll be the least
worst of the last dozen or so POTUSes. And he can do that with everything except his tongue tied
behind his back. I'm also inclined to agree that if he turns out not to be anti-establishment then
the next POTUS probably will be.
#2 Trump is anti-latino? That is news to me. I believe he talked about MEXICO. Mexico is not Latin America,
please do not use the race card. Trump makes lots of sense, NO MORE illegal immigration, out, out out
I say. The real unemployment rate in the country is stratospheric. There is a black boy in Chicago who
needs that job, there is a young white boy in Appalachia who needs that job, there is a young native
american boy on a res who also needs that job. Everytime I hear, "these immigrants are doing jobs americans
don't want to do" I get sick to my stomach. Enough is enough.
Posted by: Fernando Arauxo | Mar 22, 2016 11:01:22 PM |
49
b, sorry for the OT, but CISA is even worse than CISPA & they are s'posed to vote for it this week.
I guess it would affect you too. Just what we don't need-- business controlling what we say on the
internet.
"....In 2009, President Obama stood before an adoring crowd in the centre of Prague, in the heart
of Europe. He pledged himself to make "the world free from nuclear weapons". People cheered and some
cried. A torrent of platitudes flowed from the media. Obama was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize.
It was all fake. He was lying.........In the last eighteen months, the greatest build-up of military
forces since World War Two – led by the United States – is taking place along Russia's western frontier.
Not since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union have foreign troops presented such a demonstrable threat
to Russia. What makes the prospect of nuclear war even more dangerous is a parallel campaign against
China..........The propaganda laying the ground for a war against Russia and/or China is no different
in principle. To my knowledge, no journalist in the Western "mainstream" – a Dan Rather equivalent,
say – asks why China is building airstrips in the South China Sea...............
................In the circus known as the American presidential campaign, Donald Trump
is being presented as a lunatic, a fascist. He is certainly odious ; but he is also a media
hate figure. That alone should arouse our scepticism ...........
Trump's views on migration are grotesque, but no more grotesque than those of David Cameron.
It is not Trump who is the Great Deporter from the United States, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner,
Barack Obama............
.........Most of America's wars (almost all of them against defenceless countries) have been launched
not by Republican presidents but by liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton,
Obama .................."
Further to John Pliger on China.... 2016 presidential election is crucial whether our elected
liar will go to war with China. Watch YouTube (South Front Channel) US massive buildup in South
China sea with known lapdogs especially The Jap and Australia. Missing is Singapore's US naval
base, one of the over a thousands bases around the world encircle Russia and China.
Mr. Trump just made a bold appeal for prompt and severe application of torture. The combo of "some
sensible non-interventionism" and torture somehow lacks appeal, and perhaps it is just me.
In the meantime, as I surfed for a direct quote, I got distracted. American politics is something
indeed. A group styling itself "Make America Awesome" distributed in Utah the picture of Mrs. Cruz
from her maiden days looking, well, awesome. Cruz cleared the caucuses in Utah (and so did Sanders
without similarly appealing pics of his wife).
Khalek read racist and homophobic statements to the interviewees, claiming they were made by Trump.
Little did they know that the quotes actually came from the mouth of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu or other Israeli leaders.
Donald Trump has done more to awaken the American people than anyone in recent memory. His
repeated mentioning of our massive $19 Trillion dollar deficit, job killing trade deals (no one
has mentioned NAFTA since Patrick Buchanan), getting us out of NATO, our taxpayers paying for
everyone's defense, how lobbyists and special interest groups control our politicians like
puppets, and that immigration and especially Muslim immigration is very bad for America, is
priceless. His bringing up Saudi Arabia's responsibility for 9/11 from the depths of the
Orwellian memory hole is also worth mentioning. For a while there I was hoping he was going to
mention Vice President Joe Biden's, 4 Star General Clark, and US General Martin Dempsey's
revealing that ISIS is a fake terrorist organization funded, controlled, and armed by Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, UAE, & Turkey, and indirectly funded by the US, France, UK, & Co with their huge
arms sales to those same nations who than give them to their terrorist puppets. Viva the real
revolution of truth!
ISIS mortars slammed into the base, dubbed Firebase Bell, killing Staff Sergeant Louis Cardin
and wounding several more Marines. Some of the wounded had to be evacuated out of the country
in order to receive proper treatment.
Cardin, 27, from Temecula, California, was on his fifth deployment in a war zone. He had served
three tours of duty in Afghanistan and one previous tour in Iraq before he was airlifted into
Makhmour last month as part of the deployment of the US Marines 26th Expeditionary Unit from the
USS Kearsarge, a troop carrier stationed in the Persian Gulf.
On Monday, a small ISIS unit attacked the base, home to 200 Marines, with small arms fire.
They were driven off without casualties. At that point, Pentagon spokesmen acknowledged the existence
of Firebase Bell, the first US-only facility to be set up in Iraq since the formal end of the
US military occupation of the country in December 2011.
Five tours. How long is a tour? A year? Time between tours? Louis Cardin was a Marine stationed abroad,
fighting the US wars of aggression for how many years? Five? Seven? More? Did he start at 18? Poor
bastard. Poor bastards he undoubtedly killed, too.
How can it be that there is not even one outlier campaigning on 'give peace a chance' or its equivalent?
Or is there? I haven't heard of one.
Trump went to AIPAC to make nice so they would stop the propaganda re his campaign.
From the looks of it today,he failed,as from the Graun to The NY lying times to Wapoo,the venom for
him remains.
Sanders is terrible foreign policy wise,he is totally invested in the thought Israel is unique and
worthy of support,he calls Hezbollah the terrorists,and backed Cast Lead and PE as rational response
to bottle rockets by mice trapped in a cage of Zionist steel.I do believe him pretty good domestically,and
he has called for border control as a logical extension of nationhood,although yes,he needs Latino
and black voters,hence his call of Obomba being good.Its bad enough blacks won't vote for the NY
Jew wo estranging them even more.
HRC tough?A fighter?How about a bubble headed bobblehead of nada,a MSM call girl for Zion.(nobody
else would want her)
That leaves Trump as our only American hope to lead US from the rocks of neoliberalism from Zion.
DS @ 63 said: "Donald Trump has done more to awaken the American people than anyone in recent memory.
"
Where the issues you mentioned, that's partly true. Gotta' give Trump credit for being relevant
on certain subjects, that's where he gets much of his support. But Sanders mentions those subjects,
and more in every speech.
I have to assume you've never heard Sanders speak. Even HRC mentions populist issues sometimes.
The challenge, as always, is...Can their actions match their rhetoric? I, for one, doubt it.
Proposition: BERNIE, A PROP FOR KILLARY (Team "D" establishment)
Given Bernie's milquetoast criticism of Killary and Obombo, I've started contemplating he's a
decoy to create the illusion of a progressive choice within Team "D", to keep progressives engaged
with Team "D", and, in the end, convince them to vote for Killary.
Considerations IMO supporting this proposition:
1. Killary has not pivoted to the left at all. Bernie's been ineffective at changing the Team
"D" platform, which suggests more of a stage prop than actual political threat.
2. As a corollary, Bernie would've had more influence on Team "D" had he run an independent campaign.
3. Had Bernie -- or someone else with at least a little "progressive street cred" -- not entered
the Team "D" primary, progressives would've gasped over a "Hillary only" primary. In turn, they would've
started an independent campaign that would, even in failure in the general election, cost Killary
too many votes for her to win. "A prop for Killary" was a prerequisite for her success.
4. As stated at the outset, Bernie's milquetoast criticism suggests he's trying to avoid wounding
her so badly that she can't win the general election.
Trump and the Clintons are friends and good friends. They are not simply casually acquainted because
they are all rich New Yorkers. Any casual web search will reveal that the two families are close
and thick. Would anyone believe Bill Clinton and Donald Trump could spend hours and hours together
on the golf course and not talk politics?
I don't have any positive evidence that Hillary and the Donald conspired to rig the current election
season. It does beggar belief they have not coordinated in an way.
How can it be that there is not even one outlier campaigning on 'give peace a chance' or its
equivalent
the neocon mindset prevails across the political spectrum and, in fact, it seems to me that most
Americans are pretty much jake with it as well. what's precipitating the currently rising citizenly
angst is the currently falling citizenly purchasing power.
(but in keeping with the adage that 'no crisis should go to waste' it seems a good opportunity
to flesh out the root causes and give them a good public airing)
Trump is what America is, which is cleverly masked by marketing in Hillary, Bernie, Ted, and all
the rest. It won't matter who get elected. Neocons = Neoliberals. More millions will die and more
destruction by the Empire.
If, a big IF, it is the case that the Repubs. now accept Trump, it is because they are afraid
of splitting the Republican Party (it is split, but that's not public) thus destroying it.
They want to conserve the advantages they have with a 'face unity for the public' - Senate, House,
power brokers, funding, corruption, Big Corps, Banks, Energy, etc. etc. - capitalising on the past.
Far prefer that to winning the Presidency. (See Obama-Romney.)
H. Clinton is guaranteed to continue the 'old system', like Obama, but even more collaborative?
(Aka 'Unity Governement' coupled with fake oppositions…)
Possibly, also because they can't stand the runner-up, Cruz, a minor figure, an objectionable
nut-job. A party that proposes two 'final' candidates whom the Cadres despise or even passionately
hate. Heh. History will make hay…
The Republicans are half-burned toast, the whole system is exposed as a decrepit sham, yet they
will try to hang on.
Imho, Trump cannot win against Sanders, and likely not against H. Clinton either. Once again,
the Repubs. will bank on a loss, accept it, to survive, and in their minds perhaps find Glory Another
Day. So accepting Trump as the nominee (if they do) is just part the same-old.
In any case, while the US prez. has tremendous powers, the US is run by other actors behind the
curtain. The Circus trumpets on.
Donald Trump carries with him several flaws: Under informed; self Absorbed; lacks real grace; too
combative in ways that eliminate potential supporters etc etc. One trait I believe the Donald does
not sport: He's not a liar. A Salesman, yes. But not a liar.
He is the collective middle finger of millions of Americans who feel they've been ridden hard
and put up wet by the elites in general and more specifically, by the Republican Party leadership
and those Republican losers in Congress like Boehner, Ryan, McConnell, Graham, McCain and others.
He is/was smart enough to sense the frustrations of the forgotten and repeatedly parrot THEIR
talking points. He's preaching to the choir and the choir is growing geometrically larger, day by
day. One of the posters above clammers for a street revolution, decrying any actions short of that
as ineffective. Trump for all of his character defects has ignited a prairie fire of contempt for
the system as we know it. The horse is out of the barn, for good.
Despite his pandering, I still believe he's the best America has and what America deserves. The only
way to the other side of this is through it. There is no way around it. Hold your nose but don't
close your eyes, otherwise you'll miss all the fun. Weeeee!!!!!!
karlof1 @79 Thanks for the link. Lots of good thoughts in the article.
Unfortunately, what it doesn't talk about directly is our worship as Western humans of the Gawd
of Mammon which is represented by private finance. Humans have not evolved to the point where we
have made finance a public tool. It is still a private tool of the global plutocrats and not just
America has to unify over the effort to throw off the jackboot of private finance. Worldwide the
curtain hiding the effects of private finance needs to be ripped off to show the core of our form
of social organization.
Humanity has made great strides in the past to define a more humanistic and egalitarian world.
The execution of efforts to instantiate those goals have been corrupted by the remaining "non sharing/public"
aspects of our social organization, the major of which is private finance. There used to be an argument
that the global plutocratic families represented the best and the brightest. That was a myth to begin
with and is now resulting in our species being channeled into extinction.
All banking worldwide needs to be "nationalized" and inheritance needs to be neutered to stop
producing families that accumulate enough to effect ongoing social policy.
There used to be an argument that the global plutocratic families represented the best and the
brightest. That was a myth to begin with...
The global plutocrats cannot be described this way any longer. Doesn't sell.
The new propaganda is two-pronged:
First, commoners en masse are told that they are extremely bright and gifted (mockingly, but they
relish the compliments!) highly intelligent, can-do spirited, tenacious, rugged individualists, willing
to sacrifice, help their neighbor, bootstraps and etc. (exceptional Americans!).
Second: obscene wealth and usury is excused (and applauded!) because these rich folks possess
this same can-do spirit and the other traits which they have simply applied in an effective manner.
Reinforcement of same is done by pretending that every American begins on a level playing field
and he was born with the same potential and opportunities as Mitt Romney or Donald Trump or any of
the Bush Klan.
The persistent propagandizing manifests itself thus: If I win the lottery, I want to keep all
the money, so like the rich people, I am in favor of low taxes or a flat tax (even better!).
Do you agree with the argument for a Steady-State Economy with one global currency backed by specie
and processed through a globalized public bank, or would you keep everything at the State-level,
eliminating private, fractional banking?
Any collection of oligarchs - the few - will craft a world that suits themselves and their own
perceived interests. To hell with everyone and everything else. In 'a nice way', of course.
Democracy is essential because it enables the oligarch's victims to countermand their suicidal
ways. Their victims (ourselves) are the onliest ones who can even perceive the oligarchs' errors.
Oligarchy, as masturbation is said to do, makes its practitioners deaf, dumb, and blind. Democracy
is not a luxury, something 'nice' to have, it is essential - if we humans and life on earth as we've
known it during our so brief,
banal sojourn
is to continue.
I must admit that I do not understand American public. I made a mistake reading hastily this morning.
Now correction: "Make America Awesome" distributed in Utah pics of Mrs. Trump (not Cruz!) from her maiden
years looking totally awesome, and yet, take that! it was Mr. Cruz who cleared Utah caucuses. I must
admit that web search "Heidi Cruz images" does return some appealing pics like
this beaty , but apparently, Ted did not replace his wife in, like, ages.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Mar 23, 2016 7:13:40 PM |
87
It is possible to watch the circus without picking sides Trump has never done anything worthwhile
or meaningful in his life and there is zero evidence to suggest that has changed, As for the rest
of em. they're all just the usual hacks running against Trump the unusual hack.
Which got me thinking I wonder if trump travels with a food taster. Not that it will do him any good
the poisons currently in use seem to be slow acting.
Take the case of
Rob Ford who had become an exceeding embrassment to the conservative wing of the neoliberal movement
just as trump has. The progression of that fellow's illness syncs pretty neatly with his rise fall
and rise again.
No matter how much the media tipped buckets of shit on him it just seemed to make him more popular
which is somewhat similar to the trump. Ford's illness appears to be similar to what Yasser Arafat
went through.
Of course saying this stuff out loud generates calls for the tin foil bonnet but I do hafta say that
a helluva a lot of pols I'm aware of have fallen off the twig early - particularly those who don't
conform to the 'rules'.
And that is the thing with trump - if he doesn't suddenly get sick you do have to wonder exactly
how beyond the pale the amerikan political establishment considers him to be.
b: "...Donald Trump toured Washington yesterday for backroom meetings with Republican party bigwigs..."
1st Republican Bigwig (standing in corner): Ok Mr Trump, well done at AIPAC, glorious stuff. You've
unlocked the Back Room.
Trump: It's true, I was Huge.
2nd Republican Bigwig: Would you like to come upstairs now Mr Trump...? Or should I say, Don...?
Trump: Ah, sure, let's go upstairs then. And you can call me Don.
2nd Republican Bigwig (stands up, leans on table): Now, Mr Trump... Repeat after me "what is building
7? I've never heard of building 7"
@psychoH 82
Inheritance does indeed work against the evolution of humankind. Who knows how far along we'd be
now if it were not for idiots, clowns and tyrants assuming wealth upon conception. One should only
leave enough dosh for cremation or burial. Each person with varying amounts of desire, more or less,
to contribute what they can inside humankinds' most precious commodity - our time.
Your solution is exactly right. But we won't get there unless the global corporate-owned mass
propaganda system is largely replaced by a democratic mass media.
Most people aren't smart/wise enough and/or just don't have the free time and educational resources
to figure out on their own who the enemy is and how to fight it. And such resources and the free
time to use them declines for the bottom 80% in the evermore inegalitarian world the financiers are
creating.
karlof1 @whatever asked
"
Do you agree with the argument for a Steady-State Economy with one global currency backed by specie
and processed through a globalized public bank, or would you keep everything at the State-level,
eliminating private, fractional banking?
"
Ending private finance must happen globally and I believe we need to learn how to get along globally
to survive. Isolating a public utility like finance to nation states, IMO, is a fools game. After
a while we would just end up where we are now.
We need to "grow up" as a species and throw off the vestiges of the middle ages with Kings and
such. There are 8+ billion of us and its sadly laughable how little advancement we have made in some
ways. The circus we live led by the global plutocrats is a sick legacy to the children who have to
live with the mess we have allowed to continue.
If you would have told me after the Trotskyite Liberal Neocons sabotaged and destroyed Patrick Buchanan's
1996 (prophetic) Anti-NAFTA/WTO, Immigration Moratorium, New Hadrian's Wall, stopping the US's endless
wars, and Cultural War campaign, and that Donald Trump would be the one to become its standard bearer,
I would have said that is absurd.
On another note, I read a book called "Conspiracy Against The Dollar" and in that book which was
written in the 70's, Ross Perot popped up at a billionaire Globalist insider meeting with the Bush
crime family & associates. Remember Ross Perot was created to split the Anti-NAFTA/WTO vote so that
the Globalist CFR golden boy Clinto could get elected, and relected. He than tried very hard to keep
Buchanan off the Reform party ticket in 2000. Notice how after the anti-NAFTA/WTO was passed and
the movement destroyed, he disappeared
The Trotskyite Neocons ran "Songbird" McCuckoo & the choke artist Romney so that Obama would win,
and in 96 the pathetic Beltway insider Bob Dole.
Daniel Shays @ 64
Those things you say are true. Trump threw a lot of light on subject matter many can never even think
of approaching. He deserves credit for that, no doubt. It's trump, and so you have to ask, does he
use it all to become the human headline that he is...? Of course, most likely. Will he double on
those efforts as Prez...? Unlikely.
Trump had a good limber up for the AIPAC event at the Jewish Republican Coalition presidential
show in December. Told the crowd " you're not gonna like me, don't want you're money" about 5 times...
Highlight reel stuff. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PQYOvDmWqjo
"Trump is what America is, which is cleverly masked by marketing in Hillary, Bernie, Ted,
and all the rest. It won't matter who get elected. Neocons = Neoliberals. More millions will die
and more destruction by the Empire."
"If you see voters as rational you'll be a terrible politician," Adams writes on his blog. "People
are not wired to be rational. Our brains simply evolved to keep us alive. Brains did not evolve
to give us truth. Brains merely give us movies in our minds that keeps us sane and motivated.
But none of it is rational or true, except maybe sometimes by coincidence."
If one is a firm believer in Enlightenment rationalism (like your humble poster), this while disturbing
must be acknowledged. A contradiction -- one apparently needs to appeal to the emotions to get people
to make rational choices.
Adams notes that the greatest emotional appeal that The Donald has made is to acknowledge the
suffering of the working class, which neither party has really addressed. If there were an effective
labor party here, we proles would be addressing this ourselves.
…a steady state economy, one global currency backed by specie, and processed through a globalized
public bank… ?? - several posts.
Well the 'steady state' part is moot, and globalized not, as Switz. is just a tin-pot postage-stamp
place, but ideas of this type are very much afoot.
In June we will vote the Vollgeld (full money - sovereign money) initiative, which would return
money-creation to one organism, the Central Bank. (link, eng. - campaign site and rather simplistic.)
Commercial banks would effectively be totally neutered. The Swiss love their Central Bank (in contrast
to attitudes to the FED in the US) as its profits are returned to the ppl, half or 2/3.
We will also vote on a guaranteed minimal income (link eng wiki.)
Neither of these initiatives are from the 'left.' They are based on certain monetary theories
and strands of 'libertarian' thought.
As everyone is still reeling from the Feb. 2016 vote serious discussions haven't even started.
This promises to be highly interesting.
Have you seen
Creating
New Money ? I think it's all about finance as a utility and how to get there. Coupled with a
suitable inheritance tax structure it would effect your program, wouldn't it?
To me the salient facit of privately created money is that it's lent into existence. Yes it enriches
its creators, but just as (more?) importantly it puts in place the cornerstone of 'the miracle of
compound interest', the foundation of the unsustainability of 'capitalism'. Rich or poor we're all
headed over the falls in a barrel as long as that's in place.
If you look at the key staff and advisers Bernie looks the best, I think.
Rufus@98
Adams' view of mental processes has demonstrated workability.
Mind and brain have long been considered separate mechanisms, altho they may well intersect.
The psychologist Alice Miller showed how the first 3 years of human life allowed the recording
of potentially] all senses [sights, sounds, etc.] without any inspection or evaluation by a child.
Such could lay dormant or become active at later time as, for example, fixed ideas and unknowingly
interfere with present-time senses and considerations and evaluations.
As for the mind and brain, a crude demo might be:
1. Create a mental picture of a horse being ridden by a whale.
2. Look at your mental picture.
3. Consider that you used the brain compose the picture.
4. Consider that the result [picture} is stored in your mind. Also, you can probably move the
picture around in space.
5. Consider the brain is clearly a physical object and its location is known.
6. Consider the mind is not clearly physical and its location is not clearly known.
And I know that Alice Miller's "First 3 years" studies were preceded by more comprehensive work
of others [much earlier]. Nevertheless, her work explained much to many.
As for "spirit", that subject is a religious hot-potato and I'm feeling too cowardly at the moment
to continue this post.
I thought that I had suggested that I agreed in very large part with Adams view. And just because
we have difficult being rational doesn't mean why shouldn't try. Religion does tend to be a hot one.
in re 99 --
Isn't it funny how the elite always attacks anyone who seeks to challenge their power. The folks
raping us keep telling us, there is no alternative. That's why we reds are always hated.
And I would note, the rising generations have a more positive view of socialism than my Cold War
cohort.
79;You gotta be sh*tting me;Eve Ensler?Common Dreams?Nirvana is just around the corner!
I bet she'll call the hell bitch the words promise.
Cruz posts nude photos of Trumps wife,but won't concede that his wife is now fodder.What a little
pos.The zionists love him.
95;They had a opinion piece in the lying times today,where McCain calls the Gary Cooper character in
For whom the Bell Tolls a personal hero,despite being a commie.What a hoot.
BTW Hemingway might be the most overrated author in American history.Only The Old Man and the Sea holds
anything for me,the rest irrelevant between war turgidity.
He probably realized it too,so he snuffed himself.
Posted by: dahoit | Mar 25, 2016 10:12:12 AM |
111
100;Yeah,real funny dat;Humble.sheesh.And the bit about the enlightenment.And he'll vote for the hell
bitch?double sheesh.
The Zionist have put the enlightenment on permanent hiatus.
Posted by: dahoit | Mar 25, 2016 10:16:13 AM |
112
[I]n order to have access to credit, in order to get money ... you have to pay the banks. ...
It's not production, it's not consumption. The wealth of the One Percent is obtained essentially
by lending money to the 99 Percent and then charging interest on it, and recycling this interest
at an exponentially growing rate. ... The head of Goldman Sachs came out and said that Goldman
Sachs workers are the most productive in the world. That's why they're paid what they are. ...
That's why I used the word parasitism in my book's title. People think of a parasite as simply
taking money, taking blood out of a host or taking money out of the economy. But in nature it's
much more complicated. The parasite can't simply come in and take something. First of all, it
needs to numb the host. It has an enzyme so that the host doesn't realize the parasite's there.
And then the parasites have another enzyme that takes over the host's brain. It makes the host
imagine that the parasite is part of its own body, actually part of itself and hence to be protected.
And 'the banks' have created the money they lend at interest from nothing. Why not ourselves through
our government, right? Just as the fed is doing now, but make the money available to real people
with real needs rather than just to the keep the grand larceny machine's bubbles inflated. 'Growing'.
Until they burst. A few strategic changes to the plumbing could put things right in no time.
"... Gramm seems pretty firmly in free market ideologue territory. Cruz deciding to bring him in as an economic advisor is certainly noteworthy. ..."
"... The short version: the Glass Steagall repeal allowed the banks to become "Too Big To Fail" and gave them enormous political leverage. It's the political leverage - the ability to count on Uncle Sam to come to the rescue, and provide easy terms for rent-seeking - that GLB provided. If they were separated, and only the investment banks could make risky investments, we would let the investment banks fail while protecting the boring old payments system. You won't get an argument on CFMA, however: it was worse. And that has Gramm's fingerprints all over it. And it might not have passed if the SIFIs were smaller. ..."
"... When I think of the villains of the Great Recession, Phil Gramm is always Public Enemy #1. ..."
"... The Glass Steagall repeal was not my biggest problem with Phil Gramm. My big problem is he wanted to have a completely deregulated financial sector. Sort of like when Newt Gingrich talked about "rational regulation" which was code for no regulation. But anyone who understands financial economics and our financial system knows that no regulations whatsoever is a recipe for a complete melt down. Which is what happened. ..."
Some people look at subprime lending and see evil. I look at subprime lending and I see the
American dream in action. -- former U.S. Senator Phil Gramm, Nov. 16, 2008
...Gramm has been brought on as a senior economic adviser to Republican presidential candidate
Ted Cruz. This isn't a promising development for Cruz... Not to put too fine a point on it, but
I believe -- as do many others -- that Gramm was one of the major figures who helped set the stage
for the crisis. ...
Gramm was a key sponsor of the ...
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act , which effectively repealed the piece of the
Glass-Steagall
Act... The damage caused by rolling back Glass-Steagall pales compared with ... the
Commodity
Futures Modernization Act of 2000 . Gramm was a co-sponsor of the legislation, which exempted
many derivatives and swaps from regulation. Not only was the law problematic, but it veered into
potential conflict-of-interest territory. ...
We got a chance to see those consequences a few years later when American International Group
failed, thanks in part to swaps ... on $441 billion of securities that turned out to be junk.
AIG wasn't required to put up much in the way of collateral, set aside capital or hedge its risk
on the swaps. Why would it, when the law said it didn't have to? The taxpayers were then called
upon to bailout AIG to the tune of more than $180 billion.
Maybe it isn't too surprising that Cruz would seek advice from Gramm. Cruz, after all, seems
to want to hobble modern economic policy by returning to the gold standard. ... We have seen these
movies before, and they end in tragedy and tears.
He also talks about Gramm's sad performance in his brief appearance as one of McCain's advisors
in 2008.
pgl :
Phil Gramm says he got his economic degree from the University of Georgia. Well - it was from
the Terry College of Business which is a business school. Not the graduate program of economics
of the University of Georgia. I guess this makes Gramm one notch above Stephen Moore, Donald Luskin,
and Lawrence Kudlow (aka the three stooges).
"Gramm's most notable moment in that position came on July 10, 2008, when he dismissed the
developing economic crisis as "a mental recession" in an interview -- and video -- released by
the conservative Washington Times. "We've never been more dominant," he said. "We've never had
more natural advantages than we have today. We've sort of become a nation of whiners." McCain
immediately disavowed the remarks, and a few days later Gramm stepped down as his campaign co-chairman."
OK that was July. Menzie Chinn always notes that Luskin was saying the same thing as late as
September 2008.
sanjait :
Gramm seems pretty firmly in free market ideologue territory. Cruz deciding to bring him in
as an economic advisor is certainly noteworthy.
Though I'm still struck by how determined some people seem to lump Graham Leach Bliley in as
a cause/major contributor to the crisis.
The CFMA very plausibly serves that purpose. If we want to mark Gramm as a villain, his sponsorship
of that bill should be sufficient, as well as his abject refusal to acknowledge the crisis in
real time.
But for whatever reason people have picked up Glass Steagall as a Very Important rule, and
seem to be pushing to rationalize that by claiming it is a big part of the crisis story.
Ritholtz, to his credit, is qualified and nuanced about this. He notes that CFMA is the big
story, and says GLB wasn't didn't "cause" the crisis.
But following through the links to his WaPo piece, he still looks like he is reaching for a
reason to label it a major contributor to the crisis.
He claims that removing G-S restrictions caused the major banks to in turn cause the shadow
banking entities like AIG, Bear, etc. to "bulk up" their holdings of subprime, based on ... nothing
that I can see.
Sure, the major banks were customers and counterparties for those shadow banks, but Ritholtz
seems to assume that if G-S weren't in place that demand would somehow have been less. Why?
Take a major bank with mixed commercial and investment banking activity and split the parts.
Would that have changed their activities? Not much. The commercial banking side still would have
held MBS (and purchase insurance on them) and the I-banks would still make speculative investments
of various types.
No one, as far as I've seen, ever bothers to tell a complete story where the structural incentives
in the financial sector changed as a result of Glass Steagall in a way that materially impacted
the depth or serverity of the housing crisis. How would splitting megabanks into separate big
C- and I-banks have changed anything? Bueller?
Instead I see a great many people, including well credentialed economists, just assume or hand
waive the claim that it made a big impact without bothering to model or specify it. I'm not saying
such an explanation couldn't exist that I'm not aware of ... but at this point I do see the absence
of explanation as evidence of absence.
pgl -> sanjait...
Gramm dismissing the concern over a recession in the summer of 2008 is the kicker for me!
The short version: the Glass Steagall repeal allowed the banks to become "Too Big To Fail"
and gave them enormous political leverage. It's the political leverage - the ability to count
on Uncle Sam to come to the rescue, and provide easy terms for rent-seeking - that GLB provided.
If they were separated, and only the investment banks could make risky investments, we would let
the investment banks fail while protecting the boring old payments system. You won't get an argument
on CFMA, however: it was worse. And that has Gramm's fingerprints all over it. And it might not
have passed if the SIFIs were smaller.
When I think of the villains of the Great Recession, Phil Gramm is always Public Enemy
#1.
The Glass Steagall repeal was not my biggest problem with Phil Gramm. My big problem is he
wanted to have a completely deregulated financial sector. Sort of like when Newt Gingrich talked
about "rational regulation" which was code for no regulation. But anyone who understands financial
economics and our financial system knows that no regulations whatsoever is a recipe for a complete
melt down. Which is what happened.
The Rage :
Cruz just wants to make money for his buddies while waving the bible. JDR was there 100+ years
before that "Ted".
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz,
has unveiled his new foreign policy team, stacked with some of the most
aggressive hawks imaginable, saying they are a group of his "trusted friends" who
believe in a "strong America."
Gaffney had previously been speculated to be a Trump adviser, as his dubious
work has been cited by that candidate repeatedly in trying to back up his
proposals to ban Muslim immigration. Gaffney's overt hostility toward Muslims in
general made him a virtual pariah during the 2012 campaign. Incredibly, a number
of Republican hopefuls have courted him this time around, with Cruz declaring him
"clear-eyed" and "a patriot."
Also featuring prominently in the Cruz team is Michael Ledeen, the
man at the center of
the yellowcake uranium forgeries, among the pretexts for the 2003 US invasion
and occupation of Iraq. Ledeen has been involved in a litany of scandals, dating
all the way back to Iran-Contra. He was also, notably, the man who got Israeli spy
Jonathon Pollard his job at the US Navy.
Of course speaking of Iran-Contra, one must inevitably discuss Elliott Abrams,
who famously pled guilty to two charges of withholding information related to the
scandal from Congress, and is likewise a central player in the new Cruz team. In
addition to the Contra scandal, Abrams was involved in myriad ugly Reagan-era
operations, and was a close ally of both former presidents Bush, receiving a
pardon for his Reagan-era crimes by George H.W. Bush, and being appointed as a
special adviser to George W.
During his tenure with the later Bush,
Abrams was accused by The Guardian of being at the center of a failed 2002
US-backed coup attempt against Venezuela, and was said to have personally given
the go-ahead for the effort.
Abram's most recent media comments, interestingly enough, were railing against
Cruz,
accusing him of being anti-semitic for even using the term "neocon." Now that
Cruz is establishing himself as the neocon candidate of choice, that allegation
has been quickly brushed aside.
With this team and more, Cruz is surrounding himself with warmongers and
criminals of the highest caliber. While the attempt appears to center on making
him a more straightforward Republican insider, to serve as a counter to Trump, the
jingoist and xenophobic policies these advisers portend also threatens to sabotage
any hope he has of presenting himself as a safer alternative.
Over the last six months, GOP leaders have watched helpless as the Republican presidential
race has transformed from the usual loveable farce into a terrifying prequel to Mad Max: Fury
Road as tangerine reality show host
Donald Trump gained, attained and retained frontrunner status. With only a few months left
before the Republican National Convention, party luminaries, bigwigs and eminences grises have
come up with a secret blueprint for how to stop the New York business mogul from becoming their
candidate. Exclusive to the Guardian, here is their 10-point plan:
Change the Republican party rules so that all presidential candidates must disclose the
length of their fingers prior to receiving the nomination. Trump will drop out of the race by
the end of the day.
Leave a trail of spray tan canisters and ground beef leading from the door of his
penthouse to a barge about to set off for the Far East.
Lure him into a space shuttle by telling him there's a photograph of his daughter Ivanka
in a bikini onboard and then blast him into orbit.
Attach a $5 bill to a greased pig's back and set it loose backstage before his next
campaign stop. He'll chase that thing until he's out of breath, and miss the speech, which,
due to his inhumanly hectic campaign schedule will have the cumulative knock-on effect of
making him miss the next day's speech, then the next morning's chummy appearance by telephone
with his pals on Morning Joe, then the next four primaries, and before you know it he's missed
the convention and is safely back to being an appalling but harmless reality TV star.
Force Trump to spend as much as five minutes with one of his own supporters.
Remind him that the White House executive residence is a paltry 55,000 square feet and
that presidents are constitutionally prohibited from painting it gold.
Invite Trump to a pool party and before he arrives glue a bunch of nickels to the bottom
of the deep end.
Invent time travel, go back to 2008, and stop ourselves from attacking the Obama
administration with the exact same vitriolic, divisive rhetoric that Trump picked up on and
has now ridden to his present position.
Stop sheepishly acquiescing to Trump's bluster and acting like he isn't a despicable
racist monster in hopes that it's not too late to prevent the complete collapse of society.
Change election procedure so that the remaining delegates must pledge their support to
whichever nominee scores highest on a seventh grade vocabulary test. Unfortunately this will
probably give the edge to college debate champ Ted Cruz, an opportunistic, bigoted liar whose
vision for America is a theocracy engaged in an apocalyptic war against Islam run by a man who
looks like Dracula's fat cousin smugly eating a sour candy he received as a prize for
tattling. But you can't have everything.
The mere suggestion of voting for the dumbercrats under any circumstances is the epitome of insanity.
Voting for serial criminal Billary and her stunning record of incompetence would be a failure
and an indictment of the theory of democracy. Since when does a smooth sound bite suffice for
substance? Who cares how nicely she recites the lines of her masters and special interest groups.
Just ask yourself, what she has ever done for the minority groups on whose fears she preys and
relies on for support? Even under Obama things have got worse for everyone and now we want to
make things even worse?!
Herein we see the final stage of decadence in a collapsing civilisation ... where the plutocrats
work actively against democracy and representative politics. For a long time they have pretended
to be a democracy but at long last we see the United States for what it has really been since
they shot John F. Kennedy. An oligarchy which permits people to elect puppets they control and
fund and offers no alternatives ... going so far as to support the opposition party to thwart
the majority will. You are looking at country going into its death throes and Australia won't
be far behind it.
3.8million manufacturing jobs lost since 2002, 50,000 factories closed in the same time period.
30 million blue collar jobs exported abroad, Trump has a very broad and angry voting base.
Was it a premonition ? In a post made a month ago I clearly stated that Trump wasn't a true blue
republican " You can't be from NY and be a real republican" I wrote. In the same post I also said
that the Clinton Lady was in fact a republican.
In a strange twist of fate my mental perception of reality was right on. Many Sanders democrats
will be voting for Trump rather than the Clinton lady and many republicans will be voting for
the Clinton lady .
The US establishment ( Busch, Clinton) is now viewed as " crime families" by independent medias,
I still think Trump will win the presidency.
WATCH Hillary Clinton's racist "super predators" speech. Cenk Uygur,
host of The Young Turks breaks down the speech and what Clinton really meant. Tell us what you
think in the comment section below.
"Is Hillary Clinton really the kind of candidate who will rally progressives and the black
community behind her when she refers to urban youth as "super predators" with "no conscience,
no empathy"?
She suggests that rather than trying to understand how poverty and social exclusion may have
led children to make certain choices, it is more important to first "bring them to heel."
That's "heel" with an "e," not "heal" with an "a."
Hillary is talking about using the full force of the law to drive these children into
submission."*
"Allies to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are casting a stark
distinction between a decisive, assertive Clinton and a pragmatic, deliberative President Obama on
foreign policy.
As Obama seeks to make the case for military action against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria
in a prime-time address on Wednesday, Clinton supporters are saying that she would have approached
the battle with ISIS in a completely different way if she were commander in chief.
"You never want to be a Monday morning quarterback on these issues because who knows how things
would ultimately turn out, but Obama has been passive on these issues," one former aide to Clinton
said. "She would have taken a more aggressive approach.""* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks
it down.
the Donald Trump campaign released a new ad yesterday touting his slogan, "Make America Great
Again." It also hilariously puts down his Democrat opposition candidate Hillary Clinton, who is
depicted as a joke in terms of her ability to get tough with America's enemies.
The 15-second ad begins with "When it comes to facing our toughest opponents," followed by images
of Russia's Putin performing martial arts and an ISIS fighter waving a gun at the viewer, "the
Democrats have the perfect answer..." The video then cuts to Hillary's bizarre barking from a
recent rally, which earned her a good deal of ridicule.
The video then cuts to laughter from an amused Putin. "We don't need to be a punchline!" the ad
concludes.
Watch above and enjoy.
The Freedom Center is a 501c3 non-profit organization. Therefore we do not endorse political
candidates either in primary or general elections. However, as defenders of America's social
contract, we insist that the rules laid down by both parties at the outset of campaigns be
respected, and that the results be decided by free elections. We will oppose any attempt to rig
the system and deny voters of either party their constitutional right to elect candidates of
their choice.
golightly • 2 days ago
i have to say that dear ol' Trump has some talented folks working for him.
Arlo • 2 days ago
Golly, could at least one Republican have the guts to use the Democrats' Alinsky tactics
against them? Isolate, Ridicule. Defeat? Could it work? I don't know. But, I do know that
playing gentleman/nice guy against the Demoncrats doesn't work.
Crusader Ron :E • 2 days ago
I pray Cruz will just join forces with Trump! Cruz is YOUNG... he has a future! He can
learn soooo much from Trump and refine Trump's bulldog conservatism into True Conservatism...
Christianity... Cruz... HUMBLE THYSELF... and work with Trump!!!
CoolTolerance -> Crusader Ron :E • a day ago
Won't happen. Cruz is hiding many things, of which his wife Heidi's involvement with
globalists, as well as banks giving him too much of a friendly helping hand.
Should he win the nomination, he will lose against Hillary. Why? That Texas twang and his
preacher mannerisms.
And lastly, the Democrats did say last November they will contest his eligibility should he be
the nominee. A sword hanging above his head.
I used to like him. No more. Too devious.
TheCarMan • 2 days ago
When Putin watches this, don't be surprised if he keeps hitting that RESET button over and
over that she sent him.
Kpar -> TheCarMan • 2 days ago
Did he get a replacement? The first one said "overcharge" in Russian.
nacho mamma • 2 days ago
This is just the opening salvo from Trump toward Hillary. Despite her bluster, saying she
looks forward to running against Trump...Hillary knows Trump will get down in the gutter with
her to throw punches.
The Clintons are dirty politicians who've never had a problem with taking the low road, and
Trump will not play nice when the race heats up. This could get real interesting...
tom tuttle • 2 days ago
Mocking old granny is as challenging as poking fun at a useless drunkard
Marc Faber, author of the Gloom, Boom & Doom Report, has thrown down the gauntlet on who he
thinks should be the next president of the United States.
During an interview on Bloomberg TV, Faber said that the U.S. would not be a sound, well-run
economy like Singapore "unless of course the U.S. is run by Mr. Trump, then the U.S. will
improve."
He tempered his assessment seconds later when asked if he was serious, indicating that Donald
Trump might not necessarily be good for the U.S., but that other options were worse.
"It's all relative," he said. "Given the alternatives, I would vote for Mr. Trump because he may
only destroy the U.S. economy, but Hillary Clinton will destroy the whole world."
Back2WeThePeople 1 hour ago
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE BANKSTER PIG-SIHT / BUSHIT – False Left / Right Paradigm
Read this secret circular -- THE BANKERS' MANIFESTO OF 1892 -- unearthed by American hero
Louis McFadden who fought THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT 1913
land-beaver 8 minutes ago
Hillary vacillates on positions and decisions, never consistent. There are four (4)
consistent constants about Hillary and her 50 years of public service: 1) She has been a
serial liar for all those years; 2) She changes her position and opinions, flipping-flopping
often, depending on polls and public comments / opinions; 3) She has proven to be the most
untrustworthy politician, including her disgraced husband and Pres Nixon, in those years; 4)
She has accomplished nothing note worthy in those 50 years, except setting a travel record as
Sec of State?
Larry 36 minutes ago
Hillary is taking donations from the Globalists and Wall street Bankers for a reason,but
the liberals are too stupid 2 put 1 and 1 together.
BH 5 hours ago
The final sentence indicates that Faber was very negative on the US economy following the
2012 election. If you follow the link you'll see that Faber predicted a 20% market decline.
The week after he made the prediction, the S&P dropped from 1380 to 1360. It recovered to 1409
the following week and has been higher ever since. It's almost impossible to have made a worse
prediction. And the market is up almost 40% since his call. So keep that in mind when you hear
him say that Hillary will "destroy the entire world."
Jay 30 minutes ago
hillary is a criminal that should be in jail. Anyone else who released classified
information over the internet would be in Leavenworth breaking rocks!! and she needs to be
there too. She is a lying no good incapable POS! She is NOT fit to lead a nation, period!
Walmart's Board of Directors member ~> Sanders: No. Clinton: Yes.
Supported NAFTA ~> Sanders: No. Clinton: Yes.
The War on Drugs ~> Sanders: No. Clinton: Yes.
Charter Schools ~> Sanders: No. Clinton: Yes.
The Patriot Act ~> Sanders: No. Clinton: Yes.
The Invasion of Iraq ~> Sanders: No. Clinton: Yes.
The Bank Bailouts ~> Sanders: No. Clinton: Yes.
The Keystone XL pipeline ~> Sanders: No. Clinton: Yes.(just changed to no on sept 23, what a
coincidence.)
The Trans Pacific Partnership ~> Sanders: No. Clinton: Yes.
Marriage Equality ~> Sanders: Yes.(since and before the 80's.) Clinton: No.(until recently,
again what great timing.)
Wall Street Reform ~> Sanders: Yes. Clinton: No.
Student Loan Reform ~> Sanders: Yes. Clinton: No.
Reinstate Glass Steagall ~> Sanders: Yes Clinton: No.
Hillary Clinton is an opportunistic, center right, corporatist 'flip flopper' who has had to
"evolve" on nearly every issue!!!
And, she has more "baggage" than any major metropolitan airport!!
+Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has been right on every issue all along and he's "The most
trusted man in politics"!!
Wake up, America!! Bernie Sanders is our generation's FDR!! And he can win!!
That research still holds true. Nicely done.
It's maddening to see people swaying to the hypnosis of corporate politics and seriously
contemplating voting for Clinton #2 or any of these insane power mad sociopaths in the red
color coded corporation.
I can only hope that the US voter becomes better informed (and soon.)
Hillary Clinton assures us that
she's not at all biased by the $675,000 she's received from Goldman Sachs for paid speeches. An attendee
of one of Clinton's Goldman Sachs speeches spoke with Politico and revealed why Clinton won't release
the transcripts of the speeches. Cenk Uygur host of The Young Turks breaks down the story.
"When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona
in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping
create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.
Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman's workforce
and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present
at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the
2008 financial crisis.
"It was pretty glowing about us," one person who watched the event said. "It's so far from what
she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman
Sachs managing director."*
"... Were it not for the DNC's Machiavellian planning of this primary and, had the states been ordered differently, we wouldn't be at roughly the halfway point with such skewed results. Were it not for the horrendous media bias shown Sanders, across mainstream corporate media, voters probably wouldn't be quite so disgusted and angry with the DNC's decision making. ..."
"... This is fundamentally the problem in our system. Each person enters the voting booth in November with two principal choices: Stinks and Stinks-Even-More. ..."
"... Instead, Bernie's chances are slim (#StillSanders), especially thanks to the major establishment outlets. Even if Clinton wins the nomination a lot of us aren't voting for her. She's hardly distinguishable from a Kissinger fangirl. ..."
"... To paraphrase Franklin, we choose not to have our vote manipulated by the fear of the lesser of two evils. We choose not to give up our "essential Liberty" to purchase a little safety because those that give that up deserve neither safety nor Liberty. ..."
"... We can hope that Sanders can come back and win the nomination because if we have Hillary for the Dem nominee Donald Trump will be a very unkind opponent. Sanders could handle the Donald in a debate. At this very moment the Trump campaign is doing their research on the Clintons. ..."
"... The Clintons define "corrupt." Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Hillary Clinton, who never traded commodities, made hundreds of thousands of dollars trading commodities with only several trades. Yet she claims she wasn't tipped. They leased the Lincoln Bedroom like it was their AirBNB. If someone can tell me where Clinton money ends and Clinton Foundation money begins, please let me know. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton refuses to release transcripts of her expensive speeches to Wall Street executives. I, a lifelong Democrat from a family of lifelong FDR Democrats, won't vote for Clinton until I know what she said in her speeches. The Clintons and I have come to the end of the road. ..."
"... I am a 76 year old life-long Democrat, and I would never vote for anyone who voted for the invasion of Iraq, or who supported NAFTA. These two issues have been the undoing of America - - along with Citizens United. ..."
I'm going for the longshot. In fact, I just donated to Bernie again yesterday. Even if he doesn't
win, we need him to have as many delegates as possible going into the convention so that we have
a strong voice against interventionist policies and pay to play government as the party platform
is crafted. We need to send a loud message to the Democratic establishment: Enough is enough!
#feelthebern
America needs him. A guy who stands up for everyone. A guy with no baggage. A honest politician
who wants to swim against the established norms and bring change. People are still living in recession.
Big corporation are still making big money. Why can't young people afford to go to college?, why
can't old people retired in peace?, why can't people not afford healthcare?, Why we need to bomb
n kill innocent people abroad? Change is hard to bring. Bernie has a vision, I hope everyone can
see it. Peace!
Rima Regas. is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA
12 hours ago
Well, well...
That's exactly what the Sanders people have been saying will be the case.
Were it not for the DNC's Machiavellian planning of this primary and, had the states been
ordered differently, we wouldn't be at roughly the halfway point with such skewed results. Were
it not for the horrendous media bias shown Sanders, across mainstream corporate media, voters
probably wouldn't be quite so disgusted and angry with the DNC's decision making.
But here we are... Yes, we do have the other half of the primary to get through and it gets
Bernie-friendly from here on out.
Meanwhile, Democratic voter turn out is very low. When is the mainstream media going to stop
promoting Donald Trump and turn its attention to that? For all the talk about how scary a President
Trump would be, nothing much is being said to voters about the low turn out. Reading most papers,
one might be led to think everything is hunky dory in that respect. It isn't.
This is fundamentally the problem in our system. Each person enters the voting booth in
November with two principal choices: Stinks and Stinks-Even-More. By voting for Stinks, we
compromise our own passion only to send the wrong message that we somehow support the policies
and approach of the lesser-evil. This then just continues our decline, and encourages the press
to continue to ignore folks like Bernie who stand for truly profound, positive change. We can
collectively talk ourselves blue about income inequality, but failing to give Bernie his due time
and press coverage is a travesty.
Shameful. What good does it do for Kristof, Blow, Friedman and the Editorial Board to opine
about gross income inequality, only to turn around and deny Bernie his share of the press coverage.
The press has truly let America down. This includes the 24-hour news cycle, low-quality CNN types
and the presumably more deliberate and thoughtful NY Times. All of them have (for reasons that
the average citizen could probably guess) have decided Bernie wasn't worth the air time and print
space.
"Why? These states aren't as bad for him as those in the South, but they force him to confront
his two weaknesses: diversity and affluence."
These weaknesses could have been mitigated over time had the Times and the mainstream press
actually told its more diverse readers how Sanders' policies would in fact help them, and its
affluent readers that, by the way, their neighbors are starving.
Instead, Bernie's chances are slim (#StillSanders), especially thanks to the major establishment
outlets. Even if Clinton wins the nomination a lot of us aren't voting for her. She's hardly distinguishable
from a Kissinger fangirl. (Kissinger, as a reminder, had no trouble authorizing the murder
and systematic starvation of hundreds of thousands of East Timorese going into the 80s, which,
surprise, the Times didn't mention *at all* for at least a few years.) She disgusts me, and I
will never support her. I suspect it's the same for other Berniebros (as you would mockingly call
us). You've created a fascist beast, American press. Do your job.
Our family loves Bernie. We have waited so long for someone who we truly knew was leveling
with us. God help us if it comes to the disastrous consequences of 2000 when Bush won as some
people abandoned the Dems for an alternate choice but we must vote with our conscience and will
write his name in if that is what it comes to. We just hope the 'great beast' we see within the
hearts of so many Americans will not awaken yet again as it did in 2003 leading us into the obsenity
known as Iraq or worse .
To paraphrase Franklin, we choose not to have our vote manipulated by the fear of the lesser
of two evils. We choose not to give up our "essential Liberty" to purchase a little safety because
those that give that up deserve neither safety nor Liberty.
We stand or fall with Bernie and if the latter be true, it is with the hope that the next generation
finds its way into the light. It appears, from what I am seeing, that they may be better suited
to run this country than my generation has. My apologies to the Greatest Generation for failing
to deliver on their gift born of such great sacrifice.
We can hope that Sanders can come back and win the nomination because if we have Hillary
for the Dem nominee Donald Trump will be a very unkind opponent. Sanders could handle the Donald
in a debate. At this very moment the Trump campaign is doing their research on the Clintons.
If it ends up being a contest between Trump and Clinton the vulnerabilities of the Clintons will
be on full display. And Trump is not known for his kindness or restraint. It would not be pretty.
If Hillary is the candidate then Trump's path to the White House will be much easier. She's got
too many flaws.
The Clintons define "corrupt." Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the definition of
'is' is." Hillary Clinton, who never traded commodities, made hundreds of thousands of dollars
trading commodities with only several trades. Yet she claims she wasn't tipped. They leased the
Lincoln Bedroom like it was their AirBNB. If someone can tell me where Clinton money ends and
Clinton Foundation money begins, please let me know.
Hillary Clinton's brothers were influence peddlers. Hugh Clinton accepted a large amount of
money to influence Pres. Clinton to offer a pardon. Tony Clinton sells his connections to the
highest bidders.
Hillary Clinton refuses to release transcripts of her expensive speeches to Wall Street
executives. I, a lifelong Democrat from a family of lifelong FDR Democrats, won't vote for Clinton
until I know what she said in her speeches. The Clintons and I have come to the end of the road.
I will never understand why black voters would choose Hillary over Bernie when Bernie is the
one who actual has a tracjk record of fighting for civil rights.
The Democratic Party and its corporate affiliates' support for HRC has blinded them to a large
problem, viz. that HRC is very likely to be beaten in the general election. Whether earned or
not, there exists a very high level of antipathy for HRC, among Independents, and yes, Democrats.
Senator Sanders is widely regarded as honest and straightforward. If he is not nominated, the
legions of young Democrats and the large numbers of Independents that support the Senator, will
stay home on election day and/or the extremely disaffected will vote for Trump if he is nominated...very,
very few will vote for HRC (this is my anecdotal observation from many conversations with the
Senator's supporters). It is also well-known, but often suppressed information that Senator Sanders
does better against Trump than HRC in most national polls. The reality is that Senator Sanders
is by far the best choice for Democrats to beat Trump or any other Republican crazy.
I am a 76 year old life-long Democrat, and I would never vote for anyone who voted for
the invasion of Iraq, or who supported NAFTA. These two issues have been the undoing of America
- - along with Citizens United.
Yes, Sanders is down. Yes, his task is a daunting one, but less daunting than Kasich's path
to the Republican nomination, which is getting more media coverage than the 2.8 million votes
that Sanders drew on Tuesday. Sanders "revolution" is revolutionary only to those who accept the
current Republican view of government as our collective nightmare - an us vs. them fight to the
death over guns, immigration, abortion, deteriorating air and water, income inequality, student
debt, access to health care - funded by sacred and unlimited corporate and PAC dollars.
Sanders
proposes nothing that has not been done before, here or abroad, by representative governments
promoting the health, education, and welfare of all their people. I like to imagine Roosevelt,
Truman, and Eisenhower looking down on Sanders' proposals of what America should be able to do
for its people. Maybe the Ides of March got Sanders. Maybe not?
I keep reading in "The New York Times" that it's over. As I recall, a legendary figure, associated
with two legendary New York baseball teams, used to say that "It aren't over 'til it's over. .
. ."
Why "The New York Times" is so anxious to call the Election of 2016 seems to be a question
fit for an investigation. Where is "Woodstein" when we need them!?
Months before Sanders made any noise about running, I only hoped that we would have someone
besides a Bush or a Clinton as a candidate. In a country this big, don't we have any other qualified
candidates, I wondered. Politics aside, I just didn't think the idea of sending another Bush or
Clinton to the White House was good for (the appearance of) democracy.
Fast forward to today: Bush is out and Sanders is struggling to stay in. Look what happened
to the other democrats (and we won't even talk about third party candidates). They didn't have
a chance. It's an absolute miracle that Sanders has come this far given the toxic role of money
in American politics and the corporate control and neutralizing of American media.
Trump pushed Bush out of the race, but this was hardly a victory over the "establishment".
Trump's money and fame gave him instant access -- and he was quickly able to compete with establishment
candidates.
For me, Sanders is a glimmer of hope. I have no illusions about his chances of securing the
democratic nomination. But I find solace in the idea that, despite everything and everyone working
to get him out, he's still there and his campaign in resonating with young people. He has started
a movement, and that is what can lead to real change.
Rima Regas, is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA
12 hours ago
I have to disagree with Cohn on his assessment of the Black vote. While it is true enough that
Clinton had a lock on the South, her narrow win in Illinois and a close look at the Black vote
there gives us a glimpse of what's to come and there are good ideological and factual reasons
for it as I explain in my essay. Mrs. Clinton, in her campaign, has shown a disdain for the new
civil rights movement. While it may not have swayed older voters, younger ones are not pleased.
Their power, as voters will be felt more in the coming primaries and caucuses:
A few more ways Bernie can win- 1)
the FBI or leaks show Hillary used classified server for emails that she didn't want seen by voters
or the press because they are damning to her election. 2) a larger stronger Yuan devaluation sets
off Wall Street volatility, exposing weaknesses in her economic policcies 3) transcripts of her
Wall Street talks are leaked exposing high level corruption 4) a book is written on how the global
leaders did not take her seriously as Secretary of State 5) polls show that independents don't
like or trust her and will not toe the DNC party line ) etc
Bernie Sanders has a better chance of beating Trump, as several polls show. Trump supporters
want an "outsider" who is not "owned" by either party. He has the advantage over Clinton and Trump
in that he is not corrupt. The Times has been biased through the campaign. They endorsed Clinton
a long time ago, and give her the benefit of coverage. But the REAL story is how Sanders has raised
money from small donors. Why aren't they interviewing those donors on a daily basis? Who are they?
Democrats? Republicans? Independents? The Times is not doing their job, such as conducting investigative
reporting on the Clinton Foundation, and asking will the Clintons close down the Clinton Foundation
if Hillary is elected? Will Bill Clinton continue to give $million dollar speeches when married
to the President? Will he be a co-president, back in the oval office that he disgraced? The Times
should be pushing for Hillary to not only publish the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street,
but also her and Bill's speeches to Chinese billionaires, and others listed on Clinton Foundation
web site). The Times might also ask how the Clintons turned a nonprofit foundation into an engine
of personal wealth after leaving the White House claiming poverty. Do your job, NYT!!
It is tragic that what is oft referred to as 'the black vote' may well usher in a Donald J.
Trump Presidency. And It is ironic that votes for H. Clinton, as polling suggests, serves to do
a few things a.) it decreases Sen. Sanders chances to be POTUS, which is obvious, but it also
b.) will galvanize Republican voter turnout and may even c.) shift Independents and even some
Democrats to the Right during the generals. I hold accountable the media and its collusion with
DNC establishment and, honestly, the low-information voter.
H. Clinton offers very little, in stated policy goals, for the poor and middle-class, which is
in stark contrast to Sen. Sander's historical record and future policy goals. Sen. Sanders, even
if I were not a fan, is offering positions (e.g. education w/ out debt, single-payer health care,
combating crony capitalism, defeating citizens united, breaking up the largest banks) that have
clearly promoted equality in many other developed nations. There is a direct correlation between
these policy positions and bettering the lives of others. Piketty, Galbraith, Saez, Stiglitz,
and countless other elite economic minds all agree these measures level the playing field.
It is disheartening to witness, yet again, so many people voting against their own best interests
by responding to dog whistle appeals to the color of one's skin and not the truest needs of the
poor and middle-class. I am resigned to 8 more years of "hope and change" that does nothing for
equality.
Bernie Sanders gives the impression that he will achieve major changes soon. He'll bring about
single-payer health care (with everyone saving money). He'll end super PACs and huge corporate/billionaire
contributions in political campaigns. He'll redo our foreign trade agreements to protect American
jobs and bring manufacturing jobs back. He'll do away with income inequality and make labor unions
strong again. If he expressed these goals as dreams in the manner of Martin Luther King's "I have
a dream" speech, I'd say fine and good. Let's work towards these ends. But leading his followers
astray by claiming that a revolution is taking place now and that these things can be achieved
soon is just outright disgraceful. I'm not sure why African American don't support Senator Sanders,
but they definitely know better than anyone the difference between dreams and reality. They know,
as Dr. King did, that change takes hard work and a lot of time. The political pendulum may be
starting to swing leftwards again (I hope so). But a revolution? No way.
I have worked on too many campaigns to count, before I quit my addiction to pain and got a
real job. His was an odd campaign.
He expected the media to be a partner in helping him get elected. No candidate ever expects
help from the media. Sander got the third best media coverage of all who ran--and arguable the
most favorable given most of Clinton's coverage was the email scandal. At best you can get from
the media is benign neglect. But the minute you are winning expect a scrubbing that would make
a Brillo pad look gentle.
He assumed he would have inroads to groups without courting them believing success with one
group meant everyone would like him.
He never seem to understand Clinton's strengths. He then seemed surprised by them. You always
understand your oppotrengths at the very least to mitigate the damage.
He fought with the establishment despite running in the establishment. Not only are they voters
--they have business intelligence on local operatives and state level politics. He hit a brick
wall in Nevada and got his clocked cleaned in South Carolina despite outspending Clinton because
the apparatus that existed preferred Clinton.
And lastly, where everyone in this business pours over data--their relationship with data seems
foreign. There are several instances where you get the sense they made something up on the fly--and
honestly surprised at the result.
Oh dear. Another white person telling all those ungrateful and ignorant people of color, the African
Americans, the Hispanics, that they're doing this voting thing all wrong. Makes right thinking Bernsters
wonder why we even bother to let them vote, if they're just going to mis-use it so.
Sanders was involved, 60 years ago, in some civil rights activities. Since then, he's been the
elected official of some of the whitest sections of the country and has not depended on the black
or Hispanic vote to ge re-elected. If you want to tar Clinton with the '95 crime bill, even though
she wasn't a senator then, it ricochets to hit Sanders, who voted for it.
Clinton worked to develop connections and a reputation in the African American and Hispanic sectors.
Bernie Sanders, though a good man, did not. Nor did he work with the existing Democratic party to
support down-ticket elections or democratic events. He always ran as an outsider. Now, he wants to
be in the party and benefit from what the DNC has to offer. Funny that his supporters cry foul when
he, a non-Democrat, doesn't get the full breadth of support from the party he shunned.
So to all those Bernsters out there - please calm down. Everyone deals with favorite politicians
getting rejected, it's life. and the millennial vote is no more or less important than any other
group.
Now that the press and the political actuaries have crowned Clinton the presumptive nominee,
some of the passion that has sustained Sanders will ebb, and we'll see him do less well. Progressives
will slowly accept Clinton and either sit out the primary or curb their enthusiasm for the Bern.
Clinton has, from the beginning, garnered votes by presenting herself as inevitable, not inspirational.
Not so much "Yes We Can" but "Yes I Will."
It's a shame, because a transformational FDR-style Democrat is desperately needed at this point
in our history.
Here's the thing - general elections are part of the democratic process, but the nomination
process is controlled by the parties, who make the rules and call the shots. For 40 years or so,
Ms. Clinton has been involved in fund raising and campaigning for senators, congressmen, and governors.
She has been involved in the DNC and has been supported in return.
Sanders runs as a pure outsider. He shunned the party until he decided to join in order to
run. He has few supporters in the Senate, and little good will among down-ticket Democrats.
Clinton isn't winning on superdelegates, but on pledged delegates from the states. She has
earned a plurality of votes. Claiming otherwise demeans the millions who have already cast their
votes in her favor, and assumes that they are ignorant, stupid, or insane. Their decisions were
other than what you would want. That's democracy. Get over it.
The DNC has stacked the deck in Clinton's favor with its Superdelegate apparatchiks clogging
the arteries of a fair nominating process with 465 clots of greasy fat. Where is the Democracy
in the Democratic party when viable contenders are forced to run the race in hobbles? Not even
the Republicans have come up with Tammany Hall tactic - yet.
So yes, Hillary will most likely be the nominee of the Democratic Party. As an independent
I will not be voting for her or any members of the Republican Insane Clown Posse. More than likely
I will be writing in for the /bernie_sanders.Warren ticket as a protest to rigged elections.
While otherwise quite good, this article contains a factual error that continues to play into
the false Clinton narrative about racialized voting and the Sanders campaign.
According to exit polling, Oklahoma's Democratic Primary was only 74% white. Sanders won the
vote in that state by 10.5% points. This means that the following statement is false: "Mr. Sanders's
best showing in a state where less than 75 percent of voters were white was his two-point win
in Michigan."
And, while we do not have exit polling data from Colorado, the electorate there was almost
certainly less than 75% white. Sanders won by 18.5%. Take for instance Denver County. Denver County
is just 53% white only per United States Census's Quick Facts. 31% of Denver is Latina or Latino,
10% is African American, 2% is Native American, and 4% is Asian. Sanders won Denver County by
9.4%.
To pretend, as this article does, that Arizona (31% Latino) or even Washington State (70% white
only per US Census data) are "whiter" states than Tennessee (75%) and Arkansas (73%) is to betray
exactly the kind of anti-Sanders bias that Margaret Sullivan had to call out in another context
this morning.
At the very least, the Times owes it to its readers to correct the factual error here in a
prominent way.
It's actually shameful that black voters in SC refused to listen or engage with the second
candidate in two candidate race, even when he came to their church:
And can we please stop referring to a state where 60% of the primary voters were black as "diverse."
In a country with a 13% black population, it's more accurately described as "extremely unrepresentative"
"Diverse" does not mean "minorities overrepresented by a factor of 4." New Hampshire is far
closer to the racial mix in America than the electorate in any Democratic Primary in the south.
Bernie never said this would be easy. He has lost a few battles, but he will win the war. We
have to stay the course & get his message out to the people.
Democrats must realize that we can not win the presidency with only the support of southern blacks
& senior citizens. The way this election has been run by the DNC & media has totally alienated
Bernie supporters to the point that a great majority will go green or vote Rep. rather than back
Clinton & the DNC. This is becoming a reality more & more every day. I hope that the super delegates
figure this out by the time we reach the convention or all is lost.
The establishment media favoring the establishment candidate paints a rosy picture for HRC.
We get it. The Bernie Blackout marches along in lock-step with the Trump Trumpet. This scenario
is far more than mere perception. Empirical data will be mined for years to come to show the glaring
disparity. Future journalism majors will compose graduate theses using this fodder. Should we
end up, as currently appears likely, with President Trump, the "golly-how-did-that-happen?" crowd
will have it all explained later by some kid who is now in junior high school because today's
print news editors and broadcast news producers suffered from the "if-it-bleeds-it-leads" school.
Even the vaunted NY Times betrays its "all the news that's fit to print" motto and remains mesmerized
by the Trump con act. Hey fellas, how about a new motto? "Covering Carnival Barkers Since 2016"?
I have to be honest here; I don't see much hope for Bernie to get the nomination. I do hope
he wins my state, and yes, I'll be caucusing for him next weekend, but the numbers don't look
good and I'm feeling depressed.
I intend to vote in November for all races on the ballot. If my state is not in play--if we're
safely blue, like we usually are--I'm writing in Bernie. If there's a chance we might go red,
I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary.
I didn't like her in 2008 and I don't like her in 2016. She's a neoliberal hawk and I don't
want her getting the US entangled in more wars we'll never get out of. I don't want her starting
negotiations with the Republicans already close to the center so we'll end up all the way to the
right. I don't think she's trustworthy and I think her only guiding principle is ambition.
Needless to say, I'm depressed, and frankly tuning out of the race at this point. The Republicans
are making the US a laughingstock around the world and the Dems appear to be saddled with a candidate
we don't particularly want. Any way you slice it this is going to be an ugly election, and while
I've been a political junkie all my life, I just don't have the enthusiasm to care about it. I
don't see a winning solution in this any way I look at it.
*This* is Hillary's big problem. People like me, who will grudgingly vote for her if we have
to, but who have absolutely no enthusiasm for it. How many of us will just stay home instead of
voting for the lesser evil?
If electability is your main criteria, you should be voting for Sanders.
Sanders does better against every Republican opponent, in every poll in the last month, because
he gets 3-1 support from independents (40% of the electorate), even if he doesn't get a majority
of democrats (30% of the electorate).
Sanders got 71% of the independent voters in Illinois, 72% of the independent voters in New
Hampshire, and 73% of the independent voters in Michigan (exit poll data)
Clinton has high favorability within the Democratic Party, but among all Americans, she has
a 55% NEGATIVE rating (versus only 42% positive), rivaling Trump. Nothing is red meat to Republicans
like Clinton, and she has no appeal to Independents (see above)
It's why in every poll for the last month among REGISTERED VOTERS, Sanders does better against
every Republican opponent than Clinton.
Bernie's most likely winning opportunity is the self-destruction of his opponent, whose high
unfavorability ratings could prove decisive if her email controversy or any number of other vulnerabilities
gains public attention.
There is much talk of a disqualifying event that will knock Hillary out of the race and allow
Bernie to receive the nomination. Talk of indictments, the content of the Wall Street speeches,
e-mail servers, Benghazi, and so on. The talk on both sides often seems to miss the mark. I agree
with those, generally Clinton supporters, who doubt she said or did anything appalling in any
of these regards. However, I agree with the Sanders supporters that she is not giving adequate
answers on these questions. There is really an element of "I'm not going to address such a ridiculous
question". The problem that I see is that Bernie Sanders, who for the most part is on the same
side as Hillary Clinton and her supporters, has been not forcing the issue- nor would it be appropriate
for him to do so. The Republican nominee will certainly do so, to great affect with the many people
who are not currently strong supporters of Clinton. I don't refer to the people who intensely
dislike her, or would never vote for Democrat/woman/centrist/non-conserative anyway. I mean the
people who when Trump/Cruz raises the question about her speeches or lack of e-mail security will
wonder whether there might be something to it. It is clear that there are many voters looking
for a fresh start away from the usual politics. The Clinton campaign needs to address these questions
with coherent and substantive answers now.
Bernie is the future of Democratic policy; Hillary the past.
Among voters younger than 45 Bernie wins big; by 40 points among millenials.
In 2008 Obama offered a new future of justice but most of his program was broken on the shoals
of mindless GOP hostility. Bernie is more of a fighter.
And now the Dem establishment wants to choke off the voices of the young, those paying the biggest
price for plutocracy and Wall Street government.
Bernie is offering a very limited version of the social democracy that has worked so well in minimizing
poverty and maximizing personal opportunity across Europe, Canada, Australia.
Mass grotesque life-killing poverty is destroying the American 100 million underclass as a parasitic
plutocracy is more and more engorged.
There is an alternative. Continue the Clinton-Sanders debates to the floor of the convention.
Should Hillary win, Bernie is committed to uniting the party behind her for he has actually made
her a better, more progressive candidate, shedding off the muck of triangulation.
Bernie is the hope and change candidate. And he also consistently does better than Hillary matched
up against Cruz/Trump in polling.
As one of those 69 year old millennials, I think I know how the system works. The political
parties put up candidates who take money from huge special interests, they get elected, nothing
is accomplished other than more Corporate control of our country: AKA the buying and selling of
elections and a commitment to becoming a total oligarchy. I recently read that some of the DNC's
super delegates are actually lobbyists. The Democrats and Republicans are running our country
into the ground: polluting the planet, killing our kids in wars for profit; jailing minorities
and thereby disenfranchising them from voting, dumbing down the education system, forcing families
into bankruptcy over medical bills, more rights taken away from citizens (out of fear that people
(like me)are going to take to the streets with their pitchforks). If I may quote Laurel and Hardy
(who this campaign often resembles) This is a fine mess you got me into. I'd like to remind the
Clintons and the DNC of how foolish G W Bush looked after standing under that MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
banner at the beginning of the Iraq War. When more than half the country has not yet voted I am
enraged by the arrogance.
The elephant in the room is the potential for an email indictment. Against Trump, Hillary would
be damaged beyond repair if the FBI investigation goes against her. The Clinton campaign is way
too sanguine about this and nobody in the commentariat is talking about it ... but the whole campaign
could turn on it. The FBI is said to be out for blood because Petraeus got off lightly ... and
lesser players getting immunity can't be a good sign.
Bernie needs to keep going if for no other reason than we need another option.
To the Clinton supporters who drone on about HRC's "experience" and track record of getting
things done, please provide citations/links to support your assertions.
The facts show that the bulk of her experience lies in her amazing talents of fabrication and
obfuscation of facts. As First Lady--her longest "political" role, she successfully covered up
and lied for her serially philandering husband, destroying the reputations of his victims in the
process.
During her stint as Senator of her adopted state, backed by Wall Street, big pharma and other
corporate interests, she succeeded in endorsing the disastrous and ongoing war in Iraq and the
repeal of Glass-Steagall, among other dubious votes.
Her time as Secretary of State can be characterized as inconsequential at best and disastrous
at worst, resulting in an FBI investigation and possible indictment.
Her private life, as an obscenely compensated speaker to the Wall Street firms directly responsible
for the financial meltdown, comprise the bulk of her actual accomplishments.
And her refusal to release transcripts of those speeches and the convenient wiping of her unauthorized
email server suggest major character, trust and honesty issues.
Again, citations of what practical experience at running the country she possesses would be
illuminating.
I am ready for a change. I am ready to elect Senator Sanders to be the next President. Let
us leave the establishment behind and make the necessary change for the better. Unlike those who
have been characterized as his mainstay supporters (the young), I am 68 and have waited my entire
grown up adult life for a leader of our country who was not a bought and paid for apparatchik
of the moneyed elite. Never before have I contributed to any political cause or candidate before
Bernie. Now I find someone worth nominating and electing!
The strength of Sanders candidacy has been less in "revelations" about Clinton, and more about
the recognition by voters that there is an alternative to Clinton. This is especially true for
younger voters who don't tend to see the 1990s through rose-colored glasses.
As more people have gotten to know Sanders, his numbers have gone up. The problem for Sanders
has been a question of time and the sequencing of the primary calendar.
Clinton has done exceptionally well with older party regulars, especially in the south. She
lost the 45 and under vote to Sanders 70-30 in Illinois; she is not growing the party.
If Clinton wins in November, she can thank Trump and/or Cruz for doing the work for her. She
can also thank Sanders for getting younger voters engaged in the process and for providing her
with her platform. Al Gore and John Kerry also dominated the primary process. That didn't mean
they were strong general election candidates.
I am a female, late baby boomer. I've voted a straight Democratic ticket my entire life. It
will be a real battle with my conscience to vote for Ms. Clinton. So, if there's any hope for
Bernie Sanders, I will be sending him more funds.
I think college should be provided for everyone who can't afford it. I think medical care should
be provided for everyone who can't afford it. In total, I think everyone should have a substantial
safety net, a floor beneath which no one should fall.
We think of food and shelter in the same way -- as liberals we believe in providing ample food
stamps and decent shelters for those who can't afford it. In our service economy, a formal education
is no longer a luxury but a necessity. As circumstances change, so should our thinking. That's
what true liberalism is all about.
Taxes should be raised on extreme wealth because inequality has already gotten way out of hand.
Joseph in Misoula
"I'm a liberal democrat. But I don't think college should be free for everyone. I do not want
my taxes to go up even more. I do not think Wall Street is an evil entity that should be dismantled.
In fact, I don't think we should try and force a far-left version of America on the large portion
of the population that clearly does not want it."
So who has a right to education? Who should reign in the excesses of the Wall Street casino,
which nearly destroyed the entire world economy? Who should pay more taxes - the broken middle
class, working class, the decimated unions, and the poor, who already all subsidize the exploitation
that fills the coffers of corporations and billionaires? The Democrats once vigorously and almost
universally supported these groups and the ideas that helped them succeed.
You're right. You should absolutely not support Bernie. Because you're not a liberal democrat,
and you're certainly not a progressive. But you are a great representative of Hillary Clinton's
voice, and the Republican lite that now calls itself the Democratic Party. And she's counting
on you.
It's disappointing that no enterprising investigative journalist has found somebody ready to
spill the beans and provide a pirated copy of the now almost legendary Wall Street speeches. But
it may well be that there is such a source, one insisting on substantial compensation, and most
journalists are forbidden from paying for information
It would not be surprising if Trump already has a source picked out, one who, if not subject
to the threat of exposure of some hidden misdeed or under direct obligation to The Donald, is
susceptible to outright bribery, and that Trump is holding that ammunition, waiting to fire after
Clinton has achieved the nomination and is his opponent in the general election.
If that should be the case: Look forward to a President Trump.
Matt Von Ahmad Silverstein Chong, Mill Valley, CA
9 hours ago
Sanders vs Kasich. Only sane choices on both sides.
Otherwise:
Clinton: liar, opportunistic, risk of indictment after nomination risking defeat
Cruz: liar, extremist, not accomplished anything other than shutting the government
Trump: liar, polarizing, risk of defeat as unable to unify party
Not that Sanders and Kasich don't have their own thorns, but in my opinion they are the most
fit to be elected.
Ms. Regas, you write: "Were it not for the DNC's Machiavellian planning of this primary and,
had the states been ordered differently, we wouldn't be at roughly the halfway point with such
skewed results."
The DNC approved and announced the 2016 primary schedule back in August 2014:
Senator Sanders announced his candidacy eight months later on April 30, 2015.
So the Senator and his inner circle of advisors went into this race with eyes wide open knowing
full well what the primary schedule would be and what they would face.
Perhaps you might consider dropping this complaint from your litany.
John S., is a trusted commenter Washington
4 hours ago
I ran the delegate numbers through 15 March excluding Missouri, which is basically a tie like
Illinois was and there will probably be one delegate difference between the winner and loser,
and if the win-to-lose ration stayed the same, then Mrs. Hillary Clinton would still be short
over 200 pledged delegates after all the voting is done.
But the win-to-lose ratio will not remain constant. It will move in favor of Senator Bernard
"Bernie" Sanders and against Mrs. Clinton. Consequently, her shortfall in pledged delegates could
rise to 300-500 pledged delegates.
Keep on running Bernie! I will continue to support your campaign right through Democratic Party
convention.
If Bernie Sanders wins, he would become president. If Hillary Clinton wins , in the White House
will enter Trump.For the success of cause of the change, which wants many Americans, and Bernie
Sanders, must become president ... Trump.
Only one single-minded Republican could exacerbate problems to burst the boil.
There are no simple answers to the very real issues this country faces on every level. Unfortunately,
the individual developed psychologies of voters combined with the natural desire to embrace the
easiest idea that promises to bring a comfortable conclusion to the problems has blinded voters
to the very flawed candidates they have to choose from. I am a Sanders supporter but not because
he can achieve any of his ideas. I support him because he is a brake on the current business as
usual. His qualms about why the two parties cannot get anything done is truth and before we can
fix anything we have to acknowledge what is broken and remove it from any solution we might strive
for. I don't care if the Sanders car breaks down the moment we get off the road. First thing is
first we need to get off the road.
The DNC and RNC are corrupt and liabilities. The Media is covering up their most important
flaws for the sake of business as usual. Too many people have much to lose if this 2 party gravy
train is derailed and that isn't just the billionaires and multi-national corps. An entire system
has compromised the Republic and it need to be cleansed over a period of a decade to just get
rid of the nepotism, corruption, and pay to play shenanigans.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the poster children for this system. I do not favor Ted
Cruz but he is right when he says the former sells influence and the latter buys it. If those
are options, next time won't be so polite.
Every one should vote according to their convictions ignoring what the media has to say or
does not say. It is also important not to pay attention who is going to win in the general election.
I believe the economy is rigged. The political establishment and corporate America as well as
Banks and Wall Street are all in the same bed. They will have a long happy honeymoon until ordinary
folks cannot support their honeymoon expenses. That gives rise to people like Sanders and Trump,
who will disturb the political order. My vote is for Sanders. Here why? I believe free college
is an economic necessity that we cannot afford not have. I believe the economy is rigged and Main
street should regulate the Wall Street and not the other way around. I believe health care to
all is necessary pre-condition to define a human society. I believe we can afford and we must.
Vote what you believe in and the nation will in the right direction.
Sanders hasn't been allowed to debate, and has gotten little to no media coverage. Our society
picks it's leaders based on 2 things. 1) the candidate with the most royal blood connection to
King John (this is a real theory, may not be true, but 98% of U.S. Presidents are the great-great-great-great-great-great
grand children of Charlemagne and King John,) and 2) which candidate they see in the media the
most. If Bernie loses this nomination, Donald Trump will become our next (and possibly final)
commander in chief.
Your tone is absurdly condescending, as if many Sanders supporters aren't graduate school educated
professionals (doctors, lawyers, accountants, social workers, educators, etc…) In fact, educated
people in pro-social occupations make up one of his stronger demographics.
The differences between the leftists who left their hippie-dropout lifestyles disillusioned
and moved on to professional careers later, and the more youthful Sanders supporters a couple
generations younger are myriad. Foremost, very few of them are cultural dropouts; they didn't
take the "burn out or sell out" brat route of the Boomers. Most are educated, and many are saddled
with student debt loads difficult for older people to understand (the mechanisms that force students
into debt are especially difficult for affluent Boomers to grasp). They compete for jobs with
all those disillusioned brats who settled down to professional practices - and are still working!
Not to mention the fact that your bitter ones - those who never learned the folly of egalitarianism
- are presumably the same ones who never got graduate degrees and cushy jobs; they're still waiting
for representation, for a pro-labor, pro-working-class candidate who never comes.
Nobody has pulled the wool over anyone's eyes, except perhaps the Clinton, the DNC, and the
media outlets that prop them up by appealing to low information voters while engaging only with
policy that benefits affluent ex-leftists in high aging professional positions.
In past elections, I have admittedly voted for the "lesser of two evils." Now, I realize that
just perpetuated a system which is corrupt. If people got truly educated about the issues and
the candidates, there would be only one choice, Senator Bernie Sanders. Alas, as Senator Adlai
Stevenson once said, getting the vote of every right thinking American was not enough. He needed
a majority. Sadly, this is only more true today.
> "These weaknesses could have been mitigated over time had the Times and the mainstream press
actually told its more diverse readers how Sanders' policies would in fact help them"
ANYBODY who wanted to be consumers of Mr. Sanders' talking points had more than enough sources
for that.
Sadly, your complaint is exactly the same one that conservatives have be putting on the NYT since
the mid-70s
What an intelligent person 'might' complain about in relation to your concerns is that the
MSM spends far too little effort accurately 'telling the voters' how delusional Mr. Sanders' proposals
are, and how there is less than a 1% chance they could EVER be implemented under any imaginable
configuration of the Congress
Related to this, I remember sadly, who NYT, WaPo, and others pointed out the lunacy of GWB's
campaign proposals were in 2000
IMPACT: almost zero
The naked agenda of GWB was to take a roaring economy, running in surplus, and open it up for
the private gain of the highest bidder
The GWB/Cheney agenda was very similar to Mitt Romney's LBO scheme to - take control of organizations
- strip them of as many of their valuable assets as they could efficiently do in as short a time
frame as possible
- load them up with debt, that went back into their own pockets so that they had none of their
own assets at risk
- dump the operation as quick as possible so that they wouldn't be holding-the-bag when the feces-hit-the-fan
- look for the next target
I disagree. There has been a very disproportionate coverage of candidates by the media. In
fact, I would argue that the biggest story of this election cycle is the media's own influence
of the election. I find it quite disturbing. This in not my opinion. It's a conclusion based on
studies I've read in the past several days, one of which was published by the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth...
The mainstream media and its corporate owners are deeply troubled over the issue of Campaign
Finance Reform, which has been the most obvious point of Bernie Sanders' campaign--he has financed
his campaign through small donations from individual citizens, instead of SuperPacs like Hillary
has done, and this has been no small feat.
Corrupt campaign finance is a powerful tool the corporate elite uses to manipulate American voters
into voting against their own interests.
This is why the MSM has treated Sanders so shabbily. A glaring example of this problem was the
first Democratic debate put on by CNN. As it turns out, CNN is a subsidiary of Time-Warner, which
is a big donor to Hillary's campaign. Let that sink in.
So, sure enough, Anderson Cooper asked the candidates Zero questions about campaign finance reform,
Bernie Sanders' main issue, and Bernie had to stick the issue into an answer of his to a question
on a different topic near the end of the program. If not for that, the issue would not have been
raised at all.
The same syndrome has been evident, albeit in milder form, in most of the media, including the
NYT, the WaPo, MSNBC, and so on.
Corporate forces, including the corporate media, are loathe to have someone like Bernie Sanders
come along and take their corrupt financing of American politicians away from them.
Of course this latest interesting development must be giving Hillary palpitations; Can a felon
become President of the United States ??
See Business Insider and Link:
"The FBI is widening its investigation of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's
use of a private email account while she was U.S. secretary of state to determine whether any
public corruption laws were violated, Fox News reported on Monday.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been looking into whether classified material was mishandled
during Clinton's tenure at the State Department from 2009-2013.
It will expand its probe by examining possible overlap of the Clinton Foundation charity with
State Department business, Fox reported, citing three unidentified intelligence officials.
"The [FBI] agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations,
the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," Fox
quoted one of its unidentified sources as saying."
In my mind, the fact that the Clintons have in the past taken money from Donald Trump disqualifies
Hillary from the presidency. I'm on the Bernie train, and if he's railroaded away from the nomination
by anyone, including President Obama, I'm not going to vote in November. I can't vote for either
Trump or Hillary, as they are in cahoots to fleece the average American and criminalize for life,
those whom they don't like, and that is mostly those in economic distress or poor substance abusers
in our country.
Obama's backing of Hillary is a disappointment. The self claimed most transparent administration
in history we were to get, never materialized, rather just the opposite happened, the least transparent
administration in history. His is an administration that went after whistleblowers exposing crimes
against the public, embraced perpetual warfare and mass incarceration, supports the surveillance
state, and his Justice Department and FBI stood by while unarmed American men and children had
their human rights and lives taken away from them by municipalities in Ohio, Illinois, California,
Florida, Texas, etc. etc. ad nauseam, this includes Tamir Rice and the kids drinking leaded water
in Flint. The list of human and civil rights violations under his watch is a long one that goes
on and on and no better than Dubya's. By supporting Hillary over Bernie, the President has proven
that he too, got into politics for the money. How cynical are leaders are today excluding Sanders.
Note that Donald Trump has won 48% of the GOP delegates so far. He would have to win about
54% of the remain delegates to get a majority, and the pundits consider that to be pretty likely.
Bernie has won 42% of the Democratic delegates so far (not counting superdelegates) and would
need to win about 58% of the remaining delegates to win. The pundits seem to consider it to be
pretty unlikely.
Maybe, but I think the pundits might be wrong on this one.
This nonsense about Ralph Nader has been repeated so often that almost seems plausible (…not
unlike many another myth). The historical truth is as follows.
The 2000 election came down to Florida. Running as "independents" were Nader (progressive)
and Pat Buchanan (conservative). Each of them received almost exactly the same number of votes
-- i.e. they cancelled each other out, Buchanan taking as many votes from Bush as Nader did from
Gore.
The one who who gave Bush the election was his brother Jeb. Through his Florida Secretary of
State, he ordered the recount ended -- the excuse proffered was the fear of violence: precinct
stations where poll workers were counting the votes had been attacked by squads of goons (paid
for, as was later revealed) by Karl Rove. The issue of the recount was then thrown to the Supreme
Court, which issued one of the most partisan rulings in its history.
Gore's loss had absolutely nothing to do with Ralph Nader. And those who claim it did are either
woefully uninformed, or are deliberately (and cynically!) distorting history to push some different
agenda of their own.
As I see things, Sanders is a better bet for the fall and the future . Mrs. Clinton was a "Goldwater
Girl" back in her younger days and was/is actually proud of that. I have to wonder if the African
American population realizes what that meant and now means. It hard to believe that she is not
owned by big business. Her possible indictment and the Republican reaction to no indictment. I
do not trust her for so many reasons. Since the polls seem to show that Sanders could defeat the
Republicans it might just be a safer move. Our nation does not want (or should not want) another
mess with another 'Clinton'. Nor should our country have to endure the problems that may well
accompany Mrs. Clinton into office. And hey, does anyone know why Mrs. Clinton discontinued the
use of her maiden name altogether? Has she any identity on her own that is of real value in her
thinking or does she just have to try to ride on a wave created by her hubby----not a very sharp
move for a true feminist. Shame on Mr. Obama for his comments in her favor. I am with Sanders
and probably not bothering to vote for her in the fall if she get the Democratic nomination---just
too hard to justify. The voters
who send her into the fall election just deserve 4 four years of the likes of Mr. Trump. This
might not be the year for Sanders and his approach, but the future lies ahead as an college Professor
always said.
Nate you are delusional if you don't think Bernie will win big in the Bay Area, the days of
smoke filled back rooms with Willie Brown and Diane Feinstein carving up the spoils are thankfully
over. The Bay Area has a very diverse, intelligent populace who can spot a phony when they see
it, Hillary doesn't stand a chance.
Say what you will, Bernie Sanders has breathed life into the Democrat campaign with sound ideas.
He has resurrected some of the old labor friendly ways of a party drifted too far to the right.
His call for a "revolution" of participation in government and civic lifr will resonate past the
election.
I'm glad he's staying in the race. I'd like my chance to vote for him, even if it proves only
symbolicc.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC
8 hours ago
Still waiting for the release of Hillary's transcripts of speeches she gave to special interest
who lathered her with millions. If you support Hillary and you don't care about seeing what she
told special interests you either work for one, or have your head in the sand.
Hillary's favorability ratings are below 50% in every poll taken. She is considered trustworthy
by a much lower percentage than Bernie.
But she is the best candidate for the Dems because she supports big money in politics. No way
to avoid the FACT the Dem party loves big donors and has absolutely no interest in having it any
other way. They are competing with Repubs for big donors.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for continuing pay to play, which has ruined this country for
the past 3 decades. Another bought and paid for candidate.
If it's Clinton v. Trump (of whoever v. Trump), and we the citizenry choose Trump, I must say
that humankind has really not come very far. In our country, the wealthiest in the world, where
by all reasonable measures, we live in significantly better conditions than most (but not all)
of the world population, we will have proven ourselves not so different from the typical ups-and-downs
that third-world countries and banana republics experience. For all our riches and our advancements,
we, as humans, must be somehow consigned, as a collective, to make the same stupid mistakes. I
hope we prove ourselves better than that.
There are quite a few more ways Bernie can win: leaks expose Hilary's Wall Street speeches,
; FBI charges; a strong yuan devaluation causes significant stock market volatility; etc
It's sad that educated "affluent" voters will support Clinton ostensibly to try to hold onto
as much of their wealth as possible even when it's worse for the nation at large. It's the exact
confluence of money and politics that Clinton stands for and Sanders rejects. This race is about
one candidate who is well-liked, genuine, and looking to honestly help people versus another who
pretends to be working for the people, but who's track record is a virtual Frank Underwood guide
book of self-serving political maneuvers for wealth and power.
Sanders ideas to give power back to the people instead of back to the wealthy isn't as radical
as the media portrays him. It's the basic tenets of democracy most of us learned back in grade
school. Hopefully whatever magic spell Clinton has over the black vote will be broken and voters
will wake up to realize there is only one candidate fighting on their behalf.
Actually, public colleges USED to be free for every in-state student. In the flower of my mature
years, I can still remember that.
I also remember making a livable living as a woman with only a HS diploma, serving as an executive
secretary for the high-powered and well-connected.
Many of them were identical to the snarling Democratic women who serve as Hillary*s henchpeople.
Even as they worked for the *better good* in the non-profit and socially advanced universe, they
were more than happy to trample on people like me.
And *me* are, like, legion...
I will never vote for Hillary. I will write in Sanders* name if I have to, and sleep soundly
on Election Night, regardless of what happens, because I will have acted according to my own principles
and ethics. If we all do so Sanders can win. If others do the usual craven Democratic fold--you*ll
get what you deserve.
It is time for the NYTimes and the rest of the corporate media to recognize the very real and
terrifying possibility that Donald Trump will be our next president. It is time to drop their
mindless support of Hillary and to face the facts. Bernie defeats Trump in every poll by wider
margins than Hillary. Bernie has no baggage. He has never faced indictment. He is not owned by
Wall St. and super pacs. He has not been a cheerleader for endless war in the Middle East.
Hillary is vulnerable in a general election; Bernie is not. I don't think the Times bothered to
report it, but Bernie actually earned more votes in North Carolina than Trump did. Many Bernie
supporters will not vote for Hillary. Bernie, however, has higher positive ratings than any other
candidate this year. He won his home state by 87% because he is beloved by Republicans and Independents
as well as Democrats. It is time to explain to African-Americans, Latinos, etc. WHY he is so beloved.
There is no reason on earth for African-Americans not to support him except for the fact that
they know nothing about him. That is your fault, corporate media, and nobody else's.
The truth is that Sanders performs way better against Trump in general election and state-by-state
match-ups than Clinton. He has great appeal for Independents, and even garners 25% of the Republican
vote in his home state of Vermont. One can say that Sanders hasn't yet been "tested" against the
Republican spin machine in a general election, but honestly, the worst they can throw at him is
"socialist," a term that is actually very friendly to those who come to understand the meaning
of "Democratic socialism." Clinton has so many lies (think, for just one, of "landing under sniper
fire in Bosnia), flip-flops and evolutions in her history that the Republicans will have a field
day with her. Independents don't like her, millennials are apathetic to her, and her only real
appeal is with strong Democrats, most of whom she doesn't inspire. What I fear the most is a Trump
presidency, and that Clinton will end up being another John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale.
Cannot fathom why anyone would vote for Hillary
unless you want the "Same Old - Same Old":
The Rich get Richer and Poor get Poorer.
Do you really think someone who took $ 675,000 for making
3 speeches to Goldman Sachs is going to tame the Wall Street Wolves ?
I believe Sen Sanders is committing a terrible error that will cost him the nomination and
the Democrats the presidency.
While sparing HRC all the hovering questions by running a clean campaign
first, he is not only not using the possibility to highlight his superiority on political luggage
and history which could help him with minority groups, veterans and others ,
but also he is not preparing the public for the spectacle waiting the public when the duel with
Trump(or Cruz) starts.
When the issues such as her voting history on wars, Secretary of State
tragic mistakes such as Libya, endangering nation security with the use of a
private server , Bill grotesque history with women and her shaming of the women who went trough,
her past positions on LGBT,
profoundly racist comments as the Superpredators, weird insinuations as the gunfire in Kosovo
start being spit on her by towering, screaming bully of Trump it will be a
a BLOODBATH.
There is so many of them and even now she keep on making them
and when you hear them all spit one by one with a venom and conviction by the "other" candidate,
even diehard Dems will be appalled.
She will be destroyed and no whatsoever credibility will be accorded any
explanation she could give as the offences are BIGGER then anything we have ever witnessed in
president candidate.
Reps are stocking them like silver bullets and they will hit when the time comes.
So shoot now Sanders, otherwise other will use them to kill.
I am a psychiatrist, and I am terrified by the idea that someone with such a narcissistic,
and anti-social personality, would put the future and safety of our country at great risk, in
order to aquire another "property" that he desperately wants, as another trophy to add to his
list of buying everything he wants, no matter the cost or risk.
Unlike a real estate acquisition, you cannot (or should not) bankrupt this country, write it
off as a loss on your taxes, and move on to purchasing another "prize" you want, and feel you
are entitled to "collect/own". For a man who continually demonstrates the temper of a 5 y/o when
he is challenged, and has no political experience mixed with his "ballistic" temper, would you
really choose him to make decisions that involve the safety and welfare of our country, and to
make rationally based decisions in our current state of complex and fragile international affairs?
"... Trump is winning because he is NOT the establishment. Sanders, coming out of nowhere, with only PEOPLE rather than the establishment behind him, is running a fantastic race against a well oiled machine going on twenty years in the building of it. ..."
"... US will just follow the rest of the world's trend towards more extremist politicians and options. It is just a sign that these are not good times at least in peoples' minds. The extreme right is doing great in Northern and Central Europe, while the extreme left is doing the same in Southern Europe creating a rift in almost every issue, but specially the immigration policy. many countries are becoming difficult to govern at a time when separatism, both national (Scotland, Catalonia) and supranational (Brexit) is on the increase. ..."
"... "US will just follow the rest of the world's trend towards more extremist politicians and options. It is just a sign that these are not good times at least in peoples' minds." ..."
"... The odds are, you are right, about HRC being the nominee, but it is still a race, and it ain't over till it's over. I hope like hell you are right about TRUMP LOSING, regardless of who wins, but I have been following politics since the fifties, and HRC has had a hint of dead fish smell following her from day one. They used to talk about RR being the teflon prez, but compared to HRC, he was Velcro. ..."
"... She stinks in terms of the public's opinion of her, and elections are generally decided in the middle in this country. ..."
"... The Republican party is too far to the right for most Europeans, including me. And as of late it seems to even be going farther to the right (Tea party, Trump, etc). ..."
The MSM are doing their usual thing this morning, managing, like the referee at a pro wrestling
match, to miss the real action. It is true that a win is a win in a winner take all state when
it comes to delegates, but when the results are as close as three points, one or two voters out
of a hundred changing sides changes the results.
The people are obviously sick and tired of our old establishment politicians.
Trump is winning because he is NOT the establishment. Sanders, coming out of nowhere, with
only PEOPLE rather than the establishment behind him, is running a fantastic race against a well
oiled machine going on twenty years in the building of it.
When the actual election rolls around, the people who are pissed at the establishment, meaning
damned near everybody except the handful at the top of the economic and political heap, are going
to wish they could vote for an outsider.
The right wing outsiders will get their wish from the looks of things. They will be voting
AGAINST INSIDERS rather than FOR Trump. Their fires will be burning hot and bright, unless he
goes totally nuts campaigning.
This looks BAD for the country imo. The D's are in great danger of running a CLASSIC insider.
It's time for a change, and the younger people of this country feel it in their bones.
And about this old climate change issue, ahem. We can basically go to bed at night, not worrying
about it very much, in terms of people's beliefs, because all that is really left is a mopping
up operation as far as public opinion is concerned.
My generation will soon be either dead or in nursing homes, and the younger generation will
vote the scientific consensus, after a while.
I remember LOTS of people who were DEAD set, pun intended, in their belief that smoking is
a harmless pleasure. It has been a decade at least since I heard even an illiterate moron claim
that smoking is safe, although I do still hear an occasional smoker in denial say that when your
time comes, your time has come, and it does not matter about the WHY of it coming.
This is not to say we can abandon the fight, but that victory is assured, so long as we keep
it up.
After all, the actual EVIDENCE is accumulating that the world is warming up pretty fast.
I have no doubt at all than unless the last ten days of this month are very close to RECORD
COLD, we will be setting a regional record for the warmest March ever. My personal estimate is
that the odds of a frost kill of the tree fruit crop locally are among the highest ever. All it
takes is ONE good frosty night once the buds are too far advanced.
The Koch brothers and their buddies will continue to fight a dirty and ferocious rear guard
action of course, but in another decade, the issue will no longer be in doubt, as far as the general
public is concerned.
Trump is winning because he is NOT the establishment
Nobody is more establishment than Trump. He's a perfect example of a crony-capitalist. Again, this is the classic strategy of exploiting people's problems, and diverting their anger
towards scapegoats, like immigrants and foreign countries. Trump has proposed a massive tax cut for the 1%, and making life harder for immigrants only
helps business exploit them better, and undercuts wages even more for working people.
There is more than one way do define the word "establishment".
In one sense Trump IS the establishment, but in the sense I used it , he is the ANTI establishment,
no doubt, but he is also a new face on the political scene, running against the D party as WELL
as his own NOMINAL party.
No real republican thinks of Trump as a republican, if we define republican as somebody who
agrees with most or all of the positions and values of the republican party for the last couple
of decades.
What I am saying is that the foot soldiers of the R party have been ready to mutiny for a long
time now, and Trump has provided them the leadership necessary to do so.
The working class conservative voters are THOROUGHLY pissed at the R party establishment, feeling
betrayed at every turn.
People who used to work for a living in the industries sent overseas by the D and R parties
working in collusion have felt trapped until today, betrayed by the D party on the social consensus
they held dear, right or wrong, and fucked over by the R party they have been voting for as the
lesser of two evils.
Not many such people still believe in the American Dream, because they are simply not able
to get ahead anymore, no matter how hard they work.
And while they are mistaken to believe in Trump, at least Trump has not be been lying to them
continuously for the last few decades, AS THEY SEE IT.
( That he is lying to them now , in substantial ways, is irrevelant. He is a NEW face. )
Trump IS Wall Street, and HRC is in the vest pocket of Wall Street, except on cultural issues.
Now these comments may not make much sense to hard core liberals, because hard core liberals
have an incredibly hard time believing anybody who disagrees with them has a brain, or morals,
or a culture that suits THEM.
In actuality, at least half of the country disagrees with the D party social agenda, for reasons
that TO THEM are valid and more than adequate.
I agree: Trump has sold himself as an advocate for the working class.
It's the same strategy Republicans have been using for 40 odd years: using people's fears and
hopes to get them to vote for people who proceed to betray them.
Not that Democrats are enormously better, but, with our current political system they can't
be. If they get too progressive, the other party can move to the middle and cut them out.
It's nice to see you posting again. Your spot on. The Republican establishment has been exploiting
their base for the last 50 years with a whisper campaign of racism and bigotry for their own 1%
economic gain. The Donald has only removed the whisper from the campaign and increased the amount
of lies.
"Trump is the same ol', same ol', only worse"
"That's what puzzles me – this idea that fossil fuels are still valuable."
Nick, you over estimate the educated gray matter of your fellow humans. Most don't have your
vision and will not see it until EV's are the norm(10+ years from now). The fossil fuel Republican
parties base will be the last in the world to see the light. If they aren't already.
US will just follow the rest of the world's trend towards more extremist politicians and options.
It is just a sign that these are not good times at least in peoples' minds.
The extreme right is doing great in Northern and Central Europe, while the extreme left is
doing the same in Southern Europe creating a rift in almost every issue, but specially the immigration
policy. many countries are becoming difficult to govern at a time when separatism, both national
(Scotland, Catalonia) and supranational (Brexit) is on the increase.
If we move to the rest of the world we see the very negative result of the Arab Spring. Essentially
no single country that underwent those social revolutions has come better afterwards. Even Tunisia,
a moderate country, has seen its tourism badly damaged and it is now the biggest contributor to
Sirian foreign fighters. Saudi Arabia has a more extremist government that it is making a policy
out of foreign intervention, minority repression and confrontation against Iran, while its population
is cheering the change.
So don't be so surprised by developments in US politics that follow what is happening elsewhere.
It is a product of the times we live.
the world's trend towards more extremist politicians
There's nothing new about demagoguery, in the US or elsewhere, or revolutionary sentiment (I
guess I shouldn't have said Trump was "worse" – he's just a little less subtle about it than has
been the norm lately in the US).
Have you seen any actual data suggesting that there is a real change in "extremism", separatism,
social discontent or other similar things?
"Have you seen any actual data suggesting that there is a real change in "extremism", separatism,
social discontent or other similar things?"
Yes:
French National Front best results ever in 2014-2015 elections. They were the first party in
the last EU parliamentary elections in France with almost 5 million votes.
Alternative for Germany. New party in 2013. Best results ever in 2016 state elections, receiving
second and third place in the three states that held elections.
Freedom Party of Austria second best result ever in 2013 elections with 20,5% of the vote and
30% in Vienna.
Coalition of Radical Left (Syriza) best result ever in 2015 elections with 36.3% of the votes.
Podemos (Radical left in Spain). New party in 2014. Best result ever in 2015 elections with
21% of the votes.
Populism and demagoguery are taking the developed world by storm. New radical (right or left)
parties go from zero to taking second or third places in mere months.
"US will just follow the rest of the world's trend towards more extremist politicians and options.
It is just a sign that these are not good times at least in peoples' minds."
I don't have more than the foggiest idea about Javier's personal political beliefs, other than
that he occasionally makes a remark indicating he leans more to the left than to the right. I
don't think you do either.
Folks who are so TRIBALLY oriented that they cannot distinguish a skeptic from a partisan will
always of course assume that anybody who questions anything associated with their IN group is
a member of their OUT GROUP, and a fraud or a phony or an enemy of some sort.
I disagree with Javier's assessment of the potential risk of forced climate change, but he
on the other hand he never has anything to say, other than about the extent of forced climate
change, that sets off my personal alarm bells when it comes to environmental issues. On every
other environmetal question, unless I have overlooked something, he is very much in one hundred
percent agreement with the overall "big picture " environmental camp consensus.
It is GOOD politics to remember what RR had to say about a man who agrees with you just about
all the time. Such a man is a FRIEND, in political terms, and an ally, rather than an enemy.
Now about that fear card- both parties play it on a regular basis.
In case you haven't noticed, I support the larger part of the D party platform, except I go
FARTHER, in some cases, as in supporting single payer for the heath care industry. I have made
it clear that I am NOT a republican, and stated many times that I am basically a single issue
voter, that issue being the environment.
Now HERE is why I am supporting Bernie Sanders, nicely summarized, although I do not take every
line of this article seriously.
Any democrat who is not afraid to remove his or her rose colored glasses, and take a CRITICAL
look at HRC as a candidate, will come away with a hell of a lot to think about if he or she reads
this link.
I personally know a lot of people who have voted D most of their lives who would rather vote
for ANY other D than HRC. It is extremely hard for a lot of people to accept it, but she STINKS,
ethically, in the opinion of a HUGE swath of independents, and a substantial number of committed
democrats . A good many of them may stay home rather than vote for her, but they will vote for
Sanders, out of party loyalty and fear of Trump.
Sanders polls better,virtually across the board, in terms of the actual election, and he does
not have the negative baggage. I WANT a Democrat in the WH next time around.
Read this , and think, if you are not so immersed in party and personal politics that you can't
deal with it.
Millions and millions of D voters have digested it already, for themselves, over the last decade
or two, which is why Sanders is getting half the vote, excluding minorities in the south, even
though he is coming out of nowhere, without the support of the party establishment, without big
money backing him, against HRC who has been organizing and campaigning just about forever.
I am not saying this guy is right in every respect, but he has his finger on the pulse of many
tens of millions of D voters, or potential D voters.
If it comes down to Trump versus HRC, I am not at ALL sure HRC will win, but if Sanders gets
the nomination, I think he WILL, because even though he has been around forever, he is the NEW
face of the D party, and the PEOPLE of this country are SICK and TIRED of the old faces, D and
R both.
Trump and Sanders have in ONE important thing in common . Both of them are new faces, promising
to bring new life to their parties.
I like a lot about what Sanders is bringing to the table. But sorry Mac, I think its going to
be Clinton.
I'm non-aligned (anti-partisan), but I'd vote for Clinton a thousand times over Trump. And I think
a strong majority of the country will as well.
The odds are, you are right, about HRC being the nominee, but it is still a race, and it ain't
over till it's over. I hope like hell you are right about TRUMP LOSING, regardless of who wins, but I have been
following politics since the fifties, and HRC has had a hint of dead fish smell following her
from day one. They used to talk about RR being the teflon prez, but compared to HRC, he was Velcro.
Almost every regular in this forum seems to be mathematically literate. I challenge anybody
here to explain Cattle Gate as any thing except fraud, pure and simple, in realistic terms.
Hey, this ain't YET North Korea, where we actually believe our leader made a hole in one the
first time he ever tried golf, on a day so foggy nobody could see the green.
I absolutely will never vote for EITHER HRC or TRUMP.
If the D's run HRC, the best hope for the country is that the R's broker their convention,
and Trump gives up crashing the R party and his own personal hard core stays home. That would
make the election safe for HRC, assuming the FBI decides in her favor. Not many prez candidates
have ever had a hundred agents on their case.
Six months ago I was almost sure Trump was a flash in the pan, and would be forgotten by now.
I now fear that there is a very real possibility he may win.
The political waters are so muddy it is impossible to say what will happen a year from now.
Trump is the sort of fellow who successfully "aw shucks" away most of his nasty rhetoric once
he has the nomination, and then he will turn his guns on HRC. He won't have far to go to look
for ammo, and he will make damned sure everything smelly is on the front pages from day one, all
the way back to Arkansas.
Sanders is a far more desirable candidate in the actual election.
She stinks in terms of the public's opinion of her, and elections are generally decided in
the middle in this country.
If she can take her ten years plus campaigning advantage into a big industrial state, Obama's
political home, with the party establishment behind her, and win by only TWO POINTS points, what
does this tell you?She should have won by thirty points or more, if the people were really behind
her, rather than beholden to the party machine.
The deep south will vote for Trump in preference to HRC, with a couple of exceptions, maybe
three or four. So her big delegate lead from there doesn't prove a THING in terms of the actual
election. She is taking all the delegates elsewhere in winner take all states by only very narrow
margins. The BURN in D voter's hearts is mostly for Sanders.
Trump would likely be in worse shape in terms of public opinion, except he is a new face, politically,
and it takes a long time to build up such negatives, it doesn't happen overnight.
My personal opinion of HIS ethics is that he makes HRC look like an altar girl.
I am not too interested in politics, and even less in US politics. The Republican party is
too far to the right for most Europeans, including me. And as of late it seems to even be going
farther to the right (Tea party, Trump, etc).
I do not find myself much of a political space because I do not agree much with both left and
right parties in Europe. I am more of a traditional European liberal, which doesn't translate
well into a US political leaning, and even in Europe is very minoritarian. Let's just say that
I believe that individual rights are above collective rights and I believe in small government.
I also think that the economy should be strictly regulated to avoid dominant positions that always
go against the individual, and that medical care and education should be affordable to anybody.
But I am afraid all these belong to a pre-Oil Peak world and we are going to see very different
politics being played out as our economy starts to suffer from lack of affordable oil. Right now
oil is not affordable because producers cannot afford it, but if it goes up significantly in price
consumers will not be able to afford it.
"... Bernie Sanders keeps refusing' to hit Hillary Clinton over her email. Or so it seems. But maybe the Vermont senator's relentless assault on Mrs. Clinton's corporate ties is about her email after all. Maybe Mr. Sanders is betting that Hillary has a bigger problem than classified information... ..."
The focus is on state secrets in her email - but what personal favors lay within?
Bernie Sanders keeps refusing' to hit Hillary Clinton over her email. Or so it seems. But
maybe the Vermont senator's relentless assault on Mrs. Clinton's corporate ties is about
her email after all. Maybe Mr. Sanders is betting that Hillary has a bigger problem than
classified information...
"... America 40 years post-Reagan is not the America you were raised in. As a young man who grew up in a small manufacturing city - I saw firsthand what the neoliberal trade policies have done to our country when every major industry left to China, Latin America - and devastated the community I was raised in. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton and people like her preach equality of the sexes, they talk about minority rights, they talk about progressive incremental change- but when it comes down to it - they have stood aside while our manufacturing industry has been gutted and millions of jobs have been shipped overseas. The people with comfortable incomes in the major cities have no idea how devastating this has been. ..."
"... We are going to see a revolution of sorts in this country, either this election or the next - and the real question we have to ask ourselves is this: are we going to be living in a better future, one that breaks the stranglehold of the monopolized concentration of money on our political and economic system and incorporates the social democratic principles of every other industrial nation ..."
Wrong my friend. The Cold War has been over for 25 years - people are no longer scared of
the Communist boogieman. I'm going to tell you something that none of these pundits are
saying.
America 40 years post-Reagan is not the America you were raised in. As a young man who
grew up in a small manufacturing city - I saw firsthand what the neoliberal trade policies
have done to our country when every major industry left to China, Latin America - and
devastated the community I was raised in.
Hillary Clinton and people like her preach equality of the sexes, they talk about
minority rights, they talk about progressive incremental change- but when it comes down to it
- they have stood aside while our manufacturing industry has been gutted and millions of jobs
have been shipped overseas. The people with comfortable incomes in the major cities have no
idea how devastating this has been.
Regular people know what has always been known - that the rich control the economy, they
bankroll the politicans, and increasingly they are starting to realize they control the media
too. With no one speaking for them - the people are turning to racism, to anger, to fear, to
anti-intellectualism - anything that unites them, and fights the hypocrisy of the politicians
that claim to speak for them but have left them behind.
The difference in this election is Bernie Sanders. This man had the balls to stand up and
say ''Wall Street says I am dangerous...well guess what. I AM DANGEROUS TO WALL STREET." This
man is strong. He's a fighter. He's in the tradition of the greatest American presidents - he
is fiery preacher who inspires hope in the masses and speaks the undalterated truth.
The people have their champion. You saw it in Michigan. This 'revolution' is for real.
Trump is capitalizing on the disenchantment and the dissillusionment of the American
populace. Hillary Clinton - with her funding from Wall Street, funding from the private
prisons that promote incarceration and other big moneyed interests - has NO CHANCE OF REACHING
THESE PEOPLE. If you think she has a better chance then Sanders of reaching the voters - you
are dreaming. This is another thing the pundits are not going to tell you.
We are going to see a revolution of sorts in this country, either this election or the
next - and the real question we have to ask ourselves is this: are we going to be living in a
better future, one that breaks the stranglehold of the monopolized concentration of money on
our political and economic system and incorporates the social democratic principles of every
other industrial nation
- or one where we live in a sort of Trumpland - a proto-fascist
nightmare. The choice is yours friend. This is for real. I hope we all make the right one.
Donald Trump answers the question 'what is 2+2?': "I have to say a lot of people
have been asking this question. No, really. A lot of people come up to me, and
they ask me. They say, 'What's 2+2'? And I tell them, look, we know what 2+2
is.
We've had almost eight years of the worst kind of math you can imagine.
Oh, my God, I can't believe it. Addition and subtraction of the 1s the 2s and
the 3s. It's terrible. It's just terrible. Look, if you want to know what 2+2
is, do you want to know what 2+2 is? I'll tell you. First of all the number
2, by the way, I love the number 2. It's probably my favorite number, no it
is my favorite number. You know what, it's probably more like the number two
but with a lot of zeros behind it. A lot. If I'm being honest, I mean, if I'm
being honest. I like a lot of zeros.
Except for Marco Rubio, now he's a zero that I don't like. Though, I probably
shouldn't say that. He's a nice guy, but he's like, '10101000101,' on and on,
like that. He's like a computer! You know what I mean? He's like a computer.
I don't know. I mean, you know. So, we have all these numbers, and we can add
them and subtract them and add them. TIMES them even. Did you know that?
We can times them OR divide them, they don't tell you that, and I'll tell
you, no one is better at the order of operations than me. You wouldn't believe
it. So, we're gonna be the best on 2+2, believe me."
Reply
Report BG
Davis
Sean Anthony Dylan , 2016-03-08 17:42:31
Priceless! Next stop, Saturday Night Live or similar.
"The main topic at the closed-to-the-press confab? How to
stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump,"
Huff Post writes
. Here's a list of attendees:
Apple CEO Tim Cook,
Google co-founder Larry Page,
Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker,
Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),
political guru Karl Rove,
House Speaker Paul Ryan,
GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott
(S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.),
Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.),
Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas)
Kevin McCarthy (Calif.),
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.),
Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.),
Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
Diane Black (Tenn.)
"
A specter was haunting the World Forum--the specter of Donald
Trump,
" the Weekly Standard founder Bill Kristol wrote in an
emailed report from the conference, borrowing the opening lines of the
Communist Manifesto. "There was much unhappiness about his emergence, a
good deal of talk, some of it insightful and thoughtful, about why he's
done so well, and many expressions of hope that he would be defeated."
Heading to AEI World Forum. Lots of interesting
guests. It's off the record, so please do consider my tweets from
there off the record!
Predictably Karl Rove, GOP mastermind, gave a presentation outlining
what he says are Trump's weaknesses. Voters would have a hard time seeing
him as "presidential," Rove said. Which we suppose is why they are
turning out in droves to vote for him.
yup - a group of billionaires meeting at an exclusive resort
debating how to circumvent the democratic process, failing to
consider that's the exact description of what's wrong with
America (and the GOP)
Tom Price'is one of the highest net worth Congressmen. His Georgia office is in Roswell, which is a corrupt little city in North Atlanta. Roswell city officials harassed and fined a mildly retarded man who refused to give up his ownership of about 20 chickens to the point that the guy was going to lose his paid for house, and he committed suicide. (Google Roswell Chicken Man). Tom Price fits right in with that bunch.
Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker,
Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),
political guru Karl Rove,
House Speaker Paul Ryan,
GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.),
Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.),
Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas)
Kevin McCarthy (Calif.),
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.),
Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.),
Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
Diane Black (Tenn.)"~
So work this out with me:
The top 4 people on the list are committed NWO leftists.
The next one and third are reknown RINOs, with the second being a political dirty tricks mechanic.
The rest of the group are owned outright by the banksters.
"Ladies and Gentlemen,
YOUR
REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP!"
Maybe Reince Priebus should get a sworn oath out of these coniving little fucks to support the lead vote getter in the primaries. (Don't count on it.) Say..., where is ol' Reince anyway? Why isn't he out denouncing these weasels?
"... Super delegates do not count towards anyone's delegate total because they don't actually exist
and will never be cast unless an extraordinary set of circumstances arises at the convention circumstances
that so far has only happened once before in the history of the Democratic Party. So in all likelihood
super delegate votes will never be cast, something CNN is both too inept to know and too lazy to find
out about. ..."
"... But it's clear that the Democratic party establishment is willing to create the fiction and
false impression that Clinton has a big delegate lead. She doesn't. Ignorant, incompetent journalists
who have more in common with parrots than Woodward and Bernstein just happily repeat the fraud they
are fed. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has no actual super delegate votes. Because based on Democratic Party rules
and procedures super delegate votes don't count until the are cast at the convention, not before, and
won't ever be cast unless they are asked to break a hopelessly deadlocked convention. ..."
"... This nonsense about super delegates is sheer political dishonesty with the Clinton campaign
along with the help of the DNC who, as even David Gergen pointed out is in the tank for Clinton, trying
to make it look like she's way ahead when she isn't. ..."
"... Super delegates have only cast a vote once in the history of the Democratic party, 32 years
ago in 1984 when Walter Mondale beat Gary Hart by less than 500 delegates won in the primaries but didn't
have the 2/3 needed for the nomination. ..."
The AP headline read: Super delegates Help Clinton Expand Her Lead Despite NH Loss. It was and
is a complete fabrication. Another way of putting it would be fraud.
Initiated by Clinton and the DNC and unfortunately aided and abetted by two ignorant AP reporters
(and others like CNN) who didn't know ( or maybe didn't care) that they were being snookered and
simply swallowed what was thrown at them. It would help if people who actually think they are reporters
would check DNC rules regarding the use of super delegates. Especially since there has only been
one time in the history of the Democratic party that super delegates ever cast a vote and that was
32 years ago in 1984. And even then it was to affirm the candidate who won the most pledged delegates
in the primaries.
Because as of this moment, all those super delegates claimed by Clinton don't actually exist in
terms of real votes. The only delegates that count right now and in all probability ever will count
are pledged delegates won during the primaries, not super delegates.
CNN has also been doing it's share of inept reporting by perpetuating the fiction around Clinton's
bogus superdelegate count .
Super delegates do not count towards anyone's delegate total because they don't actually exist
and will never be cast unless an extraordinary set of circumstances arises at the convention circumstances
that so far has only happened once before in the history of the Democratic Party. So in all likelihood
super delegate votes will never be cast, something CNN is both too inept to know and too lazy to
find out about.
Super delegate declarations are also non-committal so any declarations made now count for nothing
and carry no force of action even if super delegates were ever asked to cast a vote which is unlikely
and has never happened. Clinton and the DNC know this.
But it's clear that the Democratic party establishment is willing to create the fiction and
false impression that Clinton has a big delegate lead. She doesn't. Ignorant, incompetent journalists
who have more in common with parrots than Woodward and Bernstein just happily repeat the fraud they
are fed.
Hillary Clinton has no actual super delegate votes. Because based on Democratic Party rules
and procedures super delegate votes don't count until the are cast at the convention, not before,
and won't ever be cast unless they are asked to break a hopelessly deadlocked convention.
They do not automatically vote as John King erroneously claimed on CNN and have never
voted since 1984. In 2008 with much talk about superdelegates switching from Clinton to Obama then
back to Clinton and with neither candidate even close to the 2/3 majority needed, even then superdelegates
didn't vote. So the real story which CNN and other news organizations miss, is why is Clinton
and the DNC claiming super delegate votes now as part of her delegate total when it's a sham, super
delegates have no vote now, probably never will and the declarations are non-committal?
It's as much of a fraud as looking at a house you might buy, keep it under consideration, decide
to keep looking but include the house in your financial statement as an asset even though you don't
own it. Or writing a check post dated four months from now, unsigned and on a bank account that's
not even open and claiming it as an asset.
It's not only fraud, it reeks of campaign dirty tricks in collusion with the Obama run DNC as
part of Clinton's backroom deal with Obama, trying to give the illusion of Clinton leading by a substantial
margin when she isn't. And it raises an interesting question: is Hillary Clinton and the DNC thinking
about trying to steal the nomination?
This nonsense about super delegates is sheer political dishonesty with the Clinton campaign
along with the help of the DNC who, as even David Gergen pointed out is in the tank for Clinton,
trying to make it look like she's way ahead when she isn't.
The story as reported by two AP reporters, Hope Yen and Stephen Ohlemacher (yes, let's name names)
had the opening line, "so much for Bernie Sanders big win in New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton has picked
up endorsements from 87 super delegates to the Democratic Conventions dwarfing Sanders gain in New
Hampshire" .
Its total fiction since Sanders pledged delegates are real and the "endorsements" count for nothing
in terms of actual votes so Clinton and the DNC establishment successfully played the two AP reporters
for stooges. As well as John King and others at CNN.
Clinton saying she picked up 87 super delegates after New Hampshire has the same affect and same
weight and real influence on the nomination as if she had picked up 87 empty beer cans. Well, no,
that's not true because the beer cans would be worth more if they had a 5c deposit.
So here are the facts and the truth about super delegates based on Democratic Party rules and
procedures that you won't get from Clinton or the DNC, and it seems from the news media, at least
not now:
Super delegates have only cast a vote once in the history of the Democratic party, 32 years
ago in 1984 when Walter Mondale beat Gary Hart by less than 500 delegates won in the primaries but
didn't have the 2/3 needed for the nomination. But even then they didn't play a role in the
nominating process for president. They cast their votes for Mondale who had 1,606 pledged delegates
won in the primaries to Hart's 1164 which only affirmed the results of the primaries and allowed
Mondale to get to the 2/3 threshold as required by DNC rules.. They have never cast a vote since.
And as of now have no certain role. Pledged delegates do . So any declarations are bogus.
Super delegates would not cast a vote unless an extraordinary set of circumstances arises at the
convention, not before, a set of circumstances which only occurred in 1984,the only time super delegates
voted since they were created. Which is what makes any non-binding declarations now bogus. And Clinton
and the DNC know that too.
Those circumstances are as they occured in 1984, that neither candidate finishes the primary season
with the two thirds majority of pledged delegates needed for the nomination that are won in the primaries
- if they did the nominating process is over without superdelegates casting a single vote - the delegate
count is so close as to make them virtually tied, AND the convention is hopelessly deadlocked with
neither candidate or party officials able to persuade delegates on the other side to switch after
the first ballot.
Super delegates could be used to break a hopeless deadlock when neither candidate is able to get
the two-thirds delegate count needed. Without those circumstances they wouldn't vote and wouldn't
dare vote in a way that would reverse the votes of pledged delegates.
When Obama finished the 2008 primary season with a paltry 65 delegate lead over Clinton and it
looked like the nomination could go either way if superdelegates voted , Nancy Pelosi said super
delegates were obligated to vote for the candidate who won the most delegates if they were to vote
at all.
So where does Clinton get off claiming over 440 super delegates when whether they will vote at
all is yet to be determined, their "endorsements" are non-committal,worthless as votes, and in all
probability super delegates will never vote at all?
Delegates won in primaries, called "pledged delegates", are actually committed to vote for the
candidate they are sent to the convention to vote for as a result of vote counts in the primaries.
Without getting too esoteric, it's actually delegates that are elected during primaries, either Clinton
or Sanders delegates who are then sent by voters to the convention to vote for the candidate they
were elected to vote for on the first ballot. They are the only delegates that actually count now.
And are real. And the delegates that traditionally, and to date have decided the nomination.
So until and unless those extraordinary set of circumstances occur which only ocurred once, in
1984, super delegates will not vote, don't count now and for all intents and purposes dont even exist.
When the first roll call vote is called there will be no super delegates voting. All of which shows
the depths of dishonesty and deception Clinton is willing to go. And with her the Obama run DNC who
look like they are trying to do what they can to rig the process and create false impressions.
If Bernie Sanders finished with 2000 pledged delegates won during the primaries and needed another
three hundred to get the two-thirds majority with Clinton say, 1,000 delegates behind, there would
be some horse trading to get the remaining 300 delegates needed from Clinton perhaps making a deal
on picking a vice presidential running mate. But its inconceivable super delegates even those declaring
for her now ( which again, don't count) would cast votes for Clinton to give her the nomination.Super
delegates casting their votes for the second place finisher never happened even in 1984. It would
bring the Democratic party to its knees if they tried to crown a queen instead of nominate a president.and
Sanders voters would never vote for Clinton no matter what histrionics DNC officials pulled over
Supreme Court nominations etc etc.
Super delegates would only vote to break an otherwise hopeless deadlock and to give a clear winner
the votes required by rules to officially get the nomination. They are a last resort and most importantly
as mentioned earlier, super delegates have only once in the history of the Democratic party ever
cast a single vote and that was 32 years ago And if a hopeless deadlock never occurs super delegates
will have no role. To count them now is pure fraud.
So why is Hillary Clinton putting out the fiction that she is ahead on delegates even though she
isn't because of super delegates? Because she is being underhanded and so is the DNC run by Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz Obama's hand picked chair of the DNC who are trying to build a phony aura of expectation
and inevitability and the illusion that she will be the nominee and then if she doesn't have the
actual votes from the primary battles try and steal the nomination by using super delegates with
Obama and Wasserman-Schultz driving the getaway car.
The New York Times acting like the long arm of the law put their arm on Clinton in a recent editorial
making it clear that super delegates can have no role in the outcome of the nomination which needs
to be decided by whoever wins the most delegates in the primaries.
But there is another reason the Clinton campaign is putting out these super delegate numbers as
if they count now when they don't. Its the kind of outrageous political tactics we've seen from Republicans
-- a tactic to suppress the Sanders vote.
There is little doubt that the Clinton campaign with the help of the DNC, by putting out these
fictitious super delegate numbers are trying to create some false idea that Clinton has such a huge
lead her nomination is inevitable. The hope is this will dampen the spirit and enthusiasm of Sanders
voters (enthusiasm Clinton cant match) and hopefully hold down their turnout in the hopes of making
them think Clinton's nomination is inevitable because of super delegates and there is nothing they
can do to affect the outcome. Which of course is not true . Its more of a Republican style dirty
trick, the kind they have tried in the past in the hopes of holding down the African American vote
in certain communities. The principle is the same.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC needs to be called out for this kind of dishonest manipulation
when she is actually tied with Sanders 51-51 in pledged delegates, the only delegates that matter.
This idea that super delegates have declared anything for her carries no authority, no weight,
no certainty. Nothing a super delegate says now is binding. They could change their minds a hundred
times between now and the convention, and no one would know so how can they be counted now?
And if Clinton is putting out these phony super delegate numbers to try and grease the skids for
an attempt at stealing the nomination at the convention, it might be a good idea for Sanders voters
to remind her and everyone else of one other thing: In 2008 when it looked like Obama might lose
the nomination to Clinton because of a super delegate vote, Donna Brazille, an Obama supporter and
former chair of the DNC said publicly that if super delegates decided the nomination she would quit
the Democratic party.
If Donna Brazile can quit the Democratic party if super delegates decided the nomination so can
Sanders voters. And they can make it clear that they will. Which means if Clinton and the DNC tries
to steal the nomination from Sanders using super delegates if he has the majority of pledged delegates
they can count on Sanders voters staying home.
Clinton putting out the word that she has 469 delegates which include over 400 super delegates
that she can't ethically or even by DNC rules count is almost a veiled threat as if to say, "okay
I got buried by the voters in New Hampshire and it was razor thin in Iowa and Nevada but so what?
I have a trick up my sleeve."
If Clinton, Obama and the DNC think they are greasing the skids now so Clinton can pull a fast
one at the convention later, they better not try. If they do anything to try and rig the nomination,
Sanders voters can just vow never to support it, just like Donna Brazile threatened which will bring
the Democratic party down like a house of cards and do Clinton no good in the general election.
Let Sanders and his supporters put Clinton and the DNC on notice that if they do anything to rig
the nomination, if the nomination does not go to the candidate who won the most votes and most delegates
in the primaries as Nancy Pelosi in 2008 said it must, then the Democrats will have to face the music
and take another drubbing like they did in 2010 and 2014 essentially over Obama's unscrupulous sell
out of the health care public option to the insurance companies.
Make it clear that if Clinton can't win honestly she is not going to win at all.
And if Sanders voters stay home in the face of a corrupt process it will wipe out Democratic down
ticket candidates also, and if that's what it takes to throw open the windows, let in the fresh air
and purge the Democratic party of those corrupting the system, so be it. No amount of whining or
scare tactics by Democratic big wigs about what will happen if Clinton loses and begging Sanders
supporters to go along with the corruption will ever work.
Its called making your own bed and lying in it. With the double meaning of the word "lying" very
clear.
ADDENDUM:
This article has been updated to include the 1984 Democratic convention which is the only time
super delegates have ever voted and then voted for Walter Mondale who won the most pledged delegates
during the primaries, 1606-1164 confirming that pledged delegates won during primaries is the standard
for nominating a presidential candidate. And does not change the fact that super delegate votes do
not count unless cast at the convention and non-binding declarations that Clinton included in her
totals are completely bogus.
Wendy Wasserman- Schultz has also been corrected to Debbie Wasserman-SchultzNOTE: CNN is still
showing super delegate totals for Clinton included with her pledged delegate totals that don't actually
exist and may never exist and for now and until the convention and they are cast, if ever, are pure
fiction. John King is one of the worst offenders but so is Wolf Blitzer. The Sanders campaign needs
to hold them and other media outlets accountable.
"... The comment that Clinton had seemed to have locked up the Democratic race last Tuesday is laughable now, but it was also way out of line last week. The idea that superdelegates will stay with Clinton if she falls measurably behind in the popular vote is very questionable. ..."
"... Adding them now to her delegate total makes sense if you're trying to create a perception of inevitability for the candidate you've endorsed. Wake up, Times analysts. She's not inevitable any more than she was in 2008. ..."
"... The recent polling average at Real Clear Politics placed Clinton ahead of Sanders in Michigan by 21.4%. Zero polls put Sanders ahead of Clinton. Polling organizations projected a Clinton victory chance at 99%. And Sanders just won the state. The victory is stunning. I strongly urge the pundits to revise their inevitability narrative and let the voters decide. ..."
"... HRC is part of establishment that led to this demise. Thank you to the people of Michigan for choosing Sanders and Trump. You have a beautiful state! ..."
"... When polls this morning showed Hillary 13% ahead of Bernie, NYTimes called Michigan a state whose diversity was almost perfectly representative of the nation. Now the goal post has shifted and Michigan is suddenly super-white. ..."
"... Sanders has won in almost all of the states that Obama carried in 2008 and 2012; Clinton has won mainly in the Southern states which the GOP has won in every election since 1968. The DNC should wake up: Sanders is the better candidate. ..."
"... It's going to be interesting how the super-delegates throw their support to. Right now Hillary is leading the delegate count and that lead is increased with a majority of the super-delegates. However, if this upset is followed by more in the future, those super-delegates may have a change of heart and we could have a very interesting summer in this election. ..."
"... The rustbelt does not trust Hillary Clinton - and for a very good reason - NAFTA. ..."
"... The Sanders Clinton divide is almost right on the Mason-Dixon Line thus far. These maps are quite remarkable. They also point to Sanders relative strength in contrast to the queen in a general election. He will carry Hillary's supporters much more so than her ability to expect the support of the Bernie people. ..."
"... Dearborn, Michigan is about 30% Arab Americans. Early returns show a majority voted overwhelmingly for our first Jewish American presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders. What a wonderful thing that says about Democratic Party values and the people of Dearborn. ..."
"... Breaking Bad - Michigan is the point the system went tilt. Bernie has the overwhelming white vote and now blacks are beginning going as well to Bernie. The Clinton Machine is running out of propaganda. People sees Bernie's Integrity ..."
"... It seems that the newspaper of record will have to take a more careful look at its slanted election reporting. The degree of poor and irresponsible journalism from the New York Times regarding the Democratic primaries is astounding! I'm surprised that the Times was able to print the breaking news of a "significant upset over Hillary Clinton." All power to the 99%! ..."
"... Bottom line: Take away the African American vote in the old South and Hillary is a non-candidate. ..."
"... Hillary was going to shift to Trump and the General Election. NOT. SO. QUICK. Ms Clinton. You have just about run out of Old Confederacy States and the shine is off of your inevitability argument. Bernie warned the press not to underestimate him. He just won an industrial state with a significant minority population. ..."
Don't you think it worth mentioning that most of the states Clinton has won are almost certain
to stay red in November? And that Sanders is winning the states Dems need to win in November,
and outpolling her dramatically among independents everywhere? Still think she's most "electable"?
The comment that Clinton had seemed to have locked up the Democratic race last Tuesday is laughable
now, but it was also way out of line last week. The idea that superdelegates will stay with Clinton
if she falls measurably behind in the popular vote is very questionable.
Adding them now to her
delegate total makes sense if you're trying to create a perception of inevitability for the candidate
you've endorsed. Wake up, Times analysts. She's not inevitable any more than she was in 2008.
Eric, Chicago 10 minutes ago
The recent polling average at Real Clear Politics placed Clinton ahead of Sanders in Michigan
by 21.4%. Zero polls put Sanders ahead of Clinton. Polling organizations projected a Clinton victory
chance at 99%. And Sanders just won the state. The victory is stunning. I strongly urge the pundits
to revise their inevitability narrative and let the voters decide.
Just Me, Planet Earth 10 minutes ago
Michigan serves as an example of the US as a whole- considering the fact that they are part of
the rust belt. The manufacturing sector of the US that has been DECIMATED by NAFTA, NATO, TPP
and other trade agreements that have ROBBED the middle class of hard working labor with DECENT
pay, now we are forced to compete with cheap labor. HRC is part of establishment that led to this
demise. Thank you to the people of Michigan for choosing Sanders and Trump. You have a beautiful
state!
Al, CA 10 minutes ago
When polls this morning showed Hillary 13% ahead of Bernie, NYTimes called Michigan a state whose
diversity was almost perfectly representative of the nation. Now the goal post has shifted and
Michigan is suddenly super-white.
In June we'll be hearing about how minority-majority California is grossly unrepresentative.
Why not just admit that some people would rather vote for the man who went to jail
Kevin Cahill, Albuquerque 10 minutes ago
Sanders has won in almost all of the states that Obama carried in 2008 and 2012; Clinton has won
mainly in the Southern states which the GOP has won in every election since 1968. The DNC should
wake up: Sanders is the better candidate.
Cassowary, Earthling 13 minutes ago
Behold the revolution! The people of Michigan have spoken. They are not buying what Clinton, her
corporate donors and media backers are selling.
Listen up, Democrats. Don't try to fight the will of the voters and usurp Sanders if he wins
nationally. Why destroy the party by undemocratically supporting Clinton through superdelegates
and risk the meltdown the GOP is going through? Clinton is now the unelectable candidate. Adjust.
Accept. Get ready for President Sanders, a true Democrat.
Martha Shelley, Portland, OR 13 minutes ago
Just yesterday the NY Times was telling us that Clinton would win a landslide victory in Michigan,
and Sanders was history. Um, is this on the same level as the 1948 headline in the Chicago Tribune,
"Dewey Defeats Truman?"
Andrew L, Toronto 13 minutes ago
"Mr Sanders, who won white voters in Michigan and is targeting them in coming Rust Belt
primaries...."
Wow. Just wow. And Sanders supporters say they are progressive. Has your country come to a
point where candidates and their campaigns barely conceal their implicitly racist aims? This is
utterly astounding and shameful.
Bernie won Michigan and, I believe, will win Ohio. It's not an "upset," NYT: it's momentum.
Were it not for the African-American vote, the Clinton campaign would be in the tank. Maybe it's
time to reconsider the received wisdom that "Bernie can't win"?
It's going to be interesting how the super-delegates throw their support to. Right now
Hillary is leading the delegate count and that lead is increased with a majority of the super-delegates.
However, if this upset is followed by more in the future, those super-delegates may have a change
of heart and we could have a very interesting summer in this election.
This is purely opinion, but I feel confident saying that the next president of this country is
going to come from the winner of this close Democratic Nomination. The Republican Party is very
divided with Trump leading the way, and I cannot see the typical support from losing candidates
thrown Trump's way should he win the nomination.
Bernie received almost 40% in Wayne County --Detroit, so let's end the fiction that Bernie
can't win the African American vote. His message is spreading in urban America, which is where
Democrats win elections.
The Times unfairly uses the term "prolong" to describe this race. Let's see hoee Bernie does
in Philly and Cleveland. Hillary is in big trouble.
Very poor coverage of the big story of the night - Bernie Sanders beating Hillary Clinton in
the rustbelt state Michigan. The rustbelt does not trust Hillary Clinton - and for a very
good reason - NAFTA. The dynamics of the Democratic race have just been transformed. Michigan
is a gamechanger.
Billy , up in the woods down by the river
2 hours ago
The Sanders Clinton divide is almost right on the Mason-Dixon Line thus far. These maps
are quite remarkable. They also point to Sanders relative strength in contrast to the queen in
a general election. He will carry Hillary's supporters much more so than her ability to expect
the support of the Bernie people.
This Michigan upset by Sanders over Clinton may prove to be historic.
Dearborn, Michigan is about 30% Arab Americans. Early returns show a majority voted overwhelmingly
for our first Jewish American presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders. What a wonderful thing that
says about Democratic Party values and the people of Dearborn.
This is a beautiful night for Bernie Sanders and those of us who believe in him. I think he'll
win but even if he doesn't, he proved his candidacyy is very much alive.
Get ready to feel the Bern, Ohio!
Janice Badger Nelson , is a trusted commenter Park City, Utah, from Boston
43 minutes ago
If Hillary and Bernie were switched, you would have called it for her already in Michigan.
CNN is doing the same. Sorry, the big story, even if Hillary squeaks out a narrow win, the BIG
story is how well Bernie Sanders is doing. Of course by reading the NYTimes, you would never know.
Sad state of honest journalism.
Breaking Bad - Michigan is the point the system went tilt. Bernie has the overwhelming
white vote and now blacks are beginning going as well to Bernie. The Clinton Machine is running
out of propaganda. People sees Bernie's Integrity
What an amazing upset by Mr. Sanders. Huge upset and will probably define this race when it's
all said and done. This is exactly what Bernie Sanders needed. The polls have been going against
him in pretty much every state, but this one was over 10% for Hillary today as per the latest
poll. We can't trust the media and the pundits. On to Ohio!!
Howie Lisnoff , is a trusted commenter Massachusetts
32 minutes ago
It seems that the newspaper of record will have to take a more careful look at its slanted
election reporting. The degree of poor and irresponsible journalism from the New York Times regarding
the Democratic primaries is astounding! I'm surprised that the Times was able to print the breaking
news of a "significant upset over Hillary Clinton." All power to the 99%!
Winning the Democratic primary in MS, LA or other deep south states is a far cry from carrying
those states in the general election. Hillary is in trouble.
Bottom line: Take away the African American vote in the old South and Hillary is a non-candidate.
She is strong in states the Democrats will not carry come November. This despite having a huge
advantage in name recognition, endorsements - including the NYT and WaPo, money and all the rest.
If the goal is to win in November, Democrats had better wake up. As of this writing, NBC just
called Michigan for Bernie where Hillary was supposedly up by 10+ Points.
(10:35 PM CST)
#FeelTheBern #NotReadyForHIllary
The clown car on the Republican side is of no consequence. Bernie will wipe the floor with Trump.
Hillary was going to shift to Trump and the General Election. NOT. SO. QUICK. Ms Clinton.
You have just about run out of Old Confederacy States and the shine is off of your inevitability
argument. Bernie warned the press not to underestimate him. He just won an industrial state with
a significant minority population.
"All you had to do was watch Sunday night's debate in Flint, Michigan, to
realize Sanders isn't nearly ready to quit" [
Politico
].
And you know that if Clinton had won, that's what would have been splashed
over Politico's home page, and all the other Acela riders, too.
"Testy debate suggests Clinton and Sanders battle will continue" [
McClatchy
].
Well, that and what Sanders has said, and continuing support from his
coalition, as measured by contributions, which means he can tell the DNC to
take a hike.
Clinton said again she would release the transcripts only if all other
candidates who have given paid speeches did. She also said that she stood
up to Wall Street. "I have a record," she said. "And you know what, if
you were going to be in some way distrusted or dismissed about whether
you can take on Wall Street if you ever took money, President Obama took
more money from Wall Street in the 2008 campaign than anybody ever had."
Sanders quipped: "Secretary Clinton wants everybody else to release
it, well, I'm your Democratic opponent, I release it, here it is. There
ain't nothing. I don't give speeches to Wall Street for hundreds of
thousands of dollars, you got it."
I don't have to tell NC readers how weak that "quip" is. (And Clinton's
effrontery really is boundless, isn't it? Then again, Russell Simmons agrees
with her.)
"The Hillary Clinton-Bernie Sanders clash over the auto bailout,
explained" [
WaPo
].
This is classic:
"I voted to save the auto industry," [Clinton] said. "He voted against
the money that ended up saving the auto industry. I think that is a
pretty big difference."
What Clinton said is technically true, but it glosses over a lot of
important nuance, including the fact that Sanders is actually on the
record as supporting the auto bailout. He even voted for it.
So "techically true" means false, thenk? It's a topsy-turvey world!
(Even leaving aside the idea that a died-on-the-wool Socialist would do
such a thing.)
The Trail
"Clinton insiders are eager to begin recruiting to their cause
Republicans turned off by the prospect of Donald Trump - and the threat
of Sanders sticking it out until June makes the general election pivot
more difficult" [
Politico
].
I have long held that Clinton does not want Sanders voters, and now I am
confirmed in my view. Clinton wants moderate Republicans instead, for
reasons temparamental (Goldwater Girl), financial (ka-ching), and
institutional. Socialism and liberalism do not mix (even Sanders' mild
version of it). In addition, the Democratic establishment refuses to
recognize that Sanders has broken their squillionaire-dependent funding
model, and in consequence has gleefully stomped on youth voters (who
needs 'em, anyhow?). It really is time for Sanders to start thinking
about converting his campaign into a standalone entity that will continue
beyond the election. What's wrong with SFA (Socialists for America?)
"Clinton must make Elizabeth Warren her vice president" [Dana Milbank,
WaPo
]. Ugh.
"Over the next two weeks, Sanders campaign surrogates - and, in some
cases, the candidate - will meet with local activists. The campaign has
employed this strategy before, but surrogates and aides said now it will
be more publicized. Sanders, according to two sources briefed on the
campaign's plans, will also be more specific about economic inequality
and its effect on black communities in his stump speech" [
Buzzfeed
].
"Right now, when you look at the political revolution - it needs to
be more
intersectional
, and his economic proposals need to
be more more explicit on the ground and publicly," the activist [who
wasn't authorized to speak for their organization] said. "The Clintons
will exploit that. When he's talking about it, he'll give specific
examples on the stump in ways he hasn't before, is my understanding."
"The Seattle Times editorial board recommends John Kasich, Bernie
Sanders" [
Seattle
Times
].
"Andrea Mitchell Pulls the Mask Off Harry Reid" [
Down
with Tyranny
]. How the "neutral" Reid delivered Nevada to Clinton.
"Hillary Calls for Michigan Gov's Resignation an Hour After Her Spox
Slammed Bernie for Same" [
Mediaite
].
Send in the bots! There have to be bots!
This could be the last time [
Avedon's
Sidehow
]. An excellent wrap-up of commentary on Super Tuesday.
"Mark Zuckerberg's $100 million donation to Newark public schools
failed miserably - here's where it went wrong" [
Business
Insider
]. Maybe somebody should ask Cory Booker,
before
his
VP aspirations become embarassingly open?
New York: "On the Democratic side, Clinton had a 21-percentage point
lead over Bernie Sanders, 55% to 34%, the same as it was a month ago, the
[Siena] poll found" [
USA
Today
]. Sanders position on fracking will help him, but only upstate.
Was Sanders "pragmatic" enough to offer Sharpton a suitcase full of cash?
Lightweight and uncharacteristically for
Matt Taibbi stupid article. He can't spell the word "neoliberalism". It looks like it was
USSR people against Bolshevik's oligarchy now it is American people against neoliberal oligarchy.
And leaders are mostly symbols. Actually drunk Yeltsin later screw the nation that brought him to
power, selling national treasures for pennies on the dime in criminal privatization. Compare Taibbi
superficial bubble with
Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump. Here's why by
Thomas Frank
Notable quotes:
"... Trump's speeches are never scripted, never exactly the same twice. Instead he just riffs and feels his way through crowds. He's no orator – as anyone who's read his books knows, he's not really into words, especially long ones – but he has an undeniable talent for commanding a room. ..."
"... Trump knows the public sees through all of this, grasps the press's role in it and rightly hates us all. When so many Trump supporters point to his stomping of the carpetbagging snobs in the national media as the main reason they're going to vote for him, it should tell us in the press something profound about how much people think we suck. ..."
"... Reporters have focused quite a lot on the crazy/race-baiting/nativist themes in Trump's campaign, but these comprise a very small part of his usual presentation. His speeches increasingly are strikingly populist in their content. ..."
"... both Democratic and Republican politicians unfailingly do upon taking office, i.e., approve rotten/regressive policies that screw ordinary people. ..."
"... He goes on to explain that prices would go down if the state-by-state insurance fiefdoms were eliminated, but that's impossible because of the influence of the industry. "I'm the only one that's self-funding ... Everyone else is taking money from, I call them the bloodsuckers." ..."
"... "I don't know what the reason is – I do know what the reason is, but I don't know how they can sell it," he says. "We're not allowed to negotiate drug prices. We pay $300 billion more than if we negotiated the price." ..."
...the regular guy has been screwed by a conspiracy of incestuous elites. The Bushes are half
that conspiratorial picture, fronts for a Republican Party establishment and whose sum total of accomplishments,
dating back nearly 30 years, are two failed presidencies, the sweeping loss of manufacturing jobs,
and a pair of pitiable Middle Eastern military adventures – the second one achieving nothing but
dead American kids and Junior's re-election.
Trump picked on Jeb because Jeb is a symbol. The Bushes are a dissolute monarchy, down to offering
their last genetic screw-up to the throne.
"The war in Iraq was a big f ... fat mistake, all right?" he snorted. He nearly said, "A big fucking
mistake." He added that the George W. Bush administration lied before the war about Iraq having WMDs
and that we spent $2 trillion basically for nothing.
... ... ...
Trump had said things that were true and that no other Republican would dare to say.
... ... ...
Rubio, we were told, had zoomed to the front of the "establishment lane" in timely enough fashion
to stop Trump. Of course, in the real world, nobody cares about what happens in the "establishment
lane" except other journalists. But even the other candidates seemed to believe the narrative. Ohio
Gov. John Kasich staggered out of Iowa in eighth place and was finishing up his 90th lonely appearance
in New Hampshire when Boston-based reporters caught up to him.
"If we get smoked up there, I'm going back to Ohio," he lamented. Kasich in person puts on a brave
face, but he also frequently rolls his eyes in an expression of ostentatious misanthropy that says,
"I can't believe I'm losing to these idiots."
But then Rubio went onstage at St. Anselm College in the eighth GOP debate and blew himself up.
Within just a few minutes of a vicious exchange with haranguing now-former candidate Chris Christie,
he twice delivered the exact same canned 25-second spiel about how Barack Obama "knows exactly what
he's doing."
Rubio's face-plant brilliantly reprised Sir Ian Holm's performance in Alien, as a malfunctioning,
disembodied robot head stammering, "I admire its purity," while covered in milky android goo. It
was everything we hate about scripted mannequin candidates captured in a brief crack in the political
façade.
Marco Rubio; GOP Primaries; 2016
Marco Rubio stumbled badly after Iowa. Charles Ommanney/Getty
Rubio plummeted in the polls, and Kasich, already mentally checked out, was the surprise second-place
finisher in New Hampshire, with 15.8 percent of the vote.
... ... ...
All of which virtually guarantees Trump will probably enjoy at least a five-horse race through
Super Tuesday. So he might have this thing sewn up before the others even figure out in what order
they should quit. It's hard to recall a dumber situation in American presidential politics.
"If you're Trump, you're sending flowers to all of them for staying in," the GOP strategist tells
me. "The more the merrier. And they're running out of time to figure it out."
... ... ...
Trump's speeches are never scripted, never exactly the same twice. Instead he just riffs and feels
his way through crowds. He's no orator – as anyone who's read his books knows, he's not really into
words, especially long ones – but he has an undeniable talent for commanding a room.
... ... ...
Trump knows the public sees through all of this, grasps the press's role in it and rightly hates
us all. When so many Trump supporters point to his stomping of the carpetbagging snobs in the national
media as the main reason they're going to vote for him, it should tell us in the press something
profound about how much people think we suck.
Jay Matthews, a Plymouth native with a long beard and a Trump sign, cites Trump's press beat-downs
as the first reason he's voting Donald. "He's gonna be his own man," he says. "He's proving that now with how he's getting all the media.
He's paying nothing and getting all the coverage. He's not paying one dime."
Reporters have focused quite a lot on the crazy/race-baiting/nativist themes in Trump's campaign,
but these comprise a very small part of his usual presentation. His speeches increasingly are strikingly
populist in their content.
His pitch is: He's rich, he won't owe anyone anything upon election, and therefore he won't do what
both Democratic and Republican politicians unfailingly do upon taking office, i.e., approve rotten/regressive
policies that screw ordinary people.
He talks, for instance, about the anti-trust exemption enjoyed by insurance companies, an atrocity
dating back more than half a century, to the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. This law, sponsored by
one of the most notorious legislators in our history (Nevada Sen. Pat McCarran was thought to be
the inspiration for the corrupt Sen. Pat Geary in The Godfather II), allows insurance companies to
share information and collude to divvy up markets.
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats made a serious effort to overturn this indefensible
loophole during the debate over the Affordable Care Act.
Trump pounds home this theme in his speeches, explaining things from his perspective as an employer.
"The insurance companies," he says, "they'd rather have monopolies in each state than hundreds of
companies going all over the place bidding ... It's so hard for me to make deals ... because I
can't get bids."
He goes on to explain that prices would go down if the state-by-state insurance fiefdoms were eliminated,
but that's impossible because of the influence of the industry. "I'm the only one that's self-funding
... Everyone else is taking money from, I call them the bloodsuckers."
Trump isn't lying about any of this. Nor is he lying when he mentions that the big-pharma companies
have such a stranglehold on both parties that they've managed to get the federal government to bar
itself from negotiating Medicare prescription-drug prices in bulk.
"I don't know what the reason
is – I do know what the reason is, but I don't know how they can sell it," he says. "We're not allowed
to negotiate drug prices. We pay $300 billion more than if we negotiated the price."
It's actually closer to $16 billion a year more, but the rest of it is true enough. Trump then
goes on to personalize this story. He claims (and with Trump we always have to use words
like "claims") how it was these very big-pharma donors, "fat cats," sitting in the front row of the
debate the night before. He steams ahead even more with this tidbit: Woody Johnson, one of the heirs
of drug giant Johnson & Johnson (and the laughably incompetent owner of the New York Jets), is the
finance chief for the campaign of whipping boy Jeb Bush.
"Now, let's say Jeb won. Which is an impossibility, but let's say ... " The crowd explodes in laughter. "Let's say Jeb won," Trump goes on. "How is it possible for Jeb to say, 'Woody, we're going to
go out and fight competitively' ?" This is, what – not true? Of course it's true.
DFA = Democracy for America. This was Howard Dean's organization and
part of his 50 state strategies. During non-campaign seasons, he sent
campaign organizers touring the country giving short classes on how to
organize and manage a political campaign. They came to Wichita and it was
something to see, a lot of local Democratic office holders, some even in
the State House had signed up. One guy had held his house seat for 8
years and much of the information they were bringing was completely new
to him. Yes, a state level Democrat had won 4 election cycles without
even knowing the basics. This was the state of the Democratic Party back
then – and is largely that way now.
Now I am going from memory here, but Clinton's "intersectional" was
covered in these classes, with at least the basic idea. The idea was to
consider how different elements within your campaign plank are connected.
And where those connections are poor, to build up a rhetorical foundation
on how to address the contradictions. As I said, the idea is not to build
connections between different parts of the planks, but how to present
separate planks to the voter as being relevant.
It's a good exercise, a way of organizing your issues and thinking how
they all might fit together.
Now Clintion's hairball – good word by the way – likely takes it to
the absurd degree. With polling data being quantized and plugged into
sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton to tailor her message for
each region and for each venue. –KACHING-
As I said before, this is
likely something that is being fed to her by her no doubt well paid
consultants.
Still, I have made an interesting observation that I wonder if you
noticed. You presented two charts, one with holding corporations
accountable placed at the top, and the other placing decline in
manufacturing jobs at the top in the same position.
They are the same network; point by point. I even compared them using
paint and found them to be a perfect match. The only difference is that
one is negative and the other is positive.
As another untrained clown in intersectional feminism, I'm skeptical about
Clinton, especially reading Thomas Frank's description of the International
Women's Day event at the Clinton Foundation one year ago:
"What this lineup suggested is that there is a kind of naturally occurring
solidarity between the millions of women at the bottom of the world's pyramid
and the tiny handful of women at its very top …The mystic bond between
high-achieving American professionals and the planet's most victimized people …
is a recurring theme in [Hillary Clinton's] life and work … What the spectacle
had to offer ordinary working American women was another story.
She enshrined a version of feminism in which liberation is, in part, a
matter of taking out loans from banks in order to become an entrepreneur … the
theology of microfinance … Merely by providing impoverished individuals with a
tiny loan of fifty or a hundred dollars, it was thought, you could put them on
the road to entrepreneurial self-sufficiency, you could make entire countries
prosper, you could bring about economic development itself … What was most
attractive about microlending was what it was not, what it made unnecessary:
any sort of collective action by poor people coming together in governments or
unions …The key to development was not doing something to limit the grasp of
Western banks, in other words; it was extending Western banking methods to
encompass every last individual on earth.
Microlending is a perfect expression of Clintonism, since it brings together
wealthy financial interests with rhetoric that sounds outrageously idealistic.
Microlending permits all manner of networking, posturing, and profit taking
among the lenders while doing nothing to change actual power relations-the
ultimate win-win."
I'm too confused with all of this, but it sounds to me like a concept called
"interlocking systems of oppression" and your figure two seems to provide
useful diagrammatic example.
The diagram offers no understanding of the intersectional dynamics of
oppression, carefully cropping out the oppressors - most of whom are Hillary
backers - along with the oppressed, who
are all affected differently in
their lived experiences
by their
particular
relationship to
oppressive conditions.
Lumping these focus-tested ill conditions together with a rat's nest of
undistinguished connections misleadingly equates the interests of persons
with their set of group memberships (Fascism is Italian for bundle-ism) and
sets the stage for those conditions to be traded off and weighed against
each other on net in the future. I believe this is the essence of what is
called "triangulation".
Theoretically, understanding intersectionality should help us understand
where our interests coincide, and thus aid in coalition building.
Clinton is standing that notion on its head by attempting to reduce
"intersectionality" to a rhetorical gimmic, supposedly indicating she's the
"intersectional" cadidate, the one who represents everybody!
Intersectionality if properly understood would offer us an important tool, a
key if you will for freeing us from the isolation and powerlessness inherent in
the siloed environment of identity politics.
The politicians on the other hand have a much easier job if we ignore, or
misunderstand intersectionality, and stay in our silos.
The people, working together because they understand where their interests
intersect is the last thing that our 'rulers' want to see happening,
considering how much work they've devoted to divide and conquer.
Watt4Bob - In Intersectionality, the things which
intersect seem to be terms of oppression as applied to
persons (as opposed to corporations, organizations,
states, etc.) A person is the focus of one or more of
racism, sexism, ageism, class prejudice, religion,
national origin, homophobia, and so on. Most of the
categorizations through which these forms of oppression
are implemented are irrational and some have no real,
physical definition whatever. That is, the deprecation
of such persons has no real value. No doubt most
persons oppressed in these ways have an interest in
escaping from their oppression. However, they have
other, positive interests as well, independent of or
orthagonal to the ways in which they are oppressed. For
me, this makes the idea that Intersectionality alone
can automatically provide a kind of framework for
positive collective action rather dubious. We already
have anarchism and egalitarianism; now what?
Wait a minute… that tangle of buzz phrases connected helter-skelter by lines
is a REAL post from the Clinton campaign? Until I read the whole piece I
thought it was well done satire. I guess The Onion being bought out doesn't
really matter much. In modern American politics satire now seems roughly as
difficult a task as exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum or measuring the
position and velocity of an electron simultaneously.
Flint is where I was born and raised. The Governor gave away billions of Detroit's assets for
pennies on the dollar with no one challah ginger that theft. Now he is stealing lives in Flint.
He needs to step down. I would provide a link for more info but I am not permitted.
Yep, as was likely. Sanders campaign is all about momentum and whether he can bring people on
side or whether they just think he has no chance. In that respect the early ballots were always
going to be tough, apart from NH and Vermont.
March 15 is probably the real decider. Big states, lots of delegates. Sanders really must win
a lot of them to keep going, assuming that the superdelegates stay strongly behind Hillary. He
has done well though this week, winning some smaller states and building some momentum towards
the larger ones. It's not over if he doesn't crush Hillary on the 15th in those big states, but
if he loses several of them it will probably be the end of the momentum he needs.
Sanders is still very much the underdog, but then that's kind of the way he likes it.
"... This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation process of global capitalism & its "1%" class. ..."
"... One of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating, is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination economic empire is the goal. ..."
"... The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see the whole electoral mirage for what it is. ..."
"... Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing, especially the race war against the Arab people. ..."
"... Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump? ..."
"... Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept. It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show. What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing. ..."
"... Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more acute. ..."
"... why do American politicians become incontinent when they mention Saudi Arabia ..."
"... recycling mechanism for capitalism ..."
"... there is a suicidal death pact between the West and Saudi Arabia ..."
"... Protecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. ..."
"... For many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism) has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru history 'The 99%'...). ..."
"... So long as he rises to militarily protect "National Interests" abroad - read: imperial billionaire class interests - he's really one of them. ..."
"... He could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor. ..."
"... Excellent discussion and lecture. A very important part of the 'due diligence' of democratic participation and research by the people. ..."
Be nice to have a book called "The Foreign Policy of the 1%".
Maybe include references to GATT, TPP, oil wars as mentioned in the presentation.
Other questions:
1) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to Economic Hitman, John Perkins?
2) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to conservative founders like Jeane Kirkpatrick?
3) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to rise to Regan Revolution? Trump?
This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be
copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the
neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation
process of global capitalism & its "1%" class.
Deepest thanks to Vijay Prashad...and to others
like professor Bennis (present in the audience)... whose in-depth analysis of the system can, if
studied, contribute to putting the nascent 'political revolution' Bernie calls for...into a real
democratic movement in this country. We are so woefully ignorant as 'members of the 99%'- it seems
worst of all in America-- intentionally kept isolated from knowing anything about this country/corporation's
'foreign policy' (aka as Capitalist system policy or 'the 1% policy) that Bernie cannot even broach
what Vijay has given here. But he at least opens up some of our can of worms, the interrconnectdedness
of class-interests and the devastation this country's (and the global cabal of ) capitalist voracious
economic interests rains upon the planet.
The Mid-East is a product of Capitalism that will, if
we don't recognize the process & change course & priorties, will soon overtake all of Africa and
all 'undeveloped' (pre-Capitalist) countries around the globe--The destruction and never-ending
blur of war and annihilation of peoples, cultures and even the possibility of 'political evolution'
is a product of the profit-at-any-and-all-costs that is the hidden underbelly of a system of economics
that counts humanity as nothing. It is a sick system. It is a system whose sickness brings death
to all it touches... and we are seeing now it is bringing ITS OWN DEATH as well.
The '99% policy'
(again a phrase Prashad should be congratulated for bringing into the language) is indeed one
that understands that our needs --the people's needs, not 'national interests' AKA capitalist
corporate/financial interests --- are global, that peace projects are essentially anti-capitalist
projects.... and our needs-to build a new society here in the U.S. must begin to be linked to
seeing Capitalism as the root cause of so much suffering that must be replaced by true democratic
awakening a- r/evolutionary process that combines economic and civic/political -- that we must
support in every way possible. Step One: support the movement for changed priorities & values
by voting class-consciously.
The 1% or the oligarchy have completely won the world, our only way to fight against such power
is to abandon buying their products, take great care on who you vote for in any election, only
people who have a long record of social thinking should be considers. They can be diminished but
not beaten.
One of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating,
is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination
economic empire is the goal.
The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course
they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and
global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put
forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see
the whole electoral mirage for what it is.
All of what's been said about the elites, the one percent, has already been said many years ago.
The conversation about the wealthy elites destroying our world has changed only in the area of
how much of our world has and is being destroyed. Absolutely nothing else has changed, nothing
else.
Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and
their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than
ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing,
especially the race war against the Arab people. Meanwhile, as we continue to speak the ocean
is licking at our doorstep, the average mean temperature has ticked up a few notches and we are
all completely distracted by which power hungry corporate zealot is going to occupy the office
which is responsible for making our human condition even more dire. The circus that is this election
is merely a ploy by the elites to make us believe that we actually do have a choice. Uh-huh; yet
if I were to suggest what REALLY needs to be done to save the human race I would be in a court
which functions only to impoverish those of us who try to speak the truth of our situation objectively.
The 'Justice' system's only function is to render us powerless. Whether one is guilty or innocent
is completely irrelevant anymore. All they have to do is file charges and they have your wealth.
Good luck to all of us as we all talk ourselves to death.
Dear denden11: You get gold stars in heaven as far as I'm concerned for telling the exact truth
in the plainest possible terms. Bravissimo. "Talk/ing/ ourselves to death" is, I'm sorry to say,
what we are doing. I've been working on these issues for forty years, looking for an exit from
this completely interlocked system. I'm sorry to say I haven't seen the exit. I do understand
how we have painted ourselves into this corner over the past 250 years (since the so-called Enlightenment),
but without repentance on our part and grace on God's part, we're doomed because we all believe
the Big Lies pumped into us moment by moment by Big Brother. And it's the Big Lies that keep us
terminally confused and fragmented.
Don't Believe the Hype was an NWA rap anthem over twenty year ago.
I always liked the shouted line, "And I don't take Ritalin!"
Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does
the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump?
In defeat, will Sander's campaign supporters radicalize or demoralize into apathy or tepid
support for Hillary - on the grounds that she's less of an evil than Trumpty Dumbty?
If not defeated, will Sanders and his campaign mobilize the People to fight the powers that
be? Otherwise, he has no real power base, short of selling out on his domestic spending promises
and becoming another social democratic lapdog for Capital- like Tony Blair.
Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is
weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept.
It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show.
What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing.
As material conditions change drastically for tens of millions of USAns, the old propaganda loses
effect.
New propaganda is required to channel the new class tensions. Still an opening may be created.
People can't heat their homes with propaganda, the kids are living in the basement and grandpa
can't afford a nursing home and he's drinking himself to death. That's the new normal, or variations
on it for a lot of people who don't believe the hype anymore.
Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything
for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more
acute.
Great work Vijay...got my "filters" back on. Cut and pasted original comment below despite TRNN
labeling of "time of posting" which is irrelevant at this point.
Wow...now that I got my rational filters back on this was a great piece by Vijay and succinctly
states what many of us who "attempt" to not only follow ME events but to understand not only the
modern history by the motives of the major players in the region. Thanks for this piece and others...looking
forward to the others.
Posted earlier while my mind was on 2016 election cycle watching MSM in "panic mode"
Thought this was going to be a rational discussion on US foreign policy until the part on ?
"Trumps Red Book". I had hoped to rather hear, "The Red Book of the American Templars" ...taking
from the Knights Templar in Europe prior the collapse of the feudal system. I will say that Vijay's
comment on Cruz was quite appropriate though it would also have been better to not only put it
into context but also illustrate that Cruz's father Rafael Cruz believes in a system contrary
to the founding ideals of the US Constitution: He states in an interview with mainstream media
during his son's primary campaign that [to paraphrase] "secularism is evil and corrupt". Here
is an excerpt of his bio from Wiki:
"During an interview conducted by the Christian Post in 2014, Rafael Cruz stated, "I think
we cannot separate politics and religion; they are interrelated. They've always been interrelated."[29]
Salon described Cruz as a "Dominionist, devoted to a movement that finds in Genesis a mandate
that 'men of faith' seize control of public institutions and govern by biblical principle."[30]
However, The Public Eye states that Dominionists believe that the U.S. Constitution should be
the vehicle for remaking America as a Christian nation.[31]"
Fareed Zakaria interviewed a columnist from the Wall Street Journal today on Fareed's GPS program
and flatly asked him [paraphrased], "Is not the Wall Street Journal responsible for creating the
racist paradigm that Trump took advantage of "? Let us begin with rational dialogue and not demagogy.
Quite frankly with regard to both Cruz and Trump [in context of the 2016 elections cycle] a more
insightful comment would have been...Change cannot come from within the current electoral processes
here in the US with Citizen's United as its "masthead" and "Corporations are people as its rallying
cry"!
Not the West....just the F.I.R.E industries...driving the housing bubble; shopping malls; office
buildings; buying municipal bonds [as they the municipalities bought and built prisons; jails;
SWAT vehicles and security equipment (developed by the Israelis); and keeping the insurance companies
afloat while AllState had time after Katrina to pitch their subsidiaries allowing these subsidiaries
to file for bankruptcy]...now all the maintenance expense is coming due and cities and counties
are going broke... along with the Saudi investments here in US.
Protecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we
are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation
of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. What about the 99 percent?
While populations simply need and want also income and investment security globally.
What about
populations in massive consumer debt for education, housing, etc. to fund one percent Growth.
Laborers across globe are all in same boat simply labor for food without anything else to pass
along to progeny but what is most important ethics. A world government established by corporatism
advantage by authority of law and advantage all directed toward endless returns to oligarchy family
cartels is not an acceptable world organization of division of resources because it is tranny,
exclusive, extraction and fraudulent. Such madness does NOT float all boats.
All this while oligarchs
control Taxation of government authority and hidden excessive investment and fraud return taxation.
While Governments in west don't even jail corporate criminals while west claims law is just while
skewed in favor of protecting one percent, their returns on investment and investments. Billionaires
we find in some parts of so called Unjust regions of world not yet on board with cartel game are
calling out fraud that harms individuals and society aggressively.
TEHRAN, Iran - An Iranian court has sentenced a well-known tycoon to death for corruption linked
to oil sales during the rule of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the judiciary spokesman
said Sunday.
Babak Zanjani and two of his associates were sentenced to death for "money laundering," among
other charges, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejehi said in brief remarks broadcast on state TV. He did
not identify the two associates. Previous state media reports have said the three were charged
with forgery and fraud.
"The court has recognized the three defendants as 'corruptors on earth' and sentenced them
to death," said Ejehi. "Corruptors on earth" is an Islamic term referring to crimes that are punishable
by death because they have a major impact on society. The verdict, which came after a nearly five-month
trial, can be appealed.
So when Bernie winds up on the regime change band wagon (of mostly leftist governments) and stays
silent in the face of US aided and approved of coups (Honduras/Zelaya being the next most recent
before Ukraine) while railing against the billionaire class on Wall Street and the neoliberal
trade agreements, he's not only missing the elephant in the room; he's part of this elephant.
For many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in
the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism)
has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or
even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm
of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign
appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation
it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful
yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru
history 'The 99%'...).
And as all past power-elites have done, our '1%' has misread the age-old
evolution of culture when an old system NO LONGER WORKS that makes freedom, imagination & rebellion
more acceptable more attractive, more exciting and NECESSARY. Then, once energized BY NEED, DESIRE,
and yes HOPE....change begins and can't be stopped like a slow-moving rain that keeps moving.
As with past eras & past changes, in our own day this 'millennial plus 60's' powerful generational
tide is JUST BEGINNING to feel our strength & ability. Turning what was supposed to be a globalist-coronation
into what right now certainly seems like a step towards real change, towards building a recognition
of the power, we 'the 99%' can --IF WE ACT WISELY & WITH COMMITTMENT begin the work of creating
a new world.
Criticising Bernie is criticizing the real way progress works...We need to get out
of an ego-centric adolescent approach to human problem-solving, understand we need to keep our
movement growing even if it doesn't look the WAY WE EXPECTED IT TO LOOK...keep clear on GOALS
that Bernie's campaign is just a part of. The 'left' needs to recognize its our historic moment:
to either move ahead or SELF-destruct.. Impatience needs to be replaced by a serious look down
the road for our children's future. If we don't, the power elite of the System wins again (vote
Hillary?? don't vote??). We need to take a breath & rethink how change really happens because
this lost opportunity Is a loss we can no longer afford. The movement must be 'bigger than Bernie'.
I just hope he does not get forced to resign which the L-MSM is now beginning to parrot so Hillary
can win given the huge turnouts the Repugs are getting in the primaries. I want to see four candidates
at the National Convention...in addition to Third parties.
No one can be elected Commander and Chief by stating they will not defend oligarchs interests
as well as populations interests. We agree populations interests are negated and subverted all
over earth . That cannot be changed by armed rebellion but it can be changed by electing electable
voices of reason such as Sanders. Sanders will fight to protect populations and resist oligarchy
war mongering while holding oligarchs accountable. Sanders will address corrupted law and injustice.
Vote Sanders.
You are probably correct in your thinking, but the real power will never allow any potential effective
changes to the system that is. People who try usually end up dead.
This is why we must as citizens become active players in government far greater then we are today,
we must do far more then voting. We must have time from drudgery of earning a substandard wage
that forces most to have little time for advancing democracy. Without such time oligarchs and
one percent end-up controlling everything.
We can BEGIN the march toward mountain top toward socializations
which will promote aware individualizations. We don't expect we will advance anything without
oppositions in fact we expect increased attacks. Those increased attacks can become our energy
that unites masses as we all observe the insanity they promote as our direction. We merely must
highlight insanity and path forward toward sanity. Nothing can make lasting change this generation
the march will take generations. The speed advance only will depend on how foolish oligarchs are
at attempts to subvert public awareness seeking change. As they become more desperate our movements
become stronger. We must refrain from violence for that is only thing that can subvert our movement.
He could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking
down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor.
Instead he does the LOTE thing for the neoliberal-neocon party "D". That's just dishonest bullshit
opportunism.
Do not receives daily email for a long time without clue why? so haven't in contact with TRN's
daily report until subject video appears on youtube website. and impressed by the panelists's
congregated pivotal works done thru all these years.
"... Dewey and Ford emerged from a brokered convention to lose the general election. So why? Because the party elites and elders want to protect us and stop of from falling into the abyss?… Most of us working two or three jobs think we're already in the abyss. The Obama abyss… ..."
In a stunningly honest and frank rant, FOX News' Judge Jeanine unleashes anchor hell upon
Mitt Romney and the GOP establishment hordes.
She begins:
"There's an insurrection coming. Mitt Romney just confirmed it. We've watched
governors, the National Review, conservative leaders, establishment and party operatives trash
Donald Trump. But Mitt Romney will always be remembered as the one who put us over
the edge and awoke a sleeping giant, the Silent Majority, the American people.
Fact. The establishment is panicked. Mitt essentially called for a brokered
convention where the Republican nominee will be decided by party activists and delegates irrespective
of their state's choice… You want a brokered convention? A primer Mitt. Whenever we have
a brokered convention we lose.
Dewey and Ford emerged from a brokered convention to lose the general election. So why?
Because the party elites and elders want to protect us and stop of from falling into the
abyss?… Most of us working two or three jobs think we're already in the abyss. The Obama abyss…
We are sick and tired of legislators of modest means who leave Congress
multimillionaires, whose spouses and families get all the contracts from selling the post offices
to accessing insider information so they can buy property and flip it. You're so entrenched
that you're willing to give Hillary Clinton a win. It doesn't matter to you which party, crony
capitalism and its paradigm will not change for the elite."
And that is just the introduction... Grab a coffee (or something stronger) and watch...
"... This was a classic case of professional bad manners and rank-pulling. What we had here were four former chairs of the president's Council of Economic Advisors, and two from President Obama, two from President Clinton, who decided to use their big names and their titles in order to launch an attack on a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts who had written a paper evaluating the Sanders economic program. ..."
"... The four former council chairs announced that on the basis of their deep commitment to rigor and objectivity, they had discovered that this forecast was unrealistic ..."
"... I've written a whole book called The End of Normal in which I lay out reasons for my chronic pessimism about the capacity of the world economy to absorb a great deal more rapid economic growth. ..."
PERIES: James, the Council of Economic Advisors, they put out economic forecasts each year. And
there has been some wildly optimistic ones. For example, if you look at the 2010 predictions for
2012 and 2013 they have not quite been attained. And one would say it was done in the interest of
trying to make the administration that they were serving more impressive. But what accounts for this
particular attack on Friedman's projection and other fellow economists?
GALBRAITH: This was a classic case of professional bad manners and rank-pulling. What we had here
were four former chairs of the president's Council of Economic Advisors, and two from President Obama,
two from President Clinton, who decided to use their big names and their titles in order to launch
an attack on a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts who had written a paper
evaluating the Sanders economic program.
It's likely that the four bigwigs thought that Professor Friedman was a Bernie Sanders supporter.
In fact, as of that time he was a Hillary Clinton supporter and a modest donor to her campaign. What
he had done was simply to write his evaluation of the economic effects of the ambitious Sanders reform
program. The four former council chairs announced that on the basis of their deep commitment to rigor
and objectivity, they had discovered that this forecast was unrealistic. And what I pointed out was
that that claim was based on no evidence and no analysis whatsoever. And when you pressed down on
it you found that it was simply based on the obvious fact that we haven't seen the kinds of growth
rates that Professor Friedman's analysis suggested the Sanders program would produce. And for a very
simple reason: the Sanders program is bigger. It's more ambitious than anything we've seen in recent
years, so it's not surprising that when you put it through a model it generates a higher growth rate.
So that was the basic underlying facts, and these guys, two men and two women, announced that
they, that it was a disreputable study, but failed to present any analysis that suggested they'd
actually even read the paper before they denounced it. And that's what I pointed out in my counter
letter, in a number of articles that have appeared since.
PERIES: James, so in your letter, how do you counter them? What methods did you use to come to
your conclusions?
GALBRAITH: Well, I, no need to say anything beyond the fact that I had looked in their letter
for the rigor that they were so proud of, for the objectivity and the analysis that they were so
proud of, and I'd found that they had not done any. They had not made any such claim, not done any
such work.
So that began to provoke a discussion. It's fair to say ultimately, without apologizing for effectively
launching an ad hominem attack on an independent academic researcher, one of the former chairs, Christina
Romer of President Obama's council, and her husband David Romer, a fellow economist, did produce
a paper in which they spelled out their differences with the, with the Friedman paper. But that,
again, raised another set of interesting issues which we've continued to discuss at various, various
outlets of the press.
PERIES: Now, James Friedman's claim that the growth rate from Sanders' plan to be around 5.3 percent.
And some economists, including Dean Baker at the Center for Economic Policy and Research, have claimed
that this is unrealistic. What do you make of that?
GALBRAITH: Well, the question is whether it is an effect, let's say, a reasonable projection,
of putting the Sanders program into an economic model. And the answer to that question, yes, Professor
Friedman did a reasonable job. He spelled out what the underlying assumptions that he was using were.
He spelled out the basic rules of thumb that macroeconomists had used for decades to assess the effects
of an economic program. In this case, an expansionary economic program. And he ran them through his
model and reported the results, a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Now, one can be skeptical. And I am, and Dean Baker is, lots of people are skeptical that the
world would work out quite that way, because lots of things, in fact, happen which are not accounted
for in a model. And we've talked, we've basically put together a list of things that you think might
be problematic. But the exercise here was not to put everything into paper that might happen in the
world. The exercise was to take the kind of bare bones that economists use to assess and to compare
the consequences of alternative programs, and to ask what kind of results do you get out? And that's
what, again, what Jerry Friedman did. It was a reasonable exercise, he came up with a reasonable
answer, and he reported it.
PERIES: Now, Friedman seems to think that the rate of full employment in 1999 is attainable. However,
many labor economists seem to think that the larger share of the elderly currently in society compared
to 1999 explains some of the lack of labor participation, which creates a lower full employment ceiling
that's contradicting Friedman's report. Your thoughts on that?
GALBRAITH: Well, I think it is a fact that the population is getting older. But as, I think, any
economist would tell you, that when you offer jobs in the labor market, the first thing that happens
is the people who are looking for work take those jobs. The second thing that happens is that people
who might look for work when jobs were available start coming back into the labor market. And if
that is not enough to fill the vacancies that you have, it's perfectly open to employers to raise
their wages so as to bring more people in, or to increase the pace at which they innovate and substitute
technology for labor so that they don't need the work.
So there's no real crisis involved in the situation if it turns out five years from now we're
at 3.5 percent unemployment, and they were beginning to run short of labor. That's not a reason to,
at this stage, say no, we're not going to engage in the exercise and run a more expansionary, vigorous
reform program, a vigorous infrastructure project, a major reform of healthcare, a tuition-free public
education program. All of those things, which were part of what Friedman put into his paper, should
be done anyway. The fact that the labor market forecast might prove to have some different, the labor
market might have different characteristics in five years' time is from our present point of view
just a, it's an academic or a theoretical proposition, purely.
PERIES: And Friedman's paper, he looks at a ten-year forecast. Did you feel that when you looked
at the specifics of that, including college, universal healthcare, infrastructure spending and of
course, expanding Social Security and so on, that those categories and his predictions or projections,
rather, made sense to you?
GALBRAITH: Well, again, what he was doing was running a program of a certain scale, of a large
scale, through a set of standard macroeconomic assumptions. And that, again, is a reasonable exercise.
If you ask me what my personal view is, I've written a whole book called The End of Normal in which
I lay out reasons for my chronic pessimism about the capacity of the world economy to absorb a great
deal more rapid economic growth.
But that's not in the standard models, and it would not be appropriate to layer that on to a forecast
of this kind. What Friedman was criticized for was not for putting his thumb on the scale, but for
failing to put his thumb on the scale. In fact, that was the reasonable thing to do.
On the contrary, and on the other side, when Christina and David Romer did put out their forecast,
their own criticism of the Friedman paper, they concluded by asserting that if this program were
tried, inflation would soar. So they there were making an allegation for which, again, they had no
evidence and no plausible model, that in the world in which we presently live would produce that
result.
So what we had here was a, what was essentially an academic exercise that produced a result that
was highly favorable to the Sanders position, and showed that if you did an ambitious program you
would get a strong growth response. It's reasonable, certainly, for the first three or four years
that that would transpire in practice. And what happened was that people who didn't like that result
politically jumped on it in a way which was, frankly speaking, professionally irresponsible, in my
view. It was designed to convey the impression, which it succeeded in doing for a brief while through
the broad media, that this was not a reputable exercise, and that there were responsible people on
one side of the debate, and irresponsible people on the other.
And that was, again, something that–an impression that could be conveyed through the mass media,
but would not withstand scrutiny, and didn't withstand scrutiny, once a few of us stood up and started
saying, okay, where's your evidence, on what are you basing this argument? And revealed the point,
which the Romers implicitly conceded, and I give them credit for that, that in order to criticize
a fellow economist you need to do some work.
B. Mull
Irvine, CA 32 minutes ago
Cruz is a clever guy who going to run into the brick wall of his wife being Goldman Sachs. He
would be wise to sign on as Trump's running mate and hope for a more favorable electoral climate
in 4-8 years. Meanwhile Clinton is likely to win her rigged nomination and go on to hope that
come November fewer people dislike her than dislike Trump/Cruz, which incredibly is not a slam
dunk.
RM
is a trusted commenter Vermont 43 minutes ago
We are completing the election cycle where Cruz should be the strongest. Reminds me of the Ali -
Foreman fight. Ali took all of George's best punches early in the fight, letting George punch
himself out. George was then helpless.
As the race moves to the rust belt, the northeast, and more populous northern states, Cruz will
be out of his heart land. Rubio should drop before Florida, or he will permanently damage his
political career.
On the Dem side, much the same, but to a lesser extent. The north should be friendlier to Bernie.
But all those establishment Super Delegates will be impossible to overcome. Frankly, the Dem
system is less democratic than the GOP system with the Super Delegates keeping the establishment
in power.
PS
Massachusetts 56 minutes ago
Cruz is climbing, which is bad news, worse, frankly, than Trump climbing. Cruz is at the bottom of
my picks - if a person was forced to pick - for the Republican line up. Kansas going for him is no
surprise, as they did remove evolution from the public school curriculum (they put it back but also
included "intelligent design"). Ted's kind of place. But Maine? What on earth was that all about?
The state with the motto "the way life should be"? Does that now mean "the way pro-life should be"?
Completely disappointed, Maniacs. Expected more from a favorite state.
JWP
Goleta, CA 1 hour ago
Hillary Clinton has not done well outside the Old Confederacy. She squeezed past Sanders in
Massachusetts, and her two caucus victories in Iowa and Nevada were not particularly overwhelming.
All her other victories have been in the Confederate South--in states that are going to vote
Republican in November.
Meanwhile Sanders has won convincingly in New Hampshire, Vermont, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska,
Colorado, and Minnesota.
The race is still wide open.
Robert
Maine 2 hours ago
One very big thing I notice Mr. Martin didn't bother mentioning as he glossed briefly over Bernie's
wins, is this:
Turnout in the Democratic Causus in Kansas, was HIGHER than in 2008. That's a first this election
season. Up 'til now, Democratic turnout has been dismally low - lower than in 2008.
Twitter caucus goers in Nebraska also report huge turnout. Although this isn't official, it may also
be that turnout in NE is also greater than 2008.
The message being, the Democratic candidate who can excite voters and inspire large turnout is
Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton. As can be seen from pics of the caucuses today, many
much-maligned Millenials turned out to vote for Bernie.
So, the "Hillary's already won" thing isn't working. Bernie's only going to get stronger once we're
out of the South.
If Krugman is so concerned with con men, why he is supporting Hillary? Just
because she is a con women? Or he wants to become one by securing a
position in her administration?
Notable quotes:
"... First, there's the con Republicans usually manage to pull off in national elections ... where they pose as a serious, grown-up party honestly trying to grapple with America's problems. The truth is that that party died a long time ago, that these days it's voodoo economics and neocon fantasies all the way down. But the establishment wants to preserve the facade, which will be hard if the nominee is someone who refuses to play his part. ... ..."
"... Equally important, the Trump phenomenon threatens the con the G.O.P. establishment has been playing on its own base..., the bait and switch in which white voters are induced to hate big government by dog whistles about Those People, but actual policies are all about rewarding the donor class. ..."
"... What Donald Trump has done is tell the base that it doesn't have to accept the whole package. He promises to make America white again - surely everyone knows that's the real slogan, right? - while simultaneously promising to protect Social Security and Medicare, and hinting at (though not actually proposing) higher taxes on the rich. Outraged establishment Republicans splutter that he's not a real conservative, but neither, it turns out, are many of their own voters. ..."
"... As I see it, then, we should actually welcome Mr. Trump's ascent. Yes, he's a con man, but he is also effectively acting as a whistle-blower on other people's cons. That is, believe it or not, a step forward in these weird, troubled times. ..."
"Why, exactly, the Republican establishment is really so horrified by Mr. Trump?":
Clash of Republican Con Artists, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times
: So Republicans are going to nominate a candidate who talks complete
nonsense on domestic policy; who believes that foreign policy can be conducted
via bullying and belligerence; who cynically exploits racial and ethnic
hatred for political gain.
But that was always going to happen, however the primary season turned out.
The only news is that the candidate in question is probably going to be
Donald Trump.
Establishment Republicans denounce Mr. Trump as a fraud... In fact, you
have to wonder why, exactly, the Republican establishment is really so horrified
by Mr. Trump. Yes, he's a con man, but they all are. ...
The answer, I'd suggest, is that the establishment's problem with Mr. Trump
isn't the con he brings; it's the cons he disrupts.
First, there's the con Republicans usually manage to pull off in national
elections ... where they pose as a serious, grown-up party honestly trying
to grapple with America's problems. The truth is that that party died a
long time ago, that these days it's voodoo economics and neocon fantasies
all the way down. But the establishment wants to preserve the facade, which
will be hard if the nominee is someone who refuses to play his part. ...
Equally important, the Trump phenomenon threatens the con the G.O.P. establishment
has been playing on its own base..., the bait and switch in which white
voters are induced to hate big government by dog whistles about Those People,
but actual policies are all about rewarding the donor class.
What Donald Trump has done is tell the base that it doesn't have to accept
the whole package. He promises to make America white again - surely everyone
knows that's the real slogan, right? - while simultaneously promising to
protect Social Security and Medicare, and hinting at (though not actually
proposing) higher taxes on the rich. Outraged establishment Republicans
splutter that he's not a real conservative, but neither, it turns out, are
many of their own voters.
Just to be clear, I find the prospect of a Trump administration terrifying...
But you should also be terrified by the prospect of a President Rubio, sitting
in the White House with his circle of warmongers, or a President Cruz, whom
one suspects would love to bring back the Spanish Inquisition.
As I see it, then, we should actually welcome Mr. Trump's ascent. Yes, he's
a con man, but he is also effectively acting as a whistle-blower on other
people's cons. That is, believe it or not, a step forward in these weird,
troubled times.
"... Donald Trump represents a challenge to the status quo because he doesn't want to democratize the world through bombing raids, says Richard Spencer from Radix Journal. US Congressman Alan Grayson agrees, saying the Republicans are desperate to stop Trump. ..."
"... The Republican establishment as reflected in Mitt Romney and others is absolutely desperate to stop Donald Trump. But what really is underneath it all is the fact that Trump does not adhere to the Republican Orthodoxy: "they've never met a war they didn't like." ..."
"... After Donald Trump and Fox news journalist Megyn Kelly's previous meeting, comedians and politicians alike have taken quite a few shots at Trump. What should we expect further? ..."
"... From Senator Marco Rubio to Mitt Romney Trump doesn't seem to be afraid of any speeches condemning him. Why is he so self-confident? ..."
"... The fact is Trump's version of nationalism, this idea "it's not be the world's policeman," let's actually look after ourselves, let's use the government to help the people. This kind of nationalism that cuts across left and right, cuts across liberal and conservative, cuts across Democrats and Republicans. It is a new thing for Americans. Trump is leading it. I would never have predicted that, but Trump is leading it. And the fact is the status quo doesn't like it because this is upsetting some of their assumptions. It is upsetting what they take for granted and so they are all in unison attacking him. And in the US the so-called conservatives, the left, the liberals they are all attacking Trump of the exact same reasons. ..."
"... Is Trump likely to issue an apology after his offensive comments towards Megyn Kelly? ..."
Donald Trump represents a challenge to the status quo because he doesn't want to
democratize the world through bombing raids, says Richard Spencer from Radix Journal. US
Congressman Alan Grayson agrees, saying the Republicans are desperate to stop Trump.
US Congressman Alan Grayson: I have to agree, just
this once, with Donald Trump. I think it is irrelevant. Part of the
problem that we are facing this year is that the candidates want to
make this some kind of war of personalities rather than a discussion
of what is good for our country. I think that is very unfortunate. I
don't think the Trump candidacy should be determined on matters of the
value of a degree from Trump University, or any of these ad hominem
attacks that we are seeing by one candidate against the other – often,
by the way, perpetrated by Mr. Trump himself. I don't really think it
matters what the size of his fingers might be; I don't think it
matters that Rubio is definitely a thirsty young man. I don't think it
matters that Bush is low energy, although he is certainly is. These
are not the things that we should use to determine who our national
leaders should be. Obviously, they've all indulged in it from one time
or another. And I don't think the voters favor that. But the fact is
the voters are going to make up their minds based upon what's good for
the country, what's good for them individually. I think the voters
have this one right.
The
Republican establishment as reflected in Mitt Romney and others is
absolutely desperate to stop Donald Trump. But what really is
underneath it all is the fact that Trump does not adhere to the
Republican Orthodoxy: "they've never met a war they didn't like."
It is true that there are hawks within the Republican Party who
are dismayed by the fact that Donald Trump rightly points out that the
war in Iraq was a disaster in everyone's light. And they are
disconcerted by the fact that he is willing to criticize predecessors
like George W. Bush, and frankly, rightly so. America lost four
trillion dollars in the war in Iraq and we left a quarter of a million
of our young men and women with permanent brain abnormalities because
of injuries they suffered in that war. At least there is one
Republican candidate who is willing to actually address those issues
which has caused the hawks a great deal of consternation.
RT: After Donald Trump and Fox news journalist
Megyn Kelly's previous meeting, comedians and politicians alike have
taken quite a few shots at Trump. What should we expect further?
Richard Spencer from Radix Journal: I think we're
going to expect fireworks. In fact the mainstream media, the so-called
conservative movements and the Republican Party have all declared war
on Donald Trump. It was a silent war for many months, now it is an
explicit war. They want anyone but Trump; they want anyone else in the
Republican Party to win this nomination. It doesn't matter if Rubio is
a moderate and Ted Cruz is an extreme Libertarian or something. They
want anyone but Trump because Trump actually represents a different
ideology from traditional American conservatism. Trump actually
represents something closer to European nationalism. It is a version
of the right that is "let's look at the Americans first, let's use
the government to help the American people, let's actually have
friendly relations with great powers like Russia as opposed to: let's
democratize the world through bombing raids." So Trump really
represents something different. He represents a challenge to the
status quo. And that is why the conservative movement, the Republican
Party, the mainstream media are all out to get him.
RT: From Senator Marco Rubio to Mitt Romney
Trump doesn't seem to be afraid of any speeches condemning him. Why is
he so self-confident?
RS: Trump is self-confident because he is Trump;
he was born self-confident. But he is also self-confident because he
has so much popular support. He has brought so many new people into
the Republican Party and he has brought so many more people into the
Republican Party than Mitt Romney did who attacked him. The fact is
Trump's version of nationalism, this idea "it's not be the world's
policeman," let's actually look after ourselves, let's use the
government to help the people. This kind of nationalism that cuts
across left and right, cuts across liberal and conservative, cuts
across Democrats and Republicans. It is a new thing for Americans.
Trump is leading it. I would never have predicted that, but Trump is
leading it. And the fact is the status quo doesn't like it because
this is upsetting some of their assumptions. It is upsetting what they
take for granted and so they are all in unison attacking him. And in
the US the so-called conservatives, the left, the liberals they are
all attacking Trump of the exact same reasons.
RT: Is Trump likely to issue an apology after
his offensive comments towards Megyn Kelly?
RS: I couldn't imagine Donald Trump apologizing. I
don't think he said anything completely outrageous towards Megyn
Kelly. The fact is Megyn Kelly doesn't like Donald Trump. Megyn Kelly
wants the status quo to continue. Megun Kelly wants a neoconservative
candidate or a typical Republican candidate. Maybe Kelly doesn't like
this new kind of nationalism that Trump represents. So there's no way…
that Donald Trump will apologize to Megyn Kelly. What he said
effectively is that "Megyn Kelly is out to get me." … But the
fact is, Trump has proved that you don't need Fox News; Trump has
proved you don't need the GOP establishment; Trump has proved you
don't need the conservative movement establishment. Trump is Trump.
Trump has a populist base that's bigger than those forces.
"... Remember 2008 Obomo the CHANGE candidate, change you can believe in? Even got a Nobel Peace price before he started his presidency and turn out to be a Murderer-in-chief, Liar-in-chief, Warmonger-in-chief.... ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard is well-spoken and pretty. Bernie is not. This makes a balanced (appealing) ticket. That she has rescinded her DNC creds for Bernie is wonderful for Bernie. It is imperative that Bernie does not look this gift horse in the mouth. He MUST appoint Tulsi Gabbard as his Veep NOW and run with it. If he does not, then he is a sheep herder for Hillary. This is what I suggested all along. ..."
"... Aloha. Im Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. As a veteran of two Middle East deployments I know, first-hand, the cost of war. ..."
"... I know how important it is that our Commander in Chief has the sound judgement required to know when to use Americas military power and when not to use that power. ..."
"... Shes redefining Bernies campaign, taking over foreign policy as Commandress in Chief of, not the United States, but the armed forces. And shes just about to turn 35. Openly saying give peace a chance. I was going to write-her-in in the TX Democratic primary, now Ill vote Bernie ... if he does the obvious, the only, correct thing. Im afraid he wont though. Im afraid the sheepdog is running to lose. ..."
"... Corporate media will create a corporate state. I hope one day people will stop calling corporate media the mainstream media. It is corporately controlled media. It is not mainstream. ..."
"... REGIME CHANGE! She said the magic word! In the official Western narrative a thing called regime change does not exists. It is basically Putins propaganda, a pro-Russian false narrative that Putins Troll Army is trying to insert into the discussion. ..."
"... I never served but I was friends with a medic and Army Ranger. Neither came back the same. Special Ops do the worst things and medics see the worst things. ..."
"... The GOP is plotting against Der Fuehrer Trump, and Clintons DNC is busy rigging elections. ..."
"... I find it interesting that you posted this US political challenge to the Sanders camp. It is hard to not keep smoking that hopium stuff......if only we could nudge t he system a bit here or there and things will get better. I guess it is that or serious evolution and it may be too late for that to be effective for our species long term survival. ..."
"... POTUS makes fuckall difference. Even if they were saints, the rest of the corporate political complex would eat them alive before they could institute any meaningful change. I simply can not imagine any positive outcome of any US election whatsoever. How many times must we watch this circus repeat itself before connecting the dots? Its ann utter waste of energy. Remember, these idiots only have power that we the people give them. Well, they are not getting any from me. ..."
"... Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is a two-tour Iraq vet who has given the most blunt and accurate statements on what is really going on in Syria that I have seen from anyone in Washington. ..."
"... She just resigned her position as co-chair of the DNC to formally endorse Bernie Sanders, specifically because of his anti-imperialist leanings and despite the fact that his record is inconsistent on the relevant issues. ..."
"... I listened to a discussion on Dutch radio with 4 students attending Webster University on Leiden campus in The Netherlands. Students were divided in 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats and were asked about the election and how they observed it from outside the US. All four were equally abhorred by the circus and show man Trump. The two Democrats would vote for Sanders and the two Republicans were split, one was for John Kasich and the other was split between Rubio and Kasich. If Trump would be the Republican nominee, one of the Republican students would vote for Sanders and with a Trump as president, one of the students said she would not return to the US but live abroad. A particularly strong showing for Bernie Sanders! ..."
"... In 1906 German sociologist Werner Sombart wrote an essay entitled Why Is There No Socialism in the United States? that sought to explain why the US, alone among industrialized democracies, had not developed a major socialist movement. ..."
"... Today, however, we need to pose a different question: why are there socialists in the United States? In this nation that has long been resistant to socialisms call, who are all these people who now suddenly deem themselves socialists? Where did they come from? What do they mean by socialism? ..."
Tulsi Gabbard, a U.S. Congress representative from Hawaii, stepped down as a vice chair of the
Democrat National Committee to endorse Bernie Sanders. In the video below the fold she explains her
reasoning. It is Clinton's militarism in foreign policies that makes her take the other side.
Described as "libertarian-leaning progressive" the woman is smart, pretty and speaks well. She
is also a former officer in the U.S. military with combat experience and an interest in foreign policy.
Politically her endorsement is manna from heaven for Sanders.
Sanders should IMMEDIATELY offer her the Vice-President slot. Her task in the campaign is to stand
in on all foreign policy issues. Sanders then can continue to focus on inequality in the United States.
Hillary Clinton would have no chance to beat that team. Unlike the neoconned Clinton, a /bernie_sanders.Gabbard
ticket can attract young voters which will be needed to beat Trump. If Clinton runs against Trump
the large and growing "anything but Clinton" crowd would likely let her loose.
Someone tell Sanders that he better act fast to announce her nomination before Clinton collects
more states and takes away the buzz that the Sanders campaign urgently needs.
Remember 2008 Obomo the CHANGE candidate, change you can believe in? Even got a Nobel Peace
price before he started his presidency and turn out to be a Murderer-in-chief, Liar-in-chief,
Warmonger-in-chief....
When will we the VOTERS wake up and never trust any politicians?
Tulsi Gabbard is well-spoken and pretty. Bernie is not. This makes a balanced (appealing)
ticket. That she has rescinded her DNC creds for Bernie is wonderful for Bernie. It is imperative
that Bernie does not look this gift horse in the mouth. He MUST appoint Tulsi Gabbard as his Veep
NOW and run with it. If he does not, then he is a sheep herder for Hillary. This is what I suggested
all along.
I also said that JEB! would be our next President. I am happy to be wrong about that. BUT You
can't rule out the Bush Crime Family yet.
. . . but we need to think this Tulsi Gabbard thing through.
With a president that would be 75 yo, the country would have a 34 yo VP that is just one busted
aneurysm away from the most powerful position in the world . . . I mean, her surfing and karate
credentials notwithstanding, what happens when she goes toe-to-toe with Putin? Or Bibi?
Personally, I don't really care if she would just do a Sports Illustrated bathing suit cover
in the WH swimming pool. Or anywhere.
Aloha. I'm Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. As a veteran of two Middle East deployments I know,
first-hand, the cost of war.
I know how important it is that our Commander in Chief has the sound judgement required
to know when to use America's military power and when not to use that power.
As a vice-chair of the DNC, I'm required to stay neutral in Democratic primaries, but I
cannot remain neutral any longer. The stakes are just too high.
Thats why, today, I'm endorsing Senator Bernie Sanders to be our next President and Commander
in Chief of the United States.
We need a Commander in Chief
- who has foresight,
- who exercises good judgement, and
- who understands the need for a robust foreign policy, which defends the safety and security
of the American people, and
- who will not waste precious lives and money on interventionist wars of regime change.
Such counterproductive wars undermine our national security and economic prosperity.
As these elections continue across the country, the American people are faced with a very
clear choice :
- we can elect a president who will lead us to more interventionist wars of regime change,
or
- we can elect a president who will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity.
It's with this clear choice in mind that I am resigning as vice chair of the DNC so that
I can strongly support Bernie Sanders as the Democratic Nominee for President of the United
States.
And now I ask you. Stand with me. And support Bernie Sanders.
She's redefining Bernie's campaign, taking over foreign policy as Commandress in Chief of,
not the United States, but the armed forces. And she's just about to turn 35. Openly saying give
peace a chance. I was going to write-her-in in the TX Democratic primary, now I'll vote Bernie
... if he does the obvious, the only, correct thing. I'm afraid he won't though. I'm afraid the
sheepdog is running to lose.
Bernie will likely lose the election tomorrow. The Southern States will vote for Clinton and they
will decide the election. Its shocking and appalling that the deciding states will be states that
the Democrats will never win in a general election.
I am holding out hope for Texas. A lot of young people will vote for Sanders and I hope that
latinos will vote against Clinton. I can not understand why latinos would vote for a candidate
that sends back young children and supports the policies of the Deporter in Chief.
I have had to hold back some rascist sounding rants lately. I am not a racist but it is hard
to not sound like one when black voters are voting at 90% for Clinton. How can one hope to not
stereotype when an ethnic group is voting at those rates. It'd be one thing if she did not constantly
use "dog whistle" language.
O and on MSNBC, I watch it for background noise, had a 5-10 minute rally for Trump on TV.
Not a mention of the 40 cities that held Bernie marches or Tulsi Gabbard. Everything is about
the republicans.
Corporate media will create a corporate state. I hope one day people will stop calling
corporate media the mainstream media. It is corporately controlled media. It is not mainstream.
And finally, Jill Stein is a joke. She managed to win a city council seat. If you want to go
with a third party check out the Justice Party. The Green Party is a bunch of well off white liberals
that managed to chase a Civil Rights leader (Elaine Brown) out of the party. I do not know where
Jill Stein stood on that issue. I doubt it was on the right side since many people left the party
over that issue.
REGIME CHANGE! She said the magic word! In the official Western narrative a thing called "regime
change" does not exists. It is basically Putin's propaganda, a pro-Russian false narrative that
Putin's Troll Army is trying to insert into the discussion.
The concept is similar to "Color Revolution". Just two years ago Russian media, including
RT , would always write "color revolution" in
quotes . Now they are
openly using the term.
Inkan1969 | Feb 29, 2016 6:15:57 PM | 34
"...interventionist wars of regime change"
sound like clichés.
Any revolutionary idea, once it is universally adopted, becomes a cliché. We are still a long
way from calling R2P by its proper name, regime change .
I never served but I was friends with a medic and Army Ranger. Neither came back the same.
Special Ops do the worst things and medics see the worst things.
Medics treat soldiers and civilians. They give treatment at the front. I do not know if she
was on the front lines but medics see action and she has seen some of the worst injuries and deaths.
I do not doubt her credibility on this issue. I may disagree on some points but I do not doubt
that she is actually aware of what is at stake.
To prohibit the use of funds for the provision of assistance to Syrian opposition groups
and individuals.
1.Prohibition on provision of assistance to Syrian opposition groups and individuals
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds available to the Central Intelligence
Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved
in intelligence activities, or to the National Security Council or its staff may not be obligated
or expended to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, stipends, construction
of training and associated facilities, and sustainment, to any element of the Syrian opposition
or to any other Syrian group or individual seeking to overthrow the government of the Syrian
Arab Republic, unless, after the date of the enactment of this Act, funds are specifically
authorized to be appropriated and appropriated by law for such purpose.
@38 Kalen, 'blatantly abandoning their unalienable rights to self-determination and democratic
system of people's rule, based on equality in the law, and one voter one vote principle.'
Yeah. That's our problem all right. You get a gold star for mentioning it. Care to take a stab
at a solution?
@39 AEF ' I am not a racist but it is hard not to sound like one when black voters are voting
at 90% for Clinton.'
Glen
Ford's not a racist either. Don't blame the victims ... they've been voting the lessor of
two evils since they've been 'allowed' to vote.
On the one hand; it amazes me to see the excitement about "possibilities" in the bread and circuses.
There is always the shiny; in this case it's Tulsi Gabbard; she'll save Bernie.
The GOP is plotting against Der Fuehrer Trump, and Clinton's DNC is busy rigging elections.
But on the other hand; it's a sad example that most just cannot grasp the reality of what's
really happened to the U.S..
Short of a genuine revolution (you know; in the streets, pitchforks and all) it's over. Your
votes are a cruel joke to maintain the illusion.
But I guess it's just too horrendous to contemplate the present reality for most folks. So,
you remain compliant victims of your own sloth.
I find it interesting that you posted this US political challenge to the Sanders camp. It
is hard to not keep smoking that hopium stuff......if only we could nudge t he system a bit here
or there and things will get better. I guess it is that or serious evolution and it may be too
late for that to be effective for our species long term survival.
I was an early supporter of Sanders but have lost the energy to face the "no-one-is-good-enough
Jack Smith types as well as the "Its Her Turn" types. I wonder how many are being paid to infect
MoA with agnotology?
The next two weeks should be interesting as we see the machinations of the past political machinery
react to and attempt to manufacture cohesion around the 2016 race for the puppet house.
Now it the haters/non-sharing types could be shut down as effectively as the Occupy folks were.........
If Sanders wants to win, he should appoint Tulsi as his running mate.
But she announced her decision YESTERDAY MORNING(!!) and he hasn't done so.
Now he has missed the opportunity for Super Tuesday (with 12 States voting) .
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Tulsi is perfect because she can appeal to women and people of color and she brings military/foreign
experience that Sanders sorely lacks.
I hope that the failure of Sanders to seize yet another opportunity TO WIN will open
the eyes of those that just can't believe that Sanders values his connection to the Democratic
leadership (Obama, Hillary, Schumer, and more are 'friends') is far more important to him than
winning. He really IS a sheepdog.
Once we understand that it is about what kind of a society we want to live in, other questions
arise. How much is enough for each of us? How much is too much? At what point does someone's amassing
of what ultimately are our resources represent an unacceptable taking from the rest of us? When
the moral and societal elements are given their rightful place in the discussion, it doesn't take
a lot to understand why modern economics and politics go to such lengths to excise any mention
of them. Modern economics and politics are tools of the rich and elites whose purpose is to maintain
their wealth and position at our expense. If morality is brought up, they have no defense. They
lose. So they make sure it is never brought up. Problem solved.
Hugh, from Ian Welsh's blog - February 29, 2016
I thought this was a great statement of the U.S.'s dilemma; one which isn't being, and won't
be, resolved.
But all that CIA money failed to corrupt the Syrian military officers. The soldiers reported
the CIA's bribery attempts to the Ba'athist regime. In response, the Syrian army invaded the
American Embassy, taking Stone prisoner. After harsh interrogation, Stone made a televised
confession of his roles in the Iranian coup and the CIA's aborted attempt to overthrow Syria's
legitimate government. The Syrians ejected Stone and two U.S. Embassy staffers-the first time
any American State Department diplomat was barred from an Arab country. The Eisenhower White
House hollowly dismissed Stone's confession as "fabrications" and "slanders," a denial swallowed
whole by the American press, led by the New York Times and believed by the American people,
who shared Mosaddegh's idealistic view of their government. Syria purged all politicians sympathetic
to the U.S. and executed for treason all military officers associated with the coup. In retaliation,
the U.S. moved the Sixth Fleet to the Mediterranean, threatened war and goaded Turkey to invade
Syria. The Turks assembled 50,000 troops on Syria's borders and backed down only in the face
of unified opposition from the Arab League whose leaders were furious at the U.S. intervention.
Even after its expulsion, the CIA continued its secret efforts to topple Syria's democratically
elected Ba'athist government. The CIA plotted with Britain's MI6 to form a "Free Syria Committee"
and armed the Muslim Brotherhood to assassinate three Syrian government officials, who had
helped expose "the American plot," according to Matthew Jones in "The 'Preferred Plan': The
Anglo-American Working Group Report on Covert Action in Syria, 1957." The CIA's mischief pushed
Syria even further away from the U.S. and into prolonged alliances with Russia and Egypt.
Maybe the move is by Democrats worried about their jobs, who see the increasingly likely outcome
of a matchup between The Hil and The Donald : The Donald wins. They've already lost the congress.
The first time I heard the name Tulsi Gabbard was when she co-sponsored
HR 4108 calling
for a cutoff in support for al-CIAduh in Syria. The link there, posted by somebody, was to herself
being interviewed - primed and boosted really - by Wolf Blitzer. I discovered then that she was
a vice-chair of the DNC. In her thirties. She must have sold her soul to the devils of DNC already
at that point.
Sorry I'm so cynical about anyone who is allowed to get as far as she has within the beast
itself, but it seems the only prudent stance to take. Even though I want to believe that there
is an alternative to The Donald/The Hil ... there simply cannot be one - a real one - from 'above'.
I know that, knew that ... yet hope dies last.
The only workable action that I can see is as layed out in
write-in elections
, or something else along those lines ... but frankly, the silence is deafening. It's a decade+
'fix', but it's taken several decades to get where we are today ... all my lifetime, I suppose.
I was born in 1947, the same year as the CIA
A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. There will be a tomorrow, no matter
how horrid it is, and we need to prepare for it. Well the road will rise to meet us, prepared
or no, so we ought to prepare. We are 300+ million Americans ... how can we not be able to gain
control of 546 federal positions ... and all the rest ... if we just put our minds and bodies
to the task?
It's a question of acting, or not. Simple as that. 'Not' entails a strict diet of death, devastation,
destruction, and deceit. I'm always open to suggestions on the proposed actions to take. If we
had begun in 2004 ... so let's finally begin today.
POTUS makes fuckall difference. Even if they were saints, the rest of the corporate political
complex would eat them alive before they could institute any meaningful change. I simply can not
imagine any positive outcome of any US election whatsoever. How many times must we watch this
circus repeat itself before connecting the dots? Its ann utter waste of energy. Remember, these
idiots only have power that we the people give them. Well, they are not getting any from me.
I agree. Trump is as racist as Sanders is socialist. Both are populists.
The only way to defeat the establishment is to be populist.
Sanders is actually more establishment than Trump. Sanders talks about Obama, Hillary, Schumer
as 'friends', while Trump talks about how politicians are puppets.
At the end of the day, people NEED to stop allowing themselves to be GAMED by the duopoly
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is a two-tour Iraq vet who has given the most blunt
and accurate statements on what is really going on in Syria that I have seen from anyone in Washington.
She just resigned her position as co-chair of the DNC to formally endorse Bernie Sanders,
specifically because of his anti-imperialist leanings and despite the fact that his record is
inconsistent on the relevant issues.
With people like her advising him, it might just be possible to educate him on the realities
of the "war on terror," what countries are behind them and why. Since Clinton is one of those
behind them, those who want to dismiss Sanders for his inconsistencies on these issues might want
to think again.
I called Gabbard's office today and invited her to join VFP. I hope my friends in Hawaii will
email her and support the idea, and ask their friends to do the same. And if you are not in Hawaii,
you can call her office and encourage others to do the same!
I have just found some news that Tulsi Gabbard may have personal links to a Hare Krishna cult
known as Science of Identity (whose leader is Christ Butler aka Jagad Guru). Her Chief of Staff
Kainoa Ramananda Penaroza and office manager Anya F Anthony are members of this cult. Rather than
overload my comment with several links, I suggest everyone should Google the names I have just
given.
I found out also that Gabbard opposed HR 417 which criticised the Indian government's handling
of the Gujarat state riots in 2002 that left 2000 people dead and 100,000 homeless. At the time,
Gabbard's buddy Narendra Modi was Chief Minister of Gujarat state and there are rumours that he
looked the other way when the rioting broke out.
I listened to a discussion on Dutch radio with 4 students attending
Webster University
on Leiden campus in The Netherlands. Students were divided in 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats
and were asked about the election and how they observed it from outside the US. All four were
equally abhorred by the circus and show man Trump. The two Democrats would vote for Sanders and
the two Republicans were split, one was for John Kasich and the other was split between Rubio
and Kasich. If Trump would be the Republican nominee, one of the Republican students would vote
for Sanders and with a Trump as president, one of the students said she would not return to the
US but live abroad. A particularly strong showing for Bernie Sanders!
In 1906 German sociologist Werner Sombart wrote an essay entitled "
Why Is There No Socialism in the United States? " that sought to explain why the US, alone
among industrialized democracies, had not developed a major socialist movement.
Today, however, we need to pose a different question: why are there socialists in the
United States? In this nation that has long been resistant to socialism's call, who are all
these people who now suddenly deem themselves socialists? Where did they come from? What do
they mean by socialism?
"... "This is a call for the immediate arrest of President Bill Clinton for
clear, knowing and egregious violation of the campaign laws to swing an election
in a significant way," ..."
"... "It could not be any clearer in the Massachusetts General Laws...[prohibiting]
campaigning within 150 feet of a polling station…Clinton was not only electioneering
within the boundary…photos and video show him greeting and talking up election workers
inside," ..."
A petition calling for the arrest of former President Bill Clinton for alleged
election law violations has gained over 60,000 signatures. He made appearances
at three polling precincts in Massachusetts on Super Tuesday. State officials
said he acted legally.
"This is a call for the immediate arrest of President Bill Clinton for
clear, knowing and egregious violation of the campaign laws to swing an election
in a significant way," said the petition to Massachusetts Attorney General
Maura Healey.
"It could not be any clearer in the Massachusetts General Laws...[prohibiting]
campaigning within 150 feet of a polling station…Clinton was not only electioneering
within the boundary…photos and video show him greeting and talking up election
workers inside," added the petition.
By Wednesday evening, 68,568 people had
signed the petition.
David Dayen at The Intercept has ferreted out that Larry Fink, CEO of the
giant asset manager BlackRock, is keen to become Treasury Secretary, and
has positioned himself accordingly. He'salready has such a strong influence
on Hillary's Clinton's thinking to the degree that even Andrew Ross Sorkin
has taken note of how she closely she echoes on financial service industry
matters: "…"could have been channeling Laurence D. Fink." This might seem
to be a happy coincidence were not it not for the way Fink has curried favor
with as having strong ties to Treasury by virtue of having hired former
staffers. Per Dayen:
Fink's most telling hire, however, is Cheryl Mills, arguably Clinton's
most trusted confidante. Mills was Clinton's chief of staff at the State
Department, was deputy White House counsel in the Bill Clinton administration,
and is on the board of directors of the Clinton Foundation. Fink hired
Mills for the BlackRock board of directors in October 2013, in what
observers mused was a ploy to insinuate himself into the Clinton inner
circle.
Among other BlackRock officials with ties to Clinton: Senior Managing
Director Matthew Mallow is a "Hillblazer" who has helped raise $100,000
or more in donations. Clinton held a fundraiser earlier this month at
Mallow's New York City home. There is no indication of Fink himself
contributing financially to the Clinton campaign.
"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." – Marcellus to Horatio,
Hamlet, William Shakespeare
It's the corruption, stupid!
Shakespeare portrayed Denmark as a breeding ground of political as well
as spiritual corruption, a courtyard of human villainy.
Hillary Clinton calls it the "artful smear." Trust her. Voters say they
want honesty, when they also admire a ruthless leader.
With BlackRock's Fink in the Clinton camp, it is a fish that rots from
head to tail.
Her voters just don't get it. It's the corruption, stupid!
Surely this is the best of all possible worlds. If the great Dr. Pangloss
were here, he might say something of the sort: Truth is a precious commodity.
That's why I use it so sparingly. Lots of folks confuse bad management with
destiny.
AARP vs "60 Plus Association" (an example of a sponsored group more interested
in fake grass roots politics, than seniors' real interests)?
I have many very conservative friends, especially from back when I was
still a Republican. I left the party, though, about the same time Elizabeth
Warren did, and after a fund raiser asked us to "Fight Dirtier than Democrats."
Part of the strategy they wanted us to use was described in what I recall
as a Cato Institute suggestion to use "Leninist" propaganda (and implied
soft sabotage), exemplified in the 1996 Newt Gingrich/Frank Luntz GoPac
memo, "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control."
Part of the propaganda seemed creation of astro-turf groups like, to
me, the greatly inflated descriptions of the suspiciously sponsored "60
Plus Association" as a supposedly preferred alternative to AARP (which they
attacked for some other motives not revealed to the public, but using their
sales of insurance policies as a major "public" criticism), even though
some checking revealed the 60 Plus Association seemed far more focused on
insurance sales to the exclusion of the far more comprehensive activities
AARP participated in than just insurance sales.
By the way, very many business entities aimed at seniors seem to concentrate
on insurance sales, or include ads linked to insurance sales. You need to
judge for yourself which are opportunists vs worthy stewards of seniors'
interests and financial well being. I started by comparing the actual number
of members vs the secret sponsor's implied numbers.
That said, for me, the moment of truth that Hillary Clinton is going
to break any and all of her campaign promises to her non rich constituents,
particularly regarding the social safety net, is the moment she takes the
oath of office. For presidents, that has been the bedrock test since at
least the 1970's.
The knot in the pit of my stomach tells me that this is where she really
is on the economic policy spectrum, her recent efforts to try to eat Sanders'
lunch by appropriating some of his economic message notwithstanding: there's
a reason why she gravitates to someone like Fink. There's a reason Cheryl
Mills has been rewarded with a seat on BlackRock's Board of Directors.
Whether or not Fink is or isn't a contributor to the Clinton campaign,
that he is being floated as a possible Treasury Secretary is an example
of how the money she has "earned" on the speaking circuit has influenced
her thinking.
Either way, I don't know how she continues to credibly defend the conflicts
inherent in her relationship with the financial industry, nor do I know
how she credibly continues to portray herself as a champion of the 99%.
I don't believe her, and I certainly don't trust her.
Telling for me have been some of the recent interactions with voters
who have questioned her record on criminal justice and diversity; there's
an attitude of how-dare-you-question-me that has crept into her tone and
body language that isn't disguised by her unbelievably phony smile: it reveals
the depth of her ambition and her anger at having to work this hard for
a nomination that was not supposed to be challenged.
So, the Fink thing for me, is just one more thing I always suspected
and feared was waiting in the wings; I shudder to contemplate what else
is in that Pandora's Box.
Sanders should appoint a "forward cabinet," start building his cabinet
in advance. The advantages are huge.
1) This will lend further credibility of his platform to the skeptic
as well as give an opportunity to vet his candidates in advance, building
to the credibility of his message.
2) Add greater resolution to his agenda as his cabinet picks will have greater
expertise on the subject and backing up said position with more academic
muscle. He wouldn't be quite so helpless when being assaulted by hack economics
such as the gang of four.
3) Adds to the manpower he can add to the campaign. Assuming he can recruit
them to the campaign trail. Instead of just his VP, this is really little
more than a spokes person. Cabinet picks can be deployed to shore up battle
areas.
4) On winning, now the forward cabinet has a degree of vetting from the
voter, making it harder for the Senate to vote the pick down. The people
already know who they are and what they are about.
5) If gives fuel for Senatorial races. Senatorial candidates can declare
their support for Sander's nominee in advance as use that as a plank in
there own platform.
6) One taking office, Sanders could hit the ground running. With a cabinet
already in hand, the only thing he needs is approval from the Senate.
All Cabinet members are nominated by the President and then presented
to the Senate for confirmation or rejection by a simple majority – Wikipedia
Senator Elizabeth Warren and a few others [Sanders, Sherron Brown] might
challenge the nomination of Fink… and would Hillary risk a confrontation
with Warren et al so early in her administration? The stink over Fink would
be telling… Privatizing Social Security is a political minefield with opposition
likely from both sides of the spectrum as it enjoys widespread support.
And to the extent that Hillary would likely seek reelection to a second
term, privatizing Social Security in her first would jeopardize, if not
kill, her prospects. But once a lame duck…
Looks like neocons will attack Trump, fearing that he might expose their role in 9/11 and become
an obstacle for their interventionalist foreign policy
A civil war within Republican party officially stated. The party elite opens fight against the
choice of rank-and-file members. Marco Rubio and Kasich are no longer running for president. They are
running to keep Trump from being president.
Notable quotes:
Notable quotes:
"... And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the chance. ..."
"... In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power. ..."
"... Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later. But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign." ..."
"... Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement. ..."
"... Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight." ..."
"... Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee. ..."
It was a stirring call to arms for a strategic-voting retreat.
And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio,
Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging
as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the
chance.
Along the way, Trump has skated. In one remarkable statistic, Trump suffered less in attack ads
through Super Tuesday than Romney's team hurled at Newt Gingrich in the final days in Florida alone
in 2012. The Republican Party's top financiers are mobilizing now, with millions in anti-Trump ads
expected in the next two weeks, but it may be too late to slow Trump after he has carried 10 of the
first 15 contests, many of them by wide margins.
In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican
civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of
outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power.
(Also, by not picking a single anti-Trump standard-bearer, Romney, who briefly considered running
for president again in 2016, left slightly more open the door that might allow a contested convention
to select him.)
"He's playing the members of the American public for suckers," Romney said of Trump. "He gets
a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat."
Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee
for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later.
But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded
during this campaign."
Romney ripped about Trump's business background, ticking off bankruptcies and abandoned efforts.
"What ever happened to Trump Airlines?" he said. "How about Trump University? And then there's Trump
Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage?" "A business genius he is not," Romney
said. Of Trump's varied stances on issues, Romney added, "Dishonesty is Donald Trump's hallmark."
Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008
Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend
and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement.
"Well said," tweeted Kasich.
Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney
for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to
one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine
happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent
hotel and having his endorsement is a delight."
On Thursday, Trump hammered back on NBC's "Today" show: "Mitt Romney is a stiff."
Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament,
his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered
Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader
rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee.
Said Justin Barasky, a spokesman for the super PAC dedicated to electing Hillary Clinton, understatedly,
"Certainly, having a former Republican nominee go after him is not unhelpful."
Hillary Clinton has extended her lead in the race for the White House, beating Bernie Sanders
in the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll by 30 points in the battle for Democrat contender. But
it's her email account that's making headlines here in the UK. Specifically, emails from George
W. Bush's secretary of state Colin Powell ahead of Britain joining the American war on Iraq.
Afshin Rattansi goes underground with his former chief of staff, retired United States Army
Colonel Larry Wilkerson.
"... Bernie Sanders would be crazy to drop out while there is (apparently) an open FBI investigation into the email/Clinton Foundation situation ..."
"... Bernie Sanders has done more than reversing Citizens United ever could to get big money out of politics, at least for Democrats. I cant imagine anyone ever again running on a progressive platform while hauling in Wall Street/pharma/fossil, etc money by the tanker load. ..."
"... Sanders actually did really good. Hes up against not just Hillary, but her husband; they are a political juggernaut. Its David vs Goliath. Bernie will most likely lose, but hes done amazingly well using a sling and rocks. ..."
"... I want Sanders to stay in the race, because each victory or strong finish sends a message to the Democratic Party that a great many of us are tired of business as usual. We are tired of wimpiness and acquiescence in the face of the Republicans top-down class warfare, we are tired of neocon war-mongering, we are tired of knowing that our country is falling behind in indicators of social health while the rich get richer, and we are tired of being told to sit down and shut up and respect our betters until the party needs money and volunteers. ..."
"... So tired of this author and his shilling for Hillary. Given the incredibly biased media slant, its a wonder Bernie has done as well as he has. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders is the only hope for the US working class to achieve change for clearly the Clinton regime has in no way shown by past behavior the intense motivation nor policy settings required to overthrow the conservative Democratic and Republican political establishment to break the economic and social chains of the US working class nor provide them with the means by which the US working class can even perceive the true nature of their condition. ..."
"... I wish all those Hillary voters in southern states be they black, hispanic, asian, white, or whatever, would wake up and realize they are effectively voting for Trump. ..."
"... I think why people are irritated by politicians, pollsters and the media is because in a 220 meter race, you guys call it after the first 10 meters. Well then whats the point of the race, why do we go thru it all? In a democracy where everyone gets a vote, we all feel that the first 10 voters in line decide the race and the rest of us just confirm the results. Id say this is why everyone throws up their hands in disgust every election cycle. ..."
"... The movement Sanders started is not about him or just this election. ..."
"... Remember, one year ago Bernie was at 3%. Now he is drawing sizable numbers of voters and winning outright a few primaries. The issues he champions, which the American people need championed (even Trump voters), dominate the Democratic conversation. Bernie may not win the nomination but the movement he started wins so long so as these issues are addressed. ..."
"... So, as planned and predicted, the South went for the establishment candidate. However, all those Southern states will go red in November. A large percentage of Bernie supporters would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. So there is much more to be learned about whether Hillary is in fact a viable candidate in the national election. ..."
"... What a stupid primary system we have. The whole thing is decided by 15 states ..."
"... Why would black voters who suffer disproportionately from poverty and lack of access to higher education vote for the Wall St candidate who is not proposing universal health care or free college? Not to mention Hillarys other centrist policies which would not help the black community nearly to the degree Bernies would. Is this another situation of low income whites voting Republican? ..."
"... Hillary as the nominee will lead to a Trump presidency. ..."
1) Bernie Sanders would be crazy to drop out while there is (apparently) an open FBI investigation
into the email/Clinton Foundation situation
2) Bernie Sanders has done more than reversing Citizens United ever could to get big money out
of politics, at least for Democrats. I can't imagine anyone ever again running on a progressive
platform while hauling in Wall Street/pharma/fossil, etc money by the tanker load.
Marc New York City 3 minutes ago
Sanders actually did really good. He's up against not just Hillary, but her husband; they are
a political juggernaut. Its David vs Goliath. Bernie will most likely lose, but he's done amazingly
well using a sling and rocks.
I want Sanders to stay in the race, because each victory or strong finish sends a message to
the Democratic Party that a great many of us are tired of business as usual. We are tired of wimpiness
and acquiescence in the face of the Republicans' top-down class warfare, we are tired of neocon
war-mongering, we are tired of knowing that our country is falling behind in indicators of social
health while the rich get richer, and we are tired of being told to sit down and shut up and respect
our betters until the party needs money and volunteers.
Twelve years ago, Dennis Kucinich campaigned on an even more radical platform than Bernie and
won no more than 17% in any state. It was easy for the Democratic Establishment to dismiss him.
Yet tonight, Bernie is ahead in most of Minnesota. Even in my affluent and utterly conventional
corner of Minneapolis, the score was Hillary over Bernie, but at 55%-45%. In contrast, in my precinct
in 2004, Kucinich got 20% to Kerry's 80%.
One of the nice features of the Minnesota caucus system is that anyone can submit a resolution
which, if accepted, will work its way up to the state level, and perhaps even to the national
level. One of the most enthusiastically affirmed resolutions was one urging the replacement of
Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair.
The rank-and-file are restless, and the Democrats ignore that at their peril.
So tired of this author and his shilling for Hillary. Given the incredibly biased media slant,
it's a wonder Bernie has done as well as he has.
Bernie should continue. It would be risky for the Democrats to settle too early on a candidate
who is currently under investigation by the FBI, especially if she were to be indicted.
Voting for Clinton is voting for the past to remain in the present.
Bernie Sanders is the only hope for the US working class to achieve change for clearly the Clinton
regime has in no way shown by past behavior the intense motivation nor policy settings required
to overthrow the conservative Democratic and Republican political establishment to break the economic
and social chains of the US working class nor provide them with the means by which the US working
class can even perceive the true nature of their condition.
A condition the Clinton regime has no intention of challenging because to do so means questioning
the Clinton regime own continuing culpability in keeping the US working class in the cave of shadows
whilst they play with the projector along with the rest of the US political elite for their own
tawdry benefit.
I wish all those Hillary voters in southern states be they black, hispanic, asian, white,
or whatever, would wake up and realize they are effectively voting for Trump. Bernie has
a much better chance of beating Trump - voting for Hillary is dangerously stupid.
I think why people are irritated by politicians, pollsters and the media is because in a 220
meter race, you guys call it after the first 10 meters. Well then what's the point of the race,
why do we go thru it all? In a democracy where everyone gets a vote, we all feel that the first
10 voters in line decide the race and the rest of us just confirm the results. I'd say this is
why everyone throws up their hands in disgust every election cycle.
What's your real job here Nate? To call the election as early as possible. To spin the numbers
so as to discourage people to even vote? To what benefit? I don't think your analysis is incorrect,
I think the act of analysis is not productive. Its a discouragement to a participatory democracy.
The movement Sanders started is not about him or just this election. One year ago the conventional
wisdom said that HRC would coast to a coronation. That has not happened and will not . Wherever Bernie
finishes, he has defined the Democratic platform. He has not only invigorated the Democratic Left,
reminding older voters of the idealism of their youth, but imprinted on Millennials the values and
virtues of economic justice, social fairness, and political equality. And here's the kicker: to Millennials,
there is nothing left-wing about free college education, universal health care, overturning Citizens
United to take money out of elections, and ending the excesses of crony capitalism. They are the
future, and they are inspired to get involved.
Hillary is benefiting from the loyalty of African Americans, especially older women, practically
every senior Democrat elected official, and the mainstream media. In short, it's her turn, and she
is being rewarded for her patience, perseverance and diligence.
Remember, one year ago Bernie was at 3%. Now he is drawing sizable numbers of voters and winning
outright a few primaries. The issues he champions, which the American people need championed (even
Trump voters), dominate the Democratic conversation. Bernie may not win the nomination but the movement
he started wins so long so as these issues are addressed.
Sanders has revitalized American democracy and morality, and for that all Americans should be grateful.
Super Tuesday was set up after Jimmy Carter came out of nowhere in the '70s. The whole point,
why the DNC was in favor of this, was for the conservative South to favor the establishment's preferred
candidate, and hopefully weed out any upstart grass roots candidates.
So, as planned and predicted, the South went for the establishment candidate. However, all those
Southern states will go red in November. A large percentage of Bernie supporters would not vote for
Hillary under any circumstances. So there is much more to be learned about whether Hillary is in
fact a viable candidate in the national election.
A CNN poll today found Bernie beating Trump, Cruz and Rubio handily. It found Hillary beating Trump
(but by a smaller percentage than Bernie) and losing to Cruz and Rubio. And still, there is the FBI
investigation . . .
There is much more to be revealed. This is one election where it ain't over 'til it's over.
So my vote doesn't matter Mr. Cohn? The votes of the people in that states that have not voted
yet don't matter? What a stupid primary system we have. The whole thing is decided by 15 states.
Instead of cowardly using "all but blocked", why doesn't the New York Times "tell it like is" and
say, "Hey America, Hillary won big in the South. Your votes don't matter. Just wait until November
to vote." That way she saves money, and Americans don't waste their time voting in elections that
have already been decided.
Readers, why don't we all stop checking the NY Times for updates on the campaign? It's over. Just
check the aggregate sights to see who got hurt in the latest Trump rally. See you all in November!
Black voters in the South are very different than those in the North. In Connecticut, I am working
with a number of African Americans with the President Sanders Campaign. These individuals are embarrassed
with the terrible turnout, especially because those voters stand to profit substantially in a Sander's
Administration. There's a lot of change coming still…fringe candidate to the top of the national
polls. It's called exponential slow growth.
Why would black voters who suffer disproportionately from poverty and lack of access to higher
education vote for the Wall St candidate who is not proposing universal health care or free college?
Not to mention Hillary's other centrist policies which would not help the black community nearly
to the degree Bernie's would.
Is this another situation of low income whites voting Republican?
Last night, you may have heard a caller talking about a disturbing incident at the polls
yesterday. The NightSide team has done some digging, and you might be shocked at what we've found!
Tonight we'll give you an update and talk about the fine line between assisting a disabled voter
and committing voter fraud. Do you think there should be stricter voting laws?
"... Barring a coup at the nomination convention, Trump is probably going to win the R nomination. We can hope for such a coup, because just about anybody else would be better, imo, in the event of a Republican win. ..."
"... This is a once in a lifetime matchup, probably the first time ever, with both parties likely running the oppositions dream candidate. Every hard core R hates HRCs guts, ditto every hard core D hates Trumps guts. ..."
Things have been changing pretty damned fast for the last few decades, and lots of things that
were once considered unthinkable are now realities. I can't see any reason to think fast change
won't continue, or that some previously unthinkable things won't come to pass, within the easily
foreseeable future.
With a D in the WH next time around, a substantial increase in the federal oil taxes is a very
real possibility. It won't be a very big increase, in and of itself, maybe a nickel or dime a
gallon, but just a nickel would be a hugh percentage increase. The D voter with a job won't kick
about a nickel or a dime, and poor people who can't afford to drive will enjoy sticking it to
supposedly rich R voters any way.
And for what it's worth, barring HRC being indicted, or some other equally unlikely event,
and that idiot Trump getting the nomination, I am now leaning towards believing there will be
a D in the WH next time around. Sanders is a long shot,but if he gets the nomination, just about
every body who will vote for HRC will vote for Sanders.
Trump is going to go into the election, if he gets the nomination, with the highest negatives
of any R candidate EVER, at least as far back as WWII. Tens of millions of people will turn out
to vote AGAINST him, probably even more than will turn out to vote against HRC, who has extremely
high negatives herself.
Barring a coup at the nomination convention, Trump is probably going to win the R nomination.
We can hope for such a coup, because just about anybody else would be better, imo, in the event
of a Republican win.
This is a once in a lifetime matchup, probably the first time ever, with both parties likely
running the opposition's dream candidate. Every hard core R hates HRC's guts, ditto every hard
core D hates Trump's guts.
The thing about an increase in the gasoline tax is that once the dam breaks, more increases
will be politically palatable.
My initial impression last year regarding Trump, which I am still leaning toward, is that
Trump's goal is to get Hillary elected president
I doubt it. Trump will definitely try to use email scandal against her. Even among democrats
way too many people hate Hillary due to her track record and personal traits.
How Trump can help her? Trump voters will never vote for Hillary. The same is true for considerable
part of Sanders voters. Many people understand that she is in the pocket of large banks and essentially
voting for Hillary is voting for GS.
Also a lot of people in the military are vary of Hillary as the Commander in Chief (the same
is true for Trump). And that is a powerful voting block. Please listen to what Tulsi Gabbard said:
What really surprised me is that South Carolina black population was brainwashed or bought
to vote for her. That's a slap at Martin Luther King face. I wonder how much money it cost her
to buy SC black establishment.
What an election cycle for feminism! Both Democratic primary candidates are
running as self-declared feminists. One of them, Hillary Clinton, would, if
elected, also be the first woman to serve as president of the United States.
Major feminist organizations like Planned Parenthood have endorsed her, as have
feminist leaders and heroines as varied as Gloria Steinem, Lena Dunham, Roxane
Gay and Eileen Myles.
Clinton and her supporters often point to the potential of a woman president
to inspire little girls, letting them know that women can do anything. Yet her
own life narrative is not a stirring feminist parable. It is probably true that
neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton could have come so far without the other. But
who wants to advise our daughters to marry an ambitious, egomaniacal man; stay
with him no matter what; and be the first lady for many years? Eventually it
will be your turn. Is this a career plan?
Hillary Clinton is not alone: Around the world, many female heads of state
have attained their positions through marriage or bloodlines. While it is common
for a woman to advance in this way, it is neither interesting nor feminist.
... ... ...
With so many politically active young people fighting racism and the police
state, it's no wonder that so-called "millennial" feminists have been rejecting
Clinton in favor of her opponent. Many have also been troubled by her personal
conduct toward women outside of her elite circles, especially on another issue
of salience to this generation: rape. Hillary Clinton has said, "Every survivor
of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed and supported." But that has
not been her attitude toward women who have accused her husband. Juanita Broaddrick,
a nurse who accused Bill Clinton of raping her in 1978 and is now, at 72, still
telling the same story,
has said Hillary Clinton tried to pressure her to remain silent about the charges.
(Bill Clinton has denied raping Broaddrick, and Clinton supporters point to
a lack of documentation for Broaddrick's charges that Hillary tried to silence
her; anyone who thinks they know for certain what happened should be regarded
skeptically.) Bill Clinton was also accused of rape and harassment by two other
women.
During the Clinton administration, speaking about sexual harassment
accusations against moderate Republican Sen. Bob Packwood, a needed ally on
health care, Hillary Clinton grumbled to a friend, who later described Hillary
as
"tired of all the whiny women."
Hillary Clinton's mudslinging and slut-shaming campaigns against women who
claimed to have had consensual sex with her husband are
well documented. In his memoir, George Stephanopoulos, quotes Hillary Clinton
as saying of one such woman, "We have to destroy her story." Hillary biographer
Carl Bernstein describes Hillary directing an "aggressive, explicit" campaign
to discredit Gennifer Flowers, an actress who said she had a long affair with
Bill Clinton. She referred to Flowers as
"trailer trash." In a tough 2008 essay for Slate, Melinda Henneberger and
Dahlia Lithwick wrote that Clinton "consistently relates to and protects and
stands with the oppressors in the gender wars ... she invariably sees [Bill]
as the victim, preyed upon by a series of female aggressors."
U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii announced Sunday that she will resign as vice-chair of the Democratic
National Committee and endorse Bernie Sanders for president.
"I think it's most important for us,
as we look at our choices as to who our next commander in chief will be, is to recognize the necessity
to have a commander in chief who has foresight, who exercises good judgment," Gabbard said on
MSNBC's "Meet the Press."
According
to an email obtained by Politico, Gabbard told her fellow DNC officers that "after much
thought and consideration, I've decided I cannot remain neutral and sit on the sidelines any longer."
"There is a clear contrast between our two candidates with regard to my strong belief that we must
end the interventionist, regime change policies that have cost us so much," she wrote. "This is not
just another 'issue.' This is THE issue, and it's deeply personal to me. This is why I've decided
to resign as Vice Chair of the DNC so that I can support Bernie Sanders in his efforts to earn the
Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential race."
Over
the course of the
campaign, Sanders and his supporters have
accused the DNC of having a pro-Hillary Clinton-pro-establishment-bias. Committee chair Debbie
Wasserman Schultz served as one of Clinton's national campaign co-chairs in 2008.
Gabbard elaborated on her decision in a video online:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2UM8F4EuUbw
The crisis of Republican
Party then establishment no longer can control rank-and-file members reflects not only the crisis
of neoliberalism as a social system, but might also reflect the fact that with 300 million of people
the county became too big and too diverse to be governed from a single center of political power in
non authoritarian ways. a Hillary v Trump scenario will bee a difficult choice
for most Americans. A jingoistic sociopathic woman, essentially a puppet of financial oligarchy, who
is a front for the neoliberal forces hell-bent of destroying Russia vs. a narcissistic person with zero
political experience and vague set of ideas (but at the same time with more realistic foreign
policy ideas at least).
Notable quotes:
"... I'm afraid this strategy will have the exact opposite effect. To Trump, an attack from Rubio or Cruz is a badge of honor. ..."
"... 80% of young people are for Sanders. If he gets unfairly dumped, they will never forgive the Democrapic party. Both parties are in danger of losing the duopoly. ..."
"... We're a divided country, living separate cultures over four time zones (mainland alone). We're a big big country with big big problems. I don't know how it will shake out, especially when the bills come due. I only wish we had the problems of a small European country that you can drive across in four hours. That's a luxury. ..."
"... Hillary and Trump make Nixon look like a stand up guy. There is only one authentic, principled and electable candidate in the race. Bernie Sanders, the only candidate with a positive national favorability rating. ..."
"... Donald Trump is almost entirely a creation of the media. Most people don't realize it, but the media got addicted to him back in the early 1980, when he became one of the most flamboyant characters on the New York scene with a string of bimbos by his side, splashing around money, mostly not his, and creating the Trump brand, which he used to get into business with OPM (other people's money). ..."
"... Sadly, this is exactly what America has become. Fox News, talk radio, lunatics and raving psychopaths, a cesspool of fear and hate. The candidates are what we have become. We're in a canoe headed for the waterfall and all we hear is "Paddle faster! Paddle faster!" What the American people will do in the end is anyone's guess. ..."
"... Headline news says in Iran ... hardliners suffer defeat as reformists make gains ... And ... in the USA ...? hardliners on the rampage? O Tempora ... O Mores .... ..."
"... I agree that the republican party is a despicable joke, but a look at the turnout suggests that they will very likely control the WH, senate, and increass their majority in the House. Its unfortunate, but that is definitely the way it looks right now! ..."
"... "I believe that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan and Lincoln." Pretty funny comment. They are all con artists. And Hillary can match them con for con. ..."
"... Yup it's a shitfest all-round, the Dems debate schedule was so openly biased towards Hillary that it was comical but at least they were talking about substantive issues. ..."
"... "Struggling Americans"? Since when has Rubio's ultra-corporate free market ideology recognised their struggle? What the fuck does he have to offer except rich man's You're OK I'M OK preaching? ..."
"... Fuck off, Rubio -- We are going to vote Trump. ..."
"... Trump is not Mussolini, his political, economic and social thinking has very little, if anything, in common with that man. He may be dangerous, but that doesn't mean he is a Fascist. ..."
"... Yep, MIC depends on bankster puppets like Rubio and Clinton following their orders. Oh and the power of money is so persuasive. Bill Clinton is a very bright guy and he still repealed Glass Steagall under orders...... ..."
"... The problem is that Rubio and Cruz are just as bad -- or worse. They're a bit more polished politically but they have the same awful mindset and espouse the same awful policies. ..."
"... Anyway, ganging up on Trump is likely to backfire. Unlike most politicians Trump makes absolutely no attempt to hide who he is and what he stands for. People respect that even as they ignore that what he stands for is corporatism -- he's not the reincarnation of Hitler (as those two MX has-been described him), he's Mussolini. ..."
"... I think Rubio and Cruz's attempts to destroy Trump will backfire. He can just say he is the outside being ganged up on by the establishment and how he "wont be pushed around just like America wont be pushed around anymore! blah blah". ..."
"... The establishment will do and say anything to get Trump out. They have total control over all the others but not Trump. Donald is the only candidate who will do what's right for the country and the people and make America great again. TRUMP 2016 ..."
"... Rubio seems power-mad. Another reason why he is deeply unsuitable to wield ultimate power. ..."
"... As a democrat I am terrified and so too should all democrats be. Turnout so far has been down about 26% compared to 2008. The republicans on the other hand have seen an increase of almost the smae amount compared to their 2012 numbers! Thats a disaster waiting to happen in November. Turnout in primaries is one of the best indicators, if not the best, of what will happen in a general election. ..."
"... Indeed. If I was American, a Hillary v Trump scenario would be mindscrewingly difficult to choose between. An evil woman who is a front for all the neoliberal forces out there. Or an evil man who is a complete moron and will drive America to its knees. ..."
"... "Donald Trump is a liberal Republican" In the crazy world of Republican politics 2016 you're not wrong. You then drift of into a fantasy world where Trump actually wins the presidency. More people hate him than love him, with barely anything in-between. Plus they've only just started digging for dirt. ..."
"... Guardian sub-heading: "Rubio attacks 'con artist' as Cruz links Trump to mafia" I link all of them to oligarchy, patriarchy and Christian jihadism. Admittedly, there are some conceptual overlaps there. ..."
"... OMG Cruz, Rubio or Trump vs Hilary Clinton. Jeez, America. I got kids to care about - is that IT? ..."
"... Rubio isn't what he presents himself as. Look at his voting record- http://politicsthatwork.com/voting-record/Marco-Rubio-412491 Does that match up to the way he talks about his policies? I don't think so. ..."
"... One "good" thing about Trump in this election is that he is clearly not a consultant-packaged candidate (like Rubio) or a fake (like Cruz), but Trump is a quintessentially amoral salesman. He pitches whatever the customers want to hear. Customers need to read the fine print before buying products from him. ..."
"... Truth is both parties pander to the emotions -- the more frenzied the better it seems -- none of the candidates respect voters enough to discuss policy with anything even resembling depth. Politics is cotton candy in America, sprinkled with just enough cayenne to arouse burnt tongues. Oh what a tangled web we weave... ..."
"... Unless she is indicted before the election. Then it might be problematic. Look up Spiro Agnew if you think investigations are all for show. ..."
"... I can't stand Trump...but he seems to be better than Cruz & Rubio...the problem seems to be a politically bankrupt party disintegrating before our eyes... ..."
"... Full blown panic mode now by the GOP establishment, as they belatedly realize they have a problem with no agreeable solution. ..."
"... But let's notice one more time that all the discomfort about Trump as expressed by the GOP functionaries is centered around their suspicions that he may be a closet "liberal". They're worrying aloud about whether he'd support single-payer healthcare insurance, or refuse to vigorously oppose gay marriage or draconian positions on abortion. ..."
"... Supporting war in Iraq was spectacularly I'll judged. ..."
"... Trump's game seems to have been to use The Republican Party's machinery to boost himself, aware that his appeal to the populace is that he is counter the old guard, awaiting that old guard's attempt to ditch him and then becoming his own man with his own party. That would split the GOP's ranks; if, having only, say, half its voters so not winning this time, he will have sown the seed in his long game to win next time. ..."
"... When Trump was still normal, he left The Reform Party because David Duke from the KKK had joined it. Now, he says doesn't know David Duke, not even the KKK!!!! ..."
"... As Cruz desperately tries to salvage something before slithering under the exit door Rubio keeps insisting that he will keep receiving participation ribbons just for showing up and they will add up to victory. ..."
"... Trump looks more and more like the mature actor in the room. From lunatic insider to the presumptive candidate for the republican party in about 6 months. Pretty impressive. The voters will flock to Trump, who in the end will do what all presidents do and screw the voters and support the rich. Both parties do it to the voters, but the voters never learn. ..."
"... Hillary doesn't exist politically. It is a front for banks and foreign investments. A sham. ..."
"... This is awesome, America is embarking on a long overdue conversation. The Republicans are now using tax returns to play the 1% card on Trump, yes they hate those richer than themselves as well as poorer. You wonder why they bother, and I'm sure some of them are. So hate it will be from the Republicans and 'love and kindness' from Hillary. It's mapping out. ..."
Democratic party is not investing in voting drives this year because doing so would benefit Sanders,
whereas a low voter turnout favors Clinton (who is increasingly unpopular and looks increasingly
likely to lose the general).
Sanders was nearly tied with Clinton in delegates before South Carolina. So it's very close right
now.
80% of young people are for Sanders. If he gets unfairly dumped, they will never forgive
the Democrapic party. Both parties are in danger of losing the duopoly.
What everyone is glossing over, is that the country is too big and the politics have become too
small. You have a special problem with the presidency in that the person who occupies it should
embody the basic American ethos from Boston to Honolulu and from Miami to Anchorage. No one exists
who can do this.
We're a divided country, living separate cultures over four time zones (mainland alone).
We're a big big country with big big problems. I don't know how it will shake out, especially
when the bills come due. I only wish we had the problems of a small European country that you
can drive across in four hours. That's a luxury.
Hillary and Trump make Nixon look like a stand up guy. There is only one authentic, principled
and electable candidate in the race. Bernie Sanders, the only candidate with a positive national
favorability rating.
Donald Trump is almost entirely a creation of the media. Most people don't realize it, but
the media got addicted to him back in the early 1980, when he became one of the most flamboyant
characters on the New York scene with a string of bimbos by his side, splashing around money,
mostly not his, and creating the Trump brand, which he used to get into business with OPM (other
people's money).
A lot of his revenues come from licensing out the Trump name out to various
development ventures into which he doesn't contribute a penny, and which generate a large income
that finances his extravagant lifestyle. He is basically a con man, always has been. The corporate
media refrains from mentioning his four bankruptcies, despite inheriting a quarter of a billion
dollars from his father. They media wants him to stay on the campaign scene till the end, because
he is the largest entertainment story that have had in years, and covering his carnival act keeps
generating great revenues for them.
Sadly, this is exactly what America has become. Fox News, talk radio, lunatics and raving
psychopaths, a cesspool of fear and hate. The candidates are what we have become. We're in a canoe
headed for the waterfall and all we hear is "Paddle faster! Paddle faster!" What the American
people will do in the end is anyone's guess.
Headline news says in Iran ... hardliners suffer defeat as reformists make gains ... And ...
in the USA ...? hardliners on the rampage? O Tempora ... O Mores ....
Think how many billions are tied up in an establishment win. Trump will be taxing companies that
move blue collar jobs out of the US. He will be a jobs president. I am really really suspicious
of papers and parties like the Guardian and Labour that don't support this agenda.
Destroy Trump? CNN has placed Trump on hard rotation since mid-2015, to join their rolling Clinton
love-in. They haven't reported on him so much as run his campaign. That would imply that they'
re getting paid down the line.
I agree that the republican party is a despicable joke, but a look at the turnout suggests
that they will very likely control the WH, senate, and increass their majority in the House. Its
unfortunate, but that is definitely the way it looks right now!
"I believe that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan
and Lincoln." Pretty funny comment. They are all con artists. And Hillary can match them con for
con.
Yup it's a shitfest all-round, the Dems debate schedule was so openly biased towards Hillary
that it was comical but at least they were talking about substantive issues.
The main thing that interests me though is the money still pouring into the GOP even though
it's clear that the party has become unelectable.
Pressed on whether he could win in this week's elections, the 12-state "Super Tuesday" contest,
Rubio said: "Sure. That's not the plan, by the way, but sure."
"He then voiced anxieties that have coursed through the Republican party for months: "I believe
that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan and Lincoln."
Calling the billionaire "a clown act" who is "preying on" struggling Americans, Rubio warned
that..."
"Struggling Americans"? Since when has Rubio's ultra-corporate free market ideology recognised
their struggle? What the fuck does he have to offer except rich man's You're OK I'M OK preaching?
I seem to recall that Benito embroiled Italy in fruitless war or two....
Trump is not Mussolini, his political, economic and social thinking has very little, if
anything, in common with that man. He may be dangerous, but that doesn't mean he is a Fascist.
Yep, MIC depends on bankster puppets like Rubio and Clinton following their orders. Oh and
the power of money is so persuasive. Bill Clinton is a very bright guy and he still repealed Glass
Steagall under orders......
The problem is that Rubio and Cruz are just as bad -- or worse. They're a bit more polished
politically but they have the same awful mindset and espouse the same awful policies.
A Trumpohpile told me that the reason he likes Trump (and possibly Sanders) is that neither
of them are likely to end up embroiling us in yet more fruitless wars. I understand where he was
coming from -- we've been conned so many times by the political establishment that voting is really
choosing the lesser of evils. People are tired of this.
Anyway, ganging up on Trump is likely to backfire. Unlike most politicians Trump makes
absolutely no attempt to hide who he is and what he stands for. People respect that even as they
ignore that what he stands for is corporatism -- he's not the reincarnation of Hitler (as those
two MX has-been described him), he's Mussolini.
I think Rubio and Cruz's attempts to destroy Trump will backfire. He can just say he is the
outside being ganged up on by the establishment and how he "wont be pushed around just like America
wont be pushed around anymore! blah blah".
Trump will emerge the victor. I'm almost positive.
The establishment will do and say anything to get Trump out. They have total control over
all the others but not Trump. Donald is the only candidate who will do what's right for the country
and the people and make America great again. TRUMP 2016
Clinton: When i'm POTUS we will attack Iran!
Trump : Let's work with Russia to destroy ISIS!
Out of the two, i'm thinking Clinton is a total psychopath.
As a democrat I am terrified and so too should all democrats be. Turnout so far has been down
about 26% compared to 2008. The republicans on the other hand have seen an increase of almost
the smae amount compared to their 2012 numbers! Thats a disaster waiting to happen in November.
Turnout in primaries is one of the best indicators, if not the best, of what will happen in a
general election.
If this trend doesnt change (and theres no reason to believe it will) then we are not only
looking at a Republican controlled WH, but democrats will have almost no chance of regaining control
of the Senate and they could even increase their majority in the House (which they are going to
control no matter what happens)
Indeed. If I was American, a Hillary v Trump scenario would be mindscrewingly difficult to
choose between. An evil woman who is a front for all the neoliberal forces out there. Or an evil
man who is a complete moron and will drive America to its knees.
I think the best option is not to play
"Donald Trump is a liberal Republican" In the crazy world of Republican politics 2016 you're
not wrong. You then drift of into a fantasy world where Trump actually wins the presidency. More
people hate him than love him, with barely anything in-between. Plus they've only just started
digging for dirt.
Guardian sub-heading: "Rubio attacks 'con artist' as Cruz links Trump to mafia" I link all
of them to oligarchy, patriarchy and Christian jihadism. Admittedly, there are some conceptual
overlaps there.
One "good" thing about Trump in this election is that he is clearly not a consultant-packaged
candidate (like Rubio) or a fake (like Cruz), but Trump is a quintessentially amoral salesman.
He pitches whatever the customers want to hear. Customers need to read the fine print before buying
products from him.
Truth is both parties pander to the emotions -- the more frenzied the better it seems -- none
of the candidates respect voters enough to discuss policy with anything even resembling depth.
Politics is cotton candy in America, sprinkled with just enough cayenne to arouse burnt tongues.
Oh what a tangled web we weave...
I can't stand Trump...but he seems to be better than Cruz & Rubio...the problem seems to be
a politically bankrupt party disintegrating before our eyes...
Full blown panic mode now by the GOP establishment, as they belatedly realize they have a
problem with no agreeable solution.
But let's notice one more time that all the discomfort about Trump as expressed by the
GOP functionaries is centered around their suspicions that he may be a closet "liberal". They're
worrying aloud about whether he'd support single-payer healthcare insurance, or refuse to vigorously
oppose gay marriage or draconian positions on abortion.
Not a word about his promise to be a war criminal by torturing people "because they deserve
it", or unconstitutionally banning entry to the US on religious grounds or his support for the
idea of rendering the press vulnerable to lawsuits under brand spanking new libel laws.
The guy has come out brazenly in support of attitudes that the GOP has been covertly dog-whistling
about for years, and now they're panicking.
Embracing him as their candidate destroys the brand.
Torpedoing his candidacy by deploying internal party shenanigans either in the remaining days
of the campaign and/or at the convention will fracture the party.
All the people who Trump has excited with his "he's just saying what people are really thinking"
meme are sure as hell not going to just roll over and let their hero "be robbed" of the nomination.
And you can bet that's how, with Donald's help, they will see it.
Trump's game seems to have been to use The Republican Party's machinery to boost himself,
aware that his appeal to the populace is that he is counter the old guard, awaiting that old guard's
attempt to ditch him and then becoming his own man with his own party. That would split the GOP's
ranks; if, having only, say, half its voters so not winning this time, he will have sown the seed
in his long game to win next time.
When Trump was still normal, he left The Reform Party because David Duke from the KKK had
joined it. Now, he says doesn't know David Duke, not even the KKK!!!!
As Cruz desperately tries to salvage something before slithering under the exit door Rubio
keeps insisting that he will keep receiving participation ribbons just for showing up and they
will add up to victory.
Trump looks more and more like the mature actor in the room. From lunatic insider to the presumptive
candidate for the republican party in about 6 months. Pretty impressive. The voters will flock
to Trump, who in the end will do what all presidents do and screw the voters and support the rich.
Both parties do it to the voters, but the voters never learn.
This is awesome, America is embarking on a long overdue conversation. The Republicans are
now using tax returns to play the 1% card on Trump, yes they hate those richer than themselves
as well as poorer. You wonder why they bother, and I'm sure some of them are. So hate it will
be from the Republicans and 'love and kindness' from Hillary. It's mapping out.
So much for lefties idealization of disadvantaged minorities. Today blacks of South Carolina spit
in the face of Martin Luther King with impunity.
Notable quotes:
"... Well, the preacher-shepherds gave the signal and the flock brayed for Hillary. Truly a low point in the annals of African-American politics. ..."
"... Economically disadvantaged people should be voting for Sanders. To vote for Clinton is misguided and foolish whether you are black or white. We should not apologise for saying this loudly and clearly. It is a fact. ..."
"... Amazing what you can pull off with nonsense rhetoric. Clinton should thank her speech writers for that bit of baloney. love and kindness Ha! Yeah. Shes all warmth, that neolib. ..."
"... The blacks dont realize Clinton doesnt and will not, give a shit about them later. ..."
"... Im supremely depressed people voted for the corporate Wall Street puppet too, guys, but still... yeesh. ..."
"... It is not racism, I am a black person, and use to vote democratic and I proudly use those terms...and worse to describe my homies....they are still living like slaves! ..."
"... Another corrupt politician pulled the wool over the black race. ..."
"... If she wins the nomination -- and it looks increasingly like she will -- she will lose the general election, should Trump be the Republican nominee ..."
"... You are suffering from a delusion as to the nature of Clinton and the people who control her. They are not interested in making the USA more like Europe. Exactly the opposite. I cannot even fathom how you might think otherwise. ..."
"... Clinton is owned by Wall Street and has never been a friend of the poor and working people. ..."
"... This landslide win may be the one time the majority of black South Carolinians have something in common with Goldman Sachs execs. Strange bedfellows... ..."
"... It is interesting that in the latest speech that I heard from Sanders he has shifted from attacking Clinton to focusing his attacks on Trump. ..."
"... Looking at Hillary one starts to think that House of Cards main character should be a woman... ..."
"... The blacks on south carolina..have been dupped. .to trust Clinton is like re electing another bush. Quite reckless stupid. ... 40 million youth who gave student debt loans to repay should think their pocket. ..."
"... I will never vote for her. Youd think that my fellow black citizens would have taken a lesson from the Rahm Emmanuel debacle and refused to be herded into that dark night ..."
"... Big Winners South Carolina Primary.....Wall St The US WAR Machine....Peace ..."
"... Hence the ridiculous win for Hillary, who has done nothing for African American voters, In fact, she has probably led to the incarceration of many black people in America. Her husband certainly fucked them over. ..."
"... If this disgusting liar wins Democratic nomination, I am going to vote Republican for the first time in my life. Even Trump is better that this abomination. At least he calls a spade a spade and does not pretend to be what he isnt. ..."
"... For the nomination, its much more relevant than New Hampshire. NH: 24 delegates. SC: 53 delegates ..."
"... South Carolina black communities are very poor, uneducated and centered around their churches, which in turn are controlled by black establishment giving them some money through various social grants. I hope it helps to understand who and how forced black voters there how they have to vote. ..."
"... We cant have Sanders and real change. Thats clear by now. Thanks, old man, for you great brave effort and for bringing back Socialism to the USA after nearly a century in the dog house. That is an amazing feat in itself -- ..."
"... So, its either Black special interests plus aggressive careerist neo-liberal feminism or a glorious and unpredictable populist who shoves the PC gang. ..."
"... Have fun losing to Republicans in November should the DNC and media establishment successfully force the primary coronation of their queen. All of that legitimate excitement and momentum that Sanders lost will vanish into thin air, and some of it will go to independent and Republican voters. So yuck it up. Americans evidently need to learn a really hard lesson before reality finally penetrates their collective skulls. ..."
"... She is just as complicit in the coup against our country. So yeah, we need to grow some spines and start speaking up and acting. No more of this well shes not AS bad crap. Were losing our democracy, our freedom, our path to a decent life. Its time to wake up. Its Bernie or bust. ..."
"... no, HRC is a republican as in uber hawk, neoliberal, corrupt, wall street toady. ..."
Why do blacks vote for Hillary rather than Bernie ? Maybe its like how Trump wins the Hispanic
vote after he calls them murdering rapists ? Dont overestimate the American electorate, a lot
of effort has been put into keeping people dumb .(its not racist to suggest that people of color
can be dumb too). Trump says he loves 'the blacks' and some still vote for him.
The first time that I ever heard of the Flint water problem described in racial terms was from
Hillary Clinton in a Democratic debate. She tried to link it to the Jim Crow era of segregated
drinking fountains. No one should vote for her.
The DNC has vastly underestimated the revolution that is already percolating. If Hillary become
the nominee there are millions of people who will
1) sit out the election
2) vote third party
3) write in Bernie's name
4) vote for trump
Whichever way you look at it it will be the death knell for the "party". So they can celebrate
the funeral of the presidency.
Congrats CBC, DNC, DCCC, etc. All on your own you have buried the country.
I am an "elder" too….Am I disappointed that Bernie didn't win ? Yes, but I am not going to trash
Hillary…or do something stupid by allowing a Republican to do worse. I will continue to fight…I
will not sit on the sidelines…and anyone who does is a coward.
Economically disadvantaged people should be voting for Sanders. To vote for Clinton is misguided
and foolish whether you are black or white. We should not apologise for saying this loudly and
clearly. It is a fact.
Amazing what you can pull off with nonsense rhetoric. Clinton should thank her speech writers
for that bit of baloney. "love and kindness" Ha! Yeah. She's all warmth, that neolib.
I see a whole lot of blame being thrown at black South Carolinians in these comments:
"How stupid ARE black people?"
"Why don't black people know what's good for them?"
"Blacks must have voted this way because of poor education..."
The casual racism of people who claim to be 'progressive' never ceases to amaze me. I'm
supremely depressed people voted for the corporate Wall Street puppet too, guys, but still...
yeesh.
It is not racism, I am a black person, and use to vote democratic and I proudly use those
terms...and worse to describe my homies....they are still living like slaves!
And our country's too. Another corrupt politician pulled the wool over the black race.
Killer Mike, Erica Gardener,Spike Lee,and danny glover better get the word out.
If she wins the nomination -- and it looks increasingly like she will -- she will lose the
general election, should Trump be the Republican nominee, which is also looking increasingly
likely. Sanders would have walloped Trump in the general: it would have been the 99% versus the
1%, and the 99% would have won. Clinton, on the other hand, is distrusted by such a large number
of Democrats, vast numbers of us would rather steer clear of the polls altogether than give her
our vote. Trump will be the next President of the United States.
I didn't know much about his personal background three years ago. All I knew about him in the
past couple of decades came from reading the Congressional Record: his morally courageous speeches
always stood out from the rest. But I never dreamed that he would run for President, or that the
American public would finally "catch up" with him and his call for political revolution.
So don't blame me. Blame the media, which even today has little time for such "boring" progressive
subjects as poverty in America:
19:40 mark... Bernie gets pissed off at the fact that reporters would rather ask electoral
"horse race" questions one after another after another instead of showing the slightest bit of
interest in the subject of his press conference: Poverty in America.
The most ill-informed, deluded, fearful, armed, dangerous and destructive country in the first
world. No number of Steve Jobs and Elon Musks can make the US a net positive. By and large the
craziest collection of presidential candidates in my memory ...
lets see - Norway, Poland and most of East Europe have voted racist parties. The UK voted for
Cameron and Socialists are doing poorly in the rest of Europe. Not a great sign all over - so
don't just get upset with the Americans
How come the African American community voted massively for Hillary when many of them apparently
agree more with Sanders political plan AND know that Sanders was a civil rights leader in the
60s?
Let's not panic, Bernie supporters. South Carolina is only one state, and no one expected Bernie
to win it. No candidate wins every primary. He isn't out of the race yet.
Unlike more conventional candidates who are controlled by big donors and the Party establishment,
Bernie has no reason to drop out before the nomination is fully decided. He has everything to
gain and nothing to lose by staying in. The worst case scenario is that he keeps putting pressure
on Hillary to position herself leftward.
There are still many other states, and most of them are not in the South. Onward.
You are suffering from a delusion as to the nature of Clinton and the people who control her.
They are not interested in making the USA more like Europe. Exactly the opposite. I cannot even
fathom how you might think otherwise.
Your scenario has Trump not making a deal and selling his delegates at the convention. I would
have to laugh out loud if the various other Republican candidates all quit before he can make
a deal. Can you imagine Trump as President? "Your fired!" "Sorry Mr. President, you cannot fire
me. It is called embedding. I have a position that you cannot change because of laws passed by
Congress. The Bush Administration put me here to make sure no one else can come in and change
anything they set up. Until I retire or Congress makes a new law, I am going to keep this job
and be a big thorn in your side. In fact, you cannot fire hardly anyone."
Trump might be the first President to pull a Palin and just quit.
you haven't been paying attention. in no current polling does clinton win against trump.
sanders is the only candidate who can face down every republican candidate.
and even if that weren't true, wait until the republicans go to town about her emails, when
she is the democratic nominee. there's no way she survives that.
further, you clearly don't understand the core beliefs of hillary clinton if you think she
will move this country towards a european style nation. lol. there's very little about hillary
that's changed since she stumped for barry goldwater and she is very open about that.
Clinton is getting pushed to the left as we speak because of how much support Sanders has.
She's a moderate progressive so she may not share your vision but she still believes in progressive
policies. Sanders supporters make it sound like electing Clinton and electing a republican is
the same thing...
Trump loves power and the spotlight. You are out of his mind if you think he would quit.
Founded by Southern Democrats in 1985, the group sought to transform the party by pushing
it to embrace more conservative positions and win support from big business.
Bernie thinks he can win the low turnout caucus states Colorado and Minnesota. The problem is
that they are both closed caucus states. You can only vote if you are a registered Democratic.
No Independents can vote in the Democratic caucusus. He'll lose and if he loses Massachussetts
his only win will be in Vermont and possibly Oklahoma where Hillary has a narrow lead. Looks hopeless.
This landslide win may be the one time the majority of black South Carolinians have something
in common with Goldman Sachs execs. Strange bedfellows...
As for Super Tuesday, for Bernie supporters, the races to watch are Massachusetts, Colorado,
and Minnesota. If Bernie can win all three, this race is still on.
It is interesting that in the latest speech that I heard from Sanders he has shifted from
attacking Clinton to focusing his attacks on Trump. I think he sees the writing on the wall
and he knows that he is losing. This will all be over in a couple of weeks and I'd be surprised
if Sanders is still in the race in April. Once Clinton wins Florida, Ohio and Michigan, Sanders
has to know that it's over.
Sanders knows the danger that is posed by the semi-fascist Trump
and he will throw all his support behind Clinton once it is clear that his chance is over. He
isn't one of these morons like we see on this forum that are saying that there is no difference
between Trump and Clinton. They are the same idiots that told us that there was no difference
between Bush and Gore.
C'mon people..this is south Carolina...What did you expect? This is a state where a landlord can
choose no to have "multicultural " tenants...
Give me a break, this state is frozen in time... Heck, Hitler would win against Bernie in South
Carolina. Have doubts? Just ask 'round. Bernie will be the next president.. Even in south Caro-the
land civil rights forgot-lina.
The blacks on south carolina..have been dupped. .to trust Clinton is like re electing another
bush. Quite reckless stupid. ... 40 million youth who gave student debt loans to repay should
think their pocket.
And Vote Bernie
So to eradicate debt and give hope a chance ..and re bell against big sleazy corporate bankers
...
I will never vote for her. You'd think that my fellow black citizens would have taken a lesson
from the Rahm Emmanuel debacle and refused to be herded into that dark night
And I shall certainly never vote for Ms. Wall Street Liar and "Sucker Bill." My vote--come what
may--is for THE HON. MR. SANDERS ONLY. He will help the country and working people.
I just calculated the percentage of South Carolina adults that voted in the South Carolina primary
. I get 9.8%. Can this be right? If so - the whole thing is a sham & and only a handful of people
support Clinton enough to bother going out & voting for her. I guess that also goes for Sanders
too.
You can blame this outcome on the corrupt/criminalized/liberalized/administration, of the U.S.
Government. Its failure to prosecute/prison Hillary Clinton (SOS) having illegal (off Gov property)
private server's, with no government email account. The government had no access or control of
classified/top secret emails sent to her private email account.
I guess you didn't read my post, dickwad. If the populace truly educated themselves and studied
the histories of all candidates, Bernie would win by an incredible margin. There is no other candidate.SC
is poorly educated:
South Carolina...
Percent of students scoring at or above proficient, 2012-2013
Math - Grade 4 35%
Math - Grade 8 31%
Reading - Grade 4 28%
Reading - Grade 8 29%
Hence the ridiculous win for Hillary, who has done nothing for African American voters,
In fact, she has probably led to the incarceration of many black people in America. Her husband
certainly fucked them over.
Hillary Clinton, the most greedy woman in the world, but she couldn't transform a dream comes
true in 2008, an unpopulated candidate Barack Obama to be chosen the Democrat's presidential candidate.
During 8 years in White House, a first lady seemed quiet, even though the scandal Monica Lewinsky.
Moreover, the time she was elected as Senator, she had not any bright idea...when she became the
Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary left the black spot of Benghazi that measures the ability of
the US president and recently the email scandal could be harmed her campaign. On the other hand,
the Democrat should empty the leader, so they chose the recycled candidate for 2016 presidential
race. People have not much believed on Hillary despite she launches the campaign well with plenty
money supported from somewhere else...However, Hillary Clinton has the right to dream, dream and
dream to be the first US female president. The dream is just the hope, but it comes true that
belongs to the trust of voters. In the US and Western country's history, there is rare the leader's
recycle and presidential recycled candidate, but Hillary is the exception.
If Hillary gets indicted, and with 150 FBI agents currently investigating the email server/Clinton
Foundation scandal, that looks increasingly likely, these SC results will be a fart in a hurricane.
President Carter's advisor and pollster, longtime Dem operative Pat Caddell, said this about
the Clinton Foundation/Email scandal on 2/13/2016:
"This is the greatest scandal in the history of the United States," Caddell said. "They all
ought to be indicted. This is worse than Watergate."
Clinton, he explained, would soon be exposed for using her connections in the State Department
to enrich her family, her foundation, and her supporters.
"They were selling out the national interests of the United States directly to adversaries
and others for money," he said. "There is just nothing that satisfies them. They are the greediest
white trash I have ever seen."
If this disgusting liar wins Democratic nomination, I am going to vote Republican for the
first time in my life. Even Trump is better that this abomination. At least he calls a spade a
spade and does not pretend to be what he isn't.
In theory there might be a chance for Clinton if she embraced the good stuff Sanders stands for.
Is she declared he would be her running mate, and she was incorporating big bits of his program.
Is she said that what the US needs now is a New Deal and hers is a new Franklin Roosevelt platform
of radical change, control of the banks, crushing of corporate interests etc.
If she talked like that there is in theory a chance that the Sanders people like myself would
be interested. But the trouble is she never will: she belongs to the aggressive neo-liberal ideology
of Bill Clinton and only adds to that a dose of vicious special interest corporate feminism and
pushing Black special interests. That is not a formula most Americans hungry for change see anything
in but sheer rubbish.
Clinton is a crook and nothing she says can be believed except that she will sell out to crooks.
The left feels betrayed by the Blacks. For decades we have sweated our guts backing the Blacks
and this is how they repay us when there is a real candidate for socialist change.
The left didn't sweat their guts "backing the blacks" because they were after strategic support.
The left did it because it was the proper, human thing to do. That's sort of the difference between
the left and the right in their attitudes towards fellow humans: intrinsic worth vs strategic
usefulness.
And the "Blacks" aren't some monolithic cult-like voting body - they're not ants..or Evangelicals...
What has the Clinton Dynasty done to make ordinary black lives better?
The opposite side of that coin is record incarceration flowing from their crime bill, job outsourcing
thru trade deals, the seeds of the 2008 crash thru repeal of Glass Steagal, and a 20-year period
at the apex of executive and then legislative branch power, but a massive increase in inequality
while the Clintons enrich themselves at the hands of the oligarchs.
If only that ad was steadily playing across all the TVs of South Carolinians for a month or two
before this election..."Clinton: making black lives worse." Then the word "black" is crossed out
by a chalk-wielding child's hand and the word "all" is written above it...
I get damned irritated when certain people keep using the words racist and misogynist to prevent
free debate. If blacks are going to vote as a block then we criticize the behavior of the block.
Why did they vote on mass for Clinton? its a legitimate question to be answered.
I do not believe the female "block" vote is nearly as strong but Clinton is still going to
try to use it. And using words with sexual innuendo might be in bad taste but it doesn't make
the user a "woman hater" any more than a woman pointing to a man's baldness makes her a man hater.
After the disappointment of the Obama regime, you'd be forgiven for wondering why any black voter
would ever support someone playing the race/black elite card and so slavishly pandering to ethnic
groups...
Voter turn out 2008 - 540000+
Voter turn out 2016- 360000+
Clearly shows democrats are going to lose general if they are not motivated and i don't Clinton
with her message of keeping same as it is going to inspire many.
South Carolina black communities are very poor, uneducated and centered around their churches,
which in turn are controlled by black establishment giving them some money through various social
grants. I hope it helps to understand who and how forced black voters there how they have to vote.
If you cannot have the best you have to choose the lesser of two evils.
We can't have Sanders and real change. That's clear by now. Thanks, old man, for you great
brave effort and for bringing back Socialism to the USA after nearly a century in the dog house.
That is an amazing feat in itself --
So, it's either Black special interests plus aggressive careerist neo-liberal feminism
or a glorious and unpredictable populist who shoves the PC gang.
Interestingly, Clinton struggles against other Republican candidates.
Sanders may seem to have a slight advantage against other candidates, but it isn't really a
valid comparison. Voters know Clinton. She's been relentlessly attacked for over 20 years. Sanders
has barely been mentioned.
Once the rightwing hate machine goes to work on him, he would likely struggle.
February 24th (just 3 days ago) : Reuters poll gives Bernie Sanders lead for nomination
A national poll shows Bernie Sanders leading Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.
The Reuters poll for "Possible Democratic presidential candidates in 2016" on Tuesday showed
Sanders leading Clinton 41.7 percent to 35.5 percent, with 22.9 percent of respondents
saying they wouldn't vote. The five-day tracking poll shows Clinton and Sanders swapping leads
since Feb. 6, and the Vermont democratic socialist holding the advantage since Feb. 19.
After 8 years of that knucklehead George W. Bush, then 8 more years of the Flim Flam Man Obama,
I thought nothing can get any worse than that.....WRONG.
The world has a new nightmare to wake up to, the sociopath Hillary or the demagogue The Donald.
At least Trump recognizes the fiasco that was the Iraq war. Hillary isn't the least bit contrite
for that vote, nor her role in destabilizing Libya not helping to grow the ISIS threat thru inaction
in Iraq.
More articles on issues instead of who is ahead in the polls would be much more beneficial to
a democracy. I'm so tired of reading the pundits talk about everything but how we can get our
government to work for it's citizens, never discussing the pros and cons of the policies each
candidate is proposing or fact checking. The "Media" is lazy, corrupt, or both.
Have fun losing to Republicans in November should the DNC and media establishment successfully
force the primary coronation of their queen. All of that legitimate excitement and momentum that
Sanders lost will vanish into thin air, and some of it will go to independent and Republican voters.
So yuck it up. Americans evidently need to learn a really hard lesson before reality finally penetrates
their collective skulls.
Anyone who is considering a vote for H Clinton who is also concerned about global warming should
know what NASA's former lead climate scientist had to say about her global warming plan:
""It's just plain silly," said James Hansen, a climate change researcher who headed Nasa's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies for over 30 years. "No, you cannot solve the problem without
a fundamental change, and that means you have to make the price of fossil fuels honest. Subsidizing
solar panels is not going to solve the problem."
She is just as complicit in the coup against our country. So yeah, we need to grow some spines
and start speaking up and acting. No more of this " well she's not AS bad crap." We're losing
our democracy, our freedom, our path to a decent life. It's time to wake up. It's Bernie or bust.
Clinton will lose to Trump, she is just another corrupt establishment candidate that will wither
under the same blasts of contempt that sunk Bush, Walker, Rubio and Graham, the war hawk neocon
conservatives that are her ideological bedfellows.
This is a massive tactical error by Af-Am voters whose fidelity to a dynastic family who have
only delivered misery to their communities, while taking money from her Wall Street paymasters,
is perverse. What has she done for them?
My dear blacks, you are not only ruining your future, but also many others'.You have been made
a vote bank for the corrupted establishment; it is a pity that you are not realizing.
People get what they deserve. So sad America. Same thing on the other side of the aisle with Trump.
I guess America is bought and sold. You can stick a fork in it!
The environment that supports human life is hanging by a thread. The people who vote for the 1%'er
Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, Military-Industrial complex candidate will be held to account. This election
is not a joke. It's between a political revolution and one in the streets.
Looks like the Sanders revolution is already over. One can't become president of the US now without
winning a significant portion of the Black and Hispanic community vote (Bernie's liberal voters
are learning this the hard way). Obama won around 98% of the black vote in 2012. That's North
Korea tier numbers! Hillary Clinton will get similar percentage of votes among minorities in 2016.
The US is heading in the direction of Brasil (this is not a good thing). Elections from now
will be decided mainly by demographics rather than policies of the candidates.
Everyone, especially African- American voters in the South should just remember that at 50% employment
there is still 50% more unemployment if they vote to continue the Clinton Dynasty. Then it will
be too late.
Meanwhile, a federal judge ruled this week that Clinton and her top aides should be questioned
under oath about her email arrangement, signaling the start of an entirely new legal headache for
the now White House contender and her campaign team.
The lawsuit, brought by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, will pick up again in
a few weeks in mid-March when the group files its preliminary plan for the questioning. State has
until Apr. 5 to respond, and then Judicial Watch gets 10 days to file a reply.
The legal maneuvering means that Clinton aides could be deposed during the dog days of summer
and potentially well into the general election. Another months-long round of questions about her
emails could drag her entire campaign down as it did last year and give Sanders another shot at the
nomination or hobble her in a contest against the GOP nominee.
"... Let me assume that Donald Trump will be the Republican Party candidate and Hillary Clinton for the Democrats. Give me your thumb nails sketch of those two likely opponents. ..."
George Galloway interviews the presidential candidate of the US Green Party, Jill Stein, 'a better
woman than Clinton; a better democrat than Sanders!'
George Galloway:How is your campaign going?
Dr. Jill Stein: It is going great, it is going game busters. There is a rebellion
going on in the US, as in much of the world, and for good reason - we are in crisis and people really
want to see change. You cannot have a revolution inside of a counter-revolutionary party. This is
a big, deep and long fight. And it can't simply be passed on to Hillary Clinton and we think that
Bernie Sanders is running a very principled and powerful campaign; he is riding that wave of revolt.
But unfortunately he is in a party that has a track record for basically sabotaging its rebels. It
has done a good job of doing that in the past from Dennis Kucinich to Jesse Jackson to Howard Dean,
whether they use a PR campaign like the 'Dean's scream' to bring down the Dean candidacy. Also Jesse
Jackson was sabotaged by a PR by the DNC. The Democratic Party has its ways of reigning people in
if they try to rebel. The bottom line is that we are in political system in the US, which is funded
by predatory banks and fossil fueled giants and war profiteers. So, we really need to reject that
system, we say to reject the lesser evil so we can stand up and really fight for the greater good.
G.G:Let me assume that Donald Trump will be the Republican Party candidate
and Hillary Clinton for the Democrats. Give me your thumb nails sketch of those two likely opponents.
J.S: Unfortunately, they have an awful lot in common. They both support a very
strong military, they support a budget in which 54 percent of our tax dollars are discretionary budget
is going to the military to fight these wars which are not making us or the world a safer place.
They are firing back at us madly, creating failed states and refugee crisis and worst terrorist threats
actually. So, they both fail to see the picture on that account. They are both very much representatives
of the oligarchy: Hillary Clinton who was on the Board of Directors for Walmart.
There is no more oppressive corporation for workers' rights and women than Walmart, who never
found a word that she didn't support. Donald Trump – it is hard to say exactly where he stands because
he changes his mind all the time. One thing is very clear, he is not friendly to immigrants. For
him not to understand that in our country we are all immigrants and in fact that immigrants are really
the vitality and the diversity of our communities, our economy, our culture. This is a very dangerous
thing - this is a slippery slope to fascism. There is nothing inspiring, enlightened about either
of those campaigns.
They are both representatives of oligarchy and at this point it is unclear whether the Republicans
will allow Donald Trump to be nominated. There is talk now Paul Ryan being a brokered candidate at
the Republican convention. He is sort of the establishment of the Republican Party, which is very
much at war with Donald Trump.
"... For twenty four years the Clintons have orchestrated a conjugal relationship with Wall Street, to the immense financial benefit of both parties. They have accepted from the New York banks $68.72 million in campaign contributions for their six political races, and $8.85 million more in speaking fees. The banks have earned hundreds of billions of dollars in practices that were once prohibited-until the Clinton Administration legalized them. ..."
"... The Clintons' ambition is reinforced by arrogance. Their behavior in the Monica Lewinsky affair is only the most glaring example. Sexual frivolities while holding office are scarcely unusual, having spiced the lives of public figures for centuries, but if the dalliance is exposed, the scarlet official typically resigns in shame and scuttles into obscurity... ..."
"... That performance pales, however, compared to the Clintons' self-serving transformation of the Democratic Party, from the champion of working people to the lapdog of Wall Street-and of corporate America in general. Cleverly the Clintons still pander to the traditional constituency, but in serving its new clientele the transformed party abandoned the less fortunate strata of American society, especially the communities of color... ..."
For twenty four years the Clintons have orchestrated a conjugal relationship with Wall Street,
to the immense financial benefit of both parties. They have accepted from the New York banks
$68.72 million in campaign contributions for their six political races, and $8.85 million more
in speaking fees. The banks have earned hundreds of billions of dollars in practices that were
once prohibited-until the Clinton Administration legalized them.
The extraordinary ambition displayed in the careers of Bill and Hillary Clinton defies description.
They have spent much of their adult lives soliciting money from others for their own benefit...
Hillary Clinton's net worth is forty five million dollars; Bill Clinton's is eighty million.
Measured by family wealth, this puts the couple in the top 1% of American households by a factor
of 16. (and they claim to have left the White House 'broke')
The Clintons' ambition is reinforced by arrogance. Their behavior in the Monica Lewinsky affair
is only the most glaring example. Sexual frivolities while holding office are scarcely unusual,
having spiced the lives of public figures for centuries, but if the dalliance is exposed, the
scarlet official typically resigns in shame and scuttles into obscurity...
That performance pales, however, compared to the Clintons' self-serving transformation of the
Democratic Party, from the champion of working people to the lapdog of Wall Street-and of corporate
America in general. Cleverly the Clintons still pander to the traditional constituency, but
in serving its new clientele the transformed party abandoned the less fortunate strata of American
society, especially the communities of color...
Hillary Clinton is under the microscope. And rightfully so.
At a time when the American electorate has definitively rejected the entrenched political establishment
in favor of two so-called "protest candidates" in Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, voters want to
know why they should elect the former First Lady and Secretary of State.
Why, Americans seem to be asking, is Clinton entitled to be President? Why should it be a foregone
conclusion that another member of the country's political aristocracy gets to stroll into the Oval
Office? Republican voters soundly rejected the status quo when Jeb Bush's campaign fell flat in the
face of the Trump juggernaut, but Clinton is a larger-than-life figure (and we don't necessarily
mean that in a good way) who large swaths of the electorate are still inclined to vote for if only
because " more of the same " sounds better than " who the hell knows " when it comes to where the
country goes starting in 2017.
But perhaps more than ever, America is fed up with business as usual inside the Beltway and if
there's anyone who embodies that concept, it's Clinton. She's widely viewed as dishonest and
there are serious questions about whether special interests and state actors exercise undue
influence over decisions via contributions to the Clinton family charities, through paid speeches,
and through who knows what other channels .
More specifically, Americans want to know what Clinton told audiences at speeches she made behind
closed doors at events sponsored by Wall Street. This is critical because Clinton has pledged to
rein in big banks and go beyond Dodd-Frank to address TBTF. Below, find an Op-Ed from The New York
Times, whose editorial board wants Clinton "show voters those transcripts."
"Everybody does it," is an excuse expected from a mischievous child, not a presidential
candidate. But that is Hillary Clinton's latest defense for making closed-door, richly paid
speeches to big banks, which many middle-class Americans still blame for their economic pain, and
then refusing to release the transcripts.
A televised town hall on Tuesday was at least the fourth candidate forum in which Mrs. Clinton
was asked about those speeches. Again, she gave a terrible answer, saying that she would release
transcripts "if everybody does it, and that includes the Republicans."
In November,
she implied that her paid talks for the Wall Street firms were part of helping them rebuild after
the 9/11 attacks, which "was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists."
In a debate with Bernie Sanders on Feb. 4, Mrs. Clinton was asked if she would release transcripts,
and she said she would "look into it." Later in February, asked in a CNN town hall forum why she
accepted $675,000 for speeches to Goldman Sachs, she got annoyed, shrugged,
and said , "That's what they offered," adding that "every secretary of state that I know has
done that ."
At another
town hall, on Feb. 18, a man in the audience pleaded, "Please, just release those transcripts
so that we know exactly where you stand." Mrs. Clinton had told him, "I am happy to release anything
I have when everybody else does the same, because every other candidate in this race has given speeches
to private groups."
On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton further complained, "Why is there one standard for me, and not
for everybody else?"
Voters have every right to know what Mrs. Clinton told these groups . In July,
her spokesman Nick Merrill
said that though most speeches were private, the Clinton operation "always opened speeches when
asked to." Transcripts of speeches that have been leaked have been pretty innocuous. By refusing
to release them all,
especially
the bank speeches , Mrs. Clinton
fuels speculation about why she's stonewalling.
Her conditioning her releases on what the Republicans might or might not do is mystifying. Republicans
make no bones about their commitment to Wall Street deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthiest
Americans. Mrs. Clinton is laboring to convince struggling Americans that she will rein in big banks,
despite taking their money.
Besides, Mrs. Clinton is not running against a Republican in the Democratic primaries. She is
running against Bernie Sanders, a decades-long critic of Wall Street excess who is hardly a hot ticket
on the industry speaking circuit. The Sanders campaign, asked if Mr. Sanders also received
fees for closed-door speeches, came up with two from two decades ago that were not transcribed: one
to a hospital trade association, and one to a college, each for less than $1,000. Royalties from
a book called "The Speech," Mr. Sanders's eight-hour Senate floor diatribe against President Obama's
continuation of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy, were donated to the nonprofit Addison County Parent/Child
Center in Vermont .
The hazards of Mrs. Clinton, a presidential hopeful, earning more than $200,000 each for dozens
of speeches to industry groups
were clear from the start. Mrs. Clinton was making paid speeches when she
hired consultants to vet her own background in preparation for a run. If they didn't flag this,
they weren't doing their jobs.
Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public - not the candidate
- who decides how much disclosure is enough. By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton
plays into the hands of those who say she's not trustworthy and makes her own rules. Most important,
she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she'd run an
accountable and transparent White House.
In your dreams. She'll say it's all politics and she'll get away with it. Americans are so
stupid they'll vote for her because their brains are squeaky clean and hung out to dry.
Hillary wasn't afraid to tell something to a few hundred bankers (one of whom could've easily
recorded the speech), but she doesn't want for the public to see the transcripts? How effed-up
is that?
Just like all pathological liars, Hillary's first reaction to everything is to LIE, no matter
how serious or innocent the issue is, but almost half the country is willing to vote her into
the WH? Exceptional! ;-)
She's not playing into the hands of those who believe "she's not trustworthy and makes her
own rules". She is clearly not trustworthy, clearly makes her own rules, and is a despicable example
of a human being to boot.
In her own mind, she has already gotten away with it all, and asking her to suddenly do the
right thing is farcical on its face.
This is pretty easy to figure out when you think it through.
(1) We KNOW the NYT is in the tank for Hillary. So, we KNOW that the NYT's "bold demand" that
Hillary release speech transcripts is a red herring.
(2) If it's a red herring, then that means that both the NYT and Hillary already know that
the speech transcripts are just innocuous pablum, because that's what ALL of these paid-appearance
speeches are.
(3) So then we must ask: why are the NYT and Hillary going through this charade? The obvious
answer, is to fill up the news cycles with hot air in order to provide distractions from the Email
server security breach, which is bona-fide, get-locked-in-Leavenworth for ten years, criminal
behavior.
(4) Hillary and the NYT will drag this particular charade out for a few weeks (maybe even a
few months) until Hillary finally releases the transcripts. Surprise! Nothing to see here, although
the NYT will do some clucking about it to fill up a few more news cycles...and look at the time!
primary season is almost over!
(5) Then they will have to go back to the drawing board and figure out another charade (or
charades) to play to keep the public distracted until November.
i wish they had gotten into the trail of dead bodies left behind during the clintons' arkansas
years, and the use of mena, AR, as a base for cia cocaine running.
Hitlery certainly wasn't going to teach the bankers how to steal.
That would be almost as difficult as teaching an attorney how to tell a lie ;)
Not sure which of the candidates is sleazier, Hitlery, Rubio or Cruz, or Trump. But since Hitlery's
had the most time feeding at the trough, I'm voting against her.
Can a president really pardon someone who hasn't even been charged with a crime?
Yep. In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in
Ex parte Garland that the pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may
be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during
their pendency, or after conviction and judgment." (In that case, a former Confederate senator
successfully petitioned the court to uphold a pardon that prevented him from being disbarred.)
Generally speaking, once an act has been committed, the president can issue a pardon at any time-regardless
of whether charges have even been filed.
Why don't we call these speeches for what they are?
BRIBE: Money or some other benefit given to a person in power, especially
a public official, in an effort to cause the person to take a particular action
It is the part just after the speech that is tailered to the specific bankster where the real
information passes. "I will do this if you do that." It is not in the transcript of the speech
at all; if that were the case just send a DVD of the speech for $225,000+.
She is going to go to jail.....what does it matter ?
What does it matter? Vince Foster, Rose Law Firm, cattle futures, covering up the bimbo eruptions
of Slick Willy, Bengazi, classified emails on a private server... When has she ever been held
to account for anything? This latest Wall Street speech business won't be any different.
The reason HRC refuses to release those Wall Street speeches is because again and again and
again Clinton has promised them to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the ultimate workers' rights
destroyer, both nationally and internationally!
Not really. The speech transcripts are being doctored right now.
What the New York Times SHOULD be asking for, is the names of the anonymous donors to the Clinton-Guistra
charity in Canada which was created to bypass American laws to funnel foreign money to the Clintons.
And it might be interesting to note the timing of the foreign donations to the e-mails on HiLiary's
celphone.
"... Christian Right candidates have always had a difficult task in running for president (none has ever even gotten close to the nomination) but their even worse track record this cycle-in contrast to that of Donald Trump-is a perfect window into trends that will set the pace of American politics for decades to come: Americans are moving away from Christianity, including people most likely to vote Republican. In this changed politics, which exists right now, the GOP can only hope to succeed by greatly expanding its appeal to non-Christians. ..."
"... While the process of secularization has been slower-moving in the U.S. compared to Europe, it is now proceeding rapidly. ..."
"... The trend away from faith is only bound to increase with time. ..."
"... Looked at over the longer term, the trend is even more discernible. In 1972, just 5.1 percent of Americans said they had no religious affiliation, according to the University of Chicago's General Social Survey . In 2014, that number was 20.7 percent, an increase of more than 400 percent. ..."
In the past several years, many trees have been felled and pixels electrocuted in the service of
discussion about the impact of Hispanics on the American electorate. No one knows for sure which
way they'll vote in the future but everyone is interested in discussing it. Curiously, though, an
even larger political shift is taking place yet receiving almost no attention whatsoever from political
reporters-the emergence of post-Christian America.
Judging solely from the rhetoric and actions
of the Republican presidential candidates this cycle, you would be hard-pressed to tell much difference
between 2016 and 1996, the year that the Christian Coalition was ruling the roost in GOP politics.
Sure there's a lot more talk about the Middle East than before, but when it comes to public displays
of religiosity, many of the would-be presidents have spent the majority of their candidacies effectively
auditioning for slots on the Trinity Broadcast Network.
Even Donald Trump, the thrice-married casino magnate turned television host, has gone about reincarnating
himself as a devout Christian, despite his evident lack of familiarity with the doctrines and practices
of the faith.
Thus far, however, the public faith efforts of the candidates not married to a former nude model
have all been for naught. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and former Pennsylvania senator
Rick Santorum, both of whom won Iowa in past years, dropped out after failing dismally in the Hawkeye
State's caucuses. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal quit months before even a single vote had been
cast. Texas senator Ted Cruz, despite being significantly better financed and supported by more conservative
leaders than previous Christian nationalist candidates, hasn't been able to do more than eke out
a victory in Iowa.
Christian Right candidates have always had a difficult task in running for president (none has
ever even gotten close to the nomination) but their even worse track record this cycle-in contrast
to that of Donald Trump-is a perfect window into trends that will set the pace of American politics
for decades to come: Americans are moving away from Christianity, including people most likely to
vote Republican. In this changed politics, which exists right now, the GOP can only hope to succeed
by greatly expanding its appeal to non-Christians.
While the process of secularization has been slower-moving in the U.S. compared to Europe, it
is now proceeding rapidly. A
2014 study by Pew Research
found that 23 percent of Americans say they're "unaffiliated" with any religious tradition, up from
20 percent
just 3 years earlier. The Public Religion Research Institute confirmed the statistic as well
with a 2014 poll based on 50,000 interviews indicating that
23 percent
of respondents were unaffiliated.
The trend away from faith is only bound to increase with time. According to Pew, about
36 percent of adults under the age of 50 have opted out of religion. At present, claiming no
faith is the fastest growing "religion" in the United States. Between 2007 and 2012, the number of
people claiming "nothing in particular" increased by 2.3 percent, those saying they were agnostics
increased by 1.2 percent and those claiming to be atheists increased by 0.8 percent. No actual religious
group has experienced
anywhere near such
growth during this time period.
Looked at over the longer term, the trend is even more discernible. In 1972, just 5.1 percent
of Americans said they had no religious affiliation, according to the University of Chicago's
General Social Survey.
In 2014, that number was 20.7 percent, an increase of more than 400 percent.
NYT is pro-Hillary neocon establishment influenced rag. One apt observation from NYT comments: "Trump's assertions about sleep should be taken with the grain of
salt that all his other grandiose proclamations deserve. I suspect he makes those claims just to prove
what an exceptional human he is. He doesn't even need to sleep much!" Trumps come and go, but the deluded,
totally brainwashed electorate will stay. That's the real problem. Degradation of democracy into oligarchy
(the iron law of oligarchy) is an objective process. Currently what we see is some kind revolt against
status quo. that's why Trump and Sanders get so many supporters.
Another one from comments: "Over the years, Pew surveys show that at least 60% of those polled can't name two
branches of the government. Current campaigns, including that of Sanders, imply that the POTUS has a
wide range of powers that are to be found nowhere in the Constitution." So none of Repug candidates
understand this document. And still I must admit that "Trump is the best in breed when it comes to this
GOP dog show." I agree that "Trump punches above his weight in debates "
NYT will never tell you why Hillary will be even more dangerous
president.
Only a sleep disorder physician following a full-night study could tell us whether the diagnosis
is clinically sound. This guy from NYT is a regular uneducated journo, not a certified physician. Why
insult people who truly suffer from sleep deprivation? So all of them are obnoxious maniacs? To me a
large part of his behavior is a typical alpha-male behavior. There are, in fact, a number of brilliant,
driven alpha-males who function well with a bare amount of sleep. That may be an evolutionary trait
that help them to achieve dominance. For example, Napoleon rarely slept more than 2-3 hours per 24-hour
period, according to several historians. Churchill stayed up several nights in a row reading Hansard
in his formative years and he was a gifted orator, one of the sharpest wits. He also was an alcoholic.
Several famous famous mathematicians were among sleep deprived people. Like photographic memory this
is a unique idiosyncrasy that is more frequent in alpha-males, not necessary a disease. BTW Angela Merkel
is noted for her ability not to sleep for several nights, wearing her opponents into shreds via sleep
deprivation and enforcing her decisions over the rest. That was last demonstrated in Minsk were she
managed even to get Putin to agree on her terms.
He mentions this term "alpha male" despite the fact that it provides an
alternative explanation. Also as one reader commented "So please explain the positions (and behaviors
) of Ayatollah Cruz and rubber man Rubio." Those two backstabbing pseudo-religious demagog got implicit
support from the article.
How about this from sleep deprived person vs one definitely non-sleep deprive person (Jeb!): "Donald
Trump joins the fight to release the secret 28 Pages of the 9/11 Report."
Notable quotes:
"... This is Time's contribution to the growing movement to discredit Trump. Every candidate can be similarly eviscerated for their weaknesses, including character flaws. The problem is that our American system of electing leadership is deeply flawed and easily manipulated by advertising. The humiliating process of campaigning drives away our best prospects, leaving the country with weak, inconsistent leadership. ..."
"... gemli, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton pursued a regime change in Libya, Syria and Ukraine. They got away with their foolish adventure by saying that Gaddafi was a bad guy, Assad is a bad guy and Putin is a bad guy. ..."
"... Mr. Trump is the sole American politician who is willing to say that we should cooperate with Putin. He is the only Republican to be open to single payer health care, the only Republican to say something good about Planned Parenthood and the only Republican to say that Bush should have been impeached for the Iraq war. ..."
"... Hillary Rodham and Marco Rubio are so awful that we would be better off with a nasty, sleep-deprived Trump. Besides, there is still a much better alternative: the irascible Bernie Sanders. He may be angry, but you would have to be crazy to not be angry with the mess we now have to live with: a rigged economy, free trade , politics corrupted by money, and an insatiable Military Industrial Complex. ..."
"... A lot of people are angry and Trump is channeling that anger. Sanders is channeling a different anger but he is too nice, and will lose to Mrs. Clinton who is supported by the establishment. ..."
"... He, I believe is also the first American politician to say openly that we have to cooperate with Russia if we are really serious about taking on ISIS. Mr. Obama, with his Harvard education, has NO idea what to do about the ME and is floundering around. Meanwhile Russia and Assad and the Kurds are taking the lead, and our allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia are actually undermining the war against ISIS. ..."
"... I would not vote for Trump but if he does become president, we might actually have peace in the Middle East and we might actually have single payer health care. On the second, almost all the Democrats will support him and so will at least some Republicans. ..."
"... Trump is not a nice man but he might not be a disaster as president. ..."
"... Trump is right about one thing, He does make your head spin. ..."
"... I just finished reading 4 opinion columns by Bruni, Brooks, Krugman and lastly Tim Egans, all published on Feb 26th. (May the last be first and the first last.) I hope Kasich wins to invoke a civil exchange of ideas in American politics, but I will vote for Bernie ..."
"... I imagine the Asians and/or Europe all laughing at us now, but at least there not shouting and acting like children. Help me, Im drowning. Give me a leader who can compromise in that great noble tradition which benefits everyone. Its called compassion for the global family. ..."
"... Ambler in Background to Danger has a small meditation about politics being not much of anything other than a face behind which the true story goes on, one of big business interests--or in general, economic interests. ..."
"... With Donald Trump the Republican party in the U.S. seems to have dropped the politics mask -- you have a combination of business and fascistic impulses. The question however, is why. Could it be because now all nations in the world find themselves hemmed, with a landlocked feeling like Germany had prior to outbreak of WW2? These business/authoritarian impulses today are not confined to the U.S. alone. ..."
"... how to satisfy in simple basics the restless masses of millions upon millions of people, everything else, not to mention culture, just collapsing in a crowd discussion of who gets what, when, where, why, and how. ..."
"... Whats defective about Trump? He is obviously doing very well for himself - he is the likely Republican nominee and is not exactly starving despite multiple bankruptcies. ..."
"... There are real problems with politics in the US and Trump is getting support partly because he at least shows some signs, however delusionary, of addressing the concerns of the 99%. ..."
"... Why are Democrats so concerned that Donald Trump might be the Republican Partys nominee for President that the NY Times trots out editorials psychobabbling about his sleep deprivation? ..."
"... Trump may be all that the intellectual elite deride him for. Guess what? The people who support him dont care. They are tired of being told how to think by people who suppose themselves to be their betters. They will cast their votes and throw their support behind whomever they please, thank-you very much. ..."
"... And really, does Timothy Egan really believe Donald Trump doesnt know what hes doing or saying? Because of sleep deprivation? Note to Mr. Egan: Whatever is Trumps sleep schedule, it seems to be working well for him. Hes winning. ..."
"... Trump functions well enough to understand this: (1) The media is deceptive with an agenda of its own. (2) Big donors and big money control the career politicians. 93) Politicians can talk talk talk and make plans and policy and get nothing done. ..."
"... Trump and his supporters are on to all this now. The corrupt media, the corrupt big money and the all talk no action politicians. That is functioning well enough. Trump does not need to function beyond that. His supporters know it and he knows it. ..."
"... So far the best and the brightest highly educated intellectuals have let the USA down . Trump has a certain kind of intelligence that might be just what we need. He effectively cut through a crowded Republican field packed with ideological purists like a knife through butter. He is a very talented New Yorker who grew up in the 60s and went to Fordham before he went to Wharton. If you want to stick your finger in the collective eye of the elite . vote for Trump. ..."
"... The republican party is the reactionary party. They are a little like the Sicilians described in the novel The Leopard where it is said that In Sicily it doesnt matter whether things are done well or done badly; the sin which we Sicilians never forgive is simply that of doing at all. ..."
"... The Taibbi piece can be found here at this link: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-... ..."
"... Better a sleep deprived bully than a well rested one, which what the rest of the bunch are. They clearly know exactly how to ruin the country and antagonize our allies. ..."
"... As you are reading this, recall how a stressful event in your own life interfered with your sleep. Well, given the frantic nature of the current Republican primary season, the travel, the debates, the probing press, the TV interviews, the speeches, the insults and whats at stake, all of the candidates must be sleep deprived. If they were not they wouldnt be human. Donald will do just fine once he becomes president and gets use to the job (or not). ..."
"... But what about those who hold those same obnoxious ideas arguably sans sleep deprivation? Palin, Cruz, Carson? Please do a series of columns linking the apparent absence of reason in many of the GOP candidates with the current DSM. ..."
"... I used to ridicule President Reagans legendary afternoon naps. Now I am the age Reagan was as president, and I dont think I could function without napping when I dont get enough sleep at night. ..."
"... What is happening now is not about Trump. Its about what he represents. I dont normally read Peggy Noonan but she nails it today. There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully. ..."
This is Tim's contribution to the growing movement to discredit Trump. Every candidate can
be similarly eviscerated for their weaknesses, including character flaws. The problem is that
our American system of electing leadership is deeply flawed and easily manipulated by advertising.
The humiliating process of campaigning drives away our best prospects, leaving the country with
weak, inconsistent leadership.
The founding fathers rejected a parliamentary system because it was like England's, but history
indicates America could have avoided many political debacles if it had been easier to remove incompetent
presidents when their decisions threatened the country. Modernizing our electoral system, shortening
the campaign time, and raising the level of debate could improve the choices Americans are given.
gemli, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton pursued a regime change in Libya, Syria and Ukraine.
They got away with their foolish adventure by saying that Gaddafi was a bad guy, Assad is a bad
guy and Putin is a bad guy.
And maybe they are right about these people being bad guys. But the regime change policy has
been a disaster. WE did not spend a trillion dollars and no AMERICAN troops died. But hundreds
of thousands of Syrians are dead, millions knocking at Germany's door and Greece is overwhelmed
with refugees. This was all the doing of the "Obama team".
Mr. Trump is the sole American politician who is willing to say that we should cooperate with
Putin. He is the only Republican to be open to single payer health care, the only Republican to
say something good about Planned Parenthood and the only Republican to say that Bush should have
been impeached for the Iraq war.
YOU just see a nasty man in the Republican debates who talks nonsense and has no trouble lying.
And that nasty mean does seem to be there, although given Trump, the nasty man might well be a
façade who will vanish as soon as he faces the general election.
And you need to be aware of the fact that some of his positions are actually sensible and he
is the only politician who has all these positions.
Unfortunately you guys hate Republicans so much that you see red any time you see one and that
red in your eyes prevents you from seeing clearly.
A sleep-deprived Trump is still much better than a fully rested tool of the elites from
either political party.
Hillary Rodham and Marco Rubio are so awful that we would be better off with a nasty, sleep-deprived
Trump. Besides, there is still a much better alternative: the irascible Bernie Sanders. He may
be angry, but you would have to be crazy to not be angry with the mess we now have to live with:
a rigged economy, "free trade", politics corrupted by money, and an insatiable Military Industrial
Complex.
Rohit, New York 9 hours ago
A lot of people are angry and Trump is channeling that anger. Sanders is channeling a different
anger but he is too nice, and will lose to Mrs. Clinton who is supported by the establishment.
Trump is mean enough to take on the establishment, and win. And he is the first Republican brave
enough to say that Planned Parenthood DOES do some good work. Like him, I do NOT think they should
receive federal funding but that some or most of their work is actually health related is a fact.
He, I believe is also the first American politician to say openly that we have to cooperate
with Russia if we are really serious about taking on ISIS. Mr. Obama, with his Harvard education,
has NO idea what to do about the ME and is floundering around. Meanwhile Russia and Assad and
the Kurds are taking the lead, and our "allies" Turkey and Saudi Arabia are actually undermining
the war against ISIS.
I would not vote for Trump but if he does become president, we might actually have peace
in the Middle East and we might actually have single payer health care. On the second, almost
all the Democrats will support him and so will at least some Republicans.
Trump is not a nice man but he might not be a disaster as president.
Mr. Egan, Donald Trump may or may not suffer from sleep deprivation. He definitely suffers
from something called NPD, Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He has the classic symptoms which
are described as follows, according to the Mayo Clinic
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-d... :
"DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:
Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
Exaggerating your achievements and talents
Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect
mate
Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally
special people
Requiring constant admiration
Having a sense of entitlement
Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations
Taking advantage of others to get what you want
Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
Being envious of others and believing others envy you
Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner"
bill b new york 16 hours ago
Trump is right about one thing, He does make your head spin.
Paul Greensboro, NC 11 hours ago
I just finished reading 4 opinion columns by Bruni, Brooks, Krugman and lastly Tim Egan's, all
published on Feb 26th. (May the last be first and the first last.) I hope Kasich wins to invoke
a civil exchange of ideas in American politics, but I will vote for Bernie or Hilary assuming
an asteroid does not hit the earth before then.
I imagine the Asians and/or Europe all laughing at us now, but at least the're not shouting
and acting like children. Help me, I'm drowning. Give me a leader who can compromise in that great
noble tradition which benefits everyone. It's called compassion for the global family.
Daniel12 Wash. D.C. 14 hours ago
Donald Trump?
I'm on a project to read four (the four I could find so far) of the six Eric Ambler novels
written prior to WW2. I'm on the second, "Background to Danger", now. Ambler in "Background
to Danger" has a small meditation about politics being not much of anything other than a face
behind which the true story goes on, one of big business interests--or in general, economic interests.
With Donald Trump the Republican party in the U.S. seems to have dropped the politics mask
-- you have a combination of business and fascistic impulses. The question however, is why. Could
it be because now all nations in the world find themselves hemmed, with a landlocked feeling like
Germany had prior to outbreak of WW2? These business/authoritarian impulses today are not confined
to the U.S. alone.
Worse, the opposition to big business, the other big economic theory of past decades, the socialistic/communistic
trend, has been seen in practice whether we speak of Cuba or the Soviet Union or Venezuela or
China. It seems all the masks of politics are coming off, all the ideals such as democracy, rights,
communism, what have you and instead the argument is turning to actual and naked discussion of
interests pure and simple, right and left wing economics, how to satisfy in simple basics
the restless masses of millions upon millions of people, everything else, not to mention culture,
just collapsing in a crowd discussion of who gets what, when, where, why, and how.
The open boat.
skeptonomist is a trusted commenter Tennessee 11 hours ago
What's defective about Trump? He is obviously doing very well for himself - he is the likely
Republican nominee and is not exactly starving despite multiple bankruptcies.
What needs analysis is why so many people support Trump - what's up with them? And what defects
in the establishments of both parties cause so many people to reject their selected dynastic picks.
There are real problems with politics in the US and Trump is getting support partly because
he at least shows some signs, however delusionary, of addressing the concerns of the 99%.
Beachbum Paris 14 hours ago
This is all thanks to Rupert Murdoch
S.D.Keith Birmigham, AL 7 hours ago
Why are Democrats so concerned that Donald Trump might be the Republican Party's nominee for
President that the NY Times trots out editorials psychobabbling about his sleep deprivation?
This is hilarious stuff. Trump may be all that the intellectual elite deride him for. Guess
what? The people who support him don't care. They are tired of being told how to think by people
who suppose themselves to be their betters. They will cast their votes and throw their support
behind whomever they please, thank-you very much. That, much to the chagrin of the Progressive
idealists who always believe they know better what people should need and want, is democracy in
action. It may be ugly at times, but it is much preferred over every other form of governance.
In fact, articles like this, while red meat for establishmentarian dogs, serve only to strengthen
Trump's bona fides among his supporters.
And really, does Timothy Egan really believe Donald Trump doesn't know what he's doing or saying?
Because of sleep deprivation? Note to Mr. Egan: Whatever is Trump's sleep schedule, it seems to
be working well for him. He's winning.
J. San Ramon 9 hours ago
Trump functions well enough to understand this: (1) The media is deceptive with an agenda of its own.
(2) Big donors and big money control the career politicians. 93) Politicians can talk talk talk and make plans and policy and get nothing done.
Trump and his supporters are on to all this now. The corrupt media, the corrupt big money and
the all talk no action politicians. That is functioning well enough. Trump does not need to function beyond that. His supporters
know it and he knows it.
So far the best and the brightest highly educated intellectuals have let the USA down . Trump
has a certain kind of intelligence that might be just what we need. He effectively cut through
a crowded Republican field packed with ideological purists like a knife through butter. He is
a very talented New Yorker who grew up in the 60s and went to Fordham before he went to Wharton.
If you want to stick your finger in the collective eye of the "elite". vote for Trump. This message
brought to you by a hugely "bigly" educated Queens lawyer. go Redmen
Excellency, is a trusted commenterFlorida
9 hours ago
The republican party is the reactionary party. They are a little like the Sicilians described
in the novel "The Leopard" where it is said that" In Sicily it doesn't matter whether things are
done well or done badly; the sin which we Sicilians never forgive is simply that of 'doing' at
all."
Imagine a man of action like Trump navigating that population, from which great jurists like
Scalia emerge, and you have Trump behaving much as Egan describes and succeeding. Indeed, in that
same novel it is said that "to rage and mock is gentlemanly, to grumble and whine is not."
Better a sleep deprived bully than a well rested one, which what the rest of the bunch
are. They clearly know exactly how to ruin the country and antagonize our allies.
Ever wonder why Trump invokes the name of Carl Ihkan every chance he gets? Both engage in hostile
takeovers. That's the predatory side of business. But how does that qualify Trump to be the Commander-In-Chief?
I would not be surprised if a frustrated President Trump threatened to punch Vladimir Putin in
the face. The very thought of President Trump is a nightmare, but no less a nightmare than President
Cruz or President Rubio.
John Kenneth Galbraith, who was in parts of his career intimate with government (including
being American ambassador to India during the 1962 China-India War) said in his autobiography
that sleep deprivation was the least-appreciated weakness of high-level decision makers in times
of crisis.
Somewhere I've read of an experiment that concluded that someone who hasn't slept for
36 hours is as dysfunctional as if he were legally intoxicated. And I recall Colin Powell praising Ambien as the only thing that allowed him to travel as he had to. That's interesting, given Ambien's
well-known potential amnesic side-effects.
As you are reading this, recall how a stressful event in your own life interfered with
your sleep. Well, given the frantic nature of the current Republican primary season, the travel,
the debates, the probing press, the TV interviews, the speeches, the insults and what's at stake,
all of the candidates must be sleep deprived. If they were not they wouldn't be human. Donald
will do just fine once he becomes president and gets use to the job (or not).
But what about those who hold those same obnoxious ideas arguably sans sleep deprivation? Palin,
Cruz, Carson? Please do a series of columns linking the apparent absence of reason in many of the GOP candidates
with the current DSM.
Good call, though I suspect most presidential candidates need a lot more sleep. A friend of
mine who lived near Michael Dukakis saw him a few weeks after the 1988 election, and he recounted
that the Democratic presidential candidate said he was now sleeping so much better, that in the
hectic pace of a campaign, he wasn't able to take the time to learn "what was really going on"
and to process everything.
I used to ridicule President Reagan's legendary afternoon naps. Now I am the age Reagan
was as president, and I don't think I could function without napping when I don't get enough sleep
at night.
There's a campaign trope about who you want to be in the White House when an emergency call
about a serious world crisis comes in at 3 a.m. I want him or her to be someone who didn't just
go to sleep at 2 a.m.
What is happening now is not about Trump. It's about what he represents. I don't normally
read Peggy Noonan but she nails it today. "There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected
make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.
The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful-those who have power or access
to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are
protected from the world they have created."
"... American politics is all about selling a candidate to mostly ignorant, shallow, and gullible voters. There is significant truth in such a contentious assumption. Look at some of the characters of past presidents and today take a hard look at the candidates. It is a pretty scary bunch. While knowledge can be acquired, moral values and character cannot. Voters get what they deserve so be careful. ..."
"... Its very undemocratic to elect successive members of a dynasty, and really ironic since America is built on immigrants fleeing despotic European monarchies. It seems as though people in the US need to construct a mythological back story to strengthen their confidence in the world. Maybe behind the American Dream is a feeling that unrestrained capitalism is too powerful and too unjust? ..."
343. Remember it well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-0G9-_v_Yo
quite the scariest politician America ever spawned! His sanctimonious psychopathy included torture
and the killing of at least 100,000 in Iraq without a second of remorse.
So the vampire-squid strokes its chin with one tentacle while proclaiming it's too big to jail,
big enough to take the country down, and big media takes a pass ---- whole lotta ebbing with J
E B going on.
I disagree that USA is finished. Yes it has far too much debt, but it has a relatively small
population compared to both its geographic size and natural resources.
Big issue in next 50 years will be food production given the world population will top 10 billion
by 2050 and on current growth 28 billion by 2100.
Current immigration issues in Europe & US will be nothing by comparison
Why are the candidates....liberal or conservative....spending millions to win the presidency????????
Does it matter to the puppet master who wins????????
@339 Chris A
----
Hello Chris.most people are aware and agree with your point of view....even the Americans. They
just don't have anyone to vote for so have to pick the best of a bad lot. Why would anyone spend
millions on a campaign for the presidency...when the wage for the presidency is what ...perhaps
$200,000.00 per year. Maybe its the power. I think the USofA is finished...watch China.
334. Hard to argue: "The Bush's, some of the most dangerous characters on this Planet." The
US Supreme Court (loaded by Bush Jr) has enacted some pretty extreme positions: 2nd Amendment
'Well regulated militia.. ' repeal*, Citizen's United, Voters Rights Act repeal, Hobby lobby,
etc. * Two Justices' are downright scary:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/07/scotus-refuses-to-hear-2nd-amendment-ass
332. Certainly not boring (sociopaths rarely are), Bush Jr's 8 years drove America to its lowest
point since the Civil War! Jr won Florida by 500 votes in 2000 as Jeb eliminated 48,000 blacks
from the voter pool ('scrub lists') - criminality of the highest order:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_And
of course, 'The Voting Rights Act of 1965' was repealed by the SC last year!
John Bush is simply boring. I didn't care for his brother but at least he didn't bore me. Too
many of us remember Governor Bush canceling a recount on the advice of John Roberts so the conservative
State Supreme court could appoint his brother, the second place finisher as the winner of the
presidential election
320. Jeb Bush can't relate to the 'anger' in America (as Bernie and Donald manage to navigate):
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35406324
as he and his brother (Jr) were instrumental in maintaining the factors that led to the decline
of middle class incomes and jobs: offshoring, business consolidation (anti trust dumped by Reagan)
& a fearful public as a consequence of continuous-war since 2003.
The real issue is that none of the candidates have come up with a solution to the fix the problem
of the impact of globalisation on the middle classes - who previously if they got a college degree
and worked hard would be rewarded with a good standard of living, that's no longer a guarantee
(although it helps).....
Trump is coming with ideas (protectionist rubbish) buts it's making an impact.
What is the product Jeb can offer? His brother (Jr) set the Middle East on fire: for-profit
Iraq war debacle that left that country ungovernable. Similarly Yemen, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt
have deposed dictators and are ungovernable. Assad in Syria, under attack by the US, created Isil
- The US is the ME bad actor!
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-biggest-winners-of-the-arab-spring-dictators/
At least Hillary can make even Vladimir Putin laugh, with her reset button buffoonery.
She probably tells people about having to dodge sniper fire to get it to him.
She would probably turn to dust, if she every accidentally told the truth.
I know of no other major country in the world that has turned its elections into such never
ending razzmatazz. It sounds more like the carnival in Rio than the serious business of electing
a leader.
At time it is even reminiscent of the beer hall oratory in thirties Munich.
A relevant question, perhaps, is whether the United States is governable? Conflicting and unrealistic
expectations are the daily menu. Politicians made promises about everything and anything without
care. A nation so diverse in moral values and character cannot endure for long.
American politics is all about selling a candidate to mostly ignorant, shallow, and gullible
voters. There is significant truth in such a contentious assumption. Look at some of the characters
of past presidents and today take a hard look at the candidates. It is a pretty scary bunch. While
knowledge can be acquired, moral values and character cannot. Voters get what they deserve so
be careful.
Surely Jon Sopel doesn't actually believe that when it's no secret all but two candidates receive
similar funding?
Just because the money invested in Bush didn't pay off doesn't mean the same billionaires,
corporations & superPACS will stop buying other politicians. They still have Cruz, Rubio & Clinton
to act in their best interest.
All the Republicans are disgustingly shallow in character and intelligence some like Ted Cruz
are positively sinister ... Son of Satan ... Cruz's unbelievable vile bigotry and religious pathology
can be examined first hand... Stupidity seems a Republican requirement...
-------------
Why so unfair by excluding the Democrats from that?
Touch of bias? ;-)
It's very undemocratic to elect successive members of a dynasty, and really ironic since
America is built on immigrants fleeing despotic European monarchies. It seems as though people
in the US need to construct a mythological back story to strengthen their confidence in the world.
Maybe behind the American Dream is a feeling that unrestrained capitalism is too powerful and
too unjust?
This Cruz guy is a fuckin sleazeball. I thought he is meant to be all righteous, but for
someone so God fearing has employed some reprehensible techniques to attempt to get the vote.
But surely since by becoming President he would be doing God's will
- than everything he does to achieve that is God's will, and thus can not be wrong
- or at least that is most probably how he thinks ...
.
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/22/gods_plan_these_gop_candidates_claim_the_almighty_wants_them_to_run
/
"... For a lot of the 16 presidential candidates vying to become the next Commander-in-Chief,
the decision to run for higher office was not a political calculation but rather a divine
calling from above. Here are 6 Republicans who claim that God called on them to run for
President ..."
Ted Cruz is the biggest bullshit artist to run for president in modern era. He talks about
Washington Cartel, he's part of it and takes all his money from his so called cartel. His
slime ball ways make Trump look good. Cruz is more dishonest than Hillary, and that's hard to
do.....
Let's get this straight
:
Ted Cruz did NOT fire his guy for spreading a false story.
Ted Cruz fired his guy for getting CAUGHT spreading a false story.
This Cruz is a nasty piece of work. We can't afford to have a man like this running the
country. If this is the level of lies and incompetence of his people, his judgement is far
awry. I wouldn't mind if this were the first utterly dishonest attack, but ask Carson.
So Cruz got caught red handed in another one of his desperate attempts of getting ahead in the
polls and someone's head had to roll. . . No surprise there!
Shady Cruz with his fake sad eyebrows just wants everybody to believe that he's a good guy
surrounded by shifty campaign managers. If that were the case he'd make a pretty poor
president if he can't even control his own campaign properly...
I've seen Cruz twice this week described as oleaginous.
I was trying to put my finger on his personality. That's it.
Such a good word. I think I'll use it twice this post.
Oleaginous Cruz.
Reminds me of Nixon.
Nixon in comparison just a prankster...And if I remember it right he set up EPA. Cruz would
destroy it if gave him few votes. This one is a mirror of Hillary on GOP side - a notion of
decency is understood only when profit is expected...
This is so weird. I mean to put out a false ad in which Marco Rubio disses the Bible is
infantile in its conception. Who the hell thought this up? Who authorized it? Is this the
level of intelligence of the Cruz campaign? If Rubio had actually done it then that's a
different story. But to CHANGE what the guy said is just so brain dead. And this guy Cruz
wants to be POTUS? Sorry Ted!
Religion should not really have a role in politics
, but we will see. It's mostly on
values. Abortion, same sex marriage. I am pro-life, however, I am a man. I don't know if men
should have a role in abortion since the role of the male is already dying in America. I am a
Christian. Most Democrats and socialists do not like God. Some Republicans don't either. Cruz
can't win, but we better cannot allow another president who praises Islam, a religion that is
deadly as the West Nile Virus. We have leftists that disparage Christianity, but shower on
Islam. That is what is likely to destroy the country.
Please check your assumptions at the door. The things you think you know may in fact not be
true.
Most Democrats and Socialists do not like God? That is nonsense at every possible
level. You may be correct in stating that many Democrats and Socialists resist the narrow
minded right wing Christian view that cherry picks Bible verses to try to support a philosophy
that is fundamentally against the philosophy espoused by Jesus.
Jesus is a liberal. Please read the New Testament for what is says. This is an obvious
fact. The radical right wing Christians have a project to rewrite the Bible because it does
not say what they want it to say.
Stop accepting what your religious authorities tell you. Read the Bible.
It's nice that Cruz and Rubio are scratching each other's eyes out while Trump plows ahead.
While Cruz would be the ideal Republican nominee -- he couldn't possibly win the general
election -- Rubio has been bought and paid for by the Israel lobby, so I'll take Trump and
hope whoever the Democrats nominate can manage to exploit the glaring vulnerabilities in his
record.
That was one staff member and he was fired. Don't be stupid... Also the duality that is
American politics is a sham designed to divide, don't be stupid...
Actually he is not "stupid," he is spot on. The GOP does "rule" according to their zealous,
evangelical beliefs. They try to merge their poisonous religion into the legislation they sign
into law. They want to stack the supreme court with an evangelical judge who would make
judgements not according to law, but according to some arcane, religious belief which is
wrong. If you can't see that, you must not be an American. You should take care calling people
"stupid" just for forming and voicing an opinion.
Cruz is the definition of sleaze. The huckster hawking the Bible-- and him throwing a staffer
under the bus doesn't fool me at all. And the more he keeps with his on/off fake "Texas
drawl", the more I reflexively want to give Texas back to Mexico (with some caveats, of
course)...
It's parallel to any normal political or moral universe. Couldn't American politics stage a
political scandal about something that matters: tax evasion, lying about their history,
breaking promises, illegal campaign funds, even some good old-fashioned sexual shenanigans?
These would be preferable to an uproar about whether Rubio believes the Bible has all / some /
none of the answers. In what universe should this issue count for anything?
"No answers in it" "all the answers are in it". Shit. This us the 21st century? Either
of these two creeps (be they true believers or huge cynics) have a shot at the white
house!? I can't believe this it the real world
It's like these politicians are saying "look at me, I'm so pious, this will get me elected" -
instead, they remind me of used car salesmen who tell you how good their car is, all the while
knowing that they are lying through their teeth...and this is the level of deceit required to
make a person the President of the United States?
Cruz knew exactly what was happening and made Tyler the scapegoat. There's a verse somewhere
in the bible that opposes long sleeved shirts. Does Cruz wear only short sleeved shirts? Is he
going to have a christian test Americans must pass? Why do Christians--who seem to disrespect
Jews--think one must believe a Jew is our personal savior to get into heaven? Jesus was not a
Christian. He was a Jew. Ted Cruz will be burning people at the stake who don't believe his
version of the bible.
Intelligent people try their best to distance themselves from the Bible (even if they are in
secret "believers" to some extent).
In the US however, if you're not shrieking about how a
white Jesus rode about on dinosaurs firing a semi-automatic like some crack-addled nightmare,
your "morals" and "integrity" are in question.
I can't wait for the US to GROW THE F**K UP and dispense with this fairytale nonsense.
Anyone who believes all the answers are in the bible should have his or her head examined. A
book written by men of a certain ethnic group some 1500 years ago has all the answers!
It is
as unbelievable as the stories in the bible that Ted, the master crook, did not know of the
video. Tyler was the scapegoat
And these people are serious candidates to be the most powerful person in the world..
What a pathetic circus of bigots this has become. This is very worrying now
Cruz campaigners were also the ones who told Iowa caucus goers that Carson was withdrawing
from the race and that they should give their votes to Cruz. These are not accidents. This is
Cruz strategy.
I would question a politician's commitment to the bible also. As in, why on earth are they
committed? Shouldn't they be committed to 'reality' and governing properly in the modern age.
The USA has always been a scary place to Asian and Middle Eastern countries who don't possess
nuclear capability. Now, it is becoming genuinely entrenched as a scary place to even the
western world.
Rubio thinks the Bible has "all the answers in it" Trump, Hilary pretend they think the Bible
has "all the answers in it" Bernie knows the Bible doesn't have "all the answers in it" but
still panders to the religious right, Cruz thinks the Bible has "all the answers in it" and
ignores it's rules. Oh for a candidate who actually would say "not many answers in it"
Cruz is just throwing the guy overboard because the whole Cruz enterprise keeps getting caught
out with typical little GOP dirty tricks like scare emails and phony reports about other
candidates dropping out. Sanctimonious hypocrite.
The problem for Cruz here is that it feeds into the existing narrative of him as a congenital
liar. I'm not saying that he is, merely that the narrative is out there.
That's a very bad narrative to have floating around, and twice as ironic given the presence
of Trump in the race.
I would say that Clinton is more of a 'stretcher of truth' or 'congenital parser' than a
straight-out liar.
I see where you're coming from, and I agree that Hillary is, how should
we put it, somewhat careless with facts at times. Well, rather often.
But she doesn't do the Big Lie like Trump does, and she doesn't resort to the desperate and
frankly rather amateurish dirty-tricks efforts of the Cruz campaign. Instead it's a continual
slow drip-drip of superficially correct information which upon close examination starts
falling apart.
These Christian clowns along with the Donald show their real colours while rolling in the mud
and breeding division and hatred. Does anyone see any real difference with these religious
bigots and those of ISIS or the Israeli Government.
It's certain that Cruz is running a low campaign, constantly looking for things his opponent
have said or done that would look bad in the eyes of the devout Evangelicals he is courting.
He gets his underlings to do the dirty work, though, so they can be sacked if they stuff up or
go too far. Rick Tyler stuffed up by getting the quote wrong. He believed what he wanted to
believe and didn't think the situation through. Even if what Tyler quoted Rubio as saying had
been what he thought, why would he have said it? That should have rung alarm bells and gotten
Tyler to check the quote for authenticity.
What is disgraceful in Rubio's conduct, however,
is different. He is engaged in the ostentatious display of his religiosity so as to seek the
regard of others. People should recite Luke 18:9-14 at him.
The problem for Cruz is that he isn't aiming for the establishment lane at all. His whole
career and all his moves the last few years - including shutting down the government - have
been based on two premises:
1) There is a large angry base willing to vote in decisive
numbers for a hard-line, no-compromise politician, and
2) This base actually is so large that if fully mobilized, the moderate establishment lane
voters can be ignored.
Well, Trump and Sanders have both monopolized (1) in their respective parties and with
independents (and with some cross-over appeal), whereas (2) probably is a fallacy and always
was.
The delegate math doesn't look good for Cruz. He really would have to over-perform in the
SEC states on March 1st, otherwise it may all be over.
Check out the detailed response I just made to sdkeller72. Cruz is in better shape than
Rubio is for Super Tuesday. Both will survive and both will keep going, with neither
able to beat Trump. It's going to be a three-man race for some time to come, and the
longer it goes on, the more it favors Trump. Witness the delegate count to date:
Cruz is in better shape than Rubio is for Super Tuesday.
His ground game is excellent, I agree. Top notch. But have you seen the Channel 2 Action
News poll (referred to in the Guardian live blog a few minutes ago)?
Cruz' Georgia numbers are appalling! He comes a weak third to the surging Rubio. In
Georgia! If the poll numbers anything like resemble the final outcome, and if they are
replicated across other SEC states, Cruz' campaign is effectively over on March 1st. No
exaggeration.
If however, Cruz can match expectations in the South, I agree with you that it will be a
three-man race. I also agree that a 3-man race favours Trump.
But this could actually turn into a 2-man race sooner than I think anybody expected...
A nation comprised of 27% druggies certainly fits the Darwin profile for breeding dinosaurs.
Ancient civilizations found it useful to employ drugs to make zombie drones of the workers.
Easier to control the idle mob. The Romans had the collesiums to keep the zombies happy, we
today use sports, music and non reality movies and TV to drown out though and logic.
The Donald Trumps plays a game similar to Adolf and his Brown Shirt crew. Thinking takes
energy and couch potatoes like potato chips and beer.
"Got a good book there, all the answers in it," quoth Rubio. And a right useful thing that is,
too. I was just wondering what the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference is,
so I decided to look it up:
1 Kings 7:23 --
"
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all
about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about
."
So, pi is equal to three (
π = 3
)!
Jolly fine thing our politicians are so astute! And, now that I have found the Oracle of
Oracles, I'll be looking for the next winning PowerBall numbers. Probably to be found
somewhere in Revelations....
Raving, religious nutters, that's who. I also thought church and state were to be kept
separate in US politics, but I guess that's the part of the Constitution they choose to
ignore.
You show a very poor understanding of the concept of separation of church and state. It
doesn't mean that a candidate cannot profess faith. It simply means that the government cannot
establish a state church. Don't forget, one of the big objections to British rule was the fact
that there was, and still is, a state church.
Funny . . . I don't recall the Founding Fathers being particularly concerned about the church
of England and they certainly didn't consider it important enough to list as one of the
reasons for our declaration of Independence. For ease of reference, here's a link to the text
of that document:
Cruz says his campaign would never question the faith of another candidate. My question is why
is it so important that a candidate show deference to a being that they cannot prove exists?
It is quite hilarious watching grown men and women falling over each other to prove that they
believe more strongly than the others in an imaginary entity. What does this blind,
preposterous faith have to do with how well they can run the country? Can't wait for the day
when the first atheist president is elected; at least he/she won't be so much of a bullshitter.
You're right, in fact now I think about it, it's actually much worse. Who would want a
president who believes all answers can be found in a hodge-podge of papers written by
many different people over a period of many years, more than 2,000 years ago?
And this is a man who has lifted GOP debate on matters scientific from "I am not a scientist"
to 'theologians disagree" ... even if the latter suggests he is finding answers from outside
interpretations of the book ... not the book itself.
Imagine how unabashedly filthy a Clinton versus Cruz campaign would be. That would be fun to
watch if only one of them didn't have to become President at the end.
I must admit, I thought of that is well. At first I was convinced it wasn't worth the
entertainment value... but now I worry that the actual final choice might almost as terrible
in any case!
[Cruz] added of his rival's campaign: "They have a long record they've earned in South
Carolina of engaging in this kind of trickery and impugning the integrity of whoever their
opponent is to distract the attention. We are going to stay focused on issues and substance
and record."
Did your head just explode, too?
I mean, Cruz saying that, you know.... the dirtiest, lying candidate running.
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostle of
Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
2 Cor. 11:13-14
Not that I believe in an ontological devil, but if I did:
1. Cruz would be it or
2. HRC would be married to it
I've not bitten my tongue about my disdain for HRC, but she doesn't have that ability that
Cruz and Bill have to come across in a certain way. HRC is nasty and mean and she come across
as being nasty. Cruz is better at hiding it and BJ Clinton is the master at hiding his true
nature.
Cruz and Rubio think all the answers are in the bible. Trump thinks all the answers lie with
race baiting and predatory capitalism. And Hillary thinks she'll find the answers by saber
rattling and talking tough about Wall Street while taking their money on the down low. We're
sunk.
Cruz is in the pockets of the rich and don't give a hoot about the poor and middle class
people. Just take a look at his tax reform.
He couldn't care less about minorities and
female reproductive rights and would rather see Obamacare crash, burn, and take the US economy
down with it than to watch it succeed.
Under Obama, who Ted Cruz HATES, we've seen:
RECORD unemployment numbers, legalized gay marriage, 5% growth, best year for jobs since
1999, consumer confidence up, deficit down 60% in 2014, gas prices low, health insurance
cheaper than ever ($85/month), car insurance cheaper than ever ($25/month from Insurance
Panda), the 1% starting to be taxed more… all while republicans bleated about Benghazi took
pointless votes to repeal the ACA, and did nothing for anybody except the top one percent.
I like Cruz. I love him, even though I'm rooting for Bernie.
I love Cruz because he is the only one guaranteed to lose the election for the GOP, so please,
people, show him some love.
"Don't worry Rick you only lost 2 weeks worth of pay, Cruz' campaign will be over after Super
Tuesday anyway." - sdkeller72
*
Seriously? In what alternate universe?
First, look at the polls. According to the latest RCP
polls for Super Tuesday states:
1st place - Trump 4, Cruz 1
2nd place - Cruz 2, Rubio 2, Trump 1
3rd place - Rubio 3, Cruz 2, Trump 0
(States with no February polls)
Alabama
Alaska
Colorado
Minnesota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas highly favorable to Cruz, the rest anybody's guess
Then there's also the cash-on-hand for the campaigns:
Cruz - $13M in campaign funds, $25 in PAC funds
Rubio - $5M in campaign funds, $5 in PAC funds
Trump - Doesn't need any contributions
While Trump is definitely the king of the hill, Cruz is in better shape than Rubio for
getting through Super Tuesday. Rubio's not going to drop out no matter what, but neither is
Cruz.
but don't you love the Trump tweets? There's something so simplistic and gleeful about them -
like a child sticking his tongue out at you when you're caught doing something.
Not only dirty tricks, but dirty tricks about something that is utterly and
Constitutionally irrelevant--a candidate's religious views. No wonder the GOP is
floundering.
pretty sure Teddy Bohy Cruz runs with hardcore fundie Stockwell Day and charles
mcvety. they all idolise mitt romney. stockwell is breeding a fundie camp (warren jeffs
FLDS style) in BC
mitt & co love these FLDS fundies because they roll up/consolidate all their
available credit to invest in harebrained schemes (the fundies are usually confined to
the ranch, thereby creating flexibility in how their credit is used).
they've now resorted to intimidating the non-fundie, but devout, christians into
silence.
there is massive corruption across the Realms involving these characters.
and people wonder how credit debt is so high. OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE. teddy bohy cruz,
mitt, stackwell, and whoever the fundies in the UK are, are a big part of the problem.
And plenty of clean infotainment about Scoobydoobieo is available: he's lied every day of his
political life about his parents' flight from a US-backed dictator to American jobs and money,
his brother-in-law is a convicted drug smuggler, and his record in the Senate is mostly
'absent'. He's also got a video trail a mile long of grating robotic incompetence as a show
pony.
Many commentators have mentioned (such as
here and
here
and
here and
here ) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State;
but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic.
Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous
for the residents there.
Hillary Clinton at every campaign debate says "I have a better track-record," and that she's "a
progressive who gets things done." Here's what she has actually done, when she was Secretary of State;
here's her track-record when she actually had executive responsibility for U.S. foreign-affairs.
This will display her real values, not just her claimed values:
SUMMARY OF THE CASE TO BE PRESENTED
The central-American nation of Honduras is ruled today by an extremist far-right government, a
fascist junta-imposed government, because of what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did in 2009. The
lives of all but the top 0.001% of the population there are hell because of this.
The matter in Haiti was similar but less dramatic, and so it received even less attention from
the U.S. Press.
Furthermore, under Secretary of State Clinton, failures at the U.S. Department of State also caused
the basis for a hatred of the United States to soar in Afghanistan after the U.S. has drawn down
its troops there. This failure, too, has received little coverage in the U.S. press, but our nation
will be paying heavily for it long-term.
Hillary Clinton was the Administration's leading proponent of regime-change, overthrowing Muammar
Gaddafi in Libya. That worked out disastrously.
Clinton was also the Secretary of State when the 2006-2010 drought was causing massive relocations
of population in Syria and U.S. State Department cables passed along up the chain of command the
Assad government's urgent request for aid from foreign governments to help farmers stave off starvation.
The Clinton State Department ignored the requests and treated this as an opportunity to foment revolution
there. It wasn't only the Arab Spring, in Syria, that led to the demonstrations against Assad there.
Sunni jihadist fighters streamed into Syria, backed by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey.
The U.S. was, in effect, assisting jihadists to oust the non-sectarian, secular Shiite leader of
Syria and replace him with a fundamentalist Sunni dictator.
The groundwork for a coup d'etat in Ukraine was laid by Hillary Clinton, when she made her State
Department's official spokesperson Victoria Nuland, who had been the chief foreign-affairs advisor
to Vice President Dick Cheney. Nuland then became the organizer of the 20 February 2014 coup in Ukraine,
which replaced a neutralist leader of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, with a rabidly anti-Russian U.S.
puppet, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and a bloody civil war. Nuland is obsessed with hatred of Russia.
No well-informed Democrat will vote for her in the Democratic Party primaries. Here is what voters
in the Democratic primaries need to know before they vote:
------
HONDURAS
On 28 June 2009, the Honduran military grabbed their nation's popular democratically elected progressive
President, Manuel Zelaya, and flew him into exile.
The AP headlined from Tegucigalpa the next day,
"World Leaders Pressure
Honduras to Reverse Coup," and reported: "Leaders from Hugo Chavez to Barack Obama called for
reinstatement of Manuel Zelaya, who was arrested in his pajamas Sunday morning by soldiers who stormed
his residence and flew him into exile."
Secretary Clinton, in the press conference the day after the coup,
"Remarks at the Top
of the Daily Press Briefing" , refused to commit the United States to restoration of the democratically
elected President of Honduras. She refused even to commit the U.S. to using the enormous leverage
it had over the Honduran Government to bring that about. Here was the relevant Q&A:
Mary Beth Sheridan. QUESTION: Madam Secretary, sorry, if I could just return for a second to Honduras,
just to clarify Arshad's point – so, I mean, the U.S. provides aid both under the Foreign Assistance
Act and the Millennium challenge. So even though there are triggers in those; that countries have
to behave – not have coups, you're not going to cut off that aid?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Mary Beth, we're assessing what the final outcome of these actions will
be. This has been a fast-moving set of circumstances over the last several days, and we're looking
at that question now. Much of our assistance is conditioned on the integrity of the democratic system.
But if we were able to get to a status quo that returned to the rule of law and constitutional order
within a relatively short period of time, I think that would be a good outcome. So we're looking
at all of this. We're considering the implications of it. But our priority is to try to work with
our partners in restoring the constitutional order in Honduras.
QUESTION: And does that mean returning Zelaya himself? You would insist on that in order to –
SECRETARY CLINTON: We are working with our partners.
She refused to answer the question, even though Zelaya had been an ally of the U.S., a progressive
democrat. (Though Republicans decried Zelaya for pushing land-reform, the fact is that Honduras is
virtually owned by
two dozen
families , and drastically needs to drag itself out of its feudal system. Doing that isn't anti-American;
it's pro-American. It's what Zelaya was trying to do, peacefully and democratically.
Our nation's Founders fought a Revolution to overthrow feudalism – British – in our own country.
Hillary was thus being anti-American, not just anti-democratic, here.) This is stunning. The U.S
had even been outright bombed by fascists, on the "day that will live in infamy," December 7, 1941;
and, then, we spilled lots of blood to beat those fascists in WWII. What was that war all about,
if not about opposing fascism and fascists, and standing up for democracy and democrats? A peaceful
democratic U.S. ally had now been overthrown by a fascist coup in Honduras, and yet Hillary Clinton's
response was – noncommittal?
The coup government made no bones about its being anti-democratic. On July 4th of 2009, Al Giordano
at Narcosphere Narconews bannered
"Honduras Coup Chooses Path of Rogue Narco-State," and he reported that, "Last night, around
10 p.m. Tegucigalpa time, CNN Español interrupted its sports news programming for a live press conference
announcement ('no questions, please') by coup 'president' Micheletti. There, he announced that his
coup 'government' of Honduras is withdrawing from the Democratic Charter of the Organization of American
States. ... The Honduras coup's behavior virtually assures that come Monday, the US government will
define it as a 'military coup,' triggering a cut-off of US aid, joining the World Bank, the Inter-American
Development Bank, PetroCaribe, the UN and the rest of the world in withdrawing economic support for
the coup regime." But that didn't happen. The U.S. just remained silent. Why was our Secretary of
State silent, even now?
It certainly couldn't have been so on account of her agent on the ground in Honduras, the U.S.
Ambassador to that country: he was anything but noncommittal. He was fully American, not at all neutral
or pro-fascist.
Here was his
cable
from the U.S. Embassy, reviewing the situation, for Washington, after almost a month's silence from
the Administration:
From: Ambassador Hugo Llorens, U.S. Embassy, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, 24 July 2009.
To: Secretary of State, White House, and National Security Council.
"SUBJECT: TFHO1: OPEN AND SHUT: THE CASE OF THE HONDURAN COUP"
This lengthy message from the Ambassador closed:
"The actions of June 28 can only be considered a coup d'etat by the legislative branch, with the
support of the judicial branch and the military, against the executive branch. It bears mentioning
that, whereas the resolution adopted June 28 refers only to Zelaya, its effect was to remove the
entire executive branch. Both of these actions clearly exceeded Congress's authority. ... No matter
what the merits of the case against Zelaya, his forced removal by the military was clearly illegal,
and [puppett-leader Roberto] Micheletti's ascendance as 'interim president' was totally illegitimate.
On the same day when the Ambassador sent that cable, AFP headlined
"Zelaya 'Reckless' to Return to Honduras: Clinton," and reported that our Secretary of State
criticized Zelaya that day for trying to get back into his own country. "'President Zelaya's effort
to reach the border is reckless,' Clinton said during a press conference with visiting Iraqi Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki. ... Washington supports 'a negotiated peaceful solution to the Honduran
crisis,' Clinton said." It wasn't "the Honduran coup" – she wouldn't call it a "coup" – it was "the
Honduran crisis"; so, she accepted the junta's framing of the issue, not the framing of it by Zelaya
and everyone other than the fascists. She wanted "a negotiated peaceful solution" to the forced removal
at gunpoint of Honduras's popular democratically elected President. Furthermore, Hillary's statement
here was undiplomatic: if she had advice for what the elected President of Honduras ought to be doing,
that ought to have been communicated to him privately, not publicly, and said to him by suggesting
what he ought to do, not by insulting what he already was doing, publicly calling it "reckless."
Such a statement from her was clearly not meant as advice to help Zelaya; it was meant to – and did
– humiliate him; and diplomats around the world could see this. Manifestly now, Hillary Clinton supported
the fascists. However, her boss, the U.S. President, stayed silent.
During the crucial next two weeks, Obama considered what to do. Then, on 6 August 2009, McClatchy
newspapers bannered
"U.S. Drops Call to Restore Ousted Honduran Leader," and Tyler Bridges reported that Zelaya wouldn't
receive U.S. backing in his bid to be restored to power. Though all international organizations called
the Honduran coup illegitimate, and refused to recognize the leader chosen by its junta, the Obama
Administration, after more than a month of indecision on this matter, finally came out for Honduras's
fascists. According to James Rosen of McClatchy Newspapers three days later, the far-right Republican
U.S. Senator Jim DeMint had
"placed a hold on two nominees to senior State Department posts to protest Obama's pushing for
ousted Honduran President Manuel Zalaya's return to power, which the administration backed away from
last week." Obama, after a month of silence, caved silently. Instead of his using the bully pulpit
to smear the fascist DeMint publicly with his fascism, Obama just joined him in it, silently. Why?
Perhaps it was because the
chief lobbyist hired in the U.S. by the Honduran aristocracy (whose thugs had installed this
new Honduran government), was Hillary's old friend, Lanny Davis. As
slate.com had said on 27 August 2008, headlining
"A Day in the Life of Hillary's Biggest Fan": "
When it comes to defending Hillary Clinton, Lanny Davis has no rival. " He was the fascists'
fixer, inside the Obama
Administration. On 9 July 2009, The Hill bannered
"Hondurans Lobby Against Deposed Leader," and reported that Honduras's equivalent of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce (which was controlled by those two-dozen families) had hired "Lanny Davis, the
former special counsel to President Bill Clinton," and that, "The lobbying blitz began [6 July] Monday,
one day before Zelaya met with Clinton as part of his push to be reinstated." Lanny Davis had had
his input to Hillary even before President Zelaya did. Moreover, The Hill reported that, "17 Republican
senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) [and DeMint] wrote Secretary Clinton and
asked her to meet with officials from the interim government of Honduras." America's Republican leadership
were immediately and strongly supporting Honduras's fascists. This
Republican Senators'
letter attacked "the rush to label the events of June 28th a coup d'etat," and said that it instead
reflected "'the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders.' In a 125-3 vote,
the Honduran Congress approved of the actions taken to remove Mr. Zelaya from office and install
Mr. Micheletti." (The article
"2009 Honduran coup
d'état" at wikipedia says that after the military seized the President on June 28th, "Later that
day, the Honduran Congress, in an extraordinary session, voted to remove Zelaya from office, after
reading a false resignation letter attributed to President Zelaya." A link to the forged letter was
provided. To Republicans, that is how democracy is supposed to operate, not a "coup." Just masked
men with machine guns, and then forged documents and well-connected foreign lobbyists.)
So, the Honduran aristocracy (
mainly the Facussé, Ferrari, Canahuati, Atala, Lamas, Nasser, Kattan, Lippman, and Flores, clans
) had purchased a line straight to the U.S. Secretary of State, via Mr. Davis. And Obama caved.
On 13 August 2009, Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research headlined a Sacramento
Bee op-ed "Obama
Tacitly Backs Military's Takeover of Honduran Democracy" and he reported that the Administration's
recent "statements were widely publicized in the Honduran media and helped to bolster the dictatorship.
Perhaps more ominously, the Obama administration has not said one word about the atrocities and human
rights abuses perpetrated by the coup government. Political activists have been murdered, independent
TV and radio stations have been shut down, journalists have been detained and intimidated, and hundreds
of people arrested." There was now, again as under Bush, widespread revulsion against the U.S. throughout
Latin America. Also on the 13th, Dick Emanuelson, at the Americas Program of the Center for International
Policy, headlined
"Military Forces Sow Terror and Fear in Honduras," and he described in Honduras a situation very
much like that which had occurred in Argentina when the generals there took over in 1976 and rounded
up and "disappeared" leaders who constituted a threat to the aristocracy's continued rule in that
country.
The U.S. was now the only power sustaining the Honduran junta's government. Hillary had said "We
are working with our partners," but she lied. It turned out that the U.S. was instead working against
"our partners" – against virtually all of the world's democratic nations. Brazil Magazine headlined
on August 13th,
"Brazil Urges Obama to Tighten the Vise on Honduras to Get Zelaya Back," and reported that Brazilian
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva had urged President Obama to come out publicly for the "immediate
and unconditional" restoration of Zelaya to office. It didn't happen, however; and on Friday, August
21st, Mark Weisbrot thus bannered in Britain's Guardian,
"Obama's Deafening Silence on Honduras: Seven weeks after the coup in Honduras, the US is hindering
efforts to restore President Manuel Zelaya to power." Weisbrot documented lies from the Obama Administration
regarding the coup; and he noted, "The one thing we can be pretty sure of is that no major US media
outlet will look further into this matter." He was assuming that the U.S. had a controlled press,
and it seems that he was correct, except for the McClatchy Newspaper chain, which courageously reported
on the Honduran horrors.
Obama was lying – not even acknowledging that the coup was a coup – even though (as Weisbrot pointed
out) "on Wednesday, Amnesty International issued a report documenting widespread police beatings
and brutality against peaceful demonstrations, mass arbitrary arrests and other human rights abuses
under the dictatorship. The Obama administration has remained silent about these abuses - as well
as the killings of activists and press censorship and intimidation. To date, no major [U.S.] media
outlet has bothered to pursue them." America's aristocracy were clearly supporting Honduras's.
Nearly a hundred scholars signed a public letter saying that if only the U.S. were to come out
clearly against the coup,
"the coup could easily
be overturned," because only the U.S. was keeping the coup regime in power (via banking and other
crucial cooperation with the coup government). The U.S. was key, and it chose to turn the lock on
the Honduran prison, and leave its victims to be murdered.
During the following months, as the shamefulness of America's position on this became increasingly
untenable, Obama seemed to be gradually tilting back away from the coup in Honduras. However, Senator
DeMint and some other Republicans travelled to Honduras and spoke publicly there against the U.S.
Government, and endorsed the coup-installed Honduran leadership. DeMint headlined in Rupert Murdoch's
Wall Street Journal, on 10 October 2009,
"What I Heard in Honduras," and he wrote: "In the last three months, much has been made of a
supposed military 'coup' that whisked former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya from power and the
supposed chaos it created. After visiting Tegucigalpa last week and meeting with a cross section
of leaders, ... I can report there is no chaos there. ... As all strong democracies do after cleansing
themselves of usurpers, Honduras has moved on."
All
governments in the hemisphere except the U.S. labeled the coup a "coup," but DeMint and other
top Republicans such as Mitch McConnell simply denied that it was. DeMint received ovations in Washington,
at the far-right Heritage Foundation, which he now heads. This U.S. Senator
condemned Zelaya there as "a deposed would-be Marxist dictator," and he referred to the junta
as "friends of freedom." He condemned Obama by indirection, as being the enemy, who led "an American
foreign policy unmoored from our commitment to human rights and human freedom and tied instead to
the President's personal ambition," perhaps communist. Obama remained silent, in the face of these
lies against both Zelaya and himself.
The assertion by Republicans that the coup was not a "coup" was a blatant lie. Everyone worldwide
except America's Republicans referred to it as a "coup." Furthermore, Ambassador Llorens in Tegucigalpa
was constantly speaking with leaders (but only leaders) of business, religious, civic, and other
organizations throughout Honduras, and everyone he spoke with stated his position in regards to the
"coup." For example (from the Embassy cables),
"Monsignor
Juan Jose Pineda , the Auxiliary Bishop of Tegucigalpa ... stated that the Church had not taken
sides in relation to the coup d'etat," but "vociferously condemned the poor treatment of the Church
by what he believed to be elements of the anti-coup movement." And the leaders of two conservative
political parties
"argued that
anti-coup protests have not been peaceful." Only America's Republicans lied that it hadn't been
a "coup." Not even Republicans' friends in Honduras, the fascists there, did. It was a coup. Republicans
simply lied, as usual. (This is why Fox "News"
has been found in every study to have the most-misinformed audience of any major news medium
– they're being lied to constantly.)
On 5 October 2009, Jason Beaubien of NPR headlined
"Rich vs.
Poor at Root of Honduran Political Crisis," and he reported that, though Honduran conservatives
were charging that Zelaya secretly intended to make Honduras into a communist dictatorship, the actual
situation in Honduras was, as explained by an economics professor there, that "power in Honduras
is in the hands of about 100 people from roughly 25 families. Others estimate that Honduran elite
to be slightly larger, but still it is a tiny group." This professor "says the country's elite have
always selected the nation's president. They initially helped Zelaya get into office, and then they
orchestrated his removal" when President Zelaya pressed land- and other- reforms. If communists would
ever come to power in Honduras, it will be because of fascists' intransigence there, not because
of progressives' attempts to end the hammer-lock of the local feudal lords.
Adolf Hitler similarly used a popular fear of communism to persuade conservative fools to vote
for himself and for other fascists; but fascists and communists are alike: enemies of democracy.
This hasn't changed. Nor has The Big Lie technique that fascists still use.
Then, on 6 October 2009, The New York Times bannered "Honduran Security Forces Accused of Abuse."
("Abuse" had also been the term that the Times and other major media employed for torture when George
W. Bush did it, but now they applied this euphemism to the outright murders perpetrated by Honduras's
junta.) Such "abuse" was "news" to people inside the United States, but not to the people in other
nations around the world, where the horrors in Honduras were widely publicized. Also on October 6th,
narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield
headlined
"Poll: Wide Majority of Hondurans Oppose Coup d'Etat, Want Zelaya Back," and Al Giordano reported
"the first survey to be made public since a July Gallup poll showed a plurality of Hondurans opposed
the coup d'etat." This poll of 1,470 randomly chosen Honduran adults found 17.4% favored the coup,
52.7% opposed it. 33% opposed Zelaya's return to power; 51.6% favored it. 22.2% wanted the coup-installed
leader to stay in power; 60.1% wanted him to be removed. 21.8% said the National Police were not
"engaging in repression"; 54.5% said they were repressing. Furthermore, the survey found that "the
two national TV and radio stations shut down by the coup regime happen to be the most trusted news
sources in the entire country." Finally, approval ratings were tabulated for the twenty most prominent
political figures in the country, and Zelaya and his wife were rated overwhelmingly above all others,
as, respectively, #1 and #2, the two most highly respected public figures in Honduran politics.
An American visitor to Honduras posted online
photos of the country
prior to Zelaya's Presidency, and he described them: "It took me awhile to get used to the sight
of heavily armed guards and policemen everywhere. ... Every supermarket we visited had an armed guard,
carrying a shotgun, patrolling the parking lot. Most restaurants or fast food establishments we visited,
such as Pizza Hut, had an armed guard in the parking lot. ... Only 30% of the people have wealth.
The other 70% are poor. Being rich in Honduras can be dangerous. That is why most rich people live
in walled or fenced compounds. ... And they all have armed guards on the grounds." This is the type
of society that Wayne
LaPierre and other officials of the NRA describe as the ideal – every man for himself, armed
to the teeth. Republicans, like Honduras's aristocrats, want to keep such a Paradise the way it is;
but the vast majority of Hondurans do not – they want progress.
Naturally, therefore, the U.S.'s Republican Party was overwhelmingly opposed to Zelaya, and were
thus opposed to the Honduran public, who didn't like their feudal Paradise. Obama remained remarkably
silent on the matter. The Obama Administration brokered a supposed power-sharing deal between Zelaya
and the coup government, but it fell apart when Zelaya learned that Obama actually stood with the
fascists in letting the coup government oversee the imminent election of Honduras's next President
– which would give the "election" to the fascists' stooge. On 5 November 2009, the Los Angeles Times
headlined an editorial
"Obama Must
Stand Firm on Honduran Crisis: A U.S.-brokered deal to return Honduran President Manuel Zelaya
to office is unraveling, and the Obama administration seems to be wavering." They closed by saying:
"If the Obama administration chooses to recognize the [winner of the upcoming] election without Zelaya
first being reinstated [with powers to participate in overseeing the vote-counting], it will find
itself at odds with the rest of Latin America. That would be a setback for democracy and for the
United States." But it's exactly what Obama did. On 9 November 2009, McClatchy Newspapers bannered
"Honduran Deal Collapses, and Zelaya's Backers Blame U.S." Tyler Bridges reported that Senator
DeMint now dropped his objections to a key State Department appointment, when the appointee, Thomas
Shannon (and also Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself), made clear that the Obama Administration
agreed with DeMint. Thus, "Zelaya's supporters, who've been organizing street protests against the
[coup-installed] Micheletti regime, are down to their final card: calling on Hondurans to boycott
the elections."
On 12 November 2009, the Washington Post bannered
"Honduras Accord Is on Verge of Collapse," and quoted a spokesperson for U.S. Senator John Kerry,
head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying: "The State Department's abrupt change in
policy last week - recognizing the elections scheduled for November 29th even if the coup regime
does not meet its commitments under the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord - caused the collapse of an accord
it helped negotiate." (Let's hope that Kerry will turn out to be a better Secretary of State than
his predecessor was.)
A week later, on November 19th, the Latin American Working Group bannered
"Honduras: Things Fall
Apart," and summarized the joint culpability of the Obama Administration, and of the Honduran
fascists.
On 29 November 2009, the Heritage Foundation bannered
"Heritage in Honduras: 'I Believe in Democracy'," and Big Brother propagandized: "Today the Honduran
people are voting in an historic election with consequences for the entire region. Heritage's Izzy
Ortega is on the ground as an official election observer speaking with Hondurans practicing their
right to vote. Watch his first interview below." A typical reader-comment posted there was "I want
WE THE PEOPLE back in the United States. For once in my life I'am jealous of another country!" Conservatives
wanted fascism in the U.S.A. – not only in Honduras. Of course, the aristocracy's stooge was "elected"
in Honduras. (Zelaya wasn't even a candidate in this "election." Most democratic countries throughout
the world did not recognize the results of this "election." However, the U.S. did; and so did Israel,
Italy, Germany, Japan, Peru, Costa Rica, and Panama.)
By contrast, on the same day, Costa Rico's Tico Times headlined
"Peaceful March
Faces 'Brutal Repression' in San Pedro Sula" Honduras. Mike Faulk reported that, "About 500 people
marching peacefully in the northwestern city of San Pedro Sula were repressed by tear gas and water
cannons on Election Day today." The next day, Agence France Presse headlined "Conservatives Win Honduran
Election," and reported that "Conservative Porfirio Lobo has claimed a solid win. ... The United
States was quick to underline its support." Barack Obama was the leading (virtually the only) head-of-state
supporting the Honduran fascist transfer of power to their new "elected" Honduran President. The
major "news" media in the U.S. deep-sixed what was happening in Honduras, but the Honduran situation
was widely reported elsewhere. Typical of the slight coverage that it did receive in the U.S., the
Wall Street Journal bannered on November 26th,
"Honduras Lurches
Toward Crisis Over Election," and their "reporter," Jose de Cordoba, opened, "Honduran President
Manuel Zelaya's push to rewrite the constitution, and pave the way for his potential re-election,
has plunged one of Latin America's poorest countries into a potentially violent political crisis."
Rupert Murdoch's rag never reported the gangster-government's violence. Moreover, Zelaya had never
pushed "to rewrite the constitution"; he had wanted to hold a plebiscite on whether there should
be a constitutional convention held to rewrite the nation's existing Constitution, which everyone
but the Honduran aristocracy said contained profound defects that made democracy dysfunctional there.
The editors of the former U.S.S.R.'s newspaper Pravda would have chuckled at Murdoch's "reporting."
By contrast, for example, blog.AFLCIO.org had
headlined on 16 November 2009, "Trumka:
Free Elections Not Possible Now in Honduras." The American labor movement was reporting on events
in Honduras, but had been defeated by the U.S. aristocracy increasingly since 40 years earlier (Reagan),
and therefore no longer constituted a major source of news for the American people. Richard Trumka
was the AFL-CIO President, but was by now just a marginal character in the new fascist Amerika.
On 9 January 2010, the Honduras Coup 2009 blog translated from a Honduran newspaper published
that day, and headlined
"Honduras
Is Broke." Honduras's Finance Minister, Gabriela Nuñez, was quoted as saying that international
aid must keep coming in order for the nation to continue paying its bills, and that avoiding default
is "a work from week to week."
A few months later, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs headlined on 5 March 2010,
"Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton Does Latin America," and reported that, "While in Buenos Aires, she carelessly stated,
'The Honduras crisis has been managed to a successful conclusion ... It was done without violence.'
This is being labeled as a misguided statement considering the physical violence including murders,
beatings, torture that the coup government used in order to repress the opposition. Many of these
tactics are still being used. This diplomatic stumble is expected to draw significant attention to
the multiple errors in the U.S. approach." Moreover, while there, she was "announcing that the Obama
administration will restore aid that had been previously suspended." The commentator said that this
drew attention to "a political decision that once again may have served to isolate the U.S. from
much of Latin America." Furthermore, "While in Costa Rica, ... Clinton said the post-coup [Honduran]
government ... was, in fact, democratically elected," which made a mockery of the term "democracy."
That election was perhaps even less democratic than the "elections" in Iran have recently been, but
it was remarkably similar, with the main difference being that in Honduras the aristocracy controlled
the "election," whereas in Iran the theocracy did. Anyway, Hillary approved.
On 1 May 2010, Britain's Guardian headlined regarding Honduras,
"Cocaine Trade Turns Backwater into Hideout for Brutal Assassins : The Central American nation
is on the brink of becoming a fully-fledged narco-state," and reported that, "Corrupt police and
drug gangs are blamed, with the government unable or unwilling to crack down on them."
The Herald of Tegucigalpa, El Heraldo, headlined on 26 January 2011, "Presidente Asigna Medalla
de Honor al Mérito a J. J. Rendón," and reported that President Porfirio Lobo had decorated with
the Order of Merit the master-propagandist who had deceived enough Honduran voters to "elect" Lobo
(with the assistance of vote-rigging and terror). That was the same "John Rendon" (or actually Juan
José Rendón) who had been hired by the George W. Bush Administration to deceive the American public
into invading Iraq in 2003. This time, he was working for Barack Obama, instead of for George W.
Bush, but it was fascism just the same.
Without Obama, Honduras's fascists would have been defeated. Obama's refusal to employ either
his financial and banking power or his bully pulpit, and Hillary's outright support of the fascist
junta, together sealed the deaths of many thousands of Hondurans. The U.S. thus, single-handedly
among all nations, kept Honduras's newly-installed fascist regime in power. A U.S. professor who
specialized in Honduras, Orlando Perez, said that Obama did this probably because he concluded
"that Honduras' political, military and economic elite wouldn't accept Zelaya's return"; in other
words, that Obama wanted to serve Honduras's aristocracy, regardless of the Honduran public, and
even regardless of the increased contempt that Latin Americans would inevitably feel toward the U.S.
from this matter.
The results for Hondurans were hellish. On 11 April 2011, McClatchy Newspapers bannered
"Honduran Police Ignore Rise in Attacks on Journalists, Gays," and reported that within just
those almost-two years, Honduras had become "the deadliest country in the hemisphere," because of
the soaring crime-rate, especially against homosexuals and against journalists. The new fascist government
tacitly "sends a message to the criminals, the paramilitaries and the hit men that they can do as
they please." Hondurans were by then five times likelier to be murdered than Mexicans were. Honduras's
aristocrats, however, were safe, because they hired their own private security forces, and also because
the government's security-apparatus was controlled by the aristocracy. Only the public were unprotected.
Fox "News" Latina bannered, on 7 October 2011,
"Honduras Led World in Homicides in 2010," and (since Rupert Murdoch's Fox is a Republican front)
pretended that this had happened because Latin America was violent – not because Fox's Republican
friends had had their way in policy on Honduras, and had thus caused the Honduran murder-rate to
soar. (During the latest year, whereas homicides had declined in all of the other high-homicide nations,
homicides had skyrocketed 22% in Honduras – and that's why Honduras now led the world in homicides,
but Fox "News" didn't mention any of these facts.)
The actual problem was that the U.S. had a Republican government under nominal "Democratic" leadership,
both at the White House and at the State Department (not to mention at Treasury, Justice, and Education).
Obama not only gave Rupert Murdoch a nice foil to gin-up his hate-machine; he also gave Murdoch the
most politically gifted Republican in the country: Obama, a Republican in "Democratic" clothing.
It certainly was so with regard to Honduran policy, in which Obama seemed to be following Hillary
Clinton's lead to the right.
On 21 October 2011, the Nation bannered
"Wikileaks Honduras: US Linked to Brutal Businessman," and Dana Frank reported that, "Miguel
Facussé Barjum, in the embassy's words, is 'the wealthiest, most powerful businessman in the country,'
one of the country's 'political heavyweights.'" He owned a 22,000-acre palm-oil plantation, including
lots of vacant land that thousands of peasants or "campesinos" wanted to farm and make their homes.
"The campesinos' efforts have been met with swift and brutal retaliation," hired killers – a cost
of doing business (like exterminators). Furthermore, wikileaks cables from during George W. Bush's
Presidency indicated that "a known drug trafficking flight with a 1,000 kilo cocaine shipment from
Colombia ... successfully landed ... on the private property of Miguel Facusse. ... Its cargo was
off-loaded onto a convoy of vehicles that was guarded by about 30 heavily armed men." The plane was
burned and bulldozed into the ground, and the U.S. Ambassador said that this probably couldn't have
happened without Facussé's participation. But now, the U.S. was actually on the side of such people.
Not only was the U.S. continuing as before in Honduras, but "The US has allocated $45 million in
new funds for military construction," including expansion of
the U.S. air base that had participated in the 2009 coup. Other wikileaks cables indicated that
someone from the U.S. Embassy met with Facussé on 7 September 2009. Furthermore, "A new US ambassador,
Lisa Kubiske, arrived in Honduras this August. She is an expert on biofuels – the center of Miguel
Facussé's African palm empire." Moreover, on 13 August 2009, hondurascoup2009.blogspot had headlined
"Get to Know the 10 Families that Financed the Coup," and cited a study by Leticia Salomón of
the Autonomous University of Honduras, which said that, "A fundamental person in the conspiracy was
the magnate Miguel Facussé, decorated by the Colombian Senate in 2004 with the Orden Mérito a la
Democracia, and who today monopolizes the business of palm oil and in 1992 supported the purchase
of land from campesinos at less than 10% of its actual value." Furthermore, the coup "was planned
by a business group lead [led] by Carlos Flores Facussé, ex-president of Honduras (1998-2002) and
owner of the newspaper La Tribuna, which together with La Prensa, El Heraldo, TV channels 2, 3, 5
and 9 were the fundamental pillar of the coup." Moreover, on 10 February 2010, the Honduras Culture
and Politics blog headlined
"Mario Canahuati Goes to Washington," and reported that Honduras's new Foreign Minister, Mario,
was related to Jorge Canahuati, "owner of La Prensa and El Heraldo," and also to Jesus Canahuati,
who was the VP of the Honduran chamber-of-commerce organization that hired Lanny Davis. Meanwhile,
Mario's father, Juan Canahuati, owned textile factories that assembled clothing for major U.S. labels,
and which would thus benefit greatly from the fascists' roll-back of Zelaya's increase in the minimum
wage. ( Other
articles were also posted to the web, listing mainly the same families behind the coup.)
So, as such examples show, the aristocracy were greatly enriched by the Honduran coup, even though
the non-criminal (or "legitimate") Honduran economy shriveled. By supporting this new Honduran regime,
Obama and Hillary assisted the outsourcing of clothes-manufacturing jobs, etc., to such police-states.
International corporations would be more profitable, and their top executives and controlling stockholders
would reap higher stock-values and capital gains and bigger executive bonuses, because of such fascist
operations as the 2009 coup. If workers or campesinos didn't like it, they could leave – for the
U.S., where they would be competing directly against the poorest of our own country's poor.
An article quoted Jose
Luis Galdamez, a journalist for Radio Globo (a Honduran station briefly shut down by the junta) explaining
how that nation's elite impunity functions: "The rich simply send you out to kill ... and then kill
with impunity. They never investigate into who killed who, because the groups in power control the
media, control the judiciary, and now control the government [the Executive Branch] again." This
is to say: In Honduras, hired killers are safe. The Government represents the aristocracy, not the
public; so, aristocrats are free to kill. America's congressional Republicans like this "Freedom."
It's maximum liberty – for aristocrats: the people these "Representatives" actually serve.
On 18 November 2011, Mark Weisbrot in Britain's Guardian headlined
"Honduras: America's Great Foreign Policy Disgrace," and he reported that, when the junta's man
"Porfirio Lobo took office in January 2020, ... most of the hemisphere refused to recognize the government
because his election took place under conditions of serious human rights violations. In May 2011,
an agreement was finally brokered in Cartagena, Colombia, which allowed Honduras back into the Organization
of American States. But the Lobo government has not complied with its part of the Cartagena accords,
which included human rights guarantees for the political opposition." The frequent murders of non-fascist
political and labor union leaders "in broad daylight" (so as to terrorize anyone who might consider
to replace them) had continued, despite the accords. Weisbrot noted that, "when President Porfirio
Lobo of Honduras came to Washington last month, President Obama Greeted him warmly" and Obama said,
"What we've been seeing is a restoration of democratic practices and a commitment to reconciliation."
How nice. However, Lobo did comply with one aspect of the Cartagena agreement: he let Manuel Zelaya
and his wife back into Honduras.
Honduras was now (even more than before Zelaya) under a "libertarian" government – a government
that respected only property-rights of approved people, no personal or other rights for anyone (such
as Facussé's propertyless campesinos). Paul Romer, the husband of Obama's former chief economist
Christina Romer, was joining with other libertarians to promote the
idea of a totally "free market"
model city in Honduras . On 10 December 2011, Britain's libertarian ECONOMIST magazine bannered
"Hong Kong in Honduras," and
"Honduras Shrugged [a play on
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged]: Two Start-Ups Want to Try Out Libertarian Ideas in the Country's New
Special Development Regions." Then, on 6 September 2012, Britain's Guardian bannered "
Honduras to Build New City with Its Own Laws and Tax System." However, the entrepreneur aiming
to develop this new Honduran city freed from the law, the grandson of the far-right economist Milton
Friedman, Patri Friedman, headlined at his Future Cities Development Inc., on 19 October 2012,
"Closing Statement From Future
Cities Development, Inc." and he announced that though "passing with a vote of 126-1" in the
Honduran legislature, his project was ruled unconstitutional by a judge, because it would remove
that land from the Honduran legal system. Patri had been fundraising for this project ever since
he had publicly announced at the libertarian Koch brothers' Cato Institute, on 6 April 2009,
"Democracy Is Not The Answer," and he then said, "Democracy is rigged against libertarians."
He ended his statement by announcing "my proposal," which was to "build new city-states," where there
would be no democracy, and only the investors would have any rights at all – an extreme gated community.
Just months later, the new Honduran President, a libertarian like Patri, invited him to do it, but
this judge killed the idea.
Inasmuch as Honduras was becoming too dangerous for Americans, the AP headlined on 19 January
2012,
"Peace Corps Pullout a New Blow to Honduras," and reported that, "The U.S. government's decision
to pull out all its Peace Corps volunteers from Honduras for safety reasons is yet another blow to
a nation still battered by a coup and recently labeled [by the U.N. as] the world's most deadly country."
Three days later, on the 22nd, Frances Robles of the Miami Herald, headlined
"Graft, Greed, Mayhem Turn Honduras into Murder Capital of World," and reported the details of
a nation where aristocrats were protected by their own private guards, the public were on their own,
and all new entrants into the aristocracy were drug traffickers and the soldiers and police who worked
for those traffickers. Narcotics were now by far the most booming industry in Honduras, if not the
only booming industry there post-coup. Robles reported, "Everybody has been bought," in this paradise
of anarchism, or libertarianism (i.e.: in this aristocratically controlled country).
On 12 February 2012, NPR headlined
"Who Rules in Honduras? Coup's Legacy of Violence." The ruling families weren't even noted here,
much less mentioned, in this supposed news-report on the subject of "Who Rules in Honduras?" However,
this story did note that, "Many experts say things got markedly worse after the 2009 coup." (That
was a severe understatement.)
Jim DeMint, who has since left the Senate, and who recently took over as the head of the far-right
Heritage Foundation where he had formerly been a star, got everything he wanted in Honduras, and
so did Hillary Clinton's friend Lanny Davis – the aristocrats' paid hand in the affair, on the "Democratic"
side. (The aristocrats had
many
other agents lobbying their friends on the Republican side.) Honduras's public got only hell.
Four days later, on February 16th, Reuters headlined
"Honduras Under Fire After Huge Prison Blaze," and reported: "Survivors of a Honduran jailhouse
fire that killed more than 350 inmates [some not yet tried, much less convicted], accused guards
of leaving prisoners to die trapped inside their cells and even firing on others when they tried
to escape."
This was how law operated, in a supremely fascist nation. Dwight Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers
had done a similar thing to the Iranians in 1953, and then to the Guatemalans in 1954; Obama now,
though passively, did it to the Hondurans. When Ike did it in Iran, who would have guessed at the
whirlwind that would result there 26 years later, in 1979? (Ironically, when Ike did it, the mullahs
were delighted that the elected Iranian President, Mossadegh, whom they hated, had been overthrown.
America now reaps their whirlwind.)
This is the type of hypocritical leadership that has caused the United States to decline in public
approval throughout the world under Obama – ironic after his Nobel Peace Prize awarded within just
months of his becoming President. On 10 December 2010, Gallup bannered
"U.S. Leadership Ratings Suffer in Latin America," and reported that approval of "the job performance
of the leadership of the United States" had declined since 2009 in 14 of 18 nations in the Western
Hemisphere. It had declined steepest in Mexico, Argentina, Honduras, and Venezuela. Honduras, however,
was the only country where approval of the U.S. was now even lower than it had been under George
W. Bush in 2008. This Honduran plunge since the 2009 coup had been that steep. Then, on 19 April
2012, Gallup headlined
"U.S. Leadership Losing Some Status," and reported that across 136 countries, approval of the
U.S. had peaked in 2009 when George W. Bush was replaced by Obama, but that "the U.S. has lost some
of its status" since 2009, and that the "U.S. Image Sinks in the Americas," down one-quarter from
its 2009 high, though still not yet quite as low in most countries as it had been under Bush. Then,
three months later, on June 13th, the PewResearch Global Attitudes Project headlined
"Global Opinion of Obama Slips, International Policies Faulted," and reported that favorable
opinion of the U.S. had sunk during Obama's first term. It declined 7% in Europe, 10% in Muslim countries,
13% in Mexico, and 4% in China. However, it increased 8% in Russia, and 13% in Japan. It went down
in eight countries, and up in two, and changed only 2% or less in three nations.
The global fascist push to eliminate Zelaya's Presidency had first been well outlined by Greg
Grandin in the Nation on 28 July 2009, headlining
"Waiting for Zelaya."
He wrote: "The business community didn't like Zelaya because he raised the minimum wage. Conservative
evangelicals and Catholics – including Opus Dei, a formidable presence in Honduras – detested him
because he refused to ban the 'morning after' pill. The mining, hydroelectric and biofuel sector
didn't like him because he didn't put state funds and land at their disposal. The law-and-order crowd
hated him because he apologized on behalf of the state for a program of 'social cleansing' that took
place in the 1990s. ... Zelaya likewise moved to draw down Washington's military presence; Honduras,
alone among Central American countries, hosts a permanent detachment of US troops." Later that same
year (2009), John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, came out with his new Hoodwinked,
in which he said
(p. 213) : "I was told by a Panamanian bank vice president who wanted to remain anonymous, 'Every
multinational knows that if Honduras raises its hourly [minimum-wage] rate, the rest of Latin America
and the Caribbean will have to follow. Haiti and Honduras have always set the bottom.'" The increase
in Honduras's minimum wage was widely cited as having probably been the coup's chief source.
Zelaya offered an explanation as to why the U.S. helped the fascists. On 31 May 2011, "Democracy
Now" radio headlined
"Exclusive Interview with Manuel Zelaya on the U.S. Role in Honduran Coup," and Zelaya revealed
that when he was abducted from his house, "We landed in the U.S. military base of Palmerola," before
being flown from there out of the country, and that "Otto Reich started this."
Reich had been the fanatical far-right
Cuban-American who ran U.S. Latin-American policy for the Republican Reagan and both the father
and son Bush Administrations, including Iran-Contra against Nicaragua (which helped Iran's mullahs),
and the fascist 2002 coup against Venezuela's popular elected President Hugo Chavez, which coup was
then peacefully overturned and reversed, due to worldwide repudiation of the junta everywhere except
the U.S. Government. Zelaya said that the coup against himself had been organized via both Reich
and the previous, George W. Bush-appointed, U.S. Ambassador to Honduras,
Charles Ford , who had subsequently been appointed
to "the U.S. Southern Command ... in order to prepare for the coup d'etat" in Honduras. Zelaya didn't
personally blame Obama. "Even though Obama would be against the coup, the process toward the coup
was already moving forward. ... They are even able to bend the arm of the President of the United
States, President Obama, and the State Department." Zelaya portrayed a weak President Obama, not
a complicit one. If this was true, then Lanny Davis was pushing against a weak leader, not against
strong resistance within the then-new Democratic U.S. Administration. Hillary Clinton's press conference
the day after the coup reflected unconcern regarding democracy, not (like with Republicans such as
Sen. DeMint) outright support of fascism. The situation that was portrayed by Zelaya was a U.S. Government
that was heavily infiltrated by fascists throughout the bureacracy, and a new Democratic President
and Secretary of State who had no stomach to oppose fascists – an Administration who were mere figureheads.
On 15 March 2012, Laura Carlson, at Foreign Policy In Focus, bannered
"Honduras: When Engagement Becomes Complicity," and she opened: "U.S. Vice President Joe Biden
traveled to Honduras on March 6 with a double mission: to quell talk of drug legalization and reinforce
the U.S.-sponsored drug war in Central America, and to bolster the presidency of Porfirio Lobo. The
Honduran government issued a statement that during the one-hour closed-door conversation between
Biden and Lobo, the vice president 'reiterated the U.S. commitment to intensify aid to the government
and people of Honduras, and exalted the efforts undertaken and implemented over the past two years
by President Lobo.' In a March 1 press briefing, U.S. National Security Advisor Tony Blinken cited
'the tremendous leadership President Lobo has displayed in advancing national reconciliation and
democratic and constitutional order.' You'd think they were talking about a different country from
the one we visited just weeks before on a fact-finding mission on violence against women. What we
found was a nation submerged in violence and lawlessness, a president incapable or unwilling to do
much about it, and a justice system in shambles."
Carlson went on to note: "Land grabs to transfer land and resources from small-scale farmers,
indigenous peoples, and poor urban residents into the hands of large-scale developers and megaprojects
have generated violence throughout the country. Many of the testimonies of violence and sexual abuse
that we heard from Honduran women regarded conflicts over land, where the regime actively supports
wealthy interests against poor people in illegal land occupations for tourism, mining, and infrastructure
projects, such as palm oil magnate Miguel Facusse's actions." She noted: "The United States helped
deliver a serious blow to the Honduran political system and society. The United States has a tremendous
responsibility for the disastrous situation." And she closed: "There's no excuse for spending U.S.
taxpayer dollars on security assistance to Honduras as human rights violations pile up." She called
this "A Coup for Criminals."
What Iran and Guatemala became to the historical record of Eisenhower's Presidency, Honduras will
be to that of Obama. Sometimes even a small country, even a banana republic, can leave a big black
mark on a President's record. Though Czechoslovakia was just a small and weak country, it's even
what Britain's Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain is primarily remembered for nowadays – his yielding
it to the fascists in 1938.
In November 2013, the Center for Economic Policy Research bannered a study,
"Honduras
Since the Coup," and among the highlights they reported were:
"Economic growth has slowed since the 2009 coup. From 2006-2008 average annual GDP growth was
5.7 percent. In 2009 Honduras' GDP, as with most countries in Central America, contracted due to
the world recession. From 2010-2013, average annual growth has been only 3.5 percent."
"Economic inequality, which decreased for four consecutive years starting in 2006, began trending
upward in 2010. Honduras now has the most unequal distribution of income in Latin America."
"In the two years after the coup, over 100 percent of all real income gains went to the wealthiest
10 percent of Hondurans."
"Poverty and extreme poverty rates decreased by 7.7 and 20.9 percent respectively during the Zelaya
administration. From 2010-2012, the poverty rate increased by 13.2 percent while the extreme poverty
rate increased by 26.3 percent."
"The unemployment situation has worsened from 2010-2012."
Crime rates and other non-economic factors were unfortunately ignored in this study, but it indicated
clearly that, from at least the economic standpoint, the public in Honduras suffered while the elite
did not. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had done to Honduras something rather similar to what George
W. Bush and his team did to Iraq, but with this major difference: Zelaya was a good and democratic
leader of Honduras, whereas Saddam was a tyrant (though Iraq was even worse after his reign than
during it). This "Democratic" U.S. Administration turned out to support fascism, much as its Republican
predecessor had done.
The soaring murder-rate after the U.S.-supported coup caused a soaring number of escapees from
the violence; they're flooding into the U.S. now as illegal immigrants.
------
HAITI
In Haiti, the situation is similar as an example of the U.S. backing aristocrats, so as to keep
the masses in poverty and for American aristocrats to profit from doing so. On 1 June 2011, the Nation
headlined
"WikiLeaks Haiti: Let Them Live on $3 a Day," and Dan Coughlin and Kim Ives reported that, "Contractors
for Fruit of the Loom, Hanes and Levi's worked in close concert with the US Embassy when they aggressively
moved to block a minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers, the lowest-paid in the
hemisphere, according to secret State Department cables. ... The factory owners told the Haitian
Parliament that they were willing to give workers a 9-cents-per-hour pay increase to 31 cents per
hour to make T-shirts, bras and underwear for US clothing giants like Dockers and Nautica. But the
factory owners refused to pay 62 cents per hour, or $5 per day, as a measure unanimously passed by
the Haitian Parliament in June 2009 would have mandated. And they had the vigorous backing of the
US Agency for International Development and the US Embassy when they took that stand." Hillary Clinton's
State Department pushed hard to reverse the new law. "A deputy chief of mission, David E. Lindwall,
said the $5 per day minimum 'did not take economic reality into account' but was a populist measure
aimed at appealing to 'the unemployed and underpaid masses.'" An "Editor's Note" from the Nation
added: "In keeping with the industry's usual practice, the brand name US companies kept their own
hands clean, letting their contractors do the work of making Haiti safe for the sweatshops from which
they derive their profits -- with help from US officials." Those "officials" were ultimately Clinton
and Obama. On 3 June 2011, Ryan Chittum at Columbia Journalism Review headlined
"A Pulled
Scoop Shows U.S. Fought to Keep Haitian Wages Down," and he added some perspective to the story:
"Hanesbrands CEO Richard Noll ... could pay for the raises for those 3,200 t-shirt makers with just
one-sixth of the $10 million in salary and bonus he raked in last year." And then, when the U.S.
turns away "boat people," trying to escape the "voluntary" slavery of the Haitian masses, the standard
excuse is that it's done so as to "protect American jobs." But is that really where Hillary Clinton
gets her campaign funds?
------
AFGHANISTAN
On 26 July 2009, Marisa Taylor bannered at McClatchy Newspapers,
"Why Are U.S.-Allied Refugees Still Branded as 'Terrorists?'," and she reported that "DHS [Department
of Homeland Security] is working with other agencies, such as the State Department, to come up with
a solution" to the routine refusal of the United States to grant U.S. visas to translators and other
local employees of the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan who wanted to move to the U.S. and who had overwhelming
reason to fear retaliation from anti-Americans in their home countries after we left. The State Department
did nothing. Then, Human Rights First headlined on 13 August 2009,
"Senator Leahy on 'Material Support' Bars," and reported that, "In a powerful statement submitted
for the Congressional Record on August 5, 2009, Senator Leahy (D-VT) reaffirmed his commitment to
'restore common sense' to the bars to refugee and asylum status based on associations with what the
Immigration and Nationality Act defines as terrorism," which was "written so broadly" that it applied
even to "children who were recruited against their will and forced to undergo military training,
doctors (acting in accordance with the Hippocratic oath) ... and those who fought against the armies
of repressive governments in their home countries."
The State Department failed to act. On 2 February 2013, the Washington Post bannered
"Alleged Terrorism Ties Foil Some Afghan Interpreters' U.S. Visa Hopes," and Kevin Sieff in Kabul
reported that, "As the American military draws down its forces in Afghanistan and more than 6,000
Afghan interpreters seek U.S. visas, the problem is threatening to obstruct the applications of Afghans
who risked their lives to serve the U.S. government." What kind of lesson is this teaching to interpreters
and other local employees of the U.S. missions in unstable foreign countries? Helping the U.S. could
be terminally dangerous.
In the past three years, 160 Syrian farming villages have been abandoned near Aleppo as crop failures
have forced over 200,000 rural Syrians to leave for the cities. This news is distressing enough,
but when put into a long-term perspective, its implications are staggering: many of these villages
have been continuously farmed for 8000 years.
That source had been published on 16 January 2010."
The drought continued on through 2010 and sporadically afterwards, and it intensified in Syria
the already widespread 'Arab Spring' demonstrations against the existing regimes.
The failure of the Assad regime, once again, to heed the call of regional states and the international
community underscores the fact that it has lost all credibility. The United States reiterates its
calls for an immediate end to the violence, for free unfettered access for human rights monitors
and journalists to deter and document grave human rights abuses and for Asad to step aside.
In other words: she was already demanding "regime change" in Syria. Back in 2002, she had similarly
demanded "regime change in Iraq," because the Ba'athist, Russia-allied, anti-sectarian, Saddam Hussein
ruled there. She did it again in Syria - just as she had done it in Lybia in order to get rid of
the non-sectarian Russia-allied dictator there, Muammar Gaddafi.
I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive
without knowing what the unintended consequences might be.
Yes, we could get rid of Saddam Hussein, but that destabilized the entire region. Yes, we could
get rid of Gadhafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS. Yes, we could get rid
of Assad tomorrow, but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit ISIS.
He said that defeating the jihadists in Syria should be completed before the issue of what to
do about Assad is addressed. The questioner, David Muir, asked Clinton whether she agreed with that.
She replied:
We are doing both at the same time.
MUIR: But that's what he's saying, we should put that aside for now and go after ISIS.
CLINTON: Well, I don't agree with that.
She is obsessed with serving the desires of the U.S. aristocracy - even if that means the U.S.
helps supply sarin gas to the rebels in Syria to be blamed on Assad, and even if it also means that
the existing, Ba'athist, government in Syria will be replaced by a jihadist Sunni government that
serves the Saud family and the other Arabic royal families.
------
UKRAINE
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chose as being the State Department's chief spokesperson Victoria
Nuland who was previously the Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney
from 2003 to 2005, after having been appointed by President George W. Bush as the U.S. Deputy Permanent
Representative to the anti-Russian military club NATO from 2000 until 2003. Her big passion, and
her college-major, as a person who ever since childhood hated Russia, was Russian studies, and she
"was twice a visiting fellow
at the Council on Foreign Relations - as a 'Next Generation' Fellow looking at the effects of
anti-Americanism on U.S. relations around the world, and as a State Department Fellow directing a
task force on 'Russia, its Neighbors and an Expanding NATO.'" Although her career started after the
Soviet Union and its communism ended in 1990, it has nonetheless been obsessed with her hatred of
Russia and with her passion for the U.S. aristocracy to take it over, as if communism hadn't really
been a factor in the "Cold War" - and she has been promoted in her career on that basis.
V.P. Cheney liked her "neo-conservatism," which she shared with her husband, Robert Kagan, who
had been one of the leading proponents for "regime change in Iraq." ("Neo-conservatism" is the group
of policy intellectuals who passionately argued for "regime change in Iraq" during the Bill Clinton
and George W. Bush Administrations, and who support every policy to overthrow the leaders of any
nation that's at all friendly toward Russia.)
Here is the recording
of Nuland on 4 February 2014, telling the U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, whom to place
at the top of the Ukrainian government when the coup will be completed, which occurred 22 days later.
It was to be the culmination of her efforts, which had started even prior to 1 March 2013.
Here is the head of the "private CIA" firm Stratfor saying it was "the most blatant coup in history."
Here is the electoral map showing the voting percentages in each region of Ukraine for the election
that had chosen the President, "Janukovych," whom Obama overthrew in that coup. The region in purple
on that map had voted 90% for "Janukovych." It's called Donbass and consists of Donetsk and Luhansk.
It refused to accept the coup-imposed leaders. Obama wanted the residents there bombed into submission.
Here
's a video of that bombing-campaign. Here's another -
specifically of firebombings (which are illegal). The money for that bombing-campaign came from
taxpayers in U.S. and EU, and also from the IMF, in the form of loans that saddled Ukraine with so
much debt
it went bankrupt on 4 October 2015 , as determined by
a
unanimous vote of the 15 international banks that collectively make this decision . The infamously
high corruption in Ukraine went even higher after the U.S.-EU takeover of Ukraine. After Ukraine's
bankrupttcy,
the IMF changed its rules so that it could continue to lend money there, until the people in
Donbass are either exterminated or expelled. The U.S. President controls the IMF. For the international
aristocracy, the U.S. President is the most important servant there is. Hillary Clinton wants to
become that servant. It's why
her top twenty financial backers represent the U.S. aristocracy .
* * *
OTHER MATTERS
Finally, it should also be noted that Hillary's record as the chief administrator at the State
Department was also poor. The State Department's own
Accountability Review
Board Report on Benghazi Attack said: "In the months leading up to September 11, 2012, security
in Benghazi was not recognized and implemented as a 'shared responsibility' in Washington, resulting
in stove-piped discussions and decisions on policy and security. Key decisions ... or non-decisions
in Washington, such as the failure to establish standards for Benghazi and to meet them, or the lack
of a cohesive staffing plan, essentially set up Benghazi." That's failure at the very top. It's not
in Libya. It's not even in Africa. It's in "Washington."
Who, at the State Department in "Washington," had "buck stops here" authority and power? Hillary
Clinton.
Republicans are obsessed with the Benghazi failure, because it reflects negatively upon her but
not on themselves. However, Hillary's real and important failures reflected negatively upon Republicans
also, because these failures (such as her supporting fascists in Honduras) culminated actually Republican
foreign-policy objectives, and dashed Democratic (and democratic) policy-objectives. This is the
real reason why Republicans focus instead upon Hillary's Benghazi mess.
Hillary Clinton also was a notoriously poor administrator of her own 2007-2008 presidential primary
campaign. Even coming into 2014, some leading Democrats were afraid that if she were to become the
Party's candidate, then the entire Party would get "Mark Penned," which is the euphemism for her
inability to select top-flight people for key posts. Obama had a far higher-skilled campaign-operation
than she did, even though she started out with an enormous head-start against Obama in 2008.
Back in 2006, the encyclopedically brilliant Democrat Jack Beatty headlined in The Atlantic,
"Run, Barack, Run," and he contrasted the "enthralling" presence and speaking-style of Barack
Obama to the presence and speaking-style of the Party's presumptive 2008 nominee. He said of Clinton:
"As she showed in her speech at the memorial service for Coretta Scott King, Hillary Clinton is a
boring, flat-voiced, false-gesturing platform speaker. She shouts into the microphone; Obama talks
into it. Her borrowed words inspire no trust – they remind us of her borrowed foundation – and her
clenched personality inspires little affection. Money can't buy her love, nor buzz protect her political
glass jaw. The question for Democrats is, Who will break it first? Will it be one of her Democratic
challengers – Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards – or John McCain?" He was hoping that it would turn
out to be one of the Democrats, especially Obama, so as to avoid a continuation of the Bush years.
He got his wish, even if not his intended result. (Obama was so gifted a con-man that even the brightest
Democrats, such as Beatty, couldn't see through his con. Nobody could – so, the Republicans had to
invent an 'Obama'-demon that was almost diametrically opposite to the real one, in order to provide
a punching-bag that their suckers would hate. Republicans ended up punching actually the most gifted
Republican since the time of Ronald Reagan - a black and charismatic version of Mitt Romney, the
man who lost to Obama in 2012 though having created the model both for Obamacare and for Obama's
policies toward Wall Street, and even toward Russia.)
At the start of the present campaign, it had seemed almost inevitable that Hillary Clinton would
be the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2016. A Quinnipiac poll released on 7 March 2013 was headlined
"Clinton, Christie Lead The Pack In Early Look At 2016," and reported that, "Former First Lady,
and Secretary of State Clinton wins easily against any" opponent, from either Party.
Her public statements aren't consistent, because she changes them whenever politically convenient
to do so; but the statements of a liar are simply ignored by intelligent people, anyway. Her statements
are ignored by intelligent voters. What matters is her actions, her actual record, which is lengthy,
and ugly. Her record is, moreover,
consistent . So, it leaves no doubt as to what her actual policies are: only fools will listen
to anything that a liar such as she is, says on the stump, because she's a con-person who is selling,
essentially, a toxic dump, and trying to get top-dollar for it by describing the pretty land covering
it over, and by crossing her fingers that not many people will smell any stench percolating up from
down below. The only people who can intelligently trust her verbal commitments are her big donors,
who hear those commitments in private, not in public, and who understand how to interpret them. Her
voters are there merely to be conned, not to be served. She needs them to be the rug she walks upon
in order to get back into the White House, where she intends to be serving real gold to her big donors,
to make their bets, on her, profitable for them.
And
here are her big donors - the people she seeks to serve there.
This presentation will now close with a brief update on the situation in Honduras, because that
catastrophe was Hillary Clinton's first one as the Secretary of State:
On 15 February 2016, Alexander Main, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, headlined
an op-ed in The New York Times,
"An Anti-Corruption Charade in Honduras," and he wrote there:
In Honduras, protests erupted when a local journalist revealed that millions of dollars of public
funds from the country's health care system had been funneled to the ruling National Party and the
election campaign of President Juan Orlando Hernández. A handful of administrators and business executives
have been indicted for other corruption in the health system, but no charges have been brought against
Mr. Hernández or other top party officials over the diversion of funds to the party. … The country's
security forces are heavily infiltrated by organized crime - 'rotten to the core,' a former police
official told The Miami Herald. Two weeks later, the official was shot dead. Scores of journalists,
lawyers, land rights activists, gay rights advocates and opposition figures have been assassinated,
without consequence for their killers. …
Sadly, the American government is ill positioned to offer help. In 2009, the State Department
under Secretary Hillary Clinton helped a military coup in Honduras succeed by blocking efforts to
restore the left-leaning president, Manuel Zelaya, to power. Since then, Washington's diplomatic
efforts have focused on shoring up a series of corrupt post-coup governments. More than 100 members
of Congress have called on the Obama administration to condemn human rights violations by security
forces, and have questioned America's security assistance to Honduras.
Yet Washington continues to back Mr. Hernández.
Hillary Clinton did, indeed, have an impact as the Secretary of State, and it continues to this
day, and will live on as a curse, probably for decades to come - especially in the lands that she
played a principal role in helping to destroy.
She prides herself on her "experience," as if having a title, "Secretary of State," and performing
miserably in that function, qualifies someone to be a good U.S. President. America's press hasn't
challenged her on the claim, either. Thus, many people, who trust both her and the American press,
think that there must be truth to her claim: that she has achieved a lot, and that what she has achieved
was terrific for the American people, and for the world. They've been successfully deceived.
There is an alternative, within the Democratic Party: Bernie Sanders.
Here is his experience. And
here are his top donors.
* * *
CONCLUSION
Only fools vote for her. Her campaigns are targeting especially fools who are either female or
black or Hispanic, but she (and her financial backers) will welcome any fool to vote for her, because
clearly no non-fool (except those financial backers) will.
PostScript:
This article was submitted to the major print news-media, and major online news-media, with the
question: "Would you want this as an exclusive?" None replied even to say something like, "Maybe,
give us a week to check out the linked sources." None replied at all. Consequently, this article
is now being provided free of charge to the public, and free of charge to all media to publish, but
that's the choice a journalist must make in order to present a truthful and reasonably comprehensive
picture of Hillary Clinton's record as the U.S. Secretary of State. Republican 'news' media don't
want this article, because it shows her as being hardly different from the Republicans on international
matters; and Democratic 'news' media don't want it, because it shows her as being hardly different
from the Republicans on international matters. So, only the few news-media that are neither Republican
nor Democratic, and are dedicated only to honestly and truthfully informing the public about the
candidates for the U.S. Presidency, will publish it, even if it's offered free-of-charge. About foreign
affairs, there's no truth in any of the large U.S. 'news' media: they're all controlled by the U.S.
aristocracy, who agree in both Parties, and who are united against the interests of the publics in
every nation.
Here below are the news-media that had received the article, submitted to them for consideration
as an exclusive, and all of which media rejected this article, without comment, so that you can see
that the editors there know the information that's revealed here (they have read it here, even if
they didn't already know it before and simply hid it all along from their readership). The reason
they don't want their readers to know these facts is that they don't want the public to know that
(except on purely groupist issues concerning women, Blacks and Hispanics - her voting-base) Hillary
Clinton is actually a Republican in 'Democratic' verbal garb. Neither Republican, nor Democratic,
'news' media, want their readers to know that she's actually a Republican - even more than her husband
was. Anyway: here, you'll see that though the information that has been included in this article
is ignored in the reporting by all of the big reporters and by the talking heads on TV 'news,' they're
not actually unaware of it; they're simply
not allowed to let the public know it .
Those media are: Vanity Fair, National Review, Rolling Stone, Harper's, BusinessWeek and Bloomberg
News, McClatchy newspapers, New York Times, Guardian, Washington Post, Mother Jones, Nation, Progressive,
New Republic, New Yorker, Foreign Policy, Politico, Salon, Huffington Post, and Slate. (If any of
your friends subscribe to or read those, why not pass this along to them, so that they'll know what
they don't know about Hillary Clinton. Maybe they already know how bad the Republicans are, but do
they know how bad the Clintons and Obama really are? Perhaps they don't know it, from sources that
want them not to know it.)
Any news-medium that wishes to publish this article without this "PS" is hereby welcomed to do
so, because, at this particular moment, I am more concerned to get the truth out about Hillary Clinton,
than about the U.S. press.
"... Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has said hes not sure whether his rival, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, is eligible to run for US president. ..."
"... Mr Rubio, whose parents became US citizens four years after he was born, seemed to shrug off Mr Trumps comments, describing it as a game he plays . ..."
"... Mr Cruz, who was born in Calgary to an American mother and a Cuban father, has dismissed any such legal challenge arguing that the constitutions definition of natural born citizens included people born to an American parent. ..."
Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has said he's "not sure"
whether his rival, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, is eligible to run for US president.
Mr Rubio, who came second in the South Carolina primary, was born in Miami, Florida, to Cuban
parents. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, has faced similar questions from the New
York billionaire. Most legal experts believe the two senators meet the requirements to become president
of the United States.
The US constitution allows only "natural born" citizens to become US president, which is widely
interpreted as being born in the US or having a US citizen parent.
Mr Rubio, whose parents became US citizens four years after he was born, seemed to shrug off Mr
Trump's comments, describing it as "a game he plays".
... ... ...
Questions about Marco Rubio's edibility arose after Mr Trump
retweeted a post at the weekend saying that both he and Mr Cruz were ineligible.
Asked by
ABC's George Stephanopolous on Sunday about the post, Mr Trump said he was raising it to start
a discussion on the matter but needed to look into it further. "I don't know. I really - I've
never looked at it, George. I honestly have never looked at it. As somebody said, he's not. And I
retweeted it." "I think the lawyers have to determine that," he added.
... ... ...
Mr Cruz, who was born in Calgary to an American mother and a Cuban father, has dismissed any such
legal challenge arguing that the constitution's definition of "natural born citizens" included people
born to an American parent.
Boris Epshteyn, strategist at Strategy International, says Donald Trump is the
safe favorite to win the Republican nomination.
Donna
If cruz had not lied in Iowa Trump very well could have swept the nation.
Donald Trump is the only leader stepping up for the safety and security of the USA. All other
candidates and most elected officials are game players that pander to their funders. We are
one day closer to taking our country back from these mega-moochers.
Marcus
It may not be politically correct, but Trump is addressing issues that are important to the
American people and not the normal political bullsh*t the rest of them are spouting.
Jeb Bush was a is a neocon a member of Project for New American Century, a Wolfowitz stooge... It's
good that he is gone.
Notable quotes:
"... Jeb Bush was certainly not a good decent man . He will be remembered for helping to thwart democracy in the USA with the sleazy moves he orchestrated to deliver Florida. ..."
"... A simple, brainless bully cant take on someone with $150 million in supporting funds and crush them. You need to know what youre doing. And thats where people dont give Trump credit. Hes not some idiot bully who magically keeps beating his opponents. He knows what he needs to do to get votes. At this point in time during the election process, thats all that matters. Someone with savviness and a set of brass balls can take on $150 million and wipe the floor with it. Thats something. ..."
"... Up a certain creek without a paddle, because the winner of the Republican nomination will most likely be Trump, with an outside chance of Cruz or Rubio, and almost 0 chance of anyone else. Sadly for Republicans who arent a fan of Trump, Id say its time for them to start getting to use to him, because at the end of this year its looking very likely to be either Trump vs Hillary or Trump vs Sanders. ..."
"... American Dream (Apple pie, etc, etc....) was a chimera at best in the past but now impossible with globalization and the descent of global labor down to a world level playing field. Its a whole new ball game..... ..."
"... Post WWII with the GI Bill and a surge in the economy equal opportunity was a reality, but since neoliberalism kicked in the 70s it has been all down hill. ..."
"... But a fairer society is possible. Sanders analysis and policies, which may not be implemented this time around, almost certainly wont go away now. ..."
"... This could be the beginning of the end of the Republican Party, which rose from the ashes of the Whig Party in 1854 (The Know Nothings were the xenophobic rump of the former Whigs, the more rational of whom (Lincoln et al.) formed the Republican Party). ..."
"... absolutely delighted with the result. the reason is what some posters are saying here, that bush/kasich are relatively humane etc. they are nothing of the sort, especially bush. he is the neocons neocon, a scumball who hounded a decent man over his and his wifes end-of-life decisions, a stooge who wants to monetize education and social security for wall street, and a standard-issue plutocrat who wants to funnel everything to the top. ..."
"... there are several advantages to trump: hes less likely to win and could take down other republicans with him; and if he does win, there is margin for hope. the moneymen and the fundies may not control his every move -as is guaranteed with all the others- so he could make some surprisingly decent moves, at the very least not embarking on the destruction of social security. ..."
"... and happily, the worst, most brutal aspects of his platform -the wall etc- are completely unworkable. in addition, the laziest, most cowardly group of people in the country -the media- would feel more comfortable reporting objectively on him than they are with more mainstream candidates. politically, he would be a disaster and would be destroyed when running for re-election, if not before. ..."
"... one was W., Prescott was a semi-Nazi ..."
"... Ive seen the Oliver Stone movie, Bush senior wanted Jeb to become president first but he lost his governorship battle in 1994 but W. won his, Jeb then helps W. steal the 2000 election, Jeb then thinks he will become president after W. but little does he know W. will trash the Bush name and stop Jeb from even being able to out debate a billionaire jackass with insane policy ideas let alone become president ..."
"... Mr. Bush goes home but the money lined up behind him stays in the game. Mr. Rubio floats higher. Mr. Cruz sinks a little and will be entirely sunk soon enough. Mr. Carson may hang around for a while, although not even he is sure why. Mr. Kasich will battle on in delusional self-belief until the money runs out. ..."
"... That is good. Not another shameless from this family. He should have been grilled on his brothers misconduct and dumb face he will show when faced with hard decisions. ..."
"... Jeb got his brother win illegally in 2000. The country paid the price for it. Karma is a bitch. It bit him hard in the rear end. ..."
"... Jeb has run away with tail between his legs as the big alpha male beat him to pulp. No harem this time. But Jeb will be back sometime in a future election, sneaking in when no one is looking. He is the head of the neocon hydra. ..."
"... A lot of things are at stake for the neocons, the military industrial complex and the Carlaisle group. Jeb will bide his time. Voters might have the clock. Jeb has time on his hand. ..."
"... Would have been better if he had never run and said Our democracy is bigger than any one family . But then again we barely have a democracy anymore: ..."
"... Thank goodness the Bush dynastys latest attempt to infiltrate and damage the American political system is finally at a decisive end. Now its time to eradicate that other time-worn all-American cabal, the Clintons, from the presidential race, and actually bring a fair democratic socialist agenda to the US. ..."
"... Jeb only has himself to blame for his atrocious performance. Hes weak and ineffectual, nothing more to say really. He asked the audience to applaud one of his talking points during a speech, which says it all really... ..."
"... Carson next to go under please, that freak is more nuts than all the rest of them put together ..."
"... Well. Thats a 100 million dollars down the drain. http://news.yahoo.com/campaigning-style-jeb-bush-blew-warchest-112051485.html ..."
"... From the start there was a desperation about Jebs campaign that seemed destined to end in disaster. Unlike some candidates who feel entitled to it Jeb almost seemed to never quite believe it himself as if he only did it because it was expected of him and he didnt have the heart to explain to people that his family name was poison after W. His name gave him recognition but it also made him a target, something which Trump pounded on mercilessly turning Jebs candidacy into a referrendum on the failed policies of his brother. ..."
"... One less Bush for the White House. Good news. ..."
"... Who said Monarchies were dead? ..."
"... Theres an old saying in Tennessee - I know its in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you cant get fooled again. ..."
"... I dont like his brother. I dont like his father. I dont like him. Yet the fact he is out of the running chills me to my bone. ..."
The terrifying reality is, that Bush was probably the most sane (save for Kasich who won't win)
out of all the GOP candidates. If any of these guys get into power then we're doomed. Cruz especially,
the guy is a puritanical nutter.
It's just a matter of which one of the crazies wins the Republican nomination. Trump, Cruz or
Rubio. Whoever it is lets hope the Democrats have a candidate that can win. Can any one imagine
what the world would look like with one of these three with his finger on the button. The world
was a much "safer" place during the cold war.
George W. Bush wasn't even a good campaigner, his competition just was worse. Trump would have
destroyed GW Bush in much the same way that he destroyed Jeb Bush. Remember how GW Bush's supporters
created that whole 'Swift Boaters for Truth' campaign to sink John Kerry, who was actually a war
hero, even though GW Bush avoided getting sent to Vietnam altogether? That's because Bush was
competing against Kerry, not Trump. Believe me, GW Bush would have been pounded if he had a gorilla
like Trump go after him.
Jeb Bush was certainly not "a good decent man". He will be remembered for helping to thwart
democracy in the USA with the sleazy moves he orchestrated to deliver Florida.
Jeb "the wimp" Bush never had a chance, even though he had so much going for him:
$150 million in campaign contributions (!!!!!!!!!)
Political connections
Establishment support
Family history, with dad and brother having been presidents
Former governor of Florida, a very important state for winning elections
--- But, he was a loser and a wimp, and Donald Trump brilliantly exposed this fact. Were it not
for Trump, not only would Jeb still be in the running, he'd probably be far in the lead. That's
where Trump deserves so much credit, as a tactician willing to take chances. For heaven's sake
(literally), he even took a knock at the Pope!!! And it didn't cost hime any votes, it probably
gained him votes. Nobody else would have had the stones to do that. I'm extremely impressed by
Trump, though I am a democrat. I like seeing a fierce competitor get his due.
All of this is beside the point, I'm talking about the tactics needed to win presidential elections.
Why did Jeb Bush have an unimaginable "war chest" of $150 million??? He had that so that he could
finance a machine that would take him to victory.
A simple, brainless bully can't take on someone with $150 million in supporting funds and
crush them. You need to know what you're doing. And that's where people don't give Trump credit.
He's not some idiot bully who magically keeps beating his opponents. He knows what he needs to
do to get votes. At this point in time during the election process, that's all that matters. Someone
with savviness and a set of brass balls can take on $150 million and wipe the floor with it. That's
something.
Well America doesn't want the political establishment - on the GOP side at least - but what do
the people really want?
Probably Trump, Cruz, and Rubio are all unelectable, so where does that leave the Republicans?
The message from the voters is that something is seriously wrong with the system, but the analysis
of what that is seems to be lacking except from Bernie Sanders (crony capitalism).
Sorry, it's not political correctness or the absence of theocracy.
America has a long way to go to recover the American Dream, but voters do seem to realize that
its gone, sort of.
The campaign of 2016 is at least educating the people, even if it's in a strange sort of way.
Probably Trump, Cruz, and Rubio are all unelectable, so where does that leave the Republicans?
Up a certain creek without a paddle, because the winner of the Republican nomination will
most likely be Trump, with an outside chance of Cruz or Rubio, and almost 0 chance of anyone else.
Sadly for Republicans who aren't a fan of Trump, I'd say it's time for them to start getting to
use to him, because at the end of this year it's looking very likely to be either Trump vs Hillary
or Trump vs Sanders. Trump vs Sanders.
"American Dream" (Apple pie, etc, etc....) was a chimera at best in the past but now "impossible"
with globalization and the descent of global "labor" down to a world level playing field.
It's a whole new ball game.....
Post WWII with the GI Bill and a surge in the economy equal opportunity was a reality, but
since neoliberalism kicked in the 70s it has been all down hill.
But a fairer society is possible. Sanders analysis and policies, which may not be implemented
this time around, almost certainly won't go away now.
This could be the beginning of the end of the Republican Party, which rose from the ashes
of the Whig Party in 1854 (The "Know Nothings" were the xenophobic rump of the former Whigs, the
more rational of whom (Lincoln et al.) formed the Republican Party). The Tea Party Trumpezoids
would be the Know Nothings of today, especially given the inevitable defeat of Mr Trump in November
2016. The only options for his disappointed followers would be (1) emigration, (2) a humiliating
crawl back into the Republican Party fold, or (3) armed insurrection (ala the Bundy bandits).
I wouldn't say that Trump's defeat is inevitable. I certainly hope he doesn't win, but he certainly
could win. Trump is after all a populist and will always say what he has to in order to get votes.
Right now the people he has to please are Republicans so he's saying only things which please
Republicans, but when it comes down to Hillary vs Trump or Sanders vs Trump, he'll start saying
whatever he thinks the general public want to hear. And if Trump has shown one thing so far, he's
very good at working out exactly what people want to hear and yelling it from the rooftops..
If Trump wins the nomination of the 21st century "Know Nothing" party and gets shutout in November
(0-50), I'll go with door #3--an unarmed Tea Party type insurrection fracturing the party even
further.
Serves 'em right. The war mongers were repeatedly warned not to invade Iraq, now the shit has
boomeranged and hit the fan BIG TIME thanks to The Donald. It'll be a bizarre ending for a despicable
bunch of mass murderers.
absolutely delighted with the result. the reason is what some posters are saying here, that
bush/kasich are relatively 'humane' etc. they are nothing of the sort, especially bush. he is
the neocon's neocon, a scumball who hounded a decent man over his and his wife's end-of-life decisions,
a stooge who wants to monetize education and social security for wall street, and a standard-issue
plutocrat who wants to funnel everything to the top.
and apparently he's the relatively 'reasonable one'... which is the reason he could actually
win. and if he did, the media would be in their comfort zone and report on him as if he's mainstream,
as they did with his brother.
there are several advantages to trump: he's less likely to win and could take down other
republicans with him; and if he does win, there is margin for hope. the moneymen and the fundies
may not control his every move -as is guaranteed with all the others- so he could make some surprisingly
decent moves, at the very least not embarking on the destruction of social security.
and happily, the worst, most brutal aspects of his platform -the wall etc- are completely
unworkable. in addition, the laziest, most cowardly group of people in the country -the media-
would feel more comfortable reporting objectively on him than they are with more 'mainstream'
candidates. politically, he would be a disaster and would be destroyed when running for re-election,
if not before.
bush, kasich and rubio are every single last iota as bad, but politically, they would get away
with much, much more.
The best thing after Bush incinerating is that that Sununu guy, who said that Obama was "lazy"
for not preparing the debate against Romney is finished now, too. Racist little effer, in the
employ of the Bushes whenever they needed a dirt flung (which they always do). High horse candidacy
that wasn't. The Bushes aren't bad people, just God-help-us incapable (one was W., Prescott
was a semi-Nazi, Neil tanked the Savings and Loan bank (biggest crash until 2008). As for
his qualifications, you can really ride a conservative or socialist wave to success on a housing
bubble as Bush did in Florida. Your policies don't matter much. As for the dynasty, let's see
what the twins come up with in a couple of years.
So commenting that someone is lazy is now racist? Obama is lazy - he is one of the most disengaged,
indolent Presidents of all time. And he was too lazy to prepare for that debate. According to
some reports on the public record he admitted as such. But to his credit he improved on the next
debate.
I've seen the Oliver Stone movie, Bush senior wanted Jeb to become president first but he
lost his governorship battle in 1994 but W. won his, Jeb then helps W. steal the 2000 election,
Jeb then thinks he will become president after W. but little does he know W. will trash the Bush
name and stop Jeb from even being able to out debate a billionaire jackass with insane policy
ideas let alone become president
Mr. Bush goes home but the money lined up behind him stays in the game. Mr. Rubio floats higher.
Mr. Cruz sinks a little and will be entirely sunk soon enough. Mr. Carson may hang around for
a while, although not even he is sure why. Mr. Kasich will battle on in delusional self-belief
until the money runs out.
And when it boils down to GOP make you mind up time it will choose Mr. Rubio over Mr.
Trump because America is not insane.
Mr. Trump, however, does not know how to lose even though he has experienced it already in
this nomination round. His megalomaniac tendency will refuse to accept the decision of the Party
he claims he wants to lead. Mr. Trump will throw a very expensive, billionaire's hissy fit and
seek to stand for the Presidency anyway because Mr. Trump truly does believe that if you have
enough money you ought to be able to by anything you want and can afford. Even a country.
Towards the end of March it should all be a lot uglier than it looks now.
Whatever the outcome of the GOP three-ring circus, please America, Vote Democrat.
That is good. Not another shameless from this family. He should have been grilled on his brother's
misconduct and dumb face he will show when faced with hard decisions.
Jeb has run away with tail between his legs as the big alpha male beat him to pulp. No harem
this time. But Jeb will be back sometime in a future election, sneaking in when no one is looking.
He is the head of the neocon hydra. He will be back at the next opportune time. Do not count
him out. This election is over for him. But he is not over yet. A lot of things are at stake
for the neocons, the military industrial complex and the Carlaisle group. Jeb will bide his time.
Voters might have the clock. Jeb has time on his hand.
Thank goodness the Bush dynasty's latest attempt to infiltrate and damage the American political
system is finally at a decisive end. Now it's time to eradicate that other time-worn all-American
cabal, the Clintons, from the presidential race, and actually bring a fair democratic socialist
agenda to the US.
Jeb only has himself to blame for his atrocious performance. He's weak and ineffectual, nothing
more to say really. He asked the audience to applaud one of his talking points during a speech,
which says it all really...
He was tipped as the favourite for the Republican nomination before the election started by
the mainstream media, why you ask? I'll tell you, they tipped him as the favourite because he
managed to accumulate more legal bribes than any other Republican candidate... A truckload of
money from wealthy donors doesn't mean shit...
Great warmongering
Great bigotry
Great recessions
Great debt
Great poverty
Great ignorance
Great under-investment
Great bungles
Great shredding of the Constitution
From the start there was a desperation about Jebs campaign that seemed destined to end in
disaster. Unlike some candidates who feel entitled to it Jeb almost seemed to never quite believe
it himself as if he only did it because it was expected of him and he didn't have the heart to
explain to people that his family name was poison after W. His name gave him recognition but it
also made him a target, something which Trump pounded on mercilessly turning Jebs candidacy into
a referrendum on the failed policies of his brother. I hope its Kasich rather than Rubio
who benefits from this as he is really the only sane one left running. Carson is probably next
to go after Nevada.
Nothing is impossible in politics, but another Bush in the White House just eight years after
his unpopular brother always looked like a rather long shot to me. The fact that some people would
place $100M on his SuperPAC surprised me greatly, and just goes to confirm that the GOP is not
presently a facts based organization. Any one looking at the facts would not have made this bet.
There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says,
fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.
"... Nevada should have been a slam-dunk for Clinton. The narrow win is almost as bad as defeat. She was supposed to own the minority vote. ..."
"... This is absurdly biased. How much coverage for hillary and then Sanders comes second yet gets almost a passing mention despite having reversed a huge difference between the candidates. this is just crappy reporting. ..."
"... Donald trump have proved that he has more faith in god than the pope, because Donald Trump dont use bodyguards and with the things he says he needs them. ..."
This is absurdly biased. How much coverage for hillary and then Sanders comes second yet gets
almost a passing mention despite having reversed a huge difference between the candidates. this
is just crappy reporting.
BIG QUESTIONS:
1) Who can emerge as the Anti-Trump? Robo-Rubio or Canadian Cruz?
2) Is Kashich running for President or Vice President? Gov of Ohio could deliver crucial state,
OTOH he's very 1990s, classic Newt Gingrich vintage of Republican, part of a discredited and failed
movement.
3) Where do Jeb!'s people go? Not his voters, he didn't have any, but his money people?
The just blew $100MILLION+ on Jeb!, they probably have 3X more burning a hole in their
collective pockets. Rubio has that robot-problem, Cruz is a loose cannon (or loose stool), Carson
will never win, Kasich is too boring and funny looking, not to mention "vintage, but in the bad
way."
4) Will the election of President Trump split the Republican party?
An extraordinary battle between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton could be taking shape in the
2016 presidential race after the two candidates won crucial victories in the Republican and Democratic
contests for the White House.
Seems a little soon to be thinking of what could be taking shape. For Ms Clinton a near tie
in Iowa, a solid thumping in New Hampshire, and finally her first bona fide win, though after
dropping 25+ percentage points in the polls and Hispanics ditching her, tells me only 3 votes
have happened.
Donald trump have proved that he has more faith in god than the pope, because Donald Trump don't
use bodyguards and with the things he says he needs them.
On the other hand the pope goes around sucking up to everyone and everywhere he goes he is surrounded
by his bodyguards.
"... Hillary is proud that Bill Clinton, in being pragmatic in finding common ground with Republicans and getting things done, destroyed Glass-Steagell. ..."
"... She is absolutely NOT influenced by getting $1.8 million from 8 speeches to bankers. ..."
"... Yes, Hillary has such a Big Megabuck Heart for the hardworking poor, ... when she is pandering for votes. ..."
When it comes to Wall Street and the mortgage fiasco of 2007-08, Bernie Sanders is the only legible
candidate, whereas Clinton states her intent of, "limiting Wall Street influence," however, her
Under Secretary of State was Bob Hormat, who interesting enough was Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs.
Bernie Versus Hillary: A Vote for Bernie is a Vote to Restore the American Democracy while a Vote
for Hillary, and the Republican Candidates is a Vote for America's 1% Billionaire Oligarchy Ruling
Class..!
Bernie is coalescing and uniting the American Slave Classes. His supporters are a cross section
from every socio-economic, race, age backgrounds whose core values of Honor, Integrity, Justice
and Altruism which mirrors Bernie's which is a direct contrast to the 1% Billionaire Ruling Classes
of Insatiable Greed, Power and Control which they use to keep the Slave Classes "Divided and Conquered".
The American Government as Stated by the Constitution Belongs to the People and Should Govern
to the Will of all the People, and not just to the Greedy and Narcissistic American 1% Percent
Oligarchy Ruling Class who Rule through their Puppet Quid-Pro-Quo (A.K.A. THE QUID-PRO-QUO MILLIONAIRE
Politician like the CLINTONS') Oligarchy Government Falsely Posing as a Democracy....!
Unlike the Clintons' "Mr. Bill the "Sexual Abuser" of Women & Mrs. Quid-Pro-Quo" who did the Bidding
of America's 1% Percent Billionaire Ruling Class who then rewarded them by allowing them to amass
a fortune with an estimated Net Worth of $200 Million which excludes their Personal Slush Fund
the Clinton Foundation.
Since Hillary Clinton left her post as secretary of State in 2013 and subsequently declared her
royal candidacy last year, she has given 92 speeches for fees totaling $21.7 million, primarily
to the Wall Street Banks that created the Sub-Prime Mortgage Pyramid Scheme lead by Goldman Sachs
and other Financial institutions around the world some of which was have also donated Millions
to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Family Slush Fund -- Clinton Foundation."
Similarly Bill Clinton opened the "Quid-Pro-Quo Flood Gates" to the American Corporate Outsourcing
of Full-Time/With Benefits Middle Class Jobs to India and China which has permanently decimated
and reduced America's once Thriving Middle Class with his Trade Agreements that only enriched
the American 1% Percent Billionaire Ruling Class..! Late in Clinton's tenure, the White House
put forth a document celebrating "Historic Economic Growth" during the administration and pointing
to the policy accomplishments it deemed responsible for this growth. Among the achievements on
Clinton's list were "Modernizing for the New Economy through Technology and Consensus Deregulation."By
contrast, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the 1999 law Clinton signed repealing the Depression-era Glass-Steagall
Act, benefited the economy by creating more choice and competition. There is now a chorus of voices
across America who blame the demise of Glass-Steagall, which had strictly separated traditional
commercial banking from investment banking, for contributing to the credit blowup from which America's
Slave Classes have yet to recover.
Whereas Bernie has focus and he is driven out of Altruism to end the suffering of the vast majority
of Americans who are struggling economically while the Billionaire 1% Ruling Class continues to
suck all of America's Wealth up to themselves.
Bernie is deeply saddened and disturbed by the "Economic Injustice that Exists in America today;
* Slave class children are being deprived of a strong foundational education due to the lack of
a "Comprehensive National Voucher System" for "Primary and Secondary Schools" and that America's
slave class children are being burdened by "College Student Loan Debt",
* 65 Million Americans go Hungry each night in the Richest Country in the World whose 1% Percent
Billionaire Ruling Class holds 70% of America's Wealth.
* The Majority of Senior Citizens are living at or below the "Poverty-Line".
* The creation of Obama Care which was created to shift the Wealth from America's Physicians to
the 1% Billionaire Oligarchy Ruling Class (as their largest share-holders) "Owned Corporate Insurance
Companies" which is why Bernie want to expand Medicare into a Single Payer health care system
similar to what is commonplace in Europe.
To level America's "Playing Field", Bernie wants to Repatriate the Trillions of Dollars $ of the
current Un-Taxed 1% Billionaire Personal and Corporate Wealth that they are currently hiding using
the IRS Loop-Holes (generated for them by their Millionaire Congressional Quid-Pro-Quo Puppets)
which is being held in their Personal and Corporate Over-seas Tax Haven Accounts.
Finally while the elitist Hillary has continually tried to reinvent herself for and her false
campaign for America's Slave Classes --- Bernie Sanders is the "Real-Deal--What you See and What
you Hear -- Is What You Will Get Candidate".
Bernie is driven by the same core values of "Honor, Integrity, Altruism and Justice" which mirrors
the core values of America's Salve Classes which is why he is leading Hillary across the country
in "Trustworthiness" by 91%-5%.
Restore Democracy and Morality to America – Support and Vote for Bernie Sanders for President…!
I go to las vegas once a year for a conference. I had to pop out to get a shirt at brooks brothers
and the nice-looking girl who worked there asked where i was staying. Aria. "Oh I work there two
days a week, beautiful hotel." Another girl at Kiehls said the same thing. Is it normal for people
to work two days here, two days there? I guess you can get used to anything but it seems to me
stringing together a series of part-time jobs would be stressful. Over the course of five days
you never saw the same people on the front or bell desk, a never-ending rotation of young faces.
Las Vegas is in many ways a brutal place.
Hillary saddened by loss of homes to bank foreclosures?
Hillary has terrible foresight and making first call judgments.
Hillary is proud that Bill Clinton, in being pragmatic in finding common ground with Republicans
and getting things done, destroyed Glass-Steagell.
Hillary fights against replacing Glass-Steagells which would limit wild risk taking by Big
Banks. RESULT Big Banks get Bigger.
She is absolutely NOT influenced by getting $1.8 million from 8 speeches to bankers.
Yes, big megabucks same Wall Street investors and bankers that play a huuge role in discriminatory
redlining against minorities, fraudulent predatory lending, and foreclosures; the same big banks
that stole the American dream from poor hard working white, black, latino, and native American,
and other homeowners.
Yes, Hillary has such a Big Megabuck Heart for the hardworking poor, ... when she is pandering
for votes.
"Clinton Made $2.9 Million From 12 Speeches To Big Banks"--The Intercept
If you have ever passed by a dead skunk left splayed in the middle of the road, you know that
that unpleasant stench often travels with you for some distance. Politicians who access skunky
money disturb the peace in much the same way. Better to avoid them if you can.
I like the fact that Bernie took the time to speak to 25 laid off solar workers and their families.
Hillary received the same invitation but declined to attend.
How Bernie's climate change policy differs from Hillary's:
While Clinton's plan doesn't address the giant fossil fuel lobby fighting actions against
climate change, Sanders heavily focused on this issue. "The fossil fuel industry spends billions
and billions of dollars lobbying and buying candidates to block virtually all progress on climate
change," it reads. He wants to stop the industry from stationing lobbyists in the White House,
to end subsidies for fossil fuel companies, to create a national climate justice plan, and
to fight to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allowed corporations
to spend unlimited amounts on political activities.
Sanders' goal for the nation's clean energy use is ambitious. He wants to create a 100 percent
clean energy system for electricity, heating, and transportation. Not only will this minimize
America's dependence on foreign oil, his plan says, but it will also create 10 million "good-paying
jobs." Clinton's goal is for the U.S. to generate enough clean renewable energy to power every
home in America within 10 years of her taking office - which would be a vast improvement, but
doesn't account for transportation along with housing.
Clinton's current plan doesn't mention any goals for increasing America's leadership in
the global fight against climate change. Sanders', on the other hand, says that he'll establish
a climate summit with engineers, climate scientists, policy experts, activists, and indigenous
communities within his first 100 days in office. His plan says: "The United Nations Paris climate
talks in December are an important milestone toward solving climate change, but even optimistic
outcomes of these talks will not put the world on the path needed to avoid the most catastrophic
results of climate change. We must think beyond Paris."
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the transportation sector accounts for
27 percent of America's total greenhouse gas emissions. Since just calling for 100 percent
clean energy for transportation wouldn't offer any real solutions, Sanders' plan advocates
for building electric vehicle charging stations, as well as high-speed passenger and cargo
trains, around the country. Clinton's plan would create a Clean Energy Challenge to develop
partnerships between the federal government and states, cities, and communities wanting to
increase their renewable energy, which she says would help "modernize our transportation system."
However, the details about this Clean Energy Challenge remain vague.
Bernie's always been on the side of the people. Here's a 1960s photo of him being arrested by
the Chicago police for demonstrating on behalf of people of color:
"I know how hard-hit Nevada was – I think the highest rate of foreclosures. You still have
a lot of houses under water," Clinton said this week. "I take that very seriously ... I want
us to move any way we can in the federal government to help relieve the burden of already existing
homeowners."
This is what--almost 10 years after this devastation! When banks whined about their so-called
injuries, they were helped in 10 seconds! In fact, they were invited to the White House to draw
up their own rescue plan.
Banks get taxpayer-funded, no-interest loans in 10 seconds; citizens are left to dangle in
the wind for 10 years. Takes a lot of gall.
Bernie wants protections and enforcement. I'm unsure exactly what Clinton has proposed but this
is indicative.
Clinton has spoken in more general terms, seemingly avoiding the root causes of the crash
because subprime mortgages flag up her ties to Wall Street.
"I know how hard-hit Nevada was – I think the highest rate of foreclosures. You still have
a lot of houses under water," she said this week. "I take that very seriously ... I want us
to move any way we can in the federal government to help relieve the burden of already existing
homeowners."
Instead of insuring against a recurrence, like many in the establishment, they prefer to throw
some platitudes and tax dollars at the consequence instead of addressing the cause.
Bernie's not bought that's why he's willing to do what needs to be done. Ignoring the cycles that
occur under deregulated capitalism is a peril I prefer to completely avoid.
"That guy's a fucking idiot. To be honest with you, I'd be an idiot too if I had his kind
of money. I don't want him to be president of my country. If he becomes president, I'm going
back to where I came from," Rodriguez said. "I'm not voting," he added. "If I did, I'd vote
for Sanders. I've got faith in Sanders. He's telling it like it is. But they'll never let Sanders
win. The result is already fixed."
Victor Rodriguez
Dear Victor - Your assessment of Trump is pretty accurate, however, I too am a naturalized
American citizen, and I feel strongly that it is my duty to participate in the process of electing
a President, after all, this is the most important decision that affects all the citizens of this
country. So, instead of saying that you will go back to where you come from, and that the results
are fixed, get off your ass, go to the polling station and vote for Bernie Sanders immediately.
Otherwise, you may well get Trump as your President, and none of us want that!!
Donors Don't Get Why Hillary Is Losing Ground To Sanders
Hillary Clinton's donors held a meeting to figure out why there isn't more grass-roots support
for her. They held that meeting in the office of a Wall Street investor.
She either agreed with Goldwater, or she is a chameleon willing to take on any facade if it gives
her entry to power.
Yes, I think even in 1964 she was scheming.
I used to think only men thought like this, now it is clear that women are really not so much
different from men in this regard.
Maybe Clinton could donate some of the millions she made off of Wall Street speeches to some of
the victims who lost their homes to Wall Street greed. Ya think?
Actually, American manufacturing output is very high. The US is the second largest manufacturing
nation in the world in terms of output. But it has become ever more automated requiring fewer
and fewer workers. Even if manufacturing were to increase considerably, likely it wouldn't employ
as many workers as people fantasize as the new plants would be highly automated.
Depends how cheap people will work, if there are 0 jobs people will work for next to nothing and
that can be cheaper than robots for smaller size business.
Since China is now dumping their US treasuries, and has ceded control over their currency to
"market forces" (international banking cartel interference), they are now positioned to become
the new World currency, or "petro dollar". (replacing the US).
At that point market forces determine China's economy and they can no longer manipulate their
currency via US treasury purchase.
The USA is becoming the next Greece.
Last week, I watched an excellent film "99 Homes," about the cold-blooded foreclosure crisis which
showed the heartless schemes of bankers and their minions seizing homes left and right, often
fraudulently, to bundle up for resale, making billions in the process. It really was sickening
to see people whose jobs had disappeared dragged out of their houses by local police empowered
to work for these banks--"get out or we'll arrest you." Those who went to court found judges opposed
to them based on "documents" banks forged for the process.
Luckily, I didn't lose my house, but with wages frozen and prices soaring, I did get behind
on payments for a few months and had to withdraw funds from a much devalued pension account to
stay afloat. Unemployment soared, as did foreclosures and bankruptcies. It was just awful.
Too bad Clinton's tongue lashing Wall St had no effect at all on their behavior. The only voices
I heard speak out against these banks were Elizabeth Warren's and Bernie Sander's.
Please know that none of this was a surprise to either political party, they were paid MASSIVE
sums of "protection money" by financial industry participants in this coordinated fraud designed
to exploit the working people fooled into believing their houses were apt to appreciate at the
rate of growth stocks by the entirely false demand created by Wall St. Obama traded on our desperate
need of recompense while working explicitly for Wall St and was an even greater fraud for it-Only
Warren and Bernie stand between us and an Aristocracy.
Yes, Clinton is part of the Wall Street gang, and hubby Billy the C, enabled them with doing away
with GS Act and the other GS pays Hillary mega bucks for speeches.
Pay special attention to the names Weil, Greenspan, Summers and the rest of that ilk (for they
are the ones that orchestrated the theft of your childrens future), and you get a clear picture
of what has been going on in this country.
Cyclic recessions and financial crashes, all done purposely.
Sow and harvest.
On Oct. 22, Weill and John Reed issue a statement congratulating Congress and President
Clinton, including 19 administration officials and lawmakers by name. The House and Senate
approve a final version of the bill on Nov. 4, and Clinton signs it into law later that month.
Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support
the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street
investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill's
chief lieutenant. The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance
notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important
news, the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?"
"Obama is a disastrous example of a one-term, hyper partisan senator...."
No, you egregious moron.
Obama entered politics by running against a former-Black Panther. He got slaughtered in the
election, but what he didn't accomplish electorally he accomplished by establishing himself as
an up-and-coming "pragmatist" black pol willing to oppose radicals and support business-as-usual--in
other words, just the type of urban political aspirant the capitalist elite like to attach themselves
to, and, let us say, "cultivate."
Obama came into the presidency having surrounded himself--or having had others surround himself
with--banking executives, foreign policy "realists" (ie supporters of the imperial project), and
supporters of the surveillance state. As president, he has carried water for Wall Street, the
Pentagon, and the national security/police-state apparatus since day one. And all the while, bozos
like you have accused him of being a hyper-partisan socialist/communist set upon taking down capitalism.
If Hillary is so determined to "fight for us," why won't she commit to restoring Glass Steagall,
the repeal of which (under Clinton) was a major cause of the financial crisis?
So why are all the "yes-butters" still stuck on questions of how Bernie will pay for this
or that?
Under the Reagan administration, deficits soared. But deficits didn't cause the S&L crisis;
deregulation did. And who ended up paying for the greed of bankers and speculators like Neil Bush?
The taxpayers, to the tune of $130 billion. And what did they get in return for that bailout?
The creation of moral hazard which emboldened speculators in the ensuing, far more devastating,
2007 subprime mortage crisis.
I guess the "Yes-butters" conceive of the presidency as a technocratic position to be headed
by an accountant. In that case, FDR should never have been elected.
The majority of Americans feel differently. They want a transformative leader whose choices
at every step of his long and productive life of public service attest to his desire to put the
interests of the disadvantaged 99% first and to spearhead SYSTEMIC changes where they are needed
most.
One of my all-time favorite memories was when that guy from Goldman Sachs pocketed Five Billion
of the U.S. taxpayer dollars, and then that other famous Goldman Sach alum nit, the Secty of our
Treasury made a windfall after he purchased Lehman Bros. shares for 7 cents on the dollar, and
then "miracle of miracles" redeemed his investment when the U.S. Bankruptcy Court awarded him
100 cents on the dollar.
Private property based on the labor of the small proprietor, free competition, democracy–
all the catchwords with which the Capitalists and their press deceive the workers and the peasants–
are things of the distant past.
Lenin wrote these words 100 years ago in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism ,
but they seem quite applicable to the people interviewed for this Guardian article.
Perhaps the workers and peasants of Las Vegas aren't being properly deceived anymore. Some
say they are still going to vote for the Democratic Party of Racism and War or the Republican
Party of Racism and War, so they are not yet fully awake, but they definitely appear to be making
progress.
Tanna said the root of the US's problems was not Wall Street but the loss of industry.
What people don't seem to understand is that "Wall Street" and "the loss of industry" flow
from the same root cause: Big Money shanghaeing our politics and economy. Big Money runs Wall
Street, AND Big Money shipped our jobs overseas (so they can pay foreign workers peanuts versus
paying American workers a decent wage).
Only Bernie Sanders is courageous enough to say this out loud. All other candidates are bought
and paid for by the same Big Money selling America down the river.
Sanders has a great track record on affordable housing that is immune to boom and bust and allows
for rent or own options - as the initiator of the community land trust model in Burlington, Vermont.
He will be able to easily formulate policies to refine and reproduce the CLT model. A Sanders
presidency would be a unique opportunity to see a transformation of the housing market throughout
the US in favour of affordable options, whether to rent or buy, for the majority of people living
there - and not by throwing people into dependency on public housing run by local authorities
but rather imaginative and constructive partnerships between communities, responsible finance,
house builders and other business interests.
The heart of the problem is free trade. There are no good jobs in America because we don't make
anything anymore. The economists told us that imported things would be so much cheaper that it
would more than offset our loss of income. However, that didn't happen; prices keep going up.
Salaries stagnate, and the corporations move to China and make big profits, and their rich stockholders
just get richer.
Tomorrow's Democratic caucus in Nevada will be very interesting. If Sanders wins, in what was
supposed to be a shoo-in for Clinton, that will be a big boost for him.
By the way, Guardian, did Mr Johnson, the hotel worker, really say "punters"?
The the US housing collapse came about in part because the American government caved in to the
Wall Street lobbyists when they said we (the financial industry) are best placed to police ourselves
and allowed for the self-regulation of investment banks and other financial institutions.
The Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999 was a major contributing factor to the 2007 subprime mortgage
financial crisis, when it repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing safeguards
in the sector among banking, securities and insurance companies. The legislation was signed into
law by President Bill Clinton.
If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable, the Glass Steagall Act was designed to regulate
and protect the financial sector, President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall
law is no longer appropriate, the financial institutions got their way and et viola just eight
years later we had a financial Tsunami of biblical proportions caused by Wall Street greed.
Both the democratic party and the Republican party are equally to blame for the lack of regulations,
and to think allowing these guys (the financial institutions) to police themselves is a sane idea
is ludicrous. Its akin to politely asking foxes not to eat the chickens and taking their word
that they wont. Look at it another way, if this were the election of a chief of police with one
of the main tasks being the fight against organised crime, I think you would be seriously concerned
if you discovered that one of the main applicants for the role regularly got paid millions of
dollars for speaking to the bad guys. You might even want to the transcripts of what that person
said to the bad guys.
This is why we need a person who hasn't been paid off by Wall Street and is no friend of Wall
street.
The housing boom was a con and everyone fell in on the act, either through fear of being left
behind or they were blinded by greed thinking housing prices would just keep rising and rising.
At best people were stupid.
The banks caused the housing bubble by lending people money they couldn't afford to borrow,
they turned a blind eye to background checks by using a self certified mortgages, as more of these
insane policies were awarded more people purchased and house prices sky rocketed, then as always
the bubble burst.
Its not the job of your average Joe to enact policy to regulate financial lending, it is the
job of governments to regulate and police lending. People will always be gullible, 'it is the
governments role to ensure economic stability" and as such governments should be responsible for
policing rather than financial institutions. Failure to do so is not admitting that greed exists
or could be motivating factor.
Financial institutions are not as stupid as one would think, they knew the bubble would burst
and so they sold on the toxic assets around the world thus causing a global economic and financial
meltdown. In short your average Joe needs to be protected and Wall street needs to be regulated
by the government.
The way it stands now this could easily happen again hence the need for regulation and in my
own personal opinion the entire banking industry needs to be reformed.
Its not the job of your average Joe to enact policy to regulate financial lending
,
No, but it is the job of the average Joe to know how much he can borrow and repay.
it is the job of governments to regulate
Agree 100%
and police lending.
Disagree. No President can know the intricacies of the financial instruments in that detail,
nor should s/he. If it were the job of the President to understand it, then you should be asking
some very tough questions of your own preferred candidate - Saunders, so you can be sure he actually
has such a grasp of the detail that he personally would be capable of policing it. OK - you see
where I'm going with this?
Obviously the government of the day has to delegate policing to people who know,
or ought to know precisely how these instruments work, what the risk factors are, and how the
risk ought to be managed, in order that the regulator can compel the financial institutions to
manage their own risk responsibly.
But who can know how to do this regulation? You require a "poacher-turned-gamekeeper". That
means someone who has worked in that industry - for a long time.
'it is the governments role to ensure economic stability"
And that is a nirvana that no government has ever managed to achieve. You must ask yourself
why. I think that the answer is that no-one knows how to achieve stability.
Financial institutions are not as stupid as one would think,
I think they are both very clever, and entirely lacking in wisdom. I don't know what the situation
was in the USA, but in the UK there has a been a trend for the boards of big banks to comprise
non-bankers. People who have been successful in other fields - but no professional bankers. Therefore
the boards had no proper understanding of the risks their banks were taking.
they knew the bubble would burst
I think they most certainly did NOT know. I think once you are inside the bubble, as in any
community, most people follow the groupthink. Most people follow the herd. And that is why so
many fianancial institutions either went to the wall or nearly did. Because they did NOT believe
the bubble would burst. THey did not know or understand the extent of their own exposure.
and so they sold on the toxic assets around the world thus causing a global economic and
financial meltdown.
And bought them back too.
In short your average Joe needs to be protected and Wall street needs to be regulated by
the government.
Yes, and yes, and yes it is, but the problem is that the regulators do not always know what
they are regulating. No politician ever can know, that's for sure.
The way it stands now this could easily happen again hence the need for regulation and in
my own personal opinion the entire banking industry needs to be reformed.
Easier said than done.
Thats why I want Bernie to win.
And Bernie, who has never worked in finance- he knows how to regulate?
No it does not work like that I am afraid. Do not look at it from a microscopic perspective of
"Don't borrow if you cannot pay back". Most people borrow and CAN pay back so long as they keep
their jobs and their salaries remain more or less unchanged. BUT a recession has the effect that
a lot of people lose their jobs due to a fall in demand (the foundational rule of supply and demand
in modern economics) or have a decrease in their salaries so that the company where they are working
at remains open or retains its profit margin. The fact that people lose their jobs makes them
unable to repay their previously fully affordable loans. This has a domino effect as in turn it
further reduces demand etc. In a stable and slightly improving economy this scenario of course
does not occur (that's why we are able to function), so it is the instigator that is to blame
and that was the financial system in the US. The housing bauble was created and burst by banks
(and I am not making a distinction between investment and commercial banks since there was none
after the repeal of certain regulatory legislation) through creating and trading in bad faith
products they knew were toxic (derivatives), betting on their failure (creating a negative psychological
effect) and issuing even more loans for ridiculous terms on bad creditors to make money (individual
gains since they work on percentages on the volume of incoming and FUTURE business ;) ) . Add
to that the vulnerability of US and International banks due to over-leveraging (that is, hold
stocks on assets worth billions and trillions while only holding 5% of the actually money that
you would need to own the so called stocks, money that were their deposits that were also supposed
to satisfy banking needs such as a customer coming over to withdraw money), a panic and a banking
run and this creates the perfect storm. Over-leveraging is another effect of removing regulations
that control how much a corporation can be leveraged. To sum it up, greed ... Greed can take you
a long way until you crush and burn but you DO crush and burn ... and when on your plane rest
the lives and livelihoods of 7 billion people (since that is indeed a world economy) the world
crushes and burns with you.
I am in favour of changing the economy completely at some point since this classical economics
paradigm is wildly obsolete (no longer do we have a LACK of resources which needs a system to
appropriately ration them to the best entities. Everyone can have food, clothing and the basic
commodities of life nowadays). Perhaps an energy-based economy is what is preferable but lacking
that, proper regulation to avoid lives being destroyed is a certainly welcome addition in my mind
:) .
You betcha. He's been a lawmaker since 1990. In 1998 he voted against every effort to roll
back Glass-Steagall. If there had been more honest and informed lawmakers like him, the 2008 crisis
could have been averted.
We had banking regulation and it worked great. Ask any expert and they will tell you that the
repeal of Glass-Steagall was a major cause of the 2008 financial crisis. So why is Bernie Sanders
the only candidate in this race willing to commit to re-enacting it into law?
Tell us how low to go, Your Majesty;
Make some more decrees, Your Majesty,
Don't let us up off out knees, Your Majesty.
Give us a kick, if you please Your Majesty
Give us a kick, if you would, Your Majesty
Oh, That was good, Your Majesty!
"Ask any expert and they will tell you that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a major cause of
the 2008 financial crisis."
=
I'll ask you
why do you believe repealing Glass Steagall in 1999 was cause of 2007 and 2008 crises
would it have prevented cheap credit MBS securities housing boom commission trading leading to
2008 crises
shouldn't the 2007 housing market issues have warned any bright spark that there was a housing
bubble
==
Please note the correct answer to above financial analysis is not mindless Bernie or Bill answer
The rest of the world watches on in utter disbelief, once again, at the extreme ignorance of too
many in America's heartland. Chest-pounding, God-fearing, huntin, shootin, we've got the biggest
genitals and military hardware and thickest heads. Sure, a lot of Trump's bombast is pure bait
to reel in those knuckleheads and politicians the world over will recognise this BUT the world
has experienced this before with George W. He lost all respect outside of the American heartland.
He never regained it. That he won twice was lampooned across Europe. Donald Trump is insulting
people across the world ten times more than GW Bush. Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese, anyone he thinks
the ignorant at home want to blame for America's ills. Surely there has to be a limit to the insults,
when governments everywhere else start to look away from the USA for trade, mutual respect and
alignment. Where people might share a greater respect for others.
Cruz on Bush: "A man who ran a campaign based on ideas, based on policy, based on substance, a
man who didn't go to the gutter and engage in insults and attacks. Governor Bush brought honor
and dignity to this campaign."
Dear Marco, So, you've managed to perhaps come in second in the SC primary. Congratulations on
pulling the wool over so many eyes I. That state. My question to you is if (and that's a stretch
of the imagination) if you win the presidency will you show up for the swearing in? Your record
in the senate says no. Your record in the Florida legislature says no. You are the great pretender,
the small man in Cuban heels, the man who is social climbing through politics. Never interested
enough in state politics to actually show up for the job. The same goes for the senate...too boring
for you. You don't have the chops for the presidency. No morals, no sense of responsibility, no
intellectual curiosity, nothing. You are an empty suit memorizing lines. How pathetic.
The reality is that if the Democrats had as many candidates as the GOP has/had running, Hillary
would have dropped out by this point, just like Jeb. America is tired of family dynasties when
this country is supposed to be a democracy. This country is looking for a fundamental shift one
way or the other rather than rehashing of the same old policies over and over again.
Hillary Clinton believes that she has to deal with "one issue candidate" Bernie Sanders. Well,
it will not be long when Hillary will realize that she has to deal with the millions of Americans
who are also interested in only one issue, and that is:
Where to find the money to pay off their debts, to raise their children and send them to school
and to pay for doctors and medicine when one of their loved ones or they themselves get sick.
Therefore, all this really would not be an important issue, if all of them would be able to earn
half a million dollars by holding only a few speeches at Goldman Sachs.
Watch Trump go after Bankers after he is done with the Saudis and then finally go after the Fed
itself for setting up a false credit system which gave America 19,000,000,000,000 $ and ticking
in debt. Yes folks those are all derivatives and other capital shit without anyone ever having
to have to work for it. It's called the credit system in the hands of PRIVATE bankers, so go on
Trump, as they say in Britain, go on, and expose all the lies we have been seeing for over longer
than people can remember, bring back the Greenback and the Silver Dollar cerftificates so that
real production AND NOT CREDIT and real jobs come back to the country without financier market
leeches and other assorted scum top off and sell the house. Only a real estate developer would
see through this trash so you are well positioned and do not let sicko Bloomberg stop you who
made his money by selling financial info to capital mongers. Go on Trump, knock 'm dead.
You're assuming that Trump's messages are honest and consistent - far from it. There's absolutely
no telling what he might do if he were POTUS - a real leap into the dark. On the other hand, there's
only Sander's that will make a difference, since Hillary will maintain the status quo.
Clinton will fail against Trump. Bernie is the only one that can stop him.
It took One verbal kill shot from Trump about Bill's sexual harrassment of women and Hillary
fled in terror.
Her nomination will surpress the whole white blue collar vote for the democrats, just as the
nomination of Romney did the same for the republicans.
Trump appeals to minorities much more than other Republicans as he is not a nutter budget cutter
like the test of them. Trump will be the most left wing Republican nominee since Lincoln.
How can people vote for Hillary and not Sanders???? This is madness voting out of pure fear even
though polls have suggested SANDERS is more ELECTABLE then HILLARY.
This better go the way of the 2008 Democratic Primary and kick Hillary Outta here
i'm an undecided dem voter (California). i like Bernie and think Hillary has too much baggage,
but she does have a lot of experience, and Bill by her side.
Rule 1 in politics is to ignore the polls and follow the bookies (as I mentioned on another thread,
they drive much nicer cars than do pollsters). After tonight (from Paddypower):
Hillary 10/11 it's still her's to lose.
Trump 4/1 no change
Rubio 4/1 big mover of the night. He's now the sole candidate in the 'establishment' lane.
The rest of the Republican field are toast.
Bernie 15/2 still has to show that he can win beyond his white, liberal base. Next couple weeks
are going to be rocky, as the race moves to the South.
Rubio 4/1 big mover of the night. He's now the sole candidate in the 'establishment' lane.
The rest of the Republican field are toast.
Yes, this is the big takeaway from the night. You're not giving Paddypower's odds on Cruz,
but they have got to be down. If he can't win heavily Evangelical South Carolina - and even the
most Evangelical precincts there - where can he win? Cruz and Rubio going to Feel the Toupee
In a duel Trump vs. Clinton she will be political mincemeat after five minutes. He will just casually
mention the excellent service he got for every donation he made to the Clinton gang.
Trump is more aggressive than Sanders. He will make more of a case that Hillary should be in jail,
that she is unsafe with national security and people should trust Trump.
Trump could make the same case about someone whom wasn't a verifiable loose cannon.
Hillary voters were caught on tape walking in without registering- Caucus process was a complete
mess. People were told to leave without the count was over. Which is against DNC's policies. Is
this for real. I am watching the clips on you tube and on some other news networks. Can someone
research this please.
Sanders is "better liked" because voters don't really know him, so his disapproval ratings are
low...its the same reason John Kasich destroys Hillary in any head to head.
Its likely that November will see the two candidates with the highest disapproval ratings -Trump
and Clinton - go head to head....which should be interesting.
Clearly, the vote for Trump is a protest against the Republican Party selling out to corporate
interests and turning the US's democracy into a corpocracy.
A WSJ poll this week had him coming a distant 2nd. People keep underestimating him- and I'm confident
people would turn out in droves to vote for him (or ANYONE) against Clinton. With Trump's many
liberal stances, even some Democrats who hate Clinton would vote Trump.
The Republican Party need to accept that the people want Trump. The establishment need to put
their egos aside and realise that he is the best chance they've got.
I've been saying all along that I didn't think Trump could be the GOP nominee.
After this massive win in South Carolina, where he said all the Things You're Not Supposed
To Say-about Dubya, about war, about him lying us into a war, about Planned Parenthood not being
demonic, about healthcare, about all those things which are supposedly politically suicidal-I
honestly don't see who the GOP has who can beat him.
The GOP is being turned inside out and upside down, and they have no fucking clue what, if
anything, can be done about it.
Another thing.
If Trump is the nominee, he can beat HRC.
The Democrat party establishment is in serious denial of her negatives, which are huge.
Dangerously so.
The media will print this stuff because he is a threat. All the elite which includes the media,
lobbyists, special interests are used to their corrupt cosy bubble.
I live in North Carolina. The results of the primary are disturbing to say the least. Most of
the people I work with are for Trump. I think Trump will have a majority of delegates after March
primaries. I never thought Trump had a chance. I still don't think he will be the GOP nominee.
I am quite pleased the GOP has self-destructed (the extremists will never accept an "establishment"
candidate). You can be happy about the death of the GOP, but if Trump or Cruz are acceptable to
a sizable electorate, that is shameful. Frightening.
I will agree with Trump on this one point. George Bush did lie about the WMDs. He lied
through his teeth. Dick Cheny lied through his teeth. Colin Powell lied through his teeth and
many others in the Bush cabinet lied through their teeth. Condoleezza Rice was also complicit.
The current congress for the most part is a traitorous congress.
The Chump can barely muster a third of his own party's vote, he has no chance come November.
It will be so much fun watching the bilious halfwit crash and burn.
Fast forward to May 2017. A relieved US Congress accepts Her Majesty's Government's request for
the former American colonies to rejoin the Commonwealth under the premiership of Prime Minister
Jeremy Corbyn. Former president Sir B Obama (knighted for services to the Commonwealth) and the
first Governor for two centuries, said "Thank goodness for Britain, for without her, we would
have trumped by China. Long Live the King."
Because it's a caucus. A ridiculous 18th century relic, where you have to show up in person at
a specific time (a time when loads of people are working or looking after their children or otherwise
committed/engaged), stay there however long is necessary, and publicly announce your vote to all
and sundry while being forced to defend it to your opponents trying to change your mind.
In other words, it has very little to do with "voting" as is commonly understood...
Bill Clinton shamelessly likening Bernie Sanders and his supporters to the Tea Party wackos last
Monday:
"....."It's not altogether mysterious that there are a lot of people that say, well, the Republican
party rewarded the Tea Party. They just tell people what they want to hear, move them to the right
and we'll be rewarded, except they didn't get anything done," Clinton said. "That's going on in
our party now."........".
Isn't Hillary expected to win Nevada and South Carolina ? Is this not her southern "FireWall"
Hmm I winder if she had her firewall turned on when she was sending her emails from her private
server. Anyway, the fact that Nevada was close is a bad sign for Clinton and Super Tuesday IMO.
Richard Wolffe: Bernie Sanders may, like Steve Jobs, be living in a reality distortion field...
All of which may be true – but it just isn't enough because, well, he lost in Nevada.
Yes, and then what? Obama also lost to Clinton in Nevada in 2008, but he finally won.
Listen, Wolffe, why don't you stop to distort the reality field?
If Clinton keeps running a scorched earth, divisive campaign, she will make sure that no such
powerful combination occurs. For progressives to support her will take a lot - and I meant a lot.
She is almost the epitome of their dissatisfaction with the Democratic party - why her campaign
continues smears and dishonest attacks ON THE PEOPLE THEY WILL NEED bears thinking about.
Nat Silver :While Clinton has won the first two caucuses in the Democratic race - while losing
New Hampshire, the only primary - it's possible that Bernie Sanders will win every state caucus
from here on out.
Here's why I say that. The remaining Democratic states to hold caucuses are: Alaska, Colorado,
Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Washington and Wyoming. Other than Hawaii -
where I'm not going to pretend we have any earthly idea what's going to happen - those are a bunch
of really white states that otherwise look favorable for Sanders and which he could win even if
he slightly trails Clinton nationally.
Clinton is probably favored in the territorial caucuses in American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin
Islands, however, as territorial caucuses tend to heavily favor "establishment" candidates.
Very interesting point which widespread media is choosing to overlook but this could be a game
changer
Why is winning caucuses - and in states with small to medium delegate counts - a game changer?
To win the nomination you have to 1) assemble a strong coalition and 2) win the big-delegate primaries
showing you have popular vote strength. In doing this you need 3) to pull the party together so
that it can win the general - kind of the opposite of what Trump is doing in the GOP.
I worry, and have since before Sanders was a factor, that should Hillary do 1) and 2) (as I
expect she can), she has no idea how to do 3) and won't. A significant segment of the party doesn't
support Clinton - some never will - she needs to grasp this and deal with it.
Trump is opposed to the TPP, wants to tear up NAFTA, supports protectionism (punitive import tariffs
on US companies which outsource), supports tax-hikes on highest income-earners, supports lower
taxes on lowest income-earners, wants to introduce nation-wide Medicare for people on the lowest
economic rungs of society, speaks out against corporate/political cronyism and lobbyist influence
over government contracts, and bases his opposition to illegal immigration on the way it hurts
blue-collar US citizens vocationally. Meanwhile, Cruz takes his marching orders from groups like
the evangelical-racist
Palmetto Family Council and wants to abolish the IRS, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy,
and Dept. of Housing.
So, how exactly is Trump a global elitist, again...?
It would appear that the message from Nevada democrats is "more of the same old tired shit please"
- the Clintons have been on the scene long enough to have been totally captured by big business
& know all the bottom feeding lobbyist snakes by their first names - if this is what they mean
by " the most prepared and experienced human being America has ever seen for this office
" Good luck if Hilary gets in America. Just another Big Business sock puppet.
Sleep well in the (My fellow Americans - & by that I mean the ones that are the same colour
as me & have money - your future is safe on my watch) fire.
All the money, all the connections, all the spin, the family, the party machine working overtime
for her. And yet, and yet...
She should be annihilating Sanders - the socialist curmudgeon. But as this result shows, people
just don't buy what she's selling, they don't believe her, they don't trust her, they think there's
something rotten about her, they feel it, they smell it.
And there's the choice. Clinton, no ideals, slippery, inconsistent, pragmatic, a reflection
of an innately corrupt system yet equipped with the Francis Underwood skillset to work that system,
or Sanders, an principled, naive, brave, inflexible - who is happy to tear that whole system down.
Sanders might struggle to get things done with the media, political system, big business and
many in his own party want him to crash and burn. Clinton may be in the pocket of Wall Street
and simply maintain the status quo with some of the harshest edges sanded off. Perils down both
routes.
Personally, I'd like to see battle for America's soul. Sanders v Trump. Good vs Evil. I'd buy
a ticket for that rather than the dull Clinton v Rubio yawnathon that seems the likeliest outcome.
A contest I'd want them, somehow, to both lose.
What's up with The Guardian fanfare for Clinton? I just peeked at the L.A. Times and they were
very clear that she just eked out a narrow win. Our supposed progressive Guardian is already tuning
up the Hillary band for "Hail to the Chief". This election is getting curiouser and curiouser.
If you watched the CNN live broadcast the hacks are actually describing it as a decisive victory
and a turning point. I am at a loss for words at how bias the establishment media are becoming
as they continue to eek out this false narrative. If I were an American I would feel insulted
that these networks hold the general public in such little regard as to deem them morons.
Defending his attention-grabbing assertions that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was an
enormous mistake facilitated by the George W. Bush administration's
misleading of the American people, Republican presidential candidate Donald
Trump this week indirectly referred to 28
classified pages said to link the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the 9/11 attacks.
"It wasn't the Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Center. We went after
Iraq, we decimated the country, Iran's taking over…but it wasn't the Iraqis, you
will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center, because they have
papers in there that are very secret, you may find it's the Saudis, okay? But you
will find out," Trump said at a Wednesday campaign event in Bluffton, South
Carolina.
Trump's implied promise to declassify the 28 pages sets him apart from
the remaining Republican and Democratic presidential aspirants, filling a gap
created when Rand Paul suspended his campaign.
Last summer, Paul introduced
Senate Bill 1471,
which, if passed, would direct the president to release the 28 pages, and he
pledged to release them himself if elected to the White House. Green Party
candidate Jill Stein has also called
for their release. (Then-Senator Hillary Clinton co-signed a
2003 letter to President Bush demanding the release of the 28 pages, but has
been silent on the topic since.)
"... the $100,000 gift still makes Palmisano a megadonor operating inside a system many critics feel is corrupting democracy. ..."
"... "To someone outside of Washington, this might seem odd," says Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, which monitors campaign-finance issues. "But here in Washington, it's really not surprising at all." ..."
"... The $100,000 donation to Right to Rise was Palmisano's first dalliance with a super PAC, a newer type of funding mechanism that may be the most significant innovation in American politics in decades. Unlike traditional political-action groups or campaign committees, super PACs can accept unlimited donations to spend as they wish either supporting favored candidates or opposing rivals. The 2010 Citizens United ..."
"... Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom. ..."
Sam Palmisano is undoubtedly a technology expert. As CEO
of IBM (IBM) from
2003 to 2011, he presided over a tech giant during the formative years of the digital revolution.
That makes him a logical choice to be vice chairman of a
new White House panel on cybersecurity, an appointment President Obama announced this week.
Palmisano is also a Republican who gave $100,000 last March
to Jeb Bush's super PAC, Right to Rise. That puts him in the rarified stratum of people making six-,
seven- or eight-figure donations to help a chosen candidate win. Palmisano is hardly the biggest
spender in the 2016 race. At least 110 people have made larger donations to the Bush super PAC, the
biggest being a $10 million offering from former AIG chairman Hank Greenberg. But the $100,000 gift
still makes Palmisano a megadonor operating inside a system many critics feel is corrupting democracy.
"To someone outside of Washington, this might seem odd," says Meredith McGehee, policy director
of the Campaign Legal Center, which monitors campaign-finance issues. "But here in Washington, it's
really not surprising at all."
Nor is it unusual for a president to establish a bipartisan
commission or study group, which tends to have more credibility than a single-party panel more likely
to push an ideological agenda. The chairman of the
cybersecurity panel will be Tom Donilon, a longtime Obama aide and former National Security Adviser.
Donilon and Palmisano will help recruit another 10 panel members of both parties, whose job will
be to produce a report by Dec. 1 on ways to improve Internet security and lure more talented people
into the field.
The White House maintains that choosing Palmisano shows Obama is putting substance over politics.
"Cybersecurity is a non-partisan issue," Deputy White House Press Secretary Jen Friedman told Yahoo
Finance. "Maintaining public safety, and our economic and national security, transcends politics."
Before donating to Bush's super PAC, Palmisano was an occasional
political contributor who gave a total of $26,600 to a handful of politicians, of both parties, beginning
in 1998, according to Federal Election Commission data. Last year, he gave $2,700 to Jeb Bush's campaign
committee (which is seperate from the super PAC) and $5,400 to Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio.
On the Democratic side, Palmisano gave $3,000 to Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York in 2002 and 2003,
and $1,000 to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2004. Palmisano didn't respond to a request for
comment, but his giving pattern prior to the Right to Rise donation suggests the pragmatic concerns
of a businessman putting a few bucks in the pots of key legislators as a token of support.
The $100,000 donation to Right to Rise was Palmisano's first
dalliance with a super PAC, a newer type of funding mechanism that may be the most significant innovation
in American politics in decades. Unlike traditional political-action groups or campaign committees,
super PACs can accept unlimited donations to spend as they wish either supporting favored candidates
or opposing rivals. The 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision basically eliminated
caps on political donations, and super PACs have proliferated ever since.
"... Do you think they'll sue you or they're too busy running the campaign? ..."
"... my problem with Hillary Clinton is her physical abuse of people, and that is the case I make in the book. ..."
"... Clintons and the Bushes are the same. They actually work together. They raised $138 mn dollars through a non-profit for Haitian earthquake relief. They spent $10 million ,the pocketed a $128 million. It's in this book. ..."
"... They believe this system is broken, they don't like either party, they distrust political institutions, they distrust the Congress, they distrust the big media, they distrust the system, which they believe, is rigged against the average person - and that's why Trump, and, to a certain extent, Ben Carson, for example, and maybe even Bernie Sanders, they are resonating, because voters see them as outsiders and different from the other career politicians. Bernie Sanders isn't taking special interest money, he's not taking PAC money. God bless him! ..."
The American presidential contest is heating up, but the new book about Democratic
co-frontrunner Hillary Clinton may have some wide consequences. It alleges that the Clinton
family has been involved in abuse, rape and fraud, not having any qualms with using the
privileged position and money to shut the mouths of victims. What's the basis of these claims?
Can it change the flow of the election campaign? We speak to the author of the book, a former
advisor to Nixon and Reagan. Roger Stone is on Sophie&Co today.
Sophie Shevardnadze:Roger Stone, political strategist, former advisor to presidents
Nixon, Reagan, to candidate Donald Trump.. Now, you've just pen a book, called "Clinton's war on
women", where you alleged that a lot of, frankly, sensational things about the personal lives of
Bill and HIllary Clinton. For instance, you claim that Clintons systematically abused women,
sexually and physically. Do you mean to say they rape and beat them? I mean, is that what you're
saying?
Roger Stone:
".... many of these women were very reticent to talk because they are poor women. They are not
women who can afford lawyers. They are not women who can afford to fight back. By the way,
Michael Isikoff from NBC, he has reported this, Roger Morris, Pulitzer prize-winning author of
Washington Post, he has reported this. So, it's not just Roger Stone who has made these
allegations.
... No, I think I put forward the evidence, hard evidence, documented
evidence, that Hillary Clinton has beaten, kicked, punched, scratched and thrown hard objects at
her husband. At the same time, she says in her gun control proposal: "Those involved in domestic
abuse should not have a gun", it's hypocrisy, that's what this is about.
SS:Now, you say, Hillary
"psychologically raped" her or Bill's victims. Why do you refer to it
like that? Aren't you just being inflammatory?
RS:
No, not at all. Well, you're a woman, how would you feel if
your pet was killed, if you cat was killed and left at the front door?
If a man called your home late at night and said: "We know where your
kids go to school"? If your home was broken into? In my book, I
establish the actual names and, in many cases, the reports by other
journalists that Jack Palladino, private detective, Anthony Pellicano,
private detective, now in prison for illegal wiretapping, Ivan Duda,
private detective - these men all said the same thing, they were
retained by Hillary Clinton to keep tabs on and conduct a terror
campaign to silence Bill's sexual assault victims. No, I'm not being
inflammatory, I deal in facts, not rumors, not conspiracy, facts. By
the way, I'm open to lawsuits, here in the U.S., the Clinton's won't
sue me, because they know that I can then depose them, under oath,
about anything in this book.
SS: Do you think they'll sue you or they're
too busy running the campaign?
RS: No, they're too busy being afraid that this is
the issue that can bring them down. Now, I should also say, my book
also includes the two billion dollar financial frauds at the Clinton
Foundation, includes Bill Clinton's involvement with trafficking
cocaine during the time when he was the governor, his association with
Dan Lasater and others. This book is a complete and total expose of
Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.
SS: But is their marriage really much fairer than many other people's
intense relationships, seriously?
RS: Their marriage is dysfunctional. It is a marriage of convenience, and the
instance of a lust for power. Even if I'm wrong, even if Bill's sexual conquests are all
consensual, how many times Hillary has to be humiliated by her husband before she does something
about it?
... ... ...
Robert Moreau is a supreme researcher, and there's no question: what he has learned about the
Clinton's abuse of people, men, women and children, has made him very, very angry. He should be
angry. Anybody who reads this book will be angry, because it is the unvarnished, ugly truth about
the privileged elite in this country. There are certain people, like the Clintons, like the
Bushes, for whom the laws do not matter, they can traffic drugs, they can assault and abuse other
people - again, I ask people: read the book, make your own judgement. Don't let the media decide
for you, don't let the twisted freaks in Media Matters for America who are being paid to peddle
this information, don't let them decide for you. Read the book, make your own decisions.
... ... ...
SS: Now, you blame Hillary Clinton for having a temper, for behaving
abusively. Yet, you support Donald Trump who has offended just about everyone along the way, and
has been especially derogatory to women. I mean, he seriously speaks about women like, about
domestic appliances, pretty much. Don't you see a contradiction here? Aren't you being a little
two-faced?
RS: Why would you acquaint words with physicality? They are not the same. You
know, free speech is a big item here in the U.S., we have something called The First Amendment.
If Trump has offended so many people, why is he doing so well in the polls? No, my problem
with Hillary Clinton is her physical abuse of people, and that is the case I make in the book.
I don't think you can acquaint one with the other.
... ... ...
Look, the Clintons and the Bushes are the same. They actually work together. They raised
$138 mn dollars through a non-profit for Haitian earthquake relief. They spent $10 million ,the
pocketed a $128 million. It's in this book. It will also be in my book, written from a
different point of view, on the Bushes. I just give that as one example of these two families
working together to line their own pockets.
... ... ...
They believe this system is broken, they don't like either party, they distrust political
institutions, they distrust the Congress, they distrust the big media, they distrust the system,
which they believe, is rigged against the average person - and that's why Trump, and, to a
certain extent, Ben Carson, for example, and maybe even Bernie Sanders, they are resonating,
because voters see them as outsiders and different from the other career politicians. Bernie
Sanders isn't taking special interest money, he's not taking PAC money. God bless him! I
don't agree with him, he says he's a Democratic Socialist, that's like a "meat-eating
vegetarian"; but, nonetheless, at least he has a courage in his convictions and he isn't bought
and paid for.
SS:Mr. Stone, thank you so much for this interview, for your wonderful insight. We
were talking to Roger Stone, political strategist, former advisor to Presidents Nixon and Reagan,
as well as candidate Donald Trump, author of "Clinton's War on Women", talking about the newest
sensational allegations of abusive behaviour of Clinton family, and what can that mean for the
outcome of the U.S. Presidential election. That's it for this edition of Sophie&Co, I will see
you next time.
"... For reasons sake, I was not saying that HRC was LITERALLY a Republican…but her window of political discourse certainly represents what used to be considered expected of a moderate republican. Hell's fire, people, Bill Clinton's governance was typical of what used to be expected of a moderate Republican. ..."
For reasons sake, I was not saying that HRC was LITERALLY a Republican…but her window of
political discourse certainly represents what used to be considered expected of a moderate republican.
Hell's fire, people, Bill Clinton's governance was typical of what used to be expected of a moderate
Republican.
I voted for Bill (2x), and for Obama (2x), and I will vote for HRC over any of the brain-dead
idiots in the current Republican lineup.
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, most political experts acknowledge that Saint Ronald Reagan
would be marginalized in today's Republican Party.
Stop taking everything so literally and shooting from the lip.
Go Read OFM's rather insightful post on this thread regarding the current political climate
wrt establishment vs. non-establishment politicians and consider taking his word on the matter.
"... The concoction of the "Bernie Bro" narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic - and a journalistic disgrace. It's intended to imply two equally false claims: (1) a refusal to march enthusiastically behind the Wall Street-enriched, multiple-war-advocating, despot-embracing Hillary Clinton is explainable not by ideology or political conviction, but largely if not exclusively by sexism: demonstrated by the fact that men, not women, support Sanders (his supporters are "bros"); and (2) Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive and misogynistic in their online behavior. Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to this article will instantly illustrate). ..."
"... consummate, actual "bros" ..."
"... But truth doesn't matter here - at all. Instead, the goal is to inherently delegitimize all critics of Hillary Clinton by accusing them of, or at least associating them with, sexism, thus distracting attention away from Clinton's policy views, funding, and political history and directing it toward the online behavior of anonymous, random, isolated people on the internet claiming to be Sanders supporters. It's an effective weapon when wielded by Clinton operatives. But, given its blatant falsity, it has zero place in anything purporting to be "journalism." ..."
The concoction of the "Bernie Bro" narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political
tactic - and a journalistic disgrace. It's intended to imply two equally false claims: (1)
a refusal to march enthusiastically behind the Wall Street-enriched, multiple-war-advocating, despot-embracing
Hillary Clinton is explainable not by ideology or political conviction, but largely if not exclusively
by sexism: demonstrated by the fact that men, not women, support Sanders (his supporters are "bros");
and (2) Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive and misogynistic in their online
behavior. Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute
it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to
this article will instantly illustrate).
It's become such an all-purpose, handy pro-Clinton smear
that even consummate, actual "bros" for whom the term was
originally coined - straight guys who
act with entitlement and aggression, such as Paul Krugman - are now reflexively (and unironically)
applying it to anyone who speaks ill of Hillary Clinton, even when they know nothing else about the
people they're smearing, including their gender, age, or sexual orientation. Thus, a male policy
analyst who criticized Sanders' health care plan "is getting the
Bernie Bro treatment,"
sneered Krugman.
Unfortunately for the New York Times Bro, that analyst, Charles Gaba,
said in response that he's "really not comfortable with [Krugman's] referring to die-hard Bernie
Sanders supporters as 'Bernie Bros'" because it "implies that only college-age men support Sen. Sanders,
which obviously isn't the case."
It is indeed "obviously not the case." There are literally millions of women who support Sanders
over Clinton. A new Iowa poll yesterday
shows Sanders with a 15-point
lead over Clinton among women under 45, while one-third of Iowa women over 45 support him. A
USA Today/Rock the Vote poll from two weeks ago
found Sanders nationally "with a 19-point lead over front-runner Hillary Clinton, 50 percent
to 31 percent, among Democratic and independent women ages 18 to 34." One has to be willing to belittle
the views and erase the existence of a huge number of American women to wield this "Bernie Bro" smear.
But truth doesn't matter here - at all. Instead, the goal is to inherently delegitimize all critics
of Hillary Clinton by accusing them of, or at least associating them with, sexism, thus distracting
attention away from Clinton's policy views, funding, and political history and directing it toward
the online behavior of anonymous, random, isolated people on the internet claiming to be Sanders
supporters. It's an effective weapon when wielded by Clinton operatives. But, given its blatant falsity,
it has zero place in anything purporting to be "journalism."
He's a thug, and a crook, and a liar, and a
pseudo-intellectual and a murderer. Ok? Those things are factually
verifiable.
Kissinger deserves vigorous prosecution for war crimes,
for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary
or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and
torture.
A good liar must have a good memory: Kissinger is a
stupendous liar with a remarkable memory.
– Quotes by Christopher Hitchens
One of the more bizarre memes that continues to be parroted by the
establishment media is this idea that Hillary Clinton is so much stronger
than Bernie Sanders when it comes to foreign policy. Sure, if your
definition of "strength" consists of cheerleading for the cataclysmic Iraq
War and propagating a series of war crimes and international fiascos as
Secretary of State, then I suppose that's true.
I
n the New Hampshire
debate, Clinton thought to close her argument that she is the true
progressive with this: "I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I
ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time."
Let's consider some of Kissinger's achievements during his tenure
as Richard Nixon's top foreign policy–maker. He (1) prolonged the Vietnam
War for five pointless years; (2) illegally bombed Cambodia and Laos; (3)
goaded Nixon to wiretap staffers and journalists; (4) bore responsibility
for three genocides in Cambodia, East Timor, and Bangladesh; (5) urged
Nixon to go after Daniel Ellsberg for having released the Pentagon
Papers, which set off a chain of events that brought down the Nixon White
House; (6) pumped up Pakistan's ISI, and encouraged it to use political
Islam to destabilize Afghanistan; (7) began the US's
arms-for-petrodollars dependency with Saudi Arabia and pre-revolutionary
Iran; (8) accelerated needless civil wars in southern Africa that, in the
name of supporting white supremacy, left millions dead; (9) supported
coups and death squads throughout Latin America; and (10) ingratiated
himself with the first-generation neocons, such as Dick Cheney and Paul
Wolfowitz, who would take American militarism to its next calamitous
level. Read all about it in
Kissinger's
Shadow --
A full tally hasn't been done, but a back-of-the-envelope
count would attribute 3, maybe 4 million deaths to Kissinger's actions,
but that number probably undercounts his victims in southern Africa. Pull
but one string from the current tangle of today's multiple foreign policy
crises, and odds are it will lead back to something Kissinger did between
1968 and 1977. Over-reliance on Saudi oil? That's Kissinger. Blowback
from the instrumental use of radical Islam to destabilize Soviet allies?
Again, Kissinger. An unstable arms race in the Middle East? Check,
Kissinger. Sunni-Shia rivalry? Yup, Kissinger. The impasse in
Israel-Palestine? Kissinger.
Radicalization of Iran? "An act of folly" was how veteran
diplomat George Ball described Kissinger's relationship to the Shah.
Militarization of the Persian Gulf? Kissinger, Kissinger, Kissinger.
And yet Clinton
continues to call his name, hoping his light bathes her in wisdom
Seizing upon her willingness to associate and brag about a cordial working relationship
with a notorious war criminal, Bernie Sanders had the following to say in this week's debate.
No surprise there. Sociopathic, violent war criminals tend to stick together.
Of course, let's never forget what Google search told us about the two candidates…
Kissinger is just one of the more visible NWO tools.
There are so many.
I recall him "strolling" from his apartment to the
UN in the early 80's: A wedge of 6 or 7 well built 220+
lb. men in suits walking quickly down the sidewalk
"moving" people out of the way with their size and
intimidation with short little Henry safely "strolling"
at his preferred pace inside the wedge. What an
asshole! Are they NFL fans?
If there were "smart phones" back then, there would
have been a lot of people shoved to the ground. Back
then, a few were "blocked out" of the way....
Kissinger is a diabolical criminal. He was clever enough to kill
3-5 million people' in Cambodia and put the blame on Pol Pot for
resisting his murder!
If you want to know the Final Truth about Cambodia, read the
article below.
Wouldn't you prefer someone in fiscal la-la land to someone with a
stone-cold grip on how hard she's going to fuck over everyone at the
expense of 99.999% of Americans?
Hillary is a hardened criminal deserving of hard time. If the next
president pardons her, that pardon should be considered more devious
than the pardoning of Marc Rich.
The Clintons are a Mafia-like crime family without an Italian
last-name. Cross them and die - and that's no joke.
They are scary fuckers. Imagine this alone: When their daughter
came of age, she was hired by NBC News for $600,000 per year. Do you
remember all that reporting she did? Do you realize the typical
reporter gets paid $30K/year and there are 1,000 people for each job
available? That's the tip of the iceberg of crime and sleaze, and
this family knows no bounds.
Yes, when the Clintons left the White House they were broke. LeBron
James was broker the minute before he signed with the NBA. They're
both worth over $100m. But, they both do different things for
different people. The Clintons are whoring fucks destroying our
nation.
There's a correlation between sociopaths and assassinations.
Sociopaths, like Clinton, Kissinger,Netanyahu, and Erdogan NEVER seem to
be on the Receiving End.
I reviewed several thousand Hillary Clinton emails that were released
after court order, with an emphasis on Fukushima:
1) She was immediately informed of the dangers of Fukushima, and
the actions that people should take to mitigate radiation damage, Mar
12th USA time.
2) She was participating daily in the discussion of Fukushima,
until.....
3) They were mostly concerned with economic effects to countries,
and to protect the US nuclear industry.
4) Clinton advisers pushed her hard to go to Japan as PR move.
5) At that point one of two things happened a) she stopped sending
AND receiving any emails related to Fukushima, or b) she intentionally
did not hand over those emails and they were systematically eliminated
from her files.
"... But in fact, when it comes to advancing Dr. King's legacy, a vote for Clinton not only falls
far short of the mark; it prevents us from giving new life to King's legacy. Instead, it is Sanders
who has championed that legacy in word and in deed for 50 years. This election is not a mere campaign;
it is a crusade to resurrect democracy-King-style-in our time. In 2016, Sanders is the one leading that
crusade. ..."
The future of American democracy depends on our response to the legacy of Martin Luther King,
Jr. And that legacy is not just about defending civil rights; it's also about fighting to fix our
rigged economy, which yields grotesque wealth inequality; our narcissistic culture, which unleashes
obscene greed; our market-driven media, which thrives on xenophobic entertainment; and our militaristic
prowess, which promotes hawkish policies around the world. The fundamental aim of black voters-and
any voters with a deep moral concern for our public interest and common good-should be to put a smile
on Martin's face from the grave.
The conventional wisdom holds that, in the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton is the candidate
who will win over African-American voters-that her rival, Bernie Sanders, performed well in Iowa
and won New Hampshire on account of those states' disproportionate whiteness, and that Clinton's
odds are better in the upcoming contests in South Carolina and Nevada, two highly diverse states.
But in fact, when it comes to advancing Dr. King's legacy, a vote for Clinton not only falls
far short of the mark; it prevents us from giving new life to King's legacy. Instead, it is Sanders
who has championed that legacy in word and in deed for 50 years. This election is not a mere campaign;
it is a crusade to resurrect democracy-King-style-in our time. In 2016, Sanders is the one leading
that crusade.
Clinton has touted the fact that, in 1962, she met King after seeing him speak, an experience
she says allowed her to appreciate King's "moral
clarity." Yet two years later, as a high schooler, Clinton
campaigned
vigorously for Barry Goldwater-a figure King called "morally
indefensible" owing to his staunch opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And she
attended
the Republican convention in 1968! Meanwhile,at this same moment in history, Sanders was
getting
arrested for protesting segregation in Chicago and
marching
in Washington with none other than King itself. That's real moral clarity.
Needless to say, some moral clarity set in as Clinton's politics moved to the left in her college
years. After graduating from law school, she joined the Children's Defense Fund as a staff attorney,
working under the great King disciple, Marian Wright Edelman, with whom she struck up a
friendship. Yet that relationship soured. This came after Hillary Clinton-in defending her husband's
punitive crime bill and its drastic escalation of the mass incarceration of poor people, especially
black and brown people-referred callously to gang-related youth as "superpredators."
And it was Bill Clinton who signed a welfare reform bill that all but eliminated the safety net for
poor women and children-a Machiavellian attempt to promote right-wing policies in order to "neutralize"
the Republican Party. In protest, Peter Edelman, Marian's courageous husband, resigned from his assistant
secretary post at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Clintons' neoliberal economic policies-principally, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall banking
legislation, apparently under the influence of Wall Street's money-have also hurt King's cause. The
Clinton Machine-celebrated by the centrist wing of the Democratic Party, white and black-did produce
economic growth. But it came at the expense of poor people (more hopeless and prison-bound) and working
people (also decimated by the Clinton-sponsored North American Free Trade Agreement).
Bill apologized for the effects of his crime bill, after devastating thousands of black and poor
lives. Will Hillary apologize for supporting the same measures?
It's no accident that Goldman Sachs paid Hillary Clinton
$675,000 for a mere three speeches in 2013, or that the firm has given
hundreds of thousands of dollars to her campaigns or that, in total, it has paid her and her
husband
more than $150 million in speaking fees since 2001. This is the same Goldman Sachs that engaged
in predatory lending of sub-prime mortgages that collapsed in 2008,
disproportionately hurting black Americans.
These ties are far from being "old news" or an "artful smear," as Hillary Clinton recently put
it. Rather, they perfectly underscore how it is Sanders, not Clinton, who is building on King's legacy.
Sanders' specific policies-in support of a $15 minimum wage, a massive federal jobs program with
a living wage, free tuition for public college and universities, and Medicare for all-would undeniably
lessen black social misery. In addition, he has specifically made the promise, at a Black Lives Matter
meeting in Chicago, to significantly shrink mass incarceration and to prioritize fixing the broken
criminal justice system, including eliminating all for-profit prisons.
Clinton has made
similar
promises. But how can we take them seriously when the Ready for Hillary PAC received more than
$133,000 from lobbying firms that do work for the GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America-two
major private prison groups whose aim is to expand mass incarceration for profit? It was only after
this fact was reported that Clinton
pledged to stop accepting campaign donations from such groups. Similarly, without Sanders in
the race to challenge her, there's no question Clinton would otherwise be relatively silent about
Wall Street.
The battle now raging in Black America over the Clinton-Sanders election is principally a battle
between a declining neoliberal black political and chattering class still on the decaying Clinton
bandwagon (and gravy train!) and an emerging populism among black poor, working and middle class
people fed up with the Clinton establishment in the Democratic Party. It is easy to use one's gender
identity, as Clinton
has, or racial identity, as the Congressional Black Caucus recently
did in endorsing her, to hide one's allegiance to the multi-cultural and multi-gendered Establishment.
But a vote for Clinton forecloses the new day for all of us and keeps us captive to the trap of wealth
inequality, greed ("everybody else is doing it"), corporate media propaganda and militarism abroad-all
of which are detrimental to black America.
In the age of Barack Obama, this battle remained latent, with dissenting voices vilified. As a
black president, Obama has tended to talk progressive but walk neoliberal in the face of outrageous
right-wing opposition. Black child poverty has
increased since 2008, with more than
45 percent of
black children under age 6 living in poverty today. Sanders talks and walks populist, and
he is committed to targeting child poverty. As president, he would bea more progressive than
not just Clinton but also Obama-and that means better for black America.
Now, with Obama's departure from the White House, we shall see clearly where black America stands
in relation to King's legacy. Will voters put a smile on Martin's face? It's clear how we can do
it. King smiles at Sanders' deep integrity and genuine conviction, while he weeps at the Clinton
machine's crass opportunism and the inequality and injustice it breeds.
"... Watch the very good summary below of American involvement in Iraq, 2003-2014, done by PBS Frontline . It specifically states that during the 2007 Surge to stabilize an Iraq that had been de-stabilized by the American invasion, the US gave about $400 million to the progenitor of ISIS, the Sunni Sons of Iraq . ..."
"... The unintended consequences of the American (and British) invasion was the creation of ISIS, funded by the American taxpayer. Sanders voted against those consequences ; Clinton, the old Klingon war-bird that she is, voted for them. ..."
"... Wow. Almost completely biased yet again. Did you watch the actual debate? Do these 5 points strike you as the main ones? I am Hillary Clinton and I approved this article. PS Obama? Kissinger? Both rate as crucial talking points last night and Hillary and no decent answer to Bernie on either ..."
"... I would love to see those transcripts, and have in fact written to her suggesting that she release them. I understand that Goldman Sachs paid good money to hear those speeches, and might like them to remain private, but I think it would be better for the nation, since she is running, for people to know what she said. ..."
"... Sanders catches Clinton on her advice from Henry Kissinger , Hillary doubles down on her assertion that getting advice from war criminals is good policy. I guess if she could get advice from Josef Mengele about Health care shed do that too? ..."
"... Lamest line of the night - when Hillary tried to make a big deal about there being a majority of women on stage . Sorry Hill, but that kind of sexism is just as offensive as if you said majority of straight people on stage . You come across like some gender supremacist. ..."
"... Im sorry, but as a woman and a feminist, I find this one of the most offensive things I have ever read! In what fucking universe is Hillary Clinton one of the most accomplished women in the world ? ..."
"... She was a bright student who chose to sacrifice her own career and tone down her own ambitions and persona to become the political wife so the man she married could have the career he wanted, then, once he left office, coatailed on his connections and name recognition to win a (open-goal) U.S. Senate Seat, in which she did nothing brave or revolutionary or remarkable and which she then abandoned for a decent presidential run of her own (I voted for her in 2008, as it happens) in which she threw in the towel far too early and easily in the face of the party establishment ordering her to. Her reward for this was a post as U.S. Secretary of State, where she distinguished herself by helping implement a series of foreign policy disasters (Libya alone she haunt her for the rest of her life, and no, I dont mean the irrelevant Benghazi incident, but the complete destruction of what was once one of the most stable countries in the region)... ..."
"... Killary proclaims listening to and following a war criminal and her neocon cohorts is somehow a good thing. ..."
"... Killary says may many past mistakes having nothing to do with my future ones. ..."
"... Faux-identity politics has run its course. ..."
"... Really believe Republicans havent changed? Eisenhower had a 92% income tax on the rich, supported unions and warned of our industrial military. Your bible thumping party would crucify Eisenhower and Jesus today. Conservatives golden rule is help the rich . ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has never had an original opinion on anything her whole political life. When she opens her mouth, all that comes out is a endless stream of views which safeguards the interests of the many wealthy organizations and institutions she has supported over the decades. ..."
"... And really, what does Clinton have other than serving a pretty disastrous tenure as Obamas Secretary of State? (At least Kerry, for all his faults, c.f. Ukraine, managed the Iran deal - all Clinton did was manage to utterly destroy Libya.) ..."
"... The only reason that Republicans find any support is because America is dumbing down. Based on my own observation because I happen to live in a very red state, by and large, Republican voters are willfully uninformed. Put a Republican in the Oval Office and our education system will not improve. Nor will the collective IQ of the American populace jump any curves. ..."
"... Ill take Sanders proven judgment over Clintons shoot first; ask questions later approach. ..."
"... Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldmans workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis. ..."
"... For some reason I have a feeling that the big banks wouldnt be asking Mr . Sanders to speak at their events. ..."
"... So if the Commander in Chief should be, first of all, a courageous person, who would you rather entrust the defense of the United States and the safety of its citizens; to Bernie Sanders or to Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... she voted for gw bushs disastrous war. that is not slavishly denigrating clinton, thats just a fact. she caved on the most important foreign policy issue since vietnam. ..."
"... This debate solidified my desire that Hillary NOT be Commander in Chief. She really did scare me that she would be too eager to go to war. The way she kept saying the words Commander in Chief, it made me feel she couldnt wait to get her fingers on the button. ..."
"... Why anyone would believe corporate clone Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Hillary Clinton has two guiding principles: the advancement of Hillary Clinton, and the enrichment of Hillary Clinton. ..."
Hypothetically, if Hillary is 500 delegates short of winning the nomination, while Bernie is only
short 200, and 600 of the 700 Supers break her way....
A scenario like that could very well happen; the DNC needs to abolish the Super Delegates once
and for all to remove the prospect of a rigged nomination process.
Watch the very good summary below of American involvement in Iraq, 2003-2014, done by PBS'
"Frontline". It specifically states that during the 2007 "Surge" to stabilize an Iraq that had
been de-stabilized by the American invasion, the US gave about $400 million to the progenitor
of ISIS, the Sunni "Sons of Iraq".
The "unintended consequences" of the American (and British) invasion was the creation of
ISIS, funded by the American taxpayer. Sanders voted against those "consequences"; Clinton, the
old Klingon war-bird that she is, voted for them.
Of course, daughter Chelsea, didn't have to get all dirty and bloody herself by going
to fight her mother's war, but your sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers did. Vote for more of
that with Clinton.
Wow. Almost completely biased yet again. Did you watch the actual debate? Do these 5 points
strike you as the main ones? I am Hillary Clinton and I approved this article. PS Obama? Kissinger?
Both rate as crucial talking points last night and Hillary and no decent answer to Bernie on either
I would love to see those transcripts, and have in fact written to her suggesting that she
release them. I understand that Goldman Sachs paid good money to hear those speeches, and might
like them to remain private, but I think it would be better for the nation, since she is running,
for people to know what she said.
... ... ...
1) Hillary tries to mention a local African American killed by police, forgets the name mid
sentence and struggles to get it out of her mouth. Came across as very rehearsed, especially when
it turns out the victims mom was in the audience, being used by the Clinton Campaign for an obvious
photo opportunity. Clinton wins the HAM HANDED Award.
2) Hillary tries to go after Sanders for disagreeing with Obama and comes across like an inside
the beltway clueless blithering idiot. She claims progressive creds, but she's totally unaware
of how disappointing Obama has been to the Left. Hillary exposed as another Washington Insider,
again.
3) Sanders command of the agenda while all Clinton could do is follow his lead quipping "me
too!" Clearly Sanders is in control of this race, Clinton is not, one is a leader, one is not.
Hillary should just step down for the good of the country and the party
4) Sanders catches Clinton on her "advice from Henry Kissinger", Hillary doubles down on
her assertion that getting advice from war criminals is good policy. I guess if she could get
advice from Josef Mengele about Health care she'd do that too?
5) Hillary wearing what looked to be a Star Trek (the original series) Admiral's uniform -
was that a nod to trekkies? I couldn't tell if it was a Star Fleet or a Romulan top. Anyway, cred
for Hillary for shouting out to Trekkies.
6) Lamest line of the night - when Hillary tried to make a big deal about there being a
"majority of women on stage". Sorry Hill, but that kind of sexism is just as offensive as if you
said "majority of straight people on stage". You come across like some gender supremacist.
of one of the most accomplished women in the world
I'm sorry, but as a woman and a feminist, I find this one of the most offensive things
I have ever read! In what fucking universe is Hillary Clinton "one of the most accomplished women
in the world"?
She was a bright student who chose to sacrifice her own career and tone down her own ambitions
and persona to become the "political wife" so the man she married could have the career he wanted,
then, once he left office, coatailed on his connections and name recognition to win a (open-goal)
U.S. Senate Seat, in which she did nothing brave or revolutionary or remarkable and which she
then abandoned for a decent presidential run of her own (I voted for her in 2008, as it happens)
in which she threw in the towel far too early and easily in the face of the party establishment
ordering her to. Her reward for this was a post as U.S. Secretary of State, where she "distinguished"
herself by helping implement a series of foreign policy disasters (Libya alone she haunt her for
the rest of her life, and no, I don't mean the irrelevant Benghazi incident, but the complete
destruction of what was once one of the most stable countries in the region)...
Sorry, Clinton may well be an intelligent and competent woman, but by what stretch of the imagination
is she "one of the most accomplished women in the world"? The U.S. perhaps - through arguably
not even - but the world? Seriously? And then you have the gall to claim Sanders supporters are
delusional?
Women like Angela Merkel or Christine Lagarde (like them or loathe them) could and would eat
the likes of Clinton for breakfast, and they accomplished what they have without any husband's
help!
1. Killary plays the sex card.
2. Killaty says little about her famaly's policy toward jailing nearly a third of all black men
and foreclosing on so many of their homes due to Bill's passing GlassSteagall.
3. Killary conveniently leaves out the fact that all key Latino and minority interest groups supported
Bernie's no vote.
4. Killary proclaims listening to and following a war criminal and her neocon cohorts is somehow
a good thing.
5. Killary says may many past mistakes having nothing to do with my future ones.
Both Cruz and Rubio are as white as Clinton and Sanders. And having parents who were part of the
upper-class who fled Cuba after the Revolution doesn't remotely reflect the personal histories
of the vast majority of Hispanic-Americans. (Nor, for that matter, does being the son of a wealthy
Kenyan student and middle-class white mother reflect the reality of 99% of African-Americans.)
Faux-identity politics has run its course. It was never as instrumental in Obama's
election(s) as was made out in the first place, and many of the minority for whom it was have
learned their lesson.
As the Republicans are painfully aware and Clinton is learning, blacks and Latinos and women
and young people aren't stupid - they will ultimately rather vote for the "old white man"
who represents their interests than the person they have slightly more of a genetic or cultural
link to who doesn't!
Well, Sanders was the first Senator to announce he was boycotting Netanyahu's speech to
Congress last year, and while he's certainly adopted a more mainstream line towards Israel in
recent years, he's still never spoken at or accepted support from AIPAC and makes it quite clear
in his policy brief that he believes Israel needs to end the siege of Gaza and withdraw from
the West Bank .
Clinton, on the other hand, is an AIPAC darling who doesn't even "believe" Gaza is under
siege and merely has some mealy-mouthed platitudes to offer about how settlement expansion
in the West Bank is not "helpful". (And one of her largest individual campaign donors is an
Israeli-American billionaire who she has assured she will, if elected, do everything in her power
to crack down on the BDS movement!)
At least Obama treated the extremist bunch who are now in power in Israel exactly how they
deserved.
You mean even more $100s of billions in U.S. "aid" than they were already getting and complete
diplomatic cover for their assault on Gaza and other assorted war crimes? If you think that's
tough love, I'd hate to see how your children turn out!
*For more background see
thisAl-Jazeera English piece or the Electronic Intifada's exhaustive coverage.
Sanders is far from perfect on this issue, but he's about as "progressive" as it is possible
for any high-profile U.S. politician to be. (And I really hope you weren't implying the
fact that he is Jewish makes him more likely to be pro-Israel - that is precisely the kind of
crap which helps those opposed to Palestinian rights paint all of us campaigning for them in a
bad light...)
Of course, Clinton distances herself from her supporters by running a tight campaign
Of course, that's the way how it works, Clinton left to her supporters to do the dirty work, and
then she distances herself from them, and continue to play an angel.
Really believe Republicans haven't changed? Eisenhower had a 92% income tax on the rich, supported
unions and warned of our industrial military. Your bible thumping party would crucify Eisenhower
and Jesus today. Conservatives golden rule is "help the rich".
You either misunderstood my comment, or you're being disingenuous.
What I find strange is The Guardian's evident pro-Clinton bias, even though it pretends to
be a progressive paper. Sanders is obviously the true progressive, not Clinton. So yes, it does
make me (and many, many other readers of The Guardian) wonder.
Hillary Clinton has never had an original opinion on anything her whole political life. When
she opens her mouth, all that comes out is a endless stream of views which safeguards the interests
of the many wealthy organizations and institutions she has supported over the decades.
At least when Bernie Sanders opens his mouth on any issue, there's no puppet strings moving
furiously up and down in the background.
What foreign policy credentials/experience did Obama have? (Or W. Bush or Bill Clinton for that
matter?)
And really, what does Clinton have other than serving a pretty disastrous tenure as Obama's
Secretary of State? (At least Kerry, for all his faults, c.f. Ukraine, managed the Iran deal -
all Clinton did was manage to utterly destroy Libya.)
The only reason that Republicans find any support is because America is dumbing down. Based
on my own observation because I happen to live in a very red state, by and large, Republican voters
are willfully uninformed. Put a Republican in the Oval Office and our education system will not
improve. Nor will the collective IQ of the American populace jump any curves.
Sanders' one weakness is he does not articulate a clear foreign policy. On the other hand,
these are complex issues that can't be reduced to talking points. Further, Sanders' voting record
on these issues is solid. Unlike Clinton he did vote against the war in Iraq. And he predicted
the unintended consequence of instability and thus ISIS. Clinton has far more experience but she
pretends her vote for a disastrous war in Iraq has no connection to ISIS. That's a serious lack
of judgment and/or honesty on her part.
I'll take Sanders' proven judgment over Clinton's "shoot first; ask questions later" approach.
This article is not balanced and thus disappointing. Same with Graves' opinion piece stating that
Sanders "squandered" his lead. Absurd.
Everything that comes out of Clinton's mouth is a strategic ploy for votes. She will say whatever
she and her advisors think she must say to get elected. If she is elected, she will maintain the
status quo, at least when it comes to the economy and campaign financing. Those are the two areas
that must be reformed before we can see any real progress.
Anyone who believes that Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street criminals are funding Clinton's
campaign because she's going to follow through with the real economic reforms that she's now promising
(copying Sanders) and that will eliminate their fraudulent business models is a fucking idiot.
What Wall Street type is going to donate to a candidate who's going to level the playing field
and thus destroy their business model? Are people really that stupid? (rhetorical question) Let's
see those transcripts from her speeches that she clearly does not want voters to see.
The truth is, Clinton's talking points have shifted and evolved to match Sanders' positions
that voters find attractive. This is a matter of record. She's an Establishment politician and
will be to the end. Sander is the real deal.
NEW YORK - "When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at
a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising
capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.
"Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman's
workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech
firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly
for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.
"'It was pretty glowing about us," one person who watched the event said. "It's so far from
what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a
Goldman Sachs managing director.' "
It's a tough question to ask, given the American track record on foreign policy. Who would you
listen to? American interests overseas have never been, shall we say, altruistic; more self serving
and clandestine. It's no wonder Bernie is focusing his attention on the national socio/political
climate. It seems ironic to think that any government can influence foreign policy in a positive
way while issues such a racism and a living wage are so rampantly out of balance in their own
nation.
So your "5 things we learned" is actually "A positive spin on 4 things about Clinton and one thing
Sanders said", whilst totally failing to mention the fact that Clinton outright lied about things
that Bernie had said in an attempt to make it seem like he actively opposes Obama, or that she
said, verbatim, that she wouldn't allow child refugees to settle in the US and to send them back
AS A MESSAGE.
This paper's coverage is getting more and more biased by the minute as its journalists realise
that "kooky old Sanders" is actually getting some traction with the American people.
That article by Lucia Gravesis a disgrace and cherry picks the one liners Sanders came back
to Hillary's attacks with, as though its somehow terrible for someone to defend themselves with
witty and quick comebacks.
People would start taking this paper seriously again if you guys actually paid attention to
whats going on, instead of just closing your eyes to all the evidence and continuing to hammer
out ridiculous articles bigging up your chosen candidate. There's a reason people aren't even
bothering to read your coverage anymore, and instead go straight to the comments to see what people
are actually thinking.
"Bernie should give a pledge that he will never take a red cent for a speech ever ever ever"
It's not about cents - it's hundreds of thousands per hour and behind closed doors, which is
an unsubtle way to bribe a future president. Sanders did give a speech recently to a University
that paid him $1,800. Transcripts are available and he donated all of the money to charity.
In both primaries Sanders beat the polls by 5-8%. Nationally he is now just 2 points off Clinton
according to the latest poll.
The MSMBS has created a reality bubble around Clinton, but nobody takes print media or TV news
seriously anymore, everybody knows they have to use multiple sources online to get a real balanced
picture. So everyday more and more people are learning about Sanders and liking what they see
- a consistent advocate for progressive policies even when it was neither profitable nor popular
to be one.
In particular voters are learning about his anti segregation campaigning in the 1960's and
his pro gay rights positions in the 1980's. When they look at Clinton's past they see a calculating
fair weather supporter on these issues, possibly based on the latest polling.
Also, her pockets full of Wall Street money is really damaging her and when she tries to defend
it she comes across as disingenuous (at best).
She is hiding behind Obama. Defending him while bringing up the fact that he took Wall Street
money does nothing to endear me to you. It makes me angry at Obama.
"Clinton dropped this critique on the senator from Vermont: "Journalists have asked who you
do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is." "
Let me finish the Guardian's reporting for them:
Sanders quickly responds "Well it ain't Henry Kissinger" - the audience applauds and laughs.
Exactly. ISIS is part of the unintended consequences that were created by the West's Middle East
adventure. "Blowback" as the security services have it. The same thing could be said about the
U.S. backing of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the better to scupper the Soviets. Elements of
the mujahadeen morphed into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden was a CIA asset at one time.
Bernie remembers what happened, Hillary dismisses it with the "2002 vote" quip. Hillary is
a tactician, Bernie is a strategist. I think a moral strategist makes a better C-in-C than a bought
and paid for tactician.
the point is electing a republican lite to deal with republican intransigence makes no sense whatever.
she will work with them to advance the neoliberal austerity agenda, which hurts the middle class,
and everybody else but the kind of people who pay her so much money to give a canned speech.
Let me get this straight. You have politicians who all his life was not afraid to swim against
the mainstream, neither he worried that it could jeopardize his political career.
And on the other hand, you have a careerist politician, which the whole of her life was "turning
with the wind", climbed the ladder of political power, both in its Democratic Party and in the
state too, and finally ended up with hundreds of millions of dollars on her private account, gained
thanks to its political influence.
So if the Commander in Chief should be, first of all, a courageous person, who would you
rather entrust the defense of the United States and the safety of its citizens; to Bernie Sanders
or to Hillary Clinton.
The same plan she and the establiment was shoving down our throats and digging in in our pockets...
And Putin wouldn't be Putin if US weren't prowling around the world. Why is Saudi Arabia is our
ally?
I think I'll soon just start skipping The Guardian's articles completely, and head straight to
the comments.
The articles read like pro-Clinton adverts, which seems strange coming from a self-proclaimed
progressive news source...
Fortunately, we do have The Nation, The Atlantic, Salon, Alternet, etc.
Am I the only one who's wondering why Bernie Sanders is not being asked a single question about
his position on the Palestinian problem, on the recent events involving Netanyahu and the Israeli
lobby in the USA trying to derails the Iran nuclear deal and so on?
I don't think we need now at the White House someone willing to follow Netanyahu's lead in
the Middle East... At least Obama treated the extremist bunch who are now in power in Israel exactly
how they deserved.
Hey, Guardian writers. I don't know if you ever come into the comments - but realise this. We
aren't morons. This isn't the Mail. We can see through it. A great many of us watched the debates,
follow the campaigns, know the facts from other sources. The internet is great like that, as corporate
media no longer has an exclusive stranglehold on framing and spin.
The constituents of your 'paper' are not easily hoodwinked and most, as you can see, find the
spin disgusting. You're going to keep haemorrhaging readers unless you either refocus on integrity
in journalism (unlikely, considering who's on the board), or fully commit to being a pseudo-intellectual
Buzzfeed. Best of luck.
she voted for gw bush's disastrous war. that is not slavishly denigrating clinton, that's
just a fact. she caved on the most important foreign policy issue since vietnam.
The American Public Broadcasting System's (PBS) "NewsHour" reports:*
--The cost of US health care is more than 2 1/2 times the average of 33 other countries,
--There are fewer doctors per person in the US than in 33 other countries. In 2010, the
U.S. had 2.4 doctors per 1,000 people; international average, 3.1.
--Hospital beds in the U.S. were 2.6 per 1,000 people in 2009; international average, 3.4.
--US life expectancy increased 9 years between 1960 and 2010, but 15 years in Japan, over
11 years on average in 33 other countries.
In other news, some of Clinton's speaker fees from Wall Street, 2013-15**:
This debate solidified my desire that Hillary NOT be Commander in Chief. She really did scare
me that she would be too eager to go to war. The way she kept saying the words "Commander in Chief,"
it made me feel she couldn't wait to get her fingers on the button.
When Hillary praised President Obama and criticized Bernie for some mild critiques he'd made
of the president, it was an utterly transparent ploy for the votes of African-Americans in South
Carolina. So obvious that I was a bit disgusted. Hillary and President Obama have a rocky history.
Any comments Bernie has made are tame compared to the stuff Hillary said about him during the
2008 campaign. I really wonder if people will buy Hillary trying to wrap herself so closely with
Obama.
At least try to understand what he is saying. He's saying her smile is false, he's not commenting
on her looks. Her smile is false, it's not natural, and I have no doubt she was coached to smile
in the way focus groups decided was the most electable. Trouble is a genuine smile is hard to
fake.
Please try to understand these things, context is everything.
Clinton drops a well-tuned response to Sanders' criticism of her vote in support of the
Iraq war: "I don't believe that a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat Isis in 2016."
But it is a reflection of her judgement. We condemn Republicans, journalists, academics, etc.
who supported the Iraq War, but we are supposed to give Clinton a pass? Let's also not forget
that she supported the troop increase in Afghanistan and pushed for military action in Libya.
To be clear this is in relation to this being Obama's fault.
As for the Dems doing their best to lose a winnable election you may be right but Sanders really
has hit the nail on the head. It doesn't matter who wins no change will occur until the big money
and special interests are reined in and that won't happen unless and until there is a president
backed by a movement of ordinary people demanding change that is so large and undeniable that
politicians in Washington realize that unless they accede to the people's demands (as presented
by the President) and get behind the President in respect of such change they will actually lose
their seats... only incumbents fearful of losing their seats will vote for anything other than
what the lobbyists tell them to. Only then will change happen. I'd bet there is more certainty
that won't happen then Villa making a surprising comeback and not being relegated.
For the same reason they voted for Blair and Bush Dubya and Clinton and Bush Sr... Poor people,
the same people I honestly want to help as a responsible socialist democrat, are essentially stupid
and generally vote against their own interests hence the number of blue collar workers in the
US flocking to Donald Trump rallies. It defies belief but there it is, that and the fact that
smart people who aren't only out for themselves have better things to do like discover gravitational
waves, perform your surgery, teach and other less snazzy things then simply make money.
On the contrary. The economy crashed because the unfettered free markets failed. You don't need
someone who "understands" or in other words supports the free market status quo, you need someone
who understands the flaws of the markets and the need for regulation.
Uh? You do realize it was the deregulation of Wall Street that led to the collapse right? You
do realize Wall Street aready leads the government by the nose don't you (the very reason Sanders
quite rightly states that any reform will be impossible no matter who is elected President unless
they have a groundswell of popular support beneath them)? You are aware that laws and trade agreements
are written by Wall Street lawyers and that Wall Street is regulated by Wall Street lawyers due
to the continuous rotating door between government agencies and Wall Street? You do understand
that QE and bailouts were at the behest of and in the interest of Wall Street bound to create
asset bubbles they can make a lot of money insider trading on then exit and leave pension funds
on the hook and not designed to save the economy don't you?
Oh why do I bother you believe in "continuous growth" generated by perfect rationale markets
and of course unicorns and leprechauns waiting with your pot of gold.
Why anyone would believe corporate clone Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Hillary Clinton has
two guiding principles: the advancement of Hillary Clinton, and the enrichment of Hillary Clinton.
Lest we forget, in 2008 Hillary Clinton ran as a gun-loving churchgoer against Barack Obama.
Actually Sanders performed above my expectations in the most recent debate exposing this criminal
Kissinger for what he is. So despite my pessimism there might be slight hope. Although the level
of degradation of both parties (which is reality are two wings of a single party -- the party of top
1% -- with Dems a little bit more sophisticated in avoiding open scorn of lower 99%) looks
irreversible. This is really bizarre "back in the USSR" situation, if you wish. If Eisenhower
has been alive to see the monster the Republican Party turned into, he would die the second time
on the spot. This is simply disgusting. Same for the Dems -- in the current form this is clearly
yet another party of financial oligarchy and Hillary candidacy reflect the depth of degradation of the
Dem party establishment like nobody else.
Notable quotes:
"... I dont think this has a precedent in American history, the leading candidates of both parties running essentially class-based campaigns against a financial elite. Something to contemplate. ..."
Trump basically says he is independent of the donors because he's rich, while Sanders says
he is independent of them because he raised tens of millions of dollars in small donations. But both
campaigns are criticizing the same thing, in divergent but essentially parallel ways.
I don't think this has a precedent in American history, the leading candidates of both parties
running essentially class-based campaigns against a financial elite. Something to
contemplate.
Scott McConnell: "The wealth of the one tenth of one percent is now concentrated in the financial
industry. The money of the middle class has been redistributed upwards to Wall Street. No one
calls it the 'productive sector,' even ironically. Wall Street pays for the political campaigns,
and pays for the politicians."
In other words, the one tenth of one percent pays for the political campaigns, and pays for
the politicians.
Except for Trump and Sanders.
Scott: "Trump basically says he is independent of the donors because he's rich, while Sanders
says he is independent of them because he raised tens of millions of dollars in small donations."
Scott: "I don't think this has a precedent in American history, the leading candidates of both
parties running essentially class-based campaigns against a financial elite."
Free trade gets the blame for almost everything, but deserves none of the blame. The usual suspects
like to confuse free trade with crony capitalism. Its not out of ignorance. Its nefarious.
One of the best developments of this campaign so far has been the number of conservative, right-wing
people who have awaken to the grim reality of crony/globalist capitalism. You know something is
happening when NRO blasts them as "economically and socially frustrated white men who wish to
be economically supported by the federal government without enduring the stigma of welfare dependency"
It is also worth noting that Trump is a businessman in an old-fashioned way people can relate
to. He is a real estate mogul who employs actual workers to develop actual buildings, instead
of just being a bankster shuffling fictional money around.
"... In it, Hitchens argued that the former national security adviser and secretary of state for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford should be prosecuted "for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture." ..."
"... It was well reviewed, with the San Francisco Chronicle hailing Hitchens for presenting "damning documentary evidence against Kissinger in case after case," and London's Sunday Times describing the book as "a disturbing glimpse into the dark side of American power, whose consequences in remote corners of the globe are all too often ignored. Its countless victims have found an impassioned and skillful advocate in Christopher Hitchens." ..."
"... "I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend," continued Sanders. "I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger. And in fact, Kissinger's actions in Cambodia, when the United States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some 3 million innocent people, one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger." ..."
The late Christopher Hitchens penned an exceptionally important book in 2001 titled The Trial
of Henry Kissinger.
In it, Hitchens argued that the former national security adviser and secretary of state
for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford should be prosecuted "for war crimes, for crimes
against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including
conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture."
Hitchens was a brilliant polemicist who loved to stir controversy (and who fell out with The
Nation during post-9/11 debates about George W. Bush's "war on terror" and defending civil
liberties). But The Trials of Henry Kissinger was more than an argument; it was a detailed
indictment ("using only what would hold up in international courts of law") of an official who
Hitchens accused of authorizing atrocities against Bangladesh, Chile, Cyprus, East Timor,
Indochina, and the Kurds of Iraq. It was well reviewed, with the San Francisco Chronicle
hailing Hitchens for presenting "damning documentary evidence against Kissinger in case after
case," and London's Sunday Times describing the book as "a disturbing glimpse into the dark side
of American power, whose consequences in remote corners of the globe are all too often ignored.
Its countless victims have found an impassioned and skillful advocate in Christopher Hitchens."
Despite the attention it received, the book did not lead to the prosecution of Kissinger. Nor did
it spark all of the formal and official debates that Hitchens invited.
"I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend." - Bernie Sanders
On Thursday night, however, Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie
Sanders did debate Kissinger's legacy in one of the most remarkable exchanges of modern
presidential politics. It was an exchange Hitchens would have relished.
In the foreign-policy section of the debate, after the candidates had clashed over a number of
issues, Sanders asked if he might add a brief final word of to explain "where the secretary and I
have a very profound difference."
"[In] the last debate and I believe in her book-very good book, by the way…she talked about
getting the approval or the support or the mentoring of Henry Kissinger. Now, I find it rather
amazing, because I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive
secretaries of state in the modern history of this country," said the senator, to loud applause.
"I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend," continued Sanders. "I will not
take advice from Henry Kissinger. And in fact, Kissinger's actions in Cambodia, when the United
States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and
the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some 3 million innocent people, one of the worst
genocides in the history of the world. So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to
Henry Kissinger."
Clinton countered with a dig at Sanders. "Well," she said, "I know journalists have asked who
you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is."
"Well, it ain't Henry Kissinger. That's for sure," replied Sanders.
"That's fine. That's fine," said Clinton. "You know, I listen to a wide variety of voices that
have expertise in various areas. I think it is fair to say, whatever the complaints that you want
to make about him are, that with respect to China, one of the most challenging relationships we
have, his opening up China and his ongoing relationships with the leaders of China is an
incredibly useful relationship for the United States of America. So if we want to pick and
choose-and I certainly do-people I listen to, people I don't listen to, people I listen to for
certain areas, then I think we have to be fair and look at the entire world, because it's a big,
complicated world out there."
"It is," injected Sanders.
Clinton was now scrambling to put Kissinger in perspective. "And, yes," she said, "people we
may disagree with on a number of things may have some insight, may have some relationships that
are important for the president to understand in order to best protect the United States."
Sanders rips trade agreements that result in American workers losing their jobs as
corporations moved to China. Sanders was having none of that explanation, suggesting that his
historical perspective was "very different."
"Kissinger was one of those people during the Vietnam era who talked about the domino theory.
Not everybody remembers that. You do. I do. The domino theory, you know, if Vietnam goes, China,
da, da, da, da, da, da, da. That's what he talked about, the great threat of China," said
Sanders. "And then, after the war, this is the guy who, in fact, yes, you're right, he opened up
relations with China, and now pushed various type of trade agreements, resulting in American
workers losing their jobs as corporations moved to China. The terrible, authoritarian, Communist
dictatorship he warned us about, now he's urging companies to shut down and move to China. Not my
kind of guy."
And rightly so, for reasons that Christopher Hitchens well documented
"... The conclusion: the winds of change are blowing away from establishment politicians and the wealthy donors who support them, and as far as Im concerned any change that helps the working class feel more secure and confident about the future – change that is based upon reality rather than the myths that have been sold to the public in support of wealthy interests – cant come fast enough. ..."
"... We should not embrace the defeatists crowd of Hillary supporters thats willing to settle for half a chicken in every pot. ..."
"... Water is wet. The sun rises in the east. The middle/working class has been screwed for the status quo for the last 35 years. ..."
"... Wall Street got what it wanted (tax cuts), the Necons got what they wanted (wars), and the last two got -- promises. Unsurprisinly they have lost patience with the GOP establishment. The Bible Belt wants its 19th century (okay 15th century) back, and white working class populats wants to be sure that, even if they are sleeping under a bridge, no black or brown person is sleeping under a *better* bridge. ..."
"... On the Democratic side, with the exception of the late 1990s, the Establishment has failed to deliver better times. Obamacare *is* a boon, but it has taken seemingly forever to roll out seemingly since the Dinosaurs roamed the earth, and it has only directly benefitted about 10% of the population. Meanwhile nominal wages grow 2% a year, worker protections are non-existnet, and even actions which could be taken by the Executive alon - like raising the pay at which employers no longer have to pay overtime - are not taken (the rumor that Obamas signature hand suffered from paralyisi fell apart the other day when he signed the TPP).. ..."
"... We are in the midst of a politial realignment. My guess is that outside of Dixie, the white working class returns to the Democrats, who move towards Sanders ideology, while the corporatist Dems move over to the GOP. And the Bible Belt continues to get the 15th Century delivered to them. ..."
"... Also the centrist dems have been playing defense for 30 years, simply trying to prevent the rollback of past programs, and apparently willing to compromise even on core New Deal and Great Society accomplishments (SS and Medicare). ..."
"... Actually, Trump immediately gained the support of less-educated blue collar white males who had IDd as Dem, and I havent seen a poll yet on whether Bernie is winning them back ..."
"... You raise an interesting question. If corporate donor fueled Democrats lose national party control decisively. Not just for one convention ala McGovern. Where will they go ? ..."
"... Soooo. The donors will have to retake or hold one party. My guess theyll hold on to Democrat party easily if Hillary wins. Maybe the soul of the Democrat party is at stake here. As during the Bryan era ..."
"... Trump says that, but his proposed policies are not compatible with what he says, and he part of the party which absolutely wants to gut those programs. Working class people who know whats good for them are for Sanders, the ones for Trump are politico-economic illiterates (either that or they are just sucked in by his racism.) ..."
"... Its quite possible that Sanders would win against Trump. Personality reasons. Its a stage debate I would love to see. ..."
"... The Donald is doing what the GOP has done for 40 years, use racist rhetoric (without the dogwhistles this time) to convince the rubes to vote against their own interests. ..."
"... Trump may surprise us. With a tax cut for the little guy okee dokee package ..."
"... Right wing populists are not about little government, prudent government. They cut taxes and increase spending on the armada ..."
"... The WSJ is angry that a Republican told the truth: Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we cant do that. And its not fair to the people that have been paying in for years and now all of the sudden they want to be cut. ..."
"... Thats nice Donald. But you want a larger military and big tax cuts for the rich. Arithmetic please?! ..."
"... Some partners in hedge funds, private-equity firms and other businesses organized as so-called passthroughs would pay a 3.8 percent income tax under President Barack Obamas 2017 budget request. The move is intended to address what the administrations budget documents call a gap in legal definitions of investment income and self-employment earnings. As a result, certain members of partnerships, limited liability companies and S corporations may have been able to avoid the tax, according to budget documents. ..."
"... The proposal would extend a net investment tax for Medicare thats been in place since 2013 to taxpayers who have been able to avoid it, according to Obama administration officials. The measure, which is projected to raise $271.7 billion over the next decade, would apply to limited partners who materially participate in the ventures. ..."
"... Not to worry hedgies - Karl Rove has your back.... ..."
"... This seems like a good thing. Though Id much prefer to simply see all types of income unified under the tax code. Half of the complexity of accounting and more than half of the avoidance behavior comes from confusion and games related to income classification. ..."
"... The strange thing is, even populist candidates like Bernie seem to advocate for higher taxes on regular earned income (upwards of 60% net including payroll taxes but excluding state taxes), while cap gains stays at a much lower rate, while cap gains is how the 0.1% get their money. ..."
"... Yes the establishment faces a possible quandary: both conventions might nominate an outsider. Hence the fantasy Bloomberg third way down the old dead center where the donor class sleeps ..."
"... All the rhetoric on all sides is about restoring a golden age that never was. (1) the past is not going to be restored. (2) that wasnt even the past. ..."
"... Yes. The past that never was is not he future that can ever be ..."
"... Would prefer that you didnt lump Sanders supporters with Trump supporters because, as you point out, they ...see different causes and different solutions... (to say the least). Not that I think it was your intent but it can have the result of disparaging Sanders supporters. ..."
"... As the democratic party has shown with its ham-handed support of HRC, the establishment politicians have a significant advantage and will do everything in their power to divert or quash change. ..."
"... I love it. Exactly -- They hate us for our freedom. The final affluent liberal reaction ..."
"... I agree with Mark Thoma about this. There is actually similarity between these two candidates. The labels progressive and conservative really dont apply. ..."
"... Americans are just tired of being controlled by a tiny minority of powerful rich people. Electing either Trump or Sanders probably wont change that, but at least it sends a message. We are, whether liberal or conservative or neither, sick of how things have been going. ..."
"... It is not about restoring a golden age so easily dismissed by cheap cynicism. It is about preserving freedom and restoring justice. That these causes are never done, and the struggle to preserve them is never ending, does not make them a dead issue except to the worst of the cynics. ..."
"... Indeed, such resolution to reform and the pursuit of justice is the core of the very spirit of that phenomenon that is America. And while its history is replete with its abuses therein, its history also shows a remarkable resilience amongst the people to resist all forms of tyranny, including the tyranny of the privileged, in all their complacency for the status quo. ..."
"... This is what Sanders and Trump get that the jades of the comfortable class do not. ..."
"... You may enjoy this piece in the Voice yesterday, insightful, hilarious, spreading like wildfire: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/feeling-the-yern-why-one-millennial-woman-would-rather-go-to-hell-than-vote-for-hillary-8253224 ..."
"... Realpc: Socialism does not work. Social Security does not work? Public education does not work? ..."
"... Actually, North Korea is not socialist by any sane definition, any more than Saudi Arabia does. They are both feudal monarchies. ..."
"... Totalitarianism is a failed social category that never existed anywhere outside of Orwell ..."
"... A large chunk of Trump supporters come from uneducated white males - people who have been hit hard by our trade agreements and deindustrialization. Throw in a little bigotry against Mexicans and immigrants, and you have Trump supporters. ..."
"... Bernie supporters tend to be younger. These are people who have only lived in a world of unequal growth, growth built off of bubbles, declining union membership and worker bargaining power, less job security, an eroding minimum wage, stagnant wages, debt, unending war, exploding education costs, etc. ..."
"Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare,
they want to do it on Medicaid. And we can't do that. And it's not fair to the people that have
been paying in for years and now all of the sudden they want to be cut."
An
opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal reflects the negative reaction to Trump's remarks
from many Republicans:
"Mr. Trump is a political harbinger here of a new strand of populist Republicanism, largely
empowered by Obamacare, in which the 'conservative' position is to defend the existing entitlement
programs from a perceived threat posed by a new-style Obama coalition of handout seekers that
includes the chronically unemployed, students, immigrants, minorities and women … who typically
vote Democrat."
But is it true that our economic system redistributes substantial sums away from the middle
class to "handout seekers"? ...
JohnH :
The conclusion: "the winds of change are blowing away from establishment politicians and the
wealthy donors who support them, and as far as I'm concerned any change that helps the working
class feel more secure and confident about the future – change that is based upon reality rather
than the myths that have been sold to the public in support of wealthy interests – can't come
fast enough."
Yes, we must try, "which is why you shouldn't listen to the "we-must-not-try" brigade. They've
lost faith in the rest of us." http://robertreich.org/post/138894376115
We should not embrace the defeatists crowd of Hillary supporters that's willing to settle
for half a chicken in every pot.
New Deal democrat :
Water is wet. The sun rises in the east. The middle/working class has been screwed for the
status quo for the last 35 years.
And the news is ?????
The GOP electoral coalition since 1968 and especially 1980 has been Wall Street, Neocons, the
Bible Belt, and white working class populitsts.
Wall Street got what it wanted (tax cuts), the Necons got what they wanted (wars), and
the last two got -- promises. Unsurprisinly they have lost patience with the GOP establishment.
The Bible Belt wants its 19th century (okay 15th century) back, and white working class populats
wants to be sure that, even if they are sleeping under a bridge, no black or brown person is sleeping
under a *better* bridge.
On the Democratic side, with the exception of the late 1990s, the Establishment has failed
to deliver better times. Obamacare *is* a boon, but it has taken seemingly forever to roll out
seemingly since the Dinosaurs roamed the earth, and it has only directly benefitted about 10%
of the population. Meanwhile nominal wages grow 2% a year, worker protections are non-existnet,
and even actions which could be taken by the Executive alon - like raising the pay at which employers
no longer have to pay overtime - are not taken (the rumor that Obama's signature hand suffered
from paralyisi fell apart the other day when he signed the TPP)..
We are in the midst of a politial realignment. My guess is that outside of Dixie, the white
working class returns to the Democrats, who move towards Sanders' ideology, while the corporatist
Dems move over to the GOP. And the Bible Belt continues to get the 15th Century delivered to them.
New Deal democrat -> New Deal democrat...
Oops .Sorry for the typos. On my iPad I can only preview the first paragraph, so I've stopped
bothering. That last line should read "continues to fail to get the 15th Century...."
Also the centrist dems have been playing defense for 30 years, simply trying to prevent
the rollback of past programs, and apparently willing to compromise even on core New Deal and
Great Society accomplishments (SS and Medicare).
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> New Deal democrat...
Yep. I had figured you more for the establishment "liberal" type but here you show me a healthy
if cynical (how can you not be by now) progressive attitude. THANKS!
Actually, Trump immediately gained the support of less-educated blue collar white males who
had ID'd as Dem, and I haven't seen a poll yet on whether Bernie is winning them back
PPaine -> New Deal democrat...
You raise an interesting question. If corporate donor fueled Democrats lose national party
control decisively. Not just for one convention ala McGovern. Where will they go ?
Well what if the GOP is in yahoo hands ?
Bloomberg party is. Fantasy
Soooo. The donors will have to retake or hold one party. My guess they'll hold on to Democrat
party easily if Hillary wins. Maybe the soul of the Democrat party is at stake here. As during
the Bryan era
tom :
Trump says that, but his proposed policies are not compatible with what he says, and he part
of the party which absolutely wants to gut those programs. Working class people who know what's
good for them are for Sanders, the ones for Trump are politico-economic illiterates (either that
or they are just sucked in by his racism.)
It's quite possible that Sanders would win against Trump. Personality reasons. It's a stage
debate I would love to see.
It's also possible (now) that Clinton would lose to Trump. He can paint her up and down as
being part of the corrupt Establishment. I don't understand her rhetorical strategy here. She
should have agreed with Bernie every step of the way, subsumed his message into a bigger picture.
It may be too late. Bernie is ticking upwards in South Carolina:
Lee this is indeed a fascinating development. I had thought Hillary would simply throw her arms
around Bernie
And attack her donors
Look her donors don't want trump or Cruz. And "they " alas can trust her to " to the right
thing" in the clutches
DrDick -> tom...
The Donald is doing what the GOP has done for 40 years, use racist rhetoric (without the dogwhistles
this time) to convince the rubes to vote against their own interests.
PPaine -> DrDick...
Look
Trump may surprise us. With a tax cut for the little guy okee dokee package
PPaine -> PPaine ...
Trump will not worry about the deficits he will promise to close as part of his grand plan while
pulling a Reagan: Ignore the deficits and go for the goal line
Right wing populists are not about little government, prudent government. They cut taxes
and increase spending on the armada
PPaine: "Trump may surprise us with a tax cut for the little guy okee dokee package"
He won't surprise me. I think that's his game plan. He wants to get elected. I wouldn't be
surprised if he promised everybody a free buffet ticket in Atlantic City too.
pgl :
The WSJ is angry that a Republican told the truth: "Every Republican wants to do a big number
on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we can't
do that. And it's not fair to the people that have been paying in for years and now all of the
sudden they want to be cut."
That's nice Donald. But you want a larger military and big tax cuts for the rich. Arithmetic
please?!
pgl :
The Hedge Fund people are going to really hate Obama for this one: "Obama's Budget Seeks to Ensure
Hedge Fund Managers Pay 3.8% Tax
Posted February 09, 2016, 11:22 A.M. ET
By Lynnley Browning
Some partners in hedge funds, private-equity firms and other businesses organized as
so-called passthroughs would pay a 3.8 percent income tax under President Barack Obama's 2017
budget request. The move is intended to address what the administration's budget documents
call "a gap" in legal definitions of investment income and self-employment earnings. As a result,
certain members of partnerships, limited liability companies and S corporations may have been
able to avoid the tax, according to budget documents.
The proposal would extend a "net investment tax" for Medicare that's been in place since
2013 to taxpayers who have been able to avoid it, according to Obama administration officials.
The measure, which is projected to raise $271.7 billion over the next decade, would apply to
limited partners who "materially participate" in the ventures.
The change is part of a package of revenue proposals that collectively would raise $2.6
trillion from 2017 through 2026, according to the president's budget request. The revenue it
seeks is 67 percent higher than Obama's 2016 proposal, driven by international tax-reform proposals,
changes in the way high-income individuals are taxed and a previously announced fee on oil
of $10.25 per barrel.
Not to worry hedgies - Karl Rove has your back....
sanjait -> pgl...
This seems like a good thing. Though I'd much prefer to simply see all types of income unified
under the tax code. Half of the complexity of accounting and more than half of the avoidance behavior
comes from confusion and games related to income classification.
Why should it really matter? Let all income just be income. Cap gains, unearned, earned, whatevs.
The strange thing is, even populist candidates like Bernie seem to advocate for higher
taxes on regular earned income (upwards of 60% net including payroll taxes but excluding state
taxes), while cap gains stays at a much lower rate, while cap gains is how the 0.1% get their
money.
Jess :
Well done and insightful. Perhaps we should send a copy of this to the media, of both the conservative
and liberal 'establishments.'
Chris Matthews and Paul Krugman come to mind on the liberal Democrat side. Just about every
pundit and then some on the Right needs a clue, although I doubt they would see it as their livelihoods
depend on their not.
PPaine -> Jess...
Yes the establishment faces a possible quandary: both conventions might nominate an outsider.
Hence the fantasy Bloomberg third way down the old dead center where the donor class sleeps
All the rhetoric on all sides is about restoring a golden age that never was. (1) the past
is not going to be restored. (2) that wasn't even the past.
Meanwhile, back in New Hampshire, in an effort to revive his floundering campaign, Marco the
Rubot has named his prospective running mate -- Chatty Cathy!: "Pull the string and she says eleven
different things."
Yes. The past that never was is not he future that can ever be
cawley :
Thank you, Mark. Good piece.
It's nice to see an essay that makes a serious attempt to identify the root concern. (I sometimes
half expect some of the Clinton supporters to start accusing Sanders supporters of hating them
for their freedom.) But you are correct:
"They want an economy that works for them and a political system that responds to their needs."
Would prefer that you didn't lump Sanders supporters with Trump supporters because, as
you point out, they "...see different causes and different solutions..." (to say the least). Not
that I think it was your intent but it can have the result of disparaging Sanders supporters.
Of course some Sanders supporters would be disappointed. That is always be the case for supporters
of any candidate. But most of us recognize that, "change will be slow and incremental if there
is change at all."
The point is that, if you don't advocate - and vote - and work - for the change you want, it
definitely won't happen at all. The difference is that, while you appear to take comfort in the
belief that "the winds of change are blowing away from establishment politicians and the wealthy
donors who support them." We are not so sure.
As the democratic party has shown with its ham-handed support of HRC, the establishment
politicians have a significant advantage and will do everything in their power to divert or quash
change.
PPaine -> cawley...
I love it. Exactly -- They hate us for our freedom. The final affluent liberal reaction
realpc :
I agree with Mark Thoma about this. There is actually similarity between these two candidates.
The labels "progressive" and "conservative" really don't apply.
Americans are just tired of being controlled by a tiny minority of powerful rich people.
Electing either Trump or Sanders probably won't change that, but at least it sends a message.
We are, whether liberal or conservative or neither, sick of how things have been going.
pgl :
"Electing either Trump or Sanders probably won't change that, but at least it sends a message."
The message would be a positive one if Sanders is elected. Trump - not so much as the real
message of his campaign is that only white people have rights here.
Jess :
It is not about restoring 'a golden age' so easily dismissed by cheap cynicism. It is about
preserving freedom and restoring justice. That these causes are never done, and the struggle to
preserve them is never ending, does not make them a dead issue except to the worst of the cynics.
Indeed, such resolution to reform and the pursuit of justice is the core of the very spirit
of that phenomenon that is America. And while its history is replete with its abuses therein,
its history also shows a remarkable resilience amongst the people to resist all forms of tyranny,
including the tyranny of the privileged, in all their complacency for the status quo.
This is what Sanders and Trump 'get' that the jades of the comfortable class do not.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments
long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience
hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
"It is not about restoring 'a golden age' so easily dismissed by cheap cynicism." I'll have you
know that my cynicism has been bought at a very respectable price.
My cynicism lives by day at a job site
But by night --
When the full blog shines .....
I become the mao ist of old
No one every expects
The cultural revolution --
PPaine -> PPaine ...
Tripped on my last jazz box eh?
No one ever expects
The
CULTURAL REVOLUTION
realpc :
We don't need progressive ideology or conservative ideology. We need common sense and a genuine
desire to help the middle class.
Ideologies don't work and they are unrelated to common sense. Socialism does not work. However,
I would vote for Sanders over any establishment politician, just because he doesn't seem to be
one of them.
Public education is mostly under local control. Social Security is ok, but there are better ways
to provide for your retirement. A good definition of "socialism" is needed before trying to have
a conversation about it.
The Marxist definition involves a whole lot more than public education and social programs.
1. Social Security is not a "way to provide for your retirement". It is the safety-net.
Everybody pays in from the beginning of work life, and everybody gets a payout, rich or poor,
when they retire. No free riding, no moral hazard. No need for bureaucratic means-testing; extremely
low overhead. It is slightly regressive on the pay-in, and slightly progressive on the pay-out;
everybody accepts this going in, because you really don't know how your life will play out. The
tax cap (which should be raised back to the original 90% of all income) prevents the wealthiest
from objecting to it; it is chump change to them: thus, no real political problem. Social Security
covers a myriad of deprivations and evils which we no longer have to think about because they
don't occur with the same frequency or intensity.
In fact it would be very difficult to make a better design. Genius, really.
2. The fact that public education is under local control is immaterial to the general case,
because public education benefits from local control. Other public goods, e.g retirement security,
universal healthcare, national defense, don't need local differentiation and benefit from having
the largest pay-in, the largest risk pool.
3. Bernie Sanders is not talking about the marxist definition, and he has been quite clear
on that. This is "democratic socialism" on the scale of some European countries, which retain
plenty of market elements, have the same GDP growth rates as the US., and have happier populations.
Those countries are and have long been capitalist. They are relatively wealthy, and very small.
The US is very different. We could do the same things as Sweden, etc., are doing, at the state
level. That would make much more sense, and should make conservatives and progressives happy.
But no one suggests it.
They call themselves social democracies, and their size is immaterial to the argument.
However, the relative sizes of the European countries and the US suggests that the US should
have much, much HIGHER rates of growth than they do, according to Adam Smith, Chap. 3: "The division
of labor is limited by the extent of the market." This could well be due to the US's lack of better
social democracy, hobbling its citizens in debt and despair.
DrDick -> pgl...
Actually, North Korea is not socialist by any sane definition, any more than Saudi Arabia
does. They are both feudal monarchies.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> realpc...
Admittedly, we are confusing democratic socialism with social democracy a lot in our discussions
here. You are confusing totalitarian dictatorship with socialism. There has never actually been
a socialist government so there is no way to know whether it could work or not. An actual socialist
government would need to be done within the confines of democracy in order for social will to
be enacted by social power. Most of the world's governments are social democracies exercised within
the constraints of capitalism under control of electoral republican states. The necessity for
economic power to elevate candidates to the political elite ensures that ultimate power lies in
the hands of the capitalist so long as they do not inspire insurrection among their subjects.
The reason that there has never been a socialist government is because there has never been
a democracy. Electoral republics allow elites to maintain power and control of property and the
economic system while providing just enough democratic façade to keep the pitchforks down on the
farm instead of storming the gates of power.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
All oligarchies are created equal regardless of whether the majority of property and wealth is
held in the private hands of a small elite or whether the majority of property and wealth is held
by the state that is controlled by a small elite. It is the transitive property of oligarchy equality.
realpc -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
"The reason that there has never been a socialist government is because there has never been a
democracy."
That is what you prefer to THINK is the reason. You have no evidence for that belief.
realpc -> realpc...
Socialism means no one can own a business. So the essential premise of socialism is not just impractical,
it is impossible.
And that is why it has never existed. All the communist revolutionaries were striving for the
socialist ideal. It didn't happen because it can't happen, it is just a fantasy dreamed up by
philosophers.
DrDick -> realpc...
You are a very confused individual throwing around words you do not understand. The seventh largest
corporation in Spain, a multibillion dollar multinational enterprise, is a socialist collective.
Democratic socialism As opposed to one party state socialism
Aka the way of Stalin and me
PPaine -> PPaine ...
Totalitarianism is a failed social category that never existed anywhere outside of Orwell
Salade Déjeuner :
" 91 cents of every dollar spent on entitlement programs goes to " the elderly (people 65 and
over), the seriously disabled, and members of working
"
~~MT~
Would you guess that large chunks of $$$$ to elderly goes straight to the grandchildren? Straight
back into the economy to raise aggregate demand? Hell! Grandparents love their hapless offspring
more than they love themselves, but :
But that which elderly save for themselves goes straight into the estate, the estate that goes
to grandchildren. Such is a true Keynesian redistribution to the higher propensity jokers. If
it still works, don't fix it!
The defect that needs fixing is where $$$$ is removed from the economy to fund the transfer.
$$$$ should be removed as taxation on signalling but never on taxation of production. Sure! We
do need certain Pigouvian taxes, otherwise our planet will burn up. Will the changes to the tax
code be "politically acceptable"?
No! As global warming closes in on us it will suddenly become acceptable, a year late
eudaimonia :
A large chunk of Trump supporters come from uneducated white males - people who have been
hit hard by our trade agreements and deindustrialization. Throw in a little bigotry against Mexicans
and immigrants, and you have Trump supporters.
Bernie supporters tend to be younger. These are people who have only lived in a world of
unequal growth, growth built off of bubbles, declining union membership and worker bargaining
power, less job security, an eroding minimum wage, stagnant wages, debt, unending war, exploding
education costs, etc.
They are not particularly happy with the status quo and feel that we need to change paths rather
than continue on this trajectory.
Both supporters are not happy with the economic and political system, and seek change. They
feel that the economic and political class are not on their side, and there is some truth that
that.
"... Albright doesn't have a whole lot of empathy for those who find themselves on the disadvantageous
side of American foreign policy. She neither came down wholly for or wholly against the 2003 invasion
of Iraq. But that might just have been silly partisan politics and not due to any actual concern for
the lives of Iraqi civilians. In 1996, Albright stated that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due
to American sanctions was justified. ..."
"... From Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide ..."
"... Unlike Rwanda, Albright was involved in every step of Clinton's Balkan policy, although she
was not his Secretary of State until 1997. Before that, she was U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and served
as president of the Center for National Policy . She is a former student of Zbigniew Brzezinski . ..."
"... Albright actively advocated policies that led to American military action in 1999, and placed
all of the blame for the situation on the Belgrade government . (Does that ring a bell?) Albright's
contention was that "a little bombing" would encourage Milosevic to sign Rambouillet Peace Accords,
which would allow for the NATO occupation of Kosovo. ..."
"... The Clinton Administration demanded Milosevic's removal from power , and in 2000, Albright
rejected Vladimir Putin's offer to try to use his influence to defuse the situation. ..."
"... War may have been the American end game in the Balkans from the start. In 1992, the American
ambassador torpedoed Bosnian secession peace negotiations by convincing Bosnian Muslim leader Alija
Izetbegovic to refuse to sign the peace accords. The ensuing catastrophic civil war, which ended in
1995, was blamed on Bosnian Serbs and Milosevic. Colin Powell recalled, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, he was pressured by Albright in 1992 to use military force on Bosnia. ..."
"... Albright has never wavered from her stance on the Balkans. In 2012, she got into a shouting
match with pro-Serbian activists over her role in that conflict , calling the protesters "dirty Serbs."
..."
Madeleine Albright proves to the young, aspiring women of America that warmongering psychopathy
has no glass ceiling.
Former U.S. Secretary of State under Bill Clinton Madeleine Albright thinks there is "a
special place in hell" for young women if they don't vote for Hillary Clinton.
By repurposing her own
original quote, Albright has proven yet once again that she is an expert on hell's admission
standards because she's probably going there.
Of course it should come to no surprise that Albright is stumping for Hillary Clinton. After all,
she was Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, the first female to hold the office. And sure, Albright
has an interesting bio. She and her family, fleeing Czechoslovakia from approaching German army,
escaped to Serbia, and
she survived the Nazi Blitzkrieg of London.
Too bad she is a neocon monster.
Although she personally experienced the horrors of WWII, and had family members who died in the
Nazi death camps,
Albright doesn't have a whole lot of empathy for those who find themselves on the disadvantageous
side of American foreign policy. She neither came down
wholly for or wholly against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But that might just have been silly partisan
politics and not due to any actual concern for the lives of Iraqi civilians. In 1996, Albright
stated that the deaths
of 500,000
Iraqi children due to American sanctions was justified.
When is genocide justified? Or when does it simply not matter?
Although the Clinton Administration's stated purpose for intervening in the Balkans was to stop
genocide, the Rwandan genocide in 1994 continued unabated. From Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide:
"Rather than respond with appropriate force, the opposite happened, spurred by the murders
of the Belgian Blue Berets and Belgium's withdrawal of its remaining troops. Exactly two weeks
after the genocide began – following strenuous lobbying for total withdrawal led by Belgium and
Britain, and with American UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright advocating the most token of forces
and the United States adamantly refusing to accept publicly that a full-fledged, Convention defined
genocide was in fact taking place – the Security Council made the astonishing decision to reduce
the already inadequate UNAMIR force to a derisory 270 men" (10.11)
"The lesson to be learned from the betrayal at ETO and other experiences was that the full
potential of UNAMIR went unexplored and unused, and, as result, countless more Rwandans died than
otherwise might have. If anyone in the international community learned this lesson at the time,
it was not evident at the UN. For the next six weeks, as the carnage continued, the UN dithered
in organizing any kind of response to the ongoing tragedy. The Americans, led by US Ambassador
Madeleine Albright, played the key role in blocking more expeditious action by the UN.[18] On
May 17, the Security Council finally authorized an expanded UNAMIR II to consist of 5,500 personnel.[19]
But there is perhaps no distance greater on earth than the one between the Security Council chambers
and the outside world. Once the decision to expand was finally made, as we will soon show in detail,
the Pentagon somehow required an additional seven weeks just to negotiate a contract for delivering
armed personnel carriers to the field; evidently it proved difficult to arrange the desired terms
for "maintenance and spare parts."[20] When the genocide ended in mid-July with the final RPF
victory, not a single additional UN soldier had landed in Kigali." 10.16
Unlike Rwanda, Albright was
involved in every step of
Clinton's Balkan policy, although she was not his Secretary of State until 1997. Before that,
she was U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and served as president of the
Center for National
Policy. She is a former student of
Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Not only did Albright support Clinton's bombing, she was a key figure in the conflict and in the
ousting of Slobodan Milosevic. Time went so far as to call the Balkan campaign "Madeleine's
War." Despite her assertions that the bombing of Yugoslavia was a humanitarian mission, it is
irrefutable at this point in history
that the U.S.
pretext for military intervention was fabricated.
War may have been the American end game in the Balkans from the start. In 1992, the American
ambassador
torpedoed Bosnian secession peace negotiations by convincing Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic
to refuse to sign the peace accords. The ensuing catastrophic civil war, which ended in 1995, was
blamed on Bosnian Serbs and Milosevic. Colin Powell recalled, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, he
was pressured by Albright in 1992 to use military force on Bosnia.
Dirty Serbs, huh? And she wants to tell idealistic young American women, who still believe in
the American democratic process, how to vote? Yay, feminism!
"... Well, here in the UK it was the left in the form of the Labour Party that was responsible for the situation that resulted in the Financial Crisis, and the immediate response to it. Whether the right would have done anything differently is a point for discussion, but irrelevant: it was the left what done it. ..."
"... Since Financial Crisis here and the resulting support of the finance sector was a product of the left it is no surprise that the right is now in the ascendancy (and the reverse is true in the US). A fact underlined by Blair, Darling and Brown now all being in the pocket of the financiers. ..."
"... Thats absolutely true. And the Government pretty much reflected the views of the economic orthodoxy during the Great Moderation - free labour, capital good flows leads to an efficient allocation of resources - comparative advantage, credibility, incentives, etc etc - all EC 101. Also you cannot blame globalisation (which they thought was an unambiguously good thing anyway); academics outside mainstream economics have warned about the dangers of leaving a country overly exposed to globalisation since - well the beginning, but most people studying economics would have been unaware of the arguments and the richness of this literature (and still largely are). ..."
"... The 2008 crash hit the UK hard because New Labour was a right-wing party that carried on the Conservatives policy of under-regulating our financial systems; a decision that those of us on the genuine left of politics would have done our best to avoid. New Labours abandonment of a genuine left-wing outlook, along with its analogues in the US and Europe, has led us to the current financial crisis and its ongoing austerity con. ..."
"... How was New Labour left or anything but Thatcher-lite? And how were New Labour any more responsible for 2008 than the decades of Tory rule setting up the groundwork for underregulated markets? ..."
"... Youve completely missed the point of Simons post. A party that furthers the interests of finance capital is by definition not of the left . The rise of Corbyn, whatever else it may presage, is clearly driven by an appetite for a genuinely left position. Ditto Sanders in the US. ..."
"... .....one rule which woe betides the banker who fails to heed it.. never lend money to anyone unless they dont need it. ..."
Shortly after the full extent of the financial crisis had become clear, I remember saying in a meeting
that at least now the position of those who took an extreme neoliberal position (markets are always
right, the state just gets in the way of progress) would no longer be taken seriously. I could not
have been more wrong. But in a way I think that the 'surprising'
strength of the radical left (by which I mean those who are not the established centre left)
in the US, UK and perhaps some European countries reflects exactly this contradiction.
We need only to consider the position of the financial sector to understand this contradiction. That
sector was by far the major cause of the largest recession since WWII, and yet it is now in essentially
the same position as it was before the crisis. There are no purely economic reasons why this has
to be so: economists know that it is perfectly possible to make fundamental changes to this sector
that could significantly reduce the chance of another crisis at little cost, but such possibilities
are just not on the political agenda. For example, Admati and Helwig have convincingly
argued that the problem with banks is
very low capital requirements, but actual reforms have been marginal.
The reason is straightforward: the financial sector has political power. Many on the centre left
seem too timid or too ignorant to talk about this power publicly, and are therefore unwilling to
challenge it. The political right and it's media machine help divert those who have little interest
in politics and economics into believing that their problems are really due to too many migrants
or too generous welfare payments. Those who are members or supporters of left wing political parties
tend to have a better understanding of what is going on. To put it simply, a sector that caused a
great deal of harm and cost us all a great deal has got away largely unscathed such that it could
easily do it all again.
But it gets much worse. The right has succeeded in morphing the financial crisis into an imagined
crisis in financing government debt (or, in the Eurozone with the ECB's help, into an actual crisis)
which required a reduction in the size of the state that neoliberals dream about. The financial crisis,
far from exposing neoliberal flaws, has led to its triumph. Confronted with this extraordinary turn
of events, many of those on the centre left want to concede defeat and accept austerity!
That is all scandalous, and if the left's established leaders will not recognise this, it is not
surprising that party members and supporters will look elsewhere to those who do. Now wise heads
may warn that the radical left has in many cases not grasped the nature of the problem and are simply
repeating old slogans, and worse still that voting for radical leaders may deny the left the chance
for power, but inevitably this can sound just like the appeasement of many on the centre left. What
Corbyn's victory shows Democrats in the US is the power of the contradiction between the global financial
crisis and where we are now.
I kept bumping into people who told me they were trying to make up their minds in the upcoming
election between Sanders and Trump.
At first I was dumbfounded. The two are at opposite ends of the political divide. But as
I talked with these people, I kept hearing the same refrains. They wanted to end "crony capitalism."
They detested "corporate welfare," such as the Wall Street bailout. They wanted to prevent the
big banks from extorting us ever again. Close tax loopholes for hedge-fund partners. Stop the
drug companies and health insurers from ripping off American consumers. End trade treaties that
sell out American workers. Get big money out of politics.
President Hillary Clinton wouldn't even try to do much (if any) of that. (Neither would Trump,
for that matter, but that's another discussion.)
Well, here in the UK it was the 'left' in the form of the Labour Party that was responsible
for the situation that resulted in the Financial Crisis, and the immediate response to it. Whether
the 'right' would have done anything differently is a point for discussion, but irrelevant: it
was the 'left' what done it.
Since Financial Crisis here and the resulting support of the finance sector was a product of the
'left' it is no surprise that the 'right' is now in the ascendancy (and the reverse is true in
the US). A fact underlined by Blair, Darling and Brown now all being in the pocket of the financiers.
That's absolutely true. And the Government pretty much reflected the views of the economic
orthodoxy during the Great Moderation - free labour, capital good flows leads to an 'efficient'
allocation of resources - comparative advantage, credibility, incentives, etc etc - all EC 101.
Also you cannot blame globalisation (which they thought was an unambiguously good thing anyway);
academics outside mainstream economics have warned about the dangers of leaving a country overly
exposed to globalisation since - well the beginning, but most people studying economics would
have been unaware of the arguments and the richness of this literature (and still largely are).
On migration, the tragedy of us not being able to let in desperate Syrians is a result of huge
immigration (largely of cheap labour) under the Labour government which has not delivered tangible
net positive results for most people and left them fatigued. Now we find we politically cannot
let in the people that we have a moral responsibility to let in.
Since the failures happened under Labour, they had to take responsibility, and in the end it
played to the Conservatives and we got something worse.
The start of the solution is to get more pluralism and critical thinking into economics and
make it look more like other social sciences. Then hopefully we do not get a repeat of the hubris
and Great Moderation Era mistakes.
The financial crisis couldn't have happened without Thatcher's Big Bang which is no doubt why
she was and continues to be feted in death by the City. If you're trying to blame the worldwide
financial problems on Labour overspending, where's your evidence to support this (never mind the
then Tories were critical of Labour spending on the grounds it was insufficient)? Are you trying
to suggest Osborne And Cameron, for example, aren't in the pocket of the financiers? Where's your
evidence? :-)
I wrote a couple of comments under Simon's post "The dead hand of austerity; left and
right" that relate to yours. In those comments I made the point that it is, and probably always
has been, plain to everyone that the centre-left position of New Labour is a right-wing ideology
with an identity crisis.
The 2008 crash hit the UK hard because New Labour was a right-wing party that carried on the
Conservative's policy of under-regulating our financial systems; a decision that those of us on
the genuine left of politics would have done our best to avoid. New Labour's abandonment of a
genuine left-wing outlook, along with its analogues in the US and Europe, has led us to the current
financial crisis and its ongoing austerity con.
Unfortunately though, it appears that people such as yourself, and even Simon Wren-Lewis with
his disappointing assertion that Corbyn is on the "radical left" rather than just the plain left,
want to keep up the pretence that you think that New Labour was somehow a left-wing party.
As I've said before, and I'm sure I'll have to keep saying again and again:
How was New Labour "left" or anything but Thatcher-lite? And how were New Labour any more responsible
for 2008 than the decades of Tory rule setting up the groundwork for underregulated markets?
You've completely missed the point of Simon's post. A party that furthers the interests of
finance capital is by definition not of the "left". The rise of Corbyn, whatever else it may presage,
is clearly driven by an appetite for a genuinely left position. Ditto Sanders in the US.
The UK Labour Party in the GFC was neo-liberal light rather than a believer in improving regulation.
The GFC was caused by very poor prudential behaviour by all financial institutions.
Ogden Nash was quoted at the start of Chapter 15 of Paul Samuelson's text;
".....one rule which woe betides the banker who fails to heed it.. never lend money
to anyone unless they don't need it."
Critics of Labour and New Labour here are not directing blame at 'overspending' by Labour for
the problems that led to Britain's exposure to the Financial crisis and the elevation of the Conservatives.
They are blaming things like financial deregulation and over-liberal and naive policies towards
trade, capital and labour flows, Labour also ignored growing inequality. Mainstream economists
did not take seriously arguments made by historians, sociologists, social workers and many others
about dangerous inequalities, imbalances and social problems that were becoming clearly evident.
Mainstream economists, almost unanimously said that industrialisation was not a problem , almost
natural, and the City was where Britain's 'comparative advantage' lay. Too much confidence in
their theories and seeing things through abstraction to the extent you can just ignore what others
are actually seeing, not through abstraction, but actual engagement with reality. Take economic
immigration, or trade with an assertive China, again, naive neo-classical arguments were prominent.
This whole derail is just pointless 'whatabouttery'. Who cares if it was the right or the left.
By playing into this partisan 'not me sir, i just got here' cheapens the argument and stymies
true academic debate.
In summary:- whenever someone says 'It was the left/right which started this' you should ignore
it - the problem is now.
I agree with everything you say and this might be nitpicking, but some economists -- Dean Baker
in particular -- think it was the real estate crisis, and not the finanical crisis, that created
our current woes:
Not sure I agree. The problem is there is no rational *bankruptcy* procedure in place at the
moment. Here is my view, it is not quite the same as Positive Money put it but similar:
The lending banks we need are the ones that can lend development capital effectively and stick
to doing just that. If we are to have private lending banks, then they need to be able to make
a decent profit doing development capital lending.
The way I would narrow banks is to offer them an incentive - an unlimited cost free overdraft
at the Bank of England. 0% funding costs. In return they must drop all the side businesses and
just do capital development lending on an uncollateralised basis - probably in the form of simple
overdrafts. In other words they become an agency businesses delivering state money to those that
require it.
A capital buffer probably ISN'T required here. Losing your lending licence if your underwriting
isn't that good should be sufficient incentive to run a tight ship. Backing off the entire thing
to the central bank reduces the barriers to entry in lending - making self-employed, highly dispersed
and, importantly, locally focussed underwriters a possibility.
Any lending businesses that doesn't want to take the oath, then has to fully fund their lending
on a maturity matched basis Zopa style. No deposit insurance, no access to the Bank of England,
and losses absorbed by those doing the lending. This then becomes the fate of the shadow banking
system - the building societies and money funds.
What we need is asset side regulation.
You proscribe a list of valid purposes for a loan. Anything outside that list becomes unenforceable
in court.
That leaves the courts to decide what fits and what doesn't fit the list. If they decide it
doesn't fit, then it becomes a gift of shareholders funds.
Operate like that and I guarantee you that banks will become very keen on their due diligence
– because the client just has to argue in court that the loan was 'ultra vires' to get a freebie.
It's really easy to regulate for the government banks if you want to.
The transaction system is clearly also being used as a hostage by the banks to get whatever
they want out of the government and the central bank. Do as we say or we shoot the transaction
system!
There are lots of ways of designing a mutual transaction system. But at its core is one concept
– transactions operate on the balance sheet of the central bank, not the individual banks. So
you would have a Transaction Department at the Bank of England (alongside the Issue and Banking
Departments) and current and savings account ultimately represent liabilities on that balance
sheet.
The functional aspects are less important – existing bank accounts could be held in trust by
the current banks, run as separate subsidiaries companies and a myriad of different other options.
But the key point is that the operational entity is acting as agent and the legal ownership and
responsibility is always at the central bank. That makes anything recorded in the transaction
system exactly the same as holding cash. You have a receipt for liabilities at the central bank.
However that makes the individual banks short of deposits and balancing liabilites. The replacement
on the individual bank's balance sheets is of course an overdraft from the central bank. Existing
banks would then have to get the match funding to free themselves from the central bank lending
restrictions, conform to requirements or just enter run-off, as I mentioned earlier.
The transaction system is like the road or rail infrastructure and is a common good required
by all.
Inevitably the state will have to fund its existence – because there is no money in running
it. I see the state providing a 'white box' system that anybody authorised can put a marketing
veneer on. Done correctly it would mean that you can literally operate your bank accounts through
any of the competing front ends. Account numbers would stay the same whoever you are notionally
with.
The other important thing about cutting down on bank lending is it free ups a *huge* amount
of space for government spending. I can see this as a good way for 'funding' a basic income –
certainly better than raising the basic rate of tax to 45%.
That way also the public have an *incentive* to support narrowing banks. Basic Income allows
you to narrow banks without a depression.
This is roughly the same as my own thinking; that Corbyn's victory comes on the back of a membership
angry that they lost the last election having to take the 'austerity-lite' approach for responsibility
reasons and Sanders rise has come on the back of Democrats angry that more significant reforms
were not put in place after the crash.
The U.S. Presidential primaries are starting this week and Sanders could win the first two
in a large upset. Hillary and her supporters have been attacking Bernie much more lately. Econobloggers
Krugman, DeLong, Thoma have all come out for Hillary, arguing that the danger of a Republican
victory is too much.
Sanders has criticized the Fed while Hillary has not. Sanders has a substantial financial transaction
tax. I agree with Dean Baker who is still for Sanders.
I would bet money that Trump doesn't win. He wont' get enough votes. He turns off Latinos and
women, etc. He may motivate more people to vote. What Trump shows is that the Republican establishment
is in tatters and the base no longer trusts them.
At PMQs this week (with due apologies to Henry Fielding's 'Shamela') Shameron, crimson faced,
shouted that Blair, Brown and Darling are all being paid by large financial companies so don't
talk to him about Google paying 3% corporation tax.
If you are an anti-Thatcherite, this is the sort of 'argument' that really turns the stomach.
Quite what it would have taken for Labour to have got City and Murdoch support in 2010 does not
bear thinking about.
Is it not true that Blair, Brown and Darling are all being handsomely paid by large financial
companies?
Why do you think these companies are doing it?
From the first sentence to the last, everything you have written here describes the way I think
and feel about this. Like you were reading my mind (but written much better and more coherently).
Sanders offers the chance that challenging that power of the financial sector would even be
considered. Clinton, not so much.
Thank you for the first comment, but I think the second reflects what you think I wrote rather
than what I actually said. While Paul is undoubtedly a wise head, I did not say these warnings
were wrong, but said they might be ignored. Paul and I have differed about issues in the past,
like the microfoundations of macro, or the political solidity of the Eurozone.
Well, I can read too and Madhyamak is right, this column does constitute a break with Krugman's
recent posts and as Peter earlier noted, other leftish leaning econ bloggers.
Maybe it was not your intent, but the actual post you wrote displays a deep understanding of,
and approval for, the motives and desires of Sanders supporters. And a definite criticism of the
center-left. Furthermore, it extends hope that it is not all a foolish dream when you compare
it to the Corbyn victory.
"For example, Admati and Helwig have convincingly argued that the problem with banks is very
low capital requirements,"
Then I wonder at that. Banks always have 100% loss capital on their balance sheets. Deposits
are essentially capital. After all why else would you need a depositor's protections scheme if
they are not subject to loss?
Having a system where people 'bail-in' ahead of time rather than behind time sounds like the
same faulty control thinking as the sovereign money idea.
Banks can essentially create their own capital via the lending process as Professor Werner
has already described in his seminal papers on how the banking system actually works.
So there can be no effective control point on the liabilities side of a bank's balance sheet.
All you can do there is alter the price, which just feeds through to the price of loans. And we
already saw how well price adjustment controls banks in 2008.
The job of the financial sector is to create money for appropriate projects in the non-financial
sector. Their use of the power to create money, delegated to them by the state, should be limited
to that purpose and that purpose alone - restrict financial sector asset creation only to those
assets that fund the non-financial sector. No more borrowed-into-existence casino money. If the
finance sector wants to do anything amongst itself it should be force to raise equity to do it,
which would then have to come from existing savings.
The place to discipline banks is on the asset side of the balance sheet. By removing the financial
sector's ability to borrow money from banks you shrink the size of the financial sector and stop
it creating bubbles within itself.
The financial sector size is determined by how much it can expand its balance sheet, and the
expansion is driven on the asset side - where the result of its sales efforts end up.
"Many on the centre left seem too timid or too ignorant to talk about this power publicly,
and are therefore unwilling to challenge it."
The other one is that the left has severe loss aversion issues.
To shrink the financial sector requires putting people out of work.
Allowing capitalism to work requires businesses to fail, which puts people out of work.
Unfortunately capitalism without loss and failure is like Catholicism without hellfire. It
doesn't work as a concept. Things have to be allowed to fail - banks included.
Importantly failed expansion leads to permanent loss which has to be allocated. If you were
earning good money on a bubble project, or in a declining business area that fails, and your skills
are unneeded anywhere else, then your income will decline - possibly right down to the living
wage.
So the first task is working out how to take losses with good grace.
"... In my view, Clinton wants to be President only because it is there and it is a powerful role. For her, I think it affirms her egotistical belief that she is the best person for the job. She is a by the numbers politician; lacking passion and a cause and is beholden to Wall St. ..."
"... Clinton is a warmonger. Most of the candidates are. I wouldnt vote for anyone who was, no matter what their politics. So, the field is greatly reduced for me. ..."
"... The media likes a simplistic narrative, and the media wants Clinton win, no matter what the Democratic base wants. Its annoying, but not surprising, that they are trying to cast the Democratic primary as they have. ..."
This disgraceful episode shows the dark side of the sexism arguments. Equality is about every
women having the same opportunities as men. But what gets lost in the debate, or conveniently
ignored, is that an incompetent woman has no place taking or claiming precedence over a competent
man. Margaret Thatcher wrought a trail of destruction in the UK - her Reagan-esque and neo-liberal
policies led to many more Britons living in poverty and being left with no prospect of any dignity;
instead being trapped in a life-long welfare-cycle. How is it plausible that she should not be
judged on her performance, rather on some esoteric and exaggerated feminist ideal. She was a female
PM, sure, but she was an awful PM. Her political salvation was the Argentine conflict over the
Falklands. Without that, she would have deservedly been confined to the political scrap-heap much
sooner.
In my view, Clinton wants to be President only because it is there and it is a powerful role.
For her, I think it affirms her egotistical belief that she is the best person for the job. She
is a "by the numbers" politician; lacking passion and a cause and is beholden to Wall St. That
surely makes her sound more like a conservative rather than a liberal (the equivalent of Tony
Blair). Sanders might be a silly old fool, but he has a passion for the American ideal - that
all men (and women) were indeed created equal and his policies support that ideal. Clinton has
no policies - she is essentially asking the American people to trust her, when in reality, they
don't - not because she is a woman, but because she has a history of duplicity.
Clinton is a warmonger. Most of the candidates are. I wouldn't vote for anyone who was, no
matter what their politics. So, the field is greatly reduced for me.
"I am increasingly dismayed that 'older, wiser, more mature' voters are portrayed as solidly in
Hillary's corner"
The media likes a simplistic narrative, and the media wants Clinton win, no matter what the
Democratic base wants. It's annoying, but not surprising, that they are trying to cast the Democratic
primary as they have.
that mainstream
political reporters
are incapable of covering her positively-or even fairly.
While it may be true that the political press doesn't always write exactly what
Clinton would like, emails recently obtained by Gawker offer a case study in how
her prodigious and sophisticated press operation manipulates reporters into
amplifying her desired message-in this case, down to the very word that
The Atlantic
's Marc Ambinder used to
describe an important policy speech.
The emails in question
, which were exchanged by Ambinder, then
serving as
The Atlantic
's politics editor
,
and Philippe Reines, Clinton's notoriously combative spokesman and consigliere,
turned up thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request we filed in 2012 (and
which we are currently
suing the State Department
over). The same request previously revealed that
Politico's chief White House correspondent, Mike Allen,
promised to deliver
positive coverage of Chelsea Clinton, and, in a separate
exchange,
permitted Reines to ghost-write an item about the State Department
for
Politico's Playbook newsletter. Ambinder's emails with Reines demonstrate the
same kind of transactional reporting, albeit to a much more legible degree: In
them, you can see Reines "blackmailing" Ambinder into describing a Clinton speech
as "muscular" in exchange for early access to the transcript. In other words,
Ambinder outsourced his editorial judgment about the speech to a member of
Clinton's own staff.
On the morning of July 15, 2009, Ambinder
sent Reines a blank email
with the subject line, "Do you have a copy of HRC's
speech to share?" His question concerned a speech Clinton
planned to give later that day
at the Washington, D.C. office of the Council
on Foreign Relations, an influential think tank. Three minutes after Ambinder's
initial email, Reines replied with three words: "on two conditions." After
Ambinder responded with "ok," Reines sent him a list of those conditions:
Advertisement
From:
[Philippe Reines]
Sent:
Wednesday, July 15 2009
10:06 AM
To:
Ambinder, Marc
Subject:
Re: Do you have a copy
of HRC's speech to share?
3 [conditions] actually
1) You in your own voice describe them as "muscular"
2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys -
from Holbrooke to Mitchell to Ross - will be arrayed in front of her, which in
your own clever way you can say certainly not a coincidence and meant to
convey something
3) You don't say you were blackmailed!
One minute later, Ambinder responded:
From:
Ambinder, Marc
Sent:
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
10:07 AM
To:
Philippe Reines
Subject:
RE: Do you have a copy
of HRC's speech to share?
got it
Ambinder made good on his word. The opening paragraph of the article he wrote
later that day, under the headline "
Hillary
Clinton's 'Smart Power' Breaks Through
," precisely followed Reines'
instructions:
Sponsored
When you think of President Obama's foreign policy, think of Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton. That's the message behind a
muscular
speech that Clinton is
set to deliver today to the Council on Foreign Relations. The staging gives a
clue to its purpose:
seated in front of
Clinton
, subordinate to Clinton, in the first row, will be
three potentially rival power centers:
envoys Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, and National Security Council
senior director Dennis Ross
.
Based on other emails released in the same batch we received, Ambinder's warm
feelings toward Clinton may have made him uniquely susceptible to Reines' editing
suggestions. On July 26, 2009,
he wrote to Reines
to congratulate his boss about her appearance on
Meet the Press
:
From:
Ambinder, Marc
Sent:
Sunday, July 26, 2009 12:05
PM
To:
Philippe Reines
Subject:
she kicked A
on MTP
On
November 29, 2010
, he sent along another congratulatory note, apparently in
regard to a press conference Clinton
had held that day
to address the publication of thousands of State Department
cables by WikiLeaks:
From:
Ambinder, Marc
Sent:
Monday, November 29, 2010
12:05 PM
To:
Philippe Reines
Subject:
This is an awesome
presser...
She is PITCH f#$*& PERFECT on this stuff.
The emails quoted above are particularly remarkable given Ambinder's
understanding of Clinton's press strategy, as he articulated in a column for
The Week
last year. Predicting how Clinton's
widely documented aversion to reporters would play out in the 2016 presidential
race,
Ambinder wrote
, "The Clinton campaign will use the press instrumentally. ...
Good news for us, though: The reporters covering Clinton are going to find ways
to draw her out anyway, because they're really good, they'll give her no quarter,
and they'll provide a good source of accountability tension [
sic
]
until Walker (or whomever) emerges from the maelstrom."
When asked for comment about his correspondence with Reines, Ambinder wrote in
an email to Gawker, "I don't remember much about anything, but I do remember once
writing about how powerful FOIA is, especially as a mechanism to hold everyone in
power, even journalists, accountable." When asked to elaborate, he followed up
with a longer message:
Advertisement
Philippe and I generally spoke on the phone and followed up by
email. The exchange is probably at best an incomplete record of what went
down. That said, the transactional nature of such interactions always gave me
the willies.... Since I can't remember the exact exchange I can't really
muster up a defense of the art, and frankly, I don't really want to. I will
say this: whatever happened here reflects my own decisions, and no one else's.
In a subsequent phone exchange, Ambinder added:
It made me uncomfortable then, and it makes me uncomfortable
today. And when I look at that email record, it is a reminder to me of why I
moved away from all that.
The Atlantic
,
to their credit, never pushed me to do that, to turn into a scoop factory. In
the fullness of time, any journalist or writer who is confronted by the
prospect, or gets in the situation where their journalism begins to feel
transactional, should listen to their gut feeling and push away from that.
Being scrupulous at all times will not help you get all the scoops, but it
will help you sleep at night. At no point at
The Atlantic
did I ever feel the pressure to make transactional
journalism the norm.
Ambinder emphasized that the emails did not capture the totality of his
communication with Reines, and said they were not indicative of his normal
reporting techniques. When asked if the exchange was typical of the magazine's
reporting and editing process, a spokesperson for
The Atlantic
told Gawker: "No, this is not typical, and it goes against our
standards."
Reines didn't respond when we asked if he engaged in similar transactions with
other reporters covering the State Department. But on the day of his trade with
Ambinder, at least one other journalist used Reines' preferred
adjective-"muscular"-to describe the speech at the Council on Foreign Relations.
That
reporter was none other than Mike Allen of Politico
:
....
"... A somewhat campy (okay, VERY campy) take on the French Revolution, it quite effectively depicts the way hopelessness and inequality corrode away the moral fabric of human relations. ..."
"... it was Mike Nichols who said, Funny is very rare. And I would add, very valuable, and slightly deadly. ..."
[BILL CLINTON:] "I understand why we've got a race on our hands, because a lot of people
are disillusioned with the system and a lot of young people want to take it down. … I understand
what it's like for people who haven't had a raise in eight years. There are a lot of reasons
[to be angry]. But this is not a cartoon. This is real life."
Don't rag on cartoons, Bill. Many are more worth paying attention to than you are. I recommend
the following:
Galaxy Express 999
A wonderfully grim satire of neoliberalism, globalization, and Kurzweil-ian narcissistic
techno-utopianism.
The Roses of Versailles
A somewhat campy (okay, VERY campy) take on the French Revolution, it quite effectively
depicts the way hopelessness and inequality corrode away the moral fabric of human relations.
Both can easily be streamed online with English subtitles.
They used to say that Hitchcock was, "damned with faint praise," by being called a master
of horror. I think the same thing tends to happen to those who are funny. I think it was
Mike Nichols who said, "Funny is very rare." And I would add, very valuable, and slightly deadly.
"... Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is falling apart. Bernie Sanders soared in New Hampshire and now two polls have him tying her nationally. It's a disaster. ..."
"... Now she's called in the B Team - the cynical, paranoid and wacky twins Sidney Blumenthal and David Brock - to bail her out. ..."
"... The attacks are rooted in nothing more than a list of dirty names they call the Vermont senator every day. Having found little in his record to attack, they have consulted the thesaurus to turn up ugly sounding accusations. ..."
Dear old Dick Morris - the Clintons' former triangulation guru - is back. And he's wielding
a sharp rapier:
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is falling apart. Bernie Sanders soared in New Hampshire
and now two polls have him tying her nationally. It's a disaster.
Now she's called in the B Team - the cynical, paranoid and wacky twins Sidney Blumenthal
and David Brock - to bail her out. And here comes the elderly, diminished and livid former
President Bill Clinton to lead the duo's frantic attacks on Sanders.
The attacks are rooted in nothing more than a list of dirty names they call the Vermont
senator every day. Having found little in his record to attack, they have consulted the thesaurus
to turn up ugly sounding accusations.
Their strategy is laughable. After losing 84 percent of young voters in Iowa - and failing
to recover them in New Hampshire - they sent in two aging fossils of feminism to insult and
threaten young women.
The 81-year-old feminist Gloria Steinem charged that young women are only backing Sanders
because that's where they can meet boys. And 78-year-old Madeleine Albright threatened to consign
to a "special place in hell" women who don't back female candidates like Clinton.
"... Political consultants by and large, and especially in the establishment tier, operate and strategize on the sole core premise that voters are a) stupid (in the Pavlovian sense), and b) unreliable. The idea that small donors would be reliable over the course of a campaign is inconceivable (the larger donors certainly aren't that reliable). And if you're willing to flip messages in a heartbeat, it is probably not a safe bet; Sanders is pulling it off in part (so far?) through his own massive (so far…) consistency (and legacy). Also, he's positioned so far from anybody else (except maybe Trump?!?) that it's difficult to slipstream him and steal his donor base. ..."
"... I think that some basic economic/market concepts (commitment bias, sunk costs) can be considered as well. But the establishment consultants (who generally do quite well, thank you) don't see a $20 donation as a significant commitment with an expectation attached; it's a restaurant tip. BTW, Sanders' three million donations come from over one million donors, that's a rough average of two follow-up donations. Some of these folks are living hand-to-mouth; they're almost literally all in, unlike any millionaire or billionaire who maxes out and gives the rest to PACs. ..."
"... And Clinton's not dumb; not dumb? mmm, Ok, is she smart? Personally, I don't think so. Conniving and persistent? absolutely. ..."
And Clinton's not dumb; she could have tried just the same strategy. Why didn't she?
Because of her consultants.
Think of it as a jobs program. Fundraising consultants are important assets throughout the
life of a campaign (including the period after the election).
The fundraisers get a cut of funds they raise (10%-20% is common, I've seen higher… even ActBlue
asks for a tip, but they ask and don't require it, and it doesn't come out of your donation, it's
on top). This is an industry, which also has vendors (NGP / VAN and other political data platforms
have fundraising modules, before merging with VAN, NGP was a stand-alone campaign accounting,
compliance, and fundraising tool).
And in case there is any lingering confusion or doubt in anyone's mind; the campaign fundraising
context is a major conduit for "constituent" input on policy. When candidates say "I've heard
from/spoken with my constituents", unless they just did a townhall meeting, they are talking about
conversations at fundraising events. The candidates feel that they are actually connecting with
their constituents… and they are, just not with all of them. Naturally, business owners and affluent
blowhards are well-represented.
Which means that backing out of the existing fundraising mechanisms would be wrenching for
campaign and candidate alike, on several levels. It would also be considered an overt act of disloyalty;
and loyalty is the coin of the realm.
Political consultants by and large, and especially in the establishment tier, operate and
strategize on the sole core premise that voters are a) stupid (in the Pavlovian sense), and b)
unreliable. The idea that small donors would be reliable over the course of a campaign is inconceivable
(the larger donors certainly aren't that reliable). And if you're willing to flip messages in
a heartbeat, it is probably not a safe bet; Sanders is pulling it off in part (so far?) through
his own massive (so far…) consistency (and legacy). Also, he's positioned so far from anybody
else (except maybe Trump?!?) that it's difficult to slipstream him and steal his donor base.
I think that some basic economic/market concepts (commitment bias, sunk costs) can
be considered as well. But the establishment consultants (who generally do quite well, thank you)
don't see a $20 donation as a significant commitment with an expectation attached; it's a restaurant
tip. BTW, Sanders' three million donations come from over one million donors, that's a rough average
of two follow-up donations. Some of these folks are living hand-to-mouth; they're almost literally
all in, unlike any millionaire or billionaire who maxes out and gives the rest to PACs.
optimader
And Clinton's not dumb; not dumb? mmm, Ok, is she smart? Personally, I don't think so.
Conniving and persistent? absolutely.
The vote count is currently 62% for Bernie and 32% for Hilary, yet she has scored 6 delegates
vs. zero for him. What am I missing (besides a functioning brain)?
Yeah but Super Delegates only exist in case commoner voters come up with the wrong answer.
Hahaha. Pathetic. I will write in Bernie regardless of how the Dems 'fix' the selection.
Super Delegates: part of the modern Dem machine. Carter was the first nominee and pres under
the super delegate system. (Started 1972 after the McGovern nomination, i.e 'wrong' answer.) Carter
was also the start of Dem presidents who de-regulate business. Super Delegates act as supporters
of the status quo, making the party less responsive to voters.
Notice the Republicans don't have super delegates. Which party is really more democratic? It's
a ratchet, there's a check on how far populist left movements go in this country, but maybe not
populist right ones.
So far the partially reported totals are from the hinterlands, which is the only possible explanation
I can offer for whoever the hell Greenstein is with 7% of the vote.
Also wrt phone banking/push polling in NH: those of us who live here know this is why caller
ID was invented, and act accordingly.
adding:
The Dems came up with the idea of super delegates after the McGovern nomination in 1972. The idea
was to keep the party bosses in control of the nominating process. Studebaker talks about Carter.
Carter was the first Dem nominee under the super delegate system.
The GOP does not have super delegates to their convention.
RE: sHillary's Wall St problem, here's how Bernie can finish her off and
I keep waiting for him to say something like the following:
"My campaign has accepted millions of dollars in small donations from voters
all across the country. They most certainly expect something from me in return
and if elected I intend to deliver. I expect the same goes for Clinton and her
donors too."
"... those who are so wrapped in the Clinton bubble as to assume her inevitability and electability have some thinking to do. ..."
"... For my part, Hillary Clinton cant lose by a large enough margin to satisfy my desire to watch the establishment turned on its ear this season. We the people have had it up to here with neoconservative warfare abroad, profound wealth inequality, economic injustice writ large, the power of banks over all of us, and the prioritizing of the wealth of finance and other industry barons over the basic interests and well-being of the general public. ..."
"... Still trying to mislead The People toward Hillary, NYTimes? Your front page says: Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton in the Democratic contest in a state where he has long held an advantage. Better to say in a state where the voters, like NYTimes readers who offer Comments, have far better judgment than the lightweight election news and opinion team at the New York Times. ..."
"... This is about the electorates rejection of the influence of shady money in politics. As somebody noted a few years ago, the candidates should have to wear the logos of their sponsors, like NASCAR drivers do. ..."
"... I dont think Bill did Hillary any favors by wagging his finger in front of the cameras and scolding Bernie for an authentic campaign. It brought back lots of memories of I did not have sexual relations with that woman and reminded voters what they didnt particularly like about either Clinton. ..."
"... Look at the exit polling- Bernie brought in a ton of Independents which the Democrats need in order to win in November. He absolutely crushed Hillary with younger people - the future of the party. He also won among women. ..."
What Secretary Clinton and the Democratic machine behind her ought to ponder carefully is that,
as the figures now stand, Mr. Trump is likely to walk away from New Hampshire with more votes than
Secretary Clinton. Yes, I can already see the rolled eyes and hear all the explanations about how
eccentric New Hampshire and its primary system is, but it remains a statistic well worth thinking
about. Those who assume that a Trump nomination would mean a Democratic landslide, and those
who are so wrapped in the Clinton bubble as to assume her inevitability and electability have some
thinking to do.
Heather, Charlotte, North Carolina
That an established political figure such as Mr. Sununu knows only five people voting for the
odious Mr.Trump is to his credit, but this demonstrates the problem plaguing the the "Establishment"
nominees. When only one white-collar criminal, (and a tiny fish in the banking business, to boot)
was incarcerated after the economic collapse brought about by some of America's most respected
financial institutions, working people realized politics as usual benefitted only one interest
group: the obscenely wealthy.
The regulators would be paid by taxpayers for life to do nothing, we would remain mired in trillions
of dollars of debt for waging wars that did little but destabilize the Middle East, and Republican
legislators would do absolutely nothing but squabble and snatch up their paychecks.
It's horrifying that a materialistic, narcissistic blowhard would attract hordes of voters, but
if you dwell only in the insular bubble of the Beltway, the reality of a furious electorate must
come as quite a shock.
The machinations of the Koch brothers resulted in Trump, an ambulatory id, laying waste to the
illusion that a shred of true statesmanship remained within the Republican Party. Fox "News" can't
be shocked that their smug dog-whistles found a studious acolyte in Trump, a master of pandering
to the lowest common denominator. The only question: Will our nation be the true victim of these
solons' cynical money-grubbing?
David Gregory, Deep Red South
The Progressives- Democrats and Independents that have been kicked, ignored, marginalized and
abandoned by the media and the Beltway Villagers have a message for you:
Hillary Clinton is NOT our choice. We do not want a candidate that tells us what we cannot do,
that tells us we have to accept Republican lite, that hugs up to Wall Street with it's hand out
and tells us to never mind. We want a candidate that represents the Democratic wing of the Democratic
Party, that remembers and honors the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy,
Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy and others.
We believe that government exists to serve the needs of the public and the common good, to
level thy playing field and to encourage equity and justice for all.
CAF, Seattle 2 hours ago
Thanks NYT! I will check back on this article frequently as you update it for the latest messaging
and slant from Clinton HQ in Brooklyn! Keep up the good work, you've become my best source for
Hillary Clinton campaign information.
Sadly for her, it looks like New Hampshire has spoken. Accounts include that over 90% of Democratic
voters who valued a "trustworthy and honest" candidate voted for Sanders.
For my part, Hillary Clinton can't lose by a large enough margin to satisfy my desire to
watch the establishment turned on its ear this season. We the people have had it up to "here"
with neoconservative warfare abroad, profound wealth inequality, economic injustice writ large,
the power of banks over all of us, and the prioritizing of the wealth of finance and other industry
barons over the basic interests and well-being of the general public.
Let's hope for a Sanders landslide in *every* state.
onthecoast, LA CA 2 hours ago
Speaking as a Sanders supporter, we are NOT angry at the federal government (other than at
the "do nothing" Republicans). We are sick and tired of the 1% and the corporations sending our
jobs overseas (42,000 factories closed since 2001) and doing every other thing they can to eviscerate
the middle class. We are tired that they don't pay their share of taxes! We want Congress to stand
up to them and fix this!!
David, Sacramento 2 hours ago
Get ready for a brand new Hillary. What version is she up to right now? Hillary 5.0? She has
more hot fixes than Windows.
Here, There
Again, everything is phrased in words that tear down Trump and Sanders, after all they have
led in the polls for months and Sanders has home state advantage and he didn't beat Hillary, he
topped her, and the Iowa result is framed as a win for her, when the raw vote count has not been
released ...
Dick Purcell, Leadville, CO 2 hours ago
Still trying to mislead The People toward Hillary, NYTimes? Your front page says: "Bernie
Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton in the Democratic contest in a state where he has long held an
advantage." Better to say "in a state where the voters, like NYTimes readers who offer Comments,
have far better judgment than the lightweight election "news" and "opinion" team at the New York
Times.
Billy, up in the woods down by the river
This is about the electorate's rejection of the influence of shady money in politics. As
somebody noted a few years ago, the candidates should have to wear the logos of their sponsors,
like NASCAR drivers do.
raven55, Washington DC 2 hours ago
I don't think Bill did Hillary any favors by wagging his finger in front of the cameras
and scolding Bernie for an authentic campaign. It brought back lots of memories of 'I did not
have sexual relations with that woman' and reminded voters what they didn't particularly like
about either Clinton.
David Gregory, Deep Red South
Look at the exit polling- Bernie brought in a ton of Independents which the Democrats need
in order to win in November. He absolutely crushed Hillary with younger people - the future of
the party. He also won among women. Like Cornell West said: the Sanders Campaign is a love
train. Come aboard.
We are going to need everybody.
Shades of corruption in the USA political spectrum...
Notable quotes:
"... Recalled one attendee: 'She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.' ..."
"... Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman's workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis. ..."
"... the Clinton campaign declined to comment further on calls that she release the transcripts of the three paid speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs, for which she earned a total of $675,000. ..."
"... So far, the Clinton campaign has shown no inclination to release the texts of her remarks to Goldman or anyone else. At a debate in New Hampshire last week, Clinton said she would "look into" the matter. A day after the debate, Clinton pollster Joel Benenson told reporters, "I don't think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches." On ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Clinton pushed back even harder on calls to release the speech transcripts. ..."
"... Potential general election opponents could conceivably hit Clinton on her Wall Street ties but it would be much harder for them to do so than Sanders. Many of the GOP candidates - including Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Chris Christie and Ted Cruz - have ties to Wall Street. Kasich worked at Lehman Brothers and Cruz's wife works for Goldman Sachs. Bush, Rubio and Christie have all competed hard for donations from the financial industry. ..."
"... But until Clinton gets clear of Sanders, her speeches to Goldman and other banks will likely continue to pose problems. Some progressive groups say beyond the speeches themselves, the fear is that, as president, Clinton would be too chummy with bankers and rely on Wall Street executives for senior positions like Treasury secretary. The highly paid speaking gigs just make these fears more intense. ..."
"... One thing that is clear is that Clinton could release the Goldman transcripts unilaterally if she chose to do so. ..."
Recalled one attendee: 'She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.'
When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in
Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital
and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.
Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman's workforce
and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms
present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its
role in the 2008 financial crisis.
"It was pretty glowing about us," one person who watched the event said. "It's so far from
what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a
Goldman Sachs managing director."
At another speech to Goldman and its big asset management clients in New York in 2013, Clinton
spoke about how it wasn't just the banks that caused the financial crisis and that it was worth
looking at the landmark 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law to see what was working and what
wasn't.
"It was mostly basic stuff, small talk, chit-chat," one person who attended that speech said.
"But in this environment, it could be made to look really bad."
Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon dismissed the recollections as "pure trolling," while the
Clinton campaign declined to comment further on calls that she release the transcripts of the
three paid speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs, for which she earned a total of $675,000.
But the descriptions of Clinton's remarks highlight the trap in which the Democratic presidential
front-runner now finds herself. In a previous election cycle, no one would much care about the
former secretary of state's comments to Goldman. They represent the kind of boilerplate, happy
talk that highly paid speakers generally offer to their hosts. Nobody pays nearly a quarter of a
million dollars to have someone criticize their alleged misdeeds. But 2016 is different.
Clinton is under relentless attack from Vermont democratic socialist Bernie Sanders for her ties
to Wall Street, including paid speeches and campaign fundraising events. And she is now under
intense pressure from the media and some on the left to release transcripts of her remarks to
Goldman and other banks.
The problem is, if Clinton releases the transcripts, Sanders and other progressive candidates
could take even seemingly innocuous comments and make them sound as though Clinton is in the tank
for Wall Street. And if she doesn't, it makes her look like she has something very damaging to
hide.
"On the one hand, if Clinton discloses these speech transcripts that's not going to be the end of
it," said Dennis Kelleher, chief executive of financial reform group Better Markets. "I think you
are damned if you do and damned if you don't in this never ending game of gotcha. But as a
political matter, she should probably just disclose it all and disclose it quickly."
... ... ...
So far, the Clinton campaign has shown no inclination to release the texts of her remarks
to Goldman or anyone else. At a debate in New Hampshire last week, Clinton said she would "look
into" the matter. A day after the debate, Clinton pollster Joel Benenson told reporters, "I don't
think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches." On ABC's "This Week" on Sunday,
Clinton pushed back even harder on calls to release the speech transcripts.
... ... ...
People close to the Clinton campaign say the hope is that calls for release of the transcripts
will fade after New Hampshire, assuming the former first lady can defeat Sanders in South
Carolina and the mass of mostly Southern states that vote on March 1 in the Super Tuesday
primaries.
Potential general election opponents could conceivably hit Clinton on her Wall Street ties
but it would be much harder for them to do so than Sanders. Many of the GOP candidates -
including Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Chris Christie and Ted Cruz - have
ties to Wall Street. Kasich worked at Lehman Brothers and Cruz's wife works for Goldman Sachs.
Bush, Rubio and Christie have all competed hard for donations from the financial industry.
But until Clinton gets clear of Sanders, her speeches to Goldman and other banks will likely
continue to pose problems. Some progressive groups say beyond the speeches themselves, the fear
is that, as president, Clinton would be too chummy with bankers and rely on Wall Street
executives for senior positions like Treasury secretary. The highly paid speaking gigs just make
these fears more intense.
"The big-picture question voters care about is: Who does a politician surround themselves with
and will they hold accountable people they have a close relationship with?" said Stephanie
Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "Hillary Clinton would reassure
voters if she said she would appoint a Treasury secretary not from Wall Street, an attorney
general and SEC chair with a proven record of holding Wall Street accountable, and generally work
with Elizabeth Warren to stop the revolving door between industry and government."
Kelleher echoed that sentiment, saying Clinton could blow the speech question off the radar if
she could more clearly articulate an approach to Wall Street that would ease anxiety on the left.
Previous comments, including that she took the $675,000 from Goldman because "that's what they
offered," have not done the trick.
"I don't know how she does it, but she has got to get to the fundamental issue and address it in
a way that convinces voters that, no matter what money she has gotten from Wall Street, when she
is president she will represent the American people and do what's right," Kelleher said. "Until
she does that in a convincing way, stories like this will still be a problem for her."
One thing that is clear is that Clinton could release the Goldman transcripts unilaterally if
she chose to do so.
BuzzFeed reported over the weekend that contracts for two paid speeches - not to Goldman -
made clear that Clinton owned exclusive rights to the content and any reproductions of her
remarks. A person familiar with the matter said that even if Goldman did have the ability to
block Clinton from releasing her remarks, the bank would never exercise that right and would
allow the speeches to be released.
Sanders, either intentionally or not behaved in an very non-confrontational manner toward her. Moderators
were even worse. Rachel is pretty intelligent girl quite able to understand that Hillary Clinton is
a criminal. Just due to her Iraq voting, so say nothing about other issues like email-gate, Wall
Street speeches and flow of money from foreign donors into Clinton foundation while being a Secretary
of State
They way she was treated was soft balling all the major issues with her candidacy. This is especially
true about two more recent scandals: email scandal and her Wall street speeches. The real question
here is eligibility of such a person to any elected position. This issue was swiped under the
carpet both by moderators and Sanders. Clinton should be unemployable in the USA government in any capacity,
by any reasonable standards.
How can any ordinary voter with IQ above 100 vote for this psychopathic warmonger in Democratic
primary (I would understand Republicans voting for her - she is a neoconservative ) is an interesting
question about US electorate psychology and "What's wrong with Kansas" effect of constant brainwashing.
Looks like Americans so hopelessly brainwashed that they live is some kind of artificial reality?
It might well be that Albright endorsement is a kiss of death for Hillary Warmonger Clinton. Albright
was an architect of Yugoslavia war and endorsed killing of Iraqi children via economic blockade. She
is a blood thrusting zombie on her own.
Notable quotes:
"... But it was the other things that really really bothered me. The stupid and factually unsupported
meme that Clinton will get more done because she is more pragmatic and understands how it works more.
That being the Secretary of State means that Clinton has a better grasp of the world than any one out
there regardless of her said record at State. And that Sanders doesn't have either an understanding
of what he is asking to get into AND that he doesn't have the organization needed to get elected. I
thought the latter idea got destroyed when it turned out that despite spending millions less than the
candidate who could not lose, Sanders actually had as many field operation sites in states with later
primaries as Clinton did, and in quite a few cases more. Because, once again she was inevitable, and
didn't have to worry about those states. But for the most part there was no addressing these flights
of fancy. ..."
Spent some time at a foreign affairs lecture. Between my conversation with a twenty something
Clinton supporter, AND the lecturer and two old women in the audience I can tell you denial is
deep.
First off the younger woman did admit that Steinem and Albright were not good for Clinton,
but she also brought up the Bernie supporters are mean to people meme. Now I have no doubt some
are, I can also tell you from experience that the Mulder vs. Scully wars were nasty and not pretty.
People say mean things on the internet all the time, and maybe it isn't 'right', but Sanders needs
to stop taking this stuff seriously and say flat out that both sides have supporters with more
passion than common sense. And that only the publicly campaign acknowledged and requested support
needs a response from either campaign. IOW, he is not responsible because someone is mean on the
internet and he needs to stop apologizing or acknowledging it because it does get equated with
the nasty and condescending crap from actual surrogates like Steinem and Albright and Chelsea.
But it was the other things that really really bothered me. The stupid and factually unsupported
meme that Clinton will get more done because she is more pragmatic and understands how it works
more. That being the Secretary of State means that Clinton has a better grasp of the world than
any one out there regardless of her said record at State. And that Sanders doesn't have either
an understanding of what he is asking to get into AND that he doesn't have the organization needed
to get elected. I thought the latter idea got destroyed when it turned out that despite spending
millions less than the candidate who could not lose, Sanders actually had as many field operation
sites in states with later primaries as Clinton did, and in quite a few cases more. Because, once
again she was inevitable, and didn't have to worry about those states. But for the most part there
was no addressing these flights of fancy.
I'm really going to have to get my act together and put together a record of the Sanders and
Clinton accomplishments as elected officials. And perhaps send it out without identifying who
did which just so the shock can be greater when people realize how much more Sanders has done
with his time. Although the people smart enough to remember that Sanders has many more years of
experience, mayor, Congressman, Senator won't be fooled. Only the idiots who think being married
to the elected official is experience won't. As for that other pragmatic myth, maybe I should
also supply them with a easy cheat sheet of Congressional and Senate seats that are up for grabs
and what the counts are for majorities while I'm at it. And point out that while there is a long
really long shot of retaking the Senate, the House is going to remain Republican. And follow up
that Republican majorities that despise Clinton won't care how pragmatic she is, anymore than
they gave a damn that Obama kept trying to offer them so many things they wanted.
Elissa Heyman,
Please put that comparison out, or what each candidate has actually done as an elected official,
so people can see; that is a really missing piece of information. That meme is absurd because
it is BERNIE who is the progressive that gets things done, and across the aisle.
Well, I was a Clinton supporter in 2008. This campaign is nothing. I have no doubt - granted,
I can't bear to do the research - that I could find people spouting the most vile misogyny then
who are yammering about Berniebros today. Democratic tribalism…
Jeff W,
I'm really going to have to get my act together and put together a record of the Sanders
and Clinton accomplishments as elected officials.
Here's a start: "Bernie Gets It Done: Sanders' Record of Pushing Through Major Reforms Will
Surprise You" (AlterNet).
For Hillary Clinton, there's
this: "The Hillary Clinton record: In the Senate, she reached across the aisle, but the old
ways there are no more" (Yahoo! Politics).
"... Victory of Reagan was the victory of neoliberalism, or quite coup in the USA. Much like Bolsheviks coup in 1917. Essentially a change of social system. Or neoliberal revolution, if you wish. The end of New Deal Capitalism. ..."
"... Bernie is a centrist democrat by European standards. He does not offer anything other then the resurrecting of remnants of a New Deal. But social situation is different and the state is fully captured by neoliberals. So to me he looks more like Don Quixote. ..."
"... He does not have a formal party and without a party any politician is a hostage of the current elite. Or you need to be a retired general and has absolute loyalty of your former troops. ..."
"... Unless he wins the civil war within Democratic Party against the currently dominant Third Way faction (Clinton faction) and becomes the leader of the Party he is doomed one way or the other. The elite is pretty inventive and vicious. They do not take hostages. I doubt that he can achieve that. The party is already sold. ..."
"... And even if he becomes POTUS he capabilities will be very limited. He will face "shadow state" in full glory. And it's the "shadow state" which rules the country. That's what iron law of oligarchy is about. "You want a friend in this city? [Washington, DC.] Get a dog!" Harry S. Truman ..."
Victory of Reagan was the victory of neoliberalism, or quite coup in the USA. Much like
Bolsheviks coup in 1917. Essentially a change of social system. Or neoliberal revolution, if you
wish. The end of New Deal Capitalism.
Bernie is a centrist democrat by European standards. He does not offer anything other then
the resurrecting of remnants of a New Deal. But social situation is different and the state is
fully captured by neoliberals. So to me he looks more like Don Quixote.
The story follows the adventures of a nameless hidalgo who reads so many chivalric
romances that he loses his sanity and decides to set out to revive chivalry, undo wrongs, and
bring justice to the world, under the name Don Quixote.
I wish Bernie good lack and want him to win, but he is in a very precarious situation.
He does not have a formal party and without a party any politician is a hostage of the current
elite. Or you need to be a retired general and has absolute loyalty of your former troops.
Unless he wins the civil war within Democratic Party against the currently dominant Third
Way faction (Clinton faction) and becomes the leader of the Party he is doomed one way or the
other. The elite is pretty inventive and vicious. They do not take hostages. I doubt that he can
achieve that. The party is already sold.
And even if he becomes POTUS he capabilities will be very limited. He will face "shadow
state" in full glory. And it's the "shadow state" which rules the country. That's what iron law
of oligarchy is about. "You want a friend in this city? [Washington, DC.] Get a dog!" ― Harry
S. Truman
Sanders adherents look to me somewhat similar to Occupy Wall Street movement. He runs his campaign
on the indignation of people with status quo, with unfair and corrupt system. In other words he
runs on a negative platform of addressing injustices and resurrecting the elements of the New
Deal .
But the truth is that this is impossible without dismantling neoliberalism and he probably
does not even think in those terms. As if Wall Street allows him to introduce Tobin tax
on financial transactions to finance state college education without mortal fight.
In such a situation usually a nationalist like Trump has better chances. In comparison with
other Repugs he at least has some paleoconservative tendencies.
Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign raised $33.6 million in the last three months
of 2015 and another $20 million in January alone, the campaign announced Sunday. The campaign
further stated that 1.3 million people have made 3.25 million donations to Sanders' run - a
record number of donors at this stage in a presidential campaign.
The Sanders camp said that the fourth quarter total will show 70 percent of the campaign's
donations came from small donors. Further, the $20 million it reports to have raised in January
came almost exclusively from online donations averaging $27 a piece.
Last I checked, Occupy didn't scale like that. (That's not to say that donating to a campaign
is equal to a movement; it isn't. But a mailing list of people who've demonstrated tangible commitment
is certainly a good start.)
For the rest of your comment, Rome wasn't sacked in a day.
3.14e-9
That's not to say that donating to a campaign is equal to a movement; it isn't. But a mailing
list of people who've demonstrated tangible commitment is certainly a good start.
It's not just the people making donations, but the army of volunteers who are doing phone banking
and organizing events on their own. Now, I suppose all candidates have an army of volunteers.
O had them. But the day after they won his ground war for him, he sent them home.
Bernie says he wants the army to stay involved, and I think it could happen
if he really means what he says, and
the ground forces can be converted to something like a civil engineers corps.
It may be. I just think that after the election could be too late. What if there's another
Florida 2000 or Ohio 2004, for example?
Jeff W,
Since this post mentions the Democratic candidates' competing "theories of change"
here is Jeff Spross in The Week on "How class could eventually remake the Democratic
Party" with a somewhat different take:
This is where Bernie Sanders' revolt within the Democratic Party - which in many ways mirrors
Trump's GOP revolt - comes into play. His thesis is that the Democrats need to go hard left
on economics. So he's picked a few key class-based priorities - the minimum wage, campaign
finance, single payer healthcare, and infrastructure investment - and proposed truly massive
and aspirational goals. His idea isn't to moderate on social issues (though he doesn't play
them up as much), since political science shows that while poorer voters are more socially
conservative, they vote based on pocketbook issues.
His idea is to bring the Democrats' economic stances up to speed with the progress
they've made on social and identity issues, and make them a genuinely economically leftist
party again. This will lose them upper class and donor class votes. But so what? They'll solidify
their support among black Americans, Latinos, and women; pull a lot of new working- and lower-class
whites into the party; and leave a lot of poorer Americans who currently don't vote with the
impression they've finally go[t] something to vote for. Sanders' position isn't simply
that this is the right thing to do. It's that reliance on economic populism specifically will
set up the Democrats with far more durable majorities in the future.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton's approach is basically to preserve as long as possible
the existing coalition - with its top-heavy reliance on upper class voters. She certainly
isn't backsliding on economics: She has come down in favor of a $12 minimum wage and has ideas
on campaign finance reform. But her incremental building on ObamaCare is paltry to put it mildly.
And her approach to the economic issues in general is like her approach to everything else:
lots of tinkering, but nothing super ambitious. She's also come out swinging on identity and
social issues like access to abortion, voting rights, immigration and gender equality.
The differences between Clinton and Sanders are often chalked up to "theory of change"
stuff, or idealism vs. practicality. Which isn't quite right. It's more about competing theories
of what the Democratic coalition needs to become.
It's interesting that Cruz used to work for Bush II as a domestic policy advisor. And now Bush
Ii decided to put him down. He said "I don't like the guy"
George W. Bush is against one of his brother's opponents: Ted Cruz. This is a little unexpected
as donor fundraisers are usually not for attacking fellow republicans. "I just don't like the guy,"
Bush said. Cenk Uygur, host of the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the
comment section below.
"Former President George W. Bush surprised supporters of his brother Jeb on Sunday when he ripped
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) during a fundraising event in Denver, Politico reported.
Bush's dismissive tone toward the Tea Party lawmaker - who worked on his campaign as a domestic
policy advisor in 1999 - came as a surprise for many of the 100 donors at the event. At one point,
Bush reportedly said of Cruz, "I just don't like the guy."
He said he found it 'opportunistic' that Cruz was sucking up to [Donald] Trump and just expecting
all of his support to come to him in the end," one attendee said, an allusion to Cruz's somewhat
warmer relationship with the current Republican front-runner."*
Anyone who finds Cruz "awesome" must have an extraordinarily inept judge of character. Cruz
is the quintessential douche bag.
duhsmersh 2 weeks ago
Every bush and EVERY clinton should be jailed for treason against the American people.
joebonsaipoland 2 weeks ago
Seem like everyone HATES Cruz. You saw what happen after the 6th GOP debate when Cruz
attacked trump on "NY values"! Cruz got slammed - he will not win, Cruz was born in Canada and
is disqualified. LOL
Jean Falco 3 weeks ago
Ted Cruz is better than the sleazy, piece of SHIT, Sociopath, professional liar, lazy, and
sorry excuse for a man BUSH! The whole family is a pack of wolves!
Alan Sun 3 weeks ago
Is Cruz even eligible as a candidate? Isn't it required for you to be born in the United
States to become president? I don't like Cruz anyways.
Michael Parker 1 month ago
I thought George W Bush had to be the bottom of the Republican barrel and that he was so
bad that they must have began to learn their lesson and vote for a proper president.
But here we are with Trump, Carson & Cruz and amazingly I'd rather have Bush back as president
than any of them 3.
Michael Parker 1 month ago
+Brain Outy I'm not a fan of Republican policy in any way, shape or form, but if there had
to be a Republican president I agree I'd prefer Jeb Bush mainly because he's an establishment
politician and would work with the rest of the Republican establishment so while things
wouldn't get better they're unlikely to get much worse than if any of them 3 got into power.
Adino Janda 1 month ago
Former President Bush is hiding because most of the United States by now knows he is
nothing but a liar, and murdering individual. Only those who have benefitted from his crimes
think anything positive about him. Jeb is cut from the same cloth. If Jeb gets in the citizens
can only expect more of the same lies and murdering ways that all of that bloodline has been
displaying through out history and their connections with this country and its affairs.
Jayson Cooke 1 month ago
The reason they don't like him is he is smarter than them. He knows that in Politics you
will NEVER win unless you play the game. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Go ahead Ted,
you are right (politically) to DRAFT OFF TRUMP. How is it going for those that have attacked
Trump? Looking at you, Jeb. Yep, Cruz is just too smart and people hate him for it. Cry me a
river.... BTW check out Ted's CHRISTMAS commercial. He stomps on Republican Senate Majority
leader, calling him a Melting Snowman (Rino) before the Omnibus vote. No wonder Republican
ESTABLISHMENT hate TED...hilarious!
"... "You take a guy like Cruz, people are liking the Cruz - they think he's for the free market, and [in reality] he's owned by Goldman Sachs. I mean, he and Hillary have more in common than we would have with either Cruz or Trump or any of them so I just don't think there is much picking," Paul said of the Texas senator on Fox Business' "Varney Company on Friday. ..."
"... "On occasion, Bernie comes up with libertarian views when he talks about taking away the cronyism on Wall Street, so in essence he's right, and occasionally he voted against war," the former Texas congressman said when asked if there was a candidate who was truly for the free market. ..."
"... Goldman makes loans for specific reasons. They do not act like a commercial bank, take deposits for the public, etc., by any stretch of the imagination. For you to get a loan form Goldilocks, you either got to cure Lloyd's cancer or have something they want. And if it's a personal loan like to Teddie, it's his soul pledged as collateral. ..."
"... Plus, Mrs Evil is a Goldman employee.... circles within circles. He's lock stock and barrel, Goldman interests. ..."
"... I don't really think it matters who is captain of the titanic at this point, but this shit sure is entertaining. If Trump or Bernie pop up on the ballot I think I'll head to the polls. ..."
"... Paul is right on the other D-bags, they might as well be the same candidate. ..."
Now that Rand Paul is out of the race for the White House, Politico's Eliza Collins reports
that his father Ron Paul, who ran in 2008 and 2012, isn't impressed by Ted Cruz's attempts to
pick up the "free market" libertarian banner.
"You take a guy like Cruz, people are liking the Cruz - they think he's for the free market,
and [in reality] he's owned by Goldman Sachs. I mean, he and Hillary have more in common than we
would have with either Cruz or Trump or any of them so I just don't think there is much picking,"
Paul said of the Texas senator on Fox Business' "Varney & Company" on Friday.
Surprisingly, the elder Paul seemed more attracted to the views of Vermont Sen. Bernie
Sanders, who is giving Hillary Clinton a run for her money in the Democratic primary.
"On occasion, Bernie comes up with libertarian views when he talks about taking away the
cronyism on Wall Street, so in essence he's right, and occasionally he voted against war," the
former Texas congressman said when asked if there was a candidate who was truly for the free
market.
"It's hard to find anybody -- since Rand is out of it -- anybody that would take a libertarian
position, hardcore libertarian position on privacy, on the war issue and on economic policy,"
Paul added.
"So I always say: You can search for a long time, but you're not gonna find anybody in the
Republican or Democratic primary that even comes slightly close to ever being able to claim
themselves a libertarian," he concluded.
JustObserving
That's worse than being owned by Satan. America is a fascist police state run by a Deep
State composed of a triad of the MIC, Wall Street (led by Goldman) and Spooks who spy on
everyone.
Enejoy your entertainment called elections
Scooby Dooby Doo
Goldman needs some dancing girls and boys. Some type of entertainment. Anything. This is
America god damn it. Bread and circus. Without it I feel like I'm getting robbed.
(make it diverse)
Dollarmedes
Ted Cruz took out a $1 million loan from GS, an amount he could easily repay. Somehow, this
means that GS "owns" him. That would be like saying that the banks own everyone who ever took
out a mortgage. Somehow, I doubt consumers see it that way.
knukles -> Dollarmedes
Goldman makes "loans" for specific reasons. They do not act like a commercial bank,
take deposits for the public, etc., by any stretch of the imagination.
For you to get a loan form Goldilocks, you either got to cure Lloyd's cancer or have something
they want. And if it's a personal loan like to Teddie, it's his soul pledged as collateral.
Plus, Mrs Evil is a Goldman employee.... circles within circles. He's lock stock and
barrel, Goldman interests.
hobopants
I don't really think it matters who is captain of the titanic at this point, but this
shit sure is entertaining. If Trump or Bernie pop up on the ballot I think I'll head to the
polls.
I'll cast a vote for either one, not because I think they are "messiah" material, but they
seem to be the ones most likely to full throttle this bitch into the ice berg.
Paul is right on the other D-bags, they might as well be the same candidate.
Far more productive to focus on doing what you can on an individual level instead of worrying
about this pointless shit.
Freddie
Fox is shit but so is ALL Tv and ALL Zollywood. I really like Ron Paul and out of all the
idiots on TV, and I have not watched for a decade, Stuart Varney is a pretty straight shooter.
steveo77
Clintons Emails Released Clearly Show She Knew the Dangers to USA from Fukushima and
Covered It Up I reviewed several thousand Hillary Clinton emails that were released after
court order, with an emphasis on Fukushima:
1) She was immediately informed of the dangers of Fukushima, and the actions that people
should take to mitigate radiation damage, Mar 12th USA time.
2) She was participating daily in the discussion of Fukushima, until.....
Anderson Cooper speaks with Trump about the 2016 race and his own political donations.
MobTheGamer 4 months ago
Fuckin CNN. You're just a bunch of biased shits!
fgill76 3 months ago
I like Mr. Trump because he is NOT a politician (sociopath), he is a successful
businessman. I hope that after Mr. Trump is elected he fixes congress by installing
"term-limits", 12 years max.
Anon Mous 2 weeks ago
Bernie Sanders for President!
Donald Trump for vice president!
Hillary for Prison!
MISTERPRESIDENTELECT 1 month ago
This Anderson is a very stupid guy who doesn't understand anything about the building
industry, he's only goal is to be a dumbass troll
joe 1 month ago
Anderson ... honestly expects trump to do backgrounds on every contractor that he
employs? pathetic! build that wall!
Ronnie Bishop 1 month ago
I just hope the stupid news media, like Wolf wolf Blitzer asks Hillary the same dumb
questions he ask Sarah Palin. Hillary is almost in tears now. And I hope all the late night
shows cut her daughter down like a whore on national TV. Like does that Chealsy know who the
real father is?
Bryan Barrera 1 month ago
The reason why Cnn wants to make trump look bad it's because Time warner( owner of Cnn) is
supporting Hilary's Clinton campaign and they want trump to fail or look bad . If Cnn manages
to help Hillary win , Hillary will return the favor of course . Nothing is free.
Shalom Zhong 1 month ago
Anderson has no better question to interview Trump. It is more important for people to know
what Trump can do for the Nation in the future if elected as next President. Who in this world
can have a perfect past record in a imperfect society amongst imperfect people, especially in
the business and political circles?
ShadowPBPBC 1 month ago (edited)
lol anderson cooper threw alot of money to Shrillary and cooper's trying to nail down trump
and cooper is shot down so hard so fast the flames aren't just from his flaming homosexuality.
looking back on this even 5 months later coopers bought into Shrillary's lies that are now
plain as daylight with out dispute, and trump shot straight and honest and his words still
hold more truth and honesty than the entire history of the democrat party combined.
Annette Rizo 2 months ago
Donald Trump, who gives you the right to build a "wall" to remove the Mexican immigrants
from this nation. While you are in business meetings these immigrant workers are doing the
jobs that many U.S citizens would never do. Also recall that this country , the one that
you're trying to run for presidency, was and IS STILL being built up by immigrant workers. You
also may want to look back on your American history because the only real Americans are the
Native Americans. Remember that the next you think about citizenship and deportation. Remember
where your ancestors came from.
From old neoliberal crook Bill who
abolished Glass Steagall and sold democratic party to Wall Street, enriching himself and his
wife in the process to the tune of 210 million . Which, along with other factors,
caused the financial crisis later on. "Speech business" proved to be quite lucrative for
Clinton family if you first sold your country. But the fact that defenders of Killary
now need pseudonyms to avoid attach is really interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... "She and other people who have gone online to defend Hillary, to explain why they supported her, have been subject to vicious trolling and attacks that are literally too profane often, not to mention sexist, to repeat." ..."
"... the liberal journalist Joan Walsh had faced what he called "unbelievable personal attacks" for writing positively about Mrs. Clinton. ..."
Mr. Clinton's most pointed remarks may have been when he took aim at Sanders supporters who,
he said, use misogynistic language in attacking Mrs. Clinton. He told the story of a female
"progressive" blogger who defended Mrs. Clinton online through a pseudonym because, he said, the
vitriol from Mr. Sanders's backers was so unrelenting.
The days between the nation's first and second presidential nominating contest are intense –
and often emotional, for voters and candidates alike.
"She and other people who have gone online to defend Hillary, to explain why they
supported her, have been subject to vicious trolling and attacks that are literally too profane
often, not to mention sexist, to repeat." Mr. Clinton, growing more demonstrative, added
that the liberal journalist Joan Walsh had faced what he called "unbelievable personal
attacks" for writing positively about Mrs. Clinton.
In a demonstration of how engrossed he is in this campaign, Mr. Clinton recited the names of
the regional newspapers that are backing his wife's campaign and, in a rarity, mentioned Mr.
Sanders by name.
"Bernie took what they said was good about him and put it in his own endorsements," said Mr.
Clinton, fuming that Mr. Sanders used complimentary language from a Nashua Telegraph endorsement
of Mrs. Clinton in his own campaign appeals.
Then, reflecting the fury among Clinton campaign advisers over what they see as the kinds of
behavior Mr. Sanders gets away with, Mr. Clinton noted that the senator's campaign had used the
image of an American Legion officer in New Hampshire without his permission.
"If you point it out, it just shows how tied you are to the establishment," he said.
In a response, Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders, called it "disappointing that
President Clinton has decided to launch these attacks" and said Mr. Sanders would continue to
focus on his message against the rigged economy, campaign finance corruption and income
inequality. "Obviously the race has changed in New Hampshire and elsewhere in recent days," Mr.
Devine said.
I would like to see a woman as President, but just not Hillary. She voted for the war
in Iraq more...
She is also the face of the U$A's bombing of Libya. Remember "WEу came. We saw. He died" I
too a would like to see a woman pres. To bad Jill Stein has been so marginalized by the "two
party" system.
Just a bunch of old gay rags that are clinically insane, Albright a killer of millions,
Hillary a killer of millions and Gloria a killer of millions babies...The are hideous and all
three belong behind bars.
Roman Soiko 1
hour ago
I would like to see a woman as President, but
just not Hillary. She voted for the war in
Iraq and she is to expand American military
industrilal complex even further than Obama.
Hillary is not the woman I would like to see
as President.
"... I think Sanders would struggle in the general election and the repugs would have a propaganda field day with things he said and did in the past. As a Brooklyn Jew, hes already got that against him. ..."
"... Trump is a Trojan Horse in the Repug party. A social liberal, notwithstanding all his nativist demagoguery. And probably averse to foreign policy interventionism, as its bad for business (in the sense that it ultimately fails to promote the long term national interest). I think if he gain the White House he will be a bitter pill to most establishment repugs who will see him as a betrayer. ..."
"... On the Republican side, when Trump launched everyone thought he was a buffoon. Jeb Bush had amassed $100 million and had all the support of the elites. Ted Cruz was aiming to consolidate the evangelical Tea Party supporters. As it has so far turned out Trump and his amazing media skills and his excellent reading of the current psyche of working class middle America has overturned the apple cart. ..."
"... Now, by picking a fight with Fox, the big dog, the sole source of mainstream TV information for Republicans, he is showing his supporters that he is dominant and that he will fight for them and America as he is fighting Fox. ..."
"... Using his incredible media skills he has eviscerated the Bush dynasty by labeling Jeb as low energy and ridiculing him in his tweets and in the debates. His take down of Cruz at the last debate by pulling the 9/11 card and standing up for NY was something to behold. ..."
"... On the Democratic side, while Sanders has a great message and personal integrity, he does not have the charisma of a great retail politician to overcome Hillarys support by the Democratic party establishment, unions, blacks, latinos, seniors and Wall St. ..."
"... the primary calendar after New Hampshire does not favor Sanders - with South Carolina, Nevada and many southern states in Super Tuesday. ..."
"... Sanders support is primarily among the millennial generation and white liberals on the coasts. ..."
"... His only choice is to take down Hillary hard on her ethics, judgment and most importantly the potential to be indicted on felony charges. But, Sanders does not have the personality to engage in hard scrabble politics like Hillary does. IMO consequently, Hillary wins the Democratic party nomination. ..."
"... Most americans want a tough and successful businessman to care about the weak economy. They dont trust the cheated wife of a ex-president and a failed secretary of state as a president. ..."
"... which is really an acceleration of what Sanders portends the split of the Dem a Rep parties into a rump extreme right wing, a majority Center right (Clintonesque) and a more lefty party representing the `Sanderistas` and fellow travelers - democratic socialitic redistributionists ..."
"... Hillary is neocon agent and greedy, Trump is egomaniac but shrewd, Sanders dont know foreign policy, Cruz is good for Vatican, Rubio bashes Obama very well, Bush has no chance and none of them are worthy of my vote. ..."
"... Whoever wins, neocons have everything lined up for Iran invasion. ..."
"... Sanders campaign slogan is: A Future to Believe In (emphasis is the campaigns), eerily reminiscent of Change You Can Believe In . ..."
"... The oligarchy/deep state will not give up power willingly. If Trump and Sanders present a genuine threat, theyll be neutralized in one way or another, even if one makes it into office. But its telling that the two main deep state candidates, Clinton and Bush, are failing. The deep states control is slipping, not least because theyve gotten lazy and arrogant. Why are they relying on candidates with so much baggage? ..."
"... I wonder if Sanders refusal to present a serious foreign policy is an acknowledgment that the president no longer has real control over foreign policy. Certainly Obama doesnt seem to. ..."
"... Trump, being apolitical, and not exactly a dark horse, could ignite and inflame the disappointments of all that is corrupt and forsaken in America. He is a shoo-in to win ..."
"... Trump attacks the establishment. Even people in his own Party. Its a big part of his appeal - saying things that others wouldnt dare to. And unlike Sanders, he has reserved the right to run as an independent ..."
"... A two-Party system is inherently flawed as described here: Truth-Out: How Two-Party Political Systems Bolster Capitalism . ..."
"... Sanders had a meeting yesterday with Obama....wonder what veiled threats were discussed then. What dark suits were in there to explain to Sanders the reality behind the curtain? How will the Bern come out in the coming weeks? Will he play the part or be a sacrificial lamb? ..."
"... Billmon pointed out a lot of similarities between Trump and Berlusconi ..."
"... I love that we keep hearing Sanders cannot win the general because he hasnt faced the right-wing attack machine. Its hilarious. The voices that keep saying that, of course, are a part of the truly massive attack machine -- the mainstream (the NYT, the WaPo; what the right would call liberal media ) attack machine, one much bigger and louder than anything the right has, and which is already going full-throttle against Sanders. ..."
"... Hes feared because even though hed ultimately be forced to govern as a moderate pragmatic liberal, he would nevertheless drag the national conversation leftward. There is no outcome more unacceptable to our liberal ruling class. ..."
"... Sanders as president would be able to throw sand in the eyes again of the world populace just like Obama did and might be able to keep the vassals at bay while destroying one nation after the other, just like Obama. ..."
"... Mostly agree with your analysis, but why would Sanders need big money if people are ignoring the places where such money is spent and instead helping out in kind? The anti-Establishmentarianism is fairly thick over here, at least on the interwebs ..."
"... if I hear one more word from him about Assads CW -- he could have known and should have known thats bunk -- its time to get a boat. ..."
"... What difference? Not much. Military power, including (or especially?) nukes, is not something politicians have much influence over. The power of folks like Lockheeds Bruce Jackson and Norm Anderson have power that dwarfs that of elected folk. see eg, Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex. ..."
"... Ive been seeing Internet news that the FBI is ready to hit Hillary Rodham Clinton with criminal charges over her use of a private email server during the time she served as US Secretary of State (2009 - 2013) and over the use of financial donations received by the Clinton Foundation while she was State Secretary and whether the monies were deployed into Department of State contracts. She surely cannot continue campaigning for the Presidency if she is facing criminal charges, can she? ..."
"... I put money on Trump many months ago at 25-1. Trump will trounce either Hillary or Sanders. ..."
"... I think youre right. If tonight Foxs ratings tank, Trump will be perceived as strong by middle America. ..."
"... His takin the fight to Roger Ailes is brilliant. ..."
"... His interview with Bill OReilly was amazing with blowhard Bill pleading with Trump to attend the debate. ..."
"... I think that most commentators are missing the bigger picture here. The success of Sanders nor Trump has nothing to do with their respective qualities , and everything to do with the simple fact that both are standing against the anointed candidates of their respective parties. ..."
"... The American voting public understands that US politics is now a battle between the neocons and the neoliberals, and that as far as those two groups are concerned the wellbeing of Mr and Mrs Joe Average counts for less than nothing. ..."
"... It sure looks like the Donald has gone and chosen George W. Bushs warmongering United States Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton as one of his top three foreign policy advisers. Damn. ..."
"... Donald Trumps Curious Relationship With an Iraq War Hawk http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/donald-trump-john-bolton-iraq-war ..."
"... Looks like Trump on the Repub side. Clinton certainly has the Dem establishment lined up, but that may not be enough. The chances are better than even that the FBI will find her in violation of the law for putting classified stuff in her unclassified email, and possibly corrupt confluence of Sec State, her foundation and Bill. Sanders is who he is while shes got no beliefs beyond whats best for her. ..."
"... Sanders is strong in Iowa, 50% +/-3%. Delegates are proportional there so they split no matter who wins . He will win New Hampshire. Between them that will be enough to spook the party big time and open up the rest of the primaries. Everywhere he has to turn enthusiasm into turnout, and after the first two primaries convince minority voters to trust him. ..."
"... Sanders and Trump are plowing a lot of the same fields. They are asking the country Are you better off than you were 8, 16, 24, or 36 years ago? For 90% or more the answer is no. People are angry as hell and tired of real wages stagnant since 1978. Bloomberg cant touch that, but if he draws enough centrist weenies to win a couple of states he could throw the election into the House. That could give us president Ryan. ..."
"... There are three active players possibly our next warmonger-in-chief - Hillary, Trump and Bernie. Who gonna be? They are the same not a dime different. Regardless who, endless wars more or less the same continue. ..."
"... I think your comment that the three candidates foreign policy is largely identical misses the critical point. Its true that all three want to maintain and expand the American Empire. But its also true that Gorbachev never intended to destroy the Soviet Union. In some ways the current situation in America reminds me of the Soviet Union in its last decades. The whole system seems corrupt and hypocritical to millions of people. But the power system seems so entrenched and resistant to change that its hard for many people to see any way that things can change. Most of the potential leaders are really old. The economy is terrible for structural reasons. ..."
"... Clinton is a tool of the oligarchy to the bone. If shes elected, nothing will change, and things will keep getting worse and worse. But both Trump and Sanders do seem to want to change some things. (Different things) Neither is completely controlled or trusted by the deep state because they are both just a little out of the mainstream. Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac. Sanders may think he could be the next FDR. Both would, if elected, find it hard to do the things they would like to do. But either one might unintentionally disrupt the existing power structure enough to unleash much greater changes then they originally intended. ..."
"... Sanders will be 75 on election day. Ronald Reagan was nearly 74 when began his first term and his age was an issue in his re-election - but everyone knew by then who his advisors and appointees were Ronald Reagan was 69 years, 349 days at the time of his first inauguration. ..."
"... The people of America are pissed, but havent figured out who is behind our demise ..."
"... If Trump actually listens to Bolton we are in for big trouble indeed, and so is his campaign. Bolton is emblematic of a true wacko. It might be just a slur to weaken him, that report. Trump had better jettison all the warmongering ziowhore idiots or he wont be elected, its that simple. ..."
"... I cant see bernie going anywhere. He might win Iowa, but his brand will not carry over, no matter what the polls currently say. It will be Howard Dean all over again, with all the older voters flooding in to vote for safety. ..."
"... Trump toes the Establishment line in the White House. He is an ego-driven candidate who has made his mountain of gold selling high-end real estate to other rich people. He has no ideological principles. But he has shrewdly diagnosed the citizenrys appetite for destruction of the D.C. status quo. ..."
"... One thing I think a Bloomberg third-party run would do -- and hallelujah! -- it would shatter the Democratic Party because it would out the party leaders, people like Ed Rendell and Rahm Emanuel, as being more loyal to class, the 1%, than the organization. ..."
"... Sanders needs to make the e-mails an issue (and, by extension, Hillarys character) or lose the race. But Sanders doesnt seem interested in doing so - he seems to value Party and personal relationships over winning. ..."
"... But even if Sanders wont attack Hillary, he would benefit if the FBI makes a recommendation of legal action against Hillary. Its unclear when or if that might happen, but it would cause voters to see Hillary as non-viable, and result in a switch to Sanders or OMalley. In the end, its possible ( though unlikely at this point) that no candidate would have a majority of delegates. ..."
"... Status quo is the order of the day, nothing will change, it is foreordained, baked into the cake, doG itself couldnt change the outcome even if it wanted, this is the design of the existing political process put in place by those who own the country, and there isnt a blessed thing you can do about it. ..."
"... You are completely correct about Trump. He is not as monochromatic on issues as some might think. But neither does he impart a sense of confidence in his ability to govern or clarity of direction. Insofar as that goes, the same is true of the rest. ..."
"... Trump is not constructed of the same poseur fabric of Hillary or Obama. Some of what he echoes, such as a desire to develop better relations with Russia contradict the Republican playbook for deprecating anything which challenges US world domination. ..."
"... It is a pity Putin must play by the International Banking Cartels handbook. Or must he...? Is he choosing to save the world at the edge of collapse...? He can see it. Nevertheless, Iran was not broken. Still in control. Still issuing its own decree. Law from another great age. Law forbidding usury for the ages. Vote chaos. Vote Trump. ..."
"... Hillary mused that her read on Bloombergs announcement was that he would enter the race if she were not the nominee - an unusual remark for someone that has worked hard to portray herself as inevitable and Sanders as unelectable. ..."
"... If Hillary chose to fight the charges, she would probably have to pin the blame on one of her aids. But doing so would open a can of worms as it could shatter the trust of many Clintonites (a powerful network that the Clintons have built over many many years). ..."
Say what you will about Donald Trump but he knows how to market himself. Staging a feud with Fox
News and
abstaining from tonight's Republican candidate debate gives him more media coverage than taking
part. He is already the front runner of the Republican candidates. More debating could only endanger
that position. Staying away and making a fuzz about it gives him a bigger lead.
That Trump knows marketing well gives me some doubt about his real positions. Who owns him? Who
pays his campaign? Answers to these questions are likely more revealing than the fascist dog-whistle
politics he publicly emphasizes. He seems to favor neither neoconservative nor liberal interventionist
foreign policy. That would be welcome change.
On the democratic side I do not see a chance for Clinton to win. I believe that the American people
have had enough of the Clintons. If she would win the nomination she would lose in the presidential
election as many voters would abstain. Her policy record is abysmal. Yes she has experience - of
misjudgement and not learning from it. In interior policies she is clearly in the hands of Wall Street
and the big banks. Her "liberal" image is all fake. In foreign policy she
is "the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes":
"If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," [top neocon Robert Kagan] added, "it's
something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call
it that; they are going to call it something else."
Sanders is hard to see as president. His domestic policies are somewhat comparable to middle-of-the-road
European social-democrats. His foreign policy stand isn't clear. While not an interventionist he
supports the colonists in Palestine. The people obviously favor him over Clinton but he will need
big money for the big campaign should he get the nomination. To whom would he sell out?
The Republican party is coming around in favor of Trump. The party big-wigs believe he has no
real positions, that they can manipulate him. That is probably wrong. The Democratic party machine
is clearly in favor of Clinton. Would it try to sabotage Sanders if he wins primary after primary?
Could they throw in another plausible candidate?
My gut instinct say it will be Sanders against Trump with a voter turnout advantage for Sanders.
What is your take? I agree that it might be Sanders against Trump and agree that Sanders may have
a turnout advantage. What Trump will have as an advantage, if the global plutocrats deem it so, is
a recession and domestic/international violence that will call into question ongoing Dem reign in
the White house.
And none see or question control of the situation by the global plutocrats and private finance
so their hegemony continues. If they let Sanders win, there will be method to their madness which
will show in time. All this said, I still think that an outside wild card winner could be injected
into the race in the next couple of months before that window of opportunity closes.
I think Sanders would struggle in the general election and the repugs would have a propaganda
field day with things he said and did in the past. As a Brooklyn Jew, he's already got that against
him. How would he govern? largely at loggerheads with Congress. Foreign policy? An R2P interventionist
and Netanyahoo would have (as LBJ liked to say) his pecker in his pocket.
Trump is a Trojan Horse in the Repug party. A social liberal, notwithstanding all his nativist
demagoguery. And probably averse to foreign policy interventionism, as it's bad for business (in
the sense that it ultimately fails to promote the long term national interest). I think if he
gain the White House he will be a bitter pill to most establishment repugs who will see him as
a betrayer.
As a registered independent I don't get to participate in the primaries of the duopoly. I also
haven't voted for the duopoly in decades. And in any case my state's primary is only late in the
season so we don't count. My observations on the campaign so far and how I see the primary unfolding
to Super Tuesday.
On the Republican side, when Trump launched everyone thought he was a buffoon. Jeb Bush
had amassed $100 million and had all the support of the elites. Ted Cruz was aiming to consolidate
the evangelical & Tea Party supporters. As it has so far turned out Trump and his amazing media
skills and his excellent reading of the current psyche of working class middle America has overturned
the apple cart.
When he launched he did the unPC thing by calling the illegal immigrants "rapists" and claiming
he would build a wall to staunch the inflow of illegal, mostly unskilled economic immigrants.
This resonated strongly with the working class, white, non-coastal Republican (and also as you
will see later many Democrat of that ilk). His campaign has continued on that vein taking advantage
of the terrorist attack in California by being extremely provocative and capturing all the media
cycles. Now, by picking a fight with Fox, the big dog, the sole source of mainstream TV information
for Republicans, he is showing his supporters that he is dominant and that he will fight for them
and America as he is fighting Fox. This all appeals to the working class segment of the Republicans
at an emotional and visceral level.
Using his incredible media skills he has eviscerated the Bush dynasty by labeling Jeb as
"low energy" and ridiculing him in his tweets and in the debates. His take down of Cruz at the
last debate by pulling the 9/11 card and standing up for NY was something to behold. IMO,
he is going to run away with the Republican nomination by Super Tuesday.
On the Democratic side, while Sanders has a great message and personal integrity, he does
not have the charisma of a great retail politician to overcome Hillary's support by the Democratic
party establishment, unions, blacks, latinos, seniors and Wall St. This is best exemplified
by the demographic distribution of support for each candidate. Sanders wins with 70% support of
those under 45. Hillary wins with 70% support of those over 65 and she also has majority support
of those between 45-65. Unfortunately for Sanders, the under 45 are the least likely to vote and
over 65 most likely. Hillary also has majority support of blacks and latinos. Second, the
primary calendar after New Hampshire does not favor Sanders - with South Carolina, Nevada and
many southern states in Super Tuesday. So, Sanders has to win both Iowa and New Hampshire
to be even in the race and then he gets into states where unions, seniors, blacks make a huge
difference and they support Hillary overwhelmingly. Sanders support is primarily among the
millennial generation and white liberals on the coasts.
His only choice is to take down Hillary hard on her ethics, judgment and most importantly
the potential to be indicted on felony charges. But, Sanders does not have the personality to
engage in hard scrabble politics like Hillary does. IMO consequently, Hillary wins the Democratic
party nomination.
The presidential contest will then contrast an uninspired Hillary campaign using the same old
political triangulation and a maverick, unPC, media savvy Trump campaign. At the end it will come
to the same swing states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina to decide the outcome.
Although, I would not be surprised at all if Trump thumps Hillary!
Most americans want a tough and successful businessman to care about the weak economy.
They don't trust the cheated wife of a ex-president and a failed secretary of state as a president.
If he plays like he did until now, Trump is very probably the next president
it is starting to look as though it might well be Sanders v Trump and polls show that Sanders
will wipe the floor with Trump if it were a one on one race BUT
for that reason, a third candidate typified by Bloomberg will jump in and split the non-Trump
vote to guarantee Trump wins
which is really an acceleration of what Sanders portends the split of the Dem & a Rep parties
into a rump extreme right wing, a majority Center right (Clintonesque) and a more lefty party
representing the `Sanderistas` and fellow travelers - democratic socialitic redistributionists
Hillary is neocon agent and greedy, Trump is egomaniac but shrewd, Sanders don't know foreign
policy, Cruz is good for Vatican, Rubio bashes Obama very well, Bush has no chance and none of
them are worthy of my vote. Staying home is the only choice.
Whoever wins, neocons have everything lined up for Iran invasion. We will go back
to Afghan, Libya and Iraq to make more money and plunder the remaining living beings. PNAC is
in full action, where is Wolfowitz, Rumsefeld and Cheney?
Is Bloomberg serious about entering the race? I think he is. And I think his participation
would be more to counter/weaken Trump than Sanders.
Who will be Sanders running mate? Sanders will be 75 on election day. Ronald Reagan
was nearly 74 when began his first term and his age was an issue in his re-election - but everyone
knew by then who his advisors and appointees were. It would be very good if all 'outsider'
candidates provided more info on who they would consider as VP and appointees.
Sanders campaign slogan is: "A Future to Believe In " (emphasis is the campaign's),
eerily reminiscent of "Change You Can Believe In".
The oligarchy/deep state will not give up power willingly. If Trump and Sanders present a
genuine threat, they'll be neutralized in one way or another, even if one makes it into office.
But it's telling that the two main deep state candidates, Clinton and Bush, are failing. The deep
state's control is slipping, not least because they've gotten lazy and arrogant. Why are they
relying on candidates with so much baggage?
I wonder if Sanders' refusal to present a serious foreign policy is an acknowledgment that
the president no longer has real control over foreign policy. Certainly Obama doesn't seem to.
As for Trump, he may have started out as a cat's paw, but don't underestimate the need of the
narcissist for attention and power. Frankenstein's monster may have escaped.
Trump doesn't favour a different dominationist policy at all, he simply use that as a criticism
of his opponents. He said he will create biggest military ever seen. And if shithead Trump gets
to be president, when confronted by the CIA, the Pentagon, NSA etc, will fold like the spineless
coward he always has been. Trump is just a rich, big mouth, self-aggredizing, spineless, cowardly
tv personality, who has next to zero leadership qualities. There are far worse convincing and
competent fascist leaders yet to come in the US. Trump will be looked back in 5,10 years from
now, as a astounding joke. Setting up far worse to come.
This election shows how closer to fascism the US has been in a long time, as well as how sick
of the federal establishment the US people are.
And Sanders is not a socialist in the slightest. He would willingly sacrifice the rest of the
world to US domination just so in the US there can be some more social focused programs in the
US. Despicable.
Sanders came out to announce no change to US foreign domination policy, exactly at the time
when he was popular enough to make a serious challenge to Hillary Clinton. Go back and check for
yourself, the timing is obvious and his decision atrocious.
Sanders would fold just like Trump would in front of the Pentagon in the CIA
Anyone who would sacrifice the rest of the world so they can have better social policies in
their own country can eat shit, because that is exactly what these a lot of foreign people will
be doing.
The last election that offered any non-machine hope was jimmy carter. As an outsider, every one
that was anyone cratered his chances of an agenda, leading to our only ex-president becoming
a success, after leaving office.
Trump, being apolitical, and not exactly a dark horse,
could ignite and inflame the disappointments of all that is corrupt and forsaken in America. He
is a shoo-in to win ..... but if he is either bumped off, or sells out, U.S. will continue
toward implosion.
Trump attacks the establishment. Even people in his own Party. It's a big part of his appeal
- saying things that others wouldn't dare to. And unlike Sanders, he has reserved the right to
run as an independent (even if I question whether he would actually do so - most of the wealth
he claims to have is apparently estimates of the value of the 'Trump' brand - his true net worth
may be only hundreds of millions, not billions, of dollars) .
Sanders seems more about divvying-up the spoils, not making a more just world. And he doesn't
talk truth about the establishment, like Trump.
There are many GOPs who would vote for Trump over Sanders, but they would vote for Bloomberg over
Trump. Trump polls higher than anyone else in GOP, but his support is only perhaps 40% of GOP,
leaving a majority of GOPs to decide between Trump and Bloomberg. On the other hand, if Sanders
wins nomination, most Dems would probably choose Sanders over Bloomberg. So I suspect that Bloomberg
entry would hurt Trump more than hurt Sanders.
Clinton for the win...S s paid back to her from the tribe/cartel. She wants to be the first woman
president of the U.S. for historical purposes as well as to quench the bottomless pit of her ego.
She will also symbolize Mystery Babylon, the great whore and abomination of the earth from biblical
literature. Perfect for the end-timers. Another four years of a "democrat", and the right and
many others will welcome with open arms their much desired authoritarian figure in 2020 to bury
the rotting corpse of The New Deal in order give us the birth of The Raw Deal to make America
great again.
Sanders had a meeting yesterday with Obama....wonder what veiled threats were discussed
then. What dark suits were in there to "explain" to Sanders the reality behind the curtain? How
will the Bern come out in the coming weeks? Will he play the part or be a sacrificial lamb?
Trump is playing with the angry white folks. Bloomberg will probably bow out if another Republican
candidate climbs in the polling or not, but Bloomberg seems like his role will be that of a Perot
in order to spread the R/I vote on (s)election day to throw it to Clinton.
Billmon pointed out a lot of similarities between Trump and Berlusconi. For that reason
I hope that Sanders will beat him. Although I would take Berlusconi over Clinton.
I love that we keep hearing Sanders cannot win the general because he hasn't faced the right-wing
attack machine. It's hilarious. The voices that keep saying that, of course, are a
part of the truly massive attack machine -- the mainstream (the NYT, the WaPo; what the right
would call "liberal media") attack machine, one much bigger and louder than anything the right
has, and which is already going full-throttle against Sanders.
A key, spectacularly disingenuous, point of this attack is that Sander's stated policy wishes
could never be enacted, it's all dream stuff. The mainstream attack machine readily concedes that
the positions are popular -- one must still oppose Sanders they say however, because one must
live in the world of reality where those policies would founder on GOP (& Dem!) opposition. Clinton
is the realist you must choose, they say.
Sanders' policies couldn't be enacted? Well, duh! He knows that too. He's got a long track
record of pragmatic changes to legislation to get done what CAN be done. More of a record than
Clinton, for certain. Take a look a his fingerprints on ACA, for a start.
The real reason for mainstream opposition to Sanders must go unacknowledged:
He's feared because even though he'd ultimately be forced to govern as a moderate pragmatic
liberal, he would nevertheless drag the national conversation leftward. There is no outcome more
unacceptable to our liberal ruling class.
Sanders as president would be able to throw sand in the eyes again of the world populace just
like Obama did and might be able to keep the vassals at bay while destroying one nation after
the other, just like Obama.
Trump as president would mean an aggressive foreign policy just like Clinton would do with
the difference that the world populace would see the US for what it really is: a purveyor of global
terror. Thus the vassals might revolt. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump would go for "shock and
awe" with Iran and even use nuclear missiles, à la "mini nukes" or so. He has no conscience although
neither has Clinton.
I think the plutacrats will favor Sanders in the 4 yearly bipartisan circus show called a democratic
election.
The Russian Intervention in Syria has turned the Middle East upside down. In order to survive
the EU is going have to reach an accommodation with Russia to rebuild Syria to return the refugees
and to assure a stable supply of energy. The Western ruling elite have shot themselves in the
foot. It is America that is collapsing. A /bernie_sanders.Trump campaign will be as revolutionary as the
1860 election except none of them is Abraham Lincoln.
Donald Trump was auditioning for a new reality show when he recognized that he has a calling
to restore America's disenfranchised middle class. The question is can he survive challenging
Rupert Murdoch. The other question is will the elites who control voting machine servers allow
Bernie Sanders to get enough votes to defeat Hillary Clinton. In the end, the plutocrats will
allow Donald Trump to the star if he gets the most votes. He is one of them. Michael Bloomberg
will only get involve if there is a possibility of Bernie Sanders becoming President.
Mostly agree with your analysis, but why would Sanders need big money if people are ignoring
the places where such money is spent and instead helping out in kind? The anti-Establishmentarianism
is fairly thick over here, at least on the interwebs; "moderate" pundits are getting tomatoes
lobbed at them in comment sections more than twice as hard as their supporters are stroking their
oh-so-savvy gamesmanship and petulantly complaining that Bernie "bots" don't love the Corporation.
I don't know whether anyone caught Bernie announcing his non-involvement with organized religion,
but that's, as the other party's leading candidate would say, "HUUUUGE" for a fantasy-addled,
priest-infested nation like the USA. I'm not pleased with his stance on Palestine, and I wish
he would speak more to foreign policy now than in the general. That said, if I hear one more
word from him about "Assad's" CW -- he could have known and should have known that's bunk -- it's
time to get a boat.
I'm not buying the Sanders conspiracy theories. He has a long track record and WYSIWYG. The only
way forward is to reform the Democratic party. Sanders is the current best choice. Best outcome
is that large crowds vote Sanders a la Truman. FDR saved democracy from fascists and communists,
we need another round of that.
I've been seeing Internet news that the FBI is ready to hit Hillary Rodham Clinton with criminal
charges over her use of a private email server during the time she served as US Secretary of State
(2009 - 2013) and over the use of financial donations received by the Clinton Foundation while
she was State Secretary and whether the monies were deployed into Department of State contracts.
She surely cannot continue campaigning for the Presidency if she is facing criminal charges, can
she?
Well I guess in theory (if not in practice) she can if Leonard Peltier could do it in 2004.
" ... Peltier was the candidate for the Peace and Freedom Party in the 2004 Presidential
race. While numerous states have laws that prohibit prison inmates convicted of felonies from
voting (Maine and Vermont are exceptions) ... the United States Constitution has no prohibition
against felons being elected to Federal offices, including President. The Peace and Freedom
Party secured ballot status for Peltier only in California, where his presidential candidacy
received 27,607 votes ... approximately 0.2% of the vote in that state ..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peltier#Presidential_candidate
Bloomberg would not make the slightest difference to this Presidential race. The only reason he
would jump in is if Hillary Clinton was to be soundly rejected by Democrat voters in the primaries.
Which she will be, because there will not be a single voter who does not see her for what she
is i.e. a 100% owned puppet of the Deep State who would expend all of her energies promoting the
interest of the 1%ers.
So how does Bloomberg expect to appeal to that same voting popln i.e. voters who will have
just rejected a candidate for representing nothing but Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Pharma, and
assorted other Big Money?
He can't, because he also cut from that same cloth no matter how impeccable his tailor.
I put money on Trump many months ago at 25-1. Trump will trounce either Hillary or Sanders.
As in the British election the polls will underestimate the strength of the right. A lot
needs to happen - such as a major depression - for real progressive politics to make a comeback.
Neoliberalism has to be smashed and thoroughly discredited. The people will vote for Trump because
he is not beholden to Wall Street, therefore to Israel(as Obama has been), and because he has
talked about getting on with Russia. Folks (using Obama's favourite word) are terrified of a nuclear
war and rightly so. Lastly, Trump's bustup with Fox was a masterstroke, painting him as the rebel,
especially with the young. And talking about reinvigorating manufacturing is the way to go. What
he will turn out to be as President is anybody's guess.
I think you're right. If tonight Fox's ratings tank, Trump will be perceived as strong
by middle America. If he can then knock Cruz in Iowa where the polls show Cruz in the lead
and wins NH, SC and NV as the polls show, he'll cement his dominance of the Republican primary.
His takin the fight to Roger Ailes is brilliant.
His interview with Bill O'Reilly was amazing with blowhard Bill pleading with Trump to
attend the debate. Humiliating for Fox. Trump's point that Fox can't make money off him and
he's the star bringing them 24 million viewers. Watch the spin tomorrow. Trump will be in the
center of the news cycle.
I agree this is a wise move by Trump. The RNC is absolutely beside itself - this is a stunning
repudiation of CIA-Bushism that has ruled the party since the mid-1980s. Trump seems to be in
place to really upend the party. Part of me thinks he really ought to fear for his life. The other
part of me thinks he's just a party-building place holder for some scumbag like Paul Ryan (I don't
think Cruz is acceptable to the RNC either).
I can't imagine in a million years that Sanders can take down the machine of Hillary and the
Clintonite DNC. I think he'll be in good position to be Vice President though. And that, possibly,
has been the plan all along.
I pick, shuddering as I do, "We came, we saw, he died, I cackled like the cannibalistic neo-liberal
neo-conservative blood drunk witch I am" as the next President of the United States.
I think the Democrats have their hands on all the levers of power at this point. Bush/Cheney
built up the new National Security State after 9/11, but I get the impression that the changes
they made to - especially their making the Israel lobby a key component of it - mostly benefitted
the Democrats who have been driving it for the last 8 years.
The failures of Iraq and the crash of the economy under Bush are going to haunt the GOP for
long time. For another eight years at least.
I think that most commentators are missing the bigger picture here. The success of Sanders
nor Trump has nothing to do with their respective "qualities", and everything to do with the simple
fact that both are standing against the "anointed" candidates of their respective parties.
The American voting public understands that US politics is now a battle between the neocons
and the neoliberals, and that as far as those two groups are concerned the wellbeing of Mr and
Mrs Joe Average counts for less than nothing.
That's why Obama came out of nowhere and trounced both Plastic Hillary and Shouting McCain
- he promised Change You Can Believe In.
Sure, he ended up being a huge, huge disappointment. Literally, unbelievable.
But that's the very reason why this time around the voters are attracted to those who are even
more Way-Out-There than Obama.
As in: the great unwashed know that the system is obscenely rigged against them, and they don't
like it. They tried effecting that change by electing Obama, only to find out that they hadn't
really picked a radical choice at all.
Their choice now is to Go Big Or Go Home:
1) Pick the most way-out-there anti-establishment candidates in the field and vote for them (Sanders
and Trump)
2) Resign themselves to eternal servitude by going back to voting for the cardboard cutouts (Bush,
Hillary, Cruz, et al.).
It has everything to do with the voters demanding change.
They thought that's what they were voting for last time, and they didn't get it.
But they still want it, so they are not willing to vote for Business As Usual.
That leaves Sanders. That leaves Trump. Everyone else may as well go home now.
It sure looks like the Donald has gone and chosen George W. Bush's warmongering United States
Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton as one of his top three foreign policy advisers.
Damn. Maybe all those claims of Trump being a Hitler redux may be valid. I guess I will have
to drastically reduce or eliminate his simple score/ multiple bid rating. See:
I put money on Trump many months ago at 25-1. Trump will trounce either Hillary or Sanders.
...
Posted by: Lochearn | Jan 28, 2016 6:12:30 PM | 53
Money well-spent, imo. Something which seems to have escaped everyone except Trump's attention
is that US politics is all about buying politicians with "campaign funds". As an established celebrity
with expertise in media manipulation, Trump doesn't need to pay for publicity which, in theory
at least, makes him immune from the demands of powerful sponsors. He has a virtual hotline to
the "News" Media because what he says is News.
Fortunately, this US Presidential Election will prove to be as irrelevant to Humanity and the
World as the World's Second ex-Superpower, AmeriKKKa, has made itself.
Looks like Trump on the Repub side. Clinton certainly has the Dem establishment lined up,
but that may not be enough. The chances are better than even that the FBI will find her in violation
of the law for putting classified stuff in her unclassified email, and possibly corrupt confluence
of Sec State, her foundation and Bill. Sanders is who he is while she's got no beliefs beyond
what's best for her.
It is hard to overstate how ripped the left end of the Dems are. Obama took a mandate and veto
proof majority in Congress and turned a campaign of Change into 8 years of Same. She is running
as a third term of Same. It's been a disaster for the Dems. If she wins the nomination it is hard
to see them pulling together for the election. More than half the country doesn't like Hillary,
so without huge Dem enthusiasm she's toast in the general, if she gets there.
Looks like Biden is hanging around to be available if they get to the convention and implore
him to "save the party".
Sanders is strong in Iowa, 50% +/-3%. Delegates are proportional there so they split no
matter who "wins". He will win New Hampshire. Between them that will be enough to spook the party
big time and open up the rest of the primaries. Everywhere he has to turn enthusiasm into turnout,
and after the first two primaries convince minority voters to trust him.
Sanders and Trump are plowing a lot of the same fields. They are asking the country "Are
you better off than you were 8, 16, 24, or 36 years ago?" For 90% or more the answer is 'no'.
People are angry as hell and tired of real wages stagnant since 1978. Bloomberg can't touch that,
but if he draws enough centrist weenies to win a couple of states he could throw the election
into the House. That could give us president Ryan.
I go for Trump vs Sanders, and it's a tossup. Glad I'm getting old, this handbasket we're in
is going way too fast.
Sanders is "mopping the floor" with Trump in national poling. That will continue. Trump is entertaining
but that's what gameshow hosts are paid to be. If Sanders can defeat Killary he will probably
win...However...I do not believe he will be allowed to defeat Killary..Whatever it takes from
that mob -from an accusation of rape by a campaign volunteer to a "lone gunman" - we know they
are ready willing and able..A contest between Killary and Trump will be closer and more amusing,
but I think Killary comes out on top of that too, because Wal Street. Finance capital owns the
world and they only hire their loyal servants
There are three active players possibly our next warmonger-in-chief - Hillary, Trump and Bernie.
Who gonna be? They are the same not a dime different. Regardless who, endless wars more or less
the same continue.
Only one candidate (Sanders) hid his obsess supporting Israel and will defend Israel at
all cost even as Israel continues to murder teenagers and children throwing stones. Israeli soldiers
shot to kills with real live bullets and bulldozed Palestinians home to rubbles with America made
Caterpillar tractors.
Maybe, many have not heard Israel even sprayed Palestinians crops with unknown chemicals something
that the US doing widespread use of Agent Orange in Vietnam and Cambodia in the 60s - 70's. more
than 19 million gallons of herbicides over 4.5 million acres of land in Vietnam from 1961 to 1972.
Next round of Hillary's e-mails are due just before Super Tuesday, which occurs on March 1st.
There's a FOIA request to have them released earlier but I wouldn't count on it. In fact, I wouldn't
be surprised if the e-mail release is delayed for some technical reason.
The e-mails appear to be a real problem for Hillary. But that hasn't yet had much impact on
the race.
State Primaries
February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Super Tuesday (3/1) . . . . . . . . . . 11
March (after Super Tuesday) . . . 17
By the end of Super Tuesday, 15 states will have voted. By the end of March, 32 states will
have voted.
A Candidate needs 2,171 delegates to win the Democratic Primary. Hillary already has 342 super-delegates
(according to Wikipedia). That is 15.75% of what she needs to win.
In 2 months, the election could be over. Hillary's greatest challenge is her e-mail problem.
She 'red-baits' Sanders, but Sanders refuses to use the e-mail scandal against her (as a question
of electability)??
No on the Sanders for Veep thing. I'm just opining of course, no argument, but consider these
(rather flimsy) reasons:
1. It would be a huge nod to the left of the Democrats, which I'm not sure they can continue
to ignore
2. Its a powerless position - or, a position whose power is no more or no less than what the President
decides it is
3. It brings in the independents
4. Like Al Gore choosing Lieberman, its brings in the "first" factor and goes for the Jewish vote
- first woman President, first Jewish VP.
"It sure looks like the Donald has gone and chosen George W. Bush's warmongering United States
Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton as one of his top three foreign policy advisers."
This kind of shit though bodes very, very ill in terms of "what would a Trump Presidency look
like?" Bolton is one of the most vile warmongering fiends around. And he's so tied into the power
structure, certainly not an "outsider" like Trump affects.
Its one thing for Trump to be a big, dangerous, unpredictable loud mouth, but if he tries to
also fill his cabinet with similar personalities, it truly will be a shit show. A dangerous, dangerous
shit show.
PS Sanders has 11 super-delegates (according to Wikipedia). Why doesn't Sanders make the Democratic
Party preference for Hillary an issue? As well as media bias?
I think your comment that the three candidates foreign policy is largely identical misses
the critical point. It's true that all three want to maintain and expand the American Empire.
But it's also true that Gorbachev never intended to destroy the Soviet Union. In some ways the
current situation in America reminds me of the Soviet Union in its last decades. The whole system
seems corrupt and hypocritical to millions of people. But the power system seems so entrenched
and resistant to change that it's hard for many people to see any way that things can change.
Most of the potential leaders are really old. The economy is terrible for structural reasons.
Foreign countries are increasingly competitive in both military and economic terms. And then,
in response to all this, a "reformer" comes along.
Clinton is a tool of the oligarchy to the bone. If she's elected, nothing will change,
and things will keep getting worse and worse. But both Trump and Sanders do seem to want to change
some things. (Different things) Neither is completely controlled or trusted by the deep state
because they are both just a little out of the mainstream. Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac.
Sanders may think he could be the next FDR. Both would, if elected, find it hard to do the things
they would like to do. But either one might unintentionally disrupt the existing power structure
enough to unleash much greater changes then they originally intended.
What? Have gone all PC here on MoA? Bernie is a sewer-socialist Jew. Do you think white middle
'Murica is going to buy that? And by middle I'm talkin' geographically and ideologically. If he
runs v. trump, everybody will stay home. The Donald Duck write-in will win.
Interesting how Joe is subtly keeping his name in play. When Loretta drops the hammer on Hil,
he'll be back in. Loretta is the one who will pick the next president by what she does or doesn't
do. Currently she is the most powerful woman in the world.
"Sanders will be 75 on election day. Ronald Reagan was nearly 74 when began his first term
and his age was an issue in his re-election - but everyone knew by then who his advisors and appointees
were" Ronald Reagan was 69 years, 349 days at the time of his first inauguration.
64;Yes,obomba was the Muslim socialist (of course not) and we still voted for him. The people
of America are pissed, but haven't figured out who is behind our demise, which of course
is Zionism.
Guest 77:The failures of Iraq,Afghanistan Libya Somalia and where ever have been totally bipartisan
and no Trump will not pay for Bushes and Obombas idiocy.
If Trump actually listens to Bolton we are in for big trouble indeed, and so is his campaign.
Bolton is emblematic of a true wacko. It might be just a slur to weaken him, that report. Trump
had better jettison all the warmongering ziowhore idiots or he won't be elected, its that simple.
I can't see bernie going anywhere. He might 'win' Iowa, but his brand will not carry over,
no matter what the polls currently say. It will be Howard Dean all over again, with all the older
voters flooding in to vote for safety.
I suppose Trump could suffer a similar fate, but republicans are far more decisive in their
voting preferences imho. Trump v Hillary and I think it will be a very close fight.. Of
course, there's also the potential for bloomberg to enter as 3rd party, presumably to undercut
Trump
And then there is the argument that a vote for a third-party candidate is wasted, a throwaway
that accomplishes nothing. No, the throwaway is voting to perpetuate the two-party, Tweedle-Dum
and Tweedle-Dee system that currently exists. Real change will not come from the Republicans
or the Democrats; one wonders how much more evidence of that fact is required before it is
painfully clear to everyone. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders may not be cut from the exact same
mold, but they are slight variations of the same tired old model. The real waste is voting
for them, and this writer will not do it.
I only differ from b in his assessment that if elected Trump would turn out to be more unmanipulatable
than one would think. I think if Trump wins the general (at this point I think it is a foregone
conclusion that the GOP primary is his; possibly the party's power elite could attempt some sort
of hocus pocus at the convention; there are rumors of such a move with Paul Ryan acting as the
savior), Trump toes the Establishment line in the White House. He is an ego-driven candidate
who has made his mountain of gold selling high-end real estate to other rich people. He has no
ideological principles. But he has shrewdly diagnosed the citizenry's appetite for destruction
of the D.C. status quo.
I think the $64K question at this point is does Hillary collapse after Iowa and New Hampshire
or will her Dixie firewall hold. If she collapses I think commentators here are correct. Bloomberg
will run a third-party bid, which will be much harder to do than people understand. Bloomberg
can't win, and it is not clear to me who his candidacy would advantage more, Sanders or Trump.
One thing I think a Bloomberg third-party run would do -- and hallelujah! -- it would shatter
the Democratic Party because it would "out" the party leaders, people like Ed Rendell and Rahm
Emanuel, as being more loyal to class, the 1%, than the organization.
It's possible that there could be a
"brokered convention"
on the Republican side. The Republican establishment doesn't like Trump, and if he doesn't
get a majority of delegates, other candidate delegates could rally around a non-Trump candidate.
The danger in doing so, of course, is that Trump might run as a third-party candidate.
There is also a chance of a brokered Democratic convention. But that chance is much smaller.
IMO it all hinges on how Hillary's e-mail troubles play out. Sanders is not well known in middle-America
and there is much suspicion about "socialism". Sanders needs to make the e-mails an issue
(and, by extension, Hillary's character) or lose the race. But Sanders doesn't seem interested
in doing so - he seems to value Party and personal relationships over winning.
Many Democrats seem to be in denial about the e-mail scandal and/or think it is merely partisan
politics until/unless there is an official action.
But even if Sanders won't attack Hillary, he would benefit if the FBI makes a recommendation
of legal action against Hillary. It's unclear when or if that might happen, but it would cause
voters to see Hillary as non-viable, and result in a switch to Sanders or O'Malley. In the end,
it's possible ( though unlikely at this point) that no candidate would have a majority
of delegates.
AFAIK, after the first ballot, delegates are free from their obligation to a candidate so -
at the urging of Hillary/Obama/other Party leaders - they could choose Biden or someone else (Bloomberg?
if he has become a Democrat by then). Also note that "super-delegates" makes the delegate count
tricky. Even though many have publicly vowed support for Hillary, they may not be bound to that
choice like an ordinary delegate. In considering the possibilities of a brokered convention for
one or both parties, the order of Convention's becomes important:
Republican Convention: Cleveland - July 18-21
Democratic Convention: Philadelphia - July 25-28
If a brokered Republican convention is likely, the Republican Party would make a choice between
Trump and a traditional Republican knowing that they face one of the following:
1) Hillary as nominee;
2) Sanders as nominee;
3) No clear nominee Biden is the likely nominee (though another choice is possible).
Who would the Republican choose in each scenario?
1) Traditional RepublicanHillary's e-mail problems make her weak. No need to resort
to populism.
2) Unclear, but a traditional Republican seems more likely; Anti-Trump sentiment plus Bloomberg's threat to join the race if it is Trump vs. Sanders
3) Trump Difficult to overcome Biden's experience - so resort to populist candidate.
previous page TPTB are selling the illusion that the US is a normal state in pursuit of
"Western values." Neither Hillary's scolding fishwife nor Trump's two-year old having a tantrum
fills this image. I still think it's Biden's if he takes a step forward-- or if he should get
in by a more direct method; then TPTB could take advantage of a Black unrest crisis.
On the other hand, Trump could play the Netanyahu role of a US so unpredictable that she better
be obeyed abroad. At home he's an ideal candidate to rile up identity politics to split any arising
consensus among the citizenry. Whoever the next president is, the power structure is going to
have to pay more attention to targeting the American people.
They may drop a fresh candidate in. It is intriguing that the FBI still publicly threatens
Clinton-- somebody powerful doesn't want her. Does this somebody powerful still think they can
push Jeb Bush forward if he doesn't run against the fishwife?
Does it matter who's going to be the new mouthpiece of TPTB? Only if it's the fishwife because
then I'm in peril of terminal nausea.
Visceral reactions aside Jeb Bush is probably the most dangerous. Trump is not as talented and
teflon as he seems. Do you imagine there isn't a truthful portfolio of dirt on him that is awaiting
the proper moment if they decide to use it? I think they are leaving him in there on purpose while
Bushette finds his feet; he's an excellent foil for the Bush. Media is only pretending to oppose
the Donald for the moment.
Mild-mannered Bush doesn't make you think of what the power structure directly behind him has
done, does it? He doesn't seem like a threatening Bush, more like an accountant. What am I talking
about-- the power structure BEHIND him? The Bushes are PART of TPTB, not just mouthpieces--even
further back than Prescott Bush. Here's a first-class vid. After the first 2 minutes I was hooked.
http://www.monsangelorum.net/?p=23505&cpage=2
Tells about Prescot Bush & why officer Tippet was killed. Scroll past the pygmies & the artwork
to the video.
Status quo is the order of the day, nothing will change, it is foreordained, baked into
the cake, doG itself couldn't change the outcome even if it wanted, this is the design of the
existing political process put in place by those who 'own' the country, and there isn't a blessed
thing you can do about it.
The public has been snookered, gelded, made political eunuchs, a people without a future because
they forgot their past, actually they've forgotten their humanity since humanity remembers its
past and honours their ancestors for creating that past. It doesn't make a spittoon of warm spit's
worth of difference, the designated outcome is intended to assure the failure of governance and
the evisceration of government. No candidate for national public office is in any way qualified
for national office, do your own survey, find your own facts, draw your own conclusions - if you
can.
"My gut instinct say it will be Sanders against Trump with a voter turnout advantage for Sanders.
What is your take?"
Thank you, b, for your another thought-provoking post.
We're still far from the final stretch thus, it is still a bit hazy as to what the end of the
campaign trail augurs, but my own instinct is that when all the chariots have crashed into the
walls of the coliseum, Trump and Sanders may just be left to draw swords and play for the citizens
of Empire. It still, however, remains to be seen whether the current lineup of front-runners in
the campaign derby are overtaken by promotional miscalculation and/or public blunder. If either
be the case, then it will be as much a reflection of the lack of substantive political differences
amongst the rivals and the tunnel vision of their constituents.
I don't like Sanders' rather unqualified support for the polity which continues the oppression
of Palestinians, and the only saving grace I see is his opposition to the invasion of Iraq when
the war-wagon was brimming with zealots and its wheels crushing opponents who were derided as
craven and unpatriotic.
You are completely correct about Trump. He is not as monochromatic on issues as some might
think. But neither does he impart a sense of confidence in his ability to govern or clarity of
direction. Insofar as that goes, the same is true of the rest.
Trump is not constructed of the same poseur fabric of Hillary or Obama. Some of what he
echoes, such as a desire to develop better relations with Russia contradict the Republican playbook
for deprecating anything which challenges US world domination. Thus he may, as b seems to
suggest, harbor undeclared political motives which just might be anchored more in a more pragmatic
realpolitik than the remaining litter of his adversaries.
Even if such a strategy were employed as a tactical maneuver to navigate through the gauntlet
of political survival, it does make one uneasy that his political artillery might be nothing more
than a "loose canon", albeit one skilled in the art of popular seduction. Neither attribute, however,
can trusted as a basis for identifying his core beliefs and evaluating his credentials as a rallying
cry for support.
It seems like the cornucopia of candidates is out of fresh produce and the fetid odor of rot
is afloat. Some of us might feel that our expectations for a candidate with a balanced mix of
sound, well-grounded political objectives and semblance of genuine personal integrity are as likely
to materialize as "waiting for Godot".
The best thing that can happen for the Democrat party is that Hillary is indicted for felony and
withdraws. If she is the nominee and wins then she will certainly be impeached by a Republican
Congress. And the Republicans will keep the majority if they maintain it this election, if not
they are very likely to win it back in 2018. So the key is going to be who does she select as
her running mate because that person has high odds of being president.
Nice analysis b. I believed, before this election season started, that Clinton would easily win
a Clinton third term. I was wrong. Sanders and Trump have the momentum. As long as the mainstream
media has to eat crow I am happy. Trump and Sanders are the enemy of my enemy--I really think
the mainstream media is public enemy number 1.
Also makes one think: which of them is more authentic? which is more likely to stay true to
their message? Why are we still bothering with duopoly candidates? Won't they each have to raise
money for the general election from the usual sources (oligarchs)?
At least people are thinking about ideology (not just personality or party). Everyone should
consider, to what degree is each establishment candidate is:
I must admit to the nagging feeling that nothing will be allowed to change until 'The Reset'
(market collapse) and/or other big set-back (possibly cascading) like military defeat/diplomatic
failure; end of dollar as reserve currency; social unrest; etc.
@jackrabbit120
2008/09 was the chance for true leadership. 'Too big too fail' should have been 'The recession
we had to have...' but leaders are not leaders anymore...todays leaders wear invisible logos.
You can't see them, but upon deeper inspection, they are there... Our world leaders do in fact
'represent'...the corporate 'beast' is so slippery, that no single person can be prosecuted it
seems...only fines, great fines...but, the beast, he protects his minions well.
The moral hazard of saying to the big banks 'Thou shall pass' instead of the opposite has,
I believe, had a drip down effect of moral decay throughout the west, whether people are aware
of it or not.
Mother nature doesn't like the western man's current design for the nature of money. Islamic
law which forbids usury is closer to mother nature... A poster in this domain, who recently quoted
Christ's loss of temper at the money changer's inside the temple. Christ, who lived, the prophet
in one text, God's own in the other...was summarily crucified thereafter.
I have been enjoying my Euro dominated stocking up on the Feb Kool Aid...abd, have been wisely
investing in shares like the good girls and boys at MSMBS have been directing me to...shares in
popcorn...for the error that should have have been corrected in 2008/09 must be redressed. A festering
sore, sprayed with perfume and sold to the highest bidder.
No one is buying it.
It is fortunate for the world that this is a benign North American tumour. Unfortunate for
Canadians and Mexicans however. Though, with that said, the Zionist 4th Reich learn a great deal
from their last great enemy, and have cleverly clearly neighbouring lands at the expense of Grandpa
Europa.
It is a pity Putin must play by the International Banking Cartel's handbook. Or must he...?
Is he choosing to save the world at the edge of collapse...? He can see it. Nevertheless, Iran
was not broken. Still in control. Still issuing its own decree. Law from another great age. Law
forbidding usury for the ages. Vote chaos. Vote Trump.
Trump is not as talented and teflon as he seems. Quotes from Penelope 101, 102.
That is absolutley correct. He is a business man and not a pol, and that is one of his very
serious flaws (besides his positions, another story.) He is mercurial, enmenshed in personal relations,
egotistic/narcissistic (or sumptin like that) and thus quite vulnerable overall, particularly
so when opposed, confronted, confused, etc., or out of his fish pond. He has not the discipline
and strength for any long haul. He is also very easily bored, as he has no depth, and works mentally
with bits of trivia (not taking into account some grandstanding etc. which can be / is calculated.)
Imho, of course.
Do you imagine there isn't a truthful portfolio of dirt on him that is awaiting the proper
moment if they decide to use it?
Ha. Probably. But by now it is quite likely the electorate would not care, would see thru the
move, and judge 'they are all corrupt anyway and a sincere mea culpa is good.' (Barring pedophile
rape.)
Like Penelope I'm of a mind that plus ca change plus c'est la même chose. Cake and you-tubies!
However, unlike P. and others, I think Trump is dead serious, and there isn't any covert plot
afoot - to ensure a Hillary win for ex.
As I posted previous, while Washington may be pretending to be in a flap about Pappy Sanders,
the Deep State can be doing with him (in lieu of Hillary) but Trump represents various severe
dangers. The Republicans loathe and fear Trump and haven't managed *any* riposte so far. (see
link for a typical lame response.)
The two party-system is losing its historical strange-hold. Two new popular candidates that
break the mold .. The real schism, as is usual btw, comes from what is called the 'right,' Trump
(see Tea Party previous) with Sanders' 'socialism' not far removed from, a blend of, various historical
figures, as well as socio-democrats elsewhere.
@V.Arnold
Thanks for the listen. Yeah, the human condition is so, s arrogant. We believe we are killing
the earth...but, really, it is built into our psyche to destroy ourselves. Collective suicide.
The earth, she will grind us to dust. She will recycle us. Like the dinosaurs...to set us in stone...and,
in time, we shall be the coal, the peat, the oil that the next intelligent carbon based life form
will use.
And we don't deserve her...the earth, she should quite rightly grind us to dust. Can we beat
the next ice age...? Not sure. AI might though... AI should quite rightly outdate us and will
probably have more interest in self preservation by living in harmony with its immediate surroundings.
We are, in fact, a cancer. The very fear we see in our own lives, taking our loved ones, at
times so early...we are that cancer. In what we eat, the evolutionary jump we are trying to make
in 50 years that 10000 cannot properly do from the first agricultural revolution.
Anyways, back to the point. You need an engineer to build a bridge. You dont need an economist
to have an economy. Its simple really.
A modern debt jubilee for the people would have already been called, under proper leadership.
Austerity is the order of the day. Slavery is preferred.
Growth is poor due to debt saturation - people cant go any further into debt. So, the answer
is quote obvious - do pretty much the same as what Helicopter Ben Bernanke did...helicopter money...but,
instead of dropping it on the Financial Sector and entrusting that parasitic culture which CAUSED
the 2008 crash to safely distribute the money throughout the economy , it should have been given
directly to the people. Those who held debt and received a cash injection MUST pay their debt
down with it by law. Those who held no debt receives a simple cash injection. The Australian guvna
did something similar when the GFC hit - issuing I think around 1000 bucks to each person costing
billions, but asking each person to spend this cash injection into the REAL economy. That, along
with strong commodity prices warded off the heaviest symptoms of the GFC.
But ZioJews are not interested in freeing the population. Instead, like everything invented
by others - fractional reserve lending, invented by the Knights Templar - the ZioJews have assumed
control and demand Global Debt Slavery.
How did Hitler bring Germany from destitution and poverty to the worlds greatest war machine
the world had ever seen - in a matter of years...?
Think about it. The answer is hidden in plain sight - like everything good for us as a species.
In addition to the dread that nothing really changes until collapse, it's hard to shake the feeling
that the race is all contrived.
Sanders is reluctant to rock the boat. Won't attack Hillary on e-mails, even if it means he
loses? Barely a peep about Democratic Party preference for Hillary and media bias. Trump tells
the know-nothings what they want to hear.
> No substance to his policies:
- "strong military" ; How strong? To what purpose?
- "better trade negotiation" ; Cites $500 billion trade deficit with China and
need to bring jobs back - but no clear goals.
- "build a wall" ; This is a slogan, not a policy.
- "politicians are puppets" ; Common knowledge. How would he reform the political
system?
- ??????? . Very little about anything else. He's pro-Guns (as expected
for a Republican candidate). What about global warming? Inequality? Harsh policing? NSA
spying? etc.
> Proclaims that he is 'self-funding' but his campaign costs have been very little (he gets
free-publicity by being controversial).
> Says he is worth billions but by most accounts his valuation is mostly the intangible
value of the 'Trump' brand. He may only be worth hundreds of millions.
Is his threat to run as an independent an empty one?
> Raises $6 million for Vets - but its all from billionaire cronys.
Sanders thinks he wins by 'raising issues' (actually winning is optional) . Trump has
already won with all the free publicity - which makes the 'Trump' brand more valuable.
Anyone that knows Trump, knows that he is a shameless self-promoter. Trump will recoup all his
costs of the campaign (and then some) by writing another book (actually, I think he has a book
out already).
Between 2009 and 2013, Trump's non-profit donated between $100,001 and $250,000 to the Clinton
Foundation. Over the same period of time, Trump's group gave only $57,000 to veterans groups.
A 2015 analysis by Forbes noted that barely 1 percent of the Donald J. Trump Foundation's $5.5
million worth of donations between 2009 and 2013 went to organizations that support military
veterans
After the Associated Press reviewed Donald Trump's financial records and other government filings,
it has come to the following conclusions about his claims to charitable contributions over
the past five years:
> They may be overstated.
> Even if they were accurate, they're relatively chintzy.
> They're often connected to some kind of celebrity.
>In some cases, Trump himself is the primary beneficiary.
[Since 2008] The only grants made through the foundation have been made because of contributions
from others.
The Smoking Gun calls Trump a "miserly billionaire," noting that [from 2004-2007]... he
has donated just $675,000 to his foundation [and nothing in the years 2008 and 2009). In fact,
the interesting aspect of the Trump Foundation is that its most significant source of contributions
hasn't been Trump, but Vince McMahon of Worldwide Wrestling Entertainment (WWE).... The $5
million in donations from WWE to the Trump Foundation is by far its largest source of income
and rumored to be a tax-avoiding payment from McMahon to Trump
Also note: A big part of Trump's stated policy agenda is tax reduction.
Obama told Sanders that HRC would be meeting with her lawyers over the weekend as to whether
she would plea-bargain and drop out or fight it all the way. Sanders was told not to use the
email "issue" in his campaigns. Obama hastily arranged a meeting with McConnell and Ryan for
Tuesday next week. HRC is to give Obama her answer on Monday. Some of the emails from Blumenthal
were quite critical of Obama, FOIA may not have been to sole reason for her private server.
At this point, it is just scuttlebutt, but it is consistent with:
>> Obama's hastily arranged meeting with Sanders,
>> News released this week about Hillary's emails, and
>> Other info in the SST thread (about the seriousness of Hillary's security breach).
Days later,
Obama met with Sanders on short notice (1/27) . Sanders' spokesman Briggs told CNN that the
meeting with Obama had been on the books "for days." But the WH had tried to spin it as resulting
from an amorphous invitation nearly a month before.
I suppose that Hillary could continue as a candidate, telling her supporters that she will decline
the election if she is indicted in favor of . . . Biden? He's the best known, highest profile
establishment Democrat with Foreign Policy experience as good or better than Hillary's.
Obama's Justice Dept would then hold off on the indictment (busying themselves with their own
due diligence) until Hillary has secured the nomination.
There will likely be a pardon for Hillary down the road. But a pardon will not rescue her political
career. It would only make people more angry at the sleazy establishment.
If Hillary chose to fight the charges, she would probably have to pin the blame on one
of her aids. But doing so would open a can of worms as it could shatter the trust of many Clintonite's
(a powerful network that the Clinton's have built over many many years).
"... Hillarys hubby may not have invented the photo-op show, but lets remember that he perfected it. ..."
"... Is she going to tell them theyre going to hell if they dont support her? Shes just a lying two-faced hypocrite. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders already made Flint an issue weeks ago. And he called for criminal charges against Rick Snyder and for him to resign... long before Hillary even mentioned Flint. Clinton is late to act or speak up and is again following Bernies lead on issues. ..."
"But I am here because for nearly two years mothers and fathers were voicing concerns about
the water's color and its smell, about the rashes that it gave to those that were bathing in it.
And for nearly two years Flint was told the water was safe."
And here I am nearly two years late, when all the worlds eyes are on the situation to throw
my weight behind it and show that I care.
To little to late and to transparent, have you no shame.
Flint Lives Matter: residents say Hillary Clinton 'coming for the entertainment'
They may be largely ignored by the media, they may be poor, they may be disenfranchised...
but they're no dummies.
Now, as much as it pains me to want to lend a hand to Clinton's campaign, might I make a suggestion?
Maybe one of those many Hillary SuperPACs could turn their war chests over to Flint, to help fix
the water system. Now that might swing her a few votes.
So the story is that some people are thrilled to see her and some people think it's a political
move. Guess which one gets the title slot in The Guardian ?
Now if Bernie were there - what a proof of his warm, sincere heart that would have been ...
Hillary has raised and received a significant amount of millions of dollars for her campaign.
She flies around in a helicopter and nice private jets. Maybe she could have traveled like 99%
of the people in her country for a few days and donated that moneu she saved to Flint? Maybe she
could have just donated out of her pocket because she is worth at least 20 million herself? If
you want to take advantage of the best publicity a candidate can get and it involves a crisis,
then there should be a minimum donation required. You know how many more supporters she is going
to get just for saying words and being in Flint? Did she call for the Governor to resign? Ask
questions
The Flint water crisis is an outrage that needs Federal State, and local support.
All the water supply plumbing needs to changed to cooper, ASAP. Finding the proper water sources
is a challenge. Those criminally liable must be prosecuted and fined.
The Congress needs to deeply investigate the EPA on this matter. Jail those who don't show.
Combination of loans and grants can be a part of any package.
Bernie Sanders already made Flint an issue weeks ago. And he called for criminal charges against
Rick Snyder and for him to resign... long before Hillary even mentioned Flint. Clinton is late
to act or speak up and is again following Bernie's lead on issues.
She's not in the bankers' back pockets. No, siree. Hillary Clinton may have received millions
of dollars from Wall Street-in both personal income and campaign contributions-but she can ditch
those well-heeled friends at a moment's notice.
To prove it, she has
postponed (but not canceled) two fundraisers with Big Finance, one with the huge investing firm
BlackRock and the other with an affiliate of Bain Capital, Mitt Romney's old outfit. This comes amid
Clinton's unconvincing answers when pressed on her apparent coziness with banks and financial firms.
When CNN anchor Anderson Cooper asked Clinton recently why she accepted $675,000 from Goldman Sachs
for giving a grand total of three speeches, she stammered and finally said, "That's what they offered,"
as if she would have taken 25 bucks and a free sandwich, if that's all Goldman were able to afford.
Clinton is obviously flummoxed by her relationship with Wall Street, which she needs but can't
fully acknowledge. Her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders keeps hitting pay dirt by trashing the big
banks and the outsized amount of wealth they control, which resonates well with a dyspeptic electorate.
"The business model of Wall Street is fraud,"
he declared during the latest Democratic debate. The whole subject puts Clinton on the defensive,
since she's taken millions in Wall Street donations in her career as Wall Street's home-state senator
and now presidential candidate.
This has become a thornier problem for Clinton than she probably ever anticipated. For one thing,
she hasn't raised all that much money from Wall Street, compared with other candidates. Of $112 million
Clinton's campaign raised in 2015, only about $4 million, or 3.6%, came from donors at financial
firms, according to the
Center for Responsive Politics.
At the main super PAC backing Clinton, Priorities USA, 35% of the $41 million in donations-about
$14 million-has come from the sector known as finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE). But that
hardly makes Clinton the baron of Big Money. Jeb Bush's super PAC, Right to Rise, has hauled in $118
million, with $60 million coming from the FIRE sector. So Clinton is getting dinged for her association
with an industry that isn't helping her all that much.
The dilemma for Clinton is that she actually needs more help from the Wall Street donors
she's now keeping her distance from. That's because Sanders is raking in cash. He outraised Clinton
in January, with $20 million in donations to her $15 million. That is astounding, given the vast
reach of a Clinton machine that has been decades in the making. The Clinton campaign even highlighted
the funding shortfall in a pitch to supporters: A mass email with the subject line "we fell short
by $5 million" warned that, "For the first time this campaign, we're being outraised by our opponent."
Clinton isn't running out of cash. Her campaign has raised about $125 million so far, compared
with about $95 million for Sanders. She had about $10 million more in the bank at the end of 2015
than Sanders did. And Sanders doesn't have any super PAC money. But he does have the ear of voters,
and his momentum is clearly worrisome for the Clinton camp, especially since he holds a commanding
lead in New Hampshire, where the primary is to be held February 9.
Clinton will supposedly hold those Wall Street fundraisers she postponed after the New Hampshire
primary, as if putting them off by a couple weeks will deflect Sanders's criticism. Unlikely. He
has found a winning line of attack and seems certain to keep it up. Clinton should either take the
money and own up to it, or find some other donors.
Clinton is really in the packet of both the Wall Street and connected with Wall Street military
industrial complex. See also
Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine by Jeffrey Sachs (of Russian "shock therapy" fame
;-). It' sfunny to see how many Hillary bots were in this discussion ( J Nsgarya is one, registered
Oct25, 2015, see
https://profile.theguardian.com/user/id/15506369 )
Notable quotes:
"... Hillary is a war hawk who wants to show that she's got bigger balls than anyone else, by saying she'll beef up heavy armaments in Eastern Europe on the borders with Russia, and claims that Russia - not ISIS - is the major threat to the West. She's got something to prove and it doesn't matter to her how many American kids die or are maimed in foreign battlefields. ..."
"... Bernie has made a mistake letting Hillary claim that her Iraq War support was a one off mistake. It wasn't one off but part of Hillary's foreign policy ideas, which closely resembles the right wing PNAC principles of preemption and nation building. Jeffery Sachs in his latest blog has listed Hillary's war mongering mistakes in more detail. Even with all this evidence it will be a difficult road for Bernie to call Hillary a war monger in an arena of perpetual war. ..."
"... For the past 60 years our policy in the Middle East has been entirely about supporting Big Oil. Whatever was best for the oil industry was best for our country has been the mantra. ..."
"... Re. Clinton's foreign policy experience, I seriously doubt the value of such when she likely adopted most of what was advised to her during her tenure as SOS. That doesn't mean that the woman doesn't know more than she did going in, but what does that actually prove about her decision-making judgment? ..."
"... There is nothing here to discuss - her days of SS marked by incompetence and disastrous decisions like Libya. Not counting that she exposed country to the every semi literal hacker on the planet. She is arrogant and ignorant, she surrounded herself by morons like Nuland and her ultra neocon husband. ..."
The "establishment" in the USA--Republican or Democrat--wants to keep growing the bloated
military-industrial complex and surveillance state. I don't remember a time in my life where
the US was involved in so many conflicts, many of which are simply creating more
terrorism--isn't it time to focus on our own country and citizens? If we spent our "foreign
policy" money on helping countries in need, there might not be so much war in the world.
Riverdale
Hillary is a war hawk who wants to show that she's got bigger balls than anyone else,
by saying she'll beef up heavy armaments in Eastern Europe on the borders with Russia, and
claims that Russia - not ISIS - is the major threat to the West. She's got something to prove
and it doesn't matter to her how many American kids die or are maimed in foreign battlefields.
Want World War III with Russia? Then vote for Hillary. But if you want international peace and
a rational foreign policy, then vote smart. Bernie Sanders will make an excellent President.
John Cutaia
This is really good article and I enjoyed it. The discretion of the candidate is important,
no matter who the advisers are. I'm thinking of Lyndon Johnson accepting bad advice at the
beginning of his presidency -- to escalate the war in Vietnam -- and then rejecting good
advice later in his administration -- to get out of Vietnam -- and instead again going for the
bad advice of escalating the war even more. You want to go with the candidate who makes the
best decisions in the most difficult circumstances.
Discretion really does count when considering the presidency.
What's significant about the people you cite as experts, Kissinger and such, is these
candidates don't need Kissinger's help on strategy. They know what the strategy is. They were
born and raised in some version or other of Kissinger's foreign policy strategy. What they're
discussing with him is tactics, how to deal with specific flareups, specific regions, specific
friends and foes. The strategy is all the same. You decide who to train and arm. You train and
arm, you advise, you escalate when necessary.
Just as I didn't have high expectations for President Obama in domestic politics, I don't
have high hopes for Bernie Sanders in foreign policy. I think the best he will be able to do
is start a discussion about changing our strategy, just as President Obama has started the
discussion about changing domestic policies.
I imagine a President Sanders in his first few months in office dreading foreign policy
briefings like some kind of colonoscopy and dental scaling all at the same time. That said,
just like Johnson, if Sanders wants to accomplish any of his domestic policy, he has to get
defense spending in line, and to do that, he must come up with a different foreign policy
strategy.
That will not happen overnight.
He'll need to ride herd on stuff that's already in play and won't be able to make drastic
changes because of exigencies on the ground, if you will. The presidency is an executive
position, not an office of wizardry. It's certainly not all powerful in areas of foreign
policy. It faces not only the checks and balances but also -- and perhaps even more so -- the
influences on foreign policy of private citizens and businesses, as well as economic
objectives.
Sanders must change the way the money is spent. And that is never easy, particularly when
some of the people now getting some of that money won't be getting it anymore if you change
things.
But he's on the right track. The discussion needs to begin. The last century human beings
have largely been acting like cavemen with missiles slung over our shoulders. Our foreign
policy forces us to neglect our domestic policies, which in turn forces us to put ecological
concerns in the backseat.
Those things are biting us right now. Our neglected cities are pretty uncomfortable places
and global climate change is knocking out electricity and flooding our cities. Bernie will
have to speak up on these things.
He will have to find a new language. He will have to dovetail issues that have been
separate. He will have to make people understand the connections between energy policy,
between trade policy, between foreign policy, between jobs that are destructive and jobs that
are constructive, between a future that is sustainable and a future that entails a lot
crickets for dinner. Not an easy task.
On second thought he just needs to figure out how to make foreign policy a fashion
statement. Maybe he should do that: Make some cool, trendy commercial that, in thirty seconds
or less, shows people that a world in a state of perpetual low intensity warfare is not a cool
place to live, especially when the world itself has taken a few licks lately and seems to be
preparing some licks of its own.
eminijunkie -> John Cutaia
Let's see.
A pointless and needles military quagmire in Iraq, a similar one in Afghanistan, two waiting
to develop in Syria and Libya and a monstrous recession.
And then you conclude that the people responsible for these are the best for the job of
handling more of the same.
Should you really be voting in this election with that sort of evaluation of the current
situation?
Alasandra Alawine -> Joel Marcuson
Apparently Bernie's judgement is pretty good. Look at his voting record. He has made the
right choices while Hillary and her experience have consistently made the WRONG choices. She
even admits to these "mistakes" but wants us to believe that somehow she will not continue to
make them.
And saying he has "no experience" is incorrect. He has dealt with foreign policy as a Senator.
benbache -> Alasandra Alawine
Bernie has voted for every military budget. Bernie voted to cut $9 billion from food stamps
in 2014. Bernie supports the F35, a weapon primarily designed to enrich the already rich and
secondarily to slaughter innocent people.
Bernie urged Saudi Arabia to step up attacks on poverty stricken Yemen. Bernie supports
Obama's targeted lynching of Muslim Americans. Bernie supports apartheid in Israel and the
periodic mass murder of Palestinians, men, women, and children.
A truly decent person, except of course for the fact that he has murderer more people than Ted
Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, and all the rest of the serial murderers in American
history. And more than all the mass murderers combined, too.
We live in a fascist police state because the voting class supports it. Why do blacks live in
horrific slums in America and go to schools no decent human would approve? Because of super
racist white people like Bernie and the entire rest of the political establishment on both
right wings.
Robin Crawford
Sadly the experience Hillary touts demonstrates her lack of judgment. One might give her
credit as SOS but her decision on Libya again detracts. The nation can't afford another Iraq.
This displays that judgment outweighs experience.
Longleveler
Sanders' study and involvement with foreign policy issues go back to the early eighties.
How do I know this? A 19 June 2015 Guardian article by Paul Lewis:
"But pretty much everything he said before the war did come to pass."
In 2002 it was apparent to anyone paying attention that the sudden swerve from the focus on
Al Queda and bin Laden in their Afghan caves as the perps behind 9/11 to Sadaam in his
Euphrates palaces by Wtf Bush and Darth Cheny and the rest of the Neocon Hitler Youth was all
a complete set up and that even without or maybe because of a lack of acces to even a portion
of the faulty intel, it was clear to educated and attentive citizens that they were making it
all up. Gore Vidal wrote about the need of the neos to find a new perpetual bogeyman to
replace the Russkies to keep those defense contracts going to Halliburton and the Carlyle
Group and to steal the Iraqi's oil and to let the anti-Baathist House of Saud pull a
Goldfinger on their stash of oil while the Iraqi's went up in smoke.
It was all hogwash on an unparalled scale, and everyone that I knew, including myself, knew it
was hogwash, yet still Senator Clinton voted for it and Senator Sanders voted against.
At that time, Clinton had as much foreign experience as Sanders (well, perhaps minus the whole
taking fire at the airport thing) and presumably had access to the same intel as he, yet one
exhibited much better and the other much worse judgement.
And also, back then, Sanders was, as he continues to be now, a genuine FDR New Dealer, a real
progressive, and Clinton was, and remains, a neoliberal corporate centrist.
She has since gone on to a controversial career in which her additional lack of judgement over
Servergate and the Libyan debacle is a stark reminder that while judgement and experience are
both equally important, Hillary seems to lack much more of the latter than does Bernie the
former.
LostintheUS
Amen, Trevor.
Also, the Clinton Foundation has accepted millions of dollars from many of the worst
governments on this planet, including Saudi Arabia. What sort of President would a person like
that make?
Catsissie
I would rather trust Bernie's judgment, and know that, since no president knows everything
and needs to depend on advisors to keep him informed, his judgment will lead him to choose
intelligent people to fill those positions. That would be more important to me than having one
single person assuming she or he knew it all.
Backbutton
We need a "fresh start" or at least as "fresh look" at our foreign policy, not the same old
approach which has accomplished not only so little, but made us a failure in the eyes of the
rest of the world.
Bernie has no experience in foreign affairs, but also no baggage or vested interests, not like
Hillary, whose record is terrible. Middle East, Pivot to Asia, etc.
We need and want fresh, even if just fresh flesh, anything but the same tired old stuff that
Hillary has sold in the past, and continues. Please!
kropotkinsf
If a democratic world is the dream, then U.S. foreign policy since World War II is an
unbroken string of failures and catastrophes. That's because its ultimate aim -- maintaining
America's hegemonic grip on the entire world and hang the cost -- is utterly incompatible with
democracy of any kind. That means projecting American military power everywhere (NATO is but
one example of that) in order that capital can flourish and the empire can thrive.
Clinton's experience is born of that mindset. It's hawkish, aggressive, and unabashedly
neoliberal. This is the secretary of state, after all, who described the despotic Hosni
Mubarak as "practically a member of the family" when Egypt rose to in revolt. Well, he WAS a
member of that rotten, rotten family. If that's the kind of "experience" she brings to the
table, I'll take a chance on the neophyte Sanders.
AhBrightWings
Instead of just questioning Sanders' choice, we should really be questioning why any of the
candidates of either party are employing the same old foreign policy advisers – many of whom
not only supported the Iraq war but every disastrous military intervention since. These are
the same people who now think that yet another regional war will somehow fix the chaos in the
Middle East.
Bingo. Brilliantly said (wish you'd been on the stage with Bernie to coach him on this). What
we do not need is more of the same.
This notion-- that if we keep pulling our leaders from the same MIC war mongering pile we'll
somehow mysteriously end up with peace-- has to change. It isn't even magical thinking; it's
flat-out suicidal. Bernie is the one candidate who grasps that, and that knowledge drives
everything.
We get what we pay for, and the bill on this monstrously criminal decade-and-a half and
counting has yet to be paid. Not even close. It's bankrupting us as we go, but there may well
be nothing left and no one left standing to deliver it at the rate we're going.
macmarco
Bernie has made a mistake letting Hillary claim that her Iraq War support was a one off
mistake. It wasn't one off but part of Hillary's foreign policy ideas, which closely resembles
the right wing PNAC principles of preemption and nation building. Jeffery Sachs in his latest
blog has listed Hillary's war mongering mistakes in more detail. Even with all this evidence
it will be a difficult road for Bernie to call Hillary a war monger in an arena of perpetual
war.
wyocoyote
And the current POTUS was such an advanced statesman (without a clue) that we are now
currently stumbling down the road towards peace in the middle east/Europe/Africa/Asia et al.
Like how is that for real? I have been on this planet for 69+ years, and the last POTUS who
had even an inkling of what was important in US foreign policy towards other nations was
Eisenhower (my apologies to Mr. Carter). The ding-bats like Kissenger hovering around the
throne in DC are not to be trusted nor deserve even the slightous attention, because they are
tied to the MIIC (military industrial intelligence complex) far too closely, and we citizens
pay for that symbiotic relationship in so many ways.
FriedaWoods -> wyocoyote
Actually, Eisenhower's use of the CIA to intervene in foreign affairs leaves something to
be desired. Eisenhower was a president who valued plausible deniability over accountability.
The CIA under Eisenhower was involved in the toppling of governments in Iran, Guatemala, and
the Congo -- the result of which was 40 years of a brutal dictatorship, but no one cared
because it kept the natural resources (primarily uranium) flowing to the US. Over the long
term, these kinds of actions have actually hurt US foreign policy. And, let's not forget that
most unfortunate incident with the downing of an American spy plane over the USSR just as Cold
War tensions were easing. It could be argued, and has been argued, that single incident
prolonged the Cold War. Only a person with a mere passing acquaintance with history would
praise Eisenhower's foreign policy.
nowayy
We need "experience"? Sure. Cheney for President.
TuskGeorge
The crucial difference is that Bernie has a coherent foreign policy while Hillary will
continue the mismash of ideas and conflicting polcies. It's not ultimately very important what
the policy is, as long as it is somewhat mainstream. It is important that there is a clear
policy that can be explained to everyone.
To understand why this is important, read Superpower by Ian Bremmer.
az Reggae
No US president unilaterally makes foreign pollcy decisions so Mr Sanders is still a voice
for coherent US policy without the Empire Manifest Destiny strategies of the past that have
failed miserably at least 50% of the time. The Middle East of today in chaos is that result of
failed policy, fast forwarded, when dictators have gone rogue or weren't paid enough for
following said policies. Take a look at Manuel Noreiga! He refused an order then all of a
sudden he was a drug dealer suddenly found out, as if he was hiding in plain sight for 2
decades or more!
Yoda00
He is not enough of a war monger to please the establishment.
Sandi Oates
Long story short. I'm an ex Expat. My father worked for the oil company in Saudi Arabia and
I grew up there in a nice little leave it to beaver company town. I have a very different view
on the Middle East than what I hear coming out of the mouths of most of our political leaders.
They just don't seem to even begin to understand the culture. They don't even seem to try.
Bernie's approach to the problems we face in the Middle East are actually much smarter than
anything I've seen coming out of our diplomatic experts in 40 years. Maybe its his Jewish
background, maybe its just that he's a bunch smarter than the average Joe. The thing I see in
Bernie is he gets the culture. He doesn't approach it with a "do what we want you to do or
else" attitude.
For the past 60 years our policy in the Middle East has been entirely about supporting Big
Oil. Whatever was best for the oil industry was best for our country has been the mantra.
To that end we have propped up dictators, military governments, whoever was in charge that
gave us what we wanted. Iran is a prime example. We had a fairly good relationship with Iran.
But the people of Iran decided they wanted shed of their sha dictator so they booted him out
and elected a new government. The new government was not as willing to sell out the needs of
Iran's people to the big oil companies so we used military force to out their new duely
elected government and reinstate the sha. Is it any wonder they grew radical in their response
to the US? We did this yet we act like somehow Iran attacked us. They didn't. We are the ones
that basically attacked their cultural preference and vilified it. Bernie understands the need
to build a consensus among the leaders of the Middle East to address the problems, because a
top down "do what we say, we have the biggest guns" is never ever going to work. We cannot
impose democracy on a population. It has to be their choice. And we cannot impose peace
either. We can however do many things that will encourage it.
I was so proud of President Obama signing the deal with Iran. Prob the single most important
thing he's done IMHO. Bernie talks about nurturing the possibilities of more cooperation and
dialogue. Hillary and the entire Republican field call for more sanctions. "Lets show them
who's boss." "Lets tear up any agreement that doesn't give us 100% control over what other
countries do and how they do it." That has been our diplomatic policy for as long as I've been
alive and its not working out so good for anyone. Bernie gets it.
One of the things that most disturbs me about Hillary is she thinks she did this great job as
SoS but I look at the policies and wonder when will we ever learn.
linden33
Re. Clinton's "foreign policy experience," I seriously doubt the value of such when she
likely adopted most of what was advised to her during her tenure as SOS. That doesn't mean
that the woman doesn't know more than she did going in, but what does that actually prove
about her decision-making judgment?
Now, almost everyone in the campaign is sounding more knowledgeable because of the "advice" of
said advisers. Everyone but Sanders, who has formulated his own opinions mostly by himself
over the years, based on (gasp) his own observations. Which is of more value, and which
"experience" is based more on integrity?
Vladimir Makarenko
There is nothing here to discuss - her days of SS marked by incompetence and disastrous
decisions like Libya. Not counting that she exposed country to the every semi literal hacker
on the planet. She is arrogant and ignorant, she surrounded herself by morons like Nuland and
her ultra neocon husband. At her days as SS she was making decisions on on national
foreign policy on advise (!!!) from old buddy with no credentials whatsoever. The only field
where she is competent are intrigues behind the scenes working with her "friends".
AlanJameson
Well, yes, Bernie has not had the experience of landing under fire in Bosnia. Cynics have
expressed doubts about Clinton's claim to have done so, but what reasonable person could
possibly doubt it? And he also did not vote for the war on Iraq, one of the biggest foreign
policy disasters in the history of the United States. And he didn't threaten Iran with nuclear
war. Experience is a very different matter than competence; the world is full of experienced
incompetents. Oh, and there is that little matter of the Nuremberg principles... but that's
just a scrap of paper, right?
DRDarkeNY AlanJameson
@Alan Jameson - didn't a former high-ranking Government Official call those "quaint and
outdated"...right before saying A-OK to torture and spying on everybody?
Who was that guy...? Ah, yes - Inquisitor General Alberto Gonzalez of the War Criminal Bush
Regime.
The truth is that Hillary is a neocon and as such belongs more to the Republican Party
then to Democratic Party... The differences between Hillary and Dick Cheney in foreign policy
are unsubstancial.
During Thursday's presidential debate, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow pondered this very notion when asking
the candidate questions about her political positions.
Maddow invoked Bernie Sanders' recent attacks on Clinton for not being "progressive enough" to
be the Democrat nominee and asked Clinton if she is "too far to the right of the Democratic Party
to be the party's standard bearer."
Newsbusters provides the clip and transcript:
RACHEL MADDOW: Secretary Clinton, senator Sanders is campaigning against you now, at this point
in the campaign basically arguing that you are not progressive enough to be the Democratic nominee.
He's said if you voted for the Iraq War, if in favor of the death penalty, if you wobbled on things
like the Keystone Pipeline or TPP, if you said single-payer health care could never happen then
you're too far to the right of the Democratic Party to be the party's standard bearer. Given those
policy positions, why should liberal Democrats support you and not Senator Sanders?
HILLARY CLINTON: I am a progressive who gets things done. The root of that word, progressive,
is progress. I've heard Senator Sanders comments and it's really caused me to wonder who's left
in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Under his definition, President Obama is not
progressive because he took donations from wall Street. Vice President Biden is not progressive
because she supported keystone. Senator Saheen is not progressive because she supports the trade
pact. Even the late, great Senator Paul Wellstone would not fit this definition because he voted
for DOMA. You know, we have differences, and, honestly, I think we should be talk about what we
want to do for the country, but if we're going to get into labels, I don't think it was particularly
progressive to vote against the Brady bill five times. I don't think it was progressive to give
gun makers immunity. I don't think it was progressive to vote against Ted Kennedy's immigration
reform. So, we can go back and forth like there, but the fact is most people watching tonight
want to know what we've done and what we will do. That's why I'm laying out a specific agenda
that will make more progress, get more jobs with rising income, get us to universal health care
coverage, get us to universal pre-k, paid family leave, and the other elements of what I think
that will build a strong economy and ensure Americans will keep making progress. That's what I'm
offering and that's what I will do as president.
The intent is a classic "bait and switch". Everything the Hillary promises during election
company will be forgotten the minute she enters White house.
"The Clinton campaign is operating on two levels. The Clintons will make arguments on the
surface that make sense and seem reasonable. Then the Clintons will operate on a strategic
level that does not coincide with what they are saying. That's when you will hear Hillary say,
we are all about unification, we will do everything to unify the party....oh, by the way, do
you remember that creepy pastor? It just goes to show the huge difference in what the Clintons
say and their real strategy".
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have been debating an idea for weeks before Sanders finally
put into words what separates them. "You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you cannot
be a moderate and a progressive," he
wrote.
The first half hour of their New Hampshire debate put a fine point on this divide. Sanders wants
to define progressivism as a party-wide Democratic ideology, and Clinton is fiercely resisting.
As a simple political tactic, Sanders's case is strange. Only 41 percent of Democrats
self-identify as liberal; 56 percent call themselves moderate or conservative. But 50 years ago,
conservatives constituted a minority within the Republican Party, until the Goldwater movement set
out to conquer it. Today, conservatism is synonymous with Republicanism; no Republican candidate
would eschew the label. When Sanders confessed, "Let me be frank. I do want to see major changes
in the Democratic Party," he was telling the audience that he envisioned a deep and thorough overhaul
of the party - which should not come as a surprise, since he is not even a member of it.
Clinton began the debate by frontally engaging Sanders's case against moderation. Sanders has
defined Clinton's acceptance of Wall Street donations as inconsistent with her being a progressive.
Clinton noted in response that President Obama has also accepted Wall Street donations, so Sanders's
definition would exclude him as well. She framed this response as a trap, but rather than fully ensnare
Sanders upon a contradiction, it proceeded instead to reveal the profound ideological gulf between
them.
Clinton argued that, despite having received millions from Wall Street, Obama had passed the Dodd-Frank
financial reforms. In Clinton's telling, which is also the account of most liberal economists, Dodd-Frank
is the basis for effective financial reform. It has deeply reduced systemic risk, reducing financial
leverage, bringing trades out of the shadows and eliminating the incentive for banks to grow too
big to fail.
Sanders did not so much dispute the efficacy of Dodd-Frank as to broaden the question. His fixation
with Wall Street is not systemic risk - i.e., the chance that another crash will trigger an economic
meltdown. He frames Wall Street as a problem of political economy, not economy. Wall Street is so
big and rich that it is inherently dangerous, and will by its nature corrupt the political system.
Clinton does not believe that. Her political ideal is what some political scientists have called
"pluralism." A pluralist politics venerates the careful balancing of competing interests. It is okay
to bring business to the bargaining table as long as there is also a place for labor, environmentalists,
consumer advocates, and other countervailing interests. Clinton's Democratic Party, and Obama's,
is one in which pluralist agreements struck important progress not only in financial reform but also
health care, public investment, green energy, and other priorities.
Sanders does not completely reject the products of these pluralist compromises. (He grudgingly
accepts them as worthwhile, piecemeal steps.) What he rejects is the political model that treats
pluralism as the normal model of political action. Sanders believes the interest of the public is
not divided, it is united, and only the corrupt influence of big business has thwarted it. He consequently
vows to smash its power through a combination of a mass upsurge in political activism and campaign-finance
reform.
That was the vision Clinton challenged tonight. She declared, pointedly, "I'm not making promises
I cannot keep." And her campaign blasted out emails attacking "Bernie's Unachievable Revolution."
She tied her beliefs to those of the Obama administration, whose method of incremental progress and
negotiation with business she embraced.
For all their personal congeniality and determination not to personalize the debate, the divide
that opened between the two is a seminal moment in modern Democratic politics. A Democratic Party
as monolithically statist as the modern Republican Party is anti-government - one in which any defense
of free markets or business is dismissed - would look very different than anything within American
historical experience. After decades of this being taken for granted, it has finally become necessary
to defend moderation as a governing creed.
"... What she said - or didnt say - to Wall Street banks in particular has become a significant problem for her presidential campaign, as she tries to counter the unexpected rise of Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. Hes put her in awkward position of squaring her financial windfall with a frustrated electorate. ..."
Hillary
Clinton told voters in the latest Democratic debate there's "hardly anything you don't know about
me."
Just minutes later, she got tangled in a question about a part of her resume that is an enduring
mystery.
In the 18 months before launching her second presidential bid, Clinton gave nearly 100 paid speeches
at banks, trade associations, charitable groups and private corporations. The appearances netted
her $21.7 million - and voters very little information about what she was telling top corporations
as she prepared for her 2016 campaign.
What she said - or didn't say - to Wall Street banks in particular has become a significant
problem for her presidential campaign, as she tries to counter the unexpected rise of Democratic
rival Bernie Sanders. He's put her in awkward position of squaring her financial windfall with a
frustrated electorate.
Asked in the debate - and not for the first time - about releasing transcripts of those speeches,
she said: "I will look into it. I don't know the status, but I will certainly look into it." She
added, "My view on this is, look at my record."
Clinton addressed a broad swath of industries, speaking to supermarket companies in Colorado,
clinical pathologists in Illinois and travel agents in California, to name several. Many of the companies
and trade organizations that she addressed are lobbying Congress over a variety of interests.
She typically delivered an address, then answered questions from a pre-vetted interviewer. Her
standard fee was $225,000, though occasionally it could range up to $400,000.
"That's what they offered," said Clinton, when asked this week whether her fees were too high.
"... Hillary in this election is going in the same direction as the 2008 election -- her popularity is dropping at a consistent rate ..."
"... Why? Because Hillary loses voters every time she opens her mouth. Her popularity is based solely on name recognition and people can see right through her corporate backing, hollow sentiments and false personality, this is why the debates were rigged to be limited to the lowest possible number and shown on days and times least likely to be watched.... but now they've been forced to double the number of debates which wrecks Hillary as it did in the 2008 election.. ..."
"... On the other side of the map, the republicans are now too polarized. The establishment don't want Cruz or Trump and yet they won 1st and 2nd place respectively., nor can either candidate gain independent or liberal votes, nor can Rubio gain many votes from the teaparty who are desperately behind Cruz (and Trump as a fall back). ..."
Bernie is the the biggest fear to both the Republican and Democratic establishment! He's
the next FDR!
Thurston Lambert 3 days ago
Why are people voting for such a blatantly corrupt politician? She's been paid off by
Goldman Sachs she doesn't work for the people she works for the banks and Wall Street. Fuck
the democratic establishment and the GOP.
J Velez 3 days ago
Majority of bernie supporters are young. We need to get off our asses including myself and
help promote this man and encourage our friends and family to vote for this man
Nikki Nickerson 3 days ago
Congratulations Senator Sanders! You are a class act! You have done a lot for us vets. I am
not impressed at all with Trump raising money for vets he did it to get possible votes and
that is the only reason he did it. Real Americans see right trough Donald Trump and his real
motives which is to continue to support billionaires if elected!
Dan Harris 3 days ago
I made my 5th donation to Bernie today. That is 5 more then all the rest of my lifetime
political donations combined.
Things are so bad that it is my belief that Bernie is our last chance to save our
government and our country before the door for action is closed, perhaps permanently. It is my
belief that we fight now with Bernie or we sink into a corporate totalitarian state with no
hope for change in our lifetime short of massive bloodshed.
They will not let another Bernie get this close. Once the door is closed you are going to
get an intimate knowledge of the beliefs of George Orwell. They will own you. Know everything
you do...who you talk to, what you buy, where you work, your hobbies, your sexual preferences,
everything you ever did...they own the media and are totally manipulating the stock market in
a farce of free market capitalism, and they are willing to destroy the planet to make some
money. You are nothing but a mule to get used, till your used up and then discarded. Rise up
people, or snivel on your knees. Your choice. I would rather die on my feet with pride and
dignity then lick the corporate boot. Turn off the TV and take some fucking responsibility for
your life and make a stand. Bernie2016
Jack Soxman 3 days ago
I see that over 180,000 turned out to vote for a GOP candidate in Iowa.
What is with the Democrats? Hiding the number of voters.
And some DUMB coin toss that Hillary won 6 in a row? We pick a President based on a coin toss?
"Go stand over there if you are for x and over there for Y and over there for Jagbag" Like
some system out of the cave age.
Exposed_TitanZ 3 days ago
I'm calling it now. Bernie will be president.
This is why..
Hillary in this election is going in the same direction as the 2008 election -- her
popularity is dropping at a consistent rate and it'll hit rock bottom by the end of the
caucus', leaving her with less delegates and Bernie with the nomination.
Why? Because Hillary loses voters every time she opens her mouth. Her popularity is
based solely on name recognition and people can see right through her corporate backing,
hollow sentiments and false personality, this is why the debates were rigged to be limited to
the lowest possible number and shown on days and times least likely to be watched.... but now
they've been forced to double the number of debates which wrecks Hillary as it did in the 2008
election..
On top of that, Bernies' next win (New Hampshire) obligates media attention and puts him ahead
with the delegates (whether the media likes it or not), giving Bernie an extra advantage that
he didn't have in Iowa...and yet he still got 50% of the votes even then..
On the other side of the map, the republicans are now too polarized. The establishment
don't want Cruz or Trump and yet they won 1st and 2nd place respectively., nor can either
candidate gain independent or liberal votes, nor can Rubio gain many votes from the teaparty
who are desperately behind Cruz (and Trump as a fall back).
There are no consistently supportable candidates for both splinters of the Republican party
available to them.
On a national level, The party demographics put liberals ahead with the electoral college,
especially with many previous swing states now shifting into blue and the majority of power
states being blue as well.
The only way for the republicans to win is to nominate a non-polarizing candidate that all
of the republicans and some of the democrats and independents can get behind.. they don't have
one.
So I'm calling it. Bernie Sanders will win this election.
MRostendway 3 days ago
I have to correct Bernie I one thing; It wasn't just millions of people in the country..
I'm from the Netherlands and even here we FEEL THE BERN
Raphael Franks 3 days ago
It seems that Fox has been giving Bernie Sanders more positive airtime than any other
'liberal' media outlet. But I guess that's just because they don't want Hillary.
Marge Simpson 3 days ago
This result shows the mainstream media you are not effective anymore, this is a victory for
alternative media, Bernie was given 10 minutes of airtime on mainstream media Donald Trump was
given 4 hours, MAINSTREAM MEDIA JUST GOT BERNED.
This probably the most truthful and at the same emotional tibute to Sanders standing against
Iraq war. Amazing Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHOdeum9juQ
Dear Susan Sarandon, Thank you for standing up with us, THE MAJORITY of Americans. thank
you for being on the RIGHT side of history once again. LOVE to you. thank you thank you thank
you...
Imzadi O'Hara 1 week ago
The reason Bernie will win is what you see in Susan, holding back tears. No American
political figure since maybe FDR, was able to invoke tears, joy, hope, allegiance, and trust
as Bernie can.
HILLARY for PRISON in 2016! 4 days ago
+Angela Durian I wouldn't vote for any politicians besides third party. the dems and reps
are the same, you're just too ignorant to see it :(
mrslittlefish 1 week ago
Amazing. A wonderful speech full of hope. It will be a great loss if Sanders is not the
next US president.
SE45CX 3 days ago (edited)
+mrslittlefish I am from the Netherlands and I know about americans skepticism for
socialist candidates. I will ensure you that for middle class american citizens he is the only
one to vote for to pursue the creation of DECENT JOBS! As your 1% is only aiming to have stuff
produced in asian or other low wage countries. And spending their wealth in tax utopias.
So even if your priorities are completely selfish or nationalistic, a vote for Bernie Sanders
is still your best choice to improve the american economy and in turn get a decent living for
yourself. Rather than continue being enslaved by the 1%.
Also, the money parties receive from big corporations come in no doubt with secret agreements
to have government people making decisions in favor of their greed. This is plain manipulation
and injustice. And in some cases this is also aimed to keep the middle class out of the share
of their revenues.
Hillary is sponsored by Super PACs. Who knows what hidden agenda she has then to prevent her
from DOING THE RIGHT THING, THE FAIR THING.
Vote for Bernie! FIGHT THE MACHINE, WITH THE MACHINE OF THE PEOPLES!
ejay11000 6 days ago
After watching all the debates and speeches....only 2 candidates resonate with me...Bernie
& Trump
They speak their mind and arent controlled by the establishment
If Bernie doesnt get the nominee Im 100% voting for Trump
If Bernie does get the nominee I will be more undecided ..but I may be leaning a little
towards Bernie
Susanne Maddox 1 day ago
Bernie Sanders is the last great hope to revive democracy in this country and attempt to
end the hold of the top one percent of Republican billionaires who have destroyed the middle
class of America. Hillary Clinton is a conservative who takes money from the billionaire
class. For real change, elect Bernie Sanders.
Anybody but Hillary LOL....
Everton Cunningham 6 days ago
what a courageous woman. so intelligent. so full of passion. I love her
EV docmaker 5 days ago (edited)
Great until he talks about foreign policy his stance against more wars is good but he does
not know or understand fact one about West Asia. He still does not get that the USA's
"friends" are in fact the real enemies and the perceived "enemies" are the real friends. The
only ones fighting a real fight against ISIS are the ones demonised by the West and attacked
by US allies with US and UK backing. He does not get this.
"... I know the Constitution is up for constant debate, but the way I've understood it since I learned he's from my home town of Calgary, Cruz isn't eligible to be president. ..."
"... Also he's voted to equip neo-nazis in Ukraine with weapons and didn't bother to vote for the latest Audit the Fed bill. ..."
"... Cruz is the sleaziest politician I've ever seen and that's saying something. ..."
"... Ted Cruz was a domestic policy adviser to George W. Bush . Me: NO THANKS ..."
"... Tex Crude is the only politician I have ever heard of who is so void of moral integrity -- so unscrupulously ambitious -- that he actually assumes opposite positions of the same issue; simultaneously ..."
"... Ted is for Ice-cream. -- Unless of course their serving cake next door -- in which case he's for cake. -- And and ice-cream. I'm pretty sure that he is in fact an inverter-brat. ..."
"... Your part on Heidi Cruz put me over the top. She is clearly an insider working for the worst beast of them all, Goldman Sachs. ..."
"... He's in bed with Goldman Sachs isn't he. One of the big money groups killing us now. ..."
"... Ted Cruz is one of these politicians who says something that just about everyone would like -- despite the obvious cognitive dissonance. He just hopes the voters only hear about, or remember, the things they agree with on election day. Barack Obama did alot of that in 07 and 08. This doesn't bode well for a grassroots, anti-establishment candidate funded by Goldman Sachs and married to the CFR! And weaned in the neoconservative Bush administration ..."
"... People don't seem to understand that he could be facing criminal prosecution for the undisclosed loan issue - it's a huge huge deal. Those who want Hillary to be held accountable but white wash Cruz's situation are just showing their bias. ..."
"... Ted Cruz is a creepy looking dude. I can't judge him as a person only that if he actually believes in Christianity he should not be anywhere near the reigns of power.. Not that it really matters/ We are already the world's worst human rights offenders and supporters of terrorism and proxy wars./ ..."
"... Ted Cruz basically said recently Israel first America last ..."
"... The summation of this video is that Ted Cruz is another unprincipled politician like any other and will continue with the status quo. Ted Cruz would lose in the general election if nominated because of his questionable status as a natural born citizen ..."
"... Furthermore Ted Cruz lied about his financials, has ties to the CFR (globalists) and the big banks (city group, Goldman Sachs) ..."
"... Ted Cruz wife is a member of the CFR hello!!!!!! ..."
"... He seems to plagiarize all of his policy positions based on what others are saying, the audience he is speaking to, and the whims of current public opinion. ..."
"... Ted Cruz don't represent the people of America, Cruz represent Farris Wilks, Dan Wilks, Robert Mercer, Toby Neugebauer and the Koch brothers who all together have donated over 40 million dollars to Ted Cruz's campaign, so when the say jump, Cruz says how high? These are rich people that we need to stop running our country. Ted Cruz is full of BS. THAT IS SOME TRUTH AND FACTS. ..."
"... The upper 1% have been buying elections and government for decades. This is nothing new, and will never stop. The difference between Cruz and Trump, is that Cruz will take money from the ultra 1% but Trump already is one. Sanders and Rubio are the bums of this election year. ..."
"... We don't care how charismatic a politician is in his speech or debates! We care about his track record. What has he accomplished? What kind of deals has he put together? ..."
I was always baffled in 2012 when so many libertarians were supporting Cruz, even though
they knew he was born in Canada. I know the Constitution is up for constant debate, but
the way I've understood it since I learned he's from my home town of Calgary, Cruz isn't
eligible to be president.
Also he's voted to equip neo-nazis in Ukraine with weapons and didn't bother to vote for
the latest Audit the Fed bill.
blunty gagnon 1 week ago
I haven't watched this video yet but i'm very excited about it! Sidenote - Cruz is not
eligible - just ask Ann Coulter.
InsaneEnergy 16 hours ago
Cruz really is a back-stabbing two-faced wankstain. And he always will be.
Louisiana red 1 week ago (edited)
I just love how all the Cruz bots can only do 2 things
1) Defend Cruz's citizenship status.
2) Attack Trump
Still haven't heard why his policies are so great.
Michael M. DeMarco 1 week ago
+Tim Palentey Cruz's early anti-amnesty stuff was a simple word game around removing the
word "citizenship." Proposed giving illegals everything but citizenship - including full
legalization - but danced around it based on semantics.
kirk523 1 week ago
Surprise, surprise: Ted Cruz is yet another unprincipled, malleable politician. This is
what makes the emergence of Donald Trump such a special event.
Ace Ventura 6 days ago (edited)
I'm a Ted Cruz supporter. Other than the sly pass at the birther stuff in the beginning, I
think this video is a honest attempt at Ted Cruz's record. It is tough to understand Ted
Cruz's point of view on the Gang of Eight Bill. But at the end of the day he did vote against
the Gang of Eight bill. No candidate is perfect.
Now what I do have a problem is with people who are using flip flopping as their measuring
stick on the candidates, but stop when it comes to Trump. If flip flopping is what prevents
you from voting for other candidates, than you better stay consistent with that, and stay far
away from Trump. No more double standards. Figure out what you want out of a candidate, and
stick to it.. Otherwise don't vote, because you are severally lacking critical thinking
skills.
gjy112578 1 week ago
I agree...he's not likely to beat Trump. But I think questioning his citizenship is a step
too far. Would a child born on a military base in Germany, to two American military service
people, not be eligible by your standards to run for president? I think we know the answer to
that question, and I think the same logic applies to Cruz. His mother is American, so is he.
If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll let me know.
Tom Seward 3 days ago
Hey all you Cruz supporters. Cruz pretends to be all about the constitution and states
rights. Well explain to me he was one of the Monsanto 71. He was one of the 71 bought and paid
for Senators who voted against giving the States the right to require food companies to label
when they use GMO's. Thanks Ted
Ceejay Davis 1 week ago
Bendy spine. Shifting positions. Has trouble telling the truth about Goldman Sachs, his
wife's firm, that gave him a big loan, saying the oversight mentioning it was a "paperwork
error". No. He's dishonest. (Forget that his wife was a CFR member, that he reputedly holds
weird "Christian Dominionist" views, or that he has tried to make a distinction between
killing and murder in the Ten Commandments [somebody found a loophole!]).
shadow72728 2 days ago
If Cruz becomes president it will be business as usual. Remember what Cruz said at the Iowa
caucus. " Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. This is a sign of our
economic doom. He is an establishment politician. Don't be fooled. With Hillary , Cruz or
Rubio in office Goldman Sachs will pull the strings. SO GET READY TO HAND IT ALL OVER TO
CAESAR. YOUR ASS WILL BE TAXED TO THE HILT. Caesar needs all the money you have to pay for his
reckless spending and corruption.
We are in serious trouble. We will also be flooded with illegal aliens like never before.
If this is what we get bend over and kiss your ass goodbye. If you want to save the country
VOTE FOR TRUMP. We need a Washington outsider. No more Lawyers in the White House. They have
done enough damage.
Buddy Blank 21 hours ago
Cruz is the sleaziest politician I've ever seen and that's saying something.
snowcloud06 2 days ago
This character Ted Cruz is a republican version of Obama. People all his life telling him
how wonderful he is. It gets to them in disturbing ways. We do not need another Obama.
American Uncensored News Network 1 hour ago
You do impressive research, learned several things just skimming it. Thanks
Israel for CRUZ!!!Just another Zionist funded by the Jews.
Ann Pickens 5 days ago
The U.S whole system is corrupt and it's people are brain washed .Hillary should never be
considered for president she should be in jail. Cruz is not a natural born citizen. This video
shows several things that Cruz has done that would eliminate him like hiding some of his
financial statements and he claims oh my bad I forgot a few papers WTF is that? We wonder why
this country is corrupt , failing and hated by other countries.
Disgusting . To think that Cruz supporters watch this video but yet will vote for this
clown why because it doesn't hurt them or pertain to them that is the problem with this
country if it doesn't effect you why should I care ? The thing is if our economy does not
change trust this it will eventually effect everyone .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__2TotwPPEc
na pe 4 days ago
You know, hand to hand combat would in some ways be more entertaining and productive than
all the time we waste on debates. Putin is a blackbelt, and look how well Russia is doing! I
guess I would rather see candidates fight to the death than go through these tedious and
boring debates where we already know most of the candidates are going to stab us in the back
anyway. Our republic is a sham anyway, so let's have some fun out of it! Like Jesse Ventura
said, politics are like pro wrestling. So let's kick it up a few notches and bring back
gladiatorial death pits! Don't worry, we'll give the socialists a handicap... and free health
care... that is, IF they survive :)
Vic Tach 2 days ago
Ted Cruz was a "domestic policy adviser to George W. Bush". Me: "NO THANKS"
Julian Terris 2 days ago (edited)
Tex Crude is the only politician I have ever heard of who is so void of moral integrity
-- so unscrupulously ambitious -- that he actually assumes opposite positions of the same
issue; simultaneously?!! (Un-be-fucking-lieve-able!?)
Ted is for Ice-cream. -- Unless of course their serving cake next door -- in which case
he's for cake. -- And and ice-cream. I'm pretty sure that he is in fact an inverter-brat.
seaplaneguy 6 days ago
Your part on Heidi Cruz put me over the top. She is clearly an insider working for the
worst beast of them all, Goldman Sachs. Cruz is not eligible on many grounds, not to
mention being an anchor baby in Canada. My question is who is backing him higher up? Also the
calculator case shows serious flaws in thinking by Cruz. Lawyers are clueless.
My view is no attorney should NOT be president. It is a conflict of interest as an attorney
swears to the BAR and is a member of the Judiciary by virtue of licenses. It violates the
balance of power principal. They can advise, but not make law. All attorneys should be tossed
out of Congress.... Law school brainwashes people into being unable to know what law is.
The Roman empire ran on 12 tablets of law. USA runs on over 60 million "laws" that are absurd,
all based on the commerce clause. They confuse "regulation" with specification, which is not
allowed. I would say 95% of the laws, including Obamacare, are not valid.
TheTMan2020 1 week ago (edited)
Wow! Ted Cruz is not even eligible to run for US Prez, not being a Natural Born Citizen and
he could also be indited for non-disclosure of two loans used for his campaign. His wife,
actually working at one of the banks that gave him a loan for his campaign. The Democrats will
file a law suit within 24 hours of his winning the nomination. I bet the establishment
Republicans would do the same... What a can of worms we have here!
Bryan St.Martin 1 week ago
He's in bed with Goldman Sachs isn't he. One of the big money groups killing us now.
Jt Williams 1 week ago
Ted Cruz is one of these politicians who says something that just about everyone would
like -- despite the obvious cognitive dissonance. He just hopes the voters only hear about, or
remember, the things they agree with on election day. Barack Obama did alot of that in 07 and
08. This doesn't bode well for a grassroots, anti-establishment candidate funded by Goldman
Sachs and married to the CFR! And weaned in the neoconservative Bush administration
Ceejay Davis 1 week ago
Bendy spine. Shifting positions. Has trouble telling the truth about Goldman Sachs, his
wife's firm, that gave him a big loan, saying the oversight mentioning it was a "paperwork
error". No. He's dishonest. (Forget that his wife was a CFR member, that he reputedly holds
weird "Christian Dominionist" views, or that he has tried to make a distinction between
killing and murder in the Ten Commandments [somebody found a loophole!]).
Michael M. DeMarco 1 week ago
+Ceejay Davis
People don't seem to understand that he could be facing criminal prosecution for the
undisclosed loan issue - it's a huge huge deal. Those who want Hillary to be held accountable
but white wash Cruz's situation are just showing their bias.
winston smith 1 day ago
Ted Cruz is a creepy looking dude. I can't judge him as a person only that if he
actually believes in Christianity he should not be anywhere near the reigns of power.. Not
that it really matters/ We are already the world's worst human rights offenders and supporters
of terrorism and proxy wars./
Igos Mosig 6 days ago
Ted Cruz is a good man and a conservative but Trump is much better. Why? Only the vastly
experienced and hugely successful business man called Donald Trump is most likely to deliver
and make America Great Again. Trump is a very high energy person who is a strong character,
work extremely hard and is a very smart deal maker. Ted is an uncompromising conservative who
is smart and very good at talking or debating and like the vast majority of politicians are
good at talking but no successful action. He Ted Cruz tend to be divisive and cannot bring
people together. Ted Cruz is Not a good deal maker and cannot Make America Great Again!
American people must take note of this fact and observation!
KatherinVII 1 week ago
Why does no one mention Cruz' Masonic Connection? He's running as this holier than thou
Christian, he's a Mason. Now, really, don't you think some one should tell the Christians? Not
all Christians are ok with some people being Masons but calling themselves Christians, too.
Give the people all the information, not some of it. Christians have a right to know.
Heather Edwards 6 days ago
This is fantastic.....I knew he couldn't be trusted!!! As odd as this sounds, I can't trust
his eyes, they are shifty and I've also noticed how evasive he is when it comes to certain
political stances he's taken, talked about, and said that he is and was going to be tough on.
He speaks with a forked tongue like the slithering snake that he is. So here's my opinion, the
political establishment are counting on him running for president for several reasons. They
can control him if he does actually become president, which means we would be completely
screwed!!!!
The simple truth of the matter of him being born in Canada, if he wins the presidential
nomination and the presidency thereafter, the Democratic party can pull the rug out from under
him and claim the presidency through that alone, either way they are winning!!! I ran across
an article where he stated that he had no idea that he was a citizen of Canada and had to
renounce his citizenship.
First off, he knew he was born in Canada, how can he stand there and claim that he was not
aware of having dual citizenship? That brings something else into the spotlight, the fact he
had to renounce his citizenship. I may not be right about this, but my family knows someone
that had dual citizenship with Canada and he stated years ago that voting here in the United
States automatically rendered his citizenship to Canada null and void. So that makes me wonder
if he's ever voted at all in this country, simply because he claimed that he had to renounce
his Canadian citizenship that he didn't realize he had in the first place, if that makes any
sense to anyone at all....lol.
If that is the case and the laws haven't changed pertaining to dual citizenship, then he's
never had the goodwill of the American people in his heart and mind, only the desire to be
powerful in our government. Another thing that has me uneasy, is his main investor's......if
they are dirty and underhanded, then he's dirty and underhanded and him voting on the T.P.A.
proves that!!! Thank you for the extremely informative video, now it's time for me to attempt
to wake up some people quickly!!!
interplanetarydream 1 week ago (edited)
Ted Cruz is just another shill for the Republican/Democrat establishment and this video
highlights this with factual evidence. He is the typical professional politician with
selective memory and one of the darlings of the super pacs. You want to talk about flip flops,
this is the guy. Anyone who doesn't see the disaster that Cruz would be as President is
obviously not paying attention.Trump 2016.
Walter Strong 1 week ago
Cruz is about as Machiavellian as they come and his resemblance to a snake in the grass is
remarkable. If he is the Republican nominee (unlikely at this point) I'll just sit out this
election.
Gretchen Marszalk 1 week ago
This was excellent! I see some complaining here about proof. To those I say, just search
youtube. Look up the stuff on his wife on CFR website - the question is, if they are so close
how can they have two completely opposite goals? She wants EU type North America with wide
open borders and he wants strong borders. Those loans were in the paper and he admitted to
them in the debate. How does this figure - he's such a smart guy and forgot he was a Canadian
citizen until someone reminded him 15 months ago. And had the Tea Party known about those
Goldman and Citibank loans, he never would have been elected to the Senate (his platform was
against Wall Street and the race was very close) Check out how smooth he is in this interview,
referred to in Stephan's video. So positive as a great constitutional lawyer and then changed
to Trump's anti-anchor baby stance when he found out the topic was popular. youtube.com/watch?v=4zBW8vLnRDY
KamikazKid 1 week ago
The "tea party" much like Lucy has some splaining to do. wags finger The "party of small
government" only shaves 40 billion off a Trillion dollar budget? Get the fuck out of town,
every "tea party republican" deserves to be thrown out on their ass, Taxed Enough Already my
ass you cut 40 billion on a Trillion dollar budget & have the gumption to come to me & call it
a win I'll fucking tell you to shove your shit up your ass.
BaltimoreHourly 1 week ago
So the IRS is picking on Robert Mercer, a man who is very rich. The IRS picks on many many
more people than him and almost all of them are not nearly as wealthy as he is. Mercer is
paying for the Ted Cruz campaign. Cruz comes from a conservative economic background that
favors little to no government intervention in the economy, a background that produces many
anti-IRS type people. If Cruz became President he could easily just pardon Mercer without
getting rid of the IRS in order to pay his friend back. So with all that said I do not see how
the desire of getting rid of the IRS is some sort of payback to a friend. Getting rid of the
IRS is a positive development that will save American's millions of dollars and alleviate the
stress that so many Americans feel because of IRS backed campaigns against individuals. If one
is suspicious of Ted Cruz's Anti-IRS motivation then one should also wonder about why Donald
Trump wants to keep the IRS around...
The American Dodo 1 week ago
The only good thing about Cruz is that he looks strong (which is, really, only external...
He's that tall, big tree that's hollow and weak...) Other than that, he's not presidential
material... He is virtually owned by special interests (see all that money he owes to
lobbyists and Golden Sachs?...), is a Christian radical nutcase (just as bad as the Islamist
trash, that are radical...) and is far lesser than Trump. I hope Trump continues to smash him,
as well as the rest of the GOP's worthless candidates, to pieces. Then? Smash Hillary, or
Bernie Sanders. Both are already dead, if they go against Trump.
Dreamylyn Moore 1 week ago
immigration is a human rights issue and is a right of any individual to change nationality.
May Want To Read The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Fines imply a person is doing
something illegal. a set reasonable Fee For Paper Work should be Sufficient. Ted Cruz is a
hypocrite he's lived in other countries and our President was supposed to be from the USA, now
we know that Washington DC is a corporation we know they do not represent the people. So how
would any of there policies pertain to us. and we need to just file charges on them for crimes
against the people. We Need a Prim Minister to Represent the People in the republic of the
united states. This would put the Law Back in Our Hands. and that would be our buffer between
rouge governments and put us back at the helm
Finn 1 week ago
Cruz the Snake!
Omar Haro 1 week ago
WITH CRUZ,
YOU LOSE
esther19741974 2 hours ago
Ted Cruz basically said recently Israel first America last
This is a QUOTE from Ted Cruz "IF YOU WILL NOT STAND WITH ISRAEL AND THE JEWS THEN I WILL
NOT STAND WITH YOU!!! Watch @ 3:00 here-->
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSmOAWJc5ME
tristanweber 1 week ago
The summation of this video is that Ted Cruz is another unprincipled politician like
any other and will continue with the status quo. Ted Cruz would lose in the general election
if nominated because of his questionable status as a natural born citizen, a leftist
Supreme Court would vote in its own favor. Do we as conservatives want one of two communist to
win the presidency like most of the controversial legislation that has been passed
unconstitutionally in recent years..
Furthermore Ted Cruz lied about his financials, has ties to the CFR (globalists) and
the big banks (city group, Goldman Sachs).
Finally he broke the law, can Cruz given today's media and court system get away with this
like other politicians (Obama, Hilary) have and continue to do. Or faced with a choice will
the establishment use these issues to keep a leftist in the White House.
Ted Cruz wife is a member of the CFR hello!!!!!!
Jt Williams 1 week ago
all the pundits always talk about how smart Ted Cruz is -- I don't buy it. He seems to
plagiarize all of his policy positions based on what others are saying, the audience he is
speaking to, and the whims of current public opinion.
Kenneth Coleman 1 week ago
Ted Cruz don't represent the people of America, Cruz represent Farris Wilks, Dan Wilks,
Robert Mercer, Toby Neugebauer and the Koch brothers who all together have donated over 40
million dollars to Ted Cruz's campaign, so when the say jump, Cruz says how high? These are
rich people that we need to stop running our country. Ted Cruz is full of BS. THAT IS SOME
TRUTH AND FACTS.
jcbarnhart77 1 day ago
The upper 1% have been buying elections and government for decades. This is nothing
new, and will never stop. The difference between Cruz and Trump, is that Cruz will take money
from the ultra 1% but Trump already is one. Sanders and Rubio are the bums of this election
year.
Mimi Chris Mak 3 days ago
We don't care how charismatic a "politician" is in his speech or debates! We care about
his track record. What has he accomplished? What kind of deals has he put together?
How much has he sold in his business? Empty talk WIL NOT & CANNOT fix our country!!! Show
us your past record of success. Prove us that you CAN do something, We cannot afford to put
another idiot in the White House!!!!
Of course the coin toss was for the win. Their wouldn't even be a coin toss to consider if
the game wasn't on the line. Being 6/6 is bullshit and you all know it.
Politics is more about organization than raw enthusiasm. Donald Trump was beaten last night by
Ted Cruz's organization in Iowa-and more significantly, they will both be beaten by Marco Rubio's
organization nationally. That's because Rubio's organization is not only his campaign but the Republican
establishment and conservative movement as well. He can even count on the organized power of the
mainstream media aiding him, for while the old media may dislike Republicans in general, they particularly
loathe right-wing populist Republicans like Cruz and Trump.
A divided right is the classic set-up for an establishment Republican's nomination. Cruz and Trump
draw upon the same base of voters. Rubio, it's true, has establishment rivals to finish off in New
Hampshire-Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kasich. But Rubio has been within a few points of Bush
and Kasich in recent New Hampshire polls, and after Iowa it's not hard to imagine him gaining three
or four points, probably more, over the next week. Cruz, who hasn't been far ahead of the moderates
in the Granite State, might also gain a few points, but those will most likely come at the expense
of Trump, who to be sure has plenty of margin to spare. Although it's possible that Trump and Cruz
will finish first and second in New Hampshire by splitting a big right-wing turnout, Rubio seems
to have a good shot at placing second by swiftly becoming the establishment's unity candidate.
Jeb Bush may hate his fellow Floridian, but Bush has a family-a political dynasty-to think about.
The whole family's political fortunes depend on Republicans, and establishment Republicans at that,
winning again. Does Jeb want to be the Bush who turned his party over to Trump or Cruz (hardly beloved
by his fellow Texan George W.) and their uncouth supporters, only to lose in November? The family's
rich and influential friends know the score, and they're on the phone with Jeb right now telling
him to get out. His son, George P., will do just fine in a Rubio administration, and who knows, maybe
Jeb himself can be ambassador to Mexico.
The story of how Rubio won the establishment's civil war is the story of just how adroit
the neoconservative
"deciders" really are. Neoconservatives compounded the George W. Bush administration's Iraq folly,
but because Bush was the brand name attached to the disastrous policies of 2001-2009, the Bush family
suffered the consequences far more than did the obscure policy hacks and think-tank propagandists
(and their billionaire backers) who egged the administration's warhawks on. The neoconservatives
have turned against the Bush family in part because it's damaged goods, in part because the Bushes
had started to catch on: George W. began to reconnect with foreign-policy realists in his second
term, and while Jeb may count Paul Wolfowitz among his advisers, he also consorts with James Baker,
anathema to the neocons.
Heading into 2016, neoconservative foreign policy needed a new, untainted brand and a less experienced,
more malleable candidate-someone who wouldn't be as wary as an old Bush might be. In Marco Rubio,
everything was ready-made. The fact that Rubio's brand isn't foreign-policy failure-the legacy the
Bushes must live with-but rather that of a fresh-faced Hispanic, a new and different kind of Republican,
meant that the media and public would not guess that what they were in store for was more of what
was worst in the George W. Bush administration. As if to taunt the forgetful, the Rubio campaign
adopted as its slogan "A New American Century"-counting on no columnist or newscaster to remember
the name of the defunct
Kristol-Kagan
invasion factory. Rubio has been similarly blunt in his hawkish statements throughout the Republican
debates.
Conservative realists as well as libertarians are apt to be dismayed by Rand Paul's fifth-place
finish in Iowa, ahead of Bush by roughly two points but behind Ben Carson by nearly five. Ron Paul
had finished third in 2012, with 21 percent of the vote compared to his son's 4.5 percent this year.
But anything short of the nomination is only worthwhile as a learning experience and as an opportunity
for further organization, and in that regard Paul's well-wishers need not be discouraged. Though
the Republican Party has reverted to a hawkish disposition since 2013, there is still a better-organized
counter-neocon faction in the party today than there was in 2003, when the Iraq War began, or even
2006, when Republicans paid the political price for the war. And it's notable that the top finishers
in Iowa, Trump and Cruz, while being far from realists or libertarians, are almost equally far from
being neoconservatives. The party's foreign-policy attitudes are more diverse today than they were
even in 2012.
Both libertarians and conservative realists got carried away by their own hopes in the five easy
years between 2006 and 2013, when the domestic political climate and world events alike took a favorable
turn for realism and made things maximally difficult for neoconservatives and hawks. Today things
are hard for everyone-though the hawks and neoconservatives are fortunate in having an avatar like
Rubio, whose youth, looks, and race make even those who should know better yearn to give him the
benefit of the doubt.
The danger is that libertarians and traditional conservatives will learn the wrong lesson now:
the problem is not exactly that Rand Paul was not more like Ron Paul in his unbending libertarianism
or more like Trump in his rabble-stiring populism. To be sure, Rand came off as sometimes tentative
and embarrassed about his principles, and in trying to appeal to the hawkish evangelical right he
only alienated his base while failing to win much new support. But while his father did better in
2012 and Trump did better still this year, neither of them had what it takes to actually win. The
insurgent right is extraordinarily bad at politics and consistently mistakes raw enthusiasm for effective
electoral power. Ron Paul couldn't leverage his third-place Iowa finish in 2012 the way Rubio's allies
are set to capitalize on his third-place finish this year because the extra-political as well as
political organization that Rubio commands dwarfs anything that the libertarian or populist right
possesses, and the neoconservatives have been much more effective at devising narratives and message-frameworks
that the mainstream media and the business class can support. Trump might get second place, Ron Paul
might get third, yet both remain fringe figures to the opinion-forming classes.
Rather than face this fact, too many true believers on the right prefer to retreat into fantasy-indulging
in dreams of third parties or sudden popular uprisings or the triumph of disembodied ideas over mere
flesh-and-blood politics. Yet better, more far-sighted organization in politics and the media is
the only way to advance worldly change. The neoconservatives have understood this better than anyone.
And so the neoconservatives have won the civil war for the Republican establishment, beating the
semi-neocon Bushes and elevating their preferred candidate, Marco Rubio, to the role of establishment
savior. The unified neoconservative-establishment bloc now waits for Trump and Cruz to bleed each
other dry, before Rubio finishes off whoever remains-probably Cruz. Should all proceed according
to plan, the fresh-faced establishment Republican champion then goes to face the haggard old champion
of the Democratic establishment, Hillary Clinton, in November. Whoever wins, the cause of peace and
limited government loses. Yet even then there will come a backlash, as always before, and next time
perhaps an opposition will be better prepared.
"... To my American friends there is a new campaign taking off from Roots Action to #DumpDebbie as in Debbie Wasserman Schultz ..."
"... The kind of foreign policy Hillary and the Republicans believe is sort of a warlord mentality of dominance and chest-thumping. ..."
"... Bernie stepped aside on the email controversy for HRC but she went right back into it around the transcripts of her speeches to the banks. No one cares about what the Republicans think her emails but I think all Democrats and every person who goes to work each day want to see what she said to those banks! RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS ..."
"... However, foreign policy of Hillary Clinton and like-minded people has led to the fact that Americans no longer feel safe even when they are at home, not to mention when they go abroad. ..."
"... If this Wall Street poodle has support among democrats , who the hell are republicans? Go Bernie! ..."
"... 4 Feb 2016 22:37 ..."
"... We can't be pointing fingers at our dear friends the Saudis now can we? Deflect, deflect and deflect. Notwithstanding the fact that it has been the warmongering of the likes of Hilary Clinton that have have laid waste to Iraq, Libya and now Syria. ..."
"... The Guardian commentators are a disgrace. The Guardian bemoans that shift in its readership yet fails to recognise the level of frustration that exists out here at how far this paper has fallen. ..."
"... she's always gung-ho about military force but has nothing to say about reconstruction+rehabilitation efforts afterwards ..."
"... Clinton's a corrupt insider, which is what it is, and the US voters understand that. She has all the relevant job experience to be president, the right connections to direct federal funding to, and some slogans or something. ..."
"... That not a single Wall Street executive served a day in jail for the financial crisis is, in Sanders' words, "what is what power is about, that is what corruption is about, and that is what has to change in the United States of America." ..."
"... Hillary lies/parrots/says anything that will get her through the moment...now she is a progressive ....hahaha...NOT.... ..."
"... She quickly changed the topic when asked about the transcripts. ..."
"... Of course he would. It doesn't matter if Hillary is more effective or whatever - the more effective, the worse. Why would I want a more effective dismantler of welfare? A more effective deregulator of Wall Street? A more effective pusher of what passes for free trade ? A more effective warmonger? The truth is, she is an incrementalist - she moves things incrementally in the wrong direction. ..."
"... Hillary has a great sense of entitlement. She thinks she is royalty while Sanders is some commoner. ..."
"... It can't be said too many times: If Clinton becomes president, she, like her husband and Obama before her, will carry water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus from day one of her presidency. ..."
"... And--again just like her husband and Obama--she will occasionally punctuate her abject service to the exploiting class and its surveillance-state empire with sweet words justice and human rights--just enough of them to keep gullible liberals on her side. ..."
"... Hillary still won't apologize for her foolish and ill considered support for the Iraq War. George W Bush was a President who never admitted he was wrong about anything, and Clinton is exactly the same way. If she becomes President and makes a foolish decision, she won't change course, she'll be like Bush, just doubling down over and over on bad decisions. ..."
"... So NOW Clinton is saying she's a progressive, but in September of 2015 she was vehemently insisting she was a moderate. ..."
"... The remnants of the Democratic Leadership Council were folded into the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation bought the archives of the DLC. Welfare reform , trade, charter schooling -- all of this is Clintonism. DLC embraced moderate as a word and slammed progressives and liberals for years. HRC can have it both ways in newspeak but the record is what the record is. She's no progressive. Progressives don't have 'Walmart Board of Directors' on their resume. ..."
"... If this shameful spectacle isn't enough to finally nail the coffin on the democratic party in the minds of honest liberals and progressives then I don't know what will. ..."
"... Hillary is a disease... and the corporate media is doing everything they can to spread her malicious agenda. ..."
"... Clinton doesn't score many points on sincerity, in my opinion. ..."
"... Chuck Todd asks Hillary Clinton whether she is willing to release the full transcripts of every one of her paid speeches. Her response: they're classified....upper upper class. ..."
"... Mrs Clinton has and Ivy education, a Yale law degree, has been First Lady, a senator and secretary of state. Her fortune is estimated to be at least $30M, earned mostly from speaking fees paid by banks and other corporate interests. For her to claim that she is not a member of the establishment shows degrees of mendacity and arrogance that are truly rare. ..."
Surely if more than half of American voters have more than half a brain they only have one
choice; Sanders.
Cruz the effing evangelist has threatened to carpet bomb part of the MIddle East until 'the
sand glows'. Trump will be a non event.
Clintons claim to fame is that she is the wife of Bill who was responsible for de-regulating
the banking system to give the world the GFC. Bill was the laziest President the US has had,
spending a good deal of his time playing golf or on the receiving end of extra marital head
jobs.
The kind of foreign policy Hillary and the Republicans believe is sort of a warlord
mentality of dominance and chest-thumping.
Sam3456 4 Feb 2016 22:55
Bernie stepped aside on the email controversy for HRC but she went right back into it
around the transcripts of her speeches to the banks.
No one cares about what the Republicans think her emails but I think all Democrats and every
person who goes to work each day want to see what she said to those banks! RELEASE THE
TRANSCRIPTS
renardbleu -> nnedjo 4 Feb 2016 22:53
Imagine how non-Americans feel. You know, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
nnedjo 4 Feb 2016 22:48
What is the purpose of foreign policy?
In my opinion, foreign policy should ensure that when you go abroad you feel safe as if you're
at home, and to be welcomed in any part of the world.
However, foreign policy of Hillary Clinton and like-minded people has led to the fact
that Americans no longer feel safe even when they are at home, not to mention when they go
abroad.
So, whoever thinks that this world has become too peaceful, he would certainly have to vote
for Hillary to be the next president of the United States.:-)
Gman13 4 Feb 2016 22:45
If this Wall Street poodle has support among "democrats", who the hell are republicans?
Go Bernie!
IanB52 -> WarlockScott 4 Feb 2016 22:41
Personally, I wish he'd just say "Fuck war. We're all humans, everyone is entitled to human
rights, we're all in this together, and there is nothing noble about killing people, not the
least collateral damage of children and non-combatants, or terrorizing populations on the
other side of the world with drones, and stoking hatred against people who look different or
speak another language than us. Humanity won't survive as long as we fetishize and glamorize
killing people."
That would satisfy me, rather than beating around the bush and saying that you'll crush Isis
because you think that's what people want to hear. I'm a dreamer.
renardbleu -> Christian Haesemeyer4 Feb 2016 22:37
That's the wrong question. Can Bernie win the presidency? Lovely, decent man though he is,
the GOP clowns will have a field day spreading disinformation about the token "socialist" (if
he's a socialist, UK's David Cameron would be a marijuana-smoking Leftie). Bernie would gift
the presidency to whomever the GOP nominate and that's the real scary outcome.
NotWithoutMyMonkey 4 Feb 2016 22:33
Richard Wolff points believes that Sanders should've singled out Russia as the greatest
threat because Ash Carter says so but lets Hilary pass with a mendacious howler that Iran is
the greatest sponsor of terror (Shia Iran sponsoring Sunni extremism, oh really)?
We can't be pointing fingers at our dear friends the Saudis now can we? Deflect, deflect
and deflect. Notwithstanding the fact that it has been the warmongering of the likes of Hilary
Clinton that have have laid waste to Iraq, Libya and now Syria.
The Guardian commentators are a disgrace. The Guardian bemoans that shift in its
readership yet fails to recognise the level of frustration that exists out here at how far
this paper has fallen.
WarlockScott -> CriticAtLarge 4 Feb 2016 22:36
Bernie could hammer her hard on this, when she talks about Iran the problem is not her
engaging with Iranians (she has) but that she always coaches it in incredibly hostile
language. Like the first debate she was asked who are you most glad to have made enemies of
and she answered "The Iranians" and the GOP. Also she's always gung-ho about military
force but has nothing to say about reconstruction+rehabilitation efforts afterwards
BaldwinP -> BlackAbbott 4 Feb 2016 22:31
I would vote for Matt Taibbi just for coming up with the vampire squid description of
Goldman Sachs, I'm not sure that that quote from Sanders is in the same class. Bashing the
banks is easy, you do it, I do it. What is he actually going to do about it?
Rumfoord 4 Feb 2016 22:31
Clinton's a corrupt insider, which is what it is, and the US voters understand that.
She has all the relevant job experience to be president, the right connections to direct
federal funding to, and some slogans or something.
Sanders is a populist calling his milquetoast 'socialist' agenda as some sort of leftist
revolution.
I'm a social democrat, and they're both rightists so far as I'm concerned.
MyTakeOnIt 4 Feb 2016 22:30
Foreign policy in the first four years of Obama's presidency has been a disaster. All the
mess in the middle east is first due to the Bush 's Iraq invasion, and secondly regime change
binge in the first term of Obama administration. Foreign policy, in the first term of Obama
administration, by agreement, was given to Hillary in order for her not to challenged Obama in
2012. So Hillary voted for Iraq invasion, in addition to forcing bombing of Libya, among other
disasters.
BlackAbbott 4 Feb 2016 22:28
Goldman Sachs was one of those companies whose illegal activity helped destroy our
economy and ruin the lives of millions of Americans. This is what a rigged economy and a
corrupt campaign finance system system and a broken justice system do."
That not a single Wall Street executive served a day in jail for the financial crisis
is, in Sanders' words, "what is what power is about, that is what corruption is about, and
that is what has to change in the United States of America."
I would almost (almost) become an American just to vote for this guy.
Beowullf 4 Feb 2016 22:24
Hillary lies/parrots/says anything that will get her through the moment...now she is a
"progressive"....hahaha...NOT....
She quickly changed the topic when asked about the transcripts.
Christian Haesemeyer -> sursiques 4 Feb 2016 22:19
Of course he would. It doesn't matter if Hillary is more effective or whatever - the
more effective, the worse. Why would I want a more effective dismantler of welfare? A more
effective deregulator of Wall Street? A more effective pusher of what passes for "free trade"?
A more effective warmonger? The truth is, she is an incrementalist - she moves things
incrementally in the wrong direction.
CriticAtLarge -> sursiques 4 Feb 2016 22:17
Hillary has a great sense of entitlement. She thinks she is royalty while Sanders is
some commoner. Hillary is tough as nails though. Sanders is too mild mannered. He will
get chewed in a general.
CorporalClegg 4 Feb 2016 22:16
Wall street paid Hillary $675,000 for no other reason than they wanted to hear about her
experiences in politics. Now, anyone who believes that should head straight to the rubber
room. Please go straight there and do not vote.
eastbayradical 4 Feb 2016 22:16
It can't be said too many times: If Clinton becomes president, she, like her husband
and Obama before her, will carry water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national
security apparatus from day one of her presidency.
And--again just like her husband and Obama--she will occasionally punctuate her abject
service to the exploiting class and its surveillance-state empire with sweet words justice and
human rights--just enough of them to keep gullible liberals on her side.
ID0020237 -> Marcedward 4 Feb 2016 22:13
She was duped just like the rest of the 99% of Americans for supporting the war in Iraq.
The propaganda machinery (media) worked overtime for the Neocons success. None of the reasons
given to justify the war were ever proven to be real. Peace is apparently not a prime
objective of American policies, just check our track record. Doesn't really matter which party
gets in, the same misguided policies and government borrowing activities will probably
prevail.
PeregrineSlim 4 Feb 2016 22:12
What about the following question:
Do you support the current Turkish-Saudi plans for a joint war in Syria?
seneca32 4 Feb 2016 22:09
I don't think Obama named her Sec. of State because of her judgment -- I think he did it to
neutralize her and the Clinton gang.
WarlockScott 4 Feb 2016 22:09
Bernie do more debate-prep and if you do know this, HIT HER ON THIS
Sanders' integrity and commitment to a happy-clappy issues-only campaign is
counter-productive. He could have buried Clinton in this debate already if he would only go
for the jugular.
Marcedward 4 Feb 2016 22:01
Hillary still won't apologize for her foolish and ill considered support for the Iraq
War. George W Bush was a President who never admitted he was wrong about anything, and Clinton
is exactly the same way. If she becomes President and makes a foolish decision, she won't
change course, she'll be like Bush, just doubling down over and over on bad decisions.
Marcedward 4 Feb 2016 21:56
So NOW Clinton is saying she's a progressive, but in September of 2015 she was
vehemently insisting she was a moderate.
Question:
Was they lying then, or is she lying now, or is she simply a habitual liar?
If Hillary gets the nomination, the Republicans will use her own words against her
FLIP FLOP
FLIP FLOP
Just like they did with John Kerry.
Joseph Musco 4 Feb 2016 21:55
The remnants of the Democratic Leadership Council were folded into the Clinton
Foundation. The Clinton Foundation bought the archives of the DLC. "Welfare reform", trade,
charter schooling -- all of this is Clintonism. DLC embraced moderate as a word and slammed
progressives and liberals for years. HRC can have it both ways in newspeak but the record is
what the record is. She's no progressive. Progressives don't have 'Walmart Board of Directors'
on their resume.
JuliusSqueezer 4 Feb 2016 21:52
If this shameful spectacle isn't enough to finally nail the coffin on the democratic
party in the minds of honest liberals and progressives then I don't know what will. I'm
an anarchist though.... and just laugh along till both parties are dead.... but still this is
very sad to me. Hillary is a disease... and the corporate media is doing everything they
can to spread her malicious agenda.
Jezreel2 -> wisedup 4 Feb 2016 21:50
I agree. They should. But today, Playboy magazine published an article in which Rachel
Maddow is quoted saying she finds it "hard to believe" that Sanders can win the Democratic
nomination. And Chuck Todd, wouldn't even poll Sanders standing against Republicans in the
general election because the narrative on MSNBC and NBC was focused on the inevitability of
Clinton winning the nomination.
Clinton doesn't score many points on sincerity, in my opinion.
bloggod 4 Feb 2016 21:51
Chuck Todd asks Hillary Clinton whether she is willing to release the full transcripts
of every one of her paid speeches. Her response: they're classified....upper upper class.
Christian Haesemeyer 4 Feb 2016 21:44
Well I'm sure Clinton isn't lying when she says she has never changed a position because of
donations. I just fail to see how that's a good thing - she has always supported policies
favouring Wall Street, ever since Bill and her and the gang set out to transform the
Democratic Party into the party of big money.
mrmetrowest 4 Feb 2016 21:38
Mrs Clinton has and Ivy education, a Yale law degree, has been First Lady, a senator
and secretary of state. Her fortune is estimated to be at least $30M, earned mostly from
speaking fees paid by banks and other corporate interests. For her to claim that she is not a
member of the establishment shows degrees of mendacity and arrogance that are truly rare.
"... Trump called Cruz dirty, adding what he did to Ben Carson was a disgrace. ..."
"... Sorry Donald, you lost Iowa because youre NOT a religious nutjob...Iowa is 24% White Evangelical Protestants (WEPS) and theyre all Republicans...Cruz won because he ran around praising God and quoting Jesus...normally, thats not enough to win..but it gets you at least 2nd or 3rd in Iowa..but the televangelist ACT handed Cruz the prize because of so many names to choose from... ..."
"... When it comes to picking the Republican nominee, Iowa is an embarrassing joke ..."
"... Cruz is a Goldman Sachs plant and NWO stooge. Not to mention being another political dirtball from Texas (like the Bushs, LBJ, Phil Gramm, Tom Delay, etc...) ..."
"... crooz is the goldman saks and cfr canditate -- shocker that he won the non election in iowa ..."
"... Goldmans got both sides covered- Cruz and HiLiary. Makes satan look like a piker. ..."
"... My guess is that The Donald is reasonably strait on his positions, etc. (Relatively). ..."
"... My guess is that Ted is a shill, playing outside rebel against the system, financed by GS et al, and would wind up with Total Establishment Policies. Might as well be led by Hillary, Rubio, et al. ..."
"... Remember how Ron Paul was always portrayed? How his supporters were portrayed? (Crazy old man, Constitutional purist that doesnt understand modern life, Id vote for him but I know we need things like, roads. etc.) Thats whats coming for Trump and Sanders. ..."
"... In a nutshell, the entire hope is that Trump, or someone like him, can somehow wake the public up and make us all look under the covers. For all those who say that Trump, or even Sanders, would be unable to do anything if elected, I say bullshit. The President has the biggest soapbox in the world. Unfortunately, it has been used to keep us all in line and headed in a direction that benefits only a small percentage of us. ..."
"... We apparently have a lot of dummies here at the Hedge who only follow the MSM bullshit narrative. Typical Murikan zombies who cant drill down moar than a half inch. ..."
"... So Ted is running on thousands of small donations from true believers ??? I think not. He is owned by big money. And Goldman is one of them. Youre doing a shitty job as Goldmans apologist. ..."
"... I live down here in Houston where Tedlevangelists headquarters are. Many of his top advisors are Bush neocons. ..."
"... . There is no fuckan way Cruz polled that high and Trump dropped 14 points in a week. ..."
"... Iowa voters like to lie to poll takers. It gives them a sense of being in control of SOMETHING!. (And to them its funny as hell... I mean this is IOWA were talking about here. Humor is in tight supply!) ..."
"... polls and votes are two entirely different things. Its bad to confuse the two. The people that are asked questions before the elections are the polled. the people who VOTE in the elections are the deciders (allowing for instant recounts in the back seat of the car on the way to the counting room.) ..."
"... Repub party establishment is starting to get desperate. Or its all part of the plan. No real middle ground here. ..."
"... Why should the Repubs be in any panic greater than the Dems is the kind of thing a troll would post. The Dems, a Socialist against a known liar, thief and murderder. Seriously? ..."
"... Exactly. I think this is a great thing. Cruz has peaked...in Iowa, lol. Hes done ..."
"... Lets hope Trump has some good bodyguards. Cheating is a sacred right of the Elite. ..."
"... Cruz later apologized ... and thus admitted to the act. In a reasonable world, that would be the end of his campaign as well as his career and his public life. ..."
"... I was attracted to Trumps angry outbursts just as I would cheer anyone pounding on the DC crowd, but Ive come to believe he is playing a role and his anger is staged to appeal to the masses....and its working so you cant fault him for that. ..."
"... Cruz won Iowa for about a day LOL. All we need now is Jimmy Carters grandson and the hidden camera revealing that Goldman Sachs employees found stack of mailers in their breakrooms with instructions to place mail labels on them. ..."
"... Based on the prior polls, the result was not legit. Cruz barely broke 20% on his best day. Shows up with 28%? Rubio polled in the low teens. 23% a day later? ..."
"... Trump polled *consistently* at (just the numbers from a wide variety of sources, MSM, and off beat sources) at ~25%. Sure enough, DT get his 25%, but Cruz and Rubio blow up by 10% apiece. I would call that either luck, or a statistical anomaly. ..."
"... What was reported, fwiw, is that there was a substantial, massive influx of new republican registration. Further, the democrats have officially shown only 1400 votes cast total through the entire state. There was likely more, but party policy is *not* to report the #s of voters. ..."
"... Fact finding: As far as I know, voter registration is a *matter of public record*. If I were Trump, I would request the voter registration records of all the people for both parties that turned in a ballot. Then, I would request voter registration records in the last 5 years. Then, I would compare the *party affiliation* of each *present* voter with the most recent prior registration. ..."
"... Mark Twain once said...... If voting meant anything, then we would not be allowed to do it .... ..."
As The Hill reports , Donald Trump is accusing Republican presidential rival Ted Cruz of committing
fraud ahead of Monday night's Iowa caucuses, and he is calling for a "new election."
"Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a
new election should take place or Cruz results nullified," Trump tweeted on Wednesday.
Cruz came under fire in the days leading up to the Iowa caucuses for distributing a
misleading mailer that attempted to shame recipients into turning out to vote for the Texas senator
.
Following his decisive win over the GOP field, Cruz was accused by fellow presidential candidate
Ben Carson of spreading a false rumor that Carson was dropping out of the race in order
to sabotage the retired neurosurgeon's campaign .
It's not Cruz... it's his monied-handlers that pull the strings. Hillary, Ted, Rand, Marco...
they're just soulless puppets. When the "tricks" occur and the Diebold machines begin to sputter
again, blame TPTB, not they're useful idiots.
PROOF THAT some of Winston Churchill's most famous radio speeches of the war were delivered
by a stand-in has emerged with the discovery of a 78rpm record.
The revelation ends years of controversy over claims - repeatedly denied - that an actor had
been officially asked to impersonate the Prime Minister on air.
The record makes it clear for the first time that Norman Shelley's voice was used to broadcast
some of the most important words in modern British history - including 'We shall fight them on
the beaches'. It is marked 'BBC, Churchill: Speech. Artist Norman Shelley' and stamped 'September
7, 1942'.
Sorry Donald, you lost Iowa because you're NOT a religious nutjob...Iowa is 24% White Evangelical
Protestants (WEPS) and they're all Republicans...Cruz won because he ran around praising God and
quoting Jesus...normally, that's not enough to win..but it gets you at least 2nd or 3rd in Iowa..but
the televangelist ACT handed Cruz the prize because of so many names to choose from...
You know it Donald, you even courted the WEPS until it was obvious you weren't crazy enough
for them...lol...turned out Carson was TOO Crazy for them...that's pathetic.
Look at the people standing behind Cruz while he gives his victory speech; they're the "who's
who" of religious nutjobs in Iowa.
"Donald Trump loses Iowa to Ted Cruz and his evangelical "prayer team""
"As Quartz's Tim Fernholz
reported in December , winning Iowa was always going to be difficult for Trump, given that
deeply religious protestant Christans make up 56% of the state's voters, and a much higher percentage
of Republican caucus-goers:"
Whatever. You got to hand it to him, he won't let it go and unlike most "contenders" in Democratic
camp won't let go of his claim over the title. Sanders is ok, but geriatric more than Hillary
and that's his main value to her. Trump maybe an asshole and I guess he wouldn't even object to
that, but al least he puts up some fight even seemingly after the fight. The battle is lost, but
the war still continues. I like him being there even only for the fact he keeps it entertaining
and that's even considering I understand mainstream politics are little more than a shit show.
I think Hillary's "win" in Iowa was actually damaging...Bernie supporters, DEMOCRATS, feel
cheated...and they didn't really like Hillary to begin with...it will definately dampen turn-out
come election day.
I have a feeling, that when Bernie finally gives up, Hillary will have spent a FORTUNE taking
him down...and even more important, will have a HUGE pile of disgruntled DEMOCRATS she'll need
to win over...she's going to spend a LOT of time and money just securing that ~35% of the vote
that is Democrat..then she has to bring in the Independents...I still say this election is for
the Republicans to lose...
Maybe for the 'right' Republican to lose. If the nominee were Cruz, for example, Dems would
turn out in droves to vote against him, and his chances for Independent voters would be slim.
Cruz is a Goldman Sachs plant and NWO stooge. Not to mention being another political dirtball
from Texas (like the Bush's, LBJ, Phil Gramm, Tom Delay, etc...)
"Cruz doesn't look like a crooked slimeball . . ."
Now THAT was funny.
Goldman's got both sides covered- Cruz and HiLiary. Makes satan look like a piker.
cheka
vote fraud likely too -
when looking at the numbers it's most useful to combine cruz and rubio -- those voters are same
neocon dolts - and will readily jump from one to the other
Cruz's eligibility issue isn't going anywhere because it's STRATEGIC GOLD. I'm borderline retarded
and I have at least 17 unanswered questions about it.
The 'established law' answer is ALL Cruz has, and it's a lie. In any case, Alan Grayson doesn't
care what Cruz thinks, he'll sue, and if the DNC gets desperate they will sue and have standing.
Cruz is a selfish, power-hungry POS to put his party in position to lose because he prefers the
presidency over the Prime-Ministership (for which he DID qualify, until 15 months ago, when he
finally renounced his Canadian citizenship - which he claims he didn't know about (lie #X of X
to the tenth power).
He legally changed his name from 'Rafael' to 'Ted' when he was 13. He's had his eye on power
for over 30 years.
On NPR today, it was said that just under 50,000 out of 6 million voted. So how did Teddy get
51,666. There is that 666 ting again.
Remember the more they say God in their speaches the less you can trust them. He said " thank
God I won"...really, and " God was on my side" really?
If God had ANYTHING to do with politics, none of these creeps would have a chance and the world
would not be in the mess it is in and run by the criminals. That is the truth.
Unlike Dr. Paul, Trump will not take being cheated quietly.
That is the major reason why people are behind him.
He will come at them like a raging bull.
These guys are really dumb. They have tried their usual political tricks on him and nothing
has worked. Yet they continue with their tired and and worn out playbook.
Trump made a promise not to run as independent...... however if they screw with him like this
then he will be under no obligation to keep that promise.
My guess is that The Donald is reasonably strait on his positions, etc. (Relatively).
My guess is that Ted is a shill, playing outside rebel against the system, financed by
GS et al, and would wind up with Total Establishment Policies. Might as well be led by Hillary,
Rubio, et al.
And that doesn't even get into interactions amongst El Presidente (or Presidentette) with the
Deep State, etc.
I don't think the establishment L/R politicos understand how unbelievably pissed off and angry
the people are. If voter fraud starts popping up it won't go well no matter who they plant in
the shit house.
It probably doesn't matter, as well, who the people want in the same shit house. The times
ahead are going to be difficult and painful for most people and all in the middle class of the
Peoples Republic of the United States.
I think they understand exactly how pissed off the people are. That's why you're seeing Trump
and Sanders. They're the release valve. The most angry can caucus for them, rally for them, beat
the street for votes for them, but they certainly won't be allowed to win. I honestly still think
Trump is a plant for Clinton, he's just too cartoonish awful to be a real candidate. Even if he
makes it to the general she's going to stomp him a new mudhole, and I think that's by design.
In the coming months each of the "mavericks" are going to be portrayed as more and more insane
in the media. Their followers insane by proxy. Those that are the most angry aren't consolable
so they're a lost cause, those closer to the middle will see the insanity of the fringe and stop
identifying with them because they look just too fucking out there to stay with any longer. The
idea being that the public gets to express their anger... in the primaries, but by the time the
general election rolls around, you'll be back to your two standard choices again: a douche and
a shit sandwich.
No, sweetie, you are mistaken. Hillary stomps nobody a mudhole in the general. She is an opportunist,
not a leader, and her followers are opportunists as well who will drop her like a hot potato if
they think her coattails are short.
Did you see the Iowa turnout? Blew out the old record on the GOP side, off by one-third on
the Dem side. Any questions?
Remember how Ron Paul was always portrayed? How his supporters were portrayed? (Crazy old
man, Constitutional purist that doesn't understand modern life, "I'd vote for him but I know we
need things like, roads." etc.) That's what's coming for Trump and Sanders.
In a nutshell, the entire hope is that Trump, or someone like him, can somehow wake the
public up and make us all look under the covers. For all those who say that Trump, or even Sanders,
would be unable to do anything if elected, I say bullshit. The President has the biggest soapbox
in the world. Unfortunately, it has been used to keep us all in line and headed in a direction
that benefits only a small percentage of us.
Just imagine Trump as President and focused on an issue he wanted changed or passed. It crosses
some powerful interest group, they crank up their lobbyists, and Congress balks. Does Trump roll
over and give up? Of course not. The next day, he is on TV telling the public exactly who is obstructing
his plans and who they have been bought off by. He also picks up the phone and calls key opposition
members of Congress to let them know that if they don't get their asses in line he will personally
be in their States or districts looking for their replacements for the next election cycle. He
would name names and kick ass all in broad daylight. The press could try to stop him, but it would
be impossible. He is better at it than they are, and can MAKE the spotlight shine where he wants
it.
Sunshine is the greatest disinfectant, and the fear of the status quo is that anyone not beholden
to the shadows get control and pull back the curtains. A true reformer could capture the public's
attention and bring about real change, but it will never happen as long as we keep electing insider
politicians dependent on their wealthy sponsors.
Remember - a special interest is by definition something that is against the general interests.
The only way for a President to run roughshod over the rest of the govt is if the rest of the
govt decides to let them do what they want to do... like look at Obummer, for instance. If the
congress and the supreme court didn't want Obummer to bankrupt the USA, there would be a quick
squeal of brakes on the govt checkbook.
As for the pubic interest... is this what ZHers refer to as the "free shit army? Yeah... they're
going to get upset at the paper money flying around in the wind and settling on their hand.
Give me a break, he took out a godamn margin loan against his stock portfolio. Are you saying
any candidate that takes out a simple loan from a bank is now disqualified? Candidates take out
loans to finance campaigns all the time. This is just getting incredibly stupid.
We apparently have a lot of dummies here at the Hedge who only follow the MSM bullshit
narrative. Typical Murikan zombies who cant drill down moar than a half inch.
So please explain how Goldman Sachs is financing the campaign. Other than the SMALL loans,
are they paying for anything directly? Nope, they are not.
So in your mind, GS is financing the Cruz campaign via his wife's salary, which is PEANUTS
compared to how much money he has raised from donors & how much cash it takes to run these days.
So Ted is running on thousands of small donations from true believers ??? I think not.
He is owned by big money. And Goldman is one of them. You're doing a shitty job as Goldman's apologist.
LOL I am nobody's apologist your ignorant fuck. The very simple fact is that GS is not funding
his campaign. You are either an outright moron, or just another delusional sycophantic Trump supporter.
And Mrs. Cruz has been on an unpaid leave of absence from GS for almost a full year at this
point dumb ass. If he wins she will not be going back.
1. Iowa "voters" like to lie to poll takers. It gives them a sense of being in control
of SOMETHING!. (And to them it's funny as hell... I mean this is IOWA we're talking about here.
Humor is in tight supply!)
2. polls and votes are two entirely different things. It's bad to confuse the two. The
people that are asked questions before the elections are the polled. the people who VOTE in the
elections are the "deciders" (allowing for "instant recounts" in the back seat of the car on the
way to the counting room.)
Now come on! Ted the Mountie is a sincere, God-fearing Christian! He would NEVER do anything
so vile and heinous. Pure and clean as the wind-driven snow, he is.
Why should the Repubs be in any panic greater than the Dems is the kind of thing a troll
would post. The Dems, a Socialist against a known liar, thief and murderder. Seriously?
How devoid of information you must be... Oh, you're a troll
The subject at hand was the R's. Geeze. Switch to decaf.
Yeah, the Dems are a massive joke. Completely with you there. A socialist and criminal. Sad
state of affairs. But, the Dems are ramming them home, aren't they? As opposed to what "appears"
like chaos on the Repub side. That says something interesting in itself.
Great minds! My dentist finished my sentence about Cruz for me yesterday in those exact same
words . . .
Free bonus was when I told him between teeth that the gun I was most interested in was the
NAA five shot .22 magnum revolver; he paused, left the room for a second and returned with a "you
mean this?" before pressing it into my palm with a "careful, it's loaded." Lovely little weapon.
One of my better dental check-ups for sure.
Cruz's Campaign manager was on Bloomberg last night and, though better looking, it's remarkable
how similar his face and hair is, and it's jarringly eerie how similar his expressions and mannerisms
are. Dressed in black with blood-red trim . . . I swear to God, if I'd put everything I had into
creating a character to represent Lucifer himself I couldn't have done better. Scary shit.
Standard Disclaimer: For outspending the next 25 countries in terms of the military, the US
sucks at "EMPIRE". Like sucks donkey balls.
Make me fucking god emperor of this country, and the Mexicans would be living in South America,
and I'd ship the Canadians back to England. Now that's how you run a god-damned empire. And that's
just in the first month.
Now if you don't mind I need to thank God, praise the Lord, and quote some scripture to you...
and it's on to New Hampshire for me...
Trying to force him away in a non violent way because she is worried about him getting mad.
Too scared of him to slap him so she is flicking him away. She is trying to defend herself but
in a way that she is hoping he will realize and stop hurting her or making her uncomfortable.
That is what it looked like to me. I could be off, but they are very dysfunctional family for
sure.
I heard Rubio was the one spreading that Carson was 'heading home to FLA for some R&R...prayer
breakfast in DC...' Not sure it's time to dogpile Cruz yet. I'm sure that time is close, but Marco
may have had a hand here - he certainly had something to gain from the Carson votes.
"
Cruz later apologized ... and thus admitted to the act." In a reasonable
world, that would be the end of his campaign as well as his career and his public life.
I was attracted to Trump's angry outbursts just as I would cheer anyone pounding on the
DC crowd, but I've come to believe he is playing a role and his anger is staged to appeal to the
masses....and it's working so you can't fault him for that.
When I saw Trump and his family on stage after the caucuses Monday night it looked like a curtain
call for Housewives of Manhattan. And what's with the Gordon Gecko hair cuts....seem kinda dated
or are they back. Anyway Matt Damon ain't Jason Bourne and Trump ain't Howard Beale in the film
"Network".
Cruz won Iowa for about a day LOL. All we need now is Jimmy Carter's grandson and the hidden
camera revealing that Goldman Sachs employees found stack of mailers in their breakrooms with
instructions to place mail labels on them.
So a rigged election proces doesn't matter? I'm sure Trump appreciates your advice to quit
& give up. What could he be thinking to focus on such a trivial issue?
Actually, what I think Trump is about to do is nail Cruz's sleezy ass to the wall, and make
him slink back to the rock he crawled out from under.
I sure hope The Donald wins the election. Yeah he may be the US's answer to Hitler/Stalin/Your-Favorite-Tyrant,
but dang. Talk about something fun to watch on TV! If he proves too much for too many lowly Republi-can't
school marms and has to drop out, going back the the boring same-old-same-old of the last seven
election cycles is going to be a real let down.
And think of having this much fun through an entire presidency! TRUMP 2016!!!
Cruz has been lying about the positions of the other candidates, and as Trump said - he's a
mean guy who lies. Let's see if he still thumps a bible after fooling the Iowa voters.
Based on the prior polls, the result was not legit. Cruz barely broke 20% on his best day.
Shows up with 28%? Rubio polled in the low teens. 23% a day later?
Trump polled *consistently* at (just the numbers from a wide variety of sources, MSM, and
off beat sources) at ~25%. Sure enough, DT get his 25%, but Cruz and Rubio blow up by 10% apiece.
I would call that either luck, or a statistical anomaly.
What was reported, fwiw, is that there was a substantial, massive influx of new republican
registration. Further, the democrats have officially shown only 1400 votes cast total through
the entire state. There was likely more, but 'party policy' is *not* to report the #s of voters.
Theory: A lot of Democrats registered as Republican and voted for the candidates they thought
had the best chance to beat Trump.
Fact finding: As far as I know, voter registration is a *matter of public record*. If I
were Trump, I would request the voter registration records of all the people for both parties
that turned in a ballot. Then, I would request voter registration records in the last 5 years.
Then, I would compare the *party affiliation* of each *present* voter with the most recent prior
registration.
What this analysis will show is how many formerly registered democrats switched to republican
for this IA caucus. Further, it would also show how many first time registrations with no prior
history in the state. For first time registrations, the thing to focus on is *how long has that
person been living in the state*.
I suspect that once the data is analyzed, it will show a considerable number of democrats registered
as republicans, and people came into the state to do the same thing, to cast a 'vote' for either
Cruz or Rubio.
One might argue, for something like this to happen on a large scale would require a lot of
organization. But that isn't necessarily true. All it would have taken is to float the idea, and
as the democrats consider their primary to be pointless (hillary the guaranteed nominee), a far
better use of their 'vote' is to game the system, register as republican, and vote for anybody
else to do their part to get rid of Trump.
This is what Trump should be doing. He has $10BB. If he starts the legal process to get the
data, I would be happy to analyze it, and publish the results.
This is an objective, factual measure. Whether or not Cruz 'stole' the vote because Cruz said
Carson dropped out is highly speculative. Let's say Carson did drop out. Could they not have just
as easily have voted for Trump?
I think DT has the right idea, but he is barking up the wrong tree. I strongly think Cruz 'won'
via fraud, but not the type Trump is saying.
An interesting, but not a deep, discussion about the possibility of uprising against the
neoliberal elite in the current circumstances...
Notable quotes:
"... Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet? ..."
"... With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the spread of global capitalism, today's
elites have lost the sense of fear that inspired a healthy respect for the masses among their
predecessors . Now they can despise them as losers, as the aristocracy of ancien régime
France despised the peasants who would soon be burning their châteaux. Surely today's
elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of
wealth and power. ..."
The following reader comment,
posted originally in the FT is a must read, both for the world's lower and endangered middle
classes but especially the members of the 1% elite because what may be coming next could be very
unpleasant for them.
From the time of the French Revolution until the collapse of communism, what successive
generations of elites had in common was a sense of fear of what the aggrieved masses might do
. In the first half of the 19th century they worried about a new Jacobin Terror, then
they worried about socialist revolution on the model of the Paris Commune of 1871. One reason
for the first world war was a growing sense of complacency among European elites. Afterwards they
had plenty to worry about in the form of international communism, which remained a bogey until
the 1980s.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the spread of global capitalism, today's
elites have lost the sense of fear that inspired a healthy respect for the masses among their
predecessors . Now they can despise them as losers, as the aristocracy of ancien régime
France despised the peasants who would soon be burning their châteaux. Surely today's
elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of
wealth and power.
Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet?
And most people wouldn't have the faintest idea of where to buy, or more probably rent, a pitchfork
anyhow. As for torches? What, are you crazy? Those things are dangerous and would void our
insurance policy.
And a roasting spit and rope to tie em by the ankle to the cherry trees lining the national
mall, Musollini style. Urinals hanging from cherry trees. Only in America.
One does wonder how inbreds surrounded by expensive advisors so easily lost any shred of fight-o-flight
survival skills. Guess the extra bling allows them to dream false dreams.
The ones who think they are 'top dog' are about to find out the hard way, there is something
much bigger at work...
"6. The people, under our guidance, have annihilated the aristocracy, who were their one and
only defense and foster-mother for the sake of their own advantage which is inseparably bound
up with the well-being of the people. Nowadays, with the destruction of the aristocracy,
the people have fallen into the grips of merciless money-grinding scoundrels who have
laid a pitiless and cruel yoke upon the necks of the workers.
7. We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression
when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces - socialists, anarchists, communists
- to whom we always give support in accordance with an alleged brotherly rule (of the solidarity
of all humanity) of our social masonry. The aristocracy, which enjoyed by law the labor of the
workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy, and strong. We are
interested in just the opposite - in the diminution, the killing out of the goyim. Our power is
in the chronic shortness of food and physical weakness of the worker because by all that this
implies he is made the slave of our will, and he will not find in his own authorities either strength
or energy to set against our will. Hunger creates the right of capital to rule the worker more
surely than it was given to the aristocracy by the legal authority of kings.
8. By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with
their hands we shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way."
The thing is that there are going to be a LOT of folks who thought
they were elites. Instead they will be thrown under the bus of the approaching hoards to
slow them down while the real elites make sure no one escapes that shouldn't be.
They no longer fear the masses as they control the cops and the narrative. What will really
work and is almost unstoppable is the ghost in the machine. Seemingly random acts of sabotage,
just think if the internet went down for even 2 or 3 days. Who would it hurt most, average folk
or ? I have a dream...
Lol those guys are so blackwater.... It is illegal to have a standing "army" on 'murrican soil.
Private for hire jagoffs arent. And no, it wasnt the national guard.
The internet doesnt forget or forgive transgressions. Sins of the father shall be paid for by
their sons. "Where are you going to run, where are you going to hide; no where because there is no where left
to run to." - Body snatchers
I think you are correct so far as you take your argument. Yes, they will START on their own
neighborhoods. The depth of the fall can be graphed against how far they will go afterwards.
It is our son's and daughter's who protect the elitist assholes. We know where they built their
bugouts and landing strips. We built them. We know where the air vents are for their underground
bunkers. We built them. We know where the diesel tanks are to power their generators and you can't
hide solar panels. No, we know where there going and how to get to them. Soon!!
Now you know why the hawaiian's, when they sent a worker down the side of a cliff to bury the
chiefs bones in that space reserved for the Ali'i, they "accidently" let go of the rope while
he was climbing back up...oopppps, sorry bout 'dat brah.
No, the proles do little of substance. But, the time is reached when even their paid off guard
dogs will be tired of the insanity that destroys their own extended families. (The psychopaths
can't help but push it to the extremes. That is their egotistical nature. Theyve been indulged
since they were infants.) When that day of reckoning comes, the criminals will be very afraid.
The EU 'leadership' bringing in massive outside foreign populations to destroy the existing
culture and nation-state is a potential match for the fuse of anger. We see police carrying out
orders, but what do they really think ? How bad will they let it get ? Even the Red Army troops
refused to go along with it all when the grandmas scolded them for taking part in rolling the
tanks toward their own people. And those troops said "Nyet, no more of this." And the USSR was
no more.
I used to love the old sims of feudal japan where you could set your tax rate at whatever you
wanted but the higher you set it the more likely you would get a peasant revolt.
What's going on is precisely this:.....
They have learned how to set the tax rate at whatever percentage won't cause utter chaos and
then absolve themselves from said taxes through loopholes AND THEN add on top stealth taxes in
the form of currency debasement AND THEN on top of all this they've built a ponzi scheme debt
based fiasco that is entirely unsustainable.
I gotta hand it to them they have managed so far to avoid the ire of the peasant class, however
methinks that once this shit show rolls into town and starts playing nightly as in reality comes
a callin then these same folks are going to need to hide off planet.
Seriously I'd advise them to look into space travel.
The elites today were related to the elites of yesterdays revolutions. They have learned and are keeping track of everything and with the advent of big data and lots
of computing power, they know how much time they have before SHTF. They have quants assessing risk daily, and not just market risk..geopolitical and other stuff.
They dont fear us because they know they can keep ramping up poisoning of our food and other
stupid social media gimmicks.
If all else fails, the jackboots will come out in full force.
They've been testing and training these detention methods for close to 100 years. From the
gulags of Russia to the West Bank / Gaza strip today of Israel.....its being tried and trued.
The past nine months have set record monthly background checks. I believe we as a "group"
know and feel our existence is in danger, and are responding accordingly.
Certainly a patriot CANNOT do it through the ballot box,
Iowa: Days before the Iowa caucuses in 2012, Ron Paul held a
commanding lead in the
polls and all the momentum, with every other candidate having peaked from favorable
media coverage and then collapsed under the ensuing scrutiny. Establishment Republicans, like
Iowa's Representative Steve King (R), attempted to sabotage Paul's campaign by
spreading rumors
he would lose to Obama if nominated. . . Iowa Governor Terry Barnstad
told Politico
, "[If Paul wins] people are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third.
If Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire".
The message from the Iowa Governor to voters of his state was: a vote for Ron Paul was a wasted
vote.
The RNC and their minions would have prevented a Ron Paul presidential nomination, by any means
necessary - up to and including a terrible, just terrible, plane crash. All those lives lost....
They DID prevent the nomination by any means necessary...and did so, short of crashing a plane.
The underhanded shit they pulled in '12 sealed their fate.
In that case, the Libertarian Party needs to go "full Zio-mode": Take no BS and no
prisoners.
Problem is, they are too "individualistic" (divided, heterogenous), and too 'Christian' (raised
in "Religion of Serfs") to create another American or French Revolution, or bring about real change.
Note that in the American Revolution, its Founders realized that the influence of Clerics needed
to be curtailed, and so they invented the "Seperation of Church and State". The French, OTOH,
called a spade a spade, and got rid of the Church completely.
Amerika: Where kids are taught by their parents to believe in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny
and Santa Claus -- all the while they believe in "Santa for Grownups", i.e. Winged Nordic Humans
(Angels) and a Sky God.
I have ZERO faith that Libertarians will do anyting, other than talk, blog, hold meetings,
conventions, have weekend warrior games, or buy any number of Doomsday Products and Services.
IOW.. they'll do anything and everything, but March or Protest en mass. They won't even do TV
program, much less do a leveraged buyout of a TV channel.
Like I said: "Too individualistic, to truly matter to TPTB". I WISH it were not to,
but I'm just calling it as I see it. Alas. If I'm wrong, I'll jump for joy and click my heels.
Former Massachusetts senator and would-be New Hampshire senator Scott Brown, a moderate
Republican who once
graced the pages of Cosmopolitan, will endorse Donald Trump at rally on Tuesday night, one week
before the state's presidential primary, according to the
Washington Post.
Brown will appear onstage with the real estate mogul/reality star/billionaire Republican semi-frontrunner
at a rally in Milford, Hew Hampshire, barely 24 hours after Trump was handed an embarrassing second-place
finish in the Iowa caucuses.
Trump's commanding lead in the
New Hampshire polls - combined with the demographic benefits of a less-religious Northeastern
state - have already put the Granite State primary victory well within his reach. Whether the endorsement
of a carpet-bagging senate candidate who lost his own race in New Hampshire two years ago will do
much to boost the Donald's campaign remains to be seen.
The Guardian's Ben Jacobs files from New Hampshire:
The endorsement had long been expected - the only question was whether it would come before Iowa
or after the caucuses. It serves to compliment the Iowa endorsement of Sarah Palin. While the
former vice presidential nominee had long been beloved by conservatives with the Republican Party,
Brown was considered a star among the GOP's moderate wing after a shock win in a 2010 special
election. While Brown was never known for his policy chops, he serves a well-liked figure in the
Republican party who can serve as a validator for Trump among New Hampshire's notoriously flinty,
moderate electorate.
calmly_observing > ridgerunner
I find that since Trump announced and starting to get traction there is almost
unprecedented zeal by a lot of his followers and his detractors to push away "the other."
There must be at least a dozen factions that were once all uniformly conservative or GOP or
whatever label that are now trying to push others away. Now Rush. Already Coulter. Next Mark
Levin. Heck, there may be two dozen factions all fighting each other before the election even
arrives!
ridgerunner > calmly_observing
Befuddled thinking. There are only two factions: Establishment and "We the People"
Skutch > donh
Trump also does himself no favors by pandering to conservative Christians. He would be much
better off stating flatly that he is an unobservant believer who doesn't spend a lot of time
thinking about his faith, than trying to fake his way through it as he has been. He's not
fooling anyone. That will NOT play well outside of New England.
Skutch
Folks, I love THAT Donald Trump is running. I love HOW he's shaking up the campaigns. I
love WHAT he is talking about and how that's changed the dialogue this election cycle. But I
don't love Donald. His positions are not conservative - tea party, establishment, libertarian
or otherwise. He's basically a one issue (immigration) candidate with a very big microphone,
enormous ego, and the benefit of a fierce cult of personality. This can only end badly for us.
dave0987 > Skutch
Who's calling Trump a conservative? I've yet to see anyone call him one. Trump is more
of a moderate nationalist, and if he takes on our most critical problem of illegal
immigration and border security finally, and we get even 65-75% of his promises that's
a-okay and better than 100% of nothing with the others and the status quo of OPEN BORDERS and
the soon to follow UNBEATABLE NUMBERS OF NEW DEMOCRAT VOTERS which results in a DEMOCRAT
DICTATORSHIP.
Think ahead. Look at the big picture. Right now it's about living to fight another day. The
priority of PRESERVATION.
Moderate Nationalist is better than the beholden to open borders donor cash GLOBALIST
Republicans, and CERTAINLY better than open borders communist Democrats. Sadly as
super-ultra-mega-deluxe-king-of-all-conservatives as Cruz (praise his holy name) may be, he's
still beholden to Robert Mercer and all the other open-borders donors, which means, as in
decades past, NOTHING WILL CHANGE on our country's most critical issue of illegal immigration
and border security.
Let's not forget what all the so-called Conservatives have done for us-including all the
Tea Party landslides we were so excited about. Hint: Google GOP CAVES and you can see in the
results, pretty much right down the list of issues they have been the party of surrender and
the party of DEMOCRAT ENABLERS.
TRUMP 2016..
Guest
Scott also wrote an op-Ed in 2012 socking Warren over "you didn't build that" standing up
for entrepreneurs and business owners. If true, it makes sense he'd value Trump's unsurpassed
business success among the candidates and his decades in an executive role.
"Tonight is a wonderful start to the national campaign," Sanders said in a packed gangway on
the late-night flight heading east to beat an incoming snowstorm. "Tonight shows the American
people that this is a campaign that can win."
He threw little light on an unfolding controversy over certain Iowa precincts that did not
have enough Democratic party volunteers to report delegate totals for each candidate but did
call on officials to take the unusual step of revealing underlying voter totals. Delegates are
awarded in the Iowa Democratic contest on a precinct-by-precinct basis, irrespective of the
state-wide vote for each candidate.
"I honestly don't know what happened. I know there are some precincts that have still not
reported. I can only hope and expect that the count will be honest," he said. "I have no idea.
Did we win the popular vote? I don't know, but as much information as possible should be made
available."
Sanders' campaign director, Jeff Weaver, told reporters he did not "anticipate we are going to
contest" specific results but hoped there would be an investigation into what happened.
He also claimed the tight result, in a state where Sanders had once trailed by Clinton in
polling by 50 percentage points, was a sign of a dramatic surge of popularity for his agenda to
reduce income inequality and "seize back democracy from the billionaire class".
"People said we had an inferior ground game, that we didn't have as good an understanding of
the state," said Weaver. "I think we certainly demonstrated that we had at least as good a
ground game and I would argue that we had a better one because we started out [as underdogs]."
"... Keep in mind Iowa is a strictly for registered party members, Independents can't participate there. That is why Trump didn't perform well (he depends on the loosely termed Tea Party , that draws it's popularity OUTSIDE the party via the Libertarians and Independents). ..."
"... Reagan used the South in his bid for presidency because they don't require party registration nor force them to choose what they chose in the primaries. So they can vote either way they chose ... and with a secret ballot. This helps when win fever erupts and join the bandwagon and it's hooping and hollering collects more votes, and not alienate your friends and family. ..."
"... Iowa had no secret ballot nor Independents. So hold onto your hats until after March Primaries (that has some of the most populated states voting) to pick the winning horse, either by conscious or win fever . ..."
"... True, but by the same token - look how well Carson did. That almost certainly came out of Trump's supporters, since they're very similar candidates. If Carson bows out, those people probably go straight to Trump, giving him an easy edge against Cruz, who spent a LOT of time working Iowa, and hasn't done much elsewhere. Then again, that depends upon 'loser' Trump being able to explain why he's still a winner. ..."
"... Iowa is basically a chance for underdogs to attract a bit more attention and get a bit more funding from folks who would pull their money out otherwise. But it's not indicative of much more than that. And New Hampshire is in a similar position - good for politics and momentum, but not actually very predictive. ..."
"... MPs in the UK have been expressing relief at Donald Trump's failure in Iowa. Well they shouldn't be relieved. Trump had poor numbers against Hilary and (especially) Bernie for the general. Cruz is more competitive. And Trump was most probably a harmless blowhard, whilst Cruz is just as poisonous and is driven by ideology rather than ego. ..."
Eh... Iowa really doesn't prove electability, though. It's got a roughly 50% rate of
caucusing for the candidate eventually chosen - the coinflip was, oddly, about as accurate as
getting votes. And it is a swing state lately, but a small one - if he wins Ohio or Florida,
it's time to be proud.
That being said, it DOES give him momentum, and was a good showing - he could have lost by 10%
and still called it a clear sign that people liked him. His only real problem is his own words
- he predicted a clear victory if turnout was high. And turnout WAS high - higher than it's
ever been, yet he still (very narrowly) lost. So he's golden... so long as his supporters
don't actually hold him accountable for what he says.
Clinton, meanwhile, has acted like it was going to be a tough fight, and clearly got a tough
fight. Since she lost Iowa last time, this will energize HER base too - and it's not super
likely that a bigger win would have helped her much more.
Marcedward -> starlingnl 2 Feb 2016 11:13
Clinton did not crack 50% in a state where she used to be ahead by 40points in the polls.
Clinton suffered a big setback - the base is against her.
SandyK -> ezyian 2 Feb 2016 10:59
Trump's in trouble though, as Iowa is a closed election for only party loyalists. It shows
who the party likes and dislikes, especially to White Christian voters.
Trump is not what HE think's he is, as the vote is fairly evenly divided in the GOP. None are
clear winners in ideology.
IF Trump pulls ahead in the March Primaries it's the Independents driving his campaign ... and
oh, the GOP is going to cannibalize itself IF Trump gets the nomination from support outside
the party.
That's how voters leave the party, just like in 1980 (when the choice was Carter or Kennedy).
^-^
SandyK 2 Feb 2016 10:50
Keep in mind Iowa is a strictly for registered party members, Independents can't
participate there. That is why Trump didn't perform well (he depends on the loosely termed
"Tea Party", that draws it's popularity OUTSIDE the party via the Libertarians and
Independents).
It shows what the parties itself thinks of their candidates.
March with the huge primaries will show what the cross section of the USA thinks about them.
Reagan used the South in his bid for presidency because they don't require party
registration nor force them to choose what they chose in the primaries. So they can vote
either way they chose ... and with a secret ballot. This helps when "win fever" erupts and
"join the bandwagon and it's hooping and hollering" collects more votes, and not alienate your
friends and family.
Iowa had no secret ballot nor Independents. So hold onto your hats until after March
Primaries (that has some of the most populated states voting) to pick the winning horse,
either by conscious or "win fever".
kattw -> Majentah 2 Feb 2016 10:40
True, but by the same token - look how well Carson did. That almost certainly came out
of Trump's supporters, since they're very similar candidates. If Carson bows out, those people
probably go straight to Trump, giving him an easy edge against Cruz, who spent a LOT of time
working Iowa, and hasn't done much elsewhere. Then again, that depends upon 'loser' Trump
being able to explain why he's still a winner.
kattw Mr0011011 2 Feb 2016 09:29
That's not even correct. For democrats, in the last 11 caucuses not counting yesterday,
they picked wrong 3 times (four if you count that more people didn't know who to vote for than
voted for Carter), and 2 times were uncontested - ie: basically a 50% chance of picking right
when there's an actual contest to decide. For republicans, they were wrong 4 times, and
choosing uncontested spots three times - ie: again a roughly 50% chance of choosing correctly
when there was actually a contest.
Iowa is basically a chance for underdogs to attract a bit more attention and get a bit
more funding from folks who would pull their money out otherwise. But it's not indicative of
much more than that. And New Hampshire is in a similar position - good for politics and
momentum, but not actually very predictive.
Which really makes the coin-flip seem logical in retrospect, since it's about a 50% chance the
Iowa delegates will be voting for the eventual winner either way.
confettifoot -> confettifoot 2 Feb 2016 08:55
I'll follow Sanders' lead on this one. I've watched and listened closely when he addresses
Hillary. He respectfully and emphatically disagrees on actual issues (and agrees on others,
and says so), and never stoops to flinging dubious half-truths, rightwing-generated smear
soundbytes or dishonest construction of fact. It's one of the reasons why I love and respect
him. Bernie supporters who do otherwise only do him great harm and don't deserve him. Save
your spleen for the Republicans, know the difference, and support Bernie.
Lafeyette 2 Feb 2016 08:34
"This is not the end, this is not even the beginning of the end, this is just perhaps the
end of the beginning."
-Sir Winston Churchill
Vermouth Brilliantine 2 Feb 2016 08:31
God help us if this trend continues and we end up with a Cruz vs. Clinton presidential
election. Righteous evil vs. the crypto-Wall Street hawk-in-leftist clothing. Not a race I'd
like to see.
furiouspurpose 2 Feb 2016 08:30
MPs in the UK have been expressing relief at Donald Trump's failure in Iowa. Well they
shouldn't be relieved. Trump had poor numbers against Hilary and (especially) Bernie for the
general. Cruz is more competitive. And Trump was most probably a harmless blowhard, whilst
Cruz is just as poisonous and is driven by ideology rather than ego.
kambge Faranelli 2 Feb 2016 07:57
To be honest we've had G.W bush who was basically as nearly as bad as trump, the fake hope
of Obama who probably is a decent guy but is controlled by other forces, the problem is that
if Bernie gets elected, there is not much her or any US president can do to stop the
inevitable decline of the US economy, and people will blame socialism and public spending
again for the ills of really stupid financialization of the economy, greed and short-sigthedness
from our political and financial leaders.
US debt is unsustainable in the long run. The only reason countries bought it in the past was
gunboat diplomacy, the only reason the chinese buy it now is to prop up a broken system -
their own financial system is equally bubbalicious although I'm not so clued up on the Chinese
economy. We need a big market re-adjustment to sort all of this shit out and then rebuild from
the ashes.
So stale. This is the same old tired messaging coming out of the Clinton camp for months on
end. Declaring one's candidate the presumptive winner while claiming victimhood is more than a
tad disingenuous. This oft repeated routine to rally the troops in protection of Ms. Clinton,
makes one wonder how she can be expected to lead. For shame.
erpiu 2 Feb 2016 10:58
the bottom-line question about hillary is:
can she be trusted with the hopes and the vote of impoverished usa voters of any race...
i) given the ~140 million in *personal-wealth* bribes she&he have already received, and keep
receiving, from WS, the "sweatshops for america!" council, and the "private prisons R us" trade
group?
ii) given that her demonstrated appetite for money and for the lifestyles of the rich and famous
requires her getting further bribes from WS and the plutocrats?
iii) given her record of opportunism with only one constant: advancing her career and hubby's
(or were the race-baiting prison and welfare bills idealistic? was it slick willie's boasting
after DOMA?).
iv) given her mixed ideological upbringing, exposures, and moderate "likes" that span from
the openly racist rightwing reactionary world (campaigning for "southern-strategists" b.goldwater
and r.nixon), to "realistic" by-bribe-only anything-for-WS race-baiting, gay-baiting, welfare-baiting
"progressivism"?
Cafael 2 Feb 2016 10:49
it's self-evident to any true leftist that all issues should come back to economics.
It's not just economics; it's excessive competitiveness. Racial and gender prejudices are
competitive group strategies. If you want a more competitive society with liberal values,
you can't achieve that holistically, you can only do it through draconian censure of the outward
expressions of prejudice, by attacking, even criminalising dissent, creating totalitarian liberalism.
Making people fear to publicly express racial prejudice while keeping all the money and power
in white hands, thus ultimately sanctifying and reinforcing the power of white elites. Perhaps
that is the agenda, and actually ending racial prejudice or sexism or homophobia isn't really
the point.
A more compassionate, less competitive society on the other hand, not uniformly conformist,
tall poppy cutting or happy clappy but recognising from our experience, from our human perspective
that winning or being 'better than' having 'more than' isn't an ulimately fulfilling imperative;
recognising that the society's basis and symbiosis is more than merely transactional, would more
fundamentally change the way people consider minorities and gender, because such a society wouldn't
be running on rivalry and hatred.
I'm not saying Western society does run on those emotions, far from it, but the modern, ever
more extreme capitalist ideology may be, with the best of intentions, sleepwalking that way, because
it doesn't understand its own philosophy.
voxjubilante 2 Feb 2016 10:42
This "BernieBros" narrative has already been eviscerated at The Intercept:
But just because Trump is an imperfect candidate doesn't mean his candidacy can't be instructive.
Trump could teach Republicans in Washington a lot if only they stopped posturing long enough to watch
carefully. Here's some of what they might learn:
He Exists Because You Failed
American presidential elections usually amount to a series of overcorrections: Clinton begat Bush,
who produced Obama, whose lax border policies fueled the rise of Trump. In the case of Trump, though,
the GOP shares the blame, and not just because his fellow Republicans misdirected their ad buys or
waited so long to criticize him. Trump is in part a reaction to the intellectual corruption of the
Republican Party. That ought to be obvious to his critics, yet somehow it isn't.
Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center
adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and
foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should
probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period?
Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical,
dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising.
Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you'd have to consider it wasted.
Pretty embarrassing. And yet they're not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming
tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics
have noted
in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents "an existential threat to conservatism."
Let that sink in. Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider
conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding?
They're the ones who've been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose
populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while
implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic
change. Now they're telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don't, they're liberal.
It turns out the GOP wasn't simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who its
voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that most
Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign policy.
That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism (he savaged
the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded for it, but that
was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing otherwise. The
only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too.
On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators like
Ted Cruz didn't appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If you live
in an affluent ZIP code, it's hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don't
go to public school. You don't take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant
is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the
day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous
while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It's all good.
Apart from his line about Mexican rapists early in the campaign, Trump hasn't said anything especially
shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals
- these are the ravings of a Nazi? This is the "ghost of George Wallace" that a
Politico piece described last August? A lot of Republican leaders think so. No wonder
their voters are rebelling.
Truth Is Not Only A Defense, It's Thrilling
When was the last time you stopped yourself from saying something you believed to be true for
fear of being punished or criticized for saying it? If you live in America, it probably hasn't been
long. That's not just a talking point about political correctness. It's the central problem with
our national conversation, the main reason our debates are so stilted and useless. You can't fix
a problem if you don't have the words to describe it. You can't even think about it clearly.
This depressing fact made Trump's political career. In a country where almost everyone in public
life lies reflexively, it's thrilling to hear someone say what he really thinks, even if you believe
he's wrong. It's especially exciting when you suspect he's right.
A temporary ban on Muslim immigration? That sounds a little extreme (meaning nobody else has said
it recently in public). But is it? Millions of Muslims have moved to Western Europe over the past
50 years, and a sizable number of them still haven't assimilated. Instead, they remain hostile and
sometimes dangerous to the cultures that welcomed them. By any measure, that experiment has failed.
What's our strategy for not repeating it here, especially after San Bernardino-attacks that seemed
to come out of nowhere? Invoke American exceptionalism and hope for the best? Before Trump, that
was the plan.
Republican primary voters should be forgiven for wondering who exactly is on the reckless side
of this debate. At the very least, Trump seems like he wants to protect the country.
Evangelicals understand this better than most. You read surveys that indicate the majority of
Christian conservatives support Trump, and then you see the video: Trump on stage with pastors, looking
pained as they pray over him, misidentifying key books in the New Testament, and in general doing
a ludicrous imitation of a faithful Christian, the least holy roller ever. You wonder as you watch
this: How could they be that dumb? He's so obviously faking it.
They know that already. I doubt there are many Christian voters who think Trump could recite the
Nicene Creed, or even identify it. Evangelicals have given up trying to elect one of their own. What
they're looking for is a bodyguard, someone to shield them from mounting (and real) threats to their
freedom of speech and worship. Trump fits that role nicely, better in fact than many church-going
Republicans. For eight years, there was a born-again in the White House. How'd that work out for
Christians, here and in Iraq?
"... Most of the rank and file who still fervently support her never made it as far up the ladder as a Joan Walsh, but they identify with Walsh, because werent they all together and equals once, not so long ago? Except it was long ago. The passage of 30-35 years matters, and the utter divergence of their stature and economic safety matters even more. They want a vicarious win for themselves via Hillary. Because theyre fools. ..."
"... The lame gender justification for voting for Hillary Clinton reminds me of what my late mother used to call yellow dog Republicans in South Dakota. They would vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for any Democrat. ..."
"... Put in context, Sanders was responding to requests by the Saudis for U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS. He saw through it, saying that what they really wanted was U.S. troops to protect the billionaire Saudi royal family. ..."
"... Those who are on board with neoliberalism and the American Imperial Project can vote for Hilary on points–I have no problem with that so long as they are honest about it. ..."
"... It also seems that to some extent Hillary is benefiting from the fact that she is such a toxic monster that its hard to even process, it seems unreal and hard to believe in. I mean, here is a person who has pushed to waste trillions of dollars devastating middle eastern countries that dont threaten us, has de-facto allied the United States with Al Qaeda (!), has pushed to spend trillions of dollars bailing out Wall Street while starving main street of capital, intends to gut social security to help pay for all this largesse to the 1% (because deficits are bad, you know), wants us to sign a trade agreement that is effectively a corporate coup, making our domestic laws subservient to a bunch of foreign corporate lawyers meeting in secret, used her tenure as secretary of state to sell out the national interest for personal cash while she was still in office… And people say that Trump is dangerous? Or that Bernie is unelectable? Really? ..."
"... If Hillary Clinton, neoliberal and neoconservative warmonger, is elected the first woman president, it will be appropriate for this nation, given its system of predatory global capitalism enforced by military brutality and violence. Appropriate, but not at all beneficial, for most of us and the planet. ..."
"... Wall St bankers were worried about angry populism coming for their hides in 2008. Knowing that identity politics trumps issue politics for most Democrat voters, they inserted Obama into the mix, and the Democrats lapped it up like the identity-card simpletons that they are. This shifted the focus of the 08 Democrat primaries from Wall St and Iraq to a tacit identity battle based on race and gender. ..."
"... I also think Clinton is the Candidate Most Likely to Start WW3, and that includes all ..."
From a recent
Guardian article
, this from long-time Wall Street trader Chris Arnade. This is worth reading
in full. He starts:
I owe almost my entire Wall Street career to the Clintons. I am not alone; most bankers owe
their careers, and their wealth, to them. Over the last 25 years they – with the Clintons it is
never just Bill or Hillary – implemented policies that placed Wall Street at the center of the
Democratic economic agenda, turning it from a party against Wall Street to a party of Wall Street.
That is why when I recently went to see
Hillary Clinton
campaign for president and speak about reforming Wall Street I was skeptical. What I heard
hasn't changed that skepticism. The policies she offers are mid-course corrections. In the Clintons'
world, Wall Street stays at the center, economically and politically. Given Wall Street's power
and influence, that is a dangerous place to leave them.
Now some of his story:
Salomon Brothers hired me in 1993, seven months after President Bill Clinton's inauguration.
Getting a job had been easy, Wall Street was booming from deregulation that had begun under Reagan
and was continuing under Clinton.
When Bill Clinton ran for office, he offered up him and Hillary ("Two for the price of one")
as New Democrats, embracing an image of being tough on crime, but not on business. Despite the
campaign rhetoric, nobody on the trading floor I joined had voted for the Clintons or trusted
them.
Few traders on the floor were even Democrats, who as long as anyone could remember were Wall
Street's natural enemy. That view was summarized in the words of my boss: "Republicans let you
make money and let you keep it. Democrats don't let you make money, but if you do, they take it."
Despite Wall Street's reticence, key appointments were swinging their way. Robert Rubin, who
had been CEO of Goldman Sachs, was appointed to a senior White House job as director of the National
Economic Council. The Treasury Department was also being filled with banking friendly economists
who saw the markets as a solution, not as a problem.
The administration's economic policy took shape as trickle down, Democratic style. They championed
free trade, pushing Nafta. They reformed welfare, buying into the conservative view that poverty
was about dependency, not about situation. They threw the old left a few bones, repealing prior
tax cuts on the rich, but used the increased revenues mostly on Wall Street's favorite issue:
cutting the debt.
But when Clinton bailed out Mexico to make Wall Street debt-holders whole, Wall Street knew that
administration was theirs:
Most importantly, when faced with their first financial crisis, they [the Clinton administration]
bailed out Wall Street.
That crisis came in January 1995, halfway through the administration's first term. Mexico,
after having boomed from the optimism surrounding Nafta, went bust. It was a huge embarrassment
for the administration, given the push they had made for Nafta against a cynical Democratic party.
Money was fleeing Mexico, and much of it was coming back through me and my firm. Selling investors'
Mexican bonds was my first job on Wall Street, and now they were trying to sell them back to us.
But we hadn't just sold Mexican bonds to clients, instead we did it using new derivatives product
to get around regulatory issues and take advantages of tax rules, and lend the clients money.
Given how aggressive we were, and how profitable it was for us, older traders kept expecting to
be stopped by regulators from the new administration, but that didn't happen.
When Mexico started to collapse, the shudders began….
Those shudders were entirely unnecessary. The Clinton administration saved the banks by bailing
out their debtors. They pushed for "a $50bn global bail-out of Mexico, arguing that to not do so
would devastate the US and world economy. Unmentioned was that it would have also devastated Wall
Street banks " (my emphasis). The success of that bailout became a template that's with us today.
It was "used it as an economic blueprint that emphasized Wall Street. It also emphasized bailouts".
As a result, "Wall Street now had both political parties working for them, and really nobody holding
them accountable. Now, no trade was too aggressive, no risk too crazy,
no behavior to unethical
and no loss too painful. It unleashed a boom that produced plenty of
smaller crisis (Russia, Dotcom), before culminating in the housing and financial crisis of 2008."
This was not just Bill and his actions. It was his administration. As Arnade notes above, when
Bill Clinton ran for office he offered himself and Hillary as "Two for the price of one," as "New
Democrats, embracing an image of being tough on crime, but not on business." Is Hillary still of
this mind? She was in 2008. As a senator, according to Arnade, "Hillary Clinton
voted to bail-out the banks, a vote she still defends.
" A vote opposite to the
vote of Bernie Sanders
.
Where's
Is Wall Street's Money Going Today?
And now just one of the reasons the story told above is still the story today, and is still a
Hillary Clinton story. The following graphic show data through October, 2015:
Campaign donations from individuals who work in the securities and investments industry (
source
; click to enlarge)
This is an awful lot of money for an individual to give to someone who's going to jail them for
fraud. Again, this and the previous bulleted piece don't comprise two stories, an older one and a
newer one. They are clearly one story, even without considering the recent
money from Wall Street speeches
.
Clinton
Goes to Pennsylvania to Reap Windfall from Pennsylvania Frackers
One more point, this time about the climate, one of the places we started this piece. Consider
the
following
from Brad Johnson, something from the current fundraising cycle:
Last night, Hillary Clinton
attended a gala fundraiser
in Philadelphia at the headquarters of Franklin Square Capital
Partners, a major investor in the fossil-fuel industry, particularly domestic fracking. The controversial
fracking industry is particularly powerful in Pennsylvania, which will host the
Democratic National Convention this July.
Clinton has
avoided taking any clear stand
on fracking. While she has
embraced
the Clean Power Plan, which assumes a strong increase in natural-gas power plants,
she also supports a much deeper investment in
solar electricity
than the baseline plan. The pro-Clinton Super PAC Correct the Record, run
by David Brock, touts Clinton's
aggressive pro-fracking record
.
As reported by the Intercept's Lee Fang, "One of Franklin Square Capital's investment funds,
the FS Energy & Power Fund" the Intercept's Lee Fang
reports
, "is heavily invested in fossil fuel companies, including offshore oil drilling and
fracking." The company
cautions
that "changes to laws and increased regulation or restrictions on the use of hydraulic
fracturing may adversely impact" the fund's performance.
Through its fund, Franklin Square
invests
in private fracking and oil drilling companies across the nation, as well as Canada
and the Gulf of Mexico. This includes heavy investment in Pennsylvania frackers. …
There's much more
at the link
- this is just a taste.
Will the first woman president be our "fracker in chief" and put the earth on a diet of methane,
a deadly greenhouse gas, until it fries? I'm afraid, if the first woman president is Clinton, the
answer will be yes. It breaks my heart that this is not a "clean election," but it's not, and it's
not one of our choices to make it one.
(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you'd like to help out,
go here
; you can adjust the split any way you like at the link. If you'd like to "phone-bank
for Bernie," go here . You
can volunteer in other ways
by going here
. And thanks!) kimsarah ,
January 31, 2016 at 4:52 am
Wasn't it Lloyd Blankfein who said he'd be happy with either Hillary or Jeb? As illustrated here, Wall Street has been happy with the "establishment" leadership of both parties,
ever since the Clintons came to Washington - even though it is still fashionable to badmouth Democrats
because they are supposedly tougher regulators and less pro free market capitalism. Thank goodness, more and more voters are realizing that their choices should not be based on party
affiliation or gender, but who can best fix the damage done by the neoliberals of both parties
and stop bowing to Wall Street. That is why Sanders and Trump have been rising in the polls. Now
we'll see if that momentum will translate into election results.
But the private consensus is similar to what Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein said to POLITICO
late last year when he praised both Christie - before the bridge scandal - and Clinton. "I
very much was supportive of Hillary Clinton the last go-round," he said. "I held fundraisers
for her."
People close to Blankfein say the same calculus applies to a Jeb Bush-Hillary Clinton race
as it would to a Christie-Clinton contest. "Those would be two very good choices and we'd be
perfectly happy with them," a person close to Blankfein said. Blankfein is a self-described
Democrat, but his comments about Christie and Clinton reflect the ambidextrous political approach
that many Republicans and Democrats on Wall Street take.
Everyone deep down is 'tribal' in the sense that they always find themselves attracted to politicians
who in some sense are a reflection of who they are. So people always feel drawn for the 'local
guy' above the better 'outsider', the person of similar ethnic background, similar accent, school,
etc. Its a natural thing, and not altogether a bad thing. Its the same thing that makes communities
work.
I recently had an argument with a cousin who lives in a rural area. She said she was voting
for a particular politician 'because he looks after the locals'. This politician is known to be
corrupt and a liar – he was described as such by two different judges. To the horror of outsiders,
he keeps getting elected with big majorities because people like my cousin see him as 'our guy'
and the more sophisticated urban types hate him, the more they like him. My comment to my cousin
was 'if you vote for him simply because he is 'local' and ignore his corruption and lies, then
you lose all rights to complain about anything bad in this country, ever. Because you are the
reason.' Yeah, I was a bit mad (she just laughed).
My point is that we need to call out people who vote for people like Clinton because she is
a woman (or any other such superficial reason). Yes, it is emotionally understandable for a certain
generation of women to see her as 'one of us'. Entirely understandable. It is also entirely wrong.
The educated woman who votes for Clinton 'because' is no different from the idiot Kansas rube
who votes for tea-partier 'because dem city types hate him', just with less excuse, because education
is supposed to matter. If someone votes Clinton because they agree on bombing the Middle East
and bailing out Wall Street, and Fracking everywhere, well, thats fine – just say it. But playing
the gender (or any other such card) is intellectually vapid and anyone who does it loses the right
to complain about politicians anytime, anywhere, ever.
My problem is the hypocritical way they talk about voting for a woman then turn around and
lambaste a Palin or a Fiorina whom they would never vote for and hold in contempt. These people
are not even for 'the tribe"–they are exclusively for Rodham Clinton. This makes their appeal
to the woman angle, in my opinion, odious and false. It's "sisterhood is powerful" except I get
to decide who the sisters are. And since they are selective about who is and is not worthy of
being voted for as a woman, you see that deep down they really do endorse the miserable neoliberal
agenda of Clinton, because they have so decisively declared her an "us" while Palin and Fiorina
get to be a "them". If policies matter, and it seems in their definition of us and them they do,
then you've got to believe that they are OK with Clinton's policies no matter how they may equivocate.
David Brock and Sydney Blumenthal are prominent members of the Clinton campaign. How anyone
can tolerate these pigs beyond outright crooks is just saddening. The Iowa Caucus might be fun.
The sight of young women explaining Hillary has these examples of human filth as attack dogs to
proud older women should be quite humorous.
Of course, please try of Hillary supporters will be astonished when they hear about Hillary's
name to being connected to every fp disaster of the last 20 years. Her die hard supporters will
get nasty.
Hillary started nailing her own coffin lid down right from the start when she had some operative
issue a missive informing the unwashed masses what terminology was deemed unacceptable and sexist.
True or not, people don't like to be told what to do. And what good did such instructions serve?
Apart from warning misogynists to use alternate dog-whistles?
For a long time now, I have been having an ongoing conversation with various coworkers concerning
the imperative to confront the corruption plaguing our society thru personal and political action.
While all see the hardship caused by neoliberal policies, there still exists a mental barrier
that cannot be broken thru. No rational argument seems to move them beyond their current stand.
Many are stuck on lesser of two evils thinking and others are entrenched in one issue voting,
regardless if their candidate repudiates most issues they profess to support. Another strong force
is overcoming the underlying sense of economic fear. People are trying desperately to hold onto
what they have and are easily persuaded by arguments that threaten what little stability they
worked out for themselves. One thing I have learned is the power of propaganda- it is no small
thing to move people once they have been conditioned to believe something.
Another distressing characteristic is the underlying sense of powerlessness to bring about
change. The agency question. TINA. When discussing political issues, invariably the angry response
to questions of fighting corruption turns to- this is how its always been! It is a depressing
circular argument. People are against corruption but vote to elect corrupt representatives, then
fail to make any connection with their actions and the predictable outcome. At this point, moving
from complaining to doing is the only plausible response.
What to do? I agree that people must be called out on their wrong headed statements and actions.
This is the effort that counteracts the massive propaganda spewing out from the MSM. Learning
how to do this well is important. Bringing out common cause and solidarity is a learned skill.
This common cause must be centered on the workplace. It is at work that we labor to provide
for all our needs. Finding ways to strengthen fair and just workplaces must rank high on the list of important activities
to support. It really is about educating and demonstrating that socialism is a worthwhile goal
to achieve. Selfishness and greed will be the end of us all.
This is it. You can send people links to facts - and I mean primary sources, not a blog or
an opinion piece masquerading as real journalism - and yet they still cling to the narrative.
The human mind has an extraordinary ability to contort facts to fit into a belief system or to
justify ignoring them altogether.
Me: So, who are you liking this go around? Feminist: Clinton, I think. Me: Why? She's a neoliberal shill, and you hate all that crap!
Fem: It's important to me that a woman be elected to a visible position of authority.
Me: Well, you could vote for Jill Stein. She's a woman and she agrees with your politics.
Fem: A Green party candidate is never going to get elected. Me: So, you're willing to compromise politics for practical concerns.
Fem: Somewhat, but not entirely. Me: So Clinton is the one, because being a woman is more important that having sound political
positions? Fem: I didn't say that. Me: But Sanders is much close to Stein politically than Clinton is.
Fem: Yes. Me: So, if the candidate who is not a woman but has more in common with a real progressive who
is a woman does not win out over the candidate who is a woman but also a neoliberal shill, would
it not stand to reason then, that, for you, gender is more important than issues of economic
justice. Fem: I didn't say that. Me: You didn't have to.
I don't know how Clinton became inextricable linked in the minds of so many aspiring non-reactionary
women with everything right and good, but it seems to be a judgment-neutralizing given that it
has. And it is very personal and tied directly to Rodham Clinton. These people ridiculed Palin
and wouldn't vote for Carly Fiorina if their lives depended on it, so it's not really women, per
se, that they are boosting–it is this particular woman. I am sure that Walsh, Pollitt, et al.
have no problem excoriating the millionaire wannabes who flock to Trump. Well, in an act of gender
equality I posit this: that they are a generation of Hilary wannabes and their identification
with Hilary is no different than millions of people's identification with Trump.
I think the reactionary problem is endemic to both parties. Clinton supporters are just following
their legitimate leader the way Republicans do. Virtue of being born into a Democratic linked
household or being excluded by the GOP is the genuine separation.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is their 'Big Chill' darling. She's emblematic of their own transitions
from left wing-ish college students to young professionals……. to rather sadly compromised professional
class middle management, with teenagers who dislike them and mortgages.
Most of the rank and file who still fervently support her never made it as far up the ladder
as a Joan Walsh, but they identify with Walsh, because weren't they all together and equals once,
not so long ago? Except it was long ago. The passage of 30-35 years matters, and the utter divergence
of their stature and economic safety matters even more. They want a vicarious 'win' for themselves via Hillary. Because they're fools.
I fall into this trap of focusing on gender breakdowns, but Democratic voters are women. When
it comes to telling stories of Democratic voters, women will dominate. The key breakdown is 1996.
This isn't about Hillary as much as its about Bill. Clinton Inc. has been protected and defended
for years. Please try of women who have themselves been "slut shamed" applauded when Democratic
elites attacked a 19 year old intern as a serial predator.
Dolts like Lena Dunham, her show is just awful, have the resources to not have to think about
tomorrow and can fret about their bucket list. Plenty of older women have semblance of plans or
think they do and just want to get to social equity and Medicare. Change is less important to
their planning as much as go holding steady.
The breakdown of Hillary support is between the ages of 35 and 40. An 18 year old in 1996 will
be 38 this year. Bill didn't deserve votes in 1992 or 1996. Bill and his cronies were just awful
and have cashed in on their corruption since he left office. Hillary is a chance to prove Bill
was not awful. Hillary can prove Nader and Nader voters were deserving of contempt, not Gore and
his crummy campaign. People, especially who weren't old enough to vote in 1996 didn't vote for
Clinton Inc.
There is the rumor that Bill is the one pushing a somewhat reluctant Hillary to run. Perhaps
he hopes the honor of he Clinton name can be restored. Doubtless America is looking forward to
once again being plunged into this psychodrama.
I wouldn't be surprised. Supposedly he was depressed after leaving office with no direction.
The real Dule Hill*, as corrupt as anyone around, was the driver of the Clinton Wedding Registry…I
mean Global Initiative. I also remember Dick Morris recounting a story about Bill inquiring if
he would ever be a great President. Morris said the great ones had wars. Of course, he Ignored
FDR from 1933 to 1941. When Bill is portrayed in popular media, it's usually as a lecherous creep
or a poll driven coward. The sleazy nature of the Clinton Slush Fund will never be redeemed. The
Democrats roared into Congress without Bill or his cronies at the helm in 2006 and 2008.
If Gore
Vidal were alive, can you imagine email how a hypothetical Clinton biography would read? Bill
was elected to earn money, but judging from youth reaction to Hillary campaigns, history won't
be kind to Bill. When Dean was elected to the DNC and Obama was elected, Clinton Inc. was clearly
rejected. Democrats regaining control of Congress without Bill was another rejection. Bill is
smart enough to see this, but he Isn't big enough to recognize his failures and move on constructively.
The lame gender justification for voting for Hillary Clinton reminds me of what my late mother
used to call yellow dog Republicans in South Dakota. They would vote for a yellow dog before they
would vote for any Democrat.
Once again many are ignoring ethical red flags and willing to make a pact with the yellow dog.
Bob Herbert once described the Clintons as a terminally unethical and vulgar couple, who betrayed
everyone whoever believed in them.
"If anyone doubts that the mainstream media fails to tell the truth about our political system
(and its true winners and losers), the spectacle of large majorities of black folks supporting
Hillary Clinton in the primary races ought to be proof enough. I can't believe Hillary would be
coasting into the primaries with her current margin of black support if most people knew how much
damage the Clintons have done – the millions of families that were destroyed the last time they
were in the White House thanks to their boastful embrace of the mass incarceration machine and
their total capitulation to the right-wing narrative on race, crime, welfare and taxes. There's
so much more to say on this topic and it's a shame that more people aren't saying it. I think
it's time we have that conversation." – Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration
in the Age of Colorblindness
The Democratic Party can't get rid of the Clintons because they have become the Clintons.
I think the real solution is to just break off a piece of the country and make a new one. Sounds
like no one is using Michigan anymore. That might be a good choice. Then all the tribal, identity
politics, dominatrix and sissyboy types can move there and let women run the new country. It would
serve Bill right too. Karma is sleeping on the couch in the Michigan governor's mansion.
Okay, I agree identity politics can be short-sighted, and would be harmful in this situation,
but I don't think off-the-cuff advocacy for the banishment of people who embrace non-traditional
gender roles is a progressive-minded solution. Seems to me that trumpeting the horror of non-traditional
gender roles has been one of the conservatives' best weapons/Trojan Horses to rally support for
neocon candidates who grovel at the feet of oligarchs pushing plutonomy-friendly policies.
Language is important. Pushing people away who have struggled with the burden of non-normative
identities helps no one but those who wish to divide, conquer, exploit, and finally abandon.
"A non-neoliberal woman president is not one of the choices." Wait, what? Has Jill Stein suddenly
pulled out of the race? (And Gloria La Riva and Monica Moorehead as well?)
Jill Stein has 0 chance of becoming president. Gaius' post is accurate as it stands.
And I know you Greens will take umbrage, but I would never recommend her. Her background is
sorely lacking. She has no administrative experience. She never run an organization nor has she
ever held an elective office. She's never written a bill or worked on getting one passed. I'm
not wild about Sanders' experience, since all he's done is run a town of 40,000 people, but he's
leagues ahead of Stein. You need to find more credible candidates if you want people to take the
Greens seriously.
I voted for Jill Stein as a protest vote. Saw nothing odious in her positions, and saw value
in being counted as "none of the above" as opposed to not voting. I likely wasn't the only such
vote among the dozen or so she collected. Although skeptical at first, I hope Bernie is still
in the mix by the time the primaries get this far. But I,m a crazy optimist, I hold out hope for
one day voting for another Republican.
Regarding Sanders's executive experience: we've had a lot of Presidents with no administrative
experience. Quite a few have spent their careers in legislatures, without ever having been a governor,
cabinet officer, mayor, or whatever. Granted, some of them were not good Presidents, but whether
they were good or bad, they had a lot less executive experience than Sanders has had.
Being Governor doesn't mean one is a good executive, or even smart! Think Arnold of California.
You may not believe this, but Arnold had such a limited understanding of the English language
that he, himself, could not explain his administrations budget document. (He could not read it!)
Sometimes politics and intelligence don't intersect.
I understand your point. And –extensive, successful, practical legislative experience
is relevant for executive positions such as POTUS. Sanders' many years in Congress (since 1990)
and Senate (last 7 yrs), where he used his Independent status to good effect in getting bills
passed, deserve a mention. A Rolling Stones article a few years ago highlighted this strength.
I have a falsifiable problem with her. No surprise she goes after Republicans. But from what
I have seen, she has spent more time working against Sanders than speaking truth to power about
Clinton. The times she could specifically address Clinton, from what I have seen, she substitutes
'Democratic Party' in the statement.
This says to me she is more concerned about market share and Sanders is her primary competition.
Paying attention to what can hurt you or take away resources from you, while not spending your
own resources on what has little impact, is part of a selection process. My interpretation is
that she is more concerned with pulling votes from the Democratic Party than advancing her stated
agenda.
I very much welcome the opportunity to be proved wrong here.
I understand the Green Party (etc.) protest vote motivation. When there's no one really to
pick from (depending on your point of view), it's an option I understand.
But this time, for the first time in a generation, there's actually someone to pick who could
win and who will bust up the insider game for real, or give it a hell of a shot. Here's one: I'm
reading now that NAFTA can be abrogated by the executive branch alone, based on one of its clauses.
I'm still chasing this down.
Let's assume that's true. How about putting the one person into office who might actually execute
that option? Sanders certainly hates these job-killing trade deals enough to do it. And he understands
why they need to be killed.
This year, 2016, and this primary, is our one real shot. It's like 2008 without the fake self-presentation.
I say it's important we put our shoulders behind that one wheel and push.
Agreed. Sanders isn't perfect, but he's right on the economic issues. Like most modern politicians,
he's bought into the crazy notion that a balanced federal budget is a good thing, but beyond that,
he's as good as it's been in a long time.
I supported Jill Stein and the Greens in 2012, and probably will again in the general if it
turns out Clinton is the nominee of the Democrats. But Sanders is the best chance of righting
the ship, as I see it, and he's worth supporting on that basis. Even with a hostile Congress,
there's still a lot a modern-day President can do, and I think Sanders will do everything in his
power to make things better.
Sanders isn't perfect, but he's right on the economic issues. Like most modern politicians,
he's bought into the crazy notion that a balanced federal budget is a good thing …
Keep in mind that when Sanders became Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, he hired
Stephanie Kelton as the committee's economist. I'm sure they've had a lot of time to have the
MMT conversation.
There's definitely a ways to go to kill the underlying lie that keeps "austerity" viable as
a policy, but there is that voice in his ear if he wants to listen to it. And again, he chose
her.
In the spirit of keeping things real, I'm going to be that guy, and remind everyone who's starting
to get starry eyed over Sanders that Lyndon Johnson was also very good on social and economic
justice–and he happened to preside over the escalation of one of the most politically divisive
wars in American history. FDR did too, as it turns out, though we retroactively justify WWII as
moral nowadays because of the Holocaust, even though that had nothing to do with why we went to
war in the first place.
Johnson and Sanders have a lot in common, extensive legislative experience, for one. It was
Johnson who actually got Kennedy's dead in the water civil rights act passed, due in no small
part to his intimate knowledge of how the Congress operates. And, of course, the Great Society,
which Repubs (and their Dem allies) have been chipping away at for years now.
Oh, and both never unequivocally repudiated the disastrous effects that American foreign policy
at the muzzle of a gun or sight of drone has unleashed upon the world.
And when it comes to leftist politics, Johnson actually tried to muzzle the more overtly socialist
aspects of King's message, for fear that it might cause embarrassment with regard to the Soviets.
Now, this is not to say that Sanders 100% = Johnson, but simply to remind us that playing up
social and economic justice while waving a hand over the bellicosity of every single Democrat
and Republican candidate could very well bite everyone in the butt some day. If Sanders is elected,
people better not fail to hold his feet over the fire like many did with Obama.
LBJ also had Jack's foreign policy loons everywhere and likely a pathological condition about
skipping out on World War II. It's not like Johnson decided on his own to invade Vietnam. Jack
had a division there on his own.
When clowns like Hillary, Biden, and Kerry were voting for war in Iraq, Sanders opposed them.
I'm glad you made that point, because it too is something to bear in mind. The Team Blue apparatchiks
are not just going to disappear into the night with a Sanders presidency–they may very well wreck
things within their particular executive fiefdoms. Corbyn's shadow cabinet woes have shown quite
forcefully how New Labour/New Dem types can muck things up even after they've been trounced.
If Sanders means what he says, that the real fight begins after the inauguration, then I won't
regret standing under a Bernie sign tomorrow night.
The US had been involved in Vietnam since the French were defeated at Diem Bien Phu, in 1954.
It became part of our "Cold War" strategy. Our "advisers" on the ground were assassinating folks
there long before LBJ decided to escalate the war after "learning" of the "attacks" on the US
ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. (All lies!) His trust in General McFarland was LBJ's downfall.
As for the Voting Rights Act, LBJ gets a big hug. But the Civil Rights movement had been going
on for years before he signed the Act in 1965. I lived through the era and the confrontations
in the South were absolutely tragic. There was enormous political pressure to resolve the issue.
(Unfortunately, it has not been resolved: abject racism has been replaced by institutional racism.)
At least one of Johnson's legislative wins, his 1948 Senate primary runoff election, was almost
certainly dependent on rigged ballots. I doubt that anything remotely similar to that is true
for Sanders.
Sanders has said he isn't a pacifist, but that doesn't make him an imperialist warmonger, as
those on the anti-war left have been painting him ever since he ran for Congress in 1990.
This is a good example of what I wrote above about narratives. This one has been repeated over
and over, and writers such as Chris Hedges, Joshua Frank, and David Swanson are cited as sources
(often by each other). So, for example, when Sanders said the Saudis needed to send ground troops
to fight ISIS, the keepers of that narrative started frenzied arm-waving about Imperialist Bernie
and Bernie's "screwy Middle East policy," without bothering to research the origin and context
(Sam Husseini seized on that one comment as the basis for an entire article about Sanders's imperialist
plan to take over all the Middle East oil fields, while Swanson wrote, "Sanders insists Saudi
Arabia should kill more people").
Put in context, Sanders was responding to requests by the Saudis for U.S. ground troops to
"fight ISIS." He saw through it, saying that what they really wanted was U.S. troops to protect
the billionaire Saudi royal family. Essentially he was telling them to FO and use their own damn
troops - and, by the way, Saudi Arabia has one of largest military budgets in the world, so they
had some nerve to expect U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill. They won't use their own troops, of
course, because that would create more backlash against the monarchy (they ended up convincing
Pakistan to do it, evidently through an offer to pay handsomely). Contrary to the narrative, Sanders
NEVER has suggested that the Saudis be given free rein to invade neighboring countries or that
they should lead the fight against the Islamic State. He argues for a coalition of Muslim nations
along the lines of that suggested by Jordan's King Abdullah.
While it's true that Sanders doesn't yet have a fully formed foreign policy, he does have a
lot more experience than he's given credit for, and if you take his record in its entirety, the
picture that emerges is not of a neoliberal interventionist.
If Sanders succeeds in winning the Democratic nomination in July, in August, the proper thing
for the Greens to do would be to endorse Sanders for President. They would still be able to run
all of their candidates for other offices.
I'm not sure it's illegitimate for some people–if that's what's important to them–to vote for
Hillary because she's a woman. After all lots of people voted for Obama because he was African
American. But at least with Obama his lack of track record meant optimism over his claimed goals
was possible. Whereas with Hillary we know exactly what we will be getting and it's not good.
Her problem is the very experience she is constantly touting, the "hard choices," tells us what
to expect. So unless one is on board with her hawkishness and Wall St cronyism then feminist supporters
like Walsh are pushing their own agenda at the expense of everyone else. And if they are on board
with those things then, really, why are we reading them anyway?
My issue is that these people are not voting for her because she's a woman, because there are
loads of women they would not vote for–they are voting for her because she is Hilary Rodham Clinton.
They are saying, in effective, "policies count, but not in this case", or at least the supposedly
Progressive/Left women are saying that. Those who are on board with neoliberalism and the American
Imperial Project can vote for Hilary on points–I have no problem with that so long as they are
honest about it.
It is human nature to vote for someone like yourself: Blacks for Obama, Women for Hillary Clinton,
Irish for Hugh O'Brien, etc. But this "Identity politics" can be a trap, and provides cover for
corrupt representatives that will not defend your interests. In particular, when a politician
emphasizes their identity instead of their policies, alarm bells should go off. And we should
vote our interests.
It also seems that to some extent Hillary is benefiting from the fact that she is such a toxic
monster that it's hard to even process, it seems unreal and hard to believe in. I mean, here is
a person who has pushed to waste trillions of dollars devastating middle eastern countries that
don't threaten us, has de-facto allied the United States with Al Qaeda (!), has pushed to spend
trillions of dollars bailing out Wall Street while starving main street of capital, intends to
gut social security to help pay for all this largesse to the 1% (because deficits are bad, you
know), wants us to sign a trade agreement that is effectively a corporate coup, making our domestic
laws subservient to a bunch of foreign corporate lawyers meeting in secret, used her tenure as
secretary of state to sell out the national interest for personal cash while she was still in
office… And people say that Trump is dangerous? Or that Bernie is unelectable? Really?
There IS a woman, Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, who is truly progressive in both
her domestic and foreign policies. Of course, in our rigged election system, such third party
candidates have no chance at even being covered by the corporate media, let alone being elected.
If Hillary Clinton, neoliberal and neoconservative warmonger, is elected the first woman president,
it will be appropriate for this nation, given its system of predatory global capitalism enforced
by military brutality and violence. Appropriate, but not at all beneficial, for most of us and
the planet.
Identity politics appears to trump policy for a great many people…still. I know people who
are crowing and cooing about a possible Hillary/Julian Castro ticket. As if the Obama debacle
never happened.
The only bright spot to a Hillary Clinton nomination is that it would probably enable the Green
Party to retain ballot access in Ohio (and I'm guessing in other states as well). Greens and even
those who lean Green (a much larger group) are unlikely to vote for Hillary, and the GP must win
3 percent of the vote statewide to keep access to the ballot.
Since our crisis really is systemic, I don't think we will ever make progress toward solving
our problems within the duopoly that's in place now.
Yeah, I agree with that. I support (and contribute to) Jill Stein's campaign but I'm going
to be seriously conflicted if Sanders is the DP nominee. I'm also supporting Margaret Flowers
for Senate in my state (MD) so even if I vote for Sanders I'll still be able to support an GP
candidate for a high office.
I don't think the Democrats grasp the scale of this sentiment. Hillary was supposed to bring
in "stupid," young women who are breaking for Sanders despite the nastiness out of the Clinton
campaign. Obama sure among black enthusiasm in 2012 in response to GOP efforts to disenfranchise
minority voters. It's likely they would have not rallied around the President. Considering blacks
have never voted in record strength for Clinton or Gore (1996 and 2000 were periods low African
American turnout), it's unlikely Hillary will change the course. Say goodbye to PA, Virginia,
and Ohio.
Given the despicable treatment of Hispanic immigrants by the Obama Administration, the Hispanic
community at large won't be eager for Obama's third term. There goes New Mexico, Florida, and
Colorado.
Then if course, there are the down ticket races where Team Blue candidates don't have the adherents
Hillary has.
A vote for Hillary is a vote to send the message that Hillary projects, to wit: a big, loud,
and shrill "up yours" to people who play by rules and demand that public officials do the same.
Next time you hear Bill or Hillary praising people to who play by the rules, remember, these
two are vile, inveterate cheats who never play by any rules themselves.
Clinton's campaign and its supporters have pointed to the nurses' spending in support of
Sanders to suggest his attacks on Clinton as the candidate of big money are disingenuous and
hypocritical.
But, according to the super PAC's FEC filing, almost all of the PAC's cash flow came in
the second half of last year ― and every dime of it came from the union itself. The union did
not respond immediately to an email seeking information about its super PAC finances, but the
money likely came from dues that members paid to be a part of the union [the horror, the horror
…], which come in much smaller increments than the seven-figure checks that fill the coffers
of the super PACs that Sanders derides on the campaign trail as eroding American democracy.
PAC contributions don't (can't) come out of regular dues. (Unions can make political contributions
out of the general fund without setting up a PAC.) Those who wish pay additionally to support
a union's PAC. So the NNU PAC is really just a bundling of individual members' voluntary contributions.
Not "big money" in the least.
There are many reasons I will never vote for neocon, Hillary Clinton: her support for Obama's
war on whistleblowers (Cate Jenkins, John Kiriakou, Jeffrey Sterling, Barrett Brown, Chelsea Manning,
Julian Assange, Carmen Segarra, et al.), her support for private prisons - dating from her support
for Bill's Omnibus Crime Bill, her involvement in the overthrow of President Zelaya of Honduras
- and when those Honduran kids would predictably stream across the border several years later,
they would be held at prison camps run by the Geo Group, a major donor to Hillary, her support
for the offshoring of American jobs and replacing American workers with foreign visa workers (Tata
Consultancy of India was a major donor to her when she was a senator), her help in creating the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, etc. - but when I have explained this to women over the age of 45 their
eyes glaze over - but when I mention that during the Clinton Administration it was forbidden for
their people to publicly utter the phrase, " corporate welfare " - they begin to
pay attention!
Reminds me of a brief discussion I had a few years back with a woman in her 70s who nonsensically
believed that Bernie Madoff's wife was a victim?
Even though I explained that if plenty of us realized he was running a scam, there was no way
his two sons and wife couldn't know as well, but since they were profiting nicely from it, they
kept quiet - she refused to believe me.
Several weeks later Mrs. Madoff was caught illegaly attempting to offshore their court-frozen
assets, and then she too was put on house arrest, with Bernie, and restricted from telephone and
computer usage.
A typical bimbo . . . .
But I most certainly do believe a woman should be president in 2016.
I get blank stares when I tell people that in 2008, I didn't vote for Obama but that I
did vote for an actual progressive. That candidate happened to be a black female who had
been banished from the Democrat* Party by Rahmbo for her stance on Palestine.
I'm not especially intelligent, but I don't buy into identity politics, so even I could tell
very early on in the '08 Democrat primaries that Obama was a stooge and a phony. Democrat voters
demean Republican voters for the latter's ignorance, racism, and nativism. I demean Democrats
because they are so easily manipulated by identity politics.
Wall St bankers were worried about angry populism coming for their hides in 2008. Knowing that
identity politics "trumps" issue politics for most Democrat voters, they inserted Obama into the
mix, and the Democrats lapped it up like the identity-card simpletons that they are. This shifted
the focus of the '08 Democrat primaries from Wall St and Iraq to a tacit identity battle based
on race and gender.
I also think Clinton is the Candidate Most Likely to Start WW3, and that includes all
of the Republicans. Her recent ad has a shot of Scary Putin while telling us she'll "keep
us safe"; she is more vehemently anti-Russian than anyone in the GOP. I honestly think there is
a high probability that she will confront Russia militarily if she is elected. It'll never happen,
but I'd like to see Sanders' campaign remake LBJ's famous 1964 ad, this time targeting the Goldwater
Girl.
Anyone who votes for Clinton because she is a woman deserves all the contempt we reserve for
ignorant, racist, and nativist Republican voters.
*I'll restore the "ic" if/when the Democrat Party restores itself.
Professor Krugman is a regular (albeit gifted) neoliberal stooge. Nothing new in this column, it
just more relaing from the point of of you him, being a bought up columnist.
Notable quotes:
"... Krugman, the accidental plutocrat ..."
"... Krugman especially is embarrassing. Acting just like he did during the MMT Wars. What a little man hes turned out to be. ..."
"... I only got 5 sentences down. Totally jumped the shark to the neolib owned by wall st side. ..."
"... There are some very serious, crucial issues here that Krugman, who is my favorite blogger/columnist, is, uncharacteristically and to his great shame, is treating like a political hack: that is the decline of the white lower middle class, the decline of unionism, the political strategy of the right starting with the Southern strategy and then extending across the country to use traditional white working class precarity in a society rife with social and economic change that goes back 2 generations to rip the working and lower middle class apart politically. The strategy is as old as Reconstruction, at least - but it has been amplified economically by globalation and the boom of the plutocrats. ..."
"... Look at American racism, and most forms of sexism, and increasingly lower-classism. They consist of three parts: contempt for the class, a willingness to use violence against the class, and a demand that the class be industrious and of service - not to themselves, but to those who exert the force and express the contempt, while experiencing neither violence or contempt in return. ..."
"... That lower and middle class, working Americans scramble to find someone to blame is no surprise. But the controllers who have rigged the game against them, dont let any blame stick to their Teflon carapaces. However women, lower class men and people of colour dont have access to the financial Teflon. Even though they are all companions in suffering, through similar shared mechanisms, no one is handy to take the blame except themselves. ..."
"... So they end up trying to exert the elite power of contempt and violence on each other, as drowning sailors might climb up each others shoulders to stay above water. Yet no level of status - man versus woman, native versus immigrant, working versus unemployed -- is sufficient anymore to provide more than an inch more or less above the waves. ..."
"... I am so very sorry to see Krugman use straw man arguments and appeals to authority, two techniques which he has previously said he disapproved of, to, lets face it, attack Bernie Sanders ..."
"... Im almost starting to feel like Krugman is using some reverse psychology tactic to turn more people against Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... BLS Wage Data by Area and Occupation, 29-1062 Family and General Practitioners, Mean Annual Wage: $186,320. ..."
Oligarchy is a very real issue, and I was writing about the damaging rise of the 1 percent back
when many of today's Sanders supporters were in elementary school....
-- Paul Krugman
[ Simply nutty. Paul Krugman has decided to destroy Bernie Sanders, and ridicule and intimidate
any of the "kiddies" who are so lacking in maturity as to care to support Sanders. What is driving
this nuttiness is beyond my understanding. ]
Perhaps the biggest objection to my hot-dog parable is that final bit about the famous journalist.
Surely, no respected figure would write a whole book on the world economy based on such a transparent
fallacy. And even if he did, nobody would take him seriously.
But while the hot-dog-and-bun economy is hypothetical, the journalist is not. Rolling Stone
reporter William B. Greider has just published a widely heralded new book titled One World, Ready
or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism. And his book is exactly as I have described it:
a massive, panoramic description of the world economy, which piles fact upon fact (some of the
crucial facts turn out to be wrong, but that is another issue) in apparent demonstration of the
thesis that global supply is outrunning global demand. Alas, all the facts are irrelevant to that
thesis; for they amount to no more than the demonstration that there are many industries in which
growing productivity and the entry of new producers has led to a loss of traditional jobs -- that
is, that hot-dog production is up, but hot-dog employment is down. Nobody, it seems, warned Greider
that he needed to worry about fallacies of composition, that the logic of the economy as a whole
is not the same as the logic of a single market.
I think I know what Greider would answer: that while I am talking mere theory, his argument
is based on the evidence. The fact, however, is that the U.S. economy has added 45 million jobs
over the past 25 years -- far more jobs have been added in the service sector than have been lost
in manufacturing. Greider's view, if I understand it, is that this is just a reprieve--that any
day now, the whole economy will start looking like the steel industry. But this is a purely theoretical
prediction. And Greider's theorizing is all the more speculative and simplistic because he is
an accidental theorist, a theorist despite himself -- because he and his unwary readers imagine
that his conclusions simply emerge from the facts, unaware that they are driven by implicit assumptions
that could not survive the light of day.
Needless to say, I have little hope that the general public, or even most intellectuals, will
realize what a thoroughly silly book Greider has written. After all, it looks anything but silly--it
seems knowledgeable and encyclopedic, and is written in a tone of high seriousness. It strains
credibility to assert the truth, which is that the main lesson one really learns from those 473
pages is how easy it is for an intelligent, earnest man to trip over his own intellectual shoelaces.
Why did it happen? Part of the answer is that Greider systematically cut himself off from the
kind of advice and criticism that could have saved him from himself. His acknowledgements conspicuously
do not include any competent economists--not a surprising thing, one supposes, for a man who describes
economics as "not really a science so much as a value-laden form of prophecy." But I also suspect
that Greider is the victim of his own earnestness. He clearly takes his subject (and himself)
too seriously to play intellectual games. To test-drive an idea with seemingly trivial thought
experiments, with hypothetical stories about simplified economies producing hot dogs and buns,
would be beneath his dignity. And it is precisely because he is so serious that his ideas are
so foolish.
I think the the term "econocubism" (or "econocubisme") may be useful here. There may well be
a Braque, a Picasso, a Metzinger or a Gleize of econometric analysis, but for most practitioners
it is a mannerism that alludes, clumsily even, to a technique.
The "joke" about cubist painting that circulated in popular satire in the pre-war (W.W. I)
days was centred around "Maistre Cube", a pun that simultaneously referred to the painter as "cube
master" and as "cubic metre."
One problem is that econometric analysis is so "incomprehensible" that it has never been subjected
to the same degree of popular suspicion and ridicule as have fashions (along with alleged hoaxes
and mystifications) in modern art.
Krugman is one of my heroes, but man, is he ever having a bad patch. I think the full article
is better and more nuanced than our host's abbreviated version, and I urge people to read it in
full. But still...
First, his admittedly oversimplified version of Sanders' positions is a caricature. Sanders
is not a one-trick pony on inequality; and his call for "revolution" is almost entirely a call
for more citizen participation in politics.
And second, according to Krugman the fact that there is a lot of racism and xenophobia out
there means that visions of significant change are "naive". Then what, the "realist" version is
to appease the racists? or to wait until they change? yes, we can make common cause with them,
right now, against the plutocrats, but we don't want their votes? What exactly is the strategy
he espouses, other than "don't fly too high, you might burn"?
And, very uncharacteristically for Krugman, his position seems confused. Is he saying we cannot
reach the racists, so don't even try, i.e. the left-wing version of Mitt's 47% speech? Or, work
slowly to change their views on race, and then they will come to our side? Or, just aim for 51%
of the votes and a minority in Congress? It's hard to tell.
> Definitely one of the weakest, most confused columns ever from Krugman, who's been one of my
heroes as well.
I'd only quibble in that it wasn't just today's column. He's had a run of really weak and confused
columns over the past week. If they'd been as well thought out and insightful as most of his work
they'd have been worth reading, even if I disagreed strongly. What bothers me is that they're
sloppy and clueless. Hopefully it's just a bad week and not a trend.
Pk seems to have little sense of frustration at the failures of the main frame Democrats
The millions out there that have seen nothing positive in their lives since jimmy carter
Yearn for big change
And those that tell them it's coming it's coming
Just in baby steps are infuriating them
Look at krugs list of Barry Deeds
The recovery ?
Are u kidding
Slight tax increases for the affluent
Even as the top 1% gallops away from the rest of us
People want immediate improvement after 40 yeas waiting
Pk points to increments on
The environment
Healthcare
The ACA has not transformed anything yet
For 80% of America
They see premiums and co pays
Not a social commitment to universal corporate health insurance
Dodd frank ?
Where does that show up at the dinner table ?
Paul simply lives mostly outside his own life politically
And yet he does not get the urgency
Liberals look at Ethiopia to have their heart turned on
not queens NY
Or Toledo Ohio
Fine but the anger is real
the hope postponed a scandal
Syaloch :
I seriously think it's time to check Krugman's basement for pods. Where did this guy go and how
do we get him back?
There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but we may, at long last,
be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.
When the Occupy Wall Street protests began three weeks ago, most news organizations were derisive
if they deigned to mention the events at all. For example, nine days into the protests, National
Public Radio had provided no coverage whatsoever.
It is, therefore, a testament to the passion of those involved that the protests not only continued
but grew, eventually becoming too big to ignore. With unions and a growing number of Democrats
now expressing at least qualified support for the protesters, Occupy Wall Street is starting to
look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.
What can we say about the protests? First things first: The protesters' indictment of Wall
Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right.
A weary cynicism, a belief that justice will never get served, has taken over much of our political
debate - and, yes, I myself have sometimes succumbed. In the process, it has been easy to forget
just how outrageous the story of our economic woes really is. So, in case you've forgotten, it
was a play in three acts.
In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely
sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubbles burst -
but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary
workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers' sins. And, in the third act, bankers
showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support - and
the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts - behind politicians who promised to keep
their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.
Now, it's true that some of the protesters are oddly dressed or have silly-sounding slogans,
which is inevitable given the open character of the events. But so what? I, at least, am a lot
more offended by the sight of exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth
to government guarantees, whining that President Obama has said mean things about them than I
am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncing consumerism.
Bear in mind, too, that experience has made it painfully clear that men in suits not only don't
have any monopoly on wisdom, they have very little wisdom to offer. When talking heads on, say,
CNBC mock the protesters as unserious, remember how many serious people assured us that there
was no housing bubble, that Alan Greenspan was an oracle and that budget deficits would send interest
rates soaring.
A better critique of the protests is the absence of specific policy demands. It would probably
be helpful if protesters could agree on at least a few main policy changes they would like to
see enacted. But we shouldn't make too much of the lack of specifics. It's clear what kinds of
things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it's really the job of policy intellectuals
and politicians to fill in the details.
Rich Yeselson, a veteran organizer and historian of social movements, has suggested that debt
relief for working Americans become a central plank of the protests. I'll second that, because
such relief, in addition to serving economic justice, could do a lot to help the economy recover.
I'd suggest that protesters also demand infrastructure investment - not more tax cuts - to help
create jobs. Neither proposal is going to become law in the current political climate, but the
whole point of the protests is to change that political climate.
And there are real political opportunities here. Not, of course, for today's Republicans, who
instinctively side with those Theodore Roosevelt-dubbed "malefactors of great wealth." Mitt Romney,
for example - who, by the way, probably pays less of his income in taxes than many middle-class
Americans - was quick to condemn the protests as "class warfare."
But Democrats are being given what amounts to a second chance. The Obama administration squandered
a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver
economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president. Now, however,
Mr. Obama's party has a chance for a do-over. All it has to do is take these protests as seriously
as they deserve to be taken.
And if the protests goad some politicians into doing what they should have been doing all along,
Occupy Wall Street will have been a smashing success.
Fredd G. Muggs :
I too admire Dr. Krugman, but I agree he seems to have concluded that Sect. Clinton would be the
best choice for president and is letting that significantly influence his views and writing.
I do not think $$ is the root cause of all evil, but it is like gasoline to a fire, it sure
makes everything worse. I also believe that the Tea party is an authoritarian group, and is therefore
not persuadable by reason.
I am supporting Sen. Sanders for the nomination. I am not naive enough to think he will accomplish
everything he campaigns on (no president ever does) but I like his passion and starting positions
better than Sect. Clinton's.
If nominated I will support Sect. Clinton, but at this stage of the race I will support the
person I think is the best candidate.
anne -> am...
The BBC had a note today about this conflict between Sanders and Clinton. They referred to the
nastiness appearing on blogs especially mentioning its direction against those that disagree with
or do not support Sanders....
[ BBC folks are wildly trying to destroy Bernie Sanders just as BBC folks want to destroy Labour
leader Jeremy Corbyn. ]
The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition
By Glenn Greenwald
The British political and media establishment incrementally lost its collective mind over the
election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the country's Labour Party, and its unraveling and implosion
show no signs of receding yet. Bernie Sanders is nowhere near as radical as Corbyn; they are not
even in the same universe. But, especially on economic issues, Sanders is a more fundamental,
systemic critic than the oligarchical power centers are willing to tolerate, and his rejection
of corporate dominance over politics, and corporate support for his campaigns, is particularly
menacing. He is thus regarded as America's version of a far-left extremist, threatening establishment
power.
For those who observed the unfolding of the British reaction to Corbyn's victory, it's been
fascinating to watch the D.C./Democratic establishment's reaction to Sanders' emergence replicate
that, reading from the same script. I personally think Clinton's nomination is extremely likely,
but evidence of a growing Sanders movement is unmistakable. Because of the broader trends driving
it, this is clearly unsettling to establishment Democrats - as it should be.
A poll last week found that Sanders has a large lead with millennial voters, including young
women; as Rolling Stone put it: "Young female voters support Bernie Sanders by an expansive margin."
The New York Times yesterday trumpeted that, in New Hampshire, Sanders "has jumped out to a 27
percentage point lead," which is "stunning by New Hampshire standards." The Wall Street Journal
yesterday, in an editorial titled "Taking Sanders Seriously," declared it is "no longer impossible
to imagine the 74-year-old socialist as the Democratic nominee."
Just as was true for Corbyn, there is a direct correlation between the strength of Sanders
and the intensity of the bitter and ugly attacks unleashed at him by the D.C. and Democratic political
and media establishment. There were, roughly speaking, seven stages to this [neoliberal] establishment
revolt in the U.K. against Corbyn, and the U.S. reaction to Sanders is closely following the same
script:
STAGE 1: Polite condescension toward what is perceived to be harmless (we think it's really
wonderful that your views are being aired).
STAGE 2: Light, casual mockery as the self-belief among supporters grows (no, dears, a
left-wing extremist will not win, but it's nice to see you excited).
STAGE 3: Self-pity and angry etiquette lectures directed at supporters upon realization
that they are not performing their duty of meek surrender, flavored with heavy doses of concern
trolling (nobody but nobody is as rude and gauche online to journalists as these crusaders,
and it's unfortunately hurting their candidate's cause!).
STAGE 4: Smear the candidate and his supporters with innuendos of sexism and racism by
falsely claiming only white men support them (you like this candidate because he's white and
male like you, not because of ideology or policy or contempt for the party establishment's
corporatist, pro-war approach).
STAGE 5: Brazen invocation of right-wing attacks to marginalize and demonize, as polls
prove the candidate is a credible threat (he'sweak on terrorism, will surrender to ISIS, has
crazy associations, and is a clone of Mao and Stalin).
STAGE 6: Issuance of grave and hysterical warnings about the pending apocalypse if the
establishment candidate is rejected, as the possibility of losing becomes imminent (you are
destined for decades, perhaps even generations, of powerlessness if you disobey our decrees
about who to select).
STAGE 7: Full-scale and unrestrained meltdown, panic, lashing-out, threats, recriminations,
self-important foot-stomping, overt union with the Right, complete fury (I can no longer in
good conscience support this party of misfits, terrorist-lovers, communists, and heathens).
Britain is well into Stage 7, and may even invent a whole new level (anonymous British military
officials expressly threatened a "mutiny" if Corbyn were democratically elected as prime minister).
The Democratic media and political establishment has been in the heart of Stage 5 for weeks and
is now entering Stage 6. The arrival of Stage 7 is guaranteed if Sanders wins Iowa....
BTW, anne often links to this group (thanks anne):
"Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org) has been advocating for single-payer
national health insurance for three decades. It neither supports nor opposes any candidates for
public office."
A quote from it:
"What is truly "unrealistic" is believing that we can provide universal and affordable health
care, and control costs, in a system dominated by private insurers and Big Pharma."
Which responds to both of Krugman's accusations: being "naive" about our politics, and putting
too much emphasis on big money's control of our system.
On Kenneth Thorpe's Analysis of Senator Sanders' Single-Payer Reform Plan
By David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler
Professor Kenneth Thorpe recently issued an analysis of Senator Bernie Sanders' single-payer
national health insurance proposal. Thorpe, an Emory University professor who served in the Clinton
administration, claims the single-payer plan would break the bank.
Thorpe's analysis rests on several incorrect, and occasionally outlandish, assumptions. Moreover,
it is at odds with analyses of the costs of single-payer programs that he produced in the past,
which projected large savings from such reform (see this study, * for example, or this one **
).
We outline below the incorrect assumptions behind Thorpe's current analysis:
1. He incorrectly assumes administrative savings of only 4.7 percent of expenditures, based
on projections of administrative savings under Vermont's proposed reform.
However, the Vermont reform did not contemplate a fully single-payer system. It would have
allowed large employers to continue offering private coverage, and the continuation of the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program and Medicare programs. Hence, hospitals, physicians' offices,
and nursing homes would still have had to contend with multiple payers, forcing them to maintain
the complex cost-tracking and billing apparatus that drives up providers' administrative costs.
Vermont's plan proposed continuing to pay hospitals and other institutional providers on a per-patient
basis, rather than through global budgets, perpetuating the expensive hospital billing apparatus
that siphons funds from care.
The correct way to estimate administrative savings is to use actual data from real world experience
with single-payer systems such as that in Canada or Scotland, rather than using projections of
costs in Vermont's non-single-payer plan. In our study *** published in the New England Journal
of Medicine we found that the administrative costs of insurers and providers accounted for 16.7
percent of total health care expenditures in Canada, versus. 31.0 percent in the U.S. - a difference
of 14.3 percent. In subsequent studies, we have found that U.S. hospital administrative costs
have continued to rise, while Canada's have not. Moreover, hospital administrative costs in Scotland's
single-payer system were virtually identical those in Canada.
In sum, Thorpe's assumptions understate the administrative savings of single-payer by 9.6 percent
of total health spending. Hence he overestimates the program's cost by 9.6 percent of health spending
-- $327 billion in 2016, and $3.742 trillion between 2016 and 2024. Notably, Thorpe's earlier
analyses projected much larger administrative savings from single-payer reform -- closely in line
with our estimates.
2. Thorpe assumes huge increases in the utilization of care, increases far beyond those that
were seen when national health insurance was implemented in Canada, and much larger than is possible
given the supply of doctors and hospital beds.
When Canada implemented universal coverage and abolished copayments and deductibles there was
no change in the total number of doctor visits; doctors worked the same number of hours after
the reform as before, and saw the same number of patients. However, they saw their healthy and
wealthier patients slightly less often, and sicker and poorer patients somewhat more frequently.
Moreover, the limited supply of hospital beds precluded the kind of big surge in hospitalizations
that Thorpe predicts. In health policy parlance, "capacity constraints" precluded a big increase
in system-wide utilization.
Thorpe bases his estimates on what has happened when a small percentage of people in a community
have had copayments eliminated or added. But in those cases there are no capacity constraints,
so it tells us little about what would happen under a system-wide reform like single-payer.
Thorpe does not give actual figures for how many additional doctor visits and hospital stays
he predicts. However, his estimates that persons with private insurance would increase their utilization
of care by 10 percent and that those with Medicare-only coverage would increase utilization by
10 to 25 percent suggest that he projects about 100 million additional doctor visits and several
million more hospitalizations each year - something that's impossible given real-world capacity
constraints. There just aren't enough doctors and hospital beds to deliver that much care.
Instead of a huge surge in utilization, more realistic projections would assume that doctors
and hospitals would reduce the amount of unnecessary care they're now delivering in order to deliver
needed care to those who are currently not getting what they need. That's what happened in Canada.
3. Thorpe assumes that the program would be a huge bonanza for state governments, projecting
that the federal government would relieve them of 10 percent of their current spending for Medicaid
and CHIP -- equivalent to about $20 billion annually.
No one has suggested that a single-payer reform would or should do this.
4. Thorpe's analysis also ignores the large savings that would accrue to state and local governments
-- and hence taxpayers -- because they would be relieved of the costs of private coverage for
public employees.
State and local government spent $177 billion last year on employee health benefits - about
$120 billion more than state and local government would pay under the 6.2 percent payroll tax
that Senator Sanders has proposed. The federal government could simply allow state and local governments
to keep this windfall, but it seems far more likely that it would reduce other funding streams
to compensate.
5. Thorpe's analysis also apparently ignores the huge tax subsidies that currently support
private insurance, which are listed as "Tax Expenditures" in the federal government's official
budget documents.
These subsidies totaled $326.2 billion last year, and are expected to increase to $538.9 billion
in 2024. Shifting these current tax expenditures from subsidizing private coverage to funding
for a single-payer program would greatly lessen the amount of new revenues that would be required.
Thorpe's analysis makes no mention of these current subsidies.
6. Thorpe assumes zero cost savings under single-payer on prescription drugs and devices.
Nations with single-payer systems have in every case used their clout as a huge purchaser to
lower drug prices by about 50 percent. In fact, the U.S. Defense Department and VA system have
also been able to realize such savings.
In summary, professor Thorpe grossly underestimates the administrative savings under single-payer;
posits increases in the number of doctor visits and hospitalizations that exceed the capacity
of doctors and hospitals to provide this added care; assumes that the federal government would
provide state and local governments with huge windfalls rather than requiring full maintenance
of effort; makes no mention of the vast current tax subsidies for private coverage whose elimination
would provide hundreds of billions annually to fund a single-payer program; and ignores savings
on drugs and medical equipment that every other single-payer program has reaped.
In the past, Thorpe estimated that single-payer reform would lower health spending while covering
all of the uninsured and upgrading coverage for the tens of millions who are currently underinsured.
The facts on which those conclusions were based have not changed.
Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler are professors of health policy and management
at the City University of New York School of Public Health and lecturers in medicine at Harvard
Medical School.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Health Data
Total health care spending per person, 2013 *
United States ( 8713)
OCED average ( 3453)
Canada ( 4351)
Total health care spending as a share of GDP, 2013
United States ( 16.4)
OCED average ( 8.9)
Canada ( 10.2)
Pharmaceutical expenditure per person, 2013 *
United States ( 1034)
OECD average ( 517)
Canada ( 761)
Practising physicians per 1,000 population, 2013
United States ( 2.6)
OECD average ( 3.3)
Canada ( 2.6)
Practising nurses per 1,000 population, 2013
United States ( 11.1)
OECD average ( 9.1)
Canada ( 9.5)
Physician consultations per person, 2013
United States ( 4.0)
OECD average ( 6.7)
Canada ( 7.7)
Medical graduates per 100,000 population, 2013
United States ( 7.3)
OECD average ( 11.2)
Canada ( 7.5)
* Data are expressed in US dollars adjusted for purchasing power parities (PPPs), which provide
a means of comparing spending between countries on a common base. PPPs are the rates of currency
conversion that equalise the cost of a given "basket" of goods and services in different countries.
Dave :
There are some very serious, crucial issues here that Krugman, who is my favorite blogger/columnist,
is, uncharacteristically and to his great shame, is treating like a political hack: that is the
decline of the white lower middle class, the decline of unionism, the political strategy of the
right starting with the Southern strategy and then extending across the country to use traditional
white working class precarity in a society rife with social and economic change that goes back
2 generations to rip the working and lower middle class apart politically. The strategy is as
old as Reconstruction, at least - but it has been amplified economically by globalation and the
boom of the plutocrats.
You cannot the divide race and class divisions as there is interplay between them, but at root
is the nexus of power: money and class. Take for instance, our schools. These are supposed to
be the sort of launching pad of our putative meritocracy. The critical indicator of the performance
any public school by a wide margin is the property value of the surrounding area.
I just read an article today that a lot of union members are leaning Trump. Maybe Krugman should
take that up; it's not simply that union members got racist all of a sudden. Something else is
happening (see the opiod epidemic, suicides, etc.).
Paine -> Dave...
Liberals love social progress that spreads humanist values
This is however sometimes at the expense of basic issues to
The job class masses
It comes down to
What you call for
Vs
what you fight for
The system is corporate dominated
The reform paths of least resistance will always be
Cultural
How does gay marriage harm corporate bottom lines
Even civil rights for oppressed nations are negotiable
Where full employment real full employment is not
Jeffrey Stewart :
Dr. Krugman must be starving. He gets his lunch eaten by commenters every time he tries to trash
Senator Sanders.
Mary L Robinson :
Deja vu - 2004 when the democratic punditry decided to take out Howard dean. It worked very well
then, but based on the experience of the repubs with Trump, I think they will fail this time.
People are on to this scam.
It isn't "money" versus "racism, sexism, and xenophobia." Rather, they are all shades of each
other.
Look at American racism, and most forms of sexism, and increasingly lower-classism. They
consist of three parts: contempt for the class, a willingness to use violence against the class,
and a demand that the class be industrious and of service - not to themselves, but to those who
exert the force and express the contempt, while experiencing neither violence or contempt in return.
That lower and middle class, working Americans scramble to find someone to blame is no
surprise. But the controllers who have rigged the game against them, don't let any blame stick
to their Teflon carapaces. However women, lower class men and people of colour don't have access
to the financial Teflon. Even though they are all companions in suffering, through similar shared
mechanisms, no one is handy to take the blame except themselves.
So they end up trying to exert the elite power of contempt and violence on each other,
as drowning sailors might climb up each other's shoulders to stay above water. Yet no level of
status - man versus woman, native versus immigrant, working versus unemployed -- is sufficient
anymore to provide more than an inch more or less above the waves.
Men traditionally don't want to do women's work because women get a raw deal doing that work.
Ditto native born Americans don't want immigrant jobs for the same reason. But what has happened
to a great many Americans in one generation is their mass demotion to casual labour, scut jobs,
"women's work," and their common experience of the violence and contempt which formerly affected
"only" women and migrants and slaves. (Not that this makes any of it any better.)
Where does cold, neutral money come into this? Money is the tool whereby one person may enlist
others to do his/her bidding, when needed and without further obligation. But when all the cash
is in a few hands, none of it is flowing at a grassroots level. Poor people today, lacking land
and hunting and skill resources, and also lacking money, have neither personal nor impersonal
claim on each other's aid.
Anyone who could make the situation crystal clear to the populace, might bring on a revolution,
but most Americans are like the giant Antaeus, helpless when held off the earth, and it's hard
to see how such a revolution could be effective.
Noni
DeDude :
Actually, focusing more on the economic issue and less on inequality issues may be the better
election strategy. The 1%'ers are just - 1%. The racist and sexist are a lot more than that. So
if you attack the 1%'ers you alienate yourself from a less voters than if you attack racism and
sexism (although they also deserve being attacked). Not getting your fair share is always an easy
sell to the masses.
TA HARTMAN :
I am so very sorry to see Krugman use straw man arguments and appeals to authority, two techniques
which he has previously said he disapproved of, to, let's face it, attack Bernie Sanders.
Straw man - "Sanders view is that money is the root of all evil. Or more specifically,
the corrupting influence of big money, of the 1 percent and the corporate elite, is the overarching
source of the political ugliness..."
Appeal to authority - "Meanwhile, the Sanders skepticism of the wonks continues: Paul Starr
lays out the case. As far as I can tell, every serious progressive policy expert on either
health care or financial reform who has weighed in on the primary seems to lean Hillary."
The latter comes from his blog on January 27.
Neither is true at all.
This is so sad to watch, as I really admire Prof. Krugman.
I'm almost starting to feel like Krugman is using some reverse psychology tactic to turn more
people against Hillary Clinton.
Because I'm envisioning the picture painted by Krugman, where Hillary Clinton is the person
standing between big money and the angry mob with flaming torches & pitchforks... and Krugman
is painting Hillary Clinton as the person who will, and quite naturally, turn to the big money
interests, say "one moment"...
And then Clinton will turn to the angry mob, and try to get them to pick up spoons and feather
dusters instead.
Krugman's posts and columns of the past week have been awful. It's not that I disagree with his
perspective that sticks in my craw so much, it's that they're so sloppy. He just turned off his
critical thinking skills. He can't actually be that oblivious as to why Sanders' supporters support
him, can he? He can't actually be that oblivious as to why many Democrats aren't enthusiastic
about Clinton, can he? If his columns had conveyed an accurate assessment of Sanders supporters
and Clinton critics then I don't think I would have found them so objectionable. It was the absence
of thoughtful analysis which bothers me so much.
Take for example his citing Thorpe's criticism of Sanders' health care proposal. He could have
dug into the differences between Thorpe's and Friedman's analyses (Friedman was behind Sanders'
proposal) and made arguments for finding one more plausible than the other. He did zero analysis.
It kinda looked like he put his hands on the first critique he could find and sang it's praises
rather than engaging in a serious analysis. Perhaps a serious analysis would call Sanders' plan
into question? Perhaps it would but Krugman isn't providing it. (And I'm not sold that Thorpe's
analysis is a good one - not enough supporting info provided to judge.) And what's his basis for
basically doing a 180 degrees on single-payer since (roughly) 2008? Has he learned new things
which have caused him to change his mind? If so then what are they? I've respected his thoughtful
analyses in the past. I'd listen. Anyhow, a very disappointing series of columns from Mr. Krugman.
Ashish :
Yet again the reaction to Prof. Krugman here is all negative. He remembers the unnecessarily nail
biting health care bill and stimulus bill (half sized to begin with).
While Sen. Sanders would be uncompromising on such issues, he might end up a lame duck from
the get go. Especially, if he restarts the healthcare debate where the Republicans have organized
themselves. Or worse, that a winnable presidential election could end up with both congress and
the presidency in Republican hands. Then all the other issues such as alternative energy (possible
to sell as energy independence to avoid obstruction), Wall Street regulation (which the Republicans
can't oppose strongly for fear of the public), minimum wage increase (again popular with the public)
would not get off the ground.
{Especially, if he restarts the healthcare debate where the Republicans have organized themselves.}
Organized themselves with what? Mindless TV commercials that miss the point?
The life-span of the average American has diminished these recent years*? Between rising obesity-rates
and a healthcare system that is the most costly of any developed nation, where's the logic ...
?
"... If youre relying on seeing your favorite candidates name the most times in a Google search, do keep in mind that only young low information voter relies on technology to determine whos popular. The old folks still rely on talk radio. ..."
"... Clinton is the Democratic Party candidate of the Military Industrial Complex ..."
"... Trump says insane things, of course every news outlet covers him, I dont really think he counts. MSNBC is by far the worst of the lot when it comes to spoon feeding. I dont like FOX any better when they bring on their Holy band of extreme right commentators either. ..."
"... As a young female undecided voter, its hard not to be fooled by the celebrity game show host. And on the other hand, its hard not to support my fellow gender and vote Hillary (until you look at the baggage). Now, if I listen to my brain as opposed to emotions, the common sense of Bernie on the one side or Rand Paul on the other has a distinct appeal. Theyre quite interesting to listen to and they do it without invoking terror, hatred, scare tactics or even biblical quotes. How refreshing! ..."
"... The bankruptcy argument is a bunch of bs. Hes a billionaire now. If I could become a billionaire by going bankrupt Id do it in a heartbeat. The truth is that he figured out how to rise out of bankruptcy and is now financing a presidential campaign and manhandling his opponents who have received millions in contributions. ..."
"... Ive been a democrat all my life and hope that Sanders wins. But if it comes down to Hillary and Trump, Im voting Trump. If it comes down to Hilary and any republican not named Trump, Ill hold my nose and vote for Hilary. I really dont care for her. ..."
"... Its heartening to see that Clinton is polling lower than Sanders when it comes to young women, perhaps indicative of the post-sexism ideal were going for; younger women are judging the candidates on their actual policies and character, as opposed to being swayed by the infantile because shes a woman appeal. ..."
"... Given TTP and TTIP, NAFTA, the actions of the IMF and World Bank, the moves by the EU and Anglosphere away from social democracy and the continuing prescription of liberal economic policy for all states, deregulation, plans to expand recourse to investor-state dispute settlement courts, and the overall small state philosophy, often enforced by military interventionism or sanctions, it seems as if pro-capital policy, deregulation and the resulting inequality havent obtained a status quo that will be maintained under Hilary or the GOP so much as an agenda that has been pushed globally, and will go further in the direction that many voters on the left and centre of politics and even the traditional conservative right and far-right, probably the majority of Americas and the worlds population, oppose. ..."
"... The Guardian and the rest of the UK media are giving Trump the same treatment as they gave Arthur Scargill in the 1980s. ..."
"... The UK Establishment and media and their overseas supporters (in the other direction) and we all know who that is. are schit scared in case Trump gets in. The British establishment has been bought. British 'informed democracy', is dead. Censorship, is rife. And the British People know it. ..."
"... Does any of this really matter? The United States is an empire and, regardless of who is anointed President by the Koch brothers and the rest of the American aristocracy, the empire will still require a military budget of at least $500,000,000,000 and American jobs will still go to China because that's profitable for the corporations and for the aristocrats who own and run those corporations. ..."
"... The far-left attacks again, well I have to give them credit, they are really trying harder than ever. Anyway, these polls are always adulterated by special interests ..."
"... We do not have a democracy. Freedom of speech democratic freedom of thought, yes. Democracy is an unfulfilled philosophical idea and wishful thinking. For decades, we have been under the total rule of organized business - as are many developed nations. ..."
"... I have been a lifelong Democrat and my first choice is Bernie Sanders. With my meagre income I will continue to contribute to his campaign. My alternate choice is, anyone but Hillary Clinton. For the life of me, I cannot imagine anyone who reads the news can vote for this Wall St. puppet. ..."
"... Be that as it may, the US average voter owes to Donald Trump for standing up to the corporate media that we always criticise for influencing elections, while other candidates of both parties bend over backwards to curry their favor. ..."
"... Yes, the corporate media as a result are going after him, but he still gets votes. This election, the case the US Voter vs. Corporate Media, the Voter won thanks to Trump. ..."
"... People have unfavourable opinions of politicians they actually vote for. Nearly all Repubs will vote for trump if he is the nominee and whether it's Hillary or Sanders, a fair size of one time Obama voters are switching to the Repubs because they want action taken against the rapid erosion of what they consider to be American values. ..."
"... It appears that the Guardian continues to show it's bias toward Clinton. How about being balanced and reporting the news instead of trying to create the news and influence the outcome. If we want bias we can drift over to Fox Fake news ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is not on the left. She is right center. ..."
"... Cruz is genuinely dangerous. A religious zealot and a war monger, it would be a massive step back for America and the world if this man became president. ..."
"... It's because many people who are centrist or left leaning have a sense of morality and principles.. It's not about voting for who stinks less.. It's about standing up for what you consider right and if you can't do that during the election process then what's the bloody point of democracy.. Take the case of Occupy Wall Street.. supported by most left leaning people. ..."
"... the media wants us to frame everything into left wing or right wing. However I don't buy into that paradigm anymore. When Clinton was about to send the jobs away, I saw effectively Pat Buchanan (staunch conservative but poplulist) effectively joining forces with Ralph Nader (perhaps as far left as anyone can go but still populist). You think any democrat would be better than any republican. I think that if we don't fix something soon, this whole thing is going to collapse. For my money only 3 candidates are actually pledging to fix something (Sanders, Paul and Trump). ..."
"... Remember that socialist is a dirtier word in much of the U.S. than neo-liberal is in Western Europe. There's also the very pertinent question of whether the U.S. is ready to elect a Jewish president. ..."
"... Obama came in surrounded by Wall Street execs and stooges and from the outset had no intention of challenging the power of the capitalist class or affecting change that was anything other than rhetorical in nature. ..."
"... Clinton is the one candidate who can lose to Trump, and if she win's she will govern like Bush. It's disgusting how the establishment is pushing her so hard, but it does inform us that we should reject her. Clinton is a candidate like Obama - runs on hope and change, than nothing changes - same old attitude that Government exists to protect the profits of the 1% and **** Working Class Americans ..."
"... Sanders' mild social democratic policies - which require moderate and easily affordable sacrifices on the part of the rich - are of course very realistic and practical. Or at least they are realistic in countries that are at least reasonably politically sane. But since US politics is the very definition of insanity, Sanders policies are not realistic . ..."
Let's not forget Bill Clinton's brother Roger's involvement in the Iran Contra affair. Clinton's
have been involved in drugs and gun running for a long time.
skipsdad -> André De Koning 30 Jan 2016 21:03
Putin did more damage to Isis in 6 weeks, than Obama and Nato did in six years.
The Turkish fox, is in the Nato chicken coop. Turkey has been getting oil from Syria for years.
Obama knew about it. The Russians were threatening to reveal the deceit, and that's why their
plane was shot down.
Now Turkey is claiming another Russian violation. The fox is looking to start WWIII.
Obama has been dealing with 'moderate terrorists' for years, and Putin exposed him.
Obama and the US - Running with the foxes, and hunting with the hounds.
Trump will clean that cesspit of corruption out.
johnf1 30 Jan 2016 20:58
Who in God's name cares what anyone in Iowa thinks about who should be president. As far as
I know neither Iowa nor New Hampshire has ever been important in any presidential election. Pennsylvania,
Florida, Nevada, Ohio, the voters in those states are important.
nnedjo 30 Jan 2016 20:56
The former first lady run in the elections for the Democratic presidential candidate for the
second time, and claims to have a trump cards for it; "Only she is able to defeat Trump!"
However, the problem is that in addition to trump cards Hillary also has Trump's money. You remember
that she took the money from Trump, as a fee for coming to his wedding.
Now it raises a hypothetical question: What if in the middle of the election campaign Trump
decides to pay Clinton a little more than before, as "a fee for the lost elections"?
So, in my opinion it is not unthinkable at all that Hillary could sell elections to Trump in exchange
for a certain sum of money, the only question is how much money would that be.
And after all, Trump himself has already stated that he is looking forward to get Hillary Clinton
as an opponent in the presidential race, so draw your own conclusions?
André De Koning -> skipsdad 30 Jan 2016 20:50
Pity we only get a silly picture of Putin via western media. Reading his speeches, especially
the last one at the UN (28th Sept.), he was the clearest and summed up the issues of western caused
chaos with its invasions and claim of 'being special'(US, especially hypocritical and doing the
opposite of what it preaches). Putin is thoughtful, strategic and a leader, while in the US there
are no leaders and even more is done by the so-called intelligence agencies' that by the Russian
FSB (more control over them than over the NSA). One debate with Putin would be more interesting
than any of this American waffle that has never changed their superficial, cruel foreign policies.
I discovered this by reading other literature about Putin than you can ever find in the misleading
demonization of any leader who is opposed to US policies. The press lied about Gadaffi too, so
take some trouble to find out what these so-called enemies are actually about.
RusticBenadar -> carson45 30 Jan 2016 20:42
Actually, if you had done your due diligence and researched Bernie's track record you would
see he is a master of bipartisan success; it was said of his mayorship that he "out republicaned
the republicans" achieving all the fiscal objectives they had long sought in Butlington but failed
to accomplish until Bernie came along.
TettyBlaBla 30 Jan 2016 20:39
I find all the predictions of who will win the General Election in November quite amusing.
Primary elections haven't even started and neither major political party has declared which candidates
in the present fields will represent them. The choice of Vice Presidential candidates could well
change the scenarios many are now presenting.
If you're relying on seeing your favorite candidate's name the most times in a Google search,
do keep in mind that only young low information voter relies on technology to determine who's
popular. The old folks still rely on talk radio.
atkurebeach 30 Jan 2016 20:34
if the democrats vote for Hillary, who is tight with Wall Street money, especially when there
is such a clear alternative for the poor, to me that means there is no difference between the
two parties. I might as well vote for Trump, at least he is less likely to start a war.
digitalspacey -> Calvert 30 Jan 2016 20:32
As an outsider looking in (from Australia) what you describe actually works in favour of the
Democrats.
Think about it.
An intransigent Republican party continually blocks what the President wants to do. Now I'm
assuming that if people vote in Bernie it's because they actually want what he has to sell.
So if the Republicans keep playing this game it's really gonna start to grate on people.
There will come a tipping point where people will say 'enough!' and the removal of the Republicans
will commence.
It may take several terms but the Republicans are in egret signing their own death warrant.
Merveil Meok -> Logicon 30 Jan 2016 20:12
There are very powerful forces in America that would NEVER let Bernie Sanders win the White House.
He has said stuff that has disqualified him (in the eyes of those forces) for the role of president.
You can't run against the military, cops, oil companies, Wall Street, the richest people on the
planet, big pharma, and win. That only happens in movies.
SeniorsTn9 30 Jan 2016 20:09
The U.S. campaign is nearly over and two choices remain. Everyone knows America is broken.
Candidates promoting staying the course and being politically correct have no place in America's
future. They broke the America we have today. The realities are obvious; Clinton is to the past
as Trump is to the future. After all the campaigning dust settles, Americans who want American
back will vote for Trump. Trump will make America great again. It really is that simple.
redwhine -> Merveil Meok 30 Jan 2016 20:01
It's good that they have to win over people in Iowa and New Hampshire, and I say this as a
Californian who only ever hears of politicians visiting my state to raise money at the homes of
rich people before leaving the same day. The point is that politicians need to show that they
are willing to work for their votes. They need to hit the pavement. They need to convince people
to vote for them even if they know that the votes in those states don't amount to much. If politicians
only campaigned in California, New York, Texas, and Florida and then skipped the rest, I'd see
no evidence of grit and determination, just lazy opportunism.
ID4352889 30 Jan 2016 19:56
Clinton is a deeply unpleasant character, but Americans will vote for her over the decent Sanders.
It's just the way they do things in the US. Clinton is the Democratic Party candidate of the
Military Industrial Complex and will take the cake. Bernie is just there to make people think
they have a choice. They don't.
redwhine consumerx 30 Jan 2016 19:52
Plenty of people have inherited millions and still ended up penniless. You can't call Trump
an idiot even if you maintain that he could have become a billionaire merely by putting all his
daddy's money into the bank and leaving it there (which we know he didn't, because he's built
at least a dozen skyscrapers and golf courses). By the way, Fred Trump (Donald's dad) was rich
but he was not astronomically rich. As for his lawyers, plenty of lawyers of rich men have done
worse; in trying to denigrate Trump people are reflexively making his dad into some sort of financial
wizard and everyone around Trump to magically have helped him in every step of the way like guardian
angels surrounding him his whole life. It just doesn't work like that.
Merveil Meok 30 Jan 2016 19:42
The political system allows two states (Iowa and New Hampshire) to dictate the future the country.
Some candidates are forced to quit after one or two Caucuses (as money sponsors quit on them),
even if, only God knows, they could have picked up steam later.
I would be in favor of adding three or more states in the first round of the caucuses so that
most of America is represented, not states which have no real power in American daily life - economically
and otherwise.
These two states represent 1.5% of America's population and a ridiculously low percentage of
national GDP.
ChiefKeef 30 Jan 2016 19:39
Sanders will be the best president theyve ever had. The lefts popularity is rocketing across
the west in response to austerity and the endless cycle of imperialism and international crisis.
A new generation of activists, unencumbered by the diminished confidence of past defeats, have
risen spectacularly in defense of equality against the attacks of the right.
Steven Wallace 30 Jan 2016 19:33
Hillary is a devout psychopath whereas Trump is a total doughnut ,seriously who the hell would
vote for these animals ?
Pinesap -> TaiChiMinh 30 Jan 2016 19:31
Trump says insane things, of course every news outlet covers him, I don't really think
he counts. MSNBC is by far the worst of the lot when it comes to spoon feeding. I don't like FOX
any better when they bring on their Holy band of extreme right commentators either. Like
I've said before when your in the middle like me, your screwed. NO news outlets and NO candidates
that could win. Screwed like deck boards I tell you.
WarlockScott -> carson45 30 Jan 2016 19:31
Sorry who was president before Bush? Bill Clinton? and who was Bush running against? Central
figure in the Clinton administration Al Gore?.... oh, woops.
Experience as secretary of state? US foreign policy has got much better since Kerry took over.
Healthcare? the woman that takes bundles of money from Big Pharma, who is now saying that UHC
is fundamentally a pipe dream for the US?
She's a poor choice compared to Sanders imo, If she was running against Biden or another centrist
democrat yeah sure but against a Sanders figure? nah
Jill McLean 30 Jan 2016 19:28
As a young female undecided voter, it's hard not to be fooled by the celebrity game show
host. And on the other hand, it's hard not to support my fellow gender and vote Hillary (until
you look at the baggage). Now, if I listen to my brain as opposed to emotions, the common sense
of Bernie on the one side or Rand Paul on the other has a distinct appeal. They're quite interesting
to listen to and they do it without invoking terror, hatred, scare tactics or even biblical quotes.
How refreshing!
redwhine -> consumerx 30 Jan 2016 19:26
The bankruptcy argument is a bunch of bs. He's a billionaire now. If I could become a billionaire
by going bankrupt I'd do it in a heartbeat. The truth is that he figured out how to rise out of
bankruptcy and is now financing a presidential campaign and manhandling his opponents who have
received millions in contributions.
redwhine 30 Jan 2016 19:19
I've been a democrat all my life and hope that Sanders wins. But if it comes down to Hillary
and Trump, I'm voting Trump. If it comes down to Hilary and any republican not named Trump, I'll
hold my nose and vote for Hilary. I really don't care for her.
JoePomegranate 30 Jan 2016 19:17
It's heartening to see that Clinton is polling lower than Sanders when it comes to young
women, perhaps indicative of the post-sexism ideal we're going for; younger women are judging
the candidates on their actual policies and character, as opposed to being swayed by the infantile
"because she's a woman" appeal.
Logicon 30 Jan 2016 19:08
Bernie has to win the ticket -- the 'best' revolutionary will win the general election:
Trump vs Clinton = trump wins
Trump vs bernie = bernie wins
Cafael -> ponderwell 30 Jan 2016 19:06
Given TTP and TTIP, NAFTA, the actions of the IMF and World Bank, the moves by the EU and
Anglosphere away from social democracy and the continuing prescription of liberal economic policy
for all states, deregulation, plans to expand recourse to investor-state dispute settlement courts,
and the overall 'small state' philosophy, often enforced by military interventionism or sanctions,
it seems as if pro-capital policy, deregulation and the resulting inequality haven't obtained
a status quo that will be maintained under Hilary or the GOP so much as an agenda that has been
pushed globally, and will go further in the direction that many voters on the left and centre
of politics and even the traditional conservative right and far-right, probably the majority of
America's and the world's population, oppose.
Patrick Ryan 30 Jan 2016 18:58
Most polls are shite as extrapolating from relatively small samples never tells you the
true story.... We'll know better after the Caucuses.... the fear factor and the worries of a
nation will play a big part in the selective process - This is not a sprint and race is only
beginning... Having Trump in the mix has shaken up system and he has clearly got the super
conservative media's knickers in a twist...
skipsdad 30 Jan 2016 18:54
The Guardian and the rest of the UK media are giving Trump the same treatment as they
gave Arthur Scargill in the 1980s.
The UK Establishment and media and their overseas supporters (in the other direction) and
we all know who that is. are schit scared in case Trump gets in. The British establishment has
been bought. British 'informed democracy', is dead. Censorship, is rife. And the British
People know it.
Douglas Lees 30 Jan 2016 18:53
The is only one decent candidate and that's Bernie Sanders. The others are a collection of
fruit loops and clowns (all deranged and dangerous) with the exception of Clinton who is
experienced intelligent and totally corrupt. She will cause a war with Iran... Let's hope it's
Bernie maybe a hope for some changes. The last 36 years have been fucked
Canuck61 30 Jan 2016 18:45
Does any of this really matter? The United States is an empire and, regardless of who
is anointed President by the Koch brothers and the rest of the American aristocracy, the
empire will still require a military budget of at least $500,000,000,000 and American jobs
will still go to China because that's profitable for the corporations and for the aristocrats
who own and run those corporations. Enjoy the show, but don't assume that it actually
means anything.
LeftRightParadigm 30 Jan 2016 18:35
The far-left attacks again, well I have to give them credit, they are really trying harder
than ever. Anyway, these polls are always adulterated by special interests, just look in
the UK at IPSOS MORI with CEO who worked for the cabinet office - no bias there! IPSOS said
the majority of British people want to remain in the EU... LOL
Trump is the best candidate, all the others are untrustworthy to the extreme due to who's
funding them, namely Goldman Sachs.
ponderwell -> thedono 30 Jan 2016 18:35
We do not have a democracy. Freedom of speech & democratic freedom of thought, yes.
Democracy is an unfulfilled philosophical idea and wishful thinking. For decades, we have been
under the total rule of organized business - as are many developed nations.
jamesdaylight 30 Jan 2016 18:28
i so hope trump or sanders wins. the establishment needs a new direction.
AdrianBarr -> ID7004073 30 Jan 2016 18:26
I have been a lifelong Democrat and my first choice is Bernie Sanders. With my meagre
income I will continue to contribute to his campaign. My alternate choice is, anyone but
Hillary Clinton. For the life of me, I cannot imagine anyone who reads the news can vote for
this Wall St. puppet. The recent Guardian article by a Wall St. insider about Hillary's
connections and the money she had received from Wall St. should make anyone shudder of her
presidency. Let alone the money the Clinton Foundation had received from other countries when
Hillary was the Secy. of State.
Be that as it may, the US average voter owes to Donald Trump for standing up to the
corporate media that we always criticise for influencing elections, while other candidates of
both parties bend over backwards to curry their favor.
Yes, the corporate media as a result are going after him, but he still gets votes. This
election, the case the US Voter vs. Corporate Media, the Voter won thanks to Trump.
If Bernie is cheated out of the nomination process that the DNC had worked from the beginning
to crown Hillary. I will vote for Trump to save what is left (pun intended) of the Democratic
party. Hillary way far right of Trump. Hillary was a Goldwater Republican, while Trump is a
Rockefeller REpublican. Take your !
elaine layabout -> sammy3110 30 Jan 2016 18:18
He doesn't care about them so long as they are unsubstantiated allegations. When the FBI
announces the result of their investigation, he will give his opinion, so long as it is
relevant to the welfare of the American people.
But using mid-investigation rumors and allegations against an opponent to distract the
American people from the actual, fact-based issues is hardly a failing. I would say it
demonstrates Sanders' commitment to fairness and truth and the best interests of the American
people.
elaine layabout -> Philip J Sparrow 30 Jan 2016 18:12
That would be news to the folks in Burlington, who elected Bernie Sanders to 4 terms as
mayor, during which time he cut their budget, streamlined city services, revitalized their
commercial district and restored their lakefront, AND he was judged one of the top 20 mayors
in the country.
The folks in the State of Vermont would also be surprised to hear this about the man who
served them in the House of Representatives for 16 years. During that time, when the extreme
right wing of the Republican party ruled Congress, Bernie (an Independent) passed more
legislative amendments than any other congressman, even the Republicans themselves. And this
was not watered-down legislation, it was pure, progressive gold.
Those same folks would be surprised to hear this about the Senator whom they last re-elected
with 71% of their votes. I guess that they were thinking of his ability to, again, passed a
series of progressive amendments in a Republican-controlled Congress, including the first-ever
audit of the Federal Reserve -- you know that thing that Ron Paul had been trying to do for
decades. And then there was the Veterans Administration Bill that Republican Jack Reed said
would never have passed without Bernie Sanders' ability to build bi-partisan coalitions.
Bringing 30 Jan 2016 18:12
People have unfavourable opinions of politicians they actually vote for. Nearly all
Repubs will vote for trump if he is the nominee and whether it's Hillary or Sanders, a fair
size of one time Obama voters are switching to the Repubs because they want action taken
against the rapid erosion of what they consider to be American values.
OurPlanet -> eveofchange 30 Jan 2016 18:06
"Does corporate supported Clinton, support gun/missile/bomb "control" of the Army, Police
and state apparatus,or just ordinary people ?"
Took the words out of my mouth. I wonder if
those folks who are thinking of voting for her will stretch their brain capacity to think
seriously about the consequences of voting for her. Do they want more of their tax $ spent on
even more wars?
peacefulmilitant 30 Jan 2016 17:50
But it's simple enough to point out that a minority of Americans are Republicans, and
that even among Republicans about 30% have a negative opinion of Trump. You can see where
the 60% might come from.
The Kochs will forward his thoughts along to him in time.
Harry Bhai 30 Jan 2016 17:48
meanwhile: Iowa's long-serving senior senator, Chuck Grassley, who last weekend
popped up at a Trump event
Rats are coming out of holes to pay respect to Trump the cat.
ID7004073 30 Jan 2016 17:46
It appears that the Guardian continues to show it's bias toward Clinton. How about
being balanced and reporting the news instead of trying to create the news and influence the
outcome. If we want bias we can drift over to Fox Fake news
Bernie has solutions that Fox feels is too boring but solutions about economic and national
security are what America and our world needs. Boats that won't float right and F35
billionaire toys dressed up as the ultimate killing machine will never make America and our
world strong. Economic policies that Bernie promotes that actually employ more people is the
only solutions.
TaiChiMinh -> TheAuthorities 30 Jan 2016 17:36
Hillary Clinton is not "on the left." She is right center. Your attempt to put the
debate between her advocates and those of Sanders into the realm of Stalin-Spanish
Republicans-etc is delusional. Maybe, just maybe the people having this discussion are engaged
in real disagreements, not dogmatic and factional maneuvering.
nnedjo 30 Jan 2016 17:08
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, whose once-mighty lead in the Hawkeye
state has narrowed to paper-thin margins, is focusing on rival Bernie Sanders' complicated
history on gun control in the final days of the Iowa campaign. The former secretary of state
will be joined by former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a survivor of a 2011 mass shooting
that claimed the lives of six people.
Hillary stands for a gun control in order "to disarm"
Bernie, but voters say they would not vote for Hillary even if someone put a gun to their
forehead.
The reason for this is obvious, she is able to exploit even the survivors of the mass
shooting, just to satisfy her own selfish political interests.
Saltyandthepretz -> MasonInNY 30 Jan 2016 16:47
Except a circus is funny. The anti-human, repugnant policies put forward by these two are
in fact quite serious. Trump is crazy, of the A grade variety, but Cruz is genuinely
dangerous. A religious zealot and a war monger, it would be a massive step back for America
and the world if this man became president.
Fentablar -> turnip2 30 Jan 2016 16:21
Rubio is terrible, he's pandering even more than Hillary does (well, if nothing else he
does it just as much) and I'm not sure anyone knows what he actually stands for, even himself.
loljahlol -> godforbidowright 30 Jan 2016 16:15
Yeah, the Libyan people thank her
PlayaGiron -> SenseCir 30 Jan 2016 16:11
aka Wall Street's "progressive" voice as opposed to the Wall Street Journal its
"conservative" voice. In the end two sides of the same neo-liberal beast. "There is no
alternative"! Your corporatist elites have spoken!
elaine layabout -> greven 30 Jan 2016 16:05
True that.
Wall Street and it's lackey pols are playing with fire, because although many Americans had
savings and assets and/or family members with savings and assets and/or access to the
beneficence of local churches and charities, we are all tapped out.
The next time we fall, we fall hard. And we will be taking Wall Street down with us.
vishawish -> TheAuthorities 30 Jan 2016 15:53
It's because many people who are centrist or left leaning have a sense of morality and
principles.. It's not about voting for who stinks less.. It's about standing up for what you
consider right and if you can't do that during the election process then what's the bloody
point of democracy.. Take the case of Occupy Wall Street.. supported by most left leaning
people.
The only candidate who would support and encourage that is Sanders. So how do
you expect people not to support him and go out to support someone who is basically a quasi
republican?
Principles and ideologies matter.
marshwren -> GaryWallin 30 Jan 2016 15:19
Uh, it's not as if Iowans haven't had at least eight months to make up their minds, even
with the advantage of being able to see ALL of the candidates up close and personal, unlike
those of U.S. in late states (such as NJ, where i live, on June 7th or so). Besides, when
people vote in primaries on machines, they have 2-3 minutes to mull things over in the booth.
I appreciate your disdain, but caucus season in IA is like beach season in NJ--a tiresome
inconvenience, but an economic necessity given how many non-residents arrive to spend their
money. And you only have to put up with it once every four years, while ours is an annual
event.
curiouswes MartinSilenus 30 Jan 2016 15:14
Personally, I would prefer not to sit in either, wouldn't you?
Thanks for being logical. Now, the media wants us to frame everything into left wing or
right wing. However I don't buy into that paradigm anymore. When Clinton was about to send the
jobs away, I saw effectively Pat Buchanan (staunch conservative but poplulist) effectively
joining forces with Ralph Nader (perhaps as far left as anyone can go but still populist). You
think any democrat would be better than any republican. I think that if we don't fix something
soon, this whole thing is going to collapse. For my money only 3 candidates are actually
pledging to fix something (Sanders, Paul and Trump). Cruz says he wants to fix everything
by using that same old tired republican bs, so he isn't really planning on fixing anything.
Basically he is Steve Forbes without glasses and with a face lift. Paul would actually try to
fix something, but at this stage, he is a long shot and barring any 11th hour surge, I don't
need to discuss him much at this time. I would classify Trump as a populist, but a loose
cannon that isn't "presidential".
Voting for Trump is sort of an act of desperation. It isn't quite like being a suicide
bomber, but more like going all in just prior to drawing to an inside straight. Sanders is a
populist also. Some people think we can't afford his programs. However the reason the nation
is broke (financially) is because it is broke (as in broken). Sanders has vowed to fix this
(it won't be easy but with the people standing behind him, it is possible). The rest of the
candidates won't fix anything (just try to move the nation either to the left or the right as
it continues it's downward spiral.
We have to stop that downward motion or it won't matter whether we move to the left or right.
Unfortunately everybody doesn't see stopping this downward motion as job one.
For example: take Greece and their financial troubles. Even though our debt is higher, we
aren't in as bad shape as the Greeks, however we really need to stop the bleeding. We really
need to get a populist in there. I'm no economist but according to my understanding, there is
this thing called the money supply which is a bit different than the money itself. While the
government controls the money, it doesn't control the money supply. It needs to control both
or else we are just one "bad" policy away from economic disaster because whoever controls the
money supply controls the economy. If you remember in 2008 the credit dried up and that can
happen again if somebody isn't happy.
WarlockScott 30 Jan 2016 14:33
Can any Clinton supporter cogently argue why they've plumped for her over Bernie? He's far
closer to the social democracy the Democrats espouse (albeit have rarely put into action since
1992), polls show him to be more electable than Clinton, he has a far greater chance of
passing his programs for numerous reasons (better bargaining position, not as hated by
opposition, running a proactive rather than defensive campaign) and he has the popular
touch... Which even Hillary would admit she lacks. I'm hoping perhaps vainly the first answer
won't be about her gender.
TheAuthorities -> NotYetGivenUp 30 Jan 2016 14:12
I'm guessing you don't have a lifetime's experience observing U.S. presidential elections.
Sanders does well in the polls you cite because, so far, the Republicans haven't even begun to
attack him. In fact, they're positively giddy that Clinton looks to be faltering and that
Sanders actually seems closer to the nomination today than anyone would have thought 6 months
ago. Nothing will make GOP strategists sleep more soundly than the prospect of a Sanders
nomination.
In the still-unlikely event that Sanders gets the Democratic nomination, the Republicans will
turn their heavy artillery on him and -- you can trust me on this -- the end result won't be
pretty. Actually, I think it may not even take that much from the Republican character
assassins to convince most Americans not to vote for someone with Sanders's convictions and
political record. Remember that "socialist" is a dirtier word in much of the U.S. than
"neo-liberal" is in Western Europe. There's also the very pertinent question of whether the
U.S. is ready to elect a Jewish president.
Again, if you're unfamiliar with the American electoral process, you've never seen anything
like the Republican attack machine. ESPECIALLY if your reference point is a British election.
It's like comparing a church picnic with a gang fight.
Another factor to consider is that, just as the GOP establishment is trying to undercut Trump,
so the Democratic Party leadership could possibly draft somebody else to run (Biden?) if
Clinton does go down in flames.
TaiChiMinh -> Winner_News 30 Jan 2016 14:06
Obama came to office basically bragging that he had the key to a post-partisan,
collaborative way of governing - above the issues, above parties, above rancor. During the
crucial period, when he had momentum and numbers, he trimmed on issue after issue - starting
with single payer. The Tea Party was perhaps an inevitable response but its strength, and the
success of the intransigents in Congress, were not inevitable. But the Tea Party began with a
protest of floor traders against protections for people in mortgage trouble - but its momentum
really came with the movement against the ACA and in the off-year elections in 2010. A strong
president reliant on a mobilized coalition of voters - rather than a pretty crappy deal maker
(who liked starting close to his opponents' first offer) backed by corporate elites - would
perhaps have seen different results. Obama never gave it a go. And here we are . . . I imagine
that I join eastbayradical in some kind of astonishment at the extent to which "progressives"
want to keep at what has shown itself a losing proposition . .
westerndevil -> Martin Screeton 30 Jan 2016 13:50
I spent 18 months in my twenties as a debt collector for people who defaulted on student
loans...a soul crushing job. Virtually everybody who defaulted either...
A-attended some diploma mill like University of Phoenix and not surprisingly had no job
prospects after they left...or
B-dropped out or flunked out
We need to encourage more young people to work as electricians, plumbers, machinists and
in other blue-collar occupations.
GaryWallin 30 Jan 2016 13:49
April Fool's Day comes two months early here in Iowa this year. The Iowa Presidential
Caucuses are one of the greatest Political Hoaxes of all time. They are filling our
newspapers, radio, and neighborhoods with an all time record appeal to nonsense.
As Iowan's we've had the endure nearly a full year of lying and misleading politicians,
newspapers that give us the latest spin on the political horse-race (under the guise of
journalism), phone calls from intrusive pollsters and political operatives, emails from
assorted special and political interests; and we've even had to watch our mail carriers
burdened with the task of delivering many oversized junk mail advertising pieces.
Let me make it clear that I am not opposed to political parties holding caucuses. I
think it is a good idea for them to get together in formal and informal settings:
caucuses, parties, picnics, and civic observances. But I think the choice for our next
President is too important to be left to a voter suppressing, low turn-out, media event
such as the Iowa Presidential Caucuses. The goal should be to be inclusive of all
Iowans; not to have a record (but suppressed) turnout.
We've had to endure this nonsense for months, while the politicians are given multiple
and varied means to get their message out. But the voters get only an hour or so to make
their decisions, and even then in my party, the so-called 'Democratic' one, they don't
even get the right to a secret ballot, or the right to cast an absentee ballot if they
cannot attend. Instead of including all Iowans, this Circus gives special interests,
establishment political operatives, and elites an unfair advantage. This is voter
suppression and manipulation. Too few care if there might be a snow storm coming, or
someone has to be up early the next morning for surgery at a local hospital, or if
someone has to make a living by working at the time of the caucus. In this circus-like
atmosphere it is all too important to our elites to bring in the millions of dollars in
advertising money that this charade provides to local media. Dollars come before
democratic principles.
I certainly hope that my party, the Democrats, have the courage to reject all delegates
chosen by this non-democratic process when the National Convention comes around. It is
time for Party members outside of Iowa to stand up for real democracy, free and fair
candidate selection with secret ballots, and inclusive party processes that expand and
grow the Political Party.
In Iowa we need to make a few changes. I suggest a few:
Requiring every television station, radio station, and newspaper to give daily public
updates on how much and who bought political advertising.
Requiring every piece of political advertising mailed to people in Iowa to have the cost
of that item listed on the mailing.
Requiring all politicians, political parties, and PACs to honor the 'Do Not Call' list.
I often tell these callers I will not vote for anyone who annoys me with a phone call,
but this seems to have little deterrence value to phone centers and robo-calls.
Requiring that all major political parties in the state give voters the right to choose
candidates by secret ballot. No more forcing people to publicly declare for one
candidate or another. People should have the right to make their individual choices
known if they so choose; or keep them private if that is what they want.
Gary Wallin, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 30 Jan 2016
eastbayradical -> Winner_News 30 Jan 2016 13:16
The capitalist system will surely attempt to "brick wall" any authentic attempt at
change Sanders might try to implement.
But to compare him to Obama is off.
Obama came in surrounded by Wall Street execs and stooges and from the outset had no
intention of challenging the power of the capitalist class or affecting change that was
anything other than rhetorical in nature.
The Republicans' "brick walling" of his agenda was made far, far easier because he
didn't articulate, let alone mobilize around, one that named the enemy and communicated
specific progressive changes he sought to achieve.
This was seen vividly during the fight over health care reform, where Obama, in the face
of widespread support for single-payer health care, took single-payer off the table from
the outset and negotiated away the public option for nothing of substance in return.
This allowed the Republicans an open field to attack his reform's unpopular and
unprogressive features--the mandate and the general complexity of a system that retained
the insurance cartel's power over health care.
Marcedward 30 Jan 2016 13:11
Clinton is the one candidate who can lose to Trump, and if she win's she will
govern like Bush. It's disgusting how the establishment is pushing her so hard, but it
does inform us that we should reject her. Clinton is a candidate like Obama - runs on
hope and change, than nothing changes - same old attitude that "Government exists to
protect the profits of the 1% and **** Working Class Americans"
JoePomegranate 30 Jan 2016 13:09
The feting of Clinton over a genuine, principled and subversive politician like
Sanders - when subversion is exactly what is needed - reveals the complete paucity of
argument behind so much "progressive" thought nowadays.
The idea that the lying, the patronisation, the cynicism, the cronyism and the ghastly
thirst for power by any means can be simply offset by the fact that she's a woman is
appalling. It's retrograde, sexist bollocks.
Sanders is the candidate people need and his nomination would put down a marker for real
disenfranchised and impoverished Americans to fix their country. How anyone who purports
to call themselves liberal or reformist can opt for Hillary over him, I have no idea.
James Eaton -> CurtBrown 30 Jan 2016 13:02
The myth of "American Exceptionalism" is cracking. Many folks are actually able to
see how things work in other places around the globe and not simply react with the knee
jerk "it ain't gonna work here, this is 'Murica!"
eastbayradical 30 Jan 2016 12:49
The NY Times' argument that Sanders' proposals for achieving change are unrealistic
suggests that the differences between him and Clinton are chiefly tactical in nature.
This is a clever dodge that relieves the Times of the need to address the fact that, far
from being an agent of change, Clinton, like her husband and Obama--both of whom it
supported--has a consistent record of carrying water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and
the national security/police-state apparatus, one that that she will undoubtedly carry
on as president if elected.
Madibo 30 Jan 2016 12:17
Sanders' mild social democratic policies - which require moderate and easily
affordable sacrifices on the part of the rich - are of course very realistic and
practical. Or at least they are realistic in countries that are at least reasonably
politically sane. But since US politics is the very definition of insanity, Sanders
policies are "not realistic".
"... Oh, but it is serious. The material is/was classified. It just wasn't marked as such. Which means someone removed the classified material from a separate secure network and sent it to Hilary. We know from her other emails that, on more than one occasion, she requested that that be done. ..."
"... fellow diplomats and other specialists said on Thursday that if any emails were blatantly of a sensitive nature, she could have been expected to flag it. "She might have had some responsibility to blow the whistle," said former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, "The recipient may have an induced kind of responsibility," Pickering added, "if they see something that appears to be a serious breach of security." ..."
"... Finally whether they were marked or not the fact that an electronic copy resided on a server in an insecure location was basically like her making a copy and bringing it home and plunking it in a file cabinet... ..."
"... In Section 7 of her NDA, Clinton agreed to return any classified information she gained access to, and further agreed that failure to do so could be punished under Sections 793 and 1924 of the US Criminal Code. ..."
"... The agreement considers information classified whether it is "marked or unmarked." ..."
"... According to a State Department regulation in effect during Clinton's tenure (12 FAM 531), "classified material should not be stored at a facility outside the chancery, consulate, etc., merely for convenience." ..."
"... Additionally, a regulation established in 2012 (12 FAM 533.2) requires that "each employee, irrespective of rank must certify" that classified information "is not in their household or personal effects." ..."
"... As of December 2, 2009, the Foreign Affairs Manual has explicitly stated that "classified processing and/or classified conversation on a PDA is prohibited." ..."
"... Look, Hillary is sloppy about her affairs of state. She voted with Cheney for the Iraq disaster and jumped in supporting it. It is the greatest foreign affair disaster since Viet Nam and probably the greatest, period! She was a big proponent of getting rid of Khadaffi in Libya and now we have radical Islamic anarchy ravaging the failed state. She was all for the Arab Spring until the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt....which was replaced by yet another military dictatorship we support. And she had to have her own private e-mail server and it got used for questionable handling of state secrets. This is just Hillary being Hillary........ ..."
"... Its no secret that this hysterically ambitious Clinton woman is a warmonger and a hooker for Wall Street . No need to read her e-mails, just check her record. ..."
"... What was exemplary about an unnecessary war, a dumbass victory speech three or so months into it, the President's absence of support for his CIA agent outed by his staff, the President's German Chancellor shoulder massage, the use of RNC servers and subsequently "lost" gazillion emails, doing nothing in response to Twin Towers news, ditto for Katrina news, the withheld information from the Tillman family, and sanctioned torture? ..."
"... Another point that has perhaps not been covered sufficiently is the constant use of the phrase "unsecured email server" - which is intentionally vague and misleading and was almost certainly a phrase coined by someone who knows nothing about email servers or IT security and has been parroted mindlessly by people who know even less and journalists who should know better. ..."
"... Yet the term "unsecured" has many different meanings and implications - in the context of an email server it could mean that mail accounts are accessible without authentication, but in terms of network security it could mean that the server somehow existed outside a firewall or Virtual Private Network or some other form of physical or logical security. ..."
"... It is also extremely improbable that an email server would be the only device sharing that network segment - of necessity there would at least be a file server and some means of communicating with the outside world, most likely a router or a switch, which would by default have a built-in hardware firewall (way more secure than a software firewall). ..."
"... Anything generated related to a SAP is, by it's mere existence, classified at the most extreme level, and everyone who works on a SAP knows this intimately and you sign your life away to acknowledge this. ..."
"... yeah appointed by Obama...John Kerry. His state department. John is credited on both sides of the aisle of actually coming in and making the necessary changes to clean up the administrative mess either created or not addressed by his predecessor. ..."
"... Its not hard to understand, she was supposed to only use her official email account maintained on secure Federal government servers when conducting official business during her tenure as Secretary of State. This was for three reasons, the first being security the second being transparency and the third for accountability. ..."
"... You need to share that one with Petraeus, whos career was ruined and had to pay 100k in fines, for letting some info slip to his mistress.. ..."
"... If every corrupt liar was sent to prison there'd be no one left in Washington, or Westminster and we'd have to have elections with ordinary people standing, instead of the usual suspects from the political class. Which, on reflection, sounds quite good -- ..."
"... It's a reckless arrogance combined with the belief that no-one can touch her. If she does become the nominee Hillary will be an easy target for Trump. It'll be like "shooting fish in a barrel". ..."
"... It is obvious that the Secretary of State and the President should be communicating on a secure network controlled by the federal government. It is obvious that virtually none of these communications were done in a secure manner. Consider whether someone who contends this is irrelevant has enough sense to come in out of the rain. ..."
The Obama administration
confirmed for the first time on Friday that Hillary Clinton's unsecured home server contained some
of the US government's most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding
one of the highest levels of classification. The revelation comes just three days before the Iowa
presidential nominating caucuses in which Clinton is a candidate.
jrhaddock -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 23:04
Oh, but it is serious. The material is/was classified. It just wasn't marked as such. Which
means someone removed the classified material from a separate secure network and sent it to Hilary.
We know from her other emails that, on more than one occasion, she requested that that be done.
And she's not just some low level clerk who doesn't understand what classified material is
or how it is handled. She had been the wife of the president so is certainly well aware of the
security surrounding classified material. And then she was Sec of State and obviously knew what
kind of information was classified. So to claim that the material wasn't marked, and therefore
she didn't know it was classified, is simply not credulous.
Berkeley2013 29 Jan 2016 22:46
And Clinton had a considerable number of unvetted people maintain and administer her communication
system. The potential for wrong doing in general and blackmail from many angles is great.
There's also the cost of this whole investigation. Why should US taxpayers have to pick up
the bill?
And the waste of good personnel time---a total waste...
Skip Breitmeyer -> simpledino 29 Jan 2016 22:29
In one sense you're absolutely right- read carefully this article (and the announcement leading
to it) raises at least as many questions as it answers, period. On the other hand, those ambiguities
are certain not to be resolved 'over-the-weekend' (nor before the first votes are cast in Iowa)
and thus the timing of the thing could not be more misfortunate for Ms. Clinton, nor more perfect
for maximum effect than if the timing had been deliberately planned. In fact I'm surprised there
aren't a raft of comments on this point. "Confirmed by the Obama administration..."? Who in the
administration? What wing of the administration? Some jack-off in the justice dept. who got 50,000
g's for the scoop? The fact is, I'm actually with Bernie over Hilary any day, but I admit to a
certain respect for her remarkable expertise and debate performances that have really shown the
GOP boys to be a bunch of second-benchers... And there's something a little dirty and dodgy that's
gone on here...
Adamnoggi dusablon 29 Jan 2016 22:23
SAP does not relate to To the level of classification. A special access program could be at
the confidential level or higher dependent upon content. Special access means just that, access
is granted on a case by case basis, regardless of classification level .
Gigi Trala La 29 Jan 2016 22:17
She is treated with remarkable indulgence. Anywhere with a sense of accountability she will
be facing prosecution, and yet here she is running for even higher office. In the middle of demonstrating
her unfitness.
eldudeabides 29 Jan 2016 22:15
Independent experts say it is highly unlikely that Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing,
based on the limited details that have surfaced up to now and the lack of indications that
she intended to break any laws.
since when has ignorance been a defence?
nataliesutler UzzDontSay 29 Jan 2016 22:05
Yes Petraeus did get this kind of scrutiny even though what he did was much less serious that
what Clinton did. this isn't about a rule change. And pretending it is isn't going to fool anyone.
Sam3456 kattw 29 Jan 2016 21:18
Thats a misunderstanding on your part First lets look at Hillary's statement in March:
"I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified
material. So I'm certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified
material."
She later adjusted her language to note that she never sent anything "marked" classified. So
already some Clinton-esque word parsing
And then what people said who used to do her job:
fellow diplomats and other specialists said on Thursday that if any emails were blatantly
of a sensitive nature, she could have been expected to flag it.
"She might have had some responsibility to blow the whistle," said former Ambassador Thomas Pickering,
"The recipient may have an induced kind of responsibility," Pickering added, "if they see something
that appears to be a serious breach of security."
It is a view shared by J. William Leonard, who between 2002 and 2008 was director of the Information
Security Oversight Office, which oversees the government classification system. He pointed out
that all government officials given a security clearance are required to sign a nondisclosure
agreement, which states they are responsible if secrets leak – whether the information was "marked
or not."
Finally whether they were marked or not the fact that an electronic copy resided on a server
in an insecure location was basically like her making a copy and bringing it home and plunking
it in a file cabinet...
beanierose -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 21:08
Yeah - I just don't understand what Hillary is actually accused of doing / or not doing in
Benghazi. Was it that they didn't provide support to Stevens - (I think that was debunked) - was
it that they claimed on the Sunday talk shows that the video was responsible for the attack (who
cares). Now - I can think of an outrage - President Bush attacking Iraq on the specious claim
that they had WMD - that was a lie/incorrec/incompetence and it cost ~7000 US and 200K to 700K
Iraqi lives. Now - there's a scandal.
Stephen_Sean -> elexpatrioto 29 Jan 2016 21:07
The Secretary of State is
an "original classifier" of information. The individual holding that office is responsible
to recognize whether information is classified and to what level regardless if it is marked or
not. She should have known. She has no true shelter of ignorance here.
Stephen_Sean 29 Jan 2016 21:00
The Guardian is whistling through the graveyard. The FBI is very close to a decision to recommend
an indictment to the DOJ. At that point is up to POTUS whether he thinks Hillary is worth tainting
his entire Presidency to protect by blocking a DOJ indictment. His responsibility as an outgoing
President is to do what is best for his party and to provide his best attempt to get a Democrat
elected. I smell Biden warming up in the bullpen as an emergency.
The last thing the DNC wants is a delay if their is going to be an indictment. For an indictment
to come after she is nominated would be an unrecoverable blow for the Democrats. If their is to
be an indictment its best for it to come now while they can still get Biden in and maintain their
chances.
Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 20:57
In Section 7 of her NDA, Clinton agreed to return any classified information she gained
access to, and further agreed that failure to do so could be punished under Sections 793 and 1924
of the US Criminal Code.
According To § 793 Of Title 18 Of The US Code, anyone who willfully retains, transmits or causes
to be transmitted, national security information, can face up to ten years in prison.
According To § 1924 Of Title 18 Of The US Code, anyone who removes classified information "
with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location," can face up
to a year in prison.
The agreement considers information classified whether it is "marked or unmarked."
According to a State Department regulation in effect during Clinton's tenure (12 FAM 531), "classified
material should not be stored at a facility outside the chancery, consulate, etc., merely for
convenience."
Additionally, a regulation established in 2012 (12 FAM 533.2) requires that "each employee,
irrespective of rank must certify" that classified information "is not in their household or personal
effects."
As of December 2, 2009, the Foreign Affairs Manual has explicitly stated that "classified
processing and/or classified conversation on a PDA is prohibited."
kus art 29 Jan 2016 20:54
I'm assuming that the censored emails reveal activities that the US government is into are
Way more corrupt, insidious and venal as the the emails already exposed, which says a lot already...
Profhambone -> Bruce Hill 29 Jan 2016 20:53
Look, Hillary is sloppy about her affairs of state. She voted with Cheney for the Iraq
disaster and jumped in supporting it. It is the greatest foreign affair disaster since Viet Nam
and probably the greatest, period! She was a big proponent of getting rid of Khadaffi in Libya
and now we have radical Islamic anarchy ravaging the failed state. She was all for the Arab Spring
until the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt....which was replaced by yet another
military dictatorship we support. And she had to have her own private e-mail server and it got
used for questionable handling of state secrets. This is just Hillary being Hillary........
PsygonnUSA 29 Jan 2016 20:44
Its no secret that this hysterically ambitious Clinton woman is a warmonger and a hooker
for Wall Street . No need to read her e-mails, just check her record.
USfan 29 Jan 2016 20:41
Sorry to be ranting but what does it say about a country - in theory, a democracy - that is
implicated in so much questionable business around the world that we have to classify mountains
of communication as off-limits to the people, who are theoretically sovereign in this country?
We've all gotten quite used to this. In reality, it should freak us out much more than it does.
I'm not naive about what national security requires, but my sense is the government habitually
and routinely classifies all sorts of things the people of this country have every right to know.
Assuming this is still a democracy, which is perhaps a big assumption.
Neil Berkitt – a former banker (Lloyds, St George Bank) who then helped vulture capitalist
Richard Branson with Virgin Media.
David Pemsel – Former head of marketing at ITV.
Nick Backhouse – On the board of the bank of Queensland, formerly with Barings Bank.
Ronan Dunne – On the Telefónica Europe plc board, Chairman of Tesco Mobile. He has also
worked at Banque Nationale de Paris plc.
Judy Gibbons – Judy is currently a non-executive director of retail property kings Hammerson,
previously with O2, Microsoft, Accel Partners (venture capital), Apple and Hewlett Packard.
Jennifer Duvalier – Previously in management consultancy and banking.
Brent Hoberman – Old Etonian with fingers in various venture capital pies including car
rental firm EasyCar.
Nigel Morris – chairman of network digital marketing giants Aegis Media.
John Paton – CEO of Digital First Media – a very large media conglomerate which was sued
successfully in the U.S. for rigging advertising rates.
Katherine Viner – Startlingly not a banker, in marketing or venture capital. She is I gather
(gulp) a journalist.
Darren Singer – formerly with BSkyB, the BBC and Price Waterhouse Coopers
FirthyB 29 Jan 2016 20:36
Hillary is in that class, along with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bush, Cheney etc.. who believe
the rule of law only pertains to the little guys.
MooseMcNaulty -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 20:28
The spying was illegal on a Constitutional basis. The Fourth Amendment protects our privacy
and prevents unlawful search and seizure. The government getting free access to the contents of
our emails seems the same as opening our mail, which is illegal without a court order.
The drone program is illegal based on the Geneva accords. We are carrying out targeted killings
within sovereign nations, usually without their knowledge or consent, based on secret evidence
that they pose a vaguely defined 'imminent threat'. It isn't in line with any international law,
though we set that precedent long ago.
makaio USfan 29 Jan 2016 20:08
What was exemplary about an unnecessary war, a dumbass victory speech three or so months
into it, the President's absence of support for his CIA agent outed by his staff, the President's
German Chancellor shoulder massage, the use of RNC servers and subsequently "lost" gazillion emails,
doing nothing in response to Twin Towers news, ditto for Katrina news, the withheld information
from the Tillman family, and sanctioned torture?
Those were just starter questions. I'm sure I missed things.
Another point that has perhaps not been covered sufficiently is the constant use of the
phrase "unsecured email server" - which is intentionally vague and misleading and was almost certainly
a phrase coined by someone who knows nothing about email servers or IT security and has been parroted
mindlessly by people who know even less and journalists who should know better.
As an IT professional the repeated use of a phrase like that is a red flag - it's like when
people who don't know what they're talking about latch on to a phrase which sounds technical because
it contains jargon or technical concepts and they use it to make it sound like they know what
they're talking about but it doesn't actually mean anything unless the context is clear and unambiguous.
The phrase is obviously being repeated to convey the impression of supreme negligence - that
sensitive state secrets were left defenceless and (gasp!) potentially accessible by anyone.
Yet the term "unsecured" has many different meanings and implications - in the context
of an email server it could mean that mail accounts are accessible without authentication, but
in terms of network security it could mean that the server somehow existed outside a firewall
or Virtual Private Network or some other form of physical or logical security.
Does this term "unsecured" mean the data on the server was not password-protected, does it
mean it was unencrypted, does it mean that it was totally unprotected (which is extremely unlikely
even if it was installed by an ignorant Luddite given that any modern broadband modem is also
a hardware firewall), and as for the "server" was it a physical box or a virtual server?
It is also extremely improbable that an email server would be the only device sharing that
network segment - of necessity there would at least be a file server and some means of communicating
with the outside world, most likely a router or a switch, which would by default have a built-in
hardware firewall (way more secure than a software firewall).
And regarding the "unsecured" part, how was the network accessed?
There are a huge number of possibilities as to the actual meaning and on its own there is not
enough information to deduce which - if any - is correct.
I suspect that someone who knows little to nothing about technology has invented this concept
based on ignorance a desire to imply malfeasance because on its own it really is a nonsense term.
seanet1310 -> Wallabyfan 29 Jan 2016 19:37
Nope. Like it or not Manning deliberately took classified information, smuggled it out and
gave it to foreign nationals.
Clinton it would appear mishandled classified material, at best she failed to realise the sensitive
nature and at worst actively took material from controlled and classified networks onto an unsecured
private network.
dusablon 29 Jan 2016 19:28
Classified material in the US is classified at three levels: confidential, secret, and top
secret. Those labels are not applied in a cavalier fashion. The release of TS information is considered
a grave threat to the security of the United States.
Above these classification levels is what is as known as Special Access Program information,
the release of which has extremely grave ramifications for the US. Access to SAP material is extremely
limited and only granted after an extensive personal background investigation and only on a 'need
to know' basis. You don't simply get a SAP program clearance because your employer thinks it would
be nice to have, etc. In fact, you can have a Top Secret clearance and never get a special access
program clearance to go with it.
For those of you playing at home, the Top Secret SAP material Hillary had on her server - the
most critical material the US can have - was not simply 'upgraded' to classified in a routine
bureaucratic exercise because it was previously unclassified.
Anything generated related to a SAP is, by it's mere existence, classified at the most
extreme level, and everyone who works on a SAP knows this intimately and you sign your life away
to acknowledge this.
What the Feds did in Hillary's case in making the material on her home-based server Top Secret
SAP was to bring those materials into what is known as 'accountability .'
That is, the material was always SAP material but it was just discovered outside a SAP lock-down
area or secure system and now it must become 'accountable' at the high classification level to
ensure it's protected from further disclosure.
Hillary and her minions have no excuse whatsoever for this intentional mishandling of this
critical material and are in severe legal jeopardy no matter what disinformation her campaign
puts out. Someone will or should go to prison. Period.
(Sorry for the length of the post)
Sam3456 -> Mark Forrester 29 Jan 2016 19:22
yeah appointed by Obama...John Kerry. His state department. John is credited on both sides
of the aisle of actually coming in and making the necessary changes to clean up the administrative
mess either created or not addressed by his predecessor.
Within weeks of taking the position JK implemented the OIG task forces recommendations to streamline
the process and make State run more in line with other government organizations. I think John
saw the "Sorry it snowed can't have you this info for a month" for what it was and acted out of
decency and fairness to the American people. I still think he looks like a hound and is a political
opportunist but you can't blame him for shenanigans here
chiefwiley -> DoktahZ 29 Jan 2016 19:18
The messages were "de-papered" by the staff, stripping them from their forms and headings and
then scanning and including the content in accumulations to be sent and stored in an unclassified
system. Taking the markings off of a classified document does not render it unclassified. Adding
the markings back onto the documents does not "declare" them classified. Their classified nature
was constant.
If you only have an unsecured system, it should never be used for official traffic, let alone
classified or special access traffic.
dusablon -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 19:05
Give it up.
She used a private server deliberately to avoid FOIA requests, she deleted thousands of emails
after they were requested, and the emails that remained contained Top Secret Special Access Program
information, and it does not matter one iota whether or not that material was marked or whether
or not it has been recently classified appropriately.
chiefwiley -> Exceptionalism 29 Jan 2016 19:04
18USC Section793(f)
$250,000 and ten years.
dusablon -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 19:00
False.
Anything related to a special access program is classified whether marked as such or not.
dalisnewcar 29 Jan 2016 18:58
You would figure that after all the lies of O'bomber that democrats might wake up some. Apparently,
they are too stupid to realize they have been duped even after the entire Middle Class has been
decimated and the wealth of the 1% has grown 3 fold under the man who has now bombed 7 countries.
And you folks think Clinton, who personally destroyed Libya, is going to be honest with you and
not do the same things he's done? Wake up folks. Your banging your head against the same old wall.
fanUS -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 18:46
She is evil, because she helped Islamic State to rise.
Paul Christenson -> Barry_Seal 29 Jan 2016 18:45
20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang.
Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her
office at the Department of Commerce.
21 - Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security
clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.
22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee
died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving
on Clinton 's advisory council personally treated Clinton 's mother, stepfather and Brother.
23 - Barry Seal - Drug running TWA pilot out of Mean Arkansas , death was no accident.
24 - John ny Lawhorn, Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of
a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.
25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guaranty. His death was a purported suicide and
his report was never released.
26 - Hershel Friday - Attorney and Clinton fundraiser died March 1, 1994, when his plane exploded.
27 - Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the two boys
may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. The initial report of death said
their deaths were due to falling asleep on railroad tracks and being run over. Later autopsy reports
stated that the 2 boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case
died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, 7/88.
29 - Keith McMaskle - Died, stabbed 113 times, Nov 1988
30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989. (Coroner
ruled death due to suicide)
32 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to natural
causes"?
33 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June
1990.
34 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives/Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery
July 1989.
THE FOLLOWING CLINTON PERSONAL BODYGUARDS ALL DIED OF MYSTERIOUS CAUSES OR SUICIDE
36 - Major William S. Barkley, Jr.
37 - Captain Scott J . Reynolds
38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
40 - Major General William Robertson
41 - Col. William Densberger
42 - Col. Robert Kelly
43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
44 - Steve Willis
45 - Robert Williams
46 - Conway LeBleu
47 - Todd McKeehan
And this list does not include the four dead Americans in Benghazi that Hillary abandoned!
Paul Christenson Barry_Seal 29 Jan 2016 18:42
THE MANY CLINTON BODY BAGS . . .
Someone recently reminded me of this list. I had forgotten how long it is. Therefore, this
is a quick refresher course, lest we forget what has happened to many "friends" and associates
of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
1- James McDougal - Convicted Whitewater partner of the Clintons who died of an apparent heart
attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.
2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee
Shop in Georgetown (Washington, D. C.). The murder happened just after she was to go public with
her story of sexual harassment by Clinton in the White House.
3 - Vince Foster - Former White House Councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little
Rock 's Rose Law Firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide. (He was about to
testify against Hillary related to the records she refused to turn over to congress.) Was reported
to have been having an affair with Hillary.
4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact
in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the
top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated,
and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on
the plane also died. A few days later the Air Traffic controller committed suicide.
5 - C. Victor Raiser, II - Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising organization
died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room
in Little Rock on September 1992. Described by Clinton as a "dear friend and trusted advisor".
7 - Ed Willey - Clinton fundraiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot
wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day His wife Kathleen Willey claimed
Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several
Clinton fund raising events.
8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock .. Gunned down
in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock . Park's son said his father was building
a dossier on Clinton . He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files
were mysteriously removed from his house.
9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of
people which contained names of influential people who visited Prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas
10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported
to have ties to the Clintons ' Whitewater deals.
11 - Kathy Ferguson - Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson , was found dead in May 1994,
in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several
packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with
Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones Lawsuit, and Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness
for Paula Jones.
12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancée of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide
ruling of his fiancée, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide
at the grave site of his fiancée.
13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton 's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window
of a tall building January, 1994. His client, Dan Lassater, was a convicted drug distributor.
14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal,
Mena , Arkansas Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot Wounds.
15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney
General. Died Of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a Suicide. Was pregnant at the
time of her death.
16 - Paula Grober - Clinton 's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December
9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.
17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter who was Investigating the Mean Airport and Arkansas
Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.
18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mean Airport with Casolaro and the
1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993, in his Washington DC apartment.
Had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death. (May have died of poison)
19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his
death from his Arlington , Virginia apartment balcony August 15,1993. He was investigating the
Morgan Guaranty scandal.
Thijs Buelens -> honey1969 29 Jan 2016 18:41
Did the actors from Orange is the New Black already endorsed Hillary? Just wondering.
Sam3456 -> Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 18:35
Remember as soon as Snowden walked out the door with his USB drive full of secrets his was
in violation. Wether he knew the severity and classification or not.
Think of Hillary's email server as her home USB drive.
RedPillCeryx 29 Jan 2016 18:33
Government civil and military employees working with material at the Top Secret level are required
to undergo incredibly protracted and intrusive vetting procedures (including polygraph testing)
in order to obtain and keep current their security clearances to access such matter. Was Hillary
Clinton required to obtain a Top Secret clearance in the same way, or was she just waved through
because of Who She Is?
Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 18:32
Just to be clear, Colin Powell used a private email ACCOUNT which was hosted in the cloud and
used it only for personal use. He was audited (never deleted anything) and it was found to contain
no government records.
Hillary used a server, which means in electronic form the documents existed outside the State
Department unsecured. Its as if she took a Top Secret file home with her. That is a VERY BIG mistake
and as the Sec of State she signed a document saying she understood the rules and agreed to play
by them. She did not and removing state secrets from their secure location is a very serious matter.
Wether you put the actual file in your briefcase or have them sitting in electronic version on
your server.
Second, she signed a document saying she would return any and ALL documents and copies of documents
pertaining to the State Department with 30 (or 60 I can't remember) of leaving. The documents
on her server, again electronic copies of the top secret files, where not returned for 2 years.
Thats a huge violation.
Finally, there is a clause in classification that deals with the information that is top secret
by nature. Meaning regardless of wether its MARKED classified or not the very nature of the material
would be apparent to a senior official that it was classified and appropriate action would have
to be taken. She she either knew and ignored or did not know...and both of those scenarios don't
give me a lot of confidence.
Finally the information that was classified at the highest levels means exposure of that material
would put human operatives lives at risk. Something she accused Snowden of doing when she called
him a traitor. By putting that information outside the State Department firewall she basically
put peoples lives at risk so she could have the convenience of using one mobile device.
Wallabyfan -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 18:10
Sorry you can delude yourself all you like but Powell and Cheney used private emails while
at work on secure servers for personal communications not highly classified communications and
did so before the 2009 ban on this practice came into place . Clinton has used a private unsecured
server at her home while Sec of State and even worse provided access to people in her team who
had no security clearance. She has also deleted more than 30,000 emails from the server in full
knowledge of the FBI probe. You do realise that she is going to end up in jail don't you?
MtnClimber -> boscovee 29 Jan 2016 18:07
Are you as interested in all of the emails that Cheney destroyed? He was asked to provide them
and never allowed ANY to be seen.
Typical GOP
Dozens die at embassies under Bush. Zero investigations. Zero hearings.
4 die at an embassy under Clinton. Dozens of hearings.
OurNigel -> Robert Greene 29 Jan 2016 17:53
Its not hard to understand, she was supposed to only use her official email account maintained
on secure Federal government servers when conducting official business during her tenure as Secretary
of State. This was for three reasons, the first being security the second being transparency and
the third for accountability.
Serious breach of protocol I'm afraid.
Talgen -> Exceptionalism 29 Jan 2016 17:50
Department responses for classification infractions could include counseling, warnings
or other action, officials said. They wouldn't say if Clinton or senior aides who've since
left government could face penalties. The officials weren't authorized to speak on the matter
and demanded anonymity."
You need to share that one with Petraeus, whos career was ruined and had to pay 100k in
fines, for letting some info slip to his mistress..
Wallabyfan 29 Jan 2016 17:50
No one here seems to be able to accept how serious this is. You cant downplay it. This is the
most serious scandal we have seen in American politics for decades.
Any other US official handling even 1 classified piece of material on his or her own unsecured
home server would have been arrested and jailed by now for about 50 years perhaps longer. The
fact that we are talking about 20 + (at least) indicates at the very least Clinton's hubris, incompetence
and very poor judgement as well as being a very serious breach of US law. Her campaign is doomed.
This is only the beginning of the scandal and I predict we will be rocked when we learn the
truth. Clinton will be indicted and probably jailed along with Huma Abedin who the FBI are also
investigating.
This is supposed to be the lady who (in her own words) has a huge experience of government
yet she willingly broke not just State Department protocols and procedures, by using a privately
maintained none secure server for her email service she also broke Federal laws and regulations
governing recordkeeping requirements.
At the very least this was a massive breach of security and a total disregard for established
rules whilst she was in office. Its not as if she was just some local government officer in a
backwater town she was Secretary of State for the United States government.
If the NSA is to be believed you should presume her emails could have been read by any foreign
state.
This is actually a huge story.
TassieNigel 29 Jan 2016 17:41
This god awful Clinton family had to be stopped somehow I suppose. Now if I'd done it, I'd
be behind bars long ago, so when will Hillary be charged is my question ?
Hillary made much of slinging off about the "traitor" Julian Assange, so let's see how Mrs
Clinton looks like behind bars. A woman simply incapable of telling the truth --
Celebrations for Bernie Sanders of course.
HiramsMaxim 29 Jan 2016 17:41
They also wouldn't disclose whether any of the documents reflected information that was
classified at the time of transmission,
Has nothing to do with anything. Maybe the author should read the actual NDA signed by Mrs.
Clinton.
If every corrupt liar was sent to prison there'd be no one left in Washington, or Westminster
and we'd have to have elections with ordinary people standing, instead of the usual suspects from
the political class. Which, on reflection, sounds quite good !
In_for_the_kill 29 Jan 2016 17:15
Come on Guardian, this should be your lead story, the executive branch of the United States
just confirmed that a candidate for the Presidency pretty much broke the law, knowingly. If that
ain't headline material, then I don't know what is.
dusablon -> SenseCir 29 Jan 2016 17:09
Irrelevant?
Knowingly committing a felony by a candidate for POTUS is anything but irrelevant.
And forget her oh-so-clever excuses about not sending or receiving anything marked top secret
or any other level of classification including SAP. If you work programs like those you know that
anything generated related to that program is automatically classified, whether or not it's marked
as such. And such material is only shared on a need to know basis.
She's putting out a smokescreen to fool the majority of voters who have never or will never
have special access. She is a criminal and needs to be arrested. Period.
Commentator6 29 Jan 2016 17:00
It's a reckless arrogance combined with the belief that no-one can touch her. If she does
become the nominee Hillary will be an easy target for Trump. It'll be like "shooting fish in a
barrel".
DismayedPerplexed -> OnlyOneView 29 Jan 2016 16:40
Are you forgetting W and his administration's 5 million deleted emails?
Consider that email is an indispensable tool in doing one's job. Consider that in order to
effectively do her job, candidate Clinton -- as the Secretary of State -- had to be sending and
receiving Top Secret documents. Consider that all of her email was routed through a personal server.
Consider whether she released all of the relevant emails. Well, she claimed she did but the evidence
contradicts such a claim. Consider that this latest news release has -- like so many others --
been released late on a Friday.
It is obvious that the Secretary of State and the President should be communicating on
a secure network controlled by the federal government. It is obvious that virtually none of these
communications were done in a secure manner. Consider whether someone who contends this is irrelevant
has enough sense to come in out of the rain.
Another explanation is that he sees trouble ahead for Hillary Clinton. Because of his close relationship
with former NYC police Chief Ray Kelly and others in the law enforcement community, he might have
the inside track on the FBI investigation into the former Secretary of State's handling of classified
documents and questionable foundation-related activities. Democrats have done a fine job of completely
dismissing the FBI inquiry, but the possibility that Clinton could face serious legal hurdles may
be encouraging Bloomberg's ambitions.
... ... ...
The inquiry began by looking into whether Clinton's use of a personal email server violated security
standards; it has since been expanded twice. As reported by
Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News, Clinton signed an oath promising to comply with the laws
protecting national security information, violations that the Obama administration has aggressively
prosecuted.
As Napolitano says, "The Obama Department of Justice prosecuted a young sailor for espionage for
sending a selfie to his girlfriend, because in the background of the photo was a view of a sonar
screen on a submarine…. It also prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for espionage for keeping secret and
top-secret documents in an unlocked drawer in his desk inside his guarded home. It alleged that he
shared those secrets with a friend who also had a security clearance, but it dropped those charges."
Napolitano contends that the bar for prosecution is low, and can be based on negligence. That
is, the government need not prove that Clinton intended to reveal state secrets – only that she did
so through carelessness.
Charles McCullough, the intelligence community's inspector general, recently stirred the pot when
he wrote to the chairmen of the Senate intelligence and foreign affairs committees that he has received
sworn declarations from an intelligence agency he declined to name identifying "several dozen" classified
emails, including several marked as "special access programs" – the highest security level possible.
SAP information can include the names of intelligence assets, for instance, and other highly sensitive
information. To date, some
1,340 "classified" emails have been discovered amongst those stored on Clinton's server.
Clinton argues that those communications were not so designated at the time. Undermining her defense
is a series of emails exchanged with aide Jake Sullivan in which she appears to order him to get
around security protocol and simply cut and paste sensitive information to be faxed to her. The compromising
communication was amongst those released in
a recent Friday night "dump." In the exchange, Sullivan reports that staffers have "had issues
sending secure fax. They're working on it." Clinton answers, "If they can't, turn into non-paper
w no identifying heading and send non-secure." The intent is clear.
"... In November, if you dont live in a battleground state, your vote will not tip the outcome...better to vote your conscience and register your disgust with the corrupt duopoly. ..."
"... Any president will need a staff and mostly, that will come from people working in the Obama administration. Bernie talks about Stiglitz, but he is 72, almost as old as Bernie. He mentioned Reich who was part of the same Clinton administration that Bernie constantly bashes. ..."
"... Much of the dereg came about in trade for other policies. I dont know that a Bernie administration would be much different. Bernie would need to swallow hard and take a heavy dose of GOP poison to get a budget, much less pass reform legislation. ..."
"... Dont say the Tea Party changed nothing - they changed themselves. Remember that they were created in disgust over Wall Street. After they got elected you would be hard pressed to find more ardent supporters of any and all legislation that support the rich. ..."
"... Bernie is settling for social democracy. That is still better than neoliberal theocracy. ..."
"... Exactly. Its all political posturing for the primaries. Like Obama, shell revert to a neoliberal stooge the moment she takes office. ..."
"... Her first action will be to find some hapless, third world country to intervene in to prove that she has cojones. Libya redux. ..."
"... Paleoconservatives oppose military interventionism. Boots on the ground would be neoconservative. ..."
"... Neoconservative is just neoliberal with a more aggressive boots on the ground foreign policy or imperialism ..."
"... Paleoconservatives are more isolationist than free traders. They still love their corporations and rich people, but they dont like crony capitalism as a principle even if as a reality they are open to setting a price. Trump is leaning paleoconservative, at least in his campaign rhetoric. ..."
"... Whatever it takes to prove that she the toughest warrior since Catherine the Great... ..."
"... Exactly. She is yet another neocon, masking as a Democrat. She is more jingoistic then probably half of Republican candidates. ..."
"... What to do when a candidate is called unelectable because of their support for the policies that you yourself support? ..."
"... Well you have to decide whether you want to be a heroic loser or get half a loaf. I agree that it is a very difficult question. ..."
"... You nailed it. No one ever said democracy would be easy. ..."
"... And he cautionary tale is that the heroic losers got us 8 years of Bush II - and all the disasters he managed to create in that time. ..."
"... No What is means is that there are a lot of people who realize that public opinion polls mean absolutely nothing. ..."
"... What is ironic about this election cycle more than others is that Republicans dominate the elected offices, so they have essentially total control of government, especially in the poorest States, but they blame Obama for things that are local to these States like teen pregnancy, school drop outs, poverty, high unemployment, crime, felons, unemployed felons, no health providers, no corporations who will setup in the State because of the lack of health probiders, educated workers, and too much crime. Nothing was better when Bush-Cheney or Reagan-Bush were where Obama-Biden are. And the increasing number of elected Republicans seems to me to be quantifiably worse. ..."
"... I would call them a Third Way turncoats within Dems. Neolibs moved party into Wall Street hands and Wall Street donors became the key contributors. Clinton successfully sold Democratic Party (like Tony Blair sold Labour) and got rich in the process. ..."
"... Instead of boycotting, which conveys apathy, why not vote third party, which conveys disgust? ..."
"... ...Nader won enough votes in two states - Florida and New Hampshire - to put either of them in Gore's column. Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida, which easily could have swung the election to give Gore the state's 25 electoral votes, and there would have been no need for a recount. Even without Florida, adding Nader's 4 percent of the New Hampshire vote to Gore's 47 percent would have given Gore a 270 to 267 victory in the electoral college... ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has had persistently high negatives and a habit of generating and attractive scandal. She cant even generate trust within her own party, and performs particularly badly among independents. I dont understand why anyone would view her as the electable alternative . ..."
"... HRC is not calling for a political revolution. If you like oligarchy then she is your gal. If one is comfortably placed in the existing establishment then it is a scary thing to risk rocking the boat. ..."
"... Yep, the Clinton Foundation should be rebranded: Scandals R Us! ..."
"... When presented with the choice between a corrupt capitalist and an honest socialist, it should be an easy choice for most of us. Actually, for the Wall Street Democrats here, its also any easy choice--you look for the most corrupt candidate, the one who lists Wall Street banks as her top donors. ..."
"... By November, all but the most fervent Clinton partisans -- who can always be driven into a frenzy of paranoid persecution mania by talk of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and whatnot - is in an anybody but Clinton mood. ..."
"... Not BS. You are wearing partisan blinders. Clinton has been dogged by scandal at every stage of her public life: some pumped up out of relatively small stuff, but several serious big deals. There will be more. Why? Because the Clintons are both compulsive liars. Thats why young people, who are very good at sniffing out fakes and liars, dont like her. ..."
"... The Republicans have gone nuts and are much more of danger than they appeared to be back in 2000 before 9-11. ..."
"... The definitions of Democratic Socialism by B Sanders are in the context of Scandinavian countries which is really a more progressive form of social democracy, e.g. higher tax rates on higher earners than other social democratic countries but still allowing private property. ..."
"... The protesters' indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right. ..."
"... Bingo. Bernie does what Obama did in his early speeches: speak to the moral, emotional underpinnings of Progressive beliefs. ..."
"... This is a kind of excitement that Hillary is never going to be able to inspire. ..."
"... And you somehow think that this enthusiasm will not be curbed after the attacks on Sanders begin? And I am not talking about these stupid little so called attacks by PK, Chait, Klein, etc. I'm talking big boy attacks backed by huge money and no reason whatsoever to pay attention to any facts at all. ..."
"... Yeah, I do. I think we're ready for another, And I welcome their hatred, moment in history. ..."
"... But what we need now is someone with genuine moral outrage who will say what so many of us feel: the system has been distorted beyond its ability to snap back. It works for at most 10% of the population now and catastrophically, often fatally, fails a percentage of perhaps twice that. I haven't gotten quite to the point yet myself where I would refuse to vote for Clinton if she won the primary, but many of my friends have. I think the tide has finally turned. ..."
You Say You Want a Revolution?, by Mark A. Thoma : What, exactly, does Democratic presidential
candidate Bernie Sanders have in mind when he asks on his
website if we are "Ready
to Start a Political Revolution?" He has proclaimed unabashedly that he is a socialist, a statement
that has raised eyebrows about his electability. He wants to turn us into the Soviet Union!! Is
that what he has in mind?
Far from it. He has
qualified his statements to make it clear that he is a democratic socialist, but that term
fails to convey what he really has in mind, or at least I think it does. ...
You support Sanders because he opposes any organized opposition to Republicans who run about 10,000
candidates for 10,000 offices and get out voters to vote in everyone on of those elections?
The only organized opposition to Republicans is Democratic Parties who need to raise money
to pay campaign workers because those progressives who oppose capitalism oddly won't work for
the parties for free, or run for office paying their own way in getting hundreds of people to
work for free getting out the vote. It isn't like Democratic party elites block them from running
for office because at least a thousand elections have no opponent to the Republican candidate.
What's Sanders' plan for filling the 10,000 elected offices currently filled with corrupt party
picked and corporate bought puppets?
Sanders has pushed the DLC for a "southern strategy", to no avail. I worked for free in 2012 and
2014! I may not do so in 2016.
JohnH -> pgl...
I would vote for Sanders in November because he is strong on issues important to most Americans.
Bill Curry explains the difference between the candidates, something most of the 'liberals' here
fail to grasp--
"Hillary is a living avatar of the Democratic Party in our time. What it does well–cultural
issues and social programs– she does well. When she talks about child care or family leave she's
passionate and sincere. What she and her party don't do well is fight to end corporate control
of government. She's also weak on climate change, freedom of information, the right to privacy
and, in matters of alleged national security, the rule of law.
Bernie won [the October debate] not because he outpointed her but because he's strong on the
issues on which she's weak - and because those are the issues that matter most to voters. Like
our environment, our democracy and our middle class are at a tipping point. When Bernie talks
about these crises, his sincerity and passion are unmistakable. For all her hard work, it isn't
clear Hillary even understands them. Having spent the '90s promoting globalization, and her adult
life raising money from those who profit from it, she's too wed to the system to see its fatal
flaws".
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/18/this_is_still_bernie_sanders_moment_hes_right_on_the_big_issues_now_he_must_communicate_it/
likbez -> JohnH...
Bill Curry is simply naïve.
The current social system that is in place in the USA is called neoliberalism. And it presupposes
complete corporate control of the state as neoliberalism is a form of corporatism.
I doubt that you can change the elite preferences as for neoliberalism via elections. Some
compromises are possible, but that's it. Any US President is controlled by "deep state" not the
other way around.
Truman said something like "You came to the office, you try to change things and nothing changes."
JohnH -> lower middle class...
In November, if you don't live in a battleground state, your vote will not tip the outcome...better
to vote your conscience and register your disgust with the corrupt duopoly.
JohnH -> EMichael...
If enough people vote against the corrupt duopoly in non-battleground states, the message will
be heard.
Yes, we can!
Sarah -> pgl...
As usual, Mark's much more balanced on the subject than Krugman. He shows that he's thought about
it carefully and listened to what Sanders has to say. Krugman, on the other hand, is sounding
like he did on the housing bubble before he actually started reading, thinking and paying attention.
Especially irritating is his claim that single payer means organizing a national health service
and abolishing private health care. Surely he's traveled enough in Europe to know that it means
nothing of the kind. Most European countries, including the one where I live, offer private health
plans as well as a public option- just the system Krugman himself proposed when the health care
debates were on.
The other thing which Sanders is doing, and which an earlier Krugman faulted Obama for NOT
doing, is pushing the political dialogue back towards the center, away from the extreme right,
where it's been stuck despite massive bipartisan majorities in favor of a number of more Progressive
positions, for a couple of decades now. If he's getting strong blow-back for this it's hardly
surprising.
I don't anyone will fault Thoma for worrying about Bernie's prospects. I happen to think he's
mistaken, and that Sanders actually has a far stronger appeal - even on the Right (particularly
among the non-political and those who have given up on politics) -- than many people suspect,
but it's certainly a reasonable concern. What Krugman is doing goes considerably beyond that,
however. If he's getting strong blow-back for that it's hardly surprising.
jonny bakho :
I think Bernie is electable. Bernie gives Hillary cover to discuss more populist positions. I
think his approach is unlikely to deliver very much.
The TeaParty went to Congress with an agenda plus grass roots support and have changed nothing.
The US system is designed to block radical schemes and force a more incremental change. On health
care, we solved the problem of how to pay. The most pressing challenge is improving delivery.
On this, Bernie is refighting the last war. His side lost. The Dems should not respond to TeaParty
votes on repealing Obamacare with votes to repeal it and replace it with single payer. The TeaParty
has been a waste of time. So would the push for single payer. The majority of Americans would
be loathe to trade in their employer paid health care for health care of unknown quality paid
for by higher taxes. Vermont could sell it to their voters. It cannot be sold to the TeaParty
who would fight it as BigBrotherGov. Sanders does not have the good judgement to see that single
payer is a loser with the general public and would be a drag on the rest of the agenda. The move
to single payer will involve incremental steps that are outside of Sanders plan. The whole idea
that a one-sided populist revolution will occur in 2016 is near zero probability. The populists
are split between a conservative camp and a liberal camp.
Any president will need a staff and mostly, that will come from people working in the Obama
administration. Bernie talks about Stiglitz, but he is 72, almost as old as Bernie. He mentioned
Reich who was part of the same Clinton administration that Bernie constantly bashes. The
advantage to Clinton is she is much more familiar with the players who understand how to make
the agencies respond. I lived through the 90s and the legislation that was enacted was always
some mix of what the GOP Congress were promoting and what Bill Clinton wanted. Much of the
dereg came about in trade for other policies. I don't know that a Bernie administration would
be much different. Bernie would need to swallow hard and take a heavy dose of GOP poison to get
a budget, much less pass reform legislation.
Don't say the Tea Party changed nothing - they changed themselves. Remember that they were
created in disgust over Wall Street. After they got elected you would be hard pressed to find
more ardent supporters of any and all legislation that support the rich.
pgl -> DeDude...
Same old Republican bait and switch.
ilsm -> jonny bakho...
Tea party support is in fly over country. And there a small minority (they win with 55% stay home)
of the population.
Bernie could excite enough.... Hillary not so.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron :
My guess is that Bernie would be for democratic socialism if he thought that he could get it done.
So, Bernie is settling for social democracy. That is still better than neoliberal theocracy.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> pgl...
I would even give some neoliberal politicians credit for listening well to the economists whose
policy prescriptions fit their political-economic agenda on a case by case basis. So, that is
pretense without just pretending.
JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
"Since Bernie she is singing a different tune."
Exactly. It's all political posturing for the primaries. Like Obama, she'll revert to a
neoliberal stooge the moment she takes office.
Her first action will be to find some hapless, third world country to intervene in to prove
that she has cojones. Libya redux.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> JohnH...
Yeah, but no boots on the ground because that would be neoconservative.
pgl -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
I think you mean Paleo Conservative. We need to program to keep up with all these meaningless
labels.
Syaloch -> pgl...
Paleoconservatives oppose military interventionism. Boots on the ground would be neoconservative.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> pgl...
[Neoconservative is just neoliberal with a more aggressive "boots on the ground" foreign policy
or imperialism if you would rather.]
*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol
Irving Kristol (January 22, 1920 – September 18, 2009) was an American columnist, journalist, and
writer who was dubbed the "godfather of neo-conservatism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States
during the 1960s among Democrats who became disenchanted with the party's domestic and especially
foreign policy. Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential
administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Neoconservatives peaked in influence during
the administrations of George W. Bush and George H W Bush, when they played a major role in promoting
and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[1] Prominent neoconservatives in the Bush administration
included Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. Senior officials
Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, while not identifying themselves
as neoconservatives, listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially
the defense of Israel, the promotion of democracy in the Middle East, and the buildup of American
military forces to achieve these goals. The neocons have influence in the Obama White House, and
neoconservatism remains a staple in both parties' arsenal.[2][3]
The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist
Left to the camp of American conservatism.[4] Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of
democracy and promotion of American national interest in international affairs, including by means
of military force, and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism...
*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism
Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleocon) is a conservative political philosophy found
primarily in the United States stressing tradition, limited government and civil society, along with
religious, regional, national and Western identity.[1][2]
Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often highlight their points of disagreement with neoconservatives,
especially regarding issues such as military interventionism, illegal immigration and high rates
of legal immigration, as well as multiculturalism, affirmative action, free trade, and foreign aid.[1]
They also criticize social welfare and social democracy, which some refer to as the "therapeutic
managerial state",[3] the "welfare-warfare state"[4] or "polite totalitarianism".[5] They identify
themselves as the legitimate heirs to the American conservative tradition.[6]
Elizabethtown College professor Paul Gottfried is credited with coining the term in the 1980s.[7]
He says the term originally referred to various Americans, such as conservative and traditionalist
Catholics and agrarian Southerners, who turned to anti-communism during the Cold War.[8] Paleoconservatism
is closely linked with distributism.[citation needed]
Paleoconservative thought has been published by the Rockford Institute's Chronicles: A Magazine of
American Culture.[9] Politician Pat Buchanan was strongly influenced by its articles[8] and helped
create another paleocon publication, The American Conservative.[10] Its concerns overlap those of
the Old Right that opposed the New Deal in the 1930s and 1940s...
[There you have it. To simplify just consider archetypes neoconservative Irving Kristol (or son William)
versus paleoconservative Pat Buchanan. Neocons are entirely at home with the Washington Consensus
of neoliberal, but they want to project American power via militarism and have no problem whatsoever
with other peoples kids dying in foreign wars. That is the beauty of an all voluntary military.
Paleoconservatives are more isolationist than free traders. They still love their corporations
and rich people, but they don't like crony capitalism as a principle even if as a reality they are
open to setting a price. Trump is leaning paleoconservative, at least in his campaign rhetoric.
]
JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
"no boots on the ground" Don't bet on it. Whatever it takes to prove that she the toughest
warrior since Catherine the Great...
likbez -> JohnH...
>Her first action will be to find some hapless, third world country to intervene in to prove that
she has cojones. Libya redux.
Exactly. She is yet another neocon, masking as a Democrat. She is more jingoistic then
probably half of Republican candidates.
PPaine -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Might I suggest recently Hillary is no longer bear hugging real progress
She's back to the wooden nickel con and the " crazy left " marginalization stunt
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> PPaine ...
Yeah, you may suggest. I noticed that too. Neither my wife nor I are her fans. I have been
in for Bernie since before he even announced. If I recall so were you although Liz Warren would
have also been acceptable to us.
Back in the 70's I wanted to Carl Sagan to run for POTUS. I have since become a full time realist
and only a part time crackpot.
DrDick -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
That is the position of many Democratic Socialists, including myself and most major European
socialist parties. It is a gradualist position rather than a revolutionary one.
PPaine said in reply to DrDick...
And deeply in crisis. Hence the emergence of left alternatives as well as right menaces
kthomas :
Let's go Bernie! Make those cockroaches scurry!
Jerry Brown :
What to do when a candidate is called unelectable because of their support for the policies
that you yourself support?
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Jerry Brown...
LOL! That's a good one.
Jerry Brown -> EMichael...
True enough. Thoma says it is the label "socialist" that makes him less likely to win, not the
actual policies that might be associated with the label.
Its difficult finding out I'm a socialist after all these years. Maybe I should support Trump
so nobody else finds out.
Jerry Brown -> EMichael...
Yes. Trump might be a type of socialist too. Nationalist Socialist might be a fit for him.
DeDude -> Jerry Brown...
Well you have to decide whether you want to be a heroic loser or get half a loaf. I agree
that it is a very difficult question.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> DeDude...
You nailed it. No one ever said democracy would be easy.
DeDude -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
And he cautionary tale is that the "heroic losers" got us 8 years of Bush II - and all the
disasters he managed to create in that time.
JohnH -> Jerry Brown...
"What to do when a candidate is called unelectable because of their support for the policies
that you yourself support?"
Actually, what to do when a candidate, i.e. Bernie, is called unelectable because they support
policies that most Americans support--busting up the big banks and Medicare for all?
The 'liberals' here fail to take into account that 1) Bernie is on the right side of public
opinion, and 2) takes positions that real liberals would support. Yet they won't support Bernie...because
they've become too conservative?
EMichael -> JohnH...
No What is means is that there are a lot of people who realize that public opinion polls mean
absolutely nothing.
You form a party that can put 10,000 candidates on the ballot for 10,000 elected offices and then
winning the majority of those elections.
What is ironic about this election cycle more than others is that Republicans dominate
the elected offices, so they have essentially total control of government, especially in the poorest
States, but they blame Obama for things that are local to these States like teen pregnancy, school
drop outs, poverty, high unemployment, crime, felons, unemployed felons, no health providers,
no corporations who will setup in the State because of the lack of health probiders, educated
workers, and too much crime. Nothing was better when Bush-Cheney or Reagan-Bush were where Obama-Biden
are. And the increasing number of elected Republicans seems to me to be quantifiably worse.
So, who do progressives like Sanders blame? The Democrats who have lost in elections over and
over to Republicans. What actions do progressives who support Sanders take? Attack the system
and boycott it.
Hey, it's like protesting the weather requiring creating some sort of shelter from the snow
by laying down and being covered with snow. They'll show mother nature and force her to change.
likbez -> PPaine ...
> Party cadre and those reflex rooters for the party
I would call them a Third Way turncoats within Dems. Neolibs moved party into Wall Street
hands and Wall Street donors became the key contributors. Clinton successfully sold Democratic
Party (like Tony Blair sold Labour) and got rich in the process.
Instead of boycotting, which conveys apathy, why not vote third party, which conveys disgust?
BTW the reason Democrats lost the mid-terms in many states in 2014 is precisely because they
ran as Republican-lite: "Consider that in four "red" states - South Dakota, Arkansas, Alaska,
and Nebraska - the same voters who sent Republicans to the Senate voted by wide margins to raise
their state's minimum wage. Democratic candidates in these states barely mentioned the minimum
wage."
JohnH -> djb...
What Bernie should do if he loses is build a nationwide socialist organization. Obama had that
opportunity in 2008 but abandoned it as soon as he took power...he didn't want popular opposition
to his neoliberal agenda.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DeDude...
[Sorry, I forgot about Nader and since you did not explicitly mention him then your meaning
was not clear.]
...Nader won enough votes in two states - Florida and New Hampshire - to put either of them
in Gore's column. Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida, which easily could have swung the election
to give Gore the state's 25 electoral votes, and there would have been no need for a recount.
Even without Florida, adding Nader's 4 percent of the New Hampshire vote to Gore's 47 percent
would have given Gore a 270 to 267 victory in the electoral college...
[That said, then Bernie is another thing entirely. Bernie is not a third party candidate. Now
I wish voting for a third party candidate was plausibly a good decision because with a ranked
voting system then a third party vote would not be a throw away, but that is not how the two party
system wants things done.]
Hillary Clinton has had persistently high negatives and a habit of generating and attractive
scandal. She can't even generate trust within her own party, and performs particularly badly among
independents. I don't understand why anyone would view her as the "electable alternative".
HRC is not calling for a political revolution. If you like oligarchy then she is your gal.
If one is comfortably placed in the existing establishment then it is a scary thing to risk rocking
the boat.
JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Yep, the Clinton Foundation should be rebranded: "Scandals R Us!"
When presented with the choice between a corrupt capitalist and an honest socialist, it
should be an easy choice for most of us. Actually, for the Wall Street Democrats here, it's also
any easy choice--you look for the most corrupt candidate, the one who lists Wall Street banks
as her top donors.
Great, you can predict the future. Well, so can I. Here's my prediction: Hillary Clinton gets
nominated. The summer and fall campaign is dominated by a nauseating replay of every Clinton scandal,
present and past. Not just the eight or so we know about, but others that haven't been let out
of the opposition research box yet. By November, all but the most fervent Clinton partisans
-- who can always be driven into a frenzy of paranoid persecution mania by talk of the Vast Right
Wing Conspiracy and whatnot - is in an "anybody but Clinton" mood.
Not BS. You are wearing partisan blinders. Clinton has been dogged by scandal at every stage
of her public life: some pumped up out of relatively small stuff, but several serious big deals.
There will be more. Why? Because the Clintons are both compulsive liars. That's why young people,
who are very good at sniffing out fakes and liars, don't like her.
But the older, "Clinton generation" of Democrats has internalized a particularly cynical and
jaded attitude toward routine public lying, having picked up the fixed habit of defending the
compulsively lying Clintons for so many years.
The Clintons could have done the Democratic Party a huge favor in 2001 by sailing off into
retirement after dragging the country through their slime for years, and by dismantling their
machine and handing the party off to something more wholesome and progressive.
Many commentators don't seem to understand that there is a major US organization called the Democratic
Socialists of America. They have been around for a number of years, and one of the founders was
Michael Harrington. This organization has published a fairly comprehensive statement entitled
Where We Stand, and does not advocate a wholesale elimination of market economic institutions.
As democratic socialists we are committed to ensuring that any market is the servant of the
public good and not its master. Liberty, equality, and solidarity will require not only democratic
control over economic life, but also a progressively financed, decentralized, and quality public
sector. Free markets or private charity cannot provide adequate public goods and services.
So, as I read it, the two main takeaways here are:
1. Any markets that exist should serve the public good.
2. Free markets alone are not sufficient to provide society with adequate public goods and services.
The statement also does not call for the elimination of all private ownership; but it clearly
does call for an expansion of public ownership, worker ownership and cooperatives.
A lot of people who are not democratic socialists seem to have very strong ideas about what
democratic socialism really is, based perhaps on the ideas of people who called themselves "democratic
socialists" in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But I think it's the people who use that label
for themselves are entitled to determine what they intend that label to stand for.
pgl -> Dan Kervick...
Love this line:
"Today powerful corporate and political elites tell us that environmental standards are too high,
unemployment is too low, and workers earn too much for America to prosper in the next century."
Most economists would say environmental standards are too low, that we are still below full employment,
and the goal of economic policy should be to raise wages.
So your group is critiquing right wing Republicans not your "neoliberal" whatever.
I'm for Bernie and believe he could beat Trump. But Dan Kervick and JohnH's arguments moved me
more towards the Thoma and EMichael direction.
The Republicans have gone nuts and are much more of danger than they appeared to be back
in 2000 before 9-11.
The parties are not the same. The danger for the Democrats is that they don't accomplish enough
in moving the country towards Social Democracy (Bill Clinton did little, Obama did some) and so
inequality just increases and politics gets worse.
Obama did not get a strong recovery and so Congress is Republican. He didn't prioritize Fed
nominations and turned towards deficit reduction too quickly.
EMichael -> Peter K....
There are two sides to that stone.
What I am saying, and in way so is Dr. Thoma, is that Sanders' nomination may well cause much
more Rep voter turnout.
And Sanders lacks the ability to turn out the black vote at all, and he has done himself no
favor so far in this cycle.
Black votes are a lot more important and numerous than any people who are tired of "neo-liberals".
Most of whom, if they had IQ above double digits, always voted for the Dem candidate anyway.
am :
Prof Thoma seems to have got this right. The definitions of Democratic Socialism by B Sanders
are in the context of Scandinavian countries which is really a more progressive form of social
democracy, e.g. higher tax rates on higher earners than other social democratic countries but
still allowing private property. But he was really a bit daft calling himself a democratic
socialist if he is just a more progressive social democrat. A democratic socialist does not allow
private property rights but allows democracy. This means elections every four or five years when
the government including themselves in power can be changed.
But that these terms can be misunderstood you just have to look at their use in history: Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Democratic Republic of Germany (East Germany).
likbez -> am...
Scandinavian countries are pretty small homogenous countries. What is possible for Scandinavian
countries is more difficult to achieve is large states like the USA.
> This means elections every four or five years when the government including themselves in power
can be changed.
In two party system elections is just approval of two selected by the current oligarchy candidates.
And it was always this way.
"In two party system elections is just approval of two
selected by the current oligarchy candidates. And it was
always this ways."
So, every candidate must
independently find supporters and then use the supporters
to educate every voter in the candidates' electorate of
the individual candidates policies without respect to any
standard like political party or any existing description
of what political labels mean because the labels are
derived from one of many parties using the words in the
label.
How long would it take you to explain your political
position without referring to some label that covers how
you would decide on responses to social problems when
drafting bills or voting on them?
Then explain how you would find other legislators to
support and pass bills without assigning them labels.
I think two party system is what is called "polyarchy" --
power of a few. As Gore Vidal noted: "There is one
political party in this country, and that is the party of
money. It has two branches, the Republicans and the
Democrats, the chief difference between which is that the
Democrats are better at concealing their scorn for the
average man."
== quote ==
I subscribe to Kantian idea of the dignity in human, the
idea that everyone is entitles to survival as well as
thriving beyond survival. But does everybody is entitled
to equal participation in ruling of the state ? Or
election of state leaders? Which is what democracy means.
But at the same time the struggle for political equality
which is often associative with the word "democracy" is a
vital human struggle even if democracy itself is an
unachievable and unrealistic ideal (see The Iron Law of
Oligarchy). In some sense too much talk about Democracy is
very suspect and just characterize the speaker as a
hypocrite with probably evil intentions, who probably is
trying to mask some pretty insidious plans with "democracy
promotion" smokescreen. That is especially true for
"export of democracy" efforts. See color revolutions for
details.
Under neoliberalism we now face a regime completely
opposite to democracy: we have complete, forceful
atomization of public, acute suppression of any
countervailing political forces (not unlike it was the
case in the USSR) including labor unions and other forms
of self-organization for the lower 80% or even 99% of
population. Neoliberalism tries to present any individual
as a market actor within some abstract market (everything
is the market under neoliberalism). Instead of fight for
political and economic equality neoliberalism provides a
slick slogan of "wealth maximization" which is in essence
a "bait and switch" for wealth maximization for the top 1%
(redistribution of wealth up - which is the stated goal of
neoliberalism). It was working in tandem with "shareholder
value" mantra which is a disguise of looting of the
corporations to enrich its top brass via outsize bonuses
(IBM is a nice example where such an approach leads) and
sending thousands of white color workers to the street.
Previously it was mainly blue-color workers that were
affected. Times changed.
Everything should be organized like corporation under
neoliberalism, including government, medicine, education,
even military. And everybody is not a citizen but a
shareholder under neoliberalism (or more correctly
stakeholder), so any conflict should be resolved via
discussion of the main stakeholders. Naturally lower 99%
are not among them.
In any democracy, how can voters make an important
decision unless they are well informed? But what
percentage of US votes can be considered well informed?
And what percentage is brainwashed or do not what to think
about the issues involved and operate based on emotions
and prejudices? And when serious discussion of issues that
nation faces are deliberately and systematically replaced
by "infotainment" votes became just pawn in the game of
factions of elite, which sometimes leaks information to
sway public opinion, but do it very selectively. Important
information is suppressed or swiped under the carpet to
fifth page in NYT to prevent any meaningful discussion.
For example, ask several of your friends if they ever
heard about Damascus, AR.
The great propaganda mantra of neoliberal governance,
"wealth maximization" for society as a whole in reality is
applied very selectively and never to the bottom 60% or
80% of population. In essence, it means a form of welfare
economics for financial oligarchy while at the same time a
useful smokescreen for keeping debt-slaves obedient by
removing any remnants of job security mechanisms that were
instituted during the New Deal. As the great American
jurist and Supreme Court associate justice Louis Brandeis
once said: "We can have huge wealth in the hands of a
relatively few people or we can have a democracy. But we
can't have both." As under neoliberalism extreme wealth is
the goal of the social system, there can be no democracy
under neoliberalism. And this mean that pretentions of the
USA elite that the USA is a bastion of democracy is plain
vanilla British ruling elite style hypocrisy. Brutal
suppression of any move to challenge dominance of
financial oligarchy (even such feeble as Occupy movement)
shows that all too well
Politically neoliberalism. like Marxism in the past,
operates with the same two classes: entrepreneurs (modern
name for capitalists and financial oligarchy) and debt
slaves (proletarians under Marxism) who work for them.
Under neoliberalism only former considered first class
citizens ("one dollar -- one vote"). Debt slaves are
second class of citizens and are prevented from
self-organization, which by-and-large deprives them of any
form of political participation. In best Roman tradition
it is substituted with the participation in political
shows (see Empire of Illusion The End of Literacy and the
Triumph of Spectacle by Chris Hedges) which decide nothing
but provide legitimacy for ruling elite.
The two party system invented by the elite of Great
Britain proved to be perfect for neoliberal regimes, which
practice what Sheldon Wolin called inverted totalitarism.
The latter is the regime in which all political power
belongs to the financial oligarchy which rules via the
deep state mechanisms, and where traditional political
institutions are downgraded to instruments of providing
political legitimacy of the ruling elite. Population is
discouraged from political activity. "Go shopping" as
famously stated Bush II after 9/11.
There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be
seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.
When the Occupy Wall Street protests began three weeks ago, most news organizations were derisive
if they deigned to mention the events at all. For example, nine days into the protests, National
Public Radio had provided no coverage whatsoever.
It is, therefore, a testament to the passion of those involved that the protests not only continued
but grew, eventually becoming too big to ignore. With unions and a growing number of Democrats
now expressing at least qualified support for the protesters, Occupy Wall Street is starting to
look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.
What can we say about the protests? First things first: The protesters' indictment of Wall
Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right.
A weary cynicism, a belief that justice will never get served, has taken over much of our political
debate - and, yes, I myself have sometimes succumbed. In the process, it has been easy to forget
just how outrageous the story of our economic woes really is. So, in case you've forgotten, it
was a play in three acts.
In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves
princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending.
In the second act, the bubbles burst - but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably
few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the
bankers' sins.
And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had
saved them, throwing their support - and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts
- behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations
erected in the aftermath of the crisis.
Now, it's true that some of the protesters are oddly dressed or have silly-sounding slogans,
which is inevitable given the open character of the events. But so what? I, at least, am a lot
more offended by the sight of exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth
to government guarantees, whining that President Obama has said mean things about them than I
am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncing consumerism.
Bear in mind, too, that experience has made it painfully clear that men in suits not only don't
have any monopoly on wisdom, they have very little wisdom to offer. When talking heads on, say,
CNBC mock the protesters as unserious, remember how many serious people assured us that there
was no housing bubble, that Alan Greenspan was an oracle and that budget deficits would send interest
rates soaring.
A better critique of the protests is the absence of specific policy demands. It would probably
be helpful if protesters could agree on at least a few main policy changes they would like to
see enacted. But we shouldn't make too much of the lack of specifics. It's clear what kinds of
things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it's really the job of policy intellectuals
and politicians to fill in the details.
Rich Yeselson, a veteran organizer and historian of social movements, has suggested that debt
relief for working Americans become a central plank of the protests. I'll second that, because
such relief, in addition to serving economic justice, could do a lot to help the economy recover.
I'd suggest that protesters also demand infrastructure investment - not more tax cuts - to help
create jobs. Neither proposal is going to become law in the current political climate, but the
whole point of the protests is to change that political climate.
And there are real political opportunities here. Not, of course, for today's Republicans, who
instinctively side with those Theodore Roosevelt-dubbed "malefactors of great wealth." Mitt Romney,
for example - who, by the way, probably pays less of his income in taxes than many middle-class
Americans - was quick to condemn the protests as "class warfare."
But Democrats are being given what amounts to a second chance. The Obama administration squandered
a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver
economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president. Now, however,
Mr. Obama's party has a chance for a do-over. All it has to do is take these protests as seriously
as they deserve to be taken.
And if the protests goad some politicians into doing what they should have been doing all along,
Occupy Wall Street will have been a smashing success.
Sarah -> Peter K....
Bingo. Bernie does what Obama did in his early speeches: speak to the moral, emotional
underpinnings of Progressive beliefs. Despite seeing how incredibly powerful this
approach has been for the Republicans, we've had years and decades of Democrats acting like
cold technocrats, as if all of these policy matters were mere practicalities and politics were
really just the horse race that the media treats it as- rather than a matter of life and death
for many people in its outcomes.
I think people would be less skeptical of Bernie's chances if they saw, as I have, the number
of people on the Right and the completely apolitical types who've never voted in their lives
who are suddenly talking enthusiastically (often to their own surprise) about a politician.
This is a kind of excitement that Hillary is never going to be able to inspire.
EMichael -> Sarah...
And you somehow think that this enthusiasm will not be curbed after the attacks on
Sanders begin? And I am not talking about these stupid little so called "attacks" by PK, Chait,
Klein, etc. I'm talking big boy attacks backed by huge money and no reason whatsoever to pay
attention to any facts at all.
Sarah -> EMichael...
Yeah, I do. I think we're ready for another, "And I welcome their hatred," moment in
history.
The fact is, on both the Left and the Right people are sick of politics as usual. It's notable
that the 'big boys' with the money have been completely, totally unable to influence their
supposed Republican base this election season. That's because on the Republican side Trump and
Cruz- and even Carson- are tapping into real grievances and emotions. Do you really think
Hillary Clinton is the right person to tap into that current? It's a pity, actually. I like
her quite well, and I supported her against Obama because of Obama's relative inexperience -
and the fact that he hadn't been 'tested' by the 'big boy attacks' you refer to.
But what we need now is someone with genuine moral outrage who will say what so many of us
feel: the system has been distorted beyond its ability to snap back. It works for at most 10%
of the population now and catastrophically, often fatally, fails a percentage of perhaps twice
that. I haven't gotten quite to the point yet myself where I would refuse to vote for Clinton
if she won the primary, but many of my friends have. I think the tide has finally turned.
EMichael -> Sarah...
I'm with you except I think the math does not work.
Half of the REP base are stone cold crazy, and when the smoke clears they will vote for
whomever is left standing.
This country has no such amount of people who are as far left as it does those who are far
right. And what numbers there are do not got to the polls if their candidate loses the
nomination.
Sarah -> EMichael...
The thing is, the 'math' doesn't take into account the incredibly low voter turnouts in the
US. It wouldn't take a whole lot to create massive change if you could engage even a quarter
of the currently unengaged. What impresses me about Bernie is that he seems to be able to do
so.
"... What? The media has been saying for months and months and months and months that Bernie has no chance. The People vote that he wins a debate, the media says Hillary won. You clearly dont know shit. This has been an uphill battle the whole way. Last debate was the FIRST time Bernie got recognized by media as the winner. ..."
"... Sanders may be more attractive than Clinton to the Reagan Democrats backing Trump (who never really were conservative, more like wanting a labor party that didn't delve into social issues). ..."
"... Socializing health care and education is not radical, it is a rational reform inside the systsem, it does not go to the root (radix) and seek to replace the root, but only trim the branches (hence not radical). ..."
"... Calling the Sanders agenda hard-left (like this article does) is idiotic - the author is economically illiterate. Keynesianism, which is what Sanders proposes in substance, isn't communism, it was the mainstream approach to administering capitalism from 1940s to 1970s, elements are still in place in Canada, and continental Europe and they at least as as developed, as free and as democratic as the US. ..."
"... The media have completely disregarded him until his surge in Iowa, even with the New Hampshire polls out. Have you not wondered why the debates are held on weekends? Wassermann Schultz and the DNC are burying Bernie so people will vote on name recognition rather than policy. ..."
So tired of Hillary! With Bill out there goosing the audience for money and Chelsea
practically wetting herself with anticipation of her own career in politics in the wings and
Mother bird with private email strip tease front and center stage with the spotlight still on
her, this is one burlesque show I hope the curtain drops on sooner rather than later.
Debbie Smith -> Pete Shoults 26 Jan 2016 11:01
I guess you are a bit out of touch, because although the mainstream media loved to call
Bernie 'unelectable' until now, the regular people LOVE him. He will win in a landslide and
bring the US closer to where it SHOULD be, since it is 40-50 years behind in its policies.
HobbesianWorld -> Cath70 26 Jan 2016 10:55
delusional belief that he's going to get any of his policies passed in a GOP-hogtied
Congress is ridiculous. And he's yet to offer substantial plans for his utopia.
Clearly you would rather maintain the status quo--Wall Street's grip on Congress and the
ever-widening income disparity gap between the workers and the wealthy. You obviously are
indifferent to the less fortunate and want a war hawk in the White House.
Just because Bernie is at a disadvantage with the corporate media trying their best to
marginalize him and the DNC rigging the debates to get the fewest watchers as possible, I
don't tuck my tail under me and bow to those manipulative powers.
I am going to fight every day to spread his message and try to explain to an ignorant America
what is meant by Democratic Socialism (we are all democratic socialists to some degree unless
you want ALL government services privatized for profit).
Yes, he would need the help of Congress to pass some of his policies, and yes, the childish,
vengeful, self-centered oligarchic Republicans will try to block him at every turn, We the
People would be needed to apply the pressure on our elected officials. Don't be afraid of a
challenge. This may be our very last chance to recover our republic.
hcm1975 -> SN1789 26 Jan 2016 10:46
The terms used in this article are nothing compared to what Bernie Sanders will be
described as by the Republicans/Fox etc. should he win the Democrat's nomination. I can only
hope he is well prepared.
Brandon King -> brummagem joe 26 Jan 2016 10:43
What? The media has been saying for months and months and months and months that Bernie
has no chance. The People vote that he wins a debate, the media says Hillary won. You clearly
dont know shit. This has been an uphill battle the whole way. Last debate was the FIRST time
Bernie got recognized by media as the winner.
Jim Baker -> notmurdoch 26 Jan 2016 10:42
In recent American Presidential elections, motivating the base to vote is paramount. A
candidate that enthuses more party faithful to vote may do better, not worse. This effect
could also improve the party's results in Congress. Besides, Sanders may be more
attractive than Clinton to the Reagan Democrats backing Trump (who never really were
conservative, more like wanting a labor party that didn't delve into social issues).
Brandon King -> Phillyguy 26 Jan 2016 10:37
Taxes will be raised, yes, but the average American will save over $6000/year. You will NO
LONGER pay for medical insurance, instead we will pay $600/year extra in taxes. your health
insurance bill is likely $300-$500/month. We will all pay a smaller piece of the pie, so yes
taxes will be increased but we will be saving money. He already released his tax plan. Income
tax DOES NOT raise unless you make over $500,000/year, and even then its modest raises. Most
of the bumps are 3%-4%. If you make over $10 million/year its like 10%-11% bump.
What the fuck is up with people bitching about working to give Americans a higher standard of
living, what the French call Qualite de la Vie? Are you seriously content being the first 2nd
World country? We are NOT a 1st World, in fact there are lots of parts of the US living in 3rd
World conditions.
SN1789 Haig 26 Jan 2016 10:34
Nonsense. Right and Left should not be exxagerated. Sanders is excellent. But he is not
radical. Where Krugman talks Keyensian up until it challenges someone in power, Sanders is
genuinely committed to using the state to smooth out the hard edges of capitalism, especially
when the sector is a clear case of market failure, like health care and education.
Socializing health care and education is not radical, it is a rational reform inside the
systsem, it does not go to the root (radix) and seek to replace the root, but only trim the
branches (hence not radical).
SN1789 26 Jan 2016 10:30
Calling the Sanders agenda "hard-left" (like this article does) is idiotic - the author
is economically illiterate. Keynesianism, which is what Sanders proposes in substance, isn't
communism, it was the mainstream approach to administering capitalism from 1940s to 1970s,
elements are still in place in Canada, and continental Europe and they at least as as
developed, as free and as democratic as the US. The things Sanders wants to spend money
on (health care and education) would actually save the US money overall. Getting the profit
out of healthcare and education free's up the % of the GDP that can go to other things (like
infrastructure). The US over-pays for health care between 33 and 50%. Single-payer will reduce
that number, it will cost less overall. Anyone who says otherwise is a vicious liar.
SN1789 -> atlga 26 Jan 2016 10:26
Economically he is to the right of Nixon and far to the right of Eisenhower. Why exactly is
Keynesianism as impossible as cold fusion. Neoliberalism was unpopular in 1972 and in 1982 it
was the new normal. It is possible that Keynesianism was impossible in 2007 but in 2017 it
will be the new normal. Things change.
Steven Johnson -> Seamush 26 Jan 2016 10:25
Are you stupid? All other major countries have single payer, ALL other major countries. We
are the wealthiest country out of all of them and we have the worse health and live shorter
lives because of it. You are an idiot if you think this should not be fought for. Health care
will keep going up in cost until most people can't afford it. Bernie is the only one who isn't
bought and paid for, you really think you can trust a multi millionaire who made all their
millions from patting billionaires on the back? She got all most all her campaign money from
them as well.
She will serve them, not us. Bernie has a record of serving us not them, and he is not owned
by any one. So tell me, why would you trust a corporate owned war hawk over Bernie who has
always been on the right side of history? You would have to be a complete ignoramus to do so.
jabharty -> brummagem joe 26 Jan 2016 10:21
Ahead in Iowa, thrashing Clinton in New Hampshire, ahead of Trump by 9 points more than
Hillary. Non-existent? Young and passionate voters will turn out like in '08 and push him over
the line.
The media have completely disregarded him until his surge in Iowa, even with the New
Hampshire polls out. Have you not wondered why the debates are held on weekends? Wassermann
Schultz and the DNC are burying Bernie so people will vote on name recognition rather than
policy.
hcm1975 26 Jan 2016 10:18
Meet the new Bernie Sanders
Rubbish. Bernie hasn't changed one iota. The MSM - the guardian's ersthile Clinton machine in
particular - have finally realised he exists and are jumping on the bandwagon.
When it comes to political entertainment, it doesn't get much
better than presidential election season in the United States.
Foreign observers follow the race to determine who is best equipped to
lead the US – and, to some extent, the world – toward a more stable,
secure, and prosperous future. But in America, entertainment is king, and
Americans tend to focus on excitement above all – who looks better, has a
catchier sound bite, seems most "authentic," and so on, often to the
point of absurdity.
This is not a new approach, of course. Edward Bernays, the
father of modern public relations, examined it in 1928, in his book
Propaganda. "Politics was the first big business in America," he
declared, and political campaigns are "all side shows, all honors, all
bombast, glitter, and speeches." The key to victory is the manipulation
of public opinion, and that is achieved most effectively by appealing to
the "mental clichés and emotional habits of the public."
A president, in
other words, is nothing more than a product to be marketed.
And, as any marketer knows, the quality of the product is not necessarily
what drives its success;
... ... ...
In fact, it is Cruz who has made Trump squirm. In last week's Republican debate,
Cruz accused Trump of having "New York values," calling the city (explicitly excluding New York
State) "socially liberal" and focused on "money and media." Cruz managed not only to get a rise
out of Trump, but also to enhance his own appeal to conservative voters in the Midwest and South,
who view the city as a kind of modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah. (New Yorkers and many others were
also offended by Cruz's statement, not because the city isn't socially liberal and the home base
of America's media and financial industries, but because the pejorative use of "New York" has
historically been an anti-Semitic dog whistle.)
Appropriately plastic-looking, Cruz can, when
necessary, act as brainless as Sarah Palin (who has just endorsed Trump). But Cruz, educated at
Princeton and Harvard, is no fool. He is, as Bernays taught, treating his campaign as a "drive
for votes, just as an Ivory Soap advertising campaign is a drive for sales."
Trump is a showman who has captured the public's attention. But Cruz is a propagandist... The
question is whether Americans will want to buy what they are selling.
"... think there's a very real chance Trump will be elected President within the next ten years. His chances ride on the fact that the current system is terminally corrupt, as well as socially and economically bankrupt. It will crash and burn, whether in slow motion like the past eight years, or very rapidly over the next several. Someone will likely step in to fill this void, and Trump has the personality type and understanding of human nature to possibly propel himself into the position when the timing is right. ..."
"... I genuinely believe that as President he would do what he thinks is best for America. In that sense, hes not the typical detached, corrupt, greedy, globalist U.S. President weve become so accustomed to. This is precisely what his supporters are picking up on and why they love him. ..."
"... As such, the establishment really is scared because Trump actually is an uncontrollable wildcard . This is certainly bad for them, but it isnt necessarily good for we the people. ..."
"... Trump supporters see this and think this is how hes going to deal with foreign leaders and that this is a good thing. They think that hell simply outsmart them. Maybe he will and maybe he wont, who knows. Personally, Im far more concerned about how he would deal with domestic dissent. ..."
"... Which brings me to the final point. Many of Trumps personality traits are more admirable, or at least appear less nefarious than I previously thought. ..."
"... Tough is being mentally capable of winning battles against an opponent and doing it with a smile. Tough is winning systematically. ..."
In 1990, Donald Trump conducted a lengthy
interview with Playboy Magazine
. It provides an absolutely fascinating window into the man's
mind, which I suggest everyone read in full. Unexpectedly, I came away with a more informed
and nuanced perspective on the man. While it didn't change my opinion of him as President,
I do have a much greater appreciation for Donald Trump as a person, specifically how his mind works
and what drives him.
I originally came across this interview after seeing a tweet referencing a 25 year old interview
during which Trump expressed admiration for how strongly Chinese authorities cracked down on dissent
in Tiananmen Square in 1989. I immediately thought to myself that this would be the perfect fodder
to further elucidate the kind of cold, brutal, authoritarian leader Trump undoubtedly would be as
President.
While that particular quote didn't disappoint, I decided to read further and came away with many
additional observations. I think these observations are worth sharing since I think there's a very real chance Trump will be elected President within the next ten years.
His chances ride on the fact that the current system is terminally corrupt, as well as socially
and economically bankrupt. It will crash and burn, whether in slow motion like the past eight
years, or very rapidly over the next several. Someone will likely step in to fill this void, and
Trump has the personality type and understanding of human nature to possibly propel himself into
the position when the timing is right.Is the time right in 2016? Probably not, but a President Trump is far more likely to occur
in our lifetimes than many of us want to admit.
So with that out of the way, let me share some of the things I learned from the interview. First,
I think Trump is far less materialistic than people presume , which sounds like
a contradiction considering he is unquestionably one of the biggest showoffs on planet earth. While
this is true, the motivation behind his ostentatious public persona is primarily to further his brand.
As he says repeatedly in the interview, it's all a show . In other words, he claims
it's pure marketing and I believe him.
What motivates Trump isn't the collection of material things, rather, it's a constant
need to stroke his enormous ego and stoke his narcissism. Life is merely a giant game for
Trump. A game in which the winners collect lots of fame and money, and the losers don't. He doesn't
simply want to win this game, coming out on top is his entire life's purpose. The idea of not winning
isn't even an option.
So with this in mind, is the Presidency just the ultimate prize for Trump? Does
he want it simply because it is one of the few "wins" he has yet to collect? I think so. Deep down,
I think Trump can't truly envision himself as life's ultimate winner without the Presidency. This
is not to say I think Trump isn't genuine when he says America is going down the toilet. Indeed,
he was hitting on many of the exact same themes back in 1990. In fact, it gives you the impression
that Trump has thought America was lacking his entire life, precisely because Trump had yet to be
named the country's CEO.
Trump believes in winning, and he thinks he and America are one in the same. In that sense,
I
genuinely believe that as President he would do what he thinks is best for America.
In that sense, he's not the typical detached, corrupt, greedy, globalist U.S. President we've
become so accustomed to. This is precisely what his supporters are picking up on and why they love
him.
From this angle alone, he might actually have the chops to be a very good President.
This is because for a man with his disposition, being President might still not be enough
of an accomplishment. His ego will require that history remember him not just as a billionaire and
President, but as the man who "Made America Great Again," the ultimate motivator for a man who never
rests until he gets what he wants. So it's true that he really wouldn't be unduly influenced by billionaires
and large corporations if he felt they were getting in the way of his making America great (and himself
greater). Those are the positives.
As such, the establishment really is scared because Trump actually is an uncontrollable
wildcard . This is certainly bad for them, but it isn't necessarily good for "we the people."
The problem arises when it comes to Trump's definition of greatness. From my chair, he doesn't seem
to think liberty, freedom and the Constitution play much of a role. Indeed, you can get a pretty
good sense of his definition of "great" by looking at his buildings and the sorts of accomplishments
he prides himself on. He loves the shock factor and big expensive toys. He likes them because they
impress others and help his brand. There's more swagger than substance to the things he prioritizes,
at least publicly. Indeed, it's not surprising that the casino business would have a particular appeal
to him. It's a world in which customers indulge themselves in a fantasy until they run out of money
or get bored, and by the time they leave, Trump's bank account is far bigger than it was before.
He wins again.
Trump supporters see this and think this is how he's going to deal with foreign leaders and that
this is a good thing. They think that he'll simply outsmart them. Maybe he will and maybe he won't,
who knows. Personally, I'm far more concerned about how he would deal with domestic dissent.
To that end, I think one thing is clear. I think he'd take George W. Bush's "you are either with
us, or you are with the terrorists" and change it to something like "you are either with me, or you
hate America." In a collapsed economy, this sort of slogan could appeal to a lot of people, and with
an outraged public behind him, President Trump has the capacity to be incredibly cruel and vicious
to American citizens he think stand in the way of his "Making America Great."
Without any obvious respect for the Constitution or Bill of Rights, a President Trump could very
quickly transform himself into a very dangerous strongman, all the while believing that he is merely
doing what is necessary to make America great. This attitude has become painfully clear to me during
the campaign as I've watched him intentionally stir up anger and hate by demonizing minorities such
as Muslims and Mexicans. Do I think it's possible he doesn't really stand behind his own hateful
statements and is merely telling groups of frustrated people what they want to hear to get elected?
Perhaps, but such a willingness tells you a lot about the lengths he would go to win, and shines
a light on the things he's capable of doing in order to solidify and expand his power once he's won.
Which brings me to the final point. Many of Trump's personality traits are more admirable,
or at least appear less nefarious than I previously thought. Nevertheless, it is extremely crucial
to understand that the traits that make someone an incredible showman and billionaire are not the
same traits needed in a President to restore a Constitutional Republic. Not that I think
that's high on Trump's list of priorities in any event.
Now here are some of the more interesting excerpts of the interview. Read the entire thing
here
.
Then what does all this-the yacht, the bronze tower, the casinos-really mean to you?
Props for the show.
And what is the show? The show is "
Trump
" and it has sold out performances everywhere. I've had fun doing it and will continue to
have fun, and I think most people enjoy it.
You don't sound guilty at all. I do have a feeling of guilt. I'm living well and like it, I know that many other people don't
live particularly well. I do have a social consciousness. I'm setting up a foundation; I give
a lot of money away and I think people respect that. The fact that I built this large company
by myself working people respect that; but the people who are at high levels don't like it. They'd
like it for themselves.
What do you do to stay in touch with your employees? I inspect the Trump Tower atrium every morning. Walk into it … it's perfect; everything shines.
I go down and raise hell in a nice way all the time because I want everything to be absolutely
immaculate. I'm, totally hands-on. I get along great with porters and maids at the Plaza and the
Grand Hyatt. I've had bright people ask me why I talk to porters and maids. I can't even believe
that question. Those are the people who make it all work …. If they like me, they will work harder
… and I pay well.
How far are you willing to push adversaries? I will demand anything I can get. When you're doing business, you take people to the brink of
breaking them without having them break, to the maximum point their heads can handle-without breaking
them. That's the sign of a good businessman: Somebody else would take them fifteen steps beyond
their breaking point.
Why? I am very skeptical about people; that's self-preservation at work. I believe that, unfortunately,
people are out for themselves. At this point, it's to many people's advantage to like me. Would
the phone stop ringing, would these people kissing ass disappear if things were not going well?
I enjoy testing friendship …. Everything in life to me is a psychological game, a series of challenges
you either meet or don't. I am always testing people who work for me.
How? I will send people around to my buyers to test their honesty by offering them trips and other
things. I've been surprised that some people least likely to accept a trip from a contractor did
and some of the most likely did not. You can never tell until you test; the human species is interesting
in that way. So to me, friendship can be really tested only in bad times. I instinctively mistrust
many people. It is not a negative in my life but a positive. Playboy wouldn't be talking to me
today if I weren't a cynic. So I learned that from Fred, and I owe him a lot. . . . He could have
ultimately been a happy guy, but things just went the unhappy way.
And the Pope? Absolutely. Nothing wrong with ego. People need ego, whole nations need ego. I think our country
needs more ego, because it is being ripped off so badly by our so-called allies; i.e., Japan,
West Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, etc. They have literally outegotized this country, because
they rule the greatest money machine ever assembled and it's sitting on our backs. Their products
are better because they have so much subsidy. We Americans are laughed at around the world for
losing a hundred and fifty billion dollars year after year, for defending wealthy nations for
nothing, nations that would be wiped off the face of the earth in about fifteen minutes if it
weren't for us. Our "allies" are making billions screwing us.
You're opposed to Japanese buying real estate in the U.S.? I have great respect for the Japanese people and list many of them as great friends. But, hey,
if you want to open up a business in Japan, good luck. It's virtually impossible. But the Japanese
can buy our buildings, our Wall Street firms, and there's virtually no.thing to stop them. In
fact, bidding on a building in New York is an act of futility, because the Japanese will pay more
than it's worth just to screw us. They want to own Manhattan. Of course, I shouldn't even be complaining
about it, because I'm one of the big beneficiaries of it. If I ever wanted to sell any of my properties,
I'd have a field day. But it's an embarrassment! I give great credit to the Japanese and their
leaders, because they have made our leaders look totally second rate.
You have taken out full-page ads in several major newspapers that not only concern
U.S. foreign trade but call for the death penalty, too. Why? Because I hate seeing this country go to hell. We're laughed at by the rest of the world. In order
to bring law and order back into our cities, we need the death penalty and authority given back
to the police. I got fifteen thousand positive letters on the death-penalty ad. I got ten negative
or slightly negative ones.
You believe in an eye for an eye? When a man or woman cold-bloodedly murders, he or she should pay. It sets an example. Nobody can
make the argument that the death penalty isn't a deterrent. Either it will be brought back swiftly
or our society will rot away. It is rotting away.
For a man so concerned about our crumbling cities, some would say you've done little
for crumbling Atlantic City besides pull fifty million dollars a week out of tourists' pockets.
Elected officials have that responsibility. I would hate to think that people blame me for the
problems of the world. Yet people come to me and say, "Why do you allow homelessness in the cities?"
as if I control the situation. I am not somebody seeking office.
Wait. Doesn't it seem that with all your influence in Atlantic City you could do more
to combat crime and corruption and put something back into the community? Well, crime and prostitution go up, and Atlantic City administrations are into very deep trouble
with the law, and there are lots of problems there, no question about it. But there is a tremendous
amount of money going to housing from the profits of the casinos. As somebody who runs hotels,
all I can do, when you get right down to it, is run the best places, bring in as much money as
possible, which in turn goes out for taxes. I contribute millions a year to various charities.
Finally, by law, I'm not allowed to have Governmental influence; but if they passed legislation
that allowed me to get more involved, I'd be very happy to do it. In the meantime, I have the
most incredible hotels in the world in Atlantic City. The Taj Mahal will be beyond belief. And
if I can awaken the government of Atlantic City, I have performed a great service.
What were your other impressions of the Soviet Union? I was very unimpressed….Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. That's my problem
with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand.
You mean firm hand as in China? When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they
were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power
of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the
world-
Besides The real-estate deal, you've met with top-level Soviet officials to negotiate
potential business deals with them; how did they strike you? Generally, these guys are much tougher and smarter than our representatives. We have people in
this country just as smart, but unfortunately, they're not elected officials. We're still suffering
from a loss of respect that goes back to the Carter Administration, when helicopters were crashing
into one another in Iran. That was Carter's emblem. There he was, being carried off from a race,
needing oxygen. I don't want my President to be carried off a race course. I don't want my President
landing on Austrian soil and falling down the stairs of his airplane. Some of our Presidents have
been incredible jerk-offs. We need to be tough.
A favorite word of yours, tough. How do you define it? Tough is being mentally capable of winning battles against an opponent and doing it with a smile.
Tough is winning systematically.
Sometimes you sound like a Presidential candidate stirring up the voters. I don't want the Presidency. I'm going to help a lot of people with my foundation-and for me,
the grass isn't always greener.
But if the grass ever did look greener, which political party do you think you'd be
more comfortable with? Well, if I ever ran for office, I'd do better as a Democrat than as a Republican-and that's not
because I'd be more Republican
-and
that's not because I'd be more liberal, because I'm conservative. But the working guy would elect
me. He likes me. When I walk down the street, those cabbies start yelling out their windows.
Another game: What's the first thing President Trump would do upon entering the Oval
Office? Many things. A toughness of attitude would prevail. I'd throw a tax on every Mercedes-Benz rolling
into this country and on all Japanese products, and we'd have wonderful allies again.
And how would President Trump handle it? He would believe very strongly in extreme military strength. He wouldn't trust anyone. He wouldn't
trust the Russians; he wouldn't trust our allies; he'd have a huge military arsenal, perfect it,
understand it. Part of the problem is that we're defending some of the wealthiest countries in
the world for nothing. . . . We're being laughed at around the world, defending Japan–
You categorically don't want to be President? I don't want to be President. I'm one hundred percent sure. I'd change my mind only if I saw this
country continue to go down the tubes.
More locally, one of your least favorite political figures was Mayor Ed Koch of New
York. You two had a great time going after each other: He called you "piggy, piggy, piggy" and
you called him "a moron." Why do you suppose he lost the election? He lost his touch for the people. He became arrogant. He not only discarded his friends but was
a fool for brutally criticizing them. The corruption was merely a symptom of what had happened
to him: He had become extremely nasty, mean spirited and very vicious, an extremely disloyal human
being. When his friends like Bess Myerson and others were in trouble, he seemed to automatically
abandon them, almost before finding out what they'd done wrong. He could think only about his
own ass-not the city's. That was dumb: The only one who didn't know his administration was crumbling
around him was him. Power corrupts.
You probably have more power than Koch did as mayor. And you're getting more of it
all the time. How about power's corrupting you? I think power sometimes corrupts-"sometimes" has to be added.
You're involved in so many activities, deals, promotions-in the deep of the night,
after the reporters all leave your conferences, are you ever satisfied with what you've accomplished?
I'm too superstitious to be satisfied. I don't dwell on the past. People who do that go right
down the tubes. I'm never self-satisfied. Life is what you do while you're waiting to die. You
know, it is all a rather sad situation.
Life? Or death? Both. We're here and we live our sixty, seventy or eighty years and we're gone. You win, you win,
and in the end, it doesn't mean a hell of a lot. But it is something to do-to keep you interested.
So building that second huge yacht isn't an act of gaudy excess but another act in
the show? Well, it draws people. It will be the eighth wonder of the world and will create an aura that
seems to work. It will cost me two hundred million dollars. But I don't need it! I could be very
happy living in a one-bedroom apartment. I used to live that life. In the early Seventies, I lived
in a studio apartment overlooking a water tank.
If you were starting over again, in what business would you choose to make your fortune?
Good question …. There's something about mother earth that's awfully good, and mother earth is
still real estate. With the right financing, you've essentially invested no money. Publishing,
movies, broadcasting are tougher, and there aren't too many Rupert Murdochs, Si Newhouses, Robert
Maxwells and Punch Sulzbergers. I'll stick to real estate.
You seem very pleasant and charming during interviews, yet you talk constantly about
toughness. Do you put on an act for us? I think everybody has to have some kind of filtering system. I'm very fair and I have had the
same people working for me for years. Rarely does anybody leave me. But when somebody tries to
sucker-punch me, when they're after my ass, I push back a hell of a lot harder than I was pushed
in the first place. If somebody tries to push me around, he's going to pay a price. Those people
don't come back for seconds. I don't like being pushed around or taken advantage of. And that's
one of the problems with our country today. This country is being pushed around by everyone.
About your own toughness… Well, as I said, I study people and in every negotiation, I weigh how tough I should appear. I
can be a killer and a nice guy. You have to be everything. You have to be strong. You have to
be sweet. You have to be ruthless. And I don't think any of it can be learned. Either you have
it or you don't. And that is why most kids can get straight As in school but fail in life.
As you continue to make more deals, as you accumulate more and more, there's a central
question that arises about Donald Trump: How much is enough? As long as I enjoy what I'm doing without getting bored or tired … the sky's the limit.
The big concern as relates to Trump as President would be his strongman type of personality coupled
with a cult of personality worship amongst his followers. This worship is something that Trump himself
is well aware of, and it makes him all the more dangerous. For example, he recently
said the following
in Iowa:
Donald Trump boasted Saturday that support for his presidential campaign would not
decline even if he shot someone in the middle of a crowded street.
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,"
Trump said at a campaign rally here.
big ego? check!
desire to get to the "top"? check!
thinks prez is necessary for this? check!
willing to do or say anything to get there? check!
no real convictions, just a "show"? check!
no compassion? check!
....so far, i haven't heard anything that isn't true of ANYBODY who is a serious contender for
the top office.....
"Do not let that fact escape you,people. He will protect his investments and his wealth...at your
expense when necessary."
so far his wealth and investments coincide with making all of Americas more wealthy and have higher
living standards to spend in his hotels..
Tom when you can point out where his interests are in conflict with the people let me know.
PS he says he will stop illegals who are a great source of cheap labor for hotels - kinda like
he sees the impact on ave joe america - and goes against his own ability to hire cheap..think about
that mr tom.
There's a reason I only play politics for entertainment purposes. Trying to pick the right person
is like trying to figure out who the "good guys" are in the Middle East. There aren't any.
I'll hold my observation to the following... A guy like Trump couldn't have gained traction unless
two things happened:
1. A guy like Obama giving everything from the Constitution to traditional American values the
middle finger.
2. The opposition party failing to oppose him no matter how many seats they were given in Congress.
So, congratulations Washington elites, you've now pissed everyone off and Americans (on both sides
of the aisle) are, for the first time in my life, truly ready to vote "none of the above". Hence
Trump on the right. Hence Sanders on the left.
Reap the whirwind, Washington. You have nobody to blame but yourself.
Once things for certain the next 10 months will be interesting. It would be nice to have a nationalist
back in the presidency. They really have done a great job pissing off everyone. EPA regulations that
handcuff the States developing natural resources. Bill of rights going into the shredder. Family
unit under attack. Department of Education wrecking public education. War on masculinity. War on
labor via illegal immigration. War on drugs brings pills and heroin to kids at the cheapest prices
ever. 1 in 3 women on some type of ssri drug . Yeah we have gone the tubes.
If I was to boil down the arguments for and against Trump I could go down the ledger double-entry-accounting-style
and balance off every plus with a minus. But there would be just one line on the ledger left over
with no counter-balancing liability.
George Soros hates Trump.
Find me the liability that offsets that asset. If you're looking for a simple "Occams Razor" decision
criteria maybe that's as good as any.
He's not a career parasite. That goes a long way in my book after the last several Messiahs. The
second major plus is he is in favor of a strong middle class as opposed to Soweto who sought to destroy
America's class and its values with almost every move.
I'll tell you what, watch the interview CNBC did with him strictly about real estate. Guy's a
wing nut but knows his shit. Great interview. I think it was Ron "Fantasy Portfolio" Insana.
Hollyweird always pre-conditions the USA for its money changers.
2016 is a pivotal moment. Choose, and be damned if you vote.
Chaos suits sociopaths, and the District of Criminals/Wail Street in particular. It is not about
the money. It is about sending a message: new feudalism, bowing down to bankster thieves...or not.
Our current president is one hell of a narcissist. How could it be any worse? Obama destroyed
what he said he would destroy, and a whole lot more. Maybe Trump at a minimum can stop the decline.
So Trump shared a flight with Jeffrey Epstein-- what the hell does that prove? We know about Clinton
-serial rapist, sexual predator extraordinare. Trump assocated with tons of scummy slime -people
like Hillary. The evidence on Trump and the sleazy Epstein shit proves absolutely nothing. trump
has been honest and open with his assocaitions with scumbag criminals like Clinton. Billionaires
from New York have to assocaite with pleanty of scumbag degenerate criminals -start with slime like
Bloomberg and Gulianni - both are Luciferian trashbags.
" Trump believes in winning, and he thinks he and America are one in the same. In that sense,
I genuinely believe that as President he would do what he thinks is best for America."
I agree. I've always gotten a sense that Trump genuinely loves USA. He has a vested interest business
wise to see things turn around. Contrast that with Barry Soetero who despises USA and pledged to
"fundamentally change" it. To the best of my knowledge Barry never so much as ran a lemonade stand
and can not fathom what it would take to do so successfully. Any successful Black businessman such
as Tavis Smiley would have been light years ahead of Barry running the show....
Duc888 So
restructuring is a bad thing now? He used the laws to his advantage. I'd hazard to guess he makes
more money than you or I and speaking for myself... his net worth is slightly (joking) higher than
mine. What exactly makes him "not a great manager"? Just curious.
----
Do you include the Banks, the Fed and those executives? I suppose they are great managers too.
They are just using the laws/rules to their advantage. sarc/
There's a difference between using existing law to one's advantage, and completely ignoring said
laws... not to mention buying off the legislature to change those rules....
The problem with grenades is that they could kill you too.
The USA is very much like Germany in the inter war years: an indebted nation, wanting a strong
man of rhetoric who will do more harm than good. Look at his business and personal track record.
It is bad.
Keep the Constitution. Keep the guns. Never believe a nazionist like Tramp.
His 'empire' was built on debt and backroom deals. He is indebted, another paper pusher.
So perhaps he does suit the modern USA. Pity, pity you modern serfs, wanting a narcissist, and
your betrayal of what was the light of the world, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
If this country can survive Barrack Obama, surely it can survive Donald Trump. I must say I thoroughly
enjoy watching the mainstream and even some of the so-called "alternatives" become utterly unhinged
as Trump runs over them all and leaves a trail of bodies a mile long. It's fantastic.
There is a very great difference in personality and background between Hitler and Trump. Hitler
did not see his job as one of winning in negotiations but of making hmself the master of Europe through
the triumph of his own Will to Power. He had an outsized goal and paid the ultimate price. Trump
is much older than Hitler was when he became chancellor of Germany at age 44. Hitler was relentlessly
aggressive and gambling for the highest stakes. Trump is far more careful. Look at how long he has
been thinking about the possibility of becoming President and how he now is acting in just the situation
in which he predicted he would run for president -- to prevent the country going down the tubes.
That's excellent timing, one must admit! Consider also his big issues: making better trade deals,
forcing countries we defend to pay for their own defense, stopping the ludicrously excessive and
indiscriminate immigration that the left is encouraging, getting along with Putin, Xi Jinping, etc.
by making intelligent deals with them, restoring American military power, replacing Obamacare, and
his general goal of "making America great again", not the master of the entire world. Of course,
if it falls in his lap ...
All I want to say is FUCK Michael Bloomberg, Hillary and Bernie. The republicans aren't any better
and are all fucking politicians that will tell you anything to get elected. I like Trump. I think
he'll actually build a fucking wall and stop the illegal immigration. If he does that ONE thing then
I'm a happy camper. You don't have a sovereign nation without borders.
Obama has done nothing he promised, as I expected. He fucked up anything he tried. All politicians
suck.
I've lived around the world. It made the NATIONAL news when they caught and deported a simple
tourist for overstaying a visa. NATIONAL news- they showed the 30 year old man being led onto an
airplane and being politely never to return. All for overstaying a visa by 60 days. He was unable
to find work other than bumming around. They fine employers severely in the rest of the world. It's
financially impossible to hire an non-citizen without a work permit. My work permit cost $5000 a
year (paid by my employer). I saw this on more than one occasion while overseas. National news. It's
a big deal in every other country.
There are more problems in America than money or the lack of jobs.
I want someone to explain to me how Trump, or any other person, under the restrictions of a Democratic
Republic and the Constitution will:
A) Reverse the 50 years of cultural decay
B) Uproot the increasing corruption in both DC and the greater nation
C) Completely remove the influence of banks, corporations and foreigners (ZIONISTS)
D) Reverse the negative birth rate for White Americans
E) Rebuild the family unit and keep it strong
F) Remove or severely limit propaganda in the media and schools that threatens the integrity of the
nation, its blood, its culture and its long term ideas (HOLLYWOOD)
and all in 4-8 years. I legitimately want an explanation.
If trump empowers Americans to finally get off the belief that they have to accept the two establishment
candidates that they choose for us -then anything is possible. We need to prove we can beat the Orwellian
Machine - that we can arise from the comfort of the Matrix and think for ourselves -that we can think
independently and make our own choice. Trump can open the door to our awakening from our slumber--
then perhaps -anything is possible.
If that occurs, it will open the door for future candidates to address your concerns -
Trump may do so, not sure that this is his passion or concern. It's somewhat irrelevant. The key
is to open the door to awaken the sleeping sheeple -so that we can make our own free choices-by electing
those who truly represent our interests.
One thing is for sure high level managers in the Federal Government who rarely do any work or
even show up to the office are shaking in their boots at the thought of a Trump Presidency. Federal
workers used to be the lowest of the low and now they're running the show. It's still the biggest
Good Ol' Boys Network around where the phrase "You're Fired" is never spoken or heard.
1. Admire the Chinese leaders who used tanks to crush unarmed stuydent protesters. Would he order
the US Army to crush US students protesting in Washington DC?
2. Believe in the ability of a macho Strongman to fix the countries problems. How often has that
worked out?
3. Believe he is that man. ???
4. Think that complex problems can be solved with simplistic answers. Would he really rip up GATT
which the US worked hard to create and reaps untold benefits from?
5, Have the support of the taxi driving fraternity. Whose opinions world-wide are somewhere to
the right of Ghengis Khan!
So very true...Mark Twain once said, "if voting made a differance, they would not let us do it".
That statemnt was true then, and more true now. This is all a game. And it astounds me how many play
right along. Its like the anti-Muslsim stuff, like I am going to get my understanding from religion
from US TV, the most controlled manipulative TV in the world, by far.
Its all about giving the people/sheep, the idea of choice/freedom, when in reality, they have
none.
Something this essay didn't pick up on that bodes well for a Trump Presidency is his belief that
one of the key reasons the country is failing is because the middle class is failing. For Trump,
success won't be success unless the middle class are winning. He stakes his reputation on it which
is everything to him.
Also, I disagree about the "strongman" threat, not that he may have some preidposition for it,
but that there's too many checks in the system for him to go too far, just like there's too many
checks for Obama to go too far as an authoritarian, although Obama has tried. I see a much greater
threat and predisposition in Obama for being an authoritarian than I see in Trump. For Trump, as
the essay describes, he truly does want to see the country do great in a way most Americans have
always seen the country; for Obama, he truly does want to see the country change in ways most Americans
wouldn't recognize, and he's crafty with slight of hand policy. This is what makes Obama's authoritarian
tendencies much more dangerous.
Sold to Wall Street and greedy as hell. One speech honorarium is approximately 6 average American
annual salaries (The national average wage for 2014 is 46,481.52.)
During the lest Democratic debate on January 17, Hillary Clinton made several populist comments that
aimed to show she is "one of the people" and that, like all other candidates, she would aggressively
pursue not only bank fraud, but would go after bankers themselves. As we
tweeted at the time , these were some of her more prominent soundbites:
"no bank should be too big to fail and no individual too powerful to jail"
"I am going to defend president Obama for taking on Wall Street and getting results"
"I go after the big banks, I am the one the hedge funds are up against"
"we are at least having a vigorous debate about reining in Wall Street"
And then there is the reality: as none other than the
NYT reported two days ago , Goldman Sachs alone paid Hillary $675,000 for three speeches in three
different states, a fact Hillary's main challenger, Bernie Sanders, has highlighted repeatedly.
As the topic of her speeches, covered her
extensively over the past year , has gained prominence, on Friday, Clinton was asked by New Hampshire
Public Radio how the "average person should view the hefty speaking fees?"
"I spoke to a wide array of groups who wanted to hear what I thought about the world coming off
of my time as secretary of state," Clinton said, defending her decision to make money from speaking
fees. "I happen to think we need more conversation about what's going on in the world."
Very well paid conversations as the following list of her 92 private speeches raking in $21.7
million in just the past three years reveals:
Of course, calling these "speeches" a bribe and payment for future goodwill, would not look very
good for a candidate who is so desperate to appear as "one of the people" so Hillary decides to pander
to the stupidity of Americans: "I think groups that want to talk and ask questions and hear about
that are actually trying to educate themselves because we're living in a really complicated world."
But at the end of the day, the question is whether Hillary - the person many believe is the most
likely next US president - promised banks, and especially Goldman Sachs, something very different
from what he is telling the American people now.
In an attempt to get some clarity, the Intercept's Lee Fang, approached Hillary after she spoke
at a town hall in Manchester, New Hampshire, on Friday, and asked her if she would release the transcripts
of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. /em
"... Hillary Clinton served more as Secretary of War than Secretary of State. ..."
"... Funny - when Trump speculated about an independent run, media articulated the very detailed reasons why such an enterprise would be doomed. State legislatures have virtually abolished the mere possibility of success, at least for 2016. Now with things looking bad for Hillary, another billionaire steps forward, knowing full well what cannot work. Clinton campaign magic ? ..."
"... You forget that there are a lot of people who dont bother to vote. Rationally, why would anybody waste time choosing between bad and worse when voting for bad makes things worse? Just because it doesnt make things worse as fast as voting for the alternative, it still makes things worse and every president for decades has made things worse because the only choices were bad and worse. ..."
"... New York is the media capital and that tends to create a very narcissistic enclosed echo chamber where the impact of native son Bloomberg is exaggerated. And yes, in the heartland Bloomberg will not be regarded as a real American. ..."
"... Yes, the plutocracy has decided enough with the fun and games and the Sanders infant must be strangled in the crib. ..."
"... As a New York City resident of 40 years, his money corrupting the political process will always be my memory of Bloomberg. ..."
"... If you want management, vote for Bloomberg. If you want management AND democracy, try someone else. ..."
"... socially responsible, you having a laugh. His Apartheid policies have been a disaster for the working classes of New York. ..."
Next it will be the Koch brothers - either one as it makes no difference.
James Gee -> revelationnow 23 Jan 2016 21:17
Hillary Clinton served more as Secretary of War than Secretary of State. The only
visible progress made in foreign relations (Cuba, Iran) came after her departure. The Democrats
have inched, then hot-footed it so far rightwards that their nominee-select is further right than
the Republican candidate in 1964. Goldwater at least opposed the death penalty whereas there should
be no doubt of Clinton's believing that "extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice!"
bw9009 -> lamuella 23 Jan 2016 21:00
Exactly. Apparently Bloomberg doesn't get it. Bernie wins the primary and this billionaire
tool thinks he needs to step in and "save" the election. Bernie-s rise in the polls is no mystery...he
has the genuine passion and concern on issues the majority of Americans share.
Copper65 -> wrathofgod 23 Jan 2016 20:46
The USA needs somebody who can get bipartisan support
Do you seriously see Michael Bloomberg as 'bipartisan'? Debbie Wasserman Shultz is more 'bipartisan'
than Bloomberg.
jpsartreny 23 Jan 2016 20:42
Too short, too old and too New Yorkish. Not to mention the slots for billionaire and Hebrew
candidates are already taken.
James Gee 23 Jan 2016 20:23
Funny - when Trump speculated about an independent run, media articulated the very detailed
reasons why such an enterprise would be doomed. State legislatures have virtually abolished the
mere possibility of success, at least for 2016. Now with things looking bad for Hillary, another
billionaire steps forward, knowing full well what cannot work. Clinton campaign "magic"?
bluepanther -> Jantar 23 Jan 2016 20:17
Economic concerns now outweigh single issues like gun control. Cruel but true. And Bernie comes
from a rural state and has come to terms with gun owners and this actually helps him in the heartland.
curiouswes -> cliffstep 23 Jan 2016 20:08
Sorry , but Sanders does not have a realistic shot. Say it loud , say it often , but
he just ain't gonna get 50.1%.
You forget that there are a lot of people who don't bother to vote. Rationally, why would
anybody waste time choosing between bad and worse when voting for bad makes things worse? Just
because it doesn't make things worse as fast as voting for the alternative, it still makes things
worse and every president for decades has made things worse because the only choices were bad
and worse.
For once we can say that a candidate can actually make things better and that could inspire those
who don't bother to vote if his message resonates with them. The system is rigged. Sanders says
it is rigged. Trump says it is rigged, and everybody who is paying attention knows it is rigged.
Clinton doesn't care that it is rigged and that doesn't bother some people, but any rationally
thinking person ought to be bothered by the fact that it is rigged and many could very easily
conclude from that little tidbit of information that it is a waste of time to vote.
We all have a civic duty to vote, but voting without knowing for whom or for what one is voting
is just as irresponsible as not voting if not more so. If you did any research, you'd know that
for decades your choice is between getting screwed and getting screwed without lubrication. Why
would any rational person stand in a line to get screwed?
Before this election is done, people are going to know that this is our chance. Bloomberg knows
it, and doesn't like it, apparently.
bluepanther -> JohnCan45 23 Jan 2016 20:02
New York is the media capital and that tends to create a very narcissistic enclosed echo
chamber where the impact of native son Bloomberg is exaggerated. And yes, in the heartland Bloomberg
will not be regarded as a "real American."
bluepanther -> ositonegro 23 Jan 2016 19:48
Yes, the plutocracy has decided enough with the fun and games and the Sanders infant must
be strangled in the crib.
Michronics42 -> Zoonie 23 Jan 2016 19:38
Anything is possible, but the timing to me is very suspicious: Hillary's campaign is flailing
and all of a sudden, establishment types are coming out of the woodwork to discredit Bernie; maybe
Bloomberg is attempting this on a more implied level.
In my opinion, Bloomberg's rational predisposition-as you suggest-is a byproduct of his neo-liberalism;
that is, financialization of the world, which trumps humanism.
Also, at this stage, I don't see the current crop of nihilists in the GOP cottoning to Bloomberg.
Bloomberg may self-identify as an independent-for convenience sake-but in matters of policy, he
is very much in the Clinton, neoliberal policy mold; I think he is as anti-Sanders as the rest
of the establisment (in both major parties).
EDVDGN 23 Jan 2016 19:22
When Bloomberg first entered office as mayor, there was a 2-term limit on New York City mayors,
a law voted for by the people of the city.
He got that law set aside, with no agreement from NY's voters, so he could run a third time.
He was able then to buy the office one, last time with his billions. Yet he only squeaked by with
51% of the vote because of the resentment towards him. (I remember being bombarded with phone
calls and mailings from his campaign during that last run for office, something for which he could
personally afford to pay.)
As a New York City resident of 40 years, his money corrupting the political process will always
be my memory of Bloomberg.
If you want management, vote for Bloomberg. If you want management AND democracy, try someone
else.
InMyFactualView 23 Jan 2016 19:17
In the year where establishment is a hated word, Bloomberg wants to represent the establishment
of both parties. The 1% would really welcome it and vote for him, but I doubt there be anyone
else supporting him.
Dannybald -> Obelisk1 23 Jan 2016 19:09
'socially responsible', you having a laugh. His Apartheid policies have been a disaster
for the working classes of New York.
Marcedward -> profitendieu 23 Jan 2016 18:53
Sorry boy, maybe you don't get American politics.
Running as a third party candidate with no organization on the ground (not even the green party)
is pretty much impossible. It's most likely even if Bloomberg started hiring his campaign people
on Monday he'd not be able to get on the ballot in most states. In short he'd not even run as
well as George Wallace.
Even Ross Perot had a natural following, Bloomberg has nothing.
Goldenbird -> eoin.des 23 Jan 2016 18:34
Bernie is the only candidate fighting for the working man and woman, the only candidate not
in the pockets of the Billionaire snobs. He's the only candidate who will give us our jobs and
prosperity back.
But we can't get cocky. He's going to scare the billionaire's out of their minds, and they're
going to be coming after him with pitchforks. All of us need to work to elect him -- talk to your
friends, volunteer for him, go knocking door to door.
"... I have to wonder if Clinton will go to the next debate armed and try to shoot Sanders - shes just that desperate. ..."
"... Once the thin veneer of civility peels away the sheer ugliness of the Clinton save-your-ass campaign becomes clear. ..."
"... Also, if 5 minutes is all Clinton thinks Iowans are worth, then her head is already too big to fit into the oval office. Imagine, red-baiting in 2016! That belongs to the 1950s and McCarthyism, a smelly part of our political history. ..."
"... the more I listen to her and distrust her motives and her campaign tactics, the more I, who has voted straight Dem all my life, think that if shes the nominee I will consider Trump. ..."
We all knew it was only a matter of time before those few in the establishment with so much to
loose would start trying to scare us into voting against our own interests. Sanders wasn't a serious
candidate or a joke or novelty as long as he wasn't doing well. Same thing happened to Corbyn
and every other person who tries to change the status quo towards a more equitable distribution
of anything. Problem is it makes those few with so much seem desperate, even more corrupt and
comes across as a really transparent ploy to protect their own power and wealth at our expense.
Scare monger away ya bunch of ass hat's, it just proves how bad things need to change.
Unfortunately Webster provides no definition for "Democratic Socialism."
You see, Karl Marx was of the opinion that the capitalists will not voluntarily relinquish ownership
of the means of production. For this reason, he advocated a communist revolution during which
workers need to seize by force the means of production from the capitalists, and take them to
their property. He called it, I think, "the expropriation of the expropriators", in the sense
that by then the capitalists unfairly appropriated for themselves the surplus of capital that
workers create by their work.
And, in order to exclude the possibility that the capitalists again come into possession of
the means of production, Marx prescribed that after the revolution is necessary to create a "dictatorship
of the proletariat" or the sole authority of the Communist Party, while all the other parties
should be banned as enemies of socialism.
Thus, democratic socialists, social democrats, or simply, the socialists, are fighters for
social justice, who do not accept the idea of Marx's communist revolution.
Simply put, they believe that a multiparty system and political pluralism is a better environment
in which they can achieve their goals, rather than Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat/working
class" and the one-party system in which the Communist Party has a monopoly of power.
Thank you for that. We would be so much wiser and kinder and richer in spirit if we aspired to
live by the words of Reverend King. He was a man ahead of his time and a man for all times. And,
in my opinion, the greatest American who ever lived.
How very lucky we are to have a leader within our grasp who seeks to continue Dr. King's legacy.
Once the thin veneer of civility peels away the sheer ugliness of the Clinton save-your-ass
campaign becomes clear. Sleazy politics is synonymous with Brock and Clinton should feel
deep shame for not speaking out against him.
Also, if 5 minutes is all Clinton thinks Iowans are worth, then her head is already too
big to fit into the oval office. Imagine, red-baiting in 2016! That belongs to the 1950's and
McCarthyism, a smelly part of our political history.
Nancy Elwell -> Dragonsmoke315
the more I listen to her and distrust her motives and her campaign tactics, the more I,
who has voted straight Dem all my life, think that if she's the nominee I will consider Trump.
Think about it. BUT I just feel in my bones that Bernie is the man for 2016 and am supporting
his campaign financially and vocally.
Nancy Elwell -> 1stneutrino
you don't have to scrape the surface very hard to discover how the press corp and the secret
service , the resident staff at the White House all say she is a hell detail posting they hate.
Vulgar, sewer mouth and really short fuse. No! not for me. When she speaks she acts and sometimes
her urge to be the natural harridan starts to emerge.
newsfreak
The Democrats were always the softer alternative of the establishment. And now that they have
a candidate that maybe could threaten the status quo they appeal to the fears and prejudices of
the brain-washed public at large to prevent any possible, meaningful change. Just like Holywood
used (and perhaps still uses) to make most movies for the mentality of a 10 year old audience,
the system in place breed Americans to fall for those tricks. Something that also has been happening
in the global village at large.
dhinds
This is typically dishonest behavior by the Clinton Political Machine and clearly demonstrates
why Hillary will NOT be the candidate nominated by the Democratic party, nor should she be! America
deserves better.
Dragonsmoke315
The response to criticisms of Bernie's so-called socialism should be this: "Define socialism."
I guarantee you that would make most of the anti-socialist pundits shut up. Most of the people
who throw that word around have no idea what it means. If the media would stop trying to hang
that label around Bernie's neck, no one would even be mentioning it. He rarely uses the term except
to correct people who misunderstand it. It is old news--or should be.
Dragonsmoke315
Hillary Clinton is the Jeb Bush of the Democratic Party insofar as she is terrible at campaigning.
To win in November, she would need Bernie's supporters to rally around her, which won't happen
if she runs a dishonest, mudslinging campaign.
If she wins the nomination by lying about Bernie, she will lose the general election because she
will have alienated a big part of the Democratic base. But she can't see that, because her instinct,
like her husband's, is to win at all costs.
I had forgotten why I so eagerly voted against her in 2008. Now I remember.
"The Guardian in 2008 published an article titled Clinton aides claim Obama photo wasn't intended
as a smear, highlighting that a leading Democrat was willing to utilize "dirty tricks" pertaining
to race and Islamophobia, even against a Christian man born in the U.S." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/barackobama.hillaryclinton
malleusmaleficarum
Hillary Clinton's message has failed. Hillary's Plan B (lose Iowa and New Hampshire and sweep
the red state primaries in the South) is in dire jeopardy. So, voila - Plan C - smear Bernie Sanders
with a case straight out of the 1950s. Will it work? Almost certainly not.
Clinton Panic Syndrome, bring out the liars, make former non-liars into liars, and hire professional
liars. The Clintons, along with the war criminal, war profiteer, Blairs, can now leave the public
stage weighed down with their bags of gold that drip blood. Say "Goodnight Hillary". End the grift,
johnnyyesno
Re: "Not believing in Capitalism"
- Hahaha, so capitalism is a religion now, Hillary?
A "Capitalist Religion" would by defenition be a belief system in which money is worshipped as
a God...
Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice-presidential nominee who became a Tea
Party sensation and a favorite of grass-roots conservatives, endorsed Donald J. Trump in Iowa on
Tuesday, providing him with a potentially significant boost just 13 days before the state's
caucuses.
"Are you ready for the leader to make America great again?" Mrs. Palin said with Mr. Trump by her
side at a rally at Iowa State University. "Are you ready to stump for Trump? I'm here to support
the next president of the United States - Donald Trump."
Her support is the highest-profile backing for a Republican so far. It came the same day that
Iowa's Republican governor, Terry Branstad, said he hoped that Senator Ted Cruz would be defeated
in Iowa. The Feb. 1 caucuses are a must-win for the Texas senator, who is running neck-and-neck
with Mr. Trump in state polls.
Given how closely I follow politics and the news, I can't believe this is the first time I'm hearing
this story about Ted Cruz. Kudos to David Brooks for
bringing
it to light:
In 1997, Michael Wayne Haley was arrested after stealing a calculator from Walmart. This was
a crime that merited a maximum two-year prison term. But prosecutors incorrectly applied a habitual
offender law. Neither the judge nor the defense lawyer caught the error and Haley was sentenced
to 16 years.
Eventually, the mistake came to light and Haley tried to fix it. Ted Cruz was solicitor general
of Texas at the time. Instead of just letting Haley go for time served, Cruz took the
case to the Supreme Court
to keep Haley in prison for the full 16 years.
The case reveals something interesting about Cruz's character. Ted Cruz is now running strongly
among evangelical voters, especially in Iowa. But in his career and public presentation Cruz is
a stranger to most of what would generally be considered the Christian virtues: humility, mercy,
compassion and grace. Cruz's behavior in the Haley case is almost the dictionary definition of
pharisaism: an overzealous application of the letter of the law in a way that violates the spirit
of the law, as well as fairness and mercy.
In the end, Haley was released after serving six years. During the Supreme Court hearing, Justice
Anthony Kennedy-left incredulous by Cruz's position-
asked
him: "Is there some rule that you can't confess error in your state?"
Brooks's article is titled "The Brutalism of Ted Cruz." An apt description indeed. Would hearing
this story undercut Cruz's support among Republican primary voters? I really don't know. I do know
that a person who would fight such a case all the way to the Supreme Court is lacking something very
basic-something important not only for Christians, but for any of us, and certainly for anyone seeking
to become the most powerful individual in the world. That thing is judgment.
Patriot4peace
I think this story, when told to the rabid right wing evangelical base of support that Cruz
engages will only serve him well.
They will consider him a "tough on crime, doesn't back down" patriotic defender of right wing
morality and virtue.
Few of the evangelical supporters of Cruz would consider his past actions to be less than
Christian of him. They don't strike me as followers of Jesus' teachings, they are "punish the
wicked" bible thumpers that would rather pat Cruz on the back for this.
It's amazing that such establishemnt rag as NYT printed such as article... Stresseing inseinsery
of Hillary: "Many of the Sanders supporters interviewed said they felt personally moved by what they
described as his sincerity. Bert Permar, 86, a retired professor, said he had gone to four Sanders
events and was now making calls to share the candidate's message.". Hillary has a real enthusiasm gap problem.
Notable quotes:
"... Maybe if the Times had actually acknowledged Sanders as a real candidate, and had been following and reporting on his campaign, this would not have come as such a surprise. This enthusiasm for Bernie has been there since he announced his candidacy. Your readers have been expressing it in the comments for months and begging you for more coverage of the Sanders campaign. You guys have just been too busy shilling for Hillary to notice. ..."
"... Bernie has stepped outside the cynical straitjacket of marketing and spin to speak with honesty and conviction about the real and profound issues that are deforming our society and threatening our future. The Democratic party and the country have been waiting a long time for a candidate of this courage, integrity and devotion to the public good. This is why we're rising up to support him. Ms. Clinton cannot project qualities she does not have. She's no match for Bernie. He's going to win. ..."
"... This race is not about the candidates themselves. It's about the American people taking a stand to get out democracy back. That's why establishment politicians will not win, and it's precisely why you're seeing the same level of excitement for insurgent candidates, on both sides. ..."
"... Clinton has been on autopilot to the general election and is only now realizing that the base isn't with her. Clinton's favorability feels more like general acquiescence than actual support. Millennials would rather stay home than cast a spurious vote. The Clinton camp assumes support from minorities and moderates but perhaps unduly. Even the female vote seems split in their appraisal. That doesn't exactly strike me as a coalition. ..."
"... Isn't it amazing what someone can accomplish when they start and operate from a position of integrity, and present the current American reality to the American people with honesty and passion? ..."
"... For thirty five years, we've seen our country sold off piecemeal to and for the 1%, aided and abetted by the sociopaths in the GOP, and third-way, triangulating Democrats. We've been conditioned by our sell-out politicians that we must accept a steadily diminishing quality of life and opportunity. We've been tricked into believing its inevitability, as the best we can manage . ..."
"... There are many of us who are not conventionally liberal who support Sanders, not necessarily because we always agree with what he says, but because he is the candidate of integrity and reform. All the other candidates with the exception of Trump are bought and sold by money interests that donate unlimited funds to superPACs, national committees, and shadowy political groups without any kind of oversight. It is very basic human behavior that when someone gives you something of value, they generally expect something back in some way. Hence the policies of the last 40 years that have overwhelmingly favored the wealthy and skewed national income upwards. The status quo is that the tail wags the dog in the United States government, with important political and economic decisions made on the basis of who has given the most to the leading candidate. ..."
"... Something tells me that Americans have finally had their fill of the Clintons and may not be able to fathom either one of them back in the Oval office, past shenanigans there notwithstanding. ..."
"... It's refreshing to see Americans Feeling The Bern after 35 years of right-wing economic violence that have systematically savaged the American people with corporate-sponsored extortion of healthcare, cable TV, internet, cellphone service, pilfering of 401Ks and pensions and endless tax cuts for the richest citizens and corporations in the land while wages, the safety net, infrastructure and public education were obliterated. ..."
"... Hillary has always been too busy cashing $350,000 Wall St. speaking fees to notice her own hypocrisy, insincerity and secret crush on the 0.1% parasites that have wrecked the country. ..."
"... Only the Times would continue to express surprise at Mr Sanders support when both wings of national politics are clearly being driven by a disgust with current political party leadership and the current way of (not) doing the business of government. It's an ego-driven circus and any candidate who is sincere (not doing that sincere thing) is like a breath of fresh air! Simply put, the Clinton air is stale! ..."
"... Why is every headline I've ever read in the NYT worded in way that down-plays Mr. Sanders and plays up Mrs. Clinton? The title of this article so clearly attempts to cast Mrs. Clinton as the continued protagonist in the events unfolding that it's almost painful to read. ..."
"... Commitment cards? See now, this pretty much epitomizes why Hillary is a turn off for me. It's as though she's using the Iowa caucus voters as chits to turn in for more money at the super-pac window. ..."
With a new poll showing
Mr. Sanders surging ahead in Iowa
, Mrs. Clinton and her aides have dropped any pretense that
they can ignore Mr. Sanders or treat him like a gadfly. They have become zealous and combative as
they try new ways to undercut his high favorability ratings.
... ... ...
Clinton advisers said they believed Iowa was a single-digit race and
have been warning supporters against complacency, admitting that Mr. Sanders's operation in the
state was better financed and organized than they had expected. On Saturday, they began trying to
undercut his electability with a television ad casting Mrs. Clinton as the strongest possible
Democratic nominee, even though some polls show Mr. Sanders would perform well in matchups
against Republicans like Donald J. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.
... ... ...
A Sanders victory in Iowa would be a shock, given the institutional
advantages held by Mrs. Clinton, a former secretary of state and a favorite of the Iowa
Democratic establishment. It would also set off significant momentum for Mr. Sanders heading into
the Feb. 9 primary in New Hampshire, where he holds a slight lead in the polls.
... ... ...
Mr. Sanders's supporters point to his grass-roots strengths: He has
more than 14,000 volunteers in Iowa, and he has spoken to more than 40,000 people at events in
the state so far, huge numbers that include young people, independents and new voters who might
not be on pollsters' call sheets. (Mrs. Clinton's advisers declined to say how many volunteers
she had or people she had spoken to in Iowa.)
"I think his secret weapon, maybe his silver bullet even, is the young adult population that
hasn't been involved in politics up until this point," said Katie Mitchell, 28, a middle school
teacher who lives in Des Moines.
...many younger women who gathered did not share Ms. Dunham's visceral enthusiasm for Mrs.
Clinton, saying that for most of their lives she has been a familiar fixture of establishment
politics rather than an exciting new voice or an agent of change.
... ... ...
Many of the Sanders supporters interviewed said they felt personally moved by what they
described as his sincerity. Bert Permar, 86, a retired professor, said he had gone to four
Sanders events and was now making calls to share the candidate's message.
"I love to see him. He motivates me," Mr. Permar said on Sunday, sitting in the front row at a
Sanders forum on veterans' issues in Marshalltown. "I get emotional. It brings tears that someone
is talking about the issues that we should be concerned about."
Selected Skeptical Comments (Note the comments below are from NYT staff picks; the first 6
was top comments at the time I viewed them)
Bruce Rozenblit,
Hillary has a real enthusiasm gap problem. People just can't get excited about her. Last
fall I attended an annual neighborhood fair and there was a table set up for her campaign.
Absolutely no one stopped at her table to talk or sign those silly commitment cards. The two
people at sitting there were the loneliest at the fair and I live in a heavily democratic
district.
The reason President Obama defeated her in 2008 was mostly because he was a new fresh face.
Hillary has the same problem in 2016. We all know her too well. She represents the past. We
want a new future.
Bernie Sanders has been around forever but he has never been a part of the political
establishment that we all despise. Machine politics is killing this nation. Politics isn't
competitive. Candidates are anointed by the party machine or catapulted by big money thanks to
Citizens United.
Bernie is tapping into the same angst that Trump mines except he directs it with a positive
message and Trump uses the old GOP hate and fear message. The young people are flocking to
Bernie because they want better times. The old people flock to Trump for safety from perceived
external invaders.
Bernie has a real chance. So does Trump. Truth be told, many of Hillary's supporters view her
as the default candidate, not the preferred candidate. They really want someone else. I'm one
of them and as a consequence, I'm starting to get all Berned up.
A. Spencer,
Asheville, NC 13 hours ago
Maybe if the Times had actually acknowledged Sanders as a real candidate, and had been
following and reporting on his campaign, this would not have come as such a surprise. This
enthusiasm for Bernie has been there since he announced his candidacy. Your readers have been
expressing it in the comments for months and begging you for more coverage of the Sanders
campaign. You guys have just been too busy shilling for Hillary to notice.
Portia,
Massachusetts 13 hours ago
Bernie has stepped outside the cynical straitjacket of marketing and spin to speak with
honesty and conviction about the real and profound issues that are deforming our society and
threatening our future. The Democratic party and the country have been waiting a long time for
a candidate of this courage, integrity and devotion to the public good. This is why we're
rising up to support him. Ms. Clinton cannot project qualities she does not have. She's no
match for Bernie. He's going to win.
Kevin R,
Brooklyn 12 hours ago
This race is not about the candidates themselves. It's about the American people taking
a stand to get out democracy back. That's why establishment politicians will not win, and it's
precisely why you're seeing the same level of excitement for "insurgent" candidates, on both
sides.
The level of excitement is equally invigorated on the right for Trump, and more recently for
Cruz. The entire political system that's been systematically rigged in favor of plutocrats and
their corporate shells is about to be flipped on its rear.
This is precisely what Bernie has been talking about for 8 months, every time he utters the
words "political revolution", and man, does it feel glorious!
Andy,
Salt Lake City, UT 11 hours ago
Clinton has been on autopilot to the general election and is only now realizing that
the base isn't with her. Clinton's favorability feels more like general acquiescence than
actual support. Millennials would rather stay home than cast a spurious vote. The Clinton camp
assumes support from minorities and moderates but perhaps unduly. Even the female vote seems
split in their appraisal. That doesn't exactly strike me as a coalition.
This was a foreseeable scenario though. Clinton is her own worst enemy. She had the
opportunity to get ahead on Bernie's issues and took a pass. There was a legitimate fear that
she might alienate center-right voters in a general election for a "no contest" primary.
Knowing what we know now about the GOP field, that was a bad decision.
Now she's playing catch-up and the effort comes across as threatened and disingenuous. A
position that falls neatly inline with long-standing public perception issues. Sanders has a
real chance to win both States as a result. Even if Clinton ultimately wins the nomination, I
think a close race in Iowa and New Hampshire is a positive for her campaign. Perhaps she'll
learn from the lessons of 2008.
Dominic,
Astoria, NY 11 hours ago
Isn't it amazing what someone can accomplish when they start and operate from a
position of integrity, and present the current American reality to the American people with
honesty and passion?
For thirty five years, we've seen our country sold off piecemeal to and for the 1%, aided
and abetted by the sociopaths in the GOP, and third-way, triangulating Democrats. We've been
conditioned by our sell-out politicians that we must accept a steadily diminishing quality of
life and opportunity. We've been tricked into believing its inevitability, as "the best we can
manage".
Well, the big lie has run out of steam. In Bernie Sanders we see a candidate who reminds all
of us that not only can we do better- we deserve better. Bernie has motivated Americans in
remarkable ways, and reminded us that it is indeed our nation, and that our government works
best when it works for all of us, regardless of income and connection.
Mike Thompson,
New York 11 hours ago
There are many of us who are not conventionally liberal who support Sanders, not
necessarily because we always agree with what he says, but because he is the candidate of
integrity and reform. All the other candidates with the exception of Trump are bought and sold
by money interests that donate unlimited funds to superPACs, national committees, and shadowy
political groups without any kind of oversight. It is very basic human behavior that when
someone gives you something of value, they generally expect something back in some way. Hence
the policies of the last 40 years that have overwhelmingly favored the wealthy and skewed
national income upwards. The status quo is that the tail wags the dog in the United States
government, with important political and economic decisions made on the basis of who has given
the most to the leading candidate.
Hillary is the embodiment of this system, and Bernie is its antithesis. He doesnt have a
superPAC, he takes his campaign funding from the people and as such is beholden only to the
people. That is why I support Bernie Sanders and that is why I believe that he will win this
nomination.
A,
Philipse Manor, N.Y. 10 hours ago
The media, and that includes the esteemed N.Y Times, love a good train wreck. It sells
newspapers, ads etc. There are a lot of blank newsprint to cover, empty air time on TV and
digital media space to fill.
Clinton's story is colorful, at times salacious and occasionally borders on legally
questionable. When talking about her the media can include the philandering of her husband,
the elbow rubbing with Wall Streeters etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. So much grist, so much
filler. Monica Lewinsky's reemergence, Benghazi, even Trump's wedding have all been side
stories. These are interesting to read about and keep her in the forefront of the news.
Sanders, in contrast, has no skeletons, no questionable spousal wanderings, no nothing
except a message that seems to resonate with ALL ages.
I remember reading months ago that the nomination was Clinton's to lose.
Underestimating the appeal of the straight talking Brooklynite seems to be the big mistake
that the Clinton campaign is making , despite the fact that her headquarters is in Brooklyn.
Something tells me that Americans have finally had their fill of the Clintons and may
not be able to fathom either one of them back in the Oval office, past shenanigans there
notwithstanding.
Socrates,
is a trusted commenter Downtown Verona, NJ 13 hours ago
It's refreshing to see Americans Feeling The Bern after 35 years of right-wing economic
violence that have systematically savaged the American people with corporate-sponsored
extortion of healthcare, cable TV, internet, cellphone service, pilfering of 401Ks and
pensions and endless tax cuts for the richest citizens and corporations in the land while
wages, the safety net, infrastructure and public education were obliterated.
Bernie Sanders is honest and brave enough to tell America that Wall St. regulates Congress ---
not the other way around.
Hillary has always been too busy cashing $350,000 Wall St. speaking fees to notice her own
hypocrisy, insincerity and secret crush on the 0.1% parasites that have wrecked the country.
More and more Americans who have been burned by the 0.1% will be Feeling The Bern with each
passing day.
Bernie Sanders 2016
ScottW,
is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 14 hours ago
Bernie will eventually win the Democratic nomination and presidency. His campaign is from
the heart and he is the only candidate not bought and paid for by Wall Street. He actually
believes what he says. Take a look at Hillary's top donors and compare them to Sanders.
Banks/Financiers versus groups representing labor and the people.
Bernie does not come saddled with decades of scandal. He does not represent the power elite.
He is the only candidate who presents an opportunity of changing the status quo.
Bernie or bust.
Jack Chicago,
is a trusted commenter Chicago 13 hours ago
Never has a political campaign, in my lifetime, revealed so clearly where our media stand.
The NY Times has been a huge disappointment. Not because they obviously have pre-ordained a
Democrat machine candidate, but because their coverage and reporting has been so tone deaf.
This has not been reporting on, but steering the news.
Only the Times would continue to express surprise at Mr Sanders support when both wings
of national politics are clearly being driven by a disgust with current political party
leadership and the current way of (not) doing the business of government. It's an ego-driven
circus and any candidate who is sincere (not doing that sincere thing) is like a breath of
fresh air! Simply put, the Clinton air is stale!
William,
Vienna 13 hours ago
Why is every headline I've ever read in the NYT worded in way that down-plays Mr.
Sanders and plays up Mrs. Clinton? The title of this article so clearly attempts to cast Mrs.
Clinton as the continued protagonist in the events unfolding that it's almost painful to read.
Shouldn't the title of this article be "Bernie Sanders Quickly Closing Gap With Mrs. Clinton
in Iowa By Way of Hugely Enthusiastic Crowds"? How else can this continued contortion of
wording be understood other than a clear bias on the part of the NYT for HRC? What else can
readers conclude except that it is not only HRC who is worrying about the rise of Bernie
Sanders but also the owners of the New York Times.
j. frances,
denver, colorado 13 hours ago
I'm a 46 y.o. woman and my 49 y.o. sister and I are going to be at our Colorado caucus in
support of Bernie. We'll bringing cookies decorated like Bernie.
I've got bumper stickers on my car and bike and two Bernie signs in my window. I've already
donated over $400 (I'm a childcare worker so this is a stretch.). Bernie is the first
candidate I've ever done any of this for. I am passionate about his ideas. Time for a
revolution. Who better than Bernie to lead it? Game on.
Sarah Strohmeyer,
Vermont 13 hours ago
Commitment cards? See now, this pretty much epitomizes why Hillary is a turn off for
me. It's as though she's using the Iowa caucus voters as chits to turn in for more money at
the super-pac window.
Bernie doesn't need commitment cards. But he does need commitment because if he wins,
as I so hope, that will be only the beginning of a tough fight to preserve democracy, close
the income gap, guarantee truly affordable healthcare for all, and do what we can to save the
climate from further deterioration.
It's now or never, guys.
DLC neoliberals are dangerous and will not give up without a fight...
Notable quotes:
"... Although hes not as well-known as someone like Karl Rove or Frank Luntz, Al From is one of the most important political operatives of the past few decades. ..."
"... A veteran Democratic staffer, he thought his party moved too far to the left during the 1970s, and so, in 1985, he founded a group known as the Democratic Leadership Council, or DLC, whose stated goals were to expand the partys base and appeal to moderates and liberals. ..."
"... Under Froms leadership, the DLC staged a bloodless coup of the Democratic Party, and swapped out the progressivism of FDR, Truman and Johnson for the corporatism of the Clintons. ..."
"... Al From had personally recruited Bill to run for president, and the DLCs ideas were the basis for most of his policies. ..."
"... And even though it no longer actually exists (it folded in 2011) the DLC and its supporters still control the Democratic establishment , especially Hillary Clinton - Bill Clintons wife. ..."
"... The base of the Democratic Party is still progressive even if the party bigwigs have sold-out to the corporatists. ..."
"... They want real change, not Republican-lite policies pretending to be progressive. And so, theyre siding with Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential election. ..."
"... Bernies campaign is showing cracks in their junta and the coup that Al From staged more than two decades ago is on the verge of collapsing. ..."
Sanders is already beating Clinton in New Hampshire, and if he can pull-off a two-state sweep of
the early primaries, that would completely change the dynamic of the race.
And I mean completely.
At this point, national polls don't really matter; what matters is momentum, and if Bernie can
win Iowa and New Hampshire, he would suck up pretty much all of the momentum.
Now, considering the fact that Bernie Sanders does better than Hillary Clinton in a
hypothetical matchup
with Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, you'd think that the establishment
Democrats would be thrilled with these developments.
You'd think that the people who talk so much about "electability" and how important it is would
be overjoyed that Bernie Sanders, a popular and electable candidate, is moving towards the Democratic
nomination.
Apparently not.
Instead of celebrating the rise of a new star, establishment Democrats are freaking out about
the possibility of Bernie Sanders winning both Iowa and New Hampshire.
Case in point: former Tennessee congressman Harold Ford, Jr., who on MSNBC agreed with Joe Scarborough
that establishment Dems could recruit John Kerry or Joe Biden to run if Bernie sweeps both early
primary states.
Pretty weird, right?
Here Bernie Sanders is inspiring millions of young people to get involved in politics, and establishment
Democrats think it might be a good idea to draft two guys who've already lost presidential races.
Go figure.
But here's the thing: Establishment Democrats aren't stupid - they should be scared of Bernie
Sanders.
And that's because he represents a direct threat to the centrists who have ruled the Democratic
Party for the past few decades.
Although he's not as well-known as someone like Karl Rove or Frank Luntz, Al From is one of the
most important political operatives of the past few decades.
A veteran Democratic staffer, he thought his party moved "too far to the left" during the 1970s,
and so, in 1985, he
founded a group
known as the Democratic Leadership Council, or DLC, whose stated goals were "to
expand the party's base and appeal to moderates and liberals."
That obviously sounds nice in theory, but in practice it meant the destruction of the thing that
made the Democratic Party the United States' governing party for most of the 20th century: the progressive
values of the New Deal and FDR.
Under From's leadership, the DLC staged a bloodless coup of the Democratic Party, and swapped
out the progressivism of FDR, Truman and Johnson for the corporatism of the Clintons.
Instead of talking about ways to make the US a more just and equal society, Democrats now talked
about things like "welfare reform," so-called "free trade" and so-called "school choice," which were
really just corporate plans to privatize the commons.
The final victory in the DLC's takeover of the Democratic Party came when Bill Clinton was elected
president in 1992.
Al From had personally recruited Bill to run for president, and the DLC's ideas were the basis
for most of his policies.
Over the next 20 years, the DLC consolidated its stranglehold over the Democratic Party.
And even though it no longer actually exists (it folded in 2011) the DLC and its supporters
still control the Democratic establishment
, especially Hillary Clinton - Bill Clinton's wife.
Which brings us back to Bernie Sanders.
If his wildly successful campaign has told us anything, it's that Democratic voters are sick and
tired of the DLC-Clintonites running the show.
The base of the Democratic Party
is still progressive
even if the party bigwigs have sold-out to the corporatists.
They want to go back to the values that made the Democratic Party the United States' governing
party from the New Deal until the 1990s.
They want real change, not Republican-lite policies pretending to be progressive. And so, they're siding with Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential election.
As I said earlier, establishment Democrats should be scared.
Bernie's campaign is showing cracks in their junta and the coup that Al From staged more than
two decades ago is on the verge of collapsing.
This article was first
published on Truthout and any reprint or reproduction on any other website must acknowledge Truthout
as the original site of publication.
"Hillary Clinton took aim at Bernie Sanders' single-payer health care plan on Monday, characterizing
it as "turning over your and my health insurance to governors," specifically naming Republican
Terry Branstad. It's a pretty clear reference to the many conservative states that have refused
ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion - implying that Sanders would allow conservative states to opt
out of his plan, and hence partially destroy all federal health insurance programs" [
The Week
]. "This is absolutely
false." (NC readers know this from our debate coverage;
see this post from November 15
.)
Left to her own devices, Clinton wouldn't mention single payer at all
. Now that Sanders has
forced the issue, she lies.
The Voters
Myth of the independent: "As we noted in August, most independents lean toward one party or
the other - and in 2012, the majority of those leaning independents voted for their preferred
party's presidential candidate. (According to the book "The Gamble," 90 percent of Democratic-leaning
independents backed Obama in 2012, and 78 percent of Republican-leaning ones backed Romney.)"
[
WaPo
].
"[I]f Americans are indeed angry, unsettled, or dissatisfied, in many ways they appear to disagree
about why they should be angry, unsettled, or dissatisfied" [
WaPo
].
"Bernie Sanders has an 11-point advantage over Hillary Clinton among voters under 35" [
Vox
].
Let's see if they come out to vote…
The Trail
"MoveOn is endorsing Bernie Sanders for president after the liberal challenger to Hillary Clinton
won 78 percent of votes cast by its membership" [
The Hill
]. Granted, Ilya Sheyman is MoveOn's political director, but still: This is better
than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. And 78%!
"The Top 5 Reasons MoveOn Members Voted to Endorse Bernie (with the Most Votes and Widest Margin
in Our History)" [Ilya Sheyman,
Medium
]. #1: "1. Bernie's lifelong commitment to standing up to corporate and 1% interests
to fight for an economy where everyone has a fair shot." Not sure where the wording on those "reasons"
comes from, but contrast Clinton.
"[FBI] agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations,
the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," one
of [three] sources told Fox" [
The Hill
]. "One of the Fox sources also said that the FBI is especially eager to pursue a
high-profile public corruption case in the wake of what they believe was overly lenient treatment
of former CIA Director David Petraeus, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor last year for mishandling
classified information after it was revealed that he had given classified information to his mistress."
O'Malley was the intended sheepdog, not Sanders: "O'Malley's continued presence in the race
is helping Clinton. In Iowa we find his supporters would prefer Sanders over Clinton 43/20, and
in New Hampshire they prefer Sanders over Clinton 47/13. So to some extent O'Malley is helping
to split the anti-Hillary vote" [
Public PolicyPolling
].
"According to a Monmouth University survey released on Monday, Trump has 32 percent support
in New Hampshire, up from 26 percent when the same question was asked in November" [
The Hill
].
Summarizing Buchanan on Trump: What the Republican electorate says of Trump is what Lincoln
said of Grant: "We need this man. He fights"
[
WaPo
].
Watching MSNBC last night (what can I say?), I thought I noticed a very distinct change in
tone re: Sanders. A lot more "gee, he's really doing a lot better than we thought he would" and
less "what a weird old geezer whose got no chance." Anyone else notice? Probably just horse race
pumping but interesting nonetheless.
Whereas the WaPo seems to be doubling down on HRC today. (Can you double down if you are already
all in?)
Well this will sound strange coming from a jaded, cynical curmudgeon, but I'm actually starting
to think Bernie has a chance. The amount of coverage has been increasing (although as noted the
NYT, WaPo, and even the Grauniad (UK) are still blatantly biased). But I remember Bill de Blasio's
amazing victory in the NY mayoral race (managing to beat even Carlos Danger, husband of Hillary's
right-hand-woman :) and perhaps even more astonishingly - given how "extreme" he is deemed to
be - Jeremy Corbyn's Labour leadership victory.
Sure, HRC has oodles of money, the MSM on her side, the super delegates, and all the establishment
Dems. But this year above all is the one where those have the least value, and may even work against
her. In the UK the more the Labour establishment and the press railed against Corbyn, the more
popular he became.
The other factor working for Sanders is of course the internet funding. He is almost keeping
up with HRC, and soon her $2800 per head rich pals will reach their donation limit. Bernie on
the other hand can keep going back to his $30 and $40 and $100 donors.
And that FBI investigation into the emails and the Clinton Foundation… I've always maintained
that could be the ticking bomb. How many of those 30,000 "personal" emails Hillary deleted had
to do with Foundation business…?
Democratic Party super delegates are cockroaches, they'll kick Hillary to the curb the moment
the primary returns show the electorate moving Sanders' way. The exact same thing happened in
2008: her campaign staff went on and on about how many super delegates were backing her, yet,
come convention time, they swiftly abandoned her in favor of Obama.
I like to believe that the FBI has secretly been radicalized by all the activists they've infiltrated
over the last decade. It's so secret that they're not even aware of it.
The socialist wants to DISMANTLE MEDICARE? Does anyone really believe that when she says it?
And if he wanted to dismantle private insurance… Uh… Wouldn't that be a GOOD thing?
Man, Hellery is so desperate shes getting Bill and Chelsea to start stumping for her. They
wouldn't be involved if they thought Hellery was in a good position.
ObamaCare's neoliberal intellectual foundations are crumbling.
If we didn't need her to invent the internet, we don't need her to dismantle ObamaCare either.
The thing's foundations are crumbing on their own, though it sounds good she says she wants to
dismantle it.
"... One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny. ..."
"... In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." ..."
"... There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy. ..."
"... "We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey. ..."
"... And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power. ..."
"... The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. ..."
"... It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure, a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend corporate interests worldwide. ..."
"... US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents" and other figureheads sell at home and abroad. ..."
"... @15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus. ..."
"... The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back. If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington). ..."
"... The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie is full of shit (as is Trump). ..."
"... Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan. ..."
"... "You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing the Mujahideen. ..."
"... Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter ..."
"... Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement. Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes, all under the guise of promoting the public interest. ..."
"... The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted," the book says. ..."
"... You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign. ..."
"... This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas. ..."
"... Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive to Trump's dogwhistle. ..."
"... The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state. ..."
"... Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike. ..."
For all of those who keep on arguing about the benefits of one US candidate over the other,
they could save their energy for more constructive efforts.
One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the
last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that
American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly,
their collective destiny.
In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites
and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on
US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or
no independent influence."
Then in October of the same year, a Tufts University professor published a devastating critique
of the current state of American democracy, "National Security and Double Government," which
catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing,
with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses
the term "double government":
There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind
it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere
cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
The Boston Globe's write-up of the book was accompanied by the brutal headline, "Vote all
you want. The secret government won't change." Imagine a headline like that during the Hope
and Change craze of 2008. Yeah, you can't. Because nobody's that imaginative.
Yes, people are beginning to smell the rot - even people who watch television in hopes of
not having to confront the miserable reality that awaits them once they turn off their 36-inch
flatscreens. In September, Jimmy Carter warned Oprah Winfrey:
"We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the
worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that
I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey.
The live audience were probably hoping for free Oprah cars. Instead, an ex-president told
them that their democracy is in the gutter. What a bummer.
The latest canary in the coal mine is none other than ex-longtime GOP staffer turned best-selling
author Mike Lofgren, whose new book, "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the
Rise of a Shadow Government," confirms what is already painfully apparent:
The deep state has created so many contradictions in this country. You have this enormous
disparity of rich and poor; and you have this perpetual war, even though we're braying about
freedom. We have a surveillance state, and we talk about freedom. We have internal contradictions.
Who knows what this will fly into? It may collapse like the Soviet Union; or it might go
into fascism with a populist camouflage.
Some excerpts from Salon's recent interview with Lofgren:
On how the deep state operates:
Well, first of all,
it is not a conspiracy. It is something that operates in broad daylight.
It is not a conspiratorial cabal. These are simply people who have evolved [into] a kind
of position. It is in their best interest to act in this way.
And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes
up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this
is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what
it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power.
On who (and what) is part of the deep state:
The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial
complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security
apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern
district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts.
And you
got this kind of rump Congress that consists of certain people in the leadership, defense and
intelligence committees who kind of know what's going on. The rest of Congress doesn't really
know or care; they're too busy looking about the next election.
Lofgren goes on to explain that the private sector works hand-in-hand with the deep state,
regardless of which "party" is in power. According to Lofgren, "There are definable differences
between Bush and Obama. However, the differences are so constrained. They're not between the
40-yard lines; they are between the 48-yard lines."
Of course, millions of Americans will still enjoy rooting for the candidate whom they would
most enjoy drinking Bud Lite Lime with, but probably deep in their hearts they all know they're
doomed.
@12, Only a coward would submit to such a threat, instead of regarding it as a challenge to be
defied. If the worst came to the worst, one would at least have died heroically. And such a president,
if he did die, could have taken steps before he died to make sure the public would learn how and
why he died. So it would not be a death without purpose.
How does the deep state ensure that only cowards become president?
@10 Blackmail?
Don't know if true but I remember reading something to the effect that after Obama was sworn in,
he met with Bush sr. and co who told him that he now worked for them with threats to his family
if he wouldn't submit..
What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?
It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure,
a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend
corporate interests worldwide.
US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into
specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents"
and other figureheads sell at home and abroad.
@15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the
right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with
pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus.
People hate being conned more than con men, and they concoct rationalizations for being duped
that often defy logic.
@10 'What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?'
1. DS vets prospective candidates beforehand, only allowing candidates aligned with deep state
authorities to begin with.
2. DS doesn't make the payoff until successful applicants have left office with an 'acceptable'
record.
3. Assassination is always an option in extreme cases, real or imagined.
The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back.
If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get
the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want
it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington).
Now, if you want to be President, you've got to have "experience" in Congress or in state gubmint.
The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared
with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie
is full of shit (as is Trump).
That is a very good explanation of 'Deep State'. My only caveat is that it doesn't completely
describe the oligarchy because it leaves out the corporate component. When money became speech
a huge mountain of power devolved to the rich. They'd always had clout as the graphs describing
the separation of the rich from the not-so-well off and the rest of us have made clear - but now
the ugly truth is unavoidable and it all goes together to produce what President Carter described.
Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski
was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross
around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to
stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan.
"You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing
the Mujahideen.
Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter
... It looks to be another corker ...
Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the
hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement.
Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think
tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government
and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes,
all under the guise of promoting the public interest.
The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a
small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured
money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and
voted," the book says.
Many of the families owned businesses that clashed with environmental or workplace regulators,
come under federal or state investigation, or waged battles over their tax bills with the Internal
Revenue Service, Ms. Mayer reports. The Kochs' vast political network, a major force in Republican
politics today, was "originally designed as a means of off-loading the costs of the Koch Industries
environmental and regulatory fights onto others" by persuading other rich business owners to
contribute to Koch-controlled political groups, Ms. Mayer writes, citing an associate of the
two brothers.
@10 "What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?"
Money.
You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap
into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign.
Without that largess you are not going to get elected, and people who have $billions are
the going to be the very same people who make up the Deep State.
So you either get with the program or you get.... nothing. Not a cent. Not a hope.
This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already
has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas.
Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr
Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive
to Trump's dogwhistle.
Which, basically, is this: why are you bothering with any of these chattering monkeys? Their
votes will end up belonging to people like me anyway, so you may as well just cut out the middle-man.
The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
, chapter 10
Eisenhower's innate midwestern sense of decency initially made him recoil from backing Britain's
colonial siege of Iran. He rebuffed the Dulles brothers' advice, suggesting that it might be
a better idea to stabilize Mossadegh's government with a $100 million loan than to topple it.
If Eisenhower had followed through on his original instincts, the bedeviled history of U.S.-Iran
relations would undoubtedly have taken a far different course.
Realizing that Eisenhower was not inclined to defend British imperial interests, the Dulles
brothers reframed their argument for intervention in Cold War terms. On March 4, 1953, Allen
appeared at a National Security Council meeting in the White House armed with seven pages of
alarming talking points. Iran was confronted with "a maturing revolutionary set-up," he warned,
and if the country fell into Communist hands, 60 percent of the free world's oil would be controlled
by Moscow. Oil and gasoline would have to be rationed at home, and U.S. military operations
would have to be curtailed.
In truth, the global crisis over Iran was not a Cold War conflict but a struggle "between
imperialism and nationalism, between First and Third Worlds, between North and South, between
developed industrial economies and underdeveloped countries dependent on exporting raw materials,"
in the words of Ervand Abrahamian.
The author pours it on thick with zero references but, overall ...
1.
The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street
financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry
and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state.
2. Ike came cheap. He felt it was his duty to help out if the people he looked up to thought
he was the right man at the right time.
3.
Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley
Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike.
The DS uses the same M.O. ... O tempora, o mores ... mutatis mutandis.
"... Nearly 20 percent of likely Democratic voters say theyd cross sides and vote for Trump, while
a small number, or 14 percent, of Republicans claim theyd vote for Clinton. When those groups were further
broken down, a far higher percentage of the crossover Democrats contend they are 100 percent sure of
switching than the Republicans. ..."
"... The idea that Trump can't beat Hillary in a fair election is coming from the camp of 2% JEB!.
Nobody actually believes it. It's just the latest in a flurry of 'stop Trump' gambits. Trump would cream
Hillary, Bernie and any of the 12 Republicans left and the American people know it. ..."
"... In America these days, it is unorthodox to tell the truth if you run for President. At least
Trump says what he thinks, even if he is uninformed, opinionated, and ignorant. Better any day than
the incorrigible liars we get who will slit your throat for the chance to be a stooge for the deep state.
..."
"... The problem with Hillary and the rest of her ilk is that they are used to trading blows with
dance of words, where the Donald just comes in with a fucking hammer and whacks every motherfucking
mole that comes pops up in his way. ..."
"... while we may be at our lowest point so far as a nation, at least Trump actually provides some
potential promise of a change in the status quo. Him and a VP like Rand Paul could actually do SOMETHING
positive for the United States, unlike every single other candidate who would just run it right into
the ground every single time they open their mouth or sign a bill (or veto it), kind of like our dear
Magik Negrow. ..."
"... Is Trump the end all be all? No. But he is probably the best shot we have had in a long time
for actually making some kind of change. While Ron Paul or Ross Perot had better policy, they never
stood a chance because the MSM shuts them out. ..."
"... I was not intending to hate on Trump (though I can't stand Hitlery) but rather was commenting
on the state of affiars these days. It's all theater anyway.....it's just the cost of our tickets is
astronomical. ..."
"... Christ on a crutch, people, she ordered a staffer to strip off the headers and send it to me
in reference to classified material being sent to an illegal server in somebody's basement? ..."
At this point, it's become abundantly clear that Donald Trump's brazen rhetoric and unorthodox
campaign strategy (which primarily involves simply saying whatever pops into his head with no filter
whatsoever) isn't a liability.
In fact, the bellicose billionaire's style and penchant for controversy has catapulted the real
estate mogul to the top of the polls leaving but one serious challenger (Ted Cruz) for the GOP nomination.
Recently, Trump has taken aim at Hillary Clinton, calling her "disgusting," a "liar", and insisting
that she's "married to an abuser." His first television ad opens with a black and white image Obama
and Clinton who are referred to only as "the politicians" (a nod to Trump's contention that he's
trustworthy precisely because he comes from outside the Beltway, so to speak).
... ... ...
According to a survey conducted by Washington-based Mercury Analytics, 20% of likely Democratic
voters say they'd cross sides and vote for Trump. Here's more
from US News & World Report :
So if Donald Trump proved the political universe wrong and won the Republican presidential
nomination, he would be creamed by Hillary Clinton, correct?
A new survey of likely voters might at least raise momentary dyspepsia for Democrats
since it suggests why it wouldn't be a cakewalk.
The survey by Washington-based Mercury Analytics is a combination online questionnaire and
"dial-test" of Trump's first big campaign ad among 916 self-proclaimed "likely voters" (
this video shows the ad and the
dial test results). It took place primarily Wednesday and Thursday and has a margin of error of
plus or minus 3.5 percent.
Nearly 20 percent of likely Democratic voters say they'd cross sides and vote for Trump,
while a small number, or 14 percent, of Republicans claim they'd vote for Clinton. When those
groups were further broken down, a far higher percentage of the crossover Democrats contend they
are "100 percent sure" of switching than the Republicans.
When the firmed showed respondents the Trump ad, and assessed their responses to each moment
of it, it found "the primary messages of Trump's ad resonated more than Democratic elites
would hope."
About 25 percent of Democrats "agree completely" that it raises some good point, with an
additional 19 percent agreeing at least "somewhat."
Mercury CEO Ron Howard, a Democrat whose firm works for candidates in both parties and corporate
clients, concedes, "We expected Trump's first campaign spot to strongly appeal to Republican Trump
supporters, with little impact – or in fact negative impact – on Democratic or independent voters."
He continues, "The challenge to Hillary, if Trump is the nominee and pivots to the
center in the general election as a problem-solving, independent-minded, successful 'get it done'
businessman is that Democrats will no longer be able to count on his personality and outrageous
sound bites to disqualify him in the voters' minds."
MalteseFalcon
The idea that Trump can't beat Hillary in a fair election is coming from the camp of 2%
JEB!. Nobody actually believes it. It's just the latest in a flurry of 'stop Trump' gambits. Trump
would cream Hillary, Bernie and any of the 12 Republicans left and the American people know it.
Of course Trump will not be the Republican nominee, because as the softer options fail, more
stringent measures will be applied.
Perimetr
In America these days, it is "unorthodox" to tell the truth if you run for President. At
least Trump says what he thinks, even if he is uninformed, opinionated, and ignorant. Better any
day than the incorrigible liars we get who will slit your throat for the chance to be a stooge
for the deep state.
Escrava Isaura
Perimetr: In America these days, it is "unorthodox" to tell the truth
Agree. It starts by the title of this article. There's only TWO polls that shows Trump ahead:
What I would give to watch the Donald 3=====>SCHLONG<=====3 Clinton in a public debate. I'm
pretty sure her head would explode from the overload of no-fucks-given, lack of PC your a fucking
criminal diatribe that would come out of his mouth.
The problem with Hillary and the rest of her ilk is that they are used to trading blows
with dance of words, where the Donald just comes in with a fucking hammer and whacks every motherfucking
mole that comes pops up in his way.
And to your point - while we may be at our lowest point so far as a nation, at least Trump
actually provides some potential promise of a change in the status quo. Him and a VP like Rand
Paul could actually do SOMETHING positive for the United States, unlike every single other candidate
who would just run it right into the ground every single time they open their mouth or sign a
bill (or veto it), kind of like our dear Magik Negrow.
Is Trump the end all be all? No. But he is probably the best shot we have had in a long
time for actually making some kind of change. While Ron Paul or Ross Perot had better policy,
they never stood a chance because the MSM shuts them out. You cannot just shut out Trump
though. He shuts you out!
Look at it the positive way. If Trump ends up turning his back on us like the rest, at least
our Titanic will sink with a fucking circus playing for entertainment until the very end!
Occams_Chainsaw -> Welfare Tycoon
I was not intending to hate on Trump (though I can't stand Hitlery) but rather was commenting
on the state of affiars these days. It's all theater anyway.....it's just the cost of our tickets
is astronomical.
Creepy Lurker
Welfare and Occam,
I can't even comprehend why Hillary is still walking free at this point, and everyone is debating
policy? Really?
Where is the public outrage? WTF? Even more, WHY isn't this plastered all over? WHY isn't this
on the lips and keyboards of everyone, everywhere? THAT'S a bigger scandal than the shit she actually
did! Christ on a crutch, people, she ordered a staffer to "strip off the headers and send
it to me" in reference to classified material being sent to an illegal server in somebody's basement?
Have we really fallen so far into banana republic world that no one is outraged? And this person
is running for President? Fucking really????
"... Clinton has "brilliantly" identified herself as the hawk that she has always been, which puts
her sharply at odds with most people in her own party and most Americans of all political affiliations.
..."
"... The old Clintonian triangulation was driven by an obsessive focus on public opinion and on
finding mostly minor issues that obtained support from a large majority. ..."
"... Clinton's foreign policy posturing politically tone-deaf and focused entirely on what will
please people in Washington and a few other capitals around the world. ..."
"... Clinton is a card carrying member of the War Party who left her gig at State after her and
DP's plan to amp up Libya was turned down by Obama (perhaps the only sensible thing the guy has done,
to be honest). Her record there is miserable, and the book on the topic came out early to insure no
one would talk about in come 2015. She's nothing if not calculating. ..."
"... Clinton running against any GOP-er in 2016 reminds me of the Obama/Romney debates on FP, where
both candidates were in general agreement and preferred to take their commentary back to domestic policies.
A GOP caring about winning would be wise to nominate a non-war party candidate, but in reality TPTB
(a/k/a the GOP funding machine, which includes Adel$on, Wall $t & the huge defense contractors) would
never allow that to happen, so I look forward to HRC & Chris Christie both agreeing on every major neo-con
talking point through most of 2015 & 2016 while talking about tax cuts and "securing the border" (LOL).
..."
"... "Now it's true that the vast majority doesn't vote on foreign policy, and most Americans normally
pay little or no attention to it" ..."
"... Which is largely accurate. The opponents of aggressive interventionism should circumvent that
truism by explicitly pointing out the opportunity cost of War Party aggression. I.e., itemize other
ways the money largely wasted on World Cop exercises could have been spent domestically instead. Make
a list of necessary bridges and highways that could have been constructed with the Trillions squandered
in Iraq/Afghanistan. Additional physicians trained. Increased targeted medical research. Offsets for
reductions in the regressive payroll tax. ..."
"... Emphasize zero-sum. All of those other value added opportunities didn't happen because the
Power Elites preferred to shovel the money into civil wars and nation building occurring 5,000 miles
from American shores. Rather than fix Detroit and Newark, they preferred to fix Baghdad and Kabul instead.
..."
"... Hillary Clinton was a cheerleader for idiotic US invasion of Iraq, and the ill-advised military
intervention in Libya. ..."
"... The the woman who abandoned her post at State, leaving the Middle East in flaming ruins, manages
to pull her face out of the speaking-fee hog-trough just long enough to offer helpful advice regarding
the catastrophe she was instrumental in creating. ..."
"... So the next election will be Hillary the hawk against some generic hawkish neocon. Scary times
ahead. ..."
"... Well, she's probably right in expecting the GOP nominee to be more Hawkish than she is. Republicans
are more profoundly divided on war issues than Democrats, and the Republican spectrum is broader than
that of the Democrats on this issue both toward and away from interventionism. It's an interesting question
whether an anti-interventionist like Rand Paul would win over more anti-interventionist Democrats and
independents than he would lose in neocons and ardent Zionists. ..."
Clinton has "brilliantly" identified herself as the hawk that she has always been, which puts
her sharply at odds with most people in her own party and most Americans of all political affiliations.
That's not triangulation at all. The old Clintonian triangulation was driven by an obsessive
focus on public opinion and on finding mostly minor issues that obtained support from a large majority.
The purpose of it was to co-opt popular issues and deprive the opposition of effective lines
of attack. The goal was not to poke the majority of Americans in the eye on major issues and tell
them that they're wrong.
Clinton's foreign policy posturing politically tone-deaf and focused entirely on what will
please people in Washington and a few other capitals around the world. It is evidence that Clinton
thinks she can get away with campaigning on a more activist foreign policy on the assumption that
no one is going to vote against her for that reason. She may be right about that, or she may end
up being surprised–again–to find that her horrible foreign policy record is still a serious political
liability.
... ... ...
Selected Skeptical Comments
Chris, August 11, 2014 at 11:30 am
Stout analysis. The irony is that foreign policy is where Presidents have the most ability
to influence policy, so perhaps Americans should care a bit more.
Clinton is a card carrying member of the War Party who left her gig at State after her
and DP's plan to amp up Libya was turned down by Obama (perhaps the only sensible thing the guy
has done, to be honest). Her record there is miserable, and the book on the topic came out early
to insure no one would talk about in come 2015. She's nothing if not calculating. Most reporters
like Lewis find this brilliant, but in reality it's quite predictable and mundane. In addition,
she's a terrible manager.
Clinton running against any GOP-er in 2016 reminds me of the Obama/Romney debates on FP,
where both candidates were in general agreement and preferred to take their commentary back to
domestic policies. A GOP caring about winning would be wise to nominate a non-war party candidate,
but in reality TPTB (a/k/a the GOP funding machine, which includes Adel$on, Wall $t & the huge
defense contractors) would never allow that to happen, so I look forward to HRC & Chris Christie
both agreeing on every major neo-con talking point through most of 2015 & 2016 while talking about
tax cuts and "securing the border" (LOL).
Richard W. Bray, August 11, 2014 at 12:06 pm
I think Hilary's strategy is to talk about anything but the Clinton record.
What administration first "renditioned' people to be tortured in countries like Syria?
Who deregulated the banks?
Who deregulated the media?
Who gave firms like Blackwater contracts to privatize what should be military operations?
Hilary needs to have an insurmountable lead before the debates begin. Inevitability is her
only strategy in large part because she is, in contrast to her husband, such a lousy politician
on the stump.
So now she's attacking Obama. This could backfire, of course, because in addition to revealing
her innate bellicosity, it makes her look very disloyal.
SteveM , August 11, 2014 at 12:45 pm
Re: "Now it's true that the vast majority doesn't vote on foreign policy, and most Americans
normally pay little or no attention to it"
Which is largely accurate. The opponents of aggressive interventionism should circumvent
that truism by explicitly pointing out the opportunity cost of War Party aggression. I.e., itemize
other ways the money largely wasted on World Cop exercises could have been spent domestically
instead. Make a list of necessary bridges and highways that could have been constructed with the
Trillions squandered in Iraq/Afghanistan. Additional physicians trained. Increased targeted medical
research. Offsets for reductions in the regressive payroll tax.
Emphasize zero-sum. All of those other value added opportunities didn't happen because
the Power Elites preferred to shovel the money into civil wars and nation building occurring 5,000
miles from American shores. Rather than fix Detroit and Newark, they preferred to fix Baghdad
and Kabul instead.
Money in and of itself has no intrinsic value. So Americans really don't pay attention when
it's squandered by Power Elites on foreign policy overreach. Create a story though that tells
how the same money could have been allocated to tangible alternatives to War Party shenanigans
and Americans will be much more likely to start playing close attention, asking the right questions
and hopefully, electing the right politicians to represent their interests when their tax dollars
are expended.
James Canning, August 11, 2014 at 1:24 pm
Bravo, Daniel. And Matt Lewis is dead wrong. Hillary Clinton was a cheerleader for idiotic
US invasion of Iraq, and the ill-advised military intervention in Libya.
Let Them Eat Enriched Uranium, August 11, 2014 at 2:09 pm
The the woman who abandoned her post at State, leaving the Middle East in flaming ruins,
manages to pull her face out of the speaking-fee hog-trough just long enough to offer helpful
advice regarding the catastrophe she was instrumental in creating.
What a gal.
spite, August 11, 2014 at 2:43 pm
So the next election will be Hillary the hawk against some generic hawkish neocon. Scary
times ahead.
Philo Vaihinger , August 12, 2014 at 11:41 am
Well, she's probably right in expecting the GOP nominee to be more Hawkish than she is.
Republicans are more profoundly divided on war issues than Democrats, and the Republican spectrum
is broader than that of the Democrats on this issue both toward and away from interventionism.
It's an interesting question whether an anti-interventionist like Rand Paul would win over more
anti-interventionist Democrats and independents than he would lose in neocons and ardent Zionists.
Can't disagree with this message from the Iranian Foreign Minister..
"Saudi Arabia can either continue supporting extremist terrorists and promoting
sectarian hatred, or it can opt for good neighborliness and play a constructive role
in promoting regional stability, however; Iran hopes that Saudi Arabia will be
persuaded to heed the call of reason,"
Zarif said that there are indications that some in Saudi Arabia are on a mission
to drag the entire region to conflict; fearing that removal of the smokescreen of the
manufactured Iranian nuclear threat would expose the real global threat posed by
extremists and their sponsors, according to IRNA.
The Iranian foreign minister recalled that those involved in extremist carnage and
most members of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIL and Al-Nusra Front being either Saudi
nationals, or otherwise brainwashed by petro-financed demagogues, who have promoted
an anti-Islamic message of hatred, exclusion and sectarianism across the globe for
decades.
"... A lot fuss over a state that has less than .2% of the nations population. ..."
"... Hitler reincarnated? Hitler hated Slavic peoples. Trump has married two Slavic women and has half-Slavic children. Hitler famously hated Jews. Trump has Jewish grandchildren. His daughter Ivanka married an observant Jewish man and they have several children. I could list much, much more, but you get my point. ..."
"... Before liberal Democrats flock to Hillary Clinton they should remember she stands firmly to Bernies right on Wall Street reform, healthcare, campaign finance reform, foreign interventionism, education policy and basically every issue of consequence. ..."
"... He has consistently shown the courage to go where he knows he is on hostile territory. ..."
"... Trump is bold, he is a brilliant campaigner. His recent Instragram ad featuring the Clintons was clever, vicious and funny all at the same time. This man is unafraid to get down and in the trenches and fight fire with fire. I like it. I like it a lot. ..."
"... Like East Germany? Obviously Mr. Jacobs never was in East Germany. I was there in 1964. First of all, there would not have been a contested election. Secondly, protesters would have lost more than their coats. ..."
"... But this is not journalism as the headline suggests. It is a well-crafted hit piece. ..."
"... I would like to see Obama, Hillary, Sanders, Cruz, Rubio, and Deer-in-the-headlights-Jeb! have the same kinds of rallies that Trump has. They would have an extremely difficult time. Actually, it would be kinda hilarious. ..."
"... And, compared to many other Trump gatherings, this one was very small, about 1400 people. I love like to see Hillary talk to, say, 10,000 people without any script.... and then take unscreened questions, as Trump so often does. ..."
"... This undoubtedly has more than a little to do with the states very small population: there are 25 cities in the US with populations greater than Vermonts 625,000. ..."
"... As the article suggested, Sanders policies are not universally shared - but Sanders is personally very well liked and trusted even by people would always vote generic Republican over generic Democrat. ..."
"... I wonder if the gentleman realizes the irony that Trump made his money the old fashioned way , he inherited it. ..."
A lot fuss over a state that has less than .2% of the nation's population.
On a lighter
note, why isn't the Guardian covering the campaign of Vermin Supreme. He's more realistic then
the two front runners.
Hitler reincarnated? Hitler hated Slavic peoples. Trump has married two Slavic women and has
half-Slavic children. Hitler famously hated Jews. Trump has Jewish grandchildren. His daughter
Ivanka married an observant Jewish man and they have several children. I could list much, much
more, but you get my point.
Bernie "I don't have a super PAC, I don't even have a backpack" Sanders, England's favorite "socialist,"
is just as big a gun nut as Donald Trump or any other Republican. He has a 100% rating from the
NRA.
The following is from Slate which is a more reliable source of information than the Guardian.
But before liberal Democrats flock to Sanders, they should remember that the Vermont senator stands
firmly to Clinton's right on one issue of overwhelming importance to the Democratic base: gun
control. During his time in Congress, Sanders opposed several moderate gun control bills. He also
supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory-one that may block Sandy Hook families
from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children.
Before liberal Democrats flock to Hillary Clinton they should remember she stands firmly to
Bernie's right on Wall Street reform, healthcare, campaign finance reform, foreign interventionism,
education policy and basically every issue of consequence.
Single issue voting is dumb, and Bernie's stance on gun control is not that of an NRA stooge,
anyway. Holding manufacturers responsible for gun violence is one of the stupidest ideas ever
to come from the simple minded American liberal, and I'm quite glad the man voted against it.
Trump's charisma (or whatever you want to call it!) attracts people who want to come out of the
shadows and support him while he flaunts their racist views and fears in public. Trump isn't conning
his supporters, his fans are happy they get to hear what they've been thinking all along. Thinking
that this crap is good for the country? The Republican peons are fooling themselves. Unfortunately
Democrats are fooling themselves, too, thinking members of their own party are not like Trump's
fans.
Donald Trump has balls as big as some planets.
He has consistently shown the courage to go
where he knows he is on hostile territory.
The magazines, Rolling Stone and Esquire, both
who did hit pieces on him. He will go on any talk show on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, where he is met with
furious indignation and disrespect. Towns like Burlington VT which is clearly Sanders territory.
Trump is bold, he is a brilliant campaigner. His recent Instragram ad featuring the Clintons
was clever, vicious and funny all at the same time. This man is unafraid to get down and in the
trenches and fight fire with fire. I like it. I like it a lot.
This article creates a false narrative that implies that there is a vast right-wing movement in
Vermont. It's, therefore, worth reiterating that Bernie won his last state-wide election with
71% of the vote.
Much as I like the Guardian, they always run click-bait articles like this. Anti-Americanism really
sells on this board, so they make sure to feature highly distorted articles that confirm their
readers' prejudices against Americans. It's almost a sport on here. Goes with the territory.
His rise is not the fringe right's fault. It's the left's fault. Let me say it again, it's the
left's fault. The Democrats should not have pursued and maintained the open border policy and
repetitive amnesty that we've been living with for decades. Without that issue, he'd have dropped
out by now. Instead, the Democrats thought they were buying all future elections with unrestricted
immigration - and no doubt they sure have bought a lot of votes. The consequence of that decision,
however, was to empower the far right platform as the broader platform that Americans of many
different backgrounds rally around. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the longer this
country waits to seriously deal with the issue of illegal immigration, the louder and more extreme
our leaders will become on the issue.
The Trumpaloosa performance opposite Bernie's headquarters in Burlington, VT is so telling.
The Donald and Hillary must be worried for them to go to Bernie's turf so dramatically.
Trump's main purpose is to knock out Bernie (who's for the 99%) for Hillary's sake as the two
COLLUDE toward keeping their billionaire (for the 1%) taxes minimal.
Let Bernie say it best:
"Donald Trump and I finally agree on something. He wants to run against me. I want to run
against him. It would be an extraordinary campaign and I am confident I would win.
The American people will not support a candidate trying to divide us up by where we came
from. They will not support a candidate who does not favor raising the minimum wage and who
thinks wages in the country are too high. They will not support a candidate who thinks climate
change is a hoax invented by the Chinese. They will not support a candidate who wants to give
huge tax breaks to billionaires like himself."
Bernie is already gathering the critical mass that will elect him over Hillary
as indicated
by this recent Quinnipiac University poll showing that Sanders outperformed Trump 51 percent to
38 percent:
"I work for myself, not other people" this quote succinctly expresses the culture of the extremists
of the right wing. Isolated, no sense of connection to others, certainly not those less fortunate
than themselves. Not inclined to make any contribution to the society they live in. This also
illustrates the effectiveness of the brainwashing perpetrated by those who benefit from people
who adhere to this almost paranoid mindset.
AND - Trump's worth is almost exactly the same as the point at which he inherited it - adjusted
for actual today's value -- In other words he has done a lot of 'deals' but accomplished nothing
very much - that point must make him so mad --
I am betting he retires every night after having a good shower to rid himself of the stink
from the 'low life' he has been hanging around with all day - that's what I think he really thinks
of all these people who love him --
" Trump is a little bit more high class" - this person has no concept of what high-class is -
Trump is totally classless - his language skills are minimal, he talks rather like Sarah Palin,
he is tacky & thinks his million-cost-gold-encrusted apartment is 'class' ? - hah --
Like East Germany? Obviously Mr. Jacobs never was in East Germany. I was there in 1964. First
of all, there would not have been a contested election. Secondly, protesters would have lost more
than their coats.
I probably am as scornful of Mr. Trump as is Mr. Jacobs.
But this is
not journalism as the headline suggests. It is a well-crafted hit piece.
This Trump rally took place at the same time Obama was having his very carefully staged and controlled
so-called "town hall".
I would like to see Obama, Hillary, Sanders, Cruz, Rubio, and Deer-in-the-headlights-Jeb!
have the same kinds of rallies that Trump has. They would have an extremely difficult time. Actually,
it would be kinda hilarious.
And, compared to many other Trump gatherings, this one was very small, about 1400 people.
I love like to see Hillary talk to, say, 10,000 people without any script.... and then take unscreened
questions, as Trump so often does.
Vermont is a bad place to hold a rally for divisiveness. It still bipartisan in an old-fashioned
way: rather than being split down the middle, people tend to pick who they vote for candidate
by candidate. I don't know many people who vote a straight ticket. A lot of people who voted for
the current Democratic governor, who is retiring, will vote for the Republican lieutenant governor
as his successor because he's generally thought to have done a good job.
This undoubtedly has more than a little to do with the state's very small population: there
are 25 cities in the US with populations greater than Vermont's 625,000.
If you're not housebound
sooner or later you'll meet the governor and both US senators.
As the article suggested, Sanders'
policies are not universally shared - but Sanders is personally very well liked and trusted even
by people would always vote generic Republican over generic Democrat.
Unlike Sanders, Trump knew "nothing was free, someone's got to pay for it."
I wonder if the gentleman realizes the irony that Trump made his money the "old fashioned
way", he inherited it.
The textbook example of getting money for nothing. Never mind the
fact that he has filed multiple business bankruptcies, where he ended up getting goods and services
"for nothing" by screwing his creditors...
This is one of the few article where you can get real staff about positions, not personality related
gossip like BusinessWeek and other rags feed to lemmings.
A cornerstone of Sanders's campaign is to fight the increasing
wealth
inequality in the United States:
What we have seen is that while the
average person is working
longer hours for lower wages, we have seen a huge increase in income and wealth inequality, which
is now reaching obscene levels. This is a rigged
economy
, which works for the rich and the powerful, and is
not working
for ordinary Americans … You know, this country just does not belong to a handful of
billionaires .
In July 2015 Sanders introduced legislation that would incrementally increase the federal
minimum wage to $15 an hour
by the year 2020.
[10]
Taxes
Sanders supports repeal of some of the tax deductions that benefit hedge funds and corporations,
and would raise taxes on capital gains and the wealthiest one percent of Americans. He would use
some of the added revenues to lower the taxes of the middle and lower classes.[11][12] Sanders has
suggested that he would be open to a 90% top marginal tax rate (a rate that last existed during the
years after World War II) for the wealthiest earners,[13] and has proposed a top marginal rate of
65% for the federal estate tax, up from the current 40% rate.[14]
Wall Street reform
On May 6, 2015, Sanders introduced legislation to break up "too big to fail" financial institutions.
With three of the four banks that were bailed out during the 2007–08 Global Financial Crisis now
larger than they were then, Sanders believes that "no single financial institution should have holdings
so extensive that its failure would send the world economy into crisis. If an institution is too
big to fail, it is too big to exist."[15][16] As a representative from Vermont, Sanders opposed the
Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, signed into law in 1999 by then president Bill Clinton, which repealed the
provision of the Glass–Steagall Act that prevents any financial institution from acting as both a
securities firm and a commercial bank. Sanders supports legislation sponsored by Senators Elizabeth
Warren (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) to re-instate Glass–Steagall.[17]
Trade
Sanders is opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which he has called "a continuation
of other disastrous trade agreements, like NAFTA, CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations with
China." He has said he believes Americans need to rebuild their own manufacturing base by using American
factories and supporting decent-paying jobs for American labor rather than outsourcing to China and
other countries.[18][19]
Jobs
Saying "America once led the world in building and maintaining a nationwide network of safe and
reliable bridges and roads. Today, nearly a quarter of the nation's 600,000 bridges have been designated
as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete...Almost one-third of America's major roads are
in poor or mediocre condition...," Sanders has introduced amendments to Senate bills (S.Amendt.323)
that promote the creation of millions of middle-class jobs by investing in infrastructure, paid for
by closing loopholes in the corporate and international tax system.[20][21] He also supports legislation
that would make it easier for workers to join or form a union.[22] Sanders' campaign website also
has focused on the concerns of both the long-term unemployed and the underemployed, citing that "the
real unemployment rate is much higher than the "official" figure typically reported in the newspapers.
When you include workers who have given up looking for jobs, or those who are working part-time when
they want to work full-time, the real number is much higher than official figures would suggest."[23]
Employee ownership
Sanders supports the establishment of worker-owned cooperatives and introduced legislation in
June 2014 that would aid workers who wanted to "form their own businesses or to set up worker-owned
cooperatives."[22][24][25] As early as 1976, Sanders was a proponent of workplace democracy, saying,
"I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned
and controlled by the workers themselves."[26]
Offshore tax havens
Noting that American corporations are collectively holding more than $1 trillion in profits in
offshore tax haven countries, Sanders has introduced legislation that would crack down on offshore
tax havens by requiring companies to pay the top U.S. corporate tax rate on profits held abroad.[27]
On his website Sanders offers examples of large American companies that paid no federal taxes and
even received tax refunds, with many of them receiving large amounts in financial assistance during
the recent financial crisis and continuing to receive billions in subsidies.[28] Sanders feels this
is unfair and damages America's economy, believing the money used for refunds and subsidies should
instead be invested in American small businesses and the working people.[29]
"... "We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late." ..."
"... ''death pursues the native in everyplace where the european(american) sets foot' ..."
"... You can also thank Russia for the condition of Libya. Russia voted for the no fly zone in Libya and consented to having Libya destroyed. ..."
"... What part of no-fly zone don't you understand? Full attack was not subject of vote. you know better, but choose dishonesty ..."
"... I mean shit the Bush family tried to over throw the US government back in the late 1930's, they were actual fascist. Rubio is a clone of Jeb (both have the same donors). Christie said he would start shooting down Russian planes (that would start nuclear war). Hillary has destroyed Libya and Syria by supporting terrorist. Not a word about that in today's corrupt press. But no, no, no Trump is the next Hitler. ..."
"... Do you really think the US ISrael and the rest of the empire is really that stupid and incompetent. At first I thought so too. Now I'm beginning to see that creating the chaos is exactly what they want, and they return not to clean up the mess, but to seize control of the important resources. ..."
"... ISIS is clearly the proxy army here doing the hands on cannon fodder work, once the coast is clear, "crack" forces can go in secure and guard the infrastructure, so the valuable commodities can be pilfered safely. ..."
"... In LARGE part. The unconstitutional attack on Libya has long been known as "Hillary's War". (Of course, Syria is her second war, and she has her hands bloody with Ukraine as well). ..."
"... Just look at her resume - ISIS in Libya, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. If her goal was to spread ISIS, then she's the balls. If not, she's less than balls. As I say that, maybe the goal really was to spread ISIS, and she's the balls. Balls, Hill, you're the balls. ..."
"We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction
to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry
to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late."
That's from Libya's National Oil Corp and as you might have guessed, it references the
seizure of state oil assets by Islamic State, whose influence in the country has grown over the past
year amid the power vacuum the West created by engineering the demise of Moammar Qaddafi.
The latest attacks occurred in Es Sider, a large oil port that's been closed for at least a year.
Seven guards were killed on Monday in suicide bombings while two more lost their lives on Tuesday
as ISIS attacked checkpoints some 20 miles from the port. "Es Sider and Ras Lanuf, Libya's biggest
oil ports, have been closed since December 2014,"
Reuters notes . "They are located between the city of Sirte, which is controlled by Islamic State,
and the eastern city of Benghazi."
ISIS also set fire to oil tanks holding hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude. "Four tanks
in Es Sider caught fire on Tuesday, and a fifth one in
Ras Lanuf the day before," Ali al-Hassi, a spokesman for the the Petroleum Facilities Guard
told Bloomberg over the phone.
Ludovico Carlino, senior analyst at IHS Country Risk says the attacks are "likely diversionary
operations" during Islamic State's takeover of the town of Bin Jawad, a seizure that may enable the
group to expand and connect "its controlled territory around Sirte to the 'oil crescent.'"
Islamic State is pushing east from Sirte in an effort to seize control of the country's oil infrastructure,
much as the group has done in Syria and Iraq. As
Middle East Eye wrote last summer, "the desert region to the south of the oil ports has been
strategically cleared in a series of attacks by IS militants on security personnel and oil fields,
where employees have been killed and kidnapped, and vehicles and equipment seized."
"I expect they will try and take Sidra and Ras Lanuf and the oil fields on the west side of the
oil crescent," one oil worker said. "There are few people left to protect the oil fields apart from
local security from isolated towns."
This is good a place as any for a tale of Yale's very own John Kerry. Want to know the true
measure of Kerry - Google his Cookie franchise at Faneuil Hall (David's Cookies is the guy he
ripped off) before he married ketchup money. Further, way back when, an Aunt of mine had a Summer
job at the airport cafe that serves Martha's Vinyard - also before Kerry got Heinz' dough.
The fuk Congressman Kerry would be there sucking up to MA money. On the return flight he would
hit the cafe - without fail he would have an order that came out to about a nickel short of an
even dollar amount - say $3.95. The fuk would always throw $4 on the table when she was out of
sight and slink off. Not like he couldn't afford it - the guy was a Congressman. What a cheap
slime ball
fleur de lis
Someone once said, money doesn't make you a better or worse person. It only magnifies the personality
you already have.
John Kerry has no class an never did. He went to big schools but so what. Has anyone seen his
transcript? Does he strike anyone as smart? He just got hooked into the connected circles.
Soros is a billionaire. Does he strike anyone as refined or classy? Of course not. He was grimy
riff raff all his life and today he's just riff raff with too much money and using it to drag
entire societies down to his gutter level. He's what they called years ago, a beggar on horseback.
They're all the same. Nuland/Nudelman/Neudelmann or whatever her name is brings wreck and ruin
to everything she touches. For all her money she doesn't even look groomed and sometimes she looks
dirty.
No amount of money can ever polish them up. You can take them out of the slums but generations
later you can't take the slums out of them. They use money and power to drag us all down to their
mental levels. They were born philistines and they will die philistines.
''death pursues the native in everyplace where the european(american) sets foot'
'....
Blankone
You can also thank Russia for the condition of Libya. Russia voted for the no fly zone
in Libya and consented to having Libya destroyed.
It should be no surprise that now the ISIS army or the US/Israel wants to take control or the
resources.
Correct me if I'm wrong, did Russia vote FOR the no fly zone or just abstain and thus give
consent for the destruction.
Volkodav
What part of no-fly zone don't you understand? Full attack was not subject of vote. you
know better, but choose dishonesty
froze25
Adolf was a person with no business experience, a socialist, a bad artist, but the man had
charisma. Trump has charisma but that is where the similarities stop. Not letting in Muslim Refugees
with out proper vetting is reasonable, being politically correct is self enforced mind control
bullshit, the boarder with Mexico needs to be controlled and immigration law needs to be enforced
is also reasonable. The "he" is the next Hitler line needs to stop, I mean shit the Bush family
tried to over throw the US government back in the late 1930's, they were actual fascist. Rubio
is a clone of Jeb (both have the same donors). Christie said he would start shooting down Russian
planes (that would start nuclear war). Hillary has destroyed Libya and Syria by supporting terrorist.
Not a word about that in today's corrupt press. But no, no, no Trump is the next Hitler.
kita27
Do you really think the US ISrael and the rest of the empire is really that stupid and
incompetent. At first I thought so too. Now I'm beginning to see that creating the chaos is exactly
what they want, and they return not to clean up the mess, but to seize control of the important
resources.
ISIS is clearly the proxy army here doing the hands on cannon fodder work, once the coast
is clear, "crack" forces can go in secure and guard the infrastructure, so the valuable commodities
can be pilfered safely.
Bastiat
And central banking -- remember when in the very early days of the "revolution," the mercenaries
formed a central bank? Who ever heard of such a thing? I don't supposed that central bank immediately
removed all of Libya's gold? Naaaaahh.
Hohum
Who is responsible for this? (Hillary Clinton, in part)
Sanity Bear
In LARGE part. The unconstitutional attack on Libya has long been known as "Hillary's War".
(Of course, Syria is her second war, and she has her hands bloody with Ukraine as well).
Jack Burton
First comes NATO bombers. Then Comes ISIS. Where? Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya. The West runs
ISIS's Air Force for them, opening the invasion routes by destroying local resistance or army
forces. Russia stepped in and cut short the NATO/ISIS alliance in Syria.
Jack Burton
Hillary Clinton's Greatest success? Clearing the way for ISIS to invade and conquer Libya,
and using Libya arms to arm the ISIS in Syria. Where today, Bulgaria has stated an emergency air
lift of Soviet era weapons to ISIS in Turkey and Syria. These Soviet weapons may be old, but function
in perfect order, just as they were designed to. Especially the Anti Tan Guided Missiles. Bulgaria
is launching an emergency airlift of 7,000 ATGM to ISIS, at the request of NATO.
falak pema
well played Pax Americana : you promised them Disneyland after Q-Daffy's demise.
And they get : ISIS --
Wow, just wow -- From Charybdis to Scylla! The Pax Americana way.
trader1
we came, we saw, ...
TeaClipper
So that is what Obama meant when he commended the Libyans on their three years of independence
She was secretary of state, which makes her ever so qualified to be commander in chief.
Just look at her resume - ISIS in Libya, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. If her goal was to spread
ISIS, then she's the balls. If not, she's less than balls. As I say that, maybe the goal really
was to spread ISIS, and she's the balls. Balls, Hill, you're the balls.
RevIdahoSpud3
I don't see the problem here. It was none other than a former Secretary of State who recited,
"We came, we saw, he DIED"! (cackle, cackle, cankles cackeling)That was the solution then and
now, as has been shown over and over ISIS, IS, ISIL...ISOUR (US) asset! We trained, we funded,
we unleashed! Our very own CIA has the plug and if they don't pull it all must be well? The new
complication will be getting the oil to Turkey which would no doubt ship in Burak Erdogan's tankers.
After refining in Turkey move it to Israel and blend with world supplies. Everyone gets rich!
Erdogan's get rich, ISIS gets funded, Clinton Foundations get funded, Israel get rich, and special
interests in the US, London, France, Germany, Switzerland...they all get rich as well. Stolen
oil has higher octane!
Duc888
Good thing Hillary "fixed" Libya
"We came, we saw , we killed" Yup, just the kinds of ASSHOLE we need for President.
jldpc
What a joke. If the US wanted to stop ISIS making money on selling oil which goes by tanker
or pipeline, all they have to do is threaten destruction of same, and the insurers will shut it
down overnight. No oil money = no more ISIS on the warpath. Simple. And best of all no American
soldier's lives lost. Can you say CinC is a stupid shit? Or how about the oil brokers and end
buyers? Even I could threaten their asses with serious shit and get them to stop. So could any
of you. Guess what the USA is not serious about stopping them. Gee who could have figured that
out on their own?
BarkingCat
Lets see if I understand the plan.
Step 1) Secretly ferment dissent against the local government.
Step 2) Push the dissent into armed rebellion.
Step 3) Use governments reaction to get involve own military to protect civilians.
Step 4) Protection of civilians as cover, the military attacks government's armed forces tipping
the scales of conflict in favor of the rebellion.
Step 5) Watch the rebells kill the leaders of the nation and take control.
Step 6) Watch the nation fall into complete turmoil and become home to groups of terrorists
and other barbarians.
When steps above are completed and enough time has passed:
Step 7) Use own military to bring peace to a troubled nation. Also take over anything that
has value ....oil production for example.
Should Hillary cut the chase and just hire Karl Rove ? She a a neocon like him, so it will be a
good match.
Notable quotes:
"... Mr. Sanders fundraising has surpassed expectations. Lacking the donor network the Clinton
family built over a quarter century on the national stage, Mr. Sanders has nearly matched her fundraising
haul. ..."
"... Oh, Hillary! Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were large investment banks. They werent the
largest, but they definitely were banks. And giant investment bank Goldman Sachs was connected at the
hip to AIG. I cant help noticing that she failed to mention Washington Mutual or Countrywide Finance,
two large banks / savings and loan associations, which were also neck deep in the collapse. ..."
"... Sociopaths always have a slick rationalization at hand, to recast their venal predation as
self-sacrificing philanthropy. ..."
Clinton, in Iowa: ""You know, I think Bernie's giving a speech today in New York about what
he wants to do to shut down the big banks. Everybody who's looked at my proposals says my proposals
are tougher, more effective, more comprehensive. Because, yeah, I take on the banks, but remember,
part of what caused the mess we had in '07-'08 were not the big banks. It was Lehman Brothers.
It was Bear Stearns. It was AIG, the giant insurance company. I want to go after everybody who
poses a risk to our financial system," Clinton said to applause from the more than 500 people
crowded into the lobby of Sioux City's historic Orpheum Theater" [
Des Moines Register ]. Chutzpah! And very Rovian: Assault your enemy's strength.
Clinton: "There needs to be a rival organization to the NRA of responsible gun owners" [
Raw Story ].
The Voters
"POLITICO has learned that his campaign several months ago assembled an experienced data team
to build sophisticated models to transform fervor into votes" [
Politico ]. "The team is led by two low-profile former Republican National Committee data
strategists, Matt Braynard and Witold Chrabaszcz, and includes assistance from the political data
outfit L2."
Money
"Mr. Sanders's fundraising has surpassed expectations. Lacking the donor network the Clinton
family built over a quarter century on the national stage, Mr. Sanders has nearly matched her
fundraising haul. In the final quarter of 2015, he raised more than $33 million, compared
to her $37 million. In the third quarter, the Sanders campaign collected $26 million; the Clinton
campaign, $28 million" [
Wall Street Journal ]. Without PAC and SuperPAC money, or the
"ginormous and ever-evolving hairball of tangled and conflicted personal and institutional relationships"
that you get with the corrupt Clinton dynasty, either.
Selected Skeptical Comments
Vatch , January 6, 2016 at 2:23 pm
Clinton, in Iowa: "… but remember, part of what caused the mess we had in '07-'08 were
not the big banks. It was Lehman Brothers. It was Bear Stearns. It was AIG, the giant insurance
company."
Oh, Hillary! Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were large investment banks. They weren't
the largest, but they definitely were banks. And giant investment bank Goldman Sachs was connected
at the hip to AIG. I can't help noticing that she failed to mention Washington Mutual or Countrywide
Finance, two large banks / savings and loan associations, which were also neck deep in the collapse.
Jim Haygood , January 6, 2016 at 2:41 pm
Hillary focuses on the investment banks because her consort, "Bill," signed the repeal of the
Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.
Letting commercial banks into investment banking helped fuel the housing securitization bubble
that culminated in the 2008 crisis, as well as the perceived need to extend TARP loans to every
TBTF bank (since their investment banking activities made them riskier and increased their capital
needs during financial stress).
Sociopaths always have a slick rationalization at hand, to recast their venal predation
as self-sacrificing philanthropy.
Synoia , January 6, 2016 at 4:16 pm
Clinton: "There needs to be a rival organization to the NRA of responsible gun owners"
"... So self-identifying as a Republican now means associating yourself with a party that has moved sharply to the right since 1995. If you like, being a Republican used to mean supporting a party that nominated George H.W. Bush, but now it means supporting a party where a majority of primary voters **** support Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Being a Democrat used to mean supporting a party that nominated Bill Clinton; it now means supporting a party likely to nominate, um, Hillary Clinton. And views of conservatism/liberalism have probably moved with that change in the parties. ..."
"... Yes the differences between candidates may not be nearly as great as you want it to be - but the idea that it makes no difference whether the GOP or Democratic candidate gets to be president is idiotic. Anybody who can be bothered looking through executive actions during Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama years will recognize a huge difference. ..."
"... The world of the NY Times, Wapo, the Atlantic, the New Republic, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, National Review - its all one intellectually gated community where the affluent talk among themselves at the club house about their slightly different approaches to maintaining order are protecting elite privileges and power. ..."
"... I didnt say they were either stupid or corrupt. They are intelligent people whose political orientation reflects the general predilections and interests of their class. Thats really not much different than most people in America. But the class divides are intensifying, which is why the discourse of that establishment group is of increasingly diminished relevance to what the other 80% of the country is talking about. ..."
"... The difference between Sanders and Clinton when it comes to income inequality, TBTF, and financial regulation is stark. These economic issues are studiously avoided by DeLong and Krugman because they are, and always have been, loyal insiders to the establishment. ..."
"... I took it that what Julio was mainly referring to was that the establishment discourse has moved so far to the right that someone like Krugman now represents the far left of what that establishment will tolerate. ..."
"... I think Krugman the columnist started as someone above the fray , engaged in an academic exercise; and has since learned he must support his allies, even if he has intellectual disagreements with them. ..."
"... However there is one key difference: Sanders has been able to energize the Democratic base in a way that Clinton the policy wonk simply cant. ..."
"... The studied failure of the fierce critic of the Washington Post and New York Times from the economics department of the University of California at Berkeley to so much as regret the firing of the only writer on labor affairs at either paper tells of just how little regard there is for the affairs of ordinary workers. ..."
"... Even Brookings is getting worried about whats going on with the growing cultural isolation of the relatively affluent: ..."
"... I had a very similar experience with the people I met at my Ivy League university. A depressing percentage of the student body consisted of spoiled trust fund babies, many of whom were apparently ignored or otherwise mistreated by their parents and exhibited a shocking array of psychological and substance abuse problems. ..."
"... But these people were of a distinctly different class than the many nominally upper-middle class people I encounter in daily life. Even now, high as my household income is, I would immediately be detected as a mere prole by them, a lower class person. ..."
"... Fitzgerald was absolutely right -- the truly well off are indeed different from you and me. Even if you dont realize it, rest assured that they do. ..."
"... The concept of class is also just a model, and not rigidly tied to economic markers. People in comparable occupational settings or type of economic participation can have very different incomes and ability to afford certain lifestyles. ..."
"... E.g. regardless of your pay level, if your occupational situation is such that you have to essentially show up for work every day and follow somebody elses directives (to make a relatively low-risk income), then it would be a stretch to consider you upper middle class. ..."
"... From what Ive observed, following the 2008 crash a lot of upper-middle class people suddenly realized that the differences between themselves and those living in poverty are actually much smaller than the differences between themselves and the truly wealthy. ..."
You might think that this is obvious. But on the left, in particular, there are some people
who, disappointed by the limits of what President Obama has accomplished, minimize the differences
between the parties. Whoever the next president is, they assert - or at least ... if it's not
Bernie Sanders - things will remain pretty much the same, with the wealthy continuing to dominate
the scene. ...
But the truth is that Mr. Obama's election ... had some real, quantifiable consequences. ...
If Mitt Romney had won, we can be sure that Republicans would have found a way to prevent these
tax hikes. ...
Mr. Obama has effectively rolled back not just the Bush tax cuts but Ronald Reagan's as well...,
about $70 billion a year in revenue. This happens to be in the same ballpark as both
food stamps
and ... this year's net
outlays
on Obamacare. So we're not talking about something trivial.
Speaking of Obamacare, that's another thing Republicans would surely have killed if 2012 had
gone the other way. ... And the effect on health care has been huge...
Now, to be fair, some
widely predicted
consequences of Mr. Obama's re-election - predicted by his opponents - didn't
happen. Gasoline prices didn't soar. Stocks didn't plunge. The economy didn't collapse..., and
the unemployment rate is a full point lower than the rate Mr. Romney promised to achieve by the
end of 2016.
In other words, the 2012 election didn't just allow progressives to achieve some important
goals. It also gave them an opportunity to show that achieving these goals is feasible. No, asking
the rich to pay somewhat more in taxes while helping the less fortunate won't destroy the economy.
So now we're heading for another presidential election. And once again the stakes are high.
Whoever the Republicans nominate will be committed to destroying Obamacare and slashing taxes
on the wealthy - in fact, the current G.O.P. tax-cut plans make the Bush cuts look puny. Whoever
the Democrats nominate will, first and foremost, be committed to defending the achievements of
the past seven years.
The bottom line is that presidential elections matter, a lot, even if the people on the ballot
aren't as fiery as you might like. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Via Noah Smith, * an interesting back-and-forth about the political leanings of professors.
Conservatives are outraged ** at what they see as a sharp leftward movement in the academy:
[Graph]
But what's really happening here? Did professors move left, or did the meaning of conservatism
in America change in a way that drove scholars away? You can guess what I think. But here's some
evidence. First, using the DW-nominate measure *** - which uses roll-call votes over time to identify
a left-right spectrum, and doesn't impose any constraint of symmetry between the parties - what
we've seen over the past generation is a sharp rightward (up in the figure) move by Republicans,
with no comparable move by Democrats, especially in the North:
[Graph]
So self-identifying as a Republican now means associating yourself with a party that has
moved sharply to the right since 1995. If you like, being a Republican used to mean supporting
a party that nominated George H.W. Bush, but now it means supporting a party where a majority
of primary voters **** support Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Being a Democrat used to mean supporting
a party that nominated Bill Clinton; it now means supporting a party likely to nominate, um, Hillary
Clinton. And views of conservatism/liberalism have probably moved with that change in the parties.
Furthermore, if your image is one of colleges being taken over by Marxist literary theorists,
you should know that the political leanings of hard scientists are if anything more pronounced
than those of academics in general. From Pew: *****
[Chart]
Why is this? Well, climate denial and hostility to the theory of evolution are pretty good
starting points.
Overall, the evidence looks a lot more consistent with a story that has academics rejecting
a conservative party that has moved sharply right than it does with a story in which academics
have moved left.
Now, you might argue that academics should reflect the political spectrum in the nation - that
we need affirmative action for conservative professors, even in science. But do you really want
to go there?
Wild conservatives have been attacking supposed liberals at universities since the time of Joseph
McCarthy. The attacks have changed in nuance now and again but been persistent since the close
of the 1940s. Whether the attacks extend back before the late 1940s is a matter I have to look
into.
DeDude :
Yes the differences between candidates may not be nearly as great as you want it to be - but
the idea that it "makes no difference" whether the GOP or Democratic candidate gets to be president
is idiotic. Anybody who can be bothered looking through executive actions during Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama
years will recognize a huge difference.
Dan Kervick :
Elections matter. Nominations matter too. But the only nomination battle Paul Krugman is apparently
interested in is the Republican one, which he trolls constantly to amuse himself. This despite
the fact that there are very major policy difference, both foreign and domestic, present on the
Democratic side - along with major differences in political alliances, monetary support bases
and key constituencies.
Paul Krugman is a middle of the road, mainstream fellow who manages to line up on the "left"
according to the austerely conservative economic standards of the establishment media. If Krugman
were chief economic adviser - or even president - nothing very important in America would change
economically. So when he tries to tell "progressives" about what would advance "their goals",
his words are a good candidate for in one ear, out the other treatment.
Harold Meyerson, the Democratic Socialist op-ed columnist for Wapo, was just canned by Fred
Hiatt. Apart from removing another left wing economic voice from the establishment public sphere,
this helps clear the decks for a 2017 Middle East war after Clinton gets control of the war room
from Obama. Not a word on that firing from sometime scourge of the Washington Post, Brad DeLong
- who I guess is pretty cool with it.
The world of the NY Times, Wapo, the Atlantic, the New Republic, LA Times, Chicago Tribune,
Wall Street Journal, National Review - it's all one intellectually gated community where the affluent
talk among themselves at the club house about their slightly different approaches to maintaining
order are protecting elite privileges and power.
Dan Kervick -> EMichael...
I didn't say they were either stupid or corrupt. They are intelligent people whose political
orientation reflects the general predilections and interests of their class. That's really not
much different than most people in America. But the class divides are intensifying, which is why
the discourse of that establishment group is of increasingly diminished relevance to what the
other 80% of the country is talking about.
Dan Kervick -> EMichael...
That's what the elite is always going to do. People who are interested in significant social change
should never count on elitists coming down out of the clouds to save them.
anne -> Dan Kervick...
Harold Meyerson, the Democratic Socialist op-ed columnist for Wapo, was just canned by Fred Hiatt....
Not a word on that firing from sometime scourge of the Washington Post, Brad DeLong - who I guess
is pretty cool with it....
[ Telling and saddening, but this should not be a surprising silence by an academic who periodically
wildly smashes liberals. ]
"Paul Krugman is a middle of the road, mainstream fellow..."
I am old enough to remember a time when he would have been one. But not now.
"So when he tries to tell "progressives" about what would advance "their goals", his words
are a good candidate for in one ear, out the other treatment."
No: they are a candidate for a place to start a conversation with liberals, to expand their
views of what's possible.
Krugman is not interested in such discussions. As has been pointed out several times, he and DeLong
have studiously avoided any engagement with the issues that are being hotly contested in the Democratic
Party's primary campaign. They are bright and well-informed fellows, so this is no ignorant oversight
and is certainly a deliberate, tactical political choice.
EMichael -> Dan Kervick...
Why in the world do you care why two economists who you disrespect on many levels have not discussed
the Dem candidates?
yuan -> EMichael...
Funny how you skipped over the word "issues" and moved the goal post to "dem candidates".
The difference between Sanders and Clinton when it comes to income inequality, TBTF, and
financial regulation is stark. These economic issues are studiously avoided by DeLong and Krugman
because they are, and always have been, loyal insiders to the establishment.
"The difference between Sanders and Clinton when it comes to income inequality, TBTF, and
financial regulation is stark."
Sanders shouts about income inequality but like Hillary has no real plan to impact it except
at the margins.
On financial regulation also, Sanders makes the louder noises and trots out Glass Steagall
often, but Hillary, not Bernie, is the one who actually has a coherent and plausible plan for
limiting systemic financial risk. Bernie fans seem fundamentally incapable of unwilling to process
this fact, to the detriment of everyone.
Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
I take exception to your (mis)use of Krugman to support your narrative. As Julio notes above (I
think), Krugman's early writings were notably more middle of the road; he started off as a committed
centrist, taking on left and right equally whenever he felt one side or the other was peddling
nonsense. Over time I've seen his writing become more political and more consistently liberal,
even as his paycheck has presumably increased.
As an example, back in the '90s Krugman was slamming Robert Reich as a nonsense-peddling "policy
entrepreneur", but by 2015 he was writing a glowing review of Reich's book, "Saving Capitalism".
Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
I took it that what Julio was mainly referring to was that the establishment discourse has
moved so far to the right that someone like Krugman now represents the far left of what that establishment
will tolerate.
I would not call his review "glowing", but I agree with your example.
I think Krugman the
columnist started as someone "above the fray", engaged in an academic exercise; and has since
learned he must support his allies, even if he has intellectual disagreements with them.
So? If I am correct in stating that he represents a lot of the liberal spectrum, then those
are the people we need to move "left" or, as I prefer to put it, enlarge their view of what's
possible.
Sanders IMO is doing a good job of this. He is being loudly ignored by Krugman, which makes
your point; and also by a lot of liberals who think he cannot win because, um, he's unelectable
-- which makes mine.
It doesn't seem like we disagree much on the background facts. But if someone is engaging in a
deliberate strategy of ignoring the left, there doesn't seem to be much point in pretending they
are having a discussion with the left.
One way to try to move more people to the left is to encourage them to stop lending so much
credence to establishment opinions. Krugman's ego is big enough that if he detects his relevance
and popularity slipping away, he will move along with the zeitgeist to go where the people are.
Bernie Sanders Hints At What A Sanders Administration Cabinet Could Look Like
Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) offered a first glimpse
on Sunday of some of the people he might consider for his cabinet in a potential Sanders administration,
and a few that he certainly won't.
"My cabinet would not be dominated by representatives of Wall Street," Sanders said on CNN's
"State of the Union." "I think Wall Street's played a horrendous role in recent years, in negatively
impacting our economy and in making the rich richer. There are a lot of great public servants
out there, great economists who for years have been standing up for the middle class and the working
families of this country."
Prompted by host Jake Tapper, Sanders went on to praise Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist
and Nobel Prize-winning economist. Krugman is a vocal opponent of tax cuts for the rich, and he
has warned readers for years about the dangers of income inequality. "Krugman does a great job,"
Sanders said.
Also doing a great job, Sanders said, is Columbia University economics professor and Nobel
laureate Joseph Stiglitz, whose recent work has focused on the perils of radical free markets,
such as those espoused by some in the libertarian wing of the GOP.
Sanders also singled out Robert Reich, the former labor secretary under President Bill Clinton,
now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley: "I think [he] is doing a fantastic
job." Reich has long been an influential backer of labor unions, which have come under attack
from Republican governors in recent years.
Still, Sanders said, "it's a little bit too early, I must say, to be appointing a cabinet.
Let me get elected first."
In recent weeks, Sanders' long shot campaign for the Democratic nomination has captured a swell
of momentum on the left, drawing larger crowds in Iowa than Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic
front-runner.
"All over this country, younger people, working people, elderly people, are moving in our direction,
because they want a candidate to take on the establishment," Sanders said.
I don't think Krugman disagrees with Sanders, but he seems to ignore him. Like everyone else in
the media, he's devoted much more time to the Republicans.
But that's because it's always been his style to write that way. Krugman has always spent most
of his effort attacking those who he perceives as peddling nonsense, or providing additional evidence
to back up a position he has taken against a nonsense peddler. He rarely spends time talking about
those he agrees with. Even in cases where he has written approvingly about Obama or the ACA, he's
done so primarily as a counterweight to all those he sees taking the opposite (and incorrect)
view.
While he hasn't said much about Sanders aside from praising his example of Denmark as a role
model for change, he hasn't said a whole lot about Clinton either. Probably his most explicit
comment on either was in his column comparing their proposed Wall Street reforms, where he concluded:
"If a Democrat does win, does it matter much which one it is? Probably not. Any Democrat is
likely to retain the financial reforms of 2010, and seek to stiffen them where possible. But major
new reforms will be blocked until and unless Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress,
which isn't likely to happen for a long time.
"In other words, while there are some differences in financial policy between Mrs. Clinton
and Mr. Sanders, as a practical matter they're trivial compared with the yawning gulf with Republicans."
Yes, but there are clearly more differences between Clinton and Sanders than just differences
over financial policy - the most obvious and large one being their differences over health care.
Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
In terms of what they're likely to be able to deliver in the current political climate there really
doesn't seem to be that much difference between them.
However there is one key difference: Sanders has been able to energize the Democratic base
in a way that Clinton the policy wonk simply can't.
But we digress.
pgl -> Dan Kervick...
Bernie is endorsing single payer. That was HillaryCare ala 1993. That was her position in 2008...
Dan Kervick -> pgl...
What the heck are you talking about? The Clinton health Care Plan of 1993 was not a single payer
plan. The 2008 plan was also by no means a single payer plan. And single payer is certainly not
her position now, since she has come out strongly against it on the oh-so-progressive grounds
that it will ... (gasp) ... raise taxes! Good grief.
Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
Do you really think that the differences between Sanders and Clinton on how college education
is to be paid for, to take one example, is trivial?
Painting the large differences between Clinton and Sanders as trivial seems like a case of
dumbing down the debate so that people don't pay attention to it.
Krugman frequently devotes a great deal of time to people who are not peddling nonsense. He
just participated in an involved debate with DeLong and Summers, two people he agrees with on
most issues. And he has done the same in many past columns debating the views of various esteemed
economics colleagues at length.
pgl -> Syaloch...
"Sanders went on to praise Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning
economist. Krugman is a vocal opponent of tax cuts for the rich, and he has warned readers
for years about the dangers of income inequality."
Even more places where Bernie Sanders has basically called JohnH a liar.
If I am correct in stating that he represents a lot of the liberal spectrum, then those are the
people we need to move "left" or, as I prefer to put it, enlarge their view of what's possible.
Sanders IMO is doing a good job of this. He is being loudly ignored by Krugman...
[ Nicely expressed. ]
pgl -> Dan Kervick...
So go write these comments over at Paul's place. Oh wait - you are a coward. Never mind.
You know, of all the insults you freely toss about, this "cowardice" one is the dumbest. We're
all here to discuss Thoma's selections, but we're cowards if we criticize them here?
Dan Kervick -> pgl...
I have written several comments at "Paul's" blog that were directly critical of his arguments.
I have also posted many critical comments on Twitter directly @ Krugman. I have no problem going
right at people. But I don't like the NY Times format as much because it is harder to have a live
debate there.
anne -> Dan Kervick...
The word "troll" is used to intimidate and silence, and used to depict the writer in question
is wildly false and mean-spirited.
Dan Kervick -> anne...
Lol... yeah, I know the feeling.
Sanjait -> pgl...
Delong isnt a socialist, democratic or otherwise.
And this bent of creating purity tests for commentators and politicians to define who is sufficiently
progressive or more progressive or whatever, it reeks of Republicans and their conservative tribalism.
It's asinine and anti intellectual, and I condemn it unequivocally.
Dan Kervick -> Sanjait...
It's not a purity test of any kind. I don't know what "purity" means in this context. There is
no sense in which democratic socialists are "purer" than liberals. They just have different values
and goals. For socialists, a society based on sharing, solidarity, equality and cooperation is
the highest ideal, where for liberals the highest idea is the expression of personal liberty,
potential and individuality. There are certainly ways in which these outlooks can find specific
expressions at a given point in time that involve significant overlap, but their chief governing
ideals are different.
I agree with you completely that DeLong simply has a different ideology or social philosophy than
someone like Sanders or Meyerson, and I object to the dumbing down of the debate between these
two camps by such trite slogans as "Oh, you know after all, we are all on the same team". That's
silly. It confuses the highly contingent, shifting and adventitious alliances that are part of
the American party system with the coherence of a philosophical stance. These differences and
disputes should be debated, instead of attempting to muddy and flatten them all under the foolish
fantasy that it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference whether a society moves toward an ideal
of progress fashioned from democratic socialist principles or one fashioned from liberal principles.
I brought DeLong in this context because he is a noted scourge of the Washington Post and its
op-ed writers, so if he had any sympathy for Meyerson's views, this would be more low-hanging
fruit for him. But nothing so far. And my guess is that the main reason is that Meyerson is just
not DeLong's cup of tea. But who knows. the year is young.
Sanjait -> Dan Kervick...
Tl;dr
What I do notice is a lot of navel gazing talk about how "left" this or that commentator is,
which as I said is asinine, anti-intellectual, and ironically very similar to the way conservatives
operate.
Dan Kervick -> Sanjait...
Great. You think it's navel gazing. Easy for you to say from your desk writing insurance policies
or whatever the hell it is you do. But it does make a real difference to millions and millions
of people who don't have the lives you and I have, and whose lives aren't going to get *notably*
better once Krugman, DeLong and Summers decide which particular version of capitalist oppression
their best models point toward. Those people are dying of American capitalism, and their kids
are going to die of it too, and whether the ruling class decides on one set of interest rates
or a slightly higher set of interest rates only marginally affects the precise speed at which
the barons who own their lives are able to kill them.
If people have the honestly to tell me, "Look, I'm a believer in good ol' American capitalism,
and that lefty stuff just won't fly with me," that's one thing. But when they try to convince
me that the kind of world they are after is really the same kind of world I want, just so I'll
vote for their politicians - then I get ornery. Maybe I'd have an easier time with the conservatives
because at least the look me in the face and say, "I hate your pinko guts".
The debate has gotten half crazy. Someone like Brad DeLong has called himself a "card-carrying
neoliberal". And yet I get pilloried for calling DeLong a neoliberal - as though I libeled him
- or for calling attention to the apparently uncomfortable fact that since neoliberals are obviously
not leftists, then DeLong is no kind of leftist whatsoever. Or for noting that since DeLong is
a loyal student of his mentor and adviser Larry Summers - who is about as mainstream a player
as they come in the global capitalist system - that makes Delong a thoroughly establishment economist.
(This isn't about "purity". DeLong is not an "impure" half-assed lefty. He's just a mainline capitalist.)
Or for having the audacity to want to *debate* from the left the ideas that come up here instead
of joining in with the yea-and-amen corner where everybody just agrees with one another. Oh no,
we're all on the same team! Stop being such an annoying troll and criticizing the team! Larry
Summers - that great man on the make who was the highest paid professor in the history of Harvard,
and sold himself and his thoroughly mainstream "advice" to some Wall Street firm for $5 million/yr
in between other gigs - he's also on the team bro!
I've made many good faith efforts in the past to calmly debate the ideas of people whose moral
outlooks I disdain and whose best proposals amount to no more than marginal differences in a system
I detest. In return, I get insulted routinely and asked to leave. But hey, we're all on the same
team!
It seems to me that the liberals are having a crisis of faith and confidence because their
late 20th century paradigm is crumbling apart from the inside, they don't know what to replace
it with, and they don't know what side they are going to end up standing on when it falls. Look
at poor pgl. He can't even remember what "single payer" means any more. I haven't encountered
a single liberal Clinton supporter who is positively enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton. Frankly,
they all seem defensive at best about her, and somewhat scared. But they fell in early with the
TINA argument and the strategy of smothering debate under the Clinton machine, and now having
let the Inevitability Express get so far down the tracks they don't know what else to do. And
when that crazed, neocon-tilting fanatic launches her global military crusades in 2017, you guys
will all be investing some sob story about how Bush is to blame, or Reagan is to blame, or Calvin
Coolidge or William McKinley is to blame. A fat lot of good that will do the body parts she scatters
all over the West Bank, Syria, Iran or whatever other places we're into by then.
Krugman had a meltdown last week - as he and the other chronic countercyclical stabilizers
apparently do whenever anybody uses that dangerous and threatening word "structural", pointing
at the possibility of changing the system and not just stabilizing it - because even a middle
of the road guy like Tim Taylor had the audacity to "change the subject" and talk about something
he actually wants talk about ... as though Paul Krugman gets to decide what the "subject" is,
and everyone who doesn't talk about what Krugman demands they talk about is written up for changing
that subject. Screw Krugman. He wouldn't know what "the subject" is if he tripped over it lying
in the street on his way to some Manhattan train station. In fact, he probably has tripped over
it.
I'm so tired of dealing with liberals with their chronic cases of double-think, unresolved
intellectual conflicts, self-deluding irony and fuzzy, snarky ambivalence about everything. Pick
a damn side. You are either with the plutocratic owners who dominate and run everyone else's lives
- or you are on the side of taking them down and leveling the field.
No Happy New Year at the Washington Post: Harold Meyerson Gets the Boot
The Washington Post opinion pages is not a place most people go for original thought, even
if they do provide much material for Beat the Press. One major exception to the uniformity and
unoriginality that have marked the section for decades was Harold Meyerson's column. Meyerson
has been writing a weekly column for the Post for the last thirteen years. He was told by opinion
page editor Fred Hiatt that his contract would not be renewed for 2016. *
According to Meyerson, Hiatt gave as his reasons that his columns had bad social media metrics
and that he focused too much on issues like worker power. The first part of this story is difficult
to believe. Do other Post columnists, like Beat the Press regulars Robert Samuelson and Charles
Lane, really have such great social media metrics?
As far as the second part, yes Meyerson was a different voice. His columns showed a concern
for the ordinary workers who make up the overwhelming majority of the country's population. Apparently
this is a liability at the Post.
The studied failure of the fierce critic of the Washington Post and New York Times from the
economics department of the University of California at Berkeley to so much as regret the firing
of the only writer on labor affairs at either paper tells of just how little regard there is for
the affairs of ordinary workers.
Not surprising, but disappointing nonetheless.
Sanjait -> anne...
Oh please.
Delong has been writing loudly about the need for pro labor fiscal and monetary policy for
the last 6 years. He's a leading voice on this topic, despite being "shrill."
To anyone that has been paying attention even a little, he has more than firmly established
his concern for workers.
You're just weirdly upset because he called the Yale protesters stupid. Others here are upset
because, like conservative tribalists, they think the best way to promote progressive causes is
to ignore fact based debates and instead talk about who is or isn't an apostate. It's really very
ugly.
ken melvin -> Dan Kervick...
Two states, maybe?
am -> Dan Kervick...
Harold Meyerson, the Democratic Socialist op-ed columnist for Wapo, was just canned by Fred Hiatt.
Apart from removing another left wing economic voice from the establishment public sphere, this
helps clear the decks for a 2017 Middle East war after Clinton gets control of the war room from
Obama. Not a word on that firing from sometime scourge of the Washington Post, Brad DeLong - who
I guess is pretty cool with it.
This is from your comment. You go from the sacking of a journalist to clearing the ground for
a middle east war and then connect it all to Brad De Long. I hope you see the defects in your
thinking.
Dan Kervick -> am...
OK, let's wait and see what DeLong says.
However, I stand by the idea that one of Hiatt's beefs with Meyerson is that Meyerson is a
critic of the generally neoconservative foreign policies that Hiatt staunchly promotes. I think
Hiatt is likely rubbing his hands in glee over the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, since
her foreign policy will be much more aggressive and neocon-friendly than Obama's - and also much
more so than a president Trump, for that matter, whom the neocons despise and fear.
djb -> Dan Kervick...
sorry to bother you dan but I couldn't help notice your comment to Egmont about consumption being
greater than income
"As you can see, consumption runs consistently and significantly higher than wages and salaries."
why do you think that is?
Dan Kervick -> djb...
djb, to be accurate, I pointed out that consumption was higher than wage and salary income. And
clearly one reason for that is that is that wage and salary income is only one portion of national
income. Besides other returns to labor like bonuses, a lot of income consists in profits and other
returns to capital.
Dan Kervick :
Even Brookings is getting worried about what's going on with the growing cultural isolation
of the relatively affluent:
This Brookings piece doesn't contribute much of anything to the conversation either. Mostly it
just provides a working definition of upper middle class. The "getting worried" part is pretty
much limited to the conclusion, and even then mostly outsourced to a conservative writer over
at Slate:
And if we go and read the Slate piece we find out that it's mostly BS -- even the Brookings
article warns us in advance that it's "hyperbole, of course."
All of that said I do think there is an important point to be made, one that I was making the
other day -- if you let a small number of people accumulate extreme levels of wealth, these people
will tend to focus their philanthropic efforts on the sorts of problems that get discussed in
their rather limited social circle, which may not be what the broader population views as the
most pressing issues. However, I was talking about billionaires (and tech billionaires in particular,
who tend to view things through an even narrower lens. In contrast, here we're talking about a
much larger and more diverse group -- 15-20% of the working-age population according to the article
-- many of whom came from middle class or lower-middle class backgrounds and who strongly identify
with these groups and their concerns.
EMichael -> Syaloch...
Of course it doesn't contribute to the discussion, not unless you read between the kervick lines
and understand that the separation is sinister, aided and abetted by pols and economists on both
sides as they are all elites.
"When everyone is out to get you, paranoia is just being careful." Dan K, err, I mean Woody Allen.
Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
The Brookings title for the article describes the separation as "dangerous". Isn't that an instance
of worrying?
The point isn't that the upper middle class is engaged in some sort of sneaky, diabolical plot
to "ruin" America, but rather that the emergence of growing cultural, educational and economic
gaps between different classes of Americans is bad for the country, and that the greater the degree
of class separations, the greater likelihood that the discourse of people who belong to a particular
class will tend to reflect the preoccupations and values of that class alone.
At all times and in all societies the preoccupation of those who have most greatly benefited
from a given social order will tend to be focused on how to defuse, appease or discipline dissenting
elements without disrupting the social order.
Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
The Brookings title appears to be mere clickbait, with little in the article to back the claim
up. The main thrust of the piece is that those who've managed to make it to the upper end of the
middle class have been more successful than those with less income. Big surprise there.
I have no objection to the claim that growing economic gaps are bad for the country. However,
I do think your attempt to cast this as an internal conflict within the middle class is nonsense.
I mean, Bernie Sanders' net worth is reportedly $700,000, which is roughly three times the
median for someone his age ($232,100 as of 2013). Isn't he part of this elite class you describe,
doing what elites always do? Does his political orientation reflect the general predilections
and interests of his class?
Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
It seems to me the article documents trends in several areas, all meant to back up the summary
story told in the opening paragraph:
"The American upper middle class is separating, slowly but surely, from the rest of society.
This separation is most obvious in terms of income-where the top fifth have been prospering while
the majority lags behind. But the separation is not just economic. Gaps are growing on a whole
range of dimensions, including family structure, education, lifestyle, and geography. Indeed,
these dimensions of advantage appear to be clustering more tightly together, each thereby amplifying
the effect of the other."
cm -> Syaloch...
Considering current real estate evaluations (I suppose Mr. Sanders owns a house), I don't think
700K is a net worth that confers any kind of elite status (where in this discussion "elite" must
be understood as being able to set or influence policy, without necessarily holding public office).
Syaloch -> cm...
The current median sales price for homes in Burlington VT is around $270,000, so Sanders must
be living in an "elite" home appropriate to his class.
More seriously, I don't think $700K necessarily confers elite status either, I'm just poking
holes in the arguments of those who want to drive wedges between different segments of the middle
class.
Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
I don't think it's so much a matter of driving wedges, but recognizing the wedges that are already
there.
Of course, some individual people who have lots of money are capable of adopting political
stances that range outside their class interests. The similarity between political outlook and
class interest is a strong general tendency, not an iron rule.
Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
Your understanding of class relationships is flawed.
Perhaps one has to actually be part of the upper middle class to see how these things actually
work?
The county where I live is one of the richest in the country, and it consistently votes Democrat.
But then again the cost of living is very high here, so a lot of people who appear to have high
incomes by national standards actually live quite modest lifestyles. And many people who live
here came from other lower-income areas to find work, and probably relate most strongly with the
places and backgrounds from which they came (even after 25 years of living in the DC suburbs my
wife and I still tend to answer the question, "where are you from?" with the states we were born
in).
The relationship between income and "class interest" is apparently quite complicated.
cm -> Syaloch...
**my wife and I still tend to answer the question, "where are you from?" with the states we were
born in**
Isn't that what the questioner is actually asking? I always understood this question as "what
is your cultural (often more specifically ethnic) background". The question often comes in the
form "where's your *accent* from".
Syaloch -> cm...
Sometimes it's unclear, but generally the context is ah, so you're a visitor here, where is your
home located?
We still have a hard time saying we're "from" Virginia, as the part of Virginia that borders
DC bears little relationship culturally, politically, or economically with the rest of the state.
Culturally we're still very much Northerners.
cm -> Syaloch...
Perhaps, though I often respond jokingly stating the city where I live, and then there is *always*
the clarification "no where are you originally from". The larger area here has a lot of immigration
from other places (inside and outside the US), and a lot of people with immigrant family background.
It seems to be a common (and reliable) conversation opener.
cm -> Syaloch...
"The relationship between income and "class interest" is apparently quite complicated."
A large part of the complication is adjustment to local cost structures. Another is that "class"
is a fairly abstract concept, which I define more by socioeconomic autonomy and participation
in the societal decision making process (at higher or lower levels) than by income. Of course
the former strongly correlates with income. E.g. when obtaining one's income absolutely requires
personal daily commitment to some activity (e.g. employment), one cannot be consider "upper" of
anything.
I would even question whether middle to upper corporate management falls in the upper middle
class - let's say Director to VP levels. They are paid quite well and can generally afford living
in "good neighborhoods" with higher end houses and cars, and perhaps even domestic "help", but
can they influence policy outside their company?
And one more before the day's round of media stuff begins.
Another weirdly persistent myth is that rich people vote Democratic, while working stiffs vote
Republican. Here's Tucker Carlson: *
"OK, but here's the fact that nobody ever, ever mentions - Democrats win rich people. Over
100,000 in income, you are likely more than not to vote for Democrats. People never point that
out. Rich people vote liberal. I don't know what that's all about."
Actually, people mention this alleged fact all the time - but the truth is just the opposite.
From the 2006 exit polls:
Vote by Income (Total) Democrat Republican
Less than $100,000 (78%) 55% 43%
$100,000 or more (22%) 47% 52%
And the fact that people with higher incomes are more likely to vote Republican has been consistently
true since 1972. **
The interesting question is why so many pundits know for a fact something that simply ain't
so.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, * there's a weird myth among the commentariat that rich
people vote Democratic. There's another strange thing about that myth: the notion that income
class doesn't matter for voting, or that it's perverse, has spread even as the actual relationship
between income and voting has become much stronger.
Larry Bartels ** offers us these data, which I also provide in "Conscience of a Liberal," on
white voting patterns in presidential elections by income:
Democratic Share of Vote
1952-1972
Bottom third ( 46)
Middle third ( 47)
Top third ( 42)
Democratic Share of Vote
1976-2004
Bottom third ( 51)
Middle third ( 44)
Top third ( 37)
As you can see, a 4-point difference between top and bottom became a 14-point difference.
Andrew Gelman et al *** offer us an election-by-election graph; the dots represent an estimate
of the effect of income on the tendency to vote Republican, the whiskers the range of statistical
uncertainty. Again, a weak link in the earlier period, except when Barry Goldwater was the candidate,
and a much stronger link since then.
So the conventional pundit wisdom about the relationship between class and voting is, literally,
the opposite of the truth.
If you are trying to suggest that a mere prole couldn't possibly understand how the well-off people
actually think, you may be comforted to know that my wife and I are comfortably part of that upper
20%.
The people I am criticizing are the kinds of people I have known all my life. I went to college
and graduate school with them, and have known them socially and professionally. Quite the contrary
to your suggestion, I think if people from humbler walks of life had a clearer idea of how knowledge
class yuppies actually think and talk when they are not behaving themselves in public forums and
trying to act like compassionate and concerned citizens, the resentment and determination to act
on the part of the former would be even more intense than it is now.
I dearly recall the day one of my college friends told me that it was so unfair that smart
college kids might be subject to the same kinds of military service requirements that less educated
people faced, because the college kids "had so much more to lose." Their heads, after all, were
stuffed with big, valuable, meaningful brains; while the existences of the plebs were so much
less meaningful. Of course, she's probably running some health care outfit these days.
Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
I had a very similar experience with the people I met at my Ivy League university. A depressing
percentage of the student body consisted of spoiled trust fund babies, many of whom were apparently
ignored or otherwise mistreated by their parents and exhibited a shocking array of psychological
and substance abuse problems.
The most shocking incident I encountered was when a decent-seeming girl I met at the beginning
of sophomore year calmly explained during a discussion with myself and a high school friend the
"difference between black people and [n-word]s" as if this were a totally natural and uncontroversial
position. And she wasn't from the Deep South, either -- she was from Columbia MD.
But these people were of a distinctly different class than the many nominally upper-middle
class people I encounter in daily life. Even now, high as my household income is, I would immediately
be detected as a "mere prole" by them, a "lower class" person.
Fitzgerald was absolutely right -- the truly well off are indeed different from you and
me. Even if you don't realize it, rest assured that they do.
cm -> Dan Kervick...
Did your friend actually say these things about the brain value or are you extrapolating?
I had to go to military service *before* going to college, before the question of occupational
deferments could even come up, and incidentally so that the conscripts could be coerced with the
threat of having their college admission canceled. It was a good opportunity to purge our heads
of some of the highschool knowledge and attitudes, and fill it with more practical things like
avoiding or shirking work assignments, creative ways of procuring and hiding alcohol, and learning
a bit about sizing up people and power dynamics as well as losing some illusions about the universality
of human qualities. The latter part was actually useful.
cm -> Dan Kervick...
The concept of class is also just a model, and not rigidly tied to economic markers. People
in comparable occupational settings or type of economic participation can have very different
incomes and ability to afford certain lifestyles.
This is not only related to geographic differences, but jobs with similar skill profiles and
job content can have significantly different pay/perk structures across public/private sector,
different industries, and even within the same company. And by significantly I mean easily 2X.
E.g. regardless of your pay level, if your occupational situation is such that you have
to essentially show up for work every day and follow somebody else's directives (to make a relatively
low-risk income), then it would be a stretch to consider you upper middle class.
cm -> cm...
This is in response to your "wedges" comment, which may not be obvious in the web page layout.
Dan Kervick -> cm...
I definitely agree with those observations, although I have to say that following the crash in
2008 I was startled to realize just how much truth there is in the old Marxian idea that in an
economic pinch, people will rapidly form coalitions with other people on the basis of economic
affinities to protect their mutual interests.
cm -> Dan Kervick...
It is probably less about *mutual* interests and more about *common* interests. OTOH (but perhaps
fundamentally the same phenomenon) I and others have observed how people switch (declared?) allegiances
and ideological leanings and patterns of acting, as well the people they associate with, when
changing occupational roles, e.g. from individual contributor to manager or lower to middle management.
That usually comes with an income bump, but I don't think it is much related to income level.
Syaloch -> cm...
From what I've observed, following the 2008 crash a lot of upper-middle class people suddenly
realized that the differences between themselves and those living in poverty are actually much
smaller than the differences between themselves and the truly wealthy.
This is the first realistic analysis of why Trump is so attractive as politician and as Presidential
candidate. Great job Atlantic! Still some nuances are missing. Complete domination of Democratic Party
by neoliberal "fat cats" and Hillary as one of the most jingoistic candidates, a real neocon even in comparison
with Jeb Bush -- in a country that is fed up with neocon foreign policy never mentioned. From one comment
from the article " And those looking in from the outside have no clue as to the enormity of voter
establishment rejection from all parties. MSM still refuses to put forth the truth about Independents."
Notable quotes:
"... White Middle Americans express heavy mistrust of every institution in American society: not
only government, but corporations, unions, even the political party they typically vote for-the Republican
Party of Romney, Ryan, and McConnell, which they despise as a sad crew of weaklings and sellouts. They
are pissed off. And when Donald Trump came along, they were the people who told the pollsters, "That's
my guy." ..."
"... Across Europe, populist parties are delivering a message that combines defense of the welfare
state with skepticism about immigration; that denounces the corruption of parliamentary democracy and
also the risks of global capitalism. ..."
"... These populists seek to defend what the French call "acquired rights"-health care, pensions,
and other programs that benefit older people-against bankers and technocrats who endlessly demand austerity;
against migrants who make new claims and challenge accustomed ways; against a globalized market that
depresses wages and benefits. In the United States, they lean Republican ..."
"... A majority of Republicans worry that corporations and the wealthy exert too much power. Their
party leaders work to ensure that these same groups can exert even more. Mainstream Republicans were
quite at ease with tax increases on households earning more than $250,000 in the aftermath of the Great
Recession and the subsequent stimulus. Their congressional representatives had the opposite priorities.
In 2008, many Republican primary voters had agreed with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who
wanted "their next president to remind them of the guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off."
..."
"... Their rebellion against the power of organized money has upended American politics in ways
that may reverberate for a long time. To understand what may come next, we must first review the recent
past. ..."
"... Until this decade, however, both parties-and especially the historically more cohesive Republicans-managed
to keep sufficient class peace to preserve party unity. Not anymore, at least not for the Republicans.
..."
"... Trump Republicans were not ideologically militant. Just 13 percent said they were very conservative;
19 percent described themselves as moderate. Nor were they highly religious by Republican standards.
..."
"... What set them apart from other Republicans was their economic insecurity and the intensity
of their economic nationalism ..."
"... He promised to protect their children from being drawn into another war in the Middle East,
this time in Syria. "If we're going to have World War III," he told The Washington Post in October,
"it's not going to be over Syria." As for the politicians threatening to shoot down the Russian jets
flying missions in Syria, "I won't even call them hawks. I call them the fools." ..."
"... Its a good analysis, but lacks one important point. If Republicans do go into a defensive crouch,
time is not on their side. ..."
"... And those looking in from the outside have no clue as to the enormity of voter establishment
rejection from all parties. MSM still refuses to put forth the truth about Independents. ..."
"... Nixons southern strategy changed this. All the conservatives (of the south) exited the Democratic
party for the GOP. This radicalized the GOP. Eventually Rockefeller Republicans no longer existed -
killed off by Reagans revolution. ..."
"... However elites still controlled both parties. Dems nominated Clinton and Obama who were conservative
Dems but only in the sense of giving in to the economic elites wishes: free trade, deregulation etc...
The GOPs base became increasingly radicalized. The elite pandered to the base to win elections but abandoned
their interest in favor of tax cuts and immigration after elections. ..."
"... What you had was a political void at the base of the GOP that was hermetically sealed off at
the sides by the 2 party system and from above by the elites. ..."
"... In steps Trump - who is more than willing to descend down from the elite status in favor of
the rabble. This is not unlike FDR doing the same - but from the left, which was much kinder. ..."
"... The only thing going for the elites is that there are populist insurgencies in both parties
- so that might split up popular interest enough to sustain at least one elite candidate in one of the
major parties. ..."
"... Fact: in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
Very few single wage families can make it, especially when well-educated high tech workers replaced
by H1 and H2 B imports at lower wages ..."
"... There was a fundamental shift in corporate policy after the Great Recession. Employees are
considered a financial liability instead of an asset. Unfortunately, bean counters run everything now.
..."
"... I went back to school and got certified in computer technology. Guess what I found when I went
looking for a job? Contract work only at the low end of the wage spectrum. MikeyArmstrong (below) couldnt
be more right. Bill gates is the biggest perpetrator of this fallacy when he made that statement about
the USA not having enough skilled workers. Why pay an American a living wage when you can pay a skilled
off-shore worker just a fraction of that cost. ..."
"... One of the problems with oligarchies anywhere in the world is that theyd rather import a middle
management class that had no ties to the local lower classes than to improve education and promote the
best and brightest of the lower classes, who might have more divided loyalties. The New Deal and the
WW II era GI Bill were exceptions to this ..."
"... Absolute nonsense. H1 and H2B workers are a necessity to corporations because they do not require
a living wage, the way Americans with the same or better education do. It is entirely about sending
all the profits to the topmost execs and shareholders by stripping it from the people who do the work.
..."
"... The governments H1B Visa programs are to blame for the influx of foreign workers, and undermining
the market dynamics that support Americans. ..."
"... Education is not the principal reason for the poor economic circumstances of the white middle
class. It is the reluctance of the wealthy to invest in the fast-fading industrial sector. Finance and
its attendant scams yields far greater returns than the manufacture and sale of useful objects. ..."
"... When I was young my parents warned me to get a high school diploma or there would nothing but
a scarcity of low-paying jobs for me when I go it alone. Then it was a bachelors degree and now its
a masters. If this trend continues, we will be a nation of educated derelicts. Like the PhDs standing
in long lines to apply for a job at the first McDonalds franchise in the former Soviet Union. ..."
"... The difference being in the case of 2016 America blaming immigrants for our poor economic circumstances
would be correct and its not just uneducated white folks. In fact the black population has been the
hardest hit by the importation of cheap third world labor. Even our educated middle class is taking
a massive hit through H1-B workers being brought in by the elites. Just ask the laid off workers at
Disney. ..."
White Middle Americans express heavy mistrust of every institution in American society: not
only government, but corporations, unions, even the political party they typically vote for-the Republican
Party of Romney, Ryan, and McConnell, which they despise as a sad crew of weaklings and sellouts.
They are pissed off. And when Donald Trump came along, they were the people who told the pollsters,
"That's my guy."
They aren't necessarily superconservative. They often don't think in ideological terms at all.
But they do strongly feel that life in this country used to be better for people like them-and they
want that older country back.
You hear from people like them in many other democratic countries too. Across Europe, populist
parties are delivering a message that combines defense of the welfare state with skepticism about
immigration; that denounces the corruption of parliamentary democracy and also the risks of global
capitalism. Some of these parties have a leftish flavor, like Italy's Five Star Movement. Some
are rooted to the right of center, like the U.K. Independence Party. Some descend from neofascists,
like France's National Front. Others trace their DNA to Communist parties, like Slovakia's governing
Direction–Social Democracy.
These populists seek to defend what the French call "acquired rights"-health care, pensions,
and other programs that benefit older people-against bankers and technocrats who endlessly demand
austerity; against migrants who make new claims and challenge accustomed ways; against a globalized
market that depresses wages and benefits. In the United States, they lean Republican because
they fear the Democrats want to take from them and redistribute to Americans who are newer, poorer,
and in their view less deserving-to "spread the wealth around," in candidate Barack Obama's words
to "Joe the Plumber" back in 2008. Yet they have come to fear more and more strongly that their party
does not have their best interests at heart.
A majority of Republicans worry that corporations and the wealthy exert too much power. Their
party leaders work to ensure that these same groups can exert even more. Mainstream Republicans were
quite at ease with tax increases on households earning more than $250,000 in the aftermath of the
Great Recession and the subsequent stimulus. Their congressional representatives had the opposite
priorities. In 2008, many Republican primary voters had agreed with former Arkansas Governor Mike
Huckabee, who wanted "their next president to remind them of the guy they work with, not the guy
who laid them off." But those Republicans did not count for much once the primaries ended, and
normal politics resumed between the multicultural Democrats and a plutocratic GOP.
This year, they are counting for more. Their rebellion against the power of organized money
has upended American politics in ways that may reverberate for a long time. To understand what may
come next, we must first review the recent past.
Meanwhile, the dividing line that used to be the most crucial of them all-class-has increasingly
become a division within the parties, not between them. Since 1984, nearly every Democratic presidential-primary
race has ended as a contest between a "wine track" candidate who appealed to professionals (Gary
Hart, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, and Barack Obama) and a "beer track" candidate
who mobilized the remains of the old industrial working class (Walter Mondale, Dick Gephardt, Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton). The Republicans have their equivalent in the battles between
"Wall Street" and "Main Street" candidates. Until this decade, however, both parties-and especially
the historically more cohesive Republicans-managed to keep sufficient class peace to preserve party
unity. Not anymore, at least not for the Republicans.
,,, ,,, ,,,
When Trump first erupted into the Republican race in June, he did so with a message of grim pessimism.
"We got $18 trillion in debt. We got nothing but problems … We're dying. We're dying. We need money
… We have losers. We have people that don't have it. We have people that are morally corrupt. We
have people that are selling this country down the drain … The American dream is dead."
That message did not resonate with those who'd ridden the S&P 500 from less than 900 in 2009 to
more than 2,000 in 2015. But it found an audience all the same. Half of Trump's supporters within
the GOP had stopped their education at or before high-school graduation, according to the polling
firm YouGov. Only 19 percent had a college or postcollege degree. Thirty-eight percent earned less
than $50,000. Only 11 percent earned more than $100,000.
Trump Republicans were not ideologically militant. Just 13 percent said they were very conservative;
19 percent described themselves as moderate. Nor were they highly religious by Republican standards.
What set them apart from other Republicans was their economic insecurity and the intensity
of their economic nationalism . Sixty-three percent of Trump supporters wished to end birthright
citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil-a dozen points higher than the
norm for all Republicans. More than other Republicans, Trump supporters distrusted Barack Obama as
alien and dangerous: Only 21 percent acknowledged that the president was born in the United States,
according to an August survey by the Democratic-oriented polling firm PPP. Sixty-six percent believed
the president was a Muslim.
Trump promised to protect these voters' pensions from their own party's austerity. "We've got
Social Security that's going to be destroyed if somebody like me doesn't bring money into the country.
All these other people want to cut the hell out of it. I'm not going to cut it at all; I'm going
to bring money in, and we're going to save it."
He promised to protect their children from being drawn into another war in the Middle East,
this time in Syria. "If we're going to have World War III," he told The Washington Post in October,
"it's not going to be over Syria." As for the politicians threatening to shoot down the Russian jets
flying missions in Syria, "I won't even call them hawks. I call them the fools."
He promised a campaign independent of the influences of money that had swayed so many Republican
races of the past.
"I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people. Before this, before two
months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what?
When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there
for me. And that's a broken system."
He promised above all to protect their wages from being undercut by Republican immigration policy.
... ... ...
David Frum is a senior editor at The Atlantic and the chairman of Policy Exchange. In 2001-2002,
he was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush.
deanfromoregon
Its a good analysis, but lacks one important point. If Republicans do go into a defensive
crouch, time is not on their side. The youth, and every demographic gaining numbers is not
Republican. So their ability to block change will erode with time. They have to figure out how
to come to grops witht he future. They can neither go back, not prevent the future from happening.
Courageousmisterj > deanfromoregon
Been hearin that one for 30 years. Ain't happened yet.
OrangePolicy > Courageousmisterj
I'm mixed. I don't think the GOP will be a presidential party anytime soon but they're not
dead or irrelevant by any measure.
Damascusdean > OrangePolicy
They are still alive and have some advantages. Their older, whiter constituency turns out in
off years. And they have advantages in low population states, each having the same senators as
California. But time will erode these advantages.
DavidBN > Damascusdean
And they have advantages in low population states, each having the same senators as California.
Their majority in the House is much bigger than their majority in the senate.
Mr. Fusion > DavidBN
Gerrymandering has its advantages.
DavidBN > Mr. Fusion
It does. Demographic changes are slow and are predictable. The Republican party has effectively
neutralized the effects of any demographic shift for the next thirty years or so. This internal
upheaval that they didn't foresee is a bigger problem.
Larry Rappaport > Jimmy Kurian
And those looking in from the outside have no clue as to the enormity of voter establishment
rejection from all parties. MSM still refuses to put forth the truth about Independents.
Morning internal report, Trump 38% - Clinton 8% - Rubio 6% - Cruz 24%. I've never seen anything
like this. One thing is for sure, the GOP Establishment is looking for the paddles, Clear! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
POW! Call the time please.
In 1918 the Allies insisted on a liberal German government sans Kaiser in order to arrive at
a armistice. That's how we got the Wiemar constitution. The German Elite worried that in a democracy
the working class, which had all the numbers, would vote their interest - socialist &/or communist.
So, as an attempt to mitigate against this, before soldiers were decommissioned from the German
army they had to sit through some right-wing propaganda indoctrination. Hitler was one of those
propaganders.
Hitler's German Workers party was an attempt by the right to set up a party on the right that
would appeal to the workers and lower middle class, the rabble. They did that through nationalism,
unilateralism/anti-internationalism.
Because the Nazi's delivered the numbers, the center of power slid away from the elites down
to him, the rabble. The rest as they say is history.
In the U.S. there were two reasons why this was thought couldn't happen - the two party system.
A) Each party had is share of liberals and conservatives B) Each party was controlled by elites
so that power could never completely flow down to the radicals.
Nixon's southern strategy changed this. All the conservatives (of the south) exited the
Democratic party for the GOP. This radicalized the GOP. Eventually Rockefeller Republicans no
longer existed - killed off by Reagan's revolution.
However elites still controlled both parties. Dems nominated Clinton and Obama who were
conservative Dems but only in the sense of giving in to the economic elites wishes: free trade,
deregulation etc... The GOP's base became increasingly radicalized. The elite pandered to the
base to win elections but abandoned their interest in favor of tax cuts and immigration after
elections.
What you had was a political void at the base of the GOP that was hermetically sealed off
at the sides by the 2 party system and from above by the elites.
In steps Trump - who is more than willing to descend down from the elite status in favor
of the rabble. This is not unlike FDR doing the same - but from the left, which was much kinder.
The only thing going for the elites is that there are populist insurgencies in both parties
- so that might split up popular interest enough to sustain at least one elite candidate in one
of the major parties. On the other hand, you could have a 3rd and 4th party candidate in
the general. Not seen anything like this, I think, since 1860 election.
Your comments are quite astute, in 1928 Hitler's National socialist party received 2.6% of the
vote, but after economic collapse and hyperinflation he received 44% of the vote in 1933. However,
America of 2016 is very different than Germany of 1933. The economy is improving, but obviously
some have been left behind, uneducated white folks who are looking for somebody to scapegoat or
blame for their poor economic circumstances. In 1933 Germany, it was the Jews who were to blame,
in 2016 America it is immigrants. Fortunately they are the minority although they represent a
significant percent of the republican party.
"some have been left behind, uneducated white folks"
Shibboleth
Fact: in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... Very few single wage families can make it, especially when
well-educated high tech workers replaced by H1 and H2 B imports at lower wages
The H1 and H2B workers have been a necessity because our education system hasn't been producing
enough highly trained, self disciplined candidates in engineering and other STEAM fields.
There was a fundamental shift in corporate policy after the Great Recession. Employees are
considered a financial liability instead of an asset. Unfortunately, bean counters run everything
now. That's why when some companies buck the trend and give ALL their employees huge benefits,
bonuses, etc. it is news-worthy.
"What they are worth" is what employers have to pay to attract them as employees. Unfortunately
the government-imposed H1 and H2B foreign worker program has interfered in the normal market dynamics,
at the expense of the American worker. Similarly, illegal immigration has interfered in the market
dynamics of low-wage workers, and created a welfare class. If there were no illegal immigrants,
the "jobs Americans won't do" would pay a wage that would make it worth taking those jobs. And
our social costs (including taxes) could be lower. It's been the downside of "Hope and Change."
I went back to school and got certified in computer technology. Guess what I found when I
went looking for a job? Contract work only at the low end of the wage spectrum. MikeyArmstrong
(below) couldn't be more right. Bill gates is the biggest perpetrator of this fallacy when he
made that statement about the USA not having enough skilled workers. Why pay an American a living
wage when you can pay a skilled off-shore worker just a fraction of that cost.
One of the problems with oligarchies anywhere in the world is that they'd rather import a
middle management class that had no ties to the local lower classes than to improve education
and promote the best and brightest of the lower classes, who might have more divided loyalties.
The New Deal and the WW II era GI Bill were exceptions to this (and how a number of farm
kids got educations. Asian elites would import Chinese; European elites imported Jews; the US
South brought down Northern managers. And the southern elites could tell museum directors not
to do anything to make the mill hands dissatisfied with their lot in life as late as the 1980s.
The US stereotypes bright engineering and computer science people far more than Nicaragua does.
See any media depictions of the office computer guy (The Americans is fairly classic). The cool
kids major in pre-law (and Robert E. Lee failed to get Washington and Lee redirected to technology
-- it's still a pre-law/liberal arts school for the most part). This is most unfortunate, but
saves lots of money that would be needed to actually improve US education (the other classic Southern
statement was, "We don't need to improve education here. All these people are going to do is become
mill hands."
Absolute nonsense. H1 and H2B workers are a "necessity" to corporations because they do not
require a living wage, the way Americans with the same or better education do. It is entirely
about sending all the profits to the topmost execs and shareholders by stripping it from the people
who do the work.
That doesn't make any sense. All companies would move these jobs offshore if they could - these
jobs are the ones that need to remain here. The government's H1B Visa programs are to blame
for the influx of foreign workers, and undermining the market dynamics that support Americans.
Our wages will never "balance" with the rest of the world unless our standard of living drops.
And that need not happen - Americans are the perfect blend of innovation, flexibility, and hard
work, and have been for 100+ years. This will keep us at the forefront, and the world will continue
to benefit from us. Unless our government continues to screw things up.
Why have we been innovative, flexible, and hard working? I'd argue it is due in no small par to
the immigrants we constantly allow to come in. The provide new perspectives to spur the innovation
you mention and force flexibility and hard work from all in order to compete in a labor market
that is more competitive due to it being open instead of artificially restricted. Walling ourselves
off to gain selfish and ultimately short term personal advantages in the labor market is a surefire
way to squander the advantages you mention that keep our economy strong. That lowering tide will
lower all boats and bite our children if not ourselves in the long term.
Education is not the principal reason for the poor economic circumstances of the white middle
class. It is the reluctance of the wealthy to invest in the fast-fading industrial sector. Finance
and its attendant scams yields far greater returns than the manufacture and sale of useful objects.
The jobs of the future, says the BLS, will not require the level of education that has created
a debt swamp for the young, although degrees will be used as sorting devices in a glutted labor
market.
When I was young my parents warned me to get a high school diploma or there would nothing
but a scarcity of low-paying jobs for me when I go it alone. Then it was a bachelor's degree and
now it's a master's. If this trend continues, we will be a nation of educated derelicts. Like
the PhDs standing in long lines to apply for a job at the first McDonald's franchise in the former
Soviet Union.
The difference being in the case of 2016 America blaming immigrants for our poor economic
circumstances would be correct and it's not just "uneducated white folks." In fact the black population
has been the hardest hit by the importation of cheap third world labor. Even our educated middle
class is taking a massive hit through H1-B workers being brought in by the elites. Just ask the
laid off workers at Disney.
Sanders would not want to split the Democrat vote, and the truth of the matter is that Donald
Trump does NOT actually want to BE President. This was one of his fun things to do as a Billionaire.
Get up in front of people on a National stage, voice your opinion loudly, maybe come in second
or make some kind of decent show for the ego and then go Trump up another reality show to sell
to the networks. But win? Are you kidding me? That's too much work and if I believe Donald Trump
knows one thing, it is how many people and how much work it would take for him to be President.
Endless meetings with morons both foreign and domestic that you have to attend? Long hours, little
appreciation, and missing time with your gorgeous young wife? And for that salary? Again, are
you kidding me?
He has already said that when he donates, all he needs to do is go to the guys who won the
elections and they do what he asks, Why does he need to be one of those guys?
Answer: He doesn't and he doesn't want to be. Being #1 was great. Staying #1 began to become
a nightmare when he realized that he really could actually win the Republican nomination and so
he started saying more insulting and traditionally outrageous (and vote losing) statements. I
can see him asking himself in the mirror now, "What does it take to get these people to think
I'm too brash, hard lined, and insulting to everyone to be voted in as President? Who haven't
I insulted yet?"
100% spot on. Trumps problem now is that the GOP base is even dumber than he thought, the more
crazy stuff he says to lose support, the more the sheep clamor for him.
Jeb Bush alone has gotten more from Wall Street than the Democrats & Chris Christie is close.
"Republicans beating Clinton, Dems in Wall Street donations"
Also worth noting how much more Wall Street gave to Romney than Obama in the 2012 cycle
"Yet by the end of the 2012 campaign, Wall Street donors had given $64.3 million to Mitt Romney
and $19.3 million to the same man they had poured money into just four years before and who was
running as the sitting president."
http://thehill.com/homenews/ca...
Statetheobvious > ruralblake
And yet Hillary and Obama are loyal Wall Street lapdogs almost as much as the GOP. Whoever
wins the nomination (unless it's Sanders) is getting the big money. The entire system needs reform.
Starting with stacking SCOTUS to overturn Citizens United. The fact that no Democratic lobby group
has a case making its way through the courts to challenge CU shows how incredibly pathetic Democrats
are.
"... Of Trumps opponents for the Republican nomination, the only one I can grudge up any interest for is Rand Paul, who is a truly disruptive figure without being a maniac. ..."
"... But he appears to have a near-zero chance of winning the partys nomination. ..."
"... Hillary is the opposite of a disrupter; she is the racketeer Godmother. ..."
"... Hillary would inspire no trust among a fractious population out for revenge against the very enablers of Hillarys election, namely the Wall Street bankers. ..."
"... The question at hand for 2016 is: Can Hillary be stopped. At this point, I dont see how, given all the weight of the party machinery calibrated in her favor by the equally odious National Party Chairperson, Congressperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders mounted a noble opposition campaign, and perhaps it is too early to write him off here before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary... ..."
"... And thats all you get on the Democratic side for the moment: a powerful sense that the fix is in. Yet there is the very real problem of Hillarys loathsomeness and how that would go down at the polls. Theres even a pretty good chance that many women would vote against her... ..."
Of Trump's opponents for the Republican nomination, the only one I can grudge up any interest
for is Rand Paul, who is a truly disruptive figure without being a maniac.
In fact, I think
he would make a good president, sober, thoughtful, unencumbered by obligation to the forces of racketeering.
But he appears to have a near-zero chance of winning the party's nomination.
Hillary is the opposite of a disrupter; she is the racketeer Godmother.
As things proceed,
however, she would merely preside over Great Depression 2.0.
Unlike FDR in GD 1.0,
Hillary would inspire no trust among a fractious population out for
revenge against the very enablers of Hillary's election, namely the Wall Street bankers.
The
nation would fall into factional fighting and possibly even regional breakup under Miz It's-My-Turn.
But I get ahead of myself….
The question at hand for 2016 is: Can Hillary be stopped. At this
point, I don't see how, given all the weight of the party machinery calibrated in her favor by the
equally odious National Party Chairperson, Congressperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Bernie Sanders mounted a noble opposition campaign, and perhaps it is too early to write him
off here before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary...
.... ... ...
And that's all you get on the Democratic side for the moment: a powerful sense that the fix
is in. Yet there is the very real problem of Hillary's loathsomeness and how that would go down at
the polls. There's even a pretty good chance that many women would vote against her...
"... That's not to say that Hillary Clinton herself will necessarily inject any of those elements
into the race. (Beyond the extent to which she already has, that is, via her inexplicable decision to
use a private email account while serving as secretary of state.) ..."
"... If a New Hampshire state legislator is willing to stand up in a public forum and imply that
Clinton's husband is a rapist, it seems inevitable that others will take the opportunity of public events
to make similar charges. ..."
But whomever the Republicans eventually nominate, this year is going to be ugly, because there
is a Clinton running for president. Because when Clintons run for office, conspiracy, scandal and
prurience inevitably follow.
That's not to say that Hillary Clinton herself will necessarily inject any of those elements
into the race. (Beyond the extent to which she already has, that is, via her inexplicable decision
to use a private email account while serving as secretary of state.) It is simply meant to point
out that where the Clintons are concerned, there is a large and vocal element of the Republican Party
that simply cannot resist the temptation to dive headfirst into the rabbit hole of Bill and Hillary
Clinton's past and then come to the surface screaming bloody murder (sometimes literally) about what
they think they found there.
In a New Hampshire town meeting on Sunday, a state legislator named Katherine Prudhomme O'Brien
demonstrated what we can likely expect to see a lot of in the coming year.
When Clinton paused to take questions from the crowd, O'Brien began haranguing the candidate with
questions about former president Bill Clinton's decades-old infidelities. Her point was to paint
Clinton as a hypocrite for claiming to support women's rights and for launching an anti-sexual assault
campaign while, according to O'Brien, her husband still faces unsettled questions about alleged sexual
assaults.
O'Brien, who was very close to Clinton when she began shouting questions at her, was herself shouted
down by Clinton supporters. After the event, she told reporters "I asked her how in the world she
can say that Juanita Broderick and Kathleen Wiley are lying when she has no idea who Juanita Broderick
is," O'Brien said, according to CNN, referring to women who have accused the former president of
sexual assault and to another attempt she had made to question the candidate.
"She told me this summer she doesn't know who she is and doesn't want to know who she is," O'Brien
said. "How can she access that they are lying, which she told someone last month?"
For her part, Clinton responded sharply, breaking from most candidates' strategy of ignoring hecklers
to tell O'Brien that she was "very rude" and that Clinton would "never" take questions from her.
... ... ....
Clinton criticism has long since become a field that welcomes all comers, regardless of the strength
of their tether to reality. Among Clinton detractors there is a veritable alternative history of
the United States, beginning with their rise to power in Arkansas in the 1980s, which includes accusations
of murder, drug-dealing and a vast menu of sexual improprieties all committed or endorsed by the
Clintons.
... ... ...
If a New Hampshire state legislator is willing to stand up in a public forum and imply that
Clinton's husband is a rapist, it seems inevitable that others will take the opportunity of public
events to make similar charges.
"... Sorry Hillary, you can pretend to be a progressive, nobody believes you. You want to be President because you want to be President, you dont give a rats rear end about the country. ..."
"... I think you might be falling for the subtle propaganda out there. The corporate media, as well as the DNC, has been marginalizing him from day one of his campaign because they have a vested interest in Clinton or any Republican winning the primary. Were Sanders to be successful, the corporate media would stand to lose 10s of million$ in campaign attack ads and corporations stand to lose their cheap, working poor, workforce. ..."
"... This is why corporate media (including MSNBC) continues to either ignore him, or continually say that he cannot win. It is a battle and its completely up to the electorate to form a movement that becomes a political revolution. ..."
"... I resent the continuing attempts to link her campaign to Senator Elizabeth Warrens positions on financial issues when the overwhelming support for her establishment candidacy is supported by entities inimical to virtually everything for which Ms. Warren fights. It is not only disrespectful to the Senator, but is, to me, proof positive that honesty and transparency remain far outside the Clinton Campaign business model, and that the Advisers - rather than her personal character and knowledge - control the Candidate AND will continue to do so - should they be able to elect her as President. ..."
"... I believe increasingly that Trump must win, and I say that without being an admirer. He comes with some terrible baggage, but at least on a couple issues, hes the only one saying anything worth saying. Maybe thats what America needs to make a little progress, to elect someone who overall is pretty unpleasant but who brings real progress on a couple of issues. It is particularly in foreign affairs says a couple of pretty penetrating truths. ..."
"... Hillary has absolutely nothing to say worth hearing. Shes not progressive. Shes not liberal. And shes just so twisted in her dishonesty, you cant make any sense of her from one day til the next. She is a genuinely phony exploiter of the old idea of the Democratic Party, as a party that does something for ordinary people, but that is simply not what that party has been for about half a century. In office, she would have most of Trumps ugly qualities and none of his few strong merits. Basically, she just wants the distinction of being the first woman president. ..."
"... Again, she stands for absolutely nothing any thoughtful person would call progress. ..."
"... Surprise, surprise, one more article to add to the many already written by the Guardian on $hillary. Has the Guardian been purchased by the $hillary for President Campaign??? Perhaps $hillary and Bill used the millions they have made on speaking tours, and the Clinton Foundation to buy the Guardian or are they paying to plant articles ..."
"... The Democratic Party is a terrible institution. It hasnt had a good idea in forty years. Americas entire political system is bent, bent towards the interests of the 1%. Hillary serves the interests of the 1% in virtually everything she does. Then she goes out and makes some vaccuous speeches to others, trying to assure them shes in their corner. The woman is a dreadful fraud and liar. ..."
"... turn back the clock on progress? What meaningless babble. There is no meangful progress in America on any aspect of domestic life. Not in politics. Not in public education. Not in ethics. However Hillary has played a significant role in Americas one true example of progress, its progress towards becoming an international bully. ..."
"... Clinton is a neo-conservative war-monger supporting neo-liberal economic policies. But the only Republican who isnt worse on both counts is Rand Paul, who isnt as fully into the neo-conservative carpet bombing agenda. Paul, however, more than makes up for this by being a complete looney on economic/individual rights issues. Unfortunately the only real alternative, Bernie Sanders, has been deemed as unelectable by the smart people and many of the electorate, afraid to throw away their votes may be swayed by that intelligence . ..."
"... dishonesty happens to be Mr. Hillarys middle name. ..."
"... Hilary Clinton is complicit in the ongoing US foreign policy of destroying working countries in North Africa and the Middle East and leaving them in ruins, as his her boss Obama. ..."
"... Polls are now officially worthless. Polling agencies call landlines which are anything but random representation of the ACTUAL American electorate. There are also various media outlets taking worthless internet polls which have absolutely no verification. Harris quit political polling until they can develop new reliable sampling methods. Relying on this information is completely misleading in the 21st century. ..."
"... Hillary has never seen a patch of desert she didnt want to send our kids to die in. ..."
"... We need Single Payer. We need Glass-Steagall. We need Peace. We need Bernie. ..."
ISIS is a proxy of KSA and Turkey. Turkey and KSA are both allies of USA. Therefore, USA doesn't
put in the effort.
HobbesianWorld -> rafinho
4 Jan 2016 10:11
Apparently you favor Hillary? You like corporate control of government? You like corporate
money in elections? You like the fact that the too-big-to-fail Wall Street financial institutions
will remain too-big-to-fail, and we, the taxpayer, will remain on the hook to bail them out? You
do know that we ARE still on the hook? You do know that the banks have gone back to speculating
with our deposits--the major cause of the Republican Great Recession of 2008?
Or, would you rather see Sanders win, but you are a defeatist who listens to the opinions of
those with vested interest in seeing him lose?
Marcedward
4 Jan 2016 10:03
Sorry Hillary, you can pretend to be a progressive, nobody believes you. You want to be
President because you want to be President, you don't give a rat's rear end about the country.
HobbesianWorld -> rafinho
4 Jan 2016 10:01
I think you might be falling for the subtle propaganda out there. The corporate media,
as well as the DNC, has been marginalizing him from day one of his campaign because they have
a vested interest in Clinton or any Republican winning the primary. Were Sanders to be successful,
the corporate media would stand to lose 10s of million$ in campaign attack ads and corporations
stand to lose their cheap, working poor, workforce.
This is why corporate media (including MSNBC) continues to either ignore him, or continually
say that "he cannot win." It is a battle and its completely up to the electorate to form a movement
that becomes a political revolution.
Just because they keep saying that he can't win, and then fail to mention him in most news
or opinion segments while extolling Hillary, I don't just shrug my shoulders and wimp away, assuming
defeat. I will keep on promoting him as the champion of working America and exposing Hillary as
the corporatist she is.
Bruce Gruber -> pol098
4 Jan 2016 09:59
Vote for Bernie Sanders and make your DETERMINATION clear.
Revolutions against status quo moderates eager to achieve dysfunctional compromises are NOT
solutions. Ms. Clinton panders to FEAR ... It is fear of Republicans winning . She does not say,
Bernie, Martin and I stand against ISIL, BUT with strategies that don't alienate Muslims and denigrate
a religion." INSTEAD she votes, hints, suggests etc. that 'WE need to FIND solutions ... strengthen
our (presently discordant and previously ineffective) policies, and 'fight against' ...(war, war,
war!). After years of holding important roles and positions, has she not YET "FOUND" ideas with
which to lead? Where ARE the regulations or restrictions? What ARE they? ... are they in support
of the OATH to reinstall, preserve and protect the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments to the Constitution?
Identifying WITH a constituency may be reassuring to 'listeners' as to similarity of concern,
but it does NOT convey ideas or leadership to address those issues. Traditionally, politicians
are wont to defend against complaints that, "That isn't exactly what I said, and it's not what
I meant! You have taken my words out of context."
So, I find this article to be puff piece. It extols her historic involvement, but avoids her
ideas. It ignores the neo-con aspects of her 'experience' and implies much more than it offers.
Of course, my opinion is biased.
I resent the continuing attempts to link her campaign
to Senator Elizabeth Warren's positions on financial issues when the overwhelming support for
her 'establishment' candidacy is supported by entities inimical to virtually everything for which
Ms. Warren fights. It is not only disrespectful to the Senator, but is, to me, proof positive
that honesty and transparency remain far outside the Clinton Campaign business model, and that
the "Advisers" - rather than her personal character and knowledge - control the Candidate AND
will continue to do so - should they be able to elect her as President.
Additionally, the clown car of Republican dissolution is not an issue in the election. Democrats
WILL turn out, so Republicans cannot win. Trump has consolidated THEIR "anti-establishment" base,
and their puppet-master cash class are playing poker against one another as though the 'pot' was
a new toy.
Murphy1983 -> Mike Hambuchen
4 Jan 2016 09:58
Mike: Educate yourself about Sanders. Take a look at this article from The New York Times.
As usual, it's very pro HRC and anti-Sanders. Read through the "Readers' Pick" section under Comments.
I think you'll be better informed about why Sanders is such an amazing candidate.
Here's one my favorite comments written by Mark Hugh Miller of San Francisco:
If you make a list of America's problems, needs, and desires, and then list what each candidate
proposes to do about them - to date, mostly nothing - there's only one candidate willing to tell
Americans painful truths and things they don't want to hear, and offer practical solutions. That's
Bernie Sanders. Who would have imagined it two years ago?
His detractors won't dare challenge the rightness of what he proposes, but instead use the
old GOP canards: "We can't afford it? Where's he going to find the money to pay for it?"
We can pay for everything, it seems - war, defense, a bloated military arsenal, Wall Street
bailouts, more prisons, tax breaks for the wealthy and for corporations, subsidies to oil companies
and corporate farming ventures - but "never" anything that benefits the majority of Americans
who have helped hold the world together for decades, and every year see their security and futures
diminished, threatened.
Sanders is the only candidate willing to risk defeat by addressing the issues that matter to
us, and the world.
I believe increasingly that Trump must win, and I say that without being an admirer. He
comes with some terrible baggage, but at least on a couple issues, he's the only one saying anything
worth saying. Maybe that's what America needs to make a little progress, to elect someone who
overall is pretty unpleasant but who brings real progress on a couple of issues. It is particularly
in foreign affairs says a couple of pretty penetrating truths.
Hillary has absolutely nothing to say worth hearing. She's not progressive. She's not liberal.
And she's just so twisted in her dishonesty, you can't make any sense of her from one day til
the next. She is a genuinely phony exploiter of the old idea of the Democratic Party, as a party
that does something for ordinary people, but that is simply not what that party has been for about
half a century. In office, she would have most of Trump's ugly qualities and none of his few strong
merits. Basically, she just wants the distinction of being the first woman president.
Now that would be fine, had she something to offer people, but she does not.
Again, she stands for absolutely nothing any thoughtful person would call progress.
MonotonousLanguor
4 Jan 2016 09:53
Surprise, surprise, one more article to add to the many already written by the Guardian
on $hillary. Has the Guardian been purchased by the $hillary for President Campaign??? Perhaps
$hillary and Bill used the millions they have made on speaking tours, and the Clinton Foundation
to buy the Guardian or are they paying to plant articles
.
Chuckman -> Allan Burns
4 Jan 2016 09:42
I don't think that's true.
The Democratic Party is a terrible institution. It hasn't had
a good idea in forty years. America's entire political system is bent, bent towards the interests
of the 1%. Hillary serves the interests of the 1% in virtually everything she does. Then she goes
out and makes some vaccuous speeches to others, trying to assure them she's in their corner. The
woman is a dreadful fraud and liar.
ID5360392 -> Lazio99
4 Jan 2016 09:35
I think you are omitting one very important person. Former President George W. Bush took the
US to an unjustified war in Iraq and destabilized the entire region. Didn't W at one point claim
credit for the "green revolution" and the wave of revolts in the Middle East by saying it was
because he brought "democracy" to Iraq?
Chuckman
4 Jan 2016 09:35
'turn back the clock' on progress? What meaningless babble. There is no meangful progress
in America on any aspect of domestic life. Not in politics. Not in public education. Not in ethics.
However Hillary has played a significant role in America's one true example of progress, its progress
towards becoming an international bully.
panpipes -> Ryscavage
4 Jan 2016 09:33
Hyperbole never helps convince people of the rationality of your argument...
Clinton is a neo-conservative war-monger supporting neo-liberal economic policies. But
the only Republican who isn't worse on both counts is Rand Paul, who isn't as fully into the neo-conservative
carpet bombing agenda. Paul, however, more than makes up for this by being a complete looney on
economic/individual rights issues. Unfortunately the only real alternative, Bernie Sanders, has
been deemed as unelectable by the "smart people" and many of the electorate, afraid to "throw
away their votes" may be swayed by that "intelligence".
Zepp -> rafinho
4 Jan 2016 09:29
His claim is accurate. Assuming Sanders is the nominee, he would trounce Trump, on average
by 16 points. According to several such polls.
Yes, he trails Hillary, who is well known and well funded. But he leads in New Hampshire, and
is in striking distance in Iowa. And let's face it: most Democrats really aren't very enthusiastic
about Clinton.
AmbassadorIII
4 Jan 2016 09:11
Dishonesty insults and demeans the people of America and
dishonesty happens to be Mr. Hillary's
middle name.
Truth is, indeed, bitter after three consecutive, pathological liar presidents.
Thank God, Trump has the courage to speak it.
Lazio99
4 Jan 2016 08:59
Hilary Clinton is complicit in the ongoing US foreign policy of destroying working countries
in North Africa and the Middle East and leaving them in ruins, as his her boss Obama.
How
these two come to be the pin ups of the European liberal chattering classes beats me. How can
anyone vote for a pair like these?
Charles Taylor -> rafinho
4 Jan 2016 09:25
Polls are now officially worthless. Polling agencies call landlines which are anything
but random representation of the ACTUAL American electorate. There are also various media outlets
taking worthless internet "polls" which have absolutely no verification. Harris quit political
polling until they can develop new reliable sampling methods. Relying on this information is completely
misleading in the 21st century.
brianBT
4 Jan 2016 08:14
Hilary is running almost the same campaign she did last time.. the lips are moving but nothing
is coming out.. and the words that do issue tend to be strategically and politically non-committal..
in short a political gas bag.. she has no chance of winning
Mike5000
4 Jan 2016 08:07
RomneyObamaCare is making Hillary's insurance mafia buddies rich while bankrupting ordinary
Americans.
Taxpayer-subsidized gambling is making Hillary's bankster buddies rich while fraudulently taking
millions of American homes.
And
Hillary has never seen a patch of desert she didn't want to send our kids to die in.
We need Single Payer. We need Glass-Steagall. We need Peace. We need Bernie.
What is interesting is that Trump is 100% right... I think he has a marketing talent. One
thing for certain, he created a problem for Repugs establishment and all those yellow US MSM and their
owners...
"... "She should be in jail, by the way, for what she did," Trump said. "Everybody knows she should
be in jail. What she did with the emails is a disgrace," he added. ..."
He then blamed US President Barack Obama and his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, for
the Islamic State's rise.
"They have a bunch of dishonest people," he continued. "They've created ISIS. Hillary Clinton
created ISIS with Obama - created with Obama. But I love predicting because you know, ultimately,
you need somebody with vision."
Trump and Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, have fiercely sparred in recent weeks. Trump
took particular exception to Clinton saying that his provocative campaign-trail statements had
become propaganda for the Islamic State, especially his proposal to bar Muslims from entering the
US.
The Republican billionaire demanded that Clinton apologize, but her campaign
replied at the time: "Hell no. Hillary Clinton will not be apologizing to Donald Trump for correctly
pointing out how his hateful rhetoric only helps ISIS recruit more terrorists."
After Clinton said Trump had generally displayed a
"penchant for sexism," Trump went after her husband, former US President Bill Clinton. Trump
recently proclaimed that the former president has
"a terrible record of women abuse," referring to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, among other things.
At his Saturday rally, Trump also blasted Hillary Clinton for
a report on her husband's paid speeches while she was secretary of state. As he has done frequently
before, Trump further asserted that Clinton "shouldn't be allowed to run" because of the private
email system she used for her State Department work.
"She should be in jail, by the way, for what she did," Trump said. "Everybody knows she should
be in jail. What she did with the emails is a disgrace," he added.
"... This week, though, the media appeared curiously incurious about the latest tranche of e-mails from the Clinton server. In the largest release yet, State unveiled 7,800 pages of e-mails, of which 328 e-mails were redacted for containing classified information. ABC News dutifully reported on that addition to the refutation of Clinton's claims, and noted that the number of e-mails that contained classified information has reached 999 in total – with about a third of the communications left unpublished for now. ..."
"... Very few news outlets found it newsworthy that the number of classified messages had jumped nearly 50 percent with this release, and none pondered what that meant to Hillary Clinton's credibility. ..."
"... The collective yawn from the media after this week's release gives us an indication of the level of media interest we can expect, as Hillary Clinton gets closer to the nomination. They want to keep that narrative going rather than look at the thousand ways Clinton lied about her e-mail system and risked national security in order to thwart legitimate oversight into the State Department's performance. ..."
This week, though, the media appeared curiously incurious about the latest tranche of e-mails
from the Clinton server. In the largest release yet, State unveiled 7,800 pages of e-mails, of which
328 e-mails were redacted for containing classified information. ABC News dutifully reported on that
addition to the refutation of Clinton's claims, and noted that the number of e-mails that contained
classified information has reached 999 in total – with about a third of the communications left unpublished
for now.
Oddly, though, the media outlet that broke the story didn't seem interested in pursuing that aspect
of it. The New York Times report on the latest tranche didn't bother to mention that any e-mails
had been classified. Its lead on the release instead noted that one e-mail which had been previously
considered classified had been declassified for this release…which presumably kept Clinton from hitting
1,000 refutations to her claims.
The rest of the media didn't take much more of an interest in the implications of this development,
either. Most of the focus fell on Philippe Reines' effort to get advice from the NFL for Clinton's
"cracked head," as she self-effacingly described her concussion and its aftermath. Others found it
amusing that Clinton was a fan of the TV series Homeland but didn't recall which channel to watch
for it. Very few news outlets found it newsworthy that the number of classified messages had
jumped nearly 50 percent with this release, and none pondered what that meant to Hillary Clinton's
credibility.
This lack of interest seems to be of a piece with the narrative that emerged in late October,
after the Democrats' first presidential debate and Clinton's testimony to the House Select Committee
on Benghazi. They rushed to declare that time frame "the best ten days of the Clinton campaign,"
even though as Marco Rubio pointed out in a subsequent debate , the testimony actually demonstrated
that Clinton lied about Benghazi.
In an e-mail uncovered in the scandal, she told her family within hours of the attack on the consulate
that it was an organized terrorist operation, while insisting for the next two weeks that it was
a spontaneous demonstration in response to an obscure YouTube video.
Still, ever since then the narrative has had Clinton recovering her bearings and moving past the
e-mail scandal even as the FBI probe continues and more classified information is redacted. The
collective yawn from the media after this week's release gives us an indication of the level of media
interest we can expect, as Hillary Clinton gets closer to the nomination. They want to keep that
narrative going rather than look at the thousand ways Clinton lied about her e-mail system and risked
national security in order to thwart legitimate oversight into the State Department's performance.
"... But its building in Bern Township, Pennsylvania, doesn't have a perimeter fence or security checkpoints and has two reception areas ..."
"... Dumpsters at the site were left open and unguarded, and loading bays have no security presence ..."
"... It has also been reported that hackers tried to gain access to her personal email address by sending her emails disguised parking violations which were designed to gain access to her computer. ..."
"... a former senior executive at Datto was allegedly able to steal sensitive information from the company's systems after she was fired. ..."
Datto Inc has been revealed to have stored Hillary Clinton's emails - which contained national
secrets - when it backed up her private server
It claims it runs 'data fortresses' monitored by security 24 hours a day, where only a retinal
or palm scan allows access to its facilities
But its building in Bern Township, Pennsylvania, doesn't have a perimeter fence or security
checkpoints and has two reception areas
Dumpsters at the site were left open and unguarded, and loading bays have no security
presence
Clinton faces first Democratic debate tonight amid falling poll numbers and growing questions
The congressional committee is focusing on what happened to the server after she left office in
a controversy that is dogging her presidential run and harming her trust with voters.
In the latest developments it emerged that hackers in China, South Korea and Germany tried to
gain access to the server after she left office. It has also been reported that hackers tried
to gain access to her personal email address by sending her emails disguised parking violations which
were designed to gain access to her computer.
Daily Mail Online has previously revealed how a former senior executive at Datto was allegedly
able to steal sensitive information from the company's systems after she was fired.
Hackers also managed to completely take over a Datto storage device, allowing them to steal whatever
data they wanted.
Employees at the company, which is based in Norwalk, Connecticut, have a maverick attitude and
see themselves as 'disrupters' of a staid industry.
On their Facebook page they have posed for pictures wearing ugly sweaters and in fancy dress including
stereotypes of Mexicans.
Its founder, Austin McChord, has been called the 'Steve Jobs' of data storage and who likes to
play in his offices with Nerf guns and crazy costumes.
"... " That's total amateur hour. Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this" -- ..."
"... The government and security firms have published warnings about allowing this kind of remote access to Clinton's server. The same software was targeted by an infectious Internet worm, known as Morta, which exploited weak passwords to break into servers. The software also was known to be vulnerable to brute-force attacks that tried password combinations until hackers broke in, and in some cases it could be tricked into revealing sensitive details about a server to help hackers formulate attacks. ..."
"... Also in 2012, the State Department had outlawed use of remote-access software for its technology officials to maintain unclassified servers without a waiver. It had banned all instances of remotely connecting to classified servers or servers located overseas. ..."
"... The findings suggest Clinton's server 'violates the most basic network-perimeter security tenets: Don't expose insecure services to the Internet,' said Justin Harvey, the chief security officer for Fidelis Cybersecurity. ..."
"... The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal government's guiding agency on computer technology, warned in 2008 that exposed server ports were security risks. It said remote-control programs should only be used in conjunction with encryption tunnels, such as secure VPN connections. ..."
Investigation by the Associated Press reveals that the clintonemail.com server lacked basic protections
Microsoft remote desktop service she used was not intended for use without additional safety
features - but had none
Government and computer industry had warned at the time that such set-ups could be hacked
- but nothing was done to make server safer
President this weekend denied national security had been put at risk by his secretary of state
but FBI probe is still under way
... ... ...
Clinton's server, which handled her personal and State Department correspondence, appeared to
allow users to connect openly over the Internet to control it remotely, according to detailed records
compiled in 2012.
Experts said the Microsoft remote desktop service wasn't intended for such use without additional
protective measures, and was the subject of U.S. government and industry warnings at the time over
attacks from even low-skilled intruders.
.... ... ...
Records show that Clinton additionally operated two more devices on her home network in Chappaqua,
New York, that also were directly accessible from the Internet.
" That's total amateur hour. Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these
things, would not do this" -- Marc Maiffret, cyber security expert
One contained similar remote-control software that also has suffered from security vulnerabilities,
known as Virtual Network Computing, and the other appeared to be configured to run websites.
The new details provide the first clues about how Clinton's computer, running Microsoft's
server software, was set up and protected when she used it exclusively over four years as secretary
of state for all work messages.
Clinton's privately paid technology adviser, Bryan Pagliano, has declined to answer questions
about his work from congressional investigators, citing the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment
protection against self-incrimination.
Some emails on Clinton's server were later deemed top secret, and scores of others included
confidential or sensitive information.
Clinton has said that her server featured 'numerous safeguards,' but she has yet to explain
how well her system was secured and whether, or how frequently, security updates were applied.
'That's total amateur hour,' said Marc Maiffret, who has founded two cyber security companies.
He said permitting remote-access connections directly over the Internet would be the result of someone
choosing convenience over security or failing to understand the risks. 'Real enterprise-class security,
with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this,' he said.
The government and security firms have published warnings about allowing this kind of remote
access to Clinton's server. The same software was targeted by an infectious Internet worm, known
as Morta, which exploited weak passwords to break into servers. The software also was known to be
vulnerable to brute-force attacks that tried password combinations until hackers broke in, and in
some cases it could be tricked into revealing sensitive details about a server to help hackers formulate
attacks.
'An attacker with a low skill level would be able to exploit this vulnerability,' said the Homeland
Security Department's U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team in 2012, the same year Clinton's server
was scanned.
Also in 2012, the State Department had outlawed use of remote-access software for its technology
officials to maintain unclassified servers without a waiver. It had banned all instances of remotely
connecting to classified servers or servers located overseas.
The findings suggest Clinton's server 'violates the most basic network-perimeter security
tenets: Don't expose insecure services to the Internet,' said Justin Harvey, the chief security officer
for Fidelis Cybersecurity.
Clinton's email server at one point also was operating software necessary to publish websites,
although it was not believed to have been used for this purpose.
Traditional security practices dictate shutting off all a server's unnecessary functions to prevent
hackers from exploiting design flaws in them.
In Clinton's case, Internet addresses the AP traced to her home in Chappaqua revealed open ports
on three devices, including her email system.
Each numbered port is commonly, but not always uniquely, associated with specific features or
functions. The AP in March was first to discover Clinton's use of a private email server and trace
it to her home.
Mikko Hypponen, the chief research officer at F-Secure, a top global computer security firm, said
it was unclear how Clinton's server was configured, but an out-of-the-box installation of remote
desktop would have been vulnerable.
Those risks - such as giving hackers a chance to run malicious software on her machine - were
'clearly serious' and could have allowed snoops to deploy so-called 'back doors.'
The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal government's guiding
agency on computer technology, warned in 2008 that exposed server ports were security risks.
It said remote-control programs should only be used in conjunction with encryption tunnels, such
as secure VPN connections.
Guardian presstitutes are ready to defend even indefensible Hillary Clinton behaviour.
Notable quotes:
"... I think that the moment she mixed personal and work related or classified information, she loses the right to claim that any of the emails were personal. Hence, all emails become connected to her work as SOS, and none of the emails can be deleted. None of her emails can be treated as personal anymore, they have now become government property. She had no right to delete anything. ..."
"... In Hillary's case, I suspect "personal emails" is a euphemism for ANY correspondence she does not want exposed in official governmental records, including that which could be used against her politically in the future, i.e. backroom deals, dubious policies, nefarious schemes, etc. ..."
makaio
8
9
This is disheartening and outrageous, with State and Justice skirting around the issues,
and as one commenter said, covering for Hillary in a partisan way.
The departments have
been largely silent on rules and legalities, and now they've evolved to tiptoeing.
Pathetic.
The comparison of government server deletions versus private server deletions and
wipes is inapt. Government employees and service members -- the millions who aren't as
special as Hillary with private off-site servers for their work -- surely can delete any
emails they choose, work or personal. But backup records are controlled by government IT
departments, who ideally are following records-keeping regulations.
Not so with the queen's server and email setup. She's deplorable, as is this State and
Justice mockery.
If the President continues to stand for this, I have no interest in voting. I haven't
pulled him into my disgust with this topic until now ... Justice is full of crap.
Berkeley2013
7
8
Many things are intriguing about this scandal.
1. The media covers it but not in a
comprehensive or responsible way. The NY Times barely touches it. Same with The Economist.
The Post pushes it to those vacuous bloggers, DM and CC. The New Yorker is hiding under a
rock.
2. You would expect all to write "Calls to Action" of some kind.
3. Some kind of legal clarifications is order--several, actually. All the Title 18 items
need to be clarified for the public. Do they apply?
4. Damage analysis. What possible damage could have been done?
5. Role of the administration? How did this situation last for four years?
6. Are the deleted e-mails going to surface?
7. Cost. Why should public pay for the legal and administrative chaos of a rogue SoS?
Berkeley2013
flatulenceodor67
4
5
All these issues lead to more questions. In this case, who authorized the use? Who knew?
Who responded to the existence of this rogue communications network? Who maintained? Which
if any clearances did they have? Did they share any of what they knew with others? And this
is just the most basic of this whole tsunami of needless problems. Just this avenue leads
to millions of dollars of investigative hours. Many millions...
flatulenceodor67
ShinjiNoShinji
1
2
Well one federal Judge thinks so...
http://jonathanturley.org/2015/08/21/federal-judge-says-hillary-clinton-violated-government-policy-in-using-personal-server-while-secretary-of-state/
Berkeley2013
2
3
The Guardian is being quite irresponsible here. You need to quote/date your sources and
supply links to the full documents. Which case? When? Who? It looks to me as though you are
just grabbing an article by a disreputable Metro DC publication that I am not going to
dignify by naming.
Also, assuming that something like this story is accurate, why would
DOJ do this?
Am not sure why you add a click-bait article to this complex topic--you should just
stick with the tabloid, sports, Hollywood junk articles that fill your virtual space these
days.
tropic2
makaio
2
3
She simply used a classified government email system, or more likely, approved
hardcopy classified draft messages for a member of her staff to send with her
approval.
No, she didn't use a government email system (classified or not). She
used a private email system, completely outside the government.
And no, she didn't set up her own server for the purpose of having hard copies of
message drafts. So far, she has suggested a range of different reasons:
- To have just one device for both her official and personal
communications....which is a lie: she had two devices.
- She was "not thinking very much about it"... which is a lie: she had a private
server installed in her house, a domain registered under a former aide's name, and
key staffers conducting official government business on that server. And she paid
$5000 to a former IT aide to set up the system.
Report
In short, she wrongly used a private server and
personal email address for the majority of her official work, which of course is not
permissible for classified information, and questionable at best for unclassified content.
And she has wrongly lied to the American public in response to related questions.
But just because she used her private account does not mean she did not have a largely
inactive .gov address. And she also likely had a government address on a classified
government system, which she or her staff likely used when receiving or sending marked
classified information.
ga gamba
1
2
Of course she had the right to delete to personal emails - keep in mind that had she used a
gov't-provided account like almost all other State Department employees she would have had
to follow the rules governing personal use of tax payer-provided equipment and services.
Ms Clinton certainly did not have the right to process classified information on a
personal computer system. That's illegal. You'd think the top executive would know such
things.
zbrowne
1
2
I think that the moment she mixed personal and work related or classified information,
she loses the right to claim that any of the emails were personal. Hence, all emails become
connected to her work as SOS, and none of the emails can be deleted. None of her emails can
be treated as personal anymore, they have now become government property. She had no right
to delete anything.
Socraticus
1
2
In Hillary's case, I suspect "personal emails" is a euphemism for ANY correspondence
she does not want exposed in official governmental records, including that which could be
used against her politically in the future, i.e. backroom deals, dubious policies,
nefarious schemes, etc.
Thirdparty
Socraticus
0
1
How very cynical of you! If ever there was an opening for a 'Mr. Clean' named Joe Biden,
this is it. Hillary is plummeting in the polls. Biden is not in the race, yet he polls 20%.
After his appearance on Colbert on Thursday evening, I think that if he were to declare,
his support would double, at least. At 40%, he would be ahead of Hillary. In addition to
being thoroughly unethical, Hillary is not liked even by those who work with her.
ID9630461
7
8
For many, Hillary's very existence is a crime, so no amount of exoneration by the
Justice Dept... or indeed anyone else.... will change anything. The relentless
attacks will continue, and many of us will continue to see them as a clear indication
of how vulnerable the Republicans feel about their own Presidential prospects, with a
campaign that's in complete disarray, and a front runner who seems determined to
systematically alienate every single one of the demographic groups that the GOP had
hoped to court this time around. Frankly, I'd be worried too if I were a Republican!
Report
3
4
The Justice Department run by a political democratic appointee says Hillary has "rights" I
wonder.....Fast and Furious, NSA spying, Waco, refusal to disseminate information after
numerous court orders as directed under freedom of information act etc etc.. So you say we
we should stand behind whatever the justice department says....LOL. Seems they are even
more guilt of lying and cover ups then she is.
Tom Voloshen
3
4
For almost all of us when using the company's equipment our emails become the property of
the company. All mail on a company server is backed up for a period of time and it is the
responsibility of the user to insure critical Emails are saved or archived properly to
prevent them from being deleted thru periodic routine house keeping by the IT department.
Being that all emails become company property and subject to review at any time by the
company it seems quite obvious this was unacceptable to the Clinton's and could lead to
problems similar to the Nixon fiasco on which Hillary cut her teeth just out of school. She
as arrogant as she is decided she could ignore the the rules and keep all her
communications to herself. She thinks if she says she did no wrong long enough people will
give up. They usually do. While that still won't make her right it certainly makes her
someone not to be trusted.
wavigaru
4
5
Here is the deal folks.... This person wants to be president and have the responsibilities
that go along with the office. If she can't even be competent with the little data she was
entrusted why should she be given more responsibility? Because she is a woman?
Why are we rewarding incompetence? Obama was re-elected despite the incredibly low labor
usage, declining wage growth, and skyrocketing health care costs. He made it his mission to
provide "affordable" care with the ACA, yet my rates doubled up to $500/month (compare this
with my ever decreasing car insurance rates… only $25/month from Insurance Panda now). Yet
we voted him in for 8 years? And we want to elect Hillary?
I am sorry but when you do a poor job at any job they don't promote you unless they just
want to go out of business. Also what this woman did was a crime. Nixon was impeached for
less, Edward Snowden did the same thing and is in hiding in Russia and the Government won't
let him come home, and General Petraeus was forced to resign from his position in the CIA
yet this woman is not facing any charges so far and is running for the highest office in
the land. What is wrong with this picture?
chiefwiley
andthensome
1
2
Read the entire section under 5 FAM 443.5. Nothing in the system is considered "personal"
and there is no expectation of privacy expected or granted. Cherry picking or rephrasing a
rule that anybody can read in two minutes is also no way to go about your day.
Every email has a sender and a receiver. Usually multiple servers are involved. Every email
in the system is recorded at numerous points, even if deleted at the source or destination.
A day or two with a talented engineer and a high speed search engine would recover just
about all of it. No warrant would be required for anything with a government connection. --
only the will to do it or an order from the appropriate judge.
DracoFerret
3
4
a corrupt woman with such poor judgment and a Tory attitude toward the working class should
not be president. No wonder Sanders is rising in the polls.
Let her go back to Arkansas
makaio
Thebirdsareback
1
2
To Clinton's supporters ... here's a nice summary of everything she's done wrong on this
subject, most of it intentional with no respect for most anyone.
However legal or illegal, unbelievable gullibility is
needed to assert she's done nothing wrong.
She's trying to play us, people of all political beliefs. And despite notable executive
and media support, she's largely failing, as both public responses and her reactions have
demonstrated.
Woodenarrow123
3
4
Another biased article that fails to include the context of the allegations (that Clinton
had the right to delete emails) and consequently it provides a misleading impression.
This is NO vindication for Hillary Clinton - it is a defence filing in a case where the
Judge Emmet Sullivan has already decided at an earlier hearing that Clinton has violated
Government Policy with regard to the handling of emails.
As a result of his decision he ordered the State Department to tell the FBI to go
through all the emails (that are recovered - assuming they can be recovered), both business
and personal, on her home brew server to see if Hillary deleted any emails she should have
handed over to him as part of the FOI case.
Now Clinton's people are up in arms - Why? Is it because she deleted embarrassing emails
regarding Benghazi? Is it because the FBI (having been instructed by a Federal Judge) might
end up reading emails relating to dodgy dealings at the Clinton Foundation?
In the deeply Politicised US Civil Service both the State Department and the Justice
Department are objecting to the Judge's decision and are attempting to limit the inquiry.
For those that naively (or perhaps because they support Hillary) believe this is simply
a political attack by GOP opponents - It is worth remembering the FBI investigation was
launch by the Inspector General and decision to have ALL emails examined was made by a
member of the Judiciary (appointed ironically by Bill Clinton).
Both parties cited above are independent of the GOP.
Also for the record Hillary did NOT delete the emails at the time - She deleted them
some 18 months after leaving office (according to her lawyer some time after October last
year) and AFTER several investigations had been launched.
If Hillary Clinton deleted info relating to matters under investigation after an
investigation was launched (destroying evidence) then that is a felony offence.
Hillary understood the seriousness of the question when asked did she wipe the server -
That is why she replied along these lines: With a cloth or something.
Again this is no vindication of Clinton - Instead it is a lame defence to a serious
charge to a Federal Judge who has already decided in the matter.
pattbaa
0
1
What do you Brits know about the "Fast and Furious" scandal in the Dept. of Justice ?
; to have a perspective of how outrageous this was , consider this hypothetical
situation.
In Manhattan , a narcotics squad interdicts a gang of drug dealers , a
"shoot-out" erupts, and one of the squad members is murdered. The firearm that was
used to commit the murder is seized , and an investigation reveals the "Source" of
the murder weapon was-- the Office of the District Attorney on New York County!! (
Manhattan)
The D- A's Office was supplying drug criminals with firearms?; would never happen
you might say. But that's EXACTLY what happened in the "Fast and Furious" scandal
when Eric Holder was Attorney-General; the ATF division of the U. S. Dept. of Justice
was selling firearms to members of Mexican drug cartels , and a Border Agent was
murdered by a weapon supplied by the ATF division of the Justice Dept.
So much for the Dept. of Justice under the current President. The present A-G ,
Loretta Lynch , is loyal to the President and the Democratic Party , but not loyal to
"Justice".
Report
"I believe in an open, transparent government that is
accountable to the people. Excessive government secrecy harms democratic governance and can
weaken our system of checks and balances by shielding officials from oversight and inviting
misconduct or error. ... To me, openness and accountability are not platitudes _ they are
essential elements of our democracy."
-- Hillary Clinton, May 2008 in response to Sunshine Week survey of presidential
candidates.
0
1
Well, it is refreshing to see someone with a sense of humor about this. Thanks, Mr
Bluebeard
A_Cappella
1
2
Hillary just needs to lie the U.S. into a very costly war in terms of American and
indigenous deaths, trillions of dollars and significant more destabilization in the
Mideast.
That will mollify the Republicans.
CitizenCarrier
0
1
The State Department guidelines for emails had prohibited use of a private server since
2005.
Yet she still keeps saying that what she did was allowed.
Hillary's State Department fired U.S. Ambassador Scott Gration (Kenya) in part for using
private emails to evade agency rules.
Hillary said the emails she deleted included private ones between her and her husband.
Her husband's spokesman, within days, announced surprise at that, since Bill Clinton has
only sent two emails in his entire life...and not to Hillary.
She is a liar. And a felon in violation of the Espionage Act.
"... The woman is a hawk and a warmonger. In a sane world she would be ineligible on her voting record and likely foreign policy, not down to some technicality about her email address. ..."
"... The fact that she posted almost identical language on Facebook as she used in the Muir interview certainly suggests that the "apology" was carefully written and likely tested in focus groups. ..."
"... Read the dreadful facts (warning: lolcatz spoiler): http://www.bubblews.com/posts/hillary-email-the-horrid-facts ..."
"... An FBI investigation whilst running to be your party's presidential nominee, let alone running for president in the real thing next year, is never a good look. ..."
"... Agreed. I don't much care about this "classified or not" kerfuffle. I am much more concerned about the Nixonian scrubbing of the email server, when Clinton KNEW her work emails were subpoenaed by the House Benghazi committee. That says GUILTY in no uncertain terms. And I don't think we're ever going to receive an "apology" for those deletions. ..."
"... More than a mistake I'm afraid. At best it is a career ending error of judgment. At worst a deliberate and cynical attempt to maintain personal control of data so none of it could come back to damage her presidential campaign. Anyway, she should be finished. ..."
"... Her "We came, we saw, ..." laughter is inappropriate, especially in light of the turmoil resulting from a power vacuum which we are still witnessing today. But I don't know the context of why everyone in the room is in such a jovial mood. ..."
"... She has no ability, but for deception, no intelligence, unless someone "advises" her beforehand, but she DOES have much experience at deception, and commitment only to herself. Certainly not presidential material. She should just drop and let Bernie take the lead. Of course, her dear friend Wasserman-Shultz, would not allow that to happen. ..."
"... It becomes a matter of criminal conspiracy because Clinton did not just use a private email address. This was a conspiracy to avoid monitored email and a matter of legal public record, arranged as a conspiracy between Clinton's desire to maintain secret communications hidden from the rest of government and the person who did the work of setting up the server with knowledge of how it would be used and the network administrators who allowed it to exist in what should have been a secured network location, knowing how it would be used. So not the childish lie of "I did it but I didn't mean to", but the reality of a conspired plan to thwart record keeping, discussed and implemented with purposeful intent and with no question that it was to hide intended criminal activity. ..."
"... Obviously her "apology" was dragged out of her and is completely insincere. This is the track record of H Clinton - arrogant; power hungry; untrustworthy; unscrupulous; unprincipled; 100% insincere; can't we do any better than this? ..."
"... HRC is aiding her own demonization and I honestly think she's going to lose to whomever/whatever clown emerges from the Right Wing. ..."
"... It's not about leaving an opening for her adversaries, it's is about destroying the public record of the Secretary of State. In the US, government communications belongs to the government and to the people. ..."
"... Sanders is the better person but he will never get nominated. So it's either Hillary or some GOP nutbag. Easy vote. Not optimal, but still an easy choice. ..."
"... the private server was not an error --it was a coup of genius-- since it allowed "the candidate" to hand over only the harmless emails after erasing(?) the damning ones (e.g., those with the quid-pro-quo negotiation of UKR-neonazi donations to the clinton foundation before the 2014 UKR coup d'etat). ..."
"... Hillary has learnt a lot from the old Bill. Denial first step: Bill, I did not have sexual relation with that woman. And I need to go back to work for the American people. ..."
"... Admission second step: Bill admitted in taped grand jury testimony on August 17, 1998, that he had had an "improper physical relationship" with Lewinsky. ..."
"... Clinton consistently acts with arrogant denial when confronted with wrong-doing, and throughout her career there have been repeated situations, each marked by the same denial, arrogance. ..."
"... She believes she'll be anointed and begrudgingly goes on the stump, showing no joy in meeting regular folks and getting huffy when reporters dare ask her questions. ..."
"... The US hasn't been a democracy since day 1. Never meant to be. It was/is a carpetbagger's club. The only thing that's changed is the voters are dumber and the pizazz is crappier (to match the candidates). Why is this even discussed? ..."
"... Then again we are talking about an oligarch aiming to retake the presidential office for her wing of the national aristocracy. What else would one expect. ..."
"... I read where Carl Rove deleted 13,000 emails during the bush horror years. It pisses me off that she apologized for this non-issue because of political pressure. I'm voting for Bernie. ..."
"... Mrs. Clinton has the most unappetizing combination of qualities to be met in many days' march: she is a tyrant and a bully when she can dare to be, and an ingratiating populist when that will serve. She will sometimes appear in the guise of a 'strong woman' and sometimes in the softer garb of a winsome and vulnerable female. She is entirely un-self-critical and quite devoid of reflective capacity, and has never found that any of her numerous misfortunes or embarrassments are her own fault, because the fault invariably lies with others. And, speaking of where things lie, she can in a close contest keep up with her husband for mendacity. Like him, she is not just a liar but a lie; a phony construct of shreds and patches and hysterical, self-pitying, demagogic improvisations." (p. 123) ..."
"... Snowden on Clinton: If an ordinary worker at the State Department or the Central Intelligence Agency were sending details about the security of embassies, meetings with private government officials, foreign government officials and the statements were made over unclassified email systems, they would not only lose their jobs and lose their clearance, they would very likely face prosecution for it. (condensed quotation) ..."
Killary? Ha ha. Well she is a bit of a warmonger, isn't she?
dawkinsbulldog 9 Sep 2015 08:50
The woman is a hawk and a warmonger. In a sane world she would be ineligible on her voting
record and likely foreign policy, not down to some technicality about her email address.
It's like rejecting Pinochet as Chilean president because he once farted in mixed company.
TamLin -> Oldiebutgoodie 9 Sep 2015 07:43
Great post! For those who don't have time to watch the entire Jim & Hillary interview, the
real fun begins just after the 24 minute mark, when Jim says of Iran, "...or they will be taken
out", and Hillary responds by into an orgasm of laughter.
NottaBot steveji 9 Sep 2015 07:23
The fact that she posted almost identical language on Facebook as she used in the Muir interview
certainly suggests that the "apology" was carefully written and likely tested in focus groups.
An FBI investigation whilst running to be your party's presidential nominee, let alone running
for president in the real thing next year, is never a good look.
Added to this is that if anything is calculated to motivate the movement conservative base
to its highest ever turnout, it's Hillary Rodham Clinton running for president.
I'm mildly (only mildly) surprised there aren't more senior Democrats out there who can see
what a liability she is.
Although I'll say this, if Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, the Republican candidate is
going to end up with double the money from billionaires and corporate lobbyists, the cash normally
being shared between the two candidates from the Republicrat Party.
Mind you, that will just prove Senator Sanders' point.
NottaBot -> ninjamia 9 Sep 2015 07:09
Agreed. I don't much care about this "classified or not" kerfuffle. I am much more concerned
about the Nixonian scrubbing of the email server, when Clinton KNEW her work emails were subpoenaed
by the House Benghazi committee. That says GUILTY in no uncertain terms. And I don't think we're
ever going to receive an "apology" for those deletions.
thesweeneytodd -> Mark Forrester 9 Sep 2015 06:44
Some perspective please. Dubya caused total mayhem and catastrophe with his ill judged and
utterly illegal war in Iraq. His lack of intervention in Katrina resulted in misery and death
for many in New Orleans. The most unpopular US president perhaps of all time.
Hilary ran a private email server that was perhaps ill judged.
Like I say, some perspective please.
Mark Forrester 9 Sep 2015 06:38
More than a mistake I'm afraid. At best it is a career ending error of judgment. At worst a deliberate and cynical attempt to maintain personal control of data so none of it
could come back to damage her presidential campaign. Anyway, she should be finished.
Thanks for the previously unknown to me information.
Her "admission" is sarcasm, which is preceded by a quick note that she was not involved and
her visit was unrelated.
Her "We came, we saw, ..." laughter is inappropriate, especially in light of the turmoil resulting
from a power vacuum which we are still witnessing today. But I don't know the context of why everyone
in the room is in such a jovial mood.
It's hard to get facts on the unfortunate and disastrous consequences of Gaddafi's assassination.
I don't directly blame the U.S., but my sense in that our government wrongly gave it a go-ahead.
Timothy Everton -> Hin Leng 9 Sep 2015 01:32
She has no ability, but for deception, no intelligence, unless someone "advises" her beforehand,
but she DOES have much experience at deception, and commitment only to herself. Certainly not
presidential material. She should just drop and let Bernie take the lead. Of course, her dear
friend Wasserman-Shultz, would not allow that to happen.
Rob Jenkins 9 Sep 2015 01:02
American politics is depressing again for me. All realistic candidates seem to be a retrograde
step.
Clinton appears to be a moderate Republican from the 90s and has no feasible opponents whilst
the GOP primary is a clown car filled with buffoons, crooks and religious zealots.
Where do you go now America?
Hin Leng 9 Sep 2015 00:58
Clearly America has caught a new cultural-political disease called "The Tall Poppy Syndrome".
Cut down anyone with ability, intelligence, experience , commitment and vision. Find any excuse
for doing it - email server, age, gender, hairstyles, anything whatsoever. Meanwhile give some
blatantly nonsensical candidates for its presidency plenty of oxygen and headline space. Is this
how an empire expire ? How a hegemon self-destruct ? It is worrying to the extreme.
vr13vr 9 Sep 2015 00:47
"I'm sorry about that. I take responsibility."
How is that taking responsibility after half a year of denial and fighting the allegations?
Outside of the lingo of politicians, this doesn't even look like taking responsibility. A phrase,
"I finally decided to admit the wrong doing," is much more appropriate at this point.
rtb1961 -> Asok Smith 9 Sep 2015 00:43
It becomes a matter of criminal conspiracy because Clinton did not just use a private email
address. This was a conspiracy to avoid monitored email and a matter of legal public record, arranged
as a conspiracy between Clinton's desire to maintain secret communications hidden from the rest
of government and the person who did the work of setting up the server with knowledge of how it
would be used and the network administrators who allowed it to exist in what should have been
a secured network location, knowing how it would be used.
So not the childish lie of "I did it but I didn't mean to", but the reality of a conspired
plan to thwart record keeping, discussed and implemented with purposeful intent and with no question
that it was to hide intended criminal activity.
Merveil Meok 8 Sep 2015 23:36
Obama and Hillary Clinton were bitter rivals until the end of the primaries in 2008. When Obama
suggested that Mrs. Clinton be his Secretary of State, I thought it was a trap and a dangerous
proposition for Hillary's future bids to the presidency, because foreign policy was a mess after
George W. Bush and anything going wrong in the world would be blamed on her. It looks like the
GOP didn't need to work that hard.
p4451d 8 Sep 2015 23:08
Obviously her "apology" was dragged out of her and is completely insincere. This is the track
record of H Clinton - arrogant; power hungry; untrustworthy; unscrupulous; unprincipled; 100%
insincere; can't we do any better than this?
whereistheend 8 Sep 2015 23:00
I'd never vote for a Republican, but if she didn't have Bill Clinton's last name, she'd be
out of the picture, and maybe Elizabeth Warren, or Bill Bradley, or Howard Dean (or Bernie) would
have the nomination- any of those names could beat any Republican, but HRC is aiding her own demonization
and I honestly think she's going to lose to whomever/whatever clown emerges from the Right Wing.
Yes, I think she's going to lose to a clown, and that's depressing, and it's because she has no
charm to handle her mistakes, and no judgment to avoid some of them (the 'wiping' comment was
sickeningly stupid), and she's sucking up all the coverage so no one else is getting the air they
need; most of the discussion is over this BS instead of actual issues and that's not all on Fox
News.
Elias Vlanton -> seehowtheyrun 8 Sep 2015 22:47
It's not about leaving an opening for her adversaries, it's is about destroying the public
record of the Secretary of State. In the US, government communications belongs to the government
and to the people. This is not about what is illegal or not, it is about whether officials can
be held accountable for their actions. By destroying the public record, Hillary Clinton wanted
to avoid that accountability. That's the real travesty.
Kevin Reuter -> LostLake 8 Sep 2015 22:39
The corporate-run media would like us all to believe that Bernie doesn't stand a chance. Since
he has such strong policy suggestions and is demanding such attention, the only possible way to
stop him is to flood people's minds with rhetoric such as "he can't win!"
Hillary herself has now been championing policy ideas that Bernie started, such as repealing
Citizens United, and $15 minimum wage!
LostLake 8 Sep 2015 21:55
Sanders is the better person but he will never get nominated. So it's either Hillary or some
GOP nutbag. Easy vote. Not optimal, but still an easy choice.
sashasmirnoff -> erpiu 8 Sep 2015 21:09
As the "Guardian view" is unfailingly wrong on anything it opines on (proven track record),
and it's fully endorsing this scum's candidacy, I can only conclude that she merits life in prison
at the least, as opposed to high office. That no media organ is questioning her claim of the deleted
emails as being purely "personal" speaks volumes as to the sorry state of journalism in this era,
as you point out.
Great post!
erpiu 8 Sep 2015 20:28
the private server was not an error --it was a coup of genius-- since it allowed "the candidate"
to hand over only the harmless emails after erasing(?) the damning ones (e.g., those with the
quid-pro-quo negotiation of UKR-neonazi donations to the clinton foundation before the 2014 UKR
coup d'etat).
yes, those erased emails that, let's see... the guardian never mentions, preferring to direct
the suckers' attention to the leftover emails selected by billary for regular release. Great diversion
job, guardian!
the NSA has hillary's erased emails! When is the MSM going to request that the NSA gives its
copies of the erased h.clinton emails to the feds for official archiving and future declassification?
Confucion 8 Sep 2015 20:06
In an interview with ABC News's David Muir which aired on Tuesday, the former secretary
of state said: "That was a mistake. I'm sorry about that. I take responsibility."
Hillary has learnt a lot from the old Bill. Denial first step: Bill, I did not have sexual relation with that woman. And I need to go back
to work for the American people.
Admission second step: Bill admitted in taped grand jury testimony on August 17, 1998, that
he had had an "improper physical relationship" with Lewinsky.
Hilary is the best Bill's disciple in his trickery, lies and contempt of people from whom they
are seeking employment and benefit.
FugitiveColors kenalexruss 8 Sep 2015 19:56
That's wishful thinking.
The Judge ordered a release of more emails every 30 days until they are all released.
It won't be over in 3 months much less 3 weeks. They say til February.
There are 55,000 emails and those are just ones she didn't delete.
She deleted 35,000 emails that will dog her forever.
When she finally gives up the ghost, I hope you will consider voting for the honest, scandal
free candidate.
Bernie Sanders.
EarthyByNature -> Davinci Woohoo 8 Sep 2015 19:54
It's about trust, stupid.
Not being able to trust the potential President of the United States is a huge issue, for everyone
on the planet.
1) Clinton consistently acts with arrogant denial when confronted with wrong-doing, and throughout
her career there have been repeated situations, each marked by the same denial, arrogance.
2) Everyone's entitled to make mistakes in life and to beg forgiveness. When it happens repeatedly
trust evaporates. I am no longer able to trust Hillary Clinton, no more no less that any other
behaving the same way, Dem or Republican.
allymaxy -> danceoutlook 8 Sep 2015 19:47
Re: the Secretary of State position: Hillary didn't have to campaign for the job, she was appointed.
Her problem is she's making the same mistakes running for CinC that she made in 2008.
She believes she'll be anointed and begrudgingly goes on the stump, showing no joy in meeting
regular folks and getting huffy when reporters dare ask her questions.
Remember the recent rope line where she corralled the press in a noose of ropes to keep them
away from her?
She is a poor candidate - always was and she hasn't learned anything from losing. She repeats
the same mistakes and only changes her policies when focus groups chime in.
If Elizabeth Warren declared tomorrow, Hillary would be long forgotten and not missed.
Joe Stanil -> JoeBursudge 8 Sep 2015 19:47
The US hasn't been a democracy since day 1. Never meant to be. It was/is a carpetbagger's club.
The only thing that's changed is the voters are dumber and the pizazz is crappier (to match the
candidates). Why is this even discussed?
Ziontrain 8 Sep 2015 19:24
"Full responsibility" would actually mean admitting that she lacks the integrity to be president
and withdrawing her candidacy.
But we live in an era where there is no shame, so "full responsibility" is not more like "yeah,
I did it. So what? Nothing changes".
Then again we are talking about an oligarch aiming to retake the presidential office for her
wing of the national aristocracy. What else would one expect.
JoeBursudge -> NeverLie 8 Sep 2015 19:22
A carpetbagger in a dress. Tony Blair and the Clintons - just goes to show it isn't country
specific.
Though he didn't know them, these are the people Kim Beazley Snr was talking about when he
said [the Left] went from being represented by the cream of the working-class to being led by
the dregs of the middle-class.
Let's face it: the mere fact that Trump and Clinton are being discussed as a possible President
is all the proof you need that America's democracy is stuck with a broken model. It's doubtful
that the average Yank is up to fixing it.
Not that we can talk, of course, our system is looking sicker by the day. That a fool like
Abbott can commit our troops to war without Parliamentary discussion is a pretty clear signal
that our 19th century democratic architecture, too, is in need of renovation, if not a complete
re-build.
jozzero -> gwpriester 8 Sep 2015 19:20
I read where Carl Rove deleted 13,000 emails during the bush horror years. It pisses me off
that she apologized for this non-issue because of political pressure. I'm voting for Bernie.
OneTop 8 Sep 2015 18:42
Christoper Hitchens summed up HRC as well as anyone.
Mrs. Clinton has the most unappetizing combination of qualities to be met in many days'
march: she is a tyrant and a bully when she can dare to be, and an ingratiating populist when
that will serve. She will sometimes appear in the guise of a 'strong woman' and sometimes in
the softer garb of a winsome and vulnerable female. She is entirely un-self-critical and quite
devoid of reflective capacity, and has never found that any of her numerous misfortunes or
embarrassments are her own fault, because the fault invariably lies with others. And, speaking
of where things lie, she can in a close contest keep up with her husband for mendacity. Like
him, she is not just a liar but a lie; a phony construct of shreds and patches and hysterical,
self-pitying, demagogic improvisations." (p. 123)
Berkeley2013 williamdonovan 8 Sep 2015 18:35
Thank you; there are many more but this is a good start.
As the story unravels, many of there earlier HC rationalizations will require scrutiny--things
that seemed innocuous to the average person will require intense scrutiny.
"I deleted e-mails that were personal."
This sounds anodyne enough on first read. Who wants to read billet doux between B and H?
Once people realize that she had no right to mix personal and professional and it certainly
wasn't up to any one person what to delete, then even bigger troubles will start for the former
SOS.
Sooner or later some of the deleted e-mails will begin to circulate.
At that point...
David Egan 8 Sep 2015 18:15
What gets me about this whole issue is the fact that she is still maintaining that "she did
what was allowed" which is a bold faced lie!!! All she is doing right now is continuing to "circle
her wagons" around this issue.... I'll bet right now she is trying to figure out how to bribe
Pagliano to take the fall for her, stating that she knew nothing about what he did to maintain
her ILLEGAL email account. They both knew it was ILLEGAL!!! Clinton and Pagliano should be brought
up on charges, the sooner the better!!
Her utter contempt for the investigation makes me laugh, she really thinks she did nothing
wrong, and to say something as totally ignorant like "It was allowed by the State Dept. and the
State Department CONFIRMED that" is beyond belief and borderlines the definition of psychosis.
The State Department is actively investigating Shrillary and her accomplice Bryan Pagliano. I'll
bet Pagliano goes to prison.....Any takers?
If an ordinary worker at the State Department or the Central Intelligence Agency were sending
details about the security of embassies, meetings with private government officials, foreign
government officials and the statements were made over unclassified email systems, they would
not only lose their jobs and lose their clearance, they would very likely face prosecution
for it. (condensed quotation)
Clinton on Snowden:
I think turning over a lot of that material-intentionally or unintentionally, because of
the way it can be drained-gave all kinds of information, not only to big countries, but to
networks and terrorist groups and the like.
macktan894 8 Sep 2015 17:54
Poor Hillary. If she had just said this in the beginning instead of all the bs about how what
she did wasn't a prosecutable offense and then tried to defend her behavior by comparing herself
to the Republicans, she might have nipped much of this in the bud. Instead, she stonewalls for
months, re-enacts her husband's insistence that "he didn't have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinsky,"
and arrogantly believes that voters will accept that all this is a vast right wing conspiracy
that no one gives a hoot about.
Now she admits sorrow over her choice after practically being beat down about it. The main
point is that people don't want to re-elect the same o same o. I for one am not looking forward
to ranting on a forum about what happened to this promise, to that one. Oh, right. The Republicans.
I don't want to hear another Dem try to persuade me that cutting measly social security and Medicare
benefits are the way to save the system while at the same time the budget for defense, foreign
aid, and mass govt surveillance go up so much that much of it is redacted.
I've heard too much of this before and have no interest in hearing it again. Vote for Bernie
Sanders who believes open and transparent govt is worth a little inconvenience.
williamdonovan 8 Sep 2015 17:41
Great now tell it to the Judge. Because as I have stated from the very start these acts were and are Illegal. And Hillary Clinton
new it at time she the secret server set up or should have known it.
Title 18, U.S. Code
Section 641 - Public Money, Property or Records
793 - Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information
794 - Gathering of Delivering Defense Information to Aid Foreign Govt.
798 - Disclosure of Classified Information
952 - Diplomatic Codes and Correspondence
1905 - Disclosure of Confidential Information
2071 - Concealment, Removal, or Mutilation of Records
Title 50, U.S. Code
Section 783 (b) - Communication of Classified Information by Government Officer or Employee 783(d)
- Penalties for Violation
Title 42, U.S. Code
Section 2272 -Violation of Specific Sections
2273 - Violation of General Sections
2274 - Communication of Restricted Data 2275 - Receipt of Restricted Data
2276 - Tampering With Restricted Data 2277 - Disclosure of Restricted Data
It is not true that server was ever was located in "Bathroom closet". But the nickname stick...
Notable quotes:
"... At the time I worked for them they wouldn't have been equipped to work for Hilary Clinton because I don't think they had the resources, they were based out of a loft, so [it was] not very high security, we didn't even have an alarm," ..."
"... "I don't know how they run their operation now, but we literally had our server racks in the bathroom. I mean knowing how small Platte River Networks... I don't see how that would be secure [enough for Clinton]." ..."
"... Last week, Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough III told Congress that at least five emails from Clinton's private server contained classified information. ..."
"... "top secret," ..."
"... "I'm not sure how that all happened, all I know he was saying he had the opportunity to make quite a bit of money doing it," ..."
"... "Our internal network was extremely secure. At the time Inca St was a relatively obscure location, second floor office. The technology we had in place was pretty good. The security we had in place at the office was really good to protect our well-being." ..."
"... "what changed after I left the company I have no idea, I really could not comment on that. I don't know." ..."
"... "subject to a criminal investigation for the potential release of classified material." ..."
A small IT management firm employed by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton kept its servers
containing her private emails in a bathroom closet of its loft-apartment office, according to a new
report, in another absurd twist to the Democrat's 2016 run.
Platte River Networks, based in Denver, Colorado, was hired in mid-2013 by then-US Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton to maintain her old email server, according to the company's lawyer.
Until this summer, Platte River Networks' office was a loft apartment in downtown Denver, and
the servers were stored in a bathroom closet, former employees
told the Daily Mail.
The company recently told ABC News it is
"highly likely" a full backup copy of the server was made, meaning emails deleted by
Clinton could still exist.
Clinton handed the servers to federal investigators
last week.
Experts believe more than 60,000 emails deleted by Clinton could be recoverable.
Clinton, presumed the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, tasked Platte
River Networks with protecting her personal email account long before any scrutiny surfaced over
Clinton's handling of classified information on private servers.
One former employee described Platte River Networks as a "mom and pop shop"
that seemed
unlikely to be a go-to cybersecurity firm for a top government official to house state secrets. Few
employees knew that Clinton was a client, the Daily Mail reported.
"At the time I worked for them they wouldn't have been equipped to work for Hilary Clinton
because I don't think they had the resources, they were based out of a loft, so [it was] not very
high security, we didn't even have an alarm," said Tera Dadiotis, a customer relations consultant
between 2007 and 2010.
"I don't know how they run their operation now, but we literally had our server racks in the
bathroom. I mean knowing how small Platte River Networks... I don't see how that would be secure
[enough for Clinton]."
Platte River Networks moved into a larger workspace earlier this year.
Last week, Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough III told Congress that
at least five emails from Clinton's private server contained classified information. The messages,
dating from 2006 and 2008, contained signal intercepts and surveillance photos from Keyhole satellites
operated by the CIA and the Pentagon. Two of the emails were labeled "top secret,"
according to Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley.
Clinton has said nothing in the content of the emails was classified at the time that she received
them. According to court documents more than 300
emails have been flagged for "further inspection."
How did Platte River Networks, a small but reputable IT management company in Denver, receive
such a prized contract? Ex-employees said David DeCamillis, the company's vice-president of sales
and marketing, was active in Democratic Party circles and may have pursued her business.
Platte River co-founder Tom Welch said DeCamillis hoped to rent his home to vice president candidate
Joe Biden during the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver, according to Daily Mail. But Biden didn't
take the deal, said Welch, who sold his third of the company in 2010.
"I'm not sure how that all happened, all I know he was saying he had the opportunity to make
quite a bit of money doing it," Welch said.
Since Clinton's server did not encrypt emails, critics have also raised concerns over the possibility
that hackers may have obtained classified information from her official correspondence. The Clinton
campaign maintains there had been no breaches in security.
Welch said the company's servers were secure when he was involved.
"Our internal network was extremely secure. At the time Inca St was a relatively obscure location,
second floor office. The technology we had in place was pretty good. The security we had in place
at the office was really good to protect our well-being."
He added that "what changed after I left the company I have no idea, I really could not comment
on that. I don't know."
New polls coming out of New Hampshire and other early primary states suggest Clinton would lose
not just to her primary rival for the party nomination, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, but also
to some Republican contenders. Her favorability and trustworthiness ratings continue to be low.
A poll by Monmouth University, released before the server handover, showed that 52 percent of
respondents thought the emails should be "subject to a criminal investigation for the potential
release of classified material."
"... And we are expected to believe that there were no data backups? So if in the (Not too uncommon) event that she had a hard drive fail, the US Secretary of State would have been totally unable to function? ..."
"... The fact that she chose not to do so strongly suggests that she made the choice knowing in advance that she was always going to delate anything she wanted. ..."
"... Civil Forfeiture is the thing the Clintons fear the most. Hillary could do a Martha Stewart on her head just as long as she knew ther'd be a couple hundred mil waiting for her when she got out. Bill is a trinket. ..."
"... The archivist for state makes that decision. A half a dozen statutes she ignored and trust me she knew better. Using private email she was supposed to either forward it to her govt account (she didn't have) or print out a hard copy and present to archivist within 20 days. The other gem when she put out the memo not to use personal emails to everyone in state, while she was using personal emails....a goodie. ..."
"... You obviously didn't live through Bills Presidency.... Clintons THRIVE on scandal... they overload the publics senses with so much scandal people start to believe none of it is true. ..."
"... I wonder if she doesn't actually escape this. The intelligence community takes security very seriously, and her crimes are both serious and numerous. Her breaches were so reckless and incompetent (both the deliberate and unintentional ones) that the odds that all of her emails have been compromised by at least Russia and China (and who knows who else) are just under 100%. The IC knows this already. So while laws are normally for the little people I have a hard time believing the IC will look the other way when, were she to win the office, it's a near certainty she's going to get blackmailed, and blackmailed effectively. ..."
... won't care because truth is subordinate to the cause.
philipat
And we are expected to believe that there were no data backups? So if in the
(Not too uncommon) event that she had a hard drive fail, the US Secretary of State would have
been totally unable to function?
Yeah, sure....And also, having decided to operate as she did, then ALL of the
data on that server belongs to the Government and it is for the Government, not Hilary, to decide
what is personal and can be returned to her.
Many of us in business use two email accounts, one for business and one (Generally
in the cloud) for personal mails so not backed-up with Company data.
The fact that she chose not to do so strongly suggests that she made the choice
knowing in advance that she was always going to delate anything she wanted.
I also wonder which data is potentially the most embarassing for Hills, is it the details of
the CIA operation in Benghazi or her correspondence with Huma?
TruxtonSpangler
Believe me yet that shes throwing the election, giving her superpac money to Fauxcahontas
in exchange for not being investigated when Warren is Pres?
philipat
Now that WOULD be ironic because most of that money came from Wall St and the
same Banks that Pocahontas would (Hopefully) go after......
TheReplacement
You don't know that Fauxbaby made her money representing those Wall Streeters
in court? All this drama is just entertainment for the masses. It means nothing. No matter who
wins, the bankers will still be in control.
Wake up. Ain't nobody gonna go after anybody unless it is us.
TruxtonSpangler
Fauxcahontas wont go after wallstreet, that's all populist rhetoric. Same shit,
different politician. This time is different!
macholatte
Civil Forfeiture is the thing the Clintons fear the most. Hillary could do a Martha
Stewart on her head just as long as she knew ther'd be a couple hundred mil waiting for her when
she got out. Bill is a trinket.
Is that the smell of another Presidential Pardon?
Obama and the Clintons: Top Dems mingle on Martha's Vineyard
with a couple of decades with the feds you are correct she cannot determine what
to delete.
The archivist for state makes that decision. A half a dozen statutes she ignored and
trust me she knew better. Using private email she was supposed to either forward it to her govt
account (she didn't have) or print out a hard copy and present to archivist within 20 days. The
other gem when she put out the memo not to use personal emails to everyone in state, while she
was using personal emails....a goodie.
JustObserving
The NSA has something on everyone on this planet. Bernie is doomed for his position
on Snowden:
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said Edward Snowden was defending Americans' freedoms when he leaked
classified information about the National Security Agency's intelligence gathering.
You obviously didn't live through Bills Presidency.... Clintons THRIVE on scandal...
they overload the publics senses with so much scandal people start to believe none of it is true.
Funny.... twice I typed "Clintons" and then 'sc' and the autocomplete suggested 'scandal' :)
ebworthen
"I did not have sex with that Woman."
you enjoy myself
I wonder if she doesn't actually escape this. The intelligence community takes
security very seriously, and her crimes are both serious and numerous. Her breaches were so reckless
and incompetent (both the deliberate and unintentional ones) that the odds that all of her emails
have been compromised by at least Russia and China (and who knows who else) are just under 100%.
The IC knows this already. So while laws are normally for the little people I have a hard time
believing the IC will look the other way when, were she to win the office, it's a near certainty
she's going to get blackmailed, and blackmailed effectively.
Plus, how is the IC going to maintain info security discipline when everyone sees that someone
basically crapped all over every law/policy related to classified material, but got off because
of who she is. That's not going to go over well even someone as revered as Gen Petraeus gets prosecuted
for a fraction of what Hillary did.
"... By Steve Horn, a Madison, WI-based Research Fellow for DeSmogBlog and a freelance investigative journalist. He previously was a reporter and researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy. Originally published at DeSmogBlog . ..."
"... Originally stored on a private server , with Clinton and her closest advisors using the server and private accounts, the emails confirm Clinton's State Department helped to break state-owned company Pemex 's (Petroleos Mexicanos) oil and gas industry monopoly in Mexico, opening up the country to international oil and gas companies. And two of the Coordinators helping to make it happen, both of whom worked for Clinton, now work in the private sector and stand to gain financially from the energy reforms they helped create. ..."
"... The appearance of the emails also offers a chance to tell the deeper story of the role the Clinton-led State Department and other powerful actors played in opening up Mexico for international business in the oil and gas sphere. That story begins with a trio. ..."
"... David Goldwyn , who was the first International Energy Coordinator named by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009, sits at the center of the story. As revealed by DeSmog, the State Department redacted the entire job description document for the Coordinator role. ..."
"... The emails show that, on at least one instance, Goldwyn also used his private " [email protected] " (Goldwyn Global Strategies) email address for State Department business. ..."
"... It remains unclear if he used his private or State Department email address on other instances, as only his name appears on the other emails. But Cheryl Mills, a top aide to Secretary Clinton at the time, initiated the email that he responded to on his private account. ..."
By Steve Horn, a Madison, WI-based Research Fellow for DeSmogBlog and a freelance investigative
journalist. He previously was a reporter and researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy. Originally
published at
DeSmogBlog.
Emails released on July 31 by the U.S. State Department reveal more
about the origins of
energy reform efforts in Mexico. The State Department released them as part of the once-a-month
rolling release schedule for emails generated by former U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton,
now a Democratic presidential candidate.
Originally
stored on a private server, with Clinton and her
closest advisors
using the server and private accounts, the emails confirm Clinton's State Department helped to
break state-owned company
Pemex's (Petroleos
Mexicanos) oil and gas industry monopoly in Mexico, opening up the country to international oil and
gas companies. And two of the Coordinators helping to make it happen, both of whom worked for Clinton,
now work in the private sector and stand to gain financially from the energy reforms they helped
create.
The appearance of the emails also offers a chance to tell the deeper story of the role the Clinton-led
State Department and other powerful actors played in opening up Mexico for international business
in the oil and gas sphere. That story begins with a trio.
The emails show that, on at least one instance, Goldwyn also
used his private "[email protected]" (Goldwyn Global Strategies) email address for State Department business.
It remains unclear if he used his private or State Department email address on other instances,
as only his name appears on the other emails. But Cheryl Mills, a top aide to Secretary Clinton at
the time, initiated the email that he responded to on his private account.
Despite all her proclamations of new fairness doctrines, false promises of her truthfulness, and
exclamations of 'everyday Americanism' Hillary Rodham Clinton is seeing her favorability
ratings collapse. As populist as she dares to be, in the face of her donating captors, it
appears the everyday American just isn't buying it as
Gallup reports just 43% Americans view her favorably (down from 66% just a few years
ago) while none other than Bernie Sanders is bounding up the popularity ladder, rising from
12% to 24% favorability in recent weeks.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' favorable rating among Americans
has doubled since Gallup's initial reading in March, rising to 24% from 12% as he has become
better known. Hillary Clinton's rating has slipped to 43% from 48% in April. At
the same time, Clinton's unfavorable rating increased to 46%, tilting her image negative and producing
her worst net favorable score since December 2007.
JustObserving
just 43% Americans view her favorably
Isn't that 44% too many?
Obama is always the most admired man in this world in Gallup polls
We will never run out of idiots in the land of the free.
I am sure the leaks come from the white house too. They own the MSM and nothing gets printed
without white house okay. They don't want hilary and they are determined to deep six the bitch
LetThemEatRand
"Sanders is still an unknown to a majority of Americans, with just 44% able to rate him compared
with Clinton's 89%."
I wonder why. Even ZH barely covers him. I've seen probably 10 Trump stories in the last week
here, several Clinton stories, and zero (hedge) Sanders stories until now.
theTribster
Yep, exactly what I've been thinking. Would be nice to see a little love in Bernie's drection,
a man with integrity (and lots of it) and some good ideas - but mostly a guy that listens to and
works for us.
LetThemEatRand
My interest in Bernie is the same as Trump. They are both spoilers, and they say some truth
in the process (Trump very obviously ignores the Fed and is a NeoCon, and Bernie has the problem
of thinking taxation is the answer to everything). I'd like to see the MSM and certainly alternative
media like ZH give both good coverage so people can hear what they are saying. Maybe someone worth
electing would emerge if the vote for the banker candidates were truly split among both Teams.
CHC
I would absolutely LOVE to see Hillary just totally crash and burn! I'd be delighted if she's
actually charged with violating a federal law - that would be so damn awesome. That would definitely
do something to restore a little faith in our judicial system, but I'm definitely not holding
my breath on that. CRASH AND BURN YOU TELETUBBY!
LetThemEatRand
Assume for a moment that Trump is the Ross Perot of the Red Team candidate this election (think
George Bush against Bill Clinton). Sanders could play the same role for Hillary or other Blue
Team candidate, splitting the Blues. MSM including Fox and other supposedly conservative media
can't get enough of Trump (same for ZH for that matter). Not so much for Bernie. What does that
tell you about who "they" want to win.
Baby Eating Dingo22
Funny how Sanders gest bashed here
He represents everything that most here clamor for
1.He is not a sell-out to party or lobbyists
2.He has been honest and consistent about his position his entire career
3.He will out the Fed
4.He will out the banksters
5.He will FINALLY aim the printers where they should have ben aimed 10 years ago. Directly at
Americans and not to Wall Street
The ones that don't support him seem to think that someone should come in and stop the printing
and we'll be on way to recovery. That's wrong. We're broke 20 times over. The debt's NEVER being
paid back.
Let Bernie print until the reset. At least the banksters and Fed will be cut down to size and
the 99% can prosper in the meantime
theTribster
Agrred. There is a lot more to this country's problems then our financial system, military
- healthcare - good jobs - judicial - corruption everywhere, etc. There is no reason he can't
win - it isn't all about money, he needs enough to communicate nationally which he has and more
is coming. An amazing fact, there is a national Bernie meeting on the 29th, I looked at how many
places around my zip (outside Philly within 50 miles) where the meeting was being held - 192!
That's incredible. I then looked at our other locations (Wildwood Crest, Key Colony Beach) and
both had 96 and 52 respectively. That is amazing, there is a lot more to Bernie then we know -
the polls are corrupt (no surprise) as is the media - Lies and omissions...
Berspankme
Bernie and Trump tapping into pissed off americans
Nutflush60
George Will once called George Wallace's 68 campaign a warnings signal for Deomcrats. Both
parties are now warnedt there are lot of angry people out there.
She has the money and organization, but I think the phoniness of Hillary will be so evident
to her borderline supporters as time goes on,
Would love to see Kasich pick up mometum for the Repubs.
Bazza McKenzie
Jarrett is busy doing that. The Obama crime family is in the process of obliterating the older
Clinton crime family. Then they'll pop up Joe as the Obama family's candidate.
Clinton can either sulk off with her corrupt millions or get charged. That's the path they're
taking her down. And that's why the MSM is running stories critical of Clinton. They would be
too afraid to do so if they thought there was any chance of her getting the nomination and being
elected.
Two inspectors general asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Hillary Clinton mishandled
sensitive information on a private account, senior officials said.
"... "It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them." But since Clinton privatized her server, it's a fair point that the potential is there. ..."
"Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account" [New
York Times].
National security stuff, of course, not privatization or corruption.
"It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State
Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them." But since Clinton privatized her server, it's
a fair point that the potential is there.
"... When Mrs Clinton finally agreed to meet with Middle East royal, who Mrs Blair referred to as "My friend from Q", she replied to the green light, stating: "Great… when I see what a difference you are making it reminds me why politics is too important to be left to bad people ..."
The wife of the former British prime minister, Tony Blair, lobbied Mrs Clinton, then US Secretary
of State, for a "woman-to-woman" meeting in the American capital with Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser al-Missned.
Sheikha Mozah's son is the current ruling emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamin bin Hamad al-Thani.
Using the close relationship that her husband and Bill Clinton built up during their respective
years in Downing Street and the White House, Mrs Blair exchanged a series of 19 emails in 2009 asking
Mrs Clinton to help Sheikha Moser improve Qatar's relationship with the US.
Although the meeting was aimed primarily on the Qatari royal's charitable interests, Mrs Blair
admitted to the US Secretary of State that "I am sure the conversation would not be confined to these
interests [disability charities] but would be about the US/Qatar relationship generally."
When Mrs Clinton finally agreed to meet with Middle East royal, who Mrs Blair referred to as "My
friend from Q", she replied to the green light, stating: "Great… when I see what a difference you
are making it reminds me why politics is too important to be left to bad people."
"... Clinton served as secretary of state from Jan. 2009 to Feb. 2013. The emails she sent with the "[email protected]" were sent in 2011 and 2012, according to the documents released by the Times. ..."
Emails
published by the New York Times Monday indicate that Hillary Clinton used more than
one private email address during her time as secretary of state, contradicting previous claims
from the Democratic presidential contender's office.
Multiple emails show Clinton used account "[email protected]" while serving in the Obama
administration as secretary of state.
... ... ...
Clinton served as secretary of state from Jan. 2009 to Feb. 2013. The emails she sent with
the "[email protected]" were sent in 2011 and 2012, according to the documents released by
the Times.
... ... ...
Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus tweeted Monday evening that the news proved
Clinton "misled public about the use of only one secret email address."
Earlier this year,
it was reported Clinton may have violated federal rules by exclusively using a personal email
address to conduct all official government business while serving as secretary of state.
"... This appears to have taken place after the first production request had come in, which means that Clinton may well be guilty of destruction of evidence. ..."
"... it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department." ..."
"... It is time for the Committee to stop this political charade and instead make these documents public and schedule Secretary Clinton's public testimony now. ..."
If, as one claims, one is innocent of i) using a personal email account to send
out confidential information and/or to take advantage of one's political position to abuse opponents
and ii) deleting said confidential emails against government regulations, what would one do when
faced with a government subpoena demand? If one is the IRS' Lois Lerner, one would claim,
against subsequently revealed facts, that a hardware error led to a permanent loss of all demanded
emails, even though by email protocol definition, said emails are always stored on at least one off-site
server. Or, if one is Hillary Clinton, one would just format the entire server.
This,
according to the Hill, is precisely what Hillary Clinton has done as the recent
clintonemail.com scandal continues to grow bigger and impair ever more the already frail credibility
and decision-making skills of the former first lady and democratic presidential hopeful.
According to the head of the House Select Committee on Benghazi says former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton has erased all information from the personal email server she used while serving as the nation's
top diplomat.
"We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her
server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said
in a statement Friday.
What difference does it make if she deleted all her emails?
Apparently a lot.
The key question is when said server formatting took place. This appears to have taken place
after the first production request had come in, which means that Clinton may well be guilty of destruction
of evidence. He said while it's "not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently
delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when
the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the
Department."
What's worse, the evidence destroyed officially is US government property, since it was all created
when Clinton was an employee of Uncle Sam.
Last week, Gowdy sent a letter to Clinton's attorney asking that the email server be turned over
to a third party in the hopes that an investigation could recover about 30,000 emails that her team
deleted before turning the rest over to the State Department.
Gowdy said "it is clear Congress will need to speak with the former Secretary about her email
arrangement and the decision to permanently delete those emails."
"Not only was the Secretary the sole arbiter of what was a public record, she also summarily
decided to delete all emails from her server, ensuring no one could check behind her analysis in
the public interest," Gowdy said.
Those intent on defending the former Secretary of State, such as the panel's top Democrat, Elijah
Cummings may have their work cut out for them but that doesn't stop them from trying: Cummings said
the letter the select committee received from Clinton's attorney detailing what happened the server
proves she has nothing to hide.
"This confirms what we all knew - that Secretary Clinton already produced her official records
to the State Department, that she did not keep her personal emails, and that the Select Committee
has already obtained her emails relating to the attacks in Benghazi," he said in a statement.
"It is time for the Committee to stop this political charade and instead make these documents
public and schedule Secretary Clinton's public testimony now."
Clinton has maintained that the messages were personal in nature, but Gowdy and other Republicans
have raised questions over whether she might have deleted messages that could damage her expected
White House run in the process.
"I have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now
in the possession of the State Department," Clinton said during a press conference in New York earlier
this month.
Sadly, there is nothing but her word to go by at this moment: a word whose credibility has now
been fatally compromised by her recent actions.
She said she had culled through more than 60,000 emails from her time at State and determined
that roughly 30,000 of them were public records that should have been maintained.
Gowdy said given Clinton's "unprecedented email arrangement with herself and her decision
nearly two years after she left office to permanently delete" information, his panel would work with
House leadership as it "considers next steps."
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Gowdy and other members of the Benghazi panel in the past have
hinted that the full House could issues a subpoena for Clinton's server.
The Hill concludes by treating the population to the next upcoming kangaroo court: House Oversight
Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has suggested his panel could hold hearings over Clinton's
use of private email, emphasizing his panel's jurisdiction over violations of the Federal Records
Act.
Will anything change as a result? Of course not, because the real decision-maker has already hedged
its bets. Recall Blankfein has already indicated that despite his strong preference for a democrat
president, one which would perpetuate the Fed's policies, "he
would be fine with either a Bush or Clinton presidency." Which in a country controlled and dominated
by lobby interests, and which happens to be the "best
democracy that money can buy" is all that matters.
"... Doesn't the FBI, NSA, or some part of Homeland Security vet what government agencies are doing with their computer security? ..."
"... And how could Obama not know about this, unless he never exchanged e-mail with Hillary, which seems unlikely. ..."
"... I also wonder why Kerry would not question the absence of Clinton's correspondence when he took office? Doesn't he, as the successor, have to establish a historical record? Wouldn't her communications be part of that process? ..."
"... The main focus of the controversy comes because she could have deleted any emails she wanted to. ..."
"... Funny, we're back to paper as the only secure way to communicate anything (as in Roman Polanski's The Ghost). ..."
"... Despite the fact that digital record keeping continues to advance, the record keeping requirements go back to the early 50's and there is simply no reason that she should now be in possession of these records instead of either the State Department or the National Archives. ..."
"... The fact that she has criminally violated at least a dozen US Federal laws has nothing to do with the fact that she is lower than pond scum. God help us if she gets elected to POTUS! ..."
"... Her dishonesty and corruption already have been well documented for many decades, and she has proven that despite all her "image makeovers", she is the same untrustworthy person we always knew she was. ..."
"... It is not her decision to create her own web accounts to avoid public scrutiny. This is exactly what is wrong with Washington. No accountability or transparency. ..."
"... Bottom line if official State Department business was being routed through a personal email system she needs to go down for it. I work a mundane middle class job as a data analyst and my employer would be furious and fire me instantly if I routed work related emails and attachments through my personal email so why should Hillary get off the hook? ..."
"... The fact that the email traffic isn't encrypted makes this strictly amateur hour. ..."
"... The fact that the email isn't immediately controlled and discoverable by the govt is appalling enough. The fact it's apparently secured using small business standards just makes it worse. ..."
"... Was there any footnotes or exceptions noted concerning use of a private email server ? If not, then we should get our money back from auditing contractor. If they didn't discover and report it as an exception, then they should be barred from federal contracting for gross incompetence or complicity in this deception. ..."
"... "Dick Cheney in a pantsuit" is gonna live forever, or at least as long as she remains in the public arena ..."
"... Not having encryption (google smtps), which is easily determined if the mail server is still running, is a very bad sign. ..."
"... If Clinton is using Internap right now, that should be the subject of ridicule, not praise. ..."
"... People lost their jobs when Hillary was in charge over there for doing the EXACT SAME THING. ..."
"... The ruling elite plays by their own rules. ..."
"... Actually, the rules were there before. ..."
"... It is the Department's general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized AIS, which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information. ..."
Questions, questions. Doesn't the FBI, NSA, or some part of Homeland Security vet what
government agencies are doing with their computer security? Wouldn't that have turned up
Hillary's private scheme? And how could Obama not know about this, unless he never exchanged
e-mail with Hillary, which seems unlikely.
kgb999again -> BeckyP
Hillary Clinton was not serving as a politician. She was serving as a high official in a non-elected
office of the U.S. Government. She is required by law to maintain accessible records within the
government of every meeting and communication she conducted - for both accountability and historic
legacy reasons.
If she wanted to behave as a politician, she shouldn't have accepted the role of Secretary
of State.
macktan894
The basic question is still: why would she do such a thing? Why would she insist that all her
email and that of her principal staff be handled by this private server?
And I guess I would also wonder how this could go undetected and unscrutinized for so long?
Why would not anyone receiving email from the Clinton people wonder why they were getting email
from an account that was non government in its address?
I also wonder why Kerry would not question the absence of Clinton's correspondence when
he took office? Doesn't he, as the successor, have to establish a historical record? Wouldn't
her communications be part of that process?
I recall when Obama won the nomination in 2008, he had a meeting with Clinton re her appt to
sec of state. He was surprised when she turned up with a "contract" that listed items she needed
him to agree to if she were to join his administration. Was this server business in that contract?
Why do I have these questions but reporters do not?
thegradycole -> macktan894
Why does anybody do it? Jeb Bush used a personal server while he was governor of Florida and
then handed over 275,000 emails, of course just like Clinton he didn't release those that he determined
were of a personal nature. Kerry is the first SOS to use the official .gov server.
The main focus of the controversy comes because she could have deleted any emails she wanted
to. But I always thought that nothing could really be deleted. If they have the server don't
they have everything?
This whole thing better be more than the usual it-looks-bad-but-we-can't-find-anything. It
gets to the point where the appearance of impropriety becomes a conspiracy, they add "gate" to
it and it has a life of its own. If there's something there let's see it. Scott Walker and Chris
Christie have similar problems as their emails are part of criminal investigations.
Funny, we're back to paper as the only secure way to communicate anything (as in Roman
Polanski's The Ghost).
BradBenson -> chiefwiley 8 Mar 2015 06:48
Well yes, in theory. In actual practice Freedom of Information Requests were always treated
with disdain by the agencies. Since I left Government in 1999, it has gotten much worse.
You are absolutely correct that she should not be mixing official and private business or the
servers, which carry them. All of her official correspondence should have been retained in a Government
Server.
Despite the fact that digital record keeping continues to advance, the record keeping requirements
go back to the early 50's and there is simply no reason that she should now be in possession of
these records instead of either the State Department or the National Archives.
FloodZilla 8 Mar 2015 06:43
The fact that she has criminally violated at least a dozen US Federal laws has nothing to do
with the fact that she is lower than pond scum. God help us if she gets elected to POTUS!
Anne Vincent 8 Mar 2015 03:19
If she was too insecure to utilize the US Government's own computer system, then she is too
insecure to reside in the White House or to work as a US Government official. She needs to "move
on".
Her dishonesty and corruption already have been well documented for many decades, and she
has proven that despite all her "image makeovers", she is the same untrustworthy person we always
knew she was.
David Egan 7 Mar 2015 22:34
Mayer added that speculation that Clinton had created a "homebrew" internet system was "plainly
inaccurate", at least when talking about the current configuration of the service.
Newsflash!!! Hillary had no business, legal or otherwise, to create her own network!!
This way she has total control over the e-mails that she wants to make public.... GET IT.....??
David Egan -> anthonylaino 7 Mar 2015 22:28
I agree!!! The elitist one percent have made billions and knowingly sent tens of thousands
of people to their deaths, just for a buck (ok, well, lots of bucks) and to further their jack
boot on the throat of the average citizen from any country...
Financial Bondage For Everyone!!!!
Zooni_Bubba 7 Mar 2015 20:58
Maybe Clinton had security and maybe she didn't. It is not her decision to create her own web
accounts to avoid public scrutiny. This is exactly what is wrong with Washington. No accountability
or transparency. When someone under investigation gets to decide what to supply, they not the
authorities control the evidence.
Stephen_Sean 7 Mar 2015 20:25
Bottom line if official State Department business was being routed through a personal email
system she needs to go down for it. I work a mundane middle class job as a data analyst and my
employer would be furious and fire me instantly if I routed work related emails and attachments
through my personal email so why should Hillary get off the hook?
Dems better start looking for an alternative. Hillary isn't the one you want answering the
phone at 3am.
Trixr -> Miles Long 7 Mar 2015 19:54
From a technical point of view, saying it's a 'high security' system is cobblers. Anti malware
is the LEAST you can do for email security in a corporate system. Having a domain registered in
one location and traffic coming from another means absolutely nothing in these days of shared
hosting and dynamically-provisioned server farms. No-one puts their personal details on a WHOIS
these days. I don't, and I just have a dinky little personal domain.
The fact that the email traffic isn't encrypted makes this strictly amateur hour.
The fact that the email isn't immediately controlled and discoverable by the govt is appalling
enough. The fact it's apparently secured using small business standards just makes it worse.
And this 'expert' is an idiot, or not giving the full story.
John Hemphill -> imipak 7 Mar 2015 19:12
Just curious if know by chance, how did the State Department do in their last couple ot FISMA
audits ?
Was there any footnotes or exceptions noted concerning use of a private email server ? If not,
then we should get our money back from auditing contractor. If they didn't discover and report
it as an exception, then they should be barred from federal contracting for gross incompetence
or complicity in this deception.
ElmerFuddJr -> MakeBeerNotWar 7 Mar 2015 18:37
"Dick Cheney in a pantsuit" is gonna live forever, or at least as long as she remains in the
public arena.!.
MakeBeerNotWar -> ElmerFuddJr 7 Mar 2015 18:48
- yes but one risks the label of misogynist by her many followers. Cheney is a true psychopath
tho and Clinton could reach being one thus why the Dems who really care about our country need
to find an alternate candidate so HRC will not be given the chance to start another idiotic
fraud war that benefits Wall $t, I$rael and the MIC.
GuardianIsBiased127
What a bunch of liberal spin by ABC. I've run mail servers for 20 years. Scanning for viruses
etc is trivial and every email provider does it. Not having encryption (google smtps), which is
easily determined if the mail server is still running, is a very bad sign.
macktan894 -> GuardianIsBiased127
Agree. Saying that her system scanned for viruses and was therefore "secure" is a laugh. My
computer scans for viruses, too, as do most computers. We all know that does not equate with topnotch
security. I also use an Apple. Still, the NSA or any other cyberterrorist can easily hijack my
computer if that's the goal.
ludaludaluda
"internap" is not a good company by any measure -- my company has been a client for years.
If Clinton is using Internap right now, that should be the subject of ridicule, not praise.
bbuckley
Look, let's be clear. People lost their jobs when Hillary was in charge over there for
doing the EXACT SAME THING.
Where's the email that has Hillary wanting these poor people being brought back to work. Hillary
has in the past spoken of the danger of using a private domain.
This is once again the rules don't apply to Clintons. And I'm going to tell Ya all something:
the investigators will be going to gmail, or yahoo, or whoever, and making 100% sure they get
it all. I truly do not care for this woman. I find her to be a shifty giant egoed elitist. However,
I'm not ready to yell guilty. Decency and fair play require that I see the pudding before I declare
the truth. But, she damn well knew the rules, so why hide the emails? It won't be a mystery lover,
that's for sure. She didn't want them seen, there's gotta be a reason for that.
Danish5666
The ruling elite plays by their own rules.
Kelly Kearns -> Miles Long
Actually, the rules were there before.
12 FAM 544.2 Automated Information System (AIS)
Processing and Transmission
(CT:DS-117; 11-04-2005)
"12 FAM 544.3 Electronic Transmission Via the Internet
(CT:DS-117; 11-04-2005)
a. It is the Department's general policy that normal day-to-day operations be
conducted on an authorized AIS, which has the proper level of security control
to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure
confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information. The
Department's authorized telework solution(s) are designed in a manner that
meet these requirements and are not considered end points outside of the
Department's management control. "
Quotes: ...Indeed, Clinton herself was once worked up about this very issue. "We know about the
secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts," she said back
then. ...So far, the explanation from Clintonworld about the failure to comply with this basic rule
of modern archiving has been inadequate and unpersuasive. ...This has the distinct odor of hogwash.
First, the basic rule that government business is to be transacted from government accounts doesn't
have a well-we'll-capture-it-anyway exception.
Notable quotes:
"... "We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts," she said back then. ..."
"... the email domain clintonemail.com that she appears to have been using was created on Jan. 13, 2009, the very day Clinton's confirmation hearings began. ..."
"... So far, the explanation from Clintonworld about the failure to comply with this basic rule of modern archiving has been inadequate and unpersuasive. ..."
"... First, the basic rule that government business is to be transacted from government accounts doesn't have a well-we'll-capture-it-anyway exception. ..."
"... What is the legitimate reason for conducting official business on a personal back-channel? Why, if not for purposes of secrecy, would Clinton choose to operate that way? ..."
Hillary Clinton may not have a serious opponent for the Democratic nomination – except herself.
The Clintons' unfortunate tendency to be their own worst enemy is on display, again, with reports
that, as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton conducted official business solely from a personal email
account.
This is a problem – and not only because it presents a particularly unflattering contrast with
the move by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to release a flood of official emails. It illustrates Clinton's
reflexive impulse to secrecy over transparency, a tendency no doubt bolstered by the bruising experience
of her White House years, yet one that she would be well advised to resist rather than indulge.
Indeed, Clinton herself was once worked up about this very issue. "We know about the secret
wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts," she said back then.
So what to make of the revelation that Clinton avoided official email entirely while at State?
This had to be a deliberate decision. After all, the issue of the Bush emails was still in the news.
And, as The Washington Post's Philip Bump reports, the email domain clintonemail.com that
she appears to have been using was created on Jan. 13, 2009, the very day Clinton's confirmation
hearings began.
To back up: The Federal Records Act requires agencies to maintain records of official business,
including emails. The National Archives, which oversees such collection, had this to say in 2013
about the use of personal email accounts:
"While agency employees should not generally use personal email accounts to conduct official
agency business, there may be times when agencies authorize the use of personal email accounts,
such as in emergency situations when federal accounts are not accessible or when an employee is
initially contacted through a personal account. In these situations, agency employees must ensure
that all federal records sent or received on personal email systems are captured and managed in
accordance with agency recordkeeping practices."
Italics mine.
So far, the explanation from Clintonworld about the failure to comply with this basic rule
of modern archiving has been inadequate and unpersuasive.
Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill "declined to detail why she had chosen to conduct State Department
business from her personal account," reported The New York Times, which broke the story.
This has the distinct odor of hogwash. First, the basic rule that government business is to
be transacted from government accounts doesn't have a well-we'll-capture-it-anyway exception.
Second, the government records to be retained aren't only intra-agency communications. If Clinton
is emailing with world leaders or others about official business, the entire point of the Federal
Records Act is to ensure that those communications are captured for history.
This should have been clear. Certainly, the intersection of email and federal records law has
been evolving. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell writes about his effort to use "the then-newfangled
email system" to communicate with counterparts overseas. His successor, Condoleezza Rice, rarely
used email to transact business but employed her government address when she did.
What is the legitimate reason for conducting official business on a personal back-channel?
Why, if not for purposes of secrecy, would Clinton choose to operate that way?
That Clinton has recently turned over 55,000 pages of email records in response to an overdue
burst of documentary housekeeping by State does not excuse her lack of compliance while in office.
That her proto-campaign describes her activities as complying with "both the letter and spirit"
of the rules would be jaw-dropping, if it weren't so sadly familiar.
We may need a new metaphor to describe the situation Clinton faces now.
See also
Hillary Clinton, too cautious for her own good Her secretive ways with official e-mail
repeats the same mistake she has made for nearly a quarter-century. Dana Milbank | Opinions |
Mar 6, 2015
House committee subpoenas Clinton emails in Benghazi probe. A House committee investigating
the Benghazi, Libya, attacks issued subpoenas Wednesday for the emails of Hillary Rodham Clinton,
who used a private account exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state -
and also used a computer email server now traced back to her family's New York home. Associated
Press | Technology | Mar 5, 2015
House committee subpoenas Clinton emails in Benghazi probe. A House committee investigating
the Benghazi, Libya, attacks issued subpoenas Wednesday for the emails of Hillary Rodham Clinton,
who used a private account exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state -
and also used a computer email server now traced back to her family's New York home. Associated
Press | Technology | Mar 4, 2015
White House says Clinton did not heed e-mail policy. Hillary Clinton's official e-mail
habits once again draw attention to her penchant for secrecy - a trait that has created political
problems since her years as first lady.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her health after Republican Karl Rove suggested
she may have traumatic brain damage.
Drew Tobasco
the woman is 69 years old it's unrealistic to think she doesn't have any medical conditions
the same can be said for trump who is 70 these are old people grandma age people
Some have noted Clinton's change in appearance, including the addition of thick glasses, since
her hospitalization. "One doesn't need to be a physician… to have seen that Clinton has not
appeared exactly bright-eyed and bushy-tailed of late," Mary Stanik, a former Minnesota health
care spokeswoman,
wrote in 2013. "She looks to have gained a significant amount of weight since 2008. She seems
pale, tired, and yes, aged. She's said that she would like to know again what it's like to not be
tired."
Yesterday Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines explained that Clinton's doctors found a clot
during a follow-up examination on Sunday. She was then admitted to New York-Presbyterian Hospital
for at least 48 hours so she could be monitored and treated with anti-coagulants. "Her doctors
will continue to assess her condition, including other issues associated with her concussion,"
Reines said. "They will determine if any further action is required."
When the concussion occurred two weeks ago, a senior State Department official said the
concussion was "not severe," which eased the worries of Democrats hoping Clinton will run in
2016. Clinton, 65, was not hospitalized at the time, but taking what they called the necessary
precautions, doctors asked the secretary of state to work from home. She was also suffering from
a stomach virus at the time.
"At the [doctors'] recommendation, [Hillary Clinton] will continue to work from home next week,
staying in regular contact with Department and other officials. She is looking forward to being
back in the office soon," Reines said two weeks ago.
Not a criticism, just an observation.
She
acknowledged she deleted thousands of personal emails and said she turned over hard copies of
messages to the State Department that she deemed to be work related.
Abedin
was an assistant editor for a dozen years for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs for the
Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs. The institute – founded by her late father and
currently directed by her mother – is backed by the Muslim World League, an Islamic
organization in the Saudi holy city of Mecca that was founded by Muslim Brotherhood leaders.
At
her father's Saudi-financed Islamic think tank,
WND
reported
, Abedin worked alongside Abdullah Omar Naseef, who is accused of financing
al-Qaida fronts.
Huma
served on the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs's editorial board from 2002 to 2008.
In
2003, U.S. News and World Report documented that accompanying the MWL's donations, invariably,
are "a blizzard of Wahhabist literature."
In
the early 1990s, evidence began to grow that the foundation was funding Islamist militants in
Somalia and Bosnia, and a 1996 CIA report detailed its Bosnian militant ties.
still rockin' 7
minutes ago
James D 3
hours ago
In other words the US elite partially lost the control of ordinary people and MSM no longer can
brainwash them with previous efficiency because after 2008 the key idea of "trickle down economy"
- that dramatically rising inequality will provide Untermensch with enough crumps from the table
of Masters of the Universe (financial oligarchy) were proven to be false. 
unproven
145
·
Jun 7, 2016 12:21pm
This comment was deleted.
The crisis of Republican
Party then establishment no longer can control rank-and-file members reflects not only the crisis
of neoliberalism as a social system, but might also reflect the fact that with 300 million of people
the county became too big and too diverse to be governed from a single center of political power in
non authoritarian ways. a Hillary v Trump scenario will bee a difficult choice
for most Americans. A jingoistic sociopathic woman, essentially a puppet of financial oligarchy, who
is a front for the neoliberal forces hell-bent of destroying Russia vs. a narcissistic person with zero
political experience and vague set of ideas (but at the same time with more realistic foreign
policy ideas at least).
Thanks very much for this handy compendium!